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....

[John J Travers III]

Sorry, But Church is for believers not unbelievers. Worship is a part of what the Church does. But the worship and mission of the Church are two seperate things and should not be fused together as one. Worship may occur when the Church makes disciples however, making disciples and worship are two seperate entities.

As I said before we are to welcome those who come but, the worship service is for true believers to offer true worship to God.

I am currious Rev, isn't Romans 10 where Paul writes about his deep disire for the salvation of Isreal? And if it is then would the contextual point be that Isreal has not been utterly forsaken? And that God still offers salvation to his chosen people?


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".

[Rey Reynoso]

I am currious Rev, isn't Romans 10 where Paul writes about his deep disire for the salvation of Isreal? And if it is then would the contextual point be that Isreal has not been utterly forsaken? And that God still offers salvation to his chosen people?

Yes. It's also Paul's contention that the reason they don't believe is completely their fault. Christ preached the message, they heard the message, they knew the message, they understood the message and they stumbled at the message by unbelief. As such the onus of unbelief rests at their rejection. In that same contextual light, in regards to the Gentile world, there is no reason for the Church in Christ a building to close its doors to having the Gospel unleashed in all her actions and allowing the unbelieving world to similarly hear, know and understand the message. For it is in the gathering of the saints where the Gospel is not only preached and taught: it is also applied.

The reason the world disbelieves should never be "Because I wasn't allowed in to see and hear when their meeting together." We shouldn't give the world an excuse our unbelieving children do not have.

[Apolojedi (Daniel Eaton)]

John J Travers III said:

Sorry, But Church is for believers not unbelievers.

I keep hearing that, but I don't believe it. First, the church isn't "for" believers. It *IS* the believers. And, as the body of Christ, we are to reach the world. We are NOT told to reach the world except for the one hour a week that the world comes to our door looking for answers. I don’t see Christ accepting the excuse of us not wanting to harvest a crop brought to our doors because our schedule had something else in it for that hour. I'd argue that a church that isn't reaching the unbeliever when given the change isn't doing what it is called to do

The whole idea of 11am on Sunday is "our time" and a time for the mature to be fed is ironic considering the fact that the mature should be able to feed themselves. It isn't like that is the only time of the week that we can worship or fellowship. If we really were faithful and mature, we would be more willing to be there at other times. Why should we expect the unsaved to come back at some other time for something geared to their needs when the "mature faithful" are not enough of either to do the same?

Second, I take real offense at the idea that "church" or "the church" is "not for unbelievers". It is that very attitude that the church is going to have to answer for. Instead of following Paul's example and being all things to all men so that they can come to Him, we have an attitude of "this is the way we do it, like it or leave it". That doesn't fit a Christ-like attitude of love and reaching people where they are at. Regardless of how it *should* be, the majority of Christians do not “go and make disciples”. They have a passive “y’all come” attitude. As such, when/if they *do* come, we need to relate to them. To do any less is barely more than a "bait and switch" con.

[James Gibbons]

Daniel, I agree and disagree. There are things we do, which absolutely must, by their nature, exclude nonbelievers.

A nonbeliever does not benefit from worshiping a God he does not believe in. Nor does the worship benefit from his being there. So, for the breaking of bread and surrounding activities (depending on what brand of Christian one is), not only is it okay for nonbelievers to be excluded, it is necessary.

One cannot be discipled until one is a disciple. So, for Bible study designed for spiritual growth, or for general knowledge, or for cultivation of good scriptural positions on points of theology, it is not beneficial for the lost to be present. Nor is it beneficial for Christians to have them present.

Your point, I think, is that we should do more of the things that ARE for the lost. Gospel meetings (or whatever you might call it in whatever brand of Christianity you practice). Community outreach/charitable service. I confess that these three things (Gospel, outreach, charity) are in short supply in our assembly…to our hurt. So, we should be doing more of them. But that doesn’t mean we should be doing less of those other vital activities. Nor does it mean that the lost should be present for those believer-only things.

Also, we should have more teaching for new believers and the untaught. Perhaps a continuous cycle of teaching from 1&2 Thes. — the doctrines contained in them and referred to by them—would be a good ongoing activity. This would provide an on-ramp for new believers, so they wouldn’t have to go from “this is who Jesus is,” to “this is the typology of the sacrifices and feasts in Leviticus.” We sometimes ask new believers to make huge leaps.

[Char]

Daniel, you said that the "mature" Christian is self centred for wanting the gospel proclaimed for his sins. That he should not think it is his hour to have the word proclaimed to him, his time to meet and worship God. Why is it not? Should he expect to hear the word proclaimed and the gospel given for his sins on other days when the seekers aren't there? He should do the hard work of pleasing God himself? This is also what the authorities at Willow have said in placing the onus on him to feed himself and blaming him for his own dissatisfaction. Why is the body of Christ second tier in the church? Sunday was chosen as the day to worship and meet our risen Lord, not to make unbelievers feel comfortable. I don't see how conducting a service that is all about the descent of God to sinners is supposed to be so very mean and excluding. Unless there are people who aren't sinners there.

Also it seems to me that you are the only one dichotomizing the building up believers and adding to the number Daniel, so I'm not sure why you're saying there is a false dichotomy in the argument of those of us who say there is not a dichotomy. The way we add to our number is the same way we build up believers. As for diversity, what works for diverse audiences of all ages, races, believers, unbelievers?

The proclaimation of the gospel.

Would you say that the gospel isn't for the seekers? We can't proclaim the gospel to them and if we do we're excluding them? What are these extra special things that are for believers in the service that are so very exclusive of unbelievers anyway? I know that even most "traditional" churches do not hedge the table, so I am at a loss as to what they could be.

You are right in saying the real question is the purpose of the Church. You seem to think it's something other than than the proclamation of the gospel and forgiveness of sins. If so, you are mistaken.

To bastardize Cyprian, the church is the mother of believers. Should she not care for her children?

And aren't churches that have services built around the unbeliever pulling more of a bait and switch than anyone? At what point do they start to focus on God coming to us? I have found that all they preach is law law and when you get tired of law, more law. This is what unbelievers want. The law is in their hearts, the law is understandable. A service that really edifies them must be nothing but law. But it is the Gospel they need.

If Alien Righteousness were still around I'd slap him right here.

[Rey Reynoso]

Mutated but Righteous.

Char said:

Daniel, you said that the "mature" Christian is self centred for wanting the gospel proclaimed for his sins. That he should not think it is his hour to have the word proclaimed to him, his time to meet and worship God. Why is it not? Should he expect to hear the word proclaimed and the gospel given for his sins on other days when the seekers aren't there? He should do the hard work of pleasing God himself? This is also what the authorities at Willow have said in placing the onus on him to feed himself and blaming him for his own dissatisfaction. Why is the body of Christ second tier in the church? Sunday was chosen as the day to worship and meet our risen Lord, not to make unbelievers feel comfortable. I don't see how conducting a service that is all about the descent of God to sinners is supposed to be so very mean and excluding. Unless there are people who aren't sinners there.
Also if one doesn't need to dichotomize building up believers and adding to the number, why were you the only one doing so Daniel? The way we add to our number is the same way we build up believers. As for diversity, what works for diverse audiences of all ages, races, believers, unbelievers? The proclaimation of the gospel.

Would you say that the gospel isn't for the seekers? We can't proclaim the gospel to them and if we do we're excluding them? What are these extra special things that are for believers in the service that are so very exclusive of unbelievers anyway? I know that even most "traditional" churches do not hedge the table, so I am at a loss as to what they could be.

You are right in saying the real question is the purpose of the Church. You seem to think it's something other than than the proclamation of the gospel and forgiveness of sins. If so, you are mistaken.

To bastardize Cyprian, the church is the mother of believers. Should she not care for her children?

And aren't churches that have services built around the unbeliever pulling more of a bait and switch than anyone? At what point do they start to focus on God coming to us? I have found that all they preach is law law and when you get tired of law, more law. This is what unbelievers want. The law is in their hearts, the law is understandable. A service that really edifies them must be nothing but law. But it is the Gospel they need.

If Alien Righteousness were still around I'd slap him right here.

[Apolojedi (Daniel Eaton)]

Char:
Are you sure you are responding to me? I don't remember saying a lot of those things.
D.

[Char]

Actually Daniel you said earlier in the thread

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.

I told you I was not talking about intellectual tid-bits, but the gospel, the life of the church. And that is exactly what Christianity is about. Exactly. No I don't want the proclamation of the gospel messed with to make someone comfortable. You are correct in that.

You then said

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.

Here you dichotomize the needs of the mature believer and the needs of seekers. And you say the believer is self-centred for wanting his needs met, which I had already said was the proclamation of the Word, the gospel. I called you on faulting Christians for insisting the service to be about God descending to us by saying that when we insist on this we are selfishly saying "this is just for us". However unbelievers like to think they need the law, a desire which is usually obliged if they are the focus. So yes it is true that their desires are not paramount nor should they be. I don't want law preaching and nothing but law preaching when I go to church on Sunday. God meets us by grace.

You replied,

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.

I am showing you where you pulled that card and in fact did it again in that statement, by saying every service does not need to be about what the mature christian wants (again the proclamation of the Word). You are blaming Christians for wanting church to be about something more than the law and calling them self-centred. You are putting the responsibility for growing in grace on Christians rather than the church. They are supposed to grow by their own will power or something. This is law again, and it is what some of the large seeker model churches have done also.

This is also where you claimed I was making a false dichotomy even though I never made a dichotomy at all. I said the same means builds and adds. Yet you continue to apply this dichotomy by saying the Christians can have a different time to be met by God.

Again you said this:

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.

What are the needs of mature Christians? This can only be split as you alone are doing if you are arguing against me that mature believers do not need the gospel for forgiveness for sins, but something else. Or that unbelievers don't. What are these extra special things Christians need that exclude unbelievers? I have already denied that it is about "intellectual tid-bits".

[Crazyupstart]

Char said:

To bastardize Cyprian, the church is the mother of believers. Should she not care for her children? And aren't churches that have services built around the unbeliever pulling more of a bait and switch than anyone? At what point do they start to focus on God coming to us? I have found that all they preach is law law and when you get tired of law, more law. This is what unbelievers want. The law is in their hearts, the law is understandable. A service that really edifies them must be nothing but law. But it is the Gospel they need.

Char,

I don't think anyone is saying for elders, bishops, pastors (shepherds), not to feed their sheep. The question being posed is "Why the heck does it HAVE to be at 11:00 AM on Sundays?!?!?" Why not 12:00PM why not 6:00 PM why not Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Wednesday?

Daniel's point of the post (I think) is to say that there is an immense opportunity here on Sunday mornings. Is it not selfish of us to say that we will never give up our "baby" time, our preferred moment (and yes, it is the most convenient time so that we all can get a little rest on Sundays and also be home for lunch) ....yet, why are we not AT ALL willing to give it up for the sake of ministry? Is that not selfishness? Is this not the kind of "Religion must be as it now is" thought process that Christ was constantly wading upstream against?

As I've said before, I believe that the church "service" as we know it today IS for believers NOT unbelievers. But why not let our main service time change to afford space for a ministry opportunity that is knocking down the door of some churches.

On another good side note of thought provokedness....wasn't it John the cousin of Jesus who started doing the coffee/donut thing out there in the wasteland along the Jordan side?

Or maybe I'm just Crazy.

[David Arnold Carlson]

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".

Still agree with DE on this issue.

Certainly the early church was not just of believers. After all, Christians went to and worshiped at the synagogues, (until 70) correct? I assume there were not all believers there.

Second, if you insist that the service is for believers only, what biblical instruction is there for that? You know, where it says don't invite non believers to church. The one that says keep em out? I just don't see that anywhere.

[David Arnold Carlson]

John J Travers III said:

Sorry, But Church is for believers not unbelievers.

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

[Char]

Crazyupstart you are just trying to yank my chain aren't you?

Why do believers need to be fed at a time other than the service where all are present for that very purpose? What exactly do you think mature believers need to be fed that they get easily on these other days than Sunday? And what exactly do you think seekers need that is not being presented? I think the rub is that when I say "fed" I mean the body and blood of Christ, the Word of God. I think you must mean programs or apologetics or something.

I agree that the Church service does not cater to unbelievers, nor should it for the reason stated in that portion you quoted. This of course does not mean the law is not to be preached but only in it's proper place and as it condemns and drives us to Christ. And then Christ must be presented. The service is about God coming to us. We are passive and only receive from him-believer and unbeliever alike.

I work nights and weekends. Sunday at 11 am is the most inconvenient time possible for me. So do not assume this is about laziness or convenience when it is nothing of the kind. Sunday is the "Lord's day". What better time to proclaim his gospel to his church? This is the whole point of getting together for the service. Frankly it is troubling that you seem to think this is not ministry and should be done away with for the sake of ministry. What then is ministry, if not the gospel? Christ waded against the gospel?