Menu

the House Church Movement in America

M
Mattie

George Barna recently wrote a book called "Revolution" stating that many believers are leaving the institutional church and gathering in homes, hoping to recover what the first century had. He has also written the foreward to a book by Frank Viola titled "Pagan Christianity" which attempts to explore the roots of alot of our modern day church methods. Him and Frank, along with a host of many others believe that there will be increasing numbers within America and the world who will return to the home meetings.

What do you think of the house church "restoration" movement? What are your thoughts on leaving "institutional" church? It's been said that this return to the "organic", simple church life is just as radical as the reformation itself. What are your thoughts on these statements?

S
sermonindex

I dont think it's a good idea at all.

Krispy

PS... just kidding. I'm deeply entrenched in the house church "movement".

M
Mattie

Thanks for the response Krispy.. But please elaborate as to why...

S
sojourner7

A return to the "vine" would be a good thing.
The church has become more about methods, programs,
membership, and less and less about being a
community of believers who serve as the body of
Christ. I came to know the Lord in a small "vine"
fellowship and was greatly blessed and nurtured by
this close communion!!

M
Mattie

if you look at barna.org - George barna's website - you will see the growing statistics of those becoming apart of house churches

M
Miccah

I hold house church in my home as well. Been doing this or part of house churches for the last 3-4 years.

I am all for it.

R
Ruach34

I am all for it!

Have been investigating this for the past three years by reading some books on the issue. Art Katz's book on true fellowship and the vitality he talks about by being earnest and honest with believers on a day to day basis is important to say the least.

In what other context will we enjoy the fulfillment of what Paul talks about,

"...When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification." 1Corinthians 14:26 (NASB)

Is this, i ask, being accomplished in our large congregations today?

C
Compton

true fellowship... being earnest and honest with believers on a day to day basis is important to say the least...Is this, i ask, being accomplished in our large congregations today?

I believe it is, but it isn't automatic and it's generally not found by simply going Sunday morning. If we have the energy and desire needed to start a home church, we certainly have enough motivation to develop deeper fellowships with people at larger congregations. For this reason I don't completely buy the idea that people start home churches to find an intimacy and deeper fellowship with other Christians that was missing in larger churches. I suspect the reasons to start or join a home church are more theological and ideological...which is quite understandable.

MC


J
JRuth

I do not think it is a good idea to Home Church!! I have been around them, and I don't think it is a wise course to take!!

M
Miccah


JRuth wrote:


I do not think it is a good idea to Home Church!! I have been around them, and I don't think it is a wise course to take!!


Interesting. Why?

S
sermonindex

What do you think of the house church "restoration" movement? What are your thoughts on leaving "institutional" church? It's been said that this return to the "organic", simple church life is just as radical as the reformation itself. What are your thoughts on these statements?

I have left the institutional church a few months ago, but as yet have not found an organic house church. Have read several of Frank Viola's books and am completely with what he says about the body not being able to funcion as it should in an institutional church meeting with pre planned songs and pre planned messages with one man heading the church. It's true we cannot fellowship looking at someone's back. Did this happen in the NT church?. How did it came about that one man took charge of each church, (not that there should not be pastors, but he sees a pastor as a function of the church rather than a position of Headship). Having said that he is not against leadership. Organic house church is about Jesus Christ being the Head, and the church (people) expressing Him. The gifts being able to manifest with the Holy Spirit leading, with everyone expected to participate, being in community, like a family. With all the good things and bad things that go on in families. Just as we see in the NT letters.

If you are bored with Sunday meetings, tired of false teachings, and want to be able to know Christ in a deeper way, Frank Viola's research, backed up by scripture taken in context, and not the 'cut and paste' variety, shows the way. There needs to be a vision of the church God intended and for that we need to look at the beginnings. I am in process of doing that. I will add that I did not do this lightly.
Linda

B
boG

Is this, i ask, being accomplished in our large congregations today?

If we have the energy and desire needed to start a home church, we certainly have enough motivation to develop deeper fellowships with people at larger congregations.

This is absolutely true.

I do not think it is a good idea to Home Church!! I have been around them, and I don't think it is a wise course to take!!

Any church, large or small, has the potential to adapt and conform to unChristian doctrines. So it is understandable that in one context many are fleeing from the institutionalized churches with its rigid structure in comparison to the more freeform home churches.

And, in context, these small independant house churches that have formed without solid, well founded, teachings from accountable ministers. Or lacking in the full range of effective five-fold ministry.

In the larger context, it is more difficult to adapt and change.
In the smaller context, it is easier, sometimes dangerously easy to change.

In my opinion, these two contexts need to work concurrently.

And even, one step more, the individual context.

We each seek the Lord in secret -- where we may receive or be prepared to receive "a psalm, a teaching, a revelation, a tongue, an interpretation." When we receive much, we have much to give.

Then we can meet throughout the week from home to home (it doesn't have to be just one). And share what we have received from the Lord. As we have freely received, so let us likewise, freely give.

And, as we are able, we should also meet in the larger context. It would be wonderful if there could be a single church for each city where we might all come together as a single local body of believers. Unfortunately, this is most unpractical for most cities. However, it wouldn't be unpractical if those who were set apart for the purposes of ministry came together often to edify one another. There ought to be unity among the brethren just as well as unity among the ministers in the government of Christ.


The main point that I would put my finger on, if I may, that needs to be changed in any church context is the individual one.

As I have experienced in almost every context of church, this common "empty" Christian coming for their "weekly fill". This ought not to be, it is unChristian. We should be "weekly [b]full[/b]" and then come together to pour ourselves out, honoring one another above ourselves.

The error I have found is this idea that the ministers of the church are supposed to pour out all the blessings so they might trickle down to the lowly surf-Christians. We have been very capitalistic with our Christianity haven't we.

You know, I woke up one morning, and this came to my mind:
Say there are 60 christians in a single church. In SIX days time that is cumulatively 360 days in one week. That is ONE YEARS worth of time WITH THE LORD coming together for a single Sunday gathering. And how many are coming "empty". What ever happened to "redeeming the time, because the days are evil"?


No matter how we structure "the church", the plain and simple truth remains. As Leonard Ravenhill said, "we don't have revival because we are content to live without it."

If we were truly concerned about God's will He would share it with us.

C
Compton

The main point that I would put my finger on, if I may, that needs to be changed in any church context is the individual one.

One question I have for the house church movement is what do you do if the same problems you encountered at the 'institutional' church are at the 'organic' church...only this time the problems are sitting on sofas and dining room chairs instead of pews and folding chairs. ;-)

MC

J
JRuth

Well my reason is rather long, so I will give a small part of my reason. A lot off the people who start home churching do it because they say that the church age is over, which it isn't.
They also claim that the churches are so worldly, and they don't want their children to be around it. Which I have nothing against!!

One of the biggest problems is that they overreact to the church too much. God has given us the local church for accountability, we need to use it as such!!

If you have any other questions feel free to ask!!

JRuth

L
linda7

Bog wrote:

The main point that I would put my finger on, if I may, that needs to be changed in any church context is the individual one.

As I have experienced in almost every context of church, this common "empty" Christian coming for their "weekly fill". This ought not to be, it is unChristian. We should be "weekly full" and then come together to pour ourselves out, honoring one another above ourselves.

The problem also is that in a pre-planned 'service', with one man leading and a 'music ministry' leading song for all, where is the opportunity for one to come with a hymn a psalm or a spiritual song? A word of knowledge, a prophecy, where everyone is able and expected to participate? How can Christ overflow and be expressed by the individual? The time is limited, there is one man running it and the congregation is not able to even look each other in the eye. The church in many places is just an audience.
Linda

S
sermonindex

I have attended a housechurch most of my christian life and it has been a great experience for me but in case you didn't know already there are some things you should be aware of. There is a movement out there that disregards all authority whatsoever and refuses to even refer to the bible because they believe we are spirit led only. It's very extreme but these people are full of unforgiveness and hatred for the institutional churches. I haven't run into any of them personally but they have some housechurch forums they blog on and they attend alot of these conferences. Just like the Pharasees you'll know thier fruits right away!

J
JRuth

I agree with you, Rebekah_LF

L
linda7

JRuth wrote:

One of the biggest problems is that they overreact to the church too much. God has given us the local church for accountability, we need to use it as such!!

I believe we are the church and we are accountable to Christ. He is our Head. And the Church is there to express Christ.

Linda

S
sermonindex


I haven't run into any of them personally but they have some housechurch forums they blog on and they attend alot of these conferences. Just like the Pharasees you'll know thier fruits right away!



Housechurch conferences that is...Actually I would be surprised if they even attended a conference so maybe not. They are very radical and will not be taught by any man.

K
KingJimmy

The only network of house churches I have come across that don't seem to have the bitter edge you find in many associated with the likes of Frank Viola, Gene Edwards and company is the NTRF (www.ntrf.org)

I went to one of their conferences in Charleston, SC a year or so ago and was quite moved with the simple and sincere love these people had for God and eachother. They didn't just sit there and bash/demonize the "institutional church."

While some of Viola's writings are profitable, anybody with any discernment will quickly recognize there is a cancerous bitterness in his writings. Take them with a grain of salt. The same goes with Gene Edwards... though he is trickier to pickup on because of his brilliant literary abilities.

L
linda7

While some of Viola's writings are profitable, anybody with any discernment will quickly recognize there is a cancerous bitterness in his writings.

Can you give an example? I have been reading a few of his books and do not see that bitterness.
Linda

K
KingJimmy

Sorry, I am not in the position to give an example right now. All the books I have of his have been packed away with many other books.

S
sermonindex

I've been made aware of a couple of new resources that may be of interest to some on S.I.

Here is a link to one: http://www.house-church.org/biblicalchurchbook_main.htm

Here is a link to the other one: http://www.lordssupperdvd.com/

L
linda7

by wisevirgin on 2008/6/3 18:54:07I've been made aware of a couple of new resources that may be of interest to some on S.I.

Here is a link to one: http://www.house-church.org/biblicalchurchbook_main.htm

This site has some excellent audio teachings also.

Linda

J
JRuth

I believe we are the church and we are accountable to Christ. He is our Head. And the Church is there to express Christ.

That is true in a way, but the church is for our accountability also.

A
AbideinHim

I appreciate the good points that many of you have made in this post concerning the house church movement and the institutional church.

Christianity is growing at a very fast rate in China even though there is much persecution, and this is due to the House Church Movement. Watchman Nee has some good books on the Church that would be an asset to anyone that desires to start a home church.

One of the problems with the institutional church is the one pastor system that you cannot find anywhere in scripture. Jesus Christ is the Head of His church, and He is building His Church. IN most churches in America, you have one man doing most of the ministering and this results in the believers being mere spectators and not participants. The purpose of the fivefold ministry is to equip the saints to do the work of the ministry.

Home churches need strong leadership and the leading of the Holy Spirit in order to be successful. Home churches are very scriptural, and you can find home churches in Acts in many places. Many home churches have had similar problems as the institutional church because they were structured in the same manner, just on a smaller scale.

The advantage of a home church is that every believer should be allowed to exercise his or her gifts. There is close fellowship between the members of the home church which you don't have in a lot of large institutional churches.

There are some that are leaving the institutional church and are not fellowshipping with other believers, and this is harmful to the spiritual life, and is a tactic of the enemy to isolate the believer from the rest of the Body.

We are members of the Body of Christ and we need the Body.

In His Love,

Mike

K
KingJimmy

Just a note though, it is possible to have open-services in larger "institutional" churches. I have been in some services where there was open participation by all, and the pastor contributed nothing other than having opened up the service and exhorted us to use the gifts God had given us.

A
AbideinHim

That is a wonderful pastor. I just wish that we had more like him.

Many large churches now have cell groups within their churches. My wife and I were cell group leaders and the meetings were greatly blessed of the Lord, but we ended up laying it down. The pastor of that large church wanted us to teach from his sermons and follow many rules and regulations which greatly hindered the moving of Holy Spirit when adhered to.

M
Miccah

We must all do what the Lord leads us to do.


The Lord has lead me to Housechurch and to lead a Housechurch. May He be glorified.

S
sermonindex

The following is from Harper's Bible Dictionary and Nelson's New Illustrated Bible Dictionary, s.v. "synagogue".

Origin. The origin of the synagogue as an institution is not certain. Though synagogues are not specifically mentioned in the Old Testament, they came into existence sometime after Judah was taken into Babylonian captivity in the 6th century B.C. Babylon was a likely place for them to have begun.

By New Testament times, synagogues had become numerous and were playing a larger role in community life. They were social centers for Jewish activities and schools for their children. They might have been used as local courts and for scourging. Jesus predicted that they would do such things in their synagogues against those that He would send. Matt. 10:17; 23:34.

As far as scriptural evidence goes, there is no mention of God instituting synagogues, just as Jesus did not institute church as we know of it today. Both the synagogue and church, for whatever good intentions they may serve, are still the institutions of men and the outgrowth of men's traditions.

Buildings. The Jews may have first "synagogued" in homes, but evidence shows that they erected buildings for themselves early on. The remains of one has been identified in Alexandria, Egypt, which is thought to date back to around 230 B.C. Jewish synagogues were well established throughout the Roman Empire and were in Jerusalem by the time of Jesus. The earliest type of architecture was the basilica. The basilica has a central nave (the main part) with semicircular apse (a projection of the building), two or four side aisles, a narthex (vestibule or entry area), and a clerestory (high walls with windows over the nave). The Torah was placed in an ark (cabinet) on a platform where there were also lamps and a lectern.

Many churches are still patterned after the basilica style of architecture. The only buildings God commissioned were the Tabernacle of Moses which was a movable tent with articles in it and Solomon's temple. Exod. 25:8-9 and 1 Chron. 28. Christians did not build their own places of worship until Emperor Constantine was converted around 325 A.D. and Christianized the entire Roman empire.

Seating. The younger people sat in the back while the best seats up front were reserved for the elders. Jesus condemned this prideful lust for prominence in Matthew 23:6. Referring to the scribes and Pharisees, He said that they loved the chief seats in the synagogues. Clergy still love the chief seats in their congregations. Those platform chairs are typically large, elaborate, and upholstered for royalty.

Officials. A synagogue could not be formed unless there were at least ten Jewish men in the community. Jesus said that where two or more are gathered in His name, there He would be in the midst of them. Matt. 18:20. The synagogues had a board of devoted and respected elders who regulated the policies of the synagogue. One or more men were elected by the elders to be the ruler(s) of the synagogue. The rulers took care of the building and planned the services. A minister was in charge of the sacred scrolls, attended the lamps, kept the building clean, did the prescribed scourging, and taught the children during the week. The ruler appointed a delegate of the congregation to read the Scripture lesson, to lead in prayer, and to preach or comment on the scripture. The Torah was written in ancient Hebrew so an interpreter was often needed. Two or three almoners (one who distributes charity) took up money or other necessities for the poor.

The fact that Jesus habitually went to the synagogue, read from the scroll, and taught is not an endorsement of the synagogue system. Luke 4:16-20 records that Jesus was even driven out of the synagogue. In Matthew 10:17 and 13:54, Jesus and Matthew referred to them as their synagogues.

Different traditions of Christian churches have variations of these officers. In the Presbyterian system, the board of elders rule along with the pastors. They are equivalent to the minister in the synagogue. Deacons or ushers are selected to receive and count the offerings. They are the equivalent to the almoners. The ruling officers may be called deacons as in the Baptist tradition or may be priests as in the Episcopal tradition.

Paul recognized that God gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some shepherds (who are the elder-overseers), and some teachers. The King James Version used the term "office" when it generally should have been translated service. Rom. 11:13; 12:4; 1 Tim. 3:1; 3:10; and 3:13. The idea of ministry being an office a position is foreign to New Testament thought. It is not a New Testament term or distinction. These are functions--acts of servanthood--in the body of Christ. No such "positions" exist in the Kingdom of God, only in the kingdoms of men.

Order of worship. Before the service, the minister would place the Torah on the lectern and scroll it to the reading for the day. The service began with the Shema--the passage in Deuteronomy 6:4-9. The speaker for the day led in prayer--facing Jerusalem with hands extended--after which the people said, "Amen." He stood up to read the lesson for the day and sat down to sermonize upon it. Luke 4:20. Afterwards, if a priest were present, he would pronounce the benediction to which the people said, "Amen." If no priest were present, someone offered a closing prayer. The scriptures are still read and sermons are still preached in the churches today much as they were in the synagogues, following prescribed lectionaries for the week.

This format is in stark contradiction to the spirit-led, believer's meeting which the New Testament followers had, going from house to house. The Corinthians' meeting are pictured in 1 Corinthians 14:26: "How is it then, brothers? When you come together, everyone of you has a psalm, has a doctrine, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation." New Testament assemblies were characterized by the existence of the equipping gift ministries of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors (elders) and teachers; by the plurality of elders; by the operation of all of the gifts of the Holy Spirit; and by mutual recognition of one another's contribution to the body of Christ. Jesus said the Father was seeking those who would worship Him in Spirit and in truth (John 4:23-24), not according to a bulletin or dead ritual. I am convinced beyond doubt that if Jesus were to walk into most of the churches today, He would be treated much the same as He was in the synagogues in His day. The difference between what He called us to and what we have in church today is striking.

L
linda7

Linda7 wrote: I believe we are the church and we are accountable to Christ. He is our Head. And the Church is there to express Christ.

JRuth wrote: That is true in a way, but the church is for our accountability also.

Yes, agreed, but you said we are to be accountable to the local church. What do you call the local church? The one that meets in a building? We are the church, the 'called out ones' wherever we meet, as illustrated in the NT letters, where they also met in homes. Where two or three are gathered together, there He is. We are accountable to Christ and each other, no matter what gifts we are given or what function we perform or where we meet.

Linda

L
linda7

by AbideinHim on 2008/6/4 2:40:50


One of the problems with the institutional church is the one pastor system that you cannot find anywhere in scripture. Jesus Christ is the Head of His church, and He is building His Church. IN most churches in America, you have one man doing most of the ministering and this results in the believers being mere spectators and not participants. The purpose of the fivefold ministry is to equip the saints to do the work of the ministry.

Home churches need strong leadership and the leading of the Holy Spirit in order to be successful. Home churches are very scriptural, and you can find home churches in Acts in many places. Many home churches have had similar problems as the institutional church because they were structured in the same manner, just on a smaller scale.

The advantage of a home church is that every believer should be allowed to exercise his or her gifts. There is close fellowship between the members of the home church which you don't have in a lot of large institutional churches.

There are some that are leaving the institutional church and are not fellowshipping with other believers, and this is harmful to the spiritual life, and is a tactic of the enemy to isolate the believer from the rest of the Body.

We are members of the Body of Christ and we need the Body.

In His Love,

Mike

Mike,

This is what I have been learning from another source and I wholeheartedly agree with what you say. For people who have left the institutional church, looking for organic home church, it is like being in the wilderness, but such people have left for good reason perhaps, some to preserve their faith, by coming out from being under false teaching, and are therefore isolated for the time being.

Linda

A
AbideinHim

Wise Virgin wrote: "This format is in stark contradiction to the spirit-led, believer's meeting which the New Testament followers had, going from house to house. The Corinthians' meeting are pictured in 1 Corinthians 14:26: "How is it then, brothers? When you come together, everyone of you has a psalm, has a doctrine, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation." New Testament assemblies were characterized by the existence of the equipping gift ministries of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors (elders) and teachers; by the plurality of elders; by the operation of all of the gifts of the Holy Spirit; and by mutual recognition of one another's contribution to the body of Christ. Jesus said the Father was seeking those who would worship Him in Spirit and in truth (John 4:23-24), not according to a bulletin or dead ritual. I am convinced beyond doubt that if Jesus were to walk into most of the churches today, He would be treated much the same as He was in the synagogues in His day. The difference between what He called us to and what we have in church today is striking."

Amen! Thank you for your post and for the history lesson. The Church of Jesus Christ is not an organization but it is a living organism. Jesus Christ is the Head of the many membered Body.

"And hath put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be the Head over all things to the Church. Which is His Body, the fulness of Him that fills all in all." (Ephesians 1:22,23).

L
linda7

To anyone who is interested in how the church meetings came to be as they are there is an interesting series of talks on Traditions of the Church, which includes traditions of the early church fathers:

http://www.house-church.org/

Go to Tape Studies, then Traditions Series.

Linda

M
Mattie

many shy away from the idea of "house church" simply because of the abuses that has taken place throughout history - such as David Koresh, or manipulative leadership... but let's not forget how many megachurches are like that also.

so it's a poor argument to say we should not meet in homes because of all the cultish activity that has taken place, because the same is true of churches that meet in a building.

nothing is new under the sun. let's remember in the book of Acts, believers met in homes and even back then there were issues with false teaching and false leadership. did that mean they stopped meeting in homes? no.

we have to judge things by the Scriptures rather than human experience and even historical events.

R
Ruach34

This is good discussion, let's keep it that way with a heart to know truth and be completely real with each other and with God.

The 'instituttional church' for me personally has been an area of growth for me. It has rubbed me and prodded me on to a little maturity. I am not suggesting that I have arrived nor am done with 'growing in the Grace and Knowledge of Jesus Christ,' but the church facility has kept me on my toes, so to speak.

Wisevirgin: thanks for your exposition. Good stuff

Someone has a few times in this post said we are accountable to the church. Was that your words? I certainly don't want to add anything to what you said. Then AbideinHim said we are accountable to God. Well, which is it? If the church be your master serve it, if God be your master serve Him!

C
Compton

I take Matties point to be a good one; namely that we shouldn't pick a course simply on the basis of rejecting another course. Movements based on critiques solely leave little nourishment for the soul. The Emergent movement is a good example of this hollow pitfall; their considerable intellectual energy seems obsessed with deconstruction of traditional evangelical faith and social life.

I came across this paragraph by a writer named John Geree, with his description of the Puritan's take on established churches. When I read this, I saw something of myself here.

Perfection in churches he (the Puritan) thought a thing rather to be desired, than hoped for. And so he expected not a church state without all defects.

The corruptions that were in churches he thought his duty to bewail, with endeavors of amendment: yet he would not separate, where he might partake in the worship, and not in the corruption.

He put not holiness in churches, as in the temple of the Jews; but counted them convenient like their synagogues. He would have them kept decent, not magnificent: knowing that the gospel requires not outward pomp.

I feel this cautious grace towards any organized and structured congregation, regardless of the space they meet in, whether it be public or domestic.

MC

M
Mattie

we have to be careful not to develope a critical attitude towards house churches OR megachurches. one danger that i've read from a "house church attendee" is the tendency to be overly critical of those who don't meet in a house. this is a dangerous attitude.

at the same time, we have to ask ourselves what is the church to be. is there a pattern as revealed in Acts and the letters of Paul? is there a way it is to function? in what ways will the church be most effective to make disciples and see God glorified.

S
sermonindex

we have to be careful not to develope a critical attitude towards house churches OR megachurches. one danger that i've read from a "house church attendee" is the tendency to be overly critical of those who don't meet in a house. this is a dangerous attitude.

This is very true.

It's also important to note that scripture gives us a very clear picture of how church "government" (if you want to call it that) should look like. There is to be structure within any church.

Many house churches dont line up with scripture in this area at all. And many house churches are made up of stubborn rebellious Christians. "No one's gonna tell me what to do!"

On the flip side, the Corporate America model of church leadership in the institutional, and especially the mega churches is just as unscriptural.

Krispy

M
Mattie

Krisspy, What should the "structure" in church government look like?

In response to there being stubborn rebellious Christians in a house church, are there any stubborn rebellious ones in churches that don't meet in a house? The argument can always go both ways.

I agree that there should be leadership in any church, but the leadership should be what Jesus said it should be in Matthew 20, not lording it over as the kings of the Gentiles do (Hierarchy) but as a servant leader like Christ was

S
sermonindex

In response to there being stubborn rebellious Christians in a house church, are there any stubborn rebellious ones in churches that don't meet in a house? The argument can always go both ways.

Of course there are stubborn rebellious Christins in any church... but I've been house churching for a long time now, and I can tell you from experience, the house church movement seems to attract them more so. I went thru that attitude as well when we first started.

As for church government... yes, Jesus modeled "servant/leadership" for us, but Paul went to great length to describe how a church should operate, and what the qualifications of elders are (even tho there are many who wish to ignore that, or dumb it down and compromise it)...

There is not to be any one man "in charge". Churches shouldnt have CEO's. What we see in the Bible is local assemblies, not denominations. These local assemblies are overseen by a [b]group[/b] of elders, not just one person. Their qualifications and job descriptions are spelled out in scripture, you dont need me to spell it out for you. Same thing for deacons. It's all right there.

I know I'm being vague with you Mattie, but I really want you to study this out for yourself. I could tell you what scripture says, but it would be from my own slant. I want you to let God show you thru His Word. I'm not afraid to share my opinions on thing most of the time, but in this case I really feel led to just point you in the right direction and let you seek... for you shall find.

Krispy

R
Ruach34

There is not to be any one man "in charge".

An emphatic, AMEN to that. The one "in charge" is only that way by the authority placed on him by God, Himself. And, as Jesus said, "The one who wants to be greatest must be the least."

A true sign of someone with authority placed on them by God Himself is one of true humility, grace and love.

I tell you, I have seen that in Art Katz. Prior to his passing away my wife and I went to a meeting where he was at in Fort Smith, AR. Art sought for my wife and I a place to stay after finding out we had no place.

I nearly wept, seeing that Art, in his already weakened condition, went out of his way to secure a place to stay for the night. To me that humility was modeled

And I rant...

this post is about the House Church movement.

Can we glean any truth out of this, Yes. Art Katz lived in community that looked very much like house churches. I think it is this humility that can oppose the legalistic and prideful attitudes that Krittr spoke of.

In fact, isn't humility itself in direct opposition to pride, which is the root of the whole sin problem.

but i rant even more...

This discussion is archived and closed to new replies. Start a new discussion to carry the subject on.
Archived
1 of 42 posts

Everything we make is available for free because of a generous community of supporters.

Donate