Comments on: Do You Have To Go To Church Every Sunday To Be A Christian? http://lifeasmission.com/blog/2006/10/do-you-have-to-go-to-church-every-sunday-to-be-a-christian/ exploring the mystery of life and mission as one and the same Mon, 26 Jul 2010 14:58:09 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: JR Rozko http://lifeasmission.com/blog/2006/10/do-you-have-to-go-to-church-every-sunday-to-be-a-christian/comment-page-1/#comment-2093 JR Rozko Thu, 12 Oct 2006 22:44:53 +0000 http://lifeasmission.com/blog/archives/265#comment-2093 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 <i>should</i> go to church, but that they <i>do</i> and that this speaks to how they understand salvation. But, maybe I still don't get it and he is totally begging the question? 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?

]]> By: Joshua Elek http://lifeasmission.com/blog/2006/10/do-you-have-to-go-to-church-every-sunday-to-be-a-christian/comment-page-1/#comment-2085 Joshua Elek Thu, 12 Oct 2006 16:47:07 +0000 http://lifeasmission.com/blog/archives/265#comment-2085 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? 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?

]]>