Getting secular people through the front doors of churches is pretty near impossible these days - unless they are attending a mid-week gym or a café. But it's not God's fault - perhaps it is the fault of his followers who run the services. Purpose driven, pulpit driven seeker services in strange venues with strange people do not "work" in a post-Christian society. They are history. Goodbye.

Many pastors are losing touch with the emerging culture, while others have never been in touch with the culture they are trying to reach. Still others can't be bothered with those outside the four walls of their "second home" they call their church, just as some emerging or postmodern church leaders can't be bothered with dialoguing with traditional leaders in the institutional churches.

The good news is that some leaders are waking up, but many still have to wipe the sleep from their eyes. When Christian leaders in de-Christianized America increasingly realized they were losing touch with those in the surrounding culture, they attempted to reach out to those they thought would be interested in their culture and philosophy by formulating services targeted to "seekers" or "pre-Christians", (yes, most services were formulae). Some even built other "Christian communities" ("planting churches" is soooo 1980). Leaders considered such meetings were hip, trendy, high-tech, top quality, and user friendly, and therefore more likely to get secular people through the front doors as a gateway to the pearly gates. They used loud rock music and videos, entertainment in their "if you build it, they will come" services. And many did come. Some church leaders in post-Christian countries mimicked their US counterparts and set up their own "seeker services".

That was a mistake. Not many people came. Maybe they weren't building it right. Maybe they were "Americanising" their services. Those that did come were often church hoppers looking for entertainment - with the odd secular straggler who didn't hang around long. New Zealand, where I live, is more secular than both Britain and America, and has been a post Christian society well before the US ever was. However, people in all countries want to be involved in, and are longing for, meaningful community. The church could be that community if only leaders re-connected with the heartbeat of those in the emerging culture rather than trying to programme them in the hope that "they will come" to Christ through an organised "programmed to the second" event.

I guess you can tell by now that I've never been a fan of seeker services and would never take my friends to one. Why? None of them are seekers. They don't have the "felt needs" that were supposed to have been met by seeker service programming. My friends don't want to be invited to a programme to be told that they lacked self-esteem and therefore they needed to become Christians so they can get to heaven - as if that will fix up their non-existent problems with self-esteem. They'd rather have a few beers with those in the community, and get to know them, before they get clued up on the Kingdom of God. Even if they did get clued up on the Kingdom, and became disciples, they might not want to "go to church" but would surely want to be in community.

Pete Ward, who used to advise former Anglican Archbishop George Carey on youth ministry, calls this "liquid church". The task of the liquid church, Ward says, is to communicate Christ to people who are searching but don't want to be part of the church. These days people are looking for spiritual meaning from sources outside the church. They primarily start with relationships - with others and then perhaps with God. Ward even goes as far to say that the Sunday morning service may not be necessary. Hmmm, liquid without the church. Unity without community…. maybe not a good idea.

As programmed seeker services were never in touch with those in the emerging culture, something had to replace them - and I don't mean in a WWJD kinda way, with all the cultural trappings and focus on youth. With the emergence of post modernity, post structuralism, post-literalism, and lately of post evangelicalism and a post-church culture; the churches where postmodern and post Christian people of all ages are more likely to attend are described as "post-seeker sensitive", another description of the emerging church. A church that communicates to all cultures and ages is the future of the church reaching to a post-Christian society. Perhaps the emerging church is a passion for people who are stuck with a congregation of people who don't understand half of what is being said - or aren't in the congregation at all.

But I get the feeling that some post modern, post seeker sensitive, post graduate emerging church leaders seem to get more of a buzz out of claiming to be postmodern or emerging leaders than being a disciple of Christ. Some have replaced rock n roll with a techno DJ during the weekend gathering and communicate by blogging (or web-logging) during the week for sanity. A few leaders have added smells, bells, labyrinths and creeds to provide an ancient future slant as an alternative to the seeker-sensitive rock n roll. The ancient future emphasis idea is that secular people are more likely to follow God if they experience him, as opposed to hearing about him via a logical exposition of Christian truth. The weird thing is that many of these ancient future additions have been part of Catholic tradition since…. well, way before the Reformation.

But lets face it, secular people need Jesus more than they need community - and they long for meaningful community more than they long for church. This meaning through experience within community has to increasingly replace the rock n roll multi-media programmed "relevance" church leaders thought secular people were searching for, or else our post Christian generation will be Generation Y (Y -church?).

The challenge for emerging church leaders is to continue focussing on communicating kingdom principles within community to a post Christian generation, with the focus on worship and discipleship. Another challenge for some communities is to elevate the role of the Holy Spirit to something more than a means to accomplish personal spiritual formation.

But what will replace the emerging church should the desire for interactive community fade - post emergence? God forbid that the basis of any Christian community will be a collective of postmodern, post seeker sensitive, post church, post graduate pastors and lay people blogging as part of a community based on Internet e-lationships. With the first commandment being "blog one another, as God would blog you" and our prayer being "give us this day our daily blog". Some may be missing the point of the Kingdom of God, and may as well go back to being pre-postmodern. Thankfully this is not happening at present with blogs being viewed as welcome virtual communities and friendships in addition to the priority of doing mission among a relational community.

Fellowship and meeting together cannot be virtual irrespective of the desire for community, or gathering. We may be in the presence of God, but we will not be in the presence of or in relationship with those in a worshipping, discipling community. Our mission and our emergence into the emerging culture will only start to reach its potential as those in the emerging church continue to gather in relational community with God, with each other, and with secular people, led by a post-charismatic Holy Spirit.

time changes people , or does it ??
--brother jim ( brotherjim at earthlink dot net ) on 10/16/2005; 11:06:12 PM

There seems to be a dangerous dynamic here. I know we are called to meet people where they are, becoming as those under the law to save those under the law, etc..., but we are also called to do this only insofar as it doesn't compromise other teachings of Scripture. So, what about 2000 years of people worshipping Christ on Sunday morning, "the Lord's Day" (Rev. 1), as the day Christ was resurrected? What about the needs people have that aren't "felt needs"? What about rocking their world by showing them the other world-which isn't just in the "shine" of a holy Christian's face but in the congregation of the Body, reflecting the heavenly Temple (Hebrews), where people are met by God as Body and not just as individuals? I very much love unbelievers and want them to know the joy of Christ, and I am not stuck to anything resembling tradion- at least not for tradition's sake- but the "de-churchification" I sense from your article does not seem to give a significant nod to the form worship, discipleship, etc. It is form and freedom, as I'm sure you know, but I don't sense much form. Anyhow, I too am addicted to caffeine. I live in the US. Sorry if this is ignorant or misinterpreting your article. I gotta run to church now :)

PS My website is beholding.net if you are interested.
--Matt ( matt at beholding dot net ) on 2/29/2004; 7:55:25 AM

make a plan of attack. if it doesn't work, revise and modify. copy others if you have to, but fake original. you can do it and you will do it. above all else remember this, people will appreciate you because you are significant and smarter than all the rest.
love, satan
--joseph ( joseph_swenson at hotmail dot com ) on 2/15/2004; 11:29:22 PM

Yikes, 3 in a row! Found this while reading Merton this morning:

"The problem is to learn how to renounce resentment without selling out to the organization people who want everyone to accept absurdity in a spirit of uplift and willing complicity. Few men are strong enough to find the solution. A monastery is not the right answer; there is resentment in monasteries also..." New Seeds of Contemplation
--Len Hjalmarson ( next1 at nextreformation dot com ) on 2/15/2004; 12:18:54 PM

Dave, this is a thoughtful article and I enjoyed it :) but found the organization a bit lacking. Maybe a good demonstration of post-structural practice ;)

Comments like this were confusing:

"The ancient future emphasis idea is that secular people are more likely to follow God if they experience him, as opposed to hearing about him via a logical exposition of Christian truth. The weird thing is that many of these ancient future additions have been part of Catholic tradition since…. well, way before the Reformation."

Umm... you say it is ancient future, ie. pre-modern and postmodern.. then you say it is weird that it was Catholic and pre-Reformation. Well.. yes... so why weird? Where is the contrast?

Maybe you are using some terms in a way that is non-standard, and it makes it hard to follow your logic?

On the whole enjoyed your thoughts, keep on writing :)
--Len Hjalmarson ( next1 at nextreformation dot com ) on 2/15/2004; 12:03:34 PM

Why do we tend to become what we hate? Because in its dynamic hate is like love.. it draws us toward its object.

That is why we have to be free of hate and anger in order to build or rebuild.. It isn't possible to build anything positive out of anger or hate. And that is why we need a transitional (detox) period when moving from the modern church to the emergent one.
--Len Hjalmarson ( next1 at nextreformation dot com ) on 2/15/2004; 11:58:22 AM

Just a post-article thought or two:
I'm a theology intern currently working in a church that fits the "seeker-sensitive rock'n'roll" oreientation you discussed. I've done a lot of thinking about these issues of "emerging*whatever" and I would like to commend you on expressing several instinctions about church leadership and *nomers of different sorts. In fact this topic brings sharply to mind the work of British author John Drane in his book "The MacDonaldization of the Church".
Any thoughts as to why it is so easy for people in leadership, on a whole, to become the very things they once stood opposite?
Jon

Post-Script:
(sorry, I couldn't resist)
--Jon ( ferris_larson at hotmail dot com ) on 2/12/2004; 10:11:57 PM