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....

[David Arnold Carlson]

Jackson Hoolahan said:

Ya, I stand with James on this, the problem is not that these churches are attracting seekers but what does the seeker find when he finds what he finds. I am of the opinion that alot of these so called "churches" are merely personality cults. The gospel is not preached, and I think that often these churches grow to large sizes, but it is little more than a social club, an auditorium of people for sure, but if Christ is not worshiped, the scriptures are not expounded, and the sacraments not ministered... then it is just an auditorium. At best it is a sect of Christianity, not a church.

Ever go to Willow Creek? Saddleback? Ever look at their materials or go to one of their conferences?

Your concerns are not issues with those churches. Now Joel Osteen......

[David Arnold Carlson]

Curt Lovelace said:

Worship is for worshippers. Others are welcome.

So what does that mean to this question/statement DE has put forth?

[David Arnold Carlson]

Otsukafan said:

Daniel,
I humbly desend with your assertion that seeker friendly churches, are indeed, seeker friendly.

I don't think you could accuse any Church of being more "high church" or traditional than the Eastern Orthodox Church. Our parish itself is even more formal or traditional than your average Orthodox parish, yet we have seen the Baptism and Christmations this past year of people of all walks. From and FBI Agent to a Hippie artist. Former Biker to Son of Baptist preacher.

As is our custom we always eat together after our Liturgy on Sunday morning. You will be amazed at the diverse crowd of all ethnicity, age and profession, sitting and fellowshipping. I would submit that this is a natural result of us all participating in the Eucharist together before hand.

I would also submit that "seeker friendly" churches are in fact only friendly, sometimes wittingly and sometimes not, to a particular demographic, thus not exactly friendly to all seekers. The fact is, our remaining faithful to the worship handed down by the Apostles and our adherence to a sacramental life will draw all to Christ.

Could you expend what you mean by the bolded part?

[Apolojedi (Daniel Eaton)]

I worked the audio/video for a church growth seminar one time that was held for local pastors. The whole "seeker friendly" model was one of the things discussed. That wasn't the focus though. The focus was making your services relevant to those that attended. The people putting on the seminar had done some polling of people that visit a church for the first time. The results were fascinating. The normal visitor to a church feels welcome based on two things. They want a place that has people there like themselves and want music that they can relate to. They decide within the fist 15 minutes there if they are welcome/accepted and if it is a place they can be comfortable. In other words, they have decided if they will ever be back even before the pastor gets up.

I'm not saying that "feeling comfortable" or "feeling welcome" *should* be the reason why people should come and tune-in as opposed to stop coming and tuning out, but we can't expect the unsaved seeker to act like anything but an unsaved seeker. The message is important. It is critical. But if the message isn't communicated because of how it is delivered, it may as well not be delivered at all.

[Curt Lovelace]

David Arnold Carlson said:

Curt Lovelace said:

Worship is for worshippers. Others are welcome.

So what does that mean to this question/statement DE has put forth?

It means that "worship" services are intended for those who worship, not as a means to bring people in and introduce them to the One who should be worshiped. But, "seekers," who have not yet (been) found are not able to truly worship, although they may enjoy the experience. They are certainly welcome and should be invited. They should also hear the Gospel.

We should be preaching more than "Do It Yourself" holiness. We should be preaching on the holiness and awe of God, our needs, His sufficiency, and the application of all that.

[JacksonS]

nope, no and no. But I know what you are saying, I think though that the problem is not if their material is good or not, it is that being in ministry and the church for some time now, I know that unless these churches are enigmas, the percentage of the people who actually come to a mid week discipleship course is about 15-20 percent of the people who attend on a Sunday.

That is why a Pastor must preach the word

David Arnold Carlson said:

Jackson Hoolahan said:

Ya, I stand with James on this, the problem is not that these churches are attracting seekers but what does the seeker find when he finds what he finds. I am of the opinion that alot of these so called "churches" are merely personality cults. The gospel is not preached, and I think that often these churches grow to large sizes, but it is little more than a social club, an auditorium of people for sure, but if Christ is not worshiped, the scriptures are not expounded, and the sacraments not ministered... then it is just an auditorium. At best it is a sect of Christianity, not a church.

Ever go to Willow Creek? Saddleback? Ever look at their materials or go to one of their conferences?

Your concerns are not issues with those churches. Now Joel Osteen......

[Apolojedi (Daniel Eaton)]

Jackson Hoolahan said:

That is why a Pastor must preach the word

I agree. And that is why I divorce the message given from the style of service. There are plenty of good and bad messages to go around, no matter what style of church it is presented in.
Jackson Hoolahan said:

I know that unless these churches are enigmas, the percentage of the people who actually come to a mid week discipleship course is about 15-20 percent of the people who attend on a Sunday

I don't know that I'd use the legalistic obligation that many Sunday-morning church-goers feel as some kind of rationale as to why services or Bible studies cannot be held at other times. I'd propose that your 15-20% of people that attend during the week are probably equally represented by the 15-20% that are actually the active ones on Sunday as well and not just warming a pew. The truth is that in most churches, regardless of their style, the only involvement that 80% have is warming a pew at 11am on Sunday because that is what is expected. The minority that are looking to get involved and learn more are going to some no matter if your offer of help is at 9:45 on Sunday morning or some Wednesday or Thursday night Bible Study. D.

[JacksonS]

Ya sad but true.

Apolojedi (Daniel Eaton) said:

Jackson Hoolahan said:

That is why a Pastor must preach the word

I agree. And that is why I divorce the message given from the style of service. There are plenty of good and bad messages to go around, no matter what style of church it is presented in.
Jackson Hoolahan said:

I know that unless these churches are enigmas, the percentage of the people who actually come to a mid week discipleship course is about 15-20 percent of the people who attend on a Sunday

I don't know that I'd use the legalistic obligation that many Sunday-morning church-goers feel as some kind of rationale as to why services or Bible studies cannot be held at other times. I'd propose that your 15-20% of people that attend during the week are probably equally represented by the 15-20% that are actually the active ones on Sunday as well and not just warming a pew. The truth is that in most churches, regardless of their style, the only involvement that 80% have is warming a pew at 11am on Sunday because that is what is expected. The minority that are looking to get involved and learn more are going to some no matter if your offer of help is at 9:45 on Sunday morning or some Wednesday or Thursday night Bible Study. D.

[Harry]

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. Our church preaches Christ Crucified and the pastor preaches Law and Gospel in his sermons. The seeker doesn't need to hear an surgarcoated sermon but needs to hear that we are all sinners and that the Law kills and when we recognize our sins, we then hear how the Gospel through Christ, tells us that we are made clean.
After the Divine Service, we all have coffee and donuts and make all seekers welcomed.

[Char]

Good points from Otsukafan and James. Seeker churches are too often so uniform, with too much law and not enough gospel. Perhaps that isn't always so, but it seems to be the norm. The thing that unites is not common doctrine and belief, but common interests or demographics. I would find it creepy to be herded together with a bunch of people who fit my "demographic" to be honest. I've been to a church or two where they moved to this style and everyone was the same-same race, age group, social status. Imagine a church in the middle of a city whose congregants were all from the bedroom communities and there was not a single Indian from the surrounding neighbourhood. And then all you'd get from them was a sermon of law law law. Bah.

Otsuka said that "traditional" isn't as traditional as some may think, and he has a point. I belong to a church that is mostly 80 year olds, and even it looks different than modern "traditional" churches. Many of the Protestant churches were traditionally sacramental also. You all know what I think about that. :)

What also do we make of the fact that many seeker churches are already beginning to shift from this model? What do we make of the fact that some major seeker churches have found that half of their congregants don't believe the basic tenants of Christianity and that those who do are most dissatisfied with the church? They are admitting it's not working like they thought it would.

You used the analogy of throwing a non-swimmer in at the deep end Daniel. What about the "swimmers"? The problem with this model is that it often ignores Christians altogether and expects them to look after themselves. Yet the church is meant to serve Christians. Christians make other disciples and bring them into the church. The church is bypassing the individual Christian in this. The believer needs the word, the gospel as much or more than the unbeliever, but he gets shoved to the side.

I am not one of those who ascribes sinister motives to everything that's different and all the seeker ideas. I think they are sincere and they're really trying to reach people for Christ, which is good. It is the methodology which is problematic, that which feeds the flock ashes rather than Christ and watches them slowly starve to death. This is a real problem that they seem to refuse on the whole to see as their problem.

Now if this doesn't apply to one church or the other, good. When I walk in there I still expect them to proclaim the gospel and administer the sacraments if they want me to say Christ is there.

[Apolojedi (Daniel Eaton)]

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.

[Apolojedi (Daniel Eaton)]

Char said:

You used the analogy of throwing a non-swimmer in at the deep end Daniel. What about the "swimmers"? The problem with this model is that it often ignores Christians altogether and expects them to look after themselves. Yet the church is meant to serve Christians.

I agree. And I have no problem with churches that provide in-depth stuff for the already-saved. But my point isn't that everyone should go to a seeker-friendly model. My point is a defense of that model from many who think that the Bride of Christ would be better off without the "cancer" of churches that have a focus on reaching the lost as opposed to some new intellectual tidbit for the already converted.

My other point is that most seeker-friendly churches that I have first-hand knowledge of *do* have things to offer the mature Christian. The class I try to attend at the local one I sometimes attend has a very in-depth apologetics type class I attend. They take an entire quarter to go in-depth into a particular topic.

Christians make other disciples and bring them into the church. The church is bypassing the individual Christian in this. The believer needs the word, the gospel as much or more than the unbeliever, but he gets shoved to the side.

In a perfect world, that would be the case. But that isn't the world I live in. Most christians do NOT go into the highways and hedges. Those out in the highways and hedges who want to hear about Christ, go find a church.

Ultimately, I think this debate comes down to one of timing. No one seems to have an issue with the church offering different levels of teaching for different maturity levels or even different styles of music. I think ultimately, the debate comes down to what a 11-AM service of Sunday morning should be. The 80% that only attend that one hour and think that is what Christianity is about don't want it messed with. That is "their" hour. They don't want the inconvenience of having to learn their intellectual tidbit of the week at some other time. And heaven forbid some guy in a Harley jacket comes in and sits in "their" pew and neglects to bring the "right" translation of the Bible.
D.