House Churches – Will They Really Work in North America?
A 2006 Barna Update has revealed some surprising trends in American the church attendance. Barna’s study indicates that 9% of adults in the U.S. attend a house church during a typical week. A decade ago, this number was a meager 1% of the population in attendance each week. The current 9% level translates to about 20 million adults in attendance at a house church on any given week. Over the course of a month, approximately 43 million adults attend house churches! (Check out the update. It is a fascinating read.)Barna believes that this trend will continue to rise over the next two decades. Indeed, he estimates that the level of participation will double over the next decade. It seems that he believes house churches are “here to stay” in North America.
I have to admit that I have always been a bit skeptical about the viability of house churches in a North American context. I suppose I always thought that the consumer-driven American culture would demand more, not less, from its weekly gathering of faith. But it seems that I may have been wrong. Publications focusing upon house churches (or simple churches) abound. There are various networks throughout North America. Just google the words “house church” and watch your screen fill up!
What do you think? Are house churches here to stay? Are you involved in a house church? What are the positives of house church? What are the negatives? Would you “give up” your full-service congregation for the simplicity of a house church?
How would a focus upon and noticeable growth in house churches have an impact upon life and “structure” in the SBC?
Good thoughts Geoff,
I suppose accountability and proper doctrine would be my two red flags. Now for me a house church would indeed be a viable option if I was not allowed to meet out in the open. If it was illegal to meet as a Body then you bet I would be hitting the “underground railroad.” But how do I persevere with the Saints if I don’t see them? How do I get fully involved with the things of Christ if I’m not around those things?
I did read the quote by Barna in a 2006 Washington Post Article, in talking about those who attend house churches he states: “These are people who are less interested in attending church than in being the church.” Unfortunately that gives the sentiment that those who attend the traditional church do not have any interest in being the church. (The article states that Barna is a home-churcher.) He also states: “The alternatives are attractive to those who want to deepen their relationships with God and one another…” Again, by my attending a regular fellowship does that mean I don’t desire this? I think we must be careful to not make this an either/or rather than a both/and scenario. Sproul talks about in the Holiness of God, that the house of God should be a place where there is a sacred hush. That when a person leaves, they know they were in a place of reverence.
My view is that a house church needs to be under the umbrella of a local church with a firm accountability structure in place. In addition, they should have a clearly defined doctrinal statement. Not a “doctrinal statement” that those holding unorthodox beliefs could sign in agreement. We must be watchful against error and teach rightly and humbly serve our Savior wherever that may be.
John,
You mention two of the concerns that most people indicate when discussing the house church movement. But I suppose it begs the question, “Accountable to who?”
And … just because there is an organized, structured local church does not (obviously) mean that there is sound doctrine involved.
You prefer that house churches be under the umbrella of a local church. But house church folk would tell you (I believe), “We ARE the local church.”
The question that we must deal with is whether or not our aversion to and suspicion of house churches is merely a product of our western and western church mindset?
Geoff,
I would argue that, in general, the rise of house churches is more of mark of unhealthiness within the North American context. Admitting I have never been a part of a house church, I would guess that house churches are dominated by people who do not want to submit themselves to the leadership of the church or are otherwise disenchanted with the local church. I doubt many would be willing to be under the authority of a local church for the same reason.
I also think the lack of biblically trained leadership would often create an environment rich in heresy. This I have seen in many small groups where there was no teacher, only a facilitator saying, “what do you think this means?” There is no link of a Paul entrusting to Timothy the faith.
My thoughts only apply to North America, where we are still able to worship publicly without fear. Obviously other contexts change the motivations behind house churches greatly. It also does not apply to churches that start out of houses.
Brad,
Again … yours is a very western “worldview” with regard to church. And, again, does being under the authority of a church (with a building) or a pastor guarantee doctrinal orthodoxy? I really don’t think so. Indeed, in my area of the U.S., there seem to be plenty of churches being led by uneducated, misled pastors. Even Southern Baptist ones.
I don’t think we need to assume that house churches are intended to be “hidden” in areas of persecution. House churches are thriving in free nations all over the globe.
Curious thought…
Why is it “wrong” for the SBC to dictate doctrine but also “wrong” for a small group of people to establish their own doctrine without being “accountable” to a larger church?
Seems like a mildly Catholic mentality to me – “Only those who meet in cloistered buildings have the right to establish doctrine…”
Who is the “normal” local church accountable to?
Are we just afraid of losing our “power” over what people believe?
I personally prefer a “normal” type church, but the fear of “bad doctrine” seems to me to be grasping at straws for a way to shut down the competition.
Just my thoughts, respectfully submitted.
Bernard,
For me it’s not about the “competition” it’s not about “power,” but it is about souls and it is about honoring God. Proper doctrine is foundational and I would hardly classify it as “grasping at straws.” I’m talking about the fundamentals, without which you have no hope for eternity. If a house church is solid on the foundation and they have godly men to preach the word and they strive for biblical godliness then by all means go for it. Also, the SBC dictates doctrine, news to me!
Something to think about … the early church seemed to be a loosely connected network of house churches. Might this format for the Body be a bit closer to the biblical model than our formal, western organization?
Something else to think about … How many Gospel resources are bound up in buildings and real estate … that could be unleashed for rapid multiplication through house churches?
And one more thing … with regard to “doctrinal accountability,” is a group of believers gathered around the study of the Scriptures something less than sufficient? Can the Holy Spirit still operate without the efforts of a seminary-trained pastor?
Geoff,
I stated up front that my comments pertained only to the church in North America. I thought that was the question. If not, my apologies.
No, being under the authority of a local church does not guarantee doctrinal orthodoxy, but it sure does help. For instance, our church plant is under the authority of our parent churches, until we have enough discipled believers to constitute as a church. Besides, you know I don’t think a church has to have a building…ours doesn’t. What is missing, in my humble opinion, from house churches is a sufficient base of discipled believers to guide the house church away from bad doctrine.
My comments are entirely based on my experiences in small groups (not much different in my thinking from the dynamics of a house church) where I heard many heretical ideas tossed out without correction.
My question is, why a house church? I’m sure there are some good reasons, possibly even in the North American context. I just wonder how often they are started for good reasons.
The leaders of our local association have been pushing for house churches. I just don’t see the upside, but I am open to enlightenment.
Brad,
No, my brother … you are right on target. :)
I am curious about the potential rise and effect of house churches in the U.S.
Most of us have had the experiences that you mentioned in home cell groups. We deal with the same thing from time to time in ours, though we work very hard to have grounded believers in the mix, ready to provide solid teaching and correction. (But I’ve seen equally as much HORRIFIC doctrine thrown about a very traditional Sunday School class … I think most of us have.)
Perhaps the organized church does help within our SBC context. But what about all of the other churches out there … right here in the U.S. … whose doctrine is all over the place? (Indeed, most have HUGE T.V. shows. :( )
I tend to think that the rise of the house church movement may have more to do with the growing level of cultural irrelevance (either real or perceived) that people in North America see in the organized church. Could it be that the small groups, with their relational nature, have a broader appeal among postmoderns? I tend to think so.
Good comments, my friend.
Tell me … how are your assoc. folks seeking to bring about house churches in your area?
I’m just hoping for a few house church practitioners and proponents to show up some time today. :)
Hey Geoff
I feel like I am always the odd man out when I comment. You said that you were surprised given the consumer-driven context that we live in. I, in part, agree. But I also think that a majority of these alternative groups are meeting in houses because they are getting more, not less – even though it is more simple. The people that I know who have become a part of this type of meeting have done so because they are looking to be apart of something that allows them the freedom to fulfill various scriptural things that are not usually fulfilled in the institutional groups.
In response to John
As far as I am concerned, accountability and proper doctrine are not guaranteed in the institutional groups. So your red flag, should at least extend to all Christians, no matter how they meet (I think you agree). I sense that a group meeting in a house can have as much accountability as the institution… in fact, from my experiences, most house groups have more accountability. This is due to their closer bonds from the smaller, more open, and more relaxed environments.
In response to Brad,
It is a pretty bold statement to say that something is a mark of unhealthiness when you readily admit that you have never been a part of it. I meet with two groups of believers; a traditional Sunday morning group and a house group on Saturday evenings. The Saturday night group seems much healthier to me. The group who meets on Saturday evening is usually hosted by an elder of a traditional Sunday morning group. The Saturday night group is not sanctioned by, or under the authority of, the Sunday morning group either. We talk about scripture, we encourage one-another, sometimes we sing, more often than not there is teaching (even without a specified teacher).
You concern for the lack of biblically trained leadership is unfounded… and, to be frank, unscriptural. We need leaders who meet the qualifications found in 1 Timothy. How many untrained men do we have as examples from scripture?
I am not saying that these groups will all be faithful to God. But there are also many institutional groups who are not faithful to God. I sense that the majority of house groups meet together because of this. We should not throw the baby out with the bath water… maybe there is something to learn from these groups.
I hope you all have a great Thanksgiving.
God’s Glory,
Lew
The Pursuit Online Store
Whoops… I slipped up my HTML… that last response should not be in all bold like that… sorry.
Lew
Good post. I am excited to see that house/simple church is finally appearing on the radar screens of the SBC world. It’s really nothing new and been around since Pentecost, but only recently catching on there in our homeland.
I found your comment interesting, “I always thought that the consumer-driven American culture would demand more, not less, from its weekly gathering of faith…” The reality is that house/simple church demands a whole lot more than institutional Christianity. Those we are involved with give significantly more time, energy to their faith than most that I am familiar with coming from the traditional churches.
“Simple” doesn’t mean “less”, it means that all the extra-biblical stuff is discarded to get back to the “simple” truths of living the Christian life in obedience to Christ’s commands. By simplifying we give ourselves more time to be actively engaged in fulfilling the Great Commission.
Guy,
By “demanding more,” I meant that so many people here (at least where I live) seem to demand (expect?) more stuff from their church. You know … like a gym/weight room, aerobics classes, preschool day cars, MOPS, high-tech youth group, etc… That is the “consumer” mindset, where you want more back for your offering plate dollars, if you know what I mean.
What you describe seems to be true. House churches seem to be exactly the opposite. they expect more from the individual believer. I think that’s the way it ought to be.
Indeed, how much of the institutional stuff that we associate with church is truly extra-biblical and sapping valuable Great Commission resources … all for the comfort of the people in the pews? MAJOR food for thought.
Lew,
Could you elaborate. You said people involved in house churches are looking to fulfill “various scriptural things that are not usually fulfilled in the institutional groups.” Such as?
If biblical training is unimportant, then why did you go to SEBTS? I would disagree. It seems to me that Paul took great effort in training Timothy, Titus, etc biblically. I don’t think seminary is necessary. I think it is helpful, but not necessary. I do think biblical training of leadership is vitally necessary and scriptural. Look at the Pastoral Epistles some time. What biblical leader was untrained? I would give up my SEBTS diploma any day to have been trained by Jesus, Peter, Barnabas, Paul, etc.
If I am to read your bold lettering as offense, then I did not intend to offend. Just offering my thoughts.
I’ll try to fix Lew’s bold-faced stuff. ;)
In response to Lew: I do agree. That’s why I said this isn’t an “either/or” but a “both/and.” Bad doctrine can rear up anywhere. If the traditional fellowships and the new house fellowships are built on the theology of the Cross then let’s do it.
And in response to Geoff’s comment about the early churches meeting in homes, is that descriptive or prescriptive? Is the text telling us what they did, or is it telling us what to do? Or both? How does church history weigh in on the matter? Should we take that into account? (Sorry brother, I like your M.O. of asking a bunch of questions :)
John,
Ahh … you’re getting all theological on us, huh? ;)
I tend to think that the descriptions that we have in Acts, and the references to the churches meeting in houses in the epistles, would best be considered descriptive. But descriptive as opposed to prescriptive means we should still pay attention to the example given for us. I think our goal should always be to follow the biblical models as closely as possible.
