Our first challenge in grasping what God intends church to be, is to stop looking at it through the lens of our background and through the lens of 2,000 years of “church” as a formal institution.
Dee Hock says:
"The problem is never how to get new, innovative thoughts into your mind, but how to get old ones out. Every mind is a building filled with archaic furniture. Clean out a corner of your mind, and creativity will instantly fill it."
So our first challenge is to de-program old definitions and wrestle with some accurate new ones.
Let’s start with a basic New Testament definition of church. The Greek word for “church” is “ekklesia” which simply refers to those who were "called out" for an assembly or meeting. It was a non-religious word. It just referred to a group of people. In this case, the group of people who were followers of Jesus.
It really is and must be that simple!
Church is not an organization, building, or meeting of any kind. It’s simply a group of people who follow Christ.
Robert Fitts provides some additional information at DAWN ministries:
Jesus used a common word when he said, "I will build my church." It was not a religious word. It simply meant a called out group, or crowd, or fellowship, or assembly. So we can use the word church when it communicates what we are saying, but we can also use the word fellowship, or gathering, or brethren, or saints, or disciples. It simply means a group of people.
It’s very helpful to define “church” clearly. The temptation is to go around this issue and ask secondary questions: “How is church expressed?” “What will the gathering of believers look like when they come together?” But these are secondary questions!! We must be clear first of all what church is, then and only then can we understand how church is to be expressed.
Church, in essence, is simply a collective group of followers.
Consider this definition of church:
A loose-knit network of Jesus followers who gather together to encourage each other in their spiritual life and who go out, moved by the Holy Spirit, sharing and demonstrating the Gospel.
Loose-knit. Not formal membership, just a love-commitment to God and each other.
Jesus followers. The basic requirement for membership in the church.
Who gather together. Gathering to build one another up and to worship.
Who go out. The purpose of believers… to GO with the message.
Moved by the Holy Spirit. The one and only LEADER of the church.
Sharing and demonstrating the gospel. The reason that the church GOES.
Neither the church gatherings, nor the church’s “goings” had to have anything other than believers + the Holy Spirit. Nothing else was necessary for church to be church. Sometimes apostles were present, many times not. Sometimes elders were present, many times not. The church really is the followers of Jesus who engaged in gathering and going.
As we think this through, I would like to suggest the reading of a “Description of a House Church.” This is an expression of church that is based upon, I believe, an accurate definition of “church.” This is not, by any means, the only expression of church. It’s just one of many. Early church gatherings and expressions were very diverse. But as you read this, ask yourself if it is built solidly on the definition of what church really is. Why? Why not? Click the link and read it!
I would love to hear some reactions to both the definition of church presented here (loose-knit network of Jesus followers, etc… ) and this house church description.
Go to Part 1-B: What Is Church?
(House Church Blog is an interactive forum for house church, church planting, and related topics. Feel free to post comments!)
Comments
27 responses to “House Church Basics — Part 1-A: What Is Church?”
This definition of the church excites me. It leaves the floor open to what the Holy Spirit wants to do. Not just in a far off future sense, but right now, right here, today. It forces us to leave our preconceived agendas behind and move as the Spirit moves us. It is very freeing to think that God won’t be “infringing” on church if He wants us to drop everything and minister to someone. I am encouraged each time in our home church when we disregard “the plan” and just take time to be with God and his people.
I have to admit that I like a plan and a sequence of events to follow. Give me formula that’s worked once and I’ll apply it to every situation. It feels comfortable to give God parameters to work within. I have come to realize (I think I always knew deep down) that God does not operate very well inside a box he likes to spill over and be “unconventional”.
As I see God working in his people I am beginning to embrace the idea of unscripted encounters with God.
I think I’m ready to be unconventional!
