Should we bring unbelievers to Church?

[Johnv]

SBCbyGRACE, some people just don't like Saddleback, and no matter how much you refute the accusations of those folks, they'renot going to change their opinion. Some folks find person strength by looking for weaknesses in others.

Saddleback is a great church, and I can personally attest to your defense of them.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Originally posted by LarryN:
And many pastors have visited Saddleback, left their preconceived human notions of "what church should look like" at the door, and come away with a renewed zeal and effectiveness of ministry your views on so many other things.

Yes, Dr. Bob, please explain to everyone how you can be comfortable with methods & means of evangelism that result in the salvation & discipling of lost individuals?

Noticed only slight sarcasm here! LOL. But I'm trying to make a distinction here. Think of the "evangelistic services" at Saddleback SBC as "evangelistic services" at any other SBC church. Only every Saturday night and Sunday morning - not just one week a year like the typical Baptist church!

And please please please do not lump Saddleback with Willow Creek and "seeker" mentality. Trust me, VAST DIFFERENCE!

The "church" then has many other meetings and instructional/fellowship times etc. And when someone makes a "decision" (ugh, hate the word that Billy Graham popularized) they must go through a 2-hour course on what Salvation is, Baptism, Lords Supper and Church Membership.

All evangelism is PERSONAL. We have tried to let the "church" do it for us (ala Hyles or Graham). Saddleback has no "quickie" prayers and dunk 'em. It is amazing to see the depth.

 

[LarryN]

Hopefully some of these seeker sensitive churches are doing this,also,but if they are completely evangelistic in EVERYTHING they do,they tend to go down the pragmatic road. (Whatever works)

How about "Something that works"?

The history behind the rise of the so-called "seeker-sensitive" movement is that the old paradigm, 1950's style model of churches had plateaued and then begun to decline. Many aspects of the style of worship/church programs held up by the old die-hards no longer had the effect in reaching the lost that they once had. Example: The old "bus-em-in" from the hinterlands by the hundreds/thousands programs continue to be in decline to this day. For those of us who remember back a ways, bus programs were once the (gasp!) new-fangled, non-traditional, quasi-Biblical thing that threatened stalwart churches. After all, you can't find a bus program mentioned in Scripture!

Of course, bus programs soon became the status quo, and a "good" IFB church wouldn't be caught without one. Today, bus programs overall continue to be a mere shadow of what they were during their peak (for a number of reasons).

My point is that we shouldn't always assail the methods & means used by others to reach the lost. Are many being saved & growing from new-paradigm forms of ministry? Of course they are. Why quibble & try to poke holes in how they were won? The Angels in Heaven rejoice at each salvation; why can't the entire Body of Christ?

I've never been to Saddleback, but I've seen some of the silliest critiques of the ministry there. Some have been critical of the "laid-back" Southern Cal. style of attire worn by attenders. Rick Warren is scoffed at by some for his appearance (e.g. his penchant to wear shoes without socks). I guess his critics have forgotten Exodus 3:1-6. Based on this passage, perhaps Warren's critics would be better off castigating him for the fact that he doesn't also remove his shoes and simply go barefoot.

I've always wondered how Jesus Himself would be treated if He were to walk into some Baptist churches today dressed in a robe & sandals; much like he undoubtedly wore daily in 1st century Israel. I picture someone from the platform dispatching a couple of ushers to "throw that hippie bum out of here".

 

[LarryN]

Dr. Bob wrote:

And please please please do not lump Saddleback with Willow Creek and "seeker" mentality. Trust me, VAST DIFFERENCE!

Agreed. I was in Schaumberg, Illinois a couple of years ago, staying at the Holiday Inn on Algonquin Rd.

I was going to be there over the weekend, and while out driving on the Saturday (very close to the hotel) I was surprised to suddenly see the sign for "Willow Creek Community Church" to my left. Massive building complex, with beautifully landscaped grounds. I decided to go to one of the Sunday AM services- so I've seen one of Willow Creek's "seeker services" first-hand.

Willow Creek and Saddleback are many times lumped together; but they do have distinctly different philosophies of ministry.

 

[Johnv]

FYI -

Saddleback is SBC.

Willow Creek is RCA (Reformed Church in America), a sister denom to Presbyterian (PCA).

They have nothing to do with each other, and to my knowlege, Rick Warren and Bill Hybels don't even know each other.

 

[HankD]

Should we bring unbelievers to Church?

Yes.

Luke 14:23 And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled.

HankD

 

[All about Grace]

There are distinctions between Saddleback and Willow Creek. But I do think Hybels and Warren were both pioneers in their approaches. It is amazing to think how God has used both of them to reach multitudes of lost people. They were both young men in their 20s with no "model" or "program" to follow when they started their churches. They were both just determined to reach people with the gospel.

Have they always done everything exactly as everyone prefers? No. Have they made mistakes? Yes. Yet at the end of the day, God is glorified thru His choice of broken vessels to reach the lost. One thing that neither Hybels or Warren can be accused of is not having a passion to reach the lost. I have seen both men weep on more than one occasion over the lost. Disagree with their approaches and philosophies, but don't be so naive to believe their motives are anything other than God-focused.

BTW, I was once a critic of both Hybels and Warren and had a very similar mindset as that displayed by Molly and others. And then I began to investigate firsthand what these ministries were about, and God changed my legalistic exclusivism mindset into recognizing God uses many different tools for His glory.

 

[Siegfried]

SBC,

You requested the data from my study of the NT passages that command what is to be preached and taught to the church.

The passages listed below catalog NT instructions that are given to church leadership concerning the content of their preaching/teaching content in local churches. All of these passages describe an exhortational ministry directed toward believers.

Acts 20:28—shepherd the flock
1 Cor. 4:17—teach to remind believers the ways of Christ
1 Th. 5:9-11—build up one another in confidence of salvation
1 Tim. 1:3—challenge one another to teach sound doctrine
1 Tim. 4:1-11—instruct believers to continue teaching sound doctrine
1 Tim. 6:1-6—teach believers to be good employees
2 Tim. 2:1-2—disciple the faithful
2 Tim. 4:1-4—correct erring believers and exhort them to stand firm in sound doctrine
Titus 1:9-11—exhort the troublemakers within the church
Titus 2:1-3:2—exhort all sorts of demographic groups within the church about various areas of godly living
Heb. 3:12-13—exhort believers to demonstrate faith and avoid hardness
Heb. 5:12-13—teach basic doctrine to believers who ought to be more spiritually mature than they are
1 Pet. 5:1-4—elders are to shepherd the flock

The prescriptive data is consistent with the descriptive data. I have yet to find a place in the NT where a church was commanded to use the assembly of believers for evangelistic purposes. Likewise, I am not aware of any record of an evangelistic service that took place in the weekly assembly of believers.

I think intellectual honesty demands that we accept that the biblical pattern for the purpose of the weekly assembly of the body does not include evangelism. I don't have the biblical authority to say that a church is wrong to diverge from this pattern, but I do have the biblical authority to say that they have abandoned both the prescriptive and descriptive pattern.

Why not simply admit it? It's not something to be ashamed of unless, of course, you believe that your church should follow the biblical pattern as closely as possible.

 

[LarryN]

Originally posted by SBCbyGRACE:
There are distinctions between Saddleback and Willow Creek. But I do think Hybels and Warren were both pioneers in their approaches. It is amazing to think how God has used both of them to reach multitudes of lost people. They were both young men in their 20s with no "model" or "program" to follow when they started their churches. They were both just determined to reach people with the gospel.

Have they always done everything exactly as everyone prefers? No. Have they made mistakes? Yes. Yet at the end of the day, God is glorified thru His choice of broken vessels to reach the lost. One thing that neither Hybels or Warren can be accused of is not having a passion to reach the lost. I have seen both men weep on more than one occasion over the lost. Disagree with their approaches and philosophies, but don't be so naive to believe their motives are anything other than God-focused.

BTW, I was once a critic of both Hybels and Warren and had a very similar mindset as that displayed by Molly and others. And then I began to investigate firsthand what these ministries were about, and God changed my legalistic exclusivism mindset into recognizing God uses many different tools for His glory.

The Sunday I attended Willow Creek (see above), Hybels gave a crystal-clear presentation of the message of the Gospel. I don't doubt his (or Warren's) motives or sincerity in the slightest.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I too, as I mentioned have been to WC. I would have liked to have heard Hybels. I am considering going to the leadership conference in August. When I was there, the gospel presentation was weak. I was actually surprised at how weak it was.

I would caution against the two extremes seen here. Both WC and Saddleback have some things that commened them. They both have some things that are less than what they should be, IMO. I can rejoice that they are reaching people, even it is only 1/3 or a 1/2 of the total numbers they have coming in.

I would contend, in response to Siegfried's comments, that all of those things are going on in these churches. They just take place at different times.

To Molly's comment (I think it was her) about the Sunday morning crowd not getting exhorted in an evangelistic service, there may be good reason to say that if there are only there on Sunday morning that they need to be evangelized. Why stoop to the level of the Sunday morning only? Encourage them to step up and get involved in other things. My experience at Willow Creek was that the message was good for both believers and unbelievers, though it did not use Scripture effectively, I think and did not clearly present the gospel of hope only in Christ. Don't arrange your church around carnal believers ... that's my opinion.

 

[Bro.Bill]

Should we invite non-beleivers to church? I think that was the original question.
OH no not that. Just me and my 4 and no more.Not only that we should have a password, secret sign, and a secret handshake to ensure proper security.
Just to make sure we are really exclusive we should also stop all witnessing and visitation programs.The pastor should be sure to drop the peronal evangelism training from his discipleship program.While we're at it lets forget about faith ,hope , love, and charity.
Let us read our Bible's only in our home with the window shades pulled or in church where only me and my 4 can be seen.
Let us conduct our selves in a manner so that no jury would ever convict us of being a Christian.
Gee I guess that is happenning in some of our churches. I hope not in any of the churches we on this board attend.

 

[Molly]

I hope you do not think anyone is saying these things. I,for one,am not saying anything like that.

 

[All about Grace]

Seigfried,

I don't have the time right now to address all the issues involved with your post. I will simply say that it is a mistake to bifurcate the instructions for the pastor to edify and the evangelistic nature of the gospel. I believe Paul's writings assume that there are believers and unbelievers present in these churches (and illustrated in Corinth and the fact unsaved were being daily saved in Acts). That is why Paul often speaks of the salvation message in the same breath as his instruction to edify the saints.

No one is trying to separate these two purposes (edification and evangelism). They are both purposes of the church. Many contemporary churches (post-Warren/Hybels) are implementing both elements into an individual service. Others from the church growth era focused upon evangelistically natured services at one time of the week and edification at another.

I think you make a faulty distinction between the two. I have never suggested edification was not a primary purpose of the gathered. I have simply said that it is not the SOLE purpose on every occasion, as everyone has agreed. What seems to be the heart of the matter is the frequency & timing of these events.

Here's a side note that I don't have time to delve into right now. If unbelievers gather in a central location, should there be a distintion in what happens since they are not the "church"? In other words, if I invite a group of unbelievers to my house in order to share the gospel with them, do you agree that this gathering would serve a different purpose than if I go to a building with other Christians in order to learn and worship?

 

[Siegfried]

Although you are correct that the issue is largely frequency and timing, there is another matter that we have not addressed directly, although I alluded to it in my last post. That is the role of the pastor-teacher. Scripture does not primarily describe his role as the chief-fisherman, but as the shepherd of the flock. Although he is to perform the role of the evangelist, in a NT context the role of the evangelist was much different from how we think of it today and the ideal evangelist should not be construed to be a . . . well, I'll leave that discussion for another time.

Concerning your side note, if I understand the question, I would answer yes.

 

[Daniel David]

Originally posted by SBCbyGRACE:
I am sure whatever I suggest is a clear gospel presentation will not be "clear" enough for you. I do not believe a person must be able to articulate or understand the implications of hamartology, soteriology, ecclesiology, the virgin conception, total depravity, irresistable grace, and the last judgment in order to believe in Christ.

I just asked a simple question. If you can't answer it...

You are implying that only those with the unique ability to make the message "relevant" are giving a clear explanation of the gospel.

What about MacArthur, Dever, and Piper? You are criticizing them for primarily taking on saved people to their membership. You said that Dever wasn't part of the group that is "leading the way" in evangelism. What exactly does this mean? Could you be more judgmental? Do those guys not give clear explanations of the gospel?

I would like to finish reading the Purpose Driven Life, but so far it is extremely weak (hence its popularity) and the "gospel" given in chapter 7 (I think) was so weak I thought it would actually faint off the page.

 

[Daniel David]

SBC, you really need to justify the idea of a seeker anyway. Someone who is religious or even curious is not a seeker. There are no seekers.

All unbelievers are hostile toward the God of Scripture. There is no conning people into the kingdom. They can't be tricked. This idea of making Scripture relevant isn't even the primary purpose of preaching.

Consider the N.T. command to preach the word.

with great patience:
1. reprove
2. rebuke
3. exhort

because:
1. they will not endure sound doctrine
2. they want their ears tickled
3. they will turn from the truth to fables

Preaching therefore must be confrontational by its very nature. Making it "relevant" is code for making it easier to accept.

The gospel is offensive so they con with things that please them to take the edge off of preaching (if you can call it that).

The Christian life is demanding so they con with "relevant" sermons.

 

[Molly]

Here is an actual quote from the book that alarms me and shows the man centeredness of the whole concept.

"He(God) created the church to meet your 5 deepest needs:a purpose to live for,people to live with,principles to live by,a profession to live out,and power to live on. There is no other place on earth where you can find all five of these benefits in one place."

I thought the purpose of the church was to glorify God. This quote and that whole section struck me as very man centered...like he is trying to sell the church to people...if you come this is what you will get out of it.

Believe me,I understand we greatly benefit from all God has done for us...we receive so many undeserved graces,but he is feeding on the *what can I get of it* philosophy.

Most of the book is pretty basic....read your bible,go to church,love God and others. I think a new christian could benefit from some of his basic scripture use,but all in all, he uses scripture loosely,he feels he has to make everything relevant,and is stil0l10 try0i0ng4 t0oi (oooops,my baby girl just placed a baby doll on the keyboard)...anyway,he is still trying to make light of repentance and sin. I do have to admit,this book is better than *The Purpose Driven Church*,but it has its problems.

 

[Molly]

Originally posted by Daniel David:
SBC, you really need to justify the idea of a seeker anyway. Someone who is religious or even curious is not a seeker. There are no seekers.

All unbelievers are hostile toward the God of Scripture. There is no conning people into the kingdom. They can't be tricked. This idea of making Scripture relevant isn't even the primary purpose of preaching.

Consider the N.T. command to preach the word.

with great patience:
1. reprove
2. rebuke
3. exhort

because:
1. they will not endure sound doctrine
2. they want their ears tickled
3. they will turn from the truth to fables

Preaching therefore must be confrontational by its very nature. Making it "relevant" is code for making it easier to accept.

The gospel is offensive so they con with things that please them to take the edge off of preaching (if you can call it that).

The Christian life is demanding so they con with "relevant" sermons.

Exactly! Couldn't agree more!

Molly

 

[Pastor Larry]

SBC, you really need to justify the idea of a seeker anyway. Someone who is religious or even curious is not a seeker. There are no seekers.

A while back I went through Scripture looking for references to seekers. I have seven pages of verses that talk about them. So there are seekers.

What exactly is going on there? I think that some are seekign religious experience or fun or whatever ... They are not seeking God. But there are some in whom God is working through the circumstances of life to implant in them a desire to seek him. They do exist.

All unbelievers are hostile toward the God of Scripture.

But God is working in some of their lives to bring them to him.

Preaching therefore must be confrontational by its very nature. Making it "relevant" is code for making it easier to accept.

yes, to the first; no to the second for many. I agree with you that for some "relevant" means "easier ot accept." But that is not necessarily the case, nor does it have to be. If your preachign is not relevant to the lives of your audience, then you are doing a disservice to the word of God. As a preacher, you must find the place where the text touches the lives of your hearers.

You must realize that relevance is the goal of preaching ... not making it relevant, but showing how it is relevant. The Bible was written to address real life situations ... to be relevant. We cannot do less.

I disagree with much of Rick Warren's "exegesis." It is an abomination. I think much of what he does is dead wrong. I think the PDL is marginal at best. I think his application of the PDC model is wrong. But the purpose driven paradigm is dead on for the church. We need to quit attacking straw men.

 

[Daniel David]

Larry, do I need to quote Romans 3:10-11 for you? Surely you don't doubt that Paul had it right do you?

No one seeks the God of scripture. Even if he is "working" on them, they will remain hostile until they repent and believe.

As far as preaching goes, if the preacher acurately exegetes the text for everyone, he is telling them its relevance. Perhaps the relevance is that a person's belief about something is off base and needs to be corrected. It isn't always about actions. The mind is what needs to be renewed because the mind will control the actions. Just telling people what to do in a situation isn't enough. They need to learn to THINK biblically. So with that in mind, I disagree that the application is the goal.