HOME | NEW!! CHURCH JOB OPENINGS | ABOUT MMI | CATEGORIES OF INTEREST | CONTACT US

Bill Hybels Responds to “Reveal” Criticism

Orginally published on Monday, June 09, 2008 at 7:17 AM
by Todd Rhoades

A couple of weeks ago, Christianity Today ran an article entitled, "Willow Creek's Huge Shift" (subtitled Influential Mega Church Moves Away from Seeker Sensitive Services). Here's how the article started: “After modeling a seeker-sensitive approach to church growth for three decades, Willow Creek now plans to gear its weekend services toward mature believers seeking to grow their faith." Recently, Jim Millado sat down with Bill Hybels so that he could respond. It seems that from Bill's perspective, enough was enough, and it was time to set the record straight. Here are a few comments from Hybels on the situation (and on other reports that have come out from Reveal). You can also watch the video of the interview...



"I think it was an unfortunate article that was written without a proper understanding of what we’re actually doing these days. I mean, we have had the same one sentence mission statement for 32 years. We’re trying to turn irreligious people into fully devoted followers of Christ. We have never been more committed to either side of that mission statement. Some of the changes we’re making right now around Willow are to increase our evangelistic effectiveness. One of our big three strategic plan initiatives right now is raising the risk level as we point people to faith in Christ."

You might remember the first blog post that got all this controversy started was from Christianity Today's Out of Ur Blog. Their initial blog post was titled, "Willow Creek Repents". Hybels responded to that blog post as well: "I think every evangelical knows that’s kind of a loaded up term, and I think someone wanted to get some action on a blog, and I think it was very unfortunate and quite disingenuous to title the article that way. But such as it is, I will be the first to say we learn and grow at Willow. We make no apologies for wanting to get better at leading this church."

Go, Bill!

You can watch a video of the interview here, or read some other commentary on this interview from Dave Ferguson or Tony Morgan.

A couple of things for your input:

1.  What did you think of Bill’s response?  Clear?  Will it have an impact?  Was it necessary?

2.  It seems that much of the push-back seems to come initially from Christianity Today.  Is there a rub between CT and WC?  Or is CT just looking for a scoop to get more readers?  Any thoughts?


This post has been viewed 2569 times so far.



  There are 119 Comments:

  • Posted by

    Perhaps I’m responding prematurely, because I don’t have time right now to listen to the whole interview.  But based on what I read:

    1. Bill was clear that WC is still about reaching lost people, being a “seeker” church if you will.  He was not clear about what the Reveal study was and was not, so unless there is much more there (again, I didn’t listen to the interview), I’m sorry that he didn’t elaborate because not doing so makes him sound a bit defensive.
    2. No, it won’t make an impact.  Those who appreciate WC (like me) understood what they have come to realize, have always appreciated their commitment to learning, growing and changing their ministry methods and focus as needed.  Detractors will never listen to anything that affirms anything related to WC.  Heck, most don’t even believe that those who have found Jesus over the years at WC are “real Christians.”
    3.vI have found CT to objectively report everything that’s on the landscape.  They have run many, many articles by BH and other WC staff in Leadership Journal.  It surprises me that the “Out or Ur” post was titled “Willow Creek Repents.” I agree with BH, perhaps they were looking for something that would get activity on the blog.

    Wendi

  • Posted by Peter Hamm

    GREAT response, Bill! THANK YOU! CRYSTAL clear.

    As one who read the study carefully, followed the news from Willow on it, and whose church is now part of the study, none of this is a surprise, as this is what the study and what Willow has been saying about this all along.

    I suspect that we will find out just how many people will actually be impacted in the next day or two as the comments appear on this space.

  • Posted by Kevin Bussey

    I thought it was a clear and powerful response.  Not powerful because he was mad but because he made it clear what their purpose is.  Their purpose is to make followers of Christ.  What more do the Church Police want?

