The House Church:

[Lafon]

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.

You really should read the book - Pagan Christianity. I just obtained it and am now in the process of reading it, taking the time to check some of the references tendered in support of its claims.

So far I have found its contents to be extremely enlightening. In fact, I even find myself in agreement with many of the things it addresses.

I'm not saying that it has, or will cause me to forsake the institutional church, but it is interesting to learn where many of its practices found their beginning.

I recommend it highly. Again, I would encourage you to make a small investment of your money by purchasing this book, and then take some time to read and compare its contents to what the Bible discloses concerning the issues it addresses. You just might find that some of the views you seem to embrace so tenaciously might be challenged.

[Bro-Larry]

Shindler's List is the only movie that has ever moved me to cry, but in one of the last scenes, the prison guards had fled, and he was leaning on his car, crying because he said he could have sold that car and bought a few more lives.

Just a thought.

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by Bro-Larry

Shindler's List is the only movie that has ever moved me to cry, but in one of the last scenes, the prison guards had fled, and he was leaning on his car, crying because he said he could have sold that car and bought a few more lives.

Just a thought.

Hey Bro-Larry...

Could you help me understand the point you are making here. I have read over it several times and, thus far, the density of my cranium is proving to be too thick to clearly see the point being made.

Thanks.

[gloryseeker]

Actually you are VERY incorrect. It is not judgment, but observation. I know people who attend & Pastor house churches. I never get in there business about it and actually help in any way that I can.

Just because someone has a different opinion than yourself is not judgmental. I observe people. I know the books and the studies and the success of some house churches. I have no problem with that. But of those who I have met that promote the house church concept, they fall into one or more of the categories outlined above.

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by gloryseeker

Actually you are VERY incorrect. It is not judgment, but observation. I know people who attend & Pastor house churches. I never get in there business about it and actually help in any way that I can.

Just because someone has a different opinion than yourself is not judgmental. I observe people. I know the books and the studies and the success of some house churches. I have no problem with that. But of those who I have met that promote the house church concept, they fall into one or more of the categories outlined above.

An opinion would be how one feels about house church as it pertains to the way they live their own lives.

Judgment would pertain to broad brushing an entire movements motives as your post did.

Opinions pertain to your thoughts on how something would work for you.

Judgment pertains to judging another's motives for doing something that would or would not work for you.

Your post... hands down... is judging for yourself the motives of people per your observation. Your post also seemed to then place what you feel you have observed upon all those who would do the same thing when there is no way of knowing that this is true. My observation has been the opposite. Can I then decide that house churchers, on the whole, have good intent and motives? I simply cannot do that.

It is clear that you have no intentions of beginning a house church or possibly even being a part of one. It is clear what you feel the underlying motives are for those who do.

The best thing to do would be to allow this conversation to continue among those who appreciate the concept.

[ChristopherHall]

Gloryseeker,

You bring up some interesting points. I’d like to offer my thoughts. I pray you don’t mind.

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.

I think it might be unfair to call house churchers lazy. Many who attend house churches work full time and often work two jobs. Many (if not most) ministers who function as elders in the house church work in ministry (prayer, visitation, teaching, discipling, benevolence & charity work) AND work a full time job where they have deadlines, a boss or manager, a work schedule, family obligations, the works. Like Paul they work with their own hands to sustain themselves while also ministering.

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.

