The neighborhood house church is not the perfect church—far from it.  Although any church, or for that matter any member, can arguably be considered to be viewed by God as perfect in the sense of our position in Him, there will still be numerous problems in our gatherings; and some of those problems have terrible potential.  It is also often joked that any perfect church would turn the likes of me (or you) away at the door—or as Groucho Marx put it: “I wouldn’t join any club that would have me for a member!” 

           Can such a church as described in these essays actually survive and thrive as a visible and viable entity in the modern West?  What concerns me more is not the way this church behaves once it is established, but the transition period that gets us to that point.  There will likely be much of what we would call “baggage” which we will insist on bringing with us into this way of thinking about our assembling together.  Admittedly, it is never easy to abandon such a deeply ingrained pattern of thought.  But the rewards for recovering and revitalizing the original model for the assembling of the believers in Jesus will no doubt be worth it all. 

Isn’t this just a way of thumbing your nose at scriptural authority?

           Actually, I prefer to think of this as a way of thumbing my nose at unscriptural authority.  Once any serious student of Scripture begins to compare and contrast the common, visible structures of today’s churches with the pattern portrayed in the New Testament, it becomes nearly impossible for him or her to accept the supposed validity of the presently established institutional system. 

           The current means of recognizing persons of authority in the church has much more to do with the conventions of western-style business protocol—which were not in existence at the time of the writing of the New Testament—than with the actual, biblically prescribed ideas of mentoring disciples and potential leaders and of the ordaining and commissioning of them by the body of believers.  Paul’s relationship with Timothy is the best example we have in the New Testament for understanding the practice of that time.  The two epistles written to Timothy are full of reminders from Paul about such topics as passing on the process of mentoring by example (II Tim. 2:2), laying on of hands as a recognition of gifts (I Tim. 4:14, II Tim. 1:6), and of the carefulness taken in choosing leaders by not rushing into it (I Tim. 5:22). 

           The modern “pastor” is really more of an inspirational speaker at the church gatherings, an administrator of its programs, and a “go to guy” for special occasions related to ceremony.  He tends to wield the rod of correction only when certain of the more influential members complain, if he perceives that his position in the organization may be threatened, or perhaps if a challenge to the prescribed order arises.  He usually is reluctant to delegate authority except to those of like credentials, yet he can easily get frustrated or “burned out” by the load he carries. 

           God will surely hold this pastor accountable for the actions of the corporate body for which he has accepted leadership.  But just how fully has his training prepared him to stand before God in this capacity?  And how genuine is the delegation of this authority from the denomination?  Again, when compared to the New Testament model, this denomination/business model falls woefully short of conveying the type of authority which enabled the first century church fathers to operate in the power and purity that characterized their early success.  When the most that a leader requires of a normal church member is to warm a pew somewhat regularly, tithe, occasionally help out on a committee, and smile and cheer on cue, we have failed the Great Commission.

Wouldn’t this way make the church less visible, not more?

           If by visibility one means having a nicely appointed, soaring-steepled building on every other street corner, a glitzy, well-produced media presence, and our own ranting pundits on every 24-hour cable news channel, then we will be less visible.  If it has to do with keeping our everyday actions and speech at a low profile out of fear that we might accidentally offend someone, then we are probably too invisible in the first place. 

           The witness of the church must become one of deeds, not of marketing strategy and publicity.  Any Christian who has spent any time at all talking to those outside the faith about Jesus is acutely aware of the reputation the Church has as being nothing but hypocrites.  This criticism, though an unfair generalization, is quite understandable.  In the world everyone understands that we are to be loving and charitable, yet it is rare when we show that side to the general public; usually what they get is quite the opposite.  Therefore, it is no wonder that many who observe us will conclude, as one skeptic put it recently, “If you take away their religious talk, they’re no different from anybody else.” 

           It is vital that the neighborhood house churches take a more action-oriented approach to those in our communities who do not belong to the church, adhering to the wisdom of Paul’s statement in First Corinthians 4:20 that, “the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power.”  Our genuine involvement with those in need may not give us large-scale promotion, but it will certainly be a step in a more positive direction.  The influence may not be as widespread, but the cumulative effect of a larger number of small-scale acts would certainly go a long way toward repairing any misunderstandings about our Savior that our previously more verbose approach may have inadvertently caused in the minds of many. 

What about ministering to children?

           Admittedly, this is one of the most difficult areas to address.  Most often adults, no matter whether or not they are parents, do not think about this need when they are forming or first getting involved in any house church.  This is understandable; they are usually either reeling from the bad experiences that the institution has caused them, or apprehensive about leaving the supposed security of the establishment, or perhaps they are just busy focusing on other aspects of this new adventure.  Sometimes the children themselves offer resistance because they would rather not leave their Sunday school friends, or they think that only boredom awaits them in this new setting.  It may even be that there is only one child in the group, or maybe the only ones there are from the same family, and parents simply do not notice the need. 

           Common mistakes will often show up at this juncture.  Sometimes the children are sent to play in some other location, only to come back in during worship to check with a parent about something.  Other times they are kept in the main room during the meeting, where they often become disruptive if the parents try to get them to quietly occupy themselves (yet it rarely remains quiet) or by keeping them in a tight rein which makes them fidgety.  Occasionally a parent or trusted adult will go with the children to another room, but then only act as a monitor or babysitter.  On rare occasion, one of the adults will take it upon himself or herself to actually spend time in a ministering capacity; but then without intending to, this adult turns out to be the only one saddled with this responsibility and misses out on the opportunities to receive from the ministry in the adult gatherings.  In any case, the children should not be ignored. 

           I will offer at this point two options which I hope can be feasible suggestions for addressing this need.  First, parents and other trustworthy adults can simply take turns.  Some may take more turns than others if they agree to, or perhaps the “turns” could be for a month or some other flexible period of time.  There are many ways to accomplish this, but the main point is to ensure that the children’s needs are seen to and that no single adult ends up taking all of the responsibility.  The second option would be to hold a separate children’s meeting at a different time from the adult meeting.  This may be the more desirable way to go in handling a large number of children, or a way to get more parents involved if they are hesitant to do so, because then they will not have to miss the adult meetings to work with the children.  The drawback is that the children will still need some kind of supervision during the adult meetings. 

           Many parents and other adults avoid children’s ministry because they do not want to “get stuck with it.”  Others can not see themselves as people who are good with children, or perhaps have no idea of how to go about it.  These and other apprehensions can be remedied with wise mentoring and minimizing the organization.  Some people may participate because they see children’s ministry as a stepping stone to adult ministry; an idea which is true in some cases.  But most people, however, once they are aware of the intrinsic rewards, genuinely enjoy and benefit from their involvement. 

           The organizing of any aspect of ministry in a house church seems like a red flag to some; after all, didn’t we just leave the organized church to avoid having to do things like this?  If we have to organize stuff, why not just go back where we came from?  The point is not to avoid structuring our efforts altogether, but to bring back the simpler New Testament form of organizing and avoid the stifling over-organization-for-organization’s-sake that comes with the institutionalizing of our faith.  The sixth chapter of Acts shows the ordination of deacons for the overseeing of “the daily ministration,” and later, in the fifteenth chapter we read about the so-called “Jerusalem Council” which was set up to decide on a controversial matter.  We see from these examples that when the Apostles had to sort out something, they did it in the most flexible and uncomplicated manner that they could.  They allowed the need to create the structure, not the other way around. 

           It is ridiculous to try to have meaningful church meetings and ministries and yet stay completely away from the concept of structure.  The point simply is to organize only the things which really need it, and not be afraid to change or do away with whatever is not required by the present need. 

What if this turns out to be just another trend in church structure?

           These days there seems to be no hesitation to try some new model of doing church.  In many quarters there seems to be a prevailing attitude that the church must bend over backwards to accommodate the whims of pop culture in order to preserve a supposed relevance that was never really there in the first place.  Paul’s statement that he had become “all things to all men, so that I might by any means save some” has by now been so over-used and abused that its true impact has become unrecognizable. 

           The strategy of returning the church to its primitive structure will allow it to be that which it was originally intended to be, and allow those people who make it up to be who they really are; not a group who feels they have to hide behind a Sunday morning mask.  That way the relevance of the church relies on the relevance of each member as they go about their normal lives being real and unpretentious.  Our services and structures won’t have to be relevant to anything in and of themselves if the people are free to be relevant to other people.  We will finally be fostering relationships rather than programs. 

           Unfortunately, many will look at this idea of the neighborhood house church and not see it as a return to a simpler way of being.  They will see it as the newest thing to try, and no doubt will attempt to sell their “how-to” book on it, come up with X number of easy steps to make it successful, codify it, hyper-organize it, hold seminars on it, and hang it out to dry when it fails to come off as the latest and greatest exciting innovation.  It is particularly sad that many cannot or will not make a clean break from the old way of seeing the church as an institution, and will never truly embrace the radical, more basic concept portrayed here.  In fact, many have taken hold of some of the other existing forms of the house church idea and have already begun the insipid process of turning them into merchandise.  To these self-seeking people, this is nothing more than another way for the church to re-invent itself to cater to a different market. 

           We’ve tried being prophetic, seeker-sensitive, promise-keeping, hip, prosperous, liberal, purpose-driven, trendy, political, renewalistic, power-evangelistic, compromising, uncompromising, and even emerging.  Maybe we should try just being us for a change. 

Is there a model of this kind of church in existence today that we can see as a prototype?

           Unfortunately, I don’t know of any currently in America, although I do know of many house churches of other types—some of which are very close to this particular, unique combination of elements.  If not in America, perhaps they exist in other countries; there have been reports that several underground churches in China are following a similar structure and are flourishing; although I’m sure that there are elements that are quite different.  I suppose that it is to my disadvantage that I happen to live in one of the “buckles in the Bible Belt,” therefore making it difficult for me to find Christians who are willing to take such an adventurous journey out of the familiar, secure, worn-out old notion of the traditional church.