Seeker-Sensitive Church “Presuppositions”
- Posted by: Todd
- Posted on: Tue, October 11, 2005
- Viewed 138
- (52) comments so far
Today, pulling from the same website as I did last week... I'd love some discussion from many of you who are leading a 'seeker' church. Are these presuppositions that you as a seeker church really hold? I'm interested to see how many of these are deemed true by people who are actually involved in the 'seeker' movement. Here we go:
Presupposition One: Church Growth is Our Responsibility
The very first unbiblical notion on which this movement is founded is that church growth is our responsibility. This is clearly antithetical to the ministry and message of the Apostles... I recently viewed a video tape of a message preached by one of the leading lights in the seeker-friendly movement urging people to become involved in the great work of evangelism. As he came to the close of his impassioned exhortation, he told of his dying father?s words to him concerning the task of evangelism. His father, in what seems to have been a state of delirium, had continued to repeat the words, "Get just one more for Jesus! Get just one more for Jesus!" As I sat there and listened in utter amazement, I thought, Sir, you are out of your element. You can?t even get one for Jesus, much less one more for Him. Without controversy, it is every believer?s task to spread the good news that there is a Savior who has died for poor, helpless, hell-deserving sinners. We must earnestly seek to persuade the unconverted to turn from the broad road that leads to destruction and enter the strait gate of conversion that alone leads to eternal life. We should diligently implore the great King to turn their hearts to Christ, but having discharged those duties, we must leave the results to Him.
Presupposition Two: God?s Purpose for the Salvation of Sinners Needs a Major Overhaul.If He Doesn?t Get Some Much Needed Marketing Help from Us, Sinners Who Would Have Been
Saved with These New Methods, Will Be Lost.
It would seem any person with even the most superficial understanding of biblical truth about God?s purpose in salvation would immediately reject such a God-dishonoring suggestion. It may be that even those most heavily engaged in this movement would be uncomfortable with such an unvarnished statement of their beliefs. Still, everything they practice indicates this is one of their foundational tenets.The questions for which we should seek biblical answers are whether God?s purpose for the salvation of sinners is in trouble and if He needs human assistance to accomplish His work. Please understand I am not asking whether God uses means to accomplish his purpose and whether he intends to accomplish that purpose apart the use of means. For example, if no one ever proclaims the gospel, will anyone ever be converted? The answer is a resounding, NO! But, there is another question we need to consider. Who is it that sends preachers and kindles a fire in their hearts that cannot be extinguished? Will God ever leave himself without a witness or will he not insure the execution of his purpose by raising up messengers to accomplish it? The question is whether God needs means and methods other than those he has prescribed in Scripture to execute his sovereign purpose?
Presupposition Three:The Unconverted are to be Evangelized in the Church
The third presupposition on which this movement seems to base its practice is that the church is the place to evangelize sinners. In reality, God has given no commandment for sinners to come to church. Instead, he commands the church to go to sinners. The church is an assembly of God?s called out people. There is only one instance in the New Testament Scriptures of an unconverted person being in the assembly of God?s people, and in that case it is spoken of as a happenstance, ". . .and what if one should come in who is unlearned or an unbeliever. . ." ( 1 Cor. 14:23)? Evangelism is to occur in the world outside after the people of God have been instructed and built up through the solid exposition of the Scripture.I am not suggesting it is wrong for the unconverted to attend the meetings of the church. What I am asserting is that if an unconverted person should attend a meeting of God?s people, he or she should do so to observe how Christians worship their God, not to be entertained and made to feel comfortable in their rebellion against God.
Presupposition Four: If We Give People What They Are Looking for in a Church, We Are More Likely to Get Them Converted Than If We Continued To "Do Church" in the Traditional Way.
This is another point that may be lost on those who are committed to a man-centered, "free-will" theology, but it is, nevertheless, biblical truth. The reality is, at the end of the day not one of those whom God had marked out for himself will be found outside the fold. Pay close attention to Paul?s teaching in Romans 8:28-30. He wrote,And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.He informs his readers that those who love God are those who have been called effectually by his grace.
Presupposition Five: Paraphrases of the Scripture that Omit or Mangle the Original Meaning of the Text are as Authoritative as the Scripture Itself as Long as the SpeakerCan Use Them to Support the Point He Wants to Make.
This is one of the presuppositions we must detect from observation, since there is likely no statement of this belief from any leader of this movement or practitioner of this philosophy. Still, this must be one of their beliefs since their writings and lectures are most often composed of a collection of witty sayings and pop-psychology buttressed by an occasional reference to a paraphrase of the Scripture that is often ripped from its context and robbed of its original meaning. We need to understand that a paraphrase is merely someone?s idea of what a text means and should not be trusted as if it were the Word of God. Often the proof the speaker is seeking rests on words or phrases not even occurring in the Hebrew or Greek Texts. In this way, they seek cunningly to camouflage the Scriptures to make them more palatable to their carnal hearers. This practice is very similar to glazing bitter pills with a sugar coating to make them easier to swallow. Additionally, hearers can go away with the illusion that they have done something religious since the preacher has told them this is what the Bible says.
Presupposition Six: Declaring the Whole Counsel of God is Unimportant as Long asThose Who Attend Feel Good When They Leave the Church.
Closely related to presupposition five, is the idea that it is no longer important to declare the whole counsel of God to his people. This, too, is a presupposition detected by observation. People tend to talk about those matters that are important to them, but seeker-friendly pastors tend to be extremely limited in the scope of their teaching. They seem to believe human relationships are more important than a right relationship with God. It seems the idea of declaring the whole counsel of God never enters the mind of the average modern pastor. They seem satisfied as long as they can convince their hearers they are doing something religious and can collect their salaries.
Presupposition Seven: If It Is Working, It Must be Good
The problem with this faulty presupposition is it fails to define what "working" means. If "working" means it is attracting a large number of people, Roman Catholicism is "good," Islam is "good," porn sites on the internet are, "good," and we could go on and on. The Bible does not measure success this way. Instead, the biblical writers describe success in terms to faithfulness to the revealed will of God. If we are disobedient to God, we have failed, even if thousands applaud our disobedience.Presupposition EightConversion, in the Biblical Sense, Is Unimportant
It is altogether likely the leaders of this movement would be strident in their denial of this presupposition. They would insist they believe that at some point the unconverted need to become Christians. Yet, the emphasis of their ministry seems to be radically different from that of biblical Christianity. It seems the plan of operation is to teach the unconverted how to handle relationship issues and other matters in a Christian fashion in the hope that they will gradually embrace the Christian faith. Anyone who has read, The Purpose Driven Life, by Pastor Rick Warren, will surely recognize that he consistently addresses his readers as though they are believers. There is one brief passage in which he superficially alludes to a person?s need to become a Christian, but it is a far cry from the kind of conversion demanded by the Scriptures.
OK... I want to hear from you, the 'seeker-sensitive' leader. Is this an accurate 'read' of your heart (or your theology, for that matter?)
Last week, I asked if we could finally do away with the “seeker-sensitive = watered down" mentality. What ensued was a great discussion. One thing that I think is true that came out of this discussion is that labels are bad. As soon as you say the word "seeker" OR "sensitive" people take their sides before even listening to a word. Mark Waltz suggested some new terminology we could use: "Jesus-focused" or "People-sensitive".
Comments
if you want a Globally Recognized Avatar (the images next to your profile) get them here. Once you sign up, they will displayed on any website that supports them.
Peter Hamm on Wed, October 12, 2005
Todd, you wrote “still waiting for some seeker sensitive church leaders to chime in.”
I am the worship pastor in a very seeker-sensitive church. So maybe you want my take on this. I’ll try to be brief, and hey, everybody… Why don’t y’all try and be brief, too. The length of many of these posts is ridiculous.
[Presupposition One: Church Growth is Our Responsibility] - No, it’s not, but it is our task. Peter stood up and preached on Pentecost. People came to faith in Christ. It wasn’t his responsibility, and he didn’t make it happen, but it was his task!
[Presupposition Two: God’s Purpose for the Salvation of Sinners Needs a Major Overhaul, et. al…] I just don’t think that this is a problem. I don’t think seeker-sensive Church leaders think this. We DO think that doing church in a new way is a great opportunity, and God-honoring, but I don’t think any of us believe what the author is stating we do.
[Presupposition Three:The Unconverted are to be Evangelized in the Church… ...God has given no commandment for sinners to come to church. Instead, he commands the church to go to sinners.] Hey, guess what, that’s exactly what we do! We go into these communities with the Gospel. We understand this very well.
[Presupposition Four: If We Give People What They Are Looking for in a Church, We Are More Likely to Get Them Converted…] I’m gonna be the greek to the greek, and if you’re not a greek, then find a non-greek church and stop criticizing the greek churches. I’m pushing the metaphor here, but the author’s argument is a tired and old one.
[Presupposition Five: Paraphrases of the Scripture that Omit or Mangle the Original Meaning of the Text are as Authoritative as the Scripture Itself…] Okay, I think I’m in agreement with the author on this one, he’s going after one particular “translation” I think. “The Message” is not a Bible translation, it is an everyman’s commentary.
[Presupposition Six: Declaring the Whole Counsel of God is Unimportant…] Declaring the whole counsel of God is VERY important, and we DO it! We just don’t use the same lingo you might. We talk about sin, redemption, et cetera, and most of us that I have known even use the word “sin”. But “substitutionary atonement” needs explanation, and if it needs a lot of explanation, then maybe the average or below-average intelligence seeker doesn’t need to hear words like those, which aren’t in the Bible anyway…
[Presupposition Seven: If It Is Working, It Must be Good…] Is it possible that I agree with Bernie on this? Why yes! I do! But consider this. The author’s argument is much of the reason that we “seeker-sensitive” people started doing what we’re doing in the first place!
That’s all…
Dan Miller on Wed, October 12, 2005
It seems whenever I find myself in one of these conversations, I end up falling back on the comments of Saint Thomas Aquinas. Over 700 years ago he wrote:
We confuse two similar yet different human actions. We see people searching desparately for peace of mind, relief from guilt, meaning and purpose in their lives, and loving acceptance. We know that ultimately these things can only be found in God. Therefore, we conclude that since these people are seeking these things they must be seeking after God. People do not seek God. They seek after the benefits that only God can give them. The sin of fallen man is this: Man seeks the benefits of God while at the same time fleeing from God himself. We are, by nature, fugitives.”
matt on Wed, October 12, 2005
I was at Willow today as a part of the A2 conference. Incidentally, it is also the 30th birthday of Willow Creek. It was interesting to hear Bill Hybels reflect on the vision and passion that drove him and the others to launch off in this new direction.
As I walked around the campus, I was amazed…not by the building and grounds, but by the incredible number of people whose lives have been transformed because of their encounter with God’s love and grace through people who make up Willow Creek Church. They baptize hundreds of people at a time.
As bunches of you bark and moan about the evil “seeker-sensitive” churches, they are baptizing hundreds of people a year. How can you get mad about that? How can that be a bad thing for the kingdom? I just don’t see how God is dishonored by people who make decisions to give them their lives and embark on the faith journey.
If you have truly experienced the love and grace of our God, wouldn’t that be the most incredible thing in the world to you? And don’t you think that would be the most incredible thing in the world for everyone you meet? Then why wouldn’t you want as many people as possible to encounter Jesus like you have? Why wouldn’t you want to be a part of a church that was a strong partner with you in sharing the most incredible thing ever with anyone you care about? The only thing I can imagine is that the religion that you claim as genuine isn’t all that incredible for you…and if that’s the case, then you’ve missed grace.
Happy Birthday, Willow!! Keep up the great work on behalf of the kingdom!
Ricky on Wed, October 12, 2005
Quote (Seiver):
“They daily instructed disciples in the temple. It was on this doctrinal basis that early evangelism occurred.”
I find it somewhat amusing that someone who so proudly declares “Sola Scriptora!” can so easily do what he criticizes others for doing: misrepresent scripture in order to justify his position.
The New Testament (in particular the Book of Acts) does not even imply that the disciples were “instructed daily,” only that they were involved in four (4) major areas of community life (teaching, fellowship, breaking of bread and prayer). I find it interesting that three had nothing to do with “instruction” but rather RELATIONSHIP, which is the very essence of Christianity and what naturally produces evangelism.
Quote: (Seiver)
“Without a theological basis for our evangelism, we really have no good news to proclaim.”
Again, this is stunning and yet illustrates the point as to why the Presbyterians and other Calvinist-related denominations are dying.
Instead of understanding that those who emphasize “doctrine” (another very subjective topic) are spiritual ostriches, always with their heads in books, including the bible. They become perverse in leaning more on their so-called “knowledge” of Scripture and yet deny the power of it by becoming so legalistic that their “gospel” no longer offers freedom but rather bondage.
RELATIONSHIP, not Scriptural knowledge, is the cornerstone of the Christian life.
Quote: (BeHim)
[Please share with us where in the New Testament “instruction” led to evangelism. How does “instruction” today lead to evangelism other than more man-made outreach format and/or programs?]
“Paul’s instruction to Timothy for one. Titus another. His letters to the churches in Galatia, Ephesus, Rome, Thesolnica, etc.”
But where, BeHim, does Paul “instruct” them to evangelize? Nowhere! He encouraged Timothy to “do the work of an evangelist,” but how is that “expositional?” It’s not.
Quote:
[Who is the one who determines what is “solid exposition of the Scripture?” ]
“This is much like saying ‘who can really know The Truth’ or ‘no one really can know for sure about anything.”
Funny how Paul said that he knew NOTHING among the Corinthians except “Jesus Christ and Him crucified.” That is the ONLY truth one needs to grasp to both know Him and to tell others about Him.
Why? Because it is the life lived that speaks more about Christ than do our “knowledge.” Paul knew that all of his great “expositional instruction” he received from Gamaliel did NOTHING for him as to his salvation. Only a revelation of the risen Christ changed his life.
Everything we claim as “truth” oftentimes is nothing more than clutter that takes from the glory of Christ and stifles leading others to the Lord.
Quote:
“What is your arguement, that no one can really teach a solid exposition of Scripture? Surely you can’t believe this… where then would your Scriptural world view have come? How would you know it is correct or incorrect? How could you accept anything that is written as it is man’s view of God?”
I believe, BeHim, that most of exposition that we hold so dear to is, afterall, the thoughts and rationalizations of MEN. While there are good references available from which we can get an understanding, we must still admit that those references are the work of MEN, most of which was written decades, if not centuries ago, all of which is tainted with prejudices. Therefore, they are FLAWED, at best, and completely wrong at worst.
So, please let me ask you your own question: “How would you know it is correct or incorrect?”
Quote:
[This position is so utterly subjective, that it begs the question: What “solid exposition” did the believers in the Book of Acts receive that catapulted them to be world-changers (especially seeing how they had little of the written word available to them).>]
“They had the entire Old Testament, the Pentateuch and the prophetic books. They were raised from childhood to recite the entire first five books of the Bible (Genesis, Exodus, Lev, Num, Duet) from memory. They were raised with and in the law. They were, God’s Chosen People.”
If so, then why did only a small number of “God’s chosen” come to know Christ? Because, while, as you say, they had only knowledge of Scripture and not revelation.
Would you agree that it is possible to have a very deep knowledge of Scripture and no revelation of Christ?
Quote:
“How did they become World Changers? Their heart’s lept within them (as it does for many whose hearts have been transplanted) when the Scriptures they had known from childhood became KNOWN to them by the Power of the Holy Spirit (the “Comforter”). When the shades of things became clear. When the Words of God became ... “Words of Life” to them.
How did they exposite? 1. Know the Word 2. Baptized in the Holy Spirit 3. Walk by complete and utter Faith in God.
I would suggest your assumptions are spoiled with some form of special revelation that is still in existence today???
How about it…
Does God speak to us today as He did in the days of Noah, Abraham, David, Daniel, etc?”
BeHim, as I stated, you and Mr. Seiver are those within Christianity that emphasize Scripture over all else…even relationships with others and to their detriment.
I believe that while the canon of Scripture is closed, as to the written word, it is still fleshed out on a daily basis, most of the time by those who may not have the grasp of Scripture you claim to have. And yet, I am willing to wager that they are probably far more effective in evangelism because they focus on relationships, which, as I stated earlier, is the cornerstone for evangelism.
Granted, seeker-sensitive organizations fail miserably at both aspects, primarily because their emphasis is numbers, but to say that mere Scriptural knowledge leads to evangelism is, at best, misrepresentative of Christ and His word.
Randy Seiver on Thu, October 13, 2005
First, I want to offer my sincere apology to Todd and to the others who frequent this blog site. I had no idea there was a limit on the number of posts allowed. I will try to be brief here and then be silent.
And, by the way, if teaching was occuring daily in the temple, that means the early Christians were being instructed daily.
I think the last two posts make my point far better than I ever could. One speaks about baptisms as though getting people under some water is clear evidence of their conversion. It is my sincere hope that many of these people have actually been born of God. He has used some unorthodox methods over the centuries to accomplish his purpose, including one jack ass. However, jack ass evangelism is not to be the norm for the church. Of course, I rejoice when anyone comes to love our wonderful Lord. What truly disturbs me is the lack of doctrinal understanding many of these people have.
I never expected people involved in this movement to recognize their adherence to the presuppositions I have listed. I am sure the Apostle Peter was shocked to learn he had, by implication, denied and torn down the doctrine of justification by faith alone in, Christ alone, that he, Paul, and others had been preaching (Read about it in Galatians 2). His error seemed so insignificant. All he had done was to seek to maintain a relationship with those who had come down from the Jerusalem church, by returning to a diet of Kosher food only. Are relationships important? Of course they are! Are they more important than faithfulness to God’s revealed Word? Never. I, for one, am happy Martin Luther turned his back on many of his human relationships because he was concerned for the purity of the gospel. Jesus prophesied that he was going to bring a sword that would sever some of our closest earthly relationships.
No, biblical knowledge does not in and of itself give a knowledge of God, but neither does the rectifying of human relationships. The first relationship that needs to be repaired is our relationship with God. Only when that occurs do we have a basis for repair our broken human relationships.
If you wish to interact with me further concerning these issues, feel free to visit http://www.gracedocs.blogspot.com.
Todd, thank you for your patience and your gracious spirit. Again, I apologize for exceeding the posting limit.
Todd Rhoades on Thu, October 13, 2005
Thanks, Randy… and no problem with the number of posts. I’m glad you’re here.
Here’s one of the problems I have with many (including you) http://www.mondaymorninginsight.com/images/smileys/smile.gif who write and speak so negatively about the seeker-sensitive church. You write something you call the “presuppositions” of the seeker-driven church and then you say that you don’t really expect any seeker-church to admit to the presuppositions that you write.
You wrote: I never expected people involved in this movement to recognize their adherence to the presuppositions I have listed.
That is kind of what I wanted to happen here (but it’s been kind of a light week here on the blog as I’ve been busy with some other things).
You see, if no one will fess up to believing these presuppositions who is a part of the seeker church; the maybe (just maybe) they aren’t the real presuppositions of a seeker church; but rather just your pre-conceived presuppositions of seeker churches. Do you see my point?
It’s like the seeker churches have a secret agenda that they would never admit to… there’s a seeker church conspiracy. If so, I don’t know what it is.
You see, the question is… what drives the seeker church. Most that I’ve seen is to introduce more people to take steps closer to Jesus.
In another somewhat amusing exchange; I always find it somewhat funny that the seeker churches do point to fruit (conversions; baptisms, etc.) and the anti-seeker people always come back with something like you did:
“One speaks about baptisms as though getting people under some water is clear evidence of their conversion. It is my sincere hope that many of these people have actually been born of God.”
No one is putting notches on a wall saying… “YES! Another one’s baptized! Seeker churches also disciple people as well.
Why all the skepticism? Rather than, “that’s great”… it’s always “hmmm… I wonder how many were sincere?”
I’d rather rejoice. I’ll rejoice when people take steps toward Christ in a seeker church; and when they do in yours, Randy. (And I won’t wonder if your methods produce real fruit or plastic fruit). http://www.mondaymorninginsight.com/images/smileys/smile.gif
Just my friendly thoughts on a cool Thursday afternoon.
Todd
bernie dehler on Thu, October 13, 2005
Todd says:
“No one is putting notches on a wall saying… “YES! Another one’s baptized! Seeker churches also disciple people as well. Why all the skepticism? Rather than, “that’s great”… it’s always “hmmm… I wonder how many were sincere?””
Are you sure about the notch thing? You should see my webcast at:
http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/247/
with Dr. Van Horn. For many, the number is all that’s important, and they no doubt pad them, and don’t count the people who have come forward multiple times. In Africa, Bonnke claims to have saved 17 million. You think that’s true? Are they really new creatures in Christ, in word and deed? If not, this could actually be working against the gospel, what Ray Comfort calls “innoculation against the gospel” (as the person is closed to the gospel because he thinks he’s already been there, done that… gave it a shot.) That’s why we need to be diligent against false gospels and shallow gospels.
I don’t know a lot about seeker-sensitive churches, but I’m very familar with churches who are interested more in numbers than spiritual growth… specializing in delivering ‘baby mild’ and ‘avoiding meat.’ These churches may not claim big “salvation numbers,” but is increasing the number (of church attenders) their top goal (and making concessions to get it)? I think senior Pastors in most churches may be blind to this situation; I’ve heard former Pastors, who are able to see from the perspective outside of church leadership, notice this huge problem.
...Bernie
http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/247
Todd Rhoades on Thu, October 13, 2005
OK… let’s say that all of them… every single these seeker sensitive coots; every one of them are number crunching scoundrals.
Let’s say they work hard only for the ‘numbers’, not actually caring for the souls attached to the numbers.
Let’s say they water down the message to bring the people in.
Let’s say that they never talk about Christ because it’s offensive.
What is their motivation? Pure money? Pure power?
To me, this is just such a cynical view. And its the view I hear from people who’ve been burned in one way or another. Really. I’ve never heard this from someone who hasn’t been 1. hurt by the church or 2. negative overall in their view of life and individuals.
Are there people who are in it for the pure money and power? I’m sure there are. But I think they’re few and far between.
There are a ton of other ways to make a lot of money other than pawning a phoney religion and lining your pockets.
I think we have to be really really careful about all the judging the goes on here about motives and decisions for two reasons:
1. We don’t really know their motives
and
2. If the Holy Spirit is involved in any way in what they are doing; then I’m pretty sure that’s a line I don’t want to cross.
You see, If God IS ACTUALLY IN these decisions… then… whoa… step back and consider the consequences of actually being against something that God is doing. Of actually attacking something that God may be at work in.
That’s some stark reality.
And it’s a line I’m not willing to cross.
Todd
bernie dehler on Thu, October 13, 2005
Todd, yes it’s good to be balanced. On the one hand, don’t be critical about everything, for the sake of being critical. On the other, don’t be a dupe, and think just because the church has a great reputation that it’s doing something right,,, or something worthy to be copied.
Luke 6:26
Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for that is how their fathers treated the false prophets.
