I was there on a Sunday morning, and I should note that we were told that there was "worship" on Saturday night. At the same time, I'm sure a lot of folks only came on Sunday morning. I can understand not wanting to overpower the "seekers" but it is after all a "church."
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.
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.)