Can someone define some stuff for me?

[Diatheke]

A lot of terms have been thrown around lately and I'm interested to see how everyone defines them.
What do these things mean and/or how are they defined?
Your own opinion would be appreciated instead of a cut and paste from Wikipedia - I can and have done that myself. LOL

Feel free to add to the list.

Mega-Church...

Emerging Church...

Seeker Friendly...
Seeker Sensitive... (are these two different?)

 

[oneshot012]

A lot of terms have been thrown around lately and I'm interested to see how everyone defines them.
What do these things mean and/or how are they defined?
Your own opinion would be appreciated instead of a cut and paste from Wikipedia - I can and have done that myself. LOL

Feel free to add to the list.

Mega-Church...

Emerging Church...

Seeker Friendly...
Seeker Sensitive... (are these two different?)

A mega church as I would define it is a church that 1000+ members.

The emerging church I have no clue I don't use the term but I have heard people use it in the sense when they refer to my generation of unchurched kids getting saved.

Seeker Friendly or Sensitive- I would use them interchageably because you are asking my opinion...This is when you make the service more relevant to the modern person, you make it go with pop culture, and you leave the intense things at home (prophecy, praying in tongues, laying on of hands, etc.) and bring them out in small groups.

 

[CrazyforYeshua]

Mega-Church...
Definitely one with a major membership-usually in the thousands

Emerging Church...
I'm not too sure, but agree on the home church idea
Seeker Friendly...
Seeker Sensitive... (are these two different?)
I don't think so, I think it is trying to draw the world in, thru worldly ways-no meat, only milk, and "feel good" doctrine.

 

[pdudgeon]

mega church:
large membership in a large building with modern A/V presentation, and visible multi-layer staffing.

Emerging church: Exponential quick growth of new Christians among a population that is not Christian. this can be either ethnic based or age based.

Seeker friendly: Christian place (or another religion) that is soft sell, casual, fun, interesting, friendly, and overtly easy for the non-religious person to relate to. This is the place where 'everybody knows your name and no one is a stranger'. Seeker friendly will get people interested in comming.

Seeker sensitive: slightly different, because this is the next step up from seeker friendly. Seeker sensitive deals with how to easily incorporate the seeker into the life of the church, once they show up.

that means that everything is geared to making that first visit a great experience. There are reserved parking spaces for visitors, there are happy people at the door to greet them, (the doors are already open!)and there are people with umbrellas if it's raining. it means somebody to direct them where to go if they have children, where the restrooms are, help find them a seat and introduce them to people around where they are seated.

the music should be easy to sing and parts of every song should have an easy chorus. it should be pitched in a middle range. People who don't sing should be able to not feel conspicuous.

the sermons should be bible based but relavent to life, and they should hold the attention of the congregation.

LOL i could go on, but that's the general idea.


that means structuring so that they can participate without feeling awkward, join in, integrate, and become a part of the crowd.

 

[TheGloryisHere]

mega church:
large membership in a large building with modern A/V presentation, and visible multi-layer staffing.

visible multi-layer staffing.

Is that where the staff are piled on top of each other?? LOL I have a wild imagination.....

Stuff.... Humm. I use this word alot. But, to define it....

The word is good stuff.

 

[talitha]

mega-church - really big - I agree - 1,000+ members

emerging church - not really sure - I've heard several different groups that don't seem to go together claim this name, so I'm confused.

seeker-friendly, seeker-sensitive - I tend to see these as the same thing, and I think of it as churches that are more interested in making nonChristians comfortable than in making the Holy Spirit welcome.

Definitely I would not want to be a part of a "seeker-sensitive" church. Not sure I'd want to be part of a mega-church or an emerging-church, either.....

blessings
tal

 

[Atlantians]

A lot of terms have been thrown around lately and I'm interested to see how everyone defines them.
What do these things mean and/or how are they defined?
Your own opinion would be appreciated instead of a cut and paste from Wikipedia - I can and have done that myself. LOL

Feel free to add to the list.

Mega-Church...

Emerging Church...

Seeker Friendly...
Seeker Sensitive... (are these two different?)

Mega-Church: A Congregation with 5,000-10,000+ members. These ussually are very, well, visual rather than family-like or spiritual.

Emerging Church: I believe is bassically a church that is new. It can take many forms and meanings, but is essentially a congregation that is new.

Seeker friendly: This can meen not argumentatively aggressive towards unbelievers who venture in. It can also reffer to churches who have watered down, fake, "friendly" doctrine. But My Church would fall into the former, not the latter. Most congregations are imbetween.

Seeker sensitive: is the same thing.

 

[StevenP]

HEY! Good news! I think that I can help!

It is my understanding that a MEGA-CHURCH is a church with a significant population that is involved with modern media.

An EMERGING church (I believe) refers to the style of worship. I think that this is the current "trend" for contemporary worship music.

(Here comes what I'm excited to share

A SEEKER FRIENDLY service (as defined by Nancy Beach in An Hour on Sunday) is a service that is geared toward non-Christians or new believers who are still figuring out the whol Christianity-thing.

A SEEKER SENSITIVE service (once again defined by Nancy Beach) is a service that is geared toward "rooted" or "solid" believers but that keeps in mind that "seekers" may be present and works against alienation of such people.

I hope that this was of assistance!

 

[StevenP]

I strongly disagree with Atlantians statement that a seeker-friendly church refers to a church that is watered down in its beliefs (or not aggressive towards unbelievers). Seeker-friendly services are simply services geared towards ministry to non- and new- believers.

It is important that not all services of a church be simply seeker-friendly, or a church will lack depth and maturity. (I believe that this is what was being described by Atlantians.) Varying levels of study and types of services/groups/activities help a church in its growth processes.

 

[Atlantians]

I strongly disagree with Atlantians statement that a seeker-friendly church refers to a church that is watered down in its beliefs (or not aggressive towards unbelievers). Seeker-friendly services are simply services geared towards ministry to non- and new- believers.

It is important that not all services of a church be simply seeker-friendly, or a church will lack depth and maturity. (I believe that this is what was being described by Atlantians.) Varying levels of study and types of services/groups/activities help a church in its growth processes.

You did not read what I said.
You zeroed in on what you disagreed with rather than what I actually said.
Let me quote myself:
This is what you saw:

Mega-Church: A Congregation with 5,000-10,000+ members. These ussually are very, well, visual rather than family-like or spiritual.

Emerging Church: I believe is bassically a church that is new. It can take many forms and meanings, but is essentially a congregation that is new.

Seeker friendly: This can meen not argumentatively aggressive towards unbelievers who venture in. It can also reffer to churches who have watered down, fake, "friendly" doctrine. But My Church would fall into the former, not the latter. Most congregations are imbetween.

Seeker sensitive: is the same thing.

This is what you didn't see:

Mega-Church: A Congregation with 5,000-10,000+ members. These ussually are very, well, visual rather than family-like or spiritual.

Emerging Church: I believe is bassically a church that is new. It can take many forms and meanings, but is essentially a congregation that is new.

Seeker friendly: This can meen not argumentatively aggressive towards unbelievers who venture in. It can also reffer to churches who have watered down, fake, "friendly" doctrine. But My Church would fall into the former, not the latter. Most congregations are imbetween.

Seeker sensitive: is the same thing.

This is what I wrote entirely:

Mega-Church: A Congregation with 5,000-10,000+ members. These ussually are very, well, visual rather than family-like or spiritual.

Emerging Church: I believe is bassically a church that is new. It can take many forms and meanings, but is essentially a congregation that is new.

Seeker friendly: This can meen not argumentatively aggressive towards unbelievers who venture in. It can also reffer to churches who have watered down, fake, "friendly" doctrine. But My Church would fall into the former, not the latter. Most congregations are imbetween.

Seeker sensitive: is the same thing.

 

[sherri]

mega-church - really big - I agree - 1,000+ members

emerging church - not really sure - I've heard several different groups that don't seem to go together claim this name, so I'm confused.

seeker-friendly, seeker-sensitive - I tend to see these as the same thing, and I think of it as churches that are more interested in making nonChristians comfortable than in making the Holy Spirit welcome.

as above

 

[Diatheke]

No one has elaborated or been close on what an emergent or emerging church is:

Emergent churches are typically (but not exclusively) filled with people 18-30 years old that have a serious resistance, discord, contention and are disenfranchised and disillusioned with traditional churches – even so called modern model churches - most of the time (but not always) operating without a denominational tag - many would even consider the label nondenominational inappropriate and undesirable.

Emergent church proponents resist the word "movement" they prefer to call their situation a "conversation" they tend to use terms such as ‘open dialogue’ they consider themselves as translating the gospel for the postmodern generation.

The services vary greatly, many times (again not always), participants do a walking worship pausing at various building “stations” of meditation, reflection, prayer and tithing, sometimes there are art stations allowing people to express their spirituality, , incense fills the air, Celtic crosses are many times present, coffee house style poetry is presented, sometimes services are held outside and you walk a path in a garden or a park setting stopping at various stones that represent the previous examples – they consider themselves to have “authentic worship” and claim to be the NT model of the church.

They consider denominational churches (includes nondenominational) to be:

• full of fakery, not authenticity;
• individualistic and isolated, not missional;
• fixated on abstract doctrine, not narrative theology;
• Obsessed with the church, the Bible, or tradition, not Christ centric living.

If my description of the emerging church seems sort of vague it's because the whole movement is very fluid and flexible - thats not a criticism its a fact.
If an emerging church proponent stumbles across this thread they will likely be upset with me since each group seems to have their own variation they would consider my description as not accurate - the problem is even the emerging church has a hard time describing what they are - its a very generalized concept not a systematic belief system.

emerging church websites:

http://www.theooze.com/main.cfm

http://emergingchurch.info/

 

[talitha]

I used to be a member at the ooze website - I had some VERY interesting and beneficial conversations with people there.......

 

[StevenP]

You did not read what I said.
You zeroed in on what you disagreed with rather than what I actually said.
Let me quote myself:
This is what you saw:


This is what you didn't see:


This is what I wrote entirely:

Haha...I see your point. I was MEANING to say that I don't think that Seeker-Friendly churches ARE watered down. If a church is genuinely seeker-friendly then it is passionate about the lost. (I really did read and comprehend ALL of what you said.) Sorry about the misunderstanding. I realize that I didn't make myself very clear.

 

[Andry]

No one has elaborated or been close on what an emergent or emerging church is.....

If my description of the emerging church seems sort of vague it's because the whole movement is very fluid and flexible - thats not a criticism its a fact....

While I'd agree the description of the emerging church may be vague and varied, no, it's not a fact unless you can empirically back it up. What you said is an anecdotal observation - yours.

Let me pose an overlooked thought, for discussion:

Many believers, particularly those of us who identify ourselves as being pentecostal/charismatic/WOF or what have you, are convinced that what we believe is "it" and that we are on God's "cutting edge", or his latest "move" or "revelation". While we claim to love all our brethren, if we were honest with ourselves, we sometimes think that those in the more traditional or conservative denominations such as Baptists or Lutherans, haven't quite 'arrived' or worse, they've 'missed it'.

So here's the question, somewhat rhetorically: until Jesus returns, is this current charismatic renewal, or movement or _________ (add your own descriptive), "it"?

Is this "it" or is there more to come, until he returns? Or is there the possibility of "more"? And if there is "more", what's it going to look like? And if there is "more", who's going to make the transition to cross over?

These are the questions some of us are wrestling with, when we talk about 'the emergent church' or 'post-charismatic'. Just as many believers didn't make the transition into the charismatic renewal, there will be those of us who will also not make the transition into whatever is 'next' or whatever 'next' is called.

 

[~RENEE~]

Mega-Church...a church of around 1000 or more members

Emerging Church...have no idea this is the first I've heard of it

Seeker Friendly... Seeker Sensitive... (are these two different?)these two are the same
this to me would be a church that does not allow God free reign so as to make their services welcome to the world and them in turn not get convicted or offended

 

[irenemcg]

Mega Churches- Very large churches
The emergent church - from what I have read believes in inclusiveness, they are post modern and tend towards being seeker friendly

Seeker friendly
seeker sensetive - Looking for new ways to impartthe message without necessarily really looking for guidance from the Holy Spirit

The emergent and seeker churches would appear to me to tend towards people pleasing.I am not saying they are all like that

 

[Simon_Templar]

This discussion highlights a problem I have with protestant christianity. I am generally considered a protestant. I partake in both anglican worship and also in non denominational charismatic worship.

Anyway.. on to the problem. Since the protestant reformation, every time christians have noticed a problem in the church the have responded (for the most part) by creating a new "movement" or a new "denomination" or what have you. The fact that the emerging church prefers to call itself a conversation is simply the pretentious psycho-babble of post-modernism showing through.

The result is that there have been hundreds of movements who all believe that they have recreated the new testament church, but all of them are different, and in fact, they get progressively further and further from what the original church was actually like.

There are always problems in the church.. but the response over the last 500 years has simply been to try and solve the problem by starting something new, and in the process creating a whole new set of problems (frequently worse than the problems which went before).

The emerging church recognizes real problems in the rest of the church. What they have done in response is come up with a new creative solution tailored to the current social norms, and created their own set of problems, several of which are as bad, if not worse than the problems they were trying to solve.

We need to stop inventing christianity as we go, and start recovering what we have lost along the way.

 

[Andry]

This discussion highlights a problem I have with protestant christianity. I am generally considered a protestant. I partake in both anglican worship and also in non denominational charismatic worship.

Anyway.. on to the problem. Since the protestant reformation, every time christians have noticed a problem in the church the have responded (for the most part) by creating a new "movement" or a new "denomination" or what have you. The fact that the emerging church prefers to call itself a conversation is simply the pretentious psycho-babble of post-modernism showing through.

The result is that there have been hundreds of movements who all believe that they have recreated the new testament church, but all of them are different, and in fact, they get progressively further and further from what the original church was actually like.

There are always problems in the church.. but the response over the last 500 years has simply been to try and solve the problem by starting something new, and in the process creating a whole new set of problems (frequently worse than the problems which went before).

The emerging church recognizes real problems in the rest of the church. What they have done in response is come up with a new creative solution tailored to the current social norms, and created their own set of problems, several of which are as bad, if not worse than the problems they were trying to solve.

We need to stop inventing christianity as we go, and start recovering what we have lost along the way.

Simon, a reasonable perspecitve, but arguably is it the church that have responded to create a new movement - as you opined - or could it be genuinely God, the one building the church?

Surely the last five hundred years is a long time to have the church autonomously creating such movements without God's input and/or approval? In fact, I believe they are part of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit until he returns. The problem is, IMO, each time God moves (if I could call it as such), we as people try to put him into a box and won't allow God to continue.

I also believe, that whatever we end up calling these things - waves, movements, renewals etc - is restoring what we've lost and moving us closer to the Kingdom of Heaven coming to earth.

 

[Simon_Templar]

Simon, a reasonable perspecitve, but arguably is it the church that have responded to create a new movement - as you opined - or could it be genuinely God, the one building the church?

Surely the last five hundred years is a long time to have the church autonomously creating such movements without God's input and/or approval? In fact, I believe they are part of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit until he returns. The problem is, IMO, each time God moves (if I could call it as such), we as people try to put him into a box and won't allow God to continue.

I also believe, that whatever we end up calling these things - waves, movements, renewals etc - is restoring what we've lost and moving us closer to the Kingdom of Heaven coming to earth.

I'm not saying that every movement of the last 500 years was entirely man made and had no annointing.

What I am saying is, everything truly NEW in the church since its birth in the new testament has been man made. If you look at the movements of the last 500 years they have all been in response to problems within the church. They have been in response to abuses, or to hypocrisy, lack of holiness etc.

The point I'm getting at is the remedy to these problems have never been new... they are not things that the church has never had before. The church, from its founding has had everything it needs.

The gifts of the Spirit are a good example. The church has always had the gifts of the Spirit from the very beginning. There have been times and places when the gifts were not made use of, and the indwelling of the Spirit was not taught, nor practiced. Never the less, the Holy Spirit has always been in the church since the beginning, and the gifts have been available to us from the beginning.

The movements that have come over the last 500 years have undoubtedly been the result of the Holy Spirit dealing with the problems that arise in the church. However, every new thing that has arisen out of these movement has been added by man and often times the result of either impatience, or selfishness, or lack of faith.

I believe that God has given the church authority which includes some latitude in issues such as organization and logistics and even styles of worship. Thus it is possible that there could be subtle changes over time depending on what the circumstances warrant. However that authority is limited to within certain parameters that God established.

Anything new which is outside of that authority is not of God, it is man made.