"The Open Church" by James Rutz

[n david]

Has anyone read "The Open Church: How to Bring Back the Exciting Life of the First Century Church" by James Rutz?

I found this book at a Goodwill store yesterday and am just starting to read it.

What caught my eye is this part in the introduction:

"""Around A.D. 300, the church made the worst blunder in her history. We voluntarily decided to give up the three key freedoms that powered the early church to success: Open worship (praising God); Open sharing (building up each other); and Open ministry (serving others in the church and the world."""

"""Throughout Christendom in the Fourth Century, we professionalized the local church and turned over our Sunday services to the pros, leaving them to do almost everything while we sat and watched.

Lay men found themselves stripped of initiative and power, like newly-captured slaves. Lay women were quietly relieved of what little responsibility and leadership they had. (By about 450, even the congregational singing faded to zip, as we turned over the music to professional choirs of men and boys.)

All the laity suddenly found Sunday worship to be more distant from their personal lives and daily concerns. They fell into Spectator Christianity, where loneliness doesn't end at church -- it starts there."""

[Esaias]

It's an okay book. Read it years ago.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by n david

Has anyone read "The Open Church: How to Bring Back the Exciting Life of the First Century Church" by James Rutz?

I found this book at a Goodwill store yesterday and am just starting to read it.

What caught my eye is this part in the introduction:

"""Around A.D. 300, the church made the worst blunder in her history. We voluntarily decided to give up the three key freedoms that powered the early church to success: Open worship (praising God); Open sharing (building up each other); and Open ministry (serving others in the church and the world."""

"""Throughout Christendom in the Fourth Century, we professionalized the local church and turned over our Sunday services to the pros, leaving them to do almost everything while we sat and watched.

Lay men found themselves stripped of initiative and power, like newly-captured slaves. Lay women were quietly relieved of what little responsibility and leadership they had. (By about 450, even the congregational singing faded to zip, as we turned over the music to professional choirs of men and boys.)

All the laity suddenly found Sunday worship to be more distant from their personal lives and daily concerns. They fell into Spectator Christianity, where loneliness doesn't end at church -- it starts there."""

I read it and think he may have some good points, but overall did not like the concept.

I was in a church that ran that way, and gave me the book to read, and it was chaotic. People were getting up and disturbing the flow of the Spirit and it was just too much nonsense. Nobody stayed and the church dried up

It reminds me of a good thing in theory, but so hard due to flesh to be able to actually operate smoothly with it.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I read it and think he may have some good points, but overall did not like the concept.

I was in a church that ran that way, and gave me the book to read, and it was chaotic. People were getting up and disturbing the flow of the Spirit and it was just too much nonsense. Nobody stayed and the church dried up

It reminds me of a good thing in theory, but so hard due to flesh to be able to actually operate smoothly with it.

What's funny is all these 'open church' advocates are actually pining away for what used to be called 'old time Pentecost'. Thankfully, our meetings are open meetings, and the flow of the Spirit is not 'disturbed', even by people that get in the flesh. The Spirit of God corrects things, and the 'disturbances' wind up being useful and effective teaching points as God teaches his people how to meet.

The meeting can, in fact, be disturbed and get OUT OF DIVINE ORDER by the operation of the charisms of the Holy Ghost! Which is why Paul wrote 1 Corinthians 12-14 and had to teach them 'let the prophets speak two or three... if anything is revealed to another who sits by let the first hold his peace...' They had the flow of the Spirit but THEY were out of order in how they were flowing.

People need teaching, and God is the best teacher.

[n david]

The founder of a fellowship we've been attending in a home for the past year has now decided they want to look for a building to rent, get non profit status and set up a church board.

It's disappointing, but not a complete surprise.

Not interested in joining another business enterprise.

Funny, when we first began attending, I didn't think I'd like going from leading worship in a church of 150 to meeting with 2 other families (about 11 people). And now after a year, I really don't want to go back to a church building, where it's structured and run by just a chosen few.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by n david

The founder of a fellowship we've been attending in a home for the past year has now decided they want to look for a building to rent, get non profit status and set up a church board.

It's disappointing, but not a complete surprise.

Not interested in joining another business enterprise.

Funny, when we first began attending, I didn't think I'd like going from leading worship in a church of 150 to meeting with 2 other families (about 11 people). And now after a year, I really don't want to go back to a church building, where it's structured and run by just a chosen few.

A lot of 'house churches' are not house churches because of a conviction it is Biblical, it's often more of an expedient for various reasons - whether financial, social, emotional, etc.

As for getting non profit status, THAT is a separate issue, and goes to the heart of the question 'what is the church?'

Under US law, EVERY church is automatically 'tax exempt', but getting 'non profit status' requires incorporation, which to me seems to be a denial of the reality of the church. The church has already been incorporated, thousands of years ago. To incorporate is to come under the control of the secular government. Legally, a corporation is a 'creation of the state', is liable to the state, exists to further 'public policy', etc. The church of God is not and cannot be any such thing as a state-incoporated entity.

[thephnxman]

Originally Posted by Esaias

A lot of 'house churches' are not house churches because of a conviction it is Biblical, it's often more of an expedient for various reasons - whether financial, social, emotional, etc.
As for getting non profit status, THAT is a separate issue, and goes to the heart of the question 'what is the church?'
Under US law, EVERY church is automatically 'tax exempt', but getting 'non profit status' requires incorporation, which to me seems to be a denial of the reality of the church. The church has already been incorporated, thousands of years ago. To incorporate is to come under the control of the secular government. Legally, a corporation is a 'creation of the state', is liable to the state, exists to further 'public policy', etc. The church of God is not and cannot be any such thing as a state-incoporated entity.

AMEN! Men are looking for the approval of the state vs the Lord.

[CC1]

Originally Posted by n david

The founder of a fellowship we've been attending in a home for the past year has now decided they want to look for a building to rent, get non profit status and set up a church board.

It's disappointing, but not a complete surprise.

Not interested in joining another business enterprise.

Funny, when we first began attending, I didn't think I'd like going from leading worship in a church of 150 to meeting with 2 other families (about 11 people). And now after a year, I really don't want to go back to a church building, where it's structured and run by just a chosen few.

So you don't want the church to grow and reach people for Christ? You want to keep it just your family and couple of others so you will feel comfortable? Wow. I guess it is a good thing you weren't there on the day of Pentecost in Acts because you would have been so disappointed at how many were added to the church that day.

[n david]

Originally Posted by CC1

So you don't want the church to grow and reach people for Christ? You want to keep it just your family and couple of others so you will feel comfortable? Wow. I guess it is a good thing you weren't there on the day of Pentecost in Acts because you would have been so disappointed at how many were added to the church that day.

Where in the world did you get that from my post?

Your assumption is ridiculous and completely wrong.

Wow. Just wow.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by n david

Where in the world did you get that from my post?

Your assumption is ridiculous and completely wrong.

Wow. Just wow.

I think it is a fair question, based on what you posted.

If the gathering is growing, why not organize it in a way that makes sense?