Q3. House-Churches

[Pastor Ralph]

Q3. (Acts 18:7) How important are the economics of house-churches and bi-vocational ministry in the rapid spread of the first century church? What are the advantages of a house-church model? What are the weaknesses?

[Travis81]

Q3. (Acts 18:7) How important are the economics of house-churches and bi-vocational ministry in the rapid spread of the first century church? 

Very important! It was then and I believe it’s essential today as well.  As Paul, Aquila, Priscilla, Barnabas, Silas, and others, etc… they engaged with and/or encountered others having like or similar beliefs; they engaged with and/or encountered others needing to know of the Lord Christ Jesus. 

As they made a living at acknowledged the Giver of life. As they made a living the gave time, gifts, talents and the proceeds received towards the ******* of the Gospel.  

 

What are the advantages of a house-church model?

Although I’ve not personally nor routinely assembled in house-church format I do believe there are a number of advantages.

There isn’t a large overhead as probable for a large edifice.

Smaller group, can lend to greater intimacy; often house church can be predominately family oriented.

Due to being small in number there’s a greater propensity to be more inclusive (the people are intimately familiar with each other). Everyone participates and ministers so people grow in using their spiritual gifts.

Smaller groups can lead to increased accountability to each other.

There isn’t a need for expensive/elaborate functions unless they desire so

House churches can potently direct their finances toward evangelism, community service, or caring for one member’s needs instead of purchasing expensive buildings.

 

 

What are the weaknesses?

The weakness can be the opposite of the advantages; but in addition to the opposite

The possibility and/or probability to outgrow the space. The possibility/and or probability to encounter a Paul and Barnabas scenario (foreseen differences of opinion) or the inability to move pass a Mary and Martha scenario.

More dangerous than any of the aforementioned  perceived weakness, if the commandments of man begins to outweigh the Commandments of God. 

[Nandita]

Q3. (Acts 18:7) How important are the economics of house-churches and bi-vocational ministry in the rapid spread of the first century church?

Christianity was radical for its time. It all hinged upon Jesus' resurrection from the dead—something that went against everything people knew about life and death. It propagated 'unnatural' views—charity at the cost of your own comfort, forgiveness at the cost of your own pride, service at the cost of your own safety, and love at the cost of everything else. Christianity required people to alter their thinking completely. It turned people inside out. And such change could only be effectively fostered in close, intimate, groups of fellow Christians who could help them make sense of all they'd learned. To be given the message of Christianity and then thrown into a congregation of hundreds of similarly new believers wouldn't have solidified faith or helped people's understanding grow. It would have also have attracted greater and more hostile attention and Christians would have been martyred before Christianity had the chance to spread.

 

Bi-vocational ministry was important to the spread of Christianity because a) it didn't burden limited resources b) it showed that the apostles were people of integrity who practised what they preached c) it demonstrated that the apostles spoke only for God—their positions and views weren't influenced by people they would otherwise have been dependent upon. 

 

What are the advantages of a house-church model?

For some people or in some regions house-churches are the only feasible way people can come together to know God and deepen their relationship with him. Unless a church has a provision for a Parent's Room, for example, with a live-feed transmitting the celebration from the main hall, new mothers or fathers have no way to actively participate in a Sunday service. Unless they live in a region or country that doesn't persecute Christians, people may not be able to attend—or even form—a formal church. There are also some people who feel more comfortable with small gatherings than they do with large—people whose relationship with God is nurtured by more intimate fellowship than a larger and possibly more distracting one.

 

What are the weaknesses?

I think there are very few shortcomings to this model. What matters is having fellowship with Christians—Christians who come together to sincerely seek an ever-deepening relationship with God. The size of the gathering or the name and interior decoration of the building isn't important. The strongest shortcoming may be the dangers of misinformation. If a group holds a prejudice or clings to an erroneous interpretation of a verse they may never be corrected. If a leader chooses to focus only on a few matters or presents only certain aspects of Christianity believers may not grow in their relationship with God. The more people there are, the more leaders who visit, the easier it is to stay true to the word of God.

[JanMary]

On 8/28/2019 at 10:41 AM, Pastor Ralph said:

Q3. (Acts 18:7) How important are the economics of house-churches and bi-vocational ministry in the rapid spread of the first century church? What are the advantages of a house-church model? What are the weaknesses?

1. They were expedient...and crucial, instantly available whenever a pastor, elder, leader was selected or appointed. The believers could quickly assemble in nearby homes eliminating travel and expense, allowing for a shorter time away from jobs and household chores and responsibilities.

2. A house church or churches could be available in every town as needed. Much as the Amish and Friends (Quakers) have used in more modern times often moving from house to house to share responsibility.  Funds were not needed for maintenance, new buildings, furnishings, and all of the other needs of church buildings. Pastors were lay ministers who worked in their own field of expertise to support their families, which meant they were free to work and minister without the additional cares and concerns of a church building. These were friends and neighbors, so fellowship was already established. The leaders were  friends and co-workers in many cases, I imagine, so didn't require establishing trust and intimacy an  outsider might require.

3. The only thing that comes to mind, are the issues which arise among believers, some petty disagreements and some more involved which could make meeting in a home awkward. (Jealous comparisons, bickering which festers, the homeowner feeling taken advantage of after a time of sacrifice....these were baby Christians. Goodness knows the issues which arise in churches today among "well seasoned" Christians, which cause church splits and worse, so on second thought, probably similar weaknesses as we see today in established churches with lovely buildings.

 

[jesus]

House churches were very important in the rapid spread of Christianity in the first century church because house gathering in house churches made gathering the church feasible in nearly any situations.God can also use your home to host believers in a kind of house church as a place where unbelievers can come to know our Christ. 

The advantages pop a house-church model is you can gather as a church easily anytime in any situation. You do not have to invest in infrastructure as you may have to for a church building. God has given us a spiritual gift of hospitality which is a gift of the Spirit which facilitates the house churches. You can reach out to any person even unbelievers who will come to your house to point out to Christ. A house church functions as a family growing together in the Lord.serving one another, helping one another in need and be there for each other in life. You grow stronger together.

The only weakness I could think would be of limited space in the house churches to accommodate larger group. Dis agreements and conflicts can also come up. 

[garymerkel]

"House" churches will always be vital to the work of the church.  Starting out, there were no church buildings except synagogues, so where would they meet?  In many countries today, because of persecution, house churches are vital.  House churches develope a high level of relationship as long as eyes are fixed on Jesus.  Most churches that are growing today have some type of small group ministry.  We need close connections for accountability.  Today, large churches can be major influencers in a community as long as they are following Jesus.  

When the "flesh" gets involved, regardless of house church or mega, it has a negative effect.  There is a place for house churches, all size churches, but a key is staying with Scripture, the character of God, and the exaltation of Jesus, and dependence upon the work of the Holy Spirit.

Advantages: House churches are much harder to shut down by a government, usually stronger in personal relationships.

Disadvantage: Can become an ingrown click.

As long as God and His mission are the focus and God's Word is taught in context with God's love, - the gates of hell will NOT prevail against God's church.

[Uncle Dave]

Q3. (Acts 18:7)

1.     How important are the economics of house-churches and bi-vocational ministry in the rapid spread of the first century church?

One only needs to remember that the church was just beginning to grow, and it was also taking off in places where it was never even heard of. The idol worshipers had their temples, and the Jews had their synagogues, but the church, something unheard of to most of the world had not yet begun to construct places of worship. Meeting at one’s house allowed for much more one on one connecting which would bring family members into the church and also friends. The good thing about meeting in a house and this is something I see as a major problem in the church today, when people meet in a house it is 100% more casual which means those who were there were already more comfortable with the setting. The formalities one sees in a meeting place today are intimidating to many who might show up if it were more laid back.

It  makes me sad to see how much of a vanity fair goes on these days, especially in bigger places with everybody showing up in nice vehicles, expensive clothes, and attitudes where they pass people up who Jesus considered to be the “least of these”, would rather roll their windows than say a simple hello when homeless people walk back and forth begging on median strips. I’m not saying they should give them all their money, even though they are already blessed with much more than enough, but the opportunity to share the word of God to the poor doesn’t happen for who knows how many lines taken from the book of excuses. Jesus was pretty clear about His wanting the gospel shared with the poor and helping them also. The hypocrisy of a $1,000,000.00(in some cases, much much more), fancy building and people pouring money into it rather than acting like Jesus would have wanted intimidates people who have only a pair of old worn flip flops and unbathed for days because there is no place to shower and might smell the expensive place up. The point is, and most of the people sitting in them seats are guilty of this.

I might be out of line with what I’m saying, but if things were done on more of a personal level and people were to actually discover that the church is not a building, but the people, whether they meet in a big building, a home, a meadow out in the middle of the woods, I think there would be a re-birth of the church like we have never seen. I personally think that the church as a whole needs to really change and get back to the personal intimacy Jesus demonstrated and the apostles also followed suit. It is sad when you see a preacher whose heart goes out to the people, but the people’s hearts go out to how lavish a place can be made, and millions spent on electronic devices and monitors rather than reaching out.

I apologize if I have offended anybody with my words, but I have always been one who has to say what is on my mind. I wasn’t trying to blame anyone in particular and I know many who shine like light houses. I am probably the furthest from what I should be but in my spirit I’m content to the max because I start my day with a heart to heart with God early in the morning long before the birds start singing. I only wish that the changes taking place in my life were happening at a faster pace but then again it is like I said, I’m content and God is in control and doing things in His timing.

2.     What are the advantages of a house-church model? What are the weaknesses?

The advantages of a house-church, the way I see it are many. The close, intimate interactions are something I see as very important. What I mean is, if someone has a question about something, they don’t understand they should be able to ask it while they are thinking about it. Today I see some groups who meet in houses and they call it “Bible Study”, which I’m all for. If a question is asked and nobody really knows the answer and as a group an answer can’t be discovered, it is said so and it becomes something many can search for in the coming days. This moves people to be much more involved in their Bibles. This doesn’t happen at a large gathering because it would be considered “disrespectful” to question something that was said and the search for answers within most people soon disappears. I remember one time a preacher at a large congregation was talking about something and the things he said would be pretty good if he had been writing a fiction story, but he not only told the story wrong, he missed the point of it all. A friend stopped by afterwards and commented how he really liked the “sermon”, how interesting it was. When I took him to the verses in question he read it and I thought his eyes were going to roll across the floor they popped out of his head so far and said “that’s not what he was talking about” but the verses matched the ones the preacher gave before the sermon. When my friend questioned the preacher, he was given a run around. The way I see it, if I don’t know the answer to something you’re going to receive an “I don’t know”, and depending on the subject the fact that I will try to find out. My reason for so many words here is to show why I feel the small, home-based, everybody knows everybody and all about them is the best way to go.

          Disadvantages? One thing I have noticed is the fact that it is the small group who goes out to their neighbors to tell people about an eternal life without suffering or pain is possible and the road, as narrow as it is, has already been paved by none other than a man from Galilee. Many people are looking to be part of something good but don’t want anything to do with “organized religion”. Too many groups, each with their own doctrine about what the Bible says turns many off. Doctrine is nice if it is what the Bible says and not just the part that a certain denomination lives by, but the most important thing is people finding out about Jesus and receiving forgiveness from Him and changing their way of life by a renewing of the mind.

          Another disadvantage I see among large, organized groups is the importance of membership (on paper, or in a database). When the original church was scattered, due to persecution, they simply grabbed what they could and ran. The day Satan gets his way and initiates a persecution on the church today, it will be pretty easy to track everyone down, thanks to things like credit card entries, addresses, etc. In a small group people are known by name and rather than using the mail to make sure everyone is informed about something it is only a matter of visiting or calling. I admit, that in this day, and even for quite a while now, phone numbers would be fairly easy to use in tracking down Christians on the lam. There are many more and I could go on but its late and I think I’ve made clear the way I see things. Like I said, I didn’t write all this to offend anyone and I hope I didn’t and would like everybody to know how much it means to me to read all the posts here. Very enlightening and I learn so much from them and thank all.

[Old Jerry]

I think that the house churches were very economic because they didn’t have to build buildings to meet together. Probably even the neighbors came to the house church. Bi-vocational ministries were needed so that they could support themselves and not have to rely on the newly converted people to make an offering. The advantage of a house-church model is that you get to know everybody in the church. You can a better fellowship with each other. The weaknesses is finding a leader and the congregation has to stay small.

[Queen Mc Daniel]

 

Q3. (Acts 18:7) How important are the economics of house-churches and bi-vocational ministry in the rapid spread of the first century church?

Very important, house churches were the primary way the church manifests itself at that time, and even now, there are many house churches today. I was one in a house church. Economically, it makes gathering the church feasible in nearly any situation.”   And he departed from there and entered the house of a certain man named Justus, one who worshiped God, whose house was next door to the synagogue.  Then Crisps, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized.” Acts 18:7-8 (NKJV)

What are the advantages of a house-church model?

The over head is minimal. It’s cost effective. The group is smaller; therefore, God’s word is selective for the specific group. There appear to be a closer and relaxed atmosphere, more indebt study and accountability, and study is more interment and control.

What are the weaknesses?
Boundary line can get blurred, limited space, conflicts and difference. instructor not knowledgeable enough to teach. Leading babes in Christ astray.

 

[hanks]

Q3. (Acts 18:7) 
How important are the economics of house-churches and bi-vocational ministry in the rapid spread of the first century church? 
What are the advantages of a house-church model? 
What are the weaknesses?
Not being welcome in the synagogues and there being no other venues available, the obvious choice was to meet in homes. Besides this was a time of persecution by the Romans and any large gathering of hundreds would simply not be safe. There were no large congregations and thus no money to support full time ministers, and of course, no money to start building churches, in these early days. So out of necessity they use the house-church model and bi-vocational ministers. The main advantage was that it could be started very quickly, similar to home Bible Studies of today. We see this in larger churches today where believers meet in smaller groups at various homes. This allows them to get to know each other personally and form strong friendships. They not only meet for Bible Study, but will meet socially and often form prayer groups. The main weakness of the house-church model may be the lack of a well-educated teacher of the Word. Not everyone can be a teacher of the Word and this carries great responsibility and should not be taken lightly (James 3:1) – it is a most serious matter to teach the Lord’s Word. Since, not many of us, have the time to gain the skills and knowledge, to accurately teach the Word of God, it’s best to leave it to the professionals. Lack of knowledge or misunderstanding can have serious consequences and lead the home-church believers astray. In our normal church there is the protection from false doctrine as there are the ministers and elders who overseer the congregation. 
 

[RD35]

Q3. (Acts 18:7) How important are the economics of house-churches and bi-vocational ministry in the rapid spread of the first century church? What are the advantages of a house-church model? What are the weaknesses?

House churches are the primary way the church manifests itself in the first century .

Economically, house churches make gathering the church feasible in nearly any situation.

Limited space can be a disadvantage.

[haar]

Q3. (Acts 18:7)

Q. How important are the economics of house-churches and bi-vocational ministry in the rapid spread of the first century church?

A. House churches use less resources and make it possible for people in the neighbourhood to have easier access to evangelism/ discipleship. Furthermore, these home churches use bi-vocational ministers that are not full time on payroll, thus running them are more economical. 

Q. What are the advantages of a house-church model?

A. They are more accessible and thus many can be evangelised faster. They are also cheaper to run as bi- vocational pastors are not on payroll.

Q. What are the weaknesses?

A. Limited space requires the use of multiple houses and thus the need for more resource persons to run the house churches- so I think.

[Godswriter]

Q3. (Acts 18:7) How important are the economics of house-churches and bi-vocational ministry in the rapid spread of the first century church? What are the advantages of a house-church model? What are the weaknesses?

House churches are very important for the first century church and the rapid spread of the Gospel and without the bivocational ministers the gospel would not be wide spread at all. They are more economical since the ministers can go where they are needed. They are more widely accessible and many can reach the lost quicker that way. Limited space would be one and so you need more than one than house. 

[rosegarden]

On 8/28/2019 at 1:41 PM, Pastor Ralph said:

Q3. (Acts 18:7) How important are the economics of house-churches and bi-vocational ministry in the rapid spread of the first century church? What are the advantages of a house-church model? What are the weaknesses?

a.  Very important. House churches are the primary way the church manifested itself in the first century.  It was a way to communicate the Gospel in a private setting, as at times they were not allowed to preach in the Synagogue.   Economically, house churches make gathering the church feasible in nearly any situation.  Together, the house churches across greater Corinth constituted the Church at Corinth.

b. Advantages:  low cost, and as the house-churches multiplied, everyone had a place to attend and they did not have to travel long distances, also it was a smaller setting where people would feel comfortable to ask questions and share.

c. Weaknesses: Maybe needing to have people on the same page, as they all had different beliefs, maybe arguing, maybe teachers not totally knowledgeable and leading them astray.

[t-c]

Q3. (Acts 18:7) How important are the economics of house-churches and bi-vocational ministry in the rapid spread of the first century church? What are the advantages of a house-church model? What are the weaknesses?

 a. Very important. No cost! No need for a church building and its expense and the time involved in building or in renting one before you were able to worship there.

 b. No cost and the startup is immediate. It is safer from persecution, being an unmarked home over a known church site. Intimate fellowship and setting for believers to worship.  

 c. Size, not able to accommodate many people. Word of mouth attendance, non-invited people wouldn't know where to go. (off the street) Possibly accountability issues unless there were Elders to assist the Pastor in doctrine and the running of the church. (one man running and deciding everything.)

[Lottie]

Q3. (Acts 18:7) How important are the economics of house-churches and bi-vocational ministry in the rapid spread of the first century church? What are the advantages of a house-church model? What are the weaknesses?

During the first century house-churches were very important to the spread of the the gospel. Ministers could rely on people who had bigger houses to host the meetings in. It saved money for other things like giving to others in need. Bi-vocational ministry was important because it took the burden off of the churches to support them. In this day and age in other countries when believers gather together in house-churches underground they are hidden from the government's eyes. 

The problem with house-churches that meetings would have to be held more than once because the gathering were so large. Another problem with house-churches today is that people's neighbors could be watching them. They have to be careful and do it when it late at night when they are sleeping. They cannot sing out loud or preach too loud for fear of being heard. In some places they do not have a Bible at all to read or any hymn books to sing with. They have to walk or bike many miles to get there in any kind of weather.

[lighthouse2014]

On 8/28/2019 at 12:41 PM, Pastor Ralph said:

Q3. (Acts 18:7) How important are the economics of house-churches and bi-vocational ministry in the rapid spread of the first century church? What are the advantages of a house-church model? What are the weaknesses?

During the first century of the early church there was no place Christians to congregate except in believers houses. Most were converts from from the Jewish synagogues and the God fearer's. Also, early Christians were persecuted for their belief and meeting in secrecy was important. The bi-vocational ministry was a good way for those believers to earn a living and not placing their support on the church. It also gave them time to become familiar with the culture and share their faith to non-believers.

The advantages of house church models is that it gave the participants time to share things Christ has done for them and have others pry for their need. It was also a get opportunity for the non-believers to come to the saving grace of Christ.

House churches most likely had it's disadvantages because there was no pastor to lead them in the teachings of the gospel. Some were afraid of being discovered of being Christians and thus they would be persecuted for their belief.         

[Preistina11]

How important are the economics of house-churches and bi-vocational ministry in the rapid spread of the first century church? Very important because it was easy to open up any house to conduct evangelization any time and anywhere. It was also for the fellowship and encouragement for the new Christians in the midst of the troublemakers and the pharises.A place of refuge.

What are the advantages of a house-church model? It was easy to open up houses where not much preparation is needed. Less money is needed. It does not draw much attention to those against it.There is comfort during the meets.There is privacy.

What are the weaknesses?Some may not give the importance of attendance.They may considered it less serious.Since it is less formal ,it may be taken lightly.

[Stanley Tavaziva]

 Paul and Aquila had been trained in tent making, cutting and sewing the woven cloth of goats’ hair into tents. Tents were used to house soldiers, and so these tents may have been sold to the Roman army. As a tentmaker, Paul was able to go wherever God led him, carrying his livelihood with him. The word tentmaker in Greek was also used to describe a leatherworker.

Paul was a tentmaker, and he supported himself with this trade. Paul did not work to become rich but to be free from being dependent on anyone. He supported himself as well as others who traveled with him (he mentions this in some of his letters.

These words of Jesus are not recorded in the Gospels. Obviously, not all of Jesus’ words were written down (John 21:25); this saying may have been passed on orally through the apostles.

Paul was writing here about the person who is lazy. Paul explained that when he and his companions were in Thessalonica, they worked hard, buying what they needed rather than becoming a burden to any of the believers. The rule they followed was, “Whoever does not work should not eat.” There’s a difference between leisure and laziness. Relaxation and recreation provide a necessary and much needed balance to our life; but when it is time to work, Christians should jump right in. We should make the most of our talent and time, doing all we can to provide for ourselves and our dependents. Rest when you should be resting, and work when you should be working.

The Corinthians had split into various cliques, each following its favorite preacher (Paul, Apollos, Peter, etc.). Each clique really believed it was the only one to have the whole truth and thus felt spiritually proud. But Paul told the groups not to boast about being tied to a particular preacher, because each preacher was simply a humble servant who had suffered for the same message of salvation in Jesus Christ. No preacher of God has more status than another.

[Maggz]

Increasingly, Paul and his helpers were being driven out of the synagogues and were having to find new places in which to preach.  The new Christian came of varying social strata - they ranged from influential men to slaves.  It was unlikely that they would be able to afford to build new churches, or to pay for full-time ministries.  Therefore, the hospitality of those who opened their homes to meetings was essential for the growth of the church.

Smaller, more intimate gatherings, like house churches, tend to be more free in worship.  People are happier to contribute to a discussion when they are part of a small group than if they are in a big church, where the preacher tends to dominate, and the congregation listens.   They also tend to build stronger bonds between the members of the group.

The strength of a house church will depend, to a large extent, on the maturity of faith of the person who leads it.  It is essential that this is a person well-grounded in the faith, with the ability to lead and guide discussion where necessary, and to allow members to speak freely.   It may also have the advantage of a "chiquey"  community, where there is little unity in the church as a whole.   Paul spoke against this in the 1st century church, when some members saw themselves as belonging to Paul, Apollos or Peter, rather than to Jesus.

[Irmela]

Acts 18:7) How important are the economics of house-churches and bi-vocational ministry in the rapid spread of the first century church?

They were very important because it was a means of gathering together. From the synagogue they could be expelled when the truth was exposed. In a house-gathering, that is what they wanted. They wanted to hear the Gospel. In this way new believers grew. 

What are the advantages of a house-church model?

The advantages are that help is given where help is needed, as soon as it is recognized. In a big assembly, the needs arising among the "unimportant" members is easily overlooked. 

In a small gathering it is more likely that all will take part in some way, be it in serving in a physical, mental or spiritual need. The sharing is more apt and genuine. 

What are the weaknesses?

If there is no movement if leadership or rotation of it, it can easily become clicky. Instead of being a blessing, weaker members can be ousted. So just as with big gatherings these too have their problems. 

It is important to wait on the Lord and follow His guidance. 

[George L]

Q3. (Acts 18:7) some what a rant on the state of ‘church bassed’ evangalism.

1. How important are the economics of house-churches and bi-vocational ministry in the rapid spread of the first century church? The spread of the gospel for the fist centuries was one to one evangelism and house churches. The church as building centered entity was not the early existence. Why would any one want to depart the close fellowship and unity of a house church for the cost and loss of interpersonal fellowship for a diluted form? These are refugees from organized government and religion that we’re doing nothing for them but taxing the with the claim of keeping some god from destroying them. The gospel brought the good news od the one god who cared for them. No need for an ediface before greed and pride set into the movement.
2. What are the advantages of a house-church model? It is the natural grouping of a new believer with shining face and new found freedom, blessings, and a God who cared. One by one the small circle gathered along individual cultural and familial connections. One saving the next friend or family member. Advantage, you already had what you needed without a building programs, real estate for special purpose, or staffing. None of which are efficient or practical in an originating period.
3. What are the weaknesses? Considering the number or empty, abandoned, and struggling churches in our rural counties and cities, perhaps building church buildings instead of organized circuit riding preachers was a grave mistake. The need to keep the enemy at bay and the doctrine taught on track requires oversight. In a city environment more economically inviting it seems.