A Blog for the Church

Sometimes Christians ask the wrong question.

For example, Christianity Today recently put out a press release that I happened to stumble on that compared the results of two different research projects with conflicting data.  One was a survey that found that those who are unchurched prefer more traditional, cathedral-like design when it comes to a church that they would be interested in going to.  The second was a study that found that churches planning to build, renovate, or remodel within the next 18 months are planning to go with more modern architecture.  They noted that these churches may be deterring those whom they are trying to reach.

Christianity Today put out their press release asking why there was a disconnect and (I think) subtly suggesting that churches build instead to attract the unchurched.

It makes sense.  If most churches ask how they can grow and the research shows that one way is to go with more cathedral-like architectural design, it just doesn’t make much sense to build differently.  Unless, perhaps, the church isn’t interested in attracting new people but is more concerned with what their current congregation thinks.  But that seems far-fetched.  I don’t know of a church that isn’t interested in reaching the unchurched.

But asking why churches don’t try harder to attract the unchurched is the wrong question entirely.

For one, it elevates what might be attractive to the point that it is deserving of consideration.  But I question whether it really should deserve consideration.  When reading the accounts of the early church in the New Testament, it is hard to come away with the sense that they did what they did in an effort to attract outsiders.  We have no indication that they even thought about what outsiders would think – instead they just did what they knew they were supposed to do which is be faithful in the instructions given to them by the Lord to make disciples.

That’s not to say that outsiders were never attracted to the church, but it never was the church’s intention to attract.

For two, attraction is temporary.  I know because I am (kind of) old.  Unlike George Clooney, after a certain point, the older I get the less attractive I become.  But this isn’t just true for our bodies; it is true for the church as well.

What may be considered to be attractive to the unchurched today will be considered passé tomorrow.  At some point, every style, every fad, every building, every program becomes outdated.  Our culture simply changes too much.

That being the case, there are two options: a church can either try to keep up with every passing attraction, burning through time, money, and resources, or we can continue to do what it is that we are called to and let the attractions come and go.

For three, attraction is an excuse not to love like we should.  After all, if we can get people to come to the church, we won’t have to do the hard work of going to them, meeting them where they are, and teaching them to be disciples of Christ in their own context.

The right question for a church to ask is not “What will attract the unchurched” but “What will help us to be the Church to the unchurched?”

And there lies the crux of the matter.  To ask what we can do to attract the unchurched is a question born out of ignorance.  For even if we manage to attract the unchurched enough to get them in the door, it will not be our building, style or programs that keeps them there. They will stay because of who we are.

Perhaps we should consider whether it isn’t beyond the realm of possibility for the unchurched to be attracted to a church that refuses to try to attract them and seeks instead to remain faithful to Christ’s commands.

There’s only one way to find out.

So here is my challenge. Identify one thing you as a church are doing to attract the unchurched. Talk with those involved and ask these questions:

“What would it look like to stop relying on attraction in order to engage those who need this ministry?”

“What would we have to do differently in our church if we stopped relying on marketing and attraction to reach out?”

If you are a blog reader like I am, you have surely seen how various bloggers compile their Top 10 lists from the previous years.  Sometimes, it is in relation to their cause: highlighting the top movies of the year, their top posts, top news stories, etc.  Well, I wanted to jump on that bandwagon by highlighting the Top 10 comments received in 2009 and offer a few words of my own in response.  I chose these comments based on their significance, the insight which they represented, etc.  As a disclaimer, this post is organized chronologically…so number 1 doesn’t mean it is the top one, it means it was the most recent one selected.  Make sense?

Everyone whose comment was selected has been contacted and I’ve asked them to come back and share where they are at and how they are “leaving the building” today.

Hopefully they will come back and chime in!

On May 1^st, 2009 I posted my second blog post titled “On the Move” where I began a series of posts about sharing The Well’s story.  A man named Dave commented and something he said really stuck out to me:

What I realized was I didn’t even know what the burdens were of those around me until we began to make the effort to be in each other’s lives (and not just one hour a week, but continuously).

I know exactly what he means…do you?  As you read about in a recent post, leaving the building is about taking stock and getting rid of whatever is in the way.  This has to be intentional, though, otherwise we’ll be fooled into thinking that what is normal is what is best, especially when that is all you know.  As Dave indicates in his comment, getting into each other’s lives takes an effort beyond seeing each other at church or small group.

That’s a building that many of us need to leave.

At the beginning of June (the 5th to be specific) as I continued in the series of sharing The Well’s story, I wrote about how There Are Benefits to Coming in After a Beat-Down contending that change doesn’t seem so bad after you’ve been beat up with the way things are.  Garrett Stewart commented and along with some words of encouragement, said the following:

I have developed a plan to bring up to my pastor for a movement like you have done. I am a student and the assistant pastor is my mentor and he likes the idea of a street ministry, but I am not sure of what he will think about this radical idea. Over the past few weeks I have asked believers and nonbelievers about the idea of a nontraditional church/ community outreach church and it is an overwhelming majority believe that will serve God well.

What I love about what Garrett said is that his passion to see the church be what it was meant to be is evident.  So much so that he even developed a plan for bringing it up to his pastor…as if bringing it up wasn’t enough!  Additionally, he is getting out there and asking others what kind of church they would be responsive to.  Brilliant.  Why don’t other churches think of doing that?

That’s an example of leaving the building if I’ve ever seen one – ask someone who doesn’t go to your church, or who doesn’t go to church at all, and see what kind of community they would be interested in becoming part of.

House churches are not easy.  Many of you know that is an understatement.  In my post, “Wobbly Legs and Growing Pains,” posted on July 1st, I talked about some of the difficulty of starting a house church and how adjusting to the needs and communities was somewhat painful at first.  Mike commented offering his experience with going to a house church model:

This summer we hit on the idea of canning our Sunday morning service in favor of a house-based weekly fellowship. It has been spectacular. I have seen more people step up in leadership in the past two months than in the previous two years and the emphasis has shifted from “an excellent worship service” to a deepening intimacy with God and one another.

What he said echoes something I wrote a few weeks ago as part of our House Church 101 series: gifts emerge only under a structure that requires them to.  Church-as-usual doesn’t offer that, it can’t.  The structure forbids it.  Further, leaving the building causes a shift in our focus and we ask: why are we doing this?  Without his building Mike observes it is intimacy with God and each other that is the point.  I have a hard time disagreeing.

Have you seen this to be true?  Why or why not?  What gifts of yours might come out if there was a structure that allowed for it?  What is the focus of your church service (look beyond what is said about the focus and discern what is practiced)?

As I started exploring issues that many other Christians were talking about, I decided that it might be helpful to do a take on the subject from the viewpoint of the leave the building cause.  As I wrote on October 6th about the heart of social justice being in the everyday, ongoing love of personal people (rather than programs), Kathy Bradley commented and said something very important:

We too easily confuse giving to God with donating to some program or organization. Maybe we want to since that’s the easy task. I’m becoming ever more convinced that giving to God more likely involves the giving of ourselves to one another, and perhaps “stuff” if needed.

What she says here touches on something I hadn’t previously addressed.  Often times we give money to a program or organization because it is the easy way out.  Instead of willfully entangling our lives with the broken, we often keep them at arms length and throw resources at them to help them solve their problems.  But perhaps that’s a building we need to leave, too – the one of impersonal help.

What do you think?

I must have been in the same mindset as I was when writing about how social justice is not a program when I wrote about how when it comes to eradicating poverty, we don’t need a bigger giant on October 13th.  Though poverty may be a big problem, the solution is actually small.  Mark Isherwood chimed in with some words of wisdom:

When we reach out and serve others, our needs are met by the church, which is every single Christian around us.

Sometimes we forget that “the church” isn’t a building or organization, but US.

Short and sweet, Mark’s words are impacting.  If, when we see a need or have one ourselves, we look to “the church” to meet that need, we are looking in the wrong place.  Instead, it is the community, those who we rub shoulders with and talk to regularly that will meet our needs just as we help to meet theirs.  And, believe it or not, this is the church.  It just looks different than we thought.

Is this something you’ve grasped, yet?  What is stopping you?

In what was one of my most controversial posts, I talked about The Controversy of Community (ironic, isn’t it?) on October 15th.  The post was born out of interaction I had with some folks on the blog about whether it is good for the individual Christian to lean on the community…they contended that we should lean on Christ alone – something that, to me, doesn’t exclude the community.  Rick Garner was a part of that conversation and shared something that was a change in direction, but good nonetheless:

…the weekly small group is likely the closest to “community” because it’s likely the easiest time to be relaxed…to be real…to not be on a timetable and confined to a program.

It’s also likely that the best chance to show love to a neighbor and/or get to know them is via a small group at a host home.

Community is where love grows.

Interesting that the closest we get to community is in small groups – a supplemental program to “normal church.”  Actually, it’s not interesting at all, it is sad – a blight on the church that community is secondary to what we call “church.”

Here’s a question worth considering: can community-less church really be considered “church?”  What do you think?

I decided on October 27th to tackle that age-old question, the one the disciples themselves were asking, the one that Jesus had to ask…yeah, you know it, “Should Christians Celebrate Halloween?”  Okay, well, maybe Jesus and the disciples didn’t wrestle with that question, but we sure do.  I particularly liked what Nick Love had to say:

There will always be people who will turn good things away from what they should be (or what they can be). But if we hide from every situation that has been corrupted, then we will miss out on our call for life completely!

But when we participate, we can be a part of the redemptive process of the Kingdom of God.

I couldn’t have said it better myself.

Do you agree with Nick?  If not, what makes that difficult?  Is there a building you need to leave?

What would you do with $130,000,000?  Give it to the poor?  Take care of your family?  Start a non-profit?  Build a church building?  Well that is exactly what FBC Dallas is doing (the church building, that is) – the most expensive church building project to ever take place in the U.S.  Their justification for it is that doing so will communicate the transformation of God to the folks in Dallas and that the building will be a beacon of truth.  Of course, I had to write about why this was a problem on November 12th, but someone who goes by verticalworldsolutions commented and said something profound:

If Christians were first called Christians at Antioch, it begs the question. Why? Was it their architectural skills? Was it the wealth they had acquired? No, it was the radical difference in their lives after they accepted Jesus Christ!!

Not only is this a challenge for FBC Dallas, it is a challenge for all of us.  If it were today that Jesus came and the rest of the world looked at us, would they call us “like Christ” because of our crosses, bumper stickers, and conservative politics?

Smells like a building.

The AIDS Healthcare foundation had an interesting campaign to promote free HIV tests saying, “No Judgmental Bullsh*t” which I blogged about on December 1st.  I wish they had been talking about the church.  Everyone knows what Christians are against: abortion, homosexuality, democrats, etc., but not many what Christians are for – unfortunately, that is true both for outsiders looking in and us insiders as well.  It seems we are good at being against and bad at being for.  When I asked what Christians should be for, johnlunt said this:

One thing we must be for is Jesus. He is the focal point. It must not be obnoxious. But everything else you mentioned we should be for should always point back to Jesus. He is the life changer. Does that mean bible thumping? No. Does it mean dropping his name in every sentence? No. It means though that we have an answer for what we do when we help the hurting. When we love on people who may not be very easy to love.

Being for Jesus…what a novel concept!  I wonder what would happen if we were for Jesus with more energy than all the things we are against?

What do you think would happen?  How would the church be better?  Is “against” a building we need to consider leaving?

We just passed the Christmas season a month ago and just like every year some Christians decided to make a fuss about retailers “offending them” by saying “Happy Holidays” rather than “Merry Christmas.”  I outlined why this was not just ridiculous, but actually unbiblical on December 8th and got the following response from MDSF:

I tend to see the “War on Christmas” as generally alarmist: sure enough “Happy Holidays” is trite and bland, but the Incarnation has nothing to do with what sales people say in stores…I’m just jaded enough to suspect that the War on Christmas is less about honoring the Incarnation than about various conservative organizations reminding potential donors that they exist and need money.

Ouch!  Those are strong words for conservative organizations, but he may be right.  Regardless, he is definitely right about the Incarnation (what we celebrate at Christmas, in case you were unaware) having nothing to do with what retailers choose to say to shoppers.  I don’t know about you, but I am baffled as to why Christians would care about this at all.  If non-Christians choose to live and act like non-Christians should we really be trying to modify their behavior while leaving their hearts unredeemed?

So there you have it – our Top 10 Comments of 2009.  Is there one that you found particularly useful?

When it comes to giving, many house churches have a problem.  For the most part, house churches don’t have much in overhead costs.  There is no building to maintain, no utilities to pay, no or few staff to pay, no budgets to fund, etc.  House churches are cheap and that is a good thing.

As a result, many house church leaders don’t know whether they should be asking their communities to give or, if so, how to go about it.  After all, if there aren’t overhead costs, what could you possibly say to someone who attends a house church that will motivate them to give?

And that’s the question I want to address today.  Before I do, though, I want to make clear that this is not just an issue for house churches, this is an issue for every church because every church has members who need to be taught how to give.

There are one of two paradigms a church can choose from when it comes to how they talk about giving.

Normal Church Paradigm: Giving to Meet Needs

Most of us who have been a part of a normal, traditional, meets-in-a-building church know that giving is a matter of meeting felt needs.  Case-in-point being Saddleback church.  Rick Warren asked members of Saddleback in the last few days of 2009 to give to make up a $900,000 deficit that emerged as the result of a significant decrease in giving around Christmas-time.  Members responded…and gave $2.4 million instead.

I in no way think badly of Warren or Saddleback for their actions, in fact I think it is a great testament to the generosity of the church members.

But, there is a problem that this story illustrates: for most churches, giving is matter meeting needs.  Without giving being at a certain level, churches need to take drastic measures: reducing budgets, cutting staff, and in the worst cases (or perhaps the best…) closing their doors.

Understand that I’m not railing against budgets, staff, or buildings.  I am, however, pointing out that no matter how good the programs or needs are, the church is ridiculously dependant on congregations to give money just so they can survive.

It doesn’t stop there, though.  Often times the church resorts to this paradigm even when the church itself doesn’t need money.  Perhaps the church is encouraging members to give so that the needs of others can be met: the homeless, the broken, the poor, the widow and orphan, etc.

It is great that churches are being awakened to the fact that there are needs outside of themselves and more important than their own, but the question must be asked, “What happens when the needs are met?  Should church members keep giving?”

That is the wrong question born out of wrong teaching.  There is a better way.

Better Church Paradigm: Giving to Give

At first glance, you may not be able to see why giving so that needs can be met is a bad thing, but doing so creates two problems: it necessarily holds quantity in high regard and it ignores how giving affects our own discipleship.

Let’s talk about that first one: giving to meet needs necessarily holds quantity in the highest regard.  When you really stop to think about it, it makes perfect sense – if there are 100 hungry children, the best giver will be the one who does the most good in feeding those children.  Consequently, those who think it an important cause, but can only give a little bit are, without intention, devalued.  It is important to note here that this is inevitable – no amount of trying to not devalue those who give less will change the fact that it will happen, it is an inherent flaw with the model.

Giving to meet needs also ignores our own discipleship.  There are two stories that will help us here.  The first is found in Mark 14:1-9.  While hanging out at Simon Peter’s house, a woman comes in with a jar of extremely expensive perfume and pours it on Jesus.  His disciples start freaking out saying, “Why this waste?  It could have been sold for more than a year’s wages and the money given to the poor!”  Jesus, in typical fashion, says, “Leave her alone!  She has done a beautiful thing to me.  You’ll always have the poor, but you won’t always have me.”

The second story is found in Mark 12:41-44.  Jesus sat down at the place where the offering was put and watched people as they put their offering in the temple treasury.  A lot of rich people put in a lot of money, but it was the woman who dropped in two mites (less than a penny) that Jesus was impressed with.  Why?  Because it was all she had.

These two stories demonstrate for us that giving is not primarily a matter of meeting needs.  Rather, giving is a matter of our love for and obedience to Jesus Christ.  This is true whether what we give is a very little amount or a very large amount.  In fact, amount doesn’t matter at all.  What matters is not how much we give, but that we give and that we do so sacrificially.

Why?  Because we cannot serve two masters.  And the only way to ensure that we do not try is to willingly dethrone our money by giving it away.

This changes everything.  Whereas giving to meet needs will cause us to carry a burden  that is too heavy for us, giving out of love and obedience to Christ will cause us to trust him all the more – for our own, as well as others’, needs.

And we will find, just as the disciples did, that giving as a matter of discipleship is liberating.

