7 Comments:

When a house church book like Megashift ( I have read it) comes along it focus' in on the idealistic part of what house church can do.....(tends to promise much more than it delivers) ie if everything went according to the vision that so and so (who wrote the book) sees then we should have a great and dynamic multiplication movement. It assumes that everyone who enters a house church will naturally want to connect with non believers. It assumes that everyone will know (or feel comfortable) with how to make contact with non believers.... It assumes also that everyone will be on the same page re mission.... It assumes that people will magically become kingdom focused. It assumes that peoples problems will be at a manageable minimum. It assumes that no house church will split. It assumes that no controlling leader will come along. It assumes that everyone will have an evangelical outlook or a postmodern outlook....and so on. So nothing is written about what to do when a controlling leader rises up. What do we do when half the group wants only community and the other half misson. What does one do when your house church has been together for 2 years and they have basically settled in to an informal church service.... and call that community. How do we become equipped to reach out? How do we transition from a group that wants a meeting to a missional group? Does anyone have the time to give what it takes to develop good community and also be a missional presence?
In the same group you have people who want community as a main focus. Others want to be missional. Others who want just relationships. Others who want liturgy in their meeting. Those who couldn't care less. Some want organic spontaneous meetings while others want something a little more planned.... Some miss the singing.... others miss teaching... Some are ok with getting together talking about sports, movies and their children while others want a bible study and more depth.... mmmmm
In the end even though we tell ourselves it isn't primarily about the meeting we end up talking and planning more about what we will do in that meeting than any other aspect incuding community and mission....... So how do we turn that around when people are obviously becoming entenched in the way they do church.... (informally and around a meal).
I know this sounds a little pessimistic but my experience over the last 5 to 6 years is once the honeymoon period is over we settle into a nice meeting time. And because we settle in, it is very hard then to suggest we become missional...... whatever that means.......
So what has changed? The question was, "Are you sitting in your building trying to get people to come in? It could read, "Are you sitting in your homes trying to get people to become part of your group? It really amounts to the same thing. What people aren't talking about is the cost that will be needed to reach out to people...... And it is at that point we are ill equipped... because a lot of times reaching out takes more than sitting on someone's porch, drinking a beer and sharing the love of Jesus.... for you may be called for the 10th time to be beside someone trying to overcome an addiction..... That is the nature of following Jesus........ I wish there were less books written about how great untried house church is going to be and more materials on the cost of relationships and reaching out....... mostly from people who have been there.

By  frank, at 5:08 PM  

Frank, thankyou for taking the time to write at length. I have to say that I agree with much of what you say. In our own setting we are at a similar stage and were infact discussing this on Sunday (round the table!). My blog www.alexandercampbell.blogspot.com tracks some of our own journey. I am challenged by the approach that others like http://www.backyardmissionary.com/ Andrew Hamilton & the Upstream community have taken; moving intentionally as a team/community into a new area to be incarnational. But even they admit it has not been easy! These are really important issues and I would encourage you to keep raising them and maybe share any lessons you guys have learnt along the way.
Re the book - Megashift; sure it's pretty idealistic, but I felt the upfront, stark comparisons may make some sit up and think and maybe even produce some comments & dialogue. In this case it seems to have succeeded!

By  alexander, at 9:43 AM  

I am not opposed to a book like Megashift..... for I think even Jesus painted a picture (idealistic at times) of how things could be if we would take his teaching to heart. Yet Jesus' life ended up in a lot of persecution and in the end paid the ultimate price for what he did in his life. Barry McGuire had a song 25 years ago that said "What good would it do to change my way of living if everything inside me remains the same." I ask the same question "What good would it do to change our way of doing church if everything inside us remains the same." I just feel we need more people (And books) sharing what the cost of all this is going to be. Just because we have a simple form does not mean all this is going to be easy. I would be interested in hearing how your discusions progress.

By  frank, at 4:13 PM  

Frank, you said: "I just feel we need more people (And books) sharing what the cost of all this is going to be. Just because we have a simple form does not mean all this is going to be easy."
I agree on this fully. My research around the UK has confirmed a theory I have had for some time: that these new wineskins are primarily for the non-churched rather than existing believers and church members. Why? Because in most cases both the paradigm shift and the level of commitment required are too great for most existing Christians to handle!
maybe once I've covered the '30 Hallmarks' we should do a series on the '30 costs of Simple Church'?!

By  alexander, at 5:43 PM  

I think it would be a good idea but I wonder ....is there enough will to count the cost? We have books like "houses that change the world," John Eldridge says "Its the little platoons that change the world, and I recently read an article that the church ought to be changing the world. What does changing the world mean in light of counting the cost?

You suggested that I share some of the lessons I/we have learned on the way..... on the internet there is a wide diversity of what is happening in "emerging church" .... house church, fluid church, community church, mission church, church in the pub, communal efforts, moving closer together churches, churches with alt worship, missional groups, monastic churches and so on.... Now I think the internet can handle this wide diversity (because no one can control what is happening) but I wonder if small house/simple churches can handle the wide diversity of thought, ideas, methods, vision, ways of looking at things. Do we feel comfortable releasing people to follow what they belive God is leading them to and still remain connected.... or do we jealously guard them (and our theology and right form... ie house church) by trying to keep them in our group. It is useless to try to keep people in our group for eventually they will have to follow what is on their hearts. So one of the main struggles I am dealing with because of my experience, is how do to handle this diversity......

By  frank, at 2:27 PM  

I'm not saying this is the right way, but the way we deal with this issue is to never let it become an issue in the first place! We are able to do that because from the outset we determined that we were not attempting to build anything. we didnt put a name on what we were doing and we have no desire to 'hold on' to people. Its amazing what a weight that lifts off. our aim (not always achieved), is that Jesus is free to build the way He wants to do it. so we arent trying to build anything for ourselves therefore we have nothing to loose. that doesnt mean we dont have responsibility for those in our 'family' of course we do. but our objective isnt to hold on to them so we can build a 'successful' church or ministry, we want them to grow up and leave home. the only thing we jealously guard is Jesus place of headship. we're finding that He does a pretty good job when permitted. does that make sense or does it all seem a bit idealistic?

By  alexander, at 10:05 AM  

Thanks for the discussion

By  frank, at 1:15 PM  

Post a Comment