Thank you for the post! This is frightening when one considers the clarity in which the Bible teaches the necessity of participation in the church.

I pastor in an area where home churches are in vogue. They invoke spiritual talk with very little Scriptural support. In fact, one such home church leader admits, “I know you can’t biblically call us a church.” Yet, there is a refusal to submit to the biblical teaching on the church.

In church we have been teaching on what the church is, from the Bible! As a result of teaching biblical ecclesiology, many in our church have been convinced that all other activities are, at best, a supplement—not an alternative nor a replacement of the local church. We definitely need to teach our congregations biblical ecclesiology as we combat these unbiblical trends.

Thanks again for the reminder of the fight we are in!

It seems possible that passivity in our dealings with non-participating "members" may also contribute to this trend. How many "members" of churches are validated, albeit passive validation, in their thinking and behavior by leadership that does not remove from membership those who do not regularly attend corporate worship?

Most on the list that people see as biblically valid alternatives to attendance at a traditional local church saddens me. One jumped out at me though, and I'm not so sure it should be on the list.

The house church - considering that is the type of church most common in China are we going to say that isn't valid? What constitutes a local church?

I look forward to reading Barna's latest book and Dr. Wells future posts on this topic.

Thank you Dr. Wells for posting on the blog! I appreciate it.

I recall you saying (in the 9Marks interview) that pastors should be aware of what the people are thinking when we preach to them and that should affect our sermons to make sure we are communicating and shaping their worldview.

This post should be helpful to many pastors in doing just that in regard to the importance of the local church as a community to exalt our Lord.

I agree with Shane; the house church is fully viable from a biblical standpoint. While I'm interested in fidelity to the biblical view of the church, let's not fall into the trap of thinking that a church is a building we have to drive to.

Church attendance is important, and if there is no local church around, then a house church serves the purpose. However, if there is a local congregation, then refusing to meet with them shows a contempt for the body of Christ. Much of our church shopping and moving from church to church exhibits this as well. We care more about our own entertainment than about meeting with other Christians to worship God.

I wonder why that is?

A "house church" can definitely be a church. If it has elders, celebrates ordinances, and practices church discipline how is that different from a "building church" or a "meet in the local high school church"?

Anyway, I get the point of your post and I completely agree I just don't think house church belongs on the list, especially since Paul mentions churches that meet in houses.

BTW, I go to a "Building Church" :-)

Echo what you said, Justin. But I've run into people who claim that worshiping with their immediate family alone constitutes "house church". I would not be surprised if that's what respondents to the survey were thinking.

Family worship is good but it is not a replacement for a church.

This is a good discussion. Since I wrote against the home church let me clarify what I mean. I don’t have anything against anyone meeting in a home to worship our Lord. In all reality, the vast majority of our local churches that happen to meet in buildings now were probably started in a home. That’s not the issue that I have nor is it the issue that David Wells blogs about.

The problem I have is the home church movement. Within the movement there exists a general disdain for the preaching of God’s Word, church order or structure, etc. (this you can see in Well’s description of Barna’s and Viola’s book). In other words, the very core values of what Scripture states a church should do and be like is diminished in many instances. This attitude permeates into the others areas such as T.V., internet, etc. types of alternatives mentioned.

Another issue is that many have removed themselves from a pre-existing gathering of people over petty grievances and the inability to work together as a Body with diversity of giftings. This damages the corporate testimony of Christ. Of course, they should leave if the church is not preaching the Word, but with those I have spoken to, that is a rare case. And when a “building” church is preaching the Word and seeking to follow His Word, they refuse to join in the local church in their worship of God and efforts to evangelize the community.

The house or building has nothing to do with the concern over the home church. The reasons for leaving the “building” church, what goes on in the home churches, and attitudes that are conveyed by them are the issues that are being addressed.

Two examples from this week: (1) one home church won’t allow anyone to be the pastor/teacher—all have that privilege—this is contrary to Ephesians 4:11-16 and (2) one home church had a BBQ instead of sitting under God’s Word. In my exposure to the home church movement, this is more often the rule and not the exception.

This is a couple of reasons why I struggle with the home church movement.

Steve and All
Sounds like you've had bad experiences with the house church movement. I know this is not supposed to be a discussion about house churches but it's sorta turned into one. I know all of you know that for a long time that's how the New Testament church met. And, that being said, it can't be all bad. I think it can be a good, maybe even better way to do church if it's done Biblically. I'm not speaking from personal experience, I go to a "building Church." But I've researched the house church movement and I can see that there are some bad ones out there. However, I believe there are good ones as well. I would turn your attention to churches like Christ Fellowship of Kansas City, which at this point have four house churches under one umbrella with an Elder shepherding each congregation. Jim Elliff is the founding pastor and Jim has wrote articles for 9-marks. They seem to be very biblically based and seem to have a good thing going. I would also call your attention to an excellent article about house churches he wrote at one of his websites http://www.ccwonline.org/homes.html.
The bottom line is that there are some very unbiblical things going on in regular churches and house churches and with so-called Christians that stay home and watch tv and get on the internet etc. And, I think what David Wells is telling us is that we need to work hard to change that mindset. I think it can be done by what an earlier commenter was doing, by teaching our congregations what the true meaning of the church is and why it exist. And, we can also use whatever influence we have to get the message of the church out. Lastly, I want to thank David Wells for this article and for his commitment to get the message of the church out and to help people like us do our jobs better.
Robin Martin
Associate Pastor
Hillcrest Baptist Church
Carriere, Ms

I want to give my thanks to Dr. Wells for bringing this issue up. I think that more and more church leaders, and the people in their congregation are going to be faced with answering these charges. I also think that we tend to have a bit of collective amnesia on this issue.

These ideas put forth by George Barna and Frank Viola are not new on the scene. They have been touted by many in the “House Church” and “Unchurch (Relational Church)” for years. Off the top of my head I can remember Gene Edwards book Beyond Radical, and Mark Strom’s book Reframing Paul. It is also a regular discussion by some of the leaders in these movements like Frank Viola, Wayne Jacobson and others. Yet why do they bring it up? Why are they attacking traditions, leadership, formal doctrine and the like? This I think is what church leaders need to be thinking about when addressing these issues.

I remember back in 1996 when I was writing my senior thesis on the House Church Movement being surprised at the anger and resentment that was in the movement against what they called the “traditional church.” This is often even greater in those who turn away from any “formal” church gathering.

I think this anger often roots itself in one of two causes. First, those who have difficulty with authority. This can be rooted in our cultural ideas, unsubmissiveness, or past hurt. These people what their Christianity to be comfortable, and defined by them. Which fits so well in our day and age. The second group make me sad. They are usually the ones who were genuine seekers for God, but had the unfortunate experience of being a part of a church which didn’t center itself on Christ and the Gospel. When they found things to be empty of meaning (because no one could tell them why they did the things they were doing), and disappointed because no matter how hard they worked they never found the freedom and joy of the gospel. Until they left the church. This group then mixes up what is really a doctrinal issue(gospel understanding), with a structural issue (how we meet).

So instead of going and gathering with other believers in listening to a pastor preach a sermon, they gather around their iPod and listen to a podcast. Instead of having doctrine define one group from the other, divisions are on structure and form. Under the banner of being “Biblical” two thousand years of Church History is ignored. Not everything that comes out of this arena is entirely wrong. Many of our churches have sold out to the commercialism and materialism of our culture. The problem is that their solution is just as driven by the pragmatism and relativism of our culture as those they decry as evil.

I think that most of us would agree that traditions do not carry the weight of scripture. They can be set aside or taken up. Yet, both of these should be done with caution. Holding onto traditions that have no meaning can be a distraction from the gospel, but casting off traditions without regard is arrogant and separates us from the historic church. Yet our culture is arrogant when out of its ignorance and worship of the individual it disregards and despises history and institutions. Sadly, many of our churches are not any better. It is no wonder that this group is growing.

Thanks to those who have spoken up for house churches. There are many that meet the biblical criteria. Yes, we should be concerned about those that do not, but let's be careful not to paint all house churches with the same brush. I'm more concerned with the other "alternatives" mentioned by Barna.

Well, I commented on house churches for whatever it's worth but I have more to say about the other things David Wells brings up. This is what I've called for quite some time a "churchless Christianity." I know people at work and I have other acquaintances that would say they are Christians but hardly ever, if at all, go to church. My question is, Can a person be a christian and not be involved at all with a church? I know many are raising their eyebrows and questioning what I just said. I guess a person can be a christian and not be in church, but it's not very likely in my view. I'm not saying the church saves you that is done by true repentance toward God and Faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. But will a person who is saved not connect with a church or disassociate himself from the church. I guess there could be some reasons or circumstances that may cause a person to do that. I know when I was saved it didn't happen at church nor had I been to church. However, when I got saved the first thing I wanted to do was get into a church. I don't know. This is something that concerns me; all these professing christians that are not in church and are substituting other things for church. We need to teach and preach to restore the importance and significance of the church. We need to help people see that we are the "body of Christ" and if we are, we should be participating "in" the body of Christ.
Robin Martin
Associate Pastor
Hillcrest Baptist Church
Carriere, Ms

Nobody is really surprised at these statistics, are they? I mean, "Rome has been burning" for a very long time. Christians need to hear how important the church is. An answer I would like to suggest to everyone is that Christians be taught the means of grace again. Almost all baptist churches fail on this point, even the ones who embrace reformed ideas.

Many house churches are good stuff, but I also have to ask- is what "church" has become on Sunday "biblical" either?

We don't really have any models in the Bible for what most of us do on Sundays. Participation in "a church" is probably not necessary to be a Christian, but participation in "the Church" is. Obviously it is in the Bible that we need to be meeting together and living our lives together, but a particular model for how we MUST do this doesn't really show itself.

An example is given in Acts, but this is a far cry from sitting in rows, singing songs together, then listening to a sermon for a half hour, then leaving. Just some thoughts...

Ryan,

You said "Participation in "a church" is probably not necessary to be a Christian, but participation in "the Church" is."

I get what you're saying and I think the second half of your statement is dead-on, but I think the first part of your statement is the root of the problem. (you're not the only one to say this, btw, you just happen to be the last one on here... I'm not pickin' on you :) ).

Protestantism - especially that of the western evangelical brand - has degenerated over the many years into an individualistic, subjective experience when it comes to salvation. The mark of salvation is no longer baptism - its a profession of faith. One of things this has led to is a low view of church. Worship is now a reaction to what Christ has done for us, not a participation in covenant renewal. Because of this, most Protestants believe that worship can occur anywhere, or they place greater importance on certain acts of worship: even many that read this blog place a greater importance on the preaching of the Word than other aspects of worship.

We shouldn't be surprised in the resurgence of house churches - worship and church are a subjective experience nowadays. Church is pretty much what ever you want it to be, so if people feel "closer to God" through a Bar-B-Que rather than worship, well, different strokes for different folks.

I would argue that the Bible does show a particular model of worship - although there is plenty of room for creativity. I would also say that historically the church has provided a beautiful model of participitory worship that the western church abandoned when it threw the baby out with the bathwater.

I read the book and thought it was an excellent and much needed tomb. I also found the FAQ page a great addition to the conversation. You can read it at http://www.ptmin.org/answers.htm

RYAN WROTE: "An example is given in Acts, but this is a far cry from sitting in rows, singing songs together, then listening to a sermon for a half hour, then leaving. Just some thoughts..."

The problem with a lot of our biblical ecclesiology is failing to discriminate between what in the NT (or acts) is prescriptive, what is historical narrative, but not authoritative, and in which areas we have latitude in which to design new structures.

We have to remember, also, that structure follows function. If we can better reach people by, say, radio programs rather than direct preaching, are we being 'unbiblical' by preaching the gospel by radio - I mean, Paul never did that.

So, we ought to evaluate our ecclesiology not just based on biblical example, but according to principle, and according to the desired ENDS. Not that we can justify any MEANS due to the ENDS, but neither can we eliminate all MEANS that we don't see in the bible.

I just think that we could spend less time picking at nits if we kept our eye on the prize, which is getting people into fellowship and discipleship with Jesus, and staying there. If 60 minute Sunday services buttressed by healthy small groups does that better than 2 hour Sunday services, let's do it, and not complain that Paul never did it that way.

However, I think some things are nearly non-negotiable, including face-time with other believers. Does internet church count as face time? Probably not. But does it provide fellowship that could support the xian community while NOT at church? Absolutely.

Could inernet church replace real church? Not really. It could help support weak believers, or unbelievers, in staying sort of connected, but even if you had live video interaction, I don't think it is the same as real face to face prayer in the same room, for instance.

But that is debatable.

You can't replace being in the fellowship of body. I found an interesting article by Jim Elliff that I think would help here.
http://www.bulletininserts.org/homealone.html

Robin Martin
Associate Pastor
Hillcrest Baptist Church
Carriere, Ms

Thank God for Frank and George challenging us to evaluate what we do and shy we do it. It seems to me that the interest in Television, internet interaction and other "non-traditional" forms of church as well as movements like the emergent church just point to a searching for something??? Thank God our Lord says "seek and you WILL find".

As I remember form "The Matrix" Trinity says to Neo, "I know why you're here, Neo. I know what you've been doing... why you hardly sleep, why you live alone, and why night after night, you sit by your computer. You're looking for him. I know because I was once looking for the same thing..."

I write here because after having decided our local leadership was detrimental to us and deviating from scripture on a REGULAR basis, we have decided to attend once a week (instead of 3) at a church more than 30 miles away. We are consecrating the time we would have normally be "in church" with home worship consisting of prayer, worship and a bible study by a Brother whose teaching doctrine is sound. We don't want this to be a permanent situation, but my husband has decided that for now it will have to do while we search for a church to call home. We have had two home services and have been satisfied with the teaching, but feel a deep chasim from not interacting with others of like faith. It has been difficult but we will persevere and we know the Lord will make a provision either financially to travel 3 times a week or locate a closer church or even start a new one!

The sequel to “Pagan Christianity?” is out now. It’s called “Reimagining Church”. It picks up where “Pagan Christianity” left off and continues the conversation. (“Pagan Christianity” was never meant to be a stand alone book; it’s part one of the conversation.) “Reimagining Church” is endorsed by Leonard Sweet, Shane Claiborne, Alan Hirsch, and many others. You can read a sample chapter at http://www.ReimaginingChurch.org. It’s also available on Amazon.com. Frank is also blogging now at http://frankviola.wordpress.com/