My fifth, and final, observation concerns what I heard most frequently in responses to my review. For reasons that utterly escape me, some people got the impression that I am opposed to non-traditional expressions of body life or to less formal gatherings of believers or what many referred to as "house" churches. I'm stunned. I applaud the "house" church movement and pray for its growth and success. How could anyone do otherwise, given the fact that every single expression of church life in the New Testament was in a "house" (see Romans 16:5; 1 Cor. 16:19; Col. 4:15).
A number of people who wrote me are involved with only a handful of other Christians, meeting in homes for prayer and support and encouragement and study of the Word. They are involved in evangelistic outreach, ministry to the poor and needy, care for widows and orphans, and are committed above all else to the centrality and supremacy of Jesus Christ in all things. Praise God!
There are countless churches spanning the globe that meet without the benefit of buildings, musical instruments, offering plates, padded pews, air-conditioning, electricity, parking lots, robed choirs, or any of the conveniences (or distractions, as the case may be) of western civilization. They meet in the open air or in thatched huts or in caves or in obscure and undisclosed locations (often because of political persecution), or wherever it is most convenient and conducive to the work of ministry.
Are these legitimate expressions of New Testament church life? Yes, if . . . This is where we come to the question of what constitutes the essence of a church. Are there minimal biblical requirements for a gathering of people to constitute a legitimate local "church"? Yes, I believe there are. Here is my list (which I leave open for additions or deletions).
(1) Godly, Spirit-filled leadership by Elders who are qualified (1 Tim. 3; Titus 1) and above all humbly committed to serve, shepherd, and feed the flock. I'm not saying that a particular form of church government is required, only that some form of government or, if that term is offensive to you, leadership is in place that answers to the biblical principles of such texts as Acts 20:28; Ephesians 4:11-13; Phil. 1:1; 1 Thess. 5:12-13; 1 Timothy 3:1-13; 5:17-21; Titus 1:5-16; Hebrews 13:17; James 5:14; 1 Peter 5:1-4.
(2) Regular, sustained instruction from the Word of God, whether that is expressed in formal preaching, informal teaching, or small group interaction.
(3) Commitment to the observance of (at least) the two sacraments/ordinances: Baptism and the Eucharist.
(4) Commitment to both individual and corporate worship, praise, and celebration of the centrality and supremacy of Jesus Christ (irrespective of style or degree of formality).
(5) Commitment to the basics of Christian ministry: evangelization of the lost, financial support of the poor and needy, mutual encouragement and accountability (that will make possible, if needed, church discipline), etc.
I use the word "commitment" because I recognize that not all expressions of local church life are equally capable of or equipped to fulfill each of the above. Persecution, financial hardship, and other factors may temporarily impede the implementation of some of these factors. But a church should at least be committed to them when time and circumstances and resources allow.
In sum, I cannot conceive of a church that does not provide for corporate gatherings (or small group meetings) in which the Word of God is expounded and applied. I cannot conceive of a church that does not recognize duly appointed pastoral leadership (whether paid or ordained, whether singular or plural). I cannot conceive of a church that refuses to provide for the spiritual nourishment of its people through regular observance of the sacraments ordained by our Lord Jesus Christ. I cannot conceive of a church that is not fervent in its praise and proclamation and celebration of our great Triune God. I cannot conceive of a church that refuses to evangelize the lost, support the needy, pursue justice or neglects other, explicit biblical responsibilities.
In the final analysis, it matters not whether your gathering has a name, a building, an ordained clergy, cell groups, or multiple programs. You may be mega or mini, liturgical or free flowing, denominational or non. My concern is not whether you convene in small groups or big groups, with a multiple staff or no staff, on Saturday or Sunday (or any other day of the week; although I suspect some may want to make a case for the propriety of Sunday as uniquely "The Lord's Day").
My concern, and thus my objection to Barna's Revolution, is that essential to Christian discipleship is obedience to the non-negotiable, foundational elements of life and ministry and accountability in a local church.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Sam Storms on House Churches
The following quote is from pastor, author, speaker Dr. Sam Storms in a response to reactions to his critique of George Barna's book Revolution. (Storms' two part review of Barna's book are worth reading, as is the full version of his Follow-Up to that review from which this quote comes.) I post these thoughts here because I am curious as to your reponse to Storms' summary (see the numbered points below) of what constitutes the "essence" or the "minimal requirements" of a biblical, local expression of the church. I find his thoughts here helpful.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Jimmy,
Interesting post. I take Acts 2:41-42 as minimally normative for the church:
And those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers (Acts 2:41-42, ESV).
From this text I draw the following conclusions:
1. Baptism is the act of incorporation into the body of Christ and is thus essential for the church.
2. Instruction in the apostles' teaching -- which includes the Scripture and more, e.g., the Creeds, the liturgy of the church -- provides the context and content of the faith and is thus essential for the church. God's people have always been people of the Word (both written and incarnate). Obviously, there were those who taught the Word and that implies a servant-leadership "office" which the letters of Timothy and Titus clarify as elders (presbyters or bishops).
3. Since the faith is essentially relational -- Love God and love your neighbor -- a devotion to true fellowship, which includes common sharing and accountability -- is an integral part of the church.
4. I take the breaking of bread to indicate the Eucharist, which is for me absolutely non-negotiable. A church which does not meet around the Lord's Table is anemic.
5. "The prayers" seems to be shorthand for a life of worship which is the lifeblood of the church.
So, in general, I agree with the article you posted. As always there are exceptions to general principles and I would not presume to declare a given fellowship "not a church." But, under ordinary circumstances, I look for the marks I mentioned above.
On a related note, I am growing increasingly uncomfortable with the designation "house church." It is not "house" that is essential about our gathering, but "church." We are a church that meets in a house because we find some significant advantages/benefits to it. But, we would not cease being the church if we moved from a house to some other location. Meeting in a house may be important, but it is also incidental to being the body of Christ. I'd be interested in other people's ideas on this.
Peace of Christ,
John
(I left a response here last night, but for some reason it is not here. Undoubtedly, this was due to operator error. I'll try again.)
John, these are good thoughts. I, too, sometimes struggle with the phrase "house church" and have begun trying to say "home church" instead (check here http://riversideknoxville.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46&Itemid=70 to see where I discovered it). I have heard some refer to these churches as "simple church" or even "koinonia church", but I still prefer "home church".
One reason is that it seems the early church had the option to meet in public in Jerusalem (which they did, in the colonade of Solomon at the temple) even before persecution broke out, but they chose to meet in homes as well (Acts 2:46). It is interesting to point out that their large group meetings were held in public places while smaller groups met in homes. I'm sure smaller groups could have met in public, it just doesn't say (that doesn't mean they didn't or that we shouldn't have smaller group meetings in public.
For me, the home seems to offer the right atmosphere for more intimate conversation and worship.
My half-shekels' worth, Jimmy
This is good stuff, guys. I would pretty much agree with Storm's comments and thought John's summary was helpful as well. As to what to call it? Home church feels good to me, but I was'nt uncomfortable with "house"...understanding it to be descriptive and not prescriptive. Jimmy thanks for putting us on to the Storm.
Post a Comment