Do online communities shut out house church goers?

[StMark]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I think House Church Apostolics have a hard way to go. The traditional church is suspicious and often finds them to be a threat to the religious money making enterprise known as "church" in America. The world hates them because they are Apostolic and believe in one God and the full plan of salvation.

Personally, I'd rather be associated with a house church network than the church's I'm currently associated with. Because so much of it is about making money, gaining "members", property, yada yada yada. I love the simplicity and devotion of house church Christianity. I enjoy getting away from "sermons" that dazzle and getting into reading an entire passage and having strong teaching and group discussion about it. I enjoy not demanding tithes and simply expressing a need and allowing all to give as they feel led of the Holy Ghost. It's all just so much more...free and spiritual. I've spent quite a bit of time talking with a few local house churchers, they are Oneness, but more emergent in their practice. I really believe that the house church method is the best way to network and reach a large portion of the inner cities.

I've become firmly against "mega-churches". I believe they are wicked and distort the true meaning of the church.

I think you are right about a lot of the mega churches
just being Big money making machines especially amongst
the TBN charismatic movement types, but I think a lot of
people are growing smart to this and slowly evolving out
of these churches. especially in light of all the scandals going on.

I think the house church is going to be a force to be reckoned
with in the years to come BUT I do still believe the traditional
church will and still does serve a good purpose too.

Aquilla, House churches are made up of humans too and they
are going to have their combats, fights, fallouts and scandals too.
One of the things I think make people leery of house churches
is the belieft there is no covering, no accountability and the
threat of these churches teaching false doctrine as they did
during the latter rain movement.

The traditional church offers a social structure that a lot of
people, want, need and desire for their youth ( camps, choirs,
conventions, activities) that are healthy even for some
adults to be apart of something bigger than themselves

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

So you're okay with calling a church where God's people gather to worship God and be taught the Word "wicked?" I'm not.

Of course it's not a (or "the") barometer. But "wicked" is a bit of a stretch, IMO, no matter how out of sync the church is with a NT ideal.

Furthermore, the church is based on principles found in the Word that are good for any culture and any era. It isn't one-size-fits all, and it doesn't have to work precisely according to the NT model, although the principles should be followed (for success).

Regardless of the feelings regarding home groups or big churches, my point was simply that extreme views aren't really welcome from either end of the spectrum. The same extreme views about big churches lead to the other side of the coin holding extreme (and objectionable) views about home groups. Hmmm...maybe I'm still not being clear. It's the same mindset that says "my way is right" and the rest of you are "wicked." BOTH sides can err to far into that realm, and THAT is what leads to Christians shunning, disfellowshipping or otherwise mistreating other Christians, and actually feeling justified about it.

Barring extremism, I'm quite comfortable with the notion that there is plenty of wickedness going on and being taught to the church today that God's presence in the midst of will not veil, nor is it intended to. That doesn't mean the group itself is wicked altogether.

You also might consider one thing in trying to find the safe zone in the middle of the road, away from extremes.

Jesus is/was/ will always be extreme, as is his teaching, and his way is/was/will always be right....and the rest ARE indeed wicked.

Therefore, it is noteworthy to consider that the Truth is often seen as extreme and followers extremists. The challenge is finding out just were that is at despite all the finger pointing. If you choose middle ground for safety from extremes, you've still missed it.

I'm not particularly dogmatic about where one worships. Plenty will be saved out of every house I'm sure, and too many left to wonder. I find the dilemma both sad and interesting. Sad at just how cold and cruel too many traditionalists are towards those seeking further Truth, and interesting, to observe those that come out from mass inundation adjust so readily to the NT model for the purpose it was intended for.

I think deviation from any NT model for the sake of culture or era is both dangerous and dysfunctional. Thank God he continues to work around where we go wrong, first things first. When we consider his messages to the churches in Revelations, we know, despite where we go wrong, his encouragement is for us to make those adjustments in the right direction, not balk under the guise of the relativity of time and space. (era and culture)

[MamaHen]

Originally Posted by Stephen Hoover

Not having investigated it at all, I would start by giving them the benefit of doubt. I doubt they are out to single out the home church Oneness Pentecostals. I would like to think it is driven by there desire to keep the group "Apostolic" and the "home groups" movement is much broader than that.

I may very well be wrong.

Unfortunately you are. I received a response from the admin, and was told that my view on house churches was "controversial" and "divisive" and that it was not "fit for EA." That is why my Home church group was deleted and I was banned.

Which is interesting because the description I used for the group was PURE SCRIPTURE. I never said that traditional churches were evil, or that house churches were the only way, simply that this was where God had brought me.

<sigh>

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by old friend

Barring extremism, I'm quite comfortable with the notion that there is plenty of wickedness going on and being taught to the church today that God's presence in the midst of will not veil, nor is it intended to. That doesn't mean the group itself is wicked altogether.

You also might consider one thing in trying to find the safe zone in the middle of the road, away from extremes.

Jesus is/was/ will always be extreme, as is his teaching, and his way is/was/will always be right....and the rest ARE indeed wicked.

Therefore, it is noteworthy to consider that the Truth is often seen as extreme and followers extremists. The challenge is finding out just were that is at despite all the finger pointing. If you choose middle ground for safety from extremes, you've still missed it.

I'm not particularly dogmatic about where one worships. Plenty will be saved out of every house I'm sure, and too many left to wonder. I find the dilemma both sad and interesting. Sad at just how cold and cruel too many traditionalists are towards those seeking further Truth, and interesting, to observe those that come out from mass inundation adjust so readily to the NT model for the purpose it was intended for.

I think deviation from any NT model for the sake of culture or era is both dangerous and dysfunctional. Thank God he continues to work around where we go wrong, first things first. When we consider his messages to the churches in Revelations, we know, despite where we go wrong, his encouragement is for us to make those adjustments in the right direction, not balk under the guise of the relativity of time and space. (era and culture)

Well, regarding home groups in particular, in reflection of the NT worship format...what does it matter where the group meets, or how large the group is? (or small)

When I referenced following principle, I mean, we are to assemble to worship God, but it doesn't matter if you gather in a traditional church building or in someone's back yard--what matters is that you gather with other believers and worship. If it matters where, then that's in conflict with scripture, IMO.

It seems that both opponents and proponents of home churches are saying, "It matters where you worship", and I find both of those groups to be scripturally inaccurate with their view.

Further, in the NT, there are examples of both large and small gatherings, so again, the size of the gathering is not important. It is the ministry, teaching and communion that takes place that is important. Obviously many churches do not focus on the right things, they focus on business rather than ministry, but again, that is the case for many, small and large.

My point is, the Church can meet the needs of many people, many different types of communities, and the principles provided in the NT can be applied in many different ways and still be perfectly in line with scripture. Much the same as helping the poor doesn't have to only be comprised of working in a soup kitchen. (But of course, it can include that) You can give money, work with your own hands, give someone a place to stay, find someone a job, give away clothing or food, etc etc etc. The Bible doesn't tell us specifically how to help the poor (necessarily), it just says "help the poor." So any sort of help is in line with the scripture.

I'm not objecting to home groups--I think it's a great concept, and the closeness between believers is something the church (especially large churches) can really miss out on, if they aren't careful. However, I do object to Christians condemning other Christians for the place they choose to worship, and how many people they choose to worship with.

Did you know there are some "mega-churches" that are essentially made up of smaller groups, and they simply get together once a week and all the groups worship together? I think that's pretty cool, actually.

By the way, I'm not disagreeing with you that many of the church traditions we have today are unbiblical, or in most cases extrabiblical. (There is a difference.) However, calling the church "wicked" is the same as calling its constituents "wicked" because the church is the sum of its [human] parts. You can't separate the two.

JMO

Back to the topic of the thread, though...no one should be persecuted because of how or where they choose to worship God. Whether home group or member of a "mega-church."

[tbpew]

Originally Posted by MamaHen

Unfortunately you are. I received a response from the admin, and was told that my view on house churches was "controversial" and "divisive" and that it was not "fit for EA." That is why my Home church group was deleted and I was banned.

Which is interesting because the description I used for the group was PURE SCRIPTURE. I never said that traditional churches were evil, or that house churches were the only way, simply that this was where God had brought me.

<sigh>

as one who has been predominately "house-2-house" assembly for the last 4 years, I think the largest occassion for polarity involves a key differentiator between the two delivery systems; the traditional role for men as founding/senior pastors.

If a person is convinced that God uses men as subordinate heads between the sheep and the Good Shepherd, and these subordinate heads (Moses' seat holders of the NT) are to be obeyed as rulers, any alternate system that repositions these persons as gifts and guides, instead of as rulers, is a source of consternation for those who are the primary stakeholders in a building-centric delivery system.

If these same people are the sponsors of various online communities, they would NATURALLY oppose providing any stage for discussing the assembly of the Saints in any other manner than what they themselves officiate over --a former tabernacle that is a building. It would be like a home educator sponsoring online costs and administration in service to a discussion forum where folks wanted to discuss parental groups working together with government schools...it just would not be encouraged or welcomed.

What is needed is for those of us with interest, energy and resource, to get together and work to provide a credible, workable, web-presence for house-to-house leaning folks to share encouragement and be encouraged.

[MamaHen]

Originally Posted by tbpew

If these same people are the sponsors of various online communities, they would NATURALLY oppose providing any stage for discussing the assembly of the Saints in any other manner than what they themselves officiate over --a former tabernacle that is a building. It would be like a home educator sponsoring online costs and administration in service to a discussion forum where folks wanted to discuss parental groups working together with government schools...it just would not be encouraged or welcomed.

Excellent comparison. Thank you.