Comments on: Repost: When Is a House Church Not a House Church?

By: Anderson, D

Anderson, D — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 15:40:40 +0000

Brilliant essay, Dr.

Also noteworthy is the upper room mentioned in Acts 1 which contained about 120 folks – way more than the average traditional church in the USA.

Sometimes, however, house-church folk try to prove too much.

Too true, my brother. (Sighhhh)

By: mikelioso

mikelioso — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 16:54:52 +0000

“should view ourselves” should read “should not view ourselves”

By: Darrell Pursiful

Darrell Pursiful — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 11:47:51 +0000

You’re quite welcome, mikelioso. It’s my original research, based on cobbling together a few basic intros to the Dura church and applying a little bit of math.

I agree about recapturing the first century of Christianity, especially your point A, although that’s why I think it’s very important to be acquainted with the earliest known non-apostolic witnesses: the Didache, 1 Clement, etc.

By: mikelioso

mikelioso — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 18:43:16 +0000

Thanks for the article. Mr. Pursiful, is this your own research or is this someone else’s work? Very good either way. Personally I haven’t met anyone in a house church movement, though I have seen a house turned into a church, like the Dura Europa one. I think the early Christians would not have minded a purpose built church, but due to limitations it was easier to convince a rich patron to lend their home to the community. Apparently this is also how Italy’s first monastic institutions started. As far a recapturing the first century of Christianity I Would say that we A. don’t know enough to truly replicate it B. it leads us to a false idea of a Christian golden age. We should view ourselves as being in a poorer state than the first apostles because we do not know the pre-resurrection Jesus or have any “super apostles” like Peter or Paul. Jesus expected those who would follow would do more than He did and I think that applies to us now, if we are willing to take the challenge.