Thursday, April 2, 2009

LOCAL CHURCH, PAUL WASHER, etc.

The post below on this subject was originally written and posted a month ago. It created a small firestorm in my tiny corner of the blogosphere in a short time. Because I was facing a month of more demanding activity, trips to out of town doctors and hospitals, etc, I took it down so I wouldn't have to deal with the fires or the pyromaniacs.

Now, I have a month of less intense times, hopefully, and I have re-posted it, with minor editing.

To further my point about Paul Washer's view of the local church, what follows is a quote from Heart Cry Magazine #56: a statement of the missionary society's view, their home church's view of the local church:

THE LOCAL CONGREGATION: We believe that meaningful and enduring fellowship in a local congregation is absolutely essential to the Christian's life and ministry. Media ministries can never take the place of the local church and its ministers. We are commanded not only to congregate, but to do so for the purpose of encouraging one another and stimulating one another to love and good deeds. (Hebrews 10:24-25)
EVERY MEMBER MINISTRY: Every Christian in the local congregation without exception has been given spiritual gifts which they are commanded to employ for the edification of the entire congregation. The administration of such gifts by every member is necessary for the proper growth and ministry of the church.

Anyone who seeks to justify his self-removal from a local congregation, his withdrawal into a phony "home church" by misapplying anything Paul Washer said is on slippery ground.

There is a Biblical approach which guides some "house churches" but too many of them are simply disgruntled professing Christians whose pride keeps them from obedience to the Word and leads them into this sorry substitute which is no church at all.

3 comments:

Ed Franklin said...

Just had a vitriolic comment from .......surprise!...an anonymous commenter. How brave and confrontational men are when they can hide behind their internet anonymity. I'm not impressed.....by the vitriol, the intellect behind it, the lack of reasoning, the lack of response to the questions I pose in this article....and especially unimpressed by cowardice. Ideas worth publicizing ought to be worth claiming by their author.

Ed Franklin said...

Interesting phenomenon here...I continue to get anonymous comments regarding one line of this post--all from strident defenders of house churches who share the same characteristic:

They can't read.

The line in question is "some "house churches" but too many of them are simply disgruntled professing Christians whose pride keeps them from obedience to the Word and leads them into this sorry substitute which is no church at all."

The most recent anonymous comment lacked the vitriol and adolescent locker-room attitude of the previous anonymous coward, but still is absolutely outraged that I condemn "most house churches"....

Well, DUH! is all I can say. Re-read that V E R Y slowly.....It says "too many".......Actually, one would be too many, but there are a few more than that, but those are the ones I'm talking about.

One wonders why these vocal anons are so shook up...maybe the "hit dog yelping" syndrome, eh?

blrod said...

On the matter of a home church
they can be just as dangerous as the mega church if they are not led by Gods Spirit! We are never told in the New Testament that THE CHURCH is a business with marketing strategies competing on the open market with other churches and ministries. if that was the case then what about all those sold out Christians in China? The real church is wherever Gods people meet. its not about degrees and buildings its about sold out hearts for God!