Should we bring unbelievers to Church?

Read what I wrote again. We have a responsibility to teach them. I am teaching a discipleship class right now on being a contagious Christian. That is not the point. The point is that most Christians are not comfortable sharing their faith or do not feel capable of doing so adequately. Yet they might be comfortable inviting one to a service knowing they will hear the gospel clearly. Again -- one sows, another waters, God gives the increase.

I know Mark Dever and have talked with him several times. We have gone out to eat a few times and talked about these matters. I respect his opinions and disagree cordially with some of them. I don't think his church would be considered one that is leading the way in reaching and discipling. I am not saying that negatively. Just stating reality.

 

I do agree that evangelism is a part of the purpose of the church(meaning people-believers)...so we are equipped to go out and share(this is evangelsim)....I guess where Pastor Larry and I differ is that the Worship service should not be evangelistic in nature and purpose,although if lost people are there the result will be that they hear God's Word proclaimed and can be saved. It is not the purpose,though. The purpose is to glorify God through worship and equipping the saints. Evangelism is what we go out and do.

 

I think Larry is somewhere between us, but I do think you misunderstand the gist of what Larry is saying (but I will not speak for him).

Molly, I cringe when I read these words. If you cannot see the error of this statement, I can not help you understand differently in an online forum. Just b/c something is true does not mean it is PERCEIVED as relevant.

Also an excellent source and study guide.

 

Molly,

This is a total pragmatic question & don't fell compelled to answer it, but I do think it cuts to the heart of the matter ...

How many adults made a commitment to Christ and were baptized in your church last year (not the 4 walls but as a result of the people)?

 

I probably am somewhere between SBC and Molly, though I am not analyzing these comments here at great depth. I do not believe the purpose of the worship service is evangelistic. I think it is a valid purpose of the Sun AM service. Our purposes for that service are worship and basic teaching/evangelism (which, IMO, often go hand in hand ... there is a very fine line often between those who need basic teaching and those who need to be evangelized. It is not always possible to tell the difference). To draw a dichotomy that we come together to worship/edify and go out to evangelize cannot be maintained. That may be true sometimes, but it should not be true all the time. Someone visiting here, getting ready to join I think, recently told me that this is the first church that they have ever felt comfortable inviting an unbeliever too because they know that they will hear the gospek in a way that they can understand. I have worked very hard towards that end. I contrast that with a friend who attends another much larger church who told me that they don't want to invite unbelievers to church at his church because they will not get anything out of it at all. To me, there is something wrong there.

As for watered down preaching, I do believe there is much of it. For example, I was at Willow Creek recently on a Sunday 11:00am service. The speaker gave a wonderful talk about love ... It lasted about 1/2 hour or perhaps a bit more. The bad thing about it was that it didn't need the Scripture to be preached. It never addressed the fact that the real problem with our love is sinful selfishness. It never addressed the fact that we need to come to Christ to solve the real problem. Much of the preaching today is not inherently tied to Scripture. I always ask the question, Can I preach this without the Bible? If so, then it usually means I need to abandon it or change it.

It is interesting too that many seeker churches are beginning to believe that they went down teh wrong path. On www.allelon.org there was an article about The Prodigal Church. It wasn't really good exegesis of the text, but it was a good insight into what is wrong with many churches out there from a formerly seeker church.

As for relevance, I think it is often misunderstood. Warren says that we don't need to make the Bible relevant; we just need to show its relevance. He is right. The Bible is relevant. People need to make their lives relevant by following the Bible. But we as teachers/preachers must demonstrate where the ancient truth touches the modern life. To use a flawed analogy, the fact that a stove might burn a two year olds hand is extremely relevant when that two year old is in the kitchen. But he doesn't know that. Mom needs to explain that to him and help him through it.

Lastly, and in response to SBC's question, the answer is "not enough" ... but, as he and I have talked before, I question the wisdom of placing too much emphasis on that figure (as would he, I believe). The fact that lot of people are coming and getting wet in teh pool is not always a sign of great growth. It could be aign of manipulation, weak or false gospel, peer pressure, or anyone of several other things. It can also be a sign of great growth. Consider the ministry of Christ, who after three years had fewer followers than he started with ... In fact, he intentionally drove many of them away over time. The key, to me, is faithfulness to the word of God and obedience.

I was reading some from Spurgeon this morning and found this relevant, at least at this point:

 

Should we bring sick people to a hospital?

 

This thread is of interest to me in light of the Open/Close/Closed Communion thread under the Baptist Theology and Bible Study heading. The Lord's Supper service, as many people believe, is to be restricted to who may partake, or even attend. In this light, a congregation should not consider inviting the faithless lost if they are of the "close/closed" Communion mindset (neither should they invite other Christians if they are of the "closed" mindset), regardless of their evangelistic tendancies in other services.

What makes the Lord's Supper service any different from any other service, worship or otherwise, of the church?

-Pluvivs

 

Preach on sin. The believer's need to be sanctified from it and the unbeliever's need to be saved from it. Some times the gospel clicks for a unbeliever through things that don't make sense to us.

I believe the primary purpose of the church gathering is to worship, fellowship, and edify the believer. I am not sure that a service directed at a group where 1 or 2 people out of 100 are unsaved should ever be strictly evangelistic in nature. At the same time, I was saved in church.

The problem with bringing the unsaved into the church is that sometimes they kind of meld into the group. Eventually everyone just assumes that they have been saved, and maybe they make some sort of profession or get baptized. The result is a church with a whole bunch of unsaved people making trouble. Or else, they go to one church long enough to feel like they have comfortably met God's requirement then are accepted by another church because they can talk the game.

There is alot of danger in having lost people become regular attenders. The worst danger is to them. If allowed to go on for a long period, they will begin to think their church involvement makes them OK with God.

 

It's not obvious that they were present. This passage is purely hypothetical. Perhaps it was likely, but we don't really know that, at least not from this text.

My point is that this passage does not prove that unbelievers are supposed to be invited or even were invited to the Corinthian church in this hypothetical historical event. That in no way means you and I should NOT invite unbelievers today, but it does preclude this passage from being used as support for such a practice.

 

Because you are doing a different thing. That said, the communion service can be a powerful evangelistic service. When else is the gospel message so clear, and illustrated so vividly? I don't encourage unbelievers to come to that service. WE have it at night, so it is not our main service anyway. And we don't tack it onto the end of the service. It is the service. Everything we do is about communion.

 

Pastor Larry,

I'm not saying that Paul was preaching against inviting unbelievers to church. I have no problem with inviting unbelievers. Perhaps I communicated poorly, but my point is that he was arguing against orienting the objective of the service toward evangelizing them. In my understanding of the text, he was arguing that the purpose of a church service is edification of believers is the primary purpose. Unbelievers may be regenerated through the service, but that is a byproduct that results from believers successfully pursuing the objective of edification of believers.

You may well be right about the interpretation of "unbelievers." That's not my perspective at this time, but I am open to change. Nevertheless, if you are right and the unbelievers are saved Jews who don't understand some important truths, then my argument that this passage provides no mandate to invite unbelievers to church just as valid.

I completely agree with you that evangelism is one of the primary purposes of the church. In no way to I intend to denigrate evangelism as a primary objective of the church. I do completely reject the idea that the church's worship services are the venue for that purpose to be pursued. A couple years ago I studied through the NT passages that deal with what is to be taking place at the assemblies of local churches. Evangelism within those assemblies of believers was completely absent from my findings. Is it possible that I missed something? Sure, but I have yet to see anyone else offer evidence to that effect. My understanding is that teaching within the context of a local assembly is always directed primarily toward believers.

That doesn't mean I believe that an evangelistic sermon should never be preached in a church service. My point is that the biblical data ought to give us a strong reminder of the primary purpose of the gathering of believers for worship and edification.

 

If one is limiting proper preaching to a certain style (such as expositional), then your point is valid. However expository preaching is not the only style. All proper preaching should be grounded in biblical truth, but not all preaching must exegete a particular passage to be valid. Expository preaching is a valid method, but it is not the only method.

The "seeker movement" was something new on the methodological scene when introduced by Hybels and others. Sure it has its major weaknesses and many of its primary leaders have recognized those and sought to correct the innate problems. Things must be tried before they can be proven. Personally I think the exclusively "seeker-driven" services are a thing of the past. I know very few churches that practice them. Most have allowed the pendulum to swing back to a balanced position such as I have described above. The proper environment fulfills both purposes -- worship and edification for the believer and a clear gospel message for the unbeliever. These two things should not be exclusive to one another.

Part of this issue that can be saved for another discussion is the past tendency for evangelicals to emphasize instantaneous salvation to the neglect of salvation as a whole life transformation (and I am not talking about how you cut your hair). I will not chase that rabbit at this time.

My point exactly. The truth is always relevant, but whether it is PERCEIVED as relavant is another issue. If we fail to help them see the relevance, we have failed to make it relevant. That is why we must address both felt needs and hidden needs.

My whole reason for asking the question is that I have discovered in my own personal experience that those who adopt the mindset similar to Molly's (not picking on her in particular) often are a part of a church that has very few adult conversions and baptisms in a year, and yet it is often justified in terms of "not dumbing down the gospel". Growth is definitely a sign of church health. If we take the Great Commission serious, we cannot help but grow.

 

Were these passages descriptive or prescriptive?

 

Thanks. I understand your logic and approach even though I disagree with it.

I'm surprised that you don't believe Dever is reaching/discipling. I'm fairly familiar with his church--attended it while I was in DC for a while back before he was the pastor, and have visited a few times since. Although I've only talked with him a couple times and didn't get into these issues at all, my strong impression from visiting the church and talking with several friends who are members is that they really are reaching and discipling people.

Although there are a lot of transient evangelicals in the church who have been saved in other ministries, I've heard of numerous people who have trusted Christ there, and there is no question in my mind that the church as a whole is growing in maturity. Just my opinion.

 

I agree ... but my point about WC was that the message was not grounded in Scripture. It made perfect sense if Scripture had never been quoted. I think that is problemmatic. Any Scripture used should be rightly used. But if a message does not start with Scripture (and I don't mean chronologically, but rather foundationally), then I think there is a problem.

 

To answer SBC's question:

I do not know the exact number of new conversions from our church,but I do see baptisms often. We do not keep track of how many were saved in a month,etc. We have a new members class that is always full. Most of them are believers. We have lots of new members coming from churches where the Word of God is not the emphasis and they are looking for a church where it is. In the city where we attend church,our church has the reputation for having serious bible study. People who are seeking to grow in a biblically in-depth environment seek out our church. A lot of youth come to our church from other churches because they want bible study,not fluff.

I do not wish to sound prideful about our church...I know there are some really good ones out there,but there are not many around here. Most are doing whatever the trendy program thing is i.e. Purpose Driven Life,etc....We are looking for more intense study and understanding of scripture...which comes from healthy teaching,people desiring to obey Christ,and following Him...it all comes back to trusting in the sufficiency of scripture and realizing more of this is what we all need. We are growing in depth as well as breadth....but,depth and becoming more Christ like is emphasized over numbers. I could tell story after story about how some have come to be members of our church. A lot have come just seeking the solid teaching(this would be the believers group)...the new believers have been affected by the people and how they live their lives. One example I can think of is a mom in a store with her children(who were very sweet and obedient) and a frazzled mother asking her how she does it. The mother invites her family over to explain how she does it. The family comes to know Christ because of her sharing how Christ and His word guides her and helps her. It all comes back to the power of God's Word and the obedience of HIs people showing His love to others. There are many stories like this. This family did not come to our church because of a carnival,but because that mom was equipped to share Christ in Word and deed.

The neat thing about our church is most of the people are bold and ready to give an answer....because true equipping has happened from our leadership. I do not hear people say they are afraid to share their faith with people...On the contrary,I hear story after story of how people are making a difference becasue God's Word is real to them and they share because they love God and want to obey Him. They know,live,and breathe God's Word so it comes out of the heart easily. There are lots of mature Christians in our church,much more than I...I am challenged by their faith and their love for God. This did not happen by mistake...it is because God's Word has been and continues to be the emphasis and power that does change lives.

Molly

[ June 30, 2004, 03:10 PM: Message edited by: Molly ]

 

Some of the posters in this thread have stated that the purpose of a church service is for believers to assemble together to worship God. Unfortunately, many in the last couple of generations of IFB pastors have been strongly instructed otherwise. Here is a verbatim quote from Chapter Twelve of Jack Hyles' book The Church:

----------------------------------------------

Chapter Twelve-

The Purpose of
Going to Church

"Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for the fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord. Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst and said, Peace be unto you. John 20:19-23, 26

Not many people know the true reason why Jesus started the church. Let me give a couple of things which are not legitimate reasons, even though most people think they are.

1. The church was not started to be a place of worship.

You can worship God better alone than you can with others. You can also pray better alone than you can with others. When two people pray together, their prayers will too often be designed to impress each other. Every Christian should worship God in the beauty of His holiness. We should adore Him, worship Him, magnify Him, and honor Him. The idea that the church is a place to worship God came from Rome, not from the New Testament. There is only one place in the New Testament where the word worship is connected to a public service, and that deals with worshipping the Devil. There is no example in the entire New Testament of a Christian worship service."

----------------------------------------------

Here's a link to the entire text of this book:

http://www.jackhyles.net/thechurch.shtml

----------------------------------------------

Jack Hyles influenced many thousands of IFB pastors with these types of teachings over 34 years of annual Pastor's Schools.

 

I think a great many of us, if not most, would reject Hyles no matter what side we come down on.

 

I'm with you. Sadly, I know (and know of) many IFB-ers who ate up every word he and his syncophants said/still say.

 

Isa 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

Believing that God's word will have its effect, regardless of where it is spoken, why would we entertain a thought that the unsaved would not benefit by hearing God's word in our church services?

There is no argument that the mission field is not within the walls of the church, but in the world. Some churches post the sign on the door that says, "Enter to worship . . . depart to serve," and truly that is how we should all feel.

People will always see more of your faith by what you do rather than what you profess. Consequently, I believe that churches can serve their communities and honestly entice non-members to come to a service. Many churches do just that every summer under the guise of vacation bible school. VBS is a witnessing tool that is very effective. Pastors know that if the kids want to come, then maybe their parents will too.

Serving others begins by meeting their needs, in every aspect, and who is more authorized to do that than the Church?

Whether converts are won outside or inside the building is not important. The church is not brick and mortar, it is built of "lively stones."