The House Church:

[gloryseeker]

In many respects I agree with you. While it may sound like I am broad stroking everyone in a category as the digger tries to incorrectly point out, I am not.

Human nature is not complicated at all. It is not hard to figure out what is in the heart of a person. A good salesman will figure out your hot buttons within a matter of minutes. While I realize that nothing is 100% when dealing with people there are always underlying motives of why people do things.

There are those who will take scripture and try to prove that tithing is not mandatory or it is Old Testament or under the law. I have never seen a "giving" person try and make this argument. There are some that profess "we" are the church and the gathering together is not biblical. I have never seen a person who faithfully attends church try and make these arguments.

Having said that let me discuss what you have said. After the first quote you referred to calling people who go to house churches lazy. I didn't say this, so I am not looking at these as lazy, but you did make an interesting analysis after this statement. You talked about how, "Many (if not most) ministers who function as elders in the house church...AND work a full time job where they have deadlines, a boss or manager, a work schedule, family obligations, the works..." While this is true I would answer that their lives are trying to "budget" God in around their schedules.

I know I'll catch flack for this, but God should be first. By that I mean, before our mortgage, job, car, deadline, boss, etc. Why is it why declare the Lordship of Jesus but allow "other" things to take priority? The reason is because "we" have to take care of our own lives. Read Matthew six there is a beautiful passage of scriptures about not taking thought of your life, to seek first the Kingdom, and that God will provide.

I have found this is true. The reason many Christians struggle is because they are trying to make it and be a Christian. Be a Christian and allow God to take care of the stuff.

You do make a great point about church hoppers. The mentality and spirit behind this is really what I am addressing. I even understand people coming out of "oppressive" churches. But just because a person was in an "oppressive" church doesn't mean that "church" is wrong, it only means they were in the wrong church. If people would pray about where God wanted them instead of going where they like, to a church that is close, or to the denomination that I am, they would find that God is faithful to direct them to the right place. I have seen many people move because of a job transfer and say that they will find a church when they get to the new city. How backwards is that. If God is first, then find the right church and the provision of a right job will be there for you.

You mention a church of 400 or 600 and how that it is impossible for the Pastor to know where everyone is. You are absolutely right and this illustrates why the spectator church doesn't work. This is where elders and deacons come into play. When a church is properly set up the needs of the people, the business of the church, and the direction of the ministry all flow together.

You also mention about how you in your lowest points were not strengthened by others because everything looked right. This is the problem with the spectator church. Church is not about coming to listen. It's about coming to edify. If people came to church prayed up, having an encouraging word, looking for someone to speak a word in due season to then the Body would build itself up.

While I would agree this is a strong argument for the house church in that the size will dictate people get more involved it is also needed in the structured church. The problem is that many pastors don't want people to use their gifts as they view this as a threat to their position. It is however, the way God designed the church. We are a body and we contribute one to another.

Your last point I do have to TOTALLY disagree with you. You are right in that the church spends a lot of money on buildings and landscaping, but my reaction to that is, "Who cares?" God's not broke! As for the people that struggle I do think that the church has not done it's part in helping the poor. I will agree on that.

Churches struggle to pay their bills because they are doing things that God didn't tell them to do. I have a saying that I have used a lot that I have found to be true, "What God orders He pays for and what we order we pay for."

Unfortunately I have ordered a lot thinking it was God. God's not broke, He's not holding back, He wants to be glorified in the earth and if a Las Vegas casino can spend billions of dollars on it's hotel to attract drugs, gambling, and prostitution why can't God have house that resembles His Almightiness?

Our church has NEVER had one special offering. We have NEVER had an offering where we had to have a certain amount to pay a bill. Our church is small with around 50 people (30 adults with only 20 that are always in attendance). Most of our adults are older and on a fixed income. Most families make less than $40K a year. We are by no means a rich church, we have no large givers, we have no outside supporters.

We have a facility that people make comments on how nice it is, we put over $30,000.00 into missions last year, and we have a lot of money in the bank. Why? Because God is faithful! We seek God, do what He tells us, and expect Him to pay the bills.

