The teachings of men...part 10, 7 reasons why 'church' is not optional and non-negotiable

The writings of men was a topic I did not choose but it's one that has pulled me ever deeper into a study that I am beginning to wonder where it will ever end. 

I'm not complaining, not even close. I'm learning much and enjoying the ever present conversations with my husband. I have even found that through this topic I have dug deeper into Scripture and even branched out a bit, watching videos shared by a reader and looking at other people's blogs. 

One of the blogs I looked at is a blog that belongs to a woman that writes under the heading of discipleship for women. I found it by doing a search on a website that I used to visit fairly often. It's been years since I was on that site and out of curiosity I wanted to see if the writer had anything written on the writings or teachings of men. 

Let me go off track a bit here and say that I find it ironic that my learning about and disputing the writings/teachings of men has had me doing some searching to see if other 'men' be they men or women are actually saying the same things that I am coming to the conclusion of. 

It was in that research, which is the only reason I have searched anything out other than Scripture, that I came across this blog for women. I am not in the habit of disclosing sources by name nor in giving links to other blogs or websites but I was recently questioned on my reasoning for doing this by someone that left a comment on my blog so I am opting to share the link to the blog I found and to disclose the writers name. My only reason for doing so is so that should anyone wish to know who I am speaking of, not that I see the importance in who wrote the article, my objection is not with the woman that wrote it or even in what she teaches and promotes herself but in the entire system that has her and others like her promoting something as Scriptural when it simply is not in Scripture.

But because someone might wish to know what blog I speak of you can find it here:

https://michellelesley.com/

As I mentioned earlier, I stumbled upon this woman's blog from another site where I was looking to see if they had spoken against 'preachers' at all. There was nothing there but in the new articles section of the site was a link that took me to this woman's blog. 

I was a bit confused at first because the woman's writings did not seem in keeping with what the person whose website I used to visit for deep reading. In fact this woman's site leans more toward the 'church' and less toward Scripture. 

I haven't read much of what's on this woman's blog but I did read the about me page and I did look over a couple of her posts. One of those posts was titled '7 reasons why church is not optional and non-negotiable for women'. The title had me intrigued in a head shaking sort of way so I clicked on it.

 Oh boy. 

Let me start by saying this woman's blog is something I could never, ever, encourage anyone to read. Somehow in there it seems like she holds to 'right' doctrine, at least according to what I was able to piece together from what little I read, but her 'right' doctrine seems to branch out into her own version of what that is. 

Her claim of 'right' doctrine got me to wondering exactly what it was she believed so I looked for a statement of faith and found this:

If I had to label myself, I guess I would go with “Reformed Southern Baptist”. I hold to the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith (Second London Baptist Confession) as well as the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 (though there are a few points I would tweak for clarity). These documents represent my beliefs fairly accurately.

Though Calvinistic in my soteriology, most of the Southern Baptist churches I’ve been a member of have been Traditionalist (non-Calvinistic). I tend to hold a more nuanced view of Calvinism than those who seem to make it their hill to die on."

I had a hard time understanding just what that meant. I've been in many Southern Baptist 'churches' and I can say that in my experience the two do not mix. In fact I could see a 'reformed' person getting kicked out of most Southern Baptist 'churches'. I know I would not be very welcome in the ones I have attended in the past, at least I wouldn't be if I actually talked while I was there. 

What then did this woman mean? I had to dig a bit deeper on her blog. And I came across this:

"What do you mean when you describe yourself as “semi-Reformed”?

In the Statement of Faith tab at the top of this page, I describe my theology this way:

“If I had to label myself, I guess I would go with ‘Semi-Reformed Southern Baptist’…’Semi-Reformed’ isn’t an official theological school of thought. It’s just a little term I created to describe where I fall on the spectrum of Calvinism. All it means is that, while I lean strongly Reformed, I do not agree with every single doctrine of Calvinism 100%. I would say I’m about 90% Reformed.”

I don’t describe myself as a “Five Point Calvinist” or a “three pointer,” etc., because, while I pretty much agree with all five points (and don’t reject any of them outright), I simply think these doctrines are far more nuanced than they are often presented by Calvinists. We don’t have everything all cut-and-dried figured out about what’s going on in the mind of God about electing people. With regard to human will, we don’t know precisely what God does in a person’s heart, and how He does it, at the exact moment of regeneration. We believe what Romans 9 says about election while simultaneously believing 2 Peter 3:9, that it’s not God’s desire for anyone to perish.

And you know what? That’s OK. It’s OK to hold those things in tension while we’re here on earth. We believe what Scripture says God does, but, where the Bible is silent as to how He does it, His reasons for doing it, etc., well, we trust God and believe Scripture there, too, because it says:

The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law. Deuteronomy 29:29

So that’s where I am, theologically speaking (I’ve written a little more about it here.) I guess you could say I’m a Reformed gal who leaves room for the mysteries of the mind of God."

I actually read that statement to my husband whose response was, "she's not reformed." I have to agree with him. What's surprising, or perhaps not so surprising is that this woman seems to have a pretty good sized following based off the number of comments I saw on what little of her blog I looked at. 

And what I read was disturbing to say the least. I must say that I am finding myself in new territory lately. Where I once was against Arminianism, I now find myself almost grateful for it. The theology used and taught are wrong but the Lord has a purpose for it and I can see that it is used to restrain reprobates and draw the elect. It is a visible 'church' that spreads the name of Jesus and since there is no other name that saves...they share the gospel. It may be a mixed up version of the gospel but they do spread the name of Christ. 

So I read over what little of this woman's blog that I looked at with this new thought process and appreciation for Arminians. I am now inclined to give a wide leeway to Arminians...they know not what they are teaching...and to overlook most of their erroneous heresies because of their blindedness but this woman, who I would say is blind to much of Scripture, is promoting the 'church' like it is the be all and end all of what a 'Christian' woman should do. 

Her post on 7 reasons a woman must go to 'church' (not the real title) was disturbing to say the least. I will also say that I am sure she would say these same reasons apply to men too but her website is directed at women so this post is directed to women. And it's something that although I did not comment on her blog, said nothing to her about the falsehoods she is teaching, my thoughts could not be stilled on this issue and I wish to counter them here. For myself if nothing else.

With that intent, I will mentally draw a deep breath and wade in. For clarification my words will be written just as this sentence is written, hers will be in blue.

"It’s a disturbing trend that’s spreading like the plague, especially among women who claim to be believers:

“I’m a Christian but I refuse to attend church.”

These aren’t women who can’t attend church due to health reasons, caring for an ill or disabled loved one, who have no other choice but to work on Sundays, or who live in an area with no reasonably doctrinally sound church to attend. They’re women who could get plugged in to a decent local church, but intentionally shun the body of Christ.

Usually, the decision to opt out of church boils down to one of two scenarios: a) a believer who was hurt by a previous church and yet isn’t ready to risk being hurt again or b) someone (often a false convert) who doesn’t grasp the concept that being joyfully joined to a local body of believers is part of what defines someone as a Christian...

I am not saying, have never said, and will never say that attending church, joining a church, serving at a church, or being baptized into a church is what saves a person, even in part. Going to church doesn’t make you a Christian. Everybody with me? Scripture is clear that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, and that good works, such as church attendance, play zero part in a person’s salvation."

At least she gets the last part right. All I know to say here is that she is putting great importance on the local institution as being the 'church' of Scripture and whether she is aware of the ekklessia or not she is mixed up in who and what the 'church' is. 

I have come to a place in my Scripture studies that I all but can't stomach the very word 'church', although even as I write that maybe my thoughts on that are changing too. Maybe 'church' can be accepted as a part of the Arminian system when looked at as it being there to restrain the unregenerate and to spread the name of Christ to the elect. 

In that case...it's a great system and 'christian' women probably should join in at total devotional level. They should attend services, teach classes, hold meetings, you name it. Because...well, it restrains lost souls in a way that not going to a 'church' would leave them without the pressure to live within the expectations of that system. 

Yet even as I write that I also think of those that might be restrained through Scripture if left to their own devices without the interference of 'church'. I just don't know anymore. I see the good in the 'church' system but it is a system that all but makes a mockery of Christ and the true Scriptures. 

