Way to overstate the Reveal study, CS.  In fact, we have talked about that here this year.  Check the archives.

Ted Haggard was this past year, right? That was pretty problematic news.

CS. That is NOT what Willow said in their REVEAL study. But, for me as a church leader, it is one of the big “events” on my list of news stories this year, on that I will agree with you, as it will help me better understand how to reach this current generation with the Gospel and how to disciple them better. (Our church is part of the next phase of this study in January and we are very excited about this learning opportunity.)

Comparing Willow’s assessment of what to do about the dissatisfied and stalled segments of their churches to a pharmaceutical company that has marketed a harmful drug is more than a little ludicrous, don’t you think? Did you read the study? Or are you just commenting, as so many have, on what you heard about it from people who might have already had a prejudice against WC and the way they do church? Be honest now…

My opinion . . . even though this list is from Christianity Today, it reflects what the secular media picked up on and considered newsworthy within the evangelical/Christian community.  The Willowcreek Reveal study is hardly something the secular media would consider newsworthy, anymore than is the relentless and exhausting attacks by watchdogs who envision themselves as the gatekeepers of American Christendom. 

Regarding #2 I say “hmmmm – books ABOUT atheism?  Which books?  If this is correct, what does the trend a reflection of?  Is it some cultural trend that we should pay attention to?”

And interesting that the passing of Ruth Graham played differently in the media that the religious right lions.  I didn’t think that the media was unfavorable to “the lions,” but I thought Ruth Graham’s passing played out as an American loss.  Probably evidence of Billy’s (and Ruth’s by association) ability to remain disassociated with politics and singular in focus.

And CS – I hope you will honestly answer Peter’s question.  Did you actually read the whole WC Reveal study?

Wendi

I agree with Eric.  The problems that New Life in CO have gone through in the past year are EPIC.

From my take, #1&6;are the beginnings of a new trend, whether or not this is one of the top stories for 2007 I don’t know.

Elections start way too early for me. I am not paying attention for another wek at least.

I wouldn’t place the passing of anyone in my top 10 stroies.

The rest didn’t seem to be earth shaking to me. But I might have a different scale.  As far as the Reveal discussion goes, the information was helpful to and insightful to me in my church. I find Willow and Hybels willing to take risks and put themsevles out there. I may do some things differently but they have my undying respect. They are also much more effective than I am in any measurement platform.

Brian,

I’m inclinced to agree with you.

Merry Christmas all year long!

Camey

Does CS really have to read the entire book to know what he suspects?  It really boils down to what prominence is given to what a Christian’s authority should be: a sociology study or the words of Christ, what is seen or the Word of God.  How come you can’t get just as excited about the Word of God as you are about this book on how to do church?

To Wendi and others:

#2 (regarding atheism) definitely belongs on the list. There is a new atheism, as it’s called, which has being very successful at changing the national discussion. In the face of Islamic terrorism, it is not Islam that is the problem but all religion (according to these writers). Their form of atheism is very heated and confrontational. Many old arguments against faith/Christianity are being revived; annoying, but also a great platform for discussion about the gospel, and a call for believers to think through their faith afresh.

This is a GREAT yearly discussion. I hope the conversation about Reveal can be moved elsewhere so others don’t feel they can’t participate in the primary question posed by Mr. Rhoades. I appreciate that discussion too, but would just encourage us not to keep that one on this thread.

Ken
Virginia Beach

Peter (and others):
The insistence here seems to be that, “If you haven’t read the Reveal book, you can’t comment on it (or at least not accurately).” I disagree with this claim.  As I mentioned, I read the material on the web site and listened to the orations by the two major pastors at Willow Creek.  They took the information, distilled it, and presented it outside of the bounds of their book.  It is upon this information that I have made my statements about the results of the study.
Imagine attending a speech by a secular musician.  The musician states that there is objectionable material within his CD.  I do not have to then listed to the CD to know that I would find offense in it.  I can take the words of the musician firsthand.  This is same case within the Reveal study.  Sure, I may gain more information by reading the book about Reveal, but I believe that the heart of the matter, the core premises, have already been revealed by Bill Hybels outside of the confines of the pages of the book.  And the information he has divulged shows that there is a serious problem inherent in the way Willow Creek has been doing church and teaching others likewise to do.  This is what should make it on the top list of headlines.  Even check The Way of The Master Radio; they agreed with it, and they probably read the book, too.--

CS

CS

The problem isn’t as much that you didn’t read the book as it is that your assessment of its conclusions are incorrect. I base this assertion on my more intimate knowledge of its details (having read the book, heard the presentations AND actually being part of the next leg of the details). I feel if you read the book (with an open mind) you’d be more likely to understand and appreciate what the study actually said, rather than simply leap to the conclusions of what people who are critical of WC to begin with (such as yourself I am guessing) AND haven’t immersed themselves in the data are saying.

It’s that simple. Again. I am more intimate with the details of this study and am simply suggesting to you that you are incorrect in your assessment of what the findings actually are. It doesn’t help that you are using pretty bold and negative rhetoric to make your statements. You actually compared them to a pharmaceutical company whose product was more harmful than helpful. I have gotten to know several people inside that organization and can tell you that nothing could be further from the truth.

As a pastor of a very small SBC Church, (Bi-Vocational no less), I am, (in my moments of covetousness), jealous of the aforementioned large churches. However this discussion was about the, “Top Ten News Stories for Christians in 2007”.

Most of the discussion so far, is all inward.

However, what we need to note, is the trends of the secular world, and how we can use them to reach the lost.

I have a real problem with bashing, or centering, on ourselves, and our failures, instead of focusing on, (especially in this Christmas Season), “how do we reach the lost and bring them into a soul saving relationship with Christ”.

Do we continue to ignore the list, or do we do something about it?

As for me, I am going out into the trenches and find out how to reach the lost with the Gospel. (Yes, The Gospel). This is much more important to the lost than all of the other trivia we have a tendency to focus on.

See you at The Cross.

In His Grip, Pastor Tom