Is the Local Church Essential?
-
_John Hunter
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2004 11:23 pm
- Location: Virginia
Is the Local Church Essential?
Is it essential for a Christian to be part of a local church? If so how is such a church defined biblically, meaning what constitutes a local church? If you have read George Barna's book Revolution, I would appreciate your perspective? Thank you!
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
I have not read Barna's book, but would like to. He has gathered lots of valuable information for the Body of Christ.
As for your main question, there is no reference in the Bible to such a concept as that which we call a local church, so it is evident that the Bible says nothing about involvement in such.
When I say "what we call a local church," I am speaking of that which commonly goes by that label in modern times—namely, a group of Christians in a town who are politically and financially autonomous with reference to the other Christian assemblies in the same town, and which maintain a concept of intra-group loyalty among a hermetically-sealed membership.
In scripture, all the Christians in a given city were part of one church (e.g., the church in Ephesus, the church in Smyrna, etc.). Given the lack of large church buildings in those days, it is probable that the church in a very large town or city would meet in a variety of smaller local venues—primarily homes (e.g., Acts 5:42/Rom.16:5/ Col.4:15/ Philem.2)—but that these individual assemblies would be quite aware of being one church along with the various assemblies in their town.
In each church, there were "elders" (plural—Acts 14:23/ 20:17/ Phil.1:1/ Tit.1:5/James 5:14). It is conceivable that a small gathering in a town might have only one elder in their meetings, but if this was so, then that elder would know himself to be part of the larger eldership of the city's church, with a responsibility to work in concert with the whole group of local elders in the joint-oversight of the church in their city. Thus all the elders of a given town (though they might have overseen separate gatherings) could be addressed as a single group (Acts 20:28/ 1 Pet.5:1ff).
In my opinion, it would have seemed strange (and probably alarming!) to Paul and the early Christians if a given assembly were to be linked with other assemblies in other towns, but was not even more fundamentally linked with the other assemblies in their own town (as is the case with what we call a "denominational" church). A good test of such association would be to observe, when a congregation experiences a crisis in leadership or finances, whether they look to the other local assemblies, or to "headquarters" in another state, for assistance.
It is not usually the rank-and-file of church-members that feel uncomfortable with the breaking down of denominational or institutional barriers. It is usually the professional clergy, who feel threatened by the thought of their people fellowshiping with a broader community and recognizing the leaders of other assemblies as spiritual leaders on a par with their own pastoral leaders. In this day of family mobility and media ministries, such a broader fellowship is harder to prevent than in former times, and many modern pastors have learned to accept it graciously. But when money and control are a factor in the equasion, there will often be an element of friendly competition felt between the leadership of the various local assemblies. Too many tithers lost to other groups can negatively impact the financial security of the pastor who loses them.
I really am not wishing to be cynical about this matter. These are just the facts of modern institutional church life and professional ministry. I have been in church leadership, as well as relating to church leaders on a peer basis, for over 30 years. I think my observations are objective, charitable and valid.
On the other hand, it would be a huge mistake to broad-brush the motives of all professional church leaders. I have known very many who have had exactly the right heart and motives suited to their position. It's just that the presupposition of "ministry as a profession" (which modern Christians have taken for granted as a valid model) tends to blur the vision and can create a difficult tension between the motives of a pure-hearted minister and the expectations of those who hired him to fulfill a job description that puts bread on his table.
Every Christian should view the church as Christ, its Head, views it. Looking down upon any given city, I believe, He sees all of His children as one Body, and desires that they all may share in the dynamics of body functioning on a community-wide level, rather than merely as isolated assemblies—whether large or small.
Obviously, each separate assembly must manage its own internal affairs and relationships, but the human and financial resources in a given town belong to the whole church in that town (and sometimes beyond their locality as well). If this principle were to be observed, there would not be any need for any assembly to be lacking in the basic needs of the gathering of saints. Those who gather much would have no extra, and those who gather little would have no lack (2 Cor.8:13-15).
Of course, those groups with the best preachers or the best music would always tend to attract the larger crowds, but if pulpit ministry and platform ministry (In situations wherein such may be deemed necessary) were to be restricted to being performed only by those who had actual spiritual gifting, I believe that the gifted ones could move about from assembly to assembly, giving the whole church the benefit of the best gifts.
When Paul was in town, I believe that all the local gatherings in turn had the advantage of his presence, or else the whole Body gathered in one large lecture hall (e.g. 19:9/ 20:7-8). In such a case, the smaller, mid-week gatherings could be devoted to prayer and mutual nurture such as requires no gifted teacher to be present.
If not for denominational loyalties, gatherings of the believers in a given town could be consolidated into fewer, larger assemblies for corporate worship and instruction—requiring fewer men to fill the pulpits, and allowing the saints to hear only the gifted preachers and teachers that Christ has given to the church in that town. Evangelists, prophets, prayer-warriors, exhorters, and such, could ply their ministries, primarily, in the smaller gatherings during the week.
These suggested changes are not likely to occur in the foreseeable future, so don't hold your breath.
As things stand, a Christian who visits around to various local assemblies, grazing in various pastures ("church-hopping"), is violating no scriptural injunction, and may well reflect a better understanding of the Body of Christ than that of others who see their "loyalty" as belonging to one isolated group.
At the same time, it often works best if individual Christians have one group (or at least not many groups) to which they relate primarily. Fellowshiping regularly in two, or, at the most, three different assemblies—assuming each of them is "healthy" and has some spiritual benefit to confer—can be very beneficial to a Christian and his family.
Settling into a smaller circle of relationships can provide valuable accountability and can build trust among those who know each other well—thus opening up avenues of ministry that might remain closed to the person who simply moves about, getting to know and be known by no one very well.
Additionally, cultivating intimate relationships within a smallish circle allows people to become intimately aware of your needs, and you with theirs. Without this, it is hard for there to be the kind of support network for those in crisis (financial, family, health, spiritual, etc.) that should exist in the Body.
Also, there is great value for those who are raising children to have some specific group of families, in one or two assemblies, to which they relate closely, so as to provide long-term Christian friendships for their children. Even so, in my judgment, it is wise to cultivate some relationships outside your primary fellowship group, since such groups often end up splitting, resulting in hard feelings, and leaving some families stranded without close friends, if their former friends happen to be on the other side of the split.
No one expects this kind of disaster to overtake their group, but an alarmingly large percentage of churches suffer such a fate, and you don't want to have to develop a new social circle completely "from scratch" too many times during your children's childhoods.
Therefore, I recommend intensive church involvement within a limited circle, but the maintaining of a broad vision of fellowship and mutual support for the whole Body of Christ as well.
As for your main question, there is no reference in the Bible to such a concept as that which we call a local church, so it is evident that the Bible says nothing about involvement in such.
When I say "what we call a local church," I am speaking of that which commonly goes by that label in modern times—namely, a group of Christians in a town who are politically and financially autonomous with reference to the other Christian assemblies in the same town, and which maintain a concept of intra-group loyalty among a hermetically-sealed membership.
In scripture, all the Christians in a given city were part of one church (e.g., the church in Ephesus, the church in Smyrna, etc.). Given the lack of large church buildings in those days, it is probable that the church in a very large town or city would meet in a variety of smaller local venues—primarily homes (e.g., Acts 5:42/Rom.16:5/ Col.4:15/ Philem.2)—but that these individual assemblies would be quite aware of being one church along with the various assemblies in their town.
In each church, there were "elders" (plural—Acts 14:23/ 20:17/ Phil.1:1/ Tit.1:5/James 5:14). It is conceivable that a small gathering in a town might have only one elder in their meetings, but if this was so, then that elder would know himself to be part of the larger eldership of the city's church, with a responsibility to work in concert with the whole group of local elders in the joint-oversight of the church in their city. Thus all the elders of a given town (though they might have overseen separate gatherings) could be addressed as a single group (Acts 20:28/ 1 Pet.5:1ff).
In my opinion, it would have seemed strange (and probably alarming!) to Paul and the early Christians if a given assembly were to be linked with other assemblies in other towns, but was not even more fundamentally linked with the other assemblies in their own town (as is the case with what we call a "denominational" church). A good test of such association would be to observe, when a congregation experiences a crisis in leadership or finances, whether they look to the other local assemblies, or to "headquarters" in another state, for assistance.
It is not usually the rank-and-file of church-members that feel uncomfortable with the breaking down of denominational or institutional barriers. It is usually the professional clergy, who feel threatened by the thought of their people fellowshiping with a broader community and recognizing the leaders of other assemblies as spiritual leaders on a par with their own pastoral leaders. In this day of family mobility and media ministries, such a broader fellowship is harder to prevent than in former times, and many modern pastors have learned to accept it graciously. But when money and control are a factor in the equasion, there will often be an element of friendly competition felt between the leadership of the various local assemblies. Too many tithers lost to other groups can negatively impact the financial security of the pastor who loses them.
I really am not wishing to be cynical about this matter. These are just the facts of modern institutional church life and professional ministry. I have been in church leadership, as well as relating to church leaders on a peer basis, for over 30 years. I think my observations are objective, charitable and valid.
On the other hand, it would be a huge mistake to broad-brush the motives of all professional church leaders. I have known very many who have had exactly the right heart and motives suited to their position. It's just that the presupposition of "ministry as a profession" (which modern Christians have taken for granted as a valid model) tends to blur the vision and can create a difficult tension between the motives of a pure-hearted minister and the expectations of those who hired him to fulfill a job description that puts bread on his table.
Every Christian should view the church as Christ, its Head, views it. Looking down upon any given city, I believe, He sees all of His children as one Body, and desires that they all may share in the dynamics of body functioning on a community-wide level, rather than merely as isolated assemblies—whether large or small.
Obviously, each separate assembly must manage its own internal affairs and relationships, but the human and financial resources in a given town belong to the whole church in that town (and sometimes beyond their locality as well). If this principle were to be observed, there would not be any need for any assembly to be lacking in the basic needs of the gathering of saints. Those who gather much would have no extra, and those who gather little would have no lack (2 Cor.8:13-15).
Of course, those groups with the best preachers or the best music would always tend to attract the larger crowds, but if pulpit ministry and platform ministry (In situations wherein such may be deemed necessary) were to be restricted to being performed only by those who had actual spiritual gifting, I believe that the gifted ones could move about from assembly to assembly, giving the whole church the benefit of the best gifts.
When Paul was in town, I believe that all the local gatherings in turn had the advantage of his presence, or else the whole Body gathered in one large lecture hall (e.g. 19:9/ 20:7-8). In such a case, the smaller, mid-week gatherings could be devoted to prayer and mutual nurture such as requires no gifted teacher to be present.
If not for denominational loyalties, gatherings of the believers in a given town could be consolidated into fewer, larger assemblies for corporate worship and instruction—requiring fewer men to fill the pulpits, and allowing the saints to hear only the gifted preachers and teachers that Christ has given to the church in that town. Evangelists, prophets, prayer-warriors, exhorters, and such, could ply their ministries, primarily, in the smaller gatherings during the week.
These suggested changes are not likely to occur in the foreseeable future, so don't hold your breath.
As things stand, a Christian who visits around to various local assemblies, grazing in various pastures ("church-hopping"), is violating no scriptural injunction, and may well reflect a better understanding of the Body of Christ than that of others who see their "loyalty" as belonging to one isolated group.
At the same time, it often works best if individual Christians have one group (or at least not many groups) to which they relate primarily. Fellowshiping regularly in two, or, at the most, three different assemblies—assuming each of them is "healthy" and has some spiritual benefit to confer—can be very beneficial to a Christian and his family.
Settling into a smaller circle of relationships can provide valuable accountability and can build trust among those who know each other well—thus opening up avenues of ministry that might remain closed to the person who simply moves about, getting to know and be known by no one very well.
Additionally, cultivating intimate relationships within a smallish circle allows people to become intimately aware of your needs, and you with theirs. Without this, it is hard for there to be the kind of support network for those in crisis (financial, family, health, spiritual, etc.) that should exist in the Body.
Also, there is great value for those who are raising children to have some specific group of families, in one or two assemblies, to which they relate closely, so as to provide long-term Christian friendships for their children. Even so, in my judgment, it is wise to cultivate some relationships outside your primary fellowship group, since such groups often end up splitting, resulting in hard feelings, and leaving some families stranded without close friends, if their former friends happen to be on the other side of the split.
No one expects this kind of disaster to overtake their group, but an alarmingly large percentage of churches suffer such a fate, and you don't want to have to develop a new social circle completely "from scratch" too many times during your children's childhoods.
Therefore, I recommend intensive church involvement within a limited circle, but the maintaining of a broad vision of fellowship and mutual support for the whole Body of Christ as well.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
I totally agree with Steve's discription of the local church in the New Testiment. All of the believers in a city made up the "local church" in that city although it may have had numerous gatherings due to size. Each church was governed by a set of elders. Division of the body was judged by Paul.
The problem is that when we come to the modern era what is clear in the New Testiment is not what is practiced by most christians. Two thousand years of church history has resulted in Roman Catholicism and a multitude of various Protestant denominations and free groups.
I doubt that most christians would even have any kind of awareness that there is something drastically wrong with the situation of the church today. We were born into this divided church ...we grow up in it....and
then we just attend the "church" that best fits our belief system or that we are comfortable in.
What started out as one body universal, with oneness practiced in the local church as well, has been shattered into many pieces. This is not to imply that the early church was at all perfect . Anyone that reads the New Testiment would obviously become aware of problems in those days. In fact if it were not for those problems it is possible we may not have some of the epistles that were written to address them.
The question is: What do we do today? Is it OK for the Body of Christ to be divided into so many "so called" churches and now we just try to have a kind of spiritual oneness?
Division is included as one of the works of the flesh along with adultery, fornication, idolatry, jealousies etc. in Galations 5:19-21.
"and those that practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God"
Gal5:21
The problem is that when we come to the modern era what is clear in the New Testiment is not what is practiced by most christians. Two thousand years of church history has resulted in Roman Catholicism and a multitude of various Protestant denominations and free groups.
I doubt that most christians would even have any kind of awareness that there is something drastically wrong with the situation of the church today. We were born into this divided church ...we grow up in it....and
then we just attend the "church" that best fits our belief system or that we are comfortable in.
What started out as one body universal, with oneness practiced in the local church as well, has been shattered into many pieces. This is not to imply that the early church was at all perfect . Anyone that reads the New Testiment would obviously become aware of problems in those days. In fact if it were not for those problems it is possible we may not have some of the epistles that were written to address them.
The question is: What do we do today? Is it OK for the Body of Christ to be divided into so many "so called" churches and now we just try to have a kind of spiritual oneness?
Division is included as one of the works of the flesh along with adultery, fornication, idolatry, jealousies etc. in Galations 5:19-21.
"and those that practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God"
Gal5:21
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
http://teampyro.blogspot.com/
Scroll down until you see Part 1 of "Forsaking Church is an Apostacy" to get another view.
Belonging to a body is important and should not be forsaken.
Steve, do you attend a local church regularly?
Scroll down until you see Part 1 of "Forsaking Church is an Apostacy" to get another view.
Belonging to a body is important and should not be forsaken.
Steve, do you attend a local church regularly?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Aole Opala No
Yes. I attend and teach at a local assembly (and helped lead worship there, this morning). The pastor has been a friend of mine for about 25 years. I have not become a member officially, and don't expect that I will.
I also fellowship with the wider Body of Christ.
Did someone here suggest forsaking church?
I also fellowship with the wider Body of Christ.
Did someone here suggest forsaking church?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
If someone doesn't attend a local church regularly, is that a sin? How do you define "regularly"? The only admonition in the bible is Hebrews 10:25. And if you use Acts 2-4 as an example, we should meet every day. While I agree that believers should gather together, how often is more difficult to determine.JJB wrote:http://teampyro.blogspot.com/
Scroll down until you see Part 1 of "Forsaking Church is an Apostacy" to get another view.
Belonging to a body is important and should not be forsaken.
Steve, do you attend a local church regularly?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another. (John 13:35)
Are there any actions that can be taken by believers who see the modern shortcomings of the western church that would help to lead it back to the Biblical model?
Is separation the only valid option?
