Previously, I contended (see here) that local church involvement is not an option for believers. The church (made up of local churches) is as much God’s plan for this age as the ark was for Noah’s. At times, it’s a leaky vessel, but, it is the only boat God has in the water for this age.
I concluded:
The Bible is clear. Christians are called to be mortared into the life of a church where the Word is proclaimed, the sacraments are properly administered, and discipline is practiced. Indeed, it is characteristic of the regenerate that they will be part of a local church. Quacking doesn’t make you a duck. But, ducks do quack. A commitment to a local church doesn’t make a Christian, but Christians are committed to a church.
This should be clarified. A couple of people graciously pointed out that there are time when local church involvement is impossible or difficult.
- Some may literally never have the opportunity to be in a local church. The thief crucified next to Jesus was a believer, Jesus promised to see him in Paradise. But, the man crucified never had the opportunity to be baptized, much less be “mortared” into the life of a local church.
- Others are required to work on Sunday. We have key leaders in our church who work in law enforcement or nursing. I thank the Lord for their service. We want to be protected on Sunday. We certainly are thankful for the people who care for us in the hospital. Of course, this doesn’t mean that every police officer required to work on Sunday morning should question his or her salvation.
- There are times when believers transition from one church to another, for any number of legitimate reasons.
I am thankful those exceptions were pointed out. I am sure that there are other instances we could indentify.
Still, those are exceptions. While they should be noted, the strength of the warning should not be diminished. Christians are called to be mortared into the life of a local church. This doesn’t refer to a building per se. But, rather, is a matter of whether or not one is committed to a local church that bears the marks of a New Testament church: the Word is preached, discipline takes place, and the sacraments/ordinances are observed.
Take the case of a police officer who is required to work every Sunday. That individual still needs to be part of a local church. He or she should be baptized in a local church, should have pastors/elders, and should participate in communion whenever possible. Communion is so vital (Jesus commanded it), that a person unable to participate should talk to his or her pastor about how it could be otherwise observed with his or her own local church.
The people with whom the warning here is specifically concerned, are those who profess faith in Christ on some level, but somehow believe that commitment to a local church is optional.
- They drift from place to place.
- Avoid any long term accountability.
- Give as they see fit, but not under the authority of a church making decisions together.
- Excuse themselves from being part of a local church because they have found flaws in churches they previously attended.
My sense is that there are many who believe that being uncommitted to a local church is an acceptable place to be. At best, it is dangerous. God uses His church to protect and equip believers. It is raining rocks outside, and the church is part of how God protects believers. At worst, thinking commitment to the local church is optional is characteristic of false assurance of salvation. Remember, there are many who think they are Christians, who will one day will hear, “Depart from me, I never knew you (Matt 7:23).” “Faith without works is dead (James 2:17).”
Thank you for your interaction! Iron sharpens iron (Prov 27:17). Thoughts?
I’m with you 100% on this. Admittedly I’ved always loved the churches I’ve been priviledged to be part of and have never been able to personally comprehend people’s coldness to church and often downright animosity. Maybe I’ve just been particularly blessed.
Recently in seeking to find quotations about the church I was amazed by the quanity of negative assesments of church. I knew that sentiment existed, but it was still striking to see the boldness. I’m tempted to go beyond your statement about people finding it “acceptable” and might argue that a surprising number find it superior.
In my twennties I did an in-depth study of Ephesians and also a study of the books of Chronicles and became utterly convinced about the necessity and glory of local church life as an experession of the glory of God. It was the conviction that ultimately led me to pursue full-time ministry. Since then I’ve only been more and more convinced about the necessity of the church.
I think there is something about real, local relationships structured in authority around the cause of Christ and the gospel that addresses our true attitudes about God and His Christ. Privately and merely in families and relationships of preferences easily harbor and disguise attitudes of rebellion. These get brought out in the open and require continual repentance in the context of a local church where God chooses the people.
I would say that Sunday morning attendance and commitment to the church are not necessarily the same thing. I have been in the position of having to work on Sundays, but I was still committed as much as I could be. Commitment goes beyond mere attendance. I prayed for the church, gave financially and sent my family there while I had to work. I believed in commitment so strongly that I eventually quit my job and changed career because I saw that there would always be conflict. My experience with people who say “I have to work on Sundays” usually means that they refuse to be part of the church on any level for no other reason than that they have to work on Sundays.
Chris,
Thanks for this second post as it clears up a great deal. Understand you were arguing one side in post 1 and did not intend on engaging “What if” conditionals.
I believe it was Stuart Murray who first introduced the psychographic category of “de-churched” in his Church Planting published in 2001. Much of what he noted there applies to the concerns you raise. Without question there are many believers wandering in secular deserts and in desperate need of nourishment from God’s Word, God’s people, and God’s practices. Without it we risk concocting our own world view made up of our sense of right from wrong, truth from error, good from evil, and constuct a privatized, customized spirituality. Of course we need Christ but, as Hebrews makes clear, we need one another as well and regular fellowship keeps us from the dangers of apostasy (Heb 10:24-25).
Moreover, just as Paul instructed Timothy (pastor of the church in Ephesus), “God’s household, which is the church of the living God, [is] the pillar and foundation of the truth.” This suggests to me that the primary, though not exclusive, means God uses to preserve and proclaim truth is the church, made up of believers who meet regularly as far as is possible.