I’m sure this is true for many in the house church movement. We see it in our institutional churches also with “church hoppers” etc. That’s human nature. However, a deeper more personal look may be in order so as not to paint an entire movement with such a broad brush. Many in the house church movement have come from very oppressive and abusive churches. What we might see as one not wanting any authority in their lives may actually be one not wanting a “man’s” dictates or personal opinions having absolute authority in their lives. Most house churches have elders who lead and teach. Often issues are addressed and repentance is called for. However, instead of a man behind a podium shrieking down on them, it’s a small and intimate group of friends praying and talking with them. It’s three elders taking them out to lunch and sharing how they’re worried about the individual’s spiritual life and presenting where the road they’re on might lead if they continue on that path. It’s definitely not as authoritarian as a traditional model…but there is quite a degree of accountability to the assembly itself. Think about it. You have a church of 200, 400, 600, or more. The pastor cannot possibly know where each individual is in their spiritual walk. Often the individual can slip in and slip out without a hitch and be dead wrong in their personal lives and in their attitudes and spirit. The larger the church the more likely there are more individuals like this. I’ve even experienced this myself. In some of my lowest of lows nobody knew what I was going through or how I felt. My collar was white, my tie was straight, and every hair in place…you wouldn’t think to look at me I’d have cause to be disgraced. It wasn’t until I was with a few brothers in an informal home bible study wherein I was asked to speak that I bore my heart. In a house church you have maybe 15 people on average. All are expected to participate to the edification of the body, to speak, to pray, to share, to testify. It’s a lot harder to slip in and slip out without anyone noticing that there’s just something weighing on your spirit. Also in larger institutional churches one can easily fall away. They miss a Wednesday, they miss a Sunday, before you know it someone asks, “Where’s Bro. Joe? I haven’t seen him in a while.” What’s the answer I’ve typically encountered? I normally hear, “Me either. I wonder how he’s doing?” Another chimes in; “I haven’t seen him in about five services.” The pastor may not even know he’s not attended in over a month. In a house church where all minister to one another if one is absent, there’s a gaping hole in the group that very first night he’s missing. I heard a story about a little house church that had a meeting and a certain couple who had been attending and blessed the group suddenly didn’t show up or call to let anyone know they wouldn’t be there that night. Guess what; they had prayer and all felt burdened to go visit this couple who wasn’t there just to make sure they were ok. So they all closed in prayer, got in their cars, and drove to the couple’s home. I wish I could have seen that woman’s eyes when she opened her door and saw over 9 brothers and sisters on her porch and walk just wanting to make sure everything was ok. They allowed the group in and apparently there had been some domestic issues brewing that night. The couple opened up and wept before the Lord as their brothers and sisters prayed for them and they all had church right there in the couple’s dinning room.

It may be that in a house church one will have more spiritual accountability to the body and to the elders not less.

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.

In America churches spend over several hundred billion dollars a year just on buildings and necessary grounds keeping. In the shadow of our steeples are elderly people who can’t afford prescription drugs they need, there are families who have lost their jobs and are on the verge of loosing everything they’ve ever worked for. Many of these people are faithful members and givers to their local churches. Most church budgets spend at least 80% of revenues on buildings, necessary staff, and grounds keeping. When many folks approach the church for help the church can’t help them…many churches are struggling to pay their own electric bills. That’s not what we see in the NT. In the NT churches took up collections to relieve the saints who faced famine and drought. They took up collections to help pay for a traveling minister’s immediate needs. They didn’t “salary” a staff or spend all their money on a building. Most people didn’t even have steady paychecks. They only had what their crops or trade would bring in. Most elders worked with their own hands to sustain themselves in obedience to Paul’s admonition that if a man didn’t work, neither should he eat. Those who traveled and evangelized were often the beneficiaries of collections from the local body to pay for their travels and necessities.

People are becoming wiser in their giving. Why give thousands of dollars a year to pay for a building that is only in full use two or three days a week? That’s really not very economical. The overhead is tremendous. However in house churches all tithes and offerings collected may be used to support the ministry (should the body desire to support a full time elder) and help saints in need. I heard a story about a woman who was in a car accident. While her car was in the shop her money was tight because she was going to have to pay a pretty tall repair bill. Her house church family took up a collection to stock her cabinets with food and rent her a rental car until hers was out of the shop. I know from experience that this sort of thing is rare in traditional churches. All too often churches can’t give what they’d want to give because of necessary expenses and bills.

I do know of some who are in the house church movement because their previous church “required” tithing as a salvational aspect of obedience. When their family fell onto economic hard times and couldn’t afford to tithe and keep their home they expressed their need and were expected to continue tithing. So they left and were welcomed by the house churching community.

I think that many in the house church movement just want to see their funds go to meet real and desperately needed needs of individuals they know and love and many who are just on hard times and looking for a refuge.

[ChristopherHall]

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.

Here’s an interesting study….

“And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.” – Acts 20:7

Let’s look at that word “preached”. In the Greek it is, “dialegomai”, meaning:

dispute, reason with, reason, speak, mingle thought with thought, ponder, revolve in mind, to converse, to discourse with one or more, to argue, and/or to discuss.

It’s the same Greek word from which we get our English word….dialogue.

Paul wasn’t up on a podium breathin’ heavy, spitting, and saying, “And Gaaawwwd said, Moses…!” No vibrato or preacher’s cough. Paul had a “dialogue” about the gospel in this home. Most likely Paul was sitting and talking with them over a small table as the crowd crowded close to listen to what he had to say as he answered questions from the people and allowed them to share their understandings. In all honesty, in nearly every context where the word “preach” or “preached” is used the setting is conversational with others asking questions and interacting. Even Pentecost, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” (Acts 2:37). Peter wasn’t just “preachin’”. Peter was answering a direct question and having dialogue with the crowd. Actually, I’m not convinced that one can find a single instance in the NT Church in which believers sat in pews listening to an orator issue a homiletic. In fact, a little research will show that this was customary in Greek pagan temples long before the Church began. Philosophers would stand on raised platforms with crowds seated in and around them and philosophize or conduct pagan rituals. So really, the foolishness of biblical preaching can be seen in dialogue in homes throughout the NT.

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.

I think there’s nothing wrong with dressing up for the Lord. I attend a traditional church and wear a suit to most services. However, I don’t believe God cares about what I’m wearing as long as it’s modest and as long as my heart is in the right place. For many they think they are right merely because they “look right”. It’s about so much more than this. I read a lot of history, we’ve become “blue blood Pentecostals” with our padded pews and fine suits. When Pentecost exploded and was unleashed it happened in homes, barns, and brush arbors. Farmers still wearing their work clothes and covered in mud shuffled down to old sawdust filled altars and repented of their sins and were baptized with power from on high. We often put far too much emphasis on looking sophisticated so that we can get approval of the religious authorities and impress others with our overall appearance. House churches are truly a “come as you are” and “be modest” movement. Nothing more modest than a nice shirt, jeans, and a pair of boots; kinda reminds me of a man named John who wore camel’s skin and ate wild honey. The post powerful prophets aren’t always enthroned on platforms, standing behind oak pulpits, in silk $200.00 shirts.

I love the church I currently attend because I can show up in jeans (though rarely) and no one thinks less of me. Some of our most faithful members wear casuals. It’s not about the clothes we put on…it’s about putting on Christ.

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

The Bible provides a lot of information regarding the structure of the early Church. Why not adhere to it? Speak where it speaks and be silent where it is silent?

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.

I agree. There are authorities in the church to be respected. However, some authorities are consumed with chasing down dress code violations and violations of “structure”. In the house church the authorities are focused on that inner man. And you can’t hide him in the 5th pew behind sister Thea Edith, you can’t hide him behind a smile and a nice suit. You can’t slip in and out whenever you like.

Also consider this. The first Church of the Bible was home based for 300 years. During those years they turned the Roman world upside down. It wasn’t until the 300’s that the doctrines of the trinity, pagan influences, priestly and religious vestments, man made traditions, and buildings came into popularity. Then biblical Christianity began to stagnate and the institutional Christianity began to spread through military force. Christianity had all but lost it’s fire, except for a few on fire souls here and there down through history. Then Pentecost erupted in the 20th Century in home, farm, and barn based meetings. And it spread like wild fire. And just as in history, now we’re becoming focused on the larger building, the clothes we wear, and the traditions we hold. History repeats itself. I’m convinced that the end time revival might be among house church networks. They don’t have nearly the degree of politics and power grabs you see in the institutional church. Also as the Tribulation takes place the institutional church will see the government close their doors and arrest their members. House church networks will already be in place and ministering in conspicuously in neighborhoods all over the world.

Compare the growth of the NT church in the Bible when they met in homes…they turned their world upside down. Today the church in America is of little power or relevance. Fewer and fewer people are attending church. Churches have abused people and laundered money so often most don’t completely trust them. Churches are starting to seem like “Walmart Christianity” and institutional ministers are rarely considered more reputable than used care dealers.

I think the house church movement offers a refreshing perspective that says, let’s get back to basics and win those we love. I think we could learn a thing or two from them.

[ChristopherHall]

I think we’re going to need both institutional churches and house churches to reach humanity. Some prefer large and powerful assemblies with all kinds of ministries under one roof. Others prefer smaller more intimate meetings and interactive study of the Bible. It’s like some people who prefer to shop at Super Wal-Mart and others preferring to shop at Balweg’s Hardware, where they stand and chat will Bill, the owner, and pick up a soda next door at Ann’s restaurant.

[ChristopherHall]

And let's also consider that God is calling far more men into the ministry than there are pulpits to fill. I sometimes get the feeling that it's our man made "structure" that is hindering the church in many ways.

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by ChristopherHall

I think we’re going to need both institutional churches and house churches to reach humanity. Some prefer large and powerful assemblies with all kinds of ministries under one roof. Others prefer smaller more intimate meetings and interactive study of the Bible. It’s like some people who prefer to shop at Super Wal-Mart and others preferring to shop at Balweg’s Hardware, where they stand and chat will Bill, the owner, and pick up a soda next door at Ann’s restaurant.

Indeed... differing ministries reaching differing areas of society.

Paul spoke of being all men to all people.

From both sides of the table... if we can operate in the model that speaks to us and be pleased with the souls reached with the other model then we can maximize the impact of the church as a whole.