Do any 'home churchers' deal with this?

[JustBoo]

My husband and I have both left the IC - me because I feel that God is sending me in a diferent direction, DH is sort of easy-going along for the ride up for whatever . . .
So . . I have some friends tha live away most of the time but are spending this summer where I live ( their hometown).We'll call them J and R! So for the summer were going to meet together on sunday evenings for , well . .church. There will be two or more of us gathered so that makes it church I guess!I've ben getting more and more interested and invested in the home churching idea . .
Anyway . . I thought it would be polite to extend an invitation to my other christian friends so last night when a good friend of mine ( 'J2') was here for supper I simply said:
" Since R and J don't have a chrch for the summer and because DH and I aren't going anywhere right now we're just going to be doing 'church' on sunday evenings with them , so if you want to come by sometimes that'd be fine"
**a few moments of silnce***
J2: welll . . why don't you try *such and such a church that she goes to* I think you'd really like it.
me noo . . I don't think my Dh is interested and I don't really think I want to either.
J2: It's really great I think you'd like it . . . .

and then we moved on . . .

I think she see's me as ' in error' or something(?)for not attending a brick and mortar , pastor led "church". I actually found it sort of rude that rather then saying ' oh that sounds nice maybe ill come' or even ' that's not really my style but thanks for the invite' she actually suggested I go to her church where everyone is so much more spiritual then me because they sit in a pew.
Okay . .so she didn't say that but I can't help but think that's what she meant . . .

Anyway . . . I'd like to be able to better hanle stuff like this 'cause I KNOW it'll come up! I'm not looking forward to when it comes up with the in-laws . . . they've been drenched in legalism their entire lives so this'll be a hard pill to swallow for them . . .
ugh.

Just imagine if she'd said ' oh my church is really great , you're welcome to join us some time' and I'd responded with
"you should come to my informal church like gathering you'd really like it"

Ugh.
alright . .
trying to get over it and not be annoyed . . . .

Boo

[heron]

Hi Boo, sorry no one responded until now! Welcome to the forum.

People can be that way. I think fear is sometimes the motive, but I think sometimes it's just a pat answer that rolls off the tongue. The early church started out as home churches! So there's no spiritual reason they should condemn your decisions. And certainly no reason they should be so rude about an invitation.

Maybe they are already overloaded with church activities, and were trying to avoid adding a new one?? Just a thought.

We had some friends who started a home church at times other than Sunday mornings. They invited us many times, and we usually visited when invited. We were clear that we were just visiting, but didn't mind at all joining them for some great fellowship! It was nice to keep in touch with everyone.

Loyalty to fellowships gets so weird. We are not competing sports teams -- we are all one Body.

Glad you joined CF!

[Johnnz]

Anything different troubles some people. After all, there must be a verse somewhere thats spells it all out. Each Sunday morning all Christians must attend morning service, with a choir or at least a proper worship group, sing songs together, read a scripture, having the same person each week preaching a 20 minute sermon on a biblical text. And of course, an organ or at least a piano for the worship.

Trouble is I just can't find that elusive verse.

John
NZ

[Rojen]

Hi,

When I talk to people about tradtional church vs house church I try to lovingly share 1 Cor 14. The latter part says these are commands of Christ. I explain that I looked long and hard because I knew we were to obey the commands of the Lord. (If you love me you will obey my commandments.)

I did not find any tc keeping these commands. I did hold Bible studies for pastors and elders and others. All agree they are not obeying the commands of God as is very clearly shown in that chapter. They also agree they should. But they say they can't because of the problems it would cause in their churches.

So I ask them which should I choose to obey God or the traditions of men? Concerning the others I have let them see. That is as far as I will go. I am not their judge. I just ask them to continue studying what the Bible says about church and follow as God leads and teachs.

I visit with traditional churches still and even attend some because we have many friends. But our *service* is molded around a house church because it is easier to be obedient in that environment.

in love and service,
Ron

[stringer]

wat should i do here?

[heron]

The organ goes farther back than Genesis 4, so it must be required. ^_^
"Jubal; he was the father of all those playing the harp and the organ."

(Green's translation... all the others say flute or pipe.)

Cautions about not coming under formal leadership seem to include:

1. Hearing horror stories of others (real and unreal) who drifted into sects and cult-like expressions of faith.

Preventing it by nipping the bud so early on, is a type of perfectionism. They don't want the possibility of anything out of the ordinary happening, so they trim any unfamiliar clutter off the vine.


2. Fear of one's own ability to stay on track with the faith, and transferring it to others.

A group that God brings together should interact with their differences and work to keep each other on track. Staying in line doesn't depend completely on one person.

In a denominational church, governing bodies above the church help moderate. That is one back-up structure that's not always in place in home churches. But it wasn't in the early church either, with the exception of the short time they were welcome at temple, and the eventual need for Paul and other apostles to check on the churches.

I don't think there was ever a formal appointment of Apostles over these churches... they were the one who brought the good news into towns, then motivated people to gather in fellowship.... the logical ones to consult.


3. Caution that believers will never know enough, or be strong enough to ever carry out ministry for the Lord.

Their resistance is a reflection on their current ability to take authority and sonship in the Kingdom.... it is much safer to believe that only the people with divinity degrees or paid positions are functional in the Kingdom.


4. Everyone else can add to this... my post is getting too long.

[Rojen]

The organ goes farther back than Genesis 4, so it must be required. ^_^
"Jubal; he was the father of all those playing the harp and the organ."

(Green's translation... all the others say flute or pipe.)

Cautions about not coming under formal leadership seem to include:

1. ...............

4. Everyone else can add to this... my post is getting too long.
Your doing good, keep it up.

I have found spiritual growth to be better (deeper and quicker) in the house churches and cell churches I have been in and talked too.

I have also found the depth of fellowship shared is great too. Hearing public confession in a circle and crying together, submitting to one another bonds us deeply.

Staying Word focused is very very important. It will help point out and correct things that go astray.

But remember the 7 churches in Revelation they all had specific challenges that had to be corrected. Some of the discipline threatened was extreme. So in any church, we need to be sure ourselves and our bothers and sisters are *ever ready* as the Bible repeatedly warns us.

