Oct 18, 2007
There has been a bit of a buzz in some circles about Willow Creek Community Church's admission that the program driven seeker church model is not producing mature Christian disciples. This revelation has come after a self study which produced "data" that convinced the Willow Leadership that much of what had been created was based on flawed assumptions. If you build it, lots of people come out, then people become mature followers of Jesus Christ. Out of UR, the leadership blog of Christianity Today has a post on this today.
Personally, everyone I know has the utmost respect for Bill Hybels as a godly man and a good leader. This admission will only add to that for many, including myself. What perplexes me though is that the model of church leadership seems to be continuing in the same processes that formed the orginal paradigm in the first place.
Market Research --> Get "the data" --> Reinvent the church
This is precisely what led to the "seeker movement" - you find out what the folks want, see what "works" and then reinvent. Hold conferences, publish stuff, etc. so that others can follow the "cutting edge"
I am thankful for the changes which Willow is dreaming, more discipleship, more of a missional vision for the church in culture. But why did we need this "new data" in order to realize that the means of grace (scripture, prayer, meditation, community, sacraments) are what changes people, not big venues and large crowds as an audience for services which cost millions of dollars a year to produce? The solution now according to the Reveal video presentations and the quotes from the Out of Ur Blog?
Market Research --> Get "the data" --> Reinvent the church
Could it be that the very method is flawed as well as the models which are re-invented? In order to know the way, we follow Jesus as revealed in Scripture, illuminated by the Spirit of God. Should we not as how he defines and lived discipleship before we start doing "what works?" After all - his way is what really works and we are best if we start there.
I am thankful for the good influences Willow has had on many people's lives. But I did not buy the previous seeker model and I am not looking to Chicago to find out what to do next. The sufficiency of Scripture and the person of Jesus are the paths I will wrestle out in church leadership. I think Willow will do the same. At least I hope this will be the path to this next reinvention. We need more men who treasure Jesus among all things, not more butts in the seats. For this realization and revealing I am thankful.
Comments
"But why did we need this "new data" in order to realize that the means of grace (scripture, prayer, meditation, community, sacraments) are what changes people, not big venues and large crowds as an audience for services which cost millions of dollars a year to produce?"
Amen!
Posted by: Jason Seville | October 19, 2007 10:41 AM
Jason Seville asked:
"But why did we need this "new data" in order to realize that the means of grace (scripture, prayer, meditation, community, sacraments) are what changes people, not big venues and large crowds as an audience for services which cost millions of dollars a year to produce?"
Did Hybels and Willow Creek REALLY not believe that prayer and scripture change people before this data emerged?
I always understood the seeker-sensitive movement to be one that said that the truths of the Gospel should NOT be compromised (which preserves prayer, community, meditation, sacraments, etc) but that they should be repackaged so that the non-believer could understand what we are talking about.
But the seeker sensitive movement went too far in that it thought that its big churches, style of music, and "hipness" was THE function of the church.
Isn't this research really Hybels and Willowcreek's realization that they were doing the right things but they took it too far?
Isn't this just a fresh realization for balance?
Didn't Hybels ALWAYS believe in the sufficiency of Scripture despite his detractors?
My criticisms of the seeker-sensitive church are that it, like the traditionalists, confused the medium with the message. In the seeker-sensitive church's case, it confused the medium of contemporization as being the message.
The traditionalists made the same mistake except they confused the message with pipe organs, liturgies and stained glass windows.
My other criticism of the seeker-sensitive church is that it focused Sunday morning services with appealing to the seeker at the expense of NOT equipping the believer.
I see the church's primary purpose as to equip the believer to know the unchanging Word in such a way that it changes the believer's life first. Secondly, the church should equip the believer to BE seeker sensitive in packaging/style, to best communicate the unchanging Word of God to the seeker.
Posted by: Greg Jones | January 2, 2008 06:35 AM