The House Church: - Page 11

gloryseeker · #**101** 02-29-2008, 10:53 AM

Another thing as talking about restructuring the church.

I came across a guy in Texas who Pastors a traditional church model. He saw a piece of land and the Lord gave him an idea - build a convention center.

He built a convention center that operates like a normal convention center. It has a starbucks in it, meeting rooms, and banquet rooms. But in the design of it he put his church in a section of it. The churches facilities are permanent (no one can rent these for meetings and so forth).

He has a catering service and employs people from the church when conventions come in and so forth.

He said that he would never build a traditional church model again because the business is paying for the church. He operates it as a for profit corporation and the city loves him also.

It was an interesting concept.

ChristopherHall · #**102** 02-29-2008, 01:10 PM

I think you’re right. If God calls a man to do something the man should indeed do it. But I disagree with the following statement to some degree:

Quote:

My test of whether it was God, "It works." God does not fail EVER. I once heard a man in ministry say, "God had called me into an evangelical ministry and I went bankrupt, but I praise God because if I hadn't gone bankrupt I wouldn't be in this ministry now." It's not hard to judge that word, God wasn't in the first move or at some point in the move the guy got away from God.

You’re right, God never fails, but I think we might be a little bit presumptuous to say that God wasn’t in the first move or at some point the guy got away from God. Sure, human reasoning would say the dude failed in his first venture into ministry…but God didn’t fail if indeed that’s what God planned on using as a circumstantial vehicle to get him into the proper time and place for the door to open where God indeed wanted him. If that’s what it would take…God didn’t fail and God was in it from the beginning. Did Jesus fail when he allowed Lazarus to die? No…it was all according to God’s sovereign plan to display his power and Godhead.

Quote:

Another thing as talking about restructuring the church.

I came across a guy in Texas who Pastors a traditional church model. He saw a piece of land and the Lord gave him an idea - build a convention center.

He built a convention center that operates like a normal convention center. It has a starbucks in it, meeting rooms, and banquet rooms. But in the design of it he put his church in a section of it. The churches facilities are permanent (no one can rent these for meetings and so forth).

He has a catering service and employs people from the church when conventions come in and so forth.

He said that he would never build a traditional church model again because the business is paying for the church. He operates it as a for profit corporation and the city loves him also.

It was an interesting concept.

You don’t see anything wrong with this?

gloryseeker · #**103** 02-29-2008, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristopherHall

You’re right, God never fails, but I think we might be a little bit presumptuous to say that God wasn’t in the first move or at some point the guy got away from God. Sure, human reasoning would say the dude failed in his first venture into ministry…but God didn’t fail if indeed that’s what God planned on using as a circumstantial vehicle to get him into the proper time and place for the door to open where God indeed wanted him. If that’s what it would take…God didn’t fail and God was in it from the beginning. Did Jesus fail when he allowed Lazarus to die? No…it was all according to God’s sovereign plan to display his power and Godhead.

I think we are saying the same thing: "It's not hard to judge that word, God wasn't in the first move or at some point in the move the guy got away from God.

Quote:

You don’t see anything wrong with this?

There are areas I do have a problem with it...for one I don't know how he gets around private parties where everyone is getting drunk. I couldn't endorse that. Maybe as a private business he picks and chooses what/who he allows to rent the place.

I do like the aspect of having the world pay for the church. To me one of the biggest downfalls of churches and another reason why so many of them struggle to make ends meet is that they don't know how to biblically incorporate business into the church.

Rev 1:5-6
5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, (referring to what's been done - the cross)
6 And hath made (not going to make) us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen. (KJV)

We are either kings or we are priests. If you are not called into what is referred to as the five-fold then you have a kingly anointing. That kingly anointing operates powerfully in the business realm.

I am all for taking money out of the kingdom of darkness and expanding the Kingdom of God.

I once heard of a Pastor who refused the tithe of a woman because the money she was tithing on was a lottery winning. That's what I call stuck on stupid. While I don't promote the stupidity of the lottery (only the poor and those who don't understand math buy lottery tickets) let anyone bring money into the house. We'll receive it, pray over it, and build the Kingdom with it.

Amos · #**104** 03-01-2008, 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gloryseeker

"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."

I have strong opinions about house churches, but understand my opinion is really limited to the American culture. While I know many disagree with me and I have seen people call others names like, "small thinkers" I see core value system in the majority that practice house churches. Maybe it doesn't apply to the handful that post in these threads, but what I have seen there is an overall laziness that comes with those who attend house churches.

For me, this statement in your post sums up the largest majority of those who promote the house church, especially in America.

1. They don't want to conform or really they don't want any authority in their lives.

2. They don't want to give and think that giving is a program for the church to collect money to pay the bills when in fact giving of tithes and offerings is worship.

3. They want a conversational study because they don't want anyone "preaching" at them even though it is through the foolishness of preaching that man is saved, not through conversations.

4. They do not have to be style conscious, or they want to relax where their lazy clothes and drink Starbucks. What ever happen to putting on your Sunday best because you were going to worship the Lord God Almighty? They rather have an informal without excellence gathering so that nothing is required of them.

While I agree that the spectator church doesn't work, and that ministry should include everyone, there needs to be governments and authority structures.

Even the great Apostle Paul who had the most dramatic conversion of anyone was found among the Prophets and did not go out until released by the Holy Spirit and those who were in authority over him. That's my take.

Bullseye.

These points may not apply in 100% of the cases, but if what I have been reading on these forums for years by the house church advocates is anything like a representative cross section, you have nailed it.

These are precisely the attitudes reflected by the vast majority of the house churchers I have run into.

I would only add one more:

They tend to think they are smarter and more spiritual than the mindless drones who just accept "the reiligious status quo."

ChristopherHall · #**105** 03-01-2008, 12:34 PM

Amos, can you provide me evidence of the following...from the New Testament of the Bible?

-Church meetings restricted to and focused upon meeting in a specific building?

-Gathering an outrageous amounts of funds for church buildings? (Please note that for 300 years Christians didn't pursue buildings or mimicking synagogues even when they were primarily considered a Jewish sect.)

-Order of Worship (i.e. liturgy)- Greeting, three songs, offering, introductory remarks, etc?

-The "Sermon" - A three to four point expository of a text with analogies and persuasive "sophist" rhetoric in closing? (Please note even the term "homiletics" comes from the Greek pagan sophists who traveled giving philosophical argumentation in discourse. All of the Bible's sermons are a spontaneous address to a body of people (never in a church) that expounds upon Scripture without analogy or appeals to "men's wisdom" and tactics of persuasion. "Preaching" was typically direct, expository, and presuppositional. Not to mention church meetings were in homes, and interaction was allowed. And multiple individuals taught the body. There was spontaneous "preaching" but not the "sermonizing" we see in so many churches.

-The "office of pastor" being held and used of one individual to completely control a local assembly?

-Priestly vestments and vestments (Sunday best) "required" or "expected" of laity while observing service?

-Can you show me an example of New Testament "ministers of music", "choirs", "Sunday Schools" (didn't start until the 1800's)?

-A requirement to tithe?

I'm not saying all of these things are "bad" or are a "sin". It's up to the individual to judge if these things help or hinder the vision God has given them. I've preached and even currently attend a local traditional church (which I love with all my heart) but I believe in intellectual honesty....none of these things have "Scriptural" support. These are all things that have been carried over from Judaism and paganism. These things were not prevalent in the NT Christian church for the first 300, 400, and even in some cases 800 years of the Christian church.

Today was a wonderful day. We had men's prayer this morning at Church. We went to Tim Horton's afterwards and our pastor was teaching us an awesome study right there in the middle of the restaurant. There were many people listening in with sincere interest. I imagined what it must have been like to hear Peter or Paul teaching and preaching in the markets.

Bro's....Church has nothing to do with a building or what is done in the building. Church is an assembly and we can have that assembly ANYWHERE. In Bible days...."church" took place in the highways and byways.

Love y'all. God bless.

ChristopherHall · #**106** 03-01-2008, 12:42 PM

I personally think the best model is a combination of home based meetings (perhaps midweek or semi regularly) and mass assembly (perhaps on Sunday or monthly).

My burden is getting the Church out of the church, building closer more intimate relationships, allowing more people to use their gifts, and getting the "churchiness" and "starchiness" out of Church. I sincerely have had some of my deepest moments in God gathered in a restaurant or a living room, praying, and listening to good teaching over coffee, or dinner. Bro's....religion aint the answer. Form isn't the answer. Being real...getting out of our box, breaking out of the prison of tradition, and reaching real people where they really live is the answer.

One may attend a traditional church, as I do, and still see the value of how they did Church in the Bible. Of course one would wonder...why not do it the Bible way more often???

ChristopherHall · #**107** 03-01-2008, 12:50 PM

Here's a poem written by a house church believer. While we may not entirely agree with their every point...there may be some things worth taking from the poem:

The Church and The World

The Church and the world walked far apart
On the changing shores of time:
The world was singing a giddy song,
And the Church a hymn sublime.
“Come, give me your hand”, cried the merry world,
“And walk with me this way.”
But the good Church hid her snowy hand,
And solemnly answered “Nay!”

“Nay, walk with me but a little space”,

Said the world with a kindly air,
“The road I walk is a pleasant road,
And the sun shines always there.
“My path, you see, is a broad, fair path,
And my gate is high and wide;
“There is room enough for you and for me
To travel side by side”,
Half-shyly the Church approached the world
And gave him her hand of snow;
The old world grasped it and walked along,

Saying in accents low:
“Your dress is too simple to suit my taste;
I will give you pearls to wear;
“Rich velvet and silk for your graceful form
And diamonds to deck your hair.”
The church looked down on her plain, white robes
And then at the dazzling world,
And blushed as she saw his handsome lip
With a smile contemptuous curled.
“I will change my dress for a costlier one”,
Said the Church with a smile of grace;
Then her pure white garments drifted away,
And the world gave her in place
Beautiful satins and shining silks,
And roses, and gems and pearls;
And over her forehead her bright hair fell,
Crisped in a thousand curls.

“Your house is too plain”, said the proud old world,
“I’ll build you one like mine;
Carpets of Brussels and curtains of lace,
And furniture ever so fine.
And he bought her a costly and beautiful home;
Splendid it was to behold;
Her sons and her beautiful daughters dwelt there,
Gleaming in purple and gold.
And fairs and shows in the halls were held,
And the world and his children were there;
And laughter and music and feasts were heard
In the place that was meant for prayer.

The Angel of Mercy flew over the Church,
And whispered, “I know thy sin.”
The Church looked back with a sigh
And longed to gather her children in.
“Your preachers are all too old and plain”,
Said the gay old world with a sneer.
“They frighten my children with dreadful tales
Which I like not for them to hear.
“They talk of brimstone and fire and pain,
And the horrors of endless night;
“They talk of a place that should never at all
Be mentioned in ears polite.
“I shall send you some of the better stamp,
Brilliant and gay and fast,
“Who will tell them that people may live as they list
And go to heaven at last.”

The sons of the world and the sons of the church walked closely,
Hand and heart,
And only the Master Who knoweth all
Could tell the two apart.
Then the church sat down at her ease and said,
“I am rich and in goods increased;
I have need of nothing, have nought to do
But to laugh and dance and feast.”
The sly world heard her and laughed in his sleeve,
And mockingly said aside,
“The church is fallen, the beautiful church,
And her shame is her boast and pride.”

tbpew · #**108** 03-03-2008, 09:30 AM

For me, I look at any ‘temple-based’ assembly and I see the FORMER tabernacle…which was a building.

The new tabernacle, which replaces the former, is a body –-materially different from the former.

Our approach and access to God is forever changed by a veil (of the flesh) being rent from top to bottom. Everyone now has access to fellowship God in his holy mountain.

The former, if left to stand, would be so persistent that God provided a great army to completely disassemble the ICON of the former, the building.

House to house assembly is a means to successfully administrate the new. House to house assembly is not an END in, and of, itself. It is a witness of the fundamental change from the FORMER to the LATTER; moving from a congregation to habitation; God making his abode, his dwellingplace, within the hearts of men.

A benefit in this delivery system change is the elimination of the preeminent seat, the places of distinction among men. It is an occasion to witness the prophetic fulfillment of a “kingdom of priests” being manifested. The venue significantly curtails occassion to compare ourselves among ourselves, afterall, can the head say to the feet, "I have no need of you". Gathering in homes denys a platform for titles and positions to be displayed.

Any man seeking to establish his own group will seek a structure where he can control the content and the surroundings within the delivery system. But since we are talking about God’s church, centralized delivery is not established by any office of a man. His church is a BODY not a congregation. His body is established with one head, overseeing many members, connected by ONE spirit.

If God allowed the former tabernacle, which was a building, to be utterly destroyed, why do so many man spend their life’s energy seeking to rebuild it?

Digging4Truth · #**109** 03-03-2008, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tbpew

For me, I look at any ‘temple-based’ assembly and I see the FORMER tabernacle…which was a building.

The new tabernacle, which replaces the former, is a body –-materially different from the former.

Our approach and access to God is forever changed by a veil (of the flesh) being rent from top to bottom. Everyone now has access to fellowship God in his holy mountain.

The former, if left to stand, would be so persistent that God provided a great army to completely disassemble the ICON of the former, the building.

House to house assembly is means to successfully administrate the new. House to house assembly is not an END in, and of, itself. It is a witness of the fundamental change from the FORMER to the LATTER; moving from a congregation to habitation; God making his abode, his dwellingplace, within the hearts of men.

A benefit in this delivery system change is the elimination of the preeminent seat, the places of distinction among men. It is an occasion to witness the prophetic fulfillment of a “kingdom of priests” being manifested. The venue significantly curtails occassion to compare ourselves among ourselves, afterall, can the head say to the feet, "I have no need of you". Gathering in homes denys a platform for titles and positions to be displayed.

Any man seeking to make his own group will seek a structure where he can control the content and the surroundings within the delivery system. But since we are talking about God’s church, centralized delivery is not established by any office of a man. His church is a BODY not a congregation. His body is established with one head, overseeing many members, connected by ONE spirit.

If God allowed the former tabernacle, which was a building, to be utterly destroyed, why do so many man spend their life’s energy seeking to rebuild it?

As always... excellent words.

Joelel · #**110** 03-03-2008, 10:37 AM

God never intended for his people to build church buildings and only use them two or three days a week and 6-12 hrs a week.It's a total waste of money that could be going to the poor. House assemblies is the only way.We the people are the church and God could care less where we worship.