The Priority of Teaching in the Household Style Church

Ask many Christians, especially church leaders, about "house church" and sooner or later you will hear concerns raised that such churches are prone to being weak on bible teaching. Some criticisms will go even further and portray such simple expressions of church as potential hotbeds of heresy.

The reality is however that household-style churches, if they are understood and operating according to principles set out in the New Testament, actually have the potential to be centres of strong bible teaching and learning.

Here's what I mean.

In any midsize or large local church there will often be a number of gifted bible teachers and preachers. Some of these will be elders or leaders in the church - indeed, one of the apostolic requirements of an elder is that they must be "able to teach". In practice, however, many of those with this ability will not exercise it very often - at least not outside of individual pastoral situations. A typical church will have a weekly Sunday morning service, with bible teaching and maybe an evening service as well. There may be a midweek bible study group - though in many churches these have been replaced by home groups lead by church members - and there may be occasional courses, conferences or one-off events at which the bible is taught. Some churches, following a pattern established in north American churches, may also have a Sunday School - meaning an adult biblical education programme supplementary to the main weekend service.

In such a church setting, the total public/group teaching work of the church may amount to no more than a few hours each week. 

This reality raises a number of issues. One of them is a practical question: if a pastor or church leader is only preaching once a week (at the most), what are they meant to be doing the rest of the time? The answer varies from church to church, but in my own experience of being in full-time church leadership for twenty years, non-preaching time often consists of some or all of the following: 

• preparation and study; prayer; 
• meeting individuals; 
• attending planning meetings; 
• strategic thinking; travelling; 
• troubleshooting; 
• interfacing with the wider community; 
• practical acts of service; 
• emails and other administration. 

The question is, are the church's teachers and pastors meant to be doing these tasks? Or are these activities the result of a church system that unwittingly minimises bible teaching and elevates organisational management? 

When the early apostles were arrested and brought before the Sanhedrin, they were accused of having filled Jerusalem with their teaching. How had they managed to leave themselves open to such a charge? 

The Book of Acts tells us that the pattern of the Jerusalem church was to meet in the temple courts (the large setting) and in homes for more intimate fellowship, meals and breaking of bread. What is often missed, however, is that the early apostles taught in both settings - the large and the small. 

Day after day, in the temple courts and from house to house, they never stopped teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the Messiah.      (Acts 5:42)

Let's try a maths exercise. Luke (assuming he wrote Acts) records that the number of men in Jerusalem who believed in Jesus at this time was around five thousand. The text makes it fairly clear that this figure did not include women and children. Let's speculate that this number of men represents a total church population of at least 15,000 people. Let's then speculate that an average Jerusalem home could accommodate about thirty people at one time.  If the total number of believers (including children) were equally divided between such homes when they met, we would discover about 500 "house churches" in Jerusalem in the middle of the first century. None of this is provable through historical means of course. It is a thought exercise resting on a number of suppositions. 

The twelve Jerusalem apostles are portrayed in Acts as spending their days teaching about Jesus in the temple courts and from house to house. In a typical week, therefore, if each apostle visited a house church every day, they might have taught publicly about Jesus at least seven times a week - in addition to any preaching they may have done in the larger temple court setting. This amounts to a total of at least 84 teaching sessions a week in Jerusalem by eye-witnesses of Christ and his resurrection - over 4,000 interactive sermons a year. If we compare this figure with a possible number of home churches of 500, we could envisage a scenario in which each house fellowship received a teaching apostle approximately every three to four weeks. 

This level of apostolic teaching (if it bears any relation to what actually took place) may help shed some light on the claim that the apostles had filled Jerusalem with their teaching. I wonder how many contemporary home groups or house churches are fortunate enough to receive that level of apostolic input in a typical year. I suspect very few. 

The thought exercise outlined above does not prove anything historically. It merely illustrates the fact that, if those with the gifting and calling to teach the word of God were released to do so as the primary activity of their working week, there is no inherent reason why such teachers, apostles, pastors or prophets could not be actively and fruitfully deployed in small household style churches if they moved around between them on a regular basis. Such a model actually allows for more bible teaching from those able to teach rather than less. By contrast, the current system of larger Sunday services, with all their inefficiencies of size, resource and administration, leads inevitably to less bible teaching, as those primarily gifted and called to do it find themselves spending time on maintaining an organisation rather than equipping believers in their homes and places of work.  

Church history actually gives us a working model of such a system of widespread decentralised itinerant bible teaching. Early Methodism, under the leadership of John Wesley, had a very well-worked-out system of such teaching with ministers assigned to several local "societies", "classes" (groups of about 6) and "bands" within a geographical area or territory.  

Many of these itinerant preachers and bible teachers were commissioned by Wesley not by the official Church of England to which they nominally adhered in the movement's early years. The effective use of such itinerant ministers went hand-in-hand with the growth of the Methodist movement - from around 15,000 people in the 1780s to 130,000 a decade later and around one million within 50 years of its founding. 

One writer of Methodist history notes that:

“Moving to and fro, the itinerant was a bond of union between the societies in the circuit, and his appointment in several circuits with the passing years knit them together in the connexion of which he was the representative. The system helped also to secure uniformity in teaching and administration......His doctrine and discipline and those of his predecessor and successor had been derived from Wesley and the Conference. To these he and they were all amenable. Different times and conditions may necessitate modifications; but for securing the unity. homogeneity, and happy co-operation of a new, scattered, varied, and rapidly-growing community, perhaps nothing better than the itinerancy within the circuits and from circuit to circuit could have been devised. Wesley's preachers had the mobility of Wyclif's itinerating poor priests and laymen, or recalled the Friars of the Middle Ages without their hampering vows.”

Decentralised models of church (call them "house church" if you want) both require and facilitate the emergence of bible teachers who focus on that activity as a priority, without the encumbrances of a settled organisational model of church congregations and Sunday services. 

Beyond Information Sharing: Preaching that Reveals Secrets

The prophet Jeremiah faced a challenge unlikely to be encountered by most modern preachers in the western world: his family were plotting to kill him.

...the men of Anathoth...are seeking your life and saying 'Do not prophesy in the name of the LORD or you will die by our hands'. (Jeremiah 11:21)

According to Jeremiah's own account of the incident, he was unaware of the conspiracy before it became an immediate threat. His insight into the plot came about, he claims, as a result of God revealing it to him:

Because the LORD revealed their plot to me, I knew it, for at that time he showed me what they were doing. (Jeremiah 11:18)  

The exact reasons for his family's extreme hostility are not fully given in the passage (Jeremiah 11:18-12:6) but it centred around their strong dislike of the prophet's message.

Great bible scholars whose opinions I respect and whose qualifications greatly exceed my own suggest that Jeremiah may have come to an understanding of the murder plot through a message being passed on to him by someone who was aware of it. The late John A Thompson, for instance, cites the influential archaeologist and biblical scholar Dr John Bright when he writes:

A sympathetic relative who brought the news may well have been Yahweh's informant. 

(JA Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah, p. 350, NICOT series)

While it is quite possible that this was the case, there is an alternative view at least worth considering: that the news of the plot on Jeremiah's life came to the prophet through immediate divine revelation, without any human intermediary.

The following factors seem to suggest that this was in fact the case:

• the repeated insistence in 11:18 of the agency of Yahweh in disclosing the deeds (“revealed”, “he showed me”)
• the inclusion of the possible word-for-word content of the revelation (12:6)
• the absence in the passage of any reference to a third party 
• the use of the word “reveal”; its only other use in the book indicates an immediate disclosure, without human means (38:21) 

The frequency in the book of auditory and/or visual messages as a means of divine communication with the prophet, messages which included the prediction of invasion, defeat and exile at the hands of the "enemy from the north", also suggest that the revealing of a secret conspiracy was not outside the scope of the spiritual possibilities experienced by Jeremiah as he sought to follow and discharge his call to be a "prophet to the nations" (1:5).

Taking a wider biblical view, we can see the revealing of secrets as an aspect of many of the great teachers, prophets, reformers and apostles of both the Old and New Covenants. These include Daniel's ability to describe both the content and the meaning of Nebuchadnezzar's unspoken dream (Daniel 2), the insight Jesus had of the Samaritan woman's five previous husbands and her current domestic arrangements (John 4), Peter's discernment of the motives and action of Ananias and Sapphira in their financial dishonesty (Acts 5).

A striking example from church history is from the preaching of Charles Spurgeon. The person on the receiving end of the revealed secrets explains:

Mr. Spurgeon looked at me as if he knew me, and in his sermon he pointed to me, and told the congregation that I was a shoemaker, and that I kept my shop open on Sundays; and I did, sir. I should not have minded that; but he also said that I took ninepence the Sunday before, and that there was fourpence profit out of it. I did take ninepence that day, and fourpence was just the profit; but how he should know that, I could not tell. Then it struck me that it was God who had spoken to my soul through him, so I shut up my shop the next Sunday. At first, I was afraid to go again to hear him, lest he should tell the people more about me; but afterwards I went, and the Lord met with me, and saved my soul. 

The Autobiography of Charles H. Spurgeon [Curts & Jennings, 1899], II:226-27)

Commenting himself, Spurgeon says:

I could tell as many as a dozen similar cases in which I pointed at somebody in the hall without having the slightest knowledge of the person, or any idea that what I said was right, except that I believed I was moved by the Spirit to say it; and so striking has been my description, that the persons have gone away, and said to their friends, ‘Come, see a man that told me all things that ever I did; beyond a doubt, he must have been sent of God to my soul, or else he could not have described me so exactly.’ And not only so, but I have known many instances in which the thoughts of men have been revealed from the pulpit. (ibid)

The link between revealing secrets and the power of the word of God is stated explicitly by the writer to the Hebrews:

For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account. 

(Hebrews 4:12-13)

Jeremiah, like some evangelists and pastors today in parts of the Muslim-majority world, experienced such extreme hostility to his message that his life was at risk. It was through an act of divine disclosure that he come to know of this danger and was able to take preventative measures (Jer 12:6).

In the age of encryption and Wikileaks, secrets are everywhere and feature powerfully in the activities of governments, corporations and nations. Individuals also carry secrets, for good or evil. As Christian believers read, hear and (especially) speak the word of God, may we do so not as mere conveyors of general information but as those who speak with that revelatory edge to our communication, confident that "there is a God in heaven who reveals mysteries." As Daniel expressed this discovery:

He reveals deep and hidden things;

    he knows what lies in darkness,

    and light dwells with him.

(Daniel 2:22)

As the church learns to speak with such insight, may the hearers respond not with adulation of the human messenger but as Nebuchadnezzar did when he fell prostrate, with reverence for the God who reveals:

"your God is the God of gods and the Lord of kings."

John H Armstrong : How Does a Postmodern Understanding of Faith Relate to a Premodern Understanding?

Image by Rachel Ford James via Flickr

John H Armstrong : How Does a Postmodern Understanding of Faith Relate to a Premodern Understanding?

Amazing quote from Augustine on John Armstrong's site:

Although I hear people say “Moses meant this” or “Moses meant that,” I think it more truly religious to say “Why should he not have both meanings in mind, if both are true? And if others see in the same words a third, or a fourth, or any number of true meanings ,why should we not believe that Moses saw them all? There is only one God, who caused Moses to write the Holy Scripture in the way best suited to the minds of great numbers of men who would all see truths in them, though not the same truths in the each case.”

For my part I declare resolutely and with all my heart that if I were called upon to write a book which was to be vested with the highest authority, I should prefer to write it in such a way that a reader could find re-echoed in my words whatever truths he was able to apprehend. I would rather write in this way than impose a single true meaning so explicitly that it would exclude all others (The Confessions of St. Augustine, trans. Edward B. Pusey, 1962, 308).

Makes Augustine sound like a post-modern emergent!

The reason for Augustine's view, and how this fitted into the pre-modern church's understanding of the nature of Scripture, are further explored in Armstrong's thought-provoking article.

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

Max McLean Acts Mark's Gospel

Not sure how I have manged to miss this series by American actor Max Mclean.

Amazing!

Tradition and Scripture

"Christians today who want to see the church be faithful to the gospel of the kingdom should ask themselves: Which of our current traditions are consistent with Scripture and help us to be faithful communities of the kingdom? And which really nullify God’s Word? If churches confront that question prayerfully while seriously examining Scripture, many things may change."

Howard Snyder

How Long Should a Local Church Last?

I've only heard it stated publicly twice.

The first time was by the late John Wimber when he said (on his church planting tapes, if I remember rightly) that, in his view, a local church should probably see itself lasting about 20 years before it either closes or undergoes such substantial and fundamental change that it, in effect, becomes a new church.

The second time I heard it was today when Steve Timmis, leader of the Porterbook Network and Western Europe director (or something equally impressive) of the Acts 29 Network, made the following statement on his twitter profile:

"Every church is 'designed' for a specific culture & generation. It has a 'sell-by' date which, if ignored, leads into institutionalism."

I must confess, I have not thought a great deal about this issue so I will throw it out to the blogosphere in the hope that someone has done some Biblical thinking on it and can provide some guidance on where to begin in responding to this concept of the alleged time-sensitive nature of a specific local church.

Meanwhile, I'll try and get some further clarification from Steve Timmis about why he believes this.

Don't Forget Mystery

In the church of my dreams, the Bible is central and speaks with "final authority on all matters of faith and practice" (to quote a document from the Baptist church of my youth). Such a valuing of the Scriptures will inevitably lead to teaching from the Bible that is doctrinal in nature. So far so good.

From this can arise the desire for a "systematic" theology that covers all aspects of Biblical revelation and attempts to draw together the different strands of Bible truth into a comprehensive whole. Affirming that Scripture is not internally contradictory and assuming that all strands of Biblical truth can be harmonised, we can then develop a system of belief that attempts to explain all - a kind of Biblical equivalent of the scientist's search for a Grand Theory of Everything.

This desire is, of course, understandable and at one level is to be welcomed. It does, however, have its risks. One problem that can emerge in a church or movement committed to expounding Biblical truth is that its understanding of doctrine can become overly formulaic and can fail to recognise that in the end, all doctrine ends in mystery.

When we say that "God is love", for example, we are saying something that at one level appears reasonably clear and able to be understood (to the mind made alive by the Spirit). But at the same time, we are also staring wide mouthed into the most profound mystery of the universe, a mystery that makes the unraveling of the human genome appear child's play.

Although the words of Scripture are sufficient, they are not exhaustive. They do not tell us all that can be known, only that which we need to know for our salvation and for living a godly life.

Perhaps Paul had something similar in mind when he confessed that "we know in part" and when he portrayed this present life as "looking into a dark mirror" or (as other versions put it) "seeing only dimly". Because so much attention has been spent in recent decades explaining that these verses in 1 Corinthians do not refer to the cessation of spiritual gifts with the closing of the canon of Scripture, we have perhaps not been as careful to explain what they actually do mean.

In context, Paul is saying that all of our current knowledge about the things of God is limited - not incorrect, just limited. It is like the knowledge that a child has about the world around him - simplistic, basic, lacking depth or rigor. "Now", says Paul, "we know in part."

What is Paul's response to the reality of our current childish knowledge compared to our future adult knowledge of spiritual things? Does he abandon doctrine? Not at all. Rather, he emphasises love: And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

In the church of my dreams, doctrinal teaching is important. But it is to be set forth with a healthy dose of humility and a recognition that at present we're just kids talking about big stuff that we don't really get. This being the case, we adopt humility in our dealings with each other, and we make great efforts to think, speak and act lovingly towards all those who belong to Jesus Christ, even with those who don't agree with our view of the Millenium.

The Joy of Service?

What's in a word?

When I first came across a fully-fledged charismatic church - Clarendon Church (now Church of Christ the King) in Hove, its literature invited people to the "meetings" and to "come and praise the Living God." It's more common in charismatic churches now to be invited to a "service".

It's a small difference which perhaps reveals a significant shift in thinking.

Meeting (I would prefer meating) is a functional word. It simply describes people coming together for a purpose.

Service is a religious word, borrowed from the pagan cults of the Roman Empire and applied to the Roman Catholic mass. It's strange, therefore, to find it used so freely in evangelical and charismatic circles. Even in this latter context, it carries connotations of performance and ritual and of a special class of person officiating.

It's understandable why this shift has taken place. Few charismatic churches really practice every-member-participating meetings anymore. Many have settled for something less - quality worship music, Bible preaching, a "ministry time". In this context, the concept of a service is appropriate. It has a start and finish time, a running order and, sadly, a certain predictability.

The Greek words most commonly translated "service" in English are diakonia, leitourgia and latreia. Diakonia comes from the world of household servants and is used of Martha's practical work in Luke 10:40. Paul employs the same term (in Romans 15: 31) to describe his task of bringing the financial gift he has gathered from the gentile churches to the poor among the believers in Jerusalem.

Leitourgia is used of the priestly service of Zechariah in Luke 1:23 and of the superior ministry Jesus has received as high priest (Heb 8:6). Paul describes the work of certain churches in the same way - the Corinthians' service of giving money to the poor (2 Cor 9:12) and the Philippians' help and service towards Paul himself (Phil 2:17, 30).

Latreia - from the word for a hired servant - is used in a variety of ways, including the reasonable act of giving ourselves to God (Rom 12:1) and the temple worship in the nation of Israel (Rom 9:4).

What is blatantly missing from all these uses of the service-group of Greek words is any use of them to describe a gathering of Christian believers as a local church. We serve God in the totality of our lives as we offer ourselves to him as living sacrifices, but there is no sense in the apostolic writings that we perform a special religious service when we meet together. This usage, as I have suggested above, owes more to the Roman Catholic concept of the mass than the new testament feel of believers gathering for a fellowship meal, to pray and to build each other up. All of these acts are (or should be) service to God. When we gather together, we are meeting not performing a ritual.

At least, that's how I see it.