Comments for House2House Stories http://www.story.house2house.com Stories about, by and for those who are doing church the simple way. Thu, 11 Mar 2010 04:28:28 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc hourly 1 Comment on Our journey into rediscovering Apostolic and Prophetic foundations – part 3 by Richard http://www.story.house2house.com/2010/01/29/our-journey-into-rediscovering-apostolic-and-prophetic-foundations-part-3/comment-page-1/#comment-60 Richard Thu, 11 Mar 2010 04:28:28 +0000 http://www.story.house2house.com/?p=563#comment-60 Very interesting article... I have often felt that the church in the home is only half of the equation. In the New Testament it was the apostolic ministry that was always intimately involved with the churches from the beginning. Those churches never really had to set up a network because that ministry was moving among them from their start. And that ministry was following the example that Jesus set of leaving all and going forth in faith, homeless and itinerant. (http://www.2and2apostles.com/home/the-ministry) The 12 followed it and then others through the Acts. We never read of the churches in the NT without that ministry or the ministry without the churches, though we read of some like Diotrephes (3John 9, 10) who wouldn't receive them and it wasn't good. Thanks, Richard Very interesting article… I have often felt that the church in the home is only half of the equation. In the New Testament it was the apostolic ministry that was always intimately involved with the churches from the beginning. Those churches never really had to set up a network because that ministry was moving among them from their start. And that ministry was following the example that Jesus set of leaving all and going forth in faith, homeless and itinerant. (http://www.2and2apostles.com/home/the-ministry) The 12 followed it and then others through the Acts. We never read of the churches in the NT without that ministry or the ministry without the churches, though we read of some like Diotrephes (3John 9, 10) who wouldn’t receive them and it wasn’t good.
Thanks, Richard

]]> Comment on The Concepts of the Church in the New Testament by gregathome http://www.story.house2house.com/2010/02/26/the-concepts-of-the-church-in-the-new-testament/comment-page-1/#comment-58 gregathome Mon, 01 Mar 2010 16:41:11 +0000 http://www.story.house2house.com/?p=574#comment-58 It seems to me that when God says He is the Lord God, who doesn’t change, He means it in every way. Your analysis seems to be in keeping with the way He started the church in Genesis; as family, with Him as Adams father, and Eve as the church within his body. From our modern western perspective, with thousands of years of institutional history and worldview stunting our spiritual instinct, we don’t naturally or easily gravitate to Paul’s idea of church. But Paul was a Jew, and like his ancient nation, he only conceptualized church within the context of his relationship to Abraham, and Israel, and faith toward God. Given that Paul was the Apostle to the gentiles, it seems to explain why he wrote that our acceptance to God is rooted in our brotherhood with Jesus Christ. Our grafting in thru Jesus implies that we must fall in line with what God was doing with Israel, in terms of foundation and structure. I doubt that much explanation was needed to the early Jewish disciples about church structure or form, because the manner, in which the church grew in the early years, was consistent with how Israel had always grown and lived. It grew like family grows, and how nations are birthed; organically, without much discussion of how and who and why. I believe if we spent some time discussing this, we might shorten our own journey out of Babylon, and also rid ourselves of the Babylon that still resides within us. When the writer to the Hebrews(chapter 11) wrote that Abraham looked for a city that has foundations, whose builder and maker is God, he was speaking to an informed reader, who already understood, by their own life, that the church is not easily recognized by it form or traditions, rather by the Life within it. Form follows function, but we’ve got it the other way around, and seem to be having difficulty getting it right. Although Temple worship and institutionalization had indeed buried most of the organic nature of Israel's spiritual foundation as a nation of families, it had not obliterated their history or worldview as a people. They unquestioningly viewed themselves as accepted in Abraham. It doesn't seem to have occurred to us gentiles that the early church, all Jews, abandoned 4000 years of legal, ceremonial and cultural traditions, without a whimper of complaint or argument, after Jesus spent three years walking among them. They didn’t abandon the Old Testament church; they updated their faith from Abraham to Jesus, seeing Him as the fulfillment of their own nation of families. They viewed themselves as they always had; an inseperable nation of families, whose common denominator was Abraham, and now Jesus. While it took them longer to understand that God's plan also included the grafting in of the gentiles, they nevertheless continued to see themselves, and gather as, one nation, accepted in the beloved. This is something we gentiles have never done. We didn’t get a chance. After Constantine hijacked the church, we quickly lost the rich nuances of historical biblical context found within the long journey of Israel, the very history and life that informed Paul and Peter in their writings. We have latched onto the form of those writings, but we lack the function from which they were birthed. We need new eyes to see the Life of Jesus in someone elses skin. I believe this partially explains why, notwithstanding our history of going to war over the smallest differences in scripture, we follow false teachings so easily, and in great numbers. We are not truly rooted in the Word, which was the literal history and experience of the Jews. The Holy Spirit will and is leading us into all truth, but I believe the journey would be 40 days instead of 40 years if we would simply accept God's order to enter the land under His command, and in His way. We would be greatly benefited if we would examine and discuss this, because I believe therein lies the organic pattern of relationship that Israel and the early church naturally enjoyed, butwhich seems to be a never ending discussion among us. Blessings Greg Gamble Claremont Ont. Can. It seems to me that when God says He is the Lord God, who doesn’t change, He means it in every way. Your analysis seems to be in keeping with the way He started the church in Genesis; as family, with Him as Adams father, and Eve as the church within his body.
From our modern western perspective, with thousands of years of institutional history and worldview stunting our spiritual instinct, we don’t naturally or easily gravitate to Paul’s idea of church. But Paul was a Jew, and like his ancient nation, he only conceptualized church within the context of his relationship to Abraham, and Israel, and faith toward God.
Given that Paul was the Apostle to the gentiles, it seems to explain why he wrote that our acceptance to God is rooted in our brotherhood with Jesus Christ. Our grafting in thru Jesus implies that we must fall in line with what God was doing with Israel, in terms of foundation and structure.
I doubt that much explanation was needed to the early Jewish disciples about church structure or form, because the manner, in which the church grew in the early years, was consistent with how Israel had always grown and lived.
It grew like family grows, and how nations are birthed; organically, without much discussion of how and who and why.
I believe if we spent some time discussing this, we might shorten our own journey out of Babylon, and also rid ourselves of the Babylon that still resides within us.
When the writer to the Hebrews(chapter 11) wrote that Abraham looked for a city that has foundations, whose builder and maker is God, he was speaking to an informed reader, who already understood, by their own life, that the church is not easily recognized by it form or traditions, rather by the Life within it.
Form follows function, but we’ve got it the other way around, and seem to be having difficulty getting it right.
Although Temple worship and institutionalization had indeed buried most of the organic nature of Israel’s spiritual foundation as a nation of families, it had not obliterated their history or worldview as a people. They unquestioningly viewed themselves as accepted in Abraham.
It doesn’t seem to have occurred to us gentiles that the early church, all Jews, abandoned 4000 years of legal, ceremonial and cultural traditions, without a whimper of complaint or argument, after Jesus spent three years walking among them.
They didn’t abandon the Old Testament church; they updated their faith from Abraham to Jesus, seeing Him as the fulfillment of their own nation of families. They viewed themselves as they always had; an inseperable nation of families, whose common denominator was Abraham, and now Jesus. While it took them longer to understand that God’s plan also included the grafting in of the gentiles, they nevertheless continued to see themselves, and gather as, one nation, accepted in the beloved.
This is something we gentiles have never done.
We didn’t get a chance.
After Constantine hijacked the church, we quickly lost the rich nuances of historical biblical context found within the long journey of Israel, the very history and life that informed Paul and Peter in their writings.
We have latched onto the form of those writings, but we lack the function from which they were birthed.
We need new eyes to see the Life of Jesus in someone elses skin.
I believe this partially explains why, notwithstanding our history of going to war over the smallest differences in scripture, we follow false teachings so easily, and in great numbers.
We are not truly rooted in the Word, which was the literal history and experience of the Jews.
The Holy Spirit will and is leading us into all truth, but I believe the journey would be 40 days instead of 40 years if we would simply accept God’s order to enter the land under His command, and in His way.
We would be greatly benefited if we would examine and discuss this, because I believe therein lies the organic pattern of relationship that Israel and the early church naturally enjoyed, butwhich seems to be a never ending discussion among us.
Blessings
Greg Gamble
Claremont Ont. Can.

]]> Comment on The Concepts of the Church in the New Testament by Jim http://www.story.house2house.com/2010/02/26/the-concepts-of-the-church-in-the-new-testament/comment-page-1/#comment-57 Jim Mon, 01 Mar 2010 15:04:00 +0000 http://www.story.house2house.com/?p=574#comment-57 Donald, when we read of the Jerusalem church at the temple in Acts 2, do you think that practice continued for a significant time afterwards? It seemed to become a hot place for speaking of Jesus (Acts 3-7 Peter/ John hauled before Council, stoning of Stephen). By Acts 8, followers of Jesus are "scattered throughout Judea and Samaria". Of course, the temple is subsequently destroyed by the Romans around 78 A.D. Frequently, we hear from the contemporary pulpit that Acts 2:46 (temple and homes) is the universal template for Sunday in the "temple" and mid-week in the "home". Donald, when we read of the Jerusalem church at the temple in Acts 2, do you think that practice continued for a significant time afterwards? It seemed to become a hot place for speaking of Jesus (Acts 3-7 Peter/ John hauled before Council, stoning of Stephen). By Acts 8, followers of Jesus are “scattered throughout Judea and Samaria”. Of course, the temple is subsequently destroyed by the Romans around 78 A.D. Frequently, we hear from the contemporary pulpit that Acts 2:46 (temple and homes) is the universal template for Sunday in the “temple” and mid-week in the “home”.

]]> Comment on What I would have done differently by miltonadams http://www.story.house2house.com/2009/12/04/what-i-would-have-done-differently/comment-page-1/#comment-55 miltonadams Wed, 13 Jan 2010 14:51:18 +0000 http://www.story.house2house.com/?p=512#comment-55 Hi Guy, Thank you for posting your reflections. It resonates with me and will serve as a guide as we continue to serve a network of simple churches. Be faithful, Milton Adams www.SimpleChurchAtHome.com Hi Guy,

Thank you for posting your reflections. It resonates with me and will serve as a guide as we continue to serve a network of simple churches.

Be faithful,
Milton Adams
http://www.SimpleChurchAtHome.com

]]> Comment on House Church and the “Pareto Principle” by rsharpe http://www.story.house2house.com/2009/12/11/house-church-and-the-%e2%80%9cpareto-principle%e2%80%9d/comment-page-1/#comment-54 rsharpe Wed, 16 Dec 2009 18:15:59 +0000 http://www.story.house2house.com/?p=516#comment-54 Awesome! The phrase "every member a minister" is so much easier to fulfill when "member" and "minister" are returned to their original liguistic context. In light of the history of institutional church, when we hear "member, we often think "voting member", "baptised member", "attending member", "registered member" or "recognized member" In other words: "club member". The original use of the word was menat to connote "a vital part (e.g. "participant") in a living organism--an 'organ' if you will." Similarly, we often think "clergy", "special one", "elected one", "appointed one", "recognized one" or, sometimes, "hot shot", when we hear the term "minister". That concept is limiting by nature. Good luck getting 20% to step up to that. In the original use of the word this term was meant to convey "servant." When the goal is every part of a living organism participating in the life of that organism by contributing what it can in service of the other parts, the end result looks like healthy life itself to me!!! Awesome! The phrase “every member a minister” is so much easier to fulfill when “member” and “minister” are returned to their original liguistic context. In light of the history of institutional church, when we hear “member, we often think “voting member”, “baptised member”, “attending member”, “registered member” or “recognized member” In other words: “club member”. The original use of the word was menat to connote “a vital part (e.g. “participant”) in a living organism–an ‘organ’ if you will.” Similarly, we often think “clergy”, “special one”, “elected one”, “appointed one”, “recognized one” or, sometimes, “hot shot”, when we hear the term “minister”. That concept is limiting by nature. Good luck getting 20% to step up to that. In the original use of the word this term was meant to convey “servant.” When the goal is every part of a living organism participating in the life of that organism by contributing what it can in service of the other parts, the end result looks like healthy life itself to me!!!

]]>