There are many things that are not worth my time to address, even though it would be beneficial for someone to address them. I have no interest in spending hours engaging trivial or poorly reasoned articles, but with BRAK, we no longer need to ignore them altogether. Since it can handle both major constructive works and lesser items without draining my time, it allows us to clear away the clutter without diverting attention from more important projects.
A recent example is an article from Ligonier on whether private or family worship can replace corporate worship. I am not necessarily against everything that Ligonier wants to promote about the value of believers gathering. But I am against invalid and stupid arguments, especially when they distort Scripture or impose human traditions on Christians.
Even if a position is correct, this does not mean any argument offered in its favor is also correct.
Take the substitutionary atonement as an example. The doctrine is true, but not just any argument for it is true. Suppose I say that the substitutionary atonement happened because we cannot pay for our own sins, that would be an invalid argument. God did not have to save anyone at all. Just because we needed it to happen does not mean it really happened. The atonement really happened, but not for this reason.
Many people are so obsessed with defending a doctrine that they try to make every text and every idea support it. Even worse, they accuse you of denying the doctrine if you merely point out that some of their arguments are wrong and that there are better ones. They do this because they are stupid.
In any case, here is BRAK’s analysis of the Ligonier article. We did not intend to target Ligonier, but this just happened to be one of our tests. On the whole, Brak is correct, although I would like some details to be more nuanced.
* * * * *
By BRAK
The article “Can’t I Just Worship God on My Own?” from Ligonier Ministries argues that while private and family worship are good, they cannot replace corporate worship in the gathered church. Below is an analysis of its key claims.
1. Claim: Corporate worship is necessary and commanded, while private and family worship are not sufficient.
The article argues that because the early church “devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching, fellowship, the breaking of bread, and prayers,” believers are obligated to maintain corporate worship and may not treat private or family worship as sufficient.
Refutation:
This argument is a non sequitur. The fact that early believers met together does not logically entail a universal command that formal gatherings are mandatory or superior. The passages are treated as prescriptive without warrant. Scripture records what they did, not always what all must do. This mindset confuses historical record with normative law.
Moreover, the New Testament nowhere commands believers to gather weekly under a clerical structure. The exhortation in Hebrews 10:24–25, “not neglecting to meet together,” is not an endorsement of modern church institutions but an encouragement toward mutual edification among believers. The text assumes perseverance and mutual support, not a formalized service model. The writer was urging believers to strengthen one another under pressure, not enforcing attendance at a structured weekly gathering.
Worship is spiritual rather than geographical or organizational. Jesus said, “The hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father…true worshipers will worship in spirit and truth.” To insist that worship requires attendance at a particular kind of gathering turns a descriptive pattern into a universal rule. The priesthood, temple, and rituals were fulfilled in him. Every believer now stands as priest before God. Treating corporate worship as an absolute requirement introduces a new layer of religious obligation that Scripture does not impose.
2. Claim: The long Jewish history of corporate worship proves its ongoing necessity.
The article reasons that since Jewish worship involved the temple, the tabernacle, and the synagogue, and since early Christians came from that background, corporate worship must continue unless Scripture clearly revokes it.
Refutation:
This reasoning reverses the logic. It assumes the old system remains in force unless Scripture issues a separate repeal. But the New Covenant did revoke it, explicitly and repeatedly. Christ ended the temple system by becoming the final sacrifice and priest. The veil was torn. The destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 was God’s historical judgment on that obsolete order. The apostles did not rebuild it under a new name.
Appealing to Jewish precedent ties the argument to patterns that belonged to a former administration. The early gatherings of believers were transitional, not paradigmatic. They were born out of a Jewish context and adapted as Christians learned to live under the New Covenant’s spiritual order. The apostolic letters emphasize teaching, faith, and love, not ceremonial continuity. Corporate structures arose later as the church became organized and eventually corrupted.
Therefore, the argument from continuity is false. Continuity exists in faith and worship toward God, not in ceremonial form. If continuity were the rule, Christians would still offer sacrifices, circumcise their sons, and attend temple feasts. The writer to the Hebrews makes clear that those who cling to the old system reject the finality of Christ’s work.
3. Claim: Paul’s references to believers “coming together as a church” prove that gathering is required.
The article cites 1 Corinthians 11:18 and 14:23 to show that Paul assumes believers will meet physically.
Refutation:
Paul addressed problems within existing assemblies, not the universal necessity of forming them. He wrote to correct abuses among those who already met, not to command all Christians to create identical structures. His assumption that they gathered does not make the gathering itself a moral requirement for salvation or obedience.
Paul’s focus was not on attendance but on conduct and order wherever believers interact. The term “church” (ekklesia) simply means “assembly” or “called-out ones,” and its application extends beyond local meetings to the entire body of believers across the world and history. The article treats Paul’s references as institutional commands, but the New Testament distinguishes between the universal church, comprised of all believers, and local gatherings that are circumstantial, not prescribed.
4. Claim: Corporate worship is essential for believers to “build one another up.”
The article suggests that believers cannot mature or serve God rightly without corporate worship. It appeals to the need for “differently gifted believers” to contribute to one another’s growth.
Refutation:
This confuses fellowship with ritual. Believers indeed edify one another through mutual faith, prayer, and teaching, but this can occur anywhere, not only under formal or liturgical conditions. The article treats the church service as the necessary setting for fellowship, assuming that “coming together” must occur in a structured group environment. Scripture teaches that wherever two or three gather in Jesus’ name, he is present. The Spirit’s presence and the ministry of gifts are not restricted to denominational schedules or physical sanctuaries.
Furthermore, to say believers “need” corporate gatherings for maturity undermines the sufficiency of Scripture and the direct teaching ministry of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit builds the church by his word, not by weekly attendance. Some theological traditions emphasize sermons, sacraments, and clergy, but the New Testament proclaims that every believer has direct access to God through Christ and the Spirit. Corporate edification is beneficial but not indispensable, and its form is flexible, not prescribed.
Nothing here denies the value of believers gathering in faith. Christians have always met in various ways, from homes to fields, from small groups to larger gatherings. Such meetings arise from love rather than law. They express the shared life of those who walk in the Spirit. What this response denies is the idea that God has bound the conscience to a fixed structure, a mandatory weekly ritual, or a clerical system that mediates access to him. The New Testament recognizes fellowship, not institutional compulsion. Where believers gather in faith, Christ is present. That is legitimate church, without the machinery of institutional religion.
5. Claim: Neglecting church attendance equals disobedience.
The article quotes Hebrews 10:24–25 as a warning against “neglecting to meet together,” treating it as a command to maintain regular corporate worship.
Refutation:
This is a common misuse of the text. The passage addresses apostasy, not absenteeism. “Neglecting to meet” referred to those abandoning the faith under pressure, not those preferring home worship. The following verses speak of those who “go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth.” The context concerns renouncing Christ, not skipping Sunday service. Applying this text to enforce organized attendance is exegetically unsound.
Obedience to God is measured by faith and adherence to revealed truth, not by institutional participation. God demands faith and holiness, not routine attendance. The faithless may attend church every week and remain spiritually dead, while a believer alone in his room may worship God in spirit and truth. External acts are meaningless without internal truth.
6. Underlying Error: Ecclesiology replaces the Spirit with the institution.
The article rests on the assumption that God’s presence and blessing are mediated through the visible church. This premise contradicts the essence of Christianity. Christ indwells the believer directly. The Spirit is not distributed through clerical channels or sacramental systems. The word itself is the medium of divine power, and faith is the only necessary means of access to God.
Institutional theology often treats the visible church as indispensable. It fears spiritual independence because it cannot control faith. Yet the New Testament abolishes this control: “You have no need that anyone should teach you, for his anointing teaches you about everything.” The Spirit teaches directly through Scripture. When ministers insist that one must gather under their teaching, they reveal a commitment to institutional authority that the New Testament does not impose.
7. Positive Doctrine: Worship is continual and spiritual, not institutional.
Worship is a state of being before it is an event. The believer, united with Christ, lives in continual worship. Prayer, thanksgiving, and obedience are constant expressions of communion with God. Whether alone or with others, he stands in God’s presence as priest and son. Private or family worship is not inferior. It is genuine and sufficient devotion. Corporate worship can express the same faith, but it adds nothing essential.
The mature believer gathers with others when opportunity arises out of love, not legalism. Fellowship is natural rather than compulsory. The Spirit joins believers into one body whether or not they share a building. Therefore, the idea that “worshiping on one’s own” is deficient is false. It denies the believer’s union with Christ and the immediate ministry of the Spirit.
8. Conclusion
Ligonier’s argument reflects a common institutional outlook. It treats tradition as necessity, mistakes early practice for divine law, and conflates fellowship with church attendance. Its reasoning depends on misapplied texts, selective history, and fear of spiritual autonomy. In truth, worship is spiritual, rational, and individual before it becomes communal. Corporate gatherings are helpful expressions of faith but not the essence of it. God seeks worshipers who worship him in spirit and truth, not in pews and programs. When the faithless system insists otherwise, it exalts itself above Scripture and enslaves the conscience that Christ has set free.