I often hear it said that “we don’t go to church for people, but for God.” This is usually said in the context of addressing interpersonal problems at church: “Just because Sister Susie did you wrong, that doesn’t mean you should stop going to church. God is still there, so you should come to church for Him.”
While I understand the intent behind such a statement, I think it is almost entirely backward. While it’s true that we go to church for God, the primary purpose for attending a local assembly is for the people present, not for God. After all, most things we do for God at church – worship, pray, sing, read Scripture – can be done by oneself in the privacy of their home. What we cannot do by ourselves, however, is experience Christian community and minister to the needs of one another. We need to assemble with other believers for that – what is commonly called “going to church.”
Paul made this point abundantly clear. He described the church as a body of believers. Each member of that body has been endowed with certain gifts, which are intended to be used to edify other members of the body (Rom 12:3-8; 1 Cor 12). Each member of Christ’s body is “joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, [and] when each part is working properly, [it] makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love.” (Eph 4:16, ESV) Just like our own bodies require several members to function and to function properly, likewise the body of Christ requires many members to function and to functional properly. Each member is just that – a single member – and thus incomplete without other believers. You may be an arm in the body. As such, there’s not much you can do on your own. You need the legs, feet, torso, and hands to be effective. Likewise, the hands have need of you if they hope to be effective. Only when we come together as one do we truly constitute the body of Christ, and only when we come together can we share our mutual gifts so that we might receive mutual benefit. We come together to care for one another, encourage one another, weep with one another, and rejoice with one another (Rom 12:15; 1 Cor 12:25-26; Heb 10:25). If we fail to interact with one another, we fail to have church.
So contrary to the popular slogan, we do go to church for people. In fact, if we are not going to church for people, then we are going to church for the wrong reasons.
November 10, 2009 at 7:15 am
I do agree with this Jason–but ultimately we have to go to church for ourselves. To stay strong in the Word and Spirit. And as you said to stay connected to the body. A verse that means alot to me (because there was a time in my life when I was not connected to the body) is 1 John 1:7. “If we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanses us from all sin.”
But we must always be seeking to minister to others as we seek God. As my pastor says “It’s not all about you!”
Lynne
LikeLike
November 10, 2009 at 7:28 am
Jason,
I agree with your assessment. The church wouldn’t be the church without people. Worshiping together is helpful like you said, it is a meeting place with each other and a meeting place with God.
However, if someone is not like Christ at church I can’t stop going because of people.
You’ve been debunking some good things. I’m curious of your thoughts on debunking this one, “You are too heavenly minded that you are of no earthly good.”
LikeLike
November 10, 2009 at 8:35 am
Good topic Jason…
I am continually grieved at how many of us perceive “church” … for one, like you said Jason, the assembly is for each other, to expereince that which cannot be experienced individually. So yes, we gather together for each other, for the very reasons you shared.
Another aspect that puzzles me concerning how we have church is the strong emphasis on externally feeling the presence of the Lord “in this place” (in the building)…I still think many people fail to realize that our BODY is the temple of the Holy Spirit. I hear so much about “invoking the presence of God in this place” or “inviting the Spirit of the Lord in this place” – etc… I do realize that God exists externally to our bodies, but if we are filled with His Spirit, then why the overbearing emphases on inviting Him into “this place” (the building), if in fact you are filled, He is already in you and therefore “in this place” and ANYplace you go? Why is there the strong expectation and desire of God’s presence around us for that two hour time frame verses the satisfaction of His Spirit continually in us? Why do we wait for God to “show up” in service if in fact He is there in us already?
But just to stay on topic (lol) – Jason, I think that is one reason why people say, “we go to church for God” – because the praying, the worshiping, the singing that you mentioned- it seems that many people only do that fervently when assembled together, AND/OR they believe that you only encounter the “fullness” of God’s presence when it’s done “at church” … why? because they say “God inhabits the praises of His people” – at that happens only at church it is said…these are things I hear constantly…
And one more thing – I think too many of us are imbalanced pertaining to our focus concerning the body of Christ…meaning we do everything “for God” WHILE simultaneously not doing much for or denying interaction between each other. Once again, as you mentioned with the aspect of interpersonal problems, we still encourage people to go to church “for God” even if there is a rift among members. But did God not say that the equally great commandment is to love each other as ourselves? How can we purely and authentically do anything for God (and He accept it) if there is known division between me and another brother/sister? Aren’t we supposed to settle the aught before offering our gift of praise and prayer to the Lord?
Yes, we do it for God, but as God lives in my brother and sister, how I treat them is also a reflection of how I am “doing it for God” – and sometimes, what is done, is, well, a mess.
LikeLike
November 10, 2009 at 9:14 am
Jason,
This is a good article and reminds me of arguments with my brother in what the purpose of church is.
My view is that the main purpose of a church service (on a Sunday) is for fellowship with fellow believers and be nourished by prayer and praise.
His view is that the main purpose is to evangelise (implying that most churches are broken).
LikeLike
November 10, 2009 at 9:17 am
@michaelwbryant
The purpose of inviting God “into this place” to me is saying that you are claiming it for God’s Spirit and reaffirming that it is a place of worship (especially where we worship as it is a “secular” venue and is used for parties etc)
LikeLike
November 10, 2009 at 9:18 am
This post is right on. Any study of the New Testament church will reveal the element of being God’s temple collectively was just as important as being God’s temple individually.
It’s all about brothers and sisters, the family of God. From communion to worship, to taking up collections for those in need, this is the goal of the Christian community.
Great post!
LikeLike
November 10, 2009 at 9:20 am
Scott, That’s an incredible table topic discussion. I think many of our churches think the church gathering on Sunday is evangelism first, not realizing that evangelism should be happening throughout the week, in dinner tables at homes, coffee shops, homeless shelters, etc.
When things are in the right order, and the church is being the church all week long, evangelism happens without coerced effort.
LikeLike
November 10, 2009 at 11:11 am
@Scott – oh that is interesting! I have never heard that explanation before….
Have you ever heard the expression used in the context I shared? About the inviting of the external ‘sensation’ of God’s presence?
LikeLike
November 10, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Lynne,
I don’t want to ruin a good verse for you, but the context indicates that the fellowship referenced in 1 John 1:7 is between us and God, not between each other.
Jason
LikeLike
November 10, 2009 at 12:09 pm
cs,
I have mixed feelings on the claim “you are so heavenly minded that you are of no earthly good.” It depends on how one defines it, and where they place the emphasis. I don’t think we can ever become too heavenly minded, but I do think there are people whose heavenly-mindedness does make them of little earthly good. I’ve known people that deemed themselves so spiritual that they would not take reality seriously, or apply wisdom to situations. Every situation is met by “we just need to pray.” Yes, we do need to pray, but we also need to exercise wisdom. Or I think of those who spend a lot of time in prayer for the lost, but never actually do what Jesus said to do: go out and present the Gospel to them. If we are silent with the Gospel, we are not being of any earthly good.
