Do you attend a house church?

[Heather in OK]

How do you like it?

 

For a variety of reasons my dh and I are considering making the change to a house church. We have some friends who are involved in one and I talked to her a bit yesterday. It sounds like it is what we are looking for at this stage of our lives.

[milovany]

How do you like it?

 

For a variety of reasons my dh and I are considering making the change to a house church. We have some friends who are involved in one and I talked to her a bit yesterday. It sounds like it is what we are looking for at this stage of our lives.

 

We did (sort of) at one stage of our lives and at that point really enjoyed the casual atmosphere where the families were learning, singing and praying together. It's different than going to a church building for sure. There are lots of resources out there for developing different types of home churches. We would not return to that style of congregating, but for what we believed and needed at the time it was enjoyable.

[Sophia]

We did for a year and a half.

We loved it but left because of key differences in regards to growth.

 

Most of the families left (including us) when a family integrated church, with a pastor, started meeting in our town.

[Hedgehog]

I attended house churches with my parents when I was a child - in fact so much so that we didn't often go to a "regular" church. When I got married, DH and I continued to attend a house church until our older girls were school age; we then joined a big church with a weekly Sunday School. We've since moved again to a smaller church, but it's still in a church building.

 

I really miss the informality, the times of discussing the Bible readings, the friendly chit-chat afterwards. We always knew everyone really well, so it was easier to know how to help them when they were in need. We may well go back to that one day. For various reasons we're not so bothered about our dc attending Sunday School any more, so that aspect doesn't really figure in our priorities.

 

Probably been rambling.. sorry! Hope that helps some. House church worship is what I've most experience with so feel free to ask more questions/PM me if you would like to.

[mom4him]

:bigear:

[simka2]

part of me would really like this. The other part realizes I'm at to confused a point a theologically and I tend to be a bit of an influencer (not a brag on myself, just reality.)

 

I would hate to influence someone in a direction I would soon change my view on.

 

Right now, we are looking for BIG so we can be a wallflower ;).

[Nestof3]

I loved house churching. I miss house churching. I don't think I can ever fit into an organized church. We chose to leave because we had a few issues with the particular group.

 

(1) It was becoming too organized with too much emphasis on certain people "gifted in ministry" taking over, and it ended up being too much like organized religious services. I was just waiting for the bulletins to start coming out.

 

(2) There was no respect for starting the meeting on time. We drive 45 min to an hour to get there and had to wake up earlier than anyone there except for one family.

 

(3) Total lack of fiscal responsibility of several of the families. My husband bought tires for one of the families once, for example. When he told the dad that he needed to have the vehicle maintained (balancing tires or something like that), he said, "Oh, I'm not good at getting those things taken care of." No duh. That's why my husband had to buy tires. He'll probably need him again soon since he didn't plan to heed my husband's advice.

 

(4) Prayer time turned into a time to talk about how everyone was too busy with so much that they kept adding to their lives -- animals, more children, more land, etc. It also became too much of a "let's tell everyone what our financial needs are" type of thing. There was too much vision theology which involved moving to the land. Very few of the homeschooling families were actually doing academics because they were too busy with other things.

 

(5) We never felt like we really fit in because (a) we were not quiverfull and (b) we had no desire to move to the country and have land

[JadeOrchidSong]

I used to go to house churches in China before coming to the USA. There was intimate relationships and good growth. I knew lots of Bible verses from listening to my African brothers preach in Mandarin. It was illegal but it was healthy spiritually.

I also tried the big legal churches; I usually felt lost because I felt like one tiny drop among the vast ocean, not to mention that the sermons are censored and you don't always get the full truth.

I just finished reading "So You Don't Want to Go to Church Anymore". There are lots of truths in it. However, I am not ready to give up church and attend a house church yet.

[justamouse]

I love it. *love*

 

We live within walking distance of eachother and I think that makes a HUGE difference. It's not a meeting we attend, it's a way we live. We're in the center of town, there is no 'thing' we must abide by to be a part -ie used already -quiverful. Just a bunch of Christians who see Jesus as their focus and have lots of meals together and are a part of eachother's daily life.

[JadeOrchidSong]

I love it. *love*

 

We live within walking distance of eachother and I think that makes a HUGE difference. It's not a meeting we attend, it's a way we live. We're in the center of town, there is no 'thing' we must abide by to be a part -ie used already -quiverful. Just a bunch of Christians who see Jesus as their focus and have lots of meals together and are a part of eachother's daily life.

I would like to have something like this one.

[justamouse]

I would like to have something like this one.

 

I prayed 9 years for it. :001_smile: I left a huge and getting bigger church and I hit bottom with my own spirituality. I felt totally disillusioned with the institution of church and the way it worked. I picked up PAGAN CHRISTIANITY by Frank Viola (that was totally God showing me the way out of the wilderness, btw) and then I glommed every other book he had written.

 

It will happen. There are *so* many people leaving the church. It's massive.

 

check out house 2 house http://www.site.house2house.com/ and see if there's something by where you live.

[Heather in OK]

Thanks for your input!

 

Just a bunch of Christians who see Jesus as their focus and have lots of meals together and are a part of each other's daily life.

 

This is how the groups (they have grown so that they have four separate groups now) were explained to me by my friend. I guess my dh and I are just needing the simplicity, the closeness, and worshipful atmosphere of it all at this point in our lives.

 

This group is in a small way a part of the church we are currently attending (which I didn't know until I was talking to her yesterday) in that the pastor is fully supportive of the home church. She said once a month they attend the larger church, mostly for the leaders to have a chance to have a weekend off and worship corporately. We would still stay a little involved in the church as far as our oldest dd and the youth group and their Sunday night kids' group (when it is meeting...it's not a year-round thing) for the other three.

[LostSurprise]

My father is one of those people who gets along better in a home church so I did off and on growing up.

 

Pros:

small

people really know you

there's a great support network

people more likely to be 'real' about themselves

you can influence the direction of learning

a lot of directions open for ministry

 

Cons:

small

if you don't like someone, it's hard to ignore them

if there aren't any children your age it can get lonely

children's programming is usually limited or non-existent unless someone really has a 'gift' for that

it can seem like people are in your business

[bnbacademy]

We were part of a house church for about 2 years. It was not a good experience for us... The atmosphere was so informal it became a social group and not a Bible study, nor a Biblical model of a church. We had such high hopes, but it was not successful.

[CLHCO]

Years ago we spent a couple of years in one and though I just *loved* the families and missed them when we left, there were down sides that compelled us to leave.

 

Many home churches are rather boxy in their thinking. If you do not fit in the box, they will try to force you in. This can include things like quiverfull to the point of who has the most babies is the best, you're more righteous if you wear dresses, which homeshool curriculum - lots of things.

 

For us the hang-up was father leadership, which I am in agreement with, but when we went several years ago, my dh was still on the fence and very new regarding his faith/commitment, yet they had no idea what to do with a husband who was not ready to take his turn leading prayers and teaching - despite that fact that the bible specifically forbids new believers to teach, let alone occasionally confused ones. Imagine how hard it was when a woman tried joining without her husband once. They "assigned" her a family to sit with so a father could serve communion. :confused: She was a sister in Christ, yet she didn't have a pile of kids, didn't dress in prairie dresses, nor a husband who would take turns teaching, and ultimately, we had nothing to offer her, which is not how a church should be.

 

They were just trying to figure it out and find their footing, but in this particular case, an over-focus on father leadership over church or elder authority caused some issues. In their view, all the fathers should take turns, everyone equal. They pushed dh to fit in the box, he realized it was wrong and he shouldn't be teaching, and we just had to leave. (Side note: under excellent teaching in the church we moved to, my husband turned that confusion around quickly, because all he really needed was quality leadership from someone mature in the faith.)

 

I still see a need for house churches, and they can be a blessing, but when you have such a fracture society like ours without even a firm culture from one family to the next, as the areas where they are flourishing in China has in place, you have to artificially try to create one. So, if you join, you will need to use caution on how many box-mentality thinkers are leading it and how they will handle people coming from a different walk in life.

Edited December 8, 2010 by CLHCO

[JenniferB]

We used to attend a house church. Like others have already said, we didn't fit into the box either, but we continued to attend for I think 2 years. The box at our house church was not quiverfull, in fact it was more end-times-ish and speaking-in-tongues-ish. We needed to be grounded in the Bible desperately, and we got that in our current church where the Bible is preached in historical context. I don't recommend a house church. From what I hear, and from what I've experienced, the teaching can get off track from the Bible and go in some strange directions. Of course that can happen in a big building church as well, but I think there might be more accountability in a larger more organized setting.

[Heather in OK]

Many home churches are rather boxy in their thinking. If you do not fit in the box, they will try to force you in. This can include things like quiverfull to the point of who has the most babies is the best, you're more righteous if you wear dresses, which homeshool curriculum - lots of things.

 

So, if you join, you will need to use caution on how many box-mentality thinkers are leading it and how they will handle people coming from a different walk in life.

I know two other families, besides the friend I talked to yesterday, who are in this house church. This is NOT how this group is. The people I know who are involved are in different walks of life.

 

It's not a Gothard-type group either. *shiver*

 

I don't recommend a house church. From what I hear, and from what I've experienced, the teaching can get off track from the Bible and go in some strange directions. Of course that can happen in a big building church as well, but I think there might be more accountability in a larger more organized setting.

Again, I know this group isn't like this. At. All. And there is some accountability with the pastor of the church we are currently attending.

 

While this is a house church and they meet regularly, I know at least four (the fourth would be my friend's mother..who I also chatted with yesterday who attends the house church but I don't know her like I know the other three couples) of the families sometimes attend corporate worship. So they aren't a group of people cut off from the rest of church society and reality just doing their own thing. :)

[femke]

Yes, love it! So much more real fellowship IMHO.

 

We all sit in a circle, praying, worshipping (just a small group 5-20 people). The children are on the floor in the middle playing with some toys. And afterwards we share a meal together. I'm not going back to a church-building :D

[justamouse]

Thanks for your input!

 

 

 

This is how the groups (they have grown so that they have four separate groups now) were explained to me by my friend. I guess my dh and I are just needing the simplicity, the closeness, and worshipful atmosphere of it all at this point in our lives.

 

This group is in a small way a part of the church we are currently attending (which I didn't know until I was talking to her yesterday) in that the pastor is fully supportive of the home church. She said once a month they attend the larger church, mostly for the leaders to have a chance to have a weekend off and worship corporately. We would still stay a little involved in the church as far as our oldest dd and the youth group and their Sunday night kids' group (when it is meeting...it's not a year-round thing) for the other three.

 

We have no pastoral oversight as we all bring gifts to the table (and if you read Pagan Christianity-pastors are not biblical, they're an adoption from the thinking that Roman hierarchy is the way to do things). I wouldn't have it any other way. Some ps, some homeschool, all walks of live, all levels of faith. We are NOT closed off-we're very much a part of our local community.

[femke]

From what I hear, and from what I've experienced, the teaching can get off track from the Bible and go in some strange directions. Of course that can happen in a big building church as well, but I think there might be more accountability in a larger more organized setting.

 

I think the teaching gets off track much faster when there is only one man (woman) on top. In our 'church' the men share the 'duty' of preaching, leading etc. We're all accountable to each other, we question each other, reproach each other. We really know each other, and notice really fast if someone is going 'offtrack', so to say...

[justamouse]

I think the teaching gets off track much faster when there is only one man (woman) on top. In our 'church' the men share the 'duty' of preaching, leading etc. We're all accountable to each other, we question each other, reproach each other. We really know each other, and notice really fast if someone is going 'offtrack', so to say...

 

...I think what has to be said is that being able to reproach eachother is something that comes from intimacy. And that level isn't really developed in an institutional church setting. It has to do with being allowed to be transparent, where there is the trust and non judgment so a person feels safe enough to be transparent, it's a journey.

[milovany]

pastors are not biblical

 

Sorry, couldn't let it go. This is not true, if you mean a hierarchical structure in the church (which includes "presbyters" and bishops). The Bible does teach a hierarchical structure and early church history shows it functioning that way from the beginning. The apostles themselves were bishops and ordained new bishops as they went on their missionary journeys. You can read writings from the 1st and 2nd centuries that talk about the presbyters/bishops of the church. This same church that took the various letters and canonized them into the book we call the Bible was a hierarchical church. You might not agree with the need for that here 2000 years later, and that decision is between you and God, but the early church and the church(es) that have continued from that time did/do have a hierarchical structure. Just wanted to address this one point.

 

Carry on! :001_smile:

Edited December 9, 2010 by milovaný

[simka2]

Sorry, couldn't let it go. This is not true, if you mean a hierarchical structure in the church (which includes "presbyters" and bishops). The Bible does teach a hierarchical structure and early church history shows it functioning that way from the beginning. The apostles themselves were bishops and ordained new bishops as they went on their missionary journeys. You can read writings from the 1st and 2nd centuries that talk about the presbyters/bishops of the church. This same church that took the various letters and canonized them into the book we call the Bible was a hierarchical church. You might not agree with the need for that here 2000 years later, and that decision is between you and God, but the early church and the church(es) that have continued from that time did/do have a hierarchical structure. Just wanted to address this one point.

 

Carry on! :001_smile:

 

This could spin an entirely different thread ;). Yes the infant church was governed by elders, but for the most part these were self supporting members of the christian movement.

As far as I can tell only Paul went to be ordained by the elders in Jerusalem. After that Paul, sent and appointed his own chosen leaders...and gave instructions for choseing elders.

 

The reaosning behind this needs to be more carefully assesed, because it was also Paul who said every believer was a Priest.

[*********]

We housechurch. We've been a part of several different house church meeting groups. Right now, we're not a part of one. We're all by ourselves. We're waiting on the Lord. It's been quite a journey so far.

[milovany]

This could spin an entirely different thread ;).

 

Haha, true. But with apologies to Heather, I'm off to church and don't have time to do a spinoff.

 

Yes the infant church was governed by elders, but for the most part these were self supporting members of the christian movement.

 

Self-supporting, yes, but all sharing the same faith, doctrine, Apostolic tradition, hierarchical leadership, sacraments, liturgies, services, etc. There were no divisions/denominations; it was one church.

 

As far as I can tell only Paul went to be ordained by the elders in Jerusalem. After that Paul, sent and appointed his own chosen leaders...and gave instructions for choseing elders.

 

Hmmm, perhaps? (The "by elders in Jerusalem" part). But many of the apostles became bishops and founded churches in different cities. I can go hunting for a list, but it shouldn't be hard to find and I need to get to Vespers.

 

The reaosning behind this needs to be more carefully assesed, because it was also Paul who said every believer was a Priest.

 

Quick note because seriously I'm late for Vespers -- "Priest" meaning someone who presides over a local parish is a shortened form of presbyter, which is a different Greek word than the one translated "priest" used in the context you mention here (that together all Christians are a "priesthood of believers"). Both presbyters and the priesthood of believers can exist in the church, then, don't you think? It seems a bit unfortunate that in English we have the shortening of presbyter into priest because of the confusion with the word "priesthood" in Peter that you're speaking of; but looking at the Greek words it seems to be apples and oranges (which are related, but different). At least that's my understanding as I read it.

Edited December 9, 2010 by milovaný

[JenniferB]

...I think what has to be said is that being able to reproach eachother is something that comes from intimacy. And that level isn't really developed in an institutional church setting. It has to do with being allowed to be transparent, where there is the trust and non judgment so a person feels safe enough to be transparent, it's a journey.

 

I have to disagree with this statement. I have some very intimate relationships originating from my institutional church. We have some wonderful organized small groups, also known as home fellowship groups, where we are transparent, real, honest, and helpful toward each other. We genuinely love each other in Christ, like family. We also have lady's Bible study, where some relationships were developed, as well as a personal Bible study I did with a dear friend when I was just new to our church. At one time our church had a family dinner rotation thing that we did where we rotated families to have dinner with on a monthly basis, three families per dinner. This was a wonderful way to develop those relationships as well. It's about reaching out and making those connections in whatever setting you find yourself. You don't need to be in a home church to have close Christian friends.

[milovany]

I have to disagree with this statement ["that level isn't really developed in an institutional church setting. It has to do with being allowed to be transparent, where there is the trust and non judgment so a person feels safe enough to be transparent"]. I have some very intimate relationships originating from my institutional church. We have some wonderful organized small groups, also known as home fellowship groups...

 

:iagree:

 

We have finally found this level of honesty and transparency in a highly liturgical/hierarchical church, through the sacrament of repentance (confession) with our priest.

[justamouse]

She didn't ask about institutional churches, she asked about home churches and people's experiences with them. I shared the depth of my relationships and my lack of them in many, many years of institutional churches. I had wonderful--and I still have wonderful, intimate friends who do institutional church. those relationships cannot touch my house church relationships. JMHO

 

I didn't get on this thread to argue about relationships within churches or parse priest in the new testament.

[milovany]

She didn't ask about institutional churches, she asked about home churches and people's experiences with them. I shared the depth of my relationships and my lack of them in many, many years of institutional churches. I had wonderful--and I still have wonderful, intimate friends who do institutional church. those relationships cannot touch my house church relationships. JMHO

 

I didn't get on this thread to argue about relationships within churches or parse priest in the new testament.

 

Please forgive me for any offense I have caused.

[justamouse]

Please forgive me for any offense I have caused.

 

you caused none. :001_smile: I just wanted everyone to know I wasn't arguing about it.

[simka2]

Haha, true. But with apologies to Heather, I'm off to church and don't have time to do a spinoff.

 

 

 

 

 

Quick note because seriously I'm late for Vespers -- "Priest" meaning someone who presides over a local parish is a shortened form of presbyter, which is a different Greek word than the one translated "priest" used in the context you mention here (that together all Christians are a "priesthood of believers"). Both presbyters and the priesthood of believers can exist in the church, then, don't you think? It seems a bit unfortunate that in English we have the shortening of presbyter into priest because of the confusion with the word "priesthood" in Peter that you're speaking of; but looking at the Greek words it seems to be apples and oranges (which are related, but different). At least that's my understanding as I read it.

 

From Martin Luther-

He put forward the doctrine that all baptized Christians are "priests" and "spiritual" in the sight of God:

 

 

That the pope or bishop anoints, makes tonsures, ordains, consecrates, or dresses differently from the laity, may make a hypocrite or an idolatrous oil-painted icon, but it in no way makes a Christian or spiritual human being. In fact, we are all consecrated priests through Baptism, as St. Peter in 1 Peter 2[:9] says, "You are a royal priesthood and a priestly kingdom," and Revelation [5:10], "Through your blood you have made us into priests and kings."

[6]

Two months later Luther would write in his On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church (1520):

 

 

How then if they are forced to admit that we are all equally priests, as many of us as are baptized, and by this way we truly are; while to them is committed only the Ministry (

ministerium Predigtamt

) and consented to by us (

nostro consensu

)? If they recognize this they would know that they have no right to exercise power over us (

ius imperii

, in what has not been committed to them) except insofar as we may have granted it to them, for thus it says in 1 Peter 2, "You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a priestly kingdom." In this way we are all priests, as many of us as are Christians. There are indeed priests whom we call ministers. They are chosen from among us, and who do everything in our name. That is a priesthood which is nothing else than the Ministry. Thus 1 Corinthians 4:1: "No one should regard us as anything else than ministers of Christ and dispensers of the mysteries of God."

[7]

The Bible passage considered to be the basis of this belief is the First Epistle of Peter, 2:9:

But you are not like that, for you are a chosen people. You are royal priests, a holy nation, God’s very own possession. As a result, you can show others the goodness of God, for he called you out of the darkness into his wonderful light.Truthfully, we are now talking about one of the major reasons for the reformation. So, I don't think you or I are going to be able to unify what so many have already died for.

 

Suffice it to say, I have great repect for the Orthodox church...especially they're high value of "mystery." But I do not see the same leadership structure that you do, in the infant church.

 

For me, much has been lost on both sides. One side I do think has a better grasp on the individuals standing before God, but it seems to have come at the cost of the more mystical aspects portrayed in the New Testament. Unfortunately, the fear of "bad" theology can put God in a small box. At the same time, I appreciate the need for checks and balances ;)

 

Take care Milovany! You are very wise!

[mommaduck]

Martin Luther is probably one of the last people I'd rely on ;) Calvin holds much more weight with me, even though I'm no longer a "calvinist". I believe ML was a bit unstable and confused.

[Wayfaring Stranger]

From Martin Luther-

He put forward the doctrine that all baptized Christians are "priests" and "spiritual" in the sight of God:

 

That the pope or bishop anoints, makes tonsures, ordains, consecrates, or dresses differently from the laity, may make a hypocrite or an idolatrous oil-painted icon, but it in no way makes a Christian or spiritual human being. In fact, we are all consecrated priests through Baptism, as St. Peter in 1 Peter 2[:9] says, "You are a royal priesthood and a priestly kingdom," and Revelation [5:10], "Through your blood you have made us into priests and kings."

[6]

Two months later Luther would write in his On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church (1520):

 

How then if they are forced to admit that we are all equally priests, as many of us as are baptized, and by this way we truly are; while to them is committed only the Ministry (

ministerium Predigtamt

) and consented to by us (

nostro consensu

)? If they recognize this they would know that they have no right to exercise power over us (

ius imperii

, in what has not been committed to them) except insofar as we may have granted it to them, for thus it says in 1 Peter 2, "You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a priestly kingdom." In this way we are all priests, as many of us as are Christians. There are indeed priests whom we call ministers. They are chosen from among us, and who do everything in our name. That is a priesthood which is nothing else than the Ministry. Thus 1 Corinthians 4:1: "No one should regard us as anything else than ministers of Christ and dispensers of the mysteries of God."

[7]

The Bible passage considered to be the basis of this belief is the First Epistle of Peter, 2:9:

But you are not like that, for you are a chosen people. You are royal priests, a holy nation, God’s very own possession. As a result, you can show others the goodness of God, for he called you out of the darkness into his wonderful light.Truthfully, we are now talking about one of the major reasons for the reformation. So, I don't think you or I are going to be able to unify what so many have already died for.

 

Suffice it to say, I have great repect for the Orthodox church...especially they're high value of "mystery." But I do not see the same leadership structure that you do, in the infant church.

 

For me, much has been lost on both sides. One side I do think has a better grasp on the individuals standing before God, but it seems to have come at the cost of the more mystical aspects portrayed in the New Testament. Unfortunately, the fear of "bad" theology can put God in a small box. At the same time, I appreciate the need for checks and balances ;)

 

Take care Milovany! You are very wise!

 

I have attended house churches in several phases of my life. Twice as a protestant and twice as an Orthodox Christian. My experience in the Protestant world has been that house churches are very intimate but I always had the feeling that the pastor needed more accountability, it always seemed to easy for the pastor to go astray.

 

In the Orthodox world the churches have always been in the process of starting a mission. The meetings were held in a house until a more permanent location (like a warehouse or storefront) could be found. Most of the time everyone would have another location they went for the Eucharist (Communion) but would have vespers or compline services at a house led by a deacon who was waiting to be ordained to the Presbyteriate.

 

All Orthodox Christians are ordained priests (small p) at baptism. This is true of children and women too. They are tonsured in the service. Every Orthodox home is a little church.

 

The Orthodox try to be like Christ. Christ is part of the Trinity. Christ is in communion with the other persons in the Trinity. To be like Christ we have to be in communion with other Christians. Salvation for the Orthodox is never individual but is always personal. With communion comes accountability. In any church but especially house churches make sure the leader is accountable to someone.

 

Orthodox and Catholics are not the same. Luther did not try to reform the Orthodox Church. We have problems but they are not the same as the Catholic Church's problems.