Your Turn

I’d like to ask you to go through a process similar to the one we at The Well went through as we explored what generosity was supposed to look like for us.  On our Resources Page you’ll find a document called “A Study on Giving/Generosity.”  If you’d like to explore this issue more and get a deeper understanding of generosity and how you can begin to shift to a better giving paradigm, I would encourage you to take some time to go through this study.

The Well church and the Leave the Building cause are not just house church things.

We get that often.

It is understandable, though.  The Well is a house church, after all, and we’ve decided to label our cause “Leave the Building” – what else would we be about?

Good question.  Today, I want to answer that question and in doing so, I’m going to challenge you to utilize a brand new resource we’ve developed.  Nothing fancy, just something that we hope is useful for people.

So if “Leave the Building” isn’t just about house churches, what is it about?

Identifying Our Idols

First and foremost, leaving the building is about taking stock of our lives, values, and practices and discerning patterns.  Though this may be a seldom-employed practice, it is crucial for our individual and communal growth.

When our traditional Southern Baptist church went through this process we began to realize something: our building was killing us…and we loved it.

It’s a funny thing about churches and even Christians in general…we do what we don’t want to do and what we don’t want to do, those things we do.  We are not only addicted to sin, we are addicted to the comfortable, the way things have always been, the status quo.  This is so true that we have a tendency to make sacred the status quo just because it works.

That is where we were.  We had saddled ourselves with a ridiculous monthly payment that made no sense at all just because we thought we had to be in a building. Luckily, as we learned about the move of God outside of the status quo, we began to realize that our building had become an idol, something that “worked” at one point and that somehow took on sacred status over time.

So, what is it for you?  When you take stock, do you sense that you’ve accepted something just because “that’s the way it is?”  Is there a discrepancy between what the early church needed and what you think you need?

Write those things down and keep them handy (sticking that paper in your Bible as a supplemental bookmark to the satin ribbon should do the trick).

Reacting to the Movement of God

It may be a subtle difference, but our task as the church is not just to do good, God-glorifying things, but to do whatever it is that God is doing…which most certainly is something that glorifies himself.  The reason why it is important to distinguish between the two is because we can spend our whole lives doing good, God-glorifying things and still miss what it is that God was doing and what it is that he was inviting us in on.

John 5 begins by telling the story of when Jesus healed the paralytic at the supposedly miraculous healing pool called Bethesda.  Though there were “a great number” of disabled people there waiting to be healed, Jesus went to one, asked him if he wanted to get well and then healed him.  Just one.  Peculiar, isn’t it?  He could have healed them all, couldn’t he?  Why just heal one?

Just a few verses later, Jesus is being challenged for performing miracles on the Sabbath and he says something quite interesting, “I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.” Jesus, being God himself, could have healed not just everyone at that pool that day, but everyone who ever needed healing…past, present and the future.

And in doing so, there would be no doubt that it were glorifying to God.

Yet, he didn’t.  He did only what he saw the Father doing.

So it should be with us.  We can get caught up in doing all kinds of things for God and even have flourishing ministries, but if we are not following God in whatever He is doing, we are not, in the truest sense, Christians (“like Christ”).

As our church spent time in prayer and attempting to discern how God was moving, we kept coming back to this idea of leaving our building.  Trust me when I say this was not what we had in mind.  Still, God was persistent with us and we were committed to following him wherever he was going.

What about you?  Is there something that you keep coming back to, something unconventional perhaps, that you think God may be doing?  Where is God moving?  In what way does He want you to follow him in your ministry?  What about your family?  Work?  Personal spiritual growth?

Write those things down and stick them in your Bible.  You’ll see where this is going soon.

Getting Rid of Baggage

Getting  rid of our baggage before God is about shedding all of the unnecessary “stuff” that we have picked up over the years.

Truth be told, the church today seems to be hidden under layers and layers of stuff that it has picked up over the years.  I’m not just talking about tradition,  though that may be the case, too.  I’m talking about the things the church cares about, how she carries herself in the political realm, what she does with her money, what type of books come out of her, where she eats, how she eats…the whole thing.  Somehow, we’ve let the church become characterized by all the various fads that it had to respond to throughout history.  And, if you’re like me and many others I’ve had the pleasure of interacting with, we’re tired of it.  We’re weary not just of our churches being co-opted, but ourselves.

It’s time let go, to take off all the shirts that we’ve willingly put on in response to crises in the past, and learn anew what it means for us to be the church today.  By that I don’t mean figure out what shirt we need to put on for our current situation, I mean figuring out who we are when we’re not wearing a shirt at all.

It is then, and only then, that we will be able to respond to what God is doing and leave whatever building has us trapped.  It is only when we discover who (and whose) we are that we will be able to know the ways in which we have been co-opted and fooled.

That’s what it means to Leave the Building: to identify idols, react to God, and get rid of baggage.  There are other things, to be sure, and even the few that we’ve covered today can (and will) be expanded, but those are the basics.  Those things shape our story.

Your Turn

Remember when I mentioned a resource we have developed?  Well here is where I humbly request that you take the next step.  We put together a short survey that may help you realize where you can Leave the Building in some key areas: church, family, work, outreach and personal spiritual growth.

If you would, please visit our Resource Page and find the one called “Leave the Building Inventory” to download and print the PDF.  And if you find it helpful, let us know.  If we can improve it, drop us a note.

It’s your turn.  Leave the Building.

And to conclude (for now) our House Church 101 series, I want to cover some of the best benefits of participating in a house church that you’re not likely to find in a normal church.  It’s not that these things cannot exist in a normal church structure, it’s just that the format of normal churches work against these things making them very difficult to cultivate well.

Keep in mind that the four things I’m about to go over (discipleship, accountability, giving, and evangelism) look differently in house churches than in normal churches.  It may very well be that some of us have experienced these things in ways different from what I will outline here.  That’s okay.

Discipleship

In most churches, discipleship consists of some sort of class complete with reading materials, Scripture memorization, spiritual disciplines, and church involvement.  Not that any of those things are bad, but for most churches, these are individualized activities.  The class is merely your place to learn about them, but the actual doing of them takes place on one’s own time, apart from the community.

In a house church, we have a unique opportunity to raise the bar on discipleship and we do that in two ways.

First, the house church setting is the perfect setting to ask questions.  Unlike a class or normal church structure, house churches cultivate environments where individuals are not only able, but encouraged to ask questions and wrestle with issues as we bring them to the table.  This, of course, is not only beneficial for the person asking the question, but others as well. This is because we are likely to, at some point in our lives, ask these same types of questions.  Further, when this is done in a community setting, it makes discipleship a community activity, too.

Second, the discipleship process takes on a new level as house church members engage in ministry.  By that, I don’t mean put together a program or join up with a non-profit in town (though both may be called for at times), I mean folks who sense what God is doing in someone’s life on an organic level and joining him in that work and pulling others in when necessary.  We call these opportunities “Thumbprint Projects” because each one will be unique and require a unique set of gifts which we believe God has given to individuals in our group for this specific reason.

Participate: What does your discipleship process currently look like?  What’s the next step for taking it to the next level?

Engage: Do you do discipleship alone or with others?  Write down three ways to make it a more communal process and identify how you can implement those changes.

Own: When is the last time you heard about a need apart from a formal structure like a non-profit?  Somewhere, there is a Thumbprint Project waiting for you.  Be on the look out.

Accountability

Have you ever been sitting in church and heard the speaker say something that was either off-base Biblically or that wasn’t entirely true?  Or, have you ever been in a small group setting where you said something that you later realized was off-base and nobody said anything?

For the most part, normal church restricts accountability to private affairs.  But this was not the way things were meant to be.

In a house church, the environment is set for corporate accountability.  It is expected that as we engage with one another and the Word of God, that we challenge one another to grow towards Christ.  Sometimes this will mean clarifying doctrine and sometimes it will mean allowing ourselves to get into other people’s business (and allowing them to get into ours).

For us, church isn’t a place where we can come, sing songs, hear the Word, and otherwise keep our business to ourselves.  At a house church, there is no such thing as “none of your business.”  We are the Body of Christ and a family – your business is my business.  We don’t let each other off the hook, we ask tough questions, and we also love tenaciously.  Of course, we do this remembering that we are not perfect and are all in need of grace.  Humility, gentleness, and discernment are key.

And, while this often creates for some discomfort, we know that it is never comfortable when God is pruning us and turning us into the people he wants us to be.

Participate: Are you someone who prefers to keep your business to yourself?  Identify one way you can begin to let others in your business.

Engage: At your next small group meeting or house church, say something off-base and see if anybody reacts.  If not, ask the group about it at your next meeting and explore how you can be more accountable to one another.

Own: Do you have a brother or sister in Christ who has trusted you to hold them accountable and you have shied away from the responsibility?  What tough questions can you ask them? (Remember humility, gentleness and discernment!)

Giving

Ah, yes, the age-old giving question.  You might think that as a house-church our overhead costs are minimal (which they are) and that, as a result, giving is not as important as it might be in a normal church setting.

You might think that…many do.  But they are wrong.

The assumption that Christians give because the church needs it is faulty.  I know many churches communicate it that way, but they are wrong, too.  The truth is that Christians are called to give as part of their discipleship.  It is for the individual’s (or family’s) benefit that they should give, not the church’s.  The church is supposed to be the place where the Body of Christ is challenged to be and live more like Jesus Christ. If the church is either encouraging members to give for the church’s benefit, or not asking members to give at all, the church is not doing its job.

Of course, in a house church (and any good church, for that matter), giving is much more holistic.  It is not just money we are after, but time, possessions, and spiritual gifts.  In other words, unless we are giving of our whole selves, we are not giving the way God wants us to.

At our house churches this means meeting needs as we learn about them.  Sometimes the need is money, but sometimes it isn’t.  Sometimes it is embracing the inconvenience of watching someone else’s kids, sharing possessions, or exploring other creative ways to help.  The fact is that when we pray for God to help us give Biblically, He shows up in ways we never imagined.

Participate: Give something away.  Something you don’t want to.  Now.

Engage: Do you become upset when your church talks about giving?  Identify the reasons why and see whether it is something within you causing it.  How is God trying to grow you?

Own: There’s a need around you.  You can help, even if you don’t have money to give.  Find out what it is and begin helping.

Evangelism

As a house church, there is no one person who is considered the professional, the guy or gal always up front doing the talking and responsible for growing the church.  Instead, we are all responsible to build God’s Kingdom.  We are always spreading a message, remember?  The question is, “Which message are we are spreading?”  Is it Jesus’ or someone else’s?

Whereas a normal church relegates evangelism to programmed events (like a block party), at a house church, we rely on organic opportunities to communicate the Gospel – like inviting someone to our house for dinner.  And you know what we’ve found?  It is much more difficult to invite someone for dinner…but also much more transformative.  Programs compromise transformative power for ease.

Even though everything we do communicates a message and is thus evangelism, we still encourage members to look for ways to be deliberate.  It is one thing to go about our lives with integrity and love and another to go out of our way and take on inconvenient tasks and people for the sake of sharing about the Gospel.

Participate: Examine your day yesterday.  Did you communicate the gospel at all times, in your doing and your speaking?  What needs to change?

Engage: Identify three ways to be more deliberate in your evangelism.  Even if you don’t want to.

Own: This week, do one willfully inconvenient thing to help someone, then share the gospel with them.

In the previous two posts, I talked about how house churches are different from small groups.  My basic premise was that small groups act as supplements to normal church (where individuality and shallowness reign), but ultimately fail to accomplish their intended goal because the overall message sent by the small group conflicts with normal church…a house divided if you will.  I then explored some of the strengths of house churches where small groups tend to be weak.

Today, I want to delve into additional characteristics of a house church and what is, perhaps, one of its strongest “selling points.”

Community.

I’ll be honest, I sometimes cringe when I read that word.  Community is so hot right now.  And while I’m grateful that we’re talking about it, I fear that it is just another fad that will pass just as quickly as it came.  If you don’t think so, consider the discovery I made in this press release where I found that of the top 50 Christian Best-Selling books a total of zero were primarily focused on community.  It seems that we like the idea of it, but have absolutely no clue what it is or how to create it.

So what is community?  What does it look like?  How do I know I’ve found it?  And how does a house church do it?

Community is Costly

That’s right, it costs us.  Unlike small groups where we can participate for our own benefit and get some supplemental feeding, community costs.  The reason is simple: in the Kingdom of God, the community of believers is your family.  You can no more write them off than you could your own mother.  When someone is in need, whether physical, spiritual or emotional, you must help.

Even more, you must make yourself vulnerable to others.  Without doing so, intimacy is impossible.  For many of us, this is our greatest fear.  And that is even truer in the house church, where so many have been burned by traditional church models and, as a result, seek something less traditional.  House churches can be breeding grounds for bitter Christians.  So, we often hide.  We guard our hearts making sure to only give them away when we are 100% sure that the other person can be trusted.

And when we do that, we destroy community.

Like many things in the Kingdom, however, things are upside down.  In order to receive love, we must give it away – the more the better.  In order to receive life, we must lose it.  And in order to create a trusting community, we must trust even when it is dangerous to do so.

Community is Tedious

Along with the buzz about community there comes an unhealthy, unrealistic portrayal of how great it is.  And it is great, don’t get me wrong.  But with community comes high highs and low lows.  Even worse (or better, perhaps), you can only get the highs of community when you spend significant amounts of time in the lows.

The truth is that community is often very boring and uneventful – and when you’re part of a house church, you know that well.  If you’re not a part of one, well now you know what you’re in for in case you ever decide to join one.

This isn’t a bad thing, though.  Walking with others through the humdrum of everyday life is one of the most fulfilling things you could ever do.   In our culture we’re addicted to the exciting momentary thrills and we carry that into our Christian relationships and churches as well.  But life lived with others in the midst of crying babies, groceries, school, mowing lawns, and the 9-5 routine is a rare and precious gift.

Community Will Change Your Life

Even though it may be costly and tedious, entering into a community with other believers will change your life like few things can.  The change is mostly subtle and hard to explain.  It comes slowly and mostly unnoticed until you’ve been at it for a few years.  Then, one day, you look back on who you used to be, and who others used to be, and you realize just how much your lives have changed.

Community will make you a more secure person…but only after letting others in on your insecurities.

Community will make you a more loving person…but only after you learn to be loved in the midst of everything about you that is unlovable.

Community will make you a spiritually, emotionally, and physically healthier person…but only after you witness and work through the sickness in yourself and others.

Community will make you more patient…but only after you are forced to wait when you’d rather not.

Community will make you more humble…but only after you see how deep pride runs in your own heart.

Community will make you more thankful…but only after you learn to say “thank you” for everything in your life that you didn’t ask for.

Community will change your life completely…but only after you submit to its humdrum, long-term, costly demands.

What are other characteristics of community?

Participate: When you think about community, what comes to mind?

Engage: Resist the temptation to just talk about community: check out the list of community-focused books on our Resources Page and resolve to read one off the list.

Own: Take some time to evaluate how your participation in a community has changed your life.  How are you different today than  1, 5 or 10 years ago?  How do you hope you are different in 1, 5, or 10 years from now?  What will you do to make it happen?

Yesterday we began looking at how house churches are different from small groups.  Today’s post will be building on some concepts and content introduced in that post, so if you haven’t already read, please click here to check it out.

For the most part, yesterday was set-up for today’s post.  In order to demonstrate how house churches are different than small groups, we first have to know why small groups exist and the shortcomings they bring with them.  So let’s take some of the points made about small groups and see how house churches deal with those.

Unlike Small Groups, House Churches Eliminate the Need for a Supplement

Whereas a small group acts as the communal/deep supplement to the otherwise individual/shallow church structure, the house church structure has, at its core, community and depth in mind.

It is somewhat humorous that churches can acknowledge their own inability to offer what they know their members really need, but are completely unwilling to do anything about changing their primary structure, which reinforces the problem.  Instead they add on an additional program…which reinforces the problem.  It’s a vicious cycle.

House churches communicate depth and community as core values, and the structure itself reinforces that message.  Even better, the structure of a house church excels where both normal church and small groups fall short.  They find their identity in each other – without small groups, normal church has no plan of attack to address the depth/communal needs of the members.  And without normal church, small groups lack both direction and a pool from which to draw participants.

House churches take the best of both worlds and merge them into a singular, united, better whole.

Unlike Small Groups, A House Church Community Creates the Product and Is the Product

As we pointed out yesterday, small groups function with the community serving as the means to the end of consuming a pre-defined product.  In a house church, however, it is the community that creates the product – out of their shared experience, insight, and mutual submission to one another – and it is the community that is the product.

This is not just a matter of semantics.  It is a matter of a structure defined by priorities.

Studies should be developed and birthed out of the community itself given their shared experience.  This should be common practice, but it is not.  Instead, we rely on someone else’s ability (usually, some professional somewhere) to develop something we can interact with.  But since it was not birthed out of our own experience, any such interaction can only happen on a surface level.

House churches are uniquely suited to do this better than both small groups and normal churches precisely because of the fact that those who lead any studies that happen have their own lives intertwined with the others in the church.  As a result, every study is relevant to the lives of those participating.  More importantly, it makes every study relevant to every person.  Unlike small groups that draw participants from a certain niche, house churches must define how each study will apply to the lives of every member; regardless of their interests or hobbies.

In that way, the study remains dependant on the community at all times.

And, most importantly, the community is the study, the community is the end goal.  It is not as if we gather around (like in a normal church or small group) to hear a sermon preached or go through a lesson.  We gather because the point is to actually be the Body of Christ.  That simply cannot happen from the distance of a sermon or boxed-up study kit.  That’s why we have to leave that building/structure.

Unlike Small Groups, House Churches Include Gifts

And because there is no need for a supplement and because the community both creates and is the product, gifts can flourish.  When a member becomes an integral part of what is happening at a gathering, their gifts emerge.

But the right structure has to be there.  It is not enough for us to remain in our current structures that value individuality, produce shallowness, and elevate some gifts over others and say that we want other things to happen.  The structure itself, not just our desires, has to change.  As long as our church structure is able to function with the majority of members being passive and the gifts of a few carrying the service, there is no need for the other members of the Body to use or even identify their gifts.

That is what makes house churches so unique: they are not like typical churches and not like typical small groups.  They are wholly different and, yet, not altogether unfamiliar.  And the whole Body participates because the whole Body is needed.  Gifts are recognized and developed only when the need for them is present.

Participate: If you were starting a church today and wanted community/depth to be core values, how would you design the structure?

Engage: Do you know someone who would disagree with what has been written or do you disagree with what has been written?  Join the discussion using the comment function on this article and pull your friends/church leaders in.

Own: Do you know what your gifts are and, if so, are you using them?  If not, schedule an appointment with your pastor and explore with him/her how that can change.

What might be another strength that house churches have that a normal church/small group may not?

Over the next four days, we’ll be blogging about what house churches are (and are not), why they are important, how they are different from normal church models, and the unique opportunities afforded to those participating in a healthy house-church.

Today and tomorrow, we’ll be dispelling a popular myth about house churches: House churches are really just glorified home bible studies or small groups.

While I understand how many could come to this conclusion, there are some fundamental differences between a small group and a house church.  Today we’ll outline some of the basic problems inherent to small groups and tomorrow we’ll examine how the house church addresses those same problems.

Small Groups Function as a Supplement to Normal Church

There are two types of cancer running rampant in traditional churches today: individualism and shallowness.  In an attempt to curb these sicknesses, churches launched something called small groups/home bible studies/life groups.  In these groups, participants meet at someone’s home (or maybe even at the church) and typically go through some sort of pre-defined study.  Sometimes, the entire group is based around a particular interest (cars, parenting, a book, etc.).  Not only does the small group facilitate more one-on-one interaction and thus create intimacy, it helps people to explore topics at a deeper level.

As such, these small group interactions operate as a supplement to something that normal church services are not able to address.

The problem with this model is that it creates a step-forward-step-back paradigm.  That is, if individualism and shallow faith are problems, normal church is catering to and reinforcing them as valid while simultaneously condemning them.  I confess that this approach fits with an analogy I’ve used elsewhere: small groups are a band-aid for a gunshot wound.

Small Groups Treat Community As the Means to an End

Isn’t it obvious?  Think back to the small groups you have been a part of.  How many times were they focused around a pre-defined study, book, or common interest?  If you’re like me, the answer is, “Pretty often.”

This creates an environment where community is not actually the point, even though we talk and act like it is.  Rather, the community meets for the purpose of interacting with a product produced for them by someone they likely do not know.  The result is church as normal.  Instead of communities meeting together for the purpose of mutual encouragement, edification, and a place for them to use and cultivate their own gifts for the benefit of the Kingdom, they come together to hear what the product has to say to them.

As you may have guessed, this is the classic “get fed” mentality.

It is not that getting fed is necessarily bad – people need to eat, right?  Rather, the problem is that we misunderstand the how and why of getting fed.  Somewhat paradoxically, one doesn’t get fed (either spiritually or relationally) by consuming products intended to feed them.  Rather, one gets fed not by receiving alone, but by giving as well.  If you want to receive patience, give it to others.  If you want to receive love, give it to others.  If you want to receive grace, give it to others.  This is the way the kingdom works.

But receiving is still not the end goal.  Giving still is.  It is not as if we can give until we’ve received what we want and can then stop.  “Getting fed” is perpetually dependant on “feeding others” and neither exists without the other.

Small Groups Exclude Gifts

Well, what should we expect?  Small groups are seen as a place for shallow individuals to get depth and community.  Naturally, the more up-front, leadership-type gifts are going to become most prominent because they (we think) serve that purpose best.  What we fail to realize is that the Body is best equipped when all the gifts are operating in it and everyone is equally encouraged to share their gifts with the collective whole.

Participate: After reading this post, do you agree or disagree with what’s been written?  Would you feel different if you were/weren’t in a small group or were in a church that didn’t offer them?
Engage: Next time you’re at church/small group, listen carefully to see if they create these types of problems and, if so, write down the words/phrases that stick out to you.
Own: What would happen if you were part of a church that did things differently – if you didn’t need a supplement?  Write down five things that would change for you, whether good or bad, and begin praying about whether you should pursue a church like that.

Have you identified other shortcomings of small groups?

P.S. Tune in tomorrow for information on how a house church avoids the problems presented by a normal church while side-stepping the problems that come with a small group.

Before you Read: There is a song from Casting Crowns’ Christmas album that speaks of God being with us, for us, and in us – it is called “God Is With Us.”  Click here to listen to it once for free and then come back and keep reading.

Christmas is the celebration of the birth of one specific boy.  To many, his birth was nothing special.  In fact, it was the opposite of special – he came into this world under ordinary circumstances.  Rejected from an inn, his parents were forced to deliver him amidst farm animals before laying him in a cow trough to sleep.  And, yet, his was the most special birth that has ever taken place.

God With Us

That’s what Immanuel means, God with us.  And he was with us…in ways that we never anticipated.  It would have sufficed for us had God come down and rescued us from our human condition without entering our state himself.  He could have chosen to be with us just by standing by our side.  But he didn’t.  He did far more than we ever expected: he became one of us – in every possible way.   He hungered.  He cried.  He skinned his knee.  He got tired.  He felt fear.  He sweated.  He bathed.  He got sick.

He died.

But he has not left us.  He is still with us…here, now.  I know we may not feel like it.  But it’s true.  He is here with us.  He experiences our pain, our fear.  He knows what frustrates us as well as what encourages us.  Despite whatever else is happening and whoever else has left us, he has not.  He will not.

God For Us

It seems unusual to some of us that God would be for us.  What is there to be for?  We are sinners, the lot of us, through and through.  We are exceedingly selfish and profoundly arrogant.  We are greedy beyond measure.  We lust after everything we do not have, both people and possessions, and take for granted all that has been given us.  And God is for us?

Why?

Because of his unending, no-holds-barred, indiscriminate love.  It is a paradoxical kind of love, really.  There is no reason he should love us.  He is not compelled by any outside forces or even overwhelming emotion.  He chooses to love us.  And so powerful is this choice that it caused Him to willingly send His son, the Word, God himself, to the womb of a lowly woman.   And so deep is this love that it deliberately died a horrific and torturous death.

For us.

God In Us

As a result of his paradoxical love-choice, we now have a unique opportunity.  It is an opportunity that is universal in its offer – anyone can take part and everyone is invited to do so.   It is the opportunity for God’s being with us and for us to now being in us.  This is the culmination of his birth, life, death and resurrection…that we should now invite him in and make him who he already is: Lord.

We invite Him?

It is unusual that the one who sustains us and gives us breath should leave it up to us to make the decision.  In itself, this is a profound act of love and none of us really understand it.  Yet, despite our lack of understanding the choice is still ours and he will not force us.

For those of us who invite him in, a transformation takes place.  We experience a change of natures.  We are no longer orphans, we become sons and daughters.  And though we may still act like orphans and do orphan-like things, that is not who we are.

Because God is in us.

So what?

Belief is a funny thing.  We often reduce it to intellectual assent or emotion.  But neither is true, at least, not completely.  The Biblical model for belief is action.  If we say we believe God is with us, for us, and in us, but live as if it is not true, we are liars.  In other words, intellectual assent and emotion merely make belief easier, but we actually can believe something without being convinced in our minds or hearts at all.

We do it all the time.  In health, marriage, work, friendships, parenting, etc.

So here is where the rubber meets the road.  Do you actually believe in Christmas – that God is with, for, and in you – or are you just convinced?

Participate: If a stranger were to observe your life for the next three days, what would they conclude about your beliefs?  Do those match up with what you say you believe?

Engage: Sit down this week and read the Gospel of Mark looking for times when Jesus encountered those who were convinced but did not believe.  How did the two look different?  Do you identify with any of the convinced but unbelieving people in the Bible?  How did Jesus respond to them/you?

Own: Take some time to write down what you are convinced of in regards to your faith, family, and friendships and then compare that to how you live – if you discover unbelief, identify what the next action step would be to change it into belief.

Oh, and don’t forget: God with us, for us, and in us means that there is grace and help.  If there are discrepancies between what you are convinced of and what you really believe, repeat the prayer of a father with a demon-possessed son (Mark 9:24b):

“…help me overcome my unbelief!”

This will be a short post.  On Christianity Today’s blog, OutofUr, Dan Kimball had written a blog wherein he said he was wrong about church buildings.  Previously, he used to say, “Who needs a building? The early church didn’t have buildings, and we don’t need them either!”

He now confesses that he was wrong.

I think he still is wrong.

So, I drafted a response and asked OutofUr if they were interested in using it and they were.  Here is an excerpt.

It is not that I hate buildings. Because we have identified our cause as “Leave the Building,” I often get mistaken for a building-hater, but that is not the case. “Leave the Building” is about removing the things that limit us in our service for God or somehow get in the way of what he is trying to accomplish through us. For me and my church, it was our building…

I am writing this because the subject of the necessity of buildings is a crucial topic to discuss all across the Church. You do indeed describe good uses for buildings…but what is good, may not be best – either for your church or for the Body of Christ worldwide. Allow me to explain…

Click here to read the rest and please interact (respectfully) with the others who have already commented.

Also, to read Dan’s original post, click here.

By the way, it was my friend @starlyth (Ian Kirk) on Twitter who first sent Dan’s post to me.  If you are on twitter, you should follow him!