Churches In Houses - Why It Works (Part 12)

FINAL WORDS

To justify their practices, many ignorantly and unreasonably oppose this teaching (as I once did) without a careful study and examination about how the early church functioned. There is so much good to speak about the modern day church; yet a reformation is needed to help God’s people function more effectively and biblically. Gathering in houses is not a perfect solution wherein we don’t have any problems at all. It is only a better and more effective approach. In saying this, I mean it has more advantages and less disadvantages. Of course the problems that occur, based on different situations, places and culture, must be dealt prayerfully and wisely according to the counsel of the Holy Scriptures, the wisdom of the Holy Spirit and the guidance of the experienced godly people.

Also, let the reader not mistake that the church is confined to gather in a house. It can gather in an office, hall, class room, hut, tent, etc. as long as the size of the community caters to every-member participation. The structure is not as important as is the functioning of the church. This series of messages could actually be titled, “Ten Reasons For Small Communities.” Since the house is an informal place wherein people can generally gather as small communities, I had to use it often.

Well, is there is no place for large gatherings in the New Testament church pattern? Of course, large gatherings have its own significance, especially in the context of gospel preaching and public teaching. Jesus taught to multitudes as well as the apostles. Paul said, "You know that I have not hesitated to preach anything that would be helpful to you but have taught you publicly and from house to house" (Acts 20:20). However, the regular church gathering should be aware of providing enough room for every member to actively function for the edification of all. Christ’s people are free to gather wherever they feel convenient and yet still function according to the New Testament church pattern.

Finally, may we never forget that any church paradigm is weak and lacks life without the empowerment of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit of God is the life of the church; without Him any church or pattern is dead. Let us seek to be clothed with the power from on high as we constantly seek to establish His Kingdom on earth. May the Lord abundantly pour out His Spirit upon His body, the church!

I close this message with a comment worth contemplating by an Anglican commentator David Prior. He wrote:

It is better to be bothered about quality rather than quantity: a tiny diamond is far more valuable than a lorry load of stones. It is for that reason that we are going to work with groups and small communities rather than with large crowds . . . we are only concerned with small communities made up of people who know they are the Church. It is with these that we are going to set about the work of spreading the Gospel, of proclaiming in word and deed that Christ came to free us from wretchedness and oppression, whether that be spiritual or material. Work in small groups is far more worthwhile. A spoonful of sugar dissolved in a small cup sweetens the coffee, and that is the way with the Gospel in a small community. But put the same spoonful of sugar into a huge pot of coffee and its taste simple gets lost.[1]

(END OF THE MESSAGE)
--------------------

Notes:
1. David Prior, The Church in the Home (Great Britain: Marshall Morgan and Scott Marshall Pickering, 1983), 163-164.

Churches In Houses - Why It Works (Part 11)

10. THE POOR, THE NEEDY AND THE MISSIONS

A careful reading of the Holy Scriptures reveals that money in the early church was used primarily to assist the poor and needy people.[1] Each church was autonomous and an independent social organization. Even during the middle part of the second century, the collection was primarily taken to help the poor and needy people. According to the information found in First Apology by Justin Martyr and in the Didache, church historian Earle E. Cairns mentions that at the end of the fellowship of the church, “they finally took up a collection for aid to widows and orphans, the sick, the prisoners, and strangers. The meeting was then dismissed, and all the people made their way to their homes.”[2]

The early church also gave towards missions. However, many of the exhortations given to the churches about giving are toward helping the needy people. This is almost neglected these days. Why there is a great emphasis on helping the poor and needy as well as missions? Let us think - Is it worth to preach the gospel to the people while neglecting to share the love and compassion of Christ in deed? John wrote, “If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth” (1Jn 3:17-18).

Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948) once said, “There are people in the world so hungry that God cannot appear to them except in the form of bread.”[3] The gospel of Christ meets both the spiritual and physical needs. In His parable on “The Good Samaritan,” Jesus taught that ‘loving our neighbor’ means ‘helping the needy’ (Lk 10:25-37). Even the pastors were exhorted by Paul to help the needy people. It is actually to them that Paul said, “In everything I did, I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the weak, remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself said: ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive” (Ac 20:17, 28, 34-35).

It is interesting to notice that at times the early church even sold their properties to help needy people who were in dire need. When the believers brought the money from the sales of the property and put it at the apostles’ feet, they distributed it to needy people (Ac 4:32-35). The famous words, “God loves a cheerful giver” are written to the church of Corinth in the context of helping the needy saints of the church (2Co 9:1, 7). John MacArthur pointed out well,

The primary purpose of giving, as taught in the New Testament, is for the support of the saints, the church. A Christian’s first obligation is to support fellow believers, individually and collectively. The church’s first financial responsibility is to invest in its own life and its own people (cf. 2 Cor. 8:1-5; 9:12-15; Phil. 4:14-16).

Obviously that is not the only economic obligation we have. The parable of the Good Samaritan makes it clear that we should minister personally and financially to anyone in need, regardless of religion, culture, or circumstances (Luke 10:25-37). Paul also teaches that we should “do good to all men” (Gal. 6:10). But in the same verse he goes on to say, “And especially to those who are of the household of faith” (cf. 1 John 3:17). In 2 Corinthians 9:13 the apostles calls for a generous distribution “to all.” Support of the poor and needy in the world in the name of the Lord is a high-priority Christian activity by Scriptural standards.[4]

What percentage of the money raised from the church is actually going to the poor and needy people? Even in the Old Testament, a special tithe was raised once in three years to assist the orphans, widows and other poor people (De 14:28-29). How are the tithes of the churches used today? It is said that most of the money today is generally going toward maintenance and administration, with less money going toward missions. In many churches, there is no special consideration to help the poor and needy. In explaining about the ministry of giving in the early church, Steve Atkerson wrote with regret, “It is disturbing to contrast New Testament giving objectives with where ministry money often goes today...New Testament pattern is to give to people, not property.”[5]

Are both the poor and missions a priority in the financial budget of traditional churches? What percentage of the money, collected from a traditional church is going to help the needy and missions? The authors of the Life Application Bible Commentary on the Gospel of Mark, warned, “If our churches spend large amounts on their physical buildings and ignore missions, evangelism, and care for the poor, they will likewise come under God’s judgment.”[6] Since gathering in a house is a simple model (i.e. money is not required for building and its maintenance), money can be used to help the poor and needy, including support to missions.

(TO BE CONTINUED...)
--------------------

Notes:
1. Ac 2:45; 4:32-37; 6:1-4; 9:36; 20:34-35; Ro 12:13; 1Co 16:1-3, 15; 2Co 8:1-5; 9:1-2, 7; Ga 2:6-10; 6:9-10; Php 7; Tit 3:8; Heb 6:10-11; Heb 13:2-3, 15-16; Jam 1:27; 2:15-17; 1Pe 4:9; 1Jn 3:16-18.
2. Earle E. Cairns, Christianity Through The Centuries (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996), 84.
3. Wheel Words, www.texaschapbookpress.com/wheelwords.htm.
4. John MacArthur, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary 1 Corinthians (Printed in India: 1984 by The Moody Bible Institute of Chicago), 451.
5. Steve Atkerson, Ekklesia (Atlanta, Georgia: New Testament Restoration Foundation, 2005), pg. 146.
6. Bruce B. Baton, et al., Life Application Bible Commentary on Mark (Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 1994), 319.

Churches In Houses - Why It Works (Part 10)

9. DISCIPLESHIP AND MULTIPLICATION OF LEADERS

There is a great need for the multiplication of biblical leaders in the churches today. Multiplication of leaders leads to an explosive growth of the Kingdom of God through the church. This happens when the church is properly discipled. Jesus did not say, “Go and have good services and meetings.”; He said, “Go and make disciples” (Mt 28:19-20). Discipleship is an intimate kind of equipping. The gathering of the church is an opportunity for discipleship. One of the effective ways to witness the multiplication of leaders is in making disciples.

The growth of the believers and the multiplication of leaders, through the process of discipleship, are the healthy signs of a biblical church. As the leaders disciple the church, the church will disciple one another and penetrates the world with a vision for discipleship. Sadly, in our modern-day system, discipleship is not a significant and a necessary task of the church. It is supposed to be the work of the discipleship training centers or bible colleges. Dietrich Bonhoeffer aptly stated, “Christianity without discipleship is always Christianity without Christ.”[1]

When there is no discipleship, the potentiality of the church is buried and the prospective leaders are unidentified, unmotivated and thus ignored. Will it not be shocking news if a survey is taken about how the churches are discipled, and the way churches are raising and sending leaders? Did not our Lord Jesus tell us, “The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few. Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send out workers into his harvest field” (Mt 9:37-38)? Are we praying, equipping, mobilizing and sending the leaders into the harvest field? How are the churches setting goals and strategies for leadership multiplication?

The growth of the small communities through discipleship often results in the growth of more leaders. Leaders are born and developed, not often out of public preaching but out of personal discipleship. Quality mentoring and overseeing is manifested more in such small gatherings, thereby identifying and motivating more potential leaders. Grace Wiebe rightly pointed out, “House churches can be a vital part of raising up, training and multiplying many servant leaders (resulting in much less burnout of leaders).”[2]

In this kind of informal setting, there is a great possibility for the multiplication of disciples, consequently leading to the multiplication of leaders and churches. Therefore, I believe, gathering in house is an effective way for the church to get discipled and to raise, equip and send many leaders.

(TO BE CONTINUED...)
--------------------

Notes:
1. Taken from: www.choosethelife.com/041100_article.html
2. Taken from: The Network for Strategic Missions, www.strategicnetwork.org loc="kb&view=v&id=8614&fto=1269

Churches In Houses - Why It Works (Part 9)

8. NOURISHMENT AND MULTIPLICATION OF CHURCHES

I was talking with a man who is a member of an old church that gathered in that place for more than hundred years. I asked him courteously, “How many churches have you people planted?” He said, I think, about two. This is because of a greater financial budget required to plant and build churches. This is not how God’s Kingdom can spread rapidly. The church ought to penetrate into the society. The church should be “Go-centered”, not “Come-centered”. For the church to spread into every part of the world, careful nurturing and multiplication is essential.

As it was said to the first man and woman, “Be fruitful and multiply” (Ge 1:28), likewise it is commanded to the church to multiply by going and making disciples of all nations (Mt 28:19-20). Which is the better and efficient way that has a greater scope for the multiplication of the church? How many church members are living unfruitful life due to improper nourishment and motivation?

Gathering in houses has a great potential for spiritual nourishment and multiplication. As the fellowship grows strongly more than the required size in a house, the church will inevitably multiply and spread to different places. In this way, churches can easily and rapidly multiply throughout the city or village. Howard A. Synder observed the effectiveness of multiplying churches and described:

Not mere numerical growth but the multiplication of local churches is the test of a healthy, growing church. The biblical ideal is neither to produce a host of new Christians who live unattached, separated lives, nor to expand existing local churches until their membership bulges into the thousands. The biblical pattern is to form new converts into local congregations and to multiply the number of congregations as new converts are added. The ministry of Paul and other New Testament evangelists was a church-multiplying ministry. Converts in many cities quickly ran into the thousands; yet for nearly two hundred years no church buildings were erected. Such growth under such conditions can be explained only as the multiplication of small congregations.[1]

Saturation church planting can be done in an effective way in a model like this, provided that we work with diligence and with the wisdom and power of the Holy Spirit. The church that grows only in one place may be good for boasting about the numbers but it usually lacks qualitative fellowship, spiritual nourishment and the motivation to spread. I know many members who belong to a large “number gathering” church but do not have any motivating relationship with the overseers and with one another.

Does attending Sunday service for two hours make someone a part of the body of Christ? Are we the members of the church only in name? Is this the kind of church Jesus died for? What does it mean to be a part of the body of Christ? Are we passionate to spread God’s Kingdom or see His Kingdom grow in one place?

The churches that are well nourished and scatter are the ones that easily prosper, both numerically and spiritually. One of the major reasons the early church greatly prospered is because of the spiritually nourished scattered believers (Ac 8:1, 4, 11:19ff). Church multiplication is more effective than church planting. There is a great need to emphasize more on church multiplication than church planting.

Church multiplication is contagious. It is like a fire in the forest. But how can this all happen? Wolfgang Simpson wisely wrote: In house churches, the people are the resources, Jesus is the program, fellowship is the reason, multiplication is the outcome, and discipling the neighborhood the goal.”[2] He wrote elsewhere:

The church is changing back from being a Come-structure to being again a Go-structure. As one result, the Church needs to stop trying to bring people ‘into the church,’ and start bringing the Church to the people. The mission of the Church will never be accomplished just by adding to the existing structure; it will take nothing less than a mushrooming of the church through spontaneous multiplication of itself into areas of the population of the world, where Christ is not yet known.[3]

Therefore, I believe, gathering in a house as a small community creates much room for the church to have quality spiritual nourishment and compels the church to multiply.

(TO BE CONTINUED...)
--------------------

Notes:
1. Howard A. Synder, The Community of the King (Illinois: Inter-Varsity Press, 1978), 122.
2. Wolfgang Simpson, Houses that Change the World (Chennai, India: Mission Educational Books, 1998), 142.
3. Ibid, 21-22.

Churches In Houses - Why It Works (Part 8)

7. PERSECUTION

One day I read in the newspaper that a church had been burned down. I was not shaken because the church, the people of God, was not harmed. It is the building wherein the church usually gathered, that was burned. Many Christians and unbelievers alike think that a building is the church while actually it is the Christ’s redeemed people that are the church and the sanctuary of God. During times of persecution, church buildings, which are regarded as a religious place for Christians, often become primary targets for assault. It is not safe for the people of God to gather in such a place when situations are hostile.

Churches gathering in houses is much better in times of persecution. This doesn’t guarantee that persecution will not come at all. The early church faced persecution despite gathering in houses, yet gathering in houses is much safer during times of persecution than gathering in a supposedly religious building. In many parts of the world, especially in the third-world countries, believers gather for fellowship in a network of underground churches gathering in houses — small communities that secretly gather in the living rooms of believers.[1]

Furthermore, it is interesting to notice that during persecution, both in the early church and in the modern-day, the churches in houses spread rapidly. God often uses persecution to bend our knees and to make our feet active. The church often becomes active, both in prayer and network, at difficult times. Churches in houses usually play a vital role in hostile conditions. The churches in China, as well as in some parts of India, are growing vastly through this kind of network.

One reporter from China wrote, “It is difficult to estimate exactly how many Christians worship and serve in these house churches. In 2000, an unconfirmed report stated that there are approximately 80 million believers in the house-church movement. Clearly the house-church movement has been the mainstream of Protestant Christianity in China.”[2]

It seems persecution is rapidly spreading in many countries. The opponents are seeking to stop the Christian work wherever it is actively functioning. There is a great need to do the Lord’s work wisely in such situations. Much prayer, much encouragement and much diligence are required. The fellowship of the church is very much necessary to encourage one another to stay strong in the Lord. Therefore, we believe, gathering as a church in houses is an effective model even during times of persecution.

(TO BE CONTINUED...)
--------------------

Notes:
1. www.bibleleague.org/church/planting/china.php
2. Eternal Perspective Ministries, <http://www.epm.org/articles/Chinesetorture.htm>

Churches In Houses - Why It Works (Part 7)

6. EASE OF ACCESS FOR UNBELIEVERS

I was once asked, “People see the mosque as a holy place for Muslims and the temple as a sacred place for Hindus. Don’t you think it is important to have a special building for Christians which is considered to be sacred?” I am not against church buildings but am certainly against the notion that a building wherein the church gathers is God’s temple and sanctuary.

Christianity is unique because the church itself, i.e. the whole people of Christ, is God’s temple and every member a priest of God (1 Cor. 3:16; 1 Pet. 2:5, 9). In our attempt to identify ourselves with other pagan religions we must be careful not to lose our uniqueness. In contextualizing the message we should not compromise with unbiblical perspectives. Frank Senn pointed out well:

Christians of the first several centuries lacked the publicity of the pagan cults. They had no shrines, temples, statues, or sacrifices. They staged no public festivals, dances, musical performances, or pilgrimages. Their central ritual involved a meal that had a domestic origin and setting inherited from Judaism. Indeed, Christians of the first three centuries usually met in private residences that had been converted into suitable gathering spaces for the Christian community . . . This indicates that the ritual bareness of early Christian worship should not be taken as a sign of primitiveness, but rather as a way of emphasizing the spiritual character of Christian worship.[1]

Every religious structure is seen as a sacred place of a respective religious group; the unbelievers who belong to a particular religious group feel very much uncomfortable in other religious places. A pastor friend of mine once shared, “I’ve made friendship with lot of unbelievers and they feel quite comfortable to come to my house. But if I tell them to come to a special building, which people suppose it to be a sanctuary, they find it extremely uncomfortable to come. The house is a good place for them to be invited to come and join in a fellowship.” True, a house is such an informal place that even unbelievers feel comfortable to come, witnessing how we live as a community and love one another. Is it not this love that identifies Christ’s disciples to the world, even giving us an opportunity to witness unto them? (Jn. 13:35)

Donald McGavran once said, “The congregation should meet in the most natural surroundings, to which non-Christians can come with the greatest ease and where the converts themselves carry on the services.”[2] We cannot expect unbelievers to come to a religious building, though they may come occasionally. The early church gathered at homes and there were occasions wherein unbelievers used to attend (1 Cor. 14:23-24). The houses were used for hospitality and also for church gathering. Michael Green has mentioned, “One of the most important methods of spreading the gospel . . . was by use of homes.”[3] We believe a house is an effective model which provides informal and friendly atmosphere for the unbelievers to stay at ease in the gathering of the church and experience the love and fellowship of Christ Jesus through His children.

(TO BE CONTINUED...)
--------------------

Notes:
1. Christian Liturgy, pg. 53.
2. Cited by Robert Fitts, The Church in the House (Salem, OR: Preparing the Way Publishers, 2001), 18.
3. Evangelism in the Early Church, 1970, pg. 207.

Churches In Houses - Why It Works (Part 6)

5. BI-VOCATIONAL LEADERS

We learn from the early church pattern that the shepherds or overseers of the church arose from the church’s own community (Acts 14:23; 2 Timothy 2:2; Titus 1:5). They were homegrown, having and operated under a plurality of leadership in each church.[1] Now the leadership of the early church was of two kinds – local and itinerant.[2] These days, church ministry is confined to full-time work without a secular job. However, when we explore the New Testament church, the local leaders were generally bi-vocational workers and the itinerant leaders were financially supported to do extensive ministry.

Being local leaders, the pastors were generally bi-vocational workers and Paul, though being an itinerant worker, set himself as an example to others by working with his hands (Acts 20:17, 33-35; 1 Thessalonians 4:11-12; 2 Thessalonians 3:6-12). Of course, there are exceptions where some pastors are worthy to receive hospitality and generous voluntary offerings because of their “labor” (literally in Greek ‘work hard’ and ‘toil’) in preaching and teaching (1 Tim. 5:17).

Addressing today’s situation - Is giving sermons for an hour, once in a week on Sunday and on other special occasions, what we call laboring in preaching and teaching or full-time ministry? It is sad to witness many who claim to be full-time workers when in reality they idle away their time. When compared with a full-time worker in secular job they do not even spend half of their day’s time laboring in ministry. But praise be to God for the true laborers in the Lord’s work.

Speaking about the local pastors and deacons in the early church, Robert A. Baker in A Summary of Christian History has noted “These leaders usually worked to earn a living and were not supported by the church. No artificial distinction was made between clergy and laity.”[3] Paul, an apostle of Christ, exhorted the local pastors to work hard with their hands and help the needy: “You yourselves know that these hands of mine have supplied my own needs and the needs of my companions. In everything I did, I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the weak...” It is actually to them Paul quoted the words of Jesus, “…remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself said: 'It is more blessed to give than to receive'” (Acts 20:17, 28, 34-35). According to Paul, the local pastors are generally supposed to be on the giving side, not always at the receiving end. It is mentioned in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia:

The ministry of the early church received no stipends. The ministry were office-bearers, to whom ecclesiastical obedience was due in virtue of their call and election and their being set apart by prayer, and perhaps by laying on of hands, for sacred office; but they were at the same time merchants, artisans, or engaged in other secular callings, and supported themselves…. If office-bearers received a share, it was only on account of their poverty and because they were on the roll of widows, orphans and helpless poor.

The introduction of ministerial stipends and the implication that a paid ministry was expected to give its whole time to the service of the church made the distinction between clergy and laity more emphatic. When we investigate the matter, it is evident that the fact that the clergy are paid complicates the question; for the earliest lists are evidently those who are entitled to share in the funds of the church, and widows and orphans figure as members of the ordo or clerus.[4]

It is not a requirement that local pastors/elders resign their secular jobs and give themselves exclusively to the affairs of the church. However, they are free to devote themselves exclusively for the extensive ministry of the church if they have a genuine personal guidance from God. It is sorrowful to witness many Christian workers unnecessarily suffering financially due to unbiblical perspective about ‘ministry’. “Call to ministry” is by default understood as “abstinence from secular work”. Anyone who does ministry by doing secular job or business is considered as ‘second-class minister’. Do we have any biblical basis for this ingrained belief? Alex Rattray Hay wrote:

There is no clear indication that any elders gave their whole time to preaching and teaching. Paul in 1 Tim. 5:17 merely states that some elders engaged in preaching and teaching and infers that others did not do so. He definitely counseled the Ephesian elders to support themselves (Acts 20:32-35), and that, eventually, was the general practice.[5]

Moreover, church planting and church multiplication becomes difficult if the local pastors are required to completely rely on the church for their survival. They are generally free to work in the secular field and lead the small community, i.e. the church. Finance is not a major problem in a setup like this because—since the gathering is simply a small community in a house, pastors can easily support themselves and simultaneously lead the church. It would be a wonderful opportunity for both the pastors and believers even to support itinerant missionaries and evangelists on the field, including the poor and needy. Therefore, I believe a house is an effective model wherein pastors can be bi-vocational workers, leading small communities in an effective way.

(TO BE CONTINUED...)
--------------------

Notes:
1. Acts 11:30; 15:2, 4, 6, 22, 23; 14:23; 20:17-28; Phil. 1:1; 1 Thess. 5:12-13; 1 Tim. 4:14; 1 Tim. 5:17; Tit. 1:5; Jas. 5:14; 1 Pet. 5:1-3; Heb. 13:7, 17, 24.
2. Gordon D. Fee, Gospel and Spirit (Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1991), 139.
3. Robert A Baker, A Summary of Christian History (Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 11.
4. Power Bible CD [CD-Rom] V4.5. Bronson: Online Publishing, 1999-2005.
5. Alex Rattray Hay, The New Testament Order for Church and Missionary (Published in 1947), 299.