Forsaking The Assembly?

What follows is a letter I wrote a long while back to someone who asked about “not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together” (Hebrews 10:25) — a verse often cited by Christians who believe that if you’re not attending weekly meetings or plugged into a church organization, you must somehow be out of sync with Scripture and, for all practical purposes, “backsliding.” Some call the out-of-church crowd isolationists, rebels, or walking wounded, and this verse is handed to them as the prescription. But is “attending church” really what the author of Hebrews had in mind? I don’t think so. For those interested, I thought I’d share my (not so) little rant.

— Dave

P.S. Much of what’s here is drawn from other articles I’ve written, as well as books and resources from other researchers and friends who have written on this topic.

---

Doesn’t the Bible say not to forsake assembling together?

First of all, I believe it is essential that we understand the meaning of the word “church” as it is used in the Bible. Before tackling the Hebrews 10:25 passage in detail, I’m going to lay some heavy (though not all-inclusive) groundwork. But please note: these comments, while historically and biblically sound, are not meant to suggest that Christians should not meet together, share fellowship, pray, or preach the Word of God. If that is the conclusion someone draws from all this, then they have misunderstood my reason for emphasis. I do not write these words from ignorance or out of any bitterness — though I confess I spent much of my life in organized religion, in ignorance about a great many of these issues. My desire is simply to embrace God’s truth (not just for truth’s sake, but because I love Him and want to grow ever closer to Him), and I honestly do not care if the traditions of men — even my own — are offended by His truth. If we are honest, we’ll admit that when flesh is confronted by the Spirit of the living God and the truth of Scripture, it often resists submission. My response to that conviction has to be to repent and yield; otherwise I only end up hardening my heart. I want to see clearly with spiritual eyes and walk fully in the grace and liberty of Jesus Christ, whose precious blood was shed for me.

We Christians tend to throw around a lot of terminology, and to operate under a lot of religious mindsets, that are honestly the product of human tradition rather than biblical design. This is not to say that all organization is “evil,” but sometimes it is counterproductive to true and essential spiritual growth. Sometimes our traditions can make God’s Word seem to have no effect, and can even move us to reject His commands outright. Jesus Himself noted this. Just as we read in Mark 7:5, so there are Pharisees today asking the same question of those who refuse to follow erroneous traditions at the expense of biblical truth: “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders?” You know well, I’m sure, Jesus’ bold reply:

What “church” actually means

Before I can answer what I believe Hebrews 10:25 has in mind concerning “assembling,” I think it’s important to look closer at what “assembly” is all about in the body of Christ. Too many Christians have been raised with a traditionally inspired definition of these terms, and it has led them to embrace many biblically inaccurate concepts. Let’s start with the popular idea of the word “church” compared with its biblical meaning.

The Greek word translated “church” is ecclesia, and it means “assembly.” It is a combination of two words (ek, “out of,” and klesis, “a calling” — from kaleo, “to call”), meaning “a calling out of.” This coincides with the Lord’s own directive, which Paul reminded the Corinthian believers of. Notice how God describes His temple:

Truly God has called us out of the world unto Himself — into His Assembly. This is the “Church” according to its true biblical meaning! We are the “called-out ones.” And yet the word “church” itself is really a poor term to use. It has no literal derivative in the original text of Scripture; it was added by translators hundreds of years after the New Testament was written. As a matter of fact, the English word “church” is presumed to come from a Greek word that is never once used in all of Scripture. Here we have an example of translators shaping the text to align with tradition rather than conveying the literal intended meaning. The word “church” naturally draws the reader’s thoughts toward religious structure and form rather than organic spiritual life. When the King James Version was produced, James actually instructed the translators (through a bishop named Richard Bancroft) not to change the word “church” to reflect its actual meaning. This is not a conspiracy theory; it is documented history. The bishop, with the king’s approval, devised fifteen rules the translators were required to abide by, one of which was this instruction not to tamper with the old ecclesiastical terms (such as “church”).

It is well known among scholars that King James was no fan of the translation most popular in his day, the Geneva Bible. There were two major reasons. One was the Geneva Bible’s Calvinistic leanings; the other was its marginal notes, some of which challenged his belief in the divine right of kings to govern the church and stand as its head. James saw the Geneva Bible as a threat to his lordship over the church, and this no doubt fueled much of his ambition to create a version officially “authorized” by the king himself.

As he put it: “I profess I could never yet see a Bible well translated in English; but I think that, of all, that of Geneva is the worst.” (The Geneva Bible: The Forgotten Translation, by Gary DeMar.) As an interesting side note, even the first Pilgrims who came to America did not come toting King James Bibles — they read and preferred the Geneva Bible. If you’re interested in more of the details surrounding the King James Version, I heartily recommend the book The Great Ecclesiastical Conspiracy by George Davis, Michael Clark and Kirk Pearson.

In all honesty, the word “church” should not even appear in the Bible. But rather than starting an enormous argument over a word we’re accustomed to and unlikely to abandon any time soon, I’ll instead emphasize the actual biblical meaning of ecclesia. I’m convinced there’s not that much problem with using the word “church,” so long as we clearly understand its intended meaning in Scripture. So for the rest of this letter I’ll keep using “Church” appealing to the reader’s understanding that I mean the ecclesia of God — and I’ll clarify when I’m referring to “church” as the human-devised structures and programs of organized, institutional Christianity.

In every case where this word “church” is used in reference to believers, it is speaking of the Lord’s Church (His ek-klesis, or ecclesia). There are not many brides of Christ; there are not many bodies of Christ. There is only one. Paul spoke of the Church with incredible singularity. And we never see ecclesia used to mean an organization, a building, or a denomination — it always, always refers to the people of God, born into His Kingdom through Christ Jesus. Paul wrote many letters to many people in different places, but he preached a singular message of there being only one body: the Lord’s Church. In my humble opinion, it is not quite accurate to say Paul wrote letters to “churches,” but rather to the Church (ecclesia) represented in a given city. Though our English translations almost always use “churches” (plural), the Greek remains ecclesia, singular. The one apparent exception is when the author addresses communities across a vast region (e.g. the “churches” in Asia). This can be hard to grasp because of the damage already done by the common understanding of the word. There were seven cities in Asia, each with a single, united community of believers — so Scripture says “to the churches in Asia”: a plural referencing a singular, for lack of a better way to describe it. One body of Christ, identified as present in each city. These are not denominations (the very word denomination indicates division, and there is no division in the true Church of Jesus Christ — 1 Corinthians 1:10). It would be the same as saying that if you left Seattle and entered Portland, you would then be among the Christians in that city. You haven’t left the body of Christ by leaving Seattle; you are simply now among the body of Christ in another town. It matters not whether you visit some designated structure, because the word “Church,” as Scripture uses it, has nothing to do with a place, a building, or an organization. It only and always refers to people.

This is a most significant fact. Observe these passages on the “oneness” of the Body. Notice how singular the terms are in every group Paul preached to:

The verses are numerous and exceptionally clear. While as one body we have many parts, those parts are not defined by attendance at, or membership in, some separate church organization. When someone speaks of “getting into a church,” what exactly are they suggesting? That there is more than one Church a person needs to get into? The biblical fact is that once a person is joined to Christ, he is a full, participating member of the Church — the ecclesia of God, the body of Christ. There is nothing else he need join. There is nothing else he can join. There are “parts,” but only one Church — and organizations are not those parts. People are those parts.

