What Can Bill Clinton’s Spiritual Adviser Teach You About Evangelism?
I’m amazed how incredibly uninformed I seem to be regarding the who’s who of the “church growth” movement. I grew up in churches in close proximity to the New Orleans Theological Seminary, and the pastors it produced tended to be of the old-time religion variety- you know, repent of your sin, turn to Jesus, “churchy” kind of stuff not very relevant to the Brave New World.
Anyway, apparently there’s this guy named Bill Hybels who was doing Rick Warren before Rick Warren was cool, head of a mega-church called Willow Creek in Illinois. Well, Warren went from retail to wholesale with the Purpose Driven Life, and so I guess Hybels is doing the same thing with a new series on evangelism.
He’s described as an “optimist” who wants to overcome the spiritual baggage of all those backwards Baptists who make hay over minor things like the lives of unborn children, instead of concentrating on what’s really important, like social gospel wealth redistribution schemes.
And whatdoya know- he’s Bill Clinton’s spiritual adviser:
Mr Hybels’s optimism is perhaps best illustrated by his role as Bill Clinton’s spiritual adviser throughout his Monica Lewinsky-tainted eight years in the White House. Mr Clinton returned the favour by turning up at the church in 2000 to tell the congregation that his spiritual health was a “work in progress”.
And it continues, according to Touchstone Magazine:
At the end, according to the Tribune, Hybels and Clinton stood before the crowd; Hybels then “put his arm on the president’s shoulder and prayed: ‘Thank you, God, that you wired him up the way you did’.”
Clinton left to a standing ovation of 4,500 Christian leaders. (Another 6,000 watched by satellite.)
Now maybe I’m old-fashioned, but anyone who cozies up to a baby-killing sexual predator like Clinton and provides him a quasi-Christian forum to make his weaseley “apology” might need to repeat Evangelism 101 in seminary. But, by today’s standards, like a CEO who bankrupts a corporation, it just means he has “experience”- he can write a book and call himself an expert!
And, of course, I would not leave you without the big picture. I cannot say it better than the Touchstone article, as they describe the Oprahfication of an American church who has rejected its heritage and chases after vanity:
Is a certain segment of Evangelicalism, lacking the weight of history and gravity of tradition and generally ineffective in shaping political and cultural forms, so self-consciously aware of its junior status in the culture, of its youth and lack of sophistication, that it is susceptible to seduction? Certain Evangelicals have been mesmerized by a Southern Baptist, Bible-toting American president who exhibits none of the moral earnestness of real Southern Baptists (or many other Evangelical Christians for that matter) but who is willing to direct his approving celebrity gaze in their direction, and speak the language—in some circles the new and improved Christian language—not of sin and repentance but of therapy and feelings.
Yep, that about sums it up.
January 14th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
I have one word. Wow.
I guess this is almost as good as the Clinton Chronicles.
I think we can file this latest post under: Antichrist’s Deception of the Church aka Clinton. The policies of Clinton have killed millions and put the security of our country in jeopardy.
I think the sunshades in the video were a nice touch. The really condeming pat on the back phrase is, “Thank you, God, that you wired him up the way you did.” All I can really say is “Wow.” Even the devil has his legions of fans.
January 15th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
What do you think about the “Walk Across the Room” series we are doing? SHould we not jump into it because we disagree with Hybel’s politics? Your thoughts?
January 15th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
I had opportunity to view a sermon given by Hybels at Ashland Seminary in 2006. This guy makes Rick Warren look like Spurgeon.
Where to begin? First of all, the content is nothing more than a bunch of common sense picked apart into cute acrostics- profound things like “be nice to people”, “be tactful”, etc. However, I think I know where he’s going with this- he’s going to the old social gospel heresy of not preaching the Word of God as instructed by the Bible, but rather letting people “see Jesus in you” through social uplift schemes. Like I’ve said before, if the devil can get us to shutup about the Bible and waste our time on social work, he wins.
But the more disturbing experience is his normalization of homosexuality. His “just so” story of having drinks in a bar with a couple who told him they were gay (not gay together, as they were a man and woman) and his justification of not giving them the Biblical position on their lifestyle. I now see the future laid before us- Hybels’ non-chalant attitude is two logical steps away from the acceptance of homosexuality in the church. Already, many Methodist churches are adopting an “open door” policy, welcoming these “couples” into the congregation without any repentance.
Hybels has been down this road before, appropriately enough at Bill Clinton’s 1996 inaugural:
http://ctlibrary.com/1182
The evils mentioned at this gathering that Hybels attended and praised Clinton at? Not abortion or moral decline, but rather the old liberal shibboleths of “racism, sexism, homophobia, and triumphal religiosity”.
And at the end of the speech, he took off the mask, as he told the audience his passion for “racial reconciliation, social justice, eliminating poverty, dealing with AIDS and embracing Jesus’ principle of non-violence.”
When a liberal preacher starts talking about racial reconciliation and social justice, you better hold on to your wallet. The idea is to stir up white guilt, which is then transformed politically into wealth transfer payments through “affirmative action” and, in due time, “slavery reparations”. His goals of eliminating poverty are more Marxist foolishness, as Christ said the poor will always be with us.
And in America, where we have a “poverty obesity” problem (i.e. the biggest health problem among the “poor” is obesity), that means we don’t have a poverty problem. When the New Testament talks about caring for the poor, it means meeting the literal hunger needs of local believers, not welfare payments and free housing for people who own multiple color TV’s and a dishwasher. This is socialist evil posing as Christianity.
His politically correct moralizing about AIDS is the same thing- let’s focus on a media-approved “victim” group that is largely responsible for their own behavior. And of course, not a word for the 50 million children murdered by abortion due to people like Hybels’ buddy Bill Clinton.
And his comments about non-violence is a direct slap in the face to the service men and women who defend this country- the liberal principle at work here is that America is a racist, imperialist, evil country who uses her military not to defend herself but to oppress others. I might be opposed to certain wars for strategic reasons, but I have nothing but contempt for these do-gooder liberals like Hybels who deny that we have the right to use force for anything (you could feel his contempt for patriotic Americans as he described his patronizing efforts at getting his Republican neighbor to come to his church- he used words like “he’s one of those really gung-ho pro-American Republican types”, clearly delineating Hybels’ alienation from such a point of view). And it’s bad theology anyway- a man who whips the money-changers out the temple is not “non-violent”.
The experience of this video was like the turning point in a really good movie like The Sixth Sense, where the plot proceeds darkly until the moment of revelation comes. And it came in this video.
The liberals and the relativists were defeated in the Southern Baptist Convention in the 1970’s by godly men who attacked them on their weak flank- their denial of the inerrancy of Scripture. But now the liberals are back- and they won’t make the same mistake again. They know what words to say, how to sound churchy, and their slimy relativism enables them to double-talk when backed into a theological corner.
I feel a great turning point is coming for the SBC churches. It is time to fight, not cut and run to more conservative churches. There is too much at stake to simply grin and bear it any longer. Hybels, Warren, and the rest of them have revealed themselves for what they are, and those of us who still believe in the true faith had better stop just tolerating it.
We’ve got to stop making excuses for them- someone who runs a church with 512 employees doesn’t do something by accident. He doesn’t put his arm around Bill Clinton and thank God for him by accident (the only thing we need to thank God for regarding Bill Clinton is that He apparently hasn’t judged us yet for electing such a man). He doesn’t become Clinton’s spiritual adviser by accident- a sociopath like Clinton would never meet regularly with someone who didn’t enable him. He doesn’t attend Bill Clinton’s inaugural celebration and praise the man by accident.
And when we make excuses for this behavior, we enable these people and their destructive work in the church.
They have built their megachurches upon the sand of relativism, and for this they have been rewarded by the world. Will we stand idly by while they do the same to our beloved congregations? The temptations of worldly fame have proven too strong for much of our leadership, and the only solution is that the conservative factions in the churches will make the local leadership fear a local backlash more than the rewards of worldy success. Absent such a restoration, unless we start fighting somewhere, for something, to tell these liberal deceivers that they have crossed a line that we will not allow them to cross without a fight, then we all might as well start having church at home, because that’s the only place we’re going to get a Biblical faith.
January 15th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Hybels also described himself as a humanitarian, another liberal catchphrase that encompasses everything from ending capital punishment (b/c in the Marxist mythology criminals are actually freedom fighters against an unjust society) to gun control (again, self-defense against criminals is itself criminal, since criminals are merely responding to their unjust circumstances, racism, injustice, etc.).
January 15th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
One characteristic that seeker-friendly churches possess is that they promote Jesus the therapist, a Jesus that will be your friend and encourage you during tough times and that you can tell your troubles to and He will be empathetic and understanding.
Similarly, these churches encourage Christians to become the friendly therapist, willing to listen, never to judge, just there to hold the hand of someone in need of somebody. The worse the person’s condition, the greater the need for a therapist, and the greater the thrill and opportunity of reaching those needs. If the person is obviously poor, then that’s an even greater opportunity. If the person is of a different ethnic group, then that’s an even greater opportunity. If the person is of a different religion, particularly if the religion is openly hostile to Christianity, then that’s an even greater opportunity. If the person is pursuing a different alternative lifestyle, then that’s an even greater opportunity.
Meanwhile, make sure that you don’t point out anything in their life that is in need of change - you aren’t there to judge, just to listen and be their friend.
I suppose by way of backing this up Biblically, these churches could resort to tried and true claims that “God is love” and “We should love everyone” or my particular favorite, “Judge not, that ye be not judged” Matthew 7:1 KJV. Since it’s unlikely these churches use the King James Version, perhaps I should quote the Message Bible, “Don’t pick on people, jump on their failures, criticize their faults - unless of course, you want the same treatment.”
If they were particularly savvy, these churches might even quote:
Matthew 9:10
10 And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples.
On the surface, it appears that Jesus is doing just what these seeker-friendly churches promote - he’s being a friend to the needy.
However, we should be like the Bereans, who are described in Acts 17:10-11 as being noble because they held everything up to Biblical scrutiny:
10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
So, what does the Bible say? Is there a Biblical basis for the seeker-churches emphasis on Jesus the therapist and just being a non-criticizing friend to those in need?
Whenever you’re in doubt about something, whenever something new under the sun arises, it’s best to hold it in the context of scripture.
1. Let’s examine the full context of the “Judge not” in Matthew 7. Whenever someone quotes a Bible verse to back up their point of view, you should always read the full context that it was written in. In this case, we have:
Matthew 7
1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.
By reading the full text, you can see that the issue isn’t one simply of judging, but rather being a hypocrite. Verse 5 clearly states that you can then “cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye” after you’ve first dealt with your own problems and have “cast out the beam out of thine own eye”.
Unfortunately, that is a little more complicated that the simple “Judge Not” cliche, because it requires an understanding of the full context of the Matthew 7:1 verse by reading an additional four more verses, which is beyond the scope of teaching at many seeker-friendly churches.
2. Let’s examine Matthew 9 again:
Matthew 9:9-13
9 And as Jesus passed forth from thence, he saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose, and followed him.
10 And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples.
11 And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?
12 But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.
13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
Jesus isn’t sitting down with these publicans and sinners to hear their problems and become their close friend. He describes Himself as a physician to those that are sick. Seeker-friendly church advice would probably be to avoid characterizing anyone as sick, or sinners. After all, we’re all sinners (Romans 3:23), so why make a distinction?
Jesus is interested in calling “sinners to repentence.”
