I can’t speak with authority about other eras and periods in Christian history, but it appears to me that one of the major problems with the day in which we live is the dumbing down of professing Christians and the minimizing of Christian doctrine. We aren’t surprised to see this in those denominations which didn’t care about doctrine in the first place, but it’s particularly obvious and troublesome when we see it among those churches which were originally Baptist.
In the past, Baptists have been Baptists because of doctrine, for the purpose of doctrine, and in order to carry out Biblical doctrine. And yet today there are thousands of churches with the name “Baptist” over the door, which have no more care and interest in Biblical doctrine than does the “Church of the Open Door” or the “Church on the Way.” And this lazy and laissez fare attitude guarantees the weakness of its members. It blinds the sheep, allowing wolves to walk right up beside them before putting their fangs into them. And it weakens the Christian warrior, permitting an even weaker enemy to overcome him. In some ways, doctrine is both our best defense and our only earthly offense. I could probably make a long list of those doctrines which I think have suffered from this attitude, but the one that I’m most interested in this evening is “Ecclesiology” – the doctrine of the Church.
Paul refers to the church which met in Aquila’s house. Perhaps this was the church to which this letter was being sent. Perhaps there were more than one church in Rome by this time – we don’t know. But this reference has given some people of the 21st century the idea that the only thing necessary to have a church is a house and a family. This scripture doesn’t teach that idea, and it is contrary to the Word of God.
Three years ago Barna wrote a book simply called “Revolution,” and it’s theme is the growing phenomenon of so-called “House Churches.” But these aren’t the House Churches of the Chinese underground; these are House Churches in the USA. He calls the people who have left organized churches and started small house churches – “revolutionaries.” Not only does Barna write about the movement, but he has become it’s chief public advocate. He defends these small groups, primarily from one or two families, calling themselves “churches.” He says that his goal right now is to help further this revolutionary idea.
Perhaps it goes with the territory, but statisticians seem to be in the habit of skewing the numbers. In that book of his, Barna declares that there are 20 million of these “revolutionaries” in the United States, who “live a first-century lifestyle based on faith, goodness, love, generosity, kindness, and simplicity,” zealously “pursuing an intimate relationship with God.” If this is true, then it should be great news for this nation, but such is not the case. Barna himself says that there are 77 million Americans who profess to being born-again. Let’s be silly and say that is a true number – 1/3 of all Americans are “born-again Christians.” Barna also says that only 9% of those 77 million “Christians” have a Biblical world-view. That means only 7 million people look at the world through the lens of the Word of God. 7 million is probably a more accurate number of those who are really children of God, but even that number may be inflated. And then, assuming that many of those 7 million people are members of Baptist and evangelical churches, even by George’s figures it’s likely that most his 20 million “revolutionaries” are neither born-again nor that they have a Biblical world-view.
Despite the confusing statistics, the numbers of people attending House Churches are clearly growing. We had a representative of one of those assemblies in camp this year. It appears to me that there are two keys spurring on this “revolution” – one is good, and one is terrible. The good one is the home-school movement. There are tens of thousands of parents keeping their kids at home rather than sending them to either Christian schools or public schools. If those parents are really diligent in teaching their children, then I say “amen.” Unfortunately, many of those parents are becoming so restricted in their educational and social opinions, while at the same time they themselves are also so untaught about Biblical doctrine, that keeping their kids home on Sundays is the next logical step after keeping them at home Monday through Friday. On Sunday, they may have an hour or half-an-hour Bible study, prayer and chorus-singing, and they believe that they are following the New Testament churches in their worship.
The second factor contributing to the Home Church movement, ironically, is just the opposite of the first. Mega-churches are marketing themselves by offering people so many options that they think no one can logically refuse to come to their Sunday conglomerate. In catering to the personal preferences of so many people, they are actually promoting hyper-individualism. And an unplanned result of that is this: Why go to a super-church to sit around watching a play or a video monitor rebroadcasting a service which is actually taking place in another room, when people can do the same thing in the comfort of their own home while still in their pajamas? The consumerism which is propelling the mega-churches is actually ricocheting and now promoting House Churches.
Let’s outline several things about modern House Churches, which are not in accord with the Biblical pattern for true churches of Christ. These are things which I don’t believe have anything to do with the church which met in Aquila’s house. These are not in any special order, because I can’t say which is more important – or devastating.
Aye, but there is the rub: There is no such thing in the Bible as an universal church. An universal church is an impossibility, because it defies the definition of the Holy Spirit’s word of choice. An “ecclesia” is a called out “assembly.” And an assembly has to assemble. If we are talking about all the Christians around the world as being members of the church, and that church cannot assemble, then the whole idea is contrary to definition – it is ludicrous. Not only can’t the word “universal” be logically associated with the word “assembly”, but to use the word “invisible” along with “church” or “assembly” is even more laughable and insane. The only kind of church which we see in the Bible can also be seen with the human eye. It is not invisible. And it can be seen from stem to stern – from side to side and from front to back. Every church in the Bible is local. Granted, on a couple of occasions the Lord referred to all the individual churches as “THE church,” but on those few occasions they were still local churches.
Because House Church people deny the true definition of a church, they think that they have a much better excuse to leave the only religious institution that God has ordained for His glory today.
Any church, even a small assembly like ours, is made up of several hundred factors. We have 40 people, a hundred important doctrines, and songs which we sing again and again. We have a certain pattern in our worship; we have our own particular standards of separation. And for a person who is looking for some excuse to leave a church, or not to attend it in the first place, he is sure to find several right here among us. But in the process, all that he does is prove himself to be more cantankerous than the rest of us. The vast majority of Home Church people are who they are because they are running away from something rather than to something.
The Lord Jesus Christ established the first church during His earthly ministry. He gave to that little body of people His authority to carry on His ministry. He authorized pastors and missionaries, and teachers and deacons within that first church. And those servants of God went out and established churches in other communities under the authority of that first church – in other words, with the authority that Christ gave to that first church. And then we see in the Bible where those second churches passed on Christ’s authority to third generation churches through their pastors and missionaries. I believe that the only authority to start a mission or a church is another church which got its authority from a previously authorized church.
So going back to that family which lives in a city without a scriptural church: In lieu of starting a church under their own auspices, they need to make contact with an existing church in another city and ask for their help. They need to seek guidance from that church, listen to sermons and lessons from that church, pray for and seek the prayers of that church. They need to ask for ambassadors from that church, and work to start a mission out of that other church. But everything they do in an ecclesiastical fashion should be through another Christ-authorized assembly. And if the father of that family should feel lead to do the teaching and preaching, it should still be with the permission and authority of that other church.
What will a 12-year-old boy say to his dad after hearing him teach some doctrine that was brand new to him? The House Church, which was already started because of disagreements with the churches in town, is generally-speaking, going to be a hot-bed of private opinions and heretical doctrines. How many cults have been started in just this fashion?
Just because something is easier doesn’t make it the right choice. In fact, the easier something is to do, the more we should question whether it is the right thing to do. Whoever said that serving God was suppose to be easy?
I have no doubt that many of those House Churches think that they observe the ordinances, but it would be impossible for them to do so according to the plan of the Lord. This is true of several other areas – common areas – of Christian practice. For example – preaching. As I’ve said several times, I find it more difficult to preach down stairs than here in the auditorium. The low ceiling, our shoulder to shoulder, nose to nose seating arrangement makes it difficult. It would be even more difficult if I was sitting in your living room. Devotions, hymn-sings and Bible studies – yes – but preaching – reproving, rebuking and exhorting are next to impossible under those conditions.
House Churches cannot carry out the simplest Christian responsibilities in a Biblical fashion.
I would be the last person on earth to say that our church is approaching perfection. Sometimes I think that the Lord should be ashamed of us and particularly me. But the fact is that God has established this church, and He has been pleased to keep its doors open. And as far as I know ours is the only doctrinally correct church in Post Falls.
Despite our failings, I sincerely believe that we believe and practice what the Bible teaches. And even though you don’t have the most dynamic and sought-after preacher in town, generally speaking I believe there is enough spiritual nourishment in our services each week to foster “a first-century lifestyle based on faith, goodness, love, generosity, kindness, and simplicity.” It is my earnest desire that all our members are “pursuing an intimate relationship with God.” And if for some reason someone isn’t, it’s not because of the doctrines which are taught there.
So let’s say that a member thinks that our church is failing in some area. Maybe he thinks that we ought to have a Friday evening Bible study specifically for teens. Or perhaps they think that we should go out door-knocking every Saturday. Maybe instead of once a month men’s prayer meeting, someone thinks that we should gather for prayer at 9:30 every Sunday morning. Instead of dropping out of church in order to implement these things in a House Church, why not gather some of the members, seek the pastor’s suggestions, and carry them out through the institution God designed for these things in the first place?
I’m not saying that there isn’t room for improvement in the Lord’s churches, but to go out and establish a personalized House Church is not the solution.
However, there were periods and people who chose a more convenient route of worshiping the Lord. At the tops of hills from Dan to Beersheba lazy and rebellious Israelites pretended to serve the Lord. But it was contrary to the command of God, and it produced nothing but trouble. Those high places were convenient, but they were not scriptural. And they are never placed in a good light in the Word of God. “And Judah did evil in the sight of the LORD, and they provoked him to jealousy with their sins which they had committed, above all that their fathers had done. For they also built them high places, and images, and groves, on every high hill, and under every green tree.” “And in the twentieth year of Jeroboam king of Israel reigned Asa over Judah. And forty and one years reigned he in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Maachah, the daughter of Abishalom. And Asa did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, as did David his father. And he took away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made. And also Maachah his mother, even her he removed from being queen, because she had made an idol in a grove; and Asa destroyed her idol, and burnt it by the brook Kidron. But the high places were not removed.” “Jehoshaphat was thirty and five years old when he began to reign; and he reigned twenty and five years in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Azubah the daughter of Shilhi. And he walked in all the ways of Asa his father; he turned not aside from it, doing that which was right in the eyes of the LORD: nevertheless the high places were not taken away; for the people offered and burnt incense yet in the high places.”
The House Church movement is nothing more than a modern variety of the ungodly high places. And the Lord is no more pleased with them today, than he was 3,000 years ago. Rather than starting more pseudo-churches and para-churches, those who really love the Lord ought to be doing everything that they can to strengthen and edify the Lord’s church of which God has made them a member. “Unto (the Lord) be glory IN THE CHURCH by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.”
Aquila and Priscilla had opened their house up as an assembly point for one of the Lord’s churches. I believe that church was essentially just like our own, expect that it didn’t own a specially designed building in which to hold its services. That church met in a private home. Paul was praising Aquila for his generosity and hospitality, not for his rebellion and stubbornness in starting a Home Church contrary to the Lord’s plan.