 |
|
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 2570 times so far.
There are 119 Comments:
I'm a chronic workaholic, love to connect leaders with other leaders, and would consider myself somewhat of a 'maven'. Hopefully you'll find something here at MMI you'll like and will return often. If you want, you can find out more about me or follow my every step.
MondayMorningInsight.com | PO Box 446 | Bryan, OH 43506 |
-
Posted by
Thursday, June 12, 2008 at 3:16 PM
-
Posted by
Thursday, June 12, 2008 at 3:20 PM
-
Posted by
Thursday, June 12, 2008 at 4:19 PM
-
Posted by
Thursday, June 12, 2008 at 4:22 PM
-
Posted by Peter Hamm
Thursday, June 12, 2008 at 9:27 PM
-
Posted by
Thursday, June 12, 2008 at 10:52 PM
-
Posted by Peter Hamm
Friday, June 13, 2008 at 6:42 AM
-
Posted by
Friday, June 13, 2008 at 6:57 AM
-
Posted by
Friday, June 13, 2008 at 7:27 AM
-
Posted by
Friday, June 13, 2008 at 8:23 AM
-
Posted by Peter Hamm
Friday, June 13, 2008 at 8:48 AM
-
Posted by
Friday, June 13, 2008 at 8:57 AM
-
Posted by
Friday, June 13, 2008 at 9:10 AM
-
Posted by
Friday, June 13, 2008 at 9:25 AM
-
Posted by
Friday, June 13, 2008 at 9:40 AM
-
Posted by
Friday, June 13, 2008 at 10:08 AM
-
Posted by
Friday, June 13, 2008 at 10:24 AM
-
Posted by
Friday, June 13, 2008 at 11:49 AM
-
Posted by
Friday, June 13, 2008 at 10:13 PM
Post Your Comments:Wendi:
“And CS, nearly everything we have in church today would be worldly for the 1st century audience. Owning buildings, having organs and sound systems, FT paid pastors, computers, e-mail, internet . . . You have chosen which “worldly” things are acceptable. If you’d done that simply for your own ministry that would be fine, but you are imposing you definition onto all of Christendom, and that my friend is sinful judging.”
By your standards, for an example, would having a sermon series on the latest summer blockbusters or billboards showing people in the sack to draw people in constitute as “worldly” or not? And would it be right or wrong to judge and say that we should or should not have that in our churches?
Leonard:
“Notice all how poorly the use of James 4 was given here. Completely out of context and not on point.”
I pose the same question and examples I gave to Wendi to you under the context of James 4, which was in context (go back one page further to see my first reference and elaboration).
Again, I’ll pose the question, “Is the Gospel of Christ not interesting or relevant enough to draw people in?”
--
CS
Now that I have made the 100th comment on this thread, I’d like to comment on the thought that gimmicks are bad, and unbiblical.
To quote paul…
Philippians 1:15-19
15 It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. 16 The latter do so in love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. 17 The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. 18 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.
Take notice of verse 17. Aren’t some of the commenters here saying that this is what Willow and churches like it are doing? I don’t think that this is what is happening at willow, or at any of the other churches that have had leaders post here, But I do know this - CS, JOB, Sam, you have all missed that as long as Christ is preached, it doesn’t mater.
I love that so many have found Christ through Willow, and others like it. They help to make the dent that so many churches that think like you are not. So instead of saying foolish things like...”...how do we know if they are true converts.”, and they water down the gospel, why not just rejoice that Christ is preached?
And spare me the comment that “they aren’t”. If you have been there and heard more than one message, and still find that to be true, than fine. Otherwise, I have a hard time giving those thoughts any merit.
-E
Eric, the problem is so many people think it is their wisdom that determines what is worldly. Showing compassion to people who struggle financially by giving them gas cards is not worldly. But some say it is. Building a bridge to guys who already think church is for women and children and men with nothing better to do by handing out a knife to them is not worldly. But some would misinterpret the scriptures to say it is.
A few weeks ago I was at a ball game (worldly activity I know, especially since it was on a Sunday morning). I was sitting next to this guy who was a total pagan. He was course in his language, filled with negative and man oh man could he put down the miller light. As we spoke I had an opportunity to share with him about our church. I told him about the medical clinic we built, the sewing centers we built, the reason we do what we do on a Sunday morning. His response was; If I knew of a church like that around me, it would change my mind about God. That is a church I wish I could be a part of.” Too bad he lives about 100 miles away.
