The House Church Model

[Josheb]

The House Church Model: Part 1

A "house church" is a small group of Christians who gather regularly in someone's private home for fellowship, worship, and service to God. The practice is firmly rooted in the epistolic era and the report of scripture (see Acts 16, for example). The house church model is thought to avoid some of the problems of larger congregations and those associated with institutionalized and denominational religion. The positive aspects of the house church model are thought to be its ease in recognizing and building upon truth, establishing a local (or distant) ministry involving all the smaller congregation's members, reaching a consensus, nurturing relationships, accountability, solidarity, and a more authentic expression of Christian practices (such as the practice of the Lord's Supper, which can actually be a an actual meal in the case of a small group). The model is promoted as a means of building connection and a more egalitarian worship experience because there is not just one person leading everything the group thinks or does. Each member of the group can contribute to the group and all decisions can be made through prayer and a consensus of every member.

While the practice of regularly gathering in people's homes for Christian worship goes back to the epistolic era, A movement to promote the model began in the last half of the last century. Much of it is due to Christian leaders in countries where Christianity is not allowed and Christians are persecuted coming to the US (or other western countries) and recounting or reproducing their experience. Watchman Nee, for example, espoused a version of the house church model when he escaped Communist China. One of his proteges, Witness Lee, went so far as to create an entirely separate (and paradoxical) sect literally called The Local Church. In more recent times, men like Frank Viola and George Barna lead the movement. They wrote a book called "Pagan Christianity," which is an apologetic for the house church model. The book surveys an early portion of Christian history, asserting various practices (such as the existence of a pulpit or a lectern) have their roots in pagan practices, some of which are believed to be wholly antithetical to the precedent established in the NT era. Much of the book is critical of institutional and denominal practices and it is not until the end of the book that the true intent of the book, the house church apologetic, is disclosed.

There are many organizations promoting the house church model and there are many resources online for learning more about house churches and that model. House2House Ministries and Church Without Walls are two examples. There are blogs specifically dedicated to the house church model, such as the House Church Network. Visiting these websites will provide you with all the information needed to better understand the house church model but realize these sources are biased in favor of that model and, therefore, downplay its negative aspects. Peruse them with discernment.

 

[Josheb]

The House Church Model: Part 2

Here are some of the concerns that either won't be mentioned or aren't typically treated with much depth by those espousing the house church model.

1. The history of the house church (HC) is misrepresented almost from the beginning. One example of this misrepresentation is the fact the early Church did meet as a large group. The first Christians met in the courtyard of the temple. The first Christians were predominantly Jewish converts, and Christianity was considered a sect of Judaism known as The Way, not a separate, separated religion. As Gentiles became converted those Christians met in the courtyard of the temple because Gentiles were not allowed in the inner areas of the temple grounds. Soon the number of The Way rivaled those following the Sadducees and Pharisees and the Pharisees became increasingly divided as a sect due to their belief in a resurrection and afterlife. As a consequence, a persecution of Christians began and the Christians had to find shelter in individual believer's homes. This same pattern was replicated in other cities, with early converts first meeting at the synagogues and as they grew eventually dispersing due to persecution (se Acts 9:2). Two points are being made here: a) the house church was NOT the original model, and b) the house church apologists misrepresent the truth. The latter is a reason not to consider the HC option. The is further misrepresented when the facts show the first large dwelling built specifically for Christian assembly occurred a short time into the second century when ECFs like Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, and Timothy still lived. These were men who'd been discipled directly by the apostles, and they never criticized the large gathering.
2. The HC model began under persecution. It may have been a model used by God to disperse the gospel and protect and thereby consolidate new believers and plant the seeds of latter institutionalization intended by God when the assumption on the part of the HC movement is the opposite. We here in the west do not live in a persecutorial society and to the degree that western societies are becoming increasingly persecutorial that can be attributed, in part, to the seclusion of the HC model. In other word, the New Testament era conditions that originally justified and necessitated house churches don't exist in many countries and where they do the goal is for the gospel to overcome those obstacles and prevail in every aspect of that countries society and cultures (plural).
3. There's a huge paradox to HCism. The HC model is supposed to avoid many of the problems of institutionalization and denominationalism but, logically speaking, once a group of groups develop under the same set of thoughts and practices that is, for all intents and purposes..... a denomination. . In other words, one of the reasons for the HC model and one of its stated goals is paradoxically undone whenever house churches align or otherwise associate with one another (which is what the epistolic era congregations did). This is why we see Paull addressing the problem of some following Cephas, others following Apollos, and others following Jesus. The HC movement has not solved that problem, and it sometimes contributes to it.
4. There is often a lack of accountability. It is noted the websites I linked this op to attempt to address this matter, but the reality is often much different than what is espoused. People in small (and large) groups tend to gather based on shared views so soteriological volitionalists are much more inclined to gather together than a house church consisting of doctrinal diversity, despite the fact diversity is one of the goals of the HC congregation. It is much easier for a small group of people to get off track theologically than a group with institutional oversight. This same problem exists in large congregations where there is no institutional oversight (such as family run congregations where the leadership is the pastor (usually a man) and his wife, supplemented by other family members (siblings, children, etc.). The shakers and Quakers were HC groups. The aforementioned The Local Church was a cult. One of its fundamental beliefs was that there is only one (true) church in any given city. The Local Church congregations start small, meeting in individual's homes, or space rented for that purpose. As that sect grew it continued to espouse the one-church position.... declaring all other groups apostate. It did that for the better part of a half-century before leaders of the Church (representing many different denominations (Jack Hayford, R. C. Sproul, Hank Hannegraf, etc.) were eventually able to persuade the LC leadership to correct its doctrines. So, the HC model does not always solve the problem, and, on occasion, it replicates it. There is no one to hold a local HC group accountable to error but itself.
5. HC proponents often assert the consolidation of resources and whole-group agreement how those resources are used, which is a good thing, but the fact remains small groups simply cannot manifest the kind of resources (and power) a larger group can. It's not likely a house group would have ever reached Caesar. Furthermore, 50 different small groups devoting their time, availability, and money to 20 different local ministries (food pantries, abortion clinics, homeless shelters) is not practically different than 50 large congregations doing the same...... and every time an HC congregation starts a new ministry they are adding to the problem, not solving it.
6. A small group can minister more directly to a needy individual, or the needs of others in the group in general, but because of the smallness of the group a given individual may be inordinately consuming. There is always a risk the group becomes inordinately focuses, even if only for a season, on one or two participants eccentricities. This can be compounded wherever there is a lack of training and/or education among the group's other participants. A series of adverse effects can occur, such as the dysregulated trauma survivor not having their needs met, damaging any previously existing cohesiveness in the group, and then leaving under the real or perceived condition their needs were not met and they then go on to do the same in another HC group.
7. Most large congregations already have smaller "house churches." They simply do so under the guidance, oversight, and accountability of the larger congregation and any denominational affiliation it may have. Most, or all, of the benefits of an HC small group can happen in the small group within a larger congregation.
8. Practically speaking, an HC group does not manifest egality. There are always shy members, bold members, articulate members, those who have a greater knowledge of scripture, those much more devoted to prayer, those who, simply put, are much more mature than others. Therefore, the goal of everyone participating according to the gifts bestowed upon the individuals by God does not always happen. A group of people tends to take on the character of its leaders. HC groups do not solve that problem (or best exploit its benefits).
9. Perhaps most importantly, many of the conditions HC apologists cite are factually correct but that does not mean they are theologically or practically to be avoided. It may be true the institutionalized religions have artifices in their religious buildings that were used in Christian buildings of worship, but that does not mean a stage, or a lectern are inherently pagan. Neither does it mean Christians cannot or should not employe those devices. The gospel is supposed to take captive every single aspect of the world it encounters and overcome it and that, in many cases, means using it for the purposes of God and not discarding it. Furthermore, we live in an age when information is near-instantly available so we no longer have the same problems (illiteracy, the lack of Bibles, etc.) and, as a consequence, no one in modernity is actually worshipping a pagan God when employing a formerly pagan device. Just because a denominational cleric is wearing special robes does not mean Caesar is being worshipped. That's just nuts.
10. It is not scriptural to attack the body of Christ, and that is what many HC apologists do. That should be a dead giveaway for the mature and discerning Christian and a condition of alarm and concern for the welfare of the less-informed and less mature. This is especially true of people like Viola and Barna. Those two are educated and well-informed men. There is no excuse for their lack of forthcomingness, biased treatment of fact, or divisive criticism of what could otherwise be acceptable practice falling well within acceptable standards asserted by scripture.

Anecdotally, I've been involved in a handful of house churches. House churches are all over the place. They are not new, or novel, at least not in the DC area. I was a member of the Local Church and met Witness Lee in person and sat under his teaching. I saw the problems first-hand from inside that cult. That is an extreme example, and arguments from extremes are logically fallacious so I am forthcoming with that information and acknowledgment thereof. Most HC groups readily fall within the pale of orthodoxy. Many HC groups are very good and experiencing the HC group can be an enriching experience, especially if and when that group avoids the problems numbered above. I, personally, consider my adventure through the diversity of Christ's body a good thing, even though I have made mistakes and witnessed others, and I include my experience in house church groups as part of that God-directed adventure. House churches are an acceptable option, but they are not, scripturally speaking, the only option.

 

[fastfredy0]

Here are some of the concerns that either won't be mentioned or aren't typically treated with much depth by those espousing the house church model.

I a much more shallow thinker than you. My concern as a youth with a small church was:
There are not many potential mates to choice from in a small church. Better if there is more variety to shop amongst.

Like I said, I'm a shallow thinker.

 

[Josheb]

I a much more shallow thinker than you. My concern as a youth with a small church was: There are not many potential mates to choice from in a small church. Better if there is more variety to shop amongst.

Like I said, I'm a shallow thinker.

Consider the op amended accordingly. Thx

I first met my then-future wife at a pair of young adult groups, one of which was about 350 people large and the other..... 1500! Young (and not so young) adults from around the area, coming from many congregations (some of them from home churches, I'm sure) gathered for peer-oriented fellowship, worship, and teaching. Target rich environments .



Btw, I don't find that "shallow" at all.
.

 

[fastfredy0]

I first met my then-future wife at a pair of young adult groups, one of which was about 350 people large and the other..... 1500! Young (and not so young) adults from around the area, coming from many congregations (some of them from home churches, I'm sure) gathered for peer-oriented fellowship, worship, and teaching.

I met my wife at church. I was going to another church but after dating several prospects the field was getting thin there so I went to another church. I lived in Toronto area so there were plenty of churches.
We sent my son to a Christian school that taught Christ and also specialized in outdoor camping like experiences (weird combination)... about 30ish students. Well, he met his wife there and similarly two of my nieces/nephews went to the same place and met their spouses. Family is 3 for 3 there.

Target rich environments .

LOL.. definitely.

 

[Sereni-tea]

Thanks @Josheb for this. Very helpful information.

 

[Mr GLee]

I a much more shallow thinker than you. My concern as a youth with a small church was:
There are not many potential mates to choice from in a small church. Better if there is more variety to shop amongst.

Like I said, I'm a shallow thinker.

The smallest church denomination is three according to the first family .Adam, Eve and the offspring .The two or three doctrine.

Three denoting the end of a matter throughout .

Matthew 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

Adam used to signify the word of God Christ (not seen) Eve seen the represent the whole church seen as the priestess. according to the manner of Exodus 7 .

Moses as if the living word. Aaron the church or bride the preacher of the gospel .

Exodus 7King James Version And the Lord said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet. Thou shalt speak all that I command thee: and Aaron thy brother shall speak unto Pharaoh, that he send the children of Israel out of his land.

It would seem woman was created to be used in that way as a sign to the world sends them out two by two. . family by family .

Christ the husband the powerful defender

To silence her is to silence Christ .The ministry is always of two working as one . lift her she will lift him .

Two or three. . the one witness God has spoken. It is used parables many times in that way.

1 Corinthians 14:29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.

2 Corinthians 13:1 This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnessesshall every word be established.

1 Timothy 5:19 Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.

Hebrews 10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: