PLEASE HELP: Is church for everyone?

[Floatingaxe]

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! He was writing to the church, not just the church leaders! 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? Or the God who inspired him to pen that?

[David H.]

I am sure that with the measure of the Holy Spirit in the apostle Paul, we need to heed his words! He was writing to the church, not just the church leaders! 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? Or the God who inspired him to pen that? Such arrogance, truly.

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.

Edited August 29, 2006 by David Haggith

[Floatingaxe]

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 as to why we would think it would be okay to abandon the sharing and using of our gifts with the Body.

God is faithful. If we hurt, we run to Him. He heals by leading us into fellowship again. We need fellowship in order to keep us on the straight and narrow. We need training up. We need it because others need us and our gifts.

There is no good reason to forsake regular fellowship with the brethren. The Holy Spirit is the author of that passage---not Paul.

[David H.]

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 as to why we would think it would be okay to abandon the sharing and using of our gifts with the Body.

God is faithful. If we hurt, we run to Him. He heals by leading us into fellowship again. We need fellowship in order to keep us on the straight and narrow. We need training up. We need it because others need us and our gifts.

There is no good reason to forsake regular fellowship with the brethren. The Holy Spirit is the author of that passage---not Paul.

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

Edited August 29, 2006 by David Haggith

[Floatingaxe]

Breaking fellowship with a local Body of believers in favour of no fellowship is unwise. God has instituted the Church for our benefit, our spiritual growth, covering and use. When we do not avail ourselves of it, we are being irresponsible for our own spiritual health.

We owe it to God to get plugged into His work here and grow in Him through training and fellowship and our own ministry development under the guidance and authority of those He places over us...shepherds of the flock.

There are always those who cannot fellowship physically---invalids. They can still come under the covering of a Body, who needs to seek them out! That is the command we were given by Jesus...make disciples of all people...invalids are included in that!

Regarding itinerant evangelists... they must come under the covering of a church, for prayer support and any other type of support they need. They require a home base, and I believe that the good ones surely do! If I would encounter one who was a "lone ranger", I'd run! Same thing with missionaries---they come under an authority.

Regarding those who have suffered hurt... of course, for a time it may be appropriate for a time of peace and reflection, but always with the view to return to fellowship.

We are not talking about legalism here. It is good, responsible stewardship. We owe it to ourselves to be good stewards of our faith in Jesus Christ who saved us, and the gifts that God has given each individual---to be trained up, and to exercise them with all diligence and excellence... in order to make disciples of all nations!

[billie]

You go, Axe!

[David H.]

We are not talking about legalism here. It is good, responsible stewardship.

When you say ...

they must come under the covering of a church

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:

Therefore do not let anyone judge you ... with regard to a religious festival ... or a Sabbath day." (Colossians 2:16)

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.

There are always those who cannot fellowship physically---invalids. They can still come under the covering of a Body, who needs to seek them out!

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.

It is dogmatic truth that one who is IN the Body of Christ, explicitly, must go to Church(mass) every Sunday and on the six days of Holy Obligation.

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.)

[David H.]

You go, Axe!

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.):

See to it that no one [including FloatingAxe or Papist1] takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition....

[Not even with respect to the great mandate of circumcision in the Abrahamic covenant] For in [Christ] you were also circumsised [brought into the Abrahamic Covenant], in the putting off of the flesh, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ....

He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. [The law died on the cross with Christ, and Paul was not about to resurrect it with new laws that would also be used against us by the self-righteous.]

[And that's how he] ... disarmed the powers and authorities [of the Temple because he certainly didn't disarm Rome], he made a public spectacle of them [by his proclaimation that they were self-rightous legalists, that their temple would fall, and that they would not see him again until they could welcome him like a king], triumphing over them by the cross.

Therefore, do not let anyone judge you by what you eat [kosher law] or drink [alcohol], or with regard to a religious festival [Jewish festivals mandated by the law], a New Moon Celebration [pagan or Jewish], or a Sabbath day....

Do not let anyone who delights in false humility ... disqualify you for the prise [by sucking you back into a legal observance of religious days just mentioned]....

Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: "Do not handle! Do not taste [that pork or wine]! Do not touch!" These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. Such [ascetic] regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence."

...Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumsized or uncircumsized. [All are brought into the same covenant that was guaranteed by circumcision because they have a more holy circumcision of the heart in Jesus Christ.]

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

Edited August 29, 2006 by David Haggith

[Floatingaxe]

the Church is the body of Christ, and there is no salvation outside of Jesus or Hois Body, the Church. It is dogmatic truth that one who is IN the Body of Christ, explicitly, must go to Church(mass) every Sunday and on the six days of Holy Obligation.

By not doing so, you are putting yourself in a state of mortal(deadly) sin and are seperating yourself from Christ.

Now, THAT's legalism!

[billie]

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