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

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

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.

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.

http://www.willowcreek.com/wca_info/find_a_church/SearchResult.asp?Basic=1&Name=&State=TX&Country=

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.

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.

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

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.