House Churches Are More Satisfying to Attenders Than Are Conventional Churches
January 8, 2007 (Ventura, CA) – With the growth of house churches across the country, a new study by The Barna Group sheds light on how these independent, non-denominational churches operate.
Levels of SatisfactionPerhaps the most compelling insight from the national study was an evaluation of the levels of satisfaction of those who attend a house church compared with the views of adults who attend a conventional local church. Four aspects of people’s church experience were gauged. Overall, people attending a house church were significantly more likely to be “completely satisfied” with their experience in each of the four dimensions examined.Two-thirds of house church attenders (68%) were “completely satisfied” with the leadership of their church, compared to only half of those attending a conventional church (49%).Two-thirds of the house church adherents (66%) were “completely satisfied” with the faith commitment of the people involved in their gathering. In contrast, only four out of ten people attending a conventional church (40%) were similarly satisfied with the faith commitment of the people in their congregation.Three out of five house church adults (61%) were “completely satisfied” with the level of community and personal connectedness they experience, compared to only two out of five adults who are involved in a conventional church (41%). A majority of those in a house (59%) said they were “completely satisfied” with the spiritual depth they experience in their house church setting. In contrast, a minority of the adults involved in a conventional church were “completely satisfied” (46%).
Click Here to Read the Full Article
The house church movement is growing at an astonishing rate. Any organization with these type of satisfaction numbers will grow. What are we doing in the mainline churches to fulfill spiritual satisfaction? As a pastor I often find myself asking the question “Am I meeting God’s expectations for spiritual fulfillment or am I enabling a spiritually dysfunctional person to feel good about being in our fellowship.” Does the order of service really matter or that someone reads in a monotone voice or full of expression. Do the colors on the altar or the robe impact a person’s satisfaction in worship. What I fear will happen is that some mainline denominational bureaucrat develop the church satisfaction quotient and 101 ways to fill your church through congregant satisfaction surveys. (you know someone is thinking about it now)
Mainline traditional churches are challenged to have meaningful worship services where lots of people are involved in planning and implementing the ministry. The emphasis should be on how people will live lives of significance based on the scriptures as a result of worship. The worship event itself must not be so exaulted that people worship the event instead of God. Contexulization of worship must not be to indivuals persoal whims but to help the congregation based on their everyday realities connect their very exsistance to God’s work in their work, family and community.
Many people are functioning members of the church social club and dysfunctional as The Body of Christ. They want little or no responsibility, they don’t attend Bible Study unless required and their service in outreach is only if they have any extra time.
January 26, 2007 at 12:42 am
It has been documented that house churches have a very high failure rate, indicating major dissatisfaction. Barna doesn’t seem to notice that fact.
“Making disciples” – I like that!
January 26, 2007 at 6:07 pm
Zane again, got your email, brother.
From an essay called “Reflections on the House Church Movement” by author and long-time observer Frank Viola at his Present Testimony Website. ptmin.org:
The Short Shelf-Life of a House Church
It is quite telling to note that many modern house churches disintegrate over a brief time span. The typical house church has an average life span of six months to four years.
Within this six-to-four window, the church usually dissolves due to an irreconcilable split or an unresolved crisis. (The crisis is usually rooted in a high-drama power struggle, a sustained bickering over hobby-horse theology, or an unwillingness to forebear with intractable personalities.)
….
Granted, there are house churches that push past the four-year mark. But they are rare. It is still rarer to find a house church that has been in existence for over ten years. House churches that have been extant over twenty years are an endangered species. And house churches that have over twenty years of mileage are exotically scarce.
——————— end quote
Jesus, btw, invites us to deny ourselves – not to devote ourselves to seeking “satisfaction.”
Riddle me this. If house church folk are so satisfied, why do 80% (according to Barna who describes it as “having one foot in each camp.”) maintain their connection with an institutional church????
January 26, 2007 at 8:16 pm
Let me take a stab at some of these questions. I’ve been involved in the house church ministry for over five years now and have overseen a network of house churches across the US during that time.
Why do people leave the house church? Same reason the institutional church in the US is loosing 1 million people a year for the last five years (and those numbers don’t seem to be abating). The fact is most North American Christians are spoiled consumers. If going to church doesn’t “feed” them, they move on. Somehow most USAmericans in church (including house church) believe that it’s the institution’s job to cater to their percieved needs. Rather than getting involved in spiritual transformative activities, it’s much easier to visit the “traditional church” which is based on an Old Testament model of a priesthood who does everything for the congregation while the congregants passively watches. (And for those who are about to raise protests about the particpatory nature of the church, remember the Old Testament folks sang congregationally, gave their tithes and offerings, and even actively participated in their own sacrifices…which tends to be more than most in our “New Testament” versions of church today.) The house church is the only model out there that truly models the NT church. Does that make is superior? No. God can and continues to use virtually every model of church gatherings to bring a harvest. It’s just another model with its strengths and with its own set of weaknesses. They’re just different weaknesses than the traditional church.
