How does a house church not grow into a "Sunday morning church" so to speak?
I think this is a great question that everyone learning to live our Christian lives outside of the walls of the legacy churches should be asking ourselves on a regular basis. This question applies to us whether we call our expression of the Body of Christ a "house church, a "simple church", a "organic church", a "missional community" or even if we choose to avoid any type of label for the way(s) in which we gather with other believers for the purpose of mutual edification and spiritual growth.
Here is how I responded via twitter in four tweets of 140 characters or less:
Many legacy churches started as house churches, they just never called them that & they started w/ the goal of being BIG churches
I like what @felicitydale said on her blog: House churches should be neither independent, nor permanent or they will not multiply
She went on to say: Each house church is a debriefing center and a sending center that sends people out. http://bit.ly/dnzssw
So I guess to answer your question, the best way is to be outward focused and "missional", learning to "live sent" together daily
I thought this question deserved more than a few tweets for a good response, so I thought I would post it here on my blog so I could invite others to join in on the discussion here in the comments. I myself have learned that for those of us who have spent most of our lives in the legacy church it would be very easy to let our "house churches" grow into something more traditional or to find another legacy church full of great brothers and sisters that we can become a member of and worship together within the walls of that legacy church.
But, I have also learned that God has commanded us to make disciples as we are going and "living sent" in the world that God put is in. I have learned that God can work through us much better when we are learning to "be the light" in the darkness, instead of only gathering to shine our lights with other lights. I think the key to not growing into a "Sunday morning church" as the original question is asking is for us to be very intentional about being outward focused and multiplying and not inward focused and simply growing in numbers.
Please join this discussion and share your answers to this question, How does a house church not grow into a "Sunday morning church" so to speak?
9 comments:
In reality, I think many house churches ALREADY ARE "Sunday Morning Churches". They may meet at a time other than Sunday morning, but they just meet together with birds of a feather and that is their entire expression. They are not doing what the Master said to do....make disciples!
I am not very precise in my understanding of what a "Sunday Morning Church" is, in the mind of the questioner, but it seems that there is an assumption that it would be a step DOWN to become a more traditional form. I reject the idea that having a building is sinful. ...or having staff...or anything else that is often attacked by some of the more "angry" element of the simple/house church movement. (I am not worrying about precise definitions here, btw...)
To me, it all boils down to what "form" will best function to reach the unbeliever and give them the resource necessary to become effective disciples of Jesus. That is the goal. The goal is not to avoid becoming structured. The goal is not to try to NOT have a building or staff. The goal is not to honor THIS structure over a more institutional structure. If that is what you find as your motivation, I would advise going back to the Operations Manual.
It says, "Make disciples". It doesn't prescribe specific structures beyond having elders and teachers and expressions of various gifts. It says "make disciples". Those are the marching orders. If your house church finds that having a different structure than you had in infancy is the best way to make disciples...don't despair! You are acting in obedience if you are making disciples. If retaining your original structure is the most effective means...keep it! :-)
I asked the question and I'm no angry house churcher. Never been a part of a house church actually!
I would argue though that what Jon is calling legacy churches (which is what I meant by "Sunday Morning Churches) are not any more qualified, or don't necessarily have a wondermously solid track record of making disciples. There are the ones we hear about, and then there are most of the rest in my experience.
My own current thoughts on church are best summed up in this blog entry, about a year and a half old now: http://theaestheticelevator.com/2008/09/06/why-she-walked-out-of-church/
The wife and I still have really decided on a church since moving six months ago, and I found myself this morning thinking "It sure would be nice if we had parishes and the decision was made for us!" The search is not fun.
I agree that having a building, staff or structure is not sinful. I have known both healthy and unhealthy Christians in both legacy churches and house churches. To me the problem isn't the location of the gathering of the members of Body of Christ, but the ultimate purpose of that particular group of members. If the ultimate purpose is not to "make disciples" but instead to form a inward focused Christian club that ignores the dying world around them, then I think we have missed the point of "being the Church".
There is not only nothing wrong with gathering to worship with other Christians, gathering to listen to teaching with other Christians, gathering to eat and fellowship with other Christians, but I would say there is something VERY healthy about all of the above.
The problem is when your understanding of church becomes limited to only doing those things on a weekly basis and nothing more. We ARE the Body of Christ, so therefore we ARE the Church, not just the few hours a week we gather with other Christians, but the entire 168 hours of the week.
I have been learning that "being the Church" starts at home with my family and extends to my neighbors, co-workers and everyone else that is part of my life. We should not limit ourselves to simply "being the Church" in one set location, with on set group of other Christians at the expense of neglecting the rest of the people who God has placed in our lives.
This past week my families connections with various expressions of the Body of Christ included:
Gathering with a group of Christians for a more traditional style of worship and some time of teaching and discussion last Sunday.
Gathering together with some other Christian brothers one evening to listen to the Holy Spirit together and share some of our lives with each other.
Meeting with my Life Transformation Group for some discipling time through confessing our sins to one another, praying for the lost together, discussing our weekly Scripture reading together and sharing our lives with each other.
Reading the Bible together and having some time of family discussion and prayer.
Taking my son to join some other friends at the local Rescue Mission this morning to "live sent" with some of the homeless in our community.
Joining together with some other Christians at one of the local mega-churches to pray together and discuss how we can help reach the lost students on our local college campuses.
There are still some in the legacy churches and some "angry" element of the simple/house church movement who are more concerned with pointing out each others flaws to be willing to work together for God's Kingdom, but I think it is great that we are now seeing Christians from different "forms of church" networking together to reach the lost and make disciples.
When we ALL realize that we are ALL part of the same Body of Christ and start working together to reach the lost, make disciples and expand God's Kingdom I think God will be VERY pleased!
Jon, I'll quote my comment to R.R. on Facebook on a similar question about 'making disciples' as being a primary activity of the church: Did you know that the words "disciple" and "disciples" aren't in any of the epistles? You won't find them from Romans to Revelation. But, it's interesting to look at all the terms that do describe Christians. Look at how often "brother" and "brothers" is found. Kind of speaks about body life and community and family... that's where disciples are made: in God's House. A House Church needs to align herself with God's eternal purpose.
Paul, I didn't know it was you asking, but I didn't mean to imply that the questioner was part of the "angry element". I was just pointing out that there are those who think anything "institutional" is bad. I agree that trying to "find" a church can be a painful task.
I also don't intend to say that "legacy church" is better. I think Jon and I have a lot of the same thoughts. What I was saying was that it isn't holy to have a building or to not have a building. It is what you do with your resource in obedience to the master that is most important. Hence...what Jon (along with PowerUser) is saying about the ultimate purpose of the body. If we aren't part of the process of transforming unbelievers into effective followers of Jesus, then we have missed our calling.
Maybe I could re-phrase your question Paul? "How can a house church retain it's focus on body life and disciplemaking as it grows and matures?" :-) Hmmm...I like that question! :-)
Jon, I haven't been able to make my case with you yet for book burning or word banning, but this thread makes my case that the word "church" no longer is a meaningful English word to communicate the unloaded and understated "gathering" of ekklesia (seminarianizing Greek--the kind that comes from learning the alphabet and a little more--makes Greek words way too loaded to really get what they convey sometimes). If we receive Jesus' words--and take seriously the exhortation not to add to or subtract from them--then the miraculous thing is that all the help and hope of heaven is present when two or three Jesus-people come together. In a culture that demanded 10 men, the importance of a couple-three is polemical and hopeful at the same time.
At a time when capital has dissipated, energy is expensive and the potential for trouble coming on the world, we need to do everything we can to help one another to obey ALL that Jesus commanded and to cherish the holiness and weight of meeting with at least one other follower of Jesus. (I have noticed lately how my wife's countenance actually changes when she meets another Jesus-follower. As if the fire is somehow bigger--something exists in the "we" that doesn't exist in the "I"--and any amount of "we" is enough to get there).
Perhaps we put too much emphasis on what we see? The end of 2 Corinthians 4 says that anything we can look at (like what form the gathering takes, or what configuration of house, tent or building it meets in) is temporary. That, I think gets closer to the big problem. We are not focused, as that text tells us to be, on the unseen and eternal.
I grew up in a church-culture that demonized Albert Schweitzer, so it took me a long time to get the clarity of his offending comment: "Jesus proclaimed the kingdom, but what came was the church." He gets it, but that could take too long to unpack and I already can't tell how wind-baggy long this comment is getting (the little box just encourages me to put more).
So, I would encourage the original questioner to consider re-framing the question and quest in this direction: How can I keep my eyes on Jesus, and live as a citizen of His kingdom more fully, more devotedly each day? How can I draw others into my lostness--that is, being lost in wonder, love and praise of the One who loved me, and gave himself for me?
When a church defines itself by a Sunday morning meeting--any church, house church or traditional varieties--it has missed the every day relational-togetherness that is ours as His family. Hour of power it is not if that's mainly all there is to it.
Instead, consider ourselves as we are, the immigrant family representing a different culture from a foreign place (the Kingdom of His dear Son). We need each other as we face this new land. We are the place of rest for each other, the place where we are safe and accepted.
Unimaginable that we would live in this new land as virtual strangers to one another.
And, our family is bursting with good news to share in this new land. What an exciting time we face together. Our lives have eternal significance. Many will reject this good news (unimaginably, but they do) and will reject us. Our values make us odd ducks in this land. We can be discouraged if we do not have a strong family where our lives are shared together.
Those who receive this fantastic news are adopted into the family, too, just like us. They want to learn more, experience this new life; being together for them is like swimming in chocolate pudding. And everdayness doesn't allow us to hide that we all are influenced by our old ways, and by the values and pressures in the land around us. We all have our own quirks. It is messy, and only the glue of familial love and unquestioned acceptance gets us through some days. More often, life together is joyful.
Our family grows. The members want to learn about their new family's values and knowledge about their heritage--the new kingdom to which they belong, and especially about their gracious King.
By the way, the good news we share is that "through repentance and trust in the crucified and risen Christ, one receives forgiveness and an eternally-restored relationship with the Father, responsible membership now in his redemptive community, active participation now in his active Kingdom rule through the Spirit and privileged partnership now in his ongoing plan to rescue and restore all creation and reconcile all things to himself in Christ." (see http://www.alanknox.net/2010/01/the-gospel-and-the-kingdom/#comments by rick cruse)
Felicity Dale posted a new blog post on this topic, it can be found here: http://bit.ly/drLFuA
I really like what one of my friends, Ken Eastburn, says in the first comment:
"If we can get the whole Church to move to a house church model, but do not make disciples, it will all be in vain. But if we focus on making disciples (something I believe the house church is often better positioned to do) then we will have already succeeded."
I think we need to recognise that there are times and seasons for all things and this includes house churches.
I don't believe that every church has to try and grow...nor do I believe every house church or Sunday church needs to grow bigger either.
Often the church wounds its brethren... and it is often the house church who will bring those wounded into relationship and healing and after a while those people will leave and go and fellowship with other churches...
There are more ways to make disciples then there is to build a mega church... after all Jesus basically looked after 12 people...
There is a huge difference between discipling someone to be a Christian and training them in churchainity.
Post a Comment