Is it possible to stay and work towards change?
Is separation the only valid option?
Is it possible to stay and work towards change?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
I think staying in the church as long as you can is a good thing, unless it is impossible to locate a church where you feel your family can be spiritually safe (some churches so misrepresent Christianity that you would not wish to raise your children under their influence).
I even advocate staying in churches where you personally get little out of it, so long as you can find extra-curricular fellowship elsewhere during the week for your own nurture.
I don't recommend staying in a church that is more committed to the status quo than to Christ and truth, and where your biblical ideas are viewed as a threat. There is no sense in causing unnecessary trouble where it can do no good. For this reason, there are indeed churches from which you simply must walk away and leave them to the course they have chosen. They will have to be God's project, not yours.
I think that biblically-thinking Christians should become close to the pastoral leadership of the church they attend, so that they can pass their ideas of normative church along to them in friendly conversation. Radical suggestions are not likely to get to first base with a pastor unless you first have developed trust in the relationship, and the genuineness of your Christian life and good intentions have been observed.
Also, don't push a pastor too hard. In one sense, you are on his turf. If he is a good man, he already thinks that what he is doing is biblical. It takes time for a man to embrace an entire paradigm-shift. In his congregation (it is "his," after all, since they called him to be their pastor), you have no intrinsic right to change things or to demand that they change. Pastors get criticism on a daily basis from every quarter. If you seem to be attacking him or his way of doing things, he will just see you as another malcontent.
What a pastor needs is spiritual friends, who can speak into his life, just like any other man needs. Sending letters of encouragement when he does something right, offering to help in some understaffed area of church ministry, and inviting the pastor out to lunch are all ways of striking up a positive relationship with him. In the context of such a friendship, you can share your biblical concerns and vision with him in a non-threatening manner. Coming on too strong is likely to intimidate a conservative pastor.
Don't expect the pastor to necessarily accept your ideas, just because they seem so scriptural to you. He is probably well-entrenched in his own paradigm of normative church, which he learned in school or simply acquired by immersion in the system. Some pastors and some churches will never change. This is not an indicator that the pastor is a bad man or rebellious against the truth. It may simply be a blind spot. He should not be openly opposed unless he is teaching heresy, living in sin or mismanaging his office.
While seeking to be leaven in an institutional church, there is much to be said for not depending entirely upon such a church for your spiritual nurture. A supplementary home fellowship or regular breakfast with godly friends can make-up for what you are not getting at a dead church.
You can hold a home church on some day of the week other than Sunday, and still attend an institutional church on Sunday, if you are able to maintain a redemptive relationship with such a group. This way you can explore a more-biblical paradigm while keeping your influence in the place where the majority of Christians are. If the institutional church eventually runs you off (as many of them will when they discover your disagreement with them), you will at least have your home church as a safety net.
The really delicate matter is how you handle your relationships with other congregants at the institutional church. You are likely to be seen by the leadership as a force for division if you are sharing your "subversive" views with others in their congregation with whom you are developing relationships.
Managing these relationships requires wisdom, grace and finesse, since your being run-off from the church by the pastor at some future point (which is a realistic potentiality to keep in mind) may result in some of those whom he regards to be "his sheep" going off with you. If such should occur, you will thereafter be viewed as a "wolf" and a "divisive person" by the leadership of the church. What can be done to prevent this? I have not yet figured that out myself, but you must at least avoid betraying the pastor's trust or alienating his people from him, if at all possible.
The longer you can work supportively within a church—and hopefully to never be run-off by the leadership, but rather earning greater respect and influence among them, the better the likelihood that you will have oportunity to nudge the church in a positive direction. Don't expect 100% success, though. Your chances of success, realistically, may be more like 2%. It may even be a mission to which you will not choose to subject your family (it is less risky for single or childless people).
Most importantly, to my mind, is that any suspicions of your being a "wolf" or a "divisive person" be entirely groundless. Your own heart and manner must be pure, patient, humble, not secretive and without duplicity. Be the model Christian and let God do the work of forming the model church. Be prepared to get hurt in the process.
I even advocate staying in churches where you personally get little out of it, so long as you can find extra-curricular fellowship elsewhere during the week for your own nurture.
I don't recommend staying in a church that is more committed to the status quo than to Christ and truth, and where your biblical ideas are viewed as a threat. There is no sense in causing unnecessary trouble where it can do no good. For this reason, there are indeed churches from which you simply must walk away and leave them to the course they have chosen. They will have to be God's project, not yours.
I think that biblically-thinking Christians should become close to the pastoral leadership of the church they attend, so that they can pass their ideas of normative church along to them in friendly conversation. Radical suggestions are not likely to get to first base with a pastor unless you first have developed trust in the relationship, and the genuineness of your Christian life and good intentions have been observed.
Also, don't push a pastor too hard. In one sense, you are on his turf. If he is a good man, he already thinks that what he is doing is biblical. It takes time for a man to embrace an entire paradigm-shift. In his congregation (it is "his," after all, since they called him to be their pastor), you have no intrinsic right to change things or to demand that they change. Pastors get criticism on a daily basis from every quarter. If you seem to be attacking him or his way of doing things, he will just see you as another malcontent.
What a pastor needs is spiritual friends, who can speak into his life, just like any other man needs. Sending letters of encouragement when he does something right, offering to help in some understaffed area of church ministry, and inviting the pastor out to lunch are all ways of striking up a positive relationship with him. In the context of such a friendship, you can share your biblical concerns and vision with him in a non-threatening manner. Coming on too strong is likely to intimidate a conservative pastor.
Don't expect the pastor to necessarily accept your ideas, just because they seem so scriptural to you. He is probably well-entrenched in his own paradigm of normative church, which he learned in school or simply acquired by immersion in the system. Some pastors and some churches will never change. This is not an indicator that the pastor is a bad man or rebellious against the truth. It may simply be a blind spot. He should not be openly opposed unless he is teaching heresy, living in sin or mismanaging his office.
While seeking to be leaven in an institutional church, there is much to be said for not depending entirely upon such a church for your spiritual nurture. A supplementary home fellowship or regular breakfast with godly friends can make-up for what you are not getting at a dead church.
You can hold a home church on some day of the week other than Sunday, and still attend an institutional church on Sunday, if you are able to maintain a redemptive relationship with such a group. This way you can explore a more-biblical paradigm while keeping your influence in the place where the majority of Christians are. If the institutional church eventually runs you off (as many of them will when they discover your disagreement with them), you will at least have your home church as a safety net.
The really delicate matter is how you handle your relationships with other congregants at the institutional church. You are likely to be seen by the leadership as a force for division if you are sharing your "subversive" views with others in their congregation with whom you are developing relationships.
Managing these relationships requires wisdom, grace and finesse, since your being run-off from the church by the pastor at some future point (which is a realistic potentiality to keep in mind) may result in some of those whom he regards to be "his sheep" going off with you. If such should occur, you will thereafter be viewed as a "wolf" and a "divisive person" by the leadership of the church. What can be done to prevent this? I have not yet figured that out myself, but you must at least avoid betraying the pastor's trust or alienating his people from him, if at all possible.
The longer you can work supportively within a church—and hopefully to never be run-off by the leadership, but rather earning greater respect and influence among them, the better the likelihood that you will have oportunity to nudge the church in a positive direction. Don't expect 100% success, though. Your chances of success, realistically, may be more like 2%. It may even be a mission to which you will not choose to subject your family (it is less risky for single or childless people).
Most importantly, to my mind, is that any suspicions of your being a "wolf" or a "divisive person" be entirely groundless. Your own heart and manner must be pure, patient, humble, not secretive and without duplicity. Be the model Christian and let God do the work of forming the model church. Be prepared to get hurt in the process.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
-
_IlovetheLord
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2005 8:07 pm
- Location: Elmont, New York
The problem with.....
The local meeting place 
, the church is not the building, is that it becomes routine. You know when everything is gonna happen and only once in awhile you get something new that you already didn't know.
Cliques form and not everyone is treat equally.
, the church is not the building, is that it becomes routine. You know when everything is gonna happen and only once in awhile you get something new that you already didn't know.Cliques form and not everyone is treat equally.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Glad to be IN Christ,
Richad
Richad