In 2035, will most solid churches in America be house churches?

George Barna has been the pied piper for many churches, leading many to adopt his conclusions, for better or worse.  A few years ago, Barna sold his organization and began advocating the House Church.

With the way Christians are being silenced in our culture and government encroachment (particularly involving the gay issue) and the new emphasis on "diversity," will church buildings become obvious points for protests, vandalism, etc., and will the government attach qualifications toward tax-exemption that will force compromise upon compliant churches?

Of course we can guess, but we do not know.  Things can certainly change direction; we are assuming that we remain on the same vector.  And it is also possible that society will continue to go down the tubes but that freedom of religion will be respected, even for we Christians.

If so, could you see a day when solid churches are driven underground?  Or is this merely paranoia?

By solid church, I mean churches that hold to the fundamentals of the faith (including inerrancy) and Biblical, exclusively heterosexual marriage.

What do you think?  Approximate the category that fits best, try avoiding other.  

Please elaborate.

Yes, I think most solid churches will have to go underground, probably as house churches
23% (5 votes)
Some will, but there will still be plenty of solid churches in church buildings with traditional structures
14% (3 votes)
I am unsure. I can see things unfolding in either direction.
14% (3 votes)
No, there might be some challenges, but solid churches will continue to function in similar fashion to today
41% (9 votes)
No, this is nothing but fear-mongering
9% (2 votes)
Other
0% (0 votes)
Total votes: 22
Forum Tags: 
1509 reads

There are 2 Comments

JD Miller's picture

One of the challenges I see with some of the house churches is that they can lead to an isolationism on the one end and 'anything goes' on the other that can lead to unorthodox doctrine being unchallenged.  Thus I fear that even if house churches increase, they may not be solid.  Barna actually co-wrote a book on this subject.  It was called "Pagan Christianity".  He was strongly in support of house churches.  That may be why he is speculating about them again.  As I read the book, there were some good points, but I also had some concerns.  There was too much of an idea that if something was not specifically found in the new Testament, then it must be pagan (ie pews, pulpits, and even church buildings).  Further there was too much of a push to let everyone share their beliefs without a sufficient check on false beliefs.  I am not opposed to house churches, but I would not recommend Barna's template for how they should be structured.  

 

Ed Vasicek's picture

JD Miller wrote:

One of the challenges I see with some of the house churches is that they can lead to an isolationism on the one end and 'anything goes' on the other that can lead to unorthodox doctrine being unchallenged.  Thus I fear that even if house churches increase, they may not be solid.  Barna actually co-wrote a book on this subject.  It was called "Pagan Christianity".  He was strongly in support of house churches.  That may be why he is speculating about them again.  As I read the book, there were some good points, but I also had some concerns.  There was too much of an idea that if something was not specifically found in the new Testament, then it must be pagan (ie pews, pulpits, and even church buildings).  Further there was too much of a push to let everyone share their beliefs without a sufficient check on false beliefs.  I am not opposed to house churches, but I would not recommend Barna's template for how they should be structured.  

 

Your points are all well taken.  I don't know why it is so hard for people to understand more than two categories, Biblical and unbiblical.  This leaves out a big one: extra-biblical. Barna's published books, for example, are extra-biblical.  No printing presses in Bible days!

 

"The Midrash Detective"