Consulting, Coaching & Chatter

Maybe it’s the circles I’m hanging with lately, but suddenly there’s a jump in the interest on house church. Bill Easum’s article in On Track (the 21st Century Strategies monthly E-zine) reviewed Frank Viola’s Reimagining the Church because of “the importance of the book.” And I agree, it’s an important book, just as Viola’s Pagan Christianity was important. However, when it comes to the mainline church, I suspect Viola’s message will mostly fall on deaf ears. Why? I invite you to read the books for the whole scoop, but here’s a reality of these books: they discount virtually every practice and tradition the church holds sacred. In these books, Viola slaughters more sacred cows than Iowa Beef Processors. Pulpits and pews? They’re gone. Vestments? So yesterday. Preaching? Gone. Buildings? Apostate … or almost … living rooms are okay.

Don’t get me wrong. On the whole, I like most of what Viola has to say. He and I have been singing off of the same page for a long time. But there’s a weighty question out there for me. Is the church of yesterday really the church of tomorrow?

There are a lot of voices “out there” not only saying yes, but nodding their heads vigorously. Why, aren’t we in what amounts to a pre-Christian world?

Nope. Not at all. Those who claim we’re in a pre-Christian world not unlike Paul’s world are idealistic at best, and a half-bubble off level at worst. It is true that Paul’s world was filled with paganism and a menu of cosmo religions. There are any number of similarities between Paul’s pre-Christian world and ours. But there is one huge, overriding difference. Paul didn’t live and breath and work as a part of a church that had a reputation throughout his culture of being antiquated, irrelevant, hypocritical, and impotent. Weird and cultish, yes. Antiquated, irrelevant, hypocritical, and impotent, no.

I went to Angels and Demons yesterday (I rate it much better and less troublesome than Dan Brown’s other offering). Whether you watch the movie with unconnected or well-connected eyes, you can’t help but notice the church’s struggle with relevance, tradition, and the battle with science (and culture as a whole). The movie hardly helps the church, though I’m pretty sure it doesn’t hurt us either. The church itself has done a marvelous job of shooting itself in the foot (in North America, I’m not convinced we haven’t shot ourselves in the head). A movie that points it out isn’t going to make things worse.

Which brings me back to the question … in order to recapture the faithful practice of Christianity, is going back to the “biblical” church the answer?

Let me shed some light on the myth of the notion of the biblical church. First, the notion that a “biblical” church is/was God’s mandate is seriously flawed. If God had wanted to give us a blueprint for what the church was intended to be like, our New Testament would look a lot more like the Torah, complete with building plans of what the church building should like … or not, as the case may be. Israel got an instruction manual for their version of “church” in the ancient days. The priests were even told what to wear and which fingers/thumbs to dip into the blood of the sacrifices. Everything about that “church” was mandated between the books of Exodus and Deuteronomy. Turn to the New Testament to look for any sort of similar instructions and you’ll be sore disappointed. The best we get is a character list of godly leaders.

Turns out, God’s been blessing the church in its many different manifestations over the years. Although the house church is the only “biblical” church, it’s clearly not a mandated model. Churches with church buildings have been variously effective over the years and many faithful and effective Christians have been birthed, raised, and sent forth from that model (Mother Theresa and Billy Graham are two that come instantly to mind). On the other hand, churches without church buildings have been variously effective over the years as well and is now one of the most prevalent and fastest growing models in the world. However, the human tendency and need to institutionalize is a strong one, and I suspect that even those flourishing house churches in India and China will one day be in our boat. History has a strange way or repeating itself.

But there’s another fallacy in the notion that house church is the solution for the church of tomorrow – which it could very well be, but it’s not likely to be the prime solution in my lifetime and not likely in yours. We live in a capitalist, consumerist culture. Not only has the church not been able to change that, in many ways, the church has inculcated that (something about the Protestant Ethic comes to mind). In a consumer, post-Christian culture that carries around the church’s reputation like a chip on its shoulder, house church is going to be a tough sale. The typical questions I hear are almost always about nursery care, youth programming, and so on. Until the church stops being a purveyor of services for its members, the house church is going to have limited appeal. Indeed, it wasn’t that long ago that house church researchers were struggling to find a statistically significant number of North American house churches that had been in existence over five years. They may have found enough by now, but what they were finding is that most house churches disbanded within a couple of years. There are many reasons this is true in North America, but that doesn’t change the fact that short lived house churches aren’t around long enough to make the difference that Frank Viola and others are calling for. Apparently, when it comes to “church,” our culture by and large still insists on “programs.” House church isn’t really big on programs … and either is Viola.

All this may sound like I’m suggesting that the house church is not a solution. In some ways, that’s exactly what I’m saying. House churches won’t “save” the mainline … indeed, it won’t save any denomination. Only a very few house church networks are able to support professionally trained clergy (few of whom “get” house church anyway), so it’s not going to be the hope for appointing Methodist Elders or providing full-time jobs to those leaving seminary with student debt. And it’s not likely to “catch on” suddenly anytime soon so that the North American House Church Movement starts looking like the Chinese House Church Movement. Like the Willow Creek model, most of us aren’t Bill Hybles in South Barrington County and most of us aren’t living in China where the pre-Christian culture is actually a pre-Christian culture.

On the other hand, I think that the church as it exists today needs to learn a LOT from the house church. Discipleship simply hasn’t and generally doesn’t happen effectively within the walls of the brick-and-mortar (B&M) church. It hasn’t and generally doesn’t even happen in most church’s small groups. For the past too-many years, the church has lived under the delusion that it could “teach” Christianity by filling our brains with information about God and about the life of a Christian. That’s gotten us to where we are now (how’s that working for you?). The house church is probably the most effective model for developing disciples of Jesus … but it does it because it’s not curriculum based, but discipleship making, living life as a disciple of Jesus based organism. The good news is that this in infinitely transferable to the B&M church.

So, is the church of yesterday really the church of tomorrow? The answer is definitely not. And absolutely yes. But it’s not likely to look like what most of the pundits would want it to look like.

Some time ago, Martin Marty was quoted in Tom Clegg’s Lost in America that about 3000 people per day in the West (outside of the Bible Belt in the US South) leave the Christian faith – not the church, the faith. There really wasn’t much evidence outside of his work to support the contention … until last year. In 2007, for the first time in over a decade, the number of USAmericans professing to be Christian dropped from 82%, where it had sat quite comfortably for many years, to 79%. In addition, over the last 10 years, the belief in God dropped from 86% to 78%.

In Martin Marty’s study, the 3000 who were leaving the faith were not just leaving the church … that number has hung around 1 million per year for several years (it slowed a bit in 2007) … they were leaving Christianity. They were Christians yesterday and today they are … Buddhist, Muslim, Pagan, or a member of the fastest growing religions in the US – None.

Do some still “believe”? Probably. But many of the 3,000 have simply given up hope that Christianity has anything to offer. They went to church looking for God and all they found was “church.” They looked at the lives of those who called themselves Christians, even those who were faithful in going to church, and found people whose lives were fundamentally the same as theirs – they spend their money the same, live in the same style, have the same problems, talk the same talk, have the same addictions, and pretty much walk the same walk as they do – and so these former seekers wonder where the “full and meaningful life” that Jesus purportedly promised to his followers has gone … or has that, like all the miracles of the New Testament, ceased since the apostolic period?

It has been said that Bill Graham estimated that only 10 percent of all church goers were Christian … and one of my Christian Sociology professors said he thought Graham was an optimist.

And so, I encourage Christians in my small groups to go back to the Bible. Not the Old Testament … not the book of Revelation … but the Gospels and Acts, and after that wherever they feel led. Not because I think the Bible is to be lifted up, but because the vast majority of churches are not discipling people and the fact is, most people are going to have to get discipled in a small group setting. By getting people to read the scriptures, especially the Gospels, they have an opportunity to meet Jesus in ways most don’t meet Jesus in the church. Add the support of a discipleship small group that helps hold them accountable for prayer, faith-sharing, fasting, and the like, and people have an opportunity to find the relationship with Jesus we talk about so much. It’s not the Bible reading that changes lives, but discovering a relationship with the author. And since most people aren’t finding that in church, as witnessed clearly by the numbers, alternatives are desperately needed. As has been pointed out by Tom Bandy in the past, it takes about seven years to turn a church around … and 80% of all turnarounds fail … we simply don’t have time to wait anymore.

If you want to get an eyeful sometime, take a gander over to www.lettersfromleavers.com/blog. This is a website with letters from people who have left the church. In some cases, the words are angry and hurtful. In others, sorrowful and painful. Either way, it’s one place to get an idea of the reason why some people leave.

…though if we really want to know, there are literally millions upon millions of folks who have left the church out there. We could just ask.

Over the years, it’s become clear to me that the single most difficult ministry in a local church is just that … singles. Those “College and Career” groups are literally just killer. Of course, one of my “answers” is always to focus on life-transforming small groups and then let the good times roll from that. In our experience … I checked with my bride, Kris who has as much or more experience in working with singles than I … although there are a number of reasons singles’ ministries are difficult, one of the biggest is over-programming and over-thinking. This is especially true for small groups. We want the “study” to be engaging and informing and filled with ice breakers so the group bonds. Yeah. Over-programming.

Instead of scheduling the small group time moment-by-moment, we suggest letting the small group time be a lot more free-flowing. Do something over a meal … always the ultimate ice breaker … and then get someone who’s been trained in Discipleship Small Groups (see the webinar recordings at www.easumbandy.com/store and upcoming live small group webinars or the upcoming training event in Palm Beach) and let it rip. In a nutshell, Discipleship Small Groups are focused around discipling using a curriculum that some have called a “non-curriculum.” The whole evening kicks off with a single question: “So, what have you read this week in scripture that intrigued you?” This will spark some interesting conversation, since the #1 answer will be “Huh?” followed by comments like “I tried to read through the Bible” and “I tried to read the Bible, but I just couldn’t understand what I was reading.” The facilitator helps the conversation along and typically doesn’t have a lot of answers … but the conversation tends to lively. There are other Discipleship Development questions that the facilitator can use to keep the conversation going, if needed, though in my experience this one question is lively enough for the evening (other questions include the likes of, “Who’s life did you intentionally touch in Jesus’ name?” and “Who did you encourage in their faith journey this week?”).

In week two, when the reading question is asked again, the conversation will be equally “Huh? I can’t believe you asked us again!” and the conversation will probably hinge on excuses and talk about how to fit spirituality practices into real life. By week three, though, people start sharing and the conversation become tailored to the group’s interests and whims. Other DD questions are introduced during the coming weeks, all of which are designed to raise the “Huh?” factor into consciousness and help stimulate discipleship behavior during the week.

The best thing about these kinds of small groups is that the singles (or anyone else doing them) set their own agenda overall. They can do these questions over pizza, at a club, while camping or skiing (at the lodge), and even keep in touch with the questions with those not there via SMS.

Is this the only answer for effective small groups? Hardly, but in our experience, it works out pretty well. Letting the small group set their own agenda within the context of becoming more effective in their faith walk seems to be a winner overall.