Wednesday, June 07, 2006
Heretics @ Home?
Are house churches really more vulnerable to false doctrine?
Since George Barna released Revolution last fall, nearly everyone has weighed in on his controversial vision of the future that sees 70 percent of the church worshipping in non-traditional settings such as house churches within the next 20 years.
My "favorite" argument against the house church movement popped up (again) in a recent article in the Washington Post, where it is suggested that house churches are more vulnerable to heresy, because they lack the accountability of established churches and denominations. I'm not sure what's weirder about this argument--that it is made by Americans, that it is made by Protestants or that it is made by people clearly aware of the current religious milieu.
Why? Well, let's start with the "America" issue. This nation was founded on a belief in the superiority of limited government, on the contention that "we the people" must keep government accountable through the democratic process. Although far from being a "biblical form of government," democracy reflects the biblical principle that a lot of power in the hands of a few sinners can lead nowhere good. This same egalitarian notion is at the heart of the house church movement. It's the conviction that doctrine (like political power) should not be preserved by an ecclesiastical elite. It must be articulated, taught, transmitted and understood by the laity.
Next, we are Protestants, aren't we? The Reformation was a movement of doctrinal purification that emerged from the decay of institutional heresy. Apparently the strong "leadership" of generations of popes, bishops and priests was inadequate to protect the church from doctrines and practices so bizarre they would be considered downright cultish by today's standards. An indulgence anyone? In fact, as many would argue, the leaders were the ones who concocted these abberations to begin with! It was when the exclusive right to interpret the Word of God was pried from the grasp of clergy that the laity discovered that they had been duped. Then, like now, the church is not in need of more leaders, it's in need of more readers--believers who will embrace the responsibility of their own spiritual health and stop subcontracting it to paid clergy. However flawed, the house church movement is one attempt to correct this imbalance.
Finally, even a cursory observation of our largest religious institutions would indicate that size and structure have no bearing on orthodoxy. Some of our largest denominations are still making up their mind about whether they should ordain gays. The pastors of some of our largest churches don't even crack open the Bible when they preach. And yet some of us are worried about the theological pitfalls faced by devout believers exploring the Scriptures and worshipping in the privacy of their own home?
No, house churches are the least likely seedbeds of heresy. In fact, they are the natural offspring of the Reformation's cry: Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda ("The church reformed and always to be reformed"). As with any renewal movement, there will be pockets of excess and room for correction. For instance, in the coming years, the house church movement will have to tackle challenges of elitism, leadership, accountability and--of course--heresy. But like the rest of the Body, they won't be facing these alone (see Matt. 18:20).
Matt Green, editor
Ministry Today
Agree? Disagree? Click the pencil below to post your comments. To weed out spam (not to suppress dissent), comments are moderated and sometimes edited for length. They will appear shortly after posting.
Since George Barna released Revolution last fall, nearly everyone has weighed in on his controversial vision of the future that sees 70 percent of the church worshipping in non-traditional settings such as house churches within the next 20 years.
My "favorite" argument against the house church movement popped up (again) in a recent article in the Washington Post, where it is suggested that house churches are more vulnerable to heresy, because they lack the accountability of established churches and denominations. I'm not sure what's weirder about this argument--that it is made by Americans, that it is made by Protestants or that it is made by people clearly aware of the current religious milieu.
Why? Well, let's start with the "America" issue. This nation was founded on a belief in the superiority of limited government, on the contention that "we the people" must keep government accountable through the democratic process. Although far from being a "biblical form of government," democracy reflects the biblical principle that a lot of power in the hands of a few sinners can lead nowhere good. This same egalitarian notion is at the heart of the house church movement. It's the conviction that doctrine (like political power) should not be preserved by an ecclesiastical elite. It must be articulated, taught, transmitted and understood by the laity.
Next, we are Protestants, aren't we? The Reformation was a movement of doctrinal purification that emerged from the decay of institutional heresy. Apparently the strong "leadership" of generations of popes, bishops and priests was inadequate to protect the church from doctrines and practices so bizarre they would be considered downright cultish by today's standards. An indulgence anyone? In fact, as many would argue, the leaders were the ones who concocted these abberations to begin with! It was when the exclusive right to interpret the Word of God was pried from the grasp of clergy that the laity discovered that they had been duped. Then, like now, the church is not in need of more leaders, it's in need of more readers--believers who will embrace the responsibility of their own spiritual health and stop subcontracting it to paid clergy. However flawed, the house church movement is one attempt to correct this imbalance.
