Why Are You “Dissing” the Church?
Leaving the institutional church has been one of the best decisions our family has made. Granted, there are the social aspects that we miss (my wife especially, she’s a people person), but it doesn’t take much searching to admit that real friendships have to be based on more than just a weekly formal gathering. Want to know who your real friends are? Just try leaving your church for whatever reason. See how many of them still keep in contact with you. In fact, it was a comment very similar to that which I posted on Facebook a few weeks ago, which prompted quite a debate.
There is a young man with whom I am friends, let’s call him “Trevor”. I have personally known Trevor for many years. Trevor has come to me with many questions about some of the things I post on Facebook, and we have had some very edifying discussions. We’ve talked at length about the differences between Justification and Sanctification. He is genuinely seeking answers, and I am grateful for the opportunities to help disciple him.
But a few weeks ago, Trevor sent me the following private message on Facebook:
“Hey Andy I keep seeing you dissing on churches and even though you are probably right why not use your intelligence and abilities on helping teach people about God. There are a lot of people who need God that I’m sure are reading that and when people see hostility amongst Christians towards other Christians it turns them off to it completely and isn’t that contradictory to what we want for people”
I understand the motivation behind his response, and I don’t hold it against him. It is typical from anyone who sits under the orthodoxy of the institutional church. Trevor has probably even spoken with his pastor about some of these issues I’ve brought up, and maybe this response comes after the result of one of those conversations. Either way, his tone of concern is well noted and appreciated. So below you will find my response to Trevor. I apologize that it is rather lengthy, but I hope that it will be edifying.
Dear Trevor,
I’m sure you will agree that it is hard to give a full-orbed treatise within the confines of a simple Facebook status message. It doesn’t lend itself well for going into details. So the goal is to try and make your point in the most direct and concise manner possible. For that reason, a simple matter-of-fact statement may come across as curt and abrasive. That is unavoidable. Nevertheless, statements such as these should prompt people to think. But often times, rather than think, people respond defensively because they automatically assume I am attacking them. I am not attacking people, I am challenging ideas. But most people are too lazy to differentiate the two because they have too much ego invested in their ideas, and therefore take any attack on an idea as a personal attack. This is true of both Christians and non-Christians alike. And actually I have found that those who call themselves “Christian” have an even greater tendency toward ego investment, and there is a very good explanation for that, which leads me to the next point.
When you challenge what a “Christian” has traditionally been taught, you are indeed challenging their very salvation. And this is a frightening prospect for them. But it is for this very reason that these notions need to be challenged, because what it boils down to is that their faith is in a “belief system” rather than belief in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. That which passes for “the church” is the very embodiment of this belief system. Is it any wonder then that people have such a knee jerk reaction? For someone to even raise the question that what they have been taught might be wrong scares the crap out of them!
This is why I criticize the institutional church, because it embodies this system that has kept people in the spiritual dark ages for centuries! The institutional church is based on “authority”, and the system is needed to maintain the authority. But this is so contrary to scripture. There is to be no authority among the brethren of Christ. Christ is the authority! And he is the only mediator between God and man. Now that is not to say that there is not leadership, but leadership is not the same as authority. Authority implies “power”, while leadership implies “example”. But the emphasis within the traditional “church” model is predicated on power and authority, and everything that happens within the confines of these institutions is designed to maintain that power structure. It has been that way since the very early beginnings of the Roman Catholic church in the 4th century. And Protestantism is no different.
I see many good genuine Christian people languishing away within the walls of the institutional church, and it grieves me deeply, for there are eternal consequences at stake. Not as far as salvation goes, but with regard to eternal rewards. You have spiritually illiterate Christians looking to some authority to tell them what to believe, who have never been equipped to carry out the task that was given to them from the first day they were born again- to go out and make disciples. They are not exercising their gifts. Instead they hide their talent in the ground, waiting for the Master to return and say, “here Lord, here’s what you gave me.” And there will be no eternal reward for them. And the church is purposefully keeping them in this state of immaturity. How I long for believers to realize their full potential as Children of God! But that will never happen in the “church”. The church serves itself.
So, even having said all of that, I still haven’t fully been able to explain the depth of this all. But your concern is how this arguing among believers will turn off others. I contend that what turns of the unsaved is not the fact that they see Christians argue, but rather that Christians don’t even know what they believe. Furthermore, what they do claim to believe is not even rational. Christianity for the past 1500 years has simply failed to produce a fully rational explanation for why someone should believe in Jesus. There must be more to it that just, “well you just have to have faith.” Faith must be grounded in reality. So we don’t simply lay aside arguments regarding contending for truth just for the sake of presenting the illusion of a unified front to the world.
