The people who rail against "seeker-sensitive" churches are excited that Bill Hybels and Willowcreek have recently said they have made some mistakes over the years; creating churches that do not put a high level of focus on Bible and theology, but more of an application based teaching style to issues of life with Biblical theology in the back-ground. The statement of Hybels was as follows: We made a mistake. What we should have done when people crossed the line of faith and become Christians, we should have started telling people and teaching people that they have to take responsibility to become ‘self feeders.’ We should have gotten people, taught people, how to read their bible between services, how to do the spiritual practices much more aggressively on their own.
A couple things: It is important that the church learn from a seeker-sensitive spirit that focuses the church not on just learning about of stuff, but which drives the church to be missional. A church can do both equip people and be evangelistic and seeker-engaging at the same time -- the dichotomy of either equipping /or seeker-engaging is a false dichotomy and must be relegated to the garbage dump of history. If you teach about Jesus and lift him up people will both be equipped and saved. The church's primary goal is to reach the world for Christ. Nothing else matters.
We must ask and answer the following question: Is community the mission or are we supposed to be a community on mission -- there is a world of difference. Community is great but it is not sufficient. The church in the past has often been a bunch of people sitting around, debating the rapture, the anti-Christ, and the five points of Calvinism -- and while it is nice to think that we have the luxury of such conversations the truth is: we don't. People are dying everyday without knowing Jesus. Recently, in the best presentation of missiology I have ever heard Mark Driscoll said Canada right now is in the single digits Christian and dropping fast. "There are more Christians in Baghdad than there are in Vancouver" (see http://www.willingdon.org/refocus/default.asp?id=760 ) Bottom line "seeker-engaging" is not a category or an option for the church it is what the church should be; both in the day to day life of those who make up the church and when we gather formally. The question is then: what does that look like?
Many preachers, in answering this question have lapsed into a form of teaching which is based on people's "needs", it becomes therapy, "chicken-soup", for the soul. And the product is watered-down, application-driven, people-focused, sermons about our problems and "going to heaven when we die". The problem is that what gets lost is the Bible, doctrine, theology and the gospel. The Bible becomes a tool where preachers search out proof-texts for their latest "How-to" sermon series. The Bible gets used to simply prove a point and then placed aside for the next proof-text. No wonder we have a generation of Biblically illiterate people! They think the Bible is their own personal treasure-chest of daily answers to their questions about dating, jobs, and whatever else.
Hence the critics are right: The Bible and theology get marginalized from seeker sensitive churches.
I am convinced that this is the greatest mistake of the movement, and a very unnecessary one.
The Bible is central to anything we do as the church and we should never feel as though seeker-engaging means marginalizing theology or Biblical teaching -- we should not assume people are stupid but that they are educated and should engage them at a high level of discourse. There are plenty of examples of church who focus on 20 -30 somethings and do so by engaging them at a high level of discourse precisely because we are an educated generation.
Here are three:
The Meeting House (Oakville, ON) -- 3,000 people meeting around Biblical teaching at a high level of discourse under Bruxy Cavey (and my friend Paul Morris; hehehe)
Mars Hill Church in Seattle -- Mark Driscoll teaches theology and Bible for an average of 1 hour sometimes up to 2 hours and his church has 6,000 people meeting on Sunday's all 20 to 30 somethings;
Mars Hill Bible Church (not connected to Mars Hill Seattle) in Grand Rapids Michigan -- 10,000 Sunday worshipers mostly 20 to 30 somethings gathered around the teaching of Rob Bell.
I could give more examples, but the point is each one of these churches is committed to a high level of teaching, all focused around Jesus and they accomplish two things at once: equip believers and present Jesus to non-believers.
So again I agree with the critics here: That we, as the church, need to expect people to think and investigate critically. But here is the problem with these kinds of people offering that criticism.
Unfortunately the same people who are opposed to seeker-sensitive teaching embrace a form of Christianity and way of learning doctrine that does not give way for critical investigation outside a modernistic framework, exegesis that is not familiar, or theology that might challenge the old paradigms. So the same people who get angry or upset when someone teaches something that challenges long held beliefs (i.e. young-earth theory, the rapture, forms of worship) are the ones saying "teach us the Bible!" and "Lets think critically". So, really what they mean is: do those things within a certain boundary that I am comfortable with.
I hear complaints along these line all the time. So we must realize that many people say they want doctrine taught but then limit the people trying to teach it by acting as if they can't say anything fresh or look at the text from a different angle -- thus by their actions they relegate the teachers in their church to saying non-threatening things (simply confirming what they have thought all along) and so these teachers lapse into "therapeutic theology" ... which is easy for them and easy listening for people investigating Jesus, but for mature Christians it feels like "fluff".
Let me end with a personal story: Two weeks ago I preached a message called "a Theology of the Cross" (see DSF Sermons) in which I said it was a travesty that all I could find in the Catholic monastery I was at on the weened were statues of Jesus on the cross while all I could find at our church was an empty cross (celebrating the resurrection). I proposed a balance in both churches, and then went on to teach penal substitutionary atonement for an hour to a room full of 20 - 30 somethings. I got no email encouraging me on that difficult task. That week a lady bought me a crucifix with Jesus on it and gave it to me. So i put it behind my on a mantle as I preached last weekend. A man who wants biblical theology taught in the church called the church this week and complained saying "We are not Catholic" -- interesting isn't it? The same people who want theology taught don't actually feel all that comfortable when it is.
8 comments:
Some churches grow big by preaching the Word, but then at some point the guy doing the preaching gets bored and wants to spice things up, adding more fluff - videos, visuals, comedy, skits, etc. - and the growth plateaus. Ask those who attend the churches you mentioned and see if that is not so.
ah but mark what was he actually complaining about? the symbolism & imagery he was perhaps afraid you were portraying, with which he may have a negative connotation? the... potential relic idolitry? he didn't know why you had it up there & i don't think it has to do with theology. it's really tough now, in an age where anyone can start their own denomination & christians are more sensitive to political correctness than God-given truth, to address such congregations. everyone has an opinion, some are more aggressive with voicing it, but all you can do is seek the truth & perpetuate it. as long as you feel confident you are doing that - and with your many studies & resources i'm confident you do - then you can just relegate these sorts of things to... 'riff raff'. i don't always agree with you either, :) but i've learned if the issues i have don't affect the greater message, then they're non-issues. not everyone's there yet, still others don't even know the greater message... but anyway... i've been reading & listening in & it's such a comfort to hear truth from home as there's not really a church here, so there's some encouragement. i've also noticed that you've been sounding like my old church lately and i'm loving it because it's classic truth that has been lost in the fluff. i wish you could visit & see how they did things - they got a lot of things wrong, but a lot of things right too, that we could learn from. but anyway, thank you & when i get back i want to get involved more... somehow... maybe greece'll help me figure that out.
Lena,
We miss you at home and can't wait till you return and I would love to help you get more involved when you get home! Blessings on your journeys.
And your comments are appreciated about people's affiliation with a Catholic background; however he did not have that background and for people who do we should try to help them appreciate any iconography that is used in churches: (empty cross or Jesus on the cross) in a healthy way.
Anonymous,
I agree that at times teachers add elements to their teaching (videos, sketches, etc) and it certainly can water-down the message at times but I don't know if I would say it is them getting bored. Rather, they go through an evolution of communication-style adding to what they are saying by adding elements trying to use diffeent ways (artistic etc) to reach people. Which I don't think is a bad thing. I would agree with you that it can become too gimicky for sure but I don't know that it always plays out that way.
Asd for the churches mentioned above: I would suggest that as they have added these elements all three have grown. I am not saying it is because of these elements -- I actually don't beelieve it is; but your suggestion that with the addition of these elements "the growth plateaus" simply does not ring true for these congregations.
Each one right now is growing at beak-neck speed, Mars Hill for instance was 1400 people in 2003, and now has 6000 people in the second least churched city in the US. Not to mention the mult-national cites that meet around their videocasts in Iraq, Scotland, and countries in Africa.
Their artistic element can be seen on their website with videos made to highlight sermon themes etc. See for example the presents sermon series: Rebel's Guide to Joy and the videos for each message amde by talented people in the church. This is as great way to get people from the congregation with these multi-media gifts involved in serving.
Blessing
Mark, did you mean to say Canada is 8 percent or 80 percent Christian? 2001 Census shows Canada is 77 percent Christian - unless Catholic and Orthodox do not count, then it is around 29 percent.
Thinking ape,
I was referring to numbers for Vancouver from a message I heard recently. I cannot find the exact numbers for Vancouver on Statscan (confusing) from the 2001 census but would of course chop some from whatever that number is. Because cultural Christianity is something that is not uniquely American but Canadian as well.
But yes, your right, 77% of Canada does claim to be Christian.
Mark, I understand where you are coming from. When I first started my pastoral studies, I wanted to implement the sort of engaging studies you are speaking about. But... But, I kept coming across a problem in my own studies. If I had a question that required more than a cliche answer (i.e. "Just trust God, etc.), I would hit the brick wall of "questioning within the framework" or "within the acceptable boundaries." There is a reason that so many evangelicals fear doubt - because doubt is the antithesis of their shallow faith. The historicity of Christianity simply does not hold up in the court of law. The theology is skewed and everyone is scared that they might have to reconcile that someday.
The American religion has been de-theologizing itself since the early 19th century for good reason. It just is too hard to get passionate about a God that works within nature instead of outside of it. A magical god is much more exciting than a subtle one. If Christians actually start reading their Bibles - rather than cherry picking their random verse of the day - they might start saying things like "Yahweh did what!?"
Sorry that last message sounded more hostile than I meant it to be. I feel a little ripped off from my Christian education.
In response to stats:
2001 census for Vancouver:
19% Catholic
17.4% Protestant
4.4% other Christian
1.7% Christian Orthodox
Definitely lower than the national average, but hardly the 8% polled from somewhere. Of course, that is unless the person you heard it from has an "inside" on people's hearts and minds. Be careful to accuse people of being "cultural Christians" - it tinges of spiritual superiority. I am sure we both could find verses in the Bible that could make heaven a very empty place.
Thinking Ape,
I am sorry I am not sure I understand some of the point you are making. However I do understand that you are warning me to be careful of religious superiority over others and should say that I in no way feel that pointing out that census' numbers do not reflect the reality of the spiritual make-up of Vancouver is anything about superiority but about being discerning.
This is clearly a part of a larger conversation about the use of terms and words and such which is a big conversation -- I am just saying I know many people who claim to be a lot of things but the reality does not reflect the claim.
I think the costly discipleship of Jesus that the gospels and others (Bonhoeffer) speak of is much more than acquainting yourself with church once in awhile, knowing a few things about Jesus and otherwise living your life unaffected by the gospel.
That's all I meant -- less about judging any particular person more about the fact that I doubt many of the people who checked the "Christian" are not actually followers of Jesus (do not categorize themselves that way any other day of the week; not knowing his teachings; not repenting of sin and trusting in him for salvation -- that kind of thing).
Just like many people could claim to adhere to many different ideologies; but if they couldn't tell you the foundations of that ideology I don't think you would believe them.
If some one said I am a Scientologist but had never read L. Ron Hubbard, couldn't tell you the basic doctrines of the faith and didn't live out his precepts you would naturaly conclude the person thinks they are a Scientologist but is really not.
Do you know what I mean?
Blessings
Post a Comment