Willow Creek elders respond to new Hybels accusations
When you talk about the “madness of crowds”, say that insiders know better (contra evidence), and the like, yes, you are questioning free speech aimed at churches. You are saying it is of little worth, and it is then little surprise when churches discount it. I’ve seen it again and again and again. It’s an attitude that needs to go, stat.
Moreover, you are doubling down when you say “congregations are free to do as much or as little listening as they like”. If your testimony about outside comment is persistently negative—and that is precisely what I’ve seen all over fundagelicalism—it is no surprise when those who could benefit immensely from what they’re hearing–SGM, Willow Creek, Paige Patterson, etc..—reject that wisdom and Proverbs 12:15 with it.
And please, let’s stop saying “we don’t know about this”. Yes, nobody knows everything except for God, but we can start to make reasonable inferences from the data. Really, I view this as yet another stalling tactic, to be honest. When we’re saying “we don’t know” when what is known is 1150 emails and the official report more or less said “oopsie, we couldn’t read them, didn’t ask any more questions”, it doesn’t exactly take Sherlock Holmes to figure out something is amiss.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
“When you talk about the ‘madness of crowds’, say that insiders know better (contra evidence), and the like, yes, you are questioning free speech aimed at churches. You are saying it is of little worth”
Thankfully, that’s not what free speech means. Thankfully (!!) there is no requirement that anyone assign worth to what anyone else says.
Moreover, you are doubling down when you say “congregations are free to do as much or as little listening as they like”.
It doesn’t matter if I’m “doubling down” or not. It remains a fact. I get that this is truth you don’t like. You’re free to not like it. But declaring your dislike in various ways doesn’t make it go away.
A little perspective on the value of public sentiment, from a source we both accept as authoritative.
20 Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. (ESV, 1 Corinthians 1:20–21)
In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. (ESV, 2 Corinthians 4:4)
But Jesus on his part did not entrust himself to them, because he knew all people (ESV, John 2:24)
When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? 2 Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? (ESV, 1 Corinthians 6:1–2)
The crowd rebuked them, telling them to be silent, but they cried out all the more, “Lord, have mercy on us, Son of David!” (ESV, Matthew 20:31)
And when the crowds saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in Lycaonian, “The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men!” 12 Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul, Hermes, because he was the chief speaker. (ESV, Acts 14:11–12)
“If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. 19 If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. (ESV, John 15:18–19)
More where those came from, but I’m out of time.
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.
It’s worth noting why the crowds get mad. In the case of my alma mater, it’s because it’s been 19 months since Rachael Denhollander got things going, and the university is stonewalling. In the case of SGM, it’s because it’s been over a decade, and SGM has yet to do a serious, public investigation of the matter. Similar things happened with BJU, ABWE, and New Tribes. If you act as if the testimony of outsiders is inherently suspect, it is merely a matter of time before the crowds start bringing the pitchforks and torches.
Regarding Aaron’s Scripture citations, really none of them have much to do with the subject at hand. Since a lot of outside criticism comes from Christians, a great portion are just plain irrelevant. Even for the portion that comes from non-Christians, I’m sorry, but 1 Peter 3:7 still applies. So does Proverbs 12:15. Common grace does work through nonbelievers, no?
And 1 Corinthians 6? OK, so the fact that we’re not supposed to court before unbelieving judges tells us that if a person isn’t in church membership—and presumably working within “proper channels”, meaning “shut up and let the deacons work”—then we are free to ignore his testimony? Seriously?
Sorry, but I’m going to go with the fact that God can even use a donkey to rebuke the unrepentant. You’re still batting 0, Aaron.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
I don’t know what to say about most of this since objections keep being raised to assertions I’m not making.
Another effort to clarify, though I truly have nothing new to say at this point:
- Outsiders are not always wrong.
- Outsiders are quite often wrong.
- The further removed people are from the events in question, the less they really know.
- The further removed people are from the events in question the less likely they are to have anything useful to say.
- Outsiders have no authority.
- No organization is obligated to listen to outsiders.
- All organizations are free to listen to outsiders.
- There are often practical reasons to heed outsiders.
- Ignoring outsiders often has negative results.
- Ignoring outsiders is often worth the negative results.
- There are risks involved in taking outsiders too seriously.
