The preceding essays have given a survey of the attitudes (and the flashes of highly questionable logic) that have guided the Western church into its current condition.  Many of the changes described surely seemed at the time to be prudent and necessary, but, as we have seen, have proven to be of dubious advantage at best in the long run.  It may be that God allowed or even ordained some or all of these things in our history so that His purposes may be achieved.  But now that they have outlived their usefulness, or more accurately have become more often detrimental than beneficial, the time has come to rediscover the core essence of the church and recover it. 

           How can the Church remain in the fight against the forces of worldliness if we strip away all these relevant structural accommodations?  Surely without all this extra help we have provided for ourselves over the years, we would be left without the safety and strength of our self-imposed developments to keep our viability in this increasingly challenging culture.  With all the restraining layers removed, what remains?  What will this new (but yet old) type of church act like in the modern western world?  Let’s take a look at what our baby is like now that all those blankets are gone. 

A general overview

           A church that is stripped of its layers will hardly resemble that which we know as “church” today.  It will not own buildings or property, nor will it need any unless some specific, God-ordained outreach calls for one.  It will meet in its members’ homes, or in certain situations it may use a community room at a library or a residential complex.  And since it is stripped of its philosophical element also, people in moderately to densely populated areas will not have to drive or take a cab or bus someplace to meet where their denomination is in order to find those of like faith; most can walk to their church meetings.  There may or may not be a guitarist or pianist, or lead vocalist for that matter—it all depends on whom God has placed in that particular group.  There might be a structured teaching, or there may simply be a time of worship, prayer, opening up about concerns, a brief Scripture reading, or a sharing of personal needs.  Or a given meeting may be all teaching, if the ones God has so gifted are moved in this manner and have the OK of the elder(s).  Many of the meetings will begin with a meal, some may end with one, some may simply offer refreshments, or some might have no food at all.  Other diverse acts of worship will be included as deemed appropriate, such as anointing with oil, communion/Lord’s Supper, displays of artwork or poetry reading, footwashing, or loud rejoicing.  However, there is no need to pass an offering plate. 

           After a worship time, most folks will not hang around for very long and “catch up.”  There will be no need, really, because they may have done so during the meal, or at other times during the week.  After all, they are neighbors, and see each other often as they go about their daily routines.  They regularly pitch in and help each other with many of the household chores and other mundane tasks, depending on what they are able to contribute.  So their fellowship is an ongoing process throughout the week, not just at meeting times. 

           The unbelievers in the building or the neighborhood all know about the church and who is involved in it; the members have mentioned the church to them, and have sometimes talked about their faith at great length in the lobby or over the back fence.  And it seems that the church is always one of the first to respond if a need arises with a member of the community.  Even those who are not a part of the church have received some much-needed help when the church came together and offered them comfort and aid in times of emergency.   

Worship 

           One good way to describe the worship of our back-to-basics church might be real.  By this we certainly do not mean the candy-coated and practiced insincerity that hides behind a smiley-face mask.  There will be no more cheerleader-like emcees pumping up the congregational volume with a lame attempt to compare the enthusiasm of the pew-sitters to the crowd at a local stadium during a hometown sports event.  It will not need loud rock bands, soaring organs, or expensive microphone systems.  It will not have the slick, polished look of a Hollywood production.  It may not have, or even need music at all, at least not every time it happens. 

           But it will be unpretentious and heartfelt.  It will reflect the raw emotions, genuine devotion, and actual personalities of the people involved.  No one will have to coax it out of anybody; it will be there.  And the worshippers will know that they can be satisfied and refreshed by their involvement in the corporate activity of God’s Spirit. 

           We may also say that our worship is participatory.  There will always be some people who get more involved than others, but overall, no one is discouraged from taking part in the meeting and sharing in what is happening.  The days of the spectator will soon pass away once all the church members have become accustomed to the concept of occasionally bringing a little something from their walk with God to share with others. 

           Another good, descriptive word would be flexible.  Format will take a back seat to need, as the group as a whole uses discernment to determine the direction of a meeting.  Some sort of regular worship meeting schedule will need to be maintained for the sake of consistency; but as to the form, no bulletin is needed.  If a person who plays a musical instrument wishes to bring and use it, he or she should be encouraged but not pressured to do so—no matter what the level of expertise may be.  A cappella works just as well if there is no instrumental accompaniment, because the music of worship is for the Lord’s ears, not ours.  And of course, there are times when non-musical worship may be the prescription for the day. 

           However, one pair of words that I would prefer to avoid here would be formal and informal.  These terms tend to describe ideas that lie on a very different plane of thinking than that which is appropriate to the church.  Certainly such a church as this would entertain no dress code, follow no bulletin or order of service, and allow for freedom of participation from all of its members.  But the use of the term informal too often carries with it the unfortunate exaggeration of allowing for disorder and confusion, resulting in an atmosphere that lacks reverence for God or a sense of responsibility for respecting other worshippers in the room.  We do not stand on ceremony, but neither do we allow chaos or disunity to gain the upper hand.

           This leads to another good word to describe the worship of our church—unified.  We must glorify God together and trust the Holy Spirit to make clear his objectives for this gathering at this time and in this place.  Although not everyone will be at the same starting point, we can still allow our worship to take us all in one direction together. 

Fellowship

           In our house church, the concept of fellowship will revert from its current shallow meaning to its earlier Biblical concept.  The picture of fellowship we see in the scriptures, especially in the book of Acts, is one of a shared, common life in terms of possessions and abilities.  We are told that the believers called none of their property their own, but gave to all who had need.  Also, extra-Biblical sources echo this attitude; Tertullian, a Christian writer from the late second and early third centuries, is reported to have gone so far as to say that Christians share everything but their wives.

           Such an attitude, when translated to modern times, could easily lend itself to the Christians in the neighborhood using each others’ tools and appliances, washing each others’ cars, doing each others’ yard work and/or housework, sharing groceries (and not just at the common meals), babysitting each others’ kids, and any number of other items or chores that could be shared among those who are closer than mere family or friends.  It would not matter that some are unable to contribute as much as others, because everyone does what they are able, and no one seems to mind if it isn’t always fair.  And it will be highly flexible, taking a very different form as it springs up from place to place.

           This semi-communal form of lifestyle is highly adaptable to any situation as long as a little imagination is allowed to explore the many possibilities.  Some manifestations may include forays into full communalism, which works just as well as long as great care is taken that everyone remains active in the surrounding community and not become isolationist.  But another key concept is that this must be voluntary; no individual or family must be forced into a level of this sort of fellowship with which they may not feel comfortable.  As the Lord deals with His people concerning these concepts, it is certain that they will grow to embrace a gradually more communal lifestyle the more they grow accustomed to the biblical basis for it.

Witness

           Christianity has taken more than its share of severe hits in the eyes of the world lately.  It goes beyond the sex scandals of our priests, evangelists, pastors, and other heroes.  It goes beyond our careless political dalliances and lame attempts to control or legislate the public debate.  It goes beyond the self-serving, and often downright criminal activity that some people, who have no business associating themselves with the faith, do in the name of Jesus.  It even goes beyond the constant pleading for money that has now become the reputation of our Christian media.  What it does come down to is the general perception that Christians are naïve and unintelligent people who talk about Jesus but are pitifully far from living in His example.  Such unfair generalizations harm not only the proliferation efforts of the Church, but also the good names of its individuals and of those who, though they may not be a part of the Church, still benefit from its assistance and ministries in some way.

           They will not know that we are Christians by our correctness of doctrine; the explosive growth of such heterodox groups as the Mormons or the Scientologists will attest to that.  I have written elsewhere in these articles about the need for an effective witness to include balanced elements of the spoken and the demonstrated.  There is a need to expose the non-believer to the truth of the scripture, as well as to its work and worth in our own lives. 

           When the church in a given community is functioning properly, its reputation is the least of its concerns.  What the people of the church do concern themselves with is portraying the reality of God in the reality of their lives.  They are always personable and open when they talk to the non-believers on the block, as opposed to inconspicuously passing out fliers for some contrived event.  They have been known to help out their neighbors who are in distress, such as taking meals to those who have lost loved ones or helping some of their kids with homework who may have had problems with school.  And they aren’t obsessed with engaging in pointless debates about minutiae concerning political issues or scientific observations. 

           Sometimes the church does its ministry on a somewhat larger scale.  If one of its members has relatives who lose their home in a fire, for example, as many as can get a few days off from work make the drive, no matter how long, to pitch in and expedite the repair effort.  If the members all feel that the Lord is stirring them to take on a continuing ministry that may need a little more organization, they pool their resources and get it started.  Once the word gets out to other nearby neighborhoods and their churches and ministries, there would likely be some sort of communication and mutual referral setup to keep them all busy. 

           Now the church has favor with all the people in the community, because they are letting their light shine before all (including the skeptics), so that our Father in Heaven may be glorified.  Once the church has recovered the simplicity of its mission, its former reputation will no longer stand in the way of its true witness.  In the long run, we will finally discover that love is the only argument for which the Devil doesn’t have a rebuttal. 

Accountability 

           An unbiased reading of the book of Acts reveals no superstars, no multi-level hierarchy, no advertising campaigns, and no visible structures.  The extent of it appears to be little more than local churches with elders sending out apostles to form other local churches.  God then gives various gifts to all the members so that the church will be edified and the work will continue in like manner.  And that’s pretty much it. 

           Many of the members of a modern-day church that follows this example will regularly give of their substance to local charities and outreach ministries.  It makes sense; there is no church overhead to maintain, and there are no salaried personnel to take care of.  Therefore, any financial collections taken at a church meeting will be forwarded to a special need that has come to their attention.  The members of such a church will not need supervision in their giving, nor will they need prodding; it will be totally on the “honor system,” because it comes from the heart (II Cor. 9:7-10). 

           The apostles generally took authority over the churches they planted, and were, in turn, subject to the elders and leaders in the church which sent them out.  Most of the churches mentioned in the book of Acts eventually reached a place in their development where the apostles felt that they could be left without constant supervision, which could be referred to as “commending them to the Lord” (see Acts 14:21-23).  If further attention was necessary after that, a messenger could be sent from the church to find the apostle and seek advice.  If a controversy grew and threatened to get out of hand, church leaders could get together and call for a council to discuss how to proceed.  There was never any need for a business-modeled hierarchy, an adoption of by-laws, registration with any government or private agency, or any formalized structure beyond what has already been described. 

           The raising up and ordaining of leadership for the church does not need to depend upon formalized education or certification by officials in business suits.  The local churches will groom their leadership from within through mentoring and genuine, Biblical disciple-making efforts.  This is very important for the times when a church has grown into a need for separating its larger groups into smaller ones and then allowing these groups to multiply to accommodate increasing numbers.  Gifted members will be able to discern the Lord’s calling on a person and “lay on hands” accordingly with the general agreement of the whole assembly. 

The Neighborhood House Church 

           Taking our cue from such scriptural phrases as “the church in __’s house” or “the church at __,” we can see that a church only needs to be identified by its location.  There is no need for a profound title, a motto, a denominational label, or a marquee.  Nobody will call it an international headquarters, nor will they refer to it after one of its leaders, as in “old so-and-so’s church.”  After all, how can we “go to” that which we are? 

           I obviously hate labels.  Therefore I found it highly distasteful yet necessary to have some designation for this type of church structure which I propose.  I have lately become aware of many similarly structured church gatherings which refer to themselves as “house churches” or “simple churches,” among other things.  Most of these are excellent examples of the ways that many Christians have been rediscovering the genuine New Testament model of the church.  Such activity will continue to develop as Christians become increasingly disillusioned with and disenfranchised by their former houses of worship and begin to disregard the artificial boundaries of their previous denominational affiliations in favor of the distinct advantages offered by this pattern of action.  Yet the unique element of a fellowship patterned after the style of Acts 2:42-47 and 4:32 seems to not be present in these other churches I have read about, except in the cases of intentional communes or certain college fellowship groups.  So from this came the addition of the descriptive but slightly cumbersome word “neighborhood.” 

           Though all churches claim to be a “New Testament church,” most have become so far removed from the actual form of the church described therein that the amazing stretch of the imagination necessary to absorb these alterations had to develop over a very long time.  Our leaders and early fathers have done a wonderful, laudable job of preserving the important theological elements of what we believe; yet it is baffling that we did not take as much care in maintaining the scriptural paradigm of our common life together.  Recovery of this dynamic is crucial so that the church may again become all that we were intended to be as the earth-bound expression of our Heavenly Father.