Does Hebrew 10:24-25 Really Say That Christians Must Go To Church?

[Eulaha L. Long]

Ove the past couple of years, I have pondering the true meaning of Hebrew 10:24-25 (if you're not familiar with the verses, look them up! )  Does the Lord really say the we have to meet in a building on Sunday with other believers in order to be obediant to these Scriptures?

My boyfriend is a believer, and we have wonderful times of fellowship together-pondering the Scriptures, singing hymns of the faith, praying together.  I don't believe that we have to "go to church" in order to have fellowship.  I also enjoy listening to sound doctrine on the radio and watching reputable christian pastors on television.  I feel blessed everyday!

So...is it really necessary to find a "church home"? I was wondering what you all have to say about this...

[Mark C.]

Hi Eulaha!
  Great question!
     In the days that Hebrews was written in order to hear the Bible one had to go where copies were being read publically.  There were no printing presses and Christians did not have entire copies of the Bible in their homes.  Christians had to gather together to hear the Word of God and to be taught.
   In interpretation of particular verses it is important to ask the question, "who was the exhortation addressed to, and what was the historical setting?  An example of the above is the exhortation to Adam and Eve to "be fruitful and multiply";  this commandment was directed to them, not us, and reinforces the old adage, "all scripture is for us, but not necessarily to us."
    Today, we not only have the Bible but books that teach us about the Bible.  As you mentioned, we also have other media for the purpose of instruction.  Why it is even possible to receive instruction from this BB from time to time !
   Having said all that, the Bible does mention the advanatages associated with gathering with other Christians.  After all, we are called "the body of Christ" and are to function together in a manner that is to "build up" one another.  The Spirit has distributed gifts to each member and the sharing of our part is to benefit others and is a necessary function for the blessing of other Christians.
   The list of these gifts includes more than just teaching/pastoring.  One such gift is called "showing mercy".  As former Assembly members God has given us a sensitivity to the needy, confused and broken Christians we may come across in a church.
   The only "have to" re. "going to church" is the imperative of love that provokes us to seek the blessing of my brother/sister in Christ.  To gather with believers as some kind of duty that "must be obeyed" in order to be "spiritual" misses the entire context of the Hebrews passage where the point is that we are needed by others (and we need them).
  It is difficult for some who have been in a group like the Assembly to feel comfortable in a Christian setting.  There are certain things that trigger negative memories, and there are churches that are more interested in their "church" than the individual(sound familiar?).  
We can also have a feeling that we don't fit into the "program" or that we don't have a contribution to make.
  Those who have been broken in a false holiness system and who have lived under an abusive religous system know the grace of God like no one else.  We have a great wealth of blessing for a Christian church that often strays from Christianity into Churchianity.
  The Assembly may have "intended evil" to us, but God has prepared us to be a great blessing!
                           God is blessed and will bless,  Mark

[editor]

Hi Eulaha

I have always looked at this verse as a warning to those who would REFUSE to meet with other believers.

This is a subtle, yet important difference than if we understand the passage to be a command that we must meet with other Christians.

In the former case, it is a warning to the person who adamantly states,  "I hate church, and I won't ever be around christians, or any kind of church ever again."  While we may feel like this at times, especially after being in a place like the Assembly,  this passage is telling us not to forsake the gathering.  In other words, don't refuse fellowship.  Taking a few years off, if need be, is not the same as forsaking.

In the latter case, if we view the passage as a command to go to church, then we must ask, "How often?  If I am on vacation, must I find a church every Sunday?  What if I'm on an airplane all day Sunday?  Is this not God's will?  And so on.  This type of view, will lend itself to attendance out of duty, and not the "considering of one another."

It also lends itself to a performance based holiness, where attendance commends the blessing of God, and absence means we have disobeyed one of His direct orders.

A desire for christian fellowship is normal for all believers, but an aversion, or caution about being involved in a church is normal and healthy, given our Assemlby experience.

It won't last forever!  Someday, you will find a church and rejoice.

Brent

[Peacefulg]

Hi Eulaha, found a good article recently (http://www.lifestream.org/LSBL.May01.html).  This whole going to church/what is the church issue is really in the forefront of a lot of Chirstian blog sites these past few weeks.  What I am saying sister is that you are in no way alone in your thoughts.

One more thing/site!
This quote is from Chip Brogden http://www.watchman.net/  He has a whole series of pieces on "the Church" which are worth reading when you have time.

We cannot build a church. Jesus is building His Church, and it is a spiritual house of living stones. Entering into THAT structure and learning how to cooperate with Him is infinitely more important than any meeting we can hold or building we can construct. The Kingdom of God is not about our meetings; it is about our being changed into His image.

 

YBITL
G[url=http://]]]http://

[editor]

Hey!  Peacefulg!

It's good to have you back.  Great advice to Eulaha.

Brent

[Peacefulg]

Thanks for the welcome Brent.  As saw from the post caught up in other things, but will check in here and there and see what is going on.

The web is so cool in that you are not alone, sometimes you can feel like Jeremiah "whoa is me I am so alone!", but this site and MANY!!!!! others show that there are dear brethern all over who have not bowed the knee yet.  Too much of the "Church" has given in to systems created by man, and what is sad is that they like it, and want it that way.

Hey Eulaha, what part of the big Apple are you in (might know of a group or few people that enjoy FELLOWSHIP).

My Hope is built on nothingless than Jesus blood and righthousness.... On Christ the soild rock I stand ALL other ground is sinking stand!

Lord Bless,
G

[Joe Sperling]

I think Heb. 10:24-25 isn't implying a "have to" as far
as going to church. It's for our benefit--when we gather
with other Christians we definitely are stronger--we see
that everyone is going through the same things and we
can comfort and strengthen one another.

BUT, as we gather we are INDIVIDUALS within a corporate
gathering, each just as important as the other in God's eyes. I think as we realize that God calls us to gather on Sunday for worship for our benefit and his glory all the "have to's" evaporate quickly.

--Joe

[Peacefulg]

Hi Joe, your post brings up a question that I wanted to just throw out.

You mentioned

I think as we realize that God calls us to gather on Sunday for worship......

How do you feel about the HUGE swing towards Sat. nite worship services or Sat. nite church?

This whole question bring up three things to me.

1. Where else in the new testament do we regulary see gathering together to BREAK BREAD on the first day of the week as in Acts
2.  Does Hebrews 10:24-25 limit itself to only one day?
     - I say no, I also say it is said that when Sun/Sat rolls around there is not a Ton of encouraging one another going on, it is mainly about being encourage by one (the Pastor, leader, etc.)
3. If Sat nite is "ok" to be considered a main nite, why not Tuesday Morning.

Ok, maybe I am taking this a little far, but to me the main thing missing in the church in regards to this topic is the encouragement of one another.  Sad that Sunday morning happens to be one of the most divided and segagrated times in America.  You will see more diversity and unity of people at a sporting event, than you will see in most "gathering together to encourage!"

Lord Bless,
George

[Joe Sperling]

George---

That's a good question. I know that the Seventh Day Adventists and a few other groups say that Saturday worship is essential to please the Lord. I haven't heard from others that Sunday worship is essential to please God.

I think the reason we meet on Sundays are from the Scriptures that say they "Break bread" on the first day of the week which is Sunday. Also, because Jesus rose from the dead on a Sunday.

I agree with you also George that I think what God had in mind was a gathering of saints and one Pastor or main teacher. At least I don't remember any Scriptures which mention when "any of you teach"---it seems to mention those with "specific" gifts for preaching and teaching. It's good to remember that all have been given different gifts--and not "all" are teachers. that was an Assembly error. Just like the error in the Charismatic church(at least some) which say all should speak in tongues as a sign of salvation. The Bible simply does not teach that.

---Joe

[Peacefulg]

Hey Joe, it is very refreshing to see not only this post both others discussing what is the ministry, worship, and preaching.

Like I have been reading it is so sad to see Christians (mainly Americans), but sit back and let men fleece them and lead them and take their money, and they not only do nothing they like it in fact.

Amazing how Satan has deceived many in the church to fall into the the religious pattern of ho-hum.

Last, it is sad that in most places the only way to "exercise" your gift is found in three positions Pastor, musican, or childern's teacher (and it seems that the last one is spoken about weekly in most places, up their with give).

Cheers,
George

[Peacefulg]

I see Christians today thinking that Hebs 10:24-25 refers to church (building, main site where people gather, etc.).  But the passage does not say that, it is more in line where two or more are gathered together in my name..........

If Vern, Joe, and I were to on Thursday get together where that sissy coffee is mad (i.e., Starbucks) and fellowship with one another would we not in fact be doing Hebrews 10:24-25?   BTW, I do not think that bulletin boards count (though is is so nice to know that throughout the world you are not alone).

And Vern thank God that plurality is found all through the word of God, as I have said is sad that most are happy, satisfied, with the one main guy in these days.  As Os Guinness eludes (Is it eludes or alludes, one of you grammer folk will correct me :-)) to in this article http://www.leaderu.com/marshill/mhr08/os1.html most Christian treat their pastor like a Pope, and do not really question them or at least what they say, do, and teach.

George
P.S. Man this walk of Faith and Journeying with other is a blast.

[Joe Sperling]

Verne---

I believe a church can have many "teachers"(Sunday school
teachers, Bible study leaders, etc.)---But revelation seems
to state that one person is truly "responsible" for each
church as it's shepherd. He speaks of the lampstands and
the stars. John the Apostle was actually the Pastor of Ephesus before his banishment to Patmos. This "pastor" is not to have complete control by any means over the sheep(as a George did)--but to be their servant and example.

I'm open to correction if I'm wrong about this---but it seems to be the teaching of Scripture.

--Joe

[Joe Sperling]

One other thing I forgot to mention was that it seems that almost all churches have a main "Pastor". I know it would be wrong to say that because man has always done something one way it must be God's way. But it seems that it must be what God wants--would all of these churches with "one pastor" be displeasing God?

The Assembly, whether they chose to admit it or not definitely had one Pastor. He said to just call him "Brother George" but everyone knew he was the Pastor. They said they had no "musical director" but everyone knew(at the time) that Gary Halverson was the music director and often led songs out in worship. They had no "Assistant Pastor", but everyone knew Steve Irons(at the time) was Assistant Pastor, and so on.

So there are many "teachers" in a gathering, but it seems the Lord usually sets up one "Pastor" to do the bulk of the teaching to the assembled church on Sundays.

--Joe

[editor]

One other thing I forgot to mention was that it seems that almost all churches have a main "Pastor". I know it would be wrong to say that because man has always done something one way it must be God's way. But it seems that it must be what God wants--would all of these churches with "one pastor" be displeasing God?

The Assembly, whether they chose to admit it or not definitely had one Pastor. He said to just call him "Brother George" but everyone knew he was the Pastor. They said they had no "musical director" but everyone knew(at the time) that Gary Halverson was the music director and often led songs out in worship. They had no "Assistant Pastor", but everyone knew Steve Irons(at the time) was Assistant Pastor, and so on.

So there are many "teachers" in a gathering, but it seems the Lord usually sets up one "Pastor" to do the bulk of the teaching to the assembled church on Sundays.

--Joe

Joe, you are so right on with what I quote above.  It is absolutely true.  The power hiarchy in the Assembly was clearly defined, far more so than in "Pastored" churches.

I came to this conclusion.

There are 3 main types of church government seen in the NT:

Presbyterian
congregational
Episcopal

and one type seen in the OT: Moses, or the combo of Priest plus King.

Keeping this in mind, it seems to me that a church should have elders, who are appointed by someone, like a Pastor.  This is what Paul told Timothy to do in one place.  These elders must be recognized by the congregation.  The pastor must be recognized by the elders and congregation, and both the elders and pastor must serve the congregation.

If the congregation becomes hungry and depressed, they will move on to greener pastures, which is the ultimate act of voting, because they use their feet!

If a church is ruled by elders, who then appoint a pastor, the pastor could be a hireling, and if he teaches anything they don't like, they fire him!  (Happens all the time, and happened in a large SLO church not long ago.)

If the church is run by one man, when that man falls--which he will-- the whole church falls with him.  GG is a great example of this.

If the church is ruled by democratic action of the congregation, politics and slim majority win out over God's Spirit, not to mention that potentially unsaved, and likely ignorant people are making decisions that have a significant spiritual impact!

Most churches today are set up like I outline above, and I think the reason why is because they are smarter than we thought ourselves to be, when we insisted that the ASsembly was "God's" government.

Brent

[Arthur]

Keeping this in mind, it seems to me that a church should have elders, who are appointed by someone, like a Pastor.  This is what Paul told Timothy to do in one place.  These elders must be recognized by the congregation.  The pastor must be recognized by the elders and congregation, and both the elders and pastor must serve the congregation.

If the congregation becomes hungry and depressed, they will move on to greener pastures, which is the ultimate act of voting, because they use their feet!

...
Most churches today are set up like I outline above, and I think the reason why is because they are smarter than we thought ourselves to be, when we insisted that the ASsembly was "God's" government.

Brent

Hmm, what is outlined sounds kinda like Calvary Chapel's setup.  You're not biased or anything are you, Brent?

It also sounds like the way the assembly's government was setup.  And yes we did use our feet!

In that case, the pastor (George) who set up all the elders, was tyranical and twisted--to the point where the sheep were hypnotized and had to be awaken before they would use their feet.  Well, shoot, the pastor was a wolf, let's put it that way.  Lot's of sheep already had big chunks bit out of them before awakening.

I don't think any government can be trusted because of the simple fact that it is composed of men.  What church movement has survived more than a couple of hundred years without either dying out or turing into a monster (e.g. Catholic church) ?  
However government is necessary.  So what's a believer to do?  Keep his eyes and ears open and be ready to use those feet, I guess.   Maybe that's why we've heard the term "Pilgrim Church".
 
Would a church where there is no pastor but only elders who take turn preaching be considered presbyterian?

How about I set up my own church?  Yeah, how about every church be a one-family church where the father is the priest

Arthur