|
Good article, Charles. Yes, I do think "home church" it's a growing movement. Obviously, within that movement you'll find a wide variety of doctrinal beliefs, some we'd agree with wholeheartedly (even baptism and its affect) and others that we woudn't (speaking in gibberish, for instance). I think one thing to remember (from one who "house churches" and loves it), is that the location of a particular meeting of believers doesn't make the attendees either more or less like Christ. That cuts both ways, of course. There are some in the home church movement who are very sectarian about it, suggesting it is the only "approved pattern" in the scriptures, and others who are simply doing it because it can provide an opportunity for closer Christian fellowship. That's where I'm at with it. Likewise, there are those who meet in large church settings (large is relative, of course) who have close fellowship with a smaller group of believers, and who are attempting to live their lives very much like Christ. The bottom line is that the exact "pattern" of the assembly is (primarily) a means to an end. The goal is to maintain committed believers who are encouraged to live lives for the King. We haven't reached a "restored state of the church" simply because it looks the same in its external features as the first century one. Does that make sense?
|
