posted
Those of you who are fully engaged in house/organic church, and fully persuaded that house church is "the way"...
How do you respond when you meet lovely Christians and they say, "You should come visit our church some time?" and really mean it?
You might not be able to tell by how abrasive I am on the internet, but our family is very winsome, and everybody wants us to be part of their little group.
Last night, what I said was, "Well, that's probably not gonna happen. But you can come to our church anytime. It's open 24/7!" and of course, she asked, "Oh, which church do you go to?" and I said, "Our home! We meet with others in our home, or sometimes we go to other families homes... at our church, the coffee pot is always on."
In this case, it was a very ministry/missions minded crowd, so I was able to say, "We want to be church planting overseas, so our home is kind of a practice church for that." And in a sense, that was copping out on our convictions, making it easier for them to swallow. Yes, a coward. Me and Peter.
But I know it isn't winning converts to house church to "Tell them how I REALLY feel" all in one fell swoop. So, in this case I made it a bit lighthearted.
Anyway, I'd be interested in knowing how others are diplomatic (or not), when the fact that we love Jesus is so self evident people don't ask us "if" we go to church, but "where", and assume that we'd just "love THEIR church" because the preaching is so great, or there are so many home schooling families or blahblahblah.
Laurie Ann Tearing down the gates of idolatry... one institution at a time...
-------------------- You & Me and Jesus. We are enough!
posted
That is a tough one, no doubt, especially when you know there is little time to follow up on their questions, such as when you are in line at the check-out counter.
Usually, when folks find out that we home church, they don't invite us to go elsewhere but they usually don't possess that info at first.
It's frustrating not to have a serious conversation about these weighty matters RIGHT THEN. Nevertheless, we always return the favor and invite them to join us. I try to leave with them somthing to think about. That's not always possible, though.
True, lightheartedness can help, LA. People eventually figure us out and notice if our care for them is authentic or if we're just trying to build or grow "something."
Jesus indeed will build HIS church yet he uses us in the process. Praise his name.
Interesting you bring up this topic now. Just the last couple of days, I've pondered how most of us Christians "evangelize"...we nervously invite people to our church, hoping "the pastor" will be able to say the right words that will win them over... That was my experience for way too many years. Then I began simply asking folks if they'd be interested in a 1 on 1 Bible study over coffee. No strings, no condemnation. Meet once a week for about an hour on their turf, in their comfort zone. I've worked with a simple study called "Rightly Dividing the Word" Bottom line: I've personally shared the same Gospel the apostles preached, having the same results they did, by simply opening the word and letting it do it's job in our hearts. But most of us Christians don't have the personal confidence in the word to be able to share it.
From that springboard, let me get to your question about how I approach the home church topic, after many months my answers now go something like this:
1. Thank you for the invitation to your church. We actually meet together in our home for church fellowship...
2. We HomeChurch...
3. Why yes I am a minister. Where? Wherever the need is really. I teach home Bible studies, pray together with those who ask and we meet together with other belivers in our homes...
Then I let it go. I think we all tend to pursue topics we're interested in. If we aren't interested, we don't ask more. It's taken me a while, but I'm okay if they don't want to talk anymore about it. Realistically, only 1 out of 10 are going to be drawn or intgrigued enough to want more into. I still see more godly interaction and "results" if you will, in personal 1 one 1 Bible studies.
Wow, how do I take forever to answer a simple question? Fascinating! Have a great day!
posted
Thanks, Laurie Ann. I think most folks would prefer I just keep my thoughts to myself. And thanks for throwing the question out there. It was a week that reminded me of my answer just before you asked.
posted
Thanks for the topic Laurie Ann! I'm getting a lot of heat from my family on the HC thing, and having a hard time answering and/or explaining it to them in a way that they would understand. I've had a rough time getting to this point, and it's getting frustrating trying to explain why I don't want to attend an IC. This thread is an encouragement to me.
You are not alone in your frustration. Can you imagine the possible frustrations Abraham might have felt when God called him out from his family to a land that God would show him?
"So Abram, I hear you're moving. Where ya moving to?" "I don't know exactly. God is going show me." "Uuuh...God is going to show you? Okay...do you have a job waiting for you wherever you're going?" "No." "Do you have family there?" "No." "Are you sure you heard from God?" "Well, yeah...or I thought so until I started talking to you..."
I feel very comfortable meeting together in my house as a church. Primarily becuase it's talked about in the New Testament. So how about we put this discussion back onto the folks who bring frustration.
Here is my List of the Top 10 Questions to ask our caring friends and relatives about Home Church:
1. Well Uncle John, we home church becuase we see it mentioned in the scriptures like Rom.16:5 and I Cor. 16:19. When you've studied out why you gather the way you do, what did you discover?
2. Sister Suzi, when you gather together on Sundays, how do you all fullfil I Cor. 14:26? And how did you personally exercise your gifts to the edifying of others last Sunday?
3. Yes, Aunt Jenny order in the church is very important, I truly agree. And since the Bible is our source of understanding church order, can you help me to find the scriptures that identify a single, pastor OF a church? I see that pastors are one of several different gifts given to the church, but I can't seem to find where they are in charge of a church...
4. Cory, you bring up a good point about assembling together with other believers. So that we're both on the same sheet of music, how many are supposed to gather together (minimum) before Christ will be in the midst of them? And also which verse tells me which building we must gather in?
5. Just so I understand you Cousin Andy, are you saying that if I don't go to YOUR church I'm not in the will of God? What was the verse on that again? And also, which book in the Bible tells me how to create a 501(c)3 non-profit organization?
6. You're absolutely right Neighbor Gene, we don't have a Praise Team, a Vacation Bible School, and we don't send our tithes to headquarters. Can you help me find the verses that direct me in these matters so I can walk in obedience like you?
7. How do we pay our tithes? Good question Ronnie. If I remember right, we live in the New Testament. Can you show me one place in the New Testament (which is after the death of Christ because that's when Testaments come into effect) where I'm directed to tithe? Now if you're asking about our giving, we give as unto the Lord (often times above 10%) to the poor we meet on our way, to ministries the Lord has directed us to give to and to our neighbor who is a widow and a godly woman. Reciepts? Well whether or not we get a tax write off isn't the point is it...?
8. Accountability is important Brother Doug. And since accountability has in it's definition rewards or punishments for our actions that we're accountable for, could you tell me how you personally practice your weekly accountability where you fellowship? Who were you accountable to and what has been your weekly reward or punishment? I guess I thought I was accountable to the Lord (Rom.14:12)
9. Of course we care about our children Sister Edna. But if I'm not mistaken, the Bible tells us, as little Joey's parents, that WE are responsible for diligently teaching and training our children in the knowledge of God. We didn't know we were supposed to delegate that to a Youth Pastor. That's very interesting. Can you show us that scripture or any scripture that talks about Youth Pastors, Youth Camps, Praise Teams, Youth Leaders, Sunday School... Not these aren't helpful perhaps, but are they required?
10. Stan, we've been praying and seeking God for several weeks about our direction as a family, like you have for yours I'm sure. And with fear and trembling, we feel that we are walking in obedience to the Word of God concerning meeting together as a church in our home. I know you're asking me the questions you're asking because you care about us. Do you see something in what we're doing that violates the scriptures? Can you show me?
I hope these thoughts are encouraging (and maybe a little humorous). I find that most folks haven't really studied out why they do what they do, so when I ask for answers according to the scriptures, I usually get "uhs" and "Well, I've always heard that..."
We all should know why we do what we do. I've had to come to grips with each of these questions myself - according to the word. And it's the word that is our direction, stability and authority. Anything else is opinion, heresay and rumour.
Let's consider for a moment that I am "Uncle John" and I actually know a little scripture and responded as I have below.
Well, Pat, you cited two scriptures...
quote: 1. Well Uncle John, we home church becuase we see it mentioned in the scriptures like Rom.16:5 and I Cor. 16:19. When you've studied out why you gather the way you do, what did you discover?
These verses do mention "the church that is in their house" but I don't believe they can be cited as compelling evidence to support home churching as you seem to interpretted them. Not that it isn't acceptable to worship two or three in a private home, just that these scriptures are not sufficient reason for leading other to do so. After all, what are these verses really saying? I believe they may very well be saying something totally different that what you seem to suggest. Let me see if I can explain.
Let's just suppose, for sake of example, that we all meet in an actual building rather than in a cyber cafe. We fellowship together and worship God and at the end of our assembly we travel home--rather than turning off the computer. Now, as your family climbs into your automobile to travel home do you stop being a part of the church? Are you only "the church" while you are in the physical building? No, of course not. Where two or three are gathered together. Two or three what? Why, two or three members of "the church." Now, as you arrive home and get out of the car and enter into your home do you then stop being part of the church? No, again. You are still "the church." You are still members of the body called the church of Christ. (Now, hang on... do you not consider your fellow HC'ers all over the world with whom you converse with over this electronic airway to also be "the church?" Or, do you only consider your family to be "the church." Of course they are the church as well.) And, the church is one--one Lord, one faith...one body.
So then in every home we find members of the church. If I should send solicitations to you at your home would it be improper for me to address the others in the home as "the church?" If others who were not members of the church resided in your home would my greeting be addressed to them as well or just to the church that is in your home? It would address only the members of the church elect.
So then is it any wonder when Paul wrote to fellow believers that he not greet the whole body of believers in that dwelling? No, it is proper. But does it necessarily mean that these believers met only in thier home for worship to the exclusion of meeting in larger structures that could accomodate the whole body of believers? No, I don't think it does. I think they would have met where ever their was space sufficient to hold the whole assembly and that this would be their corporate worship--where they all met together.
Do I have scripture to support my beliefs? I think so. First, I would like to remind you that we disagree about the meaning of "church in the home" in both Romans 16:5 and I Cor 16:19. So we need to bring in other scriptures to break our stalemate. Let's look at Acts 8:3. Luke is telling the story of Saul the persecutor of the early church. Saul "made havock of the church, entering into every house..." The word church here is singular and could very well imply that the church was one church but dismissed to take up residence in their homes. Or, it could be many churches, as is probably the case given the territory covered, but it certainly doesn't prove either of our cases. I tend to think that the church gathered in large bodies for worship and then the church went to their respective home after the service. Saul would have found "the church", or parts of the whole, in each home.
We also should look at 1 Tim 3:5. "(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)" These verse more strongly suggests that the church of God was larger than a man's home. After all, if a man was not faithful with a small responsibility how could he manage the larger one?
Another verse which seems to suggest a gathering outside of a private home is found in 1 Cor 11:18. "For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it." Now I don't think these division were among single families. Paul is rebuking them for their careless communion services. He actually ask them, "Don't you have houses to eat and drink in? Why do you disgrace the church of God." This seems to be an obvious example where Paul distinguishes between eating at home and eating the Lord's supper as the church body.
So can you honestly say that you differ from us? You consider your home just as we consider our building. You have made your house the church as you say we have made our building the church. But the building is not the church, I am sure you agree. So the church is actually the people and not merely a building. Isn't the building merely a place of convenience to protect us from the elements, provide us with comfort, and shut out some of the noise outside during our worship of God? Then why do you place so much importance on where one worships? On the other hand, if you say that we are the church and not the buildings then why insist that your place of worship is superior to mine?
Oh, you are not saying your place of worship is superior to mine? Then why not come worship at our place next week?
Just the way one argument could go. I hope this inspires you to dig a little deeper to find out if you are honest with others regarding your usage of scripture. We don't want to manipulate it for our gain while accusing them of the same.
(BTW, there may be very good reasons to not attend an IC. But I think that misusing scripture to justify home churching is wrong. I don't think the early church model was to meet in home churches--at least not as the Lord's way. If they did meet in churches it was most likely because they were not welcome elsewhere. But I think they still found ways to meet together corporately. So why not be more honest with the people? Why not tell them that you honestly cannot be holy among a worldly assembly. That their activities and doctrines lead you away from God rather than to him. Why use scriptures which cannot honestly be shown to mean what you say? If you get them to start digging they will discover you tricked them. Why can't people meet in homes or any building for worship for the same reasons they home school their kids--Better education and self preservation?)
I appreciate your thoughts, however I'm not sure I was able to follow you.
In my experience, the "Uncle John's" in this example refer to folks who cannot fathom believers gathering for mutual edification (functioning as the church) outside a specific "church building", like the one on First & Main with the big sign that says, "First & Main Church." The whole concept of church in a house is foriegn. The Uncle John's that I know, would of course say that the church isn't the building...but in practice, can't seem to seem to separate that specific location (particulalry at 10:00 AM on Sundays)from being the "church". So if we aren't there..."we ain't having church."
My son and I live in the house here together. Today around noonish, we met together as the church in my house. What made it different from just a few minutes earlier? We deliberately gathered together in His name, opened the word, I taught, we prayed, we also shared the Lord's supper. We assembled together for edifying. It isn't a perfect scenario, but we're going through the good and acceptable en route to perfect. Location had next to nothing to do with it except for the fact that we have agreed to meet here in our house on a regular basis. Again, there are Uncle John's out there who cannot grasp that concept because they've never seen it in scripture or experienced for themselves.
I take issue with your comment that there is some trickery or misleading involved in my answer. There is none. Please re-read the Uncle John scenario and understand my experience with Uncle John and where I'm coming from. Perhaps you know different Uncle John's. Just as there are precious saints of God whose paradigm of church revolves around a Pastor, Choir and Doxology, so there are Uncle Ben's whose faith and stability would be terribly shaken if something ever happened to the building. If they read those two simple scriptural references of churches in houses, they would be stunned.
Finally, this latest post revolves around different frustrations we might experience in answering questions about HCing. Answering Uncle John in the manner that I cited, brought light to this Uncle John. If your answer works better for your Uncle John, then great! I think you went much deeper than I went, though it was unnecessary in my situation.
I am glad for your kindly response. It does seem I am accusing you of trickery and I appreciate that you didn't bring the conversation down to a level. Let me try to make my point in fewer words.
In your example you told Uncle John that you home church "becuase we see it mentioned in the scriptures."
But we don't really see it in the scriptures. It is not clear from the language employed that the early disciples were having "church" in their homes to the exclusion of other places of corporate worship. I don't deny that they would certainly have held house worship and prayer daily. But we cannot honestly say that they did not get up once a week and go to a public meeting house to gather with all the "church"--as was the custom of Jesus and the apostles. There is simply no proof so we should not base our theology on such weak arguments.
How is it weak? For example, I might write a letter to Uncle John and in my letter address members of the Boy Scouts who live in that home with him. I might say, "Greetings, Uncle John, and to the scouts that are in your house. There will be a scout meeting at 7pm at our usual meeting place."
Yes, there are scouts in the house besides Uncle John but this language doesn't mean at all that they are assembly there for scout meetings. It is simply a greeting to all the scouts in that home. And, does the word house necessarily have to be someone's home, or could it be their House of God, their House of Worship, or their House of Prayer? Could it not simply refer to a gathering place--be that a home or other building? In fact, Jesus said of the temple, "My house shall be called the house of prayer."
So in other words, scripture does not appear to support your reasoning with Uncle John. And my question is whether we should continue to use such arguments to explain house churching?
First, there are many other texts which favor house churching as the norm. History - sacred and secular - bears this out, too, and is clearly against you in this matter. From your discussion of wine, I do know that you find some usefulness in the study of the past. What the past reveals is that Christians met only in homes for many, many generations even in localites where there was no persecution. They did not build buildings nor did they have any reason too.
They saw themselves as the new temple where God dwelled.
Brother, the apostles appointed elders in every CITY. Titus 1:5. Their influence was not just in the home nor meant to be. In other words, an elder in one particular house church could have and should have shepherded any one at any time, anywhere in the community.
I don't put a number on how big a group should be because the Bible doesn't. Still the clear teaching about mutual exhortation, examination, and an opportunity for a rebuttal (1 Cor 14) become all but impossible in very large groups.
Can you, btw, show us an example of anything in Scripture or the first 200 years of the church like the typical church of today where one person is regarded as the pastor and dominates the teaching (and often the finances) each and every week?
I concur with D's thoughts. And Jeff, though you don't agree with those two scriptures cited for Uncle John being a validation of church in the house, scripture does support meeting in houses as a church. I also find according to the Strong's definitions of "house" and "houses" can be and are used in interchageably.
Again Jeff, I didn't bring up the Uncle John example to handle every aspect of gathering in a house. It was meant to show those Uncle John's out there that the Bible does state that folks gathered in houses too. That is a quite a surprise to some Uncle John's out there.
Is it a reasonable position to change the Uncle John scenario, then turn around and shoot holes in the original response? I don't think so. If the scenario changes so will my response.
I would like to just say that my little Top 10 List is written in sincerity and not sarcasm. Too often I've had the wrong spirit in talking with people about various topics. Then one day, the Lord sat me down and had a talk with me that went something like this: "Pat, you're absolutely right. But you did it absolutely wrong, and in the end accomplished nothing. Let's you and Me take us a little walk down I Cor. 13..." He then showed me that I could be scripture perfect, but spritually off base and end up driving people away from a more edifying experience in the church.
8 years ago, I would have bristled at a home church idea. I wasn't ready, because God was working on other more "front-burner" issues in my life. Today, I obviously promote a participatory church but I'm also trying to promote it by speaking the truth in love.
So please everyone, see these questions as sincere and genuine, expecting to hear why others might be critical of our home churching. Then we might have an opportunity to expound unto them the way more perfectly.
