Christianity versus 'Churchianity'

[Valerie]

Having attended house churches for much of my life, I can attest they are no different than a building except cramped and unorganised.

The Amish use 99% house churches. They set aside room in basements or barns so that everyone can attend.

When I consider what a 'house church' to be, I am thinking of a small group of Christians (i.e. half a dozen families) that fellowship together wherever (a house, a barn, a park, a beach, a forest) and don't attempt to force anyone to adhere to a narrow understanding of being a Christian aside from being born again.

I would consider a “house church” to be a church that meets in a house, and perhaps desires to keep meeting in a house.

Considering the Amish have been faithfully doing so for hundreds of years, perhaps we should respect their example.

The Amish are organized in their Church- there is "the Bishop", ministers & deacons. They have their own ritualistic form of attendance, seating, worship, teaching, etc. It is organized, even in a home or meeting place. They recognize what "Church" means, which Christ is the Head of-

[Josh]

I would consider a “house church” to be a church that meets in a house, and perhaps desires to keep meeting in a house.

Considering the Amish have been faithfully doing so for hundreds of years, perhaps we should respect their example.

The Amish are organized in their Church- there is "the Bishop", ministers & deacons. They have their own ritualistic form of attendance, seating, worship, teaching, etc. It is organized, even in a home or meeting place. They recognize what "Church" means, which Christ is the Head of-

It is indeed quite organised and in my view should be the model of an effective "house church". "Let all things be done decently and in order".

Amish services are every other Sunday (on the "off sunday", people will often visit a neighbouring district). A typical district is around 26 families, so with 26 services a year, that means one family is responsible to host church at their home once a year, which is considered a reasonable workload.

[Sudsy]

When the original churches were referred to in the NT, there was no other distinction of an organization like Anabaptist or Mennonite or Pentecostal or Baptist or Amish, etc but, as that article I previously gave a link to reads, churches were referred to by city or region -

When we look at “churches” in the New Testament, we see “churches”associated with a city or region in the plural: i.e. “the churches of Galatia” (1 Cor 16:1), “the churches of Asia” (1 Cor 16:19), “the churches of Macedonia” (2 Cor 8:1), and in the singular: i.e. “the church which was at Jerusalem” (Acts 8:1)(Acts 11:22), “the church which was at Antioch” (Acts 13:1), “the church of God which is at Corinth (1 Cor 1:2)(2 Cor 1:1).

And when it came to calling a church group by certain teachers, Paul rebuked them -1 Cor 3:4

When one of you says, “I am a follower of Paul,” and another says, “I follow Apollos,” aren’t you acting just like people of the world?

So, it seems the whole idea of referring to believers other than by city and region is not scriptural and I believe there will not be room for these distinctions in heaven.

I wonder what Paul would say today if he came back and saw how Christians have made these divisions amongst themselves.

I have always enjoyed the participations I have had in big crusades, like those Billy Graham crusades, where believers from all kinds of churches come together, form a choir and worship together. We have something similar once a year in our city where various evangelical churches have a service together at our city park on the lake. Gives me a sense of what heaven might be like when we drop some of our church distinctions.

In our city and elsewhere I see church naming going back to more of a NT way by location.

[Soloist]

When the original churches were referred to in the NT, there was no other distinction of an organization like Anabaptist or Mennonite or Pentecostal or Baptist or Amish, etc but, as that article I previously gave a link to reads, churches were referred to by city or region -

When we look at “churches” in the New Testament, we see “churches”associated with a city or region in the plural: i.e. “the churches of Galatia” (1 Cor 16:1), “the churches of Asia” (1 Cor 16:19), “the churches of Macedonia” (2 Cor 8:1), and in the singular: i.e. “the church which was at Jerusalem” (Acts 8:1)(Acts 11:22), “the church which was at Antioch” (Acts 13:1), “the church of God which is at Corinth (1 Cor 1:2)(2 Cor 1:1).

And when it came to calling a church group by certain teachers, Paul rebuked them -1 Cor 3:4

When one of you says, “I am a follower of Paul,” and another says, “I follow Apollos,” aren’t you acting just like people of the world?

So, it seems the whole idea of referring to believers other than by city and region is not scriptural and I believe there will not be room for these distinctions in heaven.

I wonder what Paul would say today if he came back and saw how Christians have made these divisions amongst themselves.

I have always enjoyed the participations I have had in big crusades, like those Billy Graham crusades, where believers from all kinds of churches come together, form a choir and worship together. We have something similar once a year in our city where various evangelical churches have a service together at our city park on the lake. Gives me a sense of what heaven might be like when we drop some of our church distinctions.

In our city and elsewhere I see church naming going back to more of a NT way by location.

Well I think this is pointed then at your concerns and a difference between it.

Act 11:26  And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

1 Co 3:4  For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?

I’m not saying I’m of Menno Simons.
Those who call themselves Christians did not first take on that name themselves, but were called it.
Likewise those called Amish or Mennonite or Hutterite did not take the name themselves but were called that. The sin was not being referred to by someone’s name but they were boasting in the name.
When I identify my nationality I call myself American although I owe no allegiance to this nation. My nation is not America, for I belong to a different nation. yet it is far easier for society to understand if I say I am an American.
If I say I’m Christian society doesn’t know what sort of Christian you are. Am I the sort that elects Trump as president? The sort supporting abortion? The sort supporting war? The sort that believes God doesn’t care what I do?
So in the interest of society, calling myself conservative Mennonite gives more of a frame of reference to them rather then having lengthy dialog many of them don’t really want.
Some people are far more curious about what I believe when I answer them with more details of my personal faith. Saying I’m a Christian when the majority of people are claiming to be Christian purely because their parents were.

[ken_sylvania]

When the original churches were referred to in the NT, there was no other distinction of an organization like Anabaptist or Mennonite or Pentecostal or Baptist or Amish, etc but, as that article I previously gave a link to reads, churches were referred to by city or region -

When we look at “churches” in the New Testament, we see “churches”associated with a city or region in the plural: i.e. “the churches of Galatia” (1 Cor 16:1), “the churches of Asia” (1 Cor 16:19), “the churches of Macedonia” (2 Cor 8:1), and in the singular: i.e. “the church which was at Jerusalem” (Acts 8:1)(Acts 11:22), “the church which was at Antioch” (Acts 13:1), “the church of God which is at Corinth (1 Cor 1:2)(2 Cor 1:1).

And when it came to calling a church group by certain teachers, Paul rebuked them -1 Cor 3:4

When one of you says, “I am a follower of Paul,” and another says, “I follow Apollos,” aren’t you acting just like people of the world?

So, it seems the whole idea of referring to believers other than by city and region is not scriptural and I believe there will not be room for these distinctions in heaven.

There are of course also various references to the church that was meeting in a certain individual's house.
In all that, one thing that is very obvious regarding the early church is that they actually physically met together on a regular basis with other baptized believers.

[Sudsy]

When the original churches were referred to in the NT, there was no other distinction of an organization like Anabaptist or Mennonite or Pentecostal or Baptist or Amish, etc but, as that article I previously gave a link to reads, churches were referred to by city or region -

When we look at “churches” in the New Testament, we see “churches”associated with a city or region in the plural: i.e. “the churches of Galatia” (1 Cor 16:1), “the churches of Asia” (1 Cor 16:19), “the churches of Macedonia” (2 Cor 8:1), and in the singular: i.e. “the church which was at Jerusalem” (Acts 8:1)(Acts 11:22), “the church which was at Antioch” (Acts 13:1), “the church of God which is at Corinth (1 Cor 1:2)(2 Cor 1:1).

And when it came to calling a church group by certain teachers, Paul rebuked them -1 Cor 3:4

When one of you says, “I am a follower of Paul,” and another says, “I follow Apollos,” aren’t you acting just like people of the world?

So, it seems the whole idea of referring to believers other than by city and region is not scriptural and I believe there will not be room for these distinctions in heaven.

I wonder what Paul would say today if he came back and saw how Christians have made these divisions amongst themselves.

I have always enjoyed the participations I have had in big crusades, like those Billy Graham crusades, where believers from all kinds of churches come together, form a choir and worship together. We have something similar once a year in our city where various evangelical churches have a service together at our city park on the lake. Gives me a sense of what heaven might be like when we drop some of our church distinctions.

In our city and elsewhere I see church naming going back to more of a NT way by location.

Well I think this is pointed then at your concerns and a difference between it.

Act 11:26  And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

1 Co 3:4  For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?

I’m not saying I’m of Menno Simons.
Those who call themselves Christians did not first take on that name themselves, but were called it.
Likewise those called Amish or Mennonite or Hutterite did not take the name themselves but were called that. The sin was not being referred to by someone’s name but they were boasting in the name.
When I identify my nationality I call myself American although I owe no allegiance to this nation. My nation is not America, for I belong to a different nation. yet it is far easier for society to understand if I say I am an American.
If I say I’m Christian society doesn’t know what sort of Christian you are. Am I the sort that elects Trump as president? The sort supporting abortion? The sort supporting war? The sort that believes God doesn’t care what I do?
So in the interest of society, calling myself conservative Mennonite gives more of a frame of reference to them rather then having lengthy dialog many of them don’t really want.
Some people are far more curious about what I believe when I answer them with more details of my personal faith. Saying I’m a Christian when the majority of people are claiming to be Christian purely because their parents were.

For distinction if someone asks me what kind of a Christian I am, I would say 'a born again Christian' and hope they would want to know what this means. If they don't ask to know, I can ask them if they are a born again Christian and take it from there. When I was involved in door-to-door evangelism we never referred to the brand of Christian we were associated with but kept the focus on Jesus and what salvation was all about.

Imo, the important issue is where they will spend eternity and not my other specific beliefs in the brand of Christianity I fellowship in. Personally I stay away from discussing what makes an Anabaptist different from a Protestant or Catholic, etc and try to keep the focus on their salvation. There is a time after they are born again for discussions on different beliefs and practises within Christianity at an appropriate time. In my experience, new converts are more taken up with learning more about Jesus than why there are so many different brands of Christians.

I would much rather an unsaved person call me a born again Christ follower than any brand of Christianity. It isn't the brand of Christianity that saves me.

[Josh]

“Born-again Christian” is indeed actually a particular “brand” / sect of Christianity.

For example, most evangelicals maintain that the Amish aren’t born again Christians.

[Sudsy]

“Born-again Christian” is indeed actually a particular “brand” / sect of Christianity.

For example, most evangelicals maintain that the Amish aren’t born again Christians.

Not in my understanding of being a Christian. One is either born again and saved from their sins or they are lost. If I met an Amish person I would be quite comfortable with asking them if they were born again. Same goes for any other Christian faith group. That was a practise of my father as in most every group there are those who either have not been born again or are unsure that they are and need to look at scriptures that gives them assurance or not.

Since the term 'Christian' is used in ways other than being a born again believer in Jesus (I.e. being born in a Christian country), I would not ask anyone if they were a 'Christian' but rather if they were a Christ follower who has been born again or not.

One can get into some interesting conversations with JW evangelists as the ones I have met will say they are born again and you need to get them to explain what they think this means. Some folk I have met when I did door-to-door evangelism will say they were born again when they were baptised and joined some church. There are some good Gospel tracts to help people see what the scriptures mean with the term 'born again'.

[Josh]

“Born-again Christian” is indeed actually a particular “brand” / sect of Christianity.

For example, most evangelicals maintain that the Amish aren’t born again Christians.

Not in my understanding of being a Christian. One is either born again and saved from their sins or they are lost. If I met an Amish person I would be quite comfortable with asking them if they were born again. Same goes for any other Christian faith group. That was a practise of my father as in most every group there are those who either have not been born again or are unsure that they are and need to look at scriptures that gives them assurance or not.

Whether you like it or not, that is a denominational trapping and something that your sect does (incidentally, you and I are in the same "sect" when it comes to this issue). The Amish, for example, don't talk about becoming a Christian and repenting of their sins, etc. the same way an evangelical Christian does, but that doesn't mean that they aren't saved, nor does it mean they aren't born again. They simply don't think they need to talk about it the same way you do.

Catholics are the same way, generally speaking.

So, how eager are you really to want some kind of ecumenical fellowship? You have already detailed above that, yes, you do actually want to draw denominational lines - you expect people to profess their Christian faith in a specific way, answering specific denominational questions sort of like a catechism. And yes, every Amish person that I've talked to about it is obviously born again, even if they don't use the same language evangelicals do. (The NT refers to being "born again" 3 times, and in most of the places the NT talks about salvation, it does not even use the phrase "born again", so I don't think using this phrase is some kind of litmus test to find out if someone is a legitimate Christian or not.)

[Sudsy]

“Born-again Christian” is indeed actually a particular “brand” / sect of Christianity.

For example, most evangelicals maintain that the Amish aren’t born again Christians.

Not in my understanding of being a Christian. One is either born again and saved from their sins or they are lost. If I met an Amish person I would be quite comfortable with asking them if they were born again. Same goes for any other Christian faith group. That was a practise of my father as in most every group there are those who either have not been born again or are unsure that they are and need to look at scriptures that gives them assurance or not.

Whether you like it or not, that is a denominational trapping and something that your sect does (incidentally, you and I are in the same "sect" when it comes to this issue). The Amish, for example, don't talk about becoming a Christian and repenting of their sins, etc. the same way an evangelical Christian does, but that doesn't mean that they aren't saved, nor does it mean they aren't born again. They simply don't think they need to talk about it the same way you do.

Catholics are the same way, generally speaking.

So, how eager are you really to want some kind of ecumenical fellowship? You have already detailed above that, yes, you do actually want to draw denominational lines - you expect people to profess their Christian faith in a specific way, answering specific denominational questions sort of like a catechism. And yes, every Amish person that I've talked to about it is obviously born again, even if they don't use the same language evangelicals do. (The NT refers to being "born again" 3 times, and in most of the places the NT talks about salvation, it does not even use the phrase "born again", so I don't think using this phrase is some kind of litmus test to find out if someone is a legitimate Christian or not.)

If Jesus said to Nicodemus you must be born again to see the Kingom of God and that being born again is a spiritual birth, then I understand that to be the basic requirement to be a Christain. This is not a denominational question but a requirement by our Lord.

I am not suggesting that any Christian faith group are not saved but I believe there are people in every Christian faith group that are highly religious in their practise but have not been born again. I have heard many testimonies of those who were very religious and then were born again and share what a difference this has made in their life.

I use the term of being born again to see what understanding a person has about what this means as some believe their highly religious ways are what saves them and not through the grace of God that makes them into new creatures with new appetites to follow Christ.

So, how would an Amish person witness in words to an unbeliever telling them how we are saved ?