Seeker-Sensitive Church “Presuppositions”
- Posted by: Todd
- Posted on: Tue, October 11, 2005
- Viewed 477
- (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.
Revwilly on Tue, October 11, 2005
This is a cynical piece at best. For example the pastor’s dying father of course was Rick Warrens father. Do you really believe Rick does not believe in the work of the Holy Spirit in people’s lives? Do you really believe he thinks that salvation is not totally of God? I have personally heard him tell that story and it’s simply and illustration of the fact we are to be in the business of offer Christ to people.
Seeker church do believe you can evangelize people in church and encourage their members to invite friends to church to hear the good news. But do you really believe they are that narrow in their understanding of evangelism? Give me a break! At least in seeker churches they are invited to give their lives to Christ which is far more than they would get in many mainline churches.
I could go on but I won’t. You seven presuppostions are absurd.
Revwilly on Tue, October 11, 2005
In my previous post my comments were directed toward the writer, not you.
Randy Seiver on Tue, October 11, 2005
But, answer the question. Can we really get one for Jesus? If you beleive we can, you don’t understand God’s work in converting sinners. Should we evangelize? Of course we should. Is it our responsibity to make the gospel work. Of course not! Don’t just call the presuppostions absurd from an emotional, knee jerk reaction. Answer the issue biblically and theologically. The exercise might do you some good.
Randy Seiver on Tue, October 11, 2005
We need to clarify issues in the debate over whether we should be seeker sensitive or not. First, we all need to understand there is no disagreement about whether we should be friendly to sinners who are seeking to know more about God and how they can be right with him. Some recent comments on this site, though sincere and well-meaning, completely missed the point. Of course we are to be sensitive to sinners who are seeking to know more about God. In fact, we need to be sensitive toward sinners whether they are seeking or not. No one who loves the gospel or the God whose gospel it is would disagree with that concept. Unfortunately, the unspoken implication of those well meaning contributors is that those who are not part of the seeker-sensitive movement could not be concerned about the needs of poor sinners.
What we need to understand is that the issue at hand is more than a mere methodological issue; it is a theological issue. Ultimately, what we feel we need to do to see sinners converted will determine our practice in evangelism. What we believe about the church and its purpose will determine the form of our worship experience in the church meeting. What we believe about our responsibility for church growth will determine the methods we use to build the church. Everything we do will be determined by what we believe. Conversely, what we truly believe will be reflected in what we do. There are times we may profess to believe a certain biblical truth, but our actions will betray that our belief is either merely academic or that we truly believe something else entirely.
If after a careful study of the Bible, we are absolutely convinced that the ultimate success of the gospel and the growth of Christ’s church depends on our innovative means and methods of proclaiming what we perceive to be the gospel, we will be remiss in our duty to conscience, if we do not devise every method conceivable to make it happen. If Madison Ave. techniques “work”, we must use them to be true to our consciences. If, on the other hand, we understand that God intends to fulfill his sovereign purpose using his ordained mean and that the number of those he intends to save can neither be increased nor diminished, you will be content to remain faithful in proclaiming the gospel to sinners and trust God for the results. Mind you, whether you are a Calvinist or an Arminian, you believe that number is fixed. If you are a Calvinist, you believe it is fixed by God’s sovereign will; if you are an Arminian, you believe it is fixed by God’s foresight of the sinner’s faith and final perseverance. Either way, we will not increase the number of God’s chosen ones by our clever methodology.
One truth is without controversy; no one will ever be converted apart from the preaching of the gospel. Preaching a “blab it and grab it” message will not convert anyone. Teaching about how I can fix all my human relationships will not help me when I contemplate standing before God in judgment. Helping me develop a positive mind-set in the face of life’s problems will do me no good when I am confronted with the negative truth that all who fail to repent and trust Christ alone for salvation will perish in their sins.
Perhaps we need to inquire about the primary purpose of the gospel. Most evangelical Christians seem to believe the primary purpose of gospel preaching is to make sinners happy, to give them a sense of peace and contentment, to give them a friend to walk hand in hand with them down life’s happy trails. If this is your view, it is no wonder you are drawn to the SS movement.
According to the Bible, the primary purpose of the gospel is to convert those who are hostile toward God into worshipers of God. This can be accomplished by nothing less radical than a spiritual heart transplant. If our evangelism is not aimed at making God worshipers, we are biblically off course. Sinners need to be reconciled to a holy God. This reconciliation cannot be accomplished by anything less than the sacrificial and substitutionary death of God’s own Son. Additionally, it is not sufficient to proclaim that God’s declaration that sinners are just in his sight is based on the work of Christ. We must assert God’s gracious declaration is based on Christ’s work ALONE. If you believe the gospel is “Jesus died for you in the same way he died for every other sinner and if you will let Jesus come into your heart, God will forgive all your mistakes,” you need to read the New Testament Scriptures more carefully. In his commentary on Romans, Robert Haldane wrote, “It is the gospel that Jesus died for the most guilty sinner who will believe, not that he died for every sinner whether he will believe or not.”
Sinners will not be converted apart from the preaching of the gospel. It is our job to get the message of the gospel to sinners’ ears; it needs to be our belief that only God can get that message to the sinner’s heart. We should remove every obstacle imposed on the church by tradition that would keep sinners from hearing the gospel. It is difficult for me to believe that any sinner in whose heart God is at work would refuse to hear a gospel preacher because the preacher was wearing a suit and tie. Still, if a suit and tie hinders the communication of the gospel, we need to lose the suit and tie. We are only obligated to retain in our practice of the Christian faith what the Scriptures command. Still, God’s truth is not expendable.
In the article Todd has quoted, I gave an extensive quote from J.I. Packer’s Introduction to John Owen’s Death of Death in the Death of Christ. I believe Packer’s concern strikes at the heart of the issue. He wrote,
There is no doubt that Evangelicalism today is in a state of perplexity and unsettlement. In such matters as the practice of evangelism, the teaching of holiness, the building up of local church life, the pastor’s dealing with souls and the exercise of discipline, there is evidence of widespread dissatisfaction with things as they are and of equally widespread uncertainty as to the road ahead. This is a complex phenomenon, to which many factors have contributed; but if we go to the root of the matter, we shall find that these perplexities are all ultimately due to our having lost our grip on the biblical gospel. Without realizing it, we have during the past century bartered that gospel for a substitute product which, though it looks similar enough in points of detail, is as a whole a decidedly different thing. Hence our troubles; for the substitute product does not answer the ends for which the authentic gospel has in past days proved itself so mighty. The new gospel conspicuously fails to produce deep reverence, deep repentance, deep humility, a spirit of worship, a concern for the church. Why? We would suggest that the reason lies in its own character and content. It fails to make man God-centered in their thoughts and God-fearing in their hearts because this is not primarily what it is trying to do. One way of stating the difference between it and the old gospel is to say that it is too exclusively concerned to be “helpful” to man-to bring peace, comfort, happiness, satisfaction-and too little concerned to glorify God. The old gospel was “helpful” too-more so, indeed, than is the new-but (so to speak) incidentally, for its first concern was always to give glory to God. It was always and essentially a proclamation of Divine sovereignty in mercy and judgment, a summons to bow down and worship the mighty Lord on whom man depends for all good, both in nature and in grace. Its centre of reference was unambiguously God. But in the new gospel the centre of reference is man. This is to say that the old gospel was religious in a way that the new gospel is not. Whereas the chief aim of the old was to teach men to worship God, the concern of the new seems limited to making them feel better. The subject of the old gospel was God and His ways with men; the subject of the new is man and the help God gives him. There is a world of difference. The whole perspective and emphasis of gospel preaching has changed.
The issue is not the external trappings that attend the preaching of the gospel. It is the nature of the gospel itself.
Ricky on Tue, October 11, 2005
Quote:
“This is another point that may be lost on those who are committed to a man-centered, “free-will” theology,”
While I agree that seeker-sensitive organizations are not biblical, the above quote tells me much about the author and some of his unbiblical “theology.”
John Calvin, who I suppose the author admires greatly, is one of the chief architects of today’s “church,” including the format that many, if not most, seeker-sensitive organizations utilize.
This is nothing more than the pot calling the kettle black.
Ricky on Tue, October 11, 2005
Quote:
“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.”
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?
Who is the one who determines what is “solid exposition of the Scripture?”
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).>
Randy Seiver on Tue, October 11, 2005
What determines “solid exposition” is a careful, contextual [including cultural, historical,and linguistic considerations]exegesis of the biblical text. In my view, this precludes the practice of searching every paraphrase in existence to find a word or phrase that will support the idea the speaker or writer wishes to make, without consideration of whether the word or phrase is a faithful rendering of the original text.
Using the Bible as an excuse for a motivational talk or a lecture on pop psychology is not solid biblical expostion.
I do admire John Calvin as a great theologian. I neither agree with everything he taught or practiced. Neither he not any other mere man is the pattern for our worship of God. Only the Scriptures are our rule of faith and practice. Sola Scriptura!
Where did the early disciples receive the instruction? From Jesus and the Apostles, of course. God, the Father and Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to bring all things to the Apostles memory and guide them into all truth. They daily instructed disciples in the temple. It was on this doctrinal basis that early evangelism occurred.
Evangelism involves more than just saying something or another about a Jesus whose nature, character and work are unknown in the fond hope that somehow people will make a decision to become church members. Without a theological basis for our evangelism, we really have no good news to proclaim.
Randy Seiver on Tue, October 11, 2005
Ricky,
If you believe my theology is unbiblical, perhaps you should read,“Arrows Astray” at http://www.gracedocs.blogspot.com, and engage me in a thoughtful discussion of what I wrote there. I would love to discuss these matters with you in detail.
BeHim on Tue, October 11, 2005
[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.
[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”.
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?
[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.
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?
Randy Seiver on Wed, October 12, 2005
I like the term “God-centered evangelism.” After all, it is all about him. “For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever, Amen” Romans 11:36.
It was for this reason, the framers of the Westminster Shorter Catechism, in answer to the question, “What is the chief end of man?” replied, “Man’s chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy him forever.” John Piper has altered this response a bit by answering, “Man’s chief end is to glorify God by enjoying him forever.”
Should we be sensitive to seekers? Of course, we should be sensitive to unconverted sinners whether they are seeking or not. The biblical writers call this “compassion.” We are to “walk in wisdom toward those who are outside, redeeming the time. . . .” If there is some element in our approach to evanglism,merely imposed on us by tradition and not mandated by the Scriptures, that is hindering the communication of God’s good news. To my understanding, that is aside from the issue in this debate. If people are put off by having to dress up to come to church, who cares what they wear? That should never have been an issue in the first place.
To me, the issue is whether we should allow the preferences of unconverted people to dictate content of the message we proclaim and the manner in which we worship our God.
My preference over the years has been to evanglize in small home Bible studies. People didn’t feel they had to dress up or act a certain way, but could be comfortable in the home of a friend who had gained their confidence. Church meetings were aimed at worshiping God and at equipping believers for the work of ministry.
The sinner’s response to the gospel is not our responsibility. Our duty is to communitate God’s message in a clear, and concise way so that the unconverted sinner has no doubt left in his mind about the gravity of the issues with which he needs to grapple. Once we have made the issues clear and urged the sinner to turn from his sins to Christ, we must leave the results to God.
Randy Seiver on Wed, October 12, 2005
It occurs to me the reason many fail to get my point about the shallowness of today’s gospel preaching is that preaching has been shallow in evangelical churches for decades. Many who are advocating a SS approach don’t see this as an issue because they have no model of biblical preaching to consider. Perhaps it would help some who are reading these posts to get the point to read John MacArther’s book, “Hard To Believe.” The biblical truths he expounds in this book are essential for anyone who wishes to engage his culture in the task of evangelism.
Randy Seiver on Wed, October 12, 2005
Revwilly,
I just noticed I neglected to answer you question about whether I beleive Rick Warren doesn’t believe in the work of the Holy Spirit in salvation. It appears that Pastor Warren, like ever good Arminian, believes the Holy Spirit gives prevenient grace to sinners who hear the gospel. This is a far cry from the biblical doctrine of God’s effectual call and the Spirit’s work of regeneration as necessary to secure the sinner’s compliance to the terms of the gospel.
Todd Rhoades on Wed, October 12, 2005
Thanks for everyone’s input so far… still waiting for some seeker sensitive church leaders to chime in.
Also, Randy… a word of warning (because I know people will start getting down my throat about this)… our blog rule here is only five responses on each topic (which you’re well over already). This is in our rules linked at the top of each page. I know you’re new and probably had no idea; but I just wanted to bring that to your attention before people start getting on me.
Let’s reset your responses at 2 now (you’ll have three left).
Thanks!
Todd
Pastor Dan on Wed, October 12, 2005
As a pastor of a church I am passionate about sharing the message of the gospel, I believe that that evangelism primarily should be taking place outside the walls of the church, but I also regulary share the gospel message in our worship services knowing that unbelivers will often be in attendance at our church. We as a church try to do everything possible to make visitors feel welcomed in our services but at the same time never compromising the word of God and the worship of God. A lost sinner should feel very uncomfortable when confronted with a Holy God and His word. God’s word must be preached with out compromise and without apology, not in anger but in love but without holding backa and without sugar coating the message. The “church” is made up of those who have trusted Christ as Savior - those who have be called by God unto salvation - so when the chrch meets to worship as a local body - the focus is to be on God and our worship of Him, through singing, giving, prayer, testimonies, the proclaiming of His word. The focus is not to be on making un-belivers comfortable nor on making Christians feel good - though that can be one of the results. So the church should make un-saved visitors feel welcome, they should communicate love and care for them,and try to show genuine interest in them as individual people for whom Christ died. As far as clothing styles and dress, if they are a barrier, remove that barrier. Only make sure that the way you dress comminaictes respect for God, modesty and is not a distration from the norms of your area. Music style - the content of the words is the important issiue not the style of the music. Choose a style that helps your congregation worship God.
bernie dehler on Wed, October 12, 2005
“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.”
Well said, and something so many Christian leaders need to understand! It seems so obvious, but it’s such a big problem, with this focus on numbers… and megachurches…
...Bernie
http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/247
Page 1 of 4 pages 1 2 3 > Last »
Post a Comment