Take aways from the Summit
I just attended the Willow Creek Conference at a satellite location in Syracuse. The initial reflections are both initial and reflections: they have not been baking long, but they have been in the oven.
First, Radical Orthodoxy made an appearance. It came in during an interview with Jim Collins, an expert of the longevity and improvement of businesses. He said, "It is false that churches shoudl be like businesses." He then fleshed out the different paradigm that is in the "social sector," but I think we can limit it to the new community of the church. Imagine that! The church operates under a different structure from profit/loss organizations! Everything is theological. Of course, Collins, not a believer, is the exception that makes the rule all the more pertinent: If an unbeliever realizes this in his value-laden research, then surely believers should be harping this loud and clear, no? (I suppose this firmly entrenches me in my Wesleyan paradigm of prevenient grace.)
Second, Andy Stanley had the best message. He actually understands that the Kingdom is not up to him. His message was very wholistic: If you're going to cheat something, cheat the church at which you work. There are profound and obvious differences between Stanley and Hybels. I would really like someone to make them explicit and flesh them out. I am much more drawn to Stanley than to Hybels.
Third, I like Bill Hybels. Some of what he says I find wrong ("The local church is the hope of the world,", not theologically correct ("Substitutionary atonement is the foundation of Christianity," but then expounds a mixture of satisfaction and penal substitution theories), and irritating ("The Kingdom can't afford to lose a single leader." Actually, it can afford to lose any and all leaders and I suspect it will go on. There is only one who is indispensable and he has already conquered. Some Guy may argue for a second servant is indispensable, but he's wrong.), but I like him. Why? He had Andy Stanley speak at a conference he organized. Anyone who can give platform to such obvious disagreement has got to be humble.
But to be fair, he did make explicit the local church statement today. "The local chuch is the hope of the world because it bears the message of God's atonement." Of course, that means that the local church isn't the hope of the world, but the bearer of the message that shows the world's hope....
Fourth, I saw one of the dumbest shirts ever: "WARNING: Exposure to the Son may prevent burning. ~God." I'll just leave that one untouched.
First, Radical Orthodoxy made an appearance. It came in during an interview with Jim Collins, an expert of the longevity and improvement of businesses. He said, "It is false that churches shoudl be like businesses." He then fleshed out the different paradigm that is in the "social sector," but I think we can limit it to the new community of the church. Imagine that! The church operates under a different structure from profit/loss organizations! Everything is theological. Of course, Collins, not a believer, is the exception that makes the rule all the more pertinent: If an unbeliever realizes this in his value-laden research, then surely believers should be harping this loud and clear, no? (I suppose this firmly entrenches me in my Wesleyan paradigm of prevenient grace.)
Second, Andy Stanley had the best message. He actually understands that the Kingdom is not up to him. His message was very wholistic: If you're going to cheat something, cheat the church at which you work. There are profound and obvious differences between Stanley and Hybels. I would really like someone to make them explicit and flesh them out. I am much more drawn to Stanley than to Hybels.
Third, I like Bill Hybels. Some of what he says I find wrong ("The local church is the hope of the world,", not theologically correct ("Substitutionary atonement is the foundation of Christianity," but then expounds a mixture of satisfaction and penal substitution theories), and irritating ("The Kingdom can't afford to lose a single leader." Actually, it can afford to lose any and all leaders and I suspect it will go on. There is only one who is indispensable and he has already conquered. Some Guy may argue for a second servant is indispensable, but he's wrong.), but I like him. Why? He had Andy Stanley speak at a conference he organized. Anyone who can give platform to such obvious disagreement has got to be humble.
But to be fair, he did make explicit the local church statement today. "The local chuch is the hope of the world because it bears the message of God's atonement." Of course, that means that the local church isn't the hope of the world, but the bearer of the message that shows the world's hope....
Fourth, I saw one of the dumbest shirts ever: "WARNING: Exposure to the Son may prevent burning. ~God." I'll just leave that one untouched.
posted by Aaron Perry at
4:19 PM
20 Comments:
ha! i did go willingly. there is always valuable material and encouraging words. many, and i suspect all, of the speakers and leaders are genuinely caring people who only want to be more effective in reaching and leading people.
Hmmm. THe second indispensible person. Could you be referring to the Blessed Mother of our Lord? I have never said she was indispensable. I said, she was the _contingent_ vehicle through which the INcarnation (and ultimately, the salvation of the world) was accomplished.
If so, I'll stake my hope with Luke, John, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, St. Irenaeus, St Athanasius, The Cappadocians, St Cyril of Alexandria, St Ambrose, St Augustine, St Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, and Karl Barth. Quite a team.
