Seeker Sensitive: Is It Biblical?

And these things are irrelevant to the discussion at hand, i.e., seeker sensitive churches that "compromise" the gospel. Obviously there are multitudes of objectives, such as this church's carpet is red ... not the point.

Stay with the context of the discussion.

You will have to show case and point ... not just "you will not believe it anyway".

You are saying there are churches that say people can be "saved" without a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. You must validate this claim for it to be considered serious.

This is your evidence? You heard one message at WC that never mentioned sin or the need of Jesus Christ for salvation.

Herein lies much of the problem with many of the critics of churches like WC: I heard one message and yada yada yada. Perhaps the goal of that single message was not to mention sin or offer a salvific message. Perhaps the goal was to get people to think and return.

I am not a defender of WC per se. Obviously as the forerunners of seeker type churches, they were learning as they went. Hybels admits this. That does not mean however that they "compromised" the gospel.

There you go.

I am familiar with the study and it was far from comprehensive. It focused primarily on what happened during services targeted for unbelievers.

Until you show that WC has preached a gospel that is contrary to salvation by faith through Christ alone, it has not been proven that the gospel was "compromised", i.e., a false gospel was taught.

You have not shown any proof. You referenced Pritchard's thesis but have offered no proof.

You are accusing evangelicals of compromising the gospel and yet I am the one who is narrow-minded?

I am not resistant to confrontation. I have discussed this issue with scholars and pastors on both sides. I am a critic of the weaknesses of the seeker movement. No resistance here, just looking for the facts and not simple finger pointing.

Agreed.

Let's just make sure it is a spade we call a spade and not a king of hearts.

 

Good point. I myself have heard Bill Hybels speak many times, and heard him often mention the Gospel message, directly and succinctly.

 

You said I know of no church that compromises the gospel itself ... everything else is subjective. But the fact is that you were wrong. EVerything else is not subjective. There is relevant truth that is not the gospel. It is superficial and insufficient to say that only the gospel matters. Seeker churches profess to be about more than the gospel. In fact, didn't you yourself point that out? Therefore, it is neither irrelevant, nor subjective.

I documented one occasion. But again, what evidence are you willing to accept? You deny objective evidence.

 

[/qb][/QUOTE]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? [/QB][/QUOTE]


Praying.. doing a lot of praying.

The truth is though, that I have never been to a church that equips their members, and I have visited a good number of churches. They stress witnessing, but they dont tell how.

 

JohnV said

"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. "


Amen

 

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


Nope. Im not.

Are you saying that this could have never happened, or that it is wrong if it happens?

 

Come on Larry. We are talking about whether churches compromise the gospel in the name of seeker sensitivity. In this context, what matters is the gospel.

Hearing one sermon is not sufficient grounds for "evidence". I hope you do not operate on these grounds in your broader ministry.

If you are truly a student of the seeker movement you would know that the goal of a single sermon is not necessarily to name sin or proclaim a clear gospel message. Single sermons operate within a broader paradigm of helping unbelievers cross the line of faith.

If I were to use your formula, I could come and sit in your audience one Sunday and pull out three paragraphs that had nothing to do with sin or salvation and then proclaim "Larry has compromised the gospel ... here is the evidence ... listen to these three paragraphs." Such reasoning is skewed. You are doing the same thing by appealing to a single sermon.

Do you tell the whole truth every time you speak? You act as if seeker churches are "hiding" something. If this is your criticism, great. Now just provide evidence and please tell us that you speak the "whole" truth every time you preach (which would make for some long sermons).

But that is all you have cited as evidence.

No and no. I have said WC has its weaknesses and that I am often critical of what happens in the seeker movement. And I am willing to accept "evidence" as soon as it is offered. You have yet to offer it ... as demonstrated above.

I am sure you would have accused Paul of the same thing over his exchange with the Philippian jailer ... "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved." Did Paul compromise the gospel?

 

That is simply not true. That is a very limited view of Christianity and "seekers." One of Hybels key ideas was that "people matter to God." That is certianly true. But what Hybels forgot (apparently) is that God matters to God before people matter to God. His whole paradigm was not built about pleasing God per se, but around pleasing people. There is not room in this forum to get deeply involved in the philosophical and theological issues of that, but I think we should all be able to agree that he built his ministry on pleasing people.

As you are well aware, I know of much more evidence, having read widely, and having talked to many.

I understand that. But there is inherent weakness. For instance, the message I heard was about love. It addressed the problems of lack of love. But it never pointed out that lack of love is a sin against God. It never pointed out that lack of love was a problem of selfishness. It never pointed out that God's love is the paradigm for our love. IT left thousands of people with a great motivational talk on love, and nothing about God. That is a compromise of hte gospel in that particular sermon. And the paradigm of the seeker churches means that is repeated week after week all over.

You certainly can't do this using my formula, because I have not based my comments on one particular sermon, much less three paragraphs in that sermon.

With respect to sin and the gospel, yes, I tell th whole truth. I make it clear that our greatest problem is sin and the only answer is the cross of Christ. The call of hte gospel is a call to self-denial, to leave self-sufficiency and turn to Christ. The seeker churches very often are hiding something, in my experience of reading and talking to those in it. They hide the self-denial call of the gospel. In many cases, (not all), Jesus is something you tack on to make your life better.

These are problems and it shouldn't take a boatload of spiritual and theological maturity to see it. What is troublesome is that pastor, entrusted with leading hte flock, can't see it.

But that is all you have cited as evidence.</font>[/QUOTE]No it's not. Go back and read. I have cited a message I was personally at. I cited personal conversations. I have cited reading teh seeker church material. I have cited reading the critics of the seeker church. I could also cite messages I have heard that weren't in person. There are four evidences that I have cited, and one I did not. So when you say that I only cited one message as evidence, you are incorrect.

Let's change gears and get off this "he said/she said" type of stuff. (I will let your figure out who the "she" is .. . ). Give some critiques of the seeker movement.

No, and if seeker churches presented the gospel as clearly as Paul, I would be all for them. But surely you are not under the impression that Acts 16:31 was the sum total of that conversation are you?

Let's try to move forward. Give us, from your perspective, some of hte critiques you would make of hte seeker church movement.

 

This is very unfair. You create a false dichotomy between "people matter to God" and "God matters to God" that is not present in the seeker movement. I would simply say Hybels built a part of his paradigm (the seeker service is only one element of it) around the concept that because people matter to God an environment should be created that points people to Jesus Christ for salvation without the obstacles churches sometimes erect.

Would you say that a church that has times of intentional evangelism (church wide visitation, etc.) is more concerned about the fact people matter to God than God matters to God?

Saying "Hybels built his ministry on pleasing people" simply shows a lack of familiarity with the man himself. Anyone who knows Hybels knows that he is driven by the passion and burden to see Hell-bound people come to faith in Jesus Christ, which is glorifying to God and therefore pleasing to Him.

Again I will say for the 3rd time, Hybels has made some mistakes (as pioneers often do). He has learned from them. I am sure some feel he continues to err in some areas. But to suggest Hybels consistently "compromises" the gospel is misleading at best.

So you say. You have not offered any of it.

And once again you set yourself up to be the determiner of whether the gospel was compromised.

Let's look at it from this perspective: was there anything UNbiblical about the sermon?

You have only cited one sermon so that is what we must go on. If you want to bring other evidence into the picture (besides alluding to a doctoral thesis or what others have said), we can discuss that evidence. Simply saying, "thus and so said such and such" is not evidence. You must fill in the blanks with concrete evidence of compromise. Saying "other people said it or someone wrote a thesis on it" is not evidence. What did the people say? What is the content of the thesis? This is where the evidence rests ... I feel like I am on CSI!

And the formula is the same: you have taken a small fraction within a broader paradigm and critiqued the whole on the portion. Taking 3 paragraphs out of a "stand-alone" sermon is very similar ... it is diagnosing the whole on a part.

I preach in series. If certain types of believers show up at our church on one Sunday and hear one sermon, they might walk away feeling something was missing. They might not get the "whole" picture. Guess what? That is what we want. Each sermon fits within a broader paradigm. The single sermon buckshot sermon is not a part of our goal. In our context, single shot sermons are less effective. We want to engage people so they will return and learn more. Salvation is often a process in a post-Christian culture. It is not the Billy Graham "pray the prayer based on a single sermon" type ministry.

Wow this is the same message I declare regularly. I may not use the same language you employ, but I communicate the same truth. And to top it off, this is the same message I have heard Hybels deliver on numerous occasions.

If you are familiar with WC's Contagious Christian material, you know they believe the full gospel.

And surely you are not under the impression that one sermon on love is not the sum total of the conversation happening at WC each week.

This thread does not concern what I feel are the weaknesses of the seeker movement. If I find something interesting to discuss, I am happy to address those in another thread. What I am addressing in this thread is the suggestion that seeker churches are "compromising" the gospel or are "unbiblical".

 

The line is clear: is the gospel message distorted, changed, or compromised? Is faith in Jesus Christ as the only means to a relationship with God forfeited in any way?

That is the line.

 

It is not really unfair in that it accurately portrays that Hybels starts with what people want, what will make them feel comfortable in "church." IT is philosophical/theological issue that I am discussing. I am not sure you are prepared or willign to have that conversation. Which is fine. This is not a good medium for it.

]/qb]No, but the method or way in which they carry out that evangelism may indicate that people matter more than God. And that is the issue with WC. IT is not that they want to see people saved. It is the way in which they go about it.

Read Hybels' own words about himself. He admits this, starting with the youth ministry that launched WC. He built his ministry on finding out what pleased people and then did it to attract them. That is the underlying philosophy of seeker churches. Do you really not know that?

No, my opinion has been confirmed by many, including Hybels himself at various times in their ministry

Yes. It is unbiblical to talk about solving the "lack of love" problem without Christ. But even at that, this is a bad method of argumentation. I could get up on Sunday morning and talk about the NFL playoff picture without saying anything unbiblical. But that would not make it right. You are creating a bad setup here, by arguing that if it isn't unbiblical, it must be right.

That's not true. I have cited Pritchard, who was probably more approving of WC than he should have been. I have also referenced much other reading and conversation. But your comment that you want evidence "besides alluding to a doctoral thesis or what others have said" is proof positive of my assertion that you are not prepared to accept contradictory evidence. yOu say, "Saying "other people said it or someone wrote a thesis on it" is not evidence." But why not? What makes your knowledge of the situation better than their knowledge?

You shouldn't feel that way at all. This forum is not equipped for a long drawn out discussion. To turn the tables, you have yet to offer any proof that the seeker movement is correct, using your own standards. All you have done is present your opinion, and few unsupported statements to back it up. That can hardly be considered evidence.

I have not done this. Why do you keep repeating it?

I agree, except I wouldn't say "salvation" is a process. Evangelism is the process. Salvation is instantaneous, but I konw what you mean. And I agree.

Which really isn't the issue. I have not said that Hybels never preached the gospel. I have never heard Hybels preach. I am talking about the larger paradigm of seeker ministry.

I like the Contagious Christian book. I have used it here for an evangelism class, though I did not use their course for it. There are some weaknesses, but overall, it is good.

Nope, never said it was.

This thread is about "Seeker Sensitive: Is It Biblical?" Why not contribute somethign other than an argument with what someone else said. Tell us some of its weaknesses. I would be very interested to know what you think they are.

 

This is not the only line. In 1 Cor 1-2, and 2 Cor 1-4, Paul draws a line about methods. He clearly says that every method is not acceptable.

Inherent in methodology is message. The message cannot be separated entirely from the medium. One can talk of Jesus Christ as the only way to salvation with an orgy going on on the stage. Would you not consider that a compromise of the message? I would.

Secondly, even in the "Jesus is the only way" message, there is room for compromise. Sin can be compromised, or repentance, or faith, or the person of Jesus. We need to be more cognizant and discerning of these things.

 

But you create the false dichotomy when you suggest he does this to the exclusion of what matters to God. Furthermore a better word is what people "need" ... slight but big difference.

I am more than "prepared" and somewhat willing if it is not simply covering the same preference-based territory discussed before.

Which again becomes subjective to your own preferences of how, when, and what format evangelism should take place.

I am sure I have read more Hybels and for sure have heard Hybels more than you. Obviously needs-based ministry is a key component of seeker ministries. Yet there is a big difference in recognizing needs and addressing them and building a ministry on "people matter to God" to the exclusion or neglect of what matters to God. That is the false dichotomy you created.

Can you point me to a specific place where Hybels has said he has compromised the gospel? You keep saying this. It is fair to show it.

Apples and oranges.

You can talk about the love problem from a biblical standpoint without including the elements you claim are necessary to keep from "compromising". Are you suggesting the WC sermon dealt with this problem to the exclusion of Jesus Christ? Again you take a huge leap here to suggest the sermon EXCLUDED Christ.

You have yet to do anything other than refer to Pritchard's thesis or what others have said. You have yet to actually provide a quote or evidence of anything they have said.

We have no idea what their level of knowledge is ... you have not provided anything to show what they are saying.

Classic ... it is not my responsibility to offer evidence. I am simply refuting the idea the seeker movement compromises the gospel. The burden of proof rests with the accuser.

Because the only concrete evidence you have provided is one sermon on love you heard from someone other than Hybels. If you are using Pritchard for evidence, tell us what he says.

But you have specifically used WC as an example.

Actually you did say it was what happened "week after week".

 

Unfortunately, AAG, you are avoiding the issue and there is really nothing new here. I will make only a few comments.

I didn't suggest he did it the exclusion of what matters to God. I made a statement without implying anything else.

"Need" would be a better word for sure, but it isn't applicable. When you study the history of WC, you see it is about "want." Now, that is not entirely wrong, but it introduces some problemmatic issues that Hybels has not solved.

I doubt it. We haven't really discussed much of opinion here. And you have been unwilling to address it. But we haven't gone deep either.

Not really. There are some clear biblical issues that aren't much about preference really.

Certainly to the latter, possibly (but perhaps not) to the former. Neither of which matters unless we are having a reading contest.

Again, I didn't create the dichotomy. IT is there. Seeker movements are often built on felt needs, not real needs, and they never get to the real need.

It is about halfway through his book on WC (Rediscovering Church I think was the name of it though I can't recall). He admitted that he had been soft on preachign about sin and resolved to change it. When you are soft on sin, you have compromised the gospel. I don't have particularly what he said in front of me, but it struck me as very revealing at the time. Pritchard mentions the same thing as I recall, or perhaps that was another book that mentioned it.

Apples and oranges. </font>[/QUOTE]I would imagine such a response from you. It is your way of avoiding the issue.

I was there. I know what it excluded. I remember walking away with a distinct impression. I was there looking for the gospel and didn't find it. What about those who weren't there looking for it? They certainly wouldn't have found it. The one thing I thought would have been clear was the gospel. I seriously thought most of the issues would have been about other things, such as music, drama (there was a little off color adult humor injected at that service), and the like. But my distinct impression of WC was that it was not as bad as I had imagined in some areas and was far worse than I imagined in other areas. But if someone looking for the gospel doesn't hear it, how will those who are not looking for it hear it?

I don't have the exact quotes in front of me. I reference Pritchard and Hybels because they are published sources. Anyone can get it and read it for themselves.

And we have no idea of your level of knowledge. So far you havenn't offered anything to substantiate your claims. I have. I have shown from personal experience, and from published works what I have asserted. All you have done is complain.

I was pointing out the fallacy of your position.

Then refute it. I have offered proof. You haven't refuted it with anything other than "did not." That doesn't work.

I did tell your part of it regarding the preaching emphasis. I haven't repeated his whole work here.

Yes, because they are the grandfather of modern seeker churches. There is a whole association and spinoffs galore.

Yes, that is a figure of speech referring to a constantly recurring issue.

In any event, let's move past this. It is obvious that we are getting nowhere. So offer us some of your critiques of the seeker movement. I would like to know. LEt's interact some on that and see how it goes. We are obviously making no progress here.

 

Here are your exact words:

But what Hybels forgot (apparently) is that God matters to God before people matter to God. His whole paradigm was not built about pleasing God per se, but around pleasing people.

...sounds like a dichotomy to me.


On one hand you say, "Need" would be a better word for sure, but it isn't applicable. When you study the history of WC, you see it is about "want."

And then on the other hand you suggest, Seeker movements are often built on felt needs, not real needs, and they never get to the real need.

So which is it ... wants or needs? And actually felt needs are real needs. They are not the only needs. There are also hidden needs. But one must often address felt needs in order to raise awareness of hidden needs.

And in my opinion this is a potential area of weakness among some seeker churches -- the overemphasis of felt needs to the neglect of hidden needs. I am not against felt needs ministry. I just believe it cannot stop there.

Hybels speaks of refining his preaching as he went (it was a learning process for a former youth pastor turned pioneer). He does not say he compromised the gospel as you continue to suggest Hybels has admitted. You say he did, which is fine. Just don't continue to say Hybels admits he compromised the gospel.

And once again, the purpose of that sermon may not have been for you to "hear the gospel" in the manner you believe is right (even though a message on how to love properly is a component of the gospel itself ... how will people know we are his disciples? If we love one another).

Fair enough but don't keep stating that you have provided evidence by referring to a book. It is the equivalent of me saying, "You want proof for seeker sensitive ministry? Go read the Bible." That does nothing to provide the actual evidence.

I am not trying to substantiate a claim. I am challenging the assertion that seeker churches compromise the gospel or are unbiblical. I am simply looking for concrete evidence and the only proof that has been provided has been: I heard a sermon once at WC, Bill Hybels admits that in the development stages of WC he did not preach on sin as he should have, and there is a doctoral thesis out there you should check into.

And based on your logic, evidence has been provided. I have already stated that I have heard Bill Hybels present the gospel clearly on numerous occasions (in person, on tape/CD, and in books). I am not basing my conclusion on a single visit to the church, a doctoral thesis which I can only reference, or supposed conversations with others.

If you want to deal with issues, provide something. Put WC aside and make a legitimate claim.

I have stated no position. I have simply challenged the original assertion.

Or evidently a single visit to the church when Hybels was not even speaking.

I agree nothing is being accomplished. No concrete evidence has been provided to show seeker churches are unbiblical or compromisers of the gospel.

 

Here are your exact words:

But what Hybels forgot (apparently) is that God matters to God before people matter to God. His whole paradigm was not built about pleasing God per se, but around pleasing people.

...sounds like a dichotomy to me.</font>[/QUOTE]Then look up the meaning of "per se" and "apparently." That should help to clear up the confusion.

This shows a misunderstanding on your part. Felt needs aren't real needs. That's why they are called "felt." The point is that a "felt need" is a want. Wants aren't necessarily bad, but they do have their issues. It's no wonder we are talking past each other here. Twice you have clearly missed the point of my words.

Good. We agree on that.

He said he was light on sin, and softpedaled sin. That is compromise of the gospel by any reasonable definition.

But "being his disciples" is the gospel. And if we try to help people fix their love problems (sin problems) without the gospel then we have compromised it. We have given them hope apart from Jesus Christ. And that is compromise of hte gospel. Once we introduce the idea that sin can be dealth with in any way but Christ we have compromised the gospel.

NOr is it the same type of argument. Pritchard's book expressly addresses the issue by giving evidence. The Bible gives no proof for a seeker sensitive ministry. It wasn't written for that purpose. I could repeat Pritchard's book here, and satisfy your call for evidence but that would be 1) a violation of copyright, 2) space prohibitive, and 3) reinventing the wheel. None of that is necessary. People who are interested can find out.

You are trying to substantiate that seeker churches don't compromise the gospel ... unless you changed subjects here and didn't change your words.

And there are three of the many pieces of concrete evidence.

I have. You simply have a different perspective.

Yes you have. You have stated that WC and seeker churches don't compromise the gospel. Isn't that your stated position?

That simply isn't true. But I suspect that you are unwilling to engage on this issue any further.

If you get to the point that you would like to address what you believe are some of the weaknesses of the seeker church movement, I would be interested to see it.

 

To avoid rowing in circles, I will simply disagree with one statement you make ...

Another misguided statement. Felt needs are "real" to the person feeling them whether you feel they are real or not. If a person feels their marriage is falling apart, are you suggesting this need is not real?

 

If it is a real need, like a marriage falling apart, then let's call it a real need. IT isn't a felt need anymore. A felt need is a want; it may be legitimate, or it may not be. And whether or not somethign is big to us, it is big to the person involved in it.

Felt needs can be a starting point, but they can't be a stopping point. And that is the problem.

 

I know of no "felt needs" preacher who would disagree with this statement.