I attended a House Church Conference this past weekend. It didn’t take me long to realize that “house churches” are not the answer to the current problems with Christianity in Western culture. But before my house church friends jump on me, let me say that mega churches are not the answer either. Nor are emerging churches, traditional churches, contemporary churches, family churches, bible churches, denominational churches, independent churches, or any other kind of label you might want to put in front of “churches.”
Though Barna reports that the house church movement in Western Christianity is multiplying rapidly (somewhere between 5-20 million people in the United States attend a house church), the statistics also show that the vast majority of these house church members transferred from an “institutional” church to a house church. For the most part, they are not new believers.
I do not call that success. I do not call that growth.
Certainly, some of these transplanted Christians may find deeper intimacy and fellowship with God and with other believers in their new circle of friends, but unless they are also finding ways to love, serve, and become friends with people who are not Christians, all they have done is substituted one form of Christian consumerism for another.
The bottom line is this: I don’t care what kind of church you attend, when you meet, how often you meet, what kind of songs you sing, how long your prayers are, what the building looks like, what kind of teaching there is, who teaches, or (to a certain extent) what your theological framework is. If you and your church are not loving, serving, spending time, and developing friendships with people who do not attend your church (and who may never come!), you are not acting as the Body of Christ.
I agree wholeheartedly.
Hey Jeremy,
All should agree that Christ in the answer. Amen?
I’m curious. What about this conference led you to your conclusion above? Negativity toward other Christians? Bad food?
Barna’s strange numbers are considered here:
http://www.housechurch.org/blog/category/barna/
DZA
DZ,
Honestly, if/when I plant a “church” it will probably look more like a house church than anything else. I do not desire to have a central building where all church activities are done. If possible, I would prefer that the church not pay my salary. I do want all people to participate by operating within their areas of giftedness. So I love the house church movement and am excited about where it is headed.
So with that in mind, let me attempt to answer your question:
What surprised me most about the house church conference I attended were the people I talked to regarding their own house churches. Aside from one or two, the vast majority of these house churches sound almost identical to any other church, except they are much smaller, meet in a home, and don’t have a pastor.
In general, it seems they still have a set time to meet once per week, and for 60-90 minutes. Like large churches, when house churches meet, they fellowship, sing a few songs, pray, have a time of Bible teaching, and finish up with a few “reminders” (aka announcements). Like many institutional churches, very few house churches seem to be doing a very good job serving others in the community, reaching out with love, or developing genuine relationships with people who are not believers. Aside from the house churches which were talked about and held up as models by the speakers, all the house church members I personally talked to had not seen a single “convert” in their house church during the past year. Like those in large churches, the house church members felt bad about this, but didn’t know what to do about it.
I am not trying to denigrate the house church movement. I think that they are right on target in a lot of areas, and have implemented solutions for a lot of problems in institutional churches. But until they (we?) figure out this “evangelism” thing (I’m only speaking of Western Christianity here), there is still a lot of reworking to be done.
House churches are not the ultimate answer- that answer is recovering a right understanding of what the church is.
However, where a church meets makes a huge difference to its ecclesial life and the argument for house churches has considerable merit in my judgment.
Evangelism is the theological elephant in the church’s living room. My friend Jim Henderson said that, and it’s stuck with me since. It won’t go away, it is a HUGE problem for everyone, and nobody really wants to talk about it. The very word conjures up vitriolic images in almost everyone’s mind (c’s and non-c’s alike).
What you are suggesting, if I am hearing you correctly, is that if we are to create a new form for ‘church’, it will only be worth doing if it means it brings people to faith in Christ (ie, it eventually quits stealing sheep from big churches and actually connects outsiders to Jesus). And some version of evangelism will necessarily have to be part of that church culture for this to happen. Noble idea. Kind of biblical, too.
As you know, St. Patrick seemed to accomplish this by allowing outsiders to be part of his community life. This was not the usual way the church did evangelism, but he allowed people to belong before they believed. He just went into an area and considered everybody “in”. You had to opt out to not be part of his community (this is where the “parish’ idea got developed into it’s modern understanding, and historically why some areas of the US still refer to geographic areas of their cities as “parishes”…if you live there, you’re part of the parish.)
What would a church look like if that were the strategy? What would evangelism look like if people could actually belong before they believed? I don’t really have many answers here, just questions. But I think we have much to learn from our fathers before us when it comes to this kind of issue.
Matthew C,
Your are right. I have heard it said that “We make our buildings, and then our buildings make us.” This is definitely true of churches. The way we design church buildings make it impossible for every person to be involved, and continue to widen the unbiblical clergy-laity chasm.
Randy,
I love your comment. All of you over at Doable Evangelism really embody this. I love this “belonging before believing” idea and have seen it all over the place in churches that are doing an excellent job in evangelism. I have seen it in house churches and even a few megachurches. I think my next blog post may be on this idea…
If you and your church are not loving, serving, spending time, and developing friendships with people who do not attend your church (and who may never come!), you are not acting as the Body of Christ.
But that’s so haaard…
It all comes down to love, doesn’t it? Bullet is right. It’s HARD.
I’ve been learning so much about love though. A relationship with God is embracing the love and acceptance he offers us freely; living in that love is what creates more love and spiritual fruits inside us and promotes that desire to express that love. All these conclusions come to naught though if I don’t act upon them. I guess in regards to the question of “church”, the issue is not the form people gather in, but whether or not where they gather and the people they gather with forms a place – a community – that equips them to love others; even – especially – those “outside” the church. You cannot find AGENDA within the context of God’s love.
yes! amen! i agree