Hi,

I live in Indonesia, and I originally came to work here with an American who has been a missionary living and working here for years. Both of us are interested in house churches in Indonesia.

This brother has shared with me some of his concerns about churches here in ndonesia. The Christian culture here really makes a distinction between clergy and laity. The word for 'clergyman' is 'pendeta.' 'Pendeta' is used to describe Protestant pastors and Buddist priests.

Church of Christ and Christian church missionaries here work with an organization called 'Sidang Jemaat Kristus.' Yes, there is an organizaiton. In order for a church to be legal, it has to be registered with an organization of religious denominations that has ties to the government. Denominational recognition is needed in order to produce legal baptism certificates, which are used as an important form of ID (for Christians only.) Baptism certificates are usually presentedby people wanting to get married, or trying to get passports.

Sidang Jemaat Kristus, as a legal denomination, has a synod, with one person chosenas the head of that synod. The denomination ordains pendetas. Pendetas may at times receive salaries from missions funds that are many times what they could make working in the local economy. This can draw the wrong type of people- the kind who suppress others in the church who try to do ministry.

My friend and I both are interested in Biblical house churches. There is already a house church movement inthe US- a restoration movement which has sought to act according to certain Biblical truths, some of which are often overlooked inthe American restoration movement.

I would be interested in hearing from anyone in the CoC movement that is involved in house churches. I'd be interested to know if there is already any CoC material onthe subject.

1. Mutual edification in church meetings.

The tradition of going to churchon Sunday and always listening to just one man preach a sermon is not Biblical. I Corinthians 14 speaks of meetings where 'everyone of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation' and 'for ye may all prophesy one by one.'

This truth has been on the minds of some in the American Restoration Movement as we can see in the examiner.

Paul taught all night, but if we look up the Greek words, he was having a discussion.

Many house churches have meetings for mutual edification.

2. No clergy laity distinction.

We can label our priests 'pastor' or 'evangelist' or 'head minister' but if he acts as a priest, he acts as a priest.

'Priest' actually comes from the word 'elder' but was used to refer to Old Testament priests instead. Some Christians after the Reformation kept the position of one head of a meeting, and relabeled it 'pastor,' reading the idea of a Protestant priest into Ephesians 4:11. Some now use the word 'evangelist' for a similar job description.

continued below

-- Anonymous, July 16, 2000

Answers

Biblically, we shouldn't have just one member of the body speak in church every time. The clergy-laity system is unbiblical causes professional 'clergy' to become tired and overworked, and 'non-clergy' to become dependant and possibly not develop in their spiritual gifts.

3. Ediface complex

Especially here in Indonesia where cash can be hard to come by, and church buildings just happen to burn down at a much higher rate than most other buildings, the ediface complex causes a lot of problems.

Many people think that if they are going to plant a church, they need to raise money to 'plant' a building. the church is not a building. Meeting in homes was good enough for Christians for 300 years. If we want to be like the early church, why don't we use our money for something useful and just meet in homes or some other convenient place?

House churches can grow quickly by evangelism, educating raising up leaders from within the church (rather than making them go out of the church to get a religious education,) and by splitting peacefully into meetings in multiple houses as the grow. If the preacher gets arrested murdered, there are plenty of other preachers in the Christian community, so the work doesn't come to a grinding halt.

4. Token Lord's supper

Scholars believe that early Christians celebrated the Lord's supper as a part of or in conjunction with a full meal. An early church may have involved going to another Christians house for dinner, listening to a letter or gospel being read, and prophesying one to another.

When Jesus instituted Communion, He ate a meal with His disciples. naturally, the believers followed this practice. Eating a holy meal together an be an atmosphere for bonding and true fellowship. The Bible speaks of 'the Lord's Supper' and the word for supper, from the sources I've read, refers to a full meal toward the end of the day.' It ispossible that Paul's upper room meeting at troas was on a Sturday night. I read last night of an early reference also to a Sunday night meal.

'Supper' refers to a meal, and not to a snack. I suppose, in the first century, if Christians were really poor, they might have a Lord's Supper using portions the size we usually use. Acts speaks of saints coming toghet to 'break bread.' I actually went to some meetings here in Indonesia, where, upon hearing the verse read about Jesus breaking bread, each individual participant broke his or her wafer. Of course, in the first century, breaking bread was a way of getting another piece off the loaf for oneself or another person to eat. I really don't believe it meant an individual breaking his communion wafer.

In Corinth, some abused this by being gluttons or drinking all the wine, and not saving any food for the poor. Perhaps the poor didn't have as much freedom and trickled in to the meal later, when they could.

Perhaps more important than the size of portions is the difference in atmosphere between our modern Holy Communion and the communal table of the first century. The Corinthians were not to eat the Lord's Supper because they were hungry. Paul made a comment about this in rebuking those who were greedy with their food or drink. The Passover was a feast. But the Corinthians had gotten out of hand.

In many house churches, Holy Communion is celebrated in the family atmosphere of a full meal.

These things relate to restoration of Biblical truths. So they are of interest to many Christians interested in Biblical church restoration rather than traditions that evolved over time.

-- Anonymous, July 16, 2000

So much to say, so little time. Just a couple of bits here.

As to the issue of meeting in church buildings vs homes:

The New Testament does not say that the early church met exclusively in homes and private houses. in fact, it refers most often to the churchmeeting in open, public (or at least semi-public) places. Did they meet in buildings specifically built for that purpose? No. Why not? Perhaps because, at the beginning of the movement, there WEREN'T any such buildings. And as the movement grew, so did the persecution, so they began to meet more secretly. These facts to NOT militate against putting up a building for such use. The fact that it is not talked about may well be because of the above two facts. We certainly aren't commanded not to build or purchase such meeting places. And we certainly aren't commanded to meet in houses and homes or in mroe public conveniences. To make a prohibition against something that simply isn't dealt with is unbiblical in itself.

As to the Lord's Supper/mealtime issue:

True, the original "Lord's Supper" as we call it -- the ceremonial/ritual bit, as it were -- was first a part of a larger setting -- the Passover meal. However, Jesus went out of his way to set apart and specify the "Take, eat" and the "All of you drink" parts, and tied to those actions AND THOSE ACTIONS ONLY the "This do in remembrance of Me" statement. He did NOT say, "As often as you eat this Passover meal, you remember Me until I come". He said it specifically about that one particular instance of bread breaking and cup drinking, and SET IT APART from the rest of the meal.

So, if you want to wrap the "Lord's Supper" remembrance into a larger meal setting, by all means, be my guest. But those of us who set aside and observe those two specific bits when we gather for worship are doing just fine, as far as Bible exposition goes.

-- Anonymous, July 16, 2000

I'm not arguing that all Christians have to always meet in private homes. There IS a pattern in scripture of meeting in homes. The church in the house of Aquilla and Priscilla, etc. There are a number of similar references to church meetings in homes.

Early Christians met in homes. Later, things took on a more formal mode and meetings began to look like temple or synagogue worship- formality, priests, incense, synagogue liturgy, etc. The atmosphere of a church building reinforces some of the traditions for meeting that have built up.

Mainly I see it as a wisdom issue. I know one group that has church in a house. They are sending around proposals to people they know in Jakarta to rent some office space to use as a church building. Have they maxed out the size of the house? No. They only have 12 people, and they need 12 million rupiah per year to rent the hall, which would probably be one and a half months wage per person per year, I would estimate. Why have meeting in a big building as a goal? Why not just meet in homes and grow 'laterally' by splitting into two groups? This makes a lot more sense in terms of stewardship of money and church growth in most instances, especially here where church buildings get burned down.

But even in the US, meting in homes makes plenty of sense, especially if you dn't already have a church building to meet in.

In regard to the Lord's supper, scholars believe that the early Christians came together to eat an actual meal. It would seem that the terms used in the Bible would demand this interpretation- 'love feasts' and 'the Lord's SUPPER.'

Try to put out of your mind for a moment all the traditions you have absorbed about Holy Communion through your church experience, and imagine what the earliest believers must have thought. Remember that the early believers did not have 2000 years of church tradition to rely on. They didn't have the experience of celebrating communion in a Roman Catholic church or a Protestant church. They had the words and teachings of Christ in regard to the supper, and so they ate together, breaking bread from house to house. They ate at the their homes before they were Christians. Now breaking bread took on a new meaning.

Does the way modern RM churches celebrate comunion specifically follow Biblical instructions? Not just for general things like bread and wine. I am thinking of communion trays, tiny wafers, and the particular liturgy around it, and the whole style of how it is done? No. There is a lot of influence on the style of the communion from the Roman Catholic church on Protestantism, and RM churches were influenced by the other churches practices in the 1800's. But what picture do we get of the Lord's supper from the Bible?

If a very poor group of Christians in the early centuries of Christianity had a famine, they might only eat a little bread when they ate communion. I'm not saying it's wrong to eat small portions to remember the Lord, but why do that instead of celebrating the Lord's supper as the early church did?

-- Anonymous, July 16, 2000

Again, you are taking some examples of what the early church did, and conjecturing from that a rule of faith and practice. What we call "the Lord's Supper" -- the consuming of a bit of bread and some grape juice in remembrance of the crucixion of Jesus -- was set apart from the rest of the supper by the Lord Himself. It was not the entire meal that the church used to commemorate the death of Christ. The fact that some of the church at times included it in a larger meal does not lay any requirement on the rest of the church to do so.

-- Anonymous, July 17, 2000

They had the words and teachings of Christ in regard to the supper, and so they ate together, breaking bread from house to house. They ate at the their homes before they were Christians. Now breaking bread took on a new meaning

No. It was not the entirety of "breaking bread" that took on new meaning. It was that certain bit of it set aside DURING a meal that took on new meaning. Again, Jesus did NOT consecrate the entire Passover meal as the memorial. He set apart one small bit of it.

I'm not saying that Christians shouldn't meet together for meals and fellowship. And when they do meet, it would be beneficial for them to incorporate a time to remember the death of the Christ. But you cannot change what Jesus did. He consecrated a certain small portion of the Passover meal, and told his followers to do so. And as long as the church, in some form, in some way, is following that instruction, no one has any place in criticising her for obeying her Lord.

-- Anonymous, July 17, 2000

Yes, but we have digressed somewhat from the title of this thread...Why RM folks should be interested in house churches ...

I find this intriging... (did I spell that right?)

-- Anonymous, July 17, 2000

I'm not saying it's a sin to eat only crackers and a thimble full of grape juice for the Lord's supper, but I would like for you to look at the big picture. The way we do things isn't the same as they were done in the Bible.

The Bible command is 'Do this in rememberance of me' but there are also patterns in the Bible. We can see the way the church did things and learn about these patterns. This is a profitable thing.

The way most modern Christians do church is different from the way they did church back then. Back then, believers either met from house to house or met in a particular house. They gathered together and ate supper together, remembering the Lord when they broke bread and wine. Whether or not this was incorporated into the meal, I don't know. In the gospels, it would seem the bread was taken along with the sop and whatever else during the meal, and a cup of wine, as was custom I've read, was passed around after the meal.

What about the other elements of a Biblical church serveice- for example meetings with mutual ministry and edification rather than sitting in apew listening to one man give a speech every week? If you think about what an early church meeting must have been like, in terms of what happened, and what the style would have been like, don't you see a contrast between that and what goes on today?

Think about it. They went to someone's house for dinner, had a 'love feast,' and then different people stood up and exhorted the ocngregation. Or perhaps they spoke as they ate. Different members of the body taught, sang to the group, and prophesy.

The Bible doesn't say 'meet in private homes' but that was the practice of the early church. There are plenty of examples in the Bible of churches that met in private homes. Persecution wasn't constant, and if they wanted to, in some places, they could have built church buildings before Constantine.

In terms of 'biblical patterns' for finance, we don't see evidence that we should spend huge amounts of money on church buildings. The Bhble does give instruction on giving to the poor. The idea that we need church buildings can be a hinderance. Gotta go

-- Anonymous, July 17, 2000

The way most modern Christians do church is different from the way they did church back then. Back then, believers either met from house to house or met in a particular house. . . The Bible doesn't say 'meet in private homes' but that was the practice of the early church. There are plenty of examples in the Bible of churches that met in private homes.

Here are your examples. This is a complete listing of all the passages in the book of Acts that specify a certain meeting place, or type of meeting place. There are others you might bring up, but they are references to a special gathering of a few Christians for a particular purpose (praying for Peter during his imprisonment, gathering to say goodbye before a long journey), while the passages listed here refer to the church in general meeting for fellowship, instruction, etc.

They continued to meet together in the temple courts 2:46

They broke bread in their homes 2:46

And all the believers used to meet together in Solomons Colonnade 5:12

in the temple courts and from house to house, they never stopped proclaiming 5:42

On the Sabbath we went outside the city gate to the river, where expected to find a place of prayer . . . Once when we were going to the place of prayer . . . 16:13, 16

then Paul left the synagogue and went next door to the house of Titius Justus, a worshipper of God 18:7

he took the disciples with him and had discussions daily in the lecture hall of Tyrannus. This went on for two years . . . 19:9-10

As you can see, when you look at the church in the book of Acts, there is every bit as much evidence that the church met in public places as in private houses. Look at that last one particularly. For two years, Paul essentially borrowed the biggest hall in town for regular meetings to teach Christianity to believers.

8 times the book of Acts specifies a place of meeting and worship for the church. 5 of those 8 times, it was NOT in a private house, but in a public place where larger groups of people could gather for prayer, instruction, etc.

Link, I think that you are making too much of this. The Scripture does not delineate where and how we meet. It does not hold one type of place or meeting above another. It does not give us the nuts and bolts of organization. It does not say how many and who do the talking. But there ARE strong examples of leadership in the church teaching and guiding the rest. It does not STIFLE the rest, but it does place authority for holding to the truth and instructing the believers in the hands of the few, rather than the many. Paul, Titus, Timothy, elders, teachers -- all Scriptural examples of people set apart to instruct and guide in the church.

More fellowship in small groups in private places is a fine goal, and an effective tool for spiritual growth, and is to be strongly encouraged among the brethren. But meeting in public places which are set aside for religious purposes is a practice that goes back to the very founding of the church at Pentecost, and which is well documented both in the scriptures, and in the writings of the early church fathers, and in the writings of the day's non-Christian writers and historians.

-- Anonymous, July 18, 2000

I don't have a problem with house churches per se, except when people in house churches say theirs is the only way and everyone else is sinning by having buildings. I think that's going too far.

And I am all in favor of having cell groups in churches. Which are really little house churches within the main church, are they not? Besides, this may become useful, because if things get any worse in this country we may have to start meeting in houses again.

-- Anonymous, July 18, 2000

Faris Sweet had a very good bit to say on a related thread. i have copied and pasted it here.

For years the Christian Church has held,"home church" meetings. We call them home bible studies. In our meetings for bible study we also have ample opportunity to speak. We call these meetings, Sunday school or bible school.

Excellent, Faris. Many, many many churches do the same.

If you want the "home church effect", join the home study or small groups efforts in your congregation. If there isn't one, start one. It is a great opportunity for small groups of believers to sing, praise, pray, study, discuss, share, etc.

Be invovled in Bible Study or Sunday School with your congregation if you'd like more structured times of instruction. And be part of the corporate worship of your congregation for big group praise, music, prayer, fellowship, and one-to-a-crowd teaching. \ There is room for all, as John presents. Make it all happen in your congregation, and you will likely have a growing, effective church.

-- Anonymous, July 18, 2000

There are other references to meeting in homes. The volume of verses show that this was by far the most common venue for church meetings mentioned in scritpure.

*Acts28: 30 And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto * Acts 20:20 And how I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you, but have shewed you, and have taught you publickly, and from house to house, * Romans 16:5 Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Salute my wellbeloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia unto Christ. * Romans 16:23 Gaius mine host, and of the whole church, saluteth you. Erastus the chamberlain of the city saluteth you, and Quartus a brother. * 1 Corinthians 16:19 The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house. * Colossians 4:15 Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his house. * Philemon 1:2 And to our beloved Apphia, and Archippus our fellowsoldier, and to the church in thy house:

I am not opposed to meeting in other kinds of buildings. I just think it is generally unnecessary and expensive to build new buildings, and the arcitecture often is not helpful to having Biblical church meetings. (e.g. pews with a pulpit at the front.) I'm not saying it is a sin to meet in such a building. Actually, I go to a large church with the pulpit/seats arrangement that has cell groups. I believe that is where the Lord would have me now.

Here in Indonesia, I know a lot of churches have to raise money to raise money to buy a church building, when they could just meet in homes. Here, Muslims would probably be more likely to go to a home meeting than a church building anyway. Part of the problem is tradition, which says we must have a special building for our meetings. Another problem can be the desire to have a really grand impressive structure. Muslims here are always raising money for their mosques. I think this desire is just part of a human desire to build something big. Muslims here beg on the streets for money to build mosques. Good thing the Christians don't do that. They probably don't because it would be dangerous.

Keeping all the speaking in the hands of a few may seem like a good way to get rid of heresy. But it goes against scripture. Take a good look at I Corinthains 14. If we don't allow the things that need to be done to be done, then how can we say we are obeying' let all things be done unto edifying."?

Paul wrote 'For ye may all prophesy one by one that all may learn and all may be comforted." Paul uses the following words to refer to the speakers in those church meetings 'all' and 'every one of you.' There are others as well.

The one single passage that tells us to go to church tells us not to forsake the assembling of ourselves together but to _exhort one another._ The command is to exhort not 'sit back and be exhorted.'

I Peter 4 saysto minister the grace of God one to another, and from the passage we see that this includes speaking gifts.

I am not opposed to good leadership- it is a very big need. But if leadership muzzles the gifts in the congregation according to tradition, leadership isn't following the Bible commands for church meetings.

Churches these days often do not produce those with the ministry of teaching. Someone on another thread joked that he was glad his elders didn't preach more often. Maybe if they had had years of experience teaching, they might be better at it.

Instead of raising up leaders from within, a lot of churches send young people away to Bible schools and seminaries, something the early church didn't have. Their methods were to teach the gospel in churches and to use apprenticeship-like relationships. (Paul and Timothy.)

-- Anonymous, July 18, 2000

Sunday school, btw, is less than a couple of hundred years old. It was originally started, I've read, to teach children who worked in factories how to read.

Mutual ministry in New Testament times took place in the main meeting.

-- Anonymous, July 20, 2000

Sunday school, btw, is less than a couple of hundred years old. It was originally started, I've read, to teach children who worked in factories how to read.

Mutual ministry in New Testament times took place in the main meeting.

I'm not saying it's wrong to have Sunday school.

It seems to me that a lot of restoration movements recover certain truths, and retain a certain amount of tradition. The first generation of people int he reastoration movement may be really open to forgetting tradition and going on with what the Bible has to say about things.

Several generations later, the movement is stuck in tradition. "After all, all the other people in this movement have been doing things this way for generations." If the people who started the movement had had this attitude, they would have stuck with their old, non-restoration movement denominations.

The American Restoration Movement found in scripture that we are not supposed to be divided into denominations, but retained the tradition of one-man preaching a sermon in every meeting, not allowing for congregational participation. Are later generations of the movement willing to reconsider this practice in the light of scripture?

-- Anonymous, July 20, 2000