I was looking back at my archives the other day and realized that it was over three months between writing Part 5 and Part 6. I guess that's what moving and getting ready for Thanksgiving and Christmas will do to your blogging. In any case, Part 8 was the last part I had planned to write, so I wanted to recap the series. It starts with us leaving our church, sharing my experience and thoughts about my time there, and our experience searching for a new church, discovering house church, and my thoughts about it since.

Deconstruction
Why I Left My Church
Approaching Ministry
Worship Wars Part 1 - My Background
Worship Wars Part 2 - Compromise and the Excitement Factor
Worship Wars Part 3 - Why It Shouldn't Be a War, Anyway

Reconstruction
Why We Have Chosen House Church
Part 1 - Some Definitions
Part 2 - vs. Small Groups
Part 3 - vs. Cell Churches
Part 4 - Intermission and Coexistence
Part 5 - Some History
Part 6 - Men and Open Formats
Part 7 - What Would Jesus Do With Ten Million Dollars?
Part 8 - Unbelievers "Get It"

Looking back over these past six months, I'm amazed at how much has changed. We left our church, considered a move to New York, found a house church, and moved into a new house. I'm particularly amazed at how many of my thoughts were leading us directly into house church, before we had ever made a decision to go that route, much less visited one. Below is an example from Approaching Ministry:

Most churches understand the family aspect as social gatherings. We know each other, we enjoy hanging out together, and we do favors for each other. That's a great start. But we're really called to live life together. Jesus didn't just see the twelve a couple of times a week. They lived together. They slept together, ate together, traveled together, worshipped together, and ministered together. Real family cannot be experienced in a group of a thousand, five hundred, or even fifty. We have to get smaller, but we have to seek something more than just "small groups." We need to take a more basic view of church family, and seek our primary connection with the church through a family-sized unit instead of a congregational one.

Lord, thank You for leading us to a place that fulfills, even if only dimly, the vision You have given us. Our house church isn't perfect, as none are. But the reality is, it is in this environment where we can practice Your example of living life together, of sharing our burdens with each other as a part of our regular worship, and seeking Your will for our gatherings.

Labels: church, house church

It's official - as if blogging about house church for the past five months doesn't prove that I've been drinking the house church Kool-Aid, I've had to defend my comments against the pastor of a megachurch from a neighboring state.

Being a worship leader at a somewhat small conventional church (100-150), over the past two years I've been asking a lot of questions about how conventional churches approach things. I had been struggling with implementing things that I knew would help the church grow, but the culture of the church wouldn't accept certain changes easily. Further, even at our size, I saw that we had many of the same problems that plague churches that are much larger. So while I've never been on staff at a church, I have some insight into some of the same problems that people are struggling with at larger conventional churches.

I still read many of the blogs that I have been reading over the past couple of years, where they ask a lot of the same questions I had been asking as I was struggling with what God wanted me to do. On these blogs, I now tend to comment about what I have found is the answer - greatly simplifying the church and stripping it down to relationships and discipleship - two things that worship services at conventional churches are, quite frankly, pathetic at achieving.

I've noticed that people on staff at megachurches, and to some degree, those that attend megachurches, are the ones who have the hardest time "getting" the idea of a house church. To them, a church simply isn't successful unless it's reaching thousands every week. In many ways, that is their experience and that is their standard. So when you try to communicate the benefits of house church, they can't comprehend it.

In this particular case, this pastor said that "the house church model has ONE problem - they neglect the great commission. If Jesus would have wanted us to sit around and suck thumbs... He would have commanded it." He later tried to smooth things over, but the fact is that he just couldn't accept the house church as legitimate.

