Tom continues:
Devil’s advocate: Doomed to failure? Haven't you read about the great success stories of Churches who use the seeker friendly model? I personally know many who were introduced to the Gospel through things like music, debates etc...
This serves only to give credence to my criticism that pragmatic methodology rejects God's preordained "vehicle", the preaching/teaching of the Gospel for the worldly philosophy of Madison Avenue advertising and Hollywood entertainment. The very fact that you asked about "success" reveals much about where this type of thinking originates. The Bible is never concerned with "numbers" as the goal of evangelism but rather with seeing men truly reconciled to God. It is "quality" and not "quantity" which men should concern themselves, for the Lord desires those who will worship Him in "spirit and truth". It is God's revelation that the Holy Spirit works in conjunction with the Word of God, not man-made methods, especially those which the Lord abhors.
And just for a point of record, Billy Graham has admitted that in his estimation, only approximately
[4% who come forward and "receive Jesus into their hearts" at his Crusades are actually saved. And given the wanting theology of Billy Graham, it wouldn't be too unrealistic to say that 90% of his "4%" are in all probability spurious conversions too. (I may be too conservative in using that 90% figure.

)
And again Tom speaks and says:
Devil’s advocate: I can agree with most of what is said here, after all who can argue that we are called to repentance; i.e., to forsake the world and to come out of the world."
However, you haven't said anything specific on what makes the seeker-friendly model antithetical to the true Gospel. I could understand if a seeker friendly Church was using immoral acts to attract people. This isn’t to say that isn’t happening in some cases, but is it wise to paint all seeker-friendly Churches with the same brush?
Let me ask you, Mr. D. Advocate, what other type of brush would you suggest be used to paint sin? Are we to embrace the RCC "venial/mortal sin" distinction? Or perhaps the world's philosophy and simply "wink" at sin by using such distinctions as "little white lies" which are fine, since everybody does it and they really don't harm anyone?
When you refer to "immoral acts", are you referring to things which YOU have determined to be immoral rather than what God considers immoral, which is ALL that contradicts and/or fails to conform to His law and will? Again, worldly philosophy is dictating not only the seeker-friendly movement but the very thinking of those who are espousing/supporting it. There is nothing in this world which is "amoral"; everything is either acceptable to God or rejected of God, i.e., sin, aka: immoral. If the Lord Christ drove the "money changers" out of the Temple for profaning the house of the God, how much more should those who have brought it the sinfulness of the world's music, plays, dress, speech, fads, etc., into the Church be cast out. False "prophets" of all types are to be rejected and thrown out of the church, not made "worship leaders" or especially "pastors". The Gospel is not about deceit. Likewise we are not to cloak the Gospel in worldly dress and/or reduce it down to where it is unrecognizable, but because it is more "palatable, attractive, successful" in men's estimation. Prostituting Christ is
IMMORAL!! And those who do such things will surely suffer greatly for doing so at the hands of God.
In His Grace,