House Churches

(Since the last post wasn’t controversial enough)

Obviously the first churches were held in people’s houses. There really wasn’t anywhere else to meet. So really, “house churches” is not quite what I’m talking about. But then, you know what I’m talking about, don’t you?

Here are a list of some of the problems I worry about with “house churches.”

1. No accountability to the spiritual authority of a denomination/council/bishop/synod/assembly/whatever body.
2. Often no doctrinal statements, leading to lack of theological unity.
3. Tendency to emphasize certain aspects of the Christian life and ignore others.
4. Insularity.
5. Stagnation.
6. Increased danger of spiritual abuse.

These observations are based on the house churches I’ve observed or heard about, and there might be an entirely different breed of “house church” that I am unaware of, which avoids many of these problems. Also, non-house churches are not immune to any of these problems either. Denominational assemblies may be heretical. Seeker-sensitive churches dispense with doctrine to accommodate diverse membership. Imbalanced preaching and insularity can infect whole denominations. And without functional accountability, spiritual abuse can happen anywhere. But it seems that in a church body without safeguards, these problems develop that much more quickly.

Safeguard #1: Accountability. Who does the pastor of the church report to? I believe it’s appropriate for him to have as many safeguards as possible. Ideally he should have fellow-pastors who can watch his doctrine and his life on a day-to-day basis, although in small churches this might not be possible. Every pastor should be willing to listen to the lay elders in his church. This is accountability from below. And the elders should be able to appeal to authorities who are above him in the apostolic structure of his denomination. Every Timothy ought to have a Paul looking over his shoulder and guiding him from experience. The pastor should be able to appeal to these authorities when sound teaching becomes unpopular with his congregation. This kind of accountability also should keep his teaching both relevant to the needs of the congregation, faithful to Scripture, and Gospel-focused.

If these structures of accountability are working, spiritual abuse should be much less of a problem.

Safeguard #2: Doctrinal Statements. To say that “doctrine isn’t important” reveals a total ignorance of what doctrine is and why it matters. Doctrine, unfortunately, can be controversial. Christians disagree on stuff. I’m (rather) Reformed, e.g., a “Calvinist,” in my doctrine. What this means is that I subscribe to a certain organized understanding of what Scripture means. Christians are human and prone to error, and so we sometimes come to different conclusions about what the Bible means. Our presuppositions, philosophical assumptions, personal experiences, and personalities all influence our understanding of God’s Word.*  So although the Bible is infallible, our interpretation of it is errant. And yet, although historical doctrinal statements differ, they all agree on essentials such as the wickedness of sin,the righteousness of God, Christ’s atonement for our sins, and the Trinity. Doctrinal statements have a way of reflecting historical Christianity and bringing our understanding closer to the truth than it otherwise would be. Then the question only remains, does the church live its doctrine or merely profess it? Doctrine is a necessary starting-point, not a destination.

Doctrinal statements can bring stability to a church. It represents an authority a pastor can point to if his teaching is unpopular. When people joined the church, they knew what would be expected of them, and if they fail to live that way, they can expect to be rebuked. Doctrine also casts a skeptical eye on fads. Remember “The Prayer of Jabez?” “The Purpose-Driven Life?” A doctrinal statement reminds us, “I am the historic teaching of the church, and so don’t jump on the bandwagon until you examine this carefully and subject it to the scrutiny of God’s Word.”

Doctrine is supposed to affect the “real life” of the church. If the church is living the full counsel of God’s Word, it will be outwardly focused. The “house churches” I have observed generally form with the purpose of excluding the outside world. Their main issue is “family,” “community,” or “biblical standards.” These are good things but not the reason why churches exist. A true church is ‘evangelical’ in the sense that it opens its doors the lost and constantly lives and preaches the Gospel. New believers are the sign of a healthy church.

**********

* Sorry about all the Ps. No, I did not intend to do that!