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

image

Willow Goes All Out for Christmas

Orginally published on Thursday, December 21, 2006 at 6:59 AM
by Todd Rhoades

Here’s an interesting article on Willow Creek’s Christmas plans this year from the Daily Herald… Since its inception more than three decades ago, Willow Creek Community Church has built a worldwide reputation for its unconventional and sometimes envelope-pushing approach to worship.

With a reliance on marketing strategies borrowed from the business world, church leaders have proudly incorporated elements such as rock music, play-acting and slick multimedia presentations into Sunday services, drawing both plaudits and criticism from the evangelical Christian establishment.

This Christmas, though, the South Barrington-based megachurch is taking it all to a whole new level.

Beginning tonight, Willow Creek will host a series of 10 Christmas services featuring strobe lights, Cirque du Soleil-style acrobats “flying” above the stage, and fake snow falling from the ceiling.

The end product is a Disney World-worthy production that Willow Creek founder Bill Hybels says is the church’s most ambitious to date.

“We’re trying things at this service that we’ve never attempted before,” Hybels said.

But while stunning in its lavishness, Willow Creek’s new Christmas service is nothing more than a modern take on a decades-old Christian tradition, says Timothy Morgan, deputy managing editor of Christianity Today magazine.

Though electric guitars and smoke machines haven’t always been a part of the equation, churches of all sorts have long sought to put their best foot forward at Christmastime, when even non-religious people are drawn to find a spiritual home.

The nationwide mega-church movement - which got its start, incidentally, at Willow Creek - has only served to up the ante.

“The megachurch culture is one that’s always trying to incrementally improve on itself,” Morgan said. “There’s definitely a culture of trying to do anything you can do to make things bigger and better than the year before.”

Hybels denies that one-upmanship is at play in this year’s supersized Christmas service, but he admits the holiday season presents a unique, once-a-year opportunity to build a congregation.

For the first time in its history, Willow Creek has even launched a five-figure Christmas-season advertising blitz that Hybels hopes will help draw as many as 70,000 people to the 10 services.

“There’s definitely a sort-of spiritual openness at Christmastime,” he said. “So our aim is to use as many communication modes as possible to touch the broadest possible audience - young and old and even people with no spiritual background.”

The acrobats, a Mannheim Steamroller-esque version of “Carol of the Bells,” and a humorous story line featuring two bickering angels would all seem to provide that sort of cross-over appeal.

But for all the service’s glitz and glamour, Hybels and other church leaders say those elements will have little to do with how many newcomers return to the church the following week.

Though about two-thirds of the 80-minute-long service is devoted to more theatrical aspects, the remander of the time features Mike Breaux - whose title is “teaching pastor” - delivering a sermon while standing alone at a microphone.

“People will enjoy the artistic aspects,” said Cally Parkinson, Willow Creek’s communications director. “But they’ll come back for the teaching. That’s what really touches their hearts.”

SOURCE:  The Daily Herald
http://www.dailyherald.com/story.asp?id&2188


This post has been viewed 1224 times so far.



  There are 29 Comments:

  • Posted by Leonard

    Okay, now raise your right hand.  I will not bash the Mega church, I will celebrate their creativity so help me God, in Jesus name Amen. 

    The writer says:  “The mega-church culture is one that’s always trying to incrementally improve on itself,” Morgan said. “There’s definitely a culture of trying to do anything you can do to make things bigger and better than the year before.”

    I know dozens of Mega-church pastors and none of them think this way.  What they are is risk takers asking this question; “How can I tell people about Christ?” This article reminds me to pray more passionately for other churches this season and to pray for sticking power.  I am going to pray that those who give their hearts to Christ will truly stick with it.

  • Posted by Todd Rhoades

    Yes, Leonard, I agree.  And in the spirit of Christmas, I’m sure this will remain a positive discussion (one way or another).  smile

    Todd

  • Posted by

    This article is a great example of how the dialectic thought process is being used in the church though possibly unaware because we as a society have been so thoughoughly brainwashed with this thinking process.

    Quote: “With a reliance on marketing strategies borrowed from the business world, church leaders have proudly incorporated elements such as”.  ----Here we see the diapractic being used to appeal to comon ground through the utility use of “things” in lieu of truth of proclamation of God’s Word. Whenever these “things” become the draw, the message will suffer. If Willowcreek would advertise that God’s truth will be proclaimed through the Word they will lose their appeal , even if they were to use the utilities of a culture in rebellion.

    Quote: “The megachurch culture is one that’s always trying to incrementally improve on itself,” Morgan said. “There’s definitely a culture of trying to do anything you can do to make things bigger and better than the year before.” . ------- This is the dialectic process of “life long learning” where truth is never attainable in a absolute sense, thus we are always gaining knowledge but never coming to the truth. We see this also in UN and educational , socio/psycho,and business terms such as “sustainable growth, concensus , unity through diversity, purpose driven, vision casting, and imaging.= thereby always appealing to the “heart “which is translated ,"feelings".

    Quote: “People will enjoy the artistic aspects,” said Cally Parkinson, Willow Creek’s communications director. “But they’ll come back for the teaching. That’s what really touches their hearts.” ------- here we see the “facillitator” appealing to emotion of enjoying the “artistic aspects” , {which is dependent on how artistic is defined}and that which “touches the heart,” {feelings over facts}. The heart is desperately wicked declares the Lord, yet what touches their heart is the preaching. Again God says that the natural heart is an enmity against God , is hostile towards God and does not , nor cannot understand the things of God , for it is spiritually inempt and unable to. Notice that God’s Word or the name Jesus Christ was not once used throughout this article by either Hybels or his spokesperson. So are we to assume that Christ crucified is going to be taught, or just that Jesus was born? The article doesnt say, nor did it intend to. It s appeal is to an entertainment aspect of our hearts desire to be satiated with pleasure. In fact two thirds of the whole program will be dedicated to this cause. One can get up and leave after the entertainment if the message is confrontational , as the Gospel is to be. The laid back atmosphere will make that possible without anyone being the wiser, though seriously, I doubt that this will be the case anyways.

  • Posted by Leonard

    Fred,
    When you assume a “more intelligent than you” approach to your posts you impugn the cognitive abilities of well studied and read people.  Your post suggest that those who might be in accord with Hybles on this are brain washed. 

    You state:  Here we see the diapractic being used to appeal to common ground through the utility use of “things” in lieu of truth of proclamation of God’s Word.

    I have been to Willow, several times, and each time they are very clear to communicate the truth.  You falsely assume the “use of things in lieu of truth.” Your post makes it seem as if someone could not use illustrations, props or media as vehicles for truth.  Yet we see this practice throughout scripture especially with the teaching ministry of Jesus. 

    You state: This is the dialectic process of “life long learning” where truth is never attainable in a absolute sense, thus we are always gaining knowledge but never coming to the truth. We see this also in UN and educational , socio/psycho, and business terms such as “sustainable growth, consensus , unity through diversity, purpose driven, vision casting, and imaging.= thereby always appealing to the “heart “which is translated ,"feelings".

    I have met Bill and I can tell you that this is no where near his thinking.  In fact I think you totally mis-represent his thinking.  He would not say “we are ever learning because truth is unattainable”, rather “we are ever learning because truth is inexhaustible.” He would not say “I cannot know truth nor is truth non-absolute,” rather, he would say that “truth is absolute and as such it is imperative that it be presented in the language of our culture” so they can embrace this absolute truth. 

    Forgive my bluntness but your last paragraph is just silly.  First of all this was not their article but an interview.  They had no control over the words chosen or omitted.  So the presence or lack of the words, “The Word of God or Jesus Christ” are not a reflection of Hybles or Willow, but of a reporter with a limited space reporting a story.  Secondly, the emphasis on the heart is not unbiblical.  Guard your heart, we believe from the heart, we love from the heart, we follow with our heart, we submit our hearts.  What do these phrases have in common?  Their in the Bible Fred.  You state that the gospel is intended to be confrontational, I disagree.  I think the gospel can be very confrontational because of it’s message and nature, but the truth of the matter is Jesus did not come into the world to condemn the world.  Do you know why?  We were already condemned.  Jesus came to rescue me and save me from my sin, no kick me and tell me I suck.  I already know that.  He came to say, you are on the wrong road, not he stupid, that road is wide and you such for being on it.  He stands at the fork and with great love says to me, “This is the road, let’s go down it together.  I know it is narrow and more difficult, but I can get you there.”

    As far as getting up after the program and before the message, that can happen anywhere.  To attribute that to Willow when you do not have a clue about the program of the message is irresponsible, no matter how intelligent you make your answer sound.

  • Posted by

    Leonard,

    Your statement:
    You {Fred} state that the gospel is intended to be confrontational, I disagree.  I think the gospel can be very confrontational because of it’s message and nature, but the truth of the matter is Jesus did not come into the world to condemn the world.  Do you know why?  We were already condemned.

    You are correct that Jesus did not come to condemn the world as you said, we were already condemned. But He also said He did not come to bring peace but a sword. This sword is the Sword of Truth., This sword divides falsehood from truth. It can not be watered down. I admit I have never been to Willowcreek, but I do know that my old Seeker Sensitive church was modeled after it to the tee. The leaders constantly attended Willowcreeks agendas and conferences bring back and inplementing Willowcreeks programs.

    I never had any intention of appearing intelligent for the sake of appearance. But I do know much of the S/S and PDL movements and of the dialectical thought process to know that this process is precisley what Willowcreek and others are using within their churches. That it may be unknown to you and others {this thinking process} and that many are deceived in the practice of it , as I stated at the beginning of my first post, does not suggest that I impugn the cognitive abilities of well studied and read people. Quite the opposite Leonard. The process uses these cognitive , wellstudied and read abilities for the advancement of the agenda at hand, which is peace and unity over truth. I do not have the time to expound on this here, in this forum, but would highly suggest to you and all readers to do a search on the dialectical thinking process or search the term “diaprax {theory and practice} and see for yourselves why the church is doing what it is doing today and what the ramifications are going to be. There is an agenda out there in the political, educational, socio/pyscho realm and now it includes the religious realm that is diabolical in nature. The “thou shaltnots” {didactic} are replaced with possibility/potential thinking through group concensus by dialoguing (dialectics} and put into practice {praxis}. It seems right to man. It makes sense to our reason , but our reason is fallen. Just a note that one of Hybels mentors was possibility thinker Robert Schuller.

    My intent is not to bash anyone but to warn of the sinfulness of our cultural thinking process. We are placing feelings,unity and community over truth. When one does this he/she is seen as devisive and meanspirited. Anyone not joining in this dialectic process is to be alienated and marginalised. He/she becomes the enemy of the concensus. This is brainwashing.

  • Posted by

    In many years of attending Willow Creek, I can honestly say that I witnessed the fact that people are being saved by the true and complete Gospel Of Jesus Christ. The fact that Willow employs the arts and programs, and is intentional about it’s actions is secondary to the fact that Christ is preached there. I’m very cynical (sinical?) by nature, but I cannot deny what I saw happening in the hearts (the heart the Binle addresses) of those I knew and loved there. People are being saved.

    Jesus used miracles, parables, confrontations, and other methods to meet people, where they where, not where he was, and to meet them with what they needed. Let’s see, today…

    Billy Graham has crusades, people get saved.
    Greg Laurie and other Calvary Chapels have crusades, people get saved.
    Harvest Bible Chapel preaces the Word of God, people get saved.
    Willow Creek has showy services, people get saved.
    Jesus People USA live with the poor, people get saved.
    The Gideons leave Bibles in hotels, people get saved.
    Prison Fellowship goes to jails, people get saved.

    If someone is preaching a false Gospel, then expose it. If not, I suggest we all tell Satan to get behind us, and look at what God IS doing with his Church, and spend less time bashing HOW He chooses to use his sinful creation to do it.

  • Posted by

    Amen Paul.

    I also have not a shadow of a doubt that salvation through Jesus Christ alone is presented through Willow Creek’s programming and that they reach people.

    Would I do the things the same way?  Probably not.  But who am I to criticize what God is using to reach people?

  • Posted by

    Fred.

    In a sense… The “thou shalt nots” WERE replaced… by the beatitudes.

    wink

    I have no doubt, based on my visits to Willow and their conferences as well, that they are indeed preaching the Gospel of Christ in the midst of all this.

  • Posted by

    I would like to respond to the comments given above. I have never denied that people may be saved at Willow Creek. God can save people in the midst of anything for it is the Holy Spirit’s work not the work of a cultural exhibit or application of the message. The issue at hand is not salvation but obedience. The “thou shalt nots” were not replaced by the Beatitudes. Jesus did not come to do away with the law, but to obey the law in it’s entirety. Jesus said if we love Him we will obey Him and the law He gave us for our own good. We are to be aware of the wiles of Satan and the world. This is not only a suggestion , but one of command. It is for our own good. When we blindly and uncritically assume that what we “feel” is right we have started on what CH Spurgeon defined as the downgrade slide. This is done , as I asserted , by the dialogueing with truth. When we do this we assert our own opinions, fleshly desires , our “want and ought do be able to’s” over the express commands of the law, which are to be understood in conjuction with, not in isolation of other commands. We need wisdom, not what seems to be right to man.

    We live in a society today that obhors law, but law is what keeps our fleshly desires in check. We, as a society , have the childish attitude; “You aren’t the boss of me!” We do not want to do what our fathers {authorities} tell us to do. We rebel. The CGM and the Emergent movements do the same thing. We do not want to do what daddy {traditional culture, law based culture} told us to do. We want our own way, a way that meets our self felt needs which by the way , are sinful by nature. This attitude permeates all our life and our decision making. It is rebellion to traditional thinking {didactic} and swears allegiance to a dialogueing / feeling way of thinking {dialectic}. {There is a way that seems right to man but leads to destruction} This way of thinking is what will and is ushering the one world, new community , pluralistic , all that matter is peace attitude that pervades our world.