Leonard:
“Eric, the problem is so many people think it is their wisdom that determines what is worldly.”
Qualify what is worldly, please. Or, give a couple of examples.
--
CS
CS writes
[By your standards, for an example, would having a sermon series on the latest summer blockbusters or billboards showing people in the sack to draw people in constitute as “worldly” or not? And would it be right or wrong to judge and say that we should or should not have that in our churches?…
...Again, I’ll pose the question, “Is the Gospel of Christ not interesting or relevant enough to draw people in?”]
No, CS, you’re missing our point I think. The Gospel is SO interesting and relevant that it extends to everything in our lives, including sex and the latest summer blockbusters. Don’t you see that we are not, I would argue, “making the Gospel relevant” as much as we are showing how relevant it is to EVERYTHING?
The argument is getting more tired all the time.
“The Gospel is SO interesting and relevant that it extends to everything in our lives, including sex and the latest summer blockbusters. Don’t you see that we are not, I would argue, “making the Gospel relevant” as much as we are showing how relevant it is to EVERYTHING? “
This is why I am not Emergent.
JOB, [This is why I am not Emergent.] I don’t think I am either. So what was wrong with my statement?
Again, as I think is being proven AGAIN! These debates are about methodology and style rather than theology, and I think you’re missing that. Too bad.
Peter,
It’s theological. I’m trying to understand how the Gospel is relevant to a monster truck event.
You do sound emerging. From an emerging article on the web.
“Emerging churches are known for flexible methodology and efforts to be culturally relevant”
““These guys are just trying to say, ‘Well, we’re not trying to change all of Christianity, we’re just trying to figure out and make church and Christianity more relevant, more applicable for people who otherwise have no interest in Jesus or church,’” said the Mars Hill pastor”
JOB
JOB, which Mars Hill church is the article you quote talkign about? Because there’s more than one and they’re quite different theologically.
CS, our church had a sermon series titled Sex:101. Is that worldly? The message was that sex is for marital relationships only and if you’re not married you shouldn’t be having sex.
We had a sermon series titled Heroes and the graphic was very reminiscent of the Heroes TV series that has been very popular. Is that worldly? The sermons were all about the very real heroes from the Bible.
I don’t think it is necessarily the act or action that determines if something is worldly, but the inspiration or motivation behind the action.
You ask, “Is the Gospel of Christ not interesting or relevant enough to draw people in?”
As an experiment why don’t you plant a church, rent a space and hold services and preach the Gospel. Don’t reach out to people, don’t advertise or market the church in any way, no signs or fliers, just you and the Gospel. Let’s see if the Gospel, all by itself, draws people in. Based on the number and percentage of church plants that close every year I wouldn’t give you much of a chance.
The Gospel will change people’s lives, convict them of their sins, lead them to repentance and save their souls, but I think the church (the “church” being the people) was commissioned by Christ to reach out to people and draw people in and communicate the Gospel to them. Is this being “worldly”?
JOB,
The fact that I think it’s methodological and you think it’s theological (even though I am totally orthodox and conservative in my beliefs) makes it clear to me that our conversation is probably not productive.
But, seriously, you are defining who I am based on an article on the web and how it jibes with my comments here? No wonder you seem to jump to conclusions about so much?
Last day at the Arts Conference here, and I am leaving SO inspired to go back and use my art to make the church better so that the church can make the world better.
God is in da HOUSE!
Daniel,
Driscoll was the feature of the article. But that is besides the point. I think what Peter is trying to say that my crticisim isn’t about doctrine so I’m just being nitpicky about style or methods. But this ties in to the Reveal topic. Isn’t that what this all about? Style and methonds. Their “seeker” style or method has failed to produce enough 100% sold out followers of Christ based on there resources?
you said, “I don’t think it is necessarily the act or action that determines if something is worldly, but the inspiration or motivation behind the action. “
I understand that it is also the appearance that is important. Our motivations may be fine and our actions may not be sinful but the appearance of evil may be there. It’s like going to a bar to witness. You may drink a non-alcoholic beer and be sharing the Gospel but it can appear to those on the outside differently.
Daniel,
Interesting experiement challenge. I don’t think it would work either, here in the USA, not because preaching the Word isn;t enough, but for a host of other reasons. But with God all things are possible. Rich Tatum made some good observations about that in a comment about 75 comments ago.
