2018-09-20T21:26:39-05:00

Last updated on: September 20, 2018 at 9:26 pm   By

By Vonda Dyer

It’s “Giving Day” in north Texas, and I’m celebrating what our agency calls #minervasoul, because we have the privilege of supporting clients who want to end poverty as we know it through innovative higher education, others who want to eradicate human trafficking in our city, some who want to tangibly love people better by the way that they do business, and yet others who are lifting people out of homelessness. The one thing they all have in common is that they want to make the world where they live and work a kinder, more generous place to be. I’m following the North Texas generosity online as I send last emails and make sure the kids and grandparents have what they need before my husband and I embark on a two-week journey through Greece to experience some of the places where God used the apostle Paul to build and spread the Church.

I find it no coincidence that I am typing these words with a few hours of sleep and a burning in my heart to breathe the air, see the places and connect my minds-eye back to the essence of what drove Paul to preach with such fervor and urgency about the glorious life that Christ would bring to this dusty earth and into our hearts.

This departure and pilgrimage is met with the announcement of the Willow Creek Advocacy Group and a process that still lies in the spaces between what is right and true, what lies in a man’s heart and what happened with one of the most influential and powerful men in global church leadership in my lifetime. He was both boss and friend, pastor and human. We watched this revelation of abuse of power unfold before our very eyes, and I have never wept as much as I have in this last year over the depravity of man, even well-intentioned man, and the tornadic destruction it wields in its wake. So as I have packed, settled work accounts, kissed my children one last time, I am reflecting on Paul’s desire for us to be free from all of the earthbound things that tend to bind us. I am grateful for my new “online church” with its beautiful, colorful, rag tag community of believers and doubters, advocates, researchers, doctors, lawyers, pastors, ministers and faithful prayer warriors that have gathered to see this set right. I’m writing this in response to the many requests that have flooded my cell phone over the last few days. I have so many thoughts, but no conclusions. What I know for sure is that this Willow Creek Community Church crisis that has become part of my life in various ways for more than two decades, still makes me burn, like Paul, for a fully biblically-functioning church here on earth.

As of yesterday, I want to thank these four individuals that were announced publicly for stepping forward to begin a process that I hope and pray will be redemptive for all involved. From all I read, they seem to be a great group of people. It is my desire to honor and respect the process that the independent Advisory Council offers, unless they give me reason to distrust their motives, process or actions in how this is handled.

This investigation is a defining moment for Willow Creek and for the Evangelical Church at large. It has the opportunity to reveal, highlight, and model how the bride of Christ can be led by servant leaders who allow the indwelling Christ to define their leadership patterns, behaviors, relational patterns, emotional health, and organizational decision-making, once again.

This situation has created great distrust by the way in which the Willow Creek leadership mis-handled my situation alone, let alone all the others. This situation has had severe consequences for me personally and for all involved. It needs to be resolved, for the gross injustice that has occurred to be made right, for the sin that has caused such destruction to be revealed and dealt with, and for the unhealthy power structure that has damaged so many to be removed and rebuilt biblically.

I believe that Bill’s actions and the Willow Creek debacle will be studied for many years to come.  Willow Creek and the Willow Creek Association’s current and future response to abuse within the church is critical because of their national and global influence on church leadership. These findings and how they are dealt with have the potential to provide a model for what is good and acceptable for leaders and churches going forward. This is a great opportunity for the church to hit the reset button on Christ-centered, biblical relational and organizational leadership.

The investigation into Bill Hybels’ actions regarding his abuse of power and sexual misconduct is a huge task. It requires legal, spiritual and relational integrity for the Advisory Group chosen to investigate him. I cannot confirm whether the Advisory Council has the skills to oversee the proper investigation, as I’m not aware of their prior experience with oversight of weighty investigations regarding abuse of power and sexual misconduct. That said, someone must step up to lead a process that calls for clarity, repentance, and ultimate healing for everyone involved.

I choose to believe that God is in control of the situation and has brought it to bear for the purpose of refining and redefining Biblical leadership for the modern-day church, to bring purity and holiness to the Bride of Christ.

Here are a few answers to questions I have been receiving. They leave me with more questions than answers, at this point:

  1. I have not been contacted by anyone about the particulars of the pending investigation, the intended process, or the makeup of the Advisory Council, but I hope that I can trust this council in a way that I haven’t been able to trust Willow Creek leadership so far. Their actions will determine my level of trust and involvement.
  2. I do not know whether they will “look into actions themselves” or whether they will hire professionals with significant experience and expertise in these matters to truly investigate these serious allegations with a completely unbiased approach.
  3. I do not know if they will make the findings public so that the heart of the matter may be revealed in full.
  4. I do not know if they will go back in time to review all known infractions with regard to Bill’s choices, from the beginning of his ministry.
  5. I do not know if the grievous infractions will simply be “noted so that the church can move on”, or if the abuse of power that led to a multitude of other unjust, unbiblical and destructive behaviors will be brought to light and rectified, paving the way for a new model for redemptive leadership.
  6. I do not know if they will immediately go to the most obvious places to look, with regard to this investigation – that being the emails, files, texts, phone calls going back as far as 2014 with the initial allegations of a 14-year affair, all the way to the most recent woman investigated, and including his communication with female leaders, including Heather Larson, into present day. The women in the news media outlets have already had their stories thoroughly corroborated and vetted by reporters, in order to present truthful accounts of their allegations. Simply investigating the women again will not be thorough nor sufficient to uncover what has been hidden. There also needs to be a safe place created for others to come forward, if they have a story, without fear of reprisal, shaming or further victimization. I do not know if there are plans for this.
  7. I do not know if the investigation will include inviting Bill into a process of biblical repentance, for his own sake, the sake of his family, his church, his organizations and for the sake of all who at one time traded their sinfulness for the fullness of Christ, as Bill has preached this most of his life. I pray for this kind of restoration.
  8. I do not know if the investigation will go beyond the women’s stories and Bill’s misconduct, to the issues of how the allegations and process were mishandled by Willow Creek and WCA leadership, and to the systems that protected him and itself, and allowed all of this to happen.

If Bill is unrepentant, he will stand before the world, who, I believe, will consider his unwillingness to cooperate with investigations as an admission by default.  He must live with the consequences of his choices. We may always wonder why he has been unwilling to open his life to being investigated fully, accurately, and thoroughly, for the sake of integrity and his own spiritual well-being, and for the healing of those he wounded.

The church has a bright future because the sovereignty and grace of God allows it to flourish in spite of man’s choices. But the church is most glorious when she radiates in truth, with the full expression of Christ, without blemish, living and moving about in this world, expectant for the kingdom to come.

If this investigation is done well, it “will sift wheat from chaff” in leadership structures of the church and encourage that which remains to thrive, for the sake of the gospel. The Evangelical Church must bring Jesus back to the forefront of spiritual leadership and fully recognize him once again as the Head of the Church. The Evangelical Church must address the issue of power abuse and sexual abuse running rampant in “successful” churches. Instead of being in the headlines for covering up misconduct and abuse and giving standing ovations to abusers, let’s be known for leading the way toward repentance and health, for the church of the future.

“So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.”

Ephesians 4:11-13

2018-09-10T07:00:59-05:00

Last updated on: September 10, 2018 at 7:00 am   By

The second letter of John is addressed “to the elect lady and to her children.” But who is the “elect lady” of 2 John? Is she a mother with kids, or something more? A look at the apostle John’s use of the word “children” in 1 John can help us understand who the woman’s children are. Then, we can try to solve the mystery of who the woman is.

We commonly recognize that the “children” of 1 John refer to Christian converts. The “fathers,” “young men,” and “dear children” in the second chapter may refer to literal ages, or to spiritual development. Regardless of their age, the apostle John considered himself a spiritual father to these “children.” The apostle Paul also used this language to the Galatians, when he said, “My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you!” (4:19, KJV).

What does it mean to be a spiritual parent? Likely, it means that the apostle John first preached the gospel to them, and they believed it. He then took on the responsibility of teaching, disciplining, nurturing, and raising them in the faith. He devoted his life on earth to them so that they could have eternal life. As the apostle Paul expresses it, “For now we live, if you stand fast in the Lord” (1 Thess. 3:8, WEB).

Even if some of the Christians weren’t directly converted by John, the apostle must have so given himself to raise them in the faith that the converts felt it right for John to call them his children. They saw how John sacrificed, prayed, labored, and had the greatest concern for their salvation. To them, it would not sound strange for John to call them children. Rather than strange, it would sound tender and affectionate.

We come to the final line of 1 John and read, “Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen” (KJV).

We then immediately come to the first line of 2 John, which reads, “The elder [John] to the elect lady and her children” (KJV), or “The elder, to the lady chosen by God and to her children” (NIV).

Then, 2 John closes with the verse, “The children of your sister, who is chosen by God, send their greetings” (v. 13, NIV). So we now have two women with two sets of children to account for.

So who are these two “elect women” with children? Let’s first look at significant clues in the text.

Significant Clues in the Text

  • The woman’s authority comes from God; she is the “elect lady” (KJV), or the “lady chosen by God” (NIV) (verse 1).
  • The woman has been teaching Christians how to walk in love, truth, and obedience to God’s commands; John commends her for this, even saying that he “rejoices” (verse 4).
  • The woman is honored by John, who “beseech[es]” her to continue teaching the Christians to walk in love (verse 5, KJV). The word here translated “beseech,” is in the Greek, erotao. Other translations of this word in the New Testament include “ask,” “pray,” “desire,” and “entreat.” Far from being a high-handed male command, it is a supplication.
  • She has the authority to reject false teachers (verses 8-10).
  • She and her children typically live or meet in her house (verse 10).
  • Notice the word “children” is used in both 1 John and 2 John. If we’re to read consistently, we would think that John is using the same word, “children,” to describe the same relationship. The apostle John is a spiritual father to the Christians in 1 John. Likewise, the “elect lady” is a spiritual mother to the Christians in 2 John.
  • Furthermore, this similar relationship puts John on equal footing with the woman of 2 John. Both John and the “woman chosen by God” have children for whose souls they are responsible.

Significant Omissions from the Text

  • Aside from the apostle John himself, and the other “elect lady” in verse 13, no other church authority is mentioned in the text.
  • John does not mention the woman needing to submit to male authority. Instead, the woman appears to be the sole leader of the Christians.
  • John does not reprimand the woman for teaching or leading.
  • John does not demand that the woman submit to his apostolic, male authority. Instead, he acknowledges that her authority is from God. John lays aside his own authority and entreats her, using the word, “beseech.”

These clues lead us to two possible scenarios.

Scenario 1: Biological Children

Second John refers to a mother with biological children that she is raising in a Christian manner. Because no father or other male authority is mentioned, we may guess that the woman is either widowed or divorced. Because the apostle John recognizes that the woman is responsible for her children’s behavior, we’re to infer that the children are not yet adults. This also explains why they are in their mother’s house (they live there). The apostle warns the mother about deceivers who would wish to enter her house. It’s unclear why these people would want to enter the house of a single woman—likely divorced or widowed—with children.

Problems with Scenario 1

This first scenario is difficult to support. First, why would the apostle John suddenly change the meaning of his language? He’s just spent pages writing to his “children” in his first epistle. Logically, what basis do we have in the text to say that 1 John refers to spiritual children, and 2 John refers to biological children?

Second, why would the apostle John be concerned with not only one, but two apparently single women raising biological children? Said another way, what would compel the apostle to write to individual, ordinary Christian families, rather than the church?

Third, why would “deceivers” and “antichrists” be interested in going into an individual family home—in which only a divorced or widowed mother, with non-adult children, lived? We may further ask, why would a woman in such a situation even be letting others into her home?

Perhaps one would say, “She’s a married woman whom John converted during his ministry. If John doesn’t mention her husband, it must mean he isn’t converted. That leaves her responsible for the spiritual growth of her children. That’s why John is writing to her, and not her husband.” Or, “She’s single—widowed, divorced, or a redeemed promiscuous woman. Now, she doesn’t have a male authority for her kids, so John is helping her.”

Even if we allow this, it doesn’t answer many of our questions. For example, why would “deceivers” be trying to enter the home of an ordinary family? If her husband wasn’t converted, why wouldn’t John mention him in the letter? Wouldn’t that be a more pressing matter than “antichrists” trying to enter a private residence—for some unknown reason?

This defense still leaves unanswered why the apostle John would write to an individual family, and not a church. It also doesn’t explain for what purpose God chose this “woman chosen by God.” Are we to say that any mother raising Christian kids is a “woman chosen by God”? Most significantly, it doesn’t answer the key question: what basis do we have for reading the “children” of the “elect lady” as biological while at the same time reading the apostle John’s “children” as spiritual?

Scenario 2: Spiritual Children

The second scenario is that this woman has a position similar to that of the apostle John. We know from Acts 2:46 and church history that the early church taught publicly in the temples and synagogues, and then met privately in homes to celebrate the Lord’s Supper and worship.

Thus, the apostle writes to her as a fellow pastor or apostle of a church that meets in her home. The elect woman was “chosen by God” to be a minister. She has full authority to teach and to rebuke false teachers. By not allowing “deceivers” into her “house,” she has the authority to exclude certain individuals from membership. She is the primary leader of the church. We might call her a “senior pastor.”

In this scenario, the woman’s children are her converts. Perhaps some were converted by other church members, then joined the church she leads. Just as the apostle John did for the “children” in 1 John, this “woman chosen by God” poured out her life for these new converts. She made every sacrifice for them that a mother would make for her children.

The apostle John commends her for how she is guiding the flock. “It has given me great joy,” he writes, “to find some of your children walking in the truth, just as the Father commanded us” (verse 4, NIV). He then exhorts her to continue walking in love, which is obedience to God’s commands, “as you have heard from the beginning” (verse 6). Then, he warns her of recent heresies to be on watch for. He emphasizes the severity of the heresies by saying not to let such a “deceiver” and “antichrist” into her home (verse 7). In other words, she should not allow them into the church, where they would lead astray her dear spiritual children who are currently walking in the truth.

John’s letter also reveals the love and trust that the Christians have for their spiritual mother. John indicates that they are obedient, not rebellious. They haven’t strayed from their female pastor in search of better, male church leaders. Instead, the “children” look to her for spiritual teaching, guidance, correction, and protection just as a biological child would look to a mother for the same. They love and trust her with their souls.

We do not know whether this female pastor or apostle is married. But in either case, John writes to her as if she is the main leader of the church. If she is married, John’s letter contains no special instructions about how she’s to lead in relation to her husband. For example, he does not say to submit to her husband’s decisions about church leadership. Rather, this woman is presented as the sole leader, and mother, of the church.

Overall, this scenario is more likely. It fits with what we know about the structure of the early church, which was primarily a house church movement. We aren’t left with unresolved questions, and we don’t have to force the text.

Most importantly, it is consistent with the use of the word “children” and the pattern of writing to churches, and not individual families, found in 1 John. This results in a beautiful, smooth, and empowering read. In fact, it is some of the best evidence we have in the New Testament of women in leadership! I believe we can safely say that whatever the apostle John was to the Christians in 1 John, this woman was to the Christians in 2 John!

2018-09-01T09:54:41-05:00

Last updated on: September 1, 2018 at 9:54 am   By

Source: Why Study Theology? Reflections for the evangelical charismatic church

1st September 2018 By Lucy Peppiatt, who teaches at Westminster Theological Centre and is the author of Unveiling Paul’s Women

A Charismatic Journey

I remember very clearly, in my 30’s, realizing that I wanted to study theology at degree level. I had no idea that it would end with me doing a PhD, leading a college, writing books, and teaching. It hadn’t been a “career move”! I thought I was studying theology so that I’d be a better co-pastor with my husband and because I loved it. I also thought then that these were good enough reasons for all that study and investment, and I still think they are.

I couldn’t fail to notice, however, that I was in a minority in my church circles. In fact, I didn’t personally know any other women (and knew only a handful of men) involved in our world of charismatic Christianity in the UK who were studying or had studied theology to PhD level. And the ones who had pursued higher degrees had done it as part of ministerial training. I was a layperson who didn’t really think I was being ‘trained.’ I was simply learning, and loving it.

Historically, evangelical charismatics have carried a suspicion of formal theological education. The fears were that you might become too critical, too jaded, too cynical, too cerebral to be fit for anything practical, or worst of all, lose your faith. Negative experiences of young people going off to study theology at university, only to be deconstructed and left in pieces, scared off the older generation all together and they warned young people not to pursue theology. Even I encountered this in my 30’s from some well-meaning advisors. Thankfully, the mood has shifted a bit, both in the university and in the church. I meet more and more Christians in the evangelical charismatic world who really don’t need to be persuaded that studying the Bible, Christian doctrine, and church history in an academic setting is a good thing! I also think that the academy has become more, not less, respectful of faith positions.

There’s still more work to be done though, in persuading Christians that study and learning should be a normal part of their discipleship and growth in the faith. I don’t really understand the resistance, but I still see it around me, so these are some of mine and others’ thoughts on why all Christians should study some theology.

Perspectives: a professor

I listened to an interview recently with D. Stephen Long (Professor of Ethics at Southern Methodist University), who began by saying that the main reason to study theology, the science of God, is because the study of theology is ‘a useless discipline.’ He goes on to explain what he means by that. He’s noticed over the years that, ‘If I need to give students a reason why that matters, then often those reasons become more important than the subject matter itself.’ The reason to study theology, the study of God, is to study God, and ‘Knowledge of God is an end in itself, it is not a means to something else. … As Augustine put it, “God is to be enjoyed, not used.”’

His second reason though is that the uselessness has a ‘use function.’ (Useless doesn’t mean pointless.) The contemplation of truth, beauty, and goodness is part of the essence of what makes us more human.

In addition to this, he notes that there’s always been an awareness in the church that faith drives us to seek wisdom, knowledge, and understanding. This has been mine and countless others’ experience. You can’t know God and not want to know him more. Charismatics are great at singing about it—“I wanna know you more…”—not so great at engaging with the multiple ways that God has given us to do it!

The way to know God more in order to love him more, is to learn more about him. Of course that means seeking him and his presence in prayer, worship, and contemplation, and asking the Spirit to reveal the mysteries of God to our hearts, but it also means applying our minds in ways that we apply them to learning any subject: learning the original languages of the Bible, reading books, researching meaning, listening to teachers who are more learned than we are, asking questions, etc. The two pursuits should go together, and when they do, there are so many reasons why this helps us to be better Christians and more effective disciples.

