Perhaps the most fundamental point to be addressed is how to define the term "house church" as it is being used in this series of articles. We are not using that term to encompass every church meeting in a personal dwelling or house. That practice alone is both authorized and as old as the New Testament. Rather, we are using the term to describe an identifiable group who makes meeting in private homes and in small numbers an essential part of their practice along with accepting doctrines and practices not authorized by God's word. House Church Central, the largest web site for the movement, noted:
The house church movement is an attempt to get away from the institutional church, seeking instead to return to the small gatherings of peoples that constituted all of the churches of the New Testament era.... Many house churches start among people who first meet in an institutional setting, and regular attendance at a good institutional church is encouraged as a source of Christian teaching. But can one really worship at an institutional church? The fellowship pictured in Mt. 18:20 (the source of the house church doctrine of church) is "two or three gathered together." Even "church growth" expert Lyle Schaller says that the "glue" that is necessary to unite worshippers cannot be achieved as a church grows beyond a limit of about 40 people. Other experts point out that an assembly larger than a mere dozen people creates an environment in which some of the people often back away from full participation (http://www.hccentral.com).
Amanda Phifer described several characteristics of a San Francisco house church in an article published on two Baptist web sites:
It's a church without a name, without a building, without a pastor, without a program, without even an address. But to Michael and Karen Crane, who have planted this nameless house church in San Francisco, Calif., it is precisely what the New Testament calls "church" -- a fellowship of believers who meet regularly to eat, talk, pray, worship, confess, encourage, and share together, then disperse into their everyday lives living a little more like Jesus. It's not perfect -- the New Testament church wasn't, either -- but it is church.... Between seven and nine people participate in the house church, which meets weekly -- usually on Sunday afternoon and usually at a home in the city of San Francisco, though the time and location vary... The group meets for about three hours; they eat a meal together, talk about Scripture they read during the past week, pray, sometimes sing, sometimes read Psalms, and sometimes have communion....
Being more like Jesus does not mean being a super-involved church member, the Cranes say. If a believer spends two whole days of each week at church, surrounded by other believers, Karen asks, then when does that believer have time to interact with, much less impact, non-believers? "If you go to church Sunday morning and Sunday night and you spend those times listening, then that means you have to set up another time during the week when you can have some interaction with other believers and really learn and grow. That's a huge chunk of time. But if you make all your time with other Christians chunky, meaty, the real stuff, then you have that much more time to hang out with non-Christians. They aren't willing to walk into the church with you, but they are willing to talk with you about Jesus because you obviously care about them--you're spending time with them to show them that. That's where the messy personal evangelism comes in. In this house church kind of setting, you can't get away with inviting someone to church and just letting the pastor do his job; you have to do it yourself" ("San Francisco House Church Hopes to Be an Incubator for Kingdom Growth," published by the Golden Gate Baptist Seminary and the California Southern Baptist Convention at http://ggbts.edu and http://www.csbc.com).
To speak of "The House Church Movement" is both accurate and misleading at the same time. While it is true that an identifiable movement exists towards this practice, it is also true that there are many different forms of that movement. It is not a movement peculiar to churches of Christ. It began and is very popular among those from denominational backgrounds. Yet, despite the doctrinal and practical differences, similarities also exist in doctrine and practice. A large variety of books is available in religious bookstores on the subject. A recent Internet search under "house church" produced over six million matches. If one reads a mere sampling of the material available, both the similarities and the diversity become apparent.
The differences between house churches are seen in several areas. The movement arose in rejection of organized religion. That rejection did not center on denominational doctrine, but on the organized nature of church structure and worship practices across the sectarian spectrum. Numerous house churches were begun by Baptists and Methodists, but others were formed by Pentecostals, Catholics and almost every denominational affiliation imaginable -- including some from Eastern religions. Many of the house churches started by Evangelicals are ardently premillenial and view their place as the best means to prepare for the "rapture," hence, they have "left behind" the unprepared institutional churches of their background to prepare for the ultimate separation. Others are premillenial, but do not connect their purpose with that doctrine, while yet other house churches reject premillenialism totally. House churches tend to be intentionally diverse in their practices of worship and structure. This is true not only as one compares one house church to another, but also as one examines a given house church over time. Nate Krupp, a house church proponent and author, summarized the diversity of the movement in these words:
Some groups meet in the same home every week, while others move to another home every week or once a month. Some groups are incorporating, while others are being led to have no official connection with the government. Some groups have given themselves a name, while others desire to have no name but His. The leadership styles vary, but most groups have an understanding of getting away from the clergy-laity practice, and look to several to give limited, shared, elder leadership. The groups vary as to their understanding of the role of women. They meet the needs of children in various ways ("A Growing House-Church Movement," http://www.radchr.net).
Though differences exist, there can be no doubt that many similarities also exist among the groups involved in the house church movement. Indeed, their claims of individuality given their diversity are similar to the sixties radicals who rebelled against uniformitarianism in a uniform way -- varying only in the degree of their long hair, unkempt appearance and the filth of their amazingly similar "non-conformist" clothing. Regardless of the variant views or practices among house churches, they share numerous common points. Those shared beliefs and practices include the following: