Pensees: Creativity Takes Courage

Bob said:

Unfortunately, some people will assume that I am calling for a bold break from traditional music or worship format. That is all they can think of when they hear the words “creative” and “ministry” together. This, however, is not at all my burden. Soon enough, to be creative will be to remain traditional. Classic will be creative. Therefore, my appeal goes beyond the worship wars. It extends beyond the brittle framework of a couple tired issues.

Just remember, courage takes different forms. A certain boldness and tenacity is required to stay within a particular “province” and effect change (I heard a wonderful example of this type of courage listening to a 9 Marks interview with Ken Jones). Creating a new “bold and courageous” paradigm could be, in one sense, just as problematic as creating a “bus ministry” paradigm, or a “PurposeDriven(TM)” paradigm.

Bob, exactly which Scripture are you following in your notion that we are called to be creative? Surely Matisse is not the authority, is he?

I can think of passages calling us to faithfulness. I can think of passages calling us to be courageous. I just can’t think of any calling us to be creative. If you have some in mind, would you mind posting them here?

So far I am not seeing your point.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Bob,

It is group B that doesn’t automatically classify one as “worldly” if a ministry uses the trap set.

It is group A that often will.

How can you be confused on this - How many times must I remind you of these things. Ugg!

I don’t think I will run to your rescue this time - I think I will just watch for a day or two before running to your aid - Just to teach you a lesson.

I don’t know how this will go - Perhaps most of the Group A types will shake their head - say “well there goes Bixby again” and walk away.
I won’t blame them a bit!

Of course our dear Canadian friend Don here gives me hope that perhaps our Group A friends will show up this time. By the way, I expect a major “Mia Culpa” if you can’t help Don here with how you think “creativity” is Biblical. It is clear from Don’s past comments both here and elsewhere he really doesn’t like creativity - Not at all surprising if you’ve actually ever been to Canada! :) (Just kidding Don!)

Now Our Canadian coleague is not alone - other distinquished friends from the more “right” side of the isle (Group A) feel the same as our dear friend Don does!

So your answer has the potential to be edifying! And please answer this - I hear this about every 3 or 4 months from a Group A guy “Why you Group B guys (aka - Young fundy’s/ neofundy’s) are so concerned with creativity?” Please help them see the way! This way I can copy this down - save it under “The Answer” and then zip it to those guys as my own ever time we get this.

On a more side and personal note -

I love you man but I don’t get it - I mean we just got back from the beach! I haven’t been able to unpack my swimwear yet - and what do you do - you pick on fundamentalism - again! - You know your going to give me a heart attack if you keep this up. I mean I finally convince one school out their that my bud Bixby is really a fundamentalist at heart - and so they fly us out there - And so what do you do - Three minutes after we get back - you pick on the movement - again!

Your killing me man - That does it - if you keep this up I will no longer go with you out to Shepherd’s - Yep I’m goin’ with Greg out to Dunbar! He has a heart! (Has a heart - Ha - that was a good one - get it - Dunbar - has a heart - very funny - I crack myself up sometimes!)

Who knows - Maybe I’ll even go to the Sword Conference with the “buss wing” guys! - I’ll bring my 1611 KJV - Apocrapha and all - And I’m spreading all kind of rummors about why you are really a newe! I’ll be creative!

So there!

Joel

PS - Don’t take any of this serious - It’s late - again - In a wierd mood. I’ll try to say something worthwhile in a day or two - maybe.

about creativity, that would probably have to be argued from the character of God and the fact that we are made in His image so we please and honor Him when we display creativity in our endeavors as He did and does.

about stepping outside the box in fundamentalism, I suppose it takes a bit of creativity or imagination. but maybe it’s more a question of thinking (or re-thinking) Biblically about issues that have only been presented in one way. thinking like this involves creativity (and also reason—the two are not contrary necessarilily [and why people don’t point out that we’re commanded to reason (Is 1:18) and glorify God when we reason, I don’t know]. I suppose Pastor Bixby could’ve written the same blog using reason instead of creativity? That would be an interesting exercise, but I digress . . .)

i’m not going to any particular point or hammering an issue here, just offering an explanation.

I hear you.

Truth never changes. Applications do. It takes creativity and courage to apply unchanging truth in a changing world.

Creativity is good, (I’m a graphic designer :), but I personally believe the ability to reason Biblically and apply that reasoning is the best hope for Fundamentalists. It’s very discouraging to see good people give up the joys and stresses of Biblical thinking to lock themselves within the “comforts” of pat answerism.

When it comes down to it it is laziness. Thinking Biblically and examining objectively why we do the things we do is very hard work. It’s also vital to Christian growth.

Let me repost a comment left by Dan Miller on my blog. We were discussing fundamentalist rule making:

————————————————————-

It seems to me that Paul is describing a multi-layered sieve.

Each layer in the sieve filters out behaviors as sin.

1- One layer is “of itself.”

2- Another layer is personal “weakness in faith” or “inability to do in confidence” or “inability to do it because of one’s own conscience.”

3- Another is “inability to do because of the conscience of another person.”

The “weak” brothers sees that our argument is that sieve #1 lets the action through (does not call it sin). But for some reason he sees that as an assertion that ALL sieves will let it through - thus we’re saying that anyone can do it - because only sieve #1 matters.

This is the main problem with fundamentalist rule-making. It fails to trust the Holy Spirit to make the remaining sieves work. So they step in and say, “Here, let me show you how Scripture should be applied.”

Hebrew 5 seems to suggest that the exercise (gymnazo) of this is what matures us so that we can tell good from evil: …those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

I contend that by taking away from the individual the exercise of this faculty, we end up spiritually dull.

We need to give the individual the chance to form convictions in accordance with sieves #2 and 3. They should do thin in their own mind. This seems horribly frightening to some.

Again, though, I think that it is a lack of trust in the power (ability) of God to make us remain in good standing that is denied in this process.

Outstanding thoughts, Bob. It also takes courage to post an article of this nature. God bless you for your willingness to say what needs to be said.

Creativity has more to do with ministry than theology. After all, application is really ministry. From this perspective, we can hold to the same theology but have different views on our ministry. Ministry is becoming one of the predominant dividing points in fundamentalism,

Creativity is usually stifled by the need for group compliance. By its very nature, creativity implies there is a better way to do things and inevitably questions the perception of the members of a group. When creativity becomes too discrepant from the group, the group membership is now at risk. A name or a label can be attached to creativity in order to discredit the creative ideas.

Many of us went through Bible College and Seminary without questioning the status quo because our teachers and leaders knew more than we could ever hope to know. Remember the professors who creatively attempted to get us to think about an issue? We flooded their classrooms and engaged them in the cafeteria. But they were usually suspect and didn’t last very long. It didn’t have to do with the content because the dynamic, questioning style was suspect. Creativity has always been dangerous in our institutions.

And now we are at a point in our lives where we have to speak out because we are beginning to question our own integrity. We have been raising our questions and struggling with our ministry among ourselves in private for years. But now we put it print and it becomes a target. And in the process we begin to risk our valued group membership. Public compliance versus private acceptance has always been a struggle with many of us. Maybe it is just the word “struggle” that is the problem.

I would like to think that issues we have with creativity were biblical. But they are not. We are a part of group that is unsuccessfully attempting to redefine itself to meet the challenges of a needy people in an insecure world. Perhaps we need to meet the apostle Paul on streets of Corinth again to refocus our mission. We are fundamentalist because of our ministry to a lost world. When our fundamentalism becomes more important than our ministry, we lose focus on why we fight for our beliefs.

Bob,

Great article - forgive my being “goofy” earlier.

Creative in Ministry - This is a by-product of the Holy Spirit’s work in ministries and ministers that are open to His leadership. Much of fundamentalism is very much like the “Old Wine Skin” that bursts when hit with “New Wine.” I’d rather have the healthy wine than the unhealthy skin!

Straight Ahead!

Joel

Hey, buddy.

I can tell this is something you’re burdened about, but I’m not sure I’m following you. Your post reads a little bit like a rant, and I don’t think that is your intent. Maybe it’s just me, or maybe I’m missing your point. But when you speak of creativity rather than status quo, then provide separation, trap sets and felt needs as primary examples, I’m not ready to put out a “great post, Bob.” I don’t imagine that you’re disappointed or even surprised by my hesitation, but maybe you can clarify what specific things you have in mind.

Here are my initial thoughts:

First, I’m not sure that the boldness to “kick sacred cows” is generally a virtue. I suggest that we don’t need courageous creativity as much as we need a biblically-prescribed conscience and a biblically-defined method. Those things will often lead to the same positions as those held by our forebears, I believe. Of course, sometimes they won’t. But the point should not be whether we are creative, but whether we are right.

I’m especially concerned about making innovation a virtue because the modern church (regardless of stripe) is abounding in courageous creativity. Building an evangelistic ministry out of strong-man feats like ripping phone books and breaking handcuffs is creative. Rick Warren’s “flock that likes to rock” is nothing if not innovative. Bus ministries that award attendance records with hot air balloon rides or horses in the auditorium are creative. Gathering teens to hear preaching by telling them they can maim each other first is creative. Having goldfish eating contests is creative. Implementing sacred dance in the worship service is creative. Evangelizing via gospel-less movies is creative. Having “poker night” as one seeker-sensitive church in our area recently did is both courageous and creative. But which of these things are helpful or even biblical?

(BTW, I know you’d reject this kind of stuff. I’m just giving examples of innovation in ministry.)

As far as music goes, I’m not afraid of the trapset due to some sort of “traditionalism.” I just think it’s wrong. So I’m courageous, in my area, to eschew it. And I’d suggest that maintaining biblical separatism requires courage as well, though I grant you that applications are going to be somewhat subjective.

Second, I’m not sure that courageous creativity is what is wanting. I believe that what is lacking is a church which gets its power from the NT status quo of prayer and the ministry of the Word. I’m not looking for guys to be creative about music or separation. But I’d love to see guys with the creative courage to plant a church, to send 40 people from a smallish church to start another in a needy area, to revamp our inefficient missions support system, to preach as long as necessary, to minimize programs, to preach doctrinal messages to our teens and children, to share leadership and decentralize ministry, to fellowship and cooperate over denominational boundaries, to encourage worship that is passionate as well as reverent, to spend a decade in a school if necessary, to graciously welcome and disciple those who wreak of sin, however respectable they may or may not be.

But that’s not new stuff. Most of it is 2 millennia old, in fact. And it can certainly co-exist with the old status quo of biblical separation.

Hey, if we need to kick or tip a sacred cow to provide some beef for the Lord’s people, let’s do it. But cow-tipping is usually done for the sake of recreation. And when that’s the case, it’s not courageous at all; it may even me cowardly.

What do you think?

Chris,

Your first point has taken “creativity” to its illogical conclusion. I don’t think Bob or anyone else reading this post would even consider this kind of stuff. Taking a point to its illogical conclusion is not addressing the issue or the intent of the post.

I would think that your second point would require many of the things Bob sited in his article. As you know, there is a significant difference between an established church of seasoned fundamentalists and sitting under a basketball hoop in a grade school gym with unsaved or new believers. Your proposed list would be considered creative in most of churches and certainly would be met with opposition by many. You simply cannot dictate this type of behavior, you have to create it – creativity required?

Perhaps the crux of the problem here is something we struggle with in our circles. We see a word such as creativity and label it immediately as adverse. We then run it to its illogical conclusion with irrelevant illustrations to discredit the meaning of the word without spending the time to listen to the entire message. Creativity has a number of meanings other than ripping phone books or swallowing goldfish isn’t at the top of the list. The methodology you would use to implement your list would be creative and probably resisted by many who like things the way they are now.

That’s what I thnk.

Chris and Don,

I want to interact. I have ten thousand words and ten minutes. But, in the meantime, Dave Becklund has twice succintly articulated much of the mindset behind my post though I want to expand on that…

More later. Chris, we must meet at the conference, brother. I have much respect for you even though you haven’t come to the light and see everything as I do (yet)! ;-)

Hi, Dave.

I know that my first point listed extremes, and I said as much. I also know Bob well enough to know that he’s not after such things. I’m just saying that “creativity” hasn’t necessarily been lacking, whether inside or outside of fundamentalism, and I’m not sure I agree with his desire for more of it.

As to my second point, I’m very confident that Bob & I agree on the issues listed there. We are very likeminded on those issues, I believe. If those things are “creative” and if that’s what he means by courageous creativity, then I’ll say it: “Great post, Bob.” I’m not averse to thinking outside the box. But on the other hand, if that’s what he means, why throw in examples like trapsets, separation & ministering to felt needs as areas where courageous creativity might/should be legitimately expressed? Perhaps I misunderstood, but he appears to criticize fundamentalism’s stand on those issues…unnecessarily, in my opinion. One can certainly be creative in ministry while still maintaining reverent worship and a separatist stand. Throwing those issues into the conversation muddied the waters, IMO.

Perhaps, on the other hand, he was intentionally ratcheting up the impact of his post by citing controversial examples (which I know would be totally unlike him). ;-)

What do you say, Bob? Is my response an indication that I have succumbed to “traditionalism”? :-)

(Sorry for all the smileys. I’m very courageous with such things, despite the protests of others.)
________

Just saw your quick post, Bob. I’m very eager to meet you & enjoy lunch on your church’s expense account.

I’ve twice forgotten to sign up for email updates on this thread. Here’s a throwaway post for that purpose. Feel free to delete it. Sorry.

Really, I can’t expound… But, Chris, I am criticizing fundamentalism. But here’s the point: I am not criticizing fundamentalists for having a position on these matters (separation, etc.). I am criticizing the way they position themselves on pet issues and the pat answers that supposedly resolve all problems.

Now, that I’ve totally muddled the waters, I shall run off… Carry on!

Chris, I would be glad to take you out on my church’s expense account if I could be persuaded that it would not be violating our practise of separation. In matters of dubious affiliations such as this and questions pertaining to the kind of interaction we should have with OBF pastors, it is our policy to “have others do unto us first what we might consider doing unto them later.” So, FYI: I like steak.

I can see how you may feel compelled to strike a different note in fundamentalism. After all, we are a “peculiar” people. If by being creative you mean finding new ways to preach the age-old message, I can go along with that. Problem is, much of the so-called creativity has resulted in a downgrading of the message and a weakening of the cause of Christ, as I see it. If by traditionalism you mean sticking to old habits and practices that no longer serve any useful purpose, that too is a point to be made. Problem is, this criticism of fundamentalism is often made by those who have thrown out the baby with the bath water, i.e. have slipped away from a bold proclamation of the traditional gospel into a man-centered philosophy of salvation in order to gain a larger audience. That is just as much a danger to the biblical faith as holding on to old habits. The answer is to continue to “earnestly contend for the faith,” upholding the time-honored methods for winning and discipling the lost, and at the same time to be creative (to use your word) in the ways in which we achieve that goal. Separation is still a biblical concept, and we must be careful that we don’t cease to practice it at the same time that we do the work of evangelism.

Why do so many fundamentalists think that “Traditional” and “Creative” are antonyms? They most certainly are not. There are creative traditionalists and non-creative traditionalists. There are creative innovators and non-creative innovators. Distinguo — a little practice in Scholastic dialectic would go a long way toward improving the discussions in your movement.

Bob, how is your stance on alcoholic beverages different from other fundies’ stance on trap sets? I know, I know, trap sets don’t ruin lives — I agree (but would Frank Garlock?). Nevertheless, how is your stance on drinking in moderation not a “pet issue and pat answer that supposedly resolves all problems”?

Note to everyone: I am not trying to get a huge off-topic discussion going here. So, on my behalf don’t jump in will all kinds of justifications for drinking (we’ve done that already). The only relevant point for discussion here is, “How do you distinguish (distinguo) between ‘pet issues’ and ‘wisdom’”?

“But I’d love to see guys with the creative courage to plant a church, to send 40 people from a smallish church to start another in a needy area, to revamp our inefficient missions support system, to preach as long as necessary, to minimize programs, to preach doctrinal messages to our teens and children, to share leadership and decentralize ministry, to fellowship and cooperate over denominational boundaries, to encourage worship that is passionate as well as reverent, to spend a decade in a school if necessary, to graciously welcome and disciple those who wreak of sin, however respectable they may or may not be.

But that’s not new stuff. Most of it is 2 millennia old, in fact. And it can certainly co-exist with the old status quo of biblical separation.”

We need men to think “outside the box” and take an objective, critical look at why we do the things we do. For example: it is considered orthodox to attend Wed night prayer meetings. I’ve attended them all my life. However, the church I attend started a Bible Study on Thursday so I started attending that. Looking back I wish a lot of churches had small groups meet on Wed or sometime during the week instead of a more formal prayer meeting. The Bible Study runs for about 2-3 hours and we all know eachother VERY WELL. We know where others are struggling and we know how to rejoice together. I think a balance of larger, more corporate worship on Sunday and smaller, more intimate worship during the week is a very good balance. Not just a meeting to pray but a meeting to fellowship, build relationships, and pray with more knowledge.

I’m a creative so I like to rock the boat. But I’m not going to throw the baby out with the bath water. We need people committed to objective analysis and also to objective Truth who are willing to dialogue on these topics. I think we have people like that here.

Keith,

Most noticed that my stance on drinking, though “traditional” in the sense that I don’t like it and implore people not to do it, is NOT “traditional” in the sense that I separate over it, dogmatically insist that the Bible is against it, and make it a part of our church covenant… That’s off track though….. But even my “rant” on drinking was out of the norm. I think.

Creativity, innovation, new methods, etc. are good, and fundamentalism needs it. But what I see is the danger of too great a reliance upon or desire for the “new” to ensure the longed for freshness in minsitry. Too often we equate “new” with being the way God is bound to refresh not only our souls, but our people as well. While new methods may break the paradigm of apathy and comfort for a while, the problem is that when the new has become old, a newer new must be implemented in order for refreshing of the soul to occur. The biblical picture for lasting, refreshment seems to be not new methods which temporarily refresh the soul, but a renewed glimpse and practice of God. Our problem is essentially that, we humans, instead of looking to God as the satisfaction of our soul, are constantly looking to other means. What holds true for the average person in our congregation holds true for us pastors as well. When Isaiah saw the Lord, exalted on high, there were not any known (from the reading of the text in Isaiah 6) new methods of worship, innovation of practice, etc being used. Except for the innovation of solely or (better yet, “soully”) focusing on God alone—just God and prayer.

When Jonathan Edwards read his “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” message, the delivery and method of worship was flat out boring, by most accounts that I have read or heard. Yet, the power of the Spirit of God, tore the hearts of those in attendance. By our standards of innovation, what Edwards did would not cut it for our churches today. Far too traditonal and not creative enough.

Perhaps, the real issue is that we are looking for the buzz and freshness of spiritual vitality for our people through bold new ways rather than the freshnss of Spirit empowerd Word ministry. Which leads to the question, can the same desire for freshness be fulfilled simply by the straight forward, Spirit empowered preaching of the Word of God and no other method? What if all the trappings of modern, innovative methods were removed, would God then be powerless to refresh our souls? Is He so inept that He needs the help of certain ways of doing things for us to experience Him? If so, then true power to refresh lies not in God alone, but in the method used. In our desire for freshness, are we teaching our people that it is the method and not the Person of God Himself which give us the refreshing?

I’m reminded of David’s statement in Psa. 16:11
“You make known to me the path of life;
in your presence there is fullness of joy;
at your right hand are pleasures forevermore.”
It seems that the example of finding freshness, satisfaction for his life was found simply in God alone without external aids. Perhaps that is where we need to lead ourselves and our people—God alone.

Bob,

Maybe it’s my background, but I definitely get it. I think that this is some of your best writing yet (OK, I’ve read less tha 40 posts, probably).

As a former GARBC pastor (who was saved, grounded, and challenged while there), the mechanics drive the ministry, not the Word. This doesn’t throw everything that is done out the door as bad. It just means that along with the predictable answers comes predictable loyalty and behavior.

Someone questioned the Bible moorings of this concept. Matthew 15 nails it head-on. The traditions of the elders (traditionalism per your writing) had trumped the commandments of God. Jesus, by whatever He seemed to do (eating wheat on the Sabbath, etc.) went according to the Truth rather than the traditionalism that had cropped up, which had ultimately made the commandments of God of no effect. It would have certainly been viewed as “coloring outside the box!”

We seek to please God, not men. Paul was “creatively” willing to be beaten instead of proclaiming his Roman citizenship (until a strategic reason came up to do so). “We must obey God rather than men” leads to what the Status Quo would consider creative.

Thanks for the stimulation. I also found it very encouraging.

[Joel, wouldn’t the challenging the weaknesses of fundamentalism be considered a help, not an attack?]

— Kevin

So the predictable “Pharisee” mantra shows up…

Bob, my call for scriptural support for your ideas in this post probably stems more from many past interactions than just this one post. I think the way we differ is in our view of fundamentalism. You seem to see it as either seriously flawed or terminally ill. I don’t see it that way.

I have seen some of the most ‘rigid Fundamentalists’ come up with innovations in ministry that were wise and fruitful. I am not against innovation and creativity. I don’t agree with you that creativity requires courage. Most of what is called courage today is just rebellion. There’s nothing courageous about that.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

It seems that the example of finding freshness, satisfaction for his life was found simply in God alone without external aids. Perhaps that is where we need to lead ourselves and our people—God alone.

That would be very creative.

It is interesting to me that so many people’s way of thinking is so brittle that the mere usage of the word “creative” implies “compromise.”

Tim, I agree with your heart and spirit, but I disagree that Edwards was not creative. His whole approach to ministry broke the norm. Read his messages (including Sinners) and marvel at the thoughtfulness and creativity that went into that message alone. (On the side, I think that the common emphasis of his droning “boringness” is a bit hyperbolic. But it doesn’t matter if his verbal presentation was lacking. His language was shockingly colorful. I don’t know how anyone could think otherwise.)

All,

Do you want traditional music in your church? Fine. But quit using the tired, worn-out, illogical Garlockian approach. Consider Mark Dever’s explanation of why they use traditional music in their church in his book “The Deliberate Church.” That makes sense. And it doesn’t ring holier-than-thou in the ears of young people. That’s just one illustration.

Want your teens to be on fire for God? Quit preaching standards. I haven’t preached standards one time in our church. I bet some of our teens are hardly familiar with the word. Preach Christ, preach love for God, teach on indwelling sin, help them recognize spiritual temptation, teach them to flee coldness, teach the to learn the need for daily grace, teach them that they are adults: Watch them make wise decisions. Quit suggesting that if they dress like Mormon models that they are somehow a good testimony for Christ.

Want a dynamic prayer meeting? Why not actually pray? How ‘bout reading large sections of Scripture?

Want people who have heard preaching all their lives to listen to you? Why not refuse to use platitudes and cliches. Preach on grace without saying, “God’s Riches at Christ’s Expense.”

And so forth…

And, lest people think I’m dodging, I’ll reiterate that I think most fundamental churches are dying for lack of fresh and vital thoughtfulness on the part of their leaders.

As a “young Fundie” (whatever that means) let me add this to what Bob just said: The Fundies of my generation are an inquisitive group. We want to know why as much as what. We don’t want to get rid of sound doctrine but we do want to thoughtfully re-examine why we do what we do.

What the Fundies of my generation want is to put God’s laws above man’s. Standards have become soapboxes on which many pastor’s preach their own little christianity. We need standards, but we also need to realize that the Holy Spirit works in each Christian’s life and those that are surrendered to Christ will live godly lives.

Perhaps the phrase I’m looking for is: vitality of spiritual life.

If we have a spiritual life full of vitatlity it is God who will convict us and keep us. We won’t need a pastor telling us shorts=sin. (We will need pastor’s preaching God’s Word) Too many Fundies (and others) rely on their pastor for conviction.

Don,

I understand your statement about rebellion, and I would have to agree to a large extent.

However, would you not say that doing something outside the realm of the acceptable traditionalism, though not contrary to Scripture (and quite possible closer to the truth) does not take courage? I, for one, most certainly believe that it does.

It is not changing for change sake, or even being rigid or not. It is doing things according to the Word whether it fits the norm or the expectation of the group.

I always appreciate your comments, Don.

— Kevin

Don,

Creativity is not rebellion. Nor is rebellion creative. Rebellion doesn’t take courage. But to address the problems in any group requires courage. To fix them requires creativity. To suggest that there are problems by virtue of fixing problems creatively requires courage. There are many who say that there are no problems at all. They mis-identify “status quo” for “standing firm.”

Chris,

Thanks for the clarification. Sometimes it’s hard to cut into a discussion between friends and pick up what isn’t always obvious.

Bob (and Dave),

I agree with much—even most—of what you say. I’d just ask you to be careful how you say it.

As to the boring and closed-minded “white coats in the lab,” I’m not seeing it. Honestly. Northland has a fresh-thinking former church planter as its president. Dr. and Mrs. Stratton of Clearwater are about as down to earth and open-minded as they could be. Stephen Jones is no enemy of fresh ideas. Nor are the leaders at Detroit, Calvary, Central or Central East. (Of course, I’m just mentioning institutions, but I think churches & fellowships are going through the same sort of fresh perspectives…perhaps even more so.)

Perhaps the most “professional” of the church professionals is Dr. Bruce McAllister. Last summer he visited our 7-year-old church (which meets in a school,starts with canned music,is not overly formal, includes a public and spontaneous “prayer of adoration” in our service, is reaching out to our community, etc.). Anyway, he LOVED it. He said that this is EXACTLY what fundamentalism needs. As recently as last week, he said (and I quote), “Chris, you have a cool church.”

I sincerely apologize if it seems like I’m name-dropping. I’m not, though I think Dr. McAllister is very perceptive. :-) Obviously, any glory for anything done here is God’s alone (Psalm 115:1). My point is this: he’s not afraid of freshness or creativity at all. He longs for it.

I think to some degree, Bob, you’re criticizing a caricature more than a reality. I agree that churches need a biblical breath of fresh air. I just don’t see a lot of people arguing against it.

Where am I wrong?

General question for anyone to answer: Why do we take up offerings during the middle of the service? Why don’t we use an offering box? Is the offering during the middle of the church service the best way? If yes why? If no why?

Maybe these are pointless wonderings, but I do wonder them.

Su-prise, su-prise, su-prise!

Our church has opted for an offering box. The downside is that it’s not as central to the worship service since people give before or afterward. The upside is, it allows privacy in personal worship, it avoids pressing guests for cash, and it encourages people to give quietly and with pure motives. Our people really appreciate it.

We did have a southern lady once say, “Pray-cher, you’d get a lot more if people knew the ushers were watchin’.” Indeed. We’ll pass on passing.

Call me a rebel. :-)

I’m glad to hear you do that Chris. To me it makes more sense to have an offering box. It’s this kind of thing that is against the staus quo but makes more sense to do (at least in most cases).

Something else I wonder why we do it is: church specials. I know some people are against them and some are for them. Personally, I’d prefer congregational singing without solos.

Chris: I will testify that Bob is not painting an overly exaggerated caricture. There are numerous churches I’ve been in that are dying because man made rules are governing the people’s hearts and minds, not God’s Word and the Holy Spirit.

Chris,

In just the past month, two of fundamentalist institutions (one you mentioned) took a decisive separation action against me personally and some people from my church. The reason we were told by one institution that a publication (requested by them) about an aspect of our ministry could not be printed was — I quote —

It occurred after reading a blog from your pastor on March 20 on “Musings on Christian Liberty and the Wine Debate” that went too far when he argued that he could “drink wine, look at pornography, and slap his wife with glorious freedom of conscience” … if done for the glory of God. Basically, _____________ has a problem with that position so it won’t be able to highlight the ministry.

Besides, grotesquely misrepresenting my view (since I obviously don’t think those things could be done to the glory of God except in the most bizarre of situations), the extreme care to avoid any association with us whatsoever is simply ridiculous. I don’t think I paint a caricature.

To Bob’s April 25, 11:08 post above, let me say, wow! I have honestly, directly, and openly disagreed with Bob in his comments section before, so I think it only fair to say that I agree with this post.

Well said — Edwards was traditional AND creative
Well said — Traditional music isn’t the problem
Well said — Prayer meeting should be for prayer
Well said — The only inspired, inerrant, infallible Word of God ought to actually be read regularly (without phrase by phrase interruptions called preaching).

David Singlin — plenty of fundies of previous generations wanted to know “why” too. They just didn’t have the advantage of the internet to get a little sub-movement going. They were forced to endure the mainstream fundy leaders or leave.

Chris Anderson’s “just be careful how you say it” bit is classic “happy” fundamentalist. It’s fine to criticize and separate from non-fundies, but when speaking of a fundy issue — be careful! It’s fine to mention “areas for improvement” in fundamentalism, but be careful!

Nothing that has been said has been careless, why the admonition?

Chris, what exactly makes Bruce McAllister the most “professional” of the church professionals? That he’s the head of the “preacher boys”? What is a church professional, and why should anyone care what they think?

Regarding the offering box — I have no problem with churches that have a box in the back. However, giving gifts to God in the midst of corporate worship was not invented by inovative independent baptists and revivalists. God’s people give back to him as an act of public worship. Why should giving to the church be viewed as an act of “private worship”? Why should we worry about “guests” — if they want to worship God or look like they are worshipping God they can give. If they don’t, they don’t have to. Do you offer private communion in the back too?

Finally, I thought Bob’s bit about slapping his wife, etc. was inacurate — because I thought he was wrong to say he would slap his wife to avoid death but he wouldn’t get drunk to avoid death, not because I thought he was actually justifying sin.

An institution “separating” from him over that is just clueless.

Keith,

I was simply indicating that training pastors and facilitating pastor-church relationship is what Dr. McAllister “does.” I’m not insinuating that his opinion is more important than anyone else’s.

I probably should have left it alone.

Chris,

Quit trying to be so nice. You don’t need to leave it alone.

Directness and dialectic aren’t the same as the nasty old fundamentalist habit of calling everyone who disagrees with you about the color of the carpet a heretic.

If you like McAllister fine, say so. I was honestly asking what you meant by calling him a “professional”. I was also trying to indicate that something called a “church professional” is an innovation.

I would now add that it is an innovation that may not be that helpful — especially if these professionals are going to praise a church by calling it “cool”. That’s not heretical — I’d take communion with the guy — it’s just not too helpful.

Wow. Corrected by three guys in succession. Do I win something?

Maybe my positive perspective is the result of church planting. Church planting is liberating. Seriously.

Sorry if I’m “Pollyanna” about this issue. I’m often criticized for being unduly optimistic in my blogging. Isn’t that right, Joel?

And Bob, in light of Keith’s comments, I’d like to encourage you to go out of your way to not be careful about what you say about anyone or anything. It was presumptuous of me to voice my concerns rather than silently nodding in approval, wich is what blogging is all about. My fault. Differing with fundamentalism is all good. Differing with those who differ with fundamentalism is wrong. Obviously.

Carry on. :-)

And I should have left it alone.

Tell the truth in love. Minister grace to the readers. Realize written words without tone or jestures are easily misunderstood. Be direct but kind.

Opening a can of worms here: What are some areas where Fundies most often resort to pat answers? Bob listed a few in his article. What are some others?

What are some practices we do that are really hurting ourselves? Do we need one longer service on Sunday or does the traditional two shorter ones work? How can we encourage church members to really fellowship outside the church?

just some questions. . .

Chris, Chris,

I did not imply that Bob or anyone else should be careless or rude to anyone or anything. My point, in regards to your “be careful” bit, is that it is unnecessary unless Bob has done something inappropriately careless.

It’s like telling someone to “be good.” Or like a mom saying “drive carefully,” (to which all but the pollyannas respond, “nah I thought I’d get into a wreck tonight.”)

We should always be careful — why do we need to point out the obvious when discussing fundamentalism?

Hi Bob

You said, “creativity is not rebellion.” Maybe, maybe not. That’s not what I said, though.

I said, “Most of what is called courage today is just rebellion.”

Further, back to your main point, you cite Matisse in saying that creativity takes courage. Again, Maybe. But would you say that Matisse was courageous or rebellious? From what you described above, I thought mostly rebellious. So why are we lauding this kind of creativity?

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Don,

You exegete poorly. I did not laud Matisse’s creativity. In fact, I pointed out that he illustrated the danger of creativity. I merely took a quote of his that not only succintly becomes a useful aphorism but, coming from him, also illustrates the danger of creativity.

You took exception to my appeal for criticism and in your latest post said,

I have seen some of the most ‘rigid Fundamentalists’ come up with innovations in ministry that were wise and fruitful. I am not against innovation and creativity. I don’t agree with you that creativity requires courage. Most of what is called courage today is just rebellion. There’s nothing courageous about that.

I never said that you said that creativity was rebellion. You continue to put words in my mouth. I simply answering your comments on creativity and courage.

I said: “creativity is not rebellion”

Don said: “I have seen some of the most ‘rigid Fundamentalists’ come up with innovations in ministry that were wise and fruitful. I am not against innovation and creativity.”

Conclusion: We agree.

I said:“Nor is rebellion creative. Rebellion doesn’t take courage.”

Don said: “Most of what is called courage today is just rebellion. There’s nothing courageous about that.”

Conclusion: We agree: rebellion is not courageous.

Then, my very next sentence begins with a “but.” This is a conjunction. In my mind, taking the license to start a sentence with a conjunction that usually means “on the contrary,” would indicate that it is at that point that I am going to indicate our difference. Sort of like the girl breaking up from the boy: “I really, really, like you. I do. But. . .”

The interesting part, Don, is after the “but.” I said (after the “but”):

But to address the problems in any group requires courage. To fix them requires creativity. To suggest that there are problems by virtue of fixing problems creatively requires courage. There are many who say that there are no problems at all. They mis-identify “status quo” for “standing firm.”

Instead, you choose to argue about what we agree on. This is red herring. And it’s not creative. In my original post I said, “I long for courageous ministry.” I also said that I believe that Christians instinctively “crave boldness.” The emphasis is obviously courage and you already admitted that you knew plenty of Bible verses to substantiate that. Clearly, I think that to give Christians what they instinctively long for requires Bible-governed creativity. I think it is creative because the pat answers are simply not cutting it. Therefore, I concluded my post with several propositions:

I think that the day has arrived in fundamentalist circles that to dwell only on the fundamentals and to follow the pattern of the great preachers of the previous centuries by laying “chief stress on universal and central truths” is creative. And it takes courage.

That is not a call to creativity. It’s a call to “dwell only on the fundamentals and to follow the pattern of great preachers of the previous centuries….” In today’s world (evangelical and fundamentalist alike) that would be creative, novel. It takes courage.

I said:

I think that the day has arrived in fundamentalist circles that to calmly ignore the pat answers on separation and the brittle framework of fellowship established by the favored circles by pleading with God for a faith-driven, wisdom-guided, discretion-preserved decision on a case by case basis is creative. And it takes courage.

That is not a call to creativity. It’s a call to “calmly ignore the pat answers on separation and the brittle framework of fellowship established by the favored circles with God by pleading for a faith-driven, wisdom-guided, discretion-preserved decision on a case by case basis.” To me, that is creative. Anybody can regurgitate their guru. Humble servants exert brain energy, soul strength, and prayers to have an answer. And since that answer may not be in exact conformity to the status quo it is creative in that it is derived independently of the fear of men. That takes courage.

You, on the other hand, instead of saying, “Bob, show me where we must plead with God for faith-driven, wisdom-guided, discretion-preserved decisions on a case by case situation instead of subjecting ourselves to pat answers” challenged me to prove where the Bible says we must be creative. Naturally, if you had actually addressed my point, you would have found yourself in a spot appearing to be against faith-driven decision making. So, instead, you paint me to be the willy-nilly compromiser. In fact, I am the one calling for Biblical reform.

I said,

I think that the day has arrived in conservative circles that to humbly acknowledge the criticisms of the emerging church, embrace the inherent rebuke of deadness, repent of mindless provincialism, return to fervent and zealous manifestation of Christ in the public square, ministering to felt-needs as well as the spiritual need of men, and fleshing out the core activities of the primitive church as described in Acts 2 is creative. And it takes courage.

How can you possibly argue against that? That’s not a call to creativity. That is a call to — well, you read it —. Are you against that? I am not addressing one side or the other. This is not something that fits into “Tetreau’s Paradigm” of A vs. B. A’s and B’s both need this. You were right to announce the predictability of the “pharisee argument” in a previous post, but that argument wasn’t from me. This is call to think through ministry independently of pat answers on pet issues (who cares what side of the issue one is on). It’s a call to either discard the pat answers by coming up with better ones or ignore the pet issues by focusing on bigger ones. Either way, it takes prayerful consideration and creative thinking. It also takes courage.

As I said at the very beginning of my original post, the damnable flaw of creativity is that it is corruptible. Clearly, any reader would gather that I am not calling for creativity just for the sake of creativity. That is so obvious that one would suspect that the attempt to paint my appeal as a call for creativity without qualification is really an avoidance of the real argument.

You don’t have to agree with me that we need to avoid pat answers and pet issues. You don’t have to agree with me that it takes creativity to do so.(I think it does.) You don’t have to agree with my claim that this kind of creativity takes courage.(I think it does. Because brittle minds will automatically try to pigeon-hole you as a “neo,” “rebel,” or “compromiser.” Some guys simply can’t stomach that.)Disagree all you want. But you certainly cannot claim — at least by implication — that I am saying something I am most certainly not saying.

Hi Bob, thank you for responding. I am not at all sure that I am trying to put words in your mouth, but I am trying to understand your point.

So far the only authority you cite for your point is Matisse. I don’t understand how you can cite him but not Scripture.

You seem to be saying that we need to learn from the criticisms of the Emerging Church crowd. I personally don’t think they have anything to say.

I do not maintain that fundamentalists don’t have problems. But I do maintain that the problems are not the problems of fundamentalism. And the problems may need resolution, but what goes on in Web discussion is hardly resolution, it is soap-boxing.

In an earlier post, you obliquely reference some action taken against you personally. You don’t give all the details (NOR SHOULD YOU) but its appearance here makes me wonder if something of your reaction to that is not showing up in all this discussion.

Anyway, Bob, I don’t want to get into a big flame war… I hope I am not adding fuel to the fire with this.

I just really don’t understand your point. What I have said is an attempt to give you my point of view about what you seem to be saying. It could be that I am the one who is just too dull to get it.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Don, the Emergent Church has something say. Whether it is worth listening to or not is obviously what you are inferring. I’m not up on the Emergent Church but I know that there are things we can learn from people we don’t agree with. Take for example the Social Gospel folks. Their focus is way off. But it is Biblical to care for your neighbor physically as well as spiritually. I know that Fundies did shy away from social works so as not to be associated with the Social Gospel crowd. Though we can’t sell out on the fundamentals we can learn from others who are not of us.

What do you mean when you say “I do not maintain that fundamentalists don’t have problems. But I do maintain that the problems are not the problems of fundamentalism?” If you are saying the IDEA of fundamentalism does not have problems? I could see that. But the MOVEMENT of Fundamentalism certainly does have problems.

The discussion on a blog can a) help people realize what is wrong and b) motivate them to do something about it. These are two very neccessary pieces in the “fixing Fundamentalism the movement” puzzle.

thanks,
David

David

With respect, I will not jump into the social gospel point… I think it will divert us from the topic at hand.

Movement or idea, I think there is nothing wrong with either, it is Biblical Christianity. But there are lots of fundamentalists I can’t stand. Lots of idiots, quite frankly. I hope I am not one of them! (It would be really bad not to be able to stand myself. Talk about conflicted!!)

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Don,

Good. :) I wasn’t trying to get us onto the Social Gospel. I was using that topic is an example where those who are wrong can still be learned from.

Isn’t a movement made up of the people that comprise it? You say there are a lot of fundamentalists you can’t stand. Do you mean you don’t like them as people or their philosophy/doctrine/applications are off? Just curious.

thanks,
David

If fundamentalism is Biblical Christianity then why not call it Christianity or Christian orthodoxy?

Does every part of true Biblical Christianity agree that it is part of fundamentalism?

Telling the truth in love and all, “Fundamentalism is Biblical Christianity,” does seem like an idiotic statement. Maybe you are conflicted. (I’m not man enough to put a smiley, but I’m smiling — I’m smiling, but give me a break.)

Keith, maybe we should stay away from words like “idiotic.” Somehow I’m having a hard time imagining that’s telling the truth in love. ;)

(For the irony impaired: WARNING, the following comments contain irony. Note to church ladies and school marms: One can be ironic and smiling.)

David, I was just trying to AGREE with Don. He introduced the word idiot to the conversation — about those in his own movement/idea thingy.

I wonder why it seems like the movement/idea has problems?

Ah, I should quit wondering, the movement/idea can’t have problems, it IS Biblical Christianity. Even though it contains a lot of unbearable idiots aparently.

For the record, Keith, every movement has idiots. I don’t think fundamentalism has a monopoly on them, or even that it has a disproportionate representation.

Most people who complain about fundamentalism and its alleged problems are complaining about the excesses of individuals.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

“Most people who complain about fundamentalism and its alleged problems are complaining about the excesses of individuals.”

Perhaps. It’s hard to prove either way. But even if most people are complaining about individuals that means at least some are critiquing (better word) the movement in general. It’s nice to think these people are just blowing hot air. But to dismiss them that easily is unwise at best.

Fundamentalism the movement is only true Christianity as much as it adheres to the Bible. We need to realize that one of Fundamentalism’s greatest risk is to become legalistic. The New Evangelicals and others have other things to worry about. But Fundamentalism has suffered from legalism. (someone’s moral character being evaluated by how they dress, what they do or don’t wear, where they do or don’t go, etc)

Some examples: Goatees, beards, long side-burns, shorts, shorts that don’t come to the knee, pants on girls, spandex, ties, non-spiked hair, etc, etc, etc. This list is not exhaustive and is just illustrative.

Standards are fine. But standards can become measuring sticks of morality and that is wrong.

Since Fundamentalism the movement is made up of sinful people we constantly need to be honestly and objectively checking ourselves against the Word of God. If I see an area where it seems we Fundamentalists are slipping it is my duty to sound the alarm. I only accept the title “Fundamentalist” because it comes closest to true Christianity and what I am striving to be. If it didn’t I would not allow myself to be labeled that. If Fundamentalism becomes so bogged down in legalism with no hope of getting out I will drop the title Fundamentalist. My allegiance lies with God not a movement. (Don, I’m not implying you are more allied to Fundamentlism than God. Please don’t take it that way.)

I would be willingly labeled a historical Fundamentalist. I believe that name (from what I know of it) best represents Christianity. Some of the things modern Fundamentalism stands for or against I don’t know I could agree with. My knowledge of all the movements is not the best.

Everyone hates a double poster but as I was excercising a thought sprung into my head that I had to share:

Throughout history we see time and time again movements that started out well but fell by the wayside. We are sinful people prone to wander just like they.

“Movement or idea, I think there is nothing wrong with either.”

It’s statements like this that cause posts like “Creativity Takes Courage” to be written. Sure we’ve got a lot of things right. That’s why we’ve chosen to be part of Fundamentalism. But the notion that nothing needs fixed is a fantasy and a strong commentary on the state of the movement.

Don,

I feel so much better now that I know you think there are a lot of idiots everywhere.

The idea that fundamentalism gets picked on because of individual excesses is classic fundamentalist delusion. The “excesses of individuals” define the movement. Granted, most people in the fundamentalist universe are decent and non-excessive. Many of these people are very dear to me. However, they allow the excessive ones to control them and to define them. They make excusses for the excessive ones. All the while claiming that separation is so very important.

Keith, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. I don’t think the excessive ones control me and I bear the scars of tangling with some of them also.

Like all movements, fundamentalism has no head office. It is just a disparate group of people generally heading in the same direction animated by some basic ideas. No one group, church, or individual in fundamentalism can define the whole.

What should we do? Every time an idiot does something bad, should we change our name? Should we spend all our time exposing the errors of the idiots? (That is exactly what some have done… and their expose papers are roundly ridiculed as typical of legalistic fundamentalists.)

***

David, I think there are legalists in every group, and some of them are idiots too! Evangelicalism doesn’t emphasize the same laws, but they often demand conformity to their standards in order to be considered spiritual. Legalism, as such, is a temptation for everyone. It is the idolatry of the system, rather than the supremacy of God.

I know folks who are legalists for Calvin, for example. They worship at his altar every day, but they are far from Christ. Please note: I am not saying “all Calvinists are idolaters”. I am saying that I know some who are.

****

So fellows, I think we have hashed this around enough, don’t you? We will start repeating ourselves if we haven’t already. And I sense we are beginning to drift away from Bob’s point.

Shall we leave this field of battle and have at it again in a different venue at a later time?

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

We have gotten off topic. But it wasn’t entirely worthless. I agree to moving on. :)

Wow. To continue in the time-honored trend (warning, irony and sarcasm here) of taking things the wrong way that seems to flow through the comment sections of this blog, I’m going to take exception to Keith’s tone as he addressed “church ladies and school marms” on April 26. Most of the church ladies and school marms that read this blog are the ones who understand friendly irony and intellectual humor: Thus leaving them free to smile after reading the blog and move on with their life without commenting. Just another helpful way to get even more off of the subject. :-)

It may be more a problem of perception then anything else. Fundamentalists don’t lack in creativity as much as they lack in application. Most pastors have either forgotten or never knew what their congregation members are going through on a daily basis. Their application ties back into a period of time from 30 years back. They lay out the text, but they don’t know what their people need as growing believers, and thus they suffer. I see this both in “old” and “new” fundamentalists.

The evangelical tends to see creativity and innovation as a virtue in and of itself. In fact, the evangelical tends to mistake creativity for application, and thus the people starve again.

Garry

Don,

Your scars are just one more example of the truth that, even though fundamentalism has no head office, it has a face. The excessive ones may not control you, but they have defined you. They have marked you. No individual body part defines a body. That doesn’t mean it is impossible to discern the body.

No movement need change its name “every time some idiot does something bad”. However, if a movement’s name were to become synonymous with idiots doing bad things, it might be time to change the name.

Of course, you don’t need to spend all your time exposing the errors of the idiots. It is ironic, though, that one of fundamentalism’s defining characteristics is spending all its time exposing the errors of non-fundamentalists. Reticence to criticize crops up only in relation to other fundamentalists.

Although I think you are wrong in regards to fundamentalism, I will leave the field of battle by saying that you are correct that evangelicals have their own standards of conformity.