In Defense of Seeker Friendly Churches

[Apolojedi (Daniel Eaton)]

I wrote a blog on the topic. Thought we could discuss it here. Check it out and come back and comment....

[Crazyupstart]

David Arnold Carlson said:

Could you provide me anywhere in the bible that this is the intent of either Jesus or the disciples?


Well, wait a sec. How about the inference from O.T. worship of the "inner court" the "outer court" the "court of the Gentiles" and sanctuary and the "inner sanctuary"? I think the point God was trying to get creation to understand is that He IS a Holy God. There is none like Him. He should be revered. He should be respected with Holy Fear. Thus my stance on the goodness and requirement of having a time where true believers can worship, pray, and be taught without fear of what others are thinking or being scared away from. Should we have a "court system" at churches today? No. But you can't have both worlds. Unbelievers are not going to be comfortable in a real meaty church setting, yet believers are much strengthened by them.

On the other hand, whom did God welcome to the feast but all the lowly and the sinners.

[Rey Reynoso]

Additionally recall that the Court of the Gentiles was cleared, the veil was torn and Christ came as the replacement Temple whereby we enter in and meet with the Father before His throne of Grace.

The distinction isn't in the Building made with hands.

[Harry]

Apolojedi (Daniel Eaton) said:

Harry said:

Most seeker freindly churches are entertainment churches, where the primary concern is to be entertaining, provide all kinds of services such as having coffee, preaching how God wants you to be rich.

How many have you actually attended? D.

I have never attended a seeker churches, I know what Rick Warren ( Deeds not Creeds ), Joel Olsteen ( Prosperity and others of the same ilk preach. When I go to church each Sunday, I expect to hear the pastor to remind us that we are all sinners and saints at the same time. I also expect to have Christ come to me in the Word and Sacrament. At a Lutheran Divine Service, God comes down from Heaven and to us in the Word preached and in the bread and wine where we receive Christ's Very Body and Blood. At seeker churches as mention above, you will never hear Christ Crucified and the Theology of the Cross only Theology of Glory.
I am reading a very good book: Heaven on Earth – The Gifts of Christ in the Divine Service by Arthur A. Just.

[Apolojedi (Daniel Eaton)]

Harry said:

At seeker churches as mention above, you will never hear Christ Crucified and the Theology of the Cross only Theology of Glory.

The same could be said of many traditional churches as well. That is why I separate the message from the method. Not all seeker-friendly churches OR all traditional churches preach the same message. To stereotype all seeker-friendly churches with a glory-seeking "deeds not creeds" message is an over-simplification of reality.
"Jesus Christ is the Son of God. He is co-equal with the Father. Jesus lived a sinless human life and offered Himself as the perfect sacrifice for the sins of all men by dying on a cross. He arose from the dead after three days to demonstrate His power over sin and death. He ascended to Heaven´s glory and will return again to earth to reign as King of kings, and Lord of lords. Salvation is a gift from God to man. Man can never make up for his sin by self-improvement or good works. Only by trusting in Jesus Christ as God´s offer of forgiveness can man be saved from sin´s penalty. Eternal life begins the moment one receives Jesus Christ into his life by faith."

That statement didn't come from Martin Luther. It didn't come from Chuck Swindoll. It came from Rick Warren's Saddleback web site. It is much easier for people that have never been there and never listened to him preach to accuse him of a "deeds not creeds" theology though.
D.

[Char]

Ah Harry you bring in the theology of glory!! The thelogian of the cross calls things what they really are!

Your last comment makes it apparent that you are missing a very important detail in our position Daniel. Sorry for not making it more clear, but that detail is that the gospel work of which we speak is much more powerful than just saying hey guys we're saved by grace. In this view, the service is itself an act of grace. It is more than just a message of words-method is part of the proclamation. I think I can count Harry on my side on this, though we would disagree on many other points.

For example Harry said this:

I also expect to have Christ come to me in the Word and Sacrament. At a Lutheran Divine Service, God comes down from Heaven and to us in the Word preached and in the bread and wine where we receive Christ's Very Body and Blood.

This is not metaphorical language for him. In his view, this really does happen in the church service. Any service that does not include this gospel work will look anemic and lacking gospel to one who holds such a position. Whether you agree with this view or not, you're going to completely miss the point of our contention if you miss this.

This is what I meant when I said God descends to us, he works his gospel, gives grace, serves us, etc. That he is really there (Harry and I would differ in how) and doing something in the service. This is why we don't change things to accommodate unbelievers. The work in the service is God's work, not ours (to change). Why should we alter the gracious condescension of God in the service? This is what all sinners need, believers as much as unbelievers. This is how we meet our Lord. That matters.

[Char]

BTW, anyone else hearing the Who every time they read this?

Won't get to get what I'm after till the day I die.

[David Arnold Carlson]

Crazyupstart said:

David Arnold Carlson said:

Could you provide me anywhere in the bible that this is the intent of either Jesus or the disciples?


Well, wait a sec. How about the inference from O.T. worship of the "inner court" the "outer court" the "court of the Gentiles" and sanctuary and the "inner sanctuary"? I think the point God was trying to get creation to understand is that He IS a Holy God. There is none like Him. He should be revered. He should be respected with Holy Fear. Thus my stance on the goodness and requirement of having a time where true believers can worship, pray, and be taught without fear of what others are thinking or being scared away from. Should we have a "court system" at churches today? No. But you can't have both worlds. Unbelievers are not going to be comfortable in a real meaty church setting, yet believers are much strengthened by them.

On the other hand, whom did God welcome to the feast but all the lowly and the sinners.

