The “quote of the day”:

Attempts to be in Christ are not being in Christ, no matter how sincere or dedicated.

Thanks, ded, for your insights here. I appreciate you, brother! Anytime you want to “guest blog”, I’ll be happy to host your musings here.

Jada’s Gigi, thank you for your thoughts, too. I really appreciated this thought:

However house churches are often just smaller more casual replicas of the “real church” ideology, not very different in their function…there are leaders and programs and structure, just the same only on a smaller more neighborly scale.

Tony, patience is very easy with a commenter like you. I’m glad you’re taking the time to think through what some of us are saying. We do not, by any means, have all the answers, but we worship the One Who does! Keep searching, brother. I’m always willing to discuss with you anything you want.

Everyone, this topic and comments is a great reminder to me of why I really prefer to think in terms of “simple church” instead of “house church”. As I’ve said before, the “simple” designator goes so much further in describing the intent. I believe that life in Christ, while not “simple” in our human strength, is quite simple in His. And it is that life, expressed in community, that I seek (and, by God’s grace, am experiencing with others as we seek it together).

I do not seek a “method” or a “program”, but a life. Life in Christ. Life more abundant.

Thank you all for contributing to this discussion.

steve

I would like to echo ded’s and Gordon’s comments. Also, thanks for your patience over at Raborn’s blog helping me muddle through these issues. After hanging out a little while longer, I’ll make more comments.

Again, thank you!

I couldn’t agree more, jadasgigi.

More of His presence, the in-dwelling Christ, the I Am, the living water…it’s Emmanuel, God with us that lifts us out of death masquerading behind words and into people who live and move and have their being in Him. Life….the spiritual life available to believers, BUT not what they necessarily know! “More” when we experience our natural humanity of fallen feelings, selfish drives, fear, or pride in ourselves and our giftings…and we stop and say, “This moment does not satisfy me because there is none of Christ in it. What I feel this moment is death, only.” Then by an act of our will, motivated by the Truth and Love of the Father, we move our soul into harmony with His Spirit within us.

RE: small group vs. house church

The small group may or not may not foster this understanding of “more” I just attempted to articulate, but often it does not. People tend to behave the way they think they are supposed to behave, a performance mentality of meeting the group’s expectations. The more control the small group feels from the top of the institution’s pecking order, the more likely the members will be motivated by “What am I supposed to do?” as opposed to “How is Christ within me leading?”

The house church may or may not foster this understanding. If the house church is merely institutional church on “a neighborly scale” (well put, jadasgigi) and the members are still thinking, “What am I supposed to do?” The more intimate format does not foster a maturing faith.

When I first moved to NC in 1979, there was a house church going. It had visiting “apostles” on a regular basis who helped a number of house churches in the southeastern US. In their absence local “elders” had oversight during the meetings. I visited but became active in a local non-denominational, “organized” church. We loved the house church members but felt the group was “insular and cliquish” to quote from a commentator at Ray’s X-change. Over the years, this group plugged along. At one point, they had grown to over 30 people with kids extra. They rented a store front. In the end, a disagreement between elders led to resignations and the group dissolved in a matter of weeks after over twenty years together. hmmmmm.

It shocked me. I knew these folks as solid, sold-out, dedicated lovers of Jesus. hmmmmm

The “more” was missing is my conclusion. The “more” was missing from my life for nearly twenty years of my walk with God. Or was I walking with God? Attempts to be in Christ are not being in Christ, no matter how sincere or dedicated.

We must be those who know His in-dwelling, or we hold onto religion (read that practices we believe will help us achieve God) instead of knowing by faith.

When Christians understand as a core attribute of their faith “drinking the living water”, they and their group will be changed. That is, when the thirsts of their souls, which have the potential to lead them toward willful disobedience in search of being quenched, are instead quenched by drinking from the presence of Jesus within them, all definitions will be altered.

Granted, I haven’t been around quite as long as you have (my first introduction into small groups was in the 80’s), and I can’t say that I “studied small groups under two of the leaders of the small group movement in the US”, but I don’t think this has to be anything related to who has more badges to wear.

Similarly, I cannot speak for either of the small groups in which you participate, but I am curious: Is either group part of a larger organization? Especially the one that, according to you, considers itself a house church. If they are part of a larger “church”, then to what extent do they consider themselves a house church? And what would happen if they felt a different direction for their group than the leadership of the bigger church wanted?

When you refer to your comment on the other post (and for the benefit of my readers who may not have clicked over there, I believe Dan is referring to this comment), I’m not exactly sure what you mean about a “lack level[ing] the playing field between the two.” You reference cultural differences between AD 2006 and AD 60. However, you stated:

The early church met in houses, yes, but they also met nearly every day, something our American lifestyle precludes. But what if that factor alone makes the difference between an ineffective and effective small group experience?

What if, indeed? First of all, we don’t know that one factor alone makes the difference. But even if it does, there are a lot of people doing the house church thing who are keenly aware of this difference and seeking ways to achieve that.

You summarily write everyone off by saying that we aren’t willing to make these changes or, worse yet, don’t even know that the differences exist. I just think you’re going a bit too far in that.

None of this undermines the fact that I agree with the general point of your post!

steve

House church or small group?

The two are fusing in many cases. As someone familiar with both groups, aren’t you seeing this? I sure am. One of the small groups I’m a part of considers itself a house church. Is it? Isn’t it? Since no one’s defining them granularly enough, it’s hard to say. Having studied small groups under two of the leaders of the small group movement in the US, I should be able to know the difference, but the differences aren’t always easy to note.

I would also point to the comment I made to all the readers in the comment section of my post. The failure I note is a failure that afflicts both house churches and small groups equally. That lack levels the playing field between the two.