Over the past few weeks, we have examined the house church movement as seen in the denominational world and as urged LaGard Smith, an institutional preacher, in his book, Radical Restoration. Today, we ask, "Why has teaching of this kind taken hold among our brethren?" The following are a few reasons.
(1) Many brethren have been drinking more at the fountains of sectarian thought than from the word of God. Sectarian and liberal writers have been praised and their books have been endorsed by many preachers and educators who are popular among non-institutional brethren. In too many homes among brethren, books by Rick Warren, Tim LaHaye, Max Lucado and others of their kind outnumber the books useful as tools to study the text itself or books by faithful brethren. When one becomes comfortable with books by Rick Warren and Max Lucado, LaGard Smith appears to be conservative. The effect has been that many brethren have lowered their guard and their faith is now open to attack. In the case of LaGard Smith, his repeated castigation of those preaching the truth in response to the error taught by Homer Hailey on divorce and remarriage and even denying eternal punishment in hell, as well as Smith's incessant defense of Homer Hailey in such error, have endeared him to the defenders of the unity-in-doctrinal-diversity among brethren. There is no doubt that those brethren who have lauded LaGard Smith and commended his books for others to read have aided his influence and, however unwittingly, increased the disastrous impact of the house church movement among faithful brethren.
(2) The desire for a more social gospel is increasingly evident. Several non-institutional churches have distributed announcements for their "youth retreats" and "youth lectures," planned and promoted by the churches, that include appeals for young people to join in the food and entertainment provided by individuals. Many have even adopted the popular definition from the religious world of "fellowship" as referring to social interaction, especially in the setting of eating a common meal. Bible "fellowship" does not smell like coffee and cake, nor does it taste like pot roast or fried chicken. Bible "fellowship" is not aided by a dinner table, but by open Bibles and hearts blended together in the worship and praise of Almighty God. Bible "fellowship" is not expressed by sharing a round of golf or a softball game, but by sharing in a common faith and a joint participation of spiritual things (2 Cor. 6:14-18; Eph. 5:3-12; Heb. 10:32-33; Rom. 15:25-27; 2 Cor. 8:1-5; Phil. 1:3-7; 4:14-16; Phile. 4-7; 2 Jn. 9-11). To those who have doubted the clear and present danger associated with wrongly defining and wrongly applying the Bible doctrine of "fellowship," wake up! Those false concepts are aiding the influence of the house church movement and will help advance other errors as well (2 Tim. 3:13).
(3) There is a growing desire for and practice of a casual atmosphere in the worship services. Evidence of this fact abounds. Look at the attire of those in worship services. Do the clothes reflect the reverence and holiness that should accompany worship? Remember, the Bible teaches that one's clothing does reflect and manifest one's attitude (1 Pet. 3:1-4). Would the clothing worn by many in our worship services be acceptable attire at a reception in honor of the President or a funeral of a respected citizen? Though many would not think of coming to those occasions dressed as they do for worship, they adamantly maintain there is no problem wearing such in assemblies honoring God (cf. Mal. 1:8). The flippant actions and language used in many places is defended as superior to the solemnly reverent conduct which they deride as "traditional" and "stale." Our public schools should show the effect of a casual atmosphere taken to its ultimate end. Has it aided or retarded learning? To those who seek to push the envelope towards a more casual dress and expression in worship, your efforts may well be assisting souls towards the ultimate expression of casual worship found in the house church movement.
(4) There is a rising lack of respect for and even rebellion against the God-ordained authority of elders in local churches. That attitude was obvious in Charles Holt's writing just as it is in the house church movement advocates of our time. In both cases, it does not manifest a preeminence in piety, but rather a readiness for rebellion. It is totally contrary to the Bible plea (Heb. 13:17; 1 Thess. 5:12-13). A seething resentment for elders and murmuring against their leadership often foreshadow an open division. How convenient it is that such rebellion could be given a veneer of spiritual superiority by the house church movement. Yes, the lack of respect for and submission to the oversight of the shepherds of the flock have aided and abetted the house church movement.
(5) House churches provide the perfect opportunity for those who have accepted the unity-in-doctrinal-diversity concepts regarding fellowship to put their broader fellowship into practice. This congregation has lost a once faithful family who left to participate in a house church wherein they have admitted having fellowship with Baptists worshiping with them. Despite the protests of those in our midst advocating a broader fellowship, that is the ultimate end of their efforts! We have respected brethren arguing that there is no problem with accepting into our on-going fellowship those who teach some doctrinal errors and engage in some sinful practices. If we can accept some, why not some more -- and why not some Baptists as well? This application is being encouraged by churches that have accepted people into their membership on Baptist, Pentecostal or other denominational baptism. It is being promoted by those who openly claim that "there are Christians in all of the denominations." That is not a future danger, but a present reality that has aided the broader fellowship practices of the house church movement.
(6) The current push by some congregations to discard the scriptural term "church of Christ" in favor of hiding our identity is paving the road for this movement. The Community Church movement in denominationalism has the same basic approach -- they hide the fact that they are Baptists or Methodists so that Presbyterians and Episcopalians might be attracted. Some brethren followed by taking down a biblically authorized description of local churches (Rom. 16:16) in favor of the more generic "Christians Meet Here" which is neither used in Scripture, nor is it descriptive of what we are collectively. Such brethren tell us their motive is to minimize confusion between themselves and liberal brethren. (This despite the fact that many of them are growing increasingly fond of the liberal brethren and increasingly hostile towards faithful brethren.) However, their "name" of choice, or the lack thereof, threatens a confusion between them and the sectarian community-type churches, which may have the very same sign, and the house church movement which espouses the practice of avoiding any description. The fact remains that there is scriptural authority to describe God's people in given localities as a "church of Christ," or to capitalize for grammatical purposes as a "Church of Christ" (Rom. 16:16). Undeniably, the church belongs to Christ (Matt. 16:18; Eph. 1:22-23; 5:23; Col. 1:18; etc.). Even when that collective is described as a "church of God," the term "God" may speaking in particular of the divine Christ (Acts 20:28; 1 Cor. 1:1-2). We do not aid the cause of Christ by rejecting and even deriding the use of a description authorized by God, but we may aid the house church movement in so doing.
(7) The mindset of those who would minimize preaching and directive teaching also gives a helping hand to this movement. In many places, sermons beyond twenty or thirty minutes are unwelcome, regardless of content. Current theories in schools of education promote classes wherein students "discover truth for themselves through mutual participation" while seeking to eliminate classes with lecture or directive teaching. Has the use of such classes resulted in an increased knowledge level for the students? Some churches have accepted the same theories without thinking through the application. If mutually participatory efforts to jointly discover truth are inherently better ways of learning, why did God use preaching and directive teaching to spread the gospel in the first century? Why did He not eliminate preaching in favor of joint "sharing sessions"? Yes, there is a place for classes where questions, answers and discussion of truth are present. God authorized that kind of teaching as well (e.g. Acts 8:30-38). However, in both kinds of teaching there is still a teacher who directs the learning. If all learning is to be a sharing session of equal participation, what is the point of the Spirit's admonition in James 3:1? We need to encourage both the preaching of the gospel and mutual discussion of it in the proper place for each. We must reject LaGard Smith's plan whereby "our Lord's Day assemblies would be thrown into mass confusion" and "our Sunday services would shatter our customary acts of worship." While Smith's design for house churches that eliminate preaching conflicts with Scripture, the orderly and instructive preaching of the gospel harmonizes with the commands of Scripture (1 Cor. 14:23-40).
There is no doubt that the above factors aid the house church movement. As a point of caution, rather than a rebuke of wrong-doing, it would be well-advised for those involved in home schooling to be wary of some who might use that legitimate mode of teaching as an avenue to introduce the house church concept. In some places, home schooling is practiced jointly by a number of families in a congregation and has provided a ready mind and means for absorption into the house church movement. When parents decide to teach their children in the home as a means of resisting the ungodliness or low standards present in their local schools, this author would defend and commend their efforts. In cases where home schooling is a result of rebellion to legitimate rule or a desire for obsessive control, a gathering of like minds is a fertile field in which the house church movement will find growth.
Let us avoid and refute the errors of the house church movement and promote with boldness the glorious gospel of Christ and so help build local churches growing in His grace and knowledge.