Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Bob  Burney :: Townhall.com Columnist
A Shocking “Confession” from Willow Creek Community Church
by Bob Burney
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


If you are older than 40 the name Benjamin Spock is more than familiar. It was Spock that told an entire generation of parents to take it easy, don’t discipline your children and allow them to express themselves. Discipline, he told us, would warp a child’s fragile ego. Millions followed this guru of child development and he remained unchallenged among child rearing professionals. However, before his death Dr. Spock made an amazing discovery: he was wrong. In fact, he said:

We have reared a generation of brats. Parents aren't firm enough with their children for fear of losing their love or incurring their resentment. This is a cruel deprivation that we professionals have imposed on mothers and fathers. Of course, we did it with the best of intentions. We didn't realize until it was too late how our know-it-all attitude was undermining the self assurance of parents.

Oops.

Something just as momentous, in my opinion, just happened in the evangelical community. For most of a generation evangelicals have been romanced by the “seeker sensitive” movement spawned by Willow Creek Community Church in Chicago. The guru of this movement is Bill Hybels. He and others have been telling us for decades to throw out everything we have previously thought and been taught about church growth and replace it with a new paradigm, a new way to do ministry.

Perhaps inadvertently, with this “new wave” of ministry came a de-emphasis on taking personal responsibility for Bible study combined with an emphasis on felt-needs based “programs” and slick marketing.

The size of the crowd rather than the depth of the heart determined success. If the crowd was large then surely God was blessing the ministry. Churches were built by demographic studies, professional strategists, marketing research, meeting “felt needs” and sermons consistent with these techniques. We were told that preaching was out, relevance was in. Doctrine didn’t matter nearly as much as innovation. If it wasn’t “cutting edge” and consumer friendly it was doomed. The mention of sin, salvation and sanctification were taboo and replaced by Starbucks, strategy and sensitivity.

Thousands of pastors hung on every word that emanated from the lips of the church growth experts. Satellite seminars were packed with hungry church leaders learning the latest way to “do church.” The promise was clear: thousands of people and millions of dollars couldn’t be wrong. Forget what people need, give them what they want. How can you argue with the numbers? If you dared to challenge the “experts” you were immediately labeled as a “traditionalist,” a throwback to the 50s, a stubborn dinosaur unwilling to change with the times.

All that changed recently.

Willow Creek has released the results of a multi-year study on the effectiveness of their programs and philosophy of ministry. The study’s findings are in a new book titled Reveal: Where Are You?, co-authored by Cally Parkinson and Greg Hawkins, executive pastor of Willow Creek Community Church. Hybels himself called the findings “earth shaking,” “ground breaking” and “mind blowing.” And no wonder: it seems that the “experts” were wrong.

The report reveals that most of what they have been doing for these many years and what they have taught millions of others to do is not producing solid disciples of Jesus Christ. Numbers yes, but not disciples. It gets worse. Hybels laments:

Some of the stuff that we have put millions of dollars into thinking it would really help our people grow and develop spiritually, when the data actually came back it wasn’t helping people that much. Other things that we didn’t put that much money into and didn’t put much staff against is stuff our people are crying out for.

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. In a shocking confession, Hybels states:

We made a mistake. What we should have done when people crossed the line of faith and become 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, taught people, how to read their bible between services, how to do the spiritual practices much more aggressively on their own.

Incredibly, the guru of church growth now tells us that people need to be reading their bibles and taking responsibility for their spiritual growth.

Just as Spock’s “mistake” was no minor error, so the error of the seeker sensitive movement is monumental in its scope. The foundation of thousands of American churches is now discovered to be mere sand. The one individual who has had perhaps the greatest influence on the American church in our generation has now admitted his philosophy of ministry, in large part, was a “mistake.” The extent of this error defies measurement.

Perhaps the most shocking thing of all in this revelation coming out of Willow Creek is in a summary statement by Greg Hawkins:

Our dream is that we fundamentally change the way we do church. That we take out a clean sheet of paper and we rethink all of our old assumptions. Replace it with new insights. Insights that are informed by research and rooted in Scripture. Our dream is really to discover what God is doing and how he’s asking us to transform this planet.

Isn’t that what we were told when this whole seeker-sensitive thing started? The church growth gurus again want to throw away their old assumptions and “take out a clean sheet of paper” and, presumably, come up with a new paradigm for ministry.

Should this be encouraging?

Please note that “rooted in Scripture” still follows “rethink,” “new insights” and “informed research.” Someone, it appears, still might not get it. Unless there is a return to simple biblical (and relevant) principles, a new faulty scheme will replace the existing one and another generation will follow along as the latest piper plays.

What we should find encouraging, at least, in this “confession” coming from the highest ranks of the Willow Creek Association is that they are coming to realize that their existing “model” does not help people grow into mature followers of Jesus Christ. Given the massive influence this organization has on the American church today, let us pray that God would be pleased to put structures in place at Willow Creek that foster not mere numeric growth, but growth in grace.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Bob Burney is Salem Communications’ award-winning host of Bob Burney Live, heard weekday afternoons on WRFD-AM 880 in Columbus, Ohio.

Be the first to read Bob Burney’s column.
Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.
Sign up today
Wow!
I knew this. I've blogged about it. I've seen so many seeker-sensitive churches grow up and leech off the traditional churches, effectively draining numbers of ministry-oriented, discipleship-driven churches, but it's good to see it in print and from one of the early leaders of the seeker-sensitivity movement.

Yes, you're right. They automatically think this is somehow a new idea. We couldn't possibly go back and say "Yeah, Bible study and prayer honestly worked in the First Church of Our Town 50 years ago. Why can't it work now?" No, that would be old-fashioned and traditional rather than forward-thinking and innovative.

I hate to tell Willow Creek, but if they actually do connect with the real message of Jesus, they're going to see a drop in attendance because most seekers REALLY don't want to hear that God might want them to do something like find out what God wants from them and DO something about it. No, that isn't nearly as fun as a kicking worship service. After all, you might find out your life isn't very Christ-centered when you're not in church.

Aurora
Agreed. If people take a look at guys like Spurgeon, they will see that it is possible to pack out a church using the real gospel. It makes people uncomfortable, it makes them squirm in their seats, and that is what they do not like.

Aurora
Agreed also. (maybe "Amen"?) For the past 10 years I have been trying to convince my pastor that what Jesus told us to do was make disciples rather than "converts". But what do I know? I'm just a throwback to the 50's. Even though I was 2 1/2 when the 50's ended.

Our church and every other evangelical church in our community has been trying the "seeker" stuff and all we got was a set of "revolving door" lemmings. But I have only been teaching Bible stuff for the past 25 years so what could I possibly know about this. After all my 4 year degree from a small Christian college isn't nearly as impressive as his 3 year degree from a major seminary.

I really hope God will forgive us and restore us when we learn to repent and confess our sins.

Encouraging, however
That some of the "seeker" churches may be catching on to this. Now if we can just convince the seeker wannabes that the seeker movement is starting to turn, we might be onto something.

What are we to expect?
Starting with Rome, and moving into greater schism upon schism, the West has ever devolved into self-centered "Christianity." In fact, all the Reformation did was take the problems with the papal claims and apply them to the individual. The Reformation, in other words, simply made each man a pope unto himself.

Protestantism, in general, is based on sand. It is based on innovations, on beliefs that didn't exist for about 15 centuries after the founding of the Church by Christ.

Does this mean that the "faith isn't sincere" in Protestants? Of course not!! However, when the desire for Truth is completely severed from Truth (tragically, this wasn't entirely the Reformation's fault - if the church in Rome hadn't started the process, it wouldn't be the same question, or the same world, today) this is the natural result.

Even as a Protestant, I church hopped, always looking for the one I thought was teaching the "truth." But, if I could judge the Truth, why did I need a church? This is the entirety of the problem in the Western Christian sects - it is so egocentric in methodology, in mindset, that these kinds of "seeker sensitive" churches are simply another manifestation of the greater disease.

the sinner,

Charles

the sinner in me
Charles, you are right. The problem with Christianity in general is that it permits each person to become his own arbiter of what is truth. You were on the right track when you were seeking a church where the Bible was correctly taught. But if one does not know correct teaching how is he able to find correct teaching? So the unlearned are easy prey for those who can manipulate the "faithful".

This is why Peter tells us the teacher is subject to a greater judgment. He is responsible to God, and God will hold him accountable for his errors.

My suggestion is to look to see how the teacher treats the Bible. Generally if he tries to teach it all faithfully he will do well. But the teacher who only comes to the Bible to find sound-bites in support of his own ideas, even if his ideas are good, should be avoided. He is speaking about God, not for Him.

Misrepresentation
Parkinson and Hawkins wrote an entire book that discusses their findings. Burney carefully picked quotes that supported what he wanted to conclude. The entire story is not that simple.

dale
But you are still using your "own" criteria for determining who is teaching the Truth about the Bible and the Faith, itself. Your mechanism would still rely on individual to determine the Truth.

Instead, I now know that the Church Christ established in Matthew is still around. Always has been. I need to accept the Truth, not "re-discover" it, not "re-define" it, etc. Christ promised that He would establish His Church so that the gates of hades, itself, would not prevail against it. He also promised to be with the Church unto the end, and that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church.

If the Church was ever lost, even for a milisecond, then Christ was a liar and the Holy Spirit a failure. Thus, there is an *historical* approach one can use to abandon our Western, egocentric conceptions and criteria and simply accept the Truth as preserved by the Fathers and through the Church.

the sinner,

Charles

Misrepresentation
So, Dave, What is the entire story?

Protestantism created the idea
of the individual.

It also created the drive for education, and by extension. boosted the rebirth of Western drama and later creation of the novel.

Protestantism said you didn't need a priest or other intermediary between yourself and Christ or God. It promoted the actual study of the Bible, a problem in 15th-16th C. Europe as illiteracy was rampant.

To read the Bible, people became educated. Education drove trade and exploration. Greater wealth led to leisure time and the invention of entertainments like theatre and long, narrative books, that we call novels.

The Founders of the US virtually all came from this tradition. Most New Englanders and Middle-state colonies had Puritan/Dutch Reform backgrounds, while Anglicanism dominated in the South.

They were also Classicists (studiers or Greek and Roman civilzations) and early Romantics, as the idea of the individual person and his/her separate humanity comes with the Romantic idea of feelings/emotions conveying their own "truth."

Dave
When I read Burney's first two papragraphs about Spock, I knew the rest of the column would be suspect since Spock never said any of those things.

To suggest that he did means that the columnist hadn't bothered to actually verify any of his statments, he just repeated urban mythology and conservative chit-chat.

renny
Protestants did not, in any way, shape, or form, *create* the idea of the individual. It elevated the individual to the level of pope for himself. Protestantism elevated the human intellect above the idea of Truth and, over time, we have seen the ever worsening of Western culture.

To be sure, it really began in the 11th century with the church in Rome and scholasticism (Aristoteleanism) having and ever-increasing influence in Western Christianity. This division of knowledge and the elevation of the human intellect naturally resulted in Marxist thought, itself only a conclusion of Rousseau's work. In addition, both Locke and Hobbes, and the mythical "state of nature," that so, sadly, influenced our own founding fathers, were also the result of Rousseau's influence.

Rousseau was the ultimate in elevation of the individual to the role of god. He separated, in a political and ideological sphere, knowledge from faith, much was William of Okham and Francis Bacon had done with faith and science centuries earlier.

This system of epistemological dualism has resulted in the idea that "religious life and secular life are separate," or "keep your religious beliefs out of politics." It has resulted in compartmentalized faith, when, in fact, Christianity affects all aspects of life, controls those aspects . . . There is no gnostic influence in Christianity of gnostic dualism regarding both actual existence and epistemological understanding of existence.

What you glorify, the elevation of the individual to the role of a god, has only ended in sadness and degradation, as it had to.

the sinner,

Charles

Reformation & New Covenant promises…

For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.” [Hebrews 8:10-12]


Thank God for the revival of Biblical Christianity called the Reformation that gave us an open Bible and many more Christians, and birthed Western thought and culture culminating in the free state and free church that was once America.

The truth of the New Covenant that had been hidden for centuries came to light again. The covenant blessings are for all those joined to Christ by faith [Galatians 3:26-29]. They include not only the forgiveness of sins and a new heart with the Law of God written on it, but also the most amazing blessing of all…

‘None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them.’

All the New Covenant members shall know the Lord; that is, they no longer have need of a priest to intercede for them; Jesus Christ is their teacher through the work of the Spirit and the Word. They offer up spiritual sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving to God in the Name of their Great High Priest.

We who are free in Christ and enjoy the liberty of the New Covenant blessings want no part of the traditions of men that lead to bondage.

'Seeker Sensitive' Church
I believe this quote by A.W. Tozer is somewhat appropriate regarding how 'converts' are made, 'believers' found, 'seekers' educated, etc.

"We who preach the gospel must not think of ourselves as public relations agents sent to establish good will between Christ and the world.
We must not imagine ourselves commissioned to make Christ acceptable to big business, the press, the world of sports or modern education. We are not diplomats but prophets, and our message is not a compromise but an ultimatum.

God is bigger than this, too
A little less finger-shaking at Willow Creek would suit me just fine. How about, every time we feel like saying "I told you so," we say instead "Praise the Lord!" - ?

believer
Good quote!

Charles - we've had this conversation before, several times. I would rather follow what I read in the Bible that I KNOW Jesus inspired His disciples to write than the traditions of a bunch of men who THINK they know what's best for me. It is my experience that authoritarian hierarchial ecclesiastic structures (the Orthodox Church less so than the Roman Catholic) inherently lead people AWAY from God toward deification of supposedly "perfect" Christians and obedience to church laws rather than worship of the Lord Jesus Christ and honest study of the Bible. When one or a few are in charge, there's no check against heresy. When we're all in charge and have the right to call one another on lack of adherence to the Bible without risk of being burned at the stake as a heretic, heresy is in fact checked much more effectively. Go check out the study of Galatians on the blog and note that Paul didn't appeal to a pastor or a bishop, but to the people of the Galatian churches.

Willow Creek Church
To aurorawatcher:

I must agree. After being born, raised, and educated in the Roman Church, being taught that I could not understand the Scriptures on my own, I was called out and unto Biblical Christianity 14 years ago. At that time, and since that time, I've made a very conscientious effort (led by the Power and Spirit of Christ)to live and reach out to those who do not know Truth. This has severely divided me from most of my extended family.

We need only the instruction of the Bible. God has condescended to mankind and designed it to reveal Himself to those He has chosen.

"But the anointing that you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you" (I John ii.27.).

Are any of you aware
that incessant religious ecstasy is a form of addiction?

aurora
We did, and, if I remember correctly, ultimately, you only want to rely on yourself. True worship of Christ can be achieved only when we receive the True Faith. Otherwise, it is only *part* of the Truth. Again, it is not like Protestantism is like paganism - far from it. But to judge hierarchical structures through a Western mindset is to see it through an egocentric perspective.

You also fail to overcome another fatal flaw - what, exactly, did Christ mean when He said He'd establish His Church? I'm only thinking about this as an example - I'm not looking for an example. We could just as easily ask the same question about the Apostle saying, in Acts, that we must repent and be baptized, and THEN we'll receive the Holy Spirit.

I'm not looking to get anyone's specific interpretation, but the fact that you, or anyone else, can take those verses and say "they don't mean what they say, explicitly," only proves my point. You, and everyone else, has an extra-Biblical tradition, from various sources, by which they "understand" the Bible and its message.

You look down on deification, but it was taught by the Fathers. The ideas of sola scriptura and sola fide are not only explicitly contradicted in the NT, they didn't exist until the 16th century. How can one honestly claim that these concepts somehow "brought the church back?"

This is my point - we sit here and talk about how great it is that more people read the Bible. Yes, that is true. What isn't great is the egocentrism inherent in the West that says "through thine own intellect you will understand."

And there is a lot more to deification than what you have discussed before.

the sinner,

Charles

Why are we surprised?
The church is the elect of God. By extension: the few, the humble, the saved. Just as the Marines do not change training methods because society has changed the Church should not willy-nilly change methods to draw in crowds. The purpose of the Church is to create little Christs. Doing so is hard. Hard on the Church and harder on the believer. The Church, like the Marines, is seeking to make new creations from the old.

aurora - re: Galatians
Actually, St. Paul called the church in Galatia on not following gospels not delivered to them by the Church (the divine-human organism that includes all people, not just the clergy, as with the church in Rome).

In fact, St. Paul, himself, uses his own authority to substantiate the specificity of the True Gospel. (1:11-12). His whole approach is that there is one Truth, that it is revealed to man from God, and that it cannot be altered. This fits in very well with Jude 3. The Truth, if it changes, is not Truth. In fact, even St. Paul submitted himself to the Church, going to St. Peter to learn. (1:18).

I can find nowhere in Galatians where the Apostle talked of "finding the true gospel for yourselves." I will read through the blog post, though, and see what you have written.

the sinner,

Charles

believer
Re: 1 John 2:27: don't forget the preceding passages -

"Therefore, let that abide in which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you will also abide in the Son and the Father."

That is, those to whom the Epistle is addressed were already taught in the True Faith. They were to cling to that, and not let false teachers take away the Truth that was to abide in them. Thus, they were to follow what they'd been taught from the beginning.

Many a man has claimed that he was lead by the Holy Spirit to believe a lot of things. How do we judge which one truly is/was? Every time I ask this, all I get are various quotes that, in and of themselves, require interpretation. It is purely circular.

the sinner,

Charles

believer
Sorry, that was 1 John 2:24. And let us not forget the admonishment St. John gives in the beginning of that Epistle - that there is one Faith, and the Truth of that Gospel, witnessed by the Apostles, was declared to those who receive the letter. This is what they were taught from the beginning - again, one truth, one faith, one Church. (See Ephesians 4:4-6).

the sinner,

Charles

Valient
In Galatians 3:27, the Apostle St. Paul says "[f]or as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ." Just reading the verse, it appears you have to be baptized to put on Christ. Unless, of course, you use an extra-Biblical tradition by which you say differently. Your own quotation contradicts your position that people are saved by "faith alone." In fact, nowhere in the NT does it say we are saved by faith alone.

True, without faith, any action is worthless. But, as St. James says, "[t]hus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead." (James 2:17).

the sinner,

Charles

good article
my brothere is a baptist minister near this church.

he has about 250 members but says it is hard to compete with a church that big because of all it can offer.

they have more recreational activites than the local ymca.


Our pastor didn't fall for it
Thank God for Brother Ray's refusal to preach 'Christianity Lite'.

Poor Thomas!
Given short shrift by the hammer.


Fantastic Good News!


Well, this is somethin' else!


Ha!


It has been less than three years since I was baptized into the Lord’s church, but our preacher has been talking about these problems his whole adult life. He mentions it almost every Sunday, as I know the preachers of many small, Scripturally organized churches have been doing.


I don't know which is more extraordinary; that they actually conducted an honest investigation into their own practices, or that they actually accepted and then revealed the terrible truth, or that they seem willing to return to the (comparatively) simple truth of God's Word in the Bible.


There is a lot of work to be done, but this could be the beginning of a national revival (similar to what I think has been called the Great Awakening in the early 1800's?). I am hopeful.


At the least, many of those with honest hearts who really are interested in finding and serving the Lord might now get away from (or not be drawn to in the first place) the churches of men that follow the doctrines and wisdom of men.


I am hopeful that this is a great event, the beginning of something powerful that will lead to a great increase in the number of souls won for Christ. I was not aware of this development, and I doubt it will make any of the mainstream news media outlets, so I am glad to have found the information here, and I expect our preacher will mention something about it on Sunday (maybe even on Wednesday evening!)


Great news!


So this matters...how?
--
As a Roman Catholic "older than 40," I was taught that Protestants are arrant heretics suitable only for being restored to Holy Mother Church through the patient and forebearing doctrines of the Counter-Reformation and the Second Vatican Council.

A pity we couldn't make use of the "muscular Christianity" embodied in the practices of the Holy Inquisition.

But if we can't twist your arms for the good of your souls, there are other ways of clearing up the bloody mess you've made of Christ's teachings, aren't there?


When you Protestant whackjobs whine about how awful-horrible-nasty it is that you're not allowed to use the armed goons of government to ram your articles of faith down the throats of your fellow Americans, remember what us followers of the Pope used to do to *YOU* back in the Old Country.


--
"Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and ... know nothing but the word of God."

..-- Martin Luther

dale:
Christianity does not "permit each person to become his own arbiter of what is truth". Timeless truths are contained in the Bible, and its our job to pattern our individual lives as closely as possible on these timeless truths.

I've never worried about doctrinal differences between demoninations or fine theological points. I'll leave those to those much wiser than I am. The important things are the same in every Christian denomination.

And everyone must find their own path to God. My path might not work for anyone else, and the path you take might not work for me.

Moral virtue should become a habit so that we always do the right thing as a matter of habit.

hoosiertoo
If you're talking about Aquinas, you couldn't be more right. His scholasticism has done much to damage Christianity in the West.

the sinner,

Charles

aurora
I would also encourage you to learn a little more about the Orthodox Church history. There were not mass burnings of "heretics" in the Orthodox world. In fact, the level of "burning" in the West wasn't nearly as high as is given in popular culture. Even the Inquisition found its true home, and its most horrific incarnation, in the secular government, not the church in Rome.

