As the above ad shows, seeker-sensitivity can get out of hand. But sometimes in our efforts to denounce it we end up shredding up the good guys in the process, who are merely using cultural illustrations to teach the Gospel.

Today I read a great post by Charlie Lehmann dealing with the strengths and limits of media analogies. After writing a bible study using the recent Star Trek movie as a starting point for sharing the Gospel, he was accused of being “seeker-sensitive.” I loved his response:

I really don’t know anything about being seeker sensitive. I don’t know what that means because the whole approach to theology makes absolutely no sense to me. Further, I don’t care even a little bit about being seeker sensitive. The seeker is Jesus. I and the rest of humanity are the lost lambs that He is seeking out. . . . “Being relevant isn’t a sin.” More than that, being relevant isn’t even the point. . . . I’m not trying to be hip or cool. I’m neither (just ask my wife). What I’m doing is saying, “Hey, did you see that cool movie. It got me to thinking about Jesus and what He did for you on the cross.” I know that’s kinda redundant, but hey, just about everything makes me think about Jesus, so deal with it.

I think sometimes we get so bent out of shape trying to denounce all that is “seeker-sensitive” that it starts getting ridiculous. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think we should make church a big entertainment show that is focused on the comfort of the people in the pews, but I also think we absolutely need to remember that God is seeker-sensitive, and He is the seeker! We are not the seekers! We do not need huge church buildings and fancy light shows to draw in crowds, we simply need to introduce people to the real Seeker, Jesus Christ Himself.

Tiffany and I (Dan) ate at a local restaurant called Houlihan’s the other day, and as I sat there waiting for the check, I realized that Houlihan’s was a lot like a typical American church. Let me walk you through the similarities.

The Experience
Before going there, I checked out the website to see the menu. I always view church’s websites before attending as well, to see what it might be like (and to see if the church is culturally relevant enough to publish a somewhat informative website). Anyways, the Houlihan’s website was really flashy and had some progressive music playing (see for yourself). It seemed pretty cool.

Upon arriving, the atmosphere was fairly trendy: they had metal covers on their menus, a neat paint/color scheme, progressive music playing, and the staff wore all black and looked stylish. Despite the artificial atmosphere, the wait staff wasn’t all that good, the glasses were dirty, and the food was average. It was a let-down. I used to feel this way a lot when I attended new churches. They would have a cool atmosphere, but the same old attitudes and ways of doing things (just like in the Starbucks church video, watch it if you haven’t seen it yet!).

What They Say About Themselves
Later, after reflecting on this. I decided to revisit their website and read the “About Us” page. There were some startling similarities with how churches present themselves. Let’s go through some of the statements they make about themselves and compare it to how churches portray themselves:

In 1972, Houlihan’s first opened its doors in Kansas City with a progressive, eclectic menu and energetic bar scene. Ferns hung throughout, artifacts cluttered the walls and tapestries made by San Francisco hippies formed the ceiling. Caviar burgers, roasted duck, foot-long hot dogs and fresh carrot juice were just a few original menu items so ahead for its time. It was hot.

Just as Houlihan’s opened in the early 70’s with an eclectic and energetic atmosphere, so too many churches found their origin in the “Jesus Movement” of the 60’s and 70’s and used charisma and popular culture to draw in crowds. Notice the goal here is to cater to the consumer, not to conform the consumer to a greater ideal. In many ways churches today have it as their goal to meet peoples’ needs, rather than to conform them to the image of Christ (even when it’s not popular to do so).

Before long, there were a lot of ‘casual dining’ restaurants opening and call us crazy, but they looked a whole lot like us. We tried to be flattered. Some grew really big, and by the ’90s, the whole ‘casual dining’ landscape was pretty me-too. Instead of watching the consumer, the industry seemed more worried about what competitors were doing. Casual dining lost its way, and in doing so lost its edge.

Houlihan’s makes a good observation here, they recognized that not only had the casual dining industry lost touch with the consumer, but it also became self-absorbed and chased after competition relentlessly. Over the last few decades, churches have also been racing to be the biggest, most “relevant,” have the best worship band, and draw the largest crowds. They have forgotten that the true focus is Christ, not having better preaching than the mega-church on the other side of town.

Fast forward to 2002. That’s when we had our ‘Aha!’ moment (as Oprah would say). New leadership, new ideas, new inspiration. We completely re-imagined ourselves, and got back in touch with the consumer. New menus. New plates. New building design, new soundtrack. Stylish uniforms. And a modern, warm restaurant design with an open kitchen and prominent bar. Today, our company is built entirely around what the progressive consumer seeks in a restaurant + bar experience. And we plan to keep it that way.

Forget ‘casual dining.’ That’s an industry term so out of touch with how consumers eat and drink today. For premium quality and style; fare that’s at times familiar and other times adventurous and a laid-back modern setting, Houlihan’s is a true original.

Notice two things: 1) All of the changes involved the external environment, not any real internal change on the parts of the staff; 2) Above and beyond merely stating the casual dining industry has gotten out of touch with the consumer, Houlihan’s believes entirely new terms need to be employed to describe their “original” setting, rendering the “old” terms obsolete and “out of touch.”

Isn’t this also the only real change many churches have made – external only? In an attempt to make church all about the people in the pews (rather than keeping its sole focus on Christ), it has tried to create an experience that will meet the Christians’ needs for belonging and adventure, among many other things. The problem is, these needs can only be met in Christ! The church will never be able to meet all of peoples’ needs, the local bar or the person’s family can do that much better – but the Church can show the person the only thing that will truly meet their needs: Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!

Also, just as Houlihan’s has sought to employ new terms, the church is filled with new terms such as “missional,” “relevant,” “seeker-sensitive,” etc. Now those terms are being attacked as out of touch, and new terms are emerging such as “post-missional,” “beyond relevance,” “seeker-friendly,” “post-denominational,” etc. Despite the terms, the church still looks and feels the same, and it’s still doing things the exact same away (in many instances it is doing them worse than it did before).

Conclusion
Just as my Houlihan’s experience was blah and average, my experience with many churches is the same. The church can’t compete with Satan’s progressive culture, nor should it try. The church needs to stand against the grain of culture and challenge it to embrace Jesus Christ. Rather than adapting to culture, the Church should transform culture. Only Jesus Christ can do this, not a new movement, program, or committee.

Yes, yes, I have not been writing much lately. OK, I haven’t written anything in the entire month it seems. December has been a busy month with Christmas and all, between all five of my families thanks to divorce, and other nonsense — busy. Not to mention I’m taking my final capstone course for my bachelor’s degree, and I’ve written close to forty pages for that paper so far… still going. Excuses, excuses — I know.

Anyways, if anyone is still reading this — I apologize. I do intend to post some more great content soon as life returns to the speed of normalcy. For now, to wet your appetite, I found a great article on the Emerging Church by Marcia Ford entitled The Emerging Church: Ancient Faith for a Postmodern World. In her excellent attempt to define the Emerging Church (which by nature refuses to be defined), she writes:

I am among those who have grown increasingly disenchanted with evangelicalism. Don’t get me wrong—I could sign, and have signed, any basic statement of faith issued by most evangelical ministries and companies. It’s not a problem of doctrine; it’s a problem of practice. . . .

Bear with me now as I engage in a bit of keyboard stammering, because this is the point where I need to define the emerging church. I’ll start by explaining what it is not: It’s not an organization, a denomination, or an association of churches; that kind of structure runs counter to the thinking of its adherents. (Even the word “adherents” is suspect, but let’s not get sidetracked.) It’s not an entity with a single doctrinal stance, though most in the movement could, like me, sign any standard evangelical statement of faith. It’s not—thank God!—another regimented program for the church to follow. And although it emerged as a reaction to church as usual, its leaders take care not to criticize or disparage people who are quite content with the usual church.

What the emerging church offers and encourages is a new way of doing church and being the church, one that resonates not only with the 18-to-34-year-old demographic—the first fully postmodern generation—but also with people who think like those in the younger demographic but are older in age. Or way older, like me. If you came to faith in Christ during the Jesus Movement of the 1970s as I did, you should readily understand the emerging church. Remember how we tried to create a whole new model based on Luke’s description of the early church in the book of Acts? Well, the emerging church is succeeding where we failed, for reasons I can only speculate about. Sometimes I think we just gave up too soon. We ended up with some decent alternatives for that time (think Vineyard Fellowship and Calvary Chapel), but that’s not what we really wanted. What we really wanted then is what they’re actually doing now.

So where can you find examples of the emerging church? Some postmodern-friendly churches have sprung from an intentional and interdenominational effort, such as Brian McLaren’s Cedar Ridge Community Church near Washington, D.C. Pretty much everyone in the emerging church recognizes McLaren as the movement’s elder statesman; his books, with titles like A New Kind of Christian and Adventures in Missing the Point (the latter with Tony Campolo), have helped define the emerging church.

Sometimes, the name of a particular church is a dead giveaway that it’s part of the movement, such as Scum of the Earth in Denver. Little question that it’s not, say, a Southern Baptist congregation. Many, like Solomon’s Porch in Minneapolis, which meets in a living room setting in an industrial building, see themselves as an experimental community. Still others aren’t really churches but ministries affiliated with traditional congregations, like The Crucible, a postmodern outreach of the huge Belmont Church in Nashville. Vintage Faith in Santa Cruz, California, Apex in Las Vegas, and Holy Joe’s in London are but a few others.

What all these groups have in common is this: They believe Jesus intended his followers to interact with the culture around them, not become an alien subculture. They adhere to the ancient creeds of the church. They emphasize the visual and performing arts and acknowledge the enormous influence pop culture has on society. As much as anything else, they believe in the communal and missional aspects of the church—the responsibility Jesus-followers have to each other and to those outside the faith. And they believe that as we draw closer to God, we draw closer to each other, despite the denominational boundaries that divide us. Emerging church evangelicals comfortably draw on the rich traditions and practices of the diverse streams of Christianity, believing that by genuinely living where our common faith intersects, we can surpass the efforts of even the most successful ecumenical programs.

Beyond that, there’s not always uniformity among the beliefs and practices in the emerging church, and its adherents would have it no other way. They believe faith is a journey rather than a destination, and each community of Christians needs to find its own way of continuing on that journey. Underscoring that idea are books like Doug Pagitt’s Reimagining Spiritual Formation: A Week in the Life of an Experimental Church—in this case, Solomon’s Porch. Like other leaders in the movement, Pagitt’s intention is to bring readers along on one church’s journey, not provide a rigid model for others to follow.

Among the many authors to pay attention to are Vintage Faith pastor Dan Kimball, author of The Emerging Church and Emerging Worship; Drew University professor Leonard Sweet (Postmodern Pilgrims; A Is for Abductive); youth pastor Tony Jones (Postmodern Youth Ministry; Read, Think, Pray, Live); Robert E. Webber, author of The Younger Evangelicals and Ancient-Future Faith: Rethinking Evangelicalism for a Postmodern World; Spencer Burke, Sally Morgenthaler—the list is far too extensive to include all the recommended authors here. For the most thorough collection of postmodern resources that I know of, go to www.agts.edu, click on “Free Resources,” and then click on the folder labeled “Emerging Culture/Emerging Church.” [DIRECT LINK] That will give you access to a PDF file of 1,700-plus resources amassed by Assemblies of God professor Earl Creps, a man for whom many in the emerging church movement give thanks daily.

As you discover more books and authors, you’ll see that the movement receives strong support from several publishing houses—Zondervan, particularly its emergentYS imprint; Relevant Books; Jossey-Bass; NavPress; and to some extent, Thomas Nelson, Baker Books, and Paraclete Press. Some of those publishers sponsored emerging church events at CBA, including a Zondervan/Relevant panel discussion designed to help booksellers discover what they need to do to reach the postmodern demographic.

Web sites to visit include www.emergentvillage.com and www.theooze.com, both of which provide links to partner ministries. Or simply enter “emerging church” into a good search engine like Google; once you start seeking information on the movement, you’ll discover that there’s a wealth of information available on the Internet. Enter the same term into the Amazon search function (on the main Christianity page, to narrow your choices), and you’ll find numerous books on postmodern ministry.

The emerging church is clearly in its infancy, with some leaders suggesting that it’s in the earliest stages of what could prove to be a 100-year-plus shift in our thinking about church. But no matter where it is on an unknown timeline, it’s a welcome relief for those of us who have longed for evangelicalism to become what we hoped and prayed and believed it could be—an authentic expression of our “ancient-future” faith.

That is a well-written article and says it well. I wanted to post that to show that you don’t have to be 18-35 to be considered postmodern or emerging, I know many who are older who fit into the category well. The funny thing is, the more traditional churches are in more of a position to reach this generation than most seeker-sensitive ones, but authenticity is the key. You must get back to the meaning of all traditions, not do them merely because it is the way you have always done them!

Or at least that’s the message I seem to be hearing from a lot of America’s largest churches and most popular preachers. What ever happened to denying ourselves? What ever happened to the (gulp) offensive teaching that we don’t have the ability in our flesh to discern right from wrong? Whatever happened to keeping the central focus of EVERYTHING on Jesus?

Now it seems that everything is all about “being relevant” and “spiritual.” I mean, we all have the potential to have our best lives now! We just need to have more faith in ourselves! We just need to think more positively and not let negativity get us down! I hope you caught my sarcasm. While 390days.com is about Christianity 2.0 and how the social face of our faith is changing as it encounters a new technological era, I don’t want to see Jesus shift from being the central focus of it all. Do I want to help Christians embrace Web 2.0 and become more “relevant”? Yes. Do I want to see the Gospel take a back seat to this relevance? NO!

Why is it that every pastor seems to have a megachurch mentality? It’s not just pastors. A fellow blogger recently pointed out that even the most well-intentioned pastors often succumb to the pressure from church boards of elders to make church all about growth. I recently wrote a post entitled Developing a ‘Sticky Church’, where I talked about how churches focus far too much on the front door (reaching people) rather than the back door (keeping people). This mentality is spreading like cancer in American churches — and it needs to stop! A few people have been taking notice. I’d like to show you a YouTube video about this mentality in churches. The video is really short (less than two minutes) and is a spoof about a megachurch pastor. First watch the video:

If you really think about it, this video is not just about megachurches. Remember what it said about using gimmicks to get people into church, comfortable seating, shorter services, fashionable appearances, coffee shops, etc.? Aren’t almost all American churches succumbing to these approaches? While Jesus said, “Go and tell…”, why does every church seem to be saying, “Come and see…”? Hmm. . . . It really makes me think, and I hope it makes you think too.

• How has “megachurch mentality” crept into churches in your area? Has it found its way into your church?
• Do you think it’s ok to throw events to show people your church is fun or relevant, even if the Gospel is not presented at those events?

P.S. If you’d like to see more interesting videos on this topic, I have two recommendations. Both are about five minutes long (each). Cheech and Chong at the drive-thru is about Cheech and Chong’s adventure to Sonic Drive-Thru Church. It’s a very entertaining skit about consumerism in American churches.

Sexy God is a spoof about Rob Bell and his book Sex God. Now don’t get me wrong, I like some of Rob Bell’s material, but this video raises some valid points that you may find interesting — and comical. Enjoy!

Yesterday I posted a video that talks about the Web 2.0 phenomenon. Since many are confused as to what Web 2.0 is, I offer a great definition from Stilton Studios’ glossary of terms:

Web 2.0 is a trend in the use of World Wide Web technology and web design that aims to facilitate creativity, information sharing, and, most notably, collaboration among users. These concepts have led to the development and evolution of web-based communities and hosted services, such as social-networking sites, wikis, blogs, and folksonomies (the practice of categorizing content through tags). Although the term suggests a new version of the World Wide Web, it does not refer to an update to any technical specifications, but to changes in the ways software developers and end-users use the internet.

Three terms that jump out at me are “collaboration”, “communities”, and “social-networking”. These three terms define Web 2.0 fairly well. prayeramedic.com is a blog that will discuss how revolutionary change within our culture, such as Web 2.0, affects our concept of community and Christianity in general. I have dubbed this transformation “Christianity 2.0,” that is, the emerging technological movement within the culture that changes the parameters of social interaction in our faith. As a young adult, I offer you a perspective on Christianity and church from a generation that has all but disappeared from both. This is a forum for people of all ages to discuss this transformation and learn from one another.

prayeramedic.com wants to help you make sense of the emerging technological movements in our world today that are reshaping and defining social interaction and what it means to be in community, both areas in which Christians should be known for leading lasting change. We cannot stand by and let an entire generation slip out of the church’s fingers because it is unable to relate to them. We also cannot afford to completely compromise to cultural standards and allow culture to dictate how we “do church.” We must emerge as leaders in social networking, and set the standards for how community can exist in a Web 2.0 world, with Christ at it’s center.

Why does any of this matter to me as a Christian?

All the believers were together and had everything in common. (Acts 2:44, NIV)

Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching. (Hebrews 10:25, NIV)

The older women. . . can train the younger women. . . . Similarly, encourage the young men to be self-controlled. In everything set them an example by doing what is good. . . . (Titus 2:3-7, NIV)

There are numerous passages of scripture dealing with the need for community and fellowship amongst believers. We must encourage, teach, rebuke, guide, and train one another. In yesterday’s post about the anthropology of Web 2.0, I posed the question, “In a cultural context that continuously values individuality, could Web 2.0 have something to do with a longing within each of us for community and collectivism?” I would assert that that’s exactly what it’s about, and as Christians it is vital for us to be leaders in this emergent form of community.

I cited Titus 2 because it is crucial for older and more mature believers to embrace the Christianity 2.0 community so that they can mold and help mature it. If the only people who embrace this cultural shift are young adults, then we will look to each other’s input to grow and mature. Wouldn’t it be so great if older and more mature individuals were contributing valuable input to the community? Not only is this a great idea, it’s necessary for optimal growth!

The Greek word from which we get our English word “church” is ἐκκλησία (ekklesia). This word literally means “called out ones”, and in ancient times was used to denote an “assembly, congregation, or council.” Even the word itself invites us to be “called out ones” in a new and exciting age where we can embrace and shape the early foundations of Christianity 2.0.

So What Can I Do?
At this point you might be saying to yourself, “Well that’s all fine and dandy, but I have no clue how to even begin with Web 2.0. How am I supposed to relate to this generation and keep up with all this technology?” It may seem overwhelming at first, but it’s really not too bad. My first recommendation is to get young adults in your church involved. They will probably be your subject matter experts on this stuff. Here are four things every church should have, that give you at least a basic presence in the Web 2.0 world:

1. A web site that has pictures of your worship experience and a design theme that captures the atmosphere of your church, with at least one element of dynamic content. A static page is one that is rarely changed or updated, such as a biography of your church. A dynamic page continually features new content, such as a church events calendar. This is actually really simple and cheap to do using vCHURCHES if you don’t have the money to drop on a custom design. I know several pastors in their 30’s – 50’s who are able to maintain very relevant websites using this tool, who had little to no technical background to begin with.
2. A church blog (linked to or incorporated into your web site), or blogs for various lead staff members of the church. There are tons of free blogging platforms for you to get started with such as WordPress, Blogger, or LiveJournal.
3. A Myspace or Facebook account (preferably both, with links to and from your web site). Not only can you have a main profile for your church, individual ministries within the church can have their own profiles as well with custom themes best portraying their unique attributes. Be sure to add all of your sub-profiles to your top friends!
4. A lead staff member who regularly checks, updates, and maintains the three above-mentioned items. I cannot emphasize this one enough. DO NOT rely on a volunteer to handle all of this. You must be sure this becomes the responsibility of someone on the payroll. Too many web sites go stagnant when a young adult decides to leave a church or when an irresponsible youth inadvertently allows a spammer to get a hold of your Myspace profile and post links to pornographic websites on it.

For individuals, I recommend steps two and three for you. These are just a few suggestions to get you started in the Web 2.0 world, and to help you become a leader of lasting change in Christianity 2.0.

The church is rapidly evolving and becoming an organic network of communities, moving away from the traditional focus on a building and a local activity-oriented agenda. Change is being made towards a global and boundary-free approach to social networking, which is changing the way we “do church” and think about Christian community.

• What have you been doing in the Web 2.0 world?
• How can you share your faith with people you have never even met?
• What are some challenges to authenticity that are posed by a Web 2.0 world?
• What are some possibly unexplored new trails in the world of Christianity 2.0?