    At one time our culture realised abortion or homosexuality as wrong. Sure there were those that rebelled against the express commands of the Father, the thou shall nots, but they knew they were wrong and stayed out of view. Evil is practiced in the dark and woe when it is practiced in the light and good {law} is called evil and evil {dialectic, the I want to} is called good. This didactic thinking in this example is the thesis or the position parameter. It is given by God through Law. It is patriarchial in structure. In man’s sinful nature , he “wants” to assume a antithesis of this “thou shall not. He “reasons that it would be good to do this for what ever reason and he justifies it within his own mind. There may even be some “good” reasoning involved as there usually is. But this reasoning will always appeal to feelings / opinion, ("I" do not want to bring up a child in this world, etc) not to the expressed law of the authority. So the individual / society feels guilty and to alleviate his guilt he must bring others into a dialogue to question the validity of this law and to allow others to express their opinions and thoughts. Since the heart is deceitful above all things ,others will capitualate to this, for we all have this same rebellion in us. So we reach a consensus , an agreement that the law needs to be “fixed” or synthesized with each position. So we have middle ground and all involved are at peace and “happy"--they have realtionship / community.

    Now this synthesis becomes the new thesis but still there are those that take the opposite position or the antithesis. Again , to acheve unity through this diversity, we must in the name of peace {some say Christ} reach another consensus through dialogueing {dialectic} so we synthesize the position again and reach a new thesis or position of “truth”. Some will not budge on their position or thesis ,so they must be margenlized or made to appear divisive , mean spirited or stuck in their ways. They are cast out for they hold to truth over and above “relationship or community. But there is no real koinia or community unless it is based on truth and obedience to the law. So the old “patriarchial “ standard , do as I say or else, is relaced with a matriarchial society , {how does this make you feel}. Thus the acceptance in my example of homsexuality and abortion. The attitude is this-- “well ,you have to see it from their point of view “ or “if that is the way they truly feel, then”. It is feeling over facts, community over Law.

    This is what the churches of the CGM {dialectic} try to achieve and it is what they appeal to. This is why they grow and why the world flocks in to join them. This is not saying that none are saved , for Jesus can save someone in a tavern if He so chooses. But I assert that this appeal to the community by consensus or popular opinion {cultural felt needs} is capituating to our lust of the eyes , pride of life, and desires of the heart. This is wrong, not that I feel it is , but because it is. It is disobedience to the law.

  • Posted by

    Fred,

    [Jesus said if we love Him we will obey Him and the law He gave us for our own good. ] Moses gave us the law with its death. Jesus gave us the Cross and the Empty Tomb… and LIFE!

    [When we blindly and uncritically assume that what we “feel” is right we have started on what CH Spurgeon defined as the downgrade slide.] How many people hang on to their traditional serivce, music, preaching style, et cetera because it feels right!?! You seem to criticize those who do ministry in a more “contemporary sense” without thought to the idea that maybe those who do is in what seems like a more “traditional” sense (even if that tradition is only 50 or 100 years old) are doing what feels right to them, too!

    [But there is no real koinia or community unless it is based on truth and obedience to the law.] I disagree. REAL community is based on agape love.

    [But I assert that this appeal to the community by consensus or popular opinion {cultural felt needs} is capituating to our lust of the eyes , pride of life, and desires of the heart.] It’s a good thing Jesus showed us the way in this. He capitulated to felt needs every time he healed someone. He capitulated to “cultural felt needs” every time he told a great truth using a parable that illustrated that truth in some fashion that made sense to his hearers, faming metaphors, business, family, fishing… et cetera…

    [This is wrong, not that I feel it is , but because it is. It is disobedience to the law.] “not that I feel it is, but because it is”??? Sorry, the logic falls down on that one.

    Fred, I’m thinking this forum might not be the place for you. I’m getting the feeling that you’re not exactly accepting of innovative ministry, which is what we celebrate and discuss here.

  • Posted by Todd Rhoades

    Agreed, Peter… Not that we don’t like lively discussion, Fred; but we’ve already had full-blown discussions here of the seeker sensitive movement and the like; check the archives, you’ll find them in numerous places here.  But to go down that road again only detracts from our main areas of discussion here… areas that you, as Peter said, are strongly opposed to.

