Bill Hybels Loves Mark Driscoll

It just kills me how hard some folks (can anyone say Missouri Baptist Convention?) are trying to distance themselves from the "emerging" Acts 29 organization and Mark Driscoll.  Driscoll is all pomo and truth has no meaning for him.

Then in Bizarro world Bill Hybels (a pastor of a moderately influential, smallish church in suburban Chicago) has poked him publicly for his fundamentalism after viewing Driscoll on video at the National New Church Conference.  He basically didn't like Driscoll's male-centered approach to church planting and let that be known from the platform.  That resulted in Acts 29 eating thousands of Driscoll's videos because the conference decided not to hand them out as originally planned. 

From Driscoll on the Resurgence website...

Last year I spoke at a large church planting event along with a number of other church planters and church planting movement leaders. The event was held in Florida, went well, and did a very encouraging job of bringing together a number of denominations, networks, and organizations that otherwise would not have benefited from such a partnership.

This year I was invited back but declined because the few-day round trip from Seattle to Florida to give a very short message (last year it was less than twenty minutes) seemed like too much in light of other responsibilities. So, the sponsors of the event asked me to instead put together an eight-minute video on church planting that could be shown at the event and then handed out to each of the 1,500 attendees. So, in an effort to be helpful, the video crew from Mars Hill Church and I spent half a day in freezing weather at a military cemetery shooting scenes that were then edited for the video. Apparently the video was shown at the event, was well received by the attendees, and then criticized by Bill Hybels from the stage because it did not speak of women church planters. And, not wanting a bigger fuss, the organization hosting the event then made a decision not to hand out the video as they had promised, leaving the guys from our Acts 29 Church Planting Network who had hauled suitcases of the videos to Florida with thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours of wasted effort. The leaders of the event are good guys whom I still consider friends, and I've never met Bill Hybels so I won't speak about him personally. But, I thought we should at least post the banned video online, so here it is:

Comments

[Timmy Brister]

Steve,

Could it be that the Willow Creek mentality has developed from the "minds of unchurched Harry and Mary" rather than the mind of Christ? For all the emphases on being seeker sensitive and taking cues from the professional culture of marketing CEO's, one has to wonder whether their controlling convictions are represented in the revealed principles of Scripture.

It's a shame they did not at least respect the various perspectives of church planting enough to make the videos available to everyone who wanted one.

[Virgil]

Could it be that people genuinely dislike Driscoll and his abrasive approach? I don't see what this has to to with pomo or emergent, and I do not blame them at all. I thought the video was mostly Driscoll propagandistic crap as most of the stuff he comes up with.

[Steve McCoy]

Timmy, I'm with you. I just wish they would have said Driscoll comes from one point of view and Hybels another and so let Driscoll speak, let Hybels speak, give out the video, etc. And anyone who invites Driscoll and expects him to address the women planters present doesn't know what they are doing. Same goes for most who would speak there with his perspective on male leadership in the church.

[Rae Whitlock]

+10000 pt bonus for the graphic.

[Steve McCoy]

Sweet bonus. Thanks Rae.

[Steve McCoy]

Virgil, I think McLaren's approach sucks too. I dislike his evasiveness. But I also see value in wading through his over-generosity to see how he evaluates culture, theology, etc. And so I think if you only see Driscoll's video as "propagandistic crap" you are letting "genuine dislike" numb your ability to hear a common truth and mission.

Honestly, I think the whole ECM crowd who just can't see some of what's good with Driscoll is essentially forming a new sort of fundamentalism.

[steve]

Steve,

Andrew Jones (a.k.a. )Tall Skinny Kiwi attended this conference and blogged his takes a couple days ago. Just in case you're interested.

[Steve McCoy]

TSK is where I first hear about this. Thanks steve.

[Timmy Brister]

Steve, you said,

Honestly, I think the whole ECM crowd who just can't see some of what's good with Driscoll is essentially forming a new sort of fundamentalism.

This indeed has been the case for years, especially in the liberalism movement before the rise of the ECM. For instance, they will reject the idea of propositional truth in their postmodern epistemology with a proposition (a rejection of the law of non-contradiction is absurdity). Similarly, on the ethical front, they will herald tolerance as the chief virtue, but tolerance will not be proffered to those they considered intolerant. Therefore, while the fundamentalism of yesteryear was at least substantive, the new fundamentalism from the left is hollow. As a protest movement against the rigid fundametnalism of conservatives in our elder generation, the ECM might likely come to embody the very characteristics they sought to protest.

[josh]

funny how controversy always seems to follow driscoll. he makes it really hard for me to want to give him a chance.

[Joe Thorn]

Yeah, the same could be said about Jesus - controversy followed him everywhere.

[Nick P.]

And they killed Jesus.

Watch your six, Mark.

[Timmy Brister]

I am just wanting to know where are the rainbows that should be in the pic?

Speaking of controversy, John Stott, who by the way announced his retirement this weekend, wrote a book called Christ the Controversialist. Worth a look.

[Hutch]

Hybels' behavior is pretty typical of egalitarians. EGALITARIANS ARE BULLIES! When they are in the minority in any organization, they will talk about tolerance and inclusion. But when egalitarians control an organization, they will stifle and suppress all dissent.

[UberGoober]

::wondering mostly to self how long Hybels book will remain on the left column of this blog::

[Danny]

Maybe we should call Hybels book: "Just Walk Out of the Room"

[Kolin]

Sorry can anyone tell me what exactly Bill Hybels said....

Bill says:
"After that video i would like to acknowledge that there are women in this room and they have spiritual gifts.

There doesn't seem to be too much here that is personal against Driscoll, his beliefs or his views. It just seems to me to be a comment in support of women's spiritual gifts.( a comment I am sure Driscoll agrees with!!)

Is it Hybels fault that the organisation didn't distribute the video?
Did Hybels ask that the video not be distributed?

Storm in a tea cup!....to me Driscoll has a complaint against the organisation and NOT with Hybels.( and he takes care NOT to criticise Hybels)

Steve, I can't see therefore why your post should concentrate on Hybels. ( unless he said more than I am aware of!)

[Scott Thomas]

Steve,

I passed along your classic picture to Mark. He will appreciate the humor-laden Photoshop work.

Scott

[Matt Shedden]

Is anyone surprised that on an SBC blog we have almost all male comments (different at TSK I may add) people defending Mark (who seems to preaching something close to a prosperity gospel in this video, "They wanna know how to get married, how to have sex with their wives at least once a day, how to make children, etc.") who are ignoring Mark's long standing words against other churches (see Mark's hideous words about Episcopals and Presbyterians) and people groups? Good job guys at thinking really hard on this one instead of towing the party line. I really like the comments that attack Bill's love of the church when if you learned anything about him you understand that he has spend more time on the road seeking out broken churches than anyone I can think of, and even more amazing is that no one thinks saying Bill has been formed by culture rather than the Bible is a big deal at all. We broke the mold with this one.

[matt]

Driscoll doesn't need defending, he himself has said so. The main issue here is with Hybels behavior. As stated before, all the speakers were well aware that there were many different pastors there with many different theological and ecclesiological positions. All were invited because they were considered to have something to bring to the table. Man, Mission, Message has been the drum Mark has beat for many years now.

Hybels was very careful not to directly address what Mark said. Instead of bashing Mark (a negative act), he praises the women (a positive act). While I wish that we all could stand up for our convictions in such a gracious way as Hybels does (standing up for what we believe, instead of bashing the other side), in doing so right after Driscoll's video, he undermines that same gracious nature, and the gracious nature of such a conference.

[brad brisco]

I have a SBC background and work for a SBC entity. I also believe deeply that the seeker approach is very problematic for multiple reasons. BUT some of these comments against Hybels and this situation are utterly ridiculous. "EGALITARIANS ARE BULLIES!" Give me a break, in my cirlces that would describe the "other" side. And Hybels "poked fun?" Come on, I doubt that he poked fun. He probably simply acknowledge that there were women at the conference who were church planters and deeply involved in ministry and doing a great job.

The part of Driscoll's video that I have issue with is the macho church planter emphasis. I know many Godly, highly effective church planters who would not be describe by his macho, soldier metaphor. Were all the disciples "sons of thunder?" How about John the beloved?

Now I have to say that it is very funny that groups like MO Baptist are distancing themselves from Driscoll and Acts29 for being too "emerging." I like Driscoll and the work that he and his church are doing in Seattle.

[noah]

Brad said:
Were all the disciples "sons of thunder?" How about John the beloved?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't John the Beloved ALSO a "son of thunder." (Mark 3:17)

[grace]

I would like to know why Hybel's affirming the women in the room is taken as oppositional to Mark. Perhaps it was simply an inclusive gesture, nothing more.

Bill's inclusion of women is not the same as criticism. Mark's claim of criticism on his blog is a distortion of the actual comment.

Also, the videos were available at the conference according to some attendees. Why is Mark claiming they were banned?

The video speaks for itself. Either you like Mark or you don't.

What I don't understand is why Mark is feeding the fire of this controversy. Most blogs that I've read are now quoting the inaccurate statements from his post, some going so far as to say that Hybels banned the video.

[brad brisco]

Noah, yes you are correct, bad example on my part. My point of course was to say that I do not believe the macho description is accurate in many cases.

Let me say again that I praise God for Driscoll and his church but I think Grace makes a good point here. I really do not think you would see Hybels or other "egalitarian bullies" present issues in this manner.

[matt]

Grace -

I do not think Mark was upset at Hybels. It seemed his beef was with the conference. Seen by this comment

"the video crew from Mars Hill Church and I spent half a day in freezing weather at a military cemetery shooting scenes that were then edited for the video."

and this comment:

"leaving the guys from our Acts 29 Church Planting Network who had hauled suitcases of the videos to Florida with thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours of wasted effort."

It was clear, from the tone of his post, that Mark was upset for all the money and the work MH and a29 put in for nothing.

I would agree that Bill was not criticizing Mark. But, we can call it a cheap shot. What he said was neither necessary or appropriate. As stated before, everyone going into the event knew the different perspectives of everyone else. To argue (albeit a very sly, passive aggressive argument: see my previous post) against someone, without the benefit of a counter, is a cheap shot. So your right, he didn't criticize him, he just threw a cheap shot at a conference that is supposed to encourage unity.

Mark didn't attack the other side, he simply, like every other speaker, was bold about his position. Has mark taken cheap shots at others before. YES, and you and others have had no problem getting on his case for that. How about everyone who gets angry at Mark for the cheap shots he has made it the past, calling Bill Hybels out for the same thing. If you don't, then the only reason you call people out is because you don't like their perspective, not because you care about injustice.

[Drew Goodmanson]

I happened to be at Mars Hill this weekend, Mark Driscoll pointed out a more specific comment in his sermon. You can hear the specifics when the message is put online, but basically it said that 'a national leader told people not to plant with Acts 29'.

[grace]

Matt,
If Bill's had made a statement regarding Mark's doctrine or contradicting anything that Mark had said, I would agree with you.

However, I would not say that acknowledging the women present in the room is a cheap shot or detracts from Mark in any way.

There was no need for a counter argument because it wasn't a statement of position or doctrine, simply a gesture of courtesy and inclusion towards the women that were there.

To expand the circle beyond those Mark included does not contradict anything that Mark said. It simply broadens the conversation to include everyone present and actually encourages the unity you suggest.

I am not angry at Mark or Bill. However I am concerned at the way that the report of this is being slanted, particularly by Mark himself.

[Ryan DeBarr]

Matt Shedden: Good job guys at thinking really hard on this one instead of towing the party line.

Right, because traditionalists obviously don't think, or else they'd be egalitarians. They don't cooperate with each other because they agree, they agree because they're too stupid to question anything.

That's really profound.

[Matt Shedden]

Hey Ryan,
Thanks for completely butchering my point and not responding to my comment at all by stating that I was implying that something is wrong someone's position on women's church planters (I was not). Rather I was implying that the often blind following of Mark is odd and in this case uncalled for. Bill made a great comment, in a good context, and gave the women in the room who sat silently through the video some room to breath and know they aren't useless in planting a church (after all this is a war). Most men (including myself) are never put in the kind of position the faithful women of God in that room were. The way you feel about Bill's comment doesn't even compare to someone questioning your usefulness for the kingdom as a church planter.
If you weren't begin sarcastic, then I agree with you.

[josh]

yeah joe. jesus was controversial. but it's because he was inclusive. not exclusive. tad bit of difference.

[Joe Thorn]

Josh, that's a bit reductionistic don't you think? Jesus and the Apostles were both inclusive and exclusive in their message (depends on the emphasis). And even when I agree in principle and affirm that Jesus was radically inclusive, I am compelled to say that his inclusiveness focused on entering the Kingdom, and not functioning as an elder or a church planter. In this example with Mark, he seems to be making the point that when the church impacts the head of the house the rest of the house is likely to follow. ie - if we reach the men we can "win the war."

I am not rejoicing at everything Mark said, or the way he says some things here; but the idea that because controversy follows someone he/she is hard to give a fair listen to is unfortunate. Driscoll, Maclaren, and many others are targeted for what they say and controversy follows. I am just saying that controversy does not indicate error.

[Steve McCoy]

I preached this morning and I left right after for a 7 hour road trip to Louisville. I kept up with the comments on my Treo in the car.

1. My post wasn't really about Hybels, it was using this situation to call into question the odd behavior of various people in assessing Driscoll. I really find it puzzling and odd. Hybels is just the latest example, and I thought it was blogworthy to post what Driscoll said.

2. There's a real element of humor in my post. Notice the photo? This conversation got way too serious way too fast.

3. I'm not defending Mark in my post or comments, though I think Hybels' comments are out of place, even if he intended them better than they came across. Pretty much anyone who doesn't like Driscoll plays the "anyone who speaks positively of Driscoll is blindly following him" card. It's a stupid thing to say unless you really know if someone is "blindly following" or not. I have yet to meet a single person (and I'm friends with several Acts 29 planters) who is even close to blindly following Driscoll.

4. I'm closing the comments.