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.
July 8, 2006 at 3:36 am
I’ve never been part of a house church but I will be attending one for the first time this weekend.
Right now, I don’t see a lot of positives in the traditional church. First it’s losing ground fast in our culture.
As for clergy. I’m all for the five fold ministry – Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors and Teachers. The traditional church is out of balance with maybe pastors and teachers – pretty much zero on the other elements. Pastors are to be one part of the team -not the whole thing – so frankly the whole clergy thing is way out of whack too. I find it interesting that some pastors want to keep “prophets” out of their churches because they may be “false” and give a wrong word and yet these same pastors get up and give a Sunday sermon using the scriptures that is completely out of context. I speak as someone who is not called to any of those ministries, but desires to see all of those ministries in operation in the church.
Most traditional churches are not connected. People come in – do their Sunday thing and leave. There are exceptions – but I suspect for well over fifty percent of the church – that’s the rule.
Most traditional churches are not missional. They spend way too much money on the building fund, the light bills and sometimes top heavy staff and way to little on helping the poor and hurting in their communities.
I once thought traditional churches, especially the mega churches could serve as a real resource to the rest of the churches in their community. In most cases -they don’t. It’s all about them. I’ve been a long time member of two mega churches in the past.
For some, maybe the traditional church model is useful. I have a friend, who can’t imagine his life without it. But as for me, I’m willing to try something new. Afterall, there may have been problems, but the house church did work in the early church.
July 8, 2006 at 1:59 pm
John,
Thanks for joining the conversation.
I think that you are right. Many Churches, especially modern and mega churches, are very out of balance. I recently heard of church in DC, that had dwindled in size so they were using part of their sizable endowment to do 27 Million dollars worth of work to thier church building in hopes of revitalizing their church. Hearing that made me ill. You could plant a thousand churches with that money. So yes, you are right too many churches are too focused on buildings, pay staff too much for the job they actually do, and focus on the wrong things.
Megachurches are no better than small churches when it comes to these issues. But, the early church did not exist solely as small house churches. After all, the early church grew at incredible rates. For them a house church may have been hundreds of people. And in Acts 2 it says they still gathered together in a large group to worship and teach and get together. I love the idea of house churches, but they need to be connected to something else.
I also agree that there are more than two roles in the church. The prophetic gift is largely ignored in the church and often churches expect clergy to have all of these gifts. But, in a house church, a group of say 30 people, what are the chances of finding people with each of these gifts? If you don’t have anyone with the gift of teaching or shepherding in that group, what will happen to that church?
I would love to hear more about the church you are checking out. I think it is awesome people are hungry for the church to feel like the church and they are doing whatever it takes to seek that out. I would love to hear about house churches that have successfully navigated some of these tough questions.
Blessings-
Greg
July 8, 2006 at 3:20 pm
I have “future space” in the attic. I am thinking…
July 8, 2006 at 5:28 pm
Greg:
Yes, house churches are the church of the future, but so are traditional and mega-churches. People who believe that house churches are a solution to a broken system don’t realize just how consumeristic we are as Americans.
House churches are one of the many types of churches that Americans have and will consume. Some are so frustrated with their Pepsi church that they move to a mega-church called Coke. Some are so frustrated with bigger churches that they move to a little house church called 7-up. But to say that one church is better than the other is mostly a matter of taste.
I have yet to hear of a revolutionary new type of growth that Christians are experiencing in house churches. It sounds to me like what I have always experienced by being a part of a small group.
If you believe that your house church is light years better than any small group you have ever been a part of, then I would suggest you have been in less than optimal small groups.
July 9, 2006 at 7:04 pm
If there is a house church called Fudge Rounds I am totally there!
July 11, 2006 at 12:05 pm
I’ve been very intrigued by the idea of a house church or intentional community for a couple years now. It is hard for people in traditional churches to understand that being a part of a church community must extend outside of Sunday morning, or if they do see it extending outside of Sunday morning it rarely extends into their own homes and into their entire lives in a spiritual way. When I picture a group of Christians who “share all things in common” I don’t necessarily see a house church, but I definitely don’t see the traditional church either. I think that the culture of church must change so that people are willing to shape their lives around Church. I get excited when I hear people are moving so they can be closer to their church. I think that if more people in the church open their doors and make their homes extensions of the church building we will start to see the results we are seeking from house churches taking place in our ‘traditional’ churches without loosing tradition, accountability, trained well-formed clerical leadership, and the power in numbers to make real changes in the world. I have been shocked recently by the amount of people who were surprised to hear that I was having the youth over to my house twice a week. People asked, “Don’t you feel like your space is being invaded?” If we are worried about things like our space being invaded, our homes being messed up, people judging us for our curtains not matching our carpet, or just not wanting the burden of others in our lives then we are not being properly formed in our Sunday morning routine. There’s a phrase bouncing around the church office in the last two weeks. “Radical hospitality.” I think that sums up what the church should be about both in the building proper and in the homes of those who attend. If we focus on practicing radical hospitality, we will see community, outreach, service, and spiritual formation springing up all around the church.
July 12, 2006 at 12:36 pm
I’m with Shay. I love having people in my home. Last week I heard beautiful words in my kitchen from the mouth of a pastor’s wife. She said, “I love the church. If it weren’t for the church we wouldn’t all be here together.” Amen. Come and visit me and my dust just be sure you are willing to walk carefully to avoid tripping over legos.
July 15, 2006 at 3:57 pm
Here by way of the Subversive Influence blog. Great post.
You commented: But, in a house church, a group of say 30 people, what are the chances of finding people with each of these gifts? If you don’t have anyone with the gift of teaching or shepherding in that group, what will happen to that church?
This is where I think we have to understand Who it really is Who builds the church. We must, must trust that if something is the work of God, He will gift through the Holy Spirit as needed.
I have recently done some thinking and observation in this area (having left the institutional church 2 1/2 years ago to pursue house church — or “simple” church), and I have thought that perhaps we have even misunderstood giftings as something that occurs for a lifetime. I have observed in my own life, though, and in some experiences in simple church gatherings that gifts surfaced at different times in different people depending on the needs of the moment.
So, while I understand the question you are asking, I think the answer is to allow the Holy Spirit to move, and the gifts needed will be there.
Also, in the original post, you wrote: The early church had small house churches and Paul worked hard to constantly correct their bad theology.
I think that this unnecessarily points a finger at the house church model as being problematic doctrinally. It seems to me that we have quite a bit of bad theology floating around in the institution!
Thanks for an insightful post. I may have to start reading this blog, now that Brother Maynard pointed it out.
God bless.
steve
July 15, 2006 at 7:41 pm
Steve,
Thanks so much for coming over and joining in the conversation. I think that you are really right in that the Spirit moves where it moves and does what it does. The Spirit does gift people for a season to meet a need. I have been thinking of the house churches that have been growing exponentially in China. Here the institutional church is literally not an option, but it is thriving and growing. I had a law student I was discipling who became a believer while teaching English in China. His stories of the church there had such demonstration of the power of the Holy Spirit at work.
You are right, bad theology exists everywhere, which is why I would argue the church went for the most organized and powerful structure they knew, The Roman Empire, and organized themselves accordingly. Of course the downside of this institutionalism was that we ended up with an Emperor (The Pope). Each church, no matter the size, needs to closely guard its teaching and its leaders.
Anyways, thanks so much for stopping by and please consider yourself welcome.
Blessings-
Greg
July 17, 2006 at 12:46 am
I’m another one that got to your blog in a round-a-bout way. Very interesting to come across a Nazarene talking about this stuff. I come from multiple generations of Nazarene pastors. Got involved with a seeker church plant through most of the nineties then got spit out and found myself doing house church. After 5 yrs of doing this I can say my views have evolved quite a bit. The impetus for starting was a two-fold commitment: we’re not going to throw away these relationships and we’re not going to do what we were doing previously. The first few years were very much about deconstructing and detoxing, needless to say ‘outreach’ was not a priority (though we probably were much more sincere about reaching out and definitely had more time). To make a long story short, two values I emphasize now are smallness and simplicity. As it turns out, church works pretty well out of a house but that’s not the main thing about us. And while I think there is room for all sorts of churches it is terribly important that churches shift the focus of their ministry from being event based. Also, all of the downsides you list about house church can be dealt with. They are not inevitable or unavoidable problems. Feel free to email if you want to dialogue a bit more.