Where do you worship?

[Aquila]

Here's an article from the Believer's Bible Commentary that I found to be of interest:

================================================== ==

THE HOUSE CHURCH
AND PARACHURCH
ORGANIZATIONS

Since the first use of the word church (Gk. ekklesia) in Acts is found here (2:47), we pause to consider the centrality of the church in the thinking of the early Christians.

The church in the Book of Acts and in the rest of the NT was what is often called a house church. The early Christians met in houses rather than in special ecclesiastical buildings. It has been said that religion was loosed from specially sacred places and centered in that universal place of living, the home. Unger says that homes continued to serve as places of Christian assembly for two centuries.

It might be easy for us to think that the use of private homes was forced by economic necessity rather than being the result of spiritual considerations. We have become so accustomed to church buildings and chapels that we think they are God’s ideal.

However, there is strong reason to believe that the first century believers might have been wiser than we are.

First, it is inconsistent with the Christian faith and its emphasis on love to spend thousands of dollars on luxurious buildings when there is such appalling needed throughout the world. In that connection, E. Stanley Jones wrote:

I looked on the Bambino, the child Christ in the Cathedral at Rome, laden with expensive jewels, and then walked out and looked upon the countenances of hungry children and wondered whether Christ, in view of this hunger, was enjoying His jewels, and the thought persisted that if He was, then I could no longer enjoy the thought of Christ. That bejeweled Bambino and the hungry children are a symbol of what we have done in putting around Christ the expensive livery of stately cathedrals and churches while leaving untouched the fundamental wrongs in human society whereby Christ is left hungry in the unemployed and the disposed.

Not only is it inhumane; it is also uneconomical to spend money on expensive buildings that are used for no more than three, four, or five hours during the week. How have we ever allowed ourselves to drift into this unthinking dream world where we are willing to spend so much in order to get so little usage in return?

Our modern building programs have been one of the biggest hindrances to the expansion of the church. Heavy payments on principle and interest cause church leaders to resist any efforts to hive off and form new churches. Any loss of members would jeopardize the income needed to pay for the building and its upkeep. An unborn generation is saddled with debt, and any hope of church reproduction is stifled.

It is often argued that we must have impressive buildings in order to attract the unchurched to our services. Aside from being a carnal way of thinking, this completely overlooks the NT pattern. The meetings of the early church were largely for believers. The Christians assembled for the apostles’ teaching, fellowship, breaking of bread, and prayer (Acts 2:42). They did not do their evangelizing by inviting people to meetings on Sunday but by witnessing to those with whom they came in contact throughout the week. When people did get converted, they were then brought into the fellowship and warmth of the house church to be fed and encouraged.

It is sometimes difficult to get people to attend services in dignified church buildings. There is a strong reaction against formalism. Also there is a fear of being solicited for funds. “All the church wants is your money,” is a common complaint. Yet many of these same people are willing to attend a conversational Bible class in a home. There they do not have to be style-conscious, and they enjoy the informal, unprofessional atmosphere.

Actually the house church is ideal for every culture and every country. And probably if we could look over the entire world, we would see more churches meeting in homes than in any other way.

In contrast to today’s imposing cathedrals, churches, and chapels – as well as a whole host of highly organized denominations, the apostles in the Book of Acts made no attempt to form an organization of any kind for carrying on the work of the Lord. The local church was God’s unit on earth for propagating the faith and the disciples were content to work within that context.

In recent years there has been an organizational explosion in Christendom of such proportions as to make one dizzy. Every time a believer gets a new idea for advancing the cause of Christ, he forms a new mission board, corporation, or institution!

One result is that capable teachers and preachers have been called away from their primary ministries in order to become administrators. If all mission board administrators were serving on the mission field, it would greatly reduce the need for personnel there.

Another result of the proliferation of organizations is that vast sums of money are needed for overhead, and thus diverted from direct gospel outreach. The greater part of every dollar given to many Christian organizations is devoted to the expense of maintaining the organization rather than the primary purpose for which it was founded.

Organizations often hinder the fulfillment of the Great Commission. Jesus told His disciples to teach all the things He had commanded. Many who work for Christian organizations find they are not permitted to teach all the truth of God. They must not teach certain controversial matters for fear they will alienate the constituency to whom they look for financial support.

The multiplication of Christian institutions has too often resulted in factions, jealousy, and rivalry that have done great harm to the testimony of Christ.

Consider the overlapping multiplicity of Christian organizations at work, at home, and abroad. Each competes for limited personnel and for shrinking financial resources. And consider how many of these organizations really owe their origin to purely human rivalry, though public statements usually refer to God’s will (Daily Notes of the Scripture Union).

And it is often true that organizations have a way of perpetuating themselves long after they have outlived their usefulness. The wheels grind on heavily even though the vision of the founders has been lost, and the glory of the once dynamic movement has departed. It was spiritual wisdom, not primitive naiveté, that saved the early Christians from setting up human organizations to carry on the work of the Lord. G. H. Lang writes.

An acute writer, contrasting the apostolic work with the more usual modern missionary methods, has said that “we found missions, the apostles founded churches.” The distinction is sound and pregnant. The apostles founded churches, and the founded nothing else, because for the ends in view nothing else was required or could have been so suitable. In each place where they labored they formed the converts into a local assembly, with elders – always elders, never an elder (Acts 14:23; 15:6, 23; 20:17; Phil. 1:1) – to guide, to rule, to shepherd, men qualified by the Lord and recognized by the saints (I Cor. 16:15; I Thess. 5:12, 13; I Tim. 5:17-19); and with deacons, appointed by the assembly (Acts 6:1-6; Phil 1:1) – in this contrasted with the elders – to attend to the few but very important temporal affairs, and in particular to the distribution of the funds of the assembly….All they (the apostles) did in the way of organizing was to form the disciples gathered into other such assemblies. No other organization than the local assembly appears in the New Testament, nor do we find even the germ of anything further.

To the early Christians and their apostolic leadership, the congregation was the divinely ordained unit on earth through which God chose to work, and the only such unit to which He promised perpetuity was the church.


Believer’s Bible Commentary, Pgs. 1590-1591

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Those early Christians... what a bunch of neurotics, eh?

Same with all those Christians in communist and Muslim countries who meet as house churches, as well.

Institutional churches, of course, never have such issues.

(insert emoji with eyes rolling so far they fall off)

AFF - the fruitcake magnet.

Right......because modern America and 40,000 denominations and thousands upon thousands more non denominational and independent churches to choose from is the same as 1st century Rome or Revolutionary Iran.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Jason B

Right......because modern America and 40,000 denominations and thousands upon thousands more non denominational and independent churches to choose from is the same as 1st century Rome or Revolutionary Iran.

Then maybe you should be clear and say "the modern American house church movement".

You'd still be wrong, though.

[Aquila]

The a healthy house church is more about authenticity. The new and upcoming generations are not comfortable with being just another face in a crowd. They aren't comfortable with depending upon the understanding of just one man. They are seeking answers to questions that they'd like to ask. They want to be involved. They want to share what they know and understand. They want to find their spiritual gifts and use them within the body. They feel like "church" as it is done is more like going to a concert or a seminar with a motivational speaker. They find themselves trying to get past "the performance" to find Jesus.

Tell me, what are your thoughts on this video? In church after church I visit, I see these patterns all the time. It's quite a predictable show.

[n david]

I've attended church in a building and I've attended church in a house. Currently we are attending church in a house. I have been blessed in both venues. The debate and argument over venue is not fruitful. I do not believe God cares about venue. God can bless a home group with 5 people and He can bless an assembly of 20,000. We are like the Samaritan woman at the well, trying to claim our way is the way to worship. "Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship."

What was Jesus' response? "But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth."

It doesn't matter whether it's a home group, house church, a cowboy church meeting in a barn or thousands gathering in a mega church -- God wants true worshippers to worship Him in spirit and in truth. So as long as we meet to worship Him in spirit and in truth, the venue doesn't matter.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

I've attended church in a building and I've attended church in a house. Currently we are attending church in a house. I have been blessed in both venues. The debate and argument over venue is not fruitful. I do not believe God cares about venue. God can bless a home group with 5 people and He can bless an assembly of 20,000. We are like the Samaritan woman at the well, trying to claim our way is the way to worship. "Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship."

What was Jesus' response? "But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth."

It doesn't matter whether it's a home group, house church, a cowboy church meeting in a barn or thousands gathering in a mega church -- God wants true worshippers to worship Him in spirit and in truth. So as long as we meet to worship Him in spirit and in truth, the venue doesn't matter.

I think everyone should go wherever they feel closest to God.

[Aquila]

Form follows function. In a lot of ways the church has become more like a business enterprise... because it essentially functions like one. Instead of being a spiritual family focused on spiritual things... pastors and congregations are often focused on raising money and buying property. It becomes a consuming responsibility demanding more and more of leadership's focus.

I've heard more than a few churches speak of the "good ol' days" when they began in the home of an elder or saint of God. There was close fellowship. Solid discipleship. They had no programs... but they had a spiritual family. They voiced their needs and shared their very lives and possessions to meet those needs. If a sister's car broke down, someone would lend her a car. If a brother needed lawn mower, another brother was ready to lend his own. If grieving they didn't have to schedule a meeting with a busy executive pastor. They voiced it there in the circle of believers in a living room. When one wept, they all wept. When one rejoiced, they all rejoiced.

So many I've talked to have often said that after they purchased property things just... "changed".

We often worship our church properties and don't even realize it. The modern structure of the church with it's salaries and properties affect the very functionality of ministry. It marches believers into the pews, relegating them to being a row of noses ready to hear another sermon. The pastor preaches a "monologue" and there is sometimes some shouting and music. But no real depth. In a lot of ways, a lot of traditional churches are a mile wide... and an inch deep.

In our house church we welcome and encourage authenticity, intimacy, transparency, and growth. We might only be a small body... but it gets VERY deep in those meetings. People not only discuss the passage we're studying that evening, but there are rather personal prayer requests, sins are openly confessed, the masks are taken off, and we minister to one another.

The term "house church" is really a misnomer. We should call it "simple church" or "church without walls", or something else. Why? Because we don't always meet in houses. Sometimes we'll change it up and have church at a coffee shop, a park, or the court house square... just to get out and bring people into the conversation about Jesus. Our evangelists are primarily street preachers. lol

Form follows function. If you feel like your church isn't a strong and intimate spiritual family, if perhaps discipleship is lacking, if you feel like you're only attending to help a single man accomplish his calling while you're calling and destiny is passing you by... perhaps you need to consider a new form of church wherein the function of the church is radically different.

Paul gave the Corinthians some insight into how a church gathering should be run. Paul wrote:

"Well, my brothers and sisters, let’s summarize. When you meet together, one will sing, another will teach, another will tell some special revelation God has given, one will speak in tongues, and another will interpret what is said. But everything that is done must strengthen all of you. No more than two or three should speak in tongues. They must speak one at a time, and someone must interpret what they say. But if no one is present who can interpret, they must be silent in your church meeting and speak in tongues to God privately. Let two or three people prophesy, and let the others evaluate what is said. But if someone is prophesying and another person receives a revelation from the Lord, the one who is speaking must stop. In this way, all who prophesy will have a turn to speak, one after the other, so that everyone will learn and be encouraged. Remember that people who prophesy are in control of their spirit and can take turns. For God is not a God of disorder but of peace, as in all the meetings of God’s holy people." (I Corinthians 14:26-35, NLT)

The form of meeting above is an interactive one. It's function is to build up, strengthen, encourage, and help develop all the believers who are attending. Those who embrace house churching, or "simple church", also embrace this Apostolic form of gathering.

[mfblume]

I worship in Spirit and in truth!

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I worship in Spirit and in truth!

[mfblume]

Putting a focus on the building, be it a church structure or a house, is equally wrong on both counts. It is in the spirit, and in truth, or reality, is what place God wants us to worship. PEOPLE are the church, anyway.