Month: September 2020

It’s Harvest Time (or, Starting with “Why?”, Part 4)…

/ pastorlynnmalone / 4 Comments

Let’s be frank. House church (organic church, simple church) is countercultural for us folks in the United States (most of the west, really). I’m okay with that, though, because if there was ever a time the Church needed to be countercultural, it is now.

Since I’m being frank, let me also say that if you should attend a house church, you’re not likely to find the music to be excellent (although if you come to the House Church Movement, you’ll find my daughter leading us with excellence), the preaching and/or teaching may not be as polished as one is accustomed to, and the youth/children’s program will be unspectacular.

These reasons (and probably a few more) are why there isn’t more house church focused church planting movements in the west. We like our high-energy music, our polished preaching and those youth/children’s ministries that are going to do for children what parents are so unwilling (or unable) to do for themselves. House church for too many people will lack the glitz and glamour that will reach a consumer culture.

That fact notwithstanding, I believe the house church model of church planting is perfectly poised to reach new fields that are ripe for harvest. The house church planting model is designed to be “close to the ground,” as in, rooted in relationships with neighbors and co-workers, high on interpersonal relationships, ingrained in the rhythm of the community, not restricted by money or funding and is simple in its administration.

Additionally, Covid-19 has changed the landscape of traditional church. By all accounts, most traditional churches are averaging 30 – 50% of pre-Covid attendance. Those churches that see a higher percentage are outliers. Based on what I’ve read, and conversations I’ve had with pastors, those percentages are not likely to change drastically for the foreseeable future. That’s because half the people believe the church shouldn’t be meeting yet, and the other half of the people believe the church should have never stopped.

The opportunity that exists for the house church in this environment is that the church can be where the people are. The new context is simply more conducive to the house church. The house church can meet in closed communities. The house church can meet in large apartment complexes. The house church can meet in dense urban areas where the cost of living (and the cost of property) is expensive. The house church can meet in college dorms. The house church can meet in places where the government has restricted public worship gatherings (it sure feels strange to write that sentence as I sit in the United States!). The house church can meet wherever there is a home and a facilitator.

For all these reasons, the house church model can revive an evangelistic zeal in the Kingdom of God for the west. Consider for a moment the rapid growth of the early church. Between Pentecost and 70 AD the church experienced the most phenomenal growth in its history, spreading from a mere handful of believers in Judea throughout the Mediterranean world. Most scholars agree that this growth was accomplished using private homes as the primary meeting place.

Consider, also, the following mathematical potential for a ministry such as The House Church Movement. Beginning with a single home congregation with an average membership of twelve people, allow for that one group to reproduce itself in the form of a second group after two years. Then, allow for each of those groups to reproduce during the next two years—and so on. Allowing for growth and loss within each group, yet maintaining the group average of only twelve members (a conservative estimate of group size), after 6 years, The House Church Movement would have 96 members. After 12 years, The Movement would have 768 members. After 15 years, it would consist of 2,304 members. After 18 years, 6,912 members. After 20 years, the overall membership of The House Church Movement would be 13,824!

Please understand, I hold no illusion that The House Church Movement will ever boast a membership of nearly 14,000 people. I simply offer these projections as a way of showing that this philosophy of ministry and evangelism has potential equal to, if not greater than more traditional models.

Please don’t think I’m trying to sell everyone on the house church model or The House Church Movement. I’ll admit that it’s even hard for me to move away from the traditional church model of ministry, but I feel called to this model and to this Movement because I believe that house churches take place where harvest happens–in the neighborhoods, in the work places and in the homes of both those who believe and those who do not.

Until next time, keep looking up…

No Needy Among Them (Or, Starting with “Why?”, Part 3)…

/ pastorlynnmalone / Leave a comment

I love what Luke writes in Acts 4: 32-35–

32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.

Can you imagine what that must have looked like?

As I began praying about a new church plant, I sensed the Holy Spirit calling me toward planting a “house” church. Initially, I interpreted the vision to be open to growing into a more traditional expression of the church—building, pews, administration, etc. As I’ve lived with and prayed over the vision the past two months, I’ve gained greater clarity as to where the Lord may be leading us as a new church plant. I am grateful to a group of 21 people who have consistently prayed for clarity in this unfolding work of the Holy Spirit.

It is not unusual for a new church to begin by meeting in a home. A small group of only ten or twenty people does not need a larger meeting place, and the costs involved in procuring any sort of space is often prohibitive. In this regard, a “house church” is understandable to many. But if they learn that it was the intention to continue meeting in homes no matter how large it grows, eyebrows will begin to rise.

The idea of the house church does not easily fit into the tradition of American discipleship. For generations, the idea of the church has been almost universally associated with a central meeting place—a church building. Even though the biblically informed disciple knows that the church is people, it remains almost impossible for some to escape the association between a particular local church and the building in which that church gathers.

When a society has grown up with an idea—a tradition that has been passed down from generation to generation—a departure from that tradition can seem strange or even wrong. I will not fault anyone who questions the practice shared in this vision, or any who are not convinced of its benefits, nor is this unfolding vision a condemnation of the longstanding tradition of churches meeting in large central buildings. Too many examples of excellence within that tradition, both historically and currently, can be mentioned in its defense. My intent is simply to offer another reason why The House Church Movement will continue meeting in homes, and to demonstrate that not only is the practice biblically sound, but it is a great model for meeting peoples needs.

A NATURAL SETTING FOR FELLOWSHIP

During a House Church Movement meeting, we will enjoy facing one another in a warm, familiar environment, rather than sitting in rows looking at the back of someone’s head while most of the activity takes place on a stage. We may also enjoy eating a meal together every week, sampling friends’ cooking, or sometimes bringing in pizza. We might enjoy drinking coffee or tea after a Movement Meeting while sitting comfortably around the living room, sharing in each other’s lives. We could stay late, discussing personal or church matters and doctrinal issues. Sometimes, advice or counsel may sought by one, and given in return by another, or even several. Sometimes, two or three may find a quiet place to pray together. It could be like a family reunion every week.

While this type of fellowship can take place in a sanctuary setting, in the home it is natural. And, even as The House Church Movement grows large in numbers, it never has to lose the familiarity and intimacy that can be experienced in a home’s setting. Instead, new congregations can be formed—teaching others how to experience this same rich Christian fellowship. There is little doubt in a hurting world that people are longing for fellowship and intimacy that a house church setting could provide.

A DESIGN FOR BIBLICAL INSTRUCTION

When the New Testament authors gave written instructions to the church, they were writing in light of what they knew the church to be—small assemblies meeting in homes. Consider: If the church were later transformed into something that had never been seen or anticipated by the authors of the New Testament, the instructions they gave to the early church might not be as readily applicable to the new form. As an example, consider this principle in light of all of the “one anothers” in the New Testament—the commands to know, love, guard, and care for our brothers and sisters in Christ (i. e. John 13:34-35; Romans 12:10; Galatians 6:1,10; Colossians 3:12-16; 1 John 3:16-17).

Certainly these are kept faithfully in many larger congregations, but one can hardly overlook the fact that increased size means increased difficulty in keeping them consistently. There exists the increased potential that some will fall through the cracks. It is evident that in order to keep the commands to love and care for one another, larger bodies need added structures and programs which, in turn, necessitate additional burdens of administration. I could multiply examples, but suffice it to say that in at least this one case, the instructions are much easier to follow consistently in a smaller gathering. I might even suggest that these instructions were designed for small gatherings.

Because no one falls through the cracks, needs are more readily known and easily met. I’m not sure there is a greater “why” for the house church, but there are still two more we’ll explore in coming weeks:

  • House churches take place where harvest happens, and
  • House churches raise up disciples to embrace the ministry to which they’ve been called.

Until next time, keep looking up…

The Bible Tells Me So (or, I’m Starting with “Why?” Part 2)…

/ pastorlynnmalone / Leave a comment

I remember as a teenager hearing about this mysterious entity called a “house church.” I learned there were actually these small groups of Christ-followers who met weekly in homes and called themselves a church. I thought it rather strange, and I was not discouraged in that thinking from those in the more “traditional” church in which I grew up.

Courtesy of The Toledo Blade

People can be very passionate when it comes to the discussion of house churches (or simple churches or organic churches–the terms are interchangeable). Some will argue, “It’s the only way to ‘really’ do church. After all, it is how the New Testament church functioned.” Still others will, with equal passion, argue that house churches are generally made up of disgruntled members from more traditional congregations, or of theologically quirky folks who are considered, well…just, odd. Add in the fact that house churches are not very prevalent in Western culture, and one has a recipe for misunderstanding.

So, here I am to try to help with any misunderstanding my current path and calling may cause. In part 1 of this series (click here to read), I shared about God’s call as the underlying “why” of this journey, but the why goes beyond God’s call (though that would be enough in itself). The second “why” that motivates me to move in this direction is because I believe the house church is biblical.

