Tuesday, January 18, 2005

Why does McChurch bother me?

There is a very interesting debate and much commentary to the God(Trademark) article from the Chicago Tribune this past Sunday. Are we accusing Willow Creek of false teaching? Because if we are, then we are justified in criticizing and shouldn't try to excuse it as a poor, but genuine, proclamation of the gospel. If the cross is being removed and if sinners aren't being confronted with their sinful condition (as has been mentioned by others), then I think it meets the criteria. If we are not, then we should treat them as partners in the gospel. I am only asking questions here, not condemning. I need to learn more about this.

Visit and join in!
Bunnie Diehl
Territorial Bloggings
My earlier post
Bob Waters

Beggars All

1 comment:

Tim's Ghost said...

Back in 1998 I began to suspect something was very wrong with Willow Creek when I heard Bill Hybels speak on the Ten Commandments. When discussing the worship of graven images, he explained why Willow didn't allow any crosses. He said that one can't reduce the Christian faith to just one symbol, and that if we really want to have symbols, then we ought to also have a Mountain to represent the Law, a manger to represent Christ's birth, an empty tomb to represent the resurrection, etc. The cross had a place, but not a central place in Christianity.

He also poked fun at traditional churches and came pretty darn close to congratulating himself for being above all that silly traditional cross stuff. He was so much smarter and enlightened than 2,000 years of Christians who apparently weren't enlightened enough to have figured this out.

I remember that this talk by Hybels was when the red lights really started to go one for me. Something was wrong at Willow.

Bunnie is right.