House Churches: What are your thoughts?

[ChristopherHall]

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth

Please don't feel I am presenting this as some law of the land... I am just making some commentary.

House churches will, quite often, not have a paid minister because the group ministers to each other. Of course there will tend to be an elder who is viewed as the one everyone looks up to and will counsel with but with a group of 12-20 people there is no real need for this to become an income source for anyone in the group.

Offerings are often used more to minister to any needs that people in the group might have rather than to provide any source of income for one person in the group.

I agree. I was just thinking about a house church could financially support a pastor should their model facilitate it. But I agree with you quite a bit. A minister may also fear multiplying if it means his income would be cut significantly.

[ChristopherHall]

Why am I invisible? lol

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by ChristopherHall

Why am I invisible? lol

I see you.

But seriously, folks...

They mad gnomes made some settings changes. To become "visible" again you have to manually change your settings. "Invisible" is now the 'default' setting otherwise.

UserCP> Edit Options> uncheck box Use Invisible Mode - it's the first check box near the top of the page.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by keith4him

I have much to say about this, but most if not all OP's both pastors and saint like the current model and will fight anything that trys to change them.

I have read everyone and everything written about this, it is the way to go, but sadly it will take a major shift for it ever to take roots in American and among Apostolics. We love our buildings, special services and being our fish for the week through the professionals.

I don't know that it is so much the buildings for many OPs but the whole group getting together model is appealing.

They like having the larger group together in one place each service. They like being able to have larger groups of fellowship, especially for the kids, teens and singles.

They like the music and singing and evangelists. They like space to run, dance, jump or whatever....

You can't do a lot of that in a small home and the noise might attract anger from neighbors....and in some places you have to have a license to do that in a home

[Praxeas]

It's been secretly declared for November to be "Annoy Thad" month...that is why everyone is invisible

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I don't know that it is so much the buildings for many OPs but the whole group getting together model is appealing.

They like having the larger group together in one place each service. They like being able to have larger groups of fellowship, especially for the kids, teens and singles.

They like the music and singing and evangelists. They like space to run, dance, jump or whatever....

You can't do a lot of that in a small home and the noise might attract anger from neighbors....and in some places you have to have a license to do that in a home

Yes sir... this will be true of many folks.

But that is part of the reason for those who find this model appealing to consider getting involved. As I have mentioned before... Oneness pentecostals make up less than 1% of the population. So there is a HUGE number of people out who have not been reached by this model that so many like to be a part of.

There are many people who do not have a desire to be a part of such an environment and would prefer a small, intimate study group.

With the house church model taking off like it is we have a greater opportunity to be all things to all people.

As far as licenses being required. I don't think that a house church being conducted in it's truest form would ever need licensing.

It is a small group of people meeting together in their homes for a bible study.

There is no official name.
No one makes a salary.

It is just a group of people having a Bible study in their homes.

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

It's been secretly declared for November to be "Annoy Thad" month...that is why everyone is invisible

In the spirit of doing unto others as I would have them do unto me I have de-invisiblized myself some time back.

[Pastor Keith]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I don't know that it is so much the buildings for many OPs but the whole group getting together model is appealing.

They like having the larger group together in one place each service. They like being able to have larger groups of fellowship, especially for the kids, teens and singles.

They like the music and singing and evangelists. They like space to run, dance, jump or whatever....

You can't do a lot of that in a small home and the noise might attract anger from neighbors....and in some places you have to have a license to do that in a home

Prax,

I guess you have to be a pastor, Pastors love buildings, in our profession and calling, especially in America it has become a visible symbol of success. I know it shouldn't but it does. I repeat in America, Pastors love buildings and will often stretch their churches finances to pay for them, when it doesn't make a bit of sense and isn't a wise use of resources.

[ChristopherHall]

I was reflecting on some points made and thought I’d share my thoughts.

I think that many truly enjoy the room to dance, large groups, music, etc. I don’t believe there’s anything wrong with these things, I’ve danced my dance, praised in the choir, and sand or shouted in the crowd on many occasions. But I think some reflection is important.

Is there a biblical or historical precedent for these things in the biblical church? While there is nothing really wrong with these things, the biblical church didn’t focus on them, nor did the historic church focus on them for nearly 300 years…and they turned Rome upside down. Not to mention our Apostolic Pentecostal history. Our movement started in homes, barns, old mansions, brush arbors, etc. No extravagant buildings, plush pews, …not even air conditioning. LOL. In many way’s we’ve forgotten the simplicity of our humble past and embraced the complexity of mainstream, “mega church Christianity”.

I think there are some concerns with some of these things. For example, can the large venue, large crowd, excellent music, and superb speakers cease to become “worship” and move into the realm of “entertainment”? With the crowd, the music, and the booming microphones is there a chance that we can mistaken “crowd dynamics” for real anointing? I’ve attended many services that were absolutely nothing but hype…sadly those unfamiliar with true depth in the anointing couldn’t tell the difference. I’m not saying that this is the problem with all conventional churches…I’m just saying that it is a concern that exists. It’s even possible to a lesser degree in house churches I’d guess.

This leads my train of thought to the subject of licensing. Licensing of ministers in house churches certainly isn’t an absolute necessity, but I feel it may provide some benefits. For example to maintain a license one generally has to have at least some experience, study, education, or knowledge of doctrine. There is the risk of Bro. Joe starting a house church and not knowing the foundational teachings of justification and sanctification, oneness, eschatology, etc. One could essentially drift into a doctrinal wasteland where truth is completely subjective to the teacher’s take on things. At least a licensed minister would have the basic doctrinal knowledge needed to keep himself/herself and others on a biblical path in their discovery of truth and Christian living.

Licensing would also provide accountability. There are strange doctrines that arise even among those who are educated in doctrine. If an unlicensed minister launched a house church he/she could essentially teach anything. They could teach adoptionism, covenantal polygamy, or even alternative lifestyle theology. But if they are licensed they are accountable to the licensing body for their teaching. If they teach something inappropriate actions can be taken to correct the mistaken minister or to officially remove him/her from fellowship for others to see. It would also assist the outsider’s perception of legitimacy. The house church pastor, elder, facilitator would be a recognized “licensed minister” though his official function and capacity may not be much different than anyone else’s in the fellowship. He could also file with state authorities to perform weddings etc. It could prevent the notion that such pastors are just “loose cannons”.

Also licensing would provide wider base of fellowship. A licensed house church ministry would keep the smaller body in fellowship with the larger body of like Christian faith. For example if a house church pastor was a licensed UPCI minister he could freely participate and fellowship with other UPCI churches in a given district. Marriage retreats, seminars, leadership meetings, conferences, etc would be excellent places to keep the smaller body in fellowship with other churches both traditional and house church. Could you imagine a house church pastor who had launched a house church movement producing multiple house churches in a major US city speaking at a district or general conference on evangelism, body ministry, and/or church growth? I can see the title of his message now, “Shrinking to Grow: Little is much when God is in it”. (Actually… I’ve preached that sermon in my head maybe twenty times already. LOL)

Those are just some of my initial thoughts. I’m sure there are other takes on it that might answer a few of the above concerns in support of licensing.

I think the current use of resources is starting to really cause me concern like it never did before. Is it morally right that over 80% of our resources go to support buildings, salaries, etc...when there is glaring need all around us? Recently I watched a speech offered by a minister who was arguing that taxation was the reason most Christians can't afford to be more charitable with their resources....could it be closer to the truth that this minister's multi-million dollar facility and programs are a glaring example as to why more Christians cannot afford to be more charitable? I don't know...just random thoughts here.

[ChristopherHall]

This song was on my heart...

Little Is Much When God Is In It

In the harvest field now ripened
There’s a work for all to do;
Hark! the voice of God is calling
To the harvest calling you.

Refrain
Little is much when God is in it!
Labor not for wealth or fame.
There’s a crown—and you can win it,
If you go in Jesus’ Name.

In the mad rush of the broad way,
In the hurry and the strife,
Tell of Jesus’ love and mercy,
Give to them the Word of Life.

Refrain
Little is much when God is in it!
Labor not for wealth or fame.
There’s a crown—and you can win it,
If you go in Jesus’ Name.

Does the place you’re called to labor
Seem too small and little known?
It is great if God is in it,
And He’ll not forget His own.

Refrain
Little is much when God is in it!
Labor not for wealth or fame.
There’s a crown—and you can win it,
If you go in Jesus’ Name.

Are you laid aside from service
Body worn from toil and care?
You can still be in the battle,
In the sacred place of prayer.

Refrain
Little is much when God is in it!
Labor not for wealth or fame.
There’s a crown—and you can win it,
If you go in Jesus’ Name.

When the conflict here is ended
And our race on earth is run,
He will say, if we are faithful,
“Welcome home, My child—well done!”

Refrain
Little is much when God is in it!
Labor not for wealth or fame.
There’s a crown—and you can win it,
If you go in Jesus’ Name.

If you’ll go….in Jesus name.