Jason
LikeLike
November 10, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Michael,
I could say a lot about our obsession with feeling the Spirit, and how wrong-headed it is. But I won’t! I will only say that what I think people mean by saying they want the Spirit to come into the place is for the Spirit to manifest Himself in a powerful, felt way.
Yes, I think you are right Michael. I would bet that most Christians experience most of their spirituality (praying, reading the Bible, etc.) at church, and thus they view that as their “God time.” I think another reason is that the way we do church today, we have only focused on God, rather than on people. It’s easy to go to church and avoid any real and meaningful contact with people.
Jason
LikeLike
November 10, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Scott,
I’m with you on this one. The idea that evangelism should take place during a church service is about as unapostolic as you can get. I’m not saying we can’t or shouldn’t do it, but that’s not where they seemed to have evangelized in the early church. They evangelized in the streets. Church is where the saved people congregated to receive ministry (in the Word), and to minister to others.
Jason
LikeLike
November 10, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Well, it’s been a little while since I’ve disagreed with you, Jason, but I must respectfully object on both logical scriptural grounds. You write,
I think there’s a logical misstep here. Church, in the sense of a house of worship for Christians, entails the presence of other human beings engaged in a common purpose. But the primary reason for the gathering itself is Christ, else it would not be church.
Consider a non-church public gathering like basketball. I can play basketball by myself or with others. But if I play with others, the primary reason for the gathering is still basketball. My primary reason for playing is not first, social interaction, then basketball. In other words, if I want to play basketball and my friends don’t want to play, then there will be no game. The prerequisite of the gathering is basketball.
The same works for church. If my brothers and sisters would rather play poker, then I won’t attend. I am going primarily to worship God and to receive instruction from God’s word. This necessitates social interaction, but it is not the primary reason. I may need oxygen to breath, but my primary reason for breathing is not oxygen intake, it is to live. If breathing oxygen is what it takes to live, then I’ll breath it, but my primary motivation is to live.
While I certainly agree the “Church” is the living body of believers, there would be no Church (in that sense) without Christ. If you strictly define “Church” in that sense, then it is nonsensical to say the primary reason we come to the “living body of believers” is to interact with other people. No, Jason, the reason we came into the church is because we fell in love with Jesus Christ and wanted to spend eternity with Him. As a result, He brought us into the Church (we could never join it).
I Corinthians 12 (NIV)
13. For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.
We come into the Church by God’s Spirit. And we could never get in without our primary motivation being to be united with Christ.
On the other hand, if you are referring (as heretofore stated) to a public gathering place for worship (not part of your scriptural case), then for aforesaid reasons, any gathering disintegrates without a preexisting cause. And in this case, the cause is Christ.
Psalm 26 (NASB)
8. Oh LORD, I love the habitation of your house And the place where your glory dwells.
Psalm 27 (KJV)
4. One thing have I desired of the LORD, that will I seek after; that I may dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of my life, to behold the beauty of the LORD, and to enquire in his temple.
The primary purpose here is to behold the beauty of the Lord. Everything else comes after that reason.
Why go to church? Do you believe the Bible commands public worship? If so, then that further augments my argument. We go primarily because God commands us to go. We assemble with believers out of our love for His commandments and our earnest desire to please Him. If he wants me to go to “church,” I’ll be there!
LikeLike
November 10, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Scalia,
I am talking about the public gathering of believers.
Yes, Christ is the ultimate reason we are gathering. In fact, Christ is the basis on which we constitute a body of believers in the first place (the spiritual church). But I don’t need you to be in the room with me to worship Christ, or to read the revelation He has given me in Scripture. I can do those things all by myself.
And I’m not just talking about social interaction, or what is commonly called fellowship. That’s important, but I’m talking about ministering to one another. I’m talking about using our gifts (both natural and spiritual) to minister to one another’s spiritual needs. That is why we come together under one roof. That’s the only thing that you and I can’t do at home by ourselves. When we come together I can minister to you from the Word of God, sharing with you insights I have gained. Likewise, you can do the same. I can encourage you, and you can encourage me. I can minister to you in spiritual gifts, and you can do the same to me.
God commands worship, not pubic worship per se (it’s not as though if you were stranded on an island by yourself that you would be breaking God’s commandment by not worshipping with others). But because he has designed for believers to come together, there will be public worship as well. Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying we should not focus on God when we gather. Obviously we should. I’m saying that our God focus is for the benefit of all parties present, not just ourselves. We’re not there to get our Holy Ghost fix and go home. If all you want is a Holy Ghost fix, then stay home and get it. Church is for the community of believers. It is our focus on God while gathered together that generates the kind of ministry to one another that I am speaking of.
As for your Scripture citations, the OT cult system revolved around the temple. That was the center of God’s presence. The same is not true today. The veil has been torn. God is not located in a particular building. We don’t need to go to a church to encounter God or learn from His word. That’s not to say we shouldn’t want to go to church, just as David wanted to go to the temple. We should, but the reason is not the same as David’s reason. David couldn’t find what he was looking for anywhere else. We can, and do.
Yes, the Bible commands us to gather together. But that in itself doesn’t tell us the purpose for it. That’s what I am interested in, and the Bible tells us why.
Jason
LikeLike
November 10, 2009 at 1:57 pm
Jason, you didn’t engage my arguments. You’re merely restating your post. And your reply demonstrates you’re not even trying to understand what I am saying.
My Old Testament citations can be interpreted either way (building or body of believers). The point is that God is the primary reason for my participation, else I would not be there.
You don’t get into the Church without Christ being your primary motivation; and ANY gathering necessitates a preexisting cause, else there would be no gathering. If Jason’s testimony, song or message edifies me, it is because I want to draw closer to God. My primary motivation for hearing you sing or preach is to draw closer to the Lord. Your argument is fine without the word primary.
Remember the bowling ball/pillow analogy? Even if the effect is eternal, it would still need an ontological preexisting cause. The effect is “church” and the cause is Christ. No cause, no church.
LikeLike
November 10, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Scalia,
what verses are you referencing that command us to have public worship?
Also, I certainly can’t speak for Jason, but I will say that it seems to me you are misunderstanding what Jason was saying (I could be wrong! We shall soon find out!) –
Jason said that the primary reason for gathering is for the people present, not God (keep in mind, he also said that we DO go to church for God)…what I think Jason is implying is that when we gather, we gather FOR the benefit of each other, not the benefit of God. I am thinking as of now that where there is a purpose, there is a need…meaning the fulfillment of a purpose is therefore fulifilling a need. Well, who is in need? God or us?
Acts 17:24-25 reads:
24 God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. 25 Nor is He worshiped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things.
So we do not go to church FOR God to worship AS THOUGH He needed anything…our worship is not for His lacking anything. Yes, we worship Him because we love Him. But as Jason stated (and I agree), we can worship alone (meaning with the fruit of our lips we can honor God, sing, lay before Him, etc) – that can be done alone. However, our assembling together is PRIMARILY purposed for each other’s benefit and need of edification, exhortation, etc (the reasons given in Jason’s initial post). God does not command us to be side by side worshipping for HIS benefit – but we DO assemble together for the benefit of each other, as we also honor God through direct praise/worship.
Now, of course we would not assemble together if we were not in and of Christ nor loved Him- I think we are all on one accord concerning that 🙂 I am THINKING Jason’s emphasis is on the fact that when we assemble together, we minister to each other (and any outsider that may come in – 1 Cor 14:24), in the Spirit of Christ.
Why do we assemble together? In addition to what was already shared, here is some more understanding on the matter (further emphasizing that the purpose is for each other, as we collectively fellowship, edify each other, and honor God) —
Acts 2 –
41 Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them. 42 And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers. 43 Then fear came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles. 44 Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, 45 and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need. 46 So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart, 47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.
LikeLike
November 10, 2009 at 2:16 pm
FYI!!! I just posted my response to Scalia’s FIRST reply…now I see both Jason and Scalia have responded to each other – I have NOT read those…I must have been typing when you all typed…soooo, let me see what yall said – if I had read your replies first, it may have determined what I shared. Well, it is what it is! 🙂
LikeLike
November 10, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Scalia,
It’s best if you don’t try to divine my intents and motives. Like the rest of us, you’re not very good at it. Only me and God are privy to that information. I always try to understand what others are saying, and I always try to address their arguments. I’m not into evading arguments or playing word games with people. So give me the benefit of the doubt if I appear to have missed your point. Either you weren’t clear, I wasn’t clear, or my brain isn’t firing on all cylinders today. Such is the nature of communication. Let’s bat back-and-forth a little more before we draw further conclusions.
I do think I addressed your concerns. In fact, I don’t think you and I are really saying different things. We just seem to be using different words and having a slightly different emphasis. For example, you raised the point again about God being our primary purpose (I would prefer “motivation”) for participation in church. But I agreed with you in my last post. I said, “Yes, Christ is the ultimate reason we are gathering.” And again, “I’m saying that our God focus is for the benefit of all parties present, not just ourselves. … It is our focus on God while gathered together that generates the kind of ministry to one another that I am speaking of.” What motivates us to minister to others and receive ministry from others is because we think serving God is the most important thing in life, and thus we go to church to help others do so better, and to be helped by them to do so better ourselves. But where are the people so that we can accomplish this? At church. So if we go to church and do not interact with other people for the sake of their benefit, are we really “doing church?” I am saying no, we aren’t. God is everywhere, but fellow believers can only be found at church.
As for your OT citations, they can’t be interpreted either way. It’s clear what David is referring to when he talks about dwelling in the house of the Lord. It was the temple, not a body of believers. That was the ONLY place of worship in Israel. That was the only place God manifested His presence. The Bible is equally clear that such is not the case anymore. Worship of God is not centered around a building. Jesus told the woman at the well that there would come a time that people would not be fighting over what mountain to worship God on, because they would worship Him in spirit and in truth wherever they are. Why? Because the veil of the temple was rent in two, and the Spirit is no longer confined to a temple made with hands, but is now in temples made of flesh. The idea of a “body of believers” is a NT concept. It’s because the Spirit now dwells in us rather than a building that we, collectively, constitute the temple of God, the body of Christ.
Jason
LikeLike
November 10, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Jason,
I’m reminded of a talk radio host who, when told by a caller “no you think X,” replies “I am the world’s foremost expert on what I think.”
The problem with the basketball analogy is that you don’t play the game alone, so when you gather to play basketball it’s probably your primary reason for gathering. But interacting with God can (and is) done alone, as well as in a group, so it’s unlikely that it would be your reason for gathering.
I think a better analogy would be watching a basketball game on TV, which can be done either alone or with friends. You can watch the game perfectly well by yourself, so the primary reason for the gathering is the other people.
BTW, I think most people do not go to church to fellowship or to pray to God, but because they believe they’re sinning if they don’t go.
Arthur
LikeLike
November 10, 2009 at 4:51 pm
Jason, your post clearly stated that the “primary” reason for going to church is for the people present, not God. You clarified that by saying Christ is the “ultimate” reason for a church gathering, but ultimate isn’t the same as primary. You now further clarify that by saying you agree with me…well, sort of, in that you would replace my “purpose” with “motivation.” We can argue about the distinction between those terms if you’d like, but suffice it to say for now I consider it a distinction without substance.
I agree with all you say about the benefits of attending church and the fact that church attendance entails social interaction. My “breathing” example addressed that. While spiritual social interaction is essential, it is not the primary reason we go to church. I think my previous exampleS illustrate that clearly.
Surely you know the OT passages I cited are interpreted in various ways. Do you read them in a strict historical context or do you apply them in any way to your present relationship with God? Whether or not you do, I am merely acknowledging that to simply make a point. Of course the psalmist referred to a literal temple. A literal place of worship was also being referred to when it was said, “I was glad when they said unto me, let us go into the house of the LORD.” That doesn’t mean we cannot apply those verses in a modern context. Either way, the Lord is the primary purpose for going to His house.
Finally, as to divining your intentions, I am reminded somebody recently chastised me for reading an assertion into his remarks he did not make. Although I believe he missed my point, I agreed with him because he was technically correct. You’re too smart to have missed the points I was making and you DIDN’T address my arguments. My objection is with your use of the word primary. My objection stands.
LikeLike
November 10, 2009 at 4:57 pm
Arthur, Jason didn’t offer the basketball illustration, I did.
In any event, I acknowledged the game can be played along or with others. As you admit, the primary reason for playing is basketball. That’s my only point.
As to watching the game, if you went to your friends’ house to watch a basketball game and they told you they would rather watch porno movies, I think you’d go home. You went to watch basketball, not something else. Similarly, if I went to Jason’s church where he preaches and sings, I would leave if he merely quoted FDR and sang Rock Around the Clock. That’s not why I go; I go to serve the Lord.
LikeLike
November 10, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Jason, I didn’t complete my thought in the last paragraph of my response to your latest post. I really believe you skimmed through my rebuttal a little too quickly and missed what I was saying. I do not believe you are lying about your motives.
I read most of what you write here. When logic is on your side, your rebuttals are very thorough. When it isn’t you tend to repeat yourself. I accept your explanation.
LikeLike
November 10, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Arthur,
I like your modification to Scalia’s illustration. I think it is more analogous.
Jason
LikeLike
November 10, 2009 at 5:18 pm
Jason, church attendance isn’t passive, it is active. Nonetheless, if the primary motive is just to get together with friends, then “church” is irrelevant. I can do that without going to church. But as I pointed out, if the primary purpose is to watch the game with friends, you’d leave if they wanted to watch something you objected to.
LikeLike
November 10, 2009 at 5:34 pm
Thanks alot Jason!
Lynne
LikeLike
November 10, 2009 at 6:01 pm
Scalia,
Yes, I did say that. And I stick by that. That’s why I think we are haggling more over terms than we are concepts.
Let me try to say it this way: the purpose of everything we do is to grow closer to God, and this can be done alone in our home. The motivation for pursuing this goal at a church as opposed to by ourselves at home is people: through their ministry to me I will grow closer to God than I could on my own, and likewise through my ministry to them they will grow closer to God than they could on their own. If when I got to the church building no one was there, I might as well have just stayed home. What makes church different from what I do at home is the people present. That’s why I’m saying we go to church because of the people.
You are appealing to application now? When you cited those verses you seemed to be appealing to interpretation. You know as well as I do that it’s only interpretation that carries any authority. I find it strange that if you were appealing to application that you didn’t make any.
While I am flattered that you think me too smart to misunderstand you, I am dismayed that you still claim to know what I was thinking better than I do! You say in comment #22 that you aren’t doing this—that you believe I simply missed what you were saying because I skimmed through your comment too quickly (which I didn’t btw, I actually read through it 2x). But how else am I to interpret your claim in comment #20 that unlike someone you were speaking with recently, I am “too smart to have missed the points” you were making. On the one hand you say I must have understood what you meant but chose not to engage your arguments and that I’m not even trying to understand you (your words), but then immediately afterwards you say I did miss what you were saying (because I was in a hurry). Which accusation and guess-work is it?
Then you go on to say, “When logic is on your side, your rebuttals are very thorough. When it isn’t you tend to repeat yourself.” Again, this is you claiming to my mind/motives. Worse yet, I take this to be a slam against my personal and intellectual integrity. It sounds to me like you are saying I am playing word games with people–that when I think I’m right, I hit people with my proofs, but when I think I’m wrong, I just keep repeating my initial arguments because I don’t have any response to the counter-arguments. Why? Presumably because I can’t admit I am wrong. I find that deeply offensive. Why? Because I seek and love truth more than anything else in life. My entire life is consumed with this pursuit. I am constantly evaluating my beliefs to make sure they are right. And I have changed my mind on so many things based on the evidence that I have discovered or that others have presented to me that I cannot even count them all—including major issues that have had severe ramifications for me personally, professionally, and financially. If I thought what you were saying was right, I would change my mind, just as I did on the issue of “nothing can be known of God except the truth that nothing can be known of God.”
As for repeating myself, I find myself doing that with you more than most. I do largely because as I read your comments, it often appears that you have missed my point (which may be a result of my poor communication), so I try to convey my point in a different way to you to help alleviate any possible confusion. It’s not to evade anything.
I enjoy the contributions you make to this blog. I simply wish you would stick to the issues/arguments rather than making it personal by accusing people of ignoring this, evading that, not trying to understand you, having a certain motive, etc. None of those things matter, even if you are right about them. What matters are the ideas. If you wanted an answer to something I did not answer, ask me to answer that. Be charitable in your assumptions. Presume that I didn’t respond because I didn’t understand the question, didn’t think it significant, passed over it in error, thought I answered it as part of my response to something else you asked, etc. There are a whole host of reasons as to why you may not receive the answer you were looking for. Communication is sloppy, and achieving understanding is not always easy. Just because people are not understanding each other or agreeing with one another does not mean anyone has ill intent or ill motives. We’re all just trying to get closer to the truth, or at least so I hope.
Jason
LikeLike
November 10, 2009 at 6:10 pm
Scalia,
Where did I say church attendance is passive? I’ve been saying the complete opposite. I’ve been saying the purpose is to minister to one another. That is active.
I have also made it abundantly clear that I am not talking about hanging out. I don’t need to go to church to do that either. I am talking about ministering to one another. I have made seven comments to that effect prior to your comment:
“minister to the needs of one another”
“Each member of that body has been endowed with certain gifts, which are intended to be used to edify other members of the body (Rom 12:3-8; 1 Cor 12). “
“Only when we come together as one do we truly constitute the body of Christ, and only when we come together can we share our mutual gifts so that we might receive mutual benefit. We come together to care for one another, encourage one another, weep with one another, and rejoice with one another (Rom 12:15; 1 Cor 12:25-26; Heb 10:25). “
“And I’m not just talking about social interaction, or what is commonly called fellowship. That’s important, but I’m talking about ministering to one another. I’m talking about using our gifts (both natural and spiritual) to minister to one another’s spiritual needs.”
“When we come together I can minister to you from the Word of God, sharing with you insights I have gained. Likewise, you can do the same. I can encourage you, and you can encourage me. I can minister to you in spiritual gifts, and you can do the same to me.”
“It is our focus on God while gathered together that generates the kind of ministry to one another that I am speaking of.”
“What motivates us to minister to others and receive ministry from others is because we think serving God is the most important thing in life, and thus we go to church to help others do so better, and to be helped by them to do so better ourselves.”
So how can you characterize what I am saying as “hanging out with friends”?
Jason
LikeLike
November 10, 2009 at 10:54 pm
Michael, thank you for your message. As always, you are good for engaging dialog.
I agree with this, and I believe I’ve stated as much “while the fur was flying.” 🙂 Yet, remember the context of his post. He spoke of Sister Susie doing somebody wrong and a fellow church member advising the offended party not to quit going to church because, “[Y]ou should come to church for Him” He then said he thinks that is almost entirely backward. That is what I object to and that is the focus of our disagreement (other than his motivation behind not understanding my rebuttal).
The principle of charitable interpretation informs that that we should put a person’s argument in its best possible light. I think that is what motivates your interpretation of Jason’s post and I believe that is admirable. However, this principle does not imply we should change a person’s argument to make it look better than it is. Jason’s words are clear enough and I objected on logical and scriptural grounds. I don’t believe I misunderstood him.
Agreed, but I’m not making that argument. God doesn’t “need” your worship or mine — anywhere. He commands our worship, but His commandments are not grievous. We worship Him out of love and receive instruction under the government He has established in the Church (I Cor. 12).
I firmly believe the social aspects of the Church is essential to our walk with God. And point Jason has made in that regard I wholeheartedly agree with. My disagreement with him is as I’ve stated it to be. I don’t think I could be clearer in that regard.
Thanks again for your message.
LikeLike
November 11, 2009 at 12:19 am
Jason wrote,
Rather than assume what you’re sticking by, perhaps you will clarify what you’re referring to. I have a good idea what you’re getting at, but it’s perhaps best to let you clear that up.
Yes, it can be done at home; it can also be done at church. And since going to church is included in “everything we do” then the primary purpose of going to church is to draw closer to God. Exactly my point.
Again, the glue that holds this all together is our desire to draw closer to God. Without that as a prerequisite, the “gathering” is senseless, unless we’re merely seeking human company. And if that is the case, we don’t need church.
By the way, the word purpose is synonymous with intent — Aim, goal, result or effect that is intended or desired. A motive is something that makes a person choose to act in a particular way. In a word, reason. Hence, there is no logical distinction here. That’s why your argument doesn’t work. You’re logically trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Whether we worship at home or at church, the PRIMARY cause, motivation, intention and purpose is to draw closer to God and to please Him. Without that as the sine qua non our “spiritual” efforts are meaningless.
Of course one cannot “apply” a verse one doesn’t understand; and to understand a verse, one must interpret it. You objected to my use of OT verses by affirming a distinction between their type of worship and ours. You argued David’s reason for going (there was no Temple in his day, just the Tabernacle, but I know what you mean) is different than ours.
My use of the word interpret was not to settle the “house of God” issue here. I merely acknowledge that many others interpret these passages directly and prophetically (or in signification). Even acknowledging your strict historical interpretation I affirmed you still apply those verses in a contemporary church attendance context (as your reply demonstrates).
LikeLike
November 11, 2009 at 12:32 am
Jason said,
You “said” this when you agreed that Arthur’s counter-analogy about watching a basketball game as opposed to playing one is a better one than I offered. It isn’t because watching TV is passive.
Then watching TV isn’t a better illustration (more analogous), is it?
Why would we go to church to be “ministered” to if the primary reason was not to draw closer to God? Yes, ministering necessitates involving other human beings; but as my “breathe” example illustrates, involving others cannot logically be the primary reason for seeking and giving spiritual aid.
LikeLike
November 11, 2009 at 1:57 am
Brother Jason, now that the “topic” rebuttals are out of the way, for now, I’d like to address a non-topic issue I raised — your failure to understand my initial rebuttal.
Here are my statements in that regard:
Now, Jason, you write:
Jason, I’ve read a lot of your material (here and at your other site). It is evident you are comfortable with logical and philosophical concepts. When you offered your initial reply to my rebuttal, I was astounded by your failure to engage my arguments. At that point, I figured you were hitting the keyboard a little too quickly and wasn’t bothering to comprehend why I was objecting. So, yes, you can “miss” my point by inattention.
Now, to answer your question, it appeared the only rational explanation for that was your apparent inattention. Since I deem you “too smart” to misunderstand something as uncomplicated as my rebuttal was, I felt I had to chalk it up to speed over accuracy (or advocacy over analysis). At that point, I believed you were more interested in “clarifying” your position than grasping why there is disagreement. Is that evil? I think not. It is a common human failing not restricted to bloggers. So, while I thought you didn’t really try to understand my objection, I thought that could be explained by your advocacy. I didn’t believe you were lying about your motives. Advocacy isn’t necessarily evil, but it can prevent one from grasping a counter-position. It’s not a slap at your integrity, it’s a slap at your methodology.
As to repeating yourself, that is my observation of your debating style. Your demonstrated ability to change your mind about major issues does not prevent you, or me, from engaging in rose-colored advocacy. Debate helps to weed out methodological flaws and to see where we veer off course. A “repeater” isn’t necessarily disingenuous. S/he may merely be trying to clarify h/er remarks without realizing they are not getting her anywhere. I do not believe you are disingenuous.
As I believe our back-and-forth demonstrates, your continued clarifications only muddle the matter. And all of it could have been avoided by simply saying, “I think I worded my post incorrectly. Of course the primary reason we come to church is for God, not men; but coming to church is meaningless unless there are people in it who minister to each other. I DO go to church for the people, because I go there to please God.” End of story.
Finally, I agree all this talk about mind-reading is tangential and distracting in the extreme.
Best wishes,
Scalia
LikeLike
November 11, 2009 at 3:02 am
Michael,
when people pray for the “sensation” part of God, I think they are partly wrong as this is the only place where they actually spend time interacting with God (and I find myself in this situation far too often!) and so get to feel that they are in the presence of God!
Saying that, I often pray that visitors will have a powerful encounter with God in order that they feel that we worship a real deity.
LikeLike
November 11, 2009 at 6:31 am
Scott,
I see and agree with what you are saying. Also, I too pray the visitor will have a powerful encounter with God in order that they feel that we worship a real deity…I am thinking that Paul had this desire too, and here is how he said a visitor (particularly an unlearned) would know that God is among us:
1 Corinthians 14:24-25
24 But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an uninformed person comes in, he is convinced by all, he is convicted by all. 25 And thus[c] the secrets of his heart are revealed; and so, falling down on his face, he will worship God and report that God is truly among you.
LikeLike
November 11, 2009 at 6:39 am
Hello Scalia –
When you get time (as I see you and Jason are engaged in dialogue at the moment) – can you address my post from yesterday? I asked you a question and I shared some thoughts, and I wanted to know your response (if you had one) – just ignore the “I think what Jason is saying is…” and substitute it with “what I am saying is” (I being ME, Michael)…
LikeLike
November 11, 2009 at 6:40 am
SCALIA!!! NEVERMIND!!!
Ok, these post got longer than I thought! LOL – You DID respond – sorry! Let me read that…I missed it – apologies….
LikeLike
November 11, 2009 at 7:20 am
There are some good comments here. I would like to add another aspect though. What if you are part of a church where the leadership is starting to go astray from sound doctrine and the congregants are participating in wicked conduct (i.e. dressing immodestly, gossiping, defrauding one another..etc). Are we still obligated to fulfill one of the most quoted verses regarding church attendance, Hebrews 10:25 “Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together..”
How can one be edified, challanged spirtually, and experience the love of Christ with all of this confusion and foolishness going on? Yet as you say Jason, more often than not, folks will continue to hide under the cloak of “I don’t go to church for people, but i go for God”. IMO, it just doesn’t properly apply to all situations.
my 2cents
LikeLike
November 11, 2009 at 8:01 am
To continue the watching basketball on TV analogy, you gather to watch the game and to hang out with your friends.
If nobody at the gathering speaks with each other, you might as well be watching the game alone. However, if people just speak with each other and don’t watch the game, then the basketball game isn’t a high priority for you. (I’m imagining a bunch of guys all sitting around watching the TV while their wives/gfs stand in the kitchen talking about life.)
There’s a dual purpose for the gathering, and it would be wrong to pretend there is only one. But the primary purpose for throwing a party, as opposed to watching the game alone, is for the collective experience. If Sister Susie is ruining the collective experience, it’s legitimately a problem.
LikeLike
November 11, 2009 at 8:16 am
Authur, good analogy.
LikeLike
November 11, 2009 at 9:00 am
Arthur, I agree there’s a dual purpose in your counter-illustration; but therein is a primary reason for your get-together. It appears your get-together isn’t really for the basketball game. Rather, you just want to spend some time with friends (the game is ancillary).
Of course we go to church to be with other people and to lend each other assistance in our walk with God. As Michael Medved might say, “Focus like a laser on the word primary.” All I’m arguing is the primary reason for going to church is to draw closer to God. I am not arguing there aren’t other reasons.
LikeLike
November 11, 2009 at 9:29 am
Scalia,
I read your reply to me. Thanks. So in a nutshell, you are saying that the primary reason for going to church is to draw closer to God, while Jason (correct me if I am wrong Jason!) is stating that the primary reason we go to church is to minister and to edify each other. Both of you agree that there are multiple reasons for corporate assembling, but the primary reasons differ. But you both also agree that everything we do should be an attempt to draw closer to God. Would that be correct?
Well, I see what both of you are saying…
Scalia, do you have any NT support to validate your claim that the primary reason we attend church is to draw closer to God?
All of this has me thinking though…hmmm…interesting indeed…
LikeLike
November 11, 2009 at 10:22 am
Ok, so here is my current conclusion:
Jesus said that the greatest commandment is to Love the Lord our God with all our heart, mind, soul and strength. He goes onto say that likened unto this commandment is to love our neighbor as ourself. Jesus also said to the sheep and the goats that what we do unto the least, we do unto Him (Jesus).
Additionally, the scriptures teach us that if we love God, we are to love our brother/sister (whom God lives in) as well. Also, the scriptures say that we know we have passed from life to death when we love the brethern. The scriptures are also plentiful concerning what is the benefit of corporate worship as it relates to each other and unbelievers, all done in the name of the Lord.
Considering that, as of now, I personally feel that the line is too thin to set up an either/or stance concerning what is the “primary” purpose of corporate worship. The two are connected and likened as one: to love the Lord God with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength, and to love our neighbor as ourselves. These cannot be separated – if they are we are in error (my current belief). How do we love our neighbors as ourselves? By fulfilling the abundance of scriptures which speak of the edification, exhorting, etc that transpires when we commune in corporate worship (all of these things can be done “outside” of corporate worship as well – its how we supposed to live our lives in totality).
My point is, you can’t go to church and honor and draw close to God and yet not equally honor and draw close God who lives in my neighbor. Now, the EXPRESSION is different- I dont bow down to my neighbor…but the primary purpose of corporate worship to ME is two fold: 1a)to draw close to God through praise, prayer, and worship -ALSO, 1b)to edify and exhort, etc to each other and unbelievers that may be present (doing that through the power of God).
For me, if I try to place one above the other, I feel I am missing the intent of God’s repeated teaching that loving Him and loving each other are likened to each other.
LikeLike
November 11, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Hello again, Michael! I think we’re almost there. I’m VERY GLAD you see the disagreement here. You wrote,
Yes, I believe so.
Colossians 3 (KJV)
23. And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men;
Whatever we do, our primary regard is to the Lord first. Everything else comes after Him.
Colossians 3 (KJV)
17. And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.
Notice, it’s not the other way around: People first, then God. God always comes first.
Mark 12 (KJV)
30. And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.
31. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
Notice how Jesus puts our obligations and responsibilities to man in second position. That, of course, does not render the “second” commandment unimportant. It simply puts it in its proper order.
Does this clear that up?
LikeLike
November 11, 2009 at 1:05 pm
Michael, my last scripture quotation left out a verse. My apologies.
Mark 12 (KJV)
29. And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
Verses 29 & 30 go together and form the first of all the commandments…”
🙂
LikeLike
November 11, 2009 at 2:04 pm
without getting so theorhetical. How can a person constantly attend fellowship where there is disharmony? From what i see, based on the comments and scripture, Loving God and loving your neighbor supposed to go hand in hand. But if i am guilty of defrauding my neighbor, then how is the love of God being manifested? And if the love of God is not being manifested through out the fellowship, then what is the use in going?
LikeLike
November 11, 2009 at 2:18 pm
truthofgod –
I believe you have a valid inquiry indeed. I CONSTANTLY see discord among Christains at churches (and message boards). And yes, some therefore go to another church or some stop going alltogether. But it is my understanding that just because there is challenge or discord, we should not “give up” on corporate worship. Because whether you meet corporately or not (and we should meet), the discord has already been manifested in the heart of the individuals and needs to be dealt with. I believe that instead of discontinuing corporate worship/fellowship based on disharmony, we are commanded to work it out. Here is one of many verses that I believe highlights this point:
Colossians 3
12 Therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, put on tender mercies, kindness, humility, meekness, longsuffering; 13 bearing with one another, and forgiving one another, if anyone has a complaint against another; even as Christ forgave you, so you also must do. 14 But above all these things put on love, which is the bond of perfection.
Now what if people are just unwillingly to obey the Word in that manner? Well then I guess people will continue to stop going to church or go somewhere else. It should not be that way, but people will do what they want. I just know for me, I am striving to do what is right.
One more thing – if I had a friend who attended a church where disharmony was overwhelming, and they tried all they could to unify, but to no avail? I would advise they seek another assembly….don’t stop going to church, but seek another…
LikeLike
November 11, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Scalia,
Interestingly, I thought about those same verses concerning support for the view that everything we do should be an attempt to draw closer to the Lord….
Yes, I do see the order….I really do…yet as I stated in my post, I believe that the order is more so 1a, 1b verses 1, 2. I only say that because Jesus said, “and like unto it” concerning loving our neighbor. So I see almost an equilibrium between the two commandments…but there IS a difference- they are not one and the same and were not developed within us at the same time (not for me at least, I dont think?) Anyhow – I can’t love my neighbor (as God would have me) if I dont first love God, because its only from my love for God that I learned HOW I should likewise love my neighbor. But also, I can’t love God and not love my neighbor either, lest I be a liar. To me its all so very connected and “can’t” be separated – like two links on a chain.
