Bill Hybels Responds to “Reveal” Criticism
- Posted by: Todd
- Posted on: Mon, June 09, 2008
- Viewed 406
- (100) comments so far
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?
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."
Comments
if you want a Globally Recognized Avatar (the images next to your profile) get them here. Once you sign up, they will displayed on any website that supports them.
Dave Thoma on Mon, June 09, 2008
Bill did a great job in clarifying some of the reporting “mistakes” make by CT. Go Bill!
Sally Ford on Mon, June 09, 2008
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.
Mark Broadbent on Mon, June 09, 2008
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.
JOB on Mon, June 09, 2008
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.
Bob Ewing on Mon, June 09, 2008
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
Tye Male on Mon, June 09, 2008
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.
Jim on Mon, June 09, 2008
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.
CS on Mon, June 09, 2008
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
Eric Joppa on Mon, June 09, 2008
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.
Peter Hamm on Mon, June 09, 2008
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.
Tye Male on Mon, June 09, 2008
Why is it that every time the subject of “seeker-sensitive” comes up we get all out of sorts? (not everyone, but some) Call it “prechristian sensitive” or “unsaved sensitive” or anything else for that matter.
I agree with the fact that no one seeks after God on his own - you have to agree, it’s in the Bible! But there are those who begin to search to fill that longing that only God can fill with his salvation. At that point we want to do everything in our power to share the gospel in a way that is not blatantly offensive.
(I know what you are going to say - the gospel is offensive. But let’s not let our method of sharing it be offensive.)
Paul became all things to all men in order that he might save some. That’s clearly in the Bible - so you will have to adjust. : )
JOB on Mon, June 09, 2008
Peter,
I don’t know why Jesus selected the 12. But we also know there were more then 12. There were other disciples that Jesus had besides the 12. There is a small group model called G12 that emphasizes the 12, it has been cause of much trouble and abuses especially in the South America countries. The entire A/G in one South American country banned it. Nevertheless it’s hard to replace the 5 fold ministry that God has given His Church. I don’t read where small group facilitator is part of it.
John
JOB on Mon, June 09, 2008
CS and others,
I have to be fair I part with some here.
“Now without faith it is impossible to please God, for whoever comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who diligently search for him”
I’m not going to get too theoligical here but people are seeking God. For example Kirk Cameron’s testimony is that he first believed there is a God then his salvation followed. You can come to faith in Christ through a logical process that we are accountable to our Creator. Through faith in Chirst we are made righteous before Him. I do think this can be done as a “seeker”. I part with Willowcreek because they have made “Seeker sensitivity” a scientific method that they manipulate to attract the masses. People are different and there is no one formula that is good for all.
Peter Hamm on Mon, June 09, 2008
CS,
Take Romans 3:11 and you could come to the conclusion that there are no seekers, but is that really what the Bible as a whole says?
Once the Holy Spirit starts working in someone’s life, do they not then seek God? Matthew 7:7-8 seems to indicate that SOMEBODY can seek God. Acts 15 is pretty telling, too. Obviously, James felt, by quoting the passage he did, “that the rest of humanity might seek the Lord, including the Gentiles— all those I have called to be mine.” Of course it requires an effort on the Holy Spirit’s part, but to label these people as seekers is, I would argue, not unbiblical at all.
Nobody seeks God on their own? Granted, that may be, but they do seek Him when he draws them!
CS on Mon, June 09, 2008
JOB:
“I’m not going to get too theoligical here but people are seeking God. For example Kirk Cameron’s testimony is that he first believed there is a God then his salvation followed. “
You’re right. The only condition under which people will seek after God is if He draws them to Himself (John 6:44). Aside from that, there are none that seek after God, as said in Romans 3:11. This is clearly what happened in Cameron’s case.
So, here’s a question: Assuming that the people who are “seeking” and going into churches are truly being drawn of God, why does there need to be a complete changing of the way that church is done to a “seeker-sensitive” model? Why not just keep church services the same as any other service? From what I understood of Cameron, while he met with people privately for discussions of faith, to talk about those questions a novice may ask, he still went to regular services.
What I see is when the target of worship services is for unsaved people, and the methods by which they are drawn in are kitschy, ranging from motorcycles jumping over pastors to lessons on having a great sex life, this defeats the intent and target of for whom worship is intended—believers focused on Jesus Christ alone. The draw card and hook to bring people in border on worldly means and topics, promising things like happiness, financial stability, and a great marriage, none of which are guaranteed in the Bible.
So, let’s have classes, discussions, and forums for introductions to Christianity, but not change the worship to follow Desperate Housewives in a goal of attracting more “seekers”.
—
CS
Page 2 of 7 pages < 1 2 3 4 > Last »
Post a Comment