A guest post by Daniel Eaton at Theologica. Being from Dallas Seminary, we were breed to loath seeker churches. 🙂 Yet I do have my thoughts as well that I will follow this up with. I look forward to your interaction.
I think there is a growing schism in the American church. The schism isn’t over theology, but methodology. A growing number of “seeker friendly” churches are on one side, and a firmly entrenched group of traditional churches are on the other. The increasing shrillness about the “seeker friendly” format somehow reminds me of church splits over what kind of music or musical instruments in the church. I think a lot of it comes down to a view that if it worked for my Grandad’s generation, then three hymns, a choir number, a sermon about the dangers in our society, and 27-stanzas of Just As I Am should be sufficient today. It’s the old “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” mentality.
But the problem is that it *is* broke. That format no longer appeals to the masses. That method is becoming harder and harder to use in order to get the message out. The sad truth is that the average tattooed or pierced unsaved person does not feel welcome or accepted if they attend the traditional church. It is an atmosphere of condemnation of those that don’t dress or look like everyone else there. This unsaved Seeker isn’t going to stick around. Instead, he is going to leave with a sense that the Christian church is full of a bunch of condemning hypocrites.
One thing I often see in this conflict is that most of the people who firmly support the status quo are the ones that are least familiar with other types of church. They have not been exposed to church in other cultures. When you see the way they “do church” in other cultures, I think one becomes much more open to alternatives of the traditional format here at home. The message becomes divorced from the methodology.
Another thing I often see is that some of the hardest critics of the Seeker Friendly church are critical of something that they have never been to. They often criticize the mega-church over their “shallow” sermons. That was a topic of a whole different blog post. But it seems a bit ironic to me that a lot of sermons from these Seeker Friendly churches are based on Christ’s own sermons about love and kindness and yet they are criticized as being shallow or not focused enough on condemnation and repentance.
There is a place for condemnation. But look at the focus of Christ’s condemnation. It was addressed to the traditional church of the day….the Pharisees and Sadducee. The ones defending the traditions of the status quo were the ones He was the most critical of. Yet when he was preaching the Sermon On The Mount or talking to the lady at the well, it was primarily a message of love, not condemnation.
I think the reason why the Seeker Friendly model works is because it is friendly and accepting of the Seeker that is looking for answers. Does that mean that all pastors of mega-churches are perfect and doctrinally sound? One has to go no further than Joel Osteen to answer that question. But to criticize a method of doing church because of the message of some televangelist that uses that model is just as illogical as to say that the traditional way is wrong because of some of the preachers that teach bad doctrine in those settings.
Ultimately, I think the church as a whole has a huge problem in it’s lack of discipleship and mentoring. It is easy to criticize the Mega-Church for not getting deep enough in their Sunday morning sermon. But those in-depth doctrinal expositions are not what the Seeker needs. It’s like throwing a non-swimmer into the deep end of the pool. They are not going to understand a good percentage of the “church words” that they hear. It is basically useless to them. Church was ultimately held for the benefit of those that had always been there. And, in the traditional churches that I spent decades in, there really wasn’t a place to educate them on the church vernacular. Sure, there was Sunday School. But it was typically broken up into classes for different age groups and/or genders. In some cases, there were “young believer’s” classes that spoke of the basics. And those were highly needed. What’s more, the traditional church accepted those.
Yet when the Seeker-Friendly church follows that model, it is either ignored or criticized. The local Seeker-Friendly church in my town has thirteen different mid-week classes on different topics. There are classes with a focus on issues of single parents, Biblical solutions for addiction, financial training, foundational truths from Christ’s teachings, and multiple Bible-studies on a number of topics. Wherever you are in your Christian walk and whatever your personal needs, there is a place where you can plug-in and get mentored. You don’t have to settle for whatever Sunday-School booklet the 25-35 Adult Male class is teaching. The Seeker can find what he needs. And ultimately, isn’t the Christian growth of the person Seeking Christ what we are supposed to be all about?
54 replies to "In Defense of Seeker Churches"
Nothing personal… but this has to be the worst defense of seeker-friendly methodology I have ever read.
“the Seeker Friendly model works”? This assumption is the crux of the whole debate. Define “works.” Define “church.” Define “unsaved person.”
Assuming your conclusion is not the same as actually defending your position.
I look forward to your thoughts…
Daniel
DE –
You sir, are correct.
David
Steve:
I’d be happy to respond to your assumptions at the Theologica forum post that is discussing this (http://theologica.ning.com/forum/topic/show?id=2124612%3ATopic%3A53475)
I always enjoy reading your blog, they always seem to cut right to the meat of things. I ran across the following piece while preparing a paper for my phych class a few years ago. It seems relevent to your message here. Let me know what you think.
http://www.pressiechurch.org/Theol_2/narcissism_goes_to_church.htm
Loujean,
I read the link you sent. I must admit I am torn. Torn between wanting church to be a place of significant worship, and between wanting it to be a place that is understandable to those who might enter its doors. Monte seems to think that the two are mutually exclusive. I think that if we are careful then both can be done at the same time and done well.
Dan,
I am a Calvinist and I believe their is a seeker especially since scripture states that there will be those who seek.
The problem here is two fold. The first problem is that the Church’s primary focus after God is for the body of believers. The we can focus on outreach; what good will outreach do if we do not disciple and care for each other? We forget or miss the point that the “Great Commission” is not an outward focus command entirely. Discipleship is an inward function of the Church not an outward function.
The second problem here is that if you preach a gospel that doesn’t included sin, judgment and condemnation then you have not preached the true Gospel. I am not saying that every sermon has to include it just that a true gospel message MUST. If not then you have to worry about the conversion of someone who claims to accept Christ hearing a gospel message that doesn’t include anything about their need for salvation. I am not saying that no one is saved apart from hearing a Gospel message (I will not short change the Holy Spirit) but, what I am saying is that we need to preach the whole truth about salvation.
We have two extremes at play hear fully closed and fully open. In one no love is expressed and in the other no righteous behavior is seen. From condemnation to compassion the Lord showed both love and acted righteously. We have to do the same.
The writer is operating on more assumptions than I care to even point out, so unlike the typical capon or Patton post- it is nowhere near irenic.
There are some churches firmly entrenched in a rigid traditionalist mindset who cannot divorce theology from methodology. It is true unfortunately. But his charicature of “3 hymns, a choir number, a sermon on condemnation and repentance, and 27 verses of ‘Just as I am’ is just that- a caricature.
There are many quite happy and eager for ecclesiological and/or cultural reform within the church, and not all of them are happy with the seeker centered church. I am not.
Rather than welcome unbelievers into a rich historic faith, the seeker church tends to aschew historc for what is modern, cutting edge, and flavor-of-the-month. Its not reform, its a wholesale rejection and throwing away of all the good elements along with the not so good.
The seeker church is built upon personalities and its own packaging, and not identifying with the church as a whole. In this regard its no better than the firmly entrenched traditionalist churches who have built their distinctions very often upon small doctrinal matters and methodology.
Will the seeker church “work” as the author says for those outside the faith who visit? Perhaps, but it depends on how you define “works”. Will they come back again? yes perhaps. Will the attend classes during the week, get “plugged in” to some degree? Yes perhaps. But will they get the had answers to questions they have, and receive true discipleship? Will they hear a message of radical grace and repentance? Are they going to be equipped to stand fast in the faith in the face of uncertainty and trials? I’m not as sure about those things.
Also, if someone is truly “seeking” then they might be less interested in the packaging as we think. I’m not going to bemoan someone not coming back to my church because the Purpose Driven Church across town has a kickin rock band and we sing hymns (as long as we are pursuing excellence in our worship)No I’m not.
I think you have possibly confused “Seeker-friendly” church and “friendly” church. “Seeker-Friendly” refers to churchs that purposely design their services and ministries solely to attract people to their church–which is not the mission of the Church. The mission of the Church is first and foremost to build-up the Saints, when and if that is done well the congregation will exhibit a warm and welcoming atmosphere–to whom ever enters
“There are classes with a focus on issues of single parents, Biblical solutions for addiction, financial training, foundational truths from Christ’s teachings, and multiple Bible-studies on a number of topics.”
I guess it depends upon what the church was established to do. It is not to service needs is it? And it is not for seekers, it is for disciples. Only one of the classes mentioned in the above is properly the domain of the church. The rest foo.
One only needs to look as far as Osteen? One only needs to look at the typical local church that is a “traditionalist” church. Most likely you will find the modern traditional model you have described. Most will lack the training in the teaching and doing germane to the discipline-ship of the Great Commission. In fact, discipline is the last thing that a seeker model, models, even in traditionalist churches. As a member of the SBC for over fifteen years, the traditional model you described, is found everywhere and reeks of the same seeker friendly fluff of your seeker model. Not much has changed except the drapings and seating. The revivalist, emotive centered approach is nothing new even if it smells and looks different. How long has Robert Schueler been around? Fifty years. Long before Warren he was there. Who was Finney anyway? And is it personal spiritual growth that is the focus, or the spiritual growth of others, esteeming them better than yourself? Mega and sound are not mutually exclusive, nor is open door opposed to the seekers. It is when the primary role of the church is accomodation rather than instruction and training in righteousness that it becomes something other than church and actually slams the door in the face of those who are seeking by denying them the actual. It is not something new as Spurgeon recognized, new inventions of men were everywhere to be found in his day. It is that seeker friendly is the same old flesh orgy of Corinth repeated over and over, in every generation with all the contemporary inventions and attributes, where those welcomed at the table are seeking what is in it for them, how they can meet their needs, fill their bellies, and not seeking the edification of others, and surely not the righteousnes of Christ.
“But those in-depth doctrinal expositions are not what the Seeker needs.” And so I take it that the Seeker, does not need what Christ would have given them? Seems rather absurd that what Paul was condemning in Corinth was experiencial mysticism and need fulfillment and not straight forward indepth teaching, then. The need as he put it was that all prophesy (become sound in doctrine, see Ephesians) so that the Seeker is convicted and falls down begging God for mercy and comes away declaring that God is truly in his church. It is so interesting then that approval of the Seeker model tends to reject the purpose for coming together in the first place.
Well — I’ve returned to the traditional church after my seeker church experience of 4 years because of the following:
Lack of teaching. Lack of a God-honoring environment. Not finding the support of like-minded grounded Christians to build community with. Thankfully, I was a grounded Christian when I entered the seeker environment. In the small group I led (where we decided to teach strong biblical topics), one “seeker” came up to me and asked –“Why don’t they teach this in church?”
You see, I found out that seekers WANT to learn – that’s why there are there. If you give them self-help. easy listening, non-offensive sermons (as this church did), you leave the seeker hungering for true biblical teaching. That’s why they came there in the first place.
The end result? 18 mon- 3 years later, the “seekers” realize that the answers they were looking for were not found in church — of any kind. The scary result? They may not step into a church ever again because they didn’t find anything of substance the first time they tried it.
I had to learn that church is created for Christians – for Christian community. If substance is found in a Christian community, then those that are truly seeking will “seek” that out – so they can learn. What they don’t want is fluff, pat answers to the deep things they seek.
That was my experience….and that’s why I’ve returned to a traditional church that teaches the foundations of the faith/Bible. It is much better to be seen as a teaching church than a seeker church. If people want answers – they want to be taught, not patted on the back. And I found true community – finally.
