;)
tagged: Baptist Life, Church, Church Life, Church Planting, Discipleship, Evangelism, Guest Authors, Missions, TheologyHouse Churches: Revisited
Posted by Guest Author in Uncategorized
Today’s guest author is Guy Muse. Guy grew up as an MK (missionary kid) in Ecuador. For the past 20 years he and his wife, Linda, have served as IMB-SBC missionaries in Guayaquil, Ecuador. They are part of a church planting team relating to a network of over 50 house churches scattered throughout the province of Guayas. Guy and Linda have a son (16) and a daughter (11). Guy blogs about house church and church planting issues at http://guymuse.blogspot.com.
• • •
I have been thrilled to see the growing interest for house churches in the SBC. As IMB-SBC missionaries, most of us are heavily involved in training, teaching, and planting house churches around the world.
Recently here on sbc Impact!, Geoff Baggett did a good job introducing some of the concepts with his post House Churches: Will They Really Work In North America?
What follows are a few phrases from the 61 comments shared on that post. I would encourage you to read the complete thoughts in context of those expressing concerns. Most of these are fairly common objections about house churches that we hear all the time…
” …accountability and proper doctrine would be my two red flags.”
“…the rise of house churches is more of mark of unhealthiness …”
“… house churches are dominated by people who do not want to submit themselves to the leadership of the church…”
“…the lack of biblically trained leadership would often create an environment rich in heresy… “
“… early churches meeting in homes, is that descriptive or prescriptive?”
“… I tend to think of this as more a reaction against the mega church and mega-wannabees …”
“… I think that house churches work better in some cultures than in other cultures …”
“… 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.”
“… House churches work well in places where there is persecution and a need for secret meeting places.”
“… I don’t think it would work in my context …”
My own observation about the above is that most of the comments are coming from people who have not experienced first hand life as part of a local ekklesia (house church). Rather than spend my time individually answering each of the above concerns, I would rather share what DOES take place in a house church meeting, at least in our Guayaquil, Ecuador context. After reading, you can judge for yourself if any of the above expressed concerns are relevant to what actually takes place when a church meets under the Lordship of Jesus Christ, her founder and head.
- The believers started arriving around 9:00 a.m. on a hot, bright Sunday morning.
- Chairs and furniture had been rearranged into a large circle in what was a spacious living room of one of the house church members. We sat around and caught up on one another’s week. There were about 20 adults and youth present along with several small children.
- A new couple arrived and were introduced, giving them ample time to share who they were, where they were from, and to make them feel welcome.
- Songbooks were handed out and we began a time of singing hymns and praise songs to Jesus. Impromptu testimonies were interspersed between songs of how those sharing had come to know the Lord.
- Three people shared words of exhortation/encouragement from the Scriptures. I remember one of them being 2 Cor. 12 where Paul asks that the thorns in his flesh be removed. God seemed pleased to allow the thorns to remain. The comment was made that wasn’t it true that most of us in the room carried in our flesh thorns? Isn’t at least part of the reason God allows his servants to bear thorns to keep us humble and operating in the power of the grace of God, rather than our own strength?
- We then entered a lengthy time of prayer. Every month a prayer list is distributed throughout the Guayaquil house church network. We feel it is important that we all be praying in a united, continuous way about the things we want to see Christ doing in our city. A few of the ongoing items that we continuously petition the Lord are laborers for the harvest…asking God for 500,000 new souls in the coming five years…to give each of us passion for Jesus, perseverance in the work, and power in the Spirit…that the Lord would keep us from Satan’s tactics to discourage, distract, and divide us from the tasks He has given us to do…individual and specific prayer for each of the missionaries we support as a house church network…and many more. Praying through each of these in a meaningful way took around 40-minutes.
- A loud fan was turned on for 30-seconds to help move the air around before being turned off again so that we could hear one another.
- A young woman had been asked beforehand to prepare and share the week’s Bible lesson. Several passages out of Matthew and Mark were assigned to various ones present. To her credit, she didn’t try to tell everyone what the passages meant, but asked questions of the passages. There were many awkward moments of silence as people tried to come up with a clear understanding of what Jesus is saying to us today. Usually someone would come up with at least the beginnings of an answer. Others would then join in with their thoughts. After a few minutes a really good biblical discussion would ensue as the entire church wrestled with a clear understand of what Jesus was saying. Not once was I addressed to correct any “wrong” interpretations. To be honest, there wasn’t anything shared that wouldn’t have gotten an A+ in my book. The Holy Spirit is quite capable of leading, guiding, and teaching truth to His Body.
- A prayer was said and the weekly offering was taken up. We sang a few more songs as the monies were counted.
- A quick impromptu meeting was held to decide what to do with that week’s offering. It was decided by consensus to give the ENTIRE OFFERING to the visiting couple to help them in the upcoming medical costs of giving birth to their first child! Needless to say the couple was overwhelmed, not by the amount given, but by the love and concern expressed for them.
- We then gathered around the couple, laid hands on them, and several believers prayed for the safe delivery of the baby, and for blessings upon their marriage and family.
- As sandwiches and drinks were being served (it was about noon) several shared about the people they were evangelizing and discipling. The brother to my left has started his own house church. His wife began talking to me about the new group she was about to begin and asking about how to get hold of some materials. Nearly everyone in the room during the week have people they are visiting, witnessing to, or discipling. It is considered something embarrassing to not actually be doing what Jesus said to do in the Great Commission. A group discussion took place about the upcoming training center they are wanting to begin to train other believers to plant churches. Most of these new believers are active evangelists and are involved in more than one house church.