    Todd

  • Posted by

    Peter,

    You may be right that I do not belong here. Innovative ministry is many times just another key word for compromise with culture or dialectic thinking. (I “feel” ministry can be best done by ......or “survey shows”. ) The word celebration is a term that many times means , agreement with consensus.
    It may be that this is not the place to confront certain practices (praxi} with truth, when one rather celebrate {unity of feelings} with like minded individuals. So like I stated previously, if one disagrees with this unity , they must go or be marginalised.  This is what Jesus meant when he said that if one loves father -mother. sister -brother more that Me , you have no part with Me. It is to be Truth over the celebration of relationship at all costs or by practicing dialogue. Most people will always diapprove of direct truth so that is also why Jesus says that we must pick up our cross daily . Truth usually costs us everything, including relationships and unity. “I have not come to bring peace but a sword” . Truth divides and as Jesus says , when you enter and they do not recieve you, shake off the dust from your sandles and move on. They always killed the prophets the ones who stated , thus sayeth the Lord. What the Lord says is Law.

    In closing , I do ask for the readers here to at least consider prayerfully what I have stated in my posts here. I am not opposed to any form of innovation, but am trying to alert you to the reason for the innovation and the fact that it is “celebrated” so much today. The heart is desperately wicked , who can know it. It may seem right but may be in essense disobedience and self seeking. If one truly examines his/her self I am confident ,by Scripture, that we will find that we love this world (culture) and its ways far more than we should. Be separated, holy, has taken on a very shallow meaning in todays church and words like innovation , visioning and thinking out of the box have become of far more importance.

  • Posted by

    Fred Stated: [But there is no real koinia or community unless it is based on truth and obedience to the law.]
    Peter Stated: I disagree. REAL community is based on agape love.

    Fred Responds > Yes and “if you love Me you will obey Me as I too Obey the Father, for I do nothing that the Father does not tell Me to do”.---- It is called obedience to the Father’s will and that will is known through obedience to the Word and that Word is Law for law is truth ---"Thy Word is Truth” and obedience to this truth will set you free. This is love , that we obey the Father

    This community of believers is based not on some feely /unity love that man thinks is love , but on what God says it is and that is obedience, for in that obedience is love. For if we obey the commands of God , then we are in His will and are loving the Lord with all our heart , minds and soul. Any other way is not of God.

  • Posted by Todd Rhoades

    Fred,

    I think the confusion here is in the declaration that culturally relevant (read ‘seeker sensitive’ churches) approve of the culture and compromise the truth by trying to communicate to that culture.  That really isn’t the case.

    Culture is an interesting thing.  You see, to reach the people that are in the culture; you need to speak the language OF the culture.

    Our culture speaks english.  Jesus’ culture didn’t.  I was saved by hearing the word in english.  Thank God that someone brough the message to me in a language I could understand.

    Our culture does not value organ music or hymnology.  That’s not to say that there aren’t beautiful hymns and songs that have great value historically in the church.  But they no longer speak to the culture we are trying to reach.

    Is it possible to change the delivery message (for example, the actual language in the first instance; or the style in the second example) without compromising the truth?  Yes, it absolutely is.  And actually; it is not only possible; but necessary.  The church much change it’s delivery style constantly WITHOUT changing it’s method.

    I’m not saying that some SS churches don’t water down their message.  Some do.  (There are good ones and bad ones, just like every other kind of church out there).  But blanket statements like you make, Fred, are unfortunate and unfair.  That’s all we’re saying.

    To most of us here; these are all old arguements; and you’ll really not change anyone’s mind; because these are all arguements that we’ve all worked through in the past to get where we are today.  That doesn’t make us good or bad; but it does mean that we know the arguements and have already, in most cases, done the research and studied the subject biblically.

    I would recommend a conference to you if you could at all attend.  It’s called “Change without Compromise”.  Go to churchdare.com for more info.  I think these would give you a good view of how the church can and absolutely needs to change, all the while, keeping our main message central and unchanging.  Let’s face it; there’s a lot at stake…

    Todd

  • Posted by

    Todd ,

    You are correct when you state that you understand English and that is how you received the truth, in a language you understood. You have no real choice in this matter for culture dictates language. The rest that you are referring to is personal preference not culture relevancy. It is personal relevancy. Let me explain.

    Because our culture values something , be it musical forms, dress forms or what have you does not make that right , good or God-honoring. God gave language and which language you use is not important , unless the language is used contrary to the will of God, such as the language of rebellion. God gave music and we have freedom to use it with wisdom and in a God -Honoring way. but not all music comes from the direct will of God. I know rock music was created to express rebellion to a culture that it had come to disdain. I was raised in it. You say” that The church must change it’s delivery style constantly WITHOUT changing it’s method. “ I assert that the style has become the message thus the importance placed on change. Change is the driving force . This change is what is used to facillitate a mode of thinking and to keep everything and everyone in a state of flux.