But the way we do church is simply one way of doing church. It is not THE way. I was a bit blown away when I visited a handful of churches in the Andes mountains in Peru. They all looked like churches back home. Stages, pulpits, pews … just like the missionaries in the 1930′s taught them to do it. But the people there have no money to build church buildings. they struggle and scrape and invest decades in trying to build church buildings that look just like the ones back in the U.S. But house churches would be PERFECT for their budgets, communities, and cultures. (Right Guy? ;) )
I, personally, think that house churches are a very biblical model. I know that they are on the rise in the U.S.
One of my main questions remains unanswered, though …
What would a significant house church movement within the SBC do to the SBC?
Geoff,
In our association it is only talk at this point.
I think you have a point about the relational nature of the house church. I tend to think of this as more a reaction against the mega church and mega-wannabe church mentality that exists in less-than-mega churches.
I agree that relational is a key to reaching the unchurched. At Immanuel, we have relational as a core trait. We also are going to begin planting other churches with the idea that we all stay small enough to be relational.
Brad,
I think the sheer size and potential for anonymity in the mega-church is rapidly becoming a huge “turn-off” among the postmoderns (and whatever the next generation is that comes after them … I can’t keep up anymore.)
I think your desire to plant smaller, relational churches is a reflection of that reality.
But how ’bout this? Why not plant a whole series of geographical house churches out of the ministry of your church? You could provide trained leaders and accountability. You could all meet for worship once a quarter. You could become THE model for your association! I think you could make it happen.
Much like Lew, who senses himself to often be the “odd man out,” I sense myself to often be caught in the middle, in a mediating position between both extremes, that, unfortunately, at times, alienates those on both sides of the question at the same time. Oh well.
I agree with much of what people like Guy, Geoff, and Lew are saying here. In a “house church” setting, indeed there is often a higher level or quality of relationships and church life, if we can call it that. It is not a weakened, non-committal type of church life.
However, at the same time, I would agree that isolated house groups, without a healthy accountability relationship with the rest of the Body of Christ around them, many times will find themselves challenged and limited in providing all the ministry that the NT church ought to.
The solution to this is “house church networks” in which leadership is mutually accountable to each other, and ministry gifts are shared among the different house groups. In my opinion, there is not a whole lot of difference between this and many cell-church models. Some cell churches do have what seems to me to be an overbearing hierarchical structure, though.
David,
That’s the kind of network that I’m suggesting to Brad.
And I think that’s a structure that could work well in SBC life in North America. Networks…
John Daly -
Please don’t misinterpret this as a personal fight. I’m just responding to your comment and I don’t have a LOT of time to try to edit for perfect tact. I hope nothing sounds rude or out of line.
I didn’t mean at all to downplay the importance of good doctrine. What I was trying to emphasize is that being tied to a larger church does not guarantee good doctrine. There are HUGE churches with bad doctrine, due to the influence, in most cases, of two or three powerful individuals.
My statement about the SBC was intended to convey this message – IF the SBC suddenly began insisting that member churches NOT have Calvinistic beliefs, there would be a huge rebellion. Member churches most likely would not tolerate the dictation of doctrine. We fight vigorously for, and the SBC is founded upon, the autonomity of the local church. Yet, for some reason, some of us in this thread feel that a house church does not have the right to decide doctrine without the influence of a larger church. That, to me, is a hypocritical mentality. Why is a church that meets in a house NOT a “local church”, but a church that meets in a “church” is?
As for my remark about competition, riddle me this… If we (American churches as a whole) aren’t bothered by competition, why do we spend so much money promoting OUR churches? Why does a new church in a community often feel shunned by the existing churches? Why do we get frustrated when our members leave for another church? My point is that we fret about the wrong things. “WE” don’t like the idea of house churches succeeding because “we” want to be “right”. “We” want to be seen as “the right kind of church”. Should there be competition? No (except perhaps in softball…)!! BUT IT’S THERE! I’m trying to say this – It’s easy to find some “possible weakness” in house churches and attack them in principle because we don’t want them to succeed, if we REALLY examine our motives. We may gloss over it and say that we’re just trying to protect them from bad doctrine, but our REAL frustration is that they are not attending the kind of church that we really think they should be attending.
Many churches unconsciously fall into this because house churches are formed by people who are tired of the waste, tired of the fighting, tired of the laziness, and tired of the dictatorship of the local church. Thus, the local church loses its “best” members. This leads to the local church being “against” home churching, just like the public schools are against home schooling. They take it as a slap in the face. Even though home schooling is highly more successful and valid in nearly all cases, the public schools attack it simply because it is not public schooling, and public school advocates desperately want the public schools to be seen as successful. Likewise, the church attacks the home church for not being a local church simply because our traditional type of church has become the accepted type of church, even though there is little or no biblical foundation for the church owning buildings, fellowship halls, parking lots, and youth centers. THAT’S what I mean by competition.
I’m not a fan of home churches. I wouldn’t want to start one, and I would probably have a hard time joining or even participating in one. I had the opportunity once, but it basically never came to fruition. What I hope I can get across is that the perceived threat of the possibility of bad doctrine is REALLY no greater with a small church than it is a large one. Owning a building doesn’t make your doctrine right. Meeting in a house doesn’t make your doctrine wrong. One person may have doctrine 100% right, but 50 people meeting as a church may only get it 75% right because of all the different viewpoints. 5 people MIGHT even have BETTER doctrine than a big group. Depends on who is deciding that the doctrine is right. :)
Make sure the basic doctrines are right, REGARDLESS of what kind, style, or type of church you attend. I realize you are talking about basics, but I really do believe that we would all be surprised if we REALLY knew what the people we attend church with REALLY believe.
Bernard,
Good comments. And that’s an interesting comparison to home schooling. I’m going to have to think about that one a bit more.
But your last sentence was profound:
“I really do believe that we would all be surprised if we REALLY knew what the people we attend church with REALLY believe.” – NO DOUBT!
Geoff,
The main reason I wouldn’t is because I don’t think it would work in my context. Rather than starting our church plant with the preview services and launch service model, we attempted to build through small home groups. After 6 months, we were averaging 5 in attendance. People in my area were not open to a home-based model.
A secondary reason I wouldn’t engage in that model is that I think it would require a tremendous organizational mind (which I lack)to maintain such a structure and an awful lot more time and energy than a centralized church model.
To answer your question about how it would impact the SBC, I think that would depend greatly on the leadership. CP giving could go up as there is little overhead expense; or CP giving could go down if the mentality is to be isolationistic.
I think the kind of network David is suggesting would remove my primary concerns, and I think such a movement could work. However, if we do so in the current culture of North America, we are limiting ourselves to relational growth only. Don’t misunderstand, I think relational growth is best and most effective. But a home based church prevents any “walk-ins” who are looking for direction because of some hardship that has made them more sensitive.
How long ago was that? Perhaps it would be different with the groups attached to an established church.
Do you use cell groups now, or a traditional Sunday School?
Cell groups. We have found them as an extremely helpful part of both discipleship and assimilation, though I can’t think of more than one or two instances where they served as an entry point into the church.
Of those who did attend our early Bible study, a good number of them were people with a theological axe to grind or a bad attitude toward some church. I’m not saying this is universally the case, or even the norm, as I can’t say that, but merely my experience.
Geoff,
Thanks for this post. It is timely and this is a subject that needs to be on our radar because, like it or not, house churches are an idea whose time has come.
I was floored by the staggering statistics cited by Barna. 20 million people meeting in house churches on a weekly basis in the USA! That’s more people than the SBC has on its overblown membership rolls. While we can probably legitimately claim about 8 million people meeting in SBC churches each week, 20 million people are meeting in house churches in the USA.
I agree with Geoff that the house church movement is more biblical than our “brick and mortar” churches. I’m a bit surprised why some people see as suspicious something that 1) they’ve never been involved in, and 2) is thoroughly biblical. I guess that’s just the Baptist way. :)
I agree with John and others who say there may be doctrinal and accountability concerns with house churches. However, I disagree that these concerns should be any more legitimate than for “brick and mortar” churches and church plants. I am on our association’s church start team and I can tell you that these concerns are part of our evaluation when we look at planting new churches in our area. So that concern is not only relegated to house churches.
I agree with my brother, David Rogers, about the solution of house church networks. These networks and answers to most of the other questions posed in this thread are addressed in a book I reviewed entitled, “Starting a House Church,” by Larry Kreider and Floyd McClung. If you really want to know more about house churches, I heartily recommend this book.
Let me tell you a vision which I believe God has placed on my heart regarding house churches. In 2008, my church is going to begin to plant several house churches in our area. These house churches will be networked together under the oversight of my church. Our goal for 2008 is to plant five house churches. On a longer term basis, we hope to plant 100 house churches in the next five years.
Some may ask, “Why should a traditional church plant house churches?” Here are my reasons:
1. House churches are biblical.
2. House churches are easier to plant than traditional churches.
3. House churches do not take a lot of money to plant.
4. House churches multiply faster than typical church plants.
5. House churches will reach non-Christians who would never come to a “brick and mortar” church.
Thanks for the discussion. As a pastor of a traditional small SBC church, I am very excited by the prospects of planting house churches.
Regards,
Les
personally, i find barna’s research hard to believe about 20 million house churches in the usa. i dont know of one…not even one…in my area. maybe they’re out there, and i dont know about them, but i guarantee you that something like that would not stay silent in a rural community. iow, i would have heard of it. maybe this is a something that’s stronger outside of this part of tn or outside of the south. i dont know. but, i dont know of any.
now, i do know about someone in birmingham, or montgomery, or somewhere in alabama…i believe it is….that has done this very thing in apartment buildings. and, they have a network, and they have started 100′s of house churches in apartment complexes. my former dom in ms was really into this concept, and was checking out doing something with it before i left ms to come home to the promised land….tn.
it is an interesting thing to think about.
david
David,
That’s 20 million people in house churches … not 20 million house churches. That’s probably about 1 to 1.25 million house church units in the country.
I doubt you’ll find a whole lot of actual house churches in the highly churched counties of the rural south. You can find them pretty easily in urban, suburban, and other areas well outside the dominance of the SBC.
Geoff:
You said – “But house churches would be PERFECT for their budgets, communities, and cultures.”
Not only their budgets, but a lot of budgets for a lot of communities, like those small rural communities in our area. Paying for a pastor, even a bi-vocational one is nearly out of the question.
And bricks and mortar…is definitely out of the question. (Besides, buildings are tools at best, a lot of overhead for most and a millstone for some). We have toyed with the idea of a combination house church/circuit rider for trying to reach some of these small towns, but as of yet it is still talk.
“What would a significant house church movement within the SBC do to the SBC?”
Look at what God has laid on Les’ heart in comment #27. The impact could be amazing…
Les:
Great comment…it really resonates with me and it makes a lot of sense where I’m at.
Grace…
Keith Price
Well, if David hasn’t heard about it, then it must not be true :>) Just hacking on you, David. I suspect the majority of house church movements are going to be in areas that are less traditional, such as California.
The reason house churches are catching on is because churches are messed up. Like it or not, the average person finds traditional church to be a tough place to go each week. If you’re divorced, or needy, or in any other way not the perfect idea of a new church member, you sit on the sidelines for months or years, never asked to serve in any type of leadership capacity. If you have money, or you otherwise fit the mold, you are overrun with opportunities to serve. And that can quickly lead to burnout.
I was sitting with my family and some neighbors recently, and we were talking about how difficult it is to find a good church. My daughter and her husband were regularly attending a fairly good sized SBC church, and had found a Sunday School class they really liked. The class was for adults in their 30s, but my daughter and her husband are in their 20s. The Sunday School leadership would not allow them to attend the 30s class. That’s messed up! My youngest daughter is 18, but her boyfriend is a little older. She has no interest in belonging to the youth group of a church. Every church she visited wanted to pigeonhole her into the youth group. She finally got frustrated and gave up. As we were all relating our experiences in looking for a church, someone said, why don’t we just have our own church, right here in our living room, every Sunday? We didn’t do it (not yet anyway), in part because I wasn’t finished looking for a solid church, and in part because they wanted me to lead it, and I wasn’t sure I wanted to do that. I also didn’t want to have a “family” church in my own home, even though several neighbors wanted to be involved.
I like Les’ approach–embrace this trend, because if you don’t, you might be left behind, again.
Keith,
Amen. The “circuit-rider / house church” idea is extremely interesting. One pastor of a traditional church could also lead 3 or 4 house churches, train up leaders in each, and unleash them. Go for it!
BTW … how ’bout that guest post we talked about. :)
Jason,
Interesting, heart-felt, and (unfortunately) pretty accurate insights.
The unreasonable preoccupation with age-groupings has always been aggravating to me.
Jason,
Then why not start a home bible study as a lead-in to a new church plant that reflects the values and vision of this group of folks?
That was certainly an interesting article by Barna. According to the notification under the article, we are not supposed to disseminate quotes, so I won’t quote from it, but I found it interesting that between forty and fifty percent of those people attending house churches go less than once per month. I also found it interesting that close to 20 percent attend both a traditional church and a house church. This seems to reflect the buffet/consumeristic attitude that some people have today in regard to churches. They might attend one on Sundays and a different one on Wednesdays.
I think that house churches work better in some cultures than in other cultures. I served as an IMB missionary to South Korea for 10 years. Before New Directions/SD 21, I helped start 4 churches the traditional way using a seminary graduate and an official building. As far as I know, all four of those churches have survived. After New Directions/SD 21 was instituted, I helped start a house church led by a Korean businessman who was not a seminary graduate. That church folded after I left the country. The Koreans, even the non-Christians, believe that a real church has an official building and a seminary graduate as pastor. Thus, our house church was regarded by the Koreans as a strange cult, which is not surprising considering the fact that the Moonies had tried to have such home meetings. Many traditional churches there have home cell group meetings, but these groups are not autonomous churches; rather, they are under the authority of the whole church which has an official building.
To me, the key biblical point is not where the church meets. The key point is whether the pastor meets the qualifications of 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. At the beginning of the great Christian movement in Korea, churches were started in houses, but these churches were allowed to grow and build official buildings. The first Korean pastors were well-trained and met the biblical qualifications. These days, a house church there is not an indigenous type of church.
House churches work well in places where there is persecution and a need for secret meeting places. They can multiply rapidly, and there is no need for the money that would be spent for official buildings.
In America there is a mixture of different cultures, and the house church concept obviously works better with some cultures than with others. I am currently a church planter, and I am using a building left by a church that disbanded earlier this year. The group I am trying to reach seems to prefer meeting in an official church building rather than a house, so I feel very blessed to have a nice building from the start of our existence as a mission.
baptist theologue,
you make some very good points. i’m glad to hear from someone who has “done it,” and has seen what the long term effects are. thanks for your timely word.
david
Geoff:
I’m working on it… :)
Keith
David,
Remember that Theologue’s experience in Korea was uniquely his own. Indeed, I believe that the super-mega church in Korea is made up of thousands of cell groups/house churches. (If I’m not mistaken…) But the fact that 1 million + house church units already exist in North America says that the method is quite viable within pockets, geographical areas, and sub-cultures in the U.S.
A lot of churches with official buildings start out as house churches. Those missiologists who place major emphasis on speed prefer that house churches divide and form other house churches (rapid multiplication) rather than the churches outgrowing their houses and building official buildings. Again, specific strategy depends somewhat on the people group upon which the church planter is focused. What works in Korea may not work in other situations. One size doesn’t fit all. It seems that folks are always looking for a method that works in every context. We must separate universal principles from methods that work well only in specific contexts. Obviously, some groups in America seem to like house churches. If such groups have pastors who are qualified according to biblical criteria, then we should rejoice that new house churches are being formed.
Baptist Theologue,
An excellent insight. We do seem to be obsessed with finding universal, reproducible methods (especially in SBC life). Even the idea of house churches -vs- brick and mortar goes to the issue of target group (a concept which many in the traditional, North American church seem to have a sincere aversion toward…). But even our methods of “doing” church should focus upon the societal structures and group dynamics of the particular group that we are trying to reach.
Again … this discussion shows that (contrary to the way many would desire things to be) the culture in North America is not homogeneous. One size does not fit all. This is why we MUST plant different models of churches aimed at reaching the multiplicity of cultures / people groups (an I’m not just talking language groups) on our own continent.
Happy Thanksgiving Everyone!
Brad
I was not offended, just clumsy with my HTML (Thanks for fixing it Geoff).
You said, “To respond to your questions: ‘various scriptural things that are not usually fulfilled in the institutional groups.’ Such as?”
The biggest things to me are the things that Paul writes about. Things like everyone bringing a teaching, a psalm, and an encouragements. That we all work to encourage each other to love and good works. These can definitely happen in a institutional group, but I think for the most part… the Sunday morning meetings are considered the most important, but usually during those meetings there is only one person speaking, and a bunch of hearers. Even if there is a time of “fellowship” it often only means shaking peoples hands for 30 seconds in between singing.
You asked, “If biblical training is unimportant, then why did you go to SEBTS?”
My time at SEBTS was well spent. I learned and grew very much while I was there. Most of my learning and growing did not happen in a classroom though. I went to SEBTS because I thought God was calling me to become a full-time vocational pastor. I graduated from SEBTS thinking that God called me to that SEBTS, for the growth… and that my calling to the “pastorate” was not exactly what God had planned for my life… at least, not as I previously understood the pastorate.
You asked, “What biblical leader was untrained?” John and Peter (Acts 4:13)… I sense that we probably agree more on this point than we do disagree. We probably just ran into a semantic issue. I get this from your comment that it is “helpful” but not “necessary.” I would never say that education is wrong or suspicious or anything… but it should never be held as a requirement.
By the way, the education I received from SEBTS was great, but apart from a few classes, it had little to do with “biblical” and more to do with “traditional.” Most of my biblical training happened outside of the classroom.
Well, I guess that’s all for today… I hope you all have a great thanksgiving.
