Willow Creek

[DiscipleOfIAm]

I believe your sources are incorrect about Rick Warren. If Rick attended Willow Creek before he pastored Saddleback, it wasn't as a minister. You are correct about Lee Strobel being a former pastor at Willow Creek.

You're right. It was Lee Stroble they were telling me about. I think Rick Warren was mentored by Robert Schuller (sp?) of the Crystal Cathedral.

Either way, same thing.

Thanks for the info though.

 

[RadicalRabbit]

I recently attended a leadership smeinar run by Bill Hybels.

I was really impressed. Although I had gone slightly sceptical.

I had seen a few videos of his and thought *hype no substance* but I didn't see that in person.

 

[Gold Dragon]

You're right. It was Lee Stroble they were telling me about. I think Rick Warren was mentored by Robert Schuller (sp?) of the Crystal Cathedral.

I'm not sure if he was mentored by Schuller but Schuller did play a role in his early career when Warren attended a conference hosted at Schuller's institute in his last year of seminary.

Christianity Today : A Regular Purpose-Driven Guy
...
During his last year in seminary, he and Kay drove west to visit Robert Schuller's Institute for Church Growth. "We had a very stony ride out to the conference," she says, because such nontraditional ministry scared her to death. Schuller, though, won them over. "He had a profound influence on Rick," Kay says. "We were captivated by his positive appeal to nonbelievers. I never looked back."
...
Imitating Schuller, Warren walked the (then unincorporated but fast-growing) town of Lake Forest, asking what kept people from going to church. He recruited a Bible study group that met at the Warrens' condominium; its members helped stamp and address letters to 15,000 households. "At last!" the letter began. "A new church for those who've given up on traditional church services!" More than 200 people showed up for an Easter service at Laguna Hills High School. Watching them stream in, Warren marveled, "This is really going to work!"
...

 

[Andyman_1970]

Honestly, I do not think that they preach the Bible, but instead strive for relevance, and this is deadly.

Jesus was relevant. I don't understand how being relevant per se, without altering the content, is in fact dangerous.

 

[Andyman_1970]

The seeker friendly church we attended, that was started by a Willow Creek founding member, was not "after seeker friendly". Meaning, there was nowhere to go after being a seeker. No Bible study groups, no alter calls, no conviction in the messages, nothing that allow someone to go beyond seeking. Great get them in the door and make them feel "comfortable", but then what? Let them die in their cozy, comfortable lifestyle?

I find it interesting that for some reason “seeker friendly” is equated with “shallow” or lacking in Scriptural truth or whatever adjective you want to add here.

I attend a self identified fundamentalist Southern Baptist church. We have alter calls at the drop of the hat, we even had one after the prayer for our church picnic. Every message is full of conviction and “hellfire and brimstone”, we have more Sunday School classes and Bibles studies than you can shake a stick at.

One thing I have noticed with all the emphasis on evangelism and presenting the Gospel to the lost (not bad things mind you) it has squeezed out the training and equipping of the saints for ministry (Ephesians 4:11-12). If it were not for my own Bible study I would spiritually be in the same place I was two years ago. So I think it’s a bit of an assumption to equate “seeker friendly” with “shallow” – my church is anything but “seeker friendly” (the pastor has even admitted that from the pulpit) and yet it’s a very shallow church with very little spiritual growth taking place.

It’s interesting, the church in the book of Acts gathered not to evangelize, but to worship, fellowship, and encourage one another, they went out to evangelize.

Another interesting thing I noticed on this thread, there is a conspicuous lack of Scriptural basis for the “anti seeker friendly” position, at least on this thread. We do however see Paul (arguably the worlds greatest missionary) in 1 Corinthians 9 he says to the Jew I became like a Jew, and to the Greek I became like the Greek. That sounds an awful lot like Paul was being relevant (aka “seeker friendly”) to his audience.

To those who genuinely were grappling with life’s greatest questions we never see Jesus presenting the Gospel as “you don’t want to go to hell do you?”, He never dangles salvation out there like a carrot for people, like come to Me or else. Didn’t Jesus say in John 12:47 He came to save the world not condemn it?

My experiences with these churhces are usually that the church staff wants to grow, grow, grow, and build, build, build and to do this they need people and their money. They get that funding by making people feel good about themselves and not saying anything that could convict someone or make them think about their lifestyle, etc.

It’s funny my self identified fundamentalist Southern Baptist staff has the exact same attitude – they even teach that the tithe in a responsibility of the Christian which one poster on here refers to Rick Warrens use of this doctrine as lacking in Biblical knowledge. So again, it’s an assumption to think that only “seeker friendly” churches do these things.

 

[Andyman_1970]

I guess I killed the thread.........................

 

[rural_preacher]

I have nothing to contribute to the topic of this thread...I'm just posting so that it won't be completely killed.

It's not all dead...only mostly dead.



--

 

[DiscipleOfIAm]

I find it interesting that for some reason “seeker friendly” is equated with “shallow” or lacking in Scriptural truth or whatever adjective you want to add here.

I attend a self identified fundamentalist Southern Baptist church. We have alter calls at the drop of the hat, we even had one after the prayer for our church picnic. Every message is full of conviction and “hellfire and brimstone”, we have more Sunday School classes and Bibles studies than you can shake a stick at.

One thing I have noticed with all the emphasis on evangelism and presenting the Gospel to the lost (not bad things mind you) it has squeezed out the training and equipping of the saints for ministry (Ephesians 4:11-12). If it were not for my own Bible study I would spiritually be in the same place I was two years ago. So I think it’s a bit of an assumption to equate “seeker friendly” with “shallow” – my church is anything but “seeker friendly” (the pastor has even admitted that from the pulpit) and yet it’s a very shallow church with very little spiritual growth taking place.

It’s interesting, the church in the book of Acts gathered not to evangelize, but to worship, fellowship, and encourage one another, they went out to evangelize.

Another interesting thing I noticed on this thread, there is a conspicuous lack of Scriptural basis for the “anti seeker friendly” position, at least on this thread. We do however see Paul (arguably the worlds greatest missionary) in 1 Corinthians 9 he says to the Jew I became like a Jew, and to the Greek I became like the Greek. That sounds an awful lot like Paul was being relevant (aka “seeker friendly”) to his audience.

To those who genuinely were grappling with life’s greatest questions we never see Jesus presenting the Gospel as “you don’t want to go to hell do you?”, He never dangles salvation out there like a carrot for people, like come to Me or else. Didn’t Jesus say in John 12:47 He came to save the world not condemn it?



It’s funny my self identified fundamentalist Southern Baptist staff has the exact same attitude – they even teach that the tithe in a responsibility of the Christian which one poster on here refers to Rick Warrens use of this doctrine as lacking in Biblical knowledge. So again, it’s an assumption to think that only “seeker friendly” churches do these things.

Maybe its because I have a headache, but I didn't really understand what you were getting at.

The "seeker-friendly" church I attended and refer to here, had no alter calls, had no conviction, etc. You went to the church service to be entertained and to feel good about yourself. You left not knowing if you really witnessed a church service or a production for entertainment. I recall hearing plenty of messages that never mentioned anything from the Bible. If you didn't know this was supposed to be a church, you wouldn't know it was a church service. In my opinion, this is not good.

I'm all for being seeker-friendly and reaching out to the lost, etc, but tell them the truth when you get them in the door. Don't dance around the non-PC or intrusive and convicting topics.

God Bless

 

[Gold Dragon]

I'm all for being seeker-friendly and reaching out to the lost, etc, but tell them the truth when you get them in the door. Don't dance around the non-PC or intrusive and convicting topics.

Agreed. What exactly about Willowcreek's statement of beliefs dances around non-PC, intrusive and convicting topics?

Willowcreek - What We Believe

The mission of Willow Creek Community Church is to turn irreligious people into fully devoted followers of Jesus Christ.
The sole basis of our belief is the Bible, which is uniquely God-inspired, without error, and the final authority on all matters on which it bears. As the Bible teaches, there is one God, eternally existing in three persons — Father, Son, and Holy Spirit — each possessing all the attributes of Deity.

God created humans to have fellowship with Him, but they defied God by sinfully going their own way. As a result, we need God's saving grace to end our alienation from Him. Salvation comes only through God's saving grace — not human effort — and must be received personally by repentance and faith.

Jesus Christ, second Person of the Trinity, lived a sinless life on earth and voluntarily paid for our sin by dying on the cross as our substitute. This accomplishes salvation for all who receive grace by trusting in Him alone. He rose from the dead and is the only mediator between us and God. He will return to earth to consummate history.

The Holy Spirit draws sinners to Christ and equips believers for personal growth and service to the church. The church's role is to glorify God and serve those in need. At the end, everyone will experience bodily resurrection and the judgment. Those forgiven through Christ will enjoy eternal fellowship with God. For more details, please ask for our complete Statement of Faith at the information booth.

Or Saddleback

Saddleback - What We Believe

God is bigger and better and closer than we can imagine.

The Bible is God’s perfect guidebook for living.

Jesus is God showing himself to us.

Through His Holy Spirit, God lives in and through us now.

Nothing in creation “just happened.” God made it all.

Grace is the only way to have a relationship with God.

Faith is the only way to grow in our relationship with God.

God has allowed evil to provide us with a choice, God can bring good even out of evil events and God promises victory over evil to those who choose him.

Heaven and hell are real places. Death is a beginning, not the end.

The church is to serve people like Jesus served people..

Jesus is coming again.

 

[DiscipleOfIAm]

Agreed. What exactly about Willowcreek's statement of beliefs dances around non-PC, intrusive and convicting topics?



Or Saddleback

From what you've posted, nothing. I suppose my view of Willow Creek is limited to my experience with a church that is pastored by one of the WC founders. This pastor has modelled his church from WC.

 

[Gold Dragon]

From what you've posted, nothing. I suppose my view of Willow Creek is limited to my experience with a church that is pastored by one of the WC founders. This pastor has modelled his church from WC.

Being part of the Willowcreek or Saddleback Network of churches is more about the affiliated church having a model to strive for. Willowcreek and Saddleback provide resources and vision. The affiliated churches are not under any authority by Willowcreek and Saddleback to conform to them, but they do need to pay some pretty hefty dough for the resources.

Our church has toyed with the idea of being a Willowcreek affiliated church. We also use some resources from Saddleback and follow a variation of the Purpose Driven Church model for our committees. I find that these models can be useful for growing churches to deal with structural and size changes, but are sometimes a little too formulaic to be completely useful. They try to be flexible enough to adapt to all types of denominations and cultures and I think they provide good starting points.

However, each church really needs to develop their own "flavour" and trying to squeeze into someone else's clothes can often make for an uncomfortable fit, even for the most flexible of fabrics.

As for concerns about being "seeker-friendly", I believe that some churches can go overboard with it and lose their way. But what church doesn't have its problems? Being seeker-friendly and relevant is being like Christ who seekers loved to be around and the religious establishment hated for being relevant.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Maybe its because I have a headache, but I didn't really understand what you were getting at.

The "seeker-friendly" church I attended and refer to here, had no alter calls, had no conviction, etc. You went to the church service to be entertained and to feel good about yourself. You left not knowing if you really witnessed a church service or a production for entertainment. I recall hearing plenty of messages that never mentioned anything from the Bible. If you didn't know this was supposed to be a church, you wouldn't know it was a church service. In my opinion, this is not good.

I'll agree with that.

I just took issue with the assumption "seeker friendly" (which is a wide spectrum) equals "shallow" - which is not always the case.

I'm all for being seeker-friendly and reaching out to the lost, etc, but tell them the truth when you get them in the door. Don't dance around the non-PC or intrusive and convicting topics.

I'm all for the truth and presenting the Gospel to those who are truly seeking exactly as Jesus presented the Gospel. My issue is with presenting the Gospel as "you don't want to go to Hell do you?" - which Jesus did not do.