Willow Creek Releases Multiple Year Study of its Ministry

What happens when the model that so many of our churches followed for many years questions what it has done?

Christianity Today's blog has an article entitled, "Willow Creek Repents".

What happened? Willow conducted a multi-year study, trying to determine what programs and activities were actually helping people mature spiritually, and what were not. The results were published in a book, Reveal: Where Are You?, co-authored by Greg Hawkins, executive pastor of Willow Creek. The study found that being program driven didn't equate into spiritual growth for their people. It shocked Bill Hybels, founding and senior pastor of Willow Creek Community Church in South Barrington, Illinois.

Mr. Hybels, speaking at last summer's Leadership Summit, summarized the findings by saying, "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." Hybels calls this "the wake up call of my adult life".

So, what causes spiritual growth? The good old basics of prayer, bible study, and relationships.

Who knew? Well, a lot of people knew that, but I think in this case it was something that had to have enough time to gain measurable data before the "old ways" could be seen again as the only ways to grow closer to God. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God. It seems too simple, doesn't it?

Now let's see if those who had issues with the Willow model over the years will have grace and tact during this time, not resorting to "I told you so!".

"The cradle of the Reformation has become the crib of secularism."

Albert Mohler brought yet another fascinating article over on his blog regarding the falling birthrate of Europe. It seems that a lot of people don't want the constant interruptions of their fun filled lives that are inherent with having children. As a woman who can rarely have alone time in a bathroom without being interrupted, I can appreciate to a degree, that mentality. Honestly, though, if my husband and I had decided to not have children, we couldn't have possibly known what we'd have missed. Lack of privacy aside, it seems that the declining birthrates of many nations are beginning to alarm a lot of politicians.

On a geo-political tangent, what will happen to Europe, should this childless trend continue? That is a question asked by Steve Ozment in The Weekly Standard. According to Ozment, "In Denmark, France, the Netherlands, and Germany, native birth rates barely leave a single offspring behind to replace its two parents. As a result, large and growing numbers of foreign workers--predominately Bosnian, Turkish, and African Muslims--have immigrated to Western Europe to work the vacant, or unwanted, jobs native Europeans now lack the manpower to fill. The economic and social costs of European reluctance to be "fruitful and multiply," as the Bible puts it, are high and going higher for Europeans. Denmark's immigrant population is only 5 percent Muslim, yet that 5 percent receives 40 percent of the state welfare budget, and those families are just beginning to grow."

The International Herald Tribune / Europe reported that "...Throughout Europe, women have delayed having children, or opted out entirely, as they have become more educated and better integrated into the labor market. But the free fall in births is most precipitous and most recent here in Eastern Europe, where Communist-era state incentives that made it economical to have children - from free apartments to subsidized child care - have been phased out even as costs have skyrocketed."


So, what the Herald Tribune reporter is saying is that the fall of communism, and its free daycare, contributed to the declining birthrates of some European nations? Who knew?

What I noticed in many of the articles I read today about this phenomenon is that the young women interviewed felt that they couldn't afford to have more than one child, because they then couldn't have it all... a fulfilling career, travel, and so-forth. We can blame declining European birthrates on the fall of communism, or the increased availability of good education and good careers for women, but it seems to me that my generation of parents dropped the proverbial ball by not teaching their own children, from young on, that children were to be desired, and that raising them was a fundamental part of truly living life. Could it be that the basic tenets of feminism have inadvertently caused the crippling or demise of care for seniors... many whom championed the hardcore feminist line in the 60's? Who will be left to care for them?

What We Call Ourselves vs. What We Are

Barna Research is one of my favorite websites. Yeah, I like statistics.

According to Barna, 38% of us overall consider ourselves to be "evangelical". However, there seems to be a big difference between thinking we are evangelical (38%), and actually BEING what Barna calls a 9-Point Evangelical (8%).

Here's a brief quote on the differences between self-proclaimed evangelicals and 9-point evangelicals:

Radical Differences in Beliefs

The most striking differences relate to the beliefs of each group. Compared to the 9-point evangelicals, those who say they are evangelicals are:

*60% less likely to believe that Satan is real

*53% less likely to believe that salvation is based on grace, not works

*46% less likely to say they have a personal responsibility to share their religious beliefs with others

*42% less likely to list their faith in God as the top priority in their life

*38% less likely to believe that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth

*27% less likely to contend that the Bible is totally accurate in all of its teachings

*23% less likely to say that their life has been greatly transformed by their faith

In fact, the Barna research also noted that one out of every four adults (27%) who say they are evangelicals is not even born again, based upon their beliefs. (The Barna Group defines someone as born again if they say they have made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is still important in their life today and who also indicate that they believe when they die they will go to Heaven because they have confessed their sins and have accepted Jesus Christ as their savior. Respondents are not asked to describe themselves as "born again.")

