Friday, November 21, 2003
Here is a summary of some of my thoughts re house Churches currently. They are encouraged by the "Greenhouse" seminar by Neil Cole, plus Wolfgang Simpson's "Houses That Change the World" and a bit of originality here and there. It is not meant to be my final decision on any of these issues. In fact, I would love for some of these points to be destroyed!
The case for house Churches
1. In the early Church they met in houses
a. Israelites only began meeting in synagogues in the exile . They previously all gathered for festivals, but these were occasional events, not weekly
b. Acts 2:46, 5:42 shows they met daily in the temple courts. This is often portrayed as a congregational celebration, but the temple courts would be unlikely to be a venue for public worship. It was more the public meeting place, and somewhere where they could talk with others.
c. We know they definitely met in houses: Acts 2:46, 8:3, 12:12, 16:40; 18:7; Rom 16:5, 1 Cor 16:9, Col 4:15, Philem. 1:2
2. The largest growth of the Church occurred while they met in house Churches.
a. It was illegal for Christians to own buildings to worship in until around 222-235ad
b. It was illegal for Christians to worship in homes after around 380ad
c. The Church grew at its fastest in the first two-three centuries, then growth slowed after it was institutionalized with Constantine in the early 300s.
d. Historically, the Church has been renewed best and grown most in movements that have embraced house Churches
3. You cannot have deep relationships with larger groups of people. Why call a group of people your family when you cannot know them well? It makes most sense to have your Church no bigger than the group of people that you can have true fellowship and community with.
a. In any one Church, most people know on average 67 people, regardless of the size of the Church
b. Jesus had strong relationships with a group of 12 guys, plus a few female tag-alongs. Although he met with larger crowds, his main relationship for three years was this far smaller group.
c. The Bible speaks of Christians as being families (1 Peter 4:17, Gal 6:10). It makes sense to know well everyone in your family and to meet regularly with them.
4. The congregational model of Church doesn’t do a terrific job in its core business of making disciples
a. People who have been in congregations all their lives don’t demonstrate more and more of the fruit of the spirit, with their character increasingly conforming to the image of Christ
b. Modern churches bear little resemblance to the vitality of the early Church with missional focus, being filled with awe, meeting daily, eating together, enjoying the favour of the people, numbers being added to daily.
**** The question must then be “Will house Churches do a better job than this?”
5. The priesthood of all believers is an essential doctrine that we don’t seem able to beat in congregational Churches.
a. Because there is a large group of people attending, it is difficult to ensure that everyone is being cared for, taught and equipped for ministry, without them relying on a paid professional.
b. The mere existence of clergy seems to attract responsibility for ministry functions to them. It makes it easy for people to think that is their responsibility to visit, witness, disciple etc
c. Clergy somehow encourage people to not take on responsibility for their own spiritual health
d. In most Churches a small minority of people do the vast majority of the ministry
**** In a home Church the group is small enough that everyone can share mutual responsibility to love one another, teach one another etc etc
6. Today’s increasingly post-modern culture is quite resistant to authorities. Having one person preach seems to jar with this philosophy.
a. Having one person or even a group having leadership and authority over a large group seems dissonant also.
i. In a house Church the authority of elders or apostles would hopefully be within the context of relationships and would be more acceptable.
b. Congregational Churches, especially cell Churches, often use a hierarchical structure based on Jethro’s advise to Moses in Exodus 18. However, this structure is normally used to care for and equip people, while Jethro taught its use for administration and judicial use. It is a form of Government, not a model for a family
7. The congregational Church’s worship services are based on a system of professional people providing a service for consumers to sit back and enjoy. This does fit in well with today’s consumerist society, but may do a better job of making the congregation fell good than turning them into committed disciples of Christ.
8. The house Church can survive into the future no matter what happens, while the congregational Church may not be able to 50 years into the future.
a. If a denomination is successfully sued for negligence over issues of child abuse, our assets will need to be sold. Even if our congregation has a perfect record, our buildings may be sold to pay the debt due to mistakes in other Churches.
b. With public liability insurance becoming more difficult to obtain and insurance companies restricting what they will insure for (and even disappearing themselves), it is quite possible that Churches will be sued for other accidents. Youth ministry frivolity may bankrupt even more denominations.
c. Governments may be swayed by the need to be multi-faith and remove favourable status for Churches. Building approvals for Churches may be restricted due to them losing rates, neighbours can easily object to development and future buildings could become impossible.
d. If persecution ever hits, congregational Churches are easy to identify, ban and burn. House Churches are not only nearly impervious to persecution, they thrive under it.
9. Congregational Churches cost a lot of money that would not be needed to be spent in a house
Church. Is this the best use of funds?
a. Building costs
b. Staffing costs
c. Sound equipment, projectors, musical instruments
d. Rates, telephones, computers
**** On the other hand, once the money is spent for existing Churches, how can we maximise the use of them? Is there a way they can be used to assist Churches?
10. Congregational Churches are overly dependant on the skills and integrity of their pastor.
a. If the pastor does not teach well, the Church will falter
b. If the pastor does not have good leadership and management skills, the Church will never grow into a larger Church that can reach larger numbers of people
c. If the pastor has a public moral failure, the Church can be crippled for years
d. There are only a rare few people who have the appropriate leadership skills and spiritual depth to adequately lead larger Churches. (Although a lot of people can “lead” a group of people that isn’t doing much in terms of mission)
11. Congregational Churches can attract people who desire the power of making decisions and teaching large groups of people. Even people of integrity can be corrupted by the money and power of leadership positions within larger Churches
12. Christian Schwarz’ research shows that the larger Churches are, the least effective they are in bringing people to Christ.
13. Huge amounts of effort go into a one hour “worship service” that often bears little fruit, is hardly remembered and does not significantly connect those present
a. This style of worship is essentially more Old Testament and Cathedral style, than anything seen in the New Testament
b. New Testament instruction seems to point to a style of meeting where the key values are encouraging each other, everyone brining a word of teaching or prophecy, eating together, giving thanks. This all would be far simpler in a small Church than in a large.
c. The power of a celebration service may be diminished by its frequency
d. This small amount of time, even added to a typical small group, is probably not enough time together to build community, share life and transfer kingdom values
14. In most Churches people seem to complain about the quality of the pastoral care. Especially as Churches grow, they settle for lower standards of pastoral care. In a house Church the number of relationships would be low enough that everyone should be able to be connected well enough to care for each other properly.
15. Traditional Churches segregate ages and encourage youth to be discipled apart from their families.
a. A house church would integrate families together in worship and restore the family to the primary position in instilling faith in children.
*** Where do unchurched youth fit into this? Do they go to house Churches with their friends?
(0) comments
The case for house Churches
1. In the early Church they met in houses
a. Israelites only began meeting in synagogues in the exile . They previously all gathered for festivals, but these were occasional events, not weekly
b. Acts 2:46, 5:42 shows they met daily in the temple courts. This is often portrayed as a congregational celebration, but the temple courts would be unlikely to be a venue for public worship. It was more the public meeting place, and somewhere where they could talk with others.
c. We know they definitely met in houses: Acts 2:46, 8:3, 12:12, 16:40; 18:7; Rom 16:5, 1 Cor 16:9, Col 4:15, Philem. 1:2
2. The largest growth of the Church occurred while they met in house Churches.
a. It was illegal for Christians to own buildings to worship in until around 222-235ad
b. It was illegal for Christians to worship in homes after around 380ad
c. The Church grew at its fastest in the first two-three centuries, then growth slowed after it was institutionalized with Constantine in the early 300s.
d. Historically, the Church has been renewed best and grown most in movements that have embraced house Churches
3. You cannot have deep relationships with larger groups of people. Why call a group of people your family when you cannot know them well? It makes most sense to have your Church no bigger than the group of people that you can have true fellowship and community with.
a. In any one Church, most people know on average 67 people, regardless of the size of the Church
b. Jesus had strong relationships with a group of 12 guys, plus a few female tag-alongs. Although he met with larger crowds, his main relationship for three years was this far smaller group.
c. The Bible speaks of Christians as being families (1 Peter 4:17, Gal 6:10). It makes sense to know well everyone in your family and to meet regularly with them.
4. The congregational model of Church doesn’t do a terrific job in its core business of making disciples
a. People who have been in congregations all their lives don’t demonstrate more and more of the fruit of the spirit, with their character increasingly conforming to the image of Christ
b. Modern churches bear little resemblance to the vitality of the early Church with missional focus, being filled with awe, meeting daily, eating together, enjoying the favour of the people, numbers being added to daily.
**** The question must then be “Will house Churches do a better job than this?”
5. The priesthood of all believers is an essential doctrine that we don’t seem able to beat in congregational Churches.
a. Because there is a large group of people attending, it is difficult to ensure that everyone is being cared for, taught and equipped for ministry, without them relying on a paid professional.
b. The mere existence of clergy seems to attract responsibility for ministry functions to them. It makes it easy for people to think that is their responsibility to visit, witness, disciple etc
c. Clergy somehow encourage people to not take on responsibility for their own spiritual health
d. In most Churches a small minority of people do the vast majority of the ministry
**** In a home Church the group is small enough that everyone can share mutual responsibility to love one another, teach one another etc etc
6. Today’s increasingly post-modern culture is quite resistant to authorities. Having one person preach seems to jar with this philosophy.
a. Having one person or even a group having leadership and authority over a large group seems dissonant also.
i. In a house Church the authority of elders or apostles would hopefully be within the context of relationships and would be more acceptable.
b. Congregational Churches, especially cell Churches, often use a hierarchical structure based on Jethro’s advise to Moses in Exodus 18. However, this structure is normally used to care for and equip people, while Jethro taught its use for administration and judicial use. It is a form of Government, not a model for a family
7. The congregational Church’s worship services are based on a system of professional people providing a service for consumers to sit back and enjoy. This does fit in well with today’s consumerist society, but may do a better job of making the congregation fell good than turning them into committed disciples of Christ.
8. The house Church can survive into the future no matter what happens, while the congregational Church may not be able to 50 years into the future.
a. If a denomination is successfully sued for negligence over issues of child abuse, our assets will need to be sold. Even if our congregation has a perfect record, our buildings may be sold to pay the debt due to mistakes in other Churches.
b. With public liability insurance becoming more difficult to obtain and insurance companies restricting what they will insure for (and even disappearing themselves), it is quite possible that Churches will be sued for other accidents. Youth ministry frivolity may bankrupt even more denominations.
c. Governments may be swayed by the need to be multi-faith and remove favourable status for Churches. Building approvals for Churches may be restricted due to them losing rates, neighbours can easily object to development and future buildings could become impossible.
d. If persecution ever hits, congregational Churches are easy to identify, ban and burn. House Churches are not only nearly impervious to persecution, they thrive under it.
9. Congregational Churches cost a lot of money that would not be needed to be spent in a house
Church. Is this the best use of funds?
a. Building costs
b. Staffing costs
c. Sound equipment, projectors, musical instruments
d. Rates, telephones, computers
**** On the other hand, once the money is spent for existing Churches, how can we maximise the use of them? Is there a way they can be used to assist Churches?
10. Congregational Churches are overly dependant on the skills and integrity of their pastor.
a. If the pastor does not teach well, the Church will falter
b. If the pastor does not have good leadership and management skills, the Church will never grow into a larger Church that can reach larger numbers of people
c. If the pastor has a public moral failure, the Church can be crippled for years
d. There are only a rare few people who have the appropriate leadership skills and spiritual depth to adequately lead larger Churches. (Although a lot of people can “lead” a group of people that isn’t doing much in terms of mission)
11. Congregational Churches can attract people who desire the power of making decisions and teaching large groups of people. Even people of integrity can be corrupted by the money and power of leadership positions within larger Churches
12. Christian Schwarz’ research shows that the larger Churches are, the least effective they are in bringing people to Christ.
13. Huge amounts of effort go into a one hour “worship service” that often bears little fruit, is hardly remembered and does not significantly connect those present
a. This style of worship is essentially more Old Testament and Cathedral style, than anything seen in the New Testament
b. New Testament instruction seems to point to a style of meeting where the key values are encouraging each other, everyone brining a word of teaching or prophecy, eating together, giving thanks. This all would be far simpler in a small Church than in a large.
c. The power of a celebration service may be diminished by its frequency
d. This small amount of time, even added to a typical small group, is probably not enough time together to build community, share life and transfer kingdom values
14. In most Churches people seem to complain about the quality of the pastoral care. Especially as Churches grow, they settle for lower standards of pastoral care. In a house Church the number of relationships would be low enough that everyone should be able to be connected well enough to care for each other properly.
15. Traditional Churches segregate ages and encourage youth to be discipled apart from their families.
a. A house church would integrate families together in worship and restore the family to the primary position in instilling faith in children.
*** Where do unchurched youth fit into this? Do they go to house Churches with their friends?
Sunday, November 16, 2003
Matrix Musings
Watched the Matrix 3 last night and left feeling a bit ripped off. Most of the questions that were there after Reloaded are still there, and a few more have been added. I guess the big one at the end of 2 was whether there were multiple matrices or whether the ship’s EMP had destroyed the sentinels. That was sort of answered, with the oracle saying that “the one” has power in the real world also.
I guess the question then becomes why does he have power there? The only thing that makes sense to me is that Neo is part of the computer system itself, more than being just a human whose mind was in the matrix. Somehow then he is linked electronically with the machines and can control them himself.
The architect said in Reloaded that .1% of people wouldn’t accept the matrix, and seemingly they would be those who escape and go to Zion. The system is quite happy for them to escape from the matrix and go to Zion, as this stops the entire system from crashing. Occasionally the numbers of people in Zion get too large and pose a significant threat to the machines, so they have to be destroyed once again.
When the architect says “Your life is the sum of a remainder of an unbalanced equation inherent to the programming of the matrix. You are the eventuality of an anomaly”, perhaps this means Neo is not really a human, but is instead a computer projection of the hopes of Zionites for a saviour, or the total sum of all the errors in the matrix.
So how about this for a theory? Because humans needed to be allowed a choice, and allowed to escape the matrix if they chose, they also needed to be given a hope of defeating the machines. Hence Neo and all the previous “One”s were allowed to exist by the machines to offer hope to the masses. This would make Neo less of a Christ figure, and more of a false prophet offering false hope to the world. That would be a fairly anti-God message. In every other version of the Matrix Neo takes the supposedly logical step and resets the matrix and starts the system all over again, doing precisely what the architect wants. (While the architect is constantly trying to balance the equations and get the system rebooted, maybe the oracle is trying to encourage chaos, break the reboot cycle and help NEO)
There are two differences this time, and they would be the fact that Neo falls in love with trinity, leading him to make some weird choices, plus the fact that Smith goes feral. When he sees the humans, especially Morpheus in M1 making freewill decisions, he somehow morphs into a virus that leads the entire system into danger. Hence instead of Neo trying to encourage humans to fight, he offers peace to the machines, by offering to destroy Smith, who the machines are scared of. All previous Neo’s had not considered peace, and had not had the bargaining chip of offering to kill Smith to obtain it with. When Smith infects/kills Neo at the end, then either this allows the source to get a lock on Smith and delete him through Neo’s code, or Neo is actually has an anti-Smith code in his Matrix programming that acts as an anti-virus.
Or, it could be that this version of the matrix really was the same as the others, and when you see the black cat at the end, that is a symbol something being changed ie the Matrix is being reset as promised
Either way, there are still a lot of questions, and not a lot of resolution.
At the end of the first movie, Morpheus says that they will fight to destroy the machines, free the humans and end the matrix. This doesn’t even come close to happening, as they settle for the machines, matrix and free humans co-existing beside the matrix, with 99.9% still enslaved. Looks like a massive failure to me.
When Smith gets Neo at the end, is that the matrix resetting itself, hence there being no humans in the final scene within the matrix? That would also explain the black cat, as a black cat in movie one was a symbol of something being changed in the matrix ie the system resetting the Matrix again. Would this mean that everything the Architect said came true, and Neo’s life was worthless after all, despite the hope? Or is it a victory that those who want to escape the matrix can without being persecuted? Or is the system reset, but Zion wasn’t destroyed this time so it is a victory.
Is the message of the movie that free choice can override anything, or that free will is an illusion designed by the system? Does love conquer all, or does it blind us and lead us into stupidity?
I suspect none of this makes any sense, but any movie that can get people thinking is worthwhile in my books.
(0) comments
Watched the Matrix 3 last night and left feeling a bit ripped off. Most of the questions that were there after Reloaded are still there, and a few more have been added. I guess the big one at the end of 2 was whether there were multiple matrices or whether the ship’s EMP had destroyed the sentinels. That was sort of answered, with the oracle saying that “the one” has power in the real world also.
I guess the question then becomes why does he have power there? The only thing that makes sense to me is that Neo is part of the computer system itself, more than being just a human whose mind was in the matrix. Somehow then he is linked electronically with the machines and can control them himself.
The architect said in Reloaded that .1% of people wouldn’t accept the matrix, and seemingly they would be those who escape and go to Zion. The system is quite happy for them to escape from the matrix and go to Zion, as this stops the entire system from crashing. Occasionally the numbers of people in Zion get too large and pose a significant threat to the machines, so they have to be destroyed once again.
When the architect says “Your life is the sum of a remainder of an unbalanced equation inherent to the programming of the matrix. You are the eventuality of an anomaly”, perhaps this means Neo is not really a human, but is instead a computer projection of the hopes of Zionites for a saviour, or the total sum of all the errors in the matrix.
So how about this for a theory? Because humans needed to be allowed a choice, and allowed to escape the matrix if they chose, they also needed to be given a hope of defeating the machines. Hence Neo and all the previous “One”s were allowed to exist by the machines to offer hope to the masses. This would make Neo less of a Christ figure, and more of a false prophet offering false hope to the world. That would be a fairly anti-God message. In every other version of the Matrix Neo takes the supposedly logical step and resets the matrix and starts the system all over again, doing precisely what the architect wants. (While the architect is constantly trying to balance the equations and get the system rebooted, maybe the oracle is trying to encourage chaos, break the reboot cycle and help NEO)
There are two differences this time, and they would be the fact that Neo falls in love with trinity, leading him to make some weird choices, plus the fact that Smith goes feral. When he sees the humans, especially Morpheus in M1 making freewill decisions, he somehow morphs into a virus that leads the entire system into danger. Hence instead of Neo trying to encourage humans to fight, he offers peace to the machines, by offering to destroy Smith, who the machines are scared of. All previous Neo’s had not considered peace, and had not had the bargaining chip of offering to kill Smith to obtain it with. When Smith infects/kills Neo at the end, then either this allows the source to get a lock on Smith and delete him through Neo’s code, or Neo is actually has an anti-Smith code in his Matrix programming that acts as an anti-virus.
Or, it could be that this version of the matrix really was the same as the others, and when you see the black cat at the end, that is a symbol something being changed ie the Matrix is being reset as promised
Either way, there are still a lot of questions, and not a lot of resolution.
At the end of the first movie, Morpheus says that they will fight to destroy the machines, free the humans and end the matrix. This doesn’t even come close to happening, as they settle for the machines, matrix and free humans co-existing beside the matrix, with 99.9% still enslaved. Looks like a massive failure to me.
When Smith gets Neo at the end, is that the matrix resetting itself, hence there being no humans in the final scene within the matrix? That would also explain the black cat, as a black cat in movie one was a symbol of something being changed in the matrix ie the system resetting the Matrix again. Would this mean that everything the Architect said came true, and Neo’s life was worthless after all, despite the hope? Or is it a victory that those who want to escape the matrix can without being persecuted? Or is the system reset, but Zion wasn’t destroyed this time so it is a victory.
Is the message of the movie that free choice can override anything, or that free will is an illusion designed by the system? Does love conquer all, or does it blind us and lead us into stupidity?
I suspect none of this makes any sense, but any movie that can get people thinking is worthwhile in my books.
My Granma died the other day, and it was a pretty sad affair. She’d been in hospital for a week due to heart problems, but we’d been told that she should be OK. Happened quite quickly in the end. We were all happy for her. We know she’s with her Lord now, is pain free and doesn’t have to put up with the failings of a deteriorating earthly body anymore. It’s good news for her, but still sad news for us back here. I already miss her, and keep thinking of times when we should see her, but know that we won’t now. She was always so nice and gentle and caring and loving. She always told me how much she loved me and was praying for me and was proud of me.
The last time we saw her we were able to say that Ruth was pregnant, and that was terrific opportunity. She was very excited, and it brought her lots of joy. Every time I told anyone that we’d told Granma before she died I started crying. I would have been devastated if we hadn’t told her.
Anyway, I guess I’ll see her and Grampa again before long.
(0) comments
The last time we saw her we were able to say that Ruth was pregnant, and that was terrific opportunity. She was very excited, and it brought her lots of joy. Every time I told anyone that we’d told Granma before she died I started crying. I would have been devastated if we hadn’t told her.
Anyway, I guess I’ll see her and Grampa again before long.
Sunday, November 02, 2003
Baby!
Huge news – best news we could hope for. Ruth is pregnant. Our little bundle of joy is due around May 21, and we can’t wait! This is the best news that we’ve heard for ages and ages. We’d had a few false hopes raised, but this time it’s looking good. I hope I’ll be the best Dad in the world. Lots of our friends are pregnant or have recently had kids, so its an exciting time in our lives. I’m going to be a Daddy!
(0) comments
Huge news – best news we could hope for. Ruth is pregnant. Our little bundle of joy is due around May 21, and we can’t wait! This is the best news that we’ve heard for ages and ages. We’d had a few false hopes raised, but this time it’s looking good. I hope I’ll be the best Dad in the world. Lots of our friends are pregnant or have recently had kids, so its an exciting time in our lives. I’m going to be a Daddy!
