Does “Seeker-Sensitive” Really Equal “Watered-Down”?
- Posted by: Todd
- Posted on: Tue, October 04, 2005
- Viewed 192
- (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.
Randy Seiver on Mon, October 10, 2005
Brian,
As you know, the difference between you Arminians and us Calvinists is that you believe in prevenient grace and we believe in effectual grace. We both believe sinners will not respond favorably to the gospel apart from God’s activity. God does make them seekers. Otherwise, none would ever seek. If they seek with all their hearts, they will surely find God [who incidently isn’t lost] who has been seeking them first.
What we do not believe is that we ever run any risk of losing the fish after God has him in the net. If God begins the work, he will complete it. This does not mean we can be sloppy, uncaring, unsympathetic etc. What it does mean is that we dare not leave out anything God has revealed in his gospel because we are afraid we will have to tell the story about “the one who got away.”
Todd Rhoades on Mon, October 10, 2005
Hey Randy,
Great to have you here. I’m Todd, the blog owner (and original poster).
You sound like a reasonable guy; and I appreciate you chiming in and your comments so far. You see, I think a great amount of things are to be gained by this discussion by both of our sides.
Let me say, that it sounds like you did attend a seeker church that DID water down the message. If there is no mention of sin; and only a positive, feel-good message, then I would say that this is very watered-down, even to the point that the gospel isn’t being preached at all. While this very well may be (actually is, according to your experience) true in some cases, the seeker churches that I’ve seen, attended and reported on do not seem to have this outlook. I think it’s dangerous when we label everyone with a label. Do you know what I mean?
I find the discussion fascinating. Actually, I already have a post ready for tomorrow based on your original post at your blog, Randy, and the presuppositions that you posted. I’d like to get some input from seeker-sensitive church leaders and see if they would agree. Feel free to post your thoughts and ideas along the way as well.
Todd
Brian La Croix on Mon, October 10, 2005
Randy,
I appreciate your comments about the fish and the net. And while we may disagree about whether or not they can get away, it seems to me that you have a good understanding of our doctrine of prevenient grace.
Peace, brother!
Brian
Brian La Croix on Mon, October 10, 2005
I wish we could edit our posts, so I wouldn’t have to post a whole ‘nother message.
But I wanted to say, Randy, that I think we agree on the fact that people become seekers (by the grace of God). My point throughout my other post was that seekers are real people, and need to see that the love of Christ should be offered to all, whether they fit our “mold” or understand the message outside of the traditional modes of giving it.
We need to give it to them in terms they understand (without compromising the message) and in settings that suggest that God is willing to come to THEM where they are (such as with Jesus at Matthew’s house, eating at Zacchaeus’ place, etc.).
I think we would both also agree that the message should never be compromised. But I think where we part ways is in the idea that the METHOD should change to reach those who will not be reached by “traditional” methods.
My premise is that this is JUST what Jesus did. He did not compromise holiness or even the wrath of God (John 3:18). Yet he brought the message in a way the mere humans could understand (with the help of the Holy Spirit, of course!).
He could have remained in heaven, and each of us would have justly paid the penalty for our own sins. But Jesus came down in a form we could understand so we could hear and respond to the grace of God.
But I also want to affirm something: it’s very possible that churches can get so caught up in getting out of the box that the focus becomes THAT rather than reaching people for Christ and making disciples.
At our church, we sing both contemporary praise choruses and hymns, because we are reaching people who appreciate and are ministered to by both. I use a modern Bible translation (sorry to my brothers who disagree) and rarely use terms like “justification,” “redemption,” “sanctification” (and that’s a biggie for Wesleyans!). These are Biblical concepts, and I do preach about them. But I don’t use the terminology, at least not without a thorough explanation. And I do call sin “sin,” because I think pretty much everyone knows that concept, whether or not they are churched.
Anyway Randy, I think that once we get into it, the vast majority of us would agree with you about your basic concern: reaching people without selling out or watering down the gospel.
The question of whether or not becoming SS automatically equates “watering down” is where the disagreements will fly.
Thanks, though, for challenging our thinking.
Brian
Randy Seiver on Mon, October 10, 2005
Todd,
I agree there is nothing like free discussion to clarify important issues. As I think you can see from my comments, I am not at all stuck in tradition. I don’t care what form or in what forum gospel is preached as long as it is not a part of the truth, pretending to be the whole truth.
It does not matter to me what the preacher wears [within limits,of course] or what the hearers wear [same limits understood]. I am not at all concerned about loosing all the religious symbols tradition has imposed on us. We don’t need to pass an offering plate, we don’t need a choir or special music, we don’t need an alter call or padded pews, or church buildings, or even songs with a specific cadence. What we do need is truth. Primarily, we need truth that concerns our relationship with God, how that relationship has been broken and how it can alone be restored by grace alone, through faith alone, through Jesus Christ alone, to God alone be the glory.
I am happy to hear there are so called SF churches where the Word is preached. I happen also to watch a preacher on Sunday AMs who I believe would fit into the SF camp. I have no beef at all with the fact he is preaching to thousands, but I would love to hear him preach the unadulterated gospel to that crowd. Still, if you would regard what he is doing as preaching the Word or the three line mantra he repeats every Sunday AM as a faithful proclamation of the gospel, there are deeper issues between us than the form of the church meeting.
Thanks for the welcome to your blog.
By the way, If you would like to try out tomorrow’s blog on me before you publish it to find out if it accurately reflects my position, that would be refreshing.
Thanks,
Randy
Randy Seiver on Mon, October 10, 2005
Brian,
I am deeply grieved I don’t have sufficient time to engage in this kind of discussion on a regular basis. I believe you and I are pretty much on the same page except for the Calvinism/Arminianism issue.
It does not matter to me if you use the word “justification” or not as long as you explain to sinners that they need God to declare them righteous in his holy sight. The words contain no magic. On the other hand, if we use the biblical term with adequate explanation, there is no rub.
I, too, use modern translations. Why use “good news for ancient man.” But, I refuse to use paraphrases that stray from the text, simply because they happen to have a word or two in them that fit the point I want to make. We need a return to systematic, expositiory teaching of the Scriptures so that our hearers can see what God said in the context in which he said it.
You are right. I cannot apply everything I have said to every SS church since I have not personally witnessed what everyone in the movement is doing. I do know from reading “The Purpose Driven Life” that the author consistently uses paraphrases to support his points even when the original text does not support it. He also applies to mankind, generally, blessings God only intended for his believing people. Generally, as goes the leadership, so goes the movement. If there are those in this movement who do not fit this pattern, all they need to do is ignore my comments as not applying to them. I am not writing about individual pastors in the movement, but about the movement itself.
I am quite happy to find that you and I agree on so many issues. I would far rather agree than disagree. Thanks for your comments.
BeHim on Wed, October 12, 2005
[At our church, we sing both contemporary praise choruses and hymns, because we are reaching people who appreciate and are ministered to by both. I use a modern Bible translation (sorry to my brothers who disagree) and rarely use terms like “justification,” “redemption,” “sanctification” (and that’s a biggie for Wesleyans!). These are Biblical concepts, and I do preach about them. But I don’t use the terminology, at least not without a thorough explanation. And I do call sin “sin,” because I think pretty much everyone knows that concept, whether or not they are churched.]
This is one of the issues in my opinion. Do we assume don’t WANT to know these terms? Do we assume people don’t want to know the depths of Biblical Study?
My teacher (the person I discipled under) would say “The world will go the way the church must first go” (not vice-versa). Making bold statements like: “The reason homosexuality is accepted is because the Church has accepted it” “The reason sin is rampant in America is because it is rampant inside the Church” “The reason America is being dumbed down is because the Church is dumbing down”.
It’s this last statement, in my opinion, that I think fits this scenario. Do we NOT use terms like justification, sanctification, etc, because the people honestly can’t keep up? Because it is not “relavent”?
Since when did Salvation (which is what Justification and Sanctification are attributed to) become not relavent?
If it is merely the terms we don’t like, then we would have to ask, why don’t we like the terms? Are they too difficult? Boring? Mundane? Do you not understand them (which I’m certain is not the case in this instance)?
My thoughts are: We’re dumbing down ourselves and those we lead. We pick up a new translation so we can better understand, without ever considering the prudence of testing the translation first. It’s no different than testing a commentary BUT because it is the Bible, well then, it must be okay. Assuming it must go through some rigorios testing process to be a “Biblical Translation”. Anyone can create a study Bible and now, just about anyone can translate the Bible. That’s not prudent.
When we assume people don’t want to learn then we teach to the lowest level possible.
When we believe most people “won’t get it”, it may be because we don’t get it.
Should the average Christian know what Salvation is?
Ask people as they walk into Church (I’ve had my students ask their parents) “What are you Saved from?”
Guess how many responses you’ll get???
The more difficult question is, “What is Salvation”?
Will most know Justification, Sanctification, etc? No, probably not. Should they? Perhaps. Will it hurt them to know it? No. Will it help them to stand? Possibly. What’s the alternative?
“I’m saved from my sin?”
Is this truly what we are saved from (or is it “God’s Righteous Wrath”)? If they are not equipped to answer some of the most basic of Biblical Doctrines, how can we expect them to be equipped to stand against the wiles of the enemy?
Let’s challenge ourselves first Brothers and Sisters in Christ. Be willing to get down and discuss tough issues and Biblical Doctrines. We don’t have to stand on men, like Calvin and Jacob Armenius (sp?) but we can put to the Scriptural test those things they’ve taught (and read what’s already been discussed in years past about them).
They are basic differences but like NASA sending someone to the moon, starting at the right and wrong point can be the difference between putting men on the moon and losing them in space forever.
I’m concerned that most leaders don’t really want to know themselves therefore they translate that to their parishoners not “needing” to know. Which has nothing to do with “relavence” (I know this because I teach these terms to junior and senior high students - not because they “need” to know but because it gives them tools to know and understand Bible Doctrines on which they can stand forever - ask them “What are you saved from?” They’ll respond “from God’s Wrath by God’s Love”).
I encourage you church leaders to dig deeper and learn more about Him (Theology Proper) so that you might learn more about yourself.
My friends, may we Grow in the Grace and Knowledge of Jesus Christ.
Brian La Croix on Mon, October 17, 2005
BeHim,
You quote my post, but you seem to have missed what I was saying, so I will repost the portion that I think is the crux of what I was trying to get across at that point:
“These are Biblical concepts, and I do preach about them. But I don’t use the terminology, at least not without a thorough explanation. And I do call sin “sin,” because I think pretty much everyone knows that concept, whether or not they are churched.”
You will see that nowhere do I advocate the absence of teaching these things. I simply advocate teaching and describing them in terms that the average layman in the pews and in the streets can better understand.
I teach about salvation, justification, and sanctifiction all the time. But I refuse to believe that everyone in the pews is familiar with the terms, because I know they’re not. And I refuse to run the risk of making people feel they have to have a seminary degree in order to follow the sermon.
Maybe it’s different where you minister, but here there are many people who have very little exposure to Scripture that we’re having to take baby steps, and my Sunday messages are meant to be able to minister to people regardless of their spiritual maturity (or status of non-believer - in which case my hope is that they will see that the Bible is not an out-dated manual for sucking all the fun out o life, but rather applicable in every area of every day living).
In other contexts (Bible studies, one-on-one discipling situations, etc.), we get much more in-depth, and yes, the terms will be used more frequently. But by then, having first understood the concepts, they will better be able to relate the terms to them.
The bottom line of my comments here is the absence of the term does not equate the absence of the concept.
This is the fifth post for me on this topic, so you can have the last word, brother!
Brian
BeHim on Mon, October 17, 2005
Brian,
Thank you kindly for the clarification and may the Lord Bless you and the work of your calling to minister.
John
Brian La Croix on Tue, October 18, 2005
At the risk of incurring the “wrath” of Todd, I wish to echo that wish for God’s blessing, back to you. May his working in and through you see no end until that day when you are face to face with Jesus!
Take care, brother!
Brian
Page 7 of 7 pages « First < 5 6 7
Post a Comment