If you go through and read the instances of Jesus evangelizing or witnessing to individuals and groups, you’ll find common threads: Jesus tells the truth, does not pull any punches, and offers a clear path to salvation.
John 3: Nicodemus
“Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God….Ye must be born again…Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?…ye receive not our witness…he that believeth not is condemned already…this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil…But he that doeth truth cometh to the light.
John 4: Samaritan woman
“If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water…But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life….Thou hast well said, I have no husband: For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly…Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship…true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
Matthew 11: Multitudes following Him
He that hath ears to hear, let him hear…But whereunto shall I liken this generation?…Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not….It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you…it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee…All things are delivered unto me of my Father… Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Repentence is not a feel-good experience. It’s the opposite. It’s the acknowledgement of the awfulness of your sins and your repudiation of them. It’s accepting Christ’s work of atonement on the cross as providing payment for our sin debt. Needless to say, a typical person in the world isn’t interested in rejecting their sinful life, but prefers to wallow their sin. We shouldn’t wallow with them.
When Jesus spent time with publicans and sinners, they were actively trying to follow him and actively rejecting their lifestyle (Zacchaeus- Luke 19). Jesus didn’t spend time as their personal therapist and buddy. Neither should we. Jesus pointed out the error of their ways and revealed Himself as their Savior and Lord. So should we.
January 15th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
A discussion of Bill Hybels & Willow Creek
Hegelian Dialectic & the New World Order
http://www.stateofthechurch.com/CGM/cgmpaul-proctor.htm
January 15th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
James Dobson on Hybels and Clinton:
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/01-29-2001/0001414737&EDATE=
Clinton
was interviewed informally on that occasion by Rev. Bill Hybels who, after
promising a no-holds barred interview, tossed softballs that permitted the
president to sound mildly contrite over the Lewinsky matter. It was just four
days before the Democratic National Convention, when he needed “cover” to
shield him from those who might bring up the Lewinsky affair. Hybels did not
ask the president, nor did the president volunteer, to repent for his
infidelity with the other women or to express regret for his shameful support
for partial-birth abortion. His confession, if that is what it was, dealt
only with the instance when he was caught red-handed.
January 15th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
Warren-Obama linked to Hybels’ original enabling of Clinton:
Warren’s reasoning might be similar to other leaders of doctrinally weak seeker churches like Willow Creek Community Church in Illinois. Senior Pastor Bill Hybels first invited an unrepentant then-President Bill Clinton to attend his pastor’s conference, and proceeded to pitch him one softball after the next in an interview before the gathered masses. Hybels’ idea was to allow Clinton to “teach pastors” ideas about what “true leadership” was all about. (At what? Adultery? Lying under oath? Oral Sex?) Clinton was at least smart enough to be able to play the game a bit and profess certain vagaries about a “life of belief in God.”
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52998
January 16th, 2007 at 2:00 am
After last night’s video, I was interested to hear what you had to say regarding Mr. Hybels. I have to tell you, I am very conflicted about this on two different levels - practically and ideologically.
On one hand, I am impacted by what I heard last night. My mind was engaged and moved, and I was at the same time convicted and comforted. Convicted in the sense that I could feel the Spirit compelling me to share my faith with those around me, and comforted in the sense that it it not entirely up to me to produce this miraculous occurence - it is okay (and necessary) to follow God’s leadership.
I think that it is all too true that, if Christians as a whole were to live more wisely and conscientiously in regards to “outsiders” that there wouldn’t be as much need to have structured, artificial evangelism “campaigns” - it would occur naturally, as an outgrowth of our own walks with God.
That said, I cannot endorse a man with the outspoken beliefs that Mr. Hybels endorses. It would be one thing to say we disagree on certain things, but for a man who is in the political and public spotlight as a Christian to so publicly endorse things that (at best) are fluff and, at worst, contradict the very tenets of our faith is too much to support.
So, what are we to do? More to the point, what am I to do? I am in a quandry. I support and trust the leadership of our church - so how am I do react when I hear these types of things? Right now, I don’t know.