I find it amusing when individuals like SJ Doc tries, through sarcasm, to make some point based on historical inaccuracies without realizing that secular governments, beholden to the "wisdom of the human intellect," have been the greatest murderers and oppressors and torturers this world has ever seen. Unlike leftist and atheist propaganda, the truth is that "religion," as popularly defined, is not the threat that secular man is. Not even close.

the sinner,

Charles

Sorry Charlie, ya can't Tune a Fish
Yeah and Paul kicked Peter's asz too, didn't he?
Do a little more reading in Galatians, Charlie, just to remind yourself that Paul, himself, claims independent and Parallel Revelation and AUTHORITY. Goes out of his way not only to disassociate from, but even to DIS, Cephas.

Pay careful attention to Gal. 1:14-2:15, noting especially 2:5-7 and 2:11-14. Follow it back thru Acts. There is NO linear descent from Peter---indeed the Apostolic ministry passes out of the 11 (12 if you count Mathias) altogether to people like Barnabas (Acts 14:14) AND OTHERS UNNAMED--I Cor.15:7--note carefully the intentional distinction made between "Cephas then to the 12" and "Jacob (James--BROTHER of Jesus NOT one of the 12), then to ALL the apostles". Including Junia, a woman, Rom. 16:7.

Indeed Authority of Teaching in PAUL's Churches passes NOT thru Jerusalem OR Rome, but through Timothy (2 Tim 2:2) and Titus 1:5 and those They Taught.

Nor do all the Ante-Nicene Patristics descend from Peter. Duke Divinity was last Century for me, but I remember one of the early significant players was like 1 degree of separation from JOHN!

Charlie, what you're doing is buying 4 Century Constantinian State Propaganda. The State had a vested interest in keeping the Keys to the Kingdom and the Means of Grace firmly in the hands of a Mystery Cult Priesthood inextricably linked to the Authority of the Empire.

No thanks, and no sale. Your logic is the same one that led to the Sale of Indulgences and other Heresies and Abuses that a ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIEST outlined in 95 (or was it 99?) Theses nailed the Whitenberg Cathedral Door. One of your OWN out argued you Charlie.

But your real Cliff Jumper here is the False Teaching (won’t say heresy cause it ain’t a major doctrinal thing) about “Individualism.”

More on that in part two

Commonism is Not Community
C.L. Lewis in one of his essays, “Membership” I think, points out that “modern” (and “post modern”, whatever in the hell that is) gruppen think relgious mind merely replaces “individualism” with “commonism” a mere baby step from Communism. Christian Community is neither, nor is it “communal” as in “the collective.” It’s the Marxist and other Statists like the Fascists and the “Divine Right of the INDIVIDUAL King” (or Emperor or Pope) types who dis individualism, Charlie, not Jesus of Nazareth who spent a good chunk of his personal time with individuals. Including a conversation with a thief who went with him to paradise that day, and thus missed his Baptism appointment with Jesus' posse. ("Jesus himself was not baptizing, but his disciples were.")

(And yeah I know all about the extra Biblical “Patch” that claims “baptism by the blood of Christ” or “baptism by the blood of martyrdom”–heck even John Wesley claimed unbaptized infants were covered “by the General {whatever the heck that is} Work of Christ”–yada yada, but it still all edges up to the Sympathetic Magic practiced by the 4th Century Mystery Cults like the Cult of Mythras. That’s the problem with “ex opere operato” or whatever that Latin tag is that says the mere Action confers the “Ju Ju”.

Personally, I don’t see why you would think an aggregate of Individuals, especially a SPECIFIC SET in direct descent of Authority FROM ONE INDIVIDUAL would be any more or less authoritative than any other individual or collections of individual.

I’m willing to submit to the Lordship of Christ, Charlie, but not to Tyranny transposed to State Religious Cult.

The big mick

What I will buy
I'm willing to Claim Direct and Divine Inspiration for the Scriptures and extend it to the Work of the Canonizing Counsels--I'm willing to buy into the concept that the Traditions of the Church in Aggregate and in Dialectic Speak Authoritatively but not Extra or Trans Biblically. But I ain't buyin "ex cathedra", nor the Authority especially the SOLE INTERPRETIVE Authority of the Hybrid of Christianity and the Mithras (and other)Cults that Constantine foisted on the Empire by means of the Legions.

Go back to Acts, Charlie--The Way--and The Teaching of the Way--the Spread of The Way was a organic, and messy process--you got the Word of God breaking out all over the place and NOBODY able to gate keep it. The Jerusalem Church and "The Twelve" and Cephas and James and "the pillars" were ALWAYS behind the event curve and playing catch up. Sorta looks like God planned it that way. Wasn't there something about EVERYBODY and ANYBODY who had ears to hear COULD hear and that WHOEVER desired to DO the TRUTH would both "KNOW the TRUTH" and be "set free"--something about whoever wanted to do the truth would "know the doctrine" too wasn't there? Now who said THAT, I wonder?

Not to mention how Prophetic Authority came on a lot of people outside the cult (Amos for instance) in the OT. In fact, Prophetic INDIVIDUALS like Joel predict a real outbreak of DIRECT DIVINE Inspiration at the time of “the Day of the Lord”. Now who was it that applied Joel to THE CHURCH! upon the occasion of 3000 people circumventing the Apostolic Hierarchy of “The 12"? Oh, that’s right, his name was PETER!

Face it, Charlie, THE BIBLE, calls us "a kingdom of priests"--heck, Petey hisself, does it--1 Pete 2:9. Gate keep it all ya want, Charlie, "the word of God is not fettered."

the big mick

SJ Doc Att Charlie
I told you before I wondered if SJ was Society of Jesus (or it could be San Juan Med School or Stuffed "J" whatever that is) and given your nostalgia for the Inquisition (ATT Charlie--The Inquisition was the logical extension by extra Biblical means of the Doctrine of Sole Interpretive Authority) I'm leaning toward the Jesuits, Doc.

Me, I figure you just a big a Statist by the Commiequeer or PseudoLibertineian route as Charlie is by the Sole Interpretive Authority Route.

I don't see a whole lota dif between a PseudoLibertineian Hedonist shoving his Drugs and Porn in my face by means of the State's Authority and what you accuse the Proddies of--which they last were able to pull of in Prohibition---way the hell last CENTURY, SJ!
Seems to me that the last couple of Popes have made it real clear to YOU who claim to be their followers that Drugs and Porn and Abortion and yQueer Marriage, are big No Nos that Americans should forsake--and in this His Holiness is in complete agreement with the Proddies you is dissn.

And who was it that gassed and burned a Bunch of Christians who just wanted to be left alone? Who was forcing their will on whom there? Who sent the govenment goons? Who did you vote for SJ? Tokin' Slick Willie the Sexual Preditor and his Renal Failure? Who DO you have more in common with SJ? His Holiness and Jerry Falwell or the Commiequeers, Slick Willie and Renal Failure? Who you votin for next year--Ms. State Control of Everything Hilly (le estate est moi) Klingon?

the big mick

Popularity never means Right
Daddy taught us years ago (over Mamas objection, until we got out of school anyway) that popularity is vastly overrated. It is better, he said, to be right than popular.

As a newly baptized and received Catholic who has fled the Anglican church because worship of sex has replaced worship of God with them, I see Pope Benedict XVI the epitome of this received wisdom. Despite the clamour of those who want you to believe that erectile dysfunction is the most serious scourge of the current planet and *If it feels good, do it* is All You Need, His Holiness continues to say Not On My Watch, Brothers and Sisters. Despite the kicking and screaming of those who want to the freedom to stick it anywhere they want, the Holy Father says No.

To a generation who have never heard this word said sincerely, this is terrifying. To those of us who were brought up with boundaries, and have reaped the reward of same, the idea that some things are simply wrong and remain so is a continuation of what we always knew: that it is better to be right than popular, and that if you are right, people will gather to you and stay, but popularity is ephemeral and unstable and becomes an idol in and of its self.

quote; aurorawatcher...
"I hate to tell Willow Creek, but if they actually do connect with the real message of Jesus, they're going to see a drop in attendance because most seekers REALLY don't want to hear that God might want them to do something like find out what God wants from them and DO something about it. No, that isn't nearly as fun as a kicking worship service. After all, you might find out your life isn't very Christ-centered when you're not in church."

Very true. I heard Alistair Begg once say; "Sometimes you have to preach the church empty, before you preach it full"
The whole "church growth" thing reminds me of the weight loss pills that continually come into the market, saying you can eat anything you want, and still lose weight. This sounds alot better than the tried and true method of (gasp!) exercise.

Seeker sensitive?
The problem with the seeker-sensitive movement is that they forgot who the seeker is:

"I have come to seek and to save that which is lost."

"There is none that seek God."

We are not the seekers: Christ is. If we would be "sensitive" to Him, that is, worship as HE wants, then we will do well whether we gather with 5 or 5000.

When
you get right down to it, it's the CROSS. These
"seeker" churches have forgotten this central point of the faith. They say they need new insights, they don't, they need to return to that
Cross. And it is so true, when they preach the Cross there are those who only want tickled ears and will leave to find more comfortable venue's.
We attend a very humble, tiny church led by a
humble man of God but we are a house of prayer
and it's the victory at the Cross we hear. And
is also what my husband preaches

The Truth
You can quote scripture till you're blue in the face, but if taken out of context, you're in trouble. Yes, there are many scripture verses that say it all, but also many that need to be read in their proper order. Number one is whatever takes up your thinking or doing is idolatry, God first as in the New Covenant. Faith is required--believe, trust in Him and turn your life over to Him. If you ask for a fish our Lord will not give you a bone. Jesus Christ in our hearts, allowing the Holy Spirit to guide and direct our lives. Do we give the devil more credit? After all, he is a liar, deceiver and the prince of this evil world, BUT he has been defeated at the Cross. Tea Party's husband

Balance
I would give Willow Creek some credit here for recognizing the error of their ways and now actually doing something about it. Looks like they need to find that balance.

All churhces need to seek the lost and help them find Christ. Parable of the lost sheep anyone? I have heard the opposite thing happening with traditional churchs. They aren't activily seeking the lost, but instead simply want to keep those already in Christ. They aren't supporting young families. They have an average age of 65 or something like that. If you walk in these churches with a tattoo or piercing, casual dress, or just don't look the part---see ya and don't let the door hit you in the can on the way out. These churches are the reason so many seekers yell "hypocrites" and walk away from God entirely. Who would blame them?

Again, they need to find that balance.

To SJ Doc
"When you Protestant whackjobs whine about how awful-horrible-nasty it is that you're not allowed to use the armed goons of government to ram your articles of faith down the throats of your fellow Americans"

Perhaps you might want to recall that the vast majority of us 'whatjobs' Protestants have no desire to use the 'armed goons of government' to ram articles of our faith down anyone's throats.

Perhaps you might want to recall that the vast majority of us 'armed goons' wouldn't be willing to do that.

V/R
SSG Anderson
'Armed goon'

religiouslib
I live in the area. I even played in some competitive early morning basketball games at Willow Creek about a decade ago. The gym was huge and the courts were top notch.

From my observation, many of the members were very good people who were unhappy in the church they were brought up in. This church was "religion light" and they felt comfortable. It really is a tremendous social network and a place for people to feel they "belong." Religion seems to be secondary at best.

Lastly, I have always been skeptical of religious leaders living an oppulent life. This goes for TV preacher also that spend half their service asking for you to send them money. Hybels lives such a life. Huge home. Drives around in 6 figure cars. Now, this may be unfair of me, but I always wonder if these types are serving God or themselves.

stepping on everyone's toes
Yes Spoke did encourage parents to let the child be a free spirit. Spoke encouraged parents spare the rod and not discipline the child it might break their spirit. My mother raised my younger sister who is now in her 50's and is still searching for her place in life. Anytime some one tells her NO she has to have time out to get vibes back in sink. I know he wrote that clap trap because I read his book several times. He mixed child rearing with a ped's medical help for raising a healthy child.
Maybe physically they were healthy but emotionally they are left over, dropped out hippy, spoiled brats! ! !

As for the Catholic Church I am still a member of this 2000 year old institution.
The reason the young people are leaving the church is because in religious education classes the Catholic faith is not being taught. The instructors are teach politically correct bilge.
My children tell me the lessons and then I have to try and undo the lies, such as climate warming.

We have just moved and the closest "catholic" church looks like warehouse. Inside there is nothing catholic, it looks like something between a concert hall and a protestant church. Nothing wrong with that except it is supposed to be a catholic church. But to look at it - - -it is ugly! The Catholic Church has been replaced by the catholic community, just look at the signs in front of the buildings.

The people are not being taught religion it is all fluff and PC spineless rhetoric. When reading the bible old and new testaments GOD and Jesus at different time was tough; no fluffy anything.


The real thing
To all who put their trust in the church; it's all about Jesus. The bible says that God did not send His Son into the world to condemn it, but the world, through Him, might be saved. It's only through Jesus, by placing our faith in Him and His finished work on the cross, that we become a part of His church. Unless He builds the house, they labor in vain that build it. So, place your faith in Jesus, not the pope, for "there is no hope in the pope." Place your faith in Jesus, and then take it with you to church, for in Christ, that's what you are, the church. Jesus is the head of His church, not the pope, and any good pastor will point you to Jesus, to listen to Him, follow His word, and do His will. Trust only Jesus. I'll see you in heaven in you'll do this. Eph. 2:8-10

hey, someone send this to...
...Joel Osteen, STAT!!! I watch his show from time to time, and am amazed at how little of Christ is preached in his sermons. It is all about how to be happy, how to like people, how to be successful, etc., etc. Nary a word of the Gospel of Christ...I suppose that is how you fill up a building that used to be a basketball arena with thousands of people on Sundays, eh? Gotta give the people what they want, and who cares about what they need!

Oh, and you can cc this to TD Jakes too!

Danny's right
There are too many judges not enough defendants.

"Who are you to judge another, Before his (Willow Creek) judge(Christ) he (Willow Creek) will stand or fall."

This world needs more defendants who have the courage to plead the Blood of Christ in their defense and fewer judges who are not qualified to sit in judgement of another's work.

bigdrunkard - oh, mick, sorry
From one (part) Irishman to another . . .

How wrong you are! Wow, so many mistakes, so little time. But the biggest problem you have is that you are only proving my point. But, first things first.

I don't believe in St. Peter as the "vicar of Christ." I'm not of the church in Rome. So, strike number one. In fact, Eusebius lists St. Peter as the first bishop of Antioch, before Rome. Under the papal claims, wouldn't Antioch be the see of the "head of the church?"

Strike two comes when you attempt to "define" what Galatians is saying, exactly. Not only that, when you attempt to provide your own "interpretations" to several other verses, including 2 Tim 2:2. Your interpretation is just that, yours. It is your extra-Biblical tradition by which you understand the Scriptures. And, I would not hesitate to guess, that it is of rather later vintage. Sorry, drunky, strike two.

Strike three is the allegation that Mithraic worship was introduced by Constantine. That's not only blindingly wrong, historically, it's hilarious! Of course, using your own "historical interpretation," I'm sure you could find anything. Much like the Romanticists of the late 19th century, who used outdated information, even then, who tried to link Christianity with "mystery cults," your history is very, very wrong.

For aurorawatcher, solo610
Both on the nail.

I am affiliated with an organisation which started (in a way) with Spurgeon's approach, Laymen's Evangelical Fellowship (LEF).

http://lefi.org

Its founder started the work with one unemployed youth in Madras (now Chennai) in 1935. From there, it has grown to a large organisation with churches in many cities of India (and some in other nations--one in Novi, MI) and radio/TV broadcasts. Many Hindus (and lesser numbers of Muslims and Sikhs) have come to Christ through LEF (myself indirectly--a colleague who had been raised LEF in India invited me to Dr. Graham's 1994 Atlanta Crusade; during my pre-1991 times in India, I had never even heard of LEF).

Currently, it is one of the few Christian organisations known which RESTRICTS (and actually has to) how many local church members can go to its Annual Retreat*** (last I checked it used "10%").

And a nice clincher: LEF does it with very little foreign funds (partial tithes from members/affiliates in US, UK, Canada and Germany--totalling less than 500) and NEVER does fund-raising.


***If you looked at the website, you'll notice that the Annual Retreat is also at the WORST POSSIBLE TIME OF YEAR; even then, the numbers attending (WITH the restrictions in place) necessitate two batches. Yes, I and my wife are planning on attending next year.

bigdrunkard - oh, mick, sorry part II
You strike out yet again when one looks at other first century writings, like from St. Clement, St. Polycarp, and St. Ignatius. That there is a "hierarchy" is unquestionable. What it is, exactly, is vastly different than the West understands through the church in Rome. It is clear from your rant that the Western view is all you know or understand.

Your biggest strikeout, however, comes when you say "what I'll buy . . ." What you'll "buy" doesn't mean squat. Truth is Truth, and its not subject to your "buying" it. Unlike the church in Rome, priests in the Church aren't "gatekeepers," but they do have a role within the divine-human organism that is the Body of Christ, the Church.

You do talk like someone who went to Duke, confused, egocentric, and misled.

the sinner,

Charles

Willow Creek did a lot of things right
As a former "Creeker", I want to throw in my two cents. Under the ministry of Willow Creek some 25 years ago, I accepted Christ, served in ministries, was part of several small group Bible studies, and built the foundation of my faith. Our family left Willow Creek to join a start-up Church where we felt we could make a more significant contribution to the ministry, and we're still actively participating in this church.

Perhaps they've strayed from their core mission, but over the years I know that they have developed a lot of people into true disciples and not merely hearers of sociologically acceptable messages. It's nice to hear that they are open to getting back to their roots.

For Charles Martel @ 13:13
Actually, inflateddrunk (aka "bigdrunkard") sounds more like Al Bore (who is definitely confused and egocentric; maybe misled, as he certainly also MISLEADS people) who did unimpressively in Liberal Arts @ Harvard and then FLUNKED Divinity @ Vanderbilt!

Willow Creek Church
You all want to know what I find exceedingly humorous?! I enjoy reading the posts from the couple of "pseudo-scholars" who routinely post here. They level all these charges against one another (and virtually everyone else) saying the other one's interpretation is incorrect (and theirs is correct). They draw upon the 'early church fathers' and another other sources which they believe make them sound intellectual to others. Where's the humility that is to shine forth from a true believer in instructing others? Are they following the command of Jesus that we should put others before ourselves?

You know what? I don't buy any of their crap...and don't you!

"(they, themselves)...searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so..."

It's about time!
I'm not familiar with Bill Hybels or Willow Creek Church, so it would be unfair for me to criticize or defend them. Even so, I have been uneasy with this "seeker sensitive" business for a long time.

This idea of "meeting needs" may have been well-intentioned, but I'm afraid it's biggest legacy is a generation of "church brats." As a minister, I've seen church members who refuse to work in Sunday School, refuse to get involved in any kind of ministry, and then they sit back and whine about how their "needs aren't being met." Whatever happened to self-denial? Whatever happened to servanthood?

Ironically, these same spoiled, self-centered church members are usually the ones who complain loudest about the church's low attendance.

Why?
Charles the Hammer writes: Tuesday, October, 30, 2007 5:55 PM

"The Reformation, in other words, simply made each man a pope unto himself.

Protestantism, in general, is based on sand."

Charles, what is the point of starting such discussions here? Why do you think that it is productive to have an in-house debate on these topics?

Are you are open to a real instruction of these issues based on Scripture and the meaning of the Greek text, or would you simply rely on the magisterium to do your thinking for you? What theological training do you have, and how many Bible studies have you led?

Your post just seems to be a drive-by shooting without adding constructively to the discussion of how we get more disciples for Christ. I don't know that your church is doing a bang-up job, either.

Please, brothers and sisters in Christ, keep the rhetoric and nastiness down.

s.d.g.

For RichD
Charles did have a point, though he overgeneralised it as "Protestantism...is based on sand".

Actually, Protestantism was originally based on Luther's wanting to GET BACK to Scripture as basic. Plus, not all "Protestant" (as opposed to Catholic, Orthodox or Nestorian; even then, there are simply way too many philosophies bunched in as "Protestant") ideologies are so fickle (as I specifically mentioned LEF, with which I am affiliated).

But, on "seeker-friendliness": I think I'll use a (lousy) medical analogy here. When doctors want to do an x-ray to find out about gastric ulcers, they usually ask you to drink barium sulphate solution (several things the taste of it "just plain" can be compared to: Complan, castor oil, ...--generally all unpleasant). I have seen some who actually try to flavour the BaSO4, but that actually fails miserably--and instead, may induce a detestation in the patient for those flavours; so (as it's always going to be lousy), the PLAIN version actually is the best approach. Ironically, the same approach (plain-jane)to Gospel presentation actually seems to be better for church growth, as well as salvation of seekers.

thebigmick - Managgia Irlandesi!
--
Try writing lucid English for a change, you "puddle-of-consciousness" putz.

The "SJ" stands for "South Jersey" (though I *did* spend four years as an undergraduate under the Jesuits; after four years of their attentions, medical school was practically a vacation).

I differentiate myself thusly because I despise North (old East) Jersey, and consider those of us in the southern counties to have a valid case for seeking secession from the corrupt and malignant excuse for a government inflicted upon us from Trenton.

Meanwhile, bite me.

----------
Tallil2long:

You don't get it, do you?

Everything government does - *EVERYTHING* - derives from that institution's functional monopoly on the initiation of violent force.

Armed goons.

And (your personal protestations entirely aside) there have always been plenty of armed government goons perfectly willing to ram their masters' policies down the collective throat of the "civilians" out there in the general population.

Put armed government goons in the service of the religious objectives of Bible-believing Christians and you've got a theocracy.

Civil government based on religious belief rather than secular law.

No freedom of conscience whatsoever.

Had that been the Founders' intention, d'you think the First Amendment would ever have been written, much less enacted into the law of the land?


--

Willow Creek Community Church
As usual I find it amazing the bile and anger that comes up when anything like this comes up.... I personally am not interested in a church of several thousand members, I like my church which has 250.

Obviously not all large churches are bad the same as not all small churches are as nasty as the one poster said...

My Daughter goes to a Mega Church in Mesa Arizona. My main complaint with it is that the dress code is NO CODE, and the amount of flesh showing on most of the "Under 30" ladies is amazing.... But the Preaching is sound and Biblical...the manner in which it is offered is not.... BUT what the hey.... it works for some.

My church is Baptist and directly refutes the person who wrote about getting kicked out if you do not meet the "Norms" We have had Deacons serving Communion barefooted and in "Overalls" (Not for a special "Dress silly" day, but his normal way of dressing) He was one of the most solid and fundamental Christians and due to an accident went to see his maker way before we were ready for him to go. We have an active youth fellowship and when we gave out Thank you Gifts for the people involved in Christian Education (S/S, BYF, Wonderful Wednesdays, Etc.) over half of the 40 or so standing at the front were young couples in their mid twenties.

We have a pastor who preaches the Whole Bible and encourages everyone to FOLLOW along in the Bible to make sure that he is not mis quoting...

Nothing deeply religious in this post, just some observations that seem to get overlooked in the "Tirades" that are above

Venturer9

Itching ears
I think it was Paul who said it best in 2 Tiomothy 4:3-4 -
"3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables."

When preachers go after converts telling them what they "want" to hear, they are not serving Jesus Christ. The truth hurts, and most people can't handle it. If your truly converted to the gospel of Jesus Christ, you don't need Dr. Spock or anything else like it.

Rich D.
This is where I don't agree with your mindset. Of course I don't want to "discover for myself" in the sense you're speaking of. That would be to deny that Christ has made the Truth known. It doesn't HAVE to be "re-discovered." That very idea is nonsense.

I have to either accept the Truth as delivered, or deny it. This is the mentality of the Orthodox Church. Now, this does NOT vitiate individual responsibility, nor does it interfere with the concept of individual, free will. After all, that's part of being made in God's image.

But I no longer the West's egocentrism regarding the idea that if I don't agree with each concept according to my own criteria then it isn't Biblical!

I would also point out that studying the Greek text is using textual analysis that isn't necessary. Not to receive the Faith as a whole. I submit myself to the Church, as established by Christ, as He promised He would keep it - safe from the gates of hades. I will not engage in egocentric, Western scholasticism to "discover" the Truth. It was, after all, delivered "once for all to the saints." (Jude 3).

the sinner,

Charles

svpallava
The problem is that Protestantism attempted to get back to "Biblical" faith through Western means. That is, the mistaken belief that we can just "reason" our way back. And Luther had a lot of his own problems, inserting words that didn't exist into Scripture in order to get it to agree with his preconceived notions of what the faith "should" be, etc.

There was no reason to "get back" - it was always there. I don't blame him completely, though, since he was coming from such a corrupted view already. Luther also had no problem with "parts" of the Councils, as long, again, as they agreed with his preconceived notions. This is the problem - egocentrism. It is a way of looking at the Faith from "you," out. It starts with the supremacy of human intellect instead of the veracity of the Truth as delivered by Christ through the very same Church He established in the Gospel of Matthew.

the sinner,

Charles

Willow's confusion
It is somewhat encouraging that the leadership of Willow is beginning to understand that their concept of spiritual formation may be "lacking". It is also nice to see that they are asking themselves some questions. I can't imagine their "attendees" could be instilled with too much confidence right now, after hear the word "mistake" applied to 20 years or more of their work. But what will Willow do now and how many folks will run after their next "great" idea? One theology of glory tends to morph into the another. If you know what I mean.........

To Charles
Charles the Hammer writes: Wednesday, October, 31, 2007 6:11 PM

"Rich D.
This is where I don't agree with your mindset. Of course I don't want to "discover for myself" in the sense you're speaking of. That would be to deny that Christ has made the Truth known. It doesn't HAVE to be "re-discovered." That very idea is nonsense.""

I see quote marks. Whom are you quoting?


To Charles
CtH: "But, if I could judge the Truth, why did I need a church?"

Christian are instructed to not go it alone. Is that what you are asking?

Confession of seeker-sensitive
I love to tell the story of unseen things above,
Of Jesus and His glory, of Jesus and His love.
I love to tell the story, because I know 'tis true;
It satisfies my longings as nothing else can do.

I love to tell the story, twill be my theme in glory,
To tell the old, old story of Jesus and His love.

I urge all to read "Feeding Sheep or Amusing Goats" by C.H. Spurgeon. It can be easily found in multiple places on the "Net. It will inspire you in a new way.

Give me that old time religion
Its good enough for me.

akn4hvn
10.31.2007

Rich D.
Wasn't so much a quote as a separation of a phrase indicating a particular mindset. A rather archaic use, I know. For that, I apologize. The reason that I did that was to separate and paraphrase the methodology that you are identifying as the "appropriate" one. (See? Isn't a quote, exactly).

Leading Bible studies, or participating in them, or even having theological training, is not any indication of truthfulness. The Truth is Truth, no matter who you are or what you've done or learned. That is the problem I have with your characterization of my posts constituting "nastiness." Proclaiming that there is a Truth, and only one, as declared in Ephesians and in Jude, doesn't mean it's nasty.

That is simply Western egocentrism at work - that we can't "offend" people or say "no, there is no relativism in Truth." And that is exactly what Protestantism is in the West. Also, it is how we treat Christianity in the West. No one can say there is any one Truth in Christianity, just aspects of it. This mentality is what leads to schism upon schism, something roundly condemned in the NT, and a fruit of falsehood.

Truth is not up for negotiation or determination, in the sense that the individual determines it. We can only accept it or reject it.

the sinner,

Charles

Rich D.
Part of our Faith entails individual struggle, but we cannot live the Faith completely alone for the entirety of our lives. Nor is the Faith a matter of individual determination, that is the point. The Church is the divine-human organism that is the Body of Christ.

the sinner,

Charles

Rhetoric or Nastiness?
Charles the Hammer writes: Wednesday, October, 31, 2007 7:34 PM

"Rich D.

That is the problem I have with your characterization of my posts constituting "nastiness.""

The last sentence was intended for all brothers and sisters in Christ - notice the address change. Also, I was obviously commenting on the few posts that went before, which included only ONE of yours, and trying to head off an internal dispute.

Regarding your assertion "based on sand", that is certainly rhetoric and if not, then worse, as it implies that the faith of Protestants is not based on the Rock of Jesus, which I'm sure you know to be the truth.

Rich D.
Protestantism IS, in fact, based on sand. But even sand has some substance. I would never say that every single aspect of Protestantism is false. After all, most Protestants acknowledge that Christ is the Son of God. That is Truth. Again, Truth is Truth, no matter where it comes from.

Unlike the church in Rome, Orthodoxy has never been about membership in terms of salvation - but of right belief, right worship. As such, Orthodoxy acknowledges the aspects of Truth contained in Protestantism. We only believe that Orthodoxy is the Church, the full embodiment of Truth. Or, more accurately, that we've remained faithful to the fullness of the Faith. There is a GREAT book you can get, for free, online that explains the Orthodox view of the heterodox much better than I ever, ever could. I'll give the address:

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/status.aspx

the sinner,

Charles

The Great Omission
Anyone interested in the failure of the modern day church in creating disciples should read Dallas Willards "The Great Omission".Instead of pointing fingers stone throwing believers should be about the business of finding common ground and seeking solutions.

sj Doc
Ohhhh, a mafioso Don Doc! Ok.

Thanks for telling me I really hit the spot.

And thanks for your response to the T. You ARE a pseudolibertinearian.

the big mick

THIS IS NO CONFESSION!
Listen, Bill Hybels is just playing bait and switch again. They always HAVE expected the sheep to feed themselves, now they're just saying it straight out so that those who (in spite of the Willow Creek/purpose driven messages in these types of churches) suddenly find that their thirst for the whole counsel of God and to get into the Word is NOT being satisfied by anything at church won't be so shocked.

In fact, they SHOULD be able to expect good teaching and being fed the meat of the Word from their church. Bill Hybels is just making more excuses for himself and SOUNDING like he is admitting they were wrong, when really he isn't admitting anything!

Charlie the hummer
Well, C, if it quacks like a Duck...
when you be disn Proddies and making claims about THE CHURCH, which you have not clearly defined from my pov, as the Sole Interpretive Authority as over against the Priesthood of All believers then you SOUND RC.

And I figure I'm taking the Scriptures at Face value, my other degree is English Lit, so I do understand plain sense of plain language----don't you? I notice you didn't rebut the idea that Paul DID NOT "got to Peter" for "instruction."

As to the influence of the Mystery Cults on the State Church of Rome, take it up with the Authors of "March to the Stars" (John Ringo and Eric Flint, I think) or google it--Christmas is all you need to know about that one.

Never said there wasn't a heirarcy---said it wasn't thru the Roman Church--OR THE EASTERN ORTHODOX EITHER!!!! Trading Constantinople for Rome doesn't do anything for me.

So come clean Charlie WHO or WHAT is this CHURCH that you says has the TRUTH and that isn't in the Western Mind???

You keep saying "it is not a matter of one's own individual interpretation", but you dis the proddies, deny the RC's and lay claim to some kind of Body of Sole Interpretive authority.

ARE you ORTHODOX? If not does that make you UN-orthodox? Heretical?

Are you sure I'M the one whose confused?

the big mick

spewallawa
Nah, got my MDiv in 98 from Duke. George Bush the elder gave the commencement address. Had a Yalie in the audience that shouted Bulla Bulla--ask anyone who was there.

the big mick

Dang Charlie,
now you are sounding like you believe that there is "aspects" of Truth in other religions? Or are you putting that in the proddie west's mouth?

So you are a schizmphobe, huh? One of the Proffs I respected most at Duke, now at Wesley--Dr. Ted Cambell the Texan was too.

Me, I take Paul seriously when he says that in part divisions must exist so that Truth CAN be identified in its full orbed nature.

Won't deny Truth is Truth, Charlie--what I WILL deny is that what YOU (or I or anyone)says is the Truth is coterminus WITH THE TRUTH.

One studies to show oneself approved accurately handling the Word of Truth. If, as you maintain, I'm not allowed to do that without an approved (by whom?) guide other than the Holy Spirit who is supposed to "lead me into all Truth" then WHERE does one find those THE CHURCH
(when you say it it sounds like it has to be James Earl Jones in an echo chamber--to me this ORGANIC Interface you keep talking about is people "individually members of it". People who each have the Holy Spirit and Spiritual gifts.)
has DESIGNATED to be the Spirit Guides of Interpretation? Are they individuals or merely channeling "The Church"!

the big mick

For terriergal @ 23:41 yesterday
Good points.

I can also use a revival between 1959 and 1965 in rural Ohio as an example. One of the main preachers was a local grocer who had no ordination nor "fancy" theological training--so his message was quite frank (although maybe a little rough). BTW, I actually heard this same grocer preach at the LEF's US Summer Retreat in 1998 (which explains my extrapolation to a message he gave more than 40 years ago) when he preached from 2 Chronicles 14-16. Certainly (like LEF founder N. Daniel and his son Joshua "Joe" Daniel--who assisted in that Ohio revival--his message was NOT "seeker-friendly" by any stretch).

At that time, two pubs in the area were shut down (a specific prayer request of the grocer)--one by the bartender's family coming to conviction (and confessing in church to a shocked, glaring audience), the other through the bartender being hosed.

thebigmick - Believe what you like...
--
...and be damned to you. Just don't expect your neighbors to accept public policy based upon your religious beliefs without skeptical review and reasoned opposition.

After all, not everyone shares your personal and peculiar ghostly delusions (and it really wouldn't matter one goddam bit if you pulled out of your Celtic anus polling numbers by which you claim that a majority does).

Y'see, dimwit, the whole idea of the secular state - which criminalizes governmental religious intolerance - was adopted in these United States.

Contrary to your damnfool straw man effort at claiming that *I* am guilty of trying "to use the Organs of the State to PREVENT [your] 'free exercise of Religion'" (why do idiots like you always use pompous capitalization every time you think you've said something important?), I'm making objection to nothing more than your own personal public profession of a desire to exert violent force - through statutes you want to have enforced "on penalty of death" - upon other people.

All laws are enforced "on penalty of death." That's how governments work.

The twofold character trait of statist shmucks like you is that (a) you're all hot and eager to pull this "There oughta be a law!" crap every time you get your panties in a twist, and (b) you haven't the guts to go out and point guns at your neighbors yourselves.

After all, your neighbors might shoot *YOU* in response.

Entirely as you deserve.

Hm. Are you not only a "pregnancy-at-gunpoint" whackjob, or are you also an advocate of "gun control"?

You wanna make sure your victims are completely disarmed, don'tcha?


--

A Shocking Willow Creek Confession
What bothers me the most about this article is the pious attitude of the Willow Creek "naysayers" including the author of the article...calling Bill Hybels a "guru" repeatedly. Have you attended any conference there and been with the people there? What I admire most is that a church, first of all, would have the courage to evaluate its ministry. When do we read about that happening - then secondly, that they would print the findings, and come forward publicly - that is refreshing to me. It has been a church that has sought to lead people to Christ and God is speaking to them and they are responding - sounds like more than most churches do today! It is not a shocking confession; it is a needed confession that will lead them on to the future God has for them as a church and we should all be praying that in for them.

Crypto-papist
reporting for duty. I see now where Charlie gets his criticisms of those who are not Orthodox. The link he provided tells me that all Protestants are Crypto-Papists who have replaced the roman papacy with themselves.

However, in the whole ten page document, while I saw unexpanded references to old councils and church creeds, I failed to see one Scriptural reference for anything asserted. It seem that they are hung up on organization in the way the RCC is, and don't hesitate to call any non-Orthodox true heretics.

I wasn't quite sure what the root of their criticism of the Protestant understanding of the Trinity was all about and the relationship of the Son and H.S. to the Father. I also detected an implied mapping between the Trinity and their church organization organizational hierarchy.

The basic premise of the document is that all non-Orthodox are heretics and that having ecumenical dialog with us infects them with the "bacterium of hertical belief" [Chapter 1, page 2]. It also states that we "have not been grafted into the one true Body of Christ through Holy Baptism." [ibid, pg. 4]. So there you have it. We lack the grace "given in the "Mysteries of the Church" because of our faulty baptism. We might "make some admirable spiritual and moral progress", but aren't on the "road to spiritual perfection." [all from Ch.3] In Chapter 6, it argues that we are not Christians.

All-in-all, to support these arcana, there is more saint quoting than Scripture quoting. Thought I'd let you know...

bigmick
Sir, you do not make any sense. You run off on tangents of unimaginable ignorance, and know nothing of Church history. Nor did you actually download the book and read it. Now, to me, that is the sign of someone who won't even investigate the claims I'm making. Sounds like you are the very embodiment of Protestantism - each man a pope unto himself. That isn't a crypto-papist, that is a metapapist. That, sir, is what you are.

I also find it strange that you seem to think that there is no one proper interpretation of Scripture, but then you deny any other religion can reflect Truth. So, which is it? After all, looking at the MASSIVE differences in various Christian "sects," only one can have the Truth. Which one is it?

I'm not afraid of schisms - I simply think they are the fruit of the unspiritual. To think that schisms are "necessary" is, truly, insane. That mentality also is completely refuted by the NT itself.

Since you are so firmly ensconced in the Western mindset of egocentrism, I see I am only throwing the pearls of the Fathers before one unwilling to receive them. May they forgive me.


the sinner,

Charles

Part 1 - other changes needed
First the churches also need admit the evil of cultural Marxism despair which is not so much a struggle for equality of wealth, but for equality of power. Every level of God given and biblical authority that for 2000 years was always imposed by military, police, businesses, churches, and traditional families has now been twisted into something evil. We have been stripped of our right to impose it, and everybody has been convinced nobody has the right to tell them what to do. We must regain our confidence in each of these and the right to impose them.

Second our gospel message will have to change. In the past, when the people in the US were closer to God, because the scriptures were taught in schools, churches, and families, it was more appropriate for great men like Billy Graham to preach the message Jesus told to Nicodemus, who had lived his entire life close to God, John 3 "you must be born again." That was really only one little step. In the present and future, as the people in the US become farther from God, and more like the Roman Empire, because cultural Marxism abrogated imposing God in the schools, churches, and families, it will be necessary to stop using that apologetic, and change the way we view the gospel. We must shift to the way Apostle Paul preached it to the Romans.

Part 2 - other changes needed
It’s summarized in Acts 26:17-18 Jesus said "I am sending you to your own people the Romans, to open their eyes, to turn them from darkness to light, from the power of Satan to God, that they might receive the forgiveness of sins, and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in Jesus." This is a summary all the subjects. He expanded each of these subjects to amore than one chapter in the letter to the Romans. We are becoming less like Nicodemus and we are becoming more like the Romans. The message to the Romans ends with the “lifetime of mortal kombat” statement, "The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet." the change in apologetics is necessary, not because God changed, but because we changed. The old apologetic of Billy Graham now simply leaves people blindsided by evil and powerless to fight evil, in their own life and in the world. God wants you but you don’t need to change is a message of despair. God wants you and you must change is a message of hope.

"Cheap grace amounts to the justification of sin without the justification of the repentant sinner who departs from sin, and from whom sin departs.” - Bonhoeffer

Part 2 - other changes needed
It’s summarized in Acts 26:17-18 Jesus said "I am sending you to your own people the Romans, to open their eyes, to turn them from darkness to light, from the power of Satan to God, that they might receive the forgiveness of sins, and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in Jesus." This is a summary all the subjects. He expanded each of these subjects to amore than one chapter in the letter to the Romans. We are becoming less like Nicodemus and we are becoming more like the Romans. The message to the Romans ends with the “lifetime of mortal kombat” statement, "The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet." the change in apologetics is necessary, not because God changed, but because we changed. The old apologetic of Billy Graham now simply leaves people blindsided by evil and powerless to fight evil, in their own life and in the world. God wants you but you don’t need to change is a message of despair. God wants you and you must change is a message of hope.

"Cheap grace amounts to the justification of sin without the justification of the repentant sinner who departs from sin, and from whom sin departs.” - Bonhoeffer

Touj.-the Village Idiot
I may be wrong but after a quick scan of all the posts I think that nobody responded to the idiot's posts. I am so proud of you guys.

Charles the Hammer
Your stridency level has increased, but you haven't addressed my comments on the claims you've made - what about the lack of scriptural support in the article you linked? Do you have it for us?

The point of this article is exactly that - a lack of meat and very little milk - a diet of empty sugar calories. What is the Orthodox substance you claim to have and call Truth? What's the justification for what you call threefold-baptism and you hierarchy?

Are you here just to throw stones?

lokietek1
We shook the dust off our sandals and went to another village.

Charles the Hamer
Although I'm not a Catholic I believe it is the trunk of the tree of which I am a little twig. I try to defend the Catholics which they seem to not do so well lately.

My two posts above about other changes needed, I have listened to Fr. John Corapi extensively and agree with everything I have heard him say. I think you will find his materials about the subject of this spiritual warfare and the need for Catholics to understand it, and that it has always been in their the teaching.

A Shocking Willow Creek Confession
Thanks, JC! How nice to read a spiritually mature response to Willow Creek's open report. I say this as one who has personally benefited greatly in my own spiritual growth through Willow Creek's pastors, conferences, and wonderful Bible study materials they produce. Through my own experience, I know Willow Creek to be people of the Word.

Would that the humility shown by Willow's leaders over the years, and now, could be seen throughout the Christian Church. Imagine what a positive witness to the world that would be!

Tragically, however, the "holier-than-thou" attitude Jesus confronted in the Pharisees is alive and well today as it was then. Remember, they, too were the "conservatives" who stood for "truth" as they understood it in their day. And they did this even if their love for God and others was sacrificed in the process. And, according to Jesus, it was, though they could not see this for themselves.

Far too many of us who name the name of Christ today not only throw stones at our fellow Christians; we "enjoy" every minute of it! That's the great tragedy. It feeds our own sense of self-righteousness.

How about we let God be the Judge of another's ministry. Last time I checked my Bible, that was still His divine role; not your's or mine.

I'll tell you what's "Shocking"
The only thing "Shocking" about this article is that so many "brothers" and "sisters" seem to love hating on Willow Creek. Thinly veiled jealousy, perhaps? If we listened closely to Hybels' self reflection we'd discover that the problem is not with Willow Creek's seed planting, but rather with their cultivation of these fresh believers. The parable of the seeds is an apt criticism of this situation. Matthew 12:20-21 "[The one] who hears the word and at once receives it with joy. 21 But since he has no root, he lasts only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, he quickly falls away." Obviously this isn't the best situation, but consider the question: Would you rather have 1000 new, ignorant believers who know they need more, or 100 stodgy believers who think they have it all figured out and will all be dead in a few years? The fact is that at any given moment in history, the church is exactly (and only) one generation from ceasing to exist. If she (the church) does not seek to meet younger generations where they are at, she is doomed. Period. But thank goodness that Willow Creek is NOT scrapping their approach, but instead seeking to add greater depth to it. I wonder if Burney and his kind would have an equal amount of humility to recognize that their own "vision" of the church could use some serious tweaking. I'll leave the answer for them to decide.

Um, that's Matthew 13:20-21
Sorry for the misquote.

sorry for miscommunication.
I really appreciate all your taking exception to my comment about each one being his own arbiter of truth. I guess I said that wrong. What I meant was that each one of us has become responsible to find truth for himself. I really do not believe that Truth may be different for me than for you. What I admit to is fallibility. For this reason when I teach (at a baptist church) I urge my students to look carefully into their Bibles to understand truth, to see whether what I say is correct, and to offer correction. Now, I have the advantage of an education and experience which gives me some credibility, but I can still be wrong.

The real question that arises is how does one find a church that teaches Christ's teachings faithfully? I think we must each get into the Bible and compare it with what is taught, and reject those teachers who only go to the Bible when they need an appropriate sound-bite. Unfortunately it seems that the major leaders have accepted the Hybels/Warren/Osteen application of the sound-bite. I will always reject that. Because, as you have reminded me, the Bible does hold the eternal truth. And I need God's truth, not man's truth.

I'd rather have
Corb, to answer your question I would rather have 100 new, ignorant believers who know they need more.

Notice I have neither 1000 nor the old stodgy only. The commission given us by Jesus was not to fill huge barns with empty shells but to plant cultivate and harvest solid fruit. The old Willow Creek model failed because while they took in thousands of "converts" they made disciples of very few. The problem with the model of the old stodgy churches is that they made neither converts nor disciples. What the churches need to be doing is reaching those who they can disciple and train them to make more disciples. The process may be seem slower but it will work better.

Mathematically it looks like this: Pastor H reaches 10,000. He has 10,000. Pastor J reaches 100, of whom 10 are taught to do the same. Soon those 10 are reaching 1,000 of whom 100 are taught the same. then those 100 reach 10,000 and 1,000 are taught the same. Then those 1000 reach 100,000 of whom 10,000 are taught to reach 1,000,000. And along the way those who are reached are ministered in a way that changes their lives and the lives of their communities. Pastor J has 10,000 but his have not been changed because they have not been made to be disciples.


antidote
The best antidote for error is truth and it is worth the time to pick up the CD set (The Church Vol 1 Universal and Local; The Church Vol 2 True and False) by Derek Prince.
(derekprince.org)
Great interest and stunned approbation have characterized my listening and I can commend them without reservation.

Marketing and Religion
Almost all churches use marketing consultants to increase the size of their congregations. Marketing techniques can be very useful in increasing the size of a particular church.

However, marketing techniques can not increase faith or spirituality. They are not a substitute for the gospel.

Marketing is based on giving the carnal mind what it thinks it wants. True religion demands sacrifice and obedience to the gospel.

corb
Your post is a great example of what is wrong with your church.

your comment that the church is 1 gen from extinction speaks volumes of the teaching that you receive.

read below what Christ had to say about it rather than the tripe Hybils feeds you...

"And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it." Matt 16:18

try again son....read the bible from the end of your finger one of these days and you may be blessed.

but I will agree in this context - the money-grUbbing church called Willow Creek / Saddleback and the rest of her harlot daughters may be 1 gen from extinction, God help us!

dale - pt 1
thanks for sharing your amway strategy to salvation. I take it from your other posts that you are a pastor? I thank God that He uses the foolishness of preaching to save a few....

All you out there who are "winning souls for Jesus" are utter fools.

"Now we are aware that God [Who? GOD] is working all together for the good of those who are loving God who are called according to the purpose that, whom He foreknew, He designates beforehand, also, to be conformed to the image of His Son for Him to be Firstborn among many brethren. Now whom He designates beforehand, these He calls also, and whom He calls, these He justifies also; now whom He justifies, these He glorifies also" (Rom. 8:28-30).

It is ALL OF GOD. It is not your responsibility to "get people saved." Only God can do that.

It is GOD who does the calling:

"For ye see your calling brethren how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. But God has chosen [Who? ‘GOD’] the weak things of this world to confound the things which are mighty…" (I Cor. 1:26-27).

It is GOD who does the dragging:

"No man can come to me, except the Father which has sent Me, draw him [Gk: ‘drag him’]…" (John 6:44).

dale - pt 2


It is CHRIST Who chooses from those His Father dragged:

"Ye have not chosen Me, but I HAVE CHOSEN YOU…" (John 15:16).

Eventually this will include all mankind:

"And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me" (John 12:32).

And all will respond to God’s judgments and chastisements:

"That at the name of Jesus EVERY knee should bow, of those in heaven, and those in earth, and those under the earth; And that EVERY tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father" (Phil. 2:10-11—See also Isa. 26:9b).

And let’s not forget:

"…no man CAN say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Spirit" (I Cor. 12:3b).

But do you, pastor dale, believe that these Scriptures mean what they say? Of course not, they are square circles to you and your flock.

"Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this world? Has not God made foolish [Gk: ‘stupid’] the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe" (I Cor. 1:20-21).

My 2 cents
As a church planting pastor of a fairly non-traditional church, I have a couple of thoughts about this article.

First, I grew up in traditional Christianity, and most older Bible believing churches in America are not and have not been making mature disciples for many years. If they were then their members would not be nearly as susceptible to leaving and going to a seeker sensitive church.

Second, I started out in my first church plant with the seeker sensitive model as the primary way to attract new people, and I also found out that it did not produce growing Christians.

One of the main lesson I have learned about church is that disciplemaking is not about the particular model. It does not matter if you meet in a church building or an industrial building or homes; wear suits or jeans; sing hymns with organs or sing worship songs with guitars.

The way to become a mature Christian is to practice spiritual disciples such as Bible study, prayer, deep Christian fellowship to the level of accountability, serving others, self-denial, and sharing the good news. This list is not comprehensive and I am sure could be stated in other ways, but if we practice these kinds of biblical disciplines we intentionally put ourselves in a place of humility before the Lord and His Spirit will bring the maturity.

I believe these discipleship principles need to be at the core of the mission of every church to effectively make disciples. If they are then the particular appearance of the church can and will change, but the essentials will still be in place.

God bless.

observation from the trenches
One of the many off shoots from this church growth model is that those who came to Christ in this way don't know how their discipleship is lacking. When i have had interaction with these they are the ones who resist any method of solid teaching believing themselves to be the ones who are the mature Christians.

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

Rich D.
I seriously doubt that you, when you posted that last comment, had downloaded and read the entire book. It was NOT an article - it was a (if I remember correctly) nearly 200 page book. And it, in and of itself, won't answer every single question you have because, unlike Western Christianity, Orthodoxy has never fallen prey to scholasticism. I would think that if you're looking for some "quickie answers," the best place to start is "Orthodox Dogmatic Theology," by the late Protopresbyter Michael Pomozansky. (Did I spell that right? Can't remember . . .) This book, too, you can get online for free.

My stridency only increased in the face of one of the saddest claims I've yet read - that schism is a *good* thing. The NT, itself, decries schism as a great evil. Many of the Epistles focus on that very thing at various points.

Again, actually download the books and read them. Don't just read articles.

the sinner,

Charles

My $.02 -- this is not that hard
Just my $.02, adjusted for inflation:

Jesus and Paul both used an approach like this:

1) Listen to God, and let Him guide you to the people He wants you to reach.

2) Teach them personally for a while, in relatively small numbers.

3) Send them out to repeat 1 & 2.

Plenty of biblical support for that. Note especially II Tim 2:2 and Matthew 28:16-18.

Doing this, they turned the world upside down.

America's church, whether Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox, is not practicing this model or anything close to it. America's model of church is a lecture hall with some musical instruments. Modern ones have guitars and electronic keyboards, whereas retro ones have organs. No difference; it's not the model Jesus used, nor the model Paul used. It's boring, it's vapid, and it consumes between 60% and 80% of our discretionary time with very little gain to show for it. But the pastors who lead such meetings won't abandon them, because 1) they're stuck in tradition, and 2) their careers are rooted in the model as it exists.

Pretty obvious why it doesn't work, isn't it?

This is not all that hard, folks. If you want the results Jesus and Paul obtained, you have to do what Jesus and Paul did.

Dishonest assessment
Actually, the article and the quotes, and the conclusion seem dishonest when researching the original documents (The 2007 WCA Summit conference and the "Reveal" book). Burney is taking most of the content out of context to make a case that seems to suit his personal beliefs instead of reality - all this to feed the seemingly blood-thirst frenzy of "Seeker Sensitive" critics. I'm no fan of dumbing down the Gospel or short selling the Word of God and its demands on the lives of those in Christ, but this isn't honest, and a shame that so many are quick to wag their tongues at a movment and a leader who have the glory of Christ and the furthering of His Kingdom as their primary goal (even if their methods are out of whack).

Who's side are we on anyway?

HARD BOILED
AMEN TO THAT--AS A MEMBER OF A SEEKER SENSITIVE CHURCH I AM FIRMLY OF THE BELIEF THAT SOME OF US ARE ARE DESIGNED BY GOD TO ATTRACT THE ATTENTION OF SEEKERS AND SOME TO HELP THEM "CONVERT" WHILE OTHERS MAY BE BEST AT DISCIPLING AND OTHERS MIGHT EVEN BE BEST AT SPOUTING PHRASES LIKE --'epistemological dualism' AND 'authoritarian hierarchial ecclesiastic structures'

NONE OF THESE TALENTS SHOULD BE MINIMIZED OR GLORIFIED EXCEPT THROUGH WORK DONE FOR CHRIST.

IT SEEMS TO ME THAT HYBELS (AND NOW THAT SOMEONE MENTIONED SADDLEBACK) AND WARREN DO GOD'S WORK AND THAT THE PROBLEM RESIDES WITH THOSE WHO CAN'T GET THE LOG OUT OF THEIR OWN EYE. THESE GUYS BRING MANY TO THE LORD--MAYBE THE LORD WANTS US TO DISCIPLE THEM?

Pharaoh, don't let your hart be hardened
"MY" church has problems? I thought this was CHRIST's church. And yes, she does have some problems. No part is without them, even your particular flavor. Agreed, a remnant will exist until the return of Christ. But the idea of a faithful community's potential to cease existing is not an idea original to me. That was a very real issue for the Israelites and our entire history of faith. Thanks to God for continually putting up with us and overcoming our unwitting efforts at nuking ourselves. With God's gracious involvement, the question then becomes how small or how great a remnant will remain until his return. We are not absolved from responsibility to plant and cultivate just because God's guaranty is stamped on the remnant. I know that you know this, so let's not be too down on Willow Creek (or any other parts of the Body) for their efforts at following the call to action. Again, we should commend them (and others) for recognizing where they can be more effective and pursuing that. Shame on the rest of us (Bob Burney in particular) for loving to argue and refusing to understand, grow or encourage. Keep it going as long as it makes you feel better, but I'm done. Good luck and God bless.

BEMAAG
Simply "believing" doesn't mean anything. What, precisely, do you believe? If you don't have right faith, you can be led astray. Many a man has brought "converts," but converts to what? That is why those questions you (somewhat) disparage are necessary for us to discuss. They have wide-ranging effects in the accuracy of the faith being taught and believed. In addition, simply accepting Christ as Saviour is worthless - the old "sola fide" myth.

Faith that doesn't manifest itself in life is, as St. James described, dead. If people flow in and out of a parish, create schism and make their own "church," etc., there is nothing profitable in it for the followers of Christ.

the sinner,

Charles

Re: BEMAAG
"AMEN TO THAT--AS A MEMBER OF A SEEKER SENSITIVE CHURCH I AM FIRMLY OF THE BELIEF THAT SOME OF US ARE ARE DESIGNED BY GOD TO ATTRACT THE ATTENTION OF SEEKERS AND SOME TO HELP THEM "CONVERT" WHILE OTHERS MAY BE BEST AT DISCIPLING"

Okay, let me breath deep and resist the temptation to slam you with this comment the way I want to. Slowly re-read exactly what you wrote and think for a moment about the confusion in Harlem on Fathers Day. You would not be this negligent to your own children. Yeh, I got about twenty or thirty women pregnant, can't even remember them all, I'm sure somebody will raise them, I'm not really cut out to be a father. It is the kind of thinking that should get people slapped, but it's okay if we make it spiritual.

The closest thing you have ever seen, that explains what Jesus was doing is in the martial arts. A master in the ancient world, who is responsible for the training of his students, who determines when they are ready for a another stripe on their belt, preparing them to fight real battles to defend their way of life and if they lose a battle they lose their way of life.


With all due respect...
One thing that I have always admired about Bill Hybels and Willow Creek is that they are not afraid of facing hard things, letting the data speak for itself and making course corrections along the way. Show me a church that has followed what you prescribe that has been more effective than Willow Creek in winning people to Christ and expanding the Kingdom of God. Yes, the seeker service does not meet the needs of every believer at every place in their spiritual journey...that's the exact point of the survey: One size does NOT fit all! The seeker service draws in seekers where they are challenged, accept Christ and grow spiritually. The highly committed followers grow through service, generosity and personal spiritual disciples. But, since one size does not fit all...you do both...and even more!

If you follow Willow's history, you will find a series of course corrections: the addition of a mid-week believer's service, the multiplication of small groups, the addition of a Gen X service called Axis, and much, much more. If Willow does it right, they will not only learn lessons and make changes on this data, they will also keep learning and make more changes in the future.

If what you advocate produces more fruit than what God has done at Willow Creek, then I will shut up and follow what you advocate. In the meantime, you should get your facts straight.

Re: Allen
The message you receive at Willow Creek will leave you blindsided by evil and powerless against evil in your own life and in the world. Not only is there a need to return to a apologetic that is spiritual warfare, you also need to be able to impose it:

Quote from Willow Creek Comm Church website Bill Hybel's sermon "an example of the mutual submission to which we are all called." see Eph.5:21

This idea could not ever have meant this to the man, who wrote Ephesians, or to the people to whom Ephesians was written, or to the churches for two thousand years of church history, or to my grandparents. It only can mean mutual submission to a despair subculture of hippies with cultural Marxist dark sunglasses, who see not a need for equality of wealth, but an equality of power. The verse has always meant wives submit to husbands, children submit to parents and slaves submit to masters, and church members submit to bishops, and people submit to the governing authority of the Roman Empire. It is never never never the other way around unless you are a hippy street gang with spray paint defacing every part of our culture, including the scriptures themselves, bringing down the man, and abrogating every God given legitimate authority to create anarchy and despair.

To Charles
Charles the Hammer writes: Sunday, November, 04, 2007 1:03 AM

"Rich D.
I seriously doubt that you, when you posted that last comment, had downloaded and read the entire book. It was NOT an article - it was a (if I remember correctly) nearly 200 page book. And it, in and of itself, won't answer every single question you have because, unlike Western Christianity, Orthodoxy has never fallen prey to scholasticism."

OK, so it's a book - I did read it, believe it or not. If by scholasticism, you mean Scriptural support, then I still have a problem with the Orthodox position, especially with getting dunked three times for baptism.

RE Chase
I hope you never take me out of context like that. Yikes! You should work for the secular news media, dude.

Seeker Sensative Church Article
My one comment to this article would be the very important idea that each of us needs to take personal responsibility for our relationship with our God and not look to some building or body of pastors.

Neither Spock nor Willow changed
This article started by referring to a cultural myth about Dr. Spock, and that made me suspicious about the rest of the article. Concerning Spock, Dr. James Dobson discusses his views in The Strong-Willed Child. (Tyndale, 1978). In the beginning of chapter 4 Dobson prints a letter from Spock, which refers to the February 1974 Redbook article and says "Actually, my February article contains nothing that I haven't said again and again for 25 years...It was those who hadn't read BABY AND CHILD CARE and my magazine articles but who resented by opposition to the war in Vietnam who called me a permissivist." Dobson says, "... I am firmly convinced that Dr. Benjamin Spock believes in the value of consistent discipline and parental leadership. His reputation for permissiveness is largely unjustified, ..." (page 97)

It is good to debate the matter of churches being seeker-sensitive. However, it is not OK for us to distort what others say. I urge everyone who read Bob Burney's article to go to revealnow.com and watch the videos of Bill Hybels and Greg Hawkins, and hear what they really said. That presents a totally different picture. They are not repenting, but this is just another iteration in their quest to improve how the church works.


Cut and Dry
This may be a strange concept...but why don't we look to God's word as the final authority. I think that if Willow Creek wants to spend their money and time reaching out to "seekers" a.k.a sinners, which I'm sure any follower of Jesus Christ would gladly admit we all are, with apostate speakers and slick marketing...its their choice. My old church followed Warren and Willow into a new more "relevant" path..or should I say PATHS. Anything goes. We preach acceptance of everything and self edification while people in parts across the world are being mutilated, beaten, broken, enslaved, beheaded, and cast into a very real darkness that exists right here on earth. There is a very real danger slowly creeping up to the front gate of the "fortress" of Christs disciples. However, the enemy is not on the outside of the gate. They are going forth in the darkness to open it from within. Our openly professed enemies,(Liberalism,Islam,Communism, ect.) are waiting for the oppourtunity. My old church claims to be fundamental. Why then would a pastor join forces with a group of people who are less like Charles Spugeon and more like Dr. Phil. They openly "preach" that all religions are essentialy the same. We are all looking to the same god. I could see an athiest saying that as I once fervently did...but a disciple of the Lord Jesus? Why do we always have to be brimming with "feel good". Christ said Himself that he will divide. Division isnt so bad a concept when dealing with a healthy body losing the infected limb. We need to be real...not simply appear that way. Somewhere between Legalism and Liberalism there lies the balance. Each of us must find it within the scriptures.

What would Paul say...?
With all of the feedback concerning what is "Truth" and what isn't, what is good doctrine and what isn't, the good and bad of mega-churches vs. small churches, I just have to wonder what the Apostle Paul would say.

So much of Paul's ministry dealt with correcting churches from where they strayed. He didn't disband a church, telling them to get lost because they were doing it wrong. Rather he, in brotherly love and according to Jesus's teaching confronted them as directly as he could and showed them where they went wrong. How many letters would he had written if Paul had the current Church at his disposal?

Comments from a member of Willowcreek
I am a living breathing example of a person who has attended Willowcreek for twenty years, has utilized many of the programs, attended the weekend service and New Community, served faithfully, and has never felt I reached the status of fully devoted follower or the level of maturity I have longed for in my spiritual walk. For years I have been telling my mentors at Willowcreek that I didnt feel fed spiritually, that many of the messages didnt have enough substance and a number of messages seemed like reruns to me. While attending Willow I have gone from having a GED education to a Masters Degree so I dont think Im unteachable, yet something isnt right in that my life has never reached that point of spiritual faith that as Hybels puts it I became a “Self Feeder”. I was reading the bible daily, serving weekly, making myself transparent to the people who were leading me, being accountable, making every attempt to submit to Jesus, and it seems like I never accomplished the second step of the twelve steps in being able to turn my life and mind over to God no matter how many years I prayed that God would take control of my mind and life. Now I sit here lost in feeling that the church said oops, but what do I do with this new information? Do I start over at Willow and hope for the best this time around? Do I start over somewhere else? Do I just give up on the church altogether? I feel like a failure and dont know what to do. Where do I go from here?

Go Forth...
This article is an unfair characterization of what Willow Creek is all about. Yes, it is about attracting as many people to church as possible, but it is not for the sake of "numbers". It is because that is where they can hear the message of Jesus Christ and begin a transition from irreligious person to fully devoted follower of Jesus Christ (Willow Creek's stated mission). But another part of Willow Creek's message has always been about followers of Jesus Christ developing a personal relationship with Him. A "personal relationship", by definition, is the responsibility each person in that relationship takes for growing and developing that relationship. God does His part, but NO church, including Willow Creek, can be held responsible for the rest. That has always been up to the individual. Willow Creek does their part, they do it well and for that they are taken to task for "confessing" that they, too, have room for improvement. One of the great things about the United States is that anyone can start a church. It's good to know that there are so many people with so many great ideas on how to achieve better results for the Kingdom than Willow Creek. I trust they will put their fantastic evangelical insights into practice and show Willow Creek just how it's supposed to be done.

Benjamin Spock said nothing of the sort
I too am completely turned off by the use of a fabricated quote. It is so much more effective to use facts to support an agenda than to make up a quote and falsely attribute the words to a person who's been dead for almost 10 years. I'm sorry but that's pathetic.

Who needs to make a confession?
Maybe Bob Burney. There are many deep and wide inaccuracies in his "A Shocking “Confession” from Willow Creek Community Church" article. In the bigger picture, Christians need to walk together for the common top goal of more people knowing and loving Jesus. All churches, whether seeker or traditional need to live by Matthew 7; 1-2. As a Willow Creeker for 8 years, Bob's description is about 180 degrees different than what I have been experiencing there. That means many of Bob's statements are not the truth. This is sad. Bob's critical words about Willow Creek have added to my belief that Christian 'squabbling' is detriment to telling the story about our Savior. This pointless bickering and 'I told you so's' may well be contributing to church attendance decline. Bob, please let go of your ego, learn the real truth about Willow Creek, and tell us you are sorry for misleading (bearing false witness) to your readers and listeners.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.