House Church: Does Size Matter?
My wife is always reminding me that size doesn’t matter. Of course she’s talking about the size of our worship gatherings (or our church community in general). You might think she’s trying to stroke my ego to convince me it’s okay to have a small member(ship); but it actually works both ways.
See, I am a proponent of the “house church” movement. I believe it is a viable expression of the body of Christ, and I think it may become a growing force even in North America in the not too distant future (as it already is in other parts of the world). I do not think it is the only way to gather, or that it’s necessarily better than other ways of organizing, and I hope it isn’t just another fad in our attempts to keep up with the Joneses. It just makes sense to me. If you deal with people who want nothing to do with church, it shouldn’t take you long to figure out that they really don’t want anything to do with church as most of us presently know it. But there are a number of people willing to gather for barbecues, or supper, or drinks, or whatever… and most people are not at all opposed to discussing things of a spiritual nature in the right atmosphere and within a certain relational context. So maybe we ought to quit trying to fit square pegs into round holes (or think everybody should think of “church” the same way we do).
But let’s get back to size. I have heard and read in several places that the “N.T. plan” of doing church means we need to go back to small gatherings of people in homes. I don’t know about you, but I often get a mental picture of the number of people who will fit into my living room. So as large gatherings were the measuring stick in the mega-church movement, smaller gatherings are often lifted up as the house-church way. But I’m not so sure that was the point of it during New Testament biblical times. Size may have nothing to do with performance on either end.
I’ve been reading an interesting little church history book from Mindy & Brandon Withrow ‘Peril And Peace: Chronicles of the Ancient Church’ (it’s written with 9 to 14-year-olds in mind, so it’s just my speed), and they point out that even though Christians in the early church met in private homes, they were often remodeled to make room for larger groups. Or they were the homes of wealthier individuals who had large rooms, atriums, or courtyards, where larger groups could easily gather. Sure, there were some that met in smaller settings, but the reason they were meeting in homes wasn’t to limit the size of the gatherings, it was because they weren’t allowed to meet anywhere else. It was either more practical, or in many cases it was illegal for Christians to meet in public at the time. It just made sense to them to meet in homes.
Certainly there are circumstances now where differing sizes might be beneficial from an organizational perspective. I am all for smaller gatherings. Others like them bigger. We all learn in different ways, have different tastes, and live in different cultural environments. But I’m not sure there is a “New Testament Plan” that says smaller is better, anymore than bigger is better. Maybe it’s all good!
I like Paul’s attitude in 1 Corinthians 9 where he “became all things to all people so that by all possible means [we] might save some.” If a large gathering works, so be it; if it’s a small one, then why not? Maybe we shouldn’t get so wrapped up in the size of our gatherings, but just get busy ‘doing it’ (making disciples)… reproducing, however, whenever, and wherever.
posted by dan at 8:36 AM
29 Comments:
For me the issue is not where a gathering takes place.
However, I do believe that 1 Corinthians 14:26 is normative in describing early Christian gatherings. I believe that the early believers assumed that everyone who'd gather would come with a hymn or a teaching, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. I also believe that everyone who attended a gathering was empowered to participate in that gathering. There was no priesthood. There was no laity. Every follower of Jesus was a member of a 'royal priesthood.'
My experience in seeking to make 1 Corinthians 14:26 a reality has taught me that the number of people who can be present at one place and one time when everyone will participate and no one will be relegated to the position of consumer of religious products and services is small and that growth in spirit and number can only take place through multiplication of gatherings, not addition to the number who gather at one place. When interactive participation by all is compromised by the number of participants, the number must be reduced through the multiplication of gatherings.
It's not about the house for me. It's about community functioning interactively in the Spirit.
My friend Jim Moss. Sr. has been saying for years that the natural numerical size of a congregation in the US is 34 attenders and that after that there will be resistance to numerical growth. He also says that in a group smaller than 34 in attendance, there is a tendency to grow. (I don't know where he gets that number.)
If he is correct, why try to grow numerically beyond a point at which there is resistance to growth? Why not simply growth through multiplication?
That question has additional authority attached to it in the CGGC because, according to our Vision Statement, "We seek to establish and network vital reproducing churches," not churches growing numerically by addition.
If you are looking for a resource that is beyond popular books "House Church and Mission" is excellent. You may not agree with some of his conclusions but the information is excellent. I believe it was his dissertation that has been translated from German.
http://www.amazon.com/House-Church-Mission-Importance-Christianity/dp/0801046327/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1291637723&sr=8-1
Bill, you seem to interpret I Cor. 14:26 to mean that everyone who comes to a worship gathering must have a high level of participation, in a verbal kind of way (the kinds of ways described in the text there- leading a hymn, reading a psalm, bringing some word, etc.). I get that various people are bringing various pieces of the worship and ministry taking place, but personalities vary, and people are at different places on their journey (unless we only admit mature Christians to the gathering), so I'm not sure it makes sense that every person will participate at that level. Might not some "receive the word", and some sing with the hymn that another brings and leads?
I find myself energized by your vision of less institutional and more Spirit-led, participatory gatherings, but fearful that some of the things you insist on could lead to a new legalism about size of gatherings (a legalism some committed to the idea of house church have already embraced).
Fran,
Bill, you seem to interpret I Cor. 14:26 to mean that everyone who comes to a worship gathering must have a high level of participation...
Not exactly.
I interpret it to mean that it was the normal thing in the early church for everyone to come to a worship gathering with a hymn, or a teaching or a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Paul's statement is descriptive, not hortatory, not instructive. He seems to be doing nothing but acknowledging the reality in Corinth and, for that matter, in all the "Churches of God." (1 Cor. 11:16)
I understand him to be acknowledging the reality that, in the early church, everyone came to a gathering with participation in mind. Paul seems to know a church culture in which people came together to do what we call worship and they all had their part.
The Christendom, priest-dominated, consumerist way of gathering is deeply entrenched for us. Reading Scripture without the consumerist lens does not come naturally to any of us.
What I see when I attempt to remove that lens, though, is a baseline in which participation, not consumption is the norm.
What I see described--assumed, not ever taught--in Acts 2:42-47 and in 1 Corinthians 11-14 is a culture of Christian gatherings in which it was understood that everyone who acknowledged the Lordship of Jesus would offer himself or herself in active worship. I see people who genuinely believed that they all were priests participating in a worshiping community and functioning as priests.
I see the problem among early Jesus followers being one in which vibrant, universal participation had to be managed around the principle that every contribution had to be offered for the edification of all gathered.
I wonder if we were not all reared in the priest/laity culture in which laity is dominated and consumerism is assumed, how we would worship.
Might not some "receive the word", and some sing with the hymn that another brings and leads?
In our priest/laity culture, it seems the natural thing that many, even most, would receive, consume. But, peeling away the Christendom wrappings from the New Testament, I honestly don't see evidence of that in the New Testament worship culture.
You may be correct that a consumerist baseline is there. But, I don't see it. I see a different culture.
Having said all that, I think that in a church in which we "commit ourselves to...establishing churches on the New Testament plan" that your questions are vital to us all.
I make no claim to understand this better than anyone--only to have thought it through as carefully as I can. I cherish the questions and the conversation that they produce.
Thank you, brother.
I believe that everybody in a worship gathering that feels moved by the Spirit should be able to participate according to what and how they are prompted by the Spirit according to their gifts. But I don't expect everyone to participate in 'public' or verbal sorts of ways. Don't some have gifts of hospitality? Are they less important?
Don't we all sing the hymns together?
Also, I don't think that 'receiving the Word' is NECESSARILY consumerist, although it can be. It can be fuel for the life of mission as the church scatters between gatherings.
My guess is that Paul lists these few of the gifts (prophecy, tongues, etc) because they're the ones that are 'competing' in an unloving, chaotic way - not because everybody should have these gifts.
I am extremely wary of taking occasional letters and applying them without thinking hard about the situation into which they were written. This is something that I think we're trying to do here and I think we can continue to learn from each other as we study the Scriptures.
Also, I should say that when we welcome Spirit led participation in a growing, maturing church, there probably will be a size that will be too big and need to multiply.
Personally, I think that size might be bigger than Bill thinks, but I'm just guessing.
On Thanksgiving eve we had a gathering that was very organic and participative. I didn't even want to say when I had to say - I simply opened the door and it was wonderful. There were probably 45-50 people there, most of whom shared in some way and it was good.
M,
I am extremely wary of taking occasional letters and applying them without thinking hard about the situation into which they were written.
I can guarantee you that I have and continue to think long and hard about the situation that provides context for what Paul writes.
1 Corinthians 14:26 is a summary statement. It summarizes all that is taking place in Corinthian worship and sets forth the general principle around which participation in worship should take place. The fact that Paul, at several places alludes to the fact that what he is saying is reflected in all the 'churches of God,' I believe, gives us good reason to accept these principles as universally applicable.
And, I'll say again that if we all didn't have the Christendom, priest/laity lens as our a default view, we'd see the challenges offered in these verse very differently.
Bill - I was not accusing you of such. I know that you don't speak hastily. I had followed what you quoted from me wiht a statement affirming that we are trying to do just that here.
I think that there needs to be a place for people to study and work though these texts (and many others together).
It seems to me that the only way we will be able to break free of our paridigms is to study the Scriptures in as fresh a way as we can.
Because I think that most people in our body (the cggc) are committed to the Bible - at least nobody would publicaly deny this - we need to show how we can bring such study into the open so that eveyone can see not only the conculusions of one's individual study, but also the means by which one arrives at such conclusions.
But anyway, my comment was not meant to be an accusation, just a reminder (to myself as much as anybody) of the interpretive challenges of this genre of Bible.
M,
I will say again that, shortly after Ed announced the Mission Statement, I urged him--all but begged him--to bring the people of the CGGC together in a gathering devoted to answering the question:
What is the New Testament plan?
He promised to pass that request on to the Commission on Church Development. Unless I've gone deaf, nothing's been said about it since. (Fran could tell us is he actually did that.)
Re: Because I think that most people in our body (the cggc) are committed to the Bible - at least nobody would publicaly deny this - we need to show how we can bring such study into the open so that eveyone can see not only the conculusions of one's individual study, but also the means by which one arrives at such conclusions.
As far as I can tell, 1975 was a watershed year in the CGGC. It was in that year that a trend taking place for decades achieved fruition.
There, for the first time in my understanding, we thoroughly and formally jettisoned the notion that our loyalty to Scripture is a matter of using the Bible as our only rule of faith an practice. In that year we substituted for that historic CGGC principle our common agreement that we believe in a Bible that is inspired and reliable.
In other words, in 1975 we took our last step away from being Winebrennerian restorationists to cross the line into being watered-down evangelicals.
Evangelicals are all about returning to the Reformation. The Reformation is a minor tweak of Christendom on the doctrine of soteriology but it is wholeheartedly, priest-dominated Christianity. Restorationism is something radically different: In Winebrenner's own words, it is church built on the New Testament plan.
I agree we are committed to the Bible. But we are committed to it in a way that rejects our founding vision of what role the Bible plays in Christ's church.
perhaps then one of the major points of our discussion should be how we view / use the Bible.
And by that I mean that I think we probably ought to decide whether or not we are going to be a 'restorationist' movement or not.
Winebrenner was. We currently are not (with few exceptions).
I have said before that I am not convinced of the restorationist position (I know that puts me at odds with Winebrenner - and puts me at odds with our mission statement according to you). Let me say that I am willing to be persuaded of the postion, just not currently convinced. I am not hardened against it.
Maybe another key question for all of us to figure out is 'are we (and will we be)evangelicals or restorationists?' as a body?
In the absence of a major gathering, might it be possible for have papers submitted towards the discussion that could be widely read, disucssed and then later brought to a larger gathering?
M,
And by that I mean that I think we probably ought to decide whether or not we are going to be a 'restorationist' movement or not.
If there is even a scintilla of integrity in our leadership and if words have any meaning at all, that decision has already been made.
"...we commit ourselves to...establishing churches on the New Testament plan..."
I have said before that I am not convinced of the restorationist position (I know that puts me at odds with Winebrenner - and puts me at odds with our mission statement according to you). Let me say that I am willing to be persuaded of the postion, just not currently convinced. I am not hardened against it.
You have, Dan, and I applaud your honesty, integrity and transparency. Yet, I continue to wonder what it says about us that you can so openly and easily defy not only our history but also our brand, spankin new Mission Statement and feel no pangs of guilt nor fear retribution. My guess, deeply polluted by my prophet core, is that it says that truth has no meaning in the CGGC.
Maybe another key question for all of us to figure out is 'are we (and will we be)evangelicals or restorationists?' as a body?
If that question had not already been answered, it would be a good question. But, at least officially, it has been answered. No. I think there's a whole other category of questions that need to be asked. They have to do with soul searching on the level of who we are. They have to do with how we can say things but not expect, or probably even want, people to believe them.
A reality that defines who we are is that we have a Mission Statement, the very existence of which spits in our founders' contention that we have no authority but the Bible, and that we act as if we don't have a Mission Statement.
I think the time has long since past for us to look deep within our hearts while we are praying that the Spirit will expose our sins to us.
In the absence of a major gathering, might it be possible for have papers submitted towards the discussion that could be widely read, disucssed and then later brought to a larger gathering?
Why?
Who cares?
On a practical side of the issue, there are problems inherent to mission statements.
According to Leading Change by John Kotter, the classic business book on change.
You must do eight things to establish an effective mission statement.
1. Establish a Sense of Urgency
2. Create a Guiding Coalition
3. Develop a Vision & Strategy
4. Communicate the Change Vision
5. Empower for Broad-based Action
6. Generate Short-Term Wins
7. Consolidate Gains & Produce More Change
8. Anchor New Approaches in Culture
1. There is not a sense of urgency.
2. There is not a guiding coalition. There may be an ad council, but it is not a coalition that is leading the change.
3. There may be a vision, but I know of no strategy.
4. Communication is existent but not as effective as possible.
Anyway. The decision is not made (or least is worthless) by the organization without these elements.
I have no interest in being defiant and I certainly have no interest in being so 'easily.'
The question that I need to be answered is: did the drafters of that mission statement mean by it what you interpret it as meaning?
I don't think they did and hence I don't feel defiant.
I think my question has not been answered (even by the mission statement without interpretation of it): restorationist or evangelical?
The reason that I feel this way is that if I didn't know you (bill), I would have no indication from a single person that I am at odds with anything in the cggc.
I am open to be corrected by you about my understanding of the Bible, the truth about restorationist church, etc. But I cannot accept your own interpretation of the mission statement as authoritative. I need the authors of the statement to tell me so, and then I'll be left with what do do in response to that authority.
Dan,
My observation is that Bill isn't questioning your response. He is questioning the writer's of the mission statement's response.
M,
The question that I need to be answered is: did the drafters of that mission statement mean by it what you interpret it as meaning?
Just let Ed's commentary speak for them.
"Sometimes to get to the future you must look back. I'm not speaking of Winebrenner, but to where he looked, Jesus and the apostles. What might this mean for us? It means it's time to renew our "first love" and get moving again."
According to Ed, the intent is to go back to the New Testament: Jesus and the apostles. What could be more restorationist than that?
The reason that I feel this way is that if I didn't know you (bill), I would have no indication from a single person that I am at odds with anything in the cggc.
This is an awesome point.
Except that I take the words at face value, I have no sense that there is a CGGC way of thinking to be at odds with. It's all about just all getting along. Still,
I don't know how, if you take the words, "New Testament plan" as meaning anything, you can end up anywhere but restorationism. If you can, break it down for me, bro.
Tell me, if we actually stand for something what it is that we stand for?
I am open to be corrected by you about my understanding of the Bible, the truth about restorationist church, etc. But I cannot accept your own interpretation of the mission statement as authoritative. I need the authors of the statement to tell me so, and then I'll be left with what do do in response to that authority.
Their deafening silence is, perhaps, the most compelling CGGC truth.
And, I'll continue my cry for a formal gathering focused on developing a common understanding of the Mission Statement.
Though I do not think all "restorationists" come to the same conclusions, I am one, it is clear that John Winebrenner was, and I think Ed would say he is also (I don;t think he would say that he is happy with standard reformation based evangelicalism).
I think it is highly possible that because there has been little theological critical thinking at an Ad Council level for many decades, those who crafted this mission statement (Ed excepted) may not have realized the dynamite in what they were suggesting.
I do think the CGGC is due for a "Council", a gathering of leaders to clarify what we are committed to and how we describe the mission which emerges from those things. I think for it to carry weight across the denomination, it would have to be a larger gathering, though a smaller gathering would be needed ahead of time to frame the questions.
I guess I need to have more info on what are the core commitments of a restorationist, before I can say whether or not I think the idea is right.
Fran,
Re: I think...those who crafted this mission statement (Ed excepted) may not have realized the dynamite in what they were suggesting.
I agree that many/most could not have realized what the Mission Statement implied. There's not much passion for CGGC history among the people who approved that document and the radical vision it commits us to is not what most of those very conservative, institutional people are about.
I'm asking the following questions sincerely because I have no idea what the answer is and I believe that if anyone who posts here knows the answer, it is you:
Do you think Ed fully apprehended Winebrenner's contention,
"To accomplish all this will require another great reformation."
Do you think Ed is up for that?
If so, do you see fruit of that conviction in what Ed says and does? (I'm not asking you to be specific if you do.)
If so, do you sense in Ed a plan that would get the CGGC from where it is today to the point that it would bear fruit of this radical mission?
From my distance, I see no fruit of any of those and, in fact, what I see from here seems to be fruit of a vision for a very traditional, priest-dominated form of Protestantism that much more closely resembles the ethos of the German Reformed Church Winebrenner left in the early 1820s than the radical, Reformation-rejecting New Testament church Winebrenner envisioned in 1830 and in his 27 Points of 1844.
M,
I guess I need to have more info on what are the core commitments of a restorationist, before I can say whether or not I think the idea is right.
For now, think about the difference between those early Anabaptists who Zwingli executed and Zwingli. Think big picture.
The Mission Statement demands that we have the conversation you are looking for. There's a world of theological difference between an evangelical and a 21st century Winebrennerian. We need to understand that. And we need to make a commitment.
I'm with the Anabaptists over Zwingli every day of the week. I like the Anabaptists very much.
Dan, I am no expert on the topic, but when I described myself as a restorationist, I generally mean what articulated several times: that neither accepting current evangelicalism as the ultimate expression of Christian faith nor looking back primarily to the reformation will do... we must look back to Jesus, the apostles, and the early church. Like you, I do not think the answer is to try to copy every detail of how the early church did things-- the Gospel is bigger than that and allows us to contextualize many things so that we end up with a vibrant and connecting expression in our time and place. I came to this restorationist place, very simply a few years ago after re-reading the Gospels and realizing that Jesus says many things current evangelicals would not say.
Scripture is the only authority for me.
What I like about Evangelicalism is it's commitment to Scripture.
What I like about the Reformation is it's call to the Bible over traditions. Sure guys like Luther and Calvin got a lot of things wrong. But they were trying harder than many othes in their day.
It seems to me like restorationism is more radical then any of these other movements, but is it wholly opposed to them?
Can't we embrace the best in Reformation thought and Evangelicalism without pledging allegiance to them? That's all I'm saying.
Dan,
Yes to all. We can certainly embrace the best in Reformation and evangelical viewpoints, without wholly endorsing what they may have come to stand for in every point.
I'm glad you said what you did about Scripture being your only authority, because it made me want to clarify a point. I share your commitment to the authority of Scripture. The problem, however, for Bible-believing Christians, it seems, has been that while vast numbers have been committed to the authority of Scripture, they have often come to widely divergent conclusions.
That's exactly why the question of reformation vs. restoration matters... because, in truth, we all have an assumed framework, a set of lenses, by which we read and interpret Scripture. For me the teaching of Jesus (not just verses grabbed here and there across the Bible) is a big part of my framework. If you interpret something in the epistles in a way that seems to me at odds with the direct teaching of Jesus, even if it is a viewpoint widely held by evangelicals, I will likely take a second look. I am not satisfied with "It's a solid evangelical position" or "It's been a widely accepted interpretation since the Reformation"... Is it what Jesus taught? Let's "restore" that the best we know how.
Most Protestants. Seem to favor Paul to Jesus for teaching as clearly backward as that should seem.
The biggest problem with all of us is that we tend to favor doctrine to obedience to Jesus.
I'm with you in favoring Jesus. Also, Jesus is my hermeneutic for the authority of scripture. More on that if necessary.
I'm reading Scot Mcknight's new book One life: Jesus calls, we follow. He argues that we have understood the faith through Paul rather than Jesus' kingdom vision. I'd like to read your book in the near future as well.
Dan,
You've said it better in your response than I did. I spent a lot of years spinning a whole set of doctrinal ideas out of Paul, and then only much later discovered that some of my conclusions had drifted from the way Jesus taught about things. I do not think Paul was wrong, but rather that I misunderstood Paul in ways I might not have of Jesus had been a more constant hermeneutic for me.
Scot McKnight has an interview, and the link to his recent Christianity Today article on Jesus vs. Paul, here: http://bit.ly/gDTqqi.
Guys, I have a problem with seeing any wedge between Christ's words and Paul's in the New Testament. Granted, Jesus has ultimate authority, and Paul certainly wouldn't want people to put him on equal footing with Christ. (Though I'd bet he'd defend his apostolic authority to his dying breath.) My problem is with some of the motivations I've seen in the so-called "red letter Christian" movement, a la Campolo. By driving a wedge between Jesus' teachings and Paul's, we too easily can jettison clear teachings addressed by Paul but not specifically addressed by our Lord (e.g. Paul's statements about homosexuality in Rom. 1:26-27). I don't think you're doing this, but be careful where it can take you. Fran, I like what you said about needing to read Paul through Christ's lens. That should prevent people from turning Paul against Jesus in their doctrinal preferences. But let's not turn Jesus against Paul, either. I've said it before: let's have both orthodoxy AND orthopraxy, not one or the other.
-- Ben
Ben, I agree completely and have no desire to pit them against each other. However, I am now convinced that part of the reason evangelicals hold some ideas that don't sit well with Jesus' teachings is because they have read Paul for a very long time without Jesus in the room.
Here is an example. Some evangelicals, over time, drifted to this place where works not only didn't earn salvation, but really didn't matter at all (ala I'm forgiven, what I do is somewhat irrelevant). Had they listened to Jesus' words continually ("Nor everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord...), they might not have embraced such an idea. What is striking is that when we let Jesus remind us of the right perspective, and THEN go back and read Paul, we discover HOW to read Paul, and we discover that he says exactly what Jesus does (perhaps in a more Greek than Jewish way, but the same in essence).
Post a Comment
<< Home