"And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts." (Acts 2:46)
Until AD 70 the early believers continued to gather at the temple for worship. And they met together from house to house in hospitality, fellowship, and presumably discipleship. Wolfgang Simson in Houses that Change the World says that the historic Orthodox and Catholic Church after Constantine formulated the religious system that had a cathedral based on the Old Testament temple and worship based on the Jewish synagogue. He calls it the "Cathegogue" and he says the Protestant reformation did not really do much to change that. He calls for us to move from church houses back to house churches.
In yesterday's blog I tried to generate some discussion to no avail. So let me try again. There is no doubt that the average church is a far cry from Acts 2 and Acts 4. We have opted for organization over being organic. We have chosen programs over the person of God. We have allowed form to shut out growth and life. So is Wolfgang Simson correct? Do we need to start over completely? He envisions meetings from house to house and city wide gatherings for celebration. God is certainly using the "House Church" movement in China, India, and many other parts of the world.
Whether we adopt his suggestions full fledged, I believe the church is in need of a major overhaul. We need to build back in accountibility and reproduction by multiplication. Traditional Bible studies and seminars are basically informational and built on the personalities of teachers, more than they are transformational and dependent on the moving of God. We need to pray that in these last days before Jesus returns that He breathe again on HIs church and call us to become what He created His church to be, a living organism that leads people to love God with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength and which is submitted to going to the ends of the earth to make disciples.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The church has struggled for many years, torn between what it is meant to be and what is has become. Contrary to yesterdays comment, we didn't make the mess. However, we struggle to cope with and become an authentic church with what we have inherited from Constantine's time on.
ReplyDeleteIf we didn't make the mess, do you not think we have perpetuated it? Added to it, even? Shouldn't we be doing something to fix it?
ReplyDeleteI think there is a balance between the two.
ReplyDeleteSmall groups of believers coming together creates
the intimacy, agape love for one another and the
accountability that I know I miss having experienced it first hand for many years in other
settings. The balance comes in that the "church"
oversees the smaller groups making sure that sound doctrine is held to and that everything is
done "decently and in order". The house
church does not take precedent over the corporate
church. You cannot ignore the move of the Holy
Spirit over the last 20 century's in all the ways
he has lead men and women within the established
church and say we need to leave this and move to
that.
Simson argues that the church of the first century gathered in large group settings at the Jewish Temple until AD 70 when they were forbidden by the Jews. After that, they met in house churches and gathered in city wide celebrations, but that there was no such thing as congregational churches like today until Constantine.
ReplyDeleteIn the writings of Justin Martyr (100-165AD) he describes the method and worship used on Sunday's, the first day of the week, when the faithful would gather together as a congregation. Justin Martyr lived well before Constantine and the Edict of Milian in 318 AD.
ReplyDeleteAgain let me state that I have no problems with
home churches as a ancillary of the parent church as long as there is full accountability.
Is Justin Martyr describing today's type congregation divided by denominations? Probably not. Could he be describing a city wide celebration of all the cell groups that were meeting in homes? That is more likely. Here is another thought. If Jesus had been concerned about the form and structure His church would take, maybe He would have given more elaborate details about the church to develop. Maybe He left the model open on purpose.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt is exciting that we have generated this much discussion. Although I have quoted Simson above, that does not mean his opinion is my opinion. What I like is that he has presented a different perspective and it challenges the status quo. What is most important in my mind is the recognition that God presents the church on the pages of the NT as a living organism. Its life is the power and presence of the Holy Spirit. Whatever form the church takes, without the living Spirit of God, it is only an empty shell.
ReplyDeleteYes, we're all members of the body of Christ,
ReplyDelete"...in him we live and move and have our being...", that means life. The church or ekklesia is found in every place we believers
come together, be it in a 200 year old church building or on the african plains. I don't believe that God is hindered
by the notion of denomination's. I do not think
that we ever take God by surprise in what we do.
You hear people questioning the established church and it's relevance in today's changing society. I think it is always easier to question "why" or "what good is it",
than to step up and say "how can I help make a
difference, here and now." As one pastor said
"grow where you are planted"; there is no such
thing as a perfect church or pastor or people
for that matter only a perfect Savior of sinner's
saved by grace!
As I stated in an earlier blog I have been a part
of small groups of ernest believer's, and I would never trade those very precious times with them. We all came from a diverse background of denominations and church experience but we operated in conjunction within the church, never apart from it. Yet our church differences never
presented any hinderence to our times of fellowship, prayer, praise and worship together.
The motivation was we were in Christ, we were his
body and we wanted to come together to celebrate
Jesus!
Cell groups (as I would call them) can and should
have a role within the local church. How many people leave on a Sunday morning without hearing
from God or a touch from the Master's hand?
Cell's fill in the time in between Sunday to Wednesday and Wednesday to Sunday. Our needs, fears and burdens don't always show up on Saturday night or Wednesday afternoon allowing us
to take comfort in we'll be with believers soon
and we'll be able to find help. Cell groups fill
that role quite well.
Anyone else out there reading but not speaking?
Would love to hear your thought's as expressed
through your keyboard.
I'll remain anon for now, there is a feeling of
ReplyDeletefreedom in that and it's not an unknown literary device.
My posts will be honest and sincere and attempt
to build up the body of Christ.
It is really cool with me for you to be anonymous, but it is clear in the dialogue above that there is more than one anon and it makes it difficult to note without careful reading.I don't know whether there is a way to be anon 1 and anon 2 or to distinguish but that might help. I am going to start this dialogue again today. I am likely to start writing a daily devotional, but an additional periodic discussion topic.
ReplyDelete