What is Wrong with going to Church?

[New_Wineskin]

i cannot condemn... i can say that it is not RIGHT for ME... the Lord has convicted me of it... but it may not be wrong for somebody the Lord has placed there for a season

I agree .

 

[If Not For Grace]

I cannot condemn the institutional church... there are a lot of people that would never open up to Christ except for the institutional church... and from there their hearts are opened more and more and more of God's wisdom is poured in.

AMEN-Nor do I condemn home-church--no church. Lest any be a stumbling block. If it had not been for the institutional church many would have had no homes to pray in.

 

[BeforeThereWas]

If it had not been for the institutional church many would have had no homes to pray in.

This is an interesting comment. Could you explain further what you meant by this? I don't understand how the institutional system provided the only place for many to pray? Who are these "many" who would allegedly had nowhere to pray apart from institutionalism?

Thanks

BTW

 

[discernomatic]

Discern: I have experienced many of the things you describe in your post, some personally and some by observation. What about Long Suffering? Are we not to endeavour to persevere? Are we not guaranteed persecution and false prophets? Should we not stand and have a voice against wrong doings inside the organization. Give our young people a living physical example of your signature? My heart aches and sees the current trend as the beginning of the "great falling away".

Hi Dyanm,

Sure. I agree. Perseverance is necessary, it is part of the Christian "education", part of growing up. I do stand up and say what I think is wrong with the organisation. I see much of what is going on in the "revival" or "latter rain" as some call it as a great falling away. I have called it a false revival by a false Holy Spirit. That view is not popular and brings criticism with it. I'm not saying that God cannot use the false revival. When the gospel is preached, no matter by whom, some will be saved. The thing I don't like about it is that they are then led into false doctrine immediately. Paul felt the same way, I think.

Philippians 1:15-18 "It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. The latter do so in love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel.The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice."

He was happy that some preached the gospel no matter what the motive - BUT:

2 Corinthians 11:12-15 "And I will keep on doing what I am doing in order to cut the ground from under those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with us in the things they boast about. For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve."

Paul still insisted that those that preach deception as well, should have the ground cut from under them - should be opposed.

There is another instance when some preached a false gospel which I think is often the case today as with those that preach the gospel but much false doctrine:

Galatians 1:6-9 "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!"

Paul did not hesitate to hope that those that would preach a false gospel would be condemned. I choose not to use such strong language, but I do say it if I think that someone is preaching a false gospel.

Just keeping our mouths shut if every Tom, Dick and Harry says he is Christian, even an Apostle or Prophet as some are doing today, and preaches false doctrine or even a false gospel is not the solution. Some say it is better not to criticize, to promote "unity of the faith," but if they are not promoting faith in the right Jesus Christ - that is, are preaching a false gospel - then I sure don't want to be one with them. They can go down with their ship, but I'm not going to. Everyone has the right to be a Berean and question whether the doctrine they preach is really Scriptural or made up.

It saddens me too, to see so many misled, some even following a false Christ. This can happen in mainline churches, emergent churches, in house churches, cell groups or church movements. The danger is everywhere, just as the truth can be in all these places. But if people choose not to inform themselves, won't listen to the warnings that Jesus, Paul and the others spoke and wrote, what can one do? I try to warn as much as I can, but it isn't popular. Too many these days want a "positive" gospel, a man-centered gospel that doesn't tell them about suffering or persecution. The truth isn't always pleasant, it is just too bad that some can't even gather that fact from the lessons of everyday life, not to mention that it is so plainly written in Scripture. I choose not to go through life with rose-colored glasses, but a lot of people want to. In a way I don't blame them, they are free to do as they like from a human standpoint, but I like to see as clearly as I can.

 

[Qidron]

We have to stay where we are until the Lord says to leave. OF COURSE be the example. But when He says TIME TO GO...you better be out that door...shaking the dust off your feet as you go.

Qid

 

[SNPete]

Dang! I start a thread and it is at 304 posts and counting! Wow I must've struck a cord. Cool. Debate on!

 

[strikerchris0411]

Dang! I start a thread and it is at 304 posts and counting! Wow I must've struck a cord. Cool. Debate on!

yeah controversial subject

 

[BeforeThereWas]

One thing I've encountered with some hardline institutionalists is their ability, for example, to justify almost anything that morally rational individuals would consider wrong, such as censorship of topics institutionalists fear more than they fear the label of hypocrisy. I realize every crowd has its bad apples, but Christians are supposed to be above the tactics and mindset of their secular, unbelieving counterpart. Evolutionists routinely censor out creation science from journals and museums, because they fear the implications of the existence of God. Some institutionalists, unfortunately, are of this ilk. They believe that censoring out what they don't like will make it go away, therefore untrue.

There are some good people within organized religion, of which there is no doubt in my mind. It's just too bad that we can't all come to an agreement upon the authority of God's word above tradition and social dogma. Institutionalsm isn't wrong in and of itself. It simply protects those elements claiming to be "christian" as if they are above the need for accountability.

BTW

 

[strikerchris0411]

Have you ever seen the story where the teenage kid killed his pastor and himself because of religion



he was believed to be one of the two witnesses predicted in Revalations
his pastor molested him
he was very pressured 24/7 to do this and that

he left a video and he told his whole story


religion can be murder


i would write more but my arms broke
forgive grammer

 

[BeforeThereWas]

i would write more but my arms broke
forgive grammer

What in the world happened? How'd you break your arm?

BTW

 

[discernomatic]

I realize every crowd has its bad apples, but Christians are supposed to be above the tactics and mindset of their secular, unbelieving counterpart. Evolutionists routinely censor out creation science from journals and museums, because they fear the implications of the existence of God. Some institutionalists, unfortunately, are of this ilk. They believe that censoring out what they don't like will make it go away, therefore untrue.

Ah, yes, but this can go in the other direction too, as it did with Galileo when he wanted to publish his findings. He was persecuted by the church and the government-which was in league with the church. I think that creation "science" can be taught, but in a philosophy course or religion course. I have had scientist friends and family look at the various proofs given, and some are gravely false. These were neutral people taking an objective look at the information. In some cases the creation science proofs presented only half of the scientific information in that area and ignored the rest that would have disproven the thesis. That is bad science, just as taking only one verse of Scripture on a subject to prove a point and ignoring the rest on the subject would be bad theology. Consistency is needed in science as well as theology if viable theses are to be presented.

If a majority of American churches embrace creation science it is ok. If, however, they insist on having these ideas taught as science, when they cannot be proven by empirical means - just as God's existence cannot be proven by science - then they are promoting bad science, a science mixed with beliefs, a sort of superstion as that which existed in the Middle Ages, also known as Dark Ages. If science becomes mixed with beliefs, there will be no more objectivity, and if America learns to think in this matter, it is the beginning of the end of a successful nation. This will block scientific, technological and medicinal advances in a nation that is currently leading in many fields. I would be sorry to see that happen.

Evolution does not answer all of my questions about nature, either, it has holes, too. But scientific history teaches us that there are always new and better theories to replace the old ones, I suspect that a new one will replace evolution some day. It is only a theory.

In my opinion science and religion and politics must be kept separate. Maybe this is impossible. If it is inevitable that they come together, then I think we will see the Dark Ages repeat themselves all over again, at least on American soil. Hardly anyone outside the US ascribes to such beliefs, and outside the US even if they would believe such things, fewer would attempt to have them taught in schools as scientific fact - this is a purely American phenomenon.

I for one am glad that I am not in any church that promotes this ideological mixture of science and religion - to be put forward by politics. If that is what may be wrong with many churches in America, then I am not sad that I cannot attend. It would be one more thing to stay away from.

Freedom of beliefs is paramount to me. But I don't even want my Christian brothers telling me what to believe. The concept is even worse - if these beliefs are forcibly spread to others, even non-Christians that would like to believe something else. Even if it means they may not go to heaven (I am wording this politely) they do have the right to believe what they choose to. If religious philosophies are put forward as facts then it is forcing others to believe. We end up with a sort of alchemy - a pseudoscience of the philosophers that is neither science nor religion because then religion is confined to the finite by science and cannot transcend it, no matter how much it purports to, and science is not free to explore the finite, because it is confined by philosophy or religious beliefs. I do not want to live in such a cage. I see the new philosophy of creation science or intelligent design as threatening my freedom, and my freedom in Jesus Christ. No philosophy or religion should be taught as fact, or we end up with an oppressive pseudoscience and a maimed religion. If this religion would be called Christianity then that would be the true heresy, not the scientific theory we call evolution.

 

[BeforeThereWas]

Ah, yes, but this can go in the other direction too, as it did with Galileo when he wanted to publish his findings. He was persecuted by the church and the government-which was in league with the church.

We don't see this much any more, except in muslim countries and places like Argentina, where the rcc still is the state sanctioned religion.

I think that creation "science" can be taught, but in a philosophy course or religion course.

Indeed? This, then, suggests that you hold to a long ages theory? If that is the case, then how does one explain the disease, suffering and death, recorded in the fossil record (if that record in fact dates back before the Fall), if indeed those fossils do indeed date that far back before Adam?

I have had scientist friends and family look at the various proofs iven, and some are gravely false.

Oh, yeah? Well, my scientist friends are bigger and tougher than your scientist friends........

Did you like that? A little juvenality thrown into the mix can be fun sometimes. Anyway, it's pretty much a given that scientists just disagree about many things, so those issues tend to become secondary to my own system.

These were neutral people taking an objective look at the information.

Being human, I have grave doubts about any of us possessing the ability to remain completely objective about anything. If we had that ability, then we would not need the Holy Spirit, or even the Lord to guide and direct us. No offense, but unless these friends of yours have achieved deity status, they are just as prone to prejudice as any of the rest of us.

In some cases the creation science proofs presented only half of the scientific information in that area and ignored the rest that would have disproven the thesis.

I don't doubt that this is indeed a possibility. It's also plausible that the other "evidence" is equally, if not moreso, flawed, therefore the good reason for its rejection. So, when it comes to science, we are left with an almost imperical indefinite.

That is bad science, just as taking only one verse of Scripture on a subject to prove a point and ignoring the rest on the subject would be bad theology.

Absolutely.

If a majority of American churches embrace creation science it is ok. If, however, they insist on having these ideas taught as science, when they cannot be proven by empirical means - just as God's existence cannot be proven by science - then they are promoting bad science, a science mixed with beliefs, a sort of superstion as that which existed in the Middle Ages, also known as Dark Ages.

I have observed that which meets with the imperical standards of science in favor of of God's existence. It just depends on how one interprets the rules of science, just like any theological endeavor. Romans chapter 1 gives us good reason to believe why science can indeed show the evidence of His existence. The so-called "imperical" standards within science tend to shift and change colors like a chameleon, depending upon which "scientist" to whom one is speaking.

If science becomes mixed with beliefs, there will be no more objectivity, and if America learns to think in this matter, it is the beginning of the end of a successful nation.

The end of this nation is already at hand, regardless of what system of beliefs, evidence, or anything in between to which we may ascribe. History has shown that we cannot continue down the path of greed unchecked, and survive. The decadence and greed, coupled with the immorality, all spell out a well tested formula for self-destruction.

Actually, that little blurb that led to this response from you was aimed in a different direction. It was a covert observation of something else........that had nothing to do with anyone in this thread in particular.

BTW

 

[Qidron]

There are days when I don't feel like going, but when I get there I am more refreshed than I could imagine. It pulls me out of the defeats of the day.

GETTING BACK TO THE OP....I was rereading the answers in this thread and saw this and I have to admit...going to church did that for me too... for over 25 years...till revival or renewal or whatever you want to call it came and in coming closer to the Lord, I also got closer to the people and that's where all the truths came out....good and bad....some bad enough to open our eyes to what had been under the covers all along.

This could have happen in a house, or home, church too, I suppose, but I do not expect the power struggle would be the same....except for when we stand up for TRUTH....then we are in for it.

"All men will hate you because of ME" Jesus said. And that's a fact. So the closer we get to HIM....whether it's fellowship in a big congegation owned building or a person's humble home, or outside in the open air ....that doesn't change.

THE BROOK

 

[strikerchris0411]

The real question is " does going to church bring you closer to God?" and for some people itt doesn't.

And for some it does

 

[wanttogodeeper]

My question is: just what is wrong with going to church? Wherein lies the objection?

Nothing is wrong with it. However, especially in America the church (as in a building) has become more of a hindrance to relationship and outreach than a help. When the main energy of the church is used to upkeep the structure and deal with the administration of the church, there isn't much left to 'go and make disciples'.

Home church has far fewer hurdles to relationships and as someone else said 'being' church not 'going to' church.

God bless and agape.

 

[Bevlina]

Know what? When it's all boiled down and the fat taken off it's a person's own business if they go to church or not. Me? I go to Church. A Home Church where there are no hypocrites, no backbiting and we are all on the same footing. Nobody outdresses another, we help anyone who needs help and they do not have to come to our little Church. We are not a denomination, not is there a clique in it. It's just a little Christian Church which we all love. Try to push us to church and you'll push us further away. And, this Forum is not for debating either.

 

[If Not For Grace]

become more of a hindrance to relationship

Not for me, if it were not for a good neighbor and Liberty Baptist Chruch, my relationship may have remained bitter from previous spiritual abuse. I was happy to learn that just as with people, churches can be are good, bad and lukewarm.

Praise God, There are some good ones left.

 

[Bevlina]

*MOD HAT ON*


This is not a Debate Forum. Any further debating could cause this thread to be closed. This Forum was created for people who do not go to a church, but instead those who have Home Churches. Please refrain from any comments which may belittle members who do not, or cannot attend a church for their own good reasons.

Thankyou.


*Mod Hat Off*

 

[discernomatic]

Actually, that little blurb that led to this response from you was aimed in a different direction. It was a covert observation of something else........that had nothing to do with anyone in this thread in particular.

I know it wasn't aimed at me, I just couldn't let anything that seemed to be in favor of creation science just lie there without a comment.

I think that this discussion is relevant to the topic of church attendance, at least in my case.

I have been observing the doings of some Protestant para-church organisations and seen their involvement in politics and their influence on the evangelical/fundamentalist part of the US population. I see reason for concern. This segment of American society wants to influence American politics and even foreign policy with its beliefs, although American government has a duty to represent all of its citizens whatever their beliefs may be and guarantee religious freedom. IMO this can only be achieved if the government is religiously neutral, not favoring or disfavoring any religious group be it a majority or a minority. Even German TV has snapped it up, with a program just last week about the implications of creation science on American society and the effects of the beliefs of the president on foreign policy. They would not trust an American president that believed in creation science to be able to think objectively. I think that German TV addressed the issue to prevent Steiner adherents from joining what could be called a creation science movement. Waldorf groups already think in that fashion, a result of a mixture of philosophy and science that Steiner was able to present in a somewhat coherent fashion, beliefs in auras, reincarnation and spirits in inanimate objects, beliefs on the border of worship of nature are not seldom. At present they are a minority, but their ideas of nature permeate German society.

This all just makes me more resolved to stay away from any church that promotes that kind of pseudoscience. If more and more American churches insist on trying to re-invent science according to their image, this would be a very good reason to leave them, and wonder what other organisations it would be necessary to leave. I see people, even friends, that are in churches I would otherwise respect mixing science with religion. They genuinely try to "mission" the other congregation members to embrace the creation science theories - there are more than one - as if they were sound doctrine. Just because they say the world was created in six days as told in Genesis is no reason to accept all of the information given as biblical or factual. I am afraid that those that do not accept it may be seen as heretics - or like those that didn't want to receive the "blessing" in Toronto blessing type churches as "hard to receive" - a negative term. This "mission" information is often given by word of mouth from one member to another, it could be that the church leadership is not informed, but should be so they can at least look at and comment on the material being passed from hand to hand since it may contain not only faulty science but false doctrine.

Everyone can believe what they want, but personally, I will put as much distance as I can between me and a congregation that has accepted creation science as sound religious doctrine and scientific fact.

 

[discernomatic]

Nothing is wrong with it. However, especially in America the church (as in a building) has become more of a hindrance to relationship and outreach than a help. When the main energy of the church is used to upkeep the structure and deal with the administration of the church, there isn't much left to 'go and make disciples'.

Home church has far fewer hurdles to relationships and as someone else said 'being' church not 'going to' church.

God bless and agape.

I agree with you, wanttogodeeper.