- All of the above was led by the various members of the house church assembly. All participated actively throughout the three hour meeting, including the children present.
Three hours after arriving, I left to take the visiting couple home in our car. All the way back to their house, all they could talk about was how powerfully God had spoken to their lives that day, how much they had learned, and how moved they were by the love of the people. We set up an appointment to meet and talk about how they can start their own house church after the baby is born.
What part of the above is not New Testament? What would even be objectionable by Baptists? Are not these kind of gatherings what we find the church doing in Acts and the Epistles?
Again, go through the list of house church concerns/objections and see if any apply to what actually took place at what is a typical house church gathering in Guayaquil. Your thoughts and observations are welcome!
Better yet, come visit us, and help us reach an unreached/under-reached county of our province.
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;){kind=logo}
G’day Guy,
Back in 1984 I commenced a church that was a house church. There were 6 of us that made up the church, me a 23 year old fourth year theological college student, my fiance, and two young married couples, one with kids, one without.
I had already intensively researched house churches through Aldersgate baptist Church in South Australia (onbe of the first in Australia) and through lots of reading around Paul’s Idea of Community: The Early House Churches in Their Cultural
Setting, by Robert J. Banks who had lectured me on the subject. I grew up in one of the first Body Life churches modelled on Peninsula Bible Church, and had lots of contact with Gene Getz and Ralph Neighbour. 1 Corinthians 16:19 was the theme: The churches of the Asian province greet you. Aquila and Priscilla greet you heartily in the Lord, along with the church that meets in their home.
I believe in the cell church.
Having said that, I think there are a few factors that are sometimes forgotten.
1. The house churches typical of the early church setting had a large central “square or meeting area, or hall. Often the houses had extra rooms added around this square for the newly added married members of the family (remember this is the picture on mind in John 14:1-3).
This area would stand (not necessarily seat) around 120 people comfortably.
2. Size of house limits size of congregation.
3. The house churches that grow still have a large group meeting for the gathered church on a weekly basis (this means that the “house church” is in reality a cell of the real church).
Our first church plant grew in a couple of years to about 45 adults, and 40 kids in Sunday school .. too large for the typical “house church” so we moved into a small community hall that seated ( culturally preferable) comfortably about 60.
There were no houses in that region that would seat comfortably more than 20.
4. For a church to be self sustaining financially it generally needs a congregation of about 40 adults.
5. If you are gearing up to be self supporting financially, then you better have a hall/ house/courtyard/ community hall/ school/ etc that will seat that many people.
6. The advantage of having your own hall/church/ building is free advertising (you are “located!”) and little energy expended in preparing the hall for use. The energy can be put into other things like Sunday School etc.
Soooo… I am for the cell church (it improves multiplication of ministries, facilitates evangelism and improves fellowship at all levels) but you need a house/hall/church big enough to grow in.
Just a few practical thoughts.
Steve
Buenos Dias Steve,
Thanks for the practical thoughts. There are indeed a lot of ‘nuts and bolts’ issues that cannot be covered in just a single post on house church. Several of the house churches we relate to have the same questions and issues you bring up. In fact, the very house church that I write about above, just finished fixing up a larger downstairs room that was offered to them rent-free where they can put a few more people than were able to fit in the living room where they were meeting at the time of my writing.
The issue of the HCs being self-sustaining, is not really an issue. Since there are no buildings to maintain or paid leadership, all offerings collected are used for evangelism, missions, and to help the poor and needy. They use their money to buy prescriptions for those unable to afford medical care, tracts, Bibles, and to make evangelistic trips out into the province.
We continue to learn as we go along. It seems the Lord is taking us on what has become a most exciting journey. We don’t have all the answers, but know the Lord does! Thanks for your prayers for us.
guy,
first of all, i think house churches are great for starting a new church. i have nothing against house churches, as long as they’re good, sound, bible believing churches. it doesnt really matter where a church meets…in a house, in a old store, in a gym, or in a building built for worship and fellowships(church building). as long as they preach and teach the bible and worship Jesus….that’s the main thing.
secondly, we see a departure from scripture in your post when you said…”A young woman had been asked beforehand to prepare and share the week’s Bible lesson.” a woman teaching men? 1 timothy 2:12.
i guess some of the concerns of people about house churches being sound, and staying sound, come true.
david
David,
I just knew someone was going to go there …
Guy,
The house church experience you describe sounds wonderful, and very similar to our experience with small groups in homes. I know the house church concept is biblical and hope that in coming years we can lessen our “need” in our area for brick-and-mortar churches. Fact is, we can no longer afford the land to build buildings for new churches ($150,000+ per acre here in Gwinnett county, GA). So we need to get more familiar with house churches as a model for church planting.
Thanks for the post.
Hi David,
I have dealt with the subject of women in ministry in several posts on my own blog. It is a very real issue that is not as black and white as many suppose who have never been involved first hand in church planting. The last time I wrote on the subject about a month ago there were 106 comments! so yes, it is an issue most missionaries deal with overseas.
To answer you directly, the above post was written about a month ago. I am trying to recall how many men/boys were present in the meeting. I can recall several teen-age boys, two new believer men, the visiting guest husband, myself, and the rest were women and children. I don’t think you are suggesting that the new believer men or teenage boys should have been the ones teaching? As stated in my post, the young woman was leading the Bible discussion with the group, but I don’t know if I’d call that “teaching”. ALL THOSE PRESENT were involved in the teaching of one another by sharing the Matthew and Mark passages. To be really technical, the only one “teaching” was the Holy Spirit as He spoke through the various assembled believers. I don’t mean to wiggle out of your question, but can we really call this “a woman teaching men?”
Interesting post. I do have a question for Guy re: the cultural context of house churches. As I understand 1st century church/ culture, the house church probably would have had extended family/servants as the nucleus of the church. I don’t know much about your situation in Equador, but many other cultures also include multi-generational families. That would set up some interesting dynamics. For one thing, it would be difficult to live a different testimony during the week than one presented on Sunday. It might also lend itself to patriarchal leadership and relationship issues.
Have you seen any of this during your experience with house churches?
Kat
Bro. Roger,
The point you raise about continuing to raise money for land, buildings and professional paid staff is even more of an issue in our context than it is there in GA. Just a few moments ago, I received a copy of an email from a local Baptist church to someone Stateside, where they are requesting $1500 donation to help them with their building repairs. The national church doesn’t have the funds to even MAINTAIN the building built by Stateside money, little less think of building any new church buildings in the future!
One of the beautiful things about returning to the NT model of house churches, is that money is not an obstacle for the growth of the Kingdom. The biggest limitation we face are LABORERS for the harvest. All our work is focused upon training/mentoring lay leaders to go out and simply DO what Christ commanded in the Great Commission.
Roger, just imagine, if everyone in your church understood that Christianity is less about “going to church” and more about being obedient to those things Christ commanded. What if everyone in your church understood that they are personally responsible for the Great Commission? They have been commissioned by our Lord to do everything necessary to go, make disciples, baptize, and teach… and they could do so in homes…and your job was to equip the saints…wouldn’t we be making a much greater impact upon GA with the Gospel? Being tied to our buildings and programs leaves little room and time for doing what Christ said in Matt.28!
Kat,
The nucleus of nearly all the house churches we work with are made up of family and extended family. In fact the way we plant churches is to first find the “person of peace” (Luke2) and once they are won to the Lord continue to work with their family, neighbors, friends, etc. So most of those making up the local assemblies know each other quite well and live in close proximity to one another. And yes, this makes for some interesting dynamics!
A good example of this can be read in a couple of my posts entitled, “What a difference you’ve made in my life” and “What a difference you’ve made in my life (Part 2)” on my blog.
guy,
i believe that it’s a very black and white, cut and dry issue. i dont even see room for wiggling on this. a pastor/teacher is to be a man, and the bible seems very clear on women not teaching men. i dont see how the bible could get any clearer than it is. thus, when i read things like…the young lady was asked to prepare a bible lesson…i’m assuming a house church has men in it. it sounds like she was the leader of this group study. that concerns me.
david
David,
So which of the men present should have been leading the Bible study: the visiting missionary (me), the guest who had come for the first time, one of the two teenage boys present, or one of the new believers who are still in their initial discipleship classes?
The other alternative would have been to not study the Bible at all. Maybe I’ve been out of the States too long and out of the loop in S. Baptist life, but are you saying it is anti-Biblical for a group of believers to meet under the Lordship of Jesus Christ, and together study His Word?
guy,
there’s nothing wrong with people meeting together to study and discuss the bible… women included. but, you said that she was asked….asked…to prepare a lesson. who asked her? and, if you were going to be there, why didnt you do it? why was a young lady asked to do this?
and, if you call this a church, then where is the pastor of it? why is there no pastor? are you the pastor of it?
david
Guy,
A few of the comments you began with belong to me, so I will venture to answer your question.
There appears to be no pastor-teacher role; no prophetic voice.
Vol is quite right in pointing out the most obvious problem – and I am in church planting. My answer to your question as to who should have taught is: why not you?
When Bible discussion is the primary diet of the church, you will have a poorly fed body.
Let us not forget that Acts 2 details that they met in the temple courtyard for large public worship AND house to house for smaller groups of worship. Let us also not forget that the Apostle Paul seemed to feel that the pastor/teacher was of critical importance to the New Testament church.
Bless you in your efforts to bring the gospel to bear in your mission field.
G’day Guy,
Thanks for your thoughts, and yeah I’d have to agree that at the moment you have a Bible discussion group (or a Brethren or Quaker church .. ooops scratch Brethren.. they respect 1Tim 2:7-13, 3:1-7).
Steve
David and Brad,
Thank you for your responses and opportunity to dialog about some of these issues.
I’m glad to hear that it is still OK in S. Bapt. life for people to meet together, study, and discuss the Word of God!
The reason I did not do the teaching was that I wasn’t asked. I was a visitor.
Our role in this church plant was to train/equip the saints. They are the ones who actually went out, won to Jesus nearly every person in the church, continue to disciple them, baptized them, and began meeting with them as “church.” For them to depend upon me to be the one to do the teaching after they had done all the work would be to take a step backwards. We are seeking national, local brethren to be the ones to go out and plant NT churches.
Yes, I could go out and plant a church, teach them all the right doctrines, oversee every detail, etc. and might plant 1-2 churches per year. Instead, we focus our efforts upon training/equipping the SAINTS to go out and do the same in their natural contexts (Eph.4:11-12.) Instead of 1-2 churches being planted by myself, there are dozens being planted all over our city and province!
Brad, you state that “Paul seemed to feel that the pastor/teacher was of critical importance to the New Testament church.” What passages are you basing that upon?
The only two passages I am aware of that he even addresses local leadership are Phil.1:1 “to ALL THE SAINTS in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, including the overseers and deacons…” and at the tail end of Hebrews 13:24, “greet all of your leaders and ALL THE SAINTS.”
In all the other letters to the churches(excluding the personal letters written to Timothy and Titus) he address ALL THE SAINTS without distinguishing between leaders and laity. Except for the two exceptions above, he never once addresses the leadership (pastor) about any of the issues he writes about! This includes even the troubled Corinthian church. If the pastor is so important to the church functioning why isn’t he addressed in any of the letters?
Having said all that, I don’t have any problem with churches having pastors. All of our church plants have their own leadership. What I do have a problem with are statements that assume that churches without pastors will have a “poorly fed body.”
Is the goal of the church to be well fed, or is the goal of the church to be obedient disciples of the teachings of Jesus? Who is the more mature believer: the one that knows the Bible from cover to cover, but only obeys and puts into practice a small portion of what they say they believe; or, the believer who knows only a hand full of truth about the Word of God, but what they know they put into practice? I fully believe it is not HOW MUCH WE KNOW about the Scripture, but HOW MUCH WE OBEY of what we know about the Scriptures that counts!
I am off to another church planting training and won’t be back till late tonight. I find it interesting that believers here would rather gather the day after Christmas to continue their CP training than take off a few days like most of us would do! We are only in our fourth week of CP training, and already 75% of the class has a group they are already meeting with! Again, is it how much we KNOW, or how much of what we know we PUT INTO PRACTICE?
Steve,
It is coming on night here, but I’ll accept your G’day! This will have to be quick, because I am literally running out the door for a training session…
You write, “at the moment you have a Bible discussion group…they respect 1Tim 2:7-13, 3:1-7).” So, am I understanding you that you interpret these passages as saying that we are going against Scripture for believers to gather and meet under the Lordship of Jesus Christ, and together study His Word? I gather in your church there in Australia? every time the Bible is shared, it is shared by only the brothers? If so, I respect that. But what would you have us do when there are NO brothers available or willing to take on these teaching responsibilities? We can sit and do nothing, or the sisters can be obedient to do what Christ said in the Great Commission.
I’d really prefer to not get off topic and onto the role of “women in ministry”. This isn’t the best forum for tackling these issues. I would prefer to stick to the subject of house churches. If you’d like to pursue the women in ministry topic, please visit me at my blog and pick one of the posts there. I will be glad to dialog there as long as you’d like!
Guy,
David’s (Volfann) comments are one of the reasons that planting house churches are going to be difficult in the USA. It doesn’t fit some people’s 1950′s version of “church.” They have never seen any other model thus any other model must be suspect.
House churches is the church of choice in how IMB missionaries are reaching the lost of the world for Christ. I’ve been writing about Church Planting Movements on my blog and the key element of it is house churches.
God is working all over the world; much more so than in the USA. We need to pour new wine into new wineskins. House churches is a wonderful way of reaching those who will never come into our “brick and mortar” churches.
I’m not just talking the talk here; I’m planning on walking the walk as well. In 2008, our goal is to plant five house churches with a total of at least 100 house churches by 2012. Our church will provide the training of the leaders as well as oversight. And it will not cost us one cent to plant these churches.
SBC pastors should take a look at the house church model before they invest $150,000 to plant a church that may or may not ever be viable.
Les
Les, I am wondering why Volfan’s thinking that a pastor lead a church is considered “1950′s” thinking. Don’t most of the churches existing today in the USA have pastors and most are males? I don’t think Volfan (and I may be wrong here) would have much disagreement at all with house churches in the USA being planted, formed and growing if they are pastor-led churches. selahV
[Brad, you state that “Paul seemed to feel that the pastor/teacher was of critical importance to the New Testament church.” What passages are you basing that upon? ]
I am basing it on the fact that 3 of the 27 NT books are written to pastors instructing them on how to lead a NT local church. Clearly the Holy Spirit felt there was important instruction here for the church in all ages.
[If the pastor is so important to the church functioning why isn’t he addressed in any of the letters?]
It is!
Ephesians 4:11-12 11 And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ.
The above verse speaks for itself. While it is true that the office is not explicitly labeled in the letters to the Corinthians, it is made very obvious who their pastors had been. (1 Cor 1:12) I would also submit that arguments from silence are never strong, especially when the rest of scripture speaks on the topic.
Peter also spoke to the role of the pastor (1 Peter 5). These are simply three passages off the top of my head.
Having said all that, I don’t have any problem with churches having pastors. All of our church plants have their own leadership. What I do have a problem with are statements that assume that churches without pastors will have a “poorly fed body.”
That is not what I said. I said bodies that are fed on Bible “discussions” will be poorly fed bodies.
[Is the goal of the church to be well fed, or is the goal of the church to be obedient disciples of the teachings of Jesus? Who is the more mature believer: the one that knows the Bible from cover to cover, but only obeys and puts into practice a small portion of what they say they believe; or, the believer who knows only a hand full of truth about the Word of God, but what they know they put into practice? I fully believe it is not HOW MUCH WE KNOW about the Scripture, but HOW MUCH WE OBEY of what we know about the Scriptures that counts!]
The answer is yes. The deeper the Christian is in the Word, the more obedient he/she will be. See Heb 5:12; 2 Tim 3:16-17; Rom 10:17 – again off the top of my head.
I’ve wondered for a while if it is necessary for every church to have “a pastor.” It is interesting that the term “pastor/teacher” is found only once in the scripture (Eph 4:11) although leadership is also described with other titles (e.g. “elders,” “overseers,” “deacons,” etc.). Could not the necessary pastoral ministries (e.g. teaching, shepherding, caring, etc.) be carried out by a group of gifted members of the congregation rather than by one person? Must there always be one person in every congregation with the entire gift package? If a congregation never outgrows a living room before starting another one, how much pastoral ministry would a congregation of 20 need or could it afford?
Guy, I affirm you in your ministry. I believe the ekklesia among your people group will have a distictively Guaya flavor. It certainly seems that God’s kingdom is expanding there.
Guy, as I said i have no problem with folks setting up Bible discussion groups in their homes. I said in my first comment that I am committed to a cell church model (in fact every organisation in any form of church is actually a cell!)
I believe that multiplying cells is the natural and quickest way to growth. And I don’t mind these groups being nebulous discussion groups …
but …. that’s what they are…
Banks… and others in the house church movement … make a distinction between a house discussion group and a house church… a house church is self supporting and self propagating (because it has enough gifted people in it 1Cor 12) .. it has pastors and teachers involved in it (Ephesians 4) it has sound doctrine being preached (2tim 4:1-4)… wait …isn’t that one of the marks of a church? Poor theology doesn’t make a discussion group a church, except when theology is cast aside with the scriptures.
Discussion groups become churches when there are enough gifted people in the church for it to be self sustaining.
Steve
Selah,
I know David pretty well. Perhaps we should allow him to speak for himself.
Les
Guy,
Praise be to God for what the Spirit is doing in your area of the world. And thank you for your obedience in church planting & allowing the indigenous church to be autonomous.
Everyone sharing their faith, corporate worship, encouragement from the Scriptures, brothers & sisters discussing what the Word means & applying it to their lives … whether you call it church or a discussion group, keep on planting!!
“Nearly everyone in the room during the week have people they are visiting, witnessing to, or discipling.”
We need more churches like this in the States. Knowledge without impact on our lives is not the goal. Transformed lives is the goal. Sounds to me like their lives are transformed/being transformed.
Concerning the “one leader model” for local church: In evangelical America, we seem to want someone to be the one leader/vision-caster within the local church. Not only is this difficult to back up scripturally, it also seems strangely similar to the CEO model of corporate America … syncretism anyone? While this may be a valid model, it seems that Jesus has already cast the vision and left the canon of Scripture as our strategy.
May His face shine upon you,
From the Middle East
Les, SelahV, Brad, Kevin, and Steve,
Sorry for the delay in responding to all of your good comments. I just got back from our Wednesday night CP training…
Les,
I think what you shared above is probably the most important thing shared by any of us so far. And that is not just “talking the talk” but willing to take the step of faith and get out there and plant some house churches! Your goal of five in ’08 is a good start. There will be many unanswered questions along the way, but just take it a step at a time. Ask the Holy Spirit to lead, guide, and direct. He is the Head of the Church and will certainly do so if you allow Him! I just wish other Stateside pastors could catch your CP “virus”!
SelahV,
You bring up another house church issue in your closing remark, “if they are pastor-led churches…” This is really another topic all its own, but what I read in the NT is always a plural form “pastorS” or “elderS” where more than one jointly lead a church. Don’t want to really get started on that one, but the whole “senior pastor” system in vogue today is to me something that goes beyond anything I can find in my Bible.
Brad,
Thanks for taking the time to respond to my statements. I appreciate what you have to share and understand where you are coming from. What I was referring to is that local church elders are not addressed in Paul’s writings, not that elders are never mentioned.
Kevin,
You point, “Could not the necessary pastoral ministries (e.g. teaching, shepherding, caring, etc.) be carried out by a group of gifted members of the congregation rather than by one person?” is EXACTLY the point I was trying to make. I have posted in greater deal about this very matter on my blog. Thanks for the kind words! and yes, our house churches have a definite GUAYACO flavor to them, but I still feel everyone reading would feel quite at home if they were to come for a visit. One visit is all it would take to wipe out all the doubts and fears that somehow these are suspect imitations of the “real thing.”
Steve,
You write, “Discussion groups become churches when there are enough gifted people in the church for it to be self sustaining.” I would put it this way: baptized believers following the Lord in obedience to His Word under the Lordship of Christ do not BECOME churches, they ARE churches. We are not about starting discussion groups. What we start out to do from the very beginning is plant NT churches. Once there are baptized believers meeting together and “one anothering” with a clear understanding that they are the Body of Christ in that locale, they are a NT ekklesia.
From the Middle East,
You guys are some of my heroes! We have it so much easier in our corner of the world. I would want to say a word of encouragement to YOU–hang in there. You will surely reap in due time if you do not grow weary!
AMEN to everything you say! What you write has been our experience as well. We actually have a few “one leader model” churches in our network of churches, but what sadly happens in most of the cases is that the pastor falsely assumes the role and responsibilities that have been entrusted to the saints. In a small house church of 12-15 when one person assumes control, this invariably leads to an unhealthy situation where everything is run through the leader and his need to be recognized as the authority figure. Instead of a vibrant army of believers functioning according to their gifts, one ends up with a group of passive “come to church” people who look to their leader for everything. It is usually only a matter of time before these churches die.
Les, I hardly think my observation will curb Volfan’s thinking in the least bit.
However if you’d rather he “speak for himself”, could you speak for yourself and answer my wondering as to why his thinking is comparable to 1950′s thinking? thanks selahV
Well Guy,
with this definition “baptized believers following the Lord in obedience to His Word under the Lordship of Christ do not BECOME churches, they ARE churches.” 1 baptised believer is a church.
Yet, Paul’s defintion in 1 Tim 3 indicates that there is some form of eldership and diaconate involved in constituting a church, around sound doctrine 1 Tim 3:15 But if I should be delayed, [I have written]so that you will know how people ought to act in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.
