House Church Talk - Pattern or simply an adaptation?

[Bruce Woodford]

Hi Glenn,

You wrote an excellent response..."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?"

You have made some very good observations with which I would not argue at 
all. However, I think you may have also adopted one ASSUMPTION which your 
pastor and many others have made, which may not be an actual matter of fact! 
  The assumption is:"Yes, meeting in homes or at least small groups is 
probably the best and only workable solution for believers under 
persecution. But when believers have religious freedom/freedom from overt 
persecution, ministry, fellowship, worship, equipping etc may be done much 
more effectively in much larger gatherings in large consecrated buildings."

To challenge this kind of assumption, I would ask, "What evidence is there 
that large gatherings (in which the majority of the saints are spectators, 
in which only a very small percentage are active participants, and in which 
the major participants are paid to "do ministry")   are EVER  more effective 
mediums for  ministry, fellowship, worship or equipping of the saints, than 
smaller, more intimate gatherings in homes?

Similar assumptions and arguments could be made about many N.T. practices:
(1)Early Christians used water for baptizing because that was all they had. 
It was plentiful, and  inexpensive for them. But since it is never mandated 
as the medium which MUST be used, cannot Christians (who may be wealthier 
and have a wider variety of fluids available) use other mediums for 
baptizing? i.e. virgin olive oil, honey, apple juice etc etc.
Just as we CANNOT say that Christians MUST meet in HOMES, we CANNOT  say 
that believers MUST be baptized in WATER. However, just as we CAN ask, "What 
possible advantages can be proven to justify regular large gatherings in 
large and very expensive buildings?", so too we CAN ask, "What possible 
advantages are there for using any other medium than that which was used for 
baptizing in N.T. times?"

(2)We CANNOT say that having ONE PASTOR, and PAYING HIM A SALARY is a sinful 
and disobedient practice that violates direct commands of scripture.  
However, we CAN ASK, "What possible advantage (in view of providing 
scriptural care, ministry and equipping of saints for ministry) could there 
be in hiring ONE MAN to be responsible for shepherding the flock of God (as 
opposed to looking to a number of elders who work with their own hands to 
meet their own needs as well as the needs of others?"

You also wrote:"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."

You are absolutely right, brother! Relationships ARE the big deal for new 
covenant saints! Nurturing relationships with God and with our brothers and 
sisters IS THE PRIORITY, and NOT  the question of FORM  (house churches or 
institutional churches). So since relationships are the priority, my 
question is: Should we not seek to use forms that are best suited for 
nurturing relationships with other members in the Body of Christ?  Which 
forms are best suited for the purpose?....

-sitting in pews in large auditoriums which are designed to PREVENT face to 
face, eyeball to eyeball contact between pew sitters and are designed to 
discourage interaction between them and limit the exercise of gifts and 
ministry to a small minority OR

-sitting in chairs or on the floor of livingrooms where everyone is facing 
one another and is expected to interact with the others, and where ample 
opportunity is afforded to all to exercise their particular gifts and 
receive a variety of ministry derived from the giftings of others?

Does this help?  NEITHER, house churches nor institutional churches are ever 
set forth in scripture as THE PATTERN to follow. But, in view of the 
purposes that scripture sets forth as the reasons for church gatherings,  we 
need to ask, "Which forms are best suited to the purposes for which God 
would have us to meet?"

Your brother in Christ,
Bruce

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca