i mean, nothing wrong with meeting members of your church at each other's houses, in fact it should be very encouraged. however a large body meeting and a centre to outreach from is really important
@@Tennishangman Which is a horrible idea, as they cannot take part in the Eucharist on Sundays. Also, just very small groups of people getting together without a priest to discuss the Bible is not in itself a bad idea, but you need a hierarchy to have consistent and theologically sound interpretation. Otherwise, you become like many evangelicals, who just interpret the Bible to fit their own views, so it should be done in addition to attending Church, not instead of it.
@@justhair17 I understand Catholic and Eastern traditions (including those passed down to some high-church Protestant denominations) hold that you cannot take the Eucharist without a priest, but this idea is one of many that is notoriously absent from the Bible. No disrespect to those traditions - you may believe your tradition itself is inspired alongside the Bible - but I think it’s unfair to apply that restriction to others outside your tradition. Theres no biblical reason why you need a priest to observe communion beyond the royal priesthood that is all of Christianity. Edit: The early Church certainly didn’t have anything akin to a modern priest as a requirement to take communion. If anything, they may have been doing it every time they met, Sunday or otherwise, regardless of whether they were even in a church. I’m not advocating that position, but I am saying God clearly allowed some flexibility here beyond your tradition.
@@Tennishangman It is sacred tradition and no, it is not unfair to appy it. Keep in mind Christ did not give us the Bible, he gave us His Church, which then gave us the Bible. And again, early church was different, as the apostles and their disciples were present. Now, as they are dead, we have to follow the tradition set by the apostles themselves. And the priests are special, only they can give out sacraments, not the laity And besides, even Luther believed that about the Eucharist, only low churches with no tradition and literally no links to the apostles believe that.
@@justhair17 All I can say is that the Pope of your “one and only true and holy apostolic church” is more ecumenical than the view you’re espousing. It seems radical to think the Church of Rome was originally determined by a Church centered in Antioch and Jerusalem to be the head of the entire Church, but I understand that’s been y’all’s position for quite some time, so I won’t try to change your mind. Have a nice day.
I was an Independent Evangelical and you are so right on about Evangelicals retreating from secular culture! It made me angry because Ive witnessed the deterioration of our culture as a result. You also nailed it by pointing out that Evangelicals love plain ugly worship areas. As an artist I found this hostility to beauty offensive. I also found it offensive to God, because He created all beauty.
Exactly! So join a Mainline Protestant church www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?mid=1SRpkwF4hEaXZvor4BXyoAawrNVgH9CM&ll=34.558606130601454%2C-84.81368661242608&z=5
@@georgegreen711 ??? i m sorry, the guy said he s an artist, so i assumed he knows what happened in arts during 20th century. That's why it always baffles me when in this channel it's propagated to have beauty in churches (buildings) when we know were art eventually leads to. Maybe focusing on God instead of art should be bigger priority?
Interesting.. as someone who would identify as an evangelical, it seems to me that worshipping God in more humble, lowkey fashions is quite reflective of His nature. Our God has a reputation of transforming ugliness, or undesirableness, into beauty. Christ was born in a feeding troth. David was the youngest and smallest of his brothers. You and I were sinners who've been made saints. The ones who inherit the kingdom of heaven are those who are poor in spirit, mournful, and meek. It is in the nature of God to transform ugliness and lowliness into beauty and royalty. With that being said, I believe it isn't unfitting to worship God, the most majestic and important act in all the universe, in a humble location like that of house churches. In other words, there's beauty in the humility. I appreciate your perfective, though! The aesthetic sense is one of God's greatest gifts to mankind.
@@chancepaladin maybe in your backyard, but it’s only good if you’re starting out. If you go from building to backyard sermons, that church is practically dead.
Here are some very good reasons for churches to meet in houses: 1. Church members need to live in close enough proximity to each other for that to be possible. That makes it easier and more likely for them to spend time together during the week as well, which strengthens the community. 2. By not having to buy/rent/build and maintain a large fancy structure, financial resources of the church are more available to help those in need - both inside the church and around. 3. If everyone has a turn hosting church, the members of the church get to know each other better. By seeing how our brothers and sisters live we can be more aware of their circumstances, and thereby become aware of their needs and how we can help and support each other. 4. Meals together are a big thing in the New Testament. Most house Church meetings include a shared meal. 5. Jesus said that people would know we are His disciples by the love we have for each other - not by how impressive our buildings are. Neighbors notice when large groups of people often get together. And when they get together in smaller groups throughout the week, people will notice how they interact with each other, which is a good witness. All of these points and more mean of course, that it can't be a retreatist house Church in the middle of Nowhere. And just one family by itself doesn't make much of a church either. But a church that is built on community and hospitality, as well as being faithful to scripture is a beautiful thing. I hope you get a chance to see a church like that some day :)
Having a house church is good if the person hosting it took the proper steps to know God and there aren't any good churches available (this is entirely possible.)
A real church? We are the church. We are the body of Christ. We are the temple of God. Wherever 2 or 3 are gathered together in His name, He is there among us.
@@TheDragonSeerNowhere in Scripture do the apostles command us to go to church. They just ask us to remember to gather with other believers. Attending a small home church encourages everyone to get involved. Everyone has a stake in it. Whereas in big churches, most people that attend church on Sunday don't get involved in the church. They are more like spectators. Attending a service is not the same as getting involved in the growth of the church. In a big church it is more difficult to find or develop the talents that God has given us. That's why you have people who have attended church for years, yet can't even evangelize or teach a new convert
Great vid zoomer. I’m from Rwanda from Presbyterian Church in Rwanda(EPR) and I’d like to complement with somethin. We go to church every Sunday but we also have home churches as secondary church every other week and there is no motif of leaving the mainstream church but I can promise you I’ve seen more miracles(literal and metaphorical) being done in our region’s home church than mainstream service(ex:barren women getting pregnant, families on the verge of divorce getting back together,…) and people kept growing spiritually due to the communal study of the word and it was the most beautiful thing and there is much much more I’ve seen of how beneficial it can be. Once again I am adding and not subtracting from your video. God bless you!
I think we shouldn't refer to these as house churches and more as Small Groups, groups of 5-10 people united in a week day to learn and talk about God's word weekly in addition of the Sunday reunion. A important theological figure whose name I forgot, said something like this: Small Groups are how the church truly grows and make an effect in it's around, as It isn't secluded in it's four walls. Okay I added things in his quote because I don't remember the actual quote, just the overall thing he was trying to explain, that is small groups make the Church reach people it wouldn't otherwise.
11:20 The more I listen to this guy the stranger he sounds. "Your pastor should have credentials". Yes, in an era where we have easy access to bible training, Pastors should take advantage of that. But, that doesn't make them *qualified*. It's the church that ordains ministers, not seminaries
@@jo_el_ The thing is, I'm reformed too, albiet 1689 baptist (which he wouldn't call reformed for some reason). The problem isn't being reformed. The problem is that saying that seminary training qualifies you, rather than being an indicator of a qualification (being able to teach sound doctrine) just isn't biblical. Perhaps he mispoke out of undue passion (to be charitable), but he strikes me as consistently strange when he talks about "the mainline church" as if being mainline is THE standard for being biblical. I can understand arguing for confessionalism (very based), but he seems to have an undue obsession with tradition for tradition's sake
The common lack of distinction between Temple, Congregation, Denomination and Church (calling all 4 "church") has been a disaster for soteriological and ecumenical discussion.
@@deutschermichel5807 Temple: The building the Congregation meets at for worship. Congregation: A group that meets together for worship. Denomination: A group that agree on the particulars of biblical interpretation. Church: All who are united in Christ.
Seriously. I can't believe how ignorant a lot of the people are. It just goes to show that they don't read their bibles. The fact that this video spends so much time talking about "Going to church" is ridiculous. The church is the body of Christ. It doesn't matter where you gather together, as long as you are worshipping God in spirit and in truth. I would gladly attend a home church if it meant getting away from the entertainment style of service we see in most "churches".
I used to work at a ministry that was careful to distinguish between house churches (a church currently meeting in a house) and a home church (a home/family that believes that there is no command to regularly worship with other Christians). I have always found that distinction helpful.
Agreed. One couple with a handful of kids is not a church. If they are the only believers in the area they need to either move, or (if so called through connection with a larger group farther away) work as missionaries in their area. In that case they should aim to invite others into their home as well. Christians should never be isolationist.
The PCA church I go to started as a house church. We don't have hour building yet, but it has the best preaching I've heard (at least in person) and weekly communion. It's always word and sacrament above everything else.
There is a difference between house churches and church plants. A PCA church can start small and meet in a movie theatre or something (as mine did), but those are still approved by a Presbytery. Church plants are unorganized and often non-denom. They have neither the accountability nor the resources that a PCA church plant would have. Hence, I don't think yours is a problem, especially if they have plans to one day have a real building.
In my country, Belgium, finding classical beautiful protestant churches is quite difficult in my area. There are plenty of beautiful catholic churches but I'm not catholic, I believe in the protestant doctrines. I can only go thus far to ugly odern evangelical churches. However, the most important thing is that I've accepected Jesus Christ as my Lord and savior.
@MatthewJackson-ff5yj I see... nearest 'traditionally beautiful' Protestant church would be the Anglican church in Brussels. I live about 2 hours away from you.
do what you must do, at the end of the day, the lord gave you people and a place. navigate trough it :) ugly church beautiful church,inside first cause that whats matter in end. Spoken like an evangelical? so be it lol
This is probably true for western Christianity but historically the most successful church model has incorporated the home church model to some extent. You see in Acts that the early church did meet in the temple and in people's houses and you also see the Church in China meeting from house to house with not a structure to speak of. But RZ said in the beginning, "If you're able" and that's key. If you're able to you should go to a church building.
Japanese Christians heroically kept the faith for centuries from the time Japan closed itself off from the world to the time it was forced open. Their faith was exemplary, but that doesn't mean they were in a good position.
Early Christians met in houses because they were persecuted. And the most successful church, that is the Catholic Church (the largest and the only one truly global), which is defo not know for house churches
And also, 'house churches' could work in those times because the apostles or their disciples were often also attending, which means they had a teaching authority
Right now the church is sending missionaries trained professionally with this house church planting model and it is biblical. The IMB sends many missionaries and see thousands of house churches planted, that plant more houses and it spreads. The cost per baptism is cheap! In the mainline it is like 5000 per baptism. If we want to send missionaries to plant churches but they need 200k for every church we would never finish the great commission. That is why many missionaries are sent with the Luke 10 house of peace search Acts 2:36-46 home church model that multiplies and spreads to many houses as the people are obedient to the great commission. House church models that missionaries are often trained in include engaging the lost, sharing the gospel, discipling the saved, teaching the saved to make disciples, and gathering the disciples into churches and establishing leaders in the churches Acts 14:23. This is called disciple making movements or Church planting movements. They have alot of merit and are worthy to be researched.
“When he [Peter] realized this, he went to the house of Mary, the mother of John who is called Mark, where there were many people gathered in prayer ” (Acts 12:12).
Right like what are these people talking about? The Church is the body of Christ, not a building. I guess we have it figured out better than the apostles these days.
The Church obeys the commands of Christ to the best of their ability to exalt Christ, if that is under a tree, in a house, or in a cave, at some point they will have to go out and reach the lost because Jesus commanded us to GO and make disciples Matthew 28:18-20. The book of Acts 2:36-46 says the first church preached the gospel, called people to repentance, baptized them, were filled with the Holy Spirit, devoted themselves to the Apostles teachings, the fellowship, the breaking of bread, and prayers, they walked in signs and wonders, they gave to each other as they had need, worshipping God together, and the Lord was adding to their number those who were being saved. This all can happen in homes, as well as the temple or church building. Churches are fine, and God uses them, but to say they are the model that God plans for every church to meet in is not financially sustainable. I heard someone tell me that the national dept in the west for all the churches is almost 1 trillion dollars and who is going to pay for that? Our tithes! Our tithes should further the gospel being spread and disciples being made in public.@@ryanpowell9003
@@ryanpowell9003yeah but this guy is one of those guys that care a lot about the actual buildings themselves. He comes off a lot like a stereotypical telegram guy if you know what i mean. It sounded like he thinks that church buildings somehow arent going to be destroyed along with all of the current iteration of creation at the end of time, which is contrary to Scripture. Like you said, at the end of the day the church building is just that, a building. Some people (especially telegram guys) seem to attach more meaning to material things than they should.
@@lluvik2450 so because the Ark of the Covenant was going to be destroyed, they should’ve told God to buzz off when he said to make it beautiful, with gold and statues?
*Francis Chan has entered the chat* lol jk Even though i disagreed with alot of what you were saying, i am happy you added towards the end that house churches in the correct context can be a very good thing. I also do agree with you that house churches should be viewed as the baby stages of an established church. I think your opinion about evangelicals is a bit skewed. A lot of what you were saying is stereotypical and not the norm. But for myself who interacts with a lot of evangelicals on a daily basis, i can tell you that evangelicals are not retreating from the culture. Evangelical churches are doing more urban mission work than other denominations and seeing the fruit of that labor, not to mention the media influence evangelical leaders are tapping into (surprise, it's more than mainline denomination leaders). For non-mainline churches having less resources and less organization, they seem to be doing a lot more for the Kingdom now than mainline churches in the U.S. Also, evangelicals espouse that the "in-between" part from becoming Christian and dying is to make disciples, preach the Gospel, and care for the sick, poor, widows, and orphans. I say this in love: I think your comments on evangelicals/churches not part of the mainline denominations are divisive and not good for the Kingdom. I understand your desire to see the mainline churches taken back and I support that, but i think you need to recognize how God is using non-denominational and Evangelical denominations as well.
I love zoomer's insight on things like this. I agree a lot with him about Christians retreating from the culture, however, I think a lot of it has to do with the need to strengthen "domestic Christianity", in other words, the Christian family unit has to get stronger first before fighting back in the culture in my opinion. I'm hoping that there's a huge movement soon in order to fight back against the culture, but from what I've seen many fail to do that in their own homes when their kids are exposed to so much temptation from the world.
That, I feel, is the only good reason for retreatism. I myself plan on homeschooling because I want my children to grow up with a firm godly foundation as uncorrupted by this world as I can manage. However, that is also to raise them to be "arrows in my quiver" -- that is agents of the Kingdom.
I know a guy who owns a house church, they're really into "speaking in tongues", and the guy who owns it says that "the Pentecostals do speaking in tongues wrong, you need an interpreter." He basically said everyone does speaking in tongues wrongs except his house-church. It's basically a cult, it's very emotion based and low iq preaching. Their worship is just hymns and they sit down, and the guy who owns it writes his own hymns and they sing them. So arrogant.
Some counterpoints: 1. Evangelicalism places a fair bit of emphasis on "parachurch" movements. For example, while the Salvation Army is in fact a formal denomination, it receives the vast bulk of its funding from people who aren't members. Likewise it wouldn't be considerably different in terms of effectiveness were it a simple Christian charity with a combination of volunteers and paid staffers. There is in practice no fundamental difference between them and, say, Samaritan's Purse. If, instead of a million Christians being active members of Denomination X, they were divided into 50,000 disorganized cells of house churches with an average of 20 members each, those million people could still pool their resources toward charitable parachurch organizations like the Salvation Army or hospitals. 2. House churches are more efficient because they use property which somebody already owns and pays the expenses related to. It adds zero expense to a household budget for some guests to come over every Sunday and sit in the living room for an hour or two. Churches often have limited charity budgets because some minimum percentage of their receipts have to go toward maintaining the building, paying the pastor's salary, etc. If every house church member gave to worthy Christian causes, there'd be less administrative waste per dollar spent. 3. It doesn't seem to me that the""Let's found rigorous new Christian universities" trend among organized denominations which happened in the 19th, 18th, and 17th centuries is common today. Which is to say that, in the year 2023, I have no reason to think Presbyterians were more prodigious collegebuilders than their Evangelical counterparts. Your argument here boils down to resting on the laurels of history. 4. There's a trend toward a smaller number of churches, each with more attendees on average. This is seen across American Christendom; the "Megachurch" isn't really an Evangelical-exclusive phenomenon nowadays, even if the most extremely large ones tend to be so. In such an environment it's easy to blend into a crowd and not be held accountable for the way you live, which is arguably why more and more people prefer larger churches. But small house churches are very much personal. And yes, it's possible to plug into small cliques within churches, but that's optional. With house churches it cannot be avoided. South Korea has seen large-scale experimentation with house churches in recent years and it seems indicative of growing religious fervor on their parts.
I agree with you completely. I think modern churches have become lifeless and stale. Part of the reason is because they are too predictable. When you attend church, it feels like you are going through a routine. No matter how strong your spiritual walk, it just feels like you are a spectator. There is usually very little opportunity for serving in a church in a meaningful way. In a smaller church or home church, you are kind of forced to get to know people and get involved. You kind of have to participate in a home church. It's also easier to discover the talents that God gave us in a small congregation.
You make some strong points. It's a shame they're wasted here. TL;DR there's a time and a place for both. I will offer a counter argument to your first point. Organizations like the Salvation Army are separate from the body of Christ and not subject to actual religious oversight. They run a business, and while they're not the worst organization out there, they're just as susceptible to corruption as any secular business. Of course, the modern western church is effectively corrupt from the inside out at this point, so it's not a strong counterargument. The way I see it, there are tradeoffs no matter what route your local body of Christ chooses. With house churches, your members are more likely to be active in one another's lives and serving as an example to those in their immediate are. However, they're practically invisible on a large scale. A lot of young conservatives place a higher value on this "culture war" idea, even if their religion strictly expresses the futility of such a battle. It's a call to battle, and young men today lack a fight to pick. A house church isn't picking any fights except those spiritual battles they face individually. This brings me to the pros/cons of larger churches within denominations. Big tent church theology can be incredibly uniting, because if they all belong to the same overhead organization, you know roughly what to expect when you go from one church to the next. Establishing a new church is a much smoother process; with a larger body comes more resources pooled for outreach, including RZ's obsession with physically beautiful structures. This smooth process can make it far more convenient for acts of community service. As part of an established religious organization, you can expect less civil pushback. One big problem is how comparatively different non-denominational churches are. You have no idea what you're walking into when you cross that threshold. Even if their website claims the Nicene Creed and the congregants rave about how wonderful the church is, you can end up finding out the hard way like I did how fallen the modern church really can be while still claiming to hold to the tenets of the Bible. However, you can effectively disappear into a congregation that's anything larger than two digits regardless of its denomination. I've even disappeared myself in meetings of 50 -- in every Sunday and completely forgotten. It might as well have been a house church with a neon sign out front saying, "No vacancy". This makes actually doing the things called for in the New Testament extremely challenging, as you sometimes have to work to find the arbitrary way to prove yourself worthy of attention. Hard to edify/be edified in the body of Christ if you're invisible. Of course, my real problem is the sort of spirit James was opposed to when he wrote about favoritism. I reckon the reason I'm invisible in churches is that I don't abide fancy clothing. I often look like an old beggar because I'd rather spend my money more wisely. I don't disagree with the notion that we ought to strive to be our best for God, but RZ strays too far into the weeds here, I believe. This is indicative of most churches that meet in a building, but less so with house churches.
@@nerychristian Lifeless and stale? I'd argue the opposite -- raunchy and debaucherous. Devoid of God, maybe. Modern churches seem to be the place people go on Sunday morning to feel holy after getting drunk the night before and sleeping with the pastor's wife or the secretary. Lots of ladies getting excited to go to church on Sunday so they can fawn over the pastor, to boot. I'm not going to church to get "excited" because my faith isn't about my emotional state. We need holy churches that challenge us in our faith for real, not the way modern non-denominational churches "challenge" themselves by choosing to read the Bible or the way a priest "challenges" his congregation to actually show up next week instead of sleeping in. If anyone's idea of a church is about "being seen and heard" then their idea of church is about themselves and feeling good and not about being a servant of Christ. It's the exact same self-importance rampant in larger churches that shun the poor and clap to loud guitar music.
I am sure you’ve read “where two or more are gathered in my name, there I am in the midst of them.” You’ve also read how the woman at the well asked Jesus where she should worship, and his answer was “In Spirit and in truth.” Just reminding you, do with that as you please. On a personal note, I ordered a nice premium Bible. It cost me $200. I thought because it was beautiful on the outside (it has a lovely dark purple goatskin) and beautiful on the inside (red accents, ornate drop caps, fine French paper) that I would like it better and want to read it more. Turns out, the opposite has occurred. The outward beauty has detracted and distracted from the true significance of what was inside. I found out that I payed $200 for something I already had, because the only part that truly mattered was the words on the pages. I believe the same thing applies to the church. You can decorate it and make it as expensive and luxurious as you’d like (using money that could’ve been given to something better) but what truly matters is the union of believers inside. You can do that in a fancy building, or in a house, it makes no difference in my judgment.
Not rly. Not sure if it is the beautiful buildings, a more traditional liturgy or the presence of the Eucharist, but a Catholic or even Orthodox mass feels much more holy than a protestant, especially a low church protestant does. Beauty is important and a church is the house of God, so it should be given due respect. How a church looks may not be the most important aspect, but its not negligible either.
It does not follow that because we worship in spirit and truth that material manifestations of that are unimportant. Or do you think the Israelites didn't give true spiritual worship at the Temple when they weren't corrupt? Same works for His presence being anywhere two or more are gathered. It does not follow that because He is present wherever we gather that the place in which we gather shouldn't be dignified as much as possible and be set apart from the world as something sacred and reserved for Him. Also, just because something isn't the fundamental essential basics doesn't mean its unimportant and has no harm in being ignored.
Right like what are these people talking about? The Church is the body of Christ, not a building. I guess we have it figured out better than the apostles these days.
Literally the next verse: Colossians 4:16 After this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans and that you in turn read the letter from Laodicea. The Church of Laodicea was one of the 7 Churches and was a proper building for worship.
@@romancoinberg you mean the ones who were criticized and threatened to be spit out for being lukewarm? Not sure we should be copying them. As for them having a "proper building", the scripture never says that. Maybe consider that Paul's letters were written decades prior to the book of Revelation and the church likely grew in size, but in none of the Bible does it describe what the Church of Laodicea looked like. All Paul says is to read the letter in the church. Not one point in the Bible does the word "church" refer to a building. The Greek word 'Ekklesia' means 'assembly' or 'gathering'. It does not mean 'building of worshippers'.
@ryanpowell9003 The Corinthians were being criticized for being promiscuous yet they were a Church as well. If you look for images of the Corinthian and Laodicean Churches you'll see the ruins of big temples, they were built for worship, in fact, if you Google the word "ἐκκλησίᾳ" in images the first result is a Church building.
Communion together in their homes. Acts 2:46 And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, 47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.
One of the best churches I ever attended was started as a house church. By the time I joined it was in a converted one room schoolhouse built in the late 1800s. Jam packed every sunday wednesday and friday.
I agree with you in a general sense, completely. However, there are situations that happen in people’s lives that don’t make every decision on where to go to church black and white.
Another absolute banger. Coming from a Church of Christ background, we have never called ourselves denominational in the way that we don't have a ruling body over every congregation. Instead, wherever there are people with the fulfilled requirements, we establish elders and decans over each congregation. Even with a less institutionalized group, we easily raise hundreds if not thousands every Sunday. This goes to a non profit television program that brings in dozens and dozens of people, as well as helping brothren, and building churches in the Philippines, India, Kenya, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, and many more places. That's just our congregation of around 40 people. I agree with the thesis, but I wouldn't doubt what small groups can do.
My neighbor house is used as a church every sunday and hosts their own services for their family and a few people in their denomination. But take in account we live in mexico, and most people here are catholic then a small percentage of Mormons and JWs, and after that protestant christians. That means the nearest church of their denomination is hours away from their home or in the US wich most people cannot cross to without years of bureaucracy to get a travel visa even for religious reasons. To be fair as a "pseudo catholic" i dont mind being woken up by their sermon every sunday, as they are doing their best to practice their faith given the difficulties of living as a minority.
The small group and the large congregation are the two wings of the church. Multiplication and addition occur to our numbers best when both are in harmony. "The Second Reformation" is a great book about that.
Historically, "house churches" were always a part of Christianity. Traditionally they are called "Christian Families". In these "house churches" the father should be the leading pastor/priest; the mother should be his leading theologian/seminary teacher, and the children are the seminarians. When these "house churches" (families) are mostly dysfunctional, then institutional churches are in big trouble. Their societal foundation (strong Christian families) are missing (Just like the foundations of Zoomer's new house).
As a recent member of the house church movement, I have noticed that it is simply the inverse of establishing a "normal church". Whereas, a regular church would build a main gathering and then create small groups from that, a house church will make small groups and then create a large gathering on Sunday. I like the concept as it protes accountability and intimacy among the bretheren, but it's not the best idea ever. Especially when people are uneducated and enter a house church, there is not reliable authority to help flush out bad ideas. At least in early church times they had the apostles, who were completely solid in their understanding.
Me and my closest brothers and sisters in Christ have house meetings on a regular basis. We come together to discuss, pray, hold communion and help one another as the bible tells us to do. We uplift one another and we allow the holy spirit to work with us. Something that is difficult to do, though not impossible in larger congregations. We visit a variety of other churches. A lot of Baptist and Pentecostal as they are prevalent in our region, but otherwise any place the holy spirit may lead us. Our service and faith to God is genuine, and through the fruits of the holy spirit and where God leads us, we know that what we do is correct. Though we do not belong to any specific denomination, and we don't partake in a specific one. We come from all sorts of backgrounds, and we meet people from all sorts of backgrounds. We have baptised multiple in the name of Christ, and helped others grow their faith. We have preached and brought people into our faith, and parted ways with people who God had other places for. I do not believe house churches are wrong. It all depends on execution and right faith and reliance on God. It does take a serious faith in God to assemble however.
Matthew 18:20 "For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.” What do you make of us this verse in respect to house churches?
“Paul, a prisoner for Christ Jesus, and Timothy our brother, to Philemon, our beloved and our co-worker, to Apphia our sister, to Archippus our fellow soldier, and to the church at your house ” (Philemon verses 1-2).
This has been interesting to listen to as a house church leader and a babtist one at that. :D I feel that house churches, in my experience, are more successful at creating more disciples than just believers. Which has been my problem with larger congregations of/or trad churches. I feel the anonymity of a large congregation thwarts personal spiritual growth. And a lot of the larger churches haven't figured out a good way to tackle that issue. But I'm not from the States, so experiences will vary. But I do agree on the fact that house churches should strive for some sort of leadership structure, band together with other small churches and join a denomination or doctrinally sound christian organisation for accountability. This paradoxical idea of elitism and universalism of Christianity- A church for everybody, but still not all are chosen. I believe God allows for more individuality than we think- Like RZ keeps saying he thinks that trad worship is objectively better, but thinking it already makes it kind of subjective. I find most trad hymns dry and unmoving, but the familiar music, understandable and repeatable lyrics of modern worship are more immersive for me.(Not a fan of Hillsong either though and I enjoy only a few of Bach's pieces :D ) But I think that's the beauty of Christ, he unites people from all walks of life and offers all willing hearts a suitable place for worship.
Philemon 1:2 - Apphia and Archippus’ house. “Paul, a prisoner of Christ Jesus, and Timothy our brother, to Philemon our dear friend and fellow worker, also to Apphia our sister and Archippus our fellow soldier, and to the church that meets in your home: Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” Acts 16:40 - Lydia’s house. “After Paul and Silas came out of the prison, they went to Lydia’s house, where they met with the brothers and sisters and encouraged them.” Colossians 4:15 - Nympha’s house. “Give my greetings to the brothers and sisters at Laodicea, and to Nympha and the church in her house.” Romans 16:3-5 - Priscilla and Aquila’s house. “Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my co-workers in Christ Jesus. They risked their lives for me. Not only I but all the churches of the Gentiles are grateful to them. Greet also the church that meets at their house.” Acts 20:7-8 - The disciples in the upper room. “On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul began talking to them, intending to leave the next day, and he prolonged his message until midnight. There were many lamps in the upper room where we were gathered together.”
Exactly. It's ironic that this TH-camr, who claims to care about history and traditions, neglects these obvious passages of the bible. In my opinion, the modern church is the reason that Christianity is so weak in our society. It has become a spectator sport. Something you do on Sundays mornings to cross it off your checklist. Because of large church buildings, ministers spend more time thinking about raising money, than about spreading the gospel.
We need to fulfill the great commission and if our budgets and tithes are spent on maintaining a building then the cost per baptism is in the thousands. I don't trust it when people speak against house churches, but don't make any mention of the 1040 window or modern day missions. Many in this chat are unaware of disciple making movements, and church planting movements. @@nerychristian
I'm tired of people thinking that they need to start a new church since none of the churches in their area meet their warped standards. Most areas have many churches to choose from. Join a church instead of starting a "church" and trying to steal sheep.
I think it's all about motives. Sure, you have wolves in sheep's clothing starting house churches in order to build their ideal "church" that fits whatever standard they so decide. However, one could also argue that house churches, if built under the model of leadership presented in the New Testament, are more effective in fulfilling the great commission because the smaller atmosphere provides a greater intimacy among believers. The greater the intimacy among believers, the greater the discipleship. The greater the discipleship, the greater the spiritual maturity. The greater the spiritual maturity, the greater the evangelism. The greater the evangelism, the greater the gospel growth.
11:03 agreed here, yes every church needs a structure but we must be clear that the bible gives a structure. It state multiple roles (eldest, servants, teachers, shepards) and if all of them are in some way or another satisfied then this church is in accord with Gods word (unless their roles are contrary to the bible). So if God himself doesn't give a clear structure maybe we can use what else he has given us aka his brain but we also must remember "Don't judge unless ye be judged" Mt 7:1.
Any congregation of believers who meets on the Lord's Day to participate in Word and Sacrament (i.e. has a properly ordained minister among them under external authority), is a legitimate and valid expression of the Catholic Church-regardless of their place of meeting. It is a "real church." House Churches were the norm of the first two centuries of the Church because synagogues were the norm for worship outside of High Holy Days among the Hebrews in the first century, and those were also "House Churches" (Synagogues were designated meeting rooms in large houses). While there are problems with the "House Church Movement"-e.g. pietism, retreatism, biblicism, etc.-these are prevalent and pervasive issues of American Evangelicalism at large, irrespective of House Churches. What we can see that is worth noting in the movement, however, is a reaction against the evangelical consumerism which plagues most churches today (Reformed included, if not notably)-conspicuous consumption of resources on buildings, programs, events, parachurch "ministries," etc. By all means critique where critique is due, but given the influence you have now I would encourage you to be a little more circumspect in how you throw your clout around. The opening statement started problematically because of your use of "real church," which begs the question and categorizes house churches as "not real church" from the beginning. Also, parallel economies are legitimate. Mediocre "Christian" schools are legitimate alternatives to mediocre public schools. A local house Church (or public mission) down the street is a legitimate alternative to the local established congregation. Keep in mind that much said about house churches could be consistently applied to local missions and church planting. Anyhow, just some thoughts-I say all this as a minister of a local, public congregation with our own church building.
And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds, not giving up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but encouraging one another-and all the more as you see the Day approaching. Hebrews 10:24-25 while I agree its probably better to gather in church (because more followers equals more transparency on the Word of God) however I know of many people with extreme anxiety that say they can't go to church (and when they do go to church they end up leaving in 15-45 minutes on average because they start to shake and are unable to control how their body is reacting) tbh IDK if its better for them to "listen online" or if it's better they go to a real church (as they seem to not be able to do the latter well) but I'm about to listen to the whole video now 😂 if anyone read this i hope you enjoyed, and any info on this would be helpful
I want to start by saying that I do appreciate your work and desire to grow the Kingdom here on earth. It is a very important thing for us Christians to do and I do agree that retreatism is not the way to do it. There are a few things about this video I would like to talk about. First thing is that I do agree that a house church is not a good thing if that is the end goal. I would think this fits into similar categories of churches who meet in unconventional places as it is not something that should be the end goal of the congregation. There are scenarios in which they have their place. First one, I'm glad you mentioned, persecution. That is one thing that is one of the most overlooked human rights violations worldwide. Many people don't realize that ~360 million Christians face potential persecution daily. That's nearly 1 in 7 Christians. Those cases absolutely need to do house churches and us who aren't persecuted need to keep them in our prayers (Hebrews 13:3). Another situation in which this has it's place is in newer congregations. I recently moved to a new city and am attending church with a congregation that is still in its infancy and is currently renting out a movie theatre until we can find ourselves a building. For newer congregations looking to get up on their feet, having services at a house or in a non traditional location is absolutely something that is fine to do. It's just that if it's planned on being a permanent measure that it becomes an issue. Where I find the biggest disagreement with you does come down to the importance of the building itself and your views on non-denominational churches. To start with the building itself, while I am not opposed to beautiful buildings, it is not what is most important. God cares about the heart far more than about outward appearances (1 Samuel 16:7) and while that verse is talking about King Saul, it also applies to a church's congregation. Many church buildings are beautiful but have heresy being preached on the inside. I for one would rather be part of a congregation that preaches the word of God and tries to follow Him while meeting in a house than one who meets in a beautiful building and is rotten to the core. On top of that, one of our primary jobs as Christians and as the Church is to take care of the poor and less fortunate around us (Matthew 25:35-40). There are countless verses which talk about the early Church giving to the poor, and Jesus telling those who wish to follow him to sell everything and give to the poor. Based off of this, I do believe that it is more like Christ, which is who we are supposed to imitate, to focus money on taking care of the poor, rather than making a beautiful building. It is more like Christ to spend $10k on helping the poor rather than spending $10k on stained glass windows. Overall with this video, to sum up my beliefs, house churches if done as a way to retreat from society is wrong. You and I agree there. They have their time and place for persecution or as a temporary placeholder. But overall, God cares more about the hearts of the people in a congregation than the look of the building that they meet in.
I made a long comment when this video came out, which seems to have been deleted. I hope this one gets seen and doesnt disappear. I've been in house churches my entire life, and I feel you've sorely misrepresented at least some forms of it in this video. You’ve only taken the time to consider a single positive of such churches (facing persecution), while there are many more, so let me enlighten you. House churches are not retreatist by default. Some may be, I'm sure, but in my 29 years of being in them, I have never heard retreatist philosophy among them. Rather, the goal of the house church is to emulate the early church in its healthiest form. The church's most explosive growth was in the house church phase, following the "house by house" principle in Acts. We follow the principle of the mustard seed, not allowing the birds of heaven (Satanic powers in Luke 8:5) to roost in our branches by growing too big. Instead, we stay small yet spread wide, meeting house by house, and coming together as one on Sundays in a larger setting. Consider some of the problems inherent to large churches. Costs aside, the environment is austere, and the functioning members are a minority. Your average Christian Joe will sit in his seat, look at the stained glass, the vaulted ceiling, listen to the minister of 40 years, and say to himself "what hope do I have to serve God, compared to all this?" And because he's a face in the crowd, who will fellowship with him to dispel such feelings? By contrast, I am seen and appreciated in my house church. The ceiling there is only a few feet over my head, and our elders do not over-function so as to quash the contributions of other members. Everyone gets a chance to speak on Sunday, and we get even more chances on other days of the week. In this environment, we foster a desire and capacity to serve the Lord in *all* members. Because we all can prophesy one by one (1 Cor 14:31). I am no one special. I'm not a genius. Im an average Christian in my church. Yet I go online once a week to teach Bible studies, where Christians twice my age are blown away by my knowledge and understanding of the Bible, and the strength of my relationship to God. The elderly from large churches, who ask *me* questions about God, despite being Christians from a young age. This is a shame on large churches! Their ministers and pastors schedule their sermons each week, but how often are the *needs* of the congregants actually met? Meeting in homes day by day, we are able to fellowship in spirit in an intimate way that allows us to meet our needs. Large meetings could never accomplish that. The church's beginings were humble. We have forgotten that. Zoomer has too. Yes, the early church gathered every now and then in the temple, but 1 Corinthians 14:23 doesnt say *"when* the whole church comes together," it says *"if".* Smallness and humbleness are protections against pride and hierarchy, which make churches rigid, and stifle the function of their members. Size and hierarchy is why the Catholic church resisted Martin Luther, and why other denominations subsequently rejected Calvin and other wonderful theologians. Beautiful churches are good for the soul. But humble churches are good for the spirit. Have a care which you are feeding.
Dang. So the churches set up by the apostles weren’t legitimate churches. What a shame. Not saying house churches are even the best way today - I think there are several reasons to prefer other models - but your intro seemed to be a bit hyper-critical. Edit: I understand he backpedaled on this later in the video to clarify that he only felt this way about non-persecuted churches. However, that doesn’t excuse juxtaposing house churches with “real churches” in the intro. Despite his latter statements, he’s still saying in the intro that persecuted house churches aren’t “real churches” (even though these non-real churches are permissible in his eyes).
I have a friend who’s parents are from Cambodia they converted to Christianity when they came her but since his mom isn’t good at English so his mom makes them listen to a church in Cambodia.
This video is more of a critique of churches not in a mainline Protestant denomination, rather than house churches themselves. Granted, I'm not a mainline Protestant, so it seems we have different definitions of house churches. From my pov (as a church of Christ member), a house church is simply a church that meets not in a building, but this video seems to loop in any church that isn't a part of the mainline denomination into that definition. In defense of house churches: 10:58 I feel that the assumption that these house churches have no understanding of leadership model without being attached to a mainline denomination ignores that we have scriptures instructing us how to model church leadership and authority (1 Timothy 3, Titus 1). We also cannot ignore the reality that previously large churches are now losing members , and the challenges of maintaining buildings with the dwindling tithing/donations makes a return to house churches a better option than dissolving as a congregation. I have also witnessed house churches create new doorways to reaching new people who were previously wary or even hostile to churches due to bad experiences. To those lost people, house churches are far less intimidating than church buildings.
I have a shirt that says "Jesus is a relationship, not a religion". I haven't felt this called out since your "Why I'm not a Baptist" video lol 😅 My husband and I really love you and your videos and consider you a brother in Christ. Thank you for sharing some of your deep understanding of theology. ❤
I know plenty of churches that use office buildings and look like warehouses. Does that mean they are not real churches? I know many poor churches that meet in strip malls, yet they are more full of the spirit than congregations that meet in expensive and ornate church buildings
Research disciple making movements and church planting movements. When Jesus commanded the disciples to go out and make disciples he sent his disciples house to house Luke 10, because the gospel spreads quickly to whole families this way and entire households come to the faith.
Jhn 4:20- “Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, and you people say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.” Jesus *said to her, “Woman, believe Me, an hour is coming when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. “You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. “But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers. “God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”
A number of years ago my family was a part of a house church. The main premise's were to operate on an understanding of the church being a body rather than a place, having a higher emphasis on small group discussion and community and challenging/encouraging one another in ministering to our neighbors.
100%. I don't really get what his problem with homeschooling is. Some other forms of "retreatism" I can understand more why he dislikes. But really? You're going to throw a 5 or 6 year old kid into a dumpster fire of an educational system and hope they are somehow spiritually mature enough not to be destroyed by it?
As someone who's been a member of a house church for the past 25 years, I would like to respond to some of the comments you made in this video. It seems really significant to my mind that in the New Testament you don't see the record of one church building being built. Yes, we see Christians meeting in already established structures like the temple, synagogues, and houses, but not a single verse references anything about Christians putting up a new structure for their meetings. Yes, they were sometimes experiencing persecution, but not constantly, and not everywhere. I don't think you give this fact the weight it deserves. Secondly, when describing religious buildings and their importance in the Scripture, you glossed over the relationship between the New Covenant and the Old. Structures like the Temple and tabernacle were types of Christ and his church (which, in the New Testament, always refers to a group of people). Just look at Ephesians 2:19-22 - "Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit." How can a temple grow? How can people be built? It's a spiritual reality, not physical. The idea that a certain place can be holier than our houses is completely contrary to Scripture's teaching. Just look at the verses I quoted. Where is God's dwelling? It's in us! Our bodies should be the holiest place, and our bodies exist wherever we go. Paul even makes that connection when he's warning people not to practice sexual immorality. By the way, I don't believe in the Rapture. I believe what Scripture teaches, and I see nothing about Christians needing to build separate houses for worship in Scripture. The unfortunate thing about structure and authority in the church is that you can have all the credentials you want but it doesn't provide spiritual life. Jesus was not ordained by any religious institution of his day, but he had authority from God. God often works outside of institutions. Regarding healing the sick - our house church actually funds a medical outreach in an impoverished country. It's not a hospital, but it's a group of doctors who lost their jobs because of political upheaval in their country, who go into extremely poor areas to provide basic medical treatment to those who can't afford it. 100% of the funds we send them goes directly to treating patients. In a more institutional structure, some of those funds would be caught up in administration. "Big and more organized" does NOT always equal more effective. I think your biggest misunderstanding is thinking that societal influence depends on outward structure or visibility, whereas my experience tells me it emphatically does NOT. In fact, sometimes (though not always) outward structure or visibility goes counter to what God is doing. That being said, I always enjoy hearing your opinions even when I disagree with them. I encourage to keep studying the Bible about what the church really is.
“When they [Paul and Silas] had come out of the prison, they went to Lydia’s house where they saw and encouraged the brothers, and then they left ” (Acts 16:40).
I enjoy going to church in person in a church building. I can understand if someone lives in china and there’s government run churches but for those of us in countries with free access to worship in church buildings we really have no use or need for house churches. But to each their own.
I'd say do both. Go to Church on Sundays, but at home the mom can teach the kids some personal Bible lessons, and dad can sit in the corner and watch. And if your a adult have a personal Bible reading session for maybe 15 minitues to a hour. I do that it's fun.
I have to stop you right there. 100% I agree with at home Bible lessons. The WORST way to do them is to have mom teach and dad sit in a corner and watch. Fathers are the spiritual heads of their households. Children need to see their father taking the lead in spiritual matters. If mom is leading and dad is silent, it sends the message to kids that the ideas are tolerated but not the family's priority. If the dad leads and the mom takes a supportive role, it will set a much more serious tone.
I would argue my house is God's house. God no longer resides within the temple, but our bodies when we receive the Holy Spirit. Thus, there is no New Testament necessity for a Temple
I'm curious about how you got your definition of the Kingdom of God. I believe the Kingdom of God is where Christ was/the Holy Spirit is present, not something specifically physical right now. I do believe people too often start house churches, or personal "churches," far too hastily and out of hurt, rather than to truly honor Christ. That often leads to ignoring Scripture, or twisting it like a cult, at times...
Have been going to church for about 5 months, mind you, it’s a non denominational church, however they’re very passionate about what the early church intended to be back in the day. Which means strong community. We rent out a space for Sunday service, but we also have house church on Wednesday, which is simply a Bible study going over the scripture the pastor read that past Sunday. I like this structure mainly for two things; socializing with the community and building new relationships and digesting the material thoroughly. Being a new believer, I have a very limited understanding of the Bible, thankfully I have a community that, not only welcomed me, but is helping me have a cohesive understanding of God’s word. I always look forward to Wednesday house church just as much as I do on Sunday service.
Man, as a Spanish Catholic I see theese things and I bafle but at the same time look with eerie eyes, like the idea of a " home-church " is very unsetting to me
What do you think about the plan of the Anglican Province of the Indian Ocean to plant 100 Anglican house churches in Mauritius and one in every district of the Seychelles?
Do you want to see the 1040 window willed with the knowledge of the Glory of the Lord as the waters cover the seas? Matthew 24:14 "And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come."
Isn't the Sabbath in traditional Jewish culture Friday night-Saturday night? And what about those serving in the church? It's kind of like work for them that particular day, so not sure the church day is necessarily one's Sabbath
Bro you literally said that the Christians valued the temple as an institutional place of worship while ignoring how Jesus said that soon they would not worship in the temple anymore (John 4). The idea of the separation of sacred and secular is not rooted in the new testament, it is a far too literal carryover from the old testament. When your life belongs to Jesus, all of it does. Everything is sacred because your life is an altar to God
"Over the last 2000 years, God has used ordinary disciples who follow Jesus and His core pattern of Kingdom work to multiply and saturate entire areas and people groups with the Gospel. We labor with this same desire, to see the multiplication of God’s kingdom saturate all the earth. (2 Tim 3:16-17; John 14:26, 15:1-17; Acts 13:1-4, 14:23-29; 2 Tim. 2:1-2; 1 Cor. 11:1)"
Love your content! I can listen to it and hear that you are impartial and you draw from scripture as well as actual trends in society and its a clear and logical conclusion.
My church sortve started as a house church. They bought a victorian house that was condemned. No one lived in it but it was a house. They did eventually build an extension where we now do worship. Although ngl i really dont like how it looks on the inside. Very plain. My catholic roots scream internal to decorate the church and add icons
Apostolic Authority and succession from Jesus is how authority is given from above… Credentials and fancy pieces of paper are nice and all… But they’re useless when it comes to spiritual authority.
In countries with high levels of persecutions, house churches are very necessary. In places like china the ruling body will come down on a congregation hard if they are found so a house church can save lives. Remember when covid hit for the first time? during those times churches were being outlawed so people would need to meet inside houses.
I have a disability and because of this, I am sometimes unable to go to church but I make every effort to go when I am able to. However I do think there is value to churches as we understand them. I was taught that going to church is a way of showing respect to God however the way we understand the concept is going to church has changed. The fact that there was online church in a lot of places during covid was an extreme event and I am in favour of keeping this as an option for people in extreme circumstances. I think that God is special and holy and the fact that we take time out of our day to spend time with him and others who follow Christ is a demonstration of faith. Also, I hate to be the pessimist, but it would be so hard to keep each other accountable if we did church in such a casual way.
Some of this retreatism is so infuriating. I see some guy on Twitter saying that the PCA, NOT PCUSA, is a hopelessly liberal denomination and people should leave. If conservatives see 0.0000000000001% liberalism in their own retreatist denominations and run away from that, there is no hope. Although I'm personally not in the Reconquista, I pray it works, because this movement is now the only conservative network doing something about formally conservative institutions.
If we have to go underground from persecution or the institutional Church is unable to fund buildings, by all means return to what we saw in Acts and the era immediately following. For some Evangelicals and non-denominationals, services don't require any special building - or even a common in-person meeting place - because their services aren't anything more than some combination of concert and lecture. For Catholics and Orthodox at least, the service is a physical sacrifice that requires ordained priests, consecrated objects, and physical presence - making a common meeting place (preferably one befitting what takes place there) a necessity. While this can be a believer's home if necessary, other things being equal it is not what we should do.
The Church knows the service is not a physical sacrifice because Peter and the apostles told Christians to "abstain from blood" (Acts 15 : 20 & 29, Acts 21 : 25) and Paul tells the Church they are eating bread when they are eating the Lord's Supper (1 Corinthians 11:26, 27, and 28). Paul never says the Church is eating Christ's body. When Paul mentions the body & blood of Christ in 1 Corinthians he is referring to the Christians that are being abused by the others in the Church meetings. The Jews were commanded in the Mosaic covenant to never drink or eat blood. If they did, they were to be cut off from the people (Leviticus 7 : 27, Leviticus 17 : 10 & 14). So if God wanted His people to start ingesting blood during the Lord's Supper (the Eucharist), he would have to really overcome the Mosaic commandment to abstain from blood, but instead we find Peter and the apostles telling the Church to abstain from blood. Some people think Jesus taught that we must drink his blood and eat his flesh with our physical mouths. They point to John 6 : 53 - 58 where Jesus said, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” (John 6 : 53 - 58) What the people miss is what Jesus taught his disciples right afterward, "The Spirit gives life; *the flesh counts for nothing.* The words I have spoken to you-they are full of the Spirit and life" (John 6 : 63) Jesus was speaking to them about spiritual truths just like when he told Nicodemus that to enter the kingdom we must be born again (John 3 : 1 - 21). Nicodemus thought he had to get back into his mother's womb, but Jesus was talking about the being born on a spiritual level. In the same way Jesus was not talking about eating his flesh and drinking his blood in our physical mouth. Jesus said the flesh counts for nothing so this is how we know Jesus was speaking on a spiritual level. To put your full trust in Jesus and believe in him is what feeding on Jesus is all about (John 6 : 35 "Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty"). It is not about eating Jesus with your physical mouth. It is about putting your faith/trust/belief in Jesus. Some think during the Last Supper when Jesus said the bread is his body and the wine is his blood of the covenant (Matthew 26 : 26 - 29) that Jesus changed the bread and wine into his body and his blood. When we look at the passage we find that after Jesus said the bread and wine as his body and blood he still describes the liquid as wine. This is how we know Jesus was just using metaphors and was not changing the bread into his physical body and not changing the wine into his physical blood. Here is the passage : While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.” Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, I will not drink from this *fruit of the vine* from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” (Matthew 26 : 26 - 29) By continuing to call the liquid in the cup "fruit of the vine" (wine) he made it clear that it was not his physical blood in the cup. It was still wine. This is how we know he was using metaphors.
I grew up in a house church. The only positive was it taught us how to live as Christian’s in a community and doing life together. Outside of that it’s pretty unbiblical for the reasons they do it.
"Retreating from" is separating from. We're not supposed to love the world and are to be apart from it. We can see how the world influences churches and if they refuse to listen what do you do? Separate. 🤷♂ But a "holy huddle" where you don't interact with society at all does no good either. Burying our talents or hiding a lamp under a bench we're warned against, we're supposed to be the salt and light of the world. So I think it really comes down to if any given Christian is listening to what God wants them to do in a given situation. Keep in mind that Christ himself did not reform the temple, they rejected him AND the apostles. What did the apostles do? They went to the churches and taught the truth until they were kicked out, didn't try to reform them. So what should we do? I figure listen to what God wants you to do.
So you down on Christian colleges that are more possible to enroll in, and then suggest ivy league schools 😂😂. I'm going to LU because I have GI bill and want to become a counselor and can't get into ivy. I am starting with a BA in Christian Counseling, then moving to M.A. in Clinical Mental Health Counseling. How does this choice in University affect anything? They stand by Christian doctrines, and teach the bible and etc along with its core. IM just confused on why this was a topic?
I took issue with this area of his talk as well. Liberty is a solid place to get an education, on a beautiful campus, in gorgeous Virginia. Their tuition isn't outrageous and the COL in Lynchburg is fantastic.
I think International Fellowship of Evangelical Students (IFES) has a very solid program for a house "church." Fellowships and para-churches DON'T replace churches but it serves as a place for us to gather when we're away from our churches. I think this is great for decentralizing while also supporting our institutions.
Zoomer, have you asked your church members if you are too obsessed with church buildings? God never wanted the First Temple. God allowed David to conceive of it due to David's insistence, so allowed his "son" to build it (just like the "Son" of God who built the Church). God told King Cyrus to "build him a house at Jerusalem". God never said a temple. In fact, God never blessed the Second Temple which suggests that He meant the house of God that Jesus built later through his sacrifice. I am a great admirer of old Church buildings and envious/lament that conservatives lost them. However, I don't think I am that obsessed...
@@jeremywilliams5107 That was AFTER he decided to allow David to conceive it. Read 2 Samuel 7. You need to read the Bible stories from the start to understand how it came about. Temples were things that pagans built. God specifically says "In all places where I have moved with all the people of Israel". He is not like page gods.
@thomasc9036 your interpretation is incorrect. The Tabernacle was the place where He revealed Himself, but after Eli the Ark was no longer there, and His presence could not be seen. So what to do? David recovered the Ark and was inspired to make a house for it that would be more glorious than His own palace. While God approved it, just as with the Tabernacle, He gave precise details as to its construction, and the part you mention is a rhetorical device whereby God reminds David that it is His house and He won'taccept merely David's idea of it. So He wanted the Temple. He didn't want the kingship, but permitted it to be the instrument of finally driving out the remaining heathen from the land of Israel and preparing the building of the Temple.
A non denominational can be okay, I go to a Bible Church that we follow as close to a literal translation as we can, try to uphold tradition, and our pastors all have advanced degrees
You should do a pretty deep dive into the IFB movement (not the new IFB, ie: Steven Anderson followers, just mainstream IFB). The IFB, although they don’t typically adopt this home church, very well could be heading down this road. Retreatism in their circles has gotten really bad, and we’re seeing the full cycle of a Christian denomination go from full on revivalism and mainstream (popular) in the 1950s, to beginning their retreatism doctrine in the 1960s and 1970s (when the Bible was taken out of schools) and the furthering development of rock and pop in the 1980s (anti secular music) to the 1990s and the advancement of other Bible translations and Television (KJV only-ism and Anti Secular entertainment) and then from the early 2000s to today, it’s been anti everything and further distancing from the world. Which inevitably, will grow home church movement. Would love to see you expound on this for like 40 minutes lol
As a point every House Church that I've ever been aware of is intending to get a physical building it's always the start of just a church plant a few people band together the church grows they build funds the find a larger space and continue. Often times this is done through shared spaces for existing churches.
Anyone can judge me for this if they want, but I worship from home. It truly makes me sad, when I was a kid I loved church soooo much!! Unfortunately there was a TON of trauma stemming from multiple churches that drove out family away. It wasn't what we wanted to do, at all. We tried several churches, even a bit of an odd non-denominational church with less than 10 members, all to no avail, unfortunately. I was crushed, I ended up questioning my faith over the course of several years. I was lost for quite some time. The whole order was traumatic and incredibly sad to me and my family. My sister is an atheist now, I pray for her every day, even though we dont speak and were not on good terms. I pray for her to find her way home, like I did. Y'know Zoomer, I really hope you see this comment. I wish to ask for a favor of you, my brother in our wonderful awesome Lord Jesus Christ. Here it goes: Make a video of a step by step playbook of how you would run a Church service. All the do's and dont's. Pretend like you're being persecuted in a foreign country and you have to run your own church from home, how would your typical service go, for instance. Id really like your thoughts and input and to see how you would do it. Honestly, id like to see that and it would help me to do a more proper service from home. I don't want to start my own church, I don't want to be a preacher or a pope or anything in between, I don't want anything from this except one thing: to praise the Lord properly and raise my son as a true Christian, he already loves Jesus because of me. His mom is a nonbeliever and we've been split for several years now. I just want to have church again, so badly, I'm literally in tears writing this. I do my best with what I have and make due, but watching your videos....I can see you have much much more knowledge than I do about this and I respect that. I'm asking for help, I'm asking to not be turned away- once again- by my family in Christ. Please. I'm not asking you to understand it, like it, or agree with it.... I'm just asking for your help. Make a video on how to do a proper church service from top to bottom, please, with a list at the end of everything that need be done and what to avoid. I wish I could go to church, I really do, if you think it doesn't f***ing kill me inside then you would be very wrong. It does. But I refuse to risk my faith again by going to negative churches and I absolutely refuse to inevitably push my son away from our Lord due to the same bad experiences that I had and my family had at many churches throughout my growing up. Please. Help me with this request, my brother. Put your opinions on the shelf this one time and help a brother in need. This is your call good sir, will you answer it? Whether yes or no, even if you tell me to Eff off...Id like to say thank you for your time and consideration. These videos help me a lot. I get that feeling of unity that I felt as a kid in church before the illusion was shattered for me by vile congregations and bad teachings. I feel like I'm having church with you and all the people who are attuned within the comments and community. I don't care if I sound dumb or ridiculous or whatever anyone wants to think, I don't care about that. I speak the truth from my heart here and I love the Lord. That's what counts to me.
My grandparents as a church and a house because they don’t have enough money to buy a church a group of man stole there money and sewed them for no actual reason
this thumbnail confirms objective beauty exists! as an evangelical, now i feel obligated to go a beautiful church.
that's the idea. Find one here:
www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?mid=1PNd_sJagci84PyKmGC6M5VJtaLMEWxg&ll=40.87060059224757%2C-82.31438848543115&z=17
Are there any good, conservative/semiconservative churches in Scotland?
@@LoganS.R. yes!
Go here;
www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?ll=44.03226794579251,-92.75978994999998&z=17&mid=1PNd_sJagci84PyKmGC6M5VJtaLMEWxg
Beauty is not God.
But God is Beautiful.
@@redeemedzoomer6053Thanks, Redeemed Zoomer!
i mean, nothing wrong with meeting members of your church at each other's houses, in fact it should be very encouraged. however a large body meeting and a centre to outreach from is really important
Which, to clarify, is an aspect of many house church models. They just don’t meet in a large body weekly.
@@Tennishangman Which is a horrible idea, as they cannot take part in the Eucharist on Sundays. Also, just very small groups of people getting together without a priest to discuss the Bible is not in itself a bad idea, but you need a hierarchy to have consistent and theologically sound interpretation. Otherwise, you become like many evangelicals, who just interpret the Bible to fit their own views, so it should be done in addition to attending Church, not instead of it.
@@justhair17 I understand Catholic and Eastern traditions (including those passed down to some high-church Protestant denominations) hold that you cannot take the Eucharist without a priest, but this idea is one of many that is notoriously absent from the Bible. No disrespect to those traditions - you may believe your tradition itself is inspired alongside the Bible - but I think it’s unfair to apply that restriction to others outside your tradition. Theres no biblical reason why you need a priest to observe communion beyond the royal priesthood that is all of Christianity.
Edit: The early Church certainly didn’t have anything akin to a modern priest as a requirement to take communion. If anything, they may have been doing it every time they met, Sunday or otherwise, regardless of whether they were even in a church. I’m not advocating that position, but I am saying God clearly allowed some flexibility here beyond your tradition.
@@Tennishangman It is sacred tradition and no, it is not unfair to appy it. Keep in mind Christ did not give us the Bible, he gave us His Church, which then gave us the Bible.
And again, early church was
different, as the apostles and their disciples were present. Now, as they are dead, we have to follow the tradition set by the apostles themselves. And the priests are special, only they can give out sacraments, not the laity
And besides, even Luther believed that about the Eucharist, only low churches with no tradition and literally no links to the apostles believe that.
@@justhair17 All I can say is that the Pope of your “one and only true and holy apostolic church” is more ecumenical than the view you’re espousing. It seems radical to think the Church of Rome was originally determined by a Church centered in Antioch and Jerusalem to be the head of the entire Church, but I understand that’s been y’all’s position for quite some time, so I won’t try to change your mind. Have a nice day.
I was an Independent Evangelical and you are so right on about Evangelicals retreating from secular culture! It made me angry because Ive witnessed the deterioration of our culture as a result. You also nailed it by pointing out that Evangelicals love plain ugly worship areas. As an artist I found this hostility to beauty offensive. I also found it offensive to God, because He created all beauty.
Exactly! So join a Mainline Protestant church
www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?mid=1SRpkwF4hEaXZvor4BXyoAawrNVgH9CM&ll=34.558606130601454%2C-84.81368661242608&z=5
huh, funny, cause the last 100 years in arts were hostile to beauty, maybe going after art isn't the goal afterall, hmm??
@@Omen09 That's political and cultural, not essential to the arts. Art is a tool.
@@georgegreen711 ??? i m sorry, the guy said he s an artist, so i assumed he knows what happened in arts during 20th century. That's why it always baffles me when in this channel it's propagated to have beauty in churches (buildings) when we know were art eventually leads to. Maybe focusing on God instead of art should be bigger priority?
Interesting.. as someone who would identify as an evangelical, it seems to me that worshipping God in more humble, lowkey fashions is quite reflective of His nature. Our God has a reputation of transforming ugliness, or undesirableness, into beauty. Christ was born in a feeding troth. David was the youngest and smallest of his brothers. You and I were sinners who've been made saints. The ones who inherit the kingdom of heaven are those who are poor in spirit, mournful, and meek. It is in the nature of God to transform ugliness and lowliness into beauty and royalty. With that being said, I believe it isn't unfitting to worship God, the most majestic and important act in all the universe, in a humble location like that of house churches. In other words, there's beauty in the humility. I appreciate your perfective, though! The aesthetic sense is one of God's greatest gifts to mankind.
House Churches are fine for Nondenominational Churches, especially if they’re starting out. They have to start somewhere.
Agree, not acceptable for any other historic denom though. Buy deteriorating old churches if you can afford or revive a dying church
I agree
yea and if you don't have a local grange or something, it'd be next to impossible otherwise. you can't have them outside forever either.
@@chancepaladin maybe in your backyard, but it’s only good if you’re starting out. If you go from building to backyard sermons, that church is practically dead.
The question is, why would you even want to be a non-denom church
Here are some very good reasons for churches to meet in houses:
1. Church members need to live in close enough proximity to each other for that to be possible. That makes it easier and more likely for them to spend time together during the week as well, which strengthens the community.
2. By not having to buy/rent/build and maintain a large fancy structure, financial resources of the church are more available to help those in need - both inside the church and around.
3. If everyone has a turn hosting church, the members of the church get to know each other better. By seeing how our brothers and sisters live we can be more aware of their circumstances, and thereby become aware of their needs and how we can help and support each other.
4. Meals together are a big thing in the New Testament. Most house Church meetings include a shared meal.
5. Jesus said that people would know we are His disciples by the love we have for each other - not by how impressive our buildings are. Neighbors notice when large groups of people often get together. And when they get together in smaller groups throughout the week, people will notice how they interact with each other, which is a good witness.
All of these points and more mean of course, that it can't be a retreatist house Church in the middle of Nowhere. And just one family by itself doesn't make much of a church either. But a church that is built on community and hospitality, as well as being faithful to scripture is a beautiful thing. I hope you get a chance to see a church like that some day :)
Again, those points may make people meeting in houses a good addition. But they cannot replace a real church with a proper Sunday Mass.
Having a house church is good if the person hosting it took the proper steps to know God and there aren't any good churches available (this is entirely possible.)
A real church? We are the church. We are the body of Christ. We are the temple of God. Wherever 2 or 3 are gathered together in His name, He is there among us.
@@TheDragonSeerNowhere in Scripture do the apostles command us to go to church. They just ask us to remember to gather with other believers. Attending a small home church encourages everyone to get involved. Everyone has a stake in it. Whereas in big churches, most people that attend church on Sunday don't get involved in the church. They are more like spectators. Attending a service is not the same as getting involved in the growth of the church. In a big church it is more difficult to find or develop the talents that God has given us. That's why you have people who have attended church for years, yet can't even evangelize or teach a new convert
@@nerychristianYou're not going to take over the culture with that.
Great vid zoomer. I’m from Rwanda from Presbyterian Church in Rwanda(EPR) and I’d like to complement with somethin. We go to church every Sunday but we also have home churches as secondary church every other week and there is no motif of leaving the mainstream church but I can promise you I’ve seen more miracles(literal and metaphorical) being done in our region’s home church than mainstream service(ex:barren women getting pregnant, families on the verge of divorce getting back together,…) and people kept growing spiritually due to the communal study of the word and it was the most beautiful thing and there is much much more I’ve seen of how beneficial it can be. Once again I am adding and not subtracting from your video. God bless you!
I think we shouldn't refer to these as house churches and more as Small Groups, groups of 5-10 people united in a week day to learn and talk about God's word weekly in addition of the Sunday reunion.
A important theological figure whose name I forgot, said something like this: Small Groups are how the church truly grows and make an effect in it's around, as It isn't secluded in it's four walls.
Okay I added things in his quote because I don't remember the actual quote, just the overall thing he was trying to explain, that is small groups make the Church reach people it wouldn't otherwise.
11:20 The more I listen to this guy the stranger he sounds. "Your pastor should have credentials". Yes, in an era where we have easy access to bible training, Pastors should take advantage of that. But, that doesn't make them *qualified*. It's the church that ordains ministers, not seminaries
This guy is extremely reformed. I think he is not able to read the Bible without his Reformed glasses on.
@@jo_el_ The thing is, I'm reformed too, albiet 1689 baptist (which he wouldn't call reformed for some reason). The problem isn't being reformed. The problem is that saying that seminary training qualifies you, rather than being an indicator of a qualification (being able to teach sound doctrine) just isn't biblical.
Perhaps he mispoke out of undue passion (to be charitable), but he strikes me as consistently strange when he talks about "the mainline church" as if being mainline is THE standard for being biblical. I can understand arguing for confessionalism (very based), but he seems to have an undue obsession with tradition for tradition's sake
@@pb_destiny Well said.
The common lack of distinction between Temple, Congregation, Denomination and Church (calling all 4 "church") has been a disaster for soteriological and ecumenical discussion.
Denomination and Church are one ;)
A denomination is a subcategory of the Church. @@deutschermichel5807
@@deutschermichel5807 Temple: The building the Congregation meets at for worship.
Congregation: A group that meets together for worship.
Denomination: A group that agree on the particulars of biblical interpretation.
Church: All who are united in Christ.
Seriously. I can't believe how ignorant a lot of the people are. It just goes to show that they don't read their bibles. The fact that this video spends so much time talking about "Going to church" is ridiculous. The church is the body of Christ. It doesn't matter where you gather together, as long as you are worshipping God in spirit and in truth. I would gladly attend a home church if it meant getting away from the entertainment style of service we see in most "churches".
@@nerychristianNo, that's not how God usually describes worship places for Him.
I used to work at a ministry that was careful to distinguish between house churches (a church currently meeting in a house) and a home church (a home/family that believes that there is no command to regularly worship with other Christians). I have always found that distinction helpful.
Agreed. One couple with a handful of kids is not a church. If they are the only believers in the area they need to either move, or (if so called through connection with a larger group farther away) work as missionaries in their area. In that case they should aim to invite others into their home as well. Christians should never be isolationist.
In the world, not of the world. Separate from the world, but not from each other.
The PCA church I go to started as a house church. We don't have hour building yet, but it has the best preaching I've heard (at least in person) and weekly communion. It's always word and sacrament above everything else.
There is a difference between house churches and church plants. A PCA church can start small and meet in a movie theatre or something (as mine did), but those are still approved by a Presbytery.
Church plants are unorganized and often non-denom. They have neither the accountability nor the resources that a PCA church plant would have.
Hence, I don't think yours is a problem, especially if they have plans to one day have a real building.
Last I heard, believers didn't need permission from a denomination in order to gather together and start a church.
In my country, Belgium, finding classical beautiful protestant churches is quite difficult in my area. There are plenty of beautiful catholic churches but I'm not catholic, I believe in the protestant doctrines. I can only go thus far to ugly odern evangelical churches. However, the most important thing is that I've accepected Jesus Christ as my Lord and savior.
Which part of Belgium?
@@jeremywilliams5107 Liège, Wallonia.
@MatthewJackson-ff5yj I see... nearest 'traditionally beautiful' Protestant church would be the Anglican church in Brussels. I live about 2 hours away from you.
Just try attending Catholic Churches and you will see the truth
do what you must do, at the end of the day, the lord gave you people and a place.
navigate trough it :)
ugly church beautiful church,inside first cause that whats matter in end.
Spoken like an evangelical? so be it lol
This is probably true for western Christianity but historically the most successful church model has incorporated the home church model to some extent. You see in Acts that the early church did meet in the temple and in people's houses and you also see the Church in China meeting from house to house with not a structure to speak of.
But RZ said in the beginning, "If you're able" and that's key. If you're able to you should go to a church building.
Japanese Christians heroically kept the faith for centuries from the time Japan closed itself off from the world to the time it was forced open. Their faith was exemplary, but that doesn't mean they were in a good position.
Early Christians met in houses because they were persecuted. And the most successful church, that is the Catholic Church (the largest and the only one truly global), which is defo not know for house churches
And also, 'house churches' could work in those times because the apostles or their disciples were often also attending, which means they had a teaching authority
Right now the church is sending missionaries trained professionally with this house church planting model and it is biblical. The IMB sends many missionaries and see thousands of house churches planted, that plant more houses and it spreads. The cost per baptism is cheap! In the mainline it is like 5000 per baptism. If we want to send missionaries to plant churches but they need 200k for every church we would never finish the great commission. That is why many missionaries are sent with the Luke 10 house of peace search Acts 2:36-46 home church model that multiplies and spreads to many houses as the people are obedient to the great commission. House church models that missionaries are often trained in include engaging the lost, sharing the gospel, discipling the saved, teaching the saved to make disciples, and gathering the disciples into churches and establishing leaders in the churches Acts 14:23. This is called disciple making movements or Church planting movements. They have alot of merit and are worthy to be researched.
@jdotoz @justhair17 Hey brothers check my reply. Love you both!
I like pretty buildings as much as the next person, but if a house church is all a congregation can afford, is that just not good enough for God?
“When he [Peter] realized this, he went to the house of Mary, the mother of John who is called Mark, where there were many people gathered in prayer ” (Acts 12:12).
Right like what are these people talking about? The Church is the body of Christ, not a building. I guess we have it figured out better than the apostles these days.
The first Christians worshipped in the Jewish temples, that doesn't mean Christians need to call their temples "synagogues"
The Church obeys the commands of Christ to the best of their ability to exalt Christ, if that is under a tree, in a house, or in a cave, at some point they will have to go out and reach the lost because Jesus commanded us to GO and make disciples Matthew 28:18-20. The book of Acts 2:36-46 says the first church preached the gospel, called people to repentance, baptized them, were filled with the Holy Spirit, devoted themselves to the Apostles teachings, the fellowship, the breaking of bread, and prayers, they walked in signs and wonders, they gave to each other as they had need, worshipping God together, and the Lord was adding to their number those who were being saved. This all can happen in homes, as well as the temple or church building. Churches are fine, and God uses them, but to say they are the model that God plans for every church to meet in is not financially sustainable. I heard someone tell me that the national dept in the west for all the churches is almost 1 trillion dollars and who is going to pay for that? Our tithes! Our tithes should further the gospel being spread and disciples being made in public.@@ryanpowell9003
@@ryanpowell9003yeah but this guy is one of those guys that care a lot about the actual buildings themselves. He comes off a lot like a stereotypical telegram guy if you know what i mean. It sounded like he thinks that church buildings somehow arent going to be destroyed along with all of the current iteration of creation at the end of time, which is contrary to Scripture. Like you said, at the end of the day the church building is just that, a building. Some people (especially telegram guys) seem to attach more meaning to material things than they should.
@@lluvik2450 so because the Ark of the Covenant was going to be destroyed, they should’ve told God to buzz off when he said to make it beautiful, with gold and statues?
*Francis Chan has entered the chat* lol jk
Even though i disagreed with alot of what you were saying, i am happy you added towards the end that house churches in the correct context can be a very good thing.
I also do agree with you that house churches should be viewed as the baby stages of an established church.
I think your opinion about evangelicals is a bit skewed. A lot of what you were saying is stereotypical and not the norm. But for myself who interacts with a lot of evangelicals on a daily basis, i can tell you that evangelicals are not retreating from the culture. Evangelical churches are doing more urban mission work than other denominations and seeing the fruit of that labor, not to mention the media influence evangelical leaders are tapping into (surprise, it's more than mainline denomination leaders). For non-mainline churches having less resources and less organization, they seem to be doing a lot more for the Kingdom now than mainline churches in the U.S.
Also, evangelicals espouse that the "in-between" part from becoming Christian and dying is to make disciples, preach the Gospel, and care for the sick, poor, widows, and orphans.
I say this in love: I think your comments on evangelicals/churches not part of the mainline denominations are divisive and not good for the Kingdom. I understand your desire to see the mainline churches taken back and I support that, but i think you need to recognize how God is using non-denominational and Evangelical denominations as well.
I love zoomer's insight on things like this. I agree a lot with him about Christians retreating from the culture, however, I think a lot of it has to do with the need to strengthen "domestic Christianity", in other words, the Christian family unit has to get stronger first before fighting back in the culture in my opinion. I'm hoping that there's a huge movement soon in order to fight back against the culture, but from what I've seen many fail to do that in their own homes when their kids are exposed to so much temptation from the world.
(that being said, I agree with just about everything he said about house churches)
That, I feel, is the only good reason for retreatism. I myself plan on homeschooling because I want my children to grow up with a firm godly foundation as uncorrupted by this world as I can manage. However, that is also to raise them to be "arrows in my quiver" -- that is agents of the Kingdom.
Why do people who use the word "Zoomer" think they are so clever?
@@nerychristianThey don't. It just means Gen Z.
I dont know man, his theology is extremely strange to me
I know a guy who owns a house church, they're really into "speaking in tongues", and the guy who owns it says that "the Pentecostals do speaking in tongues wrong, you need an interpreter." He basically said everyone does speaking in tongues wrongs except his house-church. It's basically a cult, it's very emotion based and low iq preaching. Their worship is just hymns and they sit down, and the guy who owns it writes his own hymns and they sing them. So arrogant.
Some counterpoints:
1. Evangelicalism places a fair bit of emphasis on "parachurch" movements. For example, while the Salvation Army is in fact a formal denomination, it receives the vast bulk of its funding from people who aren't members. Likewise it wouldn't be considerably different in terms of effectiveness were it a simple Christian charity with a combination of volunteers and paid staffers. There is in practice no fundamental difference between them and, say, Samaritan's Purse. If, instead of a million Christians being active members of Denomination X, they were divided into 50,000 disorganized cells of house churches with an average of 20 members each, those million people could still pool their resources toward charitable parachurch organizations like the Salvation Army or hospitals.
2. House churches are more efficient because they use property which somebody already owns and pays the expenses related to. It adds zero expense to a household budget for some guests to come over every Sunday and sit in the living room for an hour or two. Churches often have limited charity budgets because some minimum percentage of their receipts have to go toward maintaining the building, paying the pastor's salary, etc. If every house church member gave to worthy Christian causes, there'd be less administrative waste per dollar spent.
3. It doesn't seem to me that the""Let's found rigorous new Christian universities" trend among organized denominations which happened in the 19th, 18th, and 17th centuries is common today. Which is to say that, in the year 2023, I have no reason to think Presbyterians were more prodigious collegebuilders than their Evangelical counterparts. Your argument here boils down to resting on the laurels of history.
4. There's a trend toward a smaller number of churches, each with more attendees on average. This is seen across American Christendom; the "Megachurch" isn't really an Evangelical-exclusive phenomenon nowadays, even if the most extremely large ones tend to be so. In such an environment it's easy to blend into a crowd and not be held accountable for the way you live, which is arguably why more and more people prefer larger churches. But small house churches are very much personal. And yes, it's possible to plug into small cliques within churches, but that's optional. With house churches it cannot be avoided. South Korea has seen large-scale experimentation with house churches in recent years and it seems indicative of growing religious fervor on their parts.
I agree with you completely. I think modern churches have become lifeless and stale. Part of the reason is because they are too predictable. When you attend church, it feels like you are going through a routine. No matter how strong your spiritual walk, it just feels like you are a spectator. There is usually very little opportunity for serving in a church in a meaningful way. In a smaller church or home church, you are kind of forced to get to know people and get involved. You kind of have to participate in a home church. It's also easier to discover the talents that God gave us in a small congregation.
You make some strong points. It's a shame they're wasted here.
TL;DR there's a time and a place for both.
I will offer a counter argument to your first point. Organizations like the Salvation Army are separate from the body of Christ and not subject to actual religious oversight. They run a business, and while they're not the worst organization out there, they're just as susceptible to corruption as any secular business. Of course, the modern western church is effectively corrupt from the inside out at this point, so it's not a strong counterargument.
The way I see it, there are tradeoffs no matter what route your local body of Christ chooses. With house churches, your members are more likely to be active in one another's lives and serving as an example to those in their immediate are. However, they're practically invisible on a large scale. A lot of young conservatives place a higher value on this "culture war" idea, even if their religion strictly expresses the futility of such a battle. It's a call to battle, and young men today lack a fight to pick. A house church isn't picking any fights except those spiritual battles they face individually.
This brings me to the pros/cons of larger churches within denominations. Big tent church theology can be incredibly uniting, because if they all belong to the same overhead organization, you know roughly what to expect when you go from one church to the next. Establishing a new church is a much smoother process; with a larger body comes more resources pooled for outreach, including RZ's obsession with physically beautiful structures. This smooth process can make it far more convenient for acts of community service. As part of an established religious organization, you can expect less civil pushback.
One big problem is how comparatively different non-denominational churches are. You have no idea what you're walking into when you cross that threshold. Even if their website claims the Nicene Creed and the congregants rave about how wonderful the church is, you can end up finding out the hard way like I did how fallen the modern church really can be while still claiming to hold to the tenets of the Bible.
However, you can effectively disappear into a congregation that's anything larger than two digits regardless of its denomination. I've even disappeared myself in meetings of 50 -- in every Sunday and completely forgotten. It might as well have been a house church with a neon sign out front saying, "No vacancy". This makes actually doing the things called for in the New Testament extremely challenging, as you sometimes have to work to find the arbitrary way to prove yourself worthy of attention. Hard to edify/be edified in the body of Christ if you're invisible.
Of course, my real problem is the sort of spirit James was opposed to when he wrote about favoritism. I reckon the reason I'm invisible in churches is that I don't abide fancy clothing. I often look like an old beggar because I'd rather spend my money more wisely. I don't disagree with the notion that we ought to strive to be our best for God, but RZ strays too far into the weeds here, I believe. This is indicative of most churches that meet in a building, but less so with house churches.
@@nerychristian Lifeless and stale? I'd argue the opposite -- raunchy and debaucherous. Devoid of God, maybe. Modern churches seem to be the place people go on Sunday morning to feel holy after getting drunk the night before and sleeping with the pastor's wife or the secretary. Lots of ladies getting excited to go to church on Sunday so they can fawn over the pastor, to boot.
I'm not going to church to get "excited" because my faith isn't about my emotional state. We need holy churches that challenge us in our faith for real, not the way modern non-denominational churches "challenge" themselves by choosing to read the Bible or the way a priest "challenges" his congregation to actually show up next week instead of sleeping in. If anyone's idea of a church is about "being seen and heard" then their idea of church is about themselves and feeling good and not about being a servant of Christ. It's the exact same self-importance rampant in larger churches that shun the poor and clap to loud guitar music.
I am sure you’ve read “where two or more are gathered in my name, there I am in the midst of them.”
You’ve also read how the woman at the well asked Jesus where she should worship, and his answer was “In Spirit and in truth.”
Just reminding you, do with that as you please.
On a personal note, I ordered a nice premium Bible. It cost me $200. I thought because it was beautiful on the outside (it has a lovely dark purple goatskin) and beautiful on the inside (red accents, ornate drop caps, fine French paper) that I would like it better and want to read it more. Turns out, the opposite has occurred. The outward beauty has detracted and distracted from the true significance of what was inside. I found out that I payed $200 for something I already had, because the only part that truly mattered was the words on the pages. I believe the same thing applies to the church. You can decorate it and make it as expensive and luxurious as you’d like (using money that could’ve been given to something better) but what truly matters is the union of believers inside. You can do that in a fancy building, or in a house, it makes no difference in my judgment.
Not rly. Not sure if it is the beautiful buildings, a more traditional liturgy or the presence of the Eucharist, but a Catholic or even Orthodox mass feels much more holy than a protestant, especially a low church protestant does. Beauty is important and a church is the house of God, so it should be given due respect. How a church looks may not be the most important aspect, but its not negligible either.
It does not follow that because we worship in spirit and truth that material manifestations of that are unimportant. Or do you think the Israelites didn't give true spiritual worship at the Temple when they weren't corrupt?
Same works for His presence being anywhere two or more are gathered. It does not follow that because He is present wherever we gather that the place in which we gather shouldn't be dignified as much as possible and be set apart from the world as something sacred and reserved for Him.
Also, just because something isn't the fundamental essential basics doesn't mean its unimportant and has no harm in being ignored.
“Give greetings to the brothers in Laodicea and to Nympha and to the church in her house ” (Colossians 4:15).
Right like what are these people talking about? The Church is the body of Christ, not a building. I guess we have it figured out better than the apostles these days.
Literally the next verse:
Colossians 4:16
After this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans and that you in turn read the letter from Laodicea.
The Church of Laodicea was one of the 7 Churches and was a proper building for worship.
@@romancoinberg you mean the ones who were criticized and threatened to be spit out for being lukewarm? Not sure we should be copying them. As for them having a "proper building", the scripture never says that. Maybe consider that Paul's letters were written decades prior to the book of Revelation and the church likely grew in size, but in none of the Bible does it describe what the Church of Laodicea looked like. All Paul says is to read the letter in the church. Not one point in the Bible does the word "church" refer to a building. The Greek word 'Ekklesia' means 'assembly' or 'gathering'. It does not mean 'building of worshippers'.
@ryanpowell9003
The Corinthians were being criticized for being promiscuous yet they were a Church as well. If you look for images of the Corinthian and Laodicean Churches you'll see the ruins of big temples, they were built for worship, in fact, if you Google the word "ἐκκλησίᾳ" in images the first result is a Church building.
@romancoinberg2004 yes exactly! I was in old Corinth back 2017 and got to see the ruins of a church there.
Not to mention most house churches grow so much they end up getting a separate building anyways
Communion together in their homes. Acts 2:46 And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, 47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.
My church started off as house church but eventually upgraded to having an actual building
They should have started other home churches.
One of the best churches I ever attended was started as a house church. By the time I joined it was in a converted one room schoolhouse built in the late 1800s. Jam packed every sunday wednesday and friday.
I agree with you in a general sense, completely. However, there are situations that happen in people’s lives that don’t make every decision on where to go to church black and white.
Saw the title and thumbnail and knew this was gonna be good.
The basic question is - your house or God's house?
The moment you criticized evangelical women I felt daggers from my evangelical wife and mother in-law. It's painfully accurate.
Another absolute banger. Coming from a Church of Christ background, we have never called ourselves denominational in the way that we don't have a ruling body over every congregation. Instead, wherever there are people with the fulfilled requirements, we establish elders and decans over each congregation. Even with a less institutionalized group, we easily raise hundreds if not thousands every Sunday. This goes to a non profit television program that brings in dozens and dozens of people, as well as helping brothren, and building churches in the Philippines, India, Kenya, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, and many more places. That's just our congregation of around 40 people. I agree with the thesis, but I wouldn't doubt what small groups can do.
My neighbor house is used as a church every sunday and hosts their own services for their family and a few people in their denomination. But take in account we live in mexico, and most people here are catholic then a small percentage of Mormons and JWs, and after that protestant christians. That means the nearest church of their denomination is hours away from their home or in the US wich most people cannot cross to without years of bureaucracy to get a travel visa even for religious reasons.
To be fair as a "pseudo catholic" i dont mind being woken up by their sermon every sunday, as they are doing their best to practice their faith given the difficulties of living as a minority.
The small group and the large congregation are the two wings of the church. Multiplication and addition occur to our numbers best when both are in harmony. "The Second Reformation" is a great book about that.
Historically, "house churches" were always a part of Christianity. Traditionally they are called "Christian Families". In these "house churches" the father should be the leading pastor/priest; the mother should be his leading theologian/seminary teacher, and the children are the seminarians.
When these "house churches" (families) are mostly dysfunctional, then institutional churches are in big trouble. Their societal foundation (strong Christian families) are missing (Just like the foundations of Zoomer's new house).
My sister and brother in law run their own house church. They excommunicated my side of the family. Don’t know how it’s doing. Hope the’re doing well.
Why did they excommunicate you?
As a recent member of the house church movement, I have noticed that it is simply the inverse of establishing a "normal church". Whereas, a regular church would build a main gathering and then create small groups from that, a house church will make small groups and then create a large gathering on Sunday. I like the concept as it protes accountability and intimacy among the bretheren, but it's not the best idea ever. Especially when people are uneducated and enter a house church, there is not reliable authority to help flush out bad ideas. At least in early church times they had the apostles, who were completely solid in their understanding.
You don't need apostles. You have the word of God
Man I love this channel. God is good.
I think having Church at Home is good if the building of the Church need dome fixings
Apostles and early Christians seeing this video like😐
Yes those are the exception as stated in the video
@@fidole791 convenient
That’s how it goes when you’re being oppressed and can’t meet in public.
Unless you’re in somewhere like china where you physically can’t meet in public there isn’t much of an excuse
Me and my closest brothers and sisters in Christ have house meetings on a regular basis. We come together to discuss, pray, hold communion and help one another as the bible tells us to do. We uplift one another and we allow the holy spirit to work with us. Something that is difficult to do, though not impossible in larger congregations. We visit a variety of other churches. A lot of Baptist and Pentecostal as they are prevalent in our region, but otherwise any place the holy spirit may lead us.
Our service and faith to God is genuine, and through the fruits of the holy spirit and where God leads us, we know that what we do is correct. Though we do not belong to any specific denomination, and we don't partake in a specific one. We come from all sorts of backgrounds, and we meet people from all sorts of backgrounds. We have baptised multiple in the name of Christ, and helped others grow their faith. We have preached and brought people into our faith, and parted ways with people who God had other places for.
I do not believe house churches are wrong. It all depends on execution and right faith and reliance on God. It does take a serious faith in God to assemble however.
Matthew 18:20
"For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.”
What do you make of us this verse in respect to house churches?
“Paul, a prisoner for Christ Jesus, and Timothy our brother, to Philemon, our beloved and our co-worker, to Apphia our sister, to Archippus our fellow soldier, and to the church at your house ” (Philemon verses 1-2).
This has been interesting to listen to as a house church leader and a babtist one at that. :D I feel that house churches, in my experience, are more successful at creating more disciples than just believers. Which has been my problem with larger congregations of/or trad churches. I feel the anonymity of a large congregation thwarts personal spiritual growth. And a lot of the larger churches haven't figured out a good way to tackle that issue. But I'm not from the States, so experiences will vary. But I do agree on the fact that house churches should strive for some sort of leadership structure, band together with other small churches and join a denomination or doctrinally sound christian organisation for accountability. This paradoxical idea of elitism and universalism of Christianity- A church for everybody, but still not all are chosen. I believe God allows for more individuality than we think- Like RZ keeps saying he thinks that trad worship is objectively better, but thinking it already makes it kind of subjective. I find most trad hymns dry and unmoving, but the familiar music, understandable and repeatable lyrics of modern worship are more immersive for me.(Not a fan of Hillsong either though and I enjoy only a few of Bach's pieces :D ) But I think that's the beauty of Christ, he unites people from all walks of life and offers all willing hearts a suitable place for worship.
True. A home church forces everyone to get involved. You can't just be a spectator in a home church.
7:00 Where does it say that? I can’t find any verse on it, and it goes against the Old Testament when God told people to take off their sandals.
Yeah, I'd like to know what verse he is citing. I can't find it. My best guess is it's a reference to Romans 14:5 but I think that's a stretch.
evangelicals saying location is irrelevant and it doesn't matter where you worship vs evangelicals crying when they touch dirt in israel
That's not a good dichotomy. One is a about a place to Worship the other is about a pilgrimage.
You're making a disingenuous comparison.
@@electrolytics And a funny disingenuous comparison to boot
WAHAHA
please dont sow division brother
Philemon 1:2 - Apphia and Archippus’ house.
“Paul, a prisoner of Christ Jesus, and Timothy our brother, to Philemon our dear friend and fellow worker, also to Apphia our sister and Archippus our fellow soldier, and to the church that meets in your home: Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.”
Acts 16:40 - Lydia’s house.
“After Paul and Silas came out of the prison, they went to Lydia’s house, where they met with the brothers and sisters and encouraged them.”
Colossians 4:15 - Nympha’s house.
“Give my greetings to the brothers and sisters at Laodicea, and to Nympha and the church in her house.”
Romans 16:3-5 - Priscilla and Aquila’s house.
“Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my co-workers in Christ Jesus. They risked their lives for me. Not only I but all the churches of the Gentiles are grateful to them. Greet also the church that meets at their house.”
Acts 20:7-8 - The disciples in the upper room.
“On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul began talking to them, intending to leave the next day, and he prolonged his message until midnight. There were many lamps in the upper room where we were gathered together.”
Exactly. It's ironic that this TH-camr, who claims to care about history and traditions, neglects these obvious passages of the bible. In my opinion, the modern church is the reason that Christianity is so weak in our society. It has become a spectator sport. Something you do on Sundays mornings to cross it off your checklist. Because of large church buildings, ministers spend more time thinking about raising money, than about spreading the gospel.
We need to fulfill the great commission and if our budgets and tithes are spent on maintaining a building then the cost per baptism is in the thousands. I don't trust it when people speak against house churches, but don't make any mention of the 1040 window or modern day missions. Many in this chat are unaware of disciple making movements, and church planting movements.
@@nerychristian
I'm tired of people thinking that they need to start a new church since none of the churches in their area meet their warped standards. Most areas have many churches to choose from. Join a church instead of starting a "church" and trying to steal sheep.
I think it's all about motives. Sure, you have wolves in sheep's clothing starting house churches in order to build their ideal "church" that fits whatever standard they so decide. However, one could also argue that house churches, if built under the model of leadership presented in the New Testament, are more effective in fulfilling the great commission because the smaller atmosphere provides a greater intimacy among believers. The greater the intimacy among believers, the greater the discipleship. The greater the discipleship, the greater the spiritual maturity. The greater the spiritual maturity, the greater the evangelism. The greater the evangelism, the greater the gospel growth.
11:03 agreed here, yes every church needs a structure but we must be clear that the bible gives a structure. It state multiple roles (eldest, servants, teachers, shepards) and if all of them are in some way or another satisfied then this church is in accord with Gods word (unless their roles are contrary to the bible).
So if God himself doesn't give a clear structure maybe we can use what else he has given us aka his brain but we also must remember "Don't judge unless ye be judged" Mt 7:1.
I just did "house church" in 2020 because of reasons everyone knows well. Never again.
Thanks for sharing. The fellowship you get from attending church is crucial for your spiritual life.
Any congregation of believers who meets on the Lord's Day to participate in Word and Sacrament (i.e. has a properly ordained minister among them under external authority), is a legitimate and valid expression of the Catholic Church-regardless of their place of meeting. It is a "real church." House Churches were the norm of the first two centuries of the Church because synagogues were the norm for worship outside of High Holy Days among the Hebrews in the first century, and those were also "House Churches" (Synagogues were designated meeting rooms in large houses).
While there are problems with the "House Church Movement"-e.g. pietism, retreatism, biblicism, etc.-these are prevalent and pervasive issues of American Evangelicalism at large, irrespective of House Churches. What we can see that is worth noting in the movement, however, is a reaction against the evangelical consumerism which plagues most churches today (Reformed included, if not notably)-conspicuous consumption of resources on buildings, programs, events, parachurch "ministries," etc.
By all means critique where critique is due, but given the influence you have now I would encourage you to be a little more circumspect in how you throw your clout around. The opening statement started problematically because of your use of "real church," which begs the question and categorizes house churches as "not real church" from the beginning.
Also, parallel economies are legitimate. Mediocre "Christian" schools are legitimate alternatives to mediocre public schools. A local house Church (or public mission) down the street is a legitimate alternative to the local established congregation. Keep in mind that much said about house churches could be consistently applied to local missions and church planting. Anyhow, just some thoughts-I say all this as a minister of a local, public congregation with our own church building.
And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds, not giving up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but encouraging one another-and all the more as you see the Day approaching.
Hebrews 10:24-25
while I agree its probably better to gather in church (because more followers equals more transparency on the Word of God) however I know of many people with extreme anxiety that say they can't go to church (and when they do go to church they end up leaving in 15-45 minutes on average because they start to shake and are unable to control how their body is reacting)
tbh IDK if its better for them to "listen online" or if it's better they go to a real church (as they seem to not be able to do the latter well)
but I'm about to listen to the whole video now 😂
if anyone read this i hope you enjoyed, and any info on this would be helpful
I want to start by saying that I do appreciate your work and desire to grow the Kingdom here on earth. It is a very important thing for us Christians to do and I do agree that retreatism is not the way to do it. There are a few things about this video I would like to talk about.
First thing is that I do agree that a house church is not a good thing if that is the end goal. I would think this fits into similar categories of churches who meet in unconventional places as it is not something that should be the end goal of the congregation. There are scenarios in which they have their place. First one, I'm glad you mentioned, persecution. That is one thing that is one of the most overlooked human rights violations worldwide. Many people don't realize that ~360 million Christians face potential persecution daily. That's nearly 1 in 7 Christians. Those cases absolutely need to do house churches and us who aren't persecuted need to keep them in our prayers (Hebrews 13:3). Another situation in which this has it's place is in newer congregations. I recently moved to a new city and am attending church with a congregation that is still in its infancy and is currently renting out a movie theatre until we can find ourselves a building. For newer congregations looking to get up on their feet, having services at a house or in a non traditional location is absolutely something that is fine to do. It's just that if it's planned on being a permanent measure that it becomes an issue.
Where I find the biggest disagreement with you does come down to the importance of the building itself and your views on non-denominational churches. To start with the building itself, while I am not opposed to beautiful buildings, it is not what is most important. God cares about the heart far more than about outward appearances (1 Samuel 16:7) and while that verse is talking about King Saul, it also applies to a church's congregation. Many church buildings are beautiful but have heresy being preached on the inside. I for one would rather be part of a congregation that preaches the word of God and tries to follow Him while meeting in a house than one who meets in a beautiful building and is rotten to the core. On top of that, one of our primary jobs as Christians and as the Church is to take care of the poor and less fortunate around us (Matthew 25:35-40). There are countless verses which talk about the early Church giving to the poor, and Jesus telling those who wish to follow him to sell everything and give to the poor. Based off of this, I do believe that it is more like Christ, which is who we are supposed to imitate, to focus money on taking care of the poor, rather than making a beautiful building. It is more like Christ to spend $10k on helping the poor rather than spending $10k on stained glass windows.
Overall with this video, to sum up my beliefs, house churches if done as a way to retreat from society is wrong. You and I agree there. They have their time and place for persecution or as a temporary placeholder. But overall, God cares more about the hearts of the people in a congregation than the look of the building that they meet in.
I made a long comment when this video came out, which seems to have been deleted. I hope this one gets seen and doesnt disappear.
I've been in house churches my entire life, and I feel you've sorely misrepresented at least some forms of it in this video. You’ve only taken the time to consider a single positive of such churches (facing persecution), while there are many more, so let me enlighten you.
House churches are not retreatist by default. Some may be, I'm sure, but in my 29 years of being in them, I have never heard retreatist philosophy among them. Rather, the goal of the house church is to emulate the early church in its healthiest form. The church's most explosive growth was in the house church phase, following the "house by house" principle in Acts. We follow the principle of the mustard seed, not allowing the birds of heaven (Satanic powers in Luke 8:5) to roost in our branches by growing too big. Instead, we stay small yet spread wide, meeting house by house, and coming together as one on Sundays in a larger setting.
Consider some of the problems inherent to large churches. Costs aside, the environment is austere, and the functioning members are a minority. Your average Christian Joe will sit in his seat, look at the stained glass, the vaulted ceiling, listen to the minister of 40 years, and say to himself "what hope do I have to serve God, compared to all this?" And because he's a face in the crowd, who will fellowship with him to dispel such feelings?
By contrast, I am seen and appreciated in my house church. The ceiling there is only a few feet over my head, and our elders do not over-function so as to quash the contributions of other members. Everyone gets a chance to speak on Sunday, and we get even more chances on other days of the week. In this environment, we foster a desire and capacity to serve the Lord in *all* members. Because we all can prophesy one by one (1 Cor 14:31).
I am no one special. I'm not a genius. Im an average Christian in my church. Yet I go online once a week to teach Bible studies, where Christians twice my age are blown away by my knowledge and understanding of the Bible, and the strength of my relationship to God. The elderly from large churches, who ask *me* questions about God, despite being Christians from a young age. This is a shame on large churches! Their ministers and pastors schedule their sermons each week, but how often are the *needs* of the congregants actually met? Meeting in homes day by day, we are able to fellowship in spirit in an intimate way that allows us to meet our needs. Large meetings could never accomplish that.
The church's beginings were humble. We have forgotten that. Zoomer has too. Yes, the early church gathered every now and then in the temple, but 1 Corinthians 14:23 doesnt say *"when* the whole church comes together," it says *"if".*
Smallness and humbleness are protections against pride and hierarchy, which make churches rigid, and stifle the function of their members. Size and hierarchy is why the Catholic church resisted Martin Luther, and why other denominations subsequently rejected Calvin and other wonderful theologians.
Beautiful churches are good for the soul. But humble churches are good for the spirit. Have a care which you are feeding.
Dang. So the churches set up by the apostles weren’t legitimate churches. What a shame.
Not saying house churches are even the best way today - I think there are several reasons to prefer other models - but your intro seemed to be a bit hyper-critical.
Edit: I understand he backpedaled on this later in the video to clarify that he only felt this way about non-persecuted churches. However, that doesn’t excuse juxtaposing house churches with “real churches” in the intro. Despite his latter statements, he’s still saying in the intro that persecuted house churches aren’t “real churches” (even though these non-real churches are permissible in his eyes).
I have a friend who’s parents are from Cambodia they converted to Christianity when they came her but since his mom isn’t good at English so his mom makes them listen to a church in Cambodia.
This video is more of a critique of churches not in a mainline Protestant denomination, rather than house churches themselves. Granted, I'm not a mainline Protestant, so it seems we have different definitions of house churches. From my pov (as a church of Christ member), a house church is simply a church that meets not in a building, but this video seems to loop in any church that isn't a part of the mainline denomination into that definition. In defense of house churches:
10:58 I feel that the assumption that these house churches have no understanding of leadership model without being attached to a mainline denomination ignores that we have scriptures instructing us how to model church leadership and authority (1 Timothy 3, Titus 1).
We also cannot ignore the reality that previously large churches are now losing members , and the challenges of maintaining buildings with the dwindling tithing/donations makes a return to house churches a better option than dissolving as a congregation.
I have also witnessed house churches create new doorways to reaching new people who were previously wary or even hostile to churches due to bad experiences. To those lost people, house churches are far less intimidating than church buildings.
But what if the house has stained glass???
house churches: Ritz and Welch's for communion and it's all fun and games until someone baptizes the cat!
I have a shirt that says "Jesus is a relationship, not a religion". I haven't felt this called out since your "Why I'm not a Baptist" video lol 😅
My husband and I really love you and your videos and consider you a brother in Christ. Thank you for sharing some of your deep understanding of theology. ❤
Visiting Liberty University made me an atheist..... The amount of money that place spent on making college a fun place was incomprehensible to me
“Spaces are not arbitrary, your church should be more beautiful than your house.”
- Jonathan Pageau
Amen!🙏
I know plenty of churches that use office buildings and look like warehouses. Does that mean they are not real churches? I know many poor churches that meet in strip malls, yet they are more full of the spirit than congregations that meet in expensive and ornate church buildings
@@nerychristian "For the Lord does not see as man sees; for man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart." 1 Samuel 16:7
Research disciple making movements and church planting movements. When Jesus commanded the disciples to go out and make disciples he sent his disciples house to house Luke 10, because the gospel spreads quickly to whole families this way and entire households come to the faith.
Jhn 4:20- “Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, and you people say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.” Jesus *said to her, “Woman, believe Me, an hour is coming when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. “You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. “But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers. “God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”
A number of years ago my family was a part of a house church. The main premise's were to operate on an understanding of the church being a body rather than a place, having a higher emphasis on small group discussion and community and challenging/encouraging one another in ministering to our neighbors.
absolute W thumbnail
Homeschooling is definitely the best way to do it.
100%. I don't really get what his problem with homeschooling is. Some other forms of "retreatism" I can understand more why he dislikes. But really? You're going to throw a 5 or 6 year old kid into a dumpster fire of an educational system and hope they are somehow spiritually mature enough not to be destroyed by it?
Habakkuk 2:14 "For the earth will be filled
With the knowledge of the glory of the Lord,
As the waters cover the sea."
As someone who's been a member of a house church for the past 25 years, I would like to respond to some of the comments you made in this video.
It seems really significant to my mind that in the New Testament you don't see the record of one church building being built. Yes, we see Christians meeting in already established structures like the temple, synagogues, and houses, but not a single verse references anything about Christians putting up a new structure for their meetings. Yes, they were sometimes experiencing persecution, but not constantly, and not everywhere. I don't think you give this fact the weight it deserves.
Secondly, when describing religious buildings and their importance in the Scripture, you glossed over the relationship between the New Covenant and the Old. Structures like the Temple and tabernacle were types of Christ and his church (which, in the New Testament, always refers to a group of people). Just look at Ephesians 2:19-22 - "Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit." How can a temple grow? How can people be built? It's a spiritual reality, not physical.
The idea that a certain place can be holier than our houses is completely contrary to Scripture's teaching. Just look at the verses I quoted. Where is God's dwelling? It's in us! Our bodies should be the holiest place, and our bodies exist wherever we go. Paul even makes that connection when he's warning people not to practice sexual immorality. By the way, I don't believe in the Rapture. I believe what Scripture teaches, and I see nothing about Christians needing to build separate houses for worship in Scripture.
The unfortunate thing about structure and authority in the church is that you can have all the credentials you want but it doesn't provide spiritual life. Jesus was not ordained by any religious institution of his day, but he had authority from God. God often works outside of institutions.
Regarding healing the sick - our house church actually funds a medical outreach in an impoverished country. It's not a hospital, but it's a group of doctors who lost their jobs because of political upheaval in their country, who go into extremely poor areas to provide basic medical treatment to those who can't afford it. 100% of the funds we send them goes directly to treating patients. In a more institutional structure, some of those funds would be caught up in administration. "Big and more organized" does NOT always equal more effective.
I think your biggest misunderstanding is thinking that societal influence depends on outward structure or visibility, whereas my experience tells me it emphatically does NOT. In fact, sometimes (though not always) outward structure or visibility goes counter to what God is doing.
That being said, I always enjoy hearing your opinions even when I disagree with them. I encourage to keep studying the Bible about what the church really is.
“When they [Paul and Silas] had come out of the prison, they went to Lydia’s house where they saw and encouraged the brothers, and then they left ” (Acts 16:40).
I enjoy going to church in person in a church building. I can understand if someone lives in china and there’s government run churches but for those of us in countries with free access to worship in church buildings we really have no use or need for house churches. But to each their own.
I'd say do both. Go to Church on Sundays, but at home the mom can teach the kids some personal Bible lessons, and dad can sit in the corner and watch. And if your a adult have a personal Bible reading session for maybe 15 minitues to a hour. I do that it's fun.
I have to stop you right there. 100% I agree with at home Bible lessons. The WORST way to do them is to have mom teach and dad sit in a corner and watch. Fathers are the spiritual heads of their households. Children need to see their father taking the lead in spiritual matters. If mom is leading and dad is silent, it sends the message to kids that the ideas are tolerated but not the family's priority. If the dad leads and the mom takes a supportive role, it will set a much more serious tone.
I would argue my house is God's house. God no longer resides within the temple, but our bodies when we receive the Holy Spirit. Thus, there is no New Testament necessity for a Temple
I'm curious about how you got your definition of the Kingdom of God. I believe the Kingdom of God is where Christ was/the Holy Spirit is present, not something specifically physical right now. I do believe people too often start house churches, or personal "churches," far too hastily and out of hurt, rather than to truly honor Christ. That often leads to ignoring Scripture, or twisting it like a cult, at times...
Have been going to church for about 5 months, mind you, it’s a non denominational church, however they’re very passionate about what the early church intended to be back in the day. Which means strong community. We rent out a space for Sunday service, but we also have house church on Wednesday, which is simply a Bible study going over the scripture the pastor read that past Sunday. I like this structure mainly for two things; socializing with the community and building new relationships and digesting the material thoroughly. Being a new believer, I have a very limited understanding of the Bible, thankfully I have a community that, not only welcomed me, but is helping me have a cohesive understanding of God’s word. I always look forward to Wednesday house church just as much as I do on Sunday service.
Was scared for a second you were talking about a monastery from the thumbnail.
Man, as a Spanish Catholic I see theese things and I bafle but at the same time look with eerie eyes, like the idea of a " home-church " is very unsetting to me
And I grew up in house church and a Catholic mass is very unsettling to me, but I am willing to accept you as a brother in Christ.
What do you think about the plan of the Anglican Province of the Indian Ocean to plant 100 Anglican house churches in Mauritius and one in every district of the Seychelles?
Do you want to see the 1040 window willed with the knowledge of the Glory of the Lord as the waters cover the seas? Matthew 24:14 "And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come."
Isn't the Sabbath in traditional Jewish culture Friday night-Saturday night? And what about those serving in the church? It's kind of like work for them that particular day, so not sure the church day is necessarily one's Sabbath
Bro you literally said that the Christians valued the temple as an institutional place of worship while ignoring how Jesus said that soon they would not worship in the temple anymore (John 4). The idea of the separation of sacred and secular is not rooted in the new testament, it is a far too literal carryover from the old testament. When your life belongs to Jesus, all of it does. Everything is sacred because your life is an altar to God
"Over the last 2000 years, God has used ordinary disciples who follow Jesus and His core pattern of Kingdom work to multiply and saturate entire areas and people groups with the Gospel. We labor with this same desire, to see the multiplication of God’s kingdom saturate all the earth. (2 Tim 3:16-17; John 14:26, 15:1-17; Acts 13:1-4, 14:23-29; 2 Tim. 2:1-2; 1 Cor. 11:1)"
Love your content! I can listen to it and hear that you are impartial and you draw from scripture as well as actual trends in society and its a clear and logical conclusion.
Lovely video, Zoomer.
I appreciate your succinct explanations and your aober mind.
I'm looking forward to the day you earn your ordination.
Any place where 2 or more people are gathered to worship God is a church.
My church sortve started as a house church. They bought a victorian house that was condemned. No one lived in it but it was a house. They did eventually build an extension where we now do worship. Although ngl i really dont like how it looks on the inside. Very plain. My catholic roots scream internal to decorate the church and add icons
Apostolic Authority and succession from Jesus is how authority is given from above… Credentials and fancy pieces of paper are nice and all… But they’re useless when it comes to spiritual authority.
In countries with high levels of persecutions, house churches are very necessary. In places like china the ruling body will come down on a congregation hard if they are found so a house church can save lives. Remember when covid hit for the first time? during those times churches were being outlawed so people would need to meet inside houses.
I have a disability and because of this, I am sometimes unable to go to church but I make every effort to go when I am able to. However I do think there is value to churches as we understand them. I was taught that going to church is a way of showing respect to God however the way we understand the concept is going to church has changed. The fact that there was online church in a lot of places during covid was an extreme event and I am in favour of keeping this as an option for people in extreme circumstances. I think that God is special and holy and the fact that we take time out of our day to spend time with him and others who follow Christ is a demonstration of faith. Also, I hate to be the pessimist, but it would be so hard to keep each other accountable if we did church in such a casual way.
Some of this retreatism is so infuriating. I see some guy on Twitter saying that the PCA, NOT PCUSA, is a hopelessly liberal denomination and people should leave. If conservatives see 0.0000000000001% liberalism in their own retreatist denominations and run away from that, there is no hope. Although I'm personally not in the Reconquista, I pray it works, because this movement is now the only conservative network doing something about formally conservative institutions.
If we have to go underground from persecution or the institutional Church is unable to fund buildings, by all means return to what we saw in Acts and the era immediately following.
For some Evangelicals and non-denominationals, services don't require any special building - or even a common in-person meeting place - because their services aren't anything more than some combination of concert and lecture. For Catholics and Orthodox at least, the service is a physical sacrifice that requires ordained priests, consecrated objects, and physical presence - making a common meeting place (preferably one befitting what takes place there) a necessity. While this can be a believer's home if necessary, other things being equal it is not what we should do.
The Church knows the service is not a physical sacrifice because Peter and the apostles told Christians to "abstain from blood" (Acts 15 : 20 & 29, Acts 21 : 25) and Paul tells the Church they are eating bread when they are eating the Lord's Supper (1 Corinthians 11:26, 27, and 28). Paul never says the Church is eating Christ's body. When Paul mentions the body & blood of Christ in 1 Corinthians he is referring to the Christians that are being abused by the others in the Church meetings.
The Jews were commanded in the Mosaic covenant to never drink or eat blood. If they did, they were to be cut off from the people (Leviticus 7 : 27, Leviticus 17 : 10 & 14). So if God wanted His people to start ingesting blood during the Lord's Supper (the Eucharist), he would have to really overcome the Mosaic commandment to abstain from blood, but instead we find Peter and the apostles telling the Church to abstain from blood.
Some people think Jesus taught that we must drink his blood and eat his flesh with our physical mouths. They point to John 6 : 53 - 58 where Jesus said, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” (John 6 : 53 - 58)
What the people miss is what Jesus taught his disciples right afterward, "The Spirit gives life; *the flesh counts for nothing.* The words I have spoken to you-they are full of the Spirit and life" (John 6 : 63) Jesus was speaking to them about spiritual truths just like when he told Nicodemus that to enter the kingdom we must be born again (John 3 : 1 - 21). Nicodemus thought he had to get back into his mother's womb, but Jesus was talking about the being born on a spiritual level. In the same way Jesus was not talking about eating his flesh and drinking his blood in our physical mouth. Jesus said the flesh counts for nothing so this is how we know Jesus was speaking on a spiritual level. To put your full trust in Jesus and believe in him is what feeding on Jesus is all about (John 6 : 35 "Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty"). It is not about eating Jesus with your physical mouth. It is about putting your faith/trust/belief in Jesus.
Some think during the Last Supper when Jesus said the bread is his body and the wine is his blood of the covenant (Matthew 26 : 26 - 29) that Jesus changed the bread and wine into his body and his blood. When we look at the passage we find that after Jesus said the bread and wine as his body and blood he still describes the liquid as wine. This is how we know Jesus was just using metaphors and was not changing the bread into his physical body and not changing the wine into his physical blood. Here is the passage :
While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”
Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, I will not drink from this *fruit of the vine* from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” (Matthew 26 : 26 - 29)
By continuing to call the liquid in the cup "fruit of the vine" (wine) he made it clear that it was not his physical blood in the cup. It was still wine.
This is how we know he was using metaphors.
@@janetwebb6128 "The flesh counts for nothing."
Surely you don't think Jesus meant that about his own flesh.
I grew up in a house church. The only positive was it taught us how to live as Christian’s in a community and doing life together. Outside of that it’s pretty unbiblical for the reasons they do it.
"Retreating from" is separating from. We're not supposed to love the world and are to be apart from it. We can see how the world influences churches and if they refuse to listen what do you do? Separate. 🤷♂
But a "holy huddle" where you don't interact with society at all does no good either. Burying our talents or hiding a lamp under a bench we're warned against, we're supposed to be the salt and light of the world. So I think it really comes down to if any given Christian is listening to what God wants them to do in a given situation.
Keep in mind that Christ himself did not reform the temple, they rejected him AND the apostles. What did the apostles do?
They went to the churches and taught the truth until they were kicked out, didn't try to reform them.
So what should we do? I figure listen to what God wants you to do.
So you down on Christian colleges that are more possible to enroll in, and then suggest ivy league schools 😂😂. I'm going to LU because I have GI bill and want to become a counselor and can't get into ivy. I am starting with a BA in Christian Counseling, then moving to M.A. in Clinical Mental Health Counseling. How does this choice in University affect anything? They stand by Christian doctrines, and teach the bible and etc along with its core. IM just confused on why this was a topic?
Yeah, he lost me when he made that comparison. Ivy League is way too bloated at this point to be salvaged.
I took issue with this area of his talk as well. Liberty is a solid place to get an education, on a beautiful campus, in gorgeous Virginia. Their tuition isn't outrageous and the COL in Lynchburg is fantastic.
You forgot to put Baptist Churches in my entire region on the denomination map. May I suggest one that desperately needs to be revived?
I think International Fellowship of Evangelical Students (IFES) has a very solid program for a house "church." Fellowships and para-churches DON'T replace churches but it serves as a place for us to gather when we're away from our churches. I think this is great for decentralizing while also supporting our institutions.
Why is decentralization something to seek?
Because not everyone has access to a good local church
@@internetdinosaur8810 Sounds like something a strongly centralized institution could help with
Zoomer, have you asked your church members if you are too obsessed with church buildings? God never wanted the First Temple. God allowed David to conceive of it due to David's insistence, so allowed his "son" to build it (just like the "Son" of God who built the Church). God told King Cyrus to "build him a house at Jerusalem". God never said a temple. In fact, God never blessed the Second Temple which suggests that He meant the house of God that Jesus built later through his sacrifice.
I am a great admirer of old Church buildings and envious/lament that conservatives lost them. However, I don't think I am that obsessed...
it's not the buildings, it's the institutional power
@@gilgameschvonuruk4982 If you have beautiful church buildings then you have institutional power?
God told David exactly how he wanted the first Temple to be built - 1 Chron. 28, 19
@@jeremywilliams5107 That was AFTER he decided to allow David to conceive it. Read 2 Samuel 7. You need to read the Bible stories from the start to understand how it came about. Temples were things that pagans built. God specifically says "In all places where I have moved with all the people of Israel". He is not like page gods.
@thomasc9036 your interpretation is incorrect. The Tabernacle was the place where He revealed Himself, but after Eli the Ark was no longer there, and His presence could not be seen. So what to do? David recovered the Ark and was inspired to make a house for it that would be more glorious than His own palace. While God approved it, just as with the Tabernacle, He gave precise details as to its construction, and the part you mention is a rhetorical device whereby God reminds David that it is His house and He won'taccept merely David's idea of it. So He wanted the Temple. He didn't want the kingship, but permitted it to be the instrument of finally driving out the remaining heathen from the land of Israel and preparing the building of the Temple.
A non denominational can be okay, I go to a Bible Church that we follow as close to a literal translation as we can, try to uphold tradition, and our pastors all have advanced degrees
You should do a pretty deep dive into the IFB movement (not the new IFB, ie: Steven Anderson followers, just mainstream IFB).
The IFB, although they don’t typically adopt this home church, very well could be heading down this road. Retreatism in their circles has gotten really bad, and we’re seeing the full cycle of a Christian denomination go from full on revivalism and mainstream (popular) in the 1950s, to beginning their retreatism doctrine in the 1960s and 1970s (when the Bible was taken out of schools) and the furthering development of rock and pop in the 1980s (anti secular music) to the 1990s and the advancement of other Bible translations and Television (KJV only-ism and Anti Secular entertainment) and then from the early 2000s to today, it’s been anti everything and further distancing from
the world. Which inevitably, will grow home church movement.
Would love to see you expound on this for like 40 minutes lol
As a point every House Church that I've ever been aware of is intending to get a physical building it's always the start of just a church plant a few people band together the church grows they build funds the find a larger space and continue. Often times this is done through shared spaces for existing churches.
Anyone can judge me for this if they want, but I worship from home. It truly makes me sad, when I was a kid I loved church soooo much!! Unfortunately there was a TON of trauma stemming from multiple churches that drove out family away. It wasn't what we wanted to do, at all. We tried several churches, even a bit of an odd non-denominational church with less than 10 members, all to no avail, unfortunately. I was crushed, I ended up questioning my faith over the course of several years. I was lost for quite some time. The whole order was traumatic and incredibly sad to me and my family. My sister is an atheist now, I pray for her every day, even though we dont speak and were not on good terms. I pray for her to find her way home, like I did.
Y'know Zoomer, I really hope you see this comment. I wish to ask for a favor of you, my brother in our wonderful awesome Lord Jesus Christ. Here it goes: Make a video of a step by step playbook of how you would run a Church service. All the do's and dont's. Pretend like you're being persecuted in a foreign country and you have to run your own church from home, how would your typical service go, for instance. Id really like your thoughts and input and to see how you would do it. Honestly, id like to see that and it would help me to do a more proper service from home. I don't want to start my own church, I don't want to be a preacher or a pope or anything in between, I don't want anything from this except one thing: to praise the Lord properly and raise my son as a true Christian, he already loves Jesus because of me. His mom is a nonbeliever and we've been split for several years now. I just want to have church again, so badly, I'm literally in tears writing this. I do my best with what I have and make due, but watching your videos....I can see you have much much more knowledge than I do about this and I respect that. I'm asking for help, I'm asking to not be turned away- once again- by my family in Christ. Please. I'm not asking you to understand it, like it, or agree with it.... I'm just asking for your help. Make a video on how to do a proper church service from top to bottom, please, with a list at the end of everything that need be done and what to avoid.
I wish I could go to church, I really do, if you think it doesn't f***ing kill me inside then you would be very wrong. It does. But I refuse to risk my faith again by going to negative churches and I absolutely refuse to inevitably push my son away from our Lord due to the same bad experiences that I had and my family had at many churches throughout my growing up. Please. Help me with this request, my brother. Put your opinions on the shelf this one time and help a brother in need. This is your call good sir, will you answer it?
Whether yes or no, even if you tell me to Eff off...Id like to say thank you for your time and consideration. These videos help me a lot. I get that feeling of unity that I felt as a kid in church before the illusion was shattered for me by vile congregations and bad teachings. I feel like I'm having church with you and all the people who are attuned within the comments and community. I don't care if I sound dumb or ridiculous or whatever anyone wants to think, I don't care about that. I speak the truth from my heart here and I love the Lord. That's what counts to me.
My grandparents as a church and a house because they don’t have enough money to buy a church a group of man stole there money and sewed them for no actual reason