Is it a sin to not go to church?

[Homer]

Hi Steve,

I'll try to comply with your request soon.

God bless, Homer

[look2jesus]

Steve,

I wanted to share some thoughts I had regarding "What is Church?". I don't know if I would say I disagree with any of the points you made. It seems clear that you, as well as many of us, are unhappy with the state of the church today, at least in the expressions of it that we find in many of the churches in America. What you were able to describe well were the shortcomings found in the church today, biblically speaking, but what I didn't hear was any clear ideas as to what might be done about it.

For four years, from 2003 to 2007, I was blessed to be a part of a small fellowship in La Quinta, California that was as close to the biblical model of the local church, as I understand it, as I had ever experienced. The Truth was preached and practiced, love for the brethren and the world reigned in the hearts of most all who fellowshipped there, and differences of opinion on doctrinal issues, if any, were discussed freely and openly (I only speak of it in the past tense because I moved away from there). But previously to that and since then I have been unsuccessful at locating a church where the love of Christ is the predominant feature and where those in attendance are willing to commit themselves to each other for more than a few hours on Sunday morning or Wednesday night.

As I see it, one of the major obstacles that we face (I mean, we, the church) is an extreme lack of humility, both individually and as represented corporately in our local assemblies. I'm all for doctrinal purity but how did we get to this place where doctrinal differences, such as the type we see today represented in the many varied denominations (fundamental and evangelical) here in America, differences that, to my mind, should allow for honest disagreement if looked at objectively without adding or subtracting from the scriptures, have become the basis for disunity? The lack of Christ-like love in this area is regretable, to say the least.

But back to what might be done about the problem. Are we simply to pray to God and plead for Him to send revival? Is it enough for me, as an individual, to do the best I can to show Christ's love to others around me and encourage others to do likewise? I guess what I'd like to know is what does what you wrote about the church look like, practically speaking, and how do we get there?

When your done answering this question, I've got a hard one for you! Thanks,

l2j

[Homer]

Steve,

I began a reply to your request regarding your article "What is Church" and posted under Ecclesiology. I thought it best to keep this thread on the subject.

God bless, Homer

[steve]

Hi Look2Jesus,

You asked:

But back to what might be done about the problem. Are we simply to pray to God and plead for Him to send revival? Is it enough for me, as an individual, to do the best I can to show Christ's love to others around me and encourage others to do likewise? I guess what I'd like to know is what does what you wrote about the church look like, practically speaking, and how do we get there?

I think it looks a lot like the church you described in California, and one I attended for a while in Idaho. It seems that they churches come about spontaneously, beginning with a few otherwise unchurched Christian friends, or, sometimes when a group separates (whether on good terms or bad) from an existing church to start up an independent group. If I knew how to make these churches happen, I would spend all of my time starting them up everywhere. I would not say that the small group I attend (made up, primarily, of people who listen to the radio program) actually represent the ideal church, but there are some of the preferred dynamics there. I think God has to make them happen, though that doesn't mean we should not endeavor to be His instruments, if He is pleased to use us.

[christopher]

Hi Homer,

Christopher and Michelle,

Its getting late, I type slowly and think even more slowly so I will try to reply to some of what you posted, and, hopefully more later.

No worries, as it turns out, you type exactly as fast as I read

Those Jewish sayings are fascinating. You're probably right that Jesus was alluding to those sayings in Matt 18. But as we all know, Jesus was a myth buster and on more than one occasion turned Jewish tradition on it's head by using a variation of the very phrase (.."but I say to you"). Perhaps Jesus is shattering the artificial limitations the Jews put on God through their tradition (like no less than 10 to a synagogue). In any case, it doesn't seem to me that he was establishing some special rules about His presence. In the context of the passage, it seems to like He was saying that two or three Spirit-filled believers ought to be able to identify sin and agree on a course of action.

you wrote:

Thus IMO the "forsaking" could not mean apostasy as that is neither a custom nor habit, but has to mean an ongoing practice that could cause either the one forsaking the assembly, or others, to fall away as in the awful warning that follows.

I apologize for miscommunicating my point. When I talk about "denying" Christ, I'm not talking about one conscious decision or event, but rather more along the lines of what Paul says in Titus:

Titus 1:16
16 They profess to know God, but in works they deny Him...
NKJV

These would be people who say they're Christians (and may even think they are), but show they are not by continuing to yield to external pressure (like discontinuing the risky assembling of the saints). This would be those who Jesus described as seed on stony ground (Matt 13). When tribulation happens, they stumble. A modern day example might be one who converts from Mormonism or Jehovahs Witnesses (no offense to our LDS or JW friends here). But I've known people who've lost their entire families including their marriages because they left the Mormon church. I could easily understand the temptation to just go back in order to keep your family in tact. But it would be denying Christ to do so IMO.

I'm sure Peter believed he was a committed follower of Jesus until he found himself in danger of the same fate. Frankly, this is very scary for me because I've never been tested in that way. Fortunately, God is able to restore us when we stumble, as He did Peter.

The second point I'd like to make on this passage is that the author seems to be contrasting those that are in the habit of forsaking the assembling of the saints with those who endured persecution, calling that to remembrance to those who have remained in order to strengthen them (vs. 32). Furthermore, the verse immediately following the 10:25 missile says there is "no longer a sacrifice for sins" which heavily suggests in my mind that the people he's talking to were in danger of taking the path of least resistance and turning back to Judaism because of this persecution.

I do agree with you however that author does give the reasons why we gather together, to exhort, encourage, and stir up one another to good works.

I think I should say again that nobody here is suggesting a loner style Christianity. I agree with what you say about corporate prayer, singing, etc. I just don't necessarily agree that it has to follow a specific pattern that we know as "church". There are many different ways to satisfy this need. My point about some of the alternative suggestions I've made is that I don't believe God is bound by any proximity or style limitations.

This forum is a good example. Although I wouldn't recommend this be the only expression of "church" one has, it certainly allows for an intentional "gathering" of two or more believers. And oftentimes, it can be much more edifying that a month of Sunday meetings. I believe Jesus is present in that.

[Homer]

Hi Christopher,

Earlier you wrote:

BTW, it’s hard for me to imagine this being an “oral sermon” as you suggested, mainly because how the letter ends

I picked this idea up from the book I mentioned earlier, "A Gathered People". Looking at the comments in the Expositor's Commentary, Introduction to Hebrews, I found:

"Though we often call Hebrews an epistle, important features of a letter are lacking....There is a homiletic air about much of what he writes; so it is not surprising that many have considered the book to be a sermon - one the author had preached earlier or one that he was now composing for the benefit of his friends. He himself calls his work 'my word of exhortation' (13:22; cf. Acts 13:15, where a sermon is similarly styled.... There are oratorical touches, and E. F. Scott calls it "one of the noblest examples of Christian eloquence. The style makes it not unlikely there is a sermon behind it."

The only reason I bring this up is that IMO if a person, speaking to an assembled group, who exhorts them not to forsake assembling, probably regards those he is speaking to as representative of an assembly.

And you wrote:

I think I should say again that nobody here is suggesting a loner style Christianity. I agree with what you say about corporate prayer, singing, etc. I just don't necessarily agree that it has to follow a specific pattern that we know as "church". There are many different ways to satisfy this need. My point about some of the alternative suggestions I've made is that I don't believe God is bound by any proximity or style limitations.

I agree that there can be many forms of the worship in church. We do not have a Book of Leviticus in the New Testament, spelling out how everything must be done. We are governed by principles: Does it glorify God? Does it edify? Is it orderly? And so on.

This forum is a good example. Although I wouldn't recommend this be the only expression of "church" one has, it certainly allows for an intentional "gathering" of two or more believers. And oftentimes, it can be much more edifying that a month of Sunday meetings. I believe Jesus is present in that.

It seems you may be confusing "fellowship" with "gathering". Gathering has reference to place, fellowship does not.

God bless, Homer

[mattrose]

I do think it is a sin to intentionally refrain from meeting together with other Christians
I also think we should not avoid avoiding gatherings just because they aren't perfect (other than God, who is?)

[Homer]

Well said Matt! If I found the "perfect" church where all was as I thought it ought to be, I would no doubt be all by myself because my wife wouldn't think much of it.

Homer

[christopher]

Matt, Homer,

I'd go even one step further than that. I'd say it's one of the marks of a true Christian to desire fellowship and mutual edification with other Christians. Jesus said:

John 13:35
35 By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another."
NKJV

But once again, I'd like to point out that nobody thus far has advocated avoiding meeting with other Christians. The question was (hence the title of the thread) "Is it a sin to not go to church?". The question has to do more with how we assemble together( and by extension exhort one another, love one another, etc.) than whether we do.

Steve mentioned his article earlier for critique, I'd like to quote something from it.

It is sin and unloving to impose a single culturally-defined model of ‘normative church life’ upon believers who, apart from that model, are walking in love, victory over sin, service, humility, and abundance of sociable fellowship, simply because they define their ‘church’ affiliation by some other standard than the extrabiblical standard most current in a given culture.

Can anyone find fault with that statement?

[mattrose]

Hey Christopher

In my post, I was assuming the more biblical definition of 'church'

It is a sin not to participate in the body of Christ... to willfully neglect meeting with other believers... to not desire such fellowship. I wasn't referring specifically to an institutional church (though that may be an ideal place in most cases).

And while I am sure nobody here is advocating a complete removal from all Christian fellowship (the lone ranger Christian mentality, which I prefer to refer to as the decapitated Jesus model), I do think the overall anti-institutionalism of our culture (and perhaps specifically fans of Steve Gregg, including myself) may bring us into a mindset that it's better to meet with 5 radical Christians than 50 typical Christians. I don't agree.

My question is, if all the radical Christians leave the institutional churches to do their own thing together, aren't we doing a big disservice to our weaker brothers? I think it is a high calling to be a change agent in an institutional church. Perhaps not everyone's calling, but mine indeed.