House church or excuse?

[shazeep]

ok, ty. i would agree, but it seems Aquila has a point, and this def of 'house church' will be modified as others see fit.

[Cracker Barrel]

Originally Posted by n david

There are many opinions of what house church is, and they vary greatly. Why I posted that an institutional church and house church shouldn't meet is because they're two very different entities.

The institutional church is centered around one man and has many different ministries or missions. A house church is a gathering a believers with a common focus.

An institutional church is designed to attract churched/unchurched families and keep them involved within the various functions or ministries of the church. A house church is simply designed for equipping the believer.

An institutional church is spectator friendly. A house church requires input from all gathered believers, using their gifts.

The point of the house church is to be more like the early church, where believers met to break bread, pray and share the word. It's meant to be small and mobile.

Woah,
That is not the church pattern I have ever seen in all my years in the apostolic ranks. Yes, Charismatic loose churches are a spectator sport, focused on their celebrity of a pastor.

But the church I have seen in the states that is having true growth is the church that is holding to the old path! Strong in doctrine, evangelism, church participation, and separation from the world. Just like the church here! Ndavid I have read your posts for a while n I think we are the same in generation, but please don't mix the two.

Baloney !! House church is not more like the first church. It really sounds like there are three types of churches that gather. Mine yours and aquillas. We seem to be a balance of the two. Healthy . Letting our people grow and follow God as the spirit leads but following as the man of God Follows Christ, reaching out to the community and seeing lives changed, from one extreme to another. Nothing wrong with that I say! Sorry for those that have less. Sounds like an excuse to put up with partial Pentecost.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

I could not help but notice the use of the word "institutional" in regards to meeting in a church building which involves under a pastoral setting. which implies a man made setting rather than scriptural.
When one truly examines the ministry of Christ and the Apostles, they utilized whatever means was available to them to reach those that had not heard the good news, but one is hard put to determine that they set up churches in the manner we have today.

Amen. Jesus and the disciples (Apostles) used every means necessary to get the Gospel to the people, even the Pharisaical "institution" of their day.

The closest thing scripture gives us is that the early Christians went from house to house "breaking bread".
Which many take to mean they shared the communion meal. I believe they were simply sharing the word.

I believe that it was their communal meal which was centered on the "breaking of bread" in remembrance of Christ's broken body. I also believe that this was a rather regular occurrence among the early Christians, who were known for their "love feasts" wherein they provided food and drink for the poor, widows, orphans, and one another.

We also have the words of the writer of Hebrews admonishing us to "forsake not the assembling of ourselves together". Neither of which proves the early church established institutional meetings and hierarchies such as we have today.
The way I see it both institutional churches and house churches fail in fulfilling the commission of God to GO into the world. Instead we lock ourselves up into our closed little worlds, and expect the world to come to us.
God gave the gifts of ministry to equip the saints to minister, not sit on our butts and leave it up to the ministers.

Amen. A house church elder who I used to talk to all the time used to push his group to preach outdoors. This included street corners, parks, etc. They were to "go".

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

IMO, never the two should meet.

A "cell" group is not house church. Anything connected to an institutional church is not a real house church, but rather just another division of the church. The point is missed. The two should never be connected.

I can respect that. However, in our network what differentiates a house church from a cell group is that water baptism and spiritual discipline is handled by each house church elder, not a "Sr. Pastor". Any home based meeting wherein the elders do not baptize or perform spiritual discipline is simply a "home Bible study" or "cell group".

That being said.... a "house church" can be independent or networked with other house churches. Also, the house church network might even choose to own property wherein they gather in a building weekly in a more "traditional" fashion.

No matter where they gather, the elders of the house church are the ones who water baptize, counsel, and perform spiritual discipline. And this is primarily done in the house church setting.

[shazeep]

i guess i'm in a cell group, but the church isn't exactly institutional anyway. Not sure how nd would feel there? The two should never be connected because they are different? Might this work good for both?