I know what you are saying is true, as I wake up late and roll over to hear your message. Then I ask God to bring me safely through surgery in the morning. I ask others to pray for me. I am so undeserving. "Lord, help me, to put you first and be solid. "
Thank you sooo much for this video! I have gone to conventional church for 45 years and wicked and/or incompetent professional preachers. I'm fed up with it. I'd like to learn more about microchurches.
I have been looking for a biblical house church in New Zealand for six years and found one. It is the greatest blessing. Thanks for this encouraging video.
I've just started reading a book called "Pagen Church" (or something similar). It talks about doing a "microchurch" of believers meeting in their homes. I think that's what the apostles did. I am open to hearing what the Holy Spirit is saying to me and at times I feel that I should leave the traditional church.
Many have been influenced by Frank Viola's book "Pagan Christianity." He does have something good to say. But I personally believe that we can embrace the simpler church model without demonizing traditional churches as much as he does. If God does lead you to leave your conventional church setting and explore the simpler model, my counsel is to do it without condemnation. We are all building on the foundation of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 3). God will judge how we build. Sometimes I think people in the housechurch movement become hypercritical of their brothers and sisters who, for whatever reason, remain in fellowship in more conventional churches. Peace to you as you discern.
I have been listening to many like you who speak of "home church" instead of the conventional church. The more I hear from people like you and others, the more I am getting convicted about what a biblical church should be today. Thank you.
To many conventional churches have weakened the doctrine to the point of just being nice to everyone. They don't preach the word of God any more. I get more out of the weekly bible study group, because we are all serious about it. There's often only 8 of us there.
I go to a small parish in a liturgical tradition. There's certainly no "show." The liturgy makes sure of that. Through the liturgy I actively participate with my brothers and sisters in the worship of the Lord Jesus. During the week there are small groups that meet in each other's homes for further reflection on Scripture by reading the lessons appointed for the upcoming Sunday. This prepares us to actually engage with the homily given by our priest. Before the service all ages meet for Bible study. I guess my point is that, if you are going to a church that is a "show" there are other alternatives than a microchurch that give you the best of both worlds.
I was in a small housechurch and it went pearshaped because the leader a so called prophet had issues from childhood and teenage years that were not resolved. The result was awful, control, manipulation and judemental attitudes. I finally left and joined a charasmatic Anglican church with about 50 or so parishoners. It is awesome, there is no show and people are used according to their gifts, but also there is still some structure to the service. This church is smazing, i has a secong hand shop that gives alot of money away to missions and good causes. A church is big enough to carry out missions work. This church also has a youth outreach on friday nights which has sometimes 40 teenagers who attend. Honestly inn the small house church i was in i didnt get to do the things in. God that i am doing now. God bless you guys though, it works for you, but there are also congretations out there that are really good as well.
The title had me going. If you want to be cradle to the grave spiritually infantile and dependent on a self-proclaimed ordained pastor for your spiritual milk, micro church is not the place for you. If you want to remain ever emotionally susceptible to feel good messages instead of growing closer to the Lord, micro church is not the place for you. If you want to go to church as a duty instead of walking in faith as the 1st century Christians did, micro church is not the place for you.
That's all they did in the book of Acts home church every night somewhere it's better than he's mega churches or large churches that have groups to where only certain people are important and other ones are not I've been to several denominational churches several mega churches large churches and I found the best churches are under 50 people cuz everybody knows each other and care about each other
If a traditional churchis biblically sound in its teaching, it helps members to keep true to scripture. Home churches sometimes go askew on one aspect of the gospel, when they don't have some biblically very sound members. And they sometimes exclude less popular members .....and sometimes they think they really are more spiritual than other Christians . I say these horrible things because I have SEEN them over many years. Which means....just remain humble.
@christienodendaal3001 Agreed. A housechurch, like any church, is susceptible to immaturity and false or bad teaching. The caricature would be a "what does this passage mean to YOUUU" meeting where everyone exchanges ignorance. But my experience has been that it's usually not that. As someone who is trained and experienced, I always learn something from the questions of the untrained and inexperienced. Of course, what grounds it is the adherence to scripture. "Let the scriptures say all that they say, and don't make them say anything they don't say." So, while housechurch is certainly susceptible to error, it's also true that too many traditional/conventional churches have bad teaching from a pastor who has positional authority to continue in bad teaching. (And many are good, of course.) But you are right, the housechurches benefit from the oversight of someone with wisdom and maturity, per the pastoral epistles. And yes, humility!
@@simplerfaith good reply to a good comment. Back in the day of the " Jesus movement" home Bible studies were very popular. Usually they were on a weeknight. Many were led by unqualified young guys trying to grow their first beard to look older, and were a disaster
Without meaning to be sarcastic I could say that if a traditional church was biblically sound, it wouldn't be a traditional church - it would be a healthy house church. Then it would be following the biblical model.
Our desire for simplicity coincided with becoming empty nesters. In our network, we have churches with kids and churches without. Honestly, microchurch with kids is more difficult than without. But maybe that's because most of us are used to church programs where other people take care of the kids. In microchurches you can't assign them to others. I was recently with a church where the children are asked to read the scripture ahead of time and come with a question that prompts discussion. Those kids come up with some wonderful questions.
@@alanlatta9379 The danger with the route you describe is that it can lead a group right back to becoming a traditional church (ie. obtaining a building, hiring a pastor, etc.) Not saying you are doing this but many home groups have. In my opinion the better route is start right from the start with the understanding that when the group begins getting too big to fit in a house (30 - 40 people) you split into 2 or 3 smaller groups. You can still meet all together from time to time but most gatherings will be in the smaller more intimate groups. Our group is just now beginning this division process.
@harvestvillage695 While I'm an advocate for simpler church, it's good to not go beyond what is written. Nowhere in the scriptures are we told to keep it small. We're not even told to try and strategically plant or grow churches. It's good to have a strategy and to be wise in it. But it's also good to recognize that the strategy typically includes a response to current culture and conditions, which do change.
Been attending micro church for about 3 years now, involved in worship, but struggling with the lack of accountability of leadership and a spirit of control creeping in. Also a lack of discernment when inviting strangers in who then cause harm to the other attendees. It sometimes feels like a micro cult more than micro church. Am taking a break from it, but am getting questioned about my lack of commitment. I' m not sure what to do going forward.
Thanks for speaking up. I'm interested in what feels like a lack of accountability and a spirit of control. If it's about what to do when (practical matters like when and where to meet, or what songs to sing), that's one thing. If it's about enforcing one understanding of the scriptures (theology, doctrine, dogma), that's another. Some people have very strong convictions about what house church should and shouldn't look like. Sometimes they are the leaders. Other times they are not. But I've known people to part ways over what I would consider practical matters that Would you say it's more practical or theological? As for inviting strangers in, that's fraught with opportunity for good and bad. We need to do it as a matter of Christian hospitality and evangelism/discipleship, but how much do we filter out those who don't fit? Do we let them self-filter? Or do we ever tell people "You're not welcome here"? Of course, if someone is causing harm to others it needs to be addressed directly. What sort of harm?
@@simplerfaith Okay, I'll try to unpack my loaded comments in the most concise way I know how. Firstly, the lack of accountability and possibly the control thing refers to when the founder and leader of the fellowship makes arbitrary decisions for the others without consultation, and when asked why the decision was made states that it is for the greater good. This doesn't actually answer the question of why though. For example, the leader (who has a real heart for the lost, and rightly so) has a desire to pursue wider (meaning global) evangelism which will take him away from the fellowship and the midweek discipleship and prayer meetings often. So he nominated another person in the fellowship to lead those groups in his absence even though this person is not experienced in this, is relatively new to the group, has many personal issues that need ministering to, and really isn't ready for such responsibility. This has proven to be problematic as the four new believers in the fellowship have struggled with the transition to the new leader and have found his approach harsh, judgemental and quite upsetting to them. When this was brought to the attention of the leader of the fellowship he just responded that the man has to learn, but I would ask at what price? Three of these vulnerable ones have sadly left the fellowship because they have been hurt and their genuine grievances have not been addressed, nor has the substitute leader been properly equipped and prepared for his new role, never mind the fact that he has his own hurts and concerns that he hasn't had ministry for. There is so much more I could add but I have made this long enough already. As for inviting strangers in I completely agree with what you say. My concern is that in our fellowship the doors of every group, even intercessory prayer is thrown open to anyone who wants to attend. We have had issues with some individuals trying to control and direct the prayer away from the Lord's agenda to their own, or to another spirit. One individual came for about six months, attended every meeting and made themselves indispensable, only to quietly try and seduce certain other individuals behind the scenes. When one of the new believers saw what was going on they called them out on it, the person became offended, ranted and raved and subsequently left, never to return. These are just a couple of examples of what I was alluding to. I don't wan't to sound unkind or ungrateful. I really love these guys, but I am struggling to know what to do about staying or going, because the leader of the fellowship is not someone who is easy to speak with. I feel torn to be honest. Could just do with some advice.
@@ziggysam6139 An unhealthy group doesn't just gradually get healthy without intentionality. But it can get healthy. Are your gatherings Leader Focused or Conversation Focused? Leader Focused might be like a small version of conventional church where people gather, sing songs that someone like you pick, and then everyone listens to the leader teach a lesson or something. It can include discussion afterward, but everything is focused on and directed by a person who leads the group. Conversation Focused has a leader who facilitates things, but their most observable role is to ask really good, probing questions and make sure everyone is involved. Of course they have opportunity to teach in those conversations, but the dynamic of the group is different. Leader Focus is not wrong. But Conversation Focused tends to struggle less with power dynamics because the nature of it is that everyone is participating. How would you describe your group? As for the seduction and all that, it's unacceptable. Doesn't even need much more comment than that. Good for them for calling it out, and it's good the offender left. Call it good, consider it done. It may be symptomatic of the greater problem (that you're describing with the leader), in which case it makes sense to work with the leader. If you want to have a private conversation about all this, email me at roger@x242.net.
That is absurd! The first century church was a conglomeration of micro churches! They met in homes and under trees, etc. The early Christians would be horrified to see what we call”church” today! I am horrified!
Love it! Thanks for sharing! I also have a channel where I talk about this movement as well. God is doing a great work in our communities through micro churches!
In the home church setting like the early church did everyone was edified. Trying to remember a sermon verses a group of people studying and understanding the scriptures? It wasn’t until the mid third century that denominational congregations began. It was a wrong model and born again Christianity became weak and slow in growth. Home church is far better for spiritual growth.
Thanks for the comment. I agree with you, home church is great for spiritual growth. I personally try not to call church models right and wrong. I think tiny church is best for most things, but if a multitude wants to gather around a good teacher, or assemble to sing their prayers en masse, that's not wrong. In fact, it's good. But simpler church is better. :)
Was the Acts 2:42 church just an apostle study? As for the pastoral epistles, we treat them like we do all the scriptures: Always let them say what they say, and never make them say what they don't. So yes, we try to follow what the scriptures say about leaders. But in my experience, when most of us read those passages, we add our own cultural meaning to titles that isn't in the text.
@nfernandez11163 when you say parish church, do you mean a specific denomination like Roman Catholic or Presbyterian, or parish in a more general sense?
@henryrogers5500 absolutely! It's not the perfect way or the only right way, but it is a good way and shines in some aspects where conventional models struggle.
That's why we have the Bible. It is our guide to aspire to the biblical model - which is house church, not the institutional church model handed down to us from catholicism (just to be honest). So "issues" simply need to be addressed biblically and lovingly. This can and should happen more effectively in the house church setting.
I have done House Church in America and in China for decades, and I can assure you that every horrible thing that you can find in a house church somewhere you can also find in institutional churches. The issue is not whether a church has problems, the issue is whether we are doing Church like the apostles intended us to do Church. If an apostle were alive today he would not recognize what we have constructed end call Church.
the idea, of going to a prepared service seems to be counter productive....there is little learning, here.....and often times comes across as a feel good, promotional message....
It certainly can be ineffective. I mean, I still believe there are good conventional churches. But in so many, all the energy goes into the presentational aspects of it. And that falls short. It feels plastic. There are times to have an event where you put on a show. But I think it's so much better when it's conversational rather than presentational. And, to be fair, some housechurches slip into presentational as well. But wherever and whatever the gathering looks like, I think opening scripture in a conversational way is the best!
The Bible lays out the order of the church. Who is the pastor of your church? Who are the deacons? The Bible speaks of pastor and deacons...even giving instructions on how to select them. All things are done orderly and together. What you have sounds like a bible study or fellowship group, and there is nothing wrong with that. But, when you step away from God's order problems arise....we see this when the roles of husbands/wives and parents/children are changed. Jesus submitted to God, wives submits to their husbands, and children are to submit to parents. We, as christians, are to submit to government authority until they supersede God's authority. The Bible speaks of authority in the church, and we are to submit to that as well. The church is not described as a group coming together all on equal authority. There is to be leadership and order. Of course the leadership is to be held accountable by the members, but the position is to be respected. The pastor and teachers are accountable to God for their leadership. We may not like our president, policeman, school teachers... but we respect the position of authority. Again, "where two or three are gathered....", yes nothing wrong with prayer meetings, Bible studies, and fellowships. But, church is a little more formal in order. It's my speculation that many prefer the "micro church" because they do not like the authority and hierarchy and only want to be around a small group of people they prefer and not have to "deal with" those they do not like. I certainly do not mean that non-believers and those with sinister plans should enter the church and be accepted, that's another reason for authority and accountability for those that claim to be born again believers. Of course, those not born again are welcome to come hear the Word preached, but must submit to the order of the church, not be allowed to join until professing faith according to the Bible. Then, they are subject to accountability by the other members. This is a problem with traditional church for many....they DO NOT want to be held accountable. 1 & 2 Corinthians describes this process. We are to be accountable by the body of believers. And everyone plays a different roles with equal honor. Some are hands, some are feet, some are eyes....
Our churches are led by elders who shepherd and serve their church. I oversee them. And actually, they require very little oversight. So, I'm curious, when the Bible specifies pastors (elders, overseers) and deacons (servants), and even describes how to select them, it doesn't prescribe the ministry activities that we commonly think of as pastor and deacon. When you assume that house churches don't have pastors or deacons, what is it that you think is missing? What are they not doing that would qualify them as a pastor or deacon? I do agree that many resist being under authority. I don't think it's a microchurch phenomenon. In fact, I think it's pervasive in the conventional churches. And next to it is men and women who are ambitious about being the ones in authority. I think many who are drawn to simpler kinds of church (microchurch, house church) have become disillusioned by the systems that reward and tolerate the competition and rebellion. In our churches, at least, I don't pick up on any "you can't tell me what to do" vibes. They're quite healthy in that regard.
Exegesis means to draw out what is in the text, while eisegesis means to read something into the text that is not there. You are interpreting the Bible using eisengesis. You are projecting the modern institutional model back 2000 years onto the biblical texts. The first century ekklesia was not pastor centered or led. I challenge you to find one pastor named in the NT. I would also ask you to study the meaning of the greek word ekklesia in its 1st century context. It actually does describe "a group coming together". The APEST model of Ephesians 4:11ff describes the leadership needed to build up (edify - oikodomé) the church. Shepherd (pastor) is just one of the functions. The modern institutional church has largely sidelined (rejected) the first 3 functions and put all of the emphasis on the office of Pastor. To the detriment of the biblical purpose of the Ekklesia IMHO.
![30 ชั่วโมงคนเดียว บนรถไฟชั้น 3 โซเวียต [Around The World Ep. 2]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/MlE9boAVqDA/mqdefault.jpg)
I know what you are saying is true, as I wake up late and roll over to hear your message. Then I ask God to bring me safely through surgery in the morning. I ask others to pray for me. I am so undeserving. "Lord, help me, to put you first and be solid. "
I'm honored to pray for you too.
Praying for you!
I very much enjoy the mini sermons. Thank you for listening to the Lord.
@@leonardcolquhoun3604 Thank you. I'm glad they're helpful to you.
@little pookie, I'm praying for you this morning. Contact me directly via rogershenk.com and let me know how surgery goes.
Thank you sooo much for this video!
I have gone to conventional church for 45 years and wicked and/or incompetent professional preachers. I'm fed up with it.
I'd like to learn more about microchurches.
I have been looking for a biblical house church in New Zealand for six years and found one. It is the greatest blessing. Thanks for this encouraging video.
I love hearing that!
I've just started reading a book called "Pagen Church" (or something similar). It talks about doing a "microchurch" of believers meeting in their homes. I think that's what the apostles did. I am open to hearing what the Holy Spirit is saying to me and at times I feel that I should leave the traditional church.
Many have been influenced by Frank Viola's book "Pagan Christianity." He does have something good to say. But I personally believe that we can embrace the simpler church model without demonizing traditional churches as much as he does.
If God does lead you to leave your conventional church setting and explore the simpler model, my counsel is to do it without condemnation. We are all building on the foundation of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 3). God will judge how we build. Sometimes I think people in the housechurch movement become hypercritical of their brothers and sisters who, for whatever reason, remain in fellowship in more conventional churches.
Peace to you as you discern.
I have been listening to many like you who speak of "home church" instead of the conventional church. The more I hear from people like you and others, the more I am getting convicted about what a biblical church should be today. Thank you.
@psalms_for_the_church_to_sing You're welcome, and thanks. Do you have any stirring to try it?
Micro churches or "home church" as we call it in the UK is the future for true Christianity!
The future because the past! :)
To many conventional churches have weakened the doctrine to the point of just being nice to everyone.
They don't preach the word of God any more.
I get more out of the weekly bible study group, because we are all serious about it.
There's often only 8 of us there.
I go to a small parish in a liturgical tradition. There's certainly no "show." The liturgy makes sure of that. Through the liturgy I actively participate with my brothers and sisters in the worship of the Lord Jesus. During the week there are small groups that meet in each other's homes for further reflection on Scripture by reading the lessons appointed for the upcoming Sunday. This prepares us to actually engage with the homily given by our priest. Before the service all ages meet for Bible study. I guess my point is that, if you are going to a church that is a "show" there are other alternatives than a microchurch that give you the best of both worlds.
I agree. And there are some wonderful "low church" options as well.
Exactly why we need micro churches.
I would say because that it the biblical model. That’s the way the disciples did it.
I was in a small housechurch and it went pearshaped because the leader a so called prophet had issues from childhood and teenage years that were not resolved. The result was awful, control, manipulation and judemental attitudes.
I finally left and joined a charasmatic Anglican church with about 50 or so parishoners. It is awesome, there is no show and people are used according to their gifts, but also there is still some structure to the service. This church is smazing, i has a secong hand shop that gives alot of money away to missions and good causes. A church is big enough to carry out missions work. This church also has a youth outreach on friday nights which has sometimes 40 teenagers who attend.
Honestly inn the small house church i was in i didnt get to do the things in. God that i am doing now. God bless you guys though, it works for you, but there are also congretations out there that are really good as well.
@@rhonddavincent2803 amen. I know there are!
Thank you, spot on! This is what we’ve been doing in our ministry in Germany for many years.
Wonderful! Thanks.
The title had me going.
If you want to be cradle to the grave spiritually infantile and dependent on a self-proclaimed ordained pastor for your spiritual milk, micro church is not the place for you.
If you want to remain ever emotionally susceptible to feel good messages instead of growing closer to the Lord, micro church is not the place for you. If you want to go to church as a duty instead of walking in faith as the 1st century Christians did, micro church is not the place for you.
You're on a roll. :)
That's all they did in the book of Acts home church every night somewhere it's better than he's mega churches or large churches that have groups to where only certain people are important and other ones are not I've been to several denominational churches several mega churches large churches and I found the best churches are under 50 people cuz everybody knows each other and care about each other
I really enjoyed hearing this, thank you.
@@fergu588 you're welcome
If a traditional churchis biblically sound in its teaching, it helps members to keep true to scripture. Home churches sometimes go askew on one aspect of the gospel, when they don't have some biblically very sound members. And they sometimes exclude less popular members .....and sometimes they think they really are more spiritual than other Christians .
I say these horrible things because I have SEEN them over many years.
Which means....just remain humble.
@christienodendaal3001 Agreed. A housechurch, like any church, is susceptible to immaturity and false or bad teaching. The caricature would be a "what does this passage mean to YOUUU" meeting where everyone exchanges ignorance. But my experience has been that it's usually not that. As someone who is trained and experienced, I always learn something from the questions of the untrained and inexperienced. Of course, what grounds it is the adherence to scripture. "Let the scriptures say all that they say, and don't make them say anything they don't say."
So, while housechurch is certainly susceptible to error, it's also true that too many traditional/conventional churches have bad teaching from a pastor who has positional authority to continue in bad teaching. (And many are good, of course.) But you are right, the housechurches benefit from the oversight of someone with wisdom and maturity, per the pastoral epistles. And yes, humility!
@@simplerfaith good reply to a good comment. Back in the day of the " Jesus movement" home Bible studies were very popular. Usually they were on a weeknight. Many were led by unqualified young guys trying to grow their first beard to look older, and were a disaster
Without meaning to be sarcastic I could say that if a traditional church was biblically sound, it wouldn't be a traditional church - it would be a healthy house church. Then it would be following the biblical model.
According to a former house church acquaintance, at least here in Texas, this kind of group usually and eventually becomes a haven for empty nesters.
We have a lot of young families and singles in our house church.
Our desire for simplicity coincided with becoming empty nesters. In our network, we have churches with kids and churches without. Honestly, microchurch with kids is more difficult than without. But maybe that's because most of us are used to church programs where other people take care of the kids. In microchurches you can't assign them to others. I was recently with a church where the children are asked to read the scripture ahead of time and come with a question that prompts discussion. Those kids come up with some wonderful questions.
We outgrew our houses so we had to move into public spaces; which is Biblical too and we still exist after 34 years.
@@alanlatta9379 The danger with the route you describe is that it can lead a group right back to becoming a traditional church (ie. obtaining a building, hiring a pastor, etc.) Not saying you are doing this but many home groups have. In my opinion the better route is start right from the start with the understanding that when the group begins getting too big to fit in a house (30 - 40 people) you split into 2 or 3 smaller groups. You can still meet all together from time to time but most gatherings will be in the smaller more intimate groups. Our group is just now beginning this division process.
@harvestvillage695 While I'm an advocate for simpler church, it's good to not go beyond what is written. Nowhere in the scriptures are we told to keep it small. We're not even told to try and strategically plant or grow churches. It's good to have a strategy and to be wise in it. But it's also good to recognize that the strategy typically includes a response to current culture and conditions, which do change.
Been attending micro church for about 3 years now, involved in worship, but struggling with the lack of accountability of leadership and a spirit of control creeping in. Also a lack of discernment when inviting strangers in who then cause harm to the other attendees. It sometimes feels like a micro cult more than micro church. Am taking a break from it, but am getting questioned about my lack of commitment. I' m not sure what to do going forward.
Thanks for speaking up. I'm interested in what feels like a lack of accountability and a spirit of control. If it's about what to do when (practical matters like when and where to meet, or what songs to sing), that's one thing. If it's about enforcing one understanding of the scriptures (theology, doctrine, dogma), that's another. Some people have very strong convictions about what house church should and shouldn't look like. Sometimes they are the leaders. Other times they are not. But I've known people to part ways over what I would consider practical matters that Would you say it's more practical or theological?
As for inviting strangers in, that's fraught with opportunity for good and bad. We need to do it as a matter of Christian hospitality and evangelism/discipleship, but how much do we filter out those who don't fit? Do we let them self-filter? Or do we ever tell people "You're not welcome here"? Of course, if someone is causing harm to others it needs to be addressed directly. What sort of harm?
@@simplerfaith Okay, I'll try to unpack my loaded comments in the most concise way I know how. Firstly, the lack of accountability and possibly the control thing refers to when the founder and leader of the fellowship makes arbitrary decisions for the others without consultation, and when asked why the decision was made states that it is for the greater good. This doesn't actually answer the question of why though. For example, the leader (who has a real heart for the lost, and rightly so) has a desire to pursue wider (meaning global) evangelism which will take him away from the fellowship and the midweek discipleship and prayer meetings often. So he nominated another person in the fellowship to lead those groups in his absence even though this person is not experienced in this, is relatively new to the group, has many personal issues that need ministering to, and really isn't ready for such responsibility. This has proven to be problematic as the four new believers in the fellowship have struggled with the transition to the new leader and have found his approach harsh, judgemental and quite upsetting to them. When this was brought to the attention of the leader of the fellowship he just responded that the man has to learn, but I would ask at what price? Three of these vulnerable ones have sadly left the fellowship because they have been hurt and their genuine grievances have not been addressed, nor has the substitute leader been properly equipped and prepared for his new role, never mind the fact that he has his own hurts and concerns that he hasn't had ministry for. There is so much more I could add but I have made this long enough already. As for inviting strangers in I completely agree with what you say. My concern is that in our fellowship the doors of every group, even intercessory prayer is thrown open to anyone who wants to attend. We have had issues with some individuals trying to control and direct the prayer away from the Lord's agenda to their own, or to another spirit. One individual came for about six months, attended every meeting and made themselves indispensable, only to quietly try and seduce certain other individuals behind the scenes. When one of the new believers saw what was going on they called them out on it, the person became offended, ranted and raved and subsequently left, never to return. These are just a couple of examples of what I was alluding to. I don't wan't to sound unkind or ungrateful. I really love these guys, but I am struggling to know what to do about staying or going, because the leader of the fellowship is not someone who is easy to speak with. I feel torn to be honest. Could just do with some advice.
@@ziggysam6139 An unhealthy group doesn't just gradually get healthy without intentionality. But it can get healthy. Are your gatherings Leader Focused or Conversation Focused? Leader Focused might be like a small version of conventional church where people gather, sing songs that someone like you pick, and then everyone listens to the leader teach a lesson or something. It can include discussion afterward, but everything is focused on and directed by a person who leads the group. Conversation Focused has a leader who facilitates things, but their most observable role is to ask really good, probing questions and make sure everyone is involved. Of course they have opportunity to teach in those conversations, but the dynamic of the group is different. Leader Focus is not wrong. But Conversation Focused tends to struggle less with power dynamics because the nature of it is that everyone is participating. How would you describe your group?
As for the seduction and all that, it's unacceptable. Doesn't even need much more comment than that. Good for them for calling it out, and it's good the offender left. Call it good, consider it done. It may be symptomatic of the greater problem (that you're describing with the leader), in which case it makes sense to work with the leader. If you want to have a private conversation about all this, email me at roger@x242.net.
I can't find the link. I'm in California and I'm reaching out to you. I want this! 🙏🏻
Email me at roger@x242.net!
Roger, We met when you did my dad´s Funeral in Sarasota. My friend believe that Microchurch is unbiblical.
I look forward to talking soon...
@@simplerfaith how'd that talk go?
@@jakesauce9473 It was good. We found agreement very quickly after a few clarifications. :)
That is absurd! The first century church was a conglomeration of micro churches! They met in homes and under trees, etc. The early Christians would be horrified to see what we call”church” today! I am horrified!
Love it! Thanks for sharing! I also have a channel where I talk about this movement as well. God is doing a great work in our communities through micro churches!
To me these 5 reasons are actually reason TO do microchurch/house church.. All 5 points are exactly what my wife and I have grown tired of.
Ding ding ding ding! You get it! 😅
Are you currently doing it or starting to think about it?
Yes we've wanted to do something with home church or even join one for a couple years. Not so easy to find home churches
@@jakeliftsnshreds6670 Email me (roger@x242.net) if you want, and we can talk. No pressure, just connecting.
How can I find a good house church?
Well let's see if I can help. If you don't mind, go to x242.net/nextstep and fill out that form. Then I'll follow up with you.
No accountability, no authority, no scholarship, no tradition, it sounds like a blast! What can go wrong?😂
Why do you assume there's no accountability, authority, scholarship, or tradition?
So this was sarcasm…. Very funny…. You just listed 5 reasons to not go to “real” church and long for micro church…. Got it….
In the home church setting like the early church did everyone was edified. Trying to remember a sermon verses a group of people studying and understanding the scriptures? It wasn’t until the mid third century that denominational congregations began. It was a wrong model and born again Christianity became weak and slow in growth. Home church is far better for spiritual growth.
Thanks for the comment. I agree with you, home church is great for spiritual growth. I personally try not to call church models right and wrong. I think tiny church is best for most things, but if a multitude wants to gather around a good teacher, or assemble to sing their prayers en masse, that's not wrong. In fact, it's good. But simpler church is better. :)
I'm from Ontario Canada. Do you know of any micro churches here? I've come to the end of my rope!
I don't, but shoot me an email and I'll see if I can help. Roger@x242.net
What about the biblically prescribed elders and deacons in 1 Tim 3 and Titus 1? (What you are describing sounds like a Bible study.)
Was the Acts 2:42 church just an apostle study?
As for the pastoral epistles, we treat them like we do all the scriptures: Always let them say what they say, and never make them say what they don't. So yes, we try to follow what the scriptures say about leaders. But in my experience, when most of us read those passages, we add our own cultural meaning to titles that isn't in the text.
You can have a pastor who does micro church.
I stopped attending Parish church as their headquarters on line made anti Israel statements. So the parish church will no longer get my donations.
@nfernandez11163 when you say parish church, do you mean a specific denomination like Roman Catholic or Presbyterian, or parish in a more general sense?
@@simplerfaith Presbyterian Church.
A micro church can also have issues. Like legalism and cliques.
@henryrogers5500 absolutely! It's not the perfect way or the only right way, but it is a good way and shines in some aspects where conventional models struggle.
That's why we have the Bible. It is our guide to aspire to the biblical model - which is house church, not the institutional church model handed down to us from catholicism (just to be honest). So "issues" simply need to be addressed biblically and lovingly. This can and should happen more effectively in the house church setting.
@@harvestvillage695 Agreed. Amen.
I have done House Church in America and in China for decades, and I can assure you that every horrible thing that you can find in a house church somewhere you can also find in institutional churches. The issue is not whether a church has problems, the issue is whether we are doing Church like the apostles intended us to do Church. If an apostle were alive today he would not recognize what we have constructed end call Church.
@@prettygoodbiblestudies Could be.
the idea, of going to a prepared service seems to be counter productive....there is little learning, here.....and often times comes across as a feel good, promotional message....
It certainly can be ineffective. I mean, I still believe there are good conventional churches. But in so many, all the energy goes into the presentational aspects of it. And that falls short. It feels plastic. There are times to have an event where you put on a show. But I think it's so much better when it's conversational rather than presentational. And, to be fair, some housechurches slip into presentational as well. But wherever and whatever the gathering looks like, I think opening scripture in a conversational way is the best!
I like the reverse psychology 😁. Absolutely!
:)
Safe , wakeup and Grow up . Was Christ and paul safe .
I don't know how you mean that.
Yeah, churches are empty most of the week.
True.
The Bible lays out the order of the church.
Who is the pastor of your church?
Who are the deacons?
The Bible speaks of pastor and deacons...even giving instructions on how to select them.
All things are done orderly and together.
What you have sounds like a bible study or fellowship group, and there is nothing wrong with that.
But, when you step away from God's order problems arise....we see this when the roles of husbands/wives and parents/children are changed. Jesus submitted to God, wives submits to their husbands, and children are to submit to parents. We, as christians, are to submit to government authority until they supersede God's authority.
The Bible speaks of authority in the church, and we are to submit to that as well. The church is not described as a group coming together all on equal authority. There is to be leadership and order. Of course the leadership is to be held accountable by the members, but the position is to be respected. The pastor and teachers are accountable to God for their leadership. We may not like our president, policeman, school teachers... but we respect the position of authority.
Again, "where two or three are gathered....", yes nothing wrong with prayer meetings, Bible studies, and fellowships. But, church is a little more formal in order.
It's my speculation that many prefer the "micro church" because they do not like the authority and hierarchy and only want to be around a small group of people they prefer and not have to "deal with" those they do not like. I certainly do not mean that non-believers and those with sinister plans should enter the church and be accepted, that's another reason for authority and accountability for those that claim to be born again believers. Of course, those not born again are welcome to come hear the Word preached, but must submit to the order of the church, not be allowed to join until professing faith according to the Bible. Then, they are subject to accountability by the other members.
This is a problem with traditional church for many....they DO NOT want to be held accountable.
1 & 2 Corinthians describes this process. We are to be accountable by the body of believers.
And everyone plays a different roles with equal honor. Some are hands, some are feet, some are eyes....
Our churches are led by elders who shepherd and serve their church. I oversee them. And actually, they require very little oversight.
So, I'm curious, when the Bible specifies pastors (elders, overseers) and deacons (servants), and even describes how to select them, it doesn't prescribe the ministry activities that we commonly think of as pastor and deacon. When you assume that house churches don't have pastors or deacons, what is it that you think is missing? What are they not doing that would qualify them as a pastor or deacon?
I do agree that many resist being under authority. I don't think it's a microchurch phenomenon. In fact, I think it's pervasive in the conventional churches. And next to it is men and women who are ambitious about being the ones in authority. I think many who are drawn to simpler kinds of church (microchurch, house church) have become disillusioned by the systems that reward and tolerate the competition and rebellion. In our churches, at least, I don't pick up on any "you can't tell me what to do" vibes. They're quite healthy in that regard.
Exegesis means to draw out what is in the text, while eisegesis means to read something into the text that is not there. You are interpreting the Bible using eisengesis. You are projecting the modern institutional model back 2000 years onto the biblical texts. The first century ekklesia was not pastor centered or led. I challenge you to find one pastor named in the NT. I would also ask you to study the meaning of the greek word ekklesia in its 1st century context. It actually does describe "a group coming together". The APEST model of Ephesians 4:11ff describes the leadership needed to build up (edify - oikodomé) the church. Shepherd (pastor) is just one of the functions. The modern institutional church has largely sidelined (rejected) the first 3 functions and put all of the emphasis on the office of Pastor. To the detriment of the biblical purpose of the Ekklesia IMHO.
You make me tired . ( Its what Christ wants .
You get tired easily. :) If you're saying microchurches are what the Lord wants, amen.