Are "seeker" churches semi-Pelagian?

In thinking about "seeker sensitive" churches, it seems to me that they would be best described as semi-Pelagian in the fullest, original sense. Sometimes people who consider themselves "Calvinist" in some sense throw around terms like "semi-Pelagian" simply meaning "synergistic" (as opposed to monergistic). I suppose most know what they mean when they use the term: but it's probably better to use terms according to their widely-accepted definition rather than a private definition which your listener may or may not share.

So let's Define Our Terms! I am using "semi-Pelagianism" to mean what I believe is the original definition: that it is necessary for humans to make the first step toward God and then God will complete salvation. I think you can make a scale of "Christian" beliefs about soteriology as follows. Note that I am using these terms for the purpose of classification only: I generally avoid using terms in direct reference to people because it's not profitable. I am also not using these terms pejoratively, but rather descriptively. I am not saying a semi-Pelagian person or even a Pelagian is "good" or "bad." I may reject them as holding a non-Biblical theology, but I am not making a value judgment on the people involved. Many of them are probably better and holier than me.

• Pelagianism: It's up to us to want to follow God and save ourselves. This is generally considered non-Christian, being rejected by virtually all church fathers and the church since. Since they completely reject God's sovereignty, they would obviously reject all five points of Calvinism.
• Semi-Pelagianism: We take the first step towards God, and then God saves us. This is probably on the border of what would classically be called "Christian." They would probably also reject the five points.
• Arminianism: God takes the first step to save us, then we have to accept (once and on a continuing basis for the rest of our lives) salvation. This is common in many types of churches, including Methodist and Nazarene. They accept God's sovereignty, but still reject all five points of Calvinism.
• Semi-Arminianism (my term): God takes all the steps to save us except the last one, the actual exercise of faith, which we have to do ourselves. This is common in "fundamentalist" churches such as the southern Baptists, but also many non-denominational churches and seminaries. They often call themselves "two-", "three-", or "four-point" Calvinists, generally rejecting Limited Atonement.
• Semi-Calvinism (my term): Similar to semi-Arminianism, except they generally accept Limited Atonement and divine election. However, they reject Irresistible Grace, the idea being that God elects us, but He gives us the free will to reject Him. They might typically call them four-point Calvinists. I have seen a number of these in Calvary Chapel.
• Calvinism/monergism: Accept God's sovereignty in everything, and thus all five points of Calvinism. I fall into this category.
• Hyper-Calvinism: Really a misnomer, because they do not follow Calvinistic/monergistic ideas, chief among them being that man has a real will and is thus responsible for his own sin. Rather, they have a fatalistic view of God. God elects us (or not), and we have absolutely nothing to do with it, no will of our own; thus no guilt for our own sin.
  

So, let's consider where "seeker" churches fit on this scale. Their whole purpose and method is to attract people's wills, to make themselves attractive to people. People's wills (they hope) will be turned to God. Once they get people to stay for enough services and perhaps take some classes, God's spirit will finally work on the people's hearts and convert them. I contend that this is semi-Pelagianism in a pretty pure form. People make their own decision to stay because of the cool music or "relevant" preaching, and eventually they get close enough to where God can save them.

Again, I am not saying that I am holier or better than these preachers, nor that I care about the lost more than they do. However, I would say that their methods are unbiblical, and simply do not work if the goal is to "make disciples of all nations." They may fill the churches; they may give help people live happier lives; they may be better for people than if they hung around in bars. (Same idea as the biker bar in my town that has a sign on the window that says Better Here Than Across the Street, referring to the courthouse across the street.)

But I contend that they do not truly convert men's hearts. Only the Spirit of God, working through the Word of God, can do that.