October 14, 2009
-
reactions to "House Church" book, etc
A couple mini-posts today:
-----------------------------------------------------
1. I just finished reading "House Church" by Steven Atkerson. Very fascinating and controversial book. Highly recommended for provoking thought.
I am wondering about various "church ministries" that exist today, and whether these would not be possible in a house church model, and which ministries would continue on unchanged, and whether if some ministries weren't possible if that would actually be a healthy thing somehow.
Ministry examples:
- Christian radio stations? They'd probably be able to continue on unabated or with even better financial support
- Christian camps? Likewise.
- Church choirs? They would be replaced by other choirs, such as (Christian) school choirs, town choirs, etc.
- Music lessons in general? Probably still continuing on unabated.
- Lengthy sermons that carefully and thoroughly expound a text? Atkerson says that there is a separate place for "teaching meetings" for things like this, separate from the Lord's Supper fellowship/participation meetings that are the backbone and essence of "church." But how would this work in practice? On the plus side, "less teaching" might encourage the meditation and application of the smaller amount, just as in China they used to give out stones with a single Bible verse written on them to peasants, who would take the stone for a couple days or weeks and then swap. On the negative side, Biblical illiteracy is already high in our churches... would reducing the external teaching exacerbate this? But, it could be countered, the increase in shorter/participatory sermonettes might help to alleviate this...
- Christian colleges? and schools? I suppose these could continue on... with their related research/excellence thrusts...
- door to door evangelism groups? These could continue...
- organ playing? handbell choirs? The development of beautiful music for God's glory that relies on big, expensive instruments of these types? This would likely cease... yes?
2. Thinking about Noah's flood and the decline in life spans from ~900 years down to ~120 years. (cf. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/06/04/did-people-live-over-900-years and John Sanford's book http://www.amazon.com/Genetic-Entropy-Mystery-Genome-Sanford/dp/1599190028)
The current creationist theories explain this through genetic bottlenecks (huge loss of genetic information from the healthy gene pool when 99.9% of the earth's population died in the Flood), which makes sense to me.
Theologically, I find it interesting that humankind's evil tends to be magnified and amplified whenever many people are placed together in close proximity (e.g. the tower of Babel, and modern innercities), and that God specifically commanded that people spread out and fill the earth (i.e. go live in rural areas, instead of condensing into cities, at least until the earth was filled....) ... God sought to reduce the pain of the evil, until the end would come when He would remove it completely.
Likewise, I think the same applies to Noah's Flood. Why would God wipe them all out, while "never again" doing so throughout history, even though we are obviously just as evil? One reason might be the lifespan issue.... when people are left to 'harden' in their sin for 900 years of life (as well as all their peers), perhaps the outcome is extremely horrible. So God brought the flood to deliberately shorten our lives, out of mercy because our society would not get into the depths of evil that would otherwise occur.
As Tim Keller points out, for redeemed perfect saints as we will someday be, the innercity will be the exact opposite... the close proximity of perfect saints to each other will form a 'critical mass' that will foment glory and beauty and white-hot pure love, and that's why the new Jerusalem will be a (cubical) city (rather than a Garden of Eden).
3. A good wife is not 'snagged', but is a gratuitous/undeserved gift from God.Maybe other types of wife can be 'snagged', but not this type.
4. Do babies go to heaven when they die?I'll delay this post because I don't have the time right now. But I think it's a question worth pondering.
Comments (6)
Good thoughts Tim . . . Some input:
"The development of beautiful music for God's glory. . ."
It is interesting to me that there seems to be a disproportionate number of American Idol participates coming from the church. What other venue are children raised with at least weekly participation in music?
I would have to look at it again, but I thought the 120 year limit was introduced prior to the flood by God, giving a time frame for when the flood would occur. This is where we get that Noah had 120 years to build the ark.
"Why would God wipe them all out, . . .?"
I subscribe to the sons of God = angels theory in Genesis 6. I think this also explains the wanton wiping out of Canaan in Joshua.
I look forward to the "Do babies go to heaven when they die?" post. I really struggle with that one.
ISM... I was just saying how the Church has a veritable corner on participatory music! Consider, especially, "gospel" music and its widespread diffusion into many secular venues.
Now for the meat... I think well trained house churches could be very good for the depth of the Church, for this specific reason: the lack in doctrinal knowledge today is not (only) about detailed doctrines or nuanced phrasing, but a widespread ignorance/practical disbelief in the Scripturally obvious doctrines.
Take sex, for instance... people generally know what the church teaches, but I feel like they don't really know/believe sex is better waited for. This sort of ignorance/disbelief doesn't call for a detailed exposition on 4 Greek words, it calls for personal accountability and testimony that God knows best.
The point in having one pastor for dozens or hundreds, is to focus the resources it takes to get training in the Biblical languages and doctrines to be sure to get quality leadership/teaching. But I think it's similar to many development programs: If people are extremely poor and have no clean water, they don't need a state-of-the-art electronic water purification plant, they need reliable, low-tech solutions that they can understand and manage on their own. A too technical solution may end by being almost as bad as no solution, since the people will never become independent of the rich foreigner.
Likewise, I believe people need to belief strongly and deeply in the basic and practical tenets of the Christian faith, the milk, if you will, so they can actually digest and appreciate the meat. We should definitely want all to move on to maturity and solid foods, but every baby starts with milk. And if they never really accept/understand the basics, they'll be stumbling through doctrinal indigestion their whole life.
Training is key, and focused attention by leaders on a few individuals' lives. I really like the Navigators and their philosophy of ministry... check out "The Lost Art of Disciple Making" by LeRoy Eims.
And Tim, what did Mr Atkerson et al have to say regarding teaching/training?
it would complicate missions significantly...haven't read the book, but is that addressed? the vast majority of support for missionaries comes from local churches.
@mulletrooster - I don't remember exactly what they say about teaching in house churches... I know they talked about the importance of it, but maybe not specifics? I want to read the book again. One thing I do remember was the distinction they made between "bringing in outsiders" to pastor a church, trusting his seminary degree and/or the report from previous churches for his integrity and qualifications, as opposed to "raising up homegrown leaders", which I guess would mean intentional discipleship, some form of actual doctrine/apologetics/languages content-training, but mostly the personal shared-work type...
@cryinlion85 - He actually shared some interesting stats on that - approximately 80% of christian giving goes to upkeep of church buildings, staff salaries, insurance, grounds, and internal programs in typical churches, and 20% goes to outreach. With house churches (no church building to maintain, fewer "programs" since kids stay with their parents, less need for salaried staff) the percentages are reversed. We could actually fund thousands more missionaries than currently...
@interstellarmachine - good thought on the 120 years...
Cryinlion, I haven't read stats on the support of missions Church-wide, but of the missions I am familiar with, it is not uncommon that a majority of support comes from individuals, and not churches. (and I am a member of a missions agency, currently raising support). Obviously, there are missions, like the SBC IMB that are entirely church-funded, but they are not necessarily the rule.
And, I don't think that we have to dismantle strong central church ministries everywhere and entirely, but in many contexts, I do think well-led house churches would be a good thing. Frankly, as a missionary raising support, a small group that has jointly decided to hear my presentation is a more attractive venue than a large church that the leader decided to invite me to. It's true that a large church MAY decide to directly support the mission for a larger amount, but that small group is more likely to be intimately interested in being involved with the ministry in prayer and finances over the long term.
My kingdom duty while raising support is actually to inform and inspire people about what God is doing to reach people around the world. Informing may happen in a large setting, but unless you're a dynamic speaker, it's difficult to do the inspiring.
Comments are closed.