Church Planting, Missions and House Churches

Collin Hansen, writing for the Gospel Coalition blog, takes a look at (and a few less than subtle shots at) the house church movement: At Home in a House Church. I will say Collin is more even-handed than many people in the conservative camp when it comes to house/simple/organic church groups. It is a tough topic to write about because people in non-traditional settings are found in an enormously broad spectrum, ranging from Brethren style chapels to strict house church groups.

The tone was pretty typical. Sure, the house church looks and acts a lot more like the first century church than the traditional church but what about the downside?

Sometimes, though, spiritual democracy can veer into anti-intellectualism. If God speaks directly to all of us, then maybe we don’t need any teachers at all. We don’t need to depend on anyone else, so we don’t need to study, either. Further education, such as seminary, supposedly becomes more of a hindrance than a help. Unfortunately, some house churches appeal to Christians who hold these views, too.

We’re all familiar with the dangers of education that privileges scholarly approval over the Word’s clear teaching. But we must also beware the sort of rebellion against authority that forsakes the teaching office altogether. This privilege and responsibility finds its warrant in the Scriptures themselves. The apostle Paul wrote about elders, “He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it,” (Tit. 1:9). Again in Titus 2:1 he writes, “But as for you, teach what accords with sound doctrine.” And in Titus 2:15: “Declare these things; exhort and rebuke with all authority. Let no one disregard you.”

At their best, house churches recall the dynamic fellowship of the early church, exemplified in Acts 2:42-27. Let us not forget, then, that Luke’s beautiful description begins with believers devoting themselves to the apostles’ authoritative teaching.

As if traditional churches are bastions of orthodoxy and community and servant-leaders. It is a common charge, and a false one by and large, that people who eschew the traditional, institutional church are: anti-intellectual, anti-authority, anti-church. Perhaps the real issue is that we are: anti-prideful intellectualism, anti-hierarchy and anti-religiosity.

This comment from one reader really struck me:

America is actually behind the curve on this issue, since Africa, Asia, China and Eastern Europe are seeing an explosion in house churches. As I read just yesterday from a missionary in Ukraine — “In this part of the world, many Christian leaders are realizing that their countries will never be reached if starting churches requires buildings, professionally run programs, and full-time pastors.”

Are we able to see missions work outside of the idea of creating church institutions? I often hear prayers offered that building and zoning commissions will permit the construction of a church building in some far away land. Is that what we should be praying for? At the risk of being inflammatory, are we more concerned with replicating American church culture than we are with spreading the Gospel? Is that perhaps because we don’t see the difference between the America church culture and the Gospel?

In many countries, the church simply never will look like the church in America and that is not only OK, I think it is a good thing. In many ways I firmly believe that the American church culture has been a great hindrance to the Gospel witness instead of a major force for spreading the Word.

House churches scare the heck out of defenders of traditional Christianity and frankly they should. By and large, the people I know who are “house church” or simple church or organic church, whatever name you use, types tend to be far more engaged and committed than the rank-and-file weekly attenders at traditional churches. That doesn’t mean there are not highly committed Christians in traditional churches, there certainly are lots of them. It does seem though that a marginal believer (i.e. an unbelieving cultural Christian) is far more likely to show up at an anonymous church service than they are to meet in a group of 10-15 where you can’t hide for an hour and then feel good about yourself the rest of the week. With numbers approaching 10% of Christians meeting in house/simple church groups and shrinking numbers of people attending traditional services, I think you are starting to see people getting panicky about the future.

As fewer and fewer people attend traditional churches and more committed believers gather in simpler gatherings, the need for the infrastructure of traditional churches with all of the attendant expenses goes away. The need for seminaries (and seminary professors!), church buildings, church pension boards, professional ministers, etc. starts to fade and that means that some people are going to be left holding the bag.

Like it or not, the simple/house church “movement” is not going away and is likely to be a far more common expression in the future than it is today. Clucking about anti-intellectualism and anti-authoritarianism is not going to stop the tide. It would be nice if the intellectual heavyweights of the church would engage this growing movement instead of scrambling to hang on to the status quo.