December 19, 2009
-
House Church, chapter 5, "House Church Theology", reading notes
Chapter 5 - "House Church Theology", 12/19/2009
This chapter and the next chapter (Ten Reasons For House Churches) overlap quite a bit.
One point that's made is in response to the question "Why meet in house churches instead of traditional large church buildings?" The authors respond by turning the question around - If everyone agrees that the NT church met in houses, why should we do things differently than they did?
The authors discuss a couple reasons postulated by traditional big-church proponents for why the NT church met in homes: They were too poor to build church buildings, persecution prevented them, or that it was indeed God's plan for the church to progress out of its 'infancy' (house churches) into maturity (large church buildings). They present a few reasons why each one is unsatisfactory. I think they make a mildly good case, but not super-strong... their strongest point to me so far seems to be simply that the NT church met in houses, so in the absence of any other clear direction, there's no need to change - might as well stay with the same pattern.
Ah, but then (p. 86-88) they present (a summary of) reasons for why house churches are better. (And in the next chapter, another author makes his own list of ten reasons, with some overlap to this chapter)
1. Community/fellowship is stronger in small groups/house-churches. This includes the weekly Lord's Supper full-meals, and the fellowship/sharing time before and after. Likewise accountability (p.87 #4) is really only possible with small groups, in which one can really get to know others.
2. Participatory meetings really require small groups to function well, and 1 Cor. 14 clearly expects church to be participatory. Seems pretty clear to me.
3. (p.87 #5) The consensus-rule described in the NT only works in small groups. (they don't cite Acts 6 and 15, but weren't they cases of consensus-rule in HUGE (~10000-people) church settings? But one could say that Acts 15 was a small-group situation of elders-only..)
4. (p.87-88 #6&7) House churches are low-cost and much easier to reproduce themselves as growth occurs. The money saved on buildings/salaries can be given instead to missionaries. They mention "surveys" of US churches that say 80% of money goes to buildings and salaries on average, with 20% going to missions, and with house churches those numbers can be reversed. This is a significant point, it seems to me. Points 1, 2, and 3 above could fit the current popular US church model of a large central church with dedicated building, coupled with small groups that meet throughout the week. But in this traditional large-church situation, the money is still funneling into the central-building/central-salaries...
At the end they discuss some logistical questions, parking, upholstery damage, child control, rotating to avoid wearing people out, the problem of "not enough space", etc. These questions are also discussed in more detail later in the book.
Overall this chapter seems to be a summary of the preceding stuff in some ways. I think the next chapter (chapter 6) is also somewhat summarizing. Your thoughts are welcome.
Recent Comments