That really doesn't answer the question. I think if you are going to argue for your point, your going to have to answer the question - where in the bible that this is the intent of either Jesus or the disciples that church is for believers only

[David Arnold Carlson]

Harry said:

Apolojedi (Daniel Eaton) said:

Harry said:

Most seeker freindly churches are entertainment churches, where the primary concern is to be entertaining, provide all kinds of services such as having coffee, preaching how God wants you to be rich.

How many have you actually attended? D.

I have never attended a seeker churches, I know what Rick Warren ( Deeds not Creeds ), Joel Olsteen ( Prosperity and others of the same ilk preach. When I go to church each Sunday, I expect to hear the pastor to remind us that we are all sinners and saints at the same time. I also expect to have Christ come to me in the Word and Sacrament. At a Lutheran Divine Service, God comes down from Heaven and to us in the Word preached and in the bread and wine where we receive Christ's Very Body and Blood. At seeker churches as mention above, you will never hear Christ Crucified and the Theology of the Cross only Theology of Glory.
I am reading a very good book: Heaven on Earth – The Gifts of Christ in the Divine Service by Arthur A. Just.

I think you don't have any understanding of the seeker church if you are going to lump RW and JO together. They are not, in any way, the same. Second, if you really want to understand the driving force of seeker churches, you have to understand Willow Creek and Bill Hybel. Then you have the intellectual basis for forming an opinion about what they really preach and how they do business.

[Apolojedi (Daniel Eaton)]

I have said this before, but I think many approach theology the same way they do politics. I was watching the coverage of the convention yesterday and all the talking heads leading up to it. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) was talking about what Obama needed to do last night. He said, and this is key, that the attendees there didn't need another attack on McCain. He said that they were there to hear what was in it for them.

I think that is so true. Some people approach the election with a "what's in it for me" attitude. Some think of others first. When this translates into how we approach church services, you see the same conflict of attitudes. Lots of saved and unsaved alike want a church that meets their needs. I'd expect the unsaved to have such an immature attitude. Enough said....
D.

[Char]

I don't get this. People who need and want the gospel proclaimed are immature now in addition to selfish? I thought the contention was that they were mature. I would not recommend that way of thinking unless you want to be beaten to death with your own inability.

Am I really that abstruse? Or am I just being ignored now while unknown people who are not even commenting in this thread are being ran down discussed? Why do I hear a gong?

[Apolojedi (Daniel Eaton)]

Char said:

I don't get this. People who need and want the gospel proclaimed are immature now in addition to selfish? I thought the contention was that they were mature. I would not recommend that way of thinking unless you want to be beaten to death with your own inability.

I really find it quite difficult to read and respond to your posts because they seem to be a response to something that I cannot find. The bottom line is that there is a wide spectrum of people in attendance on Sunday morning. Everything from the first-time-in-church unsaved person who is hurting and seeking Christ to the blue-hairs and bald seasoned citizens that have been Christians for decades. I'd expect the unsaved person to be "selfish" and want their needs met. But I find it very immature of the "mature christian" to not focus on reaching the lost while they are there and expecting them to get their needs met later or elsewhere while they themselves are unwilling to do so. It is a very immature "me first" attitude. I never suggested that they were immature for "wanting the gospel proclaimed". They are immature because they want some focus on *their* desire for some heavy meat at 11am when that totally leaves out the seeker that may be there. They just don't want to be put out. If they were as Christ-like as they think, they would be more willing to get their "meat" in a in-depth 10am Bible Study and multiple hours of worship that evening and reach the lost as a focus when they knock at the door at 11am.
D.

[Rey Reynoso]

Timothy Zahn had this great series of books--can't remember the names right now. But it was humanity's first contact with Alien life. The ships were in space and the Terrans approached the foreigners and hailed them to say hello.

Immediately the Alien ships attacked, letting loose a barrage of weaponry and missiles and opening the doors to a war. Humanity and this Alien Race both on the brink of destruction.

What's interesting is that we find out, late into the series, that the Aliens have Spirit "Ancestors" contained as ship navigators. These Spirit Things are untouchable--except for radio frequencies. When the Terrans called and said "Hello" it was the equivalent of a WMD in the Alien forces.

The problem here I think that we have a huge gap of communication. It sounds like Char is arguing that the Gospel all its glory winds up edifying both the strong, the weak, and saving sinners simultaneously. The Gospel in its fully expounded sense. So when a assembled church goes through 1 Corinthians, they're seeing how an assembly functions in light of the Gospel. When an assembled church goes through 1 Timothy, they're seeing how the Gospel works in the lives of the leaders, the lives of the saints, and their interaction with each other. So to Char what she's saying is that if you preach the Gospel (in its fullness) you'll in effect have something beneficial across the Spectrum. Almost a trickle down economics for lack of a better illustration.

What Daniel is arguing for is some broader thinking when the assembled church is preaching because as it stands, pragmatically speaking, they don't just preach the Gospel worked out in 1 Corinthians or in Romans or in Leviticus: they segment the meetings into Family Hour and Sunday School and Gospel Night and Prayer Time. That the assembled church has so fragmented the meetings to meet the needs of people of the assembled church that they forget the needs of the people who are dying of spiritual thirst. Daniel is suggesting that in the assembled church my needs are not to be met exclusively but the needs of others--specifically those not as strong or even lost because when the assembled church meets it is in a building where there may be others there who are not of it.

Both of you are saying the same thing I think from different angles and some of your Spirit guiders are screaming at the launched WMD's.

I'm outa' here: good night.