There's No Pulpit Like Home is a Time article I found linked at Presbyweb today, about house churches. It ties in with what George Barna was saying in his book Revolution earlier this year.
There’s No Pulpit Like Home
Comments
6 responses to “There’s No Pulpit Like Home”
-
Interesting piece. It jibes with a lot that Mike Murdock (tentmaker here in Charlotte) says quite often.
Big question is how to help some of us “pull moorings” from being “trained” (and subsequently locked into)a mode of ministry that has got absolutely no “give” (or creativity, flexibility, etc.) to move more into these types of “serving.”
We are light years away from that — so any ideas how to move the collosus into beginning the journey?
RPS -
Interesting. When a small group (presumably in a church) cuts its mooring to that church and drifts free, is it still part of the Church? What happens to teaching of doctrine?
Dave -
Rodger, I always start with the assumption that I never the first one to get a vision for these kind of things. So who else has the vision and is already dealing with it? For instance, the The Rock House Church Network (www.therockcc.us) is a Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) Church that is doing house churches in the Pugent Sound area in Washington.
Personally, as to moving “the collosus,” I wouldn’t start with the collosus. That is down stream stuff. Instead, I think we have to follow God’s call to be the Church in our context and be faithful in that context. From there we network with similarly called people in similar contexts and that builds momentum toward a new vision. That moves downstream to the “collosus.” A healthy “collosus” will then see what is happening and begin to nurture the replication it elsewhere.
I think there are possibly some networking and resourcing roles that denominational structures can provide but no one knows congregational context like the people who are living in it. Right now, as I work at the GAC level, my sole mission is to transform the question from being “How do we get people to support what we are doing at the GAC level?” to “How does the GAC best serve in support of congreations, presbyteries and synods?” I am not alone in this quest and it is shifting. A corollary to this would be that higher govern bodies should at a minimum do no harm congregations trying to innovate in healthy ways to minister in their contexts.
If the higher governing bodies would ask the second question and congregations would truly engage their contexts, then I think you would see a return to operational health. This was the principle that guided the thinking of those of us on the GAC Mission Work Plan team.
I guess I am saying that cutting-edge innovation isn’t going to come from the top and that is okay. I just think that while the structures need to be flexible, their primary function is to nurtue and institutionalize that which is healthy.
Whew! Sorry about for the sermon. -
“What happens to teaching of doctrine?”
That is a very good question and I think the article identifies others who raise just those concerns. On the other hand, look at our mainline denominations. There is a diversity of ecclesilogies. How are we doing on teaching sound doctrine?
The house church model challenges many of our basic assumptions about what a congregation is, what a pastor is and does, and what our mission is. In our PCUSA structure, we have GA, synods, presbyteries, and congregations. What would prevent a congregation from creating sub-levels beneath congregations and accomplishing the same things through them that we have traditionally associated with the congregational level? I think it is important that scripture says virtually nothing transcendant about how a gathering is to form and operate, which means to me that there is wide range of freedom available to us. However, I think the issue of accountablity is a principle that scripture does assume about whatever structure we devise.
Thanks for your question, Dave. I know I probably didn’t answer it but it sure gave me nice platform from which to pontificate. *grin* -
How are we doing on teaching sound doctrine? In my experience somewhere between zip and so-so.
Having small groups as a “sub-level” beneath the congregation risks adding to a hierarchy that is already too high and needs flattening. Perhaps a better role for small groups would be as an important complement to corporate worship, one that is expected of us pew-sitters if we’re serious about our life in Christ. It is part of the worship experience, perhaps almost as important as corporate worship.
Another thought: In many of our churches, the Sunday evening prayer and praise service for the faithful core has become a very hard sell. Small groups meeting in homes may serve the same purpose. -
I agree about not adding to hierarchy and I am not suggesting here that we revise the Book of Order to create a new level of governing bodies. My point is that most cell/house church models have some level of accountability and support from a larger network. For some, this is a loose affiliation. For others the cell leader is a specially trained person with specific duties and is accountable to a leader of cell leaders. My earlier comment was meant to demonstrate that there isn’t an “either or” choice that has to be made here. House church or cell groups could (at least theoretically) be incorporated into our existing structures.
We are saying very similar things (and you have given me an occasion or another sermon *grin*) but I want push back a little on something.
“…better role for small groups would be as an important complement to corporate worship…”
I would ask what is corporate worship? Are not two or three gathered in Christ doing corporate worship? Most New Testament household churches could not have accommodated more that two or three dozen people.
Furthermore, look in an a New Testament concordance under “worship” and nowhere will you find an example of people sitting in rows disconnected from each other, facing and listening to one person speak at them with no opportunity for interaction, and ritually executing prescribed events interspersed with a couple of songs and announcements. If we are concerned about sound teaching and learning, this is the worst way to accomplish it. (In a postmodern and increasingly post-Christian environment this is critical.) This is not to say that it is wrong to have a corporate worship environment like I described but I am deeply concerned that we continue to make it the singular expression of our life together. The purpose of gathering is to be a community in the Word, not being a community receiving one way communication about the Word.
“It [small groups] is part of the worship experience, perhaps almost as important as corporate worship.”
Yes. I would just nuance this a little differently. I think what you are describing is a congregation WITH small groups. I am suggesting we may need to create models that create congregations OF small groups.
One more thing, just to clarify. I am NOT suggesting that we need the denomination to come up with a strategy for how congregations should uniformly function as congregations. I suspect that depending on the mission context of diverse congregations a variety of models may be needed. What I am suggesting is that we not trap ourselves into a historic one-size-fits-all mode or try to impose an alternate version of one-size-fits-all. The Holy Spirit is much more creative.
Leave a Reply