![]() |
Re: A Glorious Church?
The thing I don't get is why in the world anyone would prefer their pride over being corrected, so that they might move forward and be in the right, instead of getting left behind in their hubris and remain in the wrong.
I don't always automatically concede to anything anyone might have to say to me when they think I'm in the wrong, but I want to hear them out at least, and seriously weigh what they have to say, and have a discussion about it, share the way I see things, etc. But for some, the moment you say a word, they lose their minds and put up this wall, or worse, ascend their imaginary throne and spit vitriol at you for daring to suggest they might be wrong about something. Granted, sometimes it's the manner of approach that people have a hard time with, but even that only exists as a different shade of the same pride. I've been wrong about a lot of things, and I am glad every time I learn of it. Especially when it comes to Bible doctrine. Somehow people have come to associate the idea of having an open mind with being gullible or weak-minded, I guess. That any suggestion that they are wrong about something, like the Word of God or the way they understand it, is some horrible accusation of them being immature wind-tossed babies who haven't had a real encounter with Jesus; or maybe feeling like they are being accused of being mere pawns of the Deceiver, is the issue. I don't know. Maybe some people just have to be the "teacher", never the "student". The role-reversal is just more than they can bear. |
Re: A Glorious Church?
Interesting article on elder leadership:
Elder Rule & Congregational Consensus https://ntrf.org/index.php/2016/08/0...nal-consensus/ |
Re: A Glorious Church?
Why isn't the model of leadership proposed in the opening posts more prevalent?
Most of those who are leading in this proposed model are those who were saved in the traditional church model, are gifted elders and able to lead a home fellowship. A majority of the home church fellowships are charismatic, or Hebrew roots, or in some way not Apostolic. It does not seem viable for the majority of people. |
Re: A Glorious Church?
Aaron, is this the attitude you mean to promote on this forum?
Quote:
|
Re: A Glorious Church?
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: A Glorious Church?
5 Attachment(s)
Quote:
- Pastors often fear that they are a threat to pastoral power. One pastor I know shut down an entire care group network that he originally supported the moment a couple of the elders began to be truly praised by the people for their teaching, tenderness, and anointing. People began asking the pastor to let them preach more often. And several even suggested that these men should be released to start daughter works. The pastor shut it down instantly and commanded that all cease gathering in these home based gatherings. Sadly, these men were then taken off the preaching rotation and found themselves frustrated in their callings. One launched out on his own, leaving for California. The other launched out and started a church in Tipp City, Ohio. The other started a word in Urbana, Ohio. The rest of the care group leaders remain in pews, disenchanted, wondering why the pastor crushed their callings. - Participative and discussion based groups tend to allow for questions. What is a house church elder, care group leader, or whatever we wish to call them to answer when sincere individuals with a love for the Bible ask about unbiblical standards and requirements that are clearly not in God's Word? As the group gets into deeper study, prayer, and reflection, it casts doubt on the unbiblical tones that are ringing out from the pulpit. And so pastors find their authority challenged. Some pastors, of sincere and tender hearts, have even told me to my face, "Brother, if I didn't preach what this organization requests of me, this district could give me trouble. We have a thriving church, we can't afford that." And so, such groups can prove problematic as people begin to dig into the Word. - Also, house churches in the United States started out as an act of abandoning the institutional churches. This created a lot of unnecessary bad blood between the two. And so, many pastors associate house churches with rebellious and even hostile believers. It's taken several years for house church leaders to try to get that perception changed. However, many house churches are rather fundamental in their opposition to institutional church forms.The house church movement is looking at demographics. There are millions of "unchurched" Christians who do not attend a specific church for various reasons. And as cities and urban populations grow, house churching is looking like the most viable method of reaching these demographics. Building a building on the edge of town and trying to convince the millions who dwell in the inner cities to attend just isn't looking as viable as it used to. So, house churchers are simply holding their position and watching as more and more churches close their doors (even many who are called "mega-churches") and seeking to pick up where these sheep are scattered. It's often been said in house church circles that in the next generation, due to population growth, location, and general distrust for money hungry institutions, more and more believers will be attending house churches and simple church gatherings than ever in the United States. An increasing number of sincere Christians are wondering why they should give so much money to support such massive buildings that are only used a couple times a week and salaries for pastors who are becoming celebrity millionaires, or preaching their politics, when these believers feel they could be giving money directly to local charities that help the poor, the sick, the abused, and the hungry. Our house church had a ministry called, "Helping Hands". We volunteered at local charitable organizations once or twice a month on a rotation. We also committed to raising funds for these charities. My family chose the Dayton Gospel Mission. We volunteered there and raised quite a bit of money to help the homeless and the economically struggling. Here are some photos from our work at the Dayton Gospel Mission... P.S. Many traditional churches want all of your tithes, donations, offerings, etc. to go to the church or programs run by the organization the church is affiliated with. In addition, many Apostolic churches discourage volunteering with charities that are not "Apostolic". And since those are often few and far between in some cities, the Apostolic has nothing to really do but show up, obey whatever is told them, and give their money to the pastor and programs within the organization. Now, this doesn't mean that Apostolic churches don't periodically have food drives etc. during holidays. I'm talking about established charities that often serve thousands of needy people within the community every day of the year. House churches don't function this way. We look to help the local community by serving these local charities regardless of their denomination or creed. We see it as a mission to reach and share the Gospel with those in need, but also with those we work along side of in these charitable organizations. Since house churching doesn't focus on owning buildings, house churches can give as much as 80% of money raised to chosen charities and benevolence work, as opposed to having 80% of money raised go to fund buildings, utilities, and salaries, leaving 20%, or less, for charities and benevolence work. In all honesty, if one attends a healthy house church... they will be quite busy serving the poor, the needy, and the homeless. We found the need being far beyond the available time we had, and so we began recruiting Christian volunteers from other churches near us! LOL |
Re: A Glorious Church?
Quote:
- Bitterness against institutional churches held by many house churches.One needs to be repented of. The other we need more of. It's a blight on the house church movement that so many house churches are bitter and fundamentalist against institutional churches. But house church or not, we should be a people of the book. That means regardless as to if one attends a house church or a traditional church, one should be so committed to the Word of God that they take a stand for it against the traditions of men. From my perspective.... it looks like you are trying to make an excuse for teaching the traditions of men as doctrine. Now, I know that isn't your intention. But the end result is to coo us to sleep so that we will just "obey" the unbiblical standards leveled upon us. I find that spiritually negligent. |
Re: A Glorious Church?
Quote:
|
Re: A Glorious Church?
Quote:
|
Re: A Glorious Church?
you want to destroy the conservative Church, see below
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:42 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.