The only conclusion I can come to is that I have two obligations: public and personal. Personally, am willing to listen to whatever he has to say - and I will sift it for truth. I will compare it to the Word, I will diligently study, and I will take to heart what the Spirit says to me through him - because I believe the Spirit can use anyone. There may be things I have to disregard as well, and I will do that.
There are other people who teach on evangelism as well, and I read them and listen to their opinions. I have to sift their words for truth, too, because very rarely do I hear someone that believes exactly what I believe. (Ray Comfort is one: http://www.wayofthemaster.com, http://www.livingwaters.com - he’s an excellent resource on evangelism, and one I admire greatly.)
Publically - well, I have actually no idea, to be frank. I am torn and conflicted right now. But I do agree with you wholeheartedly in one point, Tom: it’s not time to cut and run to more conservative churches. This is the church I’m committed to, and I love this church, and I am going to fight for it.
Thanks for the enlightening information, Tom.
January 16th, 2007 at 11:39 am
I think it is more useful to speak in the abstract.
I think part of the tragedy of conflict is that often people on the other side have very little knowledge of what they did. To give an example, in 2003 a majority of the Republicans in the Texas State House of Representatives voted to give drivers’ licenses to illegal aliens. Many of them did it not because they are all traitors to their country (even though the vote was a traitorous act) but because the leadership (bought and paid for by corporate interests) told them to, and most people, even politicians in elected office who are supposed to think independently on behalf of their constituents’ best interest, just do what they’re told.
Now, what’ll happen next is that some young upstart will challenge them in a primary and attack them for their votes. And they’re completely blindsided by the attack, because they never considered the implications of what they were voting for, and by extension, endorsing. And the tragedy is that they never necessarily meant any harm, but the harm is done nevertheless, and ultimately they are responsible for what they vote for in office, regardless of intent. Good intentions are cheap in politics, votes talk.
The same thing is happening in churches. Hybels has this huge marketing machine behind his organization, and most church leaders are not going to make an effort to discern what the man is about, esp. since Hybels is so skilled at camouflaging himself. And unfortunately, we are still in the early stages of the Internet information revolution, and so their Google skills are lacking as well, which would enable them to discern more efficiently. And not infrequently, there’s a bit of hostility towards the Internet in general because they don’t understand it (as it is the world’s largest research library at one’s fingertips).
And so we have tragedy- man’s natural flaw of responding to manipulative marketing messages, his mental laziness of not wanting to find out more information, leads, rather unintentionally one would hope, to snakes like Hybels being promoted as figures of authority. Because their intentions are good, they often don’t respond positively to rebuke, but rather accuse the rebukers of having a “critical spirit” or of encouraging division; and then it can get really nasty, arguably not worth the cost. But like I said, there comes a point where you have to draw a line. The roles each group will play are cast ahead of time by the situation.
January 16th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
It’s amazing how many churches in Texas alone (482) have subscribed to Hybels’ Willow Creek Association.
http://www.willowcreek.com/wca_info/find_a_church/SearchResult.asp?Basic=1&Name=&State=TX&Country=
January 16th, 2007 at 11:57 pm
Wow. Anonymous’ Hegelian discussion article was very interesting. Sounds, unfortunately, increasingly familiar to me….
I stand by my earlier claim that it is all a game of inches, and that on a precipitous slope.
Thanks, Tom, for yet another invigorating discussion.
January 17th, 2007 at 12:26 am
Brian,
If it is a game of inches, then the opposing team just made a first down. I have said we need to fight, but am at a loss as to how to do that. I have talked to a lot of folks, our kind of folks, and they’re all tired.
One lady I really respect told me that in her younger days, she was convinced that people just needed to see the evidence and they would be convinced. But the reality is that they’d rather not know. Her husband told me that we’re a country of ostriches, and everybody’s looking for a hole to put their head into.
Meanwhile, the other side turns the ratchet one more click.
February 1st, 2007 at 4:51 pm
Dear Tom,
Great Blog, brother. Interesting sidelite on Hybels. I had forgotten that he was one of Clinton’s “spiritual advisors”, and in those days, the name Hybels was less familiar to me.
But I’m not sure how much the Hybels/Clinton connection should worry me in relation to Hybel’s advice about evangelism. Did Billy Graham become less an evangelist or Nixon less a public pariah during their day?
Our “small group” discussions have been wide-ranging and open about Hybels. I would say that his suggestions are taken as helpful mainly because they seem common sensical and orthodox to mature listeners. Some of his personal style that seems a little “slick” and his hints at liberal-sounding ethical suggestions are ignored by our group. They are willing to be inspired by his encouragement to look for ways to genuinely share faith with real people around us.
I am surprised that Hybels promotes a relatively high view of the Holy Spirit in calling people to Christ. He applies this concept in an intriguing way. I think when people consider the “effectual calling” they usually think of it as an anti-evangelical concept. (”Since the Holy Spirit is calling effectually, we need not feel compelled to vigorously emphasize personal evangelism”) Interestingly, and I think correctly, Hybels turns this around and tells us how the doctine is properly applied: We should always be aware that the Holy Spirit is moving people toward us as an effectual conduit to Jesus, preparing our hearts and theirs for the miraculous transaction.
Thanks for the blog!
Bert
October 18th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
[...] The Bill Hybels / Rick Warren ”seeker friendly” movement is a cancer in the modern Church. The necessary outcome of this is that you water down the Word in order to make it more appealing to a broader base of people. The only way to make the offense of the cross palatable to the masses is to remove all meaning from Christ’s sacrifice on our behalf. [...]
February 14th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Tom Says:
January 16th, 2007 at 11:39 am
I think it is more useful to speak in the abstract.
Tom,
I really appreciate this blog. I have spent quite a bit of time googling the “Willow Creek: Bill Hybels” topic and have found a lot of sites commending the movement and few that give a contrasting opinion. The majority of the contrasting opinions are also very harsh, which would lead someone searching for the reality of this movement to be turned off by the “extremists.”
This blog on the other hand is written with a very clear cut message, showing the realities of this movement, without being rude, harsh, and unloving. This is the message that needs to get out there.
I am involved in a church right now that is making the slow sneaky transition over to the willow creek corporation (WCC). My wife and I have been involved in this church for a couple of years now and have really enjoyed the teaching and fellowship. We have also been involved in several churches over the last ten years that had transitioned to the WCC. Everyone of those churches lost their first love and moved into an action ministry phase that I believe was driven by mans desire and not God’s desire.
Now I watch our church walk down the same path. They are starting the “Walk across the room” series this week. I have grown weary fighting this movement and was just going to give up and stop going to church. Now after reading this blog I feel convicted to fight this movement.
Your points regarding people afraid of the internet and not understanding the power of the google search is right on. All people have to do is spend a little time and effort and they will find enough information out there to see that this movement is not built on a solid foundation. People just are not interested in finding out. They would rather stick their heads in the sand. Getting a “If you do ‘A’ and ‘B’ like this… you will always get ‘C’ for a result” seems a lot easier than just following the Lords lead, where ever it might go.
Seeing the numbers grow and counting the armies has become a habit of the modern church, and has really help push the WCC movement forward. McDonaldsization is a natural step today. Refine the process and make more efficient, will bring in more customers and in turn more money to refine the process and make more efficient to bring in more customers… and on and on. In the end the product tastes like plastic but everyone is convinced that it is the best bang that they can get for the buck.
Like I said above… I feel convicted to fight this ever more. I do not want to be held accountable for turning a blind eye to that which is wrong. I feel that it is my obligation to make this clear to those around me. I only need to find a way to do so without sounding like another noise maker.
Thankyou for your blog.
SUB