PLEASE HELP: Is church for everyone?

[Floatingaxe]

And, as soon as you start looking down on the spirituality of others who are not in fellowship, that's Pharisaic legalism

Those outside of regular fellowship need to be careful who THEY are looking down on, surely!

There are none so blind as they who will not see.

PS: I am not a legalist, in any shape or form.

[Floatingaxe]

Our pastor tells us that those who REFUSE to fellowship and come under authority are known as "LONE RANGER" Christians and, given enough time away from solid teaching and fellowship, and denial of their own giftings, and withdrawal from minstry to people---they become WEIRD!

He is right!

Blessings!

[Floatingaxe]

Yes, it's a big difference between we "should" go to church and we "must" go to church.

You are right. When I said "must", of course I am meaning that it is the best thing to be doing, as it is for our own good... and the good of our brothers and sisters in the faith also. We, loving Christ, want to be the best possible ambassadors for Jesus, and we certainly all need to be taught and trained and useful in the Body.

[David H.]

Those outside of regular fellowship need to be careful who THEY are looking down on, surely!

There are none so blind as they who will not see.

PS: I am not a legalist, in any shape or form.

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.

Our pastor tells us that those who REFUSE to fellowship and come under authority are known as "LONE RANGER" Christians and, given enough time away from solid teaching and fellowship, and denial of their own giftings, and withdrawal from minstry to people---they become WEIRD!

He is right!

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.

[billie]

Yes, it's a big difference between we "should" go to church and we "must" go to church.

You are right. When I said "must", of course I am meaning that it is the best thing to be doing, as it is for our own good... and the good of our brothers and sisters in the faith also. We, loving Christ, want to be the best possible ambassadors for Jesus, and we certainly all need to be taught and trained and useful in the Body.

Yes, that's what I meant too, as opposed to Papist's, "if you don't go to our church every week you're going to hell".

[David H.]

You are right. When I said "must", of course I am meaning that it is the best thing to be doing.

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:

Don't let bitterness from your discipline keep you from assembling with other believers. Seek them out, asking God to direct you. He will do that, as He is interested in your healing. Be faithful as is required.

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.

In my church, if one is in ministry such as worship, attendance is very high on the list of importance. One could be set aside in their ministry for such a thing as spotty attendance...it reveals a heart issue. Being faithful is good!

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:

We have a responsibility to align ourselves with people of like faith in order for spiritual growth and for use in the Kingdom!

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.

In our church, we all meet in homes throughout the week in cells, much like the NT church, and on Saturdays and Sundays, we come together to celebrate what the Lord has done and is doing!

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:

Actually, it [church attendance] is both an opportunity (Praise the Lord!) and our responsibility. We are all responsible to one another, and we are responsible to come under authority.

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:

When Paul or any apostle makes any strong exhortation, it's as good as a command from the Most High God!

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:

...being obedient in belonging to a local body of believers.

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:

I am sure that with the measure of the Holy Spirit that was evident in the apostle Paul, we must be compelled to heed his words! These truths that God has had Paul write for us are not to be treated so lightly... at one's spiritual peril. Who would presume to know better than Paul?

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:

Somehow I don't think God would appreciate our reasons for forsaking fellowship. He will surely ask! Don't think He would like the answer

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

Edited August 30, 2006 by David Haggith

[Floatingaxe]

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.

So bold and brassy, and so wrong. Could you ever admit it?

[billie]

I knew what you meant, Axe.

[Floatingaxe]

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.

We aren't discussing these types. That is not the wholesome model that we get in a healthy Body.

[Floatingaxe]

David..

You are obviously troubled by my words. I think I must have hit a nerve! My conscience is clear, as I have had good teaching for many years, and excellent role models in this area. Have you? Perhaps you are in rebellion? I will pray for you. Really.