Finally, even a cursory observation of our largest religious institutions would indicate that size and structure have no bearing on orthodoxy. Some of our largest denominations are still making up their mind about whether they should ordain gays. The pastors of some of our largest churches don't even crack open the Bible when they preach. And yet some of us are worried about the theological pitfalls faced by devout believers exploring the Scriptures and worshipping in the privacy of their own home?
No, house churches are the least likely seedbeds of heresy. In fact, they are the natural offspring of the Reformation's cry: Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda ("The church reformed and always to be reformed"). As with any renewal movement, there will be pockets of excess and room for correction. For instance, in the coming years, the house church movement will have to tackle challenges of elitism, leadership, accountability and--of course--heresy. But like the rest of the Body, they won't be facing these alone (see Matt. 18:20).
Matt Green, editor
Ministry Today
Agree? Disagree? Click the pencil below to post your comments. To weed out spam (not to suppress dissent), comments are moderated and sometimes edited for length. They will appear shortly after posting.
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
I'm not against house churches, but when I hear about ones that are independent of a larger leadership (not necessarily a whole denomination), I first think cult, unfortunately.
But from the perspective of a person who has been "over churched", I can see how house churches could be attractive and put a person like that in a place where they can heal and get back to the basics of the Word. For a person who is truely seeking God's Word (assuming that also is true), being in a place that fosters that activity without the fear of being forced into religious requirements would be just what the doctor ordered.
There are lots of exceptions, of course. And it definately feels risky. But many of the best things in life come from taking risks.
But from the perspective of a person who has been "over churched", I can see how house churches could be attractive and put a person like that in a place where they can heal and get back to the basics of the Word. For a person who is truely seeking God's Word (assuming that also is true), being in a place that fosters that activity without the fear of being forced into religious requirements would be just what the doctor ordered.
There are lots of exceptions, of course. And it definately feels risky. But many of the best things in life come from taking risks.
# posted by 
: 10:07 AM
: 10:07 AM
If anything, I think you're being a bit too tolerant . . . of traditional structures. Three perilous problems in traditional structures:
1. Hardened categories and doctrine pursued for its own sake.
2. Group think (i.e., not a dynamic, lively, diverse dialogue, but monotoned mob mentality).
3. Lack of actual accountability because folks don't really talk about what they believe or confess their theological struggles, instead simply signing off on a general creed and either rationalizing that it is or simply subverting their faith.
For the record, I serve in a more-or-less "regular" church that's accountable to a larger fellowship. But some in our larger fellowship are in house churches and they tend to be among the most passionate, thorough, intellectually and spiritually critical and biblical about what they believe, at the same time, not letting rationality or "soulishness" get in the way of the Gospel.
If we define heresy as departure from biblical truth and a biblical lifestyle, we do indeed have a culture of heretics and most of them are firmly entrenched in mainstream Evangelical, "traditional" churches. If we define heresy as a departure from the accepted doctrines of "Evangelical" America, then LORD bless and establish the heretics.
1. Hardened categories and doctrine pursued for its own sake.
2. Group think (i.e., not a dynamic, lively, diverse dialogue, but monotoned mob mentality).
3. Lack of actual accountability because folks don't really talk about what they believe or confess their theological struggles, instead simply signing off on a general creed and either rationalizing that it is or simply subverting their faith.
For the record, I serve in a more-or-less "regular" church that's accountable to a larger fellowship. But some in our larger fellowship are in house churches and they tend to be among the most passionate, thorough, intellectually and spiritually critical and biblical about what they believe, at the same time, not letting rationality or "soulishness" get in the way of the Gospel.
If we define heresy as departure from biblical truth and a biblical lifestyle, we do indeed have a culture of heretics and most of them are firmly entrenched in mainstream Evangelical, "traditional" churches. If we define heresy as a departure from the accepted doctrines of "Evangelical" America, then LORD bless and establish the heretics.
The idea that house churches are more open to heresy is a myth and it holds no water whatsoever. Frank Viola refutes this myth quite successfully in his book "Who is Your Covering?" I would recommend it to anyone who has concerns about doctrine and house churches.
# posted by : 6:03 AM
: 6:03 AM
The way that present-day governmental-type authorities, globally, nationally, and locally, are planning to very soon take control of organizations, including institutional churches and their leadership, there is no alternative but to be thinking CHRIST, rather than formal-
"church" (of whatever kind).
For these reasons Christ's people should be thinking beyond the level of 'house church'.
Structure is NOT the answer, because even the formal 'house church' will attract the interest of evolving anti-christ-controlling-type-authorities.
Of concern to this writer is the promotion of conferences promoting "house church" (and uniformity), because before long the people conducting house churches will find they have formed another institution, of as serious a problem from which they have sought escape and change.
And the yearning for leadership: Don't "house church" peoples recognize that leadership was one of the very problems with the institutional church. Why create the same-old, same-old?
Who is the head of the true Church? Christ, of course! Why not then accept the simplicity of that truth, and depend upon the Spirit of Christ within to lead and to guide (both individually and collectively).
The answer for Christians in this time is simply a Believer's dedicated, personal union with Christ, to the exclusion of all that is tainted by the world and its systems; in simple fellowship with whomever the Lord sends their way. Just be the embodiment of Christ in the earth, manifesting Christ to one another and to those presently outside the Kingdom.
PeterH www.theses2002.com
"church" (of whatever kind).
For these reasons Christ's people should be thinking beyond the level of 'house church'.
Structure is NOT the answer, because even the formal 'house church' will attract the interest of evolving anti-christ-controlling-type-authorities.
Of concern to this writer is the promotion of conferences promoting "house church" (and uniformity), because before long the people conducting house churches will find they have formed another institution, of as serious a problem from which they have sought escape and change.
And the yearning for leadership: Don't "house church" peoples recognize that leadership was one of the very problems with the institutional church. Why create the same-old, same-old?
Who is the head of the true Church? Christ, of course! Why not then accept the simplicity of that truth, and depend upon the Spirit of Christ within to lead and to guide (both individually and collectively).
The answer for Christians in this time is simply a Believer's dedicated, personal union with Christ, to the exclusion of all that is tainted by the world and its systems; in simple fellowship with whomever the Lord sends their way. Just be the embodiment of Christ in the earth, manifesting Christ to one another and to those presently outside the Kingdom.
PeterH www.theses2002.com
In your article you write:
"Then, like now, the church is not in need of more leaders, it's in need of more readers--believers who will embrace the responsibility of their own spiritual health and stop subcontracting it to paid clergy."
This comment aligns with the direction and influence of the Holy Spirit upon my early 'Born Again' state, and continues today. My upbringing, if you will, occured without the input of traditional church: only the gentle nudging of the Holy Spirit to read the unadulterated Word of God. Then, out of desire, I spent many, many years within the four walls of a traditional church setting, only to maintain responsibility for my spiritual health by personally studying the Word of God continually.
While I now, out of desire, participate in a House Church (three + years), the one true standard continues: The Word of God is the lamp unto my feet ~ and the Holy Spirit a fantastic guide!
As the house church movement continues to grow, your statement will hold true ~ because the Holy Spirit is always drawing us closer, closer still to the feet of Jesus, the Word of God.
"Then, like now, the church is not in need of more leaders, it's in need of more readers--believers who will embrace the responsibility of their own spiritual health and stop subcontracting it to paid clergy."
This comment aligns with the direction and influence of the Holy Spirit upon my early 'Born Again' state, and continues today. My upbringing, if you will, occured without the input of traditional church: only the gentle nudging of the Holy Spirit to read the unadulterated Word of God. Then, out of desire, I spent many, many years within the four walls of a traditional church setting, only to maintain responsibility for my spiritual health by personally studying the Word of God continually.
While I now, out of desire, participate in a House Church (three + years), the one true standard continues: The Word of God is the lamp unto my feet ~ and the Holy Spirit a fantastic guide!
As the house church movement continues to grow, your statement will hold true ~ because the Holy Spirit is always drawing us closer, closer still to the feet of Jesus, the Word of God.
i think house churches are the trend of the future simply because people are looking for simplicity of fellowship of the spirit of like minded believers in jesus christ.people need know to they can excercise and contribute to the edifying of the body of christ in positive &relevant way.and if we allow god "the holy spirit" to lead there will be no fear of heresy,because the " Word" is still the standard of validation !!
While there is always a danger in heretical understanding of Holy Writ in a house church, this is not the largest concern in this type of Christian expression. Let me share some thoughts:
My wife and I attend a house church. We came out of a Presbyterian/ Pentecostal/ Char-ismatic church milieu and found more life, spiritual insight and depth, and interpersonal relationships in the house church setting than in all our previous 40 plus years of church experience.
The pilgrimage to the house church world was slow – it took some 15 years. And, we did not leave the denominational arena to become involved in a “church” which appears in-creasingly to be taking on many of the characteristics of our former church world.
It seems all fresh expressions of God’s Body begin in purity and innocence. Before long early simplicity fades as the saints begin to formalize what God by His Spirit created. Man decides to organize, formalize, legislate order and procedure, and elevate leaders.
What began as a sovereign move of the Holy Spirit is organized and controlled by man. Freedom for each member to hear and share what the Spirit is saying is replaced by a sur-rogate who hears for us. Each member’s privilege to speak in the assembly is replaced by a designated platform official. We start as part of a group, then are designated as a fel-lowship, next a movement, and before long a denomination. Forgive us Lord – we are inveterate tinkerers proud of our ability to know and to do things better than you.
Example: the Pentecostal Church in America. Born in the crucible of the Azusa Street move of the Holy Spirit in Los Angeles, CA in the early days of the 20th century, it took but a single century for what was first blessed and led by the Lord to morph into to full denominational status, and what began in simplicity and purity to be shaped into some-thing that bears faint resemblance to the hallmarks of the early days of Spirit-led glory.
Witness also the Church in China. Born of the blood, sweat and tears of a myriad of for-eign missionaries, the small Chinese church in 1949 faced an intractable Communist takeover of the nation. New national leaders quickly expelled foreign missionaries, closed churches, jailed pastors who would not bow their knee to the new regime, and soon all visible evidence of the church in China was gone. But, in the crucible of perse-cution it grew underground. Today, it is became a force no man can stop. Counted in the multiplied tens of millions, Christianity in China is a living witness to what God can do by His Holy Spirit. Mans’ hand was removed in 1949 and the Holy Spirit was released to build His Church.
My concern is that the present house church phenomena in America is increasingly evi-dencing individuals placing human hands of control on what is a distinct move of the Holy Spirit. We are inundated with conferences, special speakers, books and tapes, ways to start and maintain house churches, instructional aids to avoid pitfalls and insure suc-cess. Some are selling themselves as leaders of the house church movement. We have even coined the label of church planter for some of these. As the hand of man comes to rest on this sovereign move of God it brings the seeds of its destruction. We love to quote, but fail to live as if we believe the words, “Unless the LORD builds the house, They labor in vain who build it…. Ps 127:1
The day is coming in America when what we know as the church – the building down the street, large or small - will cease to exist. Think about it: one small change in the Inter-nal Revenue Code - the elimination of the deduction for charitable contributions to churches - could cripple the existing visible church. Increased growth in the American public’s negative attitude toward God and conservative Christianity could engender the greatest persecution of Christians ever known in our nation. What we call the church could very well disappear. Where will believers go? Many will move underground and prosper in multiplied thousands of house churches operating under the public radar. Might this be the very reason for the present growth of house churches?
Do we need web-driven networks, organized group identities? Regional conferences? Or do we need to stay local, out of the limelight and off the radar? Of course we need cross fellowship, awareness of what God is doing at least in our local area, but we do not need to be created as a nationally identified organizational structure with an internet data base of names and addresses. If the technology of 1949 could in short order destroy the visible church in China without computers and the internet, imagine how a easily a house church “movement” with its statistics on the web could be closed down!
Let God put us with others in the Body. Let God direct our paths by His Spirit. Let Him grow His Church in His Way - in simplicity, in purity and in holiness - led by the His Holy Spirit.
My wife and I attend a house church. We came out of a Presbyterian/ Pentecostal/ Char-ismatic church milieu and found more life, spiritual insight and depth, and interpersonal relationships in the house church setting than in all our previous 40 plus years of church experience.
The pilgrimage to the house church world was slow – it took some 15 years. And, we did not leave the denominational arena to become involved in a “church” which appears in-creasingly to be taking on many of the characteristics of our former church world.
It seems all fresh expressions of God’s Body begin in purity and innocence. Before long early simplicity fades as the saints begin to formalize what God by His Spirit created. Man decides to organize, formalize, legislate order and procedure, and elevate leaders.
What began as a sovereign move of the Holy Spirit is organized and controlled by man. Freedom for each member to hear and share what the Spirit is saying is replaced by a sur-rogate who hears for us. Each member’s privilege to speak in the assembly is replaced by a designated platform official. We start as part of a group, then are designated as a fel-lowship, next a movement, and before long a denomination. Forgive us Lord – we are inveterate tinkerers proud of our ability to know and to do things better than you.
Example: the Pentecostal Church in America. Born in the crucible of the Azusa Street move of the Holy Spirit in Los Angeles, CA in the early days of the 20th century, it took but a single century for what was first blessed and led by the Lord to morph into to full denominational status, and what began in simplicity and purity to be shaped into some-thing that bears faint resemblance to the hallmarks of the early days of Spirit-led glory.
Witness also the Church in China. Born of the blood, sweat and tears of a myriad of for-eign missionaries, the small Chinese church in 1949 faced an intractable Communist takeover of the nation. New national leaders quickly expelled foreign missionaries, closed churches, jailed pastors who would not bow their knee to the new regime, and soon all visible evidence of the church in China was gone. But, in the crucible of perse-cution it grew underground. Today, it is became a force no man can stop. Counted in the multiplied tens of millions, Christianity in China is a living witness to what God can do by His Holy Spirit. Mans’ hand was removed in 1949 and the Holy Spirit was released to build His Church.
My concern is that the present house church phenomena in America is increasingly evi-dencing individuals placing human hands of control on what is a distinct move of the Holy Spirit. We are inundated with conferences, special speakers, books and tapes, ways to start and maintain house churches, instructional aids to avoid pitfalls and insure suc-cess. Some are selling themselves as leaders of the house church movement. We have even coined the label of church planter for some of these. As the hand of man comes to rest on this sovereign move of God it brings the seeds of its destruction. We love to quote, but fail to live as if we believe the words, “Unless the LORD builds the house, They labor in vain who build it…. Ps 127:1
The day is coming in America when what we know as the church – the building down the street, large or small - will cease to exist. Think about it: one small change in the Inter-nal Revenue Code - the elimination of the deduction for charitable contributions to churches - could cripple the existing visible church. Increased growth in the American public’s negative attitude toward God and conservative Christianity could engender the greatest persecution of Christians ever known in our nation. What we call the church could very well disappear. Where will believers go? Many will move underground and prosper in multiplied thousands of house churches operating under the public radar. Might this be the very reason for the present growth of house churches?
Do we need web-driven networks, organized group identities? Regional conferences? Or do we need to stay local, out of the limelight and off the radar? Of course we need cross fellowship, awareness of what God is doing at least in our local area, but we do not need to be created as a nationally identified organizational structure with an internet data base of names and addresses. If the technology of 1949 could in short order destroy the visible church in China without computers and the internet, imagine how a easily a house church “movement” with its statistics on the web could be closed down!
Let God put us with others in the Body. Let God direct our paths by His Spirit. Let Him grow His Church in His Way - in simplicity, in purity and in holiness - led by the His Holy Spirit.
I'm in a house church -- even though my husband went to seminary, and we were being groomed to take over a traditional church.
God took us out of there, and put us here. We had no idea of where He was leading, but now we'd have it no other way.
We're in this for the fellowship primarily... we couldn't find it in traditional churches (& NOT for lack of trying). We want to be in community with others who also want the masks to fall off. We also want to UNlearn, and RElearn who the Lord truly is, and how he designed us, His Body, to fully function... without man-made restraints.
Post a Comment
God took us out of there, and put us here. We had no idea of where He was leading, but now we'd have it no other way.
We're in this for the fellowship primarily... we couldn't find it in traditional churches (& NOT for lack of trying). We want to be in community with others who also want the masks to fall off. We also want to UNlearn, and RElearn who the Lord truly is, and how he designed us, His Body, to fully function... without man-made restraints.
Links to this post:
<< Home
