House Churches: What are your thoughts?

[ChristopherHall]

I don’t think a house church would get a whole lot out of being in an organization. Maybe it would help in the sense of feeling connected with Christians of like faith. The Southern Baptist Convention recognizes house churches and licenses many house church ministers. I think being a part of an organization would bring a degree of accountability. If you were part of a house church lead by a licensed UPCI or ALJC minister and his license was revoked for teaching false doctrine or immorality it would be an indicator that maybe you should ask some questions before remaining in that fellowship. But a house church could also independently recognize ministers in their number. An organization is definitely not needed. Even traditional churches can be independent of organizations.

I see the greatest benefits of a house church being the degree of biblical “koinonia” and sound stewardship of resources, not a lack of oversight or leadership.

Originally Posted by ChristopherHall

I don’t think a house church would get a whole lot out of being in an organization. Maybe it would help in the sense of feeling connected with Christians of like faith. The Southern Baptist Convention recognizes house churches and licenses many house church ministers. I think being a part of an organization would bring a degree of accountability. If you were part of a house church lead by a licensed UPCI or ALJC minister and his license was revoked for teaching false doctrine or immorality it would be an indicator that maybe you should ask some questions before remaining in that fellowship. But a house church could also independently recognize ministers in their number. An organization is definitely not needed. Even traditional churches can be independent of organizations.

I see the greatest benefits of a house church being the degree of biblical “koinonia” and sound stewardship of resources, not a lack of oversight or leadership.

agreed.

[ChristopherHall]

I guess I’m not understanding why house church advocates would desire to be separated from the larger body of Christ or to embrace a spiritual form of anarchy. I want my children to be able to learn what the Bible teaches and to know how to articulate what they believe. I was looking into house churches because I saw an opportunity for closer community and love…but I’m finding more and more that it’s attractive to many who despise spiritual leadership. Most likely these folks have been abused…but house churches make excellent targets for them as they undermine the biblical ministry of elders.

Don’t know. The subjective liberal approach to doctrine waters it down too much. In addition the notion of resisting oversight causes me serious second thoughts on it. Perhaps organizational churches as we know them are the best model.

Maybe the idea should be modified to periodic cell groups to maintain biblical oversight, protect doctrine, establish accountability…but also enrich and facilitate biblical koinonia.

Originally Posted by ChristopherHall

I guess I’m not understanding why house church advocates would desire to be separated from the larger body of Christ or to embrace a spiritual form of anarchy. I want my children to be able to learn what the Bible teaches and to know how to articulate what they believe. I was looking into house churches because I saw an opportunity for closer community and love…but I’m finding more and more that it’s attractive to many who despise spiritual leadership. Most likely these folks have been abused…but house churches make excellent targets for them as they undermine the biblical ministry of elders.

Don’t know. The subjective liberal approach to doctrine waters it down too much. In addition the notion of resisting oversight causes me serious second thoughts on it. Perhaps organizational churches as we know them are the best model.

Maybe the idea should be modified to periodic cell groups to maintain biblical oversight, protect doctrine, establish accountability…but also enrich and facilitate biblical koinonia.

i agree. seems there should be a way to make the best of both worlds just not sure that is possible.

for me a home church would just be a good place of healing. but like you said, for some it could be something totally different. dunno *shrugs* perhaps neither is right for me.

i can see good and bad for each, house church and traditional church. just not sure i see a happy medium

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by ChristopherHall

I guess I’m not understanding why house church advocates would desire to be separated from the larger body of Christ or to embrace a spiritual form of anarchy.

Where do you get that concept from? In our conversation I have repeatedly embraced the biblical concept of oversight in it's entirety. Surely this has come from another conversation.

Originally Posted by ChristopherHall

I want my children to be able to learn what the Bible teaches and to know how to articulate what they believe.

Do you feel that someone who goes to a house church would be less likely to be able to do this? This sounds similar to some peoples opine concerning home school versus public school. Why would a house church be less likely to articulate their beliefs? Many who attend "regular" church rely heavily on "my preacher won't let me" and similar anecdotes. I would think that neither today's popular model nor the house church model would be any more or less able to articulate their beliefs. That would largely boil down to the amount of personal study that an individual person puts into these subjects. One can have the educated preacher in the nation yet this does not mean that they will have/will not have any ability to articulate their beliefs.

Originally Posted by ChristopherHall

I was looking into house churches because I saw an opportunity for closer community and love…but I’m finding more and more that it’s attractive to many who despise spiritual leadership.

Again... where did you derive this concept from as well? I am assuming these have come from some place outside of our conversation here.

Originally Posted by ChristopherHall

but house churches make excellent targets for them as they undermine the biblical ministry of elders.

What? In what way does a house church undermine the biblical ministry of elders?

Originally Posted by ChristopherHall

Don’t know. The subjective liberal approach to doctrine waters it down too much. In addition the notion of resisting oversight causes me serious second thoughts on it. Perhaps organizational churches as we know them are the best model.

Maybe the idea should be modified to periodic cell groups to maintain biblical oversight, protect doctrine, establish accountability…but also enrich and facilitate biblical koinonia.

Wow... these are some amazing assumptions you are making here.

Please do elucidate the source of these derivations.

You have caught me totally off guard here.

Is all of this over the discussion over whether or not one would sign an affirmation statement? That particular argument is still ongoing among those licensed in the organizations of the current popular model. This does not make any of them anarchists etc.

[ChristopherHall]

There has to be legitamite leadership and accountability. There also has to be solid doctrinal foundation. Without some form of pastor or eldership and a statement of faith a house church could slip into the sloshy goop we see in charismatic fellowships where some believe this and some believe that...but they're all one big happy family and going to Heaven. bologna. lol

Statements like these caused me to seriously reconsider:

I think the openness that comes with open study without having signed a contract of allegiance to a particular doctrinal stance could, in the grand scale, lead to more people being more open to more truth.

[ChristopherHall]

Originally Posted by SisBeezer

i can see good and bad for each, house church and traditional church. just not sure i see a happy medium

So far I'm seeing a lean toward being weak on doctrine and oversight in the house church model. I really thought it would be a wonderful thing but the more I read and hear the more I realize it degenerates into a vague "liberalization", maybe not in every case, but it's a definite trend in the house church movement.

I could see a house church working well if it had a licensed pastor who was a servant leader who cared about people more than securing his salary. Such a pastor and servant leader would most likely choose to just be "brother" and work for a living like everyone else. He would allow other "brothers" to prophesy by two or at most by three and teach what God has been showing them before sharing the message he has felt impressed to deliver. In a given evening one might hear three teachings, testimonies, or admonitions from the brethren. The pastor may find himself functioning more like a facilitator as the group beings to minister to themselves and grows in knowledge. The elders of the church can be educated to know the foundational teachings of the fellowship as embodied in the statement of faith and be permitted to correct any error and swiftly identify false teachers or the divisive.

More servant leadership, fellowship, opportunity, and better stewardship of resources in a solid house church model. That's what I would love to see.

[ChristopherHall]

Here's an interesting excerpt from a baptist article about house churches. I pretty much agree with the sentiment:

What then is a genuine New Testament church? I am convinced that a Biblical assembly exists when its people see themselves as a church and are committed to function as a church. A house church of fifteen is a genuine church if it perceives itself as a church and is committed to Christ and to one another to carry out Biblical purposes. This means that all the characteristics of a New Testament church need to be present in a house church for it to be a Biblical body.

* Biblical leadership: The church has or is moving toward qualified pastor/elders and deacons.
* Biblical ordinances: The church regularly practices believer’s baptism and the Lord’s Supper.
* Covenant community: Members are in committed relationships with Christ and with one another.3
* Biblical purposes: The church is seeking to carry out evangelism, worship, discipleship, service, and fellowship.
* Biblical preaching: The Word is shared for believers’ edification.
* Regular meetings: Members meet together regularly, not just gather occasionally.
* Submitted to the Lordship of Christ: The church is under Christ’s headship and living for His ultimate glory.

These are minimal essentials for a local expression of the Body of Christ. For any movement of churches to see the blessing of God, it must be committed to a full ecclesiology.
http://www.baptistbulletin.org/?p=427

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by ChristopherHall

There has to be legitamite leadership and accountability. There also has to be solid doctrinal foundation. Without some form of pastor or eldership and a statement of faith a house church could slip into the sloshy goop we see in charismatic fellowships where some believe this and some believe that...but they're all one big happy family and going to Heaven. bologna. lol

Statements like these caused me to seriously reconsider:

Well...

I have never made any statement against any form of biblical leadership or accountability. The Bible gives plenty of guidelines for leadership and accountability and they are sufficient. This seems to be a we/they issue. One of those things where people feel that there is a certain caste of people who are all wise (sometimes referred to as "licensed"... I am licensed by the way) and if "they" don't have one of the "we" in the lead with proper allegiances in place then "they" will surely fall into error because only a proper relationship with the "we"'s will protect them.

I suppose I will just bug out of this thread because it is becoming increasingly frustrating to read what you are "seeing". I have no idea where you are "seeing" these things from.