Arguments against house church

[Alex Thornhill]

I came across this video on Youtube, presenting some arguments against house church, most of which I saw as flawed because of constant Bible references of meeting in houses. However, they did touch on some issues of authority, or lack there of among "house church"-ers. I think their arguments are worth discussing, to better defend ourselves, at times against our own brethren. I have work early tomorrow morning, so I can't type up much tonight, however, there are some "early church fathers" writings that allude to great authority being given to the bishops, in such early writings from Ignatius and Polycarp. Has anyone come across these "fathers" writings? Has anyone ever seen a lack of authority in the leadership of house church saints lead to division and heresy? Just figured I'd throw these things out there for discussion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZKD_7Z_QC8&feature=fvw

-Bro. Alex

[Donnie Gillum]

Alex, It's late right now, so just a quick note: this is a great topic. I'm looking forward to the discussion.

[Alex Thornhill]

I agree that multiple eldership, and house churches are biblical, and I would agree that it is probably best for house churches to gather, on a weekly basis, in a larger "public meeting" setting in a "church building."
In my reading of the church fathers I came across this idea from Ignatius, that there is to be one bishop over a town/congregation (which seems to be contradict Scripture, where we read of bishops being in every city), and that the presbyters/elders are as an advising group, similar to the apostles. Ignatius makes such statements also, that the bishop is GOD's representative to us, and that we should do nothing without the bishop, including things like the LORD's Supper, and that whatever the bishop disapproves of is unlawful for us, and bindinng on the church. These statements seem to contradict Scripture, although Polycarp, a disciple of John, also seems to agree with Ignatius. What do some of you all think of this? Did the early church get caught up in a situation similar to the RCC today shortly after the apostles death, and there were just a few of us left that hid out in the wilderness holding on to the truth? Could they have been right, or desiring unity so much that they elevated the bishops and leaderships in order to prevent division? To not bash the RCC, since we are far removed from them (and completely separate from them, since we are not Protestants), do some in apostolic organizations seem to have a greater sense of unity due to their leadership structure? How should we handle the accusation that house churchers are disunified and unable to submit to authority?

-Bro. Alex

[David Huston]

Alex, go to www.GloriousChurch.com and look up my article called The Big Bright Target (or you can listen to the audio version). I talk about Ignatius and his unbiblical exaltation of the bishop.

[Alex Thornhill]

It's good to hear you wrote an article on Ignatius, Bro. Huston- I am really looking forward to reading your article tommorrow.

Also, Bro. Glen, a lot of the points you made were helpful to me in my understanding.

Perhaps the "church fathers" are all pre-Catholic/Orthodox writers (which is why their writings survived), that we don't have to worry about complying with?

I am on my Blackberry now, so I will type up more tomorrow when I can get my laptop to a sandwich shop with Wi-Fi.

-Bro. Alex

[Alex Thornhill]

It's good to hear you wrote an article on Ignatius, Bro. Huston- I am really looking forward to reading your article tommorrow.

Also, Bro. Glen, a lot of the points you made were helpful to me in my understanding.

Perhaps the "church fathers" are all pre-Catholic/Orthodox writers (which is why their writings survived), that we don't have to worry about complying with?

I am on my Blackberry now, so I will type up more tomorrow when I can get my laptop to a sandwich shop with Wi-Fi.

-Bro. Alex

[Alex Thornhill]

It's good to hear you wrote an article on Ignatius, Bro. Huston- I am really looking forward to reading your article tommorrow.

Also, Bro. Glen, the points you made were helpful to me.

Perhaps the "church fathers" are all pre-Catholic/Orthodox writers (which is why their writings survived), that we don't have to worry about complying with?

I am on my Blackberry now, so I will type up more tomorrow when I can get my laptop to a sandwich shop with Wi-Fi.

-Bro. Alex

[Alex Thornhill]

It seemed my post went up three times, I'll try to delete two of them when I am on my laptop.

Also, Bro. Glen, I was able to find Bro. Huston's article on the "Apostolic Free Library" on the glorious church website.

-Bro. Alex

[Alex Thornhill]

It seems I can't delete the two extra posts on page one, anyways...

I got an opportunity to listen to your book “A Big Bright Target”, and it had a lot of good information as to how we can defend the multiple eldership and house church structure well. House church is a way to help give accountability to the members in attendance, from my experience, and this helps to remove that “big bright target” for the devil to trip someone up.

However, I was curious about the mention of the Nicolatines. You explained the Greek meaning for the word “Nicolatine” and how it has two Greek words combined to mean to “conquer” the “people”, so these Nicolatines were “people conquerers” or those that “ruled/lorded over” GOD’s people. You mentioned that Diotrephes would seem to fit as someone who would be a Nicolatine because of his love to have “the preeminance.” However, my understanding of the Nicolatines was that they were a schismatic group led by Nicolas in Acts 6:5. Have you come across this interpretation?

It was also very helpful, though to hear of how a lack of the plural eldership and house church gatherings could lead to doctrinal error, as opposed to those who would like to accuse us of doctrinal error, and who would consider us too divided because of our small groups and leadership being held by a group rather than one person. To read of the “philosopher kings” and the philosophical “innovations” which were allowed due to the unbiblical hierarchal structure, in the first centuries after the apostles, allowed me to get a clearer understanding of how and why so many abandoned the apostolic way of doing things. Within one generation, I can clearly see how so many got devoured by the enemy and formed the institutionalized religions we see today.

The Big Bright Target was a helpful resource- thanks again!

-Bro. Alex

[Alex Thornhill]

Another thought on the plural eldership question that came to mind was- how do we recognize an elder in our local-autonomous church structure (which I agree to be most Biblical)?

If an elder from one assembly moves with his family and goes to another assembly is he considered an elder automatically? Organizations have this situation taken care of thru licensing, but I am not suggesting that this is a desirable or Biblical mechanism.

Also, although the definitions of elders is put forth in Peter and Paul's writings, some have interpreted them differently. Some say it is absolutely necessary for elders to have a wife and children, and that single men can not serve as elders or deacons- can one assembly not recognize another assembly's elder? Can this lead to accusations by others of us being disunified? Should networks and fellowships form to recognize each others practices? Does this sound like something that could lead to denominationalism, or do these networks and fellowships of assemblies just need good boundaries and an ability to agree to disagree at times?

-Bro. Alex

[David Huston]

Wow, Alex! You ask some good questions. I have read the story about the schismatic group led by Nicolas, but I don't know what it is based on. But even if it is true, I think the whole point of including them in the Bible is to serve as a warning against dictatorial rule. Just because it may have been a group led by Nicolas doesn't necessarily contradict what I have said about them. Does that make sense?

I think I'll wait and led some others answer your other questions before I respond. I would like to read what others have to say on these topics.

[Alex Thornhill]

Bro. Glen,
I agree that we should "be doers of the word and not hearers only", but I do see the value in discussing some of these things, because there are still many of our own brethren that can bring a lot more difficult questions that I can bring up. And I am a brother that agrees with the views of the Glorious Church network- imagine a brother who disagrees and can come up with many more difficult questions against us.

As for Paul, I am not convinced that he was a bishop, elder or deacon- I know he was an apostle, , but as for being an apostle and one of the other three offices I mentioned above, it is difficult for me to say, since he was unmarried. This does not say anything against Paul- he's an apostle, which is great, but just not one of the other roles because he was unmarried and without children.

-Bro. Alex

Glen Flanagan said:

I'm getting ready for starting our week in worship to the Lord so I'll attempt to be brief.

1) Paul was celibate. (1 cor 7:7), unmarried. Though some attempt to cast doubt on this and suggest he was married, we find that he states he did not have relationships with a woman. Thus, single men could definitely serve in ministry. Jesus himself says we must hate even our own lives to be worthy of him (luke 14:26) God must come first, above all else, in EVERYONE's life especially in leadership/eldership.

However, if a single man finds himself lusting or weakening in a manner that could lead to failure, I believe he should find a Godly woman, get married, engage in a healthy marriage to avoid sin. (1 cor 7:2)

2) Paul was recognized throughout and served according to his calling. those who accepted him, accepted him. Those who rejected him rejected him and he went his way. I think the biggest mistake we make, as humans, is thinking that Spiritual leadership is some type of prestigious position elevated above all others but Christ himself said the least in the kingdom is greater than the greatest evangelists on earth(matt 11:11). ergo the widow and her mite, someone who we would consider the list, was greater than Stephen, Paul, and all the others.

Being an elder is not to be a coveted position, It's not some lime light we are to seek. Being an elder is to be a servant, a hired hand, a watchman, a porter. The saints get to fellowship and go in and out as they please with less responsibility and greater ease on earth than the elders. God's not going to elevate elders/spiritual leaders above others. God's going to require more of these elders and hold them more accountable.

In many organized churches leadership is viewed as some coveted position of power and prestige and yet the man who washes the toilets is greater than the greatest orator. The man who washes the toilets does more for God than the man who sits on the throne of a platform and calls himself pastor or bishop.

Paul warns us against vain philosophies, debates, arguments etc. Too many people get caught up in being overly studious for many reasons and sit about debating things to the point that work never gets done. It's good to be educated and learned ("study to show thyself approved" 2 Tim 2:15) but we need to be cautios that we do not fall into the sin of the wicked, "having a form of Godliness" "ever learning, and never abler never able to come to the knowledge of truth" (2 Tim 3:5-7).

If we study scripture we do find educated, learned people coming to God and believing the truth but we find that it is a difficult thing. Paul was one but had to be struck down on the road to be converted. Who are the majority of those who come to God? People from the highways and byways. Why? Because they're not busy with vain philosophies. They're busy surrendering to God and serving him.

By all means let us study to show ourselves approved, then let us get out there and DO. We're not going to witness through constant debates. We certainly need to be instant in season and out of season. However we won't be judged on how many debates we won or how many historical secrets we revealed or mysteries we've solved. We will be blessed based on how we've obeyed. Certainly come to the knowledge of the truth. Buy the truth and sell it not. Then let's get out there and reveal it to as many as will listen.

Be prepared, be ready for battle, but don't be so busy preparing for battle that we never go out and win one.

Alex Thornhill said:

Another thought on the plural eldership question that came to mind was- how do we recognize an elder in our local-autonomous church structure (which I agree to be most Biblical)?

If an elder from one assembly moves with his family and goes to another assembly is he considered an elder automatically? Organizations have this situation taken care of thru licensing, but I am not suggesting that this is a desirable or Biblical mechanism.

Also, although the definitions of elders is put forth in Peter and Paul's writings, some have interpreted them differently. Some say it is absolutely necessary for elders to have a wife and children, and that single men can not serve as elders or deacons- can one assembly not recognize another assembly's elder? Can this lead to accusations by others of us being disunified? Should networks and fellowships form to recognize each others practices? Does this sound like something that could lead to denominationalism, or do these networks and fellowships of assemblies just need good boundaries and an ability to agree to disagree at times?

-Bro. Alex

[David Huston]

Just a thought. Could it be that it was advantageous (not necessarily required) that an apostle be unmarried since he had to move around so much? I don't think we ever read of Barnabas, Silas, Timothy, or Titus being married. Not to say that they weren't at some point, but it isn't mentioned. On the other hand, it was important for an elder to be married because he ministered in one locale and a big part of his responsibility was providing an example of Christian manhood to the assembly. This does not mean he was necessarily required to be married. The phrase "the husband of one wife" is actually "a one-woman man" in the original language. This speaks more of an attitude toward women than an actual marital state. What say you?