Ship of Fools: No need to go to church

Thread: No need to go to church Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026101

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

I've heard the line 'You don't need to go to church to be a Christian' all my life. It's probably one of the main reasons why so few people do go to church. But I heard the other side the other day, when someone said 'They're not real Christians if they don't go to church, their coals go out'. My reaction to that is [Mad]

, but I'd be interested to hear what others think. Over to you.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

Ah, to go through life without having to make allowance for other people! I'd never have to meet anyone you didn't immediately like, never have any obligations, never be made to feel uncomfortable or annoyed, never be challenged. I'd never have to be anything but a glorious, sun-kissed solitary island in the world. As for love, companionship, learning from others, being stimulated by the exchange of ideas - let 'em go hang! It's worth the sacrifice, in exchange for being able to go through life doing nothing except what I want to do.

But then, how long would I survive?

And why should what's applicable to life in general not be applicable to life as a Christian?

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

It's like saying you can be a sports fan and never watch a match, a student and never attend lectures, a husband but never make love to your wife.
Why would you want to avoid it?
The Bible says 'let us not give up the habit of meeting together.

In my opinion, the people who say they believe but don't see the need to attend church are entirely missing the point about being in the family of God.
They have made personal faith into private religion and the Bible knows nothing of that.

Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on :

The discussion must hinge on the question of the word "need".

At a few junctures in my life, I've taken time out from church. The longest of these was two years, when I undertook a serious examination of my faith. I didn't go to any meetings or take part in communion. I just did a fair bit of reading.

Did I stop being a christian then? I would say not. Was I being a model christian? No. I was being monastic and hermitic (not hermetic!) in a lot of respects.

So in that respect, not going to church did prevent my being a christian. That said, I do not think that it's healthy to stay like in perpetuity. Anyone who shuns the idea of being part of a church altogether is one who I would think needs to seriously re-examine their understanding of the new testament.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

I have not been to church regularly for 18 months now. I am still a Christian. I am in touch with a number of others in a similar position.

Of course it is possible to be a Christian and not go to church. For some of us, it is far easier without the church - not because I don't meet other people, because I do, in all sorts of places and ways. It is easier because I no longer have to pretend and play the church games. I can cope with the people - including the arseholes - but the politics, manipulation and abuse I cannot.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

There are lots of reasons why someone might not be going to church, so it's harsh and self-righteous to say that a non-churchgoer isn't a 'real' Christian. People might also have different ways of 'doing church' that aren't necessarily recognised by everyone else. People go through phases.

However, on a broader level declining rates of churchgoing indicate a gradually decreasing commitment to distinctively Christian doctrines, behaviour and/or values. Church is an environment where the importance of those things is constantly reinforced, especially in the context of a secular society that lacks explicit encouragement in these areas. Without the support of some sort of active Christian community there's less external motivation to continue with them to the same extent.

[ 30. September 2013, 17:20: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

What does it mean to be a Christian, or indeed a "real" Christian? Once you have defined that, we can discuss whether going to church is a necessary part of being a ("real") Christian.

For my part, I would agree with Cyprian: "He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother." And in the ordinary run of things having the Church as mother would imply going to Church regularly, to receive the Word from her, as reading from the gospel and as Eucharist. This does not mean that a hermit cannot have the Church for his mother, too, but this would be an extraordinary case justified by extraordinary circumstance.

Is someone who does not go to Church not a Christian (in my context)? No, just as someone who ignores their worldly mother does not cease to be a son or daughter in a formal sense. But as Cyprian says, they could not have a father - an intact relationship with their father - then either. A son or daughter cannot divide mother against father, if the parent's relationship is sound. In rejecting one, one damages the relationship to the other. So I would say that someone who is avoiding Church is not a "real" Christian in this limited sense: like a son or daughter who has broken off contact with their mother and thereby also hurts their father.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Over 50 years, I have always had periods of not going to church; they have ranged from several weeks to two years. I tend to just allow them really.

But I do eventually feel a need to go back, so then I go back.

It's difficult to explain, I suppose sometimes I feel very introverted, and I don't want anyone around very much. I see both states as equally valuable.

Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on :

Yes, you can "be a Christian" by yourself, but I would say you can't fully live out the Christian life that way because it's inherently communal (as well as personal). An analogy might be citizenship. I meet the minimum requirements of being an American simply because I was born in the USA, but I'm not fully living out my citizenship unless I participate in the life of my community and the nation by doing such things as voting, paying taxes, and involving myself in social issues I care about.

Posted by Thyme (# 12360) on :

I didn't become a Christian through going to church. And I haven't stopped being a Christian now I rarely go to church. I still experience the presence of God - Father, Son and Holy Spirit in my life.

After my conversion I thought I ought to go to church and I did my best to fit in. After nearly two decades I felt it was making me ill. So I stopped and have been much healthier and happier ever since.

As a result I have met a lot of other christians who don't go to church, and we make our own christian communities which is church to us. Didn't Jesus say the only qualification is 'where two or three are gathered together'?

I practise my faith in my life outside church, which is where most of us have to live out our faith.

If someone wants to believe that I am not a Real Christian™ that is their problem not mine and I have no interest in the argument.

My spiritual life - my relationship with God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit - has developed beautifully since I gave up church. Sometimes I have to go back for things and I am always grateful that I have left. I have no desire to return to any form of institutional church.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

I need to go to church to remain a Christian. I can't speak to whether that is true for others. I know that for me, going without Holy Communion for weeks or months on end has been like starvation rations. It was a joy on a recent visit to the mainland to be once more at the full banquet of the Lord. To be without church at all would be to be without even the meagre rations upon which I have subsisted, and I fear I don't have the strength to avoid starvation in such circumstances.

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

I spent over 20 years almost totally isolated but felt no less a Christian.

I prayed daily or twice daily on-line with a podcast (first a Benedictine women's order in the US then with Wantage), I was in touch with others of my particular ilk(s) by post and phone and now e-mail and skype, I read books, I was on the mailing list of 2 parish churches (one in my native NZ, one in California), lurked and later boarded the Ship...
All my e-contacts know who I am and I feel deeply connected to them and part of their communities.
If one's solitary Christianity is only because of physical/ geographical factors does that still not count as having a community dimension to my faith?

At what point is any church - even one that goes against all one's theology - better than none?

And if you are not able to understand the language does that still count as going? While I do know someone else in those circumstances and she feels very much a part of her parish community, I don't think I would feel the same way in her situation.

All that said ... "going to church" is better. Sure makes you appreciate the sacraments (well Communion and Confession/Forgiveness); and having a priest/minister to prepare them and a liturgy and a sermon as well. You get sick of writing your own and being self-sufficient no matter how clever you are

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
.

For my part, I would agree with Cyprian: "He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother."

I'm having trouble understanding that, Ingo. Jesus taught us to pray to God as our Father but he never seemed to encourage this mother analogy, did he? I agree that we should share communion whenever we are gathered, but how often we are expected to gather seems unclear to me. I know I have never received communion with any feeling that it was nourishment coming from a mother figure. Doesn't that image detract from what His body and blood truly are?

For me a "real Christian," is anyone who believes in Christ as his savior. Church is very helpful to me in many ways but my faith is not dependent upon it and if someone finds the whole thing too stressful I wouldn't think he was not a true Christian, his faith may be much stronger than mine.

Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It's like saying you can be a sports fan and never watch a match, a student and never attend lectures, a husband but never make love to your wife.
Why would you want to avoid it?

You know, Mudfrog and I could scarcely have more divergent ecclesiological views, but in this instance I think he's totally correct.

I'd also add a line from Brideshead, when Lady Marchmain says 'It needs a very strong faith to stand entirely alone and Sebastian isn't strong'.

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I've heard the line 'You don't need to go to church to be a Christian' all my life. It's probably one of the main reasons why so few people do go to church. But I heard the other side the other day, when someone said 'They're not real Christians if they don't go to church, their coals go out'. My reaction to that is , but I'd be interested to hear what others think. Over to you.

Honestly, I think one of the main reasons so few people go to church is they don't want to deal with the judgemental jerkfaces who say crap like 'They're not real Christians if...'

But that's just me.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Why would you want to avoid it?
The Bible says 'let us not give up the habit of meeting together.

In my opinion, the people who say they believe but don't see the need to attend church are entirely missing the point about being in the family of God.
They have made personal faith into private religion and the Bible knows nothing of that.

Crap. Utter crap. My faith is not any more personal or private now than it ever was. In fact, it is probably more out and open now than it ever was.

Why would I want to avoid it? Because it is damaging to my faith, my health, my person.

There is nothing in Christianity that requires attendence at or participation in what we currently have as The Church. The church is a HUMAN institution, with all of its human failings, and quite a few that are unique to an institution that believes itself to have a divinely ordained purpose.

There are many people who are faithful devotees of the church and have no Christian faith. There are many who are are Christians who are not in church. For some people, church is a helpful and positive part of their Christian experience, for some people, it is a poisonous part of their past that they are seeking recovery from, and may have hung onto their faith despite this.

Now stop being so fucking churchist.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I'm having trouble understanding that, Ingo. Jesus taught us to pray to God as our Father but he never seemed to encourage this mother analogy, did he? I agree that we should share communion whenever we are gathered, but how often we are expected to gather seems unclear to me. I know I have never received communion with any feeling that it was nourishment coming from a mother figure. Doesn't that image detract from what His body and blood truly are?

First, you could read Cyprian, that's why I included a link to the original text. Second, the exclusive focus on "what Jesus taught us in scripture" is a Protestant attitude of no further interest to me. Third, the birthday of the Church is after Christ ascended, hence He is unlikely to have directly encouraged this or any other analogy for the Church. Fourth, if you believed in sacraments as I do, then you would not consider yourself able to access the body and blood of Christ without that Church. Neither in the sense of here and now, since you need the services of an ordained priest, nor in the sense of history, since you would not know about Christ or be baptised in His name.

Anyway, Cyprian certainly did not intend to equate the Father God with the mother Church in the sense of these two being some kind of "equal beings". That's not the point of this saying at all. Actually, the analogy Cyprian is making is sort of lost in these times full of single parent families. The point is rather that as a child one has mother and father, and one cannot simply focus on the father to the exclusion of the mother. This is ill appropriate to a loving relationship between these parents, and ignores that they both have brought one into being. (Note that while moderns would likely focus on the mother as the "essential" parent, in Cyprian's time the patriarchal family with its focus on the father would make for a better analogy.)

[ 30. September 2013, 20:48: Message edited by: IngoB ]

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

There is the illustration Paul uses about the church being like a body. A body cannot function without all its parts working together. The head cannot say to the foot, I do not need you. Likewise, the hand cannot say to the rest of the body I do not need you. Fact is, we all need each other.

While there are those who say they can be Christian without going to church, I would like to point out that the church cannot do without you. Every Christian has something to contribute to the church. I think it rather selfish to think one can do without the church.

True, as with every institution or human organization, there will be jerks, even hypocrites, but there are also positives people. People who really care for their fellow persons. People who really want to minister to other people. People who really want to grow in the faith.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:

While there are those who say they can be Christian without going to church, I would like to point out that the church cannot do without you. Every Christian has something to contribute to the church. I think it rather selfish to think one can do without the church.

I agree with you on this. The individual may have valuable gifts and insights, and the Bible says that the whole church should be able to benefit from these.

Moreover, non-churchgoing Christians still expect the gathered church community to continue to exist and to serve their purposes occasionally. Surveys show that many people feel a certain regret about the decline of churchgoing and Christian influence, but what they want is for other people to become more committed Christians, not themselves! People regret hearing that a church is going to close, even though they wouldn't have attended it themselves. They don't consider that the absence of people like themselves contributes to this sort of thing happening.

It's dawning on me that one reason for consciously going to or being or doing church is simply to ensure that there is a church. The problem with everyone being a Christian in the privacy of their own heads is that that doesn't serve the wider Christian community.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I've heard the line 'You don't need to go to church to be a Christian' all my life. It's probably one of the main reasons why so few people do go to church.

But I like going to church! I might even go if I wasn't a Christian, I like it so much. (Although it would definitely have to be the right sort of church, then.)

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:

While there are those who say they can be Christian without going to church, I would like to point out that the church cannot do without you. Every Christian has something to contribute to the church. I think it rather selfish to think one can do without the church.

I agree with you on this. The individual may have valuable gifts and insights, and the Bible says that the whole church should be able to benefit from these.

Moreover, non-churchgoing Christians still expect the gathered church community to continue to exist and to serve their purposes occasionally. Surveys show that many people feel a certain regret about the decline of churchgoing and Christian influence, but what they want is for other people to become more committed Christians, not themselves! People regret hearing that a church is going to close, even though they wouldn't have attended it themselves. They don't consider that the absence of people like themselves contributes to this sort of thing happening.

It's dawning on me that one reason for consciously going to or being or doing church is simply to ensure that there is a church. The problem with everyone being a Christian in the privacy of their own heads is that that doesn't serve the wider Christian community.

What I'm reading, seeing, and hearing is that people are seeking new ways of engaging with the church, and churches are largely failing in helping them with that.

What are churches doing to help people with their individual devotions? Are they open when people want to stop in? Can people from your church name five acts of devotion that are normal practices for your appendage of Christianity?

It seems like most churches just assume that people aren't going to engage in personal acts of devotion outside of worship, and don't bother teaching anything, aside from passing references to unstructured prayer and Bible reading.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

I wish that's what I was getting from this, Olaf.

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I wish that's what I was getting from this, Olaf.

I hear ya. I know plenty of people who are probably just being lazy. I have to confess I feel it myself sometimes, especially since my church only has one service at the crack of dawn on Sunday morning (by my reckoning).

I'm afraid pushing the whole "community" point isn't going to work. It's a nice sentiment, but it's a relatively recent phenomenon, said by recent seminarians. Think of baptisms. Nowadays we say "baptism is a communal event" but for much of Christendom the sacrament of initiation took place in private or semi-private circumstances. People haven't just forgotten this fact. The communal rationale can backfire, anyway, and we could simply end up being social clubs.

With so many people saying "spiritual but not religious," I say it's for churches to step up and work with it. What kind of spiritual practices do people undertake? How can the church get a piece of the action? What choice do we have? Guilting people into community sure isn't working.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
What I'm reading, seeing, and hearing is that people are seeking new ways of engaging with the church, and churches are largely failing in helping them with that.

What are churches doing to help people with their individual devotions? Are they open when people want to stop in? Can people from your church name five acts of devotion that are normal practices for your appendage of Christianity?

It seems like most churches just assume that people aren't going to engage in personal acts of devotion outside of worship, and don't bother teaching anything, aside from passing references to unstructured prayer and Bible reading.

I stand by my previous post, but I also have much sympathy with what you're saying here.

As someone who was once an active church member and lay leader but who is currently something of a church wanderer I feel frustrated both by people who criticise from outside but never join in to help, and also frustrated by the churches themselves, by their inflexible structures and their attachment to the status quo.

There's a vicious cycle of people finding church unattractive and then leaving, which means that fewer people are left behind to make the changes that are necessary, to provide the funds to do the work, and to challenge entrenched attitudes among the powerful people who remain, lay and clergy. But decline makes congregations demoralised and inward-looking at the very point when they need to be reaching out and developing a strong vision.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

The fact that not all church-goers truly practice Christian charity is fair enough. But the other side of the matter is that the life of charity is not enough, not so far as the Christian faith believes. Worshiping God is as much an ethical duty as caring for the poor, and love for God means living out that worship with the Church.

I would dare say that hearing services on the Lord's day is our primary ethical duty as Christians. Not our only duty, but the first duty that we are all called to.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
In my opinion, the people who say they believe but don't see the need to attend church are entirely missing the point about being in the family of God.

Define church. Is Salvation Army (with no sacraments) a church? (Didn't it at least originally think itself not a church?) Are Quakers (with no clergy) a church? How about a group that meets in a rented store front instead of a building with a steeple or bell tower? Or that meets regularly to worship God in a private house (lots cheaper than renting a location, for a small group)?

I think a lot of people have too narrow a definition of what constitutes "gathering together." A lot of people I know who don't attend church in the formal sense, do intentionally gather with other Christians.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

I go to Church for the sense of fellowship and community, to see my friends and catch up with everyone.

I can worship God anywhere (in fact I struggle to worship God in Church). I much prefer to worship alone as I am odd, loud, exuberant and dance a lot. So if I'm alone I don't have to worry about what other people think. I keep still and quiet like everyone else in Church.

Posted by Ophicleide16 (# 16344) on :

Just to throw it in here- imo when people dismiss churchgoing (and it usually is terribly dismissive) as unecessary for some kind of spiritual authenticity, what they really mean is 'any of that praying stuff.'

That is, it would probably never occur to them that reading, meditation and other practices might play a part in someone's life outside of the church. To them, being a good christian means being nice to people at only a surface level.

Posted by Drifting Star (# 12799) on :

I think that's highly unlikely for the people on here. Most of the people here who are saying that they don't go to church are people who have been hurt or damaged by the church in some way. You only need to read through this thread to see that. Equally, the fact that they are here, on this Christian website (oh yes it is) means that they are fully aware "that reading, meditation and other practices might play a part in someone's life outside of the church".

Dismissive is the very last thing they are. Those who dismiss their experiences, however, are a large part of the church's problem.

Personally I would say that I have in the past had to stop going to church in order to remain a Christian.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I would dare say that hearing services on the Lord's day is our primary ethical duty as Christians. Not our only duty, but the first duty that we are all called to.

'Hearing services' - what an odd phrase! And IMO what an odd thing to consider our primary duty as Christians. Not loving God and neighbour, not offering our whole lives to God as a life-long act of worship to Him?

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I think a lot of people have too narrow a definition of what constitutes "gathering together." A lot of people I know who don't attend church in the formal sense, do intentionally gather with other Christians.

Hear, hear. Referring back to the OP, I think for most people our coals do go out to an extent if we are trying to follow Jesus on our own. It takes a lot of self-discipline to keep going even through the low, dry spells, without people alongside to pick you up and spur you on.

However, I agree 100% with Belle Ringer that many people's 'gathering together' with fellow Christians might, unfairly IMO, not be considered as an authentic expression of 'going to church'.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

I think a lot of people have too narrow a definition of what constitutes "gathering together." A lot of people I know who don't attend church in the formal sense, do intentionally gather with other Christians.

Like here on the Ship, for example.

[Big Grin]

Posted by Bob Two-Owls (# 9680) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Drifting Star:
Personally I would say that I have in the past had to stop going to church in order to remain a Christian.

Spot on Drifting Star. Deep down I am and will always remain a Christian but I have never been comfortable in a church. I left the Catholic Church as soon as I could and I suppose that has coloured my subsequent interactions with protestant churches but if you have to be a regular member of a church in order to be a Christian then I suppose there is no place in Christianity for me.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Reading some of the disparaging and dismissive comments being made by some here about those who do not attend church would be enough, I'd think, to confirm in those people that they've made the right decision.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Karl

As I said, there are plenty of reasons not to go to church (whatever we mean by 'church'), including the inadequacy of churchgoers, but that doesn't mean it's unproblematic, if not for the individual then for the religion as a whole.

I think we should go back to the days when people who disapproved of other people's churches started their own. I wonder when that stopped happening? The suburbs have Fresh Expressions and the inner city has African Pentecostal churches. But there seems to be a gap in the market somehow.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

The silly thing is that now, more than any time in the past, people who feel like that ARE able to influence churches and produce the sort of place that they would want to worship in. Congregational numbers are going down and churches are desperate for people to volunteer to go on the PCC. Churches are open to people with energy creating and resourcing 'Fresh Expressions' of church in their communities. But what do they do instead of that? They leave. So the church carries on in the same old way with even fewer people.

I don't understand it. Perhaps people just prefer whinging than actually staying to do the hard work to set it all up. Perhaps they are afraid that, if they do so, they will fail. So it is easier to whinge and stay away.

Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I think we should go back to the days when people who disapproved of other people's churches started their own. I wonder when that stopped happening? The suburbs have Fresh Expressions and the inner city has African Pentecostal churches. But there seems to be a gap in the market somehow.

So you're advocating schism as a solution to the problem of church attendance? Nice.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
So you're advocating schism as a solution to the problem of church attendance? Nice.

ISTM it's only schism if you think of unity in institutional terms (which I don't, and I guess SvitlanaV2 doesn't either).

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I think we should go back to the days when people who disapproved of other people's churches started their own. I wonder when that stopped happening? The suburbs have Fresh Expressions and the inner city has African Pentecostal churches. But there seems to be a gap in the market somehow.
So you're advocating schism as a solution to the problem of church attendance? Nice.

In the past schism was often (though not always) a factor in increasing church attendance and involvement. It tends to suggest that people are engaged in and invigorated by theology and church life, rather than feeling bored and demoralised by those things, which is usually the case today.

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Why would you want to avoid it?
The Bible says 'let us not give up the habit of meeting together.

In my opinion, the people who say they believe but don't see the need to attend church are entirely missing the point about being in the family of God.
They have made personal faith into private religion and the Bible knows nothing of that.
Crap. Utter crap. My faith is not any more personal or private now than it ever was. In fact, it is probably more out and open now than it ever was.

Why would I want to avoid it? Because it is damaging to my faith, my health, my person.

There is nothing in Christianity that requires attendence at or participation in what we currently have as The Church. The church is a HUMAN institution, with all of its human failings, and quite a few that are unique to an institution that believes itself to have a divinely ordained purpose.

There are many people who are faithful devotees of the church and have no Christian faith. There are many who are are Christians who are not in church. For some people, church is a helpful and positive part of their Christian experience, for some people, it is a poisonous part of their past that they are seeking recovery from, and may have hung onto their faith despite this.

Now stop being so fucking churchist.

I don't understand this, genuinely. I can understand that you have this reaction to a particular, or even several institutions labelled church. I do too, to be honest.

But do you mean to reject altogether the corporate aspect of the Christian faith, the "one another" side of stuff? And if not, are you doing that some other way? And isn't that, to some extent, church?

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

Ideally, a Christian would be worshipping regularly alongside other Christians and be actively involved in a church community. (There's lots in the Bible about the need to be involved in a church community. I suspect that any discussion about what is meant by "a church community" could go on for some time [Big Grin]

). It’s harder to be a Christian on your own – with no one to chew the fat with, give you encouragement and hold you accountable. But life isn’t always ideal.

Some people’s experience of church is so negative that they really don’t want to repeat it, others just don’t do community well.

One reason that no one seems to have mentioned yet is that not every Christian is a Nine to Five-er. Some people work on Sunday’s so can’t make a morning or evening service! We have a few of them at our place and although Rev T holds a regular evening group and contacts them regularly to see if they’re okay, that only does so much!

Tubbs

[ 01. October 2013, 13:54: Message edited by: Tubbs ]

Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on :

One important point is that there is no "blueprint" lifestyle for being a Christian, to be followed by every one. Most of the people on this board appear to be generally happy with other peoples' presence (if not company) and appear to have some need to be acknowledged by, and exchange with, others. Which is nice.

But some of us (admittedly a small minority, but heck, don't we live in a minority-embracing age??) are not like that. We do not like the presence of others. We prefer to be alone. We do not take our self-identity from belonging to a group. We do not like to "participate", "share", "join", or whatever other happy-verb neo-church-talk loves to throw at us.

For some of us, attending church is an ordeal. This has nothing to do with the importance we give or do not give to what in some Churches is referred to as the Eucharist. It has everything to do with other people. They just drain our energies, they are uninspiring, and they actually distract us from praying.

I am not saying we are ideal. I am not saying everybody should be like us. But we exist, and there is nothing sinister about us. We do pray for others, we do charitable acts, we do think a lot about our contribution to making the world a better place. We just prefer to be alone. That's when we are the best we can be.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

It's difficult - I value weekly Eucharist, but my depression-anxiety makes it difficult sometimes to make church. As has been said upthread, making a Sunday morning service is difficult for a lot of people for outside reasons - working on Sundays, separated or divorced parents having their kids on Sundays and church isn't exactly a fun activity etc. And you know, church is boring for a lot of people. Turning Sunday into (effectively) another day of work for which you don't even get paid is not going to attract anyone.

If it's difficult for me to get to church and I'm one of those people who naturally like church, it's even more difficult for those who don't naturally like church but nonetheless are very much Christians.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

Tubbs has a good point. Walmart is the number one employer in the US and Sunday is its busiest day so that alone accounts for lots of people who couldn't go to church if they wanted to.

Then there are the people who do have Sunday off but have been working ten hour days all week and are just plan exhausted on Sunday.

When I hear of churches desperately planning to change, I wonder if its really going to help.

I left a church that was all about "fellowship," for a Lutheran church that, to me, was more focused on worship. I wanted their sacraments, formal prayers and readings, and less music and audience participation. Like St. Paul, I was tired of hearing the same women stand up and talk at length, every Sunday, about their numerous praises and prayer concerns. I was tired of the service being dominated with music from the band, consisting of about a quarter of the church's members. Anyone who ever played drums, bass, horn, keyboard or guitar in a 1970's garage band was now at the front of church satisfying their rock star dreams. I know that sounds mean. I actually think that's all fine for them. They love it and look forward to Sunday's where they can share their gifts. Good for them. I just became tired of being their audience and wanted to focus less on them and more on my own struggles to connect with God.

Consequently, I think we need all our denominations because we want such different things from church. I just don't think any church needs to force change based on what they think will bring in the Christians at home. All the people I know who say they are "spiritual not religious," just mean that they get a thrill when they look at a sunset but don't bother them on Sunday morning. Those who say they are Christian but don't like church usually have had bad experiences in church and attendance actually harms their faith. How can we tell them they must go?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

And don't forget to think of Introverts Я Us. We might like to sit in our solitary cell/bedroom/mother's basement, but that doesn't mean that we are not plugged in to God's great glory.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Olaf

The church has always been about community. It is not a new phenomenon. Baptism is initiation into the community. Confirmation is learning the basic doctrines of the community. The Eucharist is a communal meal that you not only share with those you worship with, but also with all Christians world wide and past, present, and future.'

This individualism is a relatively new happening. It comes from mostly Western European and American cultures, but it is not seen in Eastern European Russian and Asian cultures as much. I would refer you to the recent discussion on baptism. Many of the individualists, though not all, were arguing for an individual believer's baptism, while the communalists were arguing pointed out the whole households were baptized when the head of the family came to faith. Individualism started out with the raise of the anabaptist movement, but communalism was there from the beginning of the church. That is what ecclesia means: an assembly of like minded people (originally referred to a political party but assumed by the body of Christ).

From my own personal experience I can tell that things do not go right for me spiritually when I detach myself from the body of Christ. It is when I cling to the body I find comfort and peace.

Actually, the communal nature of the church is the counter cultural balance to the Western ideal of individualism.

[ 01. October 2013, 13:02: Message edited by: Gramps49 ]

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
'Hearing services' - what an odd phrase! And IMO what an odd thing to consider our primary duty as Christians. Not loving God and neighbour, not offering our whole lives to God as a life-long act of worship to Him?

I only specifically said that going to church followed from our duty to worship God, and was not our only duty as Christians. Maybe give reading a go before responding? [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
It’s harder to be a Christian on your own – with no one to chew the fat with, give you encouragement and hold you accountable.

Agree, and the problem with formal church is - none of that happens, or rarely.

Formal church is inherently impersonal. Be quiet and do as you are told - sit through someone else's selection of music, prayers with generalized wording, a sermon on a topic that may have nothing to do with you, go to coffee where everyone is doing small talk or rounding up a crew to paint the Sunday school room (and the painting crew chatter is the football game), go home.

The "chew the fat, give you encouragement, hold you accountable" takes place entirely outside the formal church, in my experience. It's in the house gatherings, in the lunch meetings with a few trusted Christian friends, in the long telephone call conversations and prayer about our own current joys and needs.

If "chew the fat, give you encouragement, hold you accountable" has anything to do with what church should be about, people who skip the formal thing and have regular prayer times and regular meetings with one or a few other Christians may be "going to church" as much or more than those who attend the formal weekly event.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Formal church is inherently impersonal. Be quiet and do as you are told - sit through someone else's selection of music, prayers with generalized wording, a sermon

Perfect! And the popularity of Cathedrals would imply there is a particular personality type which prefers this approach. It's churches which interfere too much in people's personal lives which is offputting to the more introverted types.

For the very individualised, though, one of the worst things is that churches are often closed during the week. If at all possible, they need to be kept open so people who can't cope with corporal worship still have a spiritual space to go for a time of quiet and refreshment.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
now, more than any time in the past, people who feel like that ARE able to influence churches and produce the sort of place that they would want to worship in. Congregational numbers are going down and churches are desperate for people to volunteer to go on the PCC.

Depends on the church. Some are run by an in-group who have a specific image in mind of what their church should be (cling to being, return to being), and newcomers (or oldtimers) who want to do anything not consistent with that image are not allowed influence.

If you are single in a church that identifies as a family church, or a career women when the controlling in-group believe all women should stay home (like they did), if you want to start a Bible study in a church that has none but they believe only clergy can teach Bible, or you would like a few hymns in the mix but the chief clergy person believes exclusively modern worship music is essential to attract younger people to come visit and join, or etc - if you don't fit the existing self-image, doesn't matter how active you are or on how many committees, your voice will be ignored.

And in some churches what matters most is whether you grew up in that town and they've known you all their lives, or are you a stranger, not "one of us." A friend said he was in his church 5 years, on committees, in choir, on PCC, but any suggestion he made was not even responded to, as if he was the wind. Church consultant Lyle Schaller wrote a book about that kind of church, functionally closed to newcmers, which is common in small town USA (and in some city churches too).

A web page sums up the book, including good aspects of a small church, but this including this important part:

quote:
Once people have as many ties as they want or can handle, they may remain congenial to newcomers, but will offer them only superficial friendliness. Such churches become "closed."

This may explain Schaller's frequent claims that it is harder for older churches (measured by the average number of years members have attended the church) to add new members. In "older" churches, most members already have many close ties within the church....

summary of The Small Church Is Different

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Formal church is inherently impersonal. Be quiet and do as you are told - sit through someone else's selection of music, prayers with generalized wording, a sermon
Perfect! And the popularity of Cathedrals would imply there is a particular personality type which prefers this approach. It's churches which interfere too much in people's personal lives which is offputting to the more introverted types.

Not for this more introverted type! I want - need - my fellow Christians to interfere in my personal life, especially when I'm feeling under the weather, grumpy or tired and don't really welcome the interference. It's at just these times when I most need people (people I already know and trust, not just anyone) to nag at me a bit, and call me back to following Christ. Without this, I have an unhealthy tendency to retreat to my cave and wallow in gentle self-pity!

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
What I'm reading, seeing, and hearing is that people are seeking new ways of engaging with the church, and churches are largely failing in helping them with that.

Nope - what people are doing is seeking new ways of engaging with God, and doing that without reference to the church.

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I don't understand this, genuinely. I can understand that you have this reaction to a particular, or even several institutions labelled church. I do too, to be honest.

But do you mean to reject altogether the corporate aspect of the Christian faith, the "one another" side of stuff? And if not, are you doing that some other way? And isn't that, to some extent, church?

No - as posted above, it is about rejecting the concept of anything that comes under the remit of church. Yes there is engagement with others, in all sorts of ways, but that is not church. That is talking to other people.

Trying to save church by making everything church does not work. Rejecting it and saying "forget the word, forget the idea, do something else" is more like it.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Different strokes for different folks.

Good luck with that.

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:

Trying to save church by making everything church does not work. Rejecting it and saying "forget the word, forget the idea, do something else" is more like it.

I'm not "trying" anything. Some of us actually do think that meeting with other Christians IS church. You don't get to say we're wrong just because you don't like the word.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Some of us actually do think that meeting with other Christians IS church.

Yup, how often have I heard "church is not a building, church is people." Do we believe it or not?

Last night I went to a weekly gathering, we talked about things God is doing in our lives, we admitted our failure to respond as often and as fully as we want, we watched a teaching video, we discussed it both agreeing and disagreeing with it, we stated prayer requests for ourselves and others, we prayed for each others specific needs together (not just put names on a prayer list and hope someone gets around to praying). We don't all agree on theology or politics or probably anything else. One or another occasionally invites someone they have met, who joins us or doesn't.

Why isn't that church? It has no name, no ordained clergy, no specific location, no music, and it's been going steadily for a dozen years. It is a gathering of people who are specifically seeking to be together with other Christians in a God-focused couple hours.

I went to church last night. When I go sing in the praise band at a TEC church Sunday, I will go to a different style of church.

Why would anyone think the TEC gathering is "church" but the house gathering is not?

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:

Trying to save church by making everything church does not work. Rejecting it and saying "forget the word, forget the idea, do something else" is more like it.
I'm not "trying" anything. Some of us actually do think that meeting with other Christians IS church. You don't get to say we're wrong just because you don't like the word.

Then most Christians are in a church. But it is pretty meaningless because it can have pretty much any form.

Twitter and Facebook are churches. So any Christian on these is in a church.....

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Nope - what people are doing is seeking new ways of engaging with God, and doing that without reference to the church.

Yes, this. I'm surprised by the remarks which imply that only those hurt by church would reject church. My experience is that church is often not considered important as it's considered irrelevant, unnecessary, inconvenient and expensive. People may believe in God and Jesus, pray, and try to live a moral life without going to church. ISTM that this is often seen as the content of Christianity, it was for me at one time.

As my faith has grown, so I now acknowledge the importance of an organised church, not only to meet people to chew the fat with, give me encouragement and hold me accountable (which would be good), but for the opportunity to worship God with fellow Christians; review, renew, and invite God's presence together; take in the scriptures read by someone else; evaluate what is said in the sermon; and share in the focus on Christ and the Eucharist. I too now see this as service to God, as important as good works, evangelism, prayer at home, home groups, etc.

It has taken me a long time to come to appreciate this. I was seeking ways of engaging with God for some time before I ever ventured into a church, and I wouldn't have done so or persevered with it if I hadn't been convinced that it was what God wanted of me.

As far as who is a 'real' Christian is concerned, that's for God to know and not for me or anyone else to judge, hence my reaction.

I'm not convinced about the coals, either. Does someone who is housebound have no chance of faith?

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Some of us actually do think that meeting with other Christians IS church.

I'd just like to add to this that IMO the meeting together with other Christians has to have some element of spiritual intentionality (horrid word, sorry) in order to be reasonably called 'church'. By which I mean something very much like this...

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Last night I went to a weekly gathering, we talked about things God is doing in our lives, we admitted our failure to respond as often and as fully as we want, we watched a teaching video, we discussed it both agreeing and disagreeing with it, we stated prayer requests for ourselves and others, we prayed for each others specific needs together (not just put names on a prayer list and hope someone gets around to praying).

This is totally, utterly church IMO, and probably a heck of a lot more spiritually formative than most institutional forms of church. I'd guess, anyway!

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Olaf

The church has always been about community. It is not a new phenomenon. Baptism is initiation into the community. Confirmation is learning the basic doctrines of the community. The Eucharist is a communal meal that you not only share with those you worship with, but also with all Christians world wide and past, present, and future.'

This individualism is a relatively new happening. It comes from mostly Western European and American cultures, but it is not seen in Eastern European Russian and Asian cultures as much. I would refer you to the recent discussion on baptism. Many of the individualists, though not all, were arguing for an individual believer's baptism, while the communalists were arguing pointed out the whole households were baptized when the head of the family came to faith. Individualism started out with the raise of the anabaptist movement, but communalism was there from the beginning of the church. That is what ecclesia means: an assembly of like minded people (originally referred to a political party but assumed by the body of Christ).

From my own personal experience I can tell that things do not go right for me spiritually when I detach myself from the body of Christ. It is when I cling to the body I find comfort and peace.

Actually, the communal nature of the church is the counter cultural balance to the Western ideal of individualism.

I'm certainly not arguing against the communal nature of Christianity. Even though sacraments and rites are part of community life, even before the Reformation there were definite feelings of individualism. It's nothing new. Private confession, private or semiprivate baptism, monastics withdrawing from society and living in cloistered communities, ascetics and hermits have all been a part of Christendom since way before the 1400s.

That said, the church isn't winning the competition for people's time. Increasingly they are choosing other activities, or just choosing Sunday morning as their brief respite from other activities that make their week busy. What I suggest is that, rather than simply and repetitively stressing the communal nature of Christianity, we take on a second approach of helping people with their individual devotional lives, too.

Face facts, whether you like it or not, people certainly can "get away with" not going to church every Sunday. Let's teach them what they can do at home on those Sundays, not as an encouragement of this practice, but as a simple realization that something is better than nothing. If people are going to be "spiritual but not religious," (and remember that they don't give a crap about whether that flies against the church's communal nature or not) then it's time for the church to catch these people while they still have a glimmer of a connection to church at all. If we don't, give it a few decades and we will have a whole bunch of people who don't even bother the pretense of "being spiritual." Maybe that will happen even if we do try something, but at least we will have tried.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

Another way is to encourage people to be followers of Jesus (with an explicit part of this being that meeting together for prayer, encouragement, teaching, communion etc. is important) and then see what shape and form of church flows from it.

If people decide to get involved in an existing form of church, great. And if something starts to happen that's more like what Belle Ringer described upthread, then that's also great. But perhaps our focus (as people seeking to share Jesus with others) should be on making disciples, letting Jesus get on with building his church.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

Can I draw a metaphor and start exploring. Let us think of the visible Church as a fine net. In this each individual Christian is a thread, where they meet up because there are knots. The big knots which tend to be the important parts of the net are the churches. There are of course ways of tying knot, and there are ways of doing church. The bigger the knots more formal the knot is, as the number of threads increase so does the need for the knot to be systematic. There is more variety in the small knots where adjustments can be made for the variety in the character of the strings.

There are two different things to be discussed. What is the status of the small knots, what do they have in the visible Church. Then there is a question about the thread that never knots with any other thread.

Jengie

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:

Trying to save church by making everything church does not work. Rejecting it and saying "forget the word, forget the idea, do something else" is more like it.
I'm not "trying" anything. Some of us actually do think that meeting with other Christians IS church. You don't get to say we're wrong just because you don't like the word.
Then most Christians are in a church. But it is pretty meaningless because it can have pretty much any form.

But that's just it, it's not meaningless because it is Christians meeting together and God values that and says it will help us.

It's the people that give it meaning, not the form.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Some of us actually do think that meeting with other Christians IS church.
Then most Christians are in a church. But it is pretty meaningless because it can have pretty much any form.
But that's just it, it's not meaningless because it is Christians meeting together and God values that and says it will help us.

It's the people that give it meaning, not the form.

Puzzles me when someone is in a planned gathering of Christians for the purpose of being in God's presence 3 evenings a week - Bible study bunch, prayer group, Wednesday night worship, (I won't count the choir rehearsal even though part of rehearsal time is prayer) and they get asked "why weren't you in church last week?" simply because they didn't show up Sunday morning.

Some people really do believe unless it's a clergy-led event on Sunday morning, it doesn't count as going to church.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Belle Ringer:

quote:
Some people really do believe unless it's a clergy-led event on Sunday morning, it doesn't count as going to church.

...and ironically, Schroediger's Cat seems to be one of them.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

I think we should go back to the days when people who disapproved of other people's churches started their own. I wonder when that stopped happening?

If it has stopped, I guess it was some time in the past few weeks. All those warehouse churches round the corner from me had to come from somewhere.

Posted by lilyswinburne (# 12934) on :

I would think the point is - does Jesus care if people go to church? Obviously he doesn't.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilyswinburne:
...Obviously he doesn't.

That isn't obvious to me.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilyswinburne:
I would think the point is - does Jesus care if people go to church? Obviously he doesn't.

Why do you think so?

If Jesus wanted his disciples to operate alone, wouldn't he have made that clear, rather than to encourage their fellowship and co-operation?

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Belle Ringer:
quote:
Some people really do believe unless it's a clergy-led event on Sunday morning, it doesn't count as going to church.
...and ironically, Schroedinger's Cat seems to be one of them.

No - I think you either have to treat church as the organisation and ALL of the meetings associated with it - and so is primarily the institution and all that is associated with that; or you reject that, and accept that "church" includes any time Christians meet, so that Twitter is church, work is church, everything is church.

In the latter case, I am not sure what church means, if everything is church. Then the only Christians who are not in church are those who don't meet anyone else.

In answer to the OP, in this case, all Christians go to church. By definition. In the former case, which seems to be the more usual definition, it is a then something that some people find useful, but not all, and not all Christians are in church. And not all people in church are Christians. Rather like the Freemasons, there is an overlap that is co-incidental, and not meaningful.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilyswinburne:
I would think the point is - does Jesus care if people go to church? Obviously he doesn't.

'Go to church' - unhelpful and misleading phrase IMO. Jesus might not want us to go to church but I think he very much wants us to be church; i.e. share our lives and resources in common, demonstrate love and kindness to one another, show Christ to the world through the goodness of our lives together.

Posted by lilyswinburne (# 12934) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
'Go to church' - unhelpful and misleading phrase IMO. Jesus might not want us to go to church but I think he very much wants us to be church; i.e. share our lives and resources in common, demonstrate love and kindness to one another, show Christ to the world through the goodness of our lives together.

Yes I agree.

But even more basic - what is the absolute minimum necessary for salvation? I don't think it includes going to church.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:
Originally posted by lilyswinburne:
I would think the point is - does Jesus care if people go to church? Obviously he doesn't.
'Go to church' - unhelpful and misleading phrase IMO. Jesus might not want us to go to church but I think he very much wants us to be church; i.e. share our lives and resources in common, demonstrate love and kindness to one another, show Christ to the world through the goodness of our lives together.

Yes, the first quote here needs a prelude of defining what does Jesus mean by the word "church." On that definition there is considerable disagreement! Some whole denominations define other whole denominations as "not church" (or more commonly worded these days - "not a real church" - we don't seem to kill each other, as much as in some past centuries, just for adhering to the "wrong" denomination of Christianity).

Maybe we need to realize as with just about anything else in Christianity, one person's church gathering is another's "absolutely not a church gathering" and that conflict of understanding is not going to be resolved this side of eternity.

Probable (in my theology) God's desire for people to gather as church is supposed to take different forms for different personalities, societies, and God-informed purposes. No one definition can express them all, so we each express the part that makes the most functional and theological sense to us at this phase in our lives.

God may want some people in a clergy led public formal program of a specific denomination on Sunday mornings, while preferring someone else attend a small informal lay only mid-week event.

Posted by Graven Image (# 8755) on :

I see church as 2 or 3 Christians gathered together in faith. This does not require a building or an official community. I see this gathering having no set number of meetings to make it church. It may be a meeting of people gathered in faith one time, or can be an on going community. So yes, I think there is a need to be the church, on an ongoing basis but I do not see the need to attend an official "church" even though I do. There are many I know who are home bound and then the community must come to them. Others because of distance may only make it to church a few times a year, still others may have only the choice of a toxic community which is not healthy to their spirit. Better for them to stay away. I as a Christian person of faith have also met with people of other faiths in the presence of our creator. That to me is also church.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

For a guy so unconcerned about public worship, God sure devotes a lot of space in the Bible to regulating it.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

I think we should go back to the days when people who disapproved of other people's churches started their own. I wonder when that stopped happening?
If it has stopped, I guess it was some time in the past few weeks. All those warehouse churches round the corner from me had to come from somewhere.

London is a special case, of course. And my reference to African Pentecostals was meant to indicate the demographic where the growth is very likely to be found.

[ 02. October 2013, 20:44: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
For a guy so unconcerned about public worship, God sure devotes a lot of space in the Bible to regulating it.

But not in the New Testament, I think. There's certainly plenty of instruction on worship in the Old Testament but IMO that is not of direct relevance to Christians, at least in terms of guiding our practice. Jesus is the new Temple, and he lives in us through the Holy Spirit.

ISTM that all the ritual and sacrifice in the Old Testament has been superseded by the New Testament pattern of sharing our lives in common and offering our whole lives as a sacrificial act of worship.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
For a guy so unconcerned about public worship, God sure devotes a lot of space in the Bible to regulating it.
But not in the New Testament, I think. There's certainly plenty of instruction on worship in the Old Testament but IMO that is not of direct relevance to Christians, at least in terms of guiding our practice. Jesus is the new Temple, and he lives in us through the Holy Spirit.

ISTM that all the ritual and sacrifice in the Old Testament has been superseded by the New Testament pattern of sharing our lives in common and offering our whole lives as a sacrificial act of worship.

This is false. Paul does offer regulations on corporate worship in the New Testament, and the vision of the eternal Kingdom of God is depicted as one gigantic church service.

Though it's been the usual habit here to merely insist that it is obvious that corporate worship isn't important, an examination of the Bible simply doesn't show this to be obvious at all.

I speculate all this follows from today's habit of whittling down the two great commandments to one, but who knows.

[ 02. October 2013, 22:00: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by lilyswinburne (# 12934) on :

I think the original post was on the question of whether people could be Christian and not go to church. Not whether church-going is "important".

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
I think the original post was on the question of whether people could be Christian and not go to church. Not whether church-going is "important".

You said Jesus doesn't care if people go to church. Are we now arguing whether church-going is an important or a necessary part of the Christian life?

[ 03. October 2013, 01:47: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Paul does offer regulations on corporate worship in the New Testament, and the vision of the eternal Kingdom of God is depicted as one gigantic church service.

Agreed with you about Revelation, but I don't see much about regulations on corporate worship in the NT. And what there is, seems to be far more concerned with the spirit in which it's done and the sense of mutuality, not with the technicalities of the content. For example, the NT contains very little reference to singing in church gatherings (except for the Revelation visions, granted).

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Though it's been the usual habit here to merely insist that it is obvious that corporate worship isn't important, an examination of the Bible simply doesn't show this to be obvious at all.

Just speaking for myself, but I certainly don't mean to imply this. I just reject any notion that Christians must belong to a formal institution calling itself a church, and I want to define 'being part of a church' far more broadly than the usual.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilyswinburne:
But even more basic - what is the absolute minimum necessary for salvation? I don't think it includes going to church.

Should we give Jesus the absolute minimum we can get away with and still be "saved"? Is that really being a Christian? What part does "absolute minimum necessary" have in Christianity at all? This seems to treat salvation as "fire insurance" and not a relationship with the living God.

[ 03. October 2013, 07:20: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by vicar of bowsden (# 16256) on :

I don't know if someone has already said this - no time to read through all the posts - but the difficulty for me is the term "going to church." I simply don't think the Bible ever sees church as "something you go to", it is something you are an organic part of as part of a body. People usually mean by this that they attend a service on a Sunday, but that is simply one of the things the church may choose to do - I can't find any church services in this sense in the Bible. I think it is important to be a part of a body of believers in some way that meets needs and contributes to the life of that church, but fail to see why this should be measured in terms of attendance at a ritual on Sundays, however worthwhile that ritual might be.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by vicar of bowsden:
I don't know if someone has already said this - no time to read through all the posts - but the difficulty for me is the term "going to church." I simply don't think the Bible ever sees church as "something you go to", it is something you are an organic part of as part of a body.

Already noted upthread, but I'm glad to see another person who's thinking in these terms. [Smile]

And welcome [EDIT - welcome back] to Ship of Fools!

[ 03. October 2013, 07:38: Message edited by: South Coast Kevin ]

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Thyme
I didn't become a Christian through going to church. And I haven't stopped being a Christian now I rarely go to church. I still experience the presence of God - Father, Son and Holy Spirit in my life.

After my conversion I thought I ought to go to church and I did my best to fit in. After nearly two decades I felt it was making me ill. So I stopped and have been much healthier and happier ever since.

As a result I have met a lot of other christians who don't go to church, and we make our own christian communities which is church to us. Didn't Jesus say the only qualification is 'where two or three are gathered together'?

I practise my faith in my life outside church, which is where most of us have to live out our faith.

If someone wants to believe that I am not a Real Christian™ that is their problem not mine and I have no interest in the argument.

My spiritual life - my relationship with God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit - has developed beautifully since I gave up church. Sometimes I have to go back for things and I am always grateful that I have left. I have no desire to return to any form of institutional church.

Great post.

Talking about judging people for not being "real Christians", I would say that any professing Christian who cannot sympathise with your comments here needs to question whether he is, in fact, a "real Christian".

It's obvious that some churches are toxic, and are just playgrounds for manipulative and controlling people. It's better to be alone with God than caught up in that kind of environment, which actually stifles one's Christian life. You end up being sucked into a ghetto mentality and become less equipped to deal with "the real world".

In an ideal world Christians should, of course, have fellowship together. Unfortunately we live in a broken world, and the idealists can prattle on as much as they like about what constitutes a "real Christian" or build their theology on poor analogies (like comparing an institution with your mother!), but I think we need realism and empathy when dealing with this difficult question.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
'Go to church' - unhelpful and misleading phrase IMO. Jesus might not want us to go to church but I think he very much wants us to be church; i.e. share our lives and resources in common, demonstrate love and kindness to one another, show Christ to the world through the goodness of our lives together.

I agree.

So, is going to church an essential part of being Church?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
This seems to treat salvation as "fire insurance" and not a relationship with the living God.

For some of us that's exactly what it is.

Posted by Oferyas (# 14031) on :

My late and much lamented training Rector (Fr Gerald Steele, of Cadoxton, Barry), when I was his curate long ago, used to put it this way:
'Jesus left us two hard commandments and two easy ones. The hard ones sound easy - love the Lord your God, love your neighbour as yourself - but there is always more you could do to obey them fully. The easy ones sound hard - break bread and share wine to remember him, and go out and make disciples and baptise them - but in fact they are easy, because you are either obeying them, or you aren't'!

He had a point. And the Church is surely any setting where people live together under the authority of Jesus.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Is going to church an essential part of being Church?

My answer to the spirit of your question is pretty much a 'Yes', although I have a real aversion to the phrase 'going to church'! Church is something we are part of, not something we go to, IMO.

However, putting aside my dislike of the phrase 'going to church', I question whether you can reasonably describe yourself as being part of any specific church if you never meet with others in that church. I suppose there might be some horrible circumstances in which it's simply unrealistic for someone to meet with other people - in that case, modern technology could hopefully facilitate interaction that wasn't face-to-face.

Another question comes to my mind - can someone be part of the worldwide church without ever 'going to church'? I think I'd say yes to this; our faith in Jesus brings about an adoption into the family of God so we become de facto members of the worldwide church family. But it's certainly not a very functional family relationship if you don't ever want or try to meet with any of your fellow adoptees!

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Ugh, why can't there be a single discussion of Church without a veer through pointless pedantry? "The Church isn't a building, it's a people!" "You don't GO to Church, you ARE a Church!"

But unless you are a church that meets in your house, you do have to go to church, for pete's sake!

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
But unless you are a church that meets in your house, you do have to go to church, for pete's sake!

Easy, tiger... [Smile]

There are also people who go to church meetings that aren't in the main church building. For example, those who can't make the main meeting (due to caring responsibilities, work they can't get out of etc.) might go to home group meetings on a weekday evening.

Also, some churches might only meet all together, say, once a month; the main 'life' of the church could be in weekly meetings (perhaps on Sunday, perhaps not) of smaller groups. These could happen in homes, community halls, cafes, pubs, or indeed in church buildings.

There are plenty of set-ups in which it's not necessary to go to church (in the sense you mean, Zach82) in order to be an active part of the church.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

More pedantry. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

One person's pedantry is another person's logical distinction.

I think the difference between "being church" and "going to church" is an important one, especially considering that so many seem to define the Christian life in institutional terms, rather than spiritual terms. Furthermore, I have no doubt that there are many who "go to church" who are actually not part of the Body of Christ. The New Testament says as much. And I certainly believe that there are those who are part of the Body of Christ, who have become alienated from the institution for various quite understandable reasons.

Posted by lilyswinburne (# 12934) on :

Zach82, since you are in seminary, I surmise that you are nervous about your job prospects and how they will be affected by the continuing decline in church attendance.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I think the difference between "being church" and "going to church" is an important one, especially considering that so many seem to define the Christian life in institutional terms, rather than spiritual terms. Furthermore, I have no doubt that there are many who "go to church" who are actually not part of the Body of Christ. The New Testament says as much. And I certainly believe that there are those who are part of the Body of Christ, who have become alienated from the institution for various quite understandable reasons.

The thought had just occurred to me - and then I read your post so this may be redundant - to ask "does going to an institutional event on Sunday morning constitute 'going to church'?" For some yes for some no.

That partly depends on how you define what church is for. If an essential element is for me to receive the Eucharist from the hands of an institutionalized clergy person, the institutional program is where I will find "church." If an essential element is for people of God to interact with each other to give each other personal accountability and encouragement in a God-centered gathering, the institutional program probably is not "church."

[ 03. October 2013, 15:17: Message edited by: Belle Ringer ]

Posted by vicar of bowsden (# 16256) on :

'So, is going to church an essential part of being Church?'

I think this is the tricky bit. Lots of useful discussion and all very thought-provoking.
Of course being / being part of church must mean travelling to a venue to meet with other people; I meet other Christians for mutual encouragement in a local pub and a local coffee bar and I'm convinced this is at least as much church as going to a service.
In fact in some ways more so; the church I am part of (which I think is great) still very much has "services" with hymns / songs / prayers / sermons etc., and often it is people with no faith or little faith that like to go to these as they can be anonymous in a larger crowd. Those who come to smaller gatherings generally are fairly secure about what they believe. Thanks for all the contributions to what feels like a really useful discussion

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilyswinburne:
Zach82, since you are in seminary, I surmise that you are nervous about your job prospects and how they will be affected by the continuing decline in church attendance.

Wow, a mind reader. I hope you use your powers only for good.

Posted by lilyswinburne (# 12934) on :

[deleted post]

[ 03. October 2013, 16:00: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Now you're threatening me.

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:

For some of us, attending church is an ordeal. This has nothing to do with the importance we give or do not give to what in some Churches is referred to as the Eucharist. It has everything to do with other people. They just drain our energies, they are uninspiring, and they actually distract us from praying.

Thank heavens we're not expected to see Jesus in draining, uninspiring or distracting people!

Oh.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

lilyswinburne,

Posting comments based entirely upon the real-life identities of Shipmates, especially in a manner that can result in consequences for the careers and personal lives of Shipmates, is not acceptable here.

I've deleted your comment. Do not repeat this sort of post.

Alan
Ship of Fools Admin

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Some churches may lead people toward the light, toward God, toward Jesus. Others may lead people away from.

The key may be some personal responsibility to find the right corporately worshipping group that leads you in the Jesusly direction and go there. I see authentic belief within my Pentacostal sister's church and I can honour that if I deign to be polite about it (hard I have to admit, must hold tongue). It distinctly leads me astray given the country gospel music, Oh Lordy overly demonstrative manner sprinkled with testimonials devoid of fact within a liturgy whose structure I cannot discern. I am better to go my own way on a Sunday if visiting them or take their dog to a park while they go.

Posted by ChaliceGirl (# 13656) on :

A Christian is someone who believes in Jesus Christ.

If they believe in him while standing in a church, they are Christian.

If they believe in him while standing in a bus station, they are Christian.

Just my two cents.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Zach:

quote:
But unless you are a church that meets in your house, you do have to go to church, for pete's sake!

About 30 members of my church are housebound and have Communion taken to them in their own homes by the pastoral team. I'd say they were still part of the church even though they never turn up on Sunday mornings and I don't know any of them.

Of course in that situation, you might say the church comes to them...

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Zach:
quote:
But unless you are a church that meets in your house, you do have to go to church, for pete's sake!
About 30 members of my church are housebound and have Communion taken to them in their own homes by the pastoral team. I'd say they were still part of the church even though they never turn up on Sunday mornings and I don't know any of them.

Of course in that situation, you might say the church comes to them...

There are of course exceptions. This doesn't mean we can ALL stay home. Applying one-offs to the entire church doesn't make sense. Jesus forgave the robber on the cross, but unless you're a robber on the cross repenting in the last hour of your life, that doesn't serve as a precedence for you (generic 'you').

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :

I left church about 7 years ago, after a lifetime of belonging and regular attendance (very regular - at some points in my life I was at a service a day). I still call myself a Christian and I can't see that changing.

I guess the thing that annoyed the hell out of me, in the last few years of belonging, was the notion that those who don't belong, or don't call themselves Christian, were not important. For me it started with a profile of the local psychiatric hospital chaplain, in which he said, "I am the only face of God they see." My reaction was, "well, I don't think you're doing your job right - you don't recognise the faces of God in them?"

It was a revelation, in that I started examining whether I was recognising God in everyone. My parish at the time was actively dragging me back on this - they were entirely focussed on the people in the pews. I loved them all, but we were a very homogenous bunch - well educated, well paid, articulate, government policy makers in the main. When someone outside that socioeconomic grouping came into the building, they were generally ignored, and left quite quickly. In the last couple of years I was there I attempted to do something about it, but the lack of will to welcome different people was huge.

These days I feel much more as though I have integrity in recognising all of God's people, Christian or not. I think parishes tend very much towards the "People Like Us" syndrome, whatever that is in the context. Its mostly passive, but the weight of it drives People Who Aren't Like Us away.

[ 04. October 2013, 22:42: Message edited by: Arabella Purity Winterbottom ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
It was a revelation, in that I started examining whether I was recognising God in everyone.

This is definitely something we all need to work on, whether we're in church or out. I sure need to work on it.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
I think parishes tend very much towards the "People Like Us" syndrome, whatever that is in the context. Its mostly passive, but the weight of it drives People Who Aren't Like Us away.

Yes, I expect you're right on this. It's mostly passive and also really hard to spot, until someone has the courage to point out that they received a shoddy welcome.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

mousethief:

quote:
There are of course exceptions. This doesn't mean we can ALL stay home.

I wasn't thinking of it like that - I thought of the housebound members of my church as an example of people who clearly DO feel a need for (formal) church but are physically unable to attend.

I understand why some Christians feel unable to go to church, but I am annoyed by comments such as this (originally posted by Thyme):

quote:
I practise my faith in my life outside church...

when they are used to imply that there is something superior in a person who doesn't need the 'crutch' of organised religion, and/or that someone who goes to church on Sunday doesn't practise his/her faith the rest of the week. I know you weren't saying that, Thyme, but several other people on this thread have.

[ 05. October 2013, 08:25: Message edited by: Jane R ]

Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
For me it started with a profile of the local psychiatric hospital chaplain, in which he said, "I am the only face of God they see." My reaction was, "well, I don't think you're doing your job right - you don't recognise the faces of God in them?"

...

These days I feel much more as though I have integrity in recognising all of God's people, Christian or not.

... Apart from the hospital chaplain, who did not meet your high standard?

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Anadromously: Anglo Catholic Relict no Arabella Purity Winterbottom OBVIOUSLY includes the ignorant, fearful, exclusive chaplain.

APW - you gotta go back. Because yeah, we need to go to church. That's where the battle rages strongest. The discouragement. The confrontation with uselessness. With the failure of Christianity. Ones own especially.

I have to. Why should you escape?

[ 05. October 2013, 11:01: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
... Apart from the hospital chaplain, who did not meet your high standard?

With whom I had a long conversation about it. I worked at the hospital too. Lovely man, who hadn't meant it quite the way it looked in print. Engagement is always better than assumption.

Martin, I don't feel any need to go back. My congregation is the people I see every day, my workmates and my clients. Every single day they challenge me far more than the church ever did - to be faithful, honest, and loving to the "least of these," including myself. Its hard work, harder than being put through the wringer by the church for being gay.

Its a bit of a dilemma - the churches in my city that might accept me being a lesbian aren't that into the kind of pastoral work that I believe is important. The churches that are wouldn't have a bar of me because I'm a lesbian. I decided to bypass the arguments (which were sapping my will to live after 15 years of them) and get on with it.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
My congregation is the people I see every day, my workmates and my clients. Every single day they challenge me far more than the church ever did - to be faithful, honest, and loving to the "least of these," including myself. Its hard work, harder than being put through the wringer by the church for being gay.

Its a bit of a dilemma - the churches in my city that might accept me being a lesbian aren't that into the kind of pastoral work that I believe is important.

This is an interesting approach for those who are in the caring professions. For people whose jobs aren't obviously 'pastoral' it would be more difficult for them to claim that their giving, serving and spiritual growth is happening via their work. But it depends on what exactly they're doing, I suppose.

Regarding the churches that aren't doing pastoral work, are they in that position because they lack manpower and resources, or is it because they don't really think it's important?

[ 05. October 2013, 22:29: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

I think there are plenty of regular churchgoers who see "pastoral work" as something for the clergy alone. Part of the reason for this could be that they are unsure what pastoral work is, and another strand could be the traditional British diffidence to discuss things like belief - curious given that we seem to have overcome most of our national reserve when it comes to speaking of sex or money.

Perhaps congregations need to be reminded that pastoral work is not some grand, complicated thing that requires them to knock on doors; rather it can be something as simple as going out of your way to welcome new neighbours - which most of us do already - and then go on to invite them to your church.

I say invite and I mean just that: it needs more than just telling them where the building is and when the services are - you need to say "We normally go along to the Family Service (or whatever) so why don't I come and pick you up and we can all go together". If they have children and your offspring are of similar age, you can offer to get them to Sunday School with yours.

Remember it can be quite daunting to walk into a room full of strangers - think how much worse if you perhaps have a young child or two in tow.

Bottom line is just ask: the worse that can result is that they turn you down.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Perhaps congregations need to be reminded that pastoral work is not some grand, complicated thing that requires them to knock on doors; rather it can be something as simple as going out of your way to welcome new neighbours - which most of us do already - and then go on to invite them to your church.

Getting off the point a bit, but I'd describe this as evangelism rather than pastoral work. It's certainly something all Christians should be involved in, but ISTM pastoral work is about caring for and nurturing people. Sharing their worries, being a shoulder to cry on, helping them out when they're in need; that kind of thing.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

South Coast Kevin

Not evangelism - you'll note I very carefully did not say anything about faith-sharing.

Just simply extending the practice of good-neighbourliness from pointing out the best pub, dog walks, etc, to an invite to your place of worship.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
mousethief:
quote:
There are of course exceptions. This doesn't mean we can ALL stay home.
I wasn't thinking of it like that - I thought of the housebound members of my church as an example of people who clearly DO feel a need for (formal) church but are physically unable to attend.

I understand why some Christians feel unable to go to church, but I am annoyed by comments such as this (originally posted by Thyme):

quote:
I practise my faith in my life outside church...
when they are used to imply that there is something superior in a person who doesn't need the 'crutch' of organised religion, and/or that someone who goes to church on Sunday doesn't practise his/her faith the rest of the week. I know you weren't saying that, Thyme, but several other people on this thread have.

I think we're on the same page then. I agree that being told I am an inferior being because I "have to" go to church is annoying (and irrational).

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :

I hope I haven't given that impression, Mousethief. I certainly didn't mean to.

My situation is vastly complicated by my being a lesbian in the particular city I live in - not big enough to have a wide range of congregations. You're either in, or out. It has certainly coloured my feelings about churches in general, since my general understanding is that if I bend my integrity (i.e., lie) I might be allowed in.

I loved church. But I got sick of having to fight to be allowed to perform any sort of ministry at all. What matters in the end is the ministry, not the fight, so I left. Strangely enough, this course of action had been endorsed by the General Assembly - a lady from a very anti-gay church had got up and said, "I don't know why you feel you have to perform ministry within the church, aren't there enough people in the community who need your help?"

This is another example of why I'm a bit uncertain about how churches view those who are not church members. Not only was this an extremely patronising comment to me, but it also put the "community" outside the purview of the "church."

I am however, absolutely convinced that there are wonderful people in the church who live out their ministries day to day - I know many. My own experience is my own experience - it wasn't much fun to live through.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Not evangelism - you'll note I very carefully did not say anything about faith-sharing.

Just simply extending the practice of good-neighbourliness from pointing out the best pub, dog walks, etc, to an invite to your place of worship.

Okay, I think I get you. It's just I'd always thought of pastoral work as being pretty much exclusively focused on Christians; you know, shepherding the flock (pastor and shepherd are somewhat interchangeable, ISMT).

Anyway, I realise it's a grey area without clear demarcation lines between the different roles / functions. Maybe the label for simple good-neighbourly behaviour isn't as important as I'm making out!

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

L'organist:

quote:
I think there are plenty of regular churchgoers who see "pastoral work" as something for the clergy alone. Part of the reason for this could be that they are unsure what pastoral work is...

Pastoral work is looking after each other. I certainly don't think of it as something that only the clergy should do (which is just as well, because we are in a group of five parishes and only see our Priest-in-Charge about once a month) but the people who take communion to the housebound in our parish are CALLED the pastoral team (no, they're not all ordained ministers, but they need to have spare time during the working day so they're mostly retired). Perhaps this is a difficulty with terminology; there are only so many words to describe things with, after all.

Inviting new neighbours to your church is evangelism, really. Even if it's mixed up with telling them where the best shops are and what day the binmen come, which is pastoral or just being a good neighbour.

Arabella, I am sorry to hear of your experience. You were one of the people I was thinking of when I said I could understand why some didn't feel they could come to church, but nothing you said was offensive to me. [Votive]

for GLBT Christians who are excluded from full participation in the life of their church.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0