2000 Template

October 29, 2000

Willow Creek Loses a Family Concerning Hybel's Interview with Clinton

Chris Church began attending Willow Creek in 1987 with his sweetheart who is now his wife. He says, "Slowly our lives were changed by Christ through the teaching at Willow Creek by Bill Hybels, Don Cousins and various guest speakers. We were married there in 1990 after going through an excellent premarital weekend and interaction with a pastor on staff."

He said, "Over the last 10 years we have led two small groups and served in Promisedland (the children's ministry). We have grown a great deal and care a great deal for the leaders and people we know there."

Chris said when his family learned that the President had been invited to speak. they were devastated. How could this be, they wondered. He said, "We did our best to slowly, prayerfully work though our emotions and try and decide what to do based on principle. That is how we came to leave. We just could not in good conscience stay based on what the invitation said about Willow Creek's leadership." The Church family has begun attending another church.

Following is the letter the Church family sent the pastors and elders about the Bill Clinton interview. Chris said the response was a hand-written form letter that did not address any of their concerns and implied that they were not proceeding biblically if they left.

Dear Pastors and Elders of Willow Creek,

I would like to end my participating membership with Willow Creek for the following two reasons. First is the decision to invite President Clinton to speak at the leadership conference and second is the choice and methods used to defend that decision.

I have read the statement on the Thursday that the President spoke, read the elders statement, listened to the interview on tape, heard J.O.’s comments the following Saturday, read the Update the following Thursday, and attended the elders meeting that Sunday evening so I believe that I am fully aware of your reasoning. With that in mind please consider the following:

I strongly object to the invitation and interview of the President for the following reasons:

1. First and foremost is the President’s position on issues of morality. His position on Partial Birth Abortion is barbaric, his support of the homosexual agenda is destructive to the moral fabric of our society, and his abuse of women is well chronicled.
2. His and his party’s methodology of demonizing anyone, often Christians, who oppose his views.
3. His constant pattern of lying for gain and to cover sins.
4. The perception that his invitation gives that Willow Creek not only endorses him as a person but that his politics are consistent with Christianity.
5. The timing was either unbelievably naïve or downright sinister or both. Bill Hybels said the timing didn’t even occur to him when the date was chosen. I’ll bet the President, with his attention to detail, understood the implications perfectly.

In comments following the interview when these issues were raised, the spin has run along the lines that other non-Christians have spoken at conferences. What you have chosen to ignore is the role that the President has played to manifest these beliefs. A CEO’s position on moral issues is important but you choose to overlook that the President through Supreme Court appointments, vetoes and other policies directly incorporates his beliefs into the law of the land. How much longer will it take to overturn Roe v. Wade since we know on which side his justices fall? While I believe that Christ died for President Clinton, I am sickened to consider the number of children who have and will die because of President Clinton! Additionally the President, as a politician, is a representative of those people who share his values and inviting him implies tacit endorsement of those values. Put simply, the President of the United States is not just another guest.

One of the strongest emotions that others and I have had to this invitation is that of betrayal. We can’t understand how you could have compromised on such core moral values. Over time I have come to the conclusion that in fact you did not, you simply don’t share them. Judging by your actions and not your words it is clear that compared to having a "conference with an edge" and nearly selling out the next one, compared to getting a "to die for" interview, the life of an unborn child and moral purity run a distant second. And that in a nutshell is the heart of my objection to the invitation. You have traded principle for celebrity, kind of the Jerry Springer principle.

The second reason we must leave is the way the reaction was handled by the staff and leaders following the interview. First was the preemptive strike by Bill Hybels himself. Those who thought the decision was wrong were lumped into a group best exemplified by the "hate filled pastor" letter. No allowance for reasonable disagreement was ever given. If we didn’t agree we must be hate filled people who don’t understand grace. Now I am used to the Democrats calling me a Homophobe because I believe that homosexuality is a sin. A bigot because I disagree with affirmative action. I am told that my pro-life position is "imposing my religious views on others." I have resigned myself to being a right wing fundamentalist Conservative Christian to the press but I NEVER expected my pastor to pull that stunt on me! I guess I missed that part where the pastor was deemed infallible. Why is it inconceivable that a mistake was made?

The next Saturday, J. O. let us know that we could write a letter to (forgive me if the words are not exact) "process our feelings." If I want to process my feelings I will pray or spend quite time camping, talk with my wife, etc. If I write a letter I would really like to believe that it will be read and be considered by those reading it.

John also said that "the world was watching to see how the Bride of Christ would handle the situation". Of all the arrogant, prideful… The world got what it wanted! Two quotes came out of the conference, that’s what the world (and Al Gore) wanted. The only people watching the reaction now are your congregation and the Christian community.

The New Community Update was a pure whitewash. Despite the truth that hundreds of people had called to protest your decision no mention was made of that, rather a glowing report was provided for our consumption. It was as if there was no controversy. This begs the question, “If all was well then why for the first time in my 12 year attendance was an elders meeting called?” Here was a defining moment in the history of the church and the Update was singing the tune of lock step unanimity. How could you print such propaganda?

When the elders meeting came I was anxious to know if any kind of apology would be offered. I certainly wondered if more than a handful of people would attend and what they would say. I was amazed at the turnout and the humility of other member’s comments. What broke my heart was the nature of Bill’s and the elder’s comments: mostly defensive, and in Bill’s case accusatory. Who will forget the 1 Corintihans 5-11 diatribe? I was impressed by the strength of the woman asking the question as Bill spent 5 minutes attacking her position and incriminating her understanding of the passage. Is there an ounce of humility in his character any more?

Also disheartening was the evasive answer given at the start. Bill posed the question, “would we make the same decision again?” Here was the opportunity for contrition. He could have said, “While we believed that the decision was the right one, it is now clear that we made a mistake…” Instead we got the quip, "Not soon". This implies that the problem was with the reaction and not the decision, along the lines of ‘all would have been fine if not for the trouble from you people’. It reminded me of the President’s answer to the question of his church attendance. There is no answer in either statement, just evasiveness. Often the question asked was not answered but rather the answer was just a statement that the people on stage wanted to make. I remember a number of times the congregation or the people at the microphones saying aloud, “That wasn’t the question”. What came out of the meeting was a minimizing of any concerns and a intransigent defense of the decision.

My wife and I have intentionally waited before coming to any decision; we have prayed and discussed the events with family and close friends. We did not want to make a snap decision. After nearly a month it is clear that we do not agree with fundamental values of Willow Creek. Specifically, popularity is more important than standing for righteousness; Sin doesn’t matter; When parts of the congregation disagree, attack their credibility, minimize their concerns and make sure dissent is handled off to the side on a Sunday evening instead of during the New Community when the entire family is present.

This has been a troubling and painful month. We are leaving a group of people we love and a place where we have served and been served. We would never leave over a single issue but I believe your actions reveal deep value problems and we cannot support those values.

That said, we do not leave angry. I hold no ill will toward you. I pray you will grow strong as a church that hungers for biblical values and the love of our Savior. I also pray that you will not let your image consume you. Willow Creek is a popular place because of its style and love of sinners. Please do not lose sight of that part of a church’s mission that includes standing for what is right and opposing evil. Make no mistake, much of what the President stands for is evil. I pray also that the elders will not be so easily swayed by Bill’s enthusiasm in the future. You said the elders wrestled with this decision. I am pretty sure I know where the Senior Pastor stood so I fear the elders did not fulfill their obligation to act as a check when needed. I believe that Bill’s friendship with the President has obscured his vision with respect to the President’s beliefs and the elders should have never let this interview take place.

Thank you for taking the time to read this letter.

Yours in Christ,
Christopher Church