MORE INFORMATION ON THE MODERN-DAY CHURCH

[Buff Scott Jr.]

More On The Modern-Day Church​

One of my readers asked, “Some time ago, you indicated that it’s wrong to meet inside church buildings. Where do you meet? Do you meet in some structure?”

I have never indicated it is wrong to meet in some structure. I have said that our church structures are monuments that testify of our idolatry. A few readers—somehow—understood me as being opposed to meeting in any structure. The issue is not whether it’s right or wrong to meet somewhere. That is not what I addressed. The issue is whether or not we have built church structures and edifices and set them apart—sanctified them—as holy articles or entities. I say we have. If I’m correct, we are as guilty of idolatry as were the children of Israel who erected Asherah poles as symbols of worship. God told Israel in no uncertain terms, “Do not make idols or set up an image or a sacred stone for yourselves, and do not place a carved [consecrated] stone in your land to bow down before it” (Lev. 26:1).

Protestants and Catholics have done just that! Catholics have not only set up “consecrated stones” in the form of church structures, but they have made idols and images and bow down to them. Protestants, on the other hand, have set up their elaborate edifices and crosses and view them as sanctuaries and revered designs. Oh, there may be a few exceptions, but the rule seems to be universal. There’s an old maxim, “Our heart is where our money is.” If we will but consider the hundreds of thousands of dollars—yea, even millions—that are spent on church structures, designs, religious inventions, and edifices, and compare that amount to the few dollars we spend on seeking and saving the lost and feeding the genuinely poor, we don’t need a professor to locate our hearts. If this isn’t idolatry, I’ve lost my ability to reason.

We fail to see that God no longer “lives in temples built by [human] hands” (Acts 17:24). His only sanctuary today is the believer’s heart (1 Cor. 3:16). But try telling this to the average pew-warmer. He views his church edifice and its “sanctuary” as holy places and feels that he must go there in order to worship and make contact with his God. However, his “sanctuary” is no holier than the building’s toilets.

I'm a big supporter of house meetings. Another questioner asked, “Suppose the house meeting becomes too small to accommodate everyone?”

That would be an ideal time to start another house meeting. Apparently, the early believers used the same method. Each house meeting would be set up and organized in the same manner as the first group, with leaders who encourage mutual participation. It would not be an ideal time to build a “church structure.” The early believers did not build and own “church houses” and fancy edifices. They met in each other’s homes and in public places. Church buildings were not built until some time around the second century. They have become monuments to our failures. Jesus said to get out and go, but we have moved in to stay. We seem to want to do the opposite of what our Master instructed.​

 

[Josheb]

More On The Modern-Day Church​

One of my readers asked, “Some time ago, you indicated that it’s wrong to meet inside church buildings. Where do you meet? Do you meet in some structure?”

I have never indicated it is wrong to meet in some structure. I have said that our church structures are monuments that testify of our idolatry. A few readers—somehow—understood me as being opposed to meeting in any structure.​

No gaslighting, please.

Had the forum members read, "some of our church structures are monuments that testify to our idolatry," or "some of our church structures have been made into monuments of our idolatry," or "any church structure can be made into a testimony of idolatry," or any number of qualifying statements then the point would have been better understood as qualified, but the fact is the statement as written is utterly devoid of any qualification and reads as a wholesale indictment of all Christians and all "church structures," whatever they might be (but who knows because this was not described).

Readers understood what was written and asked about it. The opportunity to clarify and discuss the statement availed itself.

The issue is not whether it’s right or wrong to meet somewhere. That is not what I addressed. The issue is whether or not we have built church structures and edifices and set them apart—sanctified them—as holy articles or entities. I say we have. If I’m correct, we are as guilty of idolatry as were the children of Israel who erected Asherah poles as symbols of worship. God told Israel in no uncertain terms, “Do not make idols or set up an image or a sacred stone for yourselves, and do not place a carved [consecrated] stone in your land to bow down before it” (Lev. 26:1).​

That might be true if the edifices were set aside as holy articles for some other God but there is absolutely no evidence in the original op or this one that is the case. Wherever it is thought to be the case then evidential proof should be posted.

Protestants and Catholics have done just that! Catholics have not only set up “consecrated stones” in the form of church structures, but they have made idols and images and bow down to them. Protestants, on the other hand, have set up their elaborate edifices and crosses and view them as sanctuaries and revered designs. Oh, there may be a few exceptions, but the rule seems to be universal. There’s an old maxim, “Our heart is where our money is.” If we will but consider the hundreds of thousands of dollars—yea, even millions—that are spent on church structures, designs, religious inventions, and edifices, and compare that amount to the few dollars we spend on seeking and saving the lost and feeding the genuinely poor, we don’t need a professor to locate our hearts. If this isn’t idolatry, I’ve lost my ability to reason.​

Accuser of the brethren.



Words matter.

 

[Josheb]

We fail to see that God no longer “lives in temples built by [human] hands” (Acts 17:24).​

Please speak for yourself about yourself and do not presume to speak for others.

I, for one, am fully cognizant God does not live in houses built by human hands and often post the verses that state that truth.

His only sanctuary today is the believer’s heart (1 Cor. 3:16).​

And there you are wrong. God has many "sanctuaries." It is inappropriate to use the word "only." It's also questionable to use the word "sanctuary" here because the term hasn't been defined. Do you mean "sanctuary" in the sense of the "church structure," the area in a building in front of the altar where worship takes place? If so then you've abused the term and contradicted yourself. We enter the sanctuary of God, not God entering us as a place where He worships before our altar. If the church structures are idolatrous and the sanctuary is a church structure, then the sanctuary is just as idolatrous as any other structure of the church. If, on the other hand, you mean "sanctuary" in the sense of safety and/or refuge the, again, the term is being abused when it is claimed God finds sanctuary in the sinner's human heart. God does not need or seek safety or refuge.

Really dumb thing to post.

Words matter.

But try telling this to the average pew-warmer.​

Hmmm...

Is that intended to imply we're "average pew-warmers"? We are, after all, the ones who have questions about the earlier op. Or perhaps we are to understand you place yourself above the average pew-warmer and do so in a manner in which you are their judge..... someone who judges without evidence...... and we're supposed to accept that judgment as is.

Words matter.

He views his church edifice and its “sanctuary” as holy places and feels that he must go there in order to worship and make contact with his God. However, his “sanctuary” is no holier than the building’s toilets.​

Prove it.

I'm a big supporter of house meetings.​

Ahhhh....

So this is really a disingenuous apologetic espousing house meetings instead of larger gatherings. I'm guessing you read something like Frank Viola's and George Barna's "Pagan Christianity," believed them, and think we need to know something we don't already know.

Lies of omission are still lies.

Words matter.

Another questioner asked, “Suppose the house meeting becomes too small to accommodate everyone?”
​

Why is that a question? Where is the proof that question is a thing?

That would be an ideal time to start another house meeting.​

In your opinion. In your opinion based on the biased house-church model; the model you kept hidden from the reader in the first op.

Apparently, the early believers used the same method. Each house meeting would be set up and organized in the same manner as the first group, with leaders who encourage mutual participation. It would not be an ideal time to build a “church structure.” The early believers did not build and own “church houses” and fancy edifices. They met in each other’s homes and in public places. Church buildings were not built until some time around the second century. They have become monuments to our failures. Jesus said to get out and go, but we have moved in to stay. We seem to want to do the opposite of what our Master instructed.​

There are reasons why they did what they did and there is absolutely nothing in the Bible requiring meeting in believer's homes. It is a historical fact the first large space built for large gatherings of Christian fellowship, worship, and service was built during the lifetime of Timothy, Clement, Polycarp and Ignatius - men directly taught and trained by the apostles - and none of them ever considered a single large gathering or a building built for that purpose ungodly or unscriptural.

You're also digressing.


Your entire argument, the entire justification of the house church model (a model with which I, personally, have no particular problem) is built on the stated, Church indicting, godless falsehood church structures are idolatrous. Instead of writing another op to clarify your position and justify the judging of others.....


How about first proving church structures are idolatrous?


Choose your words wisely, lest you continue to prove yourself the one in need of change.

 

[Buff Scott Jr.]

No gaslighting, please.

Had the forum members read, "some of our church structures are monuments that testify to our idolatry," or "some of our church structures have been made into monuments of our idolatry," or "any church structure can be made into a testimony of idolatry," or any number of qualifying statements then the point would have been better understood as qualified, but the fact is the statement as written is utterly devoid of any qualification and reads as a wholesale indictment of all Christians and all "church structures," whatever they might be (but who knows because this was not described).

Readers understood what was written and asked about it. The opportunity to clarify and discuss the statement availed itself.

That might be true if the edifices were set aside as holy articles for some other God but there is absolutely no evidence in the original op or this one that is the case. Wherever it is thought to be the case then evidential proof should be posted.

Accuser of the brethren.



Words matter.

Blah. blah, blah—persistent Commercials are always boring.

 

[Buff Scott Jr.]

Please speak for yourself about yourself and do not presume to speak for others.

I, for one, am fully cognizant God does not live in houses built by human hands and often post the verses that state that truth.

And there you are wrong. God has many "sanctuaries." It is inappropriate to use the word "only." It's also questionable to use the word "sanctuary" here because the term hasn't been defined. Do you mean "sanctuary" in the sense of the "church structure," the area in a building in front of the altar where worship takes place? If so then you've abused the term and contradicted yourself. We enter the sanctuary of God, not God entering us as a place where He worships before our altar. If the church structures are idolatrous and the sanctuary is a church structure, then the sanctuary is just as idolatrous as any other structure of the church. If, on the other hand, you mean "sanctuary" in the sense of safety and/or refuge the, again, the term is being abused when it is claimed God finds sanctuary in the sinner's human heart. God does not need or seek safety or refuge.

Really dumb thing to post.

Words matter.

Hmmm...

Is that intended to imply we're "average pew-warmers"? We are, after all, the ones who have questions about the earlier op. Or perhaps we are to understand you place yourself above the average pew-warmer and do so in a manner in which you are their judge..... someone who judges without evidence...... and we're supposed to accept that judgment as is.

Words matter.

Prove it.

Ahhhh....

So this is really a disingenuous apologetic espousing house meetings instead of larger gatherings. I'm guessing you read something like Frank Viola's and George Barna's "Pagan Christianity," believed them, and think we need to know something we don't already know.

Lies of omission are still lies.

Words matter.

Why is that a question? Where is the proof that question is a thing?

In your opinion. In your opinion based on the biased house-church model; the model you kept hidden from the reader in the first op.

There are reasons why they did what they did and there is absolutely nothing in the Bible requiring meeting in believer's homes. It is a historical fact the first large space built for large gatherings of Christian fellowship, worship, and service was built during the lifetime of Timothy, Clement, Polycarp and Ignatius - men directly taught and trained by the apostles - and none of them ever considered a single large gathering or a building built for that purpose ungodly or unscriptural.

You're also digressing.


Your entire argument, the entire justification of the house church model (a model with which I, personally, have no particular problem) is built on the stated, Church indicting, godless falsehood church structures are idolatrous. Instead of writing another op to clarify your position and justify the judging of others.....


How about first proving church structures are idolatrous?


Choose your words wisely, lest you continue to prove yourself the one in need of change.

Blah. blah, blah—persistent Commercials are always boring.

 

[Buff Scott Jr.]

Additional Thoughts on The
Modern-day Church
​

Recently, I heard about a group of believers in Wisconsin that’s spending six million dollars to build a church building. About the same time, I received news from Florida that another group there had spent thirty-six million dollars on a church edifice.

These believers who are squandering millions of dollars to construct idols in the form of church edifices will need to give an account to the Lord for their wasteful and profane extravagance. Their story has been repeated over and over for centuries by those who have “come in to stay,” even though Jesus said to “get out and go.”

Just ponder for a moment how many genuinely destitute people could be fed and clothed, and how many authentic evangelists who are willing to herald the Good News to the unregenerate full-time could be adequately supported if these believers were to abandon their idolatrous church projects and scatter throughout their neighborhoods and start house meetings?

All of them together could still pool their contributions into one fund for the purposes mentioned above, or they could support these endeavors individually. Their “pulpit ministers” and “youth pastors” would be forced to find jobs and go to work or transform their gifts into full-time evangelism.

In house meetings, there is no need for district or diocese “Bishops” and/or “Clerics” to supervise the various groups. Their ecclesiastical positions would be as useless as Milk of Magnesia in a washing machine, for each house meeting would be autonomous and select its own qualified leaders. Outside “parish” leaders would be an infraction upon heaven’s blueprint.

When will we ever realize that our church idols speak of our idolatry as much as the idols contrived by old Israel? In spite of the fact that God clearly warned them against making idols and revering them as something sacred, they built them nonetheless and bowed down to them. God told them in no uncertain terms, “You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them” (Exodus 20:4-5).

[Hopefully, more later.]​

 

[Josheb]

Blah. blah, blah—persistent Commercials are always boring.

Blah. blah, blah—persistent Commercials are always boring.

And appeals to ridicule are fallacious, fleshly, and ungodly.


The facts in evidence remain:

1. These two ops are an undisclosed appeal promoting the house church model, and had that been openly asserted we could be discussing the veracity and efficacy of that model.
2. These ops make over-generalized statements that are decidedly judgmental and there is no evidence provided to prove the accusations.
3. The entire case for the house church model is built on a false premise, namely church structures are idolatrous.
4. Many posters asked very valid questions and few of them were answered.
5. The op could have been clarified, amended, or completely restated at any time (none of us would complain about that) and that never happened.
6. A lie of omission is still a lie. Since these two ops were posted with the unstated intent to promote the house church model and that model was not asserted in a forthcoming manner it is fair and just to call what has happened a lie, and not a mere falsehood or mistake. Lies occur when a person knowingly either withholds the truth for the sake of deceit or asserts a falsehood with an intent to deceive.
7. We could be discussing the house church model (I might even join you in limited manner doing so).
8. "Blah, blah, blah....." is not a cogent response to the first seven bullet points. Post 4 could read, "Yes, it is my intent in this op to promote the house church model. Here is why I believe it to be...................." but that is not what happened. Instead, a deliberate choice was made to post the god-forsaken blah blah blah. That kind of response undermines the already sloppily-presented effort to promote house churches.
9. An apologetic for the house church model can be presented without every criticizing, judging, indicting, or otherwise marginalizing other Christians or other models, and on the occasion a criticism is posted it's always best to provide some scriptural justification and some evidence supporting the criticism as valid.

The next post should speak solely to the topic of the house church model..... and nothing more.


Here, I'll even help. In a house church model like the one espoused by Viola and Barna, small groups offer the opportunity for more intimate and personal relationships to develop with both God and the congregants. Not relying on a single individual to have sole or predominant responsibility for everyone's spiritual growth, each member of the gathering can contribute to the worship service as the Spirit guides them and enables them, each member contributing their already existing God-given gifts in a more direct manner. Many, if not all, of the accouterments of larger, institutional, liturgically structured services, such as the stage, the clerical garments, lecterns, or podiums, audio-visual systems, etc. Money can be saved on all of those things, many of which were borrowed from either Judaic practices or Roman ones.


So, you see, Buff, I am not the enemy.

There are also some very real problems with the house church model, and the way that model is often promoted. I, for one, could have a polite and respectful, reasonable and rational, cogent and coherent scripture-laden conversation about the pros and cons of the house church model and I fully believe EVERYONE in the previous thread can do the same if given the opportunity to do so.



The next post should speak solely to the topic of the house church model..... and nothing more.

 

[Josheb]

Additional Thoughts on The
Modern-day Church
​

Recently, I heard about a group of believers in Wisconsin that’s spending six million dollars to build a church building. About the same time, I received news from Florida that another group there had spent thirty-six million dollars on a church edifice.

These believers who are squandering millions of dollars to construct idols in the form of church edifices will need to give an account to the Lord for their wasteful and profane extravagance. Their story has been repeated over and over for centuries by those who have “come in to stay,” even though Jesus said to “get out and go.”

Just ponder for a moment how many genuinely destitute people could be fed and clothed, and how many authentic evangelists who are willing to herald the Good News to the unregenerate full-time could be adequately supported if these believers were to abandon their idolatrous church projects and scatter throughout their neighborhoods and start house meetings?

All of them together could still pool their contributions into one fund for the purposes mentioned above, or they could support these endeavors individually. Their “pulpit ministers” and “youth pastors” would be forced to find jobs and go to work or transform their gifts into full-time evangelism.

In house meetings, there is no need for district or diocese “Bishops” and/or “Clerics” to supervise the various groups. Their ecclesiastical positions would be as useless as Milk of Magnesia in a washing machine, for each house meeting would be autonomous and select its own qualified leaders. Outside “parish” leaders would be an infraction upon heaven’s blueprint.

When will we ever realize that our church idols speak of our idolatry as much as the idols contrived by old Israel? In spite of the fact that God clearly warned them against making idols and revering them as something sacred, they built them nonetheless and bowed down to them. God told them in no uncertain terms, “You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them” (Exodus 20:4-5).

[Hopefully, more later.]​

What does any of that have to do with promoting house churches?

 

[Buff Scott Jr.]

Let Me Add The Following On The
Topic At Hand

Question​

“I would love to be part of a house church. My husband suggests that for us to start one would take more energy than we have. We are in our 70s and are care-givers to our daughter. What would you suggest?” [From a reader.]

Starting a house meeting is an easy matter. Tell a few friends, whether believers or unbelievers, you want to start house meetings and invite them. Or talk to a Christian friend and suggest that she/he start one in their home and that you and your husband will participate.

House meetings are not restricted to delving into the scriptures only. Yes, they should be used as a guide and reference tool for specific spiritual and doctrinal matters, but you might wish to take a few minutes in each session to share your good fortunes and problems with one another, just as we might do as a family when we are gathered around the Dining Room table for a delicious meal. But whatever arrangement you mutually develop and decide upon, use Jesus as your Pilot.

I can envision the early believers doing just that. And don’t be concerned about getting “off of the worship track” and onto the “secular treadmill,” for everything we do, in word or in deed, we’re to do it for the glory of God (1 Cor. 10:31 & Col. 3:17). To do something for the glory of God and in His name is worship! That covers the whole life of the committed believer, not just during “worship services”—whatever that is.

The healthiest factor of the house arrangement is that you won’t need a “celebrity” in the likes of a "pulpit minister" to spoonfeed you. All of you will mutually study together and learn together—and without any overhead expenses! This means you may take all monies pooled together, if that should be the group’s decision, and help support authentic evangelism or send it to Food For The Hungry or some similar humanitarian organization whose main function is to feed the genuinely destitute in foreign lands. You will not need a treasury!​

 

[Josheb]

Let Me Add The Following On The
Topic At Hand

Question​

“I would love to be part of a house church. My husband suggests that for us to start one would take more energy than we have. We are in our 70s and are care-givers to our daughter. What would you suggest?” [From a reader.]​

Is your husband wanting to this because it is difficult (or impossible) for the three of you to get to a local gathering (house church or otherwise), or is your husband wanting to host a house church congregation because God has laid it on his heart? If the former, that may not, necessarily, be a bad motive but it is much more circumstantial (and potentially more worldly) than the latter, and it may be a fleshly motive lacking in faith (which would make following through with such a plan sinful). Perhaps you and your husband could consider hosting one of a local congregation's "small/home/cell" groups and otherwise getting to connected to the larger body of believers so they can meet your other needs and you can contribute your gifts to that congregation as God has gifted, enabled, and led you. Perhaps finding a few house churches in the area and seeking their counsel would help in making the decision.

Starting a house meeting is an easy matter. Tell a few friends, whether believers or unbelievers, you want to start house meetings and invite them. Or talk to a Christian friend and suggest that she/he start one in their home and that you and your husband will participate.

Yep. It could be that easy.

House meetings are not restricted to delving into the scriptures only. Yes, they should be used as a guide and reference tool for specific spiritual and doctrinal matters, but you might wish to take a few minutes in each session to share your good fortunes and problems with one another, just as we might do as a family when we are gathered around the Dining Room table for a delicious meal. But whatever arrangement you mutually develop and decide upon, use Jesus as your Pilot.

I can envision the early believers doing just that. And don’t be concerned about getting “off of the worship track” and onto the “secular treadmill,” for everything we do, in word or in deed, we’re to do it for the glory of God (1 Cor. 10:31 & Col. 3:17). To do something for the glory of God and in His name is worship! That covers the whole life of the committed believer, not just during “worship services”—whatever that is.

The healthiest factor of the house arrangement is that you won’t need a “celebrity” in the likes of a "pulpit minister" to spoonfeed you. All of you will mutually study together and learn together—and without any overhead expenses! This means you may take all monies pooled together, if that should be the group’s decision, and help support authentic evangelism or send it to Food For The Hungry or some similar humanitarian organization whose main function is to feed the genuinely destitute in foreign lands. You will not need a treasury!​

All of which has nothing to do with the answer to the question asked. The veracity of a house church was not the question. The efficacy of the house church was not the question. "envisioning" what early believers did was not the question. Neither was getting on and off things, celebrities, administration, or the authenticity of evangelism (???why would evangelism be inauthentic??? if they went a route other than a house church???)

 

[Buff Scott Jr.]

Is your husband wanting to this because it is difficult (or impossible) for the three of you to get to a local gathering (house church or otherwise), or is your husband wanting to host a house church congregation because God has laid it on his heart? If the former, that may not, necessarily, be a bad motive but it is much more circumstantial (and potentially more worldly) than the latter, and it may be a fleshly motive lacking in faith (which would make following through with such a plan sinful). Perhaps you and your husband could consider hosting one of a local congregation's "small/home/cell" groups and otherwise getting to connected to the larger body of believers so they can meet your other needs and you can contribute your gifts to that congregation as God has gifted, enabled, and led you. Perhaps finding a few house churches in the area and seeking their counsel would help in making the decision.

Yep. It could be that easy.

All of which has nothing to do with the answer to the question asked. The veracity of a house church was not the question. The efficacy of the house church was not the question. "envisioning" what early believers did was not the question. Neither was getting on and off things, celebrities, administration, or the authenticity of evangelism (???why would evangelism be inauthentic??? if they went a route other than a house church???)

Extra Thoughts on Churchitis​

To further demonstrate my view that churches/denominations, as such, are not essential to divine deliverance, let us assume a Christian proclaimer journeys into the jungles of Brazil and shares Jesus with the inhabitants. He preaches neither church nor denomination but tells them simply the story of Jesus and nothing more, as evangelist Philip told the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:26-39 two-thousand years ago.

We will suppose that 500 of the inhabitants accept the Good News about Jesus the Messiah, welcome it, believe it, and redirect their lives to coincide with their Messiah's teachings, as did the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:26-39. They are born anew, saved, redeemed, delivered, and now begin their new life.

Tell me, of which church or denomination are they members? Are they Baptists? Are they Methodists? Are they Lutherans? Are they Evangelicals or Roman Catholics? Are they aligned with the a cappella Church of Christ? Are they of the Church of God Sect? How could they be members of any of these religious parties when they are totally unaware of their existence?

If the Lord added them to whatever they needed to be members or citizens of the moment they experienced the new birth, and He did, why join any church? They are already citizens of God’s heavenly colony. They may now meet corporately and praise God collectively, thus enjoying all spiritual benefits derived from their acceptance of Jesus. What more do they need? If God added them to His family, and He did, why should they join any of the numerous churches, none of which are remotely referred to in the scriptures? The Lord does the adding, not man (Acts 2:47).

If these new believers can reach God’s glory-land without joining any church or “placing their membership” with some denomination or hanging some kind of partisan sign over the entrance to their meeting places (their homes or in the open jungle), they can be saved without adopting “mad church disease.” This is why I tell those who inquire about my “religion” or church affiliation, “I don’t have a modern-day religion, and I don’t have a church. I have a relationship with a Man called Jesus.” If our relationship with Him is strong and ongoing, everything will fall into place. But if we do not have that kind of relationship, everything will fall apart.

In closing this post, let me add that although our Lord is not the founder of our moder-day sects/religious parties, nonetheless there are many "church programs" aligned with most churches whose agendas address the diverse needs of their members and others at large. I commend many of those programs/agendas as spiritual helps.

Bye for now.​