Jude 2

Recently I have had several conversations with Christians that have become disillusioned with their church for various reasons. perhaps it is with their local church, but usually it is with their church organization (denomination).

They then proceed to want to discuss that they have decided that "organized church" is not biblical, since the early church groups met in homes, etc. and further that they are going to stop attending church and start just having devotions at home with their family. or perhaps invite others to come over as well.

While there may be legitimate reason for their being disgruntled, no matter what I say, otherwise seems to help them in a direction that it is God's plan and intention for a church-type fellowship, gathering.

In Church last night, I even mentioned that it might be possible that someone could survive in an environment like that, but that they would not thrive as a Christian.

the "gathering of ourselves", seems to be getting more and more lost in the current generations. what do you do to promote church attendance? is church there for the "saved" or for everyone?

I have alluded to it but not just spelled it out on here, but it is my firm conviction that the home church model is the best one. I won't explain why here because there's absolutely no way to explain it without insulting the work that others are doing in what we recognize as "church". There would be no insult intended, but I don't know how people can pour themselves into it, hear my thoughts on it, and feel any other way.

What I do know and do feel free to say is that what's happening now is not working. The "institution" of Christianity, at least in America, that is so inextricably tied into how it meets is also inextricably intertwined with the very "world system" that evangelicals, fundementalists, pentecostals, etc. have come to (rightly) identify as an enemy of Christ. I don't think a real separation from the church's dependence on the "world system" (I don't know what else to call it, but I hate that phrase) is practicable without a pullout from central, "neutral" meeting places and a move into private homes. I also think the home is the best launching point for domestic mission work and is closer to the NT model of assembly than any other in existence in our nation today. It certainly seems to be working in China.

I think that anyone who bases their discontent on "organization" is mislead, however. God "organized" life itself. Life as a believer in community with other believers has God's order to recommend to it a certain kind of organization. That disdain for "organization" is what causes fear and panic and revulsion in so many Christians toward the idea of home churches. Both are wrong. Order is necessary and biblical, but it can thrive and totally energize and work, perhaps better, in a home-church setting. The culture is not turning toward a more Christ-like view of life by the actions of the larger "culturally relevant" churches, which at least have relational and missional motivations that lacked in more traditional forms of church in America in recent decades.

dolfan wrote:I have alluded to it but not just spelled it out on here, but it is my firm conviction that the home church model is the best one. I won't explain why here because there's absolutely no way to explain it without insulting the work that others are doing in what we recognize as "church". There would be no insult intended, but I don't know how people can pour themselves into it, hear my thoughts on it, and feel any other way.

What I do know and do feel free to say is that what's happening now is not working. The "institution" of Christianity, at least in America, that is so inextricably tied into how it meets is also inextricably intertwined with the very "world system" that evangelicals, fundementalists, pentecostals, etc. have come to (rightly) identify as an enemy of Christ. I don't think a real separation from the church's dependence on the "world system" (I don't know what else to call it, but I hate that phrase) is practicable without a pullout from central, "neutral" meeting places and a move into private homes. I also think the home is the best launching point for domestic mission work and is closer to the NT model of assembly than any other in existence in our nation today. It certainly seems to be working in China.

I think that anyone who bases their discontent on "organization" is mislead, however. God "organized" life itself. Life as a believer in community with other believers has God's order to recommend to it a certain kind of organization. That disdain for "organization" is what causes fear and panic and revulsion in so many Christians toward the idea of home churches. Both are wrong. Order is necessary and biblical, but it can thrive and totally energize and work, perhaps better, in a home-church setting. The culture is not turning toward a more Christ-like view of life by the actions of the larger "culturally relevant" churches, which at least have relational and missional motivations that lacked in more traditional forms of church in America in recent decades.

Well, give our government a few more years and we'll all be like China and only have home churches.

Wow, home churches, really? I don't see that at all...

dolfan wrote:I have alluded to it but not just spelled it out on here, but it is my firm conviction that the home church model is the best one.

How's that working for you so far?

I mean, if you are sold on the model, are you actively engaged in it? This weekend?

No, PG, it isn't working in my life. That's for sure. I don't want to be dishonest or an armchair critic, either. And, until I can say that it is working actively in my life, anything else I do say on that topic smacks of hypocrisy. I don't want it to, but I know it does. All I can honestly do is give my opinion and read what's going on. That is precisely why I am not going to sit here and pontificate on all of the problems with the way things are done now --- because I'm presently not doing anything any closer to what I understand to be NT living (or, more correctly, nothing at all) than anyone here. In fact, relatively speaking, I'm a ways behind.

Am I disturbed by all of this? Oh, yeah, big time. But, that counts zilch. Am I stirred by what I do believe to be the NT kind of life? Very much so, but I lack either the skill or the power or the sense or the something-I-can't-put-my-finger-on to explain what I see in a compelling way.

I gladly accept the loving chide of your question. I wish I could answer "yes" today, and then go on to explain how.

I was wondering.....

The NT model wasn't necessarily a "model"...but a necessity.

1. They started in the home because they kept getting run out of the synagogues, or that's where they had to start with their initial contact in the Gentile countries.

2. When they got bigger in number and more organized (needing deacons to help wait tables and feed the widows)....the religious and Roman governments started to clamp down...hiring "Saul" to persecute the churches. Soon they had to give up their "commuities" and flee and be scattered and go underground.

3. Eventually, the Roman government started putting them to death...so worshipping in secret and even in caves (just like I saw a Chinese video recently) became the norm.

4. Finally, the household of Ceasar was saved and the persecution was stopped and the church grew out in the open again. History, I believe tells us that by the 1st Century, they were in larger church buildings (the national news even recently reported finding one from that time period)....

but by this time...the church had clout and influence in the government, prosperity and sin within it. Read Revelations 2&3.

5. Historically, the dark ages came and we all know the history of the world...then the reformation...the puritans...the iron and bamboo curtains, etc.


So here we are again:

Prosperity, numerous and large churches, clout in government, even sin. Freedom...Good and bad for the church.

However, the clamp down has started. Large churches, tracts of land, large $$$ intake.....weirdos on TV drawing attention to it all. Not paying taxes. The government is eyeing this and will make changes.

Churches grow in quantity during prosperity.
Christianity grows in quality (and numbers) during persecution.

Periods of prosperity for the church never lasts forever...

So who knows...your wish just may come true....not because we wish it...but just like the early church...out of necessity.

However....if we are not faithful during prosperity...what makes us think we'll be faithful during persecution?

(My local church started in a home, went to a smaller building, then into the larger one we have now that seats about 300...but first and foremost...building or no building...home or cave...we want to serve the Lord.)

However....if we are not faithful during prosperity...what makes us think we'll be faithful during persecution?

It's a question for the ages. Human tendency is to be self-reliant, self-absorbed and just plain old selfish during prosperous times. That's not to say that people don't also increase good conduct in prosperity. Charitable work --- meaning voluntary, deliberate gestures and acts of good will for less fortunate people, here -- is heightened when more people prosper. But, oftentimes, the motivation is less about love than about gaining a good feeling about oneself. And, people ought to feel good about good works, but for real charity that is Christ-like love, that feeling isn't the payoff. Rather, the benefit to the other is the real benefit instead of the "good vibes" one feels when helping. That, I think, is a big difference between what we'd call charity and what we think of more as philanthropy.

In persecution, though, helping one another is as you say -- a necessity. People are not independent and distant. "Life's straitened circumstances," as Ulysses McGill would call them, forces people into another way of thinking of themselves and the people around them. And, I think that way is a better way overall. It isn't that people are more faithful in hard times. Crooked people wear rags as well as they do Armani suits. But, hard times produce a quality in people that requires more trust in and need of one's neighbor, and by that also requires some more concern for them. It is more mutual, more relational even. That's why I believe those circumstances of persecution witness greater movement of the gospel message to more people. Not because people just NEED more good news but because people are actually more closely akin to life in the very ways that Christ demonstrated and even described in his arrival sermon in the synagogue (I have come to heal the sick, etc.).

Now, insofar as that kind of living is probably (as I see it) more likely and better suited for a house church model, I think I'll hold off on that. Again, I don't want to be a hypocrite.

dolfan wrote:

However....if we are not faithful during prosperity...what makes us think we'll be faithful during persecution?

It's a question for the ages. Human tendency is to be self-reliant, self-absorbed and just plain old selfish during prosperous times. That's not to say that people don't also increase good conduct in prosperity. Charitable work --- meaning voluntary, deliberate gestures and acts of good will for less fortunate people, here -- is heightened when more people prosper. But, oftentimes, the motivation is less about love than about gaining a good feeling about oneself. And, people ought to feel good about good works, but for real charity that is Christ-like love, that feeling isn't the payoff. Rather, the benefit to the other is the real benefit instead of the "good vibes" one feels when helping. That, I think, is a big difference between what we'd call charity and what we think of more as philanthropy.

In persecution, though, helping one another is as you say -- a necessity. People are not independent and distant. "Life's straitened circumstances," as Ulysses McGill would call them, forces people into another way of thinking of themselves and the people around them. And, I think that way is a better way overall. It isn't that people are more faithful in hard times. Crooked people wear rags as well as they do Armani suits. But, hard times produce a quality in people that requires more trust in and need of one's neighbor, and by that also requires some more concern for them. It is more mutual, more relational even. That's why I believe those circumstances of persecution witness greater movement of the gospel message to more people. Not because people just NEED more good news but because people are actually more closely akin to life in the very ways that Christ demonstrated and even described in his arrival sermon in the synagogue (I have come to heal the sick, etc.).

Now, insofar as that kind of living is probably (as I see it) more likely and better suited for a house church model, I think I'll hold off on that. Again, I don't want to be a hypocrite.

Persecution and adversity are the great levelers aren't they?

Not only will we need each other more.

We ALL need God more. Our self-sufficiency is ripped away.

Our covenant is two directional.....vertical with God and horizontal with each other.

RamboPreacher wrote:Recently I have had several conversations with Christians that have become disillusioned with their church for various reasons. perhaps it is with their local church, but usually it is with their church organization (denomination).

They then proceed to want to discuss that they have decided that "organized church" is not biblical, since the early church groups met in homes, etc. and further that they are going to stop attending church and start just having devotions at home with their family. or perhaps invite others to come over as well.

While there may be legitimate reason for their being disgruntled, no matter what I say, otherwise seems to help them in a direction that it is God's plan and intention for a church-type fellowship, gathering.

In Church last night, I even mentioned that it might be possible that someone could survive in an environment like that, but that they would not thrive as a Christian.

the "gathering of ourselves", seems to be getting more and more lost in the current generations. what do you do to promote church attendance? is church there for the "saved" or for everyone?

Certinally asubject that has been around as long as the Church. Their are many pro's and con's for both the traditional church as their is for the home church. I have a friend who is a very prominant leader in the House church movement here in the Us and also overseas. While he and I agree on some points we do have many differences. One large discrepencies that I have with the house church movement is generally centered areound "Motive"

During the early charismatic renewal the motive was generally centered arounf the fact, that people in mainline churches were receiving the indwelling of the Holy Spirit with tongues and were no longer welcome in their denomination. Therefore their was a greater necessity for house churches.

Today the Motive seems to be centered around "not being fed" "no longer relevent" and many times " problems with leadership, or not wanting to be under authority ( bad experiences) in my oponion these are wrong Motives.

A term I recently came across, in my oponion is at the heart of the Churches problem and why people are seeking a different alternative. That is "Convergence." It is said that 80% of the leaders in the body of Christ never make it into the calling that God has for them in their lives.

Convergence is were we the church and especially leaders help our people to understand, develop and utilize their unique talents, giftings and annointings to make a real impact in the world.

We generally do this to some extent for those who are going into ministry leadership but seldom accomplish this in the lives of the people. We have failed to see the necessity of this convergence taking place in Education, Media, Government, Family, and the Business world.

The result is the vast majority of believers feel under used, of little value and never really feeling self fulfilled in their gift. So, the constant search for more, something better something different. The result is church hoping, house church movements.....

The safety is for house churches to be tied to a local church body...Safety, accountability, and authority that is their for their protection.

I've often asked myself what I would do or how I would do church if I wasn't limited by traditional practices and mindsets. I like the concept of home churches. I think, Biblically, they were attended by more than one family. I don't think "Family Devotions" constitutes church unless there are no other believers available. Having said that, I do believe there are times when we should get together corporately and I believe the NT church did that when it was possible and feasible (Solomon's Porch, the upper room, synagogues, private synagogues, and outdoors). There must be a working together and God designed we needed each believer's ministries to accomplish the work of the Body of Christ. Thus, I believe church should consist both of home churches and mass meetings.

I do believe Christians FOR CENTURIES have been practicing their faith in a manner not intended by Christ.
Jesus taught worshipping God in Spirit and in truth IN CONTRAST TO the worship of God in man-made temples. Yet today our practices seem to be based around that temple design. We even refer to our meeting halls as the "temple of God." Our churches are designed like the ancient basilicas and even temples. Our benches are pews, our windows are stained glass, our Bible stand is a pulpit, our prayer benches are altars. We dress up to come and have our order of service, center our worship around the day we come to that meeting hall, we teach a special conduct and respect for that place above other places ("Don't do that in church.") when those thoughts should be in our minds at all times. We are the temple and worship should be happening in us and through us at all times and in all places.

We have poured finances into facilities decorating them with unnecessary and costly extras while brothers and sisters in other countries (fellow Christians) are living in cardboard boxes. The youth of today are correctly questioning that inconsistency.

Having said that, I will return Sunday and do the best I can within the traditions and system to which I am accustomed.

I'm probably a coward for doing so but at least I'm honest

Pastorbps wrote:I do believe Christians FOR CENTURIES have been practicing their faith in a manner not intended by Christ.
Jesus taught worshipping God in Spirit and in truth IN CONTRAST TO the worship of God in man-made temples. Yet today our practices seem to be based around that temple design. We even refer to our meeting halls as the "temple of God." Our churches are designed like the ancient basilicas and even temples.

Interesting. We meet in an elementary school cafeteria. By choice.

Pastorbps wrote:Our benches are pews,

We sit at cafeteria tables.

Pastorbps wrote:our windows are stained glass,

Jalousies.

Pastorbps wrote:our Bible stand is a pulpit,

A black music stand.

Pastorbps wrote:our prayer benches are altars.

No prayer benches.

Pastorbps wrote: We dress up to come and have our order of service,

Shorts/jeans and t-shirts are pretty common "church clothes" where we are.

Pastorbps wrote:center our worship around the day we come to that meeting hall,

Got us there. We are way too Sunday @ 10 focused.

Pastorbps wrote:we teach a special conduct and respect for that place above other places ("Don't do that in church.") when those thoughts should be in our minds at all times.

Uhhh... not so much, other than the common social courtesy of respect.

Pastorbps wrote:We have poured finances into facilities decorating them with unnecessary and costly extras

See above.

Pastorbps wrote:while brothers and sisters in other countries (fellow Christians) are living in cardboard boxes.

That'll preach, right there.

Pastorbps wrote:The youth of today are correctly questioning that inconsistency.

Amen.

dolfan wrote:No, PG, it isn't working in my life. That's for sure. I don't want to be dishonest or an armchair critic, either. And, until I can say that it is working actively in my life, anything else I do say on that topic smacks of hypocrisy. I don't want it to, but I know it does. All I can honestly do is give my opinion and read what's going on. That is precisely why I am not going to sit here and pontificate on all of the problems with the way things are done now --- because I'm presently not doing anything any closer to what I understand to be NT living (or, more correctly, nothing at all) than anyone here. In fact, relatively speaking, I'm a ways behind.

Am I disturbed by all of this? Oh, yeah, big time. But, that counts zilch. Am I stirred by what I do believe to be the NT kind of life? Very much so, but I lack either the skill or the power or the sense or the something-I-can't-put-my-finger-on to explain what I see in a compelling way.

I gladly accept the loving chide of your question. I wish I could answer "yes" today, and then go on to explain how.

Dolfan just so you know I respect you so much because of your blatant honesty. You are not afraid to say exactly how you feel and I find that very humbling!!!

dolfan wrote:I gladly accept the loving chide of your question. I wish I could answer "yes" today, and then go on to explain how.

And I appreciate the fact that you recognize the love in my question. You have been an almost amputated part of the body far too long. If you can't get reattached in a church setting, perhaps you might attempt to provide a home church model for others like you in your area.

bottom line fact is the only reason the nt church meet in homes was because there were no church buildings for them at that time. i still and always will believe that those that refuse to place them selves under church gov. do so because they do not want to answer to anyone or be held accountable. only my opinion, but its held fast and my mind will not be changed. just know to many people with the home church excuse!!!