How to Meet in Homes

This is the best book on this subject I've read so far.

"How to Meet in Homes" is mis-titled. It should read: "Why to Meet in Homes". Edwards spends very little time talking about the "how" but a great deal of time and passion talking about the "why".The modern Protestent church with its rituals and traditions is a legacy of, mostly, John Calvin. The strict protocols and meeting format he intituted for "the church" 500 years ago remain essentially unchanged today. And Edwards argues it has caused the church experience to be incredibly boring, irrelevant to real worship and service, and in general, a mortifying experience.The proper conduct of the "Church" can best be found, he says, in the new testatment and in the first century when believers and church planters met in homes and shared their faith, their lives, and a risen Christ. Not in lomg rows of pews facing the stage and central actor (professional clergy) watching the show.He traces the growth of the early church through Philippi, Corinth, and Ephesus drawing a pattern of success for today's believers.Interesting, since Edwards wrote this book, 20 million Christians (according to George Barna) have foresaken the boredom of church in America for home churches, outside ministry, and small groups outside of establisheddenominations.

This book has had a huge impact on my life...I definately reccomend it to anyone who is interested in going back to Acts style churches.

The things that most struck me was the book was more "attacking" than setting up positive models. I found the language to be quite inflammatory and harsh. This made it very unpleasant to read.For a much better book on house-churches, try "Houses that change the world" by Wolfgang Simson.

I love this book and the refreshingly honest way Gene Edwards writes. It has stirred a passion within me to plant home churches.

I bought this book from Seed Sowers cause I believe in house churches and the title seemed good. In actuality it is only half a book. For this Id give it 5 stars and if youre new to the idea it would be great for you. He spends almost all the time showing why what we do is wrong. I agree with that but only the last chapter-et talks about what to do but no details really. The one detail he gives is that it probably wont work. I agree with that too but no other details just generalized statements reiterated from the rest of the book. I just finished the book and perhaps I feel stung by $10.00 for half a book so with time I might not be so harsh. Thanks for the suggestion above re Houses that change the world" by Wolfgang Simson.

If you are interested in starting a house church, this is worth reading, but is definitely not as advertised, ie. how to start a house church. Gene does an excellent job of demolishing institutionalized Christian church service patterns. If you don't believe in house churches, you will at least clearly understand the necessity of an alternative to 'churchianity' after you read this book. He also does a good job of tracing the roots of how early churches were planted by Paul. But although he thoroughly destroys any shred of credibility to the myth that modern church services are scriptural, he doesn't do much in the way putting you on the road to forming an alternative. He does however, make it sound like a viable house church in the US is only likely to be achieved by some sort of miraculous divine intervention.

The author has a lot of interesting things to say, although this is not a well-written book. He far from ignorant, but lacks discipline. He asserts much, but doesn't argue it, or even so much as cite a verse, so the reader can check up on him. He repeats a lot, and pounds points into the ground. The whole book has a strident, put-this-in-your-pipe-and-smoke-it tone, which is unnecessary. But again I emphasize, this author has a lot of interesting things to say, and at least he says it without pulling any punches. Most of the author's points can be summarized as follows:1. Traditional Sunday morning church services (of any stripe) are mind-numingly boring, useless, and without any New Testament justification. They are also positively harmful, rendering the many passive observers.2. Congregations must be allowed to find their own manner of meeting, without interference by any leadership.3. (House-) Churches should be planted by itinerant church planters / apostles, who stay for a short time - a few months to no more than a few years, with infrequent visits thereafter. This is the ONLY correct and workable way for an assembly to begin, according to our author. Why? "It is just God's way." (p. 129)4. The standard evangelical church service derives from John Calvin, who was a murderous mini-dictator.5. Everyone there should participate in Christian meetings, which should be spontaneous and of infinite variety.As he says, despite the title, this is in no way a how-to manual, but rather a call for revolution. Better title: Institutional Church Services Suck, and There's Something Better for Christians to Do. Bizarrely, after all the ranting, a few sparse pages of practical adivce are given, and then at the very end of the book, the reader is instructed to order one of the author's audio tapes.This is a decent book, I think, for people coming from a traditional church background, who are starting to think about the possibility of being in an autonomous house church. It is an easy read. Those looking for something more systematic or practical should look elsewhere.

My most read author of the last two decades..always fresh revelation...an awesome author whom I have come to love and honor...still we have to use discernment, and weigh things with scripture. However as an ex missionary and church planter I feel that some areas of the argument of "church planters" "apostles" is far from honest and complete...the exegesis being somewhat questionable, therefore the conclusions off kilter. If our view of the gifted men and women the risen Christ gave to the churches in Ephesians, compared to their practices in Acts as they worked out on the ground, is too ridged or narrow or colored by our denominational exposure or even seen through the lens of our particular interpretation of the ministry gifts, we can all fall foul and so fall into the same trap claiming our authenticity, new elitism and be found reproducing yet another superimposed man made model. I would guess that many would be "church planters" would be following the man and duplicating his model, rather than following the Holy Spirit, and the call of God, therefore coming up short in terms of expression of authentic church expressions... Forgive me a personal observation of doing it for more than four decades...still just a servant, not a critic...the unfinished task still unfinished...we desperately need these ministry gifts functioning and cooperating with "the Lord of the harvest," who said "I will build my church"