Apostolic Friends Forum
Tab Menu 1
Go Back   Apostolic Friends Forum > The Sanctuary > Deep Waters
Facebook

Notices

Deep Waters 'Deep Calleth Unto Deep ' -The place to go for Ministry discussions. Please keep it civil. Remember to discuss the issues, not each other.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old 02-10-2008, 01:42 PM
ChristopherHall's Avatar
ChristopherHall ChristopherHall is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,781
Re: The House Church:

Quote:
Originally Posted by scotty View Post
Yeah but have you ever thought about what all he had to say?!?!? The gospels all say in the end that there was so much more Christ done that was not written. Can you imagine all the miracles and teachings the disciples experienced ?!?! Praise Jesus Name !!!!!!

True, I'm sure Paul had quite a bit to teach...but he wasn't one of the disciples. Most of what Paul received regarding life and faith in Christ was through divine revelation.
__________________
"For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans for wholeness and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jeremiah 29:11 (English Standard Version)
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 02-11-2008, 07:06 PM
Bro-Larry's Avatar
Bro-Larry Bro-Larry is offline
I believe the Gospel of Jesus


 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: North end of DFW Airport
Posts: 1,375
Re: The House Church:

Quote:
Originally Posted by scotty View Post
[FONT=Georgia][SIZE=3][COLOR=blue][B][I]Yeah but have you ever thought about what all he had to say?!?!? The gospels all say in the end that there was so much more Christ done that was not written. Can you imagine all the miracles and teachings the disciples experienced ?!?! Praise Jesus Name

John said that he supposed that even the world itself could not contain enough books to record all the miracles that Jesus did. (St Jn 21:25)

I simply don't believe Jesus ministered here for only three and a half years. There's no scriptural proof of that. He could have ministered for up to nineteen years.
__________________
The Gospel of Jesus Christ: Jesus bore away my sins, my sickness, and my poverty. That covers it all. Everything else is just legalism.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 02-15-2008, 02:52 PM
gloryseeker gloryseeker is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Land of fruits and nuts - California
Posts: 1,053
Re: The House Church:

In my opinion...

The house church has gained a lot of notoriety in recent years, if I am not mistaken a lot of it was birthed from Dr. Cho's success in South Korea.

For me this is one of the questions that you have to factor historical and cultural aspects into the equation.

Sure you can go into the book of Acts and through the epistles and see them meeting in houses, but the reality is this was the birthing of the church. The priority was not places, but people. However, as the church grew we can study from historical perspective how it became necessary to find places that would house the numbers of Christians who were believing.

House churches are still important in places like China where the government oppresses, so they are worshiping in small groups without bringing attention to themselves.

I don't like blanket statements, but it is going to sound like I am making one here which is not my intention. What I have found with many house churches in America is that you have people who don't like authority. Instead of a pastor you have a group leader because this person does not want to function in the responsibilities of the role and you have people who don't want any government.

Now, I would agree with the one post where the church has evolved into an institution where the pastor has been overly exalted and the congregates sit and listen without doing anything. I once heard a great analogy about the church. It was likened to a football team except the coaches were on the field playing the game while the team members were on the sidelines watching.

The gift (Eph 4) which we typically call the pastor has been given to mature the people for the work of the ministry. Somewhere along the way we determined that it was the five fold who does ministry and everyone else sits around.

personally, I'm a church man. I love it. It is a great thing for the body to come together and function together. I am not so excited about the mega church. I think at some number there is a diminishing return because relationship are lost. But when we have a gift in our life (pastor) there is protection for us, anointing that flows to us, and a building up that occurs.

that's my opinion
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 02-15-2008, 06:15 PM
Bro-Larry's Avatar
Bro-Larry Bro-Larry is offline
I believe the Gospel of Jesus


 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: North end of DFW Airport
Posts: 1,375
Re: The House Church:

Small thinkers.
__________________
The Gospel of Jesus Christ: Jesus bore away my sins, my sickness, and my poverty. That covers it all. Everything else is just legalism.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 02-15-2008, 06:27 PM
Coonskinner Coonskinner is offline
Non-Resident Redneck


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,523
Re: The House Church:

Here is a post saved from old FCF long ago on this subject...

I thought it was brilliant.

I'd love to give credit to the author, if he wouldn't mind.

Here it is:

Ah, the true beauty of the internet; it gives a voice to every kind of bizarre belief system. Christ has been building His church for two thousand years, and now we want to dream of destroying generations of thought, devotion, and work. The real call here is to embrace an offbeat interpretation of the Bible, to indulge in paranoid delusions, and to reject the institutional Church which has been the greatest force for missions efforts the world has ever known.

Quote:
Meet in houses and feel no need to build a special meeting place.

What a great idea. God was mistaken about the Tabernacle and the Temple, and we don't need Church buildings. Take away the Church buildings, and get rid of the Church's community identity. Let's dream of a day when the Church becomes invisible and ineffective. Pentecostalism has grown for a hundred years, building church buildings wherever they went; let's forget that and meet in tiny groups in houses until we become as irrelevant as other groups that have chosen that route. If we really want to lose our influence in society, we could build communes; why only go half way?

Quote:
Give more of our resources to the poor rather than heap them upon ourselves for big nice buildings with a church staff.

Here's another good one. I've never met a godly person who didn't love the house of God; the godly people I've met have always had a heart to build as good a house for God as they possibly could. I suspect that this attitude grows more out of stinginess than out of a love for the poor. The author may be a true advocate for the poor and live in a shack so that he can do more to feed them, I don't know. In my community, the people who feed the poor are the same ones who love the church buildings that they have sacrificed to build.

Quote:
Lead each other more rather than putting so much emphasis on one part of the 5 fold ministry.

Now here's an attitude I've met before. People who don't want a shepherd; in the business, we call them goats.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 02-16-2008, 07:04 PM
Digging4Truth's Avatar
Digging4Truth Digging4Truth is offline
Still Figuring It Out.


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 10,858
Re: The House Church:

When a post is so undeniably and over the top biased with nothing but insult & sarcasm then there isn't much anyone sees in it that is worth reading unless one just happens to hold the same level of disdain for a subject.

It is clear that the original writer of the post and possibly CS absolutely abhor the entire concept from beginning to end and top to bottom.

That point has been made.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 02-27-2008, 11:10 PM
ChristopherHall's Avatar
ChristopherHall ChristopherHall is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,781
Re: The House Church:

A wonderful book on this subject is Pagan Christianity?
http://www.ptmin.org/pagan.htm

It illustrates how Christians "chose" to meet in homes up until the time of Constantine. Yes, Christians even met in homes when times were good and persecution was lacking.

This book also traces the origin of things such as the building, it's lay out, the platform, the pulpit, the "sermon", stained glass windows, etc. It's all of pagan origin.

Some would say that God intended his people to meet in special religious buildings because of the OT Temple system. However, Christianity was a clean break from Temple religion and litany. The author of the book illustrates how the early Catholic church combined elements of OT Temple worship and Greko-Roman pagan custom to incorporate in the Catholic system.

I attend a traditional UPCI church. I love my church. My pastor is awesome and non-dictatorial. However, I have to be honest....the house church movement presents a more biblical form of church, in my opinion.

I have no issue with authority, again because my pastor is awesome. However, the NT idea of body ministry is appealing. In such a meeting everyone brings a message, song, a testimony, etc. to the meeting. There isn't a teacher vs. student differentiation. All minister in some way. The "pastors" (elders) guide and instruct together but do not command the flock. Being an elder is therefore a ministry not an office.

I know some thing the "church building" was just a natural outgrowth to Christian practice....but history shows that it was nearly forced upon the church by Constantine and the religious leaders that paid him homage.
__________________
"For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans for wholeness and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jeremiah 29:11 (English Standard Version)
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 02-27-2008, 11:16 PM
ChristopherHall's Avatar
ChristopherHall ChristopherHall is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,781
Re: The House Church:

Here's an interesting article I had read. I wanted to share it here and see if anyone would like to share their thoughts on it. It really convicted me.

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


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 hunger children are a symbol of what we have done in putting around Christ the expensive livery of stately cathedral sand 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 addled 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). The 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 of 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, corporations, 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 no 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 they only such unit to which He promised perpetuity was the church.

Believer’s Bible Commentary, Pgs. 1590-1591
__________________
"For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans for wholeness and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jeremiah 29:11 (English Standard Version)
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 02-27-2008, 11:36 PM
gloryseeker gloryseeker is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Land of fruits and nuts - California
Posts: 1,053
Re: The House Church:

"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.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 02-28-2008, 07:10 AM
Digging4Truth's Avatar
Digging4Truth Digging4Truth is offline
Still Figuring It Out.


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 10,858
Re: The House Church:

Quote:
Originally Posted by gloryseeker View Post
"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.
Purely conjecture and judgment.

And wow... judgment on a monumental level.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
House Church - How It's Done. Digging4Truth Soul Winners Haven 106 07-17-2012 12:35 AM
You think your house is messy? Theresa Fellowship Hall 69 08-19-2007 04:42 AM
God was in the House tonight!! Sherri Fellowship Hall 6 07-19-2007 10:24 AM
The Elisha House Sherri Fellowship Hall 26 07-03-2007 07:40 PM
Michi is in the House!!! Malvaro Fellowship Hall 31 02-21-2007 01:14 PM

 
User Infomation
Your Avatar

Latest Threads
- by Amanah

Help Support AFF!

Advertisement




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.