House Churches Have No Sex Appeal

I just submitted an article to an English web site. Having writer's block, I edited one of my earlier articles for an English audience.

House Churches Have No Sex Appeal (And Other Gripes).
You cannot talk about emerging church without talking about house church. Only in wealthy post-Christian countries do we have the luxury of either a large pot of money (USA), an inheritance of ecclesial real estate (UK) or a government-sponsored theological training (Continental Europe).
For most of the world, starting new churches means cleaning up before the living room fills up with people. Millions of churches around the word are starting this way and millions more are needed.
If English researchers like Dr Peter Brierley are correct, then there are probably more followers of Jesus outside the institutional/alt. worship/charasmatic church in England than inside. What these "unchurched" believers create as a structured response to church life will largely define what house church will look like in the UK. And I don't see them taking collections to build cathedrals.
[Click to enlarge]

I could easily use this space to brag on the virtues of house church, but there are still some things that bug me and so I will write my gripes instead.
Who am I to gripe? I am an ordained minister who has been on both sides. I have pastored traditional churches for 7 years and have been helping to start house churches for 7 years. I am still on both sides. Both are my mistresses, and I love them equally. I also try to critique them equally.

First and foremost, house churches have no sex appeal. There is nothing to look at. No big event. No climactic happening that make people snap pictures. Except people crying on each other. Hugging each other. Handing money over to each other. Lending cars. Although some people would say that those personal victories and communal sacrifices ARE the story. Wolfgang Simson of "Houses That Change The World" told me such.
I remember the good old days of church planting the old fashioned way. The glory days of toys and more toys. Picking out mega-wattage sound systems. Shopping for electronics. Designing kick-butt graphics for the invitation. Discovering the building. Raising the money. The gut-twisting suspense of Opening Service. The relief of the big crowd that came. Those lovely, dear people that came. God bless'em, everyone!
And then the disappointment of the smaller crowd the following week. And the week after. And the week after that. The grief of losing steam. The guilt of swiping people from other churches to replace those horrible, spiteful deserters who came the first week to see the big fuss and then left forever. Stood us up. Not caring for our feelings. Or our budget. And after all we did for them . . .
OK. Maybe the memories are not all fond. But I do miss the hormone-triggering excitement of pulling off a big service. And then on the other hand, if I am really honest with myself, some house church people are beginning to host large city-wide celebrations and be more involved in the week long festivals. In fact I have been to some really good ones . . . All right. My first gripe is not going the way I intended.

But the following gripes are actual real-life insufficiencies that need to be addressed if house church evangelists are to offer a viable alternative to people leaving the Pyramids Of Egypt for The Good Land Flowing With Milk And Coffee.

Some Gripes About House Church:
1. Name is Misleading.
The label needs to change from house church to something that better describes it. I saw a house church network in Central Europe where none of the churches met in homes. People there cannot afford a house. Clubs? Yes. Coffee Shops? Yes. Apartments? Sometimes. But not houses.
Neil Cole called them Simple Churches. So did Mike Steele. I like that. Organic Church?. Micro church? . . . more work needs to be done here.
And what about the rapid movement of monastic structures in the evangelical church in UK and USA? These intentional residential communities, many of which are large houses filled with young people discovering church, are more house-based than the house churches and yet we don’t call them house churches. Do we include them under the umbrella term or allow them to define themselves under a whole new ecclesiastic framework? Maybe its time we all moved towards a deeper ecclesiology?
Another spanner in the works: I have been to house churches that have pulpits and programs. I have also visited traditional churches where the pews have been replaced with couches, carpets, and sprawling kids. The service was more house church-like than some house churches. What is wrong with this picture? Probably the words being used to describe it.
Hey, look at me, I'm griping.

2. Authentication is Delayed.
House churches are not yet recognised by the mainstream. Sometimes they are reactionary to the establishment and find identity in the chasm. Other times they are not respected.   
"They are not real churches", a well-known 'postmodern' pastor told me. He was basing his judgment on the old way of valuation, the "Cold War" mindset Thomas Friedman called it, where people value things by "weight, size and longevity". House churches are generally low impact, small, and seasonal. In the information age, people value things by "Speed". Bill Gates said it was "Velocity". If this is correct, then house churches make a lot of sense. And if 9-11 moved us out of the Information Age and into the Security Age, then house churches make even more sense. Time for a little Rodney Dangerfield [that's respect' for those of you not in USA].
In the meantime, dont expect authentication from the mainstream. The house church movement is basically overlooked and downgraded. Established churches are on a mission to fill their buildings and pay the heating bill. Denominational executives are threatened by the idea of housewives starting churches in their own homes rather than their trained professionals in the buildings designated for that purpose. In a country where the church is losing people, it is hard to find church officials who will champion the organic without being able to count the numbers. But I am not saying they do not exist.
Stand back, I really griping now.

3. Orientation is Backwards.
The focus needs to change from "our house" to "their house" Much of the present house church movement is still an attempt to contain and control the meetings in their own camp. The full gains that are available will not be realised until we can begin to let the movement flow into THEIR HOUSES.
-The church in Lydia's house was just that - in Lydia's house.
-Matthew's party was in Matthew's house. Not the more convenient house of Simon Peter's mother-in-law. And dont tell me it was her stomach complaints that kept them away . . . It was strategy, not dysentery, that led them to Matthew's house.
-Jesus told his short-term missionaries to put peace on THEIR (those other people, the ones they were sent to) house, enter THEIR house, live in THEIR house, eat in THEIR house, heal someone or something in THEIR house. Right there is the base of a new church and it is in THEIR house. Do we no longer trust God enough to free up people to run with the Kingdom of God in their houses? Have we replaced our trust in the Spirit's power for the scaffolding of programs and hierarchies that prop up our temples?
And yet the benefits of going organic are still there when we choose their house over our house:
- Financial, because if the party is in their house then they pay for it.
- Security, because if the party is in their house then they will guarantee every one is safe.
- Culture, because the friends of the host already appreciate the culture of their style of music and culture so there is no culture barrier. Even the structure of the event (yes, everything has structure) is relevant and appropriate.
- Convenience, because they already have that house and everyone knows where it is.
I could go on. I could also say that this principle needs to be applied on the civic level as well as the domestic level. That the city offers a gift to those who are not too self-sufficient to receive it.

4. Support is Minimal
House churches are the cookie dough of the new ecclesiology. They are tasty and soft and very tempting. But they have not yet hardened into something permanent. We might be 5 years away from seeing a complete ecosystem of organic ministries that work together to enable a healthy, reproducing, movement of house churches. The movement in USA and Europe is not ready for franchising or exporting, It is not looking for entrepreneurs to multiply it but rather for pioneers to beta test it. It needs engineers who can tinker with it while it is moving. To make it workable and efficient. To get the bugs out of the system. To see what missing elements need to be included.
Perhaps God is not allowing recognition from the mainstream so that there can be a window of time to create the prototypes away from the spotlight. If
this is correct, someone needs to get busy working on a decent support system. There is not a whole lot of support for the movement right now. Not enough, perhaps, for most pastors to seriously consider a leap of faith into a new and way-more-organic paradigm. A few good books have appeared. Some helpful conferences started up. But the house church movement in Western countries is still a few tuna casseroles short of the Pot-Luck. [ooops - wrong country - what about "a few naan short of the curry"?, "a few peas short of the pie'n'mash"? "a few wheat-bix short of the breakfast"?... I know - shut up Andrew and get on with it!]
The five-fold ministry teams needed for a healthy system are not yet in place. City-wide gatherings are still in the idea phase. The apostles and prophets are still learning how to put up with each other, let alone minister together. Traveling teams are more novelty than staple. The heroes of house church planting are somewhere in Asia. Luckily, we now have some good websites like House2House.
What about resources from the mainstream church?
Sorry. Wrong number. Their conference speakers have not written any books on how to ignite house church movements of the Spirit. Theological Colleges and Seminaries are not yet training students to plant house churches. Churches train their youth to "find" a church when they leave for college rather than "start" a church, since the existing structure is too complex for students to replicate. There is also a tragic seperation between traditional church and house church. Which leads to my last gripe.

5. Integration is Absent.
House Church Utopia is still painted as being pure and contaminant-free. As if you leave one model of church and adopt another with no reference to what you came out of. The truth is that there is compromise. There is modularity in our new forms. There is re:mixing, compositing. There are house church people that miss the worship service so much that they create one. There are people that go back monthly to visit friends. There are house churches that are more structured than some "traditional" churches. There are large churches that have house churches and large worship services inside their structure and they are very happy with it. This is not a case of MacOS versus Windows. It is not always either/or. It is more of a progressive evolution. And fish with legs are a reality of this new movement.
Backwash happens. And its OK. If we don’t allow more fluidity into what we promote as house church, then a whooooole lot of wine will be spilled as pastors move their churches towards Housetopia and discover along the way that 100% Organic certification is just not attainable.

Somebody, somewhere, needs to give people a little slack. Some space to be pluralistic. Someone needs to integrate the new history with the previous generation of churches. To stand on their shoulders rather than slap their cheeks. The Holy Spirit utilized the old-school Festival of Pentecost to kick off something new. The disciples launched out from the Temple. Paul started in synagogues. Why can't the house church leaders be players in the wider picture of what God is doing among the old AND new wineskins? And why cant the residual church leaders give them some cards to play with?

OK. Thanks for letting me vent.
Final thoughts? Lets all just get along. Lets be honest about where we are in this transition. Lets not spill any wine. Lets not spoil the fun of pastors surfing the previous wave. Lets preserve the old wineskins and birth the new ones.
Lets work towards House Church 1.2. Or 2.0. Or 3.5
And then I can stop griping.

__________________

Written by Andrew Jones in 2002. This version has been edited to fit your screen. It was originally written as a request from a house church magazine but was rejected because of the title "My Gripes About House Church". I guess since everybody was writing "House-Church House-Church, Rah Rah RAH!!!!" articles, I thought a more critical and tongue-in-cheek article would at least get a reading from those who would not never read an article on house church. If that is you, and you have made it all the way to the end . . .  then i have succeeded.

Want to go further?
1. Download and read free version of "Houses That Change the World" by Wolfgang Simson.
2. Lets ask Wolfgang Simson if he can join us at Suddenly Seminary soon for a chat. Interested?
3. Attend your country's' National House Church Convention.  USA meeting is Sep 3-6, 2004. English who wish to learn about house church and connect with others would be advised to leave their country and learn from those doing it on the continent. The next European House Church Convention will be held in Spain, September 2005. See you there.

Did you know that the 2nd Annual European House Church Convention had its kick off in my house? Yes - one of the famed pizza parties in Prague. To be honest, it was a bit of a shock  for some of them to have the opening evening of the convention in a home - but they were saying "yes, why not in a home, we ARE house church people".

Indeed

Comments

[alexander campbell]

It's very interesting to read this article again (especially in its anglicised version), about 18 months after I first read it. Having spent these past months changing nappies, losing sleep, wondering what this new thing will look like in a year, in five, are we doing it right, making all our mistakes on number one, crying with pride then with frustration... I now reread this article and it gives me hope and focus and not a little challenge.

[Andrew]

alexander - i was going to email you today to let you know i had posted this. you are one of the people we are watching closely.
keep going . . . .

it means a lot to me to hear your approval.

[Isaac]

Good thoughts, Andrew. I haven't heard Wolfgang in several years, so I would love to be able to chat with him again!

[alexander campbell]

yikes big brother is watching me! not sure if I'm touched or terrified. both I think. to be honest I have felt very small and very alone (tho I know that's not true) so I think I'm more touched than terrified. thanks. you havent replied to my 'crossroads' email. is that because you wont or just havent had time? maybe we need to talk coffee mug to coffee mug. BTW which web site did you post this to?

[andrew jones]

alexander, excuse me for not responding - i dont think i ever got that one. my hotmail account was only 2 mgs and it used to fill up a few times each week. now i am at tallskinnykiwi@gmail.com with 1000 mgs.
web site - i will let you know when they publish it or if they publish it (would'nt want to put pressure on them)

[alexander campbell]

Did you not get my email (sent to gmail.com) on friday (pizza epicentre wisdom)? If you didn't - do you have some sort of anti spam set up?

[TulipGirl]

Something not mentioned, but related to #2, is that in some cultures (for instance, ones in the Former Soviet Union or heavily Orthodox-oriented) house churches whatever-one-calls-it, that don't meet in a "church" building are immedicately discredited and labelled "cults." Fear of cults and sects has kept many away from Biblical Christianity.

[alexander campbell]

I've been trying to find time to post some further thoughts sparked by your re-edited article, here they are; Firstly I found myself strangely encouraged. I think this was as a result of our current circumstances; having been stumbling along with home/simple/organic church for the past year it was heart lifting to be reminded afresh that we are not on our own and are infact part of something much bigger and potentially significant. It was a relief.

Secondly here are some more detailed thoughts triggered by some of the issues you touch on;
BTW thank heavens 'house churches DONT have sex appeal' !
1. I'm going with 'Simple Church' as a name right now. I think the paradigm shift is so seismic in this emerging thing that no one name alone can even hope to convey what is going on. But I'm going with 'Simple' Church at the moment because the area that I feel God has focused me on is the potential for multiplication. This is made possible only when simplicity lies at the heart of our life, practice and structure. If it's not easily reproducible then it will not multiply.
2. Authentication is delayed. So what? Not really an issue for me.
3. Orientation is Backwards. Yes I believe this is another vital vital part of what God is currently doing. It's a very simple concept but it has massive ramifications I believe. It signifies a complete shift in thinking which strikes at the very heart of the way we have previously done church. It turns the current thinking 180 degrees around and there is an important reason for this. Instead of holding in and controlling we are giving away and releasing outwards. This confronts the issue of 'control' head on which is one of the biggest counter spirits we face in what we are doing. The outworking of this concept though has to be Spirit led and I certainly don't see this principle as written in stone.
4. Support is minimal. True but it's growing all the time. And I sure don't want to hit the conference trail again! Please no. For those in a position to potentially co-ordinate a support system I think the right approach has been taken thus far, 'Let's observe what is happening and wait for the Spirit's signal before leaping in.' Again I think there's something very simple yet very profound and far reaching in this approach. Much of what many of us have left behind was a result of man's control and self effort. At the heart of the new should be an unshakeable faith in Jesus' ability to do what He said He would do, "Build His Church." I believe that He can and He will. I totally accept that He invites us to join with Him in that work but it is frightening how quickly our faith shifts from Him to our own abilities. He knows what He's doing. Let's let Him do it.
5. Integration. I'm right with this, and have my money where my mouth is on this one. I am actively engaged in communicating and building bridges between the existing and the new. For most of us in year one it has mainly been a year of unlearning stuff. But again the focus God has given to me is towards the unchurched for whom there was no old to begin with.
In conclusion, for me much (not all) of this talk about church is not the real issue. The Father gathering as many sons and daughters as possible into His family is the issue. It just seems that around the nations God is loosening up His Body in order to accommodate this expansion. There is no one blueprint for this resulting pattern of church. The new skin is indeed 'liquid' and free to flow and adapt to the tiniest degree in order to be effective and real in each different nation, region, city, culture, generation, neighbourhood and street. This is why it is so powerful and potentially significant.

[Andrew]

well said!

[Bill Arn]

Hi Andrew,

This is quite interesting. A friend of ours had called earlier today,letting me know of some possibilities that could be emerging in the body of believers. I will look into more details as I go along, which could be very helpful.

Thank you, & God bless,
Wm. F. Arn

[rob sharpe]

I'm brand spankin new to the organism
of simple church.I've always been for it,
known it was the better of the good,better,
best.Best being reserved for where God
manifests.Point is -I want it but,can
someone tell me how order is maintained?
How schisms are resolved? And how stange
doctrine is kept out?.The early church had authoritative leaders, and a council.How does
the simle chuch keep the wolves out? those
rebels w/ agendas.Is there an authoritative leadership in the house2house network? how does it work?

[keith]

The essence of Home Church (HC) is essentially about what we believe the Church is, how it should be structured and how it should functions.
The Institutionalized Church (IC) is seen as being based upon various influences by man through history which has left a church very different to what God had planned. Whereas HC goes back to how the Church functioned in the New testament.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am still on both sides. Both are my
mistresses, and I love them equally. I also try to critique them equally.

The above is very evident throughout his article. He seems to see value of both the Institutional Church (IC) and Home Church (HC). Holding onto the past but wanting something new.
To me the difference between the IC and HC is that of mans ways as opposed to God's ways.
Our theology around ecclesia must change from not doing church man's way to being the Church God's way
It is not about where we meet but about how the church is structured and functions
One cannot be on both sides if some of the beliefs are completely opposed to each other.
One can only practice a single belief system not to be in contradiction
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Name is Misleading
HC is just a name that has been used to represent more than where we meet.
The ecclesiology between a HC and IC are major and in many cases completely apposed to each other.
The prime thing for me about HC is giving the headship of the Church back to the person to whom it belongs, JESUS and him alone and that the New testament (NT) gives us a model of how God had designed the Church to function for all ages. Only with that happening will Jesus get done what He wishes to get done on earth. The Church needs to be an instrument in His hand for His purposes.
Nothing less will suffice
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Authentication is Delayed.

Authentication is not required by man but doing God's work God's way.
So what people think is really irrelevant, it is what we believe the Church should be.
That is the purpose in and goal of HC's

3. Orientation is Backwards.
........ house church movement is still an attempt to contain and control the
meetings in their own camp. The full gains that are available will not be
realised until we can begin to let the movement flow into THEIR HOUSES.

Men who are truly submitted to the one who is the head (Jesus) should not being attempting to control.
That is typically the case IC churches
I have just experienced that at South City Church

4. Support is Minimal
House churches are the cookie dough of the new ecclesiology. They are tasty
and soft and very tempting. But they have not yet hardened into something
permanent. We might be 5 years away from seeing a complete ecosystem of
organic ministries that work together to enable a healthy, reproducing,
movement of house churches.
Here he actually states that HC has a different ecclesiology (what the Church should be)
But in IC and HC are so different and in some cases that they are totally opposed to each other.
Church life is not meant to be tasty and soft but tough and bitter (Not easy to overcome the flesh in my experience).
We are called to lay down our life for the King and His kingdom.
It will not evolve but happen when we get back to doing it God's way and getting Him back in control of His church

5. Integration is Absent.
House Church Utopia is still painted as being pure and contaminant-free. It is more of a progressive
evolution. .

Somebody, somewhere, needs to give people a little slack. Some space to be
pluralistic. Someone needs to integrate the new history with the previous
generation of churches. To stand on their shoulders rather than slap their
cheeks. . Why can't the house church leaders be players in the
wider picture of what God is doing among the old AND new wineskins?
Lets work towards House Church 1.2. Or 2.0. Or 3.5

Where fallen people exist, no matter what form of Church we will not be contaminant-free
It is our willingness to be the Church the way he planned it with Him in control
Jesus is able to shepherd His church if only man would get out he way.
God's plan for the church has been lost in history trough human influences over the ages.
He wishes to go back to His plan ( See article I sent "On the verge of the second reformation)

The use of the word evolution to describe the Church's development is appropriate as it implies how man has modified it from what God had intended. That the real problem. We have a church made by man and not to God's plan.
We don't need the latest version ( Church Version 66.5 or Church Version 2004)
What we need to get back to the original (Church Version 0.0 or Church 100 AD)
Nothing less will do or should do.
Only new wine skin can contain Jesus because then Jesus is in control. Oil and water do not mix.
Jesus wants His Church back and has been waiting for some 1700+ years

[Lucy]

You can't put new wine into old wineskins. As someone said, the beliefs of the new are so opposed to that of the man made IC that building bridges isnt really the issue. For me, to combine forces with the IC that is so against God, (and im not talking about individuals, im talking about the set up as a whole that has strayed from God,) would be compromising on what I know of Jesus. It's about truth. Truth is what matters.

Lucy

[Linda Tirico]

Having started a house church with denominational support in 1999-2000, I led groups in parks, bagel shops, my house and others-whereever the Spirit moved us. In 2001 the denomination withdrew all support for new church development (including the K.I.S.S. church) because "the numbers weren't there"...no new members, no financial gain, by the denomination. I am very interested in starting new plants with any group that is ready. I am working a secular, itinerate job so I will eventually not need denominational funds to live. Where are those who wait??

[Linda Tirico]

I am taking a copy of your article to our new Bishop in hopes that he will rethink embracing K.I.S.S. church as a valuable collateral mission. Thanks.

[Andrew]

Linda,

check out Simple Church on the DAWN website and the related links for some really helpful links.

Good luck!

[Joshua Burton]

Good article... I ran across this site in my desperate search to connect with others attempting a house church movement. I've been a part of a pioneering attempt in KC, USA. Talk about a painful process. Although we are more midwest, KC's spiritual atmosphere is more Bible-belt-like. It's actually easier to attempt house churches in a barren land than in one that has strong institutional churches on every corner. As a family we are constantly seeking God to continually mold us into the family and body He desires. We started much more institutional and at times we have over-reacted to our desire to not be that way and made mistakes by killing something prematurely. I see there being several years of fleshing this out still to come. It has been vulnerable and even humiliating at times, but we are all the more confident in our need of Jesus. Those tormentingly-beautiful failures continually force you to bow your knee and go, "I guess I'm not God after all. I really do need Him!" Anyway, I hope the best for you.

[Eddie]

Hello all...have read a number of posted comments here and want to connect to other believers who get this wine skin. I am in New Jersey and getting ready to post up our new website called New Jersey Home Church Network. There is only three of so far and praying the Lord will connect us to others of the same wineskin in the hopes of starting a church planting movement in the NJ area

[Duncan Macleod]

Well it's almost a year later, but I've referenced your site in a post on Matthew's Party at http://gospelnotes.blogspot.com
Postkiwi (Duncan)

[andrew jones]

better late than never

why havent house church people given me a hard time on this article?

[Wendy]

Probably because you did such a great critiquing them, Andrew!

I just wanted to point everyone looking to start or join a house/simple/organic church and wanting to connect with like-minded believers to the website www.revivalschool.com. Whether you like or agree with all the articles there, the forums are going to be a great way to join people together for that purpose.

I'd also suggest you search the directories at the House2House website Andrew linked to, and also register your own church there. If you don't see one for your area, definitely e-mail them. Sandra Hatley is very dedicated to helping everyone out.

Peace be with you all!

[Ben Hunt]

ditto on the "better late than never", but :-)....

I originally read your article a few years ago, Andrew. I enjoyed it and passed it on to a number of my friends. It was nice to come across it again, and to see the response you're getting to it.

Thanks for the insights, Andrew.

Blessings......

[Jack Cunningham]

I thoroughly enjoy your article, as you expressed many of my own sentiments.

[evelien]

Hello,

We have been in changing groups of believers for 14 years now.[ I dont want to call them HC although it happenend in a house mostly].Mostly in the Netherlands.
Of course it's interesting to talk about forms and structures, buts lets talk about Jesus more.
What I'm saying is : first ask Jesus "what' and 'why', and then the 'how' will follow.Not our worry.

Evelien

[George Hach]

Free online training and support for House Churches at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HomeChurchTraining

[tim]

DVD two years in the works just what is a biblical church? A resourse for the body to come to "see" and understand the nuts and bolts of being the church, not going to church.

Arise, return, repair and rebuild the church to what is was in the beginning.

Tj

[tim]

The web site for the DVD is http://www.churchinthehouse.org

[Andrew Zoppelt]

The problem with all our movements in the u.s.a. is that we build using the same material. We have gone from denominations to networks... as though they were different. We have gone from large programs and structures to small ones.
Let's dare and stop and consider what Jesus is doing and not just try to pop a few NT scriptures and manufacture something w/o power.
First, the early church was one.
Second, the early church was not a house church movement... it was an extension of Jesus' life in others.
Third, the body of Christ (let's stop using the word church, that's mans call)had power.
Fourth, They had a real understanding of repentance and the cross. They demonstrated a holiness and love beyond anything we can manufacture.
Fifth... they weren't stingy
Sixth, they didn't have a need for convention... lifting up methods and men.
Whenever we can do it without the Lord: raise up leaders, create cookie pattern meeting, methods of evangelism... we are only a sniff away from institutionalism rooted in man's ideas, agendas and methods.
I guess I should have a seventh... that will come when we realize when we are in need to repent and come together and pray, cry out to God for the building of His body.
Andy Zoppelt www.theRealChurch.com

[lucia]

Great investment opportunity in Costa Rica, beach condominiums, beach condos. Jaco apartment.
Visit us for more information at www.jaco-bay.com

[Daniel]

Is there a House Church Group in Birmingham in West Midlands in the United Kingdom?

[Daniel]

A home group to meet, worship, fellowship and pray not to live together.

[andrew]

not sure, Daniel. i will let you know if i come across something.