THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED IN THIS BLOG DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT THE VIEWS OF ALL CONTRIBUTORS AND EACH TEAM MEMBER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR FACTS AND OPINIONS CONTAINED IN HIS POST.


CLICK FLAGS FOR PAGE TRANSLATION OPTIONS

  Google  
           Search ESPRESSO ROAST Search WWW

Tuesday, November 20, 2007

Willow Creek Church: Seeker-Sensitive No More?

For many of you, this may be old news since the story actually came out about a month ago, but somehow I missed it up until last week. It turns out something extraordinary happened recently: Willow Creek Church, pioneers of the "seeker-sensitive" movement, has declared they made a mistake. What mistake, you ask? The seeker-sensitive movement. When all is said and done, that may be a bit of an overstatement, but writer and radio host, Bob Burney, published an article for Baptist Press recently discussing the shocking revelation:

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 "ground breaking," "earth shaking" 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."


That's huge. I mean it's huge that they admit it. Seriously, to their credit, having spent literally millions on this stuff, to admit they were wrong is a big deal.

Many, including myself, have known for years it was a mistake to focus on "felt needs" and have said so many times. Though it should have been a no-brainer, the number of people being reached was hard to argue against. That doesn't mean we agreed, it just meant few people listen when it seems to be so effective. Numbers don't lie? Burney sums up the truth of the issue:

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."

I don't mean to be discordant but I have to tell you, when I read this I breathed a huge sigh of relief. Finally, the seeker-sensitive movement has been revealed for what it is...a sham. It is a well-meaning sham, but a sham, nonetheless. It was a matter of feeding people what they wanted rather than what they needed, leading people to bounce around to find a church that made them feel good rather than making them disciples. Sadly, here is the reality...a reality that I hope this mass of "seeker-sensitive" shopping malls can admit to and remedy:

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.
Then the reality of what this all means sets in: there always seems to be the desire to improve on the model set out in Scripture. Rather than really doing life together (which often gets very messy and uncomfortable), dedicating ourselves to the Word of God with all the difficulty that discipleship demands, giving up our own desires, taking up our cross and following Christ wherever He leads and finding joy in the journey, certainly there must be something better; there must be some other way that leads to massive church growth (never mind that doing it the Scripture way led to 3,000 converts in a single day--when was the last time you saw that happen?). Nah, looks like it's back to the old drawing board for the seeker-sensitive, church growth professionals...which is where the new and very real danger lies:
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.

That is a warning I hope we all take to heart. As people of The Word, we have to ask ourselves how we can really expect to improve on a perfect model? New ways of applying the unchanging biblical principles are fine...we need to be able to communicate with 21st Century culture, but we must not abandon the heart of the Gospel and basics of authentic discipleship in the process.

Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, September 12, 2007

Espresso Retro: Born With a Belief in the Supernatural

Every now and again, posts from the past will resurface here that I think were important when they were written and believe they're still relevant. I hope you enjoy them. The following post was first published here on September 6 of last year.

Religions will continue to thrive despite the rise of science and rationality because we are all born with a tendency to believe in the supernatural, according to research published yesterday.

"Magical thinking" is hard-wired into our brains, according to Prof Bruce Hood, of the University of Bristol, speaking at the British Association's annual festival in Norwich. Prof Hood challenged the assumption of Prof Richard Dawkins and other "ultra rationalists" that belief in the supernatural was spread by religions in gullible minds.

"Rather, religions may simply capitalise on a natural bias to assume the existence of supernatural forces," he said.

"It is pointless to get people to abandon their belief systems because they operate at such a fundamental level that no amount of rational evidence or counter evidence is going to be taken on board to get people to abandon these ideas." [Full article]
He's right on one point, it does operate at a fundamental level. For a scientist, he made a very rational statement. The foundational question is, why? Why is it a fundamental part of our make up? Some scientists, like Professor Hood, would like to make us believe that it's simply the way we evolved. Though, if it is something that is a part of evolution, and evolution necessarily leads to determinism, how could it be that so many scientists are atheists? How did they overcome this fundamental part of their make-up? Interesting.

I believe the answer lies in the fact that we are not products of evolution and, thus, not subject to determinism in which the blind series of cause and effect in a closed cosmological system would render us, we actually do have the freedom to choose to supress the truth that there really is a creator (Romans 1). See, I think that if Professor Hood were to let down his hard-fought, scientific predisposition to Naturalism, we would see that he doesn't really believe we're simply products of evolution. Look at some of his word-choices: "'Magical thinking' is hard-wired into our brains...". Later in the article, he says, "The mind is programmed to see coincidences as significant and to think that inanimate objects have minds." (italics added) Words like "hard-wired" and "programmed" imply design. Nothing is hard-wired by accident and nothing is programmed by accident. When was the last time you saw an accidentally "hard-wired" computer that was "programmed" by chance? And those of us who believe in God are irrational?

As I said before, the fact is we are hard-wired and programmed to believe in the supernatural much like, as Alvin Plantinga pointed out, we're hard-wired to believe that all people have brains even though we can't see them...because they are reality; because we see evidence of them (usually), and it is right to make this assumption based on the evidence.

Most of us who have not convinced ourselves otherwise at least believe that there is "something else" beyond life and death on this earth. Most people on earth are convinced of this. The fact is, eternity is built into us. As Professor Hood so eloquently stated, we are programmed with this. God has put eternity into our hearts and too many times, we try and cast it off as superstition, fantasy and myth. However, too many people have experienced supernatural events in the real world that cannot easily be explained away.

The bottom line is this: those who are convinced that the supernatural cannot happen may never change their minds unless God determines to reveal Himself in a very real way (which He has certainly done before). However, listen closely and you will hear even those who say they don't believe in anything beyond evolution describe the cosmos in very design-oriented terms. Why? Because to use terms that imply mindless chance to describe the most complex systems of the universe sounds simply...well, irrational. And the truth is, it is.

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, July 13, 2007

Hindu Prays in U.S. Senate for First Time. Does it Matter?

(CNSNews.com) - Three Christian protesters who disrupted the first Hindu prayer ever delivered on the Senate floor have been charged with misdemeanor unlawful conduct and disruption of Congress and will face a court date in the future.

Ante Pavkovic, Katherine Pavkovic and their daughter Christan Sugar were removed from the Senate observation gallery Thursday morning when they began praying loudly during the Senate's routine opening prayer. For the first time in recorded history, the morning invocation was being delivered by a Hindu chaplain. [full story here]
Couple of questions to ponder:

1. Should Christians be upset because these protesters were arrested? Could it not be argued that anyone who disrupts the Senate proceeding would (and should) be arrested and removed?

2. Though I'm not excited in the least to see Hinduism promoted within the proceedings of the United States Senate, does it matter? After all, how many of the lawmakers really care whether prayer of any kind is offered before they get about the business of pushing their own agendas, giving no considerations (besides lip-service) to the will of God being done?

3. Is the senate prayer anything more than a symbolic act/ritual similar (if not identical) to the type of public prayer Jesus spoke against in Luke 18:9-14?


4. Were these Christians justified (even mandated?) to some degree to stand up and commit this type of non-aggressive, non-violent civil disobedience or do they accomplish little more than establish barriers between non-Christians that need not be erected?

I am aware of many differing views regarding these types of questions (some better arguments than others). Perhaps these are just rhetorical questions or maybe there are some good views out there that can serve to move us forward in dialogue regarding how those of us who are Christ followers can develop attitudes and actions that reflect a biblical worldview.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Wednesday, February 07, 2007

What Does a Follower of Jesus Really Look Like?

I wonder if we will ever get it. I'm talking about the Church, in general, and individual Christians, in particular, about what pleases God. OK, to tell the truth, I'm talking about me.

I still don't get it. I mean really get it. I've been to some form of Christian school most of my life (literally!) and in the ministry for over 20 years and am now pastoring a church. Yet I still don't regularly practice that which Scripture makes clear pleases God.

Let me try and get to the heart of this: I've been reading Isaiah which starts right off the bat talking about God's priorities. God makes very clear that sacrifices are not what He is after (in any form, including the kind that we might offer today...religious ritual, good works in order to obtain merit or favor, singing, etc. In other words, things that in reality cost the "worshiper" little). In fact, even "sacrifices of praise" are of little value if that is the extent of our relationship. Rather, God seems focussed on the care given to others in His name; really being "other-centered."

The Israelites were practically wiped out by God because of their unfaithfulness, though He saved a remnant for Himself for His own glory. The people seemed content to remain in their sin all the while continuing to offer bulls and goats in hopes of appeasing God.

God didn't buy it. He can't be fooled even when it looks good on the outside. He said in Isaiah 1, even though you come with your hands spread out, I will not look and I will not listen. Even our beautiful music and hands raised high do not impress God when the life doesn't follow suit in real ways according to what pleases Him most. Instead, Scripture seems to indicate that He hates it (v. 14). Then He tells us what He wants:
1. Clean yourselves; stop doing evil.
2. Learn to do good.
3. Seek Justice.
4. Correct oppression.
5. Bring justice to the fatherless (orphans).
6. Plead the widows cause.
How similar this sounds to what He says in Micah. The Lord makes clear that He is not pleased with the emptiness of burnt offerings which require nothing from the ones who are making them. Instead, in 6:8 He tells us that He requires a life dedicated to those things which are important to Him:
1. Do justice.
2. Love mercy.
3. Walk humbly with Him.
This is not just an Old Testament idea. Jesus, Himself, made clear what His priorities are in Matthew 25 when he declared that His sheep are those who gave drink to the thirsty, clothed the naked, took in the stranger, fed the hungry and visited the sick and imprisoned. The goats were those who refused to do so, yet looked like sheep outwardly (presumably the ones who looked religious).

Later, in Galatians 2, Paul, while explaining his credentials as an apostle, tells of how he was accepted by Peter, James and John and charged by them to take the Gospel to the Gentiles, "only they asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do." (verse 10)

Finally, James explains in his book (1:27) that "religion that is pure and undefiled before God is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction and to keep oneself unstained by the world."

Clearly, this is the heartbeat of God. It is what Jesus spent a great deal of His time on earth doing and I will not truly be a disciple/follower of Christ...we will not be the Church...until we commit our lives to doing the same thing.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Pearcey Report

My Ecosystem Details

© 2007 Espresso Roast Blog - All Rights Reserved