post in response to Simon at (http://blog.simon-cozens.org/post/view/1356?comments=1)
I realize that this post is rather outdated. I will do my best to address some of your concerns. I don't think it will be convincing per se.
First off, I think it is a very good point to bring up the problem of the now. House church is definitely an arrangement that feels it is best suited to meeting people's current needs. But like every other movement, it also believes that it's better than the other options.
I am somewhat confused by the statments you've made regarding their desire to have things flow upwards. Either you misunderstood them or they are taking a strange bent with this compared to other house church movements. While some historical missionary movements targeted leaders (i.e. India), house churches suggest rather that people work with people with similar interests, so a house church would form around a common basis. It's actually counter the model as described in the West to particularly target the leaders.
In answer to your questions, house church groups believe that house churches were supplanted by the Constantian model of church-state and the rest is history. In this respect, they are a group that holds that they are representing the Acts model of church and that the contemporary notion is a consequence of a series of historical transformations to church structures that are ultimately less efficient for the gospel.
In response to your second question, this seems to be a fallacious line of argument. The suggestion you're making is "what protects your mode of doing church from merely becoming self-expression rather than the Spirit speaking?" In answer to that, I ask "what prevents a regular church from doing the same?" In the latter case, it seems like every possible response is that either (a) the preacher is somehow exempt from having the same sort of self-based statements or (b) the congregation controls this by changing churches. Thus, I don't see how this is an especially big problem for house church versus another model. Further, in house churches, everyone there can speak and question what the person is saying -- an option not normal to a traditional church.
Your third question is just plain strange. As an example, "How does your view that the world is round differ from Hitler's?" I would suspect that it does not if you believe the world is round. What makes JW what it is does not arise merely from legalism. Still, I can see your point. There's a definite emphasis on evangelism, leadership, and multiplication, and it will make people uncomfortable. The immediate follow-up is, then, why are they uncomfortable? The probable answer is that they would prefer a model of church that allows attendance.
Fourth, I've never been to a campus crusade meet, but I do know some of the people who work campus crusade in Japan. But house church shouldn't be indistinguishable. One of the essential differences is that a campus crusade meet is an event with assigned leaders and a decent number of people. A house church should be smaller than that and involve everyone who is there. It is both a church and a relational network (an ekklesia -- or community if you would).
I think your point about James is more interesting. But it needs to be counter-balanced with the reality that the word does not occur elsewhere in the NT. For instance, it is not a part of the description of the Corinthian church or the worship structure that Paul suggests for it there. So I guess my question in response to that would be, how much weight does that 1 verse have and what are we to make of it?
Paul quite obviously began his outreach in each city by first trying to reach the Jews and tell them Jesus is in the Messiah. And he did so by going to their synagogues and hanging out with them. This rarely worked, so he would find a gentile and start telling him about new life in Jesus.
I realize that this post is rather outdated. I will do my best to address some of your concerns. I don't think it will be convincing per se.
First off, I think it is a very good point to bring up the problem of the now. House church is definitely an arrangement that feels it is best suited to meeting people's current needs. But like every other movement, it also believes that it's better than the other options.
I am somewhat confused by the statments you've made regarding their desire to have things flow upwards. Either you misunderstood them or they are taking a strange bent with this compared to other house church movements. While some historical missionary movements targeted leaders (i.e. India), house churches suggest rather that people work with people with similar interests, so a house church would form around a common basis. It's actually counter the model as described in the West to particularly target the leaders.
In answer to your questions, house church groups believe that house churches were supplanted by the Constantian model of church-state and the rest is history. In this respect, they are a group that holds that they are representing the Acts model of church and that the contemporary notion is a consequence of a series of historical transformations to church structures that are ultimately less efficient for the gospel.
In response to your second question, this seems to be a fallacious line of argument. The suggestion you're making is "what protects your mode of doing church from merely becoming self-expression rather than the Spirit speaking?" In answer to that, I ask "what prevents a regular church from doing the same?" In the latter case, it seems like every possible response is that either (a) the preacher is somehow exempt from having the same sort of self-based statements or (b) the congregation controls this by changing churches. Thus, I don't see how this is an especially big problem for house church versus another model. Further, in house churches, everyone there can speak and question what the person is saying -- an option not normal to a traditional church.
Your third question is just plain strange. As an example, "How does your view that the world is round differ from Hitler's?" I would suspect that it does not if you believe the world is round. What makes JW what it is does not arise merely from legalism. Still, I can see your point. There's a definite emphasis on evangelism, leadership, and multiplication, and it will make people uncomfortable. The immediate follow-up is, then, why are they uncomfortable? The probable answer is that they would prefer a model of church that allows attendance.
Fourth, I've never been to a campus crusade meet, but I do know some of the people who work campus crusade in Japan. But house church shouldn't be indistinguishable. One of the essential differences is that a campus crusade meet is an event with assigned leaders and a decent number of people. A house church should be smaller than that and involve everyone who is there. It is both a church and a relational network (an ekklesia -- or community if you would).
I think your point about James is more interesting. But it needs to be counter-balanced with the reality that the word does not occur elsewhere in the NT. For instance, it is not a part of the description of the Corinthian church or the worship structure that Paul suggests for it there. So I guess my question in response to that would be, how much weight does that 1 verse have and what are we to make of it?
Paul quite obviously began his outreach in each city by first trying to reach the Jews and tell them Jesus is in the Messiah. And he did so by going to their synagogues and hanging out with them. This rarely worked, so he would find a gentile and start telling him about new life in Jesus.
