I have some articles about that in my web under Hot Topics (formerly Christian Controversies), but I'll try to summarize.

The seeker sensitive movement (SSM), popularized by Rick Warren but founded by others, basically shifts the focus of churches from believers to unbelievers. On the surface it seems harmless and even beneficial, but there are big problems with it.

Part of the reason mainstream Christianity has accepted this shift is because it has so little understanding of the church that Jesus and Paul set up. Centuries of doing it all wrong have not helped. So we have to be careful to judge church meeting- related topics in the light of the NT, not history.

The NT says very little about church organization and even less about what we're supposed to do in our "meetings" (the NT term for Christian gatherings), and I have more detail in my web. But the meetings were gatherings of believers, not "events" where unbelievers were to be evangelized. This is not to say that unbelievers are not welcome, only that they are there to observe and learn, not be the center of attention. We are to do our evangelism out in the world, bringing the gospel to them, not luring them to "church" and then hoping something good will eventually happen.

In an effort to make church meetings/worship services more palatable to the masses, the SSM deliberately avoids confrontation and so does not tolerate discussion of sin, hell, righteousness, justification, etc. These are the very topics required to convince people they have need of a Savior, but the SSM tries to make them comfortable instead, and only speaks gently of finding "peace" or achieving a higher level of spirituality. This is really indistinguishable from New Age teachings. It is another step in the wrong direction, conditioning Christians to accept anyone and any teaching in deference to the greater god of peace. Not to be tolerated are people like me who would tell the lost that they are lost, that they will spend eternity in hell if they reject Jesus.

I went through the 40 Days of Purpose before I knew anything about it, and I had misgivings from the beginning. At the very least, it failed to achieve any purpose at all: if it was supposed to evanglize it never clearly presented the gospel, and if it was supposed to nurture the saved it offered only the most basic infant formula. At the end of it I considered it a waste of time for both the saved and the lost. Most alarming, though, is that such a superficial "study" has been so outrageously popular. Why? It offers nothing the churches weren't already supposed to be doing, and it doesn't clearly present the gospel. Most likely, it serves a more sinister purpose: to anesthetise believers to the point where they are unable and unwilling to be salt and light in the world.

I knew someone in another message board that passionately defended his use of marijuana as an evangelistic tool. His argument was that it was a "drawing card" to those people who obviously are not saved and opened the door for him to present the gospel to them. Sound familiar? What's wrong with this reasoning, the same as that used for the SSM and others?

Obviously, the view that "the end justifies the means" is not a Biblical one. There are things we Christians cannot do, even to spread the gospel. Smoking pot is one, and watering down the gospel is another. Turning the church into a marketing project may result in a small number of conversions(?), but compared to the damage being done one has to pause and think. Multitudes are being given a false sense of security, happy in their religious experience, thinking they are "Christian" because they accept a very loose paraphrase of only the most gentle passages.

I know how unpopular my view is, so that's why I'm saying it in a blog.