Pretty amazing humility on their part, huh? I'm wondering whether they can resist the pressure to maintain their product/brand/whatever, or can really make the changes they must.
IMO, they do not need a "fresh start," they need to return to that which they have left.
I think the first thing they must do is restore Lord's Day worship to the parishoners and worry about the seekers some other time.
I think it's hard for churches to forget that Sunday is, in fact, the Lord's Day. The fact is that in a lot of communities (like mine,) Sunday morning is the time when guests show up...I'm not sure, though, why there's this tendency among churches to forsake "the main thing" just because seekers showed up at the thing we already had going on!
I did think it was a pretty humble move. Like you say, it's hard to know what sort of practical changes they might make, but they could have very easily made some in-house changes without actually confessing and nobody would have known any different. Willow Creek gets some props for that...maybe they're not evil after all. Gosh...who would have thought?
What if we worship God by loving those whom He loves...
is that valid worship?
Or is worship only doing things that only God can understand?
If that (the above) is true, then why does Paul give admonition to the church in Corinthians to do things that people can understand?
In other words, what is the problem with communicating truth and worship in a context that people can understand and connect with? And, BTW, that is NOT what Willow has repented from. They have repented from the idea that the church is primarily responsible for spiritual growth. Something you may or may not agree with.
So, why are we filled with glee at a church that has repented many times and changed its philosophy?
It just seems that us geeks over at the side table of the lunchroom with our MAGIC cards and our sarcasm are just so ready to giggle when the quarterback trips and drops his tray...
Is loving someone worship? I don't think so. It's loving them, it's commanded, it must be done before bringing one's sacrifice, but it is not an act of corporate worship.
Yes, I understand the "all of life is worship" angle, but I'm speaking of Lord's Day corporate worship. We can all get together and hang out somewhere, but it is not a worship service unless certain things occur. Even Willow Creek understood that when they organized Sunday worship around non-Christians and moved the service for the faithful to Wednesday.
It seems like you two guys are arguing apples and oranges, but i may be wrong.
If it's fair to say that Johnny and Lance are on two different sides of this one (and I don't know if that's fair or not, so please give me some grace), I think I'm probably somewhere in the middle.
I've never been an expert on Willow Creek's philosophy or methodology, but I read a lot, so I probably know as much as the next average-dude, non-attender/member of their church. That said, I haven't been a huge fan of what they do and how they do it. The point is that I really can't spend a lot of time saying what they should and shouldn't repent for. I don't care for churches as big as theirs, and I have my reasons for that, but that's not really the issue that Johnny and Lance seem to disagreeing on.
Here's the thing: there is something unique and specific about "Christ-followers gathering together on the Lord's Day" and all that. And that is a special kind of worship. Definitely. That's where I agree with Johnny. One bad thing (among many) about all the emergent stuff is that people are running too hard from anything that looks even a little bit religious. When I say that i think that's a mistake, I'm in good company. Until about 10 years ago, Christ-followers throughout the centuries were okay with calling themselves, at least at some level, "religious."
So Johnny's not crazy.
But here's where I agree with Lance. In perhaps the most dramatic moment of Jesus' life, he prayed that we, his followers, would be perfectly one, as He and the Father (and presumably, the Spirit) are one. This was the same prayer that had him sweating blood over the prospect of the cross. And the Apostle John, in chapter 3 of his first epistle, said that lost people would know about Jesus because Christ-followers loved each other.
Here's another one: the second greatest commandment, according to Jesus, is like the first. Loving our neighbor (no distinction is given about the beliefs of this neighbor) was important enough that Jesus talked about it when someone asked him "what's the most important thing?"
Finally, the only thing that wasn't good in the Garden was the alone-ness of Adam. That was God's idea, not Adam's.
So relationships, all kinds of relationships, are a big deal. I know Johnny wouldn't disagree with that. This seems to me to be a question of ecclesiological methodolgy (sorry if it sounds like i'm trying to be smart: i don't know any other words that mean the same things as those two words do).
If I had to guess, I'd say you two guys are warring against two different kinds of problems. Johnny, I think, is warring against a lazy, liberal, irreverent, loosey-goosey view of God and His people and His Church. In my experience with him, he seems to be on the hunt for this kind of sillyness, and perhaps he sees too much of that in WC's previous "seeker sensitive" verbiage. I agree with him.
But see, I don't think Lance is warring against those same things (i hope neither of you guys is offended at any of this presumptuous psycho-analyzing). I think he's on the hunt for stuff like legalism, false religion, phony posturing, and pious, exclusionary practices. I hate that crap, too.
I don't know if any of this helps. Either way, I just needed to write all of this to get my thoughts out, and one of the things i love about this blog is that Todd gives us the freedom to vent from time to time.
I should've elaborated more in my first post, maybe that will smooth things over (not that I think there's a fight going on here!).
I'm of the opinion that the single greatest failing in the Churches today is one of worship ethics. Bringing self-serving entertainment driven silliness in front of God each week (and we in the high-Church world have our own version of that, so I'm not just dogging WC) is what leads to all our other problems. I believe He judges that stuff.
Orienting worship around any men, unbelievers or faithful, instead of toward God, is just one symptom of the problem. But it is a part of it.
That's why I believe that if WC were to ground their worship in Word and Sacrament, their other perceived problems would naturally be taken care of. Lex orandi, lex credendi, the rule of prayer is the rule of faith.
In the same manner, I believe bringing wonderful, Biblical worship in front of the Lord while despising one's neighbor, neglecting to love him in the way Jesus commands, is going to reap a just recompense of reward as well.
It seems to me, and maybe I'm wrong, that WC errs in the former way. I was opining that instead of looking for a new technique they should focus on what seems to get lost in the search for a new technique.
Hybels said... “Participation is a big deal. We believe the more people participating in these sets of activities, with higher levels of frequency, it will produce disciples of Christ.”
This reminds me of some recent marriage research. The research targeted pre-marital counseling and it stated the following:
- 15% of couples who attended (1) session reported positive outlook towards their marriage. - 31% of couples who attended (2) sessions reported positive outlook towards their marriage. - 53% of couples who attended (5) session reported positive outlook towards their marriage. - 75% of couples who attended (7) session reported positive outlook towards their marriage.
There are two main points to conclude: (1)We CANNOT assume “The more sessions of premarital counseling you attend, the more satisfied your marriage will be (2)We CAN assume “The more sessions of premarital counseling you attend, the higher your commitment is to your marriage, thus offering a higher level of satisfaction.
I think it is similar here with Willow Creek: (1)We CANNOT assume the more programs, Bible studies, etc. our people attend; the higher their spiritual growth will be. (2)We CAN assume the more programs, Bible studies, etc. our people attend; the higher their commitment to spiritual growth will be.
Which this would then put the majority of responsibility on the individual and not the church. I see problems with this if you are trying to be a seeker-driven church…
11 comments:
Pretty amazing humility on their part, huh? I'm wondering whether they can resist the pressure to maintain their product/brand/whatever, or can really make the changes they must.
IMO, they do not need a "fresh start," they need to return to that which they have left.
I think the first thing they must do is restore Lord's Day worship to the parishoners and worry about the seekers some other time.
I think it's hard for churches to forget that Sunday is, in fact, the Lord's Day. The fact is that in a lot of communities (like mine,) Sunday morning is the time when guests show up...I'm not sure, though, why there's this tendency among churches to forsake "the main thing" just because seekers showed up at the thing we already had going on!
I did think it was a pretty humble move. Like you say, it's hard to know what sort of practical changes they might make, but they could have very easily made some in-house changes without actually confessing and nobody would have known any different. Willow Creek gets some props for that...maybe they're not evil after all. Gosh...who would have thought?
I think the comment by Greg Hawkins on the article is informative.
What if we worship God by loving those whom He loves...
is that valid worship?
Or is worship only doing things that only God can understand?
If that (the above) is true, then why does Paul give admonition to the church in Corinthians to do things that people can understand?
In other words, what is the problem with communicating truth and worship in a context that people can understand and connect with? And, BTW, that is NOT what Willow has repented from. They have repented from the idea that the church is primarily responsible for spiritual growth. Something you may or may not agree with.
So, why are we filled with glee at a church that has repented many times and changed its philosophy?
It just seems that us geeks over at the side table of the lunchroom with our MAGIC cards and our sarcasm are just so ready to giggle when the quarterback trips and drops his tray...
What if the quarterback is really a nice guy?
Is loving someone worship? I don't think so. It's loving them, it's commanded, it must be done before bringing one's sacrifice, but it is not an act of corporate worship.
whatsoever you eat or drink or whatever you do... do all to the glory of God.
yeah, loving someone is worship
Yes, I understand the "all of life is worship" angle, but I'm speaking of Lord's Day corporate worship. We can all get together and hang out somewhere, but it is not a worship service unless certain things occur. Even Willow Creek understood that when they organized Sunday worship around non-Christians and moved the service for the faithful to Wednesday.
It seems like you two guys are arguing apples and oranges, but i may be wrong.
If it's fair to say that Johnny and Lance are on two different sides of this one (and I don't know if that's fair or not, so please give me some grace), I think I'm probably somewhere in the middle.
I've never been an expert on Willow Creek's philosophy or methodology, but I read a lot, so I probably know as much as the next average-dude, non-attender/member of their church. That said, I haven't been a huge fan of what they do and how they do it. The point is that I really can't spend a lot of time saying what they should and shouldn't repent for. I don't care for churches as big as theirs, and I have my reasons for that, but that's not really the issue that Johnny and Lance seem to disagreeing on.
Here's the thing: there is something unique and specific about "Christ-followers gathering together on the Lord's Day" and all that. And that is a special kind of worship. Definitely. That's where I agree with Johnny. One bad thing (among many) about all the emergent stuff is that people are running too hard from anything that looks even a little bit religious. When I say that i think that's a mistake, I'm in good company. Until about 10 years ago, Christ-followers throughout the centuries were okay with calling themselves, at least at some level, "religious."
So Johnny's not crazy.
But here's where I agree with Lance. In perhaps the most dramatic moment of Jesus' life, he prayed that we, his followers, would be perfectly one, as He and the Father (and presumably, the Spirit) are one. This was the same prayer that had him sweating blood over the prospect of the cross. And the Apostle John, in chapter 3 of his first epistle, said that lost people would know about Jesus because Christ-followers loved each other.
Here's another one: the second greatest commandment, according to Jesus, is like the first. Loving our neighbor (no distinction is given about the beliefs of this neighbor) was important enough that Jesus talked about it when someone asked him "what's the most important thing?"
Finally, the only thing that wasn't good in the Garden was the alone-ness of Adam. That was God's idea, not Adam's.
So relationships, all kinds of relationships, are a big deal. I know Johnny wouldn't disagree with that. This seems to me to be a question of ecclesiological methodolgy (sorry if it sounds like i'm trying to be smart: i don't know any other words that mean the same things as those two words do).
If I had to guess, I'd say you two guys are warring against two different kinds of problems. Johnny, I think, is warring against a lazy, liberal, irreverent, loosey-goosey view of God and His people and His Church. In my experience with him, he seems to be on the hunt for this kind of sillyness, and perhaps he sees too much of that in WC's previous "seeker sensitive" verbiage. I agree with him.
But see, I don't think Lance is warring against those same things (i hope neither of you guys is offended at any of this presumptuous psycho-analyzing). I think he's on the hunt for stuff like legalism, false religion, phony posturing, and pious, exclusionary practices. I hate that crap, too.
I don't know if any of this helps. Either way, I just needed to write all of this to get my thoughts out, and one of the things i love about this blog is that Todd gives us the freedom to vent from time to time.
thoughts?
Ross,
i don't know about Johnny, but you nailed my angle on the issue.
btw, Johnny.
I totally agree with your opinion on "dating Jesus" songs... they turn my stomach.
I should've elaborated more in my first post, maybe that will smooth things over (not that I think there's a fight going on here!).
I'm of the opinion that the single greatest failing in the Churches today is one of worship ethics. Bringing self-serving entertainment driven silliness in front of God each week (and we in the high-Church world have our own version of that, so I'm not just dogging WC) is what leads to all our other problems. I believe He judges that stuff.
Orienting worship around any men, unbelievers or faithful, instead of toward God, is just one symptom of the problem. But it is a part of it.
That's why I believe that if WC were to ground their worship in Word and Sacrament, their other perceived problems would naturally be taken care of. Lex orandi, lex credendi, the rule of prayer is the rule of faith.
In the same manner, I believe bringing wonderful, Biblical worship in front of the Lord while despising one's neighbor, neglecting to love him in the way Jesus commands, is going to reap a just recompense of reward as well.
It seems to me, and maybe I'm wrong, that WC errs in the former way. I was opining that instead of looking for a new technique they should focus on what seems to get lost in the search for a new technique.
This will be a reach but track with me…
Hybels said... “Participation is a big deal. We believe the more people participating in these sets of activities, with higher levels of frequency, it will produce disciples of Christ.”
This reminds me of some recent marriage research. The research targeted pre-marital counseling and it stated the following:
- 15% of couples who attended (1) session reported positive outlook towards their marriage.
- 31% of couples who attended (2) sessions reported positive outlook towards their marriage.
- 53% of couples who attended (5) session reported positive outlook towards their marriage.
- 75% of couples who attended (7) session reported positive outlook towards their marriage.
There are two main points to conclude:
(1)We CANNOT assume “The more sessions of premarital counseling you attend, the more satisfied your marriage will be
(2)We CAN assume “The more sessions of premarital counseling you attend, the higher your commitment is to your marriage, thus offering a higher level of satisfaction.
I think it is similar here with Willow Creek:
(1)We CANNOT assume the more programs, Bible studies, etc. our people attend; the higher their spiritual growth will be.
(2)We CAN assume the more programs, Bible studies, etc. our people attend; the higher their commitment to spiritual growth will be.
Which this would then put the majority of responsibility on the individual and not the church. I see problems with this if you are trying to be a seeker-driven church…
Post a Comment