Bill Hybels Responds to “Reveal” Criticism
- Posted by: Todd
- Posted on: Mon, June 09, 2008
- Viewed 405
- (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.
Peter Hamm on Mon, June 09, 2008
JOB writes
[I don’t read where small group facilitator is part of it.] If you need a specific biblical verse of church structure instruction for everything you do in the church, it will be a long hard road, since the Bible doesn’t give us a “how to do church” manual. There’s no instruction about Children’s ministries, church organs (although there is a pretty great description of a rock-and-roll worship service in Psalm 150 imho), greeters, and other great things we do in churches. Arguing from silence is not a great argument in areas like this. You can see from scripture that Jesus spent an inordinate amount of time with 3 or 4 guys and almost as much with the rest of the 12… more, it seems, than he spent with the dozens that made up the rest of that circle of disciples. (I’m totally unfamiliar with the G12 “model”, but I don’t think it really enters into the discussion anyway. My point was the impossibility of being a one-on-one friend/counsellor with everyone you pastor even when your church grows beyond a few dozen.
and
[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.] Wow, then I wish there were different kinds of churches for those different kinds of—-oh, wait… there are…
Sam writes
[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”.] I wonder how you would authoritatively know this. There are false converts in all the best churches. One of Jesus’ own followers was a false convert it appears even… In my experience these churches do plenty to instruct our folks and to make them into real self-feeding disciples who are in the Word daily and following Jesus closely.
Peter Hamm on Mon, June 09, 2008
CS,
I guess you don’t see how we who are in “seeker churches” understand the Bible’s clear instructions to be excellent at what we do in worship (think Asaph or the expert craftsmen who were picked to construct the ornaments of the temple), and to extend that into our making disciples as we go, as instructed by Jesus. I’m sorry for that. There is not one scripture I can point to to convince you that what we do (even if it looks like a big show to you) is what we are convinced Christ has called us to, because we believe the whole of the Bible instructs us to do this!
Again, I’m really sorry that you and others here can’t see this.
Todd, thanks for letting us “veer off point” again.
Love WCCC on Mon, June 09, 2008
I am so glad I was a part of the “manipulate[d] to attract the masses.” Otherwise, I would not have come to know Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. I thank God daily for Bill and folks that led me to the Lord.
...and I suspect I’m not alone. So say what you will, and quote Scripture till Christ comes again. None of us know what’s in another man’s heart or where he stands with the Lord. And it’s pretty presumptious to think we do….
Leonard Lee on Mon, June 09, 2008
It would seem we are back here again. CS, you must take Romans 3 in context of Romans 1-3, all of Romans 3 and the whole of the book of Romans. To cite one verse again and again as an argument is, as you would say, the reason we need better hermeneutics.
Romans 1-3 builds a case against mankind or even more accurately builds a case for “Grace (crediting of righteousness) through faith” as modeled in the OT and explained in the NT. Paul is not saying that no person can ever do good, no person can ever have a thought about God, he is saying that apart from the work of Christ, no thought or act of goodness matters. A key phrase is “under sin” because “under sin” none of the works I do, none of the acts or gestures I make, not one of my “spiritual” journeys matter. Under sin I am lost and without hope.
He then goes on to say that the answer was not the law but rather the law brought a consciousness of sin. Another way to say this CS is that God’s Truth is one way people not only get convicted but are also drawn to Christ. From there Paul lays out in chapter 3 the Gospel amazingly clear, builds the “Grace By Faith” in chapter 4 and then goes on to describe the work of Justification and Sanctification in chapter 5-7. In chapter 8 Paul lays for us a foundation of the work of God the Holy Spirit in our Sanctification.
For you to site one verse again and again as an argument shows a huge lack of understanding the context of Romans.
I add this, there are many who are “seeking” something but not knowing who will truly satisfy the calamity caused by their own sinfulness. They seek band aids when surgery is necessary. They do this because they are blind, because they do not understand, because they cannot muster within themselves anything that answers the emptiness within a heart not surrendered to Christ. They are not usually great at self diagnostics because of the skewed perspective sin has given them. This makes the church so important in helping a “seeker” recognize God’s grace (crediting of righteousness) offered to them in exchange for their faith.
I am sorry you missed out on knowing God for a long time. I am sorry you did not hear a message that would have altered your eternity. Maybe you were filled with pride and could not hear. Maybe you were so smitten by the girl you attended church for you could not hear. Maybe you were so insecure and immature that you would have done everything asked. Maybe someone failed to properly explain your propensity to sin. Maybe it was not your time. But if you had died and gone to hell, it would have been your fault. Not God’s, Not the churches, not your momma’s, not Rick Warrens, Not Joel Ostine’s, Not bill Hybles… Just yours. You would have to give an account for you.
JOB on Mon, June 09, 2008
Peter,
The instructions may not be spelled out but they are there. There is a sufficient amount of information we can gather from reading the NT that instructs us how we should behave when believers assemble together as the “Church”. We can compile a great deal of information on how large the assembling was, how communion was administered how discipline was dealt with and the roles of Pastors, Deacons and Elders etc. The Word is not as silent as you want me to believe. And the key is not so much establishing seperate churches for all the different people there are. If that was the case they would have established a seperate church for the Greek Widows. But the goal is to function with unity as the body of Christ with the our differences.
CS,
I believe that the Holy Spirit is faithful to the preaching of the Gospel. That whosoever receives the good news with faith is made a new creation in Christ. What happens prior to that really doesn’t matter to me. If God is drawing them or not. Does it really make a difference?
John
Sam on Mon, June 09, 2008
Peter,
That is a pretty sloppy exegesis of Matthew 7:7-8. It is quite the leap to get to support the position that men seek after God. There is an important distinction to make. Are men truly seeking after God or are they seeking the fruits of being saved. Many people are looking for the qualities they see in Christians such as peace, joy, etc. but they do not seek after God. Ephesians 2 states that we are dead in sin before conversion. Dead men do not seek God. In John 3 we see that Jesus is telling Nicodemus that one must be born again of the spirit in order to enter into heaven. Regeneration is of God through the Holy Spirit through hearing of the Gospel. I would challenge the notion of man “seeking” after God pre-regeneration.
Peter, the same way you do not know authoratively who is a true convert. AND WC has admitted that they fell down in the discipleship area. The average congregant is woefully biblically illiterate because pastors feel like they have to dumb down biblical terms such as justification, propitation, and sanctification. Ask the average congregant in the “seeker” churches today to define those terms.
AND small groups are good at many things such as fellowship and pastoral care for the members but often fail in discipleship because you have unqualified teachers leading the small groups. Too often times these groups are doing felt need studies like the “love languages” or such and not engaged in any deep, meaningful strictly bible study. It turns into a scene where they go around the group in a circle asking “what does this verse mean to you”.
CS on Mon, June 09, 2008
Leonard Lee:
“I am sorry you missed out on knowing God for a long time. I am sorry you did not hear a message that would have altered your eternity. Maybe you were filled with pride and could not hear. Maybe you were so smitten by the girl you attended church for you could not hear. Maybe you were so insecure and immature that you would have done everything asked. Maybe someone failed to properly explain your propensity to sin. Maybe it was not your time. But if you had died and gone to hell, it would have been your fault. Not God’s, Not the churches, not your momma’s, not Rick Warrens, Not Joel Ostine’s, Not bill Hybles… Just yours. You would have to give an account for you.”
Wow, Leonard. Thank you for taking content from a private exchange you and I had in e-mail and bringing it into a whole conversation in front of MMI. Although I hate to have this thought, perhaps I should say that I am grateful that you are not my pastor if this is the treatment you place around confidentiality or privacy in communication.
For what it’s worth, I never denied that I would be responsible for my own sins. I know that full well that had I died in my sinful state, I would have gone to Hell, and had no one to hold account for this except for myself. I even said this in my last e-mail to you, stating, “I have no one to blame but myself for my sinful heart.” But thank you for listing all of the possibilities for why I did not become a believer earlier on in my life.
And, as I said to you in our e-mail exchange, the other thing that I blame outside of my own faults, is modern-day preaching that never mentions how mad God is at sin, how He is wrathful and angry at mankind’s defiance, and how we deserve Hell outside of the grace of Jesus Christ. How many people will die, feeling good about where they are, coming to God because it adds a little extra zip to their lives, only to go to Hell because no one tells them the truth from the pulpit and they never repent?
—
CS
CS on Mon, June 09, 2008
Peter:
“I guess you don’t see how we who are in “seeker churches” understand the Bible’s clear instructions to be excellent at what we do in worship (think Asaph or the expert craftsmen who were picked to construct the ornaments of the temple), and to extend that into our making disciples as we go, as instructed by Jesus. I’m sorry for that.”
Actually, I believe in excellency in worship, too. I’ve seen great sermons and worship going on with huge stages, amazing sound systems, great multimedia, and excellent preaching, teaching, and music.
The two things I don’t believe in are (1) letting the methods take control of the worship or drawing the attention away from God, and (2) the incorporation of and conformity to worldly things in a goal of drawing people into churches. This is in light of the “seeker-sensitive” conversation we are having, and not in general.
Back on subject now…
—
CS
Peter Hamm on Mon, June 09, 2008
JOB,
I respectfully disagree with the idea that the New Testament gives us all the specifics we need for the way we “do church” in the 21st century. So I guess we agree to disagree. [But the goal is to function with unity as the body of Christ with the our differences.] Huh? The goal of what? The goal of the church is to follow the great commission and make disciples, is it not?
Sam,
It’s not sloppy exegesis at all. Are you saying that someone who the Holy Spirit draws can not respond by seeking God? I find that idea unbiblical. I was very careful in my wording and did not even insinuate that someone can seek God without action on God’s part happening, btw. Re-read my posts. I think I was clear.
[The average congregant is woefully biblically illiterate because pastors feel like they have to dumb down biblical terms such as justification, propitation, and sanctification.] No they’re not. I’ve met ‘em. And to say that I have to use specific “biblical terms” such as you list which mean nothing to many people who are 21st century USAmericans is assuming that those words carry some power in and of themselves, which I disagree with.
This conversation is becoming pointless. We’re not going to agree. I understand your arguments, and I lived in them at one point, but I don’t now. I remain unconvinced however that some of you understand or have even really heard the arguments of those of us on this side of the debate.
Sam on Mon, June 09, 2008
Peter, yes, we as the universal church are commanded by the great commission to evangelize. In that we totally agree. But where we disagree is that you have yet provide scriptural support that says that when we come together as brothers in sisters in Christ to worship, that time should be primarily designed around attracting the lost and/or the felt needs of the lost. The primary church worship service was not intended to be an evangelical tool where we marketed it to the lost.
So, when congregants are self feeding as you say they do in your church and come across words such as justification, sanctification, and propitation, you are saying that 21st century Americans do not need to know these terms? How sad is it for you to say that propitation should mean nothing to 21st century American. Packer summed up the NT by saying something to the effect: “adoption through the propitation of Jesus”. I woudl subject that if these terms mean nothing to 21st century American “Christians” then they are not truly saved. Again, you denying that congregants have become more and more biblically illiterate throughout time is along the same blindess that led WC to realize they were doing a poor job of discipling.
Leonard Lee on Mon, June 09, 2008
CS, I remember you posting on line much of what I shared. In the power of the ask and another post you revealed much of your story. So I apologize if it felt as though I was taking a private conversation public. I ask your forgiveness. Fair enough I would not want you to ever be in a church where you do not trust and submit to your pastor.
Peter Hamm on Mon, June 09, 2008
Sam,
Those people understand what those terms mean, even if they aren’t reading a translation of the Bible that has those specific words. Nobody needs to know the word “propitiation” to be saved, although they should probably learn it if they are in seminary. No, they need only trust Christ who is our Savior and follow Him. I will say it again. Christianity is NOT a list of doctrinal distinctives, it is a life of following Jesus as a regenerated creature. You write [I woudl subject that if these terms mean nothing to 21st century American “Christians” then they are not truly saved. (sic)] It says nowhere in scripture that I need to understand the meanings of certain English words in order to be saved. It says that I must trust and follow Jesus, God’s only Son, who died and rose so that I might live in Him!
I don’t create a worship service in order to attract seekers, btw. I create a worship service that utilizes heartfelt, contemporary, and often rather boisterous artforms, mainly music but also video, drama, visual arts, and whatever else my creative people can do, that just happens to appeal to a lot of seekers just as much as it appeals to me. But it’s real worship. We have preaching that instructs people how to live as Christ-followers, and we invite those who aren’t yet along for the ride. Often, they accept! I’ve been to Willow, it’s a lot like they do!
Your issue boils down to style, I think. I don’t have to defend the practice of coming together as you describe it in a service “primarily designed around attracting the lost and/or the felt needs of the lost” because that is NOT WHAT WE DO! I think you’re not getting it. You are misunderstanding and misinterpreting, and I suspect that no amount of my communication to you will convince you otherwise.
JOB on Mon, June 09, 2008
Peter said,
“I respectfully disagree with the idea that the New Testament gives us all the specifics we need for the way we “do church” in the 21st century. “
For the record I never said that nor do I agree that the NT gives us all the specifics. My point is is that the NT isn’t silent on the “doing church” question. Paul gave specific instructions to several churches in NT. Those specific instructions may not carry over to us today (for example: women having heads covered) but there are many things we can gleen from how these churches “did church”. It takes some effort and may spoil some of the fun that the human ingeniuty creates but of course it’s our only guidebook for success.
Rich Tatum on Mon, June 09, 2008
I used to work at CTI (fmr Internet Operations manager and fmr Online Media managing editor) and know the leadership there quite well. I don’t think there’s a rub between CTI and Willow - they actually do a lot of work together and have some publishing partnerships. I think CTI tries to report the news as it sees it and maybe Willow hasn’t done a great job of positioning and explaining what the news is they’re generating.
For the most part, though, I think Hybels is being overly sensitive. I think what they’re doing, in terms of this study, is a great service to the Body and I hope to see it continue.
FWIW, here’s my take on the Reveal study:
What Willow Creek’s ‘Reveal’ study really tells us…
Regards,
Rich
BlogRodent
Rich Tatum on Mon, June 09, 2008
I used to work at CTI (fmr Internet Operations manager and fmr Online Media managing editor) and know the leadership there quite well. I don’t think there’s a rub between CTI and Willow - they actually do a lot of work together and have some publishing partnerships. I think CTI tries to report the news as it sees it and maybe Willow hasn’t done a great job of positioning and explaining what the news is they’re generating.
For the most part, though, I think Hybels is being overly sensitive. I think what they’re doing, in terms of this study, is a great service to the Body and I hope to see it continue.
FWIW, here’s my take on the Reveal study:
“What Willow Creek’s ‘Reveal’ study really tells us…”
http://tatumweb.com/blog/2008/06/05/reveal
Regards,
Rich
aka: BlogRodent
Page 3 of 7 pages < 1 2 3 4 5 > Last »
Post a Comment