A Church Hopping Review: House Churches

Although I am now very dedicated to joining the Catholic church, I still enjoy church hopping with my husband. We want to continue to challenge and test our beliefs by exposing ourselves to other Christians of various theological persuasions. And so, when my husband and I had the opportunity to attend a house church recently, we jumped at the chance, first fulfilling our Mass obligation on Saturday evening. 

For those who don't know what a house church is, it is an unorganized group of Christians who reject denominational religion, especially those who meet in a building. They believe the true church is invisible and that early Christians gathered in homes because it was what God wanted. It is historically accurate that Christianity was mostly illegal at the start, and those who met to learn about Jesus did so in their homes (or barns) out of necessity, often worshiping in secret. House-churched Christians believe that true Christians kept worshiping at home and never participated in constructing visible churches. Those who believe in home churches believe this to be the ideal model designed by Jesus. Although this is not explicitly stated in the Bible, it is held to be a Sola Scriptura belief by home-churched Christians. 

This model for church is strange for my husband, but something I am quite familiar with. I find it comfortable and cozy -- who doesn't like the idea of sitting on a couch rather than a pew? It can be a little easier for children and young infants, since there's more freedom for them to play and crawl on the floor. I've found that these sorts of churches encourage more discussion among the Christians, although that, too, can lead to many divisions. It's arguably the most relaxed form of fellowship with next to no authoritative structure except to pay some reverence to whichever man is the father of the home being met in. 

There are certain parts of house churches that I never thought to question until becoming Catholic. What do we do if the church grows too large for the home? This rarely happens of course, because from what I have seen, the church usually falls apart over minor differences of opinion that can't be ironed out with the Bible alone before it has the chance to outgrow its meeting space. Nevertheless, I have been asking other home-churched Christians, "Would you build a structure if you started having too many members?" I find most of them have never thought that far. A few say yes. When they do, they then can understand why early Christians might've built a church, too, if they'd had the resources and it had been legal, and why they eventually did. 

There are many flavors of home churches. Most of the ones I attended were Messianic, ex-Amish, or  fundamental baptist adjacent. This particular home church was evangelical in nature and felt a little like a mega church, but they call themselves Anabaptists even though their fashion is trendy and they look nothing like Amish or Mennonites. They identify as Anabaptists because they believe "The Trail of Blood" is factual, a book written in the 1930s on the true (but unsourced) history of the Anabaptists. This church has also been going for twenty years, so they claim. Despite its longevity, the room was just barely packed. There were many children, but very little fresh (non-familial) blood. 

They opened up with a couple hymns with piano and cajón accompaniment, then asked for praises and prayer requests. After a lengthy prayer, the "pastor" gave an hour and a half long sermon that was based on half a chapter in the new testament. Although he occasionally referenced a few fragmented verses here and there, much of his preaching was his own opinions of what he believed the Bible to say. Throughout it all, he would throw in surprising claims without any sources or references -- "The Church is Not the new Israel" and "Catholics killed 50 million true Christians