Props to Willow Creek

October 31, 2007

On the 18th of this month Leadership Journal’s blog featured an article entitled “Willow Creek Repents?“. After three decades of doing some of the most influential ministry in America (big-box, consumer-model, modernist) this church did a thorough examination of what its product was producing, and the results really surprised them.

The church’s mission is to “Turn irreligious people into fully devoted followers of Jesus Christ.” Their comprehensive review, however, showed that their model was not effectively achieving their aim. 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 service, how to do the spiritual practices much more aggressively on their own.

Hybels realized that the criticism that has been leveled at his church for 30 years was in many ways accurate. Willow Creek was often times creating consumers, not disciples. I’ve seen some movement in the Willow Creek Association (i.e. the “Externally Focused Church” - a WCA authored book with a strong commitment to social involvement) towards a more holistic and “real” spirituality, but I am really shocked at Bill’s words here. This is a real show of character and is to be commended. It is really difficult, especially when you sit on so many pedestals, to just say “hey, we screwed up - let’s try again!”.

Although I am excited by this movement in Willow Creek, I think that moving towards fostering personal spiritual disciplines is only a part of the “solution”. There is a serious ecclessiology issue here that is still not being addressed. Is the church the bride of Christ and that apart from it there is no salvation - that the church’s chief goal is to be the instrument of worship of God (the catholic position)? Or is the “church” a place where people get saved and exists to usher people into personal piety and is not a necessary part of the Christian’s life (the pietist position)? The language of “self-feeder” still focuses on the church as a co-location of bubble christians on “personal journeys”.

Now, these two positions are not mutually exclusive, and I believe both are important functions of the church. However, I only think the first position can encompass the second as well and not the other way around. I may be totally wrong here, but it seems that the WCA is not embracing the catholic view of the church - that they are just moving into a more pietistic stream. As Willow Creek comes from Non-Denominational/Bible Church roots, I don’t know if they can actually achieve that move. However, there are so many Reformed, Presbyterian, Methodist, and other churches from great traditions that should hear these words. If you want to grow real disciples you have to actually start being the church, rather than a parachurch ministry that happens to meet on Sundays. Encouraging personal disciplines is then just part of that move.

In 1979 Bill had to shake up Willow Creek because it wasn’t growing disciples. He stated “We’ve set up all our leadership structures and goals to grow a full-functioning Acts 2 community, as opposed to just an evangelizing machine that doesn’t drive the roots down deep and do all the other things it’s supposed to do.” I hope that 28 years later, Bill sees that he at least needs to ask the question about the nature and function of the church.

Posted in Uncategorized