JOB
CS, JOB and Sam,
To my sarcastic comment about Jesus using incentives, you (JOB) say [Jesus didn’t want people following Him for the wrong reasons].
This comment is evidence that you have determined the motives of every pastor who leads what you call a “seeker-sensitive” church. Last I read, only God is qualified to judge the heart. It is beyond me how anyone could listen to Hybels more than once and question that his motives are anything other than a passionate desire to help people find and be transformed by Jesus.
You ask what I consider worldly. I could give you response, but it would represent my own personal conviction. I wouldn’t impose my convictions onto you. I’ve been in services before where something was a bit too edgy for me. But I assume the pastor or leader has sought the Lord’s guidance and felt led to the method they chose. If they didn’t, it’s between them and God, not them and me. I don’t have to attend their church or adopt their methods.
You guys have decided that you are qualified to determine what is “worldly” and impose your personal convictions onto every pastor in America.
“The gospel” is much more than a four point salvation message (or five points if you are a TULIP guy). I’m with Peter, it’s about everything and anything that God uses to fulfill His redemption plan. I’m sorry that your gospel is so small.
Wendi
Wendi,
“If they didn’t, it’s between them and God,
not them and me. I don’t have to attend their church or adopt their
methods.”
YES but, back to the “Out of Ur” article about Willowcreek.
“Directly or indirectly, this philosophy of ministry—church should be a big box with programs for people at every level of spiritual maturity to consume and engage—has impacted every evangelical church in the country.”
I didn’t go to Willowcreek or wherever the influence started and is coming from, it came to me. I have a thought, I have an opinion, I think I’m entitled to it since I have seen this effect on my church, my families and friends also.
JOB, I think I’ve read the article you reference and it’s wrong. Driscoll distanced himself and Mars Hill from the “emerging” movement. Some in that group seem to have veered off into more liberal theology, but Driscoll is not one of them. His theology seems pretty orthodox and conservative.
You say your objections are theological, but you quote an article that talks about “flexible methodology and efforts to be culturally relevant” and “we’re not trying to change all of Christianity, we’re just trying to figure out and make church and Christianity more relevant, more applicable for people who otherwise have no interest in Jesus or church”.
These don’t seem theological objections; they seem like issues of methodology and style. At least that that way it looks to me.
People object to Mark Driscoll’s language and his communication style/methods and say their objection is theological, but it’s not his theology that they are really objecting to.
Willow Creek thought they were discipling “sold out followers of Christ “and the REVEAL study showed they weren’t being as effective as they thought, so they’re making changes. I think a lot of “seeker-sensitive” churches are studying the results of the Reveal study and thinking about what they can do better. What’s the problem with that?
I can guarantee you the church I grew up in was not “seeker-sensitive”, they were strict fundamentalist and they did not produce “sold out followers of Christ “. I believe they drove more people away from the church than they brought to it. They drove me away from the church until I discovered that not all churches were like that.
I agree churches can go too far, but I think Willow Creek, Saddle Back and the like garner so much criticism because of their size and perceived success, and because other churches are influenced to emulate them, not because what they’re doing is wrong.
I guess our opinions differ.
Daniel,
Let me get this straight. My objections are theological. Isn’t everyhting related to the church theological? Were not talking about the color of the carpeting here. They are not doctrinal. There is a difference. What is happening here is common. The methods are being seperated from the message. I don’t believe you can do that. The Bible doesn’t teach it. They both work together. When Jesus sent out his disciples 2 by 2 he gave them clear instructions. That method may not carry over today but it’s not an anyhting goes approach. For example: It’s like holding a sign up in the middle on Manhattan “Believe in Jesus or you will go to Hell”. Most here would object to that. The message is true but the method is flawed. Get it?
I’ve said it before and I believe this is the root of many of the disagreements we have today; there are essentials, convictionals, and preferentials. For fundamentalists EVERYTHING is an essential, everything is theological therefore everything is an essential.
Some of this argument comes down to whether you believe in the Normative principle or the Regulative principle. Are the things you object to prohibited by scripture? Or just not commanded in Scripture by command or example?
Daniel,
I just want everyone, when they enter a church, to get the same chance as I did. I want them to hear the clear message of the Gospel. If they believe and commit their lives to Christ I want them to have a Pastor that loves them and cares for them and knows them. There is no substitute for this. Then there is a good chance their faith will have strong roots and will bear fruit.
JOB
Page 5 of 5 pages
« First < 3 4 5