House Churches
March 29, 2008 | No Comments
3/29/08 Broadcast: House Churches: What’s Right and What’s Wrong?
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Comments
No Responses to “House Churches”
Leave a Reply
Listen Live 2-4
E-Newsletter Signup
Ask Dr. Brown
Subscribe to the Podcast
Station List
March 29th, 2008 @ 12:25 pm
On today’s show, I’m talking about some of the strengths and weaknesses of the house church movement. There is no question in my mind that some of what is happening in the house churches is healthy and productive, a return to a number of important biblical principles. And I’m equally convinced that some of what is happening is unhealthy and unproductive, even fostering some dangerous, unbiblical attitudes.
Join me on today’s program (if you missed it live, take a listen online here first) and then weigh in on the forum. There’s nothing like a good, respectful, forthright, and truthful debate. Conducted rightly, it will move us forward.
So, what’s right about house churches? How are they liberating believers from dead religious tradition? And what’s wrong about house churches? How are they catering to critical attitudes and spiritual pride?
Get in the Line of Fire!
Dr. Brown
March 29th, 2008 @ 5:54 pm
I do not find specific right or wrong with house churches, nor with the traditional church, because neither are perfect, if I could find a perfect church, I would be the first one who could not get in. In attending a place of worship, one needs to remember who they are, followers of Jesus coming to worship and glorify our Lord. If they do not like the attitude of the Pastor, or the people the choice and decision to leave is there for us to use, I had to do this myself not long ago. I believe some of us prefer to stay in our comfort zone because… because. I also think some of us need to grow up, and realize that our identity is not in the church, our friends, our family, but in Christ Jesus Himself. Shalom, Genevieve.
March 29th, 2008 @ 8:43 pm
My question is, to what extent is the problem with churches the model and format they use? And to what extent is the problem the people in the church? I think you could stick a Paul or a Peter in almost any type of church model, and they would thrive in it (though more so in some types than in others). The problem isn’t really the type of church structure, it’s the life of God that is in the people.
April 11th, 2008 @ 9:58 pm
I love some of what I have seen in my experience with house church… there is a refreshing emphasis on knowing Jesus, and seeing him in the lives of brothers and sisters, and living by our indwelling Christ and authentic relational Christianity. I have also observed a lack of a deeper working of the cross, ie, the house church movement has seen some issues of the deeper life, but is lacking the dealing with the flesh to walk in new life. Many leave the ‘old system’ but reproduce it in that they fall short a walk in the new life. The same issues of control that we used to rant about coming from the institution surfaced from the couch on the other side of the living room. The issue is the issue of the cross, in or out of the institutional church.
April 12th, 2008 @ 2:05 pm
I’m part of a housechurch, on Thursday, but on Sunday we gather in a church, which is in fact the motherchurch. I think that’s a good balance. On Sunday we have a service, celebrating Jesus, worshipping, you can feel the anointing during worship, but even in the housechurch, when making simple music with the piano or guitar, we feel the anointing of God flowing….. I think that’s awesom. In the housegathering we worship God, pray for each other, everybody has something, prophecy is flowing, preaching, teaching the Word of God, sharing. I think it’s wonderful.
Be blessed abundantly. Marry
April 15th, 2008 @ 8:08 am
Dear Dr. Brown,
Do you feel that since both the “religious establishment” and the “home movement” both have problems, neither is right or wrong.
I guess my question is: “As far as the topic of Structure, is one of the two directions more biblical—as in, more correct—or are they both just different things that God is doing, and ‘what’s right for you may not be right for me’?
We should just recognize that God moves everywhere despite us, and neither is more according to God’s pattern?”
Can it be that even though God moves everywhere despite us, He is changing structure to be more in line with the Word?
April 15th, 2008 @ 12:50 pm
Gingie,
Thanks for your question, which hits the nail on the head.
First, I feel that we can find the “religious establishment” in megachurches, house churches, denominations, and independent churches. In other words, it’s an attitude and state of mind that all of us need to be on guard for. I explain this in more depth in my book Revolution in the Church.
Second, my observations over the last 36 years, having been all over America and much of the world, suggest to me that God moves in the midst of many different forms and structures and that “one size doesn’t fit all.” We must avoid the danger of a superficial spirituality that judges things based on outward appearance or structure.
Third, that being said, wherever the Word does give us guidelines, we should do our best to adjust our meetings or leadership style or service structure to conform with those patterns. The goal, however, is always pragmatic: knowing Jesus better and making Him known to more and more people; being disciples and making disciples; passion for the Lord and compassion for the world; building community and then going out into our communities and making a difference.
I think some of the comments in the Megachurch thread are useful and relevant as well.
Blessings and grace,
Dr. Brown
April 16th, 2008 @ 9:21 pm
Dr. Brown,
I thank you for the radio broadcast and the new resources on the web. I have been reading your books since I got delivered and set free 6 years ago. Thanks to you and a few mentors locally I consider myself a mature Christian. I belong to a house church which a group of us started after all reading your book Revolution in the Church. In my area in south Louisiana(Catholic Country). It is near impossible to find a church that is actually bringing the saints to maturity, in fact I know of none. Most churches are keeping their “followers” spiritual babes. I have come to the conclusion that it is done out of ignorance rather than intentionally. I would like our house church to eventually move out of a house and get established and known in our area for teaching God’s Word and bringing others to maturity so that we can be more effective in setting the captives free in this area. Thanks for your ministry, I honestly don’t know where I would be if I didn’t get a hold of “The end of the American gospel enterprise” and “how saved are we” when I first got saved and started under some very bad doctrine. Those books set me straight with God’s Word.
thanks,
Daniel C.
Lafayette, LA
P.S. – Come to Lafayette and preach sometime you are welcome to come and share in our home church!!!
April 17th, 2008 @ 12:19 am
Bless you Daniel!
Keep the fire burning and keep lifting up Jesus! And wherever you find others lifting up the Lord, pray for them and bless them.
Thanks also for the kind words. May the Lord’s grace flood your life in the days to come.
Dr. Brown
April 19th, 2008 @ 10:16 am
Dear Dr Michael Brown,
We regularly attend a Sunday Church. But once a month we attend a Messianic fellowship. One of our friends told us that to be right with God its very important to keep the Biblical Sabbath and if we try to do both that is, keep the Biblical sabbath and go to Church on sunday then we would be like the Laodicean Church which was lukewarm and the Lord with spit it out as its said in the Book of Revelations.
My own conviction is that if a person is led by the Holy Spirit to observe the Biblical Sabbath then one must keep the Biblical Sabbath. As far as worshiping is concerned, I feel it can be done on any day any time.
I would like to know your views on the same.
I would also like to let you know that we had a great fellowship visiting House of David, Fairland, OK where you preached and laid hands on us on Jan 25 & 26, 2008.
Your books are wonderful and especially the one called “What do Jewish people think about Jesus” taught me many things which I was unaware of earlier. We wish you would someday speak here in Kansas.
May God give you the strength to keep on furthering his kingdom.
God bless you and Shalom,
Bijoy & Stephanie Thomas.
April 19th, 2008 @ 10:38 pm
Bijoy,
Thanks for your good report.
I agree with your views about worship and do not concur with your friend’s that to worship on Sunday is to be part of the Laodicean church
I also encourage you to look again at my the last section of my book, “What Do Jewish People Think about Jesus?” for more on this subject.
Keep the fire burning!
Blessings and grace,
Dr. Brown
April 29th, 2008 @ 4:07 pm
I have studied much about the house church movement and even resigned a pastorate over issues I saw in the institutional churches vs. the house church model but today I am attending a traditional church simply because the house churches I attended seemed to be more like rebellious teens skipping school then about truly worshiping Jesus. I found them to be support groups more than the actual Church I saw in Scripture and in many of the books I read from Frank Viola, Gene Edwards, and many others. I still believe the house church model probably best fits the image of the body I see in the NT but I also feel that Jesus must be our focus and if that is not the case, whether in a building or not, the Church will not be doing what God has called her to do and that is to proclaim Jesus in our worship both together and in the world.
July 7th, 2008 @ 2:05 pm
I have been very interested in the house church movement recently and was of course interested in your radio show about it. Here are a few points I would like to make about the organic house church movement:
1. I think it is good that the clergy-laiety distinction has been wiped away in the house church movement. However, they have often ignored the Biblical mandate for leaders within a church. This should not be one person but there should be educated elders who can make sure the church does not go into falsehood (1 Timothy 3).
2. The rejection of the church building and support of the house church is much closer to the first century New Testament model. It also allows funds to be placed where they should be (taking care of the poor within and without the church, etc.) instead of on a building only used once or twice a week.
3. The house church model allows EVERYONE to be involved, just as 1 Corinthians 14:26 says.
I think the house church model is the most Biblical and best model, apart from the lack of leadership sometimes seen in the organic house church model. That being said, I do understand that a spirit of judgment against other churches can be displayed. It is not good to unchristianize others. It is also important to realize that one can be a good Christian in almost any church model. But if we are going against the model God thinks is best, aren’t we still doing the wrong thing? For instance, God tells us that dual covenant theology is bogus in the Scriptures. Those who believe it can still be good Christians, but they’re wrong on that point and their belief can be damaging. If God has established a different way for us to get together as believers and we decide to do it our way based purely on tradition, couldn’t this potentially damage the Church? I’d like to hear anyone’s thoughts on this. Because I will probably forget to check back here, anyone is welcome to e-mail me if they want to dialogue about this. Many of these ideas are new to me and I’d like to become more educated about this topic. Here is my e-mail: revd_icu@yahoo.com
July 7th, 2008 @ 2:45 pm
I would like to share one more point I was considering while listening to the broadcast–
I heard it argued that the whole church should be involved in the church and should be equipped in doing the business of the church. I also heard it said that we shouldn’t be focused on just one man in the Church. Don’t both of these points show that the role of the paid pastor isn’t needed? The pastor ends up being the one that everyone in the church looks to for answers. He is also the figure who takes care of MOST of the duties in the church (and Dr. Brown accurately pointed out that pastors work incredibly hard in their jobs). Of course this is unbiblical. But if we went back to the Biblical model, wouldn’t it take away the need for one man to be paid to deal with these issues? If not, what would be the reason to pay one man to take care of this job? It seems that a paid pastor or paid elders would only be needed in a mega church which would require careful management (but would also be less intimate). A smaller church wouldn’t need such a figure.
July 7th, 2008 @ 11:42 pm
David,
Thanks for your comments, which are insightful, and for the questions you raise, which are important.
I would say that:
1) The NT makes no issue about the kind of place in which we meet, plus a wealthy person in that day could have easily accommodated more people than a very small church building. So, I would NOT put the emphasis where the NT does not put an emphasis, as opposed to standing against dual-covenant theology, which is clearly in violation of the Scriptures.
2) The believers also met at the Temple in Jerusalem in large numbers, along with meeting in houses, and Jesus himself ministered to both large crowds and small intimate groups. I personally see both as viable and serving a good purpose. (I cover some of this in my mega-church broadcast.)
3) The NT clearly speaks of full-time support for certain laborers (traveling ministers were to be housed and then sent on their ways with funds to get to their next destination, as one example), with Paul explicitly stating that “the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel” (1 Corinthians 9:14; much of that chapter is relevant to the discussion there). It’s true that many congregations think that their pastor or leader is supposed to do all the work, but I know plenty of mobilized congregations where the believers are very active and joyfully support their leaders who labor full-time in the gospel. Just because some people get things wrong doesn’t mean that we throw out the baby with the bathwater.
4) I have friends who are house-church only, friends who are mega-church pastors, and friends who are between, and generally speaking, I have found no more spirituality or life or Christlikeness or effectiveness in those in house churches. God is quite pragmatic and can move through many different settings, and for me, the best setting is large, corporate meetings along with small, intimate meetings, along with deep, interpersonal relationships all founded on intimacy with and devotion to the Lord.
I hope this helps.
October 18th, 2008 @ 1:56 am
Aren’t all believer’s homes, house churches?
October 18th, 2008 @ 1:56 pm
Michael Brown,
Though your point #3, above, is an obvious reality to reinforce good leadership, I wonder too about the goal Paul stated in Ephesians about such leadership “equpping the Saints to do the ministry.” It seems, at least in this country, that leadership becomes a self-perpetuating reality, which largely ignores this charge for it to become an ever-expanding shared requirement both of visible leaders and so-called flocks. How should this scripture stating the fact of four or five fold ministerial leadership be viewed in a country which seems hung up on personalities being the measure of who’s who in Christianity in America? How does this scripture fit into your view of a need for a Christian Revolution here?
October 19th, 2008 @ 7:36 am
One of the advantages of these house churches is intimacy. Also, instead of going to some of these mega churches or stadium type environments you are less likely to become only a spectator.