This is from Andrew Jones. Since I haven’t been posting much lately, I’ll use some excellent quotes to give us some stuff to think about:
Some Gripes About House Church:
1. Name is Misleading.
The label needs to change from house church to something that better describes it. I saw a house church network in Central Europe where none of the churches met in homes. People there cannot afford a house. Clubs? Yes. Coffee Shops? Yes. Apartments? Sometimes. But not houses.
Neil Cole called them Simple Churches. So did Mike Steele. I like that. Organic Church?. Micro church? . . . more work needs to be done here…2. Authentication is Delayed.
House churches are not yet recognised by the mainstream. Sometimes they are reactionary to the establishment and find identity in the chasm. Other times they are not respected.
"They are not real churches", a well-known ‘postmodern’ pastor told me. He was basing his judgment on the old way of valuation, the "Cold War" mindset Thomas Friedman called it, where people value things by "weight, size and longevity". House churches are generally low impact, small, and seasonal. In the information age, people value things by "Speed". Bill Gates said it was "Velocity". If this is correct, then house churches make a lot of sense. And if 9-11 moved us out of the Information Age and into the Security Age, then house churches make even more sense. Time for a little Rodney Dangerfield [that’s respect’ for those of you not in USA]…3. Orientation is Backwards.
The focus needs to change from "our house" to "their house" Much of the present house church movement is still an attempt to contain and control the meetings in their own camp. The full gains that are available will not be realised until we can begin to let the movement flow into THEIR HOUSES.
-The church in Lydia’s house was just that – in Lydia’s house.
-Matthew’s party was in Matthew’s house. Not the more convenient house of Simon Peter’s mother-in-law. And dont tell me it was her stomach complaints that kept them away . . . It was strategy, not dysentery, that led them to Matthew’s house.
-Jesus told his short-term missionaries to put peace on THEIR (those other people, the ones they were sent to) house, enter THEIR house, live in THEIR house, eat in THEIR house, heal someone or something in THEIR house. Right there is the base of a new church and it is in THEIR house…4. Support is Minimal
House churches are the cookie dough of the new ecclesiology. They are tasty and soft and very tempting. But they have not yet hardened into something permanent. We might be 5 years away from seeing a complete ecosystem of organic ministries that work together to enable a healthy, reproducing, movement of house churches. The movement in USA and Europe is not ready for franchising or exporting, It is not looking for entrepreneurs to multiply it but rather for pioneers to beta test it. It needs engineers who can tinker with it while it is moving. To make it workable and efficient. To get the bugs out of the system. To see what missing elements need to be included.
Perhaps God is not allowing recognition from the mainstream so that there can be a window of time to create the prototypes away from the spotlight. If this is correct, someone needs to get busy working on a decent support system. There is not a whole lot of support for the movement right now. Not enough, perhaps, for most pastors to seriously consider a leap of faith into a new and way-more-organic paradigm. A few good books have appeared. Some helpful conferences started up. But the house church movement in Western countries is still a few tuna casseroles short of the Pot-Luck. [ooops – wrong country – what about "a few naan short of the curry"?, "a few peas short of the pie’n’mash"? "a few wheat-bix short of the breakfast"?… I know – shut up Andrew and get on with it!]
The five-fold ministry teams needed for a healthy system are not yet in place. City-wide gatherings are still in the idea phase. The apostles and prophets are still learning how to put up with each other, let alone minister together. Traveling teams are more novelty than staple. The heroes of house church planting are somewhere in Asia.Final thoughts? Lets all just get along. Lets be honest about where we are in this transition. Lets not spill any wine… Lets preserve the old wineskins and birth the new ones.
Lets work towards House Church 1.2. Or 2.0. Or 3.5
And then I can stop griping.
Griping is the seedbed that challenges all of us to keep growing, listening, hearing what God is saying, and moving with the new things God is doing. I like these challenges because we cannot, must not, rest on any laurels if we are going to see the Kingdom-on-earth (his church) revitalized into a living, vital, Spirit-filled organism of transforming life and power.
Let’s thank God for where we are… but for God’s sake (literally) let’s keep moving on!
Comments
5 responses to “Some Gripes About House Church”
I think the biggest danger is to not think deeply about these issues. Gripping or whatever we want to call it, does stimulate our thinking and hopefully our actions. I guess we are trying to “spur” one another on to love and good deeds. We must work together in His vineyard. The traditional church does what it does best and the house church/simple church does its part. There is enough “sick” people (Matthew 9:9-13) to reach with the gospel message, apart from strong arming each other to one methodology. It is so easy for me at times to be critical of others. I have to keep asking myself the question, “Am I doing it or just talking about it?” Let’s just do the method or “way” that God has guided/gifted each of us and cheer each other on. The fruit will speak for itself. If there is fruit, throw a party! Remember that some plant, some water, some harvest. Let’s just get out there and work the vineyard. I am guilty of looking across the river and criticizing, I am working on that craziness in my head! I spend valuable energy and time apart from my focus. Evil is so crafty! Blessed be the name of the Lord Jesus Christ forever! Lord keep us focussed on what will produce fruit. Apart from You, we can do nothing, not apart from a methodology!
I think these “gripes” are borderline grousing. To talk about the need for a decent support system is localto his involvement, certainly not my experience. In fact there are so many experienced Eph. 4:11 folks available it’s hard for new leaders to choose who they will relate to for support and accountability. Conversely the more mature church planting apparatus is plaqued with theoriticians, and marginal mentoring. To think it’s of any consequence to find acceptance with main stream religion is to fail to recognize every movement of God, including the recent 70’s Jesus Movement was scorned, preached against and then finally co-opted by denominationlism I think this movement of XChrist birthing building and shepherding His Church, His way will never be recognized by the antichrist system. Just my thoughts. Maybe Andrew is writing this tongue and cheek or to be provocative? Who knows.
One thing i’ve noticed about the various bloggers who are discussing these new simple churches and debating structures vs. spiritual reality is that most all are voicing some form of opposition, some form of complaint, some recognition that our “traditional” churches are failing today to be effective in bringing us to the next level. (And I include myself in that failing, as we all must. And these churches have definitely served a purpose in the past). I don’t expect “tradition” to buddy up to what is really the voice of Jesus, sharply pointing out our current state of deficiency and lack. He also calls us to the truth. The Lord brought to my attention Mark 7. God is talking to “the traditions of men”. Are we listening? Who today is giving lip-service to God while their hearts are far from Him? Will we still worship Him when all is stripped away (and the (one)thing we’ve followed is beaten and crucified for all to see)? It’s coming.
Nice blog. I just got mine started today. I hope it will look like this someday. Its just hard to keep finding fresh content
What’s in a name? House Church harkens back to the earliest days of Christianity and has meaning in that context. What we are talking about is more dynamic. I have come to call them Intentional Covenant Fellowships. The name implies several things: we belong because of an intentional decision on our part. We do not belong to a church just because the family does, or its conveniently located, or because church membership is “just something you do”. We make a committment to one another to both support and challenge each other’s walk of faith. And finally, there is some depth to the relationships that we establish with one another in our gathering together. I think, for me at least, ICF says more about what we are about than does “church”.