    We must base everything on the Scriptures. Where do you get the Scriptural proof that the church must change its delivery style? Paul told Timothy to hold fast to his teachings and IMITATE him, as he imitates Christ. The OT is full of exhortations to obey the authorities as is the NT. Great importance was placed on age contrary to our culture of youth and rebellion. Yet we live in a culture that says old is bad and tradition of our fathers must be abolished in the name of progress. God has a reason for all this wisdom that He gives.  But now we wish to justify our actions even in the church by screaming cultural relativity and relevancy. This is nothing more than compromise , deception whether committed willfully or accepted unknowingly. “My people perish for lack of knowledge”. We are people that are so good at justifying ourselves. But God is the only one who justifies and in Him only is our justification.

    Do you know that we are the first culture that hold to the idea of cultural relevancy as strongly as we do, though I admit, there were strands of it in the past , but they were the ones that were marginalised? Why is that? Because we have been coached to love our culture , our loves, our present times so much that we can not see the forest because of the trees. We are a society trying to see ourselves while our noses are presssed up against the mirror. We love the moment far to much and believe that the Bible says live and let live and that Jesus said , “all you need is love” when it was the spiritualist Beatles that said that. Of course love was not defined in God’s way.

    Style dictates and establishes the message. Ask any strip tease establishment if it matters what kind of music is played. The message stands apart from style, but style does not stand apart from the message. The message is the Word itself not the style. In fact stlye can hinder {and does} the fullness of the Word.

    I am NOT against contemporary music, use of technology, casual dress, though I do assertt that we do not use wisdom here either. We will dress up to see a new girlfriend or a president , job prospect, but when it comes to the King of the Universe , we want casual. This is just a lack of respect because we have been taught that it is unimportant. Our culture still has all the higher forms /styles available but we come to value the mundane , the popular , the average. We would rather have twinky than the meal just because our parents want us to have the meal, because they love us and know best. But we like the twinky because it is sweet, tickles our fancy and hey !all the other are eating it.

    My complaint is not the forms in themselves. It is the importance placed on them, the celebration of the forms and the churches capitualtion to the “self felt need” that a selfish culture has made us believe we need. We need nothing but the Word and that Word is to be preached by language and then lived out in love and love is desiring the highest , the best , the beautiful anf the good for the one loved and those attributes are the attributes og God and they are not subjective to our whims but absolutes. We may not grasp this in its entirety and therefore we must , in love , allow for some freedom, but when this freedom is dictated by cultural captivity and then called relevance, I must speak out. It does matter and what “is” is not defined by us , contrary to BIll Clinton. God is the I AM and He IS . He dictates the church and His word says that we are to be a contrast to the world. That , my brother, we are not today. The contrast is more than just we believe and they dont. It is because we believe that everything is brand new, different from, separated to ahigher calling. We can not go by what we feel we should do. Aarons sons did that and you know happened.

  • Posted by

    Just thought I would throw in my 2 cents.  As a long-time member of Willow Creek, I attended the Christmas service this year (the first of 2 times) with a bit of trepidation that maybe they were “going too far”.  I was pleasantly surprised.  Yes, the service had a bit of spectacle to it.  To most people, it probably seemed to be a lot of spectacle.  But actually sitting there and listening to all that was said, this was part of the point.  In the drama, the “bickering angels” talk about the fact that God was planning to send his Son to Earth and that it should be the greatest spectacle ever seen.  Later in the service, the same two characters were onstage looking at Mary holding her baby and the one who had protested the loudest for more spectacle declared, “There’s your special effect”.  This was a service about imagination, about how we can see things in different ways. 

    In the end, Mike Breaux (teaching pastor) tied it all together with as direct a presentation of the Gospel as I have heard recently, followed by an invitation.  The entire service was created with this moment, this message in mind. 

    The second time I went to the service, I was accompanied by my brother who does not attend any church.  He enjoyed the “spectacular” part of the service, and perhaps in some way walked out with a bit more understanding of God than he had when we walked in.  Isn’t that the point of going to church in the first place?

    Anyway, these are just my observations… and I can only speak for myself.

  • Posted by

    Fred

    [We must base everything on the Scriptures.] Then let’s get rid of the hymns (especially those whose melodies were taken from secular songs for sure), the flannelgraph, the Sunday Schools, the Organ, the Piano, choirs, 3-point sermons, all church buildings, After-church socials, apple pie, and Chevrolet. They’re not in the scriptures. No… but seriously, I get what you are saying, but consider that we who are “culturally relevant” believe we ARE basing these things on scriptures, especially “being the greek to the greek and the jew to the jew”. Look at how Paul changes the way he even tells his story based on who his audience is!

    [Do you know that we are the first culture that hold to the idea of cultural relevancy as strongly as we do] I think every culture has been culturally relevant to itself. They great hymn-writers wrote in the idiom of their day, sometimes creating the same kind of controversy we’ve seen in recent days.

    [ I assert that the style has become the message] I, and others here, I think, respectfully disagree…

  • Posted by

    Fred also writes [For if we obey the commands of God , then we are in His will and are loving the Lord with all our heart , minds and soul. Any other way is not of God.]

    Ahh… but Jesus changed even that. Because now, Loving God and Loving Others (capitalized on purpose) are inseperable. Can’t do one without the other.

    We deliver the Gospel message in a culturally relevant way because we Love Christ and we Love our neighbor as ourselves, and want to tell him the good news about Jesus in a way he’ll understand it.

  • Posted by Todd Rhoades

    Fred,

    I had a great, very long response all typed for you; then hit the wrong button and accidently deleted it.

    Needless to say, we disagree here; and we’ll both see eye to eye on the other side.

    God’s blessings to you.

    Todd

  • Posted by

    Thanks Keith. Very astute observation . Since I did not see the presentation and I am sure it was done with a professionalism that was very good, I wanted to clear the air a little on my purpose of my posts. I am not attacking THIS presentation. I know nothing of it except what Keith has just told us. It would seem from just that and not having more information that first we should realise that the angels would have been in no way bickering about what God was doing. They are in the presense of His glory and being in perfect obedience would never “dialogue” in that way. That is the way of man.

    Keith states that it was about the imagination and how we see things in different ways. Now these angels thought that the birth “ought” to be how they imagined it should be. Eve too, thought that she ought to be able to eat from the tree. We as man think how we “ought” to do evangelism. You see imagination is not grounded in what is true. It is grounded in speculation , in opinions in “oughts” . These oughts then give way to wants and when realised become sin. When God chose to have Jesus come as He did , the angels rejoiced in His infinite wisdom and came to proclaim the truth that Jesus Christ has come and that this would be great news to all the people , His people, that would be believing for this was certainly not good news to those that are persishing because of disbelief. It wasn’t good news to Herod. The angels would not think like we do that He should have been put up in the Jerusalem Hilton. This indirectly reenforces our way of thinking.

    By allowing man’s imagination to be part of this message can only lead to disorder and plurality for we all imagine what we want if we do not accept what is. You see it wasn’t about affect ,but truth and salvation. I grant that this may have affected one’s perception of God. But was it a true perception or just one that made room for the imagination? You see , I have no reason to doubt that the Gospel was presented by the Pastor {but only if he preached that we are dead in our sins and need to REPENTand turn away from our sins in obedience to the law of love that obeys all of the law of God. {thy law is perfect unto life} Though we will not keep it perfectly when saved , it must be our hearts desire if we are truly saved. Any less is to make grace cheap for it would be the sin of presumption.

    One could wonder why the Christmas story wasn’t told just the way it was presented in the Scriptures. This leaves no room for the imagination, but just awe and reverence. Oh , yes , we could imagine what Mary felt like. But even there the Bible tells us. Even though she may have been uncomfortable with the intrusion of some dingy shepherd, the Bible tells us she treasured all these things and pondered them in her heart. God told her what He purposed for her and the world and she obeyed by saying let it be unto me as you have said.

    I still believe that when we proclaim truth it must be clear , accurate , without speculational arguement. God said this and this is truth. If we wish to get the message out in the best way then we should follow the examples given in Scripture. We proclaim by preaching plain and simple . God is perfect --we are dreadful sinners deserving nothing but wrath and able to do nothing about it--Christ made a way through faith -which is believing all that God tells us and then doing it by His grace , confessing our sin and repenting -turning away from it. I grant that this is what people do not want to hear. So it seems that much of the church has changed not only the delivery of the message but by changing the delivery they have also changed the message. I know people get saved through all this. But it is not we by our means that does this. It is the Spirits conviction of the above content that does it.  So one could say that the means do not really matter. But Scripture say they do. It is not for us to argue this , but to obey. In the 1600’s John Knox spoke of what was referred to as the regulative principle of worship. They believed that all worship was procribed by God in Scripture and was not left up to us as man to develop what we liked by our own private interrpretation. I think much division in the church today would be alleviated if we would hold to this truth.

  • Posted by

    Peter states: Ahh… but Jesus changed even that. Because now, Loving God and Loving Others (capitalized on purpose) are inseperable. Can’t do one without the other.

    We deliver the Gospel message in a culturally relevant way because we Love Christ and we Love our neighbor as ourselves, and want to tell him the good news about Jesus in a way he’ll understand it.

    Peter , you are wrong here . Jesus did not change anything.  If we love God with all our heart , minds and soul and we obey the commandments (the 10} and thus show love to others It is not changed or new. I have already explained that being culturally relevant does not entail what you are asserting. We are not always being relevant but capitualing to and calling it that. Tell me Peter, what is so hard to understand in the way I would present the gospel that one could not understand? I say just what the Word says. Tell me , do you agree that we as a society think dialectiaclly as opposed to didactic? Tell me . would people still come to church if there was no music or if they were required to dress in a certain manner as they are to a wedding, etc.? The real point is not whether they understand or not but whether they are getting what they want.

  • Posted by

    Thanks Todd. I have done that too. God bless you too brother!

  • Posted by

    To all. thanks for taking the time to read my posts and I appreciated all of yours . This is my last post on this subject, {i hope,lol)

    I used to think just like most of you and attended a GCM church , and even went through the PDL movement. I was always fasinated by why we were all fighting about these things.. Since I am somewhat of a history and church history buff , I also knew that this was really nothing new, just more pronounced in this age. I began to research , speak to others , listen to others, and read the Scriptures and pray for wisdom about all this. I especially read Spurgeon, the Puritans and cultural ananlysts such as Francis Shaffer, Nancy Pearcy, Horton, David Wells , Vieth, Ravi Zaccharias etc. I read the philosophers of the last 300 years , though not extensively , enough to grasp the gist of their applications.

    I am convinced that the way most of us think today is because of the philosophy we embrace. The church too has embraced these philosophies and has synthesised them with the Bible. This happened before with Aquinas and others and in America on the heals of the 17 18 and 19th century philosophers , the American Revolution as well as the French and Communistic {Marxist} ideology. The major shift was, as I have previously asserted, in the way of thinking from didactic to dialectic. For those that thirst for truth, i would suggest that you also try to look into this and see for yourself if this is not so. On the web there are many resources to help you along in this quest.  I believe that you will find that this thinking is a deceptive thinking {dialectic} and that it is subtle and devious. Life is short and blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor stands in the path of sinners, nor sits in the seat of the scornful . But his delight is in the law of the Lord and on His law he meditates day and night..

    You see walking , standing , sitting all denote modes of attaining wisdom and knowledge. When we live or walk by the counsel of the philosophers of the world we are missing out on truth. When we agree with tthe world , then we disobey God. And when we stand or take sides with something that is against Gods law we are in disobedince. But when our only love is to obey God with all our heart mind and soul ,then His law , which is contrary to mans inclinations , will make us wise to life and the wiles of Satan.We will flourish and proper in the Lord.

    Man’s inclinations are like anything else that is on an “incline nation” Take a wagon on an incline. Without the law of brake mechanisms it will follow its natural law , gravity , and end up in a heap pile below. Man is like this too. We either follow Gods law or we follow the natural law of mans own devices {his feelings and desires , his ought to’s and want to’s ) and eventually end up in chaos or like in this metaphor , the heap pile.

    Anyways , my prayer is that all of you will open your eyes to this truth. God bless each and everyone of you and may you heed the admonition of Psalm 1.

  • Posted by Leonard

    Fred,
    There is nothing that I can say to you since you believe we are also deceived by our thinking.  You have studied and become enlightened and in your enlightenment have found it fit to warn us.  I abruptly responded in my first post and I again say forgive the bluntness but I think you add 2 and 2 and end up with 5.  The sad part is that I could not have a healthy dialog with you in this matter because you used to think like me but now after study have risen above this level of thinking.  Bottom line, I disagree and if that makes me simple, I will be okay with that.

  • Posted by

    Fred writes [ Jesus did not change anything.]

    I think you live with a kind of legalism, based on all that I’ve read from you, that I feel as if I have “become enlightened above.”

    wink

    Before Jesus - law and prophets unfulfilled… After Jesus - law and prophets fulfilled. He changed it all with regard to our friendship with God.  Took 10 commandments and distilled them into 2. And your inference that any ministry model that has any human creativity involved is “disobedience” just doesn’t scan with me scripturally. (That is the inevitable result of your statements...)

    But I will leave it there, sorta like you have, since this is not a theology discussion forum.

    Blessings!

  • Page 1 of 2 pages

     1 2 >
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: