Agora Messageboard now functions as a quorum. Please click
to join as a member. We want to hear from you... A query that needs an answer,
a word to uplift the people, a statement of concern that needs prayer, a cry
for help...
God bless you...
Previous Messageboard have been archived.
On "house of God" 
church in Jurong West vicinity 
City Harvest (Liz R.)
Sorry, City Harvest is not Traditional Church, Lolz...eom (Emmanuel)
The true City (Ivan)
Impressive (RTC)
What great feats of men to turn the wasteland into a holy masterpiece sanctuary of God! (Ivan)
Reasons??? (RTC)
I believe every building of a new church is a testimony of the members' faith in a great God (Ivan)
I can see that, but can you see this? (RTC)
In times like these (Ivan)
Living in the Old? (RTC)
The Old and the New (Ivan)
reply (RTC)
I am... (Ivan)
What about my questions? (RTC)
I try... (Ivan)
Place of worship???? (RTC)
I think... (Ivan)
It is heartening.... (Ivan)
Best of both worlds?? (RTC)
RTC: Return To Christ (Ivan)
Already have (RTC)
|
YOU++What do you mean?
ME: No where in the Bible are we commanded to stick to the old pattern of doing church ie, house church. But we are commanded to follow the pattern and model of good deeds and works. The verse you quoted in 1 Cor 14:26 does not command meeting in house church; it can also be applied to home cell. I think Keith has answered your question in his posting. YOU++Firstly, I take it to mean that you believe that the hierarchy and institutionalism seen in today’s church is ordained by God. And therefore anyone who raises a hand to question the structure is actually questioning God. Now I ask you, can you give a solid biblical basis for what you believe? From where did you learn that God has ordained and set in place the hierarchy and institutionalism of the church? Secondly, I know that God has put secular authority in place as a tool of justice and that we are to submit to it, as far as it is consistent with God’s revelation. But am I questioning secular authority in this forum? Or are you equating church authority with secular/civil authority? What is it? ME: Why must you think in terms of such terms "hierarchy and institutionalism" when we talk about the God-ordained leadership or authority. The authority of church leaders are delegated from God (Mt 28:18) and the Bible has a lot to say about how to relate to leaders and the conduct of leaders and members. What I am saying is that in any establishment whether secular or spiritual, there is in place one form of authority or another depending on the settings and requirements for eg teachers and students, principals and teachers, disciplemakers and disciples, coaches and trainees, employers and employees, sales managers and sales representatives, etc. According to you the "h and i" seems to be derogatory terms or shall we call it "structure and establishment" which has more positive connotations. YOU++It’s amazing how much misrepresentation you can do of your opponent’s position. Since when did I fail to admit that the home is a building? A home is a place of residence. Someone lives there. It is not owned by the church, but by the host whose house is being used. The house is not specially funded, not decorated, nor labeled church, nor seen as a sanctuary where you come to meet God. I am doing something that is as consistent with NT practices as it goes. What about you? I am speaking against church building as an edifice that is specially funded, constructed, and maintained to be a place of worship, something integral to the expression of church life today, something that is unheard of in the NT. ME: Again you seem to be offended by the word buiding whether referring to church or home. We can call it "house of God" which is more amicable and above all, Biblical. Hey, don't be so naive, any property on earth comes with a price whether a church building or a house church. So, is it justifiable now to have a glorious "house of God?" where we can corporately worship God or at home cell in small groups to experience 1 Cor 14:26. Isn't this biblical? YOU++Let me say outrightly then. It is unbiblical and inconsistent with the NT to have a building dedicated for the sole purpose of worshipping God. It is not wrong to worship God. Neither is it wrong to worship God in a building. But it is unbiblical practice to worship in a place called a church building. Maybe I should clarify what I mean. Those who meet as house churches do come together at times for some intended purposes. We can meet by the park or the beach if we choose to. If there’s someone who has free access to a big place where we can meet, we’ll do that. Barring that, we can rent a place for such a gathering. The expenses will be shared by everyone, or even someone may decide to foot the bill. But what we don’t do or advocate is to get people to pledge money to specially consecrate that place as the sanctuary. We are not against buildings per se. We are against the practice of specially funding, constructing and maintaining buildings for the sole purposes of regularly hosting hundreds of believers weekly for services that are void of mutual participation and fosters a “church is a place I go to” mentality. It siphons off large financial resources that could be channeled to biblical uses, and a church building can hardly qualify as a biblical asset! A church building may host 13,000 people in one seating well and give people a good time of singing pre-planned songs and hearing a well-crafted sermon. But when it comes down to mutual participation as that spoken by Paul in 1 Cor 14:26, it fails miserably. ME: Look at my reply above. We agree to call it "house of God" and have corporate worship which is biblical now. Can we agree? So, now you have outgrown your house church and you want to look for a big place to do church. You may start to rent which is a recurring cost or you build your own "house of God" which is more practical in the long run. And Apostle Paul also taught us how to do public worship in 1 Cor 14:19,23 where the unbelievers may walk in to check it out. And I am sure that Paul is not talking about house church here which is not open to the public. You also still covering the old grounds re the use of money for building the "house of God"; you are as stuck to your old position which I hope is not on quicksand. Please shout if you need help! When you are lost in worship of His Majesty and when you hear an anointed sermon, you will not make such unthinking remarks. You can still live out 1 Cor 14:26 at home cell. YOU++I am not against seminaries, nurseries, or other such efforts. Seminaries have produced many fine godly people and I have enjoyed the fruits of their labour as I read their books. But it should be noted that many faithful men and women of God reached depths of Christ few have experienced without ever stepping into a theological seminary. Church leaders are born and bred from the soil of experiential church life, not made through a seminary stint. Seminaries are good for giving one academic knowledge, but they are not the training ground for church life. In fact, as hierarchical institutions themselves, they tend to breed institutional church life also. Moreover, seminaries have also served to cement some unbiblical notions, key of which is the clergy-laity distinction. ME: Application is a central part to make knowledge of the Bible comes alive. Seminaries are establishments set up to teach and impart knowledge. However, good seminaries are those who will supervise the application process by the students to experience the reality of the riches of God's Word in one's life or church life. Right teaching will also breed right application of God's Word which will help one to see not only the clergy-laity misconception but also following spiritual principles and not the letter of early church practices. YOU++Why should I carry it further as you allege? There is no biblical reason for me doing that. Perhaps if you can show me Scriptures that depict the believers in Acts always going to the Jordan river to be baptised, regardless of where they first heard the Gospel, then I may consider advocating that. As for Holy Communion, I do not question the use of bread, but I question the Holy Communion today as one that is more like a holy snack. The Lord’s Supper was always held in a context of an ordinary meal, where believers sat together to eat and fellowship. It was a time of joyous feasting and sharing, unlike today where it is nothing more than a I-can’t-wait-for-it-to-be-over-with-so-I-can-hear-the-sermon ritual with sombered-faces. ME: That means you are still OK and I sincerely hope that it will not degenerate into something undesirable. I think you have to hold your horses here re the remarks on Holy Communion which is uncalled for. Knowing the significance and the seriousness of the Holy Communion is paramount as this is a time of remembrance of the Lord's death till He comes and is only for believers only. I don't know whether you will be shouting for joy when it is the last meal. We should be thankful and express gratitude to the Lord Jesus for His death at the cross that we can receive the inheritance of saints. YOU++Yet the institutional church setting is the very thing that encourages the clergy and laity distinction! You cannot effectively teach the solution which itself is the problem! The environment itself breeds such dichotomy. All the right teaching will not change anything when you are on the wrong soil. You can correct all you want about clergy and laity but until you leave that environment, you will always be talking about it, but fall short of living it out. You don’t just change the language (though it is important), you have to start from a totally different ground. The clergy-laity distinction is written into the very core of the institution church itself. You can’t change one without the other. ME: Let's agree then to call it the "house of God" which is biblical and not be hemmed in by the term "institutional." The key to solving the problem is through right teaching and prayer that the heart will be the fertile soil for the planting of God's Word which will produce 100-fold. We can change the environment with prayer and right teaching of God's Word for the removal of the clergy-laity distinction. If you use the right language as in "house of God", then change is inevitable and expected. YOU++You appear to have noted the problems (denominations, division, church life) but your solutions do not solve them at the root. You would only appear to have unity but it will only be holding hands over fences, fences that are dug deep over petty doctrines and distinct church practices which do not form the basis for accepting one another in Christ. Church life is not solved by opening up more time for testimonies or allowing another 10 minutes for “ministry time” in Sunday services when it is the Sunday service itself that inhibits church life. Cell groups have only limited impact when it is patterned like a mini-service, led by a designated leader, who decides beforehand the agenda. In many cell groups, the meetings are but an extension of the pastor’s personality and ministry, especially when the cell leader discusses the pastor’s sermon or reinforces the pastor’s vision for the church. If people are honest, most church life takes place outside of these settings, not in them. ME: The solution is in knowing who the Agent of change in our lives and also church life, worshipping His Majesty individually in a corporate setting or at home cell level to experience 1 Cor 14:26 and body ministry in a small group setting. It is not by human might, nor human power but by the Spirit of the living God who is the Agent of change.
|
to:
Messages
Outline:
No house of God by RTC, 2002, Jan 03
to:
Back to Antioch's Home Page