The quote by Frank Viola is from one of his older works, though his observations about the transientness of an individual house church probably hasn’t changed much in North America, though there are more and more house churches that last longer. However, with the average USAmerican moving about once every seven years, it’s amazing that there are any house churches that last longer than that. In my case, I’ve just relocated from Seattle where I had to leave my house church (which I hosted) and come to Missouri where I’m having to start over. Am I starting over? Absolutely. IMHO, the house church far outstrips any other model for discipleship and accountability.
Finally, for some more recent statistics: Saddleback hired Curtis Sergeant, the Asia Coordinator for Church Planting with the International Mission Board to plant house churches in Southern California and in the New Orleans area following the hurricane. These house churches have no affiliation with Saddleback whatsoever, other than Curt’s salary is paid by Warren’s church. As of last September, they had started 1,500 house churches. Not bad for his first year. In addition, there are about 5 million USAmericans currently attending house churches who consider the HC their church home, and another 15 million who atttend HC, but consider it as a secondary (albeit important) worship opportunity.
January 28, 2007 at 5:00 pm
Just 5 million? What about all the major news stories generated by the Barna data which were based upon multiples of that figure?
“70 million adults have experimented with house church.” Well, if it is so satisfying, why did 65 million not follow through? This figure excludes children, btw. We’re looking at close to 100 million people, I suppose.
Furthermore, Barna, has stated that scripture says “almost nothing” about any kind of church structure. Why therefore, could one, as yourself, presume that one type is better than another? (”The house church is the only model out there that truly models the NT church.”)
Please provide a few links about these 1,500 New Orleans house churches. That is a fascinating move of God, brothers.
Godspeed to all Kingdom workers!
January 28, 2007 at 7:11 pm
Bill, could you please clarify. In the above you write that ”The house church is the only model out there that truly models the NT church.” & “The house church far outstrips any other model for discipleship and accountability.”
Since you mention “modeling the NT church” does it follow in your perspective that God has a revealed pattern (model) for churches or that pattern is a mere matter of preference? Would a revealed pattern be a superior one compared to a pattern created by men?
Certainly God can use any means or even no human means to accomplish his purposes.
Thanks, brother.
January 29, 2007 at 1:15 am
The 1500 number came from an announcement at the National House Church Convention in St. Louis and Denver last fall. I believe it was Tony Dale who made that announcement. Curtis was our speaker two or three years ago before he went to Saddleback, but has been active with the House2House folks, so I have no reason to find that number suspect. I know that the model he used in Asia ended up with the average house church multiplying about once every 4 months or so.
As to why 65 million don’t stick with the house church, see my first post. Lazy, spoiled “Christians” who want to be fed pablum won’t hang out at a house church because at a house church gathering, you can’t be a nameless, faceless, pewsitter. Fake Christians won’t stay in an effective house church long. They’ll either become effective Christians or they’ll leave. As you can see…most of them leave.
As for the house church model in the Bible…what other model of ecclesiology do you see in the New Testament? Throughout Acts it’s very clear that the modus operandi was house church. Christianity was seriously persecuted from the mid-first century onward and so they couldn’t meet in set-aside buildings with a sign that said, “Y’all Come.” Indeed, the first church building was errected in Bethlehem in 313 by Contantine at the behest of his mother Helen…there were no church buildings before that. Indeed, Paul mentions as he writes his epistles that he’s writing to churches who meet in homes: Rom 16.5; 1 Cor 16:19; Col 4:15; Phlm 1:2.
I’d invite you to take a read through Wolfgang Simson’s book “Houses that Change the World.” That will answer many of your questions. However, I repeat, the Lord uses our feeble attempts to carry out God’s work. If there was to be a preferred model, I suspect we’d have recieved a mandate, much as Moses did…and remember, his instructions were pretty specific right down to the measurements, materials, clothes to wear, and what worship was to look like. On the other hand, the church isn’t even told specifically how to do communion or baptism. We’re just told to do them. The same goes with being church. Our task is to make disciples…to make more of them and to make them more faithful. But there’s a surprising lack of instructions about how to do that. There’s not a single, “Thou shalt meet on Sundays at 11:00, sing three songs while standing…go to a Bible study on Wednesdays…etc.”
One of the things, IMHO, we Christians need to get a handle on is the difference between grace and law. We tend to get as tied up in our own “laws” as the Pharisees and Sadducees did. Jesus defined the church: “Where two or more are gathered in my name.” He gave us the commission: “Go and make disciples.” And he gave us the rubrics for accomplishing all that: “Love God and Love Neighbor.” That’s the church. It’s not what happens in a building on a particular day. Church is you. Church is me. Church is when I’m at Starbucks having coffee with an unchurched guy and sharing the gospel in a way he can hear me. It’s meeting for accountability with my accountability partner. And yes, it’s meeting on Sunday morning at the high-holy hour and watching everything going on up front.
The model of church is the model of being a Christian. It’s not a formula for a gathering. The gathering is just a tactic for furthering the cause of the Kingdom. It’s when that tactic becomes our only strategy that the whole thing goes to hell in a handbasket…and we lose 1 million members a year.
February 15, 2007 at 2:56 pm
Dear Writers,
Please help me to know and to understand why House Churches are not growing in Vietnam from 1975 to 2005?
Thank you.