Seeker Sensitive: Is It Biblical?

[MikeinGhana]

guitar

Now we have a place to start. You would not violate scripture to reach the lost with the gospel. Good. Would you then agree we should not violate principles as well as commands and prohibitions?

 

[guitarpreacher]

Originally posted by MikeinGhana:
guitar

Now we have a place to start. You would not violate scripture to reach the lost with the gospel. Good. Would you then agree we should not violate principles as well as commands and prohibitions?

Dude, I thought we had firmly established that about 15 pages ago.

 

[Hope of Glory]

Strip shows and gay weddings are not being seeker sensative.

In much of the world, it is. There are even those who say that such things don't violate Scripture.

 

[guitarpreacher]

Originally posted by Hope of Glory:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Strip shows and gay weddings are not being seeker sensative.

In much of the world, it is. There are even those who say that such things don't violate Scripture. </font>[/QUOTE]Look, you guys are going way out into left field on me. Most of the pastors I talk to are trying to be seeker sensative. I talk with Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, AoG and Non-denoms, and I talk to them all over the country, and some in UK & Australia, and I don't know of anyone who believes that. So Hope, (I keep wanting to abbreviate your name, but that would spell HoG, and that might be offensive

) give me an example of a church that in the name of being seeker sensative is having strippers perform during their worship serice, or are out performing weddings for gays.

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by guitarpreacher:
Mike and Cojosh - every post that has been made by me others who try to be seeker sensative has been made with the assumption that Scripture is not violated. Strip shows and gay weddings are not being seeker sensative. It's hard to have a serious discussion with you when this is the best you can do.

You are absolutely correct in pointing out that the seeker-sensitive churches do not promote strip shows and gay weddings. However, there is a continuum extending into this kind of practice. Where do you draw the line? How do you know where the line is?

Pastor Larry, you stated the obvious. The only reason anybody goes to hell is they do not accept Christ. The point I was making, and it shouldn't require explaining to you, is that they can't accept Christ if they don't hear the Gospel, and many are not hearing the Gospel because we have it locked behind the doors of our church buildings.

This is hyperbole. The gospel is out there but they have rejected it. They have chosen not to hear in America.

One thing that often accomanies non seeker churches is that they are content to sit back and watch the community around them go to hell, and it really doesn't bother them all that much.

Again, this is hyperbole. You don’t know my church which is not a seeker church. You seem to say that either it’s a seeker church or a do-nothing church. This is fallacy. We have many, many traditional, conservative soul-winning churches. There are hundreds doing the work instead of a single, flamboyant, seeker monolith.

Pastor Larry, I blew up an engine in a truck once. The bottom line why was because I put the wrong kind of oil in it. I blame the mechanic who told me to put that oil in there. But in the end, I had to pay the price for the blown engine. People will spend an eternity in hell because they did not accept Jesus Christ as Savior.

And they did not accept because they rejected Him. They loved the pleasures of sin rather than God.

That's the bottom line and nothing changes that. But the reason they haven't accepted Christ is because God's method of spreading the Gospel has broken down.

Oh, do you read the internal contradiction that you just wrote! If it is “God’s method”, then by what means do we dare change it? Are you saying that “God’s method” has failed? How so? What is your standard for judging? Numbers? How do you count? How do you know any of the so-called converts are saved? Does salvation of the lost depend on our methodology or does it depend upon the Holy Spirit’s conviction and drawing?

The Gospel isn't weak, and God certainly isn't weak, but our commitment to the lost is definately weak.

Well, what is my commitment to the lost? My commitment is more to God than the lost. We preach the Gospel to the lost because of what God did, not because they deserve it. Our theology begins with God and His salvation through the Lord Jesus Christ, not mankind. It seems you are saying, although I really can’t see how you mean it, that God’s way hasn’t work so we have to do it our way to get the lost saved? I can’t think of anything more unbiblical.

 

[Hope of Glory]

I've been called much worse that HoG, so feel free

First of all, look to the Presbyterian church as a whole. Most of them claim to be seeker sensitive, yet where is their stance on homosexuality? (Ironically, on one site I looked at, there was an article condoning the homosexual lifestyle, unter the pretense of "judge not", on the same page as an article that said we can't be soft on sin.)

Most ecumenical movements are seeker sensitive and many of them welcome practicing homosexuals with open arms.

There are more, if you care. It all depends on what you call "seeker sensitive". Personally, I think you should simply preach the truth and those who are seeking will want to hear it. Be sensitive to that.

As a personal note, here in town, about 70% of the churches are seeker sensitive, and it runs the gamut from Baptist to Pentecostal to Catholic. The one thing they all have in common is that they provide great entertainment and fill their pews. Many of them fill them with those practice all sorts of abominations, and they remain happy because these churches don't dare tell the truth or they will run off their biggest contributors.

I have attended two of them. One of them had a service that lasted an hour and 45 minutes, and he never so much as opened the Bible. Although, he did mention the book of Matthew once. The other one preached a sermon on how we should accept everyone as they are, because God made them that way, and to tell them they're living in sin is hateful.

I want nothing to do with it.

I had a friend who left another seeker sensitive church recently. The first shock came when they had a faith healer come in. Not a single one of the posters in the church mentioned the Lord, neither did the faith healer. The final straw came when he went to a PDL Bible study, and was informed that he was not permitted to bring his Bible, as that would be "disruptive".

So, define "seeker sensitive". What are the boundaries?

 

[MikeinGhana]

I am troubled by people who say they do not violate scripture to win the lost, yet, they promote the flesh, imitate the world and its philosophy, ignore clear cut principles of worhsip, all in order to attract them into the church. I do not get it. Please do not judge my committment to win people to Christ. I have lived in a third world country for twelve years to reach a people who most Americans do not even know exist.

 

[Pastor Larry]

How is your point any differnt than the typical Baptist church

It's not. But this topic was about seeker churhces. I would make the same statement about many kinds of churches. But often, the theological problems are different.

 

[Hope of Glory]

Originally posted by MikeinGhana:
I am troubled by people who say they do not violate scripture to win the lost, yet, they promote the flesh, imitate the world and its philosophy, ignore clear cut principles of worhsip, all in order to attract them into the church. I do not get it. Please do not judge my committment to win people to Christ. I have lived in a third world country for twelve years to reach a people who most Americans do not even know exist.

Absolutely. The purpose for the church is to edify the members; evangelism, by and large, belongs outside the church. Go out, evenagelize, bring them in, preach the truth. Forget the mariachi (sp?) bands, juggling acts, etc., as a means to bring the lost into the church.

BTW, this does not mean that I am opposed to every form of entertainment inside the building. Is the gym there for fellowship or to entertain the lost masses? Is the football party for fellowship or is that the only way you can get them in the building? What's in the heart?

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by MikeinGhana:
I am troubled by people who say they do not violate scripture to win the lost, yet, they promote the flesh, imitate the world and its philosophy, ignore clear cut principles of worhsip, all in order to attract them into the church. I do not get it. Please do not judge my committment to win people to Christ. I have lived in a third world country for twelve years to reach a people who most Americans do not even know exist.

Although some may consider it a nitpicking point, do we seek to win people to Christ because of God or the lost individual? Whereas the goal is the same, I think our perspective will make a different in how we do it.

 

[IveyLeaguer]

Topic Question: Seeker Sensitive: Is It Biblical?

No, it isn't Biblical. From Moses to Revelation the consistent theme is don't do as the world does and, most importantly, don't worship what they worship.

Just one example, how do you get "seeker-sensitivity" past Romans 12:2? "Do not be conformed to this present world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind ..." NET

The Amplified reads: "Do not be conformed to this world (this age), [fashioned after and adapted to its external, superficial customs]". Strong's defines 'conformed' as "... to fashion alike, that is, conform to the same pattern (figuratively): - conform to, fashion self according to."

The Complete WordStudy Dictionary goes even further when it says: "... To fashion alike, conform to the same pattern OUTWARDLY (emphasis mine) ... And again: " ... An expanded rendering might read, 'Stop being molded by the external and fleeting fashions of this age ..."

[ December 25, 2005, 10:58 PM: Message edited by: IveyLeaguer ]

 

[IveyLeaguer]

That said I very much empathize with the frustrations presented by the reality that present culture considers the gospel to be simpleton, irrelevant, and foolish.

But to cloak and/or alter the message so that it won't appear that way to an unsaved, spoiled, generation is not the answer.

 

[MikeinGhana]

Obviously this thread struck a "sensitive" (pun intended, get it?)nerve. I do believe the church is ministering in another culture and will need to minister in yet another culture very soon, if things go at the speed they have been moving. Are we to adopt other methods while not bending our principles? If we change our methods are we in truth bending our principles? Can we do that and still be biblical?

 

[IveyLeaguer]

Mike in Ghana:
Obviously this thread struck a "sensitive" (pun intended, get it?)nerve. I do believe the church is ministering in another culture and will need to minister in yet another culture very soon, if things go at the speed they have been moving. Are we to adopt other methods while not bending our principles? If we change our methods are we in truth bending our principles? Can we do that and still be biblical?

Methods are not important and we shouldn't be married to any method or man-made tradition (but that is no reason to abandon a time-tested tradition, either).

What IS important is the Word of God. If you in ANY WAY alter the Word of God, and many thousands of Christian "leaders" are doing exactly that, our Lord says some very bad things are going to happen to you. I grieve, literally, every day for the millions who are following these "leaders". But we knew it was going to happen. Or at least we should have known.

A method is OK only if it satisfies the letter, intent, and the Spirit of scripture. Unfortunately, when tested by that standard, the Seeker movement and other postmodern movements fail miserably.

Also, it is worth noting that the "leaders" of major counterfeit movements on the other side of the spectrum such as Word of Faith (with its prosperity gospel), and Latter Rain (with its self-appointed Apostles), made the same foundational error as Hybels, Warren, and others. They simply twisted "THE MESSAGE" of the Holy Scriptures into the "SHAPE" they wanted ... (puns intended).

 

[guitarpreacher]

Originally posted by IveyLeaguer:
What IS important is the Word of God. If you in ANY WAY alter the Word of God, and many thousands of Christian "leaders" are doing exactly that, our Lord says some very bad things are going to happen to you.

A method is OK only if it satisfies the letter, intent, and the Spirit of scripture. Unfortunately, when tested by that standard, the Seeker movement and other postmodern movements fail miserably.
[/QB]

Serious charges - back it up.

 

[Linda64]

Check this site out about Church Membership Covenants, which are required in Seeker Sensitive churches:

http://www.newswithviews.com/PaulProctor/proctor3.htm

Rick Warren, pastor of Saddleback Community Church in Lake Forest, California recently came out with an article in the Baptist Press recommending pastors and congregations adopt church membership covenants as a way of compelling their flock to become more involved in and committed to the ministry of their church. Although, on the surface such covenants might seem practical, here’s what Jesus Christ had to say about making covenants with men.



"Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: But I say unto you, SWEAR NOT AT ALL; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: "- Matthew 5:33-34 (emphasis added).

 

[rsr]

Amazing. This verse has nothing to do with covenants; it has to do with proper respect for God and his creation.

Baptists have had a long tradition of church covenants, dating back to 1640 in this country, and didn't consider it blasphemous. Not too long ago, having a church covenant was the norm for Baptist churches.

Covenants among men are nothing unusual. A mortgage is a covenant; a loan agreement is a covenant; signing hospital forms for treatment is a covenant. None are forbidden.

 

[Linda64]

Originally posted by rsr:
Amazing. This verse has nothing to do with covenants; it has to do with proper respect for God and his creation.

Baptists have had a long tradition of church covenants, dating back to 1640 in this country, and didn't consider it blasphemous. Not too long ago, having a church covenant was the norm for Baptist churches.

Covenants among men are nothing unusual. A mortgage is a covenant; a loan agreement is a covenant; signing hospital forms for treatment is a covenant. None are forbidden.

rsr--

It might be helpful to read the entire article from the link I posted instead of making presuppositions.

 

[rsr]

Who made presuppositions?

Paul said: "So, why is it now necessary to sign a contract guaranteeing our commitment to serve in His church? Because faith isn’t required, that’s why. It’s only when you set out to fill your church with the faith-LESS that guarantees become necessary."

Again, there is a strong Baptist tradition of covenanting, whether Paul knows it or accepts it (apparently both are true in his case), and it never had to do with accepting a "faith-less" membership.

 

[chavah]

After doing the PDL program our former church started these membership covenants...bad news indeed.

It went south from there.

These were sooo unbiblical. Many of the doctrinaly strong left, the backbone, those that the church was increased with.

It is now a church of socialites. No meat, all milk and even more compromises. Don't tell me it isn't a dangerous heresy that is spreading like a liberal disease through the churches.
We witnessed many changes that it brought.

My question is this...if you know that R.W. 's mentor is Rober Schuller....would that not be a red flag?