House Church Talk - Pattern or simply an adaptation?

[Bruce Woodford]

Hi Glenn,

You wrote:"In talking with the pastor of the church that we are currently a 
part of, the question came up from him asking if the fact that the early 
church was meeting in homes was one of necessity or if indeed it was a 
pattern to be followed for the future.

In other words, are we sure that the way they did their gatherings was 
really intended as a pattern to follow (no building... Meet in homes... Etc) 
or was it simply that they were doing the best they could with what they had 
available in their situation. They were kicked out of the synagogues, their
culture and the Roman government was hostile to them and looked upon them as 
a splinter group of Judaism."

That Christians meet in homes is certainly never commanded, but neither is 
water as the medium for baptism of believers! But there are more scriptural 
examples of the former than the latter!

That Christians gather together on the first day of the week is never 
commanded, but there are more examples of churches in houses than church 
meetings on Sunday!

Churches are never instructed to have pastors. In fact, pastors are only 
mentioned once in the N.T., so there are far more references to churches in 
houses than there are to pastors!

Shepherds, pastors, and elders are always referred to in the plural in 
connection with a singular flock or church. (Luke 2:8, Acts 14:23; 20:17,28 
etc)  So there is far more scriptural reason for churches to meet in homes 
than there is for a church to have one pastor!

Flocks of sheep NEVER hire, fire or pay salaries to their shepherds! That is 
ALWAYS the responsibility of the Owner of the sheep! So there are far more 
reasons to believe that churches should  meet in homes than there are to 
believe that they ought to hire and pay shepherds!

There are no examples OR intructions for church collections for buildings 
and salaries in the N.T. But there are numerous examples and instructions 
relative to church gatherings in homes.

Not only is there a total absence of distinctions between "clergy and laity" 
in the N.T., but scripture clearly teaches that both terms refer to the very 
same people!  LAOS, the "people of God" (I Peter 2:10) is the very same 
people referred to in I Peter 5:3 as the KLEROS, or "heritage of God". So 
there is far more scriptural reason to believe that church meetings in 
houses were to be a pattern for all ages than there there is to have clergy 
and laity divisions in the church!

Is your pastor willing to demonstrate scriptural patterns for the major 
features of institutional church practice, or would he be better to simply 
allow that apostolic and first century church practice is a far better 
pattern than traditions of men which do not even have ANY scriptural 
precedent at all?

Hebrews 10:24,25 is often referred to to show that people ought to assemble 
together (i.e. "go to church") but this passage also clearly tells us what 
we are to do when we assemble!  "One anothering" i.e. provoking one another 
to love and to good works and exhorting one another. Is there any reason to 
believe that organizational church gatherings where people stare at the back 
of heads in front of them are more conducive to obedience to these commands 
than face to face gatherings in homes?

Just a few suggestions which might help to put your whole discussion 
relative to sources of patterns for church practices into a more balanced 
perspective.

Your brother in Christ,
Bruce

_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*   
http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcomm&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca