House church or excuse?

[shazeep]

i think you guys both made good cases

[shazeep]

http://imgur.com/a/Sx9jT

time to find a new image sharing site i guess

[Esaias]

lol

[Aquila]

Ultimately, the call to house church isn't an excuse for not involving one's self in an institutional church. Those who house church are probably a little more organic in their lifestyles. More missional and perhaps more into alternative expressions of Christianity. Most seek more authentic relationships and personal spiritual growth. In my experience house churches are often the misfits, oddballs, mystics, outcasts, and black-sheep of God's family. Frankly, they don't fit into more traditional institutional molds. However, increasingly house churches are networked into a larger body, most having campus facilities. So, slowly but surely, house churches are becoming more integrated with more institutional structures. Those who are "bitter" against church and are blaming the institutional model for all their woes need to seek healing.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Ultimately, the call to house church isn't an excuse for not involving one's self in an institutional church. Those who house church are probably a little more organic in their lifestyles. More missional and perhaps more into alternative expressions of Christianity. Most seek more authentic relationships and personal spiritual growth. In my experience house churches are often the misfits, oddballs, mystics, outcasts, and black-sheep of God's family. Frankly, they don't fit into more traditional institutional molds. However, increasingly house churches are networked into a larger body, most having campus facilities. So, slowly but surely, house churches are becoming more integrated with more institutional structures. Those who are "bitter" against church and are blaming the institutional model for all their woes need to seek healing.

I agree.

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Ultimately, the call to house church isn't an excuse for not involving one's self in an institutional church. Those who house church are probably a little more organic in their lifestyles. More missional and perhaps more into alternative expressions of Christianity. Most seek more authentic relationships and personal spiritual growth. In my experience house churches are often the misfits, oddballs, mystics, outcasts, and black-sheep of God's family. Frankly, they don't fit into more traditional institutional molds. However, increasingly house churches are networked into a larger body, most having campus facilities. So, slowly but surely, house churches are becoming more integrated with more institutional structures. Those who are "bitter" against church and are blaming the institutional model for all their woes need to seek healing.

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. 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.
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.

[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".

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Ultimately, the call to house church isn't an excuse for not involving one's self in an institutional church.

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.

[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'm not quite getting why not there, nd. Or actually, i think i am, but you might expound a little bit upon the point that is being missed.