START-UPS ========= From: Christian S Smith Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 08:37:22 -0500 Subject: start-ups HCDL: I've been thinking about a topic lately that might merit its own discussion for a while on our list: starting up. At least I would like to hear others' thoughts on the matter. I have been reflecting on the ingredients that went into making Salem Community Church's (SCC) start-up so successful in the late 70s. Among them, as I see it, are (perhaps in order of importance): 1. Prior relational ties: SCC did not start up as a bunch of strangers; rather, as 2-3 preexistent clusters of people that came together from Ohio and Vermont (later Kentucky[?]). There were already working ties to build on (so it only took 1 New Year's Eve party for people to feel really comfortable). And much identity-work had already been accomplished before anyone set foot in Salem. 2. "Biographical availability" (sociological term): almost everyone involved was in their 20s, had no kids, and few career commitments (the first job landed of the group was Bill Lacey getting a job scraping barnicles off the bottom of boats). Lots of flexibility and free time. 3. Residual pastoral and theological skills: even though all involved were viscerally opposed to paid clergy, the start-up group had ex-pastors involved who still functioned as such, and at least one theologian who devoted a great deal of time contributing his biblical/theological skills to the church. 4. Critical mass of visionaries: there were more than a few yahoos with vision and energy and chutzpa (sp?). 5. It was the 1970s--which provided fairly strong supportive cultural influences from the youth counterculture, charismatic movement, etc.--not the 1980s and 90s--with our own current cultural ontology: post-liberal, post-Reagan, resurging New Right, a Michael Milkenizing (sp?) economy, etc. 6. Proximity to an evangelical theological seminary (Gordon Conwell): which provided more than a few drop-outs who joined up once they was the vision. All of these factors, and I'm sure more, provided SCC propitious conditions for a successful start-up. Just so we're clear on what things help to make start-ups work, I have two questions to pose: 1. What other factors, in people's experiences, facilitate successful start-ups? 2. What can individuals and clusters of people, who are interested in starting a house church or intentional Christian community, but who do not enjoy (many of) these conditions, do to avoid flopping? Are there things that can be done to try to compensate? I'm not denying the power of the Holy Spirit to overcome difficult odds; but I do think these situational/social factors significantly influence the experience of start-ups, and we need to take them seriously. Clearly, behind these questions and my thinking is the concern that we not be promoting a way of doing church that only "works" under a specific set of circumstances that only a few enjoy. Or something like that.... Anyway, I'm interested in hearing from others about their experiences and interpretations of their experiences on this matter. For my family, it it more than an abstract issue, so I'm keen on the discussion. Thanks. - - Chris Smith ------------------------------ From: Christian S Smith Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 08:43:48 -0500 Subject: Re: start-ups HCDL: Oh, one more factor: not only were there pre-existing relational ties, but the _number_ of people starting up was sizeable: I believe in the teens. Not insignificant.... BTW, I wasn't around during the start-up of SCC, so I'm relying on THE MYTH. - Chris ------------------------------ From: hartzler@pilot.msu.edu (Hartzler-Miller) Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 19:10:27 -0500 Subject: Re: start-ups Chris Smith asked, "What other factors, in people's experiences, facilitate successful start-ups?" For Cindy and me, "pain" was a factor. She found herself often tearful in our paid-pastor-church. For my part, I walked out during several sermons, angry with the lack of dialogue. For both of us, part of the pain was infertility--we wanted a child and didn't have one. Within the structure of that congregation, poeple didn't know how to respond to her tears. When we went to house church (Elkhart, Indiana and Sturgis Michigan) we connected with another couple struggling with infertility and our tears were ok. At the same time, our aversion to paid-pastor sermons was confirmed (something we didn't find in the church sponsored "small group.") Greg Hartzler-Miller 1224 E. Hazel St. Lansing, MI 48912 hartzler@pilot.msu.edu (517) 482-0974 ------------------------------ From: Christian S Smith Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 09:21:22 -0500 Subject: start-ups? David: Thanks for the response. Yes, pre-existing ties seem important. Does anyone else have any contributions to a discussion of what facilitates a successful "start-up?" I hope so.... Thanks. - - Chris On Sat, 25 Nov 1995 dfoster@tdsnet.com wrote: > Dear Chris, > I wanted to say we've only been attending a home church for about > a year and can not talk about intelligently about the beginning > of what made the Sturgis home church successful (or somewhat > successful as it is always a learning and growing process). What > I do know is that the people involved had involvements in each > others lives before they came to the realization that home church > was the proper avenue to community. I'm sorry it's taken us so > long to respond. I appreciated your comments on community and > I'm sure if Chris Kirk were here (we fellowship in his home) he > would definitely want me to send you greetings and encouragement. > Love in Christ, > David Foster > ------------------------------------- > Name: David & Joy Foster > E-mail: dfoster@204.246.1.2 (David & Joy Foster) > Date: 11/25/95 > Time: 12:02:05 > > This message was sent by Chameleon > ------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: scrisp@pcug.org.au (Stephen Crisp) Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 09:36:32 +1100 Subject: starting up Dear hcdl, A few weeks ago Emily and Chris Smith voiced some concerns about starting a home church and starting a home church with very difficult kids. what stood out most for me was one sentence from Chris: >Behind ...my thinking is the concern that we not be promoting a way of doing church >that only 'works' under a specific set of circumstances that only a few enjoy. I felt that this was an important and heart-felt questions that required serious thought. I don't want to be proposing a style of church that is too hard for most people. My gut feeling is that God is pretty flexible and could find a way around some non-ideal situations facing a home church that is just starting up. I was wondering if Emily or Chris could say which of the 6 propitious circumstances, existing for Salem Community Churches set up, seemed hardest to achieve in their new situation in Durham. I know lots of people who have moved away from an established home church to work in a new city or town so discussion of their situation could be very useful to others. Jill Crisp _________________________________________________________ Steve Crisp scrisp@pcug.org.au ------------------------------ From: Christian S Smith Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 10:09:22 -0500 Subject: start-ups (fwd) Jill: Thanks for following up with your questions. In reply: Well, most difficult is the context of the 1970s, obviously. Least difficult for us is the seminary close by, since we at least have Duke Div School nearby (though it's unclear if it would produce any committed warm bodies for h.c.). The rest are factors that are certainly possible but not certain. They depend on the contingencies of history and relationships. It's possible to tap into pre-existing relational networks, biographically available people, visionaries and theologically skilled people, etc. But you can't _make_ that happen. And, unless some people move here, we don't have ties with pre-existing relationships; we're starting from scratch now. :-{ Any other thoughts on the "start-up" issue out there? - - Chris - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 08:37:22 -0500 From: Christian S Smith To: HCDL Subject: start-ups HCDL: I've been thinking about a topic lately that might merit its own discussion for a while on our list: starting up. At least I would like to hear others' thoughts on the matter. I have been reflecting on the ingredients that went into making Salem Community Church's (SCC) start-up so successful in the late 70s. Among them, as I see it, are (perhaps in order of importance): 1. Prior relational ties: SCC did not start up as a bunch of strangers; rather, as 2-3 preexistent clusters of people that came together from Ohio and Vermont (later Kentucky[?]). There were already working ties to build on (so it only took 1 New Year's Eve party for people to feel really comfortable). And much identity-work had already been accomplished before anyone set foot in Salem. 2. "Biographical availability" (sociological term): almost everyone involved was in their 20s, had no kids, and few career commitments (the first job landed of the group was Bill Lacey getting a job scraping barnicles off the bottom of boats). Lots of flexibility and free time. 3. Residual pastoral and theological skills: even though all involved were viscerally opposed to paid clergy, the start-up group had ex-pastors involved who still functioned as such, and at least one theologian who devoted a great deal of time contributing his biblical/theological skills to the church. 4. Critical mass of visionaries: there were more than a few yahoos with vision and energy and chutzpa (sp?). 5. It was the 1970s--which provided fairly strong supportive cultural influences from the youth counterculture, charismatic movement, etc.--not the 1980s and 90s--with our own current cultural ontology: post-liberal, post-Reagan, resurging New Right, a Michael Milkenizing (sp?) economy, etc. 6. Proximity to an evangelical theological seminary (Gordon Conwell): which provided more than a few drop-outs who joined up once they was the vision. All of these factors, and I'm sure more, provided SCC propitious conditions for a successful start-up. Just so we're clear on what things help to make start-ups work, I have two questions to pose: 1. What other factors, in people's experiences, facilitate successful start-ups? 2. What can individuals and clusters of people, who are interested in starting a house church or intentional Christian community, but who do not enjoy (many of) these conditions, do to avoid flopping? Are there things that can be done to try to compensate? I'm not denying the power of the Holy Spirit to overcome difficult odds; but I do think these situational/social factors significantly influence the experience of start-ups, and we need to take them seriously. Clearly, behind these questions and my thinking is the concern that we not be promoting a way of doing church that only "works" under a specific set of circumstances that only a few enjoy. Or something like that.... Anyway, I'm interested in hearing from others about their experiences and interpretations of their experiences on this matter. For my family, it it more than an abstract issue, so I'm keen on the discussion. Thanks. - - Chris Smith ------------------------------ From: trd@petsparc.mc.duke.edu (Tim DeGrado) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 1995 13:13:02 -0500 (EST) Subject: RE: start-up Hello House Church Folk, I was introduced to the list by Chris Smith. My family is now involved with a "cell-church" in Durham, NC. I have done extensive reading and biblical study on ecclesiology in the last year. The house church or community-based church seems to be the direction I'm headed, though I'm not really looking forward to the emotional repercussions of pulling out of a more traditional church structure and jeopardizing the relationships we have built within this church. Can anyone out there relate? In response to Chris' post on start-ups: Chris, As I may have told you about before, my only experience with community was a sub-group within a church who had a common vision to support the missionaries that had been sent out from the church. The decision to live in community was driven by practical as well as theological factors. Sounds like we had the same advantageous social factors going for us as you describe: all in our 20's, visionaries, educated, (relatively) mature believers, flexible life-styles. It was a great year together. We had seven living together in the same house and 2-3 others that would join us for prayer meetings. A family contemplated joining us, but we had a hard time finding a living situation that suited us (we were on lower incomes) and them. Reflecting on these things makes me a little uneasy, because I really believe I hold the same values as I had during those "golden years" of grad school. Yet, I see that in some ways we've followed the cultural mainstream in lifestyle decisions. For example, our living situation does not appear to be very conducive to with intentional christian community, at least how we knew it to be in Madison. Let's face it, making decisions toward intentional community and downward mobility get more and more difficult the further down the road you go. The added complexities of family life, property ownership, etc. make it more difficult, yet certainly not impossible. - -Tim DeGrado ------------------------------ From: scrisp@pcug.org.au (Stephen Crisp) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 22:20:14 +1100 Subject: setting up Dear Chris, I have been asking other Canberra Home Church people about prerequisites for starting a home church. You mentioned the advantages of having pre-existing relationships. I was interested to find out if this was a characteristic of the successful home church start-ups in Canberra before my time. Apparently this wasn't always the case. A friend of mine, Ruth Monty, who has been part of a number of successful start-ups over 20 years said that none of them had pre-existing relationships. I felt that was quite encouraging. The combination of no pre-existing relationships plus some difficult little kids would probably make things much more difficult, however. One solution to this might be for adults to meet alone for a few months before the kids joined them. Some people with spare time.( "Biographical availability") I agree that this really helps in maintaining a home church - there is no getting round it. But it is quite surprising the kind of people with spare time who can keep a home church afloat. We have a retired motor mechanic in our Thursday night church who turns right off when we start talking theology (he says it is a load of rubbish). But he has kept us going when we have been in low periods. His wife says that it is the highlight of his week to see us all and he has a bath especially for us (he is English)! The thought of disappointing him after he has had a bath and put on a fresh shirt has often been the single thing that has got me to meetings. He is also a wonderful grandfather figure and I often go round to see him and his wife, during the day, when I am worried about things. Mothers who have a bit of spare time, because they don't go out to work, have also been really important to our churches. Since Robert and Julie Banks moved to USA a very large amount of the networking and organising in Canberra has been done by such people. the 'costliness' of being in home church. As I talked to people about starting up, one idea kept coming up. This was, that home church is very hard work and takes a lot of time - - and as society changes it seems to be getting harder. My friend Ruth reckons that if you make home church too easy then you stop being on the cutting edge. I wonder which of the hard things we do keeps us on the cutting edge. Which things are just hard and which things a hard but to a purpose? Jill Crisp _________________________________________________________ Steve Crisp scrisp@pcug.org.au ------------------------------ From: Christian S Smith Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 08:39:56 -0500 Subject: Re: setting up Jill: Thanks for your post. It's helpful. I wouldn't want to frame the discussion as "prerequisites" for success. I certainly think good house churches can start up without pre-existing ties. But pre-existing can certainly help (I guess I can also think of cases where pre-existing could become a problem, too, however). Emily and I were talking in the car the other day, saying that probably the biggest flaw in our previous proto-house church experiment last year was that neither of the other two families was really committed to house churching. They were curious, interested, etc. But had lots of misconceptions, and ultimately either weren't committed or positively would rather have had a different kind of church. We were saying that if everyone would have been "on board," we probably could have managed the "destructive kids" problem. One other thought: being close to a college/university/seminary seems to be both a blessing and a curse. There are lots of up-sides to it. But there is also more transience involved, and too-busy people. One couple wanted to get involved in our group last year, and came to two meetings, but then started to advocate that we not eat together or meet so frequently, because she had so much school work to do. We said "forget it," and they left. Even now, currently, we're in a small group of a Mennonite church in which 2 of the 6 are in medical school, 1 in a PhD candidate in Physics, and one works too hard at a bookstore. All are likely to move in 2 years or so. And meeting every 2 weeks was a big accomplishment; being used to weekly meetings (from old cell group days and, more recently, house churching), Emily and I were flabberghasted (sp?) when people were saying they could probably manage only every 3 weeks ("Now, what was your name again? What do you do for a living? Oh, yeah, I remember; nice to see you again.")! - - Chris ------------------------------ From: Kathryn BP Foster Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 15:39:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: hcdl-digest V1 #26 Subject: Starting Up I'll attempt to join the discussion re: start-up. Thanks for your introduction to the topic, Chris. Here are a few thoughts to add to the mix, all coming from my experience with the Pasadena area HCs. 1. I would add to the list of criteria adding to viability of start-up: PROXIMITY. I understand that many from the Salem Church have chosen to live in close proximity to one another (how soon after start-up was this?) Many of us in the Pasadena churches have work+or study connections through Fuller. Having connections within the natural rhythm of one's life seems important in creating foundational relationship necessary to bring a house church organism to life. 2. I would also add to the criteria NON-TRANSITORY. This has been a real struggle for us Pasadena HCers. Because so many of us have been Fuller students, many of us have moved after 2-3 years, which destabilizes the body. This is part of the negative side to the criteria you listed as proximity to an evangelical theological institution. In addition to the transitory nature of its constituency, having a critical mass from Fuller has also added more persons wanting to visit (This seems to be a great deal more than one would have in a non-seminary environment.) Some of this is great, but it doesn't make for consistency. Some folks are just theologically and practically curious, others are or may be interested in joining. It seems there needs to be some central sense of permanence for stability and security in forming a life in Christ together. 3. Re: the critical mass of numbers involved. I think it follows from the previous point that there is some critical mass (more than half?) of fixed and committed persons necessary for a new HC to thrive. If I have the facts straight, didn't the Salem HCs form out of a larger community church, which then made for a greater critical mass for stability. I know I'm now feeling more secure in the Pasadena Churches since after five years we have a growing "cluster" of churches which adds a sense of stability. So, I would say, in addition to a critical mass within the HC of committed persons, I think it adds to the viability fo the group for there to be a cluster of like folks in the area also. 4. Finally, the whole discussion begs the question of the place of the leading and work of the Spirit in start-up of HCs. Certainly the factors discussed can facilitate the work of the Spirit. But certainly the Spirit could override such factors. And there could be other occasions where all factors are present and the group still flops. I'd enjoy seeing more discussion on this one. Hope I used proper "netiquette" and all in jumping in the discussion. Hope I even know how to send this message! Katie Price Foster ------------------------------ From: OIKOSKIRK@aol.com Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 19:58:55 -0500 Subject: Re: Start ups Hello all, I am recovering nicely from the toncilectomy. Thanks for the prayers. I am sorry for getting back to this topic so late. I can sense Chris Smiths frustation with his current lack of homechurch state. I strongly encourage all of us to pray, both individually and as fellowships, for Chris and all the others out there who desire to be in homechurch; but are impeded at this time. Chris' post was right on in regards to the factors that help facilitate a successful start up, as far as the fellowships here are concerned. We could see a bit of all of them in what has allowed us to survive. Especiallly the prior relational ties, and being what Chris calls Yahoos. As we prayed as a fellowship we came up with 2 more factors that have been vital to us. 1. A common sense of non-direction. ( I know some of you are freaking out with that statement, but bear with me.) We had no big ideas, plans, or goals. We were convinced and convicted (see Yahoos) that this was real. Because of this we were devoted (notice I did not say committed) to wait on God and accept whatever he provided. And in the mean time be content and satisfied with growing closer to him and each other; even if nothing else ever occured. The love that grew afforded us the patience to endure our disillusionments, and not just survive; but thrive. I have seen many more hc's fold than survive, mostly due to lack of patience- with God and each other. Many of the strong hc's that I relate to today began with just several Yahoos that continued on alone for several years before any "visible" fruit was evident. But God's subterranean work that occurred in there lives due to true community laid foundations that are mighty Yahooious in many, many ways and lives today. 2. Men that are in touch with there feminine sides. ( Actually there is more to it than that, but I wanted to irk you folks who still operate in the stone age where it comes to gender.) More accurately, as not to disclude the women, an almost genderless spirituallity when it comes to the church. If this does not occur than true freedom can never exist in any fellowship and you may fall short of ever actually "being" the church; even if you meet in homes. We need to stop accepting societys definitions about all things and begin accepting God's. Remember what Paul said about our citizenship being in heaven; then lets live like it here. So I admit right here, right now that I am in God's reality : A Girl. Ah, it is so liberating to be the bride of Christ. Agape and Phileo, Chris ------------------------------ From: "McBride-Luman, Kevin (G) HIST" Date: Fri, 08 Dec 95 19:01:00 PST Subject: Start-ups My 2-cents (since i don't have time to offer more even if I had it!) I just read about one-weeks worth of e-mail at one sitting. So let me voice agreement with Jill Crisp, Chris Smith, Tim DeGrado, Katie Price-Foster (Hi Katie..., its good to see more Pasadena house-churchers on-line), and Chris Kirk. Proximity, intentional choices of lifestyle and use of time/availability are certainly crucial. And I couldn't agree more with Chris Kirk's comments about our churches being genderless in terms of roles. It is essential that men can transcend their cultural training and conditioning and be nurturing toward others (other men and other women) Kevin Knox, it was good to hear from you. Welcome aboard. I agreed with the general sense of your post... about having "nothing to brag about." But I kind-of get the "willies" with the "Loser" language. I'm one of those who has trouble singing the "worm" and "wretch like me" lines in "Amazing Grace." Can you tell us more? I'm not one to ignore sin, but I don't think having a low self-image is a fruit of the spirit either! There is balance that has to be found, and for me it includes the fact that we are made in the image of God. For that matter, I do think God has a physical prescence here on earth... it is through us his church, his body. We are how he reaches out to people and cares for them! That's my two cents. Kevin J. McBride-Luman ------------------------------ From: Christian S Smith Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 09:01:53 -0500 Subject: Re: Start ups I would love to hear others' thoughts on how this works out, what this looks like (though not a contentious fight about feminism, etc.). Chris is on to something, I think. What does this look like concretely? I also would probably lean toward the "feminine side" language, rather than "genderless," since humans and much human activity is inescapably gendered--no use trying to get androgynous (sp?) about it. - - Chris ------------------------------ From: scrisp@pcug.org.au (Stephen Crisp) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 1995 09:22:00 +1100 Subject: start-ups Dear hcdl, It's good to see this discussion on starting a home church 'warming up'. I have a few extra ideas to add to our list of 'desirables'. 1. The existence, in a new home church of one or two people who can really love. This is a big one for me because of my previous experience in traditional church, where so many people pretending to love each other while nursing a lot of animosity and past disagreements. It wasn't til I joined home church that I saw people on a regular basis, moving forward from these things to real love. And the reason they did it was that there were a few shining examples in the network who found accepting people, forgiving people and understanding people very easy. They modelled love and we followed on behind. I still marvel at them and thank God for the fact that we can have honest relationships with each other and not just pretend ones. 2. A real enthusiasm for God when we come together. I have been in some Christian groups who had it and some who had not (often because they had been Christians for a very long time). The former did so much better than the latter. It seems that if people are enthusiastic about discussing their relationship with God and they are believing that God will act in their church, then a whole lot more power is open to them. I guess this is the 'leading and work of the Spirit' that Kay Price Foster was talking about in her recent post on starting up. (Thanks Kay for your post.) Sometimes our church gets too wrapped up in everyday life and forgets to relate it to God. This is a very Australian thing - Australians are so secular. We forget what a privilege it is to be amongst Christians and talk about where we are seeing God now, and where we are falling down and what God is doing about it. And when we forget to do this, we miss out on a lot of the spirit's power. 3. Lots of independent thinkers within the group. I think you need these for two reasons. First of all you need people to think about what is going on in the group and 'judge for themselves if its right' (Luke 12:57 - authors paraphrase). You can't discern the spirit of a group and make corrections as you go along if you have got a fundamentalist philosophy lifted straight out of some book, be it the bible or any other helpful text. What you do now cannot be exactly the same as they did it in NT times, you have to look at the fruits of your collective actions and judge, together if they are good. Secondly you need independent thinkers so the church can hold its line when things get tough. If people are afraid to think for themselves they will often scurry back to 'big church' when home church experiences difficulties. Some people are born 'independent thinkers' but I have seen others grow to be like that. I have seen a certainty appear in them over the years: a sense that whatever 'the world' says, however small their church may be at the time or however much trouble their teenagers are giving them in home church, they know that their church is also giving them life and they are going to stick with it. I am not sure if these 'independent thinkers' are the 'yahoos' Chris Kirk mentioned or if they have chutzpah (Chris Smith's term)........ you Americans will have to tell me. 4. A willingness within the core group of people, who got the church going, to step back and let it stand by itself. Home churches sometimes have within their ranks a group of providers and a group of receivers. But I feel that for a group to really become a church everyone has to be responsible for it and carry it as much as they can, given their circumstances. This requires the people who are good at organising and teaching to be constantly 'leaving spaces' and 'standing back' so other people can develop their gifts. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't do what they do best (that is their gift and they should model their abilities to others) but they shouldn't ensure the success of church by always doing it. It's a bit like Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac. You have to be prepared to sacrifice the home church you value so much, to stand back and let it fall over a bit before it really comes to life as a cooperative, God-given effort.........Is this too melodramatic?? Looking forward to other's posts on the subject. Jill Crisp _________________________________________________________ Steve Crisp scrisp@pcug.org.au ------------------------------ From: "Joann M. Hnat" Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 19:33:30 -0500 (EST) Subject: start-ups On Tue, 12 Dec 1995, Jill Crisp wrote: > Dear hcdl, > > It's good to see this discussion on starting a home church 'warming up'. > > I have a few extra ideas to add to our list of 'desirables'. > [The whole of this *wonderful* post snipped.] Jill, I want to say thanks for such a marvelous post. I especially liked what you had to say about how the core people need to step back and leave spaces for people to do their thing, and to fail, if necessary. .. Joann ------------------------------ From: Zootron@aol.com Date: Tue, 12 Dec 1995 14:05:45 -0500 Subject: Start up and Simple meals As we start groups we encourage folks to remember four 'R's: Relationship, Revelation, Reconciliation, and Rest. Since we like to eat together we have found that the "rest" part sometimes gets challenged. In order to simplify this part of our lives togather we are constantly looking for ways to make our meals simple, simple, simple, without putting the burden on anyone. I am assembling a list of "on the spot" meals to help the home fellowships keep it simple. There are three suggestions: 1. Full meal must be able to be prepared within the first 30 minutes of a gathering. 2. Elements of the meal should be contributed by each member of the group. 3. Components of the meal should require minimal advance preparation. We tried this with the host cooking up some rice and others bringing elements of a chicken soup. We called it "stoneless soup" since the host contributed rice instead of a stone (remember the children's story?) People brought broth, vegetables, chicken, and bread. It wasn't half bad! I don't want to turn HCDL into a cooking school, but I would appreciate suggestions for meals like this. If anyone can help you may want to respond offlist. If I get some creative meal plans I"ll create a file for the Web page to help others "keep it simple". Dan Mayhew The Summit Fellowships Portland, Ore. ------------------------------ From: JuliaBanks@aol.com Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 00:31:20 -0500 Subject: Re: Start up and Simple meals Dear Dan, One way of keeping it simple, if by that you mean not taking too much time, is to have the meal prepared before you come. That's the way we do it. Julie. ------------------------------ From: "Joann M. Hnat" Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 07:29:40 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Start up and Simple meals On Wed, 13 Dec 1995 JuliaBanks@aol.com wrote: > Dear Dan, > One way of keeping it simple, if by that you mean not taking too much time, > is to have the meal prepared before you come. That's the way we do it. Julie. Yes, that's what we do, too. The people at whose house church is being held that week make the main dish, someone else brings salad or vegetable, someone else bread and juice, someone else drinks, and someone else dessert. .. Joann ------------------------------ From: scrisp@pcug.org.au (Stephen Crisp) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 12:11:08 +1100 Subject: starting-up feminine side Dear hcdl, I am going on holidays for a week, from today, but before I leave, I want to contribute to the discussion on, guys being in touch with their feminine side. What I value most, when it happens in home church, is guys taking the time to really consider what other members of the church think, to listen to them. This doesn't sound like much, but I reckon it's really important to the people whose opinions aren't usually thought to be very valuable - that is, women and young people. I will give you an example of the lack of this listening approach, so you can see what I mean: Just recently I did a 6 week external course at the Australian National University called 'Paths to the Spiritual Life'. It was a course to discuss people's spiritual journeys and use the lecturer's knowledge of Christian and other religious writings to further these journeys. The format was 1 hour of lecture and 1 hour of discussion each week. This sounded like a good balance but after a while we started to realise that the hour's discussion was a dead loss. Although it looked like we were having a 'discussion' the lecturer never stepped down from the position of 'expert' to listen to what other people were saying, to alter or build on his ideas as a result of others experience. Now this felt really bad. It was made worse by the fact that this guys ideas were really good - so you didn't want to write him off completely. But you were faced with the prospect of talking with an 'unmoved mover' - someone who influenced you but would not be influenced by you. It really made discussion seem pointless. It took all the excitement out of it. Now I think that there are lots of guys around like this one. they have good ideas, they can express themselves well and they are in demand to tell people things. They have been pushed into a 'male' model of 'expert' and they become the role. Because they are in demand they have no time to think about other, ordinary people's contrary opinions and this makes them pretty well impregnable, over all. Whenever I go to gatherings outside home church I find myself hit with ways of acting, like this one. I expect reciprocity and mutuality but instead I find myself in these 'one up - one down' situations. and I have to say 'Oh yes, I forgot, this is the world, not home church.' Now I don't think that home church has completely eradicated this problem - - but there are shining examples around, of people trying to do so. When Hal Miller talked about their combined church meeting asking the kids first, to give their opinion of church (see 'doing-with-the-kids' 28/11/95) it was an example of 'the experts' stepping down from their position of 'informal authority' it listen. I don't think I can overestimate the importance that this act of listening has on the people who feel that their perspective isn't very important. It is so empowering! It is a hundred times more powerful than someone just being nice to you. It makes you feel valuable and it lays the groundwork for real relationships. I think it is the really hard work that guys have to do to improve relationships between the sexes. It is the big step that has to be taken after the step of rhetoric about respect for women and their own feminine side. And it is what can bring home church alive because as soon as people really listen to each other and move someplace new, together in their thinking then they can start to see the value of conversation and relationship. It is a hard step, because it involves setting aside time to think about what other people say to you in church. I see people spending less and less time doing this in our churches, because or outside pressures. It is also difficult because substantial dialogue, where you talk and listen, will often show you where you are wrong and this is hard on the ego. You wouldn't think that a statement like 'I have been thinking about what you said in church last week.............' could make a big difference to a church but I reckon it will................. I would be nice to get some comment on this. I will be back to hcdl in a week. regards Jill Crisp _________________________________________________________ Steve Crisp scrisp@pcug.org.au ------------------------------ From: Hal Miller Date: Tue, 09 Jan 1996 14:11:26 -0500 Subject: Start-ups, kind of "What has he done with his money?" asked a red-faced gentleman with a pendulous excrescence on the end of his nose, that shook like the gills of a turkey-cock. - - Charles Dickens, _A_Christmas_Carol_ Dear hcdl, It always surprises my how much New Englanders seem to enjoy whining about the weather. These are the same people who have the staunch and stern Puritans for their ancestors and who (deliberately!) bought homes north of 20 degrees latitude! But whine we do. Since I no longer look like the man Dickens described (I haven't had to shovel snow for several _hours_ now), I thought I'd celebrate by posting a thought to what the rest of you surely thought was a defunct thread. If you remember, Chris S. asked about the conditions under which start-up home churches work out. And people posted a bundle of observations about the social conditions that applied to "successful" start-ups. ** The Theme Stated ** I don't want to deny or minimize any of that discussion. But I do want to point out a theme that may get lost in the shuffle: many of the conditions that make start-ups "successful" are PERSONs not social circumstances. To put my theme briefly: some start-ups succeed because they contain people who help them do so. In what follows, I always put "success" and its cognates in quotation marks because I'm speaking of a very limited kind of success, viz., keeping going for a few years or more in a continuous form. Clearly, as far as I'm concerned, God's notion of success is much broader than that and is far more interested in qualitative issues than it is in quantifiable ones like time-in-a-continuous-form. But, for this discussion, that limited notion of "success" is useful in a way, so I'm going to keep it. Let me tell you two anecdotes. 1. Years and years ago, I was with Robert Banks giving a few lectures at New College Berkeley (he was the star, I was also-running). We were at a meeting with some of the movers and shakers at NCB, talking about home churches and one man spoke very bitterly about how all a home church needed to succeed was Robert Banks in it. I thought that was a _very_ politically incorrect thing to say, but later discovered that he had been part of one or more failed attempts to start home churches. 2. Years ago, when SCC was first considering becoming home churches, Dianne and I were sitting in Rick Lobsitz' living room discussing the pros and cons of the shift. I was playing devil's advocate and insisting that the quality of our worship as we were then organized was one reason not to become home churches. Rick said, "Well, _any_ group that has Dianne Miller will have that quality of worship." Again, I though that was a shocking and scandalous thing to say, but later discovered that, more or less, he was right. Now the reason for annoying you with these anecdotes is simple. I believe that the reason most/many/almost-all start-up home churches "succeed" is that there are PERSONs in them who make that possible. I'm sure the social conditions are terribly important. But I've become pretty sure the PERSONs are even more important. ** APOstles and ENstels ** In NT times these PERSONs who made startups "succeed" were called apostles. That's one of the gifts God gives the church. It's unfortunate, however, that they decided to call them APOstles, because the apostolic mode is but one form these PERSONs take. _Apo_stles were sent _out_ to places to make start-ups "succeed." You can call it making disciples or founding churches or whatever; you get the idea. But APOstling is just one form that this gift gets given in. More often nowadays (with our highly developed transportation systems) is the ENstel. An ENstel stays in one place and helps start-ups "succeed" from there rather than being sent out to do it. The Banks's current situation is just such an ENsteling. Here they are, staying put in Pasadena while the world drifts through their living room courtesy of Fuller Seminary. It's a perfect situation for a pair of 20th century APOstles, er ENstels. You can see the same pattern replicated in slightly different forms throughout the West. There really is a set of PERSONs (and it's usually a set, just like it was for the two-by-two APOstles) who help make start-ups succeed. They may stay put, or they may go somewhere on Thursday night's for a year, or they may do it yet another way, but they are providing that "thing" to start-ups that APOstles provided to the early home churches in Asia Minor. That "thing" that start-ups need is a gift of God that the NT calls "apostle" and is borne only by PERSONs, not by social conditions, as important as those are. ** What Do These PERSONs Bring? ** I think we could have a very useful discussions about what APOstles and ENstels and their cousins bring to start-ups that help them "succeed." I believe there are lots of qualities that are important, but one surely is that they are relentless. That's what made St. Paul such an annoyance to the people around him. And it's one of the things that APOstles and ENstels and others bring to start-ups that help them "succeed": they will not abide them failing. They relentlessly preach and counsel and sit-and-talk and coddle and everything else they can think of to get people to get on with each other long enough to find out that they really can be brothers and sisters. Once that realization happens, the whole thing is self-perpetuating (and in some cases, spontaneously expanding). But until that magic moment happens, only APOstolic or ENstelic relentlessness keeps people together in the same forum long enough to realize there might be something more for them there than they thought. I can think of several more qualities off the top of my head that I won't go in to: a sense of mission, forgiving spirit, skills at negotiating, empathy. All these are qualities that APOstles and ENstels and the rest bring to start-ups that help them become something other than start-ups. But I've confused things enough for one day. Perhaps those of you who have monitored this thread can sort it out from here. As for me, I've got to go dry my gloves out so I can go shovel again. And, to answer the initial question, "What has he done with his money?" The answer is, "He has hired professional whiners to complain about the snow so he himself can stay warm inside and not worry about it." My best to all, especially to those who live in warmer climes and don't have the pleasure of having their character built up by these storms. Regards, Hal (progn (defvar *.signature* (list "Hal" "Miller" "TASC" "55 Walkers Brook Dr., Reading, MA 01867" "(617) 942-2000, X2958" "Fax: (617) 942-7100" "hmiller@tasc.com")) (pop *.signature*)) ------------------------------ From: Kevin Knox Date: Wed, 10 Jan 1996 00:10:52 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Start-ups, kind of Brother, >I believe that the reason most/many/almost-all start-up home churches >"succeed" is that there are PERSONs in them who make that possible. I'm >sure the social conditions are terribly important. But I've become pretty >sure the PERSONs are even more important. This was really dead on. I like the way you got beyond "gifts" to the heart of the matter, which is the heart of the people. The people that we are bound to in the Church are Christians, and they are worthy of our trust and support. If they get it, there is no telling how far they might grow. More than that, if we can find grace to give them trust, there is no telling how far *we* might grow! Well put. ------------------------------ From: Christian S Smith Date: Wed, 10 Jan 1996 10:15:04 -0500 Subject: Re: Start-ups, kind of Hal: Your post is a helpful correction to the idea that somehow macro "social forces" are the things that make house churches work, if anyone _happened_ to be thinking in that direction. I couldn't agree more with Rick's take on Dianne and worship, btw. It seems to me, however, that you're creating a bit of a false dichotomy between "people" and "social circumstances." Both exist, and do shape each other. (Many of the factors I tried to identify in my first post have, in fact, to do with having the right kind of people on board early.) Clearly, the fact that the Banks are where they are is a function of Fuller Seminary's existence. Same with the Millers and Gordon Conwell in 1978. Further, e.g., any apostles' ability to spend the time apostling is partly a function of their place in the life-cycle (kids, jobs, etc.) [which is neither purely an individual- nor social-level factor]. As to the N.T., clearly Paul's personality/character had a lot to do with the growth of the church among the gentiles. But, at another level of analysis, so did a number of "social conditions" of the helenistic (sp?), Mediterranian world at that time (including factors related to cultural and religious/cultic syncretism, urbanization, social class, etc.). I would think it would be myopic, if this thread happened to move in this direction, to construct a discussion that had the effect of focusing on the qualities of _individuals_ as the critical factor in start-up success [bracketing that discussion], while discounting broader social contexts that might significantly shape the thought processes, interests, and availability of people. I think a broad view that takes into account factors at multiple levels--avoiding the analyses of both simplistic sociologisms and radical American individualism--would be most enlightening. In any case, picking up on the "persons" emphasis returns us to the question of the how-to's of getting the right people together. How many apostles and enstles are out there? I wonder about the probabilities of the Bank's roving their way down to Duke Divinity School? As to snow: while we only got 3" in Durham, because nobody here has a clue about what to do with it or how to drive in it (shovels? what's a snow shovel?), life comes to a screeching halt. They simply cancel school for a week. It's a different approach than the Great White North (which, I hear, is supposed to get more snow in the next days?). We pray for sun and rain, sit, and wait. - - Chris (ever the sociologist) ------------------------------ From: Jeanne12@aol.com Date: Thu, 18 Jan 1996 14:48:07 -0500 Subject: Re: Start up and Simple meals Our church used to have meals every meeting. We now only have them once a month, although our "refreshments" are substantial enough to be a light evening meal. Our people complained about all the work of it. Some of that may be connected to meeting on Sunday evening, and people being too tired to cook? ------------------------------ From: kevinsmi@ozemail.com.au (Kevin Smith) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 23:25:50 +1000 (EST) Subject: Re: Let's talk about home church >So...I am doing research on the New Testament ekklesia. Any input would be >appreciated. But be kind, I am new at this house-church thing. > >Thanks! > >iHs > >dc > > Dear Brother DC, Please ask God to give you just a few brothers and sisters and sit right down and tell God that you desire to worship Him in spirit and reality (truth) give up the research and just start. You might find some others brothers and sisters who are already meeting under the headship of Jesus. Research may puff you up but the reality of worship allows the God who is there to teach you to enjoy Him. You see we Christians ofetn live as if the haethen are right and the God that we worship is a figment of our imagination but because He is who He is then don't study it worship Him and you will see what He does. Shalom. - --- Kevin Smith RMB 1810, Benloch, Victoria Australia. Phone: (054)292031 Fax:(054)292032 ------------------------------ From: "DAN TROTTER" Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 09:56:43 EST Subject: Re: Let's talk about home church > > I am new to the list, and would appreciate more info on your going's on. I > have just finished Gene Edwards book "How to Meet". Rec'd it on Friday night, > finished it by Sat night. Well done, I thought, but seems a little loose. I > am sharing it with two other men tomorrow morning. I'm trying to get their > thinking jarred a little. > > Anyway...any other ideas for me on where to begin. Some of my brothers seem > bent on changing our current body of believers. I think that it's hopeless. I > see Gen's point on beginnings, and think that it's a valid one. > > Funny, about last September, a missionary friend of mine told me that doing a > ekklesia - NT style with our current "church" probably would not work. > > What is also interesting is the fact that the vision of a different kind of > fellowship has been a recurring theme in my life since my conversion. The > first "church" I attended was BIG on being a New Testament church. I found > out that they wern't. > > The second "church" I attended wouldn't have even know what I was talking > about. > > The third "church" I attended was trying SO hard to look like Willow Creek... > well, I left. > > The Fourth "church" [my current one] knows what I'm talking about, and > doesn't want anything to do with it. sigh... > > So...I am doing research on the New Testament ekklesia. Any input would be > appreciated. But be kind, I am new at this house-church thing. > > Thanks! > > iHs > > dc Doug, In my experience, one of the saddest things is to see people with a vision of Jesus' church, trying to see that vision fulfilled in the system church. That vision, quite simply, will never come to pass. Its almost trite to say, but you really can't put new wine into old wineskins, wo/ disastrous results. Many of my friends (and me) have in the past tried to go back and compromise with the system, and all we have succeeded doing is making ourselves miserable. The reason we try and go back is because its so hard to find/start a good house church. But once you've got a vision of this thing, you are cooked, because you can't go back to the system and be happy. Press on... Dan ********************************************************************** trotter@coker.edu Dr. Dan L. Trotter (803) 383-8110 (w) Department of Business Administration (803) 383-8048 (work fax) Coker College (803) 432-2546 (home) Hartsville, SC 29550 ********************************************************************** ------------------------------ From: DCohenour@aol.com Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 12:08:15 -0500 Subject: Re: Let's talk about home church... In a message dated 96-03-11 10:03:12 EST, you write: >Doug, > >In my experience, one of the saddest things is to see people with a >vision of Jesus' church, trying to see that vision fulfilled in the >system church. That vision, quite simply, will never come to pass. >Its almost trite to say, but you really can't put new wine into old >wineskins, wo/ disastrous results. Many of my friends (and me) have >in the past tried to go back and compromise with the system, and all >we have succeeded doing is making ourselves miserable. The reason we >try and go back is because its so hard to find/start a good house >church. But once you've got a vision of this thing, you are cooked, >because you can't go back to the system and be happy. > >Press on... > >Dan Hi Dan, Yeah, I can see your point. Can I draw an illustration from my own life to tell you where I'm coming from? I was married before, to my highschool sweetheart. She was a beautiful girl, full of life and the love of my life. The first four years were wonderful. Then came the change. She became anorexic, then bulimic, the an alcoholic. I watched this girl I loved change before my very eyes. She was once loving and kind. She became bitter and angry. She left her first love for another. In the end, our relationship was destroyed forever. >From my perspective, I would have died for her. I still saw the beauty and life that once was there. Inspite of her rejection of me and everyone else that loved her, I still loved her. I knew that she could return to her former state, but she chose otherwise. In the end, [and you will forgive the sports analogy] I wanted to be sure I left everything on the field. The only thing that was left was a severing of our relationship. I knew it would happen eventually, but I didn't want it to be that way. There was still hope, or so I thought. Anyway, I see the church that way in some respects. Before our relationship ends, I want to be sure I've left everything on the field. Maybe I'm wrong, and still wearing rose colored glasses. I would rather err on that side than abandon this body of believers before it is time. Doug ------------------------------ From: "Joann M. Hnat" Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 12:43:36 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Let's talk about home church On Mon, 11 Mar 1996, DAN TROTTER wrote: > [snip] The reason we > try and go back is because its so hard to find/start a good house > church. But once you've got a vision of this thing, you are cooked, > because you can't go back to the system and be happy. How true. At Salem Community Church, we've noticed that when people leave us, they usually end up un-churched, often not by choice. We always say that we spoil people for anything else. .. Joann ------------------------------ From: scrisp@pcug.org.au (Stephen Crisp) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 12:01:40 +1100 (EST) Subject: home-churchless Dear hcdl, Just recently, a lot of people on the list have been saying that they would like to be in a home church but, for various reasons they can't. As I see it, the reasons can be summerised as: - - still some commitment to a mainline church or - - can't find other people to do it with or - - rest of family doesn't want to I feel sad about this. Some of these people have been on the list for a while now and I have become quite fond of them. Others are just new. As I was lying in bed this morning I had an idea. It might seem to be a good idea to individuals or it might seem inappropriate. I can't tell. It occurred to me that, if I were 'house-churchless' at present, I would begin by starting a Christian 'Search for Meaning' group for 6 weeks. It wouldn't be too difficult. I would just need to find a few people who were enthusiastic about Christianity, to help me. Then we would all need to think about people we know who seemed to be either interested in Jesus or searching for spiritual answers - people who would see value in talking about God and Jesus. They could be in 'big church' or outside. After we had found 10 or 12 people in all, we could get together and form our own agenda for each week - talking about the issues of spirituality that come up in our everyday life. All we would have to agree on was to share the time equitably and listen to people until we feel the pull of their argument. This last idea belongs to Karl Popper (you have probably heard of it before). I think it is important, if a really Christian tone of acceptance is to be set in a group. It would also be wise to have some outside advisers to talk about difficulties when they arose. Hcdl woud be good for this. If all this were to happen then, my guess is that people would not want to stop after 6 weeks and I would have myself a new home church. (Both the 'searchers' groups I have been in over the last year have not wanted to stop.) Even if it did stop after 6 weeks it would have had value in itself as an experience very like home church. I don't know if all this makes sense to people. I wish I were like Christian or Hal or Chris Kirk and could explain my ideas clearly and persuasively. All I know is that there has been a lot of energy in the search for meaning group we have going now. It really feels like God is there and it feels like 'church' to me. It seems theologically sound too. I personally feel that part of my home church 'heritage' is the insights and experience of Latin American liberation theology. They are always talking about 'praxis' - that is - the interaction of life with Christian thought. You live life, you look at it together in the light of the Gospel, this gives you ideas about how to live life better and you go and try them out. The process cycles around. The things you do in a search for meaning group are right in the middle of this process. I know that I haven't said anything about including the kids or having a meal together, and those things are very important parts of home church for most of us. But perhaps those things would follow later when people experience the value of being spiritual friends. Perhaps doing kids and meal and sharing all at once, from the start is often just too hard and that is why we have so much trouble starting home churches. Perhaps home church is like one of those beautiful ponds you have up in New England. People have been standing on the shore wondering how they can get to be swimming the Australian Crawl in the centre. I am saying that a little unambitious wading in the shallows would do for a start. Perhaps we need to think of unambitious first steps to home church that are faithful to the gospel and the 'search for meaning group' model might be one of them. There! I have finally got to what I want to say. any comments gratefully accepted. regards Jill Crisp _________________________________________________________ Steve Crisp scrisp@pcug.org.au ------------------------------ From: "Joann M. Hnat" Date: Sat, 16 Mar 1996 21:41:48 -0500 (EST) Subject: home-churchless On Sun, 17 Mar 1996, Jill Crisp wrote: [snip] > As I was lying in bed this morning I had an idea. It might seem to be a > good idea to > individuals or it might seem inappropriate. I can't tell. > > It occurred to me that, if I were 'house-churchless' at present, I would > begin by starting > a Christian 'Search for Meaning' group for 6 weeks. [snip] I like this idea a lot, Jill. I've been very interested in hearing about what your group has been doing, because some of us at SCC are going to be starting a similar group very soon (I hope!), with the hope that at the end of the six weeks, we will have another house church. I'm encouraged to hear that your groups have been eager to stay together at the end of the six-week time period. .. Joann ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 21:09:27 -0400 (EDT) From: trd@petsparc.mc.duke.edu (Tim DeGrado) Subject: start-ups To: hcdl@shore.net Dear all, I'd like to ask another question for the "start-up" thread. In the Banks' book _The Church Comes Home_, Rob and Julie recommend that three criteria be satisfied before a group officially declares themselves to be a house-church. These are 1) a sound foundation (God's approval and preparation), 2) A committed core of people who want to share a common life together, and 3) a "pastoral centre" which is a person or persons who are gifted pastorally to provide nurture to the group. What do you think about that? On another note, they say that building relationships and committment to be a church is to be focused on initially, rather than focusing on a particular neighborhood or ministry. They caution against bringing in personal ministry agendas to the group. As time passes, the Lord will direct the group and ministry will develop organically. Any comments on that one too? Thanks, Tim DeGrado Durham, NC ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 20:45:05 -0700 From: Don Soegaard To: hcdl@shore.net Subject: Re: start-ups Tim DeGrado wrote: > > Dear all, > > I'd like to ask another question for the "start-up" thread. > > In the Banks' book _The Church Comes Home_, Rob and Julie > recommend that three criteria be satisfied before a group > officially declares themselves to be a house-church. These > are 1) a sound foundation (God's approval and preparation), > 2) A committed core of people who want to share a common > life together, and 3) a "pastoral centre" which is a person > or persons who are gifted pastorally to provide nurture to > the group. > > What do you think about that? > The institutional church has done a pretty good job of intimidating people from fellowship in Christ outside the headship of some "shepherd" We can get together for just about any activity under the sun -- but you had better not try fellowshipping in Christ unless it is under the sanction and scrutiny of the pastorally gifted or his designees. If you are hungry for fellowship in Christ, why don't you just invite some friends in Christ over for some fellowship, bible study, prayer and sharing. As a suggestion, you might invite (corporately) Christ to take charge of the meeting, allow Him to set the agenda. It seems that people are so fearful of gathering in Christ unless it is highly organized according to someone's formula. What the Banks' book offers is an opinion. If you are out to create an institution within the home, it may be advantageous to follow these three criteria and add a number of others -- but, I pray that you simply start experimenting with opening your home to others in Christ. After all, the Church is not an institution -- it is where two, three or more meet under the headship of Jesus Christ. If you are a new Christian, and do not feel very secure or grounded in the word -- seek to include one or more others who you discern to have attained some maturity to help keep the get-together in tune with the Holy Spirit. Relax, give it a try --- I am sure the Lord will honor your desire to invite other Christians into your home for the purpose of allowing Him to lead you all to a closer walk with Him and with each other through Him. And, assuming your experience is largely with the institutional church, it may be a strange thing to gather with friends and start a prayer, reading of the word, singing, or whatever unless it is being conducted by some "designated official" --- Please, get past this impasse -- no special gift (other than the Holy Spirit which we all receive when we accept and invite Jesus as our Lord and Savior)is necessary to get into some real meat through bible study. Simple open reading of some scripture and allowing people to freely express what it means to them -- can open the door to wonderful insights and a drawing closer to the relevancy of the Word and a closer relationship with our brothers and sisters. Please, get past any fear that you are not "called" -- we are all called -- at least sufficient to be able to fellowship deeply and meaningfully with others in Christ -- > On another note, they say that building relationships and > committment to be a church is to be focused on initially, > rather than focusing on a particular neighborhood or > ministry. They caution against bringing in personal > ministry agendas to the group. As time passes, the Lord > will direct the group and ministry will develop > organically. > > Any comments on that one too? > Yes, nothing wrong with having an agenda -- in fact, it would be best to have some plan and preparation for what you intend to do when you get together -- but, be flexible, and foremost turn the true agenda over to Jesus. Most likely, as people relax and open up a bit, the actual course of the get-together will allow for welcome surprises for everyone. None of us are experts on getting together with other Christians in Jesus Christ -- but, hopefully we are His disciples, and He is teaching us. The greatest joys of home fellowship is that the Holy Spirit can reign more easily and fully than is generally EVER possible within the institutional setting with its agendas and its gifted pastoral crews. I am sure you will find that the Lord will provide a variety of gifts within those who attend. And, in regards to the gift of shepherding, most likely you have a significant gift in that direction also or you would probably not yearn to start a home fellowship. In regards to agreeing to commit to share a common life together -- this seems a rather unecessary and burdensome prerequisite. Get together, learn to allow Christ to lead, allow yourselves to start growing in kinship -- the commitment will follow naturally as the love relationship develops over time. Most assuredly the composition of the group will change over time -- people drift out, others drift in. Leave it to God. May God bless your desire to open your home to our brothers and sisters in Christ...may He bless your home and place His seal of protection on it. Don Soegaard ______________________________ Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 07:47:06 -0700 From: Dan Mayhew To: hcdl@shore.net Subject: Re: start-ups Tim DeGrado wrote: > > > In the Banks' book _The Church Comes Home_, Rob and Julie > recommend that three criteria be satisfied before a group > officially declares themselves to be a house-church. These > are 1) a sound foundation (God's approval and preparation), > 2) A committed core of people who want to share a common > life together, and 3) a "pastoral centre" which is a person > or persons who are gifted pastorally to provide nurture to > the group. > > What do you think about that? Tim- One of my prayers for the house churches in our network is for pastors. Now, don't get me wrong. I am not asking for the "office" of pastor, but for the ministry of pastor. The two, as you know, are vastly different. Some of the groups that we relate to are much in need of the care and nurture that a "pastor" brings to the group. It is a true gift and I pray to see it emerge. There is something about that spiritual sense of the need of others that is sorely missed if it isn't there. We have one brother who has that gentle, unassuming pastoral quality, and a couple of the sisters. One of the good things about them is that they seem to be able to identify others with a similar heart. I am encouraged as they invite those folks to join with them in pastoral ministry. May that gift continue to mature!! Shalom! Dan Mayhew The Summit Fellowships Portland, Or. PS- to Mark McConnel. Since we live in the same town we ought to do coffee sometime. Whatcha think? Caswell's is a great little coffee shop. ______________________________ From: Engelbrite@aol.com Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 16:21:45 -0400 To: hcdl@shore.net Subject: Re: start-ups In a message dated 96-04-25 21:15:17 EDT, you write: >In the Banks' book _The Church Comes Home_, Rob and Julie >recommend that three criteria be satisfied before a group >officially declares themselves to be a house-church. These >are 1) a sound foundation (God's approval and preparation), >2) A committed core of people who want to share a common >life together, and 3) a "pastoral centre" which is a person >or persons who are gifted pastorally to provide nurture to >the group. While I haven't read the book, point #3 makes me nervous: Why would a church's validity be based on a minstry that is mentioned only once in the Bible and never elaborated upon? Regarding #2, is that commitment to Jesus and the entire Body of Christ, or to that specific group exclusively? How does that relate to the "I am of Cephos, I am of Paul" issue? Your friend in Christ, M. Peter Engelbrite ______________________________ Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 17:50:48 -0400 (EDT) From: trd@petsparc.mc.duke.edu (Tim DeGrado) Subject: Re: start-ups To: hcdl@shore.net >>In the Banks' book _The Church Comes Home_, Rob and Julie >>recommend that three criteria be satisfied before a group >>officially declares themselves to be a house-church. These >>are 1) a sound foundation (God's approval and preparation), >>2) A committed core of people who want to share a common >>life together, and 3) a "pastoral centre" which is a person >>or persons who are gifted pastorally to provide nurture to >>the group. > >While I haven't read the book, point #3 makes me nervous: Why would a >church's validity be based on a minstry that is mentioned only once in the >Bible and never elaborated upon? Regarding #2, is that commitment to Jesus >and the entire Body of Christ, or to that specific group exclusively? How >does that relate to the "I am of Cephos, I am of Paul" issue? > >Your friend in Christ, >M. Peter Engelbrite > Peter, I think they are saying that there needs to be someone with gifts of encouragement and nurture to provide for these needs in the group. There will be some who are naturally gifted to do this. I personally don't think it is entirely necessary to designate such persons, but the group probably should be up front to be sensitive to pastoral needs. Responsibility can be shared by all people in the church to bear one another's burdens, care for one another, pray for one another, etc. Yet, in reality a few people may excel in this area to everyone's blessing. As far as #2, I think that our commitment to the Lord will bring us together with likeminded believers. If He is not center, than we will have a social club but not a church. I think the idea that the Banks are trying to convey is that we are growing up in Him together, so that there is a healthy interdependence. I like the extended family metaphor to explain this. Hope we can get more input on this one. Thanks for adding yours, Tim DeGrado Durham, NC ______________________________ Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 06:38:02 -0500 (CDT) From: dcohen@execpc.com To: hcdl@shore.net Subject: A New Thread...Start-Up's Dan, Thanks for your excellent response! I'm re-posting this in case anyone missed it the first time, disguised inside another message. Now for another thread: [This is intended to build upon the thread: "Basis for establishing an ekklesia" Which I think has run it's course. 1. I'd like to discuss start-ups. Initial meetings. What were they like? How did they get going? What did you do? Three questions. 2. What was the initial dynamic of the group like? Where there stages of development? [I suspect that there were] Thanks for your patience! [at my repost] In Him, Doug Cohenour The Church in Random Lake ______________________________ Date: Sat, 18 May 1996 09:29:22 +1000 (EST) To: hcdl@shore.net From: kevinsmi@ozemail.com.au (Kevin Smith) Subject: Re: A New Thread...Start-Up's >1. I'd like to discuss start-ups. Initial meetings. What were they like? How did >they get going? What did you do? Three questions. > >2. What was the initial dynamic of the group like? Where there stages of >development? [I suspect that there were] > >Thanks for your patience! [at my repost] > >In Him, > >Doug Cohenour >The Church in Random Lake > Doug, DANGER LURKS! The very questions you put forward demonstrate that while you may be moving out of the religious system, the system is alive and well in your thinking! You are looking for some guidelines from the experience of others as to how to do things and what should happen. God has made people very different - uniquely significant - and how one group of believers will operate together will not only be different from another but also different from themselves on another day. IMHO you must approach EVERY time you meet allowing Jesus to build his church. That doesn't mean that each person should not ask God what he or she should bring to share but it does mean that we should expect the ongoing miracle of Jesus enabling and meeting with us as his people. As soon as we order things through our own or others expereince we tend to bring a (no-matter-how-small) structural control. The ekklesia does not need this - in fact, such preparation can rob Jesus of HIS place! and 'Home Church' can become just like institutional church , the only difference being that one of you is controlling the church instead of the paid professional. (It will be a disaster! More, if I desired leadership other than Jesus, I'd go for the professional pastor every time- they have the time to do it well - when I do it it gets boring.) :> My own advice from experience and actually stolen from Brother Paul, is whenever you meet ask God first what to bring and write down on a card the things that you sense God shows you. It may be a song to sing or something to pray about or just a few words or a picture that God brings to your spirit - definitely NOT a sermon with 3 points and a conclusion! Start off by hanging around together enough to get to know each other better. When you actually get together, the host, the person with the authority to set the agenda in his/her home takes the initiative to get things started. Ask together in the unity that God has given you as his people, that He will speak into your lives and encourage you. Then share the things he has given people before. You will find that as you bring things to do and songs to sing and thing to talk about, they will dovetail together. For too long we have met together to worship God and to be built up on the basis that the heathen are right and Jesus is a dead hero rather than a vibrant living friend. Many times we have found that a child's comment about something they had seen as school led to a brother sharing something that he had discerned from the scriptures and another person's comments from experience came together as what we call a 'Huey, Deuy and Louy' message. (Donald Duck nephews used to speak in a way in which they all said some of the words of their corporate statement.) I know God will enble you as His people as you move in this adventure with Him. Please don't see this post as a criticism of you but an encouragemnt from a brother who has to be alert to the same questions continually. (I think we'll be moving carefully untill Jesus comes back!) Shalom. --- Kevin Smith RMB 1810, Benloch, Victoria Australia. Phone: (054)292031 Fax:(054)292032 ______________________________ Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 21:09:02 -0400 (EDT) To: hcdl@shore.net From: "Frank N. Johnson" Subject: Re: A New Thread...Start-Up's Kevin: You had some great things to say here! It was very helpful for me as I think I probably fit into the danger you warn against -- trying to break out of the system, not realizing that the system still has a place in my thinking. >My own advice from experience and actually stolen from Brother Paul, is >whenever you meet ask God first what to bring and write down on a card the >things that you sense God shows you. It may be a song to sing or something >to pray about or just a few words or a picture that God brings to your >spirit - definitely NOT a sermon with 3 points and a conclusion! I understand what you're saying and agree that this is the fulfillment of 1 Corinthians 14:26. My question for you concerns Acts 20:7-12, where Paul, in the midst of a house meeting, appears to deliver a sermon (albeit not a sermon like most sermons we hear today). I understand that the greek text literally says that Paul _dialogued_ with the people, but it also refers to his "message." All my greek helps are packed in boxes, but my Bible has a marginal note which defines "message" as literally meaning "word" or "speech." With this in mind, is there any place in your house meetings (and the house meetings of others) for prepared messages which include ample opportunity for dialog? When I've seen references to this in earlier posts, it appears to me that other house churches do make a place for this, but that there seems to be a fairly constant rotation of "speakers," which (probably due to a "system mindset") I would think would deprive us of continuity from week to week and month to month (although now that I think of it, it seems pretty ridiculous for me to trust Jesus to speak through one person in any given meeting, but not to trust Jesus to speak through more than one person as weeks go by!) Anyway, do any house churches make a place for so-called "series" of messages (through a book of the Bible or on a specific topic)? When I was in Africa working at a pastoral institute, one of the most refreshing periods was one semester when we required students to preach on a rotating basis through a particular book of the Bible -- what a joy to gain different perspectives and insights from different people! I know that my questions here may reflect the system mindset which I'm sure I still suffer from, but all I can do about that is ask God to help my brothers and sisters stretch my mind and thinking! Thanks in advance for any comments you (or any others) might offer. In the grip of grace, Frank ============================================================================ Hesed Press [ Multimedia Resumes: ] 109 Bradley Drive E-mail: frankj@cruzio.com [ Ask For A ] Santa Cruz, CA 95060 [ Free Demo Via E-mail ] Phone/Fax: 408 454 0438 ====================== ______________________________ From: dcohen@execpc.com Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 21:40:05 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: A New Thread...Start-Up's To: hcdl@shore.net Kevin! I appreciate your insights, and no, I don't take them as criticism. How right you are when you say that the system is alive and well in my thinking! We in our group have often talked about the need for brain surgery. I see a commonality among those who have moved out of the system church in that the emphasis is on the Lord leading the gathering. I want that to happen! But, the idea of it is scarry. I really don't want to be in control, but yet I know that I really DO want to be in control. >Doug, [snip] >As soon as we order things through our own or others experience we tend to >bring a (no-matter-how-small) structural control. The ekklesia does not need >this - in fact, such preparation can rob Jesus of HIS place! and 'Home >Church' can become just like institutional church , the only difference >being that one of you is controlling the church instead of the paid >professional. (It will be a disaster! More, if I desired leadership other >than Jesus, I'd go for the professional pastor every time- they have the >time to do it well - when I do it it gets boring.) :> I can see that happening. So how do you do it? Just do it? I guess so. >My own advice from experience and actually stolen from Brother Paul, is >whenever you meet ask God first what to bring and write down on a card the >things that you sense God shows you. It may be a song to sing or something >to pray about or just a few words or a picture that God brings to your >spirit - definitely NOT a sermon with 3 points and a conclusion! I can see this, but, when? Maybe I am looking at it a bit wrong. We are still WAY too focused on the gathering. I am apprehensive about meeting this way. I know that it is the right thing to do. I want to do it. We all want to do it! I fear that building expectations for the initial gathering insure a let down. >Start off by hanging around together enough to get to know each other >better. This sounds good. The men are doing it already. The rest of our families are soon to follow. >I know God will enable you as His people as you move in this adventure with >Him. Please don't see this post as a criticism of you but an encouragement >from a brother who has to be alert to the same questions continually. (I >think we'll be moving carefully until Jesus comes back!) > >Shalom. >--- >Kevin Smith >RMB 1810, Benloch, Victoria Australia. >Phone: (054)292031 Fax:(054)292032 Thanks man! I appreciate your comments. Doug Cohenour TCIRL ______________________________ Date: Sat, 18 May 1996 07:16:51 -0700 From: Dan Mayhew To: hcdl@shore.net Subject: Re: A New Thread...Start-Up's Frank N. Johnson wrote: > With this in mind, is there any place in your house meetings (and the house > meetings of others) for prepared messages which include ample opportunity > for dialog? When I've seen references to this in earlier posts, it appears > to me that other house churches do make a place for this, but that there > seems to be a fairly constant rotation of "speakers," which (probably due to > a "system mindset") I would think would deprive us of continuity from week > to week and month to month (although now that I think of it, it seems pretty > ridiculous for me to trust Jesus to speak through one person in any given > meeting, but not to trust Jesus to speak through more than one person as > weeks go by!) > > Anyway, do any house churches make a place for so-called "series" of > messages (through a book of the Bible or on a specific topic)? When I was > in Africa working at a pastoral institute, one of the most refreshing > periods was one semester when we required students to preach on a rotating > basis through a particular book of the Bible -- what a joy to gain different > perspectives and insights from different people! > > I know that my questions here may reflect the system mindset which I'm sure > I still suffer from, but all I can do about that is ask God to help my > brothers and sisters stretch my mind and thinking! Frank- I would hope that there was room in house churches for any of the things that you describe. To reject any systematic teaching in the home group, IMHO, is a reaction to the one-way expressions of traditional speaker/audience church settings. Just because there has been abuse, does not mean that all decisions must be made to the contrary just to defend against abuse. One danger that I see in home fellowships is the tendency to reject teaching and leadership gifts (both valid, scriptural giftings in the body) because they have been abused and overemphasized in the institutional church. What a tragedy it would be if such gifts should begin to emerge in a house church only to have them rejected because of a reactionary attitude among the others in the group. Among the groups here in Portland, there seems to be a desire to see more of the teaching gift shown. We haven't had formal teaching from anyone for a long time. That isn't bad, necessarily, but it isn't always best, either. We are waiting in prayer to see what should be the response. One consideration is to have people in the groups who have studied particular issues or scripture passages visit other groups just to present what they have learned---sort of a mini-seminar--- for the groups that are interested in a more detailed discussion on certain subjects. It seems to me that this would encourage the development of teaching gifts, aid in the study of scripture, and promote inter fellowship involvement within the network of churches. We haven't really acted on this yet, but it is under consideration. Shalom! Dan Mayhew The Summit Fellowships Portland, Or ______________________________ eof -- Last updated 5/17/96