OPEN OR CLOSED? =============== To: hcdl@shore.net From: BSteinma@sisna.com (Barry Steinman) Subject: Closed vs. Open Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 16:41:00 -0600 I thought I might start a new thread. I haven't contributed much lately. So I'll throw this one out there. My wife (Penny & I) have been attending a new house church this year. The group we were meeting with dwindled down to 3 couples. One couple is moving away later this year. The other couple, when questioned did not seem committed enough to house church to keep it going just with them. The new group had some people we were well aquainted with and felt good about. AFter attending for awhile I became aware that the group was very closed. When I brought up inviting certain individuals to come with me, some members of the group seemed very uncomfortable. In one case it was due to personal history with a certain person. I was uncomfortable with that and committed it to much prayer. Last night we had a very in depth discussion on the issue. I said I was uncomfortable being in a group that was not open to accept new people. The groups position was they really liked the intimacy and safe place they had. They felt they might lose the level of reality and sharing they had reached if they were too free with who would come. I said, I felt you cannot protect things that way. Plus if people don't like what house church is about, they won't keep coming back. The issue in a nutshell. They feel they need to be protective and "screen" who is allowed to come, to protect the group. I think (though I can appreciate their concerns) that the motivation is basically fear. I think overprotection such as that instead of protecting the group, may ultimately destroy it. I must say the discussion was very open and real. I think that is a sign of health. Also the admission was made that they know they do have to be more open some day. The group has been together for 17 months. My concern is they may already be too ingrown, and that screening people too much may cause it to be more ingrown as the months go by, and that if the group gets too ingrown, it may well be impossible for any newcomers to break into the group. I have been uncomfortable being a part of a closed group, as it is contrary to how I feel about God, and Christ and the Church. I love the fellowship, but am greived in my spirit on this issue. I know if I stay, I will be an influence to open it up, and I was honest with everyone that I did not want to be a divisive or disruptive influence. They all said they wanted me to stay, and they know it is an issue they need to deal with. Before I came, it had come up from time to time as well. At this point, my wife is no longer attending the group, due to some similair concerns, however, next week we are hosting it at our house and she has agreed to attend. I suppose this sounds like I am asking for advice. Maybe so, probably asking for your prayers as well. I have decided at this point to take it week to week. I love these people and will maintain relationship with them no matter what decision I make. But Penny & I are also praying if we should help start up a new house church. I would also like to hear what other experiences or thoughts others have had on this open verses closed issue. My main concern is that this is the main accusation that is made against house churches, is that they are too ingrown. I would like to think that House Church is such a natural normal way to fellowship that people would be naturally attracted to it and would visit and fall in love with it. But then the group seems to be afraid of growth. "We love each other too much, we don't want to split up & etc.!" Well I wait to see if anyone has any input on this. Barry Steinman Barry Steinman BSTeinma@sisna.com P.O. Box 4201 Carlsbad, CA 92018-4201 619-722-6180 Discount Christian Software & Books http://www.sandiego.sisna.com/BSteinma 1-800-321-7713 ******************** Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 20:14:33 -0400 (EDT) From: "Joann M. Hnat" To: hcdl@shore.net Subject: Closed vs. Open Barry recently wrote about closed vs. open meetings. In our experience at SCC, we have found openness to be one of the defining features of home church, as opposed to a cell group or fellowship group or whatever. And we have learned that whenever groups have come to a place where the members are so comfortable with one another that they just couldn't imagine splitting (or budding, or whatever else you want to call it), that usually indicates that there's a problem. One of the most wonderful by-products of the face-to-face worship that house churchers engage in with one another is some level of intimacy. This is *wonderful*, and it, in its turn, can promote greater levels of sharing and caring and accountability amongst the members of the group. However, it's a two-edged sword, and it can also promote self-protection and unwillingness to stretch oneself beyond the boundaries of what is comfortable. When SCC was one big church, and had cell