PLEASE HELP: Is church for everyone?

[David H.]

Someone in another forum asked me how I define holiness. They were very interested there in making themselves pure by destroying any music that they felt was tainted.

I do not define holiness as Fundamentalists do. For the Jewish Fundamentalist, as for all Fundamentalists, holiness was defined by works. It was a combination of not doing the bad and doing what was commanded. Holiness was living perfectly by the rules. Jesus came along and said, "It's not what goes into a man," such as the pork that enters his mouth or the music that enters his ears, "that makes him evil; it's what comes out of his heart."

Holiness cannot be had through screening out all the bad and doing what is commanded. Holiness is a heart condition. It develops through humility, grace, mercy, love. We are never perfectly holy, and not doing the wrong things doesn't make us one bit more holy. We can obey all the rules perfectly and still have miserable hearts. The Fundamentalists have long tried to achieve holiness through outer actions. The Wesleyan tradition that has been a big part of my life was the center of the "holiness movement." To be holy they refrained from drink, they didn't do a lot of things they felt were bad, etc. They did do the things that were good, like read their Bible and pray.

But that doesn't give a person a clean heart, a holy heart, a heart that is "set-apart" for God. It's the fruit of the spirit coming out of the heart that make a person holy. And the fruit of the spirit, is not works or actions, it's conditions -- love, joy peace, patience, kindness. If those conditions exist in the heart, you will, of course, see them manifest in outer works because a heart full of all that cannot stop itself from doing good things. That is why Jesus said, "It is what comes out of a man that makes him holy." That is how you see what is in the heart. "By their fruit you shall know them." But it is also possible to do all the right things, to do good things, from a legalistic heart -- to do them because we are commanded to -- and that has nothing to do with holiness. The Pharisees did that, and they did it very well; so that is more along the lines of self-righteousness. Fundamentalists still don't get that -- even today.

One of the things, of course, that Wesleyans did to be holy was go to church regularly.

Holiness is a heart condition, and the condition of the Fundamentalist heart in all religions is one of self-righteousness, of believing they go to the right church and go regularly, read the right Bible, refrain from the wrong drink ... that they are, therefore, the true people of God, and those who don't go to church or to the right one, don't read their Bible daily, and drink socially, well, they're all precariously living on the road to hell. The Pharisees believed that way. Islamic Fundamentalists believe that way. And Christian Fundamentalists believe that way. Fundamentalism is a life primarily governed by law ... in all religions.

Edited August 12, 2006 by David Haggith

[apothanein kerdos]

David, you have one of the meanest and rudest attitudes I have ever come across. This is my last response to you.

This isn't about you. So, you don't need to take it personally. It's about your statement that we all need to live under an authority and that all fellowship has to have some kind of authoratarian hierarchy. You didn't prove your point scripturally, nor even come close. The Bible simply does not even command us to have a pastor. You're argument for our need to be under a human authority is that pastors are given authority.

I did prove it scripturally by pointing to what the words "bishop" and "elder" mean. Both mean authority. You have yet to even come close to refuting this and isntead are acting like a little child on a rant because he couldn't get what he wanted.

I assume you have a Bible, so I asked you to show me where it is.

I already have by pointing out the meanings of the Greek words for "bishop" and "elder." You have ignored this.

[Floatingaxe]

There is no scripture commanding me to be in fellowship. Paul was not writing a new law. He was exorting -- strongly encouraging -- his followers to stay in fellowship, inspite of the problems with fellowship -- because it is good for them. No new commandment. The law ended with Moses.

When Paul or any apostle makes any strong exhortation, it's as good as a command from the Most High God! There are commands inherent in almost every chapter of every book of the New Testament.

[Floatingaxe]

David...

How have you been hurt in the Church? You sound so bitter and I am thinking that someone or some people have hurt you deeply.

[David H.]

I did prove it scripturally by pointing to what the words "bishop" and "elder" mean. Both mean authority. You have yet to even come close to refuting this and isntead are acting like a little child on a rant because he couldn't get what he wanted.

I haven't tried to refute it. Without going back to the Greek and reflecting on the meaning of those words, I gave you the benefit of the doubt and said that they are words that do imply some kind of authority.

But all you have proven is that bishops and elders are authorities. You haven't proven that the Bible commands all Christians to be under a bishop or an elder. Who was Paul under? What governing board did he submit to? You weren't asked to prove what "bishop" meant. You were asked to prove that we all have to have a bishop -- that we all have to be in an organized fellowship in order to have fellowship and in order to obey the Bible.

David, you have one of the meanest and rudest attitudes I have ever come across.

I'm sure the Pharisees felt the same way about Jesus. But I'm not the one calling you rude and mean and resorting to ad-hominum attacks against your person when I can't prove my point. In fact, I admitted I cannot prove we are not commanded to enter an organized fellowship, but you want to strangle me an others with laws that I don't believe exist. So, before I would let you put that yoke around my neck, it was your burden to prove such a command does exist. Defining "bishop" and "elder" for me does not prove that we all have to go to church to be good Christians, which is the point of this whole particular thread. It doesn't prove that I have to have a bishop just because such a thing exists.

I have been a regular church-goer all my life, and I have never once quit a church because I didn't like it and have never sued a pastor (even when the pastor did something really, really terrible); yet there have always been things I did not like about my church's doctrine and about its people. I went for what I did like and for the peole I did like and to be tested by the ones I didn't like (while speaking my mind but always without insult), and when I quit, it was only because I physically moved to another location. Each time I've moved, I've chosen to broaden myself by attending a different kind of church. I consider myself a BaptiLutherMethbyterian. My tenure in any one church has ranged from ten to twenty years. I moved overseas recently and so I don't yet have a church. Nor am I making any effort this time to find one. This time, I'm seeing what it's like to be a Christian without a church and am looking for other expressions of fellowship, such as finding someone to have coffee and prayer with on Sunday mornings. That is the path I feel I must walk in order to learn more about what it is to be a Christian. If God brings a church into my life, fine. I'm perfectlly open to it. I'm also perfectly at peace with living as a Christian outside of a formal fellowship for awhile. And no one is going to put a legal yoke around my neck by defining what "bishop" means and claiming that means I have to have one.

[David H.]

David...

How have you been hurt in the Church? You sound so bitter and I am thinking that someone or some people have hurt you deeply.

No, I'm not bitter at all. Just because I argue strongly against the legalism, particularly yours and AK's, that says I have to go to church -- that it's a command -- does not mean I am bitter about church. Of course, when you wrote the quote above, you had not yet read my subsequent comments about my church experience. We were deeply hurt by one pastor, but we moved almost immediately thereafter for job reasons, and our next church had a wonderfully pastoral pastor, whose wife was a trained counselor who helped us get through that experience. We loved that little Christian and Missionary Alliance Church. Then another job move took me about thirty miles away through nasty traffic and required that I live where I work; so we left the little country church nextdoor and found one near our new home -- a Free Methodist church. It was good enough as things went, but we found the fellowship there a little shallow, even after fifteen years of attending there. Unlike the CMA church, we never felt like we connected in any deep way, except with just a few people. We were, nevertheless, very involved in the church's ministry -- singing in the choir, working as a custodian (my wife), teaching Sunday School (me), leading and small group, attending church on Wednesday's, too. So, we did not fail to connect for lack of participation. It's just very few people seemed to care about going any deeper than a nice smile and a "how are you?" And then they walked off before they even heard the answer. The little CMA church went much deeper. In fact, we continued to go back an visit it on ocassion for about ten years.

The next move was overseas, so it required yet another church. I thought about what kind of church I would like to join. I am open to learning wherever I can. Every church has added a new dimension to my understanding of the Christian faith, and every church has had its shortcomings. My wife, however, did not want to join a church right away. She felt a little more hurt by the last church than I because of some sour things a few people had done. So, I decided maybe this time what we are to try is living as a Christian without a church. That's the next leg in our journey. It doesn't mean we'll live without fellowship. We may, in fact, find much deeper fellowship with just a few people than we had with anyone in our last church. Time will tell, and I'm comfortable with that.

I don't accept that the New Testament has a single new command to give. Jesus said, "A new commandment give I unto you ... that you love one another as I have loved you." That closed up the writing of new commandments as far as I'm concerned by perfectly summing them all up. The Apostle Paul spent his whole life arguing against legalism and against the idea that obeying all the rules leads to righteousness. He says the law was there, not to help us become righteous, but to reveal our unrighteousness by giving us something to sin against. Paul did not go from that position, to creating even more laws as if just adding some more laws would help make us righteous where the first laws had failed. That's absurd. So, no, a New Testament exhortation is not a law. Any commands that do exist in the New Testament are simply reiterations of laws that already existed. The rest is exhortation, but not command. The law was completed (fulfilled) in Jesus, who gave only one new command, which wasn't new at all; it, too, was a reiteration; it simply summed up all the old commands. "Love one another as I have loved you."

I'm happy with that and not at all bitter. It amazes me that when someone argues strongly against legalism as a form of righteousness or even a path to righteousness that people assume he's bitter. Jesus ripped the Fundamentalists of his day to shreds -- mercilessly, right in front of everyone -- because he loved to expose self-righteousness for the fraud that it is. He knew the religious leaders of his day couldn't be reformed and that the temple (the Church of that day) couldn't be reformed; but he wanted to reveal the unrighteous legalism of those who led that "church." I'm sure they thought he was extremely bitter and angry and mean; but we don't see him that way because we're his followers. Yet he sure got under their skins. Some of his own followers, however, have become equally legalistic about not doing such things as drinking, dancing, listening to the wrong music, smoking. It becomes for them something more than just a choice to focus on what is good. Doing any of those things becomes a sin in itself. And doing the right things like tithing and going to church and reading the bible become more than a path. They become righteous living, and those who don't do them are "backsliders." So, they write to not-so'"FailedChristian" as if he is backsliding. These people whose self-righteousness exists in their own holy lifestyles, hate to have their righteous rags stripped away. Then they look pathetically human and weak. If they've clothed themselves in legalism as an expression of righteousness, then they hate to have their legalism stripped away. Their anger when their righteousness is stripped away reveals their naked and empty hearts.

Making church a new command and judging others as backsliding if their attendance is slipping is pure legalism. I have zero tolerance for legalism. You cannot tell anything about a person's heart by whether or not he is attending church. There have been monks who have holed up as hermits for decades and who have given us writings that clearly come from beautiful hearts. They holed up because they felt they would learn something from solitude that they could not learn over the din of arguments like these. Each has its place. There is a time and place for solitude -- even long periods, though they are risky -- and a time an place for sharp arguments -- like those Jesus brought against the Fundamentalists of his day, though this is risky, too.

So, I try to avoid name-calling and ad-hominum arguments; but I cut into legalism with a sharp sword wherever I see it because that is what my master did. I attack the idea not the person. You don't see me writing that any particular person here is mean, even though I've felt a little meanness coming my way. My attack against legalism sometimes includes lampooning stupid ideas to show just how stupid they are, such as when one person wrote to not-so-"FailedChristian" very seriously on another thread of this forum that "staying free and thinking are totally and completely UNscriptural." It's hard for me to believe someone would even write somthing that dumb. (And, as soon as I call it "stupid," I sound like I'm calling its writer stupid; but it is really only the idea that I am saying is stupid. The writer might be brilliant; but he sure tripped over his own pen on that one. Once in awhile, something is written that is so blatantly dumb, that I just take out my sword and wack off its head.)

As for this forum, I think I've said all I can to support my ideas that church is not a command and that there are other legitimate ways to fellowship. If I haven't made you a believer in that, I rest my case and yield you the last word so that you have an opportunity to say something nice and close the debate on a kind word that we can all feel good about (unless, of course, others wish to carry on with the debate, in which case I'll just read and watch).

--David

Edited August 12, 2006 by David Haggith

[Floatingaxe]

I grew up in a C&MA church! From age 6 until 49! Loved it!

[apothanein kerdos]

Who was Paul under? What governing board did he submit to?

The Council at Jerusalem

[Ovedya]

Who was Paul under? What governing board did he submit to?

The Council at Jerusalem

And hence...the brothers and co-workers?

Acts 15?

[apothanein kerdos]

Who was Paul under? What governing board did he submit to?

The Council at Jerusalem

And hence...the brothers and co-workers?

Acts 15?

That and other chapters, such as 11, refer to it as having authority in spiritual matters, especially in matters of doctrine. Even Peter, one of the 3 closest to Jesus, had to report to this council.

Now one thing we should notice is that power is never held up in one person, it is always among many people so as to hopefully prevent corruption. Regardless, if Paul and Peter had to submit themselves to authority, both of whom saw Christ resurrected, then why do we think we are immune from this?