Left Behind: The Apparent Absence of Fundamentalists in Resurgent Church Planting

While Fundamentalists often noisily do battle over issues important mostly to their sub-culture, there is a battlefield where Fundamentalists are conspicuous by their absence. There has been a resurgence in church planting in North America and few Fundamentalist churches have answered the call. The names of leaders in this resurgence are well-known and include Mark Driscoll, Tim Keller, Bob Roberts, and Ed Stetzer, to name a few. Whatever Fundamentalists think of these men, let there be no doubt that they are engaged in the most noble of tasks—the Great Commission—on a scale rarely seen and in cities which, with some notable exceptions, have been long abandoned by solid, Bible-believing churches. These leaders are not without their foibles, and controversy often surrounds or follows some of them. That said, it must be asked if there are any church planting movements in Fundamentalism with the depth and breadth of what is taking place in conservative evangelical circles.

Recently I attended a conference on church planting where several thousand active or prospective church planters and their wives were in attendance. Admittedly the presenters and attendees were from diverse evangelical backgrounds, a blessing in many ways in witnessing the diversity and unity of the body of Christ. Many in attendance could not plant churches together, a fact they recognized, due to doctrinal differences that are at the heart of one’s understanding of the nature the local church. One speaker, a prominent Southern Baptist leader, expressed his friendship with and admiration for Tim Keller, yet confessed that they could not plant a church together. There would be an immediate conflict over needing a bowl or a bathtub to baptize the first convert. Yet in spite of obvious differences and the inability to partner in church planting there was a laudable spirit of cooperation to help others plant churches by providing training, mentoring, and access to resources.

Why not?

We cannot partner with anyone or everyone to plant churches. But planting churches is not an option. It is a matter of obedience. If fundamental churches are lagging in this area they need to ask themselves why. The neglect of church planting is flagrant and perhaps nothing will hasten the demise of Fundamentalism more quickly than the inability or unwillingness of Fundamentalists to be engaged in this work. Alas, church planting requires cooperation and networking, rare commodities among many Fundamentalists, among whom the spirit of independence and individualism persists, and few churches have the resources to go it alone. In addition, churches must recognize that the churches they plant may not be a mirror image of the sending and supporting churches, an unacceptable condition and consequence for many churches.

Some of the reasons for the lack of church planting movements in Fundamentalism were addressed in an earlier article and won’t be repeated here. In this article I would like to expand on those earlier thoughts and raise some questions.

I will offer this opinion up front. Most traditional churches cannot reproduce themselves. There are exceptions to this generalization. For example there are pockets or regions, often surrounding Fundamentalist institutions of higher learning, where graduates stay on after completing their studies and where a constituency exists to plant churches with other graduates, faculty members, and support personnel. There are also clumps of believers who gravitate to certain areas where they are sure to find like-minded believers. New churches have also been planted with former members of other churches who fled the cities to find refuge and comfort in suburbia. These predominantly monochromatic churches are often racially and relationally segregated where Christians live in a bubble without realizing it since most people they know are in the same bubble.

There is nothing pernicious about planting affinity-based traditional churches, yet it must be admitted that these churches are mostly attractive to Christians who already share conservative values and fit in a cultural-Christianity mold which has sometimes been mistaken for the only valid expression of biblical Christianity. An artificial setting exists where there is little contact with unbelievers and where church programs cater mostly to insiders. Churches perpetuate this virtual isolation through the establishment of ministries designed to avoid contact with the world in order to protect believers from contamination. Few of these churches successfully reproduce themselves except occasionally when there’s the opportunity to support someone planting a new church that is like the supporting church—same music, same attire, same standards, same Bible version, same approved colleges and universities, and same loyalty to national leaders. This kind of church planting is often little more than the shuffling and reshuffling of those already committed to a certain vision of the church. A clone-like church is planted here and there, mostly in white suburban areas, but there are no church planting movements to speak of and few churches which reflect the diverse population of North American urban centers.

Toward solutions

So if most traditional churches cannot reproduce themselves what should we do? First of all, we should recognize the contribution that traditional churches make and have made to the work of God. They have a role in the outworking of God’s plans and should be appreciated. They have provided a legacy on which others build. It’s easy and mostly pointless to search for flaws in how they have done ministry and mistakes they have made. We should look on them with the same generosity and grace which we will want others to accord us in the future when they are looking back on what we have tried to accomplish. As one writer puts it, traditional believers and churches are like bricks on the understructure of a bridge. These bricks will not move to the other side of the bridge (i.e., they will not, need not leave their traditions) but they are necessary for the overall support of the structure, in this case God’s church (see The Tangible Kingdom by Hugh Halter and Matt Smay, pp. 33-36). They are not to be despised or belittled for holding to traditions which are an important part of their Christian identity as developed in their contexts.

Secondly, although most traditional churches cannot reproduce themselves, they can still reproduce, and here is the caveat: they must be willing to allow churches they plant to have their own identity in obedience to the Scriptures and develop their own traditions and style of ministry. Simply put, they should be narrow where the Word of God is narrow and grant freedom where the Word of God permits freedom. Of course traditional churches have every right to expect that the churches they help plant possess the same DNA, the same core theological commitments. But if churches demand that new churches in different contexts look the same, do church the same, be governed in exactly the same way, emphasize and engage the same issues, and follow the same leaders, then we should expect to see more men—young and old alike—leaving Fundamentalism to experience and enjoy God-given liberty to plant Christ-honoring churches without being held hostage to the extra-biblical sensitivities of others.

For those traditional churches which are ready to meet the church planting challenge, let me raise a few questions as suggestive of where liberty might be accorded to church planters. In saying this I’m imagining a church plant in an urban setting with a significant number of university students who are skeptical of, if not hostile to Christianity as they’ve known it. The community has pockets of immigrants who live alongside young professionals who are buying and renovating older homes and displacing long-term residents who can no longer afford skyrocketing rents. In planting a new inner-urban church, consider the following questions:

  • Do you have one pastor carrying the leadership and preaching burden alone or a leadership team where the lead pastor is “one among equals in decision-making; first among equals in vision and leadership?”
  • Do you organize traditional Sunday School, Sunday AM, PM and Wednesday prayer meeting services or develop gatherings according to patterns more appropriate to cultural patterns where the church is situated?
  • Do you create and multiply programs for different age or affinity groups to attract people to the church or does the church seek bridges of contact in the community for incarnational ministry?
  • Do you insist on the exclusive use of more formal, traditional hymns and outdated gospel choruses or do you seek a balance with music that is theologically sound, spiritually uplifting, and comprehensible and which includes contemporary forms?
  • Do you employ a church name that creates unnecessary barriers or choose a name which reflects an aspect of your ministry without denominational code words?
  • Do you utilize a website designed to attract Christians who move into your area while confusing unbelievers with Christian-speak language like “separatistic,” and “militant” and listing everything you believe about everything, or do you simplify your public presentation in order to catch and hold the attention of the unchurched as well?
  • Do you place the American flag and the Christian flag behind the podium and give the appearance of supporting a conservative political agenda (usually Republican) or do you urge your people to be good citizens regardless of their political views and affiliations and refuse to allow politics to highjack the cause of the gospel?
  • Do you give public invitations after each service singing “Just As I Am” or “I Surrender All” with a decisional emphasis or do you emphasize progressive and radical transformation through biblical discipleship and in relational community?

In asking these questions I realize that not all of the elements in the first part of the questions are found in all traditional churches and that such stark polarizations do not always exist. Neither am I saying that all of these elements are inappropriate in certain settings. I am saying that the first part elements will not be found in most urban settings, are not essential “as is” to being the church, and that we must allow for liberty in contextualizing ministry. In other words, there are functions and there are forms. The functions are those elements which are indispensable to be the church and they center on and around the Word. The forms can be adapted and modified and should not be considered normative.

At this point I have purposely not given answers to the above questions. The questions are only a small sample of what needs to be asked. I cannot provide normative answers since there is no one model for planting churches. What I would like to ask in closing is this: are there churches that are unable to reproduce themselves who are interested in reproducing gospel-centered, Christ-honoring, theologically-committed churches which can be effective in ways and in places where traditional churches may never be found or effective? Perhaps nothing will contribute more to the kind of future in store for Fundamentalism then how Fundamentalists respond to this question.


Dr. Stephen M. Davis is on the pastoral team at Grace Church, a new church plant in Philadelphia, and adjunct professor in missions at Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary (Lansdale, PA). He holds a B.A. from Bob Jones University, an M.A. in Theological Studies from Reformed Theological Seminary (Orlando, FL), an M.Div. from CBTS, and a D.Min. in Missiology from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (Deerfield, IL). Steve has been a church planter in Philadelphia, France, and Romania.

Discussion

[Anne Sokol]
[Aaron Blumer] SNIP i’ve struggled with this myself b/c of Hudson Taylor’s policy of dressing like the national people. when i came to Ukraine with a BJ trip, we were instructed to not wear hose, wear comfy tennis shoes and clothes, etc. We were absolutely bizarre-looking. all ladies here dress up, they wear hose, dress shoes, fitted clothing. We went and sang in the Chernobyl region, and the ladies asked the pastor if we were wearing “disposable” clothing because we were afraid of the radiation — and there we were in the eveyday BJ clothes we always wore. SNIP.
After 20 years of working with the Slavic Evangelical Christian-Baptists, I can give a hearty AMEN to this observation. When my wife buys a new dress, the first place she wants to wear it is to church. These folks dress knowing they are going to the house of God (Isa56:7) and will corporately enter the royal presence.

Hoping to shed more light than heat..

[Susan R]
[Steve Davis] I don’t know any Afro-American Fundamentalists (yes I know there are some, but few).
Could you clarify this a bit? Do you mean that there don’t seem to be any ‘well-known’ Afro-American Fundies, or that Fundy churches don’t have black members, or that black churches don’t join IFB fellowships/associations…? Or something completely different?

I would agree that the percentage of Afro-Americans in the IFB churches I’ve attended has been small, but they were and are there. I have visited a few SBC churches that would consider themselves Fundy that have a significant number of faithful Afro-Americans in their congregations. But if the question is about how many Afro-Americans are in staff positions, publishing books and getting their pics in The Fundamentalist, then you are right about the lack of Afro-American representation in the Fundy world. But even in my limited experience, I can’t say that I don’t know any Afro-American Fundies.
I would say yes, yes, and yes, to your questions, generally, because there are some exceptions. Of course often demographics don’t allow for diversity. Joel mentioned a small group of fundamental Afro-American churches.I think there was also a group associated with Southwide Fellowship.

I did a cursory search at a few major Fundamentalist schools. I haven’t found any Afro-American (or Latino) seminary professors (at least for the ones with pictures readily available). All I’ve seen are white and probably Republican :-). I’m not trying to analyze this or indict anyone but it is an interesting observation in response to your questions.

[Aaron Blumer]

If a congregation believes it’s ways and traditions are right, it ought to aim to reproduce itself with most of those traditions intact. If it believes they are not right, it ought to replace them with ones it believes are right—either way, if it engages in church planting, it should aim to reproduce itself. It should be expected to want to reproduce itself.
One problem with this viewpoint is that established churches developed their traditions over time. The traditions may be good, valid, and right for the church where they developed. New churches cannot be expected to adopt them without time and reflection, although they may choose to do so, if they are traditions and not Tradition, that is, apostolic in nature with a biblical basis.

I am grateful for the buzz the article created. Do I write provocatively? What can I say? I’m not alone (so it must be okay in my defense) and I’m not writing to the choir (oft-used excuse) and I’m glad for discussion generated (I don’t get paid for clicks). I have been involved in church planting directly and indirectly for thirty years and still have a lot to learn (note hint of humility). I do not expect what I write to resonate with everyone and don’t really care (well maybe a little). That’s not the point. I do think that the questions raised will be of more help (notice I didn’t say great help) to those involved or soon-to-be involved in hands-on church planting. For those who are pastors of established churches I’m not begging for support (but won’t turn any down). One quote to set the stage concerning these questions since I am not so deluded to think they are the only or best questions to ask.

“In asking these questions I realize that not all of the elements in the first part of the questions are found in all traditional churches and that such stark polarizations do not always exist…. The questions are only a small sample of what needs to be asked. I cannot provide normative answers since there is no one model for planting churches.”

But here’s how I would answer. I have no fear or qualms about saying what I believe. But in the article I felt that would be distracting as if I had all the answers (second note of humility). We are in a new church plant, have been meeting weekly for 6 months, have seen God and work and know every good thing comes from Him. This might be enough for another article but I don’t want to wear out my welcome or alienate my friends.

1. Do you have one pastor carrying the leadership and preaching burden alone or a leadership team where the lead pastor is “one among equals in decision-making; first among equals in vision and leadership?”

We are working in team ministry (four men at this time) but do have a lead, salaried pastor. We believe that there needs to be one man who provides vision and direction for the church. We work and pray hard for consensus on the leadership team. Two men on the leadership team are younger men who are also being trained and mentored for future church plants should the Lord so lead. The lead pastor does about 65% of the preaching and sets the schedule for preaching choices and schedule. Having others preach provides training for them and another voice for the congregation. As a leadership team we have worked our way through many books together and are now working on “The Archer and the Arrow” on preaching.

2. Do you organize traditional Sunday School, Sunday AM, PM and Wednesday prayer meeting services or develop gatherings according to patterns more appropriate to cultural patterns where the church is situated?

There is not a right way or times. We have a Sunday afternoon service since we rent from an Episcopal church. We use another church for baptisms since the Episcopal font is not big enough. We meet only once weekly as a congregation and have what some might call blended worship although we don’t really think in those terms. We have Wesley hymns and Hillsong/Third Day music in the same service. We observe the Lord’s Table each week after the preaching (which serves as our invitation) and have a fellowship meal each week. Of course logistically some things are easier to do in a small congregation between 4 and 5 hundred – closer to 4 than 500 (I didn’t say 4 hundred :). We also have small groups during the week (Grace Groups) which meet geographically.

3. Do you create and multiply programs for different age or affinity groups to attract people to the church or does the church seek bridges of contact in the community for incarnational ministry?

We are not against programs but we are purposely using a Simple Church model. We know it will get more complex as we move along. However, we are not trying to do everything in a building (which we don’t have anyway). We are not interested in multiplying programs to keep people out of their homes and neighborhoods and in a church building as many nights as possible. We are engaged in the community on many fronts from literature tables at Jazz Festivals and Night Out Against Crime, involvement with the Police Clergy, etc. For us to be incarnational is to be visible in the community as Christians, representing Christ. For us most of our outreach goes on in the community not in the church building through programs.

4. Do you insist on the exclusive use of more formal, traditional hymns and outdated gospel choruses or do you seek a balance with music that is theologically sound, spiritually uplifting, and comprehensible and which includes contemporary forms?

As mentioned above we might be called blended in our choice of music. The lead pastor chooses most of the music (with input from others) in order to insure that whether the music is more traditional or classic (which we love) or more contemporary, that the music is theological sound an fits with how the worship service flows (see “Christ-Centered Worship: Letting the Gospel Shape Our Practice” by Bryan Chapell).

5. Do you employ a church name that creates unnecessary barriers or choose a name which reflects an aspect of your ministry without denominational code words?

Let me say that I do not encourage churches to change their name or Baptist churches to drop Baptist from the name. If they do, fine. The first church we planted in Philadelphia almost 30 years ago changed its name and dropped Baptist when they moved to a new location, a re-plant in some ways. They didn’t need my permission but I supported their decision. In our case, moving into Philadelphia we did want something simple – Grace Church. If there are barriers we would rather they be inside the church when the gospel is preached not at the door thinking that a Baptist church is for, well, Baptists. The church is for sinners, including Baptists. Do we want people attracted to our church? Yes, but not because of our vast array of programs (which we don’t have) or our entertaining music (because we are not here to entertain) or our winsome preaching (nobody would accuse us of that). We want them attracted by the Word and by the worship. Some will return. Many will not.

6. Do you utilize a website designed to attract Christians who move into your area while confusing unbelievers with Christian-speak language like “separatistic,” and “militant” and listing everything you believe about everything, or do you simplify your public presentation in order to catch and hold the attention of the unchurched as well?

I should confess that over 50% of our guests find us on the Internet. Most of them are Christians who have moved into Philadelphia and are looking for a church. We do not put on our web site everything we believe about every issue. We do want the web site to hold people’s attention and with a clear gospel presentation on the front page. But we do try to avoid Christian jargon or wave certain flags that others may find important.

7. Do you place the American flag and the Christian flag behind the podium and give the appearance of supporting a conservative political agenda (usually Republican) or do you urge your people to be good citizens regardless of their political views and affiliations and refuse to allow politics to highjack the cause of the gospel?

This would not be an issue with many churches I suppose and I have no quarrel with those who practice differently. We are patriotic and believe Christians should be responsible citizens. But as a church we do not pledge our allegiance to a flag or a nation. In my opinion conservative churches have become associated with conservative politics.

8. Do you give public invitations after each service singing “Just As I Am” or “I Surrender All” with a decisional emphasis or do you emphasize progressive and radical transformation through biblical discipleship and in relational community?

I am not saying that invitations are never appropriate. But at times there is too much emphasis on making a decision, walking an aisle, getting right with God – multiple times and publicly (with eyes closed) rather than an emphasis on radical discipleship. Often invitations are simply you need to do more, pray more, attend church more, and follows moralistic preaching which brings tinges of guilt and emotional response. As I said above we give an invitation every Sunday in preparation for the Lord’s Supper. We invite those to the Table whom God invites and ask people come forward to take of the bread and cup.

Let’s be able to disagree on some of the questions and answers and work together for the furtherance of the gospel in urban, suburban, and rural America (and beyond). And to slightly misquote a friend of mine: “Let me extend an invitation to those who have a burden for the cities to come to Philadelphia. We’re already working on it and would love the help and to help you!”

Steve….the more you write, the more I like it. Please don’t let this be your last article. I like the challenges, the perspectives, the dialogue and your replies. This has been one of the best articles and subsequent threads on SI in a while. Thanks!

Dan

Dan Burrell Cornelius, NC Visit my Blog "Whirled Views" @ www.danburrell.com

[Steve Davis] One problem with this viewpoint is that established churches developed their traditions over time. The traditions may be good, valid, and right for the church where they developed. New churches cannot be expected to adopt them without time and reflection, although they may choose to do so, if they are traditions and not Tradition, that is, apostolic in nature with a biblical basis.
The key phrase would be “without time and reflection.” This goes both ways. The traditions should be neither perpetuated nor abandoned without time and reflection.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

A recent blog by Dave Doran called suggested that the articles I’ve written on SI should be called “Provocations.” http://tinyurl.com/2b53kf6 He also confesses it a little “irritating” to ask questions without stating immediately what I believe. There are some (who don’t want or can’t post publicly on SI) who think I should be less winsome and generous in answering criticisms. I make no apologies for this style of writing which is much different in a forum discussion than a seminary paper. Anyone who knows me knows that I am not shy about what I believe. Dave’s blog does not allow for comments so I thought I should provide some reflexions on his comments. I don’t have a personal blog so these comments may be lost on the post and perhaps I will incorporate them into another article in the “Provocations” series.

There is a different perspective between a church planter and pastor on what questions need to be asked and how to answer them. I think this is a fundamental difference between Dave and me. And here I use Dave as potentially representative of other pastors. It is not personal and I hope our exchange will be beneficial. I have known Dave for many years, was supported as a missionary by the church he pastors while in France and Romania, and have taught as an adjunct at the seminary there (although I’m not counting on that happening again but would be glad to do it :-). Inter-City is a great church and my wife grew up there. So I have only respect for Dave, the church, and the seminary.

When someone accepts a call to a church many questions have already been answered by church practice established over the years. As one pastor friend told me the best thing to do is to “stop watering certain plants and let them die.” I think that’s good advice for a pastor accepting a call to a church. To introduce radical change might be disruptive and appear disrespectful of the previous pastor. Although some of the traditions may be more 1950s than first century it is wise to move slowly.

When someone plants a church there is the opportunity, indeed the necessity, to think about how to start. Questions are raised that are not of immediate concern to a pastor. There is the possibility of great misunderstanding between the new church plant and sending churches or potential supporting churches. I’ve experienced this first hand. Apart from our sending church, which has been supportive although maybe not always comfortable with what we are doing in Philadelphia, there is only one other church that provides any financial support. It’s a small two year old church plant in Brooklyn which tithes on its offerings each month to our new church plant. That’s it. The rest of our support comes from individuals and, in my case, I’m looking for part-time work since it may be some time before the church can fully support me in an area with 28% unemployment and rampant poverty.

Before returning to Philadelphia to plant a new church I had discussions with a number of pastor friends, mostly from IFB churches. Although they appreciated what I was doing and were personally supportive, they felt their church could not partner with us. For some it was a constitutional matter (which they often inherited) that stipulated agreement to the nth degree. For others it was the sensitivities of church members who would react to a church not using the same translation, the same music, the same polity, and the same name. I understand that and did not travel church to church to raise support. (BTW, we would welcome support from IBF churches if they can live with the differences.)

In short I am not surprised that some pastors would disagree with what I’m doing and writing. Theirs is a different calling, with different gifts, and different perspectives. I have never been called as senior pastor of a church (yes, I have been asked). I do not know what it takes to pastor a church long-term and to have inherited buildings, prime location, place of influence, and financial stability (and I realize that not all pastors inherit that). I’m not being critical of that. It may be that I not am gifted in that way. That is God’s calling and equipping upon the lives of these men. I admire pastors who take a church and stay for years. However, I have been involved in planting churches in Philadelphia, France, and Romania, and recognize that I am co-worker with the One who is building his church. I’m not an expert and often plod along learning as I go.

Those who have never actively planted a new church, who have never met in their living room, who have never had only their family and who knows who show up, who have never worked bi-vocationally to support their family, etc., will not have the same questions and/or answers as church planters. That’s to be expected. And it’s not that pastors could not plant a church. Many of them are gifted in leadership and preaching where they could plant a church is that’s what God called them to do. I‘m not arguing for one being better than the other. But it’s different and some of those differences can’t be understood until you’ve walked in the church planter’s shoes.

Before returning to Philadelphia to plant a new church I had discussions with a number of pastor friends, mostly from IFB churches. Although they appreciated what I was doing and were personally supportive, they felt their church could not partner with us. For some it was a constitutional matter (which they often inherited) that stipulated agreement to the nth degree. For others it was the sensitivities of church members who would react to a church not using the same translation, the same music, the same polity, and the same name. I understand that and did not travel church to church to raise support. (BTW, we would welcome support from IBF churches if they can live with the differences.)
This is, for me, a perfect illustration of what I was http://sharperiron.org/article/left-behind-apparent-absence-of-fundamen…] trying to convey in post 10 . It’s also a sweeping indictment of typical IFB priorities.

I know that’s not why Dr. Davis wrote this, but I couldn’t let it go without noting that.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

[Steve Davis] Those who have never actively planted a new church, who have never met in their living room, who have never had only their family and who knows who show up, who have never worked bi-vocationally to support their family, etc., will not have the same questions and/or answers as church planters. That’s to be expected. And it’s not that pastors could not plant a church. Many of them are gifted in leadership and preaching where they could plant a church is that’s what God called them to do. I‘m not arguing for one being better than the other. But it’s different and some of those differences can’t be understood until you’ve walked in the church planter’s shoes.
Hi Steve

Well, I’ve spent my entire adult life as a church planting pastor. I’ve done all those things. I may not be gifted for it, because it has been a long, arduous, discouraging process …with some eternal victories along the way that make it worth it. However, if self-sufficiency is the mark of success, we haven’t succeeded. We are about 3/4 of the way, and always hopeful.

However, I would have to say that I agree with Dave’s perspective on this. That was behind my earlier comment about pragmatism. I think the music question is probably the most important question as our culture is increasingly steeped in ungodly music - addicted to it, I’d say. For lost folks to come to Christ and begin the process of sanctification involves a massive change of thinking and values. In my opinion, you stunt growth in holiness by lowering the musical bar. I also see no need to remove denominational labels - be what you are. There are too many generic non-descript who knows what churches around who don’t define themselves. If people are turned off by the name, they’ll be turned off by the doctrine once they find out what you believe.

Just my opinion! Certainly not looking for a music debate!

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

I suppose this has been a very interesting article for any church planters to read. We’ve only been involved in church planting (and cooperating!) for about seven years now, so my opinions aren’t worth much. But for whatever it’s worth, I posted some thoughts over on the LAHope blog: http://www.lahope.org/?p=1370] “Dr. Steve Davis Stirs the Fundamental Pot”

[Dave Doran] but I’ll confess to finding the “I’m not saying I believe that, I’m just asking questions” approach a little irritating at times.
This is one of my favorite methods of working things out in my mind, but it’s hard to do without including the answers in the questions if you’ve already formed some opinions. I get handed my head quite often when I do this, and I can see why. For instance-
[Steve Davis] Do you insist on the exclusive use of more formal, traditional hymns and outdated gospel choruses or do you seek a balance with music that is theologically sound, spiritually uplifting, and comprehensible and which includes contemporary forms?
The words ‘outdated’ and ‘balance’ make this sound more like a statement than a question. I would say, however, that insisting on one genre of music over another for no other reason than “It was good ‘nuff for Grandma so it’s good ‘nuff for me!” is very shallow reasoning, and no better than adopting contemporary forms (as opposed to contemporary in a purely chronological sense) simply because they have modern appeal. As for outdated choruses, if I never sing “Do Lord” again for the rest of my life, it will be too soon.

I don’t envy pastors, missionaries, and church planters the duty to discern the appropriate and proportionate use of native and modern culture in their ministries while keeping God’s agenda and glory paramount.

[TimL] I suppose this has been a very interesting article for any church planters to read. We’ve only been involved in church planting (and cooperating!) for about seven years now, so my opinions aren’t worth much. But for whatever it’s worth, I posted some thoughts over on the LAHope blog: http://www.lahope.org/?p=1370] “Dr. Steve Davis Stirs the Fundamental Pot”
Hi Tim:

Thanks for joining the discussion, for your comments, and perspective as a young church planter. I checked out your blog and glad to hear about church planting in LA. We also have a friend in common who you mentioned - Dr. McAllister. We worked together as hall monitors in the days at BJ before they changed “monitor” into something wimpy like hall leader. So it was a while ago.

I’m glad you found a few things to agree with. As for the rest I will only comment on what you think I imply about traditional/conservative churches not able to be evangelistic, loving, etc. I did not mean to imply that and don’t believe that. I have many friends (maybe fewer now :-) who pastor traditional churches. Some of them still have me preach for them. I am not anti-traditional. I lean more to a “third way” as articulated in Jim Belcher’s book “Deep Church: A Third Way Beyond Emerging and Traditional ” which I would highly recommend. In our church plant you will find a mix of traditional (including the Apostles’ Creed with “Christian Church” substituted for “Catholic Church”) and contemporary.

As for “conservative” I would recommend Roger Olson’s book “How to be Evangelical without being Conservative.” There’s a lot of husk there but I like much of what he says about the conservative label, mostly understood today in a political sense. I don’t mind using it in-house but it’s not helpful outside the church, IMO.

