Morgan, R. J. (2000).

I wasn’t suggesting that my point was to be applied to everyone who doesn’t go to church but calls themselves a Christian – just a proportion of them, albeit a fair number: “some people” and “some of the people who are not attending church”. Certainly, most will fall within the reasons you discussed.

Your wording is, unfortunately, a good description of what I think the problem might be – that “the love that the Spirit pours into the hearts of believers” is NOT evident, as precisely in the examples I gave of being able to observe quite closely the lives of a few others who are fully involved in church, of how testing the waters of vulnerability in church backfired so frequently for me, and of the countless other examples I hear. It DOES suggest that “His grace to us as sinners who have cost Him the cross has NOT been understood or perhaps received”. Perhaps the presence of those who don’t have freedom in their lives (because it shows and/or because they are saying so) while regularly attending church, is too threatening to others, because the conviction that Christ changes the lives of all who turn to Him doesn’t seem to be working. Either that, or they assume that the person isn’t taking God seriously enough, so it is their own fault that they are struggling. I am not suggesting a mean-spirited intent; I believe that I was on the receiving end of how much the church doesn’t grasp, and doesn’t teach, how different people’s experience of life can be, taking the one-dimensional statement that “just trusting God” is a sufficient solution to offer, without any further communion or interaction to indicate that they are brothers or sisters of the people who are failing.

The very clear message I took from your initial piece was that without being at church, someone cannot be a true Christian. I investigated this assumption with a small number of close friends, and they read the same meaning. You summarised that the “heart of the problem” of being churchless is “a lack of understanding Christ and His way of ministry, His manner of love and His union with believers”, but before, you described the “Christian outside of a local church” as “an odd creature indeed and not a very pleasant one”. The message is surely unambiguous, that unless or until someone reaches this certain level of understanding, and how this shows itself in their life and conversation, they are given such a harsh and divisive label.

I’ll give one example. A friend regularly met up with a staff member of a church. The staff member was enthusiastic, but my friend was reluctant. This went on for several weeks, until my friend mentioned that the questions that the staff member was asking were not the questions that were on their mind. I don’t know what the questions were, but at the time they would have been along the lines of, “why did my grandfather have to die?”, “why are my parents separating?”, “why does life suck?” The questions were not answered that afternoon, and the staff member never contacted my friend again – ever, even though she lived in the house next door to the church’s office.

The last paragraph of my first piece was not trying to answer my own questions; I really was wondering if you had a yes or no answer to them. My own answers are:

(1) Can a person be a Christian and not be part of a local Christian fellowship? I think the answer is yes – in the same way that some of those who appear fully involved in a local Christian fellowship are not Christians – those who so obviously take pleasure in, and persistently embrace, the unbiblical attitudes and behaviours I previously mentioned, while thinking that they have already done everything that they need to do to be saved. I’m questioning the presumption of total correlation between involvement in church fellowship, and a changed heart, or, more precisely, the willingness for a changed heart.

(2) and (3) Is there such a creature as a Churchless Christian, and does one leave Christ when one leaves the church? To me, these two are two sides of one question, so “yes” and “no”, yet I realise that this raises for me the question, what is “Church”, and what is a “local Christian fellowship”? I had never previously thought of it as anything other than I’m sure you would define “Church”, but this issue, this experience of mine, is changing that.

Consider this scenario: a few people meet in a school hall on a Sunday morning, sing psalms and hymns, listen to a sermon, take communion together, are lead in prayer, and maybe also meet together in smaller groups at some point. On the surface, that does sound like the church. However, over morning tea, they talk amongst themselves about anything and everything other than the sermon or the people mentioned in the prayers, they all keep their distance from those who present too-challenging a message, such as guests trying to raise awareness of ministries such as “Voice of the Martyrs” (perhaps with a display, which nobody approaches), they talk to visitors and their friends first, then perhaps acquaintances, but hardly ever to those who have been attending for some time but are awkward. Sometimes someone vocally mocks those who suffer, such as those with depression, and no healthy response is made by anyone. They do not talk about the behaviours that they struggle with outside of their meeting, the behaviours that they can hide when they meet together for an hour or two. They talk about the problems that they don’t have; they denounce murder, stealing, use God’s name in vain, physical violence, but they don’t talk about what IS going on for them. Within a group of, say, one or two hundred people, there will be perpetrators of deep emotional abuse, some sexual and physical abuse, active addictions (alcohol, drugs, gambling, sex and pornography, spending) that are out of control, anger that is taken out on others behind closed doors, fears and anxiety that inhibit people from their basic responsibilities and quality of life, passionate slander and gossip and bad-mouthing others on a daily, conversation-by-conversation basis, hatred of being around other people, never praying or reading the Bible. These things are never personally discussed.

So, digging a little deeper, I am lead to have my doubts over the NECESSITY to be in “Church” to be a Christian. As far as a changed life that includes a more authentic way of interacting and helping people where and when it really counts, what is being gained?

As for the question of, does one leave Christ when one leaves the church, it depends on what is happening in the person’s mind and heart, and there are plenty of people who have left Christ without leaving the church. Yes, I believe that there is a problem if they (we) are completely at ease with not being part of a church, or don’t grieve in some way that they are not, although a complete lack of desire to be amongst church people may understandably be due to how many years and many churches they have unsuccessfully worked at finding unity and sincere / genuine fellowship. I have seen much “leaving of Christ” in New Zealand by those in conservative / reformed circles as much as in pentecostal / charismatic circles.

I have no disagreement with the Scriptures you cited, and I agree that the only thing I can do about it is to discover and “find my way into some community of the cross which loves Christ for His grace and loves other believers”. My experiences of church do not, however, portray the direct humility and care for others, the depth of interaction with each other, the openness and transparency, that I see described and suggested in other parts of the Bible.

Hmm, if Scripture “doesn’t ever present a picture of the Christian outside of the context of the Body gathered as members”, how do you actually match that with your comment, “There is no way that I would ever make any human action such as church attendance a condition of my being a real Christian”? Surely it is yes or no, but if not, what is the middle ground?

I too think that the word “attendance” is completely deficient to describe a truly Christian community, but I chose in the circumstance.

Sadly, I have long seen that when people focus so heavily on what they believe, on determining the nature of God and how they should behave as an organised church group, using all their time together wrestling with working out their theology as it applies to every topic that comes along (and there is no end of life’s topics to apply a belief to), they seem to get distracted from their behaviour, their interactions with people, their effort in listening to others around them, their favouritism, their inherent self-centredness as fallen people. When the belief becomes what they trust in (seemingly to validate their opinions), rather than trusting Who they believe in (helping remind them that they / we all are the “worst of sinners”) they stop paying attention to asking God to help them with their day-to-day failures (missing the mark), which, I observe in myself and others, don’t just go away automatically. Believing that they are right, or believing that they believe the right theology about God, leads them to assume that their behaviour must be right, stops all examination of themselves, and this pride just hurts others.

Accompanying that, I observe that people don’t talk honestly about what they believe, or more importantly, what they don’t (yet?) believe, speaking openly of exactly where they are at, because they don’t want to be thought of as lacking trust, of questioning God’s Word – because when they are seen this way, and are treated with contempt, and thought of as seeming to think they know better than the Bible. It seems that people in church try to prevent real questions about faith, as if God’s Word and power will be embarrassed or threatened by disagreement from the inside.

I have said a lot, I have probably rambled, I may have jumped topics illogically, and some may think that it’s cowardly to state these views so anonymously on the internet, but (1) it’s a topic that weighs on my heart, and (2) I’m a bit reticent to try to discuss this openly in person within the church – not currently.

Michael.

Your questions at the close of your reply are of interest to me, because it seems you have answered at least one of them when you said “The article is saying that a condition of being a real Christian is to belong to a local fellowship.” I beg to differ with you because I could never say such a thing with my theological point of view. There is no way that I would ever make any human action such as church attendance a condition of my being a real Christian. That would be to bring my being a Christian to a very low level indeed. I am a believer solely because of Him and His work and I am confident that for me to know this truth with increasing insight will be to know an increasing peace and rest in my troubled soul. Any demands I make or the church makes of one kind or another can bring no rest. Only Jesus gives this rest and I for one need to know this truth more.

What interests me, however, is whether the Scriptures ever present a picture of the Christian outside of the context of the Body gathered as members. I stand by my choice of the Scriptural material I have cited as supporting the case that they do not. What will we then do about it? The only thing we can do is to discover and find our way into some community of the cross which loves Christ for His grace and loves other believers because it believes itself to be a greater debtor to His grace than these other believers are.

I personally hate the idea of ‘attendance’ because what has that to do with a Biblical idea of the community of the cross? In that community the Holy Spirit gives each member some gift with which to bless the brothers and sisters and as a ‘member’ of the Body, he or she is saved to give that gift to others to build them up in Jesus Christ.

Thank you for writing what you have. As a pastor of a church, I hurt inside when I hear of the pains other believer have in regards to their relationship or lack of it, with the local church. The whole matter of the disconnect between so many believers and the local church troubles me more now after 35 years in the ministry than it ever did when I was young. I can see so many reasons why people want to give up on church. But in giving up, they are giving up on themselves in a sense. I sincerely hope you will find some group of believing people who freely confess how much they owe to Jesus and who want to meet together to tell Him so, as a group of sinful, but precious (to Him), believers.

Do get in touch with me again if you would like to talk some more on this issue. Steve

The article doesn’t conceive that some of the people who are not attending church are seeking to return to church one day. To call them odd and unpleasant is divisive, and I’m left wondering what relationship with those who don’t attend church is begin sought. Hearing those words only adds to my anguish at my relationship with church membership.

Is this yet another case of the surely inadvertent but continual requirement portrayed in church of meeting some standard of attitude, of behaviour, of understanding, of trust, of confidence, of sociability, of speech, of topic of conversation, of behaviour, of outward success, in order to be acceptable to a church?

The article is saying that a condition of being a real Christian is to belong to a local fellowship. I have to disagree, in part because of lifestyles that I see in some of those who regularly attend church and advocate that church attendance is essential: decades of daily, constant and unrepentant gossip and slander about all those around them, regular talk of what is wrong with others, and why, but with no hint of what can be done to help and love them; regularly seeking out others who will go along with these conversations; hyper-Calvinism being alive and well; hours spent lapping up the soft porn of evening television, at the same time as criticising those who make it – all this with no hint of a changed heart. One such person even said, “I keep getting told to be nicer to people, but I think – why?” Is this “loving in Jesus’ way”?

If I can be a Christian by turning up but still actively clinging on to the depravity in my heart, and setting an example that activities such as these are acceptable, then I’d even consider being prepared to forego the title of “Christian”.

However, while living seems a constant struggle, I fall out of bed onto my knees (literally) each morning, declaring that there is nothing in my heart or soul that is able to find God or live a holy, constructive, life, without His work and intervention in my heart and circumstances. I plan each day to only include situations that are above reproach, to actively avoid situations that would render the day wasteful. For each action and interaction which ends up being destructive and hurting someone, or even just awkward (of which there are too many), my daily subsequent prayer is to ask God what my role, my selfishly imposed will in the situation, was, and what I can do if necessary to make right those specific wrongs, as well as how I can avoid a repeat in the future. For encouragement, I actively seek out and meet with acquaintances and friends who are seeking the same trust in God, and whom I can reciprocate with encouragement. I read the Bible every day so that I can know who God is, how to know Him, and how He wants me to live, believing that it is the only book that can tell me this. I pray for constant awareness of when and how I start imposing my own ideas and desires and opinions of how I want to live life, in the specific actions and interactions and situations that I find myself in. For all this, I need God to give me various things on a daily basis that I do not otherwise possess: humility, courage, perseverance, wisdom, hope, vigilance, and honesty (self-honesty), amongst others.

But, I don’t go to church.

According to this article, I am not a believer or a Christian, only a “believer” or a “Christian”. Does it make the way I live my life, as described above, pointless?

I tried to be a part of a local congregation. When I acted as if my life was going well, I was being insincere – dishonest actually, but when I tested the waters of honesty and vulnerability in church, it backfired: I was told just how to easily fix it, or what I should do, or told that I didn’t have enough faith, or was told to “get over it” (repeatedly), or was given sneering looks, or was ignored. Would the writer of the article consider that these continual responses to me are examples of “a relationship of some depth”, or “an identifiable group of people involved in spiritual activities together”? I was not seeking sympathy; rather, I was hoping that struggling, failing and being wrong was an acceptable starting point for fellowship.

Does someone have to get their act together before turning up, so that their brokenness, awkwardness, failure, or embarrassment, doesn’t show, and mustn’t be mentioned, when at church? Do the only acceptable reasons why people fail and struggle at life have to be ones attributable to some “external” influence or event – relationships, business, abuse and other violence, health problems? That would suggest that people are inherently capable of living sin-free lives – if it weren’t for the influence of others.

The church is full of self-reliance, but it does not realise it. Raising questions is seen as doubt about God, interpreted as a lack of faith. This article confirms that being wrong and weak in church is not acceptable, not approachable, and so I am left with trying to find somewhere that will at least allow me to be myself, be honest, be able to trust that those who I would seek help from and confess my failures to, with the aim of those failures decreasing, and where I will not end up being condemned.

The writer said that “some might sympathise” over the experiences of “unjust and heartless relationships and leadership in the church”, indicating that the he does not. If there is nothing to sympathise about, then either he is saying that there is no wrong to ever address when people are unjust and heartless, or that the recipient of the behaviour is wrong to feel hurt, regardless of what happened. Again, here is an expectation of being so well adjusted that we will always make right responses to any interaction with another person, and if we don’t, we’re the one at “fault”.

There is no hint given about how those who did the hurting should act, no examination of how bad and how constant the badness can sometimes be in churches, no responsibility to be taken for what has happened. It seems that no matter how ungodly the godly act, no matter how consciously they may do it or determined they may be to do it, so long as they do it within the church, they are Christians, saved, supported and validated.

The article makes the church’s love conditional: we are acceptable if we turn up, but unacceptable to you if we don’t; and it also seems in conflict with the Gospel: we must achieve a level of accomplishment, not needing to show vulnerability, before we will be treated as having properly acknowledged our need of Christ.

I am not trying to pull down the writer’s argument; I am wanting to highlight its lack of understanding of those it expects to be in church, but aren’t.

It would be good if the author would directly answer three of his own questions: (1) Can a person be a Christian and not be part of a local Christian fellowship? (2) Is there such a creature as a Churchless Christian? (3) Does one leave Christ when one leaves the church?

Thank you