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
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.
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.
November 10, 2011
George, Glad you are facilitating a moral revolution. But your own co-author could not qualify for leadership or even membership in a real church.
As you wrote above: Let’s don’t let the facts get in the way (especially when book sales might be affected).
Subject: [hcconnection] Rethinking Frank V
I felt it important to forward the following post considering the past discussions about Frank Viola & Gene Edwards. Since Susan is an eye-witness to the account, this would not be gossip or hear-say. It is simply a warning to avoid these men as their ministries are not Christ-centered. Scott
Dear Saints,
I’m glad to join the throng on the new list and also comment on the recent discussion regarding Frank/Gene. Some of you know me from other hc discussion lists (hcdl and hctalk) and also face to face meetings at homechurch conferences in the past. I have been lurking for the last couple months but due to time constraints hadn’t posted yet. But I feel it appropriate for me to jump into the recent conversation since I have first hand experience with churches planted by Frank and also experienced Gene’s influence.
From the , I spent 25 years 1971-1996 in a Bible based cult….the Alamo Christian (?) Church. The Alamo group was extremely spiritually abusive, authoritarian, manipulative and controling and after coming out of there, I was helped tremendously by reading Gene’s book Letters To A Devastated Christian and Frank’s book Who Is Your Covering? In 1999 my husband, sons, and I moved to Brandon (which just happened to be 5 miles from where we grew up and where all our relatives live) to be near family and the church in Brandon that Frank was “planting”.
Approximately 50 believers met together in homes in Brandon. To make a very long story short, this past March about 15 of us left this group, including Frank’s wife. Throughout the almost 3 years I was a part of the group here, the manipulation and control by Frank increased. It really took me off guard initially because I couldn’t understand how someone who wrote and spoke against “spiritual gurus” could act like one. He talked a good talk but it didn’t play out in reality. For instance, one example (a year into this) there was a big push to get everyone to move into the same neighborhood. At first, when Frank was asked, he answered, “No, it’s not a condition of fellowship”. Later it became “expected” by Frank that everyone should move into the neighborhood and shortly thereafter it became “disobedience to God” not to move into the neighborhood.
People were told not to ask “why” when people left the group. Frank would “suggest” things and than EXPECTED that everyone agreed, with no dialogue.
I could go on and on but maybe you get the idea and don’t want to hear all the gory details. This past Feb (2002) I asked three of the older brothers to come to my house so that I could share my many concerns with them and I wanted them to go to Frank on my behalf…(they then expressed to me that they shared some of these same concerns). They went to Frank but there was no change. Right afterwards Frank was pressing for us to do something that I thought was very controlling, I balked and said I felt it was manipulative.
A special meeting was called because of my saying this. We tried to discuss the issues but instead the whistle blowers were personally attacked. And a few days later Frank shut down the church. Unknown to me until that day was that Frank had also been romantically involved two years earlier with one of his former high school students who had started coming to the meetings and to keep things quiet she had been whisked off to one of Gene’s churches.
Now if Frank had repented with Godly sorrow I would be the first to forgive him, but this doesn’t seem to be the case.
To date..several respected men in the homechurch realm have confronted Frank (about the manipulation, deception, and his affair) to no avail. He feels that he need only be accountable to Gene and his minions.
In the last couple months many people are wising up in these groups being planted by Gene and his “workers”. I have heard personally from the groups in Conroe, Tx Naples, Fl and a group frank was working with in Arizona that people are leaving because of this manipulation and deception.
I want to stress that I am not sharing these things to be mean spirited.
I am hearing now that Gene has had a reputation for many years for “gathering unto himself, not unto Christ”. I wish I had know that three years ago.
I was in a very vulnerable place 3 years ago, and the contrast seemed so great from what I had been a part of for many years. But people need to speak out when they know these things. There is no excuse for spiritual abuse.
These guys deceive and twist the scriptures to make people believe they should just suffer quietly. Jesus had plenty to say about the spiritual abusers of His day!!
Susan G.
Brandon, Fl
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/new-wineskin/message/5370
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.