5 posts tagged “bible”

The Biblical understanding of hell has been one of the greatest controversies throughout church history.  The issue has undergone many debates.  The traditional view over the centuries has been generally a picture of a dark cave on fire, filled with unimaginable physical torment that never ends and is irrevocable.  It has been the subject of famous sermons and comic strips alike.

Since we are speaking about existence after death, that great unknown, we must rely primarily upon prophecy.  Few other documents give us as much solid and consistent insight as the Holy Bible, although those truths can be difficult to comprehend.

In my limited study of the issue, I've been compelled to look at differing viewpoints such as Conditionalism, that souls are naturally mortal unless granted immortality by God; Annihilationism, the belief that sinners are completely destroyed either before or after a time of punishment; and Universalism, that all humans will eventually be reconciled to God and saved from hell in the afterlife.  All of these views have been supported by theologians and Bible scholars, some greatly renown.

Conditionalism is argued mainly from the Scriptures 1 Timothy 6:15-16 that "God ...alone is immortal" and 2 Timothy 1:10 that "Christ Jesus... has brought immortality... through the gospel."  Many Eastern Orthodox theologians advocate this view of the mortality of the soul.

Seventh-Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses are two churches among others that commonly accept the Annihilationism theory, although the belief is gaining more acceptance as legitimate for some Protestant theologians.  Their main Scriptural support is Matthew 10:28, "... fear Him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell" and also John 3:16, that unbelievers will perish and not have everlasting life.  They believe that the second death spoken of in Revelation 21:8 is the death of the soul.

Universalism, a belief that was held by people such as M K Ghandi, George MacDonald, and possibly the beloved C.S. Lewis, is based largely on the verses that speak of God as loving and merciful, that Christ came not to condemn the world but to save it, and from other scriptures such as Luke 3:6, "And all mankind will see God's salvation."

The study of hell or Gehenna is one worth doing in my opinion.  The documented records in the Bible have much more to say about it than I had previously realized and many words about death and the after-life were spoken by Christ Himself.  Our belief about heaven and hell profoundly affects the way we live presently as well as vice versa.  What purpose is one without the other?

I believe that there is much indication that rewards and punishments will be administered in various degrees in accordance with works performed while individuals were on earth.  There also seems to be a strong gesture for the exception of innocents such as unborn babies, children and mentally challenged or disabled and those who never heard the gospel in this regard.  But all of these propositions are for another post. 

While the aforementioned views seem to have valid biblical support, I would like to deal primarily with refuting the Annihilationist view from Scripture which, I think, will also ultimately oppose the others.  How the Bible defines death and describes hell is of great significance to our understanding.  For the sake of brevity, I will assume the reader has already had some exposure to biblical doctrine concerning these issues.

The Bible describes the picture of hell differently than many common portrayals which has caused much confusion such as, how can darkness and the fire of hell exist in the same place?  Darkness in the Bible is often figurative such as in John 3:19, "...men loved darkness rather than light...."  Eternal fire is also often symbolic.  The fire and brimstone of Revelation 20:10 appears to be a metaphor (along with the "wine of the wrath of God" as well as the rest of the book of Revelation) referencing verses in the Old Testament.

Although darkness and fire are most likely figurative terms, the Bible describes hell in other, more literal, conscious terms of torment:  like a wandering star, a prison, a burning garbage dump, dark, uncomfortably hot; it feels like perpetual death.  It is where the full are now thirsty and hungry, the rich experience poverty, cowards are consumed with terror, the proud are rebuked, those who laughed are now weeping, the peaceful are now fighting, liars are lied to, kidnappers are held captive, etc.  Some will be physically tortured.

As a side note, the question always inevitably turns up regarding the atrocity of the whole situation of hell and this is why many have sought an alternative to it.  How could a loving God torture people?  Why not simply place these souls out of existence.  I do not feel that I have adequately understood this concept myself but I think it has much to do with the fact of justice and that love and mercy can not exist unless equity, fairness and standards of righteousness are upheld.  Undiminished justice is a difficult truth to accept, especially in our modern, "civilized" day but it is a truth nonetheless.  The Bible as well as reality are clear:  what we sow is what we will reap.

Hell and the second death are believed by most Christians to be the ultimate separation from God (Matthew 7:21-23, et al).  Since God is omnipresent "even the highest heavens can not contain Him", He will also be present in hell (Revelation 14:9-11).  The separation from God is a relational one, an absence of experiencing His mercy and grace.  Could part of hell's torment be for souls to see and know the goodness of God and yet be unable to experience it?  The parable of Luke 16:19-31 reminds us that nothing will be able to change the minds of those who reject Jesus Christ, even in the after-life.

Some annihilationists believe that punishment for the unrighteous will be served for a time and then these souls will be completely annihilated.  But "eternal" is the key word in the Bible.  Hell is described as a place where "their worm [figurative] does not die" (Mark 9:44, 46, 48) and Matthew 25:46 could not make the terms more clear, "These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."  To say that the punishment ends at any time in eternity, one must completely ignore the term "eternal" as well as the definition of it.  It means without beginning or end, outside of time, endless, perpetual, changeless.

In Genesis 2 after the creation story, mankind was told that in the day he ate of the tree he would surely die.  Many theologians interpret the Hebrew word for "day" as figurative in Genesis, but it is clear in Genesis 2 that something changed the very moment that man ate from the wrong tree. The change was that he was now susceptible to certain horrors such as pain, disease, suffering and death, i.e. torment.  The realities of hell began to be experienced on earth.  Biblical death is interpreted by many as "in death always dying".

God told Adam that if he ate of the wrong tree he would surely die but he did not die. In the Bible, death never means extinction but always separation. Physical death is the separation of the body and soul. Spiritual death is the separation between man and God. "Dead" to sin and the law is the separation between Christians and sin and the law. Marital death is the separation between two spouses.  There is never any indication that death is extinction, but only separation, and this belief has been scrutinized repeatedly yet held consistently by Bible scholars throughout all of religious history.

The biblical definition of death is contrary to the finite human understanding of it.  The Bible not only defines death, destruction and perishing as ongoing existence, but it describes hell as an eternal death.  In the prophetic books as well as throughout the Bible, we are clearly warned.  If one seeks to understand truth according to the Bible, I can not see any way around the fact that hell and its inhabitants are eternal.

"He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."  John 3:36 NASB

There are certain refutes by Christians who are using their legislative power to vote against homosexual marriages that contain some valid concerns, yet they do not withstand the line of reasoning if they are further examined.

First, a premise:  The first amendment of the constitution (along with the bill of rights) was added in 1791 in order to protect civil liberties; this includes the protection of the freedom of religion without establishing any one religion or religious beliefs or practices upon civil government.

Many Christians view homosexual marriage as an attack on religion, but this argument is nullified because religious institutions as well as religious individuals are still free to marry in accordance with their own beliefs and laws if homosexuals also marry.  Civil government supports this right through endowing a tax-exempt status for churches, as well as recognizing their freedom of speech, among many other liberties.

Furthermore, the legal marriage right of the land is not owned by the church, although the constitution ensures that the church is free to perform wedding ceremonies in accordance with their beliefs and their laws.  Many people, religious or otherwise, recognize the church's authority in its view of marriage as a sacred institution. 

Same sex marriages do not infringe upon any rights of other citizens nor do they cause bodily harm or damage to physical property to anyone outside of themselves.  The gay rights movement in this issue is not asking for special rights but equal rights.

Some Christians argue that same-sex couples would adopt children and these children have a right to both a mother and father.  I believe that this is a valid freedom to life and liberty, but this fight must be fought primarily in the religious arena because the government can not be expected to provide a mother and father to all orphans.  This is ultimately the Christian's responsibility as mandated in the Holy Bible and also the responsibility of the orphan's fellow citizens in a democracy.  The government's role can only support this endeavor by providing the freedom of adoption to all citizens without discrimination.

Some Christians argue that if we allow homosexual marriage, then we must allow sibling marriage or parent-child marriage.  When do we cross the line?  In a democracy, the line is crossed when physical harm is conferred to another individual.  I would think that there is enough evidence to show the harm toward offspring as the result of incest, as well as toward a minor.

"Homosexuals can never fulfill the role of procreation."  If we denied gay marriages based on this argument, we would also have to ban marriages of older couples and couple who can not conceive.

Another concern is the protection of the definition of the term "marriage" as the Bible defines it.  How does the Bible define marriage anyway?  It says that it is a union between one man and a virgin woman.  If the woman is not a virgin, she shall be stoned to death (Deut. 22:20, 21).  Many Bible teachers say that the Bible also forbids marriage between a believer and an unbeliever.  A law against male polygamy is difficult to find in the Bible but some believe that the law against it is found in 1 Cor. 7:2.  (A woman can not have her own husband if he is married to other women.)  But it is still clear that the Christian can not impose the biblical view of marriage on the law of the land unless the land is a theocracy.

Some people are seeking a middle ground with the issue by advocating for the term "civil union" between homosexuals.  The problem with civil unions is that it denies federal benefits, social security benefits, tax breaks, insurance breaks, sick leave for ailing partner, etc.  Homosexuals are either equal citizens or they are not, and this is really the heart of the issue.

Another dispute that I have been hearing a lot is a counter-argument against the comparison of denying same-sex marriages with the American segregation of blacks in recent (and current) history.  Homosexuality has thus far not been concluded as a biological cause and yet there is sociological evidence that it is a choice.  So it is true that there are very clear differences between gays and African-Americans.  Sexual orientation is different than race anyway.

Although the analogy between gays and African-Americans breaks down, there are still similarities between denying same sex marriages and racism.   Gays are currently experiencing government-sanctioned discrimination as well as social discrimination.  Rights, privileges and protections that are bestowed upon other citizens are not given to gays based on a single trait.  There is also present a hatred, bias or prejudice based on a single trait.

A segregation is any type of separation or isolation from a main body or group.  The segregation that many Christians are imposing upon gays prohibiting a basic right to marry is a legalistic one.  It is an attempt to separate moral people from sinners (although this concept as it applies in this case completely falls apart) which is something that Jesus never orchestrated.  The biblical separation of the righteous and the unrighteous are those whose sins have been forgiven and those whose sins have not been forgiven.  There is only one rightful Judge in this case, for humans are inadequate to make that final decision.

"Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society." -- Thomas Jefferson, to the Virginia Baptists (1808)

    

In most debates, the opposing teams have much more in common than what is displayed in their arguments, and for a reason.  The disputers will distinguish themselves as much as possible from each other in order to make a point.  In a good debate, we will witness a lot of agreement and respect for the other side of the dilemma, because it actually enables a deeper understanding of the entire ordeal.

But too often one side of the argument will refuse to accept any other contributions than their limited understanding will allow them.  Or, sometimes, we are so thrilled with learning a single aspect to one issue because it has been so largely overlooked, that we overemphasize it.  I do this all the time in my blog writing.  I focus on one view so much that it appears as though I am excluding all other perspectives.  Then someone will leave a comment saying, "Yes, but...."

In the church world, this happens almost continually and it's taken to the outermost direction.  Like bickering family members, we each stand our ground, and we complain, tear apart, and point with plank-eyes so large that the world has no other choice than to make us the butt of their jokes.  

Let's look at fashion in mainstream Christianity today.  There is a wide range of diversity in churches across the world in how people dress as they attend a weekly worship service.  And yet, the Amish-like, Victorian-era dressed women will take issue with the scantily-clad, more modern apparel by quoting Bible scriptures about modesty and how females ought to refrain from stumbling our Christian brothers.  The women excercising liberty in getting dressed that morning will in turn wonder why the husbands of the stiff-necked wives remain married to them, and they quote "Do not judge" verses from the Bible.

Another current controversy in the religious world is, "Which church is the true church?"  The unchanging Roman Catholic tradtional church claims its authority, while the Radical, Evangelical churches protest that their movements are where the Holy Spirit is saving and changing real lives.  Many churches attempt to take the best from both worlds.

There is a large controversy in the publication of Bible versions today.  The King James Version came under attack from the Revised KJV and both sides are still arguing through counter-attacks and accusations of conspiracies regarding which scholars and which manuscripts has better and earlier evidence.  Today, to the great distress of KJV only advocates, there is a wide range of Bibles available differing not only in translations but in emphasis:  There are sports fan bibles, recovery bibles and wedding bibles.

How do we decide not only which translation is the most accurate, but which bible should we use personally?  Which church should we attend?  And how should we dress?  Does the Bible (any version) have anything to say about these things?  I believe the Bible gives us answers, although the answers are not so easily understood.  The Bible give us guidance in every area of life, believe it or not, and the direction comes in the form of principles.   

One commonly misunderstood biblical principle is the one of law and grace and this concept covers many Christian contoversies today since one side of an issue is always getting de-emphasized.  I have to confess that I personally often fall into the same trap.

The law is simple.  It is any biblical or other commandment, or rule, etc.  The law of God stands on the tablets of stone passed from God to Moses, and was culminated through the death of Jesus Christ.  Since it is used as a standard for measurement, it's accuracy should always be challenged with complete strictness, and in all essence, it should remain unchanged. 

Grace, however, is hardly static and is much more complex.  It is a new "law" judged from the freedom of the heart.  Love would qualify as grace and there is no law against love.  The endless manifestations of grace stand on the resurrection of Jesus Christ which opened up to mankind through the early Spirit-filled church literally any combination of possibilities.

The Bible is an ecumenical document just as much as it is a piercing sword.  It rightly divides its own word of truth and then it delivers the whole counsel of God.  It is the most exciting and truthful debate mankind could ever witness.

Many people write off the Bible because of its seeming contradictions while forgetting that all truth is multi-faceted, like a diamond.  Through a fine mess or much friction, the Bible breaks down dividing walls and merges twos into one, like a marriage, or like the coming together of Jews and Gentiles through the gospel.  It groups diversity into one, such as the trinity, a family unit, or members of a body, or citizens of the world throughout history, and yet with cultural uniquity.  It converges law and grace perfectly without compromising their intrinsic properties.

Law divides while grace draws together, but the coming together can not occur unless there first exists a division.  The law is sharply seen in the Fall of man while grace is beautifully demonstrated in the mercy of God toward the forgiveness of sins.  Furthermore, one can not be what it is without the other.  Throughout the Old Testament, the law was clearly always meant to be a matter of the heart and likewise, the New Covenant explains that the Law of God is much more severe and a call to perfection than we realize.

As humans handling the truth and love of God, even if we understand this perfect yet delicate balance, the problem lies in explaining it.  The Apostle Paul had the same dilemma.  Grace was so misunderstood that he had to emphasize it, only to cause more misunderstanding.  "Should we sin more so that grace should abound?"  No, that is not grace.  From a biblical view, our sins are erased, and yet we battle against sin every day.  Grace has completely forgiven our sins, so that it will enable us to sin no longer.  God's grace is the only means of obeying God's law.

How does this apply to our personal lives?  We must avoid the extremes while embracing them.  It is the highest challenge to humans because it is the greatest paradox, with no higher reward for doing so, and no greater punishment for failing.  It makes no sense to the logic mind alone nor the imaginative heart alone but thankfully, God created each of us with both.

In the world of fashion, the truest expression of style is what is appropriate.  There is a tremendous amount of freedom, far beyond what modern man has designed and yet the clothes must fit and be functional.  Many churches today overemphasize either biblical tradition or biblical liberty, and yet all of them must acknowledge the imperative contribution of both.  While we depend on top scholars to judge the accuracy of a translation, we appreciate that the gospel can be spoken in the language of the youngest babe, with only colorful illustrations or words alone.

The Bible starkly commands us to be discerning, pointing out false doctrine, and yet to leave the judging even of ourselves to the rightful Judge.  This is because the unseen world portrays itself through material actions; we can appreciate the sun so much more when we are not veering directly into it.  It is possible to deeply obey and worship God with all of the heart in the strictest of tradition, or in the absence of all of them, although we can prefer one over another.

This truth can and should enable us all to finally retreat to our honest selves while broadening our understanding of truth.  We have each been given different gifts and talents, and we have started off with different backgrounds and with conflicting character traits.  This is all part of the amazing plan.  Let us each place our trust in the perfect balance of law and grace in our own unique way, with the understanding we have been given and with the humility that our greatest knowledge falls short, so that the righteousness and love of God can save and keep on saving, all who believe in it.      

        

Sometimes Christians are accused of teaching in their churches that birth control is forbidden.  Huh?  Further research showed me that there is in fact a movement among conservative evangelical Christians called Quiverfull.  They support their claim with scriptures from the Bible such as Psalm 127:3-5 which says that children are a gift from the Lord.  But..... how does that concept forbid birth control?

Also, when God told Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply, he was not prohibiting the use of contraception to all of mankind, nor was he telling couples to have more children than they can reasonably support.  God was simply pointing out the wonderful blessing of creation that he has given to mankind, procreating being one of those happy blessings.

In the story of Onan who in Genesis 38:8-10, "spilled his seed on the ground", he was killed by God for his selfish act of refusing to perform his brotherly duty of creating an heir for his deceased brother, not for using a form of birth control.

The idea that we should allow God to determine the size of our family is mistaken to believe that birth control should not be used.  But if we "got out of the way to allow nature to take its course" how would we gather our food?  How would we provide our clothing?  And there are many other ways for us to utilize the mind and wisdom that God has given to us.

I can see some major family problems developing from this misconception, namely a very worn-thin mother and also the problem of the wife rejecting her husband for fear of getting pregnant again.  

Other people say that using the pill is the same as abortion, but that theory has not yet been completely substantiated. 

Although hormonal contraceptives are toxic and that they raise the risk of arterial blood clots, blood pressure, and heart disease for the user, one can not use the Bible to support the claim that the Bible forbids the use of birth control.

If a family would like to use wisdom in regulating the size and timing of their children's births, there is a natural birth control method called the Ovulation Method that has a failure rate of 0-2.9% if the method is understood correctly.  It is not the faulty rhythm method.  And it has been used by women throughout the ages, and still in many parts of the world today.  Although it might not be as convenient as popping the pill, it only takes about one hour of watching a video to learn it.

Neither the use of synthetic contraception nor the decision to do nothing at all would fall under the guidelines of natural family planning, if that is what a person is seeking.  This brings to my mind the diaper-free solution of potty training babies at birth, another method that has been around for ages, but that is for another blog :)

 

I am going to attempt to speak to both a Christian audience and a Non-Christian audience at the same time, with the same words on the same subject - and the subject is:  going to church.  Should Christians go to church?  What about Non-Christians?  Should we all just go to church together?

It feels strange to attempt to bring these two groups together, especially over a religious matter, and yet I feel a little honorable too since I have peacemaker tendencies.  Still, maybe this is similar to what the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation felt when it first invited running presidential candidates of America to roast each other over dinner.  How nice, though, for participants to feel some kind of connection where one might not normally be found, even if only for a short amount of time.

Let us first scrape for some common ground concerning churches.  Both sides agree that there have been problems great and small within the Christian church in general throughout history, and in fact that there are many problems today.  There are some who may not see these unattractive issues, or others who can not admit that they exist.  I think that one can safely say however, that there is an overall general consensus by everyone that the church has not been the greatest of successes in the world.

Christians might feel out of place at a secular group function, or when religious mockings abound over Thanksgiving dinner, and yet a Non-Christian would equally feel like an outcast when visiting a church with Grandma and hearing their damnation upon sharing the communion bread and wine, or grape juice.  What does communion exactly represent anyway?  Many people don't know, whether they have a religious background or not.

As is often the case with two opposing social units, such as Christians and Non-Christians, one party may not realize that the other party realizes that in fact, there are problems.  Or both parties may realize that the problems are so blatantly obvious to the entire world, that it drives a deeper wedge between the two groups.

Some Christians will fight tooth and nail to defend the church, usually a specific church, and with the same amount of fervency, some Non-Christians will murder it to pieces with very descriptive terms.  These are extremes on the outskirts however.  Notwithstanding that fact, here are just a few reasons why Christians and Non-Christians alike might find it difficult or even impossible to visit or attend church on a regular basis:

• The Bible is boring, full of contradictions, is culturally irrelevant, and its miracles are hard to accept.
• What social good has the church done for the world?
• It is not easy to make friends at church except with people who have ulterior motives.
• Churches fight with each other over trivial matters; there are too many church divisions.
  
• Christians can be very judgmental; the church is full of hypocrites.
  
• The church often acts like a high-powered business corporation; its main focus is "Mo' Money".
• There are too many spoken and unspoken rules at church.
  
• It's the same sermon every week.

This is not the half of them and yet if this were all one was to hear about church, this list would make a very compelling argument.  If one has already been to church, or has had a negative encounter with a Christian, or has any other preconceived idea about church, the list becomes even more compelling.  But, as logic always tells us, a well-rounded story is the best story.  What's the other side? 

Since church is supposed to be grounded on the truth found in The Holy Bible, the best reason to not attend church would be the fact that one is not able to accept the Bible as truth.  This would be a valid reason except that all truth is hard to accept.  The counterfeit is much easier because it can be made to look normal and attractive.  The truth on the other hand can not change to fit anyone's ideals.

It might surprise all of us to find out just how much truth the general public accepts every day that is actually rooted in the Bible.  Be a good neighbor; don't worry be happy; basic human rights; healthy food; the mind, soul and spirit; do not murder; a fitting word at the right time; bad company corrupts good character....  The Bible is worth reading for its common sense and wisdom alone.

Christianity has survived all the way through the ages since its beginning and many people will attest to its validity, even though it must also be accepted with an element of faith, just like any truth.  I could say to you "This purse is brown."  But you might say, "Yes but it is more of a brownish tan" and you would have to trust that brownish tan is exactly how you think of brownish tan in case someone else comes along and says "No, it is brown with a pinkish tone" in which case we  might both change our minds, placing more faith in the person's knowledge who came along than our understanding of brown.  The truth that the purse is brown didn't change but our understanding of the truth might go through several layers of changes.

Miracles, prophecies and some very strange stories in the Bible can be difficult to grasp, but this does not necessarily discount the Bible either.  Truth can be more bizarre than anything we have ever personally experienced - stranger than fiction.  Even science admits that it can not explain everything and that there is some kind of unobservable energy force behind everything that grows or changes.  Since there is so much that we don't know, no one has been able to fully discredit the miracles in the Bible.  Just because something is not fully understood does not prove that it is not true.

What about the Bible's contradictions?  Life is full of paradoxes:  we might feel hungry when the stomach is full; a person might laugh even when the heart is sad; and here in Washington State, the weather changes so much that it can be sunny while it is raining.  There are reasons for these seeming contradictions; these reasons make a concept more fully understood.  The Bible makes use of paradoxes, and other apparent contradictions can be impressively explained here.  
Even if we are not open to the possibility that the Bible could contain truth, it would be completely absurd to write it off without first having given it a fair shot.  What if it IS true?  What if there IS an afterlife?  What if there IS a very real heaven and hell?  What if God IS our creator?  What if Jesus IS the son of God?  How could anyone sleep at night without being 100% confident that the Bible is or is not true with all of its specific claims?  One must have these things reconciled in the mind.  Going to church until one's mind is made up will help one to eventually sleep at night, if nothing else.

The Bible has something to say about every area of life:  the mind, the body, the heart, the spirit, the spirit world, relationships, social structures, governments, morality, character, happiness, depression, alcohol, world history, music and songs, poetry, words, principles, family life, work, and church, etc., etc.  Going to church can be one way of learning about life itself, or finding a helpful answer to a personal decision or dilemma.

Why NOT go to church?  In America, we have more choices of Christian churches than we have for breakfast, including all of the different cereal brands.  Do you prefer contemporary or traditional?  Conservative or liberal?  Lots of love or lots of intellect?  Cream and sugar, or black?  Eggs and toast or Lucky Charms?  You can attend five days a week or much less often.  Some churches are healthier than others.  If you don't like one church, you can always try another.  If you find one where you feel at home, you can always discard some of what you hear in a sermon, and log away the rest.  Everybody does this, whether it's to their detriment or for their wise benefit.

Concerning the less than reputable reputation of Christians and Christian leaders, it is very understandable why a person might dread Sunday mornings, but it is still not an adequate reason to avoid church.  First of all, not all people encountered at church are Christians, and you don't have to be friends with everyone anyway.  Secondly, all people are still restrained to their human form.  This means that they have not yet been made perfect so they will say hurtful things and they will pretend to be a little further along in their journey than reality would show.  Everyone begins at a different place and at a different time - some are battling issues they faced in their past and others are naturally humble and kind.  Yet this is exactly how it should be, since perfection always requires a process, and so that all sinners can fit right in somewhere.

Christians are guilty of many things including stupidity and cruelty, and yet they have also done a remarkable amount of good for the world throughout history, both within the organized church and outside of it.  This includes the founding of missionary services, hospitals, charities, legislation to protect human rights, wisdom for everyday life, inspiration, hope, and compassion.  There is no possible way to count all of the ways that the Church and Christians have changed the world.  Being a part of a church may therefore mean contributing to a large influence on the world with the goal of spreading goodness, health and happiness, even if that goal is not always greatly accomplished.

Many people view the church as narrow-minded and legalistic.  There is some truth in this viewpoint.  Mathew 7:13 (BBE) says, "Go in by the narrow door; for wide is the door and open is the way which goes to destruction, and great numbers go in by it."  Accepting and advocating all of Christianity can be extremely difficult for both the believer and the non-believer, and then it requires an all or nothing commitment.  It has a narrow gate and the majority of people have not, and will not ever enter it.  The ones who do enter it will continue to encounter life difficulties (except now with a purpose.)

There is a narrowness and there are some rules to follow but is this necessarily a fault?  A mother would not allow a baby who is learning to crawl somewhere near the busy street with speeding cars, but once the baby grows and learns to walk alone, all kinds of freedoms are opened to that person that otherwise would not have been available.  It's true that too many boundaries will cause a rebellion against them, but a lack of rules altogether will bring all kinds of chaos, not freedom.

The commandments of God are more often misunderstood than not.  God gives people commands because He knows the far-reaching pain, heartache and destruction that will occur if certain rules are not obeyed.  He says "Do not lie" because a liar will be mistrusted and lose friends.  Coveting brings further discontentment and misery.  Committing adultery can destroy a family unit.  There are many more freedoms and promises than there are commands in the Bible and each command has the intention of leading persons away from heartaches and toward inner joy and freedom.  Although some Christians may say otherwise, or give a different impression, all persons, saved and unsaved, have a free choice whether or not to obey these very helpful commands.

There is a command in the Bible (Hebrews 10:25) that tells us to go to church.  Church is basically some sort of assembly of people in order to hear the teaching of God's truth and to worship God together.  The Bible has a generous set of guidelines to make a church what it is intended to be, yet provides plenty of diversity for societies, cultures and time periods as well. Sometimes a church is nothing more than another business institution, with a greed for money instead of using its finances to help people, but ultimately God knows that there are serious issues at church, and yet He still commands people to go.

God has chosen all true Christians, the body of Christ, to be his messengers and there is something very special about them.  They go to church to be reminded of all the great and precious promises given to them for this life and the life to come.  True Christians can be found at almost any established Christian church, usually serving and worshiping God in some capacity, although they might be difficult to find in some churches, and we don't always recognize a real one anyway.  Just as there are many misconceptions about Jesus, so are there about true Christians.  But true Christians are often beautiful to encounter and this is another reason to go.  They shine a lovely light when the darkness of life is weighing us down.

So, just as one does not have to experience the joy of giving to others, one does not have to attend church, but really, there is nothing else in this world that compares to adoring God or goodness together with other like-minded people.  The requirements to making it a pleasurable experience rather than a fateful one is to love the church as much as we love ourselves and, do not expect more from it than we would want someone to expect from us.  This would be the golden rule - another contribution from the Bible and Christians who have spread its truth to the world.

If the Bible is true, if God can be trusted, and if inner joy is a good thing, then yes, Christians should go to church.  If there is any possibility that the Bible is true and if certain truths can save people from a ruined life on earth and destruction in the afterlife, then yes, Non-Christians should go to church too, to make sure of their decision.  On the flip side, each person, whether religious or not, always makes that personal choice for themselves.