What are your views on house churches, like the one on http://www.house-church.org? Is the modern day church structure supported by scripture (pastors, church building, sermons, etc)?

I'm just wondering what you guys think about these issues (there's many pastors on this board, so I'd like to see their views).

__________________
"For by grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God"-- Ephesians 2:8

I am not aquainted with the site, but know some of the home churches are off doctrine wise.

Sind many peoples houses are bigger than the churches I've attended most of my life, why not a house church - same the money normally going to building costs.

Since the early church met in homes it might be a good idea :grin:

It is in the biblical record: while the preaching, at times, was accomplished in open-air arenas, the ongoing work of building up the brethren (Hebrews 10:25) was realized in "homes."
I have checked the above site; in the main, I would support its efforts.

__________________
Creth D Hopkins, Pastor
Osage Indian Baptist Church
Pawhuska, OK 74056
Father of ten children: 7 sons and 3 daughters
www.okbaptist.com/OsageTownCrier
http://OsageTownCrier.sermonaudio.com

Robot: there is a series of sermons on sermon audio (Refutation of Harold Camping) that deals with the issue of the church. It is directed at a teaching that the church, organized as we know it, is invalid in our day; and that we need to establish house churches, or small groups of fellowship, and place less importance on preaching.
The series is well-researched, and preached in a very Christian way.

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninf...ID=10190161036

(That is the link to the first in the series.)

'It is in the biblical record: while the preaching, at times, was accomplished in open-air arenas, the ongoing work of building up the brethren (Hebrews 10:25) was realized in "homes."'

It is significant, though, that Phillippians is addressed to the saints which are at Phillippi "with the bishops and deacons" as one body, when in other larger regions (such as Galatia), the epistle is addressed to "the churches." I,II Corinthians are also addressed to a single church. That would not indicate a number of "house churches," in these cities, but one church ruled by the same body of bishops and deacons. James 2 also indicates that the believers were gathered together in a formal place of assembly: "For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel..." etc. The word in the Greek is unusual, but it does not imply house.




[Edited on 3-20-2004 by a mere housewife]

__________________
Heidi
Indianapolis, Indiana

After two days, he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him.
Let us know; let us press on to know the LORD; his going out is sure as the dawn; he will come to us as the showers, as the spring rains that water the earth.

Thanks merehousewife, I'll check it out
I've never said I agree with them, I just wanted to see what you guys think about it. I think house churches are great, but so are organized churches. Both have their pro's and con's.

lets not forget that they [i:8bee14e7f7]had[/i:8bee14e7f7] to meet in homes due to persecution. I think that churches need to be public and established when we have the means to do so.

Rembrandt

While I firmly believe that we must learn to do church with less money than we generally do now and that smaller churches are much more effective than larger churches, my experience with most house churches is that they are little groups of believers who have fixated on a single issue and are not willing to be accountable to others. They generally have a persecution complex and are unwilling to grow.

I am sure there are exceptions, but why risk isolation.

__________________
Lance Johnson
Pastor / Iglesia Betania (Reformed Baptist)
Denton, Texas

"A fool does not delight in understanding, But only in revealing his own mind." Proverbs 18:2

[quote:8416ebd086][i:8416ebd086]Originally posted by lkjohnson[/i:8416ebd086]
While I firmly believe that we must learn to do church with less money than we generally do now and that smaller churches are much more effective than larger churches, my experience with most house churches is that they are little groups of believers who have fixated on a single issue and are not willing to be accountable to others. They generally have a persecution complex and are unwilling to grow.

I am sure there are exceptions, but why risk isolation. [/quote:8416ebd086]

yeah, that's what I kind of thought after reading some of their articles and whatnot.

I am very familiar with the house church movement. These people are often mavericks who have a problem with submitting to authority and are somewhat eccentric in other areas.

The house church movement may be identified with the belief that "house churches" are the N.T. way of doing church -- and the only way.

They usually have neither elders or deacons. Any man who has been around long enough is allowed to teach (they don't believe preaching is for the church) and because most have not had any formal theological training, the teaching is often hair-brained and ill-prepared. Some of their teachers are fixated on some one doctrine that causes them to be estranged from regular churches (that is, their doctrines would get them excommunicated from a larger church having structure and authority).

Because they isolate themselves from the larger Christian community, there is little outreach or missions emphasis.

In many of the house churches that I have been familiar with, the lack of functional church discipline has allowed minor squabbles to make the church a den of argumentation and a boxing ring for self-will.

This does not preclude the possibility of saner churches, but I haven't seen any yet.

Churches meeting in homes out of necessity is quite proper. The house church movement calls the regular churches "state churches." They fail to realize that Jesus met in a synagogue, which was not only a building but not overtly ordained by God.

And that's my :wr50:

__________________
Willard (Bill) Paul
Pastor
Clear Creek Baptist Church (SBC)
Silverdale, WA

NEW USER NAME sundoulos

My husband & I were talking about this, and he pointed out two things which I thought were worth adding to the discussion, specifically with regards to preaching/pastors.

1st, that Eutychus fell from the window while Paul was [i:936d1f13b9]preaching[/i:936d1f13b9] in what appears to be a house meeting.

2nd, Paul exhorts Timothy that the elders who rule well be worthy of double honor, [i:936d1f13b9]especially those who labor in the word and doctrine[/i:936d1f13b9] (ESV says "those who labor in preaching and teaching&quot. Evidently not all of of the elders were laboring in the word/doctrine- preaching/teaching. Some of them would have been necessarily laboring at other jobs, though they were "apt to teach." Those who labored in the word (in addition to ruling well) should have a special place in the honor of the church-- as a good pastor does.



[Edited on 3-21-2004 by a mere housewife]

I forgot to add the verse following: "For the Scripture says, 'You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,' and, 'The laborer deserves his wages."

The elders who labored in the word and in doctrine were to be supported by the church. As my husband says, this was not a Plymouth Brethren type atmosphere, with everybody taking turns.

One thing I can show from a very cursory reading of this site is that they are not believers in Sola Scriptura. Oh, they throw around the fact that they are true to the Bible, but they are woefully mistaken that its' interpretation is to go on without the last 2000 years to bear upon it. Not to mention, they are not good scholars when it comes to either refuting or stating their own arguments.

History shows that where confessionalism is lacking, where there is dissention about what is to be believed and how it is to be applied, there is darkness. These house churches would get rid of confessionalism and creedalism, so that no shread of orthodoxy would remain except where they were like a clock and right two times a day.

I would like to be the first (and if I'm not the first, please forgive me) to call these guys, neo-anabaptists.

They sound radical. And I would venture that they are not calvinistic, by and large.

In Christ,

KC

__________________
Heb 13:20-21

Kevin C. Easterday
Member Covenant OPC, St. Augustine, FL
Husband to Tina (August 13, 1988), Father and Teacher to Kamden (16) and Kolton (14)
Federal Theology Website
Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

I was thinking about this more today...
about the distinction he makes between "tradition" and "doctrine" on the website: "What might cause quite a lot of Christians problems, however, is my next proposition that there is, in fact, a whole batch of commands relating to one particular area of following the Lord which not only are not obeyed, but which are either considered to be irrelevant, [i:7176e1f950]or not even known to be in the pages of scripture at all. What I am referring to are the particular practices of the churches established by the apostles..." [/i:7176e1f950](which he goes on to distinguish as the "traditions" of the apostles).
The texts given are 2 Thessalonians 2:15 ("So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter&quot and 3:4,6 (the tradition of the apostles to separate from those who were idle). What they forget to "exposit" here is that the tradition was not something "not even known to be in the pages of scripture at all," but something explicitly written down as well as orally taught and practiced-- they had learned it "either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thessalonians 3:4,6 is after all written down). The content of Scripture equals the tradition. So when he comes to quote 1 Corinthians 11:2 ("maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you&quot and says, "And what this tells us is that it is quite obvious that Paul had indeed taught the Corinthian church to meet in a particular way, and to proceed along particular lines and to do particular things. He had, in fact, given them a how to do it-type set of instructions when it came to meeting as a church..."-- and assumes that this is something distinct from the doctrines we are given concerning the church in Scripture (tradition is always based on practice, he says), he ignores that the content of Scripture equals the content of the traditions. As far as I can see, this is the whole foundation for everything else he says. That's not good, is it?





[Edited on 3-23-2004 by a mere housewife]

A pastor I know well as recently started up a house church. He has become disenfrenchized with the way the church in North America has become, it being more a business then a church.

Now I began by thinking he was a little bit off in this area, but when I went to it on Sunday evening and talked it over with him it's not as crazy an idea as I first supposed. The truth is that I that there is a lot that happens in the church the way it is now that isn't biblical, but ideas that have been put onto it to make things work (IE. Using Robert's Rules of Order at business meetings or having a business meeting every so many months is mandatory...) but often these things cause more problems then they create.

He brought up a lot of good points about how the church is wasteful the way it is set up as well. Consider how much energy is put into maintaining the church building (in manhours and money) yet it is used very little. Is that really being a good stewart of what has been given?

So after talking with him I understand the position a lot better, and agree with a fair bit of it. I am still learly on doctrine however. If it's done right I think it could be a paradise, but errors can easily creep in, more then in a regular church.

I'm not ready to do away with a local church the way it is generally done...yet. But I do so great benefits in what is being done (this pastor I know at least) with home churches., and it see it as being a more biblical approach.

Bryan
SDG

__________________
Bryan Neufeld
Faith Community Church
Manitoba, Canada

Doesn't John Zen advocate House Churches?

__________________
Josh Hicks, Chloë's Dad
Attending CCRPC, Member of TRBC
Reformers & Puritans -lllll- Puritan Pub
Board Rules - Signature Rules - Suggestion Box

I wanted to add something considering I have been following the House Church Movement and if the Lord Wills, we will have a house church movement in our area as a result of the work of our church.

Doctrinally, just like anything else, there are house churches on every major theological front out there. Actually, from my experience, the two most prominent users of the house church idea are reformed believers and people associated with the vineyard movement.

In our analysis our church spends well over $10,000.00 per year just to pay the utilities of our church building (not to mention repairs that need to take place). On the money issue, I know one house church in North Carolina whose biggest expense is buying paper plates and cups for their fellowship meal that occurs after the preaching is done. House churches, in my experience, tend to have better outreach into the community than established churches in buildings. As well, they tend to have better fellowship and accountability from my experience. A church I know who is a house church has seen God bring salvation to 8 people in the last year which increased his church size by about 30%. The effectiveness is greater, in my opinion, because the ministry of each member is discussed in the house church (or many house churches) and they are kept accountable in ministering into the community.

How a house church operates varies according to theology. Some have a number of preachers every sunday and others just have one preacher. Most are family integrated. I know some house churches who have people speak then put in R.C. Sproul or John MacArthur to further grow from these great men.

I don't think a person can properly "Pastor" a church of a few hundred people. House churches, by design, keep the numbers low in the home and it allows true pastoring to occur. I talked to one house church leader today who related that in one house church they had to do church discipline. Because the congregation was much closely knit than in most, the results were amazing. He said he has seen church discipline in many churches but this one was probably the best he has ever seen because of the close ties they had together. Not only that, but there is usually a higher ministry per person ratio.

There are theologies of House Churches out there that are very good. I have several books and tape series on the subject from people who have a variety of beliefs.

In planting a church you essentially need the following: Elders, a meeting place, and people.

Some home churches are light on doctrine and others are very heavy--just like any church movement.

Many follow a common scenario in ministry.

1. Longer services, longer preaching/teaching, longer prayer, less music (this varies but the ones I have seen are like this). It is not unusual for a service to begin at 10:00 and people leave the home at 3:00.
2. A meal following the service where the Lord's Supper is served (many refuse to call it communion, it is the Lord's Supper).
3. Ministry and outreach based upon geographic location. A house church in a neighborhood sees it as their job to reach that neighborhood.
4. Family Integrated (I have heard of a few not family integrated but most are).
5. Not a one man show. Many men get up and share from the Bible, not just one (this also varies).

Granted, the type we are moving towards will have the home groups meet for a service weekly as they meet in the homes during the weekdays. Yet, our hope is to plant an entirely new church using this concept.

I will go back to the shadows now, but I wanted to input on something that I have been following for years and something I am rather convinced is a great idea. Afterall, our church will save $10,000.00 a year that we can use to reach more people in better ways. Not to mention, I hope to bring up many bi-vocational pastors who will take over and bring up their own leadership from within rather than looking somewhere to find a man they know little about and has to take the word of another church about his calling into ministry. I believe we should test our men and if they are qualified they should be the elder, not let someone else test him and then trust they tested him throroughly.

Derick

__________________
Pastor
The Baptist Church of Springville
Springville NY
[url=http://www.thedickensfamily.org]The Dickens Family www.thedickensfamily.org[/url]
[img:aab3238922]http://www.thedickensfamily.org/Pictures/family%20007.jpg[/img:aab3238922]

We need to keep in mind that the site given in this thread is only one part of the house church movement. Think about it this way, what if your whole denomination was judged by one ministry or one church?

We must also keep in mind that a church is not about where you meet, but who you are! A church can meet in a house, a rec center, a store front, a church building, or as one I heard of recently, in a funeral home (like the catecombs, huh?).

Just because a church meets in a house, that does not contradict any Scriptural teaching. As long as it is a sound church, doctrinally and practically, it can meet wherever they want to meet. The NT church met in the temple, synagogues and from house to house! (Acts 2).

A big building with a steeple, stained glass, and a lighted sign does not make a building a church, nor are we required to go someplace special for worship (John 4).

Our church, when first planted, met in homes for over 3 years. Then we had to move to a larger facility and so we now rent a room at the local recreation center for Sunday morning. When we meet during the week though it is in members homes.

Think about this. We have a growing church that pays $30 a week for our space on Sunday and has no utility costs, groundskeeping, insurance, or debt!

How many of your churches can list as an item in your budget the cost for a meeting place for just a little over $1500 a year? And when we were in a house it was even less! We paid [i:6c8a12209e]nothing[/i:6c8a12209e] for the space as the members "donated" it for our services.

So let's not get tunnel vision and think that if you don't have a building you are not a church. The Scriptural pattern for the church is given quite clearly and it does not include anything about [i:6c8a12209e]where[/i:6c8a12209e] to meet.....but a lot about [i:6c8a12209e]how[/i:6c8a12209e] to meet!

Phillip

PS -

[b:6c8a12209e]WCF chapter 21[/b:6c8a12209e]
VI. Neither prayer, nor any other part of religious worship, is now, under the Gospel, [u:6c8a12209e]either tied unto, or made more acceptable by any place in which it is performed, or towards which it is directed[/u:6c8a12209e]: but [u:6c8a12209e]God is to be worshipped everywhere, in spirit and truth[/u:6c8a12209e]; as, in private families daily, and in secret, each one by himself; so, more solemnly in the public assemblies, which are not carelessly or wilfully to be neglected, or forsaken, when God, by His Word or providence, calls thereunto.

[b:6c8a12209e]LBCF chapter 22[/b:6c8a12209e]
Under the Gospel neither prayer nor any other part of religious worship [u:6c8a12209e]is tied to, or made more acceptable by, any place in which it is performed or towards which it is directed[/u:6c8a12209e]. [u:6c8a12209e]God is to be worshipped everywhere in spirit and in truth[/u:6c8a12209e], whether in private families daily, in secret by each individual, or solemnly in the public assemblies. These are not to be carelessly or wilfully neglected or forsaken, when God by His Word and providence calls us to them.



[Edited on 3-24-04 by pastorway]

__________________
Pastor Phillip M. Way
[url=http://www.timeintheword.org][color=blue] Maranatha Community Church of Central Texas[/color][/url]
A Reformed Baptist Congregation and Member Church of the
Fellowship of Independent Reformed Evangelicals [url=http://www.firefellowship.org][color=red](FIRE)[/color][/url]

Blogging at: [url=http://pastorway.blogspot.com/][color=blue][i]pastorway[/i][/color][/url]
Sermons Online at: [url=http://www.sermonaudio.com/timeintheword][color=blue]TIME in the Word Ministries[/color][/url]

When all souls are saved and all mourners comforted we may venture to discuss recondite theories, but not while graveyards are filling with those who know not God. -- CH Spurgeon

[b]The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.
Luke 18:27[/b]

I agree that meeting in houses is not at all wrong, as long as it's not presented as a binding tradition-- but is it Biblical to say that preaching is not for the church, and to do away with pastors?

As stated, there is a variety of theological beliefs and "getting rid of pastors" as well as no preaching is very rampant in the mainline churches. Yet, my experience is that there is more preaching occurring in house churches than not. I would state that many advocate bi-vocational elders over a full time paid staff.

Derick

My point is - Don't lump every church that happens to meet in a house with the stuff at the link provided at the start of this thread! Even churches that meet in church buildings can have these serious doctrinal and practical problems.

The issue is not where the church meets, but whether they are in any way a sound Biblical church in what they believe (doctrine) and practice.

It seems that there is a quickness in judging a "church" that meets in a house just because it meets in a house.

The soundness of a church is not related in any way to where it meets.

Click here to read my article on the marks of a sound church: Seven Marks of a Sound Church

Phillip

I want to be clear on a few things. My critique was of the site and what they believe. Any house church part of this ilk, should be scruntinized.

However, I was not speaking against Matthew and Scott in what they are doing because they are not seeking isolation, but fellowship with a denomination.

House churches that separate themselves from the "mainline" denominations should be suspect. I believe that the LBCF and the WCF explain what lawful churches are and their are plenty of them. For a house church group to sever this tie, they should put up a sign out in front of their house that they are lone nuts. I am speaking only about the ones who defy denominational association.

I was in a so-called non-denominational church for years and I can tell you that there is no reason for a church to separate from a denomination. Denominations are not bad, contrary to what that site said and what I have heard some people say on a discussion board called 5solas. BTW, these guys (5Solas) are deep into NCT and house churches with no denominational ties.

One thing about those guys and the site above mentioned is that they seem to be hung up on the fact that the Lord's Table is a full meal. I am not sure why they are so wrapped up about that.

While still situated atop my ever rickety soapbox, I will say one thing more about denominationalism. If a church group cannot show that they are descendants of a mostly orthodox church, then we need to seriously consider them as divisive and separate from their fellowship. They are claiming a "new light" that does not agree with the light given.

In Christ,

KC

"Don't lump every church that happens to meet in a house with the stuff at the link provided at the start of this thread! Even churches that meet in church buildings can have these serious doctrinal and practical problems."

Absolutely. The reason I was concerned about what is said on the website is because that is what was asked about. I know all house churches are not like that; our church started in a house, and if we are missionaries, I don't expect to start anywhere else. But there is a movement that the website represents that is growing more largely. They do emphasize that preaching is not for the church, and that there should be no pastors. I think Christians have to be prepared to show how that is not scriptural, whether they encounter it in a building or in a house.

We are in total agreement then!


We must be discerning, for not all who claim to be a church are actually true and sound churches.