Versus AP, the game would be close because AP is ausam. But stil. . . .
CG
ah, why can't october be now?! my apologies, CG (initials like father like son...i am just getting that). i was not thinking to your work in print, but to a conversation from last summer where i said something about there being only one who is indispensable and your short response was, "Well...two."
i wholeheartedly agree regarding our Mother being a contingent vehicle.
whoops. that should read, "our Lord's Mother..." i have not yet thought through the implications of the former statement.
i'll let it slide! :) i'll even pray for you, Negative Guy, during your exams.
if it was all slickness and effectiveness then i'd be more skeptical. but there is a wholism that is beginning to shine through. the financial giving of Willow Creek to social causes, their use of platform to highlight and promote World Vision, their planting a church in downtown Chicago...all speak to faithfulness to the gospel in at least some form.
re: Jesus: He was regarded as a failure for only a day and a half. he had a significant following up to one week before his death and a massive following within a month of it.
"He actually understands that the Kingdom is not up to him"
That's what I got from A.S. when we watched one of his DVD's. I like his mindset a lot.
Thanks for sharing the initial reflections
I was at the summit, as always it rocks. As for Hybels famous statement and our discussion on Mary I guess you could say that the local church is the contingent vehicle for the hope of the world but that's not particularly inspiering. I'm actually comfortable with Hybles statement because if the church is the only carrier of the only message than it's delivery is a key part of that hope.
i would certainly agree that the church is a key part, AJ. the problem is that that's just not what "The local church is the hope of the world" says.
i suppose it could be somewhat akin to an Israelite saying, "The Temple is the glory of God" when in fact the Temple was the home for God's glory. the former belief led Israel to thinking they could never be defeated so long as the temple was around. but God's glory/Spirit had already left.
if the local church is the hope of the world, then there is no hope because there will always be famine, war, and disease regardless of the local church's efforts. if the local church is the world's hope, then i'd have no hope.
no matter how organized, how intentional, how diligent (!) the local church is, we still need an outside act of God to save the world.
now, all of this isn't meant to degrade or pull down. i will never do as much good as Hybels has done. he is a gifted and blessed man, and may God continue to save lives in every aspect through his efforts.
Andrew and I participated in the summit together this year and I found it was incredible! I loved that it wasn't just a typical church conference for those who work in the church - rather they used leaders from all walks of life - church work, businesses, music/entertainment, etc. I felt having that really rounded it out.
I loved loved loved Bono's interview. Once again I was reminded of what my role is in dealing with social injustice -community wide, world wide. I could go on and on about missions, particularly social injustice. I think it is amazing that an 'unchurched' individual has much more perspective on this than many of those who sit in our pews each week. That spoke to me. Sad, and inspiring.
Anywho, the Bensons are still processing everything too. But I know we both came away from it will lots of ideas on how to change our lives, and better our ministry and family.
I think the Leadership Summit is and will remain one of the most influential vehicles through which God inspires leaders to do HIS work. I am in agreement with AJ's thoughts on this matter as it pertains to "The Church being the hope of the world."
Tim and AP,
I don' think any of the Christian presenters at the L-Ship Summit would disagree with the following statement: "Jesus Christ is the Hope of the World." They are just connecting some dots... The statement, "The local church is the hope of the world" is a derivative of "Jesus Christ is the Hope of the World."
Tim,
While you are getting your undies in a bunch over the scrolling sign, I pray that many people will see the sign and be engaged and drawn in by something that is there. I hope the Holy Spirit uses that sign and that it aids in people coming to your church and coming in contact with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Get over it!
Benson
That shirt should have said.."Use Sonscreen to Prevent Burning - God." Ah, I crack myself up.
I was also wondering - what church is Willow Creek trying to plant in Chicago and where at and how, etc. etc. Any more info? I have heard nothing about this church and I live in Chi-town.
Peace.
I understand what you are saying Tim, but disagree. That's okay with me... I also think that the sign issue and slave labor to produce our coffee and clothing are two very different issues. I am not aware that the Bible mandates any particular method... many were used. I venture to say that almost any method is going to have its critics... And when it comes to leading people to the Father, Son and Spirit... I have not yet heard what I would consider a solid argument that would lead me to believe that less is better than more... It would seem that some would suggest that methods that do not produce any fruit are acceptable... while methods that produce much fruit are unacceptable... As dispicalbe as my praxis may be to some... there would have to be a much better argument than I have seen to change my mind on methods for bringing others in contact with the Good News.
"I will become even more undignified than this, and I will be humiliated in my own eyes."
Tim and Benson interesting thoughts. Tim - Please explain your objection to the sighn. Am I the only one here who doesen't see the inherant evil of a scrolling sighn? I could understand if it offended your aesthetic or if you thought the money could have been used better butaside form that do you really thing Jesus weeps over churches with signs? Please explaine.
nate: sorry, i can't provide more info. it was briefly mentioned at the summit. also, the Willow Creek small groups format is going towards community oriented groups, which i think it a great witness to community involvement.
benson: i have no problem if people were just connecting the dots. but that is not connecting the dots. it's making a statement that, in my opinion, has lots of negative potential. i mean, i couldn't say: God is the Benson family's hope; I am the vehicle for God to bring hope to a family. Therefore (connecting hte dots), I am the Benson family's hope. Just moving the statement into the plural does not remove the (potential) self-idolatry found therein.
AP
I don't think there is potential *(or if the potential is there it is extremely minimal) for self-idolatry found in Hybels' statement. I think his audience understands that God is the hope of the world and that the church is the vehicle for that hope... I can see what you are saying, but don't think it is as big of a deal.
Peace.
Aaron, yes, that Tshirt is the worst. I've seen it worn several times, and I think it an abomination and a desecration.
if clarity is as important as Hybels so rightly described in the last session, then it is as big a deal as clarity is. language is always a big deal because people are listening.
BD! Great to hear from you! Good job denouncing a false Messiah, btw, on your own blog. Just to jump in for Tim's sake as he is in a time of exams, the issue is not "I don't like the style of scrolling marquees." His issue is, "Is there an underlying message to using methods that may be undercutting the counter-cultural message of the gospel?" Or, as he put it earlier, Does a scrolling marquee advertise entertainment or a product as it resembles other forms of culture (like movie theatres), rather than worship of God? So, I think Tim would disagree very much (as would you) about how the message is delivered. There are faithful ways and unfaithful ways to announce GOd's reign in Christ (you wouldn't say that threatening someone with a gun would be an appropriate way to do so, i am guessing; or, perhaps a more innocent example that i saw on Jay Leno and headlines: "Accept JEsus Christ as your personal Saviour by May 31st and receive a free cell phone.") The example I give are different from a scrolling marquee, but the question is valid for all forms of presentation.
And one more place where we are close to agreement. I agree very much that God considers the heart; as Larry Wood (ATS prof) once said, "Intent matters a great deal to God." however, playing that out to say, "Since intent matters, form and content (the words we use) do not," is the heart of liberal theology...so i can't follow you the whole way.
jo reminds me of hte point of the message: Wearing such a t-shirt that was undoubtedly worn for good intentions and with a somewhat accurate message is false because of the way it presents the message.
thanks for commenting!
I agree that there is a line that can be crossed in using the world’s methods but I'm not sure a sign crosses it. A sign with naked chicks, for sure. Rock stars and strippers stand on platforms to perform - does than mean that preachers should never stand on a platform? Many of our beloved hymns are set to bar tunes - do we turf them? The dominant use of the internet is for porn - is it wrong for a church to have a web site? Car salesmen and politicians wear suits - is it wrong for pastors to? When I go to a play to be entertained they give me a program - is it immoral for a church to hand out bulletins. Talk shows and sit-coms are in English – should we switch back to Latin or Greek? Cults have rituals and ceremonies – should we can the Lord’s supper and baptism? Columbia house and Block buster have memberships – do we throw out the church role?
When I go to my massage therapist she makes sure the temperature is nice and the mall has air-conditioning, should churches make sure the temperature is to hot or too cold so we are not associated with these other businesses and services? My guess is that the only thought that goes through an unsaved persons head when they drive by a bright glowing sign that says “10:30am – Morning Worship” is “Morning worship starts at 10:30”. I live in a big city, none of our theatres have scrolling signs. In fact the only place I know of for sure that does is the local community college. I drive by at least once a week and I have never thought to go shop there or catch a movie. When I see that there sign says “Aviation engineer classes are starting soon” my only thought is “Aviation engineer classes are starting soon”. I don’t think a holy end justifies and unholy means but I do believe some things – like electronic signs – are neutral. I think it would be cool to see a survey of “unchurched” peoples impression of the church based on that sign. Might prove me completely wrong, might prove it was a waste of money, who knows but it would be interesting.
i would just like to point out one thing: I don't think intent is more important. it is important and has a great deal to do with how God considers the act. however, i think faithfulness is most important and that faithless acts can be done with great intentions (like some religious abuse that happens). for this reason, i appreciate Tim's question and issue with the sign, whether or not i agree...which i may or may not do. :)
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home