Just alittle to add to this.
Is it not the responsibility of the Pastor , Rev. Clergy to reach out to the sinners to bring them home unto God and if we need to change some of the ways we except them into our churches then we should do so. Everything that is done should and shall be for the Glory of God . Was it not the Lord Jesus that went out amongst the sinners and saved the souls of the lost? Did He not charge us with the same to teach, to save the lost ,the sinner, that means we must bring the lost and the sinner into the church not to make them anymore of an outcast then what they feel to change somethings to make them understand that what God has to offer them would it not bring them to Jesus more freely to understand that God will forgive them and bring them unto the fold. We must reach out to all not just the saved but also to those who do not believe and to those who are lost. We cannot force our will upon anyone Nor can we force Gods will upon anyone,God gave people a choice ,He never turned them away , He taught as we should teach. God will show the way to those that will listen but if we drive the sinner away then what purpose do we serve.The word God puts fear into all men we are not perfect beings. We must look past our being and remember that the fear that a sinner feels is far greater then what we could imagine. So put yourself in that persons shoes for one minute and think what would you do if someone was standing in front of you and talking all kinds of things that you can not understand. With the fear factor involved you will run.To win the soul it is done with kindness, love honesty, and understanding.So if this means making some changes to get the Word of God across to the lost then by all means.This does not mean to change purpose but to change the approuch on how we bring the lost home.

I attended a church about a month ago - where the pastor repeatedly referred to their services as being for “believers” (and it was very clear that they were). It really hurt my heart to know that we have churches that seemingly ignore Jesus’ command to go to the lost sheep. Whatever the method, our commission is clear.

Romans 1:16-17
For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it (I add “and it alone") is the POWER of God for the salvation of all who believe - first the Jew then the Gentile. For in it, the righteousness of God is found by faith from first to last as it is written, “the righteous shall live by faith”.

Any message preached from a pulpit that does not contain the message of the gospel is a message that DOES NOT contain the POWER OF GOD for the salvation of those who hear it - it is merely the philosophy of man that has little power to make real change.

If the gospel is rightly preached, worship is done as an act FOR God (and not selfishly for one’s benefit), and all other methods are used to point to Jesus as the only way of salvation - then I’m all for it!

When I read the article I thought it was about seeker sensitive churches. However it seems that everyone is worried about the “service”.  Maybe if the entirety of the church was to be a bridge where the sinner was invited to become a disciple then the message would not be lost. 
Or maybe this is a commentary on our times we cannot disitnguish between the action on the chancel and the effective mission of the church.
Go make disciples is a long way from the style that drives your service.  In most cases if the unchurched or children don’t get your Sunday activity then it is very likely the saints haven’t got it for a long time either.
But I might be wrong.

Hello Todd,

I am not new to the seeker sensitive movement as I am very familiar with the lingo and practices.  I pastor a church that has used on many occassions some of the tactics in a very positive way.  We have grown from 100 to over 600 in 5 years in a small community.  I mention these accomplishments only to let you know that I understand the seeker driven philosophy and have used it many times in my own church.  Here is my problem - I must say that I am concerned greatly (almost alarmed) when we use questionable media in church services.  Clips from questionable movies and questionable television shows are not appropriate (in my opinion) to play in church for any reason.
I was at the Granger Conference and thought it was great overall but I struggled with some (only a few) of the clips and less than appropriate moves during one of the songs.  I am a young man and open to new ideas as I have said, but I do think compromise is occuring and I am afraid of where it could go unless it is caught and checked.

Just some thoughts from a senior pastor who is open to new ideas but struggles with the direction some churches are going. 

Ed

The church is a called out community of born again believers in local community.  It is to be both distinctive and relevant at the same time.  There needs to be a way to connect with people and in such a way that offers a difference because of Christ and His salvation.  Seeker sensitive is one model that appears “successful” but the harm has come from pastors and church leaders who have flocked to the “seeker sensitive” church as some sort of Holy Grail.  I am a survivor of a church split where a pastor forced that model on a traditional church.  The results were a church split, a divorced pastor, and some leaving the church altogether.

As to the watering down of the Gospel, that varies.  I don’t believe all “seeker sensitive” water down the Gospel.  I find watering down of the Gospel in most mainline churches I have visited(Methodist,
Episcopal, Lutheran, etc).  I have also visited some of the more liberal Baptist churches where the Gospel is missing. 

Seeker sensitive does offer something we can all learn from - looking at ourselves as the lost sees us.  For me that does not mean I have to drop the word “Baptist” or take the cross down from the steeple.  It does mean that I should pay attention to quality - in everything from facilities to greeters to how the music is arranged.  It means understanding the culture, its problems, the local people, and preaching/teaching from Scripture without compromise but so the hearer can understand and respond. 

