House Church Talk - Pattern or simply an adaptation?

[Glenn Frank]

Thanks Bruce,

I agree with all your assessments of the things we are told and the things
we are not told about in regard to church practice... But although these are
all interesting observations on the man-made things that have been
institutionalized into the church, they seem to prove a negative.

I mean, you just say there is more scripture talking about the church
meeting in homes to do the one-anothers than for any other man-made practice
in the church, and I agree...

But I don't know if that answers the question of whether the concept of
meeting in homes and 'doing church' in a house church manner was a PATTERN
and a PRINCIPLE to follow for all generations, or if it was simply the way
that the church was being PRACTICAL to ADAPT to the needs of their
generation and their culture. (and the persecution they faced as apposed to
the relative religious freedom we have in the USA today).

Any thoughts on that angle?



Thanks for the input... I will think about and use the examples you sent!!!


Glenn



On 1/23/04 10:13 AM, "Bruce Woodford" <bwood4d at hotmail.com> wrote:

> 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.c
> om%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca
> 
>    
>   
>

        ------- <><><> -------