Worship as an Expression of Faith

Worship is about homage. It is the respect or regard paid to that which has power over one's life. Not everyone would acknowledge belief in the supernatural, but I think everyone worships something. Everyone give props to that which they see as having the power to affect their lives for good. If one truly believes in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord, worshipping him is just part of that package.

"God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth."         John 4:24  NASB

Worship, really, is an expression of faith.

At its heart, it is a reach, a stretch, wherein a person of conviction dares to seek and see God as he is. God is breath (spirit) and so he is beyond the physicality of this world and all that's in it. His essence is the essence of the soul, of personhood--self-awareness, consciousness, purposefulness. Therefore, that seeking which is worship must engage those same qualities within the seeker. That which is spirit must be worshipped in spirit.

Worship cannot be circumscribed by the merely physical nor the superficial.

Historically, Christian worship has fallen short in both regards. Arrangements of "furniture," postures of bodies, and recitations and intonations done virtually without thought have very little to do with worship. The contemporary fixation with worship as entertainment or a perfunctory preliminary is no better, maybe even worse. The very essence of our spiritual being must be engaged in seeking and revering God, or all we've done is gone through some empty motions.

The very essence of who we are as persons must bow before the very presence of the person of God in order to worship.

Worship is, literally, "kissing towards" the object of reverence, which by use referred to bowing or prostration before the worshipped; that is, doing obeisance or acknowledging superiority. So, at its heart, worship is about surrender. If we have not come to a point of surrender to God, deep in our souls, we have not worshipped. Worship, such as this, is not a duty that can be done from a distance, it can only be accomplished "up close and personal."

Worship must be sincere.

There's no place for illusion in worship. Often the reference to truth in John 4:24 is misinterpreted to refer to fact and logic (i.e., knowledge), as if true worship engages both emotion and intellect. Certainly, heart and mind are part of what makes a human essentially human, but the reference to truth in this case has more to do with integrity than it does to knowledge. Possessing a theologically accomplished mind doesn't qualify one as a worshipper to any degree whatsoever, whereas honestly bowing down does.

Though our publications and practices would seem to suggest it, it has not been left up to us to fashion what worship of God could or should be. Oh, people can do that sort of thing, but they shouldn't expect the result would be considered worship by God. Jesus has told us, clearly, what God is looking for in worship, and what worship of God must be. Worship is an expression of faith, it must come from the essence of what we are as people, it must express surrender to God's authority over us, and it must be unfeigned.

If what you call worship isn't accomplishing this, it's not worship.

A Letter to the Satisfied Church

There is little that could be seen as positive in Jesus' message to the church at Laodicea. The indifference he saw there, ultimately toward himself, was a deal breaker. Really, the only positive note sounded was that the litany of rebuke directed at the Laodicean Christians was motivated by love. They were not being written off, but were being warned about what could happen if they did not repent.

The indifference of the Laodicean Christians is alluded to metaphorically in terms of the [water] temperature their deeds betrayed. Significant, perhaps, in directing this criticism at the Laodiceans in particular, was the well known sources of hot (Heiropolis/Pamukkale) and cold (Colossae/Honaz) water a short distance to the north and southeast of the city. Whereas there were good, obvious uses for hot or cold water, tepid water was all but useless, as the Laodiceans could well attest. In calling these Christians lukewarm, Jesus was indicting their uselessness which resulted from their indifference toward him.

How did they get to be in such a careless state? The reason implied in the message was that their satisfaction with earthly wealth had blinded them to their spiritual poverty. Laodicea had experienced a devasting earthquake in 60 C.E. and was knocked virtually flat. The wealth of the city was such that its inhabitants rebuilt it without government assistance, recovered relatively quickly and continued their prosperous ways afterward.

It seems the Laodicean church could have been interpreting that history as a sign that they were blessed by God and just fine in his sight. They were mistaken. They did not remember that we cannot serve God and mammon, for if we serve the latter we'll end up despising the former, and be useless to him. As Jesus saw it, they actually wretched, miserable, poor, blind and naked.

Jesus counsels them to come to him and engage with him (i.e. "buy from him") rather than to be satisfied with the bounty they got by their own devices--a rather ironic command considering he just said they were wretched and poor. The gold, garments and salve they were able to procure pursuing their own worldly agenda was actually not a sign of blessing but merely the wallpaper over the pits and cracks of their profound need. Though tangible, the earthy is no substitute for the spiritual, and when one has that aright, there is no need for wallpaper.

I can't help but see, in this letter, a dire warning to the Western Church, first as it existed in Europe and now as it does in America. That church, in large measure, discovered a marketability in the Gospel and has been producing a wealth-generating, product-oriented salve for the guilty consumer for much of its history. Whether depending on a few rituals (e.g. mass, baptism, confession) or a few works (e.g. church attendance, tithing) or just grace, this church sells the convenience of a guilt suppressing palliative, without the necessity of taking up the cross and walking with Christ.

If salt has lost its saltiness it's good for nothing; if living water is not different from the world around it (for instance, in temperature), even it is useless. If those of the Laodicean ilk, useless to Christ, indifferent and thereby in peril, can but open their eyes and remember that they are nothing, and have nothing without Christ, their recovery begins. The world and its riches offer nothing of true value to any of us that we should find it satisfying. Jesus has all we need, and all that is worthy, and he's willing to give that to us if we'll come to him.

So what did Jesus mean by calling himself the beginning of God's creation? The Koine word arche  could refer to a preeminence in time (i.e. "beginning" as in many English translations) or preeminence in rank (i.e. "ruler" as in the NIV). Though "the Beginning" is an important titular designation for Christ in the Revelation, when it is used as such, it is always coupled with "the end", and within the immediate context of the letters the parallel designation, "first and last", is used (on a related note, see this). Given these considerations, and the fact that Christ's authority is the general theme of all his introductions in the letters, I think that "ruler" is the preferred sense in which the word is used here as is attested by the choice of NIV translators.

What I think is undoubtedly not  meant by the use of arche is that Christ was the first creation of God as heretical movements past and present have asserted (e.g. Arianism, Jehovah's Witnesses). Even if it may be that the Son is "eternally generated", he is not created--he is, in fact, part of the nature of the Godhead. God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit, which is what he always was and will be always what he is. There is distinctiveness within the Godhead, but always unity as well, and even though there is no way to tell the divinity of one member apart from the other two, it is always possible to tell their personhood apart.

Despite my earlier statements, there was at least one use for lukewarm water commonly held in the day of John the Revelator. Even today, particularly in home remedies, tepid water can be used as an emetic in conjunction with salt or mustard or a finger to the back of the throat. So it was particularly fitting that Jesus threatened to spew the Laodiceans out of his mouth. When we consider that the word translated spew doesn't mean merely to spit, but instead to vomit, we see the clarity and fittingness with which Christ expressed his disapproval of these folks for their indifference.

"Be zealous and repent" was the response Jesus called for to his rebuke. The word translated zealous (zeleue) means to boil with fervent passion, as in jealousy or desire. That, of course, plays upon his earlier statement that the Laodiceans were neither hot (zestos) nor cold. The issue there was not their temperature but their usefulness: cold water was useful for refreshment, hot water for baths and washing, lukewarm water was good for nothing (except a purgative). In this rebuke Jesus tossed aside the idea of refreshing (cold water) because the Laodiceans did not need refreshment--they needed to be passionate in action (heat).

If there ever was an antithesis to Jesus' key authority, "Behold I stand at the door and knock," would be it! Despite the use of this text in evangelistic tracts and presentations, this text actually has nothing to do with evangelism (an appeal to the unsaved) because it was written to the church. Nonetheless, it does fly in the face of both the concepts of irresistible grace and the perseverance of the saints. After all, Jesus isn't just unlocking the door because he's made an election by predetermination, but he's making an honest invitation for which the implication is that it could be accepted or it could be turned down. 

Those who open that door get to dine with Christ, and those repentant souls who overcome get sit down with Christ on his throne. Truly, his rebukes, even if seemingly harsh, come from love.

Love vs. Spiritual Gifts

It is not uncommon when speaking of spiritual gifts (and particularly tongues) to have the uninitiated or inexperienced throw up a barricade to their pursuit with a condescending air, "Love is more important, that's what I'm pursuing." The argument may sound good, and make one feel good if he or she doesn't want to wander off into the spookies, but it doesn't hold up biblically and is actually a surefire way to not pursue love.

It is true, according to the scriptures, that nothing is more important in the kingdom of God than genuine love. It is a difficult thing to practice and nigh unto impossible to master. Love involves committment and sacrifice. Love demands putting my whole being, my goods, my gifts, and my presence at the service of my brothers and sisters. A difficult thing to do consistently, especially when it's not reciprocated! But then love doesn't look to itself, it counts the other as better than itself, and looks to the other's benefit.

Spritual gifts are not intended for the advantage of the gifted. Not that there is not some blessing in passing them along, but they exist to benefit the witness of their expression rather than the channel of their expression. The actor is merely conduit or a tool in God's hand, the benefit is for the common good. In spiritual gifts the focus is never on me but always on thee. Could they be a more loving expression?

Gifts do no one any good buried. In fact, the one who buries the gifts acts in a patently unloving and selfish way in doing so. He or she becomes a robber rather than a blesser, devilish rather than dovish! Love and spiritual gifts are not mutually exclusive, so let's not take the shortcut of putting the axe to one or the other. It's not one or the other, it's meant to be both and that includes tongues!

What would it take for the church to be truly godly? Loving each other as Jesus loves us would certainly fit the bill. I actually believe the world has yet to see what Jesus truly wants to reveal in his church. However, when the covers come off, though it will look unmistakingly like love, it will also be unmistakingly supernatural.

Jesus Did the Work, But the Paycheck's Mine

I have no doubt whatsoever that I am saved by works. The Bible says so, both old and new testaments. If you are saved, or ever will be saved, it will be by works or you won't be saved at all. Good theology is based on the premise that the saved are saved by works.

I'm not saved by going to church, tithing my increase, giving alms, or voting Republican-- not even by paying my taxes and refraining from kicking the dog. Generally, I hate Christian television and music, so I don't even get any brownie points for torturing myself with those things! Yet, I am 100% certain that works have delivered me unshakably into the arms of heaven.

Outrageous of me to think such, I know, but think it I do and with biblical confidence, I might add. It's not my works I'm depending on, but those of Jesus Christ. What I could not, and never could do, he did for me in my place, perfectly. He did the job so well, that it's finished with nothing that can be added to it to improve it.

His work has saved me, and I'm totally dependent on it. My life, however it not lived in the idleness of the rich and famous. Jesus did the work and I got the paycheck, so now I plan to spend all of it getting to know him.

Let Me Take Your Order

... all things should be done decently and in order.  1 Corinthians 14:40 (ESV)

Today, I align the cross hairs of my hermeneutic scope squarely on the congregation-squelching, Spirit-emasculating, glory-blocking concept of order. Not order as the word envisions it, but all that which man puts in place in the name of order and which only serves to quench the Holy Spirit. That kind of thing is thought good in many quarters, while that which would let the Spirit move is called indecent. Good is called evil, and evil, i.e. that which is unscriptural, is called good-- what a state!

Are we that afraid to follow the Word and let the Spirit direct us?

What was the Apostle Paul calling for in this verse? Orders of Service? Lectionaries, liturgies, and canons? Does it serve as the excuse for minister-orchestrated meetings, for sergeants-at-arms  to enforce adherence, or emcees to keep the show moving? I don't think so, considering he's spent all of Chapter 12 establishing that a congregational meeting is about participation, not observation, and that more spontaneous than prepared.

Paul attempted to teach a middle road which allowed the fullest possibility of participation, without having the loudest or the strongest take over to everyone else's detriment. In other words, our services should be arranged (κατὰ τάξιν), so ordered, with full participation in view. Participation should be offered in good form (εὐσχημόνως), so decently. Ordered for participation done decently, that's what the Apostle was trying to convey.

Paul was not telling us to substitute the direction of our meetings by the presiding officer for the leading of the Holy Spirit in the congregation.

I'm beginning to wonder whether or not that is what we're most comfortable with. God in charge means mystery, uncertainty-- the possibilities that our hearts will be laid bare with no place to hide except in the love of Christ. We might not get out in time to get a table at our favorite restaurant! Along those lines: when the Holy Spirit moves into our meetings and takes our order, he isn't there to serve our appetites but to glorify Christ.

What Is the Point of Church?

In our day, the nominal are fleeing church as fast as they can and many of the presumedly genuine don't think "organized" churches are all that necessary. It is true that everything in the kingdom of God is supposed to revolve around love, yet organized religion doesn't come close to living out such a mantra. Furthermore, all the pedantic fuss and vitriolic disputation about esoteric doctrines doesn't make the institution any more appealing. So what's the point of church which seems so repelling anyway?

It cannot be denied that those things that are most important to God in reference to life in the Church do issue from love. Case in point:

1) Obedience toward Christ arises out of love. We cannot force ourselves to obey Christ out of sheer will or intellect. It takes love. If one loves Christ, obedience follows naturally. It is that one who loves Christ and obeys him for whom the love of God will be efficacious in turn.

2) Moving in the Spirit with great faith, and even an awesome testimony of power, only has point and purpose if it arises out of love. Seemingly spiritual giants are just bugs in the grass without love. Those things that are here only for a season, but are bound to pass away cannot possibly carry any weight at the threshold of eternity, but love will.

3) Personal friendship with God arises out of love. Since God is love, to get along with him one must adopt love too. Not like a mask, but as a transforming reality of the heart. When we start where we are and procceed in the love that God has shed abroad in our hearts, his love is brought to fullness within us. We can never get along with God and not be loving, like him.

Obviously, the point of church is love. So where is the place of doctrine and ritual in all this?

At the end of time, it won't really matter, nor will anyone care about whether or not one was Arminian or Calvinist; dispensational or covenantal; pre-, post- or a- millennial; charismatic or cessationist. What will matter is not the precision of the doctrine that was held, but the reality of the love which was practiced. Don't get me wrong, doctrine is important, it's just not more important than practicing love, not even close.

As for ritual, there's only two that Christ taught the church to follow: believer's baptism and the Lord's Supper. In neither case are these rites efficacious at appropriating grace merely because they were practiced. Both are just standardized expressions of a state of faith in the heart of the individual participating. We are baptized because we've come to believe in Christ, and we memorialize his passion through a symbolic meal because we believe the death, burial and resurrection of Christ has saved us from sin and death.

What faith has received in fullness upon its existence cannot be regulated thereafter by the practice of ritual. Sacrament, truly, has no place in the church. 

Church, ultimately, is not about rites, or religious duty, or doctrine but about relationships between brothers and sisters. Love, not doctrine or ritual, drives that. If one goes through life attending church, committed to the group but never connecting to people, one errs and misses the matter of utmost importance. If one studies the Bible and meticulously knows church doctrine, but does not know his brethren he has missed the most significant doctrinal point.

Church is the place where we learn to love one another and add others to the circle of love. The central reality of any church should be love and the way it connects believer to believer. If we strive for all else and miss that, we will have missed everything. If we lay anything on the line, if we sacrifice anything near and dear, let it be to further the love we have one for another. That, and really nothing else, is actually the point of church.

Church As Family

The word says that God sets the lonely in families. Families are a mark of his compassion and grace. Of all his inventions for the benefit of humanity, in my my mind, none beats the family. In America, however, we suffer a debilitating disease, which infects the broader West as well-- family has lost it's cachet and is not valued as highly as it once was. We have actually become anti-family in many ways, and our disease is wasting our society.

That situation is not limited to our families of birth but applies to our families of rebirth as well.

There seems to me to be a panic among religious prognosticators in the West concerning the future of Church. They read the tea leaves and blare their trumpets, "if something isn't done soon, we'll lose the next generation!" So, much discussion has ensued about the proper paradigm for the church in our day. What can be done to make the church relevant, resilient, and resurgent in the generations coming of age?

If God never said anything about the subject, our brainstorming might be appropriate, but he has spoken in his Word and we should at least have a clue. No model is offered there for church other than that of family. In any age, in any culture, church is meant to be seen as the family of God. Believers are brothers and sisters in the Lord, we all share one heavenly Father, and are instructed to love each other in a familial manner. If church is an institution, the institution it is has to be is the family.

The paradigm that works to produce the body God desires is the Church As Family. Fan clubs for religious superstars, social service agencies aiming to treat societal ills, social clubs giving members a place to belong, playgrounds, spas, mass entertainment venues, or religious businesses opening branches everywhere possible in an effort to dominate the market are not models taught by Jesus or described by the Word. Even if one found organizational success in adopting these unscriptural modalities, that would not equate to divine endorsement.

To be honest, I don't know why we even think in terms of trying to satisfy some element of population that isn't satisfied with a biblical paradigm. If those not satisfied don't drop their self-indulgent notions and submit to Christ as Lord and the Word as the rule of faith and conduct, do they even belong in the church? Church is the family of God, anyone not an actual brother or sister is merely a visitor. Some accommodation may be made for a visitor, but who turns their ongoing family-life upside down because a visitor drops in?

Some might say, "do it for evangelism," however, most evangelism doesn't occur within the confines of church services. Besides, evangelism is not presenting something other than Christ crucified and risen, nor calling for something less than repentance and faith concerning him. Believing in Christ and yielding to his Lordship is how we become part of the family. The unrepentant, the unyielding, those not surrendered, and the self-serving are not saved whether they're in church or out, accommodating them can only mean not accommodating Christ.  

Christianity isn't a popularity contest and following Christ isn't going to win anyone friends amongst those that don't follow Christ. The truth is what sets people free, and seeing brothers and sisters love one another is what makes the world know we're actually followers of Christ. If we actually want to build on the foundation Paul laid, then church has to be family. Anything else is wood, hay and stubble good for nothing but smoke and flame.

Christianity Is Selling Death

I've grown tired of both the church shoppers and the church marketers of our day. When I hear someone ask, "What does your church have to offer me or my family?" it's about all I can do to not have my head explode. It's not like it's anything new, Jesus had to put up with the same kind of self-centeredness, but that doesn't make it easier to take. Church is not a supermarket.

What consumer benefits a church might offer has nothing at all to do with whether or not it is the place God desires a believer to be in order to grow and serve. God has a divine appointment for each of us, and finding it should be our goal. Then, with patience and grace, serving God and our brothers and sisters there should be our occupation until (and only if) God appoints us some place else.

We certainly have no right to treat our brothers and sisters as disposable and divorce ourselves from their fellowship because we've decided we can get a better deal somewhere else. God is the one who has made us parts of the body and he alone gets to appoint us to our place in the body. What business does any church leader have, then, of dangling a carrot, trying to coax a believer to make a decision about where they belong on a basis other than God's appointment? 

And evangelism is not soliciting suitors like Tamar enticed Judah. We can't initially camouflage the message of repentance and surrender only to unveil the truth of  obedience and sacrifice later. Can it be any wonder that when it's time to pay the piper, such converts are as a fickle and disloyal as the rest of our hedonistic, consumer-driven society. If we tickle the flesh to get folk in, we'll get nothing but a giggle from them when they're called upon to stand up and be counted for Christ.

The gospel is good news and every biblically legitimate means needs to be employed to get it to everyone, but the often unspoken stark truth about its message is that embracing it means buying into your own death. The old-fashioned notion of fire and brimstone is unpopular these days because it's just not marketable. I don't care for it myself, it doesn't reflect biblical preaching in my mind, but the biblical message isn't any more palatable. The message Jesus preached to potential followers: "deny yourself, take up your cross daily and follow me."

I'm dumbfounded amidst a church world that doesn't understand it's own message. I mean, really, how can such a thing as church marketing even exist? It's not just oxymoronic, it's plain moronic too! No, it's even worse, it's faithless, and it's ruining the heritage of God. Let the self-centered consumers and ravenous church hawkers beware, you will reap what you sow. 

So, we can build cathedrals of wood, hay and stubble, selling emptiness to the empty-headed and empty-hearted, but if we want to do what Jesus did, then we must come to terms with this: Christianity is actually selling death.

A Shepherd's Heart

I have five children, thanks to college graduation, they're all at home again, at least for a little while. One of the elders in my church has six kids. He told me something years ago that has always stuck in my memory, and that now can be verified by my own experience: there is a sense of peace and satisfaction that comes when all of them are in bed at the end of the day; safe, sound, and snoring. Until then, there's always a bit of tension or concern, at least enough to keep rest at bay. When one or more are gone, you can remember them in prayer, but it's not quite the same as seeing them zonked out under the covers!

As a pastor, I "worry" about my people. I believe I should be at least a big brother to them, but the truth is, I feel like a father in so many ways. I want to protect them from the predations of wolves. I want to teach them the family business and see them step forward into responsibility and productivity. I enjoy hearing them tell me about their lives, how things went when they tried something, what they've noticed, what they learned, or what God said to them. I like being there in the seasons of life with them, watching them go through their paces.

There is a certain movement afoot today that resents that kind of patriarchal thinking-- that a pastor would consider the folk of the congregation "his," or that he would feel fatherly about them. That's so old school! It seems to me, those of that ilk do not want a pastor but a host.

There's also a school of thought out there that's very pragmatic about organizational behavior and the "business" of church. Those of that ilk would see my feelings as a detriment to growth and an inhibitor to leadership. Some sheep, in that kind of view, don't need to be there if they're not part of the demographic the church entrepreneur is trying to recruit or if they're not in tune with his vision. Leadership is about making tough decisions and not getting bogged down in a singular problem is a ticket to progress. Keep the train rolling at all costs! Pastors that buy into this kind of thinking end up as a CEO.

I have a different dream.

Jesus said to his Father, in the midst of his high priestly prayer, "None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled." Jesus could bear to let a nonbeliever go, but if one was a believer, he couldn't bear to lose any. I don't know how to follow another example but his. So with fatherly concern, I'll rest much easier when twilight closes on the day's labor and I see all the children that have been in my charge under the cover of Jesus' arms in glory. 

In the meantime, may God grant me neither keen business sense nor savvy marketing skills but simply a shepherd's heart.

Why Leave A Church?

We live in a mobile society. Folks are shifting from one place to another constantly. I wouldn't think, given such a circumstance, that it would be unexpected that folk would be shifting churches in the shuffle. That's fine, it goes with the territory, but folk are also leaving churches they otherwise would not have to, and it raises the question: "Is OK to leave one's church?"

People leave their churches for all sorts of reasons and in all kinds of conditions. Some leave churches wandering out of a fog bewildered, some surf the edge of the blast wave after a big blow-up, some leave at the end of the left foot of fellowship, and some lose motivation or faith and fall off more than they depart. Some leave because they find another place more attractive, and some just want something new. Everyone that leaves has their reasons, I'm sure.

I doubt that many are legitimately motivated when they choose to leave a church, but I do think that leaving a church can be the right thing to do...

If that church doesn't uphold the Scripture as the infallible rule of faith and conduct;

If that church embraces universalism;

If that church becomes libertine or antinomian; 

If that church adopts legalism...

You get the point. There are practical and doctrinal issues that are so fundamental and non-negotiable, that if a line is crossed there, then we must cross ourselves off the roll. Even if this is the case, I don't think one should leave such a church without a fight. Not that one should seek to win an argument or engage in a turf war, but that one should contend for the faith and for the souls in that body. Don't let them wander off to hell without an effort to save their souls! However, if they won't hear, and won't stand on sound doctrine, then one must leave!

At times, a bone of contention arises between folk that, given the nature of the personalities involved, cannot be resolved. If continuing together in mission is impossible, separating unto mission is acceptable.  It is still unfortunate in the grand scheme, but as long as it is done on reasonable terms and doesn't result in an unending grudge it may be the preferable course of action. We can disagree without being disagreeable, even if it means one going one way and the other going another.

At times, folk are being appointed in the body according to the wishes of the Spirit of God, and leaving one congregation and going to another is precisely what God wants! It's easy to discern this if one is moved to a distant place; it's not so easy if this change takes place in the same town. Regardless, each of us is a gift to the body and we must understand that God gets to place us where he wishes. Actually, I wonder how much dissatisfaction people feel in church is actually just the dissonance in their souls caused by not discerning where God wants them.

There are acceptable, justifiable, and quite spiritual reasons to leave one church and go to another. 

And then there are reasons which are neither expedient nor justifiable.

It is not justifiable to leave a church for selfish reasons. Church is about Jesus being Lord, not about the churchgoer getting what he or she wants. Christians are not customers, the church is not a business and spiritual ministrations are not consumer goods. To treat this God-ordained endeavor as if any of these things were true is an insult to grace. And leaving a church for greener pastures is unacceptable for clergy or laity.

It is not expedient for those who have been appropriately corrected, or who have been properly spiritually directed, to leave a church rather than humbly submitting to that which has been rendered for their spiritual development. The flawed natural constitution of humans beings means that we grow as Christians only to our lowest level of incorrigibility. That cannot excuse a lack of obedience to the Word or to the brethren. Escaping correction or rejecting direction in one body doesn't give one a blank slate to start in another (regardless of whether one is clergy or laity).

There are occasions where the godly will be justified in leaving a church. At times it will be the absolutely right thing to do. Even if it is, it's never something left merely to our discretion or preference. Jesus is head over the body, so he gets to plant us where he wants. 

As for us, we need to stay where we're planted, grow and blossom.

Why Go to Church?

Why should believers go to church? There are a lot of excuses one could give for blowing it off, such as:

• Church folk are nothing but hypocrites
• Their idea of worship is not my idea
• All they do is ask for money
• It's too irrelevant, too loud, too impersonal, too ________...
• I am not genuinely needed, wanted and won't be missed
• I've got better things to do
• When else can I shop or do my household chores?

There are some reasons, which traditionally have been offered, as to why we should go:

• to maintain social cohesion
• because of necessary, clerically performed rituals within the context of structured liturgies
• to derive a benefit from what is offered there
• because it's the "right" thing to do.

I submit that none of the suggested excuses for not going, nor most of the traditional reasons cited for doing so are valid. They are mere rationalizations without any spiritual merit.

The scriptures tell us that together we are the body of Christ, and the dwelling place of the Holy Spirit. So we gather as the church because:

• We are connected with unseen bonds 
• We acknowledge the truth of how God sees us (as one in Christ) 
• We need the gifts of others and we need to be the vector of gifts for others
• The Bible tells us to do so.

If someone is so disillusioned with church that he or she doesn't want to go anymore, that one should do some serious soul searching. Has he or she been going for the right reasons in the first place? Has that one given his or herself fully to being a benefit to the church rather than deriving a benefit from it? Does that person believe that God changed his mind about this whole issue?

If someone is not motivated enough, or too occupied or distracted with discretionary things to go to church, he or she needs to change. Church exists because God selflessly loved us enough to do something about our lostness. Christ has called us to himself and to each other for all eternity. If we're not grasping that and are capable of treating church like we treat the choice of which grocer to use, we don't understand Jesus--not his plans for us, not what he calls us to, and not what he's making us to be.

Perhaps we don't truly believe in Jesus at all! 

I am a pastor committed to church, but I have also been a lay person going to church reluctantly. I know what it's like to go to church hoping for inspiration only to find frustration. I know what it's like having a bad week and wanting to hibernate, or what it's like to have an option that seems better to the flesh. I even know what it's like to feel as if you've disappeared into the background of an impersonal institution and that it's of no use anyway.

I also know that the trying of our faith brings forth a peaceable fruit. In life on this side of eternity nothing is perfect. Church is not, church people are not, and pastors are anything but. Despite all that brokenness, perseverance in church attendance is God's will for us. When we faithfully commit to it, despite the drama and flaws, we become a blessing to others and blessing comes back to us.

Blessing in the midst of brokenness... that sounds exactly like something that's of Christ should look like on this side of eternity.