“The Church Comes Home”–Final Analysis
Filed Under (book reviews, dee dee's posts) by dee dee on 21-11-2009
I finally finished reading The Church Comes Home by Robert & Julia Barnes, and unfortunately I have to give it a thumbs down. I am not entirely unsympathetic to the house church movement and definitely would consider joining a house church if the opportunity presented itself. Instead of this book, I would recommend anything by Steve Atkerson of the New Testament Reformation Foundation. The fatal criticisms I have about this book are not present in his. Some may think it unfair that I am trashing the book based upon only two points, but these two points highlight the problem with the mindset of some in the movement.
The biggest issue that should spring to mind when dealing with the house church idea is quite frankly doctrine. How do they make sure they don’t slip into heresy? How do they deal with doctrinal conflicts? This is very important because the movement is unfortunately an attractive setting for those who have been thrown out of orthodox fellowships because of heresy. Yes, I am thinking particularly of hyperpreterists who infiltrate house churches as can be attested to by Steve Atkerson. I spent many months working with him to help him set that issue straight.
With this in mind, I will focus on two sections of the book:
Page 185-187
Disagreements Over Doctrine and Ethics
Only where doctrines bear directly on everyday problems do most church members take a serious interest in them.
What doctrines do not? A Christian’s daily life should be more than the secular. This cavalier hand-waving does nothing to answer the question over disagreements.
But there will always be certain people…
Ahhh, those troublemakers who dare to think that doctrine matters. Gotcha.
…who consider such issues highly important, and there are some current issues, for example, charismatic gifts, prosperity teaching, abortion, etc,. about which believers hold differing opinions.
Differing opinions over abortion? This is sufficiently vague enough to raise alarm bells everywhere. Precisely what differing opinions do “believers” hold? That abortion is okay? Or is it just on whether life begins at conception or implantation? Or possibly the best tactic to fight abortion?
One early home-church, made up of people from different backgrounds, found a creative way of dealing with this difficulty.
We differed over such matters as predestination and free will, the time and character of the Second Coming…
I want to stop right there for a second. The very fact that “character” is written makes me think that this was hyperpreterism that is being so breezily dismissed. Ugh. Continuing…
and the nature of the Lord’s Supper. Christians have quoted Scripture backwards and forwards at each other on these issues, still without coming to any conclusive solution. If this is the case in Christendom, it is only with some difficulty that we are likely to come to one conclusion in our groups. What do you do when you have in one church people with strongly held beliefs that have some different practical outworkings?We had some friendly disputes at the beginning, but then gradually evolved a methodology applicable to these “historic areas of dispute.” We endeavored to respect one another’s opinions even if we couldn’t fully understand or agree with the position others took.
Here there is a glimmer of hope in that the disagreements are narrowed down to “historic areas of dispute.” Okay, let’s presume they figured out hyperpreterism isn’t one of them. So how in the world is their method some great break through? This is what the church, whether in a house or in a steepled building, has done for centuries.
After this initial acceptance, there was a much greater readiness to listen without prejudice to other’s point of view.
Nonsense. “Without prejudice” is not the same as toleration. Of course I have prejudice towards Left Behindism. It is ridiculous. That doesn’t mean I don’t respect fellow Church members who believe it. But I certainly am prejudiced strongly against their unBiblical views. My conscience demands it. Oh… maybe I am one of those “certain people.”
This helped people to appreciate different positions better. Quite often we were then able to sit down and discuss these questions afresh. On some we have come to a mutually agreeable decision, while on others we have agreed to disagree and have recognized that such differences of opinion are no barrier to fellowship. People are not really interested in arguing amongst themselves; their ongoing fellowship becomes more important to them. Part of Christian freedom is accepting those whom God has accepted and accepting each other “without disputes over opinion” or questions regarding spirituality and Christian orthodoxy.
WHOA, back up that horsey. What?? Christian orthodoxy is to be dismissed as opinion that people aren’t interested in? Seriously?
If Christ has received us, then we must receive each other.
Feed that question already, it is begging pretty vigorously.
That is really the basis of our fellowship–a common experience and love of Jesus Christ.
ARGHHHHH. Okay.. so Mormons, JWs, even Spong would be granted the right hand of Christian fellowship.
I will post on the second portion that I had huge issues with. This is enough for right now.
Sounds like the Emergent Church movement is emerging in homes. Now we can all get along and love each other! Not that I am opposed to house churches, but even our home is to be a Spiritual sanctuary! So do we let just anyone come into our living room, start espousing some strange doctrine, or private interpretation, even if we agree on 95% of the rest of what they may have to say! My experience is that pretty soon you will be spending 99% of your time on their 5%! Where is there fellowship and unity of the Spirit in that? Usually that 5% turns out has little to do with the worship of Jesus Christ, but is in fact a major distraction from worship and the common good! So the theories presented in the book you read, are just that, theory! And worth as much as the paper it is written on! All for having let down your spiritual orthodoxy in the first place, in the name of worship and the common good!