Why is New Hope changing its church structure? For the same reason that growing children get new clothes. As a group grows it needs to change how it operates. What works for a group of 100 people does not work for a group of 700 people. For example, Loma Linda University Church has almost 300 people on it’s church board. So it changed its structure to vote an executive committee of the church board, a smaller group that can actually function.
At New Hope we are attempting to give more power to church members by empowering more boards to make decisions for the church. Instead of everything funneling through the church board most decisions will come through the Finance, Lay Pastors, Ministries, and Volunteer Boards. We will communicate all decisions that affect the church through our web site. If the new structure is voted look for a page listing board decisions.
Please read the responsibilities of the new boards carefully. Click on http://account.churchwebworks.com/acct/12535-3933/resources/Combined_boards_March_2007.pdf
You can make comments and ask questions right here on this blog. And then plan to attend either of two town hall meetings on March 24 and April 14 where you can clarify and give input to these projected changes. The first one on March 24 will be held at Glen Gibb's home, 3812 Dustin Rd., Burtonsville, MD 20866.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
my prayers are with you and your church family as you approach tomorrow's town hall meeting
Does any of this have to do with what is known as Natural Church Growth (NCG), which as I understand it, is a church planting, church growth set of strategies typified by Willowcreek (Hybels) and Rick Warren of the Saddlebrook Church in California?
If so, what do you think the significance of this is?
Glenn
Somewhat related to my previous question, I think the SDA church suffers from an identity problem. What do you see as New Hope's theological foundation?
I think you got at this a bit in one of your first posts about what you thought the SDA church should be now, and if it's identity or mission should be thought of as being any different than its original immediate Advent proclaiming one. But what do you see New Hope historically rooted in?
I'll give you an example or two: There seems to be in Adventism's history at least two strains of theological thought or what I would describe as "impulses". The first of these is what I, and others such as George Knight have identified as "restorationism"--that is, a movement whose origin was in the Radical Reformationists and Anabaptists. The restorationists sought to recover and restore the primitive gospel of the apostolic church, which it viewed as having been corrupted through the centuries, most notably through the Papacy but also to a certain extent through the status quo limited mainline Protestant denominations.
The second impulse in SDAism is what I think of as essentially Dispensationalist. The "historic" wing of modern day Adventism most closely embodies this view, although I think you can also see aspects of it in the thought of people such as Cliff Golstein, which is that beginning after the 1844 Disappointment, the church entered into a new dispensation of sorts in the form of the anti-typical Day of Atonement, where the rules regime changed, becoming more strict, resulting in the health reform message of SDAism for example, and the need to reform Christianity in general in preparation for the judgment and soon coming return of Jesus. Writers such as Dennis Priebe embody this viewpoint.
I doubt New Hope or most SDA's would identify as this latter group. But post-modern Adventism could be thought of as having origins in both the restorationist and dispensationalist forms of SDA history.
Post-modern SDAism, in the dispensationalist mindset, could relate to the need to rethink Christianity in the modern and post-modern era, as "knowledge increases", particularly related to Bible scholarship, more widespread education, etc.
At the same time, New Hope and post-modern Adventism also contains seeds of restorationism in its quest to return to a more basic gospel and away from tradition and unnecessary rules, but a more basic, primitive gospel.
How do you see this? What would you say is New Hope's theological origins? What is it rooted in?
Glenn
Regarding your first comment. Yes, restructuring comes under one of the eight characteristics of Natural Church Development which is an official program of the North American Division.
Great Questions. I see New Hope as somewhat in the Restoration Camp. Adventists have commonly said that we are a continuation of the Protestant Reformation bringing out new truths from the Bible that the church back in the 16th century was not ready for.
At the same time Adventism picked up many ideas from the culture of the time that made sense in that culture but do not make sense today.
I believe very strongly that Adventism rose to anounce the second coming of Jesus just as John the Baptist was commissioned to announce the first coming.
But Adventism failed. Jesus did not come. Part of the reason for the failure was the right wing turn we took to exclusivism. We came to believe that we were the only church God was using. So rather than working with other Christian groups to take the gospel to the world we acted as if we were the ONLY ones that God has asked to take the gospel to the world. We were to be the vanguard of a great Christian movement to take the gospel to all the world in a single generation.
We took our focus off Jesus and became more interested in truth about Jesus rather than truth in Jesus. We became more proud of our disctinctives than proud of being Christian.
At New Hope I see us returning more and more to the gospel emphasis of the New Testament. They expected Jesus to return in their lifetime. The NT is full of exhortations to be ready for Jesus' coming while they were alive.
New Hope's origins are rooted in the beginnings of Adventism but ultimately they are rooted in the pure gospel of Jesus. We are rooted in the cross period. Everything must be judged by and lived in the gospel.
Thanks for the responses, Pastor.
To what extent do you think New Hope brings--or is designed to bring--a unique voice to the Christian community?
What dangers, if any, do you believe exist in what is commonly referred to as Ecumenicalism?
Should a church strive to be unique in any way? Can a church be unique without being exclusive?
Glenn
Can a church be unique without being exclusive. It depends how you define unique. I believe there is a common thread that runs through all God's community and that is grace and love. A loving church is accepting and valuing. Boundaries define a community but only to define not to exclude. Those boundaries should not be too rigid. The problem with eccumenism is its pull toward compromise, especial on essentials. Of course we also argue over what is essential. If we understand that the only requirement for heaven is the accpetance of God's grace we see how broad and open God is.
When does the new structure take effect or has it already taken effect? Are we going to be introduced to the 'new' Ministry leaders in the near future?
Post a Comment