My saying that Christians should go reach the lost and are not doing it is a different topic from me saying that when the lost seek out the institutional church, the church should cater to that need. It is not a case of one needing to do more OR the church needing to respond. Both need to happen.

If those are different topics, then why do you keep stirring them in together in your arguments? This is getting wearying.

So pretty much your entire argument is that the Church needs to be friendly to seekers, and the specific “seeker-friendly” format is the best way to do that. Right?

I did have to laugh though at your comment that you were not going to ‘join the criticism’ of my mission trips immediately followed by how better trained people that could stay longer was more cost effective. So much for “all of us should be involved in the great commission” LOL

What I meant is quite simple: I don’t believe you were wrong, contrary to what they said, so I can’t join them. I hope you enjoyed your trip and learned a lot, and I’m sure you served productively. I said that before. I ALSO stand by what I said in supporting dedicated missions rather than short-term missions trips.

Being involved in the great commission doesn’t imply that you should spend maximum money for minimum return. That’s just stupid. When you went on that trip you were much less a part of the great commission than you are when you spend time speaking to your coworker, because your coworker can understand you.

Again, you didn’t make an error in going, nor were you morally wrong. You ARE making an error in claiming to have been specially involved in the Great Commission. (Actually, it sounds kind of elitist, as if those of us who can’t afford that kind of thing aren’t involved at all.)

-Wm

My saying that Christians should go reach the lost and are not doing it is a different topic from me saying that when the lost seek out the institutional church, the church should cater to that need. It is not a case of one needing to do more OR the church needing to respond. Both need to happen.

I did have to laugh though at your comment that you were not going to “join the criticism” of my mission trips immediately followed by how better trained people that could stay longer was more cost effective. So much for “all of us should be involved in the great commission” LOL

You are right. I am not saying that is the way it *should* be though. Sadly though, that is the state of the church though.

Actually, that’s precisely what you ARE saying. What am I missing about your message here? You’re telling us that seeker-sensitive is right specifically because it enables that sort of behavior. If that sort of behavior is “not the way it should be”, then why should we “change the way we do church” to accommodate it?

…I’m not saying we shouldn’t change the way we do church, though. I think a Biblical church will be understandable to unbelievers — although many of them won’t like what they hear.

I’ve even been told that my two trips to Africa on three-week-long mission trips were wrong. I was told that I should have found a full-time missionary to support over there.

I won’t join the criticism, because I’m confident you accomplished something and learned a lot, but I will note that the math is against you — it costs a LOT to send a person over there, and it’s more effective to send one thoroughly trained person for the long term than to send a bunch of partially trained ones for a couple of weeks.

It’s not wrong to go on a cruise (doing NOTHING for the church), and it’s not wrong to go on a short-term mission trip (doing something for the church). But it’s not cost-effective, either, if you want to spend your money to help the church.

You’re right that that truth can be abused. But your particular reading seems to be precisely that abuse! You separate between the “pastor” and the rank-and-file Christians: the pastor feeds, the rest bulk out the attendance numbers and occasionally invite people. But that’s not the rule being taught in the scriptures; on the contrary, all of us should be involved in the great commission.

You are right. I am not saying that is the way it *should* be though. Sadly though, that is the state of the church though. I’ve even been told that my two trips to Africa on three-week-long mission trips were wrong. I was told that I should have found a full-time missionary to support over there.
D.

“How are they to call on one they have not believed in? And how are they to believe in one they have not heard of? And how are they to hear without someone preaching to them ” My point is that during the one hour a week that they come to hear the message from the preacher, it should be in a setting conducive to them receiving it and should be what they need to hear. As a mature Christian, I can get my in-depth “meaty” Bible-study at some other time of the day or week.”

Then you would agree that something along the lines of Edward’s “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” would be the right type sermon for the seeker? And that other amenities other than the evangelistic service should be kept from the seeker, right? That the members are the primary and not the seeker? Perhaps you would agree also, that outreach to the unbeliever except for evanglistic effort and that primary should also first emphasize the Gospel? And, that if outreach program’s not Sunday service is offered, the clear exposition of the Lord’s demands that if they partiake of the substance of the body, they are condemned unless they submit to discipleship, for that is what Christ did? And because that is what they really need?

I agree, that if a church should choose to make their main ministry evangelism that it possibly could be that Sunday morning be the main event for that, but you would still be as explicit as possible that now is the day, today, if they hear is voice? You would make sure that if they did go out, they would understand the condemnation that they were under, right, as well as the free offer of reconcilliation?

I still disagree that it is the layperson’s responsibillity to bring them in. It is rather the paid minister/unpaid elder who is responsible primarily. But, I would agree, that if the church denies the particularity of the call to ministry, that is that the pastors (elders) are to do the work of evangelism, then seeker services might be the best means of evangelism. But, I question just how offensive you might be when they come in. I mean, would you preach the offense of the cross? Would you tell them as Jesus did those who were following him, who said they believed, that they were of their father the devil, murderers and liars so that most turned away and no longer seek?

“While I agree that the Holy Spirit calls, that neglects our own responsibility as well.”

You’re right that that truth can be abused. But your particular reading seems to be precisely that abuse! You separate between the “pastor” and the rank-and-file Christians: the pastor feeds, the rest bulk out the attendance numbers and occasionally invite people. But that’s not the rule being taught in the scriptures; on the contrary, all of us should be involved in the great commission.

I don’t think you’re all wrong, as I’ve said before. If your screed had been against “seeker hostile” churches, I’d be on your side. Another way to view such “seeker hostile” churches is that they’re churches that actively discourage members from using the weekly service as an evangelism tool. Another way of viewing them is that they’re just plain ignoring the fact that unbelievers WILL come and WILL judge based on what they see, as Paul clearly warned.

They should never be ministering to the needs of the unsaved; the only need they have is Jesus, and only the Holy Spirit will convict them of that. But the ministry is TO and FOR the Body of Christ, not to or for the world.

But in our culture today, the believer doesn’t go out and minister to the unsaved. The unsaved are expected to come to church and hear the gospel from the paid minister. Yet when they come, they often are no more than a spectator to a service geared towards someone else. My point is that you cannot minister to and for the Body of Christ if that, week after week, focuses on caring for the existing flock and ignores increasing the flock. While I agree that the Holy Spirit calls, that neglects our own responsibility as well. “How are they to call on one they have not believed in? And how are they to believe in one they have not heard of? And how are they to hear without someone preaching to them ” My point is that during the one hour a week that they come to hear the message from the preacher, it should be in a setting conducive to them receiving it and should be what they need to hear. As a mature Christian, I can get my in-depth “meaty” Bible-study at some other time of the day or week.
D.

Daniel,

Our common ground “Ultimately, I think the church as a whole has a huge problem in it’s lack of discipleship and mentoring.” Peace be with you.

Eric

I never said that the mature didn’t need feeding at all. They do. But a mature person would not expect their own feeding at the expense of the immature or unsaved. Specifically, it is immature to think that they can only be fed by the pastor and only during the hour when the unsaved are likely to show up.

The unsaved are not ever in the Bible likened to the immature, though. Therefore, your analogy is entirely inapt; of course the mature (including the pastor and elders) must minister to the immature as well as the mature, but this analogy does not address the unsaved at all. The unsaved are not immature Christians; they are not Christians at all. You feed babies milk, and strong men meat, and dead people don’t eat at all.

There’s a balance here. The church services should be friendly to the unsaved; Paul said so in 1 Cor 14, and explained why. They should never be ministering to the needs of the unsaved; the only need they have is Jesus, and only the Holy Spirit will convict them of that. But the ministry is TO and FOR the Body of Christ, not to or for the world.

I never said that the mature didn’t need feeding at all. They do. But a mature person would not expect their own feeding at the expense of the immature or unsaved. Specifically, it is immature to think that they can only be fed by the pastor and only during the hour when the unsaved are likely to show up.

To continue the analogy of feeding, it would be like letting the baby cry for a bottle while you ignore them and chomp down on a steak that you insist someone else prepare for you. If you are truly mature, you can prepare for yourself and share with other mature people and they with you and you would take care of the baby before you take care of yourself. Amture Christians *can* be fed by the pastor, but they should not *have* to be. A mature Christian should be able to feed themselves and others.
D.