All the "Cool" Christians don't go to Church anymore

[danny316]

Yes, I know that the topic sounds outrageous. I'm sure some people think this thought is outrageous.

It seems awfully real to me right now, though. While I was at the Over the Rhine show earlier today, I was surprised to hear Linford say that they don't go to church anymore - the listen to Louis Armstrong instead on Sunday mornings when they're at the farm. This did lead into "The Trumpet Child" nicely, but he didn't say it as a joke - he came right out and said that he hasn't played the old hymns in a while, and then joked about big-screen projectors with choruses that people sing "off the wall" (a phrase his mother came up with).

...and I'm sure all of you who follow the major news outlets heard the news about my favorite presidential candidate leaving his home church this weekend.

Maybe I'm just imagining things here, but it seems to me that many of the famous Christians I've come to respect just don't see a need for a weekly community time of fellowship anymore. I guess at some level, it makes sense for people who aren't in the same place often to not worry about trying to track down a church that they can meet with wherever they happen to be that Sunday, but giving up on home churches entirely doesn't seem "right" to me either.

That U2 lyric comes to mind, especially in Obama's case - "I'd break bread and wine, if there was a church I could receive in" - sometimes it's just hard to find a church you can comfortably stay in. That makes enough sense if your pastor's every word is being read by sensationalist eyes, but what about the idea that you should be in a faith community to help improve it and to edify others in the community? Doesn't it help to have the fame and the history when working with/for a church?

I don't think less of anyone for not going to church, but it just seems strange to me that people who clearly have such emotional ties to their faith would rather not go. I mean, gas prices aren't that high, are they?

[who me?]

My mum's all 'unchurched'. She's into home churches and all that. But we go to a normal church now, which is nice.

[Vlad!]

I heard a pastor that I respect say once that the Bible knows nothing of an unchurched Christian. As far as I can tell, once people started being baptized, they also started organizing into churches (one could even argue that this occurred even before the death of Jesus, as there seems to be evidence that those who were close to Christ (such as the mother of Mark) regularly met in houses. The reason they used houses was for practical reasons rather than anything else, and when possible, evidence seems to suggest that they used larger meeting halls.

As for celebrity Christians, I imagine that maintaining their faith is hard for them in many ways. Christ himself said the famous line about how difficult it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. I don't think he was talking about people who quietly amass money through a lifetime; he's talking about the celebrities and the heirs, those who are thrust into the limelight and into the public eye.

It's certainly not my place to speak to the salvation of anyone else. However, I will say from personal experience that the more it becomes about me, the less it can be about God. I'm definitely not suggesting that you can't be a Christian and run for president successfully, but I do think that the cult of personality that springs up around such people makes it very difficult to lead a life that's focused on God, since everybody else is focusing on you.

As an example, let's look at Paul. Now here's a dude who was never sitting still. The times he didn't go to church, it was either because there was no church and he was trying to start one, or because he was in prison. But the evidence seems to suggest that whenever he went anywhere that the word of God was preached, he was in attendance (or preaching!) at the church there.

I'm not indifferent to the plight of the traveling Christian, of course. When I was in college I didn't go to church for about four years out of the five I was there, my excuse being that there wasn't a church there that I really felt like I connected with. But now that I look back, it's pretty obvious to me that the real excuse was that I liked to sleep in on Sunday. If I had trouble connecting, it's because it takes two to connect and I wasn't making the effort myself. I can see now how many people were reaching out to me, but I wasn't reaching back.

I don't know if that even begins to answer your question, but that's what was on my mind relative to what you wrote.

[spacebrat311]

Meh. I don't think church in the traditional sense is really all that important. I do think that interacting with a community of believers is pretty close to the core of Christianity, but there are many ways that can occur outside of a traditional church setting. It is definitely beyond our knowledge range to assume that just because these publicly known Christians no longer frequent the institution of a traditional church that they have forgone Christian community interaction entirely.

[danny316]

Meh. I don't think church in the traditional sense is really all that important. I do think that interacting with a community of believers is pretty close to the core of Christianity, but there are many ways that can occur outside of a traditional church setting. It is definitely beyond our knowledge range to assume that just because these publicly known Christians no longer frequent the institution of a traditional church that they have forgone Christian community interaction entirely.

That's actually a really good point - obviously someone who tours worshipful music is still engaging their fellow believers in worship at least some of the time. In OtR's case, I know that they've actually done some things specifically to start Christian conversations (their cover of "Failed Christian" comes to mind), so I'm guessing that they probably do get some of that, even without really trying at this point.

It's hard not to think of all those other (read: more famous) Christian bands though, that have felt like they're making money instead of serving God (both Jeff Deyo from SONICFLOOd's first lineup and Jennifer Knapp have said things like this). Maybe being a bit more of an "indie" band gives more control over these things instead of letting artists get overwhelmed to that point.

...I've noticed just as many bands going all reactionary in the other direction - Nashville has that group of Reformed church nuts that controls the majority of decent Christian folk/rock these days (IIRC, one church has all of Jars of Clay, most of Caedmon's Call, and a large variety of popular singer-songwriters in it).

[danny316]

I'm definitely not suggesting that you can't be a Christian and run for president successfully, but I do think that the cult of personality that springs up around such people makes it very difficult to lead a life that's focused on God, since everybody else is focusing on you.

The Presidency seems like a particularly strange situation. I mean, you can be the biggest Christian left theocrat ever seen in the Western hemisphere and still have 10% of the population think you're a Muslim.

I came across an article this morning that sort-of explains the thing with Obama a bit better. Then I went ahead and googled the two Presidents in recent memory who have (intentionally or not) made faith a political issue. It turns out that the Jimmy Carter Library website has a list of every date when he attended one of three churches that Carter considered a home church while in office (it credits Carter's diary as a source). So he apparently had no problem with keeping in touch with multiple consistent faith communities (maybe that's why so little got done while he was in office!). I wasn't able to find any particularly impressive sources for Bush, but I did find one article that claims that Bush doesn't have a home church and only occasionally stops in nearby churches.

Of course, Bush is a whole 'nother case that I'm not sure applies - I think it's pretty clear at this point that his "I found Jesus and now I don't believe in capital punishment/desecrating the environment/drinking/frat hazing and I do believe in using government funds to help religious charities" story was a fraud. He's continued to support (or at least not take a stand against most of the time) most of the things he's said he turned from upon conversion, and his incompetence and disinterest in even funding the faith-based-initiatives that he supposedly loves so much really calls into question most of his story.

...and I haven't even mentioned preemptive war or torture as moral issues that we never heard a good Christian reason for.

I guess the main point of this tangent is that there's really no meaningful precedent in the modern media era for a President whose faith comes into play the way it looks like it will the next few years. Comparing to Carter makes your point, but Carter was a bit more moderate as these things went, so I'm not even sure if that's the right way to get perspective here.

It's really entertaining how the media can't keep straight expressions of faith and cult of personality issues. How come Bush was depicted as a great Christian leader for a few platitudes while Carter was mocked for borrowing a phrase from the bible to discuss lust?

As an example, let's look at Paul. Now here's a dude who was never sitting still. The times he didn't go to church, it was either because there was no church and he was trying to start one, or because he was in prison. But the evidence seems to suggest that whenever he went anywhere that the word of God was preached, he was in attendance (or preaching!) at the church there.

I think he's a good example (and definitely a nice biblical role model), but obviously doing that is a lot of work. If I had to try to guess the "right" thing to do, I'd go with Paul's approach. I can see how this would strain someone who has a career besides spreading the gospel, though, and it could easily make people uncomfortable if the nearest church to visit had beliefs that were significantly different than the person arriving in town had. Even in Paul's time, there were some Christian groups that differed drastically and Paul wrote letters to scold many of them.

I'm not indifferent to the plight of the traveling Christian, of course. When I was in college I didn't go to church for about four years out of the five I was there, my excuse being that there wasn't a church there that I really felt like I connected with. But now that I look back, it's pretty obvious to me that the real excuse was that I liked to sleep in on Sunday. If I had trouble connecting, it's because it takes two to connect and I wasn't making the effort myself. I can see now how many people were reaching out to me, but I wasn't reaching back.

I've been in a similar situation for the past few years. I've also found that if you want to take a family out to brunch once in a while, you can get much better seating by coming in during services instead of just after them.

Connecting is kind of a funny issue, too, because it's easy enough for any church to have an "off" week of services and the church-hopping that can be involved with trying to find the right one can be a bit dicey (especially if you already know a few people who go to various churches in town).

There's actually a Desperate Housewives episode (of all things...) that illustrates this pretty well - an unchurched family decides to try out their neighbor's church, the mother picks a fight with the pastor during Sunday services, and then moves on to another church because of the neighbor's complaints. When the pastor asks the neighbor if the unchurched family will be coming back, the neighbor actually goes to the Catholic church across the street and says to the family, "I think you forgot that you're Presbyterian!"

I don't know if that even begins to answer your question, but that's what was on my mind relative to what you wrote.

I don't even know if I'm looking for a real answer...it's just an interesting observation that I thought would start up a good conversation here. So far, so good.

[phaith]

I haven't been to church in 4 years; I may go back some day I don't know.

I think we attach importance to 'going to church' based on our needs and if they can be fulfilled at church. Here are some of mine.

Community is a big one - I have experienced more open, honest community in several places, at a much higher level than church.

Teaching - unfortunately I have more education in theology, and spiritual practice than most of the pastors I meet (when I ask them questions, they often say 'you know more about this than I do'...kind of sad)

Worship - I worship though silence and nature, neither of which I have found at church. I actually find the average church service too loud and distracting for worship.

Service - Definitely have seen this more in my work (which is a non-profit organization which concentrates on literacy). The last church I attended was the first church in my history of going to church that did any community service.

[danny316]

Teaching - unfortunately I have more education in theology, and spiritual practice than most of the pastors I meet (when I ask them questions, they often say 'you know more about this than I do'...kind of sad)

Maybe Protestants don't have this issue as much as those of us who were raised Catholic, but hearing the same few lessons over and over again and never getting to some of the meatier stuff seems like a pretty big problem that many churches fall into. I think it's a bit worse for Catholics, though, since there are actually books dictating that bible verses are cycled through every so often. After four years, all four gospels have been read completely to a Catholic congregation that's shown up every week, but they don't bother to go through as many parts of the rest of the bible.

Worship - I worship though silence and nature, neither of which I have found at church. I actually find the average church service too loud and distracting for worship.

The growing focus on musical worship in churches in recent years seems like a bit of a fad to me. I'm hoping that singing the latest bland praise choruses "off the wall" isn't going to be around for long (except maybe in the tackiest of megachurches). I really wish that the variety of worship experiences out there would get more mainstream recognition.

Service - Definitely have seen this more in my work (which is a non-profit organization which concentrates on literacy). The last church I attended was the first church in my history of going to church that did any community service.

Service is a pretty complicated issue (probably worth it's own thread, even). I've noticed that food drives are pretty popular and widely-done, and I've also seen lots of mission trips done by uncaring people for all of the wrong reasons. If I hear about one more "mission trip" to a major American city where the itinerary is more than 50% vacation/sightseeing...

I think too many churches just don't realize how many real service opportunities there are out there.

The service thing does remind of another Christian celebrity, though: Shaun Groves. He's started playing concerts for free in exchange for being able to fund raise for Compassion at the events. He still keeps up with his home church, and he's even become something of a radical Christian, doing his own research into church history and where some of the stranger Christian traditions are from. I don't even like his music, but his blog is essential reading. Of course, blogging is a community and teaching form of it's own, and he's basically given up the American dream in favor of service...so I guess that's another way of being able to get components of church without necessarily being there every week.

[Josh]

I think the Derek Webb lyric is appropriate here. Sung from Christ's perspective: "You cannot care for Me with no regard for her/ If you love Me you will love the Church." Fellowship with other believers in a corporate worship setting is, quite simply, mandatory for sanctification, and a Christian profession is incredible without it.

[spacebrat311]

Sure, but does that necessarily mean "going to church?" I've just seen too many other powerful ways of engaging God as a community to think that church in the form we've modeled it is at all equivalent to the Church in a larger sense.

[spacebrat311]

Teaching - unfortunately I have more education in theology, and spiritual practice than most of the pastors I meet (when I ask them questions, they often say 'you know more about this than I do'...kind of sad)

I totally resonate with everything you said, but I relate a lot to this point specifically- going to a university where historical study of the Bible is a major source of emphasis kind of ruins you to a lot of pastoral teaching.


Here's a point to consider for all of us though. If we aren't getting anything out of church, is that a reason not to go? Perhaps our calling then is not to be fed but to feed?

Not to invalidate anyone's decision not to go to church. I don't really go myself, and it would take forever to explain why/my alternative. But sometimes I catch myself getting annoyed with the church for not filling my needs and I think that can be a selfish patter  of justification to fall into.

[Josh]

Sure, but does that necessarily mean "going to church?" I've just seen too many other powerful ways of engaging God as a community to think that church in the form we've modeled it is at all equivalent to the Church in a larger sense.

I think the biblical model for Christian fellowship (and observing the Lord's Day!) is pretty clearly a church-going experience. Yes, there are many ways in which we can worship God, but we must never lose sight of the ways He has ordained and commanded us!

[Vlad!]

I'm really pleased that I can pretty much unilaterally come down in agreement with Josh on this one.

Here's a point to consider for all of us though. If we aren't getting anything out of church, is that a reason not to go? Perhaps our calling then is not to be fed but to feed?

I think that a lot of churches in America (I'm not necessarily excusing those outside of America, but I have no experience with them) are just plain not places where the Lord is worshiped, revered, and preached about properly. In this situation, I would encourage you not to give up on church entirely but to find a different church. I realize that denominations make this more difficult, but honestly, if you're denomination X and you feel that your church is dead, if denomination Y has a church that feels alive and Christ-centered, is that just maybe an indication that denomination Y is getting something right?

There's also the possibility that if you're not getting something out of church, this indicates a problem with you. I know that in our post-modern world, telling people they have a problem is not very popular. But if a person is not getting nourished, it may be that he's being fed the wrong things, or it may be that he's refusing to eat. I love my church because the people in it love one another sincerely and love God openly and with abandon, but some people continue to perplex me by coming to church each week, sitting or standing woodenly through the worship, glazing through the sermon, and then leaving immediately afterwards. These people probably wonder why they're not getting fed, when really there are hundreds of people ready to feed and love them if they would just open their mouths.

[Aaron]

I'm really pleased that I can pretty much unilaterally come down in agreement with Josh on this one.

yeah, it's a rarity but I do as well!

[spacebrat311]

I think the biblical model for Christian fellowship (and observing the Lord's Day!) is pretty clearly a church-going experience. Yes, there are many ways in which we can worship God, but we must never lose sight of the ways He has ordained and commanded us!

I see what you're saying, but I can't help but think you're narrowing it far beyond its intended scope. I would argue that it is very clearly a communally shared experience. I can't agree that there's any sense of necessity in the way church has been. You're confusing a methodology for an end.

[Vlad!]

I see what you're saying, but I can't help but think you're narrowing it far beyond its intended scope. I would argue that it is very clearly a communally shared experience. I can't agree that there's any sense of necessity in the way church has been. You're confusing a methodology for an end.

No, I think that once you reach the point where a community is providing the services and filling the needs that are traditionally and Biblically the province of the Church, well, that community has become a church.

[spacebrat311]

how would you define a church, per se?

[bethany]

I'm also in agreement with Josh and Vlad!. Involvement in a local expression of Christ's body is an essential part of life as a Christian.

[Josh]

how would you define a church, per se?

What a huge question! For the purposes of this particular question, though, I would define a church as a body of evangelical Christian believers who meet together for fellowship and worship on the Lord's Day (and probably other days as well, though this is not essential), which must involve preaching the Gospel, espousing the deity of Christ, and basing teaching and doctrine on the Bible and the Bible alone. Biblical worship should also include the preaching, praying, singing, and reading of God's Word.

[dgp11776]

Josh has a hammer, and he is beating the crap out of nail heads.

[spacebrat311]

What a huge question! For the purposes of this particular question, though, I would define a church as a body of evangelical Christian believers who meet together for fellowship and worship on the Lord's Day (and probably other days as well, though this is not essential), which must involve preaching the Gospel, espousing the deity of Christ, and basing teaching and doctrine on the Bible and the Bible alone. Biblical worship should also include the preaching, praying, singing, and reading of God's Word.

So we should meet on Saturdays instead of Sundays then, eh? And you're not a church if you aren't evangelical? I'd be interested to hear where in the Bible these requirements come from, other than just tradition.

[bloop]

I don't think Josh is speaking of "evangelical" with all the political Republichristian connotations the word has now - just "evangelical" in the sense that the church is working on the great commission.

[Vlad!]

What a huge question! For the purposes of this particular question, though, I would define a church as a body of evangelical Christian believers who meet together for fellowship and worship on the Lord's Day (and probably other days as well, though this is not essential), which must involve preaching the Gospel, espousing the deity of Christ, and basing teaching and doctrine on the Bible and the Bible alone. Biblical worship should also include the preaching, praying, singing, and reading of God's Word.

I would also add the taking of communion to that list.

Much like the Christian life is more about a relationship with God than a certain set of actions, a Church is more about the relationship of a group of believers to one another, to the community, and to God than it is about a certain set of actions. However, also like the Christian life, the Bible provides some pretty strong hints about what it looks like when this is done properly.

In Hebrews, in fact, the readers are directed to not forsake meeting together:
"And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near."

[bloop]

I would also add the taking of communion to that list.

My church is a church every week, then.   

[phaith]

I keep reading that the 'fellowship of believers is important, but I'm still not sure how that gets connected only to a building called a 'church'.

When I was in school my Spiritual Theology degree met every thursday to sing, and share what God was doing in our lives. Sometimes we just sat in silence. We has the most intimate connection that I have ever had with Christians, these people know more about me than anyone else on the planet....and that is not church?

I worked for 6 months at a retreat center every Wednesday we met as a staff to sing, have communion, and read scripture...that is not church?

The connection I have with the people I work with is similar to the one I had with my degree, we don't get together as often as my degree did...but that is still not church?

[Josh]

Vlad!-- yes, thanks for adding Communion to the list! Baptism as well, though obviously this doesn't happen every week (unless you have a huuuuuuuge church)

And the Lord's Day is Sunday, not Saturday. (Notice that I was careful not to say Sabbath!)

[Josh]

Also: I think I would basically define evangelical-- in this context-- as a Bible-believing Protestant church.

[Vlad!]

phaith - If those groups fill the Biblical role of the Church in your life, they I don't see why they can't be called as such. I have no particular position regarding on what day churches meet...on one hand, the Christian tradition has the meeting on Sunday, but on the other I'm not sure if that is a point upon which to insist.

My question to those who self-identify as Christian but who do not regularly attend a church: why not? The overwhelming Biblical evidence suggests that believers should be fellowshipping, should be receiving teaching, should be in mentoring/discipling relationships, should be baptizing, should be receiving communion in remembrance of Christ's death, and definitely should be worshiping. Furthermore, it seems that the Church is the vessel God has appointed for these things. I'm not saying circumstances don't exist which could frequently draw the believer away from church, but I will say that this should be the exception rather than the rule.

[bloop]

I think I would basically define evangelical-- in this context-- as a Bible-believing Protestant church.

While my church fits that category, I don't believe Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Messianic Jewish congregations are non-churches.

[spacebrat311]

While my church fits that category, I don't believe Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Messianic Jewish congregations are non-churches.

Very much agreed.

[spacebrat311]

My question to those who self-identify as Christian but who do not regularly attend a church: why not? The overwhelming Biblical evidence suggests that believers should be fellowshipping, should be receiving teaching, should be in mentoring/discipling relationships, should be baptizing, should be receiving communion in remembrance of Christ's death, and definitely should be worshiping. Furthermore, it seems that the Church is the vessel God has appointed for these things. I'm not saying circumstances don't exist which could frequently draw the believer away from church, but I will say that this should be the exception rather than the rule.

I am doing all those things. I am just not doing all of them in any one place. The traditional "show up on Sunday, participate in some common form of musical worship, and listen to a sermon" format does not resonate with me in the slightest. Musical worship really is a topic unto itself, but suffice it to say I've done a lot of wrestling with the issue (first thinking there was something wrong with me, and then thinking there was something inherently wrong with musical worship) and I've come to a place where I can say with certainty that standard forms of corporate musical worship and I do not mix, and that is perfectly ok. I have a problem with sermons, as they offer no forum for discussion and challenge of the viewpoints expressed, which I think is unhealthy, especially considering just how shady a lot of the modern church's theology really is. I go to a small Christian university, however, am minoring in Biblical Studies, and tend to surround myself with others similarly inclined. As such, I am hard pressed to ever be outside Christian community and fellowship, and am involved in a constant state of ongoing learning and discussion of the Bible. Communion is take fairly often at school events and in the Bible study/discussion circles I run in. I would definitely agree that the Church is appointed to equip believers with all of these things, but I think that church is extraneous to this, providing a reliable means to accomplish this, but not the only means by and stretch.

[Vlad!]

Neither this phorum nor I exist to judge you. Personally, I feel like corporate worship through singing and music can be a powerful and wonderful thing (it can also be less so; I think some of it depends on the church and some depends on the heart of the worshiper). I also believe that with the church I go to, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. If I went one place for worship, another place for teaching, another place for accountability and the confession of sins, and another place for the study of the scriptures, I don't think that I would get as much out of it as I do from my church. But if you feel that you find good Christian fellowship at the places where you go and that when you participate in these activities they are enriching to you and fulfilling of our duty to ourselves, to the body of believers, and to our creator, then who am I to speak against it?

[Vlad!]

I was thinking this morning that this topic has actually gotten a bit far afield, although the discussion (I believe) has been fruitful. I notice that everyone who has posited that church in the traditional sense is not necessary for the Christian lifestyle has noted that there are other venues which fill the traditional church role, to the point of actually being the church for these people. The original question has to do with what I think are two points, both of which have only been partially addressed:
* What about people who stay home and attempt to worship individually or with their family ("I was surprised to hear Linford say that they don't go to church anymore - the listen to Louis Armstrong instead on Sunday mornings when they're at the farm.")?
* What about people who travel frequently and have difficulty finding a church that fills their spiritual needs?

[murlough23]

My views on this issue tend to be pretty simple - do not forsake the assembling of yourselves for the purposes of worship and study. (I'm probably paraphrasing/bastardizing some Bible verse there, but I'm too lazy to look it up). Beyond that, as long as you're certain no heresy is being taught, go with what works for you. Don't like "modern worship"? Find a church that does traditional worship or employs some other format altogether. Don't like big churches? Find a smaller one. Don't like the Church as an institution in general? Do the "house church" thing with a smaller group of believers. Travel a lot? Do what you can to maintain some sort of consistent fellowship with a group of Christians, either on an as-available basis when you're in town, or, if you travel for ministry purposes, it might be better done as part of a team who can keep you accountable rather than solo. (I've seen a lot of Christian musicians, speakers, etc. get burned out from the constant travel, lack of accountability, and constant expectation that they can continue to be "holy" people who never misbehave despite all of the temptation inherent in such a transitory lifestyle.)

Whatever the case, the bottom line is pretty simple for me: It's hard to be a Christian alone. Perhaps even impossible. I wouldn't go so far as to doubt the salvation of a Christian who did not attend church. But I would doubt that they would have very many opportunities to grow. It's one of those weird things - your spiritual growth should be simply between you and God, so you'd think it shouldn't be in any way dependent on others. But in practical application, it just seems a lot easier to misinterpret what God is trying to tell you when you don't have a system of checks and balances, people to keep you accountable and to ask the right questions as you strive together for a better understanding of who God is. Basically, if you want to stay a baby Christian, then by all means, isolate yourself from other Christians.

I also think there's a certain amount of hubris involved when a Christian decides they don't want to be part of Christian community. I can totally understand being hurt by specific communities and not wanting to be involved in them any more. I can totally understanding the frustration of trying to finf a community of people that "gets" you. But there is no perfect church out there, not even a perfect small group of Christian friends that you can hand-pick for yourself and consider to be your "church". They are all sinners and they will all eventually let you down... and you will let them down. Even if you found this hypothetical perfect church you're looking for, then why the hell would they want you?

Being a part of Christian community takes a lot of humility, and a lot of willingness to forgive fellow sinners. Humans don't have a great track record with this. Because of that, it's easier to look "cool" to others who have also been disenfranchised by the Church as an institution by indicating to them that you're no longer a part of that club. But if you stop at that, I tend to think you're only part of the problem. Sure, some churches are full of people are who are ignorant jerks, and I would never suggest that someone be required to stick around and continue taking that kind of abuse. But to make the leap to an assumption that all Christians are like that except for you? That's just asinine.

[Vlad!]

It's one of those weird things - your spiritual growth should be simply between you and God, so you'd think it shouldn't be in any way dependent on others.

I don't agree with that statement. Christian fellowship exists in part because humans are designed to grow the most when they are challenged by other humans--iron sharpening iron and all that [1]. After all, how can my fellow Christians encourage me, keep me accountable, and help me become more like Christ if they're not involved very deeply in my life and committed to my spiritual growth, just as I am committed to theirs?

I also think there's a certain amount of hubris involved when a Christian decides they don't want to be part of Christian community. I can totally understand being hurt by specific communities and not wanting to be involved in them any more. I can totally understanding the frustration of trying to finf a community of people that "gets" you. But there is no perfect church out there, not even a perfect small group of Christian friends that you can hand-pick for yourself and consider to be your "church". They are all sinners and they will all eventually let you down... and you will let them down.

I think you're exactly right. It's good to look around and find a church that you feel like you fit into...but I also think that it's easy to make excuses rather than take action.

Being a part of Christian community takes a lot of humility, and a lot of willingness to forgive fellow sinners. Humans don't have a great track record with this. Because of that, it's easier to look "cool" to others who have also been disenfranchised by the Church as an institution by indicating to them that you're no longer a part of that club. But if you stop at that, I tend to think you're only part of the problem. Sure, some churches are full of people are who are ignorant jerks, and I would never suggest that someone be required to stick around and continue taking that kind of abuse. But to make the leap to an assumption that all Christians are like that except for you? That's just asinine.

Again, well said. Think the people going to church aren't good enough for you? They were good enough for Jesus to die for. And your sins were up there with my sins and their sins nailing him to the cross. As murlough said, there are times when a church can become too insular or too inwardly focused to be fruitful, and there are times when a church just might not meet your current needs, even if it is a fruitful church. But when I moved to North Carolina, it took me two tries to find a church that I loved and which I still love, and while I am positive that God guided me to the church that he wanted me to be in, well, I'm no more special than anyone else in that area. Let the one who's omniscient guide you to where he wants you to be, and then have the humility to let it change you and grow you.

[1] Prov 27:17

[murlough23]

I don't agree with that statement. Christian fellowship exists in part because humans are designed to grow the most when they are challenged by other humans--iron sharpening iron and all that [1]. After all, how can my fellow Christians encourage me, keep me accountable, and help me become more like Christ if they're not involved very deeply in my life and committed to my spiritual growth, just as I am committed to theirs?

Just to clarify, I agree with what you're saying here. It just seems a bit weird that a person's individual relationship with God could be contingent upon others. I think there's a certain poetry to the idea that you can't get much of anywhere in terms of spiritual growth without community, but there are times when it does seem a bit counterintuitive to think that your relationship with a third party could be a necessary component of your spiritual growth. What makes sense to my heart doesn't make sense to my brain here.

The way I like to think of it is that every person shows different facets of who God is, so the more people you know, the more you can potentially learn. The danger, of course, is that people also reflect plenty of characteristics that are fully human and not of God, so obviously this requires some discernment.