House churches starting to take off in the U.S.
‘House churches’ keep worship small, simple, friendly In general, house churches consist of 12 to 15 people who share what’s going on in their lives, often turning to Scriptures for guidance. They rely on the Holy Spirit or spontaneity to lead the direction of their weekly gatherings. Mentioned website: House2House
I enjoyed reading how the mainstream media reported on the house church phenomenon. It is a growing trend, especially following the popularity of Frank Viola and George Barna’s book Pagan Christianity, which closed by calling for a return to house churches without a building, paid (or unpaid) clergy or an order of service. The increasingly erratic but nonetheless influential Harold Camping of Family Radio has also encouraged people to flee institutional churches and form loose fellowships. Like homeschooling years ago, the house church movement as a movement is still in its formative years and I hope with maturity it eventually shakes the associations it often has of being primarily peopled by embittered ex-churchgoers and flakes.
Something that struck me in the article was the members of the house church pinching off pieces of bread and drinking wine from plastic cups and then following it with a meal, when the meal was the original full form of the Lord’s Table. It seemed this group brought over some entrenched customs from their years in institutional churches.
One of the dangers that the article touches on and that I can testify to from personal experience is the risk of division over doctrinal differences and of home churches fixating on one or two doctrines. Like a rudderless ship they go adrift. I fellowshipped briefly with a group that made the woman’s headcovering it’s defining doctrine. Another group here started off as a legitimate church that has over the past three years hemmorhaged its orthodox members and degenerated into a house church dedicated to discussing hyper-preterism (the belief that all biblical prophecy was fulfilled in AD 70). I’m sure hundreds of similar such unbalanced groups exist that are hung up on the pet doctrines of their leaders. How do they differ from cults?
Something that struck me in the article was the members of the house church pinching off pieces of bread and drinking wine from plastic cups and then following it with a meal, when the meal was the original full form of the Lord’s Table. It seemed this group brought over some entrenched customs from their years in institutional churches.
One of the dangers that the article touches on and that I can testify to from personal experience is the risk of division over doctrinal differences and of home churches fixating on one or two doctrines. Like a rudderless ship they go adrift. I fellowshipped briefly with a group that made the woman’s headcovering it’s defining doctrine. Another group here started off as a legitimate church that has over the past three years hemmorhaged its orthodox members and degenerated into a house church dedicated to discussing hyper-preterism (the belief that all biblical prophecy was fulfilled in AD 70). I’m sure hundreds of similar such unbalanced groups exist that are hung up on the pet doctrines of their leaders. How do they differ from cults?
I wonder if anyone has done a study on the typical ideological/spiritual profile of the kind of person who is attracted to a home church. I just don’t “get” the attraction, so I’m thinking there is a set of experiences/perspectives that makes this idea attractive. But if you’re in a traditional church that freely acknowledges that many of its routines are just traditions—just one way of doing things—where’s the harm in that and what’s the point of walking away from that?
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Aaron, I have no statistics to share, but plenty of experience. Having made observations from atop my perch for 27 years in the same church and seeing the long-term, here are my thoughts.
The Plymouth Brethren, for example, have been doing things like this over a century, but they are usually made up of highly educated, upper-middle classed professionals, not your typical Christian.
House churches can perform some good functions for us.
1. There are areas where there are really no solid churches. Some may preach the Gospel, but they do not get into the Word. Additionally, some areas offer a weak spectrum of churches. You may be in an area where you must choose between legalism and significant compromise. Here in Indiana, in the South, and in the Bible belt in general, it may be difficult to conceive of an area not having a decent church in driving distance, But that’s not true everywhere.
2. People who make trouble in churches or spread discontent in our churches sometimes eventually end up in house churches. I have known people who would better serve the Body of Christ by NOT attending church. These people will put up with all sorts of things, as long as they are in control. Thus, house churches siphon often people who are not comfortable being team players, have doctrinal quirks that are not acceptable in most churches, or have their lop-sided agendas. I have had this experience: people with agendas like politics, head coverings, anti-church-membership, legalistic quirks, and weird doctrines. Personality issues, like people who are control-freaks or are particularly distrustful and resentful authority. It is as though you are competing with them when you are in authority. But when they get in authority, they pull out the “submit” and “obey” words.
Thus house churches remove a source of irritation and strife from our churches. Wouldn’t it be great if ALL the trouble makers, doctrinally divergent, those fixated on some agenda, and breeders of discontent were siphoned off into house churches? Unfortunately this will not happen, but they help.
3. Sadly, most churches no longer teach the Bible in depth (even those claiming to believe it). I would argue that house churches offer the most shallow level of study, but I can’t do that. It is not that they are good at teaching the Bible; I think they are usually weak. But since most churches are weak, too, I sadly think it unfair to single them out. When people leave a church that gets into the Word for the fluffly one down the block or for a house church, who is to stay which is worse?
The Plymouth Brethren, for example, have been doing things like this over a century, but they are usually made up of highly educated, upper-middle classed professionals, not your typical Christian.
House churches can perform some good functions for us.
1. There are areas where there are really no solid churches. Some may preach the Gospel, but they do not get into the Word. Additionally, some areas offer a weak spectrum of churches. You may be in an area where you must choose between legalism and significant compromise. Here in Indiana, in the South, and in the Bible belt in general, it may be difficult to conceive of an area not having a decent church in driving distance, But that’s not true everywhere.
2. People who make trouble in churches or spread discontent in our churches sometimes eventually end up in house churches. I have known people who would better serve the Body of Christ by NOT attending church. These people will put up with all sorts of things, as long as they are in control. Thus, house churches siphon often people who are not comfortable being team players, have doctrinal quirks that are not acceptable in most churches, or have their lop-sided agendas. I have had this experience: people with agendas like politics, head coverings, anti-church-membership, legalistic quirks, and weird doctrines. Personality issues, like people who are control-freaks or are particularly distrustful and resentful authority. It is as though you are competing with them when you are in authority. But when they get in authority, they pull out the “submit” and “obey” words.
Thus house churches remove a source of irritation and strife from our churches. Wouldn’t it be great if ALL the trouble makers, doctrinally divergent, those fixated on some agenda, and breeders of discontent were siphoned off into house churches? Unfortunately this will not happen, but they help.
3. Sadly, most churches no longer teach the Bible in depth (even those claiming to believe it). I would argue that house churches offer the most shallow level of study, but I can’t do that. It is not that they are good at teaching the Bible; I think they are usually weak. But since most churches are weak, too, I sadly think it unfair to single them out. When people leave a church that gets into the Word for the fluffly one down the block or for a house church, who is to stay which is worse?
"The Midrash Detective"
The House Church movement, like many aberrations in church history, serves us by drawing attention to serious blind spots in the mainstream. Many of those who have become involved in the HCM can cite legitimate objections to the doctrine and practices of more traditional (“trad”) churches. In fact, when talking to some of them, I often find myself saying, “I agree…,” but then following up with, “…and here’s what I’m doing to try to help change things.” Is it possible that those in the HCM are simply radical separatists?
However, the weakness that they point out are often less serious than what they embrace. For instance, a close family member who has retreated to the HCM after getting burned in a poor example of a fundamentalist church, told me of attending a house church. I asked, “Why do you call it a church?” The response: “Why do you ask? Do you think a church has to have a pastor and deacons and all that?” If I recall correctly, one of the reasons for gifts, offices, and structure was to guard against spurious doctrine. It will be interesting to see where many of these “churches” end up.
BTW, Ben Witherington has a helpful 4-part review of http://blog.beliefnet.com/bibleandculture/2008/06/pagan-christianty-by-… Pagan Christianity , where he chronicles some of the more egregious factual and logical errors in the book.
However, the weakness that they point out are often less serious than what they embrace. For instance, a close family member who has retreated to the HCM after getting burned in a poor example of a fundamentalist church, told me of attending a house church. I asked, “Why do you call it a church?” The response: “Why do you ask? Do you think a church has to have a pastor and deacons and all that?” If I recall correctly, one of the reasons for gifts, offices, and structure was to guard against spurious doctrine. It will be interesting to see where many of these “churches” end up.
BTW, Ben Witherington has a helpful 4-part review of http://blog.beliefnet.com/bibleandculture/2008/06/pagan-christianty-by-… Pagan Christianity , where he chronicles some of the more egregious factual and logical errors in the book.
Faith is obeying when you can't even imagine how things might turn out right.
[A. Carpenter]I like some of Witherington’s commentaries, but he tends to go too far the other way, IMO. Witherington is too accomodating of Romish ways. The Jewish believers were in the minority after 68 A.D., and the second century church became incredibly anti-Semitic. Witherington is off base, So is Barna. Witherington is right that Christianity surfaced from (and I would insist is a form of) Judaism.
BTW, Ben Witherington has a helpful 4-part review of http://blog.beliefnet.com/bibleandculture/2008/06/pagan-christianty-by-… Pagan Christianity , where he chronicles some of the more egregious factual and logical errors in the book.
Average Witherington and Barna out, and I think we’ll be closer to the truth. Buildings are not sacred, but functional. Bishops did not replace the apostles. Revering the dead is pagan. The saints in heaven do not fellowship with the saints on earth. They’re too busy having a good time up there :)
"The Midrash Detective"
Discussion