Willow Creek elders respond to new Hybels accusations
This may sound crass, but it’s just the truth. When congregations and the law have done all they can and a guilty party is not brought to justice, we all have to move on. It shouldn’t surprise us that in such a world as this, sometimes justice and truth lose. If we congregations can learn lessons and do better, they should. But we can’t let a desire to get the bad guy every time drive them to sacrificing things they are not authorized by God to sacrifice.
OK, I get that in cases like the OJ Simpson murder trial where the victim is dead.
My point when you (or I) are dealing with this inside of the faith and with other believers is that “moving on” isn’t nearly as easily said or done, nor does it mitigate the damage done to the victims’ trust in their spiritual leaders (cf Hebrews 13:17) or especially their view of God, who is often blamed for the perpetrator’s escape from justice. In a situation like that, I point the person to passages like 2 Cor. 5:10, but words aren’t enough to help them overcome the damage and hurt. That’s where careful shepherding comes into play, and where radical transparency and through investigations can do more than just reassure with empty words.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Isn’t the Biblical model “repentance”, not “moving on”? And exactly how are we to come to real repentance if we don’t take a good hard look at what happened and why?
Really, “moving on” is like Willow Creek saying “well, we couldn’t read all those 1150 emails that would have spelled out exactly what Hybels did nor not, oopsie, oh, and if you’re wondering whether he can ever be trusted, well, we’re not going to let an independent investigator take a look at them because we think that the crowds asking for this suffer from madness.”
Great way to torpedo your credibility in nothing flat.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Three points on that:
1. Human beings do not have the power to secure the repentance of other human beings. Church discipline attempts to persuade repentance, but having run its course, it has nothing more to do than remove the offending member, at most. But having decided whatever it decides as a congregation, it’s done. Time to move on.
5 you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord. (ESV, 1 Corinthians 5:5)
2. I don’t even know what has happened or not happened at Willow Creek. The simple fact is that it isn’t any of our business, unless one of us is a member there and I didn’t know it. For any illegalities that may be alleged, there are local police. For misconduct, there is the congregation. Beyond that are only two parties left: God and onlookers who really have no say in the matter. Surely the fact that one of the remaining two parties is God should be good enough for us!
3. If the congregation at WC wants to bring in investigators, that’s certainly their right, and there seem to be some good reasons to consider that. What I’ve been arguing is that it isn’t anyone’s business but theirs, and involving outsiders is their decision as a church and theirs alone. (Unless, I repeat, there are issues of law, in which case, Romans 13 comes into play.)
OK, I said 3, but here’s a fourth: Don’t we all have plenty of responsibilities without trying to take on jobs God has in fact assigned to others?
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
This is exactly right, Aaron:
What I’ve been arguing is that it isn’t anyone’s business but theirs, and involving outsiders is their decision as a church and theirs alone
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[TylerR]This is exactly right, Aaron:
What I’ve been arguing is that it isn’t anyone’s business but theirs, and involving outsiders is their decision as a church and theirs alone
No, it’s exactly wrong. Aaron has been claiming that his view of the autonomy of churches is pretty much self-evident, and challenged to provide evidence for that position, he’s come up with nothing. Sorry, but the New Testament after the Gospels is the story of Paul, Peter, James, Jude, John, and an unnamed person who wrote Hebrews meddling in the business of supposedly hyper-autonomous churches. The very structure of the Scriptures assumes a broader accountability.
I’d like to introduce an alternative concept that derives from this pattern of the New Testament, matches Nathan’s rebuke of David, and matches Isaiah 52:5 and Romans 2:24’s rebuke of Godless Hebrews; that there is, per the Apostle’s and Nicene Creeds, a holy catholic (universal, not Romish) church (Matthew 16: 17-19 and elsewhere) that indeed does have something at stake when the leaders of one local body sin openly. Just as the Old and New Testaments set ample precedent for men of good faith to call erring brothers to repentance, so does that precedent hold today.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
You’re arguing for (at best) a Presbyterian form of church government and (at worst) an Episcopal one. Have fun with that. I’ll especially enjoy watching how you argue from Scripture:
- that apostolic authority continued beyond the original apostles,
- identifying who these successors are today, and
- where Scripture says we must be accountable to them,
- and what that accountability looks like in practical terms in real local churches
- and how one can become one of these apostolic successors (‘cuz I have some ideas of my own I’d like to impose on folks)
- and how you justify conflating the larger body of Christ with local churches in your remarks
Even if you reject an Episcopal form of church government and go more Presbyterian, you’ll still have to argue:
- that the unique apostolic authority continued beyond the original apostles
- identify who these unique leaders are today
- identify who’s accountable to them, and who isn’t
- identify the implications for those churches who refuse to acknowledge their authority
- and then explain, in concrete terms, what on earth you’re suggesting
Your remarks are abstractions. They have no practical relevance to real local churches in real life, because you haven’t yet left the clouds and gotten down to brass tacks.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Try again. Keep in mind that Luke, Mark, James, Jude, and the writer of Hebrews were not apostles, and they all meddled. Keep in mind as well that Paul’s authority (2 Cor. ) was often challenged as well.
You need posit no apostolic succession to preserve the notion of a lower case catholic church, nor do you need bishops, nor do you need what you say to suggest that ordinary,outside people have the right (and responsibility) at times to say “knock it off, you’re embarrassing the cause of Christ.” The Scriptures show this rather clearly.
Care to attempt a Scriptural justification of Aaron’s notion of radical autonomy of the church? Haven’t seen anything yet, and it’s been what, a week? ‘bout time someone tried to justify it rather than simply assuming the conclusion.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Care to attempt a Scriptural justification of Aaron’s notion of radical autonomy of the church? Haven’t seen anything yet, and it’s been what, a week? ‘bout time someone tried to justify it rather than simply assuming the conclusion.
Seriously?
https://sharperiron.org/article/ethics-scandals-and-local-church-autono…
Granted, I haven’t written my own biblical case for congregational autonomy, but the article above includes quite a bit of biblical evidence scattered through it as well as linked to.
(When you declare that something doesn’t exist, that doesn’t make it disappear. You, do know that, right?)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Your article simply doesn’t make the case. Paul explicitly overrides a church’s Matthew 18 decision in 2 Corinthians. Your reference to 1 Tim 6:3-5 makes no such case as you assert—it rather follows a section about the duty of slaves to their masters. Your other arguments are simply references to other documents, and the one you cite, Fisher’s catechism, contains no Scripture references to back up its contentions.
Give it a try. If your version of radical autonomy of the church is do obvious, it should be no trouble to find some actual Biblical evidence for it.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
I have no idea what you’re talking about, and your remarks show you either haven’t studied the issue of church government on a substantive level, or you’ve forgotten what you read. You don’t seem to understand what I’m referring to in my general questions about the mechanics of Presbyterian and Episcopal forms of church government, which betrays your ignorance of the larger issues. You’re suggesting Presbyterian or Episcopal forms of government by your comments; if you don’t see these implications then you don’t know what you’re talking about.
I still don’t know what you want local churches to do, and what on earth you’re recommending. Anyone can raise a hue and cry and exert pressure to influence a church take a course of action. Indeed, you’re doing that now, in this thread. But, the decision makers in Baptist churches are the congregation, as they’re led by the pastors and deacons. If a congregation and its deacons allow a pastor to get away with all sorts of sin, it’s the congregation’s fault.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
OK, so I haven’t studied in depth—for the sake of argument, let’s go there. Now, let’s deal with the reality; if indeed I am as ignorant as you claim, a simple, Biblical answer ought to make a huge difference, no? Not just citing creeds and confessions, go back and give some Biblical examples of how churches are actually seen as autonomous in the way Aaron (and you) claim.
I submit that you are going to have a hard time because the very nature of an epistle to a church, whether from an apostle, an apostle not seen as having authority (e.g. Paul in 2. Corinthians) by some, or a non-apostle like Luke, James, Jude, or the writer of Hebrews, presumes the very kind of interference Aaron denies.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
If you deny individual church autonomy, then you’re arguing for Presbyterian or Episcopal polity. If you wish to read a Biblical defense of antonymous church government, you can find one in any good Baptist systematic theology. In your zeal to see evildoers punished (a sentiment everyone here shares, by the way), you’ve denied local churches the right to handle their own affairs.
I look forward to notice from you about withdrawing your membership from a Baptist church.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
I don’t deny autonomy at all. At this point, I argue that there is a necessary degree of autonomy that derives from the fact that Christ appointed 12 apostles, and does not seem to have set up an org chart for the Church. I am unconvinced of the episcopal arguments deriving, more or less, from “you are Peter, and upon this rock”, for an episcopacy. Never mind the difficulty of getting to any Protestant episcopal structure from that argument!
All I am saying here is that church autonomy does not go to the extent Aaron suggests because the New Testament (and Old Testament) accounts feature outsiders giving negative feedback to local churches all the time.
Again, if I’m so ignorant here, it should be easy to come up with Biblical examples that affirm what Aaron says here. If not, it’s time to walk it back to a Biblical, sustainable position. Quoting Westminster or other confessions is not going to get you there.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
I don’t think anybody reading this thread, or any of the others, understands what on earth you’re saying. People can give negative feedback anytime they want. I’ll leave this conversation now.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
All I am saying here is that church autonomy does not go to the extent Aaron suggests because the New Testament (and Old Testament) accounts feature outsiders giving negative feedback to local churches all the time.
In case anyone is actually still unclear as to what I’ve been saying, I have never questioned free speech aimed at churches…or other organizations either. Autonomy has nothing to do with what outsiders may or may not say, rather, it has to do with the authority of what they say.
Congregations (and most other organizations) are free to do as much or as little listening as they like and also free to disregard any or all of what they hear.
(The public is also free to create pressure by public demonstrations, boycotts, etc. And organizations are free to ignore that, in turn, if they choose.)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Discussion