Yes, I strongly believe we are tainted in our view of church by the “modern glasses” we wear. We must dump the baggage of “how we’ve done it”. Even the word “church” conjours up modern clutter. I think the church or body of believers is primarily a group of believers in the “way” of Jesus Christ. We believe He was and is the Son of God Almighty. That’s our structure! our purpose is to look after the body, not simply paying workers but rescuing orphans and helping widows and feeding the impoverished, as well as teaching and evangelism. Isn’t it interesting how our modern society has institutionalized most of this? – it all becomes invisible unless we seek them out and find what a disaster institutions are. Even the church is viewed as an institution! That should be enough impetus to change. I’ve found too often the modern church is not truly missional, except that it leaves this up to individuals to run programs. I hear that 20% of the body is doing 80% of the work. That’s a recipe for failure. I think the church should be simultaneously doing it’s mission and getting healthy – individuals get transformed when they can truly see God working among them. (Step 12 in AA: “Having had a spiritual awakening, we tried to carry this message to other (churchaholics) …”
Yes, yes, yes, there are other people on the planet who are thinking the same as I. I have been asking the same question for five years, “What exactly is this that we’re doing on Sundays?” I couldn’t find anyone who wanted to dialogue. I wondered why so few 20’s – 35 year olds were in church. It just occurred to me several months ago that the body (the metaphor Paul uses when speaking of the church), has really been distilled into one or two mouths and many butts (performer and audience model). We made a choice to withdraw from the familiar model and are presently feeling the pain of loss. It is a comfort to know there are those of you out there who are like-minded. Yes, dialogue is possible!
Somehow I found this House Church Blog last week through some other site that I can’t remember. I am grateful beyond words. I have been contemplating the whole house church thing and trying to find some solid ground to stand on and perhaps build upon and it seems this blog gives great insight into the questions and thoughts I’ve had in recent months. Thank God!
I love the definition, I love the thought of not having to have anything but believers and the Holy Spirit. I have prayed for the desired and needed vision and guidance to support the passion that has been building within my heart. Prayer has been answered!
I leading a discussion at my “church” about small groups. I was wanting to use Dee Hock’s quote mention above in the article about House Basics. I’m not sure who he is. His quote blew me away! I’m currently involve in an experiment that uses his theorem. I’m challenging myself on why I do the things I do. If any one knows who Dee Hock is, then please let me know. I’ll be referencing this site in my discussion for FYI sake.
Hello out there. This is the very first time I have ever posted anything-anywhere! I would just like to know others are out there like me. We left our church about a year ago where we were faithful members for 20 years. We do not feel led to go to another church but rather “church” at home. We have been meeting with a group of people one night a week that also attended the same church, but they are not all of this same mind (about house church). I think they are hoping to build a “church” as we have known church to be. My husband and myself are not wanting any part of church buildings, one man in charge and all of the things we came out of concerning the “church structure”. On Sunday Mornings we get together as a family and discuss scripture, sing and pray together.
We have a desire to have a home that is a place where others can come and fellowship too and most of all a place where they might find Jesus.
It is lonely here. We were a part of a church with 700 members and went to church at least 3 times a week. Please give me hope that we will not always be so alone.
Thanks!!
LCS – Hang in there! You are not alone, I know. There have been many who have walked this path before us, many who are walking it now, and many more will follow.
Hope. It may take a while for somebody, anybody to catch on to this thought of simplistic “church.” I have been, what I would consider disconnected from church, since February. Having had many conversations with people around me, it seems like all are wanting a place to connect, without the crap that comes with the institution. But I have found few, in my immediate area that are willing to do anything about it. And I too feel alone.
But not forsaken.
I pray daily that Father would bring about this simplistic living, whether I am the one who “starts” it or not. I believe it will come, but I do not know the time. But there is always Hope that it will be soon.
Stay with Him. He will journey you through this time and into Acres of Hope.
Peace be with you.
st.
Hello
My husband and I left the traditional church 3 years ago this month. We have been “doing” house church with one other couple, others have come and gone, mostly curiosity seekers or something like that. We were district pastors with about 120 people in our care, also responsible for section leaders and small group leaders. The church was one of almost 3000. We were paid pastoral staff and I was also the front desk receptionist at the “church”. I began asking the Lord, “Are we really making a difference for the Kingdom of God?” and “Am I willing to pay the price?” Admittedly, we were very comfortable, with two paychecks from the church that supplemented my husbands full time income, we had position and all the perks that go with that, not to mention a title! But the Lord began putting sticks and glass in the nest, thankfully! We made the decision to leave it all for the call to house church. It has taken at least 2 of the 3 years to change some mindsets we had! We have tried this or that, not sure how to do it. We have been encouraged, discouraged, ready to quit and refired up. We have attended seminars, read books, talked with other house church leaders and even attended another “house church”. Where we have seen the most fruit is right in our own neighborhood. It is not something that is accomplished in a short period of time. Building relationships with our neighbors takes time. I am so convinced that if we are not “harvest minded”, house church will just become another institution. I am also convinced that if we want to prosper in this we must be in prayer for the “house churches” or underground churches that are flourishing under persecution all around the world. I believe in this vision but I must admit, there are times when I wonder if we should just return to the traditional churchand allow our gifts to be used there. It does get lonely and it does get discouraging. Everyone is so busy, us included. We are trying to simplify our lives so that we aren’t spending our time on things, as my husband says, we are called to people, not things.
Recently we heard a message by Rojer Leahman. He spoke passionately about Power Evangelism, mercy and the miraculous working together to bring in the harvest. I have been reading, studying, and praying over Luke 10 since we have been home. I want to live this out in my life. We are not sure of the direction of our “house church” but I am convinced that our mission is to “go and make and disicples” with signs and wonders following. Having a house church just to minister to one another gets stale very quickly. I will be reading and following the postings here. Thank you for this blog and the opportunity to connect with other like minded saints. The Lord bless you.
Cindy
I agree wholeheartedly with the belief that the manuscripts from which we get our English translations have the nonreligious word “ekklesia.” It is a compound of the Greek “ek” (from, out) and a derivative of “kaleo” (call). Taken together, “ekklesia” means “called out” and applied to an assembly or a grouping together of individuals.
An examination of the Greek text shows that “kaleo” (call) occurs several times in passages that speak of believers or disciples of Christ. The following are examples of how Scripture uses “kaleo.” Matthew 9:13, Jesus came to call sinners to repentance. Romans 8:30, those whom God predestined he also called. Galatians 1:6, God called us by the grace of Christ. Galatians 5:13, God called us to freedom. First Corinthians 7:15, God called us to peace. Ephesians 4:1, we are to walk in a manner worthy of our calling. Second Thessalonians 2:14, God / Jesus calls us through the gospel. First Thessalonians 2:12, our walk is to be worthy of the God who calls us (First Peter 1:15). Colossians 3:15, God called us in one body. There are other passages I could cite, each using the word “kaleo” of God’s people.
As we ponder the significance of “ekklesia” in light of the many passages that speak of our divine calling, we soon discover the truth of our being the “ekklesia” of God not only when we are together but also when we are away from other believers
1700 years of religious garbage that feeds our fallen nature. Food that seems to satisfy our old man.j We have a Spirit living in us that is pure and holy that can only be satistied by the eating and drinking of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Remenber brothers and sisters we are the expression of Jesus Christ on the earth today. The Church corporately is Christ on the earth. My suggestion to saints looking for the community of believers is to find people that are pursuing the Lord corporately and ask for there help in your town or sell it all and move to where they are.My #434-531-2730
THE PROBLEM WITH THE HOUSE CHURCH MOVEMENT
AND A SEARCH FOR THE UNITY OF HIS BODY.
By Andy Zoppelt
We in the house church movement in many ways are taking the same path as those in previous movements. We have accurately pointed out the major faults and flaws in the institutional church: pastor, pews, programs, buildings, indifference, denominationalism, hierarchy– the list seems a mile long. We all agree that this institutional system of church is absolutely different from what we read about in the early forming of the body of Christ. It is, without exaggerating, a 180-degree turn from what Jesus and the apostles set up in the early church. At this point we all agree. But have we really looked at the sin in our own camp.
Problems that need to be addressed
1. The spirit of division. Most house churches I have visited are quite content in being “us four and no more.” Because they are meeting in the shelter of a house, they have turned inward in believing that somehow they are inherently different… even New Testament! Most are having little or no impact on their community, the poor, those in prisons, those in need– and many are not even impacting missions. They easily have forgotten that even the early house church was never meant to be an end in itself. They have forgotten the responsibility of being connected and functioning locally in the city. They reject others meeting in homes in their same area. We now have micro-division rather than macro-divisions.
Jesus made it clear in John 17 that unity was not an option for His disciples. We are either gathering or scattering, we are either for Him or against Him. We don’t have many options if we are truly going to follow Jesus and keep Him at the center. Each group or leader clutches their group as though it were theirs. Whose church is it? Whose people are we? The people are scattering looking for shepherds after His own heart.
2. There is a spirit against leadership. House churches often overreact to the false leadership of the institutional church by denying the biblical need of the five-fold ministry. Their kind of “priesthood of the believer” has denied the ministries function within the body of Christ and denied many of His servants on a universal level. They forget that these ministries are gifts to the church as “God has appointed.” (1 Cor. 12:28-21 and Eph. 4:11)
A tremendous price will be paid by denying those whom Jesus sends and anoints. Our individualism and independence have created a false sense of body ministry. Because we deny the diversity of ministry of the universal church, without which we cannot survive in times of shaking, God has withheld from us His power and presence.
Many individuals feel threatened by the experience and revelation of the five-fold ministry and shelter themselves in isolated home meetings. They have forgotten that the diversity of all ministry is not competition but it complements and builds up the body of Christ. This is one reason that the church has such a low level of maturity.
3. No burden for the needy. Ministry has almost come to a complete stop in the house church. When I was an institutional pastor, we would go to the streets to minister and feed hundreds of people. Even the city of Fort Lauderdale stood up and took notice; they asked how they could help. The local newspaper did a full 2-page write-up on us. We went into the jails and nursing homes. We were a light on a hill. Now I feel disconnected from my local brothers rather than us pulling together. The only burden we have is what we shall bring for the meal after the meeting. If we don’t have His burden, we cannot know His will, nor can we speak for Him.
4. We are cheap! Our anti-tithing doctrine has led to a greed where giving is non-existent. It matters little what we believe concerning the tithing issue if our believing doesn’t include giving up our selfish attitude toward our finances to pull together locally and trans-locally. If we don’t support the poor, we are worse than the institutional church. Paul mentioned over and over his concern for the poor. Jesus said the ministry to the poor was a sign of one being his sheep. Even John questioned the presence of the Holy Spirit being in a person of indifference in 1 John 3:17-18
We often think of homosexuality as the sin of Sodom and the reason that God destroyed it. “Look, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: She and her daughter had pride, fullness of food, and abundance of idleness; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty and committed abomination before Me; therefore I took them away as I saw fit.” Ezek 16:49-50
5. Its conventions are about information not building. Our conventions are no different than the institutional church conventions. We have focused and exalted the prominent speakers to a level of entertainment status. We have experts giving us information while we experience little of the life of the body. Many can’t even remember what the speakers have said after the convention. We are more entertained with information expertly presented than a building together. We hope that some holy huddle around a 10-minute break around the table will connect leadership. It is the same old “us four leaders and no more.” It becomes exclusive and therefore anti-inclusive. I go to them and feel like a dummy with nothing to add. I feel stupid and am supposed to listen as I sit in my seat as the professionals explain how to do it. I weep and cry to be built with other leaders and am too often disconnected, standing alone. I want to get together in order to pray together, to be one with one another, to share together, to support one another. I am a “lone ranger” in the midst of divisions of every flavor.
When I read the resumes of the speakers, I have flashbacks of institutionalism. Who do we recognize for their suffering, their servant’s heart, their loyalty to the sheep? Aren’t these the people we need to hear from?
Our meetings are salted with information, strategies, how-to methods, and the spread of house churches. Does this not have the sound of institutional program-ism? We hear much about the why’s, how’s, and what-to-do in house churches–but we are void of any establishment of being built together and of leaders being reconnected in the body of Christ… true restoration. It pains me to think of all those house churches disconnected in any given locality. Should we not build and not just inform? Is not building an apostolic mandate?
