 |
Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Message |
Author |
 Home Churches---Francis Chan (L) pros/cons |
caseyleejones |
http://www.christianpost.com/news/francis-chan-goes-into-detail-with-facebook-employees-on-why-he-left-his-megachurch-190136/
This article almost brings me to tears. I sometimes think this is what church is supposed to be....anyway....pros......
1) The unbiblical concept that God requires 10% of your income is not really necessary since there are minimal if not no costs.
2) Those that choose to tithe or give freely, that money doesn't go to building big buildings and big salaries.
3) Everyone's gifts and talents come out versus just one on Sunday.
Cons....still thinking of some.... |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11798
7/3/17 2:10 pm
|
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
| |
diakoneo |
I enjoyed the article but I do see some POSSIBLE cons.
There are some administrative gifts that will not be used.
Some advantages to the economies of scale.
I believe there is a lot of waste in the megachurch model. Elaborate buildings, sets, sound equipment, salaries, utility bills...it is big business! But is it the Father's big business or something we have fabricated??? |
Golf Cart Mafia Consigliere
Posts: 3382
7/3/17 4:52 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
That's the first I knew of it, but it makes sense from some of the bits and pieces of what I've heard from him the one time I heard him speak and on YouTube. He seemed hungry for really living out the book of Acts. I predict he'll get into spiritual gifts in a short while as well.
As many of you know, I am 'pro-house church.' But I don't think independent individual house churches is the whole picture of what we see in the New Testament. Part of the 'economies of scale' problem may show up if you are trying to feed widows. It might be hard for 20 or 30 people in a house church to organize something really impactful. The Jerusalem church met from house to house but were also organized on the city level.
I do believe in having meetings in which saints use their gifts to edify one another, as opposed to just hearing one gifted man talk. We should follow the 'commandments of the Lord' for church meetings in I Corinthians 14.
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
7/3/17 11:18 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Cojak |
I thought it was common knowledge that MOST churches today were 'house/home churches' in the beginning. I think the idea then grew that the 'home/house church' was the baby. The church building and attendees that followed was the adult of the process.
That being said I think the home church is a wonderful idea and on paper wonderful. But the ones i have known of, died under their own weight. Caused by 'one strong personality' that dominated. 'becoming' the 'pastor'.
I can imagine the 'leader' (and you do need one) would be a stressful job to 'handle' this guy/gal with love and not cause the demise of the home church.
_________________
Some facts but mostly just my opinion!
jacsher@aol.com
http://shipslog-jack.blogspot.com/ |
01000001 01100011 01110100 01110011
Posts: 24285
7/5/17 6:08 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| There is an industry of ... |
Mat |
There is an industry of professional church bureaucrats whose income is based on the denominational church structure. If those in leadership had to provide/raise their own income (live by faith) the dynamics of how we view church leadership would be "turned on its head." Was it James who said that most church "fights" are really about power and whose in charge. Imagine leadership, above the pastor, which received no set amount from the local churches. Influence would not be based on mandatory compliance, but rather on relationship and giftedness. Very different networks of churches and ministers would replace the "line and staff" model.
Was AJT wrong in promoting his vision of church government?
Mat |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1994
7/7/17 8:07 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: There is an industry of ... |
Cojak |
| Mat wrote: | There is an industry of professional church bureaucrats whose income is based on the denominational church structure. If those in leadership had to provide/raise their own income (live by faith) the dynamics of how we view church leadership would be "turned on its head." Was it James who said that most church "fights" are really about power and whose in charge. Imagine leadership, above the pastor, which received no set amount from the local churches. Influence would not be based on mandatory compliance, but rather on relationship and giftedness. Very different networks of churches and ministers would replace the "line and staff" model.
Was AJT wrong in promoting his vision of church government?
Mat |
I don't know anything about AJT's Church Gov't vision. But I was shocked when I learned that each COG missionary (Inc some o/seas missionary admin) must raise their yearly budget! Yes, possible it would make a difference in all admin. I never even considered such a thing, but I did know that Charles Stanley was in charge of 'Southern Baptist (?) and still pastored a church. I think that is correct. 
_________________
Some facts but mostly just my opinion!
jacsher@aol.com
http://shipslog-jack.blogspot.com/ |
01000001 01100011 01110100 01110011
Posts: 24285
7/7/17 8:47 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Home Churches---Francis Chan (L) pros/cons |
UncleJD |
There are some cons
1. No accountability for the doctrine preached
2. No accountability for the offerings received
these won't be a problem in all of them, but certainly in some. |
Golf Cart Mafia Consigliere
Posts: 3147
7/7/17 10:35 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Home Churches---Francis Chan (L) pros/cons |
Mat |
| UncleJD wrote: |
There are some cons
1. No accountability for the doctrine preached
2. No accountability for the offerings received
these won't be a problem in all of them, but certainly in some. |
To you first point, it seems to me many denominations (including in the Pentecostal Holiness Movement) have little to say about "doctrine" these days. You can preach Calvin, Finished Work Sanctification, no need for Holy Spirit Baptism IE, drink in moderation, smoke if you gotten and loving her is more important than marrying her, along with "no hell for sinners", and there is little the denomination will do if attendance is strong and you got the vote of the congregation. No, denominations are not focused on doctrine, they are focused on church growth. As to your second point, as long as the dues come in on time to "lubricate" the mechanize of the denomination, its not like there is going to be an audit.
Mat |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1994
7/7/17 11:07 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Quiet Wyatt |
Cojak,
Yes, Charles Stanley was at one time the President of the Southern Baptist Convention. However, their congregationally autonomous form of government is VERY different from a hierarchical system such as the Methodist, Episcopal, Catholic, or CoG has. The President of the Southern Baptist Convention is usually a man who is actively pastoring a local church. However, the job description of the Pres of the SBC is not really analogous to, say, the General Overseer of the CoG, a Methodist Bishop or the Pope for that matter. Because of the congregational, voluntary arrangement of Southern Baptist churches, it might be more accurate to think of the SBC president as a chairman or moderator of the convention. He has no power over local pastors or churches. Nor does the convention itself have authority over ministers or local churches. It is a totally voluntary association of local Baptist churches who agree to cooperate for ministry purposes at the local, state, and national level, for things such as church planting, funding Baptist colleges, universities and seminaries, and commissioning and supporting missionaries. Also, the President of the SBC only is elected for a one-year term by delegates to the convention, and may serve no more than two terms. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12817
7/7/17 11:15 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Home Churches---Francis Chan (L) pros/cons |
UncleJD |
[quote="Mat"][quote="UncleJD"] | caseyleejones wrote: |
To you first point, it seems to me many denominations (including in the Pentecostal Holiness Movement) have little to say about "doctrine" these days. You can preach Calvin, Finished Work Sanctification, no need for Holy Spirit Baptism IE, drink in moderation, smoke if you gotten and loving her is more important than marrying her, along with "no hell for sinners", and there is little the denomination will do if attendance is strong and you got the vote of the congregation. No, denominations are not focused on doctrine, they are focused on church growth. As to your second point, as long as the dues come in on time to "lubricate" the mechanize of the denomination, its not like there is going to be an audit.
Mat |
True on both points, one reason why I'm looking at high-church traditions more and more  |
Golf Cart Mafia Consigliere
Posts: 3147
7/7/17 1:38 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Home Churches---Francis Chan (L) pros/cons |
Quiet Wyatt |
[quote="UncleJD"][quote="Mat"] | UncleJD wrote: | | caseyleejones wrote: |
To you first point, it seems to me many denominations (including in the Pentecostal Holiness Movement) have little to say about "doctrine" these days. You can preach Calvin, Finished Work Sanctification, no need for Holy Spirit Baptism IE, drink in moderation, smoke if you gotten and loving her is more important than marrying her, along with "no hell for sinners", and there is little the denomination will do if attendance is strong and you got the vote of the congregation. No, denominations are not focused on doctrine, they are focused on church growth. As to your second point, as long as the dues come in on time to "lubricate" the mechanize of the denomination, its not like there is going to be an audit.
Mat |
True on both points, one reason why I'm looking at high-church traditions more and more :( |
Yeah, high church traditions are remarkably well known for their purity in doctrine and practice.
Last edited by Quiet Wyatt on 7/7/17 4:10 pm; edited 1 time in total |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12817
7/7/17 3:03 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Home Churches---Francis Chan (L) pros/cons |
UncleJD |
[quote="Quiet Wyatt"][quote="UncleJD"] | Mat wrote: | | UncleJD wrote: | | caseyleejones wrote: |
To you first point, it seems to me many denominations (including in the Pentecostal Holiness Movement) have little to say about "doctrine" these days. You can preach Calvin, Finished Work Sanctification, no need for Holy Spirit Baptism IE, drink in moderation, smoke if you gotten and loving her is more important than marrying her, along with "no hell for sinners", and there is little the denomination will do if attendance is strong and you got the vote of the congregation. No, denominations are not focused on doctrine, they are focused on church growth. As to your second point, as long as the dues come in on time to "lubricate" the mechanize of the denomination, its not like there is going to be an audit.
Mat |
True on both points, one reason why I'm looking at high-church traditions more and more |
Yeah, high church traditions are remarbly well known for their purity in doctrine and practice. |
I guess none of them are then? |
Golf Cart Mafia Consigliere
Posts: 3147
7/7/17 3:24 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Quiet Wyatt |
I have had friends who converted to Eastern Orthodoxy from (backslidden) CoG, and I must say I saw no evidence of anything really life changing in their newfound faith and practice. That said, if I were ever to consider going high church, it would be in the Orthodox family, but, even still, it is not evident that to do such would necessarily guarantee anything regarding faith and practice in this day of such widespread apostacy across all flavors of Christianity.
It seems to me that there will always be a remnant of those who practice righteousness, no matter how dark the days become. I am truly sorry that you haven't been able to find a solid Pentecostal church in your area. There is absolutely no good reason for there not to be one in the Waxahachie area. (If I recall correctly, that is where you said you live). I attended SAGU back in the late '80s, and there were several solid churches in the area back then. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12817
7/7/17 4:22 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Cojak |
| Quiet Wyatt wrote: | Cojak,
Yes, Charles Stanley was at one time the President of the Southern Baptist Convention. However, their congregationally autonomous form of government is VERY different from a hierarchical system such as the Methodist, Episcopal, Catholic, or CoG has. The President of the Southern Baptist Convention is usually a man who is actively pastoring a local church. However, the job description of the Pres of the SBC is not really analogous to, say, the General Overseer of the CoG, a Methodist Bishop or the Pope for that matter. Because of the congregational, voluntary arrangement of Southern Baptist churches, it might be more accurate to think of the SBC president as a chairman or moderator of the convention. He has no power over local pastors or churches. Nor does the convention itself have authority over ministers or local churches. It is a totally voluntary association of local Baptist churches who agree to cooperate for ministry purposes at the local, state, and national level, for things such as church planting, funding Baptist colleges, universities and seminaries, and commissioning and supporting missionaries. Also, the President of the SBC only is elected for a one-year term by delegates to the convention, and may serve no more than two terms. |
Thanks for the clarification QW! 
_________________
Some facts but mostly just my opinion!
jacsher@aol.com
http://shipslog-jack.blogspot.com/ |
01000001 01100011 01110100 01110011
Posts: 24285
7/7/17 9:50 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Home Churches---Francis Chan (L) pros/cons |
Link |
| UncleJD wrote: |
There are some cons
1. No accountability for the doctrine preached
2. No accountability for the offerings received
these won't be a problem in all of them, but certainly in some. |
In the house church movement, in the US at least, some of the people are focused on a return to Biblical doctrine and practice. Others in the movement are focused on a philosophy that has to do with being organic and not an organization and being like a family. Those aren't mutually exclusive emphases of course.
There are also missions and evangelism focused HCs in a lot of countries, and some church multiplication movements that follow a house church format. I heard of one that had 20,000 a year ago among people who had come from a totally different religious background, the kind we associate with head coverings and such. I sold a car to a man who'd been to a country I'd lived in who told me about it, and there are other movements.
A lot of house churches have conversations of Biblical texts or 'sharing' or whatever. Some practice members taking turns teaching. It could be like a Sunday school class with questions and discussion or like a Christian coffee house conversation. It depends on the group. There could be tongues, interpretation, and prophecy. It depends on the group. Some aren't Pentecostal or Charismatic.
As far as accountability for teaching goes, it depends on the group. If you started teaching something a little off, people might just kind of ignore it or change the subject. Or you might experience some confrontation over it. It depends on what you say and who is in the group.
And with money, if there is a collection at all, the group could have some input on it and there can be internal accountability. If you don't have the top-down pastoral model and put the pastor in charge of church finances, then there can be accountability.
Typically, there is no one called 'the pastor.' There are churches that meet in homes that follow the 'institutional church' model, sometimes with a goal of turning into a larger church in a building. But in 'the house church movement' that I'm talking about, the point out the lack of support, Biblically, for the pastoral model. 'Pastors' is mentioned once in the KJV. Yet 'the pastor' is at the center of the modern evangelical modern church.
Some of the house churches believe in plural elders, which comes right out of the Bible. Some of the thought-leaders in the movement have a rather soft idea of elders as 'older brothers' who aren't really 'in charge' of the church. They tend to be more egalitarian (not talking about gender egalitarian, though that seems to be the case as well with church government egalitarians in the HC movement.) Some of Frank Viola's writings on church elders seemed to be a bit more of the 'soft' approach, IMO.
In the Bible, elders of the church are commanded to pastor the church of God over whom the Holy Ghost had made them bishops (Acts 20:28, see also I Peter 5:1-3 and look up 'feed' or 'tend' in Greek and compare to the word translated 'pastor'.) So elders are supposed to pastor. But the Bible doesn't teach that one man is to give a long 45 minute speech, the idea of a 'senior pastor.' Christ is called the chief Pastor in I Peter 5. Other elders are His undershepherds. Cultural ideas about pastors/elders marrying the young and burying the dead aren't found in scripture either. The Bible doesn't teach that only priests/pastors can officiate over the Lord's supper (not as big of an issue with Pentecostals, but is in other groups), or baptize.
Some house churches operate by consensus and think elders just are elders and don't need to be recognized or appointed or have much influence. Some believe theoretically in elders but are still just kind of functioning as a group. There are some who downplay elders but emphasize the importance of following an 'apostle' and the 'apostle' acts like a traditional pastor over a number of churches, I suppose. (I haven't seen that.) It's a mixed bag.
Some house churches are very much into doctrine, and others less so. Within the same house church, there can be different emphases, like relationships. The family aspect and helping each other out can be really good. You can have both, the family emphasis and doctrine, and the other things a church needs.
But there can be accountability for teaching and finances. Part of it comes from regular rank and file members believing they have responsibility for these things instead of just leaving it to clergy.
The idea that we are supposed to go to church, sing three songs, then listen to one sermon by one pastor is not in the Bible. In the Bible we see that 'every one of you' can have a psalm, doctrine, tongue, revelation, or interpretation, and to 'let all things be done unto edifying.' (I Corinthians 14:26.)
As far as down sides to house church, something I see in the Bible was meeting in homes, but also a church organized at the city level. The Jerusalem church, apparently at the city level, had a program for feeding the widows. A house church could feed it's own widows, but some of these 'deacon like' programs might function better in a larger church system. I do not think being small should be a main goal of a congregation. I do believe in allowing gifts of the Holy Spirit to function.
From a Pentecostal perspective, it is interesting to read Frank Bartleman's Azusa Street and see that they had meetings with multiple speakers, preaching, prophesying, giving tongues and interpretation. It seemed like a move toward a I Corinthians 14:26 meeting, but maybe without anyone pointing to that scripture and saying, "This is how we are supposed to be doing it." They emphasized the 'Spirit-led' meeting at Azusa, I think. But experientially, they seemed to be moving into something in the Bible, but possibly without realizing it doctrinally. Bartleman was from a Quaker background, so maybe he appreciated this. But it seems like the Spirit-led mutually participatory meeting, while a part of Pentecostal historical experience, did not stick as doctrine and kind of fizzled out in most of the movement, aside from a little space being left for tongues, interpretation, prophesying, and testimonies.
The COG has roots that go back before Azusa and don't see it as the denominations starting point. But I believe Cashwell was at Azusa and that the Azusa Street Revival influenced the COG through him.
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
7/10/17 3:02 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
Good things about HC:
- It costs almost nothing. It can function without costs for buildings, without pastor's salaries, etc.
- This allows for faster church growth. It's a great model for evangelistic efforts.
- It is good for more 'underground' type movements in a lot of cases.
- The early church met in homes, and this follows the Biblical example.
- Homes are a good environment for the types of meetings the Bible teaches us to have, as opposed to pews facing the front which works better for one speaker, the traditional church model.
If you ever get someone prophesying in your church who does 'sign acts' like Jeremiah did with the yoke or Agabus did with the belt, it's hard to see if he's standing in the back and you are in pews.
James mentioned a footstool in their 'synagogue' meetings they had, which sounds more like home furniture.
The Bible never gives us an example of the special purpose church building. We do read in several passages that they met in homes. The Jerusalem church met in the temple complex, which was not constructed as a 'church building' for the Christian church there.
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
7/10/17 3:08 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
Some negative things about house church, or the house church movement:
Some of the house church people look to Paul's self-support model as a model for ministry, but take it to extremes. They ignore or misinterpret passages about the laborer being worthy of his hire, and hold to a philosophy which may lead to not being very supportive, financially, of laborers in the harvest. I have encountered this online. I know some of the HCers I met with in the US were very much into tithing, but didn't think it had to go through some kind of house church budget. They just gave as they chose to different causes or ministries, but we could do things together, financially, as well. HC people can be generous as well. There tends to be an emphasis on sharing. It's not just financial, but labor, help, time, lending things, etc. The 'church family' aspects of it can be very good.
We had to move away really quick. We told our HC. They said, "When can we be there to move the furniture." One of them lent us a truck, too, to drive out of state.
Some of the HCers see some of the problems with the tithe teachings common in evangelicalism. Somehow, commands to Israel to give a 10th of the crops and herds of the land of Israel to the kohenim get turned into commands to give 10% of cash income to Gentile preachers and/or religious institutions centered around church buildings.
I think it is great that Pentecostals tend to give a lot to missions. Biblically, though, it would seem the burden for support should fall on a church in an area where the missionary is laboring, rather than our model. Paul said he robbed the Macedonians to minister to the Corinthians. The implication was that it was the Corinthian's duty to support him. Our model puts the burden on the sending institution. I don't see any passages about Paul guilting the Antiochans for not supporting him. But I've read blogs putting a guilt trip on sending churches or Christians back home for not supporting missionaries.
It was good for the Macedonians to support Paul. Paul wanted them to give so that fruit might abound to their account. Their giving was a very good thing, but Paul did not guilt trip them to give. Their giving made up a short-fall that the Corinthians should have been meeting. The laborer is worthy of his hire. Paul supporting himself was going the extra mile, but he would have been within his rights to live of the Gospel like most of the other apostles and the Lord's brethren.
I haven't witnessed some of the issues with the anti-giving philosophy other than from US house church people that I recall. I haven't seen it in Asia. I'm not saying it doesn't exist.
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
7/10/17 3:20 am
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
