On a recent blog post I read (not linked intentionally), an internationally known church leader quoted a statistic (actually, misquoted it) from the Barna Group and followed it up with an inaccurate and inappropriate claim: “According to George Barna, at least 20,000 Evangelicals won’t attend an organized church, but are meeting in homes. This is a dangerous trend as these groups can become isolationist and cult-like.”
Let’s ignore the uninformed notion that because people meet in a house church that those assemblies are not “organized.” Let’s also ignore the fact that I never said “20,000 evangelicals won’t attend an organized church but are meeting in homes.” I am probably misquoted as frequently as I am correctly represented. Several times I have had the odd experience of visiting a church when the preacher, unaware of my presence, proceeded to base his sermon, in whole or part, upon a misquoting, misunderstanding, and misrepresentation of studies I have released. People often hear what they want to hear, and if it’s not quite what they need, they “tweak” it to better fit their presentation, without letting facts get in the way.
But I digress.
What bothers me most is the statement that people meeting in house churches “can become isolationist and cult-like.” The critical word in this accusation is “can.” Alternatively, is it possible that house churches can become places of genuine worship and loving outreach? Is it possible that house churches can represent the kingdom of God more effectively than conventional churches? What about the possibility of a conventional church becoming “isolationist and cult-like” –- can that happen? Can the preacher in a conventional church teach heresy? Can a conventional church become so lost in its programs and routines that not a single person gets saved through that church over the course of a year (or more)?
I dread the day – which may be here – when church leaders, with good intentions, are comfortable imitating the insufferable journalistic practices of lazy or ignorant reporters who convert a single instance into a “trend.” We unjustly disparage good people by making such broad and unsupported claims. If we are supposed to be people of integrity and righteousness, our words should reflect truth and love.
I understand that the seasoned leader and “researcher” who made the inappropriate charge about house churches may not like that form of assembly. That’s legitimate – but he should simply have said “I don’t like to see people meeting in homes. There is the possibility that they may not behave the way I think they should.” If he has any evidence at all suggesting that this tendency among house churches is statistically provable and significant, or that it is greater than the propensity for conventional churches to become in-grown or cults of personality, I would be the first in line to study that data. In fact, the national studies Barna has conducted on this matter over the past five years point to exactly the opposite result.
If we are going to be honest, we have to admit that there have been and continue to be many conventional churches that “can become isolationist and cult-like.” And we would have to cite the parallel fear that the home groups, cell groups and small groups that have been organized and meet under the auspices of the conventional church run the same risk of “becom(ing) isolationist and cult-like.”
There are so many struggles, challenges, crises and issues facing the Church today. Do we need to create additional internal battles by criticizing the manner in which some people assemble – a means that best represents the ways of the hallowed early church – simply because of personal discomfort?
January 7, 2011
Pastor Tim,
You made an interesting statement:
“…abandoning the corporate church entirely for the house church movement…”
How is being part of a house church abandoning the “corporate church”? Isn’t joining together with other Christians actually a demonstration of the corporate church? I fail to see how meeting in a house is any less corporate than meeting in a building. Is it the building that makes a church a “real church”?
Again you say that, “abandoning the local church is not the answer”. How does meeting in a house constitute abandoning the local church? The brothers and sisters that gather in homes are local aren’t they? And they’re coming together as the church, correct? They’re not sitting by themselves alone at home neglecting fellowship, are they?
January 8, 2011
Hi Mike,
I have a few basic problems with the house church movement.
First off, if a group of believers are meeting in a house with the intention of planting a church in a community because they have a leader who wants to take the gospel to that community that is just fine. We always can use more churches that are genuinely preaching the gospel.
Next, if a house church is meeting as an extension of a local church in order to supplement the ministry of a local church, and is sanctioned by a local church and under the covering of that local church I believe that is fine as well.
My greatest problem with the current house church movement is that it appears to be more of an anti-establishment movement than any thing else. Frankly I have a problem with believers who feel they are perfectly fine with operating outside of the authority of a local pastor. In my estimation a group of believers that meet together without a pastor is not really a church at all. It may be a bible study group, or fellowship church, but it is not a church in biblical sense of the word.
Far too many people are abandoning the local church for no other reason than they are too immature to work through differences they may encounter with others within the church. I have witnessed first hand a great number of people who are not part of a local church, and meet in house churches. Almost without exception they develop instability, and strange doctrines.
The ministry gift of the pastor brings stability, and those who refuse to submit to the ministry of the pastor are going to lack that stability in their lives. I have noticed a great difference between those who regularly attend worship services, and sit under the anointing on the pastor, and those who do not.
I believe that far too many in the house church movement are there for no other reason than the sad fact that they have a problem with submitting to the authority of the pastor.
Pastor Tim
April 12, 2012
This is the flaw in the thinking of many who claim to be called as leaders in this structure we see today with one person claiming to have so-called authority over other Christians. The ascension gifts where given to the Body of Christ for the maturing of the saints for the work of ministry. The reason the Body of Christ is still on milk is because this present man made method of doing so-called ministry is not truly manifesting or obeying Christ, true perfecting can only come through small groups, through the leading of the Holy Spirit people must be brought close and raised up in the knowledge and love of Christ. The system of a one or maybe two day a week hour long pep talk, will never accomplish this, all the talk in the world attempting to protect and blinding exalt this present clergy system handed down from the catholic church can not hide the lack of true Christian fruit, man made systems frustrate the grace of God, say what you like but soberly study the scriptures and truly judge the fruit your so-called “authority of the pastor” system is bearing.
January 10, 2011
I’m a former IC (institutionalize church) Pastor and I’m begining to see the legitimacy of the House Church trend. What has happened in the IC is that leaders (Pastors) Lord over the flock – and when they don’t, members take that as a sign of weakness. As a Pastor I’ve always presented myself as another human being saved by grace alone – and I need the same Jesus that the congration needs. This is very different from the Laodecian attitude of many of today’s churches.
The house church gets rid of dead weight attached to the IC. Pastors worry about memberships that don’t and won’t give. Then they worry about church bills, and they come up with plans and programs just to keep the building running with nothing left for outreach.
Also, in the African-American community – a church is ranked by it’s ability to entertain. This has been proven by a number of studies. The pastors of these churches are under much stress – to make the next “show” better than the last (this is a sad state of affairs).
I have now left the IC, but I still love members of it as they are my co-laborers in the faith. You can never leave the church – if you are born into it, but to leave the business organization of the church – that can be left behind. I conduct a bible study now – without the stresses placed on the American church (buildings, programs, entertainment ect). After 20 years + of the IC – I’m really starting to see my connection with the Body – not the organization (or the incorporation).
January 10, 2011
Hi Dave,
I agree that leading a home bible study would be much less stressful, and easier all the way around than pastoring a church. I also understand the problems that churches are dealing with, and the compromise that is going on in these organizations. There is always extremes and abuse in nearly any organization, because people are fallible, and carnal.
The early church had its own set of troubles, as noted in Paul’s letters to the Corinthians. The church throughout the ages has had troubles, so this is not a modern phenomenon.
Christians in the United States are very into trends, and I see the house church movement as just another trend that creates even more confusion, and trouble for the church.
I guess I would probably have a bit less trouble with the house church movement if they were born out of the leading of the Holy Spirit, but I do not see this as the case. Most of this movement is born out of unresolved conflict, and a lack of maturity in God’s people to work through their differences.
I constantly hear this rant about how pastors lord over people, and protect their turf. While this may be true in some churches, I do not believe it to be the norm. After pastoring for over 23 years, I have realized that people often have a problem with authority, because the same spirit of rebellion that is in the world is also evident among God’s people.
Many of these people who are part of the house church movement have floated from church to church, and many have never really learned how to submit to authority. As soon as the house group leaders rub them the wrong way they will make up some reason why they need to abandon that group for greener pastures. Then I suppose we will see more of these blogs about their new found liberty in some other type of model. Unfortunately it will probably be the church of ‘Me, Myself & I.’
Pastor Tim
January 14, 2011
Hi Tim,
Thanks for your response. After reading your initial post and commenting here, I went over to my blog and used what you wrote as a stepping stone to talk about the issue.
http://www.songsofjesus.com/blog/are-house-churches-abandoning-the-local-church/
You have some preconceptions about home church that will not quickly die, and I am well aware that many Christians believe just as you do. The problem with your position is that home churches are biblical. They are “real churches” and do not need to be attached to a “traditional church”, nor do they need an IC’s “covering” to be valid. To believe as you do is to invalidate the early church since they met in homes in a very simple fashion!
You have some valid concerns about some of the strange stuff that goes on in some house churches. (If you go back a few posts on this thread, you’ll actually find me saying just that.) But your blanket dismissal of these groups is not warranted. I’ve been a Christian for 26 years and I’ve seen strange stuff, and heard strange doctrines, in traditional churches too. It’s also easy to pass off those who meet in homes as not wanting to be “under authority” and to label them as unstable, but accusations like that serve no purpose. Let’s be honest, you don’t have to be in a home church to be unstable or rebellious of authority- you can find plenty of that in traditional churches as well.
But I will ask you a question that I asked on my own website’s post about this subject:
Why is it that Christians in the United States can accept the home church movement in China, and believe these are “real churches” (and actually be excited about what God is doing through these home groups) but somehow think that similar groups in America aren’t just as valid?
January 15, 2011
Hi Mike,
I agree that the early church met in homes, but this was initially because they could no longer meet in synagogues. Latter after believers grew they also built local church buildings. Acts 20:20.
I have a problem with the house church movement in the United States because I really see no need for it. If these house churches were under the covering of a local church and pastor I would see them as an extension of the ministry of the local church. As they are, I see them as more of another fad of Christians who can’t seem to work through their differences with others.
The church in China is an entirely different matter altogether. Believers in China cannot meet publicly because of persecution. If that were the problem in the U.S. then I would have no problem with house churches under those circumstances.
I simply believe that from what I have read of the house church movement, and its proponents that they are far too idealistic, and simplistic in their understanding of ministry.
I realize that nothing I say is going to stop people from doing what they want. The house movement I am sure will continue to grow for some season. I simply believe that over time those who embrace this movement will find the honeymoon to be over and that they are right back to dealing with the very issues that they seem to imagine are so impossible to manage in the traditional church.
February 13, 2011
Pastor Tim,
I had asked you earlier to define the where, what, and how of your “under the covering of a local church and pastor?”
I am still waiting for that answer.
I do not see one instance in the New Testament of the term “pastor” anywhere? Could you please direct me specifically to that terminology? I see a plurality of co-equal elder/shepherds in functionality.
“Covering” where is that in the New Testament? Please direct me to that terminology specifically?
I see submission unto one another in love and humility. Covering is another name for lording it over.
I find your Jan. 8 post particularly troubling from a Scriptural viewpoint. In fact your language violates every Scriptural concept of community detailed by Jesus Christ, Paul, and the rest of the first century apostles.
Pastor Tim said: “Frankly I have a problem with believers who feel they are perfectly fine with operating outside of the authority of a local pastor.”
Please direct me to the specific Scriptures that support this attitude and concept of yours.
Please define “authority of a local pastor” and show Scriptural precedence for this so-called authority? I am unaware of an authority given to a local pastor? Any authority anyone has is derived by who they are joined to relationally, specifically Jesus Christ, and not who they are themselves. You have no more authority in Ekklesia than I or Billy Bob who cleans the toilet.
Pastor Tim said: “In my estimation a group of believers that meet together without a pastor is not really a church at all.”
Please show me precedence for “a church”, I am under the Scriptural impression that there is only “The Church”. I think I can show there is only one Church not many.
Please show me one specific instance in the New Testament where a local guy called pastor ran a church? Just one? In fact show even a concept of a local guy called pastor ran a church.
Pastor Tim said: “The ministry gift of a pastor”
Please show me this concept in the New Testament?
Pastor Tim said: “sit under the anointing on the pastor.”
Please show this in the New Testament?
The “anointing is the Holy Spirit. Anything you or I have stems from who we are related to who is Jesus Christ. Anointing given to your self acclaimed position of hierarchy is a figment of your imagination.
I answered your questions and assertions along these unscriptural lines in another topic.
I posted two posts answering you on Feb. 1st in the Crisis of Confidence in the Church, topic.
In my opinion you are running the man made, top down, control oriented, hierarchical model, which is very unscriptural and hinders the furtherance of Jesus kingdom of every member participation every member function.
Your opinion furthers the clergy-laity distinction which is contrary to everything Jesus taught, and the first century apostles taught.
A singular man no matter what he is called, never runs a local community of believers, Scripturally.
The language every time in every instance in the New Testament is plural and is co-equal, always.
Unless your running an institutional model that has no precedence Scripturally. Or your running a clergy class over a laity class of which you have no Biblical backing whatsoever.
Check out my posts in the above mentioned topic I give hard references and Scriptural proof of what I say.
April 10, 2011
Pastor Tim
After being in the same church 20 yrs, recently I married and move up north. Finding another church has so far been ‘very interesting’ to say the least. The first one my wife and I attended was a small body of about 100, but the vision of the pastor was all about building membership up to 1-5 thousand people, and designing a Dream Center, with prayer rooms and deliverance rooms, NOT OUR VISION, the second one is a small church also, we are now attending with about 40 people, but after 4 months here, the pastor drops the story from the pulpit that he wants to dissolve the church name, the building, all leadership, and start up ‘home groups’ of no more than 15 people, where no one is truly the pastor, elder, so forth,,,so we’ve seen the vision of men go from 5 thousand to 15,,,Lord help us! I am so in agreement with everything you have stated here. These ‘home groups’ are just another ‘fad’, and truely are no more than deception of the enemy to divide us, I want no part of ‘Click Cathedral” or the “Church of the Covered Dish’, It’s all about accountability and authority. The most played song in such gall gatherings is, “Me and Jesus Got Our Own Thing Going”. I believe the New Testament Church is about training up and sending out the 5 fold ministry to plant new churches, if we have to focus on numbers, like so many seem to be doing, then how about being like the 120 in the upper room, who shook the world, nowadays we have 120 churches in one small town and no body even knows they are there!
April 13, 2011
Brother Stephen,
Hi.
In reading your post I noticed a few things you said:
“Finding another church”
I thought there was only one, with Jesus as Head?
“vision of the pastor”
I am not aware of the concept “pastor” in the NT?
“NOT OUR VISION,”
What is your “vision?”
What is a “vision?”
Most importantly, what is God’s “vision”?
“These ‘home groups’ are just another ‘fad’, and truely are no more than deception of the enemy to divide us,”
How could christianity possibly be more divided than it presently is? It is estimated that in christianity there are more than 39,000 various sects, divisions, denominations, groups, expressions, etc. 99.99% led by “a pastor.”
I’m not a “home group” advocate. But perhaps it isn’t a ‘fad’, Acts 2: 46.
“Click Cathedral”
I am under no illusion of blogs being nothing more than a blog? A place for loving christians of every stripe and flavor to dialogue with one another and perhaps arrive at truth, His Word is truth.
“Church of the covered dish”
Acts 2: 46.
Perhaps you prefer a plastic thimble of Welch’s blue water juice, with a cookie, served only by a professional, hired religionist, only in the special sacred building, from the special sacred furniture? Does the juice and cookie transmutate?
“I believe the New Testament Church is about training up and sending out the 5 fold ministry to plant new churches,”
There is no agreement in christianity about the “5 fold ministry.”
Some say 4, some 5, some 6, etc.
But most act like one fold ministry: pastor.
We are instructed to make disciples, preach the Gospel to the poor, heal the sick, raise the dead, and disciple the nations.
The itinerant apostles, prophets, evangelists, teachers, and local elders/shepherds, are to equip the saints to do the work of the ministry.
The Church was built upon Jesus Christ and the apostles and prophets and it still is.
Notice the language is all plural. “S” is everywhere when describing leadership.
Then there are 58 “unto one anothers” in the NT.
Everybody is to participate and function 24/7/365.
We must never lose sight that there is a king.
He is coming again.
For His kingdom.
Please understand my tone, inflection, attitude, is from love in everything I have said.
February 21, 2012
I’m not sure how Acts 20:20 proves that they began to build “church buildings” since the Greek word is used for any kind of public happening, whether it be a public jail or market place or even a city council meeting. But I do find it interesting that the root word for this is the word used for bondage or to bind, to put in chains, to imprison, to put under obligation. It was used in Luke 13 regarding the healing of a woman, when it says that Jesus was teaching in the “synagogue” on a Sabbath…and there was a woman there who had been “bound” by Satan for eighteen long years with a spirit of infirmity. Legalism of any kind always puts people under obligation and in bondage.
Thanks.
May 23, 2011
I agree with the house church and large church concept, but much discernment is required in any true follower of the Lord, in both corporate and house church settings. We are dealing with fellow humans and sadly not all have faith in Jesus, have become aware of their condition for receiving grace and walk day by day unto him. There is sin that is struggled and delivered from and sin that is willful and loved, When we are in a position in Christ and becoming cleansed and purified, the last thing wanted in to be strayed by a pretender or a curiosity seeker xtian, and I leave out Christ because not all truly love Jesus and what he thinks. Therefore in any setting especially pastoral guys, some are such offenders and feel they are above the law or untouchable, that in both corporate and house church setting it can go very cultic. After 25 yrs, since saved, this issue of pride is so downplayed in 21st christianity, that the mind is boggled with what are the values of people these days. It is Written if the foundations are destroyed what can the righteous do. This is the rule for any one of us: Where two or three are gathered together in my name( his authority, word, his spirit convictions etc) there am I in the midst, I gotta say wherever Jesus is You the one who wants him completely is the only end result of it all. Churchianity throughout the ages have proven to be cults in small forms and large forms. As written deceived and being deceived, No one can afford to be deceived.
June 20, 2011
jimj,
Just now saw this post.
Great post.
Would love to hear more from you.
December 20, 2011
For 3 years I have led a church as it seeks to reach our community for Christ. However, it is an IC that is bound to a building and bank accounts. In recent days I began to read about missional churches and their gatherings throughout the week and then having a single gathering, “celebration” on Sunday.
They seem more HC than not, but still hold to the plurality of pastors/elders and maintain a centralized/unified mission. They seem to be built off the oikos church model in the NT.
However, I have a few disputes/frustrations with the HCs.
1. They seem to be ecumenical in nature and concentrating on social justice and bringing the Kingdom to earth – NOW, not in the Millennium.
2. They seem doctrinally liberal where there is no set standard. I am a Baptist and hold to the doctrines of the Baptists. I am considered legalistic by many of them because of my stance on the Scripture, the local church and ordinances.
3. Organization is hard to quantify. In the IC there are rolls (paper), roles (people) and responsibilities (oversight). But in the HC model there seems to be more “freedom” to just “be.” Anyone can believe what they want, because the key concept seems to be acceptance, not Truth.
4. HCs seem to concentrate on young families, with elderly people being somewhat ignored. The church should be multi-ethnic/cultural and multi-generational.
Conclusion: I am not an IC fan, but as one who leads an IC I see the merits, but also the faults… However, the HCs seem so tantalizing… I will plant another church starting with a missional heartbeat and push to have a solid doctrinal statement/stance, but function more like a missional community body.
May 10, 2012
I am not a pastor nor have I ever desired to be labeled as such. I have served though, in many leadership roles in a pastoral role as such during my 35 years living for Jesus Christ. What disturbs me most is discussions just like the thread I now find myself contributing too. Why? No where is there a distinction between clergy (ordination and annoiting) and laity (sheeple who’s primary role is to be fed but not minister in equal manner.)
Though I claim no allegiance to any one particular denomination but have served willingly in fellowships all over – I have often watched sheeple become totally discouraged by the willing restrictions placed on their giftings, not by our Lord or the Spirit but rather, the local pastor and his “board.” This ought not be!
Conversely, I am just as dismayed at the almost anti-institutional attitude of those who are, by careful study of God’s Word – are becoming freed from “Lordship of man” and instead, placing themselves under the “Lordship of Christ Jesus.” Instead of remaining loving and pursuing love of the brethren so that there are no divisions – they are clipping their own noses by being so divisive.
In my lifetime – I have planted ministries in fellowships as well as planted house church fellowships. My only motive in all cases is to honor Jesus Christ and His Word and too strive for Christian unity by the work of the Holy Spirit.
What to do? Well, I continue going in and out of fellowships, encourage the brethren to grow and mature in their faith and understanding of God’s word and to learn to use their own giftings to edify the church and to exhort one another to personal and corporate holiness. What more can I say but, Christ died for all and has prayed to the Father that we learn to become ONE in the Spirit… and NOT lourd it over one another.