SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Looking for free sermon messages?
Sermon Podcast | Audio | Video

Discussion Forum : General Topics : Thoughts on Simple/House Church Movement

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 Next Page )
PosterThread
Mattie
Member



Joined: 2004/7/23
Posts: 210


 Thoughts on Simple/House Church Movement

What are your thoughts on the modern day 'house/simple church movement'?

Is it healthy or unhealthy?

If so for either/or, why? Share your perspectives.

 2009/12/16 16:55Profile









 Re: Thoughts on Simple/House Church Movement

Asking if house churching is healthy or not is like asking if every Baptist church is healthy.

Depends on the people and the leadership. If the structure is scriptural, and the people love Jesus and are living by the Spirit... then it is healthy.

My question is: is going to a some building to sit and rows and watch the show healthy? Not if thats all it is. In most churches FELLOWSHIP is what is missing... and people have finally figured that out.

The house/simple church movement is growing because God desires for His people to be a FAMILY... not an organization or corporation. The Spirit of God moving in people, and putting a desire in their hearts to live life with their brothers and sisters in the Lord in transparency and truth is what is causing the growth of house/simple churches.

Of course there are dangers... but no more so than in the American institutional corporation church.

Krispy

 2009/12/16 17:09
Miccah
Member



Joined: 2007/9/13
Posts: 1752
Wisconsin

 Re:


KrispyKrittr wrote:

Quote:

Asking if house churching is healthy or not is like asking if every Baptist church is healthy.

Depends on the people and the leadership. If the structure is scriptural, and the people love Jesus and are living by the Spirit... then it is healthy.

My question is: is going to a some building to sit and rows and watch the show healthy? Not if thats all it is. In most churches FELLOWSHIP is what is missing... and people have finally figured that out.

The house/simple church movement is growing because God desires for His people to be a FAMILY... not an organization or corporation. The Spirit of God moving in people, and putting a desire in their hearts to live life with their brothers and sisters in the Lord in transparency and truth is what is causing the growth of house/simple churches.

Of course there are dangers... but no more so than in the American institutional corporation church.

Krispy



Yep


_________________
Christiaan

 2009/12/16 17:13Profile
Mattie
Member



Joined: 2004/7/23
Posts: 210


 Re:

Thanks for the thoughts guys.

 2009/12/16 17:16Profile
ccchhhrrriiisss
Member



Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4499


 Re: Thoughts on Simple/House Church Movement

"And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, [b]and breaking bread from house to house,[/b] did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved." - Acts 2:46-47

:-)


_________________
Christopher

 2009/12/16 18:26Profile
wayneman
Member



Joined: 2009/1/24
Posts: 454
Michigan

 Re:

I would say that the house church is inherently healthier than the corporate church, because it doesn't include professional ministers.

I'm all for the House Church Movement, but their faith in a Church Model to restore the glory of the Apostolic Age reminds me of the poor old Plymouth Brethren.

The Brethren Movement began in the 19th Century when four Irishmen noticed that there was no biblical basis for having a Clergy and agreed that Clergymen were largely responsible for all the disunity, error and worldliness in the church, so they organized a fellowship "run strictly along New Testament lines," with no ordained ministers. They were confident that this Church Model would end sectarian strife and provide a basis of unity for all believers. By the 20th Century, the Brethren had schismed into 48 warring factions. A whole cascade of divisions and subdivisions resulted from increasingly inane Baptism controversies: "household" or "believer's baptism;" indoors or outdoors; in running water or still; one dip or three; forward or backward. One faction, the River Brethren, added to river baptism the ordinance of foot-washing. But then a controversy arose: should one Brother wash and another dry, or should both functions be performed by the same Brother? They divided into the One-Mode and Two-Mode River Brethren.

The HC movement is pretty much the same way. Their pursuit of ecclesiastical perfection leads to constant bickering over every minutia of doctrine and practice. (There are allegedly exceptions, but I haven't found any, and I've been looking for a long time.)

I recently heard an irate clergymen denouncing the HC movement for "meeting in living rooms and playing church!" Yeah, fighting, schisming, competing for converts, slandering each other - they're playing church all right!

The HC has the potential to be the basis for the next great move of God because of the absence of revival-killing clergymen. But first we have to get Christ-centered instead of Church Model-centered.


_________________
Wayne Kraus

 2009/12/16 18:39Profile
Miccah
Member



Joined: 2007/9/13
Posts: 1752
Wisconsin

 Re:


wayneman wrote:

Quote:

I would say that the house church is inherently healthier than the corporate church, because it doesn't include professional ministers.

I'm all for the House Church Movement, but their faith in a Church Model to restore the glory of the Apostolic Age reminds me of the poor old Plymouth Brethren.

The Brethren Movement began in the 19th Century when four Irishmen noticed that there was no biblical basis for having a Clergy and agreed that Clergymen were largely responsible for all the disunity, error and worldliness in the church, so they organized a fellowship "run strictly along New Testament lines," with no ordained ministers. They were confident that this Church Model would end sectarian strife and provide a basis of unity for all believers. By the 20th Century, the Brethren had schismed into 48 warring factions. A whole cascade of divisions and subdivisions resulted from increasingly inane Baptism controversies: "household" or "believer's baptism;" indoors or outdoors; in running water or still; one dip or three; forward or backward. One faction, the River Brethren, added to river baptism the ordinance of foot-washing. But then a controversy arose: should one Brother wash and another dry, or should both functions be performed by the same Brother? They divided into the One-Mode and Two-Mode River Brethren.

The HC movement is pretty much the same way. Their pursuit of ecclesiastical perfection leads to constant bickering over every minutia of doctrine and practice. (There are allegedly exceptions, but I haven't found any, and I've been looking for a long time.)

I recently heard an irate clergymen denouncing the HC movement for "meeting in living rooms and playing church!" Yeah, fighting, schisming, competing for converts, slandering each other - they're playing church all right!

The HC has the potential to be the basis for the next great move of God because of the absence of revival-killing clergymen. But first we have to get Christ-centered instead of Church Model-centered.




I can say that I have not run into what you are speaking of. ALl of the House Churches that I have attended/run have been Christ centered. In fact, it can be scary to most people who are unfamiliar with HC's.

Folks are so used to the church centered model, that when they see something that is actually biblical, they tend to think of it as "cultish". Once they attend, they see that it is the " institutional church" that is more cultish then HC's.

Note~ I am not speaking about all institutional churches, just the experiences that I have had.

Blessings


_________________
Christiaan

 2009/12/16 19:00Profile
wayneman
Member



Joined: 2009/1/24
Posts: 454
Michigan

 Re:

Quote:
I can say that I have not run into what you are speaking of. ALl of the House Churches that I have attended/run have been Christ centered.



I need to take Church hunting lessons from you! I'm glad your experience has been positive. I have seen two spontaneous moves of the Spirit: both sprang up outside the church; both were suppressed and then shut down by professional churchmen.

One was a Friday night Bible Study. We weren't trying to start a church; just gathering for fellowship. The churchmen told us to break it up because, they said we were "cultish." Yes, practicing Christianity without professional assistance is cultish.

That is why I'm looking for a good Living Room Cult - I've had it up to HERE with the clergy.


_________________
Wayne Kraus

 2009/12/16 19:28Profile
TaylorOtwell
Member



Joined: 2006/6/19
Posts: 927
Arkansas

 Re: Thoughts on Simple/House Church Movement

I would say the "movement" is unhealthy, though some of the individual churches may be very healthy. By "movement", I'm speaking of the faddish type house churches who just don't like having anyone tell them what to do. Just as mega churches are buying into the culture, these churches are too, although less obviously. Just as consumerism is a snare, so is egalitarianism. So, forsaking all types of leadership, form, or structure is not necessarily the Biblical answer, in my opinion.

Paul states that what is of "first importance" is the message of the Gospel (1st Corinthians 15). So, given the choice of joining with a body of believers who have bad ecclesiology, and joining with a body of believers who don't get the Gospel - I would choose to join with the group who gets the Gospel, even if the church structure isn't completely Biblical. From my experience, the simple church "movement", is not very sound on their teaching of the Gospel. Some of it is influenced by books like "The Shack", etc.

I understand and sympathize with the concerns of those in the house church "movement", but I don't think they are heading in the right direction. It is entirely possible, and more Scriptural, in my opinion, to have a vibrant, Spirit filled church with functioning elders and teachers. If a church gets the Gospel, and has (or is moving towards) a real eldership (not just talking a lot of how eldership is Biblical), then I commend them, and I think the Scriptures do as well.

May the Lord give us light in these things...

P.S. - One caution. I have noticed those in the house church movement often taking little jabs at ordained elders in existing churches by calling them "clergymen", "professional clergymen", etc. I would strongly caution against that. [i]"They are presumptuous, self-willed. They are not afraid to speak evil of dignitaries..."[/i] (2nd Peter 2:10).

With care in Christ...


_________________
Taylor Otwell

 2009/12/16 19:48Profile









 Re: Thoughts on Simple/House Church Movement


There really isn't a right or wrong with house Church meetings. Believers just gather together and Christ is in the midst. It's the form of government that God would have us all do. A close knit community of caring for our own, and doing good to those that are not.

 2009/12/16 19:52





©2002-2019 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy