Seeker friendly churches

[InTheLight]

It's not Calvinism it's scripture. Besides I don't know if I would consider Lutzer a Calvinist. Besides that I finished a book Sunday and the author was not a Calvinist.

<snip>

You are going off-topic in your own post. Arminian churches are not necessarily "seeker-friendly". (Still waiting for a definition of that term, BTW.) Neither are Calvinist churches. There's no need to use those two labels, though you almost always do so. That's why I say you need to drop the Calvinist lens you use to view everything.

If your definition of "seeker-friendly" is not preaching on sin, not preaching on repentance, hell, etc. then your seeker friendly churches are the ones I listed. Typically, liberal, mainstream Protestant denominations. I would guess they never use the term Arminian or Calvinist.

 

[evangelist6589]

You are going off-topic in your own post. Arminian churches are not necessarily "seeker-friendly". (Still waiting for a definition of that term, BTW.) Neither are Calvinist churches. There's no need to use those two labels, though you almost always do so. That's why I say you need to drop the Calvinist lens you use to view everything.

If your definition of "seeker-friendly" is not preaching on sin, not preaching on repentance, hell, etc. then your seeker friendly churches are the ones I listed. Typically, liberal, mainstream Protestant denominations. I would guess they never use the term Arminian or Calvinist.

If they do not preach the gospel they are not a biblical church.

 

[PreachTony]

Arminian churches are not necessarily "seeker-friendly". (Still waiting for a definition of that term, BTW.)

I decided to research "seeker-friendly" for myself, seeing as my insulated nook of the world doesn't exactly toss that term around with regularity. From several quickly-Googled websites, I found:

1. The seeker-friendly church tries to make church as comfortable and inviting to others as possible, in the hope is that the person will believe in the gospel.
2. The seeker-friendly church tries to make church "non-threatening."
3. The seeker-friendly church uses audio-visual stimulation in hopes of keeping the interest of the unsaved.
4. The seeker-friendly church sometimes/often uses surveys and studies to find out what people want to find in church, and what would make church better for them.
5. The seeker-friendly church is quite often closely tied to the ministerial aspirations of people like Joel Osteen, who stress that God will make your life better if you believe.

Here's what I think of that (for anyone who cares) answered point by point:

1. A believer led by the Spirit will find comfort in the House of God without having to change the order of things in the House of God.
2. A would-be believer who is still in sin is, almost by design, going to find church "threatening." This is not through any act of the preacher or the deacons or the staff, but instead by the convicting power of the Holy Ghost of God. Since the flesh is at enmity with the Spirit, the unsaved will seek to distance themselves from it. I've watched plenty of younger teens and children who, upon coming under conviction, sought to "got to the bathroom" or to "hide behind a songbook."
3. This is merely a by-product of our current society, which stresses instant gratification and the necessity of constant stimulation.
4. See #1. A believer led by the Spirit will change for the church, not force the church to change for them.
5. I hold no good will toward the ministerial aspirations of Osteen and the like. Their supposed "gospel" is dangerous to believers young and old. There is no promise in the Bible that belief in God will produce a better quality of physical life for the believer. In most instances, believers were treated more harshly and had harder lives than nonbelievers. The stress was on the spiritual things, and on laying up treasures in Heaven. The modern Prosperity Gospel avoids that and says that earthly treasures are equitable with the blessing of God.

I would love for someone to tell me that I'm wrong in my new-found understanding of "seeker-friendly" churches, especially since the information was gleaned from a quick Google search and was compiled from the top hits on that search.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Seriously, though, what is a "put put church?"

The analogy is taken from the automotive world....IE, Put Put is a crappy car. :thumbs:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

If they do not preach the gospel they are not a biblical church.

Isnt that the definition of a church? Preach the gospel?

 

[InTheLight]

I decided to research "seeker-friendly" for myself, seeing as my insulated nook of the world doesn't exactly toss that term around with regularity. From several quickly-Googled websites, I found:


* The seeker-friendly church tries to make church as comfortable and inviting to others as possible, in the hope is that the person will believe in the gospel.


A believer led by the Spirit will find comfort in the House of God without having to change the order of things in the House of God.

So, don't replace the roof, don't replace the furnace, the carpet, update the furniture, have air conditioning, etc.?? Just be happy you've got a place to meet and live with it, is that it? Also, the list you presented said the seeker church was changing things to make unbelievers feel comfortable, not believers. Why change the argument to the viewpoint of believers?

*The seeker-friendly church tries to make church "non-threatening."

A would-be believer who is still in sin is, almost by design, going to find church "threatening." This is not through any act of the preacher or the deacons or the staff, but instead by the convicting power of the Holy Ghost of God. Since the flesh is at enmity with the Spirit, the unsaved will seek to distance themselves from it. I've watched plenty of younger teens and children who, upon coming under conviction, sought to "got to the bathroom" or to "hide behind a songbook."

Since non-threatening is not defined, it can be made to mean anything. You've decided it means that people will be threatened by the convicting power of the Holy Spirit. I also noticed that these attendees are now unbelievers whereas in your first point they were believers.

So far, you are in favor of uncomfortable, uninviting churches for believers and threatening churches for non-believers. Forgive me if I make the observation that this strategy is possibly not conducive to church growth. Anyway, any time the gospel is preached it is likely to be perceived as threatening to unbelievers. Are you saying that seeker friendly churches don't preach the gospel?

* The seeker-friendly church uses audio-visual stimulation in hopes of keeping the interest of the unsaved.

This is merely a by-product of our current society, which stresses instant gratification and the necessity of constant stimulation.

I see. So we should not use overhead visual aids, sound amplification devices, moving picture devices (talkies), etc. You have not shown why these devices are bad, just stated that they are currently used. Should we go back to candlelight, hymnals, and yelling from the podium?

* The seeker-friendly church sometimes/often uses surveys and studies to find out what people want to find in church, and what would make church better for them.

See #1. A believer led by the Spirit will change for the church, not force the church to change for them.

Pastor: "It's my way or the highway!!"
OR
Pastor: "I wonder why we don't have any young families attending our church?"
Deacon: "Could it be that we don't have a nursery?"
Pastor: "Well, don't ask anyone what they want. And we wouldn't want them to be comfortable either."

* The seeker-friendly church is quite often closely tied to the ministerial aspirations of people like Joel Osteen, who stress that God will make your life better if you believe.

I hold no good will toward the ministerial aspirations of Osteen and the like. Their supposed "gospel" is dangerous to believers young and old. There is no promise in the Bible that belief in God will produce a better quality of physical life for the believer. In most instances, believers were treated more harshly and had harder lives than nonbelievers. The stress was on the spiritual things, and on laying up treasures in Heaven. The modern Prosperity Gospel avoids that and says that earthly treasures are equitable with the blessing of God.

While I loathe both Joel Osteen and his ilk, and the prosperity gospel, I don't necessarily see linkage between seeker-friendly churches and Osteen's. Osteen (and others) may employ #1 through #4 on your list, but that doesn't make them bad methods. You are using the fallacy of guilt by association.

I would love for someone to tell me that I'm wrong in my new-found understanding of "seeker-friendly" churches

You're welcome.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

How about "sneaker friendly"....like can I wear my Pumas to church or will somebody have a conniption fit if I do not conform to said dress code.....or is that people can come how you are? Does dress matter?

 

[InTheLight]

How about "sneaker friendly"....like can I wear my Pumas to church or will somebody have a conniption fit if I do not conform to said dress code.....or is that people can come how you are? Does dress matter?

Can't have people wearing sneakers to church. That would be trying to "make church as comfortable and inviting as possible."

Can't have that!

Now, "streaker friendly" is a problem...

 

[PreachTony]

So, don't replace the roof, don't replace the furnace, the carpet, update the furniture, have air conditioning, etc.?? Just be happy you've got a place to meet and live with it, is that it? Also, the list you presented said the seeker church was changing things to make unbelievers feel comfortable, not believers. Why change the argument to the viewpoint of believers?

ITL - Apologies for not properly stating my case. Of course, the things you listed can be changed. I thank you for twisting my point to make it sound as though nothing should ever change ever in the history of ever. I'm conservative, but I'm not that conservative. Things like carpet and AC have to be changed from time to time. I'm talking about changing the deeper things, hiding the strong meat of the word and only offering the milk and never going further, pushing forward eschatological doctrines before teaching salvation and repentence, simply because eschatology sells.

Sure, these churches seek to make things more comfortable for unbelievers, but believers were once unbelievers (unless you hold to some untold version of Calvinism in which the Elect believed from the beginning and no convicting power of God is required). I don't understand why believers today seem to think that the methods by which they came to God no longer work, seeing as God hasn't change, nor will He change.

Since non-threatening is not defined, it can be made to mean anything. You've decided it means that people will be threatened by the convicting power of the Holy Spirit. I also noticed that these attendees are now unbelievers whereas in your first point they were believers.

I speak only from experience of seeing people basically hiding from the Spirit during preaching and whatever sort of altar call was held. Perhaps "threatening" isn't the right word, but the sentiment was well-intentioned.

So far, you are in favor of uncomfortable, uninviting churches for believers and threatening churches for non-believers. Forgive me if I make the observation that this strategy is possibly not conducive to church growth. Anyway, any time the gospel is preached it is likely to be perceived as threatening to unbelievers. Are you saying that seeker friendly churches don't preach the gospel?

Now you're just putting words in my mouth, which I don't appreciate. The points I presented came from the articles found in a Google search. As I noted, I'm unfamiliar with the term "seeker-friendly." In researching it, I found the points listed in my original post. I would not cast a blanket statement of "does or does not" preach the gospel on any group of churches.

I see. So we should not use overhead visual aids, sound amplification devices, moving picture devices (talkies), etc. You have not shown why these devices are bad, just stated that they are currently used. Should we go back to candlelight, hymnals, and yelling from the podium?

Pastor: "It's my way or the highway!!"
OR
Pastor: "I wonder why we don't have any young families attending our church?"
Deacon: "Could it be that we don't have a nursery?"
Pastor: "Well, don't ask anyone what they want. And we wouldn't want them to be comfortable either."

I never said the items are bad, I merely pointed out that our society has devolved into a society of instant gratification. The notion that continual stimulation is required only plays into this notion. I come from a long line of church-goers and never once has my church (or any of our sister churches in the area) forced some sort of continual stimulation to keep the church interested. As I said earlier, God hasn't changed, yet man has forced more and more changes on their worship services in order to bend to the whims of the world.

While I loathe both Joel Osteen and his ilk, and the prosperity gospel, I don't necessarily see linkage between seeker-friendly churches and Osteen's. Osteen (and others) may employ #1 through #4 on your list, but that doesn't make them bad methods. You are using the fallacy of guilt by association.

Once more, the point came from online articles. This is why I asked for corroboration, while going on and providing my insights on the matter.

You're welcome.

Much appreciated.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Boys....play nice now:laugh:

 

[InTheLight]

PreachTony, my apologies if I misrepresented you. I guess I took the spirit of debate too far. Let me state what I think of when I consider the phrase "seeker friendly" (sometimes in a negative light.)

1. Make church as comfortable and inviting to unbelievers

No Bibles or hymnals in the pews. Large, padded theater style seats. Contemporary decor. Indirect muted lighting. Modern style music--you must have a guitar, preferably amplified. Worship band. Allow people to bring coffee into the service. Provide cookies and/or other treats.

2. Non-threatening.

Remove all Christian themed artwork. No crosses. Hide the baptism tank. Preach on themes having to do with human relationships. How to get along with your boss, how to connect with your kids, etc. Preachers never wear a suit.

3. Audio visual simulation to keep unbelievers attention

Multiple HDTV's and/or large projection screens. State of the art audio system. Drama productions at Christmas and Easter rather than sermons. High tech lighting control. Wifi.

4. Use of surveys
Self-explanatory.

As long as the gospel is preached along with sound doctrine I don't have a problem with much of these techniques. I do object to some things I listed but it's more a personal preference rather than Biblical reasons. I don't see what is wrong with using the latest technology or having a nicely furnished sanctuary. Watered down sermons or doctrine is wrong. But projecting the words to a song on a screen is OK.

I've attended a wide variety of churches over the years and have noticed code words and code phrases that help me identify places I would not attend. I would list these attributes when describing a seeker friendly church.

Any church that refrains from using the phrase "the blood of Jesus" because they don't want to offend people.

Any church that uses the phrase "disease of the soul" instead of sin.

Any church that doesn't preach repentance, or use the word repent.
Any church that doesn't preach on the second coming.

Any church that uses a euphemism for Hell instead of calling it Hell.

Any church that says the mode of baptism isn't important. (Hey, I'm a Baptist!)

Any church that never has an invitation or altar call. Or at minimum, "heads bowed and eyes closed, slip your hand up if you want prayer."

Any church that shies away from the phrase "born again" or "saved".

Any church that uses books and study guides instead of the Bible for sermons, instruction, or discussions.

I'll stop here because I'm thinking this subject matter warrants a separate thread.

Your thoughts?

 

[PreachTony]

My apologies for my terseness, as well. I often have a tendency to be blunt, so just thump me in the forehead the next time I smart off. :smilewinkgrin:

Going off the list you provided, I would be awfully wary of a church that did not provide Bibles. I can understand some churches not using hymnals, as they may have an overhead projector system that displays the song lyrics on a screen. I've said elsewhere that some of my fellow churchgoers have labeled me a "hardshell" Baptist, so my views are typically a bit more strict than a more casual Baptist.

Your provided definition of "nonthreatening" is a bit troubling to me, though I admit my viewpoint is different from most. I understand that not every service is going to be a preach-to-the-lost kind of service. Sometimes you have to preach to the church. Sometimes you do talk about the human relationships. But the majority will tend toward salvation based messages. By your provided definition, the "preached" word trends away from salvation and more into a Tony Robbins-type self-help. This sounds much like Joel Osteen's 'best life now' theory and seems to give way to Victoria Osteen's "you're not doing it for God, really; you're doing it for yourself" diatribe.

I've attended a wide variety of churches over the years and have noticed code words and code phrases that help me identify places I would not attend. I would list these attributes when describing a seeker friendly church.

Any church that refrains from using the phrase "the blood of Jesus" because they don't want to offend people.

Any church that uses the phrase "disease of the soul" instead of sin.

Any church that doesn't preach repentance, or use the word repent.
Any church that doesn't preach on the second coming.

Any church that uses a euphemism for Hell instead of calling it Hell.

Any church that says the mode of baptism isn't important. (Hey, I'm a Baptist!)

Any church that never has an invitation or altar call. Or at minimum, "heads bowed and eyes closed, slip your hand up if you want prayer."

Any church that shies away from the phrase "born again" or "saved".

Any church that uses books and study guides instead of the Bible for sermons, instruction, or discussions.

:thumbsup: I agree with your statements on all of the above. I would avoid any church that does those things.

 

[Yeshua1]

How often does this church preach on the following subjects?

Sin/Hell/the depravity of man
The coming Judgment
The Holiness of God

Would say that some 'seeker" churches are really just glorified meeting places, to discuss current events. self help etc

But

some do actually see it as a means to reach out to and discuss concerns sinners have, but the big problem is that even those witha sincere desire to see sinners getting saved by God end up with little disciplishipe, and make baby christians!
We have a big church here in area running some 10-12000, but a former pastor on staff with them now is in our church, and stated that he could preah same sermon message, as its all the same after someone got saved!

 

[Reynolds]

Are Seeker friendly churches Arminian, Neo-Orthodox, etc? I know they all do not fall under the same umbrella, but imagine a church where they do not preach on the true gospel, sin, hell, repentance, and other essentials, but primarily just focus on man and his needs, and all the psycho babble in the world. Would you call that an Arminian church? I would not. Lutzer has been talking about these types of churches in the book I am reading. He does not call them Arminian churches but something far worse.

I am an arminian that believes that hell is hot, eternal, and there is one and only one way to avoid going there. I really do not see how "seeker friendly" has anything to do with Arminianism or Calvinism.

 

[gb93433]

Any church that claims to be 100% biblical does not have any people who sin. Having said that I believe humility before God and man should characterize a genuine church. If that is present it is simply one man helping another where to find bread. That can take on many forms depending on the need of the moment. When in business years ago I was taught to take a look around the back to see how many workers there were to determine how much business the company was doing. It should be the same way in the church. Effective workers in the church are focused reaching people in a way that is consistent with being led by the Holy Spirit.

 

[InTheLight]

I am an arminian that believes that hell is hot, eternal, and there is one and only one way to avoid going there. I really do not see how "seeker friendly" has anything to do with Arminianism or Calvinism.

You are correct, Reynolds. Thing is, Evan6589 sees everything through the lens of Calvinism.

 

[evangelist6589]

I am an arminian that believes that hell is hot, eternal, and there is one and only one way to avoid going there. I really do not see how "seeker friendly" has anything to do with Arminianism or Calvinism.

Churches that fail to preach the full gospel are not preaching at all.

 

[Thousand Hills]

Churches that fail to preach the full gospel are not preaching at all.

Bro. Paul Washer:

We would do well to follow Paul’s example. We must be careful to shun every temptation to conform our Gospel to the trends of the day or the desires of carnal men. We have no right to water down its offense or civilize its radical demands in order to make it more appealing to a fallen world or carnal church members. Our churches are filled with strategies to make them more seeker-friendly by repackaging the Gospel, removing the stumbling block, and taking the edge off the blade, so that it might be more acceptable to carnal men. We ought to be seeker-friendly, but we ought to realize this - there is only One seeker and He is God. If we are striving to make our church and message accommodating, let us make them accommodating to Him. If we are striving to build a church or ministry, let us build it upon a passion to glorify God, and a desire not to offend His majesty. To the wind with what the world thinks about us. We are not to seek the honors of earth, but the honor of heaven should be our desire.

http://www.heartcrymissionary.com/heartcry-magazine-archive/post/scandalous-gospel

 

[Thousand Hills]

Garbage heaps.

 

[Yeshua1]

Churches that fail to preach the full gospel are not preaching at all.

Don't both evangelical arminians and Calvinist preach the same gospel though?

Its that we disagree on just how God accomplished salvation, the process, but we both agree that its by grace alone thru faith alone, correct?