Friday, July 30, 2010

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.

9 comments:

Aussie John said...

Arthur,

Another top article! His defensive stance is becoming more and more common amongst those who simply don't have answers for those who are tired of playing church.

I'm reminded that swelled heads often contain little wisdom.

Steve Scott said...

From the link: "But there is another reason Christians turn to house churches. Evangelicals don’t always have a comfortable relationship with human authority."

Actually, I don't disagree with this statement at all. Maybe it is because in many of the cases the "human authority" isn't quite biblical, or maybe it is too authoritative, as in authoritarian.

Anonymous said...

We have been doing a LOT of researching and praying lately, and the house/simple/organic/whatever church model is really starting to make some sense to us. I try not to judge too harshly those who think it's crazy, because it was not too long ago that I would have thought it was crazy. I just don't think it has occurred to most people to think outside the American Christianity box--not because they're stupid, but because it is so reinforced as biblical that we read our own cultural biases into the scriptures. Plus, those seminary-trained guys tell us this is what's right, so surely it's right, right? (She says with tongue firmly planted in cheek.) And I don't take issue with someone who disagrees with it, as long as their argument is based off scripture, and not, "I think that..."

What bothers me is when people attack the house church "movement" with arguments that are rooted in their own logic, and not in scripture. "There is a way that seems right to a man..." Sure, on some level, the whole seminary trained leader thing makes sense. Except that it's not biblically supported. At all. Just because it's not in there doesn't mean it's automatically bad, but you just can't with any integrity place a standard on the church like that that isn't called for in scripture. Not to mention that it takes us back to one of the problems in Corinth. We've fixed the issue of the Lord's Supper by reducing it to a cracker and a shot of grape juice. Certainly nobody is eating too much or getting drunk while their poor brothers go hungry anymore! Now we've moved the problem to the seminary. Only the wealthy ones can afford to attend seminary (or to pay off the tremendous debt after graduation), so they are the only ones leading. Apparently, poverty disqualifies one from edifying the body.

I just finished "Reimagining Church" by Frank Viola. I don't agree with everything he has to say, but he had some really interesting information on the "offices" within the church. Basically that they are functions, not specific offices. I won't get into it too much now--I've already taken over your comment thread. But as of right now, I don't at all believe in the clergy/laity distinction, and I think it has done great, great disservice to the body.

Arthur Sido said...

April, i think you have the beginnings of a blog post there! I would be very interested in your thoughts on Pagan Christianity BTW. Perhaps a book review on your blog?

Eric Holcombe said...

"Let us not forget, then, that Luke’s beautiful description begins with believers devoting themselves to the apostles’ authoritative teaching."

Yes, and in Acts 4 the "scholarly" called some of those apostles "unlearned and ignorant" but took knowledge that they had been with Jesus. Should we study the teaching of the apostles or the scholarly?

Let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon the foundation of Jesus Christ - the very cornerstone.

Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are. Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain. Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours;

Anonymous said...

Arthur, I'm afraid to! My super-Lutheran brother-in-law and uncle-in-law (who is actually a Lutheran minister) read my blog. We're already not exactly looking forward to how they'll react if we leave our current church. Not that we're letting it influence our decision--we just really, really don't look forward to dealing with that part of it. But I may feel safe to share more if/when things actually start to happen in that situation.

Arthur Sido said...

A Super-Lutheran?! Does he have a giant "L" emblazoned on his suit?

You are of course welcome to put your thoughts here. Heck, if you are welcome to put up a guest post here if you would like.

Anonymous said...

You know, I would not be surprised to find an "L" emblazoned on his chest. I often joke that my in-laws consider Luther to be the fourth person of the trinity. :)

Mark said...

April,

I think your post would be a good one.

I agree that most Christians aren't stupid, just ignorant. There is definitely a cultural bias, that results in scripture being read to seemingly support the status quo. the big picture is missed, however. I also love the point about "offices". The KJV introduces a word in certain passages that isn't even in the original greek. If you've never read the history of the King James Version, it makes a great read. i have a book, somewhere, that was excellent, but I'll have to pull it out. it gives great history on the reformation, the english language, and on why the KJV uses some of the language it does. Suffice it to say it was intentional, to support the status quo in the Church of England, and keep the people enslaved. I'll await your post, April, and I'll keep your situation in my prayers.