DashHouse.com

For what it is worth, I feel most at home in a "house church" situation. I like the intimacy and the feeling of "family," although quite often the Praise and Worship --- meaning the singing of choruses and hymns, --- feels a little uncomfortable. (Due possibly to the lack of talent, and the knowledge that no matter how quietly one sings everybody can hear you!)

I also do not think that "house church" or any other small group setting, is the answer for everyone, but it sure is a viable alternative for someone who, like myself, feels out of place in a traditional church setting.

I have heard it said by someone that, although they have attended a traitional church service for twenty years, they couldn't remember one single sermon, and hence did not think it worth attending any more.

To which the reply was: "My wife of forty years has cooked my dinner every single night except when we were away, and for the life of me I cannot remember the menu of a single meal. Yet here I am, well nourished and healthy. It isn't important that I remember the menu. It is important that I eat regular healthy food to keep my body nourished. And so it should be for the church as well."

Just as some people eat mostly at home, and others eat mostly at restaurants, I would suggest that it doesn't matter where one eats as much as how often and how healthful one's diet.

Before church is a place where I am comfortable, it is God's home. It ought to be sacred space. I can pray, praise, study scripture and fellowship in a lot of different places and I think be pleasing to God. Still the place I prepare for him should speak more to his majesty and holiness than my living room does. If my home is to become a tabernacle fit for God, a lot of what goes on inside is going to have to change.

As for the essay itself, I find it perplexing. The tone, it's spirit if you will, seems balanced and reasonable and suggests some real growth in spirit by Mr. Tebay and his community. Yet I find much to question in the particulars.

I think the essay's first mistake is one of context. It seems to suggest that an expression of Church made by a handful of sincere people is equal in it's expression to that of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, it's hundreds of millions of followers and it's millenia of history. I think this is unfortunate and unwise.

Respectfully, his Church and my Church are not the same and Mr. Tebay would do better than to compare them as if they were.

Coming from my Church culture, the Mass, is a recreation of the sacrifice at Calvary. In communion we partake of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. We partake of an "everlasting supper". It is more than just study, meal and fellowship. In fact by comparison, those concerns are trivial. We participate in the supernatural miracle of Jesus himself being made wholly manifest in bread and wine, multiplied exponentially like loaves and fishes, sanctified by the Father and shared world wide by millions.

With respect, there is something more going on in my Church, than there is in his...

Forgive the abruptness, but to continue, would likely result in an essay of equal or greater length than Mr. Tebay's and is probably innappropriate for a comment box.

Mr. Tebay's writing is always thought provoking. Always reasonable and though I don't always agree, I must admit he is a pleasure to read.

Paul:

I probably am more open to different expressions of church than you are. Not as far as some, mind you, but I think a house church can function as a church. They can baptize, participate in the Eucharist, and in Word and worship there.

I agree it takes more than a handful of sincere people, but it probably takes less than we sometimes think it does.

Paul: Just to clarify my point. I do not suggest that a "home church" is for everybody, any more than The Holy Roman Catholic Church is for everybody. There are differences in viewpoint and preference,and no-one can claim to have the Absolute Truth save Our Lord Himself.

There are many flavours at Baskin Robbins --- but it is all ice-cream. Enjoy the flavour of your choice. And I am NOT reducing the Church to the lowest common denominator by comparing it to Baskin Robbins. I am merely pointing out that it is okay to prefer one style of worship over another.

I need to ask one question, if I may: What was there before the Holy Roman Catholic Church? If I read my Bible and my history books correctly, the Saints met in houses and catacombs, - anywhere they could actually, - and many times in secret to avoid prosecution.

There IS much to be said for the sanctity of a church building; for the respect and holiness of a formal place of worship. But just as my body is not yet a fit habitation for the Holy Spirit, neither is any bulding, especially where imperfect people gather. That we are considered worthy to even approach God, regardless of where we choose to do so, is pure Grace.

Paul:
By your logic I'd say you would think there is more going on in your church than there was in Corinth, Ephesus, and Rome in the 1st century.

We are an expression of God's church that goes right back to the beginning. We are connected through the word and the Spirit to the body of Christ. While it is true we do not believe that we partake of the divinity of Christ through the bread and wine I see evidence of the divinity of Christ operating in the lives of my friends. I see the reality of supernaturally transformed lives.

We are not Roman Catholics for a reason. We do not believe the leadership of the church is infalliable. We have both theological and historical reasons for doing so. Regardless I believe there is every reason why a house church would work inside the Roman Catholic umbrella.

Hi Darryl.

I am looking for language and perspective that enables me to remain focused on the particular issue of house churches and not move into a discussion contrasing Roman Catholic and Protestant orthodoxies. Let me list then concerns I would have regarding a house church movement. I do also acknowledge however that some of my concerns could be extended to include other movements and types of church.

The Space. It ought to reflect reverence, every day, all the time. It is the tabernacle. Church is the home of God's spirit. More succinctly it is the place we come to worship where we say God's spirit mysticly resides. I do not mean to be specious here, or worse irreverant but how sacred is the space if the kids are downstairs watching South Park?

Unless a cell or umbrella group, an option that was dismissed in the origional essay, I suspect that small house churches would lead to more individual fiat and further fragmentation of the Body.

Are personal comfort issues sufficient grounds for creating churches? Where in scripture are we encouraged to redefine the Body of Christ if it's expression does not conform to our schedule or taste?

Are personal injury issues sufficient grounds for creating churches?

Is the creation of a church in Jesus name a human perogative at all? Or is it the perogative of the Holy Spirit?

How do we reflect the spirit of "One Body" if there is no common expression among us.

How does the home not take on the character and spirit of the living space that it first is. Is it not likely that house gatherings will eventually serve more as social functions?

To those who participate in house churches to the exclusion of holy days of obligation. Who told you that was okay? Do you not think enough of the Lord that you would not also give to him what tradition and word require?

Darryl I have experienced Mass, in a house setting and found it a profoundly spiritual experience. In fact I would suggest to all that with proper reverential care and in concert with as opposed to being seperate from, the Body as a whole, participation in house church is a fortunate blessing indeed.

Hi Arthur.

Arthur, I suspect the Saints met as often as they could in humble surroundings sanctified by the Holy Spirit. Given their custom and their relationship with God I'm sure great attention and care was given to ritual and sacredness. I am sure the best of themselves was given to every detail of worship. I am not so sure the house setting of today, as suggested by Mr. Tebay, is similarly inspired.

I would think the early communities would have been severely reprimanded had they decided among themselves to devide over reasons of personal perogative. I am certain they would have been admonished had they decided only to convene at times that were convenient to them and to ignore the Sabbath. My sense of St. Paul's missions are that they are intended to re-inforce orthodoxy and "oneness" of the body and not to cater to individual whim. My sense is that St. Paul would view the house church as proposed by Mr. Tebay with deep concern.

For what it's worth, I'm a mint chocolate chip man, myself. :)

In seminary I remember discussing different types of gatherings, and asking the question of which types could be called churches. I remember that it was a harder exercise than you might guess.

I guess it comes down to that question. Do you need a sacred space to be church? I don't think so. Do you need sacrament (whatever you call it), Word, and worship? I think so, although my Salvation Army friends seem to provide an exception to the sacrament part. These are the types of questions that will help us evaluate the shape individual churches can take today, which is a pretty important question.

Hi Leighton. The prodigal "troll" returns...lol.

Leighton, as I have earlier inferred with Arthur, I do not view your house envioronment as being contextually similar to the early communities. As a consequence I see no contradiction in affirming theirs and being concerned over yours.

With respect,I wonder if the house envioronments you suggest speak as righteously of your communities love of God as the Saints did of theirs. Is meeting when it is mostly convenient, surrounded only by a group of close personal friends in an envioronment that lends itself to other distractions, the best and/or only thing we can do? I have never thought of you as seeker sensitive through your writing but the potentials for just such a movement seem significant to me, in the settings you propose.

In your mind, would the early communities have worshipped in a more formal Church/Temple setting, if they'd had the option?

While I understand the intensely personal nature of the questions I am about to ask and intend no offense, nor will any be taken on my part if they remain unanswered, I must ask; Is the Spirit calling you to house church? Or are you? If we are to break from traditions in new and radical ways, each group apart from the other, would you not expect the Holy Spirit to manifest undeniable signs, in that regard?

As for the notion of Papal infallibility, let me say this. Church infalliblity exists, only in matters of faith. Ironically, given the context of this discussion, some of the rubric is up for grabs. Providing faith and it's expression are not compromised there is some "wiggle room" for varience.

As for the notion of infallibility itself, I am comfortable with it and in fact cannot imagine our faith expression being what it is without it. The Holy Spirit was given us at Pentacost and as a consequence an infallible word and tradition were made possible. I haven't heard of a statute of limitations on the Spirit's power and I believe that our God still graces us with the gifts of absolute truth when it comes to matters of faith.

The Catholic church, claims infallibility in this regard as I think the true defender of faith should. You are free to disagree but if the Catholic church is wrong, then who is right? Or has the spirit abandoned us to our own individual interpretations of scripture and worship?

Hi Darryl. I guess I would say, though it be preferred, that I do not need a sacred space to worship but that only a sacred space should be called a church.

Paul:

A church is not a place but rather people.

Paul:

"Is meeting when it is mostly convenient, surrounded only by a group of close personal friends in an envioronment that lends itself to other distractions, the best and/or only thing we can do?"

I'm not sure why you said we meet when it is "mostly convenient." Our meetings are as regularly scheduled as any other church.
"Is it the best or only thing we can do?" No. The Spirit works through the Body of Christ in various ways.

"In your mind, would the early communities have worshipped in a more formal Church/Temple setting, if they'd had the option?"
Some of the houses they gathered in were pretty big. I don't think the venue is the issue but the philosphophy of ministry. If we are to take 1Cor 12, 14 honestly, and it is the best picture we have of a New Testament gathering, church members should all participate and minister to each other.

"Is the Spirit calling you to house church?"
I believe so.

"If we are to break from traditions in new and radical ways, each group apart from the other, would you not expect the Holy Spirit to manifest undeniable signs, in that regard?"

I don't believe we are breaking from traditions, but rediscovering some of the oldest ones. All true churches should have tangible evidence of the work of the Holy Spirit in their midst.

"The Holy Spirit was given us at Pentacost and as a consequence an infallible word and tradition were made possible. I haven't heard of a statute of limitations on the Spirit's power and I believe that our God still graces us with the gifts of absolute truth when it comes to matters of faith."

There are no limitations on the Spirit's power but He still works through the cloudy lens of sinful humanity.

This discussion will inevitably lead to the distinctions between Catholics and non-Catholics. As an anabaptist I believe that the church essentially sold out to the state in the 300's. In doing so the forsook the ethical teachings of Jesus and adopted a more Old Testament approach. We don't like to consider ourselves Protestant because we believe the early reformers sold out to the state as well. One could argue that they had no choice, and they have a good point they probably didn't.

No one organization can envelope the work of the Spirit. As Jesus said the Spirit is like the wind. You don't know where it comes from and you don't know where it goes. It cannot be contained in a house or any organization humanity constructs. As falliable humans we simply aren't flexible enough, nor in tune with God enough, to adapt as quickly as the Spirit moves.

Don't want to digress into questions of symantics, Darryl but a physical envioronment is also one of the ways by which the word church is defined. Like any physical envioronment, it's particulars tell us much about the people who occupy it.

Leighton the phrase "mostly convenient" was to suggest that many people have taken to worship with whom they want, when they want, where they want, irrespective of traditon or word. You yourself suggest in your essay that people are busy and/or have been personally offended or dissatisfied in there church relationships and seek alternative envioronment and expression that is more "convenient" to them. This convenience may not be consistent with God's will. It is a point, I think, worth examining.

The Catholic church points to a historical connectedness both physically and spiritually to Christ himself. In claiming infallibility in matters of faith, somewhat paradoxically perhaps, it does not make any such claim in regards to it's political, cultural or social expression. As you suggest, in these regards they act through the "cloudy lens of a sinful humanity."

Perhaps it would be helpful if I rephrased my contention.

God, through the Holy Spirit is capable of infallible expression, in fact, no other. Likewise the very fallable human can be made infallible, in matters of faith and it's understanding, simply by the will of God. I would suggest at this point that God's judgement is unkind indeed if this were not so.

If this supposition is true and if further we state that in the expression of the word we have concrete example supporting the supposition, can we (a) assume that there is still an infallable presence among us (b) that it could be interacting with the Catholic church or (c)somebody else has it and they ought to be coming forward.

Our God would never judge us by, or abandon us to, or own very finite and errant methods of understanding. Somebody has to have infallible truth.

God loves us, it can be no other way.

Paul, where you do get the idea that physical environment is one of the ways that church is defined? You're not convincing me.

I also think there are other ways to deal with the question of authority than to affirm papal infallability.

Hey Darryl, I don't mean to be a smart a...but I think the very fact that people refer to the physical structures as churches bears out my contention. In any case the more important issue to me is that the physical space is first tabernacle, the house of the Spirit of God and it's ambiance should reflect that.

As for Papal infallability okay, for arguements sake it's debatable. The point I'm trying to make is that there should be an ongoing authoritative voice infalliably interpreting the Holy Spirit and God's intention for humanity.

You know: My one complaint about most of these discussions, all of which make some very interesting and good points, is that they always seem to be from a "Western" or North American perspective.

The danger in making these blanket statements, is that taken to the extreme, (almost to the point of making them rules and regulations.... in effect causing them to become legalistic,) is that they fail to take into account other cutures and nations.

It may be fine for us in Canada or the States to say that Church should be held in a building set apart for that purpose, and that nothing else is good enough, or sacred enough, or respectful enough. But what about in the backwoods of Africa, or in some places in South America, or Asia? Someplace where there just isn't enough money for a seperate building?

Does that mean that the fact that these people are meeting in a hut with goats and chickens running around in the downstairs room isn't considered Holy? Or that God cannot meet with them there? There are some churches in Africa that do not even have the luxury of meeting in a house, but from neccessity are forced to meet in the great outdoors....come rain or shine. Is that sacred enough? Free of distractions?

It isn't WHERE you meet. It is THAT you meet, and the motivation of your heart. People in our society go to "church" as a social gathering, or to make an impression on the business community, or for a variety of other reasons other than to worship God. Does the fact that they go to a special building on a particular day make it a sacred act? When people partake of the Sacraments unworthily, are they still being "spiritual"?

I can make my home in a garage for fifty years and I still won't become a mechanic. So, I can go to church for fifty years and still not be a Christian either. It all boils down to the intention of the heart. I'd rather meet in a home, or a coffee shop, or a bingo hall, and meet with God and His Son, than go to a church building and come out feeling emptier than when I went in.

As Darryl said: a church is not so much a place as it is the people. If people are genuinely seeking to worship God, and to be more Christ-like, I don't care if they meet in a bar or a barn.

I think church is people. I think church is what they do. I think church is where they do it.

While I like the trinitarian nature of this definition, it is incomplete. So much so in fact, that it can create false misunderstandings about who we are and what we are called to do and be.

Church is God's people, doing God's work, in God's house. Let our interactions reflect this truth and our expressions of church will become as God intended them, as God is worthy of them.

Reverence to God, to one another and to the spaces we share are not measured by affluence. What is best in us, we give first from the heart. In this way, all right material consequences will follow.

Church is transcendant of cultural and material measure. If it is the best we can do for the Lord our God and each other, it is right and just. It is enough.

..."Take this cup and drink from it. This is the cup of my blood. The blood of a new and everlasting covenant. It was shed for you and for all people so that sins would be forgiven."

"Do this in memory of me.".....

On this day, His day, may the peace of the risen Lord be with you always.

Paul:

I have to admit that the concept of church as a place is something completely foreign to me and something I have been speaking against for years. It has always annoyed me that church has come to mean a building in popular usage, because I think that is an unbiblical picture. A building is never the church. God's dwelling place is his people.

I can't find a single instance in the New Testament where church is used to refer to a building.

I don't want to go on endlessly about this, but I think sacred space is wherever God's people happen to gather. I sense you will disagree with this statement, but I'd be interested in some Biblical support for why you feel a building is part of the definition of a church.

Thanks as always for your comments.

Hi Darryl. Thank you for the words of kindness. Likewise I appreciate "being" here and the work you do to make this place possible.

Darryl perhaps considering the relationship and ritual that the Hebrews had with the temple might help us in our understanding of the significance of the space itself and it's importance in mediating a right relationship with God.

As for scripture I would point to Jesus's assertions, once to his parents that "where else would he be but in his Father's house" and later his great anger with those who made "His Father's house" a place of business as supporting my claims that wherever we choose to offer God a sacred residence among is is of fundamental importance to the relationship. The physical space mattered to our Lord, it ought to matter to us.

Sorry, second last sentence, in last paragraph, of previous post should read..."a sacred residence among us, is"...

To paraphrase: "Wherever, whenever, two or more are gathered IN MY NAME, there am I in the midst of them." - Spoken by our Lord. Sounds like Church to me.

Paul: I love you, Brother. I don't care whether you disagree with me or not. I admire your sincerity in your defense of what you believe.

Darryl: You know I will always love you. Even if you are Baptist and I am not. ;-) We share some very similar ideas regardless of our denominational persuasions.

Leighton: I hear and understand where you are coming from. I encourage you to do what God is calling you to do, and may He bless you as you do it. Oh, and don't forget that you are also my brother in the Lord and I love you too.

Now, I am going to go have my meeting with my Father and His Son and welcome The Holy Spirit into my Living Room. I'll sing along with a Praise Tape; I'll read my Word; I'll share with my wife what I believe the Lord is doing in our lives; I'll even read some Spurgeon or Moody or something else educational and informational to feed my spirit. Today is The Lord's Day, and I will rest and honour it as such.

Later I will go and meet with friends and share with them as well. One day this week I have a meeting with a fellow from a local church, and we will discuss the things of the Lord over a cup of coffee. It may not be good enough for some of you, but it is what I do, given my dislike of formal churchianity.

God be with you all.

Paul: It's my understanding that the equivalent to the Temple in the new covenant is believers, with our bodies as the Temple.

Arthur: A house church would be better! ;)

Paul you said this: "The point I'm trying to make is that there should be an ongoing authoritative voice infalliably interpreting the Holy Spirit and God's intention for humanity."

I would say the ongoing authoritative voice is God's Word and thank God for that. I appreciate a lot of what you say Paul but isn't it true that in the Catholic Church the Bible has not been held up like it should. Isn't it true that still in most Catholic churches you will not find a copy of the Bible in the pews. I remember my wife commenting on that - as she grew up in the Catholic church there was not much emphasis on reading and meditating on God's Word and coming to know God through it. It was more about what the Church told them to do. I hear the same from so many former Catholics who have come to know God in a personal relationship through His Word as opposed to what the church has told them and obeying church tradition.

I know there is the flip side of that in the protestant world and I grew up in one of those environments also a big emphasis on the externals, although they would never tell you that.

Thank God though, we have both come to know Him in personal relationship, by grace , through faith.

As for church, isn't the commission of the church to go out and make disciples?

I'd be ok with a house church but I just think we could be so much more effective in ministry to the masses in a larger organization that could have ministry to so many different needs. I don't know how you'd do that in a house church setting. I would think a house church could have the potential of becoming very closed and cliquish.

I love house church apart from the Sunday worship experience though and in our church we happen to call that small group. We are deeply committed to that and it has been such a blessing to so many people as we keep each other accountable and challenge each other and pray for each other and fire each other up.

Then we go on mission to evangelize our friends and neighbours and family and its a great thing. But I would never want to give up the coming together in a larger worship setting on Sunday and to be taught by preachers who have been called and sent by God to preach His Word.

Arthur, always appreciate your comments and you still know where you are welcome to come and check out that "formal churchianity". Actually its very much open to the Spirit's leading.

Ciao for now