groups within the church, we always had problems when new members wanted to join a cell group. "Well, of course we'd love to have a new member, but really, we're at a place right now where things have really clicked, and we're making such progress, and we're really able to share openly with one another during our meetings, and besides, we're pretty large as it is, and I don't know how a new member or two would affect the group dynamic, and we're pretty tight with one another, and maybe he/she/they would be more comfortable somewhere else." IMO, if we are going to call ourselves "the church", this is not acceptable. The church is open. The church welcomes new people, even if it's clear that their presence is going to cause problems, either logistically or personality-wise. Even if it means that when the new people join, the church will be so big it will need to consider splitting. Because we meet in homes, I *do* think it is appropriate for people to have to decide ahead of time whether they'll be coming. An extra few people can make a difference in whether the group is able to physically meet in a particular home, and in how much food is needed for the meal. But I think that this can be accomplished easily, simply by saying something along the lines of, "We're meeting at the MacLeods' at 10:00 on Sunday morning. We'll need to know no later than Saturday at 6:00 if you'll be coming." .. Joann ******************** From: OIKOSKIRK@aol.com Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 12:38:09 -0400 To: hcdl@shore.net Subject: Re: Closed vs. Open Hello all, Thanks for the thread Barry, " I LOVE YOU MAN ", and you can always have my light (Jesus that is). Well, here is one thing that our fellowship is in unanimous agreement on: We must be open, the Lord gives us no other option. To us the words "whosoever will" gives us no alibi to close our gatherings. If anyone here feels that they have a matter of excessive intimacy to discuss, they realize that there are 6 days and about 21 hours of the week left that they can call or gather with the sisters and/or brothers that are involved. I think that having closed meetings can tend to elevate the meeting to a place of honor, saftey, reverance or whatever. And this high view of the "meeting" can distract and eat at the totality of our shared lives together. This has just been our experience and take on the matter. Love, Chris ******************** To: hcdl@shore.net From: BSteinma@sisna.com (Barry Steinman) Subject: Open vs. Closed Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 16:23:43 -0600 A few days ago I posted concerning the experience I am having in a house church that wants to protect itself and keep the doors closed. People are only allowed to visit if screened and everyone feels good. Joanne & Chris thanks for the response back. I was hoping to print out these posts and give them to members of the group so they could get a wider perspective. Help them realize they are not the only ones on the planet to have experienced intimacy in a house church environment, that it is normal but totally wrong to try and protect it by closing the doors. If anyone else could post their thoughts, it might help open some pretty closed hearts and eyes. Please Help! Barry Steinman BSTeinma@sisna.com P.O. Box 4201 Carlsbad, CA 92018-4201 619-722-6180 Discount Christian Software & Books http://www.sandiego.sisna.com/BSteinma 1-800-321-7713 ******************** From: stdkrm01@SHSU.edu Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 18:50:38 CDT To: hcdl@shore.net Subject: RE: Open vs. Closed To Barry: Our group has been meeting for over 3 years and is, for the most part, closed. By that I mean there are 5 families who meet regularly. From time to time we get visitors, but not always. We have discussed whether or not we should open it up to other people and some of us are afraid of losing the intimacy. At the present time it is still the five families. We have not advertised or told anyone to come join us. It just has not happened. Hope this helps. BTW, a Sunday worship service has evolved from the various cell and home groups in our area. Unfortunately it has become more like the standard church service but it is still changing. It is called Vineyard and wants to eventually join up with the bigger Vineyard organization. That's why I wanted to get as much info on Vineyard (pro and con) as I could. Ken ******************** Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 06:07:17 -0600 From: "W. John Kolb" To: hcdl@shore.net Subject: Re: Open vs. Closed To Barry Stienman Barry Steinman wrote: > > A few days ago I posted concerning the experience I am having in a house > church that wants to protect itself and keep the doors closed. People are > only allowed to visit if screened and everyone feels good. Joanne & Chris > thanks for the response back. > > I was hoping to print out these posts and give them to members of the group > so they could get a wider perspective. Help them realize they are not the > only ones on the planet to have experienced intimacy in a house church > environment, that it is normal but totally wrong to try and protect it by > closing the doors. > > If anyone else could post their thoughts, it might help open some pretty > closed hearts and eyes. > > Please Help! > > Barry Steinman > BSTeinma@sisna.com > P.O. Box 4201 > Carlsbad, CA 92018-4201 > 619-722-6180 > > Discount Christian Software & Books > http://www.sandiego.sisna.com/BSteinma > 1-800-321-7713 To Barry I can see the desire for closed meetings ,close knitt bonds are developed and new comers seem like intruders . Yet I have a bit of news that may open your eyes from experience of hundreds of other groups *** Closed Groups Die *** They go through a cycle of about 2 years the end of which is death . But if they divide and grow people keep growing with it, all of them . The cycle is stopped , some still die , the one that don't grow. So It all depends on the purpose of your group . The original vision of the group and the leading of the spirit. Amoungst you all. Suprised John P.S. I got this info from our small group leaders at new life christian center they have about 125 small groups They got the info from there sister church with about 300 cell churches ******************** From: FViola3891@aol.com Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 20:38:52 -0400 To: hcdl@shore.net Subject: Re: Closed vs. Open Hi Barry: In a recent post, you wrote: >The new group had some people we were well aquainted with and felt good >about. AFter attending for awhile I became aware that the group was very >closed. When I brought up inviting certain individuals to come with me, >some members of the group seemed very uncomfortable. In one case it was due >to personal history with a certain person. I was uncomfortable with that >and committed it to much prayer. Last night we had a very in depth >discussion on the issue. I said I was uncomfortable being in a group that >was not open to accept new people. The groups position was they really >liked the intimacy and safe place they had. They felt they might lose the >level of reality and sharing they had reached if they were too free with >who would come. I said, I felt you cannot protect things that way. Plus if >people don't like what house church is about, they won't keep coming back. Thanks for sharing your situation with us all. I believe that the present group needs to realize that they have been embracing the sin of sectarianism. According to the New Testament, the church is the Body of Christ. This means that all who are in the Body are part of the church. Accordingly, anytime a group of people narrows the scope of the Body and excludes other believers from meeting with them, they have departed from the Biblical basis for a church and have become a sect. Christ is the Head of the church, but He is not the Head of a sect. Hence, the brethren you are meeting with need to see that they have drawn a line around themselves that is smaller than the Body. In effect, their exclusiveness is a grief to the Lord's heart. They must, then, be exhorted to repent of their sectarianism and receive all whom God has received. According to the New Testament, if one is a member of the Body of Christ, possessing the life of Christ, we must receive him, no matter how deficient in light, overzealous, or immature he may be. Hence, it is a gross inconsistency to call an individual a brother, and yet at the same time refuse fellowship with him in one's assembly on the basis of a doctrinal difference, a difference in worship style, a racial difference, or a personality difference. As the Scripture plainly teaches, if God receives a person, then we must also receive him (see Romans 14:3,15:7). The only Biblical ground for closing the door of fellowship to another believer is if he is walking in unrepentant sin (1 Cor. 5), and that, only after the church has gone through the Biblical steps for excommunication (Mt. 18). Closing the door to another brothren because their comfort zones may be threatened is unBiblical and the core reason why sectarianism abounds. If, therefore, the fellowship does not repent, the Lord will no doubt remove His lampstand from them (if He hasn't already). Furthermore, you and your wife will no longer be obligated to fellowship with them. While we can never leave the church, we can and should leave the sects. May the Lord give these brethren much grace to see the church and to open their hearts wide open to all of God's people, especially those in their locality. I hope this helps.. Best, -Frank ******************** Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 08:06:12 -0400 From: Hal Miller To: hcdl@shore.net Subject: Re: Closed vs. Open Barry and hcdl, This doesn't add much new; just another voice. Our home church made a conscious choice that if we were thinking of being "church" we had to be "open." Other kinds of groups have a lot more leeway about who they let in and why. Our conclusion was that we either had to be open and accept whomever Jesus called _or_ not call ourselves "church." This choice causes us to face a bunch of issues that groups that can sift their membership don't have to worry about. These issues are no secret; they are the list of reasons why closed groups like themselves that way. Closed groups can deal with "the new" when it's convenient. Closed groups can deal with "the different" within some set limits. And closed groups can have a "quality of relationship" (a friendship of people who both are reasonably alike and are known quantities) that open groups can only attain sporadically. I understand why people like closed groups and why they choose to belong to them. They have a lot to recommend them. But for us, they were not an option. In fact, when our home church set goals for the year last January, one of those goals was to welcome at least one new family. We have no idea where that family will come from or whether we'll particularly "like" them. In our case, that goal was a reflex of trying hard to be "church" rather than some other kind of group. 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*)) ******************** Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 22:27:32 +1000 (EST) To: hcdl@shore.net From: scrisp@pcug.org.au (Stephen Crisp) Subject: open vs closed Dear Barry, I thought I might tell you about Canberra Home Churches' view on open vs closed churches. Basically, our approach is that we should never turn anyone away if they want to join us. This does not mean that every church is open to every person who wants to join but that we will find a place for everyone within the Canberra network of churches. We see this as one of the advantages of a local hc network - that a particular church can be left to get through a difficult time without the complication of new members. The reason that we stay 'open' as a network is that we are aware of the value of 'difficult people' to the church. We believe that we learn more about how to follow Jesus from loving someone that really gets up out nose than we do from the most 'spiritual' bible study. I have know 'lone' home churches, in Australia, who have from time to time denied entry to a person or family, but this is the exception rather than the rule. On one occasion a church was really struggling with more kids under 5 than there were adults. At that time, a lady, with a long history of mental disorder, asked to join the group and was turned down. The church discussed it with some Canberra Home Church people and we all decided that the church probably wouldn't survive if they agreed to let her join. There are 2 other home churches I know of in Australia that are closed. One has a clinically depressed person in it and the other has someone with drug induced immune-deficiency. Both churches feel very protective of these people, but in my opinion, the other members miss out on good things, because of their decision to stay closed. Personally speaking, i don't think I could stand being in a closed group. I would get really bored. To me, 'closed vs open' in home church is like the difference between being in a stagnant pond or part of the big river of the whole Christian church. People coming in and out are bound to refresh the group. regards Jill Crisp _________________________________________________________ Steve Crisp scrisp@pcug.org.au ******************** From hcdl-owner@shore.net Thu May 23 02:14:26 1996 Received: from relay1.shore.net (major@relay1.shore.net [192.233.85.129]) by northshore.shore.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id CAA03570; Thu, 23 May 1996 02:14:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from major@localhost) by relay1.shore.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) id CAA25652 for hcdl-outgoing; Thu, 23 May 1996 02:14:18 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: relay1.shore.net: major set sender to owner-hcdl using -f Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 23:11:47 -0700 X-Sender: BSteinma@mail.sisna.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: hcdl@shore.net From: BSteinma@sisna.com (Barry Steinman) Subject: Open vs. Closed Results Sender: owner-hcdl@shore.net Precedence: bulk Reply-To: hcdl@shore.net Status: O X-Status: I want to thank everyone that responded to my query on this issue. As far as the results of what happened, it is hard to know what to say. 2 weeks ago Penny and I decided to start meeting with another couple on a weekly basis and see if house church developes or what happens. We have known them for several years, and they have been meeting in their home with their family ( 2 teenage daughters) for 2 years. The first meeting went very well. It was refreshing to have teenagers there that particpated and were interested. Our previous experiences were the children under 3 in equal numbers with adults. The other couple was quite excited. Everything we had all prayed about for them happened the next week, a job opening for the husband, and their daughter got asked to the prom by a very upright and gracious young man. In the meantime, I had shared the posts on open vs. closed with the other group. A week later I let them know we were starting another group, but would like to visit from time to time. When I passed out the posts I made it clear that I was not saying I agreed with all of them. Actually there were diverse opinions expressed in some, so no way to agree with them all anyways. I suggested they could read them or toss them or do what they wanted. I never heard back till late last week. It was brought to my attention that I had not included my original post when I passed them out. That was wrong on my part. Someone in the group had a freind retreive it. I read my original post. From what I could see it was a fair presentation of the issue, asking for input. I was not asking for people to judge this group, but to share insight on an issue that commonly occurs amongst small groups. I had forgotten that I had posted a second time. In the second post I found some language I felt I needed to repent for. i.e. "Help them realise they are not the only ones on the planet that has experienced intimacy in a house church environment" and "help open some pretty closed hearts and minds." In retrospect I could see that being too strong. I then printed out the 2 orig posts, and attached a letter apologizing for those 2 statments and stressing I was not asking people to judge them. Though some of the responses could have been taken as judgemental, most were gracious and merely shared others insights and their experiences. Unfortunately, several people seem very offended, and want nothing to do with us. One wrote us and said the only relationship she desired was: "If we see you at the grocery store we will be gracious and say hello." I have made it clear, to those that will return my phone calls, that I think this needs to be worked out and reconciliation come. So that is where we are at. Some feel I put them out as sheep to be chewed up and judged. I don't think that is true. But I can only pray that God brings reconciliation. I suppose I can see how they could feel threatened by people they don't know discussing their situation on line. But most of the responses were not at all judgemental. Maybe we can learn something thru this about discussing situations like these on line. I don't think the discussion was wrong. But it got blown way out of proportion. (Penny) Please join us in prayer with this. This has mushroomed into huge bag of hurt feelings and he said she saids. I, this is Penny writing, can't even begin to know what to say or do after the "I'm sorrys" and the "we didn't mean what you think we meants". This part of house church really sucks!! Barry Steinman 76326.3412@compuserve.com P.O. Box 4201 Carlsbad, CA 92018-4201 619-722-6180 Discount Christian Software & Books http://www.sandiego.sisna.com/BSteinma 1-800-321-7713 ******************** Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 20:01:34 +1000 (EST) To: hcdl@shore.net From: scrisp@pcug.org.au (Stephen Crisp) Subject: Re: Open vs. Closed Results (private reply) Dear Barry and Penny, I was really sad for you when I read the outcome of the open/versus closed discussion with your previous home church. I want to make a reply on hcdl but first I thought I might say a few private things. Firstly, I honestly felt that it was a good idea of yours to ask the list about ideas on open/closed home churches. This is the kind of think that hcdl was set up for IMHO. Such issues can be informative for the person with the request and for everyone else to. Secondly, I wanted to say that I have had a similar problem to yours, in home church. A few years ago I mentioned to a particular home church family, a difficulty that I was having with church. The family took it personally and a huge fight resulted, with a lot of hurt feelings. I agonised for a long time about things I could have said differently (just like you are doing). Then it occurred to me that perhaps the way this family dealt with criticism was to get angry. I could see why they would do this, because they could then concentrate on being cross with me rather than dealing with the original issue. As I thought back, I realised that this was how they had handled lots of other conflicts with other people - so I shouldn't feel that the whole debarcle (sp?) was my fault. This is a round-about way of saying that perhaps you shouldn't feel too responsible for what has happened. I don't know much about this home church but, perhaps the other members would have been angry with you whatever way you broached (sp?) the subject of open/closed meetings. It soulded to me that you were definitely right to bring up the topic. BTW, we left the church where I had the huge fight and went to another one. It is about 3 years later and I am on good terms with the family again. (It is a bit of a miracle really!) I will pray that things get straightened out for you too. regards Jill Crisp _________________________________________________________ Steve Crisp scrisp@pcug.org.au ******************** eof -- last updated 5/28/96