One of my favorite troublemakers is Frank Viola. When George Barna "entered" house church world (through his writings, at least), one of my comments was that he had not actually connected with any of the people in house church world. In other words, Barna was saying all the things house church people say, but not providing any solutions or awareness of the house church movement. And, I found Revolution to be a relatively unhelpful book for that reason (and several other theological reasons I have stated elsewhere).
In the follow-up book, Barna seems to have jumped whole hog into the house church world with none other than Frank Viola. Together they published Pagan Christianity which riled a lot of people up (me included) and not just because of the not-so-subtle title. For what it is worth, I think New Testament scholar Ben Witherington did a great job in his series on the book (starting here) and Frank was gracious in his response.
I like Frank. Sure, there are some areas we differ, but I like people with passion. He just sent me a copy of his new unpublished manuscript for his next book. So far it is really good and no mention of how just about everything I do in church is pagan (grin). Frank and I have been emailing a bit and it got me thinking about some research I did a couple of years ago to see if there really was a big movement of house churches out there.
You see, I am pro-house church (largely because I believe God uses all kinds of churches). I want house churches to "work." But, if you listen to some house church people, it sounds like there are movements everywhere in the states. And, I was pretty excited about them... but I could not find them. So many leaders say, "no, not a movement here yet, but check with Denver" (or Long Beach, or San Antonio, or Rhode Island). Anyway, you get the point.
I believe that God can and does use house churches, but the over-statement of their prevalence and effectiveness does not help. People like Frank know there is an uphill battle here, but I think an important one. And, I see people like Neil Cole and others working hard to advocate and demonstrate house chuch effectiveness. And, if and when it does break through, it could bring a huge change.
But, when Revolution came out (along with some spectacular headlines) we wanted to do some research and find out just want was going on... and here is the article we published a couple of years ago at the Center for Mission Research.
The Rise of House Churches and Alternative Faith Communities
from the Center for Missional Research
The "revolution" has recently become big news-- many committed believers are rethinking (or leaving) the established church for alternative forms of church and/or community. The term, "revolution," popularized by George Barna in the book by the same name, describes many trends, but the main focus is on the move to non-traditional expressions of church (marketplace faith communities, house church, arts, etc.).
Rabbi Gellman (who has some positive things to say about evangelicals in general), wrote about the move away from traditional, organized church in Newsweek as one of the top religious trends for 2006. (His excellent article is here.) Though this trend has not yet been noticed by many in the evangelical church, it is growing in prominence and reputation.
Barna explains in his October 24, 2005, Barna Update:
Millions of people are seeking God without going through a local church. This controversial movement of people seeking to "be the Church instead of just going to church"...
Barna explains here:
In 2000, most of the nation's organized religious activity took place at or through local churches. Today, Barna's research points out, the action is shifting to newer forms of corporate religious commitment. In a typical week, 9% of all adults participate in a house church. An even greater proportion--22%--engages in spiritual encounters that take place in the marketplace (e.g., with groups of people while they are at their place of work or play, or in other typical daily contexts).
In one chart, he describes the transition to a Christianity that is less connected to a local established church:
Put simply, there is a significant group of men and women leaving the established / institutional church but holding to a form of Christian devotion. According to some, this has led to a dramatic increase in alternative faith communities, which in turn has led to some major theological and ecclesiological concerns. Although this is not the focus of our polling research, see here, here, and my own here for theological responses to Barna's book and the trend.
Who Are These Revolutionaries and How Many Are There?
This house-church trend has attracted the attention of even the secular media. Time magazine recently featured an article on the subject, NBC news did a television segment, (Since ecclesiology--the theology of church--has become such a big issue among our churches, we, at the North American Mission Board, have created helps that explain what a church is through some ecclesiological guidelines.) These issues will continue to grow in prominence, forcing us to evaluate what a biblical church is. And we can and must evaluate in the light of scripture, not just in the history of our history, tradition, and, for that matter, polling data.
What about the Numbers?
The numbers have made quite a splash--one headline declared "1 in 5 American Attend a House church." At the Center for Missional Research (CMR), we wanted to go deeper to help inform our churches about what this trend means for them. Over the last several months, we commissioned Zogby International to survey more than 3,600 people (1200 interviews on three occasions) about several issues, but particularly about their involvement in spirituality and alternative expressions of church.
We asked, "Do you meet weekly with a group of 20 people or less to pray and study scriptures as your primary form of spiritual or religious gathering?" Remarkably, 26.3% of the 3600 Americans who were asked that question indicated that they did--as their primary form of spiritual or religious gathering. Comparatively, in one of the three surveys, we cross-tabbed the number to those who considered themselves "born again." In that case, 42.1 % of those who identified themselves as born-again Christians said that they met weekly with a group of 20 or less people as their primary form of spiritual or religious gathering.
It should be challenging, exciting, and concerning that one out of four Americans consider their small or house group / church / synagogue / mosque to be their primary source of spiritual training. However, most of those who consider their small community to be their primary place of spiritual encouragement still attend church at a significant rate. Only a smaller percentage of those who attend a small spiritual community do not also attend church--but that is still a large number:
When we cross-tabulated the "small group" question with the "church attendance" question, we found that 50 out of 3,600 adults attend both a group of 20 or less and "rarely" or "never" attend a place of worship. If extrapolated, this is almost 1.4 percent of the American population and may represent the purest measure of those who are not involved in an organized church, synagogue, or mosque but still are involved in some alternative faith community like, in the Christian faith, a house church. That is about four million people--not a small number. Barna's people have estimated that a million Americans are involved in the "house church," or the Christian expression of the above trend.
This trend toward home based faith expressions may also explain the significant number of people who identify themselves as "spiritual but not religious." According to an earlier CMR/Zogby poll, 22% of people consider themselves "spiritual but not religious," particularly those who rarely or never attend church. The less frequently they attend church, the more likely they are to consider themselves spiritual, but not in a religious way. The chart below illustrates:
What Can We Learn?
While we don't celebrate the revolution if it means people leaving biblical churches, we need to recognize it is happening and ask "why?" A few years ago we were upset that so many from our churches were turning from us to Islam or Mormonism. Now things are different. They have not been recruited to another faith, many have been repelled by the practice of ours.
We need to look more deeply into the Word so we can lead our churches to be more biblical--with biblical covenant community, biblical leadership, biblical church discipline, biblical preaching, and other biblical, foundational characteristics. It does not matter if a biblical church meets in a cathedral or a coffee shop. That's not the point. But it must be a church because God has chosen the church to make known His wisdom (Eph. 3:10).
New biblical forms need to be welcomed and affirmed, particularly those that evidence more of the true community that many are finding in alternative faith communities. We need to bless all forms of scripturally-sound churches. Why? Because the church is essential. The church is not the center of God's plan-- Christ is. But the church is central to the plan of Christ for His name and fame to be more widely known.
Seems to me some folks may have gotten hold of that bad batch of Bibles .. you know .. the ones that accidentally omitted Romans 14:4.
I know, I know .. context context context .. but hey I'm dumb anyway, so....
Hi Ed, you might also like this interview I did with Frank...
http://www.morethancake.org/2008/06/gorge-barna-and-frank-viola-speak-out.html
Like you, we have some disagreements, but in person Frank is a great guy with a great heart for the Lord.
I am one of those that is part of a "house" church and not part of a "traditional" church. (can't we just call it church without the adjectives?)
I know I am surprised to find that our group is made up of all ages, races, sexes, and walks of life. We have Doctors, artists, Tech guys, and waitresses, teenagers, middle age persons, Whites, Blacks, Asians. It is a diverse group of people who for the most part have been in one way or another let down by the "traditional" church, and have found a unique community of people that they can come and be real and open with one another, and bring their nonChristian friends into with very little fear.
I understand that this is not for everyone and many people are not ready for such an intimate, open setting in which to live out Christ in their life. And that is OK. I think the flip side to that is that not everyone can do christianity in the typical evangelical way, so we have to be at least willing to understand that from both sides.
So as a house church guy, I am not going to say that traditional church doesn't work it just doesn't work for me and some of my close friends. My hope is that those from the other side of this fence would do the same.
ED
Really strong article - thank you for the time and care you invested in this.
We all know that It's hard to find a local church these days to connect with; to belong to more than just on Sunday morning; and to get involved in significant and meaningful ways as well. So many of them (churches) have morphed into nothing more than religious clubs serving up their own brand of faith mixed with culture to appeal to the felt needs of our lives.
You allude to being and belonging to "a biblical church" near the end of this article as the key. But you never shared what are the nonnegotiables of biblical churches...
So may I ask you my brother: what do you think are the key essential elements that make a church biblical regardless of size, venue, cultural distinctives, style, location, ethnicity, denominational idiosyncrasies, etc.?
I appreciate you and thank the Lord for all you do for the kingdom and the proclamation of His gospel and glory.
Yours for the Master's use,
Steve
2 Cor. 4:5-7
How do these stats relate to a church like The Woodlands who is traditional and house church both?
From my experience in a mega church to now wanting to embody more of the new testament living, i would say that megachurches far too often miss major components necessary for radically following jesus. too many people are still sunday christians, too many dont live transformational lives, and too many don't foster missional living. i'm amazed that this isn't more talked about among the big name pastors. at the same time, i'm having a hard time finding a "house church" or "simple church" where i live in tempe, az and am doing and being the church with my roommates right now. I recognize the need for leadership and elders but haven't found that yet. Praying for revival in my heart and the american church.
B, the research just addressed the questions asked. It depends how they perceive their involvement.
Steve, I have written that in ComeBack Churches and am about to teach that in class today. Let me see if I can post it later in the week as a blog post.
Micah, I love calling a church a church!
I found Viola's understanding of Church history to be significantly lacking and skewed. He essentially saw what he wanted to see and utilized spotty research to make his point. Usually I'm a huge Barna fan but I think he has gone off the deep end with this book.
Ed, This is an important topic. I am also wondering when one identifies on a survey with a "house church" do they also go to a larger church that the house church or small group is part of? Does that impact the survey results?
And more importantly, I am very interested in hearing actual data about if these house churches are reproducing by new disciples? Not just gaining new people whom are already Christians desiring a house church format, but are they multiplying by new disciples, are they sustaining their life over years of time? I have met and talked to many wonderful house church leaders, yet 100% of them I have talked to are not seeing new disciples made, and they were all formed from relationships made in larger churches. So without the larger church they originally met in, they don't see other people joining them as their relational source stopped.
Maybe this is only the experience I have had with those I have talked to, and is not representative of the whole. But I have even talked to authors of books on house churches and found it to be that their own house churches aren't multiplying and growing by non-Christians.
Dan,
You need to talk to more people. I just spoke yesterday with a couple that looks at their apartment complex as a mission field. They have seen over a half dozen neighbors sincerely start following Christ in the last year and they are now discipling them. I personally have interviewed many many leaders of house church groups and organizations that do see non Christ followers come to a relationship with the Lord. On the other hand, today I was in a group of guys that lead building based churches and one guy (you would know his name) said that his church recently grew (his words) by 2k in one weekend. My question? Grew from where? We all know the answer to that question. Again...I was just recently with another friend that pastors a 3500 member church in Boise. They are seeing tons of people begin relationships with the Lord, etc. The containers (building s/houses are not the issue and we shouldn't focus on that as THE issue one way or the other. The issue is the body NOT being contained...either in a building centered church OR a kumbaya centered house church.
Dan, I think your questions are legitimate about discipleship and growth, but this is not just a House church problem. It is a Church problem.
Big churches have a problem of only bringing in people who are looking for a big church "format." In fact, it would be fair to say that there is a "sheep swap" problem across evangelicalism.
All that being said, we have seen 6 baptisms in our first year. But we constantly talk about needing to build real relationships with non Christians so that we can share Christ with them.
Ed,
This is a great article and hits me where I live these days.
After a number of years of pastoral ministry in "Comeback Church" situations,the Lord led me to a deep gut check time this year. The result being a focus on the simplicity of Christ and the gospel message.
In my own context, I left my traditional church setting and launched into planting both house churches and free standing "houses of worship." I see value in both arenas and don't truly see this as an either/or picture, but a both and picture.
The key element for me in both settings is a return to the simple truth of Jesus Christ and putting all energies into knowing Him and making Him known.
I am reaching people in the freestanding church location that I am not reaching in the house church and I am reaching others in the house churches that at this point in their lives would be unlikely to darken the doors of 1st Baptist, Methodist, Presyterian, AoG or any other traditional church setting.
I believe that when used strategically, the house church has a greater opportunity to penetrate the darkness with much more precision and effectiveness than a traditional free standing church. On the other hand in our culture, people still associate "church" with "God." I take comfort in the fact that every Sunday morning somewhere in my city someone wakes up with a hangover and pledges to God to go to church and straighten up, if He will just take away their pounding headache. That is an opportunity the house church will rarely get to capitalize on.
Thanks for your work Ed, keep the brain food flowing.
Many Christians (myself included) have walked away, not from God and His beautiful church, but from a system that hinders the expression of that church as God intended and, I believe, reveals to us in scripture. That of a fully functioning priesthood of believers operating as family under the headship of Christ. A church free to operate without the constraints that a corporate mindset places on her. My family has been experiencing this type of community for several years, and I have to say it has ruined me to anything else.
Also, the sequel to “Pagan Christianity?� is out now. It’s called “Reimagining Church�. It picks up where “Pagan Christianity� left off and continues the conversation. (“Pagan Christianity� was never meant to be a stand alone book; it’s part one of the conversation.) “Reimagining Church� is endorsed by Leonard Sweet, Shane Claiborne, Alan Hirsch, and many others. You can read a sample chapter at
http://www.ReimaginingChurch.org
It’s also available on Amazon.com. Frank is also blogging now at http://www.frankviola.wordpress.com.
By the way, another scholar wrote a powerful response to Ben Witherington's critique of Pagan Christianity, demonstrating that it was indeed historically accurate. You can read it at http://www.paganchristianity.org/zensresponds1.htm.
Carl Willis: “I believe that when used strategically, the house church has a greater opportunity to penetrate the darkness with much more precision and effectiveness than a traditional free standing church.�
I would agree. I have pastored in traditional churches, cell churches, and now pastor a simple church/house church network (what ever nomenclature you prefer).
It is not that traditional churches are ineffective overall, but they are, in my opinion, completely effective at reaching various groups, particularly first generation Christians won to Christ outside of the church walls. That group has significant hurdles to jump over to get into church and stay their. I don’t have research on this - it’s more of an experiential hunch.
Certainly, one is not right, and one is not wrong, but one is increasing and one is decreasing. Again, in my limited opinion, this has to do with things ranging from how churches use of resources, ingrown Christian culture, lack of mobility, lack of conscience and awareness of the world’s/community’s needs, inability and unwillingness to respond to obvious evangelistic opportunities, etc…
House church does not necessarily mean that all of these are attended to, nor do all traditional churches lack these characteristics, but I think it is fair to say that a house church structure provides a greater possibility of having these characteristics because there is simply more time and resources available to the members and leaders. I also think it is fair to say (because I lived it) that traditional structure does not lend it self to mobility…i.e. How many pastors, today, could drop their schedules (nets) and go respond to needs and share the Gospel? Just a thought….
Thoughtful article…I linked to http://www.newchurchreport.com to share it with others- thanks!
Okay...you refuted the majority of Barna's junk with a simple statement. He presented all of his "data" without actually having connected with anyone in the house church movement. I am stunned at how people will follow someone's advice simply because they "got it right" once. Then they never seem to test and measure the words and actions that follow. Thanks for being so willing to test and measure things like this. Thanks for being able to express your ideas and offer information that is clear and real.
Have a great weekend. Let's connect when I am in Nash-Vegas next time. I am there often. Used to spend TONS of time at Lifeway. Family stomping grounds for about 6 decades! Peace Bro!
Ed,
I enjoyed reading about this. I agree with you about pretty much all that was written. I think there is an overstatement about how successful or widespread this is... I keep hearing about it though. :-) I have a few viewpoints that I will keep brief.
1) I like the concept of how house churches are hard to mirror and duplicate. Every house is different, every person is different. Perhaps the people who are growing in house churches are of the same discontent based on their non-house church experiences. But I do like how they all make look different.
2) House churches without other house churches are like islands without bridges to them. The danger seems to be that they might not grow, connect, share, etc... in the way that a group of accountable churches might.
3)Due to no cookie-cutter type way to "do" church with house churches... I am not sure that there actually could be a "revolution" unless churches went underground of course. But in America, the nature of house churches is sort of rebellious anyway. I am not sure how easy it would be to form consistent coalition with separate entities.
4) The one way it might work, in my opinion, is through an organization or perhaps one church with a common vision spread amongst various locations. Perhaps an ultra spread out, multi-multi-multi site.... :-) with multiplication written into the DNA.
I personally think house churches could be incredibly rewarding and successful. I can't wait to see what happens next with this movement.
What makes up a house church sounds an awful lot like what I used to see in our "home cell groups".
In my opinion, they were far more exciting and personal than Sunday church. Different people led studies, growth was to the point that eventually the group would split off and another group would start up and a 22 member 'study' might shrink to 12 but would soon grow again to 22 and then split once again. Snack provisions were rotated among members but anyone could drop in.
Meanwhile, our mega-church in S.F drew people like flies, tried to steer them to home groups (as a form of discipleship) but then suddenly stopped all home groups! They then started a Wed evening worship service and of course most of the fringe.people in the cell groups would not drive down to the church for formal worship and attendance was 1/4 what total cell group attendance was. Very mystifying decision and not well thought out IMHO.
Then Carl George came through as a consultant and true to his core being, suggested we start small cell groups!
Overall, I'd rather have attended weekly Bible studies at home cell groups and gather at the church monthly than vice versa and this sounds like what 'house churches' are exactly providing!
David
Thanks for the insightful article and research Ed. I'm a church plant coordinator in the Denver, Colorado Front Range Corridor. My passion is to be available to God to help other planters all kinds of churches to reach all kinds of people in our region of the country. In 2006, several families launched a house church "form" of church planting called The Emmaus Road Community, www.emmausroadonline.org
We envisioned a multi-site church where people would be the front door, not the building or program. Interestingly enough, all of our core group families came from healthy, normative church life. After 9 months of laying a foundation for life-on-life discipleship, our core group intentionally divided into two separate small groups, which we called "house churches". Initially, we didn't favor the terminology because of the poor taste some of had regarding house churches, i.e. a holy huddle of disgruntle home school families that couldn't get along at a regular church.
This birthed a vision to multiply house churches over and over again as neighbors, work associates, friends, etc, got connected to Christian community, encountered Christ, began to be discipled, and new leaders were raised up. A year and a half later, 4 additional groups emerged from the original two and currently, there are just over 100 adults and children sharing in the community of house churches. We also have implemented a monthly All Gathering where our house churches come together for collective worship, teaching, and interaction.
Let me tell you though, the house church form of doing church isn't without it's "normative" challenges; Family and children's ministry, leader development, tithing, getting vision to stick, etc. These are only a few ongoing challenges we share, just like every other form of church faces.
The Emmaus Road Community is loving the journey nonetheless and is blessed to have a healthy, diverse network of local churches in our region that care and support one another as we spend our lives on Jesus and His Great Promise to build His Church.