“Unchurched” Is a Lame Word

Amen, Josh.  Aaaaamen.


5 thoughts on ““Unchurched” Is a Lame Word”

  1. Funny post. But do you think this rather strange word could be a useful way of referring to a person’s background of experience in church community, whether believer or non-believer? Seems to me to be a quasi-word born out of the unfortunate church dynamic here in the US, where you have young people leaving the church at high rates post-highschool. These would be people in their 20s and 30s who grew up attending services, may profess to be some kind of cultural Christian, but haven’t been in community with the church in a decade. I’m all for finding a different/better word, but what do you call that guy?

  2. I guess I hear it in a different way than Harris hears it. Usually, I understood it as applying to those who haven’t had any experience with the Gospel or the Bible, but not as defining one’s salvation status. For instance, the Bible Belt is a very churched region, while New York City is largely unchurched. So, as Carson would say, Rob Bell will have a lot more success in the Bible Belt than in NYC, since his listeners in the former will have a better background in Biblical ideas (even if they’ve not fully accepted them).

    Basically, unchurched vs. churched doesn’t equal unsaved vs. saved. Rather, “unchurched” is merely referring to one’s own context.

    Matt Chandler explained it pretty well here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQBMMQmSFUs

  3. Nice catch, PB.

    I agree with the Josh Harris’ post. Unchurched is a lame term that seems to have its roots in the squishy idea that the people around us aren’t really going to have to face God because they haven’t really ever heard of Him. Bologna! The Bible makes it clear that the people around us are going to fry unless they repent and turn to the God who has been trying to reveal Himself to them for their entire lives. Their problem isn’t that they are “unchurched”. Their problem is that they are rejecting the God who created them, and deep down inside they know it.

    The real question is how are we “churched” folk going to generate the Kingdom, since that is our command. Somehow we need to be attracting the “pre-churched” to God, not to “the Church”.
    This is the beauty of Josh’s observation.

    And, it also points out the failure of my own life since I am not a very prolific evangelist.


  4. I’m not sure I see it as that big of a deal…which I am glad you are all glad to know my opinion.

    I just heard Matt Chandler say “de-churched.” Is that a better fit?

Please contribute to a respectful, charitable conversation...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s