| CHAPTER THREE: The Pilgrimage: From Traditional Models to House Church Fellowships
CHAPTER THREE: The Pilgrimage: From Traditional Models to House Church Fellowships My Personal Perspective This chapter tells the story from my personal perspective. It traces the pilgrimage which took me from working within traditional church structures to planting clusters of house churches. We call a single cluster of from 2 to 5 house churches a "fellowship". The chapter gives an overview of these fellowships of house churches as they emerged in our experience. We hope you will discern from this how the Spirit might work in your own situation. I began the pilgrimage in Rhode Island. This is the smallest state in America with a population of about one million. Three fourths of the people live in metropolitan Providence. Rhode Island also has the highest percentage of Roman Catholics (67%), and one of the lowest percentages of evangelicals (2%). I came to Christ through the ministry of Quidnessett Baptist Church. As part of a vision for renewal, Quidnessett started a daughter congregation in the suburbs of Providence. Their goal was to start churches which would vigorously grow and produce disciples, leaders, and new congregations. From 1975 to 1987 I was involved in this effort. We began the Cranston Christian Fellowship, a church organized along a traditional, centralized, large group church model. This proved to be a valuable learning time for me. As with Quidnessett, Cranston strongly emphasized one-on-one discipleship, and focused on Christ as the model for personal character development. I learned — both from my own experience and from those with whom I worked — that becoming a useful servant for the King involves deep spiritual healing. The discipleship program hinged on teaching new believers the basics of the faith. Practically, however, they learned to allow God to mold their character. As God transformed their lives, they became better equipped to serve Him. During this time I also learned a lesson from personal experience about church leadership: God provides leaders from a congregation's midst. Cranston had trained me for pastoral leadership by combining opportunities for service with practical training. My lessons ranged from theology, to preaching, to training other men for leadership. In 1981, I was sent, along with others from the Cranston Christian Fellowship, to plant another church, the Warwick Christian Fellowship. While training the next generation of pastoral leaders, I realized the benefits of plural eldership, as opposed to a one-man pastorate with a supporting board. I had begun my service in a pastoral position. Since people tend to follow the models they know, I doubted that a group of active elders would develop as long as I remained the lead pastor. So I asked the church to commission me as part of a team of men for the ministry of church planting. I hoped to create a model of plural leadership that could be duplicated in future church planting. For further material on church planting teams, please refer to my book Building Effective Church Planting Teams. I joined Jim Frost, another church planter from the Cranston Christian Fellowship, to form the Fellowship of Church Planters. We began a church, the Lincoln Christian Fellowship, in a northern suburb of Providence; it was similar to the Cranston and Warwick centralized models but with an emphasis on plural leadership from the beginning. By 1987, I noticed a stagnation in the fellowship. This was not new; I'd witnessed it in the other churches we had planted. In every case, after initial rapid growth, it leveled off. Numerical growth had stopped, thus any vision of planting daughter churches remained only that...a vision. Although Quidnessett had planted another congregation in 1981, it returned to its original attendance of about 450 and became cool toward further church planting efforts. Cranston maintained about 300 in attendance, having planted no additional churches since Warwick in 1981. Warwick, too, had plateaued at 130; the congregation had neither planted nor demonstrated a desire to plant additional churches. Lincoln plateaued at 85 with no enthusiasm for church planting. All these congregations had been formed with a vision for evangelizing, reproducing disciples, and reproducing churches — yet all had now cooled to the original goal. We seemed no closer to establishing spontaneously reproducing churches than we had been 13 years earlier. What could be learned from these efforts? Was there a way to realize the vision? Could the barriers to reproduction be overcome? I wondered if my view was only an idealistic pipe dream. Was it lunacy to dream of vibrant churches calling people into a vibrant life in the Kingdom of God — a kingdom so powerful that the kingdoms of this world would be turned upside-down? If these were the types of churches God had called us to plant, we were willing to be faithful to His plan by trusting Him to provide the laborers we needed. If necessary, we were willing to reach the state by planting churches one by one. We estimated, however, that this would take over 300 years! On the other hand, we were also willing to try new approaches to achieve what we believed to be God's plan: churches reproducing as rapidly as the Spirit of God would allow. The opportunity to try a new model came quickly. New Directions We were committed to the church planter being itinerant, moving on quickly after forming a church. About this time we began a small evangelistic Bible study in rural Rhode Island. The area was quite resistant to the gospel; we had great difficulty imagining the group ever becoming a church like its larger, centralized sisters. As Mike Buffi (a new member to the team) and I moved on to work in the densely populated suburb of East Providence, Jim remained with the rural work, working slowly and patiently. He began to consider how the group might become a house church, a concept we'd only just discovered reading from Mennonite material. While examining the house church approach, we were struck by certain aspects of small group dynamics. The house church is much like a family made up of individuals who, to varying degrees, are able both to give and to receive love. In this smaller group the crippling manifestations of sin are more easily brought to light. Consequently, hurting souls receive the healing they need to become capable of love. We have a motto in the house church: "You can run, but you can't hide. And if you run, we will run after you!" We witnessed people learning to love one another in practical ways — a miracle of amazing healing in interpersonal relationships. The warmth of a circle of people sitting or sharing a meal together encouraged rapid assimilation of new people into the church. The level of intimacy was extraordinary. We began to read about other models of house churches. One we call the independent house church model. In this model, each house church is completely independent of any others. It stands autonomous, having little interaction with other Christian groups. As a team, we rejected this model. It took into account the versatility and vibrancy of a house church, but it ignored the fact that such a group is also volatile. We found it also tends toward elitism and pride, with a result that the church does not reproduce well. Although our first effort at house church planting was an isolated house church, we realized that the church would draw strength by cooperating closely with other churches. Densely populated areas seemed ideally suited to building a strong, interacting cluster of house churches. Because the house church concept was both simple and flexible, it seemed the perfect vehicle for reaching diverse urban people groups. Already God had used it to engender not only personal sanctification, but to bring healing and restoration to broken families. Given the sad state of typical urban family life, metropolitan Providence seemed ripe for a house-church harvest. With Jim's rural Chepachet House Church as our guinea pig, we decided to try the concept with the church in East Providence. It had begun as a six-person investigative Bible study. When we started the house church plan, this group (25+ members) had only recently "covenanted" (more on this later) as a church (East Providence Christian Fellowship). They were meeting regularly for Sunday evening worship and were agitating for a Sunday morning service. Undoubtedly, the group was becoming a centralized church, similar to the other churches we had planted. I explained to the church that, although we should desire to grow, it would be impossible to grow and still maintain our present intimacy as a small group. I strongly suggested that rather than having a large Sunday morning service, we meet in two separate homes on Sunday morning, while continuing to meet together Sunday evening. The group was not enthusiastic about the proposal; they had become quite tightly-knit. Many resisted the idea of splitting up, although they admitted that we had already lost the intimacy of the smaller group. But instead of considering the affect of size on intimacy, they sought "programs" for the larger group to restore intimacy. I could see that the way forward would be difficult. After much prayer and discussion, the congregation reluctantly agreed to a three-month trial, meeting Sunday mornings in two homes. One group met in East Providence; another in the East Side of Providence. After the three months, the community assessed its growth in terms of relationships, intimacy, and service to one another. The response was overwhelmingly positive; all agreed that this pattern was the Lord's will for East Providence Christian Fellowship. At this point, having rejected the independent house church model, we gravitated toward a cell house church model. Churches would begin as small house groups. As they grew and multiplied, they would remain united for weekly, large group meetings and many other activities. Eventually, these distinct cells would purchase a common building for united activities. The cells would coalesce to form one church. The Pilgrimage: From A Cell Church to House Church Fellowships By the spring of 1989, East Providence Christian Fellowship was meeting regularly at two locations on Sunday mornings and jointly on Wednesday and Sunday evenings. The church was combining small and large group activities. One of the members had a business in an office complex and made space available for large group meetings. Other members were looking for a building to rent. All of this encouraged us to keep heading toward the cell house church model. We envisioned new members joining a particular house congregation where they would receive their basic discipling and shepherding. This would be their nuclear family - their church. Simultaneously they would develop allegiance to the larger community, their extended family (at that time, the East Providence Christian Fellowship). The definition of a church as one local congregation became blurred--purposefully. The people now had two loyalties: to their own small house congregations, as well as to the larger church. In January of 1990 two elders were appointed in EPCF. Later that spring deacons were appointed and a third house group began to form out of an evangelistic Bible study. We were on our way to a united church of three congregations. Conflict, however, arose. Most members of the newer group, Mount Pleasant, did not attend the large group Sunday evening services. They pushed for a separate mid-week meeting to pursue evangelism with a Bible study. At the same time, attendance from the other house groups began to wane at the Sunday evening meeting. New people remained on the fringes rather than being integrated into the larger group. The leaders prayerfully evaluated the situation. Some interesting thoughts resulted: 1. The consensus was that the larger facility for Sunday evening was too sterile when compared to the warmth of a home. 2. More and more energy was going into the large group meetings — meetings which required a great deal of planning (preaching, kids clubs, nursery, etc.). These maintenance activities had become so absorbing that little energy remained for growth activities (discipleship, evangelism, personal shepherding). The larger group was siphoning energy which the small groups needed for growth and reproduction. 3. The larger group effort showed a dramatic loss of flexibility. To meet the needs of the larger congregation, meeting format and scheduling had become quite rigid. The leaders saw this as a tragic loss since the house church's flexibility was one of its greatest strengths. 4. In the larger group, interacting was easy among old friends from the different house churches; newcomers, however, tended to talk only to those of their own house group. The larger group meetings were not helping the small groups bond together. As the leaders prayed and discussed these things among ourselves and the congregations, we saw that the cell house church model was not appropriate for our vision. The Lord was leading us in still newer directions. The Result: A Fellowship of House Churches In August of 1990 the leaders adopted a new approach. The East Providence Christian Fellowship — a centralized church made up of 3 house cells — became the East Providence Fellowship of House Churches, a decentralized network of house churches. The fellowship consisted of three house churches: East Providence House Church, Wickenden Street House Church and Mount Pleasant House Church. The practical effects were multiple. The Sunday evening meeting was dissolved; instead, each house church focused its energies on developing a written covenant and vision statement (more on these later). A person could join a particular house church by signing its covenant and having hands laid on by the leaders. In addition, all the house churches in the Fellowship started to meet as a large group once monthly, on an evening — although during the summer a Sunday late morning or afternoon picnic became the norm. The house church meetings were limited to two per week to allow members time to deepen their intra- and inter-house church relationships. Likewise, the members were encouraged to develop relationships with unbelievers — bridges for the gospel. The mid-week meeting was largely devoted to planning activities. Sunday meetings were given to worship and Bible study. There was no formal preaching. This plan preserved the versatility and vibrancy of autonomous, cooperating house churches, while offsetting the dangers which arise from a house churches' volatility. A fellowship of from two to six house churches forms, based on relationships built in the course of the churches' normal growth and reproduction. Presently (July 1992) the original East Providence of House Churches has reproduced three additional fellowships of House Churches: West Bay Fellowship, Northwest Fellowship (Both in Rhode Island) and the Southern Massachusetts Fellowship of House Churches. The Future We hope that the changes we have made in our approach to church planting and reproduction will enable us to accommodate whatever harvest the Lord grants. We have been excited with the number of people engaged in the expansion of the Kingdom. Elders, shepherding deacons, church planters, singles, couples, men, women, teens, and even pre-teens are all finding significant places in God's plan for His expanding Kingdom. This rapid growth reminds us of the words of our Lord Jesus: Truly, we have arrived at one horizon only to find another. We are awed, excited and fearful of what lies ahead. Certainly the growth this year is encouraging; it is, perhaps, a spark. Hopefully, this spark will start a fire of church growth and reproduction — not only in R.I. but in southern Massachusetts and beyond. We cannot control the future; we only strive to be flexible, to look ahead, to plan, and ultimately, to accommodate whatever the Lord brings. Principles 1. Simple churches can reproduce more easily and have leaders who come from within the congregation. 2. Churches should have plural leadership. In a cluster of house churches, the leadership team would be made up of the leaders of each of the house churches. 3. Churches meeting in homes are like family where healing can take place in an intimate environment. 4. Meetings should be kept to a minimum leaving enough time for one on one discipleship, evangelism, and relation building. 5. Clusters of churches should keep an eye out of people to train in church planting so that they can be sent out to other areas. Questions for further thought 1. What is a Fellowship? 2. What are some advantages of the house church model? 3. What is the difference between an independent House church and a network of house churches? 4. What are the advantages and disadvantages of each? Back |