Thursday
Jun242004
How dare you not attend church? part one
Thursday, June 24, 2004 at 7:55AM
Things somehow get way off topic in the comments section, so I'm moving a debate on church attendance from the Crash! thread to here. It all started when Trish rebuked someone for not attending a church. When challenged about her interpretation of Hebrews 10:25, "Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another -- and all the more as you see the Day approaching," Trish wrote:
No I am not kidding about Heb. 10:25 being a proof text for church going, as we refer to it today. In context the writer to the Hebrews is on the same page with the Apostle's teaching for New Covenant believers (even though he uses Old Testament imagery), which sees the regular assembling of God's people, the church. The Hebrew believers were in danger of backsliding so he/she urges them towards one (of many) means of God's grace which was regular meeting together for the fellowship of mutual encouragement until Jesus comes back again. For the early church their identity was much more than just hanging out together; it included the practice of ordinances, proper pastoral leadership, worship and so on. The reason I brought it up is because of a couple of entries on April 27/2004 where it was said that the text in question isn't "about attending church services" and that its exhortation is merely "a suggestion if you will." I disagree strongly and believe that a churchless Christianity is a grotesque misreading of the epistles in the New Testament. The readership of Hebrews was largely Jewish and (new covenant) Christians probably just before the time of the destruction of Jersualem, (70 A.D.) which isn't mentioned, and they are falling backwards turning their backs on church.Trish has obviously looked into the background of the passage, and she makes some good points. There's no doubt that we're supposed to get together with other believers to do certain things. I think the big flawed assumption here is that the passage had anything in mind like our modern church service. Somehow I thought for years that if you put on a suit or dress, went to a particular building, sang, put something in the offering, listened to a 30-minute sermon, and grabbed a coffee on the way out, that you had obeyed Hebrews 10:25. I'm now pretty sure that if that's all you do, you're not doing what this verse says at all. It obviously means we ought to do something, and I'll get around to that, but for now I'd like to challenge you to think about what we do Sunday mornings in most of our churches. It's not necessarily wrong, but does everyone have to do it this way? Are there alternate ways of being the church that are just as valid? Do we really accomplish everything we think we're accomplishing in our Sunday gatherings? I'm not implying answers, but I'm suggesting that these are legitimate questions worth thinking about.
Reader Comments (13)
I might be repeating some things other people have said but I think Trish has fallen in to a common trap when interpreting the bible. The assumption that church today = church to the writer of Hebrews. When I "go to church" in a traditional place of worship I actually don't really meet anyone. I come in, sit down, stand up, sit down, and I watch a handful of people talk to me. There might be 30 seconds where I shake some hands and offer some stale "hellos" but for the most part I'm a spectator. After church people are in no mood to talk about anything of substance. I've never really understood why. From what I understand of the New Testament's concept of church I'd say most people in church aren't actually in compliance with the Hebrews passage.
I think it's important for believers to come together. I don't think there is any requirement that it be for a formal "service", take place on any particular day, or ever take place on the same day each week. At the same time, I think we also need to extend grace toward those who do go to church every Sunday morning for the typical Sunday morning service.
"...I actually don't really meet anyone. I come in, sit down, stand up, sit down, and I watch a handful of people talk to me. There might be 30 seconds where I shake some hands and offer some stale "hellos" but for the most part I'm a spectator. After church people are in no mood to talk about anything of substance." This sure ain't my church...I think one of the reasons you guys are anti-church is that your experiences are with bad churches, your not applying yourself (basically acting the same way as the people you're complaining about are), or you're just generally non-conformists. Keep looking for that good church, they are out there - and apply yourself! Be the one to engage people in deep conversations, be the one to hold another believer accountable for a questionable actions, be the one to remind fellow leaders of programs that the focus should be souls nothing else, be the one who is transparent, be the one geuinely praises and worships during the service, be the who takes sermon notes and talks about the sermon after the service and during the week. Most pastors are longing for church members like this... Jacob.
"Somehow I thought for years that if you put on a suit or dress, went to a particular building, sang, put something in the offering, listened to a 30-minute sermon, and grabbed a coffee on the way out, that you had obeyed Hebrews 10:25." You really thought this?? How sad... BTW, just how often would you attend church services wearing a dress? :) Jacob.
I never really thought much about this issue until recently. I always thought you pretty much HAD to go to the church building every Sunday or feel guilty if you couldn't make it. The only problem was, when I was there, I felt like something was missing. (not Richview, Darryl! :)) I have been thinking a lot on this lately and have realized there is no one answer for everybody. I personally get a lot of teaching off the internet and christian radio. I'm not lacking in that. However, one thing that can be a problem if you don't pursue it, is the relationship with fellow believers. I'm not saying everyone that doesn't go to a church building is lacking in this area, but the fellowship can slip away from you. My ideal church would be the one in Hebrews, but somehow, I have a feeling that it would be hard to get a group of people together who would be willing to sell all they had and give to the other as they needed. My opinion is that if you get the proper teaching, worship, and fellowship regularly, church is however you want to define it.
There's an element of truth in what you say, Jacob (except for the dress part!). Some churches go beyond the surface on a Sunday. It really hit me recently that I grew up being critical of other denominations in which mass didn't affect the rest of life, but it's just as easy for this to happen in our circles. Some people really long for more but can't find it. They're not hypercritical or against the church. They are just stuck. I have a bit of sympathy for them, as I have appreciation for churches like yours, Jacob.
I'm not anti-church. I helped plant a house church a little while back, half of it moved away so we shut it down. I'm kind of in a holding pattern until another gets started. Wheels are turning on it. Jacob, there are people a certain times that just recognize where the church is at. As I look at Paul's criteria for a good church most churches fail miserably. It isn't non comformity, it is more like repentance. Recognizing our sin and failure and the need for renewal. The decline of the church in Canada is readily apparent. People need to be willing examine their assumptions about church. I am.
LT, as long as there are sinners (there always will be) there won't be a perfect church. Standing on the sidelines with cynicism and excuses is not what we're called to do. (not necessarily directed at you - I know nothing about you).
I think we need to realize that coming together at believers does not always mean to listen to a sermon, watch a worship leaders and shake hands with an usher. I think we need to expand our idea of what church can be and even has been in the past. According to some expectations of people, not even hanging out with Jesus like the disciples did was enough.
I have my opinions on this topic, but rather than share them right now, I want to share with you these verses and let God talk rather than me. John 4:23 "Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks." Romans 12:1 "Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to Godñthis is your spiritual act of worship."
Jacob: You wrote "LT, as long as there are sinners (there always will be) there won't be a perfect church. Standing on the sidelines with cynicism and excuses is not what we're called to do." In light of the New Testament what makes one church better than another? What are the criteria we use to judge such things? What are we called to do? Are we doing it? I don't buy your reasoning. If I was in the Titanic and felt a jolt I'd be pretty stupid to think "well the Titanic isn't perfect" and ignore all the warning signs. No local church is perfect, but throughout history the universal church has accomplished far more than it is now. Something is deeply flawed, and if we ignore this the church in Canada will end up like the one in Europe with almost no one left.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for reforming a church when it's drifting...I'm saying jump in and be an active positive agent for change rather than a passive negative agent standing on the sidlines. BTW, I don't see things like internet blogging, radio broadcasts, bumping into Christian friends occasionally, etc, as a replacmnent for church. That as well isn't NT.
BTW, internet blogging, radio broadcasts, internet broadcasts, etc... is not a replacement for the church, it IS the church! People, we got to understand the difference between a church building and THE church. The church is the body of Christ. People, not buildings, where ever they meet, who are COMMITTED to one another for fellowship, teaching, encouraging, and helping in any way, are the church. When a particular church (group of people), get too large to meet in homes, these people may choose to purchase a larger structure to meet, or maybe break-off into two churches (groups) in order to be more effective. How this is done is completely up to the group. The problem with purchasing a lager structure is that the group becomes less personal and more of a city-like atmosphere, where people pass by each other and are too busy doing their own thing to notice others. The costs associated with purchasing this structure, and maintaining it, could also be a question of good stewardship. What do you think?