I’ve had a lot of conversations with people who are considering joining or starting house churches. One of the odd realities of the house church movement in the United States is the belief that apostles (sometimes also referred to as “workers”) are needed to start legitimate house churches. I hear this a lot, but I believe it’s harmful.
So I will fairly often get a question that goes something like this: “I live in ___________ City. I don’t have a group believers who want to start a house church and no apostle will come help me. What should I do?”
I understand why people would look at the Scriptures and think that apostles are the only ones who start churches. But it’s a fairly odd belief for a movement that has based much of its identity around the idea that Jesus shows up wherever “two or three are gathered.” If Jesus meant this, and I believe He did, then church begins when two or three legitimate believers gather in his name, not when an apostle shows up to pronounce them a church.
Now don’t get me wrong, I think apostles are incredibly important, essential really, to the building up of the body of Christ. I also think that apostles do plant churches and probably plant more churches than people with other giftings in the body. It’s part of their nature. But to say that an organic church must be started by an apostolic worker is a great way to get less house churches started.
An argument could be made here that more house churches could be started without apostles, but they would be of lesser quality, less focused on the glory of God and more prone to be outside of what the Lord intended. Except the Scripture doesn’t paint that picture. Here a few places where it seems that Scripture shows us hints of non-apostolicly founded churches:
- Acts 2:42-47- This is the Jerusalem church that was birthed after the Holy Spirit fell on the 120 in the upper room. Now I won’t argue that the apostles didn’t help form the house churches described in this passage, obviously they were a vital part of the community. But they were 12 men out of 3000 people. There was no way the apostles could have spent a significant amount of quality time with each house church there, especially not in the way many understand the modern apostle/worker starting a house church.
- Acts 11:19-21- Here is a church or a number of churches (“a large number of people”) that was formed by “those who were scattered because of the persecution.” We know that this doesn’t include the apostles, because Acts 8:3 tells us the only people who stayed in Jerusalem were the apostles. Now, apostles were eventually involved. I think apostolic input into any church is important. But this church started when believers scattered by the persecution started preaching the gospel and people came to the Lord.
- Colossians 1:7- The church in Colossae was started not by Paul, but by Epaphras. Paul had never been to Colossae but wrote his letter to them to encourage them in their walk. I would actually argue Epaphras was an apostolic worker, but if you want to get super technical about it, Paul never calls him that.
- Revelation 2 & 3- Again, we don’t know a lot about most of the churches mentioned in Revelation 2 and 3 other than the church in Ephesus. What we do know is that Paul started the church in Ephesus, but other unnamed believers started the churches in Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philladelphia, and Laodecia. These were most likely churches that were established as the Gospel went out from Ephesus into all of the region. These were all affirmed as churches by Jesus himself, even though Paul only planted the church in Ephesus.
I say all of this to make the following point: If you can’t find an apostolic worker to help you start a house church, you are not abandoned by God. Quite the contrary, you could be a vessel the Lord uses to lead unbelievers to Christ and see a church formed. This is why I want you to plant a house church.
And given what we see in many of these Scriptures, I think it’s very appropriate for apostles to help with the ongoing maturing and equipping of house churches they didn’t start. Part of their role as a bond-servant of Christ is to serve churches in just such a manner. Paul tells us explicitly in Ephesians 4 that God “gave some as apostles…for…the building up of the body of Christ.” So to say we don’t need apostles would be silly.
But to despair, to give up hope, to stop believing God for the formation of churches without an apostle ready and willing to help is just not what I see in the New Testament. I see a whole people learning to follow Christ and willing to risk even their physical lives to share the gospel with those who have never heard it. And when those souls come to Christ, there should be no wringing of hands because no apostle is present. There is simply a confidence that the God who has led them this far would continue to empower and sustain them.
And in this way, we don’t just gain apostles, but we embody the kind of apostolic Christianity I believe God wants to restore in the Earth. May it be so, even for those who are reading this today.
[Editor’s Note: This article is part of five of a five part series addressing the nature apostolic Christianity. You can read the earlier articles starting here.]
Christianity in the West is in transition. I’ve argued in a previous post that instead of the church moving right, left, or beyond, the way forward is to go back. We need to embrace a model of Christianity that, if seen by the apostle Paul or Peter, would be recognizable to them.
I could make a list of areas the church looking to embrace a more apostolic nature should pursue. (I have, here.) But whenever a return to apostolic Christianity is contemplated the element that regularly gets overlooked is the idea of structure. It’s almost as if the way in which the church lives its life together, strengthens itself, and reproduces itself doesn’t matter. This is the farthest reality from the truth. How the church lives life together ultimately either strengthens and enhances the “apostolic lifestyle” that we’ve been talking about or it wears on it and slows us down on our journey toward it.
There is a design to the way God builds his church. To the degree that we deviate in practice from what Scripture describes of the church, to that degree we work against ourselves in our aim for true, apostolic Christianity. A mere push for the Lordship of Jesus, the power of the Spirit, the evangelistic heart for the lost, a commitment to continue in the face of suffering, and a view of Jesus’ return without a change in church structure that will sustain that lifestyle will find the people inside it frustrated. New wine in an old wineskin is a disaster waiting to happen (Luke 5:36-39).
The particular wineskin I’m advocating for in this space is what is traditionally known in the west as a house church. In the New Testament it was known as “the church that meets at so-and-so’s house.” This particular way of gathering together is important because it was the context that apostolic Christianity was birthed out of in the New Testament. It was the soil that the first century church sprouted out of and it empowered the church to grow both deep and wide across the Roman Empire and beyond.
Much has been written about house churches and why they are important. Book after book tells you what they are and how to start them. Instead of retreading old ground, I want to look at why the house church model is apostolic in its nature. There was a reason why the apostles traveled around starting churches that met in homes. Many assume it was because they were persecuted and unable to meet openly. But in reality, there was a design to the church that sustained a certain type of life and it’s this type of life that we desire.
To be as clear as possible, there’s nothing magical about house churches. They will never replace submission to Jesus or the power of the Spirit. But because they are the way Jesus founded His church, they are an outgrowth of Jesus’ Lordship that our response to can either hurt or hinder our journey towards apostolic Christianity. Apostolic Christianity grows better in the soil of house churches because they are apostolic in nature. And it’s this apostolic nature of house churches I want to explore.
What would cause Jesus, the apostles, and the apostolic church of the first and second centuries to start fellowships in the homes of believers? The easy answer is persecution. And yes, persecution played a part in that decision. But if you look deeper, there were spiritual realities that these small gatherings empowered that were in their very nature apostolic. The apostolic church of the first and second centuries planted churches because they were simple to establish and replicate, they allowed for the Gospel to spread quickly, and they enabled the church to minister and care for itself.
It takes very little to start a house church. Two or three believers that gather together to eat, read God’s word, pray, and encourage each other are the beginning of a church. They can meet anywhere at any time. They don’t need trained seminarians to lead them or any kind of org chart. They exist without much structure in order for the life of Jesus to be the focus.
This isn’t to say that house churches are simplistic. They will still have problems and struggle. But I can talk new believers through how to start house churches over the course of a day or two. These new believers will need a Bible and some encouragement along the way. They might even need someone to bounce things off of from time to time. But they can be a legitimate church with some basic instruction and a true commitment to Jesus. It’s why Paul could plant a church after only being in a place for a short time.* This is possible because it’s the believers’ connection to Jesus that support the church, not the worker.
I believe the simplicity of the early church was intentional. It allowed the church to be lead by “ordinary men with no special training in the Scriptures” who may not have been “wise in the world’s eyes.” As the architects of the church, the apostles knew that a simple structure would allow it to function properly among the people it was intended to reach.
The Gospel Spreads
It was this simplicity of structure that allowed for the unprecedented spread of the Gospel. Churches could be planted as quickly as people came to Christ. When a new group of people would come to Christ in another relational network, another part of town, or even another city, they would be the beginning of a new church. They wouldn’t even need elders to be considered legitimate. Frequently elders would be raised up from within a church as those with wisdom and character were identified by apostolic workers (Acts 14, 1 Timothy 1).
With this simple method of producing churches, Gospel outposts cropped up, first in the major cities of the Roman Empire and then moved out into the towns and villages. Unburdened from unbiblical, complex systems, the church spreads. Tony and Felicity Dale share this simple analogy: If you put two elephants in a room together and close the door, in 22 months you may get one baby elephant. But two rabbits together for the same amount of time will result in thousands of baby rabbits! The difference lies in how complex of an organism is being made. Simplicity of structure allows for churches to rapidly reproduce through the spread of the Gospel.
This was crucial to the early apostolic church. Filled with restless gospel exporters, the early church planted house churches that allowed the Gospel to move as quickly as possible through a region. Quickly apostles (especially Paul) would consider a region “reached” if they started one or more house churches there (see Romans 15:19). They knew that the seed of one house church would eventually grow, multiply, and cover a region.
Ministry and Care for Itself
Once established, apostolic church planters would leave to spread the Gospel to another region. But their nature as spiritual parents and architects of the church caused them to care about what happened to the churches they started when they left. They weren’t abandoning their spiritual children, but moving on to another place to raise more. It became important for the church to be able to nurture and take care of itself in the absence of these workers.
Because the churches they started were organic in nature, they were built around the presence and person of Jesus, not around programs or meetings. This allowed even the newest believer to participate in the life of the church. Paul describes this dynamic in 1 Corinthians 14:26. As believers looked to Christ to lead their gatherings, the Holy Spirit would give members of the church different gifts, all for the building up of the body. This is why Paul says in Ephesians that “when each part is working properly, [it] makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love,” (Ephesians 4:16).
This dynamic would allow the apostolic worker to continue to move, entrusting the fledgling church to Jesus (Acts 14:23), knowing the church would continue to spontaneously build itself up as it met together in the overflow of His power. The apostles continually encouraged the churches to practice “one anothers,” means of taking care of each other and showing love that lead to the body being strengthened. This enabled the priesthood of believers to be lived out (not just believed) among the early churches.
It’s my belief that the apostles learned how to live in missional community from Jesus. As an apostolic band, He taught them how to relate to the Father, love one another, and declare the Gospel of the Kingdom. He didn’t just show them the way, He was the Way. And it was this “Way” that the apostles used to start churches first in Jersualem, then in Samaria, and then in places like Antioch, Ephesus, and Rome.
The apostles didn’t start churches in the same way that church is traditionally practiced in the West. They started simple churches that met in homes. This wasn’t simply a response to persecution. It was a conviction that the church be simple, help spread the Gospel, focused on Jesus, and would take care of each other. The result was an apostolic movement made up of house churches.
House churches are apostolic if we let them be. I’ve seen some very non-apostolic house churches. But rightly oriented, house churches serve not just as an alternative to churches that meet in buildings, but as a means of strengthening the apostolic objectives of the church.
The church in the West is at a crossroads. It’s not enough for us to go left, right, or even beyond. We have to go back to Christianity as it was taught and practiced by the apostles who learned from Jesus. This will require not just a return to biblical principles of meeting, but to the truth of Christ and His Kingdom as we’ve been discussing in other posts. But Christ calls us to put new wine into a new wineskin. Living out apostolic Christianity will need to take place in an apostolic structure, both of which the apostles learned from Jesus.
If we return to apostolic Christianity in both it’s content and it’s practice, we will begin to get to a place where the wine and the wineskin work together. The form of the church supports the church growing in the message of Jesus and spreading the Gospel of the Kingdom. And the result of this will be something the world has seen only a very few times in history.
Will you join me on this journey?
*Paul stayed in Thessalonica for roughly 3 weeks according to Acts 17:1-10. We can’t say how long he stayed in Berea, but it seems it was only as long as the antagonists from Thessalonica didn’t know about him being there. Many places don’t tell us how long Paul stayed in a place, but his longest stay was two years and three months in Ephesus. And while persecution was obviously a factor, Paul was incessantly nomadic because he was determined to keep pressing into areas where the Gospel had never been (Romans 15:20-24). Regardless of Paul’s length of stay, it’s obvious Paul spent much less time starting churches than most people in traditional church planting do. The simplicity of house churches aids this considerably.
The church in the West is at a crossroads. Beset on every side by dangers from the outside (political and social pressure) and dangers on the inside (immorality, legalism, heresy, etc.), it’s become increasingly clear that we cannot remain where we are and be faithful to Jesus, let alone be effective. If you’re the person arguing that the church in the West needs to stay the same, you are in a small minority.
But how do we change? And what kind of change are we looking for? The discussion typically focuses on two alternatives: A return to more conservative, evangelical Christianity typified by Billy Graham (but possibly with a more Charismatic element) or a move to liberal Christianity typified by Rob Bell or Jim Wallis that is often more acceptable to society as a whole. Frank Viola and others have argued that there is a third way, focused solely on the person of Jesus that leaves the left and right debate behind.
And while I think there is a trap in some of the left vs. right thinking, I would like to argue that there is actually another way available to us. Instead of going left, right, or beyond, we have the option of going back. Going back, you ask? Go back to what? The answer is to go back to the original design Jesus has for His church. The design is not complicated, it is not hidden, but it is often neglected. When we return to Christ and His original design for His church, powerful things begin to happen, both in our lives and the lives of those around us.
The good news is this design isn’t lost to history or buried in some Roman catacomb beneath a thousand years worth of rubble- It’s found on the pages of a book in nearly everyone’s home and latent within the hearts of those who believe in Jesus. The answer God has for us is to go back to the movement Jesus started when He was raised from dead. This design for God’s church is what I call “apostolic Christianity.” Apostolic Christianity is Christianity lived out on the earth in the same spirit as the first century church.
This is the goal- to live out a kind of Christianity the apostles Peter and Paul would recognize where they to meet us. We can never completely return to the first century, but we can be captured by the same Spirit that captured the first followers of Jesus. The culture of our churches should reflect the same vision and values that the church in the book of Acts held.
You should note that apostolic Christianity is not about a person or even a spiritual gift. It’s about a people radically set apart as belonging to God, living sent lives under the power of the Holy Spirit. The goal of apostolic Christianity is to become a church “attain[ing] to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ” (Ephesians 4:13). It’s the church becoming a bride who has “made herself ready” (Revelation 19:7) and presented to Christ “without spot or wrinkle” (Ephesians 5:27). It’s this type of Christianity that Jude references when he says to his readers “I found it necessary to…appeal to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3).
A couple of months back I was having a conversation on twitter with ApostleFarm about how apostles travel great distances to invest in the next generation of Kingdom leaders. Having seen some of that in Africa, I shared a little bit about the experience, but intended to write a blog post to share more in detail. After thinking about the topic some I decided that a video blog might be a better venue for sharing what I’ve learned.
So with no further ado, here is my video blog about apostolic travel for Kingdom advancement. Make sure to stick around for the last couple of minutes where I discuss what I believe is one secret that I think gets missed by most western apostolic workers.
Thanks for watching the video blog. Have you ever seen apostolic travel in action either here or abroad? What can you learn from the examples you’ve seen? Let me know in the comment section.
Simple Church Europe just released its findings of its latest survey. The survey is an attempt by the leaders of the organization to uncover meaningful trends in the house church movement in Europe. You can get the full survey by following by jumping to their website here.
I won’t quote much of the 21 page report because, though it won’t cost you any money, Simple Church Europe does want you to download the report straight from their site. It’s important to look at their conclusions because the United States is quickly becoming a post-Christian nation, much like Europe. Their findings will greatly help us in the future.
The report actually breaks down three types of house church networks that exist in Europe:
- (a) Apostolic networks: simple church groups started by an apostolic worker ‘straight in the harvest’, mostly along the lines of the instructions Jesus gave his disciples in Luke 10 (planting a new simple church group in a household/social circle instead of inviting people to an existing church meeting). These networks are primarily made up of new believers who just heard about Jesus, are being discipled, and win others to plant new groups.
- (b) Bridge networks: simple church groups made up of existing Christians who intentionally seek to be ‘missional’. They try to build relationships with non-believers, often using conventional forms of evangelism and a ‘come to us’ approach.
- (c) Christian networks: simple church groups formed by existing Christians who mainly seek a more relational and participatory alternative for conventional church. These groups tend to be inward-focused and sometimes reactionary: seeing their way of church as more biblical and healthy than the churches they come from.”
Not surprisingly, apostolic networks grew at a faster rate than Bridge networks and Christian Networks (which as best as I can determine are more like small groups that have a larger meeting once a week). Apostolic networks see house church groups dissolve at a slightly higher rate as well. The most encouraging finding, however, is that apostolic networks see the highest number of conversions among people from previously non-Christian backgrounds.
What this points to is that fact that Luke 10-style church planting (Person of Peace, building on relationships around that person of peace, etc.) is both risky and incredibly rewarding for the Kingdom. Not surprisingly, the authors of the study suggest that bridge networks and Christian networks learn from the apostolic networks in a way that causes Kingdom expansion.
What does that mean for us? No research of this kind has been done in the United States, but these stories seem familiar from what I’ve seen in the house church movement in the United states. All three types of networks exist here and are growing. The major difference between our context and Europe is Europe’s population is much more secular than ours.
I think one of the major points this report emphasizes is the need to learn from apostolic workers who are building house church networks accoridng to the Luke 10 principle. Everywhere I see significant Kingdom expansion happening in the house church movement, this seems to be the model.
I think this report also highlights the tendency of churches that are not started out of the harvest to draw on already existing relationships with believers or those with a Christian background to fill our churches. We definitely want a place for everyone to belong and be equipped. But if our concern is for the harvest then those starting house churches among primarily Christians (myself included) need to adjust our models and strategies for church planting in the future. We want to avoid doing ministry that only attracts Christians and focus on those activities that are bringing lost individuals to Jesus.
This also highlights a great need however in the house church-community-at-large. That need is for those with apostolic and evangelistic giftings to seriously consider training and equipping others. Without more apostolic and evangelistic giftings functioning in and training our house churches, we will continue to draw people but we may not impact the Kingdom significantly. This will also require a significant amount of humility on the part of existing house churches, because until now many house churches have been reluctant to accept this kind of help.
I would love to know what you think. Does this survey reflect your experience with house churches in the United States? If you are participating in a non-apostolic house church network, are there changes that need to be made to grow in apostolic methods? What are the hindrances to that? Jump to the survey here, read it, and come back and let me know your thoughts.
If you’re looking for more information on the house church movement in the United States you can check out my previous post on house church stats here or pick up the book Missional House Churches, by J.D. Payne (Amazon Affiliate Link).
I know I need to post a personal blog here sometime soon, but there’s a lot going on. My hope is soon to talk about a question a friend asked me a week and a half ago (Why are house churches apostolic?), to talk a little about the deep fire of the Holy Spirit, and a little more about Brother Yun and Living Waters. Stay tuned.