In addition, the traditional excuse for evangelism is simply nothing more than who has the better sales pitch for getting someone to attend their church versus another. This ties in directly with the notion of salvation being in the church. Christians are more interested in getting people into their church than they are with teaching people about the gospel of the Kingdom. By definition, the church cannot be comprised of unbelievers. The body of Christ, the “assembly”, is only made up of believers. The purpose of believers assembling is for edification, and that happens by four functions: instruction in the word, fellowship, sharing meals (including the Lord’s table), and praying together. (Acts 2:42). How can an unbeliever possibly be any part of that? He shares nothing in common. He is not a part of the Body. 2 Corinthians 6:14-15 says, “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?” Unbelievers have no part in the fellowship of God’s people.
Now the excuse has been that we need to bring unsaved to church so that they can get saved. But that is simply a lazy excuse for evangelism. It is not what Christ’s instructions were. Believers gather in fellowship to be edified. Having then been properly equipped, WE can go OUT into the world to take the gospel TO the lost so that they can HEAR it from US. Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. How then shall they believe in whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they be SENT? (Romans 10:14-15, 17) Every believer is a preacher- and ambassador from God’s heavenly Kingdom – sent forth with the message of reconciliation to the world. It is our mandate as individuals, NOT the function of an institution!
And so seeing how the “church” has utterly failed in every way in all of these areas, I hope you can better understand now why I have such disdain for it and am so critical of it. But the answer is not reform. It doesn’t need to be reformed, it needs to be defeated because it is not what God intended for His people. The answer is, to come out from among them and be separate. And that is what I have done, and that is what I want to encourage all believers to do. Come out from this institution and join in genuine fellowship with other like-minded believers and start exercising your gifts. There is no horizontal authority between men among believers. All authority is in Christ.
Andy
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
Earnest discussion or dissension with other Christians about God is usually taboo.
Most learn by asking questions & discussing. That’s not going to happen in a church service. So it seems “facts” are regurgitated without care if concepts make sense. 🙂
Btw, I have friends who I still get together with after leaving a church 8 yrs ago. Probably because we did stuff outside of church & it was normal to continue to get together. Also, church is not their God.
I left traditional church. Friendships are important. I am now involved in a non-religious homeschool group that meets about once a month. I’ve met some great moms there who have become friends. I have also made friends of varying degrees along the way at sports activities, playgrounds, & thru friends. I hope your wife meets new friends of her own soon.
Odd to say, but I’m glad I have friends from way back that aren’t Christian. Their lives & behavior were a solid picture of what good is. In church, I heard that suffering is good. A person gave their testimony that they prayed for cancer so they could grow closer to God. Their prayer was answered & then they were able to feel love from concerned others & trust God, they said. I heard a message of death (as John Immel might call it) that morning. It sent chills down my spine. Few Christians would condemn the theology, even if they think praying for cancer is wrong.
LikeLike
A Mom,
Your comment is so encouraging because it demonstrates that one can still have social interaction outside the confines of “the church”. In fact, if your only social interation is in “the church”, then you are in essence isolating yourself from the very people that God has commissioned us to reach with the Gosple of the Kingdom.
You are correct; dissention is not tolerated. The only possible way to have discussions with other Christians is if you tow the line of orthodoxy. Venture outside of that and they begin bombarding you with proof-texts.
Andy
LikeLike
If only that. Actually, they will begin to make moves to neutralize you. If you are a particularly significant threat, they will go after your marriage. Because they assume you are totally depraved, they will start by encouraging your wife to “come clean about what is really going on in your husband’s life.” If that doesn’t produce anything, they will educate the wife on the “fact” that abuse isn’t just physical, it’s also verbal and is also manifested in the things that the husband doesn’t do. Pretty soon, go figure, your wife thinks your marriage needs counseling. If you say no, that will just confirm what she has been fed, and golly gee, “what does he have to hide?” End game. “Who are you to question us when you are in marriage counseling?” LOL! Institutional church = C-U-L-T. However, again, it is vital that the church is replaced with something that is the true fellowship model.
LikeLike
Some good points brought out here. Yes, in traditional formal preaching, there is no interaction. I think that is major. In the ever-popular mid-week “flock groups” the Sunday sermon is discussed, but be sure of it: that is for the express purpose of identifying decenters. So, the true model is used as a control mechanism. And the whole thing about praying for cancer. Well, again, Luther and Calvin believed that “all wisdom is hidden in suffering.” The material must be diminished, and to the degree that happens, the spiritual is manifested. The Bible NEVER tells us to embrace suffering with one exception:suffering for “righteousness sake” or in other words persecution for living according to the truth. Death is God’s enemy. Christ came to end death. Death is the last enemy that will be defeated. Paul said to mourn with those who mourn, etc., etc., etc. What makes all of this death culture so popular? Easy–you don’t have to face life. You can just write it all off as a pile of dung. Instead of casting all of your fears on God, you can just label anything you might be afraid of as absolutely wonderful and look like a spiritual giant in the process. Lastly: as we will be discussing tonight, unbelievers can do good works, but it translates into less death and not more life. The rightful exodus from the institutional church MUST BE replaced with something.
LikeLike
In fact, due to the fact that New Calvinism (authentic Calvinism) has taken over most of the churches, if you are a vistor and seem to have theological wherewithal, they will immediately move to find out everything about you that they can under the auspices of the “friendly and family oriented church.” The pastor of one church Susan and I visited attempted to arrange a meeting where I would not have been present and Susan ripped the guy up one side and down the other.
LikeLike
Andy . . . I would submit that you are giving Trevor too much credit. His fundamental assumption is that “The Church” is the primary social unit and as such should be protected at the cost of truth.
Any time someone prefaces their comment with “You are probably right but . . .” is making an implicit values statement: TRUTH is subordinate to something.
Notice that sum of Trevor’s argument is that you should stop advocating the TRUTH because your criticism drives people away from the church. This lets him package internal “church” conflict into as the motive power for driving people away from the God.
This is theological fraud on at least two levels.
1. (assuming Trevor is a good Calvinist) There is NO human agency anywhere, anyplace any time. So it doesn’t matter how nice we are to one another this has NOTHING to do with who receives salvation. There is no such thing as human action “turning people off.” God turns them off. God turns them on. Or more precisely God tosses some people in a vat of fire for eternity. Or God lets them walk on streets of gold. Why does he do this? Shrug . . . who knows.
2. (assuming Trevor is a hypocritical Calvinist like most people) He means to say that people must ignore the Truth in service to a veil of harmony. Or said another way, people must abandon the truth in service to IMAGE. Or said another way, people must subordinate the truth for the Greater Good. (e.g. Men need God)
So Trevor is saying that Men must abandon the truth in service to propaganda that saves the churches image for the greater good of humanity.
This is a vile ethical standard and exactly what all mystic despots have said while they were filling mass graves.
LikeLike
John,
I will admit, I do have a tendency to give people the benefit of the doubt. But since Trevor is a young man in his early 20’s who just recently began going to church, I believe he said what he said out of ignorance. He does not know what he does not know. I would not be surprised if his remark was prompted after speaking with his pastor about these matters. But your point is well taken. The assumption is that truth must be subordinate to some illusion of “unity”.
LikeLike
John and Andy.
What John has outlined here is so obvious when it is pointed out. He concedes that Andy is more than likely correct, and then proceeds to make the institutional church more relvant than truth. I use the example of Paul David Tripp conceding that the Bible does, in fact, command us to do certain things when taken literally, but then goes on to say that such literal interpretations circumvent the saving works of Christ. Instead, he advocates an interpretation that puts all texts in their “gospel context.”
LikeLike
I should have put quotes around church. But in America, the meaning of church is: a place where a pastor preaches a sermon. There are all sorts of ideas I am noticing that are wrong, IMO. It’s like I have fresh eyes.
Yes, be encouraged. I don’t doubt that you & your wife & kids will meet new friends.
LikeLike
Well, I still think you are giving him too much moral absolution. I don’t think this is trying to think the best of people. This is deferring his moral culpability by attributing his error to ignorance, intellectual vacancy, and Age.
1. I notice that he is not making the assertion based on ignorance—Quite the opposite. He thinks he is protecting a very specific metaphysical premise: the supremacy of the Church. He sees you as a threat to the church and is demanding you subordinate your rational judgment to propaganda. No one making such an argument can claim ignorance as absolution. A comprehensive metaphysical argument precludes ignorance because the complexity demands enormous amounts of intellectual awareness.
2. What does it matter if he has been talking to a pastor? How does the source of the argument change the fact that he is representing the argument as the ethical ideal? The fact that he got his ideas from somewhere is irrelevant. We all get our ideas from other people but this fact does not mean we are absolved for embracing wrong ideas. For all self appointed rational people the moral imperative is to get the RIGHT answer. Placing the moral burden on the source fails to uphold the only rational moral standard—rational self appointment. The only alternative is to say that the individual is intellectually vacant, meaning they can’t think for themselves. But if this is true then there is no need to engage the rationally vacant because that person will only be swayed by who spoke to him last.
(And as a brief aside I would like to point out that this is the same argument that the Calvinist aficionados make. They discredit the source of an argument to invalidate the ideas within the argument. I don’t know how many times I heard “But you got that from John Immel. If you didn’t listen to him you would think the right thing.” But this really means that the Calvinist aficionado’s think that their audience is rationally vacant. They are too mentally weak to arrive at their own conclusions. And of course Al Mohler says as much.)
3. Last . . . I submit that age is not a moral get out of responsibility free card. Would you grant him the same latitude if he were having sex with his pet goat? Would you pass that off as the vagaries of youth?
Doing the wild thing with a goat is morally reprehensible but Trevor’s breach with the supremacy of TRUTH in service to promoting propaganda is the peak of moral bankruptcy . . . deserving of a full, total and unequivocal condemnation.
The reason I’m making a dealeo out of this is because, at the moment, Calvinists believe they are the only ones entitled to moral condemnation. They are quick to demagogue the moral high ground to dominate the argument. But they do not have a moral leg to stand on and by refraining from calling them to account for their profound moral bankruptcy they get to a pass on a crucial issue: their culpability to the TRUTH.
Paul is fond of pointing out how fast and loose Calvinists play with reality… How often they rewrite reality in service to propaganda: “wisdom is hidden in suffering.” This should not be given a pass anywhere anytime. These men are not moral. They are moral disasters.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Worm theology is indeed a very ancient idea.
LikeLike
Because now they can’t farm out their salvation. Now they have to make an effort to have the right worldview. Giving at the office is so much easier than actually dong the work.
LikeLike
Andy,
I have a solution for ya. See if you can get Trevor to come to the 2015 TANC conference. He’ll change his mind once he hears John & Paul speak (along with Argo’s colorful comments thrown in for good measure). He’ll think they’re the hostile ones! HA! 🙂
LikeLike
All kidding aside, I’d try to engage Trevor in discussion (I’ve found emailing videos & blog sites along with face to face conversations work best for me when I’m talking with friends & relatives who are Calvinists). It would be good for Trevor to know dissension regarding reformed faith is not new or minor, & people have been punished with their lives for disagreeing. Ask questions & encourage questions. Refuting Calvinism on youtube has some helpful videos Trevor may be open to watching. Scopolamine, The Parable of the Wicked Fireman, The Age of Accountability, Martin Luther did he hate the Jews, Calvinism according to John Calvin are a few of them. NT Wright has some good ones. Then, of course, the TANC videos. Those may whet his appetite for the TANC conference.
The big factor is whether a Calvinist is even open to just hearing that there’s a different point of view. Some (most?) Calvinists won’t even discuss. Of course, I’m female & we know where females land. That may be why zero theological discussion is possible with some in my case. Women don’t have the same insight men have. 😉
There is hope for change IF someone is willing to listen & think it over. I changed my mind on it – for one. I engaged in many face to face conversations… well, heated yet self-controlled debates with a loved one over a period of time, while giving them youtube videos, blog sites, etc. They, too, eventually changed their view – that’s two. They have been talking (in person or on the phone) with several reformed friends about the truth for a while now. It has taken patience & persistence & youtube videos & blog sites. Some of the friends are changing their views. At least one has – that’s three.
Side note: I’ve found that people who are used to engaging in lively debate & discussion are less likely to be offended by differing points of view & actually enjoy the mental exercise (that would be my family). People I know who were brought up in homes where love means you never disagree (you talk behind each other’s back) are much more difficult to talk to, I’ve found. It seems manipulation, not thought-provoking discussion, is the method. But my friends, Christian & nonChristian, know where I stand. I sprinkle it into conversations by making an observation, comment or question as we discuss different things that come up in our lives.
IMPORTANT NOTE: There are Calvinists who are evil-doers & opportunists. They will manipulate & then happily & hungrily devour you & all that is dear to you. It’s their modus operandi. They have found home, understanding & safe haven in Calvinism – a match made in hell. I completely avoid them whenever possible.
LikeLike
Sorry it’s been so long since I’ve weighed in here. I’m having the hardest time trying to shake this whatever it is I have. But I have been monitoring all the great comments and discussion going on. Let me just add a few thoughts.
I believe that it is the intention of Christ for His body to have regular assembly with one another. That much is clear from all the NT writings. I also believe that this was not merely a spontaneous gathering, but was to be a regular, organized occurrence, much like the Jewish “synagogue” model that the first believers continued to follow (since they were Jews after all). This same model continued among the assemblies of Asia Minor/Greece which comprised both Jewish and Gentile believers. So they obviously had something that worked. It was what they already knew. So I think any kind of alternative or solution to the issue of the fellowhsip of believers must too be organized and regular.
That being said, “organized” does not automatically imply “authority/power”. That is what the “church” has become, contrary to what Christ and the Apostles warned against, not being “lords” over each other and such. But “organized” does give a sense of purposefulness. The saints need to assemble in order that they may edify each other, and that should be done purposefully on a regular basis.
I have had wonderful fellowship with many just by interacting here on this blog, and at the TANC conference, and in my conversations with Paul and others on-line and through e-mail. That is truly edifying, but it is no replacement for face-to-face fellowship with other believers. At the same time, I will not sacrifice truth to attend a “church” just for the sake of being face to face with those who call themselves “christians”. And this is the dilemma I find myself in, as I’m sure do many others who also visit this site.
I find I have a great affinity for those like “A Mom” and “Pearl” and many others, who I’m sure, given the opportunity if circumstances permitted, would not hesitate to have our own regular fellowship together face-to-face. Unfortunately, geography puts a damper on that possibility.
At the same time, I have invited many of my “christian” friends to get togther for a simple time of Bible study to no avail. The “club” mentality that exists among the institutionalized runs deep. Too many feel a betrayal to their own “church” should they attend some fellowship not sanctioned by their own institution, perhaps even betraying their own salvation.
So, my only recourse (and this is perhaps the best solution for the time being) is to simply lead and teach my own family. We will edify and equip one another so that we can go out and reach the mission field that is in our own neighborhood. If we do our jobs right in bringing the message of the Gospel of the Kingdom to the lost right on our own street, our fellowship cannot help but grow as we see others being born again. And we already have the infrastructure in place. We don’t have to worry about what “church” they go to. They would be invited to fellowship with us. And it only grows from there. In a sense, I think we must simply write off our “christian” friends in the “institutional church”, and simply grow home fellowships by winning others to Christ. After all, isn’t that what we’re supposed to be doing anyway?
Just my thoughts.
Andy
LikeLike
Just a quick follow up:
I had a great face-to-face talk with “Trevor” yesterday. He thanked me for everything I had written to him and said that he was in agreement with it. We didn’t get to talk long, but I am thankful that he responded positively. Later on that day, he also followed up with the following private message in Facebook:
“Andy I want you to know I really appreciate you sharing your thoughts on the Bible. It means a lot to me. And when I can and the more I learn the more I will be able to ask and debate with you. I truly appreciate everything you do for me.”
There is hope for our young people yet!
Andy
LikeLike
“However, again, it is vital that the church is replaced with something that is the true fellowship model.”
John Immel,
Leaving can be a big step. But once people do, they may be wary of organized fellowship for various reasons. Okay, I’m going to poke & prod. Your thoughts? Ideas on the matter?
Hope you reply & will be so-inclined to leave out goats. I thought you were a juvy in juvy for a second with that comment!
LikeLike
AM,
Andy is pretty sick right now; so, not sure when he will jump back in here. And I have about 50 irons in the fire, so I am not sure how this stream is fitting together, but if you don’t mind too much, I am going to jump on “they may be wary of organized fellowship for various reasons.” Whatever the wariness is, it all focuses on authority. First, and most unfortunately, many Nones and Dones are giving up on fellowship altogether because they believe the only alternative is a moral religious authority among men. Such they will never find and is not possible. Horizontal religious authority will always lead to tyranny or Tyranny Light. In other words, they have bought into the spiritual caste system and are looking for a moral one. Secondly, in order to have a cult, you must have horizontal authority. This is what makes the first century home fellowship model cult-proof. Gifts replace caste and fellowship replaces authority. There is no authority, there is rather fellowship where there is reasonable agreement in regard to interpretation. The right single focus is the issue. I think something like 50 guys signed the Declaration of Independence and they were of different religious pedigree, but they all agreed on the core value: a government by the people and for the people with an express purpose for men to pursue happiness. Where the principle came from was not a bone of contention, only that government needed to be worthy of a free people. Life equals liberty–that’s what they agreed on. Once home fellowships articulate the proper biblical focus, there is no reason why it would be any less successful.
LikeLike