I know you can’t condemn all seeker churches – certainly not all do what this one did. But since so many of them get their ideas/promotional sermons/material/thoughts from a couple of main sources, my guess is that many have the flaws I saw.
I think one of the core elements of this discussion is what I am hearing people say is the “purpose of the church”. These thoughts are now being talked about in three places. Several people have said that the purpose of the church is to build up the believer. That may be the case, but I’d love to see some debate on that claim as well. Regardless of what the Biblical “purpose of the church” is though, that doesn’t mandate that the 11 o’clock hour on Sunday should only be for the benefit of building up the saints. That hour should be relevant to and welcoming of all that attend. I find it self-centered that the mature Christian demands that their needs get met regardless of the needs of seeking visitor.
I think the church has, at the very least, a dual purpose. It needs to be able to reach the lost as well. Development of the saints is great. It is needed. But feeding the flock should not be done at the determent of increasing the flock.
D.
Daniel
The point is — that the needs of the seeker are not being met in most seeker churches. What is true need? True need is knowing the Lord, then growing in the Lord. When you do not grow seekers up in the knowledge of the Lord, then meeting has no meaning no matter what time it is.
All churches desire to reach the lost. Why do you think this is only something that seeker churches do?
And the seeker church I attended was extremely desirous of increasing numbers…..they bragged about it all the time.
You seem to advocate dumbing it down to the lowest common denominator. I am advocating the opposite. Those who want to learn — will. And thankfully it will be available to them when they are ready to do so. Can’t do that if it’s not even available in the first place.
In the early church we find comverts being made on the streets not in the christian meetings. They were primarily for the Christians to be built up “Apostles teaching, Breaking of bread and prayers.” No Gospel service at 6:30.
The church went out and made converts, disciples.
Then the new converts came to the meetings to be grounded and discipled.
“That hour should be relevant to and welcoming of all that attend.” Yeah, that is what I said, and Scripture is quite clear that the coming together is for the building up of the saints, and that if a “seeker” shows who is not a believer, the purpose of the coming together that fulfills their need is the Gospel and nothing else.
“I find it self-centered that the mature Christian demands that their needs get met regardless of the needs of seeking visitor.” And no one said that mature believers demand that their needs be met. In fact that is as I said the opposite reason for attending in the first place. You have revealed a very interesting aspect of the Seeker movement, envy and pride.
My point is that the church needs to be able to meet the needs of people across a wide range of spiritual maturity. But the 11am Sunday service that has the widest spectrum of attendees should be basic enough that every single person there can get something from it. The unchurched visitor that walked in and doesn’t know all the big church terms shouldn’t require a translator. I just think we need to get away from this whole idea that the church is for me and my needs at all times – even on the Sunday morning service that may have people there that need some Jesus 101 sermon as opposed to an exposition on Paul’s teaching on Justification.
I agree. But that isn’t what the average Christian does today. You are lucky if they even invite someone to church, much less lay out the gospel message for an unsaved co-worker. Instead of every Christian being a minister/missionary, we have paid positions for that. We think of that as the Preacher’s job. That isn’t the way it should be, but that is the way it is. And as such, if we are going to depend on the Pastor to reach the lost, then we shouldn’t shy away from a Sunday morning service that we invite our unsaved co-worker to that is actually geared towards reaching the lost. Instead, we want our cake and eat it too. We want the preacher/church/missionary to be the one that reaches the lost, but we want our “meaty” intellectual doctrinal sermon on Sunday morning so we don’t have to miss the football game that afternoon and come back when they audience is primarily the mature faithful.
“I just think we need to get away from this whole idea that the church is for me and my needs at all times”
This is a canard, who are you speaking of? The purpose of the church is not determined by any personal needs. So what do you mean by “we need”? It that from a biblical perspective, or is it man centered desire? If the sermon and presentation is according to truth, it will meet the very need that the person, unchurched or unsaved needs. That is, it will pierce their heart, dividing apart of soul and spirit, the same thing that the immature and the mature alike need. It will instruct in righteousness, reprove, rebuke and in any other way set straight what is crooked. Some how I get the impression that your trust of the means of grace which is the Word, is insufficient for the Spirit to work.
Connie has a couple of misconceptions that need to be corrected.
She writes: “Seeker-Friendly” refers to churchs that purposely design their services and ministries solely to attract people to their church–which is not the mission of the Church. The mission of the Church is first and foremost to build-up the Saints, when and if that is done well the congregation will exhibit a warm and welcoming atmosphere–to whom ever enters
Seeker friendly can in fact have a number of meanings which is why it is such a loaded term. For many it may just involve being careful to explain Christian terms when you use them. Connies definition would be at the extreme end of seeker friendly definitions. I would rather call this seeker focused, rather than seeker friendly.
Secondly I would disagree with her comment that the mission of the Church is first and foremost to build-up the saints. In my mind the mission of the church is to bring people into a worshipping relationship with God through Christ. As someone once said (sorry I can’t remember the name) “Missions happens because Worship doesn’t”. The reason we evangelize, and the reason why we do missions is because there are people out there who are not worshipping God.
So I would agree with Daniel who stated that:
“I think the church has, at the very least, a dual purpose. It needs to be able to reach the lost as well. Development of the saints is great. It is needed. But feeding the flock should not be done at the determent of increasing the flock.”
As overheard in an Elders meeting a couple of years ago, “You can’t feed the sheep if you don’t have sheep to feed.”
The issue is not so much what type of church but that the church in general has taken on the role of God in people’s lives. People spend their allotted “Christian time” in churchy activities and neglect abiding and feasting on the Word of God in a one-on-one, personal, intimate, and daily communion. This intimacy is the only way to really know God because the activity of seeking for Him in His truth fosters unity, intimacy and dependence on Him as our teacher – all the things that lead to our ultimate purpose to be one with Him. John 17 Because this activity isn’t that important because who has time, and because the church steps in to fill this role that they can never fill, starving and emaciated spirits are overflowing in our churches. If we could see those around us with spiritual eyes we would be paralyzed with astonishment and realize something is terribly wrong with the whole system.
Our churches are becoming what they were never intended to be – I think they were intended to be a simple gathering of believers where the focus was on God and where the Word was read because it wasn’t available to the masses. They served their purpose for a season, but the seasons are changing. Now it is a god. People look to the system, the institution and not God. They neglect to learn from Him and as the Word is interpreted, not read, all they know about God is filtered through a man, which means they don’t really know Him at all.
This is an odd defense. Frankly, it seemed to confirm most of my negative ideas about the practices of seeker-sensitive churches without actually presenting arguments for them.
For example, our author admits that seeker-sensitive churches emphasize God’s Love at the expense of His justice and wrath, and attempts to argue for this by saying:
“Yet when he was preaching the Sermon On The Mount or talking to the lady at the well, it was primarily a message of love, not condemnation.”
I have to wonder… Have you read either? Go ahead. Both are condemnations; the Sermon on the Mount is a hellfire sermon. (All you have to do is call your brother a name, and you’re condemned to hellfire!) Neither one promises acceptance, although both promise sustenance.
I can’t argue against megachurches as such (I grew up hating the idea, and now I attend one even though a small church is within easy reach). I can’t argue against speaking in common English rather than “Christianese”. I can’t argue against the Love of God :-).
But… If your Church isn’t preaching about the power, holiness, and wrath of God as well as His grace, kindness, and patience, it’s missing who God is, whether it calls itself seeker-sensitive or not. There are churches on both sides of the aisle missing one or the other attributes of God.
The context of my statement was in comparison to the kinds of language Christ uses against the religious establishment of the day. Compare all the “Blessed are…” statements and “love your neighbor” statements with His comments of condemnation like “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!” My point is that if a preacher got up today and talked about how much God blesses the meek and peace-lover and how we are to love our neighbor, he would be accused of some milk-toast sermon for the benefit of a large crowd or something.
I think churches are not the issue. It’s peoples idea of what they do when they get there. “Church hoppers” scare me. I know people who will leave one church to find another because they don’t like the music. If your worshiping God, who cares what the music is. I love Greb Boyd’s latest sermon titled stepping in front of tanks. He says alot of today’s Christians are apart of the “bless me ” club that are holding a get out of hell free card. If we are to be the bride of Christ we should look like it. If im not mistaken the word says they will know us by our fruits. so on sundays, don’t tith. Take ten percent of your income go to the grocery store buy food with it and give it to the poor yourself. if a “mega church” of five thousand did this the media would see it. They would make a fuss over it and the world would see Christ’s bride as a beautiful and caring bride. If they deny it at that point, i would assume they don’t want Jesus anyway(trying to be non judgmental).
“My point is that if a preacher got up today and talked about how much God blesses the meek and peace-lover and how we are to love our neighbor, he would be accused of some milk-toast sermon for the benefit of a large crowd or something.”
I apologize for misconstruing your point; it was unintentional.
Let me say, then, that your point appears to involve not a defense of “seeker-friendly”, but rather an attack against churches that fail to teach a doctrine of love (good for you). Being seeker-friendly doesn’t cover that; I’ve attended a church that was quite seeker-friendly and didn’t preach about God’s love or our obligations under it; instead, it preached about self-help. I must say, that fulfilled my expectations about seeker-friendly churches :-/.
The point I have to make about seeker-friendly churches is that if they bring the seekers in and then tell them how to help themselves, they are teaching legalism, nothing more. If they bring the seekers in and tell them about their sin and about Christ, they are doing the work of the Spirit of God.
That was part of it. But it was more a defense from an attack than an attack itself. I’ve too often heard seeker-friendly churches equated to the broad way that leads to destruction. The inference is made that if you draw a crowd, you are only doing things for that purpose and are doing it wrong. One recent post even went as far as to say Christ was persecuted but Warren is a best selling author. It is almost as if our goal is to be small and exclusive. And you’ve seen the comments here that “the church is for the believers”. It is that attitude that visitors pick up on. I don’t think that is what we should portray.
Daniel, that’s a very well-made and nuanced point, and something that should have gone in your original essay, IMO. I agree entirely.
I see a distinction between a “megachurch” and a “seeker sensitive church”, though, and although with this modification you explain nicely why being a megachurch is no disqualifier, you don’t explain anything about seeker sensitivity.
One exception.
And to answer _that_ question would resolve the point, wouldn’t it? Therefore, assuming the answer (as both sides are doing) begs the question. We’ve gotta look into this. I hope the followup posts will be good, and that you’ll participate in the comments. I’ll be there too.
There is quite a discussion going on at Theologica about this as well. I was initially trying to keep the conversation taking place there, but my initial post where I linked to it didn’t get very much attention. 🙂
I think it real ironic that folks would make the claim that the church is for the believer. The church *IS* the collection of believers. And I can see where we might want to have some sessions geared towards the needs of the mature Christian. But when it comes to the time of the week more often visited by the unsaved visitor, we need to make sure that they can have the message communicated to them in a way that they can comprehend.
Like it or not, today’s post-MTV generation communicates differently than society did 30 years ago. As Romans 10 indicates, “How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?” This would indicate, at least to me, that the preacher’s role *isn’t* just to feed the flock. They need to reach the unbeliever as well. As such, the setting of the service when the non-believer is there needs to be something that is conducive to them being able to hear and accept the message. An un-friendly “this is our hour” attitude shuts them down before the pastor ever gets up on the stage.
I don’t think it has anything to do with liking or disliking the post-MTV generation. I happen to like them very much. 🙂 All generations need the word of God. And if the word of God is active – piercing through our hearts – then no matter what level it is taught at, it will accomplish God’s purpose. If indeed the Word challenges us not to be sluggish in our hearing…..that we are to desire solid food, not milk….then as Heb 6 says, we must progress beyond the elementary instructions about Christ and move on to maturity, not laying this foundation again…..
Daniel, I do understand your points. I felt that way for many years, so I am not uncompassionate about what you are saying. But I can’t help but think that we set up expectations for the post-MTV generation to live up to, when in fact, they are capable and probably desire the deep things of God to be taught to them.
Lastly, it is not just up to the pastor to teach all things to all people. Certainly, new believer’s classes should be available to those who are at that level – and can be taught by qualified lay people. But to deny those growing in their faith solid food is not the best way to feed a flock….and I believe the flock is best fed when they are in a flock – together. Just as seekers may only show up on Sundays, this is also true of maturing believers, thus the need to encourage spiritual maturity so that the church functions well and with health.
“‘and how shall they hear without a preacher?’ This would indicate, at least to me, that the preacher’s role *isn’t* just to feed the flock.”
Pardon, but the Bible _never_ refers to the leader of a church as a “preacher”. The preacher in this verse is simply someone who actively communicates the message of the Gospel.
I’m not really disagreeing with your belief here; you may be right that one task of the church’s meetings is to evangelize. I personally accept that, although I don’t think it’s the primary purpose of the meeting of the local Church. My point is that this Bible verse doesn’t teach that; it simply says that we collectively must share the Gospel.
The reason I don’t think it’s the primary purpose is that although Paul many times lists benefits or reasons to assemble together regularly, he never includes evangelism as one of the reasons. Thus, although I accept the obvious evidence that evangelism is a great side effect (and Paul seems to accept that as well, for example consider Paul’s reasoning in 1 Cor 14:23-24), I insist that other purposes are primary.
“An un-friendly ‘this is our hour’ attitude shuts them down before the pastor ever gets up on the stage.”
One more thing I should have noticed. You’re right, but what about a _friendly_ “this is our hour”? Paul lists the purposes of the regular meeting of the saints as being for each other — encouragement, exhortation, teaching, fellowship, and many other goods. If outsiders see us benefiting, that is itself a good argument why they should become an insider. We don’t have to _repel_ seekers, but if we do nothing but serve the seekers, we’ll not give them any reason to become something more than a seeker.
A couple of points. I am in no way saying that the church should only benefit or serve the seeker. But they should make the environment one that communicates to them as well. Why? Because regardless of how it *should* be, the majority of Christians do not “go and make disciples”. They have a passive “y’all come” attitude. As such, when/if they *do* come, we need to relate to them.
Second, while we all should be preachers and missionaries, the truth is that we are not. In effect, we pay people to do that for us. Again, that isn’t the way it should be, but that is the way it is. As such, the church pastor is likely to be the only kind of “preacher” that most people ever interact with. This means that they don’t need to focus solely on feeding the faithful. The mature faithful should be capable of feeding themselves.
There are multiple times during the week when the faithful can be fed. But there is typically only one hour a week in which unsaved visitors may attend. They need to be reached while they are there. I don’t see Christ accepting the excuse of us not wanting to harvest a crop brought to us because our schedule had something else in it for that hour.
D.
“The mature faithful should be capable of feeding themselves.”
You emphasize this. Why? Is it anywhere present in the Bible? The author of Hebrews speaks of feeding strong meat to the mature, not of the mature feeding themselves.
I think you’re wrong. The mature know that they are even more dependent on the Church; they are more, not less, one with the Body that is the Bride of Christ.
“But there is typically only one hour a week in which unsaved visitors may attend.”
Okay, this is true.
“They need to be reached while they are there.”
And yes, I agree with this as well.
But they must not be able to mistake themselves for the purpose of the Church! They must see the members of the Church fellowshipping in a way that they cannot share (my point) — but one which they can understand a need for (your point).
I think your point is valid. I think a church that babbles Christianese is effectively violating 1 Cor 14’s injunction against speaking in tongues in front of unbelievers.
Everything the church does should appear desirable to unbelievers; they should want to join so that they can receive the benefits obviously available to members.
But again, this doesn’t mean that the purpose of the church is to serve (in any way) those “seekers”. The purpose is to serve the Body of Christ, and finding new members is simply a beautiful part of that.
That’s bad. It’s not bad because it’s Churchy, though; it’s bad because it implies that we have an allotment of “Christian time”, and the rest of our time is therefore non-Christian.
Ow. This is not taught by John 17. John 17 isn’t about Christ asking that each of us be one with Christ; it’s asking that we be one with each other, and then, collectively, be one with Him (this is precisely what John 17:21 says). In other words, the passage you cite teaches the opposite of what you’re teaching.
There are plenty of other passages as well that teach the opposite. “Do not forsake the assembling of yourselves together…”
Our faith is not individualistic, and the knowledge we have of God’s person and character is something that must be passed from human to human in assembly as well as from God to human individually. In short, we MUST meet together in order to know God personally. Trying to understand God by yourself in isolation runs the risk of mistaking your own imagination for the voice of God.
-Wm
Disciples going and making disciples is a common theme. I’m too busy to look up specific verses for you, but if you want to argue that the mature faithful should be dependent on the pastor for spiritual growth, I’ll be glad to spend time on it later. As to why I emphasized it, I did so to point out the irony that the very claim from the “mature” that they need to be fed by the pastor is pretty much a self-refuting claim.
What I’d like to see is for you to define who/what “the church” is and how it’s purpose excludes the unsaved (as in your “not for the unsaved” comment). It just seems real narcissistic to say that the purpose of the body of Christ is to focus on ourselves and our needs. There *were* times that Christ took the disciples off for private training. But when the crowds showed up, Christ focused on reaching them. Our Sunday morning service should do the same.
D.
“And you’ve seen the comments here that “the church is for the believers”. It is that attitude that visitors pick up on. I don’t think that is what we should portray.”
Yes, and they should. The exclusivity of the Gospel is the very point and if a Church is not portraying Christ’s words “Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you shall have no part in me,” it is not the church. Which is really what you’re advocating; a Christless, churchless church. The church is not for unbelievers, what part does Chirst have with Belial, or Belial with Christ? Absolutely, nothing. What part of no part do you not understand?
That we extend the Gospel with open doors does not reduce the reponsibility of the demands of Christ. You do diminish his commandments and violate the very Blesseds that you extol. Do you not know that love requires right judgement? Diminishing one or the other is to violate both.
Members are not to become self-feeders, either. That destroys the very essence of what the church is to be: a mutually edifying fellowship of the exclusive body of Christ. The members, no matter how mature, are not to become self-feeders unless of course you believe that it is not from God through Christ, to the body that we are fed? Are all teachers? The answer is no. Self-feeding overthrows the entire meaning of the Lord’s Supper. The ministry of the Word is given to the preaching/teaching ministry for training in righteousness, rebuke, reproof. There is no sense in Jesus telling Peter, “Feed my sheep,” if the sheep are to feed themsleves. As Paul indicates, in the ruin of error we are to suck again upon the pure milk of the word, and repentance remained the very crucial requirement which was brought about by the Word as it was applied through his ministry. What you apparently are trying do is destroy the distinction of particular callings and giftings.
It is empty to even speak of Timothy without the recognition that it is to be the priority of the Church to do this and that through elders apt to teach. For what else would the gifts of some to minister be given, and not to all? Ephesians has no meaning, and all becomes subject to juvenile ranting, if one rejects the authority granted the church leadership for the very purpose of divisions. For it is necessary that divisions exist so that those who are approved can be recognized. Christ did not come to send peace, but a sword, to cause division. He was not open to nor did he accomodate everyone. Not even his mother was put before his brothers and sisters. John the Baptist turned away the seekers who did not show forth signs of repentance and we are not to welcome among us those who say they are brothers who do not bring this doctrine. Are you getting the message? The Gospel that you are proposing appears as is no Gospel at all.
Take a break and go listen to the White Horse Inn. They have a nice piece on “Self-feeders.”
http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/The_White_Horse_Inn/archives.asp?bcd=8/3/2008
And here in a nut shell is the Gospel that should be confronting the “seeker” when he comes on Sunday, whether member, unsaved or unchurched: Jesus Christ crucified by the Jews at the hands of evil men, murdered, buried and resurrected for the remission of sin through repentance, for the Jew and the Gentile alike. If a church is not presenting some form of this on Sunday morning, and the seeker walks out and is hit by a bus and dies, how wiill the Seeker churches respond? That they were just being loving? Or, would it be the fact that their pride and selfishness prevented them from chancing being offensive for the possibility of truly loving others by seeking their salvation? Be assured, every one will be held accountable for every word that does not work. Jesus’ admonishments and warnings had to do with the work of the church and the responsibility of the believer to draw the sword of division. A responsibiliy to the commandment of Christ by obviation, is certainly not loving Christ. How then is it love of neighbor?
Tank is right, ” We don’t have to _repel_ seekers, but if we do nothing but serve the seekers, we’ll not give them any reason to become something more than a seeker.” If our Gospel is offensive it is offensive to those who are perishing, Our aim is not to bring offense to the Gospel. First and foremost we do not offend the Gospel and thus Christ by making it secondary to meeting the fleshly needs of seekers. If it is not the first thing, and in reality the only occupation of the church, the Great Commission the church has been given means nothing.
It might be good Franciscan mysicism, but not Christianity to say: “But when the crowds showed up, Christ focused on reaching them. Our Sunday morning service should do the same.” Because what you mean by that negates the very thing he was sent to do, preach the Gospel. He never failed to, but you would have him doing so. You have Christ denying the very mission given him by the Father. As I mentioned above, I doubt you would do as Christ did and tell them what he did. Or mention John 3:18. You wouldn’t tell the woman at the well just what kind of woman she was, would you. Upon the first meeting? I don’t think that you would send the disciples out to leave a blessing only if the seekers accepted the message, would you? How seeker friendly…
The exclusivity of Christ being the only way should not be an indication that our church services should be private affairs. Christ’s message, while exclusive, was open to all. Our services should be as well. No one is suggesting that the church become the world, but the church needs to welcome the worldly that come to it looking for answers. As far as self-feeders go, we *should* do theology in a community of believers. But we should also, as part of our discipleship training, expect mature believers (and that is what I was talking about) to be able to read and study on their own without the dependence on the pastor to spoon feed them. At some point, they need to be able to do this themselves and replicate the cycle.
http://shepherdtheflock.com/2008/08/28/religious-worship-and-the-natural-man/
A question that should be asked is what is it that we offer? Is it remediation in life maintenance, or when we invite, or are inviting, is it like the woman at the well who said come and see the man, who exposed all my sin, could this be the Prophet?
First I disagree that it is the priority of all believers to evangelize. You will not find that expressed. What you will find is that Paul assigns the task as Jesus did to the leadership of the church. It is not that we do not have a responsibility to testify, but evangelism is a particular calling given to certain ones and not all. The confusion comes precisely from the direction you are going, in making no distinction about what the church’s primary role is. You speak the truth about the maturing process and that it is generally given that all should study for themselves as approved workmen, but that particular call given to Timothy was in reference to his role as teacher/preacher/overseer. When we make the same mistake about the Great Commission, then there becomes no differentiation of roles, of office, of gifting. Who was the commission given to, under what authority can one make a disciple? Surely it is not the novice. Nor is it the novice who can instruct and insure the keeping. It is no chance statement that Paul makes concerning the proper candidates for the teaching positions. It is no chance statement that Paul instructs Pastor Timothy to do the work of an evangelist. Are all evangelist, no. To the contrary, it follows from the great commission, a commission that was not simply generally given, but has to flow from the authority downward through particular men set aside for particual purpose. The church is the place of discipline, primarily, and not the place of evangelism. But, obviously the door is open and our message to those presenting themselves, or those who we might invite can only be that message which Christ himself was sent to proclaim. So our message must confront sin as Jesus did with the woman at the well, first, it must offer the Truth and Spirit of what worship means, it must offer Him so that when they go out, they like the woman will say, come see the man who told me all the truth and held nothing back. There is no other love. Coffee and doughnuts, marriage counseling, financial classes, sewing bees and coed soft-ball are not primary nor even necessary. If as a tool of out reach any of these are used it must be along the lines that the first thing is the Gospel. Jesus himself said that it was not his purpose to come and do these kinds of things. In all that he did, the first thing was the Gospel. He fed the crowds, there is no doubt, but not once did he engage the crowd without the anouncement of what it meant. Our Gospel presents Christ not first seeking to supply the need of the body, instead Christ is presented in the middle of temptation denying the need of the flesh and saying to those who would present those things as reason to follow with, “Man does not live by bread alone, but by every Word that procedes out of the mouth of God.” It is not the priority of the church to meet the fleshly needs. What is first and foremost is the Word of God faithfully and truthfully presented as the sustenance that men need for life. This was Christ’s mission, not to remove tribulation, but to be for man, the answer to his suffering. Food for the belly and satisfaction of the fleshly lusts is not the answer. We are most welcoming when we like Jesus confront sin as he did with the woman at the well. The first thing is his love, of that there is no doubt, but the first remedy offered in love is condemnation of sin. You would do well to understand that no man loved Jesus because he fed men, raised some from the dead or healed them. Indeed, when he insisted that those things will only condemn them, if they seek them, they put him to death. It was not the soft expression of love that won them. No one, not even his disciples believed in him because of those things. The exposure of their sin, John 3, is why they come into the light. But wicked men do not like that light. They would rather remain in the darkness of sin and the needs of their flesh, than to admit that they cannot make it by those means. Go ahead and use the seeker-friendly model. At what point will you confront them as Jesus did the woman at the well? And if it is not at first, will they not say that you have deceived them? Bait and switch is not Christ’s way. Instead his offer is: “come and see, I have no place to lay my head, and I do not offer you a pillow, sell therefore all you have and come, deny your needs and come. But if you come only to fill your bellies, then know this, you have no place in me to which you desire to come, anyway. You are only seeking yourself.”
Thomas:
I didn’t catch all you said, but I like what you said about giftings. I think that just as Christ gifts individuals differently, He does the same with individual congregations. I see nothing wrong with different congregations having different priorities and a different format to reach different demographics.
D.
Is the purpose of the Sunday morning gathering for the believer or for an evangelistic outreach?
If the seeker friendly mode is legit, why are their so many doing it? If they truly care about the “lost”, if that is their main concern, why are so many churches doing it? Why is it that in my area so many start ups are doing the seeker friendly model? Why are so many traditional denominations switching to that model? Perhaps the real purpose is the desire to increase attendance, and thus cash?
Do unbelievers really seek God? Rom 3:11
Who saves, who adds to the body of believers? Acts 2:47
What do believers do? Do they devote themselves to the skit or entertainment? Acts 2:42 Does the church take a part in the sanctification process? Is our challenge to create converts or disciples? Matt 28:19
What was the preaching like in the early church? (See the book of Acts to see how the apostles preached vs. the “practical” sermons/talks of the seeker-friendly place)
Can you have contemporary music and solid teaching? I think you can.
Should church be uninviting to anyone (believers or unbelievers)? I don’t think it should, I think everyone should feel welcome, I think all believers are called to be kind to those inside and outside, and I think solid teaching can take place.
The seeker-friendly model doesn’t make sense. If I show up to a meeting of electricians, or pilots, or doctors, or accountants, or whatever you want to insert, should they tone down their training in order to accommodate me, the visitor? Well believers need a place for training too. Eph 4:12
Does man live by food alone? Where are we to be fed? The seeker movement is starving believers and their spiritual growth is neglected and replaced with numerical growth. Thankfully programs like the Theology Program exist.
I find comments like “Do unbelievers really seek God? Rom 3:11 ” more disingenuous than irenic. Did Christ not draw His own crowds? Comments like that one would infer that Christ wasn’t God since so many people sought Him.
I believe you were the non-irenic. Christ is God John 8:24, unbelievers are drawn John 6:44, and salvation is through Him. After He draws them does He want them to grow spiritually or does He want them to be starved of His word? That is what seeker friendly does, they starve believers. Maybe they don’t do it intentionally, maybe they have good intentions; however, does that make it right? I do believe we are to evangelize the lost, I do believe we are to be taught (disciple), and I do believe we are to be equipped to evangelize Eph 4 equip the saints! However, when you don’t equip and do the evangelizing for the believer via a seeker sensitive environment then what is the fallout of that? (Maybe a neglect of the spiritual growth of the believer?)
An irenic discussion requires that we stay fair to the facts – even when they don’t support our case. Your post was so one-sided as to present an untrue picture.
D.
Thanks for the exchange
Paix et grace,
tt
As I’ve said before in this thread, our “pastor” concept is an anachronism. The mature faithful should be dependent on the church, not on a single man (or committee). We’ll look at what this means in a moment.
Given that the author of Hebrews claims that the mature need to be fed, are you still content with asserting that? Or please explain why my use of this concept is self-refuting while Hebrew’s use isn’t.
The purpose of the church is to be the body and bride of Christ. Christ is our Head and the center of the church’s life. The duties of the church is _nowhere_ described as helping the unsaved; it is everywhere described as encouraging one another, serving one another, remembering Christ, teaching about Christ, and so on. When selecting individuals to serve charitably, one of the frequent requirements is that the recipient be devoted to Christ.
We should be devoted to Christ and to each other. We should be good, and being good means helping others, each other first and the rest of the world as an overflow of generosity.
Did he? Then what were the parables for — why did He use obscure illustrations, and explain them only to the people who chased him down and specifically asked him? I don’t care for Christianese, but that’s perhaps a strike against me. Perhaps sometimes it’s useful to make a REAL seeker say, “huh? What do you mean by that?”
BUT, I don’t really live by that interpretation. I don’t think church services should be utterly mysterious. I think unbelievers who wander in should understand clearly what’s going on and who’s the center (Christ). THIS is being friendly to seekers.
I never said that the mature didn’t need feeding at all. They do. But a mature person would not expect their own feeding at the expense of the immature or unsaved. Specifically, it is immature to think that they can only be fed by the pastor and only during the hour when the unsaved are likely to show up.
To continue the analogy of feeding, it would be like letting the baby cry for a bottle while you ignore them and chomp down on a steak that you insist someone else prepare for you. If you are truly mature, you can prepare for yourself and share with other mature people and they with you and you would take care of the baby before you take care of yourself. Amture Christians *can* be fed by the pastor, but they should not *have* to be. A mature Christian should be able to feed themselves and others.
D.
The unsaved are not ever in the Bible likened to the immature, though. Therefore, your analogy is entirely inapt; of course the mature (including the pastor and elders) must minister to the immature as well as the mature, but this analogy does not address the unsaved at all. The unsaved are not immature Christians; they are not Christians at all. You feed babies milk, and strong men meat, and dead people don’t eat at all.
There’s a balance here. The church services should be friendly to the unsaved; Paul said so in 1 Cor 14, and explained why. They should never be ministering to the needs of the unsaved; the only need they have is Jesus, and only the Holy Spirit will convict them of that. But the ministry is TO and FOR the Body of Christ, not to or for the world.
Daniel,
Our common ground “Ultimately, I think the church as a whole has a huge problem in it’s lack of discipleship and mentoring.” Peace be with you.
Eric
But in our culture today, the believer doesn’t go out and minister to the unsaved. The unsaved are expected to come to church and hear the gospel from the paid minister. Yet when they come, they often are no more than a spectator to a service geared towards someone else. My point is that you cannot minister to and for the Body of Christ if that, week after week, focuses on caring for the existing flock and ignores increasing the flock. While I agree that the Holy Spirit calls, that neglects our own responsibility as well. “How are they to call on one they have not believed in? And how are they to believe in one they have not heard of? And how are they to hear without someone preaching to them ” My point is that during the one hour a week that they come to hear the message from the preacher, it should be in a setting conducive to them receiving it and should be what they need to hear. As a mature Christian, I can get my in-depth “meaty” Bible-study at some other time of the day or week.
D.
“While I agree that the Holy Spirit calls, that neglects our own responsibility as well.”
You’re right that that truth can be abused. But your particular reading seems to be precisely that abuse! You separate between the “pastor” and the rank-and-file Christians: the pastor feeds, the rest bulk out the attendance numbers and occasionally invite people. But that’s not the rule being taught in the scriptures; on the contrary, all of us should be involved in the great commission.
I don’t think you’re all wrong, as I’ve said before. If your screed had been against “seeker hostile” churches, I’d be on your side. Another way to view such “seeker hostile” churches is that they’re churches that actively discourage members from using the weekly service as an evangelism tool. Another way of viewing them is that they’re just plain ignoring the fact that unbelievers WILL come and WILL judge based on what they see, as Paul clearly warned.
“How are they to call on one they have not believed in? And how are they to believe in one they have not heard of? And how are they to hear without someone preaching to them ” My point is that during the one hour a week that they come to hear the message from the preacher, it should be in a setting conducive to them receiving it and should be what they need to hear. As a mature Christian, I can get my in-depth “meaty” Bible-study at some other time of the day or week.”
Then you would agree that something along the lines of Edward’s “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” would be the right type sermon for the seeker? And that other amenities other than the evangelistic service should be kept from the seeker, right? That the members are the primary and not the seeker? Perhaps you would agree also, that outreach to the unbeliever except for evanglistic effort and that primary should also first emphasize the Gospel? And, that if outreach program’s not Sunday service is offered, the clear exposition of the Lord’s demands that if they partiake of the substance of the body, they are condemned unless they submit to discipleship, for that is what Christ did? And because that is what they really need?
I agree, that if a church should choose to make their main ministry evangelism that it possibly could be that Sunday morning be the main event for that, but you would still be as explicit as possible that now is the day, today, if they hear is voice? You would make sure that if they did go out, they would understand the condemnation that they were under, right, as well as the free offer of reconcilliation?
I still disagree that it is the layperson’s responsibillity to bring them in. It is rather the paid minister/unpaid elder who is responsible primarily. But, I would agree, that if the church denies the particularity of the call to ministry, that is that the pastors (elders) are to do the work of evangelism, then seeker services might be the best means of evangelism. But, I question just how offensive you might be when they come in. I mean, would you preach the offense of the cross? Would you tell them as Jesus did those who were following him, who said they believed, that they were of their father the devil, murderers and liars so that most turned away and no longer seek?