~ from email ~

I have always considered the usual arguments on church attendance and membership forced and unconvincing, often outright made-up and dishonest. It seems that those who make these arguments wish to enforce a human tradition no matter what, and they impose a moral obligation beyond what the Bible teaches and implies.

All the arguments that assert the necessity of corporate spirituality and that undermine and condemn individual spirituality, even an isolated spirituality (when this isolation occurs not because of rebellion, but because of providence), are completely invented and unbiblical. One popular Reformed theologian even appealed to the slogan that God is our Father, and the Church is our Mother. This is heresy and blasphemy.

Although the church as a local community in itself is not a human tradition but God’s idea, so that it is good and biblical, there are practical elements in how the teaching is implemented so that there is flexibility in its application. If a church is indeed very bad, and you are unable to guide it to a better direction, then there is no biblical reason to force yourself to attend that church, even if there is no other church in the area.

It is popular to insist that a Christian can never survive, or can never grow, or can never grow properly, unless he is surrounded by supportive believers. This is utter rubbish. The Bible does not teach it. Perhaps it is true in some people’s experience because they are not faithful believers who cling to Christ, but rather weaklings who rely on one another – theirs is, at least partly, not a spiritual faith, but a human or social faith. So you do not need to be threatened by them or be enslaved in conscience by their teachings.

That said, you still need to be realistic about your reason for not attending a church, your faith as an individual, and your ability to live and grow as a Christian apart from a community. It is indeed possible and not necessarily wrong, but why are you doing it, and can you do it? Take your faith seriously, and if you indeed must do this, then design measures that will help you grow without a community, such as regular times of prayer and worship, study, ministry, and so on.

When evaluating and choosing a church, we should prefer a “charismatic” church that is overall sound in doctrine even if it is somewhat anti-intellectual, than a cessationist church that presents itself as better in doctrine. I put “charismatic” in quotes because I should not need to make a distinction in the first place, since this is so central to the Christian faith that it ought to be part of its definition. A church that believes in God, or the Scripture, or the atonement, should not need a special designation. Cessationism is the aberration.

Avoid a church that is dead in unbelief. We would want a church that is both sound in doctrine and strong in faith, but such a church is hard to find. Of course, the truth that God performs miracles for people and through people is in itself sound doctrine, an essential aspect of the gospel. Thus with other things equal, a “charismatic” church has a superior theology compared to a cessationist church. A “charismatic” church might not emphasize your favorite doctrines, but it might still be correct on doctrines such as God’s omnipotence, omniscience, Christ’s nature, his atonement, justification by faith, and so on. And it is less likely to explain away everything that the Gospels and the Acts teach about God’s power at work through his people.

Even as a strong advocate of biblical intellectualism, I will tell you that the more intellectual a group is, the more it tends to be possessed by the spirit of the Pharisees. This is avoidable if the spiritual development is well-proportioned, and integrated with faith in God’s power, miracles, and blessings, but many communities fail in this and become possessed by a murderous religious spirit. It is very strong in Reformed and other scholarly circles. Do not stop being a mindless fanatic just so you can become a murderous Pharisee. The Pharisee considers himself superior, but he is in fact much worse.