House Church Movement Right or Wrong?

JBaldwin · #1 (**permalink**) 04-03-2008, 11:55 AM

What is the Biblical view of the house church movement? When we were searching for a good reformed church a few years back, we looked into it, and though I couldn't find anything wrong with the idea of meeting in a house (in Acts they met from house to house), something about this movement bothered us.

Any thoughts?

ChristopherPaul · #2 (**permalink**) 04-03-2008, 11:59 AM

The location is fine. The self-ordination that seems to associate with these movements is the problem.

Simply_Nikki · #3 (**permalink**) 04-03-2008, 12:03 PM

My home church met in a house for months because they lacked any other facilities. The only downside is it doesn't allow much room for growth. But since then they've been able to rent another facility.

I don't see anything wrong with it, I liked the coziness and family orientedness of it. You actually felt like these were your real brothers and sisters in Christ worshiping together in the living room =)

I think smaller congregrations where there are just a handful of people may do well meeting in a home if they don't have the funds for an actual building, but like I said it doesn't allow much room for a congregation to grow if they are set on staying in a house.

Simply_Nikki · #4 (**permalink**) 04-03-2008, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristopherPaul

The location is fine. The self-ordination that seems to associate with these movements is the problem.

Ah yes self-ordination.. ugh....

big problem.

Gage Browning · #5 (**permalink**) 04-03-2008, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristopherPaul

The location is fine. The self-ordination that seems to associate with these movements is the problem.

Knowing some folks in that movement....self ordination is extremely troublesome and rampant in the movement. If it's a PCA, SBC, RPCNA Church plant w/ no facilities, I don't know but I doubt anyone would have a problem w/ that.

JBaldwin · #6 (**permalink**) 04-03-2008, 12:21 PM

Although many reformed churches are not plagued with the following problems, here are some of the reasons I've heard to support the house church movement:

Churches are pastor centered, not God centered.
Organized churches don't allow people to exercise their spiritual gifts.
Churches are program-centered, not God-centered
The church shouldn't be spending money on buildings, rather spending them on missions, so it is better off to meet in homes.
Churches report to the government, and we should have a clear separation between church and state.

Pergamum · #7 (**permalink**) 04-03-2008, 12:24 PM

What if this occurred in China where some provinces lack men who can ordain others officially, and so they meet unofficially in an irregular church until the leadership can be ordained?

Would this lack of ordination be more forgivable under these circumstances?

When I think house church I think NT or persecution, but it appears that this is growing intentionally in the US too.

Simply_Nikki · #8 (**permalink**) 04-03-2008, 12:26 PM

I think most of these are just broad sweeping false generalizations by people who had bad experiences with a particular organized church.

Although a some-what compelling argument could probably stem form the last one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JBaldwin

Although many reformed churches are not plagued with the following problems, here are some of the reasons I've heard to support the house church movement:

Churches are pastor centered, not God centered.
Organized churches don't allow people to exercise their spiritual gifts.
Churches are program-centered, not God-centered
The church shouldn't be spending money on buildings, rather spending them on missions, so it is better off to meet in homes.
Churches report to the government, and we should have a clear separation between church and state.

ChristopherPaul · #9 (**permalink**) 04-03-2008, 12:27 PM

The owner of this board, Rev McMahon was pastor of an RPCGA church that met in a member's house.

I do think there are some logistical issues that need to be considered. For instance, I personally think that the only visuals that are to be present as the service takes place is the word and sacrament. So the host may need to "whitewash" the settings where the assembly meets. That means remove all nik-naks (sp?) and Lava lamps... oh and the occasional home that has posters of Bob Vigneault on the walls (you know who you are).

Coram Deo · #10 (**permalink**) 04-03-2008, 12:31 PM

I almost feel the same way with regards to family worship... Those things (nik-naks, lava lamps, photo's on wall, etc) are distractions to worshipping even in a family setting...

Sometimes I feel just about getting a separate small room set aside for the family worship area where are no distractions of any kind... As you put it "Whitewashed"...

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristopherPaul

The owner of this board, Rev McMahon was pastor of an RPCGA church that met in a member's house.

I do think there are some logistical issues that need to be considered. For instance, I personally think that the only visuals that are to be present as the service takes place is the word and sacrament. So the host may need to "whitewash" the settings where the assembly meets. That means remove all nik-naks (sp?) and Lava lamps... oh and the occasional home that has posters of Bob Vigneault on the walls (you know who you are).

ModernPuritan? · #11 (**permalink**) 04-03-2008, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JBaldwin

Although many reformed churches are not plagued with the following problems, here are some of the reasons I've heard to support the house church movement:

Churches are pastor centered, not God centered.
Organized churches don't allow people to exercise their spiritual gifts.
Churches are program-centered, not God-centered
The church shouldn't be spending money on buildings, rather spending them on missions, so it is better off to meet in homes.
Churches report to the government, and we should have a clear separation between church and state.

the one about spending money on churces vs missions is one ive heard a bit. but seems to me we can also focus on the home front too. there are unregenerate hellions in the states too.

Pergamum · #12 (**permalink**) 04-03-2008, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristopherPaul

The owner of this board, Rev McMahon was pastor of an RPCGA church that met in a member's house.

I do think there are some logistical issues that need to be considered. For instance, I personally think that the only visuals that are to be present as the service takes place is the word and sacrament. So the host may need to "whitewash" the settings where the assembly meets. That means remove all nik-naks (sp?) and Lava lamps... oh and the occasional home that has posters of Bob Vigneault on the walls (you know who you are).

Brother, your comment above is worthy to open another thread.

Gage Browning · #13 (**permalink**) 04-03-2008, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pergamum

What if this occurred in China where some provinces lack men who can ordain others officially, and so they meet unofficially in an irregular church until the leadership can be ordained?

Would this lack of ordination be more forgivable under these circumstances?

When I think house church I think NT or persecution, but it appears that this is growing intentionally in the US too.

If we get to the point where we are persecuted like our brothers and sisters in underground China...then yes more forgivable. But there are house churches in underground china that have pastors who are also under authority and have to be approved by a group of godly men.

ChristopherPaul · #14 (**permalink**) 04-03-2008, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristopherPaul

The owner of this board, Rev McMahon was pastor of an RPCGA church that met in a member's house.

I do think there are some logistical issues that need to be considered. For instance, I personally think that the only visuals that are to be present as the service takes place is the word and sacrament. So the host may need to "whitewash" the settings where the assembly meets. That means remove all nik-naks (sp?) and Lava lamps... oh and the occasional home that has posters of Bob Vigneault on the walls (you know who you are).

Brother, your comment above is worthy to open another thread.

Sure, no intention to detract.

Pergamum · #15 (**permalink**) 04-03-2008, 12:38 PM

Yes, there are many who are ordained, but also many who are not...

It does seem that deliberately meeting without prioritizing ordination does not seem as forigivable. Especilaly in the US.

Pergamum · #16 (**permalink**) 04-03-2008, 12:38 PM

Chris: No, it was a GOOD point...I meant "we could chew on that one some more..."

JBaldwin · #17 (**permalink**) 04-03-2008, 12:40 PM

Just to make it clear, I am not speaking of churches that meet in homes. I am speaking of the house church movement, which as Pergamum pointed out is a growing movement in the USA.

I realize that there are lots of reasons why a group of believers might meet in a home, and the scriptures certainly back that up.

ChristopherPaul · #18 (**permalink**) 04-03-2008, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Chris: No, it was a GOOD point...I meant "we could chew on that one some more..."

That is how I read you, no problems here

Pilgrim · #19 (**permalink**) 04-03-2008, 12:47 PM

A distinction needs to be made between churches who happen to meet in a home because it is the most suitable meeting place at the present time and the house church movement that argues that house churching is the only biblical way to do church and that says churches are pagan, etc.

mshingler · #20 (**permalink**) 04-03-2008, 12:58 PM

I had to read a book for a class, recently, from the sort of "extreme end" of this movement. I then wrote up a review/critique of the book, "Pagan Christianity" by George Barna and Frank Viola. I can email a copy of that if interested. I think there were some legitimate issues brought up in the book, I just think the authors, as well as some others in the house church movement, have reacted with an unbiblical position that swings to pendulum too far the other direction. It seems to me that there is also a sort of underlying disdain for any authority or structure, at least from the perspective of those represented by the book.

TaylorOtwell · #21 (**permalink**) 04-03-2008, 01:00 PM

It is Biblical and wise.

Reasons such as money, intimacy, interaction, etc. are all valid.

However, are people validly ordained as elders and deacons because of someone who declared them such, or are they valid elders and deacons because they meet the Scriptural requirements for the position?

For instance, if a group of believers Biblically determine that the "traditional" churches in their area have forsaken the Biblical model of the church (we'll assume they are correct in their judgment), then shouldn't they be able to begin fellowshipping together and elect their own elders based on Scriptural guidelines? Or, were the posts concerning self-ordination referring to people who suddenly declare themselves elders?

Regarding the growth issue, it may be beneficial to determine at the outset to multiply the church by division base on geographical location if the group grows to a certain number. Although, this could be cause for heartache, and a rented (or even owned) location isn't necessarily forbidden in the Scripture.

Regarding the interaction and exercise of gifts, I think this type of format would better allow us to spur one another on towards love and good works. I understand that many traditional style churches allow plenty of time for intimate interaction; however, I think it is safe to say the majority don't. The typical American "rush out of church to get to lunch" mentality is hindering godly growth. If the brothers and sisters engaged in rich spiritual interaction before and after worship, I think we would see much growth in grace and knowledge of the Lord.