Quote:
Originally Posted by MissBrattified
My house doesn't hold 120 people. Not comfortably, anyway. Not sitting. It definitely wouldn't hold 3000. The upper room may have been a place where someone lived (debatable), but it was fairly large--not at all like today's concept of "house church" with a very small group in a relatively small house.
I'm not anti-house-church. I like the idea in some ways, and I like intimate worship settings. However, I am anti-anti-big-church-building. I don't see anything in scripture that condemns large gatherings of believers. Ergo, I have a problem with any believer who condemns Christians for the size of their buildings or congregations. Christianity isn't a cookie-cutter religion. What works in one culture, country, community or century may not work in another. No matter, because God didn't lay out a cookie cutter method for the church to propagate the Gospel.
Furthermore, the same way that people can get stuck in the rut of traditional church, people can get stuck in the rut of opposing the status quo just for the sake of it. That isn't productive, either.
|
A "house" that holds 120-3000 is a special house indeed.
Houses in Jerusalem had an upper chamber set aside or loaned (Maybe even rented) to guests for meetings, weddings, prayers, as Inns where travelers can stay etc
Threaded Mode
