House Church (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> The Church



Message

thomasalan -> House Church (6/20/2008 12:41:14 PM)

Does anyone here participate in simple forms of church, i.e. house church, coffee shop church, organic church, etc.? What are your thoughts on this phenomenon?

Thanks



rcjames -> RE: House Church (6/20/2008 1:56:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thomasalan

Does anyone here participate in simple forms of church, i.e. house church, coffee shop church, organic church, etc.? What are your thoughts on this phenomenon?

Thanks


What is an organic Church?

Thanks
RC



Ps103 -> RE: House Church (6/20/2008 2:30:58 PM)

No fertilizer or preservatives?



Kat_D -> RE: House Church (6/20/2008 3:41:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjames

quote:

ORIGINAL: thomasalan

Does anyone here participate in simple forms of church, i.e. house church, coffee shop church, organic church, etc.? What are your thoughts on this phenomenon?

Thanks


What is an organic Church?

Thanks
RC


It's part of the Emergent Movement...church without walls. Church happens wherever you are are. There is no building, services, structure or regulations...they all just pretty much do as they please. They say there is no biblical model for the church as we know it and operate under the assumption that the church is sick and no longer viable.

Funny, when I was in Jerusalem we visited a lot of places where Jesus taught and they had walls...so does my church, and every time we meet the Lord shows up...it isn't dead.



momto4inva -> RE: House Church (6/20/2008 3:43:51 PM)

Organic church is just another name for a house church. It's getting back to the basics and meeting with other Christians in people's homes as this is what was done in the original church as described in the Bible. I'm currently reading the book Pagan Christianity which puts forth the premise that virtually all of what we do in church today has it's roots in paganism. I would highly recommend it to anyone who may be open to the idea of exploring the reasons why we do what we do in church today.



tsnody2001 -> RE: House Church (6/20/2008 5:30:54 PM)

I think there were very good reasons why there were house churches back in the first century - there was widespread persecution by the pagans and even the Jews at the time - which lead to underground churches and house churches. When the Romans came in and ousted Jeruselem and the temple in 70 AD, not only were the Christians persecuted, but then even the Jews (who had been persecuting Christians). Even then there was widespread false teachings, which lead to a large part of the Apostles' letters, which eventually were compiled together in one book, the Bible. With this book, churches then to form an orthodoxy based on the standards given in Scripture. Now do we need to go back to house churches? I think the answer is no, even though I would be lying if I said I hadn't thought about it. Instead, I think we ought to take the word of God, raise it on hill and expose the false teachings that are rampant in most American churches. Even if that means removing someone from the pulpit, and "precious" attedance goes down.



tsnody2001 -> RE: House Church (6/20/2008 6:26:25 PM)

It says in Ephesians 5 that we should not walk in the ways of the ungodly, but should reprove or expose them. And Paul says elsewhere in numerous passages that church leaders should discipline those within the church who are walking in sin or teaching things that are contrary to the truths given to us in Scripture. For the better part of 150 year or longer (definitely longer) in the USA we have not done this in fear that we might be labeled as a legalist, or possibly even a committed Christian, who truly understands and cares about the holiness of God. Anything so that we have to pick sides or rock the boat as less as possible. I think it would be even more like this if we walked away and hid in our houses. God has called us be salt and light. Salt is used for flavor and for healing purposes; light obviously provides light and exposes (or gets rid of) darkness. What use are we if we quit doing what we were called to do: expose darkness and offer healing?



timf -> RE: House Church (6/22/2008 10:00:56 AM)

What are your thoughts on this phenomenon?

There are many ways to "do" church wrong. Consider Galatia, Corinth, Laodicea, et al.

Granted many people want to throw out the traditional church structure so that they can be free to indulge whatever they feel like. However, this does not automatically mean that traditional church structure is best. Much of traditional church structure comes directly from the Roman Catholic church and is not necessarily derived from the Bible.

The traditional church structure has more in common with an assembly line for moving product through a process than the relational connections described in the Bible.

Many churches today try to prevent error. While this can sound noble, what it really does is elevate human control over others. Christians are called to correct error, not prevent it. "Preventing" error is really a type of error and quenches the Spirit. In can be seen clearly in the record of the Pharisees.

In Hebrews Christians are told to "obey" their leaders. The word actually means allow yourself to be persuaded. The Bible has a picture of Christians like Bereans seeking the truth and comparing what they hear to the Word of God. Unfortunately today most Christians prefer minimal effort and just float along being told what is "right".

Many people today feel starved for the relational connections we were created for. With two working parents and children in public school, even our families are starved for relationship connections. Many churches offer audience events, scripted activities, and directed programs that still starve Christians from real fellowship and opportunities to minister to each other.

I have more sympathy for Christians with sincere hearts seeking ways to minister, fellowship, and learn more about Jesus making all kinds of "mistakes" as they flounder about trying to "do church", than I have for the denominational franchise holders condemning others for not conforming themselves to their proscribed standards. One again we see the face of the Pharisee. Indignant self-righteousness may provide for a feeling of sanctimony, but it does little to show the love of Jesus to those that are perishing.

Many people are asking themselves if their church practice is really helping them and their children to grow into the image of Christ. Many are are coming up with the answer of "No".

People are beginning to experiment with alternatives. Some are not even Christian, some are diverted for a while in poor teaching, however, some are finding real fellowship, real teaching, and real Christian living.

Romans 14:4
Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.



rcjames -> RE: House Church (6/22/2008 10:47:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: timf
In Hebrews Christians are told to "obey" their leaders. The word actually means allow yourself to be persuaded. The Bible has a picture of Christians like Bereans seeking the truth and comparing what they hear to the Word of God. Unfortunately today most Christians prefer minimal effort and just float along being told what is "right".


Most House Churches that I have studied seem to not have leaders nor accountability.

And I think New Testament Scripture speaks to having both when doing Church.

Thanks
RC



stellaluna -> RE: House Church (6/22/2008 11:19:51 AM)

I grew up in house church. I don't see why it's such a "new" thing. That was 30 years ago!



phosadaud -> RE: House Church (6/22/2008 2:43:10 PM)

House churches are no different than "regular" churches. There are good ones and bad ones and all are filled with people which means all have problems and none are perfect.

My concern with the current house churches "trend" is why some (note the some - not all!) people get involved with them. It's not about love - it's about me, myself & I. I don't want to have to minister with and grow with people who can be difficult. I don't want to have to love someone who drives me crazy. I want to hang out with folks I like. I don't want to have to commit to the Body so I'll say my fellowship is hanging out with other believers so I can "meet" the requirement of not forsaking the assembling of the Body. And because I've been hurt by people in the past, I will play the "I am more spiritually mature than you are" and blame the regular church for the fact that people aren't perfect and the church isn't either even though the REAL NT church had more problems than most churches today. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Of course the same things can happen in traditional church with "pew warmers" or the lady who is offended by everything from the Pastor's new haircut to the beat of the new worship song or the man who expects the church to minister to him but not take 2 seconds to see how he can minister to the church.



Consecrated2God -> RE: House Church (6/22/2008 3:01:26 PM)

I think that house churching is a perfectly legitimate form of churching, however I find that many of the people who go to alternative forms of churches seem to have a chip on their shoulder towards traditional churches. There's nothing more or less superior in having church in a living room instead of a church building, but so many in the home church movement like to think they are the only true saints left in the world and like to complain about what all the "so-called Christians" are doing in their "social clubs".



momto4inva -> RE: House Church (6/22/2008 4:14:54 PM)

I have to correct my previous post in this thread where I said that an "organic" church is the same thing as a house church. I will mention again the book I am reading called Pagan Christianity. According to the authors (Frank Viola and George Barna) some house churches are organic, but many are not. Some house churches are merely glorified Bible studies. Some are supper-fests (the meetings revolve around a shared meal and that is about it). On the other hand, the organic church is "a grassroots experience that is marked by face-to-face community, every-member functioning, open-participatory meetings, nonheirarchical leadership, and the centrality and supremacy of Jesus Christ as the functional leader and head of the group. Put another way, organic church life is the 'experience' of the Body of Christ."

Why would this be considered a bad thing? When people met to worship in the Bible, didn't they do it in each other's homes? Was there a full-time, paid pastor who got up and "preached" while everyone else stayed silent? Or did all participate? If we didn't have to pay for the upkeep of the church building just think how much money we'd have for other things? Can you tell I'm really interested in this idea of house/organic churches? [;)] We talk about going to "church" on Sunday mornings but the building that houses the worshippers isn't the church at all. The church is us, the Body of Christ. I've never participated in a house or organic church but reading this book has really given me something to think about and I absolutely would consider seeking out a local organic church if I thought that is where the Lord wanted me to be.



phosadaud -> RE: House Church (6/22/2008 4:35:30 PM)

Actually, there were teachers and prophets so the idea that they all just sat around sharing is a false one. And the idea of a church where one just comes, sits and absorbs is not like any church I've been a member of. I am very active in my church and in the service and I am not a pastor. Also, most (not all [;)]) of the early church met in people's homes because of persecution and the simple fact that this was a young faith. In places where they were freer to meet openly, they often met in Jewish temples (which were built and maintained by "wasted" money, public courtyards, rented spaces, etc.

As far as being a "bad thing", I think most anything taken to an extreme can be a bad thing. As far as money being "wasted" on a building, it certainly can be a waste or it can be a tool used to reach the lost and disciple the flock. I'm assuming you don't think the Jews were "wasting" money on the extravagant temple that God specifically commanded them to build.

I think there are some really good things that churches need to look at. In some cases, we do elevate the "building" to more than it should be and lose sight of it's purpose: a tool. In some cases, we "do" church and lose sight of the relationships. The problem comes in how to deal with that. Some in the house church movement are doing what many that come from abusive homes do: See the problem, are so afraid of the problem that they go to the opposite extreme which isn't a good thing either.

But this is the way pendulums usually go. We go too far one direction and then swing too far in another direction, when the best spot is somewhere in the middle.

Again, I'm not against house churches as I know there are some great ones out there. However, what gets the attention are the ones doing this for the wrong reasons and with the wrong attitude.



SusieD -> RE: House Church (6/23/2008 6:38:20 AM)

quote:

I think there were very good reasons why there were house churches back in the first century - there was widespread persecution by the pagans and even the Jews at the time


I disagree that persecution was the reason the NT believers met in houses. Persecution in the first century was not as widespread as commonly taught. It was sporadic and localized.

They met in houses because they were not participating in a religion with temple worship. Instead they were sharing their lives together on a daily basis, encouraging each other and teaching each other as the "walked along the way". When you are doing that, you don't need to meet weekly in a special building.

quote:

I think it would be even more like this if we walked away and hid in our houses. God has called us be salt and light. Salt is used for flavor and for healing purposes; light obviously provides light and exposes (or gets rid of) darkness. What use are we if we quit doing what we were called to do: expose darkness and offer healing?


Not meeting in a church building is not synomous with "hiding in our houses"! We don't hide in our houses, we are active in the community. The Bible says that unbelievers will know us by our love, not by what building we attend. Having a building is not what makes us be salt and light.

quote:

There are many ways to "do" church wrong.


That isn't obvious when you live in America! Most people seem to believe there is only one way to "do" church and it involves a Sunday morning, choruses or a hymnal and a sermon from the pulpit. Anything else is just extra.

quote:

Most House Churches that I have studied seem to not have leaders nor accountability.


Although almost all traditional churches have leaders, very few have much accountability, especially among the "laity". People are only as accountable as they want to be. Attending church doesn't make people accountable. How many people attend services every week and then go home and do what ever they want. Plenty. How does attending church make them accountable? I am sure your small country church is not like this, but I am talking about churches in general, not any specific church.

quote:

I don't want to have to minister with and grow with people who can be difficult. I don't want to have to love someone who drives me crazy. I want to hang out with folks I like.


I know you said "some people", but I just had to respond! Ha Ha! I still have to do all those things when meeting outside the traditional church! I still have to minister with and grow with people who can be difficult, I have to love people who drive me crazy, and hang out with folks I don't "like". Meeting with believers outside the traditional church doesn't mean that you are just hanging out with your best friends.

Just wanted to clarify that!!

quote:

Actually, there were teachers and prophets so the idea that they all just sat around sharing is a false one.


She didn't say that. She said they all participate and there wasn't a full-time pastor whose job was sermonizing. (My paraphrase) And this is true. There were teachers and prophets, but they didn't hog the whole meeting to themselves while everyone else sat and listenend. Paul said that everyone could bring something to the meeting and they were all supposed to take turns. He never once mentions a pastor giving sermon. (Of course "sermons" weren't invented yet anyway!)

quote:

It's part of the Emergent Movement...church without walls. Church happens wherever you are are. There is no building, services, structure or regulations...they all just pretty much do as they please.


Let me start off by saying I am not a part of the "Emergent Movement" or any "movement" at all. But I am a part of a group of believers who have no building, no services, no structure. However, it is not a "do as we please" thing. This is very condescending. I haven't studied the emergent church movement, but I seriously doubt they are teaching that you can "do as you please".

It is about laying down our lives for one another and serving and ministering one another and the community. This is certainly not "doing as we please".

quote:

They say there is no biblical model for the church as we know it


Of course "they" are correct in this point. There is no biblical model for the church as we know it. You could argue that that doesn't make church as we know it wrong, but it is not modeled on scripture.

Scripture teaches that we worship God in everything we do and we come together to encourage and teach one another and when we all come together each one of us can bring something to share and we should all take turns.

quote:

Does anyone here participate in simple forms of church


In case you haven't figured it out yet...why yes I do! LOL

quote:

What are your thoughts on this phenomenon?


I think in the next 20-30 years it will take over the traditional church model. (or is that just wishful thinking? LOL)

I am not a proponent of house churches, as they are generally not much different than traditional churches except they meet in a house. Even those who have done away with professional clergy and sermons still seem to focus on the meeting too much and not enough on relationships.

The scriptures teach discipleship and relationship, not services and sermons.



rcjames -> RE: House Church (6/23/2008 8:50:04 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SusieD
quote:

Most House Churches that I have studied seem to not have leaders nor accountability.


Although almost all traditional churches have leaders, very few have much accountability, especially among the "laity". People are only as accountable as they want to be. Attending church doesn't make people accountable. How many people attend services every week and then go home and do what ever they want. Plenty. How does attending church make them accountable? I am sure your small country church is not like this, but I am talking about churches in general, not any specific church.


It is the lack of accountability of the leaders that I am concerned about. The NT lays out a very plain plan of accountability. The local gathering (Church) is accountable to others outside the local Church; Paul, the others who were sent out to help such as Timothy and Titus, Paul Timothy and Titus were accountable to the Council in Jerusalem, etc. There is much real accountability expressly presented in Scripture.

Most local Churcher have none of this. Now why do I consider this a problem? It leaves the door wide open to being taught a "different gospel" by the leaders (if the house Church has leaders), or by whomever teaches if there are not leaders. This is a very dangerous situation as Paul points out in;

(Gal 1:6) I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

(Gal 1:7) Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

(Gal 1:8) But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

(Gal 1:9) As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

This is a very real and present danger in house Churches.(and many non-house Churches)

If you would, please explain the leadership accountabillity that is present in your or another house Church you are familliar with.

Thanks
RC



SusieD -> RE: House Church (6/23/2008 10:27:37 AM)

quote:

Most local Churcher have none of this.


Exactly...so no need to pick on house churches as if they differ in this way than traditional churches!

quote:

Now why do I consider this a problem? It leaves the door wide open to being taught a "different gospel" by the leaders (if the house Church has leaders), or by whomever teaches if there are not leaders.


Okay, I fail to see the logic here. What if the leader(s) outside the local (house or traditional) church are also teaching a "different gospel", then the accountability does no good! Make sense?

quote:

If you would, please explain the leadership accountabillity that is present in your or another house Church you are familliar with.


Well, I don't call the group of believers I meet with regularly a "house church"...but that is neither here nor there! LOL But I will try to explain the accountability that we have. First of all we are all accountable to one another...leader or not. We are continually discussing what we believe, what scripture teaches, etc. reading and studying and sharing together, building one another up in the Lord.

We are not a closed group, like most churches. Let me try to explain what I mean by that. We don't think in terms of "your church" " my church" but we believe that when you are born again you are added to Christ's church. So everyone who is born again is part of the church, and everyone in a specific locale is part of the church in that locale. So we don't consider ourselves a church apart from other believers in the area. So we sit and talk and fellowship and study with believers (including pastors and elders and teachers) from all sorts of churches both in our area, and not in our area. If there was an area of concern, we would study about it and hash it out.

I think the accountability comes naturally, (organically if you will like the "organic" church the op mentioned!) because we are earnestly seeking after the truth and because we do not close ourselves off to other believers. We are accountable because we choose to be accountable because we know it is the healthy way to function. That is true accountability in my opinion.



thomasalan -> RE: House Church (6/23/2008 10:43:11 AM)

I want to address the leadership and accountability issues within the house church (aka simple church, organic church, etc.). It's funny to me that most critics of house church immediately zero in on these issues as a problem. Basically, they are no more or no less of a problem in house churches than they are in established churches. History has shown that having a paid pastor or being a part of a denomination is not any guarantee that problems will not occur. Both models are prone to error, and both models are capable of giving glory to God.

As far as accountability goes, saints who are worshipping together in smaller groups tend to hold one another accountable. It is really hard for a person to slip through the cracks when they are in an intimate "one-another" relationship with other brothers and sisters in Christ.

As to false teaching, I don't think that house churches are more or less susceptible to these things than an established church. Does it exist? Of course it does! But not to any more degree than any other church. Godly Christians who read and know the scriptures can generally spot false teaching without having to have a seminary degree.

As to leadership, most house churches I am aware of have some sort of leadership. Usually, it is not one single person, but a plurality of leadership with a number of leaders sharing the responsibilities of leading and protecting the flock. I know that there are some churches out there that do reject any leadership whatsoever. These are the exception, and they usually don't last very long.

Our own church has three unpaid elders overseeing the flock. We try to lead, not rule and the church makes most of its decisions through consensus. We practice church discipline according to Matt. 18 and we deal decisively with false teaching in the church.

We are non-denominational, but we have adopted a conservative evangelical statement of faith.

We hold one another accountable. We network with other churches in the region and receive accountability that way.

We have no paid staff, no buildings to fund (although we occassionally rent a community center or banquet hall for large gatherings), no debt, no programs (although every family is involved in some sort of ministry), no choir, no praise band, no nursery, or hardly any overhead whatsoever. Almost all of our tithe goes directly to the ministry or mission of our choosing. We have sent two of our own mission teams out in the past year. Four of our families are full time missionaries.

In short, our house church network, like many others, is trying to be scriptural in all we do. We are holding each other accountable, we are sharing leadership, we are studying the scriptures and dealing with false teaching. In addition, we are reaching out through evangelism and missions.

We don't have anything against the traditional church. We do house church because we think God has called us personally to do so.

Blessings,

Tom



timf -> RE: House Church (6/23/2008 10:50:26 AM)

If you would, please explain the leadership accountabillity that is present in your or another house Church you are familliar with.

RC,

You express two concerns. The first is legitimate in that the leadership of a house church is an unknown quantity. Your fear that there might be error that misleads people is legitimate. However, the Biblical model of a church has the people in the church also carrying some responsibility for the evaluation of leaders and rejecting those who are false. The book of Galatians (which you cite) is an example of a church that allowed false teachers in. However, Paul does not invoke "accountability" to himself. He rebukes, reminds, and exhorts.

The word "accountability" is one that is often used without clarity of definition. The term "leadership accountability" carries with it an organizational or systems component that quickly takes it into the realm of apostolic succession. Consider the following;

1. We will all have to give an account to Jesus.
2. Civil authority can require us to give an account.
3. As members of one body we can ask each other to give an account when our actions are inconsistent with our profession.

The book of Galatians is a good example because Paul addresses it to the church and not the leaders. The people are reminded of their profession and are called to see the difference between what they are now doing and where they started. Paul tells them that those they allowed in to lead were false. He does not ask the leaders to give an account, but the people.

Paul asks Peter to give an account for his hypocrisy when trying to appease the Jews. This is similar to the admonition that he that is spiritual should go to the brother in sin and help restore him. Paul did this with Peter and he is doing it with the entire church at Galatia.

It is done for the purpose of restoration. If a church is unwilling or unable to insure that their leadership is on track, you end up with a Galatian church. It is not as much a failure of leadership as it is a failure of membership.

I was once in a business meeting where discussion was held regarding selling products into Europe with the (at the time) new requirement for a CE mark. During the meeting someone said "We will not be able to sell without the mark". There was a man there who I knew was a Christian so afterwards I went to his office to comment on what it was like to hear that specific phrase. (I understood that this was not the mark of the beast, but it was still eerie to hear the phrase used in daily conversation).

This other man did not know what I was talking about. I asked him if he had ever read the book of Revelation. He said that his pastor had told them that only a pastor can understand Revelation and that they should not read it and he didn't.

To me this demonstrates some of the problems with the pastor lead church. Holding the "lessor" people accountable to do what they are told by the "superior" people is not Biblical. Asking a brother in Christ to explain the difference between what he professes and how he acts would be Biblical. From Galatians we get a picture of church members that should have held accountable those who would have themselves to be leaders.

The top down administration usually produces fleshly institutions of which the Pharisees and the Roman Catholic church are good examples.

A church leader (elder) is accountable to the Lord (double judgment). He can be asked to give an account to the other elders (within his church), he can be asked to give an account by those to whom he ministers. He can also be asked to give an account to brothers outside his church. In the book of Galatians, the "leaders" are not specifically addressed.

Real accountability may come from the Lord when asking Christians why they tolerated bad leaders.



bluestone -> RE: House Church (6/23/2008 10:59:16 AM)

House churches not only are suffering from doctrinal and accountability issues, but one study I saw (I will try to find a link) showed that the average life of a home church is six months...then it collapses. Rare to find one operating after five years.

Other house churches grew rapidly..and wound up renting or purchasing a building! They became "institutional" churches.



SusieD -> RE: House Church (6/23/2008 11:54:25 AM)

quote:

House churches not only are suffering from doctrinal and accountability issues, but one study I saw (I will try to find a link) showed that the average life of a home church is six months...then it collapses. Rare to find one operating after five years.


Yes, I would like to see a link to this study. Every "house church" that I personally know of has existed way longer than 6 months. Many are going on 10 years and at least one over 20. Of course that is anecdotal evidence!

quote:

Other house churches grew rapidly..and wound up renting or purchasing a building! They became "institutional" churches.


It sounds like they were already "institutional" churches, they just happened to be meeting in houses because of circumstances.

The difference between house church and institutional church is much more than where they meet.



phosadaud -> RE: House Church (6/23/2008 4:03:33 PM)

I hate to bring up the accountability issue again, but I'm afraid it hasn't been answered. The idea is that you are accountable internally. The problem is that the early church didn't say that. You were accountable INTERNALLY as well as EXTERNALLY. This is why many folks steer clear of "independant" churches. Churches (house or traditional) that are ONLY internally accountable can easily get off track because we ALL have blindspots and we ALL struggle - even those who are strong in the Lord.

In a traditional church, you not only have multiple leadership (pastors, elders, deacons, board members, etc) and those under them who act as Bereans (I'm not sure where this idea came about that most "churches" have dictator pastors - I know they exist, but I've never attended one), but they have accountability at the minimum within their denomination and, at least in my community, with other pastors/churches in the community. In my area, many churches from many denominations work together for the Kingdom. It's not an "us vs them" mentality - even across most denominations. The church my fellowship works with the most (we're AG) is actually Baptist.

Again, I am not against the idea of house churches and now there must be some good ones out there, but all too often people leave to go to a house church for the wrong reasons and most reject EXTERNAL accountability which I take issue with. Internal accountability is necessary but so is external accountability.



phosadaud -> RE: House Church (6/23/2008 4:21:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SusieD

quote:

I think there were very good reasons why there were house churches back in the first century - there was widespread persecution by the pagans and even the Jews at the time


I disagree that persecution was the reason the NT believers met in houses. Persecution in the first century was not as widespread as commonly taught. It was sporadic and localized.

They met in houses because they were not participating in a religion with temple worship. Instead they were sharing their lives together on a daily basis, encouraging each other and teaching each other as the "walked along the way". When you are doing that, you don't need to meet weekly in a special building.


It wasn't as sporadic as some like to claim and if you noted all of my post, you will see that I noted that many believers met in buildings that were not houses as well (synagogues, public courts, etc). It depended on where they were at, how many believers there were, what facilities were available and what the laws were in that area. The idea that the early church ALL met in houses is just as incorrect as the idea that NO believers were spared from persecution.

quote:

quote:

There are many ways to "do" church wrong.


That isn't obvious when you live in America! Most people seem to believe there is only one way to "do" church and it involves a Sunday morning, choruses or a hymnal and a sermon from the pulpit. Anything else is just extra.


Where exactly do you live in America?

quote:

quote:

I don't want to have to minister with and grow with people who can be difficult. I don't want to have to love someone who drives me crazy. I want to hang out with folks I like.


I know you said "some people", but I just had to respond! Ha Ha! I still have to do all those things when meeting outside the traditional church! I still have to minister with and grow with people who can be difficult, I have to love people who drive me crazy, and hang out with folks I don't "like". Meeting with believers outside the traditional church doesn't mean that you are just hanging out with your best friends.

Just wanted to clarify that!!


I never said that was the case. However, having been on these boards for a while and had these discussions many times in the past, MOST posters who support house churches claim that they left the traditional churches because of the "hypocrites" in the traditional churches and conflicts with other believers as to why they went to a house church where they could fellowship with people of their choosing, that they like and they get along with and who are on the same page spiritually as they are. I have a serious issue with that.

quote:

quote:

Actually, there were teachers and prophets so the idea that they all just sat around sharing is a false one.


She didn't say that. She said they all participate and there wasn't a full-time pastor whose job was sermonizing. (My paraphrase) And this is true. There were teachers and prophets, but they didn't hog the whole meeting to themselves while everyone else sat and listenend. Paul said that everyone could bring something to the meeting and they were all supposed to take turns. He never once mentions a pastor giving sermon. (Of course "sermons" weren't invented yet anyway!)


Again, what church are you talking about? I've never been to a church where the pastor "hogged" the meeting to themselves. And the idea of taking turns does not mean, you didn't have a main teacher(s) who facilitated the meetings. Paul makes it quite clear that SOME are teachers, etc.

Ummm, and the idea of a "sermon" isn't new... Jesus had a few He gave. [;)]

quote:

The scriptures teach discipleship and relationship, not services and sermons.


You assume that services and sermons (which again are not a new phenomenom) cannot be a part of discipleship & worship. You also assume that services are all that church is about. That's what I don't get about the house church phenomenon. There is this idea that a traditional church is only about what happens at 9am on Sunday morning. I seriously have no idea where that comes from. I work for a traditional church: 9am on Sunday morning is one of the smallest aspects of what we "do" (although it is the biggest in terms of number of people gathering at one time).

And Scripture does teach ceremony and sermons and such. Jesus participated in those very things so this idea that traditional churches are doing something that isn't in Scripture is simply wrong.



bluestone -> RE: House Church (6/23/2008 4:27:45 PM)

And who cleans the house after the crowd leaves??[;)]



notmycity -> RE: House Church (6/23/2008 5:29:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: timf
....Much of traditional church structure comes directly from the Roman Catholic church and is not necessarily derived from the Bible.

The traditional church structure has more in common with an assembly line for moving product through a process than the relational connections described in the Bible....


You nailed it.

1 Corinthians 14 pretty much outlines what’s supposed to happen in the assembly.

1 Cor 14:23-25
23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?
24 But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all:
25 And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.

Church structure looks nothing like this from our experience.

We attended a house church for the better part of two years until one of the guys brought in perverted beliefs.

Ultimately we need to be like those from Berea and hold up every teaching to the Scriptures alone, or we fall into error, regardless of where we go.



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI