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