Given the discussion on “house churches”, I thought it interesting this article just came out.
House Church: Skip the sermon, worship at home
The practice discussed here is not, as far as I can tell, scriptural at all. Besides all the unscriptural things they engage in, they purposely keep the groups to under 15 people and separate when they reach that number. While I appreciate wanting to move back to the Bible and away from the “clergy/laity” pattern developed by men, I question how a church can grow to have elders and deacons as commanded by God if they do this? The way things are described here, it sounds more like people want *no* leadership, which is just as bad as a congregation meeting in a “church building” that refuses to appoint elders (yes, those exist).
vivian golwitzer are discussing. 
vivian golwitzer 12:20 pm on July 26, 2010 Permalink |
Well, finally someone else thinks this is ridiculous! Here in Michigan this is practiced by several “churches”. Then to top that off the brotherhood here does not say anything, or else they get the door. Also, these are the same folks that allow mixed swimming and believe that social drinking (not in excess) is allowed. There are only a few congregations that have the integrity to speak out against these practices. So thankful to Our Savior I can be numbered among the few.
Laura 1:19 pm on July 26, 2010 Permalink |
To be clear, there is nothing wrong with the church meeting in homes for Bible studies or if the entire congregation can assemble for worship in a single home. There are valid reasons to do that. (Please see prior discussions on the topic. ) The point I make here is that it important to examine the reasons for doing such and make sure they are aligned with the scriptures. If the reason is just to have a small, exclusive circle of friends and to not be subject to the leadership God wants us to have, then we need to think twice. That’s what I see in this article.
BTW. A congregation here practices this on Sunday evenings and has for years. They splinter into separate groups and have individual worship services. These groups tend to form into cliques where very different worship practices can develop. Within the past year or so, they had a major split. Some left because it was too liberal (they were adding instrumental music in a separate “contemporary” service) while some left because it wasn’t liberal enough (they weren’t adding instrumental music to all services). Not surprised at all. They were worshiping separately, hearing different messages, and were no longer of one mind, as is commanded in 1 Corinthians.
vivian golwitzer 1:54 pm on July 26, 2010 Permalink |
that is also what is happening here. I have no problem for expediency to meet in homes, but you have nailed it when you replied that they begin to divide. Here they have been adding music, praise bands, etc. I do have a problem with this. The scriptures tell us to come together, not separate.
Jonathan 10:01 pm on July 28, 2010 Permalink |
How large does a church need to be to be able to grow elders and deacons?
How large were the churches we read about in the New Testament?
Where did they meet?
Laura 8:19 am on July 29, 2010 Permalink |
You asked three questions:
Q: “How large does a church need to be to be able to grow elders and deacons?”
A: Large enough to have men qualified for these positions. See 1 Timothy 3:1-7, Titus 1:5-9, and 1 Timothy 3:8-13. Given the list of qualifications and our society’s morals, the chances that a very small body of converts from the world today can fill these positions is quite slim. In a body of 15 that consists of men, women, and children, there are even fewer men from which to choose, so the chances go down much further. Keep in mind that at least TWO must be qualified as and willing to serve as elders.
Q: “How large were the churches we read about in the New Testament?”
A: We don’t know precisely how large each church was. We know there were 3000 converted on the day of Pentecost and many of those chose to stay in Jerusalem. We also know that Jesus demands the church go out and teach all the earth — that will necessarily result in growth. Mark 16:15-16. In Acts 8:4, we see that those who were scattered due to Saul’s persecution went everywhere preaching the word. They were bent on growth and not “pew jockies” like many in the church are today.
Q: “Where did they meet?”
A: Anywhere they could. They didn’t have church buildings as do we, so they had to make due with what they could find: the temple, the synagogues, the river side, homes that were large enough, wherever. Many point to Acts 2:26 to authorize dividing the assembly and meeting in separate homes, but a careful study of the passage shows that the early church in Jerusalem met daily in the temple AND went from house to house breaking bread. The breaking bread here refers to sharing a common meal, because as we know, the Lord’s supper was only taken on the first day of the week, and whatever bread they were breaking was done daily. Therefore, it is not valid to draw conclusion from this passage that the first day assembly of the saints in Jerusalem was divided and in separate homes. This concept is neither stated nor implied in the passage.
What we do know is that the brethren in Jerusalem met in the temple, which was clearly large enough to hold the entire body. And we do know that the body in Corinth came together as a church in *one* place on the first day of the week for the purpose of taking the Lord’s supper. 1 Cor. 11:18-33. We also know from 1 Cor 16:22 that the Corinthian brethren were to bring their offerings on the first day of the week so that the offerings wouldn’t have to be gathered together when Paul came to them — that implies a central collection point. So the meeting place had to be big enough for all to fit on the first day of the week. The size of the place obviously depends on the size of the body. We just completed a study of the account of the paralyzed man let down through the ceiling of Peter’s home for Jesus to heal. Historical evidence shows many homes had large open courtyards in the middle where “a crowd” could assemble, as the passage tells us. A body the size of “a crowd” could fit in one of these homes. How big a crowd? We don’t know.
We also know that Paul told the Ephesian elders that he had taught them both publicly and from house to house. Acts 20:17-21. The implication is that there was a public assembly (somewhere) and private gatherings in homes that involved teaching (authorization for home Bible studies). Taking it all together, there seemed to be a general assembly of all together on the first day in some place large enough to hold the entire body, possibly other public assemblies (the temple meetings were daily), AND meeting in homes outside the first day assembly for the purposes of socialization and teaching. That is about all we can draw from the scriptures.
Jonathan 9:46 am on July 29, 2010 Permalink |
Thanks for the detailed response.
I would agree that gatherings/groups of 10-15 to the total exclusion of larger gatherings/groups is not ideal. Neither is larger gatherings/groups to the total exclusion of smaller. I think a combination of the two is best, though I would hesitate to judge from afar the motives of someone who chooses one or the other.
I was a little bit puzzled by this statement:
It seems like you might be looking for “authorization” for every possible location for Bible study…which seems strange to me.
Are you concerned that it is common today to have multiple churches in a single city that meet in separate buildings and do not assemble together? Do you consider this to be a violation of the Biblical pattern?
Laura 5:35 pm on July 29, 2010 Permalink |
Are you saying that, while “not ideal”, it is okay for a single body to decide they are not going to follow the Biblical pattern of assembling as one body on the first day of the week and that we are to not judge “from afar” such actions against the written word?
“It seems like you might be looking for “authorization” for every possible location for Bible study…which seems strange to me.”
Not at all. I believe we can study anywhere, just like we can pray anywhere. I only put that out there just to show we have explicit authority to do that in the event that someone comes from the opposite side and says we can only ever meet together as a large group for teaching. Stranger things have happened…
“Are you concerned that it is common today to have multiple churches in a single city that meet in separate buildings and do not assemble together? Do you consider this to be a violation of the Biblical pattern?”
No and no. See the prior thread on this subject. There are very valid reasons, particularly in large, geographically distributed cities to have multiple independent congregations.
Jonathan 12:56 pm on July 31, 2010 Permalink |
Could you post a link to that previous thread? I think I missed it.
I’m saying that it is not for me to externally define exactly what constitutes the body assembled. Churches that meet in church buildings in the same city (e.g. Nashville, many of them in relatively close proximity to one other given our convenient modes of transportation) routinely assemble separately but occasionally come together for area-wide singing or something like that. It’s not unusual at all to drive past one church building on the way to yours. Why are they divided? Shouldn’t they merge to remove this division? They could, but I understand why they might not. I don’t think there is a fundamental difference between that and smaller “churches” that meet in homes rather than in a building. Whatever group meets together routinely, wherever that may be, seems to me to be the assembled church and is not invalid just because a larger group could assemble in a small church building, a large church building, a stadium, or wherever. If a group were to cease meeting together (i.e. dissolve and maintain their daily walks only as individuals), then I would agree that they have abandoned something central to the examples I see in the NT.
So, yes, I’m saying it is OK for each group to decide for themselves what size of assembly is ideal for them. It’s not necessary or advantageous to push the size of the assembly to the logistically-practical maximum. I don’t think it would be right for me to judge a group simply based on their size if I don’t have a personal knowledge of their rational for choosing that size and/or have first-hand knowledge that it is so small that it is dis-functional.
Laura 3:32 pm on July 31, 2010 Permalink
Actually, there have been several posts on this topic, but this is the one to which I refer: http://fellowshiproom.org/2010/07/20/house-churches/
The Bible defines a local church and that is the definition we must follow. Anything else is going beyond the scriptures. It is a body of believers who have identified themselves with each other (somehow), and meet and work together through a shared a common treasury. That group is to grow and mature to the point of appointing elders. Titus 1:5. It may be a long time before that can happen due to lack of qualified men. But all congregations should be working toward fulfilling this command. Without elders, a church is immature by Biblical standards.
I would agree that the size of the local church is to not be judged, as long as they are in harmony with the scriptures. I personally prefer a smaller group (<150) because IMHO, it's harder to really get to know one another and share that loving bond that a church family is supposed to have when in extremely large groups. Other people prefer very large churches.
Again, the article to which I refer in this thread explicitly states that the people are doing this so that every person has a part of the leadership, which is in direct violation with God's commands on church leadership. Anything people choose to do that violates God's commands is sin, pure and simple.
Jonathan 4:51 pm on July 31, 2010 Permalink |
I read the article again. It doesn’t explicitly say that “the people are doing this so that every person has a part of the leadership.” It observes that “house churches emphasize shared leadership and lack hierarchy.” I suspect this is more of an observation that they don’t fit neatly within the rigid hierarchy that some denominations have…not that there are no leaders…and that because the group is smaller there is necessarily a larger percentage of the group that are “leaders.” Rather than everyone leading, I get more of a feel of everyone participating and of a less rigid/scripted program of activities…both of which could be good trends.
for example, “…people who share what’s going on in their lives, often turning to Scriptures for guidance. They rely on the Holy Spirit or spontaneity to lead the direction of their weekly gatherings” and “…they have no clergy and everyone is expected to contribute to the teaching, singing and praying.”
Thanks for the link to JRM’s post. I remember skimming, but I don’t think I read the whole thing before. Now that I have, I see that JRM and I agree that there may be some benefits to house churches.
Laura 8:40 pm on July 31, 2010 Permalink |
I guess I read the article differently than do you. It says the “emphasize shared leadership”. I take that statement at face value. Again, what does the Bible say about church leadership and how does what is practiced here fit with that?
Certainly from a perspective of denominations, house churches popping up could be a good thing. Why? Because people may actually read and follow their Bibles and study themselves into being New Testament Christians. The chances that they will do that while being part of a large denomination is not very big.