"What I am saying is that one of the signs, or fruits, that someone is already saved is that she has a heartfelt love and affection for the things of God, which includes the gathering of the saints for fellowship, worship, encouragement, and edification. For a believer, love for the bride of Christ is a natural extension of loving Christ, Himself."

Oh, if only she had stopped that paragraph there. There is Truth in that statement as it is above. An elect child of Christ will hold a deep love for the body of Christ. They will love fellow believers. They will enjoy meeting with them, worshiping with them, encouraging them, edifying and being edified by them. 

I LOVE to discuss Scripture with my husband. I LOVE to hear from other believers through comments on this blog. I LOVE to talk Scripture with anyone that professes a belief in Christ no matter where they stand because Scripture is Scripture and even disagreeing on it is to learn from it and be edified by it. 

But she didn't stop there. She finished out that paragraph with this sentence: 

 She doesn’t have to be talked into attending church; there’s no place on earth she’d rather be.

And there's where she went off course. 'Church' is one of those words we would do well to remove from Scripture. I can almost hear the gasps now and know plenty of people that would call me anti-christian for daring to make such a statement. 

With my new understanding and thought process of what 'church' is and what it isn't, not in regards to the ekklessia, but in regards to the visible 'church' verses the elect of God, or possibly even those that hear the general calling but don't make it into the elect, or even with my possible new respect for Arminians, I have to say here that I make that statement to one set of people while believing we should leave the other set to their 'church'. 

Scripture tells us to warn others so I am all for warning people of their errors. I think all Arminians should be told the Truth according to Scripture. I think we should share it with every professing believer we know. I fully believe we should show those we know and love as well as those we know well enough to get into these sorts of conversations with that salvation isn't what it's taught in the 'church', that Christ isn't the Jesus taught in the 'church', that 'church' isn't what is taught in the 'church' but after that I believe we should mostly leave them to their delusions, not provoking them to anger by shoving our beliefs down their throats. 

All that said...I firmly believe we need to forget 'church' is even in Scripture. We have two very big problems when approaching Scripture. One is that society uses words today in ways they were never used in Bible times, the other is that we have been conditioned by the 'church' institution to understand certain words to mean things that they just don't mean.

The woman on this blog says there's no place a 'christian' woman would rather be than 'church'. Might I just add here that she is a minister's wife and a 'christian' speaker that uses her blog to make money off Scripture. She has a button on it for donations and there is a section where she gives information on hiring her to speak at engagements or 'churches'. 

Her understanding of Scripture isn't a heartfelt thing. It's not shared out of a love for Christ and His word. It may be that she does hold a love for Christ and his Word but she also loves her pocketbook and she has found a way to use Christ to put money in her account. 

So according to a woman that seems to almost eagerly share her opinions on Scripture and heretics in exchange for money 'christian' women would rather be in 'church' than anywhere else. 

'Christian' women might rather be in true communion with the Lord than anywhere else but that does not mean they would rather be in a 'church' building which is what this woman means when she speaks of 'church'. 

"...if you’ve harbored antipathy toward the church, as a whole, for years, have never taken joy in fellowshipping and worshiping with fellow believers, don’t see any particular need for gathering with the Body, or are generally apathetic in your attitude toward church, you’re in a very dangerous place, spiritually, and you need to question your salvation. Those are symptoms of being lost, not fruit of being saved."

I looked around this woman's blog enough to know that she equates the 'church' with a physical place. She is talking about a building where people gather together and listen to a preacher give a sermon. She is not using the term 'church' to speak of the elect of God. She isn't even using it to speak of all people that profess a belief in Christ. She is talking about a true physical building.

And according to her, 'if...you don't see any particular need for gathering with the body...are...apathetic in your attitude toward church...you need to question your salvation. 

I guess I really need to question my salvation then because I don't see the need to gather with the body in the 'church' buildings and I am not only apathetic about my 'church' attendance, I am downright against it. 

That single statement by this woman, whose name should you wish to know it, is Michelle Lesley, clearly indicates that she equates salvation with attendance in a physical 'church'. 

Let me clear a little something up here, I did make the statement about questioning my salvation a bit sarcastically because although Scripture does tell us to test ourselves to make sure we are in the faith we are never told to test our salvation against our love of the physical 'church' buildings as we know them today. And though I was being a bit sarcastic above I do highly recommend testing one's faith as Scripture says to do. What I don't recommend is determining your salvation based on your 'church' attendance. 

"For Christians, being joined to a local church is not optional and non-negotiable. Why?

1. God Says So

Just in case the entirety of the Bible isn’t clear enough that God wants His people meeting together for fellowship, worship, and the Word, He says so very bluntly in Hebrews 10:24-25:

And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near."

I have very little issue with what she said above, it's the way she uses it and what she considers the body of believers that I have objection to.  If she used that same statement and referred to the elect than I would not say a word against what she said. I wouldn't even be too inclined to object if she was referring to every professing believer out there.

The trouble is that to her encouraging one another, meeting together, fellowship, and worship are all wrapped up in the physical 'church'. She says many times in just the little bit of her blog that I read over that one must find a 'sound' church. 

The issue for me is that there is no such thing as a 'sound' 'church'. I do not believe that Michelle is referring to the same things I would be if I were to talk of a 'sound' anything. Her idea of 'church' is an institution and as far as I can see the entire institution set up of 'church' is in direct opposition to Scripture. 

Nowhere in Scripture do we see a 'church' as we know it today. We see temples and synagogues in the Old Testament and in the New Testament we see gatherings of people flocking to listen to Christ, John the Baptist, the disciples, the Apostles...we don't see them gathering in 'churches' to listen to the 'preacher'. 

The one reference we have for what appears to be a 'preacher' as we know them today is 3 John 1:9-10...

I have written to the church about this, but Diotrephes, who loves to be first, will not accept our instruction. 10So if I come, I will call attention to his malicious slander against us. And unsatisfied with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers and forbids those who want to do so, even putting them out of the church.…

That single verse seems to give us an example of what we should not have in a 'church'. This man, Diotrephes, ruled over the church and would not accept instruction from the Apostles. He refused to welcome the brothers and put them out of the church. 

In other words it seems as if this man did what 'preachers' do today. He was running his own 'church' according to his own ideas and rules and he did not welcome the word of God, for that is what the Apostles were at that time, walking, talking Bibles, into his church. 

Yet, Michelle equates salvation with whether or not one goes to 'church' and she takes every mention of 'church' to mean a physical building where those professing Christ gather to be led by a 'preacher'. 

In this same blog post, in a section I did not transfer to my blog, she even spoke of telling a woman she could not help her with whatever the woman's issue was and says she told this woman she needs the counsel of a 'preacher'. Not only that but this 'preacher' must be one in a local 'church' because according to Michelle only 'preachers' in the local 'church' are able to shepherd anyone.

This is what 'church' is to Michelle and so many others like her. No matter the doctrine or theology a person holds to most of them will automatically equate 'church' with a physical building. 

They are brainwashed into it.

"2. The Church is God’s Plan for Christians

God doesn’t need or want your help devising the best methodology for your life and growth as a Christian. He already has a plan. He already established that plan. That plan is the church. There’s no plan B or any cafeteria-style options. If you’re a Christian, God’s plan for you is to be a faithful part of a local body of believers. The Bible never suggests that it’s OK for you to be a “Lone Ranger Christian.” There are no explicit statements to this effect, nor even one example of a New Testament Christian who lived life apart from the church. The New Testament assumes Christians will be part of a church. If not, the majority of Matthew through Revelation would be moot. If you reject the church, you’re rejecting God’s word and His way in favor of your own way."

Umm...yeah. Honestly I am drawing a blank here at how to even go about refuting this one. It's stupefying. 

God's plan for his elect is to make them a part of the body of Christ, to drag them into that body and to regenerate them so that they want to be a part of that body of the elect. 

We may not be shown any examples of believers that forsake the 'church' but we also aren't shown any 'church' as Michelle is using the word. The 'church' isn't in the original versions of Scripture, the ekklessia is, the elect of God are in Scripture. And we must remember that in those days there were no Bibles. There was no way to study Scripture at home, at least not New Testament Scripture, so the Apostles and disciples were the Scriptures. 

If you wanted to learn more about Christ or how a believer should act or live you had to join with the body of believers and be instructed by an Apostle or those left to oversee the Truth in the absence of the Apostles. 

For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them. Matthew 18:20 esv

Meeting with believers does not mean a service or study held within a 'church' institution. It's the gathering of any number of believers. Christ Himself said He is there anytime two or more gather. Why then would anyone think that the only way to fellowship with believers is to attend a 'church' institution? 

3. Jesus Values the Church

You claim to love and follow Jesus, right? Well, Jesus founded the church. Jesus is the head of the church. Jesus loves the church. Jesus died for the church. Jesus is the Savior of the church. Jesus nourishes, cherishes, and sanctifies the church. How could anyone claim to love and follow Jesus and yet cavalierly toss aside something He values so much that He laid His life down for it? If you really love Jesus, you’ll value the things He values, and, clearly, He values the church.

Again the only response here is that she is misusing the word 'church'. First, because 'church' is not in the original translations of Scripture, it wasn't added until the 1500's when it was written into the Geneva Bible, and second because even if 'church' was in the original Scriptures it means the elect and not an organized institution.

4. Being Joined to the Church Is an Indicator of Salvation

First John 2:18-19 makes no bones about it. Forsaking the church is an indicator that you’re not saved:

…now many antichrists have come…They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.

Want to make it plain that you’re not of Christ? Step one is to leave the church.

There's just no way around me sounding like a broken record. The 'church' is not the organized institution that Michelle equates it with being. 'Church' is the body of the elect. It is people throughout the entire time that there is life on earth, from creation to the end of the earth. 

The use of the verse above seems to work well to support the required meeting of believers in whatever context one wishes to apply it, be it the 'church' buildings or the private gathering of believers on a regular, and required basis. 

It would almost seem to indicate that to forsake the gathering of this meeting of believers or 'church' would be to show that you went out from among them so you aren't one of them.

And in truth that is correct. I went out from among the 'church' institution because I was not one of them. That does not mean I am not a believer in Christ. It does not mean I do not have salvation. It means that I do not agree with the lies and the brainwashing institutions that people call 'church'. 

But we must also remember that the above verse is speaking of a certain place and time. It's referring to the Apostles giving the Word of God, assembling together to basically be the Scriptures in human form, and they say, 'they went out from us because they weren't of us'. 

And who are the 'us' spoken of? That's the big question here. Who...who...are the us that 'they' went out from? Was it the 'church' institution? Or could it be...

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life— 2 the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us— 3 that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.4 And we are writing these things so that our[a] joy may be complete. 1 John 1-4 esv

In other words they went out from Christ and from the Scriptures. They could not stay and hear the Truth of Christ when their hearts did not belong to Him so they left. Leaving an institution that lords their system over their members is not even close to the same thing. One can leave behind the 'church' institution and still belong to Christ. What one cannot do is leave behind Scripture, set aside all teachings of Christ, and still be one of 'us'.

5. The Church is the Dispensary for Word and Sacrament

The preaching and teaching of God’s Word. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. In order to preserve their purity and sanctity, God established a hierarchical structure of ecclesiastical authority and placed the responsibility for administering Scripture and the sacraments with the church, not isolated individuals. Do we have women’s Bible studies and Sunday School classes? Of course. But only under the oversight of our pastors and elders, as an outflow of, and in keeping with, the preaching and teaching ministry of the church. Do we share the gospel with the lost we encounter during the week? You bet! Our churches enable us to do so by training us in the Word, and we bring new believers back to our churches so that they may be discipled.

In other words Scripture is best doled out according to what the 'preacher' deems appropriate for the members to hear and learn. Sounds a whole lot like Roman Catholicism to me. And why shouldn't it? If one looks closely at any 'church' institution one can see that the whole thing is modeled in the same way the Roman Catholic 'church' is. 

Michelle's reasoning on this one makes me ask the question of what happens when one simply does not have a 'church' to go to. What then? Can they not study and learn from the Scriptures? 

All I can say here is that it sounds a whole lot like Michelle's idea of 'church' is total control of all those in the 'body' by the 'preacher' and 'elders'. I would not want to be in such a system. It almost sounds to me like she is of the mindset that one cannot learn from Scripture without the oversight of the 'preacher'. 

So according to her, 'training' in the 'Word' comes through the 'church' and not through the Lord's Word. I have no idea what she makes of verses that say things like:

For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them. Matthew 18:20 esv

or

But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie—just as it has taught you, abide in him.

1 John 2:27 esv

6. The “One Anothers”

Love one another. Comfort one another. Forgive one another. Serve one another. Bear one another’s burdens. Confess your sins to one another and pray for one another. Have you ever stopped to think which people “one another” is referring to? It’s easy to see when you look at these verses in context. It’s our brothers and sisters in Christ. All of the New Testament “one anothers” are written to the church. You need brothers and sisters to minister the “one anothers” to you and your brothers and sisters need you to minister the “one anothers” to them. We cannot properly carry out the “one anothers” outside the church because they were meant to be practiced first and foremost within the church.

Here again she mixes up just what the 'church' is. We should love, comfort, forgive, serve, bear the burdens of, confess sins before one another but the one another does not mean the 'church' as a building filled with believers. It is the body of Christ or the elect people belonging to Christ that are 'one another' and we need never feel obligated to show our belief in Christ through the institutional 'church' but to each other as we encounter them. 

That could be in our own living rooms or on the street corner, at the coffee shop or in the grocery store. One another simply means other elect people of God and we should NEVER mix up God's people with man made institutions.

7. Sheep Need Shepherds

The Bible often uses sheep as a metaphor for God’s people. And since we know that God is the author of Scripture, we know God handpicked that metaphor to describe us.... 

Yes, and the Shepherd is Christ. Anyone else is an overseer in position as one who is deeper in the faith and can guide new believers or struggling believers through the Truth of Scripture. 

Sheep who leave the flock to make their own way in the world are in danger from wolves,

Ever notice that those 'wolves' usually turn up in the organized 'church' Michelle speaks so highly of?

 the pitfalls of sin, and any number of other perils, especially the trials and tragedies of life...

How does a 'church' save one from any of the above? Most of the 'churches' I have been too are like Sunday parties with a Wednesday night reminder party tossed in to keep one going until the next Sunday. True Scripture is given in bite sized pieces and rarely given in any depth. 

Once service is over discussions nearly always turn to who is going where for lunch or which movie they are watching at the cinema or whatever other worldly event has captured their attention.

A couple of years ago I spent a good deal of time talking with someone that used to be Roman Catholic. This person told me how they watched their dad go to services at the 'church' on Sunday then sin all week long. 'Church' was the place where sins were made okay. Forgiveness was given each week so that one could go out and sin again next week. 

I must admit that most 'churches' I have been to are pretty much that way. 'Church' is either a country club or it's the place that makes all the sins one commits okay. It's how a 'christian' is supposed to live.

Best I can tell Michelle is promoting this system hook, line and sinker. She does say one should find a 'sound' 'church' but considering 'church' as she promotes it isn't doctrinally sound, what would a 'sound' 'church' look like?

 We need the protection of the sheep pen, the brotherhood of the flock, and the leadership of our shepherds, our pastors, to help guide us. God knew we needed those things. That is one reason He established the church and created the position of pastor. 

He did no such thing. Michelle has twisted Scripture to support and promote the 'church' institution as being commanded by Christ when there is no such institution in Scripture and what few cases we see that come anywhere near what she calls 'church' we are shown that they are not good things. It's men controlling others and not welcoming brothers, it is 'broods of vipers' teaching erroneous things. It is white washed tombs... It's not the 'church' that our Lord wants us in. The elect are already members of the body of Christ and they need not join into any man made institution.

Christ is our Good Shepherd, but until He returns, He has appointed godly men to watch over and protect the flock in His absence...

And he gave…the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ,
Ephesians 4:11-12

The shepherds she claims we need to watch over us are not the same shepherds assigned in Scripture. In Scripture we see time and again that those put in the place of overseer or shepherd are apostles, prophets, and disciples. They were divinely appointed by Christ to the task of giving the gospel and being what amounts to walking, talking Bibles in a time when there were no Bibles to hold in ones hand and learn of Christ and how His people should live.

So I exhort the elders among you…shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory. 
1 Peter 5:1-4

This chosen verse is almost laughable as an example of what a 'shepherd' over the 'church' should be considering Michelle's own blog has a donate button in case one should see fit to give money to help support her family and she has a whole page full of information on how to hire her to come and be a speaker at your engagements. If that's not enough to show that she promotes 'shameful gain' her husband is a minister of music in a 'church'. 

You can’t shepherd yourself. That internet pastor you listen to – even the most doctrinally sound one – can’t shepherd you. You need to be part of a flock led by a shepherd who knows you and cares for your soul.

Do you take joy in gathering regularly with your brothers and sisters in Christ for worship, the Word, the sacraments, building one another up, and serving one another? If not, the solution is not to leave the church altogether. The solution is to examine your heart against Scripture to discover whether or not you’re truly saved, and then to find a healthy church you can pour yourself into. Christ has given believers the local church as a blessing and a benefit, not a burden and a bore. Love and embrace this precious gift He has lavished on you.

And there is the majority of her explanation for why women must go to 'church'. She stated that one's salvation is not dependent upon your 'church' attendance but then she shows just the opposite in her writing. 

She is also very much promoting and encouraging a system that is based on man's traditions and not on Scripture and she does so while using her own writings, speakings, and her husband's 'ministering' to support her family. 

I DO NOT promote Michelle's blog. I do not read it. I stumbled across it while looking to see if there was anyone else out there talking against preachers as an entire system. The thing is that this woman and the little bit of her writing I have shared here is the perfect example of what is wrong with the 'church' institution and what is right with it. 

I can easily see how the teachings of men has people so engrained in their beliefs that they simply cannot fathom the idea that these teachings do not come from Scripture. 

Michelle perfectly shows how this system perpetuates itself. One person believes something and it is taught over and over and over again as being the gospel even to the point of making people doubt their salvation should they try to buck the system.

John Macarthur's dad was a preacher, his grandpa was a preacher, now he is a preacher. Just today my husband was telling me how John Macarthur did not hold with the Trinity in his early days of preaching which kind of left me wondering if he went into preaching as a family tradition and not out of any real desire to spread Truth...and if he even knew Truth when he started preaching. 

I don't question that because of any real need to know or out of any desire to equate it with whether or not he is right to be a preacher...I do not believe he is since he peddles Christ for his own gain...but to point out that sometimes 'church' is just a tradition which is often passed down from generation to generation without question as to whether or not it is correct much less okay in the Lord's eyes. 

Now, all that said I could take Michelle's seven reasons women need to go to 'church' and give you a hundred reasons why you should never go to one but even though I feel that way I have also gained a whole new appreciation for the entire institution. 

I have come to the conclusion that 'churches' in their entirety spread the name of Christ by the very nature of being so visible. It's nearly impossible for anyone in America to grow up without hearing about Jesus. These same 'churches' go on mission trips spreading Christ's name far and wide. I know that in most cases they teach a false Jesus and that any adherence to the 'church' as we know it is in opposition to Scripture but at the same time there is no denying that they do spread the name of Christ.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not supporting or promoting them, I'm just saying that the Lord has them here for a reason and it seems like that reason might be the spreading of Christ's name and the restraining of reprobates that believe themselves to be 'christians' and so try hard to live up to certain 'christian' expectations. 

It still never fails to amaze me the lengths the 'church' and those in it go to to promote their social club. Camps for kids, music concerts, bible studies (which should be a part of any group gathering in Christ's name) and the like but it's the way they go about it that is so...I don't even know what word to use. It's not shocking, not even close, but they do promote and perpetuate a system that is not founded in Scripture by pulling a handful of verses out and using them to support their stance. 

Anyone can make Scripture say what they want it to by pulling a verse from here or there and applying it to a certain topic. If they then attach a good argument to it and a great explanation while giving it to a group of people that are brainwashed into believing the 'church' and the 'pastor' are the authorities on Scripture and they, mere underlings that cannot understand what Scripture says unless it is explained to them...well, you then have the perfect institution to keep people in a controlling religious system.