Everything about true, biblical house churches is what true believers desire and enjoy.

All true believers long for genuine relationships with other believers, because God’s love has been shed abroad in their hearts. Such relationships are part and parcel of house churches. It is what the Bible refers to as fellowship, genuine sharing of one’s life with other brothers and sisters. House churches create an environment where believers can do what believers are supposed to do, which is found in the many New Testament “one another” passages. In the house church setting, believers can exhort, encourage, edify, comfort, teach, serve and pray for one another. They can provoke each other to love and good works, confess their sins to each other, bear one another’s burdens, and admonish one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. They can weep with those who weep and rejoice with those who rejoice. Such things don’t occur very often during the Sunday morning meetings of institutional churches where believers sit and watch. As one house church member told me, “When someone is sick within our body, I don’t take a meal to a stranger’s house because I signed up for the ‘meal ministry.’ I naturally take a meal to someone I know and love.”

True believers enjoy interaction and involvement with each other. Passively sitting and listening to irrelevant or redundant sermons year after year insults their intelligence and spirituality. Rather, they prefer having an opportunity to share the personal insights they gain concerning God and His Word, and house churches provide that opportunity. Following a biblical model rather than a cultural one, each person “has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation” (1 Cor. 14:26). In house churches, no one is lost in the crowd or excluded by a church clique.

True believers desire to be used by God in service. In a house church, there is opportunity for everyone to be used to bless others, and responsibilities are shared among all, so that no one experiences the burnout that is common among committed members of institutional churches. At the minimum, everyone can bring food to share for the common meal, what Scripture seems to refer to as the “love feast” (Jude 1:12). For many house churches, that meal follows the example of the original Lord’s Supper, which was part of an actual Passover meal. The Lord’s Supper is not, as a little boy referred to it in a previous institutional church I pastored, “God’s holy snack.” The idea of eating a small wafer and drinking a little juice among strangers during a few seconds of a church service is utterly foreign to the Bible and to biblical house churches. The sacramental meaning of Communion is enhanced manifold during a shared meal among disciples who love each other.

In a house church, worship is simple, sincere and participatory, not a performance. True believers love to worship God in spirit and truth.

When people first hear of house churches, they often mistakenly imagine that the only difference between house churches and institutional churches is their size and their relative abilities to provide “ministry.” People sometimes conclude that the house church cannot offer the quality of ministry provided by churches with buildings. But if one defines “ministry” as that which contributes to the making of disciples, helping them become like Christ and equipping them for service, then institutional churches have no advantage, and as I pointed out in the previous chapter, they may well be disadvantaged. Certainly house churches cannot provide the quantity of multi-faceted activities of institutional churches, but they can excel at providing true ministry.

Some people reject house churches as being true churches, simply because they lack an actual church building. Had those folks lived at any time during the first three hundred years of the church, they would have rejected every single church in the world as being a real church. The fact is that Jesus declared, “For where two or three have gathered together in My name, there I am in their midst” (Matt. 18:20). Jesus said nothing about where believers must gather. And even if there are only two believers, He promised to be present if they gather in His name. What Christ’s disciples often do in restaurants, sharing a meal and exchanging truth, teaching and admonishing one another, is actually closer to the New Testament model of church gatherings than what often happens in many church buildings on Sunday mornings.

In the previous chapter, I enumerated some of the advantages that house churches have over institutional churches. I’d like to begin this chapter enumerating a few more reasons why the house church model is a very valid biblical alternative that can be quite effective in accomplishing the goal of making disciples. First, however, let me state at the outset that my purpose is not to attack institutional churches or their pastors. There are multitudes of godly and sincere pastors of institutional churches who are doing everything they can within their structures to please the Lord. I minister to thousands of institutional pastors every year, and I love and appreciate them very much. They are among the finest people in the world. And it is because I know how incredibly difficult their jobs are that I want to present an alternative that will help them suffer fewer casualties and be more effective and happy at the same time. The house church model is one that is biblical and that potentially lends itself to the effective making of disciples and expansion of God’s kingdom. I have little doubt that the large majority of institutional pastors would be much happier, more effective and more fulfilled if they ministered in a house church setting.

I was an institutional pastor for more than twenty years and did my best then with what I knew. But it was after spending several months visiting many churches on Sunday mornings that I had my first glimpse of what it is like to attend church as a mere “layperson.” It was an eye-opener, and I began to understand why so many people are so unenthusiastic about attending church. Like almost everyone except the pastor, I would sit there politely waiting for the service to be over. When it was, at least then I could interact with others as a participant rather than as a bored spectator. That experience was one of several catalysts that started me thinking about a better alternative, and I began my research on the house church model. I was amazed to discover that millions of house churches exist all over the world, and concluded that house churches have some definite advantages over institutional churches.

Most of the pastors who read this book are not overseeing house churches, but institutional churches. I know that much of what I’ve written might be initially difficult for them to swallow as it may seem so radical at first. But I ask that they give themselves some time to contemplate what I have to say, and I don’t expect them to embrace everything overnight. It is for pastors I have written, motivated by love for them and their churches.

In the casual and open forums of small church gatherings, all teaching can be scrutinized by anyone who can read. Brothers and sisters who know and love each other are inclined to respectfully consider viewpoints that differ from theirs, and even if the group doesn’t reach a consensus, love, not doctrine, still binds them together. Any teaching by any person in the group, including elders/pastors/overseers, is subject to loving examination by anyone else, because the Teacher indwells every member (see 1 John 2:27). The built-in checks and balances of a biblical model help prevent it from becoming doctrinally derailed.

This is quite a contrast from the norm in modern institutional churches, where church doctrine is established from the start and not to be challenged. Consequently, bad doctrines endure indefinitely, and doctrine becomes the litmus test of acceptance. For this same reason, one point in a single sermon can result in the immediate exodus of dissenters, who all jump ship to temporarily find some “like-minded believers.” They know there is no sense in even talking to the pastor about their doctrinal disagreement. Even if he was persuaded to change his viewpoint, he would have to keep it hidden from many in the church as well as from those of higher rank within his denomination. Doctrinal differences within institutional churches produce pastors who are some of the most skilled politicians in the world, orators who speak in vague generalities and avoid anything that could result in controversy, leading everyone to think he is in their camp.

Having pastored churches for two decades, having spoken to tens of thousands of pastors around the world, and having many pastors as personal friends, I think I can say that I know something about the demands of pastoring a modern church. Like every pastor of an institutional church, I have experienced the”dark side” of the ministry. It can be very dark at times. In fact,”brutal” might be a better word to describe it.

The expectations that most pastors encounter naturally create incredible stresses that sometimes even ruin their relationships within their own families. Pastors are discouraged for many reasons. They must be politicians, judges, employers, psychologists, activity directors, building contractors, marriage counselors, public speakers, managers, mind readers and administrators. They often find themselves in fierce competition with other pastors to gain a larger slice of the body of Christ. They have little time for personal spiritual disciplines. Many feel trapped in their vocation and are underpaid. Their congregations are their customers and their employers. Sometimes those employers and customers can make life very difficult.

By comparison, the house church pastor has it easy. First, if he leads an exemplary life of a true disciple and teaches uncompromised obedience to Jesus’ commandments, few goats will have an interest in being part of his group. In fact, just meeting in houses is probably enough to keep many goats away. So he’ll mostly have sheep to pastor.

Second, he can love and disciple all his sheep on a personal basis, because he only has twelve to twenty adults to oversee. He can enjoy real closeness with them, as he is like the father of a family. He can give them the time they deserve. I remember when I was an institutional pastor, I often felt alone. I couldn’t get close with anyone with my congregation, lest others resent me for not including them in my close circle of friends or become jealous of those within that circle. I longed for genuine closeness with other believers, but wouldn’t risk the potential price of gaining true friends.

In the close-knit family of a house church, the members naturally help keep the pastor accountable, as he is their close friend, not an actor on a stage.

