# House Church Movement Right or Wrong?



## JBaldwin

What is the Biblical view of the house church movement? When we were searching for a good reformed church a few years back, we looked into it, and though I couldn't find anything wrong with the idea of meeting in a house (in Acts they met from house to house), something about this movement bothered us. 

Any thoughts?


----------



## ChristopherPaul

The location is fine. The self-ordination that seems to associate with these movements is the problem.


----------



## Simply_Nikki

My home church met in a house for months because they lacked any other facilities. The only downside is it doesn't allow much room for growth. But since then they've been able to rent another facility. 

I don't see anything wrong with it, I liked the coziness and family orientedness of it. You actually felt like these were your real brothers and sisters in Christ worshipping together in the living room =)

I think smaller congregrations where there are just a handful of people may do well meeting in a home if they don't have the funds for an actual building, but like I said it doesn't allow much room for a congregation to grow if they are set on staying in a house.


----------



## Simply_Nikki

ChristopherPaul said:


> The location is fine. The self-ordination that seems to associate with these movements is the problem.


 
Ah yes self-ordination.. ugh.... big problem.


----------



## Gage Browning

ChristopherPaul said:


> The location is fine. The self-ordination that seems to associate with these movements is the problem.



Knowing some folks in that movement....self ordination is extremely troublesome and rampant in the movement. If it's a PCA, SBC, RPCNA Church plant w/ no facilities, I don't know but I doubt anyone would have a problem w/ that.


----------



## JBaldwin

Although many reformed churches are not plagued with the following problems, here are some of the reasons I've heard to support the house church movement:

Churches are pastor centered, not God centered.
Organized churches don't allow people to exercise their spiritual gifts.
Churches are program-centered, not God-centered
The church shouldn't be spending money on buildings, rather spending them on missions, so it is better off to meet in homes.
Churches report to the government, and we should have a clear separation between church and state.


----------



## Pergamum

What if this occurred in China where some provinces lack men who can ordain others officially, and so they meet unofficially in an irregular church until the leadership can be ordained? 

Would this lack of ordination be more forgivable under these circumstances?

When I think house church I think NT or persecution, but it appears that this is growing intentionally in the US too.


----------



## Simply_Nikki

I think most of these are just broad sweeping false generalizations by people who had bad experiences with a particular organized church. 

Although a some-what compelling argument could probably stem form the last one.



JBaldwin said:


> Although many reformed churches are not plagued with the following problems, here are some of the reasons I've heard to support the house church movement:
> 
> Churches are pastor centered, not God centered.
> Organized churches don't allow people to exercise their spiritual gifts.
> Churches are program-centered, not God-centered
> The church shouldn't be spending money on buildings, rather spending them on missions, so it is better off to meet in homes.
> Churches report to the government, and we should have a clear separation between church and state.


----------



## ChristopherPaul

The owner of this board, Rev McMahon was pastor of an RPCGA church that met in a member's house.

I do think there are some logistical issues that need to be considered. For instance, I personally think that the only visuals that are to be present as the service takes place is the word and sacrament. So the host may need to "whitewash" the settings where the assembly meets. That means remove all nik-naks (sp?) and Lava lamps... oh and the occasional home that has posters of Bob Vigneault on the walls (you know who you are).


----------



## Coram Deo

I almost feel the same way with regards to family worship... Those things (nik-naks, lava lamps, photo's on wall, etc) are distractions to worshipping even in a family setting... 

Sometimes I feel just about getting a separate small room set aside for the family worship area where are no distractions of any kind... As you put it "Whitewashed"...







ChristopherPaul said:


> The owner of this board, Rev McMahon was pastor of an RPCGA church that met in a member's house.
> 
> I do think there are some logistical issues that need to be considered. For instance, I personally think that the only visuals that are to be present as the service takes place is the word and sacrament. So the host may need to "whitewash" the settings where the assembly meets. That means remove all nik-naks (sp?) and Lava lamps... oh and the occasional home that has posters of Bob Vigneault on the walls (you know who you are).


----------



## ModernPuritan?

JBaldwin said:


> Although many reformed churches are not plagued with the following problems, here are some of the reasons I've heard to support the house church movement:
> 
> Churches are pastor centered, not God centered.
> Organized churches don't allow people to exercise their spiritual gifts.
> Churches are program-centered, not God-centered
> The church shouldn't be spending money on buildings, rather spending them on missions, so it is better off to meet in homes.
> Churches report to the government, and we should have a clear separation between church and state.



the one about spending money on churces vs missions is one ive heard a bit. but seems to me we can also focus on the home front too. there are unregenerate hellions in the states too.


----------



## Pergamum

ChristopherPaul said:


> The owner of this board, Rev McMahon was pastor of an RPCGA church that met in a member's house.
> 
> I do think there are some logistical issues that need to be considered. For instance, I personally think that the only visuals that are to be present as the service takes place is the word and sacrament. So the host may need to "whitewash" the settings where the assembly meets. That means remove all nik-naks (sp?) and Lava lamps... oh and the occasional home that has posters of Bob Vigneault on the walls (you know who you are).



Brother, your comment above is worthy to open another thread.


----------



## Gage Browning

Pergamum said:


> What if this occurred in China where some provinces lack men who can ordain others officially, and so they meet unofficially in an irregular church until the leadership can be ordained?
> 
> Would this lack of ordination be more forgivable under these circumstances?
> 
> When I think house church I think NT or persecution, but it appears that this is growing intentionally in the US too.




If we get to the point where we are persecuted like our brothers and sisters in underground China...then yes more forgivable. But there are house churches in underground china that have pastors who are also under authority and have to be approved by a group of godly men.


----------



## ChristopherPaul

Pergamum said:


> ChristopherPaul said:
> 
> 
> 
> The owner of this board, Rev McMahon was pastor of an RPCGA church that met in a member's house.
> 
> I do think there are some logistical issues that need to be considered. For instance, I personally think that the only visuals that are to be present as the service takes place is the word and sacrament. So the host may need to "whitewash" the settings where the assembly meets. That means remove all nik-naks (sp?) and Lava lamps... oh and the occasional home that has posters of Bob Vigneault on the walls (you know who you are).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brother, your comment above is worthy to open another thread.
Click to expand...


Sure, no intention to detract.


----------



## Pergamum

Yes, there are many who are ordained, but also many who are not...

It does seem that deliberately meeting without prioritizing ordination does not seem as forigivable. Especilaly in the US.


----------



## Pergamum

Chris: No, it was a GOOD point...I meant "we could chew on that one some more..."


----------



## JBaldwin

Just to make it clear, I am not speaking of churches that meet in homes. I am speaking of the house church movement, which as Pergamum pointed out is a growing movement in the USA.

I realize that there are lots of reasons why a group of believers might meet in a home, and the scriptures certainly back that up.


----------



## ChristopherPaul

Pergamum said:


> Chris: No, it was a GOOD point...I meant "we could chew on that one some more..."



That is how I read you, no problems here


----------



## Pilgrim

A distinction needs to be made between churches who happen to meet in a home because it is the most suitable meeting place at the present time and the house church _movement_ that argues that house churching is the only biblical way to do church and that says churches are pagan, etc.


----------



## mshingler

I had to read a book for a class, recently, from the sort of "extreme end" of this movement. I then wrote up a review/critique of the book, "Pagan Christianity" by George Barna and Frank Viola. I can email a copy of that if interested. I think there were some legitimate issues brought up in the book, I just think the authors, as well as some others in the house church movement, have reacted with an unbiblical position that swings to pendulum too far the other direction. It seems to me that there is also a sort of underlying disdain for any authority or structure, at least from the perspective of those represented by the book.


----------



## TaylorOtwell

It is Biblical and wise.

Reasons such as money, intimacy, interaction, etc. are all valid. 

However, are people validly ordained as elders and deacons because of someone who declared them such, or are they valid elders and deacons because they meet the Scriptural requirements for the position? 

For instance, if a group of believers Biblically determine that the "traditional" churches in their area have forsaken the Biblical model of the church (we'll assume they are correct in their judgment), then shouldn't they be able to begin fellowshipping together and elect their own elders based on Scriptural guidelines? Or, were the posts concerning self-ordination referring to people who suddenly declare themselves elders?

Regarding the growth issue, it may be beneficial to determine at the outset to multiply the church by division base on geographical location if the group grows to a certain number. Although, this could be cause for heartache, and a rented (or even owned) location isn't necessarily forbidden in the Scripture.

Regarding the interaction and exercise of gifts, I think this type of format would better allow us to spur one another on towards love and good works. I understand that many traditional style churches allow plenty of time for intimate interaction; however, I think it is safe to say the majority don't. The typical American "rush out of church to get to lunch" mentality is hindering godly growth. If the brothers and sisters engaged in rich spiritual interaction before and after worship, I think we would see much growth in grace and knowledge of the Lord.



Coram Deo said:


> I almost feel the same way with regards to family worship... Those things (nik-naks, lava lamps, photo's on wall, etc) are distractions to worshipping even in a family setting...
> 
> Sometimes I feel just about getting a separate small room set aside for the family worship area where are no distractions of any kind... As you put it "Whitewashed"...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChristopherPaul said:
> 
> 
> 
> The owner of this board, Rev McMahon was pastor of an RPCGA church that met in a member's house.
> 
> I do think there are some logistical issues that need to be considered. For instance, I personally think that the only visuals that are to be present as the service takes place is the word and sacrament. So the host may need to "whitewash" the settings where the assembly meets. That means remove all nik-naks (sp?) and Lava lamps... oh and the occasional home that has posters of Bob Vigneault on the walls (you know who you are).
Click to expand...


With all respect brothers, can we really go from "I personally think..." to saying "the host may need to..."? The burden of having to completely remove all the person's belongs from a room in order to create a pristine worship environment is foreign to the Bible. Now, I could understand if they had some blinking pin-ball machine, but what nik-naks are you referring to? Obviously, you are free to do what you please in your own family worship; however, can we make good case for requiring this in a house church setting?


----------



## KMK

As a one time 'pastor' of a home church I can assure you that most who participate are truly seeking God but are victims of some kind of abuse in the organized church. We were like refugees from unbiblical disciplinary practices, liberalism, feminism, purposedrivenism etc.

I am convinced that a church could meet at a home and still function as a church...but usually it doesn't.

Usually there is no authority or discipline.
Usually things are not done in an 'orderly' fashion.
Usually a woman has some kind of authority.
Usually there is no preaching.
These problems hinder the proper administration of the sacrements. (7-Up and cake for the Lord's Supper)

And even if it is functioning as a church but meeting in someone's home, it really isn't a 'public' meeting. You can tell people it is a public meeting and everyone is welcome, but in the end it really is a private affair. No stranger is going to show up for church at the house of someone they do not know. I found this particular problem to be insurmountable because the gospel is supposed to a public proclamation and I don't think you can do that while meeting in someone's home.


----------



## KMK

mshingler said:


> I had to read a book for a class, recently, from the sort of "extreme end" of this movement. I then wrote up a review/critique of the book, "Pagan Christianity" by George Barna and Frank Viola. I can email a copy of that if interested. I think there were some legitimate issues brought up in the book, I just think the authors, as well as some others in the house church movement, have reacted with an unbiblical position that swings to pendulum too far the other direction. It seems to me that there is also a sort of underlying disdain for any authority or structure, at least from the perspective of those represented by the book.



I was a disciple of Viola for a while but found his interpretations and applications to be very one sided.


----------



## mshingler

KMK said:


> mshingler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had to read a book for a class, recently, from the sort of "extreme end" of this movement. I then wrote up a review/critique of the book, "Pagan Christianity" by George Barna and Frank Viola. I can email a copy of that if interested. I think there were some legitimate issues brought up in the book, I just think the authors, as well as some others in the house church movement, have reacted with an unbiblical position that swings to pendulum too far the other direction. It seems to me that there is also a sort of underlying disdain for any authority or structure, at least from the perspective of those represented by the book.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was a disciple of Viola for a while but found his interpretations and applications to be very one sided.
Click to expand...


In the book I read, it seemed like most of his argument for what the church should be like came from 1Cor. 14, with little attempt to address the specific historical context of that passage or to weigh it against other Scriptures that didn't fit his ideas as well.


----------



## KMK

mshingler said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mshingler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had to read a book for a class, recently, from the sort of "extreme end" of this movement. I then wrote up a review/critique of the book, "Pagan Christianity" by George Barna and Frank Viola. I can email a copy of that if interested. I think there were some legitimate issues brought up in the book, I just think the authors, as well as some others in the house church movement, have reacted with an unbiblical position that swings to pendulum too far the other direction. It seems to me that there is also a sort of underlying disdain for any authority or structure, at least from the perspective of those represented by the book.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was a disciple of Viola for a while but found his interpretations and applications to be very one sided.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the book I read, it seemed like most of his argument for what the church should be like came from 1Cor. 14, with little attempt to address the specific historical context of that passage or to weigh it against other Scriptures that didn't fit his ideas as well.
Click to expand...


He also had a total disregard for church history between the end of Acts through today.


----------



## Archlute

As noted above, various house churches above should be demarcated one from another. Christians, such as those in China, meeting in this manner by necessity are not committing a wrong. Denominational church plants meeting in a home certainly are fine as well. What we are dealing with here in the states with the "house church" movement, however, are a bunch of malcontents, self-important "teachers", and folk who despise being under anyone's authority other than their own. They have local churches available in which to fellowship, but for one reason or another have found themselves too good for any of them. Excuse me if I may be so bold, but having had our chapel disrupted by at least five or six of these groups in various ways, I do not think my evaluation to be too far off the mark.



Common themes among them all (and I am really amazed how many of these groups are out there, I'm still finding more of them all the time):

1. Usually (but not exclusively) lead by headstrong, sepratistic, yet thoroughly untaught men (this third point actually is exclusive), all of whom see themselves as having a special gift to teach.

2. Related to the above point, they all despise seminaries and look down upon men who have received their training from "the dark side". Seminaries produce nothing but spiritually dead academics, and this really frustrates them, because the spiritually dead academic seems to know his Scriptures better, and can regularly refute their fallacious arguments from church history, theology, and Scripture with a thorough knowledge of these subjects, and to top it all off these seminary trained fellows will even bring out their Greek and Hebrew guns on occasion (all of which may be self-satisfactorily defended against by way of a superficial use of a Strong's abridged concordance...)!

3. Because they have no training, and therefore no "skilz", they cannot really preach. This is covered up by asserting in grand post-modern manner that preaching is too "preachy", and overly authoritative. Therefore we only have "talks", which are nothing more than half-baked devotional thoughts. I wondered for the longest time why people kept telling me after my sermon that they really liked my "talks" - now I know. They had never heard a real sermon, and had nothing other by which to label one. People really like this style of teaching in the house group atmosphere, because it makes them feel cozy - no searching and penetrating exhortations found here (unless it is the occasionally required group grovelling - "boy, we all fail like this at times with our wives, don't we?") Even more important a failure, however, is that there is often not a clear and ringing proclamation of the Gospel. 

4. They all despise Calvinism/Reformed theology.

5. They all despise any formal church government (i.e. any outside source that would call them to account).

6. They regularly get sick of themselves, divide over some really petty reason, and start at least two more home groups, each of which are headed up by the man who left because his teaching gift was not being properly recognized, and each of which consist of one family (that belonging to the man whose teaching gift was not being recognized). Not to worry about that last point however, because they know that before too long there will be at least a couple of people who will drift in after breaking away from another home group, and thus the cycle will begin yet again. 

7. (at least for those here in the state of Oregon) Dave Hunt is their Guitar Hero!


----------



## Blueridge Believer

I met with a home church a few years ago for several months. I quickly found out that they did not intend to organize and appoint elders nor observe the ordinances. It was no church at all but a religious gathering. Here it is around 4 years later with them and it's still the same.


----------



## KMK

Archlute said:


> As noted above, various house churches above should be demarcated one from another. Christians, such as those in China, meeting in this manner by necessity are not committing a wrong. Denominational church plants meeting in a home certainly are fine as well. What we are dealing with here in the states with the "house church" movement, however, are a bunch of malcontents, self-important "teachers", and folk who despise being under anyone's authority other than their own. They have local churches available in which to fellowship, but for one reason or another have found themselves too good for any of them. Excuse me if I may be so bold, but having had our chapel disrupted by at least five or six of these groups in various ways, I do not think my evaluation to be too far off the mark.



I can't speak for Oregon, but I have not had the same experience. These people are sinners no doubt but their churches are not blameless in this situation. If every single church in the area is snake handlers or Purpose Drivel or pastored by a woman, what are you expecting these people to do? Maybe American churches need to at least consider the possibility that they are not blameless in this matter.


----------



## Archlute

KMK said:


> If every single church in the area is snake handlers or Purpose Drivel or pastored by a woman, what are you expecting these people to do?



Contact the PCA


----------



## KMK

Archlute said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> If every single church in the area is snake handlers or Purpose Drivel or pastored by a woman, what are you expecting these people to do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contact the PCA
Click to expand...


 I know how you feel. We all feel like there is nothing that could be found objectionable about our own churches. And, probably, the most mature thing for these people to do would be to bite the bullet and go to the best available church. But if churches are no longer teaching the Word, how can we expect Christians to have maturity?

I think as long as American churches continue to go south we are going to see more and more house churches.


----------



## Gage Browning

Archlute said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> If every single church in the area is snake handlers or Purpose Drivel or pastored by a woman, what are you expecting these people to do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contact the PCA
Click to expand...


I'm in the PCA- but not all PCA churches are "to be contacted" or "considered". It's kind of like saying "call the baptist church" it may be calvinistic, it may be arminian KJV only, no pants wearing, J. Frank Norris lovin baptist, or they may even be reformed. The PCA is like that although not quite in the same degrees as I was mentioning about the baptists... You may walk into a PCA church and find a good solid reformed church who preaches, prays, has sacraments, confession of sin, or you may walk into one where a woman is leading the rock band before the pastor comes and sits on his stool for a talk. So...call the PCA...maybe "investigate" the PCA. We ain't the end all...and I love the PCA.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

ChristopherPaul said:


> oh and the occasional home that has posters of Bob Vigneault on the walls (you know who you are).


----------



## DMcFadden

mshingler said:


> I had to read a book for a class, recently, from the sort of "extreme end" of this movement. I then wrote up a review/critique of the book, "Pagan Christianity" by George Barna and Frank Viola. I can email a copy of that if interested. I think there were some legitimate issues brought up in the book, I just think the authors, as well as some others in the house church movement, have reacted with an unbiblical position that swings to pendulum too far the other direction. It seems to me that there is also a sort of underlying disdain for any authority or structure, at least from the perspective of those represented by the book.



When I read Barna's earlier book, *Revolution*, I half jokingly observed that he wrote it to justify why he doesn't go to church any more. But, you are correct that it is growing in America. Last month Barna survey reported that 3% of Americans have attended a "house church" in the last month and another 3% have attended both a "house church" and a conventional church (Welcome to The Barna Group!).


----------



## danmpem

JBaldwin said:


> What is the Biblical view of the house church movement? When we were searching for a good reformed church a few years back, we looked into it, and though I couldn't find anything wrong with the idea of meeting in a house (in Acts they met from house to house), something about this movement bothered us.
> 
> Any thoughts?



I don't see anything wrong at all with meeting in a house; in fact, some of my friends grew up in that environment - 20 or so people meeting in a house every Sunday.

Now, as to the part of the movement in which there is only a family meeting, and they have no contact or fellowship with other believers, I don't agree with that. And although I'm not trying to defend them when I say this, but 'can you blame them'? I mean, if you look at the condition our churches are in today, it is understandable as to why someone would want to not attend them at all. If one cannot find a church that they truly consider to be Biblical, then what are they supposed to do?

But as a Reformed individual, I feel I must acknowledge the fact that John Owen held church services at his home, and as far as I know, with only his family and servants present.


----------



## danmpem

JBaldwin said:


> Although many reformed churches are not plagued with the following problems, here are some of the reasons I've heard to support the house church movement:
> 
> Churches are pastor centered, not God centered.
> Organized churches don't allow people to exercise their spiritual gifts.
> Churches are program-centered, not God-centered
> The church shouldn't be spending money on buildings, rather spending them on missions, so it is better off to meet in homes.
> Churches report to the government, and we should have a clear separation between church and state.



I agree with ALL of those things. I hear this weekly in my church, so I guess I'll just ask this question to the PB members who do not preach weekly at their church: how many times do you hear a church member say 'It's like what Pastor Joe says "yada yada yada"'? Some of my friends at church know more Pastor than they do Bible.


----------



## Pastork

*Response to the House-Church Movement*

For any who are interested, I have been writing a series of articles responding to the House-Church Movement here:

Reformed Baptist Blog: House-Church Movement

Let me know what you think.


----------



## pilgrim3970

TaylorOtwell said:


> It is Biblical and wise.
> 
> Reasons such as money, intimacy, interaction, etc. are all valid.
> 
> However, are people validly ordained as elders and deacons because of someone who declared them such, or are they valid elders and deacons because they meet the Scriptural requirements for the position?
> 
> For instance, if a group of believers Biblically determine that the "traditional" churches in their area have forsaken the Biblical model of the church (we'll assume they are correct in their judgment), then shouldn't they be able to begin fellowshipping together and elect their own elders based on Scriptural guidelines? Or, were the posts concerning self-ordination referring to people who suddenly declare themselves elders?
> 
> Regarding the growth issue, it may be beneficial to determine at the outset to multiply the church by division base on geographical location if the group grows to a certain number. Although, this could be cause for heartache, and a rented (or even owned) location isn't necessarily forbidden in the Scripture.
> 
> Regarding the interaction and exercise of gifts, I think this type of format would better allow us to spur one another on towards love and good works. I understand that many traditional style churches allow plenty of time for intimate interaction; however, I think it is safe to say the majority don't. The typical American "rush out of church to get to lunch" mentality is hindering godly growth. If the brothers and sisters engaged in rich spiritual interaction before and after worship, I think we would see much growth in grace and knowledge of the Lord.
> 
> 
> 
> Coram Deo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I almost feel the same way with regards to family worship... Those things (nik-naks, lava lamps, photo's on wall, etc) are distractions to worshipping even in a family setting...
> 
> Sometimes I feel just about getting a separate small room set aside for the family worship area where are no distractions of any kind... As you put it "Whitewashed"...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChristopherPaul said:
> 
> 
> 
> The owner of this board, Rev McMahon was pastor of an RPCGA church that met in a member's house.
> 
> I do think there are some logistical issues that need to be considered. For instance, I personally think that the only visuals that are to be present as the service takes place is the word and sacrament. So the host may need to "whitewash" the settings where the assembly meets. That means remove all nik-naks (sp?) and Lava lamps... oh and the occasional home that has posters of Bob Vigneault on the walls (you know who you are).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With all respect brothers, can we really go from "I personally think..." to saying "the host may need to..."? The burden of having to completely remove all the person's belongs from a room in order to create a pristine worship environment is foreign to the Bible. Now, I could understand if they had some blinking pin-ball machine, but what nik-naks are you referring to? Obviously, you are free to do what you please in your own family worship; however, can we make good case for requiring this in a house church setting?
Click to expand...


I was in the process of typing some things that more or less echoed what you wrote here - hit submit and apparently I had been logged out of PB. So I will simply say -  I agree.

I would only add that from what I have read on the subject, the stressing of the church as a people and not a building, relationship focus, emphasis on evangelism, and rapid church planting (as in when the group is too large for a single house, they form a new church rather than go buy or rent a building) are all strongpoints and something that we all should revisit.

However, where I think the problems of the House Church "movement" is that these congregations are many times formed out of anger and dissolusionment with the "established" churches, hence the frequent disdain for specialized education for clergy and the self ordination thing. There seems to be an overall rebeliousness against any sort of authority.They also have some pretty messed up ideas about the sacraments. They will maintain that when they eat a meal together, they are partaking of the Lord's Supper.


----------



## KMK

pilgrim3970 said:


> TaylorOtwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is Biblical and wise.
> 
> Reasons such as money, intimacy, interaction, etc. are all valid.
> 
> However, are people validly ordained as elders and deacons because of someone who declared them such, or are they valid elders and deacons because they meet the Scriptural requirements for the position?
> 
> For instance, if a group of believers Biblically determine that the "traditional" churches in their area have forsaken the Biblical model of the church (we'll assume they are correct in their judgment), then shouldn't they be able to begin fellowshipping together and elect their own elders based on Scriptural guidelines? Or, were the posts concerning self-ordination referring to people who suddenly declare themselves elders?
> 
> Regarding the growth issue, it may be beneficial to determine at the outset to multiply the church by division base on geographical location if the group grows to a certain number. Although, this could be cause for heartache, and a rented (or even owned) location isn't necessarily forbidden in the Scripture.
> 
> Regarding the interaction and exercise of gifts, I think this type of format would better allow us to spur one another on towards love and good works. I understand that many traditional style churches allow plenty of time for intimate interaction; however, I think it is safe to say the majority don't. The typical American "rush out of church to get to lunch" mentality is hindering godly growth. If the brothers and sisters engaged in rich spiritual interaction before and after worship, I think we would see much growth in grace and knowledge of the Lord.
> 
> 
> 
> Coram Deo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I almost feel the same way with regards to family worship... Those things (nik-naks, lava lamps, photo's on wall, etc) are distractions to worshipping even in a family setting...
> 
> Sometimes I feel just about getting a separate small room set aside for the family worship area where are no distractions of any kind... As you put it "Whitewashed"...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With all respect brothers, can we really go from "I personally think..." to saying "the host may need to..."? The burden of having to completely remove all the person's belongs from a room in order to create a pristine worship environment is foreign to the Bible. Now, I could understand if they had some blinking pin-ball machine, but what nik-naks are you referring to? Obviously, you are free to do what you please in your own family worship; however, can we make good case for requiring this in a house church setting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was in the process of typing some things that more or less echoed what you wrote here - hit submit and apparently I had been logged out of PB. So I will simply say -  I agree.
> 
> I would only add that from what I have read on the subject, the stressing of the church as a people and not a building, relationship focus, emphasis on evangelism, and rapid church planting (as in when the group is too large for a single house, they form a new church rather than go buy or rent a building) are all strongpoints and something that we all should revisit.
> 
> However, where I think the problems of the House Church "movement" is that *these congregations are many times formed out of anger and dissolusionment with the "established" churches*, hence the frequent disdain for specialized education for clergy and the self ordination thing. There seems to be an overall rebeliousness against any sort of authority.They also have some pretty messed up ideas about the sacraments. They will maintain that when they eat a meal together, they are partaking of the Lord's Supper.
Click to expand...


I would agree, but I would also point out that many times (not all) they have good reason for feeling angry and dissolusioned by many of the established American churches.

As I have said before, what do we expect a man to do when the HS begins to show him some of the truths of the DoG and Pastor Margaret will not take the time to disciple the man because she is too busy buying sermons on Pastors.com and organizing the next spiritual gifts test and elder Joe is too busy teaching the men's group the "Forty Days of Purpose" and the worship leader is too busy preparing U2 songs for Sunday morning and all anyone ever tells the man when he asks a question is "Theology doesn't matter."?????


----------



## pilgrim3970

KMK said:


> pilgrim3970 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TaylorOtwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is Biblical and wise.
> 
> Reasons such as money, intimacy, interaction, etc. are all valid.
> 
> However, are people validly ordained as elders and deacons because of someone who declared them such, or are they valid elders and deacons because they meet the Scriptural requirements for the position?
> 
> For instance, if a group of believers Biblically determine that the "traditional" churches in their area have forsaken the Biblical model of the church (we'll assume they are correct in their judgment), then shouldn't they be able to begin fellowshipping together and elect their own elders based on Scriptural guidelines? Or, were the posts concerning self-ordination referring to people who suddenly declare themselves elders?
> 
> Regarding the growth issue, it may be beneficial to determine at the outset to multiply the church by division base on geographical location if the group grows to a certain number. Although, this could be cause for heartache, and a rented (or even owned) location isn't necessarily forbidden in the Scripture.
> 
> Regarding the interaction and exercise of gifts, I think this type of format would better allow us to spur one another on towards love and good works. I understand that many traditional style churches allow plenty of time for intimate interaction; however, I think it is safe to say the majority don't. The typical American "rush out of church to get to lunch" mentality is hindering godly growth. If the brothers and sisters engaged in rich spiritual interaction before and after worship, I think we would see much growth in grace and knowledge of the Lord.
> 
> 
> 
> With all respect brothers, can we really go from "I personally think..." to saying "the host may need to..."? The burden of having to completely remove all the person's belongs from a room in order to create a pristine worship environment is foreign to the Bible. Now, I could understand if they had some blinking pin-ball machine, but what nik-naks are you referring to? Obviously, you are free to do what you please in your own family worship; however, can we make good case for requiring this in a house church setting?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was in the process of typing some things that more or less echoed what you wrote here - hit submit and apparently I had been logged out of PB. So I will simply say -  I agree.
> 
> I would only add that from what I have read on the subject, the stressing of the church as a people and not a building, relationship focus, emphasis on evangelism, and rapid church planting (as in when the group is too large for a single house, they form a new church rather than go buy or rent a building) are all strongpoints and something that we all should revisit.
> 
> However, where I think the problems of the House Church "movement" is that *these congregations are many times formed out of anger and dissolusionment with the "established" churches*, hence the frequent disdain for specialized education for clergy and the self ordination thing. There seems to be an overall rebeliousness against any sort of authority.They also have some pretty messed up ideas about the sacraments. They will maintain that when they eat a meal together, they are partaking of the Lord's Supper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would agree, but I would also point out that many times (not all) they have good reason for feeling angry and dissolusioned by many of the established American churches.
> 
> As I have said before, what do we expect a man to do when the HS begins to show him some of the truths of the DoG and Pastor Margaret will not take the time to disciple the man because she is too busy buying sermons on Pastors.com and organizing the next spiritual gifts test and elder Joe is too busy teaching the men's group the "Forty Days of Purpose" and the worship leader is too busy preparing U2 songs for Sunday morning and all anyone ever tells the man when he asks a question is "Theology doesn't matter."?????
Click to expand...


Very good point


----------



## Herald

> I would only add that from what I have read on the subject, the stressing of the church as a people and not a building, relationship focus, emphasis on evangelism, and rapid church planting (as in when the group is too large for a single house, they form a new church rather than go buy or rent a building) are all strongpoints and something that we all should revisit.



How I wish our church followed this model when we were planted over seven years ago. We bit off more than we could chew. We rented commercial office space and used a school twice a week. We had a full time pastor and youth/music pastor. I think of all the money we went through. It's enough to make a grown man cry. Had we started off with more humble surroundings I believe we would be in a different place today. House churches can be a perfect model to use for church plants. They should be encouraged.


----------



## Archlute

pilgrim3970 said:


> However, where I think the problems of the House Church "movement" is that these congregations are many times formed out of anger and disillusionment with the "established" churches, hence the frequent disdain for specialized education for clergy and the self ordination thing. There seems to be an overall rebelliousness against any sort of authority.They also have some pretty messed up ideas about the sacraments. They will maintain that when they eat a meal together, they are partaking of the Lord's Supper.




Each one of these points mentioned here will be found in any of the house churches you may visit in the Southern Oregon area - without exception. They may be held to varying degrees and by various persons within the fellowship (the leadership of these groups, however, seem to have a uniform disdain for "educated clergy"), but the tenets of being anti-establishment, anti-accountability, anti-seminary, against standards for ordination (or ordination at all), and anti-sacraments in any historical sense has become a kind of informal statement of faith among them. 

We have found it to be very detrimental in building up a healthy church(es) in this environment.


----------



## Archlute

Gage Browning said:


> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> If every single church in the area is snake handlers or Purpose Drivel or pastored by a woman, what are you expecting these people to do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contact the PCA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm in the PCA- but not all PCA churches are "to be contacted" or "considered". It's kind of like saying "call the baptist church" it may be Calvinistic, it may be arminian KJV only, no pants wearing, J. Frank Norris lovin baptist, or they may even be reformed. The PCA is like that although not quite in the same degrees as I was mentioning about the baptists... You may walk into a PCA church and find a good solid reformed church who preaches, prays, has sacraments, confession of sin, or you may walk into one where a woman is leading the rock band before the pastor comes and sits on his stool for a talk. So...call the PCA...maybe "investigate" the PCA. We ain't the end all...and I love the PCA.
Click to expand...


It is possible that I haven't been around the block in the PCA enough times to make this assertion, but I would say that even the silliest PCA that I have attended would be preferred by my family over what might be considered by others to be the most solid Baptist church to be found. The reason is this - even the lightweight PCA's still have the reference point of the WCF, their ministers are around other ministers who discuss Reformed theology, which will have a good influence upon them even if indirectly, and they have a covenantal understanding of the family in the Church, and therefore a better understanding of the sacraments. 

I can handle rock songs and pastors sitting on stools. I cannot sit around for too long when a pastor feels it his duty to undermine a Reformed view of baptism in his sermon before all eight of my children just because he knows he has a visiting Presbyterian family in the pews.


----------



## DMcFadden

As some have already noted, the issue is NOT one of the propriety of meeting in a house while engaging in a church planting process. It has to do with a very well developed philosophy of church and community that finds expression in Viola and Barna's latest book:







A recent White Horse Inn program referenced some of Barna's more off-the-wall comments. Instead of dealing with the problems of volunteerism and individualism, Barna teaches church leaders how to go with the flow of culture, recognizing that they are in the life transformation business. Barna argues that corporate worship, Bible teaching, baptism, and the like are not our "business." Like Jesus, we are called to be marketing specialists who know our "market" and our "product." Dr. Scott Clark (filling in for Kim Riddlebarger), accuses contemporary Christians of confusing Christ and culture with the uncritical adoption of consumerism. Interestingly, Barna critiques us for engaging in some of the very things Jesus gave us as our marching orders.

Has the church missed some key links? Sure! Should we listen to our critics and take seriously semper reformanda? Absolutely! But, the ideology animating the AMERICAN house church movement (not the persecuted church or strategic use of houses in a church planting process) strikes me as selfist, autonomous, and individualistic consumerism. After reading Barna's Revolution book, I remarked to my wife that it seemed as if he was trying awfully hard to justify why he doesn't go to church any more.

BTW, Adam, did a Baptist pastor actually go out of his way to to attack the Reformed view of baptism in his sermon when your family was attending? Yikes! No wonder you are so harsh every time the "B" word comes up!!!


----------



## Archlute

DMcFadden said:


> As some have already noted, the issue is NOT one of the propriety of meeting in a house while engaging in a church planting process. It has to do with a very well developed philosophy of church and community that finds expression in Viola and Barna's latest book:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A recent White Horse Inn program referenced some of Barna's more off-the-wall comments. Instead of dealing with the problems of volunteerism and individualism, Barna teaches church leaders how to go with the flow of culture, recognizing that they are in the life transformation business. Barna argues that corporate worship, Bible teaching, baptism, and the like are not our "business." Like Jesus, we are called to be marketing specialists who know our "market" and our "product." Dr. Scott Clark (filling in for Kim Riddlebarger), accuses contemporary Christians of confusing Christ and culture with the uncritical adoption of consumerism. Interestingly, Barna critiques us for engaging in some of the very things Jesus gave us as our marching orders.
> 
> Has the church missed some key links? Sure! Should we listen to our critics and take seriously semper reformanda? Absolutely! But, the ideology animating the AMERICAN house church movement (not the persecuted church or strategic use of houses in a church planting process) strikes me as selfist, autonomous, and individualistic consumerism. After reading Barna's Revolution book, I remarked to my wife that it seemed as if he was trying awfully hard to justify why he doesn't go to church any more.
> 
> BTW, Adam, did a Baptist pastor actually go out of his way to to attack the Reformed view of baptism in his sermon when your family was attending? Yikes! No wonder you are so harsh every time the "B" word comes up!!!



Yes. I don't hold any real animosity toward him though. He thinks that anybody who holds to the baptism of children necessarily holds to a theology of baptismal regeneration. I've been to a second Baptist church in the area as well that took opportunity to make extended mention in the sermon of "why we don't believe children should be baptized!", because he knew of my views. 

I don't think that I would be nearly so irritated about it all if, a) the fellows had a bit more of a studied view of the sacraments and actually got their distinctions right, and b) that it was not so obvious that the extended discourse on baptism was quickly tacked on during the course of the sermon, and really didn't fit with anything else that he had to say 

It is difficult for Reformed churches up here, because there is so much opposition that people bring with them into the congregation on points such as this. They seemingly could care less about the grand history of the Church, the really big issues concerning God and salvation, or the glories of interpreting the OT in light of Christ, but bring up baptism or the importance of church membership and you'll find yourself at odds with almost everybody in the Pacific NW! At the Salem PCA, where my family and I attend on occasion, I think that almost the entire congregation is (somewhat antagonistically) baptistic; all except for the elders and deacons to the best of my knowledge. I think you probably remember my recounting of the baptism of our latest child a few months back where I mentioned all of that - really amazing!


----------



## shackleton

There is this group in KC F.I.R.E. FIRE: Fellowship of Independent Reformed Evangelicals This one in particular is close to home, Christ Fellowship of Kansas City. I guess they are somewhat reformed and their notion is to meet in members homes and once a month, I think, they all meet together. 

I looked into this but was weary because they met in homes as a goal. 

This does kind of smell of the, no body is going to tell us what to do, we will go over here and start our own church kind of thing. It is very autonomous. 

If we are all a part of the body of Christ, is it right to break off and start our own little group based on how we view one or two verses in the bible? Is this divisive attitude biblical? Or what Christ wanted? It seems like more of a sign of the times (the autonomy and being sort of a rogue), than something beneficial to the body.


----------



## KMK

DMcFadden said:


> As some have already noted, the issue is NOT one of the propriety of meeting in a house while engaging in a church planting process. It has to do with a very well developed philosophy of church and community that finds expression in Viola and Barna's latest book:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A recent White Horse Inn program referenced some of Barna's more off-the-wall comments. Instead of dealing with the problems of volunteerism and individualism, Barna teaches church leaders how to go with the flow of culture, recognizing that they are in the life transformation business. Barna argues that corporate worship, Bible teaching, baptism, and the like are not our "business." Like Jesus, we are called to be marketing specialists who know our "market" and our "product." Dr. Scott Clark (filling in for Kim Riddlebarger), accuses contemporary Christians of confusing Christ and culture with the uncritical adoption of consumerism. Interestingly, Barna critiques us for engaging in some of the very things Jesus gave us as our marching orders.
> 
> Has the church missed some key links? Sure! Should we listen to our critics and take seriously semper reformanda? Absolutely! But, the ideology animating the AMERICAN house church movement (not the persecuted church or strategic use of houses in a church planting process) strikes me as selfist, autonomous, and individualistic consumerism. After reading Barna's Revolution book, I remarked to my wife that it seemed as if he was trying awfully hard to justify why he doesn't go to church any more!



I do not disagree with your assessment of Viola. I have not read Barna. But as a refugee of the house church movement, I must tell you that many people are into Viola because they know enough to know that the churches in their community have dropped the ball, but they don't know enough to know how to solve the problem. Viola is a man who many of them gravitate to because he speaks to their dissatisfaction. Nobody I know has ever read Viola while in a good reformed church and then decided to split and form a house church.

And even if some of the house church people are rebellious, does that make them that much different than many that are sitting in the pews of our established churches? Rebellion comes in many forms. 

There are good sheep, searching for God, out there in the house church movement. Many of them have been spiritually abused and are very reticent to allow any authority over them. You can bring them around, however, if you will provide a consistantly Biblical product. Over time, when they see that your church, unlike all the others, is not swept away with every new fad and is serious about the Word of God and that you do not despise them for attending a house church, you will win them over. Just be patient. And when you do win them over, they will bring great gifts to your church because they are hungry for the Word of God.


----------



## shackleton

Maybe this whole movement is a backlash against the Mega-Church movement. They see it as getting back to true Christian roots. Since the early Christians met in houses, so will we.


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell

There are good sheep, searching for God, out there in the house church movement. Many of them have been spiritually abused and are very reticent to allow any authority over them. You can bring them around, however, if you will provide a consistently Biblical product. Over time, when they see that your church, unlike all the others, is not swept away with every new fad and is serious about the Word of God and that you do not despise them for attending a house church, you will win them over. Just be patient. And when you do win them over, they will bring great gifts to your church because they are hungry for the Word of God.[/quote]

Ken, 

Perhaps your experience is different from mine. While what you describe above is indeed possible, my background is in the Reformed Presbyterian movement, where we have many who purposely divide themselves, meet in homes, apart from any real authority. Theirs is a quaint hearkening back to the days of the reformation where the established church was idolatrous, and no church of Christ, and therefore must be shunned for a "pure worship" in their homes, apart from the Godly, Biblical, but imperfect government. They honestly believe they are in the same situation as the early days of the Scottish Reformation. As I have said before, it's always easier to submit to dead theologians (having only their writings) or those across the sea, than to maintain the intimate and risky relationship of submission and authority in proper places and relations to a local and imperfect (but true) Church. 

I am in hearty agreement with your prescribe course of action, however. Whether the problem is what you describe, or what I have described, the course is to "Preach the Word, Administer the Sacraments, and provide Order and Discipline" according to the Scriptures. 

My heart aches for those who have impoverished themselves, choosing rather to worship in their homes, seeking to gather others to themselves, apart from the biblical and healthy model of Presbyterianism and mutual submission and authority. My heart also aches for my brothers in the ministry who will never be "good enough" for folks like I have described. I also see your point, dear friend, that the bad apples in the established Church have helped to create this situation. 

These are difficulties beyond our ability! Let us redouble our efforts in prayer to Him who is able to heal the breaches in Zion!


----------



## Kevin

I attended a house church a few times many years ago but i got kicked out when I refused to recieve the sacraments from a un-ordained man.

I was next up on the rotation for the meetin to be at my house & I refused to serve communion to them so I was kicked out for being "intolerant".


----------



## DMcFadden

shackleton said:


> There is this group in KC F.I.R.E. FIRE: Fellowship of Independent Reformed Evangelicals This one in particular is close to home, Christ Fellowship of Kansas City. I guess they are somewhat reformed and their notion is to meet in members homes and once a month, I think, they all meet together.
> 
> I looked into this but was weary because they met in homes as a goal.
> 
> This does kind of smell of the, no body is going to tell us what to do, we will go over here and start our own church kind of thing. It is very autonomous.
> 
> If we are all a part of the body of Christ, is it right to break off and start our own little group based on how we view one or two verses in the bible? Is this divisive attitude biblical? Or what Christ wanted? It seems like more of a sign of the times (the autonomy and being sort of a rogue), than something beneficial to the body.



Erick,

FIRE is a loose fellowship. I do not know that any other FIRE churches make home cells a big issue. What unites them is a commitment to Reformed soteriology.

And, as to the issue of divisiveness, both the Presbyterian/Reformed and Baptist expressions of the church have been prone to schisms. In Reformed circles it has often been associated with the highly intellectualized importance assigned to even secondary and tertiary issues (e.g., how many varieties of psalm singing in worship can we have? instrumental, non instrumental, exclusive psalmody, balanced use of hymns, etc.). In the Baptist circles, I suspect it has to do with the overly democratic (i.e., rebelliously autonomous) individualism of the polity. In both cases, our sinful proclivities war against the unity of the body in the bond of peace.

And, Adam, you don't need to convince me that many Baptist ministers are ignorant of church history, theology, and grand sweep of God's plan of redemption. Dissatisfaction with my Baptist family is a major reason I joined the PB. Still, it does tick me off that a pastor would be so oafish (and yes, I do remember _now_ that the account of your youngest was your story). So sorry. There is no excuse for that kind of thing. Honest exegetical differences are one thing; taking advantage of the power of the pulpit is another.


----------



## Archlute

Well it does have the benefit of serving as a reminder to me not to do the same thing merely in the opposite theological direction. Thanks for your sympathies, though. 

I am glad that you have found some solace here, as I well remember my own frustrations with the baptist and mega-church circles in which I was attempting to minister a short number of years ago. I quickly found that it was only in conservative presbyterian churches that I found the thoughtfulness and seriousness (grounded in joy) for which I had been looking. Of course, then I became a presbyterian  (haha!)


----------



## KMK

Archlute said:


> I can handle rock songs and pastors sitting on stools. I cannot sit around for too long when a pastor feels it his duty to undermine a Reformed view of baptism in his sermon before all eight of my children just because he knows he has a visiting Presbyterian family in the pews.



How did the Baptist pastor know you were a Presbyterian?


----------



## pilgrim3970

North Jersey Baptist said:


> I would only add that from what I have read on the subject, the stressing of the church as a people and not a building, relationship focus, emphasis on evangelism, and rapid church planting (as in when the group is too large for a single house, they form a new church rather than go buy or rent a building) are all strongpoints and something that we all should revisit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How I wish our church followed this model when we were planted over seven years ago. We bit off more than we could chew. We rented commercial office space and used a school twice a week. We had a full time pastor and youth/music pastor. I think of all the money we went through. It's enough to make a grown man cry. Had we started off with more humble surroundings I believe we would be in a different place today. House churches can be a perfect model to use for church plants. They should be encouraged.
Click to expand...


I agree that this is the model that should be encouraged. However, I also think a lot of teaching has to go into its preparation. The team planting the church needs to have a clear focus of why they are doing things the way they are.

The REC church plant my wife and I were involved with started out in the clubhouse of an apartment complex. Unfortunately the underlying attitude was that a stained glass and stone building was the goal - not evangelizing, not church planting, just a building (there's a lot more to this story. I do have to admit that I learned alot about how NOT to plant a church!)

I hope to be involved in another plant someday. When that day comes I want to follow a house/cell church model. I thnk that too many times, churches in the west at least, are planted with a "build it and they will come" mentality. So they push to get big enough to buy property, get into debt with a building and then focus all their energies on staying afloat. I am coming to the conviction that EVERY new plant should be done so with the understanding that it will be the base of operations for the next plant and all involved should be trained for that very goal.

I could go on and on about this.....


----------



## pilgrim3970

> we have many who purposely divide themselves, meet in homes, apart from any real authority.



That is why I think the cell model is better - you have the strengths of the house churches are less susceptible to their weakensses since there is understanding of being under authority.


----------



## pilgrim3970

shackleton said:


> There is this group in KC F.I.R.E. FIRE: Fellowship of Independent Reformed Evangelicals This one in particular is close to home, Christ Fellowship of Kansas City. I guess they are somewhat reformed and their notion is to meet in members homes and once a month, I think, they all meet together.
> 
> I looked into this but was weary because they met in homes as a goal.
> 
> This does kind of smell of the, no body is going to tell us what to do, we will go over here and start our own church kind of thing. It is very autonomous.
> 
> If we are all a part of the body of Christ, is it right to break off and start our own little group based on how we view one or two verses in the bible? Is this divisive attitude biblical? Or what Christ wanted? It seems like more of a sign of the times (the autonomy and being sort of a rogue), than something beneficial to the body.




The Baptist church my wife and I were members joined F.I.R.E sometime after we left for the REC. It was very much Reformed Baptist though I never could figure out why they didn't officially adopt either the 1644 or 1689 confessions. When I taught Sunday school classes for the teens I used Keach's catechism.

Regarding the church you mentioned, that is an intriguing model.  However, I would be a little uncomfortable with gathering only once a month. Twice a month would seem to better to me.


----------



## Archlute

KMK said:


> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can handle rock songs and pastors sitting on stools. I cannot sit around for too long when a pastor feels it his duty to undermine a Reformed view of baptism in his sermon before all eight of my children just because he knows he has a visiting Presbyterian family in the pews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How did the Baptist pastor know you were a Presbyterian?
Click to expand...


He is my in-laws' pastor.


----------



## DMcFadden

Archlute said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can handle rock songs and pastors sitting on stools. I cannot sit around for too long when a pastor feels it his duty to undermine a Reformed view of baptism in his sermon before all eight of my children just because he knows he has a visiting Presbyterian family in the pews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How did the Baptist pastor know you were a Presbyterian?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is my in-laws' pastor.
Click to expand...


Oh, but of course! I thought it was the pointy head, coke bottle glasses, 15 covenant children with their home school notebooks, well thumbed copy of the Westminster Confession of 1646 highlighted with 6 colors, iPod with 5 years of White Horse Inn programs, copy of the Van Til Study Bible in the original Dutch/English parallel translation, and happy hour hat from the local pub. 

[Just kidding, Adam. I truly envy you Presbyterians in so many ways. Baptism aside, there are just too few confessional Baptist churches to feel like anything other than an island.]


----------



## Archlute

DMcFadden said:


> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did the Baptist pastor know you were a Presbyterian?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is my in-laws' pastor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, but of course! I thought it was the pointy head, coke bottle glasses, 15 covenant children with their home school notebooks, well thumbed copy of the Westminster Confession of 1646 highlighted with 6 colors, iPod with 5 years of White Horse Inn programs, copy of the Van Til Study Bible in the original Dutch/English parallel translation, and happy hour hat from the local pub.
> 
> [Just kidding, Adam. I truly envy you Presbyterians in so many ways. Baptism aside, there are just too few confessional Baptist churches to feel like anything other than an island.]
Click to expand...


 I soooo try to avoid that stereotype: I work out at a ratio of one hour for every four of study, wear sleek Ray-Ban shades w/o contacts, only have a mere eight kids (who leave their under-worked notebooks at home), keep the WCF stashed in the car (it's in the back of the Trinity Hymnal anyway), listen to MLJ more than I do MSH, prefer to smuggle my Hebrew/Greek Scriptures in under my jacket as discreetly as possible, and usually end up missing happy hour (they hand out hats???).

I love my Reformed Baptist brothers, but you are correct - difficult to find 'em around when needed.


----------



## Richard King

I went to one that met in a Carpet store, one in a barn, many that met in homes. The reasons for it have all been mentioned. 
Non 501c3 government approved, spending money on helping someone rather than paying a light bill on brick and mortar, more like first century churches etc. 
I liked that part. I think I was liking the "feel good" too. Always something to be aware of because feelings are not the best measuring stick.
I fellowshipped with some of the sweetest and most wonderful people you could ever meet and there were "moments" when it seemed God blessed it.

But in the end. In every case there was eventually an issue that called for accountability or a check and balance of leadership that was not there. 
Also for all the Bible mentioned there was ten times the "personal opinion" or "homey life lesson" or 'emotional sharing." It isn't really the place that is the problem so much as the difference in focus. 

Small group meetings sitting in a circle in the living room bring out the group dynamics that are different from a worshipful reverence and facing towards the front of a room.


----------



## bookslover

Reading this thread, I'm wondering if the house-church movement is merely a modern version of the old storefront churches, which have been around for decades. I drive past one or two of them frequently and often wonder if they're "real" churches or just a group of people with a "pastor" who's a one-man authority over the group.

Some storefront churches are legit, I'm sure, but, as with the house-church movement, I wonder about them.


----------



## HaigLaw

My observations of the house-church movement are similar to Archlute's post #26, so in the interest of time and space, I will say amen to that.


----------