This would indicate both charismatic gifting (as per Banks et al definition) and static ministry.
Steve
Guy,
You don’t elaborate a whole lot in this post about it, but I know you believe in the importance of the “house church network” as opposed to isolated house churches. I personally think many of the questions addressed here find their answer in the context of the overall network. It also seems to me that some “house church networks” are not all that different from some “cell churches.”
To what degree each “house church” will be “autonomous” I believe will differ according to context.
It looks like you are seeing God bless in a special way there in Guayaquil, and I praise God for that. In other places, I believe it may look a bit different, though.
Thanks for letting us have a peek at what God is doing among you there, and learn from it.
Guy,
I’m not sure I understand your response. If the pastor/elder is not for the local church than who is he for? Thus Paul covered the issue of the local church pastor quite a bit. Peter and the author of Hebrews also.
G’Day Steve, (it’s now morning here!)
I’d love to sit down over a cup of coffee and chat about these things. I’m sure we’d see we have more in common than differences on these matters!
Whether they’re called pastors, elders, servant leaders (our preferred term), church planters, missionaries, etc. we believe firmly in church leadership. We don’t get hung up on titles, but focus on being a servant. All the churches in our network have their own leadership. As for sound doctrine, in the past seven years, the only time I have ever heard “strange doctrine” is when the house churches have invited in outsiders (supposedly experts) who come in and teach crazy extra-biblical stuff. As long as they are careful about which outsiders are invited in to their group, 99.9% of the time the teaching and doctrine I have heard over the past seven years is right on the money. In my impromptu definition of “church” I say, “baptized believerS” (plural) which means more than one. Again, I’d love to sit down and swap notes with you, I know I could learn a lot from you!
David,
Thanks for the reminder about the importance of the house churches linking in a network. One of the things that keeps autonomous churches doctrinally in line, is that they accept the work and ministry of our Eph. 4 5-fold APEPT team moving amongst them for guidance, direction, encouragement, wisdom, etc. A single struggling house church in our context welcomes our APEPT team helping them. This is a big part of my own personal ministry moving in and out amongst the house churches. So while the hc are self-governing, they choose to relate and cooperate with other churches in the network. Any given week, one house church will be helping another in some project or emphasis or training. All eleven of us on the APEPT team move in and out at the invitation of the house churches. I don’t know if all this makes sense, but I do know it works!
Brad,
Sorry for the confusion. Let me state it this way. Elders/pastors/shepherds/overseers are those individuals who shepherd the local churches. We understand them more as a gifting or function, and not so much as an office or title. Today’s pastors have assumed more on their plate than I believe was ever intended in Scripture. Much of what pastors do today is work that was intended for ALL the saints. Paul addresses his letters to the churches in the various cities, not to their leadership. It is because the focus is upon ALL the saints, not upon the leaders of these churches. The saints are the ones that need to wrestle with the issues and should be the ones to do the ministry of the Gospel. I believe the role of Eph. 4 APEPT is to “equip the saints for the work of ministry…” They have a specific function. Another way of putting it is that I see too much emphasis and attention being given to the role of “pastor” when in Paul’s writings, the attention is given to ALL the saints. Like I shared with Steve above, a lot of these misunderstandings could be ironed out over a cup of coffee. I’d much rather do that than peck away on a keyboard trying to explain things!
I’m curious here – please don’t anyone misinterpret this question as an IMB attack.
Who baptizes new converts in these churches? If there is no real “pastor” initially, does the missionary have to do it? If anyone besides the missionary does it, does IMB still count it as a statistic? Who is the “authorized agent” in a church without an ordained Baptist pastor?
Bernard,
That is an easy one. Just read what it says in the Great Commission…
disciples (followers of Christ) are authorized (vs.18) and commanded (vs.19-20) by Jesus Christ himself to go, make disciples, BAPTIZE, and teach…
If you are a disciple why would anybody want to limit you to only obeying three of the four commands? (going, making disciple, and teaching) Didn’t Jesus command that disciples also baptize? To prohibit a disciple from obeying all of what Jesus said to do is a very serious matter.
In our own context we don’t make a big deal about WHO does the baptizing, but about in WHOSE NAME they are baptized. And, yes, the IMB counts all those baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
For the record, I have never baptized a single person in 20 years of missionary service. I don’t want to give the impression that somehow my baptizing is more authoritative than that done by one of our local brethren. Again, its not about who does the baptizing, but in whose name they are baptized.
Guy: The thing that impresses me about what you have written is the interpreting of scripture is worked out as a group. Am I reading that correctly? A passage is read and the meaning of the passage is discussed as a group. I also know of no 3 hour meetings here in the United States. It seems our attention span is only one hour.
I think what you have given us here is terrific. Instead of those overseas looking to the United States as a model, it seems we need to be looking at churches overseas as a model. God is moving.
Guy – I agree with you 100%, but the IMB has apparently made a big deal about whether the missionaries themselves were baptized by a proper agent, so I was curious as to how “field baptisms” (for lack of a better word) are regarded. Again, not trying to stir up a hornet’s nest about the IMB, but in the context of a house church with no real pastor, I was curious as to how they “box” you in.
I’ve never personally had to take a real “stand” in either direction as to whether women can lead Bible studies, but the general attitude in my “context” is that they never lead or teach adult men, period. If I were to be in a position to singlehandedly make such a decision, I would probably err toward preferring men, but I know of local SB churches that allow women to lead “college and career” age classes with no problem.
Thanks for your response. God bless you in your work.
Bernard,
We are not “boxed in” at all. The Scripture is our guide and mandate. I too think it a bit strange that few have seen the irony of imposing one set of baptism standards upon new missionary candidates, but those same standards do not apply for the work those same missionaries will be doing once they are overseas.
You write, “I would probably err toward preferring men, but know of local SB churches that allow women to lead…” I respect that and understand the basis for saying so. But I would also add that while we too would prefer men to be in these roles, I do not believe for a second that the sisters who are out there obeying the Great Commission are in error. If we are in error, I would rather err on the side of women being active participants in the Great Commission than than disobedient inactive pew warmers. Our IMB South American vision statement would back me up on this where it is clearly stated,
“Church Planting Movements among all peoples,
The gospel to every person,
EVERY BELIEVER A FULL PARTICIPANT IN THE GREAT COMMISSION.”
les, selah, and guy,
i have to agree with selah’s question…why does having a pastor/elder/bishop, or pastors/elders/bishops, have to be a “1950′s” model? the nt seems to say a lot about the churches having pastors/elders/bishops in them. their job was to oversee the church…to teach sound doctrine…to minister the Word of God. also, the churches of the nt had deacons, men who were filled with the Holy Spirit who were to help the pastors/elders/bishops to minister to the church and take care of problems. so, what’s “1950′s” about that?
also, i have no problem with house churches whatsoever…if they’re sound and biblical churches.
so, when i hear guy make a statement like this one…”We don’t get hung up on titles, but focus on being a servant.” i guess i have to think…well, paul and the nt writers should seem to be hung up on titles. let’s see…pastors…deacons… hummmmmmm.
guy, you never did answer my question…. who asked the young lady to lead the bible study?
and, i’m all for bible studies with discussions, and the ladies involved can comment all day if they want to…but, place a woman in charge…leading over men in study of doctrine….well, 1 timothy 2:12 looms big in my mind.
guy, also, about elders in the churches… acts 14:21-23 would be a good passage of scripture to read. when paul and his mission team started churches, they picked out elders, or pastors, for the churches. i guess it was very important to paul and barnabas for the house churches in derbe and lystra and iconium antioch, and apparently in every other town and city where they started a church,to have elders/pastors/bishops.
guy, i agree with you about pastors doing too much. that all the church ought to be using their spiritual gifts. that there really ought to a plurality of elders, and not just one. but, there always has to be a leader. otherwise, there’s chaos. and, i’d bet’cha that you have leaders in those house churches….even if you dont want to call them that….they’re still there. it’s just the nature of the beast. there’ll will always be leaders, and there’ll always be followers. that’s just life. and besides, like i said, without a clear leader, then there’s chaos.
david
Debbie,
What you write is so true, “Instead of those overseas looking to the United States as a model, it seems we need to be looking at churches overseas as a model.” AMEN. I believe the day has already arrived where the Church in the USA can learn a lot more from their overseas brothers than the other way around!
David,
You write, “also, i have no problem with house churches whatsoever…if they’re sound and biblical churches.” Great! We’re talking the same language then. We wouldn’t want anything other than a sound Biblical church.
You write, “well, paul and the nt writers should seem to be hung up on titles. let’s see…pastors…deacons… hummmmmmm.” Who, besides Christ, is ever referred to by a title in the NT? Function, yes. By title/office, no. Read the first verses of every single letter Paul wrote: he refers to himself as Paul, an apostle (or something similar). Find me one reference where he uses the term ‘Apostle Paul’. There is a big difference between ‘Paul, an apostle’ (function), and ‘Apostle Paul’ (title/office). This may not seem like a big deal to many, but this distinction is very important in our role and attitude as a humble servant-leader.
You ask, “guy, you never did answer my question…. who asked the young lady to lead the bible study?” The church decides who will lead by taking turns. Usually those who are gifted in teaching are the ones asked to do the sharing. The pastor/elder/shepherd of this particular church is not that gifted in teaching and to their credit recognize this and draw upon those in the flock who are gifted in teaching. Makes sense to me.
You write, “place a woman in charge…leading over men in study of doctrine….well, 1 timothy 2:12 looms big in my mind.” I hear what you are saying, but would be very interested to see how you would handle many of the situations we deal with in new church planting. There are ideals that we should strive for, but to attain these ideals sometimes takes some time. I wish it were as easy as waving a magic wand and saying ‘voila’ but as many have pointed out, church planting is a messy business!
You write, “it was very important to paul and barnabas for the house churches…to have elders/pastors/bishops.” Agreed. All our churches have their leaders. Read some of my earlier comments to others where a bit more detail is shared about this. Where we might disagree is the ROLE of those leaders, but for now suffice it to say we definitely believe in churches having shepherds/pastors/servant-leaders/elders, but we also believe, as you point out in your closing paragraph, that the saints are also responsible for the ‘work of service’ and are to be ministers of the Gospel as well as those in leadership.
Hope some of this helps clear up any misconceptions. Thanks for writing and sharing your thoughts. We are always seeking to learn more and be instructed.
David W,
I wonder how many of our churches are being “led” by men in name only? You and I have been at this ministry thing for a while. We both know that the women “carry the water” in our churches. In most, the well of leadership among men is mighty shallow.
I’m just curious … I’ve never heard it addressed before … maybe one of our IMB missionaries could help. How does the paternal / male-oriented orientation of our New Testament translate within cultures that are maternal / female-led? Several such cultures exist.
Wouldn’t that be a fascinating subject for a PhD?
Selah and David,
I don’t want to get off topic here, so if you wish to discuss my use of the phrase “1950′s churches,” we can do it at my blog.
Les
No, Les … let the chase begin!
We need a good rabbit from time to time…
i wasnt even born until 1961. i’ve always considered myself to be very hip and with it.
david
G’day again there Guy,
Sorry my comment about Sound doctrine seemed like a criticism, it wasn’t, I was just trying to be faithful and full to the text in 1 Tim 3, rather than having a dig… until your reply I didn’t think there were any issues of sound doctrine at stake.
You replied to David that the offices of elder and deacon referenced function, not office… I don’t know expositor or commentator that would agree with you on that matter.. particularly when you referenced the 5 fold ministry of Ephesians 4:11 (Please see Obrien’s Pillar series commentary on Ephesians for the most thorough explanation of this … I wrote my Master’s thesis on this passage whilst studying under him while he wrote his commentary.. )
You say “they accept the work and ministry of our Eph. 4 5-fold APEPT team moving amongst them”
1. Now wouldn’t that would make the church the IMB, and the house church a function of the IMB group?
2. APEPT stands for Apostles Prophets Evangelists pastors and Teachers. Are you saying that some of your 11 man team (“All eleven of us on the APEPT team “) are Apostles by gifting and office,and some are Prophets by gifting and office?
Does the IMB approve of these roles of Apostles and Prophets. Are their roles revelatory?
I personally would be concerned that some would view themselves that way.
Steve
Steve,
No offense taken, just talking about issues that impact the Kingdom. I am having a hard time understanding what your point is in this last comment. But will repeat what I wrote to David earlier in hopes it touches on the matter you are writing about…
Who, besides Christ, is ever referred to by a title in the NT? Function, yes. By title/office, no. Read the first verses of every single letter Paul wrote: he refers to himself as Paul, an apostle (or something similar). Find me one reference where he uses the term ‘Apostle Paul’. There is a big difference between ‘Paul, an apostle’ (function), and ‘Apostle Paul’ (title/office). This may not seem like a big deal to many, but this distinction is very important in our role and attitude as a humble servant-leader.
You also ask…
“Are you saying that some of your 11 man team are Apostles by gifting and office,and some are Prophets by gifting and office?”
Answer, yes and no. We don’t have any apostle offices, nobody that goes by that title, but they indeed function in that capacity through their gifting.
You continue, “Does the IMB approve of these roles of Apostles and Prophets. Are their roles revelatory?”
Answer: why wouldn’t the IMB approve of biblical functions of church structure? It seems the ones who are not following the Eph.4 APEPT structure are the traditional church models.
Hope some of this touches on the things you are asking. You have to remember you are working with a simple field missionary, not a theologian. The simpler you can ask things, the better I will be able to respond!
Guy I think the way that office and function are differentiated is that function refers to a single gifting event, whilst office refers to a repeated gifting event. Hence the use of “specialised gifts for ministry” in Ephesians 4:11 becoming not just functions, but offices in the NT churches (1 Tim 3, Phil 1:1).
Recognition as a pastor is recognition of a ministry function that is repeated more than once.. Recognition of an apostle (hence office and function) is the repetition of a gift on more than one occassion (i.e. Romans 16:7 Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow countrymen and fellow prisoners. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were also in Christ before me.)
Now what precisely is the role of Apostle with the IMB? Is it to give authorative revelation?
What is the role of Prophet with the IMB? Is it to give foreknowledge of future events?
Does this not contradict the notion of a cessation of revelatory gifts (Jude 3:3Dear friends, although I was eager to write you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write and exhort you to contend for the faith that was delivered to the saints once for all. Revelation 22:18 I testify to everyone who hears the prophetic words of this book: If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book. 19 And if anyone takes away from the words of this prophetic book, God will take away his share of the tree of life and the holy city, written in this book.)?
Many thanks for your patience
Steve
Steve,
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. We just returned from a week at the beach with the family.
Thanks for continuing with me in this interesting dialog. I can see your point in how you differentiate office and function. However, I am still puzzled why no one is ever addressed by their title (whether it be apostle, pastor, etc.) It seems to me that offices and titles are absent from the NT. Function is definitely there though in that the HS gives gifts to the church for the building up of the Body of Christ. In my own 20 years as a missionary I have functioned in several areas of my gifting: teaching, administrating, counseling, shepherding, etc. but the only title we have ever used for ourselves is “servant”.
As for your last paragraph, I am sorry, but I do not understand your point. I can understand your two questions, but fail to make the connection with the two verses you quote from Jude and Revelation. Can you help me understand what you are trying to say?
Steve,
If you’d like to continue the dialog on “house churches” I would invite you to visit my own blog where I have reposted this same entry.
I am trying to say that Revelation is sufficient and complete with the Bible.
Modifications to the “once delivered to the saints” faith are usually called heresies (i.e. Joseph Smith’s new revelations).
To assume that the revelational gifts of Apostle and Prophet continue as revelational gifts is deeply concerning to me.
Steve
Steve,
Thanks for the clarification. I can answer you by saying that no one that I know is seeking to add or modify existing Scripture. We believe the Bible is complete as we have it with the 66 books of the OT and NT.
When we speak of the five-fold Eph.4 APEPT functions, we are talking “apostles”, not “Apostles” (the original eleven + Paul). In the same way prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers–these are functions for the building up of the Church, but none of these come as special revelational gifts.
Hope this clarifies a bit your concerns.
If you get a chance come on over to the M Blog where a slightly modified version of the same post is currently up. It has been good dialoging with you.