Great thoughts, Spunky. We've been "home churching" for almost 2 1/2 years now, and it has been such a needed change. There definitely is opposition from institutional church leaders, but they oppose based on things other than a Scriptural basis. You expressed it very well when you said that it's not that you want to leave the IC, but that you feel like the IC has left you.
God bless you in your search, and if He leads you to what I like to call "simple church", then by all means go for it! And know that you are definitely not alone.
steve 
I think I've just found another reason to move to North Carolina Steve!
Come on down!! :-D
I agree with you totally about the institutional church. We spent 12 years driving more than 30 miles to several different churches, two of which my husband was on staff as youth and children's ministry director. After attending two "seeker sensitive" churches, we finally figured out that a worship service cannot be designed for people who don't know Him whom they are supposed to be worshipping...then we found another church that we liked that was more traditional in nature, but being out of our community is not the way it is supposed to be (I know there is a scriptural basis, but my mind is fuzzy without coffee....)
We finally have started meeting with a few other friends in what we call a "Sunday fellowship." It is absolutely a refreshing way to worship. No programs, no power struggles, just enjoying the Word, worship, and each other's presence. We may not do this forever, but it has been a blessing to see what a small "house church" can bring to your life. And, we all live within 6 miles of each other, so we are finally worshipping in our community. I pray you will find God's will in this matter and receive the blessings of what he has for you!
Melissa
FormerTeacher
How do you home church? We've thought about it in the past but I'm afraid we'd just be staring at one another wondering what to do. I'd love to see some links if anyone of the commenters or Mrs. Spunky has ideas.
We're just weary with all the gimmicks in churches along with some recent deep hurts caused at our church as well.
I have nothing againsg home churching (don't want anyone to misunderstand my comment), but there is also a scriptural basis for not doing it. Yes, they met in eachother's homes. But they also met daily in the temple.
I think these people had such a love for God and His church (fellow believers) that they just hung out together all the time. A once a week refreshment wasn't enough for them.
I can't say I'm really "opposed" to home church in theory, but in practice,honestly...we were involved in a couple (one or two families meeting together) and frankly it was a mess! So much opportunity for doctrinal abuse, false or misinformed teaching, etc. I don't think we'd ever do that again. We find being a part of a larger body gives a better "checks and balances" for the leadership.
We also have done "family church" where it was just our little family and that didn't go over well for us either for many reasons, only one of which was that we missed worshipping with other Believers.
I just wanted to give our experience for informational purposes only. *grin*
Thank you for your words this morning! As a result, I have shared your blog with several friends today! We are praying for God's leading with our family and church situation as well.
By the way, I stumbled across your blog website when I hit the "random blog" button from my sisters....When I read the name Spunky - I thought I only knew of one "Spunky"... Christine's sister! Dave and my husband worked together. Our families have enjoyed heading "north" to visit with them on occasion.
Thanks again for your thoughts this morning!
Lisa
"untrained persons doing a job they have no skills for"
I'm guessing "Dr." West has a real problem with Jesus' selection of "untrained" fishermen and tax collectors as the apostles who would change the world. Poor old synagogue-trained Paul wasn't even in the original twelve. What an oversight by the Lord...
Pride cometh before a fall good Doctor.
Lisa,
I am the same Spunky. I am Chris's younger sister.
Thanks for stopping by and sharing my blogwith others.
I don't want to hijack Spunky's blog for a debate about house church, but I found Dana's and Michele's comments interesting, only because they are frequent comments that I hear about house church.
Dana used the Acts 2 reference to meeting in the temple as a "scriptural basis for not doing it." There are a couple of problems with this, however. 1) While Acts 2 does comment on the believers in Jerusalem meeting in the temple, it is not recorded that any other cities in which Christians lived had similar practices. The Christians in Acts 2 met in the temple court because they were Jewish converts, and meeting in the temple court was their common practice. 2) The assumption seems to be that the meeting in the temple courts was a "church service", but this is hardly likely. This was a Jewish temple, and the idea that they allowed the Christians to hold formal services in their court is suspect.
Michele wrote: So much opportunity for doctrinal abuse, false or misinformed teaching, etc. I don't think we'd ever do that again.
This is a comment I hear frequently, and I'd be interested in hearing what you actually experienced, Michele. You said there was "so much opportunity", but did you actually see doctrinal abuse, false or misinformed teaching, etc. play out? Or did you just perceive the opportunity for it?
On my main blog (the "Homepage" link after my comment is my homeschool blog), I recently wrote on some "Myths About Simple Church", and this was one area that I addressed.
Michele commented that she and her family find being a part of a larger body gives a better "checks and balances" for the leadership. Ironically, my experience has been the exact opposite. Additionally, I don't see historically how larger bodies have prevented the very things you are concerned about in house churches (i.e., doctrinal abuses, false teaching, etc.).
Sorry for the lengthy comment, Spunky. I was going to just stay out of this, but it's a subject that I care about deeply, and I wanted to at least answer some of these comments.
For Lindsey, you can try House2House for starters -- the discussion area there has a lot of discussion about different aspects of it. I've also written some on my blog from time to time on different aspects of simple church.
steve
We too are searching for a fellowship with others who are serious about seeking and following the Lord's voice. It is very discouraging at times as we have yet to find one in our area. Right now we do the family thing but long for oneness with other believers.
One website that has been helpful has been http://www.house2house.tv/ They have a church locator and a forum where you can read of other home church journeys. I am not affiliated with it in any way but have found it helpful and they are also holding several home church conferences later in the year.
Blessings,
Esther
Steve, I give you permission to hijack my blog. This discussion would is an excellent help to many of us. Go for it.
As I said, I do not have a problem with home churches. Church isn't about the building but the body of believers. I am not sure all that is entailed in what is being called the home church movement, but it seems large and ill-defined. So I might respond with concerncs from my limited experience and then find that what I am talking about is not at all what you are advocating.
It is a difficult thing to ascertain. What is the scriptural model? Because we know that early believers did certain things, does that mean it is madated, or just that they did it? They met in their homes. I meet in homes with fellow believers as well. Also, in some of these areas, there was heavy persecution. As some were being collected for lion food, I'm sure there was a great deal of concerns with public worship.
The Jews were involved in corporate worship and it was the model Christ operated under. The entire nation met in the tabernacle before the construction of the temple. Each community had one synogogue and it was the center of Jewish life. This appears to be a model of the early Christian church, as Paul's letters are addressed to "the church at..." not specific congregations. All Christians in the city were being addressed.
Again, I am not arguing against home churches. I guess I am just saying that what is allowed is not necessarily what is mandated. We attend a very good church with solid biblical teaching. Perhaps I would feel stronger on these issues, if that were not the case.
Homeschool...homechurch...do you all every get out????? just curious...
Your "favorite" theologian!!!! Well, I'd like to thank the academy for this wonderful award- coming, as it does, on my favorite (and notice- I didn't put that in quotes because I really mean it!) homeschooler's blog. It brings tears to my crass and heartless eyes... 
Maybe next year I can be deemed the favorite theologian of homeschoolers! (Without the "!!!!!)
Keep trying Jim, I have a high standard. The term favorite is not something I throw around lightly
Anonymous, not if I can help it!
It's a jungle out there. Lions and tigers, and bears and pastors like Jim West who think we live in fear!
Oh my!
Why would I ever put myself in such a dangerous position. Blogging gives me all the interaction with the outside world (like anonymous commenters) without any of the dangers. Like knowing who I really am. (Or who you are?!?)
I haven't been outside in years! Thank God for Schwann's and pizza delivery or I'd probably never eat at all. Please don't pity me. Pray for me. I'd love to talk more about my pathetic state with you, but the pizza guy just arrived. Time to eat!
Those of us opposed to home churching don't actually oppose to meeting in someone's house. Meeting in a house, a park, or under a tree, obviously, it does not matter. No one can argue it is sinful for a church to meet in a house.
My opposition has to do with the Bible standard of elders (also called bishops), and deacons, ruling the church. The admistration of the church, including the sacraments, is given to THEM. In a house church, it's all up to the dad.
There is a reason for this. The house churches I have know have been run by nice men, who I have observed getting increasingly tyrannical and bizarre. There is no church discipline. The man of the house is the ultimate earthly authority.
Of course in rare circumstances like being stranded in Antarctica that's all that's available. But I'm talking about the norm here.
There are three spheres in society, as rightly deduced by Kuyper: family (ruled normally by dad), the church (run by a plurality of duly qualified and elected elders) and civil government (wide variety there).
I can't recommend home churching.
Dana, I appreciate your additional remarks and questions. I think you ask some really great questions, and I appreciate your openness to the topic. You are absolutely right that nailing down a definition of "house church movement" is very difficult; in fact, probably impossible. There are all flavors of house church, just as there are all flavors of institutional church.
The problem comes in when we identify potential difficulties in any movement and then throw out the baby with the bathwater. (Marie, this functions as some of my response to you, too.) You see, every point that has been made so far in this discussion as potential "dangers" of the house church can easily be applied to the institutional church. Heresy, false teaching, spiritual abuse, tyrannical leadership -- I have seen all these in the institutional church.
The answer is not so much that house church is right and the institution is wrong. In fact, I don't ever want to give that answer. However, the problem often seems to me that we're not asking the right questions. Some of the questions you asked, Dana, are "right" questions, in my mind.
For example, you ask what the right "model" is. Great question. There are two schools of thought on this. One is that accounts in Acts, etc., are prescriptive. The other opinion is that they are descriptive. This makes a huge difference. Personally, I lean much more toward the latter. I believe the descriptions are just that. However, there are some prescriptions that we can derive from Scripture -- broad guidelines, if you will.
Principles such as those found in 1 Corinthians 14 in which Paul says that when the church gathers, all can contribute to the edification of the Body of Christ, as long as it's orderly and as long as there are checks and balances in place (i.e., no tongues if no interpreter is present, prophecies are weighed by the listeners, only one speaking at a time, etc.) Principles such as (yes, Marie) elder leadership.
So the question is not institution vs. house (simple) church, but whether or not whatever form we take allows the Body to function as it is meant by the Spirit to function.
When the preacher is preaching in a church, what happens if a thought or revelation comes to someone listening? Answer: In most institutional churches -- nothing. That person must remain quiet. In most simple churches -- that person is able to share. Now, read 1 Corinthians 14:29-30, where Paul actually is giving instructions with regard to our gatherings, and tell me which model best fits.
I'll leave my response to Dana at that for further comments in reply.
With regard to Marie's comments about leadership, I'm going to ask for some supporting evidence, Marie. Specifically, you said The admistration of the church, i
(I forgot about Haloscan's truncating of comments! Here's the remainder of what I was writing...)
With regard to Marie's comments about leadership, I'm going to ask for some supporting evidence, Marie. Specifically, you said The admistration [sic] of the church, including the sacraments, is given to THEM. Questions in reply: 1) Define "administration" of the church, and 2) Give Scriptural backing for "the sacraments" being given only to the elders. (And please clarify which sacraments you are referring to, just to be clear for all readers from different denominations and persuasions!)
To the extent in which any institutionalized church is not prohibiting the exercise of spiritual gifts by all members, and is allowing Christ to be the head of His body, I applaud them. But if any element of the institution (or any house church) hinders, or even prevents it, then we must not try to defend it as a biblical institution.
Likewise for the house churches, too. But ironically enough, I could take your statement about the dangers of house church and change three words (in bold) to make a very true statement from my experience, as well: The institutional churches I have known have been run by nice men, whom I have observed getting increasingly tyrannical and bizarre. There is no church discipline. The pastor of the church is the ultimate earthly authority.
steve
I am one person in great support of homeschooling who feels that home churching has some serious negatives. I think it can be dangerous to only fellowship with a few families of like-mind. Not that is *always* is dangerous, but has the potential to be.
It is all too simple to gather with only those who agree with you or who think the same on most issues. It is much harder and often produces growth as a Christian and a person to become a part of a fellowship where you do not have agreement on all things. No family should be an island to themselves and the home fellowships I have seen over my years tend to be quite exclusive and see things through a very narrow view. Where is the growth in that?
Aside from my personal views I am not sure that scripture supports the idea of tiny fellowships everywhere. Yes, Paul met in houses, and the groups seemed to overflow. I mean people fell from the windows there were so many people there. Did they all have the same views or did Paul have to deal with some serious issues over the course of the New Testament? I think we all have a lot to learn from others--especially fiercely independent types like homeschooling families who *do* tend to have strong feelings about almost everything! Even in a church where we don't all agree; it can be good for us. If we sequester ourselves from those who are different or who have some differences even in certain areas of doctrine that we can limit what is good for us to learn.
Do not forsake the assembling together with other believers--there is much to learn from others.
Warmly,
Kate
My one question is this: When we're discussing home church, do most of you mean home church as in one family churching at home, or several families meeting in in one home? If it is just one family meeting together, I agree that there isn't much chance for fellowship and perhaps more a chance for dangers that a few mentioned.
When there are several families meeting together, it is different. My family and I home church and have for many years. There aren't any churches around here who believe as we do (if you like, you can call us narrow-minded! I, of course, will disagree). The older men, which would be at this time, my dad and the head of another family, take turns leading, teaching, etc...
I love home-churching. And yes, you can raise your hand during services to ask a question or to share a thought pertaining to the teaching. One of the things I like best!
This is a very helpful discussion for me.
Dana and Steve your back and forth is interesting to read.
Marie, the church eldership issue is one reason we have stayed about from home church. Not for the issue of the sacraments but for accountability. The tendency toward doctrinal error is one big reason for accountability. It's hard to explain in a comment box. But I've seen the dangers of unchecked doctrinal error first hand.
Kate, your thoughts on like mindedness are good to keep in mind. It's interesting that in a larger institutional church the diversity of thought can be equally a hinderance. Where is the balance? That's the question we're asking ourselves.
Judging by my email, this question is on the minds of a lot of people. I hope this discussion will be helpful to those who are considering what it means to be involved in a local church.
Krista, you posted the same time I did. For me, home church is familiies gathering together. It isn't just one family in most cases. I have seen this work out well in my sister's case, just as you have Krista. They have three(?) older men whose children are rasied leading in a variety of homes. They are not power happy dictators but exhorters in the Word of God. They teach sound doctrine but appear open to discussion and disagreement. I have visited and I was very blessed during my time there. Unfortunately, it meets too far away for us to consider on a weekly basis.
I think I've just found another reason to move to North Carolina Steve!
I love it here, too.
Kate, a couple notes of clarification. First of all, those of us who house church are not "forsaking the assembling". How many families in your church do you regularly fellowship with? No, I don't mean how many attend your church service on Sunday morning. I mean, how many do you actually fellowship with?
I would venture a guess that it's only a few (please correct me if I'm wrong). It's next to impossible to build close relationships and fellowship regularly with more than a handful (or roomful!) of people.
Sitting in the same large building, facing the same direction, listening to the same man speak, does not any more qualify as "assembling together" than sitting in a restaurant with a bunch of tables is "eating together" with all those other people. Even in large churches, people still tend to have a few people that they actually get together with and share life with.
And the context of the "do not forsake the assembling" verse in Hebrews 10:25 is an emphasis on encouraging one another and stimulating one another to love and good deeds. It's much more relational than institutional.
Another necessary clarification is with regard to your comments about only meeting with "like-minded" people. My experience has been quite the opposite than what you described. I have had to work through more differences in our simple church gathering than I ever had to in the institutional church.
If not focusing on "like-minded" people was the achievement of the institutional church, than we wouldn't have all the denominations and sub-denominations that we have in the institutional church. When disagreements happen in the institutional church, churches split and/or new denominations get formed. Look at all the versions of "Baptist" there are, just to pick on one denomination!
Finally, let's be fair to the text of Scripture. Acts 20 says nothing about the size of the crowd gathered in the upper room. "People" didn't fall from the windows because there were so many there. One person fell from one window because he was sitting in the window (reason not given) and he fell asleep.
more to come...
Listen, I'm all for discussion on this, and I'm eager to talk about it and dialogue about it. But if we're going to talk about "biblical basis" for/against anything, let's be honest with the text -- i.e., respect the context and address what the verses actually say.
I'm intentionally holding back on speaking anti-institutionally, but am simply answering the "accusations" (and I do use that term very loosely) against house church with the same "logic" against the institution. In other words, nothing has been said yet about house church that can't be turned around and said about the institution. And most of the things that I have read so far in this thread against house church are simply "red herrings".
However, it is my opinion there is more defense of the house church (or simple church) concept in Scripture than there is for the current model of institutional church. I've mentioned one in a comment above with regard to 1 Corinthians 14. Did I misrepresent the text on that one? Did I add to it? I'm asking seriously.
steve
Several comments came in while I was typing my responses above.
Yes, I'm talking about various families gathering in homes to worship/fellowship. I'm not talking about just one family, although for a while, it was just us. God has graciously brought others into our lives, however, with whom we now fellowship regularly.
Spunky, I'm curious if you read my "myths" post, in light of your comment about accountability. I'd welcome your thoughts on whether or not you disagree with my attempt to dismantle that argument.
steve
Steve, I did read the post. And when I referred to accountability I was referring to where to go when a leader is in error. In a "institutional church" there is usually some understanding of what is to be done. When it is a few families gathering, this is not as cut and dry. We have been in two churches where the pastor has errored terribly and because the elders were "buddies" to the pastor accountability was hard. They were independent churches that functioned in many ways similiar to a house church only the fellowship grew to the point where we met together in a space larger than a house.
Spunky, ahhh, I see what you are talking about. I think this could be indicative of problems other than the structure itself, though.
Off the top of my head, there are two passages that come to mind that could be applied. One is where Jesus gives the "3 step process" to church discipline: 1) confront individually, 2) confront with witnesses, and 3) bring it to the church.
The other passage is where Paul says that an accusation against an elder should not be received without multiple witnesses. It's interesting that he even says this because following Jesus' outline would assure that this happens every time in the proper way. (In other words, you wouldn't be able to have one person standing up and accusing a pastor/elder of anything.)
Jesus' prescription, however, doesn't seem to require any further heirarchy. In other words, he doesn't really imply anything like a denominational leadership to whom to take the accusations. He seems to imply that it should be handled within the local fellowship. (Notice that I'm carefully using the word "seem" because I am open to further correction on this interpretation).
Personally, I think church discipline is so much harder to even think about exercising when the fellowship gets any larger than "home-sized". Just my thoughts on having seen a few attempts at it.
steve
By the way, just to throw out another idea for thought:
Institutional churches usually have paid professional preachers. My opinion is that this paid position unnecessarily leads to "power" being felt. Additionally, the pressure is on to preach what won't offend the "money people", and instantly, some purity is sure to get lost in the teaching. (In other words, "job security" comes into play.)
So, the preacher feels like he has power over the people since he is the "professional", and the church feels like they have power over him because they can withhold their money if he gets too "personal" in his preaching.
But that's probably a whole 'nother post...
steve
Steve you sound like someone who may have read the book, The Open Church. Have you read it? I am reading Megashift which is a testimonial similar to the ideas in the open church.
Actually, I don't believe I've read "The Open Church". I have read portions of Megashift, however.
I have to confess, however, that I did actually derive most of my ideas from my study of Scripture before I even realized there were books written on this topic.
At one point, I was an institutional church pastor, myself, and have held various positions in the IC (most often related to music, but frequently involving other aspects of leadership). I've been down the whole Bible College and Seminary route in preparing for a career in ministry.
Something seemed to be missing, however, and I found myself starting to take off my "institutional lens" in reading the Scripture and trying to read it for what it actually said.
A lot of things changed in a short time, and I left "vocational ministry" to pursue ministry in a very different way. Hence the simple church concept that my wife and I have been living now for 2 1/2 years.
Even though I'm very passionate about this topic, and enjoy this conversation, I find myself sometimes feeling rather sad when I see some of the comments about house church such as others here have made. It makes me sad because I used to think the same things, and I feel now like those ideas are misunderstandings of what really is happening in house churches.
Yes, there are problem house churches. Yes, some leaders still run house churches like they're "the man in charge". And I'm sure there are some really fantastic institutional churches out there that are trying to do the right thing. I just think there are more hurdles to jump in trying to accomplish the biblical goals in the IC than in a simpler way of being the church.
And I feel like, by and large, we here in America have lost the concept of Christ actually being the Head of His own Body. We pay Him all kinds of lip service, but we manage every aspect of "church" to the point that He's hardly needed (or even able to fit in the picture).
I've said enough for now. Thanks for the dialogue, Spunky. I've got this thread in my Bloglines subscription so I can stay with it if more comments come in.
God bless!
steve
Actually, I'm not so sure I agree with you on the Jewish converts in Acts 2, Steve. I'm wading out of my comfort zone and don't pretend to know what I'm talking about, here. So I'm just going to refer you to another source I refer to frequently and draw much from. Again, just so all are clear, I'm not arguing against home churches. I'm more curious than anything, but I also know that when I start asking questions, it is often misinterpreted as challenging or debating and that isn't my intent at all.
There are certain principles I know we can agree on such as that believers are to be in fellowship with one another, that there is an authority structure in the church with Christ as the head and that we are all members of ONE church. Exactly how that looks is another matter. It isn't laid out so clearly in scripture that I feel comfortable saying this is it and there is no other way.
That's why I refer back to the synagogue. It is what would have been in the minds of the first Christians. It is the religious life Jesus and His disciples knew. And I think it gives us great insight into perhaps some of what should be included in a church, no matter the size of the congregation or where it meets. (Incidentally, two of the "institutional" churches I've attended began as home churches which grew to the point they built their own building)....
http://www.followtherabbi.com/Br...99&
article=4832
(can't find the other article I'm looking for, but this is good, too...on leadership and education, more, but a challenge to any leader)
http://www.followtherabbi.com/Br...rix?
pageID=6153
this is kind of a brief overview I enjoy...http://www.followtherabbi.com/Brix?
pageID=1499
btw, I have an article I will be working through in a couple of weeks and I would love to have your insight on it Steve...it is a rather well written attack against Christian "fundamentalism" (what it has come to mean, not what it really means) and I believe the home church movement came up in it. I might be confusing it with another book I'm reading, but either way, it issues some definite challenges for conservative Christianity that I think need to be taken seriously.
Not sure why that last link didn't turn up as one, but the whole string is there to cut and paste. Just a small point as I wasn't quite sure if you were addressing me, Marie, or concerns in general, but I haven't (and shan't) said anything about abuses in the home church. I'm operating under the assumption that we are talking about spirit filled Christians in leadership. Matthew 18:20 (my 3yo's favorite verse!) seems clear to me that it isn't about numbers. And that any time people get together, the opportunity for sin is present. Nothing is perfect.
goodness, I should just log off and stop clogging your comment box, here. But I forgot something that at least seemed important at the time...
My original point was the intense love that Christians had for one another in the early church. It seems they could not conceive of life without one another. That is what has been lost in our churches that concerns me most. Church isn't the center of our lives...it is a once a week affair and we go back to our lives. We don't strive for fellowship and going from home to home and all that. It all becomes just another "church" activity that drains on an already overscheduled week.
We have been home-churching for about 2 years now ourselves and it's been a real blessing to get to know and walk with a group of believers committed to Him. Sure, there are issues, but the growth I have seen in my husband as he and the other men tackle them and lead their families has been exciting to see. I encourage you to keep looking into it.
Nancy
I was really posting to Spunky and not to you Steve, so while I don't mind you jumping in here, I was not posting to dialog with you, but will if you wish to. :+) Spunky is a friend and we have had private conversations about this before. I enjoy the conversation, but still do feel that home fellowships have more potentials for problems than other more regular (or as you term it "institutional") forms of worship.
We are members of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church so it will come as no surprise to read that I like this kind of worship. Our website (www.opc.org) defines our form of government as well as the "why" behind it here:
"Government. From the time of Abraham in the Old Testament, God's church has been led by wise elders, men gifted by God and called to govern his church. The word presbyterian comes from the New Testament Greek word presbyteros, meaning "elder." The Orthodox Presbyterian Church has followed this biblical pattern for church government. Local church elders, along with the pastor, form a "session" to care for the spiritual welfare of our members. Matters of common concern for churches in a given region, such as establishing new congregations and ordaining ministers, are regulated by a body of ministers and elders called a "presbytery." Annually, representatives of our sixteen presbyteries form a "general assembly" to give the whole Church direction and advice."
"Why the Name "Orthodox"? Everyone knows that an orthodontist is concerned about straight teeth. The "ortho" in orthodontist comes from the Greek word for "straight." The "dox" in orthodox comes from the Greek word for "thinking." So, in an Orthodox Presbyterian church you will find straight teaching following the long-accepted pattern given in the Bible. We are a church that believes what the Bible says, and we try to put it into practice."
As far as "being fair to the text" goes I would offer that Paul went into many synagogues and preached to them many times. He was not only preaching in homes. In fact Acts 19:8 it says he was there for three months. He did preach in a formal building though that is, to me, beside the point. There was an institution of sorts in that the elders in Jerusalem were all accountable to each other and consulted one another.
Anyway, I am not here to argue for or against home fellowships, but only to offer what I think is a very reasonable scriptural alternative.
Warmly,
Kate
Lord, please forgive our selffishness and self-centeredness.
Fellow christians, don't you understand that all of this seeking of the church comes from our own heart desire to create our perfect world? Oh, I can't worship with drums, oh I can't worship with hymns, oh the pastor is too loud, the music is not my style, the people dress too openly, the people don't dress as I would, the organization of the church is lacking, the organization of the church is too strict, there is not enough children ministry, there is too much focus on the lost, they actually invite those unbelievers, who have no idea how they are supposed to act in church!, this church is just too fancy, this church is just too boring - don't you see it, that all it comes down to is ME, ME, ME and ME! The church is not about YOU, the church is about GOD. It's not about what you prefer, it's about the glory of God. When will we stop thinking of our own desires and start thinking of the lost. Oh, the church is not for the lost but for the fellowship!?! Are you sure?! Well I guess then it's just better to really go home, have our nice little study, pray for those who are lost (probably somewhere in Africa or something), and keep on feeling good. And even if not, what stops you from attending a small group of the church you are attending (it seems to me this is exactly what was lacking in the lives of those who started to homechurch), if there is none - go and organize one, I bet there are people just like you looking for fellowship in your own church, but it's just not going to happen untill someone actually makes the first step. It seems to me that a few years down the road, you're just going to have the same desire as always before - leave (because there will be things you won't like and you'll grow tired of them). It's all because the issue is really not in the church, the issue is in the heart.
Btw, this wasn't directed at anyone in particular, but in general, for all who are believers in Jesus Christ. Just a cry of my heart, forgive me for being so emotional.
Olya,
I have to disagree that people who are considering homechurching, have a *me* issue. There are good reasons to depart from institutional church.
One of the things I asked myself was what was the probability that my children as adults would make the decision to attend the same church. And would my sacrifice of tolerating and fighting staying awake in that church or (for me) churches have any real value?
I have been reading the book Biblical Eldership by Alexander Strauch, and it has really shown me what is lacking in many churches (of all varieties), even those that practice eldership. I believe an effective church, house or otherwise, needs to be led by men who fit the definition of Biblical elder, chosen by the congregation with guidance of the Holy Spririt. This is so hard to find!
We were/are Presbyterian (PCA), and have long driven 30 or more miles out of our county to find a church. The missing element for us was intimate fellowship and accountability because of distance. There is no reformed church in our entire county, so attending somewhere else has not been an option (we tried another kind for a year and the theology frustrated us. Discussion and hashing out of the Scriptures was not the norm in Sunday school.) We felt led to a home fellowship with 3 other families because of the fellowship and accountability.
I am enjoying the worship presently, but that doesn't rule out the possible return to an institutional church in the future, should our community situation ever change. Having said that, however, I think we are more interested in a family-integrated church (see visionforum.org.) Those are also hard to find, though....at least 35 miles away.
I know a lot of home schoolers in our area struggle with these issues, because they live differently and struggle with the influences on their older children with the youth groups and other things. It is hard to find God's will, but I know that the struggles we have had will grow is in ways we can't imagine.
Melissa
Kate, I'm sorry. I thought you were just interacting with the conversation in general. I wasn't trying to jump in on your conversation with Spunky!
steve
Olya, I can only speak for myself but we haven't left a church for any of the reasons you have mentioned.
I could'nt agree with you more that the church is about God. But many churches have made it about ME. To the point where many believe church is about them and not about God. You have actually articulated very well the struggle we face.
It's not that the church shouldn't allow unblievers, either. Not at all. But when the church is geared to make the unbeliever comfortable they begin to think they are okay in their sin. They're not. And many churches are reluctnant to let them know their true standing with God for fear they'll run them off. I'm not saying it has to happen the first week, but shouldn't it happen sometime? I've actually been criticized by parents for praying with their little children in Jesus name. They are unbelievers who have put their children in my class and the parents get upset when I share that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. The parents knew what the church believed. But the parent didn't actually believe that anyone really believed it. And to make it worse I'm the one criticized?!?
So it's not as simplistic as just about drums or no drums. When it becomes Jesus or no Jesus in the message. I draw a line. Wouldn't you? And by the way, my experience is in a large growing denomination, not in a mega church.
Dana wrote: There are certain principles I know we can agree on such as that believers are to be in fellowship with one another, that there is an authority structure in the church with Christ as the head and that we are all members of ONE church. Exactly how that looks is another matter. It isn't laid out so clearly in scripture that I feel comfortable saying this is it and there is no other way.
You and I are pretty much in agreement on all of that! I appreciate your comments and your attitude.
And yes, my comments re: abuse were pretty much general and/or toward Marie (since she brought it up).
One possible thought about the synagogue (I'm not saying I'm totally right on this...just throwing these thoughts out for discussion): When Paul taught in the synagogue, it seems to me that the focus was on preaching Christ, i.e., evangelism. Someone above mentioned that the church is for unbelievers. I disagree that the church gathering is predominantly for unbelievers. The church gathering, per 1 Corinthians 14 is predominantly for the edification of the Body, and the gifts are given toward that end (cf. Eph 4 where apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastor/teachers are given to the church for the equipping of the saints to do the work of the ministry). In that light, I see Paul teaching in the synagogues in a way to present the Gospel to unsaved people.
Also, just for further thought, when Paul was "preaching until midnight" in Acts 20 (the guy falling out of the window), the word unfortunately translated as "preach" in the KJV is the word for "discuss" or "reason", and is the word for "dialogue". This is often encouraged in simple churches, but discouraged in formal, institutional churches.
Anyway, I appreciate all the thoughts here, and once again thank Spunky for giving me some latitude here to converse. I definitely don't want to ruffle any feathers or hurt anyone's feelings!
steve
Oh, and one more thing I wanted to agree with in Dana's writing:
That is what has been lost in our churches that concerns me most. Church isn't the center of our lives...it is a once a week affair and we go back to our lives. We don't strive for fellowship and going from home to home and all that. It all becomes just another "church" activity that drains on an already overscheduled week.
Amen, amen, amen!
Good read, Spunky. We belong to a long-established local body of believers but do not have a church building. Meeting in other facilities and people's homes has worked for us. The community recognizes us as a "church", we are very active, and DO belong to a major denomination for accountability purposes.
And come on to NC...we'd love to have you!
I haven't read all of this as I'm actually supposed to be doing something else right now : ) So if I've missed something someone asked me, I'm sorry. I'll get back later.
Just wanted to make a note on church vs. unbelievers. I don't think there is any precedent in scripture for the church to be a meeting for unbelievers or an evangelism tool. The church is the body of Christ and meet together regularly for corporate worship. We equip members for evangelism. It is our responsibility, not the "church's" to witness to the world. We were commissioned individually to go forth into all the nations. I do not believe that a church should in anyway be seeker sensitive because its membership should not be made up of seekers.
As to the synagogues, it is my impression that the early Christians did not consider themselves converts. They considered themselves Jews who had seen the Messiah. Only the pagans would have been true converts.
I agree Dana. Believers should be welcome in a church but the church is for the "equipping of rhe saints to do the work of the ministry." When we focus on the unbliever at the expense of teaching and grounding the believer we end up with a very weak chruch. And society as a whole suffers for it.
Steve:
Like I said before, "...I was not posting to dialog with you, but will if you wish to." I don't mind, and my feelings were not hurt and my feathers were not ruffled.
I am not going to argue scripture with you as to what Paul was doing in the synagogues because he was preaching there in any clear reading of scripture. One can see whatever they wish to see and you wish to see that Paul was only evangelizing.
I see the from of government that I detailed above in a previous post clearly shown in Scripture with the church at Jerusalem outward and elder-run churches from the Old Testament onward. You are going to see what you see and anything I say is not going to make much difference. (And if I am honest, anything you say in support of home churches will not sway me either! ) In churches such as the OPC (not the only type that does this) there is a huge amount of accountability and pastors are held answerable for their words and actions--and not just by one or two other families who may be their good friends.
And just so you know a little about me, I used to be very interested in home churches and thought they were the best way and that institutional choices were negative. That was until I saw the affects of this type of fellowship up close and personal in several different settings. Now I see them as only a very last resort.
I hope you know I am not attacking you, as that is not my intention. I was not looking to argue with anyone and was not trying to condemn those who choose to fellowship this way. I just feel pretty strongly that this type of fellowship has more problems than solutions.
Warmly,
Kate
I did not by any means imply that the church should not be preaching the Gospel in order to attract unbelievers. I thought this was just a given.
I don't know if I can agree with the statement that the it's not church's responsibility to preach the Gospel to the lost. Wherever we see Paul, and in every letter he wrote (and like Dana mentioned before he didn't write them to individuals or separate groups, he wrote it to the Body of Christ in a particular place), he made sure he talked about the Gospel and Christ's blood first and only then went to the deeper teaching.
The point of my previous post though wasn't about a house church vs traditional church. It was about the heart matters, that in my opinion are the core of the problem of dissatisfaction with a local body of beleivers. I have seen such a phenomenon in the US known as church hopping. It breaks my heart that people don't think anything of it, because it's just not convinient for them or because they've been wronged or because they are not happy with the pastor or his teaching (as long as he preaches the clear Gospel there should not be a question of moving to another church), or they are not happy with the Body or its members. In fact the way most churches nowadays grow is just because the membership shifts from one church to another, not because the lost are being saved.
It's absolutely wonderful if the homechurching families are trying still to fulfill (individually or corporately) Christ's commision to the world. But in that case what they're doing is they're slowly turning into a traditional church, and a growing one!
Hmmm, for some reason my name didn't show up in the previous post, so I'm not the anonymous, I'm the same Olya as before
Wow, don't visit a blog for 24 hours and the conversation gets all away from you!
Hi fellow OPCer Kate!
In response to:
"Specifically, you said The admistration [sic] of the church, including the sacraments, is given to THEM. Questions in reply: 1) Define "administration" of the church, and 2) Give Scriptural backing for "the sacraments" being given only to the elders. (And please clarify which sacraments you are referring to. . ."
Administration:
Preaching, baptism, serving the Lord's Supper, church discipline, generally running the church.
Throughout the New Testament it is apostles and then by calling out and laying on of hands (ordination) elders/bishops who are charged with the above. When the duties of waiting on tables got too heavy deacons were also added. There is no example nor instruction for us to do anything differently.
Nowhere are fathers/heads of households instructed to baptise, preach, or administer the Lord's Supper to the children. The only men told to do so are apostles and elders, no exceptions.
The keys of the kingdom are given to the apostles who, being but earthly men, pass this authority on through ordination.
Abuses and bad theology can and do occur whenever sinful men are involved. I will hold fast to my contention, though, that abuse and bad theology are a lot easier without any oversight.
God sets up families with fathers as heads of households for a reason. He sets up churches with a plurality of ordained elders for a reason, too. His ways are perfect.
Speaking of the Keys and church government, here is another view, along the spiritual lines:
http://www.kingdombiblestudies.o...ation/
rev54.htm
Nowhere are fathers/heads of households instructed to baptise, preach, or administer the Lord's Supper to the children. The only men told to do so are apostles and elders, no exceptions.
I assume that you are getting this from the fact that Jesus gave the command to make disciples/baptize to the apostles?
A couple questions about that, then.
1) How do we determine what, of Jesus' teaching/commands, etc. is for the apostles only, and what is for everyone of us as believers? In other words, if the command to baptize is only given to apostles, then what about the command to keep his commandments? What about the command to love one another? What about the command to remain in Him? These were spoken to the same small group of apostles. I don't mean that sarcastically at all, but it is a sincere question.
2) Where in the New Testament is it commanded only to the apostles to administer the Lord's Supper? For that matter, where is it ever commanded to "administer" the Lord's Supper at all? Jesus told us to "do so" (eat and drink), but never gives instructions for any kind of "administration".
I really don't mean to be harsh in these questions at all. Ask my wife, I really am a very nice, gentle guy! But seriously, it is so easy to read things back into Scripture that aren't there.
Paul gave instructions about the spirit behind sharing the Lord's Supper to the Corinthian church (the only direct reference to the Lord's Supper outside of the Gospels), and doesn't mention anything in there about administering it, or only certain people being allowed to administer it.
I asked you for Scriptural backing, and you only said that it is "throughout". I'm pressing for more specific backing for your statements.
You did reference Acts 6 (the appointment of deacons to wait tables), but that doesn't specifically state that the Apostles were the only ones authorized to minister the Word.
You also referenced the "keys of the kingdom", and so I assume again like I stated at the top that you are taking this from the fact that it was the original 12 to whom Jesus gave authority.
I'd rather not try to assume what you are implying, though, because I may be on the wrong track in even what I'm responding to.
I agree with anonymous, homeschool and homechurch? You'll be sheltering your kids from the real world. IMO, home churching can lead to cults because there is no accountability.
Unlike other commentators here, I don't have an opinion about home churching. Instead, I'm wondering if you have tried Trinity Church, not far from you on 6 Mile at Farmington in Livonia? We make a conscious effort *not* to create a "Starbucks" atmosphere. We're a small and welcoming congregation. You may know us as the church that hosts Palaestra co-op. We joined about a year ago after our former church got a little too glitzy and consumer-driven for us. Maybe you would like it too.
No can you email me with more information Jennifer. Some one else I know just mentioned this church to me as well. I'll have to check into it. Can you email me with more information Jennifer.
one clarification...when I said that it isn't the responsibility of the church to reach the lost, I had something very specific in mind. I don't wish to be misinterpreted. When believers come together, they are to uplift, encourage , support and insturct one another. This is what should happen during service. The church supports individuals in their missionary efforts, whether that be as a mother, an employee in an office, a CEO or what is traditionally thought of as missionary. A church designed to attract unbelievers rather than instruct believers is really more like a mission in my mind, and should be a separate thing. They aren't even getting so far as the milk of the word if that is all they are doing.
Hey Steve,
Thanks for the "disclaimers" - I know we're not fighting or angry or whatever. I'm not mad! It is a huge topic of course, and books could be written about it.
"1) How do we determine what, of Jesus' teaching/commands, etc. is for the apostles only, and what is for everyone of us as believers? In other words, if the command to baptize is only given to apostles, then what about the command to keep his commandments? What about the command to love one another? What about the command to remain in Him?"
That to me is sort of obvious. Several times in the Bible we are told as a covenant people to keep his commandments. From Mt. Sinai and beyond. The Rich Young Ruler. The Sermon On The Mount. I hesitate to type out all the verses, it would be impossible. The epistles addressed to the church. This is not just told to the apostles by any stretch.
"2) Where in the New Testament is it commanded only to the apostles to administer the Lord's Supper? For that matter, where is it ever commanded to "administer" the Lord's Supper at all? Jesus told us to "do so" (eat and drink), but never gives instructions for any kind of "administration"."
The Lord's Supper is instituted just before Jesus' death. Jesus serves it to the apostles, and tells them to do it until He comes.
More specific instruction/explanation is given in 1st Corinthians 11.
Acts 6 says the elders are given exclusively to the ministry of the word and prayer. Which implies that the rest of us are not, or why say so?
Acts 11 relief was sent by the hands of the elders, not just anybody.
Acts 14 they appointed elders in every church, to do what, the same thing everybody else does? If so why appoint anybody?
Acts 15 the apostles and elders decide questions of doctrine and practice, not the whole multitude.
They of course write all the epistles, which contain all of our instruction, exhortation, and discipline. Anybody who felt like it couldn't just write an epistle.
Acts 20 Paul calls the elders, tells them to oversee and shepherd the church; Acts 21 Paul reports to the elders; 1st Tim 5:17 the elders rule the church; Titus tells us to appoint elders in every city, they are described, and are referred to as being the ones who keep the doctrine straight and disciplining - rebuke with all authority, reject a divisive man - James 5:14 the elders are called to pray for the sick; 1 Peter 5:5 we are to submit to the elders.
They would hardly be ruling the church, rebuking, rejecting, discipling, etc. etc. etc. but having people take the Lord's Supper on their own. It just can't be done, in a practical fashion. An adulterer could be partaking; they could be substituting goat cheese for bread; they could be setting up idols and offering wine to them; all the errors we could think of together and more besides would be done unless the elders were in charge of that as well as everything else.
Whew.
Marie,
Forgive me for not responding tonight. It's after 1:00 in the morning, and I just got home from a "10 out of 12" at the theater where I'm the music director. We open a show Thursday night, and today and tomorrow are our tech days. The "10 out of 12" means that we rehearse for 10 hours out of 12. In other words, we're there from noon to midnight with a 2 hour dinner break.
I'm exhausted!!!! So I will try to respond tomorrow before I go back to the theater, but I'm honestly not sure what time I'll even get up tomorrow!
God bless,
steve
Check out this church at how they are able to combine their "missionary" efforts and also provide one of the most substantial Bible teaching I've ever heard on the weekly basis. You ain't gonna like this church if you dont like super mega churches. But they have become our source of constant encouragment and incredible lifting of the Spirit while we've been in Slovenia where there are a 1000 believers for 2 mln people. The teaching in this church is deeper than I've ever heard in a church, but they also have a gift of inviting an unbeliever and transforming and changing their life forever.
Oh and one questions - is the Gospel alone a shallow teaching?!
And here is the link
http://www.calvaryftl.org/
Olya, according to Hebrews 5:12-6:2, the salvation message is "milk", and we are expected as believers to move to "meat". So while maybe "shallow" isn't the best word for it, if a church service is constantly geared toward unbelievers, it will be very difficult to move beyond these "elementary teachings" that the writer of Hebrews mentions.
steve
Just my two cents...
The church we attended in California started as a house church--a Bible study, you might call it--and grew into more of a traditional church (they had to start meeting in a building).
Like someone else pointed out, it's almost useless to try to lump "housechurches" into one category. The one thing that defines them--small groups meeting in homes as the gathering of the saints--leaves out too many important things to act like they're all the same.
We've had an INCREDIBLY hard time finding likeminded fellowship--and I do think "likeminded" is important. If someone's doctrine is totally off (obviously, on something big), of course I am not going to partner with them in ministry and evangelism! I can recognize people with doctrinal differences as a brother or sister in Christ, but that doesn't mean I am going to sit under teaching that I believe is Biblically wrong (e.g., in my case, Calvinism). I seriously doubt that anyone here picked a church they totally disagree with and said, "I'll go here!"
Steve has really made a lot of the points I'd make, so I won't do it again. I will say that I have seen the Spirit move much more mightily in small-group settings than in large institutional ones. Often He's quite crowded out in those settings.
Marie,
So if I'm understanding your reasoning correctly, in order for us to know that something Jesus said to the apostles applies to us we need to see if it is repeated in the epistles? Or actually, to put it a better way, I'm still unsure how you know which things are only for the apostles, and which are for all of us.
With regard to the leadership topic, I must first make sure to clarify something. I am fully in support of biblical eldership. I do not believe that everyone is at the same level of maturity in the body, and that there are those who are recognized and respected as elders because they have earned that respect.
However, this is where the institutional church drifts from what actually is clearly taught in the Scripture. Most churches, even if they have a board of elders, continue to have a "pastor" who, generally speaking, is hired from the outside. He is a professional "elder". And in almost every church I have been in, in most things, the elder board defers to him as above them. This aspect cannot be found in the biblical concept of elders.
With respect to the Lord's Supper, I'm still unsure how you're finding "administration" of it by particular people. Jesus did not tell his disciples to administer it to others until He comes. He says simply, "Do this in remembrance of me." In 1 Cor 11, Paul is the one who says, "As often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you do show the Lord's death until He comes." But notice that it's the eating and drinking, not the administering that Paul is talking about.
Additionally, you mentioned the problem of adulterers taking the Lord's Supper, etc., and therefore, you believe that the elders are the ones who make sure only the right people take it. This is simply not found in Scripture, though. In fact, quite the opposite. In 1 Cor 11, when Paul is talking about making sure not to take the Lord's Supper in a wrong state, he says, "Let a man examine himself..." He does not say, "Let the elders examine a man..."
more to come...
The main point I'm trying to make here is that it is so easy for us to read our modern practices back into Scripture, and we have to be willing to look at Scripture and see what it does and doesn't say.
You said earlier that the only people commanded to preach, baptize, and administer the Lord's Supper are "apostles and elders, no exceptions." You also distinguished the deacons as a separate group with different responsibilities.
If this is true, and if the "Philip" in Acts 8 is the same "Philip" in Acts 6, we have someone who is appointed as a deacon (in Acts 6) preaching and baptizing (in Acts 
. He isn't listed as an apostle or an elder, yet he's doing the very things that you said can only be done by apostles and elders, "no exception."
I don't disagree with much at all of what you are saying. But this discussion about elders came from your original comment in which you said, My opposition has to do with the Bible standard of elders (also called bishops), and deacons, ruling the church. The admistration of the church, including the sacraments, is given to THEM. In a house church, it's all up to the dad.
It's important to note that we have already clarified in this thread that we are talking about multiple families meeting in a house church, not just single families. However, you said you are opposed to house churches on the sheer basis of "biblical elders". Can a dad not be the elder of his own family? Or are you saying that an elder must be "ordained" first? And if so, by what biblical process?
Thanks for your patience with my lengthy responses.
steve
For some reason, a smilie showed up where I meant to say Acts 8. I think it had to do with a close parenthesis!!
My statement was that we have the same person who is appointed as a deacon in Acts 6 preaching and baptizing in Acts 8.
steve
Don't know about you, Steve, but I wouldn't dare to say that the Gospel is anywhere simple. Paul himeslf referred to it as a "mystery" (quite a few times), so I wouldn't argue with him. It seems pretty profoud for God to come up with a plan of salvation for the whole world... Pretty smart of Him, actually
(tough crowd you have here, Spunky!! hehe)
Olya, c'mon now. Most of the times that Paul uses the word "mystery", he's talking about the fact that it's been revealed to us!
I'm sure you know I didn't mean "simple" in the sense of "something trivial". And I even said that I didn't think "simple" was the best word. But Hebrews does refer to the foundational message of the Gospel as "elementary".
There are always greater depths to plumb. We will not, at least on this side of the full revelation of glory, be able to exhaust the depths of the knowledge of what God has done. Surely you didn't think that I was saying we could, did you?
steve
oops, I said "shallow" wasn't the best word. My bad. Did I say it was "simple"?
y'all are going to start wondering what side I'm on if I continue discussing this very long, but the word mystery cannot be interpreted in light of its common meaning today.
It comes from Greek (the original language of the NT):
G3466
μυστήριον
mustērion
moos-tay'-ree-on
From a derivative of μύω muō (to shut the mouth); a secret or “mystery” (through the idea of silence imposed by initiation into religious rites): - mystery.
The meaning has shifte quite a bit, even since the KJV translation, if I'm not mistaken, but certainly doesn't mean what it meant to Paul. To him, it meant something hidden, like Christ. Most of it has been revealed. It does not, and never did, carry the connotation of something unintelligble or un-understandable.
From Barnes commentary because it is the quickest I can access : )
The word “mystery” means properly what is “hidden” or “concealed,” and is thus applied to any doctrine which was not before known. It does not mean necessarily what is “unintelligible;” but what had not been before revealed; see the note at Mat_13:11. The word here seems to refer to the principal doctrines of the gospel; its main truths, which had been concealed, especially from the entire Gentile world, but which were now made known.
Ok, I see what you mean, Dana. But even if the Gospel is not a hidden truth anymore, I can't pretend to be able to ever fully understand the goodness and grace of God in sending His own Son to die for a sinner like me. If there is anything else deeper in the Bible, I'd like to know!
Everything in the OT is pointing to one single Truth, everything in the NT is talking about it. For believers or unbelievers - this is what we are to dwell on. All Paul does in his letters is remind the churches to keep on preaching and staying close to the Thruth of the Gospel. Well, that's in a nutshell
Thanks for your thoughts, it's keeping me thinking!
Marie:
Thank you for the many supporting scriptures. You are much better at this than I will ever be.
Warmly,
Kate
I don't want to get too far OT from Spunky's post now that we're at like 70+ comments, but I did want to clarify something. Olya, I doubt we are too far off in our beliefs about church. Again, I have something specific in mind when I speak against "seeker-sensitive" churches. I don't believe I actually called the gosples the "milk" and I agree that the nature of God is not the milk, depending on where you are coming from in that. But there are churches that are designed for membership and not to offend. They do not bring up Christ, save perhaps in a class sometime. The worship is designed to make the unbeliever comfortable to lure them in. I just feel strongly that if the vision of your organization is to attract the unbeliever, you are running a mission. There is nothing wrong in that, but it is a different goal than a church, and I would not go to a mission for the same reasons I would go to church. In one, I am seeking to be edified, challenged and instructed. In the other, I am seeking to do the Lord's calling in sharing truth with nonbelievers.
Dana, I think you've encapsulated that nicely. There is a duo purpose and it is difficult to fill both simultaneously. To do one well, the other will suffer. It is difficult to "evangelize" and "disciple" in the same service.
Dear Steve,
If the "Philip" in Acts 8 is the same "Philip" in Acts 6, then Philip probably became an elder. We had a deacon who got elected as an elder in our church, actually. Since Philip's doing elder responsibilities, by good and necessary inference I assume he's an elder by Acts 8.
I don't define a home church as a church which uses a house as a meeting place. No one can biblically oppose a residence as a meeting place.
I define home church as a family or small group of families that take biblical authority upon themselves, outside the institution of the visible church.
"Can a dad not be the elder of his own family?" A male parent can be an elder, yes. But he must be elected and ordained by the church, not by his wife and kids.
The process by which an elder or deacon is ordained is outlined pretty clearly in scripture. Jesus picked the apostles, who ordained elders. The church as a body were to select more out so that each church would have them, and the elders, assuming they approved, would lay hands on them and ordain them. And so it goes to this very day.
In re: the Lord's Supper, of course a man must examine himself. We are all responsible to make our calling and election sure. The elders can not read minds nor be present and gauging our behavior at every moment. However, the elders are not potted plants. They are as I listed in my previous post actively ruling, administrating, governing, and running the church. They can hardly be doing that and yet letting whoever take whatever whenever for communion.
Remember Hebrews 13:17, "they (the elders) watch out for our souls, as those who must give account." We're not all to be running around indepedently. That, I think is the rugged individualism of our American culture evidencing itself among us.
That's exactly why I gave you a link to the Calvary Chapel in Ft. Lauderdale. They are doing a marvelous job at both, believe it or not. I'm not saying that the church should look like that or be that size or anything else. But it is possible and the more I think about the easier it actually seems. See, a serious seeker will not be swayed by a "meat" teaching, in fact it will attract him even more, he'll realize something is terribly wrong in his life. Something is missing. Another important thing to consider in finding a church to too look at a pastor's heart. In fact this is probably the easiest way to see where the church is going. It's not the same as to look at what the service is like. It's figuring out what the pastor wants to atchieve in and through his congregation. If the pastor's heart is selfish and filled with self ambition (this could happen in a home church as well!), flee away. But if he wants to pastor the congregation with wisdom and truth of God's Word and not be afraid of circumstances and criticism, you found the right church.
For example, Calvary Chapel - looks catchy and inviting. And I'm sure the looks would turn some away (those interested in what they'd call a traditional setting). But we were amazed at WHY it looks the way it does. See, so many times Christians instead of looking at the heart they look at the face. But the teaching is provided in that church on a very very deep and personal level. I believe God has gifted the pastor with this incredible wisdom. And of course not every church should look this was.
My whole point was that we tend to think of ourselves and our spiritual food. Well, one can receive that food on their own, at a Bible institute or at a small group. It doesn't have to be on a Sunday morning (not that I'm saying it shouldn't...) Please stay with me on this.Our spiritual growth is in our own hands and in the way we spend our time. It's not the pastor's resposibility.
If we get all nice and comfy in our little groups of friends (and again I think a small group would provide it nicely), we forget about the world out there which needs our Godly presence. If Christians go hiding (as in not be socially visible), where is the light going to come from (remember the city on a hill).
Anyway, I'm sorry if I'm starting to be annoying. I hope, Spunky, that you'll be able to find a church where God wants you and your family to be.
Blessings to all.
I'm coming in WAY late here, but...
Have you seen this post, comparing homeschooling to emergent church stuff?
http://www.homeschoolblogger.com...process/145337/
Personally, I could resonate with a LOT of that post. I wish I'd written it myself, actually. (I'm not referring to the side of emergent that dumps all truth, but to the side that holds tightly to the Apostle's creed, but is willing to question things like "form", etc)...
I guess I'm trying to say that the traditional church structure (which my husband works full-time for, might I add), is really making me wonder. We're with a fairly conservative bunch right now...but I have to admit, the closing line of Apple's article is ME. I could have written that exact same thing.
Inviting neighbors to my "church?" No way. Do we have something that makes people thirst and hunger for God, that makes people want to learn more? I think it's pretty rare that we see anything like that happening in our congregation, at least with the adults.
I wince at what we call "church." The church is literally supposed to be a "people called out." But in our society, we've turned the word into meaning a building and it's services.
And I think we've lost so much because of that way of looking at things. I want to get back to the people part of it. And a couple services (that vary little from a public school routine, NO interaction required beyond a submissive pew-filling pose) just don't do that.
I went to a Calvary Chapel for four years during my church hopping years. I never experienced any fellowship after attending for more than 4 years, but it was the best institutional church we had attended. My husband used to call the services, shows. There were a few services to pick from in the morning. We left when it was decided that children under six grade would not be allowed in the service anymore; not even for the music. Nursing babies and moms could not sit with the dads, but in a booth for privacy or a classroom with a screen. We didn't go to church just to all go our seperate ways. The music was nice and the service was entertaining. I wasted a lot of time in institutional church. For years, I wanted a home church. I got connected to House to House, and found all sorts of stuff to read online. I never felt like there was a particular model of house church that would be a good fit for us. And we didn't find people locally that wanted to do house church either. The homeschool support group I was involved in was my Christian fellowship for years. Our meetings were so spiritually encouraging. I would often wish that somehow they would all decide to do housechurch. We are all different denominations, and there is a sweet spirit. Eventually, after having decided there was no place that we hadn't checked out in the denominations we would feel comfortable in, we gave up and stayed home. We really should have done that sooner. Eventually, God opened a door that we walked through and we have been in church for over a year. It is not institutional church. We do not have pastors, and we do have an open pulpit. We are together a close, spiritual family (35 individuals who meet and try to involve themselves into each others lives a part from Sunday and Wednesdays). We bring lunch and do a pot luck. Going to church is no longer a chore, and we stay until 2:30 in the afternoon usually. It's like going home, not to church. It's not phoney or superficial. Doctrine is not important to my husband and I as it used to be. We started off as good, sound Baptists. I knew there was so much of the Bible I wasn't learning or experiencing. I was thirsty for that, but I was jaded over my decades of not finding a place where I was learning. Messages were so simple and consisting of milk. I'm at a place where that has changed. To sum it up as to what stands out about this church the most, I'll relate the following. There is a verse in Romans about faith coming by hearing and hearing by the word of God. I had assumed that meant the written word of God, logos. It is actually the Greek word Rhema(?). That would be the word that God gives that is personal and living. Our church is about hearing from God, and we believe we each need to be hearing from him daily. I reject the method where in institutional church, the pastor hears from God and then relates what God gave him. I think that is like when Moses went to the mountain, heard from God and came back to the pe
While I agree that the emerging church cannot be compared to the institutional church. I'm not so sure that I want the emerging church and homeschooling linked together either. I've been looking into the emerging church and there isn't much of a doctrine except, "Follow Jesus". Unschooling is fine for homeschoolers, but "undoctrine" isn't fine for a church.
I understand the attraction, but saying we have not creed but Jesus isn't exactly it for me. I"m not saying a fellowship has to have TOTAL agreement on doctrine. But there are somethings that should be non negotiable otherwise heresy is to easily introduced.
J. We typed our comments together, so this was more to Molly's comment than yours.
I think that is like when Moses went to the mountain, heard from God and came back to the people. That was what the people wanted. They did not want to approach the mount out of fear. This is how it tends to be today. My husband never talked to people at church. Conversation was usually about the weather. It is different now. He is hearing from God and he is involved. We are blessed. The spiritual aspect of the Bible was a missing dimension to me. The nuggets in the old testament about the tabernacle and the priests garments are a treasure trove. I never knew. I just believed there was so much more.
Be patient for the door that God has for your family, Spunky. You may not be ready now for what he has for you. Years ago, I rejected this same church as it didn't agree with all the points of my *sound doctrines*. I wasn't pliable to the where and what God had for me. God had to make me poor to get me hungrier than I was in order to eat the food he had for me (not the food *I thought* I should have).
Clarification: My church does not consist of my homeschooling group. God gave me something that I needed, not something I would have chosen for myself. He had the better plan. Our children love our church, their family.
Marie wrote: Since Philip's doing elder responsibilities, by good and necessary inference I assume he's an elder by Acts 8.
Unfortunately, this is simply circular logic. You have built up a presupposition that preaching and baptizing are only for elders and apostles, and that leads to your "necessary inference" here in Acts 8.
That's not to say that your conclusion is necessarily wrong. It's just that you keep coming back to saying that certain things are "clearly taught", when in reality you are, by your own words, having to infer some things in order to maintain your "clearly taught" conclusions.
I want to stay on one particular issue, though, to illustrate this point. This issue of the Lord's Supper. You have claimed that the administration of the Lord's Supper is for apostles and elders with no exception.
When pressed for Scriptural evidence, what you gave was not accurate, and I have pointed that out. This is important, Marie, because a lot of your argumentation rests on this line of thinking.
All that we have recorded about the Lord's Supper in Scripture is the brief description in three of the Gospels of what Jesus said and did (exhorting his disciples to do this to remember him) and Paul's description in 1 Cor 11 where he ties it in to understanding the body of Christ (i.e., the believers) and says that the act of taking the Lord's Supper shows the Lord's death until He comes.
Now, if there is some other reference to the Lord's Supper that I'm missing, please show it to me. However, if I am correct in the previous paragraph, I must point out again that there is nothing in any of those passages that indicates anything about "administering" it, nor restricting the administration of such to certain people.
So, since you have made the point, I'm going to ask you to substantiate from all of those Scripture passages (the three Gospels, 1 Cor 11, and any passages you show me that I've missed) your claim that it is wrong for a family to celebrate the Lord's Supper together without an apostle or ordained elder there to "administer" it (whatever that means).
Yes, if we're explicitly told what elders are supposed to do, and then someone is described doing something elders are supposed to do, I assume that person is an elder. I think that's logical.
Ok, "administer it" means distribute it to everyone in the church who has made a credible profession of faith and isn't to the best of the elders' knowledge living in sin.
The directions for the Lord's Supper are, from 1st Cor 14, include "If any of you are hungry, eat at home."
So the Lord's Supper wasn't being eaten at home. It was being eaten in a church setting.
There's no other specific instruction that I can list. I repeat, I think the elders administer because the elders are explicitly told to rule the church and I believe that administering the Lord's Supper is part of ruling. I don't see how it can't be.
Question for you now: Where is the father of a household told to serve the Lord's Supper to his family?
Yes, if we're explicitly told what elders are supposed to do, and then someone is described doing something elders are supposed to do, I assume that person is an elder. I think that's logical.
Or, it could mean that those activities are not restricted to only elders.
I believe that administering the Lord's Supper is part of ruling. I don't see how it can't be.
It's fine if you want to believe that. But you can't say that Scripture teaches that, Marie. I know that Calvin and others have made these statements, but they simply are not based on Scripture.
The directions for the Lord's Supper...include "If any of you are hungry, eat at home." So the Lord's Supper wasn't being eaten at home. It was being eaten in a church setting.
As a corporate body, yes, they were partaking of the Lord's Supper in a church setting. But again, this does not restrict against partaking in any other setting.
Besides, if you want to start saying that everything you do with relation to the Lord's Supper is done in accordance with 1 Cor 11, I'm going to ask you why you aren't eating a full meal with the Lord's Supper. How could someone who is hungry be any less hungry after a small piece of a cracker and a thimble-sized glass of juice or wine? Or, even more so, how could anyone in Corinth have been getting drunk off that little itty bit of wine?
See the problem with your reasoning? You want to tell me that it can't be done in a home because in Corinth it was done in a church. But I would be willing to bet you don't apply the other parts of that passage in evaluating what is necessary for the Lord's Supper to be "legitimate".
Question for you now: Where is the father of a household told to serve the Lord's Supper to his family?
I was not making the point that fathers are told to do it. My point in response to you consistently has been that they are nowhere in Scripture forbidden from doing it.
My husband will be baptizing all our children eventually. We figure it is the spirit and symbolism that matters versus carrying out a rigid system. House church, imo, isn't just about a meeting place. It's about a different way of thinking and partaking. It's roots are in the early NT church before Constantine's(sp?) time.
J, the early church is not our textbook. The Bible is. The early church had many heresies in it, which it survived, but you should not base your behavior on it.
Nowhere in the Bible by example or direction are parents baptizing their children. Baptism is done by the apostles and elders.
Steve,
There is a biblical principle called the Regulative Principle of Worship. It is best illustrated by Nadab and Abihu, who were struck dead because they brought incense into the temple different than that which was commanded. God prescribed the worship a certain way; they improvised; and what would not be a sin outside of the worship became one and they were killed.
The Regulative Principle of Worship: What is not required in worship is forbidden.
Suppose someone at church got a notion that we should all hop on one foot during church. Normally that is not a sin. However I would never do that in the worship of God, because God sets down what we are to do in worship and hopping is not included.
I think you need to apply the Regulative Principle to your arguments. You just keep coming up with ad hominem stuff.
And . . . how can anyone who's hungry get filled up on a little bread and wine? How could anyone get drunk on a thimbleful?
Obviously, they can't. From this we learn even more that communion is a symbolical meal, a small amount. If you are hungry, eat at home! If you are drinking so much you are drunk, you are drinking too much! I don't find that inconsistent with anything I've said.
Marie,
The history of the early church that I'm talking about is in Acts. I'm okay with you or anyone else who might be inclined to think my beliefs are or border on heretical. I won't take offense and God bless you. Perhaps, my beliefs are heretical. In many aspects, I'm not firm on what I believe currently. I used to solidly believe in the rapture. Now, I'm not so sure. I no longer see the support for it in the Bible as I used to. I think that there is a type of shaking that takes place in people's lives at different times. I have had some shaking in my *solid, doctrinal* thinking. I have experienced a loss in my confidence of different doctrines.
Maybe my foundation was doctrine when it needed to be my relationship with Christ. Now major rebuilding is and has been taking place. I have not lost faith in God. I don't need to believe in the rapture, and I don't have to worry about being condemned for things like my views on Baptism. I'm accepted, because I'm His child by supernatural birth brought about by His birth, death and rising from the dead, and I'm kept by the power of His Holy Spirit. I am accepted without fear of condemnation. God is a consuming fire, but he wants to purge us from things that separate us from him, not things that are actually drawing us to him. Institutional church was killing my spiritual life. It was blowing out the fire.
I something else to add, but I'll do that separate from this comment so it won't get cut off.
Marie,
The snip/quote below is from Jackie Caporaso's newsletter which I first read this evening and thought this it is very fitting to share with you (her newsletters are online, but I can't find the link on yahoo search today):
Quote from "Everyone Who is of the Truth Hears My Voice- Jn 18:37b":
At this time the Spirit exhorts us to be sure and walk close to Him. We cannot bank on the fact that we belong to a God fearing church or that we are part of an assembly that teaches the latest and deepest word of God. We need to be in touch with Him ourselves. We can no longer open the Bible and apply every written word to ourselves unless God applies them to us personally.
It is a mistake to take the pages of the Bible and apply them to ourselves without first receiving the word from the living Christ Himself; He is alive. We are not following a written "religion", we are following a living, talking Lord and God. (end of quote)
My spirit bears witness to that, not everyone who reads it will bear witness to it as a truth.
This is offered up in humility.
Wow! I wonder if me commenting now, Steve is even worth it...this discussion has gone far beyond anything I intended with my little ol' comments.
But I will answer your questions and if you see this post great and if not...well I've babbled my 2 cents worth.
You asked if I had actually seen doctrinal abuse when we were part of a home church. The short answer is yes, I most certainly did. We (my dh and I) were part of one home church group right after I was saved. This group was led by my dh's uncle and there were 3-5 other families/couples involved off and on. I won't go into all the details, but I will tell you that it ended in my dh and I joining a branch of the reorganized Mormon church. I was a new Christian and easily influence, I knew little about God's word and was not encouraged to find out either. There's alot of road that we traveled in between joining that house church and ending up in a cult, but the story is book length and I'd never be able to do it justice here.
The next home church we were part of was years later. We were still members of the RLDS church, but were becoming suspicious and disgruntled with the organization and so we started searching for some "meat" and went to another home church. This time lead by a former RLDS church member who had left the church after researching and finding all the falsehoods about it. Long story again, but the short version is this guy didn't have all of his ducks in a row either and had apparently jumped out of the RLDS frying pan into the Word Faith movement fire. Oh, the stories I could tell of weird things that went on there, (late night, candlelit "exorcisms", supposed manifestations of angels and heavenly beings...the only thing missing was aliens and spaceships!) all the while my dh and I, still so immature in our faith (years of spiritual malnutrion will do that to a person, you know?) were lost and confused. These seemingly mature, knowlegable, well eduated, "Christians" were leading us, but we still did not feel comfortable. Of course we thought it was our fault...not walking close enough with the Lord, not finding "favor" with him, and all the other works based lines that people who don't know God's word well enough fall for.
So....(are you tired of my explanation yet Steve? Wish you hadn't asked?) So we left that home church finally, rambled and ambled for a few years more looking for "the" church for us and along the way, left the RLDS church, found out all the lies that had been dished out to us over the years and learned to test every spirit by the only hard and fast measuring stick we have...God's word.
You'd think that would leave me a bit cautious now wouldn't you? Well, I guess you're right. And that is why "checks and balances" are essential.
As a side note...the larger part of my husband's family has been involved in some home church at one point or another in their lives and I am here to tell you that EVERYONE of them with ab
Michele,
Not only am I not sorry I asked, but my heart breaks to hear your stories. I truly hate that you have experienced all of that.
My questions to you were sincere, and I appreciate you taking the time to answer them. And no, the resulting thread of comments wasn't just because of your "little ol' comments" It just kinda grew!
I appreciate you taking the time to share, and I don't blame you for feeling as cautious as you do. I don't know if it helps, but all I can say is that not everyone doing house church is flying on the fringe of lunacy.
I hope that God will meet you and your husband in whatever situation you find yourselves (church-wise and other-wise) and that your relationship with Him will far supercede the hurt and confusion that was caused by others leading you astray.
Thanks again for sharing, and answering the question I asked. I appreciate it!
steve
Steve, I have seen doctrinal abuse as well. Nothing as severe as what Michele talked about but it was definitely there. This discussion has been helpful to me and I'm sure many others. There are not easy answers. Pray and seek God's Truth that's what we're doing.
Marie,
You wrote: You just keep coming up with ad hominem stuff.
Wow. Really?? You're going to have to show me what I have said in this thread that is ad hominem, because I was certainly not aware that I was using that logical fallacy.
Please show me where I have used this so that I can correct it immediately on the record. It was never, ever my intent to attack anyone personally.
steve
Spunky, I do understand that. More than some here might realize.
I guess where I'm coming from is that I am not convinced that doctrinal abuse is the domain of any particular model of church. Doctrinal abuse is a spiritual issue that manifests itself in any form of church or fellowship where Jesus Christ is not allowed to function as the head of His own body.
I have tried not to get too defensive in this thread, because I realize that I don't have all of the answers. But I really do try to help people see that it's not house churches that are the tool of the devil. It's things like (as one example) leaders who are more interested in building their own ministries than being used by Christ.
This happens in the IC as well! Just like Michele's horror stories, I could share my own horror stories of spiritual abuse that took place in the IC. I was cursed by name from the pulpit one time because I didn't attend a particular service one time and nobody else there knew how to play the particular song that the senior pastor wanted to sing. He got angry and told the congregation, "I am praying the judgment of God on Steve Sensenig unless he repents and gets back here where he belongs. The Holy Spirit was grieved tonight because He [the Holy Spirit] wanted this song sung, and Steve wasn't here to play it." (I heard it on a tape of the service, lest anyone think I am going on hearsay.)
Now people will just say, "Oh, that wasn't a godly church, then." Exactly my point. There will be house churches that abuse. There will be institutional churches that abuse. There are parents who abuse, but we don't say that all parents are abusers.
And yet somehow, I've been the one accused of using ad hominem attacks. I don't get that.
Oh dear. That is a terrible thing Steve and to be honest with you...I've seen that too. I'm sorry you suffered so.
I agree that doctrinal abuse is in all churches, Steve. I have experienced in the traditional church setting as well. I didn't mean to imply that it was just in the house churches.
Steve,
I just wanted to offer this in case you haven't thought of it this way.
Water in scripture is sometimes symbolic of the Word.
Jer. 23:1-5
Ez. 34 - the whole chapter, but in particular v. 18 & 19
Their is some fairly polluted, toxic Word out there which you have experienced. But God planned for this and is delivering *HIS* flock. Praise His name! We have found our Shepherd and He is more than sufficient!
J,
His sheep definitely know His voice! Thanks for your encouraging comments in this conversation.
steve
You're very welcome!
I guess I used ad hominem wrongly, and I apologize.
By ad hominem, I meant random, coming from all over the place.
This discussion has been cordial from the beginning and I'd love it to remain so.
Wow! You guys sure know how to keep this going. I like friendly discussions on just about anything, so this is nice!
I have a question, though. We keep dividing between "institutional" churches and "home" churches. Where exactly does that come from and is it really accurate? My understanding is that "the church" is an institution.
by definition:
2. Establishment; that which is appointed, prescribed or founded by authority,and intended to be permanent. Thus we speak of the institutions of Moses or Lycurgus. We apply the word institution to laws, rites, and ceremonies, which are enjoined by authority as permanent rules of conduct or of government.
Instituted by God and intended to be permanent...I only ask because it is beginning to take on a perjorative sense and it does seem we could come up with a better description.
Spunky,
My heart goes out to your family and all families that have found the institutional church or home churches filled with apostasy and gross negligence of the Word, or have suffered from abuse of power. I know that that can be quite damaging.
One suggestion I have for your family, or any family, is to read Harvey Bluedorn's (of Trivium Pursuit) "Biblical Evidence for House Assemblies".
http://www.triviumpursuit.com/ca...g/
old_paths.htm
Families searching may find some Biblically sound answers in that booklet. It may also challenge some thinking about incorporation & 501(c) and the Lord's Supper.
Oh, who am I you ask? I am just a wife & mother in Northern Illinois seeking the Lord with all of my heart, soul and mind, who's family has been out of the IC for over 3 years now and, *gasp, gasp,* home churches with our family alone. Yes, I know that I've just opened myself up to much criticism from among the "brethren" but I am quite used to it by now. The Lord loves our family, of this I'm quite sure of, and has brought us very far in our journey with Him. As we daily & weekly seek to worship Him in spirit and truth, He has gotten rid of much dross and false teachings and man's tradition. Our worship or "church" is about as simple as it gets. Why hasn't the Lord brought us other families to worship with? I have no idea, just some speculations, but I'm not doubting Him and His plan for us. Is my husband some spiritual giant? No, he is a quite, meek and gentle man who the Lord is also performing the good work he has begun in him until the day of Jesus Christ. We are disciples of Jesus Christ.
I also want to say that I know two other women and one other family that have completely come out of the IC and home churches. Each woman worships the Lord alone and the other family has come out of some nasty home church situations. Why don't we all church together you say? The Lord has not brought us together in this way. Pure and simple. What are all of the people supposed to do who refuse to live under false teaching and who refuse to partake in the Lord's Supper with virtual strangers or unrepentant people?
One more comment (sorry this is so long now). As our family has sought the Lord and His ways more and more and have come out from "pop culture" and "pop church culture", we are more and more rejected by the professing "brethren". No, it's not that we are some weird cult or are doing bizarre things (well, maybe not watching tv or listening to CCM is kind of bizarre in America, but c'mon, it doesn't make your family into a legalistic cult or anything!) Even though we don't partake in many "pop cultural" things, we still are very loving and kind people, do not judge others by what the Lord has shown us, and are willing (for the most part) to fellowship with other believers, but we have found that "Christians" reject us. I often wonder why that is...
May the Lord bless your family
Thank you Spunky for referring me to your page] So if Paul was often writing to "the church in such and such a city" and would say things like "greet the church that meets in so-and-so's house" then don't we know that he considered the church the WHOLE body of Christ and the church he was greeting was "the church in this regional area" and also that people met in homes? Well, what does this mean to us for organizing the church today? Obviously, if there is a model to follow we want to follow it. What if we considered "the church" not just the people we attend church with, or meet with, but all Christians everywhere? (one holy, catholic [small 'c'] church) If that is true, writing to the "church at wherever" is writing to "every Christian that resides within that town" If this is true, then we can assume that the Christians at Ephesus or Corinth or Galatia or wherever all had enough dealings with each other that an apostolic letter could be passed around by all the Christians (or followers of the Way as they more likely called themselves) freely for all to read. What does this then tell us? Whether there was one church, or many churches (which in some locations there were "greet the church in so and so's house was an ending so at least one epistle) [sorry, don't have my bible on me, can't find exact reference] we know that there were no divisions in the cities that would make that kind of communication impossible. This is my idea, although I don't know how "inspired" or not it is. If the early church had more than one group meeting in a city, but the church in that city was meant to mean all Christians in that city, how can we think of the church as being divided within a city? The council of elders did not look like, although I may be mistaken, it was only the elders within one "church" it looked like it was the elders for the entire church within that city - which would include many house churches. Obviously there are many doctrinal differences between Christians, but shouldn't we still seek unity within Christ's body? If we meet in separate churches and house churches, shouldn't there still be some sort of unity? In that, if elders from all the house churches met in a council, there would be an entity to deal with fatal doctrinal differences, yet preserve how different people worship God differently. This would lead to MORE checks and balances as mentioned (if one house church gets out of line the leadership of all the house churches could "check and balance", yet you have no one person who is "leading" the church instead of Christ.
Another problem that would be solved in this is that the church today tends to divide itself into groups of people who are most similar to each other and therefore least likely to "sharpen each other as iron sharpens iron". We get all the "hands" in one church, all the "hearts" in another etc. This creates a dislocated body that does not function as well as
I think this is where I got cut off....
This creates a dislocated body that does not function as well as it can or ought. If we focused a little more on unity (not minimizing true heretical differences, but only ones of debatable doctrine) then we could work more together towards helping the poor, sharing the Good News, etc. We could also more effectively BE His body. This is why I'd like to see more community within each group that meets and all the churches in an area working together and even having a common leadership, while having their regular community be one where you don't have the one church/one pastor model that is currently in the American mainstream.
My personal experience is interesting. I was raised by liberal Christian parents in a strictly Bible-believing church (on an island you don't have many options). My parents were not allowed to teach the children in the church their more liberal Christian notions, but were accepted as fellow Christians into the body there. When I went to college I attended more conservative Bible-believing churches. Currently, God has called me to attend a church that is completely different from my background, not because I'm like them but because I'm so much NOT like them. I think that's why God wants me there. Not from what I get out of it, or how I feel comfortable (I don't) but because I have something to give it and to serve it. This is not easy. It is very, very hard. I am also a part of a house church that meets on a different day. I'm doing my best to do as God wants, apart from a cultural bias and trying my best to interpret scripture correctly. Let me know if anyone has thoughts. I know this was a little disjointed. I'm sorry!
I know there are some things that may or may not be best in my ideas, but I think there are some very real concerns and ideas as well.
Sensible conclusion in my opinion Alexandra - obviously the Christians in any given area were reading the epistle together, not all isolated from each other.
Commenting by HaloScan