Not every “mega-church” is a contemporary worship service model based upon Willow Creek or Saddleback.  How does one explain the huge independent Baptist churches that still use King James Bibles and hymnals?  They focus on quality.  They also find ways to connect to the community.  They offer biblical preaching/teaching that touches lives without compromise.

How does one explain the many huge mainline denominational churches that do not preach the Gospel?  They find a way to focus on quality and meet human needs.  I know of a huge unitarian fellowship.  Again, they focus on quality and seeking connections with people.  I’m not putting them in the same category as evangelicals.  It does point out that ultimately it is Jesus who builds the church. 

Does this mean the small churches should just close their doors and sell their property?  No.  I have come to the conclusion in America there are two types of people:  A) Those that love crowds and B) those that love intimacy. 

Nuff said.

Just my two cents worth.

Dan Moore

I would like to have an explanation from Randy as to what the “external appearance of historic Christianity” is, and what time frame he is referring to.
A.D. 33
A.D. 75
4th century
6th century
15th century
19th century
2005 ???????

Here’s the point - If God is blessing it(seeker sensitive),I’m not criticizing it.

I wonder how many people who are struggling with addictions, lonliness, depression, sexual addictions, or homicidal thoughts are concerned about SS movements. The “church” is seen by outsiders as an irrelevant element to our society. Both Ss and traditional. These are only methods to maintain or grow churches. The bigger question is are we talking to our neighbors that God of the universe loves them so much that he sent his only son to die for thier sake.

I was talking to my neighbor (we just moved here several months ago) and she found out that I was a pastor. Her first question was,” Could I go to your church?” This niave and innocent question revealed to me that very few people are being shared the love of God. I wonder how many people in the world are looking for God only to find a bunch of people discussing the finer points of SS or traditional? Speaking in a special language with no interpretationor present.

Georgia...I don’t believe that feeding the sheep and saving the lost have to be mutually exclusive things. The gospel may be shared in many forms, and it take the gospel being preached for the “power of God” to come and change a life.

A church service should be able to accomplish both tasks. Reformed churches have done it for years - sharing the gospel in a way that feeds sheep and saves sinners together.

However, one of the problems I see in the Church is that Ephesians 4 is not applied. The purpose of church leadership is to “equip and mature” the saints to the point that THEY go out and do the work of the ministry - reaching out to the lost. I believe now that the laity believe that their primary task is to get someone to come to church with them, and for the church to “do the work” for them.

CHURCH: Provide an atmosphere that feeds sheep, equips them with the gospel and provide opportunities for growth and maturity (all week long, not just Sunday). Also, preach the gospel so that unchurched people can know Jesus (The gospel & feeding sheep are NOT mutually exclusive things).

SAINTS: Take advantage of the opportunities the church provides, use your private time for personal relationship/growth, and develop relationships with unsaved people so that you will “shine a light” in their world.

First, a reply to a previous post. The definition of the church “body” is its believers, but the Sunday morning community that is gathered should, in my mind, include both--the disciples were part of Jesus’ new community LONG before they “got it” and became true believers. Both 1 Cor. and records from the 1st C. give guidelines for church service operation and make references to believers and non-believers, “seekers” if you will, during the weekly meeting.

Ok. I am part of an “emergent” community w/in a “seeker” oriented church and have been for some time. I am not a novice believer, and have served in various roles w/various age groups. I can’t speak for all “seeker” churches, but I have found that mine and others I have visited (in the Los Angeles area) are anything but watered-down in our message. Its been said here already, but many of these traditional churches are more watered down teaching-wise, and some of the most liturgical are the most theologically liberal. I have a good friend who grew up in a traditional Baptist church who was never taught about sex more than “don’t do it,” and grew up thinking lusting was fine! Sexual activity was too “delicate” a topic for his proper Southern youth group. What about people with addictions? Just pray more… ok, yeah, sure.

I think more than anything, this debate is about culture. I am a grad student in American Studies (which is history and cultural studies combined), and the fact is most middle class white Americans think they are culture-less. We are what “American” is, anyone else is the “other” that is used to define what we (ie, true Americans) are not. Unfortunately, born again believers tend to bring this ideology into the church. We define normative, “correct” forms of worship on our culture, not Biblical principles, and so become upset when the “other"--be they racial or generational--want to do things in a way that reflect their cultural forms of expression and communication.

Many of these forms of culture that we debate about: musical styles used in worship; whether one should wear a suit or jeans in the pulpit; religious symbols in church buildings; denominational titles used in the church’s name, etc. are essentially morally and spiritually neutral and therefore, yes, the hated word, “relative.” The Apostle Paul said “I have become all things to all men so that some might be saved,” and certainly he couldn’t do that to all the different people groups he was sent to at the same time! It depended on who he was focused on at that time, but within that acculturation, he never compromised the Gospel or participated in sinful activities. If your church’s focus is on seniors and middle-aged white middle class types (and let’s be honest folks, Sunday morning is still the most segregated time of the week), then incorporate forms of worship that your fellowship can engage in and worship God with most effectively. If you have a different demographic in your congregation, or you are trying to go beyond a monocultural makeup, than you need to change your format a bit. Notice I said “format” and not Biblical content. God’s Word speaks to all of us.

Some food for thought from a radical heart: As far as these “traditional” elements go that we are fighting for in traditional Bible-belt Protestant churches, how many of these traditions that we so often equate with proper, God-fearing worship are Biblically based? Wearing a suit and tie to worship (OK, let’s dress like white collar criminals instead of blue collar ones..), religious symbols, stained glass, etc. (where is church adornment mentioned in the New Testament--where are church buildings mentioned in the New Testament?!); the singing of hymns, most of which seem to come from the 1800s (why was that century the “Golden Era”? As Americans we have a short historical memory. Why not sing hymns from the first few centuries of the church; the middle ages; etc.? OH, they are old-fashioned and not relevant and “foreign” to our Anglo-American ears? Isn’t that being “seeker-sensitive”? Plus, those hymns some people see as “timeless” were brand spankin’ new when they were written, and were usually composed in the popular musical styles and language of the day. Why not do so today if music is morally neutral, and the heart of the singer/performer and the content of the lyrics is what matters to God and to the church?

I’m not saying ditch our traditions or any of these things I just mentioned. I’m just saying let’s examine our view of the “infallibility” of our traditions and recognize them as cultural tools for ministry, tools that will change over time, as human culture changes over time, while we worship an unchanging God, and let’s be very careful to avoid “teaching the traditions of men as the docrines of God.”

I’m a bit confused as to why we don’t consider the “traditional” church to be seeker sensitive.  The suggestion is that we haven’t been reaching the loss in the history of the church?  The question should be, “just what is it that brings people to Christ?” Is it simply relationship with others, comfort in the setting, relativism, support groups?  Paul stated that the “preaching of the cross is to them that are lost, as foolishness”. Yet, the exortation is to preach the cross of Christ.  Why?  Because it is where the power of salvation is found....not in the methodology to get there.  I’m not opposed to whatever method - save something immoral or unethical - to reach people.  But without the redemptive message of Christ’s sacrifice in the forefront, how can we call it a “church”?

So many great points.  I have to say that I’m in the middle of the road on this issue and will probably get run over! (I’ve also wandered a bit in this post but think I’ve tied it all together in the end. So stick with me on this...)

Leaning a tad to the “anti-seeker” side of the road, I’m of the mind that it is the Lord Himself that draws people.  He prepares their hearts, and calls to them, often through believers. If that’s true, than all this seeker sensitive stuff is rather arrogant of us, His humble servants.  We just need to be obedient (sensitive) to show the welcoming love and grace of God as He places us in their path - at church or elsewhere.

My husband and I served in a small church that saw a large turnover in both congregants AND pastoral staff.  We ministered to both the churched and unchurched. 

However, it seems to me, that much of the teaching/messages (all Christ centered) appeared lopsided in an effort to make people comfortable.  Kind of a “happy, happy feel good” thing - occasionally wagging a finger at our sinful nature. 

I’m all for “the Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth.” We need to hear the down side of things to understand the depth of the Gift for which we are rejoicing.  A BALANCE of conviction and forgiveness.

I know the hearts of these leaders and the depth of their personal beliefs - all right on target.  However, comforting the seekers practically enabled them to continue their sinful ways on the road to Salvation.  Even worse, it didn’t challenge believers to repent or further their Christian walk.

We are called to be IN the world but not OF the world.  We are also called to GO into all the world to share the Good News and are reminded not to foresake the fellowship. 

These imply to me that:  1) Sunday services are to strengthen the believer -along with praise and worship to our Lord on High.  2)Outreach is to take the message of Salvation to the lost.  3)Sunday School or mid-week programs are to disciple the newly born again and grow the biblical knowlege of the flock. 

The problem then is that many churches are too small to fulfill their own needs.  Just as individuals are gifted/called to serve in a specific area, I think the same can be said of churches. For this reason, I believe unity amongst the Christian community is very important.  We need to live out the teachings of “the body” within our church, as well as in our local community of churches.  A variety of bible based church programs for all stages of life AND Christian development can be met by networking rather than competing.

Just my thoughts…