|
Maybe it’s just me but does it seem as if many are saying that no one
has been “sensitive” to “seekers” until the end of the twentieth
century? One gets the feeling from such writers that until recently most
Christian evangelism was overly aggressive, mean-spirited, and did
everything possible to turn sinners off to the gospel. But now, thanks
to contemporary cultural relevancy, the world can finally be won because
now we can understand and truly reach out to the sinner.
And
if that is not the case, then at least it must be true that although
Moody, Spurgeon, Finney, Whitfield and others did evangelism differently
in their own day, they too would surely make the change to
“seeker-sensitive” evangelism if they were alive today. Why, you ask?
Because although 90% of what they wrote and practiced seems to be to the
contrary, surely such innovative thinkers of those days would agree with
what seems to be successful in our day.
The
problem is only partly one of semantics. As I hinted above, this isn’t
the first generation of believers to be sensitive to those seeking
Christ. In fact, having grown up in fundamental Baptist churches, few
ministers today may have the passion for souls that those old
fundamental preachers had. It seems to me that in order to convince us
that today’s seeker-sensitive churches are better, much effort has to be
taken to discredit those evangelistic churches of the past as being
legalistic, numbers-oriented, controlling and otherwise insincere.
In
defending Willow Creek’s seeker-sensitive approach, G.A. Pritchard
begins by telling us that now Christians no longer “have to be rude or
obnoxious in sharing their faith.”1 Ed Dobson, in defending
his seeker approach begins by telling us that “to reach the
nonevangelical generation of our day, we must break out of our
tradition-bound isolation and relate the gospel to people where they
are.”2 One Focus on the Family book on evangelism begins by
saying, “Many Christians of our generation were taught mechanical,
aggressive (some would say intrusive) methods of evangelism that
produced minimal results.”3 (See also Ernest Pickering’s
answer to Chuck Swindoll in The Book
Shelf.) These unkind (and mostly untrue) remarks are all too
typical in seeker-sensitive material but they succeed in getting the
younger reader to identify with them in their quest for change.
The
semantic problem arises in the use of the terms “seeker” and
“sensitive.” Though it is true that older Fundamentalists were also
seeker-sensitive, the “seeker” of today’s seeker-sensitive movement may
or may not be a “seeker” of the gospel at all. The “sensitive” nature
of contemporary churches may or may not be truly “sensitive” to sinners
at all. Any church of any age could “attract” lost people if they
wanted to, but the question has always been what is proper for a church
to do! To be “relevant” (for the Christian) has never meant what has
“worked” but rather what is right to do at that particular time.
What did Paul mean when he wrote that “there is none that seeketh after
God” (Rom. 3:11)? What did Jesus mean when He said, “No man can come to
me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him” (John 6:44)? I don’t
have to believe in irresistible grace to understand that a sinner does
not desire nor seek the things of God, and that the sinner must be drawn
to Him by the Holy Spirit and the Word, and that the Holy Spirit is very
particular in the way He works.
I
think that the seeker-sensitive movement has wrongly characterized past
evangelism as consisting mostly of offensive, in-your-face type of
people. This just isn’t true though the young people today have no way
of verifying it. Of course there were exceptions as there are in any
age in any movement. Many large churches of the past fifty years were
too pragmatic for my conscience as well. There is no doubt that many
large churches of the past fifty years used methodologies designed only
for nickels and noses. The critical difference, in my opinion, is that
the moral nature of methodologies has changed drastically in fifty
years. Giving bus kids candy just does not compare to turning the whole
church into a musical rock concert designed to imitate the world so that
they will come to church. You might say both were “seeker-sensitive”
but the nature as well as the results of those methods have been
noticeably different.
The Seeker-Sensitive
Model
Here are what I might call six “marks” or “characteristics” of most
contemporary churches. In this issue I will give these from the
“seeker-sensitive” model, and then in the next issue I will give these
from what I call the “sinner-sensitive” model.
1. It starts with assimilation
In
today’s seeker-sensitive model the sinner is slowly assimilated into the
fellowship and services of the church and the church is readily
assimilated into the culture of the world. Paul is not being a prude
when he says, Come out from among them,
and be ye separate (2 Cor. 6:17). Pritchard says that “Hybels
identifies with [unchurched] Harry by adopting his language, clothing,
customs, and lifestyle. Whenever it is possible, Hybels underlines that
he is similar to the unchurched Harry who has just walked in the door.”4
This should sound odd to anyone reading his Bible on a regular basis.
This is not just being neighborly, or adjusting your clothing for some
event, but rather changing your whole life-style to make the sinner feel
good. It also keeps the Christian from feeling out of place in the
world.
2. It is designed for the
sinner
Assimilation leads quickly to a new design for the church altogether.
It is now more comfortable for the sinner than for the saint. Almost
everything, especially the Sunday services, is planned with the sinner’s
tastes and thought processes in mind. Emerging church leader Brian
McLaren admits that making this change is dictated by the church’s
“mission” (read: subjective vision), “So, the new church will be
relativistic about its program. It will expect change.”5
Paul says the church is the pillar and
ground of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15).
3. It is drawn by methodology
The
sinner is now being drawn into the church and supposedly to Christ
almost entirely by the new methodologies being employed for his sake.
No longer is the sinner expected to be uncomfortable or feel out of
place. Though I’m sure seeker-sensitive proponents would disagree, but
at this point it becomes less and less of a possibility that the sinner
is being drawn by the Holy Spirit. Conviction has been greatly
minimized and the spiritual has been cleverly disguised.
George Barna calls this “marketing” a “viable component of ministry.”6
Dobson says this search for methodology led him to “informal,
contemporary (nontraditional), no pressure for involvement or
commitment, relevant to these people’s needs, casual, ‘laid-back’
format, visually appealing.”7 Pritchard says, “Although
Creekers avoid the word entertainment
they are seeking to creatively provide an interesting, agreeable, and
amusing experience to unchurched Harry.”8 This is, or comes
dangerously close to corrupting (lit.
“hawking”) the word of God (2 Cor. 2:17).
4. It continually seeks
acceptance
It
is hoped that the sinner, by the use of agreeable church services, will
agree with and accept the church’s new disposition. At the same time
the church has learned to “accept” the sinner. But more than just
accepting the fact that he is a sinner, and that therefore he can’t and
won’t act as a believer, the church is learning to accept the sinner’s
life-style as the norm. After all, it has done everything it can to
present itself as being very much like the sinner in all outward ways,
it is no wonder that the church begins to live in every way like the
sinner. Hybels is proud of the “thousands of churches and pastors who
have altered their music, programming, and preaching to be ‘seeker
friendly’ or ‘seeker sensitive.’”9 But Paul asked,
For do I now persuade men, or God? Or
do I seek to please men? For if I yet pleased men, I should not be the
servant of Christ (Gal. 1:10). We do better to persuade men and
please God.
5. It aims toward friendship
and love
These are good things in and of themselves and things that the Bible
teaches. But they can be used wrongly as an end in themselves. An
indulgent parent, for example, may spoil and ruin a child because he/she
is seeking the child’s friendship and love at all costs. Paul had to
scold the Corinthian church for withholding discipline because they
loved the sinning man so much. Your
glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the
whole lump? (1 Cor. 5:6).
Churches may do the same and this is a difficult motive to discern. As
a pastor for over twenty years, examples would be easy to find where
church leaders and parents felt pressured (and often gave in) to push
for change in the church because their kids weren’t happy. The strain
on homes and churches can be great and even children can make life
miserable for parents if they are unhappy at church. Whole churches can
be held hostage by unhappy young people who grow weary of traditional
church life.
This misuse of a good thing can carry over into evangelism. We can be
so concerned that the sinner likes us and feels love from us that we
compromise our very convictions in order to please him. Ironically, as
with an indulgent parent, the acquiescence turns out to be anything but
friendship and love.
6. It ends in unchanged lives
I
am not seeking to be “judgmental” beyond what the Bible presents as the
fruits of our profession. We cannot avoid, however, evaluating our
philosophies and methodologies on the basis of the final product.
Across the board or blanket conclusions cannot be drawn about any
methodology. Human beings are free moral agents and can respond to God
favorably or not in almost any given situation. But observation and
common sense would suggest that where no change of life is displayed as
the goal, no change of life will be achieved.
In
society, cultural observers may call this “defining deviancy down” or
simply finding the lowest common denominator of social behavior. What
do we expect, when we have lowered the expectations and redefined the
behavior, if our young people rise no higher than the world around
them?A separated or changed young person would simply be out of place in
a seeker church. All the other young people have dutifully changed back
into the mode of the world. J.I. Packer’s observation is very
appropriate, “Reacting against yesterday's legalistic prohibitions
regarding tobacco, alcohol, reading matter, public entertainment, dress,
cosmetics, and the like, we have become licentious and self-indulgent,
unable to see that the summons to separation and cross-bearing has
anything to say to us at all.”10
And So . . .
It
has been my contention that the “seeker-sensitive” movement has lost its
way. In fact, it lost its way when it started in a wrong direction. It
is not doing what is best for the seeker and is therefore not sensitive
in a proper Christian sense to him. We are ambassadors, not salesmen.
The gospel is a sacred trust not a product to be sold to the highest
bidder.
In
next month’s part 2 article, I will contrast these six
“seeker-sensitive” points with six “sinner-sensitive points.
Notes:
1. G.A.
Pritchard, Willow Creek Seeker Services
(Grand Rapids: Baker Book, 1996) 24.
2. Ed
Dobson, Starting a Seeker Sensitive
Service (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993) 15.
3. William
Carr Peel & Walt Larimore, Going Public
With Your Faith (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003) 20.
4.
Pritchard, 123.
5. Brian
McLaren, The Church on the Other Side
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000) 43.
6. George
Barna, Church Marketing
(Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 1992) 14.
7.Dobson,
25.
8.
Pritchard, 99.
9.
Pritchard, 12.
10. J.I.
Packer, Truth and Power
(Wheaton: Harold Shaw Publishers, 1996) 145.
|
