a mistake on the mistake
I want to address this once and for all. In this article, Willow Creek & the New Monasticism, the author writes
In October 2007, Bill Hybels announced “We made a mistake” regarding the seeker sensitive approach to “doing” church.
I challenge Ken Silva, the general editor of this article, to show the world where Willow Creek said that they made a mistake in their seeker sensitive approach to doing church. They never have made that statement, nor anything close to it. What they did say was they they made a mistake in their assumption that church-based programs are the way to disciple believers. They found that they were not doing a great job of teaching believers to feed themselves, and take care of themselves spiritually. Rather than creating more discipleship programs, they are creating personalized growth plans to help people take the reigns in their own walk with Christ. Â
I know that the ODMs do not have any type of remorse or need for apology in their own DNA (they are above flaw or wrong-doing). So, it is understandable why they would twist this confession to fit their agenda. Sorry guys, while Willow is open about their mistakes, they have not committed the sins that you claim they have.
Also… check out the video. I tried really hard to see the controversy. I just couldn’t find it there.   Â
- Editor , Ken Silva , Linked Articles , ODM Responses , ODM Writers , PD/SS
December 20th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
You couldn’t see it because you are spiritually blind…given over to the man-centered, man-loving, infomercial sinner sensitive non-gospel.
hehe
December 20th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
Love child.
Just felt like that needed to be thrown in.
December 20th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
Why walk out your faith when you can just talk it and complain about those who are walking it….? I mean who needs confession anyway… and repentance… I mean if one’s own self righteousness makes then “feel” so much
smuggerbetter than others…iggy
December 20th, 2007 at 11:28 pm
“Also… check out the video. I tried really hard to see the controversy. I just couldn’t find it there.”
(sarcasm)I think the guy in the video just looks too controversial.(/sarcasm)
December 21st, 2007 at 11:14 am
Here is the actual quote:
December 21st, 2007 at 11:28 am
JohnD,
So the mistake is not the “Seeker Sensitive” part, but the follow through on discipleship… which has been even the “emerging/emergent” critique… so how is this as what Ken (the editor or whoever as it seems to not matter) states:
Again here are the two inaccuracies.
1. Bill was not apologizing for the “Seeker Model†itself, but for the lack of follow through as you showed by your quote.
2. Myself and may other “emerging/emergent” folk have many fo the same criticisms that Ken and crew have, yet this post connects us with the “Seeker” model… so is inaccurate.
This is the “great research” (now delegated to “opinions”) that CRN tells people as true… and it is a lie or just bad research or slander…
You choose.
Also “amalgamation†is spelled wrong in the post at CRN… = )
iggy
December 21st, 2007 at 12:09 pm
Iggy,
Are you making a point other than the one already made by Nathan? If so, I’m missing it.
Nathan correctly pointed out that Hybels did not say the seeker sensitive approach to engaging unchurched people was a mistake. In fact, the survey results indicated quite the opposite. That part of the model is working really well.
What Willow Creek is re-tooling is what to do with believers who have stepped across the line and want to grow in their walk with the Lord. Showing them how to become “self-feeders” is part of the solution.
Now, as far as whether or not the CR?N editor of the piece in question has been caught in a lie or bad research or slander, I would like to think that it is just a case of using the term “seeker sensitive” to describe the whole mega-church phenomena which includes the mistake that church programs will necessarily help believers mature beyond the “growing in Christ” stage (see the Spritual Continuum found here).
And with regard to the poor spelling, well, you’ve heard the old adage about throwing rocks when you live in a glass house . . . LOL!
December 21st, 2007 at 12:30 pm
John D, I appreciate your proclivity to want to see the best in the ODM’s but there is no way you honestly think what you said about them misusing the term being an accident, can you? These guys and girls are not nice people most of the time. They miss-represent and misuse all the time. The cut and paste to fit their agenda. Why ignore that? I had a “friend” in elementary school who use to trip people. The first two times he did it everyone gave him the benefit of the doubt that it was an accident but sooner or later everyone pretty much came to the conclusion that the guy was just mean and a bully.
December 21st, 2007 at 12:31 pm
JOhnD,
I have fully acknowledged I have bad spelling… so “sticks and stones” = )
What I am getting at is the second part of “programs” which is often the critique of modern (such as the traditional “Sunday School program” done by traditional churches like those Ken supports) and the PDL and SD models by EMERGING AND EMERGENTS… so to throw us in as Ken and crew often do is slander, bad research or lying…
It seems that you and others simply miss what the “conversation” in emerging is about… and it seems as if it is often on purpose.
Though I am not opposed to “programs” I do not think one needs depend on them to “grow” Christians… in fact that is unbiblical as God makes things grow….
I hope you can see that the lie, slander or just bad research that comes out of most ODM’s does not help the issue being solved but adds to the issue not being solved as to use deception and lies to promote what someone defines “truth” is be it a correct definition or not… is wrong… or do you not agree?
iggy
December 21st, 2007 at 12:34 pm
JohnD,
Also the spelling thing is an inside joke with me and Ken Silva who likes to state things like that without looking at the point being made… he likes to state: “being a stickler for accuracy as you are” as if his house is not also made of glass… to use and phrase you might understand….
Just letting you in on a little behind the scenes stuff there.
iggy
December 21st, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Iggy & John -
Did I miss something? I don’t see where John made any comment about the ECM (so how did he “miss” it?). (Maybe I’m missing it, as well?)
John, I appreciate your willingness to give the benefit of the doubt, as well, though I often wonder at what point Charlie Brown stopped giving the benefit of the doubt to Lucy when she continued to pull the ball out of his path? How long can you hear people say “have you actually read the report to see what it says?”, ignore them, and continue to misrepresent it without being purposely complicit?
December 21st, 2007 at 1:23 pm
I loved the stretch to connect to “new monasticism”…
December 21st, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Chris L,
JohnD gave this quote:
Now, to state that all emerging people are in step with “programs” as JohnD quoted is not true… and also to state that as the article did there is a connection between the two is also not true… and I am pointing out that many of us also state the same critiques as the ODM’s as far as the “Program Driven Church”… yet to state there is more EMC people in step with Bill Hybels when more “ODM” preferred styled churches have “programs”… is a bit dishonest…
Yet, Willowcreek may be hosting an event that includes emc’ers, but that is not the same as an emerging person as myself stating all the PDL and SDC are doing is right on.
Most I know have little to do with the PDC/SDC models… if John is stating he agrees with the article then i am asking if lies, slander or bad research is also approved by him to promote “truth”?
iggy
December 21st, 2007 at 1:34 pm
Iggy,
I’m going to re-punctuate your sentence:
to read:
If that is what you said, then I agree. Using lies, slander, bad research, or what I refer to as “spin” has a tendency to exacerbate the problem of not getting to the core of the matter, regardless of what side of the fence you happen to be on. The technique of “dis-information”, i.e., taking a kernal of truth and wrapping my particular spin around it, is NOT letting my yeas be yeas and my nays be nays.
Joe,
That said, I stand guilty as charged. I prefer to target the mis-interpretation without targeting the mis-interpreter. Nathan corrected the mistake about the mistake. “Spin” in my mind, is the biggest problem we face in the blogosphere. Let’s spend our time flushing that out whenever we can. Judging whether or not these “guys and girls are not nice people most of the time”, let’s leave that one to God.
December 21st, 2007 at 1:37 pm
Yeah we agree! And thanks for helping me be more clear… you got it.
iggy = )
December 21st, 2007 at 1:42 pm
Iggy,
I never said that, quoted that, or intended to say that or imply that.
December 21st, 2007 at 1:43 pm
Chris L,
About Charlie Brown, does 70 times 7 factor in here?
December 21st, 2007 at 1:47 pm
JohnD I am referring to the quote you gave which you implied you agreed with… or at least I took you to agree with… as noted it was:
So, if you are denying that you posted that then you need to address the impostor… but since you did not give your own thoughts yet are mostly pro ODM’s, I concluded you were stating you agreed with the statement.
If you did not… then we sure wasted a lot of time… sorry.
iggy
December 21st, 2007 at 1:49 pm
This is a quote from Bill H.
“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.”
The what a new paradigm shift an new way of doing ‘church.” So he is saying we need to through out the seeker model with it many programs market to spefic people. He want a “blank paper” to figure out where God is and how to “transform” the planet?? He will use some bible to give it the christian fell just like the seeker mode but it seems to me that Bill H. is moving more towards the pomo view of church.
Also the video is the exact oppostie of what a christian is to do with there life. We live in the world but are not of the world. If we isolate ourselves from people that need Christ how does that fulfill any of the commands of Christ? Paul in Corinthians tells people you can eat and work and live with the heathen but if a so call “brother” turns from the faith then you are never to eat ect.. with him. Pretty harsh words from Paul! So living in the world is not the problem with christianty and our own personal growth as a community, it is living of the world that does.
December 21st, 2007 at 1:56 pm
Iggy,
I do agree with Hybels statement and I still fail to see how that quote has anything to do with your concerns about whether or not the emerging church conversation is being correctly understood.
December 21st, 2007 at 2:00 pm
John I was taking that you did not… so my wrong… it is that WE DON’T follow the PDL/SDC models… and that is my point.
ODM’s seem to connect things that have no real connection… like New Monasticism and SDC models… how do they connect?
That was and is the direction I am going…
I think you “spelling” comment about glass houses threw me off a bit as to your position.
iggy
I might be also confusing you with Houston John… so again, sorry. = )
December 21st, 2007 at 2:02 pm
Kyle,
I am in awe of your ability to take “rooted in Scripture” and twist it into “use some bible to give it the christian fell [sic.].”
neil
December 21st, 2007 at 2:07 pm
I’m not sure what to do with “He want a ‘blank paper’ to figure out where God is and how to “transform†the planet?? ” since it is so far from what Hybles actually said…
“clean” becomes “blank”
“what God is doing” becomes “where God is”
Neil
December 21st, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Ah Iggy,
You are reacting to the CR?N article attempting to connect new monasticism with seeker sensitive. I was not addressing that. However now that you bring it up, I think a little “new monasticism” or what Richard Foster calls “Celebration of Discipline” added to the PDL/seeker sensitive model would be a good thing.
December 21st, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Sorry I thought clean and blank pretty much mean the same thing. I did misspeak abou “what God is doing” sorry.
The whole things Bill wants to do has already been answered in the bible. He is going to rethink, replace his old methods informed by research and the bible. That is what he said. I am sorry he place eveything backwards. The bible is clear about how we are to do “church.” What it is for and what we should do in it. Now styles and methods can very from culture to culture but doing “church” remains the same throughout every culutre of every time.
Most churches including WC use christianize. The have the apperance of religion but lack the power of it.
2 Tim 3
1But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. 2For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, 4treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people.
December 21st, 2007 at 2:27 pm
JohnD,
Hahahahaha me too!
I am sure glad we have this all figured out now…
LOL!
iggy
December 21st, 2007 at 2:33 pm
Kyle,
I don’t follow the difference between “doing church” and “style and methods.” In fact they often flow as one thought - our style and method of doing church… But, unless you can show me the difference they are synonymous as far as I’m concerned.
That being the case what Hybles is suggesting is a reevaluation of the culture and then a reevaluation of the “doing” accordingly. Though I don’t care for “doing” since it’s not something we do… it’s something we are.
Neil
December 21st, 2007 at 2:36 pm
Actually, I’d go so far as to say the Bible is exceedingly unclear - or flexible to use a positive term - when it comes to “doing” - that is what makes Christianity so infinitely translatable from culture to culture. The Bible is concerned with foundations not doings/methods.
Neil
December 21st, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Styles and methods would be seen in music, art, worship, ligturagy ect…
“doing church” I don’t like the phrase for some reason. Is what the early church did. devouting oursleves to teh aposltes teaching which is the bible. That should be front and center in any culture or time. Christ and Him crucified is how we can tell if something is a church or a self-help club. Then praying for all peoples and fellowship and breaking of bread. This is what i consider doing church. A methods and styles would be the varations of this in any given culture or time.
During the refromation there where three marks to distugish a chruch. Did it proclaim justification by faith ALONE, pratice the sacrements of supper and baptism the last one was church discpline. Does the church properly care for and discpline its sheep. I think there’s are good marks fro the church. Of course they are not the be all and end all.
December 21st, 2007 at 2:44 pm
Neil,
The early church was said to do service like this…
The got there on Sunday before light as Sunday was a normal workday in the Roman empire. They would pray, recite liturgy which would state things out of Romans like “be a good citizen” and sing a song. Then they would disperse and go to work… after work they would all come together again and “break bread” and have a teaching. This was stated by a Roman spy who was sent to spy on the early church to see if they were doing things like “cannibalism” or “subversive teachings to undermine the Roman Empire”…
This sounds more like an emerging gathering than a “modernistic” church.
So it seems rather strange that some think a model based on the RCC model is the most biblical. It sort of makes me laugh out loud at times…. like this! LOL!!
iggy
December 21st, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Was not part of the reason that they meet at certain times because of Roman persuction?
But the central things that they did was preaching/teaching, pray and break bread in fellowship. This refers to the love fest or agape fest which was like a potluck followed up with the Lord’s supper. At least that is what I understand.
December 21st, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Kyle,
Yes.. it does refer to all of that…
But as far as the approved “style” of the ODM’s which includes, pastor’s in suits not jeans, wooden pews and not couches, and pulpits to give the proper authority to the preacher… it seems that the early church had more important things and issues to deal with… Also, how many churches today have the Eucharist table in the center of their worship?
Ummmm those pesky RCC’s still do… but most have replaced that with and “alter” or “wooden pulpit”… or a Cross…
So, my point is how are those approved “styles” better than the ones that are being condemned by the ODM’s in light of the early church service I described as noted by the Roman spy?
iggy
December 21st, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Kyle,
OK - thanks for the distinction. Doesn’t effect anything in my comments though… they still stand.
Neil
December 21st, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Well the styles that church use convey meaning. The reson that the pulpit became so important was that during the refromation it should the centrality of the word and preaching. Suits or your best show the way you come to God. Most people take more time getting ready to go on a date then they do to worship a holy God. Not saying that everyone needs to wear the samething all throughout history but we should always attempt to bring our best to God. Most church do not even care about the Lord’s Supper any more as you said it has been replaced by many different things. So the question is what does our churches convey throuhgout its whole? Where is the heart of the church?
Again the styles have meaning but the most important things should be in all churches. Preaching/teaching the word of God, the sacraments, and fellowship. Most churches no longer preach Christ and Him cruificed, most no longer care about the sacremtns, and there seems to be a huge disconnect between members of churches no real fellowship or community in Chist as opposed to fellowship in our common humanity.
Most ODM’s and myself just see a slippery sloope in the radical changes in the church at large over the last 50 years. Look over history most downgrades did not happen over a night or a year but little by little each generation of christians moved futher from the truth. What we the next generation of christian look like will the downgrade continue?
December 21st, 2007 at 3:38 pm
Kyle,
I think the problem lies when you change the fundamental meaning of a quote.
Take a phrase like “…change the way we do church” - it is obvious from what we know of Hybles, WC, and even the context of the quote that he meant methods and style.
You have poured your meaning into it, saying “doing church” means apostolic teaching, communion, etc…
So, you have changed the meaning then attacked it. Suffice it to say - I age we should keep those things, of course, but that’s not the question at hand.
Neil
December 21st, 2007 at 3:40 pm
It’s statements like “Most church do not even care about the Lord’s Supper any more as you said it has been replaced by many different things” that are so hyperbolic they become comical.
Some - sure… Many - OK… Quite a few - maybe… But “Most?”
December 21st, 2007 at 3:43 pm
I’ll take a pomo dude with his tat and jeans who attends out of his love of Christ over a suite-wearing hypocrite who attends because the culture expects him to…
December 21st, 2007 at 3:45 pm
“What we the next generation of christian look like will the downgrade continue?”
This assumes a downgrade. What you see as a downgrade, I may see as a purging of the dross.
Neil
December 21st, 2007 at 3:46 pm
Most emerging folk see that all those “things” you state have meaning have become “idols” or “symbols” that lost their meaning or their meaning has changed…
Wooden Pulpits have become that same as separation of Priests and laymen… when all men are equal and Jesus is our High Priest.
Suits have become symbols of authority as like a business… which is what many churches have become.
Couches are just more comfortable…
Most church preach Christ and Him crucified and spend nothing on the “much more” of the Resurrection which many men like Rob Bell and others in the emerging church teach… it is the fuller gospel of just the Cross.. it is the Cross death burial and resurrection of Jesus… as was preached in the early church and has since become lost. (Romans 5:10)
iggy
December 21st, 2007 at 3:47 pm
No he did not mean methods and styles. His way of doing church failed. There was no centrailty on the word of God. The way of doing it was through various programs thinking that this is what the “new’ church looks like and this is how to grow a church. That failed so now he wants to find a another way of doing church. If church is not what the bibles says then what is it? What do we rely on? Our research and polls, our thoughts and ideas or soley on the word of God? This is the only firm foundation that can weather any storm.
I would say most in America not through out the world maybe you can include Europe to. So the western church no longer cares for these things. You think that is funny well look to the clowns, the U2 and other distugsting ways the church treats these holy sacrements.
December 21st, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Kyle,
Have you ever thought that what the ODM’s are “protecting” just isn’t worth protecting? They have defined “church” in sucha narrow way, that they can almost claim anything is “downgrading”. Frankly, the churches I have seen make the biggest deal about liturgy and decorum have been the most dead. This isn’t always the case, and it seems that there is a possiblity for vibrancy and liturgy to live side by side. I know there are actually some Charismatic Anglican churches that seem to walk this line.
Also, how in the world can you make a statement beginning with the phrase “most churches”? It could be most you have seen, or most in your opinion, but to make a blanket statement like that takes a bit of chutzpah.
December 21st, 2007 at 3:52 pm
or a huge pair of matzoh balls…
iggy
I am so sorry for that I do beg forgiveness in advance to those I offended… I mean the Jews of course.
December 21st, 2007 at 3:52 pm
When i say that they should preach Christ and Him crucified that is in light of the ressurection. That is all Paul wanted to preach to christian and that is all I want to preach. Look at most of his letters. Normally it goes doctrine about Christ, application in life then a doxolgy or benediction. You will never be able to live a rightoues life if do not have the firm foundation of Christ and Him crucified.
Sometimes the things in the church are distorted. I remember when my church finally got a wood pulpit. The sermon was about Christ and the centrality of preaching Him for the dedication service. Also maybe if the church is viewing these things in a wrong way the way the think needs to change also. Maybe an emphasis on the prestisthood of all believers??
December 21st, 2007 at 3:53 pm
Also, I will add that from what I’ve read and heard of EC writers, a lot of them seem to talk more about the death and resurrection than a lot of the more traditional preachers I’ve heard. They are at least looking more into what the implications of the death and resurrection of Christ mean.
December 21st, 2007 at 3:54 pm
I remember when I went to a church without a pulpit pastor asked that no one gave him one so that Christ would be the authority in our church and not him… and that we too were also ministers of the gospel.
So, a matter of perspective really.
iggy
December 21st, 2007 at 3:55 pm
Ok then I will say more churches than ever and having Bozo suppers??
December 21st, 2007 at 3:55 pm
I love the idea of bring resurrection to others… or one’s neighborhood.. or one’s city…
iggy
December 21st, 2007 at 3:58 pm
The implactions of Christ death and ressurection are spelled out pretty clear in Romans and the rest of the bible. So the question I have is what is the source that the use to more fully explain these earth shattering events?
December 21st, 2007 at 3:59 pm
Kyle,
Have you actually been to a church where clowns were actually part of the service?
I honestly wonder where this happening, because the only place I have ever seen it mentioned is on Slice. I’ve been to children’s events with clowns, but I’ve never seen one in a Sunday Service.
Although, I do recall the Revelation mentioning something about the “coming of the paint-faced beast”…
December 21st, 2007 at 4:01 pm
meals by this guy?
December 21st, 2007 at 4:05 pm
Here is a couple links for them. Some cray stuff happens in the church!! Never been to one to do this though never will be the Lord willing.
http://www.trinitywallstreet.org/resources/article.php?id=538
http://www.layman.org/layman/news/2005-news/new-york-city-church-holds.htm
December 21st, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Kyle,
I was referring to the fact that a lot of traditional churches of the Reformed variety seem to focus on the implication of the resurrection being the forgiveness of one’s personal sins. While that is definitely one aspect of it, Jesus also accomplished a lot of other things through it.
How we view the cross affects how we live our life, how we work our jobs, how we interact with others, etc. I personally thing Colossians 1:15-20 is a good comprehensive description of this:
So Christ’s death and resurrection was the start of Him reconciling all things. What does that mean to us? How do we live that out?
December 21st, 2007 at 4:07 pm
What are you talking about…in the very quote you posted Hybles said “rooted in Scripture…”
But then again, as I pointed out - you changed that to mean something else…
December 21st, 2007 at 4:08 pm
I too have no idea except a news article and a spoof article by Lark News concerning clowns in services…
Or maybe this Lark News clown training video?
Shoot i was a clown once for Kids Church… was I the one mentioned in The Book of Revelation?
iggy
December 21st, 2007 at 4:09 pm
OK - a picture of a church using a clown… and Episcopal at that… I guess Hybles is - wait! what’s the connection?
December 21st, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Well it is finised from God’s prespective but we have to live this out in time and spave now. Those are the true questions what does that mean for me and what does it cause in my life? Great! That is where the bible is the sole authority. That is what churches should preach because that is what the bible preaches.
December 21st, 2007 at 4:12 pm
But not ONLY the bible. He will do what he did with he old way of doing it. Surveys, research ect… like Bill said. The problem is that if you rely on other things beside the bible you have lost your sure foundation. The wise and foolish man, sand and rock. That is my point. I know he will be using the bible for some but not ALL. That is the difference. New times, new survey new chruches. Church will always change if you rely on man’s wisdom.
December 21st, 2007 at 4:13 pm
The clowns and Bill H are not connected you asked about the clowns so I showed you. I miss Bozo though:(
December 21st, 2007 at 4:15 pm
I ma confused here so are you saying the bible is the sole authority but it is not the only authority?
?????
Can you unpack that a bit for me? How does that work?
iggy
December 21st, 2007 at 4:17 pm
“I remember when my church finally got a wood pulpit. The sermon was about Christ and the centrality of preaching Him for the dedication service.”
Kyle,
It almost appears that you are making a connection between these two - as if the former causes, or even encourages the latter… or the latter cannot happen w/o the former… I know you are not saying this, but it sure is close.
December 21st, 2007 at 4:19 pm
It is the sole and only authority for the church, that is where Bill H. is going wrong. He did it once it failed now he will try again. That is the only foundation and hope we have in a dark and depraved world.
December 21st, 2007 at 4:21 pm
I was just saying that was the orignal intent of the pulpit to show the supremacy of the word of Christ and preaching from it. Now days we have podiums because noone likes a long winded sermon they just like a smiling face that tells me how to live my best purposefull life. NOONE no that is a large genralization but you get my point.
December 21st, 2007 at 4:21 pm
“Church will always change if you rely on man’s wisdom.”
And the church will always change if/when we rely on the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit as well… that’s what we see happening even in the Acts of the Apostles - the church changing… even the content of their sermons changed to reflect the context into which the message was being delivered.
December 21st, 2007 at 4:23 pm
“It is the sole and only authority for the church, that is where Bill H. is going wrong. He did it once it failed now he will try again. That is the only foundation and hope we have in a dark and depraved world. ”
I say you are wong on two counts - 1) that he failed, and 2) that he does not use the Scriptures as his foundation and hope.
December 21st, 2007 at 4:23 pm
How did the content of sermons change??
The church does not change if you rely on God’s word, I would say it grows in both numbers and holiness but I would not say it changes because we are Christ bride and body and He does not change but we do grow.
December 21st, 2007 at 4:24 pm
Kyle,
Please show me an example of someone preaching from a pulpit in Scripture.
Please show me an example of a church service, even.
It seems to me that Scripture give local congregations a lot of flexibility when it comes to these things.
December 21st, 2007 at 4:24 pm
Man, i had a great comment back there in the “Clown” section of the conversation… but it is lost in moderation land…
be sure to check it out when it is finally posted.
iggy
December 21st, 2007 at 4:31 pm
In the early portions of Acts you see the apostles preaching Christ as the Messiah as they preached to Jews. As time passed and more believers from a Gentile background were introduced into the church, they changed to preach Jesus as Lord. He is both, true, but you can see the switch… the change… in how they preached him as the context of the “audience” changed.
I assume your church preaches in English? That would pretty much show this statement to be false.
December 21st, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Phil
I am not saying that it has to been done that way. Just why it was done that way and why people perk up there ears when things change because it apperas that there is a loss of emphais on certain things. Never have I said that these forms and styles must be used or you are not a chruch. These are the things that matter and are qulifications for the church.
1.Preach justification by faith Alone in Christ Alone
2.Practice the sacrments.
3. Chruch discipline.
This is not a be all end all for defing the church just a start. That is what I look for when I move. So a great question would be what defines and makes up a christian church?
December 21st, 2007 at 4:32 pm
I set it free.
December 21st, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Iggy,
In comedy, timing is everything…
Neil
December 21st, 2007 at 4:35 pm
The statement is true and i do not get the point about english??
The main content of all the sermons was still Christ and Him cruificed. So the content did not change just the mode of conveying the content. I dunno does that make sense. i think that Gentiles still called Him Christ though. Paul when in Anthens though did not go over the OT like when preaching to Jews so the way he conveyed the truth of Christ and Him cruificed changed but not that core message of it.
December 21st, 2007 at 4:45 pm
Kyle,
My point exactly (except the content did change in that the term applied to Jesus changed - but I know what you mean) - the basics did not change, but the mode (that is, the way of doing it) did… same with Hybels! He said - research methods, that is change modes. He said - rooted in Scripture, that is the main thing stays the main thing.
By English I meant to show that your church has accomodated itelf to the culture to at least that dege.
Neil
December 21st, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Stupid moderation thingy… messed up a great comment….
hey the clown training video has two parts… and it is great!
iggy
December 21st, 2007 at 4:50 pm
I would have to say say that Bill H’s last way of doing church was not rooted in the bible. I will wait and see if this way of doing church is. I pray that it is because that would radical change the church in America. They are huge so that would be awesome. What and see is all we can say for now.
December 21st, 2007 at 4:51 pm
what you talkin about iggy?? What video??
December 21st, 2007 at 4:52 pm
Kyle,
have you ever attended a PDC or SD church?
ig
December 21st, 2007 at 4:54 pm
not sure what those mean what are PDC or SD??
December 21st, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Some believers who were from the sect of the Pharisees insisted that the biblical way to “do church” was according to the Law of Moses… fortunately the Apostles saw it differently.
December 21st, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Both Jesus and the Aposltes thank God!
December 21st, 2007 at 4:59 pm
purpose driven church or seeker driven church…
iggy
December 21st, 2007 at 5:05 pm
Yes a lot of them. I would say the biggest one was PHNX First Assembly. When I wnet through and worked for TC. A lot of other ones though also. The best one ws the DreamCenter in Scottsdale. I just love the name.
December 21st, 2007 at 5:10 pm
I have been to so many different church while working for TC it was a blessing. Even though I would never attend any of them for the most part. The craziest ones where so far out there pents. and one church call The reformed LDS or something like that. TC would not let me go to that one though, I wonder why???
December 21st, 2007 at 5:31 pm
Just for the record - you think Hybles has left biblical foundations, but you don’t know what is wrong with the church of LDS?
December 21st, 2007 at 5:40 pm
I don’t think I would include Dream Center or Phoenix First Assembly under the Purpose Driven or Seeker Sensitive umbrella. Tommy Barnett has been around for longer than Warren as far as know, and he’s kind of got his own thing going. For one thing, both of those churches are pretty openly Pentecostal, and Dream Center is pretty ethnically diverse. To me they kind of go against the WASP-iness I associates with PDL. Although, I’m probably being falling prey to a stereotype in thinking that about PDL, honestly.
December 21st, 2007 at 5:48 pm
I think you missed my point about the Reformed LDS church. They said they left LDS put why keep the name. I know of another church awesome and people that left the WW Church of God. They would not let me go because they thought I would cause problems finding out how they we reformed from the LDS, becasue i would not worship with them otherwise.
For my part the dreamcenter was not to diverse, manly rich uppies I thought. Good church though, for the most part. I would call them seeker sen though, not purpose driven. How about Briscoe’s church in MIL. Good church but seeker also I think.
Hybles did leave the bible for survey’s of why God’s enmenies don’t go to God’s church. he might change he fouund out that don’t work hmmmmm…
December 21st, 2007 at 7:36 pm
Again - I say you are wrong on both counts.
December 21st, 2007 at 7:37 pm
I’d love to explore the “survey’s of why God’s enmenies don’t go to God’s church” comment, but there no point wasting good bandwidth.
December 21st, 2007 at 7:42 pm
I was jsut referring to survey’s that Hybles, Warren, Schuller and many others have done in thier communites asking why people do not attend church.
December 21st, 2007 at 8:02 pm
I know what you were referring to… heck, Dan Kimball wrote a book about them. I guess that makes him the worstest of them all…
Schuller is a different story, but Hybels and Warren have not traded in their Bibles for other foundations.
December 21st, 2007 at 8:10 pm
Not that they totally threw out the bible but they supplement the bible with the survey’s. Not saying they are apostate or anything like that. If have anything add to are taken away from the bible as the sole foundation it will fail. That is what Hybles is saying. That is why we need to wait and see for the solutions they come up with. Will they just be another hybrid of bible and man or will it be the bible alone.