From The New Reformation Review
courtesy of Dan Trotter
Printed with Permission
HOUSE CHURCH DIRTY DIAPERS CHRONICLES NUMBER THREE
The
Pragmatist Peril
I heard a speaker once at a house church conference say that he didn't like the term "biblical house church." I immediately thought: well, then, why don't we call it "unbiblical house church"? We might as well, since about 99.5 percent of all people doing house church now aren't doing it because of biblical reasons.
Here
are some of the non-biblical reasons people are doing house church. (1) They are
tired of being abused by pastors. (2) They have a weird doctrine that nobody in
the institutional church will let them talk about. (3) They have a weird
personality that nobody in the institutional church will tolerate. (4) They want
genuine relationships. (5) They want to spend their money on gospel work and the
poor instead of church temples. (6) They love being able to contribute to church
life.
Some
of the above desires for doing house church are good. Some of them will be
satisfied as a result of doing church in the home. But none of them will suffice
as the prime motive for doing what we are doing. There is only one ultimate
reason to do what we are doing: because JESUS CHRIST GAVE US HIS DESIGN
FOR THE CHURCH IN THE SCRIPTURES, AND BECAUSE HE EXPECTS US TO FOLLOW IT!
There is only one ultimate reason to do what we are doing: because Jesus Christ gave us His design for the Church in the Scriptures, and because He expects us to follow it!
I do home church
because I am trying to follow the will of my Lord Jesus Christ, not because I'm
trying to avoid grief I may have experienced in the institutional church, nor
because I am trying to obtain some benefit that I like. Doing home church is
much too painful for me to use a cost-benefit analysis to justify it. Like so
many other things that involve abandoning your culture for the sake of obedience
to Christ and his scriptures, it is very, very difficult to practice church the
biblical way. I'm not looking for something that works, I'm looking for
something that's right.
Contrary to
the above mentioned conference speaker, I like the term "biblical house church."
I have started using it since the time I heard Beresford Job's term "biblical
church." In my mind, this terminology has several advantages. It emphasizes that
we are not doing home church for pragmatic reasons, but rather for scriptural
ones. It also reminds the listener that in the Bible, they did do church in
their homes, not in a religious temple.
As I listened
to the speaker say he didn't like the term "biblical house church," I began
asking myself, what in the world would drive anyone to say something like that?
I thought Christians were supposed to be proud of the Bible, not ashamed of it.
Could it be that by saying "biblical" church we are implying that the
institutional church in "unbiblical," and we might offend someone? Folks, the
last thing we need in this movement is politicians. The institutional church
IS unbiblical, and someone needs to say so. And saying "biblical
house church" is not even a direct attack on an institutionalist, but a mere
implication. The phrase is actually quite polite.
I'm not looking for something that works, I'm looking for something that's right.
But I suspect another reason my speaker was afraid of the term "biblical house church." I suspect its because he doesn't even believe that there is such a thing as a biblical house church. I sort of think he's a working pragmatist, or mystic. When one has no scriptural authority, there has to be something that replaces the Scripture as one's driving force. And that something is either pragmatism, or mysticism, or both. Both pragmatism and mysticism resolve practically to egoism (even though the pragmatist himself may be personally very humble), because who is it that decides what works pragmatically? I do (not God). And who is it that sees mystically what the Holy Spirit is telling me how to do church? I do (and don't argue with me, because then you're arguing with God). I'll spend the rest of this issue bemoaning pragmatism, and save mysticism for a later issue.
Here is a quotation from the forward to a house church book. It is written from a friend of the book's author to the author. "The great need today is for unity in the Body of Christ. We really don't need to divide over buildings. So help people to lovingly make room for different methodologies... What is important is that we get the gospel to all the world as quickly and effectively as possible. In some cases buildings may be needed, in many other cases house churches will work and, in a few, perhaps both will be needed. If the fulfillment of the Great Commission is our goal, then lets use any legitimate means to get the job done. I believe there is no more effective way than planting new churches to fulfill this goal, and house churches is one of the most efficient ways of planting churches." This letter succinctly states the pragmatist's view for house churching, which states that various aspects of the Christian life just work better when church is done in the home.
I had the privilege of asking the author of the book, publicly at a house church conference, the following question: "Do you believe that meeting in the home is just **A** way of practicing church, or do you believe that meeting in the home is **THE** biblical pattern established by Scripture at the behest of Jesus Christ and his apostles? Do you believe that the obscene expense of buildings suck money and time away from apostolic works that could be used to spread the gospel and succor the poor? Do you believe that religious church buildings are idolatrous substitutes for the true 'church building', namely the flesh-and-blood members of the Body of Christ? In other words, do you believe that we should be practicing BIBLICAL house church, or 'house church as it suits us'?" The author without a moment's hesitation gave me the wrong answer, without trying to qualify it, with no apparent sense of embarrassment.
I thought Christians were supposed to be proud of the Bible, not ashamed of it.
Folks, if what we're doing is just another methodology, let's quit right now. I'm not interested. Because what you're doing might "work" today, but it probably won't work tomorrow. And then tomorrow you'll go running off, looking for the next church fad. Why not megachurches? They seem to "work" OK.
I recall statements made by another, world-class pragmatist made at another house church conference. This gentlemen, who is in the process of starting about 300 quadzillion house churches per square inch of the earth's surface, stated publicly at the conference that there were "house churches" starting in some Roman Catholic churches he knew. God forbid that I should limit God, but that's about the most oxymoronic thing I ever heard in my life. A can not equal Not-A. One who is Roman Catholic can not (consistently) practice house church. But this sort of thing doesn't bother the pragmatist. He just makes things up as he goes. And the Scripture? Well, let's don't put God in a box.
Here is one of the basic problems of pragmatism. If you don't accept a Scriptural definition of what the church is, you are left defenseless when someone else proposes a church that you believe won't "work" well. Suppose someone tells you that a sermon-centered church led by a protestant pope is working very nicely for them, and that these churches have worked great since the Reformation. In the face of that, the house church pragmatist will suck air. The biblical house churcher, however, has an authority that the institutionalist shares, and from which he can make a case to the institutionalist that might deliver him from his delusion.
Do you believe that meeting in the home is just "A" way of practicing church, or do you believe that meeting in the home is "THE" biblical pattern established by Scripture?
Another problem with pragmatism is the pain that comes from too much trial and error. If you are trying to conform to the biblical pattern for doing church, you will, of course, stumble periodically, and have to rethink things. But at least you have a standard by which to judge your failure. But a pragmatist has no standard at all. He can just go on doing what he thinks is right, screwing things up royally without realizing what's happening. When he does realize he's made a hash out of things, he can then lurch to the next solution, and hope for the best. I have been in the house church movement for roughly ten years, and I have had tons of emails from folks facing troubles (sometimes disasters) in their church life. And I dare say that every one of those troubles could have been avoided if my correspondent had understood and practiced what the Scripture revealed about the problem. The most pragmatic thing you could ever do is to accept the authority of Scripture in your church life. The Bible "works".
I must mention that for a particular individual, pragmatism might have a more honorable origin than just the desire to do one's own thing unchecked by Scripture. Some have picked up an unfortunate theological belief that works like this. It is said that if the Bible doesn't directly command something ("guard yourselves from idols"), or if the Scriptures don't directly prohibit something ("don't commit adultery"), then it follows that the believer has can go out and do what is jolly right in his own eyes. Unfortunately for the lovers of the biblical home church, our ecclesiology is embedded in lots of New Testament church examples, with few direct commands or prohibitions. Thus, it is said by theological pragmatists, we have the right to do home church only on the ground that it works best, not that its "biblical". It is a disastrous mistake to adopt this viewpoint. To puncture this pragmatic theology would take an entire article, and its been nicely done elsewhere. The following two articles show that the house church pragmatists who do what's right in their own eyes when they do church clearly violate Scripture and offend the will of the Lord. The first is by Steve Atkerson of the New Testament Restoration Foundation and is called Why We Should Imitate Apostolic Tradition. The second is by Beresford Job of London, and is entitled The Apostolic Traditions - The Heart of the Matter.
Let me point out to you a pragmatic result of pragmatism. Once you allow that any church form is OK, then the Western, Protestant Reformation church form is also OK. Once you allow that, you might as well give up. Do you really think that the average Christian will overthrow centuries of tradition, custom, habit, and prejudice on your claim that you have something that "works" better? Folks, it ain't going to happen. You've got to try to convince them that the Word of God trumps their tradition.
May the words of the apostle Paul be our authority: "For this reason I have sent to you Timothy... and he will remind you of MY WAYS [Paul's ways] which are in Christ, just as I teach EVERYWHERE in EVERY church." (I Cor 4:17)
For all you free spirits out there, here's an exercise for you. Think of ten of your friends who own a house. Do all the houses have roofs? Doors? Windows? Kitchens? Walls? Bathrooms? Floors? Because they have a common design, all of the houses are alike, are they not? There are certain things that are necessary in order for the house to be a house. Likewise, there are certain things that are necessary for a church to be a church: free sharing as opposed to sermon-centered meetings, consensual as opposed to hierarchical leadership, meetings in homes and not in special religious buildings, child-integrated meetings, the Lord's Supper as a full meal, a one-hundred percent converted membership with strong church discipline, no worship leaders, etc. For those of you who say that's oppressive and crimps your freedom, let me point out to you how much freedom the New Testament divine design gives you to operate in your church life. Just as your friends have the freedom to style their homes with different shapes, colors, and layouts, so the biblical home church will enjoy the freedom to express a vast variety of styles. But that freedom, in order to even exist, must express itself within the biblical form. Every biblical church is the same in its essential design, but is different in details and particulars.
If what we're doing is just another methodology, let's quit right now. I'm not interested.
As a matter of fact, the biblical home church is very similar to a marriage. The divine blueprint is for one husband, one wife. How do you think your wife would feel if you told her that you thought the biblical design for marriage was too restrictive, that you needed more "freedom," and, honey, I'm going to bring a couple of more wives home? She would probably feel the same way I do when people tell me that there is no biblical pattern for church.
Enough of doing what's right in our own eyes. Enough of antibiblical pragmatism. Let's read and obey the Bible. Let's discover Jesus' church, and let's forget the church of our foolish traditions. Let's let the truth of the divinely designed church set us free.
-By Dan Trotter