I don't like to go to church

[Romans 14]

Of course, it goes without saying that there is no prohibition against gathering together (gathering together must be with at least 2 people in the room!!, if you are alone in your room, you are not "gathered together").

Do you think God put all of the secrets of heaven in perfect prose (or like a mathematical formula?) so that all the bloodthirsty scoundrels in history could find them? (pearls before swine),...or do you think that a person must be willing to be a GODLOVER in order to understand the depths of God? Many will not even understand as I point out these understandings, because they simply don't care to be a GODLOVER and couldn't possibly have the "fruit of light" (Ephesians 5:8).

Do you really think that He thought that we need to know that "gathered" is not the same as being alone?

Do you think that He NEVER, EVER realized that due to language translation problems, the true meanings inside scripture would not remain obvious to us?

Sometimes He has to make us think by telling us that "gathering" requires at least TWO people.

Sometimes, He decided to put seemingly meaningless things in scripture like "What is truth?" (John 18:38) in order for us to THINK (2 Thessalonians 2:10, "AND SO BE SAVED").

If a pastor wants to stay in business, they cannot let you believe that...

1) Jesus became the outer temple and that we are the inner.

2) that there should be no public prayer and that we should not worship with "lips"/sound, but instead go into our room and shut the door when we pray.

3) Water baptism is the indwelling consecration of having our spirit become compatible with God's.

4) Jesus did all the "works" necessary (John 6:28).

5) Jesus is our sabbath rest (no more sabbath DAY).

6) we should not fear God, and since we need no protection from God, pastors/ministers, etc. serve no purpose to us.

7) all human beings were created "in His image", and that once we truly acknowledge our heavenly heritage (after reading the bible and discovering Jesus), we need no spiritual teachers (anointing, 1 John 2:27).

Of course we can have home gatherings and meet socially anywhere (2 or not) for any purpose (including sharing different "understandings"), but not for worship (GO INTO YOUR ROOM, it is supposed to be a PERSONAL relationship, NOT a PUBLIC relationship, NOT an "identical" relationship or a COMMUNITY relationship). Husbands have a PERSONAL relationship with their wife. Wives can explain that they would prefer that other people not interfere in that relationship (He "yearns jealously", James 4:5).

Romans 14:22

"The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God".

PERSONAL means that God wants to be EVERYTHING to each of us...

1 Corinthians 15:28

"that God may be everything to every one".

Our heavenly father's name FOREVER is "I am who I am" and He wants to know the REAL us (Exodus 3:14).

We shouldn't call Him or think of Him as MASTER/taskmaster...

http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/tran...;t=RSV&sf=5

The Bible says in Romans 10:13- 17 [i]"13For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

14How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

15And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

16But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?

17So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."

I don't know what you mean by "for a Pastor to stay in business", as if they determine what happens with their ministry. A Pastor that's called of God to preach will be fully equipped in anything that God leads them to do. If you're implying that there are preachers that are not called, well the Bible warns us about that as well, but don't be mislead into thinking that there aren't any true Pastors. Some of the things that you quoted from the Bible you used erronously, and only further emphasizes why we need to have spiritual leaders to feed us with the Word of God correctly. I'll quote some of your examples:

1) Jesus became the outer temple and that we are the inner. I don't know what you mean with this, as the Bible refers to these as how close we can get to God. Jesus' sacrifice allowed us to have access to the Holy of Holies (Hebrews 9), or inner court, so I don't understand what you mean. Please explain.

2) that there should be no public prayer and that we should not worship with "lips"/sound, but instead go into our room and shut the door when we pray. When Jesus said this, He didn't say not to worship publicly, but not to do as the hypocrites did, which was to pray publicly, to be seen of men. There are times in the Bible in which there was public prayer, but Jesus focused on the heart of the matter (Matthew 6:5-7). "What's the reason for those who are publicly praying?", is the question that Jesus poses

.3) Water baptism is the indwelling consecration of having our spirit become compatible with God's. Water baptism is for repentence, not consecration, as stated in Matthew 3:11. There is another type of baptism that Jesus talks about which is with the Holy Spirit and fire.

We have to be careful in rightly dividing the Word of God (2 Tim 2:15), or we will be teaching a heretical doctrine. We must be called to preach and teach the Word of God. Sure we receive revelation from God, but that in itself doesn't warrant us to become a teacher of His Word. There is a training period (no definate time), where we sit under the authority of another (whether God or man), and at God's timing, we walk in the assignment that He gives us. Sir, may God bless you.

[EricH]

There have been plenty of things in my life that I did not like to do, that I did because they were good for me (or my parents made me do them). I did not like school, but I went. I did not like 8:00am Calculus classes in college, but I went.

[Murse32]

There have been plenty of things in my life that I did not like to do, that I did because they were good for me (or my parents made me do them). I did not like school, but I went. I did not like 8:00am Calculus classes in college, but I went.

Very true Eric. I believe though, as we pray and get aligned with God's will, We will find church to be a place we are pleased to go to. Just as Jesus taught those about the sabbath "The sabbath was made for men, not men for the sabbath", we can see the big picture. The church, one that practices soundly, is made for men to go to in order to edify and be edified. Though we should always seek to help others, we most often can not help but reap the blessings that are obtained from helping others. I feel we should do all things for God with joy...not because we have to. In doing Gods will, we do know that it is best for us and should be very pleased to walk this path.

With love in Christ.

[paul1149]

Maybe this would be an avenue worth pursuing:

I Used to Think video...

I found it at churchinthehouse.org

Also, there's a series on house church that begins at:

I find this stuff makes an aweful lot of sense. I came across an interview with Israel Houghton, a very hot contemporary Christian musician, and in reference to his new song, The Power of One, he admitted that even he was sick of "doing church". Consider that this guy cuts records, performed at the inauguration, leads worship for the likes of Joel Osteen, etc, and you can appreciate the depths of the malaise that afflicts many of us.

I also think that anyone who chooses this route is not taking the easy way home.

p.

[OneLight]

Home churches have been growing in numbers for a little while now. The most dangerous thing about these churches it that there is no accountability. Due to having no accountability, cults have sprung up out of them.

[paul1149]

Home churches have been growing in numbers for a little while now. The most dangerous thing about these churches it that there is no accountability. Due to having no accountability, cults have sprung up out of them.

That is a danger. But I've been spending the evening watching very engaging videos of the movement, and someone made the point that there is no shortage of error in large churches either - he cited the ultra liberal denominations. I'll also add that abuse of authority is as well no stranger to institutional churches. And on the other side, to add further balance, doing house church is no guarantor of spirituality or spiritual growth. There will always be the individual human factor at the heart of the thing.

But the question is whether the house church more closely approximates the NT church, and tends more to support the kind of relational Christianity that is central to the Gospel (They will know you by your love...). I believe the answer is yes.

I quite firmly expect that the question is to a great extent academic, or at least will be before too long. Authentic Christianity is fast losing the dominant culture's approbation. We may be forced to look to, for instance, the church in China as a model for working outside the political-legal-cultural mainstream, simply on the grounds of surviving.

p.

[Ovedya]

What kind of accountability is needed in home churches. I'm not sure i understand, because in the first century the church was "home church."

[OneLight]

First, let me start out by saying that I do not agree with how church are run today. There is no real family and you are not truly accepted until you agree with their doctrine, no matter if it is a denominational doctrine or one from a non-denominational standpoint. There is no real flow of the Holy Spirit, but an agenda that is followed from week to week. Because of how the churches are run today, which many will agree is not the same as the first church, this topic and concern is very hard to discuss and kept straight, but I will try to explain what I mean the best I can.

The authority they had, which we do not today, were the elders who were instructed by those who sat under Christ or the Apostles. As with any teaching, the further you get from the beginning, in terms of years or generations, the more the message changes. That is the downfall of man, to change the original meaning to become a message as they see it. I do not mean to say that there are not Christ centered churches or home churches today. I am saying that we are to be as the Bereans and search the scripture to see if the message we were given is in accordance with the word of God. Can this be done better if the gatherings of the saints are in a smaller building then in a larger one. No, but the results could be dealt with faster if there is any issues.

So, when we have a small gathering of believers, who has the right to be the authority? Is it the one who's home the meals and gathering is held at? Is it the one who is the oldest among them, or the one who has been a Christian the longest? Even in the first churches, there was authority. There were overseers and elders. There were deacons. There were also those who went from one church to another to answer any concerns and questions, who handled any disputes among the believers, as the Apostles first did. These new home churches seem to lack these people. They are more democratic in manner, bringing the concerns before the whole group and making decisions according to the wisdom and knowledge they have as a whole, seeking the direction of those who are more mature in Him. This can be either good or bad. Good if they are mature enough in Christ to follow the leading of the Holy Spirit, and bad if the one who carry the most weight are not mature in Christ and where pride is prevalent. What happens when the group become infatuated by the speaking of one who can charm the crowd, but is off in their teachings? If you look at the history within the past few decades, you will see the results, which is why I am concerned with the lack of authority. One only needs to look at the cults that have begun in such small gatherings as these home churches, like David Koresh and the Branch Davidian, who came out of the Seven Day Adventist church because they did not agree with the church, or The Peoples Temple or the Heavens Gate or the Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments of God. There is a vast list of those who left a church because they believed that they knew what God wanted them to be like, only to result in the death of many. What did all these have in common, no accountability to any other authoritative figure, all stating to be directed from God Himself. They all knew what a "real" church was to be like ... something to really consider.

The question needs to be asked of why did they have home churches in the first place? Could it be that there were not enough people to justify a larger building then that of someones house? Could it be that they were still young enough body to not of had a chance to build one? Could it be that they could not afford one? Could it be that they had to remain underground so not to be attacked? Could it be some or all of these? We truthfully do not know.

I see the movement from the church as we know it mostly because of the desire to return to the original meaning of being a Christian. This is admirable to say the least. We should all strive to be as close to the truth as they were; to follow Him as they did; to reach out to the lost as they did; to have the love for one another as they did. There are many reasons why we should abandon these denominations, but is that the answer? If we, as an individual, are a part of the whole, how can we break off and begin anew? Should we not try and fix what is wrong within the body instead? Oh, you will say, it is too large with embedded doctrines that go back years. They will not change because this is how it had been done for years. So, we just give up and move on, hoping we can save what we see as the truth in following Christ the best we can. That leaves me wondering about the rest of the body.

So, here are a few of choices, as I see it. One, we can start small groups of believers that try their best to follow the leading of the Holy Spirit with no real accountability. Two, we can whittle down scripture and add to scripture in order to appease all who seek to know God, or a god as they see a god, as the Emergent Church. Or three, we can first pray, then bring our concerns to the main body of the church we are now in to try and correct what we see as wrong, have a discussion or debate over our concerns we have about being scriptural and not from man, and see if things change. There may be another way, but I don't know of any.

Since the body is already divided, the easiest choice is the first choice. We should be accountable to just God and pray to Him in hope that He will provide guidance, knowledge, understanding and wisdom through the Holy Spirit ... and, oh yeah, those who have a keen enough following in their hearts and minds to hear His direction. But, what happens when one decides that what the home church is doing is not right? Will they go off and try to start a new church in their home if they can muster up enough people to follow them? When will it stop and how divided are we going to make His body?

So, what do we do?

[paul1149]

OneLight,

A very thoughtful reply, and one that anyone, no matter on which side of the issue he lands, would do well to consider.

I think each of us should consider each given situation, including both the prospective church and his own spiritual needs, and do so prayerfully, striving to keep a clean conscience regarding his motives for making his decision. That can be a painful process, but it's also a growth process. This is an area in which I think we need to exercise our liberty.

I don't think enough has been said about the built-in safeguards over a small fellowship. The Holy Spirit is there to guide and guard those who rely on Him. I've personally seen a few home groups break up because of problems or apathy. While that's not an ideal outcome, I believe it can be a protection of the HS, rather than let us continue with a bad group.

Most large groups don't have that sort of problem, but IMO abuse of authority and oppressive immature ecclesiology are rampant. So in essence many trade the chance for true koinonia for security, subgroup programs, etc.

But I did say 'most'. There are large churches with big doctrinal problems, as I have already cited. And I was a member of a decent sized church that went through a vicious split that deeply wounded many, some irretrievably.

My bottom line is that I am not the one who said, 'where two or three gather in My Name, there I am in the midst'. He didn't have to say that. He could have, for example, endorsed apostolic succession. He could have specified some sort of "properly" constituted local or regional body. That He said what He did tells me that He deliberately intended on blowing all human ecclesiological tendencies out of the water. The tendency to authoritarianism. The tendency to hierarchy. The tendency to rules and legalism. The titles and the lording over. He would strip us of everything except grace and truth. And then we could effectively represent Him.

I do see a sort of shadow authority operative in the NT church, but considering the primitive communications and transportation of the time, I think we have to assume it was minimal. I certainly see nothing like the monarchical model that's been so pervasive for millennia. And I think we need to spot the natal church period a special dispensation for the NT not yet being written, when the faith was 'once for all' delivered firsthand to the apostles. But we have the Word now, complete, and the model is there for all to see.

p.

[OneLight]

Paul,

Even though I agree with how today's church is not what Christ intended, I do disagree with your stance against authority. 1 & 2 Timothy, as well as Titus, were written for those who hold authority. There are qualifications and warnings about how to conduct themselves in such a manner and how to guide those under them. If it were not needed, God would not of allowed it to be scripture.

As for the saying of Jesus, 'For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.", it was spoken about when two or more were gathered to correct a brother in his sin. Something to consider when addressing an issue of a church falling away from how God wants the church to be. But, let's look beyond that and look to what you are saying. Yes, He is with two or more who are gathered together in His name. That could be witnessing to someone on the street, of sitting around the campfire discussing scripture, or visiting someone who is sick or in prison. This has many meanings but should not be the focus, nor reason as to why a home church is started.

The built in safeguard you spoke of, the Holy Spirit, is the real key to following Christ. We are to allow Him to guide us in every way. There is just one issue ... this is an individual guidance, as is our relationship with God. What He tells me about my life does not always hold true to what is for you. To speak of His guidance according to the church, we can not forget that it is He who sets up the following:

1 Corinthians 12:27-30 (New King James Version)

Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually. And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Are all workers of miracles? Do all have gifts of healings? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret?

Are these home churches aligned with this scripture? Are those who teach the ones God appointed? Are they ensuring what is written in 1 Timothy 3:6; "not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil"? Yes, He is God and can do as He wills, but when there are so many men involved I am concerned of those who are placed in a position that will cause more harm then good. Do I lack faith in God? No, in man following God. I gave just a few examples of how man can stray from the truth.

Lets consider this a little more. How big is an average home church? 10 to 20? Any bigger and they would need a special meeting place. Now, divide that into how many Christians there are in these churches and we see how many churches we have. The number is staggering. In 2006, there was an estimated 2 million Christian in home churches across the Untied States alone (HOME CHURCHES SEE RAPID GROWTH IN THE UNITED STATES). That is 100,000 home churches three years ago! Can every one of these guarantee to be following scripture as God intended? If not, how many more churches have been developed that are in the same condition as the church they left? How many are under false teachings? The question is overwhelming and the answer can be staggering.

You see, Paul, it is my desire also to get back to how we are to be as a church. I am not against those home churches that are of God. I am, however, extremely worried and concerned with how many of these new church are under false teaching, leading the innocent to a false belief in God. If just the false teaching that is brought into this site is even a minute example of what is out there along the lines of false teaching, that alone is enough to warrant concern.

Blessings,

Alan