Should we bring unbelievers to Church?

I was focusing mostly on the prescriptive. By nature of the study I was looking at the descriptive, as well. I don't remember a descriptive passage that differed from the prescriptive pattern, but my memory could be faulty. I don't include places where Paul was preaching in a synagogue since even though there may have been believers present, I don't consider these assemblies to be churches. Obviously there's a lot of transitional stuff going on.

 

(oops... wrong forum)

 

What I am talking about is corporate worship...I guess I use the Word church for that meaning. I realize the church is the people; believers.

Hey,if the church is actually the people and those people that make up the church are believers,then I guess the *church* is for believers. Hey,,why didn't I think of that?????

 

You know that would all be deeply connected to the definition of ‘Church’, many gatherings of believers in the past had evangelical revivals for outreach in an organized setting often in tents that were removed from the ‘building’ and then the new believers were invited to attend Sunday school and become part of the physical local body. The idea of a neutered Christian is puzzling to me, if you cannot reproduce then how do you know you are a Christian? If the pulpit ministry has not prepared the healthy pew member to share the gospel then they surly do not need to invite the lost to more confusion and frustration. As for the ‘dummying down’ I think that if a healthy pew member cannot share the gospel of Christ they are not ready for more than milk anyway.

 

Not my words. I did not say he is not reaching/discipling. I said he is not leading the way. I believer Dever's church is like many with the mindset we have described (and illustrated in Molly's description of her church). They have a strong emphasis on biblical learning (which I am for) and attract many believers from other churches. Their churches grow some due to transfers and not actual conversions. A few are converted along the way, but the primary means of growth is transfer growth. I think this is probably true of Piper and MacArthur as well (although the college ministry at Grace reaches many unsaved). My difficulty with these type of ministries is their emphasis upon one half of the Great Commission (discipling) to the neglect of the other (as evidenced by their lack of actual conversions/baptisms).

Difficult for me to comment on a sermon I have not heard. Obviously no speaker gets it right every time. Was the message grounded upon biblical principles?

I think you just illustrated my point well. Thanks.

Love God & Love Neighbor. It does not get much more intense than that.

The excitement you describe in wanting to know more is very common in all types of churches. Again you have a misconception that Christians in churches not designed like yours are into "fluff" or are not "serious students" of the Word. I know you do not mean to come across that way, but that is the impression you leave. You can rest assured there are is as large a percentage of people in the Saddleback type churches that have a desire to know God deeply as in your own.

I would like to see this biblical prescriptive pattern you describe.

 

What he said fit with biblical principles, but the way that it was approached was not from teh authority of Scripture and that is the problem. Scripture was tacked on here and there (actually 4 references I think). Sin was never mentioned, nor was the necessity of salvation in Christ. The message would have been essentially the same had no Scripture been used. It would have served well as a motivational speaker for PBS fundraising week. Preaching the word of God must start and end with the word of God.

 

So the approach is the primary issue?

If it is built on biblical principle, it does.

Again, I am not defending a sermon I have not heard. I am simply suggesting there is more than one type of sermon that can communicate biblical truth.

 

Should we bring sick people to a hospital? </font>[/QUOTE]Should we bring wolves inside the sheep pen?

 

As to the original question: the answer is yes. We should bring them to church because we have nothing to hide. The church isn't a secret society and we are not ashamed of singing to a person we can't see, of preaching from a book that is looked down upon, of prayer and surrender to the God of Scriptures, etc. We aren't masons.

I am all for the "come and see" what WE are about. Unbelievers need to know that they are coming to church and will see people giving praise to Christ.

The church gathers to worship Christ. It doesn't gather for the unbeliever. As a preacher, I am concerned that my sermons exalt Christ. Since I lack the ability to convert anyone, I am to be faithful in properly explaining (expositing) the text. The audience in Church is Christ, not people.

The unbeliever ought to think to himself - "oh, this is what this is all about", or something like that.

This doesn't mean that we aren't friendly and kind to everyone who enters the door.

 

Molly,

It sounds like your church does not fit the negative stereotype that some posters have given it. Sounds like a body that I'd be comfortable at.

 

Molly, how confident are you that other members in your church can explain the gospel to another person?

 

Good quote. You make a clear difference between the building /service and the actual church. I flinch when I hear comments like "bring the lost into the church." If a church wants to have an evangelistic service inside their building, I don't see a problem with that. No different than having the service in a tent or on a street corner.

On the other hand (not directed at you MTA), the church is not the hospital where people are fixed, as one person posted, from their terminal sickness of sin. I'm aware of only one Great Physician that can meet that need. There is only one door of salvation and it is not the church door. If I understand correctly, lost people become a part of God's assembly by coming to Christ and not to "church."

 

While I’m not answering for Molly, I don’t see the relevance of your question. What does her confidence have to with others responsibility?

 

I think it is good for everyone to realize this. A lot of people think this is JUST a Calvinism/Arminianism debate, but it's not. Certainly Calvinists might tend to lean one way on the issue, while Arminians tend to lean the other. But this can be just as much about our fundamental approach to interpreting the Bible. Following an approach that sees New Testament practice as normative, I have held pretty consistently the same view of the gathered church, while traveling a 25 year soteriological journey from free will to sovereign grace.

I would contend that these questions don't exactly catch the essence of the problem or difference. It is not wrong to bring unbelievers to church to hear the gospel, but it would be wrong to build the church gathering around that concept. The normal pattern should be that the church goes and "wins" people outside the assembly. Ultimately, it's not about whether unbelievers could or should come to church services. It's not about where people are won. The real question, IMO, is "what is the purpose of the gathered church." The church is to go into the world and preach the gospel. If some hear the gospel at a church gathering, so be it. But the purpose of the church gathering is the preparation of the saints to do the work to which they are called. A church body that believes the main function of her gathering is to win the lost will have a very different style of service from a church body that believes the main function of her gathering is to equip the saints.

 

I agree with Pastor Larry by and large on this one. The primary focus of church meetings, other than specific evangelistic ones, should be for the believers to fellowship, worship the Lord and hear the Word preached (and have the Two Ordinances administered). Certainly there should be no watering or dumbing down of the message to pander to the perceived needs of the unconverted. Four caveats however:-

1. The language, idiom and mode of presentation of the message should be an effective method of communication of the same (I dislike the word 'relevant' because that's relatavistic) ie: unchanging message, (sometimes) changing medium.

2. Avoid obsession with bricks and mortar. The church is people.

3. Always be prepared to share the Gospel, on primarily but also a corporate basis, whenever there is an opportunity

4. Be aware that the ordinances themselves can be powerful evangelistic occasions especially baptism; we require all candidates to give their testimonies publicly prior to baptism and their families and friends, many of whom are unsaved, are invited to the baptismal services, and at one of our recent baptismal services, one of the candidates' friends was so moved by her testimony that she gave her life to the Lord.

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

I agree with you Bob. But as I read all the replies posted, to answer the question that if it is okay to bring an unbeliever to a church service or gathering, I think it is OKAY!!! coz I discussion is not on if to whom the services are geared to, right?

 

Amen.

 

A couple of observations:

1. Obviously no one here believes the "church" is just the building. We are simply using the common colloquial to represent the gathering of believers.

2. Is there anything wrong with believers inviting unbelievers to an organized event for the purpose of a clear gospel presentation?

If you answer no to this question, then you have justified (at some level) seeker-services. The purpose of a seeker-service is to present the gospel clearly to unbelievers. When/the time & day of the week that service occurs is irrelevant. If a church decides to have a seeker-service on Sunday morning, that is their decision. It is merely a weekly evangelistic opportunity for the church members to bring their unbelieving friends to an organized evangelism event.

All seeker-oriented ministries with which I am familiar also have gathering times designed specifically for the edification of the saints.

3. If the church is truly the people of God, then we must be careful in defining what must and must not take place when the people gather in a building. The church/people can gather for a number of purposes (fellowship, ministry, worship, evangelism, prayer, etc.). If this is true, seeker-services are a legitimate reason for a church to gather. If a church only gathers for the purpose of evangelism, they have overlooked the other purposes. But to suggest a church should not gather for the purpose of evangelism is to also overlook a central purpose of why the church exists.

Just some thoughts.

 

I am concerned with churches that are mainly evangelistic in all they do. They begin to believe that whatever works is okay and trusting in scriptures becomes a distant memory...The sufficiency of scripture is replaced with *look how we do church*,and says churches need to do things this way.

I still conclude that we should go out and share Christ with a lost world,they are saved,then we guide them to a biblical church(hey,it may not even be ours!) Inviting them to church in hopes of them becoming saved is backwards to God's design of church growth. He brings about the growth,in reality we are just to be obedient to what His word says...there is nothing we can *do* in our church services to truly aid God's work. Then we could give ourselves credit.

SBC,Did you know that Rick Warren's church has 80,000 people on roll and only 20,000 come to worship services? That's impressive....Roll eyes. Where are all these *new* converts? Must not be truly committed...maybe the power of God's Word has not permeated their hearts enough to really see a change...I wonder why....maybe it is because they are not hearing how importnant God's Word is....


Just a thought.....

Not Impressed,

Molly