House Church

According to studies I've seen and reports I've read, the "house church" phenomenon is growing. More and more people are starting to meet in homes rather than the traditional "church". You know the one ... that edifice on the corner with the nice sign and the parking lot? They're everywhere, with traditional names like "First Baptist Church" or creative names like "Church of Light and Life". They're connected, like the Episcopalians or the Presbyterians, or they're independent like the "Bible Church". And some are kind of connected without being fully connected, like Calvary Chapels across the country.

Pro: Smaller groups tend to breed greater accountability. People get to know each other. It's impossible to slip into and out of someone's house unnoticed, as opposed to the more popular church settings where it is not only possible but, to some, preferred. House churches are more personal.

Con: The smaller group tends to minimize the roles in the group. That is, how many teachers, evangelists, apostles, servants, etc. are there for one house church? While it is likely that you wouldn't be unnoticed, it is also likely that you might be unused, and exercising spiritual gifts is an important part of being in the Body of Christ.

Pro: House churches are immune to the vagaries of the politics of the larger organization. What I mean is that when the PCUSA decides to allow women to be pastors or the Episcopal Church USA decides that the Bible doesn't recognize homosexual behavior as sin, it has no effect on the house church. Being completely independent, the house church can retain sola scriptura, using the Bible alone as its source document for faith and living rather than being subject to the changes that often affect church polity.

Con: House churches are immune to the inputs of the catholic Church. By "catholic" I mean "the Church Universal". House churches answer to no one, so they don't have any accountability. When doctrine deviates from Scripture, it is most often in the smallest groups ... such as house churches. The Body of Christ is to be interconnected so as to be unified in doctrine, and that is lost in a house church.

Pro: House churches include everyone. In larger churches, children are carted off to children's church and teens are taken to their youth group and adults to their groups. In house churches, the family stays together. There is a unifying effect. The family that prays (and worships) together stays together.

Con: House churches include everyone. That means that the youth have no particular interaction. That means that if Mrs. Jones's baby is cranky this morning, everyone in the room will experience it. That means that there is no "youth pastor", no "youth group", no children's Sunday School. There is no "substance abuse" group, no "bike riders group", no "seniors group". The house church shares everything ... including the homogenization of all people in it.

Pro: House churches are ubiquitous. They're everywhere and anywhere. They're ideal for evangelism when the traditional church puts people off. They might be in your neighborhood or at the local Starbucks. They might be in a home or in someone's office. They might be on Sunday or on a more convenient evening during the week.

Con: With the more "relaxed" atmosphere of the house church comes a more "relaxed" atmosphere toward church in general. There is a general sense of antagonism toward the "structured church". There is often a sense of superiority, as if the house church is the best way to go, and anyone meeting in a traditional church is just inferior. Because humans are human, the house church tends to lend itself to a superiority complex just because it's different from the traditional church.

Pro: House churches, being more focused because of their size and family approach, can push deeper. They can develop more spiritual depth in the individuals that attend because the individuals are known. In larger churches, the teaching is often kept more superficial -- "milk" -- because the audience is too broad and too much of an unknown entity.

Con: House churches have no real structure. There is no real "government". That means there is no actual "elders" and "deacons" -- listed biblically as plural entities for every church. These "elders" and "deacons" have specific biblical roles in the biblical Church model, including teaching, retaining doctrinal purity, and service. These are not small issues. The "depth" gained by the house church environment is also threatened by its lack of biblical organization.

I'm going to stop here. I hope you are getting the idea. There are a lot of positives in the House Church movement. There are good things. Someone might think that, by listing the "cons" as I have, I'm against the house church concept. Not at all. That would be to ignore all the "pros". My point is that there are negatives or potential negatives associated with the positives or potential positives of the house church. Anyone intending to start or be involved or who is already involved in one of these needs to be aware of the pitfalls. Don't be lulled into thinking that the house church is the answer to all the problems. It isn't. Nor should the traditionalist churches be lulled into thinking that they have it all right. They don't. (I would suggest that when the persecution of Christianity arrives in America -- and it is coming -- it is the house church that will provide the "fellowship of the saints".) We should all be aware of the pros and cons, including ones I haven't listed. And we should all celebrate the communion of the saints in whatever form it takes.