The house church pastor can spend time developing leaders of future house churches, so when the time comes to multiply, leaders are ready. He doesn’t have to watch his most promising future leaders take their gifts from the church to a Bible school in another place.

He may well have time to develop other ministry outside his local congregation. Perhaps he could minister in prisons, personal care homes or be involved in one-on-one evangelism to refugees or businesspeople. Depending on his experience, he could conceivably devote some of his time to planting other house churches, or mentoring younger house church pastors who have been raised up under his ministry.

He feels no pressure to be a Sunday-morning performer. He never needs to prepare a three-point sermon on a Saturday night, wondering how he can possibly satisfy so many people who are at so many different levels of spiritual growth.^[1] He can delight in watching the Holy Spirit use everyone at the gatherings and encourage them to use their gifts. He can be absent from meetings and everything works well even without him.

He has no building to distract him and no employees to manage.

He has no reason to compete with other local pastors.

There is no”church board” that exists to make his life miserable and through which political infighting becomes common.

In short, he can be what he is called to be by God, and not what is imposed on him by cultural Christianity. He is not the lead actor, the president of a company, or the center of the hub. He is a disciple maker, an equipper of the saints.

^[1] Many pastors never become good orators, even though they are God-called, caring servants of Christ. In fact, is it being too harsh to say that many sermons by pastors are boring, or at least boring at times? What one church-critic refers to as”the thousand-yard stare” is very common among the pew sitters. But those same pastors who are boring orators are often very good conversationalists, and people rarely become bored while they are engaged in conversation with one another. That is why the interactive teaching at house churches is usually always interesting. Time flies during such times, as contrasted with the many covert glances at wristwatches during church sermons. House church pastors don’t have to worry about being boring.

This leads to the second advantage that house churches have over institutional churches: The house church model promotes godly stewardship of its members’ resources, which is certainly an extremely important aspect of discipleship.^[1] No money is wasted on church buildings, owning, renting, repairing, expanding, remodeling, heating or cooling them. Consequently, what would have been wasted on buildings can be used to feed and clothe the poor, spread the gospel, and make disciples, just like it did in the book of Acts. Think of the good that could have been done for God’s kingdom if the billions of dollars spent on church buildings had been used for spreading the gospel and serving the poor! It is almost unimaginable.

Moreover, house churches that consist of no more than twenty people could actually be overseen by “tent-making” (that is, “non-paid”) elders/pastors/overseers, a real possibility when there are a number of mature believers in a house church. Such churches would require virtually no money at all to operate.

Of course, the Bible seems to indicate that elders/pastors/overseers should be paid in proportion to their labor, so those who devote their full time to ministry should make their full living from it (see 1 Tim. 5:17-18). Ten wage earners in a house church who tithe can support one pastor at their average standard of living. Five tithers in a house church can free up a pastor to devote half his workweek to his ministry.

Following the house church model, money that would be used on buildings is freed to support pastors, and so institutional pastors should not think that the proliferation of house churches threatens their job security. Rather, it could mean that many other men and women could realize the desire God has placed in their hearts to serve Him in vocational ministry.^[2] That in turn, would help accomplish the goal of making disciples. Moreover, a house church with twenty wage earners could potentially give one half of its income to mission outreach and the poor.^[3]

If an institutional church transitioned to a network of house churches, the people who might lose their paying jobs would be church administrative and program support staff and perhaps some staff members with specialty ministries (for example, child and youth ministers in larger churches) who would be unwilling to trade ministries that have little biblical basis for ministries that do. House churches don’t need child and youth ministers because parents are given that responsibility in the Bible, and people in house churches generally strive to follow the Bible rather than the norms of cultural Christianity. Christian youth who don’t have Christian parents can be incorporated into house churches and discipled just as they are incorporated into institutional churches. Does anyone wonder why there are no “youth pastors” or “children’s pastors” mentioned in the New Testament? Such ministries didn’t exist for the first 1900 years of Christianity. Why are they suddenly essential now, and primarily in wealthy western countries?^[4]

Finally, in poorer nations in particular, pastors often find it impossible to rent or own church buildings without being subsidized by Western Christians. The undesirable consequences of this dependency are manifold. The fact is, however, that for 300 years the problem didn’t exist in Christianity. If you are pastor in a developing nation whose congregation can’t afford your own church building, you don’t need to flatter some visiting American in hopes of striking gold. God has already solved your problem. You really don’t need a church building to successfully make disciples. Follow the biblical model.

^[1]

^[2] Although it may sound radical, the only real reason that church buildings are needed is because of the lack of leaders who would oversee smaller house churches, which is the result of poor discipleship of potential leaders within institutional churches. Could it be that pastors of large institutional churches are actually guilty of robbing God-called pastors within their congregations of their rightful ministries? Yes.

^[3] This one-to-ten or -twenty ratio should not be considered pastoral overkill in light of Jesus’ biblical model of discipling twelve men and Moses’ delegated judges over ten people (see Ex. 18:25). Most institutional pastors oversee many more people than they can effectively disciple on their own.

^[4] We might also question why there are no “senior pastors,” “associate pastors” or “assistant pastors” mentioned in Scripture. Again, these titles that seem so essential in the modern church because of its structure were unnecessary in the early church because of its structure. House churches of twenty people don’t need senior, associate and assistant pastors.

The nature of the elements of the Lord’s Supper are not the most important thing. If we must strive for perfect imitation of the original Lord’s Supper, we would have to know the exact ingredients of the bread and the exact kind of grapes from which the original wine was made. (Some of the church fathers during the first few centuries strictly prescribed that the wine had to be diluted with water, otherwise the Eucharist was being practiced improperly.)

Bread and wine were some of the most common elements of the ancient Jewish meals. Jesus gave profound significance to two things that were incredibly common, foods that practically everyone consumed each day. Had He visited another culture at a different time in history, the first Lord’s Supper may have consisted of cheese and goat’s milk, or rice cakes and pineapple juice. So any food and drink could potentially represent His body and blood at a common meal shared among His disciples. The important thing is the spiritual significance. Let us not neglect the spirit of the law while succeeding at keeping the letter of it!

It is not necessary that common meals be deathly solemn. The early Christians, as we already read, broke “bread from house to house…taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart” (Acts 2:46; emphasis added). Seriousness, however, is certainly appropriate during that portion of the meal when Jesus’ sacrifice is remembered and the elements are consumed. Self-examination is always appropriate before eating the Lord’s Supper, as indicated by Paul’s solemn words of warning to the Corinthian believers in 1 Corinthians 11:17-34. Any transgression of Christ’s commandment to love one another is an invitation to God’s discipline. Any and all strife and division should be resolved before the meal. Every believer should examine himself, and confess any sins, which would be the equivalent of “judging yourself,” to use Paul’s words.

It is often said that in the Western world where Christianity has already become part of the culture that people will never accept the idea of churches meeting in homes. It is thus argued that we must stay with the institutional model.

First, this is proving not to be true, as the house church movement is gaining rapid momentum in the Western world.

Second, people already gladly meet in homes for parties, meals, fellowships, Bible studies and home cell groups. Accepting the idea of a church in a house takes a very small adjustment of thinking.

Third, it is true that religious people, “spiritual goats,” will never accept the concept of house churches. They will never do anything that might potentially make them appear odd to their neighbors. But true disciples of Jesus Christ certainly accept the concept of house churches once they understand the biblical basis. They quickly realize how unnecessary church buildings are for discipleship. If you want to build a big church with “wood, hay and straw” (see 1 Cor. 3:12), you will need a building, but it will all burn in the end. But if you want to multiply disciples and disciple-makers, building the church of Jesus Christ with “gold, silver and precious stones,” then you need not waste money and energy on buildings.

It is interesting that the greatest indigenous evangelistic movement in the world today, the “back to Jerusalem” movement of the Chinese house churches, has adopted a specific strategy to evangelize the 10/40 window. They say, “We have no desire to build a single church building anywhere! This allows the gospel to spread rapidly, is harder for authorities to detect, and enables us to channel all our resources directly into gospel ministry.”^[1] A wise and biblical example to follow indeed!

^[1] Brother Yun, Back to Jerusalem, p. 58.

Interestingly, more and more institutional churches are developing small group structures within their institutional models, recognizing their value in discipleship. Some churches go even further, basing their core structure on small groups, considering them to be the most important aspect of their ministry. Larger “celebratory meetings” are secondary in importance to the small groups (at least in theory).

These are steps in the right direction, and God blesses such steps, as His blessing upon us is proportionate to the degree that we line up with His will. Indeed, “cell churches” are better structured than standard institutional churches to facilitate disciple making. They stand halfway between the institutional church model and the house church model, combining elements of both.

How do modern institutional churches with small groups compare with ancient and modern house churches? There are some differences.

For example, small groups within institutional churches unfortunately sometimes serve to promote much that is wrong within institutional churches, especially when the real motive for starting small group ministry is to build the senior pastor’s church kingdom. He consequently uses people for his own ends, and small groups fit that plan nicely. When this occurs, small group leaders are selected for their tested loyalty to the mother church, and they can’t be too gifted or charismatic, lest the devil fill their heads with ideas that they can make it on their own. This kind of policy hinders the effectiveness of small groups and, just like in any other institutional church, drives off the truly called and aspiring leaders to Bible schools and seminaries, robbing the church of true gifts, and taking such people to a place where they will be lecture-taught rather than on-the-job discipled.

Small groups in institutional churches often evolve into little more than fellowship groups. Disciple-making really doesn’t occur. Since people are supposedly being spiritually fed on Sunday mornings, small groups sometimes focus on other things besides God’s Word, not wanting a repeat of Sunday mornings.

Small groups in institutional churches are often organized by a staff member of the church, rather than birthed by the Spirit. They become one more program among many other church programs. People are put together based on ages, social status, background, interests, marital status or geographical location. Goats are often mixed with sheep. All of this fleshly organization does not help believers learn to love each other in spite of their differences. Remember that many of the early churches were a mixture of Jews and Gentiles. They regularly shared meals together, something forbidden by Jewish tradition. What a learning experience their meetings must have been! What opportunities to walk in love! What testimonies of the power of the gospel! So why do we think we must divide everyone into homogeneous groups to insure success of small groups?

Institutional churches with small groups still have the Sunday morning performance, where spectators watch the pros perform. Small groups are never permitted to meet when there are “real” church services, indicating to all that it is really the institutional services that are most important. Because of that message, many, if not the majority, of Sunday morning attendees will not get involved with a small group even if encouraged to do so, seeing them as optional. They are satisfied that they are attending the most important weekly service. So the small group concept may be promoted as being somewhat significant, but not nearly as significant as the Sunday institutional service. The best opportunity for real fellowship, discipleship and spiritual growth is effectively downplayed. The wrong message is sent. The institutional service is still king.

The fact is that most of those who practice false religions are not sincere seekers of truth. Rather, they are religious because they are only looking for a justification or a covering for their sins. As they continually violate their consciences, they hide behind the guise of religion. By their religiosity, they convince themselves that they are not worthy of hell. This is just as true for religious “Christians” (including cheap-grace evangelical Christians) as it is for Buddhists, Muslims and Hindus. Even as they practice their religion, their conscience condemns them.

When the Buddhist bows reverently before his idols or before monks who sit proudly before him, his conscience tells him he is doing wrong. When the Hindu justifies his lack of compassion for a diseased street beggar, believing that the beggar must be suffering for sins committed in a previous life, his conscience condemns him. When a Muslim extremist beheads an “infidel” in the name of Allah, his conscience is screaming at him for his own murderous hypocrisy. When the evangelical “Christian” lays up earthly treasure, regularly views sexually-explicit television, and gossips about fellow church members, trusting that he is saved by grace, his heart condemns him. All of these are examples of people who want to keep on sinning and who have found religious lies to believe by which they can continue sinning. The “righteousness” of unregenerate yet religious people falls far, far, far short of God’s expectations.

All of this is to say that God does not consider people who are following false religions to be ignorant people who are to be pitied because they’ve never heard the truth. Neither does the blame for their ignorance lie at the feet of the church for not having effectively evangelized them.

Again, although we know that God wants the church to preach the gospel all over the world, we should follow the leading of His Spirit to where “the fields are ripe for harvest” (see John 4:35), where people are receptive because they’ve been softening their hearts to God’s relentless effort to reach them.

It is interesting that when we read the New Testament epistles, we don’t find any impassioned pleas (as we often do today) for the believers to “get out there and reach the world for Christ!” The early Christians and Christian leaders realized that God was working with great effort to redeem the world, and their job was to cooperate with Him as He led them. If anyone knew this, it was the apostle Paul, whom no one “led to the Lord.” Rather, he was converted by a direct act of God as he journeyed to Damascus. And throughout the book of Acts, we find the church expanding because Spirit-anointed and Spirit-led people cooperated with the Holy Spirit. The book of Acts, although often referred to as “The Acts of the Apostles,” should really be referred to as “The Acts of God.” In Luke’s introduction to Acts, he stated that his first account (the Gospel that bears his name) was a record of “all that Jesus began to do and teach” (Acts 1:1, emphasis added). Luke obviously believed that the book of Acts was an account of what Jesus continued to do and teach. He worked through Spirit-anointed and Spirit-led servants who cooperated with Him.

If the early Christians were not encouraged to “get out there and witness to their neighbors and help win the world for Christ,” what was their responsibility in regard to building God’s kingdom? Those who were not specifically called and gifted to proclaim the gospel publicly (apostles and evangelists) were called to live obedient and holy lives, and to be ready to make a defense to anyone who reviled or questioned them. Peter wrote, for example,

But even if you should suffer for the sake of righteousness, you are blessed. And do not fear their intimidation, and do not be troubled, but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence; and keep a good conscience so that in the thing in which you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ will be put to shame (1 Pet. 3:14-16).

Note that the Christians Peter wrote to were enduring persecution. Unless Christians are different than the world, however, the world (of course) won’t persecute them. This is one reason there is so little persecution of Christians in many places today—because the so-called Christians act no differently than anyone else. They aren’t really Christians at all, and so no one persecutes them. Yet many of these kinds of “Christians” are being exhorted on Sundays to “share their faith with their neighbors.” When they do witness to their neighbors, those neighbors are surprised to learn that they are (supposedly) born-again Christians. Worse, the “gospel” they share amounts to little more than telling their neighbors the “good news” that they are mistaken if they think that good works or obedience to God has anything to do with salvation. All that matters is that they just “accept Jesus as their personal Savior.”

Contrasted with that, the early Christians (whose Lord truly was Jesus) stood out like lights in darkness, and so they didn’t need to take classes on witnessing or get up the courage to tell their neighbors that they were followers of Christ. They had plenty of opportunities to share the gospel as they were questioned or reviled for their righteousness. They only needed to set apart Jesus as Lord in their hearts and be ready to make a defense, just as Peter said.

Perhaps the primary difference between modern Christians and the early Christians is this: Modern Christians tend to think that a Christian is characterized by what he knows and believes—we call it “doctrine,” and we thus focus on learning it. In contrast, the early Christians believed that a Christian was characterized by what he did—and thus they focused on obedience to Christ’s commandments. It is interesting to realize that practically no Christian for the first fourteen centuries owned a personal Bible, thus making it impossible for him to “read his Bible every day,” what has become one of the cardinal rules of a contemporary Christian responsibility. I am certainly not saying that modern Christians shouldn’t read their Bibles every day. I’m only saying that too many Christians have made studying the Bible more important than obeying it. We ultimately pride ourselves for having correct doctrine (as opposed to those members of the other 29,999 denominations who aren’t quite up to our level) yet still gossip, lie and lay up earthly treasures.

If we hope to soften people’s hearts so that they become more receptive to the gospel, we are more likely to do it by our deeds than our doctrines.