Comments on: Suburban Spirituality: Church Before Family

By: sophia

sophia — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 20:53:01 +0000

I disagree strongly. As more and more families break down, you want to add more pressure to this God given unit, as the world de values family and marriage you ask it to take a back seat also. What was Gods original design for family, it came first before he built his church, church is modelled from family, not the other way around. Look at the fruit it produces, putting church activities programs and ministries first, produces burnt out families. Why not build a strong christ centred family from which we have the platform to love and draw others into christ’s family! Not drawing them into sitting in rows or pews. When we have a strong family unit we are free to be involved second in ministry.

By: Rhett Smith

Rhett Smith — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:10:48 +0000

Bob,

I’m trying to remember that part in the book, but I believe he does.

I appreciate your assessment on the topic, and I will definitely have to check out House Church and Mission by Roger Gehring as you have suggested. It’s a fascinating topic for sure.

I think Clapp does a great job of handling the topic though.

Rhett
Rhett Smith´s last blog ..So You Have a Lot of “Friends” Online…Now What?

By: Bob Condly

Bob Condly — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 03:50:44 +0000

Does Clapp acknowledge anywhere in his book that for the early Christians, many (if not most) congregations were nearly synonymous with families? Churches which met in homes were necessarily small in size (anywhere from a few people upwards to 50 or more for some large homes) and the residents of each home would likely form the core or even the bulk of the assembly.

Furthermore, many households throughout the Roman Empire contained more than what we refer to as the “nuclear family.” They would also include relatives and servants. This is why passages in Ephesians 5-6 and Colossians 3-4 deal with parents, children, and servants. Paul was attempting to inform entire households about proper Christian attitudes and behaviors.

Finally, the leadership requirements outlined in 1 Timothy 3 strike me as being oriented around household relationships and responsibilities. This makes sense because in Paul’s mind, the church is God’s household (see verse 15).

For a thorough scholarly study of house churches, I’d recommend House Church and Mission by Roger Gehring. I don’t pretend that it’s a fast read, but it’s stuffed with good information about the role houses played in the spread of the gospel of Jesus Christ and the building up of His church.

By: rhettsmith

rhettsmith — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 02:24:04 +0000

Steve,

Well said…a lot of what Clapp is talking about is American evangelicalism and the worship of the family, over God. He is talking about the need to replace our priorities..not abandon our family of course. But not worship them either like much of the Western Church culture has done.

By: rhettsmith

rhettsmith — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 02:22:53 +0000

Agree…Clapp is talking more about that. His words are probably more controversial than what he means. But reading the whole book helps.

By: rhettsmith

rhettsmith — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 02:22:06 +0000

Rodlie,

I hear what you are saying. I'm a pastor too, and the son of a pastor. I think I probably didn't do Clapp justice. Clapp isn't suggesting that we abandon our families. But I think what he is suggesting is that in our culture we have made family first, prior to God. He doesn't suggest that it's okay for a pastor to be out all the time…never at home with the family, etc. I agree..nothing is more disgraceful to me than a pastor who sacrifices his family on the altar of his/her ministry.

By: rhettsmith

rhettsmith — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 02:20:11 +0000

Adam,

No worries…great thoughts. I don't even know where to begin. And I love that you have two masters, but are a nanny, and enjoy what you are doing. Many people have masters and hate what they are doing. I've done all kinds of odd jobs with my masters degrees before I settled into some stuff.

By: Steve

Steve — Wed, 20 May 2009 14:05:34 +0000

Peter calls the church “a people for God’s own possession” – a family (1 Pet. 2:9).

Jesus likewise redefined who his family was: those who do his Father’s will (Matt. 12:47-50). Yet he also criticized those who would ignore their obligations to their biological family for the sake of the religious institution (Mark 7:11).

For a Christian who desires to follow the “one another” commands for the church (e.g., love one another, etc.), the members of our own households are the place to start.

Having said that, I think that in the American evangelical church many have come to believe that the church exists to serve the family, preserve our marriages, etc. However, in the ages to come, it will be the church that endures, not the biological family.

By: Adam S

Adam S — Tue, 19 May 2009 22:18:58 +0000

I think there is something different between the church being the most important institution and ignoring your family. Ignoring your family is sin in my mind. But saying the church is more important as an institution, says that God ranks above all other things.

By: Rodlie Ortiz

Rodlie Ortiz — Tue, 19 May 2009 00:51:35 +0000

Yeah, can’t say that I agree with Clapp’s assessment there. What honor would it bring God if, for the sake of church, my family is lost? In the NT, we find the principle that the apostles were to reach Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and from there the ends of the world. In other words, reaching from what’s immediately closest to them and going outward from there. If you look at children of many, many pastors, many of them are lost and angry at the church. Why? Because the church stole their dad. As a pastor myself, now, I have vowed that such will not be the case for me. I think the best lesson I can give my son (and my churches) is to love and care for my family in a godly way, giving them a glimpse and picture of what the Father is actually like.