And I'm tired of reading articles like "Sorrow, But No Regrets," in which a young woman describes her experience in the "troubled, redemptive church": personal experiences of her own pastors engaging in sexual abuse of minors, adultery, and pornography.² Perhaps the most troubling part of this article is the author's resigned acceptance; in her view, "there is no other church" -- Christ's body on earth, crippled by sin, seems to be the only option.

Sadly, this seems to be the general consensus. When one begins to lament the hobbling of the church by hypocrisy and sin, the standard answer is given: "Be realistic. Sin will happen on this side of death. You can't expect perfection." One evangelical church leader has gone as far to argue that, "There should be no difference in the lives of Christians and non-Christians." Is that really what the Bible teaches? What about holiness? When issues of sin arose in the early church, resigned acceptance was never the pattern. Instead, the pattern was warning and pleading, followed by decisive action (1 Corinthians 5, 2 Thessalonians 3:6, Matthew 18:15-17, Acts 8:20-23). Indeed the Bible speaks of sanctification (Hebrews 10:14), and Jesus declared that the one who loves him will obey him (John 14:15, 23). Notably, when listing several common sins, Paul says in the past tense, "Such were some of you" (1 Corinthians 6:9-11).

So before we shrug our shoulders and resign ourselves to a life in the "troubled, redemptive church" of this young woman's experience, let's consider a few counterexamples, past and present, becase groups do exist whose lives are notably different. First, the Mormons. While Mormon doctrine obviously diverges from the truth, Mormon practice has a strong appeal -- an appeal that may account for their phenomenal growth. The Mormon church appeals to many with the strong family lives of its members as well as its vital sense of community. When a member of the Mormon church moves to a new town, members of the church in the new town are notified and are ready to welcome the newcomer into their midst with meals, fellowship, and help moving furniture. How many orthodox Christian denominations or churches can boast such practical expressions of love? Mormons collectively abstain from alcohol and caffeine. While discussion of such matters quickly raises accusations of legalism in the evangelical world, it has been observed that the amount of money professing Christians spend on alcohol each year would surpass the yearly budget of the Gates Foundation. Think of the good the church could collectively do with that money! Add the money we spend at Starbucks, and the starvation plaguing much of the world could be dealt a serious blow. Finally, every Mormon youth is required to give two years to church missions. Disregarding for the moment the serious problems with Mormon belief, we must admit that their practice is admirable. In so doing, we must admit that it is possible for a religious group to collectively embrace practices that are countercultural.

Moreover, there have been several smaller groups in the orthodox Christian world that combine right doctrine with biblical practice. Consider conservative Anabaptist and Mennonite groups. In many ways visiting one of these congregations is like going to a different planet. Many have divorce rates near zero. One is struck by the deep joy and happiness of the families. In an age obsessed with fashion, these believers are clad in plain pants and shirts for the men, subdued dresses for the women -- a far cry from the world's love of self-expression and display. In an era where teenage rebellion is considered normal, the children, from toddlers to teenagers, are courteous, kind to peers, and respectful to adults. And in a time of great media influence, these individuals have collectively chosen to eschew television, movies, and the Internet. The description of "aliens and strangers" is not far off the mark (Hebrews 11:13, NIV).

A survey of church history reveals that this is no isolated case -- many groups have achieved the goal of nonconformity in a broad range of bibical issues. Ranging from the Waldensians to various monastic groups, these were the fellowships that turned the world upside down with their courageous testimony.

Finally, let's consider what might be called the original example. Luke writes of the early church, "[A]ll who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved. (Acts 2:44-47)" Here the church is powerfully different from the world by obeying his commands to love one another by caring for fellow believers in practical ways. Moreover, the Lord blesses their witness, for their pure testimony before the world bears fruit in the form of new believers.

Surrounded by such a cloud of witnesses from the first century until now, can we be satisfied with the typical Western church?

We should ask the critical question, "what is distinctive about these countercultural churches?" Conservative Anabapist and the church of Acts are both groups of believers with a strong testimony before the world, a united and pure witness. Moreover, they are bodies of believers with standards for the Christian life; that is, they have agreed upon a definition of how the Christian life should look in the 21st or 1st century, and they are willing to keep each other accountable to upholding those standards.

With the Bible as a witness of such a church, we can no longer deny that the "troubled" church -- plagued with pornography, selfishness, and worldliness in every form -- is the only possible church. There is another way. Dare we dream of being part of such a group? Think of the honor such a group could give to the Lord -- the effectiveness such a group could have in evangelism, when practice matches our teaching -- finally, when an unbeliever, or scarred former church-goer speaks of the hypocrisy of the Christians he knows, we can point to a group and say, "There she is, the bride of Christ, loving their Lord, loving one another, and doing his work on this earth."

So how do we get there? It seems that there are at least three vital components to a group of powerful practice. The first is radical accountability, where each person in the church knows one another deeply. Sharing a pew with those whom you do not know or are accountable to is unbiblical and unacceptable. Each member must be deeply engaged in community, possessing a shared understanding of how the Christian life should look, and willing to hold each other to those standards.

The second is active involvement by all members. Each and every one must have a role, exhorting, encouraging -- each a functioning and vital part of the body, as in Paul's analogy. Compare the requirement of two years of mission service in the Mormon church to the passivity of many church attenders, who do nothing more -- and are expected to do nothing more -- than watch the service that is acted out before them by clergy.

Our contention is that the New Testament model of a house church provides the best possible environment for these two components. A house church -- at least, a healthy one -- should be a family, and where better to practice accountability than in a close, family setting? Only in a familial community do you find the relationships required for accountability and the love that challenges problems, forgives falls, and believes and hopes for success. Wolfgang Simson has aptly written,

Where is the easiest place, say, for a man to be spiritual? Maybe again, is it hiding behind a big pulpit, dressed up in holy robes, preaching holy words to a faceless crowd and then disappearing into an office? And what is the most difficult, and therefore most meaningful, place for a man to be spiritual? At home, in the presence of his wife and children, where everything he does and says is automatically put through a spiritual litmus test against reality, where hypocrisy can be effectively weeded out and authenticity can grow. Much of Christianity has fled the family, often as a place of its own spiritual defeat, and then has organized artificial performances in sacred buildings far from the atmosphere of real life. As God is in the business of recapturing the homes, the church turns back to its roots, back to where it came from. It literally comes home, completing the circle of Church history at the end of world history.

Likewise, of any church gathering, a house church is small enough to allow for the involvement of all members of the body. Rather than one appointed speaker, there is a space for all to edify, exhort, pray for, and prophesy to the body. When all, or at least most, must participate in order for edification to take place, there is no space for passivity and spiritual dryness; members of a house church must be growing individually in their walks with the Lord and bringing those fruits to the meeting if there is to be any true meeting at all.

The final element of a church with powerful practice is standards. Like Mormon and Mennonite churches, a church with powerful practice must have an agreed upon understanding of how scriptural mandates look when enacted in the 21st century. This element is the counterpart of strong accountability: only with agreement upon what the Christian life entails will the church members be able to hold each other accountable.

Obviously, discussion of standards for church members may quickly raise questions of legalism. But we cannot confuse legalism (the requiring of obeying human laws and regulations) with obedience -- the obedience to biblical teaching that Jesus requires of those who love him. And in discussing standards, we are thinking of just that -- how to apply biblical teaching to all areas of our lives -- to see how the Scriptures impinge upon 21st century life in ways that we believe are being ignored by the mainstream church.

Each new age brings about a richer appreciation of the Scriptures. For where sin abounds, grace abounds all the more. A disciplined and principled fusion of the New Testament model (house-church) along with the application of New Testament standards is potentially a revolutionary idea. Could the time be ripe for a new kind of church, which is in fact is the original kind of church?

And so, these questions remain: Are you willing to explore what the biblical standards for a contemporary Christian's life might be? Do you share our longing for a church body with a pure witness before the world? And if so, will you join us in this journey?

Unless otherwise noted, Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Scripture marked NIV taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version ®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved.

Footnotes:

1. http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=170
2. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/july/28.41.html
   

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License.

Back to essays
Back to home