This is going to upset some people, I know, but we need to have this conversation. And so I guess that means I need to start by stating some things that ought to be clear already.
1. I’m not an enemy of the house church movement. I have a son who meets in a house church. There’s a place for house churches in the Kingdom.
2. I don’t think those who attend house churches are second-class citizens of the Kingdom.
3. I think that, in some settings and some cultures, house churches are the optimal form of church organization.
However, I strongly disagree with those who think the house church is inherently superior to the traditional congregation that meets in a special-purpose building. Let’s call these “institutional” churches, because that’s the term used by the house-churches-are-better advocates.
You see, house churches are all the rage. George Barna, Neil Cole, and many others think Christendom should move toward house churches. Lots of church planting advocates push the house church model. Some even call them “organic” churches as though these are the only truly living forms of church. (The alternative is “inorganic” — as in “dead” –right?) Many Christians believe the institutional churches should go the way of the dinosaur and we should all meet in houses or coffee shops.
Related to this is the idea that all mission happens outside the building. Now, I agree that we sometimes overly focus on the internal doing of church rather than reaching out to our communities. But I’m not sure the building is the problem or even the best approach to the question.
The “institutional” church comes in for a lot of criticism. Buildings are expensive. So are buses, youth ministers, and big-time missions programs. And certainly institutional churches have committed their share of sin. And some are dead.
The house church fits the New Testament model. A restorationist can make a pretty good argument that we should only meet in houses. Of course, that was also the only option for a religion unapproved by the Roman government, but the fact is that the church grew dramatically while meeting in houses.
But then, there are some problems with the house church model. Barna found in 2006 that 9% of all church attenders attend a house church. That was up from a mere 1% ten years earlier. By now, five years later, surely the number is 13% or more! So why aren’t house churches having a bigger impact on their communities?
The other night, I was meeting with my fellow elders, and some were describing all the support we’ve been getting from around the country. Most is from the institutional church. Well, actually, I think it’s all from the institutional church. Or the government. Or businesses.
Speak to a volunteer and ask where he’s from, and he’ll name a church with a building and preacher and the whole bit. He’ll be part of a team that got together, took off some time, and came to Tuscaloosa to help — all by means of the institutional church.
Now, that’s not to accuse house church attenders of being less charitably minded. It’s just that institutions provide some advantages. And one advantage is the ability to recruit, organize, and send out people in significant numbers — and to support them financially. Evidently, it’s a lot easier to find 20 people with chain saws and a heart for relief work and the ability to take off together for a week in an institutional church than in a house church.
It may well be that there are some house church volunteers among us. And some may well have sent money. I couldn’t prove to the contrary. But certainly the overwhelming majority is from the institutional church — and it’s the institutional churches that are filling up trailers and sending supplies by the truckload.
You see, numbers matter. Economies of scale matter. There are some things — some very good and necessary things — that are really, really hard to do in a house church that are much easier in an institutional church.
Or let’s look at it from another perspective. The relief effort in Tuscaloosa is almost entirely church-centered. Churches of all denominations are cooperating to solicit donations, to store and sort and distribute donations, to house volunteers from out of town, to feed volunteers and displaced people, to “adopt” displaced families and help them get a fresh start, etc.
Our large, expensive building has been converted into a warehouse, a distribution center, a hotel, a restaurant, a command center, a recruitment office, a communcations center, a substitute preschool for another church in town, a trailer park for volunteer trailers, a temporary worship center for another church that lost its building … just all sorts of things.
Out east of town, the tornado was especially destructive, and the schools and governmental buildings and most church buildings were obliterated. One large church building survived, and that’s where the relief activities are all centered. Without that building, well, it would have been really hard to get done what needed to be done.
Our full-time staff is wearing themselves out helping coordinate, facilitate, and operate in all these capacities, all the while dealing with usual demands of church life. And, yes, there are many, many volunteers helping as well.
If all the churches in town were “organic” churches, with no full-time staff, with no buildings, and no parking lots, well, we’d be in desperate straits. It’s hard enough coordinating a few hundred institutional churches in town, each with a full-time staff who are committed to making it happen. Coordinating tens of thousands of house churches that aren’t even in the phone book would be an unimaginably difficult task.
We couldn’t dig out without our institutional churches. Our city government has performed very well, but only because of the much larger support of charities, being almost entirely institutional churches. There are parts of town where the only buildings available for a relief effort are church buildings. And so I’m deeply grateful that there are many church buildings along the path of the tornado that survived well enough to provide the necessary facilities.
The media have interviewed some residents here from Europe. They are amazed at how people are pulling together to recover, to help each, and to volunteer. In Europe, the attitude would be that it’s the government’s job to help everyone. But in Europe, the institutional church is very nearly dead.
I was watching TV, and the station was running announcements across the bottom of the screen about tornado relief: volunteer needs, supply needs, available resources, etc. And nearly every announcement from across Central Alabama, from the Georgia line to the Mississippi line, is from a church communicating what its part of town needs or what it can supply, with a much smaller number of governmental announcements.
There’s a church in town that “adopted” 30 families from a housing project obliterated by the tornado. They’re helping them find housing and supplying them with appliances, food for their pantries, etc. They are so excited about this that they’re asking for more families to adopt!
We’ll soon be following their example. I don’t know how many we can handle, but we’re already getting offers from churches out of town wanting our help to do the same thing. They’re all institutional churches.
So here’s to the institutional church! In times of disaster, they’re essential.
Now, I know this all sounds a bit defensive, but it’s a conversation that needs to be had. I have no doubt but that the experience of being in a tightly knit house church is wonderful. But is it missionally effective? How well does the house church model work at relieving the suffering of the poor and the orphan? How many missionaries do they send out? How many orphanages have they founded?
In theory, they could all organize and communicate in a way that would allow them to provide comprehensive relief efforts. In theory, they could take the money they save from preachers and buildings and be of much greater help than the institutional churches. But do they?
Do the house churches in a given town get together and cooperate to do the sorts of things that come naturally to the institutional church? I mean, how does a house church recruit, sponsor, and support a foreign missionary? Or even an ad hoc team of chainsaw volunteers?
I would be delighted — thrilled — to be disproved, but I have a theory. It’s my theory that house churches are great at worship and pastoring their own. Members are and feel deeply loved, encouraged, and supported. But I think house churches are usually very weak at benevolent and missionary activity. And I think they’re weak at community within the larger world of Christianity.
They may well volunteer for and send money to support great benevolent and missionary organizations — but they aren’t big enough and aren’t organized well enough to found their own benevolence works or to recruit, send, sponsor, and support their own missionaries. They have to rely on structures created by other institutions — institutional churches, the government — to work through because they’re too small and too autonomous to do much in these areas other than to help other organizations.
And, again, yes, it is surely possible for house churches to overcome these shortcomings through cooperation and coordination. I just don’t think they do. And I don’t think that’s likely to change because they typically have an anti-institutional mindset that makes it really hard to organize on a scale that allows the churches to be very effective at anything other than caring for their own and volunteering in the missional programs of larger institutions.
Finally, like I said, that doesn’t make house churches damned or second class. It just means they aren’t better. Not for everyone and not everywhere. There are cultures and settings where they are surely the very best way to do church. And they’re a great way to start a church. But they aren’t the ultimate, best form of Christianity. Like the institutional church, they’re one of many ways to do church, and like all other ways of doing church, have advantages and disadvantages.
But that’s my take, and I’m admittedly from an institutionalized world. Am I right?
At first – especially in NT times – the Romans were unable to tell the difference between Jews and Christians. Therefore they had the freedom to build synagogue buildings, but they obviously chose not to do so.
But coming back to being a “restorationist” – it’s not only about copying whatever we find in the NT, but also about understanding. Form follows function, as some say, and I agree. The form of house churches serves the functions of a NT church perfectly. That’s why even the Jerusalem church besides being very Jewish and meeting in the temple had their (exclusive/closed) church meetings in private houses (See Acts 2:46-47). There are reasons for this:
a)Fellowship is expressed by certain “activities” as washing one another’s feet, greeting each other with a holy kiss, eating together. This requires intimacy and a rather small group of persons.
b)The gifts of the Spirit are to be exercised for mutual edification, which means that all should have a part in worship, be free to prophesy, pray, share a song or whatever the Spirit wants to give to the assembly (see 1Co 14:26-36). This also requires rather small groups, so all can (at least theoretically) have a chance to share something for the benefit of the others.
c)Needs shall be met directly, which means there is to be an openness for expressing such needs as poverty, sadness, troubles with sin. This requires even more intimacy and an atmosphere of respect, love and trust. You can’t have that in an assembly of several 100s. And: The whole congregation is involved, because if one member suffers, all do suffer. This does not happen in big churches.
And as a matter of fact: Such small groups, numbering between 10 and 20 adults cannot afford large buildings, that’s why the house church model is not only scriptural, not only a “pattern” we ought to consider imitating, but a necessity. I repeat: A necessity.
I have a theory: House churches in China, India and such places grow from a mission – they are not as much shaped by traditional “church-activities” as we in west are. There they do have an impact in the sense of a tremendous outreach and growth resulting in changed lives. When we in the west try to do “house church”, we simply “downsize” the institutional churches. So – apart from some external changes (wich are necessary) – the institutional mindset is still with us. I notice this in our church as well. We “do” house church, but we haven’t grasped the essence of it yet. But we are learning by unlearning institutionalism.
At the same time we operate as a big church, “join forces” and meet every other week. So we have some of “both worlds”, which maybe slows down the process of restoration – I don’t know …
There is one big snare I see: If you blend the Biblical concept of House Churches with an unscriptural understanding of Church Autonomy you end up with a myriad of disconnected sects. I feat that’s what is happening within the western house church movement. Someone a few days ago called that “MacKeanist Theology”, but I believe strongly in a one-city/one-church concept. Not by force, and not by claiming in an exclusive way thet the churches of Christ are the only Christians in any given area; but striving for unity does include to join forces when it is necessary – and also to work to become one as one church, meeting in different places, but being unified under one leadership in Christ. That’s not the topic of this thread, but just added to avoid a wrong impression of what I mean.
Our house churches in Vienna are “very low-budget churches”, but then we do have one bank account as church. This means, some needs are met on the house church level, some (or the most) are met through joint effort. So we also joined with the other German speaking churches of Christ for helping the Japanese after the earthquake.
I don’t join in the chorus of house church romatics, but I do see a better and more scriptural way in this.
Alexander
Below is a link to a post at Jesus Creed about a Rubel Shelly book regarding the evolution of the institutional churches.
http://www.patheos.com/community/jesuscreed/2011/…
I find your arguments well stated, Jay. However, the same things could be said of any non-profit charitable organization. Our culture has led to the current institutional presence. Let's just recognize that it is a cultural manifestation — not a biblical or scriptural one.
My personal struggle with the institutional view, is that it often encourages people to think or say "someone else will take care of that." That view becomes a view that it's the institutional church's responsibility. I don't believe the institution has any responsibilities — only individuals do.
Jay, I find excellent points in your post. Large groups of people can do large tasks much better than small groups of people.
What about the other 99.999% of our lives in the other 99.999% of the country (world)? Small groups of people – individuals – do lots of small things. I don't recall Jesus talking about large tasks, but instead talking about giving a cool drink of water to a person.
And tornadoes do hit large cities, so do hurricanes, so do earthquakes, and we have large relief efforts needed. So what do we do?
Excellent question, thank you for asking.
I think all Christians at all times and all places can agree that the "church" should be able to accomplish all that the large, institutional churches do well, as well as all of the things that the small, intimate house churches do well.
To value one over the other is probably a sign of lack of humility, and it doesn't seem to me that either Jay's or aBasnar's position makes that mistake.
Institutional churches have tried to address their weaknesses through small groups, whether they be called community groups, Acts 2 groups, mission groups, etc. The goal is to try to have the intimate sharing and building that can only happen in small settings. I think, as a whole, this effort has been a failure. The reasons for this are many and this isn't the place to discuss them.
House churches have tried to address their weaknesses by the formation of city-wide organizations, but with no hierarchy or recognized authority, these efforts have, for the most part, failed as well.
Without trying to oversimplify the issues, I would suggest that so many people chose their church as a mode of escapism (or comfort) – doing what comes easy and denigrating that which is difficult. So when an institutional church which, by definition, has vast numbers of people scared of intimacy, tries to do intimate sessions, it fails. Likewise when a house church which, by definition, has vast numbers of people scared of authroity, tries to do inter-church missions, it fails.
We need those in the house church that understand humility and authority and those in the institutional churches who understand humility and intimacy to continue to bridge this gulf – that will lead to a powerful, powerful representation of what the church can be.
[Posted on behalf of Grizz]
Alexander and Jay, et al,
Not only do I find more enduring truth in what Alexander has posted here than in what went before it, but I also find a refreshing honesty that shines brighter than the flickers in what Jay posted. I am NOT saying Jay was being dishonest in any way. It is more accurate to say that I believe Jay is as blinded by the trappings of cultural norms as is any RCC member who might be asked how well they believe their congregation would do without their buildings and rituals peculiar to the way they think of gathered Christians. (Please Note: I am NOT making this observation to appeal to the all-too-conventional church of Christ stereotypes about the Roman Catholic system. There is too much to admire about the way the RCC does care for the poor and downtrodden that just plain leaves the RCC detractors in the dust. Our stereotypes have been wrong about the RCC, sinfully wrong.)
In all this blather about restoring the churches to what is often referred to as “the first century ideal” or “the first century pattern” there is a swiss-cheese-ness to the approach of modern ‘restoration-ism’ that explains much of the distrust of the post-modern thinker. One restores what one wants to see or is accustomed to being shown in the scriptures without nearly enough plain listening to the message of the New Testament (and the OT, too). I cannot discern any time spent in the scriptures that emphasizes where they assembled at all. And what we might claim as such a reference is largely (if not totally) ignored by the Western ‘restoration-ism.’
Rather than imitate or restore what the earliest gatherings of Christians were, we seek either the extremes of building mini-temples or else shunning any type of “special use” edifice at all (a la many ‘house churches’). I could go on a real rant here, but that would divert from what needs to be said.
What we need is a mindset that declares and seeks fellowship between ALL fellow believers who follow Jesus. This goes well beyond the one church in one town/city/metropolitan area concept. It is a one body mindset that recognizes no real, substantive differences between those who seek to live Christ wherever we find them – at least no such differences that are edifice-centric or preacher-centric or region-centric. The only difference that should matter is Jesus-centric versus world-centric (I sometimes call the world-centric view another name: ‘alternative’-centric).
We were never called to grow assemblies or programs or even ministries. If you believe we were, show me the scriptures.
We were called to spread the good news of Jesus and participate as workers in the vineyard with God – and we are told that He (God) will give the increase. Instead we are too easily seduced by thinking that choosing the right preacher or building the right edifice in the right location or having the right mix of ministries is what matters. None of that matters on an enduring level. And I can not only show you the scriptures, but be fairly confident that you would agree in principle, if not in application.
Did Peter or Paul or even Philip or his daughters ever preach about anything besides BEING people who recognize that it is God who makes anything about them right? Did they ever spend a syllable on buildings? (Please check this out – we will die without knowing this so much better than we now do.) Did any of the preaching or teaching or exhorting speak of growing static (i.e., established independent of other gatherings) ministries that take on a life of their own within any one gathering of believers?
Jay, I appreciate you entering the discussion that has diverted so much attention from Jesus to focus on whatever popular belly-button gazing exercise is clamoring for attention. I hope it is because you, too, want more of Jesus and less of the diversions. And I thank you for stirring up thinking and consideration. I respectfully and humbly disagree with the focus and tone of this blog-post, though. Your talents were meant to accomplish more…as are all of our gifts from God.
I pray for the day when we can discuss this in terms that truly matter. Not institutional versus house assemblies. Not intimacy versus economies of scale. Rather Jesus’ ways versus our ways.
I will keep praying for this. Will anyone join me? Or is it still beyond us to take off the blinders of what we have always accepted in order to see what Jesus has always emphasized?
Grizz
We have both worlds at the Donelson CoC in Nashville Tn. We have Home Churches within the congregation that generally meet on Sunday evening in place of the traditional evening service (which was dwindling to nothing anyway). We generally break bread, fellowship a while and then have Bible study which is usually digging deeper into the Sunday sermon.
We have the intimate fellowship of about 20 and we can be mobilized in a few phone calls. If we need 40 we simply ask another home churdh to join us. When the tornado's hit Alabama, we contacted all 25 home church leaders and got the ball rolling. It's also Biblical….like the 12 tribes of Israel.
So the moral of the story is…..If your Sunday evening service is not very well received, try the Home Church model. I'm sure the elders at Donelson would and could save you some learning curve.
Ted
Alexander…That was awesome. I actually agree almost 100%.. But, we might as well make the most out of what we have. I don't see "churches" all selling out to McDonald's and disbanding. Plus, if the better good is having a single "church" instead of home churches then how much better to have a single church in a single city..Anybody really think that's gonna happen? ….I figure if Jesus is proclaimed, no matter the setting, good things will be accomplished. God is in control and He finds a way to use our sorry selves and our distorted theologies to honor Himself and fend for the poor and orphans. The Kingdom isn't mortar or stone…It's all good.
It seems to me that the simple truth is that institutional churches do some things really well, and house churches do some things really well. They are not in competition, and there is not a single model for the Kingdom. Let both have room for the other and God will be glorified in all the things they are able to accomplish.
Pingback: One In Jesus » House Churches & Institutional Churches, Part 2
Having been involved in both "forms" of church life I do agree that instituonal churches, because of it's large organization and chain of command can do a lot of good works and that house/organic churches due to its small size, lack of clergy defintely cannot compete with the institutional church's ability to provide this kind of disaster relief, but I think the focus is a somewhat skewed here as I read the article. I do not believe that Jesus said "Love doing lots of good works because of having a big organization." Jesus said "love one another as I have loved you."
part 2: So what happens after the institutional churches have helped the government in bringing a town or city back together after a disaster, what normally happens? Buisness as normal. But what if those institutional churches were no longer institutional but met from house to house throughout their neighbors and loved one another and their neighbors? I guess another question that comes to mind is what happened to those Christians in the institutional churches after their buildings got destroyed? How did they love and serve one another and their neighbor? What was the fruit of their lives? Why do we think that someone or a group think they have to be managers of big works in order to be sucessful? Is that what Christ thinks of when He thinks of success? How are ALL of His people living by the Spirit bearing fruit of love together and with their neighbors?