HOWEVER…I love God because He demonstrated His love for me, and then taught me to demonstrate and share in this love with my brothers and sisters…so, yeah, I see how my love for God would come first and be the motivation in “all” I do, but in connection with that, would be my love and service for my brothers and sisters, particularly when the focus shifts to corporate worship.
You know…I pray and worship and sing on my own in my attempt to draw close to the Lord and He to me (though He is already in me – yall know what I mean however, lol)…but when I go to corporate worship, yes, the expectation of drawing close to God and He to me still foundational (just like when I am alone), but corporate worship to me is designed to fulfill a need that is not met with me being at home alone. Corporate worship meets needs through the interaction with the body of Christ and the gifts thereof for the purpose of edificaiton, exhortation, etc. Yet in all that, it helps us all to grow closer to God…
Like I said, the line is so thin…to me it’s all connected.
LikeLike
November 11, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Michael, I agree the connection is close. When you say corporate worship fulfills a need not met at home, my point has been “what kind of need?” If that need is spiritual, then your primary motivation is your relationship with God. Otherwise, you’d go someplace like the YMCA.
In Christ,
Scalia
LikeLike
November 11, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Scalia,
“what kind of need?”
Ephesians 4:11-13
11 And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, 13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ;
1 Corinthians 12:7
7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all:
1 Corinthians 12:24-26
…But God composed the body, having given greater honor to that part which lacks it, 25 that there should be no schism in the body, but that the members should have the same care for one another. 26 And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; or if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it.
2 Corinthians 1:3-4
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, 4 who comforts us in all our tribulation, that we may be able to comfort those who are in any trouble, with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God.
There are spiritual needs that are met through each other because of the Spirit of Christ that lives in each of us at work. God did not SOLELY intend for us to have all or our needs met by simply praying to Him and it spontaneously occurs without another earthly vessel invovled. We can see that throughout the NT how God worked through others for His people. Now THAT CAN and does happen (God meeting a need solely without any other vessel invovlement), but I say PRIMARILY speaking (pun intended -jokey joke)He purposely gave us gifts through His Spirit to meet each others needs both naturally AND spiritually as He would see fit. But yes, Yes, He is ultimately the source.
1 Corinthians 12 is a great teaching about the need of each individual member in the body of Christ and the role we each play towards AND for each other, as well as towards and for the world…and yes, our driving motivation and power is our Great God and Savior Jesus Christ.
LikeLike
November 11, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Yes, Michael I’ve understood what you were saying in that regard. I agree with all of that. My point is you’re going to “church” in order to fulfill your spiritual needs through interaction with others. But you’re going there instead of Yankee Stadium because you want a closer walk with God. Hence, *that* is your primary purpose.
I think you and I are marching to the same beat now. 🙂
LikeLike
November 11, 2009 at 4:47 pm
BTW, Michael, you wrote:
I think that is beautifully put!
LikeLike
November 11, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Scalia,
What I am sticking by was the idea encapsulated by your summary statement that “the ‘primary’ reason for going to church is for the people present, not God.”
You said, “Yes, it [drawing closer to God] can be done at home; it can also be done at church. And since going to church is included in ‘everything we do’ then the primary purpose of going to church is to draw closer to God.” You seem to be missing the point. The point is that if all church was about was worshipping God, then there wouldn’t be a reason to go to church since one does not need to be there in order to worship God. The reason we need to be at church is because there are other believers there, and God wants us to function together as a body, ministering to one another’s spiritual needs.
As for “purpose” and “intent,” I never tried to make a distinction between those two words, so I’m not sure why you brought that up. As for motivation, it is different from purpose. For example, the purpose of a calculator is to calculate sums, but my motivation for using it is to satisfy my desire to know a certain sum. The purpose of all things kingdom-related is God, but my motivation for going to church is for the people present there. If there were no people there, I would not be motivated to go. I’d rather seek God in my pajamas at home than get all dressed up and drive to some building to do the same.
I don’t really understand your point about the OT passages you cited, so I won’t comment.
As for the active/passive thing, I find it strange that you would ignore 7 clear statements I made in regards to active participation in church in favor of my agreement with Arthur’s single analogy. But you misunderstand what I was agreeing with, as well as (I think) the point of Arthur’s analogy. He changed the analogy from active playing to passive watching, not because he was trying to say church is supposed to be passive rather than active, but because watching TV is something that can be done alone or in a group, whereas playing a basketball game is something that can only be done in a group (and thus was not truly analogous to the point of my post). Because watching TV can be done alone, there is no reason to leave your home to do so somewhere else. The only reason you would leave your home to watch TV elsewhere is because there were going to be other people there you could watch TV with. If your goal was only to watch the game on TV, why would you drive to someone else’s house to watch it if no one was there? Likewise, if God can be worshipped at home by ourselves, why go to church? It’s because of the people who will be present. That does not exclude the worship of God. That will be done at church as well, but it’s not as though that is all we are there for. We are there for one another, to minister to one another. That’s what makes going to church different from seeking God at home. And the point of Arthur’s analogy was not to emphasize active vs. passive, but aloneness vs. togetherness.
You said, “At that point, I believed you were more interested in “clarifying” your position than grasping why there is disagreement.” But that’s the thing. I don’t see any substantial disagreement between us. That’s why I’m trying to clarify, because from my end it looks like there is a disconnect more so than a disagreement.
Trying to say things in a different way to help someone understand what you mean when you have reason to think that they did not understand your first attempt is not what I would consider a method. It’s a typical approach to communication.
You suggested that all of this could be avoided if I would have just said, “I think I worded my post incorrectly. Of course the primary reason we come to church is for God, not men; but coming to church is meaningless unless there are people in it who minister to each other. I DO go to church for the people, because I go there to please God.” But I do not think I worded my post incorrectly. Given this long dialogue I think I could have fleshed it out more to make it more clear, but I meant exactly what I wrote.
Jason
LikeLike
November 11, 2009 at 4:56 pm
@ Micheal Bryant, just to clear up my comment. I wasn’t implying so much that a person should “give up” on fellowshipping per se. But my inquiry was more focused on the real purpose of fellowship. Thus, point being that we shouldn’t just go to church or fellowship just to clear our conscience, rather we really need to get something out of it. And as stated in other posts. If our needs aren’t being met (sound teaching, edification, upholding of biblical standards…etc.), then it may be better to not attend that particular gathering until the Lord leads you to a group of believers who are more sincere.
LikeLike
November 11, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Scalia,
In your last few comments you seem to be emphasizing God first, people second. If you think I have been saying the opposite, that is incorrect. I agree with that order. And I agree that church is for meeting spiritual needs first, and social needs second. Again, my only point is that there would be no reason to go to a church if it was not for the fact that there will be other believers there when you show up. God wants us to gather because He wants us to minister to one another, to function together as a body rather than isolated body parts.
Jason
LikeLike
November 11, 2009 at 9:06 pm
My apologies for not reading all the comments. I do what to make another comment. Someone else may have stated it, so forgive me.
Assembling ourselves together is important. We are His body. However, I have seen an evil in our churches one of arrogance and ‘God is all that matters’ mentality. God should be first, we should gather to worship him. But the evil I speak of is the evil of spiritual pride, lording over the people. Preaching at people instead of preaching to the human condition, preaching the words of life. I see men lifting up their egos instead of humbling themselves and esteeming their brohters above themselves. I preach church is the meeting place for God and man, for the church to minister to Him and each other… and reach the lost.
How can we serve without people. Why should we serve people without God? The whole thing explodes into a heaping pile of selfish pride, reaching to please ourselves.
LikeLike
November 12, 2009 at 12:14 am
Jason wrote,
Last few comments?!? I’ve been saying that the whole time.
That isn’t my encapsulation or my summary; it is almost exactly what you said, “[T]he primary purpose for attending a local assembly is for the people present, not for God.” That is simply not true and I’ve clearly shown why.
Right here and now, Jason, reproduce anything that I’ve written which says, “all church is about worshiping God.” Here’s what I said:
I took the time to reproduce them here because it is inexplicable to me how these were missed. I won’t divine your intentions again. While I cannot understand how they were missed, they were missed nonetheless. What word keep cropping up time and again, Jason? What word have I used repeatedly in this exchange? The word is PRIMARY. I never said it is the only reason we assemble.
God established the Church, in part, to edify itself. The assembly of the redeemed is a necessary component of our walk with God. God warns us not to forsake the assembling of ourselves together. Since a church assembly is a necessary component of living for God, then I need to assemble with other believers if I want to be closer to God. Thus, the PRIMARY reason for “going to church” is to be closer to God.
The arguments I have evinced heretofore clearly demonstrate that. No further comment in that regard is needed.
Again, I never said you made a distinction between purpose and intent.
That is why your argument fails. These terms are all necessarily connected which defeats the point you are making. Your “motive” is your “reason” for using a calculator or going to church. Your “purpose,” as defined, is your “intent.” All synonyms of that noun relate to what one plans to achieve. And what are we planning to achieve when we go to church? A closer relationship with God! That’s what singing, praying for one another, prophesying and teaching accomplishes. If I must cooperate with other people to get closer to God, then that is what I will do, but the PRIMARY
LikeLike
November 12, 2009 at 12:38 am
Well, I hit the submit button accidentally.
…motive, intent, purpose, aim, objective is to get closer to God, else I would go someplace else. You’re trying to disconnect purpose and motive in a manner the context does not allow.
I sure am glad I reproduced much of my previous remarks because they, in part, demonstrate again why I never ignored your “7” clear statements. In addition to the above reproduction, I several times stated I agree with what you say about the necessity of interacting with others. Curious indeed.
My comment was you can play basketball by yourself or with others. I have many times shot baskets alone or played a mental game while shooting baskets by myself.
I addressed this in my comments to Arthur. But here you keep using the word “only” when I haven’t done so. Why are you using that word (only) when I haven’t used it in that manner?
It’s not as though that is all we are there for? When did I EVER say that is all we are there for??
And that is why we disagree. You did word your post incorrectly; and if your PRIMARY reason for going to church isn’t to draw closer to God, then you are going for the wrong reason.
LikeLike
November 12, 2009 at 2:49 am
@truthofGod
One of my favourite quotes off of my dad is that “we are commanded to love one another – we do not have to like them though!” This to me allows a slight discord in a church, and an ability to disagree on certain aspects but not let it hinder our relationship with God or other members of the body.
Also ties in with forgiveness/reconciliation.
LikeLike
November 12, 2009 at 6:49 am
@scott, i do agree and am privy to the personal discord that happens within the church. Heck we know that the Apostles didn’t even get along with each other all of the time. But, what i’m speaking to is the environment of the assembly, not isolated incidents. If the culture of the fellowship is that of unsound doctrine, loose and worldly standards, and hypocrisy, then how are my spiritual and physical needs being met? If the leadership (hirelings) are only concerned about the bottom line and not about the needs of the sheep, then should we still suffer this sort of neglect only to say that “i’ve fellowshipped”? I maintain that fellowship has be more than just clearing my conscience. As a matter of fact we know that most people ‘go to church’ because
LikeLike
November 15, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Jason,
Disclaimer: I didn’t read all 58 comments in front of me so if I’m repeating someone else, forgive me. (by the way 58 comments! I would do some crowing if got that many comments on one of my posts. I realize some are your responses, but still!)
I don’t disagree with your conclusion entirely. However, it is my understanding that the Biblical reason for assembling together is for discipleship or to receive teaching from the Word. Our services have a format that gives us opportunity to worship and receive from God, which is valid of course. But if my understanding of Scripture is correct (correct me if I’m wrong) the reason for church attendance is not evangelism (should be outside of the Church service through relationship, etc.), nor is it for seeing fellow Christians, a.k.a. fellowship.
The purpose of Church is to receive instruction from the Word on how to “live” saved or to live as Christians, so that we can both please God and evangelize in our personal lives. (The majority of the New Testament was written to people already saved, teaching them how to live saved)
Since most Churches do very little teaching at all, it’s understandable that the majority of Christians don’t know what Church is for.
Teaching is the answer to every problem the Church faces, both as a whole and individually. However, since teaching what the Word says may result in offending someone, we generally see little actual teaching. In my opinion, the Church in general today is made up of a majority of itchy eared Christians.
Well I’ll stop rambling and wait for your correction. 🙂
By the way, unless someone is truly heavenly minded, he can be no earthly good. The problem is earthly minded people who wish to appear “spiritual” have been allowed to define what heavenly minded is. If your mind is fixed upon pleasing Jesus (which is my definition of being heavenly minded), you will of necessity be someone who is going to be of practical use or help on this earth.
LikeLike
November 16, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Darren,
Sorry, but you can’t comment unless you’ve read through all the previous comments first.
I agree. I see no Biblical justification for thinking church is for evangelism, or for mere fellowship (fellowship of the non-ministry sort). Church is for worshipping God, and ministering one to another in the Word, song, exhortation, the gifts of the Spirit, etc.
I like your explanation of heavenly minded. Very good!
Jason
LikeLike