God’s Glory,
Lew
The Pursuit Online Store
So, Lew … where has God led you? What are you doing now?
I, too, enjoyed my seminary work. (I was on the 7-year part-time M.Div. plan at SBTS. ;) ) I did most of my work at an extension center. Most of the guys were already in ministry. It was far different from anything that I ever experienced on the regular campus. I would, however, characterize my training at SBTS as far more non-traditional. (Graham School … Missions, Church Planting) I thoroughly enjoyed it.
But, by far, the majority of my biblical training has also happened outside the classroom. Most of it has come during my own study times, preparing for sermons and Bible studies, and in small groups.
Geoff,
You make the statement, “I suppose I always thought that the consumer-driven American culture would demand more, not less, from its weekly gathering of faith.”
It would appear that the popularity of house churches is not that they want “full-service”, but they want experience something that they cannot seem to find in larger, more traditional churches. They want the intimacy of worship with other believers that they know, not strangers. They want to be participants, not spectators.
For the moment, house churches are here to stay. But if history repeats itself, something new will emerge from he horizon that will replace house churches. Like so many expressions of faith that have come and gone through time, if the Lord tarries, house churches will not be the final form of expressing the the local body of Christ.
Ken,
I think that the differences may even be generational. I think there are many from the boomer (especially younger baby boomer) generation that still seeks the “full service” church. But these younger generations seem to hunger for something more organic, relational, and “real.” Indeed, they want to be participants, not spectators. Similarly, many seem to want to participate in missions/ministry directly, rather than focusing upon funding others to do their missions/ministry “for them.”
Good insights.
Barna’s book has been out more than a couple of years now. I believe he has significantly downgraded some of his numbers. On his speaking tour, he stated that the 20 million number was closer to 5 million.
I can say this: House churching is not easy and many are short-lived. However, in this late hour, every means to share Christ should be persued.
Zane,
Thanks for getting involved in the conversation. I was not aware of the downgraded numbers. Thanks for the info.
I quite agree … we need every available means to share Christ. Surely, house churches are part of any comprehensive strategy to reach all peoples.
Geoff,
I agree with you. My concern from a missionary field perspective is that missions as defined by most SBs is not missions as understood by IMB missionaries. And thus, there is a real challenge before us to dialog and provide significant education. The eternal destiny of the billions who are lost cannot rest on a strategy of, “and every man did what was right in his own eyes.”
I became a Christian right after serving in the USMC (1987). I did evangelism from my local SBC church. While going door to door I found a large number of Spanish speakers. I looked for a church to send them to, but couldn’t find one. So, I started a church with those who came to faith. We were a house church.
I have continued doing that. My current house church has 3 dozen people in it. And more asking to join all the time. Others have spun off (on purpose, positively) to start other house churches. The various house churches meet every other month to have a big worship time and share testimony. The big group time is not a church, it is like what associations must have been like a long time ago.
In our local church (that meets in a house) we do baptism, the Lord’s supper and all the other meaningful aspects of a NT church. We do not have Robert’s Rule of Order or any sort of weird ‘demon deacons’ joking. It wouldn’t make any sense.Everyone is engaged and equipped for the doing of the ministry. It is a healthy group.
I have also started House Churches in China among an unreached people group. Their pastors are relatively new converts because 10 years ago there were zero Christians. They do their own Baptism, Lord’s supper, church discipline, etc. They equip the saints for the doing of the ministry.
What I love about house church is that everyone is encouraged to contribute. You can’t very easily fold your arms and frown through worship. Who you are is real, visible and accountable to the Word and the body of believers.
Also, there are no extra-biblical offices. Pretty much everything we do is very naturally seen in the Text. That is not always the case in more Temple seeming churches I have been to.
Do I think House Churches are the only way? Nope. I think that the New Testament give us basic principles for defining church so that we can adapt to the resources and opportunities in the contexts in which we find ourselves. The question is not so much House churches or not, it is Healthy churches or not.
Shalom,
Russell Minick
Russell,
It sounds like you sure have a wealth of experience to draw on regarding the whole house church thing. Maybe you could help me out with a practical question I have…
You say you have 3 dozen people in your current group. Is that a typical size in your current context? Is it easy to find houses where that many are able to meet together at one time? If not, have you found you have problems in smaller groups finding enough gifted leaders? I have read somewhere that, according to group dynamic studies, approximately 1 out of 10 people have some sort of leadership skills. Do you see this factor playing into the multiplication of house churches?
David,
I have found that around 3 dozen is the limit for really good dialogue. Less than 1 dozen is also hard. When I say dialogue, it is not a Quaker meeting. We study expositionally lead by a teaching pastor/elder. We did the book of Hebrews last spring and couldn’t fit all the teens in who wanted to leave ‘fun’ oriented youth programs to come and study the Word for hours, not minutes.
It is very important to have a real leader who draws out the meek and holds back the domineering (or tangential). It is not an easy task to do well and is why some house churches don’t last. So, yes, it is a key challenge to multiplication.
Also, house churches seem awkward if all you do is building-church liturgy, including ‘free church non-liturgy style liturgy’. Having the priniciples understood that leadership exists for the equipping of the saints for getting on with their ability to serve is critical. That also means enough flexibility to adapt to the actually saints you are working with. Again, that makes it challenging and requires some decent gifting to do it well.
I do not believe that house churches are THE secret to reaching the world. I think they can be an excellent form among other forms of healthy NT church. I think that being more stunned at the comprehensive implications of JESUS IS LORD and doing church in light of that reality is THE secret to reaching the world.
As an aside, one way we have addressed the gifting imbalance issue is the every other month gatherings with other house churches. There is no top down leadership there (or we would just be an odd cell church). But, what we do have is a natural place in which adjustments can be made by fitting people with churches they need and/or churches that need them.
Like every other church dynamic since Pentecost, it is not perfect. Still, it is real church and not just some method for outreach or indulging people who want to be unique.
Russell,
Thanks for all the helpful information. I am still wondering, though, where do you find houses big enough for meetings of 3 dozen people? Is that common in your context?
David, i forget. this is asia. personal space not required!
seroiusly, we have bamboo furniture and we get the under 20 crowd to sit on cushions on the floor. People are crammed in really tight.
BUT… if i remember from the testimonies of friends from E.Europe it was the same thing: packed in very tight and not worried about it. The message is about suffering so having uncomfortable gatherings can work!
will that work in N. America? Maybe only with the very mature Christians and the very new Christians…
russell
We do seem to be obsessed with finding universal, reproducible methods (especially in SBC life).
May I suggest that God is a lot more practical than we expect Him to be? We seem to be primed to expect a single, one-size-fits-all correct way to do things handed down from on high. Perhaps that’s because a lot of human organizational heads expect to do just that, and we expect God to act just like them. Perhaps it’s for some other reason. But we forget that God is intimately involved in all of the details of the local church, it’s particular calling, how that relates to reaching those it is called to reach, and is willing to lead us in the particulars of that calling if we’ll let Him. Why in the world would we have local church autonomy if we expect to have cookie-cutter churches?
I see a rough analogy in something I’ve seen in my years as a computer programmer. Every so often, new programming techniques and concepts are developed, and often management decides that the new techniques are “The Way” that things are now going to be done (part of this is that management is primed to look for ‘solutions’ and the new techniques are marketed to them as exactly that). The problem is that programming techniques are more akin to tools than solutions, and new techniques ought to be seen as new tools for the tool belt, and not as replacements for all previous tools. Sometimes you’ll need to use older tools, and sometimes you’ll need to use newer ones.
One problem with the one-size-fits-all, universal, reproducible methods is that once you “have them”, you’re no longer dependent on God to run your church. No need to ask God what to do, you just pull your universal, reproducible methods off of the shelf and put them into place. This easily leads to running the church “in the flesh”.
From what I see in scripture, God has made church structure simple, but flexible. You’ve got “Spiritual leadership” (elders, pastors), and those dealing with practical aspects of running the church (deacons)(and I wonder if those that are actually performing deacon duties in the modern church are really performed more by secretaries and other church ‘staff’ than those that we slap the ‘deacon’ title on). This is flexible enough to fit into all of the different shapes the local church needs to take in different cultures and situations. Our attempt to shoehorn local churches into a single, one-size-fits-all shape may be counter to God’s intention for church organization.
Oloryn,
Welcome to sbc IMPACT! We are glad you chose to join our conversation.
Excellent insights, by the way. And thanks for the comment. The phenomenon you describe in your computer world sounds exactly like church life when our publishing houses roll out the next “way” to do evangelism, Sunday School, etc… Your “cookie cutter” comments reflect my own sentiments. Check out my “Break the Mold” post here.
Russell,
That is interesting about the people sitting on the floor, and being crammed in really tight. It helps me to get a better picture of what is really happening.
Although I am interested in the possibilities of house churches for the States, the main context of my personal questioning about house churches is in Spain. There, the majority of people live in apartments, with an average space of 70 square meters (about 750 sq. feet), and are not near as used to squeezing in as it looks like they are in your context. Of course, there are some bigger houses and apartments, and many smaller ones too.
Once again, not to “throw stones” at the idea of house churches. I would really love to see it work in Spain, and in the US too, for that matter. But, I am wondering, how, given your experience in your context, might these factors I am describing to you in Spain influence the viability of the house church model there?
Oloryn,
I am totally in agreement regarding the one-size-fits-all cookie-cutter mindset. I do, however, think it is worthwhile to ask these questions about house churches, especially since God seems to be using them very effectively in certain contexts. Also, because that seems to be the method used in the NT.
David,
I, too, am interested in Russell’s experiences … so much so that I have “recruited” him to write a guest post. And Guy Muse will be providing us with a post on house churches in his context, as well. I think his situation may much more closely resemble yours in Spain.
I might see if I can get them scheduled together on the same week and have a house church “focus” during that week. Do you think that would be productive?
Geoff,
I have a particular personal interest in this topic, as it plays into a lot of issues regarding my work in Spain.
I have only recently began to correspond with Russell, and from what I have heard from him so far, am convinced that he brings some very good insight and perspective to a lot of the same issues that interest me. So I am eager to learn from him.
I have been corresponding with Guy for a bit longer. His blog contains some of most significant wealth of information out there on the topic of house churches. I think it would be great for the readers of sbc IMPACT, who may not be familiar with Guy’s blog already, to be exposed to the important things he has to say on this topic. I would also be interested to see pastors and church members from the States interact with Guy related to the possibilities of house churches in the States.
Judging from the response to this post, there may well be enough interest on this topic to justify an entire “house church focus week.”
As far as Spain is concerned, other than the common language, I’m not sure there is much similarity to Guy’s context in Ecuador. I have talked to several people who have worked with house churches and/or cell groups in Latin America, and who have later come to Spain and tried to do the same thing. And they have all said the contexts are very, very different.
One particularly interesting idea was that “house churches”, “cell churches”, etc. are all basically “wineskins” through which we seek to “preserve the harvest.” But if there is no “new wine” to be preserved, a better “wineskin” will make little difference, from a perspective of producing a bigger harvest.
I’m in Canada, and we are just getting started with this house church (5 weeks now), but I see signs that it is certainly a viable option for this culture — not for everyone, mind you, but for many that will not be drawn to the traditional church model. My original burden arose from several factors:
1. Demographic and psychographic study of my people group (the greater Calgary area) and of Canadians in general. Canadians are leaving traditional churches by the droves, but there is an evident hunger and eagerness to discuss spiritual things (mostly done over coffee).
2. A sheer logistics standpoint of how can we plant churches in an area where there is: (1) a shortage of available meeting space, (2) where real estate is so exorbitant in price and completely unavailable in most of our urban centers, and (3) where the cost of living is too great to support all of the church planters we need. Buying land and building buildings is out of the question in most urban contexts (80% of Canada’s population lives in the urban centers), and rental space in most of our target areas is completely unavailable. We simply can’t buy enough land or pay enough pastors to plant all of the churches we need to reach this country for Christ. “Church” had become too complicated and too expensive. Southern Baptists are traditionally rural in our orientation, or at best suburban. Rarely, however, are we thriving in urban centers. Unfortunately, the cities is where most of the lost people are.
3. The sense that the quality of the product and programs in many of our traditional churches lacked in genuine disciples and discipleship. More small group discipleship accountability was needed along with Christ’s criterion that obedience to His commands demonstrates true discipleship (cf. Matt 7:21). When churches measure their strength by the size of their worship service rather than the number of committed, growing, disciples they have, then we may have lost a biblical, Christ-taught value (cf. John 2:23-25). I heard a cry for smaller groups and more accountability.
Not to disparage the traditional model, but we needed another way to plant a church and reach lost people who will fall through the cracks. Traditional churches will reach a certain segment of the population, but other models will reach others. If traditional church is the only form of the Body of Christ we offer a lost population, then what will we do to reach people who are turned off by that culture? Other biblically sound expressions of the genuine Body of Christ exist.
As a laywoman, I can see many reasons why someone might be interested in meeting in homes. One would be the misuse, wasteful or undisclosed use of the tithes and offerings. A small group of tithers that did not have to support the “brick and mortar” and more and more staff, could do a lot. I’m not even sure we have a benevolence fund anymore.
As far as the Scripture, I can’t help but think of all the retired SBC pastors that are not up to running a church, but would be a perfect teacher in these situations. We have several in our small church.
If these house churches were to remain SBC, then they would adopt the BF&M and their accountability is to God. I not so sure they need a watchdog.
Personally, if I could find a “Family Integrated” SBC church in my area, I would check it out. The research shows that we are not doing something right when most of our youth leave the church after highschool, never to return. We have bought into age segregation. We have youth teaching youth. Our young women are in classes with other young women that cannot possibly be a Titus 2 woman to them. Our children are being fed entertainment.
I better stop now, but a age integrated (families), intimate, praying, mission action oriented, solid Word-based, use who God gives you, pot luck lunch fellowship church sounds wonderful to me.
Liz
I do, however, think it is worthwhile to ask these questions about house churches, especially since God seems to be using them very effectively in certain contexts.
I’ll agree. To go back to the tool set analogy, not every tool out there is actually a good tool. You have to check them out and see if they’re valid or not. But you have to distinguish between “this tool does not fit what God is calling my local church to” (or perhaps even “this tool does not fit what God is calling my local church to now“, noting that this might change in the future) and “this tool is bad”. Sometimes you even run into mixed tools – “Some parts of this tool are good, and some parts are bad”, and you have to try and redesign the tool to keep the good parts and get rid of the bad (which probably happens more often than we want to admit). You often don’t figure out the latter until you’ve actually tried the tool (which is what seems to be going on with Willow Creek). The problem comes when “This tool doesn’t fit what God is calling my local church to” is equated with “this tool is bad”. The call away from cookie-cutter churchianity isn’t a call away from discernment, but towards more discernment, just without taking a solely “thumbs up or thumbs down” approach.
Hey Geoff, you asked me “So, Lew … where has God led you? What are you doing now?”
I have been pretty busy… relaxing… over thanksgiving break so I have not done much of any blogging. But I wanted to reply to your questions.
I am going to be rather brief (or as brief as possible). Answering these questions could turn into a post in-itself :).
Where has God led me? Over the past couple years, God has really helped me remove some of my presuppositions about “church,” “pastors,” etc. Most of what I understood came from today’s modern traditions. I started to read scripture entirely differently without these presuppositions. I guess the biggest thing for me was to ask myself “why?”. Alot of times, when I tried to answer the “why?” from scripture, I came up short handed. It was very scary at first, but became pretty liberating. Through all of this, God has led me away from the idea of a vocational pastor and more towards the idea of all of his followers being ministers.
What are you doing now? My wife and I are currently in the process of trying to move, so it is a little difficult to answer this question. I currently work for a secular employer, where I come in contact with atheists, Muslims, and various Christians every day. I try to use this time to build relationships, share Jesus’ love, etc. I see this as a major part of ministry. Off work, I try to reach as many people as possible (which is usually difficult because I work 2nd shift – 1st shift next week!). Part of my blog is an attempt to discuss some of my ideas with people who agree and disagree… so we can learn from and encourage one another. I usually chat online a lot with various Christians and non-Christians. And my wife and I try to meet with the church as frequently as possible.
My father-in-law and I plan on doing something after I move (I’ll be closer to him). We’ll probably be hosting a bi-weekly gathering or something of the sort. We’re still talking about it.
God’s Glory,
Lew
[...] 24, 2007 by frateledan Acest articol e tradus de pe linkul: http://www.sbcimpact.net/2007/11/21/house-churches-will-they-really-work-in-north-america/ SBC impact este un site al baptistilor de sud din Statele [...]
Why are we concerned with a “consumer-driven” culture except to show it a better way – the Kingdom way? I see nothing about a house church that can’t accomplish the teaching and preaching of the gospel of the Kingdom. in fact, it may do it better than many “churches” that seem to be more about emulating and responding to culture than redeeming culture.
I haven’t read all the comments but I just saw your question, Geoff, about what would a significant house church movement in the SBC do to the SBC… well, why does it always come back to the SBC???
Hey, Bryan
The SBC question / application was simply keeping with the theme of this blog … to have an impact upon the churches and ministries of the SBC.
Obviously, there is not a very large number of true house churches in the SBC context. It would be interesting to speculate what a significant movement would do to convention attitudes / policy / polity.
I understood that, Geoff, but you also know my heart and I wish we’d be more interested in all followers of Jesus than one denomination. Being quixotic am i. :) I think cell groups work, and to an extent they are much like house churches who also have a large group meeting.
[...] the most radical method of all is the house church model, in which virtually everything done in church takes place in the context of open, [...]
[...] A while back on sbcImpact! blogging friend, Geoff Baggett, asked his readers (mostly Southern Baptist) House Churches: Will They Really Work In North America? [...]
Leave your response!
Want your picture to show here? Get your own Gravatar!
Recent Posts
Most Commented
Hot Topics