House Church or Traditional Church?

What comes to mind when you hear the word “church”? Most people think of a special building, a stage area, a preacher, people sitting in pews, and music. But that’s only one form of church, which can been labeled the institutional or traditional church. The traditional church comes complete with a special building, an organizational structure, and a set liturgy.

But there’s another form of church commonly referred to as house church. A house church is not a cell group, Bible study group, or fellowship group. A house church is simply a church that meets in a house. (Well, not necessarily in a house. The meeting could be held in a park or just about anywhere.) House church participants don’t feel the need to attend a traditional worship service in addition to their home gatherings because they believe everything essential for corporate worship can be found in the home.

Support for House Church

If you’re wondering why anyone would want to participate in a house church, consider the following arguments used by house church advocates.

1. The first Christians gathered for worship in homes (see 1 Cor 16:19; Rom 16:3,5; Philemon 2; Col 4:15). Therefore house churches are the most ancient form of church.
2. Worship in the early church seems to have been less structured and more open to any believer who desired to share and participate (1 Cor 14:26).
3. The informal setting of a house church provides more opportunity for interaction which corresponds with the “one another” commands in the New Testament. Where else can a command like “encourage one another” be practiced than in an interactive environment?
4. The offering money can go to people in need. Without a building and staff salaries to maintain, overhead expenses are minimal.
5. Because of their simplicity, house churches are easily reproduced.
6. In places of persecution, house churches (in this case, literal house churches) provide a less public and therefore less dangerous venue for Christian fellowship (House Church and Mission, Roger Gehring, 302).

Concerns with House Church

Despite these arguments, traditional church supporters still have a few concerns with moving corporate worship back to the home (or the park). Here are six concerns along with a possible response (in italics) from a house church advocate.

1. House churches are cutting themselves off from Christian tradition and Christian wisdom. While some house churches ignore church history, others intentionally try to incorporate lessons from the past. Connecting to Christian tradition brings up difficult questions for any form of church. For example, what parts of Christian tradition are we going to incorporate and why?
2. House churches are prone to stray into heresy. This may be true, but there is a solution to this weakness—make sure the leaders are biblically trained and educated. Additionally, every church must guard against false teaching. 
3. House churches cultivate an unhealthy isolation and an in-grown mentality. This unhealthy mentality can develop in any group, therefore both forms of church must guard against this tendency.
4. House churches lack accountability. Who will arbitrate if a controversy breaks out or the group goes into heresy? House churches can network with other house churches thereby gaining outside help in time of need. 
5. House churches lack qualified leadership. How do you define qualified? If qualified means seminary graduate then this concern is valid, but what would that say about the church’s leaders during the first few centuries of Christian history as well as the many godly leaders serving today without a seminary degree? If character, the ability to teach, and faithfulness to the doctrines of Scripture, constitute a qualified leader then this criticism is invalid.

Considerations for House Church

1. Recognize the need for structure and planning. Spontaneity is good, but it shouldn’t be elevated to a super-spiritual status. Planning and organizing are necessary and the larger the group, the more planning will be required. For example, we can’t run a care-free participatory discussion with two hundred people like we would with ten people. Structure must increase as the size of the gathering increases. The traditional church has structured itself in certain ways out of necessity.
2. Respect the role of leaders and teachers. While everyone should feel free to participate, some people in the group have the gift of teaching and therefore they should speak more than others (Acts 14:23; 1 Thess 5:12; 1 Tim 5:17; Heb 13:7; 1 Pet 5:2).
3. Compensate your leaders and teachers. That doesn’t mean you must give a full-time salary with benefits, but some form of compensation should be given. Teachers spend time studying and preparing so they should receive something. “One who is taught the word must share all good things with the one who teaches” (Gal 6:6; cf. Lk 10:7; 1 Cor 9:14; 1 Tim 5:17-18). Of course, teachers may choose not to exercise this right (1 Cor 9:11-12).
4. Appreciate the benefits of traditional church. Many have been blessed in a variety of ways by the institutional church. The traditional church isn’t the enemy.

Challenges to the Traditional Church

I won’t list support for traditional churches because many people already assume that it is the standard and only model of church. Instead here are some challenges for traditional churches to consider.

1. Appreciate and respect the house church. House churches are the most ancient form of church and the most common form of church in many parts of the world.
2. Take the mantra, “the church is not the building” seriously. How much time and money are spent on matters of the building and property?
3. Reconsider the standard of success. A large congregation with a beautiful building and wonderful programs doesn’t equate to a successful church. Many house church advocates have an aversion to the large program-driven, building-centered gatherings that typify the traditional church. Their view of success is small gatherings of believers practicing the “one another” commands without programs dominating the agenda.
4. Keep traditions in their proper place. Human traditions, including church customs, aren’t divine commands and therefore we shouldn’t be afraid to change or adjust them as desired.
5. Leaders, consider refusing compensation or at least honor those who are serving for free. The apostle Paul and modern-day house church leaders serve as a challenge to those who receive a regular full-time salary for their work of ministry. While Paul had a right to material compensation, he frequently refused to exercise this right (1 Cor. 9:11-12). And Paul not only bypassed his right to receive, he earned money through manual labor so that he could give (Acts 20:35; 1 Thess. 2:9; 2 Thess. 3:7-9). (For more on Paul’s example see my post on Paul’s income.)

Conclusion

We should not look down on house churches because they are the most ancient expression of Christian gatherings. The house church and the traditional church are two distinct expressions of church, each with their own strengths and weaknesses so they should be willing to learn from each other.