The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum House Church?

A friend of mine who is interested in the house church movement recently recommended a book, Pagan Christianity, by Frank Viola. It appears basically to be an indictment of current church practice, particularly as regards weekly gathering in a church building. I have not read the book. But I wrote to my friend that I do not think that meeting together weekly for worship in a building set aside for that purpose is pagan or unbiblical, and I mentioned that many early Christians frequently rented halls for large groups. I also said that sermons are derived from Jewish practice. He responded as follows:<br><br><blockquote>Yes, early Christians did occasionally rent halls for large meetings which were special occasions. Those were the exception. Their normal practice was to be a community, meeting in homes or the like. And the sermon as we know it does not have its roots in the synagogues. This is a case of Christians reading our modern practices into the Bible. "Sermons" in synagogues were dialogues. Any member of the synagogue could speak. The sermon as we know it comes straight from pagan philosophers' practice of "rhetoric."</blockquote><br><br>Can anyone verify or falsify these claims? [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/help.gif" alt="help" title="help[/img]<br><br>I don't know, but my impression of the house church movement has been that it more frequently involves an anti-authority mindset than a genuine return to a New Testament pattern. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/shrug.gif" alt="shrug" title="shrug[/img]

Sermons pagan? Try telling that to Jesus, Peter, and Paul!<br><br>JESUS<br><br>Matthew 5:1-2<br><br>1 When Jesus saw the crowds, He went up on the mountain; and after He sat down, His disciples came to Him. <br>2 He opened His mouth and began to teach them<br><br>Jesus speaks uninterrupted until Mark 8:1<br><br>1 When Jesus came down from the mountain, large crowds followed Him. <br><br>(Ohhh...Does this make it a "three chapter/point" sermon?)<br><br><br>PETER<br><br>Acts 2:14-36<br><br>14 But Peter, taking his stand with the eleven, raised his voice and declared to them: "Men of Judea and all you who live in Jerusalem, let this be known to you and give heed to my words. <br><br>The famous Pentecost sermon follows<br><br><br>PAUL<br><br>Acts 17:22-31<br><br>22 So Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, "Men of Athens, I observe that you are very religious in all respects.<br><br>Paul gives his Mars Hill sermon at Athens.<br>

Marie,<br><br>I thought of those and will mention them to him. But I think he may respond that they were not in a church setting, or that Christ and the Apostles had special authority. We shall see.

This "house church" movement has always been a contentious issue. Those that advocate it are wanting to "pick and choose" certain items which they allege are getting back to the basics. However, they are utterly inconsistent in their attempts as they deliberately ignore so many other things which are recorded as being done during the infancy of the N.T. church. It is expected that with the inauguration of the Gospel being proclaimed by the disciples, that there would be few who would come to hear them. In fact, it is indicated that they were to go from house to house initially. Later on, it is clear that as the number of believers grew in an area, there was a central place of meeting. (cf. 1Cor 11:17ff; 14:23ff; 16:2; et al) With the great number of believers that were in large cities, e.g., Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus, Colossae, etc., it is doubtful that a case could be made that they ALL met in a single home, which doubtless were quite small in physical size.<br><br>Secondly, on this matter of preaching/sermons originating from pagan philosophers, this too is poppycock! [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/laugh.gif" alt="laugh" title="laugh[/img] There are at least 45 instances in the N.T. where the word "preach" (karrusoo, euggalizoo) appear. One of the most salient texts is found in 2Tim 4:2 - "preach the word; be urgent in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching.". As you can plainly see, preaching is used in distinction to reproof, exhortation and teaching. The command was given by Paul, who at this time was instrumental in the building of the organized church (cf. Eph 2:20-22) and which was near completion as an organization, to Timothy, an ordained Elder. Your friend is either ignorant of or choosing to ignore the progressive design of revelation, specifically as it pertains to the development of the church.<br><br>He would do well to read through:<ul>[*]The Scripture Doctrine of the Church by Douglas Bannerman</li>[*]The Church of Christ (2 Vols) by James Bannerman.</li>[/LIST]In His Grace,<br><br>In His Grace,

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]I don't know, but my impression of the house church movement has been that it more frequently involves an anti-authority mindset than a genuine return to a New Testament pattern.</font><hr></blockquote><p> <br><br><br>(Fred) I look forward to other's thoughts upon this issue, but your comment is what I have encountered. Pratically every house church supporter I have come across is someone who is basically leading a group of people who couldn't get along with their original church denomination. They either had discipline problems, got rubbed wrong by someone, or just don't like authority itself. I am sure there are legitmate individuals who hold to housechurches, but the ones I have come across have all been a little wacked, doctrinalwise.<br><br>Fred

I would like some advice in dealing with a related, but perplexing situation. <br><br>For the last 5 years, my wife and I attended a relatively large United Methodist church wherein, for the last 2 years, I served as Lay Leader. Within that tenure as Lay Leader, the Holy Spirit revealed the truth contained in Reformed doctrine. As a result, I tried to teach it accordingly without being divisive or appearing unloving to the established Arminian culture.<br><br>Unfortunately, while doing so, I realized the degree my teachings were contrary to the Senior Pastor's doctrine and I therefore stopped teaching. The last thing I wanted to do was create schism in the church. After trying to ignore the issue for a while and realizing the error, we eventually decided to seek another place of worship. The parting was very much peaceful and I continue to meet regularly with most of the congregation. <br><br>Nevertheless, we are now seeking a new church. Unfortunately, there is no reformed church (or a church that subscribes to reformed teaching) anywhere close to our home. <br><br>So, my question to you is: would a house church be ok in this situation? About 15-20 of our friends/acquaintances also subscribe to Reformed doctrine and we are all interested in meeting regularly.<br><br>Ideas? Comments?

Tim,<br><br>First of all, have you tried posting your location and what type of church you are looking for in the Church Locator Forum?<br><br>Secondly, there is nothing wrong (unbiblical) with a group of believers joining together in one's home for the purpose of worship and mutual edification. Of course, without an ordained Elder, the sacraments could not be administered. It would be prudent that the group discuss seeking a man to serve as pastor/teacher of the group from some of the conservative Calvinistic denominations. One that particularly comes to mind is the "United Reformed Church". RefDoc, one of the Moderators here could point you in the right direction as far as where to find further information about the denomination and who to contact, etc. Others may have suggestions as well. If you are of the credo-Baptist persuasion, then perhaps you might contact a group such as "The Founders" for information. Fredman might be able to help you further with them. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img]<br><br>In His Grace,

Hi Tim,<br><br>If you have about 15-20 friends who would be interested in starting a Reformed church, then I would encourage you to contact a Reformed denomination, such as the OPC, to request a church plant. I don't believe that you should begin your own church without an ordained man, so I would suggest you look into some of the Reformed denominations and make a request to begin a church in your area.<br><br>My $.02,<br><br>~Jason<br>

Tim,<br>I used to be United Methodist years ago as well.<br>At any rate, I don't think it is so much the idea of Christians meeting in houses that is at issue with me. It is the fundamental attitude I disagree with that states that meeting in houses is the NT doctrine of church, and if Christians are not meeting regularly in homes, but in a centrally located church affiliated with a denomination, then they are considered spiritually crippled or unwilling to submit to the Bible's teaching on this matter. <br>In your situation, it would probably be acceptable to have a church in your home where there are like mind Christians desiring to worship together and learn scripture. I would caution, however, about just starting it off the cuff and setting up the meeting times to be nothing more than everyone getting together to sing a few songs to an out of tune guitar, then throwing out their two cents worth about what each individual thinks the Bible is saying about the passage being studied. There needs to be a qualified man, or men, who has the ability to teach and pastor and to exercise authority as an elder, as well as train and appoint elders. I believe that is key. Moreover, unlike most housechurch oriented folks, this man, if he so agrees to take on this role, should be supported by the group financially. Practically speaking, that may not happen immediately, at least not in the full time sense, but that should be the goal, in my opinion.<br><br>Just my thoughts,<br><br>Fred

Thank you all for the advice.<br>

I appreciate what Pilgrim is saying here. When we came into the doctrines of grace 30 years ago in Florida we did not leave our churches because we could not get along with others, it was simply that the premil-dispensationalism, arminian gospel was all that was around for all we knew. As Baptist is was difficult to know where to go to find the gospel, and even our mentor, Dr. David Freeman who helped start the OPC would travel 2 hours to receive the Lord' Table. We had a pastor(who was ordained) and I must say those are some of the most precious memories of worship I can remember. We sang from the Gadsby Hymnal, without any music most of the time, and then of course we had the sermon. It was a very serious group of people who loved one another, who wanted to learn the Word and glorify Christ. We would stay for lunch we had all brought, and then sit around the afternoon discussing scripture and singing more.<br><br>The pastor left to take a "big" church and we were left to ourselves. But it still speaks much of what is lacking today.

Hi there,<br>reformed, unreformed, yada yada yada yada . . . the thing you have to think about is what the Bible says. The house church is absolutely biblical - not to say that the large congregation is unbiblical. I think of the verse that says, "everything is permissible for me, but not everything is beneficial. . . ." Yes, I know that is basically talking about food and habits and stuff like that, but the truth spills out into this issue of how we worship and where we worship. The statement, "I will not be mastered by the traditions of the church," could be used in this case. The tradition of the church - even the evangelical, bible-believing, non-cult, bible-believing church - has become big services, one speaker, services planned out (largely by the mind of man) for months, sometimes years, ahead of time. <br>Back to the point - beneficial<br>Not everything is beneficial, and some things that are beneficial are not as beneficial as God wants them to be. We'll take the issue of fellowship, for example. Fellowship is supposed to be beneficial. It is supposed to be a time when people get together, worship, teach, learn, listen, grow in Christ and unity with each other. <br>I think the Bible clearly teaches that we should have beneficially maximized fellowship. God wants our gatherings to promote true biblical fellowship. If that means meeting in a home, then meet in a home. If you can meet w/ other people of like mind whose goal it is to pursue holiness and righteousness with other believers; to grow, to serve, to be transformed - then go do it. If you need to meet in a home, then meet in a home. That's a great start; where two or more are gathered together. That's a worship service. That's church! <br>Whatever you do, don't balk on fellowship. Have what you can. Don't hold out for what you consider to be perfect. But don't settle for monotonous, impersonal fellowship - even if you have to start there.<br>This is an extremely important issue. I pray that God directs your steps and leads you into dynamic fellowship.<br>Adios hermano,<br>DN

The Bible gives the requirements for who can administer the "sacraments." I am sure if somebody among them is actually mature enough to desire this type of dynamic fellowship then they can conduct their "services" w/o an "ordained" minister/pastor/whatever. Maybe their first meeting should be naming leaders. After that five minutes is up, they can move on w/ their meeting. <br>Goodness, this is what kills me! If a family of five were stranded on a dessert island would you tell them to wait to have a service until some denomination could send a rep? <br>I know that this isn't something to be taken lightly, but seriously, the Bible gives the guidelines, and if somebody meets the requirements, then proceed w/ caution.<br>Much love from the central side,<br>DN

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]The Bible gives the requirements for who can administer the "sacraments."</font><hr></blockquote><p>And the biblical passages which give us the requirements are . . . ?<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Maybe their first meeting should be naming leaders. After that five minutes is up, they can move on w/ their meeting.</font><hr></blockquote><p>I've heard of things moving along at a good pace, but really..... "5 minutes" to choose godly men (I'm assuming you don't subscribe to women in office, according to the biblical guidelines. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img] ) that are responsible for preaching, teaching, discipline and general oversight of a group of believers? <br><br>In His Grace,

I do not think this would be a bad idea, given your circumstances. My concern with the house church movement is not the meeting in private houses, of course, but the attitude that meeting in private houses is a necessary part of the solution to the modern church's many problems and that it is the only biblically sound option.