Explaining why Moses permitted divorce, Jesus said it was “because of the hardness of your hearts” (Mark 10:5). Some scholars argue that Moses allowed divorce to protect women (Deuteronomy 24). In other words, if a man kicked his wife out without divorcing her, she would not be able to remarry—leaving her destitute. Simply put, although divorce is condemned as sin in scripture, the Mosaic law provides specific instructions as to how it should be carried out.

I have mixed feelings about abortion reduction strategies—in the same way I would have had mixed feelings about slavery reduction legislation in the 1860s, partial women’s suffrage in the 1910s, lynching reduction plans in the 1940s. It feels like halfhearted justice to me.

In spite of the author’s obvious bias, this Slate article on a new abortion reduction bill is informative. However, there is a stumbling block in this bill that has tripped up many conservatives: contraception. The bill explicitly requires grantees to “encourage teens to delay sexual activity.” But because it also requires grantees to provide “information about the risks and benefits of all contraceptives”, it is anathema to conservatives. I think the concern is that teens will have more sex if they have access to contraceptives, and distributing contraceptives is an implied approval of premarital sex.

My question is this: If Moses were alive today in our postmodern secular culture …

• … would he approve of the distribution of contraceptives if it were proven that it resulted in fewer abortions …
• … would he support laws that limit access to abortion without outlawing it altogether …
• … would he approve of some type of non-marital legal status for homosexual couples …
• … would he approve of laws to govern the distribution of substances that may be abused and destroy lives and families …

… because of the hardness of our hearts?

I don’t know where I stand on these questions, and there is not much of a parallel between the theocracy of ancient Israel and the democracy of modern America. But it’s worth considering how the law of God is intended to address the inevitability of human sin.

Recently, I noticed a church Website was marketing a new preaching series on hot-button issues. Visitors could vote on topics such as drugs, divorce, eating disorders, cussing, etc. Ostensibly, the high-rated items would then be tackled by the pastor in future sermons. Of course, this model is not new. In fact, it follows the same narrative of fundamentalists of the past–although it’s wrapped in much hipper packaging for today’s po-mo audience suspicious of religious “do”s and “don’t”s. Here’s the drill:

Step 1: Observe cultural trend that is being “ignored” by the church.
Step 2: Formulate position on said cultural trend.
Step 3: Assemble unassailable barrage of proof texts and personal testimonies to tackle cultural trend.
Step 4: Market series through those church signs with the individual block letters (if you’re old-timey) or the Wide World Interwebs (if you’re cool).
Step 4: Preach, using above materials to sway the opinion of the listeners.

Believe me–I am as guilty of this as the next guy. When I was a youth pastor, I tried it. See two kids holding hands? It’s time to teach on dating. Smell smoke? Let’s polish up the ol’ tobaccy sermon. Hear kids buzzing about a questionable movie? Turn in your Bibles to Psalm 101:3.

The problem with this method is its inherent arrogance. Preaching becomes about behavior modification, not exposing listeners’ hearts to the scalpel of the text, allowing the Holy Spirit to do the rest. Besides, the alternative is far too boring: preach the scriptures and tackle issues when they come up in scripture. In context.

I once heard Walter Kaiser say that preaching should follow not only the content of scripture, but its contours. If I preach through books, chapters and verses, I will cover what the Holy Spirit wants me to cover, not what my agenda is, based on the perceived needs of my hearers or the culture at large.

It’s not new, but the use of the word “unchurched” is one I find disconcerting. It is frequently used by church planters to denote the heathen, their “market” and “target audience”–in contrast to church hoppers, who are merely disgruntled with their current congregation and shopping for a new one.

Like Burger King’s “Whopper virgins“, these unchurched are the fresh-faced masses who have never had the privilege of hearing a truly relevant “talk” on improving their lives from a gel-haired hipster, while sipping a hot cup of Starbucks. Okay, sorry. I’m going to cut the gratuitous cynicism for a minute.

Our family has some unchurched friends, and to be honest, the last thing I want is for them to become churched. I would love it if they became followers of Christ, but I’m not sure I want them becoming churched before they become regenerated. These days, attending church can be a sure-fire way to become inoculated to the gospel. It’s a great way to convince yourself that you’re okay with God and he’s cool with you, that He may even be pleased with your Sunday morning ritual.

Am I nitpicking, splitting hairs? Perhaps those who use the word unchurched have merely chosen a softer word than “unsaved”. The problem is that becoming “churched” is not the solution, in spite of arguments to the contrary.

The formula goes like this: If we could just get them into the doors of the church, they would see that we’re not that weird, that we don’t use hymnbooks, we don’t have pews, we don’t have a portrait of George W. Bush in the foyer. We don’t even have a foyer. When they see the programs we have for their children and meet other people just like them, they’ll decide to stick around. Then we may drop the gospel bomb. But by then it will be too late. Their relational connection to the church will be so strong that they will not be likely to leave without extreme discomfort.

Then, my friends, they will be churched.