# How much seeker-sensitive is too much seeker-sensitive?



## Paul1976 (Nov 16, 2015)

Hi All,

I have a rather complicated question I’d appreciate some advice on. In short, the church has moved increasingly in the seeker-sensitive direction. The pastor is rightly concerned about the lack of “follow-through” he sees in the congregation. His solution has been to preach “follow-through” almost exclusively. We’ve been studying one of the gospels for a year (with some other series thrown in). I hate to sound this harsh, but I don’t think I learned a single thing about what this gospel actually says. And I have plenty I know I could learn. We’ll get to a spot where Jesus was tempted, and we’ll talk about temptation for a few Sundays. We get to a part where Jesus was rejected, and we talk about rejection for a few Sundays. There is virtually no interaction with the text. I’m pretty sure the sermons are adapted from either a contemporary book on the subject, or a sermon series resembling one. It isn’t that any of the material presented is wrong, but the connection to the text is often loose or imaginary.

The direction the church is headed has certainly changed for the worse over the past few years. At the same time, I’ve been learning a ton from broadly reformed teachers, and one thing I’m increasingly seeing is how the American church broadly is falling for the error my church is. That said, there is a lot I really like about the church. There are some excellent believers there and my family has made good friendships through the church. I do believe the church leadership sincerely loves God and is committed to doing its best for the congregation. My pastor is right about the weak amount of “follow-through” (I believe he means sanctification), but I believe he is pursuing it incorrectly. My understanding is that sanctification should not be primarily by our efforts, and especially not through better principles to live not explicitly taught in scripture, but through a deeper knowledge of who God is, how He has revealed Himself in the person of Jesus Christ, and what he has done for us as revealed in the gospel. Removing solid Biblical teaching and replacing it with just Biblical principles may lead to some improvements in “follow-through” (Mormons are good at accomplishing this), but isn’t particularly helpful into pushing people into a deeper, transformative relationship with God.

Let me say the same thing another way for clarity. Romans 1-11 is perhaps the clearest and deepest presentation of the gospel in the Bible. Rom. 12-15 is our logical response to what God has done. Our church has moved into teaching “Rom. 12-15” material almost exclusively and barely touching “Rom. 1-11” material. Not only is this clearly imbalanced, I believe it has reached the point of being dangerously close to becoming a “moral improvement program.”

I recently shared this concern with the pastor by email, and he thought I brought up good points and seems to mostly agree with me. I’m meeting with him in several days and would appreciate some advice on the following questions:

1) Any ideas on how I can best convince him of the errors of this direction the church is broadly taking? I think you can see I understand the problem, but perhaps there are other directions that might be easier for someone in my pastor’s position to see.

2)	There is a great deal my pastor and I agree on. Really, I see the key difference as how to balance teaching doctrine vs. follow-through. How should I best present my concerns in a way that is most constructive to the body of Christ overall? I do not want to tear my pastor or church down, but do feel I should do what I can to offer a course correction.

3)	At what point do I leave the church? I take the clear calls for unity in the Bible very seriously. However, I’m reaching the conclusion that the teaching is sufficiently imbalanced I can no longer support a church where the gospel is this far from central.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Nov 16, 2015)

I am not totally sure the entire context, but it seems that you are being respectful. 

In all honesty, I'd suggest not trying to convince him of his errors but rather look for a faithful church that preaches the gospel, administers the sacraments correctly, and enacts true church discipline.


----------



## Captain Picard (Nov 17, 2015)

If the church leadership is truly committed to the language and methodology of "seeker-sensitive", I think the time to go is sooner rather than later. The Bible only presents one Seeker, and He finds all that the Father gives Him.

As Warfield said, it is worse than useless to follow a program of "whosever will", in a world of "universal won't".

Man-centered methodology leads to a man-centered gospel, which is systematically unbiblical. I would be in earnest prayer for your decisions going forward, and for church leadership, but the very phrase "seeker-sensitivity" bodes ill.


----------



## Jack K (Nov 17, 2015)

Issues of balanced teaching or what kind of preaching best encourages holiness can be hard to agree on. What helps one person toward holiness may not help another so much. What seems balanced to one may not work so well for another who's strongly predisposed toward legalism or license. And for that matter, even "seeker-sensitive" is subjective. One pastor may think that preaching just the Romans 1-11 sort of material draws seekers, while another thinks the Romans 12-16 material will do that.

So when you talk with your pastor, be sure to listen well. Hear about his struggles with pastoring others in the church and why he believes his new emphasis will help. You still may not agree, but it's important that you understand what pastoral need he's trying to fill. Even if his new emphasis is on the whole unwise, there may be elements of it that are sorely needed.

That said, it also may indeed be that he could use a reminder not to stray into teaching that lacks depth or ignores the saving work of Christ. If so, he will hear this better from you if he first knows that you understand the struggles that have led him where he is in the first place. That's another reason to listen well when you talk with him.


----------



## Paul1976 (Nov 17, 2015)

Thanks for the responses. A few more thoughts/additional information:

I really do believe my pastor genuinely wants to pastor to the best of his ability and lead in the way that's best for the congregation. I don't see him as a wolf in sheep's clothing, but a pastor perhaps a bit too in tune with the church growth movement (which is hard to ignore). I do believe he will sincerely listen and consider, which is why I'm thinking and praying about how to best express my concerns. I don't see a reason not to try. Such a conversation would likely be fruitless with an unbeliever like you might encounter in the more extreme ends of the prosperity gospel movement. I sincerely do not believe that's the case here. 

I don't think the church would be fully seeker sensitive. It's certainly not to the extent some are. But, it is moving in that direction. I didn't mean to say that it was seeker sensitive (the pastor doesn't consider it seeker sensitive), only that it is increasingly incorporating those elements. I'm also unsure myself at what point a church would be labeled seeker sensitive. I know many of the sermon series are adapted from packages put together by larger churches. I know one series came from Andy Stanley, and a recent one came from Rick Warren. To his credit, my pastor seems to have recognized that the Rick Warren one had some deficiencies.

Jack, I certainly agree that there isn't a right answer on how to balance "Rom. 1-11" with "Rom. 12-15*" and that different believers need different amounts of both. (*I left 16 off since it doesn’t fit neatly into the doctrine or application parts of Romans) I wouldn't make an issue if (say) I favored 2/3 and 1/3 and the pastor did the opposite. This is more like 10/90 or worse. From a brief email exchange (which set up the meeting I’m having soon), he’s pushing application more and more because he’s not seeing much “follow-through.” He seems to have a picture of Christians only concerned with doctrine but not having it impact their lives. It is a legitimate concern, but the imbalance of the sermons is causing larger problems (in my view) than what the pastor is correctly trying to avoid.

Legalism and license are both serious problems. I would suggest a third is “self-help” (for lack of a better word). With the more extreme forms of seeker sensitive teaching, individuals can go to church for good, solid, Biblical moral instruction combined with some good old-fashioned common sense. Add a few doses of good motivational sermons, they could turn their lives around sufficiently to see real improvements. John Piper calls this approach a “moral improvement program.” It can be quite effective (or not); just examine alcoholics anonymous or the LDS church. But it is not Christianity. I don’t think my church has gone as far in this direction as Joel Osteen’s, but it has moved in this direction to an unhealthy degree.

Hopefully this helps clarify my concerns.

Jack, I appreciate your wise advice on making sure to listen. You’re absolutely right about that. 

In my original post, I forgot to add another concern on my mind. While there are unquestionably serious problems with the direction the church is currently headed, I do believe the leadership is sincere overall. I don’t question anyone’s commitment to Christ in the leadership. One concern with leaving is that I would be no longer able to work towards setting the church in the right direction. Some churches are so far gone that sincere Christians wouldn’t be able to accomplish much to set anything right. I don’t think that’s the case in this church.


----------



## Edward (Nov 17, 2015)

Paul1976 said:


> but a pastor perhaps a bit too in tune with the church growth movement



Is the church growing? If so, is it sheep stealing/shuffling the deck in the community, or is it bringing in the unchurched?


----------



## Jack K (Nov 17, 2015)

Also remember that being sensitive to seekers is not a bad thing in itself; it only becomes a problem when it compromises more important things.

I do heartily agree that "moral improvement program" teaching and preaching is not what churches should be doing. Perhaps you can be used to help your church in this regard. I know a number of preachers who struggle to inject any life into sermon content about the person and work of Christ, so that such content always seems to come across as cold and stale doctrine rather than as thrilling truth. The impulse, then, to put more emphasis on moral improvement comes from a healthy desire not to remain cold. It might be good to acknowledge this healthy impulse even as you help your pastor see that it is not really the right solution. What's actually needed is to develop a warmth and passion about the person and work of Christ. Be patient and prayerful as you encourage him in this regard.


----------



## Paul1976 (Nov 17, 2015)

Edward: The church is growing pretty well. I would conservatively estimate attendance has tripled in the last 5 years (the church is about 5 years old) The area where I live is unusually transient. I've heard that churches need to grow 30% per year just to maintain a constant population. I don't have a very clear picture, but I would imagine the majority of the growth are people moving to the area and people without a lot of church background. I can say there isn't an effort to compete with other churches in a sheep-stealing way. From when we visited various churches, the seeker-sensitive thinking seems particularly strong here, and this church has not embraced it as badly as others. I could say more, but I'm intentionally trying not to provide identifying details. I could do that privately if you would like.

Jack - completely agreed. I think part of the reason seeker-sensitive has taken off is there are elements of it which should be part of a healthy church. Every church should be "seeker sensitive" in a Biblical way. I think you're right that the pastor is honestly trying to make messages relevant, practical, and engaging. Aside from what is missing from them, he's succeeding.


----------



## Edward (Nov 17, 2015)

Paul1976 said:


> I would conservatively estimate attendance has tripled in the last 5 years



That will certainly make things more difficult for you.


----------



## Paul1976 (Nov 17, 2015)

Agreed. It's no coincidence that most of our countries' largest churches embrace seeker-sensitive approaches to various degrees. And I realize that moving in what I view as the correct direction will probably not be good for attendance.


----------



## KMK (Nov 17, 2015)

Paul1976 said:


> How much seeker-sensitive is too much seeker-sensitive?



Speaking generally, when the church enters into an unspoken covenant with the world that if the worldly will attend the church, the church will not offend the world, then you have too much seeker-sensitivity.


----------



## Jack K (Nov 18, 2015)

Strong gospel preaching also tends to attract seekers, and those are the seekers you want to keep. It would be short-sighted to assume there's a trade-off between growth and preaching the truth. Preaching that shows people Jesus will often pack in the crowds just as well.


----------



## DMcFadden (Nov 18, 2015)

Pastors in broad American evangelicalism sometimes experience a good degree of pressure from other pastors and churches to follow the "new ideas" that they see "working" in the growing congregations. It is so easy to go along with the latest notions that seem to result in "positive outcomes." One of my sons pastors a large non-denominational church the embraces whatever gimmick and novelty comes along. Speaking to him, he appears to believe in the neutrality of his pragmatism and see it as evangelistically productive (the church has steadily grown from a small congregation to the largest one in his community). 

Because the tools and techniques being promulgated are already "in sync" with the mindset of the American population, it is an easy transfer for folks. Attending the average large evangelical church "feels" little different from going to a local sporting event, movie theater, rock concert, or community gathering. Even the advertising and marketing feels familiar! Therefore, it easily attracts people who experience few entry barriers occasioned by liturgy, music, or biblical teaching. The selfism, prevalence of therapeutic moralistic deism, thinly veneered "life coaching," and other elements all too common in American evangelicalism "fit" the American mindset.

It remains to be seen whether these are "committed disciples of Jesus Christ" or merely people who have added broad evangelicalism to their calendar of school, sporting, and entertainment activities. 

In my opinion, emphasis upon the moralistic "do" over the Gospel's "done" will either produce smug Pharisees or despair (cf. Luke 18).


----------



## Jack K (Nov 18, 2015)

DMcFadden said:


> In my opinion, emphasis upon the moralistic "do" over the Gospel's "done" will either produce smug Pharisees or despair (cf. Luke 18).



So very true.


----------



## timfost (Nov 18, 2015)

Hi Paul,

You mentioned that 



> We’ll get to a spot where Jesus was tempted, and we’ll talk about temptation for a few Sundays. We get to a part where Jesus was rejected, and we talk about rejection for a few Sundays. There is virtually no interaction with the text.



When my church was independent and its leaders untrained, the preaching was similar to what you described above. It was a kind of _topical_ sermon with a chronological reading of a text. It was thought that this was _exegesis_. It essentially allowed them to focus on whatever topic they wanted by shifting focus onto specific words and then impose the topics they thought were important and promoting that they were drawing out the individual text.

I'm not opposed to topical or exegetical preaching, but it is particularly harmful when topical sermons are preached under the guise of exegetical preaching. If there is a desire to preach topically, it seems that one should consider a systematic range of topics that construct a _comprehensive_ whole. If exegetical, be sure to "feed the sheep what's in the pasture," so to speak. 

My church had doctrinal beliefs that they thought should be in every single sermon and "exegeted" each passage to get at these doctrinal beliefs. Certainly not every church that preaches this way is comparable to my old church, but perhaps there is some overlap. I can't begin to express the spiritual starvation my family felt during that time. It sounds like you are experiencing some of that as you desire "solid food."


----------



## Paul1976 (Nov 18, 2015)

Thanks all for some good solid advice.


----------



## Paul1976 (Nov 25, 2015)

Hi all,


I had a good 90 minute talk with the pastor. I listened about as much as I spoke. I do believe he listened carefully and thoughtfully, but I don't think I was able to show him the importance of solid foundational understanding of Christianity, or at least I think we have different ideas on what that is. 

One comment he made jumped out at me later. He was speaking about needing better follow-through from people, and mentioned one person in the church he's aware of who has been having an affair for 10 years. From what he said, it sounded like he wanted his sermons to be applicable and helpful to that individual, including more theologically oriented Christians. As I thought later, two warning bells went off (I wish I were better at thinking on my feet!). First, this sounded like a situation where church discipline was lacking. I don't know the persons situation - member, periodic attender, or something, but it sounded like an issue. Worse, I don't think someone should have been able to sit for years under solid preaching and not feel uncomfortable. There are plenty of churches around where someone wishing to maintain a life of sin can attend and get all the comfort a good motivational speaker can provide. My pastor certainly does not have that intention, but it does strike me as a problem. Am I being too critical? People have incredibly hard hearts, and even the great Edwards was not able to soften the hearts of a significant portion of his congregation.

I also had a nice long talk with a solid pastor I know (in another state unfortunately). I was able to share more there than I want to post here, and his advice was to find another church.


----------



## Captain Picard (Nov 26, 2015)

Paul1976 said:


> Hi all,
> 
> 
> I had a good 90 minute talk with the pastor. I listened about as much as I spoke. I do believe he listened carefully and thoughtfully, but I don't think I was able to show him the importance of solid foundational understanding of Christianity, or at least I think we have different ideas on what that is.
> ...



Oh goodness. Has he tried a sermon on "hand him over to Satan" (1 Cor. 5:5)?

I don't know everything about this, but "church discipline is lacking" sounds like a radical understatement.


----------



## johnny (Nov 26, 2015)

Did you just say a member of the congregation has been having an affair for ten years.
Is this person married to someone in the congregation? If so, are they aware of their cheating spouse?
I don't expect answers to these questions, that situation is simply not acceptable in Christs Church.


----------



## Paul1976 (Nov 26, 2015)

James and John - completely agreed. Nothing from Corinthians has been taught that I can remember. I really don't know any more details than what's in the post. It could be any number of situations. Perhaps the situation is one where church discipline isn't an option? Could the wife be a member, and the husband a non-member that attends periodically? John - your guess seems like the most reasonable guess I can come up with. I would guess that the wife must be aware of the affair - it's hard to picture a guilty party volunteering that to the pastor.

I don't have enough information to know for sure. I do think that the idea someone could apparently hear sermons from this church for a number of years and not either leave or repent seems wrong. I suspect church discipline should be being practiced, but am not confident I know enough details to know for sure.


----------



## DMcFadden (Nov 26, 2015)

Paul1976 said:


> I also had a nice long talk with a solid pastor I know (in another state unfortunately). I was able to share more there than I want to post here, and *his advice was to find another church*.



Ya think? 

"Good man" does not necessarily correlate with wise leadership. In the context of this church culture in America 2015, there is sooooooo much pragmatic advice for pastors, shorn of both biblical principles and theological boundaries. And, with such emphasis upon pragamatic outcomes, there is too much bleed over from secular marketing and business practices.

In my experience, the overwhelming pressure of this mindset makes it VERY difficult for the average pastor to see anything "wrong" with going with the flow. Rather than become a divisive person in your present congregation, a gracious separation without rancor or recrimination may be your best course of action.


----------



## Paul1976 (Nov 26, 2015)

Thanks Dennis. I've been realizing that moving on is probably the correct decision. I started attending about 5 years ago before I discovered the importance of the doctrines of grace. I have realized its not what I want in a church, but I'm trying to weight that against what I take from the church by leaving, and the importance of unity. While I do not see my concerns with the direction the church is pursuing aren't serious, I also think people tend to err on the side of leaving churches over non-serious issues when unity would be better. Hence, the reason I'm seeking advice to be sure I'm doing the right thing.

The consensus seems to be that we would be better off leaving. Is that correct?

Obviously, I want to leave as respectfully as possible. I haven't shared my concerns with anyone but the pastor and my wife (she's not overly keen on leaving, but will), and do not plan to.


----------



## KMK (Nov 26, 2015)

Paul1976 said:


> The consensus seems to be that we would be better off leaving. Is that correct?



For what it is worth, I was speaking in general terms, not specifically to your individual situation.


----------



## earl40 (Nov 26, 2015)

Jack K said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> > In my opinion, emphasis upon the moralistic "do" over the Gospel's "done" will either produce smug Pharisees or despair (cf. Luke 18).
> ...



Of course there is a balance. To place the emphasis that it is all done neglects the process of salvation and how He is working in us after Justification. I say this from experience in a neglect of the preaching what is pleasing and not to Our Lord.


----------



## jwithnell (Nov 26, 2015)

Paul, I appreciate your concern about church unity and wanting to go against the current cultural norms when it comes to leaving a church. It sounds like you've been in your current church for a sufficient time and that you did the right thing by trying to talk to the pastor. 

However, in this whole thread, I've seen nothing to indicate that this church meets specifically to glorify God. That is our primary purpose in meeting for worship Sunday by Sunday, to glorify and exult Him. While what is spoken and sung should be infused with the gospel, evangelism is by no means the primary focus on Sunday morning. 

You might consider a few points from your current situation that will help you relocate to a healthy church:

Observe and ask about how the new church enumerates its members. In the example you gave, the church either allowed someone to continue in an unrepentant state for years, or allowed people to drift in and out with no move to be joined to the local congregation. Both of these go against how God has called his people to join themselves together as a local body that pursues His glory by being made more and more like Jesus.

Observe and ask about how the pastor teaches the whole of the scripture to the congregation. I'm not saying you should expect a church to cover Genesis to Revelation every year, but if the answer comes only in terms of topics (especially if driven by problems in the church) you'll likely never be fed well, nor will the congregation operate in a manner that squares with the scriptures. Along these lines, you might ask about the education of the pastor: it sounds like the person you talked to does not have the training to properly feed his flock if he's repeating sermons from Rick Warren.

Observe and ask about how the church prays with and for one another, how and when they baptize and observe the Lord's table, and about how people are pushed to increase in their knowledge and love of God.

In the hope of helping you find a better place to worship, I'm trying to give you the primary measures of a good church used by the Puritans, reformers, and their modern descendants.


----------



## Paul1976 (Nov 27, 2015)

Thanks JWithnell,


I think that the church sees glorifying God as important. I don't think the theology is deep enough to realize the centrality of that in Christianity. And, I suspect they confuse getting people in the door, involved, enjoying the service, and similar as a good way to glorify God. Theology, which is really just our efforts to try to understand what God has revealed about Himself, is seen as complicated, irrelevant, and less important applying Christian principles to our everyday life. 

The pastor has been through seminary - I would guess at the masters level, but is a person who seems to prefer simple to complicated. I think his training is less of a concern than his lack of interest in doctrine/theology. He came from a background in the South where there were a lot of "Christians" with a solid knowledge of good theology, and zero impact on their lives. I think he is correctly trying to avoid that error so strongly that he's pushing "follow-through" while not giving people enough theology/doctrine for them to grow in knowledge of God and enjoy the transforming power of knowing Him.

Aside from a recent small group push, I don't know that he's adapted other sermons from Rick Warren. And, part of the thinking was to give newly formed groups something easy to work with. (Ironically, I found getting anything useful out of the studies far harder than pulling out a commentary and going a few verses farther in Romans.) I do know he's adapted some sermon series from Andy Stanley. Personally, I am less a fan of Andy Stanley than Rick Warren. I do think he writes most of his own sermons generally. I probably will get little of substance from the scripture from the Sunday sermons, even if he changes direction. Between preparing small group lessons and being able to listen to roughly one sermon per day on my commute, I'm able to get a reasonable amount of good teaching.

I've looked around, and there only seem to be two churches that would fall into the reformed category in the range I'd prefer to drive to. One is Presbyterian (PCA). I've heard very good things and visited once about 8 years ago. I actually really liked the church, but thought it was too far, and didn't understand the importance of reformed theology at the time. I met with someone from the church a few weeks ago fantastic conversation. It was so nice to be able to talk theology wish someone who understood the importance of the doctrines of grace. I was specifically interested in how a Baptist would fit in. Aside from not being able to qualify for church leadership, I think I would be fine.

The other is a Baptist church plant that's been going for three years. It seems supported through one of John Macarthur's ministry in some form. The pastor is a recent graduate of The Master's Seminary. My big concern is the church's doctrinal statement is a link to the statement at the seminary with is strongly dispensational. (http://www.tms.edu/about-the-seminary/doctrinal-statement/) I have been so excited to see the bible in a more unified way found in more historically reformed perspectives that I'm really not too excited to go back to dispensationalism. While it would be hard to go back to possibly hearing having to hear Revelation from a dispenational perspective, I'm more concerned about the overly literal hermeneutic. I grew up Dispensational, and really don't want to go back to it.


----------



## KMK (Nov 27, 2015)

Paul1976 said:


> I've looked around, and there only seem to be two churches that would fall into the reformed category in the range I'd prefer to drive to.



http://gracechurchlv.com/home

This church is not 'reformed', but Pastor Doug Meye is a solid, professional pastor with many years of experience. He is the Developing Pastors Lead of my Association, Transformation Ministries. As with all TM churches, Grace Church has taken a strong stand in favor of the authority of the Bible and against homosexuality.


----------



## DMcFadden (Nov 27, 2015)

I echo Ken's comments.

Doug is not particularly reformed. He has been a good friend of mine for nearly four decades, following me in one church as associate pastor after me. He was student body president at Wheaton, his father was the dean at Fuller, his sister is a famous prof there and author of numerous award winning books, and Doug is a very sane and sensible pastor. He is contemporary (perhaps more so than you would prefer?), but is not a slave of contemporary fashions and fads. He built a large church from scratch in LV and looks to be doing it again.


----------



## Paul1976 (Nov 27, 2015)

Thanks Ken and Dennis,


I hadn't heard of this church, but that makes sense since it is relatively new and didn't show up searching for reformed churches. I listened to a sermon online and it was quite solid. You're right that I would prefer a more overtly reformed perspective, and more traditional services, but those aren't essential. Grace church is even very close to where I live.


----------



## Toasty (Nov 27, 2015)

You could ask your pastor to preach through an entire book of the Bible. The congregation will get to see the context of an entire book.

Romans 1-11 is practical. 

Here are some practical applications from Romans 1-11:

Knowing what Romans 1-3 says about the sinfulness of man should affect the manner in which we tell non-Christians about Jesus. 

When talking to non-Christians about Christ, you don't have to ask if they think that God exists. Romans 1 says that people already know God. They suppress the truth about God.

Even though we are sinners who deserve God’s wrath, we should appreciate God’s love for sinners and be humbled that God would send His Son to die for sinners.

We should place all of our dependence upon God to bring sinners to Christ. People are born sinners. They are born with the desire to reject God so we must rely upon the Holy Spirit to regenerate the hearts of others. 

There should be no pride in us. All are born sinners. We have no righteousness of our own.

Trust Jesus alone to save you from sin, not in your own efforts.

When you go through trials, it can be comforting to know that tribulation brings about perseverance, and that perseverance brings about proven character and that proven character brings about hope. 

Do not let sin reign in your mortal body.


----------