God bless the work in LA,

Steve

Whenever I read material posted by Steve Davis one thing is for certain, it will not be patronage for which he is guilty. In my opinion he is a thinker (as his material leads me to believe and clearly his pursuit and gain of educational credentials gives further indication), I always appreciate that. But of course I find myself on another side of his views more than less of the time with regard to ecclesiastical issues. And this is not an exception.

I don’t doubt that these questions were asked in some form or another in 1820, 1850, 1890, 1910, 1940, 1975, 1995, and now 2010. I do caution many who might seem excited with such explorations, because they appear to come with certain assumptions, as if the course of their direction has already been validated. I believe within many of the questions that Steve Davis asked are issues that warrant much more debate before accepting their premise and demand a rather aggressive interrogation of their proponents before skedaddling off with a happy tune that we have found some new enlightenment.

This is not to take away the value of a legitimate audit of the approach fundamentalists or CEs use in planting churches in new areas but I do believe that the view that urban and inner-city culture is so rampantly disjointed and in need of constant monitoring and attending and subsequently contorting our local assemblies in a way that proves we are involved, caring and incarnating ourselves is highly an exceptional case.

Most people do have schedules or adapt to schedules. And most humans, because of our integrated nature have very similar schedules. While it is valuable to understand or see that in some places not all people are going to be able to meet on the Lord’s day and therefore it might require an alternate day for corporate worship, it would be rare. But at times I sense a bit of insistence that we attempt to find an excuse to go counter to this, even when it is not necessary just to prove how insightful or broad we are.

Think of the churches in Asia Minor during Paul’s tenure. They certainly did not have a “christianized” culture yet they all learned to meet on the Lord’s Day. While it is not prescribed as a command it certainly demonstrates that their former culture wasn’t what was foremost in their minds, rather their new identity in Christ and the values it brought to them. This is something I believe that is being too minimized or misclassified in the article’s sentiment.

One of my favorite references on culture is from the LCMS http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=837] LCMS on Culture :
The church must develop and maintain its own cultural language that reflects the values and structures of the Scriptures and not of the current culture. This church language can only be shaped by a biblical theology which affirms the real presence of Jesus Christ in worship and our belief that this presence binds the culture together as a community. The context that shapes our distinct Lutheran ethos is Scripture, theology, and history. Local circumstance is secondary. Traditionally, this Lutheran culture is liturgical, theological, and counter- cultural.
This certainly might give room to some of the things suggested by Davis but I believe it also confronts some of the absorption of the culture around us that is being too greatly esteemed.

Steve,

Thanks for your work my brother. For those of us who have taken a shot at church planting it is a thrill to hear from those who have done it - lessons they’ve learned from “the road.” You should give out a 1-800 number for those of us doing this (1-800-calstev). :)

Straight Ahead my man! Keep “stirring that pot” amego!

jt

Dr. Joel Tetreau serves as Senior Pastor, Southeast Valley Bible Church (sevbc.org); Regional Coordinator for IBL West (iblministry.com), Board Member & friend for several different ministries;

Could some of the problem of not planting churches in the city center simply be a problem primarily financial? It costs more to find a building to rent in the city center than “when you live”—since most IFB missionaries can’t afford to live in the city center.

Do the SBC have a separate fund they can draw on to help with them rents, etc. that others don’t have access to?

Maybe that is one of the reasons that so many churches have been started in the suburbs. People found places to live, started inviting people over to their houses (as one person mentioned). Most could not afford to the inner city condos, and chose a cheaper place outside the center. Thus, the people who were drawn were from their area.

I’m curious if there is a lot of prejudice in an inner city work. Will black people willingly come to a church pastored by a white person? Do THEY receive negative feedback from their friends and family for doing such a thing? Or is it that noone cares.

Note to Anne…my daughters told me a long time ago…Mom, DON’T wear a denim jumper and tennis shoes/keds in public. No one dresses like that here! :)