House Churches are Isolationist and Cult-Like?

Posted on January 15, 2010 by rbirkey

Question: Are house churches more likely than conventional churches to become isolationist and cult-like?

Apparently at least one blogger thinks so, and had the guts to quote George Barna’s research to support his assertion! Author and researcher George Barna responds to this assertion in a recent blog post of his own.

First, I found the alleged bloggers perspective offensive and mis-informed based upon personal experience.

Second, I find George’s response and perspective enlightening, especially as it relates to the potential of conventional churches to become “cult-like” – but in a different way than what many would admit is all too common.

I also appreciate George’s perspective on the tendency of people to see what they want to see in research data, and to manipulate it to support their view – as did the alleged blogger. I have read several of the books where Barna reports on his research related to house churches, and nowhere does his data suggest anything close to what this blogger alleges. In fact, just the opposite is the case, which perhaps explains why more and more Americans are finding their spiritual needs and Christian growth experience better met through smaller, in-home meetings or “house churches.” In my opinion, it is a trend that will increase if the conventional church continues to resist making the gospel relevant to a postmodern, post-Christian culture.

George Barna's Blog Website

Click on the banner above to read George Barna’s blog post on this topic.

Want to learn more about the history of the house church, its biblical basis in the New Testament and how it is a viable structure today? Visit The House Church Book website to learn more.

The House Church Book - Cover

Chapter 2: Exploring the First “Church” Buildings

Posted on April 19, 2008 by rbirkey

Exploring the First Church Buildings

In the book Pagan Christianity?, authors Frank Viola and George Barna continue Chapter 2 by exploring the evidence we have about the first “church buildings,” a trend started by the “Christian” Emperor, Constantine in the 3rd Century AD.

We have already learned why early church buildings were considered “sacred” places. This lead to the idea that congregants had to be purified in order to enter. This necessitated the design and construction of fountains and courtyards to pass through before entering. Early church buildings were huge and modeled on the Roman “basilica” – the common Roman government buildings, the design of which was borrowed from Greek pagan temples.

Basilica design included:

Windows positioned to allow the sun to shine on the speaker who was addressing the audience – enhancing the sun worship idea – a practice that Constantine never stopped after becoming a “Christian.”
An elevated platform where the “clergy” ministered, much like the Roman magistrate. Rails were added to further separate the “clergy” from the rest of the congregation.
A center table or chest on the platform called the altar, considered the “most holy place” which usually contained bones of martyrs, or held the “holy” Eucharist. The Eucharist was served only by “holy men” – the “clergy.”
A “Bishop’s chair” or “Throne” was positioned in front of the altar, and was called the “cathedra.” The term ex cathedra means “from the throne.” This concept came from the seat of the judge in the Roman basilica. The sermon was preached from the throne. Power and authority rested in the chair, which was covered by a white linen cloth. Later, this was moved to the “pulpit,” a raised platform where the “clergy” delivered the sermon.
Surrounding the cathedra were rows of other – most often smaller – chairs, reserved for the elders.

The paternal hierarchical message embedded in this visual architectural layout and design were unmistakable.

This leads me to consider our typical modern day church building layouts. We also tend to have a stage or platform that separates the “leaders” from the “congregation.” Many churches still have a special chair on that platform for the “senior pastor.” Many “churches” have other smaller chairs next to it for other leaders, be they pastors or elders, deacons or worship leaders.

Even though the original pagan influence is quite clear, there are many today who would still argue that these “traditions” of the modern institutional church ought not to be questioned, changed or tampered with because they are “sacred.”

As a missionary friend recently pointed out to me in a personal conversation – the physical layout, decorations, architecture, design, lighting, etc. of a worship space – all contribute to a subconscious message and expectation as to what a worshiper will experience in that place. We are sending messages, good or bad, positive or negative, about ourselves, our view of God, about the purpose of worship, the source of truth, and all the rest, by these choices we make.

At the dawn of the 21st century, what are those messages we want to send?

That worship is a spectator sport?
That in worship there are some people who lead and some that follow?
That we can “watch” worship take place?
That there is one special person with the authority to speak the words of God?
That God is separate and “up front” by the more holy places in the room?
That there are special people who can only handle the holy items?
That truth comes only from the one special person on the stage, in the chair or behind the pulpit?

What does all this really communicate about our God and our view of him – especially to those who do not yet know Him, and are unfamiliar with our customs and traditions? How many people have entered our special worship places, and received these unbiblical, negative messages, because they did not understand our culture and language? I wonder.

I believe that this kind of unthinking, blind acceptance of “the ways things are,” is unhealthy and damaging to the growth and relevancy of the ecclesia in the 21st century. I don’t see how we will reach our culture with the Gospel while thinking and acting like this.

Chapter 2: From House Churches to Holy Cathedrals

Posted on April 13, 2008 by rbirkey

From House Churches to Holy Cathedrals

As already stated in earlier posts, the early church believed that Jesus was the very presence of God and that the body of Christ (the church) constitutes his temple.

The authors of Pagan Christianity? point out that Jesus made some radical statements about the Temple in Jerusalem that angered the Jews of his day. One that angered them the most was the claim that if the temple was destroyed he would build a new one in three days! (John 2:19-21) Though he was referring to the architectural temple as an example, he was actually referring to the real temple – his body – which he did raise up as Himself on the third day (Ephesians 2:6).

The New Testament teaches that since Christ is risen, we Christians have become God’s temple through his “life giving spirit” (1 Cor. 15:45). Through his spirit, he takes up residence with his believers, making them his house or temple. This is why the NT never refers to the church as a building, but as a people.

With Jesus, we no longer need a specific or special place to worship God. We can worship Him in spirit and truth from anywhere.

“When Christianity was born, it was the only religion on the planet that had no sacred objects, no sacred persons, and no sacred spaces.” (James D. G. Dunn)

As another scholar has put it, “The Christianity that conquered the Roman Empire was essentially a home-centered movement.”

As some early church congregations grew they began to remodel their homes to accommodate more people. One example of this is the famous home of Dura-Europos (AD 232) in modern Syria, which is the earliest identifiable Christian meeting place. It was a private home remodeled by removing one interior wall (between 1 and 2 at right), so that it could hold about 70 people.

Examples like this cannot be called “church buildings” but rather homes modified to accommodate larger assemblies. They were never called temples, nor considered sacred spaces.

I became aware of this particular archeological evidence a number of years ago when my father, Del Birkey wrote a book called: The House Church: A Model for Renewing the Church in which this same point is made.

Because of this, on trips in Europe and a recent trip to Spain, I have been keenly aware of the vast changes that occurred in history from the beginning of the church (The Upper Room and the house churches of the New Testament) through history (the basilicas and cathedrals of Europe) on to today (the American church building and church architecture) as it relates to the idea of the church as a building.

The most fantastic example I have seen so far is the Familia Sagrada in Barcelona, Spain. It is truly amazing and incredible… yet sadly, it is not a church, even though millions believe this to be the case.

Even though many of these buildings erected for the purpose of church gatherings are indeed spectacular works of art and human engineering, and deserve our study and admiration, they sadly detract from the original and true meaning of “the church.”

Hilarious “Pagan Christianity?” Spoof Video

Posted on April 7, 2008 by rbirkey

This satirical video makes light of the many negative and condemning reviews of the book “Pagan Christianity?” (authors: Frank Viola and George Barna, Publisher: Tyndale) by reactionary people who have not even taken the time to read it!

I think the sad part is that many of us in the evangelical world are perceived to be reactionaries – and justly so – for extreme examples like this. It really irritates me and gives us all a bad name.

Weep and Enjoy!

Pagan Christianity? – Introduction by George Barna

Posted on March 1, 2008 by rbirkey

“There is perhaps nothing worse than reaching the top of the ladder and discovering that you’re on the wrong wall” — Joseph Campbell, 20th Century American Writer

Following the book’s Preface by Frank Viola, co-author George Barna offers an Introduction entitled, “What Happened to the Church?” Barna opens his remarks by pointing out the trend we have observed in recent Christendom, with the large movements of believers going back to older approaches to the faith. This “revolution of faith” is borne out of a deepening desire especially among the young, to experience their Christian faith with more authenticity and fullness. We need not question the heart of these revolutionaries because there is ample research to show that they are genuinely seeking more of God. Their passion and ardor is real. They are tired of the institutions, denominations, and other religious forms that keep getting in the way of their connecting with Him. They are worn out by endless programs, assignments, and simplistic practices that do not draw them into God’s presence. “They can no longer endure the spiritual teasing offered by churches and well-intentioned ministries. God is waiting for them. They want Him. No more excuses.”

Those involved in this movement know what they are shifting away from, but what are they moving toward? House churches, market-place ministries, cyber-churches, independent community-wide worship gatherings, intentional communities are among the various forms being entered into. But, Barna asks, do these forms “really represent a meaningful step toward God’s highest purpose?” “Are we living in a culture that is so infatuated with change that we have forgotten that the church is about transformation, not mere change?”

There is much to be learned along these lines from the history of God’s people. But, how well do modern believers understand that history? According to Barna, “precious little,” and this is a big problem! Even though history warns us that when we don’t pay attention, we are doomed to repeat the past, we “often persist in our well-intentioned but ignorant efforts to refine life.”

Recent history of the church in America is a great example. Pick a trend: mega churches, seeker churches, affinity group ministries, vacation Bible School, multi-site churches, downloadable sermons, podcasting, big-screen projection systems, and many more… all are merely marketing strategies designed to cater to the tastes and preferences of segments of the population. “Whatever difficulties were present in the larger institutional setting that spawned these efforts are invariably present in the smaller or divergent efforts as well.”

[NOTE: Again, I am reminded of the recent Reveal Survey at Willowcreek Church that revealed just how little spiritual transformation was taking place in spite of all the money, energy and focus spent on catering to "seekers."]

“This book,” states Barna, “will challenge you to consider making more significant changes in the way you practice your faith.” History shows that when revolutionaries suggest making significant changes to the way things are done, or they start thinking outside the box, cries of “heretic” are often heard. Such protests are all too often due to the underlying ignorance about the true foundations and origins of the practices in our faith. We hear statements like, “All we need is to get back to the basics and preach the Word!” or, “That idea is the worst idea I’ve heard in a long time!” I believe that such outbursts not only crush the spirit of those seeking the heart of God through new solutions, but they may also be quenching the Holy Spirit who often reveals his will to us through the conversations, thinking and healthy open dialog of His people.

“Rather than foster continued resistance to methodological innovations, it’s time that the body of Christ get in touch with the Word of God and the history of the church to arrive at a better understanding of what we can and should do – as well as what we cannot and should not do.”

This book is intended to reveal how so many of our current “by the book” practices actually have no foundation in Scripture:

Activities within church services
Methods of raising funds for ministry
The education and ordination of clergy
Routines commonly used in youth ministry
Ways in which music is used in church
The presence and nature of church buildings

The author notes that there were three historical periods where most of our current traditions came from: The era of Constantine, The Protestant Reformation, and the Revivalist periods in the 18th and 19th centuries. This book will reveal how these changes were the result of passionate, often ill-informed believers, who went along for the ride without questioning the biblical basis of what their leaders were doing. Once these changes became accepted over time, and experienced as the norm, the church has become adept at “Proof-texting” to “prove” how these positions square with the Bible. This practice of lifting disparate, unrelated verses out of context, can be used to literally prove just about anything, and we evangelicals have become really good at it.

“The preponderance of evidence shows that these perspectives, rules, traditions, expectations, assumptions, and practices often hinder the development of our faith. In other instances, they serve as barriers that keep us from encountering the living God. The way we practice our faith can, indeed, affect the faith itself.”

Barna states that the book is not claiming that we need to go back and replicate the church in AD 30-60. He understands that social and cultural shifts prevent that. However, it is the core principles and ethos of the early church that we can learn from and adapt for our time and place. We need to learn to discern what things we can and need to adapt from our own culture, and how to avoid those that detract from it. “Caution is advisable as we strive to be the humble and obedient people who seek His central will.”

Barna likens the church to a jet airplane. Thousands of tiny course corrections are required to keep it on the flight plan and to enable it to arrive at the intended destination. Without careful ongoing course correction, a little change here, a slight nod there, and a barely perceptible tweak over there, can all add up to an entire enterprise being completely redefined!

Finally, healthy skepticism about what is presented in this book – if it leads to fact-finding and truth seeking – is encouraged! This matters greatly because the church is one of God’s deepest passions, and our lives are a gift from God, to be lived for God, in line with His plan and purpose. We need to be sure we are getting it right!

PERSONAL REFLECTION

As I read through this Introduction again, and reflected on my own life, I again find myself resonating with these authors. I am part of that group who longs to taste something more of God, and I am not satisfied with my current experience in the institutional church. I have grown unconvinced that it can happen within the forms I have grown accustomed to. I am tired of all the programs and silliness that we go through, making everything so much more complicated than it needs to be. I don’t need another meeting, seminar, class, service or committee to attend. I don’t need fancy technology, lush surroundings, candles or even my preferred style of music (In fact, I would really enjoy some silence!). I want to experience God and know that I have met Him!

I have a sneaking suspicion that I have been way to busy and noisy and have been drowning out what the Spirit wants to say. I sense that I have been quenching Him, and focused on my agenda, my tastes, my perspective, my preferences. It’s been all about me.

I find myself dreaming about how refreshing it would be to gather with some believers around a dining room table, enjoy a meal together, including “communion”, hear some authentic sharing from real life about how God is working and moving, sing a song, a hymn or listen to a poem someone wrote, hear a testimony, discuss a book (maybe this one?) or spend some time in intense prayer, and some time in silence, just listening to what the Spirit wants to say. I want THAT. I really do.

Then, I find myself wondering what would happen if small groups of believers started doing this across our community? Even as people from different churches! Do you think the Lord would give us a new vision on how He wants to reach our community? I think He might. I think we might find out that He’s been trying to tell us this for a long time.