Phillip

KC,

I agree that the Lord's Supper is a full meal. Over the many books and tapes which addresses the subject, they (home churches) wonder why it is changed. There are reasons for wanting it to be a full meal:

1. The Bible says that if you have a problem with a brother, go get it right and then come back to the meal and partake. That is impossible if we do it the way most churches do it.

2. The Lord's Supper is a time of fellowship and requires much inward examination. When we partake over a meal, there are times I take a lot of time praying through things and testing my heart to ensure I am taking it in a proper manner. I am not on anyones time table as when most churches partake in the meal.

3. A meal fosters more fellowship than what we do. Sometimes brothers get together around the table and "confess" sins to one another. Sometimes they share the things of the Lord in taking the Lord's Supper. To me, this is invaluable.

4. A meal is what the Bible teaches, thus the rationale should be why have we changed it? Is it based upon tradition or the Bible? Granted, there may be room to change it but we should not question someone who goes back to a meal and emphasizes it as Biblical (for I believe it is) but we should wonder why we changed it and if it was proper to change.

As far as your statement on denominations and coming from orthodoxy, then you must have a problem with the Reformation, for they came out of an apostate church to form their own church. The issue, rather, is faithfulness to the Bible not a line of succession. If we believe in Sola Scriptura, it is about how faithful one is to the Bible not about a line of succession. For the latter is a Roman Catholic mindset not found in the Bible and should be rejected. As well, a criteria for a church should be faithfulness to the Bible not whether it belongs to a denomination. Even denominations lack accountability and turn wayward thus we should look at the church and remain faithful to the Word of God. As a Pastor of a church, my concern is not advancing a denomination or my loyalty to a denomination but my loyalty to God and His Word. As a Pastor, I seek accountability from various Pastors as well as wisdom and must reject my own denomination at times to remain faithful to God's Word. My denomination is not infallible but God's Word is, and thus I can see why people will not have associations with a denomination. To me, it is all about the Bible not about denominations.

Derick

[quote:c58445494b][i:c58445494b]Originally posted by Drdad[/i:c58445494b]
KC,

I agree that the Lord's Supper is a full meal. Over the many books and tapes which addresses the subject, they (home churches) wonder why it is changed. There are reasons for wanting it to be a full meal:

1. The Bible says that if you have a problem with a brother, go get it right and then come back to the meal and partake. That is impossible if we do it the way most churches do it.

2. The Lord's Supper is a time of fellowship and requires much inward examination. When we partake over a meal, there are times I take a lot of time praying through things and testing my heart to ensure I am taking it in a proper manner. I am not on anyones time table as when most churches partake in the meal.

3. A meal fosters more fellowship than what we do. Sometimes brothers get together around the table and "confess" sins to one another. Sometimes they share the things of the Lord in taking the Lord's Supper. To me, this is invaluable.

4. A meal is what the Bible teaches, thus the rationale should be why have we changed it? Is it based upon tradition or the Bible? Granted, there may be room to change it but we should not question someone who goes back to a meal and emphasizes it as Biblical (for I believe it is) but we should wonder why we changed it and if it was proper to change.[/quote:c58445494b]

I cannot see why the sacrament must be a full meal. Paul's words of institution in I Cor. 11, is pretty specific as to what part is the Lord's Table and what part is fellowship. I am not saying that there is no fellowship in the Table, I am saying that there is no Table in a meal of meat and potatoes, which is what I have heard some house churches practice. I am sorry, we are given the bread and the wine as instituted by Christ. Meatloaf and 3-bean salad, while yummy and great while engaging in fellowship, may add to our communion, but is not part of the Table.

We have a fellowship meal once a month. We have the Table every Lord's Day. This is not different than the early church.

Where these others have taken it, encompasses more than the taking of the bread and wine. That is where they cross the line.

[quote:c58445494b]As far as your statement on denominations and coming from orthodoxy, then you must have a problem with the Reformation, for they came out of an apostate church to form their own church.[/quote:c58445494b]

Because there was no lawful church, they had to return to one. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with that. What these others are