Churches to lose "BILLIONS"

[Ron]

Laodicea was a big Church with wealth & was rebuked by Jesus.
Philadelphia was a small struggling Church that was commended by God.

I wonder if we always see things the way Jesus does & yes I am also pointing the question at myself!

[My Own Eyes]

Originally Posted by 2020Vision

With the slacking economy, the Prosperity Monsters will be more silent (though that didn't stop them from preaching that mess to dirt poor converts in Africa!), and large-scale, heavily-funded church projects will be fewer. A new Barna Survey says that churches will lose "billions" due to the economy.

Building programs, conferences, crusades and church staff positions will be among the many areas affected.

http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?P...naUpdateID=322

Please don't take this the wrong way...but it might not be a bad thing.

I'm of the opinion that the money could be better used feeding the poor, then paying for a huge sanctuary.

But who am I to judge? I don't even go to church and the only poor I feed is myself.

[2020Vision]

Originally Posted by A_PoMo

There was some minor persecution from Jews, but nothing systemic and empire wide for awhile. The local stuff isn't relevant in comparison to what came later when the Romans got upset. But, the church flourished the most under persecution.

True, the general public had pretty strange perceptions of the church; they thought they were anti-community, cannibals, a secret society, and other things. They sure did do things differently than we do today in the Western world. They seemed much more underground and less 'evangelistic' as we understand it. I think they let their actions speak louder than their words. There is some evidence now that they did have buildings dedicated to worship fairly early, but they weren't as prevalent then as now. And houses that were remodeled into large group gathering halls have been found there. But it was mainly small groups. Nothing like we have now that's for sure. Are we as apostolic as a Restorationist would like? haha.

Good question. I sure ask this a lot. It's hard to phathom.

[A_PoMo]

Originally Posted by My Own Eyes

Please don't take this the wrong way...but it might not be a bad thing.

I'm of the opinion that the money could be better used feeding the poor, then paying for a huge sanctuary.

But who am I to judge? I don't even go to church and the only poor I feed is myself.

I agree MOE.

[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.

[A_PoMo]

Originally Posted by 2020Vision

Good question. I sure ask this a lot. It's hard to phathom.

Yeah, I don't know of any Restorationist "Apostolics" (and most of them claim to be such) that are truly Apostolic in a Restorationist sense. It's become more of sectarian identifier of a particular culture and doctrinal scheme that it is truly and identity with the early church praxis and (I'd say) doctrine. It's a parochial code word, not true to the definition.

[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.

[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

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.

[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!