I’ve seen something I can’t unsee. And since I’ve seen it, it affects the way I see everything else.
I was a “traditional church guy until I die” kind of person in my past life. The traditional model of church was used for a lot of good in my life… and it was all I knew. I am grateful for some of the good parts of that approach that produced some good things in my life.
But, I started really studying the church… its construct, its structure, the way it was built. Then I wrestled with whether the initial build was just a weak expression until a better one could be built. Or, did Jesus build the first churches the way he wanted all of his churches to be built for all times, in all places?
I studied scripture, church history, historical and present movements, and the church around the world today. I was interested in the science of the construction, more than only the outcomes that the construction produced. I saw some clear commonalities present across the early church and movements of history. And, I saw even more clearly the commonalities between the way most modern day churches operate, which were now no longer subtle to me, but profoundly different than what I read about in the Bible.
Once I saw the consistent construct between the early church and movements and the differences that came later and lasted until now, I was undone. I was paralyzed with inability to do things the same way anymore.
The pendulum swing for churches that have diverted from the original church construct seems to mostly be:
A super centralized, highly clergified, pastor/program/place based model.
Or…
An almost complete autonomy/individuality/total disconnect from centrality/not under authority/not in community beyond my individual house church or microchurch community.
But what I believe is evident in scripture, church history, and movements is a hybrid of these extremes. A both/and, not an either/or. Parts of both, but not nearly fully either.
In movements and the early church, some centrality was always present for authority, support, vision, mission, unity, and accountability. But, most leadership was distributed and decentralized away from primary place and primary priest or pastor.
A quick scripture to use as a base example that can be a lens by which we may see many other views into the construct of the church can be found in Titus 1 and 2. Titus is, of course, one of the pastoral letters. So it’s a good place for pastors to look for pastoral directives. But Paul gives even more ecclesiological clarity when he tells Titus, “The reason I left you in Crete…” Essentially, Paul is about to tell Titus why Titus is going to be a leader of the church in a region. Paul is going to tell Titus what to do, how to do it, and even the kind of people who should be doing this alongside of him.
Paul says, “The reason I left you in Crete… was to straighten out what is unfinished… appoint elders in every town… teach what is in accord with sound doctrine…” Paul is giving directions to Titus. And Titus is going to appoint elders based upon his discernment of their fulfillment of certain qualifications that Paul told Titus are required. There is some clear authority here – Paul to Titus, Titus to the Elders. And, Paul is doing this same thing in other places, too. Paul tells Titus the kind of people who should be leading. But, he also tells Titus what they should be doing and where they should be doing this.
Paul didn’t want Titus to go to every town and pastor the people. And Paul didn’t want Titus to set up a place where everyone could come to him to be their pastor. Being a pastor of all of these people in all of these places would have been overwhelming. That’s why it was never the plan. Paul wanted Titus to appoint a pastor available to all of the people wherever they lived. Titus appointed and pastored the elders/pastors. The elders/pastors pastored the people.
There are several qualities present across this first generation of churches, and these qualities permeated every church throughout the New Testament, and early church history, as well as substantiated movements. They are almost as embedded as DNA elements, hence coining the term “Ecclesiological DNA” or “eDNA.”
These eDNA elements embedded into the construct of the church are:
DECENTRALIZED from Primary Pastor/Priest and Place
Decentralized from primary place and pastor is a major mark of the early church and of most movements.
All of these elders/pastors that Titus appointed were connected under Paul’s and Titus’ leadership and authority. And Titus had ongoing relationships with these elders to ensure that they were teaching sound doctrine to the people, and that they were living out their mission and continuing to exhibit these qualities and qualifications to continue being a pastor.
But, these pastors on the ground were directly responsible for shepherding this community of believers. Titus wasn’t there. Paul wasn’t there. This person who was chosen, identified, qualified, appointed, and under authority was the pastor for the people in that place. The pastors were responsible for shepherding a specific community of people.
Paul appointed and led Titus. Titus appointed and led the elders. The pastor/elder pastored the people in that place.
DISTRIBUTED PASTORAL LEADERSHIP
Distributed Pastoral Leadership is a major mark of the early church and of most movements.
The priesthood of the believer was a radical new truth to accept for Christians. Paul himself was raised under the Old Testament priesthood requirements. But now, Paul is telling followers of Jesus that they are empowered as priests. This language would have been very new for a believer to accept and practice.
Somewhere in the 4th century, the idea of normal everyday people being priests was reduced. Sacred priests were set up in sacred places. If you were to be married, buried, baptized, served communion, or taught the Scriptures, a priest would once again do this for you.
Even non-liturgical churches practice this form of Old Testament priesthood. Rather than call them a priest, they are called a reverend or a pastor. Rather than a temple, they may be in some other type of building dedicated as a church. But, the idea is still that this elevated, separated, and sacred clergy is the one who performs the sacred duties.
But, this idea is foreign to the New Testament way. The normal, everyday, non-elevated and non-separated brother or sister in Christ would perform their role and exercise their gifting in the church. But, all as equals. Equal, but separated roles, often identified through gifting.
Normal people should be pastoring other people. Attorneys and firemen and doctors and teachers and engineers should be shepherding smaller communities of people. They should be doing weddings, funerals, baptisms… they can facilitate a community caring for one another through benevolence… they can ensure everyone in their house church is being discipled by or discipling someone else.
Pastoral leadership was distributed. Paul appointed Titus. Titus appointed pastors on the ground in each town to ensure that every person had a pastor available to them wherever they lived.
DIVERSE DISCIPLESHIP COMMUNITIES
Diverse Discipleship Communities were a major mark of the early church and of most movements. Communities that are geographically based is another major mark of the early church and of most movements.
Additionally, these house churches were diverse. When you gather geographically, you force diversity. And diversity is crucial to fulfill many of the commandments of the church.
Each house church in Crete was based on geography. If you were single, this was your house church, this was your spiritual family, and this was your pastor. If you were married, if you were older, if you were younger, if you were rich, if you were poor, if you were a mature follower of Jesus, if you were spiritually immature… all of these people went to the same place, had the same pastor, and were in the same local spiritual family.
Homogeneity as a construct for defining church community is hardly found in scripture or history. Gathering based on a specific identifier is unusual to the scriptures. The commonality was Christ – not my age, gender, socio-economic bracket, affinity groups, or even mission or calling. A wide variety of passions and gifts and calling should be present in every church community.
A CHURCH OF HOUSE CHURCHES
These house churches in each of these towns or areas of Crete had a lot of individual responsibility and freedom. But, they were also connected under a common authority, mission, and direction. They were individual house churches, but connected together as one. They were a “Church of House Churches.” They were semiautonomous to exercise pastoral leadership, but they were aligned and accountable under common authority.
There’s not a ton of writing on the second century church, but it’s useful to read what is available. A great insight into the continuation of the first century church into the second century is given to us by Michael Kruger in his book, “Christianity at the Crossroads: How the Second Century Shaped the Future of the Church.” Here Kruger gives a clear picture of how the church continued to function beyond the first century:
A similar phenomenon seems to be present in the second century. The letter of 1 Clement, for example, writes on behalf of ‘the Church of God . . . in Rome’ and writes to ‘the Church of God . . . in Corinth.’ Despite the fact that Rome and Corinth are probably composed of numerous house churches, the author apparently views them, in some fashion, as a single entity. The author even refers to the ‘presbyters’ in Corinth, implying that the church there is ruled by a single body of elders.
Likewise, Polycarp writes, ‘to the Church of God… in Philippi’ even though the city, most likely, has numerous house-based congregations. Thus, there appears to be some awareness that multiple congregations in a single locale are somehow linked together.
And Polycarp calls the Philippians to submit to their ‘presbyters,’ implying again that the Philippian church was unified under a single ruling body. The church governance during the first and early second century provides a possible explanation for how churches in a single city were linked together in this fashion.
As a church began in a particular city, it would have often been small enough to meet in a single house and would have been governed simply by a group of elders/ presbyters. As such congregations grew in numbers and were forced to meet in additional houses, there may have been situations where a single group of elders found themselves ruling over multiple congregations in different locations throughout the city.
I think it’s one thing to philosophize about such things. I think it’s another thing to practice. It seems today we have a lot of philosophers, but few practitioners. Philosophy without practice usually results in a critic. It’s fairly easy to see what’s wrong with the church today, and then philosophize about how it should be. And there is certainly no shortage of church critics in our world today. Some of the criticism is justified. But, the true critic should deeply desire change so much that they wouldn’t walk away from what is wrong. Rather, they would pursue practicing what they believe should be right.
After many years of serving faithfully and passionately, I grew in my frustration with the local church. I was serving, and studying the church, and I found myself internally criticizing more and more. At some point, I was going to leave it all and remain a critic and cynic. Or, I was going to pursue practice of what I believed should be right.
So, I began this pursuit. With no money, no people, no place, no name, no current prototype to follow, I just had to try. I loved the church too much to leave it. And I loved the church too much to leave it like it was. So I planted a church with a pursuit to become a “Church of House Churches.” The path was unclear, but the calling and conviction was very clear.
I’ve seen this philosophy worked out in practice with my own eyes. Since we began in 2010, we’ve seen thousands of people gather weekly on Sundays. Then, they live together in many diverse communities called house churches spread across our city. House church pastors are all lay people who assume responsibility to shepherd a house church community. People gather geographically, and house churches represent diversity.
Common giving has allowed us to direct many millions of dollars towards ministry partnerships and church planting locally and globally. Benevolence happens first in every house church, with people sacrificing to meet one another’s needs (like we read about in Acts 2, and we say we want).
Lay people are doing weddings and funerals. House church pastors show up at hospitals when an emergency happens. The frontline of counseling happens through house church. We see people walk into a house church, get connected to a more mature believer, and get discipled in following the ways and person of Jesus.
When you keep house churches reproducing, they can maintain a healthy size for sustainability of the house church pastor, and intimacy in community. When a house church is getting too big, we are helping them identify and develop a house church pastor and hosts to plant a new house church.
A “Church of House Churches” is not for everyone. But I like why people reject it. Most of the reasons why people reject this are actually the very reasons why we exist. They want to just attend somewhere sometimes on a Sunday, but we want them in real community regularly, and beyond the Sunday gathering. They want homogenous friend groups, we want them in a diverse spiritual family. They want professional clergy to perform the pastoral duties, we want to empower the priesthood of the believer to be pastors first. They want programs to attend or send family to, we want discipleship communities where people are leading people personally to grow in their following of Jesus.
CALL TO ACTION
At some point, once you’ve seen these things, you have to do something about it. I often encounter people who feel convicted and compelled, but they don’t have the clarity on what to do next. Or, they don’t have the courage, because they know this is going to cost a significant price.
I do believe it is possible, and I have seen it practiced with so much positivity, that you can make moves towards these principles in whatever context you are currently in. Sometimes slowness and subtly is needed. Other times people are able to be overt and swift.
Take a group and elevate it to function as a church.
Take a leader and develop, equip, empower, and identify them as a pastor.
Gather geographically to force diversity.
Live with “Simplicity for the Sake of Generosity.” Equip the saints.
Empower the priesthood of the believer.
I encourage you to develop and articulate your ecclesiology, straight from the scriptures. And rather than leave the church, decide to not leave the church as it is. May we all move from philosopher to practitioner, from cynic to lover of the body of Christ.