  • Posted by

    Maybe the “church police” have this crazy idea that the Bible being followed when it comes to “doing church”. 

    Maybe they think that a church should not be designed around the “felt needs” of the lost.

    Maybe they think that Hybels had ample time to clarify his position and wonders why the response took so long.

    Maybe they think that the solution shouldnt be taking yet another survey and rolling out another book and “product” to be sold and implemented in WCA churches.

    Maybe they see the effect of 32 years of seeker sensitive churches have produced. Youth are leaving the church in droves after they leave the church, biblical illiteracy, false converts, psycho-babble self help sermons, etc.

    Just a few guesses though......

  • Posted by Kevin Bussey

    Sam,

    Do you know for a fact that Willow isn’t preaching Jesus?  I know people whose lives have been changed for Christ because of what God did through Willow, Saddleback and other churches.  Maybe if the Church Police spent time sharing Jesus instead of nit-picking their own we wouldn’t see people leaving in droves.  Just a thought.

  • Posted by Peter Hamm

    Sam,

    I think you’ve proven the limitations of the impact this statement will have. If I may indulge myself…

    [Maybe the “church police” have this crazy idea that the Bible being followed when it comes to “doing church”.]

    I have visited Willow and similar churches and serve in a similar church. We follow the Bible. So does Willow. It still mystifies me that people assume they and we don’t.

    [Maybe they think that a church should not be designed around the “felt needs” of the lost.] Willow is designed around the great commission, and designed around the mission to turn irreligious people into fully devoted followers of Christ. They minister to “felt needs” just like Jesus did when he fed the hungry and healed the hurting.

    [Maybe they think that Hybels had ample time to clarify his position and wonders why the response took so long.] Did you read the REVEAL study? I did. There was nothing to clarify. Bill is being extra-gracious with this, a re-telling of what has already been told.

    [Maybe they think that the solution shouldnt be taking yet another survey and rolling out another book and “product” to be sold and implemented in WCA churches.] I will pay good money for anything that helps me follow Jesus in my church leadership role and reach people and change lives better. It’s money well spent. And to think that prayer and seeking God was not part of this whole process is to make an assumption based on (obviously) a lack of knowledge of what really has happened with REVEAL.

    [Maybe they see the effect of 32 years of seeker sensitive churches have produced. Youth are leaving the church in droves after they leave the church, biblical illiteracy, false converts, psycho-babble self help sermons, etc.] I wish you could see our seeker-sensitive church with so many youth that I’ve personally discipled who are becoming great men and women of God, people who are reading the Bible every day and learning about God more all the time, people who are true converts who are making a serious, noticeable difference for Christ in their town and in their world. We had very low attendance at one of our services in February which is my proudest “attendance” figure of the whole year… Why? Because over 10% of our church was on mission trips… at the SAME TIME! And that’s just that one week! I’ve seen the kind of Christ-followers that are part of Willow that make me very pleased to be associated with them in any way, even if only as a member of the association.

    You speak of what, I suspect, you do not know, Sam.

  • Posted by

    Can you provide me with Biblical support that the Church gathering together for worship should be designed to “attract” the lost or centered around the “felt needs” of the unchurched? After Jesus fed the masses with the loaves and fishes, they returned the next day to again have their “felt needs” met and Jesus hit them with some hard teachings and many of them left even to the point of Jesus asking his disciples if they wanted to leave too. The church was designed to edify the believers and equip them to go out and evangelize. It was not designed in and of itself as an evangelism method mimicking the lost world.

    As an aside, can you also provide me with scripture that supports Hybels meeting with the group soulfource?

  • Posted by Peter Hamm

    Sam,

    Can you provide me with Scripture which shows that we should criticize and condemn a church based on what we read on the internet and hear on the radio, when in fact they are churning out people who are sold out to follow Jesus?

    [The church was designed to edify the believers and equip them to go out and evangelize.] That’s what Willow and churches like mine do. I’m SO sorry that you can’t see that. We were commissioned (the WHOLE church) to make disciples as we go. That’s what we are doing. Again, it mystifies that you can’t see that.

  • Posted by

    Peter, just to correct one of your assertions. people making a difference in their community or going on missions trips does not equate them to being “true converts”. Lost people go in mission trips. Lost people make a difference in their community also. One of the dangers of “seeker sensitive” churches is that these lost people actually believe they are saved because after they raised their hand, walked the aisle, or signed the commitment card they were never truly discipled and tested to see if they displayed fruits of their conversion. They just became another number that the “seeker sensitive” church could claim that they saved.

  • Posted by

    Nice pragmatic, nonresponsive, evasive answer. Where is your scriptural support for designing a church around the lost? It mystifies me that you can blatantly disregard scriptural and cling to a man centered “the ends justify the means” mentality.

    I agree that we are to evangelize and make disciples but not in the context of the local church meeting together for worship.We are to go out into the world and evangelize. AND Willow Creek has admitted that it is doing a poor job at discipleship.

  • Posted by Peter Hamm

    And Sam, to correct your assumption.

    I KNOW these people, you do not. I can see the fruit of the Spirit in their lives, and you can not. And they do these things because they love and follow Jesus and want everybody else to, too. Period.

    The church is not designed around the lost, Sam. It’s designed around Jesus. And Jesus commanded us to make disciples. And that’s what we do.

    You make it clear from your statements, Sam, that you have no real knowledge of what a church like ours does. (and we are very much like Willow, unashamedly.)

    I have no more time to argue with you (busy week of planning, equipping, encouraging, exhorting, and just plain living life as a pastor to people who love Jesus and to others who are trying to figure it all out, if you will), because you are not listening to me, and you are unable to admit that it’s even possible, it seems, that the people who come to know Christ in a church like Willow or a church like mine are genuine converts. You seem more interested in arguing over semantics that mean nothing, meaningless debates about words and geneologies. I’m truly sorry, because I believe you are much poorer for that.

  • Posted by

    Peter, still cant provide me with that scriptural support? Let me know when you find it. I am interested in biblical support for your position which is far from meaningless. It is not a matter of semantics. It is a matter of being faithful to what we are biblically called to do.

    I acknowledge that there are true converts within WCA churches. But there are also false converts that are deluded into believing they are saved because the church has done very little to instruct them on “working out your salvation”. Narrow is the way...not wide.

    I am sorry i have taken your time away from commenting on every story that is posted here. Carry on.

  • Posted by Kevin Bussey

    Sam,

    Where is your Scriptural Support for criticizing other ministries?

    Philippians 1:15-18

    It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. The latter do so in love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.

  • Posted by

    Sam,

    If feeling passionate enough to reach the least and the lost by sacrificing time and resources to go out of my comfort zone on a mission trip isn’t evidence of conversion fruit . . . what on earth do you use to measure fruit.  Of course lost people go on mission trips.  Lost people sit in your church every week (well, maybe your church doesn’t welcome lost people, so this may not apply to your church).  You have a lot of _____ to challenge Peter, with whom, I assume, you’ve never even had a conversation, that the people he is in relationship with and has discipled aren’t really Christians.  WAAAAY out of line.

    Can you provide us with biblical support for?
    • Owning a church building
    • Having a choir
    • A sound system
    • Pews
    • A monthly church newsletter
    • Adult Sunday school classes

    These are ridiculous questions intended to point out the ridiculousness of your positions, which of course you won’t get.  Here’s a couple of real questions?

    How many WC or other SS false Christians who raised their hand, signed a card, walked an isle have you met and subsequently “converted” through your correct biblical methods and tested to prove their conversion through fruits?  If you don’t have first hand evidence of the accusations you make – you have no business making them.

    Here’s another, have any of your “converts” ever fallen away from their faith?  I presume the answer is yes (unless you are more effective than Jesus)?  Ah, proof positive that you must be using unbiblical methods for church and evangelism.

    Sorry for the sarcasm, but sometimes the statements by people like you sicken me, and this morning was one of those times.

    Wendi

  • Posted by

    Sam,

    I was lurking around when bob went off on you last week for the same stuff you are doing now. While I am sad for his anger and the way he attacked, I think he was right on the money with you.

    You are obviously here just to pick a fight. Not only that, but your arguments are asinine, lacking merit of any research and your knowledge of scripture, to me, is suspect given how you are so willing to discount so obvious an impact for the kingdom of God.

    What if Sam, YOU are not a TRUE CONVERT? I will not be so rude and obnoxious to make assumptions about you salvation. But I will say this, you sure as heck don’t sound like Jesus to me.

  • Posted by

    Bill did a great job in clarifying some of the reporting “mistakes” make by CT. Go Bill!

  • Posted by

    OK, now that we’ve totally gotten away from the 2 questions that Todd posed to us WAAAAY at the top of this page ....
    1) Bill’s response was very clear, and yes, I blieve it was necessary. Not for Willow, but for us naysayers out here who want to jump and think the worst. I am comforted by hearing his heart on this. Also, one of the first posts above laments Bill’s being “unclear” about Reveal. But this video wasn’t abouyt Reveal; its sole purpose was to dispel to misinformation that these two articles have spread about Willow’s services and direction. Plus, Tony Morgan’s blog post says that a source at Willow told him that there will be several other videos like this from Bill that will be released soon, so I feel comfortable that the full story will be told.

    2) There is definitely a rub between CT and Willow. I lived in the area for many years and watched how CT covered Willow for years. Going all the way back to the mid-90s, they put Hybels on the cover with the big headline “Selling Out the House of God?” A year or two later, when Hybels spoke in Haumburg, Germany, their headline read “Hybels Does Hamburg,” you know, kind of like “Debbie Does Dallas,” wink, wink. And then the Out of Ur blog (which is a CT property) and then the recent article in CT itself. Gee, what do you think? It’s surprising that CT never mentions the fact that Willow gives away more money every year to the poor and disenfranchised than any other church in the world. Is that not news? Their outreach is unparalleled, but the only time CT covers them is when they can get cheap shots at them. I am not questioning CT’s integrity as a news source; what I am saying is that someone(s) at CT is definitely not a Willow fan, and they show it everytime they do a Willow article. As a former member of Willow (I moved out of state), this irks me to no end.

  • Posted by Mark Broadbent

    Hi Sam

    I don’t know you. I disagree with most of what you have said. But I think you ask a good question…

    [Can you provide me with Biblical support that the Church gathering together for worship should be designed to “attract” the lost or centered around the “felt needs” of the unchurched?]

    My thoughts…

    (A) 1 Cor 14:22-25
    > Paul expected unbelievers to come in.
    > He was willing to make some changes because they were there.

    (B) I personally don’t think Willow or Saddleback necessarily consider the weekend service to be the church. I think they consider the people of God to be the church. And that their small groups and mid-week services are much more catered to them. Warren talks about the difference between a ‘CROWD’ (weekend) and a ‘CONGREGATION’ (small groups).

    (C) We started our church because we wanted to have a place to invite unchurched friends. Andy Stanley says ‘Far more personal evangelism takes place if Christians have a place to invite their friends’.
    We have addressed issues such as ‘don’t be yoked with unbelievers’, ‘why can’t all religions be right?’, ‘living as a missionary’. All with unbelievers present. We do not shy away from the truth. We are really hard-hitting on sin, and the need to repent, and turn to Jesus as our only hope to save us and to make us holy.

  • Posted by

    I listened to the interview and would have added a few questions for Bill.  1)If strategic changes are commonplace within your organization then why write a book about this one, referring to “Shift”.  2)If your goal is to pattern the Acts 2 church can you point to the yearly “strategic” changes that church made.  3)Do you regret making “seeker” a popular term?

    I do sense that Bill truly has a heart for reaching the lost and making sure they grow in Christ. But In my opinion Willowcreek is an example of an organization that has grown way to big to fulfill their mission statement.  The people would be much better served if they were in churches where these “strategic” changes were not constantly needed and where they fall under the loving care of a Shepherd/Pastor who can leave the 99 for the 1.  Love is still the best method Christians have to offer the lost and we can’t love them if we don;t know them.

  • Posted by

    Sam,
    I don’t want to be accused of misusing Scripture, but Luke 15 (Lost Sheep, Lost Coin, Lost Son) seems to indicated, especially with the Lost Sheep, that Jesus is very much more concerned with the lost rather than the found.
    I’m surely not going to fault WC and Peter for leading churches who may choose to make a major effort to reach the lost. In fact, i applaud them for their ministry efforts.
    Bob

  • Posted by Tye Male

    Large church + large outreach + large impact = large target. No one at Christianity is making any statements about our church, which is a 1500 weekend attendance church growing at around 10 % a year consistently.

    I personally love what Willow Creek is doing and have benefited greatly from its ministry.

    I thought Bill’s response was gracious and well done. And it was straightforward and to the point. Keep up the great Bill.

  • Posted by

    My biggest problem with the “seeker sensitive” movement isn’t one of practice or doctrine really its more disillusionment.

    Where the heck are all the “seekers” Rom. 3 “No one seeks after God” we have tried just about EVERYTHING to attract the local sinners to our church, no one comes, they don’t care. about the things of God or what He offers, we have shown compassion, shown God’s love reached out to our community and they still want nothing to do with God or care to darken the churches door. I am so disgusted I am ready to shout from my steeple “like Jesus,"Fill up then!” you wanna go to hell, go right ahead! Pray for me, please.

  • Posted by

    I still find myself scratching my head when I hear the words “seeker sensitive” and reading Romans 3:11 which says, “There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.” Oh, well.  Looks like nothing changes here…

    --
    CS

  • Posted by

    Job,

    I think you raise some great thoughts/questions. I don’t agree with all of it but here is how I think we are in line.

    I would be curious to know how he would answer question 1. Not that I think her has a bad answer for it, but I think I could learn from the answer.

    As far as the church in Acts, I think you make to much of a leap here. We don’t have any real information about how they did things. What we have is a loose explanation. I think the PD church is based on acts 2. Fellowship (hanging out), large group Worship gatherings (apostles teaching), breaking of bread (small groups, these were meals together, not communion as we know it today), and to prayer. Outside of that, we don’t know anything else about them as it pertains to how they operated and how they changed things to do more, or even if they did. I think it is a faulty assumption.

    But you are correct when you say the best way to reach someone is to love them, and that is hard if you don’t know them. I just thing that it may just be that there are people that are known that are being reached, we just don’t know it. It is a misnomer to assume that if a church is too big it does not change people effectively. Remember, the Holy Spirit is the one that does this.

  • Posted by Peter Hamm

    Jim,

    This isn’t the place for a theological debate, but Scripture makes it clear that those that God draws actually do seek Him. They can’t find him on their own of course, but Jesus makes it clear that He draws men to himself.

    I will pray for you, it’s so hard sometimes…

    And JOB,

    Small group ministries in big churches make a big difference. It’s the kind of ministry Jesus seemed to model with his twelve, and it was certainly the kind of ministry practiced in homes in the first century. I mean, no way was Peter able to personally minister to all of those 3000 in history’s first “megachurch”. I would argue that as soon as your church passes about 50 or 100 you can no longer be (nor should you be) the primary one doing “ministry” to all of those people. People are just way too broken.

  • Page 1 of 5 pages

     1 2 3 >  Last »
Post Your Comments:

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Live Comment Preview:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below: