Does “Seeker-Sensitive” Really Equal “Watered-Down”?
- Posted by: Todd
- Posted on: Tue, October 04, 2005
- Viewed 578
- (100) comments so far
Here's a definition of the 'seeker-sensitive' church from the "Arrows Astray" website. God bless Randy (the writer). He is my brother in Christ, I'm sure, but I think he's bought a line from others who reiterate the anti-seeker-sensitive talking points. Randy writes:
What is the seeker-friendly movement? It is a philosophy of church growth that seeks to discover what characteristics the unconverted would like in a church to induce them to attend, then seeks to fashion the church to please their carnal desires.
Yes, the seeker-sensitive church does make changes to make people feel comfortable in a situation that many people are not normally comfortable in. But to say that seeker targeted churches fashion their services for the purpose of helping sinners enjoy their sin?... that's downright crazy.
Here's an example. I know nothing about car maintenance. So, it's pretty natural that I don't feel extremely comfortable talking to my auto mechanic. Once he starts talking about 'valve covers' or 'differentials', I'm lost. But worse than being lost, I'm uncomfortable. Actually, beyond uncomfortable, I feel totally stupid because I don't know what he's talking about. I don't speak his language. That doesn't change the fact that the valve covers or differentials are a valid part of the car. It doesn't change their purpose or how they work, or the truth of their existance. I would much rather go to a mechanic that treats me with respect where I'm at in my auto maintenance journey than someone who is going to take pride in knowing more about car engines than me. Someone who will help me understand, from my viewpoint, what my car's problem is.
The same things shows itself in the seeker-sensitive model. People who have never darkened the door of a church are nervous. What are the pictures of angels doing on the wall? What's the infactuation with doves? Where did they get this organ music?
Why SHOULDN'T we talk in a different language? Why would we WANT to make people feel uncomfortable? Why WOULDN'T we want to meet these people where they're at? Really, we'd be silly not to.
That doesn't mean that our message changes. I'm afraid that most seeker-sensitive opponents have never stepped foot in one. Most go off of information they've heard from others. Granger, for example has meaty 40-minute messages that would be on par in scope and depth with most 'non-seeker' churches. There is mention of sin. There is mention of commitment. There is mention for their need for Christ. I know. I've actually been there. A few weeks ago, they baptized over 400 new believers in Christ.
Randy continues:
There are, of course, different degrees to which churches are willing to compromise the truth of Christianity to accomplish this end.
Again, here is the accusation: Seeker-sensitive = compromising the truth. Sorry, but that doesn't have to be so. Just because a church is welcoming and inviting to an unbeliever doesn't mean that the church and it's leadership has compromised the Word. That's a huge accusation; and made almost 100% of the time because of the church's music, size, and outward image. And if it's repeated enough, people (at least in the Christian community) start to believe it.
Some seek to retain at least an external appearance of historic Christianity, while others seem to have totally abandoned it.
"External appearance" probably because Randy hasn't ever entered one. (My guess). "Seem to" admits that he's just not sure.
The problem is, once a person has embraced the basic philosophy that drives this movement, there is really no stopping place on the road to adopting pagan religion.
OK... honestly, you lost me there. That's the same leap the local pastor who spoke against Granger made: "The people there don't serve the same God as we do". In other words, 'they're pagan'.
The focus is Jesus, guys. The goal is introducing people to Jesus. If someone introduces people to Jesus in a different way, using a different method then you do, it doesn't mean they're pagan, or that they serve a different different God. It means they use a different method. That's all.
You see folks, anyway you look at it, it's still a valve cover. But the way you describe a valve cover (and what it does; and why I need a new one) makes a world of difference in whether or not I heed your advice.
It seems to me the same is true in the way we tell people about Jesus.
Todd
As many of you know, I just returned from the Innovative Church Conference at Granger Community Church (near South Bend, IN). Granger is a remarkable church. While I’m sure they don’t like labels, they would be very ‘seeker-sensitive’ in their format, often using current cultural themes during their weekend services to communicate with unbelievers. There is much written on the internet (particularly now with blogs) about the seeker-sensitive movement; and much of it is ill-informed in my opinion. At the conference, Granger met this criticism head on. They even showed a video clip from a local church pastor preaching against their church (naming them by name) and saying that the folks at Granger "do not serve the same God as we do". What arrogance. Enough of this "seeker sensitive = watered down" mentality. It just simply isn’t true. (I’m sure there are some cases this could be true… but many of the seeker/culturally driven models are getting the work done WITH the talk of sin, blood, punishment, etc.)
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.
Eight on Tue, October 04, 2005
“The focus is Jesus, guys. The goal is introducing people to Jesus. If someone introduces people to Jesus in a different way, using a different method than you do, it doesn’t mean they’re pagan, or that they serve a different God. It means they use a different method. That’s all.”
YES…great article as well as the one linked to it:
http://gracedocs.blogspot.com/2005/09/seeker-friendly-church_22.html
I continue to learn so much from your work, Todd! Thanks.
Scott Phillips on Tue, October 04, 2005
Please forgive my ignorance of this topic, but in my view the philosophy and idea of seeker-sensitive is nothing new. The term may be new but I see it in the Gospels in how Jesus himself deals with people. Did he not seek the lost regardless of the circumstances or how that person was viewed by society. We can look at the Samaritan women at the well, the woman caught in adultery, and so on. Jesus ministered to the people that needed HIM (we all do) even with the religious people telling Him that it was not right. Again I may be simplisic in my approach to this but I see the whole thing as just part of the great commission and the echoings of Paul. We have a responsibility to promote the Gospel message and make disciples. If that means learning what will draw them in then we must learn.
Tom on Tue, October 04, 2005
Thanks for the great words. I see so much of this kind of criticism directed at churches that have a seeker outlook (I like the term seeker-accessible), just as I saw criticism by similar types of people 30 years ago towards Billy Graham and his style of doing evangelism. In fact, the criticisms have a remarkable similarity!
If we’re not doing the Great Commission, nothing else really matters. No church or style is perfect, but having been in ministry now for 26 years, I am so excited to be leading a church where lost people matter to God, and seeing lives changed and transformed by His Spirit and power. It’s what “I signed up for” when I offered my life to the Lord to be His servant however He would choose. Thanks again!
James Spencer on Tue, October 04, 2005
I am a member of a seeker-sensitive church. I am not anti-seeker, but I think that the criticism concerning the “watered-down” nature of the seeker movement is warranted in some sense. First, I would say that the seeker movement’s missional focus is well intentioned. Where I see the seeker movement falling short of its divinely ordained purpose is in the realm of discipleship. Many…not all…seeker-sensitive churches never move beyond the culture-centered message to foster biblical literacy and true biblical wisdom among those who are not “new converts” in the church. The criticisms levied against seeker movements, then, have been too comprehesive. There has not been a serious attempt to augment certain aspects of seeker-sensitive churches. In other words, there are a lot of people wagging their fingers at the seeker sensitive churches, but not a lot of people who recognize the problems inherent in the movement and team with the movement to try to keep the good and fix the bad. For whatever reason, the Christian community does not do a great job of imaging the “body” metaphor. Instead, they tend to look at the feet critically while they (the hands) stand aloof from the hard work of making ministry happen. I myself am critical of the seeker movement. There need to be reforms made, particularly in the areas of education and in presenting a fuller view of God, but I do not want to abandon the seeker church because of these imperfections. I would rather jump in as a capable reformer (I am a PhD student in Old Testament Theology) to try to add to the ministry of the seeker church. In short, to those who levy criticisms, I would say that they need to do so with grace realizing that the churches they attend also fall short of the standars set in Scripture. I would also suggest that pointing out problems is not always enough. At some point, God’s people need to cooperate with one another rather than flocking together in monolithic communities that do not promote the sort of diversity that the body of Christ is meant to display.
WH on Tue, October 04, 2005
Thank you!!!!
I’ve heard the critics call seeker sensitive pastors pagans, false prophets, heretics - not just by local folks but by national names, people who’ve been given by God (and in my opinion abused) a significant voice in American evangelicalism.
Maybe a closer parallel in this argument is between seeker sensitive pastors and heretics but rather between the critics and the arrogant, self-righteous, religious aristocracy of Jesus’ day - the Pharisees.
Frank Liggett on Tue, October 04, 2005
I think this is an important discussion to have. Like many I have been very distrustful of the church growth movement. I know that the original theme and motivation was to win souls to Christ. However, somewhere along the way it appears that some pastors/churches became so focused on numbers and growth that compromises have been made to reach and sustain the numbers and growth. I have heard of churches removing every symbol of Christianity from its building (perhaps this is a over worked rumor) this causes me concern. As the secular world pushes for a vague form of religion that is appealing to all we must understand that is not the goal or role God had in mind for His church. We are a peculiar people caught out of the world and there will always be some that will hate us. We must know that the defining reason for this is that we preach Christ and Him crucified.
1 Corinthians 1:22-24 (NKJV)
22 For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; 23 but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks[a] foolishness, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
John 15:18-20 (NKJV)
18 “If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you. 19 If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. 20 Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you. If they kept My word, they will keep yours also.
I quote these because I think that sometime in our attempt to win the world we neglect the elect. Why are Christian divorces higher than non-Christians. Have we lost our focus? Are we feeding the sheeping or chasing the world. Just my thoughts, again I believe we need to have these discussions to help us untie on one accord. But please know some of us are concerned with the direction of the modern day church.
Cory Kemp on Tue, October 04, 2005
One of the ministers I grew up with summed this up nicely, about 25 years ago: What we do in the church must have a theological basis.
I agree that we need to meet people where they are at, but we also need to recognize where we are too. We are not in charge of the conversion process. God is, and the people who desire to move into a relationship with God must make that decision for themselves.
There is a big part of me that resents the term “church growth,” except in the framework of the church growing in wisdom, God’s strength and character. Anything else feels really cheap, and as if we are picking through the clearance bin at Wal-Mart for the good stuff stuck at the bottom. The best sales pitch available for inviting people to worship with us is being what we want to attract.
David Trawick on Tue, October 04, 2005
Seeker sensitive: The Word became flesh. He wore the clothing of first century Jews, spoke their language, sang their songs, participated in their Seder. Was it a compromise for the Word of God to come in the form of a first century Jew? Some of the Pharisees thought so.
Seeker sensitive: The apostle Paul said, “To the Jews I come as a Jew, to the Gentiles I come as a Gentile, so that some might be saved.” Was it a compromise? Some of the Judaizers thought so.
Frankly, I’ll stand with Jesus and Paul.
I’m sure there are some seeker sensitive churches that water down the message. But I’ve seen plenty of churches that do things in the traditional (1950s) way and water down the gospel to “feel-good” or “do-good” messages, without dealing with sin, conviction, repentance, our need for the cross, etc. Sometimes there’s no mention of Jesus! I’ve also attended seeker sensitive churches that present the whole gospel without apology or compromise.
It’s time for the “seeker sensitive bashers” to get over it. The method is not sacred. The message is.
Jeff Harris on Tue, October 04, 2005
“ The Son of Man came eating and drinking and you say, ‘here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners’. But wisdom is proved right by her children. Luke 7:34-35
Jim on Tue, October 04, 2005
Basically - the battlecry of today that I have found is ‘authenticity’. Non-believers are turned off by fake Christians. Cut-to-the-chase, uncompromising preaching does not turn them away. It is if they walk in the doors and see that everyone - since they are so fake - is so different from them that they don’t fit in.
glenn gingrich on Tue, October 04, 2005
I’m all for reaching the lost in our communities. We need to change our methods if we want to see a difference in the results we’re getting. I do, however, agree with those that have concerns about “seeker sensitive” churches. I feel in becoming seeker sensitive, sometimes we lose our sensitivity to GOD and His Holy Spirit. Of course, many of our mainline denominational churches do the same thing by limiting our services to an hour, and try to dictate how the service will flow. What ever happened to allowing God to control our services, and the signs and wonders that were very evident in the early church? If we desire to see true converts and “attract” people to the church, we need to get back on our face before God, and once again pray for the old-time fire of God to fall. You will have a hard time keeping people out of the church when a real God- sent revival comes. I believe that we short cut God’s ways and try to make it happen in our own way and by our own power. My prayer is that we won’t need to use these tactics created by man, producing shallow disciples of the Lord Jesus, but rather seek for a genuine move of God’s Spirit in the church. Thanks for your blog!!
Marc Rhoades on Tue, October 04, 2005
Great discussion, folks! I think we need to be having it in the Church. I do agree with James Spencer’s post to a large degree. Having pastored, re-started a church, gone through the church-planting process, etc, but now in Higher Education, I see the need to address the potential problems with a seeker model without throwing the baby out, as it were. I also agree with James, that it mainly lies in the discipleship and educational areas. In other words, we’re running the risk of having good topsoil an inch thick. We need good models that meet people ‘where they are’ but move them in whatever means best for that congregation to Orthodoxy in its purest forms.
David on Tue, October 04, 2005
While it is true that all churches that are labeled “seeker-sensitive” do not all deserve the same criticisms, it is also true that some of the criticisms are deserved. Two example that are very good from people who have been there, and are not just speaking “out of hand,” come from two differnt poles of the arguement. Alan Wolfe, a self-confessed secular Jew, writes in his book, “The Transformation of American Religion”, that after visiting many “mega churches” he is convinced that the church is largely irrelevent for today because rather than shaping a people to a message, the church is being shaped by the people of the culture (read here “world”). Another writer who is well informed and comes from a conservative evangelical perspective is Os Guinness who warns of the danger of the “seeker sensitive” movement in “Dining with the Devil.” His warning is in line with Wolfe, and that is “how much of the culture is too much?” Guinness also writes a great critique on the churches worship of relevance in “Prophetic Untimeliness” that demonstrates the churches love affair with the idea of being relevant to the culture rather than showing the culture why the gospel is relevant. Finally, the church will always take on parts of the “world” or “culture,” because the gathering of God’s people does not happen in a vacuum, but within time and space. However, how much of the culture should encroach upon the church? That is the question for the ages. One final thought: while it is true that we should be friendly and loving to our brothers and our neighbors and we do not want to offend for offense sake; isn’t it also true no matter what group you join or become a part of, that that group has a particular vocabulary or culture that must be learned by those who join. In other words, is it wise to change our vocabulary, or is it more loving to teach the lost what our vocabulary, rituals, and signs mean? Of course, this opens up the entire debate of what is worship and the gathering of the saints for any way (Oh, for another day).
David on Tue, October 04, 2005
While it is true that all churches that are labeled “seeker-sensitive” do not all deserve the same criticisms, it is also true that some of the criticisms are deserved. Two example that are very good from people who have been there, and are not just speaking “out of hand,” come from two differnt poles of the arguement. Alan Wolfe, a self-confessed secular Jew, writes in his book, “The Transformation of American Religion”, that after visiting many “mega churches” he is convinced that the church is largely irrelevent for today because rather than shaping a people to a message, the church is being shaped by the people of the culture (read here “world”). Another writer who is well informed and comes from a conservative evangelical perspective is Os Guinness who warns of the danger of the “seeker sensitive” movement in “Dining with the Devil.” His warning is in line with Wolfe, and that is “how much of the culture is too much?” Guinness also writes a great critique on the churches worship of relevance in “Prophetic Untimeliness” that demonstrates the churches love affair with the idea of being relevant to the culture rather than showing the culture why the gospel is relevant. Finally, the church will always take on parts of the “world” or “culture,” because the gathering of God’s people does not happen in a vacuum, but within time and space. However, how much of the culture should encroach upon the church? That is the question for the ages. One final thought: while it is true that we should be friendly and loving to our brothers and our neighbors and we do not want to offend for offense sake; isn’t it also true no matter what group you join or become a part of, that that group has a particular vocabulary or culture that must be learned by those who join. In other words, is it wise to change our vocabulary, or is it more loving to teach the lost what our vocabulary, rituals, and signs mean? Of course, this opens up the entire debate of what is worship and the gathering of the saints for any way (Oh, for another day).
Tim Gessner on Tue, October 04, 2005
“The focus is Jesus, guys. The goal is introducing people to Jesus. If someone introduces people to Jesus in a different way, using a different method than you do, it doesn’t mean they’re pagan, or that they serve a different God. It means they use a different method. That’s all.”
That is part of the goal. The other part is maturity. I have attended many “Seeker Sensitive” churches and came to faith in one. While some address unbelievers on “Sunday Morning” and believers at another service (ala Willow Creek), some try to combine both (ala Saddle Back.) At all that I have attended, those that try to do both lean toward the unbeliever more than the believer. While the message may be beneficial to the believer, it is not what I would call “in depth”. Frequently other meetings times are offered for this such as small groups, Bible studies, etc.
Some churches I have attended have an evangelistic service every “Sunday” even though they would say the service is for believers. I enjoy and need to hear the gospel, but hearing only a simple message of faith in Christ for the forgiveness of sins every time doesn’t address all of my spiritual needs.
It might also be questioned whether the “Church Service” is the appropriate place to reach the unbeliever, but we’ll leave that for another discussion.
So is “watered down” the correct term? Certainly it evokes a negative response. We are struggling with the pendulum effect, we either swing to one side or the other. It is difficult to find a balance between reaching the lost and maturing His children.
Page 1 of 7 pages 1 2 3 > Last »
Post a Comment