The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Calvinism & the Seeker Sensitive Movement

On a recent thread we talked about how Calvinism and the Seeker Sensitive movement are diametrically opposed to each other. I agree with that whole heartedly and although I have a handle on this for myself. I haven't got a handle on how best to portray it to others. For that reason and because I come into contact with those who don’t see this truth, I am thinking of writing an article to either give to others, or as a resource to help me when I feel a need to discuss the issue.
I am looking for specifics on how the seeker model contradicts TULIP. Particularly using things in the seeker model and putting them along side of the applicable TULIP doctrines, so the differences can be clearly seen by all who read it.

At present, my thoughts are a little too jumbled to do that.

Tom

I contradicts Scripture: Rom 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is <span style="background-color:#FFFF00">none that seeketh </span>after God.

Seeker Sensitive, Purpose Driven Churches

Tom,

It's wonderful you are thinking of writing an article! I'll want to see it, as will many others here.

I think that this question was actually asked over on the Discussing Reformation Board, so a few people may be stratching their heads <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" />

I can think of how the seeker-sentive movement would contradict Total Depravity. The seeker-sensitive movement waters down sin. Thus, the whole Gospel is not preached, and man is not going to abhor his sin. The movement also says that the unregenerate can seek after God and desire God. This is in opposition to the words of Scripture, for none seek after God, unless the Lord places within them a heart of flesh to replace their heart of stone! And the seeker-sensitive churches end up, in Spurgeon's words, for the most part "amusing goats" rather than "feeding sheep."

I was also thinking about how Irresistable Grace could tie into this. Once God regenerates a person's heart, that person, being one of the elect, will indeed come to Christ. So, if God regenerates a person's heart, and He usues the preaching and expositing of the Word to make us aware of our sinful state and of our need for a Savior, then why do we think we need to invent human improvements to God's means of saving sinners?

Wow! Thanks for the link Joe.

Tom

SemperReformanda

I wonder if I might play a little devil advocate, in order to flesh out some of what you said. (Others are certainly welcome to add their comments as well)

You said:
"I can think of how the seeker-sentive movement would contradict Total Depravity. The seeker-sensitive movement waters down sin. Thus, the whole Gospel is not preached, and man is not going to abhor his sin. The movement also says that the unregenerate can seek after God and desire God. This is in opposition to the words of Scripture, for none seek after God, unless the Lord places within them a heart of flesh to replace their heart of stone! And the seeker-sensitive churches end up, in Spurgeon's words, for the most part "amusing goats" rather than "feeding sheep."

(Please note that the following arguments are similar to those I have heard)
As you may or may not be aware, according to Bill Hybel's the seeker model can be adapted to fit into the theology of almost any denomination.
That being the case, if a conscious effort is made to make certain sin is not being "watered down" and the whole Gospel is preached, then that need not be a problem.
What is important is to keep the offence of the Gospel intact. If it is the Gospel that offends then so be it, but if it is us that does the offending, then shame on us.

Also, while it is true that no one seeks after God without first being regenerated by God. That does not mean however, that we can't use a vehicle to get people through the doors of the Church.
Surely you also know that there are many people who enter on any given Sunday today, who are just curious as to what is going on in side. I believe the Seeker Model (I don’t care if what you want to call it) gives us a leg up in this matter over Churches that don’t have this.
(Please note, this may seem like an easy one to you and I after we have seen this truth, however like any truth, sometimes it is because we are looking in retrospect.
For example, I struggled understanding the doctrines of grace, and it was only after a lot of serious study and emotional pain that the light finally came on.
Now with enough of the puzzle complete to see the big picture, all that emotional pain seems kind of silly.)

I thought I would add something that I once heard Bill Hybel’s say.
Critiques of the seeker movement and Willow Creek in particular, say that the average attendee in Willow Creek is illiterate when it comes to theological truth. However, I would put the Bible knowledge of the average attendee at Willow Creek against any Church in America today. If there is one thing we do well at Willow Creek, it is that we pride ourselves on making sure as best as possible, that every attendee is connected and schooled in the Bible.

By the way, I have not set a time table on the article, at this time I am just gathering material that I think may be of use in it.

Tom

This is a perfect example of someone (view) that totally ignores the biblical record and opts for pragmatic methodology which totally contradicts the teaching of the Bible. The "vehicle" has been ordained by God, for no man in his natural state seeks after God. Thus anything which man may dream up as an alleged "vehicle" is doomed to failure and even further harden the hearts of men. And what is this divine "vehicle"? It is the simple but whole Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Romans 1:16-17 (ASV) "For I am not ashamed of the gospel: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is revealed a righteousness of God from faith unto faith: as it is written, But the righteous shall live by faith." (see also: Lk 16:29-31; Rom 10:14-17; 1Cor 1:18-24; 2Thess 2:13, 14; Jam 1:18; 1Pet 1:23-25)

Secondly, the seeker-friendly model is antithetical to the true Gospel, which calls me to repentance; i.e., to forsake the world and to come out of the world. (Ps 1:1-3; Matt 10:35-39; Mk 10:28-30; Acts 2:40; 2Cor 6:17; Titus 2:11-15; 1Jh 2:15-17; Rev 18:4) The Church is to be a "light unto the world", not a purveyor of it. The Lord Jesus saves men from their sins; not in their sins. The seeker-friendly model diminishes and in some cases totally obliterates the distinction between the kingdom of God and the world.

In His Grace,

Tom,

If your looking for more material on this topic you may want to read Os Guiness' book, "DINING WITH THE DEVIL: The Megachurch Movement Flirts with Modernity." In it he points out that when all is said and done there's one question that needs to be asked.


This book indicts seeker-sensitive mega-churches for providing a secularized evangelicalism that prizes success and worldly acclaim over theology and biblical fidelity.


Wes

Howdy Tom! I have a copy of Building a Contagious Church, by Mark Mittelberg. It was required reading in my Evangelism and Church Growth class. It is entirely about seeker-sensitivity as the proper method of evangelism. I woud be happy to send it to you at my cost, if you are interested in what this movement has to say. Just let me know friend.


God bless,

william

Pilgrim

The quote was not from anyone specific, it was just based on some of the things I have heard by people who espouse the seeker friendly model. As is some of what you are about to read.

Please bare with me, I think you are on the vein I am looking for, but allow me to play a little more devil's advocate.

You said: "This is a perfect example of someone (view) that totally ignores the biblical record and opts for pragmatic methodology which totally contradicts the teaching of the Bible. The "vehicle" has been ordained by God, for no man in his natural state seeks after God. Thus anything which man may dream up as an alleged "vehicle" is doomed to failure and even further harden the hearts of men. And what is this divine "vehicle"? It is the simple but whole Gospel of Jesus Christ."

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...
These things of course are not the means of salvation of course. But as many Christians will attest, these things lead to them initially hearing the Gospel.
Yes it is true many could very be false believers who are deceiving themselves or others, but there are both wheat and tares in every Church today. Besides, if what is being preached over the pulpit is the pure unadulterated word of God, this shouldn’t be as much a problem.

You said: "Secondly, the seeker-friendly model is antithetical to the true Gospel, which calls me to repentance; i.e., to forsake the world and to come out of the world."

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?

Please note; before the light went on a few years back on this matter, I didn't see what all the big fuss was about.
But as I said, now I feel a need to have a good solid understanding in order to talk about it with those who may not understand all the issues involved.
If anything, I will at least gain a better understanding of the whole matter.

Tom

William

Thanks for the offer of the book, however at this time I don't really want to read it.
I also know a few people in the city where I live, who probably have the book and if I asked they probably would gladly allow me to read it.

However, since you have read it, do you remember something in the book that you believe contradicts Calvinism?

Tom

Wes

That sounds like a good book. It almost sounds a little like John MacArthur's book called 'Ashamed of the Gospel' 'When the Church Becomes Like the World'.

Tom

I understand, and it is a few hundred pages. If it hadn't been required reading, I would not have read it myself. Let me brush through it real quick and my notes from class before I answer to make sure I represent it correctly.


God bless,

william

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. )

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,

Pilgrim

It's hard playing devil's advocate.

Devil's advocate: Now you seem to be going into the Regulative form of worship vs. the Normative form of worship.
That is a debate that many Calvinists disagree about and I don't want to open a can of worms going there...

It also seems to me that you have missed my point about mentioning "success". If it is just numbers that a Church is after, then you would be correct they "are doomed to failure" when it comes to making disciples. What I meant by that is not necessarily the numbers themselves, but the actual disciples themselves. I believe follow up is very crucial if we want to be successful in making disciples.
However, before that can be done there has to be people who are there to disciple. The seeker model just happens to provide that.

I also want to say I see nothing wrong with the seeker model in and of itself that the Lord abhors. Why? I don't see in the Word of God where it gives specific instruction on how we are to evangelize.
I don't think we are cloaking the Gospel to make it palatable to anyone. By providing an avenue such as a debate on the issues, or music, all they do is get people through the doors. I don't see any "white lies" there.

You are correct however that it is God's revelation that the Holy Spirit works in conjunction with the Word of God that makes true converts. But again, I believe we do that.

Tom: Pilgrim I hope I have accurately represented how someone who espouses the seeker model would answer your objections. It truly is hard doing that from a side that I don't hold to. In fact it is the first time I have tried to do so.

Tom

I have already addressed this issue in my first reply where I hit on the "vehicle" which the Lord demands we use to call people to Christ is the Gospel preached/taught and not some man-made pragmatic methodology which uses the world's "fads" and/or philosophy. God calls sinners to repentance and faith when the true Gospel is set forth. There is nothing in all of Scripture which advocates an ancillary method to the Gospel nor a total abrogation of it which would purport to "attract" sinners. To do so is plainly deceitful and contrary to the way in which Christians are to conduct themselves.

I can also tell you from personal experience that people become resentful and even angry when they realize that the thing which attracted them initially, be it pop music, drama, a movie, etc., was only a ruse to bring them in to hear a religious presentation, whatever form it may take. Truly, they feel that they have been "conned". Secondly, in 99.99% of the cases, the alleged "gospel" which accompanies the "entertainment" used to attract people is a "another gospel" and contrary to the biblical Gospel, to one degree or another. Whatever "converts" these other gospels produce, they are rarely, if ever, genuinely converted because regeneration has not taken place. The Holy Spirit cannot be presumed upon to work with a false gospel which He did not record in His Word.

More often than not, people are given to quoting Matthew 28:19, 20 to justify their message and methods of evangelism. However, this passage focuses primarily on the telos of evangelism and not its individual aspects. We should look at the entire Scripture to gain a proper understanding of evangelism, e.g., Mark recorded these words which speak of the specific aspect of bringing sinners to Christ:

Mark 16:15-16 (ASV) "And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned."

Discipleship necessitates that conversion has occurred. And conversion necessitates that regeneration has occurred. Worldly methods will produce worldly results. Spiritual methods will produce spiritual results. Use worldly methods and you will produce religious worldlings; those who profess Christ yet who are still dead in their sins and under the judgment and wrath of God.

In His Grace,