|
thomasalan -> RE: House Church (6/24/2008 11:10:48 AM)
|
quote:
All the "Churches" mentioned in The New Testament (those in houses and otherwise) had a leadership in place (with Elders appointed by someone with authority over the Church, Paul, Timothy, Titus and others) and all Churches were accountable to the Council in Jerusalem. Doctrine was watched over by someone not "In" the Church (House or otherwise); read Pauls letters for a great example of someone on the outside keeping doctrien straight on the inside of the local Church.
I would take exception to the idea that house churches are unscriptural in matters pertaining to authority and accountability. I agree with your assessment of the early church described above. But what you see above is a brand new church established within a wide open mission field. We no longer have Apostles (capital 'A') and the church no longer has a centralized Jerusalem council, (unless you are Catholic). So who takes the place of the Apostle? a church planting missionary? Perhaps. Who is the Jerusalem Council? A denomination headquarters? if so, which one? Which denomination should a house church answer to? There are so many.
As far as someone on the 'outside' making sure that doctrine was pure, who would that be? I agree on the importance of doing that, but whose responsibility is that now? We no longer have Paul or Peter, but we do have the scriptures and they tell us to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. Can't a congregation contend for the faith that is clearly spelled out in the scriptures? Do we always need someone 'from the outside' spelling that out for us? Is that not relying on a person instead of the Holy Spirit?
Let's say that in your own church, someone stands up in the pulpit and starts teaching error. Who is it that will be the first to identify that error and speak out against it? Will it be your denominational representative from outside your church, or will it be someone from your own congregation? Will that error be dealt with by your congregation, or by the denomination?
quote:
The Lone Ranger type of House Church is most suseptable to error, because they reject any outside oversight, or at best use the "Yes men, or buddy system) of accountbility.
Again, I would have to disagree. By 'outside oversight,' I can only assume that you mean a denomination (synod, council, board, whatever). Our church chooses not to associate with any particular denomination. But that doesn't mean we haven't set up some kind of accountability. We have carefully and prayerfully drafted a statement of faith that reflects conservative evangelical beliefs. That statement of faith is based on the scriptures (the faith that is once for all delivered to the saints). Being a man-made document, it takes a back seat to the scriptures. The scriptures are our standard. But the statement of faith is a simple and systematized way of understanding the scripture. When we discipline someone for false teaching, that and the scriptures are the yardstick and plumb line we use to measure the teaching against.
That being said, we are no more susceptible to error than any other traditional church. Sure there are deviant churches out there, but you will find them both in the house and in the church building.
Bottom line: we do have accountability. It may not look like the accountability that you are used to, but we do have it and we use it.
quote:
Most House Churches claim the reason for their being is to not have a pulpit, not formally take an offering, not formally do anything; when it seems to me that what they want is to escape accounability and "Have it their way"; whether that way is God's way or not.
You're right. We don't have a pulpit. But we teach and preach the word of God. Only we don't pay one person to do all that teaching and preaching for us. We take turns and let the Spirit teach us through several men in our church.
You're partially right. We don't regularly take up an offering. Unless there is some immediate need, like giving money to a visiting missionary that week, or helping a member with a need, or helping a specific widow, or cause. Otherwise, our members are free to tithe to the mission or ministry of their choice. And you are correct that we don't exercise accountability in that matter. That is our choice. We don't track an individual's giving. We don't have a budget. We also don't have any overhead. What our 'members' give and to whom is between them and God. We 'strongly encourage' them to give, but we don't tell them where to give, although, we will make suggestions from time to time. If there is a need in our church, we let it be known and money comes in.
We don't formally do anything? What is formal? We don't use a liturgy, but we do have bible teaching, prayer, testimonies, evangelism, service, giving, the Lord's Supper, Baptisms, missions, etc. We don't publish a church bulletin, but all these things still happen.
Are we escaping accountability? No. I don't think so. We just see it as happening in other channels than you perhaps see it. We don't want to have it 'our way.' We understand that we will have to stand before God and give an account of what we are doing, just like you will. What we are doing is from faith (Romans 14). We are not trying to cause anyone to stumble. We are not trying to pull people out of traditional churches. We are simply a different way to be the church than what most American Christians are used to.
All of us, traditional or house churches, are the body and bride of Christ and He is our Head.
God Bless,
Tom
ps: we also reject the 'Emergent' label. Someone earlier labeled all house churches as Emergent. Simply not true. There are many Emergents who like the house church concept. But we are not all Emergent. That is another discussion for another time.
|
|
|
|