Ranting to /dev/null

"If you don't go to church, you can't be a Christian."

Do you REALLY believe that scripture indicates that?

I WHOLEHEARTEDLY disagree with you.

If you are a Christian it is expected of you to be in a local church where you can fellowship with others and be fed spiritually. Christianity is not a lifestyle, it is a relationship with Jesus who commands us to love one another, fellowship, pray and worship him corporately. The Church is essential to worship and serving Christ in this world. Yes you can be a Christian without church but why would one want to go it alone. I welcome anyone to my church White Oak UMC where you can be in worship with some great people. http://www.whiteoakumc.org

Ryan is being a bit inflammatory, but his ACTUAL point is that Christ seems to paint "being a Christian" as some equivalent to "being active in the Body of Christ, including its institutional form" something I think you (Bill) would agree with. The idea being that a rather fair way to get a rough, very general idea of both the spiritual health of an individual and the potency of "the Church" in a culture is to gauge the involvement of individuals in churches.

Of course, this isn't an absolute. There's a bazillion examples of something like 98% of a given nation's population attends church regularly but was by all accounts dead or virtually dead (re: 19th century Denmark).

But Ryan's overall thesis is an interesting one, even though I don't agree that religious fundamentalism is dying, I just think we're getting a particularly americanized version of fundamentalism on the rise, one that doesn't always prize church attendance, but still adheres to its fundamentalist tenants.

I use to think that a general secularization of the West was an inevitability, and that eventually the US would collapse into something akin to Europe today and that "the church's" center would shift elsewhere (or already had). Well, I don't buy that trend anymore, and I think its silly to think about the "center of the Church".

I agree you SHOULD go to a church, but also recognize that it is not a requirement for salvation.

Ryan says that "if you don't go to church, you probably aren't committed to the faith in ways that would align you with the traditional, conservative Christian civil/social worldview."

He might have somewhat of a point, but people are alsoabstaining from churches -- in favor of home churches or other situations -- because the church, itself, is becoming too watered down, too wordly and too compromised for them to continue to be, as you put it, "fed spiritually."

I, personally, have found the almost exclusive majority of churches that I have visited in recent years -- of all denominations -- to be counter-scripturally preoccupied with the meaningless goal of "bringing people together" and preaching a very-trendy-these-days message of "self help." The modern "christian" (lower case 'c' and parentheses intended) is being told to "use" God just as any consumer uses anything else to fix their lives, but isn't told simple concepts like 'reverance' and 'sacrifice' and 'grace.' The modern 'christian' is caught up in an over-intellectualized version of the Gospel, adherence to the Law and the parts of church that make them "feel good" as the indicator of their level of 'holiness' or 'spirituality.'

Colossians, chapter 2 is a nice start for further thought on this topic.

Nothing you DO makes you a Christian.

Alright Bill, I'm not disagreeing with you. You also touch on alot of things.

I think Ryan's point is that our faith-committment, our Christ-committment, is a Body of Christ committment, which means even if you find churches too watered down or too "trendy" or too anything you've still got a responsibility to be there.

Its like a marriage after all (and Christ & Paul frame much of this discussion in that language), you don't jump ship when the other person isn't perfect.

I think the bigger and harder and more Christ-centered point would be that if you and me personally are focused on Jesus and loving Him and loving other people, we wont have time to be ticked off at churches for being too wordly or compromising or whatever. That isn't to say we shouldn't be, on occasion, but the discussion of "which church is perfect" or "that church is wrong" or "that church too much ____" is the wrong discussion and is very much comes from the same "consumer" mindset that you're concerned with to avoid.

So, my point is is that our ultimate calling to love Christ and our neighor undermines both fundamentalism and pop-Christianity because both demands a level of sacrifice and service from the individual to the community which is contrary to both American-Enlightenment moralizing and American-Consumerism.

gotta run

"Even if you find churches too watered down or too "trendy" or too anything you've still got a responsibility to be there."

You most certainly do NOT. Churches get that way because the pastor is leading poorly. If the situation cannot be resolved to a scripture-led level, you are not being spiritually fed and should leave. Period. I don't worship people. I don't worship education. I don't worship ritual. I don't worship music. I don't worship church history. I don't worship buildings. I don't worship my friends. I don't worship good feelings. I don't worship good deeds. I don't worship good intentions. If a church places ANY of those things above Jesus, then I am out the door.

"I think the bigger and harder and more Christ-centered point would be that if you and me personally are focused on Jesus and loving Him and loving other people, we wont have time to be ticked off at churches for being too wordly or compromising or whatever."

It is BECAUSE I am focused on HIM that I get ticked off at churches for being too wordly and compromising.

I am curious to know what the words "love" and "commitment" mean to you Bill. Also what if any responsibility do you think you have to your brothers and sisters in Christ to help them not place any of those things above Jesus? It'd be hard to help them if your not there. I assume sometime in your life someone stayed with you through some wrong of yours and you are a better person because of it. How about paying some of that forward? It seems that a real understanding of Grace requires being gracious no matter what. Or are there limits to our graciousness? Is the limit preaching wrongly or singing wrongly or _________ wrongly? I'd like to know.

Personally, I have decided I will attend the local church I am in currently until I die (or move away) and I can imagine nothing that will keep me from that commitment.

I would hope people would come with me should situations force a change in scenery. And, no, my love and support of the brethren doesn't fade based on geography, but I am told to "beware of false doctrines," and I take those words very seriously. I have a big responsibilty to share things, but I also have a responsibiity to not compromise my own faith.

It's fantastic to sit in a building with people for decades. But what are you doing in that building? And who is leading it? And is the person leading it preaching the gospel? What is the ultimate goal? What are you committed to?

Grace is being saved through faith; by the BLOOD and not by anything you've done. Salvation should cause you to want to live more like Christ. But acting more like Christ does not give you salvation. You have to believe upon him first.

People legs aren't broken. There are some bad churches out there, and people need to leave them. If you are not being fed there, how can you feed others? How can you "stay with them?" If you do "stay with them," what are you going to tell them?

Just because somebody opens a church and calls it a church and people go to it -- for years, even -- doesn't mean it is of God. Anybody with enough money to pay the bills can open A church. But there is a difference between A church and THE church.

and many of us are the better for it, Jim.

perhaps I'm reading into your thoughts Bill, but it sure seems like having an attitude of "get it right or I'm outta here" isnt very conducive to the kind of unity Jesus prayed that we'd have.

But how can people be unified behind things that are not of God and still be, well, of God?

You are very much reading into my thoughts, if actually reading them at all....

---

Perhaps it's easy for you here in Chattablogs because it is a very cliquey, like-minded, reflexive atmosphere started and centered around one particular college and one particular branch of Christianity. Unity is not really a challenge for most of you. You are already unified. Which is a blessing. For you.

The rest of the world -- and this city, for that matter -- is a much different place than is represented within this blogging community, and has -- I know for a fact -- pushed people away from asking for blogs here. Or caused them to think about leaving. And people being pushed away is, the last time I checked, the opposite of unity. But that's fine. For me.

This community was never set up to be a ministry (to the best of my knowledge) but has certainly done a lot of unintended minstry.

An aside: When someone like myself has a spiritual diagreement with one of you in the original Chattablogs circle, we are not simply disagreeing with one of you, but with virtually all of St. Elmo and parts of Lookout Mountain. :)

I knew this would probably happen, and I'm okay with it. And yes, I knew I was being inflammatory. I just couldn't resist throwing that little jab in there.

But I do sincerely believe that apart from the church there is no ordinary means of salvation. The church is the Body of Christ, and the Bride of Christ. If you aren't willing to align yourself with the Body and Bride, you should be asking pretty serious questions about your faith. Does the church have problems? Yep. Sure does.

Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful. And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.

Though, with a scornful wonder, this world sees Her oppressed, with schisms rent asunder, with heresies distressed, yet saints their watch are keeping. Their cry goes up, "How long?" And soon the night of weeping shall be the morn of song.

That being said, I do think it is interesting that though fundamentalism seems to be in some sense ascendent at the moment, this has more to do with a dwindling plurality asserting its fading dominance than by a growing trend in society. Demographic groups only respond in this way when they're being threatened, and church-going is on the wane. It would make sense, therefore, for politically-minded Christians of the fundamentalist stripe to group together and assert their power.

In a representative government, any group as large as theirs is in this country will have significant influence, but the influence has, I think, reached its zenith. It's going to fade.

Ryan-

There is a big difference between "if you don't go to church, you can't be a Christian" and "If you aren't willing to align yourself with the Body and Bride, you should be asking pretty serious questions about your faith."

They are not the same thing.

An hour of my day could've gone a different direction had you posted the last post first. :)

I like the questions you are asking (and suggest I ask as well) Bill. My bottom line is this: Jesus said the world will know we are His if we love (continue?) with one another. I watch out for good and bad theology/prophets/compromising my faith but I don't hear Jesus saying "the world will know you are mine if your theology is right" or if anything else is correct. It is simply "if you love each other"

You mentioned preaching and teaching and being fed. For me who has been a believer for 40 of my 47 years, I find myself fed by the lives of others in my church about ten times more than what I am fed by preaching. I don't anymore look for a sermon I've not heard yet. There don't seem to be many of those. I do look to my fellow little Christs to be fed and am constantly wonderfully fed by them.

By the way, the preaching I hear is wonderful, it's just not nearly as filling as seeing and hearing what Jesus is to the person across the room from me, and what he has learned this week. Actually what I read from you is doing that for me right now Bill, so thanks!

Bill, a question for you:

Did the ancient Israelites get to say "I'm not part of this community" whenever the nation went astray? Did Josiah (the king, not JQR) or Isaiah or Elijah have the option of leaving God's people? No, they didn't. There wasn't any place else to go.

"After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him. So Jesus said to the Twelve, 'Do you want to go away as well?' Simon Peter answered him, 'Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.'"

Bill, I ask you this: to whom shall we go? Why are things different for you/us than for either the ancient prophets or the apostles? I utterly fail to see how the faithfulness of the church at large - and increasingly of a congregation in particular - has anything to do with your responsibilities as a member of the Body of Christ. If anything, when the church is unfaithful we have a greater obligation to be there, not a lesser one.

"I don't anymore look for a sermon I've not heard yet. There don't seem to be many of those."

I guess i'm the complete opposite. For I don't purport to know all the wisdom of God and all the things he'll ever impart to the great men of God behind the pulpit and I don't believe in a bunch of "fellow little Christs" but one Christ.

But I appreciate what you had to say.

We have an obligation to be with THE church (implied: Christ's church) and not A church (implied: anybody that calls themselves a church). ...See my above post to you. I have already settled.

I actually agree with what you had to say.
Now, we are simply getting into semantics.
I have to go to lunch. :)

Bill: in response to your distinction, I would say that if you aren't an active part of the church, no one, yourself included, has any reason to believe that you are a Christian. On a metaphysical level, you may be, but God hasn't given us the epistemic equipment to discern that. He's given us his church, with its preached Word and administered Sacraments, and it is the people who faithfully partake in those that are to be considered Christians. Going to church does not bring salvation, but saved people act in certain ways. Don't act in those ways, and no one has any reason to assume you're saved.

So is it ultimately possible for someone who isn't part of the church to be saved? Technically yes, but it's also technically possible for all of the atoms that comprise the earth to simultaneously cease to exist. It just doesn't happen. And so many people are so resistant to the idea of having to belong to a church (or, for that matter, having to do anything at all) I'm willing to slightly overstate the case and just deal with the exceptions, if only to force people to take the church seriously.

Your first paragraph has nothing to do with me.

Your second: I know many people who do not currently attend any church regularly but who are saved according to God's Word. They don't attend for a variety of reasons, but are no less saved.
I do see your latter point, however. People need to take church seriously. They need to take Jesus moreso, however.

Seriously, I have to go to lunch or I will die.

What bothers me in conversations like this one is trying to figure out why the person I'm talking to is so opposed to the idea of going to church having to do with salvation. Why are you so adamant about preserving the option of salvation for those that do not attend church? Obviously there's some personal motivation here, but I don't know you well enough to be able to guess what that is.

If the church is the Body of Christ, there's a strong case to be made that Jesus is the church. It's where he is, and in some sense who he is. I don't really see how you can have one without the other. It isn't just a package deal: the church is in union with Christ, so if you aren't in union with it, you aren't in union with Him.

"What bothers me in conversations like this one is trying to figure out why the person I'm talking to is so opposed to the idea of going to church having to do with salvation."

Because that is not what the Bible says.
It's quite simple, really:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16.

"For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." Matthew 18:20.

Going to THE church and going to A church are confused in this conversation.

Church. A church. THE church. -- Different things to me.

That is all.

I officially bow out.

Bill, they may be different, but that distinction shouldn't have any practical implications for your life i.e. mean that you don't have to go to church. Part of being a member of the Body of Christ means you're publically and practically in unity with said Body, which means being active in a local church (both on Sunday and during the week).

Finally, no church is perfect, so why go to any at all? (

And I'm not just talking about worship on Sunday morning, I'm talking about the whole strange community thingie Monday through Sunday.

I mean, personally, if somebody tells me they're a Christian I take them at their word. Lord knows I don't walk a glossy and pious walk. But if they tell me that and I come to find out they aren't part of a church, don't worship at all, aren't fellowshipping with the Body, well, it'd give me pause. Not because I want to say "Hey! You aren't really a Christian" but because I care for them and want them to be healthy, and something is probably really off there.

Anyways, i'm inclined to agree with Ryan, but I'm also inclined to frame it in far more therapeutic language.

Uh, it editing out part of my comment. After the "...so why go to any at all?" I say "that was a rhetorical question. My point is that the perfection or imperfection of a given body should only in the most extreme circumstances (denying some most fundamental to the church, like the Deity of Christ) 'cause you to break fellowship."

gotta run

Damn dude, quite the fire-storm for such a small posting. But really, what else would God give us bodies for if not that we pay attention to how we use them?

Bill: If you're willing to use a single verse to govern the whole of the Christian life, then we've got more basic disagreements than I had previously thought.

And Josiah is right: though there is a logical distinction between "the" church and "a" church, there is no practical difference, because you don't belong to the church in general if you don't belong to any particular instantiation of it.

And just like we need people like Josiah who can say things diplomatically, sometimes you need people like me who will just say things and deal with the fallout.

Ryan: I wasn't using a single verse "to govern the whole of Christian life."
What does that even mean...? I was purely makign a distinction. And, no, I don't mind having dissagreements.

As far as your second sentence is concerned, I simply disagree. Though its unlikely, it's still possible -- though not advised -- to be part of THE church without being part of A church.

(What if you live in a third-world country and have no opportunity to be part of a local church?)

Your third sentence? Whatever floats your boat. I thought this thread died yesterday.