Is There a Right Way to Be a Church “for the Unchurched”?

 

Over the past several decades, many churches have intentionally reflected on how to reach out to unchurched people. Different approached have explored how worship style, language, and church culture can either lower or raise barriers for those unfamiliar with church life. As a result, the phrase “a church for the unchurched” has become common shorthand for this missionary concern, and, in some cases, the measuring stick for faithfulness. 

In some contexts, this reflection has led to churches emphasizing informality, emotional expressiveness, and cultural familiarity. Then, some spiritual leaders conclude that this is the goal of the Church. If all churches were serious about mission, the argument goes, they would look more or less like this.

In one hand, many people have testified that such environments helped them take their first steps into Christian faith, feel less intimidated by church, or invite friends who would otherwise never attend. Thoughtful hospitality and the desire to remove unnecessary barriers are genuine expressions of love.

On the other hand, the widespread use of this language raises an important theological question: Is there one defining way for a church to be “for the unchurched,” or are there multiple faithful expressions of the Church’s missionary calling? That question is not about preferences or trends, but about how Scripture understands the nature and mission of the Church itself. 

The challenge arises when one particular expression of church life is treated not simply as effective in a given context, but as a universal definition of what it means to be “for the unchurched.”  The confidence behind this model often rests on positive feedback such as, “I’m so glad I can finally bring my unchurched friends here.” Those voices matter, and they should be heard. But they do not tell the whole story.

Every church context is selective. People who resonate with a particular style will speak up. Others—equally unchurched—will quietly decide that this is not a place where they feel at home. Some are overwhelmed by noise. Others are unsettled by informality. Some long for silence, reverence, or rootedness precisely because they are unchurched and tired of constant stimulation elsewhere.

This already happens in practice. Different churches attract different people. That reality does not undermine mission—it simply reveals that there is no single cultural form that welcomes everyone.

Defined by the Word, Not by Style

Here the theological question becomes unavoidable. Scripture does not define the Church by atmosphere, informality, or emotional response. The Church is defined by God's Word, presence and promises.

“Faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ” (Romans 10:17). Where the Word is preached and the Sacraments are administered, Christ is actively giving forgiveness, life, and salvation. That means something essential: every church that is faithful to Christ is already a church for the unchurched. Not because it matches every preference, but because it offers what every unchurched person ultimately needs—whether they know it yet or not. 

The Gospel does not depend on cultural familiarity to be effective. In fact, Scripture repeatedly reminds us that the message of Christ will often feel strange, challenging, or even offensive. “We preach Christ crucified,” Paul writes, “a stumbling block… and folly” (1 Corinthians 1:23). If accessibility alone were the measure of faithfulness, the cross itself would fail the test.

Faithfulness and Fruitfulness Are Not Opposites

This is not an argument against contextualization or thoughtful communication. The Church should speak clearly, love intentionally and examine whether some of its practices become barriers to the Gospel. But clarity must not be confused with uniformity, and mission must not be reduced to method.

The New Testament doesn't lay out one approach that will always “work.” Instead, it shows that God works through the means He has given. In Acts, the early Christians devoted themselves to teaching, fellowship, prayer, and the breaking of bread—and the Lord added to their number those who were being saved (Acts 2:42–47).

Growth followed faithfulness; it did not replace it.

Church history reinforces this point. The early Church grew rapidly in a hostile culture without designing itself around comfort or familiarity. During plagues, Christians stayed to care for the sick while others fled—and unchurched observers took notice. The Reformation drew people with some degree of novelty - or rather, gong back to the essence - but, essentially, through clear proclamation of justification by grace. In times of persecution, the Church has often grown precisely because it refused to reshape itself around cultural approval.

In none of these moments did the Church follow a single prescription for accessibility. It simply remained faithful to God's Word—and the Spirit did His Work

The Church does not need one model to reach the unchurched. It needs Christ at the center and generosity toward different callings. Some churches will reach people through immediacy and informality. Others will do so through austerity, depth, and sacramental steadiness. Both can be faithful. Both can be missionary.

The Church for the Unchurched - and for all 

In the end, the question is not, “Why isn’t every church like this?” It is, “Is Christ being faithfully given here—and for whom might this be a door into His life?” Where that question guides the Church, she remains exactly what it is called to be.

For the churched and the unchurched alike.