In the last post of this series, we found that the New Testament church didn’t exist in numerous autonomous house churches all in the same town. Rather, there was one church, under a single eldership, meeting in multiple houses and sometimes, when the authorities would allow, meeting as a gathering of the whole church.
House church problems
And so, the contemporary house church is not the same thing at all. First, in most settings, house churches are entirely autonomous. House churches are usually just small churches that meet in a house.
Most house churches act toward other house churches and other institutional churches much as institutional churches do — as either irrelevant or as rivals. They may have friendly relations with some other churches, but they certainly don’t submit to any kind of overseeing eldership. Nor do many set their agenda, their mission, or their vision in cooperation with other churches.
The result is that house churches are largely missionally ineffective. They often serve their own membership very well, with intense love, great fellowship, wonderful worship, and effective shepherding. But on the whole, they don’t grow. House churches generally hate to divide (because of they so enjoy the love they have), and so they tend to either not grow at all (becoming a closed group and ultimately dying) or else move into larger space and become an institutional church. Rare indeed is the house church that manages to routinely cleave off daughter house churches and continue to grow. It happens, but not often — unless the house church is subject to a supervising authority.
In an article on attractional and missional churches, Dan Kimball writes,
Not long ago I was on a panel with other church leaders in a large city. One missional advocate in the group stated that younger people in the city will not be drawn to larger, attractional churches dominated by preaching and music. What this leader failed to recognize, however, was that young people were coming to an architecturally cool megachurch in the city—in droves. Its worship services drew thousands with pop/rock music and solid preaching. The church estimates half the young people were not Christians before attending.
Conversely, some from our staff recently visited a self-described missional church. It was 35 people. That alone is not a problem. But the church had been missional for ten years, and it hadn’t grown, multiplied, or planted any other churches in a city of several million people. That was a problem.
Another outspoken advocate of the house church model sees it as more missional and congruent with the early church. But his church has the same problem. After fifteen years it hasn’t multiplied. It’s a wonderful community that serves the homeless, but there’s no evidence of non-Christians beginning to follow Jesus. In the same city several megachurches are seeing conversions and disciples matured.
Kimball focuses on growth and evangelism. But the same problem arises in terms of service to the community. A church of 35 is unlikely to recruit, send, and support a missionary by itself. It can’t build an orphanage in Africa or down the road.
A solution would be for the house church to associate with other churches and to work in concert with them to accomplish the things it can’t do alone. But many house churches are formed by people burned by an institutional church who have no desire to work with institutional churches. And cooperating with other house churches would require establishing some sort of leadership structure, and many house church members are highly individualistic and anti-authority.
But that’s wrong. The essence of Christianity is submission. Radical individualism is a Western, Enlightenment attitude that is utterly foreign to scripture. So is radical congregational autonomy. It’s just not in the Bible. And one reason is that a bunch of tiny, uncooperative churches will be vastly less effective than united churches furthering a concerted vision — whether the measure is evangelism, growth, or serving the needy.
(Mat 12:25 ESV) 25 Knowing their thoughts, he said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand.”
Ask anyone who’s ever been in the military. The soldiers who are able to remain in constant communication with each other, working a common battle plan, have a huge advantage. They win nearly every time.
Of course, if we were to define “Christianity” as having great worship and a loving community, autonomous house churches would be great. But if Christianity is also about participating in God’s mission to redeem the world, both by preaching the gospel and by healing brokenness and suffering, well, the institutional church is just better at that.
(Not all institutional churches are better, of course, but not for lack of ability. Their problem is a lack of will.)
You see, the question is whether we evaluate effectiveness in terms of how well the individual member is served versus how well the Christian community at large and the surrounding community are served.
Institutional church problems
The institutional church has similar problems, just on a different scale. But scale matters.
Because institutional churches are larger, they can accomplish more in terms of mission. They are, on the whole, more evangelistically effective. They are better are developing ministries and foreign mission.
But institutional churches are weak in terms of forming intimate relationships. They struggle to pastor their members, because it’s so hard to know that many people well enough to truly know their needs.
It’s easy for a member to be overlooked. It’s easy for an uncommitted member to hide in the corners and remain uncommitted. And it’s far more likely that a member of an institutional church will be lonely — even in a crowd of thousands.
And the institutional churches also refuse to cooperate. In the Churches of Christ, the other Churches in town are often seen as competitors and rivals — if not downright heretics and apostates. We have a nasty habit of seeing our sister congregations as the enemy. We sure don’t cooperate. We even create doctrines out of thin air so we can pretend that our animosity toward our brothers and sisters is justified. We call it “autonomy.” The biblical term is “division.”
(Tit 3:8-11 ESV) 8 The saying is trustworthy, and I want you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to devote themselves to good works. These things are excellent and profitable for people. 9 But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. 10 As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, 11 knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.
Notice the contrast. We should dedicate ourselves to “good works” (v. 8) rather than “foolish controversies” (v. 9). Those who refuse this command are “worthless” (v. 9), stir up division (v. 10), and damned (v. 10). Now, who wants to claim that the Churches of Christ are guiltless on these counts?
But it’s not just the Churches of Christ. The Baptists accept the salvation of most believers, but they form county and state associations of Baptist churches. No one else is invited. And historically, this has been true of all denominations. Many denominations accept the salvation of many outside their tribe, but historically, all have succumbed to the temptation to see other denominations and congregations as rivals if not enemies. Satan wins when that happens.
Toward a solution
Small groups, also known as home groups, soul talks, community groups, or Acts 2 groups, are an effort to blend the benefits of the house church with the institutional church. And small groups sometimes work incredibly well, and sometimes they are a disaster. We’ll address the particulars in another post. But a small groups ministry is very similar to the solution found by the apostles for the Jerusalem church. They managed to be big and small all at once.
They had to deal with some big problems — such as a large number of starving widows — while also serving needs best met in smaller groups. Therefore, I think small groups have to be part of any solution. And some churches do them very well indeed.
Another part of the solution has to be better cooperation among congregations, even across denominational lines. The solution isn’t via the traditional ecumenical lines. Unity isn’t found in negotiations among bureaucrats and academics. Unity has to arise at the local level through church to church and Christian to Christian cooperation, coordination, and love.
The process is already well under way in many communities, and many churches are learning to work in coordination with other churches on all sorts of community projects. It’s just that many of the efforts are nominal, symbolic efforts. But it’s the right place to start. You have to crawl before you can walk.
And then there’s the problem of Churches of Christ refusing to cooperate across denominational lines, because it’s important (supposedly) for the Churches of Christ to get the credit — and so we get no credit at all. Of course, the real goal should be to bring glory to Jesus, but that fact seems lost on many of our leaders.
We need to develop a shared vision of unity in its fullness. We may never see it until Jesus returns — in its fullness — but we should at least dream about what that would mean and struggle toward it. You see, there’s no other way to be true to our Restoration Movement heritage.
The Last Will and Testament of the Springfield Presbytery is rightly considered by many historians the founding document of the Restoration Movement. It states,
Imprimis. We will that this body die, be dissolved, and sink into union with the Body of Christ at large: for there is but one body and one spirit, even as we are called in one hope of our calling. …
Item. We will, that preachers and people, cultivate a spirit of mutual forbearance, pray more and dispute less; and while they behold the signs of the times, look up and confidently expect that redemption draweth nigh.
Or as Thomas Campbell wrote in the “Declaration and Address,” the founding document in the Campbell branch of the Restoration Movement —
PROP. 1. THAT the church of Christ upon earth is essentially, intentionally, and constitutionally one; consisting of all those in every place that profess their faith in Christ and obedience to him in all things according to the scriptures, and that manifest the same by their tempers and conduct, and of none else as none else can be truly and properly called christians.
It’s hard to believe that we were founded with these ideals when we’ve worked so hard in opposition to them for so many years.
Jay house assemblies by their nature are not group functional as institutional churches. "Every one assemble Saturday and we will go door knock in the community." This was the effort a few years ago but has become non existent by all, but a few.
This group practice seems to be coming back into the forefront of church leaders minds with the loss of it's elderly and the failing economy. The need for $$$$$ is supreme in the institutional church.
House assemblies are content to LIVE DAILY their worship service to the Father and their Lord and their priorities are to sow seed, help the needy, love their neighbor as themselves, at work, at play, at school or where they LIVE DAILY.
One is focused on: "present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship. 2 And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect. Rom 12 NAS
The other seems more content on: weekly ritual "performed perfect" and laying by in store their $$$$$ to the church.
I suppose what is proper depends upon one's own interest and perspective..
Another consideration is the home church doesn't have room for the cemetery like some big churches do.
So,
We sleep in death right next to folks we shunned in life.
That's my conviction, too. But it leads to some challenging questions: What hinders us to follow their example? Is there a better way to live out and experience unity? Or have we indeed found a better system?
Since it does not seem realistic to change or convince all denominations and Christians in a city to do it this way, someone has to start little and step by step.
The alternative – not even trying to restore the ancient beauty of Christ's church – seems no alternative to me. So many end up by keeping and even defending the status quo, while others start a mini-restoration and end up having far less than what was there originally. Of course the "status quo-ers" could point at them and say: "You have not achieved very much, that does not convive us at all." But one of the best answers to this would be: "That's because you and many others did not want to join the restoration; so what's missing in our attempts and accomplishments is YOU."
And this means DEATH to denominationalism AND Church-of-Christ-ism; yet we should acknowledge and stick to it, that our movement was originally a step out of the denomniations, as the "Last Will And Testament" beautifully demonstrate (glad you quoted from it). In this respect we should not abandon our heritage, but rather become good examples of what it means being "simply Christians".
And then there are these touchy issues that have been debated here quite often: The seven "ones" in Eph 4:3-6. As long as we exclude baptism from the "agenda of unity" in order to not offend Lutherans or Methodists or Mainstream-Evangelicals, we work against unity in God's sense, but create something different, like – let's say – the Evangelical Alliance, which is good in itself but does not create unity (or "unschisms") but actually preserves the Status Quo.
Again these "Status Quo-ers" can look at us and belittle us, because we haven't accomplished the unity we (by our name) stand for. And again the answer must be: "That's because you are not in the boat."
So, if we speak of restoring the church, we have to strive to reach out to all Christians in a given city/area in order to re-unite with them on the basis of God's Word (Declaration and Address!). And since not all or maybe even none will respond with the attitude of the "Last Will and Testament", we'd have to start a mini-restoration which in the end does not look very much like the original – but still: I believe it is better than nothing …
Just let no one boast: "We are a fully restored New Testament Church", because such a church encompasses the whole city.
Alexander
I fail to see the difference between my house church with 3 to 5 families and its autonomy and the 14 different Baptist churches here in my town all doing " their own thing" They are ALL semi palagian or Arminian at best and all an off shoot of the origional baptist church that was established here 150 yrs ago. Each having buildings and programs in an attempt to attract customers from the other churches in the area. Plus Your are right about compatition when you leave one for another you are banished for life in the eyes of the church you left . Nope I will take my home church anyday. bk
It seems to me Jay makes a great case that both house and institutional churches suffer from the same problems, differentiated primary by scale. I conclude the common link between the two is people. We seem to mess up most things.
Some people will find a better sense of Christian community in a small group, others in a more institutional-like setting.
Neither form of assembly is likely to disappear any time soon.
In whichever setting we gather, we need to encourage each other to love the way Jesus loved us. That is the only thing that really matters anyway.
The Visualized Bible Study series of lessons states in lesson 5, The History of the Lord's Church, "Men often depart from God's way." This, popularly known as 'The Jule Miller Films,' was (perhaps still is) the preeminent evangelistic tool in Churches of Christ. Yet, we seem to miss the fact that this theme statement of that lesson can apply to "us" as well as it does the "the denominations." Or, if it applies to "us," it only applies to those heretical congregations across town!
As you say, it must start somewhere. It started with Stone recognizing the Spirit of God working among someone other than Presbyterians. It started with Thomas Campbell's recognition of Christians in Presbyterian churches other than those of the New Light Anti Burgher Seceder congregations.
If we must crawl before we can walk, where will it begin with us? Doing good works in cooperation with others seems to be a good place to begin – such as disaster relief, pregnancy centers, national days of prayer, etc. Or are we so far gone that we fear that our participation in such things will somehow contaminate us as having fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness?
Jerry
Not really, but we should be aware that if we have more and more fellowship with other denominations that uncomfortable disussions will arise in our midst. Some of them might be beneficial, though, some of them can be devastating.
The reasons are simple: Some churches do have a better understanding of some things than we do; but we do have a better understanding of other things. If we don't humble ourselves to the Spirit of God working among other groups of Christians we will miss a good part of God's revelation to His church. If we don't have spiritual discernment on the other hand, teachings and practices will creep into our churches that are unsound and unhealthy.
If we work together with other Christians, you should be aware of this and be sure the church understands that there are good reasons for why we are the way we are – but athe same time we must have open ears and hearts for the Spirit of God. This is a narrow path.
Alexander
Have we lost sight of who's church it is?
I sincerely fear some of US honestly believe it is "OUR" church.
We restored it, we own it, we named it, we run it, and WE decide who's in it.
That is a denominational attitude.
Give it BACK to Jesus and let US swallow our PRIDE and become all things to all peoples that we might reach some.
It isn't CHURCH BUILDINGS that has driven some back into their home assemblies but rather the "attitudes" of some of the brethren and what MUST occur on what day and what external restrictions and requirements must be "practiced" perfect in those church buildings..
Sometimes we miss the point that Satan is the real enemy, not the denominational church down the street. My personal beliefs did not change when I moved from the instrumental Christian Church to the Episcopal Church and they didn't change when I later joined a Church of Christ but I know that some of my Church of Christ brothers and sisters wouldn't have considered themselves in full fellowship with me when I was a member of either of the two previous churches. Shucks! They are probably suspicious of me even today! If we want to fight, let's fight the real enemy.
That's true. But we also fail to see that Satan messed up the churches, so we don't meet on neutral ground. There are false teachings around (some of them most likely in our own midst) that we must be aware of. And since the "simple sheep" lack most of the background information to discern right from wrong – unless we train them to be able to understand at last the basic principles thereof (yet, apologetics stands in conflict with our curriculum of "uplifting" and "wellness" preaching) – we teachers must be very careful and think ahead.
E.g. I rememeber well how several youth groups in our Evangelical church (back in the early 1990s) broke apart because of interdenominational fellowship with Charismatics. The elders were completey unprepared to deal with the questions that arose.
I am FOR cooperation and interdenominational fellwoship. But I say we must not be be naive – the Devil is in fact very active among the various churches.
Alexander
I *was* part of an autonomous house church at one point in my life, and it left a bad taste in my mouth. We did it in rebellion against a hyper-legalist branch of the Churches of Christ. (My husband is also convinced that we did it because we were about to lose our church building. The congregation made some bad financial decisions and wound up being deeply in debt.) We started with about seven or so house churches. When my husband and I moved away, we were down to two, and the group we were part of didn't last after we moved. I also do not think it's a coincidence that three couples involved in our house churches–including the minister that started the whole house church thing in our area–are now either separated or divorced.
While there are house churches that do thrive (as in China), in our case, I don't think we had the maturity to make it work. My husband and I are now in a Church of Christ in the Atlanta area.
Pingback: Missional House Churches