Matthew 7:
22Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ 23Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
...Bernie
http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/247
Peter Hamm on Thu, October 13, 2005
Bernie, you wrote “I don’t know a lot about seeker-sensitive churches”
Well, then, might I ask that you refrain from commenting about them too often? There are MANY topics I know nothing about discussed on this forum, and as a result, I don’t post.
matt on Thu, October 13, 2005
Bernie said that he had a better perspective because he’s not a senior pastor…then maybe I can offer my perspective on nubby IT guys who are pastor-wanna-bes…never mind…
You and so many others of the critical bent are so afraid that one baptized person may not persevere that you fail to celebrate the many who do. Why is it so important to steal the joy?
If that’s the case, then we’d better get on Jesus’ case…he lost one of his board members. Jesus’ methods were clearly flawed because Judas didn’t take his faith seriously and was not properly discipled. If he had been, then he wouldn’t have fallen away.
I’m up for discussion and hard questions, but the constant barking and moaning gets old, guys.
Randy Seiver on Thu, October 13, 2005
Todd,
I had not intended to post anything more on you blog site but I do want to clarify a few things. First, I do not question the motives of those who are involved in this movement. I have no way of knowing what they are. Second, I am certain some of the fruit produced by my ministry as by any ministry is not genuine. My concern is that every SS church I have had any experience with personally with SS people I have watched on TV is that I never hear a clear presentation of the gospel. Perhaps, I have simply had the misfortune of coming in contact with aberrant forms of SS churches and pastors. I have had extensive personal dealings with people in some of these churches and find little, if any desire to learn biblical truth, as long as the entertainment keeps coming and they can feel good about having had a religious experience on Sundays. From my heart I can tell you I sincerely hope you are right and that God is truly working in these churches. The amazing thing is, others with whom I am in contact have found the same to be true in the SS churches with whom they are acquainted.
bernie dehler on Thu, October 13, 2005
See this blog article about the true dilema a real Preacher faces. The ultimate answer is up to the Pastor. I’m afraid most Pastors aren’t as honest and transparent as this guy:
“Should I Rock the House or Preach the Word?”
http://blog.christianitytoday.com/outofur/archives/2005/10/should_i_rock_t.html
By the way, I’m not an IT guy, and I’m not a Pastor wanna-be. I work in computer chip design full-time, and I’m a tele-evangelist (trying to clean-up that image!)… a tent-making tele-evangelist…
I have Pastor friends, more than one, so I’m somewhat familiar with this stuff…
...Bernie
http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/247
Tim Ritter on Fri, October 14, 2005
Personally, I’m glad a lot of seeker church leaders have NOT responded to this piece. Don’t get me wrong, I think Todd does a great job of getting some pieces out there for people to tear into and share thoughts on. The “presuppositions” are simply not worth responding to. They are straw-man arguments designed to incite feeling against SC, rather than any honest or thoughtful analysis of what the actual presuppositions are of this movement. Certainly enough has been written about why people are innovating new ways of doing church. Non-SC ways of doing church are not outlined specifically in the bible, they may be biblical, but the traditions of how the church does things now is very much that - tradition. Presuppositions should look to the actual motives and assumptions that underly change - and every SC leader I’ve met or heard is open and honest enough to engage that discussion. I would respect a piece that actually asked those leaders probing questions and summarized their responses and reflections in a scholarly manner. This is just an attack disguised as something more. Let’s move on to a discussion of something substantive about SC, please. I know this may sound defensive, but that’s how the SC critics sound also - defensive as if the SC or church-growth movements are attacks on what they are doing. In words and in actions, every significant SC church I’ve had contact with welcomes a variety of churches in their community, a variety of ways for people to connect to the gospel, a variety of ways for people to worship, and so on. Some of the big numbers churches do things in ways that I would never appreciate or be drawn to, and the numbers may not be a sign of anything good God is doing there. But if there is truth being put forward, and God’s hand behind it, we’ll see what lasts. Let’s celebrate what God is doing and join in the redemptive work in every way that an infinitely creative God sets forth.
Randy Seiver on Fri, October 14, 2005
Presuppositions one, two, and four are direct quotes from a SS pastor.
Page 2 of 4 pages < 1 2 3 4 >
Post a Comment