Deinstitutionalizing the church

"How good and pleasant it is when God's people live together in unity!"

-Psalm 133:1

Note: The following arguments apply on a sliding scale, becoming more applicable the larger the church size.

The apostle Paul asserts, "If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing." (New International Version, 1 Cor. 13.1-2). Unfortunately for the church today, this picture of one without love only grows more accurate. In fact, "church" has been reduced to a weekly activity as an apparent fulfillment of the Christian's duties. Instead of living as agents of Christ's love, people stand to judge others without considering the grace and mercy afforded them by God. Regardless of whether their words are right or wrong, their deliverance without love and kindness pushes listeners further away, promoting division. Truly, this fails to align with the original intentions for the church, the word which, in its original meaning, meant an assembly or gathering, contrasting with today's limiting sense that defines it in terms of a building. This all combines to illustrate the institutional church - a rigid system that confines Christianity to a weekly ritual and obstructs the living of a true Christian life, which involves the sharing of God's word with love. It accomplishes this in several ways, such as in contravening essential components of Christianity and the nature of God, mishandling the money entrusted to it, and inhibiting the growth of community. On the other hand, the house church, a small group of believers studying and serving together, corrects these issues, and it thereby follows that it deserves to replace the institutional church.

Ultimately, the common institutional church building disregards crucial aspects of Christianity and the nature of following God. As a building the church stands to provide fairly easy access to meet God. For example, when people move, they can simply search for the nearest churches in their location. However, this actually demonstrates more the fallen state of Christianity than it does the helpfulness of churches. In Luke 10, Jesus sends out seventy-two followers to share the good news. The verb used in Luke 10:1, ἀποστέλλω (apostellō), actually serves as the source of the word "apostle". Jesus never remained in one place too long but instead traveled about, always meeting people along the way, and here He insists that His followers do the same. The church building instead suggests that people need to come to its own location to meet God. This contrasts with and, more importantly, often precludes a Christian from sharing the good news with their neighbor. Therefore, the building stunts the living of a full Christian life in not providing an incentive for followers to actively tell others about Jesus. Returning to the fact that a physical building provides ease of access to people moving - truly, they should never need to search for a church in the first place because Christians, as their neighbors, would already be reaching out to them. Such action makes the believers as the body of Christ the connection point rather than an imposing structure and thus better honors the Great Commission and the goal of loving our neighbors as ourselves.

Another failing support for the building comes in the form of painting it as an edifice built for the glory of God. In the Old Testament, God made it clear that He requires no building in any form. When David desires to build a temple for Him in 2 Samuel 7, God reminds him of how He moved with the Israelites on their journey through the wilderness, never remaining in a permanent structure but a tent, and neither did He ever suggest a preference for such a building as a temple. This does not deny that the temple ultimately did honor God, but it does indicate its unnecessary nature. Indeed, David explains the true desire of God in Psalm 51, proclaiming, "You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it; you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings. My sacrifice, O God, is a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart you, God, will not despise" (Psalm 51.16-17). God does not require worship in a temple. Neither does He require it in a building on Sunday morning. Instead, He requests that we come before Him in repentance, regardless of where or when. Importantly, no structure constrains Him, for He is everywhere and always listening to our prayers. Thus, even if a church building serves to glorify God, it is ultimately unnecessary and defies God's nature in specifying a time and place for worship, especially when the worship remains there each week.

A house church remedies these solutions by its unique challenges and the flexibility in its setting. Certain difficulties lie inherent in the nature of a house church, a primary trouble being that of actually assembling a group of people to attend consistently. Consequently, it forces its initially small body to go out into the community and share about what they are starting. Calling to mind once more Jesus as He sends out His followers, the house church members must share about the good news and ultimately hope that it attracts others to join them. This task then also brings about a greater dependence on God as they meet with setbacks and, perhaps, those who dislike their message. Such dependence subsequently leads to an authenticity of faith, for to be committed to seeking out the lost and growing a community of believers requires a belief in the correctness of the end goal. Moreover, it allows God to work through every setting. "House" church does not by necessity imply a gathering in a house. Certainly, groups can meet in a house, but also a park, a school, a street corner, etc. Importantly, such freedom grants flexibility to God as well as to those gathering. Contradicting the mindset of God living in a physical church, in a house church, He is alive and active, working through the hearts of the people forming their community and meeting to grow closer to Him together. Thus, this more closely mirrors the Israelites following God through the desert instead of the obstinate Pharisees stagnating in their synagogues.

