Tuesday, May 16, 2006

Church Buildings or House-Churches?

Church Buildings or House-Churches?

Excellent article advocating church meetings in homes.

5 comments:

pecheur said...

Ironic that the site has a church building in the top left corner.

But as far as arguements for a house church, not bad.

Right now, I believe "house" type churches (cell, organic and a host of others) are the latest fad of the Western Church.

And for the record, I am not against house church models. My problem is if (as in the case with Rad Zdero and Wolfgang Simspon) one states that a "house" church model is God's prefered way of doing "church."

God has blessed both and will continue to bless both (which Zdero has said). But a house church does not make the church more of a church than a "traditional" model of church.

Most of this is reacting to the "mega" church and the celeb pastor churches (usually one in the same). There are just as many problems with a house church model as there are with a traditonal church model.

Too bad I have taken down my post about this and the conversation I had with Rad Zdero himself.

Dyspraxic Fundamentalist said...

I do not think the palce of meeting is a major issue in ecclesiology, but I think house churches have many advantages over public buildings.

God Bless

Matthew

pecheur said...

And right they do.

H K Flynn said...

Would you say cell groups meeting in homes have some of the positives of the house churches, or is they not relevant to this issue, Matthew?

Dyspraxic Fundamentalist said...

Jodie, those meetings can be very helpful.

However, when a church has a building, regardless of the home fellowship meetings during the week, the building becomes the centre of gravity.

I think at the end of the day, a decision has to be made whether the main meeting should take place in homes or in a public building. It is really one or the other.

Every Blessing in Christ

Matthew