Recently, the house church trend is taking America by storm. House church has been in practice for a long time, but in the past 5-8 years there has been a precipitous increase in groups moving into this format of church. Two recent books, The Coming Revolution, by well-known researcher George Barna, and The Shaping of Things To Come, hale examples and statistics concerning this trend. There is also a plethora of new books, websites, and organizations, popping up all over America, concerning this revised approach to church.

Before we go out and jump off the deep-end, trying to start our own group and thinking we’ll catch the proverbial wave, we should think about a couple details. A chief consideration should be: What has really changed through this new approach to church in America? Another point of concern should be: Will this change—whatever this change may be—be effective towards making the church more of what God wants or just a change of scenery?

In much of the house church printed materials there is pandemic reference given to the change in church in the aftermath of Constantine the Great, 285-337AD. For a quick overview, Constantine embraced the church, revolutionizing it. He brought it out of the shadows and periphery of the Roman-world, institutionalizing it into buildings, structures, and organizations directly connecting it to the society and the state. In addition, he changed “conversion” to where edict, or military annexation, became the active means of “spreading the gospel.” Constantine’s armies conquered under the symbol of the Cross, bringing this bastardized form of “Christianity” into regions where it had not been introduced, on Roman social, political and cultural levels. It is said Constantine reinvented the way people have thought about church ever since his time.

Many house church theorists and leaders see Constantine, perhaps, as the most corrupting individual in church history. But even with this view, there doesn’t seem to be a connection between the observations that the changes under Constantine were bad and a move to track them down in our own day to rid ourselves of these errors. If Constantine were really as bad as he is made out to be, you’d think eradicating the problems he instituted would be the top order of the day. Many authors stop at identifying the point where the church went off into tremendous error. They correlate this point to various surface details, such as: the introduction of buildings, hierarchal structures, ritual practices, and the inventions of traditions. These introductions signal epic change. However, few writers deal with the real problems of the Constantinian church; like the confusion over the believers’ true identity, assimilation of the church into secular society, and how this changed the way we relate to the non-believing world.

All is to say, there continues to be several wide chasms separating what we see of the church in the early decades after Christ, or in the church in oppressive states, from our own attempt to recapture these “hallowed” experiences in this modern movement. While we’d like to think we are emulating the former in our efforts, but we haven’t really stepped into their shoes yet. For all the talk of cutting off Constantine, we have not made it as far away from him as we think. Here’s why:

1. Church people in America think of themselves in a pluralism: spiritual and physical. First, they think of themselves as Christians, the spiritual aspect. At the same time they equally identify themselves as Americans, the physical parallel. This observation seems inane but consider what is statistically aggregated about the church1 in this country and it will become apparent that one loyalty is being served at the expense of the other (cf. Matt 6:24*). Lesslie Newbigin alludes to the problem of dueling loyalties when he wrote: “In the twentieth century we have become accustomed to the fact that in the name of the nation, Catholics with fight Catholics, Protestants will fight Protestants… but the charge of treason, of placing another loyalty above that to the nation state, is treated as the unforgivable crime.” 2

These diluting factors go unnoticed in the church, even in house church. What we really think of ourselves, as being Americans, operates just fine. The other association, of being followers of Christ, is just given mental assent. It appears to be thought there is no conflict of interests in this pluralism. We have been taught “for God and Country” for years, but where did this come from? Does the New Testament teach us this? Was Paul stumping for Israel and Rome, as well as God, on his missionary trips? If he was, why did he write some of his epistles under house arrest? And why did his “countrymen according to the flesh” create the situation where he ended up under house arrest? Rather we find that the idea “for God and Country” came straight out of the much clamored about Constantinian change.3 But those decrying this change, under Constantine, say very little about how the idea “for God and Country” contrasts the gospel that Christ and Paul taught and how it effected: church/state relations, the believer’s identity and the way we relate to the world.

The current form of Constantinian church assimilates “Christianity” into an American identity. This means that most believers in this country walk into their fellowships more as Americans than followers of Christ.4 This assertion can be leveled because believers in America have never been taught or required to disavow their allegiances to the lifestyle, mindset, values, objectives, and identity of the unrepentant world around them, which is evident by the way they live. What are Americans, and no less church people, most known for? They are known for being: rugged individualists, self-sufficient, proud, nationalistic, materialistic, indebted most of the time, self-righteous, consumeristic, patriotic, focused on relaxation and recreation, self-absorbed, sentimental, very giving, guilt ridden, defensive, self-conscious, and hedonistic. In addition, Christians are no less rights-oriented than the unregenerate world around them. They, just like non-believers, require others to mind their rights to the point of being litigious or vengeful if crossed. The vast majority of church folks march in lock step with the values and objectives of the non-believing world around them with few exceptions. Therefore, there is no tangible difference between “Christians” and non-Christians in America. This is just one chasm.

2. Another major expanse that separates the house church in the West from being directly comparable to the early church or the modern oppressed church is the fact that we have not divested the wares of the institutional church. These are simply being reverse-engineered into much of the house church. Many of the mechanisms of the institutional church are migrating directly into the house church experience; methods focus, program focus, being personality driven, a parade of certain gifts at the expense of all others. These are just of few of the sinews that are transferring over into a significant portion the house church experience. Huge organizations are popping up in support of the house church, which is thought to be greasing the axles to gear up for huge spiritual exploits. In addition, church is still very much of an activity, though more relational in a house setting.

3. A third abyss preventing us from being able to compare the house church movement in America to the early church or the church in closed countries, is that we have not considered our part in suffering and persecution. Our Americanized value of comfort and ease has led us down the wide path of least resistance. The Scriptures tell us that followers of Christ will be hated and persecuted on account of His name (cf. Luke 6:27, John 15:18-20, 2 Tim. 3:12). Persecution was not to be an exception, even if we live in an allegedly tolerant country. Persecution and suffering should be expectations, the very marks of authentication for the true gospel being lived and taught in consistency to Christ and Paul. The absence of real persecution, not to be confused with someone sticking their tongue out at us, strongly suggests that we aren’t teaching the same gospel as both Christ and Paul. Therefore, we must be teaching another “Jesus” who as been Americanized for the spiritual palette of those who want nothing more than mental assent, platitudes, and easy-believism.

The house church welcomes the shackles of man’s effort to ease the fear of having to wait quietly on God for His timing and direction. This became apparent, after I attended several national house church conferences during the past two years. No! We have to be busy, hard-at-work—we wouldn’t want God to find us waiting, even though we are lost in fleshly means and techniques! Jacques Ellul once wrote: “The passion for language [constant talking], analysis and hermeneutics is the unintentional expression of God’s silence.”5 If God isn’t speaking and directing, then what are we doing?

Frankly, we need a modern-day Pentecost, where we once again start to receive power and direction from God. This is not to be confused with a charismaniac holy-roller event. This is an event that will revive what God wants to do through the church, once man has sat down, clasped his hand over his mouth, and waited upon the Holy Spirit. This will be an event where God removes the dead works of religion, misconception, misunderstandings and foolishness so closely associated to church even the house church. A careful study of the book of Acts will reveal that the Apostles foolish ideas of establishment in and identity with the physical-world around them totally changed in the wake of Pentecost. The house church in the West is still in love with the belonging and privileges that the Constantinian order provides. They don’t even realize that the church has become: the established, protected, social-order—a cog of society. This error has to be broken in order for us to find our soul and culture as the Kingdom of God amongst the kingdoms of men.

By ignorantly defaulting to the world’s culture around us (much like Lot in Sodom), we have compromised one of the main distinctives of who we really are. Without a culture and identity of our own, distinct from secular society around us, we will be unable to influence non-believers. Mental accent to a belief is not very distinct or practical. Non-believers are supposed to be able to distinguish between mere religion and what most Christians talk about, but they can’t because it’s the same thing. A new identity and culture, as the essence of conversion, is something even the blind can see. If we actually became the Kingdom of God, the house church, just like its institutional predecessors, would do much better at entering into the ambassadorship Paul spoke of (cf. 2 Cor. 5:20, Eph. 6:20). This is assuming that when Paul said he was an ambassador that we should be ambassadors also because he directed us to follow his example (cf. 1 Cor. 4:16, 11:1, 1 Thes. 1:6). We cannot be ambassadors to our own people; therefore, we need to set ourselves apart from the people of this world.

The people in house church need to enlist as real soldiers, not part-time second-stringers. 2 Timothy 2:3-4 tells us that we are soldiers: “No soldier in active service entangles himself in the affairs of everyday life, so that he may please the one who has enlisted him as a soldier” (NASB). This text is a contrast to civilians (people in the kingdoms of men) who do entangle themselves in the things of everyday life so they cannot be pleasing to God, even if they “believe” in Him. This is one of many Bible texts that illustrate the idea of distinction between the world and the church. Are we active duty, or are we the second stringers? Or worse yet, have we gone back to civilian living just to “play” church (which has most recently gone back into houses to try to make it more intimate, hoping to recapture something profound)?

In analyzing this biopsy of the emerging house church in America, I do not want anyone to dismiss it for all its problems. God is clearly doing something! Having people from all areas of the institutional church at the same time—from Fundamental/Evangelical types to those with various Charismatic or Mainline backgrounds—seeking simpler more flexible means of worship and fellowship, is not because of the will of men. My point in this piece is to warn of huge problems, which left unchecked will make the house church stagnant, ingrown and nothing more than a change of scenery. If we do not go under The Divine Surgeon’s knife, Constantine will continue to be meeting with us in our living rooms and we will not have made any substantive change. House church is not a panacea or an escape; it’s a merely a means to an end. That end is emulating Christ and fellowshipping with Him and each other. If we truly emulate Christ, won’t what was done to Him also be done to us? We are in the Kingdom of God to die “to self, to family, to country, and to humanity.”6 This is where we will have the fellowship of His sufferings, a unique and irreplaceable bond with God.

Footnotes:

1. Timothy L. Price, The Diluted Church, Ekklesia Press, pp. 32-44
2. Lesslie Newbigin, The Other Side of 1984, Church House Publishing, Cambridge, UK, pp. 13-15
3. Leonard Verduin, Reformers and their Stepchildren, Eerdmans Pub. Grand Rapids MI, pg. 32
4. Timothy L. Price, The Diluted Church, Ekklesia Press, pp. 86-95.
5. Jacques Ellul, Hope in a Time of Abandonment, Seabury Press, pg. 141
6. Bob Sjogren, Unveiled at Last, YWAM Publishers, pg. 17

Recommended Reading:

• Houses That Change The World, by Wolfgang Simson
• The Shaping Of Things To Come, by Alan Hirsch and Michael Frost
• Resident Aliens, by Stanley Hauerwas
• The Reformers and Their Stepchildren, by Leonard Verduin
• Unveiled at Last, by Bob Sjogren
• The Diluted Church, by Timothy L. Price