The House Church:

[ChristopherHall]

Here are some Scriptures implying where the early church conducted it's gatherings...

Acts 2:1-2
1And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
2And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.(KJV)

Acts 2:46
46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,(KJV)

Acts 8:3
3 As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison.(KJV)

Acts 20:20
20 And how I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you, but have shewed you, and have taught you publickly, and from house to house,(KJV)

Romans. 16:3-5
3 Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus:
4 Who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles.
5 Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Salute my wellbeloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia unto Christ.(KJV)

1 Corinthians. 16:19
19 The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house. (KJV)

Colossians. 4:15
15 Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his house.(KJV)

It seems like the New Testament pattern leaned more toward holding Christian worship in the home as opposed to a constructed edifice. One would assume this was on account of persecution. I know in Iraq they found an ancient home that was a gathering place with an entire room modeled to be a baptismal (surely this illustrates the importance of baptism in the early years of the church). I'm not denigrating the idea of assembling in a church, I'm just making an observation. This would explain why the early Church could easily support the ministry, care for the poor, widows, and the needy. Without the overhead costs of construction and property their finances were free for direct mission support and benevolence.

It is interesting to note that "church buildings" as we know them were not built until 250 to 300 years after the time of the Apostles. It's interesting because the Apostles didn't ever choose to establish a "Christian synagogue" or "house of worship" other than the home. It's often claimed that this was because of persecution...yet even when doing rather well Christians still chose to congregate in smaller congregations based in homes over meeting in temples or buildings made especially for worship. While many view their decision to meet in homes as a necessity of circumstance...could there be more to it? Could the Apostles have chosen to meet and establish congregations in homes by design?

The first century church spread like wildfire throughout the Roman Empire. What did they do that allowed for this to happen? We know they walked in the power and anointing of the Spirit of God, but was more to their methods? It seems that Paul and others routinely established several churches in a given city while traveling and spreading the good news of Jesus Christ. They did this as they communed with individuals "house to house".

By the time the Apostles left a city they may have had a few "churches" established in homes throughout the community. This allowed for the church to grow exponentially throughout the region in a very short period of time. We see the same trends in nations such as China and Korea where there has been resistance to Christianity when the church has resorted to meeting privately in homes. The first century church had no concern over land or property but rather pooled their resources and put them toward sustaining the ministry, charity, and evangelism.

I once read how on average, American churches spend nearly 80% of their resources on property (building, maintenance, grounds, utilities, etc.) and around 20% on charity and outreach. The New Testament model in the book of Acts appears to invert those statistics. The early New Testament church appears to have use 80% or more of it's resources for evangelism and charity with 20% or less being spent on actual property. Their primary concern were "souls" therefore their simplicity and their budget reflected that vision.

Such a model today would allow for a number of "churches" to be established in various homes throughout a city or metropolitan area very quickly. It wouldn't be a conventional "church planting" it would be a movement, a silent tidal wave if you will, of believers gathering in the harvest in their homes. Institutional churches in an area wouldn't be able to compete with a steadily growing movement of local churches gathering in homes. The closeness of community, fellowship, and relevant teaching would leave all the glitz and thronging masses of belching mega churches ringing hollow. Such small gatherings would also allow for a more personal or intimate setting for expounding upon holiness. Such holiness and Christian simplicity could be witnessed by those attending in the very home where they gathered.

Also money hungry charismatic mega churches wouldn't be able to compete with a message unclouded by the pressure of the prosperity gospel to "give give give and be blessed". Many fear churches are only out for their money. Sadly, mega churches have mega expenses and yes...there is pressure to get as much money as possible to sustain the mega operation. Anyone familiar with the quacks on television have seen this. A humble church gathered in a minister's home would offer a safe haven, a shelter in the storm, from such extortion. The sole focus of the New Testament church model is...Jesus only.

Here's another question on my mind; do we put too much emphasis on church buildings? I'm not saying it's wrong to have a church building, I'm only asking if our focus is sometimes more on physical structures than on the huddled masses of those truly in need who are lost in the shadows of our steeples? Do the financial burden of our churches often limit our ability to glorify the Father by doing good to those in need? And can the overwhelming expense often reduce a preacher to a hireling?

I've been studying the "house church movement" and thought it would make an interesting discussion. How would you view an Apostolic pastor if he felt that "house churching" was the biblical model for the church?

I don't know. Just some thoughts I had. Never mind me, sometimes I think too much. lol

Love y'all.

[Michael The Disciple]

Interesting writings. I mostly met in house Churches throughout my walk with the Lord. Biblical and practical in many situations.

[Pastor Keith]

Here are some Scriptures implying where the early church conducted it's gatherings...

Acts 2:1-2
1And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
2And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.(KJV)

Acts 2:46
46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,(KJV)

Acts 8:3
3 As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison.(KJV)

Acts 20:20
20 And how I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you, but have shewed you, and have taught you publickly, and from house to house,(KJV)

Romans. 16:3-5
3 Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus:
4 Who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles.
5 Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Salute my wellbeloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia unto Christ.(KJV)

1 Corinthians. 16:19
19 The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house. (KJV)

Colossians. 4:15
15 Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his house.(KJV)

It seems like the New Testament pattern leaned more toward holding Christian worship in the home as opposed to a constructed edifice. One would assume this was on account of persecution. I know in Iraq they found an ancient home that was a gathering place with an entire room modeled to be a baptismal (surely this illustrates the importance of baptism in the early years of the church). I'm not denigrating the idea of assembling in a church, I'm just making an observation. This would explain why the early Church could easily support the ministry, care for the poor, widows, and the needy. Without the overhead costs of construction and property their finances were free for direct mission support and benevolence.

It is interesting to note that "church buildings" as we know them were not built until 250 to 300 years after the time of the Apostles. It's interesting because the Apostles didn't ever choose to establish a "Christian synagogue" or "house of worship" other than the home. It's often claimed that this was because of persecution...yet even when doing rather well Christians still chose to congregate in smaller congregations based in homes over meeting in temples or buildings made especially for worship. While many view their decision to meet in homes as a necessity of circumstance...could there be more to it? Could the Apostles have chosen to meet and establish congregations in homes by design?

The first century church spread like wildfire throughout the Roman Empire. What did they do that allowed for this to happen? We know they walked in the power and anointing of the Spirit of God, but was more to their methods? It seems that Paul and others routinely established several churches in a given city while traveling and spreading the good news of Jesus Christ. They did this as they communed with individuals "house to house".

By the time the Apostles left a city they may have had a few "churches" established in homes throughout the community. This allowed for the church to grow exponentially throughout the region in a very short period of time. We see the same trends in nations such as China and Korea where there has been resistance to Christianity when the church has resorted to meeting privately in homes. The first century church had no concern over land or property but rather pooled their resources and put them toward sustaining the ministry, charity, and evangelism.

I once read how on average, American churches spend nearly 80% of their resources on property (building, maintenance, grounds, utilities, etc.) and around 20% on charity and outreach. The New Testament model in the book of Acts appears to invert those statistics. The early New Testament church appears to have use 80% or more of it's resources for evangelism and charity with 20% or less being spent on actual property. Their primary concern were "souls" therefore their simplicity and their budget reflected that vision.

Such a model today would allow for a number of "churches" to be established in various homes throughout a city or metropolitan area very quickly. It wouldn't be a conventional "church planting" it would be a movement, a silent tidal wave if you will, of believers gathering in the harvest in their homes. Institutional churches in an area wouldn't be able to compete with a steadily growing movement of local churches gathering in homes. The closeness of community, fellowship, and relevant teaching would leave all the glitz and thronging masses of belching mega churches ringing hollow. Such small gatherings would also allow for a more personal or intimate setting for expounding upon holiness. Such holiness and Christian simplicity could be witnessed by those attending in the very home where they gathered.

Also money hungry charismatic mega churches wouldn't be able to compete with a message unclouded by the pressure of the prosperity gospel to "give give give and be blessed". Many fear churches are only out for their money. Sadly, mega churches have mega expenses and yes...there is pressure to get as much money as possible to sustain the mega operation. Anyone familiar with the quacks on television have seen this. A humble church gathered in a minister's home would offer a safe haven, a shelter in the storm, from such extortion. The sole focus of the New Testament church model is...Jesus only.

Here's another question on my mind; do we put too much emphasis on church buildings? I'm not saying it's wrong to have a church building, I'm only asking if our focus is sometimes more on physical structures than on the huddled masses of those truly in need who are lost in the shadows of our steeples? Do the financial burden of our churches often limit our ability to glorify the Father by doing good to those in need? And can the overwhelming expense often reduce a preacher to a hireling?

I've been studying the "house church movement" and thought it would make an interesting discussion. How would you view an Apostolic pastor if he felt that "house churching" was the biblical model for the church?

I don't know. Just some thoughts I had. Never mind me, sometimes I think too much. lol

Love y'all.

Can't agrue with the gist of your posting, house churches are the biblical model, but sadly it will be slow to catch on here, to use a Wolfgang Simson analogy. It is like someone has been making Xerox copies and no body never questioned to see if the original copy is the right one.

The current, pastor, building centered ministry with a de-mobilized laity that meets for special services was the model they told me to run with out of Bible College, but as I go older I questioned it effectiveness.

Pastor-limits saints ministry and makes them passive with three goals, pray, pay and obey.

Building Centered-leads to the idea that much of what God does only happens within the four walls of a designated building which limits God doing anything or very little outside of that model.

Special Structured Services-prohibits the I Cor. 14:26 type of ministry from happening.

But alas, after reading this it only makes me depressed, longing so much to see this reality, but seems so far away, a pipe dream.

[OP_Carl]

Party at Christopher's house!

10:00 a.m. tomorrow. Breakfast will be provided.

Pardon me. Where are my manners? Welcome to AFF! :friend

My observation has been that there are many things we Apostolics do that have merely been carried over from our Protestant roots, often without re-evaluation. Most of the stuff the Protestants do, and did, was carried over from the RCC. :uhoh

We live in a time where the Apostolic church paradigm is still influenced by the pushback against the Latter Rain movement a generation ago. People have found solace from Latter Rain's wreckage in structure, decorum, order, and properly vetted leadership.

Centralized organizations are designed to maintain doctrinal purity and stabilize the faith. House churches open up the door for a multitude of mistaken interpretations to be taught as gospel. I know the Spirit guides us to all truth, but some people are strong in some areas but weak in others. I value biblical insights from people that have been grounded and/or trained in good study methods. I have heard, also, divine revelation from uneducated hicks that was spot-on, so what I would recommend is balance.

Here is a little thought experiment for you:

If house churches are such a good idea, why do we call Paul's letters of approbriation to them books?
:hypercoffee

God bless you, and don't get too wrapped up in this site. Or anywhere else on the internet, either.

[Michael The Disciple]

OP Carl

Centralized organizations are designed to maintain doctrinal purity and stabilize the faith. House churches open up the door for a multitude of mistaken interpretations to be taught as gospel.

Oh brother. The Orgs around now all teach much false doctrine in my opinion. And with an org it cant be changed.

[Michael The Disciple]

If we made doctrine on the house Church the same way we do that tongues is the only evidence it would be a solid doctrine. All the examples we have of Christians meetingwere in house Churches. I dont count the Temple because it was also used by the Orthodox Jews.

Beyond that we are only shown house Groups and no scripture supporting building buildings. Isnt that the way we arrive at the evidence doctrine?

[OP_Carl]

Oh brother. The Orgs around now all teach much false doctrine in my opinion. And with an org it cant be changed.

Opinions. Now there's a can of worms . . .

You're right in the sense that orgs can be too slow to react, or they can preserve the wrong things, or become cancerous and only exist to serve their own interests.

It kind of reminds me of the democratic republic form of government. It's the worst form of government that has ever, in history, been implemented. Except for everything else that's been tried . . . :killinme

[Digging4Truth]

Centralized organizations are designed to maintain doctrinal purity and stabilize the faith.

Now... do please consider when you make such a statement the sheer number of religious organizations that are out there (many thousands) and how many of those got it right. (At least right enough to get someone saved)

So... taking a fair look at your statement I would have to say that centralized organizations have failed miserably and beyond all expression.

House churches open up the door for a multitude of mistaken interpretations to be taught as gospel. I know the Spirit guides us to all truth, but some people are strong in some areas but weak in others. I value biblical insights from people that have been grounded and/or trained in good study methods. I have heard, also, divine revelation from uneducated hicks that was spot-on, so what I would recommend is balance.

Org... no org... in a building church, house church, park church, sidewalk church.... any church. Balance is the need and the key. No church model needs it any more than another. They all need it. And with it... God can do great things.

I believe that house church can offer a great opportunity for those attending to see truth and let the word & the spirit lead them (which is some peoples greatest fear... that God be left alone leading someone without the proper man to help him along)

The biggest delay to that discovery of truth is that most will bring with them their preconceived ideas that their centralized org (talking about all orgs... thousands of them...) has worked so hard to program them with and will, therefore, resist truth outside their small doctrinal box.

Once they escape the packaged doctrine mentality they become more able to be led by the spirit & the word.

Here is a little thought experiment for you:

If house churches are such a good idea, why do we call Paul's letters of approbriation to them books?
:hypercoffee

FIrst.... what is approbriation?

Second... I find that they are generally called letters. Pauls letter to the Ephesians... Pauls letters to the Corinthians.

We do sometimes call them books but that is because of our reference to "books of the Bible" but it is somewhat a misnomer. The NT books are mostly letters.

I do not understand your point but I hope I have answered your "thought experiment".

God bless you, and don't get too wrapped up in this site. Or anywhere else on the internet, either.

Oh it is a good enough site to get wrapped up in if one wants to get wrapped up in something.

:)

[Digging4Truth]

It kind of reminds me of the democratic republic form of government. It's the worst form of government that has ever, in history, been implemented. Except for everything else that's been tried . . . :killinme

I'm not sure how you meant "democratic republic"... A democratic and a republic form of government are 2 different forms of government. They are not interchangeable.

A democratic form of government is preferred to tyranny or communism etc but a republic (which we used to have) is far and above preferred to a democracy and if one is going to have secular government then there is, in my opinion of course, there is no better form of government to have than that of a republic.

[Felicity]

FIrst.... what is approbriation?Misspelling. Should be .....

Approbation:

1. approval; commendation.
2. official approval or sanction.
3. Obsolete. conclusive proof.

[OP_Carl]

Now... do please consider when you make such a statement the sheer number of religious organizations that are out there (many thousands) and how many of those got it right. (At least right enough to get someone saved)

So... taking a fair look at your statement I would have to say that centralized organizations have failed miserably and beyond all expression. Well, yes, but I was talking about organizations that promote 3-step Acts 2:38

Org... no org... in a building church, house church, park church, sidewalk church.... any church. Balance is the need and the key. No church model needs it any more than another. They all need it. And with it... God can do great things.

I believe that house church can offer a great opportunity for those attending to see truth and let the word & the spirit lead them (which is some peoples greatest fear... that God be left alone leading someone without the proper man to help him along)

The biggest delay to that discovery of truth is that most will bring with them their preconceived ideas that their centralized org (talking about all orgs... thousands of them...) has worked so hard to program them with and will, therefore, resist truth outside their small doctrinal box.

Once they escape the packaged doctrine mentality they become more able to be led by the spirit & the word. Or led to divine flesh, latter rain, etc., etc...

FIrst.... what is approbriation? First . . . it was the WRONG WORD ! ! ! :killinme I was up past my bedtime, what can I say. I meant ..... opprobrium.

op·pro·bri·um [uh-proh-bree-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the disgrace or the reproach incurred by conduct considered outrageously shameful; infamy.

Second... I find that they are generally called letters. Pauls letter to the Ephesians... Pauls letters to the Corinthians. Right. And when was the last time you wrote a letter that needed to be divided into chapters? The key notion is that they're L________O_______N_______G letters.

We do sometimes call them books but that is because of our reference to "books of the Bible" but it is somewhat a misnomer. The NT books are mostly letters. L_____o_____n_____g letters.

I do not understand your point but I hope I have answered your "thought experiment". Those "house churches" that Paul had planted 15 to 30 years prior were dallying with such a variety of mistaken and twisted notions that a simple "STOP IT!" would have been insufficient.

Oh it is a good enough site to get wrapped up in if one wants to get wrapped up in something. :)My observation has been that getting 'unwrapped' usually takes banishment.

I'm not sure how you meant "democratic republic"... A democratic and a republic form of government are 2 different forms of government. They are not interchangeable.

A democratic form of government is preferred to tyranny or communism etc but a republic (which we used to have) is far and above preferred to a democracy and if one is going to have secular government then there is, in my opinion of course, there is no better form of government to have than that of a republic.

See 'up past my bedtime,' above . . . :rolleyes2

[Pastor Keith]

Well, yes, but I was talking about organizations that promote 3-step Acts 2:38

Or led to divine flesh, latter rain, etc., etc...

First . . . it was the WRONG WORD ! ! ! :killinme I was up past my bedtime, what can I say. I meant ..... opprobrium.

op·pro·bri·um [uh-proh-bree-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the disgrace or the reproach incurred by conduct considered outrageously shameful; infamy.

Right. And when was the last time you wrote a letter that needed to be divided into chapters? The key notion is that they're L________O_______N_______G letters.

L_____o_____n_____g letters.

Those "house churches" that Paul had planted 15 to 30 years prior were dallying with such a variety of mistaken and twisted notions that a simple "STOP IT!" would have been insufficient.

My observation has been that getting 'unwrapped' usually takes banishment.



See 'up past my bedtime,' above . . . :rolleyes2

You do realize that most heresies in church history came out of the institutional church and most of the revialist movements came out of house churches.

I think you made a nice stab at this, but way off.

[OP_Carl]

You do realize that most heresies in church history came out of the institutional church and most of the revialist movements came out of house churches.

I think you made a nice stab at this, but way off.

You caught me! :uhoh

I'm only resisting house church theology because I'm scared I'd have to clean my house!!!!!!!!! :D


I take it that you believe there is error being taught at the major UPC bible schools sufficient to warrant shutting them down?

Then it would be every man for himself.

[Pastor Keith]

You caught me! :uhoh

I'm only resisting house church theology because I'm scared I'd have to clean my house!!!!!!!!! :D


I take it that you believe there is error being taught at the major UPC bible schools sufficient to warrant shutting them down?

Then it would be every man for himself.


No I think Bible Colleges can take care of themselves, but it was a fallacy to avoid or advocate small groups/cell/house churches because they become the breeding ground for error, when the exact opposite is true. THey have preserved the fruit of renewal over the centuries when the instiutional/visible church went lock stock and barrel into heresy and false doctrine.

[OP_Carl]

No I think Bible Colleges can take care of themselves, but it was a fallacy to avoid or advocate small groups/cell/house churches because they become the breeding ground for error, when the exact opposite is true. THey have preserved the fruit of renewal over the centuries when the instiutional/visible church went lock stock and barrel into heresy and false doctrine.

I definitely see your point. I suppose I had a set of blinders on and was focusing on the Branch Davidians, the Jim Jones cult, and some independent Apostolics I have known that turned into scoundrels when they backslid right behind the pulpit.

Another key point is that the times I have been directed by God to give people money, either directly or anonymously through the church, I felt such joy and satisfaction in the Holy Ghost. I don't normally get that as I figure up various percentages and drop it in the plate. If I were involved in a house church, I would know with certainty that my giving was making a difference.

Then there is the whole notion of churches taking on debt. I'm not sure that's a proper practice.


By the way, thanks for sharing your "Corinthian" thread. Now I know what to do if anybody calls me a Corinthian, an Ionian, a Laodicean, or a Thessalonian: I'll say, "No I'm not! I'm an Abyssinian!" :killinme

[Pastor Keith]

I definitely see your point. I suppose I had a set of blinders on and was focusing on the Branch Davidians, the Jim Jones cult, and some independent Apostolics I have known that turned into scoundrels when they backslid right behind the pulpit.

Another key point is that the times I have been directed by God to give people money, either directly or anonymously through the church, I felt such joy and satisfaction in the Holy Ghost. I don't normally get that as I figure up various percentages and drop it in the plate. If I were involved in a house church, I would know with certainty that my giving was making a difference.

Then there is the whole notion of churches taking on debt. I'm not sure that's a proper practice.


By the way, thanks for sharing your "Corinthian" thread. Now I know what to do if anybody calls me a Corinthian, an Ionian, a Laodicean, or a Thessalonian: I'll say, "No I'm not! I'm an Abyssinian!" :killinme



Actually it didn't bother me as much as I thought it was humorous. I guess as long as I don't come behind in no gift, I count myself to be in good company.

I think with as much as 50-80% of most church budgets going for the up keep of buildings, I do think it is something to think about.

[Digging4Truth]

Actually it didn't bother me as much as I thought it was humorous. I guess as long as I don't come behind in no gift, I count myself to be in good company.

I think with as much as 50-80% of most church budgets going for the up keep of buildings, I do think it is something to think about.

My wife was talking to me the other day and she, bless her heart, said that she thought I would be a good pastor. We are looking into starting a new house work here in our town and I am in contact with another work the next town over.

Anyway... she said... what would be the problem, if you were to get a good house church going, with renting a place or looking for a building to buy etc... just don't get real expensive.

While I appreciated her kind words I told her... it is just the nature of the beast. No matter how grand my intentions might be... once I rent or buy that building and I have rent, lights, water etc needing to be paid then the first time the money that comes in doesn't meet the bills I will have to press for money.

This is not even taking into account what we could have done to minister to the needs of each individual in the group... but there is just no escaping it. The model will take you there. No matter how pure the heart and how grand the intentions.

This is not an indictment of anyone who currently is involved with the popular church model of today... I was just saying this as an answer as to why it just cannot be the direction I take in my ministry.

[mfblume]

We have to have money to run a church. However, we really do have to remember that we cannot pressure the people to give "of necessity".

2Co 9:7 KJV Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.

Mention the need, yes. But we cannot push. That is how we are operating now in our new work.

[OP_Carl]

I think with as much as 50-80% of most church budgets going for the up keep of buildings, I do think it is something to think about.

Yup. And take a look at the ministry team: 1 guy is doing the "outreach" ministry, and 4 or 5 are doing the "inreach"






:uhoh

:drawguns

:aaa



(Maybe Dominic Benincasa will soften up on me if I tell him I only carry a gun to defend myself against Pentecostal ushers) :nah

[FEEDMYSHEEP]

Can't agrue with the gist of your posting, house churches are the biblical model, but sadly it will be slow to catch on here, to use a Wolfgang Simson analogy. It is like someone has been making Xerox copies and no body never questioned to see if the original copy is the right one.

The current, pastor, building centered ministry with a de-mobilized laity that meets for special services was the model they told me to run with out of Bible College, but as I go older I questioned it effectiveness.

Pastor-limits saints ministry and makes them passive with three goals, pray, pay and obey.

Building Centered-leads to the idea that much of what God does only happens within the four walls of a designated building which limits God doing anything or very little outside of that model.

Special Structured Services-prohibits the I Cor. 14:26 type of ministry from happening.

But alas, after reading this it only makes me depressed, longing so much to see this reality, but seems so far away, a pipe dream.

Don't be depress. Make them understand.

If the people know the "Law of God" they will not be confused today. The law is not been abolished. Jesus fulfilled the law. Jesus did not destroy the law.

The law from the old testament. The Levitical Priest their "duty" is to feed those people ....chosen gates. Noticed chosen gates. Who made that decisions? God has to choose the place. Why? Because for his "Sacred Name" This is why now...we can understand the 12 gates called... 12 tribes, called... 12 nations, called....12 rods each tribes ....remember only ONE Chosen "Rod" in order to rule that "ONE Nation" That is the "Rod of Aaron"

How do we know the Rod of Aaron that is chosen. Because God is given the sign ...what kind of sign? Aaron's rod budded like the book of Hebrew describe and also, was place in the Ark of the Covenant.

Jesus fulfill the law did not destroyed the law. How?

Since God Himself gave the "Rod of Authority" to the Levi called Aaron's rod. God has to sealed it. This is why the 144,000 children of Israel are sealed why? Because they are the "witnesses God's work" They are the only one who can tell about God who performed all the Miracles that impossible for men to do.

Where is the last chosen place? Jesus gave the last chosen place in Jerusalem. Why? Because the apostles has wait there. Why? God has to give the free gift of the Holy Ghost. Why? Because God will place the rod of the authority inside their hearts.

This is why Jesus did not come out the lineage of Levi. Why? Because if Jesus come out Levi....God will "violate His own word" God Himself gave the rod of authority to the Levitical Priest.

This is why Jesus come out of lineage of Judah...... Called the ORDER OF MELCHISEDEC "NOT" THE ORDER OF AARON.

Now, we can understand this verse saying.......
Hebrews 7:11
If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

Now, we can understand the gates been place to our hearts by Jesus Christ. Because if...we still under the Levitical Priest(they can only offer it to those chosen place by God- Remember ...if God did not choose the place the rule is....they are not allowed to offered it). We will not able to distribute the word of God in every places. Only for the chosen place.

THE APOSTLE TEACHING FROM HOUSE TO HOUSE.

THE TRUE CHURCH IS YOU! NOT MADE HAND OR BUILDING.

2 Cor. 5:1 (KJV)
For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
Hebrews 9:11 (KJV)
But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;

[FEEDMYSHEEP]

Can't agrue with the gist of your posting, house churches are the biblical model, but sadly it will be slow to catch on here, to use a Wolfgang Simson analogy. It is like someone has been making Xerox copies and no body never questioned to see if the original copy is the right one.

The current, pastor, building centered ministry with a de-mobilized laity that meets for special services was the model they told me to run with out of Bible College, but as I go older I questioned it effectiveness.

Pastor-limits saints ministry and makes them passive with three goals, pray, pay and obey.

Building Centered-leads to the idea that much of what God does only happens within the four walls of a designated building which limits God doing anything or very little outside of that model.

Special Structured Services-prohibits the I Cor. 14:26 type of ministry from happening.

But alas, after reading this it only makes me depressed, longing so much to see this reality, but seems so far away, a pipe dream.

House to house meaning....spreading and teaching the word of God.

[Titus2Mom]

The Apostle Teaching From House To House.

The True Church Is You! Not Made Hand Or Building.


Amen!

[Titus2Mom]

Here are some Scriptures implying where the early church conducted it's gatherings...

Acts 2:1-2
1And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
2And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.(KJV)

Acts 2:46
46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,(KJV)

Acts 8:3
3 As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison.(KJV)

Acts 20:20
20 And how I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you, but have shewed you, and have taught you publickly, and from house to house,(KJV)

Romans. 16:3-5
3 Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus:
4 Who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles.
5 Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Salute my wellbeloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia unto Christ.(KJV)

1 Corinthians. 16:19
19 The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house. (KJV)

Colossians. 4:15
15 Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his house.(KJV)

It seems like the New Testament pattern leaned more toward holding Christian worship in the home as opposed to a constructed edifice. One would assume this was on account of persecution. I know in Iraq they found an ancient home that was a gathering place with an entire room modeled to be a baptismal (surely this illustrates the importance of baptism in the early years of the church). I'm not denigrating the idea of assembling in a church, I'm just making an observation. This would explain why the early Church could easily support the ministry, care for the poor, widows, and the needy. Without the overhead costs of construction and property their finances were free for direct mission support and benevolence.

It is interesting to note that "church buildings" as we know them were not built until 250 to 300 years after the time of the Apostles. It's interesting because the Apostles didn't ever choose to establish a "Christian synagogue" or "house of worship" other than the home. It's often claimed that this was because of persecution...yet even when doing rather well Christians still chose to congregate in smaller congregations based in homes over meeting in temples or buildings made especially for worship. While many view their decision to meet in homes as a necessity of circumstance...could there be more to it? Could the Apostles have chosen to meet and establish congregations in homes by design?

The first century church spread like wildfire throughout the Roman Empire. What did they do that allowed for this to happen? We know they walked in the power and anointing of the Spirit of God, but was more to their methods? It seems that Paul and others routinely established several churches in a given city while traveling and spreading the good news of Jesus Christ. They did this as they communed with individuals "house to house".

By the time the Apostles left a city they may have had a few "churches" established in homes throughout the community. This allowed for the church to grow exponentially throughout the region in a very short period of time. We see the same trends in nations such as China and Korea where there has been resistance to Christianity when the church has resorted to meeting privately in homes. The first century church had no concern over land or property but rather pooled their resources and put them toward sustaining the ministry, charity, and evangelism.

I once read how on average, American churches spend nearly 80% of their resources on property (building, maintenance, grounds, utilities, etc.) and around 20% on charity and outreach. The New Testament model in the book of Acts appears to invert those statistics. The early New Testament church appears to have use 80% or more of it's resources for evangelism and charity with 20% or less being spent on actual property. Their primary concern were "souls" therefore their simplicity and their budget reflected that vision.

Such a model today would allow for a number of "churches" to be established in various homes throughout a city or metropolitan area very quickly. It wouldn't be a conventional "church planting" it would be a movement, a silent tidal wave if you will, of believers gathering in the harvest in their homes. Institutional churches in an area wouldn't be able to compete with a steadily growing movement of local churches gathering in homes. The closeness of community, fellowship, and relevant teaching would leave all the glitz and thronging masses of belching mega churches ringing hollow. Such small gatherings would also allow for a more personal or intimate setting for expounding upon holiness. Such holiness and Christian simplicity could be witnessed by those attending in the very home where they gathered.

Also money hungry charismatic mega churches wouldn't be able to compete with a message unclouded by the pressure of the prosperity gospel to "give give give and be blessed". Many fear churches are only out for their money. Sadly, mega churches have mega expenses and yes...there is pressure to get as much money as possible to sustain the mega operation. Anyone familiar with the quacks on television have seen this. A humble church gathered in a minister's home would offer a safe haven, a shelter in the storm, from such extortion. The sole focus of the New Testament church model is...Jesus only.

Here's another question on my mind; do we put too much emphasis on church buildings? I'm not saying it's wrong to have a church building, I'm only asking if our focus is sometimes more on physical structures than on the huddled masses of those truly in need who are lost in the shadows of our steeples? Do the financial burden of our churches often limit our ability to glorify the Father by doing good to those in need? And can the overwhelming expense often reduce a preacher to a hireling?

I've been studying the "house church movement" and thought it would make an interesting discussion. How would you view an Apostolic pastor if he felt that "house churching" was the biblical model for the church?

I don't know. Just some thoughts I had. Never mind me, sometimes I think too much. lol

Love y'all.

Excellent, excellent post ChristopherHall! This is something I have pondered on for the past several years. Where is our biblical model? I hunger for the "real church."

[Felicity]

I love and prefer church as I know it - in other words a corporate gathering of believers with a somewhat structured service along the example set in the New Testament regarding worship and instruction.

However, the way church is getting to be nowadays sometimes I think getting together in a home would be WAY more simple and perhaps more pleasing to God and more edifying.

Particularly when you're the pastor or leader.

[Aquila]

My pastor states that he supports cell groups. But I'm increasingly leaning toward the full house church model.

[AnotherTrave]

Can't agrue with the gist of your posting, house churches are the biblical model, but sadly it will be slow to catch on here, to use a Wolfgang Simson analogy. It is like someone has been making Xerox copies and no body never questioned to see if the original copy is the right one.

The current, pastor, building centered ministry with a de-mobilized laity that meets for special services was the model they told me to run with out of Bible College, but as I go older I questioned it effectiveness.

Pastor-limits saints ministry and makes them passive with three goals, pray, pay and obey.

Building Centered-leads to the idea that much of what God does only happens within the four walls of a designated building which limits God doing anything or very little outside of that model.

Special Structured Services-prohibits the I Cor. 14:26 type of ministry from happening.

But alas, after reading this it only makes me depressed, longing so much to see this reality, but seems so far away, a pipe dream.

What an excellent post.

[brotherjason]

Hey Brother Hall, I see you're as creative with forum names as I am! We are actually starting a home church in our hometown for many reasons. Maybe it will grow too big for a house, we will have to deal with that when it happens. From my studies "Christians" didn't start meeting in specific "church buildings" until Constantine decided to be a good little abomination and kicked all the temple priests out and gave the idol worshiping temples to the "Christians". The reason I use quotation marks is that this was the beginning of the roman catholic abomination. I've saw where some people will go as far as saying that Constantine was actually the first pope.
Another interesting thing I've found is that during the reformation Martin Luther actually pushed for the idea of meeting in houses for awhile (too bad he didn't come the rest of the way out of catholicism!

[Digging4Truth]

Hey Brother Hall, I see you're as creative with forum names as I am! We are actually starting a home church in our hometown for many reasons. Maybe it will grow too big for a house, we will have to deal with that when it happens. From my studies "Christians" didn't start meeting in specific "church buildings" until Constantine decided to be a good little abomination and kicked all the temple priests out and gave the idol worshiping temples to the "Christians". The reason I use quotation marks is that this was the beginning of the roman catholic abomination. I've saw where some people will go as far as saying that Constantine was actually the first pope.
Another interesting thing I've found is that during the reformation Martin Luther actually pushed for the idea of meeting in houses for awhile (too bad he didn't come the rest of the way out of catholicism!

Here is a link (http://www.livingtruth.com/PDF/housesthat%20change.pdf) to a pdf version of a wonderful book on the subject. It is called Houses That Change the World.

On the subject of when a house church becomes to big for ones home there is a excellent section that begins on page 26. The first subsection is called "How To Break The 20-Barrier"

Enjoy.

[brotherjason]

Great, thank you, I saved it to favorites so I can read it in a bit.

[Rudy]

Highly Recommend this book for this subject--a real Eye opener on the buildings we call church--a must read--

http://www.paganchristianity.org/

[Digging4Truth]

Highly Recommend this book for this subject--a real Eye opener on the buildings we call church--a must read--

http://www.paganchristianity.org/

I assume I already have this book.

I have Frank Viola's book entitled "Pagan Christianity" but the cover is very different.

Update:
I just went to ptmin.org and the book you have shown is the same book but it has been revised and updated.

I wish I knew what the differences were. I might buy the new one if I knew that the revisions and updates were worth the purchase price.

But... in any case... I will reiterate your sentiment... Frank Viola's book "Pagan Christianity" is an excellent book.

[ChristopherHall]

Awesome stuff here bros.

[Rudy]

Awesome stuff here bros.

This awesome stuff here = freedom and purpose.

[Rudy]

Here is an interesting video on personal interviews about the original purpose and plan for the Body of Christ.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvJR_SIiPl4&feature=related

[Rudy]

Can't agrue with the gist of your posting, house churches are the biblical model, but sadly it will be slow to catch on here, to use a Wolfgang Simson analogy. It is like someone has been making Xerox copies and no body never questioned to see if the original copy is the right one.

The current, pastor, building centered ministry with a de-mobilized laity that meets for special services was the model they told me to run with out of Bible College, but as I go older I questioned it effectiveness.

Pastor-limits saints ministry and makes them passive with three goals, pray, pay and obey.

Building Centered-leads to the idea that much of what God does only happens within the four walls of a designated building which limits God doing anything or very little outside of that model.

Special Structured Services-prohibits the I Cor. 14:26 type of ministry from happening.

But alas, after reading this it only makes me depressed, longing so much to see this reality, but seems so far away, a pipe dream.

There must be birthing pains first brother.

[Digging4Truth]

I know these have been posted before but I think they bear repeating from time to time.

Fifteen Theses towards a Re-Incarnation of Church

1. Church is a Way of Life, not a series of religious meetings.
Before they where called Christians, followers of Christ have been called
”The Way”. One of the reasons was, that they have literally found ”the way to live.” The nature of Church is not reflected in a constant series of religious
meetings lead by professional clergy in holy rooms specially reserved to
experience Jesus, but in the prophetic way followers of Christ live their
everyday life in spiritual extended families as a vivid answer to the questions
society faces, at the place where it counts most: in their homes.

2. Time to change the system
In aligning itself to the religious patterns of the day, the historic Orthodox
Church after Constantine in the 4th century AD adopted a religious system
which was in essence Old Testament, complete with priests, altar, a Christian
temple (cathedral), frankincense and a Jewish, synagogue-style worship
pattern. The Roman Catholic Church went on to canonize the system. Luther
did reform the content of the gospel, but left the outer forms of ”church”
remarkably untouched; the Free-Churches freed the system from the State, the Baptists then baptized it, the Quakers dry-cleaned it, the Salvation Army put it into a uniform, the Pentecostals anointed it and the Charismatics renewed it, but until today nobody has really changed the superstructure. It is about time to do just that.

3. The Third Reformation.
In rediscovering the gospel of salvation by faith and grace alone, Luther
started to reform the Church through a reformation of theology. In the 18th
century through movements like the Moravians there was a recovery of a new
intimacy with God, which led to a reformation of spirituality, the Second
Reformation. Now God is touching the wineskins themselves, initiating a
Third Reformation, a reformation of structure.
4. From Church-Houses to house-churches
Since New Testament times, there is no such thing as ”a house of God”. At
the cost of his life, Stephen reminded unequivocally: God does not live in
temples made by human hands. The Church is the people of God. The
Church, therefore, was and is at home where people are at home: in ordinary
houses. There, the people of God:
share their lives in the power of the Holy Spirit,
have ”meatings,” that is, they eat when they meet;
they often do not even hesitate to sell private property and share material and spiritual blessings,
teach each other in real-life situations how to obey God’s word—
dialogue- and not professor-style,
pray and prophesy with each other,
baptize,
‘lose their face’ and their ego by confessing their sins,
regaining a new corporate identity by experiencing love, acceptance
and forgiveness.

5. The church has to become small in order to grow big
Most churches of today are simply too big to provide real fellowship. They
have too often become ”fellowships without fellowship.” The New Testament
Church was a mass of small groups, typically between 10 and 15 people. It
grew not upward into big congregations between 20 and 300 people filling a
cathedral and making real, mutual communication improbable. Instead, it
multiplied ”sidewards”—like organic cells—once these groups reached
around 15-20 people. Then, if possible, it drew all the Christians together into
citywide celebrations, as with Solomon’s Temple court in Jerusalem. The
traditional congregational church as we know it is, statistically speaking,
neither big nor beautiful, but rather a sad compromise, an overgrown housechurch and an under-grown celebration, often missing the dynamics of both.

[Digging4Truth]

6. No church is led by a Pastor alone
The local church is not lead by a Pastor, but fathered by an Elder, a local
person of wisdom and reality. The local house-churches are then networked
into a movement by the combination of elders and members of the so-called
five-fold ministries (Apostles, Prophets, Pastors, Evangelists and Teachers)
circulating ”from house to house,” whereby there is a special foundational
role to play for the apostolic and prophetic ministries (Eph. 2:20, and
4:11.12). A Pastor (shepherd) is a very necessary part of the whole team, but he cannot fulfill more than a part of the whole task of ”equipping the saints for the ministry,” and has to be complemented synergistically by the other four ministries in order to function properly.

7. The right pieces – fitted together in the wrong way
In doing a puzzle, we need to have the right original for the pieces, otherwise
the final product, the whole picture, turns out wrong, and the individual
pieces do not make much sense. This has happened to large parts of the
Christian world: we have all the right pieces, but have fitted them together
wrong, because of fear, tradition, religious jealousy and a power-and-control
mentality. As water is found in three forms—ice, water and steam—the five
ministries mentioned in Eph. 4:11-12, the Apostles, Prophets, Pastors,
Teachers and Evangelists are also found today, but not always in the right
forms and in the right places: they are often frozen to ice in the rigid system
of institutionalized Christianity; they sometimes exist as clear water; or they
have vanished like steam into the thin air of free-flying ministries and
”independent” churches, accountable to no-one. As it is best to water flowers
with the fluid version of water, these five equipping ministries will have to be
transformed back into new—and at the same time age-old—forms, so that the
whole spiritual organism can flourish and the individual ”ministers” can find
their proper role and place in the whole. That is one more reason why we
need to return back to the Maker’s original and blueprint for the Church.

8. God does not leave the Church in the hands of bureaucratic clergy
No expression of a New Testament church is ever led by just one professional
”holy man” doing the business of communicating with God and then feeding
some relatively passive religious consumers Moses-style. Christianity has
adopted this method from pagan religions, or at best from the Old Testament.
The heavy professionalisation of the church since Constantine has now been a pervasive influence long enough, dividing the people of God artificially intolaity and clergy. According to the New Testament (1 Tim. 2:5), ”there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”
God simply does not bless religious professionals to force themselves in between people and God forever. The veil is torn, and God is allowing people
to access Himself directly through Jesus Christ, the only Way. To enable the
priesthood of all believers, the present system will have to change completely.
Bureaucracy is the most dubious of all administrative systems, because it
basically asks only two questions: yes or no. There is no room for spontaneity
and humanity, no room for real life. This may be OK for politics and
companies, but not the Church. God seems to be in the business of delivering
His Church from a Babylonian captivity of religious bureaucrats and
controlling spirits into the public domain, the hands of ordinary people made
extraordinary by God, who, like in the old days, may still smell of fish,
perfume and revolution.

9. Return from organized to organic forms of Christianity
The ”Body of Christ” is a vivid description of an organic, not an organized,
being. Church consists on its local level of a multitude of spiritual families,
which are organically related to each other as a network, where the way the
pieces are functioning together is an integral part of the message of the whole.
What has become a maximum of organization with a minimum of organism,
has to be changed into a minimum of organization to allow a maximum of
organism. Too much organization has, like a straightjacket, often choked the
organism for fear that something might go wrong. Fear is the opposite of
faith, and not exactly a Christian virtue. Fear wants to control, faith can trust.
Control, therefore, may be good, but trust is better. The Body of Christ is
entrusted by God into the hands of steward-minded people with a
supernatural charismatic gift to believe God that He is still in control, even if
they are not. A development of trust-related regional and national networks,
not a new arrangement of political ecumenism is necessary for organic forms
of Christianity to reemerge.

10. From worshipping our worship to worshipping God
The image of much of contemporary Christianity can be summarized, a bit
euphemistically, as holy people coming regularly to a holy place at a holy
day at a holy hour to participate in a holy ritual lead by a holy man dressed
in holy clothes against a holy fee. Since this regular performance-oriented enterprise called "worship service" requires a lot of organizational talent and
administrative bureaucracy to keep going, formalized and institutionalized
patterns developed quickly into rigid traditions. Statistically, a traditional 1-2
hour ”worship service” is very resource-hungry but actually produces very
little fruit in terms of discipling people, that is, in changed lives.
Economically speaking, it might be a "high input and low output" structure.
Traditionally, the desire to ”worship in the right way” has led to much
denominationalism, confessionalism and nominalism. This not only ignores
that Christians are called to ”worship in truth and in spirit,” not in cathedrals
holding songbooks, but also ignores that most of life is informal, and so is
Christianity as ”the Way of Life.” Do we need to change from being powerful
actors to start ”acting powerfully?”

[Digging4Truth]

11. Stop bringing people to church, and start bringing the church to the people
The church is changing back from being a Come-structure to being again a
Go-structure. As one result, the Church needs to stop trying to bring people
”into the church,” and start bringing the Church to the people. The mission of
the Church will never be accomplished just by adding to the existing
structure; it will take nothing less than a mushrooming of the church through
spontaneous multiplication of itself into areas of the population of the world,
where Christ is not yet known.

12. Rediscovering the ”Lord's Supper” to be a real supper with real food
Church tradition has managed to ”celebrate the Lord's Supper” in a
homeopathic and deeply religious form, characteristically with a few drops of
wine, a tasteless cookie and a sad face. However, the ”Lord's Supper” was
actually more a substantial supper with a symbolic meaning, than a symbolic
supper with a substantial meaning. God is restoring eating back into our
meeting.

13. From Denominations to city-wide celebrations
Jesus called a universal movement, and what came was a series of religious
companies with global chains marketing their special brands of Christianity
and competing with each other. Through this branding of Christianity most of
Protestantism has, therefore, become politically insignificant and often more
concerned with traditional specialties and religious infighting than with
developing a collective testimony before the world. Jesus simply never asked people to organize themselves into denominations. In the early days of the
Church, Christians had a dual identity: they were truly His church and
vertically converted to God, and then organized themselves according to
geography, that is, converting also horizontally to each other on earth. This
means not only Christian neighbors organizing themselves into neighborhoodor
house-churches, where they share their lives locally, but Christians coming
together as a collective identity as much as they can for citywide or regional
celebrations expressing the corporateness of the Church of the city or region.
Authenticity in the neighborhoods connected with a regional or citywide
corporate identity will make the Church not only politically significant and
spiritually convincing, but will allow a return to the biblical model of the
City-Church.

14. Developing a persecution-proof spirit
They crucified Jesus, the Boss of all the Christians. Today, his followers are
often more into titles, medals and social respectability, or, worst of all, they
remain silent and are not worth being noticed at all. ”Blessed are you when
you are persecuted”, says Jesus. Biblical Christianity is a healthy threat to
pagan godlessness and sinfulness, a world overcome by greed, materialism,
jealousy and any amount of demonic standards of ethics, sex, money and
power. Contemporary Christianity in many countries is simply too harmless
and polite to be worth persecuting. But as Christians again live out New
Testament standards of life and, for example, call sin as sin, conversion or
persecution has been, is and will be the natural reaction of the world. Instead
of nesting comfortably in temporary zones of religious liberty, Christians will
have to prepare to be again discovered as the main culprits against global
humanism, the modern slavery of having to have fun and the outright worship
of Self, the wrong centre of the universe. That is why Christians will and must
feel the ”repressive tolerance” of a world which has lost any absolutes and
therefore refuses to recognize and obey its creator God with his absolute
standards. Coupled with the growing ideologisation, privatization and
spiritualisation of politics and economics, Christians will—sooner than most
think—have their chance to stand happily accused in the company of Jesus.
They need to prepare now for the future by developing a persecution-proof
spirit and an even more persecution-proof structure.

15. The Church comes home
Where is the easiest place, say, for a man to be spiritual? Maybe again, is it
hiding behind a big pulpit, dressed up in holy robes, preaching holy words to
a faceless crowd and then disappearing into an office? And what is the most difficult—and therefore most meaningful—place for a man to be spiritual? At
home, in the presence of his wife and children, where everything he does and
says is automatically put through a spiritual litmus test against reality, where
hypocrisy can be effectively weeded out and authenticity can grow. Much of
Christianity has fled the family, often as a place of its own spiritual defeat,
and then has organized artificial performances in sacred buildings far from
the atmosphere of real life. As God is in the business of recapturing the
homes, the church turns back to its roots—back to where it came from. It
literally comes home, completing the circle of Church history at the end of
world history.

As Christians of all walks of life, from all denominations and
backgrounds, feel a clear echo in their spirit to what God's Spirit is
saying to the Church, and start to hear globally in order to act locally,
they begin to function again as one body. They stop asking God to bless what
they are doing - and start doing what God is blessing. They organize
themselves into neighborhood house-churches and meet in regional or city celebrations.

You are invited to become part of this movement and make your
own contribution. Maybe your home, too, will become a house that changes
the world.

[brotherjason]

Those are some powerful words to think about. I think if most people actually looked at what gets called "Christian" and saw it for the paganism it really is, it would make them sick! Christmas has nothing to do with Christ, steeples have nothing to do with worshiping the true and living God, they have been artificially placed years ago into Christianity and we just accept it. Lol, usually I'm pretty unpopular for my view on the "religious" holidays.

[Aquila]

I believe we will need both house churches and traditional churches to reach our world. Many will prefer the traditional model over the house church model. That’s fine really, there is more than enough people to reach to facilitate both. Sadly churches get possessive of their “turf” and thereby severely limit multiplied efforts to reach the lost in their communities. I believe we need traditional pastors who are willing to release men of God who have a burden for house churching, recognizing them as legitimate ministers of the gospel and maintaining fellowship with them. While churches are popping up in the suburbs, masses of humanity are left unreached in the densely populated cities where it is difficult to build or maintain a church building. House churches can be established anywhere and are perfect for establishing inner city fellowships. Traditional pastors need to just let the house church pastors follow their call.

I drive about 30 minutes (highway) to church way out in boonyville. During this drive I pass blocks and blocks of inner city neighborhoods that are still unreached. I talked to my pastor about the burden I was feeling to begin a house church and he refused to acknowledge the house church as a legitimate form of church for America in this era. He emphasized getting these individuals to come to our church. But most have never heard of us and for many the idea of driving 30 minutes or so to church isn’t appealing. Many of these individuals aren’t financially secure and I doubt they would even feel comfortable attending our “Sunday best” services. Don’t get me wrong, we have a fantastic church! I love the church we attend but I’m increasingly feeling a call to something far less glamorous in the trenches of the neighborhoods of my city. I was going to begin Bible studies in my home and just operate as a Bible study group but the services and obligations of the church we attend really gives us little time to properly serve the work. I’m very frustrated and feeling like it’s all becoming rather meaningless.

[Digging4Truth]

I believe we will need both house churches and traditional churches to reach our world. Many will prefer the traditional model over the house church model. That’s fine really, there is more than enough people to reach to facilitate both. Sadly churches get possessive of their “turf” and thereby severely limit multiplied efforts to reach the lost in their communities. I believe we need traditional pastors who are willing to release men of God who have a burden for house churching, recognizing them as legitimate ministers of the gospel and maintaining fellowship with them. While churches are popping up in the suburbs, masses of humanity are left unreached in the densely populated cities where it is difficult to build or maintain a church building. House churches can be established anywhere and are perfect for establishing inner city fellowships. Traditional pastors need to just let the house church pastors follow their call.

I drive about 30 minutes (highway) to church way out in boonyville. During this drive I pass blocks and blocks of inner city neighborhoods that are still unreached. I talked to my pastor about the burden I was feeling to begin a house church and he refused to acknowledge the house church as a legitimate form of church for America in this era. He emphasized getting these individuals to come to our church. But most have never heard of us and for many the idea of driving 30 minutes or so to church isn’t appealing. Many of these individuals aren’t financially secure and I doubt they would even feel comfortable attending our “Sunday best” services. Don’t get me wrong, we have a fantastic church! I love the church we attend but I’m increasingly feeling a call to something far less glamorous in the trenches of the neighborhoods of my city. I was going to begin Bible studies in my home and just operate as a Bible study group but the services and obligations of the church we attend really gives us little time to properly serve the work. I’m very frustrated and feeling like it’s all becoming rather meaningless.

The current church model will still be needful to reach those who have been acclimated to said church model. Many have been raised with these expectations and some have trouble functioning outside the environment that they have been raised in.

By the same token there are many who are not and will never be comfortable with that very same church model.

As things stand now the best thing that could happen in the body of Christ is for each model to see the importance and legitimacy that the other model brings to the goal of reaching our current world.

[Titus2Mom]

<snip>
You are invited to become part of this movement and make your
own contribution. Maybe your home, too, will become a house that changes
the world.

Excellent, thanks for posting that. That is one of my favorite books.

[Titus2Mom]

Those are some powerful words to think about. I think if most people actually looked at what gets called "Christian" and saw it for the paganism it really is, it would make them sick! Christmas has nothing to do with Christ, steeples have nothing to do with worshiping the true and living God, they have been artificially placed years ago into Christianity and we just accept it. Lol, usually I'm pretty unpopular for my view on the "religious" holidays.

I agree whole-heartedly Brother Jason. I tend to fall into that category as well. I just had a conversation yesterday with a dear sister about what a shame it is that people who believe the bible (and live it) are shunned and criticized by those who say they believe the bible.

[Digging4Truth]

I could interject here that my family and I do not participate in the holidays. We haven't done so for about a dozen years or so.

But I have also gone through a change in the manner in which I address people on these issues.

I do not feel that I was lost all those years that I had participated in said holidays. The state of others is not mine to judge or change except that I pray for others, discuss things with others as much as I can while still maintaining the scripture that asks me to keep peace with all men as much as I can.

I think much of the rejection that non-celebrators receive sometimes comes from the manner in which they present their beliefs. Even a oneness individual speaking to a trinitarian can totally ruin anyones ability to see the beauty of the doctrine by approaching others with a less than stellar attitude.

Just a thought.

[brotherjason]

I could interject here that my family and I do not participate in the holidays. We haven't done so for about a dozen years or so.

But I have also gone through a change in the manner in which I address people on these issues.

I do not feel that I was lost all those years that I had participated in said holidays. The state of others is not mine to judge or change except that I pray for others, discuss things with others as much as I can while still maintaining the scripture that asks me to keep peace with all men as much as I can.

I think much of the rejection that non-celebrators receive sometimes comes from the manner in which they present their beliefs. Even a oneness individual speaking to a trinitarian can totally ruin anyones ability to see the beauty of the doctrine by approaching others with a less than stellar attitude.

Just a thought.

Oh my, I hate to think of all the people I have chased from the truth with my "new believer zeal" when I first got the Holy Ghost. I was as blunt as a sledge hammer, and if you didn't believe what I did you knew nothing! God coupled with experience has given me more wisdom than I had then (thankfully!), but I truly with I could go back and fix all mistakes. Unfortunately (in my mind) God doesn't give us a re-wind feature, all we can do is learn.

I am really glad that there are people here that believe like I do though, I usually don't stick around long on a forum because I'm the only one. Glad to meet you folks and praise the Lord for you!

[Digging4Truth]

Oh my, I hate to think of all the people I have chased from the truth with my "new believer zeal" when I first got the Holy Ghost. I was as blunt as a sledge hammer, and if you didn't believe what I did you knew nothing! God coupled with experience has given me more wisdom than I had then (thankfully!), but I truly with I could go back and fix all mistakes. Unfortunately (in my mind) God doesn't give us a re-wind feature, all we can do is learn.

I am really glad that there are people here that believe like I do though, I usually don't stick around long on a forum because I'm the only one. Glad to meet you folks and praise the Lord for you!

I too have learned much wisdom since the early days. I could have saved much strife and turmoil had I understood then what I understand now.

But... it was those zealous days that have provided me with my current understanding so I suppose that, in everything, I am compelled to give thanks.

Blessings...

[Aquila]

I have a question for some of you who house church. It's in regards to delivery of the Word. When you preach the Word I assume it's more conversational as opposed to being "preachy". But when you teach do you deliver a "sermon" with a title, points, analogies and applications..... or do take a passage the Lord has laid upon your heart and then read and discuss it together?

[Rudy]

I have a question for some of you who house church. It's in regards to delivery of the Word. When you preach the Word I assume it's more conversational as opposed to being "preachy". But when you teach do you deliver a "sermon" with a title, points, analogies and applications..... or do take a passage the Lord has laid upon your heart and then read and discuss it together?

Those outside of the I.C. respond on a daily basis the operation of the spirit concerning the needs of the Body (the church). Always ready to teach, preach, encourage, nurse, and feed the natural body. It is not bound by a specific time or date.

Assembly could take place often, even everyday. The atmosphere could be one of instruction in righteousness, healing, both physical, mental, and spiritual.

The I.C. approach has roots in ancient Greek rhetoric where crowds gather to be awed by a speaker. The Church building itself is designed as to show a separation of clergy and the common believer. Example: elevated platform, special chairs, special places to sit for the clergy and his staff. Special attire we see now even in the O.P. movement.

There may be a time where a type of teaching may require a use of charts where one stands for example. Or the use of a rented building to fellowship and be blessed by a visiting missionary or evangelist.

Home assembly is nothing new but fairly new in the U.S. If you use google alert and type in "House Church" you will almost daily get resources and articles concerning it delivered to your email. Home assembly among Gods people has never stopped, just being reborn in the U.S.

I.C. Apostolic Oneness Orgs resembles it's mother the Assembly of God and it's mother the Catholic institution. Resembling them in the building (temple) approach in worshiping God. Using a special one (pastor type priest) to connect to God and pay tribute to (tithing money).

A pastor in the biblical example is one who has that capacity or gift to pastor. One who serves the needs of those in the Body, specifically new-Born's. The Body of Christ is monitored by a plurality of elders to serve and instruct. Apostles, Bishops, teachers, pastors, and Elders are servantile positions and one may be used inter-changeably.

The I.C. uses those positions as in a pyramid fashion which requires eventually a type of Pope if you will. They can't get around that even though they may deny it.

[Aquila]

I have a question for some of you who house church that wasn't answered. I want to know how some of you do it so I'll ask again. When you preach the Word in a house church setting I assume it's more conversational as opposed to being "preachy". But when you teach do you deliver a "sermon" with a title, points, analogies and applications..... or do take a passage the Lord has laid upon your heart and then read and discuss it together?

[brotherjason]

I have a question for some of you who house church that wasn't answered. I want to know how some of you do it so I'll ask again. When you preach the Word in a house church setting I assume it's more conversational as opposed to being "preachy". But when you teach do you deliver a "sermon" with a title, points, analogies and applications..... or do take a passage the Lord has laid upon your heart and then read and discuss it together?

Well, we have tried it both ways. But seeing how it is just my wife and kids right now I don't know how it would go with a larger crowd. Right now I am pretty well stuck in a seated position (need prayer, just haven't asked for it) so it works best at the moment just around the table.
Although I'm definitely no authority on HC or how people learn, it seems they learn best when they participate. But that's just my .02. Hope this helps.

[brotherjason]

Lol, sorry, I thought I had read your post all the way through but then I looked up and saw something I didn't address. And yes, I use a sermon format (guess that would be the word to use) but still leave room for interaction.

[TulsaGirl42]

Re house church movement: I recommend the book "Revolution" by George Barna for a logical, clearly-written and well-researched discussion of this phenomenon.

[TulsaGirl42]

Felicity, thank you for defining approbation. I always enjoy your remarks. However, I have a question. You say your surname was given to you by Jim Yohe. Since "surname" is the family name (i.e. Welch), and is usually the name of the father, I wonder if you mean your given name: Felicity. Just interested.

[ApostolicTexas]

Lol, sorry, I thought I had read your post all the way through but then I looked up and saw something I didn't address. And yes, I use a sermon format (guess that would be the word to use) but still leave room for interaction.

Are you the brother Jason of Acts 18?

[Titus2Mom]

I have a question for some of you who house church that wasn't answered. I want to know how some of you do it so I'll ask again. When you preach the Word in a house church setting I assume it's more conversational as opposed to being "preachy". But when you teach do you deliver a "sermon" with a title, points, analogies and applications..... or do take a passage the Lord has laid upon your heart and then read and discuss it together?

I have heard of it done both ways. I mean, we know that Paul preached for hours on end.....people even fell asleep and fell out of the window and had to be brought back ;-)

But at the same time...

"How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.
If any man speak in an [unknown] tongue, [let it be] by two, or at the most [by] three, and [that] by course; and let one interpret.
But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.
If [any thing] be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.
For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.
And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.
For God is not [the author] of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints."

So there has to be interaction as well, else how can those things happen?

[Bro-Larry]

[size="6"]
We live in a time where the Apostolic church paradigm is still influenced by the pushback against the Latter Rain movement a generation ago. People have found solace from Latter Rain's wreckage in structure, decorum, order, and properly vetted leadership.


OP_Carl,

I have no real knowledge of the "Latter Splatter" movement or the wreckage you referred to above. Would you give a brief description of what you mean?
tks, BL

[Titus2Mom]

I agree, I would like to hear about it as well. I have only been a Christian since 1996, and am a "first generation" one at that. I haven't heard anything about that before.

[scotty]

I have heard of it done both ways. I mean, we know that Paul preached for hours on end.....people even fell asleep and fell out of the window and had to be brought back ;-)



Yeah but have you ever thought about what all he had to say?!?!? The gospels all say in the end that there was so much more Christ done that was not written. Can you imagine all the miracles and teachings the disciples experienced ?!?! Praise Jesus Name !!!!!!

:bliss:woohoo:shockamoo

[Digging4Truth]

I have heard of it done both ways. I mean, we know that Paul preached for hours on end.....people even fell asleep and fell out of the window and had to be brought back ;-)

But at the same time...

"How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.
If any man speak in an [unknown] tongue, [let it be] by two, or at the most [by] three, and [that] by course; and let one interpret.
But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.
If [any thing] be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.
For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.
And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.
For God is not [the author] of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints."

So there has to be interaction as well, else how can those things happen?

I don't think one example negates the other in any way. (And I'm not saying you do...just making a point.)

What was Paul? An apostle

What was an apostle?

A person who ministered to the elders of the various assemblies across the world.

When Paul came to town it would tend to not be a normal gathering. This is where you got your questions answered. This is where things that had been points of confusion and debate could be answered. After all that is why we have the majority of the NT because they asked these apostles questions to which they replied in letter form.

The young boy fell from the windows while Paul was long preaching.

The word translated preaching is dialegomia. Probably where we get the term dialogue. The term itself requires a minimum of 2 people taking part in the conversation.

The lexicon defines dialegomia as follows:

1) to think different things with one's self, mingle thought with thought
a) to ponder, revolve in mind
2) to converse, discourse with one, argue, discuss

So... in all probability the night the young boy fell from the window Paul was sitting with the brethren having a discusion, answering questions, giving direction & instruction & generally fellowshipping.

We are, often, so quick to place today's definition of a word onto descriptions of events that took place thousands of years ago. When we hear that someone was "long preaching" we tend to see images of Paul standing and preaching with red face (maybe even with a microphone LOL) when this was not necessarily (and most likely) was not the case.

What Paul was doing the night the young boy fell may well have fallen right in line with the picture that the scriptures you quoted in red spoke about the way they met day to day when they met house to house.

[Titus2Mom]

Thank you D4T, I hadn't actually fully delved into that scripture.

[ChristopherHall]

Yeah but have you ever thought about what all he had to say?!?!? The gospels all say in the end that there was so much more Christ done that was not written. Can you imagine all the miracles and teachings the disciples experienced ?!?! Praise Jesus Name !!!!!!

:bliss:woohoo:shockamoo


True, I'm sure Paul had quite a bit to teach...but he wasn't one of the disciples. Most of what Paul received regarding life and faith in Christ was through divine revelation. ;)

[Bro-Larry]

[FONT=Georgia][SIZE=3][COLOR=blue][B][I]Yeah but have you ever thought about what all he had to say?!?!? The gospels all say in the end that there was so much more Christ done that was not written. Can you imagine all the miracles and teachings the disciples experienced ?!?! Praise Jesus Name


John said that he supposed that even the world itself could not contain enough books to record all the miracles that Jesus did. (St Jn 21:25)

I simply don't believe Jesus ministered here for only three and a half years. There's no scriptural proof of that. He could have ministered for up to nineteen years.

[gloryseeker]

In my opinion...

The house church has gained a lot of notoriety in recent years, if I am not mistaken a lot of it was birthed from Dr. Cho's success in South Korea.

For me this is one of the questions that you have to factor historical and cultural aspects into the equation.

Sure you can go into the book of Acts and through the epistles and see them meeting in houses, but the reality is this was the birthing of the church. The priority was not places, but people. However, as the church grew we can study from historical perspective how it became necessary to find places that would house the numbers of Christians who were believing.

House churches are still important in places like China where the government oppresses, so they are worshiping in small groups without bringing attention to themselves.

I don't like blanket statements, but it is going to sound like I am making one here which is not my intention. What I have found with many house churches in America is that you have people who don't like authority. Instead of a pastor you have a group leader because this person does not want to function in the responsibilities of the role and you have people who don't want any government.

Now, I would agree with the one post where the church has evolved into an institution where the pastor has been overly exalted and the congregates sit and listen without doing anything. I once heard a great analogy about the church. It was likened to a football team except the coaches were on the field playing the game while the team members were on the sidelines watching.

The gift (Eph 4) which we typically call the pastor has been given to mature the people for the work of the ministry. Somewhere along the way we determined that it was the five fold who does ministry and everyone else sits around.

personally, I'm a church man. I love it. It is a great thing for the body to come together and function together. I am not so excited about the mega church. I think at some number there is a diminishing return because relationship are lost. But when we have a gift in our life (pastor) there is protection for us, anointing that flows to us, and a building up that occurs.

that's my opinion

[Bro-Larry]

Small thinkers.

[Coonskinner]

Here is a post saved from old FCF long ago on this subject...

I thought it was brilliant. :)

I'd love to give credit to the author, if he wouldn't mind.

Here it is:

Ah, the true beauty of the internet; it gives a voice to every kind of bizarre belief system. Christ has been building His church for two thousand years, and now we want to dream of destroying generations of thought, devotion, and work. The real call here is to embrace an offbeat interpretation of the Bible, to indulge in paranoid delusions, and to reject the institutional Church which has been the greatest force for missions efforts the world has ever known.

Quote:
Meet in houses and feel no need to build a special meeting place.

What a great idea. God was mistaken about the Tabernacle and the Temple, and we don't need Church buildings. Take away the Church buildings, and get rid of the Church's community identity. Let's dream of a day when the Church becomes invisible and ineffective. Pentecostalism has grown for a hundred years, building church buildings wherever they went; let's forget that and meet in tiny groups in houses until we become as irrelevant as other groups that have chosen that route. If we really want to lose our influence in society, we could build communes; why only go half way?

Quote:
Give more of our resources to the poor rather than heap them upon ourselves for big nice buildings with a church staff.

Here's another good one. I've never met a godly person who didn't love the house of God; the godly people I've met have always had a heart to build as good a house for God as they possibly could. I suspect that this attitude grows more out of stinginess than out of a love for the poor. The author may be a true advocate for the poor and live in a shack so that he can do more to feed them, I don't know. In my community, the people who feed the poor are the same ones who love the church buildings that they have sacrificed to build.

Quote:
Lead each other more rather than putting so much emphasis on one part of the 5 fold ministry.

Now here's an attitude I've met before. People who don't want a shepherd; in the business, we call them goats.

[Digging4Truth]

When a post is so undeniably and over the top biased with nothing but insult & sarcasm then there isn't much anyone sees in it that is worth reading unless one just happens to hold the same level of disdain for a subject.

It is clear that the original writer of the post and possibly CS absolutely abhor the entire concept from beginning to end and top to bottom.

That point has been made.

[ChristopherHall]

A wonderful book on this subject is Pagan Christianity?
http://www.ptmin.org/pagan.htm

It illustrates how Christians "chose" to meet in homes up until the time of Constantine. Yes, Christians even met in homes when times were good and persecution was lacking.

This book also traces the origin of things such as the building, it's lay out, the platform, the pulpit, the "sermon", stained glass windows, etc. It's all of pagan origin.

Some would say that God intended his people to meet in special religious buildings because of the OT Temple system. However, Christianity was a clean break from Temple religion and litany. The author of the book illustrates how the early Catholic church combined elements of OT Temple worship and Greko-Roman pagan custom to incorporate in the Catholic system.

I attend a traditional UPCI church. I love my church. My pastor is awesome and non-dictatorial. However, I have to be honest....the house church movement presents a more biblical form of church, in my opinion.

I have no issue with authority, again because my pastor is awesome. However, the NT idea of body ministry is appealing. In such a meeting everyone brings a message, song, a testimony, etc. to the meeting. There isn't a teacher vs. student differentiation. All minister in some way. The "pastors" (elders) guide and instruct together but do not command the flock. Being an elder is therefore a ministry not an office.

I know some thing the "church building" was just a natural outgrowth to Christian practice....but history shows that it was nearly forced upon the church by Constantine and the religious leaders that paid him homage.

[ChristopherHall]

Here's an interesting article I had read. I wanted to share it here and see if anyone would like to share their thoughts on it. It really convicted me.

================================================== ==


THE HOUSE CHURCH
AND PARACHURCH
ORGANIZATIONS

Since the first use of the word church (Gk. ekklesia) in Acts is found here (2:47), we pause to consider the centrality of the church in the thinking of the early Christians.

The church in the Book of Acts and in the rest of the NT was what is often called a house church. The early Christians met in houses rather than in special ecclesiastical buildings. It has been said that religion was loosed from specially sacred places and centered in that universal place of living, the home. Unger says that homes continued to serve as places of Christian assembly for two centuries.

It might be easy for us to think that the use of private homes was forced by economic necessity rather than being the result of spiritual considerations. We have become so accustomed to church buildings and chapels that we think they are God’s ideal.

However, there is strong reason to believe that the first century believers might have been wiser than we are.

First, it is inconsistent with the Christian faith and its emphasis on love to spend thousands of dollars on luxurious buildings when there is such appalling needed throughout the world. In that connection, E. Stanley Jones wrote:

I looked on the Bambino, the child Christ in the Cathedral at Rome, laden with expensive jewels, and then walked out and looked upon the countenances of hungry children and wondered whether Christ, in view of this hunger, was enjoying His jewels, and the thought persisted that if He was, then I could no longer enjoy the thought of Christ. That bejeweled Bambino and the hunger children are a symbol of what we have done in putting around Christ the expensive livery of stately cathedral sand churches while leaving untouched the fundamental wrongs in human society whereby Christ is left hungry in the unemployed and the disposed.

Not only is it inhumane; it is also uneconomical to spend money on expensive buildings that are used for no more than three, four, or five hours during the week. How have we ever allowed ourselves to drift into this unthinking dream world where we are willing to spend so much in order to get so little usage in return?

Our modern building programs have been one of the biggest hindrances to the expansion of the church. Heavy payments on principle and interest cause church leaders to resist any efforts to hive off and form new churches. Any loss of members would jeopardize the income needed to pay for the building and its upkeep. An unborn generation is addled with debt, and any hope of church reproduction is stifled.

It is often argued that we must have impressive buildings in order to attract the unchurched to our services. Aside from being a carnal way of thinking, this completely overlooks the NT pattern. The meetings of the early church were largely for believers. The Christians assembled for the apostles’ teaching, fellowship, breaking of bread, and prayer (Acts 2:42). The did not do their evangelizing by inviting people to meetings on Sunday but by witnessing to those with whom they came in contact throughout the week. When people did get converted, they were then brought into the fellowship and warmth of the house church to be fed and encouraged.

It is sometimes difficult to get people to attend services in dignified church buildings. There is a strong reaction against formalism. Also there is a fear of being solicited for funds. “All the church wants is your money,” is a common complaint. Yet many of these same people are willing to attend a conversational Bible class in a home. There they do not have to be style-conscious, and they enjoy the informal, unprofessional atmosphere.

Actually the house church is ideal for every culture and every country. And probably of we could look over the entire world, we would see more churches meeting in homes than in any other way.

In contrast to today’s imposing cathedrals, churches, and chapels – as well as a whole host of highly organized denominations, the apostles in the Book of Acts made no attempt to form an organization of any kind for carrying on the work of the Lord. The local church was God’s unit on earth for propagating the faith and the disciples were content to work within that context.

In recent years there has been an organizational explosion in Christendom of such proportions as to make one dizzy. Every time a believer gets a new idea for advancing the cause of Christ, he forms a new mission board, corporations, or institution!

One result is that capable teachers and preachers have been called away from their primary ministries in order to become administrators. If all mission board administrators were serving on the mission field, it would greatly reduce the need for personnel there.

Another result of the proliferation of organizations is that vast sums of money are needed for overhead, and thus diverted from direct gospel outreach. The greater part of every dollar given to many Christian organizations is devoted to the expense of maintaining the organization rather than the primary purpose for which it was founded.

Organizations often hinder the fulfillment of the Great Commission. Jesus told His disciples to teach all the things He had commanded. Many who work for Christian organizations find they are not permitted to teach all the truth of God. They must no teach certain controversial matters for fear they will alienate the constituency to whom they look for financial support.

The multiplication of Christian institutions has too often resulted in factions, jealousy, and rivalry that have done great harm to the testimony of Christ.

Consider the overlapping multiplicity of Christian organizations at work, at home, and abroad. Each competes for limited personnel and for shrinking financial resources. And consider how many of these organizations really owe their origin to purely human rivalry, though public statements usually refer to God’s will (Daily Notes of the Scripture Union).

And it is often true that organizations have a way of perpetuating themselves long after they have outlived their usefulness. The wheels grind on heavily even though the vision of the founders has been lost, and the glory of the once dynamic movement has departed. It was spiritual wisdom, not primitive naiveté, that saved the early Christians from setting up human organizations to carry on the work of the Lord. G. H. Lang writes:

An acute writer, contrasting the apostolic work with the more usual modern missionary methods, has said that “we found missions, the apostles founded churches.” The distinction is sound and pregnant. The apostles founded churches, and the founded nothing else, because for the ends in view nothing else was required or could have been so suitable. In each place where they labored they formed the converts into a local assembly, with elders – always elders, never an elder (Acts 14:23; 15:6, 23; 20:17; Phil. 1:1) – to guide, to rule, to shepherd, men qualified by the Lord and recognized by the saints (I Cor. 16:15; I Thess. 5:12, 13; I Tim. 5:17-19); and with deacons, appointed by the assembly (Acts 6:1-6; Phil 1:1) – in this contrasted with the elders – to attend to the few but very important temporal affairs, and in particular to the distribution of the funds of the assembly….All they (the apostles) did in the way of organizing was to form the disciples gathered into other such assemblies. No other organization than the local assembly appears in the New Testament, nor do we find even the germ of anything further.

To the early Christians and their apostolic leadership, the congregation was the divinely ordained unit on earth through which God chose to work, and they only such unit to which He promised perpetuity was the church.

Believer’s Bible Commentary, Pgs. 1590-1591

[gloryseeker]

"There is a strong reaction against formalism. Also there is a fear of being solicited for funds. 'All the church wants is your money,' is a common complaint. Yet many of these same people are willing to attend a conversational Bible class in a home. There they do not have to be style-conscious, and they enjoy the informal, unprofessional atmosphere."

I have strong opinions about house churches, but understand my opinion is really limited to the American culture. While I know many disagree with me and I have seen people call others names like, "small thinkers" I see core value system in the majority that practice house churches. Maybe it doesn't apply to the handful that post in these threads, but what I have seen there is an overall laziness that comes with those who attend house churches.

For me, this statement in your post sums up the largest majority of those who promote the house church, especially in America.

1. They don't want to conform or really they don't want any authority in their lives.

2. They don't want to give and think that giving is a program for the church to collect money to pay the bills when in fact giving of tithes and offerings is worship.

3. They want a conversational study because they don't want anyone "preaching" at them even though it is through the foolishness of preaching that man is saved, not through conversations.

4. They do not have to be style conscious, or they want to relax where their lazy clothes and drink Starbucks. What ever happen to putting on your Sunday best because you were going to worship the Lord God Almighty? They rather have an informal without excellence gathering so that nothing is required of them.

While I agree that the spectator church doesn't work, and that ministry should include everyone, there needs to be governments and authority structures.

Even the great Apostle Paul who had the most dramatic conversion of anyone was found among the Prophets and did not go out until released by the Holy Spirit and those who were in authority over him. That's my take.

[Digging4Truth]

"There is a strong reaction against formalism. Also there is a fear of being solicited for funds. 'All the church wants is your money,' is a common complaint. Yet many of these same people are willing to attend a conversational Bible class in a home. There they do not have to be style-conscious, and they enjoy the informal, unprofessional atmosphere."

I have strong opinions about house churches, but understand my opinion is really limited to the American culture. While I know many disagree with me and I have seen people call others names like, "small thinkers" I see core value system in the majority that practice house churches. Maybe it doesn't apply to the handful that post in these threads, but what I have seen there is an overall laziness that comes with those who attend house churches.

For me, this statement in your post sums up the largest majority of those who promote the house church, especially in America.

1. They don't want to conform or really they don't want any authority in their lives.

2. They don't want to give and think that giving is a program for the church to collect money to pay the bills when in fact giving of tithes and offerings is worship.

3. They want a conversational study because they don't want anyone "preaching" at them even though it is through the foolishness of preaching that man is saved, not through conversations.

4. They do not have to be style conscious, or they want to relax where their lazy clothes and drink Starbucks. What ever happen to putting on your Sunday best because you were going to worship the Lord God Almighty? They rather have an informal without excellence gathering so that nothing is required of them.

While I agree that the spectator church doesn't work, and that ministry should include everyone, there needs to be governments and authority structures.

Even the great Apostle Paul who had the most dramatic conversion of anyone was found among the Prophets and did not go out until released by the Holy Spirit and those who were in authority over him. That's my take.

Purely conjecture and judgment.

And wow... judgment on a monumental level.

[Lafon]

"There is a strong reaction against formalism. Also there is a fear of being solicited for funds. 'All the church wants is your money,' is a common complaint. Yet many of these same people are willing to attend a conversational Bible class in a home. There they do not have to be style-conscious, and they enjoy the informal, unprofessional atmosphere."

I have strong opinions about house churches, but understand my opinion is really limited to the American culture. While I know many disagree with me and I have seen people call others names like, "small thinkers" I see core value system in the majority that practice house churches. Maybe it doesn't apply to the handful that post in these threads, but what I have seen there is an overall laziness that comes with those who attend house churches.

For me, this statement in your post sums up the largest majority of those who promote the house church, especially in America.

1. They don't want to conform or really they don't want any authority in their lives.

2. They don't want to give and think that giving is a program for the church to collect money to pay the bills when in fact giving of tithes and offerings is worship.

3. They want a conversational study because they don't want anyone "preaching" at them even though it is through the foolishness of preaching that man is saved, not through conversations.

4. They do not have to be style conscious, or they want to relax where their lazy clothes and drink Starbucks. What ever happen to putting on your Sunday best because you were going to worship the Lord God Almighty? They rather have an informal without excellence gathering so that nothing is required of them.

While I agree that the spectator church doesn't work, and that ministry should include everyone, there needs to be governments and authority structures.

Even the great Apostle Paul who had the most dramatic conversion of anyone was found among the Prophets and did not go out until released by the Holy Spirit and those who were in authority over him. That's my take.


You really should read the book - Pagan Christianity. I just obtained it and am now in the process of reading it, taking the time to check some of the references tendered in support of its claims.

So far I have found its contents to be extremely enlightening. In fact, I even find myself in agreement with many of the things it addresses.

I'm not saying that it has, or will cause me to forsake the institutional church, but it is interesting to learn where many of its practices found their beginning.

I recommend it highly. Again, I would encourage you to make a small investment of your money by purchasing this book, and then take some time to read and compare its contents to what the Bible discloses concerning the issues it addresses. You just might find that some of the views you seem to embrace so tenaciously might be challenged.

[Bro-Larry]

Shindler's List is the only movie that has ever moved me to cry, but in one of the last scenes, the prison guards had fled, and he was leaning on his car, crying because he said he could have sold that car and bought a few more lives.

Just a thought.:groan

[Digging4Truth]

Shindler's List is the only movie that has ever moved me to cry, but in one of the last scenes, the prison guards had fled, and he was leaning on his car, crying because he said he could have sold that car and bought a few more lives.

Just a thought.:groan

Hey Bro-Larry...

Could you help me understand the point you are making here. I have read over it several times and, thus far, the density of my cranium is proving to be too thick to clearly see the point being made. :)

Thanks.

[gloryseeker]

Actually you are VERY incorrect. It is not judgment, but observation. I know people who attend & Pastor house churches. I never get in there business about it and actually help in any way that I can.

Just because someone has a different opinion than yourself is not judgmental. I observe people. I know the books and the studies and the success of some house churches. I have no problem with that. But of those who I have met that promote the house church concept, they fall into one or more of the categories outlined above.

[Digging4Truth]

Actually you are VERY incorrect. It is not judgment, but observation. I know people who attend & Pastor house churches. I never get in there business about it and actually help in any way that I can.

Just because someone has a different opinion than yourself is not judgmental. I observe people. I know the books and the studies and the success of some house churches. I have no problem with that. But of those who I have met that promote the house church concept, they fall into one or more of the categories outlined above.

An opinion would be how one feels about house church as it pertains to the way they live their own lives.

Judgment would pertain to broad brushing an entire movements motives as your post did.

Opinions pertain to your thoughts on how something would work for you.

Judgment pertains to judging another's motives for doing something that would or would not work for you.

Your post... hands down... is judging for yourself the motives of people per your observation. Your post also seemed to then place what you feel you have observed upon all those who would do the same thing when there is no way of knowing that this is true. My observation has been the opposite. Can I then decide that house churchers, on the whole, have good intent and motives? I simply cannot do that.

It is clear that you have no intentions of beginning a house church or possibly even being a part of one. It is clear what you feel the underlying motives are for those who do.

The best thing to do would be to allow this conversation to continue among those who appreciate the concept.

[ChristopherHall]

Gloryseeker,

You bring up some interesting points. I’d like to offer my thoughts. I pray you don’t mind.

"There is a strong reaction against formalism. Also there is a fear of being solicited for funds. 'All the church wants is your money,' is a common complaint. Yet many of these same people are willing to attend a conversational Bible class in a home. There they do not have to be style-conscious, and they enjoy the informal, unprofessional atmosphere."

I have strong opinions about house churches, but understand my opinion is really limited to the American culture. While I know many disagree with me and I have seen people call others names like, "small thinkers" I see core value system in the majority that practice house churches. Maybe it doesn't apply to the handful that post in these threads, but what I have seen there is an overall laziness that comes with those who attend house churches.

I think it might be unfair to call house churchers lazy. Many who attend house churches work full time and often work two jobs. Many (if not most) ministers who function as elders in the house church work in ministry (prayer, visitation, teaching, discipling, benevolence & charity work) AND work a full time job where they have deadlines, a boss or manager, a work schedule, family obligations, the works. Like Paul they work with their own hands to sustain themselves while also ministering.

For me, this statement in your post sums up the largest majority of those who promote the house church, especially in America.

1. They don't want to conform or really they don't want any authority in their lives.

I’m sure this is true for many in the house church movement. We see it in our institutional churches also with “church hoppers” etc. That’s human nature. However, a deeper more personal look may be in order so as not to paint an entire movement with such a broad brush. Many in the house church movement have come from very oppressive and abusive churches. What we might see as one not wanting any authority in their lives may actually be one not wanting a “man’s” dictates or personal opinions having absolute authority in their lives. Most house churches have elders who lead and teach. Often issues are addressed and repentance is called for. However, instead of a man behind a podium shrieking down on them, it’s a small and intimate group of friends praying and talking with them. It’s three elders taking them out to lunch and sharing how they’re worried about the individual’s spiritual life and presenting where the road they’re on might lead if they continue on that path. It’s definitely not as authoritarian as a traditional model…but there is quite a degree of accountability to the assembly itself. Think about it. You have a church of 200, 400, 600, or more. The pastor cannot possibly know where each individual is in their spiritual walk. Often the individual can slip in and slip out without a hitch and be dead wrong in their personal lives and in their attitudes and spirit. The larger the church the more likely there are more individuals like this. I’ve even experienced this myself. In some of my lowest of lows nobody knew what I was going through or how I felt. My collar was white, my tie was straight, and every hair in place…you wouldn’t think to look at me I’d have cause to be disgraced. It wasn’t until I was with a few brothers in an informal home bible study wherein I was asked to speak that I bore my heart. In a house church you have maybe 15 people on average. All are expected to participate to the edification of the body, to speak, to pray, to share, to testify. It’s a lot harder to slip in and slip out without anyone noticing that there’s just something weighing on your spirit. Also in larger institutional churches one can easily fall away. They miss a Wednesday, they miss a Sunday, before you know it someone asks, “Where’s Bro. Joe? I haven’t seen him in a while.” What’s the answer I’ve typically encountered? I normally hear, “Me either. I wonder how he’s doing?” Another chimes in; “I haven’t seen him in about five services.” The pastor may not even know he’s not attended in over a month. In a house church where all minister to one another if one is absent, there’s a gaping hole in the group that very first night he’s missing. I heard a story about a little house church that had a meeting and a certain couple who had been attending and blessed the group suddenly didn’t show up or call to let anyone know they wouldn’t be there that night. Guess what; they had prayer and all felt burdened to go visit this couple who wasn’t there just to make sure they were ok. So they all closed in prayer, got in their cars, and drove to the couple’s home. I wish I could have seen that woman’s eyes when she opened her door and saw over 9 brothers and sisters on her porch and walk just wanting to make sure everything was ok. They allowed the group in and apparently there had been some domestic issues brewing that night. The couple opened up and wept before the Lord as their brothers and sisters prayed for them and they all had church right there in the couple’s dinning room.

It may be that in a house church one will have more spiritual accountability to the body and to the elders not less.

2. They don't want to give and think that giving is a program for the church to collect money to pay the bills when in fact giving of tithes and offerings is worship.

In America churches spend over several hundred billion dollars a year just on buildings and necessary grounds keeping. In the shadow of our steeples are elderly people who can’t afford prescription drugs they need, there are families who have lost their jobs and are on the verge of loosing everything they’ve ever worked for. Many of these people are faithful members and givers to their local churches. Most church budgets spend at least 80% of revenues on buildings, necessary staff, and grounds keeping. When many folks approach the church for help the church can’t help them…many churches are struggling to pay their own electric bills. That’s not what we see in the NT. In the NT churches took up collections to relieve the saints who faced famine and drought. They took up collections to help pay for a traveling minister’s immediate needs. They didn’t “salary” a staff or spend all their money on a building. Most people didn’t even have steady paychecks. They only had what their crops or trade would bring in. Most elders worked with their own hands to sustain themselves in obedience to Paul’s admonition that if a man didn’t work, neither should he eat. Those who traveled and evangelized were often the beneficiaries of collections from the local body to pay for their travels and necessities.

People are becoming wiser in their giving. Why give thousands of dollars a year to pay for a building that is only in full use two or three days a week? That’s really not very economical. The overhead is tremendous. However in house churches all tithes and offerings collected may be used to support the ministry (should the body desire to support a full time elder) and help saints in need. I heard a story about a woman who was in a car accident. While her car was in the shop her money was tight because she was going to have to pay a pretty tall repair bill. Her house church family took up a collection to stock her cabinets with food and rent her a rental car until hers was out of the shop. I know from experience that this sort of thing is rare in traditional churches. All too often churches can’t give what they’d want to give because of necessary expenses and bills.

I do know of some who are in the house church movement because their previous church “required” tithing as a salvational aspect of obedience. When their family fell onto economic hard times and couldn’t afford to tithe and keep their home they expressed their need and were expected to continue tithing. So they left and were welcomed by the house churching community.

I think that many in the house church movement just want to see their funds go to meet real and desperately needed needs of individuals they know and love and many who are just on hard times and looking for a refuge.

[ChristopherHall]

3. They want a conversational study because they don't want anyone "preaching" at them even though it is through the foolishness of preaching that man is saved, not through conversations.

Here’s an interesting study….

“And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.” – Acts 20:7

Let’s look at that word “preached”. In the Greek it is, “dialegomai”, meaning:

dispute, reason with, reason, speak, mingle thought with thought, ponder, revolve in mind, to converse, to discourse with one or more, to argue, and/or to discuss.

It’s the same Greek word from which we get our English word….dialogue.

Paul wasn’t up on a podium breathin’ heavy, spitting, and saying, “And Gaaawwwd said, Moses…!” No vibrato or preacher’s cough. Paul had a “dialogue” about the gospel in this home. Most likely Paul was sitting and talking with them over a small table as the crowd crowded close to listen to what he had to say as he answered questions from the people and allowed them to share their understandings. In all honesty, in nearly every context where the word “preach” or “preached” is used the setting is conversational with others asking questions and interacting. Even Pentecost, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” (Acts 2:37). Peter wasn’t just “preachin’”. Peter was answering a direct question and having dialogue with the crowd. Actually, I’m not convinced that one can find a single instance in the NT Church in which believers sat in pews listening to an orator issue a homiletic. In fact, a little research will show that this was customary in Greek pagan temples long before the Church began. Philosophers would stand on raised platforms with crowds seated in and around them and philosophize or conduct pagan rituals. So really, the foolishness of biblical preaching can be seen in dialogue in homes throughout the NT.

4. They do not have to be style conscious, or they want to relax where their lazy clothes and drink Starbucks. What ever happen to putting on your Sunday best because you were going to worship the Lord God Almighty? They rather have an informal without excellence gathering so that nothing is required of them.

I think there’s nothing wrong with dressing up for the Lord. I attend a traditional church and wear a suit to most services. However, I don’t believe God cares about what I’m wearing as long as it’s modest and as long as my heart is in the right place. For many they think they are right merely because they “look right”. It’s about so much more than this. I read a lot of history, we’ve become “blue blood Pentecostals” with our padded pews and fine suits. When Pentecost exploded and was unleashed it happened in homes, barns, and brush arbors. Farmers still wearing their work clothes and covered in mud shuffled down to old sawdust filled altars and repented of their sins and were baptized with power from on high. We often put far too much emphasis on looking sophisticated so that we can get approval of the religious authorities and impress others with our overall appearance. House churches are truly a “come as you are” and “be modest” movement. Nothing more modest than a nice shirt, jeans, and a pair of boots; kinda reminds me of a man named John who wore camel’s skin and ate wild honey. The post powerful prophets aren’t always enthroned on platforms, standing behind oak pulpits, in silk $200.00 shirts.

I love the church I currently attend because I can show up in jeans (though rarely) and no one thinks less of me. Some of our most faithful members wear casuals. It’s not about the clothes we put on…it’s about putting on Christ.

While I agree that the spectator church doesn't work, and that ministry should include everyone, there needs to be governments and authority structures.

The Bible provides a lot of information regarding the structure of the early Church. Why not adhere to it? Speak where it speaks and be silent where it is silent?

Even the great Apostle Paul who had the most dramatic conversion of anyone was found among the Prophets and did not go out until released by the Holy Spirit and those who were in authority over him. That's my take.

I agree. There are authorities in the church to be respected. However, some authorities are consumed with chasing down dress code violations and violations of “structure”. In the house church the authorities are focused on that inner man. And you can’t hide him in the 5th pew behind sister Thea Edith, you can’t hide him behind a smile and a nice suit. You can’t slip in and out whenever you like.

Also consider this. The first Church of the Bible was home based for 300 years. During those years they turned the Roman world upside down. It wasn’t until the 300’s that the doctrines of the trinity, pagan influences, priestly and religious vestments, man made traditions, and buildings came into popularity. Then biblical Christianity began to stagnate and the institutional Christianity began to spread through military force. Christianity had all but lost it’s fire, except for a few on fire souls here and there down through history. Then Pentecost erupted in the 20th Century in home, farm, and barn based meetings. And it spread like wild fire. And just as in history, now we’re becoming focused on the larger building, the clothes we wear, and the traditions we hold. History repeats itself. I’m convinced that the end time revival might be among house church networks. They don’t have nearly the degree of politics and power grabs you see in the institutional church. Also as the Tribulation takes place the institutional church will see the government close their doors and arrest their members. House church networks will already be in place and ministering in conspicuously in neighborhoods all over the world.

Compare the growth of the NT church in the Bible when they met in homes…they turned their world upside down. Today the church in America is of little power or relevance. Fewer and fewer people are attending church. Churches have abused people and laundered money so often most don’t completely trust them. Churches are starting to seem like “Walmart Christianity” and institutional ministers are rarely considered more reputable than used care dealers.

I think the house church movement offers a refreshing perspective that says, let’s get back to basics and win those we love. I think we could learn a thing or two from them.

[ChristopherHall]

I think we’re going to need both institutional churches and house churches to reach humanity. Some prefer large and powerful assemblies with all kinds of ministries under one roof. Others prefer smaller more intimate meetings and interactive study of the Bible. It’s like some people who prefer to shop at Super Wal-Mart and others preferring to shop at Balweg’s Hardware, where they stand and chat will Bill, the owner, and pick up a soda next door at Ann’s restaurant.

[ChristopherHall]

And let's also consider that God is calling far more men into the ministry than there are pulpits to fill. I sometimes get the feeling that it's our man made "structure" that is hindering the church in many ways.

[Digging4Truth]

I think we’re going to need both institutional churches and house churches to reach humanity. Some prefer large and powerful assemblies with all kinds of ministries under one roof. Others prefer smaller more intimate meetings and interactive study of the Bible. It’s like some people who prefer to shop at Super Wal-Mart and others preferring to shop at Balweg’s Hardware, where they stand and chat will Bill, the owner, and pick up a soda next door at Ann’s restaurant.

Indeed... differing ministries reaching differing areas of society.

Paul spoke of being all men to all people.

From both sides of the table... if we can operate in the model that speaks to us and be pleased with the souls reached with the other model then we can maximize the impact of the church as a whole.

[gloryseeker]

In many respects I agree with you. While it may sound like I am broad stroking everyone in a category as the digger tries to incorrectly point out, I am not.

Human nature is not complicated at all. It is not hard to figure out what is in the heart of a person. A good salesman will figure out your hot buttons within a matter of minutes. While I realize that nothing is 100% when dealing with people there are always underlying motives of why people do things.

There are those who will take scripture and try to prove that tithing is not mandatory or it is Old Testament or under the law. I have never seen a "giving" person try and make this argument. There are some that profess "we" are the church and the gathering together is not biblical. I have never seen a person who faithfully attends church try and make these arguments.

Having said that let me discuss what you have said. After the first quote you referred to calling people who go to house churches lazy. I didn't say this, so I am not looking at these as lazy, but you did make an interesting analysis after this statement. You talked about how, "Many (if not most) ministers who function as elders in the house church...AND work a full time job where they have deadlines, a boss or manager, a work schedule, family obligations, the works..." While this is true I would answer that their lives are trying to "budget" God in around their schedules.

I know I'll catch flack for this, but God should be first. By that I mean, before our mortgage, job, car, deadline, boss, etc. Why is it why declare the Lordship of Jesus but allow "other" things to take priority? The reason is because "we" have to take care of our own lives. Read Matthew six there is a beautiful passage of scriptures about not taking thought of your life, to seek first the Kingdom, and that God will provide.

I have found this is true. The reason many Christians struggle is because they are trying to make it and be a Christian. Be a Christian and allow God to take care of the stuff.

You do make a great point about church hoppers. The mentality and spirit behind this is really what I am addressing. I even understand people coming out of "oppressive" churches. But just because a person was in an "oppressive" church doesn't mean that "church" is wrong, it only means they were in the wrong church. If people would pray about where God wanted them instead of going where they like, to a church that is close, or to the denomination that I am, they would find that God is faithful to direct them to the right place. I have seen many people move because of a job transfer and say that they will find a church when they get to the new city. How backwards is that. If God is first, then find the right church and the provision of a right job will be there for you.

You mention a church of 400 or 600 and how that it is impossible for the Pastor to know where everyone is. You are absolutely right and this illustrates why the spectator church doesn't work. This is where elders and deacons come into play. When a church is properly set up the needs of the people, the business of the church, and the direction of the ministry all flow together.

You also mention about how you in your lowest points were not strengthened by others because everything looked right. This is the problem with the spectator church. Church is not about coming to listen. It's about coming to edify. If people came to church prayed up, having an encouraging word, looking for someone to speak a word in due season to then the Body would build itself up.

While I would agree this is a strong argument for the house church in that the size will dictate people get more involved it is also needed in the structured church. The problem is that many pastors don't want people to use their gifts as they view this as a threat to their position. It is however, the way God designed the church. We are a body and we contribute one to another.

Your last point I do have to TOTALLY disagree with you. You are right in that the church spends a lot of money on buildings and landscaping, but my reaction to that is, "Who cares?" God's not broke! As for the people that struggle I do think that the church has not done it's part in helping the poor. I will agree on that.

Churches struggle to pay their bills because they are doing things that God didn't tell them to do. I have a saying that I have used a lot that I have found to be true, "What God orders He pays for and what we order we pay for."

Unfortunately I have ordered a lot thinking it was God. God's not broke, He's not holding back, He wants to be glorified in the earth and if a Las Vegas casino can spend billions of dollars on it's hotel to attract drugs, gambling, and prostitution why can't God have house that resembles His Almightiness?

Our church has NEVER had one special offering. We have NEVER had an offering where we had to have a certain amount to pay a bill. Our church is small with around 50 people (30 adults with only 20 that are always in attendance). Most of our adults are older and on a fixed income. Most families make less than $40K a year. We are by no means a rich church, we have no large givers, we have no outside supporters.

We have a facility that people make comments on how nice it is, we put over $30,000.00 into missions last year, and we have a lot of money in the bank. Why? Because God is faithful! We seek God, do what He tells us, and expect Him to pay the bills.

Now, stop and think. America has been the biggest reason the gospel has gone around the world through our missionary programs. If you have 20 in a house church you would never have the kind of money to fund missions and expand the gospel. There would be no where near the outreach through the world with small nucleolus's of people. Our $30K in missions is a drop in the bucket of what it takes to spread the gospel, but most churches that are 2-3 times larger than us can't put that much into missions. A house church could never send someone to the mission field and keep them in ministry.

Finally, and I apologize for being so long. You said, "I think that many in the house church movement just want to see their funds go to..." We give to God not to the church. Even though our money goes into a ministry our giving is to be to God. If the church has a God called minister then that person has to answer to God and God is perfectly capable of taking care of His work.

People do not see the rewards promised through giving because they give to the church instead of worshiping God in their giving.

Blessings!

[gloryseeker]

I thought I was done, then I saw that you went on :)

Your study of dialogue I actually agree with. Again people are not engaged in the local Body. I think that there are times when you need someone "preaching" the Word without interruption. In this a person is able to flow with the Spirit and can address issues that wouldn't be brought up. A Spirit led minister knows how and whom to speak to without speaking directly to them or embarrassing them. Someone may be struggling with an issue like pornography that they would not be comfortable talking about. Through the Spirit of God, without having people sidetrack the flow, a person can be helped and brought to a place where they are willing to talk.

BUT, there also needs to be dialogue where people can ask question, input, challenge and so forth. In our church Sunday is a preaching format and mid-week it is a dialgue atmosphere. People ask questions for clarification, "what if's", and "what abouts". It is very good and gets people into their Bible.

I agree and disagree with the dress up. I do agree that God is not concerned with dress, but I disagree in that dress is a reflection of the heart. Understand, I am not in a UPCI church and we don't have a dress code. I personally don't think you can dictate morality. So I would assume that I am MUCH more liberal than you on the dress issue. However, what about "coming to the King?" If you were going to court to stand in front of a judge you would wear your nicer clothes. If you were going on a job interview you would look good. I understand that the banker is going to have what is called nicer clothes than the construction worker. I just think we should give God our best. If we really view God as Holy, Almighty, King of kings we'll be concerned about how we come to Him.

"The Bible provides a lot of information regarding the structure of the early Church. Why not adhere to it?" The reason why is because times, cultures, numbers, governments, all play a part in structure. If we are going to do as they did then should we walk and not use cars? Should we do away with CD's, videos, and other tools to spread the gospel?

The Book of Acts was the beginning of the church, they were forming it. There is nothing spiritual about buildings, barns, houses, or trees. Jesus met many times "out" away from everything. Does that mean we should go to pasture? I personally have been to MANY countries of the world. What works in one doesn't work in another. I don't think you can regulate how a proper structure is. My comments on the house church is really limited to America because I know the mindset of Americans.

Believe it or not I personally support (financially) a house church, although it's not in America. I think you have to look at many factors and that each church will take on a different look.

Last point. I guess one thing where our definitions cause us to differ is that you stated, "some authorities are consumed with chasing down dress code violations..." is that I don't consider that a church. I actually think that the term "church" means something. I think the word "Christian" means something and most that call themselves that really aren't. Jesus said why do you call me Lord and don't do the things I say? Therefore, to me "a real church" is not oppressing, controlling, manipulating, and so forth. The politics, denominationalism, power grabs, I am in agreement with you. Not of God and therefore I don't call it a church.

However, for your "consider this" where I would disagree with you is that the structure was not the focal point of the outpouring it was the heart of the people. Consider the day of Pentecost, there were 120 gathered. The upper room had nothing to do with it. It was just the place of the meeting. It was the people that were in one accord waiting on the Lord that produced the environment for a powerful outpouring.

I think that the end time revival is going to be birthed among people whose hearts are right before God.

[Bro-Larry]

Hey Bro-Larry...

Could you help me understand the point you are making here. I have read over it several times and, thus far, the density of my cranium is proving to be too thick to clearly see the point being made. :)

Thanks.

Did you see the movie?

[Digging4Truth]

Did you see the movie?

No sir... I think you may have discovered the problem. :)

[ChristopherHall]

There are those who will take scripture and try to prove that tithing is not mandatory or it is Old Testament or under the law. I have never seen a "giving" person try and make this argument. There are some that profess "we" are the church and the gathering together is not biblical. I have never seen a person who faithfully attends church try and make these arguments.

I don't believe tithing is mandatory or a salvation issue. I believe that the NT teaches that we are to give as we have determined in our hearts. That said, I would call one's attention to Abraham and Jacob. They both tithed willingly, not under compulsion, as they determined to in their hearts. They are wonderful examples of faith.

Having said that let me discuss what you have said. After the first quote you referred to calling people who go to house churches lazy. I didn't say this, so I am not looking at these as lazy, but you did make an interesting analysis after this statement. You talked about how, "Many (if not most) ministers who function as elders in the house church...AND work a full time job where they have deadlines, a boss or manager, a work schedule, family obligations, the works..." While this is true I would answer that their lives are trying to "budget" God in around their schedules.

Paul wrote about he refused financial support so as to not hinder the gospel. He illustrated how he worked with his own hands and supported himself. Could one accuse Paul of "budgeting" God into his schedule? Here's something we've lost...our work is also part of our ministry. Our work is a holy convocation not unto men, but unto the Lord. Our work supports our families and earns an income that allows one to meet not only their family's needs...but affords them to support the work of ministry and help those in need. Paul taught that we should be followers of him even as he is also a follower of Christ. Not only did Paul work with his own hands so as to not hinder the gospel, but Paul also pastored a house church in a house he rented for a short period of time.

I know I'll catch flack for this, but God should be first. By that I mean, before our mortgage, job, car, deadline, boss, etc. Why is it why declare the Lordship of Jesus but allow "other" things to take priority? The reason is because "we" have to take care of our own lives. Read Matthew six there is a beautiful passage of scriptures about not taking thought of your life, to seek first the Kingdom, and that God will provide.

We agree that God should be first. However the Bible teaches us that whosoever doesn't provide for their own house is worse than an infidel. I serve the Lord and put him first by ensuring that my family has a roof over our heads, that I have work that supports us, ensuring that I have affordable transportation if needed, meeting my deadlines, and honoring my boss as a faithful employee...not as unto men...but as unto the Lord.

I think we've lost the Christian ethos of everyday life and institutionalized our religion to the point that it's an acetic mysticism to be compartmentalized from our everyday lives (family time, mortgages, jobs, cars, work, and employers). We serve God in being faithful in all these things, not as unto me, but as unto God.

I have found this is true. The reason many Christians struggle is because they are trying to make it and be a Christian. Be a Christian and allow God to take care of the stuff.

I'm sure that's true of some. I can only speak from personal experience though. I think that many Christians struggle because they are trying to be man pleasers and not God pleasers. They observe too many hurdles to their faith and relationship to God by putting man made traditions and codes before living for God in humble simplicity. In my experience....God doesn't take care of the stuff. In my personal experience God often has to shake me and tell me to do what must be done, promising he will be with me. It's like the old adage, God helps those who help themselves. God isn't a cosmic Santa giving free rides to the "faithful". Too often I've seen families come on very hard times and be on the verge of loosing everything they've ever worked for, blessings God had promised them and opened doors for them to receive. And when they struggle they are accused of "lacking faith". I disagree. I think they show faith by doing what is necessary to carry their family through, knowing that God is with them.

You do make a great point about church hoppers. The mentality and spirit behind this is really what I am addressing. I even understand people coming out of "oppressive" churches. But just because a person was in an "oppressive" church doesn't mean that "church" is wrong, it only means they were in the wrong church. If people would pray about where God wanted them instead of going where they like, to a church that is close, or to the denomination that I am, they would find that God is faithful to direct them to the right place.

What about the growing numbers who are being led of God to find a house church? God knows what's best for individuals. Many need the specialized ministry of a house church. The generic sermons that are tailored to be relevant to a large crowd, with the witty statements, and analogies, are often not what people need. Sometimes a house church elder directly addressing their situation with Scripture and a loving family of brothers and sisters who will pray with them until midnight and even camp out in the living room floor until morning in prayer is what they need.

Every situation is different.

I have seen many people move because of a job transfer and say that they will find a church when they get to the new city. How backwards is that. If God is first, then find the right church and the provision of a right job will be there for you.

Again, every situation is different. I know of men who's job left and God was intending them to leave. However, a pastor held them back for months until they were nearly bankrupt. Then the pastor finally let them go and now the family is walking in blessing and ministering in another church. It's important to follow the leading of God. Some might be led of the Lord to leave and find another church to attend...others might be led of the Lord to stay and trust him. But...we know the Scripture commands a man to provide for his own house. If his job leaves and he cannot support his family...we know that isn't the will of God because that would be contrary to Scripture.

[ChristopherHall]

You mention a church of 400 or 600 and how that it is impossible for the Pastor to know where everyone is. You are absolutely right and this illustrates why the spectator church doesn't work. This is where elders and deacons come into play. When a church is properly set up the needs of the people, the business of the church, and the direction of the ministry all flow together.

I agree. A traditional church will have to delegate to more elders and deacons to meet the needs of the people. In all honesty though...I've rarely seen this in action. In my experience the pastor is rather afraid to allow the elders to minister. But also, this issue isn't unique to traditional churches...even house churches can fall into this problem. This is a human issue to be dealt with regardless as to what model of church is used.

You also mention about how you in your lowest points were not strengthened by others because everything looked right. This is the problem with the spectator church. Church is not about coming to listen. It's about coming to edify. If people came to church prayed up, having an encouraging word, looking for someone to speak a word in due season to then the Body would build itself up.

But the very design of traditional church facilitates the spectator church. It always has to be "tweaked" to allow for more body ministry.

While I would agree this is a strong argument for the house church in that the size will dictate people get more involved it is also needed in the structured church. The problem is that many pastors don't want people to use their gifts as they view this as a threat to their position. It is however, the way God designed the church. We are a body and we contribute one to another.

Again, the very design of the institutional church leads to this.

Your last point I do have to TOTALLY disagree with you. You are right in that the church spends a lot of money on buildings and landscaping, but my reaction to that is, "Who cares?" God's not broke! As for the people that struggle I do think that the church has not done it's part in helping the poor. I will agree on that.

The one is the cause of the other.

Churches struggle to pay their bills because they are doing things that God didn't tell them to do.

Where in the NT do we see God telling the church to buy buildings and institutionalize? In truth we don't see it in the early church for nearly 300 years. Constantine was the primary force behind churches moving into buildings. Essentially Emperor Constantine institutionalize the church and herded them into buildings to solidify his power over the church. Interestingly those who continued to meet in homes in Apostolic fashion were regarded as heretics.

God's not broke, He's not holding back, He wants to be glorified in the earth and if a Las Vegas casino can spend billions of dollars on it's hotel to attract drugs, gambling, and prostitution why can't God have house that resembles His Almightiness?

Because the Church isn't a Las Vegas casino. One could argue that carnal leads us down this rout of making a building to represent God's Almightiness. I know we don't build statues and bow down to them...but all too often we serve brick and mortar thinking we are serving God. Our buildings can become an idolatrous thing.

Our church has NEVER had one special offering. We have NEVER had an offering where we had to have a certain amount to pay a bill. Our church is small with around 50 people (30 adults with only 20 that are always in attendance). Most of our adults are older and on a fixed income. Most families make less than $40K a year. We are by no means a rich church, we have no large givers, we have no outside supporters.

We have a facility that people make comments on how nice it is, we put over $30,000.00 into missions last year, and we have a lot of money in the bank. Why? Because God is faithful! We seek God, do what He tells us, and expect Him to pay the bills.

Are your widows and your fatherless taken care of? They must come before any building.

Now, stop and think. America has been the biggest reason the gospel has gone around the world through our missionary programs. If you have 20 in a house church you would never have the kind of money to fund missions and expand the gospel. There would be no where near the outreach through the world with small nucleolus's of people. Our $30K in missions is a drop in the bucket of what it takes to spread the gospel, but most churches that are 2-3 times larger than us can't put that much into missions. A house church could never send someone to the mission field and keep them in ministry.

But it's not about dollars given...it's about results. America has sent forth missionaries into other countries who have successfully used the house church model to spread the gospel quite well. And today these countries are sending house church ministers to America to reach an ever increasingly secular United States. A group of Chinese house church ministers held a conference in California determined to "reach America". Why? Because we're failing. They're succeeding.

But let's look at the financial side. You have your church giving $30k to missions last year. But think about this, a network of 10 house churches with absolutely no overhead can generate $75k in three months. That's assuming each church has at least 10 people, each committed to only giving $250 a month. House church networks in China and Canada are generating an unbelievable amount of funds for foreign missions. I suggest you look into it. It's one of their crowning achievements. ;)

[ChristopherHall]

I thought I was done, then I saw that you went on :)

Your study of dialogue I actually agree with. Again people are not engaged in the local Body. I think that there are times when you need someone "preaching" the Word without interruption. In this a person is able to flow with the Spirit and can address issues that wouldn't be brought up. A Spirit led minister knows how and whom to speak to without speaking directly to them or embarrassing them. Someone may be struggling with an issue like pornography that they would not be comfortable talking about. Through the Spirit of God, without having people sidetrack the flow, a person can be helped and brought to a place where they are willing to talk.

BUT, there also needs to be dialogue where people can ask question, input, challenge and so forth. In our church Sunday is a preaching format and mid-week it is a dialgue atmosphere. People ask questions for clarification, "what if's", and "what abouts". It is very good and gets people into their Bible.

I agree, there does have to be a time to just listen to the teacher and at other times dialogue. It's wonderful that your church has a service where there can be an exchange.

I agree and disagree with the dress up. I do agree that God is not concerned with dress, but I disagree in that dress is a reflection of the heart. Understand, I am not in a UPCI church and we don't have a dress code. I personally don't think you can dictate morality. So I would assume that I am MUCH more liberal than you on the dress issue. However, what about "coming to the King?" If you were going to court to stand in front of a judge you would wear your nicer clothes. If you were going on a job interview you would look good. I understand that the banker is going to have what is called nicer clothes than the construction worker. I just think we should give God our best. If we really view God as Holy, Almighty, King of kings we'll be concerned about how we come to Him.

I dress in a suit and tie nearly every time I go to church. But God isn't impressed with our "Sunday bests" and never will be. It's more to help us think we're honoring God more or to gain mutual respect by demonstrating our respect for the sacred in an outward manner. In the first 300 years of the Christian faith they didn't have a Sunday Best outfit. Most wore everyday clothing.

Remember...those were the times of most explosive growth and revival.

"The Bible provides a lot of information regarding the structure of the early Church. Why not adhere to it?" The reason why is because times, cultures, numbers, governments, all play a part in structure. If we are going to do as they did then should we walk and not use cars? Should we do away with CD's, videos, and other tools to spread the gospel?

The Bible doesn't address cars or media. However, the Bible does address how an assembly should be ordered and where they would meet. The Bible also describes how the Lord's Supper was indeed a full meal centered around the breaking of one loaf and the partaking of wine. It wasn't until after Constantine institutionalized the church and herded the church into buildings to control and co-opt it as a wing of the Roman government that crowds began to get too large to have an intimate meal together...so they began the change from a full meal with bread and wine to being a token ritualistic ceremony with only a pinch of bread and a swallow of wine.

The Book of Acts was the beginning of the church, they were forming it. There is nothing spiritual about buildings, barns, houses, or trees. Jesus met many times "out" away from everything. Does that mean we should go to pasture? I personally have been to MANY countries of the world. What works in one doesn't work in another. I don't think you can regulate how a proper structure is. My comments on the house church is really limited to America because I know the mindset of Americans.

If you're right...can you explain why traditional church attendance is dropping and house church attendance is growing in the United States?

http://www.religionnewsblog.com/18160/house-church-movement-growing

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/03/AR2006060300225.html

Believe it or not I personally support (financially) a house church, although it's not in America. I think you have to look at many factors and that each church will take on a different look.

If something worked in biblical times and works in other countries, isn't it a lack in faith that prevents many church leaders from embracing it here? Statistics show house churches growing here in America.

Last point. I guess one thing where our definitions cause us to differ is that you stated, "some authorities are consumed with chasing down dress code violations..." is that I don't consider that a church. I actually think that the term "church" means something. I think the word "Christian" means something and most that call themselves that really aren't. Jesus said why do you call me Lord and don't do the things I say? Therefore, to me "a real church" is not oppressing, controlling, manipulating, and so forth. The politics, denominationalism, power grabs, I am in agreement with you. Not of God and therefore I don't call it a church.

I don't know if I would go that far. Paul wrote to the "church" in Corinth though it had all these problems. In addition Jesus mentions the seven "churches" even though they each had issues to resolve in their spiritual walks. I don't believe we're capable of adequately calling one body a "church" and deciding what other bodies are not churches. In truth a "church" is an assembly of believers. It doesn't matter if they meet in a home or a cathedral. And most assuredly most churches have to deal with men's egos and sin.

However, for your "consider this" where I would disagree with you is that the structure was not the focal point of the outpouring it was the heart of the people. Consider the day of Pentecost, there were 120 gathered. The upper room had nothing to do with it. It was just the place of the meeting. It was the people that were in one accord waiting on the Lord that produced the environment for a powerful outpouring.

I think that the end time revival is going to be birthed among people whose hearts are right before God.

Amen. But I think the church of the Bible is a perfect model. I don't believe it was in it's infancy and we have built something better. I think they were far farther along than we are. They took their world for Christ and traveled light. Their focus was the gospel and nothing but the gospel.

[ChristopherHall]

Again I think in the end we're going to discover that it will take both traditional churches and house churches to reach our world. I disagree with some who see absolutely no value in the traditional church. I also disagree with those who argue that the house church is some how deficient. I think some folks will never be won with the traditional model but can be won with house churches. While others may never feel comfortable with house churches but will prefer a traditional church.

I think the false dichotomy that presents an either or perspective is a hindrance. I'd rejoice with each model of church if they are winning the lost. Though personally the more I study the more I tend to see value in house churching.

Ultimately one must follow God. If God calls one to house church ministry by all means they should do it. If God calls one to a traditional church ministry they by all means should do it.

[gloryseeker]

First of all let me say that I have enjoyed talking with you about this. Although we disagree on many issues, I do like your thought process. It has been enjoyable for me.

Two, how do you make the quotes inside your text? I can't figure this out, it sure makes it a lot easier to read.

You said, "If you're right...can you explain why traditional church attendance is dropping and house church attendance is growing in the United States?"

I actually can, but you'll disagree because it is in context with this whole discussion. The American church has become very carnal. Birthed through the seeker sensitive movement and Pastors in the pulpit who are either not called or have abused their calling. However, I believe this is changing and that you are going to see those who left turn back to the church as the things of the world get more difficult.

You said, "If something worked in biblical times and works in other countries, isn't it a lack in faith that prevents many church leaders from embracing it here?"

You see, I am not against the structure in and of itself, where my major disagreement is with it in America. In India it doesn't matter where a person goes to church, whether it's under a tree, in a home, or in a church building. Their very decision to be a Christian will put them in danger so they are not going to take it lightly. We could walk through the countries and make the same statement. With freedom of worship in the USA and the casual approach that so many take towards the things of God I think it is a dangerous thing here. I am not saying that every person and every house church would be dangerous, but as a movement I see it hurting the strength of the Church (capital "C" - not an individual church) in America.

You said, "I don't know if I would go that far. Paul wrote to the "church" in Corinth though it had all these problems." I agree with your point here and looking back at my statements, I didn't word this very good. I am not talking about problems. There are many people pressing in and have a heart to have more of God, but they are still "working out their salvation." I understand that in fact I use the analogy of a football field referring to salvation. When you are born again you are in the visitor end zone and Jesus is in the home end zone. Your life is now a journey to get closer to Him. At every yard line He requires something cleaned up in your life. A work in progress. What I was referring to is those who call themselves Christians, but live like everyone else. The attitude that we can live like we want and we are glorifying God. Unfortunately in a country that somewhere around 85% of people professing to be born again, there are a lot of these type of people.

You said, "I don't believe it was in it's infancy and we have built something better." I agree 100%, we need to get back to some things, but where I disagree is that what we have to get back to is the type of location we are in. It's a heart and commitment issue more than anything.

You said, "I've rarely seen this in action." I agree this is VERY rarely in action which is why this post came alive. The traditional church has not functioned right, which is why people have left it in the multitudes.

You said, "Where in the NT do we see God telling the church to buy buildings and institutionalize?" True, but where did He say not to?

You said, "Our buildings can become an idolatrous thing." Yes they can and I've seen Pastors with the mentality of "mines bigger than yours" but I think for the most part this isn't true. There's a reason why the scripture tells us that the children of darkness are wiser than the children of light. First impressions make a difference. Businesses understand that the appearance of their facility is going to make an impact on a persons decision to do business with them. Thinking of this in a modern world and mindset, a sinner coming to a church has a carnal thinking process. They're going to look at the building, the carpet, the colors, and so forth. Plus, we represent God we should represent Him with excellence.

You said, "Are your widows and your fatherless taken care of? They must come before any building." Not sure if you were asking this directly, but the answer would be "yes." On the other statement referring to money you made the state that one is the cause of the other. I don't agree with this. If our building keeps us from being the "church" then we are in a building that God didn't give us. Again, God is not broke you can buy the biggest building in your town and still help people.

Most people have money backwards. They think, "as soon as we get enough we will be able to give more." Start giving more and you will always have enough. It is a matter of what you can believe. Believe big - give big - and let God be glorified.

You said, "House church networks in China and Canada are generating an unbelievable amount of funds for foreign missions. I suggest you look into it. It's one of their crowning achievements." Actually I have. In fact, I have been to China, been to underground churches. They are POOR! In fact if it weren't for American dollars being funneled in they would really struggle. The reason for their success is because they are willing to die and go to prison for what they believe. The Chinese pray for persecution to come to America so that we will once again get serious about what we are called to.

Theoretically, you are right. Without overhead a small group of people can do that. The problem is you would be hard pressed to show me 1 out of 50 house churches that even remotely is doing that.

You said, "Paul wrote about he refused financial support so as to not hinder the gospel. He illustrated how he worked with his own hands and supported himself." Read the rest of the story...(2 Cor 12:13) "For what is it in which you were inferior to other churches, except that I myself was not burdensome to you? Forgive me this wrong!"

Many, as you, don't feel that the tithe is mandatory (you also confuse the "of the heart giving" which is directly talked about the offering with the tithe). For a stickler for the Word as you seem to be it is interesting how you lightly reduce some very direct scriptures. But you will be hard pressed to find me anyone prospering that believes this, who would not otherwise be prospering. What I mean is, you may find a doctor who believes this way, but his income is a result of his education and he would be prospering whether he was a heathen or a Christian.

Find someone like me who has no great skills that are marketable. In addition, I am not an educated person (probably can tell by my grammar). Most Christian's have a hard time keeping up with me, especially my giving. Just finished my taxes and we gave 35% of our GROSS income...10% tithes, which God said is sanctified and holy to Him and 25% offerings. My lifestyle will prove that the blessings of God work in my life. As I said earlier there are reasons why people do and believe things. It is not difficult to find out what motivates people.

"I serve the Lord and put him first by ensuring that my family has a roof over our heads"....I serve the Lord He puts the roof over my head. My girls 18/16 have watched me live by faith. Just in December (07) we came into the month $1,100 short due to a special assessment in property taxes.. California, you know.... Anyway, I sat the family down and explained the situation. They asked what are we going to do. My first words were, "We're not going to stop giving! We bought cup-o-soup for dinner and brought the tithes and offerings to the Lord and put the problem in His lap. On the 10th the windows of heaven broke open and we had the best month of the year. Great Christmas, took a trip, and had money left over. Don't give me that theological feel good stuff. Sure we are to work nobody said to stop working, but we are to work to give and we give to live (Eph 4:28).

Anyway, we disagree on a lot, but I've enjoyed the discussion.

[ChristopherHall]

Amen. It's a good discussion.

[ChristopherHall]

I think a lot has to do with one’s personal experiences and callings. It also has to do with what one has studied. I encourage you to read the book, Pagan Christianity? It’s a fascinating book that looks at the historical origin of most aspects of the traditional church. Another very good book is, Ecclesia, that explores the biblical roots of house church community.

[ChristopherHall]

When it comes to America, I do see America growing more carnal…along with the church. There’s a saying I firmly believe in, as the church goes so goes America. America is carnal…because the church is carnal. More and more Americans are realizing that the church has become a fabricated man made institution. The church in America is run more like another corporation and the pastor is quickly and more increasingly becoming the CEO. Men of God are going sour as they are isolated on our pews. Many Christians are getting tired of being preached at….they want to not only hear preaching but to minister to one another. More and more traditional churches are embracing cell groups to facilitate this need. I think Americans are looking for something that is real. They aren’t looking for a weekly religious show with goose bumps following. Americans are also aware of the depth of corruption behind the pulpits. American pastors have failed our people. I served on a ministry team of a nice sized church. Without going into details I can testify that manipulative tactics were employed to get more people to give more money. I also can testify of the waste and excess that I saw among the pastorate there. I believe the church I currently attend is different and I really love it so far. But the whole thing has caused me to do a considerable amount of reflection. What are we in ministry for? What is our focus?

You had said something important:

You said, "Where in the NT do we see God telling the church to buy buildings and institutionalize?" True, but where did He say not to?

One has to consider that for a little over 300 years the church didn’t institutionalize nor did it pursue buildings or the aggregation of wealth. Christians didn’t even duplicate the synagogue patterns in friendlier times (remember the persecution wasn’t constant nor was it empire wide). I don’t see it as even necessary for God to have said “not to”. I see the church in its purist form expanding with record growth, ministry, miracles, and impact during this period. Once the church was romanized and institutionalized its glory began to fade. I believe there is a reason the church didn’t pursue institutionalization even once in 300 years. I believe their model was deliberate. Even when the church did institutionalize and embrace buildings and such things I find it noteworthy that it wasn’t even the Church pushing for such changes, instead it was Constantine and the Roman government. The very same crowd that brought us the Trinity and the foundation of the Roman Catholic Church brought us the institutionalization of the church. These weren’t changes that were coming from within the church. So, one could hardly argue that the Church (once relieved of persecution) reformed its methods. No, these changes were made to co-opt the power of Christianity and marry it to the Roman society.

I have a few questions.

What if God began calling a man into the house church movement in the United States? Should he follow the Lord?

Why are pastors of institutional churches so hostile to house churches? Especially when they are growing in the US and reaching those the institutional church is incapable of reaching? Why can’t both exist together? Certainly there is room for both. If God isn’t in it we’ll see it fall to the wayside and folks will return to traditional church. But if God is in it….we could find ourselves resisting the Lord.

[Bro-Larry]

Amen. It's a good discussion.

Yes , It isa good discussion.

I'm not advocating disolving all church house church, don't tear down what is already built, just suppliment the existing church with a more effiecent structure.

[ChristopherHall]

You said, "House church networks in China and Canada are generating an unbelievable amount of funds for foreign missions. I suggest you look into it. It's one of their crowning achievements." Actually I have. In fact, I have been to China, been to underground churches. They are POOR! In fact if it weren't for American dollars being funneled in they would really struggle. The reason for their success is because they are willing to die and go to prison for what they believe. The Chinese pray for persecution to come to America so that we will once again get serious about what we are called to.

Theoretically, you are right. Without overhead a small group of people can do that. The problem is you would be hard pressed to show me 1 out of 50 house churches that even remotely is doing that.

There is a network of house churches in our community that is doing exactly this. It’s rather large.

[ChristopherHall]

You said, "Our buildings can become an idolatrous thing." Yes they can and I've seen Pastors with the mentality of "mines bigger than yours" but I think for the most part this isn't true. There's a reason why the scripture tells us that the children of darkness are wiser than the children of light. First impressions make a difference. Businesses understand that the appearance of their facility is going to make an impact on a persons decision to do business with them. Thinking of this in a modern world and mindset, a sinner coming to a church has a carnal thinking process. They're going to look at the building, the carpet, the colors, and so forth. Plus, we represent God we should represent Him with excellence.

I think that where ever one’s treasure is one’s heart is there also. If a church sinks 80% or more of it’s resources into buildings and property…that’s where it’s heart is.

I know you’re offering an example from the business world…but personally I think that it’s unwise to employ worldly marketing tactics when it comes to church. That’s why Americans are increasingly becoming skeptical about the traditional church…it’s become just another business. Also I disagree with the idea that sinners are impressed with our buildings. We have the largest and most beautiful facilities in Christian history…yet church attendance is declining and fewer and fewer people are turning to the church for spiritual instruction. If you were correct…we’d see record growth and steadily rising church attendance across the board.

[ChristopherHall]

Yes , It isa good discussion.

I'm not advocating disolving all church house church, don't tear down what is already built, just suppliment the existing church with a more effiecent structure.

Amen.

Most house churches don’t think we should completely dissolve the traditional model. (The Bible doesn't "command" one model over another.) But traditional pastors are often very hostile to house churching. I think it will take both models.

I see the house church as ideal for reaching dense inner city areas where buying a property to build a traditional church is hard to come by. I’m dead set against churches that move way out into the boonies of suburbia to build unless they’re specifically trying to reach suburbia. Our cities are a virtual sea of souls. If a house church pastor discipled 12 men to launch additional house churches in a densely populated city, each aiming to multiply by doing the same with at least a third of their congregants, the church would grow exponentially throughout densely populated areas. We’re seeing this with a fellowship in Dayton Ohio. I’m meeting people from this house church group nearly everywhere I go. LOL The goal is souls. Not money, not property. Souls. Nothing but souls. Souls. Not carpet, not a mortgage payment, not even a paycheck. Souls.

These house churches are composed of good teaching, edifying dialogue, good food, and fellowship. People love them.

*Side note here. The house church network in our city owns a rather large facility as its headquarters. LOL The facility serves as an educational center throughout the week and they meet there semi-regularly for corporate worship and teaching from the area overseer. Their more regular meetings are home based though.

[Digging4Truth]

Amen.

Most house churches don’t think we should completely dissolve the traditional model. (The Bible doesn't "command" one model over another.)...

I think it will take both models.

So true...

[Sister Alvear]

I am very grateful the Lord gave us a large building after 30 years of mission work in south Brazil in tiny buildings and house churches because year after year it became harder and harder to rent places for our conventions or whatever...It is really against our government rules to rent out their schools like they once did to believers. !0 years ago God provided land and we begin building a large building (for Brazil) and it has proved a blessing.

We keep the building nice, nothing fancy but nice for our poor area because God provided it for us and we do not have to go before pagan people and beg them for the use of a school for a conference but to us that is all it is...a building...the church is us the people and at any time if the government should take it from us that is all it is blocks and cement...the real church is the people and most of us know at some time that will happen in our communist pronged country.


Since I am a firm believer that the church will go through persecution That may be a deciding factor in my way of thinking…..

[gloryseeker]

I have a few questions.

What if God began calling a man into the house church movement in the United States? Should he follow the Lord?

Why are pastors of institutional churches so hostile to house churches? Especially when they are growing in the US and reaching those the institutional church is incapable of reaching? Why can’t both exist together? Certainly there is room for both. If God isn’t in it we’ll see it fall to the wayside and folks will return to traditional church. But if God is in it….we could find ourselves resisting the Lord.

I think the answers to your questions are very simple. We do what God says. I don't know that Pastors are hostile to house churches. I do know that some are hostile to anything that they think will negatively affect the success of their church, but again that is a heart issue.

As far as the calling I can give an example of myself. I had transferred to Colorado (from California) with my job and after about 15 months I sensed the Lord wanting me to go back to California. I personally hated Colorado. Could stand living there. Beautiful place to visit, but did not want to stay there. I realized that my own personal desires could be influencing me on what "God was telling me." In the end I did come to a full belief that it was God and not just me and it has proven to be the case ever since. My point is, a lot of people say God is calling them to something when in fact it is just want they want.

My test of whether it was God, "It works." God does not fail EVER. I once heard a man in ministry say, "God had called me into an evangelical ministry and I went bankrupt, but I praise God because if I hadn't gone bankrupt I wouldn't be in this ministry now." It's not hard to judge that word, God wasn't in the first move or at some point in the move the guy got away from God.

We should learn to follow the Lord whether we like where He is saying to go or not.

[gloryseeker]

I think that where ever one’s treasure is one’s heart is there also. If a church sinks 80% or more of it’s resources into buildings and property…that’s where it’s heart is.

I know you’re offering an example from the business world…but personally I think that it’s unwise to employ worldly marketing tactics when it comes to church. That’s why Americans are increasingly becoming skeptical about the traditional church…it’s become just another business. Also I disagree with the idea that sinners are impressed with our buildings. We have the largest and most beautiful facilities in Christian history…yet church attendance is declining and fewer and fewer people are turning to the church for spiritual instruction. If you were correct…we’d see record growth and steadily rising church attendance across the board.

You quoted a scripture therefore obviously true, but there is also a reality that has nothing to do with the treasure of the heart. I live in California, it doesn't matter where you are your property is going to be a high percentage of your budget. If you are in Los Angeles to San Diego or the bay area of San Francisco your church is going to be a major part of your budget renting.

God has a perfect system. Like now in the political races they keep using the saying, "Its the economy." Well in the church world, "It's the heart". Get the heart right and everything else will work

[gloryseeker]

Another thing as talking about restructuring the church.

I came across a guy in Texas who Pastors a traditional church model. He saw a piece of land and the Lord gave him an idea - build a convention center.

He built a convention center that operates like a normal convention center. It has a starbucks in it, meeting rooms, and banquet rooms. But in the design of it he put his church in a section of it. The churches facilities are permanent (no one can rent these for meetings and so forth).

He has a catering service and employs people from the church when conventions come in and so forth.

He said that he would never build a traditional church model again because the business is paying for the church. He operates it as a for profit corporation and the city loves him also.

It was an interesting concept.

[ChristopherHall]

I think you’re right. If God calls a man to do something the man should indeed do it. But I disagree with the following statement to some degree:

My test of whether it was God, "It works." God does not fail EVER. I once heard a man in ministry say, "God had called me into an evangelical ministry and I went bankrupt, but I praise God because if I hadn't gone bankrupt I wouldn't be in this ministry now." It's not hard to judge that word, God wasn't in the first move or at some point in the move the guy got away from God.

You’re right, God never fails, but I think we might be a little bit presumptuous to say that God wasn’t in the first move or at some point the guy got away from God. Sure, human reasoning would say the dude failed in his first venture into ministry…but God didn’t fail if indeed that’s what God planned on using as a circumstantial vehicle to get him into the proper time and place for the door to open where God indeed wanted him. If that’s what it would take…God didn’t fail and God was in it from the beginning. Did Jesus fail when he allowed Lazarus to die? No…it was all according to God’s sovereign plan to display his power and Godhead.

Another thing as talking about restructuring the church.

I came across a guy in Texas who Pastors a traditional church model. He saw a piece of land and the Lord gave him an idea - build a convention center.

He built a convention center that operates like a normal convention center. It has a starbucks in it, meeting rooms, and banquet rooms. But in the design of it he put his church in a section of it. The churches facilities are permanent (no one can rent these for meetings and so forth).

He has a catering service and employs people from the church when conventions come in and so forth.

He said that he would never build a traditional church model again because the business is paying for the church. He operates it as a for profit corporation and the city loves him also.

It was an interesting concept.

You don’t see anything wrong with this?

[gloryseeker]

You’re right, God never fails, but I think we might be a little bit presumptuous to say that God wasn’t in the first move or at some point the guy got away from God. Sure, human reasoning would say the dude failed in his first venture into ministry…but God didn’t fail if indeed that’s what God planned on using as a circumstantial vehicle to get him into the proper time and place for the door to open where God indeed wanted him. If that’s what it would take…God didn’t fail and God was in it from the beginning. Did Jesus fail when he allowed Lazarus to die? No…it was all according to God’s sovereign plan to display his power and Godhead.

I think we are saying the same thing: "It's not hard to judge that word, God wasn't in the first move or at some point in the move the guy got away from God.

You don’t see anything wrong with this?

There are areas I do have a problem with it...for one I don't know how he gets around private parties where everyone is getting drunk. I couldn't endorse that. Maybe as a private business he picks and chooses what/who he allows to rent the place.

I do like the aspect of having the world pay for the church. To me one of the biggest downfalls of churches and another reason why so many of them struggle to make ends meet is that they don't know how to biblically incorporate business into the church.

Rev 1:5-6
5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, (referring to what's been done - the cross)
6 And hath made (not going to make) us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen. (KJV)

We are either kings or we are priests. If you are not called into what is referred to as the five-fold then you have a kingly anointing. That kingly anointing operates powerfully in the business realm.

I am all for taking money out of the kingdom of darkness and expanding the Kingdom of God.

I once heard of a Pastor who refused the tithe of a woman because the money she was tithing on was a lottery winning. That's what I call stuck on stupid. While I don't promote the stupidity of the lottery (only the poor and those who don't understand math buy lottery tickets) let anyone bring money into the house. We'll receive it, pray over it, and build the Kingdom with it.

[Amos]

"There is a strong reaction against formalism. Also there is a fear of being solicited for funds. 'All the church wants is your money,' is a common complaint. Yet many of these same people are willing to attend a conversational Bible class in a home. There they do not have to be style-conscious, and they enjoy the informal, unprofessional atmosphere."

I have strong opinions about house churches, but understand my opinion is really limited to the American culture. While I know many disagree with me and I have seen people call others names like, "small thinkers" I see core value system in the majority that practice house churches. Maybe it doesn't apply to the handful that post in these threads, but what I have seen there is an overall laziness that comes with those who attend house churches.

For me, this statement in your post sums up the largest majority of those who promote the house church, especially in America.

1. They don't want to conform or really they don't want any authority in their lives.

2. They don't want to give and think that giving is a program for the church to collect money to pay the bills when in fact giving of tithes and offerings is worship.

3. They want a conversational study because they don't want anyone "preaching" at them even though it is through the foolishness of preaching that man is saved, not through conversations.

4. They do not have to be style conscious, or they want to relax where their lazy clothes and drink Starbucks. What ever happen to putting on your Sunday best because you were going to worship the Lord God Almighty? They rather have an informal without excellence gathering so that nothing is required of them.

While I agree that the spectator church doesn't work, and that ministry should include everyone, there needs to be governments and authority structures.

Even the great Apostle Paul who had the most dramatic conversion of anyone was found among the Prophets and did not go out until released by the Holy Spirit and those who were in authority over him. That's my take.

Bullseye.

These points may not apply in 100% of the cases, but if what I have been reading on these forums for years by the house church advocates is anything like a representative cross section, you have nailed it.

These are precisely the attitudes reflected by the vast majority of the house churchers I have run into.

I would only add one more:

They tend to think they are smarter and more spiritual than the mindless drones who just accept "the reiligious status quo."

[ChristopherHall]

Amos, can you provide me evidence of the following...from the New Testament of the Bible?

-Church meetings restricted to and focused upon meeting in a specific building?

-Gathering an outrageous amounts of funds for church buildings? (Please note that for 300 years Christians didn't pursue buildings or mimicking synagogues even when they were primarily considered a Jewish sect.)

-Order of Worship (i.e. liturgy)- Greeting, three songs, offering, introductory remarks, etc?

-The "Sermon" - A three to four point expository of a text with analogies and persuasive "sophist" rhetoric in closing? (Please note even the term "homiletics" comes from the Greek pagan sophists who traveled giving philosophical argumentation in discourse. All of the Bible's sermons are a spontaneous address to a body of people (never in a church) that expounds upon Scripture without analogy or appeals to "men's wisdom" and tactics of persuasion. "Preaching" was typically direct, expository, and presuppositional. Not to mention church meetings were in homes, and interaction was allowed. And multiple individuals taught the body. There was spontaneous "preaching" but not the "sermonizing" we see in so many churches.

-The "office of pastor" being held and used of one individual to completely control a local assembly?

-Priestly vestments and vestments (Sunday best) "required" or "expected" of laity while observing service?

-Can you show me an example of New Testament "ministers of music", "choirs", "Sunday Schools" (didn't start until the 1800's)?

-A requirement to tithe?

I'm not saying all of these things are "bad" or are a "sin". It's up to the individual to judge if these things help or hinder the vision God has given them. I've preached and even currently attend a local traditional church (which I love with all my heart) but I believe in intellectual honesty....none of these things have "Scriptural" support. These are all things that have been carried over from Judaism and paganism. These things were not prevalent in the NT Christian church for the first 300, 400, and even in some cases 800 years of the Christian church.

Today was a wonderful day. We had men's prayer this morning at Church. We went to Tim Horton's afterwards and our pastor was teaching us an awesome study right there in the middle of the restaurant. There were many people listening in with sincere interest. I imagined what it must have been like to hear Peter or Paul teaching and preaching in the markets.

Bro's....Church has nothing to do with a building or what is done in the building. Church is an assembly and we can have that assembly ANYWHERE. In Bible days...."church" took place in the highways and byways.

Love y'all. God bless.

[ChristopherHall]

I personally think the best model is a combination of home based meetings (perhaps midweek or semi regularly) and mass assembly (perhaps on Sunday or monthly).

My burden is getting the Church out of the church, building closer more intimate relationships, allowing more people to use their gifts, and getting the "churchiness" and "starchiness" out of Church. I sincerely have had some of my deepest moments in God gathered in a restaurant or a living room, praying, and listening to good teaching over coffee, or dinner. Bro's....religion aint the answer. Form isn't the answer. Being real...getting out of our box, breaking out of the prison of tradition, and reaching real people where they really live is the answer.

One may attend a traditional church, as I do, and still see the value of how they did Church in the Bible. Of course one would wonder...why not do it the Bible way more often???

[ChristopherHall]

Here's a poem written by a house church believer. While we may not entirely agree with their every point...there may be some things worth taking from the poem:

The Church and The World

The Church and the world walked far apart
On the changing shores of time:
The world was singing a giddy song,
And the Church a hymn sublime.
“Come, give me your hand”, cried the merry world,
“And walk with me this way.”
But the good Church hid her snowy hand,
And solemnly answered “Nay!”

“Nay, walk with me but a little space”,

Said the world with a kindly air,
“The road I walk is a pleasant road,
And the sun shines always there.
“My path, you see, is a broad, fair path,
And my gate is high and wide;
“There is room enough for you and for me
To travel side by side”,
Half-shyly the Church approached the world
And gave him her hand of snow;
The old world grasped it and walked along,

Saying in accents low:
“Your dress is too simple to suit my taste;
I will give you pearls to wear;
“Rich velvet and silk for your graceful form
And diamonds to deck your hair.”
The church looked down on her plain, white robes
And then at the dazzling world,
And blushed as she saw his handsome lip
With a smile contemptuous curled.
“I will change my dress for a costlier one”,
Said the Church with a smile of grace;
Then her pure white garments drifted away,
And the world gave her in place
Beautiful satins and shining silks,
And roses, and gems and pearls;
And over her forehead her bright hair fell,
Crisped in a thousand curls.

“Your house is too plain”, said the proud old world,
“I’ll build you one like mine;
Carpets of Brussels and curtains of lace,
And furniture ever so fine.
And he bought her a costly and beautiful home;
Splendid it was to behold;
Her sons and her beautiful daughters dwelt there,
Gleaming in purple and gold.
And fairs and shows in the halls were held,
And the world and his children were there;
And laughter and music and feasts were heard
In the place that was meant for prayer.

The Angel of Mercy flew over the Church,
And whispered, “I know thy sin.”
The Church looked back with a sigh
And longed to gather her children in.
“Your preachers are all too old and plain”,
Said the gay old world with a sneer.
“They frighten my children with dreadful tales
Which I like not for them to hear.
“They talk of brimstone and fire and pain,
And the horrors of endless night;
“They talk of a place that should never at all
Be mentioned in ears polite.
“I shall send you some of the better stamp,
Brilliant and gay and fast,
“Who will tell them that people may live as they list
And go to heaven at last.”

The sons of the world and the sons of the church walked closely,
Hand and heart,
And only the Master Who knoweth all
Could tell the two apart.
Then the church sat down at her ease and said,
“I am rich and in goods increased;
I have need of nothing, have nought to do
But to laugh and dance and feast.”
The sly world heard her and laughed in his sleeve,
And mockingly said aside,
“The church is fallen, the beautiful church,
And her shame is her boast and pride.”

[tbpew]

For me, I look at any ‘temple-based’ assembly and I see the FORMER tabernacle…which was a building.

The new tabernacle, which replaces the former, is a body –-materially different from the former.

Our approach and access to God is forever changed by a veil (of the flesh) being rent from top to bottom. Everyone now has access to fellowship God in his holy mountain.

The former, if left to stand, would be so persistent that God provided a great army to completely disassemble the ICON of the former, the building.

House to house assembly is a means to successfully administrate the new. House to house assembly is not an END in, and of, itself. It is a witness of the fundamental change from the FORMER to the LATTER; moving from a congregation to habitation; God making his abode, his dwellingplace, within the hearts of men.

A benefit in this delivery system change is the elimination of the preeminent seat, the places of distinction among men. It is an occasion to witness the prophetic fulfillment of a “kingdom of priests” being manifested. The venue significantly curtails occassion to compare ourselves among ourselves, afterall, can the head say to the feet, "I have no need of you". Gathering in homes denys a platform for titles and positions to be displayed.

Any man seeking to establish his own group will seek a structure where he can control the content and the surroundings within the delivery system. But since we are talking about God’s church, centralized delivery is not established by any office of a man. His church is a BODY not a congregation. His body is established with one head, overseeing many members, connected by ONE spirit.

If God allowed the former tabernacle, which was a building, to be utterly destroyed, why do so many man spend their life’s energy seeking to rebuild it?

[Digging4Truth]

For me, I look at any ‘temple-based’ assembly and I see the FORMER tabernacle…which was a building.

The new tabernacle, which replaces the former, is a body –-materially different from the former.

Our approach and access to God is forever changed by a veil (of the flesh) being rent from top to bottom. Everyone now has access to fellowship God in his holy mountain.

The former, if left to stand, would be so persistent that God provided a great army to completely disassemble the ICON of the former, the building.

House to house assembly is means to successfully administrate the new. House to house assembly is not an END in, and of, itself. It is a witness of the fundamental change from the FORMER to the LATTER; moving from a congregation to habitation; God making his abode, his dwellingplace, within the hearts of men.

A benefit in this delivery system change is the elimination of the preeminent seat, the places of distinction among men. It is an occasion to witness the prophetic fulfillment of a “kingdom of priests” being manifested. The venue significantly curtails occassion to compare ourselves among ourselves, afterall, can the head say to the feet, "I have no need of you". Gathering in homes denys a platform for titles and positions to be displayed.

Any man seeking to make his own group will seek a structure where he can control the content and the surroundings within the delivery system. But since we are talking about God’s church, centralized delivery is not established by any office of a man. His church is a BODY not a congregation. His body is established with one head, overseeing many members, connected by ONE spirit.

If God allowed the former tabernacle, which was a building, to be utterly destroyed, why do so many man spend their life’s energy seeking to rebuild it?

As always... excellent words.

[Joelel]

God never intended for his people to build church buildings and only use them two or three days a week and 6-12 hrs a week.It's a total waste of money that could be going to the poor. House assemblies is the only way.We the people are the church and God could care less where we worship.

[tbpew]

...from the "for what its worth" department.....

in the KJV Bible, the word CONGREGATION occurs 364 times

The word CONGREGATION occurs:
363 times in the OT.
1 time in the NT.

The one NT reference that includes the word is supplied here:
[B]"Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God. " [Acts 13:43].

So on the mouth of 363 witnesses let something be considered; a former thing has been replaced with a NEW thing, a building with a body.

Why is it that something was quintessential PRIOR to a completed work at Calvary, has become completely absent now that ALL have access to the Holy Mountain?

[Bro-Larry]

[QUOTE=gloryseeker;403479

I have strong opinions about house churches, but understand my opinion is really limited to the American culture. While I know many disagree with me and I have seen people call others names like, "small thinkers" I see core value system in the majority that practice house churches. Maybe it doesn't apply to the handful that post in these threads, but what I have seen there is an overall laziness that comes with those who attend house churches.

[/QUOTE]

GlorySeeker,
I suppose you're "small thinker" comment, was aimed at my post?

I posted it thinking that house churches are instructed to divide when they reach twenty in number. It's a bit of a cliche among HCers to "think small". I did not have the more obvious interpretation in mind. I certainly meant no offence.

[gloryseeker]

It's a total waste of money that could be going to the poor. .

The Bible re-lived. I found almost these exact same words found in the book of Matthew:

Matt 26:8-9
8 But when his disciples saw it, they had indignation, saying, To what purpose is this waste?
9 For this ointment might have been sold for much, and given to the poor. (KJV)

It seems to me that a case could be made for making streets out of gold, but when you have all the gold, who cares? It's not waste it's a lifestyle.

God's not poor, people are poor. And because of their poor thinking they have trouble pour an expensive oil to anoint the King.

[Bro-Larry]

None of us want to get out of our comfort zones. We like what we've always had. I admit it. Change scares the daylights out of me too, but it's very easy to judge anything. Just ask yourself, "Does it work? Is it effective in achieving the desired goal"?

What is the desired goal? To go and disciple all nations. I'm for using any and all methods to reach that goal.

[gloryseeker]

None of us want to get out of our comfort zones. We like what we've always had. I admit it. Change scares the daylights out of me too

For me that statement is not true. I love change. I change things at times just so that I don't get in a rut.

The Bible states that we go from "faith to faith" and from "glory to glory". To me that means we are to always change.

But there there is the aspect that God changes not.

I would summarize that what changes is the intents, attitudes, or our hearts. The things we hold onto. We are to be conformed into the image of God. The important change is the change from within.

[Bro-Larry]

None of us want to get out of our comfort zones. We like what we've always had. I admit it. Change scares the daylights out of me too, but it's very easy to judge anything. Just ask yourself, "Does it work? Is it effective in achieving the desired goal"?

What is the desired goal? To go and disciple all nations. I'm for using any and all methods to reach that goal.

There were three thousand converts at Pentecost, with the Lord adding to them daily, (vs 47), then in (Acts 4:4) five thousand more were added. (Act 5:14) says, "multitudes both men and women", were added. Some worshipped in the temple and some were gathered in Solomon's porch. It just wasn't possible for all to have been assimilated into the temple, and the synagogues wouldn't have them. Neither was it possible to build enough church house to put them all into. The one structure with the capacity to handle all those new converts instantly was the house church.

[Bro-Larry]

For me that statement is not true. I love change. I change things at times just so that I don't get in a rut.

The Bible states that we go from "faith to faith" and from "glory to glory". To me that means we are to always change.

But there there is the aspect that God changes not.

I would summarize that what changes is the intents, attitudes, or our hearts. The things we hold onto. We are to be conformed into the image of God. The important change is the change from within.

Hey GS,

Change IS your comfort zone. Lol I'd have to say you are not ordinary!!

[Joelel]

The Bible re-lived. I found almost these exact same words found in the book of Matthew:

Matt 26:8-9
8 But when his disciples saw it, they had indignation, saying, To what purpose is this waste?
9 For this ointment might have been sold for much, and given to the poor. (KJV)

It seems to me that a case could be made for making streets out of gold, but when you have all the gold, who cares? It's not waste it's a lifestyle.

God's not poor, people are poor. And because of their poor thinking they have trouble pour an expensive oil to anoint the King.

Yelp.I see it every place,preachers wanting poor peoples tithes and offerings for building funds they don't need.Building a new church building when the one they have seats 500 and they only have 50 people now.They drive around in $40,000 cars and live in $500,000 thousand homes and the poor have to take a bus to work.

Go sell your house and give to the poor.Acts2:44: And all that believed were together, and had all things common; 45: And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need

Acts4:32: And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.33: And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.34: Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,35: And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need

1 Tim.5: Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.6: But godliness with contentment is great gain.7: For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out.8: And having food and raiment let us be therewith content

1 Tim.6:17] Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy;[18] That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate;[19] Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life

[Joelel]

None of us want to get out of our comfort zones. We like what we've always had. I admit it. Change scares the daylights out of me too, but it's very easy to judge anything. Just ask yourself, "Does it work? Is it effective in achieving the desired goal"?

What is the desired goal? To go and disciple all nations. I'm for using any and all methods to reach that goal.

There were three thousand converts at Pentecost, with the Lord adding to them daily, (vs 47), then in (Acts 4:4) five thousand more were added. (Act 5:14) says, "multitudes both men and women", were added. Some worshipped in the temple and some were gathered in Solomon's porch. It just wasn't possible for all to have been assimilated into the temple, and the synagogues wouldn't have them. Neither was it possible to build enough church house to put them all into. The one structure with the capacity to handle all those new converts instantly was the house church.

Jesus preached to thousands on the sea shore for how long, 3 days ? Pitch a tent or have a good old brush harbor two or three times a week,bring your own chair.:tantrum Build a fire,roast some chicken,dance and shout,run though the woods.:tantrum Oh yes preach the word,get people filled with the Holy Ghost and healed.:tantrum

[ChristopherHall]

I think we’re loosing focus here.

There need not be any contention between those who prefer the house church model over the traditional church model. There are over 6 billion people that need to be reached on this planet. Not every one of them can be expected to attend a cookie cutter institutional church mold or forced into a cookie cutter house church mold. Some will always prefer traditional churches. Others will find the small house churches more to their liking. I think it’s arrogant to assume one size will fit all.

I know of a few people who are very well off that prefer a house church because they are so wealthy. They’ve experienced traditional churches trying to take advantage of them. It seems like once a church knows how loaded they are the pastor (denominational pastors) goes for their money. So they fear that so many traditional churches are just after their money. They just feel safer in a house church. You really can’t blame them. In the house church they attend they support their elder well and their assembly gives to a local charity regularly.

The rich and famous often have religious services in their homes or attend services in the homes of others without going to a local assembly because it might disrupt the assembly and because they don’t want their faith turned into a media circus.

The traditional church model isn’t for everyone.

Also traditional church isn’t for every circumstance. Obviously house church models are best where the church faces persecution. They are also best in impoverished countries and areas. What about densely populated urban cities? Sometimes it’s often very difficult to find affordable property in densely populated urban areas that will allow for substantial growth and/or expansion. Then you have to consider upkeep and the risk of robbery or vandalism. A well organized network of ministers planting house churches in these areas would stand a good chance of reaching their local target population. For example let’s say you had five ministers each willing to plant house churches in a city. Their mission would be to train and equip as many as possible to establish more house churches. These ministers could train up additional ministers out of this network and the ministers of the network could easily make their rounds through the established households to ensure that they are doing well. There would be no limit to the possible growth of such a network. Wherever there was a roof, there could be an assembly. They could specialize in a metro-ministry of sorts by meeting and having studies in various coffee shops and restaurants, thereby taking “church” to the streets, markets, and homes of the community. Could you imagine seeing a group of between 10 and 20 people pulling into the parking lot of the local coffee shop, they get out of their cars and join hands in a circle. There they pray for one another and their meeting right there in the parking lot. Next they break and move into the coffee shop. They purchase their coffees, lattes, or what have you and move into a corner of the shop. All open their Bibles, a short and respectable prayer is offered and the study begins. It’s an interactive study beginning with a reading. They are encouraged to be both bold and respectful. There is discussion about the Bible, questions are asked and answered, there is laughter, and sometimes a somber quiet over the group as one member expounds upon a serious issue facing the world today. All the time…a room of lost and dying people has an opportunity to listen in and observe from the safety of their seats and/or booths. Or they could ignore this religious conversation and go about their own discussions. There will be instances when a stranger asks a question.

I’ve seen it. After men’s prayer at our church on Saturday mornings a group of us guys go down to local Tim Horton’s for coffee and breakfast. There are typically about 10 of us including the pastor. We’ve discussed some rather deep truths of the Bible there and we know some of those lost souls are listening in. Just this past Saturday morning our Pastor was discussing with us the contents of the Ark of the Testimony and explaining what these contents represented and how the blood of Jesus covers us. It was awesome. About maybe three weeks ago a man, who attended a Church of Christ church approached us and asked what church we belonged to. That opened a door for the some of us to talk to him about our church and discuss what we believe. It was absolutely wonderful.

When it comes to outreach we often focus on programs and techniques. But in reality everyday real life offers us multitudes of opportunities to live the Christian life out before a lost and dying world. It’s not a “program”…it’s a way of living our lives. We get into this institutionalized church mode where we attend our “church function”, “at the church”, and then go out to eat or out for coffee and then we “behave” and try not to draw attention to ourselves. We feel we did out duty and had a good service “at the church building”. But my dear brothers and sisters…the church meeting (wherever we meet) is only training or preparation for the mission conducted in Applebee’s or the local Tim Horton’s. One thing I love about house churches is that they have church anywhere and take church anywhere. Their “outings” are not just “to get a bite to eat after church”, their outings are the mission trips where they actually have church and speak to the lost.

I can give example after example from Scripture showing the Church “going” to public places to speak the Word of Life and meeting from house to house to encourage and fellowship one another. Can anyone give me just one Scripture showing where a sinner was, “brought to church”, in the New Testament (book of Acts) Church?

Regardless as to what model of church one prefers...we could learn a lot from these house church folks.

[Digging4Truth]

Jesus preached to thousands on the sea shore for how long, 3 days ? Pitch a tent or have a good old brush harbor two or three times a week,bring your own chair.:tantrum Build a fire,roast some chicken,dance and shout,run though the woods.:tantrum Oh yes preach the word,get people filled with the Holy Ghost and healed.:tantrum

Mark me as the dense one.

I don't get the point.

[Bro-Larry]

I believe the reason they sold their possessions, and shared with others, was because they knew of the coming destruction of Jerusalem, (either by the Spirit or by the words Jesus), and their possessions would be lost then.

Jesus told them when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then flee to the mountains. (Lk ch 21) The Roman armies came, then left for a short time. This gave them opportunity to flee. Josephus said, "...then many eminent men among us, swam away from the city, as from a ship about to sink". He also said that it is not known that single Christian perished in that AD 70 holocaust.

[Digging4Truth]

I believe the reason they sold their possessions, and shared with others, was because they knew of the coming destruction of Jerusalem, (either by the Spirit or by the words Jesus), and their possessions would be lost then.

Jesus told them when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then flee to the mountains. (Lk ch 21) The Roman armies came, then left for a short time. This gave them opportunity to flee. Josephus said, "...then many eminent men among us, swam away from the city, as from a ship about to sink". Josephus said that it is not known that single Christian perished in that AD 70 holocaust.

Very good point. I never really thought about that being a factor in their decision to make such a drastic move.

[Joelel]

I believe the reason they sold their possessions, and shared with others, was because they knew of the coming destruction of Jerusalem, (either by the Spirit or by the words Jesus), and their possessions would be lost then.

Jesus told them when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then flee to the mountains. (Lk ch 21) The Roman armies came, then left for a short time. This gave them opportunity to flee. Josephus said, "...then many eminent men among us, swam away from the city, as from a ship about to sink". He also said that it is not known that single Christian perished in that AD 70 holocaust.

Oh come on,This Is a very important subject concerning our dress and the owning of worldly things. The scripture teaches love not the world or the things of the world, If any person loves the world and the things of the world the love of the father is not in him.

The scripture Is very clear about we are not to dress ourselves in anything that is expensive. If we are not to dress in expensive dress then we are not to own anything expensive. We are also not to own anything we don't need.

The bible say with food and raiment we are to be content.In the bible using the word gold we understand that we are not to dress in expensive dress. A meek spirit don't wear or own expensive things.

Note here the scripture says gold and pearls or costly array. It don't say jewelry, although jewelry is extreme dressing and a lot is costly.We are to sell everything we don't have need of and give to the poor.

1 Peter 3:3: Whose adorning( Dressing) let it not be that outward adorning( Dressing) of plaiting the hair, (Interweaving and knotting of the hair) and of wearing of gold,(Expensive things) or of putting on of (expensive) apparel;
: But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.

1 Tim.2:9: In like manner also, that women adorn (Dress) themselves in modest (descent,not extreme) apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

The reason they were to do this is because we are to have all things in common,not because Jerusalem was going to be destroyed.

Acts2:44: And all that believed were together, and had all things common; 45: And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need

Acts4:32: And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.33: And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.

They sold things they didn't need.

34: Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,35: And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

1 Tim.5: Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.6: But godliness with contentment is great gain.

7: For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out.8: And having food and raiment let us be therewith content

Math.6:19: Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:20: But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:

1 Tim.6:17] Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy;[18] That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate;[19] Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life

[tbpew]

Joelel,
I can read your last post, hear some imporatnt considerations, and can find a lot of agreement within my spirit.

My departure comes with a preception that you do not seem to acknowledge the diversity of this present world's economic demographics. We have no specific instructioin as to what economic demographic the members of God's Christ are to share neighborhoods with. God is way more clever than us in 'engineering diversity".

We all live and interact in some neighborhood (please consider a re-read of D.B's "how starbucks saved my ministry"). A complete lack of ownership is inconsistent with the premise of the parable of the talents and the charge to 'occupy' until the master returns. We can certainly be vibrant in the commerce of this world without wearing its' cosmetics (cosmos).

If our heart does not condemn us we are on good ground for walking in God's anointing.

Do you think renting from the world reveals true holiness?
Do you think having no reserve for the seasons of lack is proper stewardship?

What ownership are you advocating?

Are you teaching that communal living is God's instruction for his children? If so, where do see communial residence in the scriptures?

Can you paint a bigger picture of the potential priviledges and potential pitfalls you see concerning our stewardship of the increase God provides within our life in this world?

[Joelel]

Mark me as the dense one.

I don't get the point.

Just saying we don't have to have a building,homes and brush harbors and tents are fine,God don't look at how nice of buildings we have,he looks at our hearts.

[Joelel]

Joelel,
I can read your last post, hear some imporatnt considerations, and can find a lot of agreement within my spirit.

My departure comes with a preception that you do not seem to acknowledge the diversity of this present world's economic demographics. We have no specific instructioin as to what economic demographic the members of God's Christ are to share neighborhoods with. God is way more clever than us in 'engineering diversity".

We all live and interact in some neighborhood (please consider a re-read of D.B's "how starbucks saved my ministry"). A complete lack of ownership is inconsistent with the premise of the parable of the talents and the charge to 'occupy' until the master returns. We can certainly be vibrant in the commerce of this world without wearing its' cosmetics (cosmos).

If our heart does not condemn us we are on good ground for walking in God's anointing.

Do you think renting from the world reveals true holiness?
Do you think having no reserve for the seasons of lack is proper stewardship?

What ownership are you advocating?

Are you teaching that communal living is God's instruction for his children? If so, where do see communial residence in the scriptures?

Can you paint a bigger picture of the potential priviledges and potential pitfalls you see concerning our stewardship of the increase God provides within our life in this world?

I believe they just sold things they didn't need, as many of us have.We know they had businesses.

[ChristopherHall]

I believe they just sold things they didn't need, as many of us have.We know they had businesses.

Initially they sold all they owned. But that was only to set a foundation and distribute among them to anyone who had need.

[Joelel]

Initially they sold all they owned. But that was only to set a foundation and distribute among them to anyone who had need.

The word don't say that,so all the poor a hundered years later,no love ,no care for them hay ?

James 2: 1: My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.
2: For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment;
3: And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool:
4: Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?
5: Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?
6: But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats?
7: Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called?
8: If ye fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:
9: But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
10: For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
11: For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.
12: So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.
13: For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.
14: What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
15: If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
16: And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
17: Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
18: Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
19: Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
20: But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
21: Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
22: Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

[ChristopherHall]

Joelel,

That wasn't my point. My point was that they sold all they had. Brother, I'm a firm believer in helping the poor. I've written post after post on gleaning and our nation's responsibility to those in need and how we as Christians have to be advocates for the poor.

You can ask most of the long time posters here, I'm almost regarded by some as being a socialist because I believe in universal health care and common sense programs helping the least among us.

[gloryseeker]

Joelel,

...I believe in universal health care and common sense programs....

That's an oxymoron :bliss

[Joelel]

Joelel,

That wasn't my point. My point was that they sold all they had. Brother, I'm a firm believer in helping the poor. I've written post after post on gleaning and our nation's responsibility to those in need and how we as Christians have to be advocates for the poor.

You can ask most of the long time posters here, I'm almost regarded by some as being a socialist because I believe in universal health care and common sense programs helping the least among us.

Truly we live in a great country for helping the poor,other nations are a bit better.Alot of nations can't help the poor.The way I see it though, it is the churches place to take care of their believers,not the nations job.The church are to take care of the widows too,that they don't do.

[Digging4Truth]

Truly we live in a great country for helping the poor,other nations are a bit better.Alot of nations can't help the poor.The way I see it though, it is the churches place to take care of their believers,not the nations job.The church are to take care of the widows too,that they don't do.

And... while another thread debates whether the tithe is a command no one mentions that the same law that gave us the tithe also gave instruction that 20% of it be used to pay priests, levites, musicians, porters etc and the other 80% was to feed the poor, widows, orphans, strangers.

Those who work so hard to make sure it is understood that the tithe is a requirement never seem to work so hard to make sure that that requirement follow its full measure of instruction.

[Joelel]

That's an oxymoron :bliss

How would universal health care be oxymoron ?

[Joelel]

And... while another thread debates whether the tithe is a command no one mentions that the same law that gave us the tithe also gave instruction that 20% of it be used to pay priests, levites, musicians, porters etc and the other 80% was to feed the poor, widows, orphans, strangers.

Those who work so hard to make sure it is understood that the tithe is a requirement never seem to work so hard to make sure that that requirement follow its full measure of instruction.

I don't know what the % was but something like that.You have the scripture on that ? I do believe we are to give all we can if someone is in need.Some people may not be able to give 10% and others much more.I don't see where we are to pay a set 10% under grace.Some things from the law was changed.

[Digging4Truth]

I don't know what the % was but something like that.You have the scripture on that ? I do believe we are to give all we can if someone is in need.Some people may not be able to give 10% and others much more.I don't see where we are to pay a set 10% under grace.Some things from the law was changed.

Oh I agree completely. I am not one of who feels the tithe is a command in the NT.... Like all of the law... we have a new and better covenant.

In the OT it was said "thou shalt not commit adultery". You could look on her, lust after her... probably even play around a bit... but as long as there was no actual "cheating" then the law was satisfied.

In the new and better covenant these laws are no longer in stone but written on my heart and now when adultery even begins in my heart I find conviction.

Before there was a command to give a certain percent.

Under the new and better covenant I am free to follow my heart and be led of the Holy Ghost and give as I purpose in my heart to do so.

I was just making the statement that those who love to hold onto that law also love to shuck other portions of it.

[Joelel]

Oh I agree completely. I am not one of who feels the tithe is a command in the NT.... Like all of the law... we have a new and better covenant.

In the OT it was said "thou shalt not commit adultery". You could look on her, lust after her... probably even play around a bit... but as long as there was no actual "cheating" then the law was satisfied.

In the new and better covenant these laws are no longer in stone but written on my heart and now when adultery even begins in my heart I find conviction.

Before there was a command to give a certain percent.

Under the new and better covenant I am free to follow my heart and be led of the Holy Ghost and give as I purpose in my heart to do so.

I was just making the statement that those who love to hold onto that law also love to shuck other portions of it.

A big Amen

I'm sure you know all this scripture,I just post it for who ever.

Colo.2:16: Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:17: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.


Titus3:[9] But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

Rom.13:7: Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.8: Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.( Jesus was the end of the law because in him we fulfill the law.)9: For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
10: Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.11: And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed



Gal.5: 1: Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.(old Law,covenant) 2: Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. 3: For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. (old Law)
4: Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the (old law)law; ye are fallen from grace. 5: For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
6: For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love. 7: Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth? 8: This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you

Acts13:38: Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: 39: And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.(old Law)


Gal.3:23: But before faith came, we were kept under the law,(old Law) shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. 24: Wherefore the law (old Law)was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.(new Law) 25: But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.(old law)

Heb.8:6: But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant,(new Law) which was established upon better promises. 7: For if that first covenant(old law) had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.8: For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant (new law) with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

10: For this is the covenant (new law) that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people

Rom.3:19: Now we know that what things soever the law (old Law)saith, it saith to them who are under the law:(old law) that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 20: Therefore by the deeds of the law (old law) there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the (old)law is the knowledge of sin

31: Do we then make void the (old) law through faith(of the new law)? God forbid: yea, we establish the (old)law.


6:14: For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the (Old) law, but under grace.(new law) 15: What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the(old) law, but under grace(new law)? God forbid. 16: Know ye not, that to whom ye yield

10:1: Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.2: For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.

3: For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. 4: For Christ is the end of the (old) law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

5: For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them

Math.5:17: Think not that I am come to destroy the (old) law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.(we fulfill by having the new law of faith)

Gal.2:14: But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?


16: Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the (old) law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the (old) law: for by the works of the(old) law shall no flesh be justified

Heb.7:11: If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? 12: For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law

[gloryseeker]

How would universal health care be oxymoron ?

Universal health care and common sense is an oxymoron

[RandyWayne]

Universal health care and common sense is an oxymoron

I am too lazy to look but someone (maybe you) said something about Universal Health Care having the efficiency of the Pentagon combined with the soul(lessness) of the post office.

[gloryseeker]

Truly we live in a great country for helping the poor,other nations are a bit better...

Are you saying that other nations are a bit better at helping the poor? If so, what nation???

[gloryseeker]

I am too lazy to look but someone (maybe you) said something about Universal Health Care having the efficiency of the Pentagon combined with the soul(lessness) of the post office.

not me...

[ChristopherHall]

Gloryseeker...

Our family goes to Canada on vacation every year because the family has a cottage up in Ontario off Charleston Lake. We have family and good friends in Canada and have grown to know it well. We even have Canadian Apostolics on this forum. In fact, if you'd like to discuss universal health care we have a thread for that in the Canadian section.

I'm curious, have you ever been to Canada. It's beautiful.

[gloryseeker]

Gloryseeker...

I'm curious, have you ever been to Canada. It's beautiful.

Yes, I have - three times in fact. However, if your post is in regards to universal health care it is a known fact that the Canadian system doesn't work. MANY Canadians come to the USA for medical.

[Bro-Larry]

This has turned out to be a hotbutton issue. Not many threads get this much activity.

[RandyWayne]

Yes, I have - three times in fact. However, if your post is in regards to universal health care it is a known fact that the Canadian system doesn't work. MANY Canadians come to the USA for medical.

And my wife has treated several Canadians who needed major organ transplants, as well as from England, because their own "system" didn't approve of it. These are people who paid many tens of thousands of their own money when they should have gotten it for free but didn't because of A) their age, or B) the ever present waiting list.

[gloryseeker]

This has turned out to be a hotbutton issue. Not many threads get this much activity.

Bro Larry....I am so glad for the insert of "daugther #3" under your pic, I thought we might of had a problem on our hands :ursofunny

[Bro-Larry]

Bro Larry....I am so glad for the insert of "daugther #3" under your pic, I thought we might of had a problem on our hands :ursofunny

UR Right!! LOLOL

[ChristopherHall]

Yes, I have - three times in fact. However, if your post is in regards to universal health care it is a known fact that the Canadian system doesn't work. MANY Canadians come to the USA for medical.

Nearly 50 million Americans are uninsured. Every year roughly 18,000 Americans die because they didn't have coverage or were denied coverage for treatment that may have saved their lives.

Somehow I doubt we see these kinds of numbers in Canada or even coming from Canada for health care.

I admit, the Canadian system isn't perfect. There are many models for universal health care, some are better than others. The United States is in the unique position of choosing what elements of what systems will benefit us most. I believe that if we ever launch a universal health insurance system in the US it will not be long until it is the best in the entire world.

If you'd like to discuss universal health care with some Canadians we can go to the following thread. Maybe you can...help them see the light and support a system like ours. LOL

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=5559

[Bro-Larry]

This thread has been hijacked too.