Now, stop and think. America has been the biggest reason the gospel has gone around the world through our missionary programs. If you have 20 in a house church you would never have the kind of money to fund missions and expand the gospel. There would be no where near the outreach through the world with small nucleolus's of people. Our $30K in missions is a drop in the bucket of what it takes to spread the gospel, but most churches that are 2-3 times larger than us can't put that much into missions. A house church could never send someone to the mission field and keep them in ministry.

Finally, and I apologize for being so long. You said, "I think that many in the house church movement just want to see their funds go to..." We give to God not to the church. Even though our money goes into a ministry our giving is to be to God. If the church has a God called minister then that person has to answer to God and God is perfectly capable of taking care of His work.

People do not see the rewards promised through giving because they give to the church instead of worshiping God in their giving.

Blessings!

[gloryseeker]

I thought I was done, then I saw that you went on

Your study of dialogue I actually agree with. Again people are not engaged in the local Body. I think that there are times when you need someone "preaching" the Word without interruption. In this a person is able to flow with the Spirit and can address issues that wouldn't be brought up. A Spirit led minister knows how and whom to speak to without speaking directly to them or embarrassing them. Someone may be struggling with an issue like pornography that they would not be comfortable talking about. Through the Spirit of God, without having people sidetrack the flow, a person can be helped and brought to a place where they are willing to talk.

BUT, there also needs to be dialogue where people can ask question, input, challenge and so forth. In our church Sunday is a preaching format and mid-week it is a dialgue atmosphere. People ask questions for clarification, "what if's", and "what abouts". It is very good and gets people into their Bible.

I agree and disagree with the dress up. I do agree that God is not concerned with dress, but I disagree in that dress is a reflection of the heart. Understand, I am not in a UPCI church and we don't have a dress code. I personally don't think you can dictate morality. So I would assume that I am MUCH more liberal than you on the dress issue. However, what about "coming to the King?" If you were going to court to stand in front of a judge you would wear your nicer clothes. If you were going on a job interview you would look good. I understand that the banker is going to have what is called nicer clothes than the construction worker. I just think we should give God our best. If we really view God as Holy, Almighty, King of kings we'll be concerned about how we come to Him.

"The Bible provides a lot of information regarding the structure of the early Church. Why not adhere to it?" The reason why is because times, cultures, numbers, governments, all play a part in structure. If we are going to do as they did then should we walk and not use cars? Should we do away with CD's, videos, and other tools to spread the gospel?

The Book of Acts was the beginning of the church, they were forming it. There is nothing spiritual about buildings, barns, houses, or trees. Jesus met many times "out" away from everything. Does that mean we should go to pasture? I personally have been to MANY countries of the world. What works in one doesn't work in another. I don't think you can regulate how a proper structure is. My comments on the house church is really limited to America because I know the mindset of Americans.

Believe it or not I personally support (financially) a house church, although it's not in America. I think you have to look at many factors and that each church will take on a different look.

Last point. I guess one thing where our definitions cause us to differ is that you stated, "some authorities are consumed with chasing down dress code violations..." is that I don't consider that a church. I actually think that the term "church" means something. I think the word "Christian" means something and most that call themselves that really aren't. Jesus said why do you call me Lord and don't do the things I say? Therefore, to me "a real church" is not oppressing, controlling, manipulating, and so forth. The politics, denominationalism, power grabs, I am in agreement with you. Not of God and therefore I don't call it a church.

However, for your "consider this" where I would disagree with you is that the structure was not the focal point of the outpouring it was the heart of the people. Consider the day of Pentecost, there were 120 gathered. The upper room had nothing to do with it. It was just the place of the meeting. It was the people that were in one accord waiting on the Lord that produced the environment for a powerful outpouring.

I think that the end time revival is going to be birthed among people whose hearts are right before God.

[Bro-Larry]

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth

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.

Did you see the movie?

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by Bro-Larry

Did you see the movie?

No sir... I think you may have discovered the problem.

[ChristopherHall]

Originally Posted by gloryseeker

There are those who will take scripture and try to prove that tithing is not mandatory or it is Old Testament or under the law. I have never seen a "giving" person try and make this argument. There are some that profess "we" are the church and the gathering together is not biblical. I have never seen a person who faithfully attends church try and make these arguments.

I don't believe tithing is mandatory or a salvation issue. I believe that the NT teaches that we are to give as we have determined in our hearts. That said, I would call one's attention to Abraham and Jacob. They both tithed willingly, not under compulsion, as they determined to in their hearts. They are wonderful examples of faith.

Having said that let me discuss what you have said. After the first quote you referred to calling people who go to house churches lazy. I didn't say this, so I am not looking at these as lazy, but you did make an interesting analysis after this statement. You talked about how, "Many (if not most) ministers who function as elders in the house church...AND work a full time job where they have deadlines, a boss or manager, a work schedule, family obligations, the works..." While this is true I would answer that their lives are trying to "budget" God in around their schedules.

Paul wrote about he refused financial support so as to not hinder the gospel. He illustrated how he worked with his own hands and supported himself. Could one accuse Paul of "budgeting" God into his schedule? Here's something we've lost...our work is also part of our ministry. Our work is a holy convocation not unto men, but unto the Lord. Our work supports our families and earns an income that allows one to meet not only their family's needs...but affords them to support the work of ministry and help those in need. Paul taught that we should be followers of him even as he is also a follower of Christ. Not only did Paul work with his own hands so as to not hinder the gospel, but Paul also pastored a house church in a house he rented for a short period of time.

I know I'll catch flack for this, but God should be first. By that I mean, before our mortgage, job, car, deadline, boss, etc. Why is it why declare the Lordship of Jesus but allow "other" things to take priority? The reason is because "we" have to take care of our own lives. Read Matthew six there is a beautiful passage of scriptures about not taking thought of your life, to seek first the Kingdom, and that God will provide.

We agree that God should be first. However the Bible teaches us that whosoever doesn't provide for their own house is worse than an infidel. I serve the Lord and put him first by ensuring that my family has a roof over our heads, that I have work that supports us, ensuring that I have affordable transportation if needed, meeting my deadlines, and honoring my boss as a faithful employee...not as unto men...but as unto the Lord.

I think we've lost the Christian ethos of everyday life and institutionalized our religion to the point that it's an acetic mysticism to be compartmentalized from our everyday lives (family time, mortgages, jobs, cars, work, and employers). We serve God in being faithful in all these things, not as unto me, but as unto God.

I have found this is true. The reason many Christians struggle is because they are trying to make it and be a Christian. Be a Christian and allow God to take care of the stuff.

I'm sure that's true of some. I can only speak from personal experience though. I think that many Christians struggle because they are trying to be man pleasers and not God pleasers. They observe too many hurdles to their faith and relationship to God by putting man made traditions and codes before living for God in humble simplicity. In my experience....God doesn't take care of the stuff. In my personal experience God often has to shake me and tell me to do what must be done, promising he will be with me. It's like the old adage, God helps those who help themselves. God isn't a cosmic Santa giving free rides to the "faithful". Too often I've seen families come on very hard times and be on the verge of loosing everything they've ever worked for, blessings God had promised them and opened doors for them to receive. And when they struggle they are accused of "lacking faith". I disagree. I think they show faith by doing what is necessary to carry their family through, knowing that God is with them.

You do make a great point about church hoppers. The mentality and spirit behind this is really what I am addressing. I even understand people coming out of "oppressive" churches. But just because a person was in an "oppressive" church doesn't mean that "church" is wrong, it only means they were in the wrong church. If people would pray about where God wanted them instead of going where they like, to a church that is close, or to the denomination that I am, they would find that God is faithful to direct them to the right place.

What about the growing numbers who are being led of God to find a house church? God knows what's best for individuals. Many need the specialized ministry of a house church. The generic sermons that are tailored to be relevant to a large crowd, with the witty statements, and analogies, are often not what people need. Sometimes a house church elder directly addressing their situation with Scripture and a loving family of brothers and sisters who will pray with them until midnight and even camp out in the living room floor until morning in prayer is what they need.

Every situation is different.

I have seen many people move because of a job transfer and say that they will find a church when they get to the new city. How backwards is that. If God is first, then find the right church and the provision of a right job will be there for you.

Again, every situation is different. I know of men who's job left and God was intending them to leave. However, a pastor held them back for months until they were nearly bankrupt. Then the pastor finally let them go and now the family is walking in blessing and ministering in another church. It's important to follow the leading of God. Some might be led of the Lord to leave and find another church to attend...others might be led of the Lord to stay and trust him. But...we know the Scripture commands a man to provide for his own house. If his job leaves and he cannot support his family...we know that isn't the will of God because that would be contrary to Scripture.

[ChristopherHall]

You mention a church of 400 or 600 and how that it is impossible for the Pastor to know where everyone is. You are absolutely right and this illustrates why the spectator church doesn't work. This is where elders and deacons come into play. When a church is properly set up the needs of the people, the business of the church, and the direction of the ministry all flow together.

I agree. A traditional church will have to delegate to more elders and deacons to meet the needs of the people. In all honesty though...I've rarely seen this in action. In my experience the pastor is rather afraid to allow the elders to minister. But also, this issue isn't unique to traditional churches...even house churches can fall into this problem. This is a human issue to be dealt with regardless as to what model of church is used.

You also mention about how you in your lowest points were not strengthened by others because everything looked right. This is the problem with the spectator church. Church is not about coming to listen. It's about coming to edify. If people came to church prayed up, having an encouraging word, looking for someone to speak a word in due season to then the Body would build itself up.

But the very design of traditional church facilitates the spectator church. It always has to be "tweaked" to allow for more body ministry.

While I would agree this is a strong argument for the house church in that the size will dictate people get more involved it is also needed in the structured church. The problem is that many pastors don't want people to use their gifts as they view this as a threat to their position. It is however, the way God designed the church. We are a body and we contribute one to another.

Again, the very design of the institutional church leads to this.

Your last point I do have to TOTALLY disagree with you. You are right in that the church spends a lot of money on buildings and landscaping, but my reaction to that is, "Who cares?" God's not broke! As for the people that struggle I do think that the church has not done it's part in helping the poor. I will agree on that.

The one is the cause of the other.

Churches struggle to pay their bills because they are doing things that God didn't tell them to do.

Where in the NT do we see God telling the church to buy buildings and institutionalize? In truth we don't see it in the early church for nearly 300 years. Constantine was the primary force behind churches moving into buildings. Essentially Emperor Constantine institutionalize the church and herded them into buildings to solidify his power over the church. Interestingly those who continued to meet in homes in Apostolic fashion were regarded as heretics.

God's not broke, He's not holding back, He wants to be glorified in the earth and if a Las Vegas casino can spend billions of dollars on it's hotel to attract drugs, gambling, and prostitution why can't God have house that resembles His Almightiness?

Because the Church isn't a Las Vegas casino. One could argue that carnal leads us down this rout of making a building to represent God's Almightiness. I know we don't build statues and bow down to them...but all too often we serve brick and mortar thinking we are serving God. Our buildings can become an idolatrous thing.

Our church has NEVER had one special offering. We have NEVER had an offering where we had to have a certain amount to pay a bill. Our church is small with around 50 people (30 adults with only 20 that are always in attendance). Most of our adults are older and on a fixed income. Most families make less than $40K a year. We are by no means a rich church, we have no large givers, we have no outside supporters.

We have a facility that people make comments on how nice it is, we put over $30,000.00 into missions last year, and we have a lot of money in the bank. Why? Because God is faithful! We seek God, do what He tells us, and expect Him to pay the bills.

Are your widows and your fatherless taken care of? They must come before any building.

Now, stop and think. America has been the biggest reason the gospel has gone around the world through our missionary programs. If you have 20 in a house church you would never have the kind of money to fund missions and expand the gospel. There would be no where near the outreach through the world with small nucleolus's of people. Our $30K in missions is a drop in the bucket of what it takes to spread the gospel, but most churches that are 2-3 times larger than us can't put that much into missions. A house church could never send someone to the mission field and keep them in ministry.

But it's not about dollars given...it's about results. America has sent forth missionaries into other countries who have successfully used the house church model to spread the gospel quite well. And today these countries are sending house church ministers to America to reach an ever increasingly secular United States. A group of Chinese house church ministers held a conference in California determined to "reach America". Why? Because we're failing. They're succeeding.

But let's look at the financial side. You have your church giving $30k to missions last year. But think about this, a network of 10 house churches with absolutely no overhead can generate $75k in three months. That's assuming each church has at least 10 people, each committed to only giving $250 a month. House church networks in China and Canada are generating an unbelievable amount of funds for foreign missions. I suggest you look into it. It's one of their crowning achievements.

[ChristopherHall]

Originally Posted by gloryseeker

I thought I was done, then I saw that you went on

Your study of dialogue I actually agree with. Again people are not engaged in the local Body. I think that there are times when you need someone "preaching" the Word without interruption. In this a person is able to flow with the Spirit and can address issues that wouldn't be brought up. A Spirit led minister knows how and whom to speak to without speaking directly to them or embarrassing them. Someone may be struggling with an issue like pornography that they would not be comfortable talking about. Through the Spirit of God, without having people sidetrack the flow, a person can be helped and brought to a place where they are willing to talk.

BUT, there also needs to be dialogue where people can ask question, input, challenge and so forth. In our church Sunday is a preaching format and mid-week it is a dialgue atmosphere. People ask questions for clarification, "what if's", and "what abouts". It is very good and gets people into their Bible.

I agree, there does have to be a time to just listen to the teacher and at other times dialogue. It's wonderful that your church has a service where there can be an exchange.

I agree and disagree with the dress up. I do agree that God is not concerned with dress, but I disagree in that dress is a reflection of the heart. Understand, I am not in a UPCI church and we don't have a dress code. I personally don't think you can dictate morality. So I would assume that I am MUCH more liberal than you on the dress issue. However, what about "coming to the King?" If you were going to court to stand in front of a judge you would wear your nicer clothes. If you were going on a job interview you would look good. I understand that the banker is going to have what is called nicer clothes than the construction worker. I just think we should give God our best. If we really view God as Holy, Almighty, King of kings we'll be concerned about how we come to Him.

I dress in a suit and tie nearly every time I go to church. But God isn't impressed with our "Sunday bests" and never will be. It's more to help us think we're honoring God more or to gain mutual respect by demonstrating our respect for the sacred in an outward manner. In the first 300 years of the Christian faith they didn't have a Sunday Best outfit. Most wore everyday clothing.

Remember...those were the times of most explosive growth and revival.

"The Bible provides a lot of information regarding the structure of the early Church. Why not adhere to it?" The reason why is because times, cultures, numbers, governments, all play a part in structure. If we are going to do as they did then should we walk and not use cars? Should we do away with CD's, videos, and other tools to spread the gospel?

The Bible doesn't address cars or media. However, the Bible does address how an assembly should be ordered and where they would meet. The Bible also describes how the Lord's Supper was indeed a full meal centered around the breaking of one loaf and the partaking of wine. It wasn't until after Constantine institutionalized the church and herded the church into buildings to control and co-opt it as a wing of the Roman government that crowds began to get too large to have an intimate meal together...so they began the change from a full meal with bread and wine to being a token ritualistic ceremony with only a pinch of bread and a swallow of wine.

The Book of Acts was the beginning of the church, they were forming it. There is nothing spiritual about buildings, barns, houses, or trees. Jesus met many times "out" away from everything. Does that mean we should go to pasture? I personally have been to MANY countries of the world. What works in one doesn't work in another. I don't think you can regulate how a proper structure is. My comments on the house church is really limited to America because I know the mindset of Americans.

If you're right...can you explain why traditional church attendance is dropping and house church attendance is growing in the United States?

http://www.religionnewsblog.com/1816...vement-growing

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...060300225.html

Believe it or not I personally support (financially) a house church, although it's not in America. I think you have to look at many factors and that each church will take on a different look.

If something worked in biblical times and works in other countries, isn't it a lack in faith that prevents many church leaders from embracing it here? Statistics show house churches growing here in America.

Last point. I guess one thing where our definitions cause us to differ is that you stated, "some authorities are consumed with chasing down dress code violations..." is that I don't consider that a church. I actually think that the term "church" means something. I think the word "Christian" means something and most that call themselves that really aren't. Jesus said why do you call me Lord and don't do the things I say? Therefore, to me "a real church" is not oppressing, controlling, manipulating, and so forth. The politics, denominationalism, power grabs, I am in agreement with you. Not of God and therefore I don't call it a church.

I don't know if I would go that far. Paul wrote to the "church" in Corinth though it had all these problems. In addition Jesus mentions the seven "churches" even though they each had issues to resolve in their spiritual walks. I don't believe we're capable of adequately calling one body a "church" and deciding what other bodies are not churches. In truth a "church" is an assembly of believers. It doesn't matter if they meet in a home or a cathedral. And most assuredly most churches have to deal with men's egos and sin.

However, for your "consider this" where I would disagree with you is that the structure was not the focal point of the outpouring it was the heart of the people. Consider the day of Pentecost, there were 120 gathered. The upper room had nothing to do with it. It was just the place of the meeting. It was the people that were in one accord waiting on the Lord that produced the environment for a powerful outpouring.

I think that the end time revival is going to be birthed among people whose hearts are right before God.

Amen. But I think the church of the Bible is a perfect model. I don't believe it was in it's infancy and we have built something better. I think they were far farther along than we are. They took their world for Christ and traveled light. Their focus was the gospel and nothing but the gospel.

[ChristopherHall]

Again I think in the end we're going to discover that it will take both traditional churches and house churches to reach our world. I disagree with some who see absolutely no value in the traditional church. I also disagree with those who argue that the house church is some how deficient. I think some folks will never be won with the traditional model but can be won with house churches. While others may never feel comfortable with house churches but will prefer a traditional church.

I think the false dichotomy that presents an either or perspective is a hindrance. I'd rejoice with each model of church if they are winning the lost. Though personally the more I study the more I tend to see value in house churching.

Ultimately one must follow God. If God calls one to house church ministry by all means they should do it. If God calls one to a traditional church ministry they by all means should do it.

[gloryseeker]

First of all let me say that I have enjoyed talking with you about this. Although we disagree on many issues, I do like your thought process. It has been enjoyable for me.

Two, how do you make the quotes inside your text? I can't figure this out, it sure makes it a lot easier to read.

You said, "If you're right...can you explain why traditional church attendance is dropping and house church attendance is growing in the United States?"

I actually can, but you'll disagree because it is in context with this whole discussion. The American church has become very carnal. Birthed through the seeker sensitive movement and Pastors in the pulpit who are either not called or have abused their calling. However, I believe this is changing and that you are going to see those who left turn back to the church as the things of the world get more difficult.

You said, "If something worked in biblical times and works in other countries, isn't it a lack in faith that prevents many church leaders from embracing it here?"

You see, I am not against the structure in and of itself, where my major disagreement is with it in America. In India it doesn't matter where a person goes to church, whether it's under a tree, in a home, or in a church building. Their very decision to be a Christian will put them in danger so they are not going to take it lightly. We could walk through the countries and make the same statement. With freedom of worship in the USA and the casual approach that so many take towards the things of God I think it is a dangerous thing here. I am not saying that every person and every house church would be dangerous, but as a movement I see it hurting the strength of the Church (capital "C" - not an individual church) in America.

You said, "I don't know if I would go that far. Paul wrote to the "church" in Corinth though it had all these problems." I agree with your point here and looking back at my statements, I didn't word this very good. I am not talking about problems. There are many people pressing in and have a heart to have more of God, but they are still "working out their salvation." I understand that in fact I use the analogy of a football field referring to salvation. When you are born again you are in the visitor end zone and Jesus is in the home end zone. Your life is now a journey to get closer to Him. At every yard line He requires something cleaned up in your life. A work in progress. What I was referring to is those who call themselves Christians, but live like everyone else. The attitude that we can live like we want and we are glorifying God. Unfortunately in a country that somewhere around 85% of people professing to be born again, there are a lot of these type of people.

