As most of you who read here know, I am not a big Willow guy, largely because I have some concerns about seeker-driven ministry.
They are good people and they love Jesus, and I have learned some good things from them, but my approach to church heads a different way. But, I have learned a lot from Hybels. And, I am interested to see how these things progressed lately.
Willow has made news by, well, correcting the news. The Christian Post has the story here. And, finally, Out of Ur sorta' repents for their sensationalist headline.
When all the hubub first came up, I jumped into the fray in my monthly column in Outreach Magazine called "As I See It." (If you are a subscriber, you would have read it already! If you are not, go here and subscribe.)
The article was birthed out of my surprise at how quickly people lied about what Willow and Hybels had said. Yes, I think some were unintentional errors, and some were irresponsible spreading of misinformation, but some of it was lying.
Some misquoted what others misquoted. However, I was very surprised to see how freely people just, well, lied-- all in the name of good theology.
So, I went on a bit of a rant-- particularly addressing those who thought Willow's concern for relevance was the problem.
Here is the article.
Weeping for Willow's Disciples
Willow Creek repents! The evil barbarians have admitted they were wrong. Seeker churches are bad. John MacArthur is the man.And we knew it all along. Seeker churches do not produce disciples--and even Hybels sees that now!
Too bad that is not what Hybels or the Willow team said.
Before I get too far in my rant, I must confess I am not a big proponent of seeker driven churches. My understanding of church heads a different direction. But, I am a big fan of the 9th commandment and think we ought to follow it.
Why am I not a "seeker guy"? Well, I think we need to take seekers into account when we plan what we do-- but I prefer calling that making church "seeker comprehensible." For me, I want our gathered worship to be driven more by worship and Word-- but I have learned a lot from Hybles about loving the lost, making sure my message is understandable, and having a compelling vision. And, I am learning more about how to admit you made a mistake.
So rather than listening to all the giddy Willow haters, let's take a look at what Hybels actually said:
"We made a mistake... What we should have done when people crossed the line of faith and became Christians, we should have started telling people and teaching people that they have to take responsibility to become self feeders.
We should have gotten people (and) taught people how to read their Bible between services (and) how to do the spiritual practices much more aggressively on their own."
Hybels indicated that the emphasis on programs and meetings did not produce disciples.What does make disciples? We will soon be releasing a study at LifeWay Research that looks at over 2500 people and tracks their spiritual formation over time (longitudinally) to answer that very question.
Here are some things we have already found.
First, genuinely seeking God first in one's life produces the fruit of discipleship in a way that participating in weekly church activities cannot.
Second, being in small community makes a big difference. Those who were in small groups showed remarkably more maturity than those who were not.
More on that next year...
But, the elephant in evangelicalism is this: We have spruced up the worship, spiked up the sermons, and become great at organization-- all the while we are failing to produce disciples.
If Hybels wants to use drama, have everyone on the worship team wear matching shirts, and reaches sparkly clean suburban Unchurched Harry and Mary-- great. If you want to wear a suit, sing from a hymnal, and yell when you preach, super. The real question is this-- does your church obey the Great Commission? And, the command of the Great Commission was not to "go" (that was assumed), it was to "make disciples."
I am glad Willow takes discipleship serious enough to ask hard questions then seek to discern the answers. I am just a bit worried that all the "I told you so" might be distracting people from the 70% young adult drop out rate at most Protestant churches, or the huge divorce epidemic, or porn addition, or whatever.
I know many Willow haters hate relevance. I can hear it now, "Brother, we don't need to be relevant, we just need to preach the word."
But, let's remember one of the four things from our recent dropout study that were most predictive of keeping young adults in church. Young adults were more likely to stay in church when they considered the sermons relevant to life.
So, after the Sunday message railing against Hybels and relevance, make sure to stand at the back door and watch the 20 year olds say good-bye-- 'cause you probably won't see them next week if not being relevant is a core value of your church.So, relevance matters. Willow is not "repenting of relevance" they are repenting for what 95% of churches in America should also repent-- not creating Christ honoring, spiritually formed disciples. For thinking that sitting people down and having them read studies will make them disciples.
So, rather then, "let's get Hybles" can we try, "let's get serious"?
Now, you may not like Seeker churches. Great. But, listen to what the man said. Then, go home to your church and take a look at your programs and ask, "How many disciples are we really making staking people up in rows and teaching them from books..." I think you might be surprised.
Let's help people become disciples on mission, becoming spiritual self feeders, serving the marginalized, loving their neighbors, and telling others about Christ-- that might be revealing, too.
The discussion about this study has spread broadly.
For example, the Florida Baptist Witness published a Bob Burney commentary that was widely distributed. (Bob is giving opinions that I do find more harsh than necessary, but he is not among those I would include spreading falsehoods.)
The FB Witness published his commentary but, to their credit, the Florida Baptist Witness also published Willow's response to it and other statements. Looking at both sides is, I think, helpful.
From The Witness:
Editor's note: The Nov. 15 issue carried a column by Bob Burney, "A shocking confession from Willow Creek Community Church leaders," re-printed by Baptist Press from TownHall.com responding to a new study from the Willow Creek Association. After receiving a letter to the editor referencing a statement issued by Willow Creek responding to Burney's and other accounts on the study, the Witness sought permission to publish the statement. In the interest of justice and in the spirit of Christian charity we publish the statement here.THE SITUATION:
The Willow Creek Association published a book called REVEAL in August 2007 about "ground-breaking" research findings regarding spiritual growth. These findings were based on survey results from seven churches and have now been confirmed through research with an additional two-dozen churches around the country, including two Canadian churches.
Some in the Christian blogging and media world point to these findings as evidence of a church model "flaw"/breakdown that applies exclusively to Willow Creek and/or the seeker movement inspired by Willow Creek 30 years ago.
This is not what the research shows.
Here are several quotes based on partial or incorrect information:
World magazine; Nov. 10, 2007:
"'We made a mistake.' Bill Hybels ... on a study that showed the Willow Creek model had not produced spiritually mature Christians."
Bob Burney, Townhall; Oct: 30, 2007:
"The report reveals that what they've been doing for these many years and what they've taught millions of others to do is not producing solid disciples of Jesus Christ ... Numbers, yes, but not disciples... ."
H.B. London, The Pastor's Weekly Briefing; Nov. 9, 2007:
"Hybels goes on to say, 'If you simply want a crowd, the "seeker sensitive" model produces results. If you want solid, sincere, mature followers of Christ, it's a bust."
Bill Hybels did not say this. Focus on the Family is printing a retraction.
FOUR FACTS ABOUT REVEAL:
REVEAL's findings go well beyond Willow Creek and the "seeker" church movement.
REVEAL's findings are based on 30 churches besides Willow, chosen specifically to reflect a diversity of church models. We've surveyed traditional Sunday School model churches, missions-focused churches, mainline denominations, African-American churches and churches representing a wide range of geographies, sizes and styles. In all 30 churches, we've found the six segments of REVEAL's spiritual continuum, including the Stalled and Dissatisfied segments.
REVEAL is currently surveying 500 churches, including more than a dozen denominations and English-speaking international churches. Early results from the first 200 demonstrate REVEAL's segments exist across multiple church model/style/size alternatives.
Forty percent of these 500 churches do not describe themselves as "seeker-focused" or "seeker-friendly".
REVEAL's findings show that Christ-followers are being developed at Willow Creek and all other surveyed churches.
The two most spiritually mature segments, called the "Close to Christ" and the "Christ-Centered" groups, account for over 40 percent of the total 30 church sample. To date the spiritual profiles of those churches show a range of 30 percent to 60 percent for these two segments.
The controversy:
REVEAL discovered a Dissatisfied segment that fell out of the two most spiritually advanced segments noted above. They are sold-out Christ followers, but are disappointed in their church. The Dissatisfied segment averaged nine percent over the 30 churches, ranging from three percent to 14 percent.
The bloggers and media point to this Dissatisfied group as proof that the "seeker" movement does not grow up disciples of Christ. The fact is this Dissatisfied group exists in every church we've surveyed, including the 200 churches currently in process.
Willow Creek's Senior Pastor Bill Hybels said, "We made a mistake."
Bill acknowledged that Willow did not appreciate the undercurrent of dissatisfaction expressed by some of our strongest Christ-followers. Nor did we appreciate the Kingdom impact of training and encouraging all Christ-followers to devote themselves to a daily discipline of personal spiritual practices.
But taking corrective action is not a new experience for Willow Creek. We've made a number of course corrections over the years - like adding a mid-week service in the '80s and building a small group ministry in the '90s. We've always been a church in motion and REVEAL is another example of Willow being open to God's design for this local church.
Willow Creek will use REVEAL's findings to take its mission to redeem people far from God to a whole new level.
Bill would say that Willow is not simply seeker-focused. We are seeker-obsessed. The power of REVEAL's insights for our seeker strategy is the evangelistic strength uncovered in the more mature segments. If we can serve them better, the evangelistic potential is enormous, based on REVEAL's findings.
I am glad Jim Smith, editor of The Witness, sought permission to publish the statement-- though it is too bad that others did not. To my knowledge, it was only publsihed in The Witness.
Now, I recognize that mentioning Hybels brings out the Pajamahadeen like moths to the flame. I would probably agree with some of the concerns, but I am not looking for a bash-Hybels session here. Instead, my question is this: why is it easier to lie about each other than to learn from each other?
Yes, we disagree on some things. But, and I know this is crazy, can we at least be honest? Honest about what others are really saying, and honest about what we are doing, or not doing, in our own churches?
Posted on July 7, 2008 at 10:33 AM ~ 25 Comments
Tagged with: hybels, reveal, willow creek
You are welcome (and encouraged) to comment below, but be sure your comment relates to the post. Feel free to discuss the topic, but do not denigrate individuals. Comments are moderated and usually appear within 15 minutes of being posted. Regrettably, Ed cannot personally respond to most comments and questions.
Leave a Comment
25 Comments
07/07/08 @ 11:58 AM
Ed,
Great post. I for one have learned a lot from Willow and Bill Hybels. I think they get a bad rap. I was in Chicago on a mission trip back in 03 and a lady stopped to see what our group was doing. She said, "I"m a fully devoted follower of Jesus." I asked her if she went to Willow and she said yes, how did you know?
They are doing a better job of teaching their people the mission of their church than most.
07/07/08 @ 1:23 PM
i was surprised that so many people were shocked. i think many knew that this was the eventual outcome of "seeker strategy". i agree with you Ed, lets not beat each other up lets pray for Willow.
we also need to remember this is hard what we are calling people to, being a disciple of Jesus is not convenient. long before REVEAL existed there was a guy that has shown us some pretty solid data, George Barna. i think we all would do well to read some of his material as well.
07/07/08 @ 1:52 PM
James-
Let's pray for Willow? The problems facing Willow are the same facing the vast majority of churches around this country so let's pray for all our churches. Even churches that are not "seeker" are having major problems producing disciples. What I see is a church being honest about what they are seeing and other churches jumping on rather than seeing their own struggles.
Thanks Ed for mentioning all this and I agree that we should all work together, learn from each others mistakes and successes. Aren't we all "seeking" the same thing anyway?
07/07/08 @ 2:02 PM
Good post, Ed.
As somebody who actually read REVEAL, I was pretty blown away by what people were claiming it said, especially when it seemed pretty self-evident.
Up-front programming--ANY up-front programming--can only take you so far. It doesn't matter if it's a Bill Hybels seeker-sensitive message or a John MacArthur exegesis... if people are passively listening to others preach the word they'll eventually hit a ceiling in their growth. To continue to grow, they need to crack open a Bible for themselves.
Ironically, REVEAL showed that programming and up-front content does work very well for young Christians... it's just that it won't finish the job; even if you change the content. Put up your favorite Bible professor and have him teach through the Bible a verse at a time; it doesn't matter unless people get into the Word on their own.
07/07/08 @ 2:05 PM
Yeah, I think many were simply surprised that Hybels and Willow were surprised at the results of their own research.
I don't think so many folks 'beat up' on them as expressed 'relief' that they pointed out the results of their findings, because they had essentially become the 'model'of success in evangelical church growth methodology.
Thanks to Ed and thousands more, I think the refocus on missiology was a key in helping us all see a little more light from the sitiuation.
07/07/08 @ 2:15 PM
Bravo, sir!
I emailed Jim Smith when The Witness first published Bob Burney's 'article'. The week they printed Willow's response they also printed my letter to the editor.
I agree with you 100%. I wish the rest of us had the courage to ask the tough questions, find the answers, and then publish them so others could benefit. But my response to your simple question is this: no, we can't be honest. And it's because we're too busy trying to 'get one up' on each other to lift Christ up.
Sad, indeed.
07/07/08 @ 2:52 PM
What I think that many people forget is that Willow (and pretty much every other church leadership in the country) are trying to do their to follow what they believe that God has led them to do. We can beat up on one another, but that doesn't do much for the kingdom. Honoring one another for what they are doing for the kingdom gets us a lot further.
07/07/08 @ 3:37 PM
If only we did some studies at our churches....I wonder what we would find...and I bet we wouldn't publish it either.
I think Willow has done an awesome job of trying to follow Jesus the best way they can...learning like crazy along the way...and then adjusting and tweaking and morphing to be better at what they do.
Now...if were only that teachable and flexible and fluid with our stuff....imagine what the church could be like!
Instead...we're rigid and unteachable and most of us are dying a slow, slow death.
Thanks Ed for your integrity in covering this.
07/07/08 @ 8:41 PM
Good comments.
I am particularly interested in why so many theological critics are so loose with facts. I received about 10 emails a week like this-- most of them citing people out of context, making unbelievable claims, and, simply, bearing false witness in the name of (their supposed) good theology.
I don't get it.
07/08/08 @ 12:26 AM
Ed,
If you get the answer to why these “theological critics” are playing loose with the facts, be sure to post it so we can all learn from it. One of the Godliest people I know, a pastor’s wife, recently said to me that “all preachers are liars.” I choked on my coffee, not believing what I just heard. Her statement was born out of a deep sorrow and pain. Sadly, I had come to the conclusion long before that leadership had developed semantically honed positions which foster a faulty view of their personal righteousness, not to mention a faulty view of the value of their positions. Some just aren’t very good at the semantics game and in less polite company would be called outright liars. Still, I often find myself wanting to believe its data overload, or stress, or some other external pressure, but for whatever reason, I can’t seem to camp there for long. I don't get it either. Good luck on your quest.
07/08/08 @ 7:37 AM
Ed, please correct me if I am wrong. It is the year 2008. The church has been in existence for nearly 2,000 years; yet, we still struggle with dishonesty and jealously. That is shameful at best and sinful at worse. No wonder the community ignores us and our messages. We shoot and eat our own rather than working together, side-by-side for the kingdom. We allow our jealously of another's ministry or "success" in ministry to eat away at us until we can't see clearly. Why? Are we under the pressure from church members to produce like those other congregations? Are we taught to put pressure upon ourselves?
While I don't agree with everything Hybels or Warren or Stetzer :) or even my own church says, we are brothers and sisters in Christ! We are called to love each other and not condemn each other.
I'm afraid until we learn that lesson, the world is going to call us more and more out of touch every day! Shame on us!
07/08/08 @ 8:13 AM
It's sort of funny, and yet incredibly sad. The churches bashing how Willow does business, many of them, are literally millions of dollars in debt, corporately and individually. The untimely death of a beloved pastor would sink most churches. The closing of a major factory in town might sink half the membershp of the church. All the while, we're concerned with how a church in Chicago is conducting business.
The hypocrisy of it all is nauseating and a flat out joke to the unchurched world. This is one of the primary reasons that the church is mocked.
07/08/08 @ 9:41 AM
Ed,
This is my first time to your site. I came by way of Steve Heartsill's blog. I am not alone, I am sure, in being sad over the "shoot the wounded" mentality that exists in the church, especially among pastors. So Willow admits some shortcomings. Is there any who can't? I like John Mac but is he always right in everything? Is Chuck Swindoll? Is Craig Groeschel? No, of course not. Well then why in the world are we not supporting each other instead of arrogantly pushing our positions? I may not agree with Hybels on everything (and I'm sure he would not agree with me on everything) but I think it takes a growing people and leadership to take a step back and reevaluate. Thanks for this blog. I will visit again.
07/08/08 @ 12:57 PM
Yeah I'm not a very big "seeker guy" either. We have some monsterous seeker churchs here in Dallas (i.e. Fellowship Church) but we also have some very Biblical and discipling based Churches (i.e. The Village Church). Myself I never understood the point of being seeker sensitve or even seeker driven when the Bible clearly tells us that no body seeks after God (Romans 3; Eph. 2). Any way hopefully Willow Creek will learn to disciple people better and get them ablaze for Christ.
07/08/08 @ 3:35 PM
my chch is not a seeker church, but i have learned much from BH books and podcasts, esp about loving the lost.
the"Pajamahadeen"?
I love it when you make up words.
07/08/08 @ 6:00 PM
For Lifeway's next research project, ask our SB churces the same questions that were asked in the "REVEAL" study. I wonder who would have "better" results? I wonder if we would need to say that "We were wrong."
07/09/08 @ 8:25 AM
I think what is amazing about this is that Willow is actually admitting they were wrong. I have been in numerous church leadership meetings where many refused to admit that how the church was approaching life and ministry was wrong. This was despite the facts before them.
07/10/08 @ 3:22 PM
Ed, thanks for the article. I have been amazed at how misread (or unread) the Reveal study was. In our local Innovative Church Community, I listened for over and hour before I had to lose it and ask how many of the guys had actually read it or been to the Leadership Summit where it was mentioned. Only one person had!
The talking points for the day came from a reprint of your first article and they even murdered that! I was trying to reach you by phone because I kept telling these guys, "That's not what Ed said either!"
Bless you... and update your photo...
07/10/08 @ 8:30 PM
It is too bad that those accusing Willow of not making disciples aren't disciples themselves. I think that pretty much explains the untruthfulness and innuendo.
07/11/08 @ 12:37 PM
Ed,
Near the end of the article, you state that your point is not to bash Hybels. Looking at your first paragraph I have to ask: Is your point to bash MacArthur?
The following statement that you wrote floors me: "And, the command of the Great Commission was not to "go" (that was assumed), it was to "make disciples." "
How is the word "GO" assumed, given the fact that it's actually in the text? Also, the word "Go" makes sense when you include the entire sentence and don't conveniently leave out the prepositional phrase "of all nations" at the end.
Finally, two questions that are somewhat related to your post:
1) It seems like you're really afraid that 20 somethings will leave your church. Isn't the whole "be relevant" movement just an excuse to avoid the tough teachings of scripture in order to avoid offending 20 somethings in order to keep them around? In other words, is it really any different than the seeker movement of the 80's? After all, both are designed to get people in the door, aren't they?
2) Why do the "be relevant" people seem to believe that the Bible, IN AND OF ITSELF, isn't relevant?
07/11/08 @ 2:48 PM
Wow. Gary. You know how to make an entrance.
But, you did not attack anyone or send a 52 paragraph pre-prepared statement with 17 links, so it only seems fair to answer your questions.
And, most importantly, I wish everyone cared as much as you care.
It sounds like we share some of the same concerns, but come to some different conclusions. And, I am guessing that some of your questions come from the fact that you only read this article and are making some assumptions about me.
On to your questions:
>> Near the end of the article,
>>you state that your point is not
>>to bash Hybels. Looking at your
>>first paragraph I have to ask:
>>Is your point to bash MacArthur?
Nope. But it was a humorous way to point out that many have said that John McArthur was right all along. He has been very critical of the seeker movement.
>>How is the word "GO" assumed,
>>given the fact that it's
>>actually in the text? Also, the
>>word "Go" makes sense when you
>>include the entire sentence and
>>don't conveniently leave out the
>>prepositional phrase "of all
>>nations" at the end.
Actually, in the Greek, the "Go" is an aorist participle, better translated "after you have gone," but with some direction to it (not just “as you are going”). It is a needed assumed action that leads to the central verb of "make disciples."
Technically, it is aorist participle connected to an aorist main verb. The main verb is “make disciples” and the thing connected to that is to “get going” to do it. It is too weak to say that it is “as you are going,” but the action is assumed in order to make disciples.
So, the central verb of the Great Commission is not going, it is making disciples, which we have to “go” to do.
Another example of the same construct is Matthew 28:7: “Then go quickly and tell His disciples.” You have to “go” to do the “tell.”
As far me leaving the "of all nations" off "conveniently," you must be new here to think I don't care about the nations. My Ph.D. is in missiology, I train globally twice a year, and I am in the process of co-editing a missiology text. So, let’s not throw around insinuations.
>>Isn't the whole "be relevant" movement
>>just an excuse to avoid the tough
>>teachings of scripture in order
>>to avoid offending 20 somethings
>>in order to keep them around?
>>In other words, is it really any
>>different than the seeker movement
>>of the 80's? After all, both are
>>designed to get people in the door,
>>aren't they?
Yes, that is exactly it.
You figured it out.
Those of us (like Paul) who think that it is important that people actually understand the message are really just seeking to water down the message.
Now, to be fair, there are some who do exactly what you say, so I understand the concern. I have seen them on Larry King and it gets my blood boiling.
However, I don't know many like that... and I would strongly disapprove of any desire or plan to remove the stumbling block of the cross or the clear teaching of scripture on any subject.
Yet I believe that even that stumbling block needs to be communicated in relevant and understandable ways.
>> 2) Why do the "be relevant"
>>people seem to believe that
>>the Bible, IN AND OF ITSELF,
>>isn't relevant?
Hi, I am Ed. Obviously, you have not read much of what I have written.
I can't speak for everyone, but I have addressed this issue more here: http://catalystleaders.com/content/monthly/detail.aspx?i=1198&m=01&y=2007
As I have said on countless occasions, we don't need to make the scriptures relevant. The Bible already is relevant in this and in every culture.
But, we aren't… and that is a concern.
Gary, I appreciate your passion for the scriptures. But, please don't forget that the scriptures also have to be communicated... and that means we take people and culture into account as we do so.
Thanks for stopping by...
07/11/08 @ 7:21 PM
Thanks for the quick response, I appreciate it. Obviously you are much smarter than I am but I knew that prior to your response. Thanks for the education on the great commission. By the way, you are correct that I don't know much about you so I am compelled to ask you forgiveness for making assumtpions about you. I'm very glad to read that your Ph.D is in Missiology. One of the things that really bothers me about the "relevant/missional/Acts 29" type people (I'm sorry but I don't really have a good term for all of "you guys", :) ) is that is APPEARS to me that the large majority of them have almost no interest in foreign missions. Please correct me if that is not a true statement. That's why I mistakenly lumped you into that group. BTW, I get the fact that not many people are called to Foreign missions. However, at times I have ALMOST sensed a slight bit of hostility towards foreign missions from many in the "relevant/missional" camp.
