Can you explain me the home church movement?

[graysparrow]

I'm catholic btw, just so you know where I am coming from. :)

[New_Wineskin]

The HC movement is rather complicated . There are several reasons why people begin home groups and many have no knowledge that this is happenning in increasing numbers throughout the world ( especially the western world ) . Most are very individual and take on the characteristics of those in their particular HC .

I don't have time to go into it further but the HC movement is basically people having meetings in their homes . As I said , there are many reasons for people doing so . The only common idea among them is that they meet in homes .

[graysparrow]

So is this a new denomination?

Or rather a multi/interdenominational movement? I even remember having seen a book (published in the 70's) about the home church movement inside the Catholic Church. Surely that would not be very popular among the conservative?.

Why?

Is this an addition to 'normal' church or 'instead of' normal church? Do you worship just with your family? Do you feel large congregations are wrong? Or what?

:help:

Thanks! :)

[New_Wineskin]

So is this a new denomination?


Or rather a multi/interdenominational movement? I even remember having seen a book (published in the 70's) about the home church movement inside the Catholic Church. Surely that would not be very popular among the conservative?.




Absolutely *not* a denomination or multi/interdenominational movement . As I said , most are completely different than each other and many don't even know that the HC movement is actually a movement - they think that they are the only ones . There are books on it . Some denominations do have "home groups" or cell groups that they claim to function as HCs . Some HC's do have connections with each others . But , it is a movement and some are not even aware that they are doing things that others are doing as part of the movement .







Why?



Is this an addition to 'normal' church or 'instead of' normal church? Do you worship just with your family? Do you feel large congregations are wrong? Or what?



:help:


Thanks! :)

That again is different within each group and for each person . There are some that HC simply because they consider that other ways are flat out wrong . Some are only starting out as HC's until they have enough people to obtain a building and be like other groups . There are many different reasons for starting an HC and being with an HC . Some do just have meetings with the family .

[lismore]

I'm catholic btw, just so you know where I am coming from. :)

if you look at the scriptures below you will see that the House Church/groups are the biblical example:



John 20:26 NIV (http://www.ibs.org/niv/passagesearch.php?passage_request=John 20:26)
A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!"

Acts 2:2 NIV (http://www.ibs.org/niv/passagesearch.php?passage_request=Acts 2:2)
Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting.

Acts 5:42 NIV (http://www.ibs.org/niv/passagesearch.php?passage_request=Acts 5:42)
Day after day, in the temple courts and from house to house, they never stopped teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the Christ.

Acts 8:3 NIV (http://www.ibs.org/niv/passagesearch.php?passage_request=Acts 8:3)
But Saul began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off men and women and put them in prison.

Acts 16:40 NIV (http://www.ibs.org/niv/passagesearch.php?passage_request=Acts 16:40)
After Paul and Silas came out of the prison, they went to Lydia's house, where they met with the brothers and encouraged them. Then they left.
Romans 16:5 NIV (http://www.ibs.org/niv/passagesearch.php?passage_request=Romans 16:5)
Greet also the church that meets at their house. Greet my dear friend Epenetus, who was the first convert to Christ in the province of Asia.

1 Corinthians 16:19 NIV (http://www.ibs.org/niv/passagesearch.php?passage_request=1 Corinthians 16:19)
[ Final Greetings ] The churches in the province of Asia send you greetings. Aquila and Priscilla [ Greek Prisca, a variant of Priscilla] greet you warmly in the Lord, and so does the church that meets at their house.

Colossians 4:15 NIV (http://www.ibs.org/niv/passagesearch.php?passage_request=Colossians 4:15)
Give my greetings to the brothers at Laodicea, and to Nympha and the church in her house.

[graysparrow]

Thanks for the scriptural reference. It should be valuable. However a possible explanation could be that they were forced to use homes; after all many churches start under a cloth, even today.

Thanks again :)

[New_Wineskin]

I don't see that they considered that they were "forced" to do anything . It was about family and not religion . It was about the Spirit and not the written code ( ie the Scriptures ) . They didn't meet together because of any rule or that they "had to" .

[mamabear4]

In some ways I like the HC idea. I think the groups would be more personal and could be more honest with each other than in larger church settings. What I also see is that sometimes the less people we have to be accountable to the more lopsided our philosophies tend to become. I think both ways have their drawbacks. What we need to do is follow the leading of the Lord for our families. I definitely believe the father is the spiritual leader of any home, no matter what sort of church they attend - not the church leaders.

[graysparrow]

I don't see that they considered that they were "forced" to do anything . It was about family and not religion . It was about the Spirit and not the written code ( ie the Scriptures ) . They didn't meet together because of any rule or that they "had to" .

Well I meant the persecutions, being considered a pernicious 'cult', that sort of thing...

[New_Wineskin]

Well I meant the persecutions, being considered a pernicious 'cult', that sort of thing...

I understand . They were meeting in homes before that was going on .

[lismore]

Thanks for the scriptural reference. It should be valuable. However a possible explanation could be that they were forced to use homes; after all many churches start under a cloth, even today.

Thanks again :)

Hi sparrow

you are welcome:wave:

The first persecutions came under Nero, about 20 years after this. I think if church buildings had been a priority to Jesus or Paul they would have done something about it, but the only time Jesus mentioned buildings was when he said 'not one stone would be left on another' and Paul said 'you are a temple of the Holy SPirit'. So perhaps the church buildings as a priority came later in church History for that reason: the early church were not interested in separate church buildings: they saw church more as community gatherings than a religous ceremony.

God Bless

Lismore:)

[lismore]

I'm catholic btw, just so you know where I am coming from. :)

Hi Sparrow:wave:

One good thing about home churches:

1 Corinthians 14:26 (New International Version)

Orderly Worship
26What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church.



The bible says that when we come together every member of the body should have something to give, something to share with the rest of the body.

In traditional church where one man or a couple of people do a service, this does not follow the biblical example. We are ALL ministers and we are ALL brothers and sisters. None of us are any higher than another and there are no pew fillers in the KIngdom!

:wave:

[graysparrow]

Hi lismore

Thank you for your interesting perspective. I will be chewing it :).

[mamabear4]

1 Corinthians 14:26 (New International Version)
The bible says that when we come together every member of the body should have something to give, something to share with the rest of the body.

In traditional church where one man or a couple of people do a service, this does not follow the biblical example. We are ALL ministers and we are ALL brothers and sisters. None of us are any higher than another and there are no pew fillers in the KIngdom!

:wave:


That is a good thought, lismore. I have never noticed that Scripture before, but it makes perfect sense. Thanks for bringing it up.

[Count]

We are ALL ministers and we are ALL brothers and sisters. None of us are any higher than another and there are no pew fillers in the KIngdom!

:wave:

Amen brother!

[~HopeFloats~]

I was raised in a HC, I no longer go there as i feel for my children they need church activities which a HC does not support.I want my kids to learn things and not feel bored with The meetings and conventions like I was. Plus saying a female is never to cut her hair or wear it down or never to wear pants is a bit much for a child..I do not think it matters how we come to God the fact is we are coming to God:angel:

I will say I never saw a divorce in the HC, and what great family units they provided..:)

[New_Wineskin]

Plus saying a female is never to cut her hair or wear it down or never to wear pants is a bit much for a child..I do not think it matters how we come to God the fact is we are coming to God:angel:

Since there is no standard HC doctrine , that is only something that the HC you went to enjoyed . Far weirder doctrines are employed at IC's .

[lismore]

I was raised in a HC, I no longer go there as i feel for my children they need church activities which a HC does not support.I want my kids to learn things and not feel bored with The meetings and conventions like I was. Plus saying a female is never to cut her hair or wear it down or never to wear pants is a bit much for a child..I do not think it matters how we come to God the fact is we are coming to God:angel:

I will say I never saw a divorce in the HC, and what great family units they provided..:)

Hi there:wave:

Generally you can meet in a home church as you choose, as the Spirit leads.

What I like about home church is that you can all go in and share a psalm, a song, a reading, a prayer and the Lord will speak through them and tie them together in an amazing way! You can also encourage the poor and downtrodden people there. Cliques are out. The grounding you get there is not easily forgotten:amen:

I dont like the staged and rigid service type meetings.

Those things you mentioned: women wearing men's clothes and long hair. There is scriptural discussion of these, you dont need to cut yourself up about them.

At the end of the day the only one with authority over you is the Lord: over every believers head.

God Bless

Lismore

[CoreyZallow]

How do you join one of these "home churches"? does this have anything to do with murphyism?

[lismore]

How do you join one of these "home churches"? does this have anything to do with murphyism?

What is murphyism?

How you join them is what our Lord said:

Matthew 18:20 "For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."

Indeed our Lord mentions home churches more than any other form of Christian worship. Nowhere does he mention church buildings.

In my testimony I was blessed in that about 10 other people left the same catholic Church when my family did due to a move of the Holy Spirit. We had a house fellowship together for fifteen years. I grew up in it from the age of 5 onwards:) . very powerful it was too.

[Winkks]

:groupray: Hi!
This is a very interesting subject that I can relate to. Hubby and I home church. The reason we home church is because of the corruption in the church today. Most churches are corrupt and perverted.
A good example; I heard on the news a few weeks back about a non denominational church that cost $95,000000 to build. It was jammed packed, not a vacant pew in the building! Excitement of the luxury lifted the spirits of the people congregated there! I can only imagine the size of the offering plates.
Meanwhile, there are hungry and homeless people in great need.
Do you suppose that Jesus is thinking how many people $95,000000 could feed and cloth? Instead, that money was spent on a luxurious building/“church“. Would Jesus call this his house?

[Old English cir(i)ce , from a prehistoric Germanic word that is also the ancestor of German Kirche; ultimately from Greek kuriakon doma “house of the lord,” from kurios “lord”]


The church today seems to have/build upon, a “spirit of wealth”, as appose to the Holy Spirit. The “spirit of wealth” is the wrong spirit to be worshiping.

So, my opinion is; we shouldn’t question “home church”, instead we should be questioning who and what is being worshiped, no matter what building we are physically sitting in.
Jesus spent more time preaching outside of the synagogue than he did inside. He was mostly in the midst of the people, where the needs were greater and the lost were found.

One thing I don’t want to do is justify :sigh: my actions. Hubby and I are getting closer to the Lord daily, and when the Lord tells my husband, “go to this church”, we will. Meanwhile, we are growing according to the word and not man’s understanding.

:amen: We witness everywhere we go!
At the grocery store parking lot, there are homeless people moping about. The “church people” do not even look their way, they are not acknowledged, the needs of the lost are ignored. The malls are full of “Christian women” shopping for lovely apparel to wear next Sunday. God have mercy on us all! It’s not where we worship, it’s what we worship!

God bless...
-Winkks
We all have so much to learn! We need a self revelation of where we are in Christ.

[graysparrow]

Dear Winkks, you have made some excellent points :)

[lismore]

:groupray: Hi!
We all have so much to learn! We need a self revelation of where we are in Christ.

Terrific post:thumbsup: :amen:

[Collum Cille of Iona]

:groupray: Hi!
This is a very interesting subject that I can relate to. Hubby and I home church. The reason we home church is because of the corruption in the church today. Most churches are corrupt and perverted.
A good example; I heard on the news a few weeks back about a non denominational church that cost $95,000000 to build. It was jammed packed, not a vacant pew in the building! Excitement of the luxury lifted the spirits of the people congregated there! I can only imagine the size of the offering plates.
Meanwhile, there are hungry and homeless people in great need.
Do you suppose that Jesus is thinking how many people $95,000000 could feed and cloth? Instead, that money was spent on a luxurious building/“church“. Would Jesus call this his house?

[Old English cir(i)ce , from a prehistoric Germanic word that is also the ancestor of German Kirche; ultimately from Greek kuriakon doma “house of the lord,” from kurios “lord”]


The church today seems to have/build upon, a “spirit of wealth”, as appose to the Holy Spirit. The “spirit of wealth” is the wrong spirit to be worshiping.

So, my opinion is; we shouldn’t question “home church”, instead we should be questioning who and what is being worshiped, no matter what building we are physically sitting in.
Jesus spent more time preaching outside of the synagogue than he did inside. He was mostly in the midst of the people, where the needs were greater and the lost were found.

One thing I don’t want to do is justify :sigh: my actions. Hubby and I are getting closer to the Lord daily, and when the Lord tells my husband, “go to this church”, we will. Meanwhile, we are growing according to the word and not man’s understanding.

:amen: We witness everywhere we go!
At the grocery store parking lot, there are homeless people moping about. The “church people” do not even look their way, they are not acknowledged, the needs of the lost are ignored. The malls are full of “Christian women” shopping for lovely apparel to wear next Sunday. God have mercy on us all! It’s not where we worship, it’s what we worship!

God bless...
-Winkks
We all have so much to learn! We need a self revelation of where we are in Christ.


Hmmm yes.

The West spends enough on Church Buildings and dogfood to feed every starving person in Africa.

Priorities?

[mortsmune]

Hmmm yes.

The West spends enough on Church Buildings and dogfood to feed every starving person in Africa.

Priorities? I once heard a statistic that Americans throw enough food down their garbage disposals alone to feed all the starving people in the world each day.

[New_Wineskin]

I once heard a statistic that Americans throw enough food down their garbage disposals alone to feed all the starving people in the world each day.

People tend to exagerate . Rarely do people exagerate on how many hungry people in the world are fed by Americans each day . And , they don't make such comparisons on the other well-off nations for some reason .

[Rev. Smith]

Home Church Missions and Congregations. As other posters alluded, many Christians around the world find that there is no Church in their area that keeps to a Christian faith they can understand, relate to and believe. I am an Old Catholic. While we are well established in Europe there are no more than 50 parish chuches here in the USA, and those are under about a dozen jurisdictions.

Many people express interest in our denomination when they learn about us through the internet, books or other media. They get excited about our church (we're not for everyone : the one liner I give is Protestant in doctrine, Catholic in ecclesiology) and then loose interest when they learn that the nearest parish is hundreds of miles away.

Several of our Priests, me included have been setting up support for Home Church Missions. Whenever a few people want to get together to worship and explore we provide them the documents on our views and faith, and the Prayer Liturgy (for a service that doesn't require a priest), lists of nearby churches with open communion for a monthly Holy Communion service and training for one or more of their members that leads first to a License to preach (Minister), then Deacon. Once the Mission has a Minister or Deacon they can hold their own Communion Service (with pre-consecrated bread and wine). We also provide those. We have a Priest or Bishop visit each Mission once a year for fellowship and Q & A.

Once a Mission has about 20 members (if that is a direction the Mission wants to take) we urge them to look for a church that will allow them to use their facilities during off hours (many churches are very generious, my congregation now meets in a local Anglican Church). They should also consider sponsoring one of their Ministers or Deacons for the priesthood.

So why home churches, even for denominations? Because it represents yet another way for people to worship together without compromise. Rather than worship in a church whos dogma, discipline or rules you dispute - make your own!

[catlover]

This is a very interesting subject that I can relate to. Hubby and I home church. The reason we home church is because of the corruption in the church today. Most churches are corrupt and perverted.
A good example; I heard on the news a few weeks back about a non denominational church that cost $95,000000 to build. It was jammed packed, not a vacant pew in the building! Excitement of the luxury lifted the spirits of the people congregated there! I can only imagine the size of the offering plates.
Meanwhile, there are hungry and homeless people in great need.
Do you suppose that Jesus is thinking how many people $95,000000 could feed and cloth? Instead, that money was spent on a luxurious building/“church“. Would Jesus call this his house?

Yep, people are tired of the waste! I think churches should spend more time feeding and ministering to the lost. I would love to join the Salvation Army Churches BUT they don't practice baptism. They have the right idea about helping the lost thought.

[catlover]

Sounds interesting Rev. Smith. Are you folks active in Northern New England¿

[M Paul]

The home church movement is known by many names--Emergent, or Emerging Church seems to be winning out, but it is also known as the Non-Instituional Church (my preference for historical and connotative reasons), cell-unit church, cell church, New Testament church, home church, house church, and probably more. It is basically a cell church structure, as opposed to episcapol or congregational.

I'm in the movement because I find it is the biblical model of the church, and I believe its practice leads to a much more rich experience in Christ. I set out the details which form the basis of upholding the cell unit model of church structure from Scripture and history in an article on my web site, and I tried to post it but I was not allowed. Hmm--I really believe the article does a good job of setting out what the movement is about. Oh well.

The Catholics are not real fond of the movement, but they do have a division of it, called the Base Ecclessial.

Regards,

Paul

[lismore]

People tend to exagerate . Rarely do people exagerate on how many hungry people in the world are fed by Americans each day . And , they don't make such comparisons on the other well-off nations for some reason .

Hi:wave:

I went to the supermarket here in Scotland Yesterday. Half of the supermarket was taken up with dog food, dog treats, cat food,cat treats, special food for cats that have problems deficating, hamster food, budgie seed and at the way out there was a tin for collections to africa.

This country has a tradition of being generous to helping starving folks in africa. But animals here still eat better than African people there.

Its just not right somehow:scratch:

P.S Im not against pets, pets are great. I have had pets. But I just dont understand this :scratch:

[New_Wineskin]

This country has a tradition of being generous to helping starving folks in africa. But animals here still eat better than African people there.

Its just not right somehow:scratch:


I don't see how it is not right . Your country is generous to people but are also generous to their pets . It reminds me of the parable of the person hiring people during the day and the first people hired complain that the last people hired received the same wages . The owner says something like , "What's it to you if I am generous to others . You were paid what was promised ." I don't understand the idea that the rich have no right to exist - that it doesn't matter how much help they are to others , people will always have a problem if they do anything for themselves when they could do more ( even though they did more than those complaining ) . I think that this type of mentality has somehow been accepted by the masses . Even when they see a sort of contradiction as you have , the thinking still seems to be more real than reality .

[graysparrow]

Oh come on, come on... There is no way you can apply that parable. We are speaking about people here, not animals. However the problem is not that people are being generous to animals, which is a good thing, but that they are NOT being generous with people.

[Wisdom's Child]

Hi:wave:

This country has a tradition of being generous to helping starving folks in africa. But animals here still eat better than African people there.

Its just not right somehow:scratch:

P.S Im not against pets, pets are great. I have had pets. But I just dont understand this :scratch:

Sadly the political issues of Africa have more to do with the poverty there than a lacking of generosity.

If you were to send $1,000,000 to a community in Africa to help feed the people guess what would happen. The local Warlord and his gang of thugs would become millionaires and the peasants will still be starving. Worse yet, the Warlords would be better financed to exploit those starving peasants in hopes of another huge windfall from the ignorant "bleeding hearts" types.

[New_Wineskin]

Oh come on, come on... There is no way you can apply that parable. We are speaking about people here, not animals. However the problem is not that people are being generous to animals, which is a good thing, but that they are NOT being generous with people.

You didn't read what I said . I said that it reminded me . I didn't say that it was directly applicable . I am talking about how people are always trying to tell other people what to do . You also didn't read the previous couple of posts where we were discussing that people *were* generous to other people and not as you say it being about how people are *not* generous . We were then going along the lines that , even though people are recognized *as* generous , others always want to be negative about them for not giving more . And , *that* ties right into a part of the parable - people thinking that they have the right to tell others what to do with their money .

It is people like that which keep some of us from being involved in groups . People who can't mind their own business and have the desire to control their beliefs and actions through manmade doctrines .

[New_Wineskin]

Sadly the political issues of Africa have more to do with the poverty there than a lacking of generosity.

If you were to send $1,000,000 to a community in Africa to help feed the people guess what would happen. The local Warlord and his gang of thugs would become millionaires and the peasants will still be starving. Worse yet, the Warlords would be better financed to exploit those starving peasants in hopes of another huge windfall from the ignorant "bleeding hearts" types.

That is a good point . Another point is that these people know that they cannot support their children but have more and more . These people are not stupid . They know what they are doing . Yet , they continue doing so .

[lismore]

Sadly the political issues of Africa have more to do with the poverty there than a lacking of generosity.

If you were to send $1,000,000 to a community in Africa to help feed the people guess what would happen. The local Warlord and his gang of thugs would become millionaires and the peasants will still be starving. Worse yet, the Warlords would be better financed to exploit those starving peasants in hopes of another huge windfall from the ignorant "bleeding hearts" types.

Hi:wave:

I gave my money to a man in AOG who was actually going to a place in need. Theres also a mission I know in the Phillipines (sefton village). I would give my money to small christian groups who you know and know that they are having some impact when they come back and show you the slides or bring back a new believer who would have died without the help given.

To not give because of corruption is a lame excuse when you could go on a plane (or bus) to a poor place and give even $5 and maybe even save someone.

What I meant is that when you step outside of your home and set foot in 50 piles of dogs mess and hear you colleague saying that they spent £70 on a haircut, or £200 on a Christmas present for their dog that you wonder where exactly priorities are.

Every winter in this country some old folks freeze to death because they cannot afford to turn on their heating. You dont need to deal with a warlord to help old folks.

There will always be an excuse for not helping, dont let it stop you giving wisely.

:)

[graysparrow]

Well its funny today I was again with the street kids in Bucharest and we were finishing eating together when a little stray puppy came to us. I thought they were going to ask me for food for this dog when one of the kids literally took some food out of his mouth and gave it to the dog.

Ok maybe it is not a story for nursery school... :)

[lismore]

Well its funny today I was again with the street kids in Bucharest and we were finishing eating together when a little stray puppy came to us. I thought they were going to ask me for food for this dog when one of the kids literally took some food out of his mouth and gave it to the dog.

Ok maybe it is not a story for nursery school... :)

:hug:

[Deiesous]

An HC is basically a small group of people :groupray: communing in their houses instead of a church building.

Some people, like myself, have small HC because we have to. For example: I am a minor and therefore cant choose where or when Im going places- not even Church. But the Family church availiable to me through my family (duh! family church :P ) hasnt got the best doctrines in the world- very very pay-me-or-go-to-hell type of teaching . So the obvious alternative:
"Hey Jack, wanna meet me and Sally at my place for Bible Study? Okay, see you then"

However, things like baptism or the eucharist/communion/Lord's supper can pose a problem for more traditional Hc's (i.e. Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, who believe a priestis necassary for these sacraments).

Hope I helped some... God Bless (You're in my prayers)

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

House Church is not the only Biblical model. All Churches have bits right and bits wrong!
Most Church movements or Denominations are formed in response or reaction to previous denominations. Therefore Churches - and so Christian's - have become used to defining themselves and each other according to their differences and not their similarities.

You may get negative reactions from HC due to this sort of attitude - being that HC are often the seen as the minority/underdogs! - stating that they are the true way, just like all the other denominations/movments do. Just ignore that kind of talk, it's devisive and therefore not representative of HC theology.

Most Chruches (at least in England) operate in a Cell Church capacity - empowering small groups to fascilitate disipleship, prayer, teaching and evangelism - which has essentially sprung from HC.

I was born into HC, progressed to "New Church" - which is like House Churches who meet into biggr rented venues - on to Cell Chruch - which teaches the 4 W's to be done in Cells -Welcome, Worship, Word, Witness - to Emergent Church - which is best explained (although not very systematically) by Kester Brewin in The Complex Christ - or visit his site www.thecomplexchrist.com (http://www.thecomplexchrist.com))

Flan out.

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

I've just been blogging with some mates and found this on http://thecomplexchrist.typepad.com/the_complex_christ/2005/08/sustainability_.html
:::::

I strongly believe that a more distributed leadership model will help to avoid these pitfalls, and that it naturally lends itself to a group of leaders working part time. To share out the knowledge and responsibility means that things are not centred on one 'guru' - thus reducing the risk of the church being led astray, and meaning that the organisation is far more sustainable as one person leaving will not lead to a crisis. To have a team made up of at least some locally based people can only help continuity within the church and community. And such a model seems to be backed up by the new testament ideology of every-member ministry, with everyone encouraged to take part and take responsibility.

--- methinx this kinda sums up the strengths and aims of HC, Cell Church andd, to an extent, Emergent Church.

[New_Wineskin]

If all are equal , all are leaders . That solves the problem .

[Rev. Smith]

If all are equal , all are leaders . That solves the problem .

The doctrine of the equality of all believers before God is always sound, but does not always translate into sound ecclisiology. The fact is that we are all equal but bring different talents and abilities with us into the church. Most of the time this doesn't matter. In a home church or a Parish hall, we all prefer that the lesson, homily or sermon be given with someone with a talent for it, otherwise they can be dreadful.

Like wise, one our church has more than about 20 regular attending people, we need to deal with finances for the supplies, charity, socials and all the things a church (based in a home or a cathedral) ought to do, we are better off putting that task in the hands of someone who has training and skills.

Where I think it is esssential to have a democratic model is in the area of doctrine. No matter how small the commuity, once it is more than a single family unit, there will be disagrements as to what certain passages of scripture mean, and how they ought to be applied to our lives.

The problem with clergy is that we have become a profession, but that all started for a very good reason - all people have talents and gifts to offer God, but not all people have talents that allow for liturgiucal expression or theological discernment. Those that have those talents drift into the clergy. It then becomes human nature to want to have your work and effort and talents acknowledged.

I think the trick is to keep the benifits of clergy, while maintaining the ultimate opensess of expression that comes with a democratic church.

[New_Wineskin]

Well , when there is that much baggage , people start to *think* that they need other things as well . Then , they start to do the reverse thinking that they actually needed the baggage that started it all . People actually think that they need an additional building .

I don't agree that a teaching has to be made by someone eloquent in speech or even any type of teaching at all . Someone can simply share what they are learning from the Lord - just as anyone shares with another usually "after" one of these meetings when they see a friend .

Finances ? Supplies ? "Ought to do" ? Yeah . If one is convinced that all of those things are needed to be done by the group instead of individually doing what the Lord wants of them , I suppose that one person could volunteer to perform the service ( or rotate that position ) .

It isn't that difficult . All that overhead isn't needed . People have simply become so used to it , that they come to the assumption that it is all needed . And , then the burden of taking care of the overhead is placed on the shoulders of those . They then concern themselves with needing "members" to take care of the burden . They don't want them to go anywhere else because they may decide to take care of another group's burden .

I see no benefit of clergy outside of it being another gift .


The problem with clergy is that we have become a profession, but that all started for a very good reason - all people have talents and gifts to offer God, but not all people have talents that allow for liturgiucal expression or theological discernment. Those that have those talents drift into the clergy. It then becomes human nature to want to have your work and effort and talents acknowledged.


You are the second person that I know that is willing to admit that people in those positions like to be heard . :) Always refreshing .

I understand that there are people who enjoy all of the pomp . And , to them , I wish all the best . I personally don't like the hoopla ( for many reasons ) . I do think that people wouldn't mind getting rid of a lot of it if the idea was actually presented .

[Godzchild]

Here's a link that defines housechurch if anyone cares to read :)

http://www.loveofchrist.info/church/noninstitutional.html

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

Well Greysparrow, hopefully you'll get yer answers in amongst that lot! You may wanna wind it down soon becos peeps are arguing... again!!!

It's enough to make u want to be a tree!!!!

[New_Wineskin]

Who's arguing ? Stupid Flanders !! Doh!! :)

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

I'll complain to Admin for you calling me stoopid... cos it scares me!
Udaman - or possibly udawoman, New.

[New_Wineskin]

LOL!! ;)

I see Mr. T in your box . I liked James "mad dog" Murdock . "I love it when a plan comes together . " :)

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

http://i.tvspielfilm.de/img/gen/P/C/HBPCAJMaadg_Pxgen_r_360x240.jpg

A group of people with justice as their goal - the world's first van-church???

[New_Wineskin]

http://i.tvspielfilm.de/img/gen/P/C/HBPCAJMaadg_Pxgen_r_360x240.jpg

A group of people with justice as their goal - the world's first van-church???

LOL!! Given the 60's , I don't think it would qualify as the "first" . ;)

Hey !! Where'e Starbuck !?? Was he out cruising for chicks or Cylons when that picture was taken ? ;)

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

Mate, I made reference to BA, u said u liked Murdock and quoted, Hannibal, so I found an appropriate pic. Perhaps Face was out with Amy...

[graysparrow]

http://i.tvspielfilm.de/img/gen/P/C/HBPCAJMaadg_Pxgen_r_360x240.jpg

A group of people with justice as their goal - the world's first van-church???

emm... this thread had an original topic :doh::P

[New_Wineskin]

Mate, I made reference to BA, u said u liked Murdock and quoted, Hannibal, so I found an appropriate pic. Perhaps Face was out with Amy...Yep , chicks , then . I forgot all about his nickname , "Face" . I can't forget about "Starbuck" . :)

[lismore]

House Church is not the only Biblical model.


Perhaps you could explain this with reference to New testament Scriptures which mention Cathedrals or baubles?

:scratch:

House Church is THE biblical model.

Colossians 4:15 NIV (http://www.ibs.org/niv/passagesearch.php?passage_request=Colossians 4:15) http://www.ibs.org/images/indent.gif
Give my greetings to the brothers at Laodicea, and to Nympha and the church in her house.

:)

[lismore]

Sadly the political issues of Africa have more to do with the poverty there than a lacking of generosity.

If you were to send $1,000,000 to a community in Africa to help feed the people guess what would happen. The local Warlord and his gang of thugs would become millionaires and the peasants will still be starving. Worse yet, the Warlords would be better financed to exploit those starving peasants in hopes of another huge windfall from the ignorant "bleeding hearts" types.

Yes.

Another problem is corrupt economines which rely on exploiting the poor aka free market capitalism. Cheap export crops.

The same as ireland last century under British occupation. ireland lost half its population through starvation, but were one of the biggest food exporters in the world during the famine years. The purse of the capitalist mattered more than the dying child.

But one problem remains, Christian Groups go to Africa to feed the poor but require more resources than they are actually given. They have no dealings with warlords. Starving people need tucker: thats the immediate solution.

We the rich countries waste enough to save many. Here we pick up dog feaces in the street. There they pick up dead humans in the street.

I just dont dig this system at all

:scratch:

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

Perhaps you could explain this with reference to New testament Scriptures which mention Cathedrals or baubles?

:scratch:

House Church is THE biblical model.

Colossians 4:15 NIV (http://www.ibs.org/niv/passagesearch.php?passage_request=Colossians 4:15) http://www.ibs.org/images/indent.gif
Give my greetings to the brothers at Laodicea, and to Nympha and the church in her house.

:)

House Church is not the only Biblical model. To promote it over any other on the basis of what is shown in NT is a little unfair and dismissive.

You may have unwittingly classified me as a baubler, or something. Personally I think church should have been euthenized long, long ago and the healthcare shared around the "non-church"...

What is modelled in NT is a community of peeps who lived in the world and actively sought Jesus there with those around them. They shared most things, if not all.

I just think it's dangerous to start asserting any one model of church as Biblical and therefore correct. Church is just people under God doing what seems right and appropriate to context and lives ( I am not necissarily advocating "cultural relevance"!!!)

[lismore]

House Church is not the only Biblical model. To promote it over any other on the basis of what is shown in NT is a little unfair and dismissive.

You may have unwittingly classified me as a baubler, or something. Personally I think church should have been euthenized long, long ago and the healthcare shared around the "non-church"...

What is modelled in NT is a community of peeps who lived in the world and actively sought Jesus there with those around them. They shared most things, if not all.

I just think it's dangerous to start asserting any one model of church as Biblical and therefore correct. Church is just people under God doing what seems right and appropriate to context and lives ( I am not necissarily advocating "cultural relevance"!!!)

Hi Flandidly:wave:

Thanks for your message

I hope you didnt mistake my post as an attack on you or your beliefs- it wasnt. I wouldnt want you to be offended.

Whatever style of Church you choose to meet in - im happy for you- every blessing for you and your work there.

But House Church is still the only biblical model. Can you show me otherwise from scripture?

Im not saying your style of church is invalid in God's eyes- all Im saying is that its not the type of church in the bible. The only church there is house church.

God Bless

Lismore:)

[M Paul]

Hi Flandidly:wave:
But House Church is still the only biblical model. Can you show me otherwise from scripture?
Lismore:)

I have to agree with you that the house church, (but more precisely, the house church/whole church-- house churches joined together for special occasions) is the biblical model and that of early church history. I'm not sure where Flandidlyanders is coming from. I think the argument could be made, that the principles of church structure in the New Testament are flexible enough that they can be adapted to a multitude of situations and permit great flexibility--but with that being the case at least in some sense, the house church is still the model set out. I think the benefits of the model are substantial, and to deviate from it, there would have to be reasons based on accomplishing similar benefits but for particular and differing circumstances. Now, I seem rather abstract--sorry, but sometimes it seems I have to.

Regards,

Paul

[charlesseamanj]

Their are many reasons why various groups meet in there homes.
The only thing that can be said is that they meet in their homes. That is the reason for it.
You are aware that when the first century christians were kicked out of the synagoggs, they meet in home mostly. It is not new.

When the catholic church went around killing people of differing beliefs, the people of the differing faiths met in homes.

So the only thing that can be said is that they meet in homes.

[lismore]

I have to agree with you that the house church, (but more precisely, the house church/whole church-- house churches joined together for special occasions) is the biblical model and that of early church history. I'm not sure where Flandidlyanders is coming from. I think the argument could be made, that the principles of church structure in the New Testament are flexible enough that they can be adapted to a multitude of situations and permit great flexibility--but with that being the case at least in some sense, the house church is still the model set out. I think the benefits of the model are substantial, and to deviate from it, there would have to be reasons based on accomplishing similar benefits but for particular and differing circumstances. Now, I seem rather abstract--sorry, but sometimes it seems I have to.

Regards,

Paul

Hi Paul:wave:

You make perfect sense to me.

Of course the biblical principles can be applied in a building situation, but the further you go away from the biblical model then the further you go away. Its just something to note.

Im not saying that is wrong for someone to meet wherever they like, but house/home church is definitely the sole biblical model.

God Bless

Lismore:)

[M Paul]

Their are many reasons why various groups meet in there homes.
The only thing that can be said is that they meet in their homes. That is the reason for it.
You are aware that when the first century christians were kicked out of the synagoggs, they meet in home mostly. It is not new.

When the catholic church went around killing people of differing beliefs, the people of the differing faiths met in homes.

So the only thing that can be said is that they meet in homes.

I'm not sure what you are saying. Do you mean that the fact that the biblical model of the church is that of the house church/whole church has no signifigance, because it's just a coincidence??? And therefore, because the biblical model has no significance, Christians are free to pick any church structure they like??? If so, then would you say that the fact that the RCC chose a structure in identical parallel to the governmental structure of the Roman Empire does not have to be considered as authorized by their holy tradition, but it is valid simply because Scripture left the church free to choose any structure it wanted?? So, could it be said that because the Roman Empire had such a fine structure, God probably just agreed it was a good idea to pick it as a model for the church??

Regards,

Paul

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

Im not saying your style of church is invalid in God's eyes- all Im saying is that its not the type of church in the bible. The only church there is house church.
:)

No offense... what is my type of church?

A bunch of ex-jews meeting in a synagogue discussing torah and singing new songs is NOT a house church... I don't deny that house church is the prevailing style in NT, I just think that doesn't mean anything. I appreciate it's improtant if maybe other more institutional churches are dissing you and you wanna defend yerself, but it's either right for you or it isn't...

I don't disagree with you at all... I grew up in house churches... didn't think there was anything else for ages... then got very disillusioned by "non-house churches"!!!!! But I don't claim that it's the best because its in the Bible!

Just sayin is all!!

[lismore]

No offense... what is my type of church?
!!

None taken.

I dunno, was hoping you would tell us! You threw me when you said there were other type church-types mentioned in the bible because that's not true.

[QUOTE=FLANDIDLYANDERS]
But I don't claim that it's the best because its in the Bible!

QUOTE]

The bible is the word of God. Therefore you would find the best for everything in it.

:)

[heron]

The earliest believers still attended synagogue and participated in the festivals, holy days, and circumcision. (Lk 23:56; Acts 2:1; 3:1; 5:12, 25; 15:5; 21:20.) On the following day, their first day of the week, the early Christians would meet in homes (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor 16:2) and most likely other unmentioned times.

As others said above, flexibility is important. Unless God said that something must be, He has left it open to meet various needs and concerns... like those who chose occupations that require working on Sundays (realtors, nurses, doctors, police, etc.) and those who live in areas with no church. We are the ones who tend to make up extra rules.


Acts 16:16 Once when we were going to the place of prayer...

Persecution...
Acts 11:19 Now those who had been scattered by the persecution in connection with Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus and Antioch, telling the message only to Jews.

Acts 12:1 It was about this time that King Herod arrested some who belonged to the church, intending to persecute them.

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

The bible is the word of God. Therefore you would find the best for everything in it.


Best for whom? I like the post directly above!

A Biblical model of Church would require;
1. absolute persecution of christians causing it to remain hidden.
2. miracles regularly occuring - even people getting killed by God for decieving the leaders!
3. be in the East and revolve around Hebrew and Greek worldviews.

If it's commanded, then it's good. If it's just documented, then there are good core values, but the structure is up for grabs.

My Church? Murdered. Well, suicide - or more succinctly, voluntary euthanaisia to spread healthcare to the "non-church":
www.enginecreations.com/unseenchurch (http://www.enginecreations.com/unseenchurch)

I'm sure we're on each others side here, lismore ;)

Flan out.

[heron]

Silly Flan. Did you do all those great graphics? I like the pregnant wall.

4. Continual discussion about changing policy (accepted as normal)
5. Unpaid staff
6. Lots of foot washing

[M Paul]

The earliest believers still attended synagogue and participated in the festivals, holy days, and circumcision. (Lk 23:56; Acts 2:1; 3:1; 5:12, 25; 15:5; 21:20.) On the following day, their first day of the week, the early Christians would meet in homes (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor 16:2) and most likely other unmentioned times.

You have verses here on activity before the church was established, and on the early believers going to synagogues to spread the word. These are not support of using synagogues within the church or of observing Jewish festivals or holy days.

Regards,

Paul

[charlesseamanj]

I'm not sure what you are saying. Do you mean that the fact that the biblical model of the church is that of the house church/whole church has no signifigance, because it's just a coincidence??? And therefore, because the biblical model has no significance, Christians are free to pick any church structure they like??? If so, then would you say that the fact that the RCC chose a structure in identical parallel to the governmental structure of the Roman Empire does not have to be considered as authorized by their holy tradition, but it is valid simply because Scripture left the church free to choose any structure it wanted?? So, could it be said that because the Roman Empire had such a fine structure, God probably just agreed it was a good idea to pick it as a model for the church??

Regards,

Paul

What I ment was:


Their are many reasons why various groups meet in there homes.
The only thing that can be said is that they meet in their homes. That is the reason for it.
You are aware that when the first century christians were kicked out of the synagoggs, they meet in home mostly. It is not new.

When the catholic church went around killing people of differing beliefs, the people of the differing faiths met in homes.

So the only thing that can be said is that they meet in homes.

I am not speaking about the Roman church. I debate that on the General Theology forum.

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

Silly Flan. Did you do all those great graphics? I like the pregnant wall.

4. Continual discussion about changing policy (accepted as normal)
5. Unpaid staff
6. Lots of foot washing

Sounds about right. Yes. I am the graphic badger.

[M Paul]

What I ment was:


I am not speaking about the Roman church. I debate that on the General Theology forum.

I was only using the RCC of one example of picking a church sturcture. So did you mean that we are free to pick any church structure we like, because the biblical model has no significance???

Regards,

Paul

[New_Wineskin]

I was only using the RCC of one example of picking a church sturcture. So did you mean that we are free to pick any church structure we like, because the biblical model has no significance???

Regards,

Paul

I have yet to see a biblical model . So far , when people attempt to explain one , they take several snippets from various writings and claim that is a model . A model would not so haphazard .

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

we are free to pick any church structure we like,

Now that's the badger!!! (within the bounds of appropriateness)

[heron]

then would you say that the fact that the RCC chose a structure in identical parallel to the governmental structure of the Roman Empire

Still laughing. ^_^ :cry:

Paul, yes, I used those verses because I consider the church the Body of Christ, which began as soon as He assembled believers...in my mind, during His earthly ministry.

Those who are trying to set up models that they believe are acceptable to God use the tools they have--the written Word--to make their decisions. They are not referencing what the church did 100 years later.

If it doesn't fit with established early church definitions, too bad. I also value the words of the OT in finding what God encourages (maybe not the sacrificial altars).

[M Paul]

Still laughing. ^_^ :cry:

Paul, yes, I used those verses because I consider the church the Body of Christ, which began as soon as He assembled believers...in my mind, during His earthly ministry.

Those who are trying to set up models that they believe are acceptable to God use the tools they have--the written Word--to make their decisions. They are not referencing what the church did 100 years later.

If it doesn't fit with established early church definitions, too bad. I also value the words of the OT in finding what God encourages (maybe not the sacrificial altars).

Well, this is contrary to the majority view of traditional conservative Bible interpretation, which sets the beginning of the church at Acts chp. 2, on the day of Pentecost. True Christ followed the OT Law, but he was under the Old Covenant, as his blood sacrifice had not yet been made. His crucifixion is the basis of the New Covenant, and why the apostle Paul argued against following the religious regulations of the OT Law. If Jewish Christians want to preserve some of their traditions, an argument could be made for support from Acts Chp. 15, but then, I think, that could be used also to support the theory of denominationalism.

Regards,

Paul

[M Paul]

I have yet to see a biblical model . So far , when people attempt to explain one , they take several snippets from various writings and claim that is a model . A model would not so haphazard .

In the article on my web site under the link "The Non-Institutional Church" I set forth the biblical model of house church/whole church. If you would like to review the model and point out how its presentation is defective, perhaps, you could provide to me a great service. But, only if you're in the mood. As I note in the article, the congregational model is not found in Scripture, and as I've noted in the thread, the episcopal model comes from the governmental structure of the Roman Empire.

I'm not surprised you are not aware of the biblical model of the church. Church leaders from congregational and episcopal backgrounds seem to have forgotten all about those verses which support it. But, they have forgotten a lot, as I point out in the article "Corinthians Un-Compromised," noting how the evidence is overwhelming that theses epistles provide guidelines on church conduct and practice, while conservative Bible scholars always twist the content to have it mean something else, as they aren't fond of what those guidelines would mean for how they want everyone to do church.

Regards,

Paul

[heron]

Paul, it's very organized and clear.
I'm curious over how this structure differs from a traditional church besides the building? I scanned the pastor's role, finances, and some other areas...well thought out.

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

what's the URL, Paul?

[heron]

I found it in his profile.

[New_Wineskin]

In the article on my web site under the link "The Non-Institutional Church" I set forth the biblical model of house church/whole church. If you would like to review the model and point out how its presentation is defective, perhaps, you could provide to me a great service. But, only if you're in the mood. As I note in the article, the congregational model is not found in Scripture, and as I've noted in the thread, the episcopal model comes from the governmental structure of the Roman Empire.


Ok . Will do . I have a feeling what I would find . But , I do get surprised every now and then . :)



I'm not surprised you are not aware of the biblical model of the church. Church leaders from congregational and episcopal backgrounds seem to have forgotten all about those verses which support it. But, they have forgotten a lot, as I point out in the article "Corinthians Un-Compromised," noting how the evidence is overwhelming that theses epistles provide guidelines on church conduct and practice, while conservative Bible scholars always twist the content to have it mean something else, as they aren't fond of what those guidelines would mean for how they want everyone to do church.

Regards,

Paul

I am aware of the doctrines that people have that convince people that there is an actual model . However , that would contradict much of the newer writings . If a written model could succeed , the Mosaic model would be that model . I will still look at your model .

[M Paul]

Paul, it's very organized and clear.
I'm curious over how this structure differs from a traditional church besides the building? I scanned the pastor's role, finances, and some other areas...well thought out.

How is it different?? First, and formost, the structure is different, using the cell as the basic unit, rather than an entire congregation. That means a different focus on how communication is done, on how authority is conceived (not based on who is the chief executive, but based on finding the truth, with the leadership helping), on how fellowship is done, on how worship is done (with a stronger emphasis that our complete lifestyle is our true form of worship, and singing songs etc. are merely an expression of the spirit), on how the Lord's Supper is done, on what is the significance of giving money to God. My article actually covers these points and a lot of the details, and it also makes contrasts with the congregational church. Look at the "cell unit in contrast" section--but also "The Contrast of Preaching", or the "Contrast of the Lord's Supper."

One point that may be significant, but which I don't raise in the non-institutional article, but I do in the image of woman article, is that I Corinthians 11:3-16 does not have to be considered in contradiction to 14:33-35 regarding women keeping silient in church. The former applies to the cell-unit meeting, and the latter to the whole church meeting.

Actually, this is all a long subject, but I was hoping my article was the condensed way of presenting it.

Regards,

Paul

[M Paul]

what's the URL, Paul?

When this thread began I tried to link to this article. The reason I wrote the article was to explain the home church movement, but faster than having to read a book. But the software said I wasn't allowed, as I didn't have enough posts. That bothered me, as I felt the article was so relevant, and where better to mention it, but a home-church forum and a thread with this title. I got to thinking about it, and I asked a moderator to post a link to it under the Home Church Links section. I was advised it would be checked out right away, and then, I never heard a thing. I believe the article belongs there, but I guess I'm not figuring it right. I can only guess at it.

So, maybe I have enough links now. I don't know. But, am I allowed to link to my own article?? I don't want to violate the rules. I'm just trying to have conversation.

At any rate, if you click on my name, a drop down menu will appear, and then you can click on the home page box and my site will come up.

Regards,

Paul

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

Ah, got it... all seems tickedy-boo.

If I may, I'll link it on UnseenChurch... which used to be a house church of sorts...
I'll keep an eye on yer site old boy... oh, and one final thing, if you would like some space on a communal forum I host, do use it, I can set u up as a moderator so you can have a section that links directly to yer site for peeps to ask questions and stuff... or I can show you some php hosting stuffs that are nearly easy to upload!!!!

www.enginecreations.com/forum (http://www.enginecreations.com/forum)

u may get the idea if u look there, it's all low-usage at the moment till we all figure out what to do with it!

[New_Wineskin]

Hey , M Paul !! :)

I read ( somehwhat skimmed ) your article and we agree for the most part . When I saw "model" , I had my druthers . :)

I was thinking that there would be more detail . I saw more on what the model *was not* in terms of what the Institutional groups did . However , I did not see much on what the model *was* .

While I praise you on your unique ( from what I have heard from others ) idea that the get-togethers were not revolving around speakers ( ie pastors/teachers ) , you didn't go into whether or not such people were actually needed and what their functions were .

Point of note : Have you given any regard to how Jesus , Paul , and ( I think ) Peter went about discussing things in groups ? One could make the argument that they went the route of how the synagogues were set up . And , from how things are worded , it seems that they were set up as Greek discussion groups . Since you did some research into history , I was wondering if you noticed anything along these lines . What do you think ?

I had another point :
Have you noticed in the older writings with regards to elders that they would be siting by the wall of the city ( or just hanging out somewhere ) and people would come to them and asked for advice about this and that ? I think that this type of being available for wisdom , knowledge , advice , and judgements would be more to the role of "pastor" than the all ecompassing and ever-present leadership that most groups assign to that role . What are your thoughts on that ?

Anyway . Nice article and I did agree with most of what I read . :)

I appologize for my skepticism . ;)

[New_Wineskin]

Perhaps , we could move this discussion of M Paul's article to another thread ?

[M Paul]

Ah, got it... all seems tickedy-boo.

If I may, I'll link it on UnseenChurch... which used to be a house church of sorts...
I'll keep an eye on yer site old boy... oh, and one final thing, if you would like some space on a communal forum I host, do use it, I can set u up as a moderator so you can have a section that links directly to yer site for peeps to ask questions and stuff... or I can show you some php hosting stuffs that are nearly easy to upload!!!!

www.enginecreations.com/forum (http://www.enginecreations.com/forum)

u may get the idea if u look there, it's all low-usage at the moment till we all figure out what to do with it!

Thanks for the tickedy-boo.

I think we can work something out on the forum. I took a quick look at it, and it seems hunky-dory. Would you like to try to e-mail me?? You can use the address on my web site. We could discuss details. Remember, we have quite a time difference.

Take care now,

Paul

[M Paul]

Hey , M Paul !! :)

I read ( somehwhat skimmed ) your article and we agree for the most part . When I saw "model" , I had my druthers . :)

I was thinking that there would be more detail . I saw more on what the model *was not* in terms of what the Institutional groups did . However , I did not see much on what the model *was* .

While I praise you on your unique ( from what I have heard from others ) idea that the get-togethers were not revolving around speakers ( ie pastors/teachers ) , you didn't go into whether or not such people were actually needed and what their functions were .

Point of note : Have you given any regard to how Jesus , Paul , and ( I think ) Peter went about discussing things in groups ? One could make the argument that they went the route of how the synagogues were set up . And , from how things are worded , it seems that they were set up as Greek discussion groups . Since you did some research into history , I was wondering if you noticed anything along these lines . What do you think ?

I had another point :
Have you noticed in the older writings with regards to elders that they would be siting by the wall of the city ( or just hanging out somewhere ) and people would come to them and asked for advice about this and that ? I think that this type of being available for wisdom , knowledge , advice , and judgements would be more to the role of "pastor" than the all ecompassing and ever-present leadership that most groups assign to that role . What are your thoughts on that ?

Anyway . Nice article and I did agree with most of what I read . :)

I appologize for my skepticism . ;)

I didn't want to write a book, because people don't have time to read those. I wanted something that a person can get through relatively quickly. Now, in regard to not seeing much on what the model was, if you think about what was said about it, the implications are broad--but it takes some time to do all the thought. However, once the basic structure is accepted, there is great flexibility on adapting it to whatever circumstance one finds oneself in. Yes, pastors and teachers are needed, but they do not have to function the same way as with a congregational church. Note, by just having a web site and distributing literature, I am a teacher. The idea is not to put these roles in a mold, but to adapt them to the cell unit structure, to be creative, flexible, with the objective always of making certain that the activities are relevant to the individuals involved.

In regard to how Peter and Paul did things--first, Peter ministered to the Jews, and in my opinion, that is going to require being sensitive to Jewish culture and traditions, which means some unique approaches, and quite frankly, it is best done by Jews for Jews. If a Jewish Christian wants to move out of a uniquely Jewish environment, then let him or her do so, understanding that the consideration of Jewish culture and traditions are no longer relevant.

In regard to Paul, he adapted to the circumstance--with Jews, as Jews would do things, with Greeks, as Greeks would do things, but he was primarily an evangelist. However, his writings fully support a house church/whole church overall structure, and there is nothing to suggest that he did not maintain complete flexibility in how that might be carried out.

In regard to the elders, and the role of a pastor, I agree that the congregational church has put the concept in too small of a box. There's not a lot set out in Scripture on how this role is supposed to be carried, and in my mind, that means flexibility. The main question is, what does the pastor want to accomplish--well, let's say one main objective would be helping people achieve the image of Christ in their characters. Then, let that objective be a primary guide for what is involved in how a pastor should function. However, I think there has been too much of an emphasis in the congregational church on the pastor being an authority, simply because he is ordained, rather than because he helps people find the truth, which is the real authority. The Bible says a true minister is recognized because of the spiritual transformation of the people he interacts with--that is the focus for the role.

Regards,

Paul

[M Paul]

Perhaps , we could move this discussion of M Paul's article to another thread ?

Whatever you have in mind, I'll give it a try. Or, we could see first where we go quickly here.

Regards,

Paul

[New_Wineskin]

I didn't want to write a book, because people don't have time to read those.


I was thinking more on the lines of mentioning whether or not they were a part of the model and perhaps another page on their role if they had one .


Yes, pastors and teachers are needed, but they do not have to function the same way as with a congregational church.


Well , the flexibility of your model indicates that they are not needed at all . If they were needed , they aould have been included and at least defined in detail somewhere . A model would at least have all that is needed - even if only in passing .



Note, by just having a web site and distributing literature, I am a teacher. The idea is not to put these roles in a mold, but to adapt them to the cell unit structure, to be creative, flexible, with the objective always of making certain that the activities are relevant to the individuals involved.


Ok . That simply helps to make them of no importance if the individuals don't need them . That is fine with me . :)



In regard to how Peter and Paul did things--first, Peter ministered to the Jews, and in my opinion, that is going to require being sensitive to Jewish culture and traditions, which means some unique approaches, and quite frankly, it is best done by Jews for Jews. If a Jewish Christian wants to move out of a uniquely Jewish environment, then let him or her do so, understanding that the consideration of Jewish culture and traditions are no longer relevant.


:scratch: To what is this in reference ?



In regard to Paul, he adapted to the circumstance--with Jews, as Jews would do things, with Greeks, as Greeks would do things, but he was primarily an evangelist. However, his writings fully support a house church/whole church overall structure, and there is nothing to suggest that he did not maintain complete flexibility in how that might be carried out.


:confused: What exactly did you think that I was saying ?



In regard to the elders, and the role of a pastor, I agree that the congregational church has put the concept in too small of a box. There's not a lot set out in Scripture on how this role is supposed to be carried, and in my mind, that means flexibility. The main question is, what does the pastor want to accomplish--well, let's say one main objective would be helping people achieve the image of Christ in their characters. Then, let that objective be a primary guide for what is involved in how a pastor should function. However, I think there has been too much of an emphasis in the congregational church on the pastor being an authority, simply because he is ordained, rather than because he helps people find the truth, which is the real authority. The Bible says a true minister is recognized because of the spiritual transformation of the people he interacts with--that is the focus for the role.


Why is it about what the "pastor" wants to accomplish ?

Well , this is certainly off topic , now . It has been interesting . :)

[M Paul]

I was thinking more on the lines of mentioning whether or not they were a part of the model and perhaps another page on their role if they had one .

The model I set out is on church structure. The model of a pastor or teacher is another topic. The Bible notes that the Holy Spirit puts pastors and teachers in the church--therefore, I think we can assume they are needed.

At the congregational churches I attended, the pastor told people when to stand and when to sit, when to greet and when to listen. He gave sermons which were supposed to help people grow in the spirit. Also he was available for advice on problems relating to spiritual matters (but in my case it seemed that always applied only to superficial problems). He also set forth visions on the direction the church should go. And, he had other functions, but these were some of the main ones found in a congreational church.

Ok, in a cell unit structure, he would help people understand how the cell-units should function. He would, perhaps, offer suggested formats and topics with background information. He would be the moderator on his own cell-unit. He would be available to discuss spiritual problems. He would offer visions for direction. He would be a main force behind designing special programs, such as in evangelizing or teaching. He would moderate whole church meetings, or he would designate such moderators. He would conduct baptisms, funerals, perform marriages. He would carry out executive functions, such as entering in to contracts. I could go on and on, but it depends on the character of the church. (At one time, I was involved in putting on a play production for the entire community on the book of Revelation, which enhanced its understanding. Another time I organized a food drive for hurricane victums--as two specifc type examples).

However, it's really up to the individual church, which of these functions should go to a pastor or to someone else. A model to some extent is found on my web site, under the link "Our Constitution," and the internal link "Pastor." (However, I should note that this constitution has a Prolegomenon, which addresses specific statutory issues, but it also includes letting the executive officer use a title other than pastor).

Well , the flexibility of your model indicates that they are not needed at all . If they were needed , they aould have been included and at least defined in detail somewhere . A model would at least have all that is needed - even if only in passing

Really?? Did you see this sentence--"The cell-unit is based on the biblical model of believers meeting for fellowship, breaking bread, prayers, teaching, and proclaiming the Gospel: Acts 1:12–14; 2:1,2,42–47; 5:42; 8:1–3; 9:11; 16:40; 20:20; 21:8–14; 28:16–24;" Fellowship at a desginated meeting still needs a leader, as does teaching, and even prayer. But, figuring out how to put the meeting together does also.

Note, by just having a web site and distributing literature, I am a teacher. The idea is not to put these roles in a mold, but to adapt them to the cell unit structure, to be creative, flexible, with the objective always of making certain that the activities are relevant to the individuals involved.

Ok. That simply helps to make them of no importance if the individuals don't need them . That is fine with me

Having pastors be creative and flexible, and making certain the objectives of a pastor are relevant, means they are they are of no importance and are not needed?!??? I think this is being, actually, more than skeptical. Now aren't you stretching things to look for a way to disagree with me??

In regard to how Peter and Paul did things--first, Peter ministered to the Jews, and in my opinion, that is going to require being sensitive to Jewish culture and traditions, which means some unique approaches, and quite frankly, it is best done by Jews for Jews. If a Jewish Christian wants to move out of a uniquely Jewish environment, then let him or her do so, understanding that the consideration of Jewish culture and traditions are no longer relevant.


To what is this in reference ?

Your question to how Peter and Paul did things in the prior post.

What exactly did you think that I was saying ?

If I got it wrong, why don't you tell me.

Why is it about what the "pastor" wants to accomplish ?

Very often designs or models are made according to objectives. If I want a vehicle that hauls 2,000 pounds, I'll probably design a truck. If I want a vehicle to fight crime, I'll probably design a police car.

Regards,

Paul

[heron]

I would love to see a working model of a church that has roles evenly spread, or close to it, and see what happens.

PERSONALITY-BASED MODEL

Pastoral
Visitations, counseling, coordinate cell group leaders, ecumenical efforts, weddings and funerals. Sit on elder board.

Apostolic/evangelistic
Coordinate street ministries, community picnics, concerts, house-to-house prayer visits, organize missionary support.

Teaching
Sermons, adult and child sunday school, bible studies, special topics for groups. Spend time in study and research.

Healing
Prayer for individuals, shut-in and hospital visitations, some counseling, regular intercession, some small group leadership.

Discerning of Spirits
Consultants/teachers on spiritual warfare, intercession, regular consultation with elders, moderate and intercede for prayer meetings, sit in on nomination committees.

Financial/Analytical
Keep records of church expenses, meet with individual groups over budgets, preside over all planning meetings (not those with pastoral gifts). Represent church to town boards and planning committees.

Organizational
Oversee with room and event scheduling, manage paid staff, negotiate differences in opinion among groups, sit on elder board, assist with the budget.

Prophetic
Screen readings and prophecies directed toward the church body. Consult regularly with elders concerning the direction of the church (not take on leadership). Avail self to individuals for discernment of prophetic words.

Musical
Select music for services based on sermon topic (meet with teachers). Coordinate musicians and events, order sound and music equipment according to budget. Purchase rights to performed music.

...and on.

A board of 5-10 elders would coordinate the activities of the church evenly. Selection of elders would be based on a broad representation of giftings, to ensure that at least financial, pastoral, organizational, and evangelistic needs were represented.


Have you noticed in the older writings with regards to elders that they would be siting by the wall of the city ( or just hanging out somewhere ) and people would come to them and asked for advice about this and that ? I think that this type of being available for wisdom, knowledge, advice, and judgements would be more to the role of "pastor" than the all ecompassing and ever-present leadership that most groups assign to that role .
:thumbsup:

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

Leadership roles may be better suited to being seasonal roles. Different people taking on different tasks and positions as appropriate to circumstance, people and calling.

Possibly the only Full Timer should be the administrator/accountant.

[charlesseamanj]

I was only using the RCC of one example of picking a church sturcture. So did you mean that we are free to pick any church structure we like, because the biblical model has no significance???

Regards,

Paul
What church structure are you talking about? There are a few.
God is the leader of the church. It does not mater what building we meet in. God is not concerned with such worldly things as the building we meet in.
This is a fleshly concern. It only eddifies the "worrys, cares, and deceitfullness of riches" that choke out the word from our lives.
I am not saying that a building is a bad thing to have. What I am saying, is that it is not something we should concern ourselvs with.

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

What church structure are you talking about? There are a few.
God is the leader of the church. It does not mater what building we meet in.

Structure = organisation, in this instance methinx?

[heron]

Flan, I like that idea.

Seasonal duties...Possibly the only Full Timer should be the administrator/accountant.

[M Paul]

What church structure are you talking about? There are a few.
God is the leader of the church. It does not mater what building we meet in. God is not concerned with such worldly things as the building we meet in.
This is a fleshly concern. It only eddifies the "worrys, cares, and deceitfullness of riches" that choke out the word from our lives.
I am not saying that a building is a bad thing to have. What I am saying, is that it is not something we should concern ourselvs with.

I've been referencing three types of church structure--episcopal, congregational, and cell-unit. I believe the cell-unit is the model found in the New Testament.

Regards,

Paul

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

Flan, I like that idea.


Thanks. It's not my idea, it's what our church has always done!

The more I think about it, the more it concerns me about what a FT pastor says about the Churches Christianity and how this is percieved by the non-Church.

EG: the profesional hired to do all the things we havent got time for and the pressure on them to perform according to their "clients" expectations...

[M Paul]

I would love to see a working model of a church that has roles evenly spread, or close to it, and see what happens.

PERSONALITY-BASED MODEL

Pastoral
Visitations, counseling, coordinate cell group leaders, ecumenical efforts, weddings and funerals. Sit on elder board.

Apostolic/evangelistic
Coordinate street ministries, community picnics, concerts, house-to-house prayer visits, organize missionary support.

Teaching
Sermons, adult and child sunday school, bible studies, special topics for groups. Spend time in study and research.

Healing
Prayer for individuals, shut-in and hospital visitations, some counseling, regular intercession, some small group leadership.

Discerning of Spirits
Consultants/teachers on spiritual warfare, intercession, regular consultation with elders, moderate and intercede for prayer meetings, sit in on nomination committees.

Financial/Analytical
Keep records of church expenses, meet with individual groups over budgets, preside over all planning meetings (not those with pastoral gifts). Represent church to town boards and planning committees.

Organizational
Oversee with room and event scheduling, manage paid staff, negotiate differences in opinion among groups, sit on elder board, assist with the budget.

Prophetic
Screen readings and prophecies directed toward the church body. Consult regularly with elders concerning the direction of the church (not take on leadership). Avail self to individuals for discernment of prophetic words.

Musical
Select music for services based on sermon topic (meet with teachers). Coordinate musicians and events, order sound and music equipment according to budget. Purchase rights to performed music.

...and on.

A board of 5-10 elders would coordinate the activities of the church evenly. Selection of elders would be based on a broad representation of giftings, to ensure that at least financial, pastoral, organizational, and evangelistic needs were represented.

Looks neat to me. But it is just one example.

Regards,

Paul

[New_Wineskin]

If I got it wrong, why don't you tell me.


I asked what you thought I said so that I *could* tell you .


You stated :The main question is, what does the pastor want to accomplish--

I asked : Why is it about what the "pastor" wants to accomplish ?


Now , you state :

Very often designs or models are made according to objectives. If I want a vehicle that hauls 2,000 pounds, I'll probably design a truck. If I want a vehicle to fight crime, I'll probably design a police car.


I emphasized "pastor" .

[New_Wineskin]

I would love to see a working model of a church that has roles evenly spread, or close to it, and see what happens.


That is an awful lot of people - most of those I would not desire to be necessary in a normal meeting but the Lord providing them at such times that they *are* needed .


A board of 5-10 elders would coordinate the activities of the church evenly. Selection of elders would be based on a broad representation of giftings, to ensure that at least financial, pastoral, organizational, and evangelistic needs were represented.

I don't see a need for financial or organizational areas . I also like the idea of all of the adults who were at least 4 years in the Lord participating in the eldership .

[M Paul]

I asked what you thought I said so that I *could* tell you .


You stated :

I asked :

Now , you state :


I emphasized "pastor" .

Now you're tracing the train of thought completly differently from how I understand it. I could go back and set forth what I believe the proper sequence is, but what's the point??

Regards,

Paul

[New_Wineskin]

Leadership roles may be better suited to being seasonal roles. Different people taking on different tasks and positions as appropriate to circumstance, people and calling.

Possibly the only Full Timer should be the administrator/accountant.

Ewwwww !! :P

[New_Wineskin]

Now you're tracing the train of thought completly differently from how I understand it. I could go back and set forth what I believe the proper sequence is, but what's the point??

Regards,

Paul

Well , isn't that just wonderful ? Better now than later , I suppose .

[heron]

Looks neat to me. But it is just one example. Thanks, Paul. Agreed, just an example. Every church has a different personality, and will end up choosing something different.

[M Paul]

Well , isn't that just wonderful ? Better now than later , I suppose .

I have no idea what this means. I answered you according to the train of thought I followed in the thread. You set out a different one. I do have the ability to set out what I perceive it to be. But then, would we go through a tedious process to establish what it is we are talking about and for what purpose?? Perhaps, if you are sincere, you should set out what you want to get at again only rephrasing it.

Regards,

Paul

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

Ewwwww !! :P

Why *ewwwwww*?

Don't get me wrong, in our church not all leadership is undertaken by christian's... let alone those who have been for *4 years* - but that is because our church is at the murdered phase, having once been a house-curch, then cell-church, then *new*church... not that everything church should voluntarily euthenise, that's up to circumstances. I am glad to see that it is more universal to suppose that the body of Christ is dying and needs some sore of ressurection...

Paul, are you the Pastor? It's a term we don't really use in England, we have leaders, some really old churches have priests, I think maybe Baptists and traditional churches use Pastor... is it specifially one (male) who runs the show? Cause, again, my only positive experiences of church have been those with multiple leadership, wider accountability and fluid roles.

Wino, I take it your whole beef is with big meetings?

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

Oh, and Yongi Cho is a great geezer... once some of our Church were out there visiting and they all prayed around this Buddist Monastery that was rather corrupt (not because of Buddhism, necissarily) and a big-ass meteor came and hit the sucker, knocking it flat. That was sweet. Yongis Church works because it's organic and Korea's folk religion focusses on the family - family shrines, ancestor worship and so on - and people litter every available space - so yongi's brand of cell church worked great in Korea... don't be too harsh on them Wino! (if you were tempted)

I must say that I've never heard cell-church referred to a denomination before! Is it one in America... it wouldn't surprise me! But it would be self-defeating methinx!

Cell = organic. (not that a denomination can't be organic, I just have my doubts due to cultural and historical inertia... and our human pride)

[New_Wineskin]

Why *ewwwwww*?

Don't get me wrong, in our church not all leadership is undertaken by christian's... let alone those who have been for *4 years* - but that is because our church is at the murdered phase, having once been a house-curch, then cell-church, then *new*church... not that everything church should voluntarily euthenise, that's up to circumstances. I am glad to see that it is more universal to suppose that the body of Christ is dying and needs some sore of ressurection...


Accountants and administrators beeing needed for availability 24/7 ? That is what biblical "full time" is - not 40 hours/week . I can't see a house church needing any financial supervisor . But , I suppose that there are a few groups that have certain things that they are doing for that . I also don't see how an administrator would have enough work to keep them that busy every day of the year ( not even more than one day a week ) . How would one find people willing to volunteer for those types of positions with those types of hours ?


Wino, I take it your whole beef is with big meetings?

This is about having a "beef" ? I thought it was about house groups .

[New_Wineskin]

Oh, and Yongi Cho is a great geezer... once some of our Church were out there visiting and they all prayed around this Buddist Monastery that was rather corrupt (not because of Buddhism, necissarily) and a big-ass meteor came and hit the sucker, knocking it flat. That was sweet. Yongis Church works because it's organic and China's folk religion focusses on the family - family shrines, ancestor worship and so on - and people litter every available space - so yongi's brand of cell church worked great in China... don't be too harsh on them Wino! (if you were tempted)

I must say that I've never heard cell-church referred to a denomination before! Is it one in America... it wouldn't surprise me! But it would be self-defeating methinx!

Cell = organic. (not that a denomination can't be organic, I just have my doubts due to cultural and historical inertia... and our human pride)

I am not into referring to humans on such a hero-scale .

Cell = small part of a greater group . I don't see it as organic . Denominations around here attempt to imitate home churches by having smaller home meetings to "satisfy" those with those leanings while having control over what they do . While it seems that you are of a bottom-up frame of mind with cells , they are of a top-down frame of mind as most Institutional groups do .

I suppose that there are cell groups that form and then group together . If a cell is formed from a larger group , I would consider that a denomination but only if certain conditions are made to keep the cell under the control of the main group .

[M Paul]

Paul, are you the Pastor? It's a term we don't really use in England, we have leaders, some really old churches have priests, I think maybe Baptists and traditional churches use Pastor... is it specifially one (male) who runs the show? Cause, again, my only positive experiences of church have been those with multiple leadership, wider accountability and fluid roles.

One of the issues in the house church movement is, whether individual churches should be incorporated, what is referred to in the USA as being a 501(c)3 organization, having tax exempt status. I believe churches should be incorporated. Without legal status, I cannot even visit a person in prison for spiritual reasons: tax must be paid on income received, or a crime is committed: marriages cannot be performed. The list goes on.

Incorporation means making accommodations to the non-profit incorporation statute in setting out a constitution and by-laws. But the constitution has spiritual concerns. It is the covenant of the members. It must be based on Scripture. And, it must reflect an awareness of its psychological and spiritual impact on members, which also includes dealing with the traditional meaning of terms.

In our church constitution, the executive officer is referred to as the pastor. A term has to be chosen, and this is the one most commonly used in Protestant tradition, as least in America. A prolegomenon of the constitution addresses specific and technical statutory issues, which includes letting the executive officer use other titles from Scripture. I use "Minister of the Word."

Whether a church should have mutlitple leaders or a single leader, I believe, is a local issue to be decided by the members. I prefer multiple, but not always. It depends on the circumstances. I also prefer a traditional type Protestant church government, with an executive officer, usually called Pastor; a legislative type body, usually called the Board of Elders; and with congregational participation on matters of church policy. Overall, I believe the Bible is most flexible in individual church design, and how each community functions is a matter of local decision, as long as overall scriptural guidelines are followed. However, as I have previously noted, the house church is most condusive to a ministry of all believers, which is always the goal.

Regards,

Paul

[M Paul]

Oh, and Yongi Cho is a great geezer... once some of our Church were out there visiting and they all prayed around this Buddist Monastery that was rather corrupt (not because of Buddhism, necissarily) and a big-ass meteor came and hit the sucker, knocking it flat. That was sweet. Yongis Church works because it's organic and China's folk religion focusses on the family - family shrines, ancestor worship and so on - and people litter every available space - so yongi's brand of cell church worked great in China... don't be too harsh on them Wino! (if you were tempted)

I must say that I've never heard cell-church referred to a denomination before! Is it one in America... it wouldn't surprise me! But it would be self-defeating methinx!

Cell = organic. (not that a denomination can't be organic, I just have my doubts due to cultural and historical inertia... and our human pride)

Actually, my knowledge of Cho's church is limited. He's in Korea, and I think you wanted this post to be in the other thread on names. I don't think of the cell church as a denomination. I believe most people do not. But, a cell church could develop to appear as a denomination, or even to create a denomination. In America, legally, starting a denomination is quite easy. At times denominations have been organic, but they usually lose that quality eventually. An example would be Methodism. When it was a home church movement, a cell-unit organization, it was organic. When it instituionalized, it virtually died.

Regards,

Paul

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

In America, legally, starting a denomination is quite easy. At times denominations have been organic, but they usually lose that quality eventually. An example would be Methodism. When it was a home church movement, a cell-unit organization, it was organic. When it instituionalized, it virtually died.

Regards,

Paul

agreed.

from what i saw of yongi and his crew, it started organic/local and just went nuts over a few months to spread thru all of korea.... and doh!!! I wondered what i did wrong!!! (silly flan)

i never knew of that stuff about american law and church.. that makes it a bit unhealthy and complicated i would of thought... i remember recieving a tax-reciept from David Wilkersons curch in New York when I returned to UK for a donation of like $50.... that freaked me out totally! How weird to have the government all on yer case...

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

Accountants and administrators beeing needed for availability 24/7 ? That is what biblical "full time" is - not 40 hours/week .

Ah, I getcha. I just meant that the only paid staff we've had in church were the administrators - in the days when it was all huge and global and a bit tricky to coordinate using volunteers... by way of recognising their worth, I suppose!

[M Paul]

agreed.

from what i saw of yongi and his crew, it started organic/local and just went nuts over a few months to spread thru all of korea.... and doh!!! I wondered what i did wrong!!! (silly flan)

i never knew of that stuff about american law and church.. that makes it a bit unhealthy and complicated i would of thought... i remember recieving a tax-reciept from David Wilkersons curch in New York when I returned to UK for a donation of like $50.... that freaked me out totally! How weird to have the government all on yer case...

Keep in mind that America's legal system is essentially British--through and through. When I mentioned the non-profit incorporation statute, this is state law, but all states have it, and they are all similar. I'd be very much surprised if the British didn't have something similar, but most of the Brits I talk to over legal issues prefer to focus on the differences their legal system has, although they admit the strong similarities.

The tax issues are primarily federal, and they become very complicated, as the politicians (Democrates in my opinion) play games with how the church influences social issues.

As far as wondering what you did wrong, I know exactly what you mean, and if we started a thread on that, we'd have a long and intersting one, I think.

Regards,

Paul

[New_Wineskin]

Ah, I getcha. I just meant that the only paid staff we've had in church were the administrators - in the days when it was all huge and global and a bit tricky to coordinate using volunteers... by way of recognising their worth, I suppose!

okilydokily

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

Well i know for sure that my church money ain't tax-deductable for me!!!
What we do have is that the church - or any charity - can claim back the tax I paid on my giving before i gave it!

So do house churches have to be taxable entities in order to be recognised?
Or have to be affilliated with some other big organisation to be deemed christian?

[New_Wineskin]

Well i know for sure that my church money ain't tax-deductable for me!!!
What we do have is that the church - or any charity - can claim back the tax I paid on my giving before i gave it!

So do house churches have to be taxable entities in order to be recognised?
Or have to be affilliated with some other big organisation to be deemed christian?

I would think that many institutions would not consider other groups to be counted among them unless certain criteria was met . After all , they are competing for bodies .

[lismore]

What we do have is that the church - or any charity - can claim back the tax I paid on my giving before i gave it!
?

These schemes violate basic scriptural principles to get tax money back. Only the lord is meant to know what we give.

Giving to the Needy



1"Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. 2"So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 3But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.



Or have to be affilliated with some other big organisation to be deemed christian?

Matthew 18:20 NIV (http://www.ibs.org/niv/passagesearch.php?passage_request=Matthew 18:20)
For where two or more come together in my name, there am I with them."

[lismore]

Without legal status, I cannot even visit a person in prison for spiritual reasons: tax must be paid on income received, or a crime is committed: marriages cannot be performed. The list goes on.


You must obey God rather than man.

Legal means 0 without him.

[M Paul]

You must obey God rather than man.

Legal means 0 without him.

Oh, then I should stop visiting prisoners about their spiritual concerns, and pay taxes on income recieved for charitible purposes (or are you suggesting not reporting the income to the IRS), and perform marriages illegally, not worrying about the consequences for the couple not having a valid union, because complying with the law would displease God??? I have another opinion about that, especially as I could go on with the examples-- such as I could stop visiting the sick and injured in hospitals for prayer, when they require credentials from an incorporated entity. Even there, I don't think that would be to disobey God--but that's just my opinion. I think it's ok for governments to require people to verify that they are who they say they are. It certainly gives me more confidence about visiting a dentist.

Regards,

Paul

[M Paul]

Well i know for sure that my church money ain't tax-deductable for me!!!
What we do have is that the church - or any charity - can claim back the tax I paid on my giving before i gave it!

So do house churches have to be taxable entities in order to be recognised?
Or have to be affilliated with some other big organisation to be deemed christian?

It depends on what you mean by recognized. If you mean incorporated entities for people who give money to them to have a tax deduction--yes, and at times they must have official recognition from the IRS. However, to not have to pay taxes on money received, the church must be incorporated, to prevent swindling in general--for instance, the church agrees that if the corporation dissolves, all the assests go to another non-profit entity, rather than the pockets of the officers. It's perfectly appropriate in original conception, but to counter-act all the schemes that go on, it seems the laws get carried away to some extent.

And, maybe, I should add, that I don't see anything wrong with a person getting a tax deduction for giving to a church. The only one who sees that the money was given, is the tax auditor, and he has very limited knowledge of the significance, which usually does not bestow on the donator any glory. However, this provision certainly increases giving to churches very significantly, as people would rather see their tax dollars go to a church.

Regards,

Paul

[lismore]

Oh, then I should stop visiting prisoners about their spiritual concerns, and pay taxes on income recieved for charitible purposes (or are you suggesting not reporting the income to the IRS), and perform marriages illegally, not worrying about the consequences for the couple not having a valid union, because complying with the law would displease God??? I have another opinion about that, especially as I could go on with the examples-- such as I could stop visiting the sick and injured in hospitals for prayer, when they require credentials from an incorporated entity. Even there, I don't think that would be to disobey God--but that's just my opinion. I think it's ok for governments to require people to verify that they are who they say they are. It certainly gives me more confidence about visiting a dentist.

Regards,

Paul

Hi:wave:

We are talking from different country cultures!

Here, you dont need ID to visit the sick or prisoners!

We dont have IRS!

The last NHS dentist packed up weeks ago!

No-one bothers with marriage and those who do divorce ASAP! gay marriage and legal rights with no marriage are acceptable here.

And the amount of time you spend filling in tax forms you could make double the mo