House Church
The house church model is a model of church that has been around since to beginning of the church shown in the book of Acts.[1] Church buildings did not come into existence until 232 A.D.[2] Thus, prior to 232 A.D., Christians meet in homes.[3] House churches are often organically grown and primarily relational in ministry. The reason for this comes from the fact that it is a church meeting in a house. In a house, a church has the propensity to become much like a family or a household where each person takes part and helps. The house church model is then unique from all other models due to the specification of their meeting location. All other models are concerned primarily with how the church functions; while house churches focus upon their location and build their functions around that location. Yet, there is a structure and there are specific functions to the house church model. This paper then will examine the structure and functions of the house church, compare it to the Baptist Faith and Message of 2000(BFM) and show the positive aspects as well as the negative aspects of the house church.
Finding the structure and functions of the house church is sometimes difficult because both structure and function vary from church to church. This flexibility concerning house churches functions and structures are often led by either theology beliefs or by pragmatic choices. For instance, some house churches make choices based upon the availability of leaders, houses, or resources. Then, on the flip side, there are churches that are driven by theological conviction taking a more active approach through prayer and service to enact what they believe God desires of them. Thus, as this paper moves on into deeper understanding of the house church, one must keep in mind that there are a variety of options concerning structure and function of the house church.
Though in the introduction the common denominator of the house church model was that they meet in homes, this is not the case in all house churches. For instance, some of these churches meet in businesses and coffee shops. Location then is not the primary belief that connects all house churches. Instead the true common denominator among house churches is a de-emphasis upon the building as the church and an emphasis on the biblical idea of the people as the church. Thus one house church leader says the house church should be properly called, “simple church, organic church, or even relational [church].”[4] This emphasis clarifies the focus of house churches, which is about the people as the church and not the building.
On average a house church ranges from “seven to twelve”[5] people per house. Yet this amount also depends on the space allotted to the church. Thus, typically the size of a house church is much smaller than an average traditional church. This emphasis upon size is not the only factor that goes into the definition of a house church, for one house church leader defined the church as, “the presence of Jesus among his people called out as a spiritual family to pursue His mission on this planet.”[6] Thus a house church is a church, which is on mission. All of these factors combined make a house church, a church that places emphasis upon the people meeting in a small group with the mission of Christ in focus.
House churches have three different possible structures. First, the house church can be one where each house is it’s own independent church. This option lines up with the BFM’s view of the church as, “an autonomous local congregation”[7]. Secondly, a house church could be linked in a “network” with other house churches, which all meet together on a monthly basis.[8] The third structure views all of the house churches in a region as one church. Thus when one moves to another region they come into a new church. These last two church structures could coincide with BFM depending upon whether or not you consider each house it’s own church. All three of these options are viable structures that planters have used and developed among the house churches. All of these house church structures are an attempt to return to the New Testament church[9] or a rejection of the “Mega-Churches” impersonal structure.
These house church models have many different types of leadership and these leaders often vary in the amount of oversight that they have in the churches. Some of these house churches have a more traditional view of leadership putting qualified elders in place to teach and minister to the people, along with qualified deacons who serve the physical needs of their church. These elders will exercise a certain amount of oversight depending upon which structure they belong to. For instance, in the house churches linked by a network the elders will most likely work together with one goal possibly pooling their monies together to achieve more effective ministry in their region. But independent house churches will have elders who lead each of them on mission with differing community focuses. Those proposing the elder form of leadership will then vary in their elder’s oversight based upon the church structure they adhere to.
The type of leadership among house churches is not limited to elders. Some simply split the leadership into two groups “Stayers” and “Goers”. The first groups are those who stay behind to lead the church (Elder/Pastor, Deacon etc.). The second groups are those who are more apostolic in nature such (Prophet, Church-planter, etc.).[10] This view could lead churches to have members who were unofficial leaders due to their gifting as evangelists or prophets. There are also some house churches which have seen a, “fivefold ministries (apostle, prophets, pastors, evangelists, and teachers) circulating ‘from house to house’.”[11] They base their leadership structure off of Ephesians 4:11-12[12], where the Apostle Paul says God gave these five gifted persons for the equipping of the church. Thus these leaders are not “Stayers” and “Goers”, but all of the fivefold ministers are equippers of the church. Then there are some house church networks that do not give a formal structure to their leadership instead desire to put laity in place off professional ministers. They see the church to be run by the body. This in essence places the responsibility back upon every Christian to fulfill the work of the ministry. [13] Thus there are a variety of leadership positions among the house churches. Contrary to the last three views of leadership, the BFM states that there are two, “scriptural officers…pastors and deacons”[14]. Thus the first view of leadership would then be the only structure of leadership that matches up with the BFM.
This explanation of the differing views of leadership brings to light some possible weaknesses found in the house church model. If the leaders do not have proper oversight among their peoples then it is highly possible that false teachers could easily fool these house churches. The reason that house churches could be more susceptible to deception by false teachers is due to their personal nature. A house church is a tight knit group trusting each other. Thus, if a false teacher could gain the trust of the church then it is possible that he could sway the whole group. This deception is especially possible if each house was considered its own church without a network or if there were only lay-leaders and not official elders. Yet, if the elders were properly trained and if these houses were all in a network, which meet regularly then the chances of false teachers slipping in highly decreases.
When it comes to the two church ordinances Baptism and the Lord Supper most house churches practice these. Baptism usually occurs in a variety of places such as a hot tub, a barrel, a river etc. Yet, when it comes to the Lord Supper some house church people are adamant that the Lord Supper should actually be a meal rather than just a small piece of bread and some wine. This thrust comes from both scripture and the their view of house churches being very family-like thus they would have a meal together.[15] Concerning these ordinances most house churches line up with thee BFM because in the BFM there are no specifics concerning a meal or who administers it. Thus, the BFM lines up with the house church model concerning the ordinances.
Concerning churches the BFM states that they are, “associated by covenant in the faith an fellowship of the gospel”[16]. House churches have two huge advantages when it comes to covenanting together believer, for many reasons. The first advantage is found in families and small groups. As one writer recognizes, “one thing all house churches have in common is a covenant.”[17] What the author is referencing is the unwritten code of rules, which exists amongst any family or small group. This unwritten code acts as a sort of covenant binding socially the individuals to on another. Since house churches can be qualified as families or small groups this unwritten code then applies to them. Thus the house church would be able to have a stronger unwritten covenant in comparison to other models, which are driven towards big church. Visitors then do not causally come to a house church because a house church is an intentional group of people. These visitors instead see these church members as covenanted together in relational commitment and desire to examine it more. Secondly, many of the house churches have a physical covenant which they sign in order to be part of the church. This covenant gives guidelines both scriptural and cultural which all of the believers must adhere to. Thus the house church model once again fits the BFM mold of church polity concerning a church covenant, which is quoted above.
Concerning churches, ministries/missions and finances are dependent upon each other thus they will be addressed together. For without financing, missions will be somewhat limited, at least overseas mission work. While it may be true that house churches are not be able to provide for overseas missions as well as a big traditional church, it is also true that a house church does not have to worry about taking care of a building.[18] The traditional church is bond to a building and thus their finances go into building projects. While a house church only has to pay their pastor and can put the rest of their finances go into ministries and missions.[19] The house church then is limited when it comes to the mass of funds yet they are not limited concerning building costs.
Concerning children’s ministries or childcare many house churches have them.[20] House churches that do not have childcare incorporate their children into the service. This once again reiterates the family like nature, which exists in the house church setting. It is also interesting to note that, “When the Sunday school [for children] was started in England, it was for children without parents who cared for their spiritual upbringing.”[21] Thus the house church places the spiritual responsibility back upon the parents. Yet still some house churches have appoint a “child worker” (much like the program driven churches) who helps take care of and plan events for the children. Thus house churches can either have children’s ministers or lay the responsibility of children’s ministry upon the parents.
A great strength to house churches is their emphasis upon missions. Missions are often an emphasis among people of the house church because the neighborhood where the church meets is their primary mission field. Thus the burden for their neighbors is always before them. Another factor is that the church meets in a member’s house. This is important because this brings church into the personal realm of the homeowner forcing them to see the needs around them. Another reason for this emphasis is that, “The church is a people, not a place.”[22] This then often draws the people of the church into the necessity for missional action as they see the needs of the people around them. As they begin to love those around them it will give them a heart for those in the community who have needs.[23] This is in contrast to a church where people go to a building, which is not personal, to sit in a service where they can hide their true hurts, among a peoples who they can just pass by. Thus when one goes to a house church they intimately meet with people who have needs and in turn have love for people rather than a sacred place. This missional heart then could potentially be easier to obtain in a house church.
Yet, one could see if a house church became just like another meeting how this love for others could not occur. It is also possible if the leader of the house church only wanted to have another social club then the house church could become nothing more than a social club. This missions emphasis then is not dependent upon a location, a method, or model but instead upon love being given from God. For it is highly possible that a family can lack love for each other and God. Yet if the family in the house church starts out with a God focus and is continually empowered by God then they will have a missions focus.
Since the house church is personal and small in nature it can practice most effectively the congregational polity. Due to the small nature of a house church it is often hard to hide church related decisions. Thus this small group can easily discuss and decide what to do when issues arise. It is also important to note that since a house church is so close and intimate it makes congregational polity almost a given.[24] For the people are by nature involved in each other’s lives due the churches small size. The house church is perhaps the most effective implementer of the congregational polity due to the simple fact that it is a small group. For when the church gets bigger it is often harder to get everyone in agreement. Yet, if a house church has been a house church for a substantial time period they will most likely be in agreement on most things. Thus when it comes to the BFM the house church seems to meet the congregational aspect almost perfectly.
When it comes to church discipline in a house church it could go one of two ways. Either the house church could get comfortable with sin[25] or since they are an intimate family the people would tend towards love and actually enact true church discipline. The house church seems to be the most effective model for doing church discipline for many reasons.[26] First off, it is most likely to properly enact church discipline because helping the sinning brother is always to be done out of love (Matt. 18:10-14)[27]. Since this group is like a family they are most likely to form true love based relationships and desire for their fellow Christians to live in obedience. Secondly, they could easily know the sinning church member and have others to go with them to confront the sinning brother, due to the personal nature of house churches (Matt. 18:15-16). Then it would also be easy to bring the unrepentant brother before the church due to the small and personal nature of house church (Matt. 18:17). As it has been shown, house churches are able to be in agreement due to the small nature of the group this also means that they can easily agree in the nature of the restoration of the unrepentant brother (Matt. 18:18-20). Thus the small intimate nature of the house church can be it’s greatest strength if the church desires to be obedient to Christ.[28]
The house church model is very flexible among those who propose to hold it. They all have an emphasis upon the people rather than the building. Thus their leadership can vary from lay leaders, elders as leaders, or a fivefold team of leadership. Across the lines all of these house churches practice the ordinances of Baptism and the Lord Supper. These groups either have an unwritten covenant or a written one, which binds them all together. Of course with a tight group like this, the house church has involvement of the entire congregation. This relational, personal model of church has the potentiality for a great missional mindset and a purity of their church through church discipline. The house church then is a small group of believers who intimately know each other and live on mission with Jesus.
[2] Robert Fitts, The Church in the House a return to simplicity, (Salem, Preparing The Way Publishing, 2001) 15.
[3] “It is notable that the most explosive period of Church growth in history…took place during those early years” ibid, 16.
[4] Greg Hubbard, Simple Churches: in Church Planting from the ground up, edited by Tom Jones, (Joplin, College Press Publishing Company, 2004) 55.
[5] Lois Barrett, Building the House Church, (Waterloo, Herald Press, 1986) 19.
[6] Neil Cole and Paul Kaak, The Organic Church Planter’s Greenhouse Intensive Training Event Participants Notes, (Signal Hill, Church Multiplication Associates, 2003) 1-2.
[7] The Baptist Faith and Message of 2000, 13.
[8] Hubbard, 58-59.
[9] Rad Zdero, The Global House Church Movement, (Pasadena, William Carey Library, 2004) 4.
[11] Wolfgang Simson, Houses That Change The World: The Return Of The House Churches, (U.K., OM Publishing, 1998) xviii.
[12] “And he [Jesus] gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds, and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of the ministry, for the building up of the body of Christ”-Eph. 4:11-12. ESV.
[13] W. Milton Adams, Developing, Planting, and Multiplying and Adventist House Church Using Principles of Missiology in the Florida Conference of Seventh- Day Adventist, (A Dissertation for Andrews University Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, Oct. 2009) 10-11. It is also important to note that though this group has some help views concerning House Churches that they are a heretical cult. For more information look at their beliefs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh-day_Adventist_Church and check them with Ron Rhodes book, The challenge of the cults and new religions.
[14] BFM, 13.
[16] Baptist Faith and Message of 2000, 13.
[17] Barrett, 29.
[18] The host homeowners may have to take care of their how more. Yet this cost is minimal in comparison to the cost of maintenance to a building.
[19] Fitts, 20.
[20] William Tenny-Brittian, House Church Manual, (St. Louis, Chalice Press, 2004) 22-23.
[22] Barrett,19.
[23] Zdero, 2.
[25] As seen in 1 Cor. 5 when the church got comfortable with a man living in open sin.
[26] Del Birkey, The House Church: A Model For Renewing the Church, (Kitchener, Herald Press, 1988) 80-81.
[27] Before talking about confronting a sinning brother Jesus talks about the loving shepherd who finds the lost sheep. Thus he is using this parable to set up the fact that confrontation of a sinning brother should always come out of a desire to see him come back in right fellowship with God.
[28] Bonnie Niswander edited by Arthur L. Foster, Rebuilding a Congregation Through the House Church: in The House Church Evolving, (Chicago, Exploration Press, 1976) 87.
No comments:
Post a Comment