Simple Church

Maybe and maybe not, but a simple Church should be a Church where sinners, form a church with the simplicity of the worship, Gospel, and not take on any extra baggage. It is a better rule for the service to our LORD and MASTER. "And peace."

 

It appears to be propaganda from the heretical house church movement.

 

Acutally it is a book by Thom Rainer. And, it's not about the house movement. It's a study of churches that keep it real and keep it simple.

 

Depends on what you are talking about...

It could be talking about the New Testament model of house church ministry. I say it is New Testament because in the New Testament there are only house churches. There were no steeples during their era. The idea of a "simple church" comes from the idea that church should be simple, nothing elaborate or ostintacious. The meetings should be family centered and conversational. Nothing wrong with this.

Another view is Dr. Thom Rainer's book of the same name. The essential idea about the book is that many significant churches that are doing dynamic ministry to connect people with Jesus Christ have a "clear and simple pathway to discipleship." I'm a big fan. One of big ideas is that these simple churches are not suggesting that movement from one program to the next equates to spiritual growth.

Maybe you can clarify. That could help the conversation.

 

I read the book about 2 years ago and highly recommend it.

 

Great book. Very practical.

 

How is the house church movement heretical?

 

I think it depends on which one you are talking about.

One of these is from that radio guy (I always forget his name although one time I met him) who announced a few years ago that the church age is over and now people must meet in homes. Prior to that, in the early 90s, he made a prediction that Jesus would return in '94. This guy still owns and runs a huge radio network, Family Radio.

There is another house church movement now that seems supported by Barna.

Here's my issue as a missionary. How do I get support from believers when there are only a small group of them meeting in house scattered all over the place? Will they even support missionaries? Are there pastors? If so, how are they accountable?

I think with little or no accountability and little or no exposure to other believers, such movements today could easily become cultish.

 

Its hard to call something heretical that is evidenced in the New Testament as the way the Church et al existed for its first four centuries. It gets even harder when many of our brothers and sisters in Christ across the world practice it and are rigorously oppressed (not this mamby-pamby "persecution complex" North American evangelicals have) for confessing Christ.

If anything we're going to see more house (or simple) churhes emerge over the next fifty years as Christianity (particularly evangelical Christianity) realizes its decentralized roots and returns to the community to live and preach.

 

I was thinking of specific house movements here, not in countries where Christians are persecuted and cannot be open with their faith.

I don't hold much hope for Christians getting back to preaching the gospel, when all I've seen since becoming a believer is the gospel being watered down and a lot of false teachings coming into the church. I think things will get worse, not better.

 

Some of the house church movement is based on a rejection of spiritual authority and a spiritual elitism that "no one is doing it right so we will do it ourselves"

In and of itself, it is not heretical. It can become cultlike in some cases.

The book is about deprogramming the church and getting back to simple stuff.

 

The NT churches were not a cottage industry. Yes, many had meetings on roof tops, in open fields and gardens and wherever they could assemble.

The model NT church was in Jerusalem. It was organized, had pastors and deacons and answered to God. They had regular preaching services, prayer meetings and evangelization. This is the NT model church.

This is the one church that God will bless. We get the same models in Peter's and Paul's writings. Meeting on a rooftop was an extra meeting, Bible study or evangelization, and not a separate entity.

The NT church is to unite in Christ, not divide.

We used home meetings years ago simply to get a local church started and not as a continuance in church ministry.

Cheers,

Jim

 

The house church movement as pushed by George Barna is heretical in that as PL said it is based on rebellion against biblical authority. Add to that it demonizes gospel preaching and promotes conversational conclusions of scripture as the only way to understand it. Some save the use of the word heretical to only apply it to a deviation from foundations of the faith. That doesn't actually meet the definition. Holding services in a house is just geography and has no real significance. Doing things in a much simpler way and moving from every program that comes down the pike annually is beneficial. Rebelling against God ordained leadership and practices is heretical.

 

The house church movement is much bigger than Barna though.

 

I am talking about that specific one. Not that is is about Barna. Of course all of his polling isn't so simple.

 

Then you need to say that. When you talk about "the heretical house church movement," there is no indication that you are not speaking of all house churches. The majority of people would not associate Barna with house churches.

 

Most people who knows anything about the "movement" does.

 

Watching closely as this thread is being hijacked.

What about the OP question? Anyone who has read "Simple Church" have anything to say?

 

The op did not specify what "simple church" applied to. There is a book and there is an organization tied to the house church movement. There is no highjacking going on.