This post is sort of an echo of the older post about, “Why Johnny College Isn’t Going to Church.” The reasons for why people aren’t coming as listed in this article are about the same.  But, the goal here in bringing the, “de-churched,” and, “un-churched,” into churches, and their list of recommendations, illustrates more of the problems with this consumer mindset and the real motivations people should have in coming to church (clean bathrooms?). 

I also believe that that survey from LifeWay doesn’t paint the complete picture.  Although 82% of people would be receptive to the idea of going to church if asked, how many of them actually went when they were asked?  My guess is that it would be in the teens or less.  Even Bill Hybels used to joke about a, “waiting bench,” out in the front of his church for people who invited friends, family, and coworkers to church, only to never see them show up.

It hate to say it, but I read a quote the other night from Charles Spurgeon where he essentially said, “Don’t fill up your churches with lost people who will instead adversely affect your true worship to God.” I’ll have to look through that book again tonight to locate it, but with all of this information about who is going to church and for what reasons, I think it’s time we reexamine our modern ecclesiology.

--
CS

CS,

I agree that “clean bathrooms” shouldn’t be the reason people come to church, but it is a real issue nonetheless.

For someone checking out a church, most people, especially ladies, check three things: the lobby, the bathrooms, and the nursery.  If any of these things are out of whack (unclean, too crowded, nursery understaffed), they won’t be back.

Maybe that seems shallow, but would it hurt a church to make sure these things are taken care of so that this barrier won’t exist in that church?

If a parent is too worried about their child not being adequately taken care of in the nursery, chances are they won’t even hear the message from the pulpit.  Being in a dirty bathroom creates the same kind of mindset.

As you have said to me privately, a lot of things I would label as being seeker-sensitive are really common-sense issues of courtesy and such.

I think being intentional about these things shows you care for those outside of the current group.

As for inviting people who never show up, I avoid that altogether by offering to pick them up.  That usually works well, because then the time is set and I am there.  I’m rarely turned down when I offer.

It can get a little tense if they’re not ready when I come to get them, though, since I’m the pastor and it’s not real cool to be late to the service!

I continue to appreciate you, brother.

There are enough barriers between pre-believers or lapsed nominal Christians and God without us making more.

For that reason and others, I have no problem with serving and working in a church that intentionally crafts its services and environment to be non-threatening (I didn’t say message, btw) to believers in and of themselves.

It’s why we don’t do many hymns, it is why we pick the Bible translation we do, it’s why we use the language we do, it’s why I wear blue jeans on stage.

I’d rather serve in a church that a pre-believer or such would feel welcome than one designed specifically so that they will not.

Slightly tangential, but I’ve noticed a piece of language that two of you used in your comments that I’ve also been hearing from other locations more and more recently:  “Pre-believer,” or, “Pre-Christian.”

I’m curious--from where has this colloquialism come?  Does anyone know who started using it?  I’ve only seen it arise in the last year or so.

The reason I ask is because I hear it being used in situations to describe people who are saved and lost.  But the word, “pre-believer,” is not accurate for describing those people.  While some of those people may indeed become believers, most of them (at least, according to the Bible) will not become Christians.  So when we label someone as a, “pre-Christian,” in the hopes that that person may indeed be a Christian--just not yet--we are putting a false title and image of who that person may be.

I’m a stickler, I know, but I think we should stick with the old words that more accurately paint the picture, like, “saved,” and, “lost.” Or, “believer,” and, “non-believer.” Because even a person who is lost or not a believer may yet be changed or remain the same.

--
CS

I was once un-churched.  In fact I was un-Christian. 

I’m very glad that someone asked me to church.  They asked me, and asked me and asked me.  Finally I went.

I did not find a ‘seeker sensitive’ sermon.  In fact it slapped me in the face, and conviction strangled my heart.  I cried and cried.  I left there full of questions and feeling utterly confused.

Then I came back, again and again.  Because I was not getting any kind of watered down Gospel.  I came back because I had searched for the truth for so long.

One day I went up front and accepted Jesus as my savior. 

I once WAS lost - and now I’m found.

I love this idea.  Get them into church!  If even only one is saved, wasn’t it worth the effort?

Christopher,

I don’t think anyone here advocates preaching sermons just so unbelievers would “enjoy” them.

I think all of us would advocate preaching sermons that unbelievers would understand, however, using terms and Bible translations that are in line with how people actually speak and think nowadays, just like Jesus did.

I did not grow up in church and so when I actually starting hearing about my real need for Christ, I needed to hear it in a language I actually understood.

I would also submit that most, if not all of us, preach the gospel, complete with admonitions to repentance from sin and calling on Jesus for forgiveness and a home in heaven.  This was my sermon just this past Sunday.  And I bring it into most of my messages anyway.

As for Edward’s sermon, it almost sounds like you believe it’s the sermon that “gets the job done,” rather than the unction of the Holy Spirit working through the Scriptures in the hands of the preacher.  I’m guessing you don’t really believe that, though.

I applaud your zeal for souls and revival, brother.

Leonard:

“What would make this conversation fun would be for us to carefully move away from the judgment or dissection of others ecclesiology and a discussion to what you are doing.  Sort of like an lder post, we critiqued discipleship but we are asked if we actually disciple others, the silence was deafening. “

While I believe that the ecclesiology is far more important, I’ll play.

This weekend I taught a class about evangelizing using the, “Law & Grace,” method.  Many people had no idea that it was so easy to open the doors to share the Gospel with someone, and the people who organized the class said that many, many people enjoyed it and provided great feedback.  I also was questioned by several people after the class with some, “how to,” questions and great conversation.

And (tying this back with ecclesiology), they got an understanding in how someone who is not convicted of their sins would not understand, appreciate, or even get the concept of Grace (1 Corinthians 1:18), which is why bringing the lost to church is not one of the better strategies to use for evangelism.

--
CS

I think an interesting discussion would be about the difference between the “unchurched” and the “dechurched”.

Our community is very new age and in a resort area.

Sometimes I’m not sure if our demographics are due to where we live, or if our society is moving more and more in the direction our community is in and we are on the cutting edge… that is only 7% claim to be connected to a religous community at all… which includes LDS, Buddists, etc.

Our community isn’t just not Christian, they are anti-Christian and there is a large percentage of “dechurched” who live here.  I cannot tell you how many times I’ve been told that the radio or t.v. “is my church.”

I would be interested in seeing how this particular church’s campaign works over the long term and what kind of rentention they have following this promotion.

But I’m honestly skeptical that this will work.

I really think we would be better served to commit ourselves to a radical prayer life corporately and independently.

I think too many of us in ministry are trying to come up with another gimmick that will do the trick, instead of turning to God in repentance and in passionate pleading for the hearts, minds and souls around us.

Jan, it is obvious you know your community and have a handle on where to begin.  thanks

While I agree that most people are just an invitation away from coming to church, and I would encourage more church attendees to invite people, cleaning up and putting on your best face for that day strikes me as odd.  Shouldn’t we have on our best face every Sunday?  Although we may not have ton of visitors each week, many churches get at least one or two a week, if not more.  We should always do our best, be our best and look and sound our best.  Not only should we do this for visitors but because we value the house of God and the community of faith.  So, while I’m not against this event, I would encourage to look at their practices and ask themselves do they do their best every Sunday, even if there are no visitors.

Make no mistake....I am all for inviting people to church.  But there are two issues that concern me. 

1.  Christians are using it as an excuse to NOT witness to the lost.  Too many Christians leave it up to the pastor to hopefully preach a message that brings about the need for repentance as well as a Savior. Since only 2% of Christians regularly share their faith it’s no wonder the Church in America is so anemic.

2. The invitee will more than likely not hear a message that centers on the holiness of God, the Lordship of Christ and the exceeding sinfulness of sin.  They’re probably going to hear a message about how to improve their lives, why it is important to tithe, or worse....why it is important for wives to perform oral sex. 

My zeal for evangelism should not be the exception but the rule.  We wouldn’t have to invite people to church if the sheep would go out and have lambs!  (share the Gospel) Winning souls for Christ would fill the pews with real believers with the same zeal for evangelism, thus perpetually growing the Church.  We must never forget that salvation is never the choice of the sinner but a miracle of God.  He raises their dead spirit to new life in Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit and the preaching of the Gospel.

Evangelism, like prayer or studying of the Word or baptism, is not a gift but instead it is a matter of obedience or disobedience to God.

Christopher,

I agree, far too few people share their faith.  I also believe that sharing Christ and inviting poeple into an authentic community of faith where Christ is central, is highly effective.  You seem to place a huge emphasis on the sermon. 

I think you overstate your conviction, as to what people might hear from the pulpit.  I agree there are many churches where you are left scratching your head, wondering what you just heard.

This is not an either or issue.  People should witness and people should invite.  I do both.

As for the messages of the holiness of God, the Lordship of Christ and the exceeding sinfulness of men.  Is that what you believe a person needs to hear to become saved?  I am just asking.

Forgive me but it seems you leave out the Holy Spirit in the process here.

There is also good reason to regularly engage people in a conversation about God and find out what they actually believe and know. In a lot of areas, people call themselves “Christian” and not really understand their condition before a holy God. They only are “Christian” because they attend church every Sunday and don’t live like it the rest of the week.