Are House Churches the Future of the Church?

There is a growing trend in the church, both here in America, and around the world, to live in community with small house churches rather than being part of an traditional church. In reading about these home churches this movement or trend seems to be driven by a couple of desires or needs.

 First, people are desperate for community. In these small house churches they are finding the relationships they long for. Able to share their lives, their hopes and fears with a committed group of Christians for the first time, perhaps, these churches must feel like an entirely new reality of church. That is a desire I can understand, and a pretty strong motivation to leave traditional church if you are unable to find that type of community in one. Second, people want to participate in worship. They want to experience God and understand their place in the church. Many of them have probably sat in a pew most of their lives and never had the chance to use their gifts or explore their calling as a priesthood of believers. Third, a lot of people have been hurt by the church. They have felt rejected, unwelcome, ignored, abused or forgotten by the church. Many of us who work in the church as clergy, especially, have suffered at the hands of the church. Our hopes, dreams, visions, and calling have been crushed under a seemingly insurmountable flood of human brokenness and sin.

So, are these house churches the hope of the church? Should we too be abandoning our denominations, traditional ideas of church, clergy led worship, and institutional structures to find a church in a home? Before we can make that pronouncement we must consider the positives and negatives of such a decision. On the positive side, these small congregations can more easily develop the level of community that we see displayed in Acts 2. They can invest into one another’s lives and in that investment grow deeper in their faith through encouragement, accountability, and support. Another positive is that this is the most cost effective means of planting churches. The overhead is extremely low and you can start a house church easily and simply. Another positive is that those who are intimidated by joining a church or are disinterested in “organized religion” may more easily find a place to explore their faith in these house churches.

On the negative side it is very difficult to balance seeking the lost with maintaining community when you have to limit the size of your church. House churches are intentionally small communities. When they reach a certain size they must decide if they will close their doors to more people or plant a new church or outgrow their original design. House churches, if they follow their traditional pattern and are non-denominational, will struggle with accountability. The early church had small house churches and Paul worked hard to constantly correct their bad theology. There can be a loss of the intentional connectionality that should define the church in these small house churches. Further, clergy aren’t such a bad thing are they? I think that there is an over reliance on clergy in some traditions, but the tradition of helping people discern a calling to a role as an elder or deacon, training them to fulfill this call, and overseeing their fulfillment of this call seems reasonable. There is a reason there is a process for becoming a clergy member. It is a difficult calling and not for the faint of heart.

It is hard to imagine house churches are the future of the church, if they are birthed and exist outside of any denominational or connection structures. I think many people who are drawn to this type of church structure are running away from the brokenness of their past church experience. A desire for a church that is easy to get started, manageable and lay driven is understandable, but we lose too much if we abandon connectivity all together.

This is a huge issue, and I can’t fully address it in this format. But, I think the existing church can learn a lot from these house churches. We need more community, smaller church structures within the bigger church, and more lay involvement in leadership and worship. But, I think we can achieve everything these house churches can achieve without sacrificing connectivity, the experience and legacy of denominations, and the role of clergy. I would love to hear any thoughts you might have on this idea as well.