Perspectives: a student

Out of interest I asked a bunch of charismatic Christians in their 20’s who had either studied academic theology, or were in the process of studying, or were about to start studying, why they had chosen to do what they were doing. Here’s what they came up with – and this is in no particular order.

  1. It helps you to learn from others’ mistakes.
  2. It gives you the ability to speak more precisely and truthfully about God.
  3. It challenges your assumptions, which strengthens your ability to rebut sceptics/skeptics.
  4. It gives you an idea of what the non-negotiables of the Christian faith are.
  5. It keeps you from error and believing nonsense.
  6. It means you can study your own traditions and learn about where you fit in in church history.
  7. It gives you the opportunity to think about the pastoral implications of what you believe.
  8. The truth sets you free and studying good theology sets you free.
  9. It enables you to have an answer for the hope that’s within you.
  10. It shapes your character because what we believe defines us.
  11. It feeds your mind and your spirit.
  12. It gives you more confidence when people ask you questions about the Bible and your faith.
  13. The church has often abused its power. It’s important for all people to know what they believe and not leave it up to the leaders.
  14. You have a duty and obligation to study your faith.
  15. It’s arrogant to assume you know all there is to know already, or that it’s irrelevant to you, or that it might be at your fingertips should you want it.
  16. It takes discipline and work and that’s a good thing.
  17. It deepens our worship of God.
  18. It can be deeply moving and illuminating (someone remembered a story of a young man who just wept in response to understanding the implications of the incarnation).
  19. It gives you tools for further learning, you find out where to look for more information and who to turn to for answers.
  20. It is inspiring to know the stories and thinking of so many men and women through the ages who have known Jesus.
  21. It’s humbling to find that there’s so much to discover, to realize that you don’t know it all, and that no, you weren’t the first person to think that.

I think that was most of what they said. Clearly, these are the comments of young people who have been strengthened and equipped by their studies for mission and discipleship, not disempowered. They came up with loads more than I had first had in my little list. There are only two things I would add. In my experience, it helps you to know why you disagree with other Christians and so hopefully, to disagree better. And they implied this, but I want to spell it out—good theology leads you to love God and love your neighbour better.

Those are a lot of good reasons! I want to add another perspective and that is from my experience as both a theology student, now a teacher myself, and a pastor of young people.

Perspectives: a pastor

There is something that grows in Christians, which happened to me and I’ve seen in others, which is a hunger for depth and substance that can only be met by intentional and disciplined study. Of course you can read books on your own, but it’s not the same as being in a classroom, learning from someone who knows more than you, whose faith you respect, and whose character you admire. There is something compelling, in a world where the Christian faith is so often disparaged or dismissed, about a man or woman who has turned their impressive intellect into seeking God, studying the scriptures, turning over stones, considering other possibilities, and coming up with reasoned, intelligent, and biblically based answers for why you should put your whole trust in the person of Jesus Christ and your whole life into his hands.

Further to that, there’s a delight you experience when someone takes a Bible story and explains the background, or the meaning of a word that you wouldn’t have known otherwise, when they use their scholarship to bring the Bible to life. Or when someone shows you God in a different light that suddenly makes so much more sense to you because you feel maybe you knew it deep down but you couldn’t have articulated it. Or when someone tells you about a time in church history where you see exactly the same issues that you’re facing going around again and it helps you to work out what you think and how you should respond. Or when you hear a theologian’s comments on the society that you live in and you’re able to step out of your culture for a second for a better and more enlightened perspective. Or when you read the writings of a Church Father or Mother on the nature of God that becomes an outpouring of praise and worship and you feel that too. If you’re a Christian, it’s about bringing all the aspects of your life together with time to reflect and think about who God is, why we think and do what we do, and how that might affect the world. It’s the stuff of life.

I know that studying theology isn’t always like that. Some books/authors can be dull, pompous, obscure, irritating, and just plain wrong … but that is also half the fun of it! And I also know that if we had amazing teaching programmes in all our churches and all our conferences that we could maybe find those things there, but we all know that it’s not like that. There’s a more serious side to this conversation because the truth is that I was bored and frustrated in the charismatic church. I was bored of the talks that were just one story after another. I was tired of repetitive and me-centred worship. I was frustrated by simplistic answers that I knew weren’t well thought through and were going to be pastorally disastrous. I think I was in danger of mentally drifting off and becoming disengaged. Theology won me over and kept me in the centre of the church in a way that I needed.

One of my little group of 20’s said that he’d been warned off thinking too much on the grounds that if you engage your mind, you short-circuit the work of the Spirit. He joked that his church culture had taught that we’re transformed by the removal of our minds! We don’t want this. We don’t want a brain drain. We need to attract and to keep the curious, the questioners, the seekers, the hungry, the bored. We need to feed them, nurture them, and engage them. We need to realize that teenagers and young people need more than cool youth leaders and worship songs. They need depth and good answers to their questions. I hope that WTC will be part of a change in culture in the charismatic church where it will become the most natural thing in the world for Christians to be educated in their faith.

WTC

Why do people not study? There’s always the time and money thing, and I get that, but I think there are two bigger barriers. The barriers I see most are that theological study is seen as either intimidating or irrelevant—the stumbling blocks of the under- and over-confident!

We are doing everything we can at WTC to eliminate the stumbling blocks. We’ve created a place where it’s not intimidating, it’s not irrelevant, and where it is affordable and accessible. We’re trying to make sure that there are no more excuses, unless someone finds they are still too far from a Hub, and we’re working on that.

I love our students and the enormous variety of people that turn up. All of them are Christians wanting to strengthen their knowledge and understanding of their faith, but for very different reasons. The majority of our students are from almost any sphere of work you could think of: the health service, accountancy, caring, farming, business, the charity sector, etc. They generally say they ‘want to go deeper with God.’ Others want to study to enrich their ministries in the local church. Some are paid by the church, are church leaders, or are preparing for church leadership. Still others are in recovery from addiction or building a new life having served a prison sentence. It all makes for interesting discussion in the classroom!

These are mostly people who come just to study applied kingdom theology for life and work. But we’re also branching out in 2019 to begin two new vocational programmes in ‘Kingdom Theology and Student Ministry’ and ‘Kingdom Theology and Church Planting and Leadership.’ These are exciting new ventures and will offer more focused training.

I’ve already said that I really don’t understand why someone wouldn’t want to study theology, but I hope that this post will help those who are wondering why you would, what you’d get out of it, and if it’s for them. I hope in a small way I’ve described why studying and teaching theology, the science of God, is challenging, exciting, and endlessly fascinating.

 

2018-08-09T15:36:11-05:00

Last updated on: August 9, 2018 at 3:36 pm   By

By Mike Glenn

The End is Coming

One of the saddest pictures of the Bible is Moses standing on the top of the mountain looking out across the valley and realizing he’ll never cross the river and walk into the Promised Land. After all of the confrontations with Pharaoh, the years of wandering in the wilderness, all of the ups and downs of trying to lead the Israelites – now Moses had gotten them to the front door of the Promised Land and he can’t get in.

I know Moses had messed up and God punished him by not allowing Moses to get into the Promised Land. Yes, Moses had thrown down the tablet containing the Ten Commandments. Yes, Moses had struck the rock with his staff instead of speaking to it as God had commanded, but even with that, the punishment seems to be a little heavy…to me anyway. After all, Moses had put up with a lot and it seems to me that God would have cut him a little slack, but we’ll have to talk more about that at another time.

Here’s why I’ve been meditating on that passage. For some reason, few leaders finish well. Men and women who have changed the world end up crossing some line that discredits, even destroys, everything they’ve worked for. The news has been filled with all kinds of stories – both in the business and church worlds – with leaders who at one time were at the top of their game and now…well, now no one will return their phone calls.

Ending well is important to me. I’m 61 years old. I’ve been at Brentwood Baptist Church for 27 years, and I know I won’t be able to stay here forever. Things change. Life moves on, and in time, the church will need a different kind of leader. Like Moses, I may be able to see the future for my church, but I won’t be the one to get them there. So, how can I make sure, as in a relay race, I make a good pass of the baton?

Stephen Covey, in his book The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, writes that we should begin with the end in mind. That is, we should know what success looks like for our project before we begin. Funny thing is, I could have never pictured by ministry looking like it has. There have been too many things happen that no one could have predicted in 1981 when I graduated from seminary. If anyone had told me I would have to develop the skill to preach the gospel in 140 (now 280) characters or less, I wouldn’t have known what they were talking about. None of us would. Social media is a very young technology.

I do think, however, that we do need to work with the end in mind in this way. Our ministry will end. Someday, for reasons we choose or someone else chooses for us, we won’t be able to do the ministry we see needs to be done. Our health will fail. Our skills will diminish and our ministry will be over. So, first of all, work hard today. Don’t come to the end of your ministry and try to make up for lost opportunities. And second, know this moment is coming and plan accordingly.

How? First, by training leaders who can carry the church to its next level of success. Moses identified Joshua. Paul trained Titus and Timothy. Jesus trained the twelve, but especially Peter, James and John. While you may not know everything about future ministry, there are several skills that have proven to be timeless. The spiritual disciplines, pastoral care and making disciples are aspects of a successful ministry that haven’t changed in the last 2000 years. They won’t change in the next 2000 years either.

Second, create capacity in your church for the future. Here’s what I mean by that. Every church has ministries and organizations that have long outlived their purpose. They don’t hurt anything, but they do take up time and energy.   So, before you go, shut them down or put a sunset clause in their future. Tell them, as lovingly as you can, their ministry will not be resourced either with money or energy in the days ahead. Ecclesiastes is right. There’s a time to be born and a time to die and, bless their hearts, there are some things that need to die. Let them.

And lastly, shoot some alligators on your way out. All of us know the joke that it’s hard to remember you were sent to drain the swamp when you’re up to your waist in alligators.

Every job has its aggravations. Most of the time, we learn to live with our “loyal opposition” and systemic limitations. Most seasoned leaders, especially pastors, have developed a type of political savvy of knowing how to work the existing system to achieve the desired goals.

The process of maneuvering through the existing system and well-travelled mine fields takes an enormous amount of time and energy. Not only that, cultural changes are happening so fast no organization or church has the luxury to waste time doing things that don’t move the church or organization to achieve missional goals.

So, you know what the problems are, solve them. Deal with the personnel issues. Restructure the organizational chart to address the changing realities of the future. Put together a financial plan to insure the church’s success in the future.

Sure, these are going to be hard decisions that will be tough to get through, but the reason no one deals with them is they’re afraid they’ll be fired. You’re leaving anyway. What do you care? Take out a few alligators so the leader who follows you can get on with it.

And lastly, leave. If you stay, you’ll take up all of the oxygen in the room and no one else will be able to breath, much less thrive.

The end comes for us all. That’s a hard truth. Don’t let it surprise you when it does.

 

 

2018-08-12T20:45:17-05:00

Last updated on: August 12, 2018 at 8:45 pm   By

With the candid and courageous account of Pat Baranowski in the NYTimes, the previous courageous stories of Vonda Dyer, Nancy Beach, Nancy Ortberg, Julia Williams, and Moe Girkins (and others) are now undeniable. Willow is now at a crossroad.

These women represent the hundreds of noble Christians filled with goodness. They have served and toiled for the sake of the gospel through Willow. They are the ones who have made Willow what Willow is. They are the ones who gave up other jobs to join the ministry. They are the ones praying and reading the Bible and attending small groups and supporting the many ministries of this amazing church.

But that congregation of goodness has been violated by the actions of the leaders.

The Basics

More than four years ago the Elders at Willow Creek Community Church were notified of accusations. The WCA, which runs the Global Leadership Summit, was also informed and it did not act. There were some Willow “investigations” but they concluded there was nothing against Bill Hybels. The truth of the women’s stories were therefore silenced and some of them were gaslighted. Some were publicly humiliated by what Willow’s leaders said about them. Instead of an honest investigation where stories were heard, the women were driven to go public in public media, like Chicago Tribune and Christianity Today. The former pastor and Willow’s leaders denied the truthfulness of the womens’ stories and told an alternative narrative: the women were liars.

Then some cracks in the Willow narrative suddenly appeared: “not all the women were lying.” That was an open door to wonder if perhaps the former pastor was the one who was lying, and that accepting his narrative Willow’s leadership was suddenly drawn into the same lying. What did “not all the women were lying” actually mean? We heard from Heather that she did not “always think all the women were lying.” Well, I asked myself immediately, why then did she defend that Willow narrative so vehemently in the family meeting? Was she misleading us then or now?

Cracks appeared, cracks that went unexplained. But we saw them.

Then Steve Carter broke ice and apologized to the women as well for his complicity in that narrative. Heather Larson hitched on to Steve’s apology but softened the apology, and then the Elders spoke of entering into areas of sin. A deeper crack, perhaps?

The issues of this period were basically Who’s telling the truth?

Pat Baranowski

Sunday the NYTimes told a new story. It ended the Who’s telling the truth? discussion. Willow’s “the women are liars” narrative can no longer hold. The women told the truth. The narrative was the lie.

I weep for Pat Baranowski, for the life she has experienced as we weep for the women who have been sexually harrassed and abused by Willow’s pastor and shoved around and threatened by the process of trying to silence them. The story in the NYTimes is a tragedy, and it is beyond sad that a church leader and the church could do such things while accomplishing so many great things.

What is connected to this story is a history of mismanagement, powermongering, threatening, and offering money for silence (NDA: non disclosure agreements). In seminaries in the years ahead these themes will become central to church leadership discussions.

Willow will never be the old Willow. It can become a different Willow, but it will never be the same.

The Time is Up

Willow Creek’s leaders can no longer be in denial even if its former megapastor remains in denial. The grooming, the praising, the indulging, the turning-against, the gaslighting, and then throwing them under the bus are characteristic of these stories.

The women told the truth. The former pastor called them all liars. Willow’s leaders supported the narrative of liars. That story is no longer credible.

The leaders are complicit. The leaders — Heather Larson, elders, etc — supported that narrative and maligned the women. They, both WCCC/Elders and WCA,  refused an independent investigation. They chose not to be transparent.

Their time is up.

What I mean is that those who created and sustained and continued that narrative — a narrative that both denied the truth of the women’s stories and the pastor’s sexual inappropriateness — forfeited their ability to lead Willow Creek Community Church and Willow Creek Association. Their time is up.

It is time to form an independent council of wisdom — leaders chosen by wise, non-Willow evangelical leaders — that can pastor what’s left of WCCC and the WCA, to investigate the governance of Willow and how it was able to be so thoroughly wrong, to work out a new governance and find new leaders.

The present leadership — from Heather Larson to the elders to the Human Resources and beyond — cannot lead Willow forward. They have failed miserably for four years.

And what about the area pastors? Where do they stand?

But with their time up, there is an opportunity for the time to be now.

The Time is Now

The time is now to be guided by this independent council of wisdom to tell the truth about Bill, to tell the truth about the women and Bill’s inappropriate, sexual relations, to tell the truth about governance that protected Bill’s reputation rather than Willow’s congregation, to tell the truth about bullying by the leaders through the Human Resources and buying silence through NDA (non disclosure agreements that amount to hush money), to tell the truth about how the WCA’s Board was told by the three who resigned when the WCA refused to investigate Bill Hybels, and to tell the truth about the need for an independent investigation. The investigators cannot choose those who have to be investigated. An independent leadership council must do the choosing. Willow must be willing to listen to the council.  It is also time to tell the truth, in spite of what has been said by leaders after his resignation, about Bill’s continued contact with leaders at Willow to shape decisions.

It is time now to find the truth, to be transparent, to investigate the governance, and to tell that truth honestly.

The women told the truth. The Willow narrative is a false and deceptive narrative.

Why was it so easy for the journalists at Chicago Tribune and Christianity Today to find stories from women but Willow’s so-called investigation turned up nothing?

The time is now. Willow, your time is now. Time to find the truth, tell the truth, and live into that truth.

There is no forward til the truth is found and embraced. There is no forward until the Vonda Dyers and Pat Baranowskis are believed.

Who within Willow Creek Community Church or within the Willow Creek Association will have the courage to work for that truth?

Why now?

Because of truth. Because of the gospel. Because of the grace of God.

Because of the women who have been wrongly maligned, unjustly accused, and publicly wounded.

Because of the structures that have been established that led to the protection of a leader rather than compassion for the women and care of the congregation.

Why now?

Because of Willow Creek’s hundreds of ministry workers; because of the faithfulness of Willow Creek’s congregation. That’s why: hundreds have given up other jobs to work for less at Willow; hundreds are now doing the noble work of evangelism, compassion, ministry and it goes on and on. Thousands have given buckets of money to support the many wonderful ministries of Willow. They have made Willow what Willow is. The goodness of Willow can remain and create a new future for Willow.

That time is now.

 

2018-07-03T15:22:34-05:00

Last updated on: July 3, 2018 at 3:22 pm   By

By Andy Rowell, posted with permission.

Open Letter to Willow Creek Association Board and Tom De Vries

July 03, 2018

Dear Tom De Vries and the Willow Creek Association Board,

I’m a ministry leadership professor at Bethel Seminary in St. Paul, Minnesota and I attended the Global Leadership Summit last year. Bill Hybels was one of my heroes.
I am concerned about the latest article in the Daily Herald about the GLS and about the May 17 public statement by the WCA.
Benjamin Ady reports that as of June 8th he had heard that 205 of 700 North America sites (29%) have pulled out of hosting the GLS including Christ Church of Oak Brook and Eagle Brook Community Church.
Therefore, it was hard for me to imagine the statement in the Daily Herald article today was truthful about the same number of attendees being expected this year. But then I looked at the exact quote and I see that it could be weasel words. “the number of registered attendees both for South Barrington and around the world is right on track with previous years, De Vries said.” Possible translation: Attendance is way down in US and Canada BUT the home site and other international sites are expecting stable attendance.
The article did not note that the WCA Board has put out a statement about the issue:
It seems to me that this statement is rather weak and leaves room for a comeback for Bill Hybels and does not take any responsibility for holding him accountable or looking further into these issues. It is hard to understand what a board is for if they abdicate these responsibilities.
Furthermore, the WCA Board has been avoiding responsibility since 2015 when three members resigned because of a failure to look into these issues.
See these comments from Nancy Ortberg about being on the WCA Board.

