|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: House Church - 6/23/2008 8:36:47 PM
|
|
|
phosadaud
Posts: 9827
Joined: 9/19/2005
From: Washington State
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: notmycity
quote:
ORIGINAL: timf
....Much of traditional church structure comes directly from the Roman Catholic church and is not necessarily derived from the Bible.
The traditional church structure has more in common with an assembly line for moving product through a process than the relational connections described in the Bible....
You nailed it.
1 Corinthians 14 pretty much outlines what’s supposed to happen in the assembly.
Church structure looks nothing like this from our experience.
Actually, 1 Corinthians 14 is a specific instruction to a specific church that was out of control (it's called context). Paul was helping bring order to chaos. It was not intended as a step by step proscription as to how every gathering of believers had to operate every time they gathered. This is evident in one simple fact: part of this Scripture says that women are to remain silent "in the churches" and yet other places in Scripture we see women who were prophetesses, etc.
The fact is, I go to a church where those things all happen (minus women remaining silent that is  ) - but they may not (or they may ) happen at a Sunday AM service. Again, this goes back to the idea that some have that Sunday AM services are the ONLY gathering of the saints in a traditional church. All of those things (hymns, revelations, tongues & interpretation, prophecy, etc) should be happening to build up the church but that does NOT mean they all HAVE to happen in every gathering.
quote:
Ultimately we need to be like those from Berea and hold up every teaching to the Scriptures alone, or we fall into error, regardless of where we go.
Agreed.
_____________________________
~Kristin~
42.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: House Church - 6/23/2008 8:48:54 PM
|
|
|
cheeky_monkey
Posts: 89
Joined: 6/18/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: momto4inva
Organic church is just another name for a house church. It's getting back to the basics and meeting with other Christians in people's homes as this is what was done in the original church as described in the Bible. I'm currently reading the book Pagan Christianity which puts forth the premise that virtually all of what we do in church today has it's roots in paganism. I would highly recommend it to anyone who may be open to the idea of exploring the reasons why we do what we do in church today.
I second the book recommendation. It caused me to look at some things differently and validated my feelings about other things we do in "church" every Sunday.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: House Church - 6/24/2008 9:51:06 AM
|
|
|
rcjames
Posts: 5244
Joined: 7/15/2005
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: thomasalan
I want to address the leadership and accountability issues within the house church (aka simple church, organic church, etc.). It's funny to me that most critics of house church immediately zero in on these issues as a problem.
Well it should not seem "Funny" to you since that is the most obvious House Church deviaton from the guidelines laid out in Scripture for Church.
All the "Churches" mentioned in The New Testament (those in houses and otherwise) had a leadership in place (with Elders appointed by someone with authority over the Church, Paul, Timothy, Titus and others) and all Churches were accountable to the Council in Jerusalem. Doctrine was watched over by someone not "In" the Church (House or otherwise); read Pauls letters for a great example of someone on the outside keeping doctrien straight on the inside of the local Church.
It does not matter where a Church meets; house, storefront, stand alone buldings, under a tree. It just does not matter.
What does matter is keeping real accountability alive and effective to insure that the teaching stay in line with Scripture.
The Lone Ranger type of House Church is most suseptable to error, because they reject any outside oversight, or at best use the "Yes men, or buddy system) of accountbility.
Most House Churches claim the reason for their being is to not have a pulpit, not formally take an offering, not formally do anything; when it seems to me that what they want is to escape accounability and "Have it their way"; whether that way is God's way or not.
Thanks
RC
_____________________________
Just a country Preacher's humble opinion
Read the first chapter of my latest book here;
http://www.deliveranceofsara.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: House Church - 6/24/2008 9:58:11 AM
|
|
|
bluestone
Posts: 2934
Joined: 2/25/2008
From: United States of America
Status: offline
|
I think most of us know people who did not like teachings or doctrines of any established churches, and decided to the the home church thing.
A potential problem resulting from this attitude is the formation of a cult.
Mix a little of this with a dabble of that, no accountability, and *POOF* a group with cultic tendencies begins.
Worldwide church of God started this way. (Herbert W. Armstrong had attended multiple churches, as well as Jehovah's Witness, and mixed them altogether)
Mormonism started this way too. Joseph Smith was not happy with the churches he had attended, and began to do his own thing.
_____________________________
I need Christ. Not something that resembles Christ.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: House Church - 6/24/2008 10:30:52 AM
|
|
|
rcjames
Posts: 5244
Joined: 7/15/2005
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: bluestone
I think most of us know people who did not like teachings or doctrines of any established churches, and decided to the the home church thing.
A potential problem resulting from this attitude is the formation of a cult.
Mix a little of this with a dabble of that, no accountability, and *POOF* a group with cultic tendencies begins.
Worldwide church of God started this way. (Herbert W. Armstrong had attended multiple churches, as well as Jehovah's Witness, and mixed them altogether)
Mormonism started this way too. Joseph Smith was not happy with the churches he had attended, and began to do his own thing.
I can throw a couple of other names in of folks who were ministers in established denomination, but rejected the oversight and formed their own house churches that soon outgrew the houses: David Koresh and Jim Jones.
My life in the ministry has been to plant Churches, some of them started in homes, though mostly I started them in store fronts so as to have a neutral meeting place. But they were all started, grew, and maintained with accountability (real accountability) to oversight leadership outside the local group.
Nothing wrong with House Churches, just with the Lone Ranger attitude.
Thanks
RC
_____________________________
Just a country Preacher's humble opinion
Read the first chapter of my latest book here;
http://www.deliveranceofsara.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: House Church - 6/24/2008 11:10:48 AM
|
|
|
thomasalan
Posts: 9
Joined: 6/20/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
All the "Churches" mentioned in The New Testament (those in houses and otherwise) had a leadership in place (with Elders appointed by someone with authority over the Church, Paul, Timothy, Titus and others) and all Churches were accountable to the Council in Jerusalem. Doctrine was watched over by someone not "In" the Church (House or otherwise); read Pauls letters for a great example of someone on the outside keeping doctrien straight on the inside of the local Church.
I would take exception to the idea that house churches are unscriptural in matters pertaining to authority and accountability. I agree with your assessment of the early church described above. But what you see above is a brand new church established within a wide open mission field. We no longer have Apostles (capital 'A') and the church no longer has a centralized Jerusalem council, (unless you are Catholic). So who takes the place of the Apostle? a church planting missionary? Perhaps. Who is the Jerusalem Council? A denomination headquarters? if so, which one? Which denomination should a house church answer to? There are so many.
As far as someone on the 'outside' making sure that doctrine was pure, who would that be? I agree on the importance of doing that, but whose responsibility is that now? We no longer have Paul or Peter, but we do have the scriptures and they tell us to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. Can't a congregation contend for the faith that is clearly spelled out in the scriptures? Do we always need someone 'from the outside' spelling that out for us? Is that not relying on a person instead of the Holy Spirit?
Let's say that in your own church, someone stands up in the pulpit and starts teaching error. Who is it that will be the first to identify that error and speak out against it? Will it be your denominational representative from outside your church, or will it be someone from your own congregation? Will that error be dealt with by your congregation, or by the denomination?
quote:
The Lone Ranger type of House Church is most suseptable to error, because they reject any outside oversight, or at best use the "Yes men, or buddy system) of accountbility.
Again, I would have to disagree. By 'outside oversight,' I can only assume that you mean a denomination (synod, council, board, whatever). Our church chooses not to associate with any particular denomination. But that doesn't mean we haven't set up some kind of accountability. We have carefully and prayerfully drafted a statement of faith that reflects conservative evangelical beliefs. That statement of faith is based on the scriptures (the faith that is once for all delivered to the saints). Being a man-made document, it takes a back seat to the scriptures. The scriptures are our standard. But the statement of faith is a simple and systematized way of understanding the scripture. When we discipline someone for false teaching, that and the scriptures are the yardstick and plumb line we use to measure the teaching against.
That being said, we are no more susceptible to error than any other traditional church. Sure there are deviant churches out there, but you will find them both in the house and in the church building.
Bottom line: we do have accountability. It may not look like the accountability that you are used to, but we do have it and we use it.
quote:
Most House Churches claim the reason for their being is to not have a pulpit, not formally take an offering, not formally do anything; when it seems to me that what they want is to escape accounability and "Have it their way"; whether that way is God's way or not.
You're right. We don't have a pulpit. But we teach and preach the word of God. Only we don't pay one person to do all that teaching and preaching for us. We take turns and let the Spirit teach us through several men in our church.
You're partially right. We don't regularly take up an offering. Unless there is some immediate need, like giving money to a visiting missionary that week, or helping a member with a need, or helping a specific widow, or cause. Otherwise, our members are free to tithe to the mission or ministry of their choice. And you are correct that we don't exercise accountability in that matter. That is our choice. We don't track an individual's giving. We don't have a budget. We also don't have any overhead. What our 'members' give and to whom is between them and God. We 'strongly encourage' them to give, but we don't tell them where to give, although, we will make suggestions from time to time. If there is a need in our church, we let it be known and money comes in.
We don't formally do anything? What is formal? We don't use a liturgy, but we do have bible teaching, prayer, testimonies, evangelism, service, giving, the Lord's Supper, Baptisms, missions, etc. We don't publish a church bulletin, but all these things still happen.
Are we escaping accountability? No. I don't think so. We just see it as happening in other channels than you perhaps see it. We don't want to have it 'our way.' We understand that we will have to stand before God and give an account of what we are doing, just like you will. What we are doing is from faith (Romans 14). We are not trying to cause anyone to stumble. We are not trying to pull people out of traditional churches. We are simply a different way to be the church than what most American Christians are used to.
All of us, traditional or house churches, are the body and bride of Christ and He is our Head.
God Bless,
Tom
ps: we also reject the 'Emergent' label. Someone earlier labeled all house churches as Emergent. Simply not true. There are many Emergents who like the house church concept. But we are not all Emergent. That is another discussion for another time.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: House Church - 6/24/2008 12:11:58 PM
|
|
|
notmycity
Posts: 1199
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: phosadaud
quote:
ORIGINAL: notmycity
quote:
ORIGINAL: timf
....Much of traditional church structure comes directly from the Roman Catholic church and is not necessarily derived from the Bible.
The traditional church structure has more in common with an assembly line for moving product through a process than the relational connections described in the Bible....
You nailed it.
1 Corinthians 14 pretty much outlines what’s supposed to happen in the assembly.
Church structure looks nothing like this from our experience.
Actually, 1 Corinthians 14 is a specific instruction to a specific church that was out of control (it's called context). Paul was helping bring order to chaos. It was not intended as a step by step proscription as to how every gathering of believers had to operate every time they gathered. This is evident in one simple fact: part of this Scripture says that women are to remain silent "in the churches" and yet other places in Scripture we see women who were prophetesses, etc.
Have you not read.....
1 Cor 1:1-3
1 Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,
2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, TO THEM THAT ARE SANCTIFIED IN CHRIST JESUS, CALLED TO BE SAINTS, WITH ALL THAT IN EVERY PLACE CALL UPON THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD, BOTH THEIRS AND OURS:
3 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
Please note “all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord”. The letter was not only to Corinth, but to “all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord”.
Also, if you wish to discuss prophetesses, please go on the women’s roles with in the church thread and PM me and I’ll answer there with Scripture. All the answers are within the Scriptures.
Thank you.
_____________________________
<><Topher
"I am a companion of all them that fear thee, and of them that keep thy precepts." Psalm 119:63
and..
"For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come." Heb 13:14 = "notmycity"
|
|
|
|
|
RE: House Church - 6/24/2008 12:42:23 PM
|
|
|
JimboFletch
Posts: 6501
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rcjames
quote:
ORIGINAL: bluestone
I think most of us know people who did not like teachings or doctrines of any established churches, and decided to the the home church thing.
A potential problem resulting from this attitude is the formation of a cult.
Mix a little of this with a dabble of that, no accountability, and *POOF* a group with cultic tendencies begins.
Worldwide church of God started this way. (Herbert W. Armstrong had attended multiple churches, as well as Jehovah's Witness, and mixed them altogether)
Mormonism started this way too. Joseph Smith was not happy with the churches he had attended, and began to do his own thing.
I can throw a couple of other names in of folks who were ministers in established denomination, but rejected the oversight and formed their own house churches that soon outgrew the houses: David Koresh and Jim Jones.
My life in the ministry has been to plant Churches, some of them started in homes, though mostly I started them in store fronts so as to have a neutral meeting place. But they were all started, grew, and maintained with accountability (real accountability) to oversight leadership outside the local group.
Nothing wrong with House Churches, just with the Lone Ranger attitude.
Thanks
RC
And the process you followed is like the Apostle Paul. He did not start a church, then leave them to their own devices - they, like all believers - remained connected and were accountable beyond themselves. All lone ranger churches, home or otherwise, are in direct opposition to the NT structure and form.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: House Church - 6/24/2008 12:52:19 PM
|
|
|
notmycity
Posts: 1199
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: JimboFletch
All lone ranger churches, home or otherwise, are in direct opposition to the NT structure and form.
Prepared to show us this in Scripture please?
_____________________________
<><Topher
"I am a companion of all them that fear thee, and of them that keep thy precepts." Psalm 119:63
and..
"For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come." Heb 13:14 = "notmycity"
|
|
|
|
|
RE: House Church - 6/24/2008 2:16:55 PM
|
|
|
JimboFletch
Posts: 6501
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: notmycity
quote:
ORIGINAL: JimboFletch
All lone ranger churches, home or otherwise, are in direct opposition to the NT structure and form.
Prepared to show us this in Scripture please?
Simply show us a church started by Paul that was left to their own devices.
I won't hold my breath waiting.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: House Church - 6/24/2008 2:34:51 PM
|
|
|
notmycity
Posts: 1199
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: JimboFletch
quote:
ORIGINAL: notmycity
quote:
ORIGINAL: JimboFletch
All lone ranger churches, home or otherwise, are in direct opposition to the NT structure and form.
Prepared to show us this in Scripture please?
Simply show us a church started by Paul that was left to their own devices.
I won't hold my breath waiting.
Are you saying that a church gathering around the 66 books of Scripture (including all of the Pauline epistles) is “in direct opposition to the NT structure and form” ? Please explain.
_____________________________
<><Topher
"I am a companion of all them that fear thee, and of them that keep thy precepts." Psalm 119:63
and..
"For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come." Heb 13:14 = "notmycity"
|
|
|
|
|
RE: House Church - 6/24/2008 3:34:15 PM
|
|
|
phosadaud
Posts: 9827
Joined: 9/19/2005
From: Washington State
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: thomasalan
As far as someone on the 'outside' making sure that doctrine was pure, who would that be? I agree on the importance of doing that, but whose responsibility is that now? We no longer have Paul or Peter, but we do have the scriptures and they tell us to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. Can't a congregation contend for the faith that is clearly spelled out in the scriptures? Do we always need someone 'from the outside' spelling that out for us? Is that not relying on a person instead of the Holy Spirit?
Let's say that in your own church, someone stands up in the pulpit and starts teaching error. Who is it that will be the first to identify that error and speak out against it? Will it be your denominational representative from outside your church, or will it be someone from your own congregation? Will that error be dealt with by your congregation, or by the denomination?
You are assuming that the Holy Spirit ONLY speaks through internal accountability. I believe that if the Holy Spirit is working, it will be confirmed internally AND externally. And again, being ONLY internally accountable is not Scriptural nor is it wise.
I also find it odd that some house churches claim we need to get back to how the NT church operated but dismiss one very key element of how they operated: External accountability.
As far as who will deal with the error:
This is how it would work in my church - The pastor preaches garbage. The congregation & board address the issue. If the issue is not handled, the denominational leaders would step in, etc.
_____________________________
~Kristin~
42.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: House Church - 6/24/2008 3:38:17 PM
|
|
|
phosadaud
Posts: 9827
Joined: 9/19/2005
From: Washington State
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: notmycity
quote:
ORIGINAL: phosadaud
quote:
ORIGINAL: notmycity
quote:
ORIGINAL: timf
....Much of traditional church structure comes directly from the Roman Catholic church and is not necessarily derived from the Bible.
The traditional church structure has more in common with an assembly line for moving product through a process than the relational connections described in the Bible....
You nailed it.
1 Corinthians 14 pretty much outlines what’s supposed to happen in the assembly.
Church structure looks nothing like this from our experience.
Actually, 1 Corinthians 14 is a specific instruction to a specific church that was out of control (it's called context). Paul was helping bring order to chaos. It was not intended as a step by step proscription as to how every gathering of believers had to operate every time they gathered. This is evident in one simple fact: part of this Scripture says that women are to remain silent "in the churches" and yet other places in Scripture we see women who were prophetesses, etc.
Have you not read.....
1 Cor 1:1-3
1 Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,
2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, TO THEM THAT ARE SANCTIFIED IN CHRIST JESUS, CALLED TO BE SAINTS, WITH ALL THAT IN EVERY PLACE CALL UPON THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD, BOTH THEIRS AND OURS:
3 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
Please note “all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord”. The letter was not only to Corinth, but to “all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord”.
Also, if you wish to discuss prophetesses, please go on the women’s roles with in the church thread and PM me and I’ll answer there with Scripture. All the answers are within the Scriptures.
Thank you.
Reread what I wrote. I did not say that the entire letter had no use for the rest of the church body. What I SAID was that chapter 14 was specific instruction to deal with a specific issue within the Corinthian church (out of control meetings). That doesn't mean it isn't applicable. What it means is that it was not written as a directive for how every single gathering of the Body HAS to look like all the time. Again: Context.
And I'll pass on the women's roles things because I have a feeling I know what you will post and call Scriptural and I know what I would post and I believe it is Scriptural. I agree the answers are all in Scripture but I have a feeling the way you read it and the way I read it will be worlds apart.
_____________________________
~Kristin~
42.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: House Church - 6/24/2008 3:41:27 PM
|
|
|
phosadaud
Posts: 9827
Joined: 9/19/2005
From: Washington State
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: notmycity
quote:
ORIGINAL: JimboFletch
quote:
ORIGINAL: notmycity
quote:
ORIGINAL: JimboFletch
All lone ranger churches, home or otherwise, are in direct opposition to the NT structure and form.
Prepared to show us this in Scripture please?
Simply show us a church started by Paul that was left to their own devices.
I won't hold my breath waiting.
Are you saying that a church gathering around the 66 books of Scripture (including all of the Pauline epistles) is “in direct opposition to the NT structure and form” ? Please explain.
He said to provide one example in Scripture of a church that Paul started, where he planted the church and then left it with no external oversight. It's a simple question.
_____________________________
~Kristin~
42.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: House Church - 6/24/2008 3:41:45 PM
|
|
|
JimboFletch
Posts: 6501
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: notmycity
quote:
ORIGINAL: JimboFletch
quote:
ORIGINAL: notmycity
quote:
ORIGINAL: JimboFletch
All lone ranger churches, home or otherwise, are in direct opposition to the NT structure and form.
Prepared to show us this in Scripture please?
Simply show us a church started by Paul that was left to their own devices.
I won't hold my breath waiting.
Are you saying that a church gathering around the 66 books of Scripture (including all of the Pauline epistles) is “in direct opposition to the NT structure and form” ? Please explain.
Jim Jones and David Koresh both used the same 66 books of scripture. They, unlike the churches in the NT, each had a church unto themselves and answered to no other believers.
Every church planed by Paul had elders and were accounatble, not only to Paul, but to the other Church Fathers. When error popped up, it wasn't the individual churches that dealt with it, it was the establish leadership. The lone, unconnected church fails to meet the NT example.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: House Church - 6/24/2008 3:42:16 PM
|
|
|
thomasalan
Posts: 9
Joined: 6/20/2008
Status: offline
|
I keep hearing about "external accountability." But who exactly is that, scripturally? A denomination? Which one? A seminary? Again, which one? Denominations, seminaries, synods and such did not exist in the early church. You did have the Apostles then. They are gone, but the scriptures remain. What kind of apostolic authority must a church submit to today? No one has given me a clear answer.
Just wondering,
Tom
|
|
|
|
|
RE: House Church - 6/24/2008 3:51:14 PM
|
|
|
notmycity
Posts: 1199
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: JimboFletch
Jim Jones and David Koresh both used the same 66 books of scripture....
So that makes every home fellowship apostate?
_____________________________
<><Topher
"I am a companion of all them that fear thee, and of them that keep thy precepts." Psalm 119:63
and..
"For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come." Heb 13:14 = "notmycity"
|
|
|
|
|
RE: House Church - 6/24/2008 4:05:56 PM
|
|
|
rcjames
Posts: 5244
Joined: 7/15/2005
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: notmycity
quote:
ORIGINAL: JimboFletch
Jim Jones and David Koresh both used the same 66 books of scripture....
So that makes every home fellowship apostate?
No, but it leaves them wide open to it without the Godly counsel from others.
The Church at Galatia would have been the Church of Satan without Paul overseeing (by virtue that it wanted to live by the law and not Grace), gijuidance, direction, etc. As would the Church at Corinth have been the "Swingers" Church without guidance and even threats (don't make me come over there) to straighten them out
And what about the "Interference" of the Jerusalem Council, if the Churches had not been corrected by them; we would all be Christless Jews and hell bound.
The Lone Range house Churches are just as dangerous.
The arrogance of one or two folks that start a home "Church" and that say that have it all figured out and will not accept Godly counsel, or be accountable etc. is just that; arrogance and a sin.
You know the blind leading the blind and both falling in a ditch.
Thanks
RC
_____________________________
Just a country Preacher's humble opinion
Read the first chapter of my latest book here;
http://www.deliveranceofsara.com
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
is the assumption that all house churches are unscriptural, heretical and out of God's will. If you think I'm exaggerating, go back and read some of the posts in this thread.