The Church In The Home ~ Rolfe Barnard

It is a matter of history that for the first two hundred years after Christ the church never had special buildings of their own, and when at last they did the art of exhortation degenerated into the issuing of commands. Many groups which began in homes and have now become well-known organizations have lost out in spiritual effectiveness since they moved into special buildings for their gatherings. This has not happened suddenly. A special building is not a sin but merely a sincere effort to glorify God, which may ultimately involve more drawbacks than advantages.

A study of the Acts of the Apostles and the epistles of the New Testament, especially the epistles of Paul, confronts us with the church in the home. Four times “the church in the home” is specifically mentioned. For instance, the apostles wrote letters to churches and to individuals and sent greetings to or from the church in So-and-So’s house. In Romans 16:5 we read, “Likewise greet the church that is in their house” (the house of Aquila and Priscilla). In I Cor. 16:19 we read, “The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house.” And from scriptures like this we gather the idea that the church in the home of Priscilla and Aquila was a firmly established church of that time. Again, in Col. 4:15 we read: “Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his house.” And then in Philemon verse 2 we hear Paul addressing himself to Philemon and the church in his house. Not one single instance can be found in the New Testament where the early Christians ever built what we call a house of worship. Sometimes they will meet down by the riverside where Paul will preach and God will open Lydia’s heart that she will attend upon the Word. In Jerusalem for a while the temple was used as a place of public testimony, but also in addition to the public testimony in the temple every house of every believer was a place of meeting. We need to carefully note Acts 2:46 and then read with great care Acts 5:42. For a while, you understand, before the Jews really came to understand the issue, Jewish believers were welcome in the temple and were asked to speak.

When the temple was denied the preachers, then only the house remained. Then Paul and others journeyed into Gentile domain, and being Jewish believers, were permitted for a while to preach in synagogues. There the God-fearing people and the proselytes whose hearts God had been opening and preparing, He saved, and out of them little groups called New Testament churches gathered. But later, as the issue was more clearly defined and the Jewish people understood its implications, the synagogues were closed to the preachers of the gospel, and then only the house or “the church in the home” remained. Over twenty times in the Acts of the Apostles and in the epistles we read of believers carrying out their united worship in the home of a believer.

The word “church” is, of course, of Latin origin. The Greek word translated “church” in our Authorized Version is “ekklesia” and it means “the called out ones.” EK equals out from; KALEO means to call. This word is also translated “assembly.” The word “church” or “assembly” is found 115 times in the New Testament. It is used once for a town council (Acts 19:39), and twice for a mob or unlawful council (Acts 19:32-41). The word “church” or “assembly” is used twice for Israel in the old covenant (Acts 7:38). But the word “church” is used 110 times for the body of Christ or believers.

The church is not: (1) A building. (2) A denomination. (3) An organization, nor (4) Many bodies organized, such as synods, conventions, associations, denominations, Church of England, etc. The church is: (1) A body of believers. Read carefully Eph. 4:4 and I Pet. 2:5. (2) A fellowship—one fellowship. (3) A living (not organization but) organism. The church as one body is clearly shown in such passages as I Cor. 12, Romans 12, Col. 1:18 and Eph. 1:22-23. The church is a body of called out ones. Read chapter two of Ephesians, especially verses 19 and 22. The church is a “building,” yes, but it is a building that is being built by the Holy Spirit, not with brick and mortar and hammer and nails—and it is a building indwelt by God the Holy Spirit. It has Christ as the Chief Cornerstone and the Foundation of the church, as to order, structure and doctrine, as outlined here in this passage. Well-nigh buried under the elaborate structures which man has built upon it is the church (so-called) of today—but God’s purpose concerning His true church has not changed. Let’s review just a moment the assembly of called out ones. It is the building of God. It is the household of God. It is the body of Christ. It is the pillar and ground of truth. It is a holy temple. It is the habitation of God. It is a heavenly colony sojourning here on earth, bearing witness in the power of the Holy Spirit to the risen, ascended, glorified Lord. That is the church.

It is important to get fixed in our minds that the early church was taught to regard itself not merely as a collection of saved individuals but as active members of the body of Christ. Not only did all believers form the one body universal, but each group functioned as the body locally. In each of the three cases where these are mentioned (Rom. 12; I Cor. 12; Eph. 4) is no suggestion of only one man ministering to the whole group but each is shown as having the privilege of possessing some spiritual gift and the responsibility to minister this gift to the rest of the saints so that every believer is looked on as a minister to the rest. Modern research in education has shown that we learn little by merely listening, but when we try to impart what we know to others we really begin to master our subject. This shows us the wisdom of God in planting the church, not as a vast congregation of listeners, but as a small body sharing with each other what they learn from the Holy Spirit.

The picture we have of the early church, therefore is something very simple but very vital. Whenever two or three would gather together in the name of the Lord, there they would expect to find their once crucified, now risen Lord present in the midst of them. They would also expect the Holy Spirit to work in each of them and share with each other what was thus revealed. In Col. 3 we read, “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly…teaching and admonishing one another”—and this was addressed to a whole congregation, not simply to one man we call the pastor. As the Holy Spirit worked in the midst, some or all of the gifts of the Spirit mentioned in I Cor. 12 would be manifested for He divided severally to every man as He chose. Each would himself be edified by His gift, and those who heard would likewise be blessed. As each small group divided, and so grew into a number of groups, these continued in fellowship with each other, and all of the small gathering in one city would together form the church of God in Ephesus or wherever it might be. Yet each group would have no say in the way another was carried on. The Lord was the Head of each and worked in each as He saw fit, but they would be free to exhort and admonish each other, though not to command. We find that this true church did not usually get on well with organized religion, but if there was a division it always came about by the organized religious group casting out the true believers. Until this happened, we find the position pictured in Acts 2:46, “Continuing daily…in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house.”

~Rolfe Barnard

Savannah,

Just yesterday I bumped a really old thread where you had posted this same writing!

https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=41590&forum=35&1

In Christ -Jim

My wife and I were VERY involved in house churches for a number of years. I wrote extensively about it on this forum.

If anyone is interested I would be glad to share why we do not house church anymore. House churching can be a wonderful expression of the church when done properly, however I made some general observations about the landscape of house churching that led us to leave it and join a more "traditional" church by God's leading.

Krispy

So I dont start a fire-storm, let me say up front that this is MY experience and MY observations, and acknowledge that others may not have similar experiences. Also, the more "traditional" church that the Lord led us to started out as 5 families meeting in a home.

Now, having said that, one of the books that I used to recommend on here all the time was a book called "Pagan Christianity" by Frank Viola. It is one of the most popular books in the house church movement. While Viola makes a lot of good points in this book, anyone I have ever met who has read this book comes away admitting that Viola has a chip on his shoulder and an axe to grind.

Viola is considered to be one of the house church gurus. He has a tremendous amount of influence.

And in my experience this same attitude is prevelant in the house church movement at large. I say that having been to several house church conferences in different areas of the country, so I am not just speaking about my little corner of the world.

Many house churches reject the Biblical authority of elders/pastors, and I suppose that is my greatest issue with them. They also tend to disparage the idea of a man who has gone to seminary or Bible school. Now, I myself have a LOT of problems with seminaries and Bible schools mainly because they dont teach the Bible anymore. And I certainly agree that a man does not need a degree to be used of God as a pastor/elder/teacher.

But there is something to be said about a man who has been educated and trained soundly in the Word of God, and gifted as a teacher by the Holy Spirit... even tho education is mocked by some here on this forum.

Another thing that has bothered me about house churches is just about anyone is allowed to teach. Without the proper Biblical leadership authority in place this is very wreckless and dangerous from a spiritual standpoint.

A spirit of rebellion and pride is also very prevalent in the house church movement. There is an "us against them" attitude, and along with that there can be a haughtiness that goes hand in hand with it. The very same haughtiness that house churchers accuse the "traditional" churches of having. This can happen in ANY church... but I have experienced it the most in house churches. I was that way too.

House church folks tend to be incredibly independent minded and individualistic... which as a red blooded American I can appreciate, but Paul taught that just the opposite should be true for the Body of Christ. We need each other, and we are to be dependent upon one another.

Now... an organic house church that adheres to Biblical church structure, leadership and authority can be incredible! But in my experience I have found that house churches like that make up maybe 5% of house churches.

So I am NOT against house churches, but I see a lot of spiritual danger in that movement.

Eveyrone likes to point out how the persecuted church meets in homes, etc... and thats true. But they are not thriving because they meet in homes or caves. They are thriving because they are being persecuted. People forget that. Here... meeting in a home is a luxery.

Krispy

A couple of brief ideas Krispy. Most house churches are born out of a desire to return to a Biblical model of Plural Pastors, a more authentic Body life, and are more anti-Religious than rebellious. They see the Pulpit, The building, and the Tithe as a system that controls and kills body-life, rather than enhances it.

You said; " but I see a lot of spiritual danger in that movement." I would contend that most in the House Church would express the opposite....that the danger of following dead religion, sit down stand up, listen to a lecture, shake hands and tell everyone you love them, go home, and eat your ham, and return next Sunday all dressed up and clean and shiny....and call that serving God, and walking in Love with Christ....IS dangerous, and if hypocritical is too strong a word, then disingenuous.

But, your right, mostly, they are struggling. Why? There is an old saying ; "You can take the boy out of the country, but you can't take country out of the boy. It is the same with religion. Often, one expects and feels secure, less exposed, in a setting where men can institute order.....like a church "service"...[ no service to God, especially ]...but it creates an orderly system....and is ran by a Priest/class type fellow..[ usually fellow..].

This feels very safe, and really you do not have to expose, or give anything of yourself...except the tithe that makes everyone feel better, and greases the gears to maintain the overhead and salaries.

So, the house church adapts the same model...the big church in the little house....and the pews become the couch......and the pulpit belongs to the leader. Without Godly Shepherds the church would perish, if possible. Let us not, however, associate Shepherds with directors, or leadership. They are instituted to assure that the Holy Spirit, who is the LEADER and LORD, is not quenched! and God is allowed to use ALL the body, fitly joined together, to edify itself in Love.

One has a Psalm, One has a teaching, One has a Testimony, One has a Prophecy!...and each one is allowed to minister to another as He leads, and anoints. We are a NATION of PRIESTS!...remember?

Just because saints have seen this truth, and veered out into the unknown, and labor because of uncharted waters and the rocks and eddies.....does not make it wrong. There is no doubt that THIS IS the New Testament model, and that the OLD....pulpit/pew/Priest/Lay Minister Class/ Drone Class model is being diminished as we speak; and of course the owners of that religious model, as the Pharisees of old, would rather murder than relinquish their hold on it.

The question must be for any Biblical fellowship; Is Jesus Lord in the community of that fellowship, and is He Lord of the meetings? and IS the least of the brethren used, and honored, as much as any other, including the elders?....and does your fellowship have a Christ centered World view?...all the way down to the kitchen table and the market-place.

It's interesting, brother Tom, that in what I wrote I allowed for the fact there are in fact house churches that are doing it right and that it is "incredible" (the word I used) when it's done right.

You responded by painting non-house churches with a broad brush and over generalizations. That is a prevailing pass-time in many house churches.

Not every "traditional" church operates like what you described. For instance, our church does not teach tithing. Many churches have very sincere love for one another and are very relational. Many churches pool their resources and do tremendous community outreach and missional work.

What I am saying is this: regardless of what type of church your PREFER (and when you boil it down, we are talking about preferences here), it needs to be done right and orderly and Biblically.

Krispy

Sree... Your experience sounds wonderful and praise worthy. Thank the Lord! You have found a good church.

Krispy

Savannah... thanx for the link. I just had a minute to look at it, but it was enough to spark my interest. I will take a longer look at it when I have more time.

Krispy

"Hmm “plural pastors” how many pastors do they need in the living room or kitchen-could it be too many want to be the pastors. Do they get to keep all their money or maybe give a little every now and then to at least help out and maybe someone (one of the pastors) has found a missionary work that is legit so they can give some support but no tithing.
need help understanding!"...Needhelp.

The first church there ever was in Jerusalem was a house church...".Acts 2:46
"And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,"...and

" And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ!"

There were perhaps 25,000 or more in this early first model. They also met at Solomons portico, a broad square type brick park...I imagine when the weather was good.

Paul at Ephesus met the elders at Miletus, and most scholars think there were as many as 200....to shepherd a massive Church of 50,000+. These were all house churches.. Homechurches can be very large. I visited one in Cleveland'; " People of Destiny "...and they met every week in a rented Gym at a high school...for a couple of hundred dollars a MONTH..WITH PERHAPS 800 PEOPLE....and then everyone went to a home meeting during the week...with different venues now and then...very successful and large.

"Do they get to keep all their money or maybe give a little every now and then to at least help out and maybe someone (one of the pastors) has found a missionary work that is legit so they can give some support but no tithing.
need help understanding!"..Needhelp

You are under no forced giving...but you give as you are led....and out of love for Jesus and the gospel, of course they gave money...to send out, and to receive.and for various mercy ministries the church endeavoured....and probably used with much more merit than the current systems today.

my wife and I had a very bad home church experience. the small home church we attended was very cult like and controlling and a spring off the "shepherding movement". We couldn't do anything unless our spiritual covering heard from God for us on things like where to live, what type of car to drive and where to work. and if we didn't tithe we were scolded too...

Whenever you encounter a church like that the Holy Spirit will always say the same thing if you listen... it goes something like this:

"Run Forrest... Run!!"

Thats called an abusive church.

BUT, what jimp describes is something I long for. a group of saints that we could be intimate, with, pray for each other, study the word, break bread, share the gospel/ ministry together.. where I live it seems like there are only large churches with their own agenda and home churches who are critical of every church who is not a home church and men with ego's who want to be the pastor and "spiritual leader" of the home church they attend.

This can be encountered in a house church or in a fellowship that meets in a building. Our church meets in a church building that we purchased 2 yrs ago after having started in a home 5 yrs previous, and rented a SDA sancutary on Sundays afte it got too big for a home.

We average probably between 150-200 on Sundays. We have home groups. I have to tell you, these people are our family... we LOVE them. I dont know how we lived without this fellowship. I pray you find that too! Doesnt matter if it is a house church or a "traditional" church.

This is not an issue of which style is better, or more Biblical, or whatever. God clearly uses and blesses both kinds of churches.

I long for a true example of ACTS. I have been wanting to start a prayer meeting in my home on Friday evenings like Leonard Ravenhill did and watch God move.

So what is stopping you? This is how most churches start, and how most revivals start. The Welsh revival started by one man praying... and then one person joined him... and then another...

Krispy

Wow, lots of good responses if we can cut through the rabbit trails and red herrings and stick to the main issue. This issue is not really about some movement called house church, or some guy named frank viola... it is about the instructions of Christ and the apostles clearly recorded in the new tesamenent. It is not simply about where you meet but how you meet, though there are definately draw backs to having a building.

My friend Ian wrote on this subject:

"Why take 2-300 years to get around to building ‘a church’? Its bcos the Apostles had a reason NOT to do it. Not bcos they couldn’t afford it or that persecution stopped it.

There’s a fundamental reason why they are problematic: The true church is a set of relationships in Christ. Building a church building changes that, and a certain group of people “own” “the church” : see the subtle shift? “The church” is now centered around who owns, or controls, the building, so the building itself, and the committee which owns it, becomes “the church”.

(ironically, similar to Marxist theory: who owns the capital controls the people.)

“The committee” or registered society which is formed to legally manage the building then becomes subject to the civil authorities ….. ??? See the problem?"

Jim

Here is another quote from my friend Marshall

"It is the Spirit of God who awakens whomever should come out of systematic religion. Those who leave on their hurt or complaint would be wise to skip house church — small is more intense, painful & humbling still because, if it’s real, there’ll be nowhere to hide in “anonymity”. beware: Jesus Christ in His Presence will make your senior pastor look like a pre-teen babysitter."

Krispy said:
Another thing that has bothered me about house churches is just about anyone is allowed to teach. Without the proper Biblical leadership authority in place this is very wreckless and dangerous from a spiritual standpoint.

Paul said:
Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord. ~ Colossians 3:16

Jim says:
God ordained the the body to be built up through its many members. There is nothing dangerous about true believers meeting together in accordance with the apostles clear instructions and teaching one another. Yet it is dangerous to have a senior pastor who usurps the manifold grace of God that comes through the many membered body that are all brethren.

Respectfully in Christ -Jim

PS - God bless you Krispy, hope you and yours are well in the Lord.

Jim... really? Comparing churches that meet in buildings to Marxism?

As for teachers, dont forget what James said:

James 3:1 "Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness."

I find it interesting that everyone says that the church always met in houses for the first 300 or so years... outside of 2 or 3 verses there really isnt much info one way or the other.

We need to be careful we dont slant what little information scripture gives us to favor whatever our opinions or preferences may be. The fact is... we really dont have a lot of information.

God bless you too Jim! :-)

Krispy

Maybe the problem is not whether the church meets in a home, or A building...maybe the problem is sin and pride.

Maybe the problem is not whether the church meets in a home, or A building...maybe the problem is sin and pride.

BINGO!! Ladies and gentleman, we have a winner!

That is exactly it.

Here's the thing I have been trying to say: it doesnt matter. Meet in a home, meet in a cathedral, meet in a disco, meet in a barn. What difference does it make? NONE whatsoever. Scripture even tells us that the first century church met in homes... AND in the temple, AND in the synogogues, AND on Solomon's porch... AND in prison.

Anyone see the freedom in that? Before they worshipped only in the temple and the local synogogues. Now we are to worship in spirit and in truth... where ever we happen to be at any given moment.

This whole thing about house church is better than meeting in a building, or vice versa... it's a non-issue and it's designed to separate.

I pointed out some issues I see in the house church "movement", and they are legitimate issues. I never said there are not any issues with the traditional church for surely there are many. If a church meets in a house, so be it. It becomes a "movement" when people encourage others to do it because they think there is something more spiritual about it... and so others follow suit.

But when we disparage all who worship in a certain way (so long as it isnt unBiblical), or all who worship in a building, or a home... etc... thats most certainly pride. And it's basically us looking down our noses at another group of people as though we have been enlightened.

Brothers, thats wrong... and it's so easy to get caught up in.

No one can build a scriptural argument for NOT meeting in a building, just like no one can build a scriptural argument for NOT meeting in homes. There just is not enough information. You know what that tells me? God intended for there to be freedom! Praise the Lord.

What He did give us, and very specifically I might add, is the structure, function and purpose of the church. Thats all spelled out rather plainly.

Location... not so much.

Krispy

"Here's the thing I have been trying to say: it doesnt matter. Meet in a home, meet in a cathedral, meet in a disco, meet in a barn. What difference does it make? NONE whatsoever. Scripture even tells us that the first century church met in homes... AND in the temple, AND in the synogogues, AND on Solomon's porch... AND in prison. Krispy

Well,the format of the meeting is what makes the difference, not the location, for sure. BUT....the format of the building always seems to emphasize the PULPIT/STAGE focus while separating a PEW CLASS of devoted listeners.

Thus the flow begins....with a "ministry class" of skilled worshippers leading the not so skilled....followed by a PRIEST/MINISTRY-CLASS lecture-sermon, while virtually minimizing the entirety of the body. Can you see the pattern here? Where is the much emphasized BODY MINISTRY that the New Testament so radically lays out?

It is consumed, wiped out. The Format, the "system". of the clergy/laity idea killed it, and imposes itself on many to accept it as the norm. It is not, and though often used by God, in many ways....freezes the multi-membered reality of the intended vessel....with each member joined to edify as the Spirit leads.

So...how many times do you see a "nobody" sister give a revelation, a testimony...a prophecy...led by the Spirit....during a meeting...spontaneously....at any given time? ..and witness the flow of constant teaching and revelation and testimony and song by perhaps 15 different people in the building, pulpit driven/ ministry class?

I have...many times...with each member contributing. It is about the format, and the liberty extended in the format. Yes...you could accomplish this in a Catholic Temple, or a Baptist Sanctuary..[ so called ]....but it would be very hard sitting with your back against your beloved brothers.

The house Church...should at least...encourage this idea of Body Life...and teach it, as we are ALL Priests...and a Kingdom of Priests at that.....and we all are gifted...IF we have faith. I love testimonies from the weak, and more simple...such as children...because I love faith.

The fact that you have a meeting in a home is meaningless....but it can provide a format...a vehicle that is more Biblically prone to include everyone to be used, as the Spirit leads..[ INCLUDING THE FEMALE MEMBERS!].It does not mean that the Lord will dwell there though....and it can be as much enslaving and dead as any Catholic Mass....and the Spirit can and does fall on the traditional churches too.

But...how well do you know people? You certainly can get to know folks, when you break bread with them, and worship Jesus next to them on their couch. In this, the home church does promote more reality in RELATIONSHIP...but not always in the substance of spiritual growth. Mormons have home church too.

Last thing..please consider.....the meeting is not the church...THE MEETING IS NOT THE CHURCH. We do not go to Church...we are the Church. The community is the Church...We go to meetings....and what matters is your fruit you bear outside of the meeting...how you love, and respond to God..when no one is looking, nor is there any performance. This is what God sees...and determines the Grace, and approval upon your life.

Tom... I think we're basically in agreement. There is no doubt that believers in a fellowship need to do life together. I certainly think we should meet in homes, especially if the fellowship meets in a building on Sundays. I agree with that, and for the same reasons you pointed out.

I will say this, I dont think there is anything wrong with a pulpit centered set up. I understand what you are saying, that we should avoid putting the focus on a man... but historically, if you study this out (and Viola got this completely wrong and inaccurate), the reason churches began to be set up like that was to put the preeminence on the PREACHING of the Word of God, not on the preacher himself. Thats actually why several hundred years ago the pulpits were so huge... it was actually to minimize the man, make him appear small.

The focus was on the Word of God. And of course, that has changed in some churches now, but not all. But there is a real reason why that set up is the way it is.

While we shouldnt get hung up on traditions of men, it does us good to have an accurate understanding of some traditions, especially when we find out that our perception of that tradition was skewed.

Krispy

"the reason churches began to be set up like that was to put the preeminence on the PREACHING of the Word of God, not on the preacher himself."

An intersteding study is to look at preaching in the new testament - its primarily an apostolic function for planting churches, not something that the mature local church gathers to do or hear every week. Teaching on the other hand is relational - you imparting your gift to me on level ground as a brother in Christ.

Brothertom - your comments are well written out and biblically sound. Thank you for taking the time to share them. -Jim

Actually Krispy, we are in almost complete agreement. I have always, always...since 1972.....been involved in a church with that model. A main meeting where the bigger church would meet, with a Pulpit, with inspirational teaching and preaching over it.

But even in that...there seemed to be the hierarchical thing that crept in...and the proverbial One Man Show. Once I helped start a successful church plant here in America, beginning in the home, that grew from 5 families and elders, to about 250-300. I labored there for several years...and had a home group of 50 saints..[ children included ].

We had BBQs and gatherings, trying to be that holy family.

I am simply stressing the need for the church to see itself as a body, and realize that sisters have gifts and faith too, and we need their ministry....as well as the weak, the leper, and whoever we may count as the least....and know that Jesus doesn't. He is No RESPECTER of PERSONS.

We as the church have allowed body-life, spontaneous Spirit led meetings with each member fitted in to minister....to be annihilated. I desire to see this changed....but God must do it. I now know that only he can build the Church, and it's when we try and twist His Arm to get something done....well...I know...because I've been disciplined.

By the way, Paul had a very similar model, as well as Peter and the twelve. Remember when it speaks of Paul preaching late into the night....[ I would really have liked to been there...what was he teaching?]and the young man nodded out, and fell off the scaffold?; Same idea.

The Pulpit ministry. I have been behind a pulpit or two...and consider it a holy responsibility........but it is not a place to control...and that is what most "Pastors" do......the entire world is theirs, and they are indubitably the most spiritual and leadership worthy of them all.

God wants us all to enter in together...and we are all equal, down to the very least...at least in His eyes we are; No exceptions. Our meetings should reflect this love and honor of one another, and at some time, have a vehicle where each and everyone is able to exercise that gift and ministry he or she possesses....and I see the house church and the inevitable breaking of bread that comes with it, God's way. Practice Hospitality. Fellowship begins there.

"The old puritans knew more about the gospel in a minute then we'll know in a year but that’s all they knew, they didn’t have the slightest conception on the church. John Calvin, John Owen, those great men they said a church is a place where the gospel is preached, the sacraments are observed and some of them said where discipline is maintained but they identified the church with a public preaching place and they were dead wrong. No ladies and gentlemen. The church is a bunch of people who have been saved by grace and commissioned to evangelize the world."

-Rolfe Barnard

Pilgrim... I agree that we should all encourage and exhort one another, challenge one another and all of that. No question about it, thats what we are commanded to do and we need it.

However, scripture is also clear that "Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness." (James 3:1)

Sometimes scripture gives us a command, but no explanation. Other times we get a command AND an explanation of why. For instance (not trying to go down a rabbit trail): women teaching men in the church. The command is "no, they are not allowed to teach men in the church", and the thorough explanation of why is spelled out... it goes all the way back to the Fall. Even tho there is always a debate on this forum about it, there is no debate when you read it in black and white in the Bible.

In this instance, teachers, we get an explanation. Paul also had a lot to say about not "laying hands on someone hastily", and he is talking about about taking someone and putting them in a leadership (elder, deacon, pastor teacher) role too quickly.

So while I agree that we should all be encouraging one another in the Word... just as we do here on this forum... those who operate in a teaching capacity in the local church should be few, and wisdom has to be used in discerning who is gifted by God to teach.

Not just anyone who walks thru the door should teach.

Krispy

And ya know what Pilgrim... (I sounded just like John Wayne there!) ... we are saying the exact same thing!

Praise God for that!

Krispy

"But it is not about the building you meet in but rather the people that are in that building. And that is the most important thing I want to convey. It is the orientation of our hearts that creates a blessed environment or an environment of strife and opportunism."

"Jesus Christ is at work even as we speak. He is very busy leading, feeding and caring for His Church right now. There is actually great latitude of freedom in the Lord and Believers are allowed to meet in many different ways and that is the way the Lord wanted it to be. "Pilgrim777

I think that this is so good, it should be taught in every New Believers class there is. Uncrucified pride always leads us into thinking our way is the right way, and none other can matter. When these ideas are manifested the sects , denominations, aberrations, and cults begin to rise. , and it can become a very dangerous thing to reject another true Christian as being inferior because of where they worship, or how.

However, there must be a flagship of basic doctrinal truth in any fellowship for authentic faith to thrive.

"Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,
Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.
And this will we do, if God permit."..Heb. 6-1&2

It always manifested, [ as you exhorted Pilgrim]...by Holy Fruit...Spirit filled love and mercy. This is Jesus' goal, and in that temple, He can dwell ungrieved.

We are ALL being driven to one center...that pure and spotless bride He returns for.

"That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish."

This will come to pass, and God will accomplish it. I see the Church on the Earth as grains of salt shaken in many fields. I have seen much faith in the most obscure saints, attending a nearly dead institutional Church? My grandmother was like that. She lived to be 107...and the oldest person in Illinois at her death.

She was saved 95 years, born again at 12. She died the natural way...she slept with her fathers, refusing food and water, she drifted peacefully away after a 3 day coma, and before she passed I got to fellowship with her.

She relived her testimony and she rejoiced as she recounted the Holy Spirit entering her as she sang an old hymn. She was with her Mom in a one room church in Alabama sitting around a wood stove in the winter. She literally had to wait until the creek thawed to be baptized.

As an adult, she married my grandpa and started to attend a local church of God here; the non-pentecostal one.

During this natural 3 day passing event, she absolutely shook up the family around her, by loudly speaking in unknown tongues! Go figure. The point I am making, is that to see her on the street, or in her church pew...how would you know. If you end up boxing her in to your demands of right Christian fellowship, you sin, by rejecting one of God's own.

People are in different places, as Pilgrim pointed out...and God knows those who are His, and you just may be surprised, as many of the last shall be first, and you see the "first" turned out to the bottom of the line.

However, there must be a flagship of basic doctrinal truth in any fellowship for authentic faith to thrive.

Thats music to my ears!

Krispy

Some more sound doctrine:

1) Do not elevate men by use of religious titles

But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ. The greatest among you shall be your servant. -Matthew 23:8

2) Do not re-arrange the body that God designed

But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. If all were a single member, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, yet one body. -1Corinthians 12:18

3) Teachers are in the middle of the pact - not above it

And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? -1Corinthians 12:28

4) Prophesy and open participation were encouraged in the large corporate meeting that took place in Corinth

If, therefore, the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are out of your minds? But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all, the secrets of his heart are disclosed, and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you. What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up.
-1Corinthians 14:23

5) The spirit of the prophets is subject to the prophets - not to a made up position called "senior pastor"

Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. --1Corinthians 14:29

6) If anyone does not recognize this...

If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized. So, my brothers, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. But all things should be done decently and in order. -1Corinthians 14:37

7) When the body is not fed according to the NT pattern it never grows into maturity

And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, -Ephesians 4:11

in Christ -Jim

What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me--practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you. -Phillipans 4:9

7) When the body is not fed according to the NT pattern it never grows into maturity

Put any two Christians together and you will have disagreement over what the "NT pattern" is.

Krispy

"Put any two Christians together and you will have disagreement over what the "NT pattern" is."

True brother - but that can be said of just about any topic in this day. That shouldn't keep us from continually seeking after the truth and laying aside unhealthy traditions as convinced by the holy spirit. Some people say that we should only focus on the absolute essentials of the faith - the apostles strongly disagreed. Though of course it is a (never ending maybe) process.

-Jim

"Put any two Christians together and you will have disagreement over what the "NT pattern" is." jimdied2sin

I find it interesting that the Lord, in Revelation two and three, did not not just speak His mind in one discourse to the current Church at large, but he did not. He singled out each church by city name, as though the aroma was a little different, and it seems that there was a character difference in these churches.

"Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea."

He also designated a different angel to each church, and exhorted them on a variety of works, doctrines, and rebukes....to repent...and a few He even praised. We are not all the same. I understand that these churches were probably formed under the ministry of Paul the Apostle, or by ministers under him..[ Ephesus was huge..and we know Paul established her.]

So, does God have a cookie-cutter, he stamps down when revival comes? Personalities are involved, and the church melds together as a body, and it's corporate faith assumes an IDENTITY...a little leaven leavens the whole lump idea...just like families are different in their mannerisms, habits, the way they laugh, and sense of humor..[ or bitterness].

Every church is different, as faith is rooted down, the plant is rooted up, and it's struggles, and strengths and weaknesses will be defined later in the taste of the fruit. Jesus is a fruit taster, as He waits patiently for the precious fruit of the Earth; US!

Jerusalem; with her deep hatred of Christ and His apostolic band, brought on deep and bloody persecution..and eventually banned all Christians in 68 AD, before Titus razed her. But this did something in the character of those Jerusalem saints. They were so holy, that " Great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things."

"And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people; (and they were all with one accord in Solomon's porch".

"And of the rest durst no man join himself to them: but the people magnified them.

And believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women.)" and they carried this to other places: holiness, and the fear of the Lord, with power. It affected their personalities and faith.

Church plants will always differ, just like marriages; they are very similar, if you think about it, and we all respond differently to God...and has been noted, we ought to act in an edifying manner to those in the body of Christ who differ. It is always "THEY" that are different, if you get my drift.

Love covers a multitude of SIN".

""Put any two Christians together and you will have disagreement over what the "NT pattern" is." jimdied2sin"

Brother - to clear up any confusion - I didnt say that, krispy did.

brothagary said:

for instance the first point you make must be kept in contex with say how paul used the term teachers and interpret it in light of how an apostal was using words, like father ,and teacher ,,,,,,,,knowing he called him self a father ,and called others teachers

Jim:

On the first point, Jesus makes it clear not to use religious titles. If we lived in the first century that would have been clear. Surely scripture identifies different callings such as apostle, teacher, evangelist, etc. Yet these are callings not titles. For instance, you will find "Paul, an apostle according to the will of God" and "Phillip the evangelist". You will not find "Pastor Phillip" though, because we are all brethren. We have been trained to accept religious titles against the council of God - because the clergy-laity system demands use of such titles to keep the clergy elevated above the laity. Even Godly men do this through way of unhealthy tradition.

brothergary said:

even the points u made about proherts and prophecy ,,,,we can talk about the destincion between ,the gift and the office ,,,and what paul ment when he said if you all spaek in toungs ,or if you all prophecy

Jim:

All can speak in tounges and prophesy (though many dont) but of course when the whole church gathers it has to be done in order per 1 Corinthians 14:27-30. For example I can teach, prophesy, etc yet I am definately not a teacher or prophet. I know brothers who this is clearly what they are although they dont use religious titles or business cards to say so. They are simply brothers that are called by God with that primary gifting. Everyone knows it what there place in the body is. So if you asked me are there any teachers in the local Church I can clearly say yes its brother so and so instead of "Pastor so and so".

My friend Ian recently wrote on this:

Also, if anyone claims to have spiritual authority or office over other believers, they MUST be able to intelligently explain HOW and WHY that is so from the Scriptures, otherwise, they really are treating Christians as if they were stupid. Well, so and so ordained me! No, that would be an insult to a thinking Christian’s intelligence. Furthermore, how can anyone claim spiritual authority over others, or enforce it, when they don’t understand what it is, nor can define it Biblically, in the first place?

(In these days it’s better not to claim any authority over others, but rather let people figure it out for themselves, by observing your life and teaching, whether or not you have any authority from God)

SI member Lisa Scott wrote this:

They love the best places at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, 7 greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called by men, ‘Rabbi, Rabbi

Could this be the same as Pastors, Popes, Priests loving to be noticed among men and recognized that they are a great leader for the church, loving to be invited to very important events, loving to be recognized by titles, plaques, and awards to make sure men see all their works and boast of all their achievements? Such men love to be called by titles instead of being known as one of the “lowly” brethren. They have an attitude that they must be recognized by all their hard and holy work they do unto the Lord. Of course, in most countries people do not use the word Rabbi. What is the term used today in America? Head Pastor, Priest, Father, Pope, Reverend. Great titles used mainly to make you known, to make you elevated above other brethren so that you are looked upon as different than other brethren; like with great importance, and to be respected and treated differently than the other brethren. Sure, there are Elders in the bible; those with the gifts of being an apostle, prophet, teacher, and evangelist. But they are gifts to be used to help mature the body, to watch and bring order/discipline, and not to lord it over and control them like the heathens (Mathew 20:25-26).

brothergary said:

i also noticed brother you seem to have a different definition or use regarding what preaching was or is for ,,compared to others

Jim:

I recommend a quick study through the NT. If you have E-sword or use BibleGateway you can search for "preach" and "teach". You will find that teaching is for the body of Christ. All can teach, though proven elders that labor in teaching are worthy of double honor for sure. We should yeild to each other but to them double yeild because they are elders proven in the faith. Preaching is primarily, if not exclusively, an apostolic and evengelistic function for planting churches. It is not a man standing at a pulpit with a made up title of "senior pastor" preaching to the saints every week. Christ has ordained that His Church be built up through a many membered body operating in the Holy Spirit. We have choked that off by way of roman catholic tradition and even true saints are left in infancy if that is the type of church they are in. Its a self serving cycle. Senior pastor usurps the place of the gifts of the body, people are left in infancy, become dependant on the senior pastor, and the cycle goes on. Although a local church may do this and make up for it by being strong in prayer, holiness, loving the poor, etc it is still not Gods way. God moves in spite of our faults, but when those faults become known we should repent.

God bless you brothergary -Jim

Came across this quote tonight that I think fits in with this thread.

"The church as we know it today seems a million miles from the New Testament church. That may be a great generalization, but I will stand on it. There is a gulf between our average Christianity and the church of New Testament that makes the Grand Canyon look like a cavity in someone's tooth."

-Leonard Ravenhill

Gary said:
" but its spliting hairs to say im gary the paster ,,not paster gary or gary the teacher not teacher gary "

Jim:
How about "Im Jim - nice to meet you brother". We are all brethren - we surely are not nicolatians who jocky for religious positions over others. To take up religous titles is to dishonor Christ and introduce religous unreality that divides the body. The only person we know in the NT that did such were the pharisees Christ rebuked (Matthew 23) and Diotrephes (1 John 3) who did not adknowledge the teachings of Christ and the apostles on this matter.. he loved to have the preeminence among the brethren.

Gary said:
"i think a ten year long study rather then a quick study so to speak ,,one might see that timothy preached to the body on comand"

Jim:
Of course brother, I have studied the issue thoroughly after having the lense of empty roman catholic/protestant tradition removed from my eyes. I just wanted to point out that with the software we have today, it can be quickly seen that preaching is primarily for the lost and a young church plant. If you wanted to og that far we could do an in depth study... of course such is better suited for a living room than a internet forum.

Eitherway I appreciate you in Christ -Jim

roadsign said:

"I wouldn't see this as a doctrinal statement in itself - but a means to help ensure sound doctrine."

Jim:

I am using the word doctrine in its most simple form to mean teaching.

roadsign said:

"When you elevate certain people you counteract God’s New Covenant arrangement. Don't let labels make that happen. The point is not: Forbid the use labels."

Jim:

Thats not what Jesus said. He said call nobody by these titles because we are all brethren. I am not talking about labels either - we are talking about status titles.

roadsign said:

Of course plenty of religious organizations have tried to avoid lofty titles only to have over time whatever labels got used become status symbols.

Jim:

That is true, but being a part of a new testament fellowship where everyone truly are brethren including the elders will cure us of that. Sadly many groups start out in the spirit like that and then someone desires preeminence as you said though...

roadsign said:

Not everyone who calls them Rev. or prints it in the bulletin are elevating them wrongly

Jim said earlier:

"Even Godly men do this through way of unhealthy tradition."

roadsign said:

as in 1 Cor. 1 (I follow Apollus, etc...and BTW, without any labels at all)

Jim:

I think that speaks more to taking denominational titles rather than personal titles of religous status.

roadsign said:

My concern with referring to this kind of example as a doctrine is that there is a danger of accusing anyone who uses labels of doctrinal error and biblical disobedience.

Jim:

For sure sister, I went to meet a family member and their church friends were there so a man comes up to me and says "Hi - Im pastor Dave". I politely respond back "It's nice to meet you brother". If that ever became an issue (my response) I would say more but I wouldn't judge someones heart because they use a title though I believe it is clearly wrong. Surely some Godly men use these titles without being proud in heart, but the title does promote a false clergy laity system and carnality in the house of God either way. A sort of religous professionalism that is sick at the core.

I sincerely wonder how many have been involved in a book of Acts style fellowship - in close intimate daily relationships with brethren rather than relationships forged through religous structuring and programs. There is no room for religous titles in a family where all are brethren. Even a doctor of medicine is not called "Doctor Charles Smith" by his close friends and family. They just call him "Charlie". It would be utter foolishness yet this is accepted in the house of God despite Christs instructions.

I am thankful to know such brethren including elders that I can have true relationships with and spend their lives to build me up rather than teach me to use a special title for them.

God bless you sister Diane.

Jim

There is no room for religous titles in a family where all are brethren.

Really? Is that why Paul went to great lengths to describe for Timothy and Titus the qualifications for elders? Is this why he also described elsewhere the qualifications and duties of deacons? Luke described it in Acts as well. Is this why Paul listed off different functions of people in the church according to the gifts given by the Holy Spirit... such as teacher, evangelist, etc?

God has an order and a structure for the church, and we are called to submit to (not bow down to, dont misconstrue what I am saying) those in spiritual authority over us. Why? It's for our own good and for our spiritual guidance.

To say that this order and structure should be abolished and there should be no one in leadership is rebellion against scripture and ultimately against God.

Krispy

Krispy said:

"To say that this order and structure should be abolished and there should be no one in leadership is rebellion against scripture and ultimately against God."

Brother,

I would ask you to read this thread and you will see that I never said any such thing. For you to be a tale bearer pretending that I said that is not only sin but muddies the waters of an otherwise good discussion going on here. I believe you will want to remove that post when you discover it is a completely fabricated straw man.

[Edit - I will remove this post then too]

Thank you,

-Jim

"Another thing that has bothered me about house churches is just about anyone is allowed to teach. Without the proper Biblical leadership authority in place this is very wreckless and dangerous from a spiritual standpoint."

I agree with what you are saying here, I do however believe it should be that others are able to participate in the teaching. One should lead but the floor should be open. I believe this is what the apostles were advocating. Unfortunately in a traditional church gathering you can not participate in this manner. you are the laity to sit and listen.

When I left the traditional church system(IC) I had a big chip on my shoulder. Very prideful, as the years went on I realized my error and made changes. I do sometimes though fight that feeling though. But Gods grace has been sufficient for me. I do think about going back, its difficult to go since I don't agree with the pattern any longer. I continue to pray for Gods guidance in this matter.

Mike

Hey Krispy

Interested in knowing what you know. We have not found a house church and truly my desire is not to find one or start one any longer. Its hard to even go back to the modern tradition church. especially knowing what I know now, the model is such a far departure from scripture. One think though I have wrestled with...could the church system we have today be what God had allowed and developed through out the years?

Let me know how to contact you. if you need my email?

reformer(mike)

Jim,
Thanks for the post. Krispy, I'm sorry you got mixed up with "the wrong house church" crowd/model. Your bad experience doesn't negate the truth. Frank Viola was part of the quasi-emergent church crowd. Some come out of the IC and get an "us vs them" attitude. Been there, done that, got the T-Shirt, but I grew and learned from that error. I didn't go running back to the dead system in the building not modeled after scripture. I spent a long season alone in the desert with the Lord. Now, the Lord moved us (from TX to NM) to be in true NT Christ's Body fellowship of the believers (in a home). Worth waiting on the Lord, and in His timing receiving the promise, not just running to "make it happen" producing an Ishmael.
If you want a good, spiritually mature resource on this subject, I would HIGHLY suggest "Church in the Wilderness" by Chip Brogden. He also wrote one of the best books I've ever read on what it really means to follow Jesus - "Embrace the Cross". He has a whole online Biblical study called "The School of Christ" that what ive seen is very good. He is an ex-IC "Pastor" of many years.
Really, in all love, one man's experiences don't mean much in light of scripture and 2,000 years of church history & writings. The Lord is allowing the IC model to be shown for what it is, & is restoring the NT Body model again. You can not like it all ya want, but the Lord is doing it, & He will bless it, & grow it in purity & through the imperfections of it's members. Love ya & that's real,
God Bless,
Jeff

I would ask you to read this thread and you will see that I never said any such thing. For you to be a tale bearer pretending that I said that is not only sin but muddies the waters of an otherwise good discussion going on here. I believe you will want to remove that post when you discover it is a completely fabricated straw man.

Jim... you need to work on not taking things so personally. I picked up on a statement that was made, and I was not aware you made it... and I responded to it. Nothing more, nothing less.

If you disagree with what I said, so be it. It's no skin off my nose. What I said does not make me a tale bearer, I simply responded to a statement that was made. If I misunderstood what you said then all you have to do is clarify yourself a little more. You dont have to resort to name calling.

Calm down.

Krispy

Let me know how to contact you. if you need my email?

reformer(mike)

Yea, I hate that we dont have private messages anymore. I know some were abusing it apparently, but now it's hard to have a conversation with someone without making your private contact info public for every creepy person in the world to see.

I'm willing to talk via email, but not willing to post mine so everyone can see it. Last time I did that I got spammed, and also heard from a couple who just wanted to let me know how much they disagree with me on stuff... unsolicited.

Krispy

Krispy check my profile.

Just did... nothing there.

Krispy

jimp said:

"hi, i would not rely too much on how the church got started as to use it as a pattern for today ..."

jim:

Then according to Paul your comments are not to be recognized as being from God. The apostles did not recognize those who taught against their doctrine, pattern and instructions... neither do I.

jimp said:

"they also shared there finances equally but noone is following that pattern harldly anymore"

jim:

I am blessed to know and have some fellowship with brethren that do. Not because they openly flaunt it but because I found out different ways. The answer is not since we fall short in some area to just make up a new kind of christianity .. rather to to repent - to ask where the old path is and walk in it. But we said we will not walk in God - we cant afford to as we have to use our money to feed the religous beast clergy-laity system plus denominational hq needs her 10% too. Shameful.

Respectfully -Jim

Krispy said:

"There is no room for religous titles in a family where all are brethren....

Really? Is that why Paul went to great lengths to describe for Timothy and Titus the qualifications for elders? Is this why he also described elsewhere the qualifications and duties of deacons? Luke described it in Acts as well. Is this why Paul listed off different functions of people in the church according to the gifts given by the Holy Spirit... such as teacher, evangelist, etc?"

Jim:

Paul did not contradict the commands of Christ, he knew we were all brethren. He gives the descriptions of those who are fit to be recognized as elders, he never gives them honorary religous titles in definace of Christ. Nobody said their are not different functions in the church. yet we are all brethren, where as Christ specifically contrast being all brethren to using religous titles. This is clear as day though the enchanting power and control of religion is tough to break off our minds.

Krispy said:

God has an order and a structure for the church, and we are called to submit to (not bow down to, dont misconstrue what I am saying) those in spiritual authority over us. Why? It's for our own good and for our spiritual guidance.

Jim:

Amen - that order is given in the whole council of His word. It is in stark contrast to the order that rome and even the reformers gave to the church.

Krispy said:

"To say that this order and structure should be abolished and there should be no one in leadership is rebellion against scripture and ultimately against God."

Jim:

Amen again. To make up a false position of senior pastor and a clergy laity model is rebellion against scripture and ultimately against God too. To use religous titles in rebellion to the command of our Lord Jesus Christ is too. To create schisms through denominationalism is rebellion too. To choke off the Holy Spirit working through the many membered body is rebellion too. Much rebellion today isn't there?

As stated earlier, many Godly men fall to this through vain tradition.

-Jim