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....

[H]

I have never advocated preaching anything BUT the Gospel, and I think I have made it clear that everyone should be made to feel welcome at ANY church gathering. I think a friendly and welcoming Body of believers who take a genuine interest in people is a great thing, so, no disagreement here.

Stares of condemnation? For THEIR sins? Brother, I have sins of my own to count! I'm a sinner! Do you think I can forget to whom I owe EVERYTHING?

So I'm not quite sure what your point is. If the Gospel should be proclaimed at 11 AM, what is the problem with everyone and anyone coming in to hear?

(And for the record, donuts don't offend me.)

Crazyupstart said:

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!"

[Crazyupstart]

When thinking of "stares of condemnation" I'm thinking more along the lines of the cold shoulder that Harley Biker's feel when they come to church wearing leathers and tattoos, the looks people give to a 16 yr old walking in with her baby. It may not be that we are purposefully convicting them of their sin so much as that they feel the weight of their sin in our looks and short greetings that don't go much further than "hello".

It is good that they feel conviction. That's the first step of salvation, knowing that you are a sinner. And it's a good reassurance of your own faith (feeling conviction). I would be really worried about the "Christian" who says they don't feel convicted of their sin. And for the record, I wouldn't ever want to see a church that makes people feel comfortable in their sin. That's why I said I think it's more of a matter of making them feel welcome rather than comfortable.

Now, everyone can work to make visitors feel more welcome without changing their order of service. But the point of the post (I think) is: why do we give "seeker friendly" churches such a hard time? Why not let them do their thing of drawing in the shallow hordes of population, giving them some gospel, and then helping them to grow in their newly found faith (and for that matter having check points to make sure it's a real faith). Why the bad wrap? People say, "because they are so superficial and nothing becomes of their faith." I say they are giving people a chance that other churches don't seem to be offering. The real key in all of this is followup in helping the new attendee make it into something real (which we all know is done by the work of the Holy Spirit).

The "seeker style" isn't for everyone or every church, but I think it can be used for some good in God's kingdom. And to quote Christ on the matter of someone ministering in a way that we don't really approve of: "For he who is not against us is for us." (Mark 9:38-40)

[Char]

If it was just you Daniel, everyone else would understand what I am saying. But they don't seem to. So it is not just you.

My statements are not at all contradictory. You assume by focus on the gospel proclaimed for sinners including unbelievers I must mean to focus on the unbeliever. I do not. Nor am I saying gospel=message to unbelievers. I mean to focus on God's descent to us in grace and mercy-this is what the gospel is.

Do away with the believer/unbeliever distinction and understand that gospel is the mercy God has given and is giving to sinners by his son, for which we praise God. Do we attend church because we want show God how good we are or because we need to receive from him his goodness? Assuredly the latter. This means it is ultimately about him.

As I have said, any time we give priority to unbelieving sinners we end up preaching law because that is what makes them comfortable. If instead the focus is on God coming to these poor miserable sinners and making us saints by his prescribed means, they will be made uncomfortable by it. It is disconcerting. Yet this is what they need. As I said previously both believer and unbeliever are sinners and as such need the same thing-but only the believer is aware of what it is.

When you preach a real gospel for real sinners, many unbelievers will say "I don't feel welcome-there is nothing here that I want" because they don't really want to be met by God. Christ makes them uncomfortable. It does nothing but elicit a response of go away Lord for I am a sinful man. Give him a law he can obey and he will be happy-but God wants to give us grace. This is why it is poison to centre the service around the unbeliever.

Of course a church is not to be intentionally unwelcoming, but at the core of it's being is something offensive to unbelievers; God the Son dying on a cross. You can't avoid offending them unless you remove the scandal of the cross. How caring is it to soothe and comfort them falsely when it is offense that is needed? Do we heal their wound slightly? But it is as deep as the sea. We can not say peace peace when there is no peace.

Also that you say the sacraments may be taken at another time shows you have incorrectly cut them off from the gospel. Do not cut off the means of grace from grace.

The precedent is simply the incarnation. This is the point of the church service; binding us to our Lord who descended to this earth and died on our behalf, bringing us back to that moment and to him. He is not capricious but has promised us he will be with his church and conform her to the likeness of the Son and to do it in certain ways that we can expect. I suppose one could start at Eph 4 if we want references, there's lots of good stuff in that book.

I have to say God's word is not like our word. It does not return void, but accomplishes his will. It is living and active. It isn't just a string of noises being thrown into space with nothing to meet it only to fade away. The word is what created and it is what re-creates. We need that word proclaimed to us from outside. This is what is done at church in the sermon, in the sacraments. I hate like hell to say this but I think the church has surrendered to modernist anti-supernaturalism here. We don't think the proclamation of God's word has any real transformative power in it's proclamation.

You use the hospitality of the Mormons as an example and yes it is good to be hospitable, but Mormons do that because it's all they have to offer. We have so much more. That is the gospel-the word proclaimed.

[H]

Char wrote: Of course a church is not to be intentionally unwelcoming, but at the core of it's being is something offensive to unbelievers; God the Son dying on a cross. You can't avoid offending them unless you remove the scandal of the cross. How caring is it to soothe and comfort them falsely when it is offense that is needed? Do we heal their wound slightly? But it is as deep as the sea. We can not say peace peace when there is no peace.

And I competely agree. I don't care if sinners are comfortable. I think we as a Body can be welcoming (friendly, taking an interest in people), but that has nothing to do with how the message of the Gospel is preached. It should be preached with power and unapologetically, fully and deeply, because, as I have pointed out, the PRIMARY need of believer and unbeliever alike IS the Gospel.

[Apolojedi (Daniel Eaton)]

Crazyupstart said:

When thinking of "stares of condemnation" I'm thinking more along the lines of the cold shoulder that Harley Biker's feel when they come to church wearing leathers and tattoos, the looks people give to a 16 yr old walking in with her baby. It may not be that we are purposefully convicting them of their sin so much as that they feel the weight of their sin in our looks and short greetings that don't go much further than "hello".

Condemnation from the rest of us sinners is not what we are called to do. It is that very thing that causes the church to have a reputation of nothing but hypocrites. Christ himself is the only one worthy to have that attitude and He specifically said that He didn't come to do that. D.

[H]

Daniel,

Agree. The Holy Spirit doesn't need our help to convict sinners of their lost state.

Peace.


Apolojedi (Daniel Eaton) said:

Crazyupstart said:

When thinking of "stares of condemnation" I'm thinking more along the lines of the cold shoulder that Harley Biker's feel when they come to church wearing leathers and tattoos, the looks people give to a 16 yr old walking in with her baby. It may not be that we are purposefully convicting them of their sin so much as that they feel the weight of their sin in our looks and short greetings that don't go much further than "hello".

Condemnation from the rest of us sinners is not what we are called to do. It is that very thing that causes the church to have a reputation of nothing but hypocrites. Christ himself is the only one worthy to have that attitude and He specifically said that He didn't come to do that. D.

[Char]

Crazyupstart, I don't even know where to begin with those comments. Let's not have God at a service? Are you serious? Honestly what would be the point of that? Since the gospel is all about God's condescension, you certainly would not have the gospel there so I don't know what the "ministry" would consist of. I admit it would likely make unbelievers feel welcome if God was not there.

Nor am I saying that we shouldn't preach the Gospel and some life/practical teaching to the unbelieving guest during the "special service."

Ah here it is. Another word for "life/practical teaching" is LAW. So I guess that's what the ministry would be. This is exactly what I have been saying.

Why must we have two services when the same thing is needed by all present in every "demographic"? The whole idea is silly. Why are we so intent on splitting people off from one another like this and splitting the church from it's very life? Christianity is a relational religion. Why can't we just serve unbelievers as our neighbour? Why not just love them and share God's grace with them? Why the ploys? Music and doughnuts are all we can offer anyone? People are not stupid. They can see right through this, believer and unbeliever alike.

It is a false assumption to say people will not change tradition for the sake of ministry. I do not see ministry in your suggestions at all and I have yet to be given good reasons for these assertions. As such I would not adopt them over a more robust grace filled service.

Holly, I have said the same thing. Repeatedly.

[Rey Reynoso]

I've read every comment and now I can officially say I don't know what anyone is talking about. Some people seem to be talking about the way churches do church. Others seem to be saying the way is wrong. Others are talking on a transcending level.

I've seen the use of the word Gospel to mean "The message of Christ coming down to die on a cross" and then the use of the word Gospel to mean "the righteousness of God devoid of Law" and then "the righteousness of God that was pointed to by the Law but came apart from Law."

What should be preached Sunday morning is said by some "The Gospel" then its drawn around believers.

I don't get any of it anymore. I now sit at all of your feet and wait for clarity.

[Apolojedi (Daniel Eaton)]

I'm beginning to think that many of the comments may be from members that never read or have forgotten the original blog piece that this is supposed to be discussing. In that piece, I specifically attempted to divorce the "seeker-friendly methodology" from the message itself - "gospel" or otherwise.
D.

[H]

My point (borrowing a bit from Char) is that the Gospel message, the scandal of the cross, the foolishness of Christ crucified, the stumbling block that there is no other way should NOT be removed from our gatherings in order to make the "seeker" feel comfortable. I am all for the "seeker" feeling welcome, but welcoming an unbeliever and preaching in such a way as to allow the unbeliever to feel comfortable in his/her lost state are two different things.

Maybe I AM missing the point, though - so if I am, I humbly ask for enlightenment.

Weighty matters of theology/doctrine, as well as certain practices (Lord's Supper, etc.) have, I believe, a place in our gatherings, though unbelievers may be present - and most newbies will understand that they are in an environment that is utterly new to them and will either ask questions (which the church should encourage) or process the information in their own way. Some might sense the conviction of God upon their hearts and respond - others may try to run away. How God chooses to work in the hearts of the hearers is up to him, but I think it dangerous to expose unbelievers to a spineless Gospel for the sake of their level of comfort.

The Gospel is needed by both the believer and the unbeliever, but for different reasons.

This is what I have been getting out of the discussion and is JMHO, by the way. I am not saying that anyone is saying one thing or another (I come in peace). The term "seeker friendly church," is, let's face it, heavily loaded, and we are each bringing to the conversation our own understanding and bias regarding that term.

Don't know if that helps, Rey. If I am only muddying the waters further I'll hang out on the bank for awhile.

Peace.



Rey Reynoso said:

I've read every comment and now I can officially say I don't know what anyone is talking about. Some people seem to be talking about the way churches do church. Others seem to be saying the way is wrong. Others are talking on a transcending level.

I've seen the use of the word Gospel to mean "The message of Christ coming down to die on a cross" and then the use of the word Gospel to mean "the righteousness of God devoid of Law" and then "the righteousness of God that was pointed to by the Law but came apart from Law."

What should be preached Sunday morning is said by some "The Gospel" then its drawn around believers.

I don't get any of it anymore. I now sit at all of your feet and wait for clarity.

[Apolojedi (Daniel Eaton)]

I think when a "seeker-friendly" church makes the seeker comfortable in their sin or doesn't mention repentance, they've gone too far. And I've heard about "removing the scandal/offense of the cross" as going too far. But there are ways to do that without being over-the-top with it. No one needs to see Gibson's Passion movie in order to be saved. While the cross was offensive and horrible and hell is real and horrible, people don't need to be making decisions based on fear or other emotion. Those decisions are just as hollow as most of the ones made after emotionally uplifting Christian concerts. I talk about this a bit in my latest blog, but I think that a hellfire and damnation message that pounds a sinner over the head with their guilt and sin and all the things they've done wrong and need to now do do remedy that puts the wrong focus on things.
D.

[Char]

My comments have all been to challenge the assumptions that people refuse to change their service out of selfishness or immaturity, and that it's a good idea to focus a service on unbelievers in order to get them "saved". I have given what I feel are legitimate reasons (place numerous pages worth of pentecostal tongue speaking here) people have for rejecting this model and the assumptions. Perhaps if I throw them out one last time they will make sense. They are;

-We want the focus to be on the work of God, because he is doing real gospel work in the service. That is meeting us in grace. The service is his service. The church is not necessarily the only place he does this, but it is in the gathering, in the word proclaimed and sacraments administered that he has promised to do so. We trust his promises and know he can draw unbelievers to himself by these means. Still, he remains the focus and we receive with the empty hand of faith what he gives.

-Believers and unbelievers are sinners and both need God's grace. When I say "us" and "we" here I mean sinners. To equate the gospel with unbelievers only splits them off from believers and it splits believers from the gospel, which they still need. Believers receive no spiritual nourishment in this case and are left to die, instead of all sinners being cared for by the prescribed means.

-Unbelievers think they want law because it is written on their hearts, but believers know it can not save them. However if we want them to feel comfortable we must give them the version of it that they want and remove the offense of the cross. We can be as nice as pie, and unbelievers will still be repelled by the message of the cross. It is wrong to assume it is necessarily methodology that is scaring them off and it is not kind to cater to them, for them or anyone else.

-It does not follow that unbelievers will remain unreached unless we change our method of conducting services. We reach them by living among them and loving them and sharing the gospel with them. If they come to church as a seeker, we are to give them what they need (and I would add not demean them by assuming they are stupid shallow people). If indeed we can meet God anywhere, we can meet the unbeliever anywhere.

Which of any of these concerns have anything to do with selfishness or immaturity? Which exclude people out of meanness?

No one drew the gospel around believers, it has been drawn around unbelievers on the one hand and God on the other. There have been basically two positions; gospel=message to get unbelievers saved, and gospel=God giving grace to sinners through his son. Myself, Holly and Harry have all said this proclamation is for all sinners.

Also

I've seen the use of the word Gospel to mean "The message of Christ coming down to die on a cross" and then the use of the word Gospel to mean "the righteousness of God devoid of Law" and then "the righteousness of God that was pointed to by the Law but came apart from Law."

Doesn't it all have to do with God's grace in coming down to us and redeeming our lives?

so many are the Saviour's achievements that follow from His Incarnation, that to try to number them is like gazing at the open sea and trying to count the waves.-Athanasius