I have been thinking about the "house church" movement, and the ways in which this style of doing church might be an improvement in a number of areas over our current building-oriented models. As a pastor of a building-oriented church, I wonder at the amount of money that is spent to maintain a building that is so underused on a daily basis. Our sancutary where we meet on Sunday mornings for worship is used on average for about 1 1/2 hours each week. Is that really a good use of space? The arguments are strong on both sides. One answer would be to find ways to put the building to use more frequently - either with church run programming and/or inviting community organizations to use the space for meetings, training events, etc. The other response is what is largely found in Viola and Barna's new book Pagan Christianity. The answer that they give to this dilemma is essentially to sell the building in favor of the house-church movement, which they argue is the only biblical model. This is a challenge that I hear regularly from anti-institutional Christians who view the organized church to be a waste of money and missing the point. The anti-institutional rhetoric typically is accompanied by a call to do away with leadership structures because they too are deemed unbiblical. In my experience, these arguments usually come from people who desire themselves to be in charge, or at least be able to do/say/teach whatever they want. They have some good points, some of which I've mentioned already - money spent on buildings rather than ministry, building worship, and domineering church leadership.
As I've read and listened to those either aspiring to start a house church or have been a part of one, I hear just as many problems with these models as the 'institutional church.' Every group needs some kind of structure and mutually agreed upon ways of relating and functioning together. Every group will have various gifts and functions emerge within the fellowship of believers. And every group - house church and institutional church - can become ingrown, self-focused, and generally dysfuntional.
Viola and Barna attempt to lay a foundation for the primacy of the house-church / anti-institutional church philosophy in their book Pagan Christianity. But their arguments fall short according to Dr. Ben Witherington. You can read his review of the book here.
So, what is the best model for "church" as followers of Jesus in an increasingly global context? And is it possible to have this conversation with the incessant bickering and finger pointing and is clearly disconnected from historical reality? I hope so!
4 comments:
Again, tough stuff Jeff! Wow, you're just not pulling any punches with these blogs! UGH! You're making me think!!!
OK... first, yes, there are problems with both models. The problem is humanity (more specifically, sinfulness). Wherever we go, we bring problems with us. That said, secondly, house church attendees DO report being more satisfied and more involved than traditional building oriented churches. But that doesn't make building oriented churches wrong.
I too am a pastor of a building oriented church. And we are beginning a process of becoming a community oriented church that happens to own a building. Some churches use their buildings all the time. Others don't. Ours doesn't. Aside from staff offices being used, 5 out of 7 days the building is empty. Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings is NOT a good use of space. Yes there are occasional small groups or meetings, but these could just as easily meet in homes.
Bringing two themes together - from the previous post on "big tent" - I think there are some connections to be made here. I am a "big tent" Christian person too. I'm not into liturgy, but I highly respect those Christians for whom that is truly a form of worshipping the One True God. I'm not into venerating icons, but I highly respect those Christians who thru those icons bring their focus and worship to the One True God. These are just forms. Neither is "biblical," but neither is outright heresy either. Same can be said for the "contemporary evangelical" service format my church uses on Sundays.
Well, on the theme of styles and forms, house church vs. owning a building, same category. House churches certainly ARE "more biblical" (if thats a term) than building oriented churches, but that said there's nothing heretical about owning a building either. The temptation of any community, as you mentioned Jeff, is the inward focus. The withdrawal from society. Jesus by contrast was incarnational, involved, amidst the masses, hanging out with drunks and prostitutes. Thats where the church has lost its edge. We just don't care about sinners.
Any house church that cares about sinners will thrive. Any church that owns a building that cares about sinners will thrive. So, does Barna have OK things to say? Sure, some of its valid. But I say, first things first: do we love? Do we care? In my experience: no, most Christians don't really truly care to hang out with sinners all that much. Result? The drunks and prostitutes that swarmed to Jesus are not swarming to the modern church.
Holy Spirit come! We need your conviction and your revival!
REV
Thanks for the update jilliefl1. Do you have some specific thoughts about the premise of the book Pagan Christianity?
I like the House Church movement, but I don't think the primary feature of it is where it meets. I think it is an attempt to create communities where ove is ultimate.
This is the one both Institutional and house church get wrong the most. Francis Schaeffer wrote of the need to have an "orthodoxy of community" equal to the "orthodoxy of doctrine." 30 years ago I thought he was right. I no longer do. "Orthodoxy of doctrine" aka creedalism and many other names, is essentially a way of controlling people, and is thus the antithesis of "orthodoxy of community." Love is more important, and more essential to the nature of the true church than creed, "statements of faith" or correct theology. Even the credal statement "you shall not own a building" is wrong. If christians love each other, I dont care if they have a building or not.
Sadly I find the House church movement often falls short in this regard. For example, some house church leaders promote and unbiblical, culturally based supression of women. They misuse certain scripture passages as proof texts to suggest women should keep silent. How on earth could a community that does this ever be a community of love?
Hi Charlie Chaplain! Thanks for posting on this blog. You are a welcome addition to the conversation.
I too share some of the same observations as you regarding both traditional churches as well as house churches. Even when they may have been founded in love many quickly become about control. A reading of 1 Corinthians 13, which the Apostle Paul wrote about life as the Church - not just weddings, points to the nature of divine love that works for the good of the other.
Where I break from your well written position is in regards to a necessary contradiction between love and doctrine. I agree more with your discription of Schaeffer's position that we need both. Without love life becomes focused on power - as you pointed out. But without a communal agreement to doctrine/belief, how would it be possible to say as you do that women should not be suppressed? I agree with you on this point, but it seems to me that the only way that we can have a community that is walking in love in this way is to jointly declare that this is one of our values/beliefs/doctrinal positions.
What do you think? How can we have these kinds of commitments without deliniating them?
Post a Comment