The Necessity to Prioritize the Local Church
Let us consider the joyful privileges and serious responsibilities of covenant church membership that necessitates us sharing life together, submitting to one another, obeying leaders, worshipping corporately, stimulating one another to good works, and growing in the grace of God through the ordinary means of grace. Church membership is not an option to be considered. It’s a priority that is commanded for the life of the Christian.
Do you place a priority upon the gathering, worship, and fellowship of the local church? If not, it could be an indicator that something is not right spiritually. A lack of commitment to your local church could be indicative of pride, laziness, slothfulness, and a refusal to submit to proper biblical discipleship and accountability. Since Jesus laid down his life for the church, we know what God thinks about the church. Therefore, we should put priority upon the regular gathering and relational community of the local church.
Identifying the Problems
During the rise of the COVID-19 controversy, the regular gathering was compromised due to overreach from the government and fear of church members. To put it bluntly, many Christians have caved to the fear of disease, sickness, and death which has caused them to sacrifice their commitment to the local church in pursuit of safety. In essence, their pursuit of safety has actually led them into great danger spiritually. An obsession with wellness will result in spiritual decline if a person is led to believe that physical wellness necessitates the willful neglect of the local church. This is a serious problem that must be addressed.
In some cases, it’s not the fear of sickness that prevents the proper commitment to the local church, it’s actually pride. Some professing Christians believe they are strong enough, spiritual enough, or live as a special case where the local church is not necessary. They go about life by prioritizing business, family, vacations, recreation, politics, and other life commitments with little focus upon the local church. This is a tragic mistake that will have lasting consequences.
In both cases of fear and pride, the professing Christian develops an elevated opinion of his or her spiritual condition that results in the neglect of the local church and the ordinary means of grace. This will result in a spiritual decline that will not end well.
Rather than honoring God, the person gripped by fear of sickness neglects the clear commands to gather with the local church thereby elevating their commitment to pursuing good physical health above the pursuit of spiritual health. The person deceived by pride lacks self-awareness on a spiritual level resulting in a greater commitment to other areas of life while neglecting the corporate assembly of the local church and the worship of the saints.
Why Should We Prioritize the Local Church?
We are called to prioritize the local church. There is no biblical category for a faithful Christian who neglects or remains disconnected from the local church. In fact, the Scriptures point to the reality that such persons have swerved from the faith and are not to be received as Christians. Consider the words of John the Apostle in 1 John.
Related Posts:
You Might also like
-
The Glory of the Benediction
It is a reminder to God’s people at the very start of the week – before they have accomplished a single thing that week – that in Christ, God’s disposition toward them is one of blessing, grace, peace, and love. God’s benediction (blessing) is not something we earn by performing satisfactorily or being good enough over the past week. God’s blessing is – like everything else in the gospel – a gift of His free grace to fill His empty people.
When I was younger and growing up in a Lutheran congregation, I knew the worship service was almost over when the congregation sang a scripture song (canticle) that began: “Thank the Lord and sing His praise…” following the communion.
On one occasion of singing this song, I remember leaning over to my dad and saying, “Yep, thank the Lord this is almost over!” He was less than pleased by my comment.
As a young child, I was excited about the end of the worship service because it meant an end to sitting still and the beginning of running around, being silly, and — of course — lunch!
But now as an adult and a minister in a Reformed Church, I still look forward to the end of the worship service and particularly the final element: the Benediction.
The Structure of Reformed Worship
There is a logic to a Reformed worship service. It begins with God calling the people to worship Him. We don’t come into God’s presence except by His command and invitation.
Following the “Call to Worship” are various elements that exalt God before us as we renew our covenant with Him and praise Him for who He is and what He has done for us.
The worship service ends with the “Benediction.”
The Blessing of God
The word benediction simply means good word; it is a blessing. Benedictions appear in most of the letters of the New Testament (the Epistle of James, notably, concludes without one).
Typically the benediction in a worship service is taken directly from a passage of Scripture.
Sometimes the object of blessing is God:
Now to him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of his glory with great joy, to the only God, our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen. (Jude 24–25)
But more often the object of blessing is the people of God:
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. (2 Cor. 13:14)
Sometimes a benediction is a compilation of Biblical texts as in the case of this onecommonly used by Ligon Duncan:
Peace be to the brethren and love with faith, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ until the day breathes and the shadows flee away. Amen. (cf. Eph 6:23, Cant. 2:17)
Read More
Related Posts: -
Further Thoughts on Political Discussions in Christian Forums: A Series of Incomplete, Unscientific, but Hopefully Helpful Reflections
If you believe a response is justified, let your first aim be to vindicate Christ’s honor, not that of yourself or your preferred candidate, party, or position. It is he who is most wronged when his forums are turned from a concern with his will to earthly affairs which distract from his redemptive kingly reign in the hearts of his people. This means that the main point should be objecting to others being political, not per se how they were political, and that bringing reasons why one might disagree is foremost a means to that end.
In a previous article I wrote about discussing politics in Christian forums, doing so in the abstract and in reference to a rather obscure example; and in so doing I was compelled to violate the very principles I announced. Space prevented further consideration, but there is more to be said, as some correspondents thought that I did not give the subject sufficient treatment. One said that I had said what not to do, but not what to do; an all too frequent problem in popular Christian ethics, to be sure. Another correspondent thought I had almost argued that we are to be silent in the face of the evils that afflict our nation, and before people who have no qualms being political to our harm. It was felt that I had so much made the faith a matter of spiritual concern as to have no bearing on our lives as temporal citizens. Those are serious objections, and I am pleased my correspondents brought them, for I am dependent on such correspondence to know how my thoughts are perceived by others. And how I intend them and how they are actually perceived do not always align, so for a few clarifications.
By a Christian forum, I meant any forum whose stated purpose is to advance the knowledge of Christ, be that forum ecclesiastical or parachurch in nature. I except personal blogs, podcasts, and other more informal things that claim to consider other things besides questions of our faith. By politics I meant the civil (legal, administrative) affairs of civil polities, that is, governments and their citizens. I did not mean ecclesiastical politics, nor comments on civil affairs that are moral in character.
Romans 13 tells us how to interact with civil authorities, which has some effect on our politics. Is a minister who expounds the meaning of that passage being political? Not in the sense that I meant. He is giving doctrinal and moral instruction, and doing so that believers may act in a manner that is conducive to peace, does not invite persecution, and is a testimony to the life in Christ that will hopefully commend it to unbelievers. He declares it for the benefit of the church and for unbelievers as neighbors; it is not an act in partisan political competition. That is different from saying ‘vote for candidate A’ from the pulpit. That would be political and inappropriate. Again, by ‘politics’ I meant a direct involvement in civil affairs – advocating this law or that party – not something that has an indirect effect on it, and whose main character and purpose is moral/doctrinal/faith-related.
I also left exceptions for when we are directly attacked and for moral matters in which there is a clear Christian position. If there is a sickness outbreak and casinos are left open but churches closed by law, an obvious injustice that makes claims of public health so much hypocrisy, by all means protest as Christians, both to the authorities and in Christian forums. And in matters in which there is a clear Christian position, I see no wrong in it being published in Christian outlets or from the pulpit. Murder is wrong, for example, and dueling involves such, hence we have historically opposed dueling. More contemporary examples would be infanticide, abortion, euthanasia, etc.
That exception, while appropriate, also invites the question of ‘who decides what is a matter with a clear Christian position?’ Assuming we agree on principles, who is to say whether an agreed principle requires a given application? We all agree the shedding of innocent blood (Prov. 6:17) is wrong. And I think we all agree that commends denouncing dueling, for dueling is indefensible, a matter of personal pride when insulted rather than public or private justice. There is a clear link between principle and application there.
What about when that link is not clear, when things are a matter of tradeoffs between imperfect options that carry both good and bad consequences? There is a clear Christian position on dueling. There is not a clear Christian position on form of government (representative v. monarchical), type of economy (agrarian v. industrial), or many of the particulars of criminal justice (how the courts work, policing tactics, etc.). Our faith has principles that can be brought to bear on that last question, such as that punishment should be proportionate to offenses punished (Ex. 21:23-25), corruption guarded against (23:8), trials fair with suitable evidentiary procedures (Deut. 19:15), etc. But how we implement those principles might vary, especially where our circumstances differ.
I think the legislature should not prescribe the particulars of law enforcement’s defensive tactics (i.e., how they physically restrain combative suspects), and that such questions are best answered by the people who actually have to use said techniques against wrongdoers who are trying to beat them unconscious or flee, rather than by office-dwelling politicians who have never faced such circumstances. The state where I live disagrees, forbidding certain holds to be employed in the restraint of suspects (SC Code 23-1-250). I think that’s mistaken, but I do not conclude that the legislators who profess faith who voted for said law are therefore to be accounted false professors of our faith. It’s a civil disagreement, not a question of orthodoxy or sincerity in the faith, and while it presumably has an effect on how well police are able to do their jobs, I don’t see where it would be appropriate to the mission of this outlet for me to write an extended article arguing why SC Code 23-1-250 should be abolished.
In saying this I touch another thing which some people felt I did not give sufficient consideration before, which is that I take it for granted that it is permissible for believers to engage in politics in general, and in other forums besides the church and Christian outlets. I shouldn’t write an article critiquing SC 23-1-250 for The Aquila Report or ask my local session to petition the state legislature to repeal it. But I can write a letter to the editor of the local newspaper doing so, or can write the head of the state house’s public safety committee to urge him to vote for its repeal. Again, I objected to politics in Christian forums, not Christians in political forums. Most of my action on this is private (direct correspondence), rather than public, but I am somewhat politically engaged myself, though one might not know it from my public writing at this outlet.
But I believe in respecting the proper time and place for such things, and Christian forums are not the right time or place. Political forums (or other means of political action) are. That was the substance of my previous argument, that bringing civil politics into Christian forums represented an intrusion where they do not belong, a trammeling the proper boundaries between faith-based outlets and civil-political ones in which the faith-based was made political much more than the political was sanctified.
(Before proceeding, let me point out that this is not limited to politics, and that many other matters do not belong in Christian forums: this is not the place to advance a critique of this or that school of art, recommend rule changes to college basketball, interject literary criticism, share recipes for chess pie, or otherwise intrude artistic, athletic, entertainment, scientific, or various other matters that distract from Christ’s gospel. Those are all fine things, in their proper place—and this isn’t it.)
Now granting that there are exceptions for moral matters and for when we are directly assailed, and granting that Christian liberty and Christ’s lordship over the rest of our lives permit us to be political in the proper forums, there does arise a further, rather rankling question: what do you do when other people drag politics into Christian forums? May you defend your own position if you disagree, lest people mistake the published opinion for the Christian one? I believe the answer is yes, but with some hefty caveats.
One, there is a time for all things (Eccl. 3), so it is sometimes best to let a matter pass without criticism, even when you think it is wrong. “Good sense makes one slow to anger, and it is his glory to overlook an offense” (Prov. 19:11); “love covers all offenses” (10:12); and “the beginning of strife is like letting out water, so quit before the quarrel breaks out” (17:14). If you believe the person who did it is a brother, it may be best, for sake of concord, to forebear his wrong in being political (and perhaps being wrong politically too) in a Christian forum (Gal. 5:15).
Two, if you believe a response is justified, let your first aim be to vindicate Christ’s honor, not that of yourself or your preferred candidate, party, or position. It is he who is most wronged when his forums are turned from a concern with his will to earthly affairs which distract from his redemptive kingly reign in the hearts of his people. This means that the main point should be objecting to others being political, not per se how they were political, and that bringing reasons why one might disagree is foremost a means to that end.
Three, recognize that once you engage politically it is easy to get carried away with it. When a Presbyterian elder implied that evangelicals who support Israel were selling their souls, I sought to rebut the slander, both of God’s people and of the Israeli people. In so doing I was compelled to consider technical questions like the blast area of 500 lb. bombs. It doesn’t take too much of that before your initial purpose gets lost in the weeds. Just as reading theology (especially polemics) ought to be abetted by a larger portion of scripture, prayer, and the other means of grace, so also should a political disagreement lead you back to God, lest it loom too large in your mind.
Four, while vindicating Christ’s honor ought to be our main concern, we do have the right to vindicate our own rights. It is best to respect the conscience of the weaker brother where we can (Rom. 14), but it is possible that our interlocutor is not a brother but a sly false teacher trying to subvert the faith to worldly purposes; and even where we think he is sincere (or can’t tell), it is not right for someone else to say that being a believer requires adhering to a debatable position. If a teetotaler says that our faith requires both personal abstention from alcoholic beverages as well as petitioning the government to prohibit them, I reserve the right to disagree, especially when he twists scripture (‘Jesus made grape juice, not wine’), implicitly slanders me for disagreeing, or says things in Jesus’s name that are simply ridiculous and false (‘beer is the devil’s brew,’ which openly contradicts 1 Tim. 4:4-5).
Five, those who are right ought to take the moral high ground and keep above mudslinging. Strong words are one thing; personal nastiness quite another. Even when we call a spade a spade we ought to be as honorable and charitable as we can.
The moral is: be slow to fight (Jas. 1:19), avoid it when you can, and disagree in a measured way that is balanced by other concerns. That said, there is a need for people to insist that politics be kept out of Christian forums at present, for intrusions are frequent and many of those that do it seem oblivious to what they are doing. There is behind this a matter of great import which I have not the space to consider here and that deserves its own treatment, namely that what appears to be only political is at root a clash between competing, all-encompassing worldviews. But a consideration of that requires a future article. Till then render unto Caesar, but not where you ought to render only unto God.
Tom Hervey is a member of Woodruff Road Presbyterian Church, Five Forks/Simpsonville (Greenville Co.), SC. The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not of necessity reflect those of his church or its leadership or other members. He welcomes comments at the email address provided with his name. He is also author of Reflections on the Word: Essays in Protestant Scriptural Contemplation.Related Posts:
.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{align-content:start;}:where(.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap) > .wp-block-kadence-column{justify-content:start;}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{column-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-md, 2rem);row-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-md, 2rem);padding-top:var(–global-kb-spacing-sm, 1.5rem);padding-bottom:var(–global-kb-spacing-sm, 1.5rem);grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd{background-color:#dddddd;}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-layout-overlay{opacity:0.30;}@media all and (max-width: 1024px){.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}}@media all and (max-width: 767px){.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}}
.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col,.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col:before{border-top-left-radius:0px;border-top-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-left-radius:0px;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{column-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-sm, 1rem);}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col > .aligncenter{width:100%;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col:before{opacity:0.3;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18{position:relative;}@media all and (max-width: 1024px){.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}}@media all and (max-width: 767px){.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}}Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning. -
The Pleasure of God in Ordinary Work
The God of the universe genuinely enjoys the universe he’s made — the one we get to live and work in every day, the one he designed as a gift for his Son (Hebrews 1:2). He rejoices to see what normal humans can do in a day — and all the more so when that work rises from a heart set on him. Even when everyone else seems to completely overlook what we’ve done, he sees and he smiles, because he sees the dim, but brilliant reflection of his own work.
I wonder how many people in his day knew the apostle Paul as a guy who made and fixed tents. Surely many did. When he went to Corinth, he went to see Aquila and Priscilla, “and because he was of the same trade he stayed with them and worked, for they were tentmakers by trade” (Acts 18:3). He had been doing this for a while. He was well-acquainted with goat’s hair. He could probably tie his favorite knots without looking. He knew all the ways holes were made and how to mend them. I imagine, as it is with most trades, that some days he wished he could choose another one.
I wonder how many knew the apostle Peter as a guy who caught fish. Surely many did. Even after Jesus died and rose and appeared to his disciples, where did he go to find his friend? Where Peter had spent so many long days and longer nights, where Jesus had first found him years before — fishing (John 21:3). He knew what each kind of fish smelled like (and if he forgot, his clothes could remind him). He had been through serious storms. He knew the best place to drop an anchor and the best times to cast the nets — and he knew what it was like to lift an empty one (like that night the risen Jesus suddenly appeared).
I wonder how many knew Jesus as a guy who built tables and chairs. We know some did. When he returned to his hometown to preach, his former neighbors asked, “What is the wisdom given to him? How are such mighty works done by his hands? Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary?” (Mark 6:2–3). They were surprised by his words because they had grown so used to seeing him with saws and hammers and nails. He came not only in flesh and blood, but in sweat and toil. A man of splinters and acquainted with setbacks.
Each of them altered history with their ministry (and none more than the God-man). Each of them also spent much of their life doing ordinary, even tedious work (perhaps even more ordinary than what lies before you). And each of them knew that work like theirs, done well, is anything but ordinary.
Man Goes Out to Work
We would do our work differently next year, wouldn’t we, if we could see even our ordinary work through the wider eyes of God. So where could we go to see what God sees in our work? I love the glimpses we get in the wild and wondrous world of Psalm 104.
The psalm, like so many psalms, is meant to awaken awe and joy in our souls. It opens, verse 1, “Bless the Lord, O my soul!” But this psalm takes a less-traveled road to worship. When the psalmist sees the disconnect between what he believes about God and how he feels about God, he lets his mind wander over hills and through valleys (verse 8). He walks along springs and wades into oceans (verses 10, 25). He watches for badgers and listens for birds (verses 12, 18). Creation was his chosen hymnal, with all its familiar melodies and surprising key changes.
Read More
Related Posts: