The first thing that I have to do before going moving into deeper posts is define what I am talking about.
The first definition that I want to go into is actually defining a “house church” as per the type of church that I desire to one day help start (and keep them starting).

A house church, in a nutshell, is not what is commonly referred to as a “cell church” or a “small group” of a larger body. A house church, in itself, is its own governing body with thier own authority. Together, as a congregation, the “house church” decides its direction for each meeting and is guided corporately.

A “house church network” is a loosely associated group of house churches that relate to each other by relationship. They could be associated by mutual agreement, or by the fact that one house church planted another house church, planted another house church, and etc. until the churches in the network are related much as a organic family is related–they are multiple generations of church “offspring”.

Here is a definition of house church from Wikipedia that I would agree with:
House churches should not be confused with “cell churches“. A house church is not normally part of a larger, overseeing organization, although the group may associate informally with other Christians and house churches in networks reflecting equality rather than hierarchy. Those who meet in house churches regard themselves as belonging to the worldwide Church, but are self-governing and independent, generally without formal relationships with established “institutional churches.”

Some house churches have a conventional leadership structure, others have none. A commonly held belief in the modern day house church “movement” is that the Protestant Reformation did not go far enough to demonstrate a New Testament belief in the “priesthood of all believers” and that Jesus Christ alone is the Head of the Church which is the body of Christ.

The absence of hierarchical leadership structures in many house churches, while often viewed by the Protestant church at large as a sign of anarchy or rebelliousness to authority, is viewed by many in the house church movement to be the most viable way to come under true spiritual authority of love, relationships, and the visible dominion of Jesus Christ as Head of his own bride (i.e. the church). Some within the house church “movement” therefore consider the term “house church” to be a misnomer, because the main issue for people who practice their faith in this manner is not the house but more the type of meeting that takes place; other titles which are sometimes used to describe this movement more functionally are “simple church“, “relational church”, “primitive church”, “bodylife”, “organic church” and similar terms.

The house church movement today also owes much of its networking and exchange of information to the use of the Internet; HC is generally used as an abbreviation for “House Church” and IC is used to designate “Institutional Church” which is the generalized term for more traditional church structures, including a church building and/or sermon-centered church services led by a pastor or minister.

As a rule, house church gatherings are free, informal, and sometimes include a shared meal. Participants hope that everyone present will feel free to contribute to the gathering as and when they sense the leading of the Holy Spirit to do so. Leadership structures range from no official leaders, to a plurality of appointed elders; however, there is a deliberate attempt within most house churches to minimize the leadership of any one person, and so having one pastor or leading elder is generally frowned upon, in favor of a more plural responsibility of leadership diffused over several people or the members as a whole.

Tags: simple church, house church

This is one of the coolest things I’ve seen for a blog in a long time! Drew Odom has been working on this and the site went live, I guess, last night!

For those that don’t know, and I’m sure that most don’t…evoca allows you to post audio on your blog. It doesn’t use your bandwith since the audio is hosted offsite! You can also record from your cell phone on the run, or upload .wav files from you pc!

Here’s my first recording, what does it evoca in you?

Tags: evoca

Recently, due to a debate about the legislation against homosexual marriage that was on going on my friend Drew’s website, I picked up a book that related to the topic. It’s called “Defending Traditional Marriage“ by Willard F. Harley, Jr.

Interestingly enough, the book isn’t so much about homosexual marriage as it is about the deterioration of marriage in society already, and how this deterioration affects the children of the marriage.

In fact, Harley asserts that the primary goal of marriage is to raise healthy (physically and emotionally) children in an environment of safety and security.

I’ve only read the intro the the book so far, but going forward it is important to note the defination of “Traditional Marriage” by Harley (taken from traditional wedding vows) as: “a permanent (as long as you both shall live) and sexually exclusive (forsaking all others) relationship of extraodinary care (love, comfort, honor, and keep, etc.) between a man (to be your husband) and a woman (to be your wife).”

Harley states, “In this book I’ll describe how our culture, state legislatures, and the courts no longer support the type of marriage that provides children with the safety and security they need. I’ll show how they’ve eliminated the permanence of marriage by creating laws that encourage divorce. And I’ll explain how they’ve undermined the sexual exclusivity of marriage by creating laws that encourage infidelity (14).”

“With the values of permanence and sexual exclusivity removed, the battle is not raging over why we should keep marriage between man and a woman. Marriage is slowly turning into little mor than a temporary and promiscuous relationship between any two (or more in some cases) people–and children are the ultimate victims of this ‘evolution’ (14).”

The fact that Harley points out the deterioration already present in society, and that the debate over homosexual marriage is just the next step, is very relevant to the discussion at hand. I’m greatly interested in how Harley builds his argument from here….

I’m not sure if I’m going to agree with Mr. Harley’s presuppositions, but I’ve skimmed around a little bit and liked a few things he states.

Tags: Traditional Marriage, homosexual marriage, same sex marriage

My good friend Drew Odom sent me some links to very relevant articles in Time Magazine called “There’s No Pulpit Like Home”, and at the George Barna web site as well (slightly older article).

When I first started my “house church journey” about three years ago, I thought I was the only one on the face of the earth that had heard the good news. As I have continued to explored the subject I have found that there are tons and tons of web sites out there that deal with the nature of house, or simple, churches. I will be compiling the list in the weeks to come (See House Church Links Page).

House churches come in a variety of shapes and sizes. What is commonly referred to as a house church by some, may not be defined as such by others, but the main principle remains that Jesus stated, “When two or three are gathered together in my name, I am in the midst of them” (mt 18:20 NKJ). Or, as the time magazine article for a particular type of house church, “There is no pastor, choir, or sermon–just six believers and Jesus among them, closer than thier breath.”

It’s easy to see how someone could be drawn to such an environement…Jesus, in the midst of them.
Barna believes that the amount of adults that go to what he terms a “house church” is around 9%. That seems artificially high, but the thing about house churches is that they aren’t advertised. You won’t see a sign on a corner, a steeple in the air, or a sprawling mass of buildings with a school on it. A house church is just a few people getting together seeking Christ, expressing Christ, and struggling together to live thier faith. “Jesus, closer than thier breath.”

This is the Jesus who is supposed to be head of the church…not the pastor, the presbytery, or the district office. This is Jesus, “from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love” (Eph 4:16 NAS).

As Frank Viola states in the Time article, “[he doesn't] believe you are going to see the fullness of Jesus Chirst expressed just sitting in a pew listening to one other member of the body of Christ talking for 45 minutes while everyone else is passive.”

In a house church, each member is expected to contribute…at least eventually. A house church is built off the belief of the priesthood of all believers, that each member has something to contribute, that “each one has a psalm, has a revelation, has a tounge, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification” (1 Cor 14:26 NAS). This “multi-participation” may also be why Allan Karr, a professor at the Rocky Mountain campus of Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary believes that three out of 10 churches that are founded today are simple, and that thier chances for survival are better than those of the other seven.

Though house churches are not known for denominational loyalty, Karr states, “I want the denomination to prevail, but I have an agenda that supersedes that: the Kingdom of God at large.”

I say, “Kudos” to the latter statement!

Tags: house church, simple church, emergent church, barna, time magazine