6. A universal disconnect. The universal church, as it is often called, is the unity that gave the early church meaning and power. Without power we are forced to form. Because there is no recognition of the church in the city, there is no understanding of the universal church and the need for universal ministry. The early church started out as a universal church among 120 persons. As it grew, it maintained its universal identity. The church functioned in houses and cities but maintained its identity in universal unity. Leadership was not established in house churches but in the city and in the universal church. Every house church didn’t have an elder; but the eldership functioned locally in the city much like Israel. Because there was a universal unity, much of the five-fold ministry could function locally and universally. There were letters from city to city to keep them informed and in communication with one another. There was a body that was connected. Disconnection brings about death. All we need to do is look at our physical bodies for a moment; it has a lot to tell us about being connected and the death that results from being disconnected. How long does it take for a member being separated from the body before it’s too late to be reconnected? We need more connection not information.
7. Seeing the house church as the end. Somehow we see the house church in the New Testament as central to changing the world rather than Jesus. In past years I have seen and experienced church emphasis on many issues: Community, government, gifts, repentance, five-fold ministries, discipleship, evangelism … and now the house church movement. The circle of teaching, books, conventions and strategies surround the emphasis. We have come to think that it was the house that changed the world, and we have made it an end.
8. Denominationalism. This is a curse word to those of us who experienced the horrific divisions and competition created out of “naming” a Christian movement. Denominations got their start around some biblical truth or some person. Denominate means “to name”. Rarely are we content with just being Christian; we somehow want to name our special movement and separate ourselves from all those who are of “Babylon.” It is the name of Jesus that identifies us, not our network. We have subtly fallen into the previous entrapments, which we learned from the institutional church (Babylon) and created streams and networks. We want to box our move under something we can identify as being “us” exclusively. Now, no one will admit this but, the fruit reveals the root of our denominational affiliation. It is a “let-us build” kind of heresy. When the Assemblies of God started around the early part of the 20th century, it wanted to join the divided Pentecostal movement. Today the Assemblies of God is just another denomination among many. What do we think will happen with all our streams and networks? They to will be become another denomination with a label. Comenius says, “The great number of teachers is the reason of the multitude of sects, for which we shall soon have no names left…”
Where did this come from? Gen 11:1, 4… ‘Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower whose top is in the heavens; let us make a name (denomination) for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth.’”
It was the first inclination of Peter when he saw Jesus speaking with Moses and Elijah: “Then Peter answered and said to Jesus, ‘Rabbi, it is good for us to be here; and let us make three tabernacles: one for You, one for Moses, and one for Elijah’”
I can hear it now, “Which tabernacle do you go to?” Once we name it, we divide it. For years I heard these defensive excuses: “We are just setting up networks to …” and then they go on to explain. I just can’t see Apollos coming into a city and leading a number of people to the Lord and then setting up a network or stream-sourcing to his apostolic ministry. Denominationalism comes in many forms. If we are of the same carnal nature as the denominationalist, we will find a way to create a name without looking and feeling denominational. In the discipleship movement we found a way to appear non-denominational– we called our divisions “streams.” In that way we could identify who it is we were “under”. Later in the restoration movement we created “networks;” names were given to each network and we related to specific leaders, apostles… whatever. The results are the same. We take something that doesn’t belong to us and we put our label on it in order to control it and identify with it. Mankind naturally likes names and titles. So in order to build, we need a name. The name identifies who we are and our group; natural successes give us a sense of achievement that we could not achieve individually. There is power in numbers and recognition in names.
9. False Identification. I keep hearing how we in the house church movement are the largest movement in the world. We use China and others in the third world nations to make this point. But there is no comparison between them and us. I met a brother from China a few years ago; his word to me was that we didn’t have life, we had form. We have accomplished a form without life… if we dare to be honest. We are not the same as many in the third world nation. They are not what they are because they meet in houses, but because they have life… Maybe we need to identify with their life and not their house meetings.
10. Numbers: When God sent me into the institutional church as a youth pastor, I learned a powerful inside lesson: it was all about success and numbers. We can’t get away from success and numbers. When I go to a house church convention, I hear, “How many house churches have you planted?” or “How many are in your house church?” Whoever has planted the most house churches or has the most successful house church is placed on a pedestal. Is that different from the institution? Many real five-fold ministries cannot become manifest if we continue to judge by such a narrow standard.
11. There is no room for a strong word. We organize till we paralyze. We have created a comfortable environment and a box, which we protect with tooth and claw. Institutionalism is based on organizing to the point where God has no place for moving outside the program or box. I am convinced we need a good strong and hard word now and then. A famous man of God once said, “If you have not gotten a hard word from God, I doubt that you know Him.”
I remember one time I invited Art Katz to speak in our church; he blasted us and pointed out every problem. I must say, I loved it. We need to make room for others to speak into what we are doing. Conventions are afraid that “confusion” might set in if such a place is made for this to happen. But we admit that in our local house church meetings we face many hard issues all the time. I had times I wanted to close down the meeting and get with God alone, but if I did, I would have missed the life that comes from confrontation and conflict. Do we organize house churches to end any confusion? No, because to the patient, it is fertile soil to grow.
12. Where do we go from here? If the power of Pentecost was because of the disciples of Jesus and the unity of the body coming together, just maybe we should consider such a humbling position. Let us throw away our differences and come together and pray, fast, and serve one another. Let us let God put us together, build us together. Let us fall in love with Him and one another–no matter how long it takes and no matter what it takes. We cannot dodge such important issues as love, unity and fellowship. Without love we all are nothing and are building on sinking sand. If we don’t learn from history, we will repeat it.
So who am I to make such a request to other leaders? I am nobody, so let’s get me out of the picture, something we often don’t do, and let’s consider a real restoration of the body of Christ. I know that this is the cry of many leaders to whom I have talked and written.
The suggestion I have heard from many is that we meet together and talk first. Then, if God leads, maybe we could have some real weeping between the porch and the altar and repent (Joel 2). Maybe God would give us a prophetic word, where we could sound the alarm on His holy mountain. We need to blow the trumpet with a clear warning and a true word from God in this day of shaking. Let us come together– because it is good for the brethren to dwell together in unity. It is there He proclaims the blessing… something we all need. Let the Lord separate the wheat from the chaff, but let those who are willing in the day of His power come together.
Dare we come together in unity and build upon Jesus?
Hi Saints,
Have we ever really looked how leadership developed in the early Church. I find it interesting that the twelve spent 3 years with God himself to be prepared and approved to oversee Gods people.
The twelve then trained brothers & sisters for the work the same way after these brothers & sisters were living in the Church { not once a week but seven days a week} for years and were reconized by the saints in those churches. Leadership is organic to be developed in an everyday experience of the church. You will be approved or disapproved by the brothers & sisters. This is true protection from ambitous people looking for position. In short, the every day decision making in the church should be made by the brethern{ brothers & sisters}.
This might not be true in the institutional church system but it should be in the so called house church movement. If you want to know about a brother or sister claiming to have the authority of God contact the church where he was raised in and ask for a letter. Speak to some elders{organicly grown}this could save us alot of pain in the future.
Just a thought.
Your brother, Danny
Hi Saints,
Have we ever really looked how leadership developed in the early Church. I find it interesting that the twelve spent 3 years with God himself to be prepared and approved to oversee Gods people.
The twelve then trained brothers & sisters for the work the same way after these brothers & sisters were living in the Church { not once a week but seven days a week} for years and were reconized by the saints in those churches. Leadership is organic to be developed in an everyday experience of the church. You will be approved or disapproved by the brothers & sisters. This is true protection from ambitous people looking for position. In short, the every day decision making in the church should be made by the brethern{ brothers & sisters}.
This might not be true in the institutional church system but it should be in the so called house church movement. If you want to know about a brother or sister claiming to have the authority of God contact the church where he was raised in and ask for a letter. Speak to some elders{organicly grown}this could save us alot of pain in the future.
Just a thought.
Your brother, Danny
I personally do not believe a organized physical church was ever meant to be. I see throught out the new testament a spiritual church,
and in the old testament a leading to the place of understanding of a spiritual church. All the activies of missions, ministries and all other helps were to be on a personal bases.
The religious organized church system is the most misleading teaching brought about by people that are religious for religions sake.
First of all I would want to say that I have been greatly refreshed by the honesty posted here on both the pro’s and con’s of house churches. I am in the midst of researching two basic questions or issues that I would like to see comment on.
From my readings, the house church itself first originated in Babylon when the Jews no longer had access to temple worship. So they met in homes of someone who owned a copy of the law, and used a raised platform with small podium to teach from.
From what I have deduced, this practiced continued even upon Israel’s return, in addition to the synagogue, as they faced times of persecution and intrusion from foreign governments.
Which then begs the question that during the most part of the first century, the Roman government saw no basic distinction between Judaism and Christianity. So with the Jews also adding injury to insult began to persecute the Christians. (As a record, the Roman/Jewish Historian Josephus records that over 1,000,000 Jews alone died during the fall of the Temple, not counting the hundreds of thousands put to death elsewhere that century)
How do you see the role of persecution affecting the pragmatic need of the house church verses a more public church / body ministry when needed?
You have made some good comments here as I read Part I-A, What is Church? But I’m not fully understanding of the inherent deconstructionalism that pervades it. If we believe (as I am sure you do) that Jesus is the head of the church, then why would we throw away (which I do not believe you are doing), or even seek to implode through deconstructionalism the church as it has existed for almost 17 centuries (Constantine)?
I agree that we are, in many cases, treating worshipping through tradition rather than through heart. But that doesn’t mean that we take away from the good of the ‘systems’ of the past. Why not raise the bar and do the hard work in learning all things and empowering those people to know and teach them too?
It seems too “open” for anyone to lead. The first century seemed to, as much as we can determine (see Roger Gehring’s “House Church and Mission”), put those in leadership that were already leaders and well-learned people of the community, allowing the process of an evangelist (like Paul) to empower them with the correct teachings in a year’s time or less. With 2,000 years of church history (with Christ as the head) and many new things to consider (evolution, stem cell research, etc.), it seems to me that we might need some personal teaching time in order to empower these leaders correctly in The Way. Sure, could they “bottom line it”…anyone can. But even Christ, in his first evaluation of the early churches was very concerned with good doctrine and truth. See Rev. 2ff, especially concerning his letters to Pergamum and Thyatira.
What’s the answer? In an age where there are 6,000+ ideas of who a God-follower is, seeking the truth is like wading in a pool of mud. But it must be important, as Jesus came in grace (love) and truth. (Also see Job 42, God’s answer to a theologically shallow Eliphaz and friends) We must find the truth and find ways to communicate this in a fresh and easy way (webcast, etc.) in order to empower these people to lead in the way you are suggesting. Let me know what you think.
Good, thoughtful comments. I’m wondering if the church hasn’t survived since Constantine despite the structures that have developed rather than because of them. It seems that Jesus intended that the life of the church would be organically passed from person to person and from household to household through relationships under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. With the leaders that the Holy Spirit points out (as per Gehring) it seems that church life can be quite simple while the movement and leading of the Spirit can be paramount. In other words, we truly become the church rather than form, organize, or build it.
You folks seem to be thinking alot like we are here in Alabama. We started a new fellowship about 12 yrs. ago that includes both public meetings, house churches, and several non-house gatherings each week. I’m really enjoying reading what is on your hearts. I struggle with these matters of going through the motions versus following the Spirit regarding how we do things (including house church) rather than spending our time with people. Our house church has 5 or 6 families that have been meeting for over 5 years now. We meet weekly in different homes rotating between 4 or 5 homes. I’m often concerned that we haven’t branched out more to start other house churches (my family included).
Oklahoma – The Holy Spirit is saying the same thing to us. For the past 25 years, I and others have seen this coming. In my heart, I know that the body of Christ is returning full circle to authentic Christianity, meeting in the homes which I believe will be necessary as persecution comes back also. There is an excitement in my heart. My first experience with this was a “home group” we had in our home in Texas that met every Thursday for 106 straight weeks. The easiest thing I have ever done. The group was made up of people in our neighborhood – young and old, single and married, rich and poor, all races welcomed. We all grew spiritually. The relationships we developed were deep and meaningful. We helped each other. The older widows counseled the young marrieds. The young ones helped the older ones. Everyone was free to share and we met each others needs. Wow…it wasn’t a “home group” it was an authentic church. I just didn’t realize it. (It ended when we moved to Oklahoma – a great regret of mine.)
TBH, this description of ‘Church’ reminds me of some sort of Multi-Level Marketing business plan… only one doesn’t get a water filtration system, just promises of jam tomorrow.
Hi saints from overseas,
It is very interesting to see the discussion on house churches and the struggle it takes to define them. To oppose them to the traditional church shows its strengths in personal relationships, responsibilities to others and common responsibilities for the church itself.
I like the emphasis on ‘life’, personal involvement, patience and ultimately evangelism, practicing of the ‘five fold ministry’.
It could be a ‘rapid deployment force’ when disasters occur and a real help to the direct environment. Daniel Devlin’s comments of Aug 2005 are really helpful. I agree with him that even if you choose to be non denominationalist, as soon as you have a clearer definition of yourself and as soon as you have greater influence and thus power there will be a new denomination called House Church.
The same thing happened to the Plymouth Brethren in England a couple of centuries ago. They went out of the main (Anglican) church and just wanted to be called ‘the assemblies’, or ‘bretheren’.. church with no name…
They mobilised their ‘members’ (they had no membership) but after a number of years fossilized and turned inward. What made them become ‘traditional’ even though they hate written traditions?
What I see is this: lack of good leadership and the practice of the gifts and ministries of the Holy Spirit. If it is there the evangelist would help train reaching out to non believers. The apostle would direct and coordinate efforts of several churches in evangelism, growth. The prophets would encourage and show the people God’s heart. Teachers would teach on the ‘whole counsel of God’. Including ministry to the poor (Isaiah 58 etc), mercy ministries, healing (Isaiah 61), intercession, deliverance.
What makes me sad is that these things did not develop and leaders did not seek these things. So the movement became introverted, focussed mainly on fellowship, teaching and worship/ the Lord’s supper.
Conclusion:
If leaders do not seek and develop the Church in the right way there will be little difference between a traditional or a house church.
So: practice the presence of God and the gifts of the Spirit to glorify God in personal and church life.
PS
At the moment I’m a baptist living in ‘suburbia’ in the Netherlands.
As a child I grew up among the ‘brethren’ an old variety of ‘house church’ (except that the homes were a little too small and were replaced by all sort of buildings, mainly school halls)
The important thing about “Church” is not where we meet(Temple, Cathedral, House or Mosque etc)but why we meet?
The most simple definition of Church I can think of is “Living Stones”
Church attendance is therefore attending to a living body (structure of people)
The stone building only having analogical value.
The important thing about “Church” is not where we meet(Temple, Cathedral, House or Mosque etc)but why we meet?
The most simple definition of Church I can think of is “Living Stones”
Church attendance is therefore attending to a living body (structure of people)
The stone building only having analogical value.
House Church Blogs
Ok, so Ive found a few really interesting blogs and websites talking about a church movement that has been dubbed organic church or simple church. One of those sites that I have found particularly interesting is the H…
I think you missed the big picture. True, there are smaller assemblies of called out ones all over, but Jesus said He would build his church (singular). That assembly of called out ones to which he was referring was the one where we are all assembled together in heaven at the end of the age. By the way, I can’t wait to meet you all!
Hi Nan
Jesus said lots of things one of which was where two or Three! There I am!!
Church in whatever form it takes we are all part of Him body. Yes in the end we will be part of His Bride till then every expression of church from very small to Mega are all branches of the same vine
All I can say is amen. Trying to live it out but it seems that mnay people have just given up after their “church” experience and just don’t have the desire to try anything else…