Months later, at a meeting with certain Elders and Willow Creek Association Board members, Bill was asked about these women. Bill characterized both of them as “having drinking problems,” being “unstable” and “stalking his family.” I was the only person on either Board who knew the identities of both women, and I knew they were smart, kind, and diligent leaders.

At this same meeting, Bill was asked about his “special arrangement with I.T.,” where his emails are permanently deleted on a frequent and regular basis. During that meeting, an Elder told a WCA Board member that Willow Creek had “no document retention policy.”  This was the first time either Board had heard about this arrangement, but both of these women told us separately that Bill had told them about this “special arrangement” years prior.

Bill also admitted that the woman alleging an affair had spent many nights at the Hybels’ home when Lynne was out of town.

In July 2014 I told the Elders about the story from 2006. They had not been aware of it and did not ask a single question, nor ask for the woman’s name until I brought it up again three months later.

In addition to everything we were learning, I and others on the Board of the Willow Creek Association grew deeply alarmed at Bill being allowed to continue in a counseling relationship with this woman who was suicidal, as well as the slipshod nature of the investigation and the overall lack of accountability in the Willow Creek culture.

Then see this section of an article from the original article about the allegations against Hybels: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-met-willow-creek-pastor-20171220-story,amp.html

For Ortberg and two other board members, the decision was the last straw.

Ortberg, along with Jon Wallace, president of Azusa Pacific University, and Kara Powell, executive director of a research center at Fuller Theological Seminary, resigned from the association board in January 2015, later citing what they deemed an inadequate review.

“It is our firm belief that leaders should be open to examination of and accountability for our actions,” Wallace and Powell said in a joint statement provided to the Tribune earlier this month.

Ortberg told the Tribune that the board’s decision not to pursue another inquiry was, in her opinion, a “complete abdication of fiduciary responsibility,” and left the board vulnerable to litigation if the allegations were proved true.

Soon after, there was more fallout from the board’s decision. Compassion International chose not to renew a long-standing sponsorship of the Willow Creek Association’s Global Leadership Summit.

“The decision was made, in part, as a result of Compassion’s concerns over WCA’s process for reviewing complaints regarding Willow Creek Community Church senior leadership,” the organization said in a statement.

You can see my summary of the events and a few comments at:
It seems to me as well that there should be a public list of who are the Board members of the WCA so they can be held accountable for their role in this. It seems odd, secretive, and inappropriate that there is not a list on the WCA website.
I have nothing against the Global Leadership Summit–I love it actually–but I am troubled by Tom De Vries and Dick DeVos and whoever else from the Willow Creek Board made the May 17 statement and then also De Vries’s comments in this article. It perpetuates the culture of secrecy and lack of accountability and half-truths that got Willow Creek Community Church and the Willow Creek Association into this situation. The Willow Creek Community Church elders and pastors have begun to sharply reverse course and admit Hybels and the church Board and pastors were in the wrong–not the women and the reporters telling the truth, and it is time for the WCA to do the same. Someday conceivably Bill Hybels could make some sort of return to something but how will you and the 400,000 GLS attenders know whether that is appropriate unless you all have had an independent credible investigation look into what happened and how both the Willow Creek Community Church elders and the Willow Creek Association failed to stop it and give recommendations going forward? Demonstrate your leadership competence and integrity by paying for an outside investigation and then giving up all control over what they look into, who they talk to, and the nature of their public final report. Please be different than many organizations that hire a public relations firm to put the best face on things and then hope people move on to focusing on other things. If other pastors are any indication, Bill Hybels will reappear soon and the outcry and sense of cynicism and anger toward leadership and Christians will bloom again. Take this seriously now. It is not going away. Many sites have pulled out this year because it is unappetizing to receive leadership training from a group that is downplaying the misconduct of its leader with half-truths. The Global Leadership Summit will never recover its credibility and thus also its ability to do its mission unless the WCA Board addresses the abuse of leadership power by its founder and its failure to listen to those who were concerned including the resignation of three board members in 2015.
Sincerely,
Andy Rowell
2018-06-28T05:25:31-05:00

Last updated on: June 28, 2018 at 5:25 am   By

I’ve been asked by at least fifty different people, both in person and via the Internet, what I think about what happened at Willow Creek Community Church. Which means I’m asked “Scot, you were part of the church for almost a decade, so what do you think happened?” What I think can be reduced to this simple assertion: Willow Creek Community Church, including Bill Hybels, the Elders, and now lead pastor Heather Larson and lead teaching pastor Steve Carter, have forced me to choose between one of two narratives. Either the Narrative of Willow or the Narrative of the Women.

What follows is what I have learned, mostly through news reports but not solely based on news reports, and why I have decided as I have.

Why write about this? Because I believe a profound injustice has been done, and because I thought it would be resolved by now. It has not been so I want to engage the conversation. I am aware that Willow Creek hired Crossroads Resolution Group, but hiring Crossroads is not a resolution.

Reports Phase

When Kris and I, sitting in our pleasant place, the back room, saw at almost the same moment that the Chicago Tribune published an article on Bill Hybels and Willow Creek and that it concerned serious allegations, we both went silent and began to read the article. At the bottom of this story is that a woman confessed to Leanne Mellado that she had a fourteen-year affair with Bill Hybels. That woman eventually recanted her confession but the Mellados and Ortbergs knew there was more than this recanted confession and they pursued it with the leaders at Willow Creek. Other stories have since come to light. The women who have told their stories are to be honored for their courage. To speak into the powers of a place like Willow requires more courage than most have.

The Chicago Tribune article is where I want to begin. There were two principal stories: one about Nancy Beach, whom I know, and the other about Vonda Dyer, whom I don’t know but I do know about her devout Christian character from people I trust. I knew enough of the two that the stories seemed credible. When the article then found support of Beach’s and Dyer’s allegations of sexual improprieties — support that came from the Ortbergs as well as the Mellados, who have been onto this story since its beginning, I knew Willow had more than a challenge. Willow had a very serious problem.

Kris and I began to discuss it and then I said “My guess is that three things will happen soon.” First, Hybels and Willow would deny the accusations. Second, more stories would likely to come to the surface. Third, Hybels and Willow would admit improprieties and Willow would have a huge challenge on how to support as well as either defend or discipline their incomparable founder and pastor.

I also said my biggest fear was that Willow’s leadership and Hybels would handle it in the worst possible way and make life difficult for Willow Creek Community Church, for the women, and for all of us. They did what I feared most: they came out strong arming, they came out swinging and gaslighting the women, and Hybels and Heather Larson and the Elders publicly accused the women – all of them – of lying and then that they were all colluding to tarnish Bill Hybels’ reputation before his retirement. Here’s why this was a fear: if Hybels says it is all lies and if the pastors and the Elders agree to that narrative or at least institutionally support that narrative, then if that narrative proves to be inaccurate, Willow has more than a problem. Willow’s integrity is at stake. Willow’s vaunted place of being a church focused on leadership is at stake.

There is a common narrative told when sexual allegations are lodged against a Christian leader: accusations are made, strong denials by the leader and his elders/board, the leader and church create an alternative narrative of what really happened, more accusations come to light, more denials, more accusations, and then reconsiderations by church leaders and sometimes, but not always, confession, repentance and restoration to leadership of the leader. We’ve seen this often enough that it is now a predictable narrative.

Willow Creek’s leadership chose what I said immediately was an egregiously unwise decision: it chose to narrate the allegations as lies, the women as liars, and the witnesses to the women as colluders. Alongside that accusing narrative chosen by Willow Creek’s leadership ran another narrative: Bill Hybels was innocent, the work of God at Willow Creek will continue, and we’ll get through this. They called this difficult challenge a “season.” This combined narrative of accusing-the-women and defending-Bill is both a narrative and a strategy.

Decision

When allegations arise and when churches accuse the accusers, one and only one thing happens: the audience – those of us who are not involved directly – has to decide who is the more credible. Two, three, then seven, and now nine women making accusations, many with a discernible pattern, and another (or more) claiming an affair who has recanted her story and the church has accepted the recantation … when this many come forward the audience is forced to decide: Believe the narrative of Willow’s leadership or believe the narrative of the women?

It was foolish on Willow’s part to create this narrative. This is the fault of the Elders, the dual head pastors, and their advisors. The narrative they chose mattered and still matters. Here’s why: Nancy Beach, Vonda Dyer, the Ortbergs, Mellados and Betty Schmidt are not only credible people but they are deeply loved at Willow. Thinking of them as liars in collusion to tarnish Hybels’ reputation before he retired is beyond nonsense, and whoever colluded to create the narrative is unwise. It sickened me to see Willow’s leadership turn against these credible leaders. I believe an apology is due to all those maligned by what Willow’s various leaders have said about the women and those they claim colluded.

Wisdom

There are also some features of Willow leadership’s narrative that call into question the wisdom of the pastors and Elders, and I don’t know how to say this other than “call into question the wisdom.” I question their wisdom for the following reasons:

First, it took three or four years of patient persistence by the Ortbergs and Mellados before they tired of Willow Creek leadership’s failure to perceive and investigate the realities. Their decision to go public was not rash; it was not done without attempting to do what was right; Willow chose a path that led to the decisions to gaslight the women.

This leads to a brief response to Willow Creek’s leaders asking people not to go public and contending that going public is “unbiblical.” Yes, and No. Yes, one should go to the person one-on-one when that is possible; in this case the women will have to make that decision. Many, if not most, of the women who know they have been sexually violated will not meet with the perpetrator privately; nor should they be asked to or told to. Then, Yes, keep it with the church as much as possible. The Ortbergs and Mellados did that very thing, and they did this for four years.

Is it biblical then to go public? The Bible’s language for this, and it is all over the Bible, is prophetic action. At times one has to go public, has to announce things public, has to speak the truth to the powers because the powers won’t listen. Prophetic action is profoundly biblical; it has been the agent of truth-telling, repentance, and restoration time and time again in the history of the Bible and the history of the church. Prophetic action should never be the first thing someone does; and in this case the Ortbergs and Mellados very biblically waited and waited and waited before they went public. When interpersonal and behind-closed-doors in the church options are worn out and not finding the truth, then public, prophetic action is both warranted and biblical.

(I will say more about “biblical” and “unbiblical” near the end of this piece.)

Second, there is the incredible admission by Bill that a woman spent nights at his home when Lynne was out of town. This admission seems to have met with no resistance, no decision to prohibit such an unwise action, and no follow up on the decision. How can the pastors and Elders have known this and not done something? What kind of moral leadership is this? What does it mean to have an Elder-led church? Maybe action was taken, but I am unaware of it. Did the Elders respond to this and what was the outcome?

Third, Willow’s Elders evidently saw nothing wrong with Bill counseling a woman who (1) was labeled “suicidal” and (2) who had made allegations of an affair — in his home alone. The issue is the impropriety of a woman being with Bill alone in his home.

Fourth, the pastors, and again I mean Heather and Steve, and the Elders continue to claim the investigation was independent when it wasn’t: a company known in Chicago for making issues go away and problems to disappear was hired and a company that admits some if not all of the principal accusers did not participate in the investigation. What kind of investigation is it if the principal accusers don’t participate? What kind of investigation is it if it is not a third party, objective investigation? It’s not an investigation into the pertinent facts. The Elders continue to contend there was no finding as if “no finding” by an incomplete investigation is a “finding.” Wrong, the only reasonable report is “to the degree that we had participation, and we didn’t have participation from the accusers, we found no fault in Bill Hybels.” That’s more accurate. To continue to tell the public the investigation found no fault is a manipulation of reality.

Fifth, Willow’s Elders continue to push their narrative even if it has minor softening moments: they then announced they wanted to hear from the women. They also wanted people to cease going public and using social media and instead to come to them because, they want us to believe, they are trustworthy. That Willow’s Elders don’t see the problem in thinking they are trustworthy after the above is asking to rewrite history. Their attempt to contact the women has been revealed to be a thin deception. Some of the women have described these “contacts” (Dyer, Ortberg, Beach) and they also knew that the conciliation group had previously dismissed power abuse accusations against Hybels.

Sixth, Willow’s Elders have now said not all the women are lying. This creates a powerful undercutting of Willow’s own narrative. Not all the women are lying, it is said. That means some are telling the truth. Which ones? Which stories? Which means Bill is not telling the truth some of the time. Which then becomes false accusations by Willow’s leaders against the women. Which means Willow’s pastors and Elders must apologize for slandering the women, and they must apologize to those who supported the women (Ortbergs, Mellados, and Betty Schmidt).

What Do I Think?

Willow Creek’s leadership should have chosen to seek the truth at all costs, patiently listened to the stories of each woman in a safe environment, asked the congregation to await its findings, and only then gone public. But Willow’s leadership chose early on not to proceed in this way and seems intent on getting this story behind them as quickly as possible. What they most needed and what they still need is a genuinely independent investigation.

I believe the women.

This is what it all looks like to me: Willow’s strategy has not been an impartial investigation but an attempt to accuse the women, to wear them down over time, to soft-pedal around issues by slight shifts in the narrative, and at all costs to avoid admitting the women were telling the truth. Perhaps I’m wrong but I can only go on what I can find to be credible witness.

What Does the Bible Say?

Willow’s Elders and leaders misused the Bible to push against the approach of the Ortbergs and Mellados and the public airing of their stories by the women. It began with Matthew 18, and the claim was that the women should meet with Bill privately according to Scripture. This is profoundly mistaken as neither abused women nor those accusing a man should ever be asked to meet with the man alone. They also appealed to 1 Timothy 5:19 that a church should never accept an accusation against an Elder unless there are two or three witnesses. Wow, using this text, if one thinks about it carefully, could be needlessly harsh: (1) it means no one-on-one sin unseen by anyone else could ever be lodged against an Elder/pastor; furthermore, (2) “two or three” comes from the Mosaic Law and (3) the Mosaic Law itself shows this is a misuse of 1 Timothy 5. The Law itself did not always required two or three witnesses. The singular text is Deuteronomy 22:25-27, which I will quote so it is clear:

Deut. 22:25   But if the man meets the engaged woman in the open country, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. 26 You shall do nothing to the young woman; the young woman has not committed an offense punishable by death, because this case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor. 27 Since he found her in the open country, the engaged woman may have cried for help, but there was no one to rescue her.

This text is about as close to the Hybels vs. the Women case as the Bible has, and I have seen nothing from Willow indicating this text has been considered. What does it say? First, it is one-on-one between a man and a woman, and two or three witnesses are not needed, and they are not needed in the very set of laws of Moses that often speak of two or three witnesses. Second, this act of sexual violence against a woman becomes known because the woman made an accusation. Third, the Law of Moses clearly favors the story of the woman though there are none to confirm her story. One woman’s accusations against one man are always hard to evaluate, but it is not hard to evaluate when the woman’s accusations sound like the accusations of other women against the same man. The “cry for help” is now being heard in the stories of nine women about Bill Hybels’ abuse of power and sexual misconduct spanning decades.

Furthermore, backing up to the need for two or three witnesses in 1 Timothy 5:19, the stories of the women to the degree they mesh in details become two or three (or more) witnesses. Instead of dismissing them, Willow must instead honor their word on the basis of two or three witnesses.

As mentioned above, I wanted to say something else about being biblical or unbiblical. Let us suppose, that it was unbiblical for the principal persons to go public and to have remained at the interpersonal or church level. Let us, just for the argument, say they were unbiblical. Even if they were acts deemed unbiblical, that doesn’t mean the “case” can be dismissed. One gets the impression that this counter-to-the-accusers argument is a diversion as much as it is an accusation that the accusers were acting contrary to the Bible. Nor does this supposition about being unbiblical mean the women are liars or that Bill Hybels is therefore innocent. The acts themselves are independent realities whether Willow’s preferred process was followed or not. Willow must deal with what happened.

Conclusion

My aim is not to act like I know all that happened. I do not. I believe the women on the basis of what I have learned. I am, as I said at the outset, often asked about the Willow situation and I have done my best to discern the facts. What I do know is this: Bill Hybels and Willow Creek’s leadership have undone forty years of trust for many. A church that has stood valiantly for women in ministry, that has always stood for Christian grace and truth and forgiveness for repenters, that has supported #metoo in various places, that then responds to women as they did to these women unravels the thread Willow has woven for four decades. Many of us are asking why Bill Hybels and Willow Creek’s pastors and Elders slandered the women, calling them liars and colluders, and still refuse to offer them apologies. Willow is being undone as we watch, and the pastors and Elders are at the center of the unraveling.

2018-06-05T19:52:44-05:00

Last updated on: June 5, 2018 at 7:52 pm   By

photo-1447619297994-b829cc1ab44a_optBy Tim Krueger

Tim Krueger is the editor of Mutuality magazine
and is publications coordinator at CBE International.
He was raised in the Philippines and studied history
and Bible at Bethel University (MN).
He and his wife, Naomi, have a son and live in Saint Paul, MN.

In April of 2017, the hashtag #ThingsOnlyChristianWomenHear went viral on Twitter.

Thousands of women took to social media to share painful things they’d been told by other Christians. One woman shared this:

“Sure, women are equal to men, but I still believe they’re different.”

Most, if not all, egalitarians have heard this before. Critics consistently accuse us of trying to erase gender differences. I’m almost surprised when someone doesn’t assume that because I’m egalitarian I think men and women are exactly the same.

If you’ve never read this book, it’s time.
Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without Hierarchy
ed. by Pierce, Groothuis, Fee

You don’t have to look farther than the Christian blogosphere for the logic behind this myth. At least among American Christians, the same argument appears over and over: Feminism pulled the thread that is unraveling the moral fabric of society. Power-hungry women wanted what men had, so they stepped into men’s spheres. The culture jumped on board, and now our society sees men as worthless, so much that men are trying to become women. Because of feminism, our God-given gender has become meaningless, expendable. Feminism is ultimately a rebellion against God’s created order, which is for our flourishing. Egalitarians are just Christians who have fallen into the feminist trap. They are complicit in erasing gender and undermining a biblical worldview.

I won’t dive into the faults in this reasoning (and there are many) here. Instead, I will try to offer a straight answer to the question, what do egalitarians think about gender differences?

We egalitarians are a critical and free-thinking lot, and we have our differences. I can only honestly say what this egalitarian believes, but I do think most would agree with these five points.

1. Equality is not sameness

First, let’s define “equality.” Where better to start than the dictionary? Merriam-Webster lists several definitions of “equal.” If, like most people, you read “Merriam-Webster defines…” and tune out, stay with me. Definitions matter. How we understand “equality” relates to how we understand gender differences. The primary definition has three parts:

a (1): of the same measure, quantity, amount, or number as another (2): identical in mathematical value or logical denotation: equivalent

b: like in quality, nature, or status

c: like for each member of a group, class, or society

Can equal mean identical? Yes, if we’re talking about math, but we’re not. What if we’re talking about the way God created women and men to coexist?

Let’s try definition b: like in quality, nature, or status. That sounds more like it. Women and men are alike in their quality and their nature. Both bear the image of God. Both are fully human. Both have the same status before God. On this, complementarians and egalitarians agree! (In this, we both break with church tradition.)

We disagree on the implications. Complementarians believe the Bible outlines a gender-based hierarchy that forbids a woman holding authority over a man. Egalitarians believe the Bible demands equal treatment of women and men in relationships and institutions. That is, in the sense of definition c: like for each member of a group, class, or society.

So, egalitarians believe the Bible promotes two senses of equality: equality of nature and equality of opportunity. Neither requires or even hints that women and men are or should be identical.

Egalitarians don’t deny difference, we deny that difference is destiny.

2. There are differences, on average

There are clear differences between male and female. Different DNA. Different genitalia and reproductive systems. Other differences are obvious but less universal. Males are generally taller with more muscle strength. Females are generally shorter with less muscle strength. But, these are only averages. Not in a million tries would I defeat a female athlete—professional, collegiate, or probably high school—in any feat of strength or athleticism.

When it comes to how women and men think and behave, things get fuzzier. Popular wisdom dictates such things as:

Men are more competitive and rational, and less emotional, than women.

Women are more cooperative, nurturing, and emotional than men.

Researchers do observe differences between men and women. However, it’s impossible to know whether they are innate or simply learned. Importantly, there’s more variability within sexes than between them.1 Differences exist on average, but any one person is unlikely to mirror the average. That matters.

I live in Minnesota, where the weather is erratic. “Today, we’re twenty degrees above/below average!” our meteorologists declare self-importantly. “So what?” I complain to my TV. Here, it can be forty degrees one day and eighty the next. Average them, and you get sixty, but that doesn’t help me. If I dressed for sixty degrees both days, I’d be too cold one day, too hot the next. The average does nothing to help me wear the right clothes.

Fixating on average gender differences is similarly unhelpful. It tells us nothing about the actual people in our lives. When we idealize the average, it goes from unhelpful to harmful. We dress the body of Christ for average, not actual, weather. We stifle each other’s unique gifts. We elevate a statistical, composite average “person” over the actual people that God created, gifted, and called.

Jesus ignored what tax collectors, zealots, prostitutes, Samaritans, centurions, the rich, the poor, men, and women were “supposed” to be. Instead he invited them to something greater. We obey God when we do the same.

3. Gender difference does not require gender roles

The truth is, this isn’t a question of sex or gender differences at all. Complementarians know that even the secular community recognizes differences. One complementarian leader writes:

Non-Christian scientists have recognized the bodily differences of the sexes. Anne and Bill Moir, for example, note that men have on average ten times more testosterone than women. Studies show that women use a vocabulary that is different enough from men’s to be “statistically significant.” We are distinct emotionally, too. The Scripture gives voice to this reality when it calls godly husbands to treat their wives as the “weaker vessel” and challenges fathers to not “provoke” their children (1 Peter 3:7; Colossians 3:19). These and other patterns constitute the markers of our manhood and womanhood. Our differences, as is clear, are considerable. They are also God given.2

Did you catch the last part? Observable differences are only symptoms of what really matters: manhood and womanhood. These are defined by so-called “roles” (men lead and provide; women submit and nurture). The symptom (differences) and condition (roles) are inextricably linked. To unlink them is to rebel against God’s design. This explains the alarm when egalitarians say gender roles are invalid.

But there is no cause for alarm. We acknowledge that differences exist, but we don’t believe they’re linked to God-ordained “roles.” This isn’t because we want to undermine God’s way. We honestly don’t believe “roles” are God’s design, and we want to be faithful to God and the Bible.

4. Gender roles aren’t the Bible’s (or God’s) way

If you’re an American evangelical, you’ve probably heard about biblical manhood and womanhood. It’s in sermons, blog posts, articles, podcasts, books, Bible studies, curricula, movies, music. Just about everywhere. Everywhere except the Bible, that is.

Sure, there are the favorite passages that supposedly teach God-ordained gender roles. Ephesians 5, 1 Timothy 2, Genesis 1–3, 1 Peter 2:1. The list goes on. We’re told that gender equality is a secular idea. Complementarianism is the Bible’s clear stance. Case closed.

Not so fast.

First, the passages in question are not simple. There’s no need for me to break down all the controversial passages here. Plenty of others have done it far better than I could. I will only say that when we consider literary and cultural context of the passages, translation issues, and the work of Jesus, a different picture emerges. A lot of these passages actually make a strong case for the full inclusion of women. The few restrictions are revealed as conditional, never meant for all churches or Christians for all time.

Second, it’s absurd to suggest that egalitarianism is tainted by culture, while complementarianism is straight from the Bible. Both are influenced by culture. Culture always interacts with the Bible and vice versa. No one views the Bible without a cultural lens.

The defining belief of complementarianism is that women and men are equal in worth but different in role. Despite what we’re told, this is not traditional at all. The “equal in worth” part is a flashy new idea like human rights and democracy. Until recently, the church taught that women were innately inferior to men. Even today, many people around the world believe the Bible clearly says that only men are created in God’s image, while women are created in man’s image. To most people in the world and in history, complementarianism would be a concession to Western, post-Enlightenment culture.

Are egalitarians influenced by our culture? Yes. Are complementarians? Yes. Culture always impacts how we read the Bible. We both take the Bible very seriously. We both work to make sure our cultures sharpen, rather than dull, our understanding. From creation through Jesus’ ministry and beyond, the biblical account is of a God who always calls his people to give up privilege and authority over others. The Bible undermines patriarchy and calls us to a better way.

5. Humanity before gender

When I’m asked to share marriage advice, I always make sure to say this: remember that your spouse is human before he/she is a man/woman.

Too many men dismiss the ideas, wisdom, needs, experiences, and feelings of women because they see gender before humanity. I have done it myself. When I write off my wife’s sadness or joy as her just “being a woman,” I don’t see the full humanity of the person I married. I prevent myself from learning from her, being inspired by her, loving God more because of her.

Awhile back I cracked open a Christian book on gender. It said:

At the core of who we are, we are gendered. Femininity or masculinity is so irrevocably and irreversibly embedded in our being that no one can accurately say “I am first a person and then male or female.” With the privileged excitement of destiny, we must rather say, “I am a male person, a man,” or “I am a female person, a woman.” Our soul’s center is alive with either masculinity or femininity.3

Yes, sex and gender are important. But first, we are human. Yes, there are differences between men and women, but first, we are human. Let’s stop idealizing differences and remember our shared humanity.

We are all tainted by sin and redeemed by grace. We serve the God whose Word celebrates women who broke all the rules—judges, prophets, warriors, queens. We follow the same Jesus who welcomed female disciples and praised women’s understanding and faith. We are empowered by the same Spirit that descended on women and men alike. The same Spirit that inspired the leadership of women like Lydia, Priscilla, Junia, and Phoebe. Who are we to stand in the way?

Notes

  1. For an in-depth discussion on male-female differences, see Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen, “Social Sciences Cannot Define Gender Differences,” Priscilla Papers 27, no. 2 (Spring 2013), online at https://www.cbeinternational.org/resources/article/priscilla-papers/soci….
  2. Owen Strachan, “Transgender Identity—Wishing Away God’s Design,” Answers in Genesis, March 15, 2015, https://answersingenesis.org/family/gender/transgender-identity-wishing-…
  3. Larry Crabb, Fully Alive: A Biblical Vision of Gender That Frees Men and Women to Live Beyond Stereotypes (Baker, 2013), 21–22. Emphasis added.

This article originally appeared in the print version of Mutuality as “Difference Is Not Destiny: 5 Things Egalitarians Believe about Gender Differences.”

2018-06-05T06:56:29-05:00

Last updated on: June 5, 2018 at 6:56 am   By

Today the fully revised second edition of Blue Parakeet is available.

I’ve been asked a dozen times or more, What’s new in the Blue Parakeet?

This is a book about reading the Bible, about bad reading habits — like making the Bible into a Rorschach inkblot where we see what we are looking for — and good reading habits — like knowing the story of the Bible so we can see how God spoke in Moses’ day in Moses’ way and see how God spoke in Jesus’ day in Jesus’ way.

While I had some back and forth with the editors and marketers at the publisher on the title — “what’s a blue parakeet got to do with Bible reading?”, by all accounts the book has become far more useful to churches and Christians than I or Zondervan expected. It’s nothing but fun when someone says “blue parakeet guy?” to me.

This book is mentioned more than any other book I have written, except for perhaps Jesus Creed. In particular, it has become helpful for college students and home Bible study groups, and for me a particular joy has been that so many women have been encouraged in their gifting by this book, which leads to this: the last third of the book is about women in ministry and how the Bible’s story shapes the empowerment of women.

So, please answer the question: What’s new?

I added more on reading the Bible as narrative. That is, I combine the story of the Eikon with the story of king Jesus.

I added a section on the Bible and slavery.

I added a section on the Bible and atonement.

I added a section on the Bible and justice.

I added a section on the Bible and science.

I added a section on the gospel itself.

I added enough that the new edition has more than 100 pages more than the original edition!

2018-06-01T06:16:31-05:00

Last updated on: June 1, 2018 at 6:16 am   By

From CBE’s Arise

By Gricel Medina.

The Reverend Gricel Medina is ordained to Word and Sacrament in the Evangelical Covenant Church. She holds degrees from Oswego State University, Oral Roberts University and the Centro Hispano Estudios Teologicos where she majored in Hispanic theological studies and minored in marriage and family counseling.

She has served as a bilingual church planter for the Evangelical Covenant Church as well as superintendent, giving leadership to Hispanic, Asian, and African-American pastors. She developed prayer summits for Hispanic congregations and has served on the board of the Hispanic Clergy Association giving counsel, direction and promoting advocacy on racial gender justice. She also served on the Commission for Biblical Gender Equality under two Evangelical Covenant presidents.

Gricel publishes, speaks, teaches and models racial egalitarian justice. She has published widely on biblical gender equality, mercy and justice for CBE journals, the Covenant Companion, and Covenant Home Altar. Gricel leads in grassroots communities and at the highest denominational levels and inspires communities and churches to collaborate in eradicating injustice and abuse to create safe places of dialogue, awareness, and engagement within and outside her denomination and the church.

In recognition of her work, CBE awarded her a Lifetime Achievement Award in 2017.

I was fourteen the first time I rode the subway alone. I remember my parents drilling me about practical safety and how to spot a predator. But in making me aware of the danger and how to respond to it, they trained me to guard myself against abuse.

Conversations like these are crucial. They promote wisdom and awareness, and they also arm us against those with predatory intentions. The church would be a safer place for vulnerable people if we had these same conversations on what abuse is and how we can protect ourselves from it—not just with church board members and staff, but also with entire congregations. As a pastor, I’ve facilitated many conversations on how to identify predators and protect young people, especially young girls. Here are some of the principles I use to identify abusers/predators and guard churches against them:

1. Don’t Be Naïve

Predators seek out churches and communities that have a culture of naiveté. They’re looking for leadership that will consistently give them the benefit of the doubt and congregations that easily trust them with young people.

Some people think they’ll be able to spot a predator with ease. But predators come in all sizes and from all backgrounds. They may be a new convert to the faith or a lifelong Christian. They can be young or old. They might be attractive, social, and likeable. Smooth-talking and charming.

Abusers are often clever and manipulative, taking satisfaction in their ability to manipulate those they see as gullible or trusting. Able to blend into church culture and quickly adapt to what others want them to be. Many understand people very well and are able to mirror others’ personalities, often ensuring they will be popular and trusted with responsibility. Or they might be withdrawn and quiet.

In the first church I pastored, there was a couple who seemed a bit off to me. The husband was withdrawn and the wife often seemed nervous, but they were faithful church attenders every Sunday. They had a daughter who easily befriended some of the young girls in our youth group.

I felt instinctually cautious toward them, for whatever reason. But when I voiced my concerns and advised caution, another pastor at the church dismissed me and accused me of being standoffish.

One night, his daughter attended a sleepover with the couple’s daughter at their house. While the two girls were asleep in another room, the girl’s father came into the room to fondle them. The pastor’s daughter escaped and ran out of the house, and went to a local store to call her parents. Our small congregation quickly learned that predators have a way of finding a comfortable niche in church pews.

Sometimes, you may have a bad gut feeling about someone who turns out to have abusive intentions. But it’s also not uncommon for predators to act respectfully in public settings and psychotic and controlling in private with their victims. Many times, after uncovering an abuser, people say something like: “I never would have guessed he was that kind of person.” This is why we need to listen to our gut feelings when we do have them, but we also need to cultivate a church culture of wisdom and watchfulness.

2. Pay Attention to Rhetoric

Predators thrive on smoke and mirrors. They also love to hide their true intentions behind religious jargon. They’ll justify abusive, harassing, or predatory behavior with references to Scripture or false outrage when they’re accused or distrusted.

You can find predators at all levels of the church: in the pew, the board, youth and children’s ministry, and even the pulpit. Some would rather fly under the radar in trying to control and isolate others, but others find ways to elevate themselves to positions of power. Then, once in those positions, they use their platform to poison church culture; increase faith in their leadership; and discourage dissent. Sometimes, entire churches can fall victim to the skillful rhetoric of an abuser.

Predators are also often divisive; they play the victim when accused; and they intentionally draw on the values of Christian culture in their rhetoric in order to make it easier to perpetrate abuse.

3. Understand That Teaching Female Submission Makes Girls Easier To Control

Predators often use hyper-masculine and authoritarian rhetoric. Many find refuge in communities that embrace male dominance and submission, because it can be easier to groom young girls. Churches that preach and commend female submission can be nesting areas for predatory behavior because girls learn to trust and obey men at a young age.

Take away that ease of control and predators will go somewhere else. Patriarchy enables male abusers by granting them a dangerous amount of power over women and by training women and girls to trust male leadership. Abusers are generally attracted to victims they believe will be obedient and submissive. This is why it’s so crucial to not only not teach one-way submission but to actively teach young girls that they have the authority to defy men who make them uncomfortable, or who harass or attempt to control them.

4. Admit Willful Ignorance

Ever seen a scared ostrich? These awkward and big creatures do the nonsensical when they are afraid. They bury their heads while leaving their entire body exposed.

The church has done likewise. We’ve kept fairly quiet on the topic of abuse over the years. We’ve been sloppy with grace, ignorant of what it means to do justly, and emotionally disconnected from the consequences of abusive behavior. We’ve been conned and we’ve allowed it to happen.

It’s easier to explain away each instance of abuse than it is to admit we have a problem—a problem in our culture; a problem in our relationships; a problem in our theology. By burying our heads in the sand, we’ve allowed predators to roam in the corridors of our churches. We’ve left the Body exposed in order to not lose face.

But our choice to pretend ignorance has been costly, especially to girls and women. The stories are many and the victims countless, and we can no longer turn away. It’s time to admit that we could have done something long before now but didn’t. This isn’t our opportunity to save face. This is our chance to willingly lose it in order to see justice done. It’s time to repent of looking the other way and acknowledge that we failed the “least of these.”

5. Live In Reality

Hard as it is to believe, there are men who sit in your pews on Sunday and then go home to beat their wives and children. There are also, very likely, predators looking to manipulate and control young people in your church. Abuse and/or predatory behavior is a cycle of violence that escalates with time. Think of a circular maze. A victim falls into an abuser’s trap. She or he may not know how to get out, and is ashamed to speak. So, she/he makes excuses for the abuser and often blames herself/himself. There is likely at least one person stuck in this abusive cycle in your church. Acknowledge that harsh reality.

Also, abusers don’t simply decide to stop their behavior one day. No amount of love or submission from victims will change their hearts. Abusers cannot be “churched” out of predatory or violent behavior. It’s simply not realistic.

Predators need real, professional help to address their dysfunctions and real consequences (criminal justice; loss of position) for perpetrating abuse. Make sure all in your congregation know that abusers and predators will be prosecuted i.e. we forgive you, but you’re still going to jail.

6. Put Safety First

I can’t reiterate this simple principle enough: just don’t be so trusting. Place safety above your instinct to give the benefit of the doubt. It may seem uncharitable, but it’s not. Our children and all members of our community are priceless children of God. We can’t afford to be lackadaisical with security. We should never take chances with the sons and daughters of the church.

As a pastor, realize that predators are con-artists and they look for points of weakness. Do background checks on everyone on your church staff, not just those who work with children. Have checkpoints at every level. Change church locks periodically. Change security codes and passwords often. Create bathroom policies and enforce appropriate boundaries between leaders and students. Hire a third party to check computers for any inappropriate use of information, pornography, or solicitations.

Those who deal with teens and children need to be supervised. Have a system where children and teens are never alone with a leader; this is especially important for the children’s safety and but also for leaders’. Rotate your leaders. Many predators will patiently groom a child or teen over weeks, months, and years. Changing out volunteer leaders periodically will ensure that few have regular access to potential victims.

Have law enforcement train your staff on signs of abuse. Surround yourself with respected counselors that can speak to your staff and congregations about appropriate touch and what to watch for in groups. Get informed on advocates that you can use as referrals.

Be wise. Be watchful. Be firm. Having these hard conversations openly and decisively will give your congregation the tools they need to spot and guard against abuse.

Follow Us!
Browse Our Archives
TRENDING AT PATHEOS Evangelical
Rachel Held Evans and the Specter of Scopes...
Italy's Hidden Gem--Orvieto Part 1
Entitlement Is One of the Greatest Enemies of...
Mysticism: What Is It?
Liberal Theology & Eugenics
Immigration: US & Israel: You can’t have your...
view all Evangelical blogs