Pensees: Why He Joined Willow Creek and My Knee-jerk Reaction

Why He Joined Willow Creek and My Knee-jerk Reaction

Dr. Joseph Zichterman is a graduate of Bob Jones University, taught at Northland Baptist Bible College, and is now a member at Willow Creek. He is an expert on the Church Growth Movement, once as an antagonist, now as a friend.

I do not know Joseph Zichterman personally, but he and I share mutual friends. Last night I received an email from him that had been sent to thousands of his contacts. It included a link to his new website and a short notice that he and his wife were taking a “new direction.” I immediately scanned through the website, saw the audio file “Why I Joined Willow Creek” and read Joseph’s bold affirmation of his involvement in the Emergent conversation. I knew I would have to listen to it.

I must have sighed or something because Jennie commented, “It upsets you, doesn’t it?” I grunted, “No. I don’t even know him.”

But it did upset me. In the middle of the night I found myself staring at the ceiling and stating in plain terms to the God I love that I hate fundamentalism. I hate a certain kind of fundamentalism anyway. And, though I don’t know Joseph, I think I know what would drive him to get as far away as possible from what he calls (I would find out later) a “high control” group.

I feel that if I knew Dr. Zichterman personally, I would probably like him. We could possibly be friends. I know nothing of his personal experiences within the circles of fundamentalism that he knew (the same that I know), but I know enough to know that his critical analysis of these circles as “high-control” cultures is pretty much right on the money. His insight into the way leadership functions in these circles sparkles, I think, with the intrigue of personal experience. I should be very clear here: he never names his former circles specifically. He is careful to use as illustrations Mormon polygamists and the like. But even a dullard can connect the dots.

He speaks well. I like what I hear. The man feels and I like that. I like men with feeling and passion. I feel that I would share with him hot feelings for our Savior. It is worth listening to his lecture just to hear him feel.

Well, today I listened carefully to Zichterman’s lecture entitled “Why I joined Willow Creek” and I strongly recommend that every fundamentalist who cares about the Body of Jesus Christ listen to it. This lecture is extremely valuable for several reasons:

1. Zichterman’s was a Church Growth Movement expert as an antagonist in fundamentalist circles prior to his “Damascus road experience” where he switched sides. His first dissertation was on the Church Growth Movement.
2. Zichterman abandoned fundamentalism for the Church Growth Movement in part because of the spiritual abuse he experienced within fundamentalism.
3. Zichterman is well-read on the subject, emotionally-charged, and lays out a very articulate case for the Church Growth Movement which, though I believe it falls short of giving an adequate defense, at least masterfully exposes the fatal flaws of fundamentalism.
4. This lecture has all the vigor, zeal, pathos, and conviction of a new convert who is unmistakably calling out to his fundamentalist brethren to break the shackles of their high control group and repudiate the John MacArthur-esque suspicion of the Church Growth Movement.

For these reasons alone, it is worth listening to. If Fundamentalist leaders try to ignore it or discourage their followers from hearing it, particularly the ones who may be sympathetic to Joseph, they will only prove Zichterman’s point. There is only one good option, I think, and that is to consider what the brother has to say.

The lecture is long. About an hour and a half. And there are several parts to it. The first part is a very brief overview of the history of the Church Growth Movement (hereafter CGM). Here Zichterman briefly outlines the theological and philosophical foundations for the thinking of such men as Bill Hybels and Rick Warren. This, of course, is done in a very positive light and no Biblical criticism whatsoever is allowed to interact with the CGM’s basic tenets. Among the basic tenets of the CGM that Zichterman offered are the

1. Preeminence of Evangelism
2. Necessity of Numerical Growth. “Anything alive is growing. If it is not growing, it is dying” (Rick Warren). This included a brief explanation of the Principle of Receptivity and so forth.
3. Targeted People Groups
4. The Removal of extra-biblical barriers to conversion. Here Joseph gave three non-negotiables that the CGM agree on:
a. The inspiration of the Bible
b. The Person of Christ. He is God and Man.
c. Salvation is in Christ alone.

At this point, Zichterman opened the can of worms he would dive into again a few minutes later: the issue of women in the church. While I sympathized with him on many points, one of his arguments struck me as a bit histrionic:

What an absolute tragedy it would be if a woman in your community refused to get saved because she was given the unscriptural impression that she would have to step down socially [from her status] in modern-day egalitarian America.”

Frankly, it is hard for me to imagine an unconverted woman even contemplating whether she could be a preacher/teacher in the church when she is first confronted with the Gospel. And, if that is in the back of her mind, I hardly think that she really understood the Gospel in the first place. We all step down. And we can’t even bring ourselves to look up. Oh, well. . .

Here also, Joseph began to repeat a phrase about the danger of being too conservative and he championed the virtues of discernment. Anyone serious about God, he said, knows that “being an inch too conservative on any issue is not God’s best.”

Frankly, I agree. But it seems to me that discerning people would also opine about the danger of being an inch too lax about issues that may be really important to God. Joseph’s fascination with the Emergent Conversation which is fascinated, so they say, with historical theology, should inform him of the ancient history of certain men named Nadab and Abihu who were a bit too lax. Or does the fascination with history only go so far?

The latter part of the lecture is where Zichterman hits the nail on the head, I think. His grief with high control groups (read fundamentalism) come to the forefront in this section. There are five areas of spiritual abuse that are common in high control groups.

First, women are extremely suppressed. Male Chauvinism is often cloaked in a so-called obedience to texts such as 1 Timothy 2 and so forth.

Frankly, I think he’s right. I hold to a strong complementarian position (Joseph obviously leans to egalitarianism), but I have been distressed to the point of anguish by the abuse women have undergone in right-wing, fundamentalistic churches. I have counseled enough women who have undergone spiritual, emotional, psychological, physical, and sexual abuse in mute subjugation because they are supposed to honor and obey their husbands. It is horrible. There’s no doubt about it.

But one gets the impression that Zichterman has an axe to grind and while he does his best to insinuate age-old egalitarian arguments as if they are fresh into the minds of his hearers, he really says nothing new or fresh himself.

Except for one thing.

In this section here, Joseph touches the nerve of the fundamentalist error as far as I am concerned. He commends the CGM for restoring a true understanding of the one-ness of God’s people. While I doubt that the CGM has restored a true understanding, I would certainly concur with Zichterman that most high-control groups (read fundamentalism) have so de-emphasized unity that they have practically purged it out of the Bible. One of the most shocking things for fundamentalists who visit our church on any given Lord’s Day is to hear me pray in the pastoral prayer for other churches, including those who are not within our sphere of fellowship.

Fundamentalist leaders my wish to bury their heads in the sand about the ignorance of the average fundamentalist church-goer, but the fact remains that many of them truly believe that anyone that is not a part of their particular circle is just not quite a Christian.

Secondly, high-control groups consistently use communication that appeals to guilt and shame. How true this is. I weep to admit that I myself have been guilty of this kind of preaching because I thought it was good preaching. While it is important to rebuke and reprove, it is very important to remember that the pulpit is not the place to shame people into doing extra-biblical duties. It is a very fine line to walk.

I found Zichterman’s solution for spiritually abused people who are just coming out of high-control groups to be appalling. I think – at least I hope – that it was mostly tongue-in-cheek. They should listen to Joel Osteen 24/7 for a week just to de-tox, he said.

Thirdly, high-control groups establish group-wide rules of conduct which are profoundly counter-cultural but are elevated to biblical status. True again. We can always spot the members of certain churches here in town. I also counsel people from those churches who are undergoing the worst kind of sinful destruction in spite of the King James Bibles and knee-length skirts. They are too afraid to go to their leaders for real help. They’re too afraid to leave.

Fourthly, lack of accountability among leaders in the high-control group. A “boy’s club,” he calls it. If this doesn’t describe the fundamentalism that Zichterman and I both know, I don’t know what does. Zichterman goes on for some time about the lack of accountability in several areas, including the phony degrees that people can get online and elsewhere. He also talks long and hard about non-accredited schools and, once again, one feels like he has an axe to grind.

Fifthly, money is another reason why high-control groups keep control. If they lose control, they simply can’t compete with mainstream evangelicalism. Group leaders always live better than staffers, he says, and many staffers have to go on welfare to survive. Fine. I’m not sure that I would have made that one of my five characteristics of spiritual abuse, but again, Zichterman wants this message to be heard. It’s not hard to imagine who his target is.

Finally, Joseph Zichterman suggests three insightful reasons why people won’t leave the high-control groups.

1. They have improperly educated consciences. I totally agree with Joseph here, and he makes a tremendous point when he says that one of the best ways to re-educate the conscience of a defector is to teach him church history. There are a number of people in this city who would love to come to a church like ours but they hear that Calvinism comes from the pit of hell and Spurgeon would agree with that! Fortunately, some of them are googling “spurgeon” and finding their ranting pastors to be mis-leading.
2. The loss of relationships. This is perhaps the most insightful analysis because one gets the impression that Joseph speaks from experience. As one who has been trashed by fundamentalist leadership in the most unethical and unchristian ways, I concur with Joseph that “there will be a witch hunt” the second you defect. Leaders will spin stories and do anything they can to defame you and make them look magnanimous. The “kindest” thing they will do is say that you are “disillusioned” implying that you don’t have the maturity just to get over it.

“If they can get the focus off of the argument that the defector is making so that he has to defend his character, they win. And they will sometimes stop at nothing to destroy his reputation and credibility.”

“The underlying conviction is this: since God would never want someone to leave, there must be some sin factor.”

This is all too painfully true. Joseph is right to say that the only ones that will understand it completely are the ones who have been at the brunt end of this treatment. But I believe that Joseph’s generalization about how leadership functions in these high-control group is painfully on the mark. I just don’t think the leaders themselves realize it. While they have abandoned the single-man empire-building of their forebears (for the most part), they have replaced it with a buddy system that watches each other’s backs.

3. Money. The reason people don’t want to leave, he says, is because it will ruin them financially.

My final thought:

I listened with tears. I agree with Bill Hybels that the “local church is the hope of the world” to the extent that it is a biblical church. In the main, I found myself sympathizing and empathizing with Zichterman.

The fundamentalism I hate is the fundamentalism that gives no answers. Just imbibe groupthink and God forbid that you should ever fall out of grace with the powers that be. Recently I talked with a mutual friend of ours. Our conversation was about Zichterman. I knew nothing of the man and, therefore, took at face value all the high things that our friend had to say about him. I have sung some songs by Zichterman and have appreciated the work that God has done in my heart through his songs. However, I told our mutual friend that I was sorely disappointed that Joe (as he called him) had joined Willow Creek. I asked him what Joe was going to do with the Emergent philosophy that was there.

Our friend, wounded himself, said that he had no idea what Emergent was, but that “Joe” would certainly not embrace the errors of the Emergent as I portrayed them to him. Perhaps not. I hope not. But Zichterman is in the “conversation,” as he says. Our friend said that since we had to hear fundamentalists blither and blather errors on one side and we survived that, why not hear evangelicals blither and blather on the other side. Certainly, we’d survive those errors as well. Basically, pick your poison, he said.

While I have read and sympathize with many of the concerns of the Emergent, I have found that the road to recovery from the mind-numbing domination of absolutism is actually in absolutes, the cure for dogmatism is, believe it or not, in dogma.

And, yes, Brother Zichterman, one dogma too-long ignored is the one-ness of the Body of Christ. I think this brother left the fundamentalism I hate, but never found the one I love.

I have found another way. The way that I have embraced is paleo-evanglicalism, the stuff early fundamentalists actually lived and died for. The thing Machen valued most. Therefore, I find it extremely sad that a man of brilliant intellect, high zeal, and intense love should leap from one groupthink to another, abandon the frying pan for the fire, and denounce one movement to embrace another movement; a movement that any credible church historian knows is already on its way out.

That’s my knee-jerk reaction.