Let me state that of course I don't want to be seen as irrelevant. However, I struggle with how this plays out. I read where a devout christian stated that he went to see the movie "Sex & the City" because he wanted to "be in touch with the culture." I'm sorry but from what I've heard and read that movie is basically soft porn. Does one (especially a visually oriented male) really need to see the movie to undertand that our culture is totally into unbiblical sex? I think I've got that figured out without going to see the movie. I guess I struggle with the Biblical command to be holy vs. the call of many pastors today to "be relevant." In the end, I guess it's my own immaturity and lack of Biblical knowledge that makes it seem hard for me to achieve both of those things.
Thank you very much for your response to my earlier post. I really appreciate that.
07/11/08 @ 7:43 PM
Gary,
Welcome back... and I am glad you returned.
I will indent indicate your comments with a >> and then respond.
My responses:
>> Obviously you are much smarter than I am but I knew that prior to your response. Thanks for the education on the great commission.
Nah, I just went to school too long and know what an "aorist" is. I bet you know a lot about things I don't as well. Then we can learn from one another.
>> By the way, you are correct that I don't know much about you so I am compelled to ask you forgiveness for making assumptions about you.
You are definitely forgiven... and I am glad to do it.
>> I'm very glad to read that your Ph.D is in Missiology. One of the things that really bothers me about the "relevant/missional/Acts 29" type people (I'm sorry but I don't really have a good term for all of "you guys", :) ) is that is APPEARS to me that the large majority of them have almost no interest in foreign missions. Please correct me if that is not a true statement.
Nope, I think you are right. They are not as involved as I would like them to be.
Of course, I think most churches need to be more involved in global missions. So, I think that is almost always true. However, I think that the young contemporary crowd is worse than the traditional when it comes to global missions. Believe it or not, part of my job is to help involved these types in foreign missions.
>> However, at times I have ALMOST sensed a slight bit of hostility towards foreign missions from many in the "relevant/missional" camp.
I agree. I think they don't intentionally do it. However, when people say that "missional" means we can be missionaries "here," they sometimes think we do not need to be missionaries "over there." I think it is a both/and, but for some they downplay or are embarrassed about global missions and missionaries.
>> Let me state that of course I don't want to be seen as irrelevant. However, I struggle with how this plays out. I read where a devout christian stated that he went to see the movie "Sex & the City" because he wanted to "be in touch with the culture."
I see that sometimes, too. I call it an abuse of Christian liberty. I don't know what is in the movie, but I don't see the point of going in and being tempted by it (if it contains what I assume it contains).
>> I guess I struggle with the Biblical command to be holy vs. the call of many pastors today to "be relevant." In the end, I guess it's my own immaturity and lack of Biblical knowledge that makes it seem hard for me to achieve both of those things.
I struggle with it as well.
One thing that helps me is that I try to remember that holiness is separation from sin and not separation from sinners. But, it is a difficult balance even considering that.
>>Thank you very much for your response to my earlier post. I really appreciate that.
So glad you came by... you are welcome anytime.
God bless,
Ed
07/12/08 @ 6:59 PM
Ed-
You are much kinder than me. I appreciate your kind responses in the face of disagreement.
My blood boils a bit too easily and I am glad to see someone handle questioning critics with grace.
God Bless,
Uncle Jeff
07/16/08 @ 9:00 AM
As a past Willow attender and staff member who worked with Greg Hawkins, I appreciate what you stated here in this article.
People have been misquoting and misrepresenting the facts as Greg revealed them. The kicker being that this research was broader than just the population at Willow Creek. So the results are reflective of all the churches that participated. Plus, the research continues. There is surely more to come out about the state of the church today.
Anyone who is quick to point the finger as if Willow is the only church with this problem should take a much closer, objective look at themselves and their leadership as well as the results of their strategic planning over the years. None of the results from this study should be intimidating...it should be empowering. A mid-course correction should be easy knowing where the central problems lie and the results will be tremendous for today's christian, enabling them to have an even greater impact on their circles of influence.
As a church consultant, I am constantly amazed at the fact that church leaders are in denial of the real problems within their own organization, even with empirical evidence. What I see that they forget is that it's not "their" church (as some want to be very protective and possessive) but it's Christ's church.
Thanks Ed for your honest and objective point of view.