• Do You Have To Go To Church Every Sunday To Be A Christian?

    October 9, 2006

    My girlfriend was telling me the other day how she had had a conversation with a couple people around this question.  For reasons of language (Norwegian) and context (country with a Lutheran State Church), the question apparently didn’t mean the same thing within their conversation as it did my ears, but it got me thinking nonetheless.  How are we to answer the question of what it means to be a Christian?  As luck would have it, in the research I am doing for my masters thesis, I read something helpful just today.

    In speaking of salvation, James McClendon says, “…the doctrines and languages of a community are necessarily understood in terms of its practices.  I take this to mean then that if Christians practice gathering together for times of worship, celebration, and whatever else may constitue a church gathering, then they understand this practice to be part of their understanding of what it means to be saved. 

    McClendon goes on to say, “Talk of Christian salvation without Christian practices and Christian convictions is like talk of a fire that consumes no oxygen and releases no heat, like talk of a society that has no members and remembers no history.”  Without these things, practices and convictions, Christian salvation loses its incarnational and missional form and therefore ceases to be in any biblical sense, Christian (Christ-like).

    Do you have to go to church every Sunday to be a Christian?  In so many ways (and this is not a reflection on the conversation which I wasn’t a part of!) this question misses the point.  First, it assumes that church is primarily a place and/or event and not a people.  Second, it assumes there is something unique about the 24 hours we call Sunday.  And finally, it presumes that we are entitled to the name, “Christian,” primarily by virtue of what we do.

    On the other hand, this question leads us to a very fruitful line of thinking.  What is the relationship between Christian meetings and our underdstanding of salvation?  How might one (or a community) be affected if meeting together regularly was taken lightly (Heb. 10:25)?  How should people be affected by virtue of gathering regularly as a Christian practice?

    If McClendon is right, then, for Christians, the practice of gathering regularly is imperative both for our undersanding of and participation in the salvation of God, as well as for our missional witness in the world.

    quotes taken from “Doctrine: ST:II”

    Posted in: church, community, meremission, missional, theology

Recent Comments

  • Joshua Elek said...

    1

    There is a fallacy in the analogy. His argument basically goes like this:

    Church : Christian :: People : Society

    and

    Going to Church:Christian :: Consuming oxygen:Fire

    This is simply disanalagous. His argument relies on the supposition that “Going to Church” is part of the definition of “Christian”, and therefore he’s merely starting off with the conclusion. So, his argument commits the falacy of Begging the Question.

    In essence, he’s saying “Since going to Church is part of the definition of a Christian, then shouldn’t Christians go to Church?” The answer is necessarily yes, but the problem lies in the first premise.

    Your question is a good one, and even with the falacy he has a good point. Christians should look seriously at what it means to do the things that Christians have been doing for two thousand years. But the argument here for why we should do that is not very strong, nor is it persuasive. So, let’s keep thinking on this. What exactly is it that makes a person into a Christian?

    10/12/06 4:47 PM | Comment Link

  • JR Rozko said...

    2

    I don’t think McClendon is trying to answer the question of whether or not Christians should go to church. He is speaking of the relationship between salvation and Christian practices (one of which may be corporate gathering/worship). What he means to say is that just as fire is understood by burning oxygen and releasing heat, just as societies are understood as collections of members with specific histories, so too is Christian salvation to be understood in and through the practices which result from it. In McClendon’s mind, what other way is there to make salvation intelligible?

    Maybe I misused this quote and thus made it look like McClendon was begging the question, but my (this/our) question is different (though related). McClendon is asking, how do we know what Christian salvation is? His answer, look at Christian lives, practices, and convictions. He’s not saying Christians should go to church, but that they do and that this speaks to how they understand salvation.

    But, maybe I still don’t get it and he is totally begging the question?

    10/12/06 10:44 PM | Comment Link

Leave A Comment

Mail (will not be published) (required)