Maybe it's the product of years. You know, "Wisdom comes with age" ... that kind of thing. Maybe it's the product of too much experience of my own misguided ideas. You know, "We learn from our mistakes" ... that kind of thing. Maybe it is a product of not allowing my personal preferences cloud my understanding the Bible. Whatever it is, I don't see it that way anymore. Amid an ever-growing number of Christians who are moving away from attending a local church, I am becoming more certain that it is biblically recommended ... nay, commanded.
So, why go to church? There are a variety of reasons, good ones. Some recommend church attendance. Some command it. I'll do the commands first.
The first, foremost, and most obvious command to assemble together with other believers locally ("church") is the command in Hebrews 10. "Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together" is the unavoidable phrase (Heb. 10:25). The author of Hebrews even offers reasons for why. "Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering" (Heb. 10:23). "Let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works" (Heb. 10:24). "Encouraging one another" (Heb. 10:25). This command to not forsake assembling together is predicated on the need for interaction between believers. If churches today understood this, it might radically change how they "do church", but their negligence does not provide an excuse to disobey the command.
That this is a command should be obvious in the examples we get from Scripture. The first church had this sort of method of attendance: "Day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes" (Acts 2:46). It was their habit, you see, to gather. They met for the preaching of the Word, to share the Lord's Supper, and to give to ministry. Paul writes most of his epistles to churches, local gatherings of believers. Going to church wasn't odd or optional; it was the norm.
The second "command" isn't as direct, but neither is it ambivalent. Paul writes to both Timothy and Titus about, among other things, church polity. How do we "do church"? He explains the qualifications for elders and deacons. This isn't a direct command, but it is a command. If you are going to eliminate "church" as a local gathering of believers, an organization, then you would necessarily negate any need for elders or deacons. They are part of the structure that is "church". And they are, apparently, normative. (Paul didn't seem to be offering suggestions of what it might be like if some Christians who already are "the church" decided to gather together as a group. He seemed to be offering the instructions on how it ought to be.) The same is true for instructions in 1 Cor. 11 and 14, for instance. Paul gives instructions on how to "do church", a waste of time if church was intended to be some nebulous, entirely optional gathering of believers.
Beyond commands, however, there are really good reasons to go to church. I understand that in many places in our world today, it can be a bit discouraging, even daunting. Still, Jesus establishes His church, we are commanded to gather together, and church structure is explained, so it must be a good idea to do it, eh? So why, besides the commands, would we go to church?
On one hand, there is great personal gain in going to church. We need to hear the preaching of the Word. There is value in fellowship. It allows for accountability. It provides training. It offers support, prayer, insight, correction. It is an absolute part of Christianity. John writes, "That which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us" (1 John 1:3). Corporate worship plays a big part in the Scriptures and, consequently, in our lives. God Himself has put effort into meeting our needs in the church.
He gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastor-teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes (Eph. 4:11-14).On the other hand, we are needed. That's not often recognized. According to Paul, each one of us is gifted by the Spirit. Those gifts are largely exercised in the church. We are needed by other Christians to help them maintain stability when they are wavering, to be stirred by us to love and good works, to be encouraged. They need us to pray for them, to support them, to "lift your drooping hands and strengthen your weak knees and make straight paths for your feet" (Heb. 12:12-13).
"It's a relationship, not a religion." You've heard it before. The truth is that it is both. Christianity is predicated on a vertical relationship between God and Man that produces a change in the horizontal relationships between believers. Fellowship is not optional; it is commanded. Church is not optional; it is necessary. Can you survive without church? I'm sure it is possible. Church does not confer salvation. If you were alone on a desert island, you could still pray, read, worship. But is survival the question? I would suggest that it's not optimum. When considering our relationship with Christ, I would think that "optimum" would be our aim. And, frankly, unless you're a shut in, why would you not want to reap the benefits and participate in giving to others of what God has given you? Perhaps the better question here is "Why would you not go to church?"
6 comments:
Just out of curiosity, what has promted the posts over the last few days with regards to the church?
You'll have to be more specific. The "last few days" I have posted on God and Government, experience as a measure of a candidate, trying to allow for people who disagree with us to have biblical reasons, and being considerate when we disagree. I don't want to miss the intent of your question, so let me know to which your refer.
The reason for this post was the misunderstanding I had for your initial comment recently on Judge Not. (Note what I said. I misunderstood your point.) Even after I understood what you were driving at, I remembered the time when I used to argue that we don't really need to go to church as long as we have fellowship. I wondered if others (not you) might be thinking the same thing, so I wrote this down.
On that Judge Not thing, it was a product of a radio show I was listening to where the host argued that there was no reason to put any effort into dressing up when we gather to meet God. I thought his arguments were screwy, but I saw the problem of addressing them.
The last several Sundays have actually been motivated by the pastor's sermon the Sunday before. And A Simple Request was motivated by the confusion I experienced in church one Sunday trying to follow the reading someone was doing who obviously hadn't taken the time to look at it before he got there.
Maybe, just maybe, that answered what you were asking. But, please, if not, by all means let me know.
Well, the reason I asked was simply because we've discussed this recently, and I also have an old blog posting entitled "lets stop going to church." However, the point of that post was to get people to stop selfishly thinking about church as a destination and more about who we are. Most often, when we treat it like a destination, we treat it like all other places we go...for what we will get out of it (like the grocery store, the ballpark, etc). Instead, we should see it as the body of Christ that it is and that body doesn't function properly if I'm not doing my part (Ephesians 4:16). We're to be doers, and not just hearers (pew-sitters who are there just to do there religious due-diligence).
I was just hoping that it wasn't a misunderstanding of a combination of things I've said. I completely agree with your post, so I was just curious if it had to do with our discussions.
Yes, it was a misunderstanding ... which you corrected (before I wrote this) and I understood. Still, I know there are Christians who think "Why do we need church?" (just like there are Christians who think "Why do we need a civil marriage?"), so my misunderstanding of what you meant spurred me to think of a reply to them (not you).
"If you were alone on a desert island, you could still pray, read, worship. But is survival the question? I would suggest that it's not optimum. When considering our relationship with Christ, I would think that "optimum" would be our aim. And, frankly, unless you're a shut in, why would you not want to reap the benefits and participate in giving to others of what God has given you? Perhaps the better question here is "Why would you not go to church?"
Amen, Stan.
It is not my condition that causes the biggest grief in my life, but the separation from other believers. Anyone who is able, and doesn't, should do as your post suggests, because they never know how their life may change to make it no longer possible too. WE should take advantage of the means and the good things God gives us, Church attendance, is very much a means I think.
And its better than to have the longing in your soul like David, when it was made impossible:
"For a day in thy courts is better than a thousand. I had rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God, than to dwell in the tents of wickednes "
Great...Stan and I are on the same page. All is right with the world! ;-)
Post a Comment