True, it doesn’t, but then, he may be in need of your unique gifts the same way that you may be in need of his.
Also, if it is good enough for them, why isn’t it good enough for you?(the figurative “you”
,not you you) When we choose something, we choose it because it is in some way better. Would it not be better to submit yourself to a congregation and avail this person,(and others) of your gifts, than to let this person join a congregation that you, yourself would not choose? If there is a good local assembly, why not go? If there truly is not, then you NEED to be inviting these other people to whatever home fellowship meeting you attend rather than just leaving them a seat at an apostate church.

I am having a hard time believing that it is possible to “take advantage of the new option” without your own flesh having too much control. I don’t think that this is just a danger to the most selfish and lazy of us, I think that it kinda comes with the territory. By choosing self-directed Christianity over joining a worthy shepherded and eldered congregation (assuming,in this case, that one does exist), aren’t we already taking the first step in doing it our own way? Haven’t we already made the self-serving choice?

If a small group of Christians really did do all of the things that were required of them in the New Testament, then they would, in fact, BE a church, and there would be not argument here. “Church discipline: check. widows: working on it… ” If they are somehow not a church, but a group of friends who listen to their respective podcasts, well, there it is.

I’ve got to throw a flag on that one. Church elders do have the responsibility to “force people to do right,” and they serve as legitimate instruments of God’s discipline and restoration in our lives.

If you’re freelancing your faith, you remove yourself from this benefit.

You can’t be a Christian and avoid Christ’s church.

But you have clarified that now, and I accept that you didn’t actually mean that a person who doesn’t go to church is not a Christian. You just believe that such action warrants suspicion of their title.

Sylvia,
In large part, you’re absolutely right in your comment. I don’t necessarily believe you (or Duncan) are correct in assuming that the NT is clear about what God expects from his church concerning corporate gatherings of believers for the express purpose of singing, preaching, and fellowship, but we can agree that it certainly happened.

I’m not even necessarily recommending that one SHOULD abandon a church gathering and replace it with other means. I haven’t chosen to do so, so I obviously find value in church gatherings.

How much more important, then should it be that a church be a place that ugly, sick, annoying,dirty people—-even those who have been born again–can come and worship without having to be “chosen” or “invited” by anyone other than Christ?

A person choosing to not attend a church gathering does not prevent someone who needs a church gathering from attending. If anything, it frees up a seat.

As I said, I’m not against church gatherings. But in a day where people have the option to either meet at a church gathering or replicate the church experience through other means, isn’t it our personal responsibility to decide what works best for us, absent a mandate from scripture to do one or the other?

My mind isn’t closed to the idea that there is sometimes a good reason. The problem is that the reasons are often fleshly and self centered, and I can’t help but think that the more someone does church his own way, the more self-satisfying his Christianity can become.

Potentially, and this is a very good point. If a person does choose to do church differently, they do need to be careful. But robbing them of the option by claiming one is superior to the other just to make sure the selfish and the lazy don’t take advantage of the new option is like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

—

To me, the chief advantage (if you can call it that) of a church gathering over personal church is that a church gathering gives people control over people, to an extent. If a person decides to skip, people notice. If a person isn’t singing, people notice. Etc. But this all relies on the application of peer pressure to “do right”. And oftentimes (in my experience) this can lead to a very false religion where too much emphasis is placed on the outward.

If this becomes the purpose of church, to force people to do right (at least once a week), then I’d rather avoid it.

I think the article I pointed you to had a pretty good dose of scripture, including the one that JT referenced for you. Might I cite just about every character in the New Testament as showing that a characteristic of Christians is a love for the church and an insistence on being there whenever people gather. I might also throw in most of the Old Testament as evidence of the burning desire of true believers to build or rebuild the Tabernacle or Temple as a central gathering point for worship.

Here’s the other thing, though. You seem to be reading absolute statements into my argument where they’ve been pretty carefully qualified. Going to a church building (that would include houses) does not make one a Christian, and some Christians are unable to attend.

What I’m saying is that the rejection of an organized, assembled church is a pretty good clue that someone is not a Christian. Not proof positive, but a pretty good indication.

Correct.

However, a church building is probably one of the most convenient places to accomplish the assembling together mandate. But I do not hold the position that a church building is inherently sacred. Fellowship at home is certainly an appropriate way to worship God.

Only God can judge whether someone is saved, but as far as I could tell, I would assume that someone who resisted meeting and worshipping with Christians was not a Christian him or herself.

I think the church has worked on that assumption for thousands of years, so ours is not a novel position.

And despite Duncan’s cunning attempt to equate “assembling together” with a church service in a church building, the equation only exists in the words of the blog post.

Reading “church building”, “corporate worship”, and “live sermons” into the *recommendation* that we “assemble together” is silly.