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....

[Char]

Okay I dashed the original reply off ten minutes before work and I admit it was too much from the hip. So now I am going to try to fix my obvious lack of facility with the English language.

Daniel I have said the need of the mature Christian is the proclamation of the Gospel. This is in response to your argument that the needs of unbelievers should be regarded as paramount by the believers. I am saying they have the same need-but it is only the believer is aware of this need. Unbelievers think they need law. They want all active righteousness when the service is about giving us passive righteousness.

You've never really explained what exactly it is that the mature christian can get in other venues and is selfish for wanting in the service otherwise. If it's just that he says it is the believers' time to be met by God, this is simply true. The whole point of the service is that God comes down to us as a community.

You repeatedly miss my point and obviously I'm not making it clear. I am telling you why many churches and believers are not in favour of a seeker model. It isn't just "self centredness". It isn't just because they don't care about evangelism. It's something much bigger than that. It's that the service is about God's condescension in giving us grace, not "reaching the lost". The lost are reached by that condescension, this is why we don't "mess with it". This is why we can have a diverse group of people in one church-they all need Christ crucified. But your conclusion is that it can only be selfishness and his placing of his own desires first that makes a man not want to focus on unbelievers, not because he wants the focus on Christ crucified or sees it is wrong that the church wants to make him responsible for his own spiritual growth when this is what Christ does through the church.

Studies have shown that the most disillusioned in the seeker model churches are the most serious about their faith. It's because they know they're not getting fed. They're not getting Christ. They're getting law like the unbelievers want. This is exactly how it has been in the churches I've attended who have embraced this model. They were well meaning, but one did not leave the service feeling like he could face the world because Christ was with him by his Holy Spirit. We left feeling like we were utter failures who had to try harder to obey the law. We certainly were not equipped to engage unbelievers by the power of the Spirit.

I showed you exactly which of your comments I was responding to here. I also explained you why it is important to consider this a gospel work whose method matters. Yet your contention appears remain that people can't possibly have good reasons for not using a seeker model, it must just be because they are selfish. Those who give reasons are disregarded or seen to be not addressing the issue. Harry mentioned the theology of the cross, and you responded that the pastors he mentioned preach salvation by grace, totally missing his point. Saying we are saved by grace is not all that a theology of the cross is.

I dunno how else to explain this.

[Crazyupstart]

David Arnold Carlson said:

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

Sorry my other post was a little jumbled. My point was that, yes the temple is no longer physical but indwelling, yet what was God trying to show us in this whole "temple court" ordeal. What's the message there? Why did He go through all the trouble? My conclusion: perhaps he wanted to give us some idea that He was a set apart i.e. Holy God. Should we as new covenant believers feel free to be flippant before the Most Holy? We are to come boldly, but not flippantly or irreverently. Sooooooo..... should we be inviting others to do so?

Read Acts 2:40-47 closely. This was just after the time of Pentecost when everyone was on fire for Jesus in the early church. This is when outreach and gospel preaching was at a peak! But not once does it mention "unbelievers" being involved in their meetings, gatherings, "churches" if you will....until they had received salvation (v.47).

And to make the challenge equal, can you show me in the scriptures where it specifically says that unbelievers are to be included in church "services, meetings, worship" etc. (outreaches not included).

[Crazyupstart]

Char,

um...... I agree with Ray that you and Dan seem to be misreading one another's arguments.

So here's my understanding of:

The immaturity and selfishness argument (via third party interpretation):

1) Traditional churches (lots of churches today) meet and have their regular services every Sunday, typically somewhere between 9:30 and 12:00 noon.

2) These typical churches regular services just don't do a lot for the unbeliever. In fact, they make them uncomfortable and feeling judged (that can be good, but keep reading). There seems to be a great lack of welcoming resources and shepherding for those who come seeking and feeling things out. So they go home saying "well I tried the church thing and was really just like "

3) Fact: Most unbelievers who are going to "go to church" on any given Sunday will probably go at the "expected" and easy church time of 11:00 AM, do their little religion thing and then go out somewhere for lunch.

Mastermind Conclusions:
1) If most unbelievers come to church at that time lets dedicate THAT TIME BLOCK of the day for a service that is directed especially just for them.

2) It is selfish of us NOT to shift "our" main service of worship (that's the one where we get the visitation of the Most High, the preaching of the Word to life applications, and other such graces, holy communion of the saints) to a different time of day, or day of the week so as to accommodate for the masses of unbelievers who may be filling the pews at 11:00. Look at it as a "ministry to the lost" hour or whatever you want to call it. Use it as an outreach.

3) It is immature of us to ask that we not move "our main" service away from 11 AM. It is immature to ask that the ministry to the body of believers (already saved by grace and having the help of the Holy Spirit in their daily lives) be put at top priority in any church WHEN THERE ARE OTHER NEEDS like unbelievers who are searching and find themselves in stage #2 of the argument above. How is it that we the Saved should put our needs before those of the also needy unsaved.

4) There are other times on Sunday, and throughout the week that the true believing active saints can fellowship, learn, worship, etc. soooooooo........IF there is opportunity (the searching unsaved) knocking at the door (strolling into a church, oh, around 11AM on Sundays), why not gear up and be ready for them? Help yourself later, help them, comfort them now.

***Disclaimer*** I'm just trying to clarify the argument as I understand it and am not trying to put words in anyone's mouth.

It's late and I have to get up early to practice music with my traditional church in the morning. Good night all.
Or maybe, I'm just Crazy.

[Harry]

The needs of unbelievers is to hear that they like us are sinners, Unblievers, like us need to hear that the Law kills, nobody can fulfill the Law. Once the unbliever starts to believe, then they can hear the Gospel, that Christ fulfilled the Law and that we are justified before God through Christ. The former unbliever if they haven't been baptized can have that done and then be catechized to receive Christ's Body and Blood in the Sacrament of the Altar. Maybe I am talking too much like a Lutheran.

[Char]

Yes crazyupstart you both misunderstand me. I keep saying the same thing and every reply proves only that my communication skills are far worse than I ever could have imagined. I understand the contra position. The contention is that Sunday service should be directed to unbelievers in order to bring them in to the fold and those who disagree do so out of selfishness. This is a false assumption. Actually two false assumptions.

Make no mistake, I am saying the Sunday service should not be directed at unbelievers-because it is about God coming down to us. Let me emphasize the operative part of that sentence: GOD coming down. The focus is the gospel work God does in the service. It should not just be an hour of outreach (whatever this means) though outreach happens-from God to sinners. Still it is the Lord's day.

Why is it that we can meet God on any day, but we can't possibly do the same with unbelievers? Why can we say "Oh I can commune with God just anywhere", but not share the gospel and serve the unbeliever anywhere? Why is it that God may be relegated to a secondary place but it's selfish to do so with unbelievers?

And why should the believer move the service? Why is it selfish? Why immature? This is repeatedly said yet no real reason is ever given for the assertion. I have shown over and over why it is not selfishness nor immaturity speaking, it is legitimate concern about losing the purpose of the service.

I am telling you there are no "OTHER NEEDS" (interesting use of caps as if I didn't notice the dichotomy that has been repeatedly made between believers and unbelievers just because I reject it) for the church to address. Why is this so difficult? Unbelievers need God in the gospel!

I see pietism has tipped it's hand in your comment crazyupstart. The believer is already saved by grace, therefore he may now look after himself, make himself righteous. This I think is the real underlying problem to be honest, though you are the first to actually admit it. The thing is the believer also needs God in the gospel.

That question James asked elsewhere comes back into play; what are we saved to? Are we a collection of people who have made a decision to avoid hell? Is this what unites us? Or are we being united to Christ by the means he has given?

[H]

I have read some, but not all of the comments, so I apologize if someone already covered this, but...

Why are we so concerned that the unbeliever feels "comfortable" in our services? I honestly don't get it. Are we afraid that the Gospel, in all its muscularity, is "too much" for the average westerner to process?

Is there any way other than "repent, turn from your SINS?" Is there any way other than the mercy and grace of God bestowed upon undeserving sinners? Is there any avenue other than the Cross?

That is a startling message. Why do we want to protect people from being jolted into an awareness of their lost state?

I was HIGHLY uncomfortable when I finally (at age 14 and under duress) attended a church that preached the Gospel. I had never heard anything like it and it hit me hard. I tried to get away from it, tried to rationalize it in my young mind, but the Spirit of God brought me face-to-face with my utterly lost and helpless-to-remedy-it situation and I'll never forget the moment, as long as I live, when I KNEW. It was then that I threw myself upon the mercy of God and passed from death to life.

No one apologized for not easing me into the Kingdom. So what if people are scared away? Maybe they'll come back, or go elsewhere, or someone else will reap what a particular church service has sown. If it's all about numbers, then a flabby Gospel will suffice. If it's about making true converts, then nothing but the bloody sacrifice of the perfect Son of God will do.

I believe that the Body of Christ should proclaim the Gospel (to both the believer and unbeliever) and allow God to work as he wills in the hearts of the hearers.

[Apolojedi (Daniel Eaton)]

Char said:

Yes crazyupstart you both misunderstand me. I keep saying the same thing and every reply proves only that my communication skills are far worse than I ever could have imagined.

It isn't you. It's me. I run about 30% low in blood. Reading comprehension suffers drastically. I'm having difficulty reading your posts. Blame it on me being simple-minded. I just can't understand comments like "Unbelievers need God in the gospel!" on the one hand and comments like "I am saying the Sunday service should not be directed at unbelievers-because it is about God coming down to us...The focus is the gospel work God does in the service. It should not just be an hour of outreach (whatever this means)." on the other. My brain can't wrap around it because it seems as if you are contradicting yourself. The focus should be on the gospel work, and the gospel is what the unsaved need, but we shouldn't focus on it?
I think the big problem is in what we see the purpose of the church. I don't see it as God has a standing appointment for an 11am meeting to specially "come down" and be with His Church every Sunday morning in some unique way. I see God being in our midst any time two or more are gathered in His name. That could be a 9:45 Sunday School, a 6pm Bible Study, a Wednesday night prayer meeting, or anything else. It doesn't even have to be in the sanctuary. If He is "coming down" (as opposed to already being with us) at all, it isn't limited to 11am on Sunday. But, since the non-Christian visit to the church *is* typically limited to 11am on Sunday, and since "unbelievers need God in the gospel", there is no reason to not give them what they need while they are there.

Perhaps it would help me understand you better if you were to elaborate (with references) on this idea that the purpose of the church, and the Sunday 11am service in particular, is for God to "come down" and be with us.

[Apolojedi (Daniel Eaton)]

Friend of Aslan said:

Why are we so concerned that the unbeliever feels "comfortable" in our services? I honestly don't get it. Are we afraid that the Gospel, in all its muscularity, is "too much" for the average westerner to process?

It isn't a matter of preaching over their head. It is a matter of preaching something that is relevant to all that are there. As far as their "comfort" goes, if they are not welcome and feel like there is something there that will meet their needs, they turn off and go elsewhere.
We had a couple of bikers show up with their leather jackets and such one service in a church I used to attend. You would have thought that they were contagious for some dire disease. No one sat anywhere near them. Yet during the sermon, they were introduced as a couple that had a Christian ministry to the biker community. Suddenly they were one of "us" and the post-service greetings and handshakes were a drastic difference from the cold shoulder they got when they showed up. I talked to them. They said that was normal for them.

Look at the Mormons, for example. If I, as a traditional Protestant (raised Baptist) went to one of their meetings, I'd be met with a friendly welcome and offers to answer any of my questions and so forth. I would be befriended and invited back. I know this because I've been there. Yet if I was able to get a Mormon "elder" on his bike to come with me to the average Baptist church, I somehow doubt that he'd have the same welcome and have any desire to come back. He would be shunned and I'd be as well for daring to invite "one of them" to one of "our" services. Somehow we have gotten into the mindset that our Sunday morning service should treat those different from our own the same way Christ treated the money-changers in the temple.
D.

[H]

Daniel,

You and I are talking about two different things. I believe EVERYONE should be welcome at a church service should they choose to darken the doorway - and that the welcome should be sincere and respectful, not superficial. I agree that many churches aren't friendly enough to guests or visitors, and that having them stand up and receive a round of applause and an address card to fill out (and drop in the offering plate) is probably not cutting it.

So we agree - no unbeliever should be made to feel unwelcome because of their dress, hair length, ethnicity, socio-economic status or anything else. But I disagree that the preaching of a full-throated Gospel does not address their needs. It is the PRIMARY need of the lost - and no apologies for it, either. The Gospel message, as well as communal worship, fellowship and the breaking of bread is a need the Body has and although unbelievers may not understand or participate, these practices may, if approached in a reverent manner, set an example for the unbeliever that the Spirit might use to draw them to Christ.

Man, I'm starting to sound like an advocate for the institutional church!

People are naturally reticent to extend a hearty welcome to anyone outside their "tribe" and unless they learn how to overcome this reticence, the problems you describe will continue. But that's a separate issue from "how" the Gospel should be preached to the believer as opposed to the "seeker." I just don't see the need for any modifications.








Apolojedi (Daniel Eaton) said:

Friend of Aslan said:

Why are we so concerned that the unbeliever feels "comfortable" in our services? I honestly don't get it. Are we afraid that the Gospel, in all its muscularity, is "too much" for the average westerner to process?

It isn't a matter of preaching over their head. It is a matter of preaching something that is relevant to all that are there. As far as their "comfort" goes, if they are not welcome and feel like there is something there that will meet their needs, they turn off and go elsewhere.
We had a couple of bikers show up with their leather jackets and such one service in a church I used to attend. You would have thought that they were contagious for some dire disease. No one sat anywhere near them. Yet during the sermon, they were introduced as a couple that had a Christian ministry to the biker community. Suddenly they were one of "us" and the post-service greetings and handshakes were a drastic difference from the cold shoulder they got when they showed up. I talked to them. They said that was normal for them.

Look at the Mormons, for example. If I, as a traditional Protestant (raised Baptist) went to one of their meetings, I'd be met with a friendly welcome and offers to answer any of my questions and so forth. I would be befriended and invited back. I know this because I've been there. Yet if I was able to get a Mormon "elder" on his bike to come with me to the average Baptist church, I somehow doubt that he'd have the same welcome and have any desire to come back. He would be shunned and I'd be as well for daring to invite "one of them" to one of "our" services. Somehow we have gotten into the mindset that our Sunday morning service should treat those different from our own the same way Christ treated the money-changers in the temple.
D.

[Apolojedi (Daniel Eaton)]

Friend of Aslan said:

People are naturally reticent to extend a hearty welcome to anyone outside their "tribe" and unless they learn how to overcome this reticence, the problems you describe will continue. But that's a separate issue from "how" the Gospel should be preached to the believer as opposed to the "seeker." I just don't see the need for any modifications.

I don't see it as a contrast between how the Gospel is preached to the believer versus how it is preached to the "seeker". I see it as a contrast between preaching the gospel to the "seeker" versus some "meaty" doctrinal exposition for the intellectual edification of the "mature". The "mature" can have their "meaty" sermons and uplifting worship and sacraments and everything else some time when the "seeker" isn't there. Most churches have activities several times a week. The "mature" guy wants them all about him every single time. I'm suggesting that the hour most visited by visitors be about reaching the visitors with what *they* need to hear as opposed to part 8 of a sermon series on some deep theological topic that they are not going to understand. D.

[H]

I am just saying that it isn't necessary to choose; the weighty matters of doctrine/theology (rarely tackled from the pulpit, or anywhere else, in my experience) ARE a part of the proclamation of the Gospel and I think most people, especially those visiting for the first time, are astute enough to realize they are in a new environment and that there may be many practices, ideas, etc., with which they are not familiar and that they may have to dig deeper, or ask questions, or start at the beginning in order to catch up. If they really want to know more, and the congregation makes them feel that it is OK to explore, they will make the effort.

Should the church encourage questions and an open environment in which to discover God? Absolutely! It is one of the biggest bones I have to pick with the church (and her leadership) that it so often shuts people down.

However...

In any congregation, on any given day, there are people at various stages in their journey; some are unbelievers, some are babes, some are mature and some aren't walking with God at all, though they pretend to do so. It isn't possible to tailor the Gospel to "meet the needs" of every individual sitting in the pews.

The Gospel, without any meddling from us, will meet their primary need, and the church, if she is behaving as she should, will be obedient to Christ to meet less critical needs.

Peace.



Apolojedi (Daniel Eaton) said:

Friend of Aslan said:

People are naturally reticent to extend a hearty welcome to anyone outside their "tribe" and unless they learn how to overcome this reticence, the problems you describe will continue. But that's a separate issue from "how" the Gospel should be preached to the believer as opposed to the "seeker." I just don't see the need for any modifications.

I don't see it as a contrast between how the Gospel is preached to the believer versus how it is preached to the "seeker". I see it as a contrast between preaching the gospel to the "seeker" versus some "meaty" doctrinal exposition for the intellectual edification of the "mature". The "mature" can have their "meaty" sermons and uplifting worship and sacraments and everything else some time when the "seeker" isn't there. Most churches have activities several times a week. The "mature" guy wants them all about him every single time. I'm suggesting that the hour most visited by visitors be about reaching the visitors with what *they* need to hear as opposed to part 8 of a sermon series on some deep theological topic that they are not going to understand. D.

[Crazyupstart]

Let me clear up a few (more) things on my plate:

I have always thought that a sermon should be meaty and expository of the word. We don't have children's church at my church. We have a 2 hour service with all the children sitting in the whole thing. We strongly agree that everyone who participates in there may be able to glean what they will and grow without watering down the sermons. I have always thought that the sermon should contain the Gospel. We believers still need the Gospel just as much as any other person.

I am not advocating changing your service (however you do it at your church) IN ANY WAY except for the time of day. Nor am I saying that we shouldn't preach the Gospel and some life/practical teaching to the unbelieving guest during the "special service." What I am saying is that maybe we should add a service to our normal routine. The difference in this service will be that it's NOT a time of "God's condescension" to meet with us, so much as it is a street corner ministry. But instead of going out to a street corner and offering passer's by a free donut and some coffee and a tract to take with them, we allow the street corner outreach to be held INSIDE *gasp* the church building because that's where the unbelievers are showing up around 11AM or so on Sundays. This "other" service is a total time for preaching the gospel and getting to know the visitors personally.


I'm not advocating a "comfortable" service as much as I am a welcoming one. But we must remember that we are dealing in Generation X terms and donuts and coffee, up to date music, etc. send a good message. NO I'm not saying that this method will be an across the board smashing success for every church. It depends on your visitor demographic. But this whole issue is simply asking "why do churches have such a hard time giving up there own traditions for the sake of ministry?" IF the church has a demographic of people like this visiting and attending from time to time, why such a refusal to change.

Does the preaching of the Word and the Gospel weaken or go away if your church does this? NO! It only moves to Sunday nights.

Please don't change anything your "regular service" does. Include it all, every bit of what you normally do. Just do it at 6PM. Use 11AM as a time of preaching the gospel to the lost. Convict them of their sin. Just do it in a way that won't send them packing out the door by your stares of condemnation of their sin.

As Daniel asked, is there any good reason that a "main service" can't be held at 6PM instead of in the morning?


Will God's judgment and wrath fall hard on a church for sinning thus? I can just see God in heaven saying "How dare you move your service away from Sunday mornings!!! This is my ordained time for meeting with you and I will do it at no other. And what?!? Just to accommodate a local ministry? For the sake of my Gospel being preached to unbelieving visitors? To hell with you all!"