By Rad Zdero
“Networking” is a buzz word These days!
Some people in house churches react negatively to it. But, in today’s house church movement is to move forward into God’s purposes, this topic must be addressed!
Most house churches correctly believe the New Testament teaches that each house church is legitimate, independent, and self-governing under Christ (Matt 18:20; Rom
16:3-5; 1 Cor 16:19; Col 4:15; Philem 1:2).
But, many house churches wrongly conclude they don’t need to be linked with other house churches or apostolic leaders. This is a BIG mistake! Let’s discuss the strategic and scriptural reasons for clustering house churches together into networks.
What is a Network?
A network is a group of people or things linked together through mutual interactions.
The real-world is made up of many decentralized and self-organized networks connected by a few ‘hubs.’
The ecosystem of one food chain in the northwest Atlantic Ocean involves 150 animal species with millions o interactions.
The human brain is typically composed of 100 billion inter-linked neurons sending signals to each other.
Social circles usually comprise about 150 close friends and thousands of acquaintances tied together through a few key people. The World Wide Web connects all the world’s 1 billion web pages by only 20 separate ‘mouse clicks’, as one follows the links.
How many house churches are linked together?
In a 2009 unpublished survey by Dr. Steve Lyzenga, only 35% of house churches in the USA were part of a network. The other 59% were not, while 6% did not even know if they had such a connection. About 68% said their group needed help to get connected with other house churches to finish the Great Commission, 18% were neutral on the issue, and 14% did not feel they needed such assistance. Sadly, it seems
the majority of American house churches (and probably also those in other western nations) are isolated and lack a bigger vision. No wonder many groups are shrinking and shutting down!
What are the strategic reasons?
First, isolation kills. Solitary house churches often become ingrown, discouraged, and irrelevant after a few years. They implode because of lack of direction, training, and resources. Second, teamwork pays off. Linked house churches have a better chance of growing because they can pool their people and resources. They can accomplish far more together. Third, healthy beliefs and behaviour are maintained. House churches can keep each other accountable and encouraged.
Fourth, church history speaks loud and clear. By the end of the 18th century, the Methodist movement saw revival fire spread as they linked their 10,000 home groups (called ‘classes’ and ‘bands’) into citywide
networks (called ‘societies’) and regional networks (called ‘circuits’).
Fifth, the modern church planting explosions in China and India, each fast approaching 1 million house churches in the year 2010, link their groups by mobilizing prayer, people, and resources to effectively reach their nations for Jesus Christ.
What are the Scriptural examples of Networks?
The early believers connected house churches into geography-based networks.
In the city of Jerusalem, thousands of believers met in hundreds of small house groups that partnered together as one cohesive body (Acts 2:41-47).
In the city of Ephesus, house churches were united through a team of leaders (Acts 20:17). Paul also trained them “publicly and from
house to house” (Acts 20:20).
In the region of Asia Minor, the believers of 7 neighbouring citywide churches were linked into a regional network through John’s apostolic team of traveling workers (2 Jn 1:12; 3 Jn 1:3-10, 13; Rev 2 & 3).
The early believers used practical means to weave house churches together. Apostles traveled to encourage, train, connect, evangelize, and deal with problems (Luke 10:1-11; Rom 1:10; 1 Cor 9:5; Acts 8:14-17, 10:23-24, 15:1-5,22,36, 18:24- 27; 2 Jn 1:12; 3 Jn 1:14).
Apostles wrote letters to ad- dress crises and teach general Christian truths (Luke 1:1-4; John 20:30-31; Acts 15:23-30; 2 Jn 1:12; 3 Jn 1:13; Col 4:16; 2 Thes 2:2,15; 2 Thes 3:14)
Local leaders (called ‘elders’) and traveling leaders (called ‘apostles’) met together, sometimes privately, for training, encouragement, and making decisions (Mark 3:13-14, 9:2; Acts 15:1-6; 20:17)
Large gatherings brought together believers from multiple house churches for training and teaching, but also to reach non-believers through evangelistic and healing events (Acts 2:1,41-47; 3:11-12; 5:12; 6:2-4; 8:5-8; 15:4,12,22; 19:9-11; 20:20).
May today’s house church movement recapture a more strategic and scriptural view of networks to reach the world for Jesus Christ!
This article came from the 2010 summer issue of The Starfish Files
{ 11 comments… read them below or add one }
Excellent article. Well stated. Not bad for someone who isn’t a Klingon. You have touched on what I see as one of the “third rails” of the current house church movement. My experience is that there has been strong resistance to the notion of networking or any form of “organization”. The “free range chicken syndrome” is quite strong in our movement, fed partly by fears of becoming another “organization” or worse, another “denomination”.
As you rightly demonstrate, the biblical evidence is in favor of both networking and some degree of recognizable organization – including recognized leadership and delegated responsibilities. My hopeful expectation is that as the house church movement grows and matures it will come to recognize the need for (and the benefits of) networking and developing a degree of organization.
Ultimately, I believe our movement will face (if it hasn’t already) two “viability challenges” – challenges which must be met if it is to be a viable movement which can be sustained over time. The first is this issue of “organization” (networking is one description of a solution). The second is the issue of “theological definition”. Any movement which is unable to define itself in its most basic theological terms (thereby distinguishing itself from counterfeits and adversaries) will not survive in any identifiable form, but will find itself relegated to the dustbin of Church History. Just ask the Student Volunteers of the late 19th & early 20th century. Their impact upon foreign missions was profound. Equally profound was their collapse following the Des Moines convention of 1919/1920 due to the rapid inroads of questionable theology (in the form of theological liberalism and social activism). The same phenomenon – a lack of theological cohesiveness – is now causing the “emerging church” movement to disassemble into the fog of historical oblivion. I, for one, do not want to see the organic house church movement to founder for similar reasons.
Thanks again for an excellent article (for a non-Klingon. I would wager that your mother did NOT have a smooth forehead).
Networks are good – specifically in this contemporary society where the ‘church in the city’ has been lost. Additionally, networks will go a long way in helping existing ‘traditional churches’ to transition into a more organic church. Along with networks, ‘city wide’ or ‘regional’ elders and deacons are vital to a network of churches. Some believe that networking churches guided by elders loses its organic nature. The opposite is true. Nature teaches us that plants are organic, but they thrive because they have been ‘divinely organized’ by our Lord. There are several parts of each plant (i.e. the root, stem, leaf, flower and fruit), and each part has a significant role to play. If you eliminate one component, it greatly impacts the life of the plant. Elders and deacons are a vital part of the organic church. They cannot be left out if you expect a healthy church. Elders serving among a network of house churces will strengthen them. City wide elders has been the divine pattern of governing throughout scripture (Deut. 19:12; Titus 1:5). Space will not allow me to list all the benefits of accurate eldership. Suffice it to say that establishing city wide and regional networks is a move in the right direction for the health of house churches. I believe that apostolically appointed elders are designed by God to serve these networks (Acts 20:17, 28; 1Peter 5:1-3).
Hi,
Just read this article. I like what you are saying, but I would say, please be careful. One of the major problems is, networks of local churches can become one big church in an area and, as with Methodism, they can develope into denominations, and die
Organizing house churches into networks is exactly how denominationalism came into existance in the early centuries of Christianity. The very same arguments for house church networks have been made for centuries on behalf of denominations. Moreover, the same arguments against denominationalism are very valid against house church networks. There is no evidence whatsoever that churches founded by Paul related to one another on that basis. Churches in a city related to one another on the basis of geography and the oneness of the Body of Christ. Apostles in the NT taught believers how to meet and how to draw upon the Lord’s wisdom so they would not develope a dependancy upon humans, who may be prone to bring them into bondage (as the “super apostles” did in Corinth). True apostles, after teaching believers how to draw upon Christ directly, withdrew deliberately so that there was no temptation to look to man rather than God. It is a dangerous teaching to suggest that apostles continue to micromanage house churches.
For the purpose of finding another gathering, okay, I can buy a “LISTING” of sorts on a website, but organizing beyond that is a mistake. The leaders are already calling it “our movement.”
We have found networking with traditional Churches worthwhile.
I see who here and elsewhere warn about/against the dangers that networking can bring about. Okay, if we accept all of that as fact for a moment, how does any of it change the commands, examples and necessary inferences the scriptures give us to form networks?
Since when does the potential for man to mess something mean we are allowed to ignore what our Lord commanded us to do? Do we really think we can somehow do it better by deciding how God told us to do it is just to risky? Having begun in faith, are we going to finish in the flesh?
For too long Simple Church has treated leadership and networking like some demonic trick to destroy the purity of the movement. I would counter that a moment that ignores God’s clear commands is not a threat to Satan, it is going to destroy it’s self.
Okay, yes, I am being a bit strong here – but I feel strongly. To me we are looking at a choice – figure out how to do what God said to do, with as little mistake as humanly possible, or do it differently than God told us to. Frankly I don’t see a choice. Sure, I’ve been as hurt and messed-over as any by the errors of leadership and the human mentality that can infect a network – but abandoning God’s way because men messed it up is not the way.
Interesting replies all…just like anything organic, I believe it will naturally happen by the saturation of house churches as they grow horizontally. Because there is no appreciable hierarchy amongst our churches and groups, they will “converge” on a natural basis over time to create the networks out of need for each other. To force a network and purposely try to manufacture something at this point would be premature. Rad lays out a good biblical reference for networks, but all of us collectively have not been down this road before in world history…remember, it is all about the Kingdom. That is the true focus of where we need to be as radical saints in this new wineskin. Listening prophetically and building apostolically is the key. Peace be with you all…Blessings, Eddie
I love the intensity and integrity captured in the article and comments. One would expect that cumulatively, all the gratefulness and love for the Lord Jesus we have should organically translate into us simply maturing into His likeness, at all levels. The Lord admonished us to consider the lillies, they toil not, yet are beautifull and glorify God and that we cannot, by taking thought, add to our (spiritual ) stature.
If indeed, we are being led by Him, we will organically walk in the power and character of His Holy Spirit, and the evidence will be that we do not toil, taking the long view on how He will network us, and we will not strive, as He commanded us. Rather than discuss network models, et al, we could admonish and encourage each other to reflect on Him, and His love for us, among us and for all men. We could speak of His great works, lifting Him up for all men to see, including and especially ourselves, and He will build us into a habitation for His Spirit.
The only reason I find in scripture for the church failing to look like Jesus corporately is striving in our flesh to please Him.
Lets sit at His feet together, listening, gazing on Him who still has the holes in his flesh, who is longing for us to become like little children, brothers who play and love one another, trusting Daddy to take care of the big stuff.
Thats the outlook of Paul, who could have taken himself more seriously, but chose to say near the end of his accomlished life ” I keep my body under, lest I become a castaway”.
Paul managed to keep the main thing, the main thing; and the main thing is Jesus Himself, Christ in us, the hope of glory.
Beloved brothers, please consider this.
Greg
Muarice talked about paid leaders in his last artical. Pual and his apostales were not paid leaders nor did he teach any one to be. Are we to follow only part of of Puals example and not all in leadership. If he’s talking about being apostalic or using the five fold ministry then one should be one all the way. His friend he talked about that was well know but broke is no excuse for having paid leaders. This will lead to no good as showen through out old testiment and todays New Testiment. If anyone thinks the house chruches are going the worng way now just organize and appoint some paid leaders over them and see what happens them over time. Not good! It will not only hurt the house churches but the leaders doing it.
Mike – While “paid leader” would not be an accurate term for Paul, he was supported by many of the churches he served. What’s more, in 1 Corinthians 9:1-14 Paul strongly argues that he and other apostles should be supported, and I think his arguments would apply to any who are doing the work of the Kingdom full time.
John White recently did a very good article on this – Financing Apostolic Ministry: A Commentary on 1 Corinthians 9:1-14.
Paul Byerly
{ 1 trackback }