Lessons in Creativity
April 13, 2005 Posted by Amy Hall
My boss just handed me a business article titled “The Fabric of Creativity.” The magazine Fast Company tried to find the most innovative business (in both product and process) in
So what is it about W.L. Gore & Associates that brings out maximum creativity and effectiveness? You can read a quick summary here, but let me bring up a couple of points:
- Rather than having a rigid hierarchy where the people at the top make all the decisions and everyone else just carries them out, they work in small teams where everyone bears the weight of responsibility.
- People are free to take on whatever responsibilities they wish. They create their own roles based on their gifts and desires. If they want to begin a new project, they're encouraged to, but they are responsible for motivating others to join them. The employees don't just work for the company, they are the company.
- The facilities are kept small (under 200 people) so people get to know each other; and even though some people are leaders, everyone has equal access to everyone else–there is no “higher-up” boss hidden away in an inaccessible office.
This article seems to me like a pretty good description (for the most part) of 1 Corinthians 12:12-26. In the American church today, I think we've lost the idea of “the body.” I think part of this might have something to do with numbers. If you're in a big church, it's easy to be passive. It's easy to just follow along and let others “take care of things.” It's easy to let your own necessary (yes, necessary!) talents lie dormant. Sometimes, the leadership is set in stone instead of developing naturally as people are set free and supported in pursuing their ideas for service.
Gore is described as being structured more like “a startup company” (with everybody building their own unique roles based on their gifts and interests, everyone acting as equals, etc.). In the same way, I think “startup”/smaller churches tend to take on these qualities out of necessity. (I know this is the case with the church I attend.)
Tomorrow, I'll attempt to clarify how I think hierarchy and leadership fit into a church of equals. For now, though, I'll leave you with this question: how do we begin to change the thinking of Christians to view their churches as whole bodies, of which they are a necessary part?
Related posts:
- Is Hierarchy Possible in a Church of Equals?
- EFBT: What Does Biblical Hierarchy in Marriage Look Like?
- Could God Blogs Bring Men Back Into the Church?
- Liberal Feelings vs. Judeo-Christian Values
- Interview with Mary Kassian – Part II
- Update on the Dateline NBC Special
Posted in Amy's Posts, Culture, Main Page, Religion (General)
content rss
April 13th, 2005 at 6:34 am
I find that there is a lot of critical articles on 'big' churches in the Christian blog world. That they are simply impersonal and lack fellowship and connection with the body of believers. Belonging to a 'big' church (Saddleback, Lake Forest, CA), I find that not always the case, esp. at my church.
I bring this up because this post on creativity reminds me of our church model. We emphasize the small groups aspect to connect with others at Saddleback. My church is thousands of people at the same time it is 6 people (on Tuesday nights). We value the gifts and talents of all the individuals, they are all valued equally.
In light of this post I recommend “The Purpose Driven Church” by Rick Warren. I see this method working first hand. As 'corporate' as it may seem.
Thanks,
T.O.
April 13th, 2005 at 12:16 pm
Thanks, T.O., for your comment. This is exactly the kind of discussion I'm looking for–ways to keep people in large churches engaged (as an active part of fulfilling the Great Commission) without slipping into passivity. I don't think this is impossible.
It's easier for passivity to occur in large churches (because you can remain anonymous), but we can combat this. As long as Christians have the right mindset (we are all part of the body), even the largest churches will function well (just look at the early church in Jerusalem!). Without it, even the smallest churches will fail. So this post is more about a call to recognize and fulfill your place in the body rather than a call to go to a smaller church.
Since you go to a larger church, I'm interested in hearing more of your thoughts on this. Would you say that people in your church (in general) have the mindset of contributing to the service of God rather than looking to be served? If so, why do you think this is? If not, what can be done? I think you could clear up some common misconceptions here and give us some ideas for our own church communities.
As for something seeming “corporate,” I think we can learn lessons about how people work well together from businesses (and other groups) without viewing the church as “a business.” In other words, I wouldn't look to businesses for marketing strategies (I think that only leads to trying to please the world, and then to compromise), but we can still learn a lot about interpersonal dynamics from people who are working together toward a common goal. In fact, I think the church would benefit greatly if we saw ourselves more as “people who are working together toward a common goal.”
April 14th, 2005 at 7:46 am
Well, I will do my best to represent my church(Saddleback) and its values the way I see it. I was very sceptical of this 'mega-church' at first but it found a way in to my heart. Now, it is a 'seeker-sensitive' church… I know that this is a scary word for some in the apologetics field, but to be honest the proof in is the fruitfulness of this church. The main message I have recieved from them is to get invovled in church, serving members of the body and those outside as well. With the size of this church there is no excuse to say that a ministry doesn't fit my time, personality, or even personal passion. And if I find that there is an aspect of service missing, then the pastors say it is our responsibility to get it started (with there help of course). You see, that is how the hierachy is estabilshed, the talents and gifts rise on their own. That is how community is established, in working together to serve each other.
It is easy to not get invovle in a church that size and I have met people who have attended for 10 plus years without invovlement, but I can certainly say it is not the fault of the leaders in the church who stress that membership is a contract to get invovled.
And back to the seeker-sensitive issue, (which I feel I need to defend, not from your post Amy, but others I have found in christian Blogs). I find this working quite well at Saddleback. The weekend service caters to the unbeliever, giving them the basics of Christ's message. But it doesn't stop there, we as a congregation are given opportunities to grow with lessons during the week. After all an infant is given solid food only went she is ready.
Basically it is up to the individual to get invovled in the community. That, truely, is the only 'individualism' I see at Saddleback. Service to others becomes contagious, and it is fullfilling.
Well, I love my church and could go on forever. I hope that gives you a brief picture of how such a huge thing manages to work.
Keep up the great posts!
T.O.
April 14th, 2005 at 1:48 pm
T.O., thanks for your thoughts. This is certainly something to think about. What a great comment that “service is contagious!” That's so true! It's great to hear that there is an attitude of service and an openness to people creating new ministries reflecting their gifts.
I do have a problem with directing the Sunday service towards non-believers and new believers–mainly because in my previous church, I saw first hand the problems this can lead to. But I'm open to being proved wrong about this, so I appreciate your thoughts.
April 15th, 2005 at 7:59 am
I am an apologist myself, T.O., and I can say that I have no problem with fruitfulness. As Christians, we all try to be fruitful. The problem that I, as do other apologists, have is that many “seeker-sensitive” churches cater too much to the unbeliever.
For example, my former church thought it “wise” to play a clip from the Matrix to make a point. A friend's mega-church thought it “wise” to play a clip from “Good Will Hunting” and did not bother to edit out the swearing. What place does this have in a setting that is to be holy (set apart), especially when worship service is to be a holy convocation for God's people?
Specifics vary from church to church, but my point from above is one that I see consistent in some of the “seeker sensitive” church. Rather than preaching the Word, they let entertainment do the talking. Whether it is movie clips, slide shows, or striking up the band in the middle of the preaching to get everyone on an emotional high, none of it belongs during the time where we are to be quiet and humble, like Mary at the feet of Christ.
(I find it interesting, having followed some of the Emergent Church articles on this blogsite, that some in the EC finds this same problem with the mega-churches.)
Maybe you can clarify something, T.O. You said, “The main message I have recieved from them is to get invovled in church, serving members of the body and those outside as well.” When you say “main message”, are you talking about what your relationship should be with your church? Or do you mean something else when you say “main message”?
April 15th, 2005 at 10:08 am
The main message of how we are to deal with our 'church body' is service. The Main Message of our church, of course, is Christ.
Now at our church we do show movie clips (cussing edited) or slid shows, I wouldn't say that we are conjuring emotions (although I am sure that some would say so). The thing is most people feel out of touch with scripture. Not all people need the heavy elements of deep theology and apologetics to have a relationship with Christ. Now don't get me wrong… what these believers do grasp needs to be scripturally correct, but it is okay to not understand some things, but know that it is truth in your heart. I find that most people are moved by the character of the Spirit (love, fellowship, generosity, etc.) than by heavy handed theology. But there are those people out there that need theology and apologetics ( myself included) inorder to be fed spiritually.
The Sunday service at my church is a time for fellowship and praise. A time to give a message that speaks to the sceptic without sacrificing the truth of scripture. It shows the character(holy/set apart) of Christ and His church body. The time to grow deeper is durning the rest of the week. Church is not just a Sunday thing. I have learned more at this evanglical 'Mega-Church' than growing up in a Lutheran Church. Through my church I got connected with organizations like STR, and a class is offered during the week that lasts a year all on the scriptures. Included is number of Bible studies and even apologetics classes. We call the grounds our church is on 'the campus' for crying out loud! The deeper teaching is there but just not on the weekends.
And I feel it is essential to have these weekend services reach out to the unbeliever, and of course without sacrificing our 'christian culture' for 'the culture of the world.' That takes discernment and wisdom but it can be done, I see it done every week.
I think that there are too many generaliztions in these terms we have for different modes of worship. The core truths and message of the Bible need to be expressed to ALL. I believe that new ways of expressing Truth should be explored with out sacrificing Truth (i.e. Postmodern Emergent).
How do you speak to contemporary culture? After all didn't Paul, as a tentmaker, try to find common ground with those who he was to share the gospel with? Don't missonaries to tribal villages find a common narrative already in their culture to show the relavance of the Bible stories to there life?
How are we to enact the Great Commission? There are many ways given our individual gifts and interests.
I hope this clears up some aspects of the 'seeker-sensitive' style at my church.
Keep the questions coming.
In His Love,
T.O.
April 18th, 2005 at 7:39 am
T.O., thanks for replying. Since you are familiar with STR, have you read this article from them:
http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/misc_topics/seekerce.htm
How do you respond to this, especially since it has implications upon your church?
April 18th, 2005 at 5:07 pm
I simply have to disagree with greg on this point. I think the message of purpose is good as a starting point. The message of Love is key. And I see both as Biblical. I think a lot of generalizations are asumed about “Purpose Driven” church ministry. I certainly don't agree with they way they go about everything, but I can say that about every ministry I encounter. Our church is prosperous, it is making disciples and it is evangelizing. And it has the core message of Truth.
I don't know what else to say but come and see. Something's working.
T.O.
April 19th, 2005 at 5:44 am
Hi,
I hope I am not out of order by jumping into this subject. I've read the comments from T.O. and the other guy, and I just finished reading STR's article. Forgive me if I may be too blunt and long-winded in my commentary.
From just what you have said, T.O., about Saddleback, it is hardly the biblical model that is laid out in Scripture. Saddleback has it backwards in making the weekend church service cater to the unbeliever. Can you show from Scripture that this is how it is to be done? I don't think it can be done, especially when Sunday church meeting finds its root in Sabbath observance in worshipping God. Church finds its “shadow” in the Sabbath and if the Sabbath worship of God was exclusive to the believers, how much more so with the Sunday service? To change the corporate worship of God for the believers to a time of evangelism for the unbeliever is to turn the church on its head. Murdock and B.A. have read some of my posts on another site, and so they have read this a few times from me: the ultimate pragmatism for the Christian is relying on the firm foundation of God's Word and the power of the Gospel. Saddleback cannot claim to be standing on God's Word while it follows an unbiblical model of church. True, Saddleback may be prospering, but prosperity is not the measure of how well a church is being a church. The standard of measure is Scripture.
A few comments on things you have written:
“Now at our church we do show movie clips (cussing edited) or slide shows, I wouldn't say that we are conjuring emotions (although I am sure that some would say so).”
On the contrary, since the church service is catering to the unbeliever, the use of such movie clips and slideshows is for the purpose of conjuring the emotion of comfort.
“Not all people need the heavy elements of deep theology and apologetics to have a relationship with Christ.”
This is the equivalent of saying that wives don't need to know their husbands intimately in order to have a relationship. Forget how his mind works and the implications of his thoughts. Wives just need to know that they are loved without knowing what love means to their husbands. Sorry, that just doesn't fly. All of God's people need to know their God intimately. All of the church needs to know their Christ intimately.
By the way, if you argue that you were talking about unbelievers, your context wouldn't allow it since you follow up with:
“Now don't get me wrong… what these believers do grasp needs to be scripturally correct…”
Anyway, moving on…
“I find that most people are moved by the character of the Spirit (love, fellowship, generosity, etc.) than by heavy handed theology. But there are those people out there that need theology and apologetics (myself included) in order to be fed spiritually.”
Are you implying here that most people don't need to be fed spiritually with theology and apologetics? Seems like “fire insurance” theology to me.
“The time to grow deeper is during the rest of the week. Church is not just a Sunday thing.”
Since Saddleback has made the weekend services to cater to the unbeliever, believers have no choice but to try to grow deeper during the rest of the week. But is this really efficient? Most people work during the week, so their time is already pressed as it is. So for most people, the yoke of growing deeper during the week is heavy. But lo and behold, here comes Sunday, when most people are off from work. The yoke of growing deeper is light, but alas, Sunday service is catered to the unbeliever. Can't find anything too deep there. What about Sunday school and other classes on Sunday? This may be speculation, but I'm sure Saddleback doesn't want the unbelievers to just go off so quickly, do they? I wouldn't doubt that most programs on Sunday are also catered to the unbelievers. So much for the light yoke for the believers.
“And I feel it is essential to have these weekend services reach out to the unbeliever, and of course without sacrificing our 'christian culture' for 'the culture of the world.'”
But feeling has nothing to do with it. You are either Scriptural or not. And when you are not Scriptural, then you are sacrificing “christian culture”.
“How do you speak to contemporary culture? After all didn't Paul, as a tentmaker, try to find common ground with those who he was to share the gospel with? Don't missonaries to tribal villages find a common narrative already in their culture to show the relavance of the Bible stories to there life?”
You are projecting the individual efforts of outreach onto the church's function. The church's function is for the discipling of Christians. This includes the preaching of the Word, the distribution of the sacraments (definitely not for unbelievers), and exercising church discipline. Outreach is done in the public square in the marketplace of ideas, not in the church.
“I think the message of purpose is good as a starting point. The message of Love is key. And I see both as Biblical.”
Can you show Scripturally that “purpose” is a good starting point? I think not. Just read the Epistles. The encouragement to go and do good usually falls towards the end, not in the beginning. What is found in the beginnings are teachings (usually to counter errors in the church). “Purpose” as a starting point may be good to you, but it is unbiblical.
“I think a lot of generalizations are assumed about “Purpose Driven” church ministry.”
Apologistics ministries like STR don't have to assume. They just have to measure the
April 19th, 2005 at 10:17 am
Victor,
Thank you for you analysis of my arguments, you have denfinatly given me food for thought. Your arguments are the best so far.
I have done my best to represent my church where I see they stand. Pastors at my church may say that I have stated some things incorrectly.
But some good questions are raised as to the biblcal nature of the 'seeker-sensitive' style. I have enjoyed the banter as I knew the audience I would get from here.
Not fully conviced of the arguments, as I still feel there are general assumptions,(not only in the way Saddleback is viewed, but the way biblical church is also viewed) I will look into scripture more.
Please pray that I may gain wisdom and discernment; that it may be for all believers and for all churches.
Thanks again,
T.O.
April 19th, 2005 at 11:39 am
I heard that the Purpose Driven Life book hepled that lady convince that killer to turn himself in peacefully.
Must be doing something right, I figure.
April 19th, 2005 at 6:00 pm
Hi T.O.,
Perhaps you will have more for me to feed on after you have done your study and analysis.
I'm glad that my arguments has given you food for thought. I pray that it will help sharpen your thoughts, whether you agree or disagree with my analysis.
Hi Han,
Just because good came out of it does not justify it's theology. There are plenty of books out there with horrid theology, but any good that comes from it does not justify its teachings. Got Koran? Got Bhagavad Gita? I'm sure people who follow these books claim their teachings must be doing something right.
In Christ,
Victor
P.S. Greedo didn't have a chance
April 20th, 2005 at 1:11 am
Richard Abanes, a former staff member at Saddleback, has authored a new book examining the Purpose-Driven Life (apparently “Purpose-Driven” is trademarked). The book will hit shelves this July. Here's the press release:
http://abanes.com/RickWarren.html
Richard said this about it in a public email this morning:
“In July, when released, it will once and for all present my official position on:
May 12th, 2005 at 7:39 pm
actually the URL is now
http://abanes.com/warrenpressrelease.html
R. Abanes
May 13th, 2005 at 12:40 pm
Dear Victor,
I read with great interest your comments, and with all due respect, please allow me to provide some information that might be helpful in the discussion. Forgive me if I sound blunt, but I am actually writing in a fairly light-hearted tone (one that may or may not transfer clearly over to this forum).
V: about Saddleback, it is hardly the biblical model that is laid out in Scripture. Saddleback has it backwards in making the weekend church service cater to the unbeliever.
response: actually, this is an odd rumor that contains all sorts of loaded language. What do you mean by “cater to the unbeliever.” This kind of verbiage implies that the services are unbiblical, entertainment-oriented, soft on sin, devoid of the gospel, etc etc etc. Such is not true. Do you know what “seeker-sensitive” means, as it is used at Saddleback? (I do not speak for any other so-called “seeker” church). The facts are these (at Saddleback, at least).
- messages always include some kind of call to Christ
- God in Christ reconciling the world to Himself is presented as the ONLY way of salvation in the next life and peace/joy in this life.
- seeker-sensitive means being considerate to visitors and running the service in a way that will not distract from the message or the experience (for example, not making lengthy church announcements during the service that are irrelevant to visitors).
- explaining biblical concepts during the sermon that are understandable to non-believers unfamiliar with Christianese (or in-house Christian lingo).
- offering life application teachings that ALL attenders (Christian and non-Christian) can take with them during the week and start living out.
As you can see, such things are not catering to unbelievers as you seem to be implying, and as has been rumored. Have you ever been to Saddleback? Attended any conferences? Or listened to at least a sampling of service messages? And how exactly would you document that Saddleback has it backwards by supposedly catering to unbelievers (and all that such language implies).
V: Can you show from Scripture this is how it is to be done?
response: well, as you mean it, or seem to mean it, there is indeed no biblical support. but that is really moot since the kind of catering you imply is not what happens at saddleback.
V: I don't think it can be done, especially when Sunday church meeting finds its root in Sabbath observance in worshipping God.
response: i think this is a double-edged sword, my friend, and you ought be careful since it can be used to slice to bits just about every church now existing. If you really wanted to carry your argument out consistently, we all would have to find a temple to go to on Sabbath (which originally was Saturday, BTW). Or, we should all meet in people's homes since there were no “churches” as such among the earliest Christians, nor were there than pipe organs for music (a worldly invention), not to mention those worldly little morsels of bread we now use for communion
June 10th, 2005 at 7:35 pm
My web site is finally beginning to go up now.
I have my new page of the Religious Information Center set up (see http://www.abanes.com/ric.html)
LINKS WILL SLOWLY BEGIN APPEARING
the major link now working on this opening page is the main page on Rick Warren at
http://www.abanes.com/rickwarrenmain.html. included are topics:
June 11th, 2005 at 10:21 am
Thanks for the update!
July 1st, 2005 at 12:28 pm
george mair links are now operational at abanes.com. also included now is my first article that responds to Todd Wilken, lutheran radio talk show host of Issues, Etc. on KFUO. also the articles in my Lighthouse Trails Research Project series are now up.
RAbanes