Churches to lose "BILLIONS"

[2020Vision]

Originally Posted by bkstokes

If churches would get out of the mega building mentality and do their services in homes, the money that was given could go to the two reasons that were listed in the NT (support preachers and help the needy saints).

BK that's interesting. Acts had house churches largely because of convenience (persecution, etc). Considering the freedom we have today in our democratic society, do you have a theological opinion of this or just one of practicality (you think it's the better way to go)?

There are many perks for a large church, as well as draw backs. There are also many perks of the small church, with just as many draw backs. Do you agree?

[bkstokes]

Originally Posted by 2020Vision

BK that's interesting. Acts had house churches largely because of convenience (persecution, etc). Considering the freedom we have today in our democratic society, do you have a theological opinion of this or just one of practicality (you think it's the better way to go)?

There are many perks for a large church, as well as draw backs. There are also many perks of the small church, with just as many draw backs. Do you agree?

I attend a church building (the church has about 150) and I have attended a church of 2,000, so I obviosly don't think that it is necessarily wrong.

I formed my opinion after studying the use of money in the NT. I noticed that they always collected offerings for two reasons. They also shared a mentality of not trying to build up a life here, but building for the eternal.

After realizing this, I came to the conclusion that so much of the money that is given to churches, goes towards things that are not found in the NT. How many widows or orphans that have many needs go to churches that have big buildings?

I go to a church building now because I have 5 young kids (5,4,3,2, and 1). I want them to get Sunday School training and they limit my ability to have home fellowship meetings.

However, when they are older, if the Lord wills, I plan to start a church in my home. If it takes off and gets larger I will train other leaders to start churches in their homes and break up the original group.

I recognize that there are advantages with both ways. I just feel the home system is a way to be a better steward of the offerings of the saints.

[2020Vision]

Originally Posted by bkstokes

I attend a church building (the church has about 150) and I have attended a church of 2,000, so I obviosly don't think that is it necessarily wrong.

I formed my opinion after studying the use of money in the NT. I noticed that they always collected offerings for two reasons. They also shared a mentality of not trying to build up a life here, but building for the eternal.

After realizing this, I came to the conclusion that so much of the money that is given to churches, goes towards things that are not found in the NT. How many widows or orphans that have many needs go to churches that have big buildings?

I go to a church building now because I have 5 young kids (5,4,3,2, and 1). I want them to get Sunday School training and they limit my ability to have home fellowship meetings.

However, when they are older, if the Lord wills, I plan to start a church in my home. If it takes off and gets larger I will train other leaders to start churches in their homes and break up the original group.

I recognize that there are advantages with both ways. I just feel the home system is a way to be a better steward of the offerings of the saints.

I can respect that. Seems to be defining the role of the pastor would be important in this too. I know many home church fans at my office, and most of them have little conviction with the role of a pastor. I like the idea. Larger churches like it too (that's why they form small groups - Lakewood for example).

I've heard good debate on the part about the primary mission of the church with regards to financially caring for orphans, widows, etc... Most of those arguments dealt with a compare/contrast the 1st Century to 21st Century.

Thanks for the comments.

[Michael Phelps]

Originally Posted by 2020Vision

BK that's interesting. Acts had house churches largely because of convenience (persecution, etc). Considering the freedom we have today in our democratic society, do you have a theological opinion of this or just one of practicality (you think it's the better way to go)?

There are many perks for a large church, as well as draw backs. There are also many perks of the small church, with just as many draw backs. Do you agree?

I would beg to differ with this.

The church in Acts met in houses because part of their idea of "doctrine" was breaking of bread, going house to house, and fellowshipping.

Also, they gave their money to the needy and to evangelize instead of sinking it into structures.

The Bible does say a great number of priests were converted to the faith, and it's possible that they converted entire congregations with existing buildings.

But, I never see any reference at all to a "building" program in the book of Acts.

[2020Vision]

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

I would beg to differ with this.

The church in Acts met in houses because part of their idea of "doctrine" was breaking of bread, going house to house, and fellowshipping.

Also, they gave their money to the needy and to evangelize instead of sinking it into structures.

The Bible does say a great number of priests were converted to the faith, and it's possible that they converted entire congregations with existing buildings.

But, I never see any reference at all to a "building" program in the book of Acts.

Acts 2:42, where distinguishes their doctrine from prayer, breaking of bread and fellowship. I think it was the true "culture" of the early church, but to equate it with doctrine would be a mistake. The church grew out of a sort of third-world poverty, suppressed environment. This has to be in mind. They had many "in need" that were literally starving, castaways of society. This is a stark contrast with the "needy" today. Not to discount doing good for the needy, but I think we can miss the point of Acts if we settle everything there.

One poster was right, the church flourished under persecution.

As far as a building program. We are using modern vernacular and trying to draw a comparison. I mean, Nehemiah had a pretty radical building program, and that goes farther back. I just don't think large edifices that advertised Christianity were possible - at least until the RCC took control.

That's not to say I think large churches are the way to go. I just see it more in terms of pragmatism that in soteriology or doctrine.

[Michael Phelps]

Originally Posted by 2020Vision

Acts 2:42, where distinguishes their doctrine from prayer, breaking of bread and fellowship. I think it was the true "culture" of the early church, but to equate it with doctrine would be a mistake. The church grew out of a sort of third-world poverty, suppressed environment. This has to be in mind. They had many "in need" that were literally starving, castaways of society. This is a stark contrast with the "needy" today. Not to discount doing good for the needy, but I think we can miss the point of Acts if we settle everything there.

One poster was right, the church flourished under persecution.

As far as a building program. We are using modern vernacular and trying to draw a comparison. I mean, Nehemiah had a pretty radical building program, and that goes farther back. I just don't think large edifices that advertised Christianity were possible - at least until the RCC took control.

That's not to say I think large churches are the way to go. I just see it more in terms of pragmatism that in soteriology or doctrine.

Good post, and I see your point.

I agree that the temple(s) were wonderfully crafted elaborate structures wherein folks came to worship and sacrifice.

However, in the book of Acts, there is no mention of the same type of structure. There were definitely temples, because that's where Peter and John were headed to pray when they healed the lame man.

But, the focus in Acts shifted away from the edifice and on to the "going into all the world and evangelizing".

I am certainly not against church buildings, but I am against building a structure that is so costly that it takes away from the church's evangelism efforts.

[2020Vision]

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

I would beg to differ with this.

The church in Acts met in houses because part of their idea of "doctrine" was breaking of bread, going house to house, and fellowshipping.

Also, they gave their money to the needy and to evangelize instead of sinking it into structures.

The Bible does say a great number of priests were converted to the faith, and it's possible that they converted entire congregations with existing buildings.

But, I never see any reference at all to a "building" program in the book of Acts.

And bear with me for playing the DA with you. This is really a topic that I'm vasillating on, and have been for some time.

[Michael Phelps]

Originally Posted by 2020Vision

And bear with me for playing the DA with you. This is really a topic that I'm vasillating on, and have been for some time.

Me too!