The institutional church also fairs poorly in its management of money by keeping it from those who need it most. In the majority of churches, about half of the money goes towards paying salaries ("Study: Churches Use Half of Their Budget to Pay Their Staff"). Surely 1 Timothy 5:17-18, which proclaims that "elders are […] worthy of double honor," delivers a strong message about the importance of wages in the Christian community, and it also more specifically quotes Luke in saying, "The worker deserves his wages" (Luke 10.7). Some claim that this actually mandates a high pay for pastors. Wayne Grudem explains, "Anyone who wants to argue that low pay is good for pastors must do so both without any clear scriptural support and in direct opposition to I Timothy 5:17" ("What the Bible Says About Paying Your Pastor"). However, nothing in the passage equates the honor mentioned by Paul in verse 17 with a high salary; the honor rather encompasses the wages. Further, the quote in Luke comes from the aforementioned passage where Jesus sends out the seventy-two, instructing them to stay in one house and live off of the provisions of the people there. This never insinuates the presence of a salary, nor does it suggest riches in any form - only the basic necessities. Consequently, low pay for a pastor truly does not contradict 1 Timothy at all. In fact, the closest examples to the modern pastor given in the New Testament lie in the traveling apostles, who functioned as the primary teachers of the age. Elders simply played a more direct role in the day to day life of the community, which reasonably included teaching at times. Therefore, coupling the fact that the modern role of pastor no longer matches the former role of apostle teacher with the fact that those apostle teachers never saw wealth in any form demonstrates the insufficient justification for spending half of a church's budget on salaries. In truth it takes away money that could instead be redistributed into the community.

On the other hand, a house church system better utilizes this money by avoiding formal roles and salaries, allowing for flexible spending that fundamentally matches the Bible's teaching. By its very nature, a house church functions as a sort of small group, not requiring any paid staff. Leaders that arise can share the mantle for teaching, and they can accomplish such teaching in group settings, creating conversation by studying the Word together, which contrasts with unengaging sermons. This then eliminates the paid position of pastor in addition to administrative staff. Therefore, this setting frees the church to spend tithes as it best sees fit. If people in the group fall on hard times, the money can serve to assist them. But if not, the money can instead provide the means for further acts of service - buying items for the homeless, making dinners or desserts for others in the neighborhood, supporting friends on mission, etc. Not only does this funnel all money to these activities, it also forces members to engage with their community and thereby truly love their neighbor. God's anger at the Israelites in the Old Testament further illustrates the suitability of such a system. Besides the fact that Israel rejected God, perhaps His most common complaint involved the fact that they ignored the indigent all around them. For example, God contrasts King Jehoiakim with his father Josiah, pointedly asking, "Does it make you a king to have more and more cedar? Did not your father have food and drink? He did what was right and just, so all went well with him. He defended the cause of the poor and needy, and so all went well. Is that not what it means to know me?" (Jer. 22.15-16). This last sentence proves especially important in its declaration by God Himself that Josiah knew Him. The previous sentences explain how: Josiah lived justly by lifting up those in need. The repetition of the phrase "all went well" reinforces this idea by connecting the third and fourth sentences to link living righteously and justly with serving the poor. The house church fundamentally provides more money for service due to the lack of salaries; thus, it better serves the poor, and through this we come to know God all the better.

Beyond this, in reducing "church" to a Sunday service, the institutional system of today inhibits the growth of community between the members of the body of Christ. People arrive as the Sunday service begins, worship, greet one another, listen to a sermon, perhaps worship some more, and leave. Thus, by the common format of a such a service, minimal interaction occurs between everyone in attendance beyond the commanded greeting of one another. No community grows between them from such minimal interaction. They cannot share with each other in the joys and struggles of life, and the service ultimately is reduced to its longest component: the sermon generating only sparse discussion among the people. Interestingly, this illustrates an inconsistency with the body of Christ as presented by Paul, who explains that, "If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it" (1 Cor. 12.26). The inconsistency comes in the form of an inability to suffer and rejoice together without actually sharing in each other's lives. With this in mind, then, the Sunday service system damages the body of Christ, for a body whose parts do not communicate fails to function according to its original intent. This image also does not nearly match the precedent set by the church presented in Acts 2, which states that the believers met "every day" (Acts 2.46). This continual meeting likely brought about the conditions for their community's robust nature, described elsewhere in the chapter. It thereby follows that in order to correct the downside of this institutionalized church system, a diversity of meetings must occur that encourage interacting with one another in a small group rather than meeting as an impersonal mass to hear one person speak on topics that, more often than not, primarily concern ourselves. The grave importance of living as the church in Acts 2 stems from the fact that they are the closest body of believers from the time of Christ and therefore represent a group who physically heard the words of Jesus in their own lifetime.

Fortunately, the house church's smaller size encourages discussion and varying experiences from week to week, forging a more authentic community in the process. Although any group will likely possess a leader, a sermon better fits a large audience due to its monologic nature. Thus, the primary format for a house church would instead follow that of a group Bible study, which invites all people to share their perspectives and learn from one another. Such a discussion allows everyone to grow closer together as they learn about God in community, for learning the perspectives of others grants an insight into their response to the ways the world treats them. It also levels the field by presenting a platform for those besides the leader steering the study. Furthermore, a smaller amount of people leads to greater flexibility in relation to how this communal time is spent due to the decreased amount of preferences present. Thus, while one week may concentrate on a Bible passage, the next week could focus on implementing the lessons learned. Some weeks may focus on a simple dinner together, again emphasizing the support of the community of God through both the joys and struggles of life. Here the group especially possesses the chance to grow closer together. Additionally, other weeks can raise an even greater platform for sharing - specifically asking each other the ways in which God has been teaching them and how they wish to change to become closer to God. Christ lies at the center of all of these activities, and the house church thereby proves itself to better support the body of believers as a result of the heightened freedom in choosing how to interact together.

Of course, the house church presents other challenges that the institutional church faces to a lesser extent; however, these ultimately do not undermine its efficacy. An easy criticism involves the previously touted size of the church. If the believers truly share their faith actively as suggested earlier, the size of the group will continue to expand. This then obsoletes the previous arguments, which draw their strength from the size of the church. Nevertheless, the heightened size of the community should naturally lead to another group forming and continuing to grow from there - "naturally" because of the original church's focus on reaching out to others. Ideally, a house church consists of a core group that, in connecting with those in the community, empowers those whom they meet so that the new members themselves may begin another such church as a core group of their own. Further criticism could involve the lack of a rigid leadership structure. At this point, however, the burden of proof falls on the critics. In the New Testament, Paul indeed presents qualifications for leaders in the church, demonstrating the importance of those leaders, and the house church does not contradict this. Such a church actually requires leaders to start it. Beyond this, though, the structure of the institutional church often resembles a hierarchy with pastors at the top. The word pastor was originally derived from the word meaning "shepherd," and if pastors truly resembled shepherds, then they would know their sheep closely. Instead of teaching as the prime authority under God, they would empower the congregation to learn about God for themselves. Studying the Bible in depth does not require a degree of any sort. Conversely, a degree does not qualify anyone to teach. Therefore, the lack of a formal leadership structure, the backbone to how the institutional church became institutionalized, fails to discredit the house church by any means and in fact emboldens members to actively learn about God.

In the end, then, the institutional church falls on several points involving a twisting of how Christians know and serve God, an imprudent handling of the congregation's finances, and a failure to foster community among its members. Contrarily, the house church grants God the freedom He already possesses, provides for the distribution of finances according to the good will of the people, and ensures a high level of closeness between members of the body of Christ. Although the house church may appear to have drawbacks, the apparent weaknesses actually point to its overall strength. Cultures vary, and the ways in which one group desires to serve God will not match the ways of another. Instead of perpetuating a surprisingly monolithic structure of divisive denominations at odds with the non-Christian culture surrounding them, the house church concentrates on permitting everyone to interact and grow together. Hopefully such behavior will become a rhythm that flows into all areas of the house churchgoer's life, all this so that they may share love, mercy, and grace instead of hatred, intolerance, and obstinacy.

---

---