Recently several discussions have touched on the topic of "seeker friendly" as one potential definition of some churches' intentional vision and mission. It's a model that has some recent precedent, including some large churches that are considered quite "successful." Along with this approach comes a definition of a strategic "target audience" -- some demographic group(s) of particular interest.

Who is a "target audience?" This is not unlike the question someone asked Jesus once, "Who is my neighbor?" The way Jesus answered that question spread the circle MUCH wider than today's definitions of target audiences.

The church, the body of Christ, exists for all neighbors anywhere, anyone God puts in our path, not just people within our target audience or at the exclusion of people "outside" our target audience.

Planning is OK, strategizing is OK, but at the core we're called to represent the love of Christ to all "neighbors."

So back to "seeker friendly" -- some churches follow a fairly recent model of offering a style of community worship experience that is accessible to the unchurched, who do have some interest in spirituality and seeking God, but may not be looking for nor comfortable with traditional "Church" as it is found in many Christian churches in North America.

We should remember that Jesus was the ultimate, off-the-charts seeker-friendly person. He sought out seekers, and seekers sought him out. He didn't stay away from the temple, but he didn't hunker down there either.

Actually, Jesus excluded nobody from his enthusiastic attention except some who preferred to be excluded, or who were most threatened by his claims of authority. He showed the most interest in the 99% who acted as if they needed him, not the so-called "healthy" (in their own imaginations).

I do find myself wondering sometimes, why do churches need to particularly consider a "seeker friendly" approach? In a real sense, shouldn't ALL churches be seeker friendly?

Isn't our worship genuine and real to begin with? Isn't our language about God accessible to people who are seeking God? Or do we have "insider" language and worship that somehow isn't suitable for newcomers? The incarnation of Jesus was about approachability and relevance.

I don't recall Jesus sending new seekers off to the Beginners Class before he'd spend time with them. If anything, it was the old-timers (the experienced religious elite insiders) who most needed to go back to the basics.

Should we dumb down or water down our worship so that people who aren't familiar with worshipping Jesus somehow find it more attractive? If we do that, what are we hoping they will be attracted to?

I'm not particularly against the model that I'm asking these questions about. I'm not sweeping away any possibility that there may be some legitimate place for "seeker friendly" churches, but I don't think it's a foregone conclusion either, and I don't know whether the answers to some of these questions have been answered yet by the larger church.

I do know that 21st century American culture has a predisposition toward replacing old approaches with newer approaches. A decade or two later and these newer approaches too will likely be forgotten in favor of fresher ones.

Unanswered questions aside, I do know that person by person, in community, each one of us is called to love our neighbors (whomever God puts in our path) in tangible ways, in word and action, out wherever they are, not just if and when they venture inside a church building.

At least we can start with that. That's seeker-friendly worship of God, if it exists.

I'm all ears - what insights do people have on this?

Air and water are the two most fundamental needs of human living. A person could live for over a month on just air and water.

"Bottled water is not a sin. But it is a choice."

You'll find this article thought-provoking - I recommend reading the whole Fast Company article, then spending a few minutes (or an hour if you have it) in prayer and meditation, and see what God says to you about this.

For those in a hurry (but do read the whole article!), some excerpts:

• Last year, Americans spent $15 billion on bottled water -- more than we spent on movie tickets. This year that is expected to be $16 billion.
• Water is basically free, and for now more or less abundant in most of the U.S.
• Buying bottled water is essentially buying convenience (and bending to marketing messages).
• 24% of the bottled water Americans buy is repackaged tap water created by Coke and Pepsi.
• Americans drink more bottled water than milk, or coffee, or beer.
• Americans went through about 50 billion plastic water bottles last year, 167 for each person.
• Americans throw 38 billion water bottles a year into landfills. (Over $1 billion worth of plastic which could have been recycled -- only 1/4 of all the bottles are recycled by consumers).
• It's easier for most Americans to get as much drinking water from Fiji as they want, than it is for over half the people of Fiji, where the water is bottled yet safe drinking water for the local population is scarce.
• If the water we use at home were to cost what even the cheapest bottled water costs, our monthly water bills would run $9,000. (Point is: we pay a lot for what is available for almost nothing.)
• Most of the world's bottled water is dominated by four companies: Pepsi, Coke, Danone, and Nestle.
• Within a decade, American consumption of bottled water is expected to surpass soda. Maybe that's a good thing. Is that a good thing?
  

• One out of six people in the world does not have a safe, dependable source of drinking water. That's a billion people.
• Each day, 3,000 children die from diseases caught from tainted water.

A few takeaways for me:

If we choose to hardly ever buy bottled water (which in itself sounds like a good idea), it won't help the one sixth of the world who lack drinking water. We need to not only refrain from something, but also contribute to a solution. Both are appropriate, with moral and spiritual implications.

(Another way of putting this important point is that Christians should be FOR things, not just AGAINST things.)

We can certainly choose to refrain from water we don't need, and drink the perfectly fine unbottled stuff, or refill some fancy old bottle if that makes us feel better.

But what about water we DO need? There's a great story about Jesus meeting a person at a well (the only source of water in most of the Middle East before modern day refrigerated bottles), asking her for some water, then making an offer with intrigue - living water, that permanently quenches thirst. Read the story here.

(A little while later in John 7, Jesus claimed, " Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within.")

And hats-off to Fast Company for an ethically, morally, spiritually engaging article that provokes not only cerebral contemplation, but also wise and responsible decisionmaking.

FC is a magazine about and for people who create commerce. It's brave and also respectable to publish stuff like this, outside the sacred borders of "profit." This article doesn't preach; rather it informs in a way that leads to conviction and hopefully some changes for the better.

Not to be cynical, but the overall odds on this one are probably in favor of bottled water consumption. That doesn't mean we all need to participate.

"So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God." I Cor. 10:31

"Test everything. Hold on to the good." I Thess. 5:21

"I was thirsty, and you gave me something to drink." Matt. 25:35

P.S. Here's what the marketers are working on next: "Water that's got vitamins in it. Water that's got some immunity-type benefit to it. Water that helps keep skin younger. Water that gives you energy." Sigh.