David Morris

I agree that drama is a horrid means of "reaching unchurched Harry." But, our problem arrises *not* from the proverbial worm can.

1. To date, no writing has come close to accurately representing the lost person's world-view. They simply cannot relate to that character onstage who is supposed to be "one of them." The characters have either trite problems, or earth-shattering problems presented as trite (which is more often the case--Johnny's dying, Mr. So-and-So's house burning down). The lost person has no voice, no part in our play. It's like we stand onstage and say, "This is how we wish witnessing would work; so come out to Thursday night visitation and make it happen!" All the while, unchurched Harry sees only a shallow, poorly-acted "fiction" about some religious people, or, worse, a misrepresented, maligned version of himself.

2. Why misrepresented and maligned? (I will here and now open another stinky can of worms--watch out.) Most Christian drama highlights the moment of decision, the choice of salvation as the crisis point. By placing the emphasis on this choice, the play then becomes a comfortable exultation for the church body, "Good, church member, you made the right choice. Look at this bad person, he hasn't made the right choice. Aren't you smart!" And the opposite is also implied: "Any intelligent person can see that this is the right decision! You have not made the right decision, you dolt!" Why is this such an issue? We none of us are "smart enough" to make this "rational" choice. If we were, there would be no need of a decision, for mankind would have long since forsaken sin as illogical and impractical.

I assert that the problem in Christian drama lies not in a defective tool, but in our arrogant thinking (myself included). God did not save me because of my "smarts." I am not saved because somehow, I managed to make the "right decision" while thousands of others were too stupid to see the right answer. I am saved by grace, glorious grace. And that grace does a work I cannot comprehend. The crisis point of salvation is no human decision, but a work of redeeming grace. The beauty of salvation (and of sanctification) is not the choice I make, but the Holy Spirit I am given. God dwells in us, with us.

I realize of course, that this brings drama out of the safe comforting realm in which we have confined it. It's easy to say, "I have made a logical, rational decision, and you should, too." It's a whole lot harder to say, "There is an element of the mystical in our faith. No man can comprehend the Word Incarnate without the illumination of the Holy Spirit." The first we can do in our own strength. The second, only in His.

To say categorically that "drama is a horrid means of 'reaching unchurched Harry'" is a leap that I'm not willing to take for several reasons.

First, I hate all categorical statements (and yes, I know that's a categorical statement) because there is always some instance that does not fit the sweeping generality.

Second, I disagree with Pritchard's assessment--the whole "can-o-worms" syndrome. But to view the drama ALONE is to miss Willow Creek's entire point. Their point is that the drama is not MEANT to stand alone. Therefore, the can of worms problem is taken care of in the "talk"--at least that's the theory.

Third, Stephanie may be right for the vast majority of dramatic literature, i.e., it does not represent accurately the perspective of a lost person. However, I'm back to reason #1--that categorical statement just isn't categorically true. I have just read a Christmas script that does an excellent job presenting a rather "normal" lost person. The author specifically avoided stereotypes with the main character. In fact, the supporting characters are intentionally stereotyped to help emphasize the "normality" of the main character.

Fourth, I disagree with Stephanie's assessment of the "moment of decision." Her post reveals a very specific (rather Calvinistic) agenda--an agenda that I happen to think is correct! However, our correct emphasis on salvation's being entirely a work of God does not negate the supposed "moment of decision." Every lost person who is faced with the gospel comes to some moment of decision. Granted, when that decision is made for the right, they still have nothing to boast about, but the decision was there nonetheless. Evangelism is still a necessity and moral responsibility is still a reality. If drama can be used to emphasize those, then by all means use it!

In other words, drama CAN be an effective tool for presenting lost people with a message about which they MUST make a choice. Unfortunately, drama is often not used well (e.g., bad acting, bad writing, all those categorical statements above). However, just because it has a reputation of being done poorly does not mean that the tool itself is a poor tool. If someone uses the wrong end of hammer he may conclude that a hammer is a useless tool for driving nails. In reality, he is using the tool in the wrong way.

One more thought: Has it occurred to anyone that many of Willow Creek's dramas are NOT evangelistic? Willow Creek is not known for being a bastion of gospel preaching in the first place. In like manner, most of their dramas deal with issues such as teen immorality, family relationships, etc. Can we not deal with those issues--to Christians--through drama? [Disclaimer: I'd rather not, but the question still stands.]

In summary, to declare drama a "horrid" or even useless means of presenting truth is to view the situation far too narrowly. There is much more at stake here than even the issues we've alredy dealt with.

Here is a former script writer from Willow Creek with his philosophy of Drama in the church. Check it out: http://www.dave-marsh.com/

wow, will. thanks. very interesting.

thanks for the great link, will.

to clarify (i think):
since Steph has changed her major out of the ed department into script writing, and since both "creekers" and will obviously value the power of drama, i think so far all the discussion has been about the "how" and "how best" of drama.

to me, the questions of "should we for both unsaved and saved," "when should we," and "how much should we" are similarly important.

but please all, continue...

Perhaps I may clarify.

1. I have been reared in New Evangelical churches, and the Christian drama that I have there been exposed to has not been effective in evangelism. I see more potential in fundamentalist movements, but we (and I include myself) have a long way to go.

2. World view, and the portrayal of unsaved characters: if you will note, I mentioned that "to date" I had not seen a script that accurately portrayed the unsaved. That does not negate the possibility of there being some such scripts.

3. My comments regarding the moment of decision: I am not nor will I ever negate man's decision. But when we magnify the decision as logical, rationale, and a point of pride, then we have fallen. I have no problem with scripts that include a decision, or even use that as the crisis point. My beef comes with our (and again, our includes me) attitude when we portray such things.

As Mr. Morris pointed out, I obviously believe that drama can and should be used among the Christians. Why else would I be pursuing this as my major?

I am sorry to have caused so much of a stir. Perhaps I should choose my words more carefully.

I appreciate and whole-heartily agree with Dave Marsh's comments on drama supporting the church. If you guys haven't checked out that link, you should. Thanks, Will.

Thanks for the clarification, Stephanie. I think we're both on the same page.

Now to adress Mr. Morris' continuing concerns:

1. Should we? You may not like my answer, but here it is: Yes...if it works in your culture. If not, drop it. This is not a strictly biblical issue, so we can be more pragmatic with it.

2. When should we? Whether we use drama in a worship service or not is a question I can't answer for anyone other than myself.

3. How much should we? Again, just my opinion. Not too much. It gets old fast.

That's it. Just my opinions. I think drama CAN be useful in evangelism and edification. And I agree with Stephanie that those of us who hold very strongly to a God-centered soteriology should be the ones writing the drama! Keep it up, Steph!

1. See Will's comments; I agree.
2. As for the worship service...again, we tread the area of personal preference. And after 7 months on the drama ministry team, I prefer not to see drama in the worship service.
3. To what extent. Drama should not be the main ministry of the church (I say this because I grew up in a church where this was the case). Nor should Drama overshadow the other ministries.

Have any of you experienced how Willow uses drama first hand? You can discuss it endlessly but unless you see talented execution of it the discussions aren't relevant. Willow has a lot of experience in what works and what doesn't where drama is concerned. It is part of the fabric and culture of the church experience not isolated drama pieces. Their's a voice and a tone to how it's done. Drama does what drama can do and not what it cannot. Questions are often asked but emotional connection is also very common. Drama is also increadibly talent dependant good material plus good performes can result in an effective result but if one or the other is lacking the whole thing can miss. Let's not forget that and form opinions based on a small sampling of examples.