The word “church” and the building

We’ve touched on this, but let me expand it. Scholars agree that our English word “church” is derived from a Greek term never once used in the Bible. The word that corresponds to English “church” is kuriakon (“the lord or master of a property,” and simply “the lord’s house”). Kuriakon is a derivative of kuriakos (“of, or belonging to a lord, master, etc.”). The latter is used twice in the Bible — never as a definition of the Lord’s Assembly (1 Corinthians 11:20; Revelation 1:10). In early times the word was typically used of things belonging to the Roman Emperor. Eventually Christians adopted it and applied it to their temples — but in the first and second centuries, Christians did not build temples at all, because such was unanimously considered idolatry, the very practice of pagans. This is well-documented fact. The following are excerpts from early Christian writings:

Thanks to the influence of the Greeks and Romans (and eventually the Roman Catholic Church), we now have church buildings, and they have become so woven into our religious culture that we’ve deceived ourselves into thinking they are necessary and biblical. We falsely presume that true spiritual growth and fellowship cannot happen without one of these “churches.” We even come to treat our religiously dedicated buildings and programs as equivalent to the Church that Christ shed His blood for — as if they were one and the same.

I cannot tell you how many times I’ve heard it said that “many people today claim Christ and yet don’t even attend church, even though Jesus purchased it with His own blood.” Do you see the confusion in that — the mixing of attendance at a religious building with the spiritual reality of the body of Christ? To the mind conditioned this way, the two are the same thing; so if you don’t attend meetings at a physical building, you’re somehow rejecting (or at least minimizing) the Church Jesus gave His life for. In effect, people are being told that Jesus shed His blood for a religious organization and a man-made building. That is an amazing confusion. We might ask ourselves: if the early ecclesia thrived and spread like wildfire throughout the world without church buildings and programs, how have we come to believe we can do nothing without them?

Easton’s Bible Dictionary (1897) says of ecclesia: “There is no clear instance of its being used for a place of meeting or of worship, although in post-apostolic times it early received this meaning.” Ecclesia, by stark contrast, carries no connotation whatsoever of an earthly building, temple, or shrine. In the sixteenth century, men of God like William Tyndale — the Greek scholar and translator of the first printed English Bible — knew this and refused to render ekklesia as “church.” The religious leaders of his day called him a heretic and burned him at the stake, all because he translated the Scriptures straight from the Greek and Hebrew into terms that more closely matched their original meaning. Those early Christians understood what it meant to “come out from among them and be separate” (2 Corinthians 6:17). There was a cost to count that few of us can even compare to; they gave their very lives for the truth.

Called out — even from the religious world

As Christians we have been called out by God into His royal Assembly, His family. I think it is no coincidence that ecclesia carries exactly this thought. For God’s Word shows that we have been called out not only from the world, but even from the religious world. In Jesus’ day that religious world was Judaism — the epitome of organized religion, filled with rules, rituals, ceremonies, holy days, and required meetings. God called His people out from that camp and to be joined to Christ. In fact, there is a passage in Isaiah where God expresses His utter disgust for man’s religious worship when it had become mere lip service — going through the motions, void of a sincere heart. Israel had grown so self-deceived by their worship rituals that they actually believed those rituals made them righteous. Sound familiar? The same problem abounds today. This passage is striking in The Message:

Isn’t it striking that God wasn’t interested in their “assembling” while they continued to perform religion and go right on sinning? He sends them home. Go take care of business! Let your life speak louder than your mouth! Stand up for the homeless and the defenseless — people ought to be your concern. It reminds me of what James said:

In similar fashion — while many today have been taught that “giving” means donating a percentage of their money to a church organization (much of which goes to buildings rather than to the actual needs of people, as was common in the early Church) — Scripture presents no such arrangement. Jesus Himself told His followers plainly how to give to Him. Surprisingly enough, He never told them to get plugged into a good church and start tithing. Rather, He said this:

God’s Word sounds a clear call to all who are His: we are not to be about the business of building and concerning ourselves with earthly cities — religious centers and temples here on earth, as the Jews did — but to keep our eyes on the city yet to come. That is where our treasure is to be stored.

I find it striking again that God does not call us to have large worship services, but to live a life of worship — a worship marked by action. The offering He desires is praise at all times (not just a Sunday sing-song), chiefly expressed through doing good and being generous to those in need. God is merciful in our stages of ignorance and patient as we grow; He is so good and faithful to keep lovingly guiding us, even while we remain caught up in traditions that do more to slow our growth than aid it.

Kept in perpetual babyhood

Many church-going believers remain in a seemingly perpetual state of babyhood, always dependent on “leaders” to teach them, hear from God for them, do the work of evangelism for them, entertain them, counsel them, and direct nearly their every move. So many Christians divide themselves according to favored leaders who give them a sense of security they lack. This dependence on men tends to be a natural byproduct of the church system — and, ironically, it is also the fuel that keeps the system running. The system tends to produce spiritually immature children and to keep them that way (just enough truth and freedom to keep them happy and pacified); if it fails at that, it crumbles for lack of support. But Christ never intended His people to be treated this way. He wants them to grow up into mature men and women of God who rest confident in the leadership of the Holy Spirit more than in men and programs — to find their security in Him alone. When Christians follow the path of denominationalism and churchianity, they can become blinded to their own condition and fall prey to a worldly mindset that creeps in under the guise of spirituality. This is not so different from what Paul warned the Corinthians about:

Remember, too, how Jesus told the woman at the well that the day was coming when men would not need to go to the temple in Jerusalem to worship God — that the true worshipers would have no concern for places of worship, but would lead a life of worship, in spirit and in truth. Again, The Message renders it well:

But what has the church organization done? It has made “worship” a song service that must be carried out routinely, in an officially designated building, once a week, led by professional musicians. The organization has carried over the types and shadows of the Old Covenant Levitical priesthood and set before believers “worship leaders” who mediate and perform, supposedly ushering people into the throne room of God. But where is such a concept ever found in the New Testament? Do we really need a modern order of Levites, an elite class, to lead us into God’s throne room? I thought we were granted the right to come boldly before His throne, freely, because of Christ’s finished work:

No man on earth can “lead us” in worship. Being led is something that happens only through direct communion with the Father. And as we’ve already seen, “worship” is not a song style — it is how we live our lives before Him. I have no problem with song services in themselves; it’s a total blast to be in a room full of believers singing our hearts out to Jesus. That is wonderful. But there is no scriptural mandate that organizes worship this way. In fact, the New Testament never describes worship in the context of a song service in a weekly meeting at all. Worship is a lifestyle, and that truth is far too often overlooked. All the elements of “the program” can deceive people into thinking they’ve fulfilled the Lord’s desires simply by cramming these things into a two-hour service each week. People slip into a mode of thinking, “If I just do this faithfully every week, it covers all the bases, God is pleased, I’m doing my duty, I’m ‘assembling’ like the Bible says, and I’m growing spiritually.” It is so easy to fall into the trap of imagining our righteousness is based on and maintained by works and things like church attendance. That is why I believe organized religion can be so dangerously deceptive. The same was true in the first century. Paul was stunned that believers who had known such freedom and joy in Christ were turning back to religious practice. They still believed in Jesus; they still wanted to follow God; but little by little they had drifted from the simplicity of their devotion to Christ, replacing it with religious observance.

So many good, church-attending folks read a passage like that and shake their heads: “those foolish Jews.” Or they look at other groups — the Roman Catholics, say — and think, “now they’re really religious, but not us; we understand. We speak in tongues and dance and have powerful worship services and our pastor preaches lively, culturally relevant sermons.” I suspect there will be many like the church of Laodicea (Revelation 3:14–22), who thought they had it all together but were really leaving Jesus on the outside. So many Christians today have their lives centered on the elements of organized religion, with Christ secondary — and worst of all, they’re convinced that simply meeting each week with other Christians is what the Word means by “being assembled together.” The program is so compelling that many sincere believers honestly don’t realize what is happening to them. I think that’s what was happening to the Galatians, and when Paul saw it he could only say, “Who has bewitched you?” He raised a similar concern with the Corinthians, who were being drawn away from simple devotion to Christ by the compelling words of certain leaders (whom Paul sarcastically calls “super-apostles”). Again, notice the singular terms — a single virgin espoused to one husband:

It would be foolish to think most Christians aren’t likely to get distracted by such things — Scripture tells us that even the great apostle Peter, who walked with Christ in the flesh, once compromised the truth by yielding to religious pressure, and was rebuked by Paul before the whole assembly:

The whole book of Hebrews is about a separation from the old religion of Judaism and a drawing unto Christ alone. This was a hard message for the Jews, because Judaism was their entire life and their whole perceived connection with God. In their minds, submitting to organized religion was godliness (and new Christians were being swept right into that same influence). But the author puts it in no uncertain terms: you must leave that camp and join yourself to Jesus Christ, even if it means you bear His reproach. Reproach by whom? Given the context — who was it that rejected Christ and called Him a blasphemer? Was it not the religious? The sinners invited Him into their homes; it was the religious who cast Him out.

We do not have a city or a building on this earth that represents the Lord’s temple. Anyone who teaches otherwise is not teaching the truth. Our “temple” is holy; it is made of God’s people. Our city is not of this world and is not represented by a physical building of wood and stone — so why bother trying to build one here? It may be time we take another look at the early believers, to see what they embraced, and refresh our understanding of the ecclesia of God: that it is not defined by a building or a program. We must leave all that old religion behind and passionately follow Him. It may mean we won’t be popular among the religious community. We may be misunderstood, or even rejected outright. But we can take comfort, knowing that so was Christ — and we share in His blessing when we leave all to follow Him.

Now, Hebrews 10:25

I wanted to look closer at Hebrews 10:25, but first I needed to lay a strong foundation for this word “church” (ecclesia) as it is rendered in the original languages — and to show how the apostles, and Christ Himself, regarded organized religion as an obstacle to faith. The early Christians knew nothing of “church” the way we know it today. They were a community of believers who interacted as a family, not as members of a religious organization. They didn’t build institutions of worship and Christian education. They didn’t congregate to hear one man preach at them for an hour. There were no liturgies in their gatherings. Their meetings were informal, and everyone participated (so much so that sometimes their gatherings grew disorderly, which Paul lovingly helped them reorder without squashing their zeal to minister to one another). Their lives centered on Christ, not on their meetings. They built up one another, person to person, on the faith of Jesus Christ. This matters immensely, because their concept of meeting together, and of the Church itself, was virtually 180 degrees from what we consider church and fellowship today. Once we grasp this, passages like Hebrews 10:25 — so abused and torn from context — come into proper light. I thank God the author did not say what most folks read into that verse. He did not say to make sure you attend a good church organization every Sunday. He simply said, “Don’t neglect assembling yourselves together.” There are two important things here to weigh. The first I’ll emphasize by quoting the passage in its full context. Note that the author is not addressing some little church organization, but the whole body of Christ — all the called-out ones:

Didn’t Jesus say that when as few as two or three come together, He would be there among them (Matthew 18:20)? Many have twisted this verse, changing “three” to “more” to justify their massive meetings: “whenever two or more are gathered.” But the text speaks in very intimate terms. Think about it naturally: how easy it is to gather with a few friends and be truly united in purpose and conversation — and how difficult that becomes as the number grows. What most people would gladly share with a couple of close brothers or sisters, they’d never dream of telling a crowd. Perhaps when Jesus said “two or three” He simply meant “at least that many.” I don’t want to presume too much; I’m only making an observation. (Another brother, Neil Girrard, first shared this thought with me, and I found it worth pondering.) Either way it makes simple sense, especially given what we know of the early believers: they frequently met in their homes and shared meals together. It’s pretty hard to cram five thousand people around a dinner table.

Even the early Church father Tertullian (late second century) acknowledged that where even two or three come together, the church is present. So “a church” is not defined by a building and a program, but by people — and this is critical, because it can’t be any other way. You can’t tell people they need to “get into a church” in order to be “assembled,” because it’s misleading. People naturally understand that to mean they must find an organization to join — and, whether we say it outright or not, it implies that attendance and membership somehow validate their faith (because “real Christians go to church”). When we say such things, we impose a legalism that God’s Word never imposes. By all means, let’s encourage fellowship among believers — but we shouldn’t be telling people to sign up for religious organizations for the sake of fellowship. When we do, we do it without any authority of Scripture.

The author of Hebrews is not prescribing a formula or a ritual in this passage. He is not commanding “church” attendance (as many presume) or even weekly meetings (though, in fairness, he isn’t forbidding weekly meetings either). The book of Hebrews concerns the prophecy of the coming destruction of the temple. Persecution was at the doorstep of the body of Christ. So the author warns and encourages: “Brothers and sisters, you’re about to go through some rough times. Don’t forget the One who called you and who leads you. Stick together. Stay strong and encourage one another.”

Notice something else. Hebrews 10:25 says to exhort one another “even more” as you see the day approaching (the Greek confirms this — “even more” or “much more” means with greater frequency). Why say “even more” unless it were the case that they did not meet all that frequently? Simple logic tells us he was urging them to pull closer and encourage one another more and more as the days grew harder. What you actually end up with here is more evidence that Christians did not meet for “church services,” or even so-called “fellowship,” on a rigid regular basis — certainly not that this passage prescribes such a thing. “Exhort one another even more” does not mean “schedule more church services and make sure everyone religiously attends.” To exhort (by its definition in the Greek) means “to call to one’s side, to speak to, to encourage and comfort.” Clearly that is possible on any number of levels without the enormous financial outlay of a building and a weekly program (let alone the scores of rituals and liturgies, virtually none of which are named anywhere in the New Testament). This “exhorting even more” could happen very simply — through letters, phone calls, or face to face. It is simply impossible to conclude from these passages that “not forsaking the assembling” has anything to do with imposing a requirement of weekly church attendance on believers.

At the very least, this was a special call to encourage the believers to draw together because hard times were on the horizon — but the call is as simple as it was stated. One just cannot read weekly organized “church” meetings into it. To do so is a misuse of Scripture. When we press 1,700 years of tradition into a passage that never carried it, we strip away the simple, profound family character of the body of Christ and force cold, institutional religion in its place. I’m sorry to put it so bluntly, but there it is. Thank God that most of the early Church — and even many of the reformers and great theologians of ages past — rightly defined “church” as it appears in Scripture, leaving out the traditional additions. What has become of us, that we’re more willing to accept the false definitions of tradition (and hold them as essential doctrine over others) than the simple, clear design of Scripture? And who are these men in the pulpits who feel free to set aside biblical realities and teach their own religious assumptions on no authority of Scripture at all? I don’t doubt that many are sincere — I only wish they would test what they’ve inherited against the Word.

Consider also “the assembly” the author of Hebrews is directly referring to:

Note that in these passages the term “building” is used metaphorically for the united body of Christ, of which Christ Himself is the foundation and cornerstone. Note also that it is Christ Himself who holds us all together and causes us to grow into what He desires. And what is the role of apostles and prophets in this “building”? To set people’s attention on Christ. The foundation they lay is not a moral system of religion — it is Christ the Lord. This is immensely significant.

In my own reading through the Early Church Fathers, I’ve noticed how consistently the “Church” is identified specifically as “the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ which is in His saints.” For nearly 200 years after Calvary, God’s people were not confused about what the Lord’s Church (ecclesia) really is — and they never defined it as a building or a religious program (and, as we noted early on, they never even called it “church” at all).

Though it may be uncomfortable, I feel I must say plainly: the religious organization people today call “the church” is an establishment of man — built by human hands, maintained by human effort, run by human agendas and schedules and, hard as it is to swallow, human authority structures. This “system” is nowhere in the Word of God defined as something that makes you any more or less a part of the body of Christ. It is wrong to judge a brother or sister who is not a “member” of a “church.” That does not in the least invalidate their standing with God or their place in the Lord’s true Church. Does someone want to join an organization or a religious club? Fine — but never elevate that organization over the body of Christ, and never make an idol of it by calling it His Church. Does someone want to belong to a denominational church? All right — but they shouldn’t turn up their nose at those who don’t “worship” the system, as though it were God’s prized invention. We had all better start regarding God’s people as the precious jewels they are, regardless of what organization they may or may not belong to.

Friends, we need to approach our Christianity relationally — a relationship with Christ, a life centered on Him, a love sparked by His grace and His presence. And second to being enthralled with Christ, we must become relationally minded toward one another, not organizationally minded. A meeting, in itself, is not evil; I am not suggesting that. It is good for the saints to meet together, and Scripture confirms we should not neglect to do so (Hebrews 10:25). But are we engaging in the right kind of meeting — the kind we see modeled in Scripture? Do we realize it takes only two or three simply gathered in agreement (Matthew 18:20) to constitute a meeting where the Lord’s presence is manifested? Do we understand that “church” is not a building, not an organization, not an institution, not a program, not a “ministry,” not a scheduled meeting with a list of required rituals — but that

Church is who we are together: the body of the Lord Jesus Christ.

There’s nothing necessarily wrong with belonging to a club or an organization — just don’t call it “the House of the Lord,” and please don’t call it “the Church.” If you love where you are and think all of this is just too radical, that’s fine — stay put and pursue the Lord with all your heart. Just don’t judge and reject other Christians who choose to meet in other ways, or who don’t “join” a “church” at all. I know God is merciful and able to deal with each of us in grace, patience and love. I spent better than thirty years of my life in the institutional church and believed a lot of things I now see were mistaken, but God still penetrated through all of it and touched my heart. He led me by His grace; He fed me, nurtured me, and changed my life. He poured out His renewing power and filled my home with His manifest presence. Whether in “church” or out of it, the standard Jesus set — spirit and truth — still applies to us all. God is looking into our innermost being for sincerity, not religion. Because my heart of hearts was set on Him, the institutional church wasn’t a complete obstacle, and God connected me with true and sincere saints within that system, for a season. I believe the same is true for every one of His dear children. As weary as I am of the routine we call “church,” and as much as I believe it hinders spiritual growth in so many ways, I believe all the more that God is faithful, amazing and good, and that He can touch people’s lives right where they are. I’d be lost if this weren’t true about God! If He waited until we got everything perfect, we’d all be dead with no hope of ever touching Him. But just because God is merciful, longsuffering, kind and forgiving, doesn’t mean we should use that mercy as a license to remain in ignorance and stagnation once we’ve come to a knowledge of the truth — once He has revealed that He is so much more than religion, more than our human attempts to orchestrate religious activity. With all my heart I believe there is a higher road, and I mean to walk it. At the very least, I know I will never again place something so insignificant as an institution of religion between my relationship with God and with other believers.

Finally, I want to note that there seems to be a broader reference to “assembling” in this Hebrews 10 passage. Judging by the context, the “assembling” in view is not merely an effort to get together, but something more serious and eternal. The whole lead-up to verse 25 speaks of our coming to Christ, and verse 26 — immediately after the “assembling” passage — begins warning us not to apostatize from the faith. It seems to me the more pertinent reference here is to not forsaking the assembling together in the sense of not apostatizing from the truth. Every reference in the passage speaks in terms of the entire body of Christ, not some small group here and there. In this letter I’ve emphasized assembly in the broadest spiritual sense, while also acknowledging the small gathering. But I’m compelled to conclude that this passage in Hebrews has little to do with “meetings” at all (understand — I’m not suggesting it condemns them either).

There is much more I could write, but this is already long enough. I hope my point is clear. God bless. Be free in Him!

In His grip,
Dave

A note on tone. I wrote this years ago as a letter, in a season when I held these convictions hotly. I still hold them — the Scriptures here are the Scriptures — but I’ve softened a few of the sharpest edges toward the sincere men and women who see it differently. My quarrel is with the system and its false definitions, not with any brother or sister who loves Jesus inside those walls. God has children in every kind of gathering, and He is more than able to lead each one home. My aim is to persuade, not to wound. Weigh it all against the Word, and let the Holy Spirit and your own conscience press in whatever is true.