“Methods” for Reaching the “Un-Churched”

          From where did the term “un-churched” suddenly come? Is this simply yet another example of seeker sensitive trendiness (like “Christ follower”)? All I know is that it’s a fairly new term (probably within the last few months), and it is really getting on my nerves.
          Whatever happened to calling a spade a spade? When someone voluntarily leaves a congregation with no obvious intent of finding a new congregation, there is no biblical basis for relegating them some new, unbiblical demographic. They are either straying from their Shepherd and will be returned unto Him broken and repentant, or they went out from us to show that they were not of us.
          This is not the problem, however. The problem is that the churches that engage in this type of terminology seem to be following it up with a disturbing initiative. It goes like this:

• These people’s problem is that they are “un-churched”. Thus…

• They need a savior from their problem.

• The natural savior from the problem of being “un-churched”: Get churched.

          Anyone see the problem? If not, perhaps that’s because there are a few of them. Allow me to share…

• They are not “un-churched” as much as they are in direct rebellion against God and His statutes and thus…

• They are in need of a Savior from their rebellion and it’s consequences;
   a) They are in route to spending an eternity in hell, but more importantly…
   b) They are not glorifying and enjoying the God of the universe.

• Jesus, not the church, is our Savior.

          See, here’s where we get into the problem. For so long, perhaps ever since the alter call began, church-goers have been relying on the pastor to evangelize their friends and family rather than doing the job that every Christian is called to do. But the problem doesn’t end there.
          Because this seems to be the general consensus in modern churches, many preachers have ceased to preach doctrine. Instead, they opt for a more psychological approach to preaching. They see that the majority of their congregants are either non-Christians or professing Christians who don’t act the part. Therefore they assume the role of coach, inspirational speaker and / or health and wellness guru, in the hopes that someone will want to be more like them and thus accept the Christ that they’ve accepted.
          It’s all bogus. Why? Because it denies the power and working of the Holy Spirit. The Bible tells us that it is the foolishness of the gospel that wins souls. Nowhere does it say that the glitz and glamour, the smoke and mirrors, the logic and science or the philosophy and psychology of the gospel that saves.
Likewise, it is not the edginess and relevance, the tactfulness and tolerance or the playfulness and silliness of the gospel that saves. These new terms mean nothing if the true gospel is not being preached and the Holy Spirit is not at work. We need to get back to basics.
          As a church, evangelicals have long agreed that the Holy Spirit must be at work in the heart of the unbeliever in order for them to be converted. So, why doesn’t that play out in our evangelism style? They apostles were stoned, beaten, whipped, burned at the stake, crucified and beheaded because of the offense of the gospel they preached, and some relevant, post-modern hipster is going to tell me that we need to check our methods? I think not.
          Methods are the problem with evangelism. Keep it simple, people. Tell the message. Pray that they Lord move, and don’t just show compassion for those that you are witnessing to, but like the real Christian you claim to be, HAVE compassion for them. Stop relying on your methods, tactics and fancy, unbiblical terminology, and start relying on the Holy Spirit. That’s biblical. Laters.

In Christ,
Billy.