Does “Seeker-Sensitive” Really Equal “Watered-Down”?
- Posted by: Todd
- Posted on: Tue, October 04, 2005
- Viewed 193
- (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.
Dave on Tue, October 04, 2005
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!
Steve C on Tue, October 04, 2005
“It takes all types of churches to reach all types of people”.
Rick Warren said that years ago and I am not sure if he still uses the line but I believe it to still be true. Of course, I do not like a lot about the current, modern world of the church, but this has mainly to do with religiousity rather than the style.
Religiousity is found in “seeker-sensitive” churches, “seeker-driven” churches, “emergent” churches, “traditional” churches and even in those who no longer attend church (myself included). But so is authenticity.
Focus on Christ. From what I can tell his passion was on mainly two things: 1) To reach out to those who were the hurting and disenfranchised and provide them a place of refuge and healing (i.e. salvation). 2) To challenge and chastise the “religious” crowd (i.e. pastors and spiritual leaders of the day) into seeing the burdens and cages they were using to oppress their followers.
I think that’s a good model to follow. Call it what you want.
Homer on Tue, October 04, 2005
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.
Randy Howard on Tue, October 04, 2005
I find this dialogue fascinating and most needed! The one contribution I hope to add is regarding the cultural relevance issue. I am convinced that the church is an instrument to bring the culture of heaven to earth rather than try and improve an existing culture. It is not about being relevant to the culture around us or even imposing a culture we have created in the church. It is about following in the steps of Jesus who brought a style, behavior and message that was never seen or heard before. The complication with Jesus was that He was sensitive to sinners and yet stearn toward sin. He was straight forward and clear while misunderstood and rejected. In the end, all Jesus could muster was 120 followers. The message of Christ was a difficult one to receive. But His demeanor and grace was admirable and desirable.
Jesus prayed, “Father, thy Kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven.” This requires that we are Spirit-led rather than traditionally oriented or culturally guided. The unique thing about Jesus is that He only did what His Father did and He only spoke what His Father spoke. This embodies a culture not of this earth and one seldom seen in church. However, it is not beyond achieving in the power of Christ in this earth and in His church. Let’s all be sensitive to those who seek, but let’s give them Jesus without feeling we have to make Him palatable or common. Let’s be careful to avoid adapting to the world while introducing the world to a culture not of this earth. Any church involved in modeling the ways of Jesus and proclaiming the gospel of Christ is a church worth respecting, despite their label.
One brother spoke of reform among seeker sensitive churches. Perhaps this is true (I am not an expert on the seeker sensitive movement), but I would say that the church in general needs reform. However, there are prerequisites to this reform. There is REPENTANCE of our arrogance and pride which brings REVIVAL to our hearts and lives that leads to REFORM of our ways and practices. Who knows, maybe then we’ll see our Savior show up physically to take over this reformed community of believers expressing a Kingdom culture while living together in harmony under His headship. Sounds interesting!
eddie on Tue, October 04, 2005
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
eddie on Tue, October 04, 2005
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
Dan Moore on Tue, October 04, 2005
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
Georgia on Tue, October 04, 2005
I would just like to say one thing.
Someone above mentioned that he wanted sinners to come in and be saved.
I want sinners to be saved and come in.
The definition of the church is the body of BELIEVERS. Not the body of random believers and unbelievers. Evangelism does NOT belong on a Sunday morning when the church is gathered together.
randy on Tue, October 04, 2005
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.
val on Tue, October 04, 2005
First of all, maybe the term “seeker-friendly”, when used in a negative way ought to be called, “worldly-friendly”, since this seems to be one of the attributes some of these types of churches are criticized for having. In a biblical sense, I think all churches are called to be ‘seeker-friendly’ in so far as they are seeking to satisfy those who are truly hungering and thirsting after righteousness. The Apostle Paul said he would ‘become all things to all men that he might win some’; so he would be a positive example of being someone who was ‘seeker-friendly’.
The problem I see with some of the churches today is their focus and motivation for reaching out to the lost. If it’s merely to increase numbers, or not ‘to offend’ anyone with the gospel, then I think they have departed from God’s plan for sharing the gospel. I don’t think we can deny that there are, and always have been, churches who are ‘seeker friendly’ in a negative sense. The Bible says that in the last days ‘men will draw to themselves teachers who tickle ears’. Therefore, it is certainly true that some churches are not adhering to the biblical command to teach sound doctrine, or to uphold standards of holy living in their effort to ‘keep everyone happy’ and to attract the masses.
We are called to be salt and light, and Jesus said if the saltiness loses its savor, it’s good for nothing. I can’t help but think that part of the interpretation of this passage is referring to our need to be different from the world in a good way, so that the lost are drawn to our ‘saltiness’ and the hope that we have of being able to overcome the world and enslavement to sin. If we become so much like those who are lost that they can’t see a difference in our lives, then what good are we to them? However, if we become like the pharisees who prided themselves in their external holiness, but who lacked love and a genuine relationship with God, then we will also become a stumbling block to those who are seeking the truth.
Because we are human and living in a fallen world, every church is bound to be lacking in some aspect of God’s standards; but I believe it’s important to try to be as balanced as possible in trying to make our churches ‘seeker-friendly’, while not compromising the standards and truths of God’s word, especially when it comes to holy living.
For example, if there is no standard for modesty in dress taught to the women of our churches, they are clearly neglecting a biblical command to dress modestly. If women dress in a way that honors God (not discussing styles, pants vs. dresses, etc), but in a way that doesn’t incite sinful thinking in men…they are most likely going to make an unbeliever think there’s something different about them and perhaps even make them feel uncomfortable. No one can deny that today’s dress styles are not modest. Therefore, if holding to a holy standard of living causes a seeker to be turned-off from attending a church, then should the church lower its standards for women so that unsaved women will feel comfortable at that church? I think not. However, if a church encourages a mentality that causes members to look down on an unbeliever who has not yet come to understand God’s principles for modest dressing, and causes that person to feel unloved and judged, then there is also something wrong with that perspective. Frankly, in my limited experience, I haven’t seen a church who has a good handle on even that particular issue. I have found that churches either ignore teaching on that issue (and many other such ‘touchy’ topics), or they become overly focused on it so that people change externally, but not internally.
In conclusion, the ‘seeker-friendly’ issue is much broader than the term really defines and can be negative or positive, depending on what is meant by those who use the term. Some of the accusations are surely true of some churches, when thinking of the negative aspects of the definition. Yet, as mentioned before, all churches should be seeker friendly in the right and biblical sense. The question is, whether or not an individual church is compromising God’s principles and standards of holiness in order to gain membership.
aaron on Tue, October 04, 2005
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.
Bernie on Tue, October 04, 2005
“Seeker friendly” is fine. Changing methods for changing times and cultures, no problem. After all, our Savior gave us the directive to go into all the world preaching the gospel & making disciples. Given the diversity of cultures even in biblical times, by clear implication obedience to the great commission must involve varied approaches and methods. The Apostle Paul himslf reminds us that he was all things to all men so that by all means he should win some for the gospel sake (I Cor 9:19-23). But it doesn’t stop there. Making disciples is not an instantanious event upon making a decision to accept Christ as Savior. Discipling takes time & and investment in people. The discipleship process must continue so that new believers can mature, become grounded in the Word, and in turn win others for Christ. Seeker Friendly churches too often get caught up in being culturally relevant in order to attract the unchurched. To do so they use methodologies and topics which are apealing to the current culture. Ultimately the message of salvation may be made clear and souls saved. Unfortunatly that is often where stops. At conversion. What happens after that is often nothing. No follow-up, no instuction in the Word, no clear teaching of the responsibilities that go with bearing the name “Christ Follower” Ignored is the ongoing need for discipleship & lifelong growth. This is where it often all falls apart. In the zeal to be “seeker friendly”, win souls and not affend anyone, the teaching of the whole scripture and its diffucult truths and disciplines are often either overlooked or deliberatly ignored. They never go beyhond the “milk” to the “meat” that is needed to develope the life of every believer and and to sustain the body in general.
Dave on Tue, October 04, 2005
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.
Larry on Tue, October 04, 2005
Let’s not kid ourselves. The issue here is not theology, it’s envy and jealousy. Orthodox churches are wagging tongues and fingers at “seeker-sensitive” churches because those churches are GROWING. In fact they are probably “stealing away” members from the churches with more traditional” services. Paul’s admonition to preach Christ, crucified did not mandate a method to use in doing so. Say it with me “It’s all about the MESSAGE not the MODE”. Say it again. “People” have always condemned new methods, new ‘works of the Spirit’ and new music. Old isn’t better, old is just old. Methods come and go; music comes and goes, the only thing that matters is that we get the MESSAGE of salvation right. If you don’t like what another church is doing, then don’t do it. Do what you’re called to do, however you’re called to do it. But don’t condemn what someone else is doing. Even one of the Pharisees warned the others not to be hasty about condemning something that might be of God. I’d say the same warning is warranted here.
Snow on Tue, October 04, 2005
What is the mission statement of your church and the declaration of what you believe? I have never heard of the seeker sensitive church.
Page 3 of 7 pages < 1 2 3 4 5 > Last »
Post a Comment