Small Groups and House Church: Not the Same Thing
wanted to get back to concepts of simple church on this blog, and ironically enough, two very different discussions on other blogs have afforded that opportunity. I already mentioned Raborn’s blog and the discussion that is taking place over there. That discussion continues to be very interesting.
Today, I read a post on Cerulean Sanctum called The Small Group Boondoggle. In it, Dan Edelen, with whom I often find myself agreeing, writes about the apparent ineffectiveness of small group ministry in achieving any significant improvement in the Body of Christ. Dan writes:
I certainly would not say that the Christian Church in America is more devout, more mission-minded, more prayerful, or more effective for Christ now than before the small group push started. If that’s true—and I’m sure most of you reading this will agree we’re not better off—how then can we insist that small groups will somehow turn the tide in the future if they’ve failed to do so thus far?
I do agree with this assessment, insofar as it can be applied to small group ministries within the institutional church. But here is where Dan commits an error in comparing apples to oranges. Dan uses the term “house church” interchangeably in his post and resulting comments with the term “small groups”. For example, in his opening paragraph, he writes:
It’s hard to get away from the emphasis in some Christian circles on small groups. Just today, I was reading Brad Hightower’s excellent blog 21st Century Reformation and his post “Are the Popular Methods of Doing Church Working?” It’s a good question and good people are trying to answer it. Many of them are saying small groups are the answer, as does Brad. The bleeding edge of ecclesiology today runs red with the hope that house churches will be the salvation of the American Church.
I would challenge this lumping of small groups and house churches into the same category. There are some significant differences, and the comment thread over at Dan’s shows the confusion that results. Some of us are making comments based on house churches, and some are making comments based on small groups within a larger institution.
As an example of how the institutional church often views small groups, let me point you to a church website. The church is called The Heartland Church, and is in Irving, TX. That church has what is called “L.I.F.E. Links”, which stands for “Learning In a Family Environment”. On the page describing these small groups, we find the following bullet points:
- There is a discussion of the scriptures as they relate to life, yet this is not a Bible study.
- People pray for special needs, yet this is not a prayer meeting.
- Encouragement is given, yet this is not a support group.
- Everyone has a wonderful time, yet this is not just a social event.
- True friendships are developed, yet this is not a friendship club.
- God is present, yet this is not a church.
Notice all the “yet this is not” statements. Perhaps the most telling is the final bullet point. “God is present, yet this is not a church.” In other words, this small group is simply part of the bigger institution, not a “church”. This distinction is incredibly significant in discussions such as the one Dan is having on his blog.
House churches are usually small groups, yes. But they consider themselves to be churches. They may be part of a network of house churches, but they are not part of an “institution” per se. They are autonomous in their structure and government.
When we talk about the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of small group ministries over the last 40+ years, I think it is very important to limit that to small group ministries within larger institutional churches. Frankly, I’m not positive that there has been a huge emphasis on house churches in America over the last 40 years to warrant any sweeping dismissal of the concept on the basis of “ineffectiveness”. But small group ministries, when they are but a “program” within a larger organization, have been quite popular for some time, and warrant a closer examination.
I, personally, do not believe that small groups have created any lasting positive effect. I think that, unfortunately, they often are viewed as a means to an end, and that end is not always a positive one. I know that when I was in the ministry professionally, small groups were seen as the way to build a much larger church: a megachurch. Oh, sure, we used all the buzzwords about discipleship, accountability, etc., but I’m not convinced those were the real motives. Small groups were viewed as a funnel to get people to stay committed to the big organization.
To the extent in which I view small group ministries in larger churches as being ineffective in the big scheme of things, I agree with Dan. However, I am withholding on applying that same criticism to house churches because I think the two models are significantly different.
Until next time,
steve 
October 10th, 2006 23:06
I agree. It’s apples and oranges to compare small groups within traditional churches to the idea of simple church. How do we continually end up harmonizing on the same song?
October 10th, 2006 23:44
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.
October 11th, 2006 08:08
Dan, I appreciate you stopping by. I can’t say that I readily agree with you that the “two are fusing in many cases”. In fact, I have yet to see that at all! That’s not to say it isn’t happening in some places, but I just have not observed that, nor seen anyone else make that kind of comment.
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:
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
October 11th, 2006 12:20
I don’t think small groups within a larger institution, house churches or any other particular form or format will “fix” American Christianity.
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.
October 11th, 2006 14:18
Yeah, what Ded said!
October 11th, 2006 14:28
I have to agree that small groups and house churches are not the same..having studied under some of the founding fathers of small groups myself…:) …I find them to be very different but possibly both as ineffective. The small group within a larger institution is useless in forwarding the purpose of Christ and serves only to give individuals a more comfortable and accountable environment without losing any of the “real church” atmosphere… (I usually find this mentality that the small groups aren’t “real church”). 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. Neither really mirror scripture nor accomplish very much toward spiritual growth in individuals, neither do they present a very good representation of Christ to the world at large, which a people joined together as the Church do. I do not personally feel that where 2 or 3 are gathered there is a church…it takes something more…more than the institutional church, more than the small group, more than the house church. That “more” is not completley about how & where we meet but to a large degree it is fostered by the how and the where we not only meet but live and relate inbetween…. that “more” is what furthers the cause of Christ.
October 11th, 2006 15:55
RE: the “more”
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.
October 11th, 2006 16:02
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!
October 11th, 2006 19:38
Thank you all for your terrific comments. This is a great discussion, and I want to go on record as saying that I fully agree with ded’s comments. I didn’t mean to present this post as a “house church is better than small groups” concept. I was merely trying to make a distinction between the two, rather than seeing them lumped together.
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