Table #2 Mega church or no larger than home church?

[PackerBacker]

Add converts to make a mega church or start a new church when the house is outgrown?

I checked out the second topic above at the link LP gave. The verses given did not really prove a point to me. Yes it is true that some groups today strive on being bigger and better and it is also true that the early church mostly met in homes without a mega church mentality. I just don’t think the scriptures used at that link made a convincing case that they broke up into a new church every time a house was overgrown. Maybe but maybe not.

Here is the link LP posted on this topic

http://www.solidrock.net/publications/anderson/charts/nt.traditional.chart.html

 

[Lorelei]

Packer,

I agree, the chart says:

When the number of believers outgrew a home, a new church was formed.
(Rom.16:3-5; 14-15; Acts 2:41-47)

The verses in Romans just say that there were people who met in those homes and in Acts it says they broke bread together in thier homes, but that "Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. How does this prove we should be in a home and not the church?

In the verses listed in Acts it says "and about three thousand were added to their number that day."and that "All the believers were together and had everything in common.", never does it say they split up when these numbers were added. Where did they get that idea???

~Lorelei

 

[Optional]

Lorelei beat me to the punch again. I meant to point out in the other thread that they were meeting in the temple courts.
I too believe this was a real stretch on the table's 2nd category.

 

[PackerBacker]

Think we agree on our opinions of #2. Time to check out #3 on that table.

 

[rlvaughn]

I think the general concept that No. 2 tries to address is correct. The New Testament era churches had no idea of an ever-growing bigger and bigger assembly as we often see today. Often churches become not outward reaching, but consumed with the idea of building their church. Why else would we run across churches that are jealous of their territory?

Nevertheless, the scriptures given do not go too far in supporting the concept given. And I also feel that No. 2 and No. 3 are somewhat contradictory - in number two the largest concept of the church seems to be the house gathering, but in No. 3 the largest concept of the church seems to be all the believers in a city.

 

[javalady]

We've met the man who made this table of comparisons; and visited his "house church" once.
It is a blasphemous mockery of Christian worship, Biblical instruction, the Lord's Supper and everything that true believers hold dear.
There is no discipline in the church.
1. The time of singing was like "Sing along with Mitch"--a collection of choruses (some which could be sung worshipfully, if the group were encouraged to do so; others were pure fluff). Everyone was free to pick a song, spontaneously. Two or three times someone said, "Let's sing this!" and no one knew it well enough to sing it through. So it went in circles for a few minutes at a time, then died. Real spirit of worship!
2. No true prayer. No intercession for others. No time of praise & worship. When reminded of the Scriptures that exhort about prayer (the Lord's prayer, 1 Tim. 2:1-3, etc.) their response was negative. They want prayer to be spontaneous; they don't want it to be "rote"!
3. He doesn't believe the Word has to be presented in teaching/preaching at every meeting. He feels that "the Word" is presented through people's understanding of what is true, the songs, etc. What is denied is the fact that the Word sanctifies, and is needed for the maturity of the Body. To take such a light approach is to circumvent maturity & invite heresy and sin; which is the case in those who attend there.
4. The Lord's Supper is not a time of reflection on the death and resurrection of Christ (and the meaning of that), or reflecting on our own lives to make sure we should partake, but a munching together--all people there, all ages, whether saved or not--of bread & juice. They've done it with their meal as another course (like lasagna), or partaken before/after the shared meal, but with very little observance as to it's Biblical intent. In fact, they teach that the way the Lord's Supper is handled traditionally is (their term now) "The Lord's Snack"; and they continue to mock the rest.
I could add more. I will just warn that this is a growing movement--promoted by people who have rejected the truth that life & worship is to be Christ-centered and Bible-established. Their whole reason for getting together is "for fellowship"; not to worship!
It's scarey, because it appeals to the many who have been burned by churches & aren't sure where to go. It draws the immature and the rebellious; and it legitimizes irreverence and flippancy.

 

[Optional]

javalady,
Thanks for this interesting tidbit. This was my main reason for arguing so vehemenently with LP about this "open church" concept. Bad theology would be rife. Also, the dishonesty of the table we are looking at got me going.