I hear this quite often from many younger “spiritual” people who claim a form of Christianity, but deny it in essence.  The following is a blurb from Owen Strachan and Doug Sweeney’s Jonathan Edwards: On True Christianity (pg. 99).

Though not conclusive and final, their words do shed light on this erroneous belief:

A common argument of many nominal Christians is that they love Jesus but don’t care for the church.  The teaching of 1 John exposes the flaws of this argument, revealing it to be an unbiblical dichotomy.  All who are saved by God possess the Spirit, which links them to all other people who possess the Spirit.  The local church, of course, is not perfect, and some have had difficult experiences with churches they have attended.  But when God saves a person, He gives them a love for His people.  His people are the church.

Enjoy this post?  Consider sharing it with your friends with the Share/Shave below or Tweet above and subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS

Before writing on moving a local church to missional ministry, I felt that it was important for me to provide a quick disclaimer: I have little experience in this area and a lot of reading. 

What’s the moral of the story? 

What follows is a snapshot of how I would approach serving at a local church with the intent of making it more “missionally” minded.  This is why you may want to put what follows in the “for what it’s worth category.” 

Moving Towards Missional Ministry

Transitioning a church from an internal focus to a missional mind-set is not done by changing existing programs, adding new ones, or hiring someone to oversee Missional Ministries alone.  These actions do not guarantee that a new philosophy of ministry will be readily embraced by any given local church.  Let me explain.

Understand How a Churches Culture Changes Before Changing It

A churches culture (i.e. Their shared beliefs, values, practices, and behavior) is not changed by reworking the organizational structure or programs.  Rather, a churches culture is transformed by focusing upon the culture, not the organization and practice. 

For instance, the authors of Leading Congregational Change concluded from their personal work:

We have learned that unless the culture of a congregation is changed all the sound programs and organizational changes that have been implemented evaporate.  As a result, the congregation eventually reverts back to previous habits…Something deeper than [programs] is required to change the situation.  A cultural transformation is needed (Jim Herrington, Mike Bonem, and James H. Furr, Leading Congregational Change, 66)

For a church to transition to embracing a missional ethos, such a change will take place over time by applying constant pressure to it, not quick and swift action. 

Learning Patience and Process from Diamonds

Take coal for example. 

On one hand, a piece of coal is changed into a beautiful diamond through the application of constant pressure overtime.  On the other hand, this same piece of coal will be shattered if a person were to hit it with a hammer or apply intense pressure through a vise. 

Is this analogy of coal completely applicable to our current topic?  Probably not entirely, but I do believe that we can learn something from it.

Making changes to services and programs quickly apart from the readiness of the congregation could cause irreparable damage, whereas pressure applied over time will do best in creating more of a positive response to changes.  Of course there will be those who are early adopters and those who never adopt change, so in creating change within the local church concern should not be with these two groupings of people who generally comprise of a smaller percentage.  Attention and effort should be given to the group in the middle by leveraging off of the enthusiasm of the early adopters, so that by the grace of God we can see people changed in their disposition towards a missional ethos. 

In order to orchestrate such a change within the culture of a church, I suggest for you to look more to an evolutionary process of molding their ethos through a collaborative effort rather than quick actions through changes in ministries and facilities.  For such an evolutionary change to take place we cannot and must not expect it happen by merely convincing the congregation to adopt leadership solutions (ibid., 76).  Cultural transformation occurs when a portion of the congregation participates together in enacting such change.  As a result, churches should to look to create a Vision Community.

Vision Communities

A Vision Community “is a diverse group of key members who become a committed and trusting community in order to discern and implement God’s vision for the congregation” (ibid., 41)

Keeping in mind that creating cultural change within the congregation is bottom-up, the Vision Community should be involved within the process from the beginning to end so that they can serve as the “informal” spoke person to their circle of influence within the congregation.

The members of the Vision Community must be aware of the reason for change and be desirous of them.  It is recommended that 10% of the congregation make-up the Vision Community and that it should be comprised of the following people:

1. Diversity reflecting the make-up of the congregation.
2. People of influence within the congregation.  These people may or may not be “formal” leaders.  
3. Spiritual maturity
4. Ability to make a meaningful contribution.
5. Willing to support the right changes
6. Appropriate staff representation (ibid., 42-43)

The development, selection, expectations of individual members, and time commitment should be established up front.  For, this process will not enact change after one, two, or even three meetings and patience will be required.

Patience and the Role of the Vision Community Leader

Roxburgh and Romanuk observed from their experience,

We cannot stress enough how important it is to take time with this process.  Awareness and understanding are like gestation and birth.  There must be a long time period for life to be formed, and in most instances the birth requires its own process.

They consider that the leader of the Vision Community will serve as a symbolic midwife who facilitates and assists the “birth process that must follow its own mysterious ways.  If the ground is prepared and the leader cultivates the proper environment, shaping a space rather than forcing a strategy or plan, the process of missional formation will encourage a congregation to organize itself and change will emerge.”

It is not important to go into the process that the Vision Community will undertake during their time together, but rather to emphasize the importance of creating open dialogue with the team which will ultimately impact the rest of the congregation.

Missional ethos changes need to take place overtime and cannot be accomplished by changing existing ministries, implementing new ministries, or reorganizing internal structures alone.  Such changes are fruits of cultural transformation, not the root. 

This can be likened to car problems. 

Cultural Transformation and Car Problems

When our cars have problems we can take them into a mechanic in order to have them fixed.  This is a purely technical solution to the problem. 

Now, what if the problems that need continual repair are caused by the driver?  What if the driver is particular hard on the clutch, thus requiring work on the transmission?  What if the driver is negligent of maintenance, such as changing the oil, which can result in a myriad of issues? 

The technical problems can be fixed – hopefully – but the problems will not be resolved until the behavior of the driver is adapted (ibid., 98).

From their consulting experience, Jim Herrington, Mike Boenm, and James Furr observed,

Implementation – without the direction provided by vision, without the support provided by a vision community, without the enabling of empowerment – cannot be done effectively any earlier in the process.  If it is done earlier, it is just as likely to be a catalyst for life-threatening conflict as for life-giving change (Leading Congregational Change, 78)

Consequently, as noted above, organizational changes made without the foundational support of an ethos – that readily embraces those changes – will inevitably evaporate and the people will revert back to the dictates of their previous attitudes and beliefs.

Implementing Change

There are a myriad of ideas that can be suggested in making adaptive changes to the church culture.  Ultimately what needs to be done will arise from the framework of the Vision Community.

Ideas that are developed within the Vision Community are to be implemented on the peripheral (i.e. Non-staff person and formal leader.  Decentralized from the center core of leadership) of the congregation and need to be considered experimental in nature, not permanent.

For “people are less resistant to a short-term experiment than they are to a ‘permanent’ change…[and] experiments signals that the leaders do not claim to have all the answers.  Experiments give people more room to innovate, learn, and improve with less risk of repercussion” (ibid., 98). 

Ideas proposed and implemented from the Vision Community should be done with a limited time commitment, say six months, and followed up with an extensive evaluation.

If you liked this post, you may also be intersted in  Church rePlanting: Resources for Facilitating Church Revitalization

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.

Consider sharing this post

From Tim Keller’s Blog at Redeemer City to City.

The Big Issues Facing the Western Church:

The opportunity for extensive culture-making in the U.S.

The rise of Islam

The new non-western Global Christianity

The growing cultural remoteness of the gospel

The end of prosperity?

For an elaboration on these points, click here.

How Should Churches and Leaders Be Preparing to Address These Big Issues Facing the Church?

The local church has to support culture-making

At the theological level, the church needs to gain more consensus on how the church and Christian faith relate to culture…At the practical level, even the churches that give lip-service to the importance of integrating faith and work do very little to actually equip people to do so.

We need a renewal of apologetics

First, Christians in the West will finally be facing what missionaries around the world have faced for years–how to communicate the gospel to Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and adherents of various folk religions.

Second, there a real vacuum in western secular thought.

This is a real opening, apologetically, in reaching out to thoughtful non-Christians, especially the younger, socially conscious ones. We need to think of new ways to engage, asking people how they can justify their concerns for human rights and social justice.

We need a great variety of church-models

I feel that our cultural situation is too complex for such a sweeping way to look at things. There are too many kinds of ‘never-churched-non-Christians’. There are Arabs in Detroit, Hmongs in Chicago, Chinese and Jews in New York City, Anglos in the Northwest and Northeast that were raised by secular parents–some are artists and creative types, some work in business. All of these are growing groups of never-churched, but they are very different from one another. No model can connect to them all–every model can connect to some.

We must develop a far better theology of suffering

Members of churches in the west are caught absolutely flat-footed by suffering and difficulty. This is a major problem, especially if we are facing greater ‘liminality’–social marginalization–and maybe more economic and social instability.

We need a critical mass of churches in the biggest cities of the world.

If there were vital, fast-growing movements of churches–orthodox in theology, wholistic in ministry, and committed to culture-making–in the great global cities, so that 5-10% of the residents of the 50 most influential cities were gospel-believers, a) it would have a great impact on culture-making, b) it would help the church learn new ways of reaching the never-churched (since they concentrate in cities), c) it would connect western churches more readily to the new churches in the non-western world, d) it would unite churches across traditions and models

For an elaboration on these points, click here.

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.

Consider sharing this post:

Here is a link to an interview conducted by Christianity Today with Kevin DeYoung on his latest book, Why We Love the Church: In Praise of Institutions and Organized Religion.

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.

Consider sharing this post:

This past December, Tim Keller and Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City graced the front page of USA Today.  Writing in response to this article, Dr. Keller provided a concise reason why and how they do “multi-site churches.”  The following is taken from his blog (For discussion on multi-site church ministry, click here):

Recently Redeemer was featured prominently in a USA Todayarticle about multi-site churches. Outside of the fact that Redeemer doesn’t ‘do video,’ the differences between our approach and others were not referred to. And in much discussion on line after the article, it was clear that all multi-site churches were being Lumped Together. Just for the sake of clarity, it might be helpful to know these facts about why and how Redeemer does the multi-site.

1. First, we did not go to multi-site because it was more economical or efficient for us. When we began meeting at multiple sites ten years ago, we were already holding a morning and an evening service at a single site that was quite large. It would have been much more cost-effective to multiply to four or five services in that single location. Moving to other sites meant greatly increased costs for rent, for children’s ministries, for music and many other things. 

2. Second, we did not go to multi-site to quickly reach more people. The auditorium where we began meeting 10 years ago seats over 2,000 people, and other spaces that size are not available. The spaces we have rented in other parts of the city are far smaller. If we had stayed in that space and multiplied services there, we would have reached greater numbers more swiftly. 

So what were the reasons that we adopted the multi-site model?

1. First, we sent our services out into different locations so that people could worship closer to where they lived. People can become more deeply involved in the community and can more easily bring friends if they attend services in their neighborhood. This was an ‘anti-mega-church’ move, since huge churches create a large body of commuters who travel long distances to attend church. We wanted to resist this tendency and root people more in their locales. 

2. Second, the multi-site model is a transition design for us. Redeemer has a timetable for turning each site into a congregation in its own neighborhood, with its own pastoral leadership. I was the main preacher at all sites, but two years ago we went from four to five services at three sites, which is too many for me to preach in a Sunday. Rather than beaming me in by video, we determined that other pastors on the staff would always preach at least that fifth service. When we get to six and seven services, about two years from now, each site will have its own Lead Pastor who will share the preaching with me.

We will then transition from a ‘multi-site’ to a ‘collegiate’ model. Though still under one unified board of elders, each church will have its own pastoral team, elder team, and set of lay leaders. Other collegiate models in our PCA denomination include Harbor Presbyterian in San Diego and Brooklyn Presbyterian here in New York City. 

I was careful in my interaction with the USA Today journalists not to criticize other multi-site churches. I do not know what motives other churches have for using the multi-site model, but those are ours.

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.

Consider sharing this post:

From Collin Hansen on Out of Ur:

In the hierarchy of church problems, most pastors wouldn’t mind figuring out how to handle a congregation that has grown so rapidly that they can no longer get to know everyone personally. The multisite church boom has met this very challenge by leveraging the best teachers with new technology to reach mass audiences at low costs. Motivated by spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ, pastors understand the number of new professions of faith as a sign of God’s blessing. There appears to be little downside to adding new church sites. There is little of the personal risk and exorbitant cost of church planting. In fact, there are few arguments against multiple sites that can’t also be made against multiple services in one church building. And most medium and large-sized churches crossed that line without much consternation some time ago. So if people don’t mind watching a pastor on television, what’s holding us back?

Maybe some people really do mind. A recent report on multisite churches by Cathy Lynn Grossman in USA Today revealed some concern about the growing disconnect between pastors and their large congregations.

“I do miss having a pastor at the door shaking hands in the ‘check-out line,’” Lauren Green told Grossman. Green, a religion correspondent for Fox News, began attending Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City to hear Tim Keller preach. Keller doesn’t record his sermons to broadcast in other locations, but he scurries between several different sites in a grueling Sunday ritual that leaves him little time to interact with members and visitors. By contrast, Green and her family shared a close relationship with their long-time pastor when she was growing up in Minneapolis. But she acknowledges that this model appears to be a quaint and outdated today.

“Today, it’s all about a personal relationship with God, not the culture of a church,” Green explained to Grossman. “And a megachurch or a multisite church can still offer this. If you are there to hear a message and it’s a powerful one, it shouldn’t matter how it’s delivered.”

When Christians find a pastor who preaches a powerful message, they are willing to compromise elsewhere. They aren’t so concerned if he never visits them, never talks to them, or never even learns their name. Those tasks become the responsibility of a campus pastor and a small group of fellow members. But I still worry for the primary preaching pastors in this situation. They know their churches have grown due to God’s anointing on their sermons. So they naturally expect that sharing the pulpit will hurt church attendance and giving. The numbers drop when they go on vacation. Such a heavy preaching burden precludes them from spending much time with members. And even if they had more time to visit and counsel, where would they start?

In this climate, I fear that a church is tempted to make two mistakes. It may overvalue the sermon while undervaluing the personal touch that informs those sermons…

For the rest of the article, click here.

After reading this, it would be great to here your response to this question: In a Multi-Site Church, Who is Responsible for the Souls of the Satellite Churches?

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.   

Consider sharing this post:

The following is an e-mail from Pastor Jason McClanahan of Randolph Street Baptist Church.  If I had the time, I sure would love to attend.  If you have the availability you should consider coming to Charleston, WV.  Here’s the e-mail:

This email is in regard to the upcoming Appalachia Conference on Theology and the Church on January 22 & 23.  Our guest speaker is Dr. Steve Lawson.  As you may know, Dr. Lawson is a tremendous expositor of the Word.  I have enjoyed his preaching & teaching in places like Grace Community Church, Master’s Seminary & the Ligonier Conference.  Maybe you have enjoyed reading some of his recent writings such as Foundations of Grace, his biographies on Calvin and Edwards or his commentaries on the Psalms.  It is our pleasure to have Dr. Lawson with us for a couple of days and we would love to share this time with you.  
 
Dr. Lawson will be speaking on the subject of the supremacy of Christ from Colossians 1 over 3 sessions.  Below is a schedule of the conference and it is free to attend.  If you plan on attending please register at this link & you will receive a $5 coupon for the conference bookstore.  Cumberland Valley Bookstore will be with us and providing hundreds of God-centered selections. 
 
January 22 ~ 4:00pm – 9:30pm
4:00-6:00pm              Pastors Dinner and Q&A with Dr. Lawson
4:00pm-7:00pm         Registration & Bookstore
7:00pm-8:30pm         Dr. Lawson – Session 1
8:30pm-9:30pm          Bookstore
 
January 23 ~ 8:00am – 5:00pm
8:00am-10:00am       Bookstore
10:00am-11:15am      Dr. Lawson – Session 2
11:15am-12:45pm       Lunch Break & Bookstore (A free lunch will be provided to all attendees.)
12:45pm-2:00pm        Dr. Lawson – Session 3
2:00pm-2:30pm          Break
2:30pm-3:30pm          Dr. Lawson –Q&A
3:30pm-5:00pm          Bookstore
 
Also, I want to invite you and your staff to a dinner and Q&A with Dr. Lawson on Friday, January 22nd @ 4pm.  The dinner is open only to pastors, elders, staff, ministry leaders and seminary students.  The dinner is free & will provide you an opportunity to interact with Dr. Lawson over theology, ministry issues, etc.  To attend this dinner you must register by contacting us at maryjane@randolphonline.org. 
 
I would love to spend these couple of days with you men & pray that God would use this to strengthen our vision of Christ, His gospel & His glory.  Please forward this email to any pastors you think might be interested.

Guest Post from Pak K on Internetmonk.com:

Way back in the early Eighties, shortly after becoming a Christian, I attended a Bible College in Houston, Texas. It quickly became evident that God’s Church was much larger than the small Holiness sect I was evangelized into, and Houston provided ample opportunity for me to explore what seemed to me to be an almost unlimited selection of denominations.

After sojourning awhile, and being intrigued by a number of different denominations, the theology I held at the time dictated that I couldn’t in good conscience wander too far out of the box. I settled on a very large and prominent Southern Baptist church and joined up.

Before I go any further, I want to make clear that I still love that church, and my comments here are not meant to take away anything from a great congregation and a magnificent ministry. For years afterward, the now sainted Pastor of that congregation was an inspiration and a role model to me. He embodied an excellence in ministry that has left a lasting impression long after my theology changed.

This was a large church, at the time approaching 15 or 20 thousand members, and had just completed construction on the most magnificent church and ministry facility I had ever seen. A huge sanctuary, a gymnasium, complete with bowling alleys, and an educational wing that contained six floors of Sunday School classrooms.

The model of ministry they subscribed to was an all out push for evangelism, in every Sunday service, and by all members inviting others to church. There were manifold outreach ministries too. Once someone made a proffession of faith they were baptized then ‘plugged in’ to some kind of ‘ministry’. To serve in some capacity in the church was considered an important part of discipleship.

On the surface this seemed to be a good plan. Seemed to be eminently successful.

Until one day I was walking into the sanctuary, in awe of the buildings, and the thought hit me. “To what end?”

For the rest of the article, click here.

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.   

Consider sharing this post:

“The paradox is that a genuine love for souls [is] diverted by fashionable modes into a mere ‘winning’ of them [and] a total misuse of people for alleged evangelical results.  The consequence is a loss of respect for people and their souls, and the withering of the original concern and love,” were the words uttered by G.W. Target in 1968 (taken from a Lover’s Quarrel with the Evangelical Church, pg. 125)

In an earlier – Churching the Unchurched- I concluded that it is both unbiblical and unwise to for the local church to structure their worship services for non-Christiansunchurched since only Christians are those that truly seek after God.  Unfortunately, many churches – if not all – that pursue churching the unchurched by having them simply participate in the life of a worship service in order to “pad” their numbers and stroke their egos diminish the veracity of the Gospel by either concealing or removing it. 

Not only are these efforts shallow, they are also misleading and eternally damning.  Why?  During such ”seeker sensitive” events, countless people  are given the impression that if they simply profess faith, raise a hand, sign a card, or walk to the front of the altar in response to the “Gospel” call that they’re saved.  This is why R.C. Sproul said, “Everyone who has faith is called to profess faith, but not everybody who professes faith has faith” (ibid., pg. 140) (also see Matthew 7.21-23).   

At the end of the day the numbers are reported to the congregation, Elders, Deacons, board of directors, and supporters to show what good of work they’ve done.  Is this the way that the church should go about evangelizing?  I think not. 

Body Count Evangelism

A local church that employs various means in order to connect with the “unchurched” do so with the hopes of having increased attendance come Sunday morning.  Since such efforts are done in working towards the bottom line – increased church attendance – many churches are moving towards a consumer based ministry with various bells and whistles in hopes of attracting and retaining new “unchurched” and paying attendees.  

So, instead of adhering to the commands of God’s Word to make disciples of all the nations (Matthew 28.18-20), many have resorted to utilizing other means.  These events are wide and varying and are nothing more than marketing ploys – not with an attempt to do unto others as Jesus would have us do –to connect with as many people as possible and attract them to their concert worship services.

If the church was actually concerned with peoples eternal condition, would it not be wise for them to find a way to establish and maintain an ongoing relationship with them so that the Gospel can be shared in both word, life, and deed?  Besides, after thousands of tithe dollars and countless hours of volunteer help are spent, there is typically  much  show for other than burned out people and minimal response.  

Instead of proclaiming the Gospel as a means of power unto salvation, many have resorted to second rate efforts.  Even if these efforts proved to be successful in the worldly sense, drawing every man, woman, and child in their community, the results would be an illusion of success because of the increased numbers alone.   

Where to from here? 

In Ashamed of the Gospel, John MacArthur pointedly said, “External criteria such as affluence, numbers, money, or positive response have never been the biblical measure of success in ministry.”

Then what is the Biblical measure of success?  MacArthur continues,

Faithfulness, godliness, and spiritual commitment are the virtues God esteems – and such qualities should be the building blocks of any ministry philosophy….Size does not signify God’s blessing….In fact, it can be a reason for condemnation.  God told Jeremiah, “An appalling and horrible thing has happened in the land:  The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests rule on their own authority; and My people love it so!” (Jer. 5.30-31).” 

God does not call the church to be responsible for the breadth of its size and ministry, but rather its depth!

We see this said no clearer than in 1 Corinthians 4.5-7:

What then is Apollos?  What is Paul?  Servants through whom you believed, as the Lord assigned to each.  I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth.  So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth. 

What can be clearly seen is that we are servants of God responsible for proclaiming the Gospel whereas God is responsible for the results of that proclamation in assigning to who will or will not believe (Jonah 2.9; John 1.12-13, 3.16; Acts 13.48; Romans 9.11-13; Ephesians 1.4, 10-11; 1 Thessalonians 5.9; 2 Thessalonians 2.13; 2 Timothy 1.8-9; 1 Peter 1.1-2, 2.8; Jude 4). 

In following this accord, we are responsible for the depth of our ministry – which is accomplished through the preaching of God’s Word and Christ-centered discipleship – while God is sovereign over the breadth of the ministry.  Therefore, holding one accountable for the number of those in a worship service, event, and salivations is shallow and misleading since this is God’s responsibility and not our own. 

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.   

Consider sharing this post

“Churching the unchurched,” begins John MacArthur, “is an absolute fallacy – it is like purposing to let the tares in.”  He goes on to say,

It is absolutely bizarre to want to make unsaved people feel comfortable in a church.  The church is not a building – the church is a group of worshiping, redeemed, and sanctified people among whom an unbeliever should feel either miserable, convicted and drawn to Christ, or else alienated and isolated.  Only if the church hides its message and ceases to be what God designed the church to be, can it make an unbeliever comfortable?

Unfortunately, many churches – if not all – that pursue churching the unchurched by having them simply participate in the life of a worship service in order to “pad” their numbers and stroke their egos diminish the veracity of the Gospel by either concealing or removing it.

Within the Scriptures people are never referred to as churched or unchurched.  All this insinuates is that we are attempting to make people who or unbelievers feel comfortable in attending corporate worship services and other events.  Besides, if we’re striving to connect with the unchurched, is it our desire that they’ll just be churched and never gracefully confronted with the Gospel so that they’ll be converted?   

This is why MacArthur had the following to say,

“That is precisely my concern about today’s pragmatic church-growth trend. The strategy focuses on attracting and keeping the unchurched. For what? To entertain them? To get them to attend church meetings regularly? Merely “churching” the unchurched accomplishes nothing of eternal value. That is where their strategy seems to end.”  

From personal experience and observation I’ve seen churches employ “tactics” that gear their ministerial efforts to include non-Christians in a comfortable and inviting environment.  Such activities typically range from community events, school giveaways, petting zoos, harvest parties, and conversation groups.  These events have no other purpose than to have the people they attract to return on Sunday morning so that the number of attendees will increase. 

Christianity or Humanism?

Church practices that exclude God  and even a need for Him are comparable to the work being done by Greg Epstein – Humanist Chaplain at Harvard University - who “wants to create a kind of church for those who reject religion” (Boston Globe, The Nonbelievers). 

Before going further, for those of you unfamiliar with humanism it is known as “a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity” (The American Humanist Association).

Now, getting back to my point.

In attempting to create this kind of humanistic group, the “Reverend” Epstein has developed Humanist Small Groups (HSGs).  These groups consist of “biweekly discussion…for people who identify with, or seek to learn about humanism.”

These “HSGs” are “known for [their] inclusive discussions, with an environment of community and intimacy, including both intellectual and personal topics.”  Is it just me or does this sound eerily similar to those activities listed above?  I wouldn’t fight tooth-and-nail on this point, but I am willing to compare such practices within Christianity as an implicit endorsement of humanism.

As the true church – those who are called out by the One true and living God – moves forward in the 21^st century we must lean to our LORD for the empowerment to be bold and courageous to gracefully stand for Him in these dark and tumultuous times.  Anything short of living our lives fully for Him is a shame and mockery to His fame and glory. 

An honest assessment of the Seeker-Sensitive movement

Bill Izard, author of The Sensitivity of True Worship, observed that “many churches, designing worship has become most closely associated with that which will best suit the attendees or bests attract the hesitant church-goer, rather than that which is most pleasing to God.”

If we were to observe the trajectory of many churches, we would discover a slippery slope of degradation.  Many churches have begun to gear their worship services for the “unchurched” with the intent of being evangelistic and inviting through means of a comfortable environment, coffee and water, lighthearted announcements, interviews, and loud music.   

Unfortunately, such a position wrongfully presupposes that mankind is generally good and seeking after God and that the church needs to reinvent itself from hindering people in making a “decision” for Jesus.  This presupposition lies upon faulty ground and runs against the grain of Scripture and the Reformed Tradition. 

First off, the Scriptures affirm that man does not seek after God (see Romans 3.10-18; Psalms 10.4; 14.2; and Isaiah 53.2).  The total depravity of mankind has been affirmed throughout church history and reaffirmed within the Protestant Reformation.  To affirm that man is totally depraved, the early Reformers asserted that the effects of original sin have pervaded the entirety of man’s being, namely, their body, soul, mind, and will (R.C. Sproul, What is Reformed Theology, pg. 118). 

If we were to consider the thoughts of the Westminster divines, we would discover an accurate Biblical assessment of humanity’s condition:

Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation: so as, a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto (Chapter 9.3).         

Consequently, if we desired to be faithful to the authority of Scriptures as well as church history, our services – in actually being made seeker-sensitive – should be “structured for believers, since only believers are seekers” (Romans 6.4, 10)(R.C. Sproul, Good Intentions Gone Bad, Tabletalk, October 2007, pg. 6).  

Besides, it is not the way that the Gospel is packaged or the atmosphere that persuades and converts people to Christ.  It is the content of the Gospel itself that saves, not the medium by which it is delivered.  The only thing that can cause anyone to desire Christ is His death upon their behalf and the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit (John 6.44; 65; 10.4, 14-15, 26-30; Titus 3.5-6).

For practices of the church, such as preaching, worship music, etc…, to be geared towards unbelievers in a worship context is antithetical to Scriptural revelation.  A person who is not indwelt with the Spirit of God is not able to accept the things of the Spirit, for they are folly to him, and he is not capable of understanding them because they are spiritual discerned (1 Corinthians 2.14). 

With this in mind it is both unbiblical and unwise to gear our efforts – especially on Sunday mornings – towards unbelievers. 

In the end, why do many churches:

“…offer up less professional, less entertaining lighthearted entertainment?  Why, I keep wondering, would a “seeker” get up on Sunday morning and travel to some giant box to hear a third rate rock band preceding a third tae comic giving a third rate “message” that leaves him in the same state that he arrived in?” (R.C. Sproul, Pragmatic Principle, Talbetalk, October 2007, pg. 59).

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.   

Consider sharing this post