Sometimes I wonder ...

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I realize that this post is rather outdated.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 had a dream...
I want to say it was Thursday two weeks ago. I'm trying to eliminate all sorts of worthless scraps of paper, so I'm translating the strange scrawl that I wrote when I awoke to memorialze the dream. I don't remember much of it except what I told Stephanie at the time: it was all people from the group i was in at Great Shepherd after college. They were a good group of people; it's a real pity that I've lost touch with all of them.
Here's what I remember: Gas was $1.89/gallon but somehow $2.02/gallon elsewhere -- prices that are presently unheard of. There's something about someone named Monica on the piece of paper... I don't know anyone named Monica and there wasn't anyone like that in the small group.
Now, the clearer part.
I saw Mark from small group and he suggested that we get together the upcoming Monday. I was kind of hesitant, because I think I'd already made plans with Stephanie. Slowly but surely other members of the small group appeared in the dream, the Kerricks and Lindsay. I particularly remember the Kerrick's baby. Another strange memory was that everyone caught on to the fact I was hesitating to say okay to hanging out with Mark on Monday. And one of the women (either Lindsay or Sarah) in the group asked, "so who's that girl you've spending a lot of time with recently?" I answered "Stephanie, she's my girlfriend."

There's two more details I wrote that aren't coherent with this part. One is that I said Sarah realized I have a girlfriend, and there's no sense of "realizing" when I stated it clearly. Second there is an odd detail about the pastor's wife indicating I should make myself clearer or something.

And finally the odd two word fragment "ask out." This is the most inconsistent piece of it all in light of the clear part. I think most of the time dreams are just how our brain adds and stores memories interacting with our mind in some weird way because it's not normally awake at the time.

I welcome any thought on this.

The summa continues to provide interesting fodder for thought. Particularly, it seems to be prefacing many of the later arguments concerning God's existence.
Summa Theologica Article 2 Question 2

Latin:
Praeterea, si demonstraretur Deum esse, hoc non esset nisi ex effectibus eius. Sed effectus eius non sunt proportionati ei, cum ipse sit infinitus, et effectus finiti; finiti autem ad infinitum non est proportio. Cum ergo causa non possit demonstrari per effectum sibi non proportionatum, videtur quod Deum esse non possit demonstrari.

English:
Objection 3: Further, if the existence of God were demonstrated, this could only be from His effects. But His effects are not proportionate to Him, since He is infinite and His effects are finite; and between the finite and infinite there is no proportion. Therefore, since a cause cannot be demonstrated by an effect not proportionate to it, it seems that the existence of God cannot be demonstrated. (CCEL Translation)


日本語：
問題三：次は、神様の存在の認めりてば、それは効果からでした。けれど神様の効果と神様は同じじゃない。神様は無限ですけど神様の効果は限界あります。限界ことと無限ことは計りません。すなわち、原因の存在は効果から違いあればで認めりません。そして神様の存在は神様の効果から認めない。

... Now if only I can actually get to the effects.

Summa Theologicae Question 2: Article I
Latina:
Praeterea, illa dicuntur esse per se nota, quae statim, cognitis terminis, cognoscuntur, quod philosophus attribuit primis demonstrationis principiis, in I Poster., scito enim quid est totum et quid pars, statim scitur quod omne totum maius est sua parte. Sed intellecto quid significet hoc nomen Deus, statim habetur quod Deus est. Significatur enim hoc nomine id quo maius significari non potest, maius autem est quod est in re et intellectu, quam quod est in intellectu tantum, unde cum, intellecto hoc nomine Deus, statim sit in intellectu, sequitur etiam quod sit in re. Ergo Deum esse est per se notum. (http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/sth1002.html )
English:
Objection 2: Further, those things are said to be self-evident which are known as soon as the terms are known, which the Philosopher (1 Poster. iii) says is true of the first principles of demonstration. Thus, when the nature of a whole and of a part is known, it is at once recognized that every whole is greater than its part. But as soon as the signification of the word "God" is understood, it is at once seen that God exists. For by this word is signified that thing than which nothing greater can be conceived. But that which exists actually and mentally is greater than that which exists only mentally. Therefore, since as soon as the word "God" is understood it exists mentally, it also follows that it exists actually. Therefore the proposition "God exists" is self-evident.
日本語：
問題二：すなわち、そんなものは自動知（じどうちー自分で知ってる）ことです。そんなことは言葉の知ってるから物が知ってる。賢者（アリストテル）が最初の現れるの法律について言いました。これから全部の性と部分の性を分かてれば、真っ直ぐ全部の部分より大切さを見ます。けれども神の言葉の一発を分かってば、神様の存在が見ました。言葉の使ってることから、そんな言葉の意味から一番高いものについて考える。何もがこれよりです。けれども存在と想像あるものは想像ものより存在がありますの？そして、神様の言葉の分かってることから、神様の本物の存在いる。神様の存在は自動知です。

Commentary:
I think it's interesting that Aquinas is dealing with something that Anselm proposes as a problem. Here he is demonstrating an obvious theological difference and one that I would like to see the value behind. I think Aquinas' point is that God has to reveal himself, just the thought of his reality isn't the same thing as his reality.

A personal application of the Art of War:
（形篇 ）孫子日：昔之善戦者、先為不可勝、以待適之可勝。不可勝在己、可勝在適。故善戦者、能為不可勝、不能使適必可勝。
(Ames Translation: "Strategic Positions" Master Sun said: "Of old the expert in battle would first make himself invincible and then wait for the enemy to expose his vulnerability. Invincible depends on oneself; vulnerability lies with the enemy. Therefore the expert in battle can make himself invincible, but cannot guarantee for certain the vulnerability of the enemy." )

The term translated invulnerability "不可勝" is completely accurate "not possible to beat." Vulnerability, however, is slightly wrong "可勝" in that the literally rendering for the characters is "possible to beat." The personal application, however, depends little on this. Recently, I was talking to a friend -- Stephanie about being a finicky eater when I was young (well to this day I'm still a finicky eater), and it was close enough to my recall during class to serve as an example of what Sun Tzu （孫子） is saying.

Being a finicky eater, I didn't like to eat my vegetables. My parents, obviously not as appreciative of my epicurean pallete as I was, endeavored to force me to eat my vegetables. To accomplish this, they insisted that I couldn't leave the table before I finished them. Other suggested forms of recourse such as refusing me television would have had little effect (as I didn't watch much television). Being the obstinant child that I was, I refused to be daunted by the idea of having to wait at the table. So I waited patiently (我慢) until my parents would eventually want to go to sleep or at least not spend the time enforcing their requirement of eating vegetables on me. Thus, I was practicing invincibility since I refused to be broken, but my parents were vulenrable because the continuous effort to get me to eat vegetables exceeded the value of me eating vegetables to them (or the available punishments that they had).

Stephanie's parents had a more resilient way of forcing her to eat meat -- "if you don't eat it this meal, you're going to eat it next meal." And this illustrates a second point that Sun Tzu (孫子) is making： Battle is the last resort. One should only fight when one has already won. And this combination is what makes Sun Tzu's advice so pertinent. You only fight when the parameters of battle are already configured in your favor; it's much better to compromise or come to terms far before the battle if there is a definite negative outcome -- or if you don't know the outcome which proves that it is just as bad.

The outcome of this second detail is the avoidance of this seeming paradox: "What if there are two armies that are both invincible and they fight?" Quite simply, only one army can be invincible, even entering into the fight is vulernability on the part of the army which is weaker. Victory isn't to be found in fighting; it's to be found in getting what one wants.

Quotes from the Sickness unto Death

"Now we see how extraordinarily stupid (so that there can still be a remnant of something extraordinary) it is to defend Christianity, how little knowledge of human nature it manifests, how it connives even if unconsciously, with offense by making Christianity out to be some poor, miserable thing that in the end has to be rescued by a champion. Therefore, it is certain that and true that the first one to come up with the idea of defending Christianity in Christendom is de facto a Judas No. 2: he, too, betrays with a kiss, except that his treason is the treason of stupidity. To defend something is always to disparage it. Suppose that someone has a warehouse full of gold, and suppose he is willing to give every ducat to the poor - but in addition, suppose he is stupid enough to begin this charitable enterprise of his with a defense in which he justifies it on three grounds: people will almost come to doubt that he is doing any good. As for Christianity, well he who defends it has never believed it. If he believes, then the enthusiasm of faith is not a defense -- no, it is attack and victory; a believer is a victor."

Soren Kierkegaard, The Sickness Unto Death, Edited and Translated by Howard V. Hong and Edna H. Hong (PUP: 1981), 87.

Kierkegaard's line of arugment here is interesting. Weak things need defenses. Strong things by their very nature attack. While Kierkegaard himself doesn't have a robust reading of contemporary miracles, I think they correspond even better with his argument. There's really no need to argue for contemporary miracles. To argue against them is patently absurd if they are happening and to argue for them is pointless when they're patently obvious.

Without a broader context of Kierkegaard's writings, this quote might not make any sense. Kierkegaard believes the reality of Christianity is two things: (1) man is before God and (2) sin is before God (and infinite in depth since it is against God -- e.g. Anselm). In conjunction, the two imply that Christianity is offensive, both in the sense of offense as attack and offense as odious. So for Kierkegaard, Christianity is not defending its own reasonableness, it is attacking human reason before this as a flawed enterprise. So the offense is entirely the statement that one does not get to decide what true and false are or what right and wrong are. Instead, God decides them and it is simply a question of whether one achieves the right attitude in relation to God.

Dies dicti sunt a deis quorum nomina Romani quibusdam stellis dedicaverunt. Primum enim diem a Sole appellavareunt, qui princeps est omnium stellarum ut idem dies caput ominum diorum. Secundum diem a Luna appellaverunt, quae ex Sole lucem accepit. Tertium ab stella Martis, quae vesper appellatur. Quartum ab stella Mercurii. Quintum ab stella Jovis. Sextus a Veneris stella, quam Luciferum appellaverunt, quae inter omnes stellas plurimum lucis habet. Septimum ab stella Saturni, quae dicitur cursum suum triginta annis explere. Apud Hebraecos autem dies primus dicitur unus dies sabbati, qui apud nos dies dominicus est, quem pagani Soli dedicaverunt. Sabbatum autem septimus dies a dominico est, quem pagini Saturno dedicaverunt.


The days are called by the gods whose names the Romans decidacted the stars. The first among the days was called [by the name] Sol, who is the prince of all the stars and even seizes the day of all the gods. The second day they named after the Moon, who receives light from the Sun (Sol). The third [is called] by the star Mars who at night first appeared. The Fourth by the star Mercury. The Fifth by the start Jupiter. The sixth (was called) by Venus who was called Lucifer that among all the stars has the most light. The Seventh (is called) Saturn who it is said takes thirty years to run its course. Among Hebrews however the first day is called the one day of the Sabbath, which among us is the day of the Lord, whom the pagans dedicated to Sol (the sun). The Sabbath however was the seventh day by the Lord whom the pagans dedicated to Saturn.

日々はロマ人の神々の名前に言いました。最初の日中は”Sol"と呼べて、星の王の子や神々の日を取り込む。二目の日は”Luna"呼べた、光は太陽(Sol)から受けた。三目(の日)はマルソ星から呼んだー夕の最初です。四目はMercuryの星を呼んだ。五の目はJovisと呼んだ。六の目はVenus星から(呼んだ)ーLucifer（光の取った者）呼んだこと全の星中は一番光あります。七の目はSaturnの星から、そんな星の回りは三十年ぐらいを潰します。ヘブル人では最初の日は「Sabbath」言ってる。これは私たちで主の日です。そんな日はパガンで太陽に与えりました。 Sabbathでもは七の日でした。それは主から言いました。けどパガンはSaturnに与えた。

Isidore of Seville Origines 5.30 -- in Latin, English, and Japanese (well the Japanese is a little weak).