Heroes - Part 2

So here is part two of my hero list….

Titus – we see Titus as St. Paul’s associate. What I like about him is that Paul could count on Titus to do anything. Titus was Paul’s utility player: take care of some money transfers, do a church evaluation, step in as an interim pastor – Titus had lots of talent that God used. So he appeals to me because he was multi-talented and ministered in a broad context.

Bill Hybels and Mark Driscoll – these are two guys who both love Jesus and want others to know about Jesus, as well. They are both innovative and created models of ministry that are admirable. They are on opposite sides of one theological spectrum, which might be ironic except that they both very insistently point to Jesus. They are similar in that their younger days were marked by being both very effective and maybe a bit arrogant. They are both very committed to engaging their culture with the gospel.
(update in 2015) - of course, many in evangelicalism have heard the Mark Driscoll had an implosion. Of course, this is disappointing. Yet, while this speaks volumes about Driscoll's struggles with pride and his pastoral 'heart,' I hope this does not invalidate his Jesus-centered preaching and the mission to bring the gospel to Seattle-land. The messenger has shot himself, but much of the message is still valid.
(update in 2018) - and ... now Bill Hybels has been accused of sexual abuse and has resigned. While I could repeat the tenor of my update on Mark Driscoll, I have recently wondered if there is something else going on - a systemic problem with 'evangelical' leadership. Hybels - especially - promoted the young, charismatic, dynamic speaker, alpha-male model. The cracks are splitting - that model (as useful as it *might* have been) is failing the church and the Lord of that church, Jesus.

Bishop Irenaeus – he was born in the Orient, then ministered in Europe, and a man with a powerful love and concern for his church. He saw a faddish spiritual movement developing, recognized its toxicity for his flock, and took it upon himself to argue and refute that heresy of Gnosticism. In doing so, and not really intending to, he became the first systematic theologian of the church. His name means “peaceable” and he lived up to that moniker.

C.S. Lewis – I have a real respect for bright people who can communicate clearly. C.S. Lewis was once described by a close associate as “the clearest thinking man in Britain” because of the lucidity of his writing style. He came to Jesus later in life and turned his smarts towards explaining why following Jesus was the most obviously rational thing to do.

George Washington – people of my generation went through the 60’s when it was the cool thing to trash the Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson excepted. But in college, I read a biography of Washington and found him to be a true hero. Not always the brightest man in the room (compared with others of the Founding Fathers), he was a man of character, courage, and talent. He made many mistakes but never repeated any of them and learned from them all. He was sacrificially dedicated to his new country.

Winston Churchill – very similar to George Washington for me: a late-bloomer, tenacious, dedicated to his nation, and a charmer. We think of Churchill today for his wit, which was considerable, but few knew that Churchill wasn’t much of a student, had a pretty obscure start as a politician, but kept plugging away until he was the man of the hour during the Second World War.

George Smiley – this is a fictional character born of ‘John LeCarre,’ a spy novelist. George is a master spy but as anti-James Bond as can be: middle-aged, un-athletic, bad with women, plenty of self-doubts, a powerful thinker, hated gadgets – the character of Smiley is very compellingly drawn by ‘LeCarre.’

So there are some common themes here. Dedication and purpose of life, character and integrity, talent and capacity, mostly intellectuals or bright people. These are my heroes.

The Real Enemies

A good friend passed on to me a link to an article on the Internet. I read it and was pretty annoyed. It is a commentary on Willow Creek’s recent “recanting” of their ministry model. I’ll give you the URL: A Shocking “Confession” from Willow Creek Community Church.

Here’s my brief analysis. First, let me say I was there in October of ’06 and heard Hybels and Hawkings in person explain what was going on. OK – everybody knows that WCCC changed their tune – this is really old news. But besides being behind the curve, it seems to me that Burney has missed the point. It isn’t about Bill Hybels being wrong about the seeker-sensitive movement– in actual fact he has been very right for a couple of decades. In addition, it looks like Burney completely misses the boat when he labels Hybels as a “church growth guru” and conveniently forgets that WCCC has always been about outreach, evangelism, and reaching people who just were not being reached. Thousands of people are now headed for an eternal life with Jesus because of the ministry of Hybels, Rick Warren, etc. Burney seems to consider this unimportant as he doesn’t mention that fact at all. Come on, we all knew that the seeker-sensitive thing (in and of itself) was not, nor was it ever about, developing fully-devoted followers of Christ.

In fact, if you actually look at what the WCCC statements are saying: it is not that they have repented of trying to reach “unchurched Harry and Mary” – not at all. In fact, WCCC is repenting of a programmatic, get-them-involved-in-anything approach. They are repenting from not emphasizing the development of “self-feeding” believers.

Do you see what Burney has done? WCCC has repented of their *discipleship* model, NOT their evangelism model. But Burney attacks their *evangelism* model because of their statement about their discipleship model. And also no words of encouragement from Burney to WCCC for getting a better grip on how to grow disciples. Why doesn’t he say, “WCCC, the rest of us are really glad that such an influential church is getting serious - not just about bringing people into the Kingdom of light - but now that you want to grow them into fully devoted followers of Jesus.” No; it’s pretty much just: ‘You guys were wrong. About everything – wrong.’

It seems to me that Burney has gotten this wrong. In addition, from where I sit, he’s being a little mean: the tone of this article is way too much on the side of gloating. I’m pretty disappointed – throwing stones at brothers and sisters in Christ is wrong. Comparing Hybels to Dr. Spock is a cheap shot. WCCC has repented; and done so very publicly. I’ve got to wonder if Burney will.

So here’s my Big Point: I think Bob Burney – and far too many “Evangelicals” on the Fundamentalist side of the tent – may have fallen into an age-old trap. We have forgotten something very basic. The question they (and we) need to remember to ask is: Who is the real enemy?

Let me make it clear: sin, the Devil, and death are our enemies. Bill Hybels (as flawed as he is) is not the enemy – he’s a devoted brother in Christ. We get so incestuous in the fights we pick. It is clear that I disagree and am disappointed in Bob Burney. But he’s not my enemy – he’s my brother. I can pick on several goofy Christian leaders and point to their mistakes, their confusion, their error, and even their sin. It’s not my job to condemn or even convict them – I’ll leave that job to the one person who actually has that in their job description: the Holy Spirit. I believe instead that Jesus’ asks us to graciously and humbly confront our brothers and sisters. Even in this blog, I don’t condemn Burney; I want to humbly suggest that he reconsider his analysis and his tone.

As Christians, we have real enemies, but they should NOT be other believers, or the people who don’t vote like we do, or even our unbelieving and very annoying neighbor who is partly a victim of the blindness that accompanies sin. Let’s remember who our real enemies are: the Devil, sin, and death.

Review of Leadership Summit ‘07

The first session with Hybels just wrecked me. “Vision to Die For.” He reminded us of John 10: the difference between the hired hand and the shepherd. When trouble comes, the hired guy scoots but the shepherd stays even at grave personal risk and cost. Why? The hired hand doesn’t own the sheep and the shepherd does. So when we are called to a leadership vision (or ministry itself) and trouble comes, how much do we own the vision (or calling)? Do we just give up and boogie because we merely “hired” the vision, or do we stay and give it our all – maybe even to die for it – because we own the vision. That’s what Hybels meant by “Vision to Die For.”

So here I’ve been whining about not having enough money to finish a degree. The reality is that I don’t have enough, based on the large pot that I started with. But we do have other assets: retirement, home equity, etc. How much do I own this calling to ministry? Enough to dip into those other sources?

Hmmm. Well, it’s relatively easy to put oneself on the altar. But it’s quite another thing to put my family’s financial security, my daughter’s college education, and so forth on the altar. It’s one thing to make a decision to put myself at risk, it is quite another to make a decision and put others at risk. Geez, I hate that Bill Hybels! :-) So I have a couple of conversations to make with my family.

Second Testimonies

So I’m taking a break from studies this week and attending the A2 conference hosted by Willow Creek near Chicago.

This is the first time I’ve been to the Willow Creek campus and it is impressive. It shows what can be done when a church decides to impact their community with excellence. Much more can be said, but as a conference attendee, I am having a positive experience.

The most impactful session of the day was the first given by Bill Hybels. Hybels seemed to be suffering under some low-level bug (is this the same one from August?), but he rallied well and spoke on leadership. Charging that pastors are just like industry managers, they will take ideas from conferences (such as this) and decide that those ideas need to be implemented whole cloth into their own ministry back home. They will do all of this without the hard work of determining what their real needs are, what God has given them, and if this solution really fits at all. But the biggest problem is because the ministry leader isn’t really leading out of who they are. They are attempting to lead out of the results of someone else.

Hybels discussed the concept of a “second conversion;” that is, that once saved, a leader can be powerfully impacted by a subsequent encounter with God that may break apart his world and cause him to change his ministry because of it. Hybels used the Biblical example of Peter in Acts 10: the dream and then ministry to the gentile house of Conelius.

It is these “second conversions,” or “second testimonies” that Hybels says marks every leader who has had a powerful and innovative ministry.

The question that is begged is: are ministry leaders willing to allow God to break them apart so that he can put in a vision for the new thing? Of course, my question is: will I let God break me so that I can hear from him?

Leadership Summit: Day Three

Day Three was somewhat disorienting. It started with Wayne Cordeiro. Now Cordeiro comes bouncing up on the stage, spends significant time kidding with Hybels and then – almost incongruously – speaks of his bout with an emotional breakdown. Now I get that: “I’ve suffered from major depression and now I’m all better” is the message.

The message was powerful and a fearful warning for ministry people who may be closer to the edge than they know. He discussed symptoms of ministry burnout; the positive things that can come out of only suffering; and then some practical thoughts on how to avoid or recover from breakdown.

Bill Hybels finished up the conference and his talk had two parts. This contributed to my sense of disorientation. The talk was entitled, “The Power of Clarity;” and, knowing Hybels, you might expect a the-stakes-are-too-high-to-not-be-clear-about-your-vision-for-without-vision-the-people-perish thing. But that was not to be. He began by talking about how something recently caused him to change his mind about what he’d talk about today. OK, that’s got my curiosity up, right there. Now I'm disoriented. What happened? What’s the catalyst for the change? Then he used the title to make a clear and strong statement about the place of the theology of Substitutionary Atonement.

Now Hybels said some great things about this, and I appreciated his stand. Far too many in certain segments of the “Emerging Church” movement have – wrongly – stated that Substitutionary Atonement has no rightful place in Christian theology, doctrine, or belief. This ranges from Brian McLaren’s rather lukewarm acknowledgement of even the existence of the term to some more rabid bloggers who deny the validity of the doctrine. In the hurry to affirm the true-at-the-same-time other models of the Atonement, several have decided to jettison Substitutionary Atonement. This is wrong, of course.

So it gets me back to wondering what event cause Hybels to change his talk to become an affirmation of Substitutionary Atonement. Hmmmm.