Traditioned Innovation – Two Funerals
Building from a rich history and tradition, Evangelicals have the opportunity to innovate towards the next adjacent possible. Duke Divinity School proposes that traditioned innovation is “a way of thinking and being that holds the past and future in tension, not in opposition, [and] is crucial to the growth and vitality of Christian institutions” (Faith and Leadership). The most meaningful innovative advancements are not disjoint from the past, but challenge the status quo from within the current time and culture. A deep understanding of the history of Evangelicalism is necessary for the most meaningful adjustments, changes, and innovation.
In that vein, D. W. Bebbington’s book, Evangelicalism in Modern Britain, thoroughly lays the foundation of the last three hundred years of Evangelical history in Britain (and the West). It informs and surveys in a way that creates a deep well from which to draw keen insights and fresh ideas. Bebbington will go so far as to even use the word “innovation” or a derivative when speaking about fields of prophecy and the understanding of scripture (88), the effects of Romanticism (104), engagement with the arts and social concern (182-183), church rituals (204), and theologians being influenced by popular thought (272). Evangelicalism, specifically, and Protestantism, generally, is by its very nature innovative and constantly changing. Ecclesia sempre reformada – the church is always reforming. One would do well to intimately know the complex history of Evangelicalism to capitalize on that tradition, nuance, and history when considering alternative future realities – the goal of any global leader.
The Enlightenment and Imaginative Innovation – A Funeral
Bebbington situates Evangelicalism as a traditioned innovation around interaction with Enlightenment thinking: “To recognise the early phase of Evangelicalism as an adaptation of the Protestant tradition
through contact with the Enlightenment helps explain its timing” (53). The Enlightenment and following counter-reaction,Romanticism, divorced intuition and imagination, and Christian thought has been trying to effectively marry them ever since. I lament as I read a eulogy of a well-known pastor, where his friend praised him by saying, “He waved no plumes, wreathed no garlands, but struck from the shoulder and at the vitals. He was destitute of poetry and barren of imagination” (quoted in Hughes, 36). Imagine yourself sitting in a pew at a friend’s funeral. The eulogy begins and you know this person is trying to think of the highest compliments and most moving way to honor and remember a someone, and the eulogizer chooses to say “He was destitute of poetry and barren of imagination”. It was a good thing, according to the speaker, to be fully reliant on intuition and reason. What a statement to grieve!
As I consider the extremes of overemphasizing reason and imagination, my current working formula for innovation is:
Innovation = Imagination x Integrative Thinking x Implementation
I seek to marry the imaginative approach of what God might do as he is “making all things new” (Revelation 21:5, cf. Isaiah 43:19), with the intuitive, and even scientific reasoning, found in systems or integrative thinking. All the while, their is a bias towards action and implementation. Being steeped in the biblical narrative of God’s redemption should form a Christian imagination of justice, righteousness and peace. The incarnation and the new heavens and the new earth provide a vision and depth of resource that far exceeds the “gods” of Silicon Valley. It’s not enough, however, to have this imagination for what could be, one also needs the tools of integrative thinking at their disposal, including inductive reasoning, hypotheses and an ability to handle many variables. Last, innovation is a more than a think tank with need an implementation of new ideas.
The Limits or Warnings of Innovation within Evangelicalism
Bebbington’s book gifts me with pause to consider the limits or warnings of attempting to innovative in an Evangelical context. In invite your input as I heed these warnings.
- The Post-Enlightenment era overemphasizes inductive and scientific reasoning. Many Design Thinking methodologies assume a hypothesis/test approach to complex problem solving. Might there be room for the Spirit to lead apart from the result of a prototype?
- Evangelicalism has an infatuation with pragmatism (54-66). The utilitarian approach to innovation might lead to both means and ends that are out of step with God’s intent.
- As a result, one must be careful to not innovate God out of the picture. As an example, those attempting to copy the methods of revivals in hopes of current renewal have shifted their functional faith from God’s movement to proven methodology.
- Beware Evangelicalism’s propensity to adapt to the trends of the time. Bebbington’s introduction lays out the dual nature of Evangelicalism impacting culture and culture impacting Evangelicalism (1-2).
A Darker Tradition Calling for Innovation
In terms of critique, Bebbington’s complete negligence of colonialism, imperialism, and nationalism is a gross oversight at least, and a perpetrator of continued blindness at most. While Bebbington’s quadrilateral of coversionism, activism, biblicism, and crucicentrism (3) is incredibly helpful, all but activism focuses on a theological understanding. The definition implies Evangelicals are distinct mostly by what they believe, a little bit about their actions, but ignores the cultural moment and context in which it was formed. Imperialism and Colonialism are the umbrella for the quadrilateral or the table on which it sets. This flavored missionary endeavors to local people, issues of class, and the large separation of evangelism and social concern among Fundamentalists. I believe the richest innovations won’t come from the extremes on the poles of ignoring/ignorance and disassociating with Evangelicalism all together. The challenge for the 21st century Evangelical leader will be to innovate within this tradition.
An Innovative Funeral
Back to the funeral, might the eulogy of being “destitute of poetry and barren of imagination” stand redeemed. Another picture of a funeral might provide the vision for tradition innovation needed to capture both the positive of Bebbing’s history and a redemptive example from the shadow side of Evangelical heritage. A much different experience would be had at a different funeral… a New Orleans jazz funeral.
Louisiana’s colonial past emphasized military brass bands for white citizens. Combining with West African spiritual practices, and Mardi Gras Indians, New Orleanians of color gave rise to an entirely new experience of celebrating life and mourning death. These funerals have a beautiful way of honoring tradition – symbolized in the chord structure and timing of the music, while looking to the newness of life for those in heaven and remaining here – symbolized by the improvisation of the musicians. This funeral procession, along with rag music, military brass bands and blues, were the traditions from which jazz music innovated. The New Orleans jazz funeral took a tradition marred with brokenness and injustice and innovated something beautiful embodying God’s work of making all things new. Might that encourage us to what’s possible in our own traditioned innovations.
__
- W. Bebbington. Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s (London: Routledge, 1989).
“Faith and Leadership: Traditioned Innovation” Duke Divinity. Accessed 1/10/2020.
https://faithandleadership.com/category/principles-practice-topics/traditioned-innovation
Richard T. Hughes. Reviving the Ancient Faith (Abilene Texas: Abilene Christian University Press, 1996).
About the Author
Shawn Cramer
13 responses to “Traditioned Innovation – Two Funerals”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Shawn,
Love the funeral metaphor for transformation into something new and life giving. What would it look like to both honor and usher out evangelicalism, a religion “destitute of poetry and barren of imagination”? What might fill the space it leaves in its absence? What aspects are kept and what is discarded? Certain sects of evangelicalism are dying in their current state. Dying isn’t a bad thing. It’s natural. But Death, fueled by sin, that is a definite end, and is a place of separation, which thankfully through Christ has been overcome. Right now, I see conservative evangelicals dying a slow, Grade B movie actor death, fueled by sin (pride, hate, disgust, prejudice, etc). Do you think this is because of the warnings you noted above? That in many ways they have managed to push God and the Spirit out of the equation? Or its picking and choosing which aspects of culture it wants to cling/adapt to?
Darcy, this gets very tricky (for lack of a better word), as I wouldn’t extend the “barren of imagination” quote to all of Evangelicalism. This is why I contend that Bebbington’s Quadrilateral needs to take note of the historicity and culture in which it was created. There was something in the Modernist/Fundamentalist schism and the social gospel/fundamentalist debate that forced conservative Evangelicals to double-down on rationality, a particular imagination-quenching take on Scripture, and a premillennial eschatology that weakened the Christian imagination. I’m going to need to do some thinking if the essence of Evangelicalism poisoned its culture, or visa versa.
Shawn! Am encouraged by the criticism of what the author misunderstood and to only concentrate on Evangelicalism.
Great and inspiring with a funeral analogy. The good thing is that though they buried there is hope for resurrection
Shawn.
I greatly appreciate (and agree with) the idea that to innovate forward, one must have command of what was. In light of that, I would love to hear you interact with John 12:24 where Jesus speaks of life coming up only after death.
Let’s have some fun!
Jer, it seems like you are baiting me for something, but I’m not sure exactly what. 🙂 I wouldn’t initially rely on John 12 to be a text to inform institutional change. I’m having to do a lot of thinking about how Bebbington’s quadrilateral which to me seems so positive, brought us to where we are at. I’m having a hard time wondering if those four aspects inevitably lead to some of the characteristics you are against, or if the influence of the quadrilateral pales in comparison to the influence of the world wars, Darwinism, Modernism, and the like. Bebbington talks about a mutual influence of Evangelicalism and culture, and I think this characteristic more than the quadrilateral has impacted the culture of broad Evangelicalism
Shawn
I appreciate taking the time to look at and write out the warning you gained from Bebbington. May I suggest a revision of your formula with these warnings in mind.
Innovation = imagination x innovative thinking x
implementation / divided by discernment
I find that the problem isn’t a lack of innovation it is asking the question: Just because we can should we? There is little thought to the cost and ramifications surrounding our innovational changes.
A good example is abortion: Taking away all moral opinions and beliefs surrounding abortion was there any though as to the socio-economical ramifications of this process. Over the decades an entire generation of humans have been aborted from the workforce leaving concerns over the future of social security. What innovations, art, scientific breakthroughs, skills and legacy have been eliminated all in favor of this process. We have a history of making changes without ever asking whether we should or looking at the long term costs and effects. Would we have dropped the A-bomb on Japan if we really would have looked at the long term ramifications and knew what we know now about nuclear weapons?
Point taken, Greg. Thank you for your engagement with that formula. It’s the essence of my research to date. If I had some more time here I would talk about how Revelation 21 provides the “why” of innovation. A Christian imagination, I would argue, is by its very nature reflective and thoughtful and informs “what” we innovate and “how” we innovate. The second part of my equation (integrative thinking) also would imply some second-order thinking (which you provide somereally potent examples of).
Thanks for pointing out the warnings, Shawn. I want to piggy back a bit on what Greg was saying in light of the fourth warning you picked out. Adding the division by discernment is important because there’s always that question of “Are we innovating for culture’s sake or are we innovating for the church’s sake?” On top of that, does innovating or changing something in the church run the risk of it losing what actually makes it the church? How can you innovate while still remaining true to the core values of your identity? Ultimately, this is the question that I feel like we’re always wrestling with. How much is too much? The line begins to blur after a while until there’s no line at all. Or maybe that’s also the point, that there shouldn’t be a line? Would be keen on your thoughts about this.
Good warnings here. I’m suggesting that an innovator be so immersed in the overarching narrative of the raw-materials of Eden to the garden-city of Rev. 21-22, that they largely intuit or largely sense the constrictions inherent in Christian innovation.
You wrote, ” It’s not enough, however, to have this imagination for what could be, one also needs the tools of integrative thinking at their disposal, including inductive reasoning, hypotheses and an ability to handle many variables.” I wonder how you would use historical markers in this equation. For example, as exec pastor in one of the opportunities I’ve had, I believe the lead pastor brought the matters you are concerned about, but I did not hear about the history of the large church. He said it along the way, I just didn’t hear.
Steve, thanks for your engagement here, but forgive me as I don’t know exactly what you are asking. Let me try – I would mark both the Enlightenment and Romanticism with a separation of rationalism and imagination. I would point to the post-WWII “promised land” rhetoric around the US as a place where complex problems (spawning from an extended exilic metaphor instead) were mistreated.
Really appreciated your critique and recognition of where Bebbington really ignored some of the messier aspects of the movements of our faith as well as your insight that innovation won’t likely come from the extremes. I’m a self-described centrist in my own tribe, so I’m genuinely in knowing more about how we innovate and lead from the middle. Thoughts?
Innovation begins with a shared imaginative vision for an alternate future reality. If that is common or drives consensus beyond our typical spectrums of thought, then change is possible. Largely, prophets are to critique what has strayed and envision what could be, and I think the true leaders will be those that can do the latter.