Gathering to worship with other believers is essential to Christian growth. It can happen in a house church or a large organized church. The key ingredient is healthy Biblical leadership and faithfulness to the Scriptures.

So what can the organized church learn from the home church movement?

People want to be involved. Spectator Christianity is an oxymoron. The organized church needs to continuously provide ways for its attendees to be involved in outreach and service.  If you don’t provide, they’ll find it somewhere else if they serious about serving the Lord. The somewhere else may not have the godly principles or goals that your fellowship has.

Small groups are one way to satisfy that need, but they need to be participatory. The elders of your local church need to agree upon what material is best for your congregation. They should be the leaders of the groups.  You may have a teacher that is not an elder, but that needs to be observed and evaluated regularly. Willow Creek was famous for being the mega-church with small groups until they evaluated the beliefs that were held among the attendees and teachers. Overseer is another name for elder.

The elders should also be seeking the Lord about evangelistic outreach. Acts 13:1-4 is a model of that in action. Parachurch ministries can help, but be sure they are (para) come along side, and not “compete with” ministries. They can build the local church numerically or spiritually, but they should not detract from the local church.

The organized church should be looking at every attendee and asking, how do they fit in with this body of believers? Why did God bring them here? What are their gifts and talents? Then you will have the involvement that some leave the organized church to find.

What can the home church learn from the organized church?

Some (definitely not all) house churches have developed as an alternative to structured church to avoid certain issues such as discipline, tithing, meetings, and authority.  All of those are Biblical parts of the church.  Maybe the church you left overemphasized one of them, but they are still Biblical.  I think one of the main things the house church can learn, is the need for some to take responsibility to find those in proper balance.

Are the more spiritually mature praying about the group and its direction and needs, no matter how small the group may be? Does there need to be a challenge to give to a mission work on a regular basis? If there is a main speaker, does he deserve some support for the time and effort they put into preparing the message?

One danger of the small house church is the lack of oversight. How will you stay doctrinally pure? You may be non-denominational, but what are the essentials of Christianity? All of these issues can be addressed and dealt with in a Biblical way. If they are, you may be a little more structured, but structure does not mean you are not open to the Holy Spirit.  It just means you are following Biblical guidelines.

Whichever type of church you attend, remember the other is also legitimate and sometimes necessary. God uses each for His purposes. Consider the strengths and weaknesses of your gathering and how you might change to meet the spiritual needs of those with whom you gather in worship.

Share on Facebook

Yesterday One News Now had an article on the home church movement that estimated that 9 percent of Christians in America meet in a home on Saturday or Sunday to worship. There is a great variety in styles and format. Many have no structure but encourage anyone to share what they have on their heart. No one is salaried and often no collection is taken.

I have to begin my comments by saying that I am a salaried pastor, so I obviously come with my own bias. But I am also a person who deeply loves the Word of God and have studied it all my life. I have been in a cult “church”, led a home church, and been in a structured “organized” church, so I write from broad experience.

Organized church seems to have a bad reputation. Many people, including myself, have been wounded by some experience in a denomination. I would guess that many that have turned to the home church did so out of frustration with the church they attended, or from a desire for a more intimate setting. There are probably also those who want to be a bigger fish in a smaller pond. That isn’t always bad. Some want to use their gifts and weren’t offered any opportunity in the structured church. Then there are those who would like to get back to the 1Corinthians 14 kind of a worship service.  They desire more spontaneity, more input from others, and more authenticity.  The article suggested that the surge in the home church was partly a backlash to the impersonal mega-church atmosphere.

My experience with a home church was a good one.  We were a little more structured.  The mature Christian men met together to make decisions, similar to elders. We did take an offering and supported mission works.  There was a weekly sermon.  In that sense maybe we were a small structured church. It met the need for fellowship and accountability. We eventually merged with another church that had a building because we needed more space.  Many of the current home churches would suggest we should have split and started another church to solve our dilemma of overcrowding, but no one wanted to take the lead for a new home church.

The dangers that I see in the movement (it is certainly not a new thing as the article suggests) is lack of accountability.  We did not ask if those that made decisions met the qualifications of an elder or outline their responsibilities.

Another is that it can attract of malcontents.  I’m not suggesting that this is always the case, but we did have those who felt “no church was good enough” and before long the home fellowship wasn’t either.  They could not have the final say in decisions and so they moved on.

The other potential problem is the lack of taking a regular offering. Money is often the last area of our life to be converted. It is the god of America today. Somehow I think tithing may be a subject that rarely if ever comes up in a home church. Granted, organized churches may overemphasize it, but some people may attend because they just don’t want to see an offering plate.

Finally, the qualifications of an elder suggest that they diligently prepare to teach and preach the word of God.  The Apostle Paul clearly wrote that elders that labor in preparing to teach and preach should be supported by those to whom they minister.  (Lk 10:7; 1Cor 9:11, 14 1Tim 5:17) Without someone preparing, are they really challenged to go deeper into God’s word?

Home church is a necessity in countries that are closed to the Gospel. However, even in China believers tend to form larger congregations and find places larger than homes to meet.  It is true that the early church met in homes, but the earliest church also met in synagogues and the Temple. Certainly either can meet the need for fellowship and training in the Word of God.

Tomorrow: Suggestions for healthy home churches and what “organized” church might learn from the home church movement.

Share on Facebook