Seeker Sensitive: Is It Biblical?

[ccrobinson]

...REALLY worshipping God, with their arms lifted and singing with their whole heart to music that they could relate to

Unless you're able to see into another person's heart, you have no idea whether the lifting of hand, and/or appearing to sing with their whole heart means that that person is really worshipping or not. The outward show of lifting hands, or appearing to sing with a whole heart doesn't necessarily indicate real worship. It may mean that they're lifting their hands because everybody else is and it seems like a neat thing to do. It may mean that they think this is the way to worship God. It may mean that they're lifting their hands because deep down in their heart, they want other people to think they're really worshipping. It may mean that they really are worshipping God. My point is that you can never really know, and you can't assume that one style of a worship is more conducive to worship than another.

I believe that the relationships we have with other people in bringing them to church are more important than the style of the worship service. If you have a preacher and a church that care about people, both lost and saved, then I believe that God is going to do a work in said church, regardless of the style of worship service.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I know of no churches that do this ...

There are actually a great many who do, in various ways. Read Pritchard's book on Willow Creek for starters.

 

[All about Grace]

There are actually a great many who do, in various ways. Read Pritchard's book on Willow Creek for starters.

I know of no church that compromises the gospel itself ... everything else is subjective.

Pritchard is not the determiner of the standard. Sorry.

 

[MikeinGhana]

Originally posted by All about Grace:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MikeinGhana:
There is a difference between welcoming all into the church and lowering your standards to make them feel like they are right at home. Do you not agree with this?

I know of no churches that do this ... we are often labeled seeker sensitive and this argument is silly.

This discussion is really absurd when you think of the other option ... churches that are INSENSITIVE to unbelievers? </font>[/QUOTE]All about grace

You should open your eyes if you have never seen a church lower its styandards in order to attract a crowd. I do not want to go as far as to say that it isn't true because you may have never been to another church at all. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary. Besides that, we are to be Holy Spirit sensitive. Lost people need to come to Christ as repentant sinners in need of a Saviour. If we have to make them feel good about coming to church we have set them off in the wrong direction. Don't get me wrong, I am for bringing in lost and compelling if need be. But to make the church a place where people feel they can be comfortable, I am not sure that is what thje Bible teaches.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by MikeinGhana:
There is a difference between welcoming all into the church and lowering your standards to make them feel like they are right at home. Do you not agree with this?

It is not our standard which we must focus on, that is selfishness. It is God's standard we must hold high to glorify Him.

Show me a church that has not lowered its standard from the very first day in its planning stage. All have. None are perfect. None do as God intended. If all were doing as God intended, you would find a perfect chruch and they would have no need for God because they would be God.

Show me a church where every member is making disciples. If not, then they are not adhering to the command Jesus gave to make disciples. Why are they members and not making disciples? How can they even be allowed to vote on anything or lead anything if they are not making disciples making them disobedient to the word.

Those who make disciples have a very different perspective than those who choose to be disobedient.

 

[MikeinGhana]

[/qb][/QUOTE]It is not our standard which we must focus on, that is selfishness. It is God's standard we must hold high to glorify Him.

That is my point gb, our standard should be God's standard and that is holiness. Is having a Christian Punk Rock concert holy? Is replacing the preaching of the Word of God with conviction and emotion with these five minute sermonettes holy? These are the things that are being promoted by the seeker movement. I just do not agree with it.

 

[gekko]

Nowhere in the Word of God does it say that those who are not with God seek Him. in other words, all non-christians do not seek after God. the only people that seek after God are those who are with Him, those who give up worship to Him. I'm sorry i do not have scripture at this point. i will post the variety of scripture later today. (i have done a word study on this.) so to say that "seeker sensitive" is ok in the church, well im sorry. who's the seekers again? right! it's the christians! those who are not with God have no desire to be with God. although if they have heard a little bit of the gospel, that information is in their mind. left there until "God searcheth the heart of man..." if a non-christian goes around to different churches wanting to learn, do you think that its all on his own instinct? or would God have something to do with it all?

again, i will post scripture later today when i get home from classes.
gekko

 

[Pastor Larry]

I know of no church that compromises the gospel itself ... everything else is subjective.

First, everything else is not subjective. There are a great many things that are not "the gospel" that are very objective. Second, the fact that you know of no church that compromises the gospel is irrelevant. It happens. I have heard it myself, and seen others document it.

Pritchard is not the determiner of the standard. Sorry.

Nothing to be sorry about since I was saying Prithcard was the determiner. Pritchard's book is well worth reading for all who are interested in the topic. He does a doctoral thesis on the seeker church. He has some good things to say about it and some bad things to say about it. But in it, he did a study of all the sermons preached at Willow Creek for a year and then compiled the statistics of the use of words like "sin" and related concepts vs. the use of words like "love" and related concepts. It showed that Willow Creek was soft peddling sin, and therefore the gospel.

Many seeker churches are very light on teh gospel. That cannot be denied by any one who has taken time to learn even a little. That doesn't mean all of the seeker movement is wrong or wrongheaded. I personally think there are some good parts of hte seeker church idea. But that doesn't offset its bad parts.

 

[All about Grace]

There are a great many things that are not "the gospel" that are very objective.

Such as???

Second, the fact that you know of no church that compromises the gospel is irrelevant. It happens. I have heard it myself, and seen others document it.

So you are suggesting that there are seeker churches that compomise the fact a person must place their faith in Jesus Christ in order to "be saved"?

We will need specific examples here and not just accusations based on what you or others believe should or should not be included.

It showed that Willow Creek was soft peddling sin, and therefore the gospel.

Based on whose standard?

Furthermore Pritchard's study was not based on the overall paradigm of Willowcreek for teaching and discipleship.

Obviously WC has its weaknesses (as does every church and/or movement) but to suggest they are compromising the gospel goes beyond constructive criticsm and must be documented or proven.

Many seeker churches are very light on teh gospel.

Very common accusation that is rarely proven. Those who make this accusation most often have their own personal standard as to what qualifies as the "gospel" and what does not.

That cannot be denied by any one who has taken time to learn even a little.

Another misguided statement. I have "taken the time" to know a lot about the seeker movement. I am often placed in that category. What cannot be denied is that most often those who make this accusation have very little to substantiate their claims.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by MikeinGhana:
Seeker Sensitive: Is It Biblical?

It is neither scripturally mandated, nor scripturally forbidden. It's simply oen of many effective methodologies that a church can utilize to minister. If it works for you, great. If it doesn't, find something that does work.

I think the debates over this topic are typically much ado over little.

 

[Emily25069]

Pastor


You have done well showing me that our type of church service is scriptural. I thank you for that. It seems to me though that this is the bare minimum.

I am no good at quoting or memorizing scriptures. It is a flaw of mine. I do read the bible however and I remember reading about the Christians at antioch. It seemed that their church was so much more than any baptist church that I have ever been to.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by All about Grace:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> There are a great many things that are not "the gospel" that are very objective.

Such as??? </font>[/QUOTE]Oh, things like the existence of God, the inspiration of Scripture, the existence of Satan, etc. Things like the need to not live in continued sin when you are saved. The need to be different from the world, etc. A whole host of things too many to mention here.

So you are suggesting that there are seeker churches that compomise the fact a person must place their faith in Jesus Christ in order to "be saved"?

Yes.

We will need specific examples here and not just accusations based on what you or others believe should or should not be included.

I heard a whole message at Willow Creek that was very engagin and funny, preached to seekers that never once mentioned sin, or the need of Jesus Christ for salvation. The problems in their lives were addressed withtou the call of the gospel to repent and believe in Jesus for salvation. That's just one example that I have heard in person. I know of many others.

I am not saying all churches do this. But it is clear that some of them do.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> It showed that Willow Creek was soft peddling sin, and therefore the gospel.

Based on whose standard?</font>[/QUOTE]Based on the standard used in teh study. Hybels himself admitted this weekness in his book about how Willow Creek came to be. Do you want to argue with him too about it?

Furthermore Pritchard's study was not based on the overall paradigm of Willowcreek for teaching and discipleship.

Actually, it was pretty comprehensive.

Obviously WC has its weaknesses (as does every church and/or movement) but to suggest they are compromising the gospel goes beyond constructive criticsm and must be documented or proven.

No, it actually has been proven.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Many seeker churches are very light on teh gospel.

Very common accusation that is rarely proven. Those who make this accusation most often have their own personal standard as to what qualifies as the "gospel" and what does not.</font>[/QUOTE]It is doubtful that you are prepared to accept any evidence as "proof." You are very narrow minded about this topic and are unwilling to have it proven to you.

I have "taken the time" to know a lot about the seeker movement. I am often placed in that category. What cannot be denied is that most often those who make this accusation have very little to substantiate their claims.

Since you are often "placed in that category" it is easy to see why you are resistant to the confrontation here. But the facts remain. I personally have benefitted much from many of hte idea of the seeker church movement. I think there are many good things from which we can learn. But that does not make its weaknesses acceptable. Let's be willing to call a spade a spade.

 

[PastorSBC1303]

Originally posted by Emily25069:
Pastor


You have done well showing me that our type of church service is scriptural. I thank you for that. It seems to me though that this is the bare minimum.

I am no good at quoting or memorizing scriptures. It is a flaw of mine. I do read the bible however and I remember reading about the Christians at antioch. It seemed that their church was so much more than any baptist church that I have ever been to.

So if being line with Scripture is a bare minimum, then what else is needed?

If the church you are a part of is not all you want it to be, what are you doing to make it different?

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by MikeinGhana:
It is not our standard which we must focus on, that is selfishness. It is God's standard we must hold high to glorify Him.

That is my point gb, our standard should be God's standard and that is holiness. Is having a Christian Punk Rock concert holy? Is replacing the preaching of the Word of God with conviction and emotion with these five minute sermonettes holy? These are the things that are being promoted by the seeker movement. I just do not agree with it.

I would go further than that. I believe that sort of nonsense is being promoted by any pastor who does not study. Often the people just do not know it. I have heard a number of preachers give a 45 min. sermon that could have been preached in ten mimutes or less. That is laziness, but the congregation pats him on the back because they feel he is saying the right things but has not studied.

 

[Emily25069]

Mike said

"There is a difference between welcoming all into the church and lowering your standards to make them feel like they are right at home. Do you not agree with this? "

I agree with this statement. I dont know about all seeker type churches. I know nothing about Willow Creek. I did read 40days of Purpose and disagreed with much in that book (I hated it actually), so I imagine Saddleback would not be the church for me. There are about 3 seeker style churches in my area, and I have only been to one of them, but the one that I have been to stems off from another one of them, so they are very similar. The third one is a Lutheran based seeker church, and I have heard that it is very good indeed. (though, doctrinally, I wouldn’t agree with a lot.)

I can only speak for the one I have been to, and it is the most liberal out of the 3.

Yes, there have been some things that I have definitely raised my eyebrows at. There have definitely been some things that I personally felt were inappropriate, but this is really not different from any church I have ever been to.

The focus is definitely on God's love in these types of places, and understandably so. The world knows so much about what we are against already, but very little about what we are for. These types of ministries exist to tell the world what we are for.

However, I don’t think you could truly stay too comfortable for too long in this church as an unbeliever. You will hear some strong preaching. I have heard the preacher tell everyone to throw out their television sets if they cant stop watching wrong television. Also, once they took a month and talked about sex. They had fellows from Exodus international come and speak out against homosexuality. (which was the best preaching I have ever heard on the subject. It was so enlightening coming from ex-homosexuals) They speak out very strongly against pride and selfishness every week. They speak very much for helping "the least of these." They talk about thankfulness a lot. They have outreach after outreach for the lost. This is their ministry. This is what this church is set out to do. Most of the congregation on any given Sunday are not members. They are simply seekers. (I do believe that there are seekers. I know that someone dedicated their post in saying that there aren’t. I don’t believe that anyone seeks unless God moves them to seek, but seeking they are nonetheless.)

Lets think about the Pastor of this church for a second. I know him and his wife personally. I know that this man has a passion for the lost. He has been known to approach a homeless man on the street who nobody else would look at and start up a discussion with him and get to know him and buy him a coffee or something to eat whenever he knew that he was going to pass him by. He really had a burden on his heart to begin a ministry like this that would cater to the lost and get after them with the gospel. He has said to me that our culture has changed so much that typical church doesn’t make sense to them anymore. We need to find a way for the gospel to make sense for them. Make no mistake. He means in no way watering down the gospel in order for it to make sense. He simply means.. "lets use some video. Lets use music that they can relate to. Lets ask them about their hurts. Lets teach them what Jesus says about this without bashing their lifestyle the second they get in the door. Lets first give them Jesus."

Scripturally speaking, from this mans perspective, he is going out into the world and preaching the gospel. Their facilities were once in the Royal Oak music theater. He had them in the heart of a very popular metro-Detroit city so that they would get walk ins, as Royal Oak is always hopping with young people. Guess what? They got a LOT of walk ins. Hundreds of people have now heard the gospel because of this ministry.

I think the problem perhaps that some of you have with me is that his ministry is called a church. I think that a church exists within this ministry. Once you become a core member, then you are pulled in and trained and equipped for witnessing. Their stand is relationship witnessing in case you were wondering, but they teach the core members how to do this. The core members have prayer teams and meetings and do most of the work for the Sunday services, and from the ones I know, I can assure you that they love Jesus. They really do have community and love. Lots of good fruit from what I can see.


I don’t think that there is anything wrong with stepping into a culture and relaying the gospel in a way that they can understand. Missionaries have to do this all the time. Why do you think we sing the kind of hymns we do? I don’t think that they sound much like hymns back in the bible days. (I could be wrong, but I really don’t think I am.)

I remember a thread a long time ago.. probably close to 2 years ago now where this was being discussed. Helen wrote out something that made sense, saying that the church meeting is the one thing that IS for believers, and it shouldn’t become an outreach tool. I agreed with her at that time and still would IF churches were doing what they should be doing in the first place, but I have not found one yet. I like my church a lot. It means a lot to me. My husband and I have grown since attending Warren Woods Baptist, but I still think that they, like most churches are lacking in training and equipping.

I think the problem really is that churches aren’t equipping their members for witnessing. I am included in this. I want so much to share Jesus with my friends and family, but I always end up stuttering or sounding judgemental or screwing up the timeline of my testimony. I think that what happened is some Christians got fed up with the lack of training and decided that they needed to find a way to reach the lost that their traditional churches were not doing, and the seeker sensitive church is what they came up with.

There is nothing unscriptural about preaching the gospel to the lost, even if the lost have been invited in, rather than the church members going out.

As far as a Christian punk rock concert goes..

Hmmm. I would not like this one bit. I would probably look around and think..”this has nothing to do with God at all!”

However

If I was a punk rocker, I might look around and think.. ”wow, God even loves me. Let me hear more!”

 

[gb93433]

Apparently there are those who believe the sermons are for the church only. If the church is for preaching to the saints then why have an invitation?

 

[PastorSBC1303]

Sermons have a dual purpose. They are to edify the believers and to share the gospel with the lost.

My only point in this whole discussion has been that we should not gear our worship to non-believers as they cannot worship. How can they worship in spirit and truth?

I wholeheartily believe that our churches need to be doing way more than we are to reach the lost. We need to be out in the community building relationships and talking to people about the Lord.

Our times of God-centered worship also proclaim salvation to the lost. We always want lost people, seekers, to come to our services. In those services they can witness people giving themselves in worship to their Lord. And they will be provided with a time to respond to the gospel.

However, if you haven't noticed people are not knocking down our doors to get inside the church building. Evangelism mainly takes place outside of the church building.

Gear your worship to glorifying God. Gear your ministries to reaching the lost.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by gb93433:
Apparently there are those who believe the sermons are for the church only. If the church is for preaching to the saints then why have an invitation?

The invitation is a fairly recent development.

Preaching is for sinners. Paul certainly preached to groups of sinners.

But church by and large should be for preparing the saints to take the gospel to the world and to worship in unity.

Are you aware of a scriptural example of where an unbeliever was welcomed into the assembly of believers to be evangelized?

 

[Scott J]

However, if you haven't noticed people are not knocking down our doors to get inside the church building. Evangelism mainly takes place outside of the church building.

That seems to be an indication that we need to go back to the biblical model where saints are trained in church to reach the lost in the world... rather than bringing the lost into the church so that both training and evangelism are at risk of being ineffective.

 

[Johnv]

Scott, don't forget that is a biblical model for the early churches mentioned in the NT, but being a model does not mean that only the model is allowed.