Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
As documented in many places, the fact that most of these are not unchurched but formerly churched who left church for bad reasons, like it was boring and such. The fact that a great number of these people leave very quickly. They are not in it for the long haul and there is no radical transformation.
Do you have those statistics somewhere? They weren't in the article you posted. From what I've read of Barna, this isn't so.
There is no call to a radical godliness and separation from the world and its patterns.
There is. How much of Hybels have you actually heard/read? This may not be initial, but it does come. I wouldn't suggest that anyone enter a witnessing situation by preaching a "turn and burn" message.
In fact, there is a bringing of the world into the church so that apart from the Bible verse quoted, there is no real difference.
Such as what? Music? Media?
I am sure that was not the biblical method.
So Christ's sharing of parables including a Samaritan, for example, isn't an example of Christ using modern-day examples to tell the good news of the gospel? God spoke very culturally to the Israelites, just as Christ spoke culturally to the people around him during the ministry on earth, just as Paul spoke to the church "of an unknown God."
1 Cor 1-4 and 2 Cor 1-4 is an explicit refutation of that kind of ministry and approach.[
What parts, specifically.
Their whole aim was to create a church around what people would like.
Not excatly correct - their whole aim was to create a church aroung what people would need. I think there is a difference.
This has constantly been their own statement. I do not quesiton their sincerity and I do not question whethey they have had some fruit. The evidence from many places that i don't have time to list here is that it is not what it has cracked up to be.
I've read some of the criticisms and most are without much merit. A good example of such an article is Paul Proctor who calls Willow Creek as having a "godless nature" and a "godless direction."
We don't see the solid Christian growth from this and we don't see the great cultural revival that we would think they should be having.
and yet your article talked about the dangers of pragmatism, which is where you are headed with that argument. Again, where is your evidence?
Hybels is a tremendous communicator and appears to have a good heart. But his methods are not NT methods.
I think his methods are very similar to Christ, who had the audacity to eat with sinners, causing shock with the "Godly" people of that time, thinking "how could he stoop to such a thing!"
This whole marketing method of the church needs some serious reflection that it does not often get. I would recommend the following as a thought starter
Market Driven Ministry Parts 1 and 2. On this page are links to two articles that will prove good starters for anyone willing to think critically and biblically about this issue. It will be worth your time.
A quote: "Clearly the Willow Creek Community Church has moved Christianity a step closer to the secular world." I'm not sure this is a bad thing, although I understand the author's worry. I would say that it is our responsibility to bring Christianity to the world that doesn't want anything to do with Christ.
Let us imagine a scale of 1 to 10, where 10 is the moment right before a person accepts Christ and 1 where he wants nothing to do with Christ, the church, or Christianity. Leonard Sweet says that 50 years ago, the average person in the US was at an 8, so it didn't take too much for them to be able to step forward and accept Christ. NOw, the average person is at a 3 or a 4. Much more is needed for them to be able to understand and accept the gospel message. Willow Creek's methods are to help the person who may be at a 4, or even worse, begin to grow towards an acceptance of Jesus Christ. I don't have a problem with it.
I also find it interesting that the article says that Willow Creek is not focused enough on worship. One need only go to service to see that this is plainly false. I wonder why he did not mention the midweek service which is filled with praise and worship.
From reading both of the articles, there is a clear theological bent more towards the realm of Calvinism, where God is going to save who He is going to save. He talks several times about total depravity and that, as such, there is nothing man can do to present the gospel message as attractive. (He also says in plain language that the Holy Spirit must regenerate before the person can choose Christ.) Obviously, I would disagree with this. I would agree with Willow Creek that a church must meet a person's immediate needs before they can deal with the power of Christ. It is like witnessing to a hungry beggar - the guy has to be fed physically, before he can be fed spiritually.
I would also questoin the articles' claims that Hybels never preaches on sin or Hell. This is blatantly false - at least in the messages I have read from him. He is very honest about the fate of non-believers. He doesn't preach "fire and brimstone" messages, but speaks about a very real fate of the non-believer. I am not sure why the author says that, honestly.
Perhaps his argument falls apart the most when discussing how terrible the use of contemporary music is in the Christian world. Because praise music tends to use guitar and drums, we are obviously having a loosening lifestyle. THis is the logical fallacy known as a slippery slope argument. He concludes with this argument, and it is quite faulty. The same argument appeared when the organ began to be introduced to the Church and the bishops of the Church exclaimed, "The organ is a tool of Satan!" and the church used it anyway. The same argument appeared when choral music started using two-part, and then later four-part harmony. The cries of secularism were heard throughout Europe. Yet even in our most traditional churches, we admit that we are truly blessed by an organ offertory or a powerful choir piece. In the same way - the use of contemporary music has the power to bring an outside culture to today's world. I see no difference between the cries of "rock music is bad for the church" and "organ music is bad for the church." The latter hsa proven to be false, and I am confident the former will as well.
The overall message of the author is that Willow Creek isn't God-centered enough. I would encourage him, and others who have written disparagingly about Hybels and the church, to actually go hear him preach, read some of his books, whatever it takes. It is clear that Doran has not attended the church nor Saddleback Community Church (Rick Warren's the pastor there), so one has to wonder how credible he truly is.
My encouragement is just that. More critical thought. We have too often accepted something because it draws big crowds without properly analyzing and thinking through it.
Again, I am not questioning his motives. I am questioning the wisdom and biblical correctness of some of the methods he has chosen. I think he has compromised the gospel he preaches. Let's be discerning here. [/QB]
And I've read Hybels' rationale for these things and have properly analyzed it. We've had this debate in staff meetings at our own church. He doesn't do these things merely for "big crowds." His belief is that the local church is the hope of the world, and he communicates solid, Biblically based truths to both the lost and the found in the hope that they will commit their lives to Christ. And, despite what many of the commentaries have said, they do not end there. They have discipleship classes for all new converts. They stress ministry and missions. They stress worship. All these things are so often missed in the zeal to criticize Willow Creek. I would encourage you as well to read "Courageous Leadership" by Bill Hybels to understand more about the rationale for WCCC. Perhaps reading that in a discerning matter would be good for you.