In contrast, I get a completely different reaction when I talk with people who are not really connected with a church. This includes people who have never gone to a church, people who used to go to a church but walked completely away (for various reasons), and even people who attend church irregularly. They appreciate the idea that we can put a huge amount of our time and money, into helping other people. They understand the concept of focusing on spiritual development outside of a presentational atmosphere, and why this is preferable to what conventional churches focus on. They can view the gospel without all of the extra stuff - they can see that we're not selling a church brand, a product that comes with a lot of earthly fringe benefits. They can appreciate that we're not trying to entice them to the gospel with beautiful buildings, angelic choirs, huge pipe organs, rock bands whose members sport spiked hair, and huge video screens so that we can see the famous pastor preaching the message in another building miles and miles away.

People who are not Christians that I have talked to about house church tend to say things like, "that makes a lot of sense." People who are Christians that I have talked to about house church, if they attend a conventional church, tend to tilt their head to the side and say things like, "huh." People who are on staff of large conventional churches tend to tell me I'm wrong.

It's strange, but it seems like the religious establishment disagrees with what Barna calls a "Revolution." Are there any other religious figures you can think of who did things that rubbed the religious establishment the wrong way? It's good to be in the company of God's prophets.

Whether or not unbelievers get it doesn't really affect my decision to follow Christ in the context of a house church, but it is a great testimony to the simplicity and accessibility of the format. Churches are struggling, trying to figure out how to reach the post-modern generation that is rising. Many conventional churches even struggle to figure out what "post-modern" is. The very group of people the church has the least capability of connecting with, those with a post-modern worldview that for the most part has no background in Christianity, are much more receptive to the idea of a house church than they are to a conventional church.

Remember, in 380 AD, bishops Theodosius and Gratian, operating with the full authority of the Roman government, required all Roman citizens to be members of the single, state-recognized, orthodox church, and banned all other churches, including those meeting in homes. Less than 350 years after Christ's death, the exact form that Christ himself used to disciple the twelve was banned from the church.

I pray that our brothers and sisters in conventional churches will pray for our success, and not be threatened by it. I pray that they will not choose to follow the path of the Jewish council, Roman government, and even Martin Luther, who all chose to persecute those who believed that following God did not include following professional clergy, but included simply meeting together, studying scripture, confessing their sins, and praying for one another.

The reality, though, is that if persecution is to come, it will come with the blessing of the established religious system. It always has.

Labels: church, house church

If you're a pastor, and you're getting ready to start a church, one of your primary roles is that of a fund-raiser. The simple fact is, to have a church you have to have money. (Well, for a conventional church, that is.)

I'm throwing ten million out there just for kicks, but it is a justifiable number. Of course, you'll get started in a home, a school theater (or lunchroom, gym, etc.), or other cheap-rent options, but from day one you're looking to secure the land to build on one day. And that land is not cheap. In Gwinnett County, where I live, they have minimum acreage requirements for churches. And land is expensive here, as it is in most metro areas. Even if the land is donated, you're still committing a lot of resources to holding a piece of real estate until you can build on it.

Then, of course, you have construction costs. Even for a small church of a couple of hundred (you do have a vision to grow, right?), the costs will grow into the millions, even if you do things on the cheap and skimp here and there (for which you'll eventually regret it). If you do it "the right way," you're talking about a multi-million dollar facility for a couple of hundred people.

All told, ten million isn't that far-fetched for start-up and construction costs for a new church. If you're talking major expansions of large churches, ten million is nothing.

So let's think for a moment, based on our knowledge of Scripture, what would Jesus have done with those ten million dollars?

Give it to the poor?

Is there anything else you can think of?

I can't imagine, in any way, that Jesus would have commissioned a new building to house His ministry. That He would have encouraged His disciples to design an eye-catching sign with a nifty slogan. That He would have invested in a top-rate band in order to create a buzz about the quality of the music. That he would have made sure the pews were padded so that people would be comfortable while they listened to Him preach.

That doesn't make those things evil, or necessarily wrong, but it raises questions about how appropriate they are.

Jesus' style of sending His disciples out was pretty simple: "take nothing for the journey - no staff, no bag, no bread, no money, no extra tunic. Whatever house you enter, stay there until you leave that town." (Luke 9: 3-4, NIV) To anyone who had money, Jesus didn't solicit funds for Himself or His own ministry.

Jesus said to the rich young ruler, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven." (Matthew 19:21, NIV) We like to dismiss this directive by claiming that this guy was rich, so Jesus was giving that guy a message specific to him. In order to take that approach, we have to ignore what Jesus said directly to his disciples:

But seek his kingdom, and these things will be given to you as well. Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has been pleased to give you the kingdom. Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. (Luke 12:31-34, NIV)

The fact is, Jesus was pretty clear about where His financial priorities were.

Would Jesus have taken ten million and build a beautiful building to house His ministries? Absolutely not.

One of the reasons I love house church is that no money is needed to care for a building, janitors, secretaries, etc. Some house churches do pay their pastors, but usually they do not, and if they do it would not be a full-time salary. Most leaders of house churches choose to set the example of earning their own living, as Paul clearly recommended. You can't really support a pastor full-time with a dozen or so members, anyway.

So where does the money go?

It goes to whatever causes God leads us to support, whether individually or collectively. The resources of a house church go to help the poor, support widows, orphans, halfway houses, and other types of ministries that, I believe, Jesus would give His money to.

Many churches give money out of their budget to help the poor. But if you're in a church where that figure exceeds 10% of the church's budget, consider yourself in a select group. Even still, the other 90% goes directly into the building that you worship in, or the staff that are there primarily to serve you. In most cases, that building does NOT help the poor, it is helping you.

I believe it is much better for us to give our money completely away, to those who are poor and who are in desparate need, rather than to donate so that I can attend church in a better, bigger building with more comfortable seats and a modern media presentation system. I think we miss the opportunity to be truly selfless when we give our tithe to our local church, because the majority of that money is used on things that keep us attracted, and serve us, rather than aiding those who truly need it.

Labels: church, house church

I thought it might be helpful to quote, in full, a section from a book I recently read that led directly to the thoughts I shared in my previous post about men and open formats. The book was Megashift by David Rutz. Awesome book, I highly recommend it. Take a moment to read my brother's review of the book and see if it interests you. I picked it up based on his recommendation, and I didn't regret it.

In chapter 4 of Megashift, "The New Church," Rutz shares "thirty hallmarks of emerging, scripture-based fellowships." This includes house churches, but Rutz is more focused on open fellowships than he is on size or structure. Anyway, enjoy.

In open fellowships, men are a slight majority.

Men go to open meetings:

to get their marching orders from the Commander of the Hosts of Heaven.

to model true discipleship by telling how the Lord strengthened them that week.

to stand up and proclaim the awesome wisdom and love of the Creator who has spoken to them in Scripture.

to take their rightful place as men learning to be leaders in the household of God.

In open churches around the world, men have a role to play, a man's role.

Men feed on challenges. Can't live without them. We grew up and thrived in a boy culture where I double-dare ya'! was only slighly less impelling than cries of Chicken!

Someone recently wrote an update on Karl Barth's aphorism that "The Word became flesh - and then, through theologians, became words again." The new, improved version reads: "Jesus Christ turns wimps into men. And then the church turns them back into wimps again."

You don't grow strong men by making them sit in rows. You grow strong men by whacking them on the shoulder and saying, "On your feet, Pete! What has God been showing you this week?"

Strong males who are forced to be pew warmers are like the bench warmers in football: They're aching to grab the coach by the lapels, get in his face and yell, "Jus put me in the game! Just gimme the ball!"

In team Christianity, as in war, everybody is in the game, and everybody gets his hands on the ball. Typically, men will do roughly 60% of the talking and women 40%. That's not something we aim for, it's just what happens - and everyone seems to like it that way.

SIDE NOTE ON BOYS: Step one in God's plan for re-establishing fathers and fatherhood is to have a boy sitting in church next to his parents when his dad stands up, and every eye in the place is on Dad as he opens his Bible and says, "The Lord showed me something in Galatians yesterday, and I think we need to hear it..."

As I said before, lions don't grow in small cages. And after a lifetime in a cage, it does no good to set them free, either. Zoo-born animals fed by keepers never learn to survive in the wild.

Rousseau observed that men are born free, yet are everywhere in chains. I would add that men are born wild at heart, yet our churches are filled with captured lions, tamed pew-sitters who no longer know - if they ever knew - how to feed themselves spiritually, how to defend their families from evil, and how to attack their true prey, the devil.

Labels: books, church, house church, open formats

One thing I've been talking about with people lately is the topic of why men don't go to church. Go into any conventional church on a Sunday morning, and you'll notice that the women outnumber the men. Sometimes by as much as 2 to 1. And almost certainly, some of those men are there primarily because their wives want them to go.

It's always interesting to see the reasonings people give for this, and the solutions that are offered. Some pastors try to make the sermons more "guy-friendly" by using sports themes in their sermons, using sports-related jokes, or by just talking about sports or cars as the sermon is getting started. Some churches try to tackle this by changing aesthetics, such as doing music that guys might appreciate more, more of a guy-friendly room decor, etc.

In reality, though, in my experience it goes a lot deeper than the decor, the music, or how much sports lingo that the pastor incorporates.

It's not that men are incompatible with church. Look at the leadership, both paid and volunteer, at most churches - and you'll find that most of the leadership positions are held by men. I think there's an important spiritual principle at play here.

Men are born to be leaders. Men are called to lead their families. There's a natural tendency of men to want to lead. But other than the pastor and a handful of other leadership positions, most churches simply don't give men the opportunity to lead.

Oh, sure, we talk about leadership a lot. But whenever a conventional church gathers, who actually has the opportunity to lead? Primarily the pastor, and you might throw a worship leader into that mix. But all of those men sitting in the sanctuary? They're listening and watching someone else lead. And they're watching their wives follow someone else, and they're powerless to intervene if something is done or said that they feel needs clarification or that they disagree with. The system is closed - meaning that if someone wants to add something to the discussion, they simply can't. The best they can do is complain about it later - but that doesn't put men in a position of leadership, either in the church or in their families.

In churches that practice an open approach, everyone can contribute to the discussion. People are free to speak whatever it is that God is leading them to share. Men aren't simply spectators watching someone else teach their families. They are participants, interjecting when they feel that a point needs to be clarified or corrected. Sharing something specific that God is leading them to say. Women are welcome to do this as well, but the tendency is that men, as leaders, tend to participate more in the discussion than women.

And in churches that practice an open approach - the women do not tend to outnumber the men as much as they do in conventional churches.

The way most conventional churches approach their weekly gatherings, there is no opportunity for a man to practice leadership. When God lays something on someone's heart, they do not have the opportunity to practice expressing that. In the conventional church, we tell men to sit down and listen so they can learn. How does that train them how to lead their families? How does that train someone to go out into the world to share their faith?

The idea of an open format isn't for everyone to give their opinions - it's for people to share what God is putting on their heart to say. Paul clearly outlines this approach to meetings. If we don't teach people to respond to what God is putting on their hearts, and how to communicate that, then we're not equipping them to be God's agents in the world.

Paul specifically states that unbelievers would be amazed at how God works through all the believers, and would become believers as a result.

But if all prophesy, an unbeliever or outsider who enters is reproved by all and called to account by all. After the secrets of the unbeliever's heart are disclosed, that person will bow down before God and worship him, declaring, "God is really among you." (1 Corinthians 14:24-25, NRSV)

The only way Paul's scenario can play out in today's world is if unbelievers see God working through more than just the pastor and/or worship leader, and for people to learn how to follow God's leading and speak the things that God has laid on their heart. Open formats are about whether or not we're going to have one or two people control the flow of worship, or allow God to control the flow, through the Spirit, via whoever He wants to use. I choose the latter.

Labels: church, house church, open formats