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....

[Rey Reynoso]

Actually, I would say there is a dual purpose to The Church and that purpose is tied directly to the Holy Spirit that is housed in the Church universal.

No one stayed in the upper room.

[Otsukafan]

I love that "No one stayed in the upper room." Well stated.

How would you define the dual purpose? Differently or how it's been previously defined?



Rey Reynoso said:

Actually, I would say there is a dual purpose to The Church and that purpose is tied directly to the Holy Spirit that is housed in the Church universal.
No one stayed in the upper room.

[Rey Reynoso]

Somewhat Differently: for the purpose of differentiation I'd say Inside and Outside.

Inside would be seen in the ministry of the Holy Spirit to the Disciples: reminding them of all Christ has said and done. So in this would be prayer with the Father, the Lord's Supper, the Lord's Teaching (by extension the Apostolic teaching), fellowship with the brethren. The Covenanted community of God coming together in all the things In Christ.

Outside would be seen in exposing the world to Sin, Righteousness and Judgment (and not the fanatical kind ) but all of those categories as being tied directly to Christ. So in other words, although the Spirit does the Convicting, the Body of Christ has to do the professing that proclaims that the world has crucified Him, that Christ has ascended to His Father and that the ruler of this world is judged already.

So although yes, it's glorifying God (that's what the Spirit did in descending on Christ) its an internal glorifying similar to an upper room discourse during the Last Passover, and an exterior glorification that consists of things that will likely result in persecution and suffering yet simultaneously performing that ministry In The World.

I'm actually working on a long series on just this subject so if this doesn't seem fleshed out, I'm truly sorry. It's easily a walk through the Gospel of John, part of Matthew, Acts, Corinthians, part of Romans, 1 Peter and 1 Timothy with a whopping scoop of Hebrews right on top.

So whereas Seekers try to bring the People In they're sorta missing the big picture. Whereas Traditional try to keep people out and maintain the purity they're sorta missing the big picture.

[Raquel]

I don't necessarily have any issues with churches targeting an audience but I don't choose to attend one that does (for the simple reason that we just plain old don't fit into any category. I can see it now... a church filled up with big mouthed zealots who heart the inner city, Africa, must have at least 6 children, advocate for adoption, and prison ministry. Not too much on the heavy hand but not so light that they're theology has gone liberal).

But I think that the bottom line is: what are your priorities when attending a church? Is it your way of doing evangelism or is it where you get fed and evangelism happens at 12:01... see what I'm saying? I personally see a sermon as a lecture that I receive from a teacher. Because that's my(our) perspective we I attend a church where the sermons teach for where people are at in all walks - not just the beginners or the bikers or the theologians or... I dig diversity of all sorts. I've found that it's where I grow best. Sorta like a Montessori school.

But Montessori's aren't for everyone... so all of that to say, you go Daniel. Passion is contagious.

[Apolojedi (Daniel Eaton)]

Char said:

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.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "pull the same card as the seeker churches". I think the church has a need to draw all men to Christ. Not just some men. Not just draw the already saved even closer. It is a false dichotomy to suggest that the church that focuses on adding to the flock on Sunday morning can't focus on strengthening the flock on Sunday evening. There is no reason why every service has to be about what the mature Christian wants. The mature Christian is the one more likely to "put themselves out" by showing up early for Sunday School or returning for a Sunday evening or Wednesday evening service. The Sunday AM service is the one likely to be visited by the unsaved visitor and the guy claiming to be a Christian but is barely more than a pew warmer. As such, we need to reach them while they are there.
D.

[Curt Lovelace]

Apolojedi (Daniel Eaton) said:

Char said:

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.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "pull the same card as the seeker churches". I think the church has a need to draw all men to Christ. Not just some men. Not just draw the already saved even closer. It is a false dichotomy to suggest that the church that focuses on adding to the flock on Sunday morning can't focus on strengthening the flock on Sunday evening. There is no reason why every service has to be about what the mature Christian wants. The mature Christian is the one more likely to "put themselves out" by showing up early for Sunday School or returning for a Sunday evening or Wednesday evening service. The Sunday AM service is the one likely to be visited by the unsaved visitor and the guy claiming to be a Christian but is barely more than a pew warmer. As such, we need to reach them while they are there.
D.

Jesus said GO and make disciples. He did not say advertise for people to come at 10am on Sunday. He didn't say get your program all spiffed up then sit and wait for them. We are to offer our worship - which is for God, not man - then GO and make disciples.

[Apolojedi (Daniel Eaton)]

Curt Lovelace said:

Jesus said GO and make disciples. He did not say advertise for people to come at 10am on Sunday. He didn't say get your program all spiffed up then sit and wait for them. We are to offer our worship - which is for God, not man - then GO and make disciples.

You are right. But again, that is a false dichotomy. Just because we are to "go" doesn't mean that we should have a "you're welcome to watch, but this hour is for us" attitude when they "come". This whole idea that the purpose of the church is for the believers ignores the whole point that unless we bring in new believers, the church only lasts for one generation. Bringing in and converting new believers *is* for the benefit of the believers. But instead of the visitor coming in to the open arms of the body of Christ, they come in to an attitude of "this hour is for us".

[Rey Reynoso]

I know Daniel didn't say this, but incidentally when I made a contrast between Inside and Outside I wasn't making a hard line where it means Things We Do Outside The Church Building. I meant it in terms of something that works in the Body and something that affects Outside the Body. These dual purposes dance.

[Curt Lovelace]

Apolojedi (Daniel Eaton) said:

Curt Lovelace said:

Jesus said GO and make disciples. He did not say advertise for people to come at 10am on Sunday. He didn't say get your program all spiffed up then sit and wait for them. We are to offer our worship - which is for God, not man - then GO and make disciples.

You are right. But again, that is a false dichotomy. Just because we are to "go" doesn't mean that we should have a "you're welcome to watch, but this hour is for us" attitude when they "come". This whole idea that the purpose of the church is for the believers ignores the whole point that unless we bring in new believers, the church only lasts for one generation. Bringing in and converting new believers *is* for the benefit of the believers. But instead of the visitor coming in to the open arms of the body of Christ, they come in to an attitude of "this hour is for us".

You've set up another false dichotomy, brother. Just because we recognize that the nature of the worship service is for the sincere worship of God does not necessitate us being anything less than winsome toward those who come to be with us. They should be accorded every possible friendship and they should be welcomed to join us.

I'm just saying that we don't set the whole thing up just to bring them in then wash our hands of the whole evangelism thing.

BTW, I'm also not against more "modern" music in the worship service. Our congregation is small but we have several guitars a violin (or fiddle, as she sometimes describes it) and a couple of different types of keyboard at every service. We don't sing endless choruses with no depth, however.

[Crazyupstart]

OK, so there is a dichotomy of focus, or purpose if you will, here. I also think that there is a difference in the semantics of how everyone is using the word "church" in this whole conversation: 1) Church = Christians maintaining real faith, i.e. "The churches purpose in existence is to glorify God" and 2) Church = a gathering of #1 type people. So what should be done by the "church"? Depends on which kind your talking about.

I think that there are good points on either side of this discussion.

1) I believe that Sunday morning services are a time that "faithing believers" are to corporately worship and proclaim Gods name in the assembly: Psalm 22:22 "I will declare Your name to My brethren; In the midst of the assembly I will praise You." In a way, it is our time. Also this is a time for our instruction. So I firmly believe in the preaching of the meat of the Word, gracefully admonishing one another to be holy and not holding back for the sake of the weak. God will teach the heart, as in Heb. 4:1-3 "Therefore, since a promise remains of entering His rest, let us fear lest any of you seem to have come short of it. For indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them; but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it."

I firmly believe in a missional LIFESTYLE that preaches the gospel to others through your living. One relationship at a time. Ministry by relationship: neighbors, friends, co-workers, teammates, parents of kids teammates. Once the gospel is shared through your life and relationships, sure invite them to "our worship service" so they can see what they will be getting into. We don't need to water down the teaching to the detriment of the saints, just to accommodate for a visitor. If the Spirit is truly doing a work, He'll walk'em through it. I don't think that the first way to share the gospel with someone should ever be to invite them to church.

2) But I also see the point being made by Daniel. If Sunday mornings at 11:00 is a time when tons of little fish are swimming into the pond, why not set up a net and become fishers? This is why in my earlier post I think seeker friendly churches are acceptable. They are doing that action which so many other churches don't have the "body parts" to do............um....that sounded bad .....go read my other post and you'll understand. It is just a bad idea to STAY at a seeker church your whole life because you will become a marginal Christian. So for those who are working in the "ministry" of the seeker friendly church fishing net, Sunday night is their worship and growing time. For those fish who are caught by the Holy Spirit's work, the evening and mid-week services will become a desire; or possibly even a different "meatier" church. It's perfectly understandable to make changes in scheduling, allow different service types (traditional & contemporary) at such a church.

Both kinds of churches can and do exist. And I think it should be that way.

Or maybe I'm just Crazy.

[Apolojedi (Daniel Eaton)]

Crazyupstart said:

I also see the point being made by Daniel. If Sunday mornings at 11:00 is a time when tons of little fish are swimming into the pond, why not set up a net and become fishers? This is why in my earlier post I think seeker friendly churches are acceptable. They are doing that action which so many other churches don't have the "body parts" to do............um....that sounded bad .....go read my other post and you'll understand.

Good analogy or metaphor or whatever that was.
I'll repeat what I posted over on Parchment & Pen where this is also being discussed. I think it real ironic that folks would make the claim that the church is for the believer. The church *IS* the collection of believers. And I can see where we might want to have some sessions geared towards the needs of the mature Christian. But when it comes to the time of the week more often visited by the unsaved visitor, we need to make sure that they can have the message communicated to them in a way that they can comprehend.

Like it or not, today’s post-MTV generation communicates differently than society did 30 years ago. As Romans 10 indicates, “How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?” This would indicate, at least to me, that the preacher’s role *isn’t* just to feed the flock. They need to reach the unbeliever as well. As such, the setting of the service when the non-believer is there needs to be something that is conducive to them being able to hear and accept the message. An un-friendly “this is our hour” attitude shuts them down before the pastor ever gets up on the stage.

[Rey Reynoso]

Dead up great usage of Romans 10. Probably the first time I've heard someone online use what the passage is saying in context to apply to very need that the context is talking about.

;clap

Okay, now smiley for clap.

;applaud

Obviously I don't remember the commands but you get my point.