The House Church Movement

The house church movement continues to attract attention. The Barna Group estimates that between 6 and 12 million people now attend a house church in America. The reliable Pew Forum discovered that 9 percent of American Protestants attend house church exclusively. Any movement that attracts 10 percent of the total of Protestant worshipers is likely to have a growing and considerable impact on the church at-large. While I do not think traditional churches will just go away anytime soon I expect the house church movement will grow in the years ahead.

This is not a matter of mere academic interest to me. I have lead a house church for the past four years. In many ways it fits the pattern of most house churches, if there is a pattern. We generally eat together, worship, pray, share, study the Scripture, and celebrate the Lord's Supper. I believe that we are seeking to meet in much the same way the Church did in its first couple of centuries. I do not feel elitist about this, nor do I feel that those in what could be termed "traditional" churches are in some way "missing it." I do feel like we are pioneering something, and that we are following the Lord's direction for us.

Having pastored a traditional church with a building, programs, and all the other things that accompany such a church, I am thankful for the simplicity that I find in the house church. Ed Stetzer, the president of Lifeway Research and a specialist in missiology, notes that the appeal of the house church is to a “simpler expression of the church.” He adds, “For many, church has become too much (like a) business while they just want to live like the Bible.” I believe people are genuinely tired of seeing the church become a business that seems totally removed from what they read about the ministry and fellowship enjoyed by people in New Testament churches.

I have read the various critiques of the "movement" (and it is questionable as to whether it qualifies as a movement), in addition I have heard from pastors of traditional churches that have real, and in some cases valid concerns, relating to the direction that some house churches are taking. I am concerned about an anti-authoritarian attitude that draws some to house churches. I am not supportive of a "leaderless gathering," if in reality there is any such thing. I recognize the danger of those teaching, who in ignorance of sound theology, can introduce dangerous and deceptive doctrines. I am also concerned about groups that isolate themselves from the larger Body of Christ.

Having said all that, allow me to say that I believe that what God is doing through this movement is a restoration of Biblical orthopraxy. Orthopraxy refers to "correct practice," whereas, orthodoxy means "correct doctrine." There are those that are Biblically orthodox, but in terms of practices and methods, do not look to the Bible as to the basis for what they do. Traditions, culture, and pragmatism often dictates why churches do what they do. They cannot find support for much of what they do in the pages of Holy Writ. That is one of the big challenges that confronts most traditional churches. In the 1800's, the Plymouth Brethren confronted the Church with the same challenge, to show from the Scriptures the basis for their practices and ecclesiastical structures.

Here are key questions that I believe must be addressed:

(1) Is the Church in the New Testament embryonic or a model for future generations?

(2) Was the New Testament Church meant to mainly furnish us with the authoritative apostolic teachings or was it meant to have some particular instructions for us in structure?

(3) Does the New Testament give us form as well as content?

All three of these questions address how we view the Church in the New Testament and how we view the developement of structures and methods down through Church history.

Here is what I propose:

(1) The New Testament furnishes us with principles for a pattern church that can and should be followed today.

(2) As the epistles are normative to the doctrine of the Church (orthodoxy), the principles of the book of Acts are normative for the life, experiences, and practices (orthopraxy) of the Church.

I see these questions and these proposals as the essence of the issues raised by the house church movement to the Church as a whole.

Your comments are welcome.