"House-Church"

[Spiritus Naturae]

When I first signed on as a TWeb member waaaay :hrm: back in September of 2003, I was delighted to see shortly thereafter an article posted by Mr. Dan Trotter ( http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11625&highlight=Trotter) of the NTRF (http://www.ntrf.org/index.html). While I do not agree with absolutely everything in regards to the "House-Church" movement I am a staunch advocate for the ideals behind it. Especially the proper placing of authority figures within the body of Christ, no clergical hierarchy. The emphasis on the Lord's Supper as a means to fellowship and truly remember the Lord and identify ourselves within Him. I have found the intimacy of fellowship with other Christians to be overwhelming and wonderful within the "House-Church" segment. It seems that the individual believer is much more responsible for the discernment of what is Scriptural and what is not. A believer is not allowed to be a 'pew-potato' :duh: but is faced with being a much more integral part of the whole, a 'hands-on' Christian, if you will.

I, myself, attend a local Bible Church, with it's more traditional way of doing 'church' where I find myself educated and edified. However, I attend a home fellowship as well and find it, at times, more strengthening in terms of understanding just what 'church' really is. Christ being the center of all things done and practiced and shown at 'church'; He is the true purpose and point of 'church'. His being worshipped and adored and prasied at 'church', but much more importantly throughout our everyday humdrum existence.

When we gather together and show the true love our Lord commanded us to demonstrate to one another, not because we have to but because it is the real, sincere intent of our hearts, this is truly 'church'. When we gather together and grow in discernment and wisdom, allowing His Holy Spirit to illuminate our minds in regards to God's Word, we are truly at 'church'. When we come together and hear the hard things of Christ, the things that trouble us and may 'offend' our own 'understanding', but we take them and apply them to our lives, this is real 'church'. When the result of our attendance is our ultimately forsaking all else and living a life absolutely surrendered to Christ Jesus, we have found a true church.

Jonathan :innocent:

[Spiritus Naturae]

:hrm:

I suppose I was hoping beyond hope to get responses and interaction from other "House-Church" attendees and get some idea of other experiences within the "House-Church" movement. My experiences have been nothing but positive and edifying and uplifting. So are there any other participants in this movement here on TWeb?

:innocent:
Jonathan

[Amazing Rando]

:hrm:

I suppose I was hoping beyond hope to get responses and interaction from other "House-Church" attendees and get some idea of other experiences within the "House-Church" movement. My experiences have been nothing but positive and edifying and uplifting. So are there any other participants in this movement here on TWeb?

:innocent:
Jonathan

While I've never been part of what would be called a "house-church" per se, I think I can identify with what you're talking about. I've experienced the joys and intimacies of a small-group Christian fellowship in several venues- guys-only, mixed fellowship, and couples' bible study. Meeting for bible study and prayer in small, closeknit groups offers fellowship advantages and allows a deepening of relationships that a larger church setting simply cannot offer in and of itself.

That being said, many churches, even the very large ones, encourage their members to meet together apart from the weekly Sunday worship to experience both such types of Christian fellowship. For my money, the ideal situation would be to be a member of a larger church community in order to take advantage of the benefits and resources such a church can offer while offering your own gifts and talents for the use of the entire congregation, while at the same time meeting together in a small group setting to enjoy giving and receiving the intimacy and depth of fellowship that can only be achieved in a close-knit circle of fellowship. In other words, experience both, if you can.

[AcousticJS]

For my money, the ideal situation would be to be a member of a larger church community in order to take advantage of the benefits and resources such a church can offer while offering your own gifts and talents for the use of the entire congregation, while at the same time meeting together in a small group setting to enjoy giving and receiving the intimacy and depth of fellowship that can only be achieved in a close-knit circle of fellowship. In other words, experience both, if you can.

That's pretty much the standard way of "doing" (I much prefer the term "being") church over here in the UK. Certainly in the two churches I'm part of, and the one I will be a part of when I finally stop living in two places after Uni, the Sunday morning meeting is supplemented with home groups for deeper fellowship, bible study, worship and all round good-stuff. I like this arrangement very much. :teeth:

[Happy Giraffe]

My two cents:

The Church I attends is similiar to a house church with limited hierarchy [ we have elders who oversee the running of the Church administration ] and the Lords Supper being central.
I prefer the round table discussion which seems to be the way 1st century Christians did it, rather than a preacher behind a pew system which tends to create a sort of clergy-laity divide.

[Solly]

I'm with you all on that. Though a preacher myself, there is a tendency, even in the most determinedly un-clerical of baptist circles, to get clerical, and to ignore the possibility and desireablity of team ministry; also there is a tendency to focus on the church services as beng what church is about.
I think House Churches and their ilk are the way forward for the church in the West as secularism gets a deeper hold. Back to the first-third century indeed! PostModernism gives us a great opportunity to throw off the ecclesiasticality of the big denoms, and yet still bear witness in our time. America of course lags far behind in this, and probably will do through a large part of this century, with its mega churches and multi denominational structures. The ties that bind will become cross denominational, esp through the internet, and new structures, more flexible and adaptable, will arise.
I hope so anyway. Remember the dinosaurs. Metaphorically speaking.

We need to recover the idea that the church is a community, and the community of the resurrection. And as newbigin says, it alone is the hermeneut of the Gospel. If people don't see Christians together living the resurrection life, where will they see it, and be attracted to it, or durst no man join himself to them.
The one problem with House Churches is their general invisibility, which can be solved by the larger get together. We had a charismatic church group called Church of the King in Northampton. They had 5 congregations over the town [pop. 180000], with all their house groups and cells, and then they came together from time to time.

[Spiritus Naturae]

I'm with you all on that. Though a preacher myself, there is a tendency, even in the most determinedly un-clerical of baptist circles, to get clerical, and to ignore the possibility and desireablity of team ministry; also there is a tendency to focus on the church services as beng what church is about.
I think House Churches and their ilk are the way forward for the church in the West as secularism gets a deeper hold. Back to the first-third century indeed! PostModernism gives us a great opportunity to throw off the ecclesiasticality of the big denoms, and yet still bear witness in our time. America of course lags far behind in this, and probably will do through a large part of this century, with its mega churches and multi denominational structures. The ties that bind will become cross denominational, esp through the internet, and new structures, more flexible and adaptable, will arise.
I hope so anyway. Remember the dinosaurs. Metaphorically speaking.

We need to recover the idea that the church is a community, and the community of the resurrection. And as newbigin says, it alone is the hermeneut of the Gospel. If people don't see Christians together living the resurrection life, where will they see it, and be attracted to it, or durst no man join himself to them.
The one problem with House Churches is their general invisibility, which can be solved by the larger get together. We had a charismatic church group called Church of the King in Northampton. They had 5 congregations over the town [pop. 180000], with all their house groups and cells, and then they came together from time to time.

:thumb:

Thanks Solly! It is good when we can truly understand what the 'church' is, and I agree that the intimacy and fellowship found in a "House-Church" makes that understanding more available to us as believers. How wonderful it would be if we had a true 'community' of believers. I see it happening here and there, but not nearly on the scale I would like to see.

:innocent:
Jonathan

[Penguin]

I'm all for house-churches. Unfortunately, I don't know of any around here. Except for maybe a few with lousy doctrine.

[Amazing Rando]

I'm all for house-churches. Unfortunately, I don't know of any around here. Except for maybe a few with lousy doctrine.

Yep- that's one big disadvantage of house churches (and independant, nondenominational churches as well)- if they start going astray doctrinally, there's nobody to whip them back into orthodoxy.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

While I've never been part of what would be called a "house-church" per se, I think I can identify with what you're talking about. I've experienced the joys and intimacies of a small-group Christian fellowship in several venues- guys-only, mixed fellowship, and couples' bible study. Meeting for bible study and prayer in small, closeknit groups offers fellowship advantages and allows a deepening of relationships that a larger church setting simply cannot offer in and of itself.

That being said, many churches, even the very large ones, encourage their members to meet together apart from the weekly Sunday worship to experience both such types of Christian fellowship. For my money, the ideal situation would be to be a member of a larger church community in order to take advantage of the benefits and resources such a church can offer while offering your own gifts and talents for the use of the entire congregation, while at the same time meeting together in a small group setting to enjoy giving and receiving the intimacy and depth of fellowship that can only be achieved in a close-knit circle of fellowship. In other words, experience both, if you can.Exactly. That is the way I 'do' church too. I attend a very large (c. 4000 member) churc. But within that church a several small groups. The one I attend is very active in meeting together to both counduct bible study and fellowship. Unfortunately, there is only one other small group in my church that does that. The rest just "get buy" on a "Sunday School" lesson and a big coporate worship service.

[Spiritus Naturae]

I'm with you all on that. Though a preacher myself, there is a tendency, even in the most determinedly un-clerical of baptist circles, to get clerical, and to ignore the possibility and desireablity of team ministry; also there is a tendency to focus on the church services as beng what church is about.
I think House Churches and their ilk are the way forward for the church in the West as secularism gets a deeper hold. Back to the first-third century indeed! PostModernism gives us a great opportunity to throw off the ecclesiasticality of the big denoms, and yet still bear witness in our time. America of course lags far behind in this, and probably will do through a large part of this century, with its mega churches and multi denominational structures. The ties that bind will become cross denominational, esp through the internet, and new structures, more flexible and adaptable, will arise.
I hope so anyway. Remember the dinosaurs. Metaphorically speaking.

We need to recover the idea that the church is a community, and the community of the resurrection. And as newbigin says, it alone is the hermeneut of the Gospel. If people don't see Christians together living the resurrection life, where will they see it, and be attracted to it, or durst no man join himself to them.
The one problem with House Churches is their general invisibility, which can be solved by the larger get together. We had a charismatic church group called Church of the King in Northampton. They had 5 congregations over the town [pop. 180000], with all their house groups and cells, and then they came together from time to time.

emphasis mine

Solly, have you ever heard of Beresford Job and Chigwell Christian Fellowship? They are located 'across the pond' there with you and have an excellent "House-Church" ministry and I have quite a few of their teaching tapes and books. They have been a great resource to me in my endeavours as an 'Ecclesiologist. :wink:

Like you, I would love to see a return to the sincere community fellowship that was, I believe, the intention established by the Lord during His ministry on earth and was the intention exemplified by the Apostles early on.

[Solly]

emphasis mine

Solly, have you ever heard of Beresford Job and Chigwell Christian Fellowship? They are located 'across the pond' there with you and have an excellent "House-Church" ministry and I have quite a few of their teaching tapes and books. They have been a great resource to me in my endeavours as an 'Ecclesiologist. :wink:

Like you, I would love to see a return to the sincere community fellowship that was, I believe, the intention established by the Lord during His ministry on earth and was the intention exemplified by the Apostles early on.

I have heard of it, and been to their website; i was a little taken aback by their "nonDoctrinal" stance, but as they are nowhere near me, it doesn't matter that much.

More recently, I have contacted several local HC groups via their internet sites, and will hopefully link up, although my main base will be the church I have been led to; however, that church is lloking to do things differently itself.
I am ok with the HC movement, and saying what I am sure I have said recently, see them as a corrective to the institutionalisation and clericalism and finance gobbling aspects of the denoms and big churches. however, I think they will eventually come together, via networking, and become a more visible and effective movement that will also link up with those churches who are willing to do things differently. This isn't the Reformation anymore, or the 18th or 19th, or even 20th century. The time has come to take church to the people, not hope they will walk through our door just because we put a newsletter through their door. we have TV etc to compete with.

I see church as operating on several levels; the inner core that is Church with its worship, communion etc; then its ministries, teaching and service; then its outward actions, evangelism, counselling and service, then its connections - secular use of buildings, contacts at work, etc, and then its casual contacts. People will encounter different aspects, and the gravitational pull of the work of the Spirit will draw some of them in further, as the life of Christ is radiated outwards.
it's not violent, not compulsion, its wooing. it's not button holing, its attraction. For some, they will be turned off from further involvment - judgment is included in the Gospel, and people will judge themselves by their reaction; they will pass through the outer circles at a tangent and out again. For others, the gravitational pull will draw them in deeper, challenging them with the call to discipleship. Not the call to be religious, but to follow Christ, as those they encoutner are doing.