Is the Local Church Essential?

[Guest]

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.

Why do you expect everyone to be treated equally? Is a foot the same as an eye? We all have different gifts and talents. Ppl form cliques wherever they go. I consider this website a clique. What draws you all together? I am not treated equally here because I am a Calvinist.

Because something is routine, you reject worshipping with fellow believers at a regular time and place? If it were not "routine", as you call it, how would we find one another?

God uses our pastor, so I never know what I will learn on any given Sunday.

[_Sean]

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.

Why do you expect everyone to be treated equally? Is a foot the same as an eye? We all have different gifts and talents. Ppl form cliques wherever they go. I consider this website a clique. What draws you all together? I am not treated equally here because I am a Calvinist.

Because something is routine, you reject worshipping with fellow believers at a regular time and place? If it were not "routine", as you call it, how would we find one another?

God uses our pastor, so I never know what I will learn on any given Sunday.

Actually, I think the point is that people fall into groups (like Calvinist, Arminian, etc) and look differently upon people with differing theological viewpoints. This should not be the case. We should not look down on someone if we feel they aren't smart enough to arrive at the same conclusions we have reached. This is different than saying one person is an evangelist, and another is a table waiter.

When you say you are not treated equally because you are Calvinist, Why do you feel that way? I'm not sure I get your point. Do you mean in a negative way? If we are talking biblical theology, shouldn't we have to prove our points biblically? And once that is done, and we find we don't agree on this point, can't we still be brothers? I don't have a problem with Calvinist people, even though I disagree with them. In other words, when a Calvinist comes to a public forum to discuss his beliefs, isn't it acceptible to recieve criticism? It would be another thing completely if I came knocking on all Calvinist believers doors to tell them that they are in danger of hell fire if they don't accept my view.

Rom 14:1 As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions.
Rom 14:2 One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables.
Rom 14:3 Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him.
Rom 14:4 Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
Rom 14:5 One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.
Rom 14:6 The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God.
Rom 14:7 For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself.
Rom 14:8 If we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's.

Paul could have just said everyone get in line and do what I say. But he did not. And this was not pertaining to "gifts", but eating and the keeping of special days (like Sunday service).

Some people look down on others who don't follow the custom of going to church on Sunday. Even though we don't find a command telling us to do this one specific thing. It's not like Paul said that the fruit of the Spirit is: love, joy, peace, patience, Sunday church service, etc.

The concern I have with local Churches is that they major on one or two things, (like singing and evangelizing) and negate the very point you mentioned, that we are all parts of one body that works together.

[_Sean]

Continuing from my last post:
The whole body should be working together to build up the enitre church. There shouldn't be a church full of gifted people sitting around doing little or nothing because the "church elders" have decided everyone should do things their way, like "We need people to cut the grass, give money to the new church building expantion, volenteer in the nursery or sunday school, etc."
While these things are fine, they are not exactly what we, corporately, have been called to do. One major thing that seems to always get overlooked is the poor.

[Guest]

Sean, you're using lots of generaliztions in your post. The poor are not "always" overlooked. always being the word you used.

At our church, we have a group that gathers fri nites to make bag lunches to go downtown and hand out to the homeless or hungry. We sponsor a family room in a family shelter. So, I disagree with your statement that the poor are "always" overlooked by local church congregations. What an overstatement and overreaction. We're not a body of gifted and talented ppl sitting around doing little or nothing. Shame on you for making such a bald faced lie.

It's too bad you have such a dim, critical view of the local church. What were you saying about ppl not being smart enough to come to the same conclusions that you have? my, my. From my vantage point, i would say it's been a loooong time since you've been to a local church as I see many misunderstandings and non-issues within your post.

Notice that hardly any Calvinists post here? Also rarely do I see ppl who disagree with one another here. Too many like-minded folks congregate in this internet space. Expanding one's viewpoint is usually a good, learning experience.

I come here to try and give another view as I think some of the beliefs are divisive to the "invisible" body of Christ (as we Calvies call the church universal), including the one being espoused concerning local congregations being unnecessary and unbiblical. Is that an armin or calvie issue? I don't think so.

Is Steve really interested in placing memberships in several local congregations or "clubs" as he called them? I don't think so. I think on this website there is an issue where ppl do not want to submit to authority. But that is what Christ commands us to do.

As for being treated differently because I am a Calvinist. Just read my posts and listen to STeve's radio show. Calvinist is used as a derogatory term. I'm the one in this space that is looked down upon, as tho I'm not smart enuf to arrive at the same conclusion as you. So much for showing brotherly love, huh?

Most of my friend are Arminians. I swim in an ocean full of Arminians. So I have no issue with you all, it's usually you who have issues with my beliefs.

[_Steve]

When I read a post like this one, it makes me wonder whether the writer is looking at the same forum I am. Not many Calvinists post here? One of the largest categories at this forum (and the most read) is the Calvinism/Arminianism category. In most cases, the threads in that category appear to have been initiated by Calvinists. Many of these Calvinists have been rather abusive in their tone, but this is not the spirit in which they are responded to. I have not found the Arminians here to make such caustic remarks about Calvinists as many of the Calvinists make about anyone who disagrees with them.

The reason the Calvinists drop out of the discussion after a while is not because they are treated with contempt or disrespect, but because we keep asking them to exegete scripture and to critique our own exegesis. So far, the Calvinist participants have flatly declined to even attempt such an approach, and have become frustrated with us because we do not simply accept assertions that are exegetically indefensible. Any Calvinist who wishes to do so may continue here as long as he/she wishes, but our basis of argument is going to remain an appeal to biblical exegesis. A Calvinist who has the ability to participate in such a discussion would be most welcome here.

I don't believe that the term "Calvinist" is used by me as a derrogatory term. It is a term descriptive of a certain set of theological commitments with which I disagree—like the term "Dispensationalist." Most listeners who have contacted me have mentioned that they appreciate the fact that I am not antagonistic toward such viewpoints or their adherents. Only once in a while do I get a complaint (always from a Calvinist listener) who has taken something I said about Calvinism as a personal insult, though there was none intrinsic in the statements to which they are reacting. Many Calvinists are touchy people. Other Calvinists write to me with a gracious spirit and thank me for treating their views with respect, though they know I disagree with them. I can't please everyone.

If it seems to you that everyone at this forum believes alike, it may be that you are mistaking charity for consensus. If you visit the threads on the subjects of the trinity, the deity of Christ, the various views of hell or the Sabbath (to name only a few), you will find anything but consensus among the participants. The discussion only seems "agreeable" because most of the participants respect each other's right to disagree, and the dialogue is generally carried on without rancor.

As for my views about church involvement, I think you are reading many things into my statements that are not there. I am probably more involved in a local assembly than you or most people are, and probably involved in a larger number of assemblies also. This doesn't make me a better person than someone else. It only makes it rather inappropriate to suggest that I am opposed to church participation. I can't help it if there are other people you might have encountered somewhere who are anti-church, and who say some of the same things I have said about memebership. Examine the biblical basis I present for my views, and accept or reject them on their own merits, but don't assume that I have certain attitudes that I neither possess nor express.

I have been involved in churches since my early childhood, and have been in church ministry for 35 years. I am generally in church every Sunday (somewhere) unless I am traveling.

One of the churches in which my involvement was most lengthy and intense is one of the larger movements, possessing some of the largest congregations, in America today. They never had anything like formal membership when I was there, but they accomplished more for God in the seventies than did any other church in the Jesus Movement.

I see no evidence that Sean's statements are out of touch with the reality of the average church. Actually, my impression has been that your immersion in a single church has left you with little awareness of what most American churches, outside your own, are like. Neither Sean nor I have said that there are no good and exceptional churches. What we are discussing here is the actual question of biblical ecclesiology. Neither Sean nor I have slammed "the church." We have explored biblical paradigms, and sometimes found modern groups to compare unfavorably with those paradigms.

The truth is that you are making as much criticism of our church paradigm as we are of yours, but with somewhat more vitriol. The only difference is that we are using scripture to defend our ideas, whereas you are largely appealing to traditional norms. No one here has even come close to condemning you for this. It is simply a biblical discussion. It seems like you take it much too personally.

[_Sean]

Sean, you're using lots of generaliztions in your post.

Almost your entire reply had generalizations in it.

The poor are not "always" overlooked. always being the word you used.

You're right, in your church it's different. But since you don't know the conditions of the churches I've been in and visited, how would you know about these?

Anyway, how much money is spent on the church buliding? If you sold the building and met at another location (homes, unused school gym, local hall, etc.), would more poor get fed or less with that money that was paying the church mortgage?

Right now, at the church I attend, someone I know in the church (a longstanding member) is about to lose their home because they can't make the back tax payments. The church leaders have offered no help, yet they are very excited about their new building plans to the tune of 1 million dollars. This is just one example. Also note that this same church teaches tithing to the church (building/leaders) and not the people! They even drew a picture on the board, one of a building and one of a person and said "You don't give to people, you give to the church and we distribute to the people". Now, if I give to this needy person so they don't lose their home, I'm in violation of a direct command given by church pastor. Yet they are doing nothing to help. Reminds me of Mathew 23:4

So tell me, are the poor getting overlooked?

At our church, we have a group that gathers fri nites to make bag lunches to go downtown and hand out to the homeless or hungry. We sponsor a family room in a family shelter. So, I disagree with your statement that the poor are "always" overlooked by local church congregations. What an overstatement and overreaction. We're not a body of gifted and talented ppl sitting around doing little or nothing. Shame on you for making such a bald faced lie.

It's too bad you have such a dim, critical view of the local church. What were you saying about ppl not being smart enough to come to the same conclusions that you have? my, my. From my vantage point, i would say it's been a loooong time since you've been to a local church as I see many misunderstandings and non-issues within your post.

Notice that hardly any Calvinists post here? Also rarely do I see ppl who disagree with one another here. Too many like-minded folks congregate in this internet space. Expanding one's viewpoint is usually a good, learning experience.

I come here to try and give another view as I think some of the beliefs are divisive to the "invisible" body of Christ (as we Calvies call the church universal), including the one being espoused concerning local congregations being unnecessary and unbiblical. Is that an armin or calvie issue? I don't think so.

Is Steve really interested in placing memberships in several local congregations or "clubs" as he called them? I don't think so. I think on this website there is an issue where ppl do not want to submit to authority. But that is what Christ commands us to do.

As for being treated differently because I am a Calvinist. Just read my posts and listen to STeve's radio show. Calvinist is used as a derogatory term. I'm the one in this space that is looked down upon, as tho I'm not smart enuf to arrive at the same conclusion as you. So much for showing brotherly love, huh?

Most of my friend are Arminians. I swim in an ocean full of Arminians. So I have no issue with you all, it's usually you who have issues with my beliefs.

The head of every man is Christ, not another man. Christians don't lord over other Christians like the unbelievers do.

Anyway, after giving my local church expierience, you seem like I'm not telling the truth about my expierience. You try and prove your point by explaining how your church operates? How is that relevent to my local church? I'm happy you have a great church. But just as I can't say that there are no good churches (you are proof postitive there are good ones), you can't say there are no bad ones, just because you are not in a bad one.

[_Sean]

What were you saying about ppl not being smart enough to come to the same conclusions that you have? my, my.

Wow! I said people that don't come to the same conclusions as me are not "smart enough"? That's not at all what I said.

This is what I said:

I think the point is that people fall into groups (like Calvinist, Arminian, etc) and look differently upon people with differing theological viewpoints.

Ok, now follow the thought. When people form groups in the church, they SHOULD NOT look differently upon other people based on differing theological viewpoints.

This should not be the case. We should not look down on someone if we feel they aren't smart enough to arrive at the same conclusions we have reached.

Notice how I continue the thought. "I" am not a "we". I used "we" as a general statement of people in general. Are there not going to be the theology majors, or the "thinkers"? Are they suppose to look down on others who are "babes", just because they haven't gotten to the same point in their walk? The churches I have been in don't explain the trinity, they just say you must believe in it or your wrong and may not even be saved! But they don't explain it because they don't think the lay people will be "smart enough" to understand it. So they say to just accept it.

Now, what would happen if some "babes" in Christ were questioning the trinity? Would they be considered a threat to the Church body because they are not "smart enough" to see the trinity in the Bible? Would they be looked down upon?

Do you see the point I was trying to make? We should not look down on those who don't understand, or understand differently (about a vast array of secondary issues) than we do.

From my vantage point, i would say it's been a loooong time since you've been to a local church as I see many misunderstandings and non-issues within your post.

Actually, I do have a local church I attend, the one I alluded to in my last post.

[Guest]

What were you saying about ppl not being smart enough to come to the same conclusions that you have? my, my.

Wow! I said people that don't come to the same conclusions as me are not "smart enough"? That's not at all what I said.

This is what I said:

I think the point is that people fall into groups (like Calvinist, Arminian, etc) and look differently upon people with differing theological viewpoints.

Ok, now follow the thought. When people form groups in the church, they SHOULD NOT look differently upon other people based on differing theological viewpoints.

This should not be the case. We should not look down on someone if we feel they aren't smart enough to arrive at the same conclusions we have reached.

Notice how I continue the thought. "I" am not a "we". I used "we" as a general statement of people in general. Are there not going to be the theology majors, or the "thinkers"? Are they suppose to look down on others who are "babes", just because they haven't gotten to the same point in their walk? The churches I have been in don't explain the trinity, they just say you must believe in it or your wrong and may not even be saved! But they don't explain it because they don't think the lay people will be "smart enough" to understand it. So they say to just accept it.

Now, what would happen if some "babes" in Christ were questioning the trinity? Would they be considered a threat to the Church body because they are not "smart enough" to see the trinity in the Bible? Would they be looked down upon?

Do you see the point I was trying to make? We should not look down on those who don't understand, or understand differently (about a vast array of secondary issues) than we do.

From my vantage point, i would say it's been a loooong time since you've been to a local church as I see many misunderstandings and non-issues within your post.

Actually, I do have a local church I attend, the one I alluded to in my last post.

"We should not look down on someone if We feel they aren't smart enuf...

The word "we" includes the person making the statement. Reread your comment "We feel they aren't smart enough........so I was following the thought. Thanks.

The word "always" does not mean sometimes. So to say churches always overlook the poor is not accurate.

I apologize for stating that you have probably not darkened the door of a church in a loooong time.

[_Sean]

"We should not look down on someone if We feel they aren't smart enuf...

The word "we" includes the person making the statement. Reread your comment "We feel they aren't smart enough........so I was following the thought. Thanks.

I never said it didn't, but again...

So to say churches always overlook the poor is not accurate.

Only if you take it in it's absoute sense, which was not how I meant it. Unless you honestly think I've been to every church on earth.

The word "always" does not mean sometimes.

It doesn't? I was using a metaphor.

Have you ever heard someone use always in a non-literal way? Like "My daugher is always asking questions" Does that mean there has never been a single moment when she doesn't ask questions? There are many examples of this I'm sure we both can think of. I tried to clarify this in my last post by pointing out it meant the churches I have went to, and other churches I have heard about form others.

Even Jesus used metaphors:

Luk 14:26 "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple."

Isn't Jesus teaching hate? or is He getting at something else less than literal?

Not only is it normal for me to use figures of speech, but even Jesus used them. I'm sorry if you misunderstood me.

[Guest]

The problem with figures of speech, is that they are figures of speech. Oftentimes they are unclear in written form.

Enuf grammar lessons for the day.

Yes, the local church is essential. Where would we be without it? There is no such thing as the "perfect" congregation. You can work toward change from within unless, as Steve points out, a member becomes divisive and is driven away from fellowshipping there.