[taxcontrol]

House Churches are tapping into an "organized religion" backlash that has left many people feeling abandoned by "traditional" religion. Many times this is due to differences in doctrine or it is due to differences in worship style or even a scheduling conflict that prevents people from attending church during the normally scheduled hours of worship.

[TommyDale]

Ping

[dangus]

"Focusing only on those who attend some kind of church (which I recall is about 43 percent of us), 74 percent of them attend only a traditional church, 19 percent attend both a traditional and a house church, and 5 percent are hard-core house church folks."

Define "house church." If it is truly akin to the first-century Christians, whose "house church" ceremonies were quite elaborate and included the Lord's Supper, fasting beforehand, scripture, and a homily/sermon, led by an ordained pastor/presbyter, I'm impressed.

If they are simply referring to Christian faith-sharing groups, I'm not at all. People have been meeting to discuss their faith and pray together since this country was born, and the fact that 9% of Americans now like to think of this form of gathering as "house churches" is completely meaningless. Given that 4 our of 5 "house church" attendees also attend weekly church services, this seems to be what they are talking about.

Any further information about how "house church" is defined would be greatly appreciated.

[Southside_Chicago_Republican]

In fact, church buildings were quite rare until the fourth century, when the power-hungry Roman Emperor Constantine suddenly outlawed house church meetings, began erecting church buildings with Roman tax money, and issued a decree that all should join his Catholic Church. If you want to stick to a biblical model, the house church is your only choice.

I like a writer who can make his point with subtlety.

[Notwithstanding]

These numbers make no sense.

If 70 million adults in the US have participated in "house church" religion, the term would be widespread and widely understood.

I wish all people seeking to know Jesus better and lead others to Him well. But hyping the popularity of this idea is not that helpful.

[TexanToTheCore]

Interesting that all the reasons that have been given are negative. Let me give one that is positive:

Many people are being called to lead and cannot do so in their own church, so they begin a new one.

I see this all the time in my area and it is quite a positive thing.

And for those who think these house churches are just faith groups, many Christians attend two churches.

[dangus]

>> In fact, church buildings were quite rare until the fourth century, when the power-hungry Roman Emperor Constantine suddenly outlawed house church meetings, began erecting church buildings with Roman tax money, and issued a decree that all should join his Catholic Church. If you want to stick to a biblical model, the house church is your only choice. <<

Constantine did authorize the construction of church buildings. The notion that he "outlawed" house churches seems very strange and almost silly: "House churches" existed precisely Christianity itself was illegal prior to Christianity; they were a form of staying hidden from the Roman police. Anyone know anything to support this, or is this more of the Constantine-did-everything-evil mythos from the likes of Dan Brown?

[fix]

I would think that 100% of married Christians who truly adhere to Biblical teachings attend "house-church" every day. After all, in a marriage there are always 2 people. In a Christian marriage they are both believers. And finally, if they are following His teachings they are gathered "in His name." At least that's how it should be. It's what I work towards. Repeat after me: A church is not a building.

[ktupper]

For those wanting more information on relational Christianity and moving from religious thinking to relational thinking take a look at...

http://www.lifestream.org/LSBL.Feb02.html

http://www.lifestream.org/transition/transition.html

http://www.lifestream.org/blog/

[MineralMan]

Well, Barna's a pretty darned good pollster, but I'd want to go see the results of this poll on his own site, rather than have it interpreted by someone who seems to have a decided bias.

The home church movement is certainly growing, but this guy seems to count every little bible study group meeting in a home as a home church, and I think that's off the mark.

If you think of the Vineyard Fellowship, you get a little closer to this.

To me, the growth of the home church movement represents the end stage of the denominationalism that has split the church again and again, ever since Martin Luther rebelled against the "evils" of the RCC of his day.

Someone estimated that there were 27,000 separate denominations or groupings of Christianity. I think the number's higher than that and, if you count the home churches, it's way higher than that.

My question is: Is there a center to Christianity any longer? A central doctrine or set of doctrines that all Christians can agree upon? It's beginning to look more and more like that center is not holding any longer.

Will the splintering continue until every person is his or her own church? It's an interesting question, I think. But, I'm an atheist, so what do I know?

[jwh_Denver]

ping

[No.6]

"For the first 300 years of Christianity, house churches were the norm. In fact, church buildings were quite rare until the fourth century, when the power-hungry Roman Emperor Constantine suddenly outlawed house church meetings, began erecting church buildings with Roman tax money, and issued a decree that all should join his Catholic Church. If you want to stick to a biblical model, the house church is your only choice."

I've investigated and have been part of house churches, and my research turns up this:

- The 1st century church conducted itself in a organized fashion, holding services nearly identical to modern church services;

- The early house church was held in the residence of a wealthy Christian largely out of necessity (persecution), rather than out of a desire to avoid having a building

- Constantine did not himself decree the Catholic (or catholic, small c) church nor go after house churches; however, pre-Constantine councils did dedicate time to codifying Christian belief and ridding Christianity of nascent heretical groups, including sex-cults masquerading as Christianity

- *Some* (not all) in the house church movement are, as this writer appears to be, rather devoted to the idea that they have the "real" Christianity and that other Christians are living a lie of some sort. My experience as a Christian both in and out of groups that have buildings is: always beware of the guy who claims to have the special knowledge that has somehow eluded 2000 years of Christian thinking.

Now don't take this too far! The house church idea is great, and it's a helpmeet for many who want a closer personal service with other believers or have been burned by busy-bodies or other problems that sometimes accompany church-people. It's obviously a necessity in places like China where the PRC is willing to kill to maintain a monopoly on thought.

But hey, when people then go that extra step and claim that somehow the original church was corrupted and we're all in Babylon or something, well, I kinda relegate that with the Dan Brown plotline.

[Alberta's Child]

In some parts of the country, a "house church" is nothing more than a financial racket in which a "pastor" buys a house, lives in it with his family, and has weekly prayer meetings. That's all legitimate, but in many places these properties are exempt from property taxes.

[MissAmericanPie]

There is a scripture that says, "That man of sin shall not be revealed until there be a great falling away from the church". I always assumed that reason would be at some point people would no longer believe in God, but could it be because many people no longer believe in organized religion and the great buildings they erect? People are not being fed there spiritually. In fact they are anorexic.

I attend very few churches, unless I hear there is going to be some great speaker and I become curious. One I attended in Dallas rivaled any palace I have ever seen on television. As I ascended one side of the double curving marble staircase's, I noticed the worn and pitiful shoes on the feet of the crowd ahead of me on the stairs who had paid for all this, and this was only one of the many palace Churches across the nation of this tv congregation.

It made me feel bad for the flock, they were obviously poor and in need and not cared for. I left halfway through the speech because it was impossible to hear the speaker because of the tongue talking lady sitting in front of me knitting and rattling her head as her husband amened the few times she paused to intake more breath.

More people who are starved for the Word in large institutional churches are finding that there is a feast in the scriptures that can feed a person spiritually their entire lifetime. Perhaps the home church is the answer, but I can see them being more easily picked off by agenda 21. When we received our Agenda 21 packet; hand delivered to doors all over our city, one of the complaints citizens could lodge with the city was too much traffic going through their neighborhoods from people driving down neigborhood streets on their way to church, and home church attenders taking up too much curb side parking with their cars when believers attend home churches.