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]

In that piece, I specifically attempted to divorce the "seeker-friendly methodology" from the message itself - "gospel" or otherwise.

And I said the method is part of the message. Remember way back there, the service is itself an act of grace? I don't think it is necessary to divorce message from methodology. This would cut the word from his means.

If a person is hit with their guilt and then told what they need to do to correct it, I agree it is wrong. However if a person is hit with their sin and guilt and then told what God has already done to correct it, this is proper law/gospel preaching.

[Rey Reynoso]

Char, I wouldn't be surprised if Daniel agreed with everything you said and you'll both still be on opposite sides of the court. The problem I'm having is that although you and Holly and someone else said basically the same thing it all seems to be from an ideological position without explaining to me what it looks like while Daniel seems to be talking about what it looks like Right Now and what's Wrong with it.

When you say God works in the Gospel via the word preached and the sacraments declaring God coming near in Grace and Mercy as opposed to Law (paraphrasing of course) what does that look like? Is it people sitting in a circle taking the sacraments in silence with Romans 3 being read aloud by a Choir? Is it preaching from the book of 1 Samuel and showing connections? Is it topical messages about sinfulness and God's mercy via the cross? Is it something we've never seen before?

Please help me to understand.

Embroider it for me so that I can feel and handle and examine what you're saying.

[H]

Spoken like an artist...totally get what you're saying, but will let Char answer for herself.

Rey Reynoso said:

Char, I wouldn't be surprised if Daniel agreed with everything you said and you'll both still be on opposite sides of the court. The problem I'm having is that although you and Holly and someone else said basically the same thing it all seems to be from an ideological position without explaining to me what it looks like while Daniel seems to be talking about what it looks like Right Now and what's Wrong with it.

When you say God works in the Gospel via the word preached and the sacraments declaring God coming near in Grace and Mercy as opposed to Law (paraphrasing of course) what does that look like? Is it people sitting in a circle taking the sacraments in silence with Romans 3 being read aloud by a Choir? Is it preaching from the book of 1 Samuel and showing connections? Is it topical messages about sinfulness and God's mercy via the cross? Is it something we've never seen before?

Please help me to understand.

Embroider it for me so that I can feel and handle and examine what you're saying.

[Crazyupstart]

Everyone, please don't get me wrong, I am not on the attack, I'm just trying to clarify one side of the argument. And in doing so, I just seem to be muddying the waters worse. Please forgive me for my "attitude" in previous posts if you thought it was too aggressive. My poor writing skills are killing me here.

It seems a few people took my statement about "stares of condemnation" 180 degrees the wrong way. I was responding to the post before it. I agree with you all on the response comments about it.

Can I ask everybody to step way out of the box of thinking in regards to Sunday Service?

I think the biggest misunderstanding here when everyone is talking about how to "do church" is that what I am proposing isn't necessarily "church" the way you think of it.

It is a ministry. Just like a street corner ministry. Just like a food line ministry. Just like a visiting an retirement home ministry.

I am arguing that it is not a time of "God's condescension," not to advocate taking God out of church (nor water down or change our service at all), but because I don't see a street corner ministry as a time when God is condescending to that street corner and gracing all who pass by and pick up a tract. I don't see each of these outreach ministries (digging a new well for a village in Africa) as a "church service."

Let me try and say it concisely: View a seeker friendly congregation, as a ministry not a church. Then you can let go of the purposes for and structure of how we "aught" to do church.

I do agree with almost all of what everyone is saying about church services.

Can we separate a church service, and a ministry? Does every ministry and outreach have to involve singing, praying, communion, preaching and meeting with God? Like Char said, I also think ministry should be relational in your every day life. Yet we should still go unto all the earth and preach the gospel. But while going and preaching, do we have to have all the liturgy correct as we stand on the dusty streets of Bhutan? Do we have to have all the liturgy correct as we stand in our own building talking to a group of people who have come there only to do their "religious thing" that week.

Do we have to preach a doctrinal sermon from Leviticus? I'm not advocating taking this time and watering down church. I'm just saying put it on the level it needs to be for people to understand. The life/practical messages I mentioned are real messages from the Word. Christ teaching of the heart, rules for engaging your faith etc. When you ask someone to come speak in a missionary context, they normally don't plan a sermon involving and advanced debate over baptism or the sabbath.

Probably muddying things worse. Hope you all have a blessed day.
Crazy

[James Gibbons]

Crazy, think about it this way. There are for major men in Genesis. In this order: Abraham built altars (worship), Isaak dug wells (study), Jacob built pillars (building the testimony to the world), and Joseph had dreams (active outreach and expansion). This does not mean that Isaak didn’t worship, or that Joseph didn’t study. But the point is two-fold:

• first, there is an order—worship, study (doctrine), building (fellowship), and visionary outreach. This is also reflected, by the way, in Acts 2:42.

• second, each person had certain gifts/abilities/tendencies—various folks are “given” to local churches, who have various “gifts”, Eph 4, I think. What God has for your group to do in the way of ministry, He has equipped you for. But no amount of equipping for service (ministry) relieves you of the first responsibility…worship. God Is First!

[Crazyupstart]

Agree 100 %.

But I'm not talking about a worship service.

The way I see (and try to justify in my own mind) seeker friendly churches 11:00 AM meeting, is that it's not a worship service. It's an outreach. Thus the "seeker friendly" part.

Their worship is done during another service either later/earlier on Sundays, or some other day of the week.

[Apolojedi (Daniel Eaton)]

Crazy: I like your designation of "outreach". That is basically it in my view. We need to "reach" them while they are there. Worship, private sacraments, in-depth "meaty" sermons, and so forth can happen in any of the other 165 hours in a week. To do "our stuff" while we could be reaching "them", it squanders and opportunity. I think the church is going to have to answer to that.
D.

[James Gibbons]

Daniel, I think you have it exactly backwards. We can, and should, be reaching them any and all of the 165 other hours in a week. But the Lord’s remembrance, on the Lord’s day, is the Lord’s.


Luke 10:39-42a “And she had a sister called Mary, which also sat at Jesus' feet, and heard his word. But Martha was cumbered about much serving, and came to him, and said, Lord, dost thou not care that my sister hath left me to serve alone? bid her therefore that she help me. And Jesus answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things: But one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part….”

[James Gibbons]

To do "our stuff" while we could be reaching "them".

Frankly, Daniel, to call remembering the Lord, as the Lord instructed, in His Word, “our stuff,” is terribly disrespectful of Him, whose “stuff” it is. It is not selfish to worship the Lord on the Lord’s day. It is correct. Any other notion is incorrect. I can see that there are many great thoughts on reaching the lost. But to reach the lost at the expense of the worship, which we OWE TO GOD, is to steal from Him.

Do your outreach instead of … I don’t know … having dinner two nights a week. Or instead of watching a football game. Or instead of an hour online. But don’t call His worship, “our stuff,” and declare it “squandering.”

[Apolojedi (Daniel Eaton)]

James Gibbons said:

Daniel, I think you have it exactly backwards. We can, and should, be reaching them any and all of the 165 other hours in a week. But the Lord’s remembrance, on the Lord’s day, is the Lord’s.

There are 23 other hours that day that typically DON'T have seekers in attendance. The whole idea that reaching the lost takes a back seat to communing with God is so foreign to me. Comes down to "obedience before sacrifice" in my way of thinking. We all love those sacraments and such, and we can do them at 9am or 2pm or 7:30pm or whatever. There is nothing Scriptural about the idea though that the "Lord's day" should be 24-hours of filling our needs and not reaching theirs. Worshiping Him cannot be divorced from OBEYING Him. We can't just obey the parts that we prefer. We can't take commands to worship or study or "do in remembrance of me" as all we need to do. When we have a choice, as most do, of three times of gathering on Sunday, having all three focus on us is just selfish. It isn't like forcing most Christians to focus one hour a week on outreach is some horrible thing. D.
D.

[James Gibbons]

Apolojedi (Daniel Eaton) said:

James Gibbons said:

Daniel, I think you have it exactly backwards. We can, and should, be reaching them any and all of the 165 other hours in a week. But the Lord’s remembrance, on the Lord’s day, is the Lord’s.

There are 23 other hours that day that typically DON'T have seekers in attendance. The whole idea that reaching the lost takes a back seat to communing with God is so foreign to me. Comes down to "obedience before sacrifice" in my way of thinking. We all love those sacraments and such, and we can do them at 9am or 2pm or 7:30pm or whatever. There is nothing Scriptural about the idea though that the "Lord's day" should be 24-hours of filling our needs and not reaching theirs. Worshiping Him cannot be divorced from OBEYING Him. We can't just obey the parts that we prefer. We can't take commands to worship or study or "do in remembrance of me" as all we need to do. When we have a choice, as most do, of three times of gathering on Sunday, having all three focus on us is just selfish. It isn't like forcing most Christians to focus one hour a week on outreach is some horrible thing. D.
D.

The idea that worshiping is “filling our needs” is foreign to me…and more than a little offensive.

If you have a big enough church corporation to have three services, in order to provide a convenient “worship experience,” you have bigger problems than outreach. I would agree with you that what you describe is selfish. It actually raises the question of who is serving whom at these “services.” But this comes back to the questions, what is the Church, and what is the Church for?

[Apolojedi (Daniel Eaton)]

James Gibbons said:

To do "our stuff" while we could be reaching "them".
Frankly, Daniel, to call remembering the Lord, as the Lord instructed, in His Word, “our stuff,” is terribly disrespectful of Him, whose “stuff” it is. It is not selfish to worship the Lord on the Lord’s day. It is correct.

I'm trying to make this real simple. Outreach on "the Lord's day" is not contrary to Scripture, it is what the Scripture tells us to do. When I am referring to "our stuff", it is a focus on what meets *our* needs, not those of the visiting seeker. We want to have our sacraments, our worship, and our "meaty" service at 11am. That is nothing more than tradition. There is nothing wrong with a focus on those things. God wants them. But that isn't ALL God wants. To be so legalistic about it that we say it has to happen at the sole hour when we are most likely to have visitors is no more than the Pharisees criticizing Christ for healing on the Sabbath. He met the needs of those that had them when they were available regardless of all the things that were legalistically supposed to happen or be avoided on the Sabbath. I prefer to follow His example over that of the Pharisees.

Any other notion is incorrect. I can see that there are many great thoughts on reaching the lost. But to reach the lost at the expense of the worship, which we OWE TO GOD, is to steal from Him.

But that isn't the case. No one has suggested that we not worship or "steal from God". We can worship all day long that day. Obeying Him by reaching others *IS* worship. Bringing new believers into the fold is what we are told causes the angels to rejoice. Doing that at 11am and having "christian only" worship in whatever style we prefer at other times that day or during the week is not forbidden by the idea that when those that need something *before* worship that we meet that need first. D.