David H.

Justin, This forum is happening so fast, that I did not get my correction up before you posted this response. I think we were both writing at the same time. If you look back, though, you'll see that I was correcting my post even as you wrote, as I came to understand your statements. As for your question of reverence, you will also note if you read carefully that the particular writer in question never capitalizes anything, even his own name. He writes on the fly in all lower case.

Oh, I couldn't agree more! The question "Have you no respect for God?" is worth considering, even though the writer was referring only to the spelling. But there has been a strong tendancy to equate God with Republicans or with George Bush just because he's a Christian. We have to watch thinking of any political party as the party of God. That's Islamic stuff, but it's also been Christian stuff ... in Ireland in the Crusades, etc. AND IT ALWAYS GOES BAD. And that is exactly why this is a great outcome for this election. I voted for George Bush the first time around, and I so greatly regret my vote, that I staid out of the election the second time around and this one. I consider it the WORST vote I've ever made. George Bush has done more than any other president to give our nation a reputation of supreme arrogance toward the rest of the world. But there is something even more important at stake, regarding U.S. integrity that has been lost: You simply CANNOT, as president, break a military doctrine that has been a GOLD STANDARD of the United States for a long, long time by launching a first-strike war on false pretenses AND GET AWAY WITH IT. Good man, Godly man or NOT, you have to be held accountable. If our nation did not hold Bush accountable that would be morally sick. Christians ought to be more concerned about that than others. When a president puts multiple nations into a WAR that costs thousands of lives he has -- AND HE IS THE ONE STARTING THE WAR -- then he has an absolute moral imperative to be right in his reasons for going to war. That cannot simply be dismissed as a mistake. George Bush said a first strike (a pre-emptive war) was necessary because Saddam had WMD, AND he said it was justified by the U.S. because Saddam was involved in giving harbor to the terrorists of 9/11. Both claims were demonstrably false -- probably by mistake, not intent, but hopefully we'll find out which now that there is a Democrat congress to investigate the matter. We cannot be a moral nation and allow our presidents to launch WARS on false pretenses. We cannot be so cavalier about war when we have the greatest military on earth. The country with the greatest military has the greatest moral imprative to make certain its leaders use that military responsibly -- OTHERWISE THE WHOLE COUNTRY IS AT MORAL FAULT, for this is a government by the people. Whether mistake or lie, Bush must be held accountable. It was his responsiblity to make certain he had accurate information before he began. He has not been held accountable by the present Congress. If he isn't, we'll go down a path of launching all kinds of first strikes under a new and morally perilous doctrine without feeling we have to be right about our justifications -- because "we are the nation of God" or "we are the party of God." Very dangerous. That said, George Bush the First should have taken out Saddam the first time around because THEN there was a moral right to our involvement in war. Saddam was the one who launched that war, not us. I said then that, if we didn't take out Saddam, we'd be back to fighting a war to get rid of him ten years later, and it would be MUCH worse and less clear-cut morally. AND IT WAS. DON'T EQUATE GOD WITH REPUBLICANS OR GEORGE BUSH! It's extremely dangerous to identify God with human politics. That's a loaded combination that causes death everywhere that it happens and has throughout history. George Bush made a GRAVE ERROR, and he must be held accountable, even if you like him. We, the voters, are morally responsible for our government if we do not correct it. One form of enforced accountability is stripping Bush of his power by diminishing his support until he leaves office. The American public did not vote FOR Democrats, so much as they voted to neuter Bush. Bush's party went down in flames, not God's party. And it went down when the economy is doing well, which is almost unheard of. That tells you how MUCH outrage exists over Bush's false pretenses for war and poor performance in war. And that is morally encouraging! That's why I say, "Hallelujah!" We expect better results in war and righteous reasons for going to war as a last resort. I'm glad to see the people of our country held him accountable. It speaks well of them. Democrats were simply the only other viable choice in order to accomplish that. --David

I have had the same kinds of dreams on a few occasions and have done the same thing within my dreams. As soon as I start commanding the spirit to leave in Jesus' name, I wake up. I'm not sure if the dreams are just my own fears expressing themselves and I wake up because I am most worked-up at that point, or if they are real spiritual battles happening in my sleep and I wake up because Jesus does as I asked and finishes the battle.

Hi, Jackie. I see you are from Washington state, too. You mention that you have become very good friends with Windance, a.k.a Ben, and I could see that you had because you defend him (vehemently at times) against anyone who questions whether or not he is a true prophet. But we are supposed to question whether every prophet is true and test every prophet. At least, that is my understanding of scripture. I figured you have to be a pretty close friend to become so irrate at people who are simply asking why they should believe he is a true prophet. Given that they've never met the guy, except out of the blue on these boards, it seems a fair question to ask and even to ask with great scrutiny. I'm glad that your beliefs in the rapture theory have changed. I think I agree with Ben on most of what he says when it comes to understanding scripture. I've taught for some time that the pre-tribulation rapture theory is a fantasy for those who want to see the world judged but don't want to be here when things go bad. What I have a hard time with is the fact that Ben claims to be God speaking and yet there is no confirmation of his words anywhere that I can find -- other than your testimony about him and his about himself. Now, the fact that I can't find it doesn't mean it doesn't exist; but I grow increasingly troubled that the harder I look and the less I find of it. There must be some strong reason the worthy boards have banned him, since they are very open to a lot of people giving a lot of prophecies, whether they're confirmed or not. Since you are good friends with him, do you know why he was banned?

This is the same prophet who wrote: Wow! Such violent threats. Are they from God? And yet the prophet praises this woman for her teachings here on this web site. Does the church exist only inside of walls and under a steeple so that it doesn't matter if she teaches here? Or does the church exist wherever the people of God gather? Even here on this web site where the church (the people of God) gather to teach, discuss (Didn't Paul also tell women to be silent?) and learn. What kind of prophet praises so kindly out of one side of his mouth and criticizes with such judgment out of the other, while saying, "I am the Lord your God"??? Does God command women not to teach and then praise them for doing it? Does God care whether teaching happens inside of walls versus inside of forums? Are there not men of the church present on this forum to whom this woman teaches through prophecy (the highest order of teaching)? That was from Ira, a man, regarding the exact teaching that Windance praises. My comment is not about Swarna. My comments are about Windance's statement that God is going to severely judge people for not obeying these commands. Was Paul intending to write a new Torah? Paul wrote other guidelines for church conduct, such as stating that people should not speak in tongues in church without an interpreter. Does anyone here really believe God will condemn to death someone who doesn't respect that guideline and speaks without an interpreter? Would Paul, who abhored legalism more than any other, write a new Torah with additional laws for women to adhere to as a "yoke" they should take upon them? Does the Lord give women the ability to prophesy and then take away the right to teach what he has revealed? Does he give women words to teach and then command them not to? Will he judge them for teaching what he has given them??? Has God not said that he would do a new thing and women would prophesy? Is not prophecy the highest order of teaching with the highest level of authority, being direct revelation from God? What difference does it make whether women speak on these matters here in the Christian forum or underneath a steeple? WINDANCE PRAISES WOMEN FOR TEACHING MEN AT THE VERY HIGHEST LEVEL OF AUTHORITY (PROPHETIC REVELATION) AFTER ALREADY CONDEMNING THEM FOR TEACHING IN ANY MANNER! Is this a spirit of confusion?

Windance prophesies (on other threads here) with great wrath and impending judgment against women teaching or having authority in the church. He does so as God, himself, speaking. He proclaims that judgment is coming upon the whole church and the time for repentance is over, though he first wrote those words on his own site four years ago. Yet, he thanks Jackie for her posts! The church is not defined by walls. It is the followers of Christ, wherever they gather, even here on the internet. So, why does Windance at once claim that God is coming to judge the church because women are teaching in it and then praise this woman for her many posts that teach Christian men on this forum? Is God only concerned that women teach inside of walls under a steeple? Does Windance switch to praising women who teach and speak out (also spoken against by Paul) only because Jackie praises everything he says? This is not a comment about whether or not women should teach men. It is about Windance. Neither is it a comment about Jackie, by the way. It's only about Windance. If he were true to his message, it seems to me he would have told Jackie not to teach here, but to keep silent. Does God care whether teaching happens here versus inside walls at a formal meeting? Does a true prophet command one thing and then thank people for doing the opposite??? Teaching Christians via posting on a web site is only different than speaking in that it carries more weight (not less) than the spoken word because it hangs around longer. The written word does not evaporate into thin air as soon as it is expressed. Teaching is teaching wherever you find it. The Church is wherever two or more are gathered in Christ's name. So, the church is here. But where is Windance? He has been banned. Perhaps wisely.

While I have already answered that in my earlier posts, I won't answer it here because you don't really need to know.

That's good. Then agree with him ALL the way, and agree that you have no right to say that someone "must" or is "commanded to" go to church, as you have said. (Which IS legalism.) Because Paul says otherwise. Or are you only going to agree with the parts of Paul that agree with you? Again... "Therefore, do not let ANYONE judge you ... with regard to ... a Sabbath day." No on is trying to convince you that you should dissociate from your church. Jesus taught in the temples and synagogues. So, did Paul. No one is saying there is anything wrong with being there. Just that you have NO right (according to Paul) to judge somone as having "heart issues" or being "in rebellion" or anything else based on how they spend their Sabbath day. Paul is saying to each of us, "How you keep the Sabbath or don't keep the Sabbath is YOUR business, and DO NOT let ANYONE (not even your own pastor) judge you by what you do on the Sabbath." Period. So, if you're going to agree with Paul, then agree with all of him. And don't claim you weren't being legalistic. Thinking you can know the condition of someone's heart based on their church attendance is legalistic. (It's judging their whole heart by the lack of one single outward act. There may be many, many ways in which they and their gifts are a blessing to others even outside of local church membership. And God may be very pleased, not "unhappy," with how they're living, and may lead them back to a church in time ... or maybe not.) Thinking Paul "commanded" (your word) church attendance or membership IS legalistic. Once it's a command, it becomes a yardstick by which people gauge the "obedience" (your word again) of others. It may even become a yardstick by which we gauge our own obedience or righteousness. That, too, is legalistic. Paul did not write any new commands. He thought we had too much law as it was. He wrote exhortations and church guidelines. There is a big, BIG difference. One difference is that NO ONE can sin by not following Paul's advice. Even women talking in church is not a sin. They're simply running contrary to good advice. There will even be times in some individual's lives when that general advice is not appropriate. Paul recognized that. That's why Paul says not to let anyone judge you by what you do (or don't do) on any matters of religious observance. God knows your heart. Others should shut up and pass no judgment and think no judgment. Just pray that all is well with the soul of one who has dropped out of church (without assuming that all is any less well than it is with your soul), hope for the best for them, be an encouragement without being cloying or preachy about church. They just might be doing exactly what's best for them at that time. They might even find a new creative form of fellowship, which is more suitable to them than the standard cookie-cutter (church with a small "c") model that works for most people. And God will probably be delighted (not unhappy) with the creative outcome because he's a God who is full of endless innovation.

First, Avoid acknowledging your own legalism as it appears throughout your writing on the topic of church attendance. Then, repeat the scripture from Hebrews that we've been writing about all along, as if repeating it one more time will finally secure its status as a new law. And drag another scripture (Corinthians on Body life) as a red herring across the trail as if it negates what Paul says in Colossians against legalism -- even legalism about the Sabbath. That's the "hmm" part. But, at least, you've made some attempt to deal with Paul's argument in Colossians. Of course his argument was to people in a church. My argument is to you, and you're in a church, too. So what. The fact that something is written to people who are members of a church does not mean that it cannot discuss legalistic attitudes about church. I'd be happy, in fact, to bring up Paul's argument right inside of a church. I'm sure he would, too. So, the fact that it's TO CHURCHES does not in any way limit it from curbing excesses in church legalism -- even the prevalent legalism about church attendance. As I said before, Paul confronted legalism wherever and whenever he found it. It is precisely because Colossians is against legalism in churches that it is written TO A CHURCH. Who else would he write it to? Who else would care? But the red herring across the trail isn't enough. You then pull a bait and switch: I find that "incredulous," too. Our debate has never been about whether or not belonging to a local church is counter-indicated by Paul. I've repeatedly said Paul says church attendance (or fellowship in some form) is a good thing. Our debate is about whether there is any dis"obedience," "rebellion," or backsliding in not belonging to a church. You insist in more than half of your entries on this topic that Paul has commanded us to attend church. I think that is incredible, since Paul consistently deplored all legalism. It's absurd. As I already said, Paul is saying, 1) Church is a good thing for all of you. 2) Don't let anyone treat you legalistically about what you do on the sabbath. Don't live by their rules. Paul likes church, and Paul hates legalism -- even legalism like yours about church attendance ... and he specifically says so. That's what people do when they make judgments about people who are not attending church as "backsliders" or "in rebellion" or having "heart issues." These spiritual umpires presume they can know something about a person's heart or spiritual life by whether or not he attends church regularly. So, the commentator was writing directly to you. That part is just the commentator, not Paul. Paul makes no such statement in Colossians. I think it's a good statement in and of itself, but it is not what Colossians is saying. Colossians does not say "true wisdom will result in the formation of a community that worships and bears witness to God in its shared life." Colossians says don't submit to legalism! Don't fall back into it. Christ set you free from it. Guard your freedom -- even with respect to observing the Sabbath! That's Paul, not me! I notice you still avoided that part of Paul's argument. No surprise.

Hmm.

As I said, you've got nothing left but ad-hominum attacks because you are unable to admit to the legalism that ran throughout your words on this topic. It wasn't just once or twice. It was practically every time you wrote. And you are unwilling to even acknowledge Paul's statements in Colossians where he specifically exhorts us not to let anyone tell us what we have to do on the Sabbath. And, as I said, I have yet to see a Pharisee say, "You know you're right. I am legalistic." That's why Jesus didn't even bother to try to put new wine in old wineskins. There wasn't a chance in the world that a Pharisee would ever see his own legalism or self-righteous attitude. So, avoid the facts of your own words and avoid Paul's own words about observing the Sabbath, and end with a TILT. That's about the best that can be expected.

Actually, what she meant is not that its a good idea or the best idea. Quote after quote after quote reveals every time she expresses church attendance as something that is a command, not to be broken. However, I've only quoted her about eight times, and I think it's fair to say that someone doesn't really mean something the way they are saying it until they've said it at least ten times. It's unrealistic to expect her to own up to her own legalism after only eight quotes in which she says in several different ways that church attendance is a law. And FloatingAxe says, That is the typical arrogant response of a Pharisee. First, don't admit that you did say time after time after time that going to church is a "command," something we must be "obedient" to, something God will hold us accountable to and be unhappy with if we don't do it, a "responsibility" and something we "must" do. Then, rather than admit your own legalism on this matter, self-righteously turn to suggesting the other person could only hold their view if they are "in rebellion." All the while, maintain your self-righteous view of your own opinion by avoiding any response to a totally biblical argument that pointed out Paul's clear statements that no one should let anyone tell them what to do with respect to observing the sabbath. In other words, avoid the biblical facts, avoid the facts about your own statements when they're quoted back to you in context, and jump to an ad-hominum attack, as the Pharisees always did with Jesus. Always attack the person when you cannot attack the argument. I am no more troubled by your words than Jesus was troubled by the Pharisees words. I'm sure he was annoyed by their legalism, but I don't think he was "troubled." He knew they wouldn't change, yet he chose to challenge them in a very bold and brassy manner to expose the truth about their self-righteous legalism to everyone else.

NO, that's not what you meant. Let me go back and quote you from a few previous posts to see whether you meant it was the best thing to do, or a commandment not to be disobeyed -- even at peril of God's judgment, as the papist put it. Here you are in your own words: If you're saying be faithful in your church attendance, as is required (and it sounds like that's what you're saying, given the context), then that's rude legalism. You use the word faithful in respect to church attendance in the very next sentence, quoted below: so, I think it's clear you're saying "faithful church attendance is required." Is mandatory! Straight legalism. Faithful attendance to the ministry you have volunteered to do is a different matter. While I disagree completely with your judgmental presumption that spotty attendance is a heart problem, I agree that people have a right to expect you to show up and perform the service you volunteered to do and to practise if it's a function that requires practise. Otherwise, you muck it up for everyone. You do have the option of not volunteering. If you don't have the option of not volunteering for that ministry, that, again, would be legalism. Lest you let yourself off the hook here to easily by now claiming you weren't saying that going to church was something we must do, but only that it's good for us, let me quote you again: A "responsibility" in my life has always referred to something that is mandatory for me to do. As a child I had responsibilities. I called them chores. They were not optional. If I didn't do them, I got punished. A responsibility is not just something that's good for me; it's something I "must" do. So, that seems to confirm the way you're using the word "must" with respect to church attendance. That fits the pattern of churches that are legalistic about church attendance. Now, if you're on the worship team, then maybe you need to go that often. It's fine, too, to have abundant opportunity to go to church; but church at home during the week, church on Saturday, and then church again on Sunday is one very churchy environment. Are all of those days mandatory, or is just Sunday good enough to cover the "responsibility" part? Anyway, let's look again to see if you mean to say church attendance is mandatory: That sounds pretty mandatory to me. Pure legalism with a little authoratarian capper to add weight to the legality of it all. But, again, I don't want to be hasty to say that you are making church a new commandment. So, let's see if you said anything of the sort: So, commands are not mandatory? They're not "must" dos??? Sounds pretty clear to me that you're making church attendance a law -- even a law with an exclamation point and the full weight of God behind it! Pure legalism. But, just in case I'm wrong about what you really mean, I want to check one more time: I guess if it's something I must obey, that makes it a command -- a law. Pure legalism. Still, that was just a snippet, so let me check again to see if you were saying church attendance is a law we must obey: It seems to me that, if I "must be compelled to heed" his words, his words are being taken as a command. I only heed commands. And, in this case, I MUST be COMPELLED to HEED his command. That's a lot of emphasis. I don't know who would know better than Paul, but I know who would know just as well as Paul. That would be Paul. You see, when we read Paul in fuller context, instead of FloatingAxe's legalistic interpretation of Paul, we see that elsewhere he says not to let anyone judge you based on how you choose to or not to observe the Sabbath. So, on the one hand, he's saying that "going to church on Sunday is a very good thing," but on the other he is saying, "Don't let anyone tell you you must do it. Don't let anyone use the fact that I've said it's a good thing to take away your basic and essential freedom in Christ." Well, just in case I'm being unfair in saying that you are legalistic about church attendance, let me look one more time: Now, we've come to your last comment just before the one where you said we "must" attend church. Here you imply that God will hold us accountable as to whether or not we attended church ("He will surely ask" on Judgment Day I presume), and he will be unhappy with us if we answer that we did not attend church regularly. Sounds like a little wrath of God ready to come down on those who broke the law by playing hooky from church. Pure legalism! --David Haggith

One never needs to be careful about whacking a legalist over her proverbial head, whether he is in church out out of it. And few people are ever able to break past their own denial long enough to see that they are legalistic. I have yet to meet someone who says, "You know, you're right. I am a Pharisee. That will be the day. There are certainly none so blind as those who will not see, even when they read Paul's writings on this exact subject, and just gloss over them or ignore what doesn't fit their thinking. I don't point out the legalims of modern Pharisees to change them because I know that no Pharisee has have ever seen herself for what she is. I merely point out the legalism for the sake of helping others not to get caught up by it because, as Paul says, they "have an appearance of wisdom with their self-imposed worship." In other words, they sound spiritually wise because they're telling you that you must go to all of these sabbath worship services and holy day services -- how can that not sound wise and spiritual -- but they're not wise because they're trapping you into the legalistic way of thinking that they themselves are caught in. Telling others that Paul requires them to attend worship services or belong to a church certainly sounds like a spiritual thing to say, and it's easy for others to get sucked into it, and say, "Yeah, way to go! You rock, Holy One!" It's not wise because in the verses quoted from Colossians, Paul says exactly the opposite! Is he contradicting himself? No. He never commanded church attendance in the first place. I'd say he's half right. Some of them do become weird. The other half is that those who cloister themselves among fellow Christians too much also become WEIRD! They become part of this bizarre Christian subculture that talks in its own language from some forgotten era.

If you can't take it from me, take it from Paul. He wrote his letter to the Colossians specifically on these kinds of matters (how one observes holy days, etc.): Just to make sure that the Colossians knew beyond doubt that this sure-to-be controversial teaching against legal observance of religious days and religious festivals came from Paul, he signed it in his own hand and pointed out that the signature was his own. Paul recognized that people can be very humble and pious in how they turn exhortations into commands that they then slip around the throats of others. The Pharisees were good at that. That's why he said not to be taken in by their humility or their pious sounding philosophy. Legalism is dead. Eat what you want to eat. Drink what you want to drink. Go to the festivals you want to go to, and don't go to the ones you don't want to go to. Attend church on the Sabbath if you want to [because it's good for you], but never do it because someone says you "must" do it. Never let any of those things become legal dos or don'ts. Never let anyone slip that noose around your neck. This self-imposed worship on Sundays is no exception. Having said all that, Paul points out that not everything that is perfectly allowable is good for you, but that's for YOU to decide for yourself. Be wise, and don't submit to the rules of others. Also be wise and don't abuse your freedoms. --David Haggith and the Apostle Paul

When you say ... That's pure legalism. As soon as you use the word "must" you are raising it to the level of law. And it is you who are raising it to the level of obligation, not scripture. No one legalist ever agreed to the term when applied to them. And, as soon as you start looking down on the spirituality of others who are not in fellowship, that's Pharisaic legalism. Pharisees are alive and well in the Church today, and there is not a single one of them who would see themselves as a Pharisee or who would admit it if it were pointed out to them. And just in case you don't think you're a legalist: The Apostle Paul is saying to you and any like you that none of you is in any position at all to judge anyone based on how they keep the Sabbath ... or if they keep it at all. If they don't keep the Sabbath, then they cannot be going to church meetings, which are on the Sabbath. We hold church on the day we consider to be the Sabbath, whether we think of Saturday as the Sabbath or make Sunday our holy day or Sabbath. And the Sabbath, unlike Fellowship was a law. Not only was it a law, it was one of the ten biggest laws. So, if you're in no position to judge anyone by whether they keep the Sabbath, you're certainly in no position to judge anyone by whether they go to church on Sunday (or any other day). If you won't take it from me, though it should be obvious, take it from Paul. Paul was not freeing the Gentiles from Jewish law just so he could put them under some new law that he was creating. Neither was the Holy Spirit. No matter how you couch it in words about it being good for us (a Jew would do the same regarding the Mosaic law), it's still just rank legalism as soon as you use the words "must" or "should" or anything that implies your living waywardly if you don't. Most of that is just a clever way for people to feel good about themselved because they keep good church attendance and to look down their spiritual noses at those who do not. Paul and Jesus set the example of clubbing legalism over the head whenever and wherever they saw it because they knew they needed to bust through people's pretentions. There is nothing the pretentious hate more than having their self-righteous bubble popped. Just because the body needs to seek them out; that doesn't mean the body always does. And that is no fault of the invalids and no sin on their part if they are not in church. So, it's one of those exceptions that you said doesn't exist. They cannot make someone come and visit them as shut-ins. And that, from Papist1, is pure Catholic legalism. But it's not one bit different than what FloatingAxe is saying. One is "obligated" to attend or "must" attend. Both FloatingAxe and Papist1 are using church-created dogmas to put a noose around the neck of anyone who doesn't do what they "must." And that's EXACTLY what Paul was speaking so strongly against throughout Colossians. )See next post.)

Pure legalism right to the bone. You turn Paul's exhortation into such a rule that you even imply God will be angry if we break it. That's called law and sinning against the law. "He will surely ask," says that God will hold us accountable for breaking this new Testament law. "Don't think he would like the answer," threatens judgment for breaking this new Testament law. So, that's about as legalistic as you can get regarding church membership and attendance, right to the implications of judgment ... as if we needed more laws. Paul hated legalism. It made him angry whenever he saw it. Jesus hated legalism. It made him angry when he saw it. So, I think I stand in good company in standing against such legalism. Unfortunately, there are as many people today who see legalism as a path to righteousness as there were back then. The assumption on your part that one has "abandon[ed] the sharing and using of [their] gifts with the body" just because he's not part of a church reflects an institutional church-bound mindset that can envision no way of sharing those gifts with fellow believers outside of being part of a church. "There is no good reason to forsake regular fellowship with the brethren," presumes you know all the reasons there might be and that God works the same with everyone. Many of Saint Patrick's early converts became hermit monks for a period of a year or more. Some for life. Yet, Christianity spread like a brush fire in Ireland, and these same monks are heralded today for fanning the flames. And some of their writings still survive and bless us to this day. Now, a "hermit monk" is not someone who lives in fellowship with other monks. A hermit monk is someone who lives in solitude. That does not mean that he does not venture out of solitude to evangelize on the streets or to prophesy or heal; but he does not have a church that gathers around him nor one that he attends at all (more or less regularly). (And there are certainly as many down sides to that as there are up sides.) In a modern context, a writer might choose solitude for several months to do his or her writing, and that writing might be a huge blessing to many fellow believers. And I think God is just fine with that. Others forsake fellowship in a church because they are physically unable to attend. Some of those may have fellowship over coffee in their homes with one or two friends from their old church or with their pastor. So, they still have fellowship. But others don't even do that because no one comes to visit them on that "regular" of a basis. What church does a traveling evangelist belong to who is always moving from town to town and preaching at regional evangelism crusades every Sunday? He doesn't preach in a church, but at an old fashion tent meeting. He doesn't preach to a church, but to individuals gathered off the street. While he's preaching, it is not the same thing as fellowship because he doesn't know any of the people in his audience who are church members. It may be exactly the same in appearance as a church service, but its not exactly the same thing at heart as fellowship. The evangelist arrives for a day, and then he's gone. Some old evangelists were circuit riders who even travelled alone. Evangelists aside, since many are in fellowship, what church does the missionary belong to who is working in Camaroon as the first missionary to learn a tribal language? If she's the first one out on the field, she may have no fellowship with other believers until her next furlow, which may be six years away. All that time, she's learning the language and the culture, doing what must be done. Eventually, she hopes to plant a church, but she cannot even start to do that until she learns enough of the language to communicate. She is certainly out of fellowship, and that may be for a period of years. She is just as certainly using her gifts to the greatest extent that she can. And there is no guarantee she will ever succeed in starting a church or even make a single convert. Usually, of course, missionaries work in teams because going solo is a tough row to hoe. Nevertheless, some have gone solo and accomplished important ground-laying work. In the days before radio, they might spend years with no contact with fellow Christians at all -- if their locations are extremely remote. Maybe someone is just out of fellowship because, having been in very bad fellowship, she feels the need of a little cooling off period so she can recover her perspective and then more time to re-evaluate what fellowship should be, having only known something that was what fellowship shouldn't be. So, she's intentionally taking a year's hiatus to experience some solitude and to think about what new expressions of fellowship there might be for her. And maybe God, without your permission, is just fine with that! I could list valid reasons for being out of fellowship for a time, even fairly long times, all day long. They're as endless and as unique as the people who come to know the Lord. "There is a time and season for everything." Unless, of course, you're a legalist. Then you have to stick with the rules even when you made them into rules yourself. --David Haggith

Heeding his advice versus taking them as commandments (when Paul, more than anyone, deplored legalism), are two completely different things. When we apply them solely to ourselves as a GOOD thing for us to do, that's taking good advice. When we use them as a measuring stick to guage whether or not someone else is "backsliding" or to corral someone else back into OUR particular church because breaking fellowship is a "sin," then we move from heeding Paul's advice to becoming legalists -- Pharisees, who believe that righteousness can be evaluated by how well someone obeys all the rules, even when the rules are man-made. There I can appeal to an even higher authority than Paul. Jesus did not tolerate the legalism of the pharisees, even with respect to working on the Sabbath -- because they took the law to extremes with their own man-made rules that were based on the law. Those rules were intended as guard rails to help keep people from falling into sin by clarifying how to apply the law to daily living. That's what I see in some comments here about how imperative -- at the level of a command -- it is that we all go to church. We'll fall desparately into sin if we break this man-made rule. Some here even comment about others who say they've chosen not to go to church the for time being because of a bad experience as if they assume that person is in the wrong, since he or she is breaking fellowship. That's legalism. Its a straightjacket to poor spiritual health. It's control. Some people want to be righteous legalists so bad, they just can't stop themselves. To say going to church is good for us and to take Paul's advice and to ENCOURAGE others to take his advice, all those things are good. To say not going to church is bad is not necessarily true. It's a guilt trip that may drive others even further from fellowship. To imply they're sinning if they're out of fellowship or that they're breaking Paul's law, that's pure Pharisaic legalism. It's religions with a tight grip, not a loving hand.

Yes, the Bible does say that, but the law stopped with the giving of the Torah. So, this is Paul's exhortation. It's not a new commandment; it's his strong encouragement. That means it's not law and leaves no room for legalism regarding church attendance or for thinking someone is backsliding if he's not attending. He may be backsliding; he may not. I've seen plenty of churches try to control their members in a cult-like fashion by turning Paul's exhortation into a commandment and declaring someone to be in sin if they break fellowship. It's a way to keep the flock in the fold, even when the fold is so full of manuer the flock wants to hop out. Surely so. And when He tells me where He wants me, I will surely go. --David Suffering for the Lord in Hawaii

Maybe I was mistaking you for someone else on this topic, who seemed critical of anyone who expressed a bad experience with a church and who had left because of that experience. I agree that finding a good church home is a good thing. Of course, I don't agree that a good church is the be-all and end-all of life for which one should sacrifice even his career. There is far too much legalism and judgment about the spirituality of others based on their church attendance.

That's what you've seen with every person on this topic who has complained about their experience with a church. When someone sees the same thing no matter who makes the comment, then I think they see what they want to see.

Could easily also be someone who was disciplined righteously and griping about it. It definitely could. It could also easily be someone who was disciplined unrighteously. Both happen.

True. It's not a subculture because of the Truth. It's a subculture because it has become ingrown, developed a language of its own, separated itself from "the world," as if it were not a part of "the world." Failed to recognize that Jesus said "be IN the world" because it chooses only to look at the other side of what Jesus said, "but not OF the world." Because of our own cowardice and lack of faith, we act like the world is some evil to be feared because it is going to overcome us, instead of acting as if we're some force of love to be feared by evil because we are going to overcome the world, just as Jesus overcame the world. Not conquered it, beat it, bested it ... but, rather, blessed it. We act like we're not a part of it, with an "us and them" attitude, as if we're not part of the "them." As if we're not all in this together. And THAT'S how the Church has become a subcultured. Insulation. Thank you. I'll gladly accept that. --David