House Church Talk - Pattern or simply an adaptation?

[Glenn Frank]

I understand the origins of these practices... And I agree that they are
from pagan and human tradition... But again...

What tells us in scripture that the practice of house to house meetings, the
informal gathering and worship style that is in the NT was intended as a
MODEL or PRINCIPLE for all the church to follow in all times, as apposed to
what God was having them do at THAT TIME, in their generation, and their
specific circumstances?

The Bible clearly tells us that it is our love for God and each other that
is the key to real spiritual community, no matter what the form... It is
really relational issues not format that is the core of a healthy church.

Read Wayne Jacobson article about form:
http://lifestream.org/LSBL.Feb02.html

I think he makes some valid points...

That if we are unwilling to minister and live a life for Christ where we are
in an institutional organized church... How will changing the form make it
all better? That is why I wonder how the "FORM" that the early church had
might be a "form" we have to follow. Granted... I think there is a lot there
which is healthy for relation anal Christianity... But is it MANDATED that
this is how the church should meet?

Is it not the substance and actions of the people and God rather than the
format?

Glenn



On 1/23/04 11:11 AM, "R.L. Johnson" <rjohnson at wise.k12.va.us> wrote:

> Consider for a moment how the actually practice of meeting in a community
> worship building came from Constantine around 340 or so AD.  Also remember
> that these buildings were converted pagan temples and the priest were
> converted pagan priest.  Now, is that the type of pattern you want to
> follow?
> 
> Rick
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: House Church Talk -bounces at housechurch.org
> [mailto:House Church Talk -bounces at housechurch.org]On Behalf Of Glenn Frank
> Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 12:21 PM
> To: House Church Talk
> Subject: House Church Talk -  Pattern or simply an adaptation?
> 
> 
> Hi everyone,
> 
> My family and another are looking at starting a 'house church' but are
> currently a part of an organizational church.
> 
> 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, they
> culture and the Roman government was hostile to them and looked upon them as
> a splinter group of Judaism.
> 
> I didn't feel like I had a good answer to that question and wanted to see
> what you all had to say.
> 
> He also said that it seemed to him that a small meeting group in a home
> would be better off being a part of a more traditional structured church
> simply because of the 'added resources' of other ministries in the church
> where the group could refer people with specific needs which could not be
> sufficiently addressed in the small group setting. (i.e.: severe marriage
> conflict, drug abuse issues, etc ... He was thinking of ministries geared
> specifically to these issues). He was of course arguing that the home group
> would be better off as a sub ministry of an established church rather than a
> house church all to its self.
> 
> Any comments or answers to these would be appreciated!
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Glenn Frank
> 
> 
> 
>

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

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