“I Know…Let’s Blame Willow Creek…”
January 16th, 2008 by David RogersPosted in Baptist Life, David Rogers, Evangelism, SBC Issues, SBC News |
A pair of recent Baptist Press articles on an ad hoc gathering of 15 Southern Baptist vocational evangelists betrays a mindset that, in my opinion, has become all too common as of late in Southern Baptist life. To be fair, there is much in the articles, especially the one entitled Evangelists reflect on culture, integrity, that manifests a sincere, humble attempt on the part of those attending the event to honestly evaluate themselves and their ministries, and make practical suggestions for improvement.
However, BP writer Michael Chute, reporting on the Jan. 7-8 meeting in Jackson, Tennessee, in the article Evangelists lament Calvinism, SBC trends, makes the following observations:
“The evangelists also attributed a Bill Hybels-style of seeker-friendly evangelism as a contributing factor to fewer evangelism opportunities in churches.
“When the pastor preaches on Sunday morning in a Hawaiian shirt, shorts and tennis shoes, do you think he’s going to bring in this fire-breathing evangelist who wears a tie and black suit and have him stand up there and tell people that they are going to hell?” Michael Gott of Keller, Texas, asked rhetorically.
“Do you think he’s going to change that whole user-friendly approach to have somebody like you or me tell people that they must recognize there’s something wrong, and what’s wrong must be changed, and the only one to change it is Jesus Christ.
“They’re going to try to woo them step by step, overextending friendship evangelism, to the point that confrontational evangelism is not part of the package.”
Gott said the Hybels concept so prevails in Southern Baptist life that it’s the trend, and there is no part for an evangelist to play in Southern Baptist life.”
Come on, guys. Are you implying that the fault of declining baptisms and lackluster commitment to evangelism in our churches can be traced back to Willow Creek? You’ve got to be kidding me. Whatever else you might have to say about him, Bill Hybels is a man whose proven passion for winning lost souls to Christ is beyond question. If anything, my guess is we would be in much worse shape evangelistically, both in the SBC, and evangelical life in general, if it were not for the visionary ministry and example of people like Bill Hybels.
I do not claim to be an expert of all things “Willow Creek.” Undoubtedly, in some aspects, they do a few things a bit differently than I might choose to do them in my own church. But, when it comes to evangelism, I personally have been greatly blessed and challenged by several things that have come out of Willow Creek.
From a missiological perspective, the whole idea that we need to shape our evangelistic methodology from the point of view of the “seeker,” in order to minimize extraneous cultural barriers that might get in the way of an honest hearing and accurate understanding of the message, is both revolutionary and self-authenticating.
The Willow Creek course on evangelism, Becoming a Contagious Christian, is one of the best practical tools I know of for equipping your congregation to use the unique gifts God has given each one in order to win the lost.
The book Seeker Small Groups, by Willow Creek evangelism director Garry Poole, is a fantastic resource for anyone truly interested in reaching lost souls for Christ. I literally could not hold back my tears of joy as I read the riveting testimonies of person after person who have used this method of evangelism, and seen totally unchurched “pagan” friends respond positively and embrace Jesus as their Lord and Savior.
A few months ago, there was a big “to do” in the blogosphere related to the recent Reveal study sponsored by Willow Creek that indicated their ministry methodology was not doing as good of a job as they hoped at bringing believers to maturity in Christ. Although there were a few exceptions, a good many of the articles written sounded like a pack of hyenas licking their chops to expose the flaws of everything “seeker-sensitive” and “Willow Creek” and hang them out to dry.
My main purpose in writing this post is not to promote or defend Willow Creek. No one is perfect. And we all have our areas of weakness in which we have room for improvement. But I would love to see a similar study done on the churches of those who wrote gloatingly about the Willow Creek study. Would they (or we) stack up any better than Willow Creek at bringing believers to maturity? At least, they are concerned and attempting to do something about it.
But, as I said, this post is not primarily about Willow Creek. Others (here, here, and here) have already posted their responses to related comments in the same article about Calvinism and John Piper. Rather than delving into matters that have already been covered by others, I will limit myself here to say that I see this, in good part, as just one more example of a larger trend: the demonization of all those who are not exactly like us, and who don’t do things exactly like we have always done them.
There is no telling just how many blogposts have been written, articles published, sermons preached, and conversations held decrying the “nefarious” ministry approaches and methodologies of…
- Rick Warren and all things Purpose-Driven…
- The Emerging Church, Brian McLaren…
- Acts 29 network, Mark Driscoll…
- Charismatics, TBN, Benny Hinn, Joel Osteen…
- The Camel method, Contemporary worship styles, Multiculturalism…
- Etc., etc., etc.
Undoubtedly, some of these individuals, and the ministries and movements they represent, are more problematic than others. Please do not mistake what I am saying here as a carte blanche endorsement of everyone and everything in this list. There is definitely a time and a place to “contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints” (Jude 3). The point I am making is the following:
When faced with our own shortcomings, and languishing results in our efforts to fulfill the Great Commission, the default reaction, in far too many cases, has been to look for somewhere else to lay the blame.
The Bible clearly teaches us we should be “all things to all men so that by all possible means [we] might save some” (1 Cor. 9:22). In an attempt to be faithful to the teaching of this passage, some have no doubt gotten a bit more “out there” than others. While not minimizing the need to use sound biblical discernment, however, I sincerely question whether our fixation on the supposed defects of others really belies something else: our own sense of inadequacy and frustration for diminishing ministry results, and corresponding jealousy over their comparative success.
Instead of throwing stones at others, I think we are much better off looking first at the “beam in our own eye.” In the evangelists’ meeting, it looks like some of both were done. My hope is that all of us, in our comments and attitudes, will be slower to criticize others, and quicker to search our own hearts and evaluate our own methods by the light of Scripture and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
12 Responses to ““I Know…Let’s Blame Willow Creek…””
By Kevin on Jan 16, 2008 at 2:51 am
Interesting post.
Sometimes I don’t know where I fit in with all of this. I think most of the TBN programs are “holy baloney,” and I have no problem saying that the “prosperity gospel” is a prostitution of God’s word. I also believe the gross financial abuses of people like Benny Hinn just can’t be ignored for the sake of “unity.”
At the same time, I don’t quite understand the backlash against Hybels, Warren and some of the others. I probably wouldn’t agree with them on everything, but it seems that some want to put these guys into the same category as the before-mentioned baloney-slingers (or worse).
Here’s what I try to do:
1. Be critical only in cases where there is a clear abuse of Scripture or lack of integrity.
2. Not make a career out of bashing other ministries: I have better things to do.
By David Rogers on Jan 16, 2008 at 6:35 am
Kevin,
I am no more of a fan of TBN and Benny Hinn than you are. I think you capture very well the essence of what I am trying to say in your 2 points.
By Bernard Shuford on Jan 16, 2008 at 8:33 am
Let’s analyze a typical hypothetical Christian, who I will refer to as “I” or “me” in the following…
We all have a huge human tendency to want to be right.
If I’m right and someone disagrees with me, that means that the someone must be wrong.
If someone wrong and yet a lot of people agree with that someone, that means that a lot of people are wrong.
If I’m right and a lot of people are wrong, I need to tell those people that they are wrong.
Since we’re talking about matters of the salvation of the eternal soul of man, it’s very important that I help those people understand that they are wrong. I cannot be passive. I would be shirking my duty to do so.
Since these people do not have the fruit that I regard as an essential proof of salvation (this basically means that they don’t agree with me), they are unsaved. I consider this within my Biblically given authority to “tell a tree by its fruits”.
Since they are unsaved, I must help them be saved.
Since they believe something which is a lie that encourages them to believe they are saved when they are not, I must convince them of the lie. This requires argument. I do not believe that the Holy Spirit is capable of doing this without my intervention, even though He somehow (supposedly) revealed the truth to me.
Since they were deceived by a certain individual, I must convince them that the individual is a liar. He may say true things, but if he says untrue things about ANYTHING, he is a liar and the listener must be convinced to no longer listen.
Thus, I argue, criticize, and condemn. My purpose is to lead the listener to true salvation, because, remember, he is unsaved based on my conclusions above.
All this progression of behavior is based on the first presumption, which says “I am right.”
By the very definition of “I believe”, I am establishing what I regard as truth. My entire perspective changes based on that.
All the above, by the way, is a rhetorical explanation of lifestyle based on belief.
If I believe that only Fundamentalists are going to Heaven, it’s easy to criticize Billy Graham because, according to that, he’s not even saved. In fact, I would consider him a deceptive agent of Satan because he teaches that non-Fundamentalists can go to Heaven. Anyone who “follows Billy Graham” or to some, is “supposedly saved under his ministry”, is deceived, if you follow the presupposition that Ecumentalists cannot be saved since they don’t agree that only Fundamentalists can be saved.
Thus, the conclusion that Mark Driscoll is not even a Christian, since he doesn’t practice confrontational evangelism (or whatever particular issue I might choose). Since he’s not a Christian (I hypothetically conclude), I don’t even have to regard him as a brother, and I am actually instructed by the Bible to separate myself from him and to warn those who would be deceived by him.
To someone who doesn’t know me and is reading this, I bet I sound like a real weirdo in the above statements. Please note that this is simply an explanation of a thought path that most of us unconsciously follow to some degree or another. These are not “my thoughts” or beliefs.
In a lot of words, what I’m trying to say is that we justify a lot of attacks on Christian leaders and organizations by saying we’re trying to keep people from being deceived.
Where does our duty in this regard really lie?
GREAT POST!!!
By Cyle on Jan 16, 2008 at 9:03 am
The only thing I’m really sure about in this whole debate is that all of us are at least a little bit wrong. Willow Creek admitted that what they had done has not had the effect of disciple-making that they hoped. It’s like that with almost every new wave, movement, fad, book, program, paradigm.
None of these trends, movements or programs over the past 30 years has stemmed the tide: seeker sensitive, worship style change, FAITH, Purpose Driven, emergent, neo-reformation, technology audio visual revolution, house church / small groups. Every new thing is touted as THE thing, and it’s not.
While I’m not sure that the evangelistic meetings of days gone by are the answer, you can’t dispute the fact that when we were doing those there was growth. The greatest growth our church has experienced was from prayer, fasting, and revival meetings. We doubled in size in one year. Since then we’ve done FAITH, Share Jesus Without Fear, Heaven’s Gates & Hell’s Flames, Power Team, Home Groups, Upward Sports, Contagious Christian, lifestyle evangelism, Purpose Driven, Angel Food, service ministries to every conceivable group, and about a dozen other efforts.
Anectodally, the evangelists are right. Right now our church is growing. The only thing we’ve done differently is to dedicate one day a week to pray specifically for our church to grow. If that’s not Simple Church, I don’t know what is.
By Kevin on Jan 16, 2008 at 9:37 am
David,
I forgot to thank you for this post. I’ve been thinking about this very kind of thing over the past few months–throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.
Blessings!
By David Rogers on Jan 16, 2008 at 10:40 am
Cyle,
While I agree there is no “silver bullet,” I think the fact that you have done “FAITH, Share Jesus Without Fear, Heaven’s Gates & Hell’s Flames, Power Team, Home Groups, Upward Sports, Contagious Christian, lifestyle evangelism, Purpose Driven, Angel Food, service ministries to every conceivable group, and about a dozen other efforts” is evidence that you have not buried the talents God has given you, but rather are willing to take risks and do what is within your reach to be “all things to all men so that by all possible means [you] might save some.” In the long run, some of these methods may show greater results than others. And, I believe that, in general, it is a good idea, in the interest of good stewardship, to evaluate the results, and spend more time and resources on methods that give better results. But, sometimes, I have seen how God blesses our efforts, even if our methods are not the best, just because we are willing, in faith, to launch out and do something.
By Bernard Shuford on Jan 16, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Looks like I musta missed the point again :) Sorry.
By SelahV on Jan 16, 2008 at 5:28 pm
David, I think the main reason for declining evangelism is people like me in the pew who are too lazy to get out and share. Too wimpy to boldly address the lost state in a person’s life. Too apathetic to get off my duff and go tell. Too caught up in my own problems and circumstances to pray fervently and boldly for the souls of lost people. Sometimes I see the lost as a pool rather than a real live one-on-one person. That is MY fault. Mine. Not Rick Warren’s or anybody else’s.
Our church went through the Rick Warren study. do you know the single most outstanding thing I remember about it? “One more for Jesus, just one more for Jesus.” I do a pittance for Jesus in my writing ministry. But I need a heart broken for the lost that I had when I first became a Christian. We must pray that we all have a heart broken for the lost. We must find that someone whom God has placed in our direct lives and pray fervently for them, that the Holy Spirit so moves in their lives and uses us that we cannot sleep, eat or rest till they know the Lord Jesus. Then we need to take the time out of our busy schedules and mentor and disciple that person so they will know how to go out and “Win one more for Jesus.”
I don’t know a diddly-doodle about Willow Creek. But I do know I’m not doing my part. selahV
By Kevin Peacock on Jan 16, 2008 at 5:49 pm
I remember a maxim from years past, “Just because you can’t tree a ‘coon, don’t shoot the dog who can.” It would certainly be tragic to condemn someone’s ministry who is actually working for God’s kingdom (Mark 9:38-40).
In the secular context where I serve, secular people don’t attend Christian meetings, sit and listen for someone to preach to them, read Christian literature, or listen to Christian radio or TV. Most of the old methods of vocational evangelists simply don’t work here — they don’t find an audience. We can lament the fact or simply recognize that the methodology may need to change according to the context.
By David Rogers on Jan 16, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Bernard,
I’m not sure how to take your comment about “missing the point.” Are you saying this because of something I said, or just because I haven’t responded to your first comment? Unless I’m missing something, I don’t think you necessarily missed the point. Actually, I think everyone so far, including you, Kevin, SelahV, and Kevin Peacock are in line with what I am trying to say.
In answer to your question, “Where does our duty in this regard really lie?”, I think Kevin #1’s two points are a good place to start:
1. Be critical only in cases where there is a clear abuse of Scripture or lack of integrity.
2. Not make a career out of bashing other ministries.
By Bernard Shuford on Jan 16, 2008 at 10:03 pm
David - No, no, nothing you said at all! That was a sincere “Ooops, everybody else seems to be reading this a lot different than I did, so maybe I went off on a tangent there…” I’m kinda famous, at least in my own mind, for missing the forest due to those doggone trees.
No probs - didn’t mean to sound grumpy at all.
By matt tullos on Mar 18, 2008 at 5:07 am
Great post. Couldn’t agree with you more.