That’s kinda the imagery I think of when I consider seeker-driven churches. It’s this mindset that we have to do and spend all we can to convince/attract/appeal to the unchurched to come to church/God. It’s like our theology of free will propels us to do all we can to get people to choose to come to church or to come to God. It’s why in the past, when we didn’t have problems getting people into church, but had plenty difficulty getting them to make a decision for Christ, we Arminians worked hard to make altar calls as dramatic and compelling as possible. And why in the present (since that’s not effective anymore) we are now looking for the next thing that will be effective at getting people to walk in our church doors, because they’re just not coming anymore. I don’t think this mindset is always a bad thing, except that it seems like we Arminians have concluded that the Holy Spirit really isn’t that effective at drawing people to Christ, so we have to use lots of money, talent, professionalism, entertainment to make up the slack. I know what the rebuttal would be: perhaps the Holy Spirit is using these very things to draw people to God? I think in some churches He is, no doubt. But I question this assertion as a given, as I see that church has become simply a business model that has proven to be effective at growing one’s church organization. In other words, GE can grow a successful and profitable business without the Holy Spirit, and churches can do the same thing, if they view themselves as similar to a business like GE. The product is the Gospel. It’s the ultimate product, because it’s of eternal value. It needs to be advertised, which costs a lot of money these days. And the whole point of marketing is to convince people that they really need something that they don’t currently believe they need, so that they’ll buy in. The unchurched are those people who are not yet customers whom we are trying to hook in. Those who are already reached have hopefully become our investors, and we constantly appeal to them to invest...

So now that I laid the groundwork for my disagreements in the last post, I’ll get into the disagreements themselves. In summary, I believe the best way to fulfill the Great Commission isn’t by doing all you can to get the unchurched to show up at church, but rather to get the churched to go out to the unchurched. Andy Stanley says that if your church really is passionate about the Great Commission, everything at your church will be centered around making the unchurched feel at home, rather than making the churched feel at home. While I agree with him that church should not be about keeping churched people happy–and that this is what so many churches do–it is equally wrong to make everything about church for the unchurched. That would be like saying that we are trying to attract as many children into our home as possible who need adoption, but once they get here, we don’t care about them any longer, nor do we care if they feel at home or not. We’re just constantly looking for more children to adopt, so we’re going to make our family as appealing as we can to outside children who have yet to be adopted. This is the problem I see with churches like Andy Stanley’s at North Point or Bill Hybel’s at Willow Creek. In the end, you really can’t be like that. (And I’m guessing their churches in reality aren’t.) You’ve got to acknowledge that we’re not about attracting seekers to Christ, but making disciples of Christ. Part of this process is reaching the lost, obviously. Yet I question how much these “seekers” really are seeking after God, if it requires so much effort and money to get them into our doors. We have moved from trying to reach the lost into trying to attract the lost. What I mean is this: I’m afraid what “seekers” are really seeking after is solutions to the problems in their lives, not God himself. So these churches have determined that they will do all they can and spend all the money they can to convince people that they need to come to church to find the answers to their problems. As...

Or have we moved beyond such depravity as a species? Today’s way of thinking immediately dismisses the notion of people being evil. We think mass murderers/pedophiles can simply be redeemed. Actually, I agree with that. My understanding of evil includes the possibility of redemption (which is why I am a Christian), but I believe that this redemption cannot be achieved by human effort, but only by a supernatural change initiated and empowered by the Creator himself. Outside of the Creator’s intervention in a person’s life, we are woefully evil. I think this is harder to see these days. We seem more civilized than ages past. We are in the process of eliminating slavery from the face of the earth–a blight on our species that has been around for all recorded history. I could give many other examples along these lines. As a result, we are easily blinded to our evilness. It is much more subtle today. For example, would anyone say that today’s Western world is filled with savage, blood-thirsty, murdering masses of people running around everywhere, chopping innocent people’s heads off whenever they please? Yet, how many unborn children are legally killed in this era for no good reason? Might the number surpass the Holocaust we so easily despise? Another way to look at it: I tend to think of men typically as the gender that is known for being perpetrators of murder. Yet in a more subtle way, women are just as guilty when you factor in abortion. Men aren’t more evil than women, although I tend to think of men as being more evil. Another example we could point to that shows the subtlety of our evil today is racial discrimination. Fifty or sixty years ago, black people were publicly discriminated against for the world to see in America. There was no hiding it. Today, it’s still around, just much more hidden. In one church I’ve served in, the senior pastor refused to consider a black candidate for a ministerial position, even though he was highly capable of serving in the position. This same church refused to reach out to the neighborhood that was right next to the church, because as the pastor put it: “Those...

I see two different types of controversies in the Bible: Passages that are controversial when you compare them to other passages in the Bible. Passages that are controversial when you compare them to today’s culture. Unfortunately, many people don’t see the difference between these two types of controversial passages. With the first type of controversial passages, we might have opinions one way or another on how to interpret such passages (even strong opinions), but in the end, we must realize that these passages are interpreted several different ways by scholars who all appreciate the authority of Scripture. As a result, when we discuss such passages, we should make room for disagreements and maintain a “think and let think” attitude toward those who might disagree with us. Such verses deal with issues like: Calvinism vs. Arminianism Eschatology (pre/post/a-millennial, pre/post/mid-tribulation, etc.) Roles of men/women in ministry How charismatic gifts operate today Often, people have strong opinions on these matters, which isn’t bad at all. However, we should all recognize that many strong, Bible-believing Christians may disagree with us. These disagreements shouldn’t prevent us from having fellowship with one another. Some people think it is best to avoid discussions/sermons on such issues because of the divisiveness it brings. Personally, I don’t shy away from controversy. I’d rather provide my audience with all the different viewpoints out there, and also give my own opinion in the matter. Then I leave it up to the audience to make up their own mind. I think this is better than avoiding these issues, because I think that does us a disfavor. Ignorance isn’t bliss. People have a right to delve deep into these issues if they so desire. However, I understand the idea to avoid such discussions, and I don’t think that’s a wrong strategy to have–I just personally don’t gravitate toward that method. However, that second category of Bible passages which are controversial to today’s culture–we would be gravely mistaken if we treat them the same way as the first category of controversial passages. These passages aren’t controversial because other verses in the Bible question their validity–it is today’s fallen society that questions their validity. The following issues aren’t controversial within Scripture itself, but are...

The Early Church found itself in a difficult position. As I see it, there were two groups of people you could be associated with: Law-abiding Jews or free-living Pagans/Gentiles. Romans, who were Gentiles, ruled the day. So free-living (sexual promiscuity, etc.) ruled the day as well. They didn’t have much tolerance for Law-abiding Jews who had all these customs and regulations for how one should live your life. In fact, they scoffed the Jewish way of life. The Jews didn’t so much appreciate the Roman Gentiles either . They desired to be free of their control. They disdained the heathen way of living for pleasure. Instead, a Jew lived to follow God’s Law. So neither side had much respect for the other. Yet, they both found a way to live somewhat peacefully with each other. The Romans permitted the Jews to practice their religion, and the Jews did what they could to keep peace with the Romans in order to remain free to fulfill their religious customs and regulations. The Romans understood this–they knew that the Jewish people didn’t really recognize them as a valid government over them–the Jews just tolerated Roman rule. And the Romans just tolerated the Jewish people as well. So it was imperative to find yourself either associated with the Jews, or to associate yourself with Caesar. Any other position, and you were on your own. Everyone wanted to know: where was your allegiance? If you were a Jew, your true allegiance was to their God and their religion, not Caesar. But you still needed to give Caesar enough allegiance as to not be a disruption to him or his government. Everyone else (heathens/pagans/Gentiles) lived a rather free life, with their allegiance to Rome. And then a new movement sprung up–those who followed “The Way.” Although they originally started within the Jewish community, they didn’t have the support of the Jewish community–largely because their leader claimed to be superior to the current-day leaders of the Jewish faith. In addition, their Leader taught his followers to live their lives differently from the Jews. And most importantly, this Leader told his followers that they were supposed to follow Him, not the customs and regulations that the Jewish...

In the first post on this subject a week or so ago, I made the case that the Gospel doesn’t have any real power unless there is faith. Today, the point I want to make is that the Gospel doesn’t have any real power unless there is weakness. Does this mean that Christianity or the Gospel is a crutch for the weak? In a sense, yes.  I think you could say that. Most people use that phrase as if it is a derogatory statement. They are implying that us weak people need something like the Gospel, but they are not weak like us. To someone who sees themselves strong, or a self-made person, the Gospel is not needed or desired. Is it possible to build a successful life without the Gospel? Is it possible to have meaning and purpose in life without the Gospel? Is it possible to build a successful church without the Gospel? Yes, yes, and yes. Jesus even says that we can build our house on the rock or sand. Both can be built, but which one will last? Both will stand for quite some time. It’s not until the time of testing comes that one will fall. Some people’s house (not built on the sand) will endure their entire life on earth, and will only fall when the test of eternity comes. Jesus says everyone will be salted with fire (Mark 9:49). In that moment, will what you’ve built last in eternity? Many of those who have built on something other than the Gospel feel quite secure with what they have. The Gospel then is a threat to them. It requires tearing everything down and starting all over. Some people are more than willing to do so, because as they build, they recognize that it’s not working. While seen as a frustration, this is actually a blessing. It’s those whose lives are working for them who I worry about. They feel they have no need to tear down and start all over. They do not feel weak at all. But the Gospel does its work in those who recognize their weakness. For these people, there is no greater power than that which is found in...