the House Church Movement in America

George Barna recently wrote a book called "Revolution" stating that many believers are leaving the institutional church and gathering in homes, hoping to recover what the first century had. He has also written the foreward to a book by Frank Viola titled "Pagan Christianity" which attempts to explore the roots of alot of our modern day church methods. Him and Frank, along with a host of many others believe that there will be increasing numbers within America and the world who will return to the home meetings.

What do you think of the house church "restoration" movement? What are your thoughts on leaving "institutional" church? It's been said that this return to the "organic", simple church life is just as radical as the reformation itself. What are your thoughts on these statements?

Thanks for the response Krispy.. But please elaborate as to why...

A return to the "vine" would be a good thing.
The church has become more about methods, programs,
membership, and less and less about being a
community of believers who serve as the body of
Christ. I came to know the Lord in a small "vine"
fellowship and was greatly blessed and nurtured by
this close communion!!

if you look at barna.org - George barna's website - you will see the growing statistics of those becoming apart of house churches

I hold house church in my home as well. Been doing this or part of house churches for the last 3-4 years.

I am all for it.

I am all for it!

Have been investigating this for the past three years by reading some books on the issue. Art Katz's book on true fellowship and the vitality he talks about by being earnest and honest with believers on a day to day basis is important to say the least.

In what other context will we enjoy the fulfillment of what Paul talks about,

"...When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification." 1Corinthians 14:26 (NASB)

Is this, i ask, being accomplished in our large congregations today?

true fellowship... being earnest and honest with believers on a day to day basis is important to say the least...Is this, i ask, being accomplished in our large congregations today?

I believe it is, but it isn't automatic and it's generally not found by simply going Sunday morning. If we have the energy and desire needed to start a home church, we certainly have enough motivation to develop deeper fellowships with people at larger congregations. For this reason I don't completely buy the idea that people start home churches to find an intimacy and deeper fellowship with other Christians that was missing in larger churches. I suspect the reasons to start or join a home church are more theological and ideological...which is quite understandable.

MC

I do not think it is a good idea to Home Church!! I have been around them, and I don't think it is a wise course to take!!

JRuth wrote:

I do not think it is a good idea to Home Church!! I have been around them, and I don't think it is a wise course to take!!

Interesting. Why?

Is this, i ask, being accomplished in our large congregations today?

If we have the energy and desire needed to start a home church, we certainly have enough motivation to develop deeper fellowships with people at larger congregations.

This is absolutely true.

I do not think it is a good idea to Home Church!! I have been around them, and I don't think it is a wise course to take!!

Any church, large or small, has the potential to adapt and conform to unChristian doctrines. So it is understandable that in one context many are fleeing from the institutionalized churches with its rigid structure in comparison to the more freeform home churches.

And, in context, these small independant house churches that have formed without solid, well founded, teachings from accountable ministers. Or lacking in the full range of effective five-fold ministry.

In the larger context, it is more difficult to adapt and change.
In the smaller context, it is easier, sometimes dangerously easy to change.

In my opinion, these two contexts need to work concurrently.

And even, one step more, the individual context.

We each seek the Lord in secret -- where we may receive or be prepared to receive "a psalm, a teaching, a revelation, a tongue, an interpretation." When we receive much, we have much to give.

Then we can meet throughout the week from home to home (it doesn't have to be just one). And share what we have received from the Lord. As we have freely received, so let us likewise, freely give.

And, as we are able, we should also meet in the larger context. It would be wonderful if there could be a single church for each city where we might all come together as a single local body of believers. Unfortunately, this is most unpractical for most cities. However, it wouldn't be unpractical if those who were set apart for the purposes of ministry came together often to edify one another. There ought to be unity among the brethren just as well as unity among the ministers in the government of Christ.

The main point that I would put my finger on, if I may, that needs to be changed in any church context is the individual one.

As I have experienced in almost every context of church, this common "empty" Christian coming for their "weekly fill". This ought not to be, it is unChristian. We should be "weekly [b]full[/b]" and then come together to pour ourselves out, honoring one another above ourselves.

The error I have found is this idea that the ministers of the church are supposed to pour out all the blessings so they might trickle down to the lowly surf-Christians. We have been very capitalistic with our Christianity haven't we.

You know, I woke up one morning, and this came to my mind:
Say there are 60 christians in a single church. In SIX days time that is cumulatively 360 days in one week. That is ONE YEARS worth of time WITH THE LORD coming together for a single Sunday gathering. And how many are coming "empty". What ever happened to "redeeming the time, because the days are evil"?

No matter how we structure "the church", the plain and simple truth remains. As Leonard Ravenhill said, "we don't have revival because we are content to live without it."

If we were truly concerned about God's will He would share it with us.

The main point that I would put my finger on, if I may, that needs to be changed in any church context is the individual one.

One question I have for the house church movement is what do you do if the same problems you encountered at the 'institutional' church are at the 'organic' church...only this time the problems are sitting on sofas and dining room chairs instead of pews and folding chairs. ;-)

MC

Well my reason is rather long, so I will give a small part of my reason. A lot off the people who start home churching do it because they say that the church age is over, which it isn't.
They also claim that the churches are so worldly, and they don't want their children to be around it. Which I have nothing against!!

One of the biggest problems is that they overreact to the church too much. God has given us the local church for accountability, we need to use it as such!!

If you have any other questions feel free to ask!!

JRuth

Bog wrote:

The main point that I would put my finger on, if I may, that needs to be changed in any church context is the individual one.

As I have experienced in almost every context of church, this common "empty" Christian coming for their "weekly fill". This ought not to be, it is unChristian. We should be "weekly full" and then come together to pour ourselves out, honoring one another above ourselves.

The problem also is that in a pre-planned 'service', with one man leading and a 'music ministry' leading song for all, where is the opportunity for one to come with a hymn a psalm or a spiritual song? A word of knowledge, a prophecy, where everyone is able and expected to participate? How can Christ overflow and be expressed by the individual? The time is limited, there is one man running it and the congregation is not able to even look each other in the eye. The church in many places is just an audience.
Linda

I agree with you, Rebekah_LF

JRuth wrote:

One of the biggest problems is that they overreact to the church too much. God has given us the local church for accountability, we need to use it as such!!

I believe we are the church and we are accountable to Christ. He is our Head. And the Church is there to express Christ.

Linda

The only network of house churches I have come across that don't seem to have the bitter edge you find in many associated with the likes of Frank Viola, Gene Edwards and company is the NTRF (www.ntrf.org)

I went to one of their conferences in Charleston, SC a year or so ago and was quite moved with the simple and sincere love these people had for God and eachother. They didn't just sit there and bash/demonize the "institutional church."

While some of Viola's writings are profitable, anybody with any discernment will quickly recognize there is a cancerous bitterness in his writings. Take them with a grain of salt. The same goes with Gene Edwards... though he is trickier to pickup on because of his brilliant literary abilities.