Jim Rutz has used George Barna’s research to paint an interesting picture on house church involvement in the United States:
But this week, even I was shocked to discover how big our house church community in North America really is. Briefly stated, we’re right about halfway between the Catholic Church and the Southern Baptist Convention (which is the second-largest denomination in the U.S.).
Rutz goes on to comment on this trend:
Bottom line: Worldwide, the original church is back, re-creating the biblical model: "Day after day, they met by common consent in the Temple Courts and broke bread from house to house." (Acts 2:46) God is again pouring out His power on plain folks, bringing a megashift – not in our doctrine, but in our entire lifestyle.
House churches in North America are no longer seen as being in conflict with the traditional church. In fact, much to our amazement, noted leaders like Rick Warren have recently come out strongly in favor of house churches. Saddleback Church is even sending out their own members as "missionaries" to start house church networks! And just last week, John Arnott of Toronto Airport Christian Fellowship asked me, as a house church spokesman, to speak at his big annual conference. Unheard of.
You can see the entire article here.
Comments
10 responses to “Jim Rutz Crunches Numbers on House Church Involvement”
Being the skeptic that I am, I can’t help but be concerned that historically -when then the established church systems adopts these new trends – it almost always absorbs the form of it, but rarely the spark of substance that ignited it in the first place.
For me, that spark has been relationship with God and man which is not quantifiable by numbers or multipliable by man. I see and know so many good people in the house church movement, but the movement seems to be becoming more and more about being the “better” or “more biblically accurate” model instead of the more natural, organic move of God that attracted the pioneers and early adopters.
I’m sorry to go on like this, but I believe that, in the future, we will look back at this movement its proper perspective. I believe it is a our attempt at demonstrating a truth revealed to the body of Christ, like many movements and touches of God that have come before it. Hindsight will show how much of that was eventually crafted into a new system, and how much of the reality of organic church life survives.
I think Wolfgang Simson says it best – that the sure way to turn a blessing into a curse is by trying to mulitply someone else’s revelation or spiritual experience. When established church systems are eager to jump on board, its usually at the point where well-meaning church leaders sense the attractive of numbers of a growing movement and the comfort of a workable system to inact. It just gives me the feeling that we’re going around that same mountain one more time.
Thanks for hearing me out.
Chris
I apologize for the typos. I was trying to write all this out on my lunch time at work, and hastily sent it off before checking it.
We have a great house church.. and we are just natural.. just meeting and sharing His word and what has been happening in our lives everyweek. Breaking bread, singing worship and loving one another as Christ loves us.. I love my house church… I love God leading us to it.
I want to believe these numbers but I just can’t. Rutz says that Barna can’t be questioned – his methods are without error, etc. I’m questioning them. Why didn’t he tell us more about the numbers and how he came upon them in his book, “Revolution”? That always bothered me about the book (along with a few other things). If his numbers are true, I would know more people in house churches (like me). Maybe his definition of a house church is very different than mine…
I don’t question Barna’s numbers or Rutz’ motives. I believe they want to be a part of the growth of the kingdom of God on the earth, as do we all. I just think that it’s a superfluous exercise to guage how we’re doing by such a sterile measurement as counting up the number of believers in a movement – or believing we can gather information from mere statistics in order to form a strategy for a move of God.
I believe many in the church today, and participants in the housechurch movement are no exception, gain validation for what they believe God has called them to do by how they are excepted by the church at large. House church may come and go, but the gospel implanted in the hearts of man is the true growth of the church. As housechurch plays a part of that incarnation, I just don’t think we have a real need to keep a scorecard of its progress.
Chris – excellent point. I agree completely.
Although house church is a good idea, I don’t think it goes far enough. See, the people in Acts going from house to house breaking bread together was a sponteanous gathering. Much like we would simply invite a brother or sister in Christ over for dinner. I fear that what many house churches do is simply take the formality and structure of modern day religious systems and bring them into a house. So that even though the setting is more personal, all that has really been accomplished is Christians were moved from location of meeting to another. The very phrase used in the above quote, “house church networks” sends shivers up my spine. It sounds like another denomination is being started rather than believers simply living in relationship with one another as family in the simplicity of Christ.
Bingo! Loren you nailed it. The truth is we don’t need the conventions of traditional church any more than we need the mindless ritualization of blind religion. The spread of Christianity was through passionate faith, miracles and deep bonds of blood sweat and tears. The numbers aren’t that important. God is bringing His people into greater and greater revelation of Him, of Jesus and of the Spirit and now we are to the point where we can really begin worshipping in spirit and truth – in our daily walk with him! It poses the question: what do we really want? Jesus or men’s religious traditions? The true bride is emerging, a pure and spotless bride!
Wow! I’ve revisited these comments a few times since I wrote them 12 years ago. I guess I wanted to see if I still agreed with them. I think I’m a little too far out of the house church movement to gauge if what I said then applies today. That said, I don’t totally disagree with some of my points and feel I was a bit hard on Jim Rutz concerning keeping count of house church progress.
I continue to have an affinity for those, who because of roadblocks experienced in traditional church structures, venture out to see what God has for them in pastures beyond. Does house church bring solutions to those issues? I can only speak of my own experience which is, of course my own experience and so it can’t be applied accurately to anyone else’s experience.
For me, house church met a number of needs during a great detox from a deeply disturbing church implosion experience. The major benefit for me was in rediscovering my relationship with the Lord outside of a system that inadvertently and perhaps unintentionally created dependence upon it.
Those who’ve never left traditional structures without leaving the Lord, can’t know how valuable this perspective can be and how fellowship can continue despite the assumption by some that it can only work inside of proper structure.
Starting a year and a half ago, I began attending a local congregation, moving recently to a different congregation to be with family. This means that I’ve been on both sides of the fence. That means that I’m not totally satisfied with either experience. I see benefits in both and I feel that fellowship between the two forms could be beneficial to both. Perhaps there is not so much animosity between the two as I sensed and participated in back in the day. I’m not blaming anyone but myself for the bitterness I exhibited, but remember that it was a two-way street a decade ago.
Still, I left a trail of bitterness when I left traditional church and left a smaller but still regrettable trail when I moved on from house church. My apologies to anyone here that might have been caught in that wake. I’m in a very different place today and look to see the church grow healthy in all of its expressions, with Christ as the head and all of us as co-laborers together as ambassadors of the Kingdom. May all of us never stop seeking for more of Him, because he has an endless supply.
Very thoughtful comments, Chris. It’s not often (maybe never?) that I have seen someone revisit their comments so many years later. I am glad you did. All of us gain perspective from our experiences. I appreciate your honest sharing of what you have experienced in both house church and in traditional church. At the end of the day, your last sentence says it all: “May all of us never stop seeking for more of Him…”