Justin:
While what you say might be reasonable if one begins with a presupposition of reformed theology and imposes it on scripture, I can’t buy into that interpretation. A very quick and cursory glance at scriptures comes up with numerous examples of people being encouraged to seek the Lord.
A sampling of scriptures where Israel is called to seek God: Deut 4.29; I Chron 16.11; Is. 55:6; Jer 29:11
Job is urged to seek God-Job 8.5-7
You might protest, “But these are covenant people, or at least godly people”, but there are also numerous examples of non-covenant/non regenerate people being called to seek God: Zeph 2.3; Matt 7.7-8; Acts 15.17; Acts 17.27.
For God to call people to do what they are incapable of doing doesn’t seem to make any sense at all.
While there might be lots of reasons to question a seeker driven methadology, (and I do) I would suggestion that this scripture is not a valid foundation for doing so.
Just my thoughts.

Justin, great insight…I didn’t see the verse that way before. I don’t think that all of those people in those seeker-sensitive churches are saved because of their ignorance in doctrine, systematic theology and the likes and not to mention their sloppy exegesis of the Bible. The elephant in the room is this fact: those people are not worshipping the true God because of the lack of rigor in their theology and therefore, they are not saved. They are no different from atheists and people of other religion. We should pray for their salvation and for judgment to be brought upon the pastors for leading people away from heaven.

Last I checked, none of those pastors came out of a Reformed seminary. Nor do the websites list what their theological beliefs are. If they’re not Calvinist or believe in TULIP, they must not be Christians. Keep up the great work, Justin. It’s refreshing to know that so few people in this world uphold truth like we do.

Let’s be seeker sensible, meaning we don’t use jargon that alienates those who don’t speak our language. Let me qualify that. If we do use jargon that the Bible uses, like, “redemption” then we need to explain what we mean.
So, I prefer to think of it like that, not sensitive, meaning to dumb down, but sensible, meaning clear to all those who are listening.

Let’s be seeker sensible, meaning we don’t use jargon that alienates those who don’t speak our language. Let me qualify that. If we do use jargon that the Bible uses, like, “redemption” then we need to explain what we mean.
So, I prefer to think of it like that, not sensitive, meaning to dumb down, but sensible, meaning clear to all those who are listening.

Cal,
Great points. I had thought about making this a longer post and dealing with some of the texts you mentioned as I knew this counterpoint would come up in the comments. I think Matthew 7 and Acts 15 and 17 certainly nuance the discussion, but I don’t think they contradict what Paul argues in Romans 1-3, that humanity has rebelled against God and does not seek God–humanity’s only hope is for God to seek the sinner.
I don’t think this is a conclusion based on Reformed presuppositions, as Arminian theologians argue the same point–only God and his prevenient grace can transform one into a seeker of God.
Mark,
Your comment concerns me a bit. I’d be careful with your conclusions. Systematic theology doesn’t save us, the Savior saves us. I agree that the sloppy exegesis and doctrinal confusion that exists in some churches is a problem, but we shouldn’t jump to extreme conclusions.
Chris,
I’m assuming your comment is a joke. If that’s the case, I’d respond to you in a fashion similar to Cal (above). My post mentioned nothing about the theological labels you’ve mentioned. This blog rarely ever engages such labels. My post was based on what I hope is a straightforward reading of Romans 3:11b, taken in context of Paul’s argument running from Romans 1-3. If your comment was not a joke, well, then I’m really concerned.
Zach,
Good thoughts. I like the word “sensible.” I think, though, that the term “seeker” remains theologically confusing.

Dude… what’s going on in the comment area up in here.
Mark… I’m not an expert on this matter, but is it really a good idea to judge other people’s salvation? I can buy the idea that their lack of good scriptural feeding makes for watered down worship. Even misguided worship. But since when did “ignorance in doctorine” or “lack of rigor in theology” determine a man’s salvation?
Was the criminal crucified next to Jesus properly fed in theology when he was saved? Daily the Gospel for Asia program reports of men in remote areas who hear the brief story of Christ, pray a prayer of faith in Him however imperfect, all because a pastor through the name of Christ healed his sick Ox! That man is saved. The only pre-requisite for salvation is a genuine prayer of faith in Christ. I wish and pray that Churches not committed to scripture would see change… my sister goes to one such church. Most days the sermons sound like Tony Robbins seminars with speed bumps of scripture laid in. But judging the salvation of individuals based upon this and proclaiming God’s punishment on ineffective pastors seems to be the greater sin.
Chris, even if what you say is true and “they” are not “Christians” because they don’t believe in TULIP or Calvinism, is it really REFRESHING to you that SO FEW are in and uphold the truth? The way I see it the only way that could be refreshing is if it makes you feel better, more worthy, and set apart.
If you are a person who upholds the truth and feels like it’s a bit lonely at the top, don’t be proud… weep. Because God is weeping and it simply means we have much work to do harvesting the souls of those who are every bit as sinful as we are.

Wow, great discussion! Amen to Francis’ last comment. There is no room for pride in theology. We all stand equal at the cross.

Is it ok if I sidestep the current discussion in the comments and ask another question?
Justin,
I appreciate your insightful reading of this verse in Romans. None of us are righteous, none would seek God out apart from his glorious grace. Thanks for the reminder of His goodness to us sinners. While I agree that there is a certain wrong-headedness at the foundation of the seeker-sensitive technique, how do we, the church, effectively reach out to people who are outside the church to bring them to a knowledge of the grace of God in Christ Jesus? Seeker-sensitivity seems to dominate much of the evangelical landscape. If we are going to move beyond that paradigm, as I think we should, what new one should we adopt in our call to make disciples of all nations?

Justin,
Happened to stumbled across your blog based on search for someone else’s older blog on the same topic.
First let me say that from my experiences attending various seeker-sensitive churches that I really don’t think that they can all be grouped together. I think we agree on this based on your response above to another comment. I have been to some churches that seemed to be humorous drama with either no real message given or a drama that seems totally disconnected from the message. I have been to Willow Creek and other churches where the drama clearly pulls you into how the biblical truths, presented in the message, are relevant to our lives today and having a clear presentation of the Gospel message as well. And before I go any farther let me say I think all churches have their faults and sometimes things don’t go as planned or hoped for.
Since Willow Creek is well known and I went to one of their conferences back in the 90s and I think they are credited with first using the term seeker, I will discuss what I believe is their use of the term “seeker.” I could be wrong, but I’m not sure that Willow Creek ever meant for the term “seeker” to mean someone seeking after God. Most of what I have read from them is that it equates to an nonbeliever, unchurched, or lost person that is investigating their spiritual beliefs and is at least open to considering whether the truth of Jesus Christ is something they could believe in. Also, “seeker” rhymes with “creeker”, so it just works well for them :)
I personally think using the term, seeker does not present the sharp division that lost/saved or believer/nonbeliever does. It allows the seeker time to investigate and process the Biblical truths presented to them. Seek answers to investigative questions out of curiousity, instead of being defensive. Until hopefully the Holy Spirit draws them to faith in Christ.
Willow Creek uses the seeker-sensitive service as the third step in their seven step strategy to turn irreligious people into fully devoted followers of Christ. The first three steps being:
1) Christians within the church building relationships with the unchurched. (John 17:18)
2) Christians sharing a verbal witness with unchurched friends. Describing their old life, the Savior who came to them, and the changes He’s made. This includes our sinful nature, who can save them, and how. (1 Peter 3:15)
3) Invite unchurched friends to a seeker service that presents some facet of the message of Christ in a relevant creative presentation in a variety of means all with a consistent theme all geared toward a primary unchurched target audience. (Romans 10:141-15)

The seeker sensitive issue is all about liturgy, a topic I often think about in relation to worship. The fact is going to church is all about the gathering of the saints for worship, prayer, the hearing of the word, preaching, and fellowship. The saving of souls can be done in church, but it will be secondary to the “equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, 13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God (Eph.4:12-13).”
Where as the opposite is true in evangelism the primary place for the saving of the soul is out in the field (John 4) & in the highway’s and hedges (Luke 14) where the body of Christ is called to preach the gospel.
When the pastor is trying to save the congregation, he is neglecting his calling to open up God’s word and preach to the believers that call to holiness and to teach and preach the word (1 Tim 4.13, 5.17 & 2 Tim. 4.2). In the same respect the body of Christ is neglecting it’s calling to evangelize the lost and relying on their pastor to do something he is not called by God to do.
Justin’s point is well taken; no one seeks God from there own internal desire. People who do seek God seek Him from the desire God has given them, and there will be people in our midst that God is calling and people who are new in their faith. That is why I really like Zack’s point. It goes right to the heart of the pastors role which is to teach the word, and help people understand its relevance to their daily lives. I love my pastor for that very reason; I always walk away from church feeling like understand my place in this world and feel like I have a calling to fulfill. I truly feel shepherded.
Finally we gather together as a body to worship the living Lord of the Universe and to make his presence very real in our lives with other believers. If that is compromised we will truly have missed our calling as believers to glorify God and enjoy him forever.

Sean,
I totally see your point. I think your comment is really well articulated.
I’m still considering (not totally understanding) the idea that saving the lost is mainly done outside of the church. And it is not a calling of a church pastor to save the lost.
Some pastors I notice mainly only concentrate on feeding the body. Others after giving a very hearty message, properly equipping the saints in the church, give a call to faith to non believers in the church. I tend to really enjoy that.
There is a community life pastor at my church that balances this very well.
If I were to become a head pastor at a church, (not that I’m qualified) I imagine that is something I would probably do as well. Certainly not weekly, but definitely consistently… especially as it pertains to the scripture being examined.
Ideally everyone is evangelizing and leading people to their big prayer of faith… in their private relationships, workplaces and homes. But for many who feel they need support to reach the lost in their lives shouldn’t have to wait for Greg Laurie or Promise Keepers to come to town. (Half kidding)
I think it’s wonderful for someone to be able to bring a non-believer friend to church, and have that guest be challenged to accept the Lord or at least enjoy a brief part of the message that is directed to someone in their position. A seeker.

David Wells, “The Courage to Be Protestant” (52-53):
“First, the needs consumers have are needs they identify for themselves. The needs sinners have are needs God identifies for us, and the way we see our needs is rather different from the way he sees them. We suppress the truth about God, holding it down in “unrighteousness” (Rom. 1.18). We are not subject to his moral law and in our fallenness are incapable of being obedient to it (Rom. 8.7), so how likely is it, outside of the intervention of God through the Holy Sprit, that we will identifiy our needs as those arising from our rebellion against God? No, the product we will seek naturally will not be the gospel. It will be a therapy of some kind, a technique for life, perhaps a way of connecting more deeply with our own spiritual selves on our own terms, terms that require no repentance and no redemption. It will not be the gospel. The gospel cannot be a product that the church sells because there are no consumers for it. When we find consumers, we will find that what they are interested in buying, on their own terms, is not the gospel.
Furthermore, when we buy a product, we buy it for our use. When we accept Christ, he is not there for our use but we are there for his service. We commit ourselves to him in a way that we do not commit ourselves to any product. There is a world of difference between the Lord of Glory, the incarnate second person of the Godhead, and a Lexus, a vacation home, or a trip to the Bahamas. The marketing analogy blurs all of this, reducing Christ simply to a product we buy to satisfy all our needs.”

Great Point Matt!!
And Francis… My pastor does the same; when he preaches from a passage and lends itself to an evangelistic message, he absolutely takes advantage of the opportunity to bring a call to repentance to the believers and non believers alike and seek the Lord of Glory for forgiveness.
But when a pastor focuses to much on saving the lost in his congregation, the believers never get off of square one. The first few verses of Hebrews 6 states this very succinctly. If people never grow in their faith they will ultimately never have anything of substance to give to their neighbor. So what I think is happening in a lot of American churches is Christians loosing their gift of evangelism which could be brought back to their pastors neglecting their calling; but we are all accountable of our own actions. We grow from faithful act to faithful act (Ro.1.17). Without living out the faith God has given us we loose those gifts as stated in the parable of the talents in Matt.25.14-30. I know when I am struggling with my sin I am not available spiritually for my Christian brother and neighbor.

Sean and Francis,
FYI, you guys go to the same church! I’ll have to introduce you two sometime soon.

Well, my pastor is better than his pastor.

That’s funny. Maybe I’ve met you already…
Do you remember me? I’m about 6’4, 240 pounds with a 44 inch vertical leap. Last Sunday in the lobby I held down Justin’s arms with one hand and tickled him with the other…
Ring any bells?

Click to read Justin Taylor’s latest post. I disagree with his second point that we, Calvinist, are arrogant. I take pride in my humility…
http://theologica.blogspot.com/2008/04/two-cheers-for-resurgence-of-calvinism.html#links

Instead of clicking on the link, here is the actual excerpt:
I thank God for what is so good about this New Calvinism, but I also have some concerns. Trying really hard to leave the substantive theological disagreements aside for now, I mention a few observations about some rather worrisome features of this movement.
One is this: they would do well to know their own tradition better. Consider as a case study the doctrine of divine sovereignty. I take it to be universally accepted (or at least nearly so) among the New Calvinists that divine sovereignty entails determinism. But Richard Muller (a top-tier Reformation scholar and the leading historian of 17th century Reformed theology) insists that within post-Reformation scholasticism there is “not even a tendency toward metaphysical determinism” (PRRD, I, p. 128). Muller says this as he is applying the finishing touches to the coffin for the old “central dogma” myth. But it seems quite obvious to me that there indeed is a central dogma to the New Calvinism: belief that God determines everything, and that he does so for his own glory, is taken to be necessary and sufficient. If you are a Christian who believes this, then you can safely claim to be “Reformed.” But by more traditional accounts, it is less than obvious that this is either necessary or sufficient.
Furthermore, it would be good if they would set themselves to the task of coming to a better understanding of the broader Christian tradition. I know that we all need this advice (well, at least I do), but it seems to me that the New Calvinists are far more interested in reading Edwards or Owen (worthy reads to be sure) than they are in mining the riches of patristic theology or grappling with the subtleties of medieval scholasticism. This is, I fear, to the detriment of the movement, and more development in this area might go some distance toward loosening the unhealthy reliance of some of these New Calvinists on what might be called the “Neo-Reformed Magisterium” (the small group of theologians and conference speakers who are sometimes quoted as the final word on any theological topic at issue… if you doubt what I say, consult Collin Hansen’s sobering observations about “Piper fiends” and those who “worship” John Piper, Young, Restless, Reformed, pp. 14, 46).
No theological tradition has cornered the market on arrogance. I have been accused of it (sometimes, I fear, with very good reason). Yet there seems to be – though I’m sure that what I say here is highly fallible – an amazing quantity of it among the New Calvinists. I’ve been told that my resistance to “the doctrines of grace” (no hubris in that label?) is a sign of my probable reprobation. I’ve had the senior pastor of a fine evangelical church tell me that although we were welcome to attend, I could not expect to be involved in any way because I was not “Reformed” – even though this particular church was not confessionally Reformed at all (their official statement of faith was generically evangelical). A friend (who teaches theology in a seminary in the Methodist tradition) told me of helping an incoming student (at a seminary in the Reformed tradition) move into a neighboring house. When the incoming student – who, if memory serves, was about to begin an MDiv – discovered that my friend was a Wesleyan, he quickly said “you guys don’t think much about things, do you?” Another friend expressed doubts about aspects of Calvinism and then was rejected by a missions agency for perceived confusion about the gospel. Alas, such stories are not rare. They are legion. Again, I am well aware that New Calvinism does not have a monopoly on theological arrogance, and I’m also very happy to say that many Calvinists do not exhibit this at all. And perhaps it is simply easier to spot it in someone else. Still, though, I mention it as an abiding concern.

Now Moses was a very humble man, more humble than anyone else on the face of the earth.
Numbers 12.13
Now there’s an example of pride in humility. Moses is the author of the Torah, but my guess is someone else had to add this into the text.