Posted on 10/21/2001 5:43:47 PM PDT by 11th Earl of Mar
Following the Sept. 11 attacks, Pastor Bill Hybels, of the Willow Creek Community Church, was increasingly bothered by reports of hate crimes and misinformation about Islam. "I was so concerned by the gap between Muslims and Christians that I thought Willow could do something about that," he said, according to the Chicago Tribune.
That "something" was to have his church invite a local Muslim leader, Fisal Hammouda, to talk about Islam to a total of 17,000 churchgoers, spread out over four services. "There are some Christians spreading half-truths that the Koran encourages violence," Hybels told his congregation. "(When) you take some stuff out of context ... we've got major problems."
Hammouda, a U.S. citizen, an engineer and religious leader in the Islamic Center in Naperville, first visited Willow Creek as part of the church's world religions weekend in March.
In one of his current appearances, Hammouda was questioned by Hybels, onstage in the 4,500-person auditorium. Hybels asked, "It appears that Osama bin Laden directed the attack (on Sept. 11) ... What do you think?" Hammouda said at first he thought "it couldn't be a Muslim," explaining that the Koran does not allow violence against innocent people ... "We believe in Jesus, more than you do, in fact," Hammouda said, drawing laughter when Hybels, smiling, ventured to disagree.
"Muslims consider Jesus and other biblical figures to be Islamic prophets -- though not as important as Muhammad -- and we have all the prophets from the Bible," Hammouda said.
Willow Creek Church Welcomes Muslim Cleric's Perspective
Do I have to login? (I assumed I was already logged in since my login name is properly posted when I post.)
As far as owning an expensive boat, he is a nationally-known speaker and author who no doubt makes a fair penny from speaking fees and book royalties. Plus I imagine his salary is commensurate with the size of his church. So I think there could be another explanation besides corruption (ala Clinton).
As an example of something similar, my church has a Sunday night meeting for Gen-X'ers. At first we only had communion on retreats because we thought it would alienate visiting non-believers. (After all, non-believers are prohibited from participating by Scripture.) Lately, we've turned 180 degrees and our quarterly communion services are the biggest thing we do. Non-believers don't participate, but we've gotten so many remarks about them sensing God in that service.
Of course, some in this forum wouldn't appreciate our communion service because it's not traditional enough for them.
I do consider myself a traditionalist. I see nothing wrong in that. My experience with the seeker type services of Willow Creek and other denomonations that use the model has been disappointing. The denomination I used to belong to, the CRC, had a couple mega churches that I went to from time to time. One church in particular each time I went, and it was Sunday morning, I did not hear a sermon. Because the church was so large the pastor held a information service to explain a change in a few programs.
I have a couple of friends who attend Willow Creek on a fairly regular basis, they are not members but like the church because they don't feel threatened there. In my opinion you should feel threatened in church. You should be challanged, but since they don't get that they like it.
Now Willow Creek may have changed some thoughts on this, but the last I knew there was no real push to contribute to the church. If you want to join, great, but there is no push to do anything but be entertianed. It makes more sense to me to have some obligation from the church on the members to contribute to the church, and I don't mean finacially. But in programs and displine.
but it is after all a "church."
Yes, I can see that. At the same time, what do you mean specifically? Depending on your background, you might insist it's not church unless the preacher shouts and sweats. Or it's not church unless someone dances in the aisle. Or it's not church unless you leave feeling guilty. Or unless you sing that special hymn. Or do responsive reading. Or...
These are methods, not the message. Similarly, a Sunday Morning service for believers and also non-believers is a method. Willow has chosen to have two different services for two different perceived needs. My church, for example, has a more traditional Sunday Morning service, but a very contemporary Sunday evening church because we perceive the traditional church goers and also the non-churched Gen-X'ers who miss the message because of the methods of traditional church.
I think one of the problems of the more viciforous contributors to this list is that they equate a lack of comfort with sinfulness. (I'm not referring to you. Your post was quite heartfelt and refreshing.)
My impression of mega-churches has always been pretty negative. But now the church I attend has grown to the size that it is one, my views have changed with first-hand experience.
At my church, there's a sermon every service. Usually a straight-up, Bible-oriented, challenging sermon. But not "challenging" in the sense of churches I used to attend, where the measure of challenging was how guilty you felt when you left.
there was a time when I thought Bill Hybels was a preacher who could be respected. When he compromised his moral stand by his refusal to demand that Clinton resign, I lost all respect for him
There was a time when I thought Jesus was a preacher who could be respected. When he compromised his moral stand by eating with tax collectors and prostitutes, I lost all respect for him? (Sarcasm alert, for any sarcastically-challenged out there.)
Also, Hybels is a human. He can make mistakes I don't like his association with Clinton. I think he was played for a fool in that case. But writing him off because of this one incident -- which did not involve any personal sin -- is rather harsh, I think.
Shouldn't we have a sense of our guilt after a service? If done correctly we should also leave with the joy of our salvation from the knowledge of our guilt.
Dear Pastor Hybels:
I am a graduate of Grace College in Winona Lake, Indiana, and have been a big fan of your ministry for many years. I am active in the ministry of Calvary Chapel.
Unfortunately these last few years many of us have been concerned about the "seeker friendly" focus of your ministry,
as the gospel of Jesus Christ gets watered down, and God's Word is preached "precept upon precept" less and less.
Pastor Hybels, it was difficult enough on the Christian community when you embraced former President Clinton in such a public way, when there was no outward sign
of repentance from him at all. "You shall know them by their fruits."
But now, with the publicity surrounding you inviting Godless men into your body to "teach" your people their idolatrous ways, we in the church of the body of Christ
are grief-stricken, much in the same way we were on Sept. 11th.
How does, "You shall have no other gods before me" enter into your position? Please share with those of us who love the Lord and who walk in His ways to understand how the Holy Spirit can possibly lead you into this type of public act?
Without God's Word and God's Spirit, we having NOTHING.
Please help us understand.
from believers in California & around the United States...
The fact that some otherwise well-known Christian leaders would do anything other than call for Clinton to repent and resign leads me to wonder if maybe they do not have something to hide, or if they are merely seeking the worlds acceptance of their ministries.
Unfortunately these last few years many of us have been concerned about the "seeker friendly" focus of your ministry, as the gospel of Jesus Christ gets watered down, and God's Word is preached "precept upon precept" less and less.
Please describe how the gospel is watered down by a seeker-sensitive service. Didn't Paul himself talk about becoming a Jew to the Jews, a Gentile to the Gentiles? He even went so far as to argue Christianity in a philosophical forum and quote popular, pagan poets to make his point. He was sensitive to the mode of presentation, yet he didn't "water down" the message. I believe many people who talk about the gospel being watered down are in fact criticizing the method, not the message.
But now, with the publicity surrounding you inviting Godless men into your body to "teach" your people their idolatrous ways, we in the church of the body of Christare grief-stricken, much in the same way we were on Sept. 11th.Did I miss something here? Did Hybels invite a muslim to teach his congregation how to become muslims? Have they set up idols and instructed the people to worship them? (You did mention "idolatrous".) Did Hybels endorse his guest's theology, encourage people that it was another gospel or another way to God? Not that I read.
Or did the muslim make a fool of himself and reveal his hypocricy for all to see in public? Were muslims possibly intrigued by a church that was not threatened/intimidated by one of their teachers? Might they visit now and be exposed to the truth -- something that was impossible before? Might the believers who were present find a reason to cast aside blind prejudice against muslims, yet strengthen Biblical objections?
How does, "You shall have no other gods before me" enter into your position?I haven't read anything that says that Hybels was proposing another God. Nor espousing teachings of another God. He allowed a muslim to speak in a panel discussion kind of way. You can argue that he bent over too far backwards in order to not appear to be ambushing his guest. I really can't argue against that, having not been there, and it might well be true. But your statements go way beyond that.
Again, I don't personally like Hybels. I've been to their church probably about three times on trips. I know some people who work there. So I'm not their head cheerleader. But I can't stand to see people throwing serious accusations around based on -- as far as I can tell from the lack of support provided -- prejudice based on appearances or "flavor".
So please, if Hybels said, "Hey, here's a muslim and I want you to listen to him and consider the truth he wants to share about another way to God," then let's lower the boom. It's heresy. But if there's only anger over his association with a sinner (Clinton), anger over having a muslim speak in a service, assumptions of corruption because of size or income, etc, then let's label it for the prejudice that it is and move on.
Shouldn't we have a sense of our guilt after a service?
I believe there is a distinction between "sense of our guilt" and "feeling guilty". The former is an acknowledgement of fact: we are sinners and only forgiven because of God's mercy and grace. The latter is a self-damning emotion. We can have a sense of our guilt, yet feel joy, as you say. But you can't feel guilty and have joy at the same time.
I've met many people who judge the depth of a sermon based on either: a) how technical the preacher got with theological terms and Greek, b) how much they felt guilty and worthless after getting a preached thrashing, or c) how many verses the pastor managed to quote in his sermon. These are cultural expectations that they've been trained to desire and have very little to do with the Truth which should be the measuring stick.
Holy Qur'an clearly says that:
"We did aforetime send messengers before thee: of them there are some whose story We have related to thee, and some whose story We have not related to thee."{40.78}
Did Bible mentioned all Prophets of Children of Israel? Indeed God sent thousands of Prophets to Israel, where all were mentioned in Bible? Your criticism has no basis and it consist on jealousy and malice.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.