Once-Churched People — an amazing essay

Love. Want to copy and share far and wide. Thanks AP

I like nearly everyhing John Pavlovits writes. If he had a church around here I would go at least once every couple of months.

The article spends some time advising church people not to view once-churched people as the enemy or an adversary. In reflecting back on how I’ve seen leaders address the issue of the once-churched I can honestly say that I haven’t seen them create enemies out of the once-churched. I don’t feel like the relationship between an active member of the church and an inactive member of the church is adversarial in nature, I believe the wedge that divides the two groups may be the result of the active member feeling pity towards the inactive member.

Sure there are extreme cases but for the most part our church culture doesn’t create an enemy that people feel they need to steer clear of. We view inactives as people that need to be rescued even when the person doesn’t feel as though they need rescuing. We view inactives as people that have lost their testimonies and it is of utmost importance that we help them regain it. We make the once-churched feel like projects. How does one feel welcome when the inferred message is often “you are lesser but do not fear, we are here to help you.”

Don’t get me wrong, some people really need that kind of outreach but it’s not a one approach fits all thing. The same efforts that rescue one can drive away another.

I’m in meetings where the active members are discussing how to rescue inactive people. From my experience the leaders genuinely are coming from a place of love. I think the disconnect is that we often fail to accept that some people may be happier outside the church… and that’s perfectly okay.

The article mentions that we should treat the once-churched with “kindness and gentleness and great respect.” I believe we already do this in our current rescue attempts but it still drives people away. Why? Because often I feel like our rescue efforts have ulterior motives. Visit – to make sure people are praying. Visit – to get them to come back to church.

I like the stories I hear in church where people visit – and just listen. Those are usually the ones you hear about where someone comes back to church after 20 years of being away. “I didn’t go to church for 20 years but Brother SoAndSo visited me every month. He never talked about church stuff, he was just a friend and would come over and do typical friend stuff. One day, when I was ready, we started talking about church stuff again and I decided to come back… so do your home teaching.”

The article spends some time advising church people not to view once-churched people as the enemy or an adversary. In reflecting back on how I’ve seen leaders address the issue of the once-churched I can honestly say that I haven’t seen them create enemies out of the once-churched. I don’t feel like the relationship between an active member of the church and an inactive member of the church is adversarial in nature, I believe the wedge that divides the two groups may be the result of the active member feeling pity towards the inactive member.

Sure there are extreme cases but for the most part our church culture doesn’t create an enemy that people feel they need to steer clear of. We view inactives as people that need to be rescued even when the person doesn’t feel as though they need rescuing. We view inactives as people that have lost their testimonies and it is of utmost importance that we help them regain it. We make the once-churched feel like projects. How does one feel welcome when the inferred message is often “you are lesser but do not fear, we are here to help you.”

Don’t get me wrong, some people really need that kind of outreach but it’s not a one approach fits all thing. The same efforts that rescue one can drive away another.

I’m in meetings where the active members are discussing how to rescue inactive people. From my experience the leaders genuinely are coming from a place of love. I think the disconnect is that we often fail to accept that some people may be happier outside the church… and that’s perfectly okay.

The article mentions that we should treat the once-churched with “kindness and gentleness and great respect.” I believe we already do this in our current rescue attempts but it still drives people away. Why? Because often I feel like our rescue efforts have ulterior motives. Visit – to make sure people are praying. Visit – to get them to come back to church.

I like the stories I hear in church where people visit – and just listen. Those are usually the ones you hear about where someone comes back to church after 20 years of being away. “I didn’t go to church for 20 years but Brother SoAndSo visited me every month. He never talked about church stuff, he was just a friend and would come over and do typical friend stuff. One day, when I was ready, we started talking about church stuff again and I decided to come back… so do your home teaching.”

I agree that inactives are not viewed as the enemy, but certainly as “misguided” and if they are happier – they are deceived and don’t understand long-term joy. But if you talk about people that have left the church and “can’t leave it alone” (antagonistic towards the church) then I do think many if not most do get cast into the enemy bucket.

Even when I was at my closest to being a TBM, I even told my wife that if I ever went inactive that the church would need to just leave me alone as my personality revolts against someone trying to “manipulate me” (I have walked away from many a car salesmen). I told her I would need to be ready to come back. If they made a full court press to get me to come back, they could be sure I wouldn’t be back for a few years.