- There are risks involved in not taking outsiders seriously enough.
- What to do with feedback has to be evaluated on a case by case basis.
- These days, the opinions of ignorant, far-removed individuals (with no authority) are often disproportionately empowered by media, social and otherwise.
- Both the Bible and common sense call us to be skeptical toward crowds.
- Christians do not automatically have a say in the actions of organizations that also happen to be staffed by Christians.
- Because there are worldly Christians in Scripture, what is said of the world may well also apply to crowds of Christians.
- Or it may not. Case by case evaluation is required… . with skepticism toward those unlikely to have a clue (i.e., most people).
By all means, disagree, but don’t disagree please with assertions I’m not making in a way that implies I’m making them.
I think part of what keeps happening here is that I’m being read with various assumptions already in place (false disjunctions and excluded middles seem likely) and so I’m talking in 256 colors and being read in 16 (or maybe black and white!). Not much I can do about that.
Edit… Oh, a couple more bullets!
- Organizations often botch their ethics investigations and internal discipline.
- It’s still their job and nobody can do it for them.
- Outsiders may be helpful in assisting organizations at their invitation.
- These teams only have the authority the organizations hand over to them.
- They shouldn’t hand any authority over to them. Advisory is enough.
- Yes, horror stories can be multiplied regarding organizations that didn’t get outside help.
- No, that doesn’t materially alter the fact that organizations are in charge of their own ethical standards and internal discipline.
- Some horror stories can be told as well for when outsiders were involved.
- Outside teams also come with their preconceived ideas, agendas, biases, and blind spots. These come with being human and having a pulse, even when we have the best of intentions.
- They don’t always have the best of intentions.
I accept that some feel this is not positive enough toward outsiders or negative enough toward autonomy. I have no argument with anyone’s feelings. But as far as facts go, there is really not very much here that is debatable.
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.
[Bert Perry]I was actually going to ask you about I Cor 6 before i read this post. i even had it on one of my tabs. Verse 2 says “Or do you not know that the Lord’s people will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases?” So from your perspective, ARE church members competent enough to judge trivial cases between themselves? I’m curious what Paul might have meant by “trivial.” I think everyone here is saying that when laws are broken, then the proper authorities need to be called so an investigation can take place. These disputes were ones in which enough wrong was done that it went before the courts, so I figure it was more serious than just people having their feelings hurt. There were actual allegations of wrong-doing that needed to be judged, and Paul is saying NOT to bring these matters before outsiders. Bert, how DO you interpret what Paul was telling the Corinthians in 6:1-6? Do you think Paul should have told them “Stop circling the wagons and let some outside people examine the issue and don’t ignore their advice”?And 1 Corinthians 6? OK, so the fact that we’re not supposed to court before unbelieving judges tells us that if a person isn’t in church membership—and presumably working within “proper channels”, meaning “shut up and let the deacons work”—then we are free to ignore his testimony? Seriously?
Simple, Kevin, and it has everything to do with what I’ve been saying for a while. 1 Cor. 6 tells you who the judge is, not anything about the approach to evidence. Really, you also need to take a look at the apparent fact that only rich citizens really had access to Roman courts—others had to hire an orator/advocate at ruinous expense. So when you understand Roman law, a central part of what Paul is arguing is “rich citizens, stop bankrupting your poorer brothers in Roman courts.” James refers to this practice in James 2:6 as well. The simple fact of the matter is that 1 Cor. 6 does not tell you how to handle evidence, period.
When we are talking about our approach to evidence, the relevant passages are those in Proverbs which speak of the wisdom of those who take advice, as well as 1 Peter 3:7 and related passages, which state very clearly that elders must have a good reputation outside the church (among nonbelievers), and that in a nation crossed by several international trade routes and with a fair amount of immigration from heathen lands (Ruth, Uriah), God’s people were commanded many times to take advice.
In other words, the Scriptures recognize that while an unbeliever is by definition in unrepentant sin, even so common grace allows that unbeliever to have some relevant observations that believers in the church ought to heed. For example, an unbelieving coworker of my wife, when he visited the church we were attending at the time, noted that its “seeker sensitive” service seemed like “Church Light” to him. He was right. We left not too long afterwards as we took his testimony seriously and started noticing other things we’d not picked up on before.
So Scripture gives Aaron’s attitude no comfort, I’m afraid, and neither does evidence. If there were clear evidence that “most people have no clue” were true, and that barring the doors worked, he’d have been able to come up with some examples. So far, nothing.
In the examples I can think of—ABWE, BJU, New Tribes, SGM, SBC, Maddi Runkles, MSU, Willow Creek, etc..—the pattern is that the organization does indeed try Aaron’s approach for a time, holding to a (IMO) misguided application of church/ministry autonomy until empty pews and public clamor can no longer be ignored. Then the organizations hire an independent investigator, get really angry when the investigator (acting like the former prosecutor that he is) finds abundant evidence of wrongdoing on their part that they ignored, sometimes fire him, but then are forced to re-hire him or others to deal with the fallout as more members show up as empty seats and the public clamor rises from useful suggestions to calls for a new Place de la Concorde, complete with the invention of Dr. Guillotine.
Thankfully, more and more churches faced with disaster are learning from these disasters, and they’re being proactive about getting an outside look as soon as there is evidence that internal controls have failed. Plaintiff’s lawyers will take care of many of those that don’t clue in. #Progress
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Bert Perry]But Bert, what about when the outsiders find evidence that the church demeans women by not allowing women to be pastors of the church? Or when they find evidence that the church demeans homosexuals by not affirming their marriages? Even Aaron is saying that there can be great value in outside criticism and advice, but the church has to look at each piece of advice and then make it’s OWN decision rather than being pressured to automatically view the outside advice as being more valid than the viewpoints of the church’s own members. Wouldn’t you agree with that perspective of the church’s autonomy in cases where actual Scriptural principles are at play?Simple, Kevin, and it has everything to do with what I’ve been saying for a while. 1 Cor. 6 tells you who the judge is, not anything about the approach to evidence. Really, you also need to take a look at the apparent fact that only rich citizens really had access to Roman courts—others had to hire an orator/advocate at ruinous expense. So when you understand Roman law, a central part of what Paul is arguing is “rich citizens, stop bankrupting your poorer brothers in Roman courts.” James refers to this practice in James 2:6 as well. The simple fact of the matter is that 1 Cor. 6 does not tell you how to handle evidence, period.
When we are talking about our approach to evidence, the relevant passages are those in Proverbs which speak of the wisdom of those who take advice, as well as 1 Peter 3:7 and related passages, which state very clearly that elders must have a good reputation outside the church (among nonbelievers), and that in a nation crossed by several international trade routes and with a fair amount of immigration from heathen lands (Ruth, Uriah), God’s people were commanded many times to take advice.
In other words, the Scriptures recognize that while an unbeliever is by definition in unrepentant sin, even so common grace allows that unbeliever to have some relevant observations that believers in the church ought to heed. For example, an unbelieving coworker of my wife, when he visited the church we were attending at the time, noted that its “seeker sensitive” service seemed like “Church Light” to him. He was right. We left not too long afterwards as we took his testimony seriously and started noticing other things we’d not picked up on before.
So Scripture gives Aaron’s attitude no comfort, I’m afraid, and neither does evidence. If there were clear evidence that “most people have no clue” were true, and that barring the doors worked, he’d have been able to come up with some examples. So far, nothing.
In the examples I can think of—ABWE, BJU, New Tribes, SGM, SBC, Maddi Runkles, MSU, Willow Creek, etc..—the pattern is that the organization does indeed try Aaron’s approach for a time, holding to a (IMO) misguided application of church/ministry autonomy until empty pews and public clamor can no longer be ignored. Then the organizations hire an independent investigator, get really angry when the investigator (acting like the former prosecutor that he is) finds abundant evidence of wrongdoing on their part that they ignored, sometimes fire him, but then are forced to re-hire him or others to deal with the fallout as more members show up as empty seats and the public clamor rises from useful suggestions to calls for a new Place de la Concorde, complete with the invention of Dr. Guillotine.
Thankfully, more and more churches faced with disaster are learning from these disasters, and they’re being proactive about getting an outside look as soon as there is evidence that internal controls have failed. Plaintiff’s lawyers will take care of many of those that don’t clue in. #Progress
You answer.
Really, it’s that simple. You answer, openly, the allegations. Female pastors? OK, you’re going to be in trouble if your church justifies that by saying (wrongly) that it’s because women are more gullible. Reality is that it’s simply because God chose it that way.
Same sex mirage? Same thing. Just say that although the law allows it, the Bible does not, and admit that the core of their argument is true, though you’d disagree about it demeaning them. What you admit, you do not need to investigate.
Be open, honest, and for goodness’ sake, smile.
Really, I think there is a historic neurosis among fundamentalists and evangelicals that lends itself to something of a bunker mentality. I dare suggest that it’s time to recognize it for what it is, a disfunction, and see what we can do to repent of it.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Advice/help vs. *outside*advice/help
This may be obvious already to most, but passages that encourage people to seek counsel don’t support the idea that congregations should seek outside counsel specifically. They simply affirm the value of individuals getting advice from other individuals.
… which nobody here disputes.
1 Corinthians 6 may be somewhat difficult to interpret in some of the details, but the fact that it encourages the church in Corinth to deal with its own misconduct problems internally (especially in the context of NT teaching as a whole) is quite clear.
The passage doesn’t *forbid* getting some outside help, and in Acts 15, some congregations did that. Acts 15 is proof that there are situations where that’s the right thing to do.
… which nobody here disputes.
Unless I’ve missed a passage somewhere, though, there is no Scripture that indicates getting outside help is generally better than handling matters internally. If such a passage exists, I would be very interested in learning where it is.
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.
[Bert Perry]So in these two particular cases, you would agree with these points Aaron made, right?You answer.
Really, it’s that simple. You answer, openly, the allegations. Female pastors? OK, you’re going to be in trouble if your church justifies that by saying (wrongly) that it’s because women are more gullible. Reality is that it’s simply because God chose it that way.
Same sex mirage? Same thing. Just say that although the law allows it, the Bible does not, and admit that the core of their argument is true, though you’d disagree about it demeaning them. What you admit, you do not need to investigate.
Be open, honest, and for goodness’ sake, smile.
Really, I think there is a historic neurosis among fundamentalists and evangelicals that lends itself to something of a bunker mentality. I dare suggest that it’s time to recognize it for what it is, a disfunction, and see what we can do to repent of it.
Outsiders have no authority.
No organization is obligated to listen to outsiders.
All organizations are free to listen to outsiders.
There are often practical reasons to heed outsiders.
Ignoring outsiders often has negative results.
Ignoring outsiders is often worth the negative results.
There are risks involved in taking outsiders too seriously.
There are risks involved in not taking outsiders seriously enough.
What to do with feedback has to be evaluated on a case by case basis.
You said fundamentalist have a “historic neurosis” that leads to a “bunker mentality.” Aren’t those phrases just as negative as the term “madness of crowds” that Aaron has used? I mean, they may be able to be interpreted negatively, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t some truth to them. Besides, don’t we need to have a “bunker mentality” went it comes to saying we do certain things “simply because God chose it that way”?
[Kevin Miller]Bert Perry wrote:
So in these two particular cases, you would agree with these points Aaron made, right?
Outsiders have no authority. NO. There is such a thing as moral authority, and in the cases I’ve mentioned, outsiders have far more of it than the insiders.
No organization is obligated to listen to outsiders. No. 1 Tim. 3:7 states very clearly that the opinions of outsiders matter to the church.
All organizations are free to listen to outsiders. How magnanimous of you.
There are often practical reasons to heed outsiders. Same.
Ignoring outsiders often has negative results. I’d go with “nearly always”.
Ignoring outsiders is often worth the negative results. I’d go with “rarely”. Aaron’s provided zero examples of this.
There are risks involved in taking outsiders too seriously. Aaron has provided zero examples of this.
There are risks involved in not taking outsiders seriously enough. Agreed.
What to do with feedback has to be evaluated on a case by case basis. Trite.
You said fundamentalist have a “historic neurosis” that leads to a “bunker mentality.” Aren’t those phrases just as negative as the term “madness of crowds” that Aaron has used? I mean, they may be able to be interpreted negatively, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t some truth to them. Besides, don’t we need to have a “bunker mentality” went it comes to saying we do certain things “simply because God chose it that way”?
Let’s put it this way, Kevin; if representatives of a movement are firmly using a book primarily remembered for its commentary on economic bubbles—MacKay’s Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds—to cast aspersions on the reliability of outside comment about the inner workings of the church, then quite frankly the shoe fits. Wear it with pride.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Bert Perry]The book wasn’t just about economic bubbles. It was also about alchemy, fortune telling, haunted houses ,relics, and many other things which crowds of people were believing. If a crowd of outsiders believe something, no matter what it is, should the church be required to listen? Or should the advice be judged on a case by case basis, as Aaron says?Kevin Miller wrote:
So in these two particular cases, you would agree with these points Aaron made, right?
Outsiders have no authority. NO. There is such a thing as moral authority, and in the cases I’ve mentioned, outsiders have far more of it than the insiders. Can you give me a Scriptural example of an unsaved person’s moral authority having precedence over a church member’s authority to decide church matters? Deciding church matters is the kind of authority Aaron was talking about, so if the moral authority of an unsaved man can overrule that, then I would like to see support.
No organization is obligated to listen to outsiders. No. 1 Tim. 3:7 states very clearly that the opinions of outsiders matter to the church. Even if the outsiders say that women should be pastors and gay marriage should be affirmed? Are churches required to be bringing in those perspectives to be listened to? We should be kind to those who hold such views, but I don’t see how the church is obligated to think that those views matter to the church. Even in the direct context of I Tim 3:7, if an outsider gives a bad review of a pastoral candidate, is the church required to drop that candidate from consideration?
All organizations are free to listen to outsiders. How magnanimous of you. How snarky of you. :) It is a true statement, after all.
There are often practical reasons to heed outsiders. Same. Again, a true statement.
Ignoring outsiders often has negative results. I’d go with “nearly always”. Perhaps so, but that still isn’t the same as a Scriptural obligation.
Ignoring outsiders is often worth the negative results. I’d go with “rarely”. Aaron’s provided zero examples of this. But I provided you with two of them. If a church is ridiculed over social media because if doesn’t affirm gay marriage, should it care that it is getting negative press? If it loses members because a female is not considered for pastor, should the loss of members change the church’s position?
There are risks involved in taking outsiders too seriously. Aaron has provided zero examples of this. I just provided two.
There are risks involved in not taking outsiders seriously enough. Agreed.
What to do with feedback has to be evaluated on a case by case basis. Trite. No matter how “trite” it is, it is still true. Unless you are saying that in EVERY case in which an outsider expresses an opinion, the church is required to change it’s position. You’re not saying that, are you?
Let’s put it this way, Kevin; if representatives of a movement are firmly using a book primarily remembered for its commentary on economic bubbles—MacKay’s Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds—to cast aspersions on the reliability of outside comment about the inner workings of the church, then quite frankly the shoe fits. Wear it with pride.
Kevin, let’s put things in perspective. The biggest thing I am saying here is not that you always trust one side over the other, but rather that you respect the rules of evidence enough to give people a straight answer. And that’s what you do with people who say you should abandon your principles—explain them clearly and say “we have to agree to disagree here.”
Regarding the question of moral authority of the unsaved, and whether you’d reject a pastoral candidate based on the testimony of an unsaved man, isn’t that precisely the testimony of 1 Tim. 3:7? Now you put it in perspective—the neighbor not liking your church is nowhere near as weighty as “he had an affair with my wife” or “he stiffed me for ten grand in house repairs”—but yes, Scripture tells us rather emphatically that the testimony of outsiders is indeed important in the affairs of the church. This is also the simple doctrine of common grace by which Romans 13 allows the king to administer justice and the like.
And again, if we have a knee jerk tendency to write of “madness of crowds” and assume that insiders always know better than outsiders—precisely what was written in another thread here—yes, we do have a bunker mentality. It is all the more regrettable when that crowd is merely asking for is an investigation that really covers the bases—that’s the case with Willow Creek, SGM, MSU, and such. As I indicated above, the crowd really gets mad not due to inherent tendencies, but because they’re getting blown off.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Just curious, Bert… True or false: crowds only get mad for good reasons.
How about this one: True or false: what crowds say should always be accepted as wise and good, without any evaluation.
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.
Maybe you could address something I’ve actually said, Aaron.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Discussion