Faith or Financial Pressure? Willow Creek’s $100 Million Campaign Raises Questions About Giving Through Debt

Willow Creek Community Church's celebration of members who borrowed money to fund its first building is raising a difficult question as the church launches a $100 million campaign: when does an example of sacrificial generosity become pressure to take financial risks?

According to an October 28 report by Ann Marie Shambaugh of The Roys Report, Senior Pastor Shawn Williams praised families who took out personal loans or second mortgages in 1977 to help the Illinois church secure its first permanent home.

"They signed their names to loans that they weren't sure that they were going to be able to afford, but they weren't building for themselves," Williams said during the October 11 service. "They were building for people they had not yet met."

Williams did not directly ask today's congregation to borrow money. The Roys Report said the church did not respond to its questions about whether it encourages that practice. Nevertheless, presenting those earlier borrowers as examples of faith invites scrutiny of the message financially vulnerable worshippers might hear.

Willow Creek's Step Out campaign seeks $100 million over two years and participation from the entire congregation. The church describes its priorities as strengthening campuses, developing discipleship, supporting neighbours and investing in younger generations. Its website also identifies prayer, volunteering and joining a group as ways to participate.

The Roys Report says $56 million would support two years of general ministry expenses, with another $44 million designated for strategic investments. The fundraising target therefore includes ongoing operations as well as expansion.

The historical example carried a substantial personal cost. In a video shown during the service, longtime member Jan Troeger recalled taking out a loan at 12.9 percent interest, repayable over two years.

"We just didn't ask, should we? Could we?" she said. "The question that all of us asked was, 'How much can we give?'"

That testimony may communicate devotion. It also leaves unanswered what happened to families who struggled with repayment-and whether their experiences belong alongside the success story.

Financial advisers interviewed by The Roys Report warned against putting household security at risk to support a church project. Stewardship advocate Gary Hoag emphasised that even when a project is worthwhile, responsibility for repaying the loan remains with the borrower.

The pastoral issue extends beyond whether a church explicitly instructs members to borrow. Stories celebrated from the pulpit can establish expectations. When taking on uncertain repayments is praised as courageous faith, congregants may wonder whether declining a similar risk reveals spiritual reluctance.

Williams connected his appeal with Luke 5, describing obedience to Jesus as a willingness to move beyond what feels safe or logical. That application raises a further interpretive question: how clearly does the sermon distinguish trusting Christ from endorsing a particular fundraising commitment?

Williams also described his own family's plans to increase giving through changed spending priorities and investment funds. He did not say they intended to borrow.

As Commitment Sunday approaches on November 8, the church has an opportunity to clarify how its appeal applies to households already under financial strain. Its campaign materials encourage families to discuss their commitment together before making it.

A fuller explanation would address whether members can decline to borrow, protect essential household expenses and still be affirmed as faithful participants. The credibility of a generosity campaign depends partly on how it cares for those whose most responsible answer is that they cannot give more.