You said, "I don't believe it was in it's infancy and we have built something better." I agree 100%, we need to get back to some things, but where I disagree is that what we have to get back to is the type of location we are in. It's a heart and commitment issue more than anything.

You said, "I've rarely seen this in action." I agree this is VERY rarely in action which is why this post came alive. The traditional church has not functioned right, which is why people have left it in the multitudes.

You said, "Where in the NT do we see God telling the church to buy buildings and institutionalize?" True, but where did He say not to?

You said, "Our buildings can become an idolatrous thing." Yes they can and I've seen Pastors with the mentality of "mines bigger than yours" but I think for the most part this isn't true. There's a reason why the scripture tells us that the children of darkness are wiser than the children of light. First impressions make a difference. Businesses understand that the appearance of their facility is going to make an impact on a persons decision to do business with them. Thinking of this in a modern world and mindset, a sinner coming to a church has a carnal thinking process. They're going to look at the building, the carpet, the colors, and so forth. Plus, we represent God we should represent Him with excellence.

You said, "Are your widows and your fatherless taken care of? They must come before any building." Not sure if you were asking this directly, but the answer would be "yes." On the other statement referring to money you made the state that one is the cause of the other. I don't agree with this. If our building keeps us from being the "church" then we are in a building that God didn't give us. Again, God is not broke you can buy the biggest building in your town and still help people.

Most people have money backwards. They think, "as soon as we get enough we will be able to give more." Start giving more and you will always have enough. It is a matter of what you can believe. Believe big - give big - and let God be glorified.

You said, "House church networks in China and Canada are generating an unbelievable amount of funds for foreign missions. I suggest you look into it. It's one of their crowning achievements." Actually I have. In fact, I have been to China, been to underground churches. They are POOR! In fact if it weren't for American dollars being funneled in they would really struggle. The reason for their success is because they are willing to die and go to prison for what they believe. The Chinese pray for persecution to come to America so that we will once again get serious about what we are called to.

Theoretically, you are right. Without overhead a small group of people can do that. The problem is you would be hard pressed to show me 1 out of 50 house churches that even remotely is doing that.

You said, "Paul wrote about he refused financial support so as to not hinder the gospel. He illustrated how he worked with his own hands and supported himself." Read the rest of the story...(2 Cor 12:13) "For what is it in which you were inferior to other churches, except that I myself was not burdensome to you? Forgive me this wrong!"

Many, as you, don't feel that the tithe is mandatory (you also confuse the "of the heart giving" which is directly talked about the offering with the tithe). For a stickler for the Word as you seem to be it is interesting how you lightly reduce some very direct scriptures. But you will be hard pressed to find me anyone prospering that believes this, who would not otherwise be prospering. What I mean is, you may find a doctor who believes this way, but his income is a result of his education and he would be prospering whether he was a heathen or a Christian.

Find someone like me who has no great skills that are marketable. In addition, I am not an educated person (probably can tell by my grammar). Most Christian's have a hard time keeping up with me, especially my giving. Just finished my taxes and we gave 35% of our GROSS income...10% tithes, which God said is sanctified and holy to Him and 25% offerings. My lifestyle will prove that the blessings of God work in my life. As I said earlier there are reasons why people do and believe things. It is not difficult to find out what motivates people.

"I serve the Lord and put him first by ensuring that my family has a roof over our heads"....I serve the Lord He puts the roof over my head. My girls 18/16 have watched me live by faith. Just in December (07) we came into the month $1,100 short due to a special assessment in property taxes.. California, you know.... Anyway, I sat the family down and explained the situation. They asked what are we going to do. My first words were, "We're not going to stop giving! We bought cup-o-soup for dinner and brought the tithes and offerings to the Lord and put the problem in His lap. On the 10th the windows of heaven broke open and we had the best month of the year. Great Christmas, took a trip, and had money left over. Don't give me that theological feel good stuff. Sure we are to work nobody said to stop working, but we are to work to give and we give to live (Eph 4:28).

Anyway, we disagree on a lot, but I've enjoyed the discussion.

[ChristopherHall]

Amen. It's a good discussion.