I believe many Christian have gathered in homes for worship through the generations since Christ. And I believe that this format is most appealing to those who are dissatisfied with the heirarchical church with their money-wasting building projects and poor discipleship. It offers a safe harbor for those wanting to escape the brutish pastor who lords over his parishiners. It has a purpose. But I don't believe you can sustain any teaching from scripture as to where we are to meet aside from being admonished to assemble together. If you have liberty to meet in your homes then surely you allow that others have liberty to meet elsewhere. So why make this a controversial point as though it were part of your creed. You don't need to justify your place of worship to anyone. The Lord will judge.
Hi Pat,
You said, "though you don't agree with those two scriptures cited for Uncle John being a validation of church in the house, scripture does support meeting in houses as a church." Yes, it supports it in the same way it supports meeting in larger houses of worship. We have liberty to assemble together where we are comfortable. If your group fits in your home and you are willing to have them each week then so be it. But what if the Lord were to add to your numbers by the thousands each day as at Pentecost. Would you turn away the overflow because it violated your beliefs? Or, would you consider finding a larger meeting place? Just curious how devoted you are to meeting in a home.
It seems our focus has gone from the validity of meeting in houses (something our Uncle John had difficulty grasping) to the handling of church growth. Hence the roll and function of elders. The goal is not to see how many folks we can get in my house, but rather to grow and multiply as the Lord leads. That's New Testament growth: the Word increases, and disciples are multiplied. And as these disciples grow and demonstrate the qualifications of elders or bishops, they should be able to "host" or lead others at other locations, perhaps at another time. I have yet to see God not show the way to willing elders and saints who are seeking his direction. A group that grows in numbers, should also be growing in depth. We who are elders, should be passing truth on to faithful saints who will teach others also. This describes "family-structured" growth (children becoming parents themselves), versus a "corporate-structure" and really needs to be understood and taught today.
Imagine this silly idea (and take this as a silly idea): A 3-year church. Here's the deal new believer: you're allowed to fellowship, learn and grow in the Lord here for three years max, by that time you should be a stable elder, able to teach others. Then, your house or someone else's is where you serve the body of Christ with other elders and saints, until God show's you what's next. In other words, you aren't allowed to stay a babe in Christ for long. You have a responsibility to be an edifyer of the body. You are a babe in Christ today, but you should be a stable, elder eventually. Church should not be thought of as an end, but more of a means. Kinda crazy, but the emphasis is always people not the place.
Brother, if you feel the need to be part of a larger group, then do it! That's between you and Jesus Christ. But please don't try to place a requirement that you feel for yourself on others. I don't, nor do I see it required in the scriptures. The Lord made it clear to me and my family, to take the time we deliberately gather together seriously - because He does. And that we are doing, without a larger gathering in addition.
Yes, we have lost our focus. Let's get back on focus and get this resolved quickly so we can move on.
My main point was that I could not use your scriptures to answer such a question. If I truly thought that Jesus came to this world to tear down the traditional church structure and establish a house church model then I would also joyfully follow. So if I am not convinced from your scriptures how can I, in all honesty, present them to others?
You mentioned earlier, as did David, that there are other texts that demonstrate house church was the norm. Perhaps I should review those if someone would be so kind as to provide them. If you do this then you will silence my voice and we can move on. I will not challenge as I have your first two, but please don't use that as an excuse to just give me any thing.
And, let's be fair. I am not challenging your right to worship in small groups. I think that is great! I enjoyed my house church experience tremendously and would do it again if the opportunity arose. I am only challenging your reference to those two scriptures as proving house church as the model in early Christiandom.
posted
Hey, Jeff, It's very tricky to find "proof texts" for house church, because the entire NT is a "house church planting manual: the who, how and why."
Notice that Jesus is never recorded to have invited anyone to the synagogue or the temple, but he invited himself into people's houses. "Zaccheus, I'm going to Your house today!" He told the disciples: "go to a village... stay with a man..."
Take note of the stories of Nicodemus, Simon, Lazarus. Jesus was dealing with people in their homes... Ought we not to "walk as Jesus walked"? Do a study on "Capernaum" at biblegateway.com, and notice what Jesus established as his "prototypical ministry": note that Jesus lived there, stayed with Peter there, launched his ministry out of Peter's home.
Re-read Cornelius (Acts 10) and note that this was the church planting strategy Jesus had explained at (Matt. 10).
All scriptures referring Jesus or the disciples being at the temple are not germaine - God said back in the Israelite days many times that always and forever, the only temple that was permitted was the one at Jerusalem. Then Jesus' death abolished temple worship (no more sacrifices needed) - and he said himself that we'd no longer "Worship on this mountain or that mountain". The horrific "SINS OF JEREBOAM" that are screamed about throughout the books of the Kings and the prophets were that he had built two other temples because he wanted to control people. Sound familiar?
Jesus did occasionally use a public venue -- he went where the unsaved were. He wasn't picky. He got a bit of a reputation for that. When we go to a church building, we are not going where the sinners are, we are going to where the saints are. When he went to a synagogue it was to recruit people OUT of them and into the authentic Kingdom of God, not to bring people to the synagogue.
I think all the Epistles show what is supposed to happen -- and it doesn't, and can't, in the traditional church model. That's the indictment here - that the IC is preventing people from obeying the NT model. Just drop into any church randomly this Sunday, and stand up in the middle of the sermon to say, "Well, I think..." as Paul said we should be able to do -- and just see what happens! Or try staging a Matthew 18 style confrontation with an important person, and see how much support you get. An institution can't do what people must do.
IC isn't mentioned: perhaps Jesus' prophetic insight when he chose to limit himself to our "infirmities" didn't extend three hundred years into the future when suddenly an Imperial caveat by a godless man would overturn the entire structure Jesus had put in place and replace it with worship "in temples made by human hands".
Blessings, Laurie Ann
-------------------- You & Me and Jesus. We are enough!
posted
Hey Jeff, it's possible I cannot answer your questions to your satisfaction. So I humbly defer to other's who are more gifted than I.
I don't believe Jesus came to tear down the "traditional" church structure. Jesus came to build His church, and has and is doing so. Perhaps if we let go of what we know (traditional, house, park, RV etc.) and take a fresh look into the scriptures we'd be better off, than trying to get the scriptures to "fit" what we know. The other element to the scriptures is the Spirit that leads and guides us into all truth. I think a lack of the Spirit working in the church has led to most of the church's problems.
Would it help if I list out why I feel comfortable with church in my house?
1. Matt 18:15-20 (look at the function, not just where 2 or 3 are gathered. That can happen anywhere)
2. Acts 5:42 (and in every house), 8:4 (everywhere preaching the word), Acts 10 (Cornelius' House), Acts 16:30-34 (Back to the house), Acts 28:30-31 (Paul's hired house and what they did in it...)
3. Col. 4:15, Tit.1:7-11, 2 John :9-11
4. I Cor 14:26 I feel is a guide to what should happen when we come together. Participation. Notice it doesn't say "when ye come together in the temple...
5. I think someone brought up the phrase "...as was his/their custom.." Is custom the same as commandment?
6. There is no command to assemble in a specific location, just to make sure we assemble together. I think the real issue is what happens when we assemble. Are folks being encouraged and edified? Are we growing together and becoming more like Christ?
7. Finally, everything has fruit. Am I bearing spiritual fruit, living a life that is pleasing to God, and walking in peace by meeting as a church in my house? If not, I should find out why, repent, and get to where I'm supposed to be. But if I do have the fruit of righteousness, then brother, I've got fruit, while a critic has only an arguement.
Jeff, you can work with a concordance, as well if not better than I can. But have you prayed, waited on God, and fasted if necessary, to know where God wants you and how He wants you to serve Him and others around you? I have sought Him for our answers. And maybe that's why I have confidence and fruit doing what we're doing in our house. No man gave that to me; and no man can take that away. I hope some of this helps. I don't what else I could add to be more clear.
Thanks, especially to Pat for taking a different tack with other scriptures. This approach merely asks the question whether we are able to follow God's plan for our lives while I found the other to be somewhat controversial.
I wanted to speak briefly to each of your points as my experience in the SDA church seems drastically different from what the majority of you complain about in other IC churches. Perhaps even through their organization they have retained some of the redeeming qualities of their earlier experiences meeting in house churches, kitchen, barns, open-air, and humble houses of worship. The past experiences are well documented and one of our major tenets of faith is that no one person is to be in charge nor is anyone to Lord over their brothers or control them or their work. There is an organized church body but the Holy Spirit is to guide each persons labors.
So with that brief intro I hope this will be informative and of interest to you to the glory of God.
1) Yes, I have many times taken a brother aside to speak with him about some fault. Only once has it come to the point of two or three witnesses. But never has it needed to go before the whole church. Twice it was an Elder in the church.
2) Yes, we have missionaries, colpeuters, bible workers, hospitals, sanitariums, schools, TV, radio, short-wave, etc. While I personally do not travel to distant lands I hope that I am a witness for Christ in my sphere of influence. Because of our mission, to give the gospel to every nation making disciples, our work has extened to nearly every country, island, nations, tribe, continent--more than any other denomination. I am reluctant to say, because it sounds prideful, but in one day in South America 44,475 persons were baptized into Christ. That took great effort and coordination on the part of the laborors but would not have been possible if not for the working of the Holy Spirit. I believe God blessed our organized efforts. Perhaps I was even involved through my contributions of money. Of course, much of the seeds were sown by house-to-house work, individual Bible studies, and witnessing. But I have never been under house arrest as was Paul.
3) (a) I recently sent a letter to my sister and asked her to greet the brethren in the house where she worships and I used to worship when I was in California. (b) There will always be wheat and tares where ever one worships. I personally haven't identified any tares and it would be fair for me to suspect anyone until they manifest a tendancy favoring monetary gain. I am sure it has happened in my church family because of its size. But there are also those trying to profit from "house churches" too. (c) While I have personally never heard anyone openly admit that Jesus Christ did not come in the flesh there are other ways we can deny this truth. One way is for us to say we cannot overcome as Christ did. In my mind this is just the same as saying that Christ did not overcome in our human flesh; that he had privileges that we do not.
4) Yes, probably to avoid confusion introduced by too many speakers and too many tongues. Sometimes we have interpreters who translate into wireless devices to those of another tongue and at other times we take turns; first the speaker and then the translator.
5) I would think that Jesus wouldn't follow a custom unless it was given him by his Father. (ref John 8:29)
(Gotta close due to severe thunderstorms!)
6)
7)
Well, hope this was informative since my experiences in the "IC" seem to be so much different that some of those on this forum.
posted
I've had some great SDA friends, and some great experiences in SDA churches. There is more personal interaction than in some other churches.
The problem, as I see it, is numbers. The SDA, AoG, and other "growing" denominations notwithstanding, the church is NOT growing as a percentage of the population in countries where the building-church model is the norm.
The church in Korea (with the cell-group model), in China (with the house-church model) are exploding _as a percentage_ of the population. In India, in certain provinces and certain ethnic groups, an explosion is happening with the non-facility model of Kingdom growth.
The church in America and in Japan, despite a huge "Christian worker to population ration" have stayed the same for 60 years. That means more people are dying without Christ, even though the churches are bigger physically.
We can accept status quo. Or we can pioneer new strategies that might break the barrier.
So the question: is Jesus satisfied to have 99.95 percent of Japanese hellbound? Not "was a good time being had by all at church last week?" Or even "are there more believers today than yesterday".
Jesus said, I will build my church... from every tribe, language, people and nation... so if many tribes are yet untouched, and if the church is static among the reached?... am I building it the way he wants? If so, then why isn't it growing? Is it Him? Or is it me?
-------------------- You & Me and Jesus. We are enough!
I concur with your post but see the reason for greater growth in Korea, China, and India linked to persecuted churches being more pure, if not totally pure. The half-hearted believers are not willing to suffer persecution and loss of worldly things. When people are consecrated to the Lord there is power that attends their testimony. Thus, many more converts to the truth. The blood of the martyrs was like seeds of the gospel. The more that were put to death the more that sprang up.
Whereas the churches in America have it too easy. When there is no persecution it is easy for unconverted persons to profess belief and so our churches are infiltrated and polluted with the careless, half-converted, and yes, even the enemy. This weakens our testimony--even of those who truly believe.
We need dedicated people with plans extending into lines of work that have yet to be discovered. There is a huge work left. I truly believe that the last work on earth will be carried out house to house just as in the early era of Christianity. I just can't see making it doctrinal in nature complete with proof-texts. Let's let it be more organic and wide-ranging. Even broader and more out-of-the-box than we can imagine.
(In a related incident, I asked our local Ministries Leader about working in a specific field and way. His reply to me, and I was grateful he answered in this way, was to follow the leading of the Holy Spirit and not to seek his permission. Of course, I didn't tell him that I wasn't asking his permission but really just wanted his help. But, I was glad to see that he anwered in the way he did. No man should try to control the Spirit of God by telling others what, where, or how exactly they should work in the Lord's field. Right?)
I am in favor of answering the "Why do you house church" question by telling them...
"Because of my desire to know and follow Jesus in all truth. The church (whichever) has allowed much to enter in and defile her and I feel that God is not honored there nor present. In the early Christian experience during the days of the apostles the church was hostile to the new converts to Christianity. Many found comfort by meeting in small groups in their homes to worship Jesus apart from all of the ceremonial rigor which foreshadowed Jesus' death and resurrection. And, the Gentile believers were not allowed into the worship area of the Jewish temples. So they, out of necessity, had to find alternative places to meet. I believe that many met in homes. With all the polution in the church today I feel the only safe place for me to bring up my Children in Christ is in my home or that of another godly Christian. For the same reasons, I also home school my children. The schools are filled with violence and falsehood which directly opposes the teachings of our Lord. It will be hard enough to keep my children in the faith during the adolescent years. I don't want external influences to shipwreck their youthful faith. Since coming apart to worship in small groups I find that my own experience has been greatly enriched because I am encouraged and compelled to participate in a much greater way. I have been drawn to a closer study of the word of God and am free to listen to the guiding of the Holy Spirit without the voice of mortal men causing confusion and halting my steps. I have complete liberty to follow wherever Jesus leads and I plan to do just that. We are experiencing such great times digging into the word and examining our faith to see if we are in the way. We are going back to make sure that we have not accepted something extra-biblical from men. Would you like to come by some time and see what is going on? We would love to have you. We meet on day at time each week. Would you like me to call and remind you?"
(I add the day and time on a weekly basis because busy people need to know for certain when you are meeting so they can plan to attend or drop by as moved by the Holy Spirit. Although it is perfect fine to say, If you need to pray, stop by any time or call, I think its good to have a set day and time each week and to be consistent. I've driven, sometimes great distances (relatively), to attend a meeting only to find that it was cancelled. Guess what? When that happens I tend to stop going.)
posted
Jeff, That is a pretty good overview/response for us to give, and I appreciate you sharing it!
I carefully chose Korea (and I should have said "South Korea, huh!) to emphasize that this explosive growth is happening in "free" countries as well and oppressed areas, and chose Japan as an example of a "free country" where the gospel isn't growing, despite a similar background to S. Korea. I would hate to think that the only way to see our nation serve Christ is to have some kind of dictatorial hammer come down upon us.
I see what you are saying about wanting to keep it non-doctrinal. But I'm a truth-proclaimer type, and can't accept, "This is the flavor of the church I like" as an answer for myself, or to give to others. And I feel it is important to train our disciples to look to the Word for _everything_ or they will not recognized the essential nature of the Bible as the only authority. But maybe I'm carried away on that. LA
-------------------- You & Me and Jesus. We are enough!
I agree whole-heartedly with your principle to train disciples to lean on the Bible as the only authority. Notice I did not say source but authority, as you did. Meaning we may do extra-biblical reading but everything must yield to scripture. But I'm sorry to say that we have become satisfied with milk and accept too much from other sources without proving it from scripture. Don't you think? Too many people are getting their theology from fiction (e.g., Left Behind, Late Great Planet Earth, etc.).
But I don't know that we can put together proof-texts to justify our meeting in homes. Do we need to?
What I do know is that one day you will be called upon to make a decision. Revelation 13 talks about a scenario which was played out in a comparatively "minor" way in early America. If a man missed church he was fined. If he continued to miss everything was taken from him and he was made a slave. Revelation definitely is talking about a church-state relationship where civil authority enforces religious laws of worship just like it was (or is) in predominately Catholic countries. Then, you better have good Biblical footing to stand upon because your inquisitors will be unlike me who has no "teeth."
posted
Yes, jq, believe me, we spend a good bit of time preparing ourselves to stand in the day of adversity, as well as discussing "how will we know when our cooperation reaches the point of no return?" as regards bowing down to this world's authority.
However, I don't think it will be religion as such, but rather "this world's system" that will persecute those who choose a different way.
We see educational idolatry and medical practice being the #1 & #2 "religion" that we will someday have to bow down to -- oh wait! We already do! We can be thrown in jail for the desire to raise our own kids instead of turning them over to the government re-education program (and our "Christian friends" will pressure us as much as, or more than our non-religious friends to conform) and government forbid you should refuse to submit to vaccination, chemotherapy, anti-life pills or other "proofs" that man can conquer disease by his own might! Government enforcement is behind these "faiths" - we "believe" education is what will save us from sin, and we believe in medicine to save us from sin's consequences.
That's one reason I'm so concerned about our SDA friends: ed and med have been such a big part of the actual practice, I'm not sure how they will extricate themselves. While lifestyle decisions are rightly held to be of importance by Adventists, I don't think that an Adventist hospital can refuse to be part of the "drug-slash&main"/ pharmakaia version of health care in any meaningful way in the future, as these decisions more and more are forced upon us "for our own good".
I'm also concerned that churches that are registered with the goverment are already in many cases "enforcing" government mandates, at the risk of their "501 C3" registration. Talk about a government-church entanglement!
Blessings, as always, LA
-------------------- You & Me and Jesus. We are enough!
Email this page to someone.