My husband and I were talking to a woman this past weekend who was telling us about her grown son. She said that as a child he was "on fire for God" but then as he got older, his faith faded to the point of being basically non-existent. Her comment: "Well, he accepted Christ as a child, so how he lives after that is irrelevant." At this point in time, this 20-something young man, who was raised in an Evangelical Free Church, couldn't remember how to tell his terminally ill mother-in-law how to come to a saving faith in Jesus. He had to refer her to his mother. It was apparent that this mother's heart was troubled by her son's apparent rejection of all he was taught as a young boy, and no doubt, he has made his own life choices, but what bothered me was how easily the mom made excuses for her son, to the point of even allowing him to live with his girlfriend in her own home.

According to Barna's research, there are a whole LOT of people who consider themselves to be evangelical, but whose label has little or no effect on how they live.

Does it matter how we live after conversion? Can a person really be regenerated by the Holy Spirit, yet live and act in ways which contradict the Scriptures? Is it true that how we live after "coming to Jesus" doesn't matter? I'm not talking about salvation by works here, or living a perfect and sinless life, but having a faith that actually affects how a person lives. If your faith doesn't affect how you act, then is it faith or simply intellectual agreement? Even the demons believe, and tremble.

This is very sobering for those of us who are parents.

More to come on this topic later, hopefully.

Jabez's Prayer, Parts C, D, and E

A dear friend of mine is one of those super encouraging types of gals who loves to send greeting cards. She always ministers joy and faith to my soul. I had recently talked to her about some trying times I have been going through, and she sent a beautiful card in which the famous "Prayer of Jabez" quote from the bible was printed along the inside cover.

"And Jabez called on the God of Israel saying, 'Oh, that You would bless me indeed, and enlarge my territory, that Your hand would be with me, and that you would keep me from evil, that I may not cause pain.' So God granted him what he requested." 1 Chronicles 4:10

Breaking it down, for what things did Jabez ask?
A) That God would bless him.
B) That God would enlarge his territory.
C) That God's hand would be with him.
D) That God would keep him from evil
E) That he (Jabez) would not cause pain.

I didn't jump on the Prayer of Jabez book bandwagon a few years ago. I am not a trendy believer. Because of my natural bend toward skepticism with those kinds of things, I am somewhat ashamed to say that I never really thought about what Jabez was asking of God, yet I know that all scripture is beneficial to me as a believer.

Now that I have really looked at the verse, it is inspiring! Everyone focuses on the blessing and enlarging of territory (which in Old Testament times seemed to be a sign to all that the hand of God was indeed blessing you - think Job, Abraham, etc.). But to me the real treasures within the verse encompass the other things Jabez asked for:
- That God's hand would be with him
- That God would keep him from evil, that he would not cause pain

Those points remind me of the new testament verses in Jude 24, 25:
Now to him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of his glory with great joy,to the only God, our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen.

Isn't it a comforting thought that we can daily call upon the Lord to keep us from evil? Even more-so, what a faith-building concept it is to know that our God can keep us from stumbling. He is not limited - He cannot fail. The question is, will we call upon Him? I don't know about you, but I tend to try to walk the life of Christ by sheer obedience, kind of like saying, "You have other things to deal with, God, I'll handle this on my own." The end result for me is typically failure, aka "sin".

Pray today and ask for the Lord's hand to be upon you, to keep you from evil, that you may not cause pain. See what happens!

Has Culture Adoration Replaced Belief in God?

Below is an interesting quote from Albert Mohler's blog regarding the increasing percentage of humankind who live in cities. Apparently only about 13% of us lived in cities in the year 1900. Within the next few months, roughly half of us globally will reside in large cities. This, in and of itself, creates an interesting dynamic in terms of culture. It almost seems that the veneration of culture sweeps in where broad secularism is present. Here's a clip from Dr. Mohler's blog article. Hop on over there and read the whole thing.

"...In another article from the survey, "In Place of God," the magazine considers what secularization has meant for the city. The suggested answer is simple -- culture has replaced belief in God. As the magazine puts it, "culture replaces religion:"

From the earliest times, a central role of any big town was sacred or religious. Until the 16th century, the status of a city was in England granted only to towns that had a diocesan cathedral, and to this day the title "metropolitan" is in some churches given to senior clerics. Cities still tend to have bigger and more splendid churches, mosques and temples than do mere towns and villages. But in the rich world the religious role of the metropolis has diminished, often to vanishing point. The ensuing vacuum has generally been filled by a secular alternative.

The main secular alternative is culture, represented by orchestras, galleries, museums, and the theater. Cities such as Sydney in Australia and Bilbao in Spain have catapulted themselves into the world's consciousness through massive leaps in cultural institutions.

When belief in God recedes, belief in culture takes its place, especially among the elites. Secularism creates an opportunity for art and other cultural forms to claim transcendence, and the elites celebrate and venerate art in almost sacramental terms."


What does this trend mean for the Church? I have read many articles over the years, especially when my husband was in full time youth ministry, teaching youth pastors the critical relevance of being culturally relevant. I don't see this as necessarily a bad thing as long as the Scriptures are held out as the foundation for all, and those methods used to supposedly give relevance to a ministry give honor to God, not self or talent or wittiness or whatever. I do, however, see a danger in relevance itself becoming the objective of a youth ministry, or a church, because a focus on cultural relevance can tend to cause some folks to almost be ashamed of the "uncoolness" or counter-cultural themes of the gospel.

We tend to try to, as the proverb says, throw out the baby with the bath water on these types of issues. I am not saying here that a church should ignore culture, or strive to be anti-cultural. I will say, though, that I have noticed in some places, even here in the conservative and mostly secular midwest that when relevance becomes a focal point of a ministry, boldness for the gospel diminishes almost geometrically. Must this always be the case? I don't think so. And I am not saying that any church where relevance is a tenet of their evangelism strategy is apostate or anything like that. If I had any authority or influence over those types of churches, I would urge them to really look at their methods in light of biblical historical Christianity (the book of Acts comes to mind...) and learn just how crazy the gospel message seemed to the world at that time.

I don't think we realize with our western culture mindset just how radical Jesus was for His time on earth. If He cared about working within culture, He never would have spoken to the Samaritan woman at the well, for instance. It was culturally unacceptable! He wouldn't have hung out with drunkards and beggars and tax collectors either. He most certainly taught things that went directly against culture...

"Bless those who curse you."

"“Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.”

“Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”

Jesus did live within the culture as a practicing Jew under Roman rule. He went to synagogue, paid taxes, helped friends and strangers. Yet when He was prompted by the Holy Spirit to be counter-cultural, He did it. Maybe that's our issue as the Church? It seems like things like this always boil down to walking in the Holy Spirit. How many of our elder boards can say to us, "We really sense that the Lord is leading us to (fill-in-the-blank)?" Oh, if that happened truly the world would be changed. Yet is anything impossible for God?

"Sun, Light, and Burning Ray" replacing Father, Son and Holy Spirit?

I love to read Al Mohler's blog. He writes with amazing clarity. Today I read his post from April 27, 2007, about several churches who are so deep into the gender-neutral movement that they have rewritten much of the language they use in worship and theology. I was sadly amazed, yet not surprised.

Dr. Mohler wrote,
The movement toward gender-neutral language for God has picked up steam in recent years, and liberal churches have been busy rewriting language for worship and theology. Just last year the Presbyterian Church (USA) voted to "receive" a document that called for Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to be replaced or supplemented with triads such as "Sun, Light, and Burning Ray," "Overflowing Font, Living Water, and Flowing River," and "Fire that Consumes, Sword that Divides, and Storm that Melts Mountains."

That report even suggested an explicitly female triad -- "Compassionate Mother, Beloved Child, Life-Giving Womb." The report was controversial, but this kind of nonsense has been spreading for some time now. Many feminists simply insist that they cannot or will not worship a God who names Himself exclusively in male terms. Yet, to rename God is to create an idol -- a false god of our own creativity and invention. Put simply -- God gets to name Himself.

Hop over to this blog entry and read the rest for yourself.

Theological Prejudice?

I have a dear friend who proudly defines himself as a Reformed Christian, or Calvinist.  Big-time T.U.L.I.P. guy.  He and I have gone 'round and 'round about things such as predestination, limited atonement, and so forth.  Over the years I've found that I probably agree with my friend more than I disagree, even though I confuse terms such as "hypostatic union" and "eschatology" and "hermeneutics".  I never did go to college, yet I don't consider myself to be a complete dunce ;-)   I've found that by really discussing things which are theological in nature it prods me on to study the Bible more, to determine what it is I really do believe.   What I have noticed, however, is that there seems to be an attitude of theological elitism surrounding most Christian groups - this would include churches, denominations, individuals, etc. 

 

The Reformed crew seems to look down upon the non-Reformed as the uninformed at best, biblically illiterate at worst.  Some Evangelicals may look upon their Reformed counterparts as being legalistic or cold-hearted.   I think that the human heart tends to lean toward being prideful.

 

The Boar's Head Tavern recently posted a great blog entry: A Toast to the Low Minded Christian  Go ahead, check it out.  Very thought provoking!