Seeker Sensitive

I always feel kinda cheated at a seeker sensitive church. Like I was hoping for something deep (intellectually) and something convicting (spiritually) and I’m left not challenged and unchanged.

My only thought would be that “seeker sensitive” churches are hard to define. you’ve done a good job of detailing strengths and weaknesses and you’ve also done a good job of displaying some of those attributes through the video. But, these churches that you’ve shown in the videos, don’t take on all the forms talked about. And I would say that some of them wouldn’t consider themselves “seeker sensitive” by some definitions.

Is a seeker sensitive church one that takes on all these forms? Or one that takes on maybe one or two of these forms?

I think back to the original, Willow Creek. They were, in my mind, truly seeker. no worship music. no scripture references. drama and dance pointing to metaphor and story. teaching was generally more thought than theology. They specifically built a service that would speak to someone who didn’t know anything about God, but they left them with questions, so that they could seek God. Then, they had their “believers” service (worship, Bible study, communion) at a different time. Of course, that was back in the 80′s-90′s and they’ve changed since then.

So I am curious what a “seeker sensitive” church, really is in qualification. I also say that for me, a seeker sensitive church takes on a completely different role and feel than it did originally. The church I am involved with would be considered “seeker sensitive”, but we do not hold “seeker” services. We have worship, praise, prayer, scripturally based teaching and we take communion at every service. Most of those elements wouldn’t be involved in a truly “sensitive” environment, but, people feel comfortable. Would we be labelled “seeker”? We have elements, but I wouldn’t consider us a seeker church based on what I know of true “seeker” churches, like Willow of the old days.

I think I could answer most or all of your questions by saying these 2 things:

1. No church calls their services seeker sensitive anymore.
2. What seeker sensitive means today (if we can even call it that) is something entirely different than what it meant in the 80s and 90s. Think missional.

As much of the video was meant to describe how seeker services operated, I also know that I talked about elements that didn’t make up what seeker services looked like 10 years ago. I tried to find a balance between what I think is seeker sensitive today and what was 10 years ago. Hence the over-generalization.

Ya. I get the generalization. I think you did a good job of pointing out the good and bad. Maybe the good is more of a checks and balance that churches choosing to be sensitive need to gauge themselves by.

I am sure this was tough to do. I know it would be for me. terms like Seeker and Missional are so overused and watered down. It’s hard to determine what they really mean. They mean something different around every corner.

I think it’s a complex and multi-faceted issue. The term “seeker sensitive” has really given itself a negative connotation and it’s sad, because at it’s core, being “sensitive” to the “seeker” isn’t inherently a bad thing, and I think you’ve done a good job of very basically pointing out the pros and cons of church done either way.

I’ve been attending (and now working) at a church that some may call “seeker sensitive”, though I cringe at the term simply because some people seem to think “seeker sensitive” means “bad” or “Joel Osteen” (haha). They start automatically assuming you’re not a “true” Bible-believing, living, organic community.

For me, as a full time youth pastor, my goal is to introduce Jesus and help teens grow in their walk with God – we have kids in our group that are running clubs at their high schools and are passionate about God, and we have kids that are out getting drunk, smoking pot and sleeping around every week (and could care less about God). This is the culture we live in. I am responsible for the spiritual maturity of ALL of them – this means reaching out to them where they are at – using the mediums of the day – one could argue this Scripturally quite easily.

On the other hand, I also am a worship leader in my spare time – Leading a congregation that seems so apathetic toward something I am so incredibly passionate about can be frustrating – but I am also up to the challenge of helping our congregation grow in their understanding of why we sing and why we gather, and how anyone at any point in their spiritual journey can join as one to worship the almighty. This is the area that I struggle with – sometimes more “seeker” oriented churches breed immature Christians – but I think this can be easily combated.

I hope that anyone who comes to a weekend service and is still thirsty for more of God that they would a) join a small group or b) take a mid-week spiritual development course that many churches (including mine) offer or c) be continually growing in your own time, allowing Sunday morning church to be a chance for great fellowship, great worship and a teaching that they can learn and grow from.

I think too many Christians have the notion that if they’re not “getting” something out of a pastor’s message that there must be something wrong with the church – it could be simply that you are in a different place spiritually! And this is OK! Mentor and disciple others so that the rest of the congregation might grow more spiritually, and in turn invite people out that may need something like a “seeker sensitive” church offers.

There’s a TON more I could say on things like “watering down the gospel” and “becoming to corporate/materialistic” but I think I’ve already said too much. haha

I’ve heard somebody (name is slipping my mind) talk about how the church shouldn’t necessarily be about being seeker sensitive, but should be about being seeker intelligible. I think I like that distinction.

My biggest issue with “seeker sensitive” as I see it played out is that it is lacking in ecclesiology. In essence we water down the meaning of churchto anything more than an interface for people to become a part of. Wanting to see more rootedness has led me into a strange relationship with liturgy, views of sacraments and so on. Pretty much, I think if we have no solid definition of what our church gatherings are about, or if seeker sensitive fits in with that, it’s fine. I just end up in this place where I think the themes we talk about, the sacraments, the cross, all these things won’t make sense to the seeker. For me that leads to thinking that the service is more about the sacred, but we do everything we can to explain the significance of what we do(which is probably helpful to many of our church goers as well).

I don’t want to appear completely down on the idea though, and I think your pros and cons list is a good one in that regard.

I think at the end of my presentation I said something to the affect that every church is seeker sensitive, but not every church is all that sensitive to seekers.

To me, Seeker Sensitive is:

Makes more of man and less of God.

And I would say that in most cases that is an unfair distinction. It is because of God that people reach out to unbelievers. You could then say the same thing about missional churches. They are seeker sensitive in a different way. Maybe church for them is more about man than God. Yet everyone in the missional movement would never agree to that.

I am a child of a “seeker-sensitive” church. Having previously attended a Baptist church, I love to tell people I learned more in the first 6 months at the seeker church than I did in 6 YEARS at the Baptist church. I loved the freedom and the “bottom-shelf” approach to giving people what they NEEDED to hear from Scripture vs all the things a speaker needs to teach.