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]

Ok, so I didn't read all the posts and maybe this was already stated, but my personal thoughts are that we have to look at the "bigger picture" here. I think I'm on the side of Daniel.

While I don't attend a seeker church, I think they have a purpose in God's kingdom. They do draw people in! Those people might be shallow, not taking Christianity seriously, but they're in a church. The message might not be the meat of the word but (we all hope) it is at least the Word being preached. Now I see it this way. Lets look at individual churches in light of the 1 Corinthians 12 passage about the different roles we each have in the church. We all have different talents and specialties.

1 Cor. 12:14-18
"For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot says, "Because I am not a hand, I am not a part of the body," it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body. And if the ear says, "Because I am not an eye, I am not a part of the body," it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole were hearing, where would the sense of smell be? But now God has placed the members, each one of them, in the body, just as He desired."

Could I postulate that this, being written to the "church at large", may also be applied to entire church bodies. There are different strengths of each church body. We would all like to go to the perfect church that "has it all" or at least have our church working to incorporate it all, but we must admit that this simply can't happen. We don't have all those resources, right people, money, location, we can't do it all. SO....I see the "seekers" as the "bringing in" part of the body. Then if the lightweight new Christian is really thirsty for the meat of the Word after a year or so maybe he SHOULD leave and attend a church with more advanced teaching. Once equipped, he could move on into ministry perhaps elsewhere, where there is a thriving college ministry plug-in. Do you see the process here? I think that each church is a different, yet needed, part of the "Body of Christ."

As a side note, if a seeker church can get planted in a rich thriving community and gain "pew sitters" AND THEIR MONEY, why is it so wrong to take the money of the rich heathen for the work of the Lord? If God foreknows their reprobation anyway. Well, OK, there is the thing about not giving them a false sense of hope in their "religious" behavior, but still, preach the gospel and if they never truly see the light, they will die a happier, poorer, sinner bound for hell (all in God's good providence).

Lastly, (sorry for the long post) I myself cant stand to see "church hoppers" - Christians who leave one church and find another because it "just didn't fit" instead of trying to grow in their faith and live in unity and diversity (this is for the mature ones now). Running from a church with problems only lands you in another church with a different set of problems. And they do this until they find a set of problems they can deal with for a little while, until it's time to leave again. This I do not condone. I think that most Christians should find a church and dig in, and get involved.

Does everybody have it all? No. So why not let the seekers do their part, and hopefully some good will come of it. Seems like God does.

Anyway, buh-bye.

[Char]

Daniel, we are not talking about "intellectual tidbits", we are talking about the very lifeblood of the Church (literally!). The fact that you dismiss the "already saved" in this way rather speaks to the problem-the real sticking point is what exactly the purpose of the church is. The church is meant to feed the flock the body and blood and the church is to proclaim the Word as gospel works. These are the means God has given to care for and sustain us. This is where we meet with God through his Holy Spirit. We aren't meant to just do this ourselves, alone. Yet the onus is placed on the "mature" Christian to do this himself in some of the larger seeker model churches.

And for the record, I did not mention apologetics nor do I simply mean apologetics classes when I speak of the needs of Christians.

If believers are not living out their calling, could it be because they are anemic and weak from not being fed? Because all they're getting from their church is ashes?

Also simply because things don't always work the way they are supposed to does this give us the go ahead to then ignore God's ordained means and make up our own? I don't see how that is going to work any better. I mean really if we want it to work really well, remove the scandal of the cross. Does any church want to do this?? Yet it is admittedly the best method for bringing people in.

Speaking of What "works", this should be determined by the doctrinal and spiritual health of the sheep. If they are disillusioned and then dismissed is the method really successful?

Again it is telling that you regard the body and blood of Christ and the proclamation of the Word not as vital to our spiritual lives, but as "intellectual tidbits". Regardless, the Church that is not serving Christ and the power of his gospel in the service is neglecting it's work, even if it's intentions in doing so are good.

[Loujean Miller]

How many of us have heard "I'm shopping around for a new church"? It seems to be something I hear too often from friends who never seem happy with their church home.

I ran across the following article a few years ago when researching for a paper in psych class, It explains very clearly my own experiences as of late. I had started to feel I was imagining things but this author of this article cleared up that misconception for me.

http://www.pressiechurch.org/Theol_2/narcissism_goes_to_church.htm

[H]

Interesting article. I agree that there are too many man-centered, and not enough Christ-centered churches (regardless of their size) and I also agree, strongly, that felt-needs and the escalating quest for yet another "spiritual" experience have trumped all other considerations for a great many people. I have personally witnessed the train wreck this can make of fledgling faith.

There is no perfect church, of course, but I do worry when we comfort unbelievers in their sin instead of exhorting them to repent and be conformed to the image of Christ. I know of a couple who have been attending a mega-church type gathering for over FIVE years and still see nothing wrong with the fact that they are living together. This can happen in any church, of course, and maybe they are simply rebelling, but usually when the Spirit of God is at work in an individual's life (and the life of the community of which that individual is a part), some kind of change results.

Loujean Miller said:

How many of us have heard "I'm shopping around for a new church"? It seems to be something I hear too often from friends who never seem happy with their church home.

I ran across the following article a few years ago when researching for a paper in psych class, It explains very clearly my own experiences as of late. I had started to feel I was imagining things but this author of this article cleared up that misconception for me.

http://www.pressiechurch.org/Theol_2/narcissism_goes_to_church.htm

[John J Travers III]

I am a Calvinist and I believe their is a seeker especially since scripture states that there will be those who seek.

The problem here is two fold. The first problem is that the Church's primary focus after God is for the body of believers. The we can focus on outreach; what good will outreach do if we do not disciple and care for each other? We forget or miss the point that the "Great Commission" is not an outward focus command entirely. Discipleship is an inward function of the Church not an outward function.

The second problem here is that if you preach a gospel that doesn't included sin, judgment and condemnation then you have not preached the true Gospel. I am not saying that every sermon has to include it just that a true gospel message MUST. If not then you have to worry about the conversion of someone who claims to accept Christ hearing a gospel message that doesn't include anything about their need for salvation. I am not saying that no one is saved apart from hearing a Gospel message (I will not short change the Holy Spirit) but, what I am saying is that we need to preach the whole truth about salvation.

We have two extremes at play hear fully closed and fully open. In one no love is expressed and in the other no righteous behavior is seen. From condemnation to compassion the Lord showed both love and acted righteously. We have to do the same.

[H]

Good points. It is an extremely unloving act to allow someone to believe he/she can adopt Jesus as a lifestyle choice, or a self-help patch. Sometimes love is severe; sometimes love takes the form of a cross, a scandal, a stumbling block, and I think we MIGHT do a disservice to people when we try to make palatable what the Scripture calls the foolishness of the Gospel. Sure, we should love people, both inside and outside of the Body, and discipleship is sorely needed, but the Gospel is what it is - and to make it something "other" is to trivialize it, in my humble opinion. There is methodology, but the message should transcend methodology, and should not be a servant to same.

John J Travers III said:

I am a Calvinist and I believe their is a seeker especially since scripture states that there will be those who seek.

The problem here is two fold. The first problem is that the Church's primary focus after God is for the body of believers. The we can focus on outreach; what good will outreach do if we do not disciple and care for each other? We forget or miss the point that the "Great Commission" is not an outward focus command entirely. Discipleship is an inward function of the Church not an outward function.

The second problem here is that if you preach a gospel that doesn't included sin, judgment and condemnation then you have not preached the true Gospel. I am not saying that every sermon has to include it just that a true gospel message MUST. If not then you have to worry about the conversion of someone who claims to accept Christ hearing a gospel message that doesn't include anything about their need for salvation. I am not saying that no one is saved apart from hearing a Gospel message (I will not short change the Holy Spirit) but, what I am saying is that we need to preach the whole truth about salvation.

We have two extremes at play hear fully closed and fully open. In one no love is expressed and in the other no righteous behavior is seen. From condemnation to compassion the Lord showed both love and acted righteously. We have to do the same.

[James Gibbons]

Char: …Speaking of What "works",…

The point is, who cares what we think “works!” Who among us would come up with a plan like, “take a million unarmed sheep herders over by the red sea, and when the most powerful army in the world shows up, wait for the sea to part?” Or how about, “Send most of your guys home, then, instead of weapons, go into battle with pitchers and lamps.” Or how about, “Send your best representative to the people who should receive Him, but won’t, get him spiked to a tree, then raise Him from the dead.”

The foolishness of preaching does not sound like it would work. But it is the method we are given. WE can’t possibly make it work. Which is sort of the point.

[Otsukafan]

Sure, and I'm sorry it's taken me so long.

I beleive there is a Liturgical order to the service that was engineered (i need a better word but have a limited vocab.) to prepare our soul and body, not to receive a sermon, but to partake of Holy Communion. The Liturgy of St. John of Chrysostom is a adjustment of the the Liturgy of St. Basil. Though the former is the most commonly observed the latter is still observed on occasions. It is known that the Liturgy of St. Basil is really a written form, most likely with some slight modification, of the Liturgy of Saint James of the early Church. This order of service is a combination of 2 services, one from the synagogue and one from the temple.

Historically, the early Christians would go to the synagogue to worship on Saturday then, instead of going to the temple to sacrifice, which we know was not necessary after Christ's resurrection, they went to someones home, place of business, or sometimes the graveyard, to keep a vigil all night, then complete the temple service on the "Lord's Day". The important piece to note is that it culminated not with an animal sacrifice but with the partaking of the Eucharist. They did this on Sunday in celebration of the Resurrection. Which on a side note was a sacrifice in itself, as Sunday was a regular work day in the empire, so they would keep vigil all night, celebrate the Eucharist and go to work at daybreak.

As the Christians were eventually expelled from the Synagogue the service was celebrated in private and, over time, combined to make one longer service but actually retain their original properties, with some modifications, as the Gospels are read instead of the Torah, for example.

So observing this worship and it's focus, the Eucharist, we keep alive, not just through apostolic succession, but also our spiritual connection with the Church down through the ages. A celebration of service with those who have gone before us and those still yet to come.

There is far more but I wanted to give you a summary. My apologies for the length.

On a side note, I do not intentionally exorcise the Gregorian Liturgy and it's place in Church history. I just feel inadequate, not being a student of the Western Rite, to discuss it fully, though I know it has it's roots in the earliest Liturgical worship. Perhaps someone more learned in this area can chime in.





David Arnold Carlson said:

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 think one of the core elements of this discussion is what I am hearing people say is the "purpose of the church". These thoughts are now being talked about in three places. Several people have said that the purpose of the church is to build up the believer. That may be the case, but I'd love to see some debate on that claim as well. Regardless of what the Biblical "purpose of the church" is though, that doesn't mandate that the 11 o'clock hour on Sunday should only be for the benefit of building up the saints. That hour should be relevant to and welcoming of all that attend. I find it self-centered that the mature Christian demands that their needs get met regardless of the needs of seeking visitor.

I think the church has a dual purpose. It needs to be able to reach the lost as well. Development of the saints is great. It is needed. But feeding the flock should not be done at the determent of increasing the flock.
D.

[James Gibbons]

The purpose of the Church is to bring glory to God. Everything else is a fringe benefit.

To you’re other point, Daniel, I don’t see a whole lot of good, deep teaching going on at the expense of the seeker. I do see a LOT of the opposite. A lot of fluff for fear of losing the attention of the seeker. As if seekers were stupid! A guy in our assembly (who happens to suffer from mental illnesses) sometimes says, “Hey, I’m crazy, not stupid.” I think we can say of seekers, “Hey, they’re lost, not stupid!”

[Otsukafan]

I think the purposes aren't that dual really. We go to Church, to be with each other. To worship together, to commune together. This togetherness, this strengthening, this bearing one another's burdens, this is our testimony. Our coming together to do the things that allows us to experience God in His fullness is what will draw people to Christ. How we live, each day. People will want to answer the invitation as was Andrew's to "come and see". They should see a body coming together in unity, to treat the Holiness of God with the utmost reverence. They are not looking for something familiar to what they know, they are searching for something different. They will only recognize it when they see it runs completely and blatantly counter to what they know of the world.

Our coming together, feeding the hungry, clothing the needy, encouraging each other to strive for a life in purity. When the Holy Spirit calls them through their desperation to go see the source they should walk in and see God in His Holiness. This is the Church, God's Kingdom manifested on earth. This will call them to salvation. It's one thing, living and worshiping, I say these 2 words indeed morph into one thing in the true Christian life, and they will want to acquire the same Holy Spirit that binds us together in love through the Holy Church.

Apolojedi (Daniel Eaton) said:

I think the church has a dual purpose. It needs to be able to reach the lost as well. Development of the saints is great. It is needed. But feeding the flock should not be done at the determent of increasing the flock. D.

[Char]

I don't think the church does have a dual purpose, because there is no dichotomy in building up disciples and bringing in disciples to build up. Neither is it necessary to say that believers are built up at the expense of adding to our number. It is our preaching of the gospel that should be bringing them in. There is nothing that says just because things aren't geared specifically for unbelievers against the needs of believers that they are not welcome. And James is correct, they're not stupid people, just unbelieving ones-as we ourselves have been or could be.

I find it interesting that you pull the same card as the seeker churches Daniel, you fault Christians as selfish for wanting the Church to be about Christ and our relation to him, as said the building of disciples and our being conformed to his likeness. This is always the way it goes isn't it? Someone must be selfish if they need the church to care for them. They should be able as a "mature" Christian to live out in the woods and do this alone or something. They are super mature Christians after all. Unfortunately those people still have their flesh to contend with. They still fail. They are as helpless as they ever were without Christ. They still need the gospel. They still need the church. The church is too often failing itself.

When I was a child, many of the teachers in the school I went to had a policy; if a child scored high on the standardized tests they gave each year, they could be expected to teach themselves and were left to do so. If you asked a teacher a question you were told "you can figure it out yourself". Most who were treated this way hated school and barely finished grade 12 because we taught ourselves everything we knew anyway, what do we need school for? It was a waste of time for us. So it becomes for the mature Christian in the church that neglects him. A waste of time. But he does need the church. He is stunted without the church.

James, while I see your point about what works, I think it is fair to say we know whether we are moving in the right direction or not by the doctrine and spiritual health of our churches overall. This goes both for seeker models and any other model.