House churches, mission, and the Bible
Scot McKnight pointed out a book I plan to order, House Church and Mission (link to the left), on house churches in the first century. He’s also asking some great questions:
In your judgment, what are the strengths and weaknesses of house churches? Now, let’s think about this from another direction: In what ways are house churches in the 1st Century similar to and dissimilar from small groups today? And, let’s ratchet it up one notch: How are they similar to and dissimilar from your average run-of-the-mill god-fearing local church? Now one more notch: Compare them to mega-churches. Now about this: Do you know about “meta” churches? That is, churches that are conglomerations in a local area of a collection of house churches. One more notch. I’m keen on hearing from you on this one.
Any of you who have been followers of this blog/podcast know I’m a huge proponent of simple churches which do not require most of the budget for a local church to go into property and salary. Of course, the most economical model in that respect is meeting in homes or free public places. I’ve shied away from using “house church,” but I’ve softened a little just because a lot of times it’s just easier to say “house church” than explain why I don’t want the venue for a lot of the meetings to define the church.
So that brings me to my biggest concern with house churches: It’s easy to just make the home into a receptacle for the institutional church. I’ve known of house churches which are barely different from small congregations with a church building. I prefer talking more about “simple church” than “house church.” Talking about “simple church” seems more about the structure of the church and less about the venue for meetings. It’s about getting down to the nitty gritty of what makes a church a church and living that out with all the extra trappings that distract and consume our time and money.
The disadvantage of simple churches is a lack of vast resources. But is this a disadvantage? Actually, with no money going into property and little if any to salary, on a per capita basis at least, house churches or simple churches have much more resources than do even the mega-churches. That’s right, they have more resources than Willow Creek.
I like the term Scot gave in “meta-churches” to describe networked or associated house churches in a region. I’ve always felt that the simple church model required some sort of relationship with other similar churches to really connect the body of Christ in a region. Also, this network or association could even provide the basis for resources beyond the per capita level. And without the excessive overhead, the available resources would overshadow traditional churches with excessive property and salary.
So, for me, the only true disadvantage I see to the simple church model is that culturally, people aren’t used to it. It’s difficult for some to wrap their minds around. Hopefully, the growth and persistence of the simple church movement will make it so prevalent that won’t be a problem in 20 or 30 years…
The intimacy thing which attracts many to home gatherings later repels them. Think of dating and marriage. Intimacy is a double-edge sword, as they say.
Can’t think of any other disadvantages at the moment.
zane anderson
July 3rd, 2007
I love the concept of house churches. I am really excited of the endless possibilities and potential.
God bless you!
Are Karlsen
July 4th, 2007
Hi Alan,
and bless you there with theofframp. other great reads on this subject are (Rethinking the Wineskin: the Practice of the New Testament Church). this is Frank Viola’s classic book on the first-century church. it demonstrates beyond dispute that the modern institutional church has no scriptural right to exist!
also, Who is Your Covering? A Fresh Look at Leadership, Authority and Accountability. this book explores the issues of church leadership and spiritual authority in much more depth than Wineskin. and one more, Straight Talk to Elders. this book could have just as easily been titled Straight Talk to Pastors. a thorough survey from Matthew to Revelation on the role and function of first-century elders (pastors). there is much more material on this subject by Frank Viola. Bless You
William Hager
July 8th, 2007
Hi Alan,
I’m a house church planter and church planting coach. I’ve done this in Spain and am currently doing it in the Bay Area of California. I too prefer the term simple church, but realize that there is no perfect term; organic, house, simple all refer to different aspects of the same thing.
My biggest concern for what I am now seeing in US simple churches is that they tend to group Christians and are not particularly missional. This leads to wonderful fellowship but doesn’t accomplish much of what Jesus wants for and from his bride. Jesus has an agenda and he has been very frank about it. Christendom hasn’t taken reaching the lost seriously and we have brought that cancer into our lovely warm fellowships.
Frankly, I’ve never seen a simple church that started with a core of Christians be effective in reaching the lost. At best they can be attractional, which, by definition, isn’t effective. We need to recapture Jesus’ love for his lost world, and move from the me centered “meanity” of Christendom to a Christ centered biblical Christianity. If we really love Jesus we will love his agenda and long to allow him to call us into it.
Your Brother,
Ross
Ross Rohde
July 21st, 2007