Participating in a Church

[elijah23]

I doubt there are any perfect churches, but I think there is far more good than bad that takes place in churches. It troubles me when I hear people say they won’t participate in a church because they don’t like this about it or they don’t like that about it. It makes more sense to me that we should attend church and try to set good examples for others. The fact of the matter is that none of us is perfect and we all can learn from our churches.

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

Why is it necessary to attend a church in order be be a good example? The christian walk should be one where a person lives a life of love, faith, hope, kindness, peace, longsuffering, hospitality, giving, humility, and honesty. Church affiliation is not needed in order to have a christian walk. What church affiliation could add is a vehicle, (the corporate institution) that helps individuals pool their efforts in order to achieve greater good. If this were the sole thing church was, then great, but the fact is that this is not what church claims to be here for. The church instead usurps the position of high priest and claims itself the "go between" and gateway one must use to get to the Lord. In setting itself up in this position, it then creates a corporate hierarchial structure that elevates a certain class (clergy) to positions of authority over the masses. The masses are then used to fund the BUSINESS of the church, which is what the clergy class decides that to be.
Don't mistake what I'm saying. There is nothing wrong with christians deciding to pool their assets together for a purpose, BUT when the organization they create is positioned as God's organization as opposed to a creation of man, THEN trouble pops up as people become led to believe the organization is somehow holy.

 

[Alabaster]

A Christian's example needs to be worthy of emulation, and as we are commanded to not forsake the assembly, then a thinking Christian who really cares about the welfare of others and how his walk with God is being observed, cannot afford to disobey God in this regard.

We need to put our money where our mouth is and be an example to the unbeliever and stop rationalizing our obeisance to a lazy spirit.

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

A Christian's example needs to be worthy of emulation, and as we are commanded to not forsake the assembly, then a thinking Christian who really cares about the welfare of others and how his walk with God is being observed, cannot afford to disobey God in this regard.

We need to put our money where our mouth is and be an example to the unbeliever and stop rationalizing our obeisance to a lazy spirit.

Alabaster,

Reread Hebrews 10:24-25. It does NOT say to "not forsake the assembly" What it says is to not forsake the assembling of yourselves together, it does not say or imply that one must "go to church."
This "considering of one another in order to provoke each other to love and good works" can be done anywhere, anyplace, and anytime. It is an instruction the christian would do well to heed by becoming a part of and making other believers a part of their lives on an ongoing basis. This can be done in each other's homes, at dinner, on a vacation, or you name it. It just needs to be done and put in practice to the point where it becomes a lifestyle.

 

[Nacho]

Why is it necessary to attend a church in order be be a good example? The christian walk should be one where a person lives a life of love, faith, hope, kindness, peace, longsuffering, hospitality, giving, humility, and honesty. Church affiliation is not needed in order to have a christian walk. What church affiliation could add is a vehicle, (the corporate institution) that helps individuals pool their efforts in order to achieve greater good. If this were the sole thing church was, then great, but the fact is that this is not what church claims to be here for. The church instead usurps the position of high priest and claims itself the "go between" and gateway one must use to get to the Lord. In setting itself up in this position, it then creates a corporate hierarchial structure that elevates a certain class (clergy) to positions of authority over the masses. The masses are then used to fund the BUSINESS of the church, which is what the clergy class decides that to be.
Don't mistake what I'm saying. There is nothing wrong with christians deciding to pool their assets together for a purpose, BUT when the organization they create is positioned as God's organization as opposed to a creation of man, THEN trouble pops up as people become led to believe the organization is somehow holy.

What the heck kind of church are you going to? :o

 

[handy]

The problem I have with your theory here, T/T is that the Scriptures do show that there are to be pastors, teachers, elders, bishops and deacons, and that there are to be specific times when we gather together for the purpose of worship, of equipping and sharing our gifts with one another.


...I guess I also disagree with "The church instead usurps the position of high priest and claims itself the "go between" and gateway one must use to get to the Lord."

There might be some churches that do that, but not all do, I don't even think that most do.

 

[Alabaster]

Alabaster,

Reread Hebrews 10:24-25. It does NOT say to "not forsake the assembly" What it says is to not forsake the assembling of yourselves together, it does not say or imply that one must "go to church."

That is exactly what it means---do not forsake the assembling together as a church fellowship---regularly, like Jesus did, even!

This "considering of one another in order to provoke each other to love and good works" can be done anywhere, anyplace, and anytime. It is an instruction the christian would do well to heed by becoming a part of and making other believers a part of their lives on an ongoing basis. This can be done in each other's homes, at dinner, on a vacation, or you name it. It just needs to be done and put in practice to the point where it becomes a lifestyle.

Be careful that you do not slip down the rationalization hill. We as believers fulfill all those requirements anywhere, but we do it in church also. That is where we learn how, and where we learn correctly. That is where we get our spiritual and emotional tanks full so that we are well equipped and made ready to minister to the world.

 

[WIP]

What the heck kind of church are you going to? :o

Thank you.

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

The problem I have with your theory here, T/T is that the Scriptures do show that there are to be pastors, teachers, elders, bishops and deacons, and that there are to be specific times when we gather together for the purpose of worship, of equipping and sharing our gifts with one another.


...I guess I also disagree with "The church instead usurps the position of high priest and claims itself the "go between" and gateway one must use to get to the Lord."

There might be some churches that do that, but not all do, I don't even think that most do.

When I say churches claim that in order to get to the Lord, a person must be in the church, am I exagerating? Many churches from Roman Catholic, Baptist, Disciples of Christ, to Adventists, and others all support such a claim that the individual needs the church in order to serve the Lord or be "in Christ" as SOME call it.

As far as the text of Ephesians talking about those given gifts to "equip the saints for the work of service", we must understand that though that text speaks of different works christians had been involved in, it does not mandate an institutional corporate organization. Without the institution in the 1st century you had communities of believers who were being led by elders who took on the duty of shepherds (pastors, the works are one and the same scripturally and the term 'bishop' even somehow came from these terms), watching over the souls of those in their locality and providing their brethren with excellent examples. Within those same communities there were also teachers and servants (which is what deacon means) who taught and ministered (served) the needs of those in the christian community they were a part of. These saints were never mandated to meet on a Sunday to go to church "worship service." These saints were not instructed to continuosly fill a church treasury every week forever. They instead were shares in the lives of one another and cheerful givers of whatever their brethren were in need of.

 

[WIP]

I don't think you have to belong or participate in a church per-say but I do think that it is risky to go it alone and a smart thing to do. Being an active member in a church group can help us by providing accountability that we don't have on our own, fellowship with other believers, maintain our focus, shared Bible study, instruction, reproof, correction, etc. I know when I attend church services I always leave with a sense of purpose, tranquility, and reassurance.

For one thing our service follows a liturgy that includes:
* Praising God through prayer and song as a congregation rather than alone
* Confession, prayer, and absolution
* Lesson readings from the OT, NT, and Gospel
* Tithing to help the church do God's work around our community
* Missionary support through the church
* Opportunity to bring prayer concerns to the congregation
* Teaching from the pastor
* Holy Communion
There is just something about joining our voices in prayer and praise of God that I could never experience alone. Even the angels in heaven praise God in massive choirs rather than by themselves.

 

[handy]

So, T/T are you part of a local body of believer with a shepherd and bishops and deacons that is not a recognized church per se...but a church in the new testament way?

I mean, I don't care if one is part of a church with a long standing tradition like the Lutheran Church or congregation of believers that do not have any affilliation with a denomination but nonetheless assemble, worship, take communion at whatever time is convienent..this is simply a rose by another name...

But, I too think there is danger in being a "lone gun" Christian...there is a call to be joined together that's kind of hard to miss.

I also think there is danger...because I fell into this myself, in misunderstanding or being prejudicial about other denominations, including the RCC.

I remember back in my Calvinist days of being sent to Ireland so that I could "witness to the Catholics"...and winding up in Ireland fellowshipping with the Catholics instead. I learned during that trip that there was a big disconnect from what I had always been taught about the RCC and what was in fact truth. Now, I still think that there are doctrinal differences that are important to recognize, but I'm not falling for the idea that somehow anyone in the RCC isn't a Christian.

 

[jasoncran]

So, T/T are you part of a local body of believer with a shepherd and bishops and deacons that is not a recognized church per se...but a church in the new testament way?

I mean, I don't care if one is part of a church with a long standing tradition like the Lutheran Church or congregation of believers that do not have any affilliation with a denomination but nonetheless assemble, worship, take communion at whatever time is convienent..this is simply a rose by another name...

But, I too think there is danger in being a "lone gun" Christian...there is a call to be joined together that's kind of hard to miss.

I also think there is danger...because I fell into this myself, in misunderstanding or being prejudicial about other denominations, including the RCC.

I remember back in my Calvinist days of being sent to Ireland so that I could "witness to the Catholics"...and winding up in Ireland fellowshipping with the Catholics instead. I learned during that trip that there was a big disconnect from what I had always been taught about the RCC and what was in fact truth. Now, I still think that there are doctrinal differences that are important to recognize, but I'm not falling for the idea that somehow anyone in the RCC isn't a Christian.

where in the emerald isle did you go? and also this person would fall away quickly if i didnt attend church.

 

[Nathan]

ToT has a point. I think he is addressing it in another thread also. But the fact remains that when the writer of Hebrews spoke of this 'assembly' he was doing so about beleivers gathering with other believers.

That is not what we see in the "modern" church today. What we see is a mix of believers and non-believers gathering together. We do this in the name of "love", but what it has done is weaken our faith. There are so many levels of what this has done to the church, but the point to address in this thread is that it takes away from true unity in Christ.

It is a FACT that when you intermix non-believers with believers there is going to be confusion and division, and as much as everyone wants to point the finger at one 'issue' or another, the fact is that the gatherings are not centered on Christ. It cannot be. You cannot have people who do not believe in Christ as their Lord and Savior and have 'oneness'.

This is not how it was back then. In the first century the churches were made up of only believers. Sure, there were ones who came and listened, but when they gathered they all knew each other intimately and were able to use their gifts as the Lord [The head of the Body] led them to do. The 'watchers' did not participate.

And what happed when there were some who posed as believers, but had not truly given themselves over to Christ? They were called out, and they were put out.

The 'gathering' of believers together was a whole lot different back then. It still happens today, but it should not be associated with the usual "church service". That is not what the writer of Hebrews was speaking of.

The specific purpose of gathering together was to uplift and encourage one another in the new life in Christ. What did that look like for them back then? A WHOLE lot different than it is touted in todays "churches".

Hbr 10:24-29 And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.

For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries.

Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace?

The "for" that follows the admonishment to not neglect the meeting specifies why not to neglect the meeting. Why all the more as you see the day drawing near? Because they knew it would get increasingly difficult to live righteously before God. They knew that the closer we come to the return, the more wickedness would increase. The meeting was specific to 'build' each other up in the paths of righteousness. A far cry from what church meetings are about today.

 

[handy]

ToT has a point. I think he is addressing it in another thread also. But the fact remains that when the writer of Hebrews spoke of this 'assembly' he was doing so about beleivers gathering with other believers.

That is not what we see in the "modern" church today. What we see is a mix of believers and non-believers gathering together. We do this in the name of "love", but what it has done is weaken our faith. There are so many levels of what this has done to the church, but the point to address in this thread is that it takes away from true unity in Christ.

It is a FACT that when you intermix non-believers with believers there is going to be confusion and division, and as much as everyone wants to point the finger at one 'issue' or another, the fact is that the gatherings are not centered on Christ. It cannot be. You cannot have people who do not believe in Christ as their Lord and Savior and have 'oneness'.

This is not how it was back then. In the first century the churches were made up of only believers. Sure, there were ones who came and listened, but when they gathered they all knew each other intimately and were able to use their gifts as the Lord [The head of the Body] led them to do. The 'watchers' did not participate.

And what happed when there were some who posed as believers, but had not truly given themselves over to Christ? They were called out, and they were put out.

The 'gathering' of believers together was a whole lot different back then. It still happens today, but it should not be associated with the usual "church service". That is not what the writer of Hebrews was speaking of.

The specific purpose of gathering together was to uplift and encourage one another in the new life in Christ. What did that look like for them back then? A WHOLE lot different than it is touted in todays "churches".

Hbr 10:24-29 And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.

For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries.

Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace?

The "for" that follows the admonishment to not neglect the meeting specifies why not to neglect the meeting. Why all the more as you see the day drawing near? Because they knew it would get increasingly difficult to live righteously before God. They knew that the closer we come to the return, the more wickedness would increase. The meeting was specific to 'build' each other up in the paths of righteousness. A far cry from what church meetings are about today.

I soooo agree with you Nathan! Amen to a great post.

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

As I earlier said, the concept of church we have, whether "institutional" or mini-institutional (home church) both lack biblical support and mandate. Yet, the proponents of church religion not only claims that these are found in scripture but also that scripture requires membership within this organization in order to be in Christ.

It is this claim of the church that makes it an institution to be leary of as the position it gives itself is unmerited and in some cases outright blasphemous. The church tries to make Jesus into a liar by saying that it, the church is Jesus' kingdom while Jesus asserts that his kingdom is not of this world. The church sets up spiritual hierarchies where some lord over other while Jesus says in Matthew 23 that is should not be that way for his followers.

The church equates giving to it with giving to God, and virtually mandates by misapplying texts like 1 Cor 16 to guilt its parishoners into believing that they are required by God to contribute to the church every 1st of the week.

So, what is the church? It is a manmade construct that has positioned itself as the "doorway" by which one must enter to get to the Lord. It is because of this false claim and numerous other false teachings that I assert that one would be wise that stand opposed to it. Christians shouldn't so inclined to be a part of or affiliated with ANY type of church organization. Christians need only be christians. It is a myth and a very powerful one at that, that has led people to believe that in order to be a christian a church affiliation is necessary.
Now If christians so desire, they can form a benevolence club "a church" if you will to help them do the work christians do together, but they in doing so need to realize that the institution they create is just an accessory and NOT a necessity. This man made created institution is NOT Jesus' bloodbought people, it instead is a tool employed by those people to help them do good in the world.

 

[Alabaster]

As I earlier said, the concept of church we have, whether "institutional" or mini-institutional (home church) both lack biblical support and mandate. Yet, the proponents of church religion not only claims that these are found in scripture but also that scripture requires membership within this organization in order to be in Christ.

It is this claim of the church that makes it an institution to be leary of as the position it gives itself is unmerited and in some cases outright blasphemous. The church tries to make Jesus into a liar by saying that it, the church is Jesus' kingdom while Jesus asserts that his kingdom is not of this world. The church sets up spiritual hierarchies where some lord over other while Jesus says in Matthew 23 that is should not be that way for his followers.

The church equates giving to it with giving to God, and virtually mandates by misapplying texts like 1 Cor 16 to guilt its parishoners into believing that they are required by God to contribute to the church every 1st of the week.

So, what is the church? It is a manmade construct that has positioned itself as the "doorway" by which one must enter to get to the Lord. It is because of this false claim and numerous other false teachings that I assert that one would be wise that stand opposed to it. Christians shouldn't so inclined to be a part of or affiliated with ANY type of church organization. Christians need only be christians. It is a myth and a very powerful one at that, that has led people to believe that in order to be a christian a church affiliation is necessary.
Now If christians so desire, they can form a benevolence club "a church" if you will to help them do the work christians do together, but they in doing so need to realize that the institution they create is just an accessory and NOT a necessity. This man made created institution is NOT Jesus' bloodbought people, it instead is a tool employed by those people to help them do good in the world.

That opinion is so far off the mark!

Jesus has established through His hard-working apostles individual bodies of Christians who meet one another on a regular basis! We need to emulate them. How do you think you know better than the very first Christians, many of whom actually looked upon the very face of Jesus?

We, His 'bloodbought people', you call them, are His Church---but we are commanded to not forsake the assembling together. Local groups that we just so happen to call 'churches', are necessary for our healthy growth and spiritual safety.

People who opt out of this secure and wonderful pattern of living tend to grow crooked, because there is no one to correct them when they adopt off-beat interpretations (like yours, for example! :yes).

The Lord is coming soon. We don't have time to become spiritually weird, nor to we want to be slowed down in our efforts to bring the lost to Christ by those outside of the churches who hinder us.

We need each other, and we need to assemble regularly and take advantage of the giftings the Lord has blessed each house with. Standing outside the church looking in is depriving the church of your gifting. After all, the gifts are for use in the Body. If you are not in the Body, then what good are your gifts?