What? You don’t think so? If one thinks the house church movement is not biblical, that one must be compelled to discount the first one hundred years of church history. Here’s a brief survey of relevant Scripture:

44 Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, 45 and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need. 46 So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart, 47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved. (Acts 2: 44 – 47)

42 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)

7 Then Paul left the synagogue and went next door to the house of Titius Justus, a worshiper of God. 8 Crispus, the synagogue leader, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard Paul believed and were baptized. (Act 18:7)

20 You know that I have not hesitated to preach anything that would be helpful to you but have taught you publicly and from house to house. (Acts 20:20)

3 Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my co-workers in Christ Jesus. 4 They risked their lives for me. Not only I but all the churches of the Gentiles are grateful to them. 5 Greet also the church that meets at their house. (Romans 16: 3-5)

19 The churches in the province of Asia send you greetings. Aquila and Priscilla greet you warmly in the Lord, and so does the church that meets at their house. (1 Corinthians 16:19)

1 Paul, a prisoner of Christ Jesus, and Timothy our brother, To Philemon our dear friend and fellow worker— 2 also to Apphia our sister and Archippus our fellow soldier—and to the church that meets in your home: (Philemon 1: 1-2)

I think you get the picture. The early church was a church that met primarily in the homes of believers. They didn’t have church buildings to meet in, so homes became the default location. Yes, believers met in the Temple and in synagogues, but not as an organization–those early believers were part of another institution. Following the biblical model in this transitional period in Western culture opens the door to a fresh move of the Holy Spirit. My favorite way to say it is “House Church–Church in the new, old-fashioned way!”

Please let me clarify something, though. The house church is not the only legitimate model for church. I would never argue that point. The Holy Spirit has used various expressions throughout history to advance the Kingdom of God around the world. The “institutional” church is in a time of seismic shifting, and it will continue to meet and worship and serve. Campuses have and will continue to re-open. Congregations have and will continue to pivot. Hooray!

I am not anti-institutional church. The institutional church has been incredibly good to me and my family. I am deeply grateful for the love, care and nurture I’ve received in the institutional church, and I cherish the friendships those years have developed. And, I’m still a part of the institutional church–the Evangelical Methodist Church is a denomination, after all! But, I am grateful that the EMC is committed to church planting, and to do so in new, fresh, creative ways.

It would have been very easy to simply drop all denominational affiliations…to say that denominations are an abomination (some theologically odd people might agree!), but I don’t believe that to be the case. It is important for me to be a part of the “institution” because it affords me a covering or authority and accountability. I need both. I reflect my submission to Christ through my submission to the District Superintendent and the General Superintendent of the EMC, and I am held accountable for the work of ministry by them, and others who serve the general church.

The House Church Movement is a ministry of the Evangelical Methodist Church, and though I begin as its pastor, we will serve under the Book of Discipline of the Evangelical Methodist Church. We will be accountable to them. We will report to them (but, they do not now, nor will they ever, own my house, or any other property the church might meet).

So, you see, this is not an anti-institutional backlash. This is a genuine attempt to reclaim a biblical model for doing ministry as the church. I pray you’ll join us on the journey.

There are three more “why’s” to follow:

  • House churches meet people’s needs.
  • House churches take place where harvest happens.
  • House churches reflect the priesthood of all believers.

I’ll unpack these in coming blog posts, but in the meantime, don’t forget to pray for The House Church Movement as we launch Thursday, September 17th at 6:30 p.m. Plan to join us if you’re in the north Louisiana area. Check out our Facebook page for more information.

Until next time, keep looking up…

I’m Starting with “Why?”

/ pastorlynnmalone / Leave a comment

Sorry, I know the title of this blog is a rip-off of Simon Sinek‘s TEDTalk, and subsequent book entitled Start with Why, but if you’ll bear with me, maybe you will understand why I borrowed the phrase. The premise of Sinek’s book is people who change the world work from the inside-out rather than the outside-in. Using what he called the “golden circle,”most people always start by asking “What?”, move to “How?” before making it to “Why?” The difference makers always start with “Why?” So, let me.

I’m going to start with the “Why” of The House Church Movement and attempt to work from the inside out to explain why I feel compelled to launch this “new” movement. It’s not actually new. House churches have been around as long as there has been a church. The first churches were house churches. Perhaps a better way to state it is The House Church Movement is church in the new, old-fashioned way.

I don’t want to spend too much energy defining the term “house church” for you. I’m going to make a major assumption that you’ll surmise a house church is a church that meets in a person’s house. That’s the stripped down definition, but it suffices for our purposes here. House churches have also been referred to as “simple” churches and “organic” churches. Those terms are often used interchangeably when referring to the idea. No matter the term used, The House Church Movement is a movement whose purpose is to establish churches in the homes of followers of Jesus Christ. I hear you asking the question, “Why?” I’m glad you asked!

There are actually five reasons why my wife, Vanessa, and I are launching The House Church Movement. I’ll take the next five blog posts to unpack each of the five reasons, and as I unpack each one, will delve a little more deeply in the philosophy and theology that underlies the movement (and I believe it is a true movement of the Holy Spirit).

The first “Why?” is because we feel called to launch this movement.

I have made no secret of the anxiety I encountered in vocational ministry over the last two years I served professionally. There was a part of me that was totally unsettled with my inability to develop fruitful followers of Jesus Christ. I don’t blame the people (Lord! No!). I blame myself, but I also blame the institution of the Church. The Church as institution was concerned less with making disciples than it was with survival. The processes and procedures in place far more promoted institutional survival than they did spiritual formation and growth in Christlikeness.

I watched (over 28 years in ministry) as the “Church as Business Model” grew, and pastors were trained as C.E.O’s instead of shepherds. The Church Growth Movement had much (though not all) to do with this transition. It wasn’t long until pastors were pursuing MBA’s in order to lead multi-million dollar mega churches, and developing large staffs to handle ministry, and building more and bigger facilities to handle the ever-increasing crowds. It looked great on the bottom line in terms of nickels and noses, but it did little to enhance the spiritual well-being of the disciples as more and more people became consumers of religion. Witness the continuing decline of faith participation as a percentage of the population even as mega churches continue to grow at the expense of smaller congregations.

For as many as four years, I wrestled with my place in that system. I also know that the dissension within my former denomination added to my anxiety, rendering my capacity and desire to lead the church greatly diminished. I was heart-broken. I was confused. I was tired. I didn’t know much else, but I did know that what I was doing as a pastor was not what God called me to in 1990. After a season of prayer, Vanessa and I discerned it was time to step away from vocational ministry (read that here).

We stepped away from vocational ministry not believing God would call us back to the pastorate. We knew we needed a season of rest. We knew we needed a season to simply worship together. We knew we needed a season to pray. We knew we needed a season to discern further God’s calling on our lives. We are grateful for that season!

During that season, we wrestled with the question, “Does the God who calls us into ministry call us out?” I first thought the answer was yes, but we discerned the answer is no. God doesn’t call us out of ministry. He calls us to different seasons of ministry and different places of ministry. I believe Vanessa and I have arrived at a new season and a new place of ministry. We are entering a church planting season.

The changing landscape of western culture, and primarily the culture of the United States, necessitates new methods and new models for doing ministry and mission in the 21st century. Church planting will be ever more critical to the future of church. Covid-19 has altered the landscape for the traditional church (and I don’t mean traditional in the theological) going forward. No one knows who or how many may return to congregations when society returns to “normal.” The culture will be filled with both un-churched and de-churched people who will be longing for a spiritual connection, spiritual grounding and a spiritual home. Church planting will be the primary means of meeting this need.

So, again, why the house church? Because we feel called to it, just like I felt called to the pastorate in 1990. The calling never left, it simply transitioned in God’s timing. I am like the Apostle Paul as translated by Peterson in The Message:

Still, I want it made clear that I’ve never gotten anything out of this for myself, and that I’m not writing now to get something. I’d rather die than give anyone ammunition to discredit me or impugn my motives. If I proclaim the Message, it’s not to get something out of it for myself. I’m compelled to do it, and doomed if I don’t! If this was my own idea of just another way to make a living, I’d expect some pay. But since it’s not my idea but something solemnly entrusted to me, why would I expect to get paid? So am I getting anything out of it? Yes, as a matter of fact: the pleasure of proclaiming the Message at no cost to you. You don’t even have to pay my expenses! (1 Corinthians 9: 19 MSG)

Who knows? It may all come to naught, or it may reap a harvest ten-fold of anything we’ve ever known. We only know that it’s in the Lord’s hands, and we’re deeply appreciative of the Evangelical Methodist Church for giving us a place to call home as we answer this call.

If you’re interested in knowing more about The House Church Movement, reach out and we’ll chat, or if you’re in the north Louisiana area and desire to join us for our initial gathering, please put September 17th at 6:30 p.m. on your calendar. You’ll find particulars concerning the place of the gathering on our Facebook page.

Until next time, keep looking up…