Ron

[LeliAne]

My husband and I have both left the IC - me because I feel that God is sending me in a diferent direction, DH is sort of easy-going along for the ride up for whatever . . .
So . . I have some friends tha live away most of the time but are spending this summer where I live ( their hometown).We'll call them J and R! So for the summer were going to meet together on sunday evenings for , well . .church. There will be two or more of us gathered so that makes it church I guess!I've ben getting more and more interested and invested in the home churching idea . .
Anyway . . I thought it would be polite to extend an invitation to my other christian friends so last night when a good friend of mine ( 'J2') was here for supper I simply said:
" Since R and J don't have a chrch for the summer and because DH and I aren't going anywhere right now we're just going to be doing 'church' on sunday evenings with them , so if you want to come by sometimes that'd be fine"
**a few moments of silnce***
J2: welll . . why don't you try *such and such a church that she goes to* I think you'd really like it.
me noo . . I don't think my Dh is interested and I don't really think I want to either.
J2: It's really great I think you'd like it . . . .

and then we moved on . . .

I think she see's me as ' in error' or something(?)for not attending a brick and mortar , pastor led "church". I actually found it sort of rude that rather then saying ' oh that sounds nice maybe ill come' or even ' that's not really my style but thanks for the invite' she actually suggested I go to her church where everyone is so much more spiritual then me because they sit in a pew.
Okay . .so she didn't say that but I can't help but think that's what she meant . . .

Anyway . . . I'd like to be able to better hanle stuff like this 'cause I KNOW it'll come up! I'm not looking forward to when it comes up with the in-laws . . . they've been drenched in legalism their entire lives so this'll be a hard pill to swallow for them . . .
ugh.

Just imagine if she'd said ' oh my church is really great , you're welcome to join us some time' and I'd responded with
"you should come to my informal church like gathering you'd really like it"

Ugh.
alright . .
trying to get over it and not be annoyed . . . .

Boo


Sometimes it is like an alligator it feels good in a muddy ol swamp and does well to stay there but something new comes along and it is like putting a fur coat on them and putting them at the north pole. Its not a good thing, the alligator will never acclimate because God made him to live in a different environment then the cold.

As well, God makes our souls all different and where we flourish is where its best for us. J & R mean well because they believe you would do best where they are but only God and you can make the final choice...the right choice.

[hosogi]

If we try to follow biblical example of house church, I think we need to have trained leader among us. When gathering started after Christ's ascension, at least they had about 81 direct diesciples of Jesus Christ. They must have taken leading role in house churches in their town.

Before I got educated in seminary, I had read through the Bible more than 24 times and I was quite confident talking of my biblical knowledge. But I got to know that my knowledge was not enough to lead "church."

My thought may be off the topic. But I want to recommend poeple who are led to start home church to finish any preaching class or inductive Bible study class in college or seminary. Teaching Bible without exegetical skill can lead poeple into misunderstanding.

[JustBoo]

hosogi ,
I, and most home churches, disagre with you.
I'm not ' Starting' a home church nor am I ' leading' people (properly or into error) but rather I'm spending time with fellow beleivers in the hopes of creating real relationships and in order to have transparency and accountability. We all have gifts and the holy spirit indwelling us and we will all bring to the table or ideas and our understandings of scripture. There are MANY resources if we want to make sure we are 100% 'doctrinally sound' and we'll use them if /when such things are important to us . .but that's not the goal or point of gathering in my mind. I beleive the clergy/laity divide is silly and that we'll al be much better off when the gap is closed.

[hosogi]

JustBoo

I want to make it clear. I did not say we need clergy in the group.

Another point clear in the New Testament is that elders were appointed in every church and their task was teaching the Scripture. That does not mean they were clergy. In another part of the Scripture, it is clear that every member should be a teacher in some way according to his/her talent.

I believe every Christian needs to learn exegetical skill. But the purpose is not to make that kind a division you stated. Holy Spirit does help us. At the same time, we need to have the recoginition of languistic and cultural gap. By saying this I mean that English Bible does not completely communicate the content of the original language.

Historically, the focus of church gathering was on the Scripture and Communion. If the main purpose of home church is not there, I will just call it 'Chrisitian Fellowship.'

[hosogi]

>JustBoo

Let me make it clear. I did not say home church needs clergy. My point is that home church needs to have at least one educated person who can teach the Bible.

Even if you have many resources, that is not the direct contact between you and the Word through the Holy Spirit. Every member needs to be a teacher in some sense according to one's talent. (Heb. 5:12)

Historial fact shows us that the main focus of church gathering has been the Word and Communion. Discipleship is the key factor of the Great Commision.

So, after years of home church gathering, every member will be full in knowledge concerning the gospel.

If key words in home church is limited to "relationship, transparency and accountability," I would rather call it "Christian Fellowship."

Finally, Please understand that I am not trying to refuse or deny home churches. I know what creates the need to form home church. I have struggled with that kind of problems while I was in a church planting team for two years.

[hosogi]

> JustBoo

I am sorry for my double responses.
As it is indicated, I am a newbie and not used to the bbs system here.
I did it thinking I missed my first response.

The Lord bless you and keep you

hosogi

[JustBoo]

"If key words in home church is limited to "relationship, transparency and accountability," I would rather call it "Christian Fellowship." "

you can call it whatever you want to call it - I am calling our's a simple / organic / home church.

My understanding of 'elders' is not that they were ' appointed' a such but that they stoo out as leadrs in a very orgaic way and thus were respected and looked up to. They were not arbitrarly chosen just because they were old , male and had been around a while.
Trust me I am WELL aware that the modern english bible does not teach us the full extet of what there is to understand in the bible. I often use the Net Bible to better understand the original languages.I am also a member of an online board where some have studied the original languages some are clergy e.t.c. and they are a wonderful resource.
I trust that God is leading me in this and that the Holy spirit can speak through me and any other future members of our simple church gathering.
As for ' the Word and Communion' being the central part of church - why can't those things be pat of what happens ina home church? We will do communion when w feel led to do so and the Word (Jesus?) will be the centre of all our times together. If you mean scripture then of course that will be used too, it is full of wisdom and teaching and guiding principles for life. As well as the tools to better understand it , that I've already spoken of!
I quoite simply disagree with your idea that there must be a 'trained leader' among a group of christians in order for them to be having church. God can ordain and call out leaders without them having to be trained by any worldy institute.

[hosogi]

I got two thoughts reading your reply.

1. Elders clearly have teaching roles in the churches they are appointed, biblically. If an elder only works for chuch organization, he is not doing what was assigned to elders when Paul appointed elders in every chruch he planted.

2. In my thought, you are a very "trainded leader." Training does not mean biblical education in seminary.

[Rojen]

Hi,

The Bible does have clear guidance on elders. Nope none of it includes seminary. In fact many seminary pastors have wild kids which by the Bible's guidelines makes them unqualified. Titus 1:6

Justboo I am glad to see you are learning to search deeper in the Bible. There is much to learn. Search wholeheartedly and you will learn. God has promised us that. If is also wise to search understanding the original language better, as you mentioned.

A third key is that the Bible will not contradict itself. So search for understanding by looking throughout the Bible to see if it teaches what you think that passage is saying.

Best of course is the Holy Spirit's guidance. The Bible tells us He will lead us in all truth. Beware there are many false spirits. The Bible foretold them and gave examples of them in the past. Spirits of deception are alive and well. So I encourage you to be Berean and search the scriptures diligently. In the past hundreds of prophets (of God) were fooled, few preached the truth. The Bible warns that this will be true in the end times too. I believe it is true today. The deeper you search wholeheartedly turned to God the more you will be pleasing to God and blessed by Him.

Below is the passage quoted from the NET Bible since it is your Bible of choice. :) Elders were appointed in this passage. They were also well taught and able to teach, among other things.

Titus 1:5-9 NET
(5) The reason I left you in Crete was to set in order the remaining matters and to appoint elders in every town, as I directed you.
(6) An elder must be blameless, the husband of one wife, with faithful children who cannot be charged with dissipation or rebellion.
(7) For the overseer must be blameless as one entrusted with God's work, not arrogant, not prone to anger, not a drunkard, not violent, not greedy for gain.
(8) Instead he must be hospitable, devoted to what is good, sensible, upright, devout, and self-controlled.
(9) He must hold firmly to the faithful message as it has been taught, so that he will be able to give exhortation in such healthy teaching and correct those who speak against it.

Huge bill to fill eh? lol - but thinking about it really, this is just our *reasonable service*.

In Love and Service.

Ron

[heron]

The Bible does have clear guidance on elders. Nope none of it includes seminary. In fact many seminary pastors have wild kids which by the Bible's guidelines makes them unqualified. Titus 1:6^_^ That's an interesting and unique point. (-:

I think much of our hesitation is cultural, and if we explore directions we will more easily sort out cultural strongholds from vital truth.

I grew up in a home church, with this as my primary fellowship and weekly church as a supplement. Our leader functioned primarily to pick the passage of study, call everyone to order, and cut off conversation at the end.

The teaching was done as we (teenagers) compared scriptures and concordances and dictionaries together. It was a powerful study, and we never left feeling like it was disorganized or poorly taught. We kept each other on track.

[uzlot]

hmmm, interesting. i have been part of a house church for 2 years now, and the majority of us when we first started meeting together were all strong christians who had for one reason or another left churches and met up for a social evening and took along food to make up a buffet, one guy brought his guitar and we had a time of praise and worship too, we all enjoyed it so much that we decided to continue to meet, we would just all take along some food to share, have a time of praise and worship, then spend time sharing what God is doing in our lives etc. As time has gone on, i became more and more concerned about the fact that as new people were coming in altho they were getting some kind of teaching thru some of the courses we were doing such as the freedom in christ course, they were not actually getting BIBLE teaching, altho the course is very good, and does give scriptures, I dont believe it can replace the reading of scriptures, and as someone else has said earlier, in timothy it says; devote yourself to the PUBLIC teaching of the SCRIPTURES. then i began to question, why does God call some to be teachers if we believe we dont need teaching ? I became very concered about new people coming in believing that all you need is the holy spirit to teach you, because..........its only through knowing your scriptures that you learn to discern what is of God and wot isnt, because the holy spirit will never argue with the written word. Unfortunately, others in the group disagree with me and do not believe its important to teach people direct from the bible, they just encourage the new people to read the bible for themselves. I strongly disagree as like i said, why does God call some to be teachers if we dont need them ? so.......I am at a crossroads at the moment, not sure where God is leading me. I am going to the local anglican church in the evenings simply because i so miss the preach and hearing the word of God rather than just hearing other peoples experiences, but am still meeting with the small group in the week.

[hosogi]

The Bible does have clear guidance on elders. Nope none of it includes seminary. In fact many seminary pastors have wild kids which by the Bible's guidelines makes them unqualified. Titus 1:6



I think you are a little bit confused. Seminary is just one of ways to get biblical knowledge. The fact that elders must have good knowledge and skill to teach the Bible does not change in any time and generation.

Whether a pastor who is a seminary-graduate has wild kids or not is another issue to be discussed.

[hosogi]

Best of course is the Holy Spirit's guidance. The Bible tells us He will lead us in all truth. Beware there are many false spirits. The Bible foretold them and gave examples of them in the past. Spirits of deception are alive and well. So I encourage you to be Berean and search the scriptures diligently. In the past hundreds of prophets (of God) were fooled, few preached the truth. The Bible warns that this will be true in the end times too. I believe it is true today. The deeper you search wholeheartedly turned to God the more you will be pleasing to God and blessed by Him.



Holy Spirit best guides you when you read the Bible in original language because that was the tool and language when He gave inspiration and Words to the writer.

Because of the translation, some phrases will not be understood fully without word study.

For example, in Col. 1:24, we have a phrase that reads, "in filling up what is lacking in Christ's afflictions," and it does not fully make sense even when you read notes in your study Bible. I admit notes will surely help you but it will not hit the mark until you do word study and find the word translated as "lacking" can mean "which is behind, what follows, what comes later."

What I want to communicate is that we should not neglect or ignore that kind of efforts and faithful attitude toward the Word.

[TheAJKMan]

hosogi, you make some interesting and valid points concerning "leaders" having some "skill/teaching" when teaching others. I agree that there needs to be some sort of structure and leading of the home church, but my understanding of the scriptures is that that leadership was more of an oversight thing, rather than a leading thing directly.

[hosogi]

hosogi, you make some interesting and valid points concerning "leaders" having some "skill/teaching" when teaching others. I agree that there needs to be some sort of structure and leading of the home church, but my understanding of the scriptures is that that leadership was more of an oversight thing, rather than a leading thing directly.

My oppinion is really limited to elders' teaching skill as one of their main roles. It includes protecting people from false teachings.

For other parts, elders' role is to oversee, giving direction in application of biblical principle in belivers' life.
You can find this by reading epistles of Peter and John. Instructions given in those epistles were of elders.

I am not sure what you exactly mean when you say, "leading thing directly." But I know that running oranization is not their main role. In that sense, I totally agree with you.

Peace and grace of God be with you!

[Starcrystal]

hosogi ,
I, and most home churches, disagre with you.
I'm not ' Starting' a home church nor am I ' leading' people (properly or into error) but rather I'm spending time with fellow beleivers in the hopes of creating real relationships and in order to have transparency and accountability. We all have gifts and the holy spirit indwelling us and we will all bring to the table or ideas and our understandings of scripture. There are MANY resources if we want to make sure we are 100% 'doctrinally sound' and we'll use them if /when such things are important to us . .but that's not the goal or point of gathering in my mind. I beleive the clergy/laity divide is silly and that we'll al be much better off when the gap is closed.

I agree with this, especially the last sentence "I beleive the clergy/laity divide is silly and that we'll al be much better off when the gap is closed..."

This sounds like the home church where I taught last year. Even though I taught the studies or brought the message, everyone brought their ideas and understandings (or lack thereof) to the meeting. It went really well, was very interactive, and no one "preached down" at others.

[heron]

. then i began to question, why does God call some to be teachers if we believe we dont need teaching ?The group formed out of a need, met the need, and made people feel grounded and happy. That doesn't mean the group shouldn't morph and grow with time into something that it wasn't originally.

When God puts something on the heart of an individual, such as your concern about teaching, I believe it's often God's way of hand-picking the person to get things moving! The body is made up of a group of people with different opinions, and you need to make sure that one faction of opinions doesn't dominate.

The truth is, the group needs to maintain balance of skills and ministries. It can't float along endlessly in the same state, because God will bring new people in who need different things, have different skills, and bring new ideas that foster continual growth.

The Word of God is powerful and, as you suspect, a group will start to get off track if they just go with what they want. The kindgdom is not about comfort, but caring for others and understanding God's heart. If you leave out His input, you'll find members of the group start to make up what they think Christianity should be.

I don't know the group, so I'm not criticizing them... I am just speaking from observing other groups over time.

You could offer to give a small devotional each week, or to oversee a more interactive Bible study... something small that wouldn't threaten the status quo.

[Johnnz]

We all take turns in 'leading' our weekly meeting. Each person has insights that are valuable, especially when they are about life situations and the relationship with Jesus. Sometimes we get too focused on doctrine and not the application of our faith to daily living.

John
NZ

[hosogi]

I agree with this, especially the last sentence "I beleive the clergy/laity divide is silly and that we'll al be much better off when the gap is closed..."

This sounds like the home church where I taught last year. Even though I taught the studies or brought the message, everyone brought their ideas and understandings (or lack thereof) to the meeting. It went really well, was very interactive, and no one "preached down" at others.

Assuming that this reply is related to my post, let me give one more comment.

What I did say is that it is better for home church to have learned/educated leaders.

What I did not say at all is that home church should have educated pastor.

So, my idea has nothing to do with "clergy/laity dividion," nor "preaching down." I have attended Bible Assembly with Brotheren back ground and I value their attitude. My idea should be understood in home church setting, its character and custom.

When you guys read my first post, you had bias or prejudice that distorted what I tried to communicate. Please don't assume that I am trying to bring in the tarditional clergy leading church system into home churches.

[Starcrystal]

Actually I was replying to JustBoo, not you :)
I never had bias about your posts, nor do I believe the "traditional clergy leading church system" should be in home churches.
Home churches do not need an ordained/educated pastor. I am not a pastor yet I have led home church studies & prayer time. Educated in the Scriptures - YES! I agree with you fully on that one.

[New_Wineskin]

Loyalty to fellowships gets so weird. We are not competing sports teams -- we are all one Body.

Glad you joined CF!

Yes . I have seen this membership/loyalty/committment thing creep into HC's . I realize that they get nervous that people will only come when they want and there is no stability with numbers . But , it doesn't matter if there are 20 or even one person - yourself . Just do what the Lord wants you to do with whomever is there .

[New_Wineskin]

If we try to follow biblical example of house church, I think we need to have trained leader among us. When gathering started after Christ's ascension, at least they had about 81 direct diesciples of Jesus Christ. They must have taken leading role in house churches in their town.

Before I got educated in seminary, I had read through the Bible more than 24 times and I was quite confident talking of my biblical knowledge. But I got to know that my knowledge was not enough to lead "church."

My thought may be off the topic. But I want to recommend poeple who are led to start home church to finish any preaching class or inductive Bible study class in college or seminary. Teaching Bible without exegetical skill can lead poeple into misunderstanding.


Hmmm . Doesn't that sound just like what all of the IC's do ? Yet , they all ignore it when it comes to the Scriptures or tradition . Tradition almost always wins . Nope ... this doesn't work . And , I would like to point out that the traditional groups are the ones who own , operate , and grade these courses .

[New_Wineskin]

JustBoo

I want to make it clear. I did not say we need clergy in the group.

Another point clear in the New Testament is that elders were appointed in every church and their task was teaching the Scripture.


Really ? In my understanding of the gospel - new covenant - it is just the opposite . There is no longer a need for priests to interceed for us an teach us - Jesus does that .

With respect to the Scriptures , I dont find what you say in them . And , even if I could , they would definitely be teaching the Law and the Prophets as that is all they had . Yet , since all of the earliest believers were Jews , that would be silly since their audience knew as much , if not more , than most of the disciples . Why would they need someone to teach them when they have heard them all of their lives ?

In accordance to your own doctrine , you should be predominantly teaching the Law and the Prophets as they would have been what the disciples were teaching their audiences . That is , if you actually believed that .



That does not mean they were clergy. In another part of the Scripture, it is clear that every member should be a teacher in some way according to his/her talent.


True . However , what does that have to do with the Scriptures ( Law ) ?



I believe every Christian needs to learn exegetical skill.


From how you write , you seem to be someone who needs Scriptural support for doctrines . Does the above doctrine have such support ? Why would there be a need for such a thing under the New Covenant ?



But the purpose is not to make that kind a division you stated. Holy Spirit does help us. At the same time, we need to have the recoginition of languistic and cultural gap. By saying this I mean that English Bible does not completely communicate the content of the original language.


Ah . The Spirit "helps" but we *need* the Letter . Let us completely forget that the Spirit gives life while the letter kills .



Historically, the focus of church gathering was on the Scripture and Communion. If the main purpose of home church is not there, I will just call it 'Chrisitian Fellowship.'

So , back to Catholicism or Orthodoxy - historical tradition over all else . Historically , they were perfect and we should follow their example . I don't agree . First of all , I would doubt that happened much in the early stages of Christianity . It may have cropped up as religion began overcoming the meetings and doctrines became firmly established . If you wish to go back to "historical" christianity , then Catholicism or Orthodoxy are the places to go . They "claim" to be the most historical groups - keeping the historical way .

I , myself , am only interested in "Christian Fellowship" . All of that other stuff is what I want to jetison . I am not interested in following history - I am interested in following Jesus .

[New_Wineskin]

Assuming that this reply is related to my post, let me give one more comment.

What I did say is that it is better for home church to have learned/educated leaders.

What I did not say at all is that home church should have educated pastor.

So, my idea has nothing to do with "clergy/laity dividion," nor "preaching down." I have attended Bible Assembly with Brotheren back ground and I value their attitude. My idea should be understood in home church setting, its character and custom.

When you guys read my first post, you had bias or prejudice that distorted what I tried to communicate. Please don't assume that I am trying to bring in the tarditional clergy leading church system into home churches.

I believe you mean that . Yet , you have written that you are biased towards what you consider historic ways of doing things and , without them , the groups are merely fellowshipping rather than churches .

A lot of what you are saying is the same as what the institutional groups have been saying for centuries . If we bring their baggage with us into a new way , it will spread and make the new way only another version of the old way .

New wine into wineskins . Any yeast from the old batch will spread through the new batch .

[Frank1]

While the early churches were home churches we have to look at the scriptures that show us that there was apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers. Members of the five-fold ministry.
These were mentioned as being ordained leaders anointed by the Holy Ghost.
Cell groups were fine for Bible studies and gatherings of Christian fellowship but actual services are those led by an ordained member of the five-fold ministry.
One area to look at is the intent as well.
If a home church is just to get out of going to church or submitting to a pastor that has been ordained of God it is wrong.
If it is out of need it is right but the Lord will put an ordained minister in charge.
This brings me to the next point.
There are churches on every corner and some are good and some are bad. There are churches that will preach anything a person wants to hear.
They will tell you that you are special. That Jesus just loves you so much you can do no wrong. That his grace is so exceeding that you don't have to worry about works, obedience or his wrath.
Much of what is preached today is heresy and blasphemy in the highest and should there be no church with a pastor that has the guts to preach the truth it may be time to seek out a smaller, or home church. But once again, the Lord will be true to his word and have an ordained leader.
The point I wanted to make is that it takes the Spirit of God to know who is ordained of man and who is ordained of God.
Attending a church with a pastor that is ordained of man and not God is as wrong as attending a home church without a pastor ordained of God.
I hope this makes sense as many have started home churches from the wrong heart. (pride, rebellion, etc...)
The word of God is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. After all, pleasing God in all things. Churches and pastors included. Home churches should be started for the right reason.
As for your friend. They may be wrong or they may be right. I really don't know your situation. I guess the main thing is this; is the home church for the right reason?
May God bless.
Frank

[heron]

If we bring their baggage with us into a new way , it will spread and make the new way only another version of the old way .Ha ha, this isn't just an assumption -- I have seen it happen. Every person that moves over brings their favorite parts of the old church's culture and theology, and it all mixes in. People understand where each other is coming from, so many things get rationalized.

I believe every Christian needs to learn exegetical skill. From how you write , you seem to be someone who needs Scriptural support for doctrines . Does the above doctrine have such support ? Why would there be a need for such a thing under the New Covenant ?It certainly doesn't hurt!

I've seen some independent churches survive on ministers who don't have a divinity degree, and they can only preach so long on what they know --- they don't have as much time as they'd hoped for additional research, so they end up picking up trends and tips from the latest books they read.

This often represents third-hand research, which is sometimes worth it and sometimes distorted and careless. It really pays off for members to take responsibility for what they believe, especially if they teach adult classes and SS.

[hosogi]

Really ? In my understanding of the gospel - new covenant - it is just the opposite . There is no longer a need for priests to interceed for us an teach us - Jesus does that .

Elders are not priests. They do not interceed. On the other hand, it is clear in the Bible that the role of elders are teaching.

We do not need priests who pray in place of us. We can read Bible by ourselves. But the need of teacher is another issue.


With respect to the Scriptures , I dont find what you say in them . And , even if I could , they would definitely be teaching the Law and the Prophets as that is all they had . Yet , since all of the earliest believers were Jews , that would be silly since their audience knew as much , if not more , than most of the disciples . Why would they need someone to teach them when they have heard them all of their lives ?

Early church had a lot of Gentile Christians. They needed to learn that Moses, Psalm and Prophets testified Jesus. Even the Jews had to be taught it and understand it to accept Jesus as Messiah.


In accordance to your own doctrine , you should be predominantly teaching the Law and the Prophets as they would have been what the disciples were teaching their audiences . That is , if you actually believed that .


That is Judaism, not Christianity. Old Testament should be taught in the way that testifies Jesus. Even in the early church, Paul's epistles were circulated and had to be understood in the light of Old Testament. So parts of New Testament were also needed to be "taught."

Teachers today need to give more information about the background of those writings, too. Having teachers in the church (no matter whether it is traditional one or house church) is quite natural.



True . However , what does that have to do with the Scriptures ( Law ) ?

Scriptures should not be understood as "Law" in this context. Both OT and NT should be recognized as Scriptures.




From how you write , you seem to be someone who needs Scriptural support for doctrines . Does the above doctrine have such support ? Why would there be a need for such a thing under the New Covenant ?


It is not related to "priesthood." Needs of teachers in the church is clear in Pauline Writings. I have enough Scriptural support.


Ah . The Spirit "helps" but we *need* the Letter . Let us completely forget that the Spirit gives life while the letter kills .

In this case, letter means "Mosaic Law." I am not a Judaizer.




So , back to Catholicism or Orthodoxy - historical tradition over all else . Historically , they were perfect and we should follow their example . I don't agree . First of all , I would doubt that happened much in the early stages of Christianity . It may have cropped up as religion began overcoming the meetings and doctrines became firmly established . If you wish to go back to "historical" christianity , then Catholicism or Orthodoxy are the places to go . They "claim" to be the most historical groups - keeping the historical way .

Again, I have to say, I do not insist on the need of "priests" in the church. So this oppinion is not related to my thought or can be an answer to my thought.


I , myself , am only interested in "Christian Fellowship" . All of that other stuff is what I want to jetison . I am not interested in following history - I am interested in following Jesus .

I do not care whether it is "historical" or not.
I do care whether it is biblical or not.
Having teachers in the church is quite biblical.
Teachers or elders are not "priests."

[New_Wineskin]

Elders are not priests. They do not interceed. On the other hand, it is clear in the Bible that the role of elders are teaching.

We do not need priests who pray in place of us. We can read Bible by ourselves. But the need of teacher is another issue.


It is also clear in the Law that the Lord said to call *none* teacher because the Holy Spirit alone was to be our teacher . So , no *need* ( ie necessary for salvation ) for a human teacher .



Early church had a lot of Gentile Christians. They needed to learn that Moses, Psalm and Prophets testified Jesus. Even the Jews had to be taught it and understand it to accept Jesus as Messiah.


No they didn't . Abraham didn't have this *need* because those were written well after him . Once they became Christians , they didn't need to know that the Law verified that what they had been told by the Spirit was true .



That is Judaism, not Christianity. Old Testament should be taught in the way that testifies Jesus. Even in the early church, Paul's epistles were circulated and had to be understood in the light of Old Testament. So parts of New Testament were also needed to be "taught."


The New Testament was never about writings . "Taught" ? by priests ?



Teachers today need to give more information about the background of those writings, too. Having teachers in the church (no matter whether it is traditional one or house church) is quite natural.


It is only "natural" because it is a manmade tradition handed down as necessary .



Scriptures should not be understood as "Law" in this context. Both OT and NT should be recognized as Scriptures.


Yet , you have been discussing them as Law . You have used "need" and "had to be" and "necessary" throughout your post . That means "Law" and Law being necessary for salvation .



It is not related to "priesthood." Needs of teachers in the church is clear in Pauline Writings. I have enough Scriptural support.


The idea of "the need Scrptural support" violates much of Paul's writings .



In this case, letter means "Mosaic Law." I am not a Judaizer.


No - much worse - as you know what they did when they were not yet understanding while you are doing it with the understanding of they did .



Again, I have to say, I do not insist on the need of "priests" in the church. So this oppinion is not related to my thought or can be an answer to my thought.


When you discopntinue using the phrase "need" for humans for relationship with the Lord , I will stop using the proper word for what you are saying .



I do not care whether it is "historical" or not.
I do care whether it is biblical or not.
Having teachers in the church is quite biblical.
Teachers or elders are not "priests."

Well , the word "biblical" is *not* biblical . You are using Teachers and elders in the same way that priests were used in the Law .

[heron]

The two of you aren't as divergent in belief as it sounds -- I am familiar with NewWineskin's posts in other threads.

Teachers in the NT were to recognize their own giftings, just as those gifted at helping others. Even though the primary apostles were repsected, others taught as well.

[New_Wineskin]

The two of you aren't as divergent in belief as it sounds -- I am familiar with NewWineskin's posts in other threads.

Teachers in the NT were to recognize their own giftings, just as those gifted at helping others. Even though the primary apostles were repsected, others taught as well.

I am all for that . Let those who receive a teaching from the Lord discuss it . All have things from the Lord as he gives them .

However , there is a huge difference between the other poster and myself - Law and Spirit . They say that humans with titles are "needed" . That throws out the Spirit and the Lord's blood .

[Johnnz]

The real issue is having access to sound teaching. That does not necessitate seminary and ordination. But it does require competent, well informed, well reasoned, well educated people having input into what we believe.

"Professionals" for all their training are often woefully ignorant about areas outside of their studies and experience. Christian counsellors, scientists, managers, economists etc etc all bring trained minds to their Christian understanding, and have wonderful and relevant insights for the rest of us. A one man or professional class monopoly on teaching overlooks this vast and necessary resource within our communities.

John
NZ
I personally try to read and listen widely amongst Christian authors with good credentials. I want to know what various people believe and why, so I can give informed consent to what I believe and teach. Admitting constantly to the possibility of being wrong about some things is so helpful in avoiding dogmatic, self righteous positions.

[JohannAT]

Hello dear brothers and sisters in Christ,

My experience in home/house church meetings has been that the meetings which are most enjoyable and most useful to the Lord for building up all the members of His Body involve a healthy mix of spontaneous fellowship and sound teaching.

Listening to a portion from an audio book, with breaks when needed for questions and discussion, can be really wonderful. Diving into the Bible together after listening to a portion from an audio book can be really wonderful too.

Of course, this raises the thorny question - "What audio booke are appropriate?" I prefer to keep this as simple as possible and stick with those "Christian Classics" that have touched countless lives and helped Christians for decades, if not centuries - the kind that are always in print because there is always a need for them and a hunger for them. As an example, the home group I am involved with right now has been really blessed by going through, one half-chapter at a time, dear brother Andrew Murray's classic book "Absolute Surrender".

Of course, one great thing about small groups and home meetings is that whatever was planned for that meeting can always be put aside if a greater need exists. For example, some times folks in our home meeting will invite a family meember or a co-worker who has never met in a home before and is full of questions. In many cases, the Lord's heart seems to be to lay aside the teaching until the next meeting and to simply care for the new one in our midst.

[eldermike]

I lead a home church, I am a seminary educated ordained minister, I don't believe you need to be a seminary educated, ordained minister to lead a home church. I like home churches.
With all that behind, I hope:

You must be careful when you begin something with the basis of not being something, Life's pendulum has momentum, it's natural tendency to move away from what is perceived to be wrong to another different but equally wrong place, this seems to work like a law.

IMHO small group or home churches need accountability. Within most traditional churches you will find ministers that have a heart for what you are doing. You need these people.

[Starcrystal]

I lead a home church, I am a seminary educated ordained minister, I don't believe you need to be a seminary educated, ordained minister to lead a home church. I like home churches.
With all that behind, I hope:

You must be careful when you begin something with the basis of not being something, Life's pendulum has momentum, it's natural tendency to move away from what is perceived to be wrong to another different but equally wrong place, this seems to work like a law.

IMHO small group or home churches need accountability. Within most traditional churches you will find ministers that have a heart for what you are doing. You need these people.

It's funny, when I led a home church last year one of the neighbors wanted to send out a flier to other neighbors stating my "credentials" and one being that I had attended Bible college. I was not intereted in boasting that I was cemetary educated. Besides, I quit 3/4 of the way through because I did not want to become ordained under mans systems, or identified with a particular denomination. Actually I learned little in the courses and no true spiritual experience in those 18 months.
You are right that you do not need to be seminary (cemetary) educated to lead a home church. But you DO need to be Holy Spirit educated. :amen:

[2cents]

While the early churches were home churches we have to look at the scriptures that show us that there was apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers. Members of the five-fold ministry.
These were mentioned as being ordained leaders anointed by the Holy Ghost.
Cell groups were fine for Bible studies and gatherings of Christian fellowship but actual services are those led by an ordained member of the five-fold ministry.
One area to look at is the intent as well.
If a home church is just to get out of going to church or submitting to a pastor that has been ordained of God it is wrong.
If it is out of need it is right but the Lord will put an ordained minister in charge.
This brings me to the next point.
There are churches on every corner and some are good and some are bad. There are churches that will preach anything a person wants to hear.
They will tell you that you are special. That Jesus just loves you so much you can do no wrong. That his grace is so exceeding that you don't have to worry about works, obedience or his wrath.
Much of what is preached today is heresy and blasphemy in the highest and should there be no church with a pastor that has the guts to preach the truth it may be time to seek out a smaller, or home church. But once again, the Lord will be true to his word and have an ordained leader.
The point I wanted to make is that it takes the Spirit of God to know who is ordained of man and who is ordained of God.
Attending a church with a pastor that is ordained of man and not God is as wrong as attending a home church without a pastor ordained of God.
I hope this makes sense as many have started home churches from the wrong heart. (pride, rebellion, etc...)
The word of God is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. After all, pleasing God in all things. Churches and pastors included. Home churches should be started for the right reason.
As for your friend. They may be wrong or they may be right. I really don't know your situation. I guess the main thing is this; is the home church for the right reason?
May God bless.
Frank

There seems to be a lot of emphasis in your thinking about "ordination". I did a word search on the word "ordain" and it is only used twice in the New Testament, both times refering to the Law being ordained by angels. I guess I don't understand Biblically what you mean by an "ordained" minister or pastor.

Since the word "pastor" is only used once in the New Testament and there is no job description attached to the word, please clarify Biblically what you think a "ordained pastor" should be doing. Is a pastor in your thinking the same as say an elder or bishop?

If an "ordained" pastor is "annointed by the Holy Ghost" then I must be an ordained pastor...

“As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him.”

"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.”

This is my opinion about church "leadership"...

"They love the place of honor at banquets and the chief seats in the synagogues, and respectful greetings in the market places, and being called Rabbi by men. "But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. "Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. "Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ. ”But the greatest among you shall be your servant. "Whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted.

[eldermike]

There seems to be a lot of emphasis in your thinking about "ordination". I did a word search on the word "ordain" and it is only used twice in the New Testament, both times refering to the Law being ordained by angels. I guess I don't understand Biblically what you mean by an "ordained" minister or pastor.

Since the word "pastor" is only used once in the New Testament and there is no job description attached to the word, please clarify Biblically what you think a "ordained pastor" should be doing. Is a pastor in your thinking the same as say an elder or bishop?

If an "ordained" pastor is "annointed by the Holy Ghost" then I must be an ordained pastor...

“As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him.”

"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.”

This is my opinion about church "leadership"...

"They love the place of honor at banquets and the chief seats in the synagogues, and respectful greetings in the market places, and being called Rabbi by men. "But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. "Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. "Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ. ”But the greatest among you shall be your servant. "Whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted.
Ordained should not mean a title or place of honor. Ordained is a word describing an action of leaders in a local church to lay hands on a man and pray. It's a servant position of someone with a servants heart. If it comes with a car and a house and fancy clothes that's not found in scripture, that's just tradition. Note: Tradition is not always wrong. If it comes with a servant ministry to those brought in the house by God, that's a minister position. To be ordained is only to have others agree that you meet the requirments of ministry leadership as laid out in scripture.

A degree is not an evil thing. A minister without one is not lacking anything.

This stuff will not fit in a box.

[2cents]

Ordained should not mean a title or place of honor. Ordained is a word describing an action of leaders in a local church to lay hands on a man and pray. It's a servant position of someone with a servants heart. If it comes with a car and a house and fancy clothes that's not found in scripture, that's just tradition. Note: Tradition is not always wrong. If it comes with a servant ministry to those brought in the house by God, that's a minister position. To be ordained is only to have others agree that you meet the requirments of ministry leadership as laid out in scripture.

A degree is not an evil thing. A minister without one is not lacking anything.

This stuff will not fit in a box.

Please give a Biblical definition and example of "ordination". Please give an example of the "requirements of ministry leadership" for a "pastor".

Jesus said not to call each other "leaders" yet you have just given an example of people calling themselves "leaders" laying hands on someone and calling him a "leader" also! This is great, and also fits in perfectly with the Roman Catholic idea of Apostolic Procession. If to be ordained is only to have others agree that you should be a "minister", then being an "ordained" Mormon Bishop is just as valid as being an "ordained" Catholic Bishop, or an "ordained" Baptist "pastor".

"It's a servant position of someone with a servants heart."

My problem is I've never met a "pastor" (that's actually made it on the payroll), that in any way resembles a servant. Clean the building? Nope. Care for the grounds around the building? Nope. Sweep the parking lot? Nope. Religion is a business and "pastors" are CEOs, managers, and motivational speakers,(and amateur golfers) but one thing they are not is servants.

[Count]

My problem is I've never met a "pastor" (that's actually made it on the payroll), that in any way resembles a servant. Clean the building? Nope. Care for the grounds around the building? Nope. Sweep the parking lot? Nope. Religion is a business and "pastors" are CEOs, managers, and motivational speakers,(and amateur golfers) but one thing they are not is servants.

:clap: Great post, brother!

[eldermike]

Please give a Biblical definition and example of "ordination". Please give an example of the "requirements of ministry leadership" for a "pastor".

Jesus said not to call each other "leaders" yet you have just given an example of people calling themselves "leaders" laying hands on someone and calling him a "leader" also! This is great, and also fits in perfectly with the Roman Catholic idea of Apostolic Procession. If to be ordained is only to have others agree that you should be a "minister", then being an "ordained" Mormon Bishop is just as valid as being an "ordained" Catholic Bishop, or an "ordained" Baptist "pastor".

"It's a servant position of someone with a servants heart."

My problem is I've never met a "pastor" (that's actually made it on the payroll), that in any way resembles a servant. Clean the building? Nope. Care for the grounds around the building? Nope. Sweep the parking lot? Nope. Religion is a business and "pastors" are CEOs, managers, and motivational speakers,(and amateur golfers) but one thing they are not is servants.
I have met plenty of servant pastors. I guess we have been on different journeys. I minister outside the normal traditional church and there are plenty of them out there doing the work. I am not here to defend tradition. If you can't find leadership in scripture, I can't help you there. I can pray for you, somthing has hurt you somewhere along the journey.

God has always used men to lead other men. Show me in scripture where God called men to be lone rangers.

I don't like tradition but I can't attack pastors when I work with many who not only clean the parking lot, they paved it.

God bless you on your journey.

[2cents]

I have met plenty of servant pastors. I guess we have been on different journeys. I minister outside the normal traditional church and there are plenty of them out there doing the work. I am not here to defend tradition. If you can't find leadership in scripture, I can't help you there. I can pray for you, somthing has hurt you somewhere along the journey.

God has always used men to lead other men. Show me in scripture where God called men to be lone rangers.

I don't like tradition but I can't attack pastors when I work with many who not only clean the parking lot, they paved it.











God bless you on your journey.



I can't find modern church "leadership" in the scripture nor can I find the "christian" religion there either. "Eldermike" I did not request any prayers from you, please don't make assumptions about my "journey" it only makes you sound ignorant and condensending.

[eldermike]

I can't find modern church "leadership" in the scripture nor can I find the "christian" religion there either. "Eldermike" I did not request any prayers from you, please don't make assumptions about my "journey" it only makes you sound ignorant and condensending.
And this type post makes you sound how?
Wow, no problem man. Good luck...

[Count]

I have met plenty of servant pastors. I guess we have been on different journeys. I minister outside the normal traditional church and there are plenty of them out there doing the work. I am not here to defend tradition. If you can't find leadership in scripture, I can't help you there. I can pray for you, somthing has hurt you somewhere along the journey.

God has always used men to lead other men. Show me in scripture where God called men to be lone rangers.

I don't like tradition but I can't attack pastors when I work with many who not only clean the parking lot, they paved it.

God bless you on your journey.

First of all, nobody is attacking pastors, but the office of pastor.

The fact that you have know pastors who have paved the parking lot doesn't neccessarily indicates that they are called to be pastors.

Besides, the fact that there is a parking lot shows there is a church building and this fact from itself shows that those who serve in church buildings are modern leaders.

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

Pastor isnt a leader, in the Bible anyways. ;)

[eldermike]

Pastor isnt a leader, in the Bible anyways. ;)
I think James was a pastor and he was a leader.

[heron]

The Hebrew (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?l=en&query=pastors&section=0&translation=kjv&oq=pastor&new=1&sr=1) term pastor (http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=07462) came from the word shepherd. But that didn't mean they were expected to preach.

Ra`ah 7642

to pasture, tend, graze, feed
(Qal)
to tend, pasture 1a
to shepherd 1a
of ruler, teacher (fig) 1a
of people as flock (fig) 1a
shepherd, herdsman (subst)
to feed, graze 1a
of cows, sheep etc (literal) 1a
of idolater, Israel as flock (fig)
(Hiphil) shepherd, shepherdess
to associate with, be a friend of (meaning probable)
(Qal) to associate with
(Hithpael) to be companions
(Piel) to be a special friendThe Greek (http://www.studylight.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=eph+4:11&it=kjv&ot=bhs&nt=na&sr=1&l=en) word used for pastors (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4166) was
poimh/n 4166 (poimenav in Eph 4:11) (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4166)
a herdsman, esp. a shepherd
in the parable, he to whose care and control others have committed themselves, and whose precepts they follow
metaph.
the presiding officer, manager, director, of any assembly: so of Christ the Head of the church
of the overseers of the Christian assemblies
of kings and princes The tasks of a Near Eastern shepherd were: - to watch for enemies trying to attack the sheep - to defend the sheep from attackers - to heal the wounded and sick sheep - to find and save lost or trapped sheep - to love them, sharing their lives and so earning their trust.

SO different from the modern-day preacher.

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

I think James was a pastor and he was a leader.

Possibly.

Leadership and the pastoral role often conflict in meeting-orietated church structures. It's an important distinction sometimes, to avoid having one person called a Pastor do everything. Which would negate the priesthood of all believers.

[eldermike]

Possibly.

Leadership and the pastoral role often conflict in meeting-orietated church structures. It's an important distinction sometimes, to avoid having one person called a Pastor do everything. Which would negate the priesthood of all believers.
I agree. IMHO the correct biblical purpose of meeting together is to encourage one another on to good works. If we are meeting together to hear a preacher, that's not a biblical reason. The pastors I know understand this difference. Many local churches are going to a journey group model and away from the traditional sunday school/sermon model.

[lismore]

alright . .
trying to get over it and not be annoyed . . . .
Boo

Hi Boo:wave:

Its a wrong foundation. They have the traditions of man as their foundation (a denomination) instead of Jesus Christ and him alone. They will always be serving two masters until they get freedom from that false foundation!

God Bless You:wave:

[Johnnz]

Leadership is a biblical concept. And a necessary one. What is unbiblical is a hierarchy with one person on top who dominates church life and ministry. The NT pattern is that of a servant orientated leadership group (deacons and elders) whose main role is to produce mature disciples, not dependent, second class followers.

There is no way one person can adequately fulfill the varied giftings for a fully functional group of believers. Some are virtually incompatible in practice. Eg An evangelist seldom makes a good teacher or pastoral role, a teacher seldom is a good evangelist, and many church pastors are hopeless decision makers and should never be in a position where they carry major responsibility for major decisions.

John
NZ

[Notrash]

Although this discussion is getting off the original topic, it seems to be the most active thread.

When we think of the early church, I wonder what they had to compare things to and to use as a model. Then I started reading about the synagogue service. Basically, the scriptures where read (just like Jesus did ) and there followed lively interaction and discussion over any variety of topics, including the scripture that was just read. It seemed to me as though it was kind of a spiritual community meeting.

A few months ago I got a book written by a layman from Australia called "being church where you are". It went into some of the synagogue service and also a possible example and model of a typical 'home or community church'.

I have a saying that I think about sometimes. A pastor can do alot worse than simply reading the scriptures to the flock and allowing the Holy Spirit to do what he has promised to do. That is to teach us directly.

There needs to be order in these 'discussions' and progress and that is where the 'leadership' or guidance people come in.

Well, any how thought I'd chime in.

Anyone know of some other books on the subject?

[Christopher1020]

I think a little history can help illuminate some of the issues I have read in this thread. Most early Christians had little or none of the new testament. Apostles, bishops, deacons, and evangelist traveled around setting up elders or presbyters and spending years in a single area teaching them. Paul spent 3 years I believe studying the faith under Barnabas before taking the lead. The same presbyters are the elders we are to entreat as fathers hence the Catholic term father being applied to priest/ presbyters. I really think a lot of the Church today thinks that the Ministry was established to control the Church, but the according to Christ authority is in the service. Ministers brought the Word of Salvation along with the Sacraments of Baptism, Eucharist, and Marriage. Reading the Church Fathers such as St. Augustine and Clement and Ireanaus really help us get a feeling of the purpose of the Church. Remember Christ ordained the Apostles, they intern ordained the first deacons and Timothy was exhorted to appoint elders in every city.

The early Christian could not have met as you do because they did not have Bibles to study. They had to be taught. I do agree that the teaching office must be a servant not a master. Bishops alone are overseers to stand fast against heresies just as Paul and Peter did. Bishops carry the Apostolic Faith and hold the ship on course, but that is as the servant of servants. Its why I am old Catholic, no one else can deal with John 20:21-23. Or what is the presbytery mentioned in Timothy. My path is not for everyone, and I absolutely want to applaud all the home churches out there because you are dedicating yourselves to Christ first and creating a real fellowship of Christians which denominations can not do. Also the commitment to communion is a real head turner. I am just tossing out what I have learned. I hope I have not offened any one as I have great respect for all of you.