Online Conversations About...

Seeker-Sensitive Churches

I have become quite familiar with a number of churches that are patterned after the seeker model. Apparantly several of the pastors have been heavily influenced by churches such as Willow Creek and Saddleback Community. My own experience, as well as some reading on the subject, has caused me to be alarmed about this trend in modern churches. Here are just a few of my concerns:

1. The emphasis seems to be on meeting "felt needs" rather than procalaiming the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. In fact, the gospel is often re-packaged as the answer for low self-esteem, marital discord, career problems, psychological distress, etc. Rather than seekers being perceived as sinners in need of salvation, they are perceived as lonely singles, bored executives, victims of disfunctional families, or whatever. Rather than presenting a bold, truly Biblical message, too often the pastor presents the type of message that he hopes will appeal to the seekers and meet their "felt needs".

2. The seeker model of the church does not quite square with my understanding of the theological and Biblical definition of a church. This is not the church as the "Body of Christ", as a gathering of saints, the local assembly of the elect, or any of the definitions commonly held over the ages within orthodox Christianity. Instead, it is what someone described as a "sort of halfway house for recovering nonreligious people".

3. The focus of the seeker model seems to be too often on the seeker rather than on God.

4. Because of the issues raised in points 2 & 3, this brings the whole idea of "worship" into question. I believe that the Bible teaches us that worship should take place when we gather together. However, I believe that any attempts at "worship" (usually in the form of music) within the seeker model of church will only result in a false worship that will be displeasing to God. How can anyone worship Someone they do not know?

5. There is a lack of solid teaching in seeker churches. I know many will disagree with me. I would argue, however respectfully, that there is such a dearth of true, solidly Biblical teaching within most churches in America that people don't even know what they are missing. Most of the sermons that I have heard coming out of seeker churches, no matter how wonderful their delivery, how "inspiring" and "moving" and even "convicting", were little more than ear tickling or extemely dumbed-down pseudo-teaching with a few Scriptures flung in for good measure.

6. The whole concept of seeker and market-driven churches is based on a worldly, materialistic mindset. Somehow, evangelism has ceased to be proclaiming the message of our Lord Jesus Christ and instead has become a series of techniques and strategies--as if we could manipulate people and the work of the Holy Spirit.

7. Thus, though many seekers may come, I fear that what they find will be a watered-down version of the Truth, a pseudo-Christianity, a self-help gospel, a "faith" that will not save.

The answer? I believe that churches should focus their efforts on real teaching, on discipleship, on equipping the saints--instead of on making themselves palatable to the unsaved. Then evangelism will take place all the time, out in the world where the sinners are. Instead of "seeker services", we should be having in-depth studies of God's Word--and yes, even of doctrine and theology--so that those who have supposedly already found God can know enough to live holy lives and lead others to Him.

While I can understand the desire not to fill up this folder with debate, I think that it is important that those ministering within the seeker model be open and accountable and willing to be critiqued and even admonished if need be.

I would like to clarify those areas of my previous posts that were apparently misunderstood. A response to my posts stated:

<<In your view, seeker churches might be 'contaminating' the gospel with modern music, technology, or strategy.>>

First, I never used the word "contaminate". Secondly, my posts did not at all deal with the issues of modern music or technology. My point, hopefully obvious to careful readers, was that most seeker churches will provide a dumbed-down, ear-tickling version of preaching and teaching, rather than a strong, solid proclomation of God's Word.

I could offer a point by point rebuttal to the rest of the response, but I suspect that it would not be appreciated. However, I do wish to respond to the comment, <<...I'd ask you not to judge the the seeker-sensitive model based on an implementation.>> I'm not sure what was meant here. Am I not to judge based on one implementation? If my only experience with the seeker model was one church, I would have to agree that I should not pass judgment based on what could perhaps be a faulty implementation. However, my experience and knowledge goes far beyond that one church. I think it is valid and biblical to judge a church philosphy by its fruits, by its implementation. When I see older saints being shoved aside because a new pastor has quickly decided to embrace the seeker model, I am concerned. When I hear them say that their pastor refuses to minister to them, to visit them in the hospital, to consider their input, but even goes so far as to tell them that maybe they need to find another church other than the one they have effectively ministered in for 20, 30, 40 years--I am far more than concerned. I am outraged. When I hear the sermons, I am troubled. When I read in this very folder some claptrap about having Barney in a CHURCH SERVICE--in the House of God, in a service that should be focused on worshipping our Lord and Savior--I don't know what to say. Are you teaching your seekers the reverance of God? Do they stand in fear of our Awesome Judge? Do they tremble at their sinfulness? Oh, excuse me...I'm falling back on fire and brimstone here. How old-fashioned. How un-hip. It won't sell. It won't bring them in. Nobody will seek out that message.

Burt raises an interesting point. Our difference here is in much more than implementation. It is a theological issue, one which I won't take up the time to discuss here, but which anyone interested can discuss via e-mail.

Here's another opinion about Willow Creek, from someone much closer to the situation than I am:

"If you are talking about the one in the Chicago suburbs, while it is entertaining, and it has a big following, it is not what I would call, IMOHO, something solidified, as say, other [churches], no matter the denomination, in that same area. They have, well, activities, and they have big presentations (like the time they called in our local atheiest, Rob Sherman, for a debate on the existence of God)...but otherwise, it seems to be kind of like the Crystal Cathderal--lots of nice, verbal and physical, but no substance."

The mission statement of Willow Creek, along with its accompanying statements, only supported my position regarding the de-emphasis on teaching and preaching the Word of God. It is interesting that neither "preaching", "teaching", nor "the Bible" were mentioned. Instead, the emphasis seems to be on the program and structure of small groups. I would hope that some Christians at least would argue that a church's mission statement should include the proclamation of God's Word and the spreading of the gospel.

As for God as a "male entity"--while God is not limited by human gender, it is quite apparent that He has chosen to describe Himself in almost exclusively male terms. I realize that this concept is no longer popular today, in our PC and feminist world wherein we must offer Bible "translations" filled with "inclusive language".

Ah, but the tragedy is, Funnerizer, that so much of the message HAS changed. So much of it is missing. That has been exactly my point.

And really, frowning faces? You've never seen my face.

Like you, I am concerned that "seekers" will get the "wrong idea about our loving God and His abounding grace". That is the greatest tragedy of the seeker-sensitive model. It is so wrapped up with "felt needs", small groups, celebrations, etc. that it fails to present God in all His awesomeness. His love and abounding grace is completely meaningless apart from His judgment, His wrath and our total depravity. The Gospel is far, far more than merely "the most fantastic creative approach to a hurting world".

I am curious as to the basis and origin for Willow Creek's "mission and core values". Were they distilled from Scripture and, if so, which particular passages? Or were they based on personal philosophy, leadership consensus, pragmatic considerations, demographic surveys, psychological and sociological theories, practices of other churches...?

More specifically, which Scriptures are used to support the statement that "Effective ministry happens in an atmosphere of prayer and celebration"? What about the preaching and teaching of Jesus and the Apostles--was this not "effective ministry" or are we to assume that there must have been "an atmosphere of prayer and celebration" even if the Bible does not indicate this?

How exactly does Willow Creek define "the work of the church"?

In the interest of clarification and profitable dialogue, I would like to pose a few more questions. How does Willow Creek (and similar churches using the same model) define the term "evangelism"? Does Willow Creek consider the "seeker sensitive services" to follow a Biblical model of evangelism or is this a new model?

Someone posted, "I was also struck by the near lack of anything that would give a visitor a clue about the theological position of the church. That seemed to me to be a little dishonest. Let's get people hooked by the surface stuff and then tell them who we are."

This in some ways validates my concerns about a lack of solid Biblical teaching, a watering-down of the gospel in an attempt to attract people. It also brings up an interesting question--what exactly is the theological position of Willow Creek?

Darrell raised some excellent points in his post regarding unconditional love. I am curious as to what Scriptures would be used to back up the belief that God loves unconditionally and that we are to do likewise? I would be interested in hearing the other viewpoint.

I also wish someone knowledgeable about Willow Creek would answer my question regarding how the church defines itself theologically. Do they adhere to the statement and standard of faith as defined by a specific demonination? Have they worked out their own theological position statement? Christian theology can encompass a wide spectrum: where does Willow Creek see itself on that spectrum?

Robert stated, "Oh, and by the way : Willow Creek may sometimes be Church Lite, but overall it hold rather tenaciously to the Gospel. I wish I could say that for some of our more established churches."

Continuing my theme of questions from my previous post, exactly how does Willow Creek define "the Gospel"? That may seem like a rather obvious question. However, at the last Christian Booksellers Convention, many people answered the question "What is the gospel?" with a cheerful "It's the good news--Jesus is coming again!"

I am sincere in seeking answers, not merely for continuing debate, but in order that all sides may gain a better understanding of what Willow Creek represents in light of God's Word.

Comment: My questions were never answered adequately, not even by the members of Willow Creek.

UPDATE: However, since posting this article, I did receive the following email, which I asked permission to include here in the interest of both fairness and clarification:

I also feel led to clarify two of the concerns you brought up. Before I do, however, I wish to emphasize that this is my opinion based on my many years of attendance and sitting under their teaching. I am not speaking as an official representative of Willow Creek, merely an attender sharing with you my impressions.

First, their emphasis on felt needs vs.. the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I think that at the point at which your chats took place (circa 1994) that *may* (and I emphasize *may*) be true. The church has never *not* taught the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but may have appeared to emphasize the "self-help" aspect so prevalent (unfortunately) in Christian and secular circles. *However,* I find that now the emphasis has been turned around to focus on the Saving Grace of our LORD Jesus Christ and explaining the importance of His Redemptive Blood clearly and concisely to seekers. They've "turned up the heat," so to speak. Although they could use more expository teaching. . .

Second, in point 4 you expressed concern about worship in seeker-sensitive churches. I just want to clarify that worship at Willow Creek is conducted during their mid-week service (New Community) that is designed specifically for Believers who *do* have a saving relationship with Jesus Christ. Therefore, their worship is not false--they know to Whom they sing their praises! Seekers are encouraged to attend the weekend services which are specifically geared to where they're at, and to attend New Community only after they have decided they wish to "step up their pursuit" of the LORD. In fact, it was during a New Community service that I committed my life to Christ.

copyright 1994 , by Rebecca Prewett

Return to the Online Conversations Page

You are the visitor to this page.

All articles authored by any member of the Prewett family are copyrighted. They may not be reproduced online or elsewhere without our expressed, written permission. Articles written by other authors contain copyright notices where appropriate.