Comments on: The House Church Movement : Healthy? Unhealthy? http://johnburton.net/blog/2009/01/the-house-church-movement-healthy-unhealthy/ The prophetic ministry of John and Amy Burton Sat, 24 Jul 2010 18:12:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: johnmcpherson http://johnburton.net/blog/2009/01/the-house-church-movement-healthy-unhealthy/comment-page-1/#comment-87 johnmcpherson Wed, 19 Aug 2009 12:41:11 +0000 http://r180.com/blog/?p=538#comment-87 Corporately meeting in the temple as well as the house? Brother, I have no doubt in my heart that you are a christian and love the LORD, you are my brother...but your views betray a great lack of understanding of the history of the very subject that you are obviously quite keen to teach about - the purpose of the church itself. To be sure, the Organic Church Movement is nothing like how you have desribed it. It seems you have a gross misunderstanding of both the purpose of the church, the function of all gifted believers in the church, and a somewhat blurred view of what you term "hierarchy" inclusive of your comment regarding how you see "the church as an organisation" et. al. The church is not an "organisation", or an "institution". You've obviously derived your views from the less than comfortable (or bad) experiences of many who no doubt have rejected authority/leaders. The Organic church movement is NOT against spiritual authority or leadership...not sure where you got that from. For the record, I am very missional, sent via a traditional church that meets in a building back home. I'm sent out to serve cross culturally and plant churches. Churches, where yes, there is spiritual authority, yes, believers are functioning (with no hierarchy, as elders are a function not an office) and where all are able to partake and give of Christ Himself. There is prayer, intercession, miracles, witness, teaching, spiritual authority, love, song, joy, mutual edification, praise, adoration of Jesus Christ, the Father, The Spirit. So, I'm not hurt, rebelling, anti-traditional or anything like that - but have re-read Scripture in light of facts - which are there if ever one decides to accept them - that most contemporary church practices are simply derived from what was actually quite pagan. On that note, I recommend that you read, "Pagan Christianity" and "Reimagining Church" both by Viola F. Cheers and God Bless, John Corporately meeting in the temple as well as the house? Brother, I have no doubt in my heart that you are a christian and love the LORD, you are my brother…but your views betray a great lack of understanding of the history of the very subject that you are obviously quite keen to teach about – the purpose of the church itself. To be sure, the Organic Church Movement is nothing like how you have desribed it. It seems you have a gross misunderstanding of both the purpose of the church, the function of all gifted believers in the church, and a somewhat blurred view of what you term “hierarchy” inclusive of your comment regarding how you see “the church as an organisation” et. al. The church is not an “organisation”, or an “institution”. You've obviously derived your views from the less than comfortable (or bad) experiences of many who no doubt have rejected authority/leaders. The Organic church movement is NOT against spiritual authority or leadership…not sure where you got that from. For the record, I am very missional, sent via a traditional church that meets in a building back home. I'm sent out to serve cross culturally and plant churches. Churches, where yes, there is spiritual authority, yes, believers are functioning (with no hierarchy, as elders are a function not an office) and where all are able to partake and give of Christ Himself. There is prayer, intercession, miracles, witness, teaching, spiritual authority, love, song, joy, mutual edification, praise, adoration of Jesus Christ, the Father, The Spirit. So, I'm not hurt, rebelling, anti-traditional or anything like that – but have re-read Scripture in light of facts – which are there if ever one decides to accept them – that most contemporary church practices are simply derived from what was actually quite pagan. On that note, I recommend that you read, “Pagan Christianity” and “Reimagining Church” both by Viola F. Cheers and God Bless, John

]]> By: johnmcpherson http://johnburton.net/blog/2009/01/the-house-church-movement-healthy-unhealthy/comment-page-1/#comment-370 johnmcpherson Wed, 19 Aug 2009 09:41:11 +0000 http://r180.com/blog/?p=538#comment-370 Corporately meeting in the temple as well as the house? Brother, I have no doubt in my heart that you are a christian and love the LORD, you are my brother...but your views betray a great lack of understanding of the history of the very subject that you are obviously quite keen to teach about - the purpose of the church itself. To be sure, the Organic Church Movement is nothing like how you have desribed it. It seems you have a gross misunderstanding of both the purpose of the church, the function of all gifted believers in the church, and a somewhat blurred view of what you term "hierarchy" inclusive of your comment regarding how you see "the church as an organisation" et. al. The church is not an "organisation", or an "institution". You've obviously derived your views from the less than comfortable (or bad) experiences of many who no doubt have rejected authority/leaders. The Organic church movement is NOT against spiritual authority or leadership...not sure where you got that from. For the record, I am very missional, sent via a traditional church that meets in a building back home. I'm sent out to serve cross culturally and plant churches. Churches, where yes, there is spiritual authority, yes, believers are functioning (with no hierarchy, as elders are a function not an office) and where all are able to partake and give of Christ Himself. There is prayer, intercession, miracles, witness, teaching, spiritual authority, love, song, joy, mutual edification, praise, adoration of Jesus Christ, the Father, The Spirit. So, I'm not hurt, rebelling, anti-traditional or anything like that - but have re-read Scripture in light of facts - which are there if ever one decides to accept them - that most contemporary church practices are simply derived from what was actually quite pagan. On that note, I recommend that you read, "Pagan Christianity" and "Reimagining Church" both by Viola F. Cheers and God Bless, John Corporately meeting in the temple as well as the house? Brother, I have no doubt in my heart that you are a christian and love the LORD, you are my brother…but your views betray a great lack of understanding of the history of the very subject that you are obviously quite keen to teach about – the purpose of the church itself. To be sure, the Organic Church Movement is nothing like how you have desribed it. It seems you have a gross misunderstanding of both the purpose of the church, the function of all gifted believers in the church, and a somewhat blurred view of what you term “hierarchy” inclusive of your comment regarding how you see “the church as an organisation” et. al. The church is not an “organisation”, or an “institution”. You've obviously derived your views from the less than comfortable (or bad) experiences of many who no doubt have rejected authority/leaders. The Organic church movement is NOT against spiritual authority or leadership…not sure where you got that from. For the record, I am very missional, sent via a traditional church that meets in a building back home. I'm sent out to serve cross culturally and plant churches. Churches, where yes, there is spiritual authority, yes, believers are functioning (with no hierarchy, as elders are a function not an office) and where all are able to partake and give of Christ Himself. There is prayer, intercession, miracles, witness, teaching, spiritual authority, love, song, joy, mutual edification, praise, adoration of Jesus Christ, the Father, The Spirit. So, I'm not hurt, rebelling, anti-traditional or anything like that – but have re-read Scripture in light of facts – which are there if ever one decides to accept them – that most contemporary church practices are simply derived from what was actually quite pagan. On that note, I recommend that you read, “Pagan Christianity” and “Reimagining Church” both by Viola F. Cheers and God Bless, John

]]> By: Tony Davis http://johnburton.net/blog/2009/01/the-house-church-movement-healthy-unhealthy/comment-page-1/#comment-86 Tony Davis Mon, 08 Jun 2009 21:22:12 +0000 http://r180.com/blog/?p=538#comment-86 Dear Friends,<br><br>I tend to agree w/both Bro(s) John and Gary we must remember a coin has two sides, but if its a quarter then its still a quarter and remembering what Solomon said there is a time for everything. Before one leaves there church home they must ask themselves why? Is it for selfish reasons such as, "I'm not being used", "the praise and worship is not to my liking" etc., we must understand the church is going to have issues because we have issues, the church is not going to be perfect because were not perfect. No the church is not there to make us feel comfey and coozey, but it is there to serve the needs of the brethren and the heathen, which all of us once were and the needs that "MUST" be meant aren't always going to be comfortable we must understand the difference between "satisfying" and "needs." And yet a person cannot be expected to stay at a church where blatant heretical teaching is being displayed or the leadership is not leading but being tyrannical and or being totally unaccountable or reponsible. Both pastor and sheep are accountable to one another, the Word of God is clear on this. Those who would lead after Christ are not to lead or display leadership in the "worlds" way ever remember you are a servant of Christ and to those you shepherd. The church body is not to establish cliques and fan clubs the pastoral are not to establish sorieties. Both fanctions are not always going to agree but mutual love and respect is to be rendered to both once again the bible is clear. God's word will always give us a balance on these type of subjects, but however we only gleam that which our own opinions are based and if that opinion is challenged even w/the truth of scripture we react, how can I say, unhealthy. Furthermore I'm inclined to believe the problem in the church is not "authority" but "love" for if I love then I'll have no problem submitting to authority and if I love those whom I serve, then they will love me, does that mean we won't have healthy not rebellious disagreements of course, but we will love one another. Lets not be biased and partial in our view points, but base our view points off of the Word of God, even if it means were wrong or unclear. Loving you. Dear Friends,

I tend to agree w/both Bro(s) John and Gary we must remember a coin has two sides, but if its a quarter then its still a quarter and remembering what Solomon said there is a time for everything. Before one leaves there church home they must ask themselves why? Is it for selfish reasons such as, “I'm not being used”, “the praise and worship is not to my liking” etc., we must understand the church is going to have issues because we have issues, the church is not going to be perfect because were not perfect. No the church is not there to make us feel comfey and coozey, but it is there to serve the needs of the brethren and the heathen, which all of us once were and the needs that “MUST” be meant aren't always going to be comfortable we must understand the difference between “satisfying” and “needs.” And yet a person cannot be expected to stay at a church where blatant heretical teaching is being displayed or the leadership is not leading but being tyrannical and or being totally unaccountable or reponsible. Both pastor and sheep are accountable to one another, the Word of God is clear on this. Those who would lead after Christ are not to lead or display leadership in the “worlds” way ever remember you are a servant of Christ and to those you shepherd. The church body is not to establish cliques and fan clubs the pastoral are not to establish sorieties. Both fanctions are not always going to agree but mutual love and respect is to be rendered to both once again the bible is clear. God's word will always give us a balance on these type of subjects, but however we only gleam that which our own opinions are based and if that opinion is challenged even w/the truth of scripture we react, how can I say, unhealthy. Furthermore I'm inclined to believe the problem in the church is not “authority” but “love” for if I love then I'll have no problem submitting to authority and if I love those whom I serve, then they will love me, does that mean we won't have healthy not rebellious disagreements of course, but we will love one another. Lets not be biased and partial in our view points, but base our view points off of the Word of God, even if it means were wrong or unclear. Loving you.

]]> By: Tony Davis http://johnburton.net/blog/2009/01/the-house-church-movement-healthy-unhealthy/comment-page-1/#comment-369 Tony Davis Mon, 08 Jun 2009 18:22:12 +0000 http://r180.com/blog/?p=538#comment-369 Dear Friends,<br><br>I tend to agree w/both Bro(s) John and Gary we must remember a coin has two sides, but if its a quarter then its still a quarter and remembering what Solomon said there is a time for everything. Before one leaves there church home they must ask themselves why? Is it for selfish reasons such as, "I'm not being used", "the praise and worship is not to my liking" etc., we must understand the church is going to have issues because we have issues, the church is not going to be perfect because were not perfect. No the church is not there to make us feel comfey and coozey, but it is there to serve the needs of the brethren and the heathen, which all of us once were and the needs that "MUST" be meant aren't always going to be comfortable we must understand the difference between "satisfying" and "needs." And yet a person cannot be expected to stay at a church where blatant heretical teaching is being displayed or the leadership is not leading but being tyrannical and or being totally unaccountable or reponsible. Both pastor and sheep are accountable to one another, the Word of God is clear on this. Those who would lead after Christ are not to lead or display leadership in the "worlds" way ever remember you are a servant of Christ and to those you shepherd. The church body is not to establish cliques and fan clubs the pastoral are not to establish sorieties. Both fanctions are not always going to agree but mutual love and respect is to be rendered to both once again the bible is clear. God's word will always give us a balance on these type of subjects, but however we only gleam that which our own opinions are based and if that opinion is challenged even w/the truth of scripture we react, how can I say, unhealthy. Furthermore I'm inclined to believe the problem in the church is not "authority" but "love" for if I love then I'll have no problem submitting to authority and if I love those whom I serve, then they will love me, does that mean we won't have healthy not rebellious disagreements of course, but we will love one another. Lets not be biased and partial in our view points, but base our view points off of the Word of God, even if it means were wrong or unclear. Loving you. Dear Friends,

I tend to agree w/both Bro(s) John and Gary we must remember a coin has two sides, but if its a quarter then its still a quarter and remembering what Solomon said there is a time for everything. Before one leaves there church home they must ask themselves why? Is it for selfish reasons such as, “I'm not being used”, “the praise and worship is not to my liking” etc., we must understand the church is going to have issues because we have issues, the church is not going to be perfect because were not perfect. No the church is not there to make us feel comfey and coozey, but it is there to serve the needs of the brethren and the heathen, which all of us once were and the needs that “MUST” be meant aren't always going to be comfortable we must understand the difference between “satisfying” and “needs.” And yet a person cannot be expected to stay at a church where blatant heretical teaching is being displayed or the leadership is not leading but being tyrannical and or being totally unaccountable or reponsible. Both pastor and sheep are accountable to one another, the Word of God is clear on this. Those who would lead after Christ are not to lead or display leadership in the “worlds” way ever remember you are a servant of Christ and to those you shepherd. The church body is not to establish cliques and fan clubs the pastoral are not to establish sorieties. Both fanctions are not always going to agree but mutual love and respect is to be rendered to both once again the bible is clear. God's word will always give us a balance on these type of subjects, but however we only gleam that which our own opinions are based and if that opinion is challenged even w/the truth of scripture we react, how can I say, unhealthy. Furthermore I'm inclined to believe the problem in the church is not “authority” but “love” for if I love then I'll have no problem submitting to authority and if I love those whom I serve, then they will love me, does that mean we won't have healthy not rebellious disagreements of course, but we will love one another. Lets not be biased and partial in our view points, but base our view points off of the Word of God, even if it means were wrong or unclear. Loving you.

]]> By: John Burton http://johnburton.net/blog/2009/01/the-house-church-movement-healthy-unhealthy/comment-page-1/#comment-85 John Burton Sat, 06 Jun 2009 18:10:36 +0000 http://r180.com/blog/?p=538#comment-85 A key reason I wrote the book was to dispel the wrong idea that you mention. "What if God tells me to leave and my pastor tells me to stay?"<br><br>It's a trust issue. Do we trust God, who established all authority, to work it all out? Or must we take matters into our own hands, violate God's protocol and refuse to submit?<br><br>If we only submit to the point where we don't want to submit it's not submission at all.<br><br>I'd encourage you to read the book and let me know what you think. A key reason I wrote the book was to dispel the wrong idea that you mention. “What if God tells me to leave and my pastor tells me to stay?”

It's a trust issue. Do we trust God, who established all authority, to work it all out? Or must we take matters into our own hands, violate God's protocol and refuse to submit?

If we only submit to the point where we don't want to submit it's not submission at all.

I'd encourage you to read the book and let me know what you think.

]]> By: John Burton http://johnburton.net/blog/2009/01/the-house-church-movement-healthy-unhealthy/comment-page-1/#comment-368 John Burton Sat, 06 Jun 2009 15:10:36 +0000 http://r180.com/blog/?p=538#comment-368 A key reason I wrote the book was to dispel the wrong idea that you mention. "What if God tells me to leave and my pastor tells me to stay?"<br><br>It's a trust issue. Do we trust God, who established all authority, to work it all out? Or must we take matters into our own hands, violate God's protocol and refuse to submit?<br><br>If we only submit to the point where we don't want to submit it's not submission at all.<br><br>I'd encourage you to read the book and let me know what you think. A key reason I wrote the book was to dispel the wrong idea that you mention. “What if God tells me to leave and my pastor tells me to stay?”

It's a trust issue. Do we trust God, who established all authority, to work it all out? Or must we take matters into our own hands, violate God's protocol and refuse to submit?

If we only submit to the point where we don't want to submit it's not submission at all.

I'd encourage you to read the book and let me know what you think.

]]> By: GaryM http://johnburton.net/blog/2009/01/the-house-church-movement-healthy-unhealthy/comment-page-1/#comment-84 GaryM Sat, 06 Jun 2009 07:03:22 +0000 http://r180.com/blog/?p=538#comment-84 You have one side of a truth. You have deakt admirably with the heart attitude which every christian should, indeed, have but you have taken the metaphor too far in the other direction.<br><br>If a christian goes to the church building and does not get fed then the sheep/shepherd metaphor breaks down. And no matter how much we submit to others, it has to be mutual in nature. For instance, if a pastor did not release me to leave their church and yet God was telling me to go, who do you think I would listen too?<br><br>There will always be a divine tension between sunmission and the priesthood of all believers. You have one side of a truth. You have deakt admirably with the heart attitude which every christian should, indeed, have but you have taken the metaphor too far in the other direction.

If a christian goes to the church building and does not get fed then the sheep/shepherd metaphor breaks down. And no matter how much we submit to others, it has to be mutual in nature. For instance, if a pastor did not release me to leave their church and yet God was telling me to go, who do you think I would listen too?

There will always be a divine tension between sunmission and the priesthood of all believers.

]]> By: GaryM http://johnburton.net/blog/2009/01/the-house-church-movement-healthy-unhealthy/comment-page-1/#comment-367 GaryM Sat, 06 Jun 2009 04:03:22 +0000 http://r180.com/blog/?p=538#comment-367 You have one side of a truth. You have deakt admirably with the heart attitude which every christian should, indeed, have but you have taken the metaphor too far in the other direction.<br><br>If a christian goes to the church building and does not get fed then the sheep/shepherd metaphor breaks down. And no matter how much we submit to others, it has to be mutual in nature. For instance, if a pastor did not release me to leave their church and yet God was telling me to go, who do you think I would listen too?<br><br>There will always be a divine tension between sunmission and the priesthood of all believers. You have one side of a truth. You have deakt admirably with the heart attitude which every christian should, indeed, have but you have taken the metaphor too far in the other direction.

If a christian goes to the church building and does not get fed then the sheep/shepherd metaphor breaks down. And no matter how much we submit to others, it has to be mutual in nature. For instance, if a pastor did not release me to leave their church and yet God was telling me to go, who do you think I would listen too?

There will always be a divine tension between sunmission and the priesthood of all believers.

]]> By: Boston Movers http://johnburton.net/blog/2009/01/the-house-church-movement-healthy-unhealthy/comment-page-1/#comment-83 Boston Movers Fri, 08 May 2009 13:23:25 +0000 http://r180.com/blog/?p=538#comment-83 The church is considered as the home for our spirit,,<br>It serves as a catalyst for heaven seeking and spiritual belief. The church is considered as the home for our spirit,,
It serves as a catalyst for heaven seeking and spiritual belief.

]]> By: Boston Movers http://johnburton.net/blog/2009/01/the-house-church-movement-healthy-unhealthy/comment-page-1/#comment-366 Boston Movers Fri, 08 May 2009 10:23:25 +0000 http://r180.com/blog/?p=538#comment-366 The church is considered as the home for our spirit,,<br>It serves as a catalyst for heaven seeking and spiritual belief. The church is considered as the home for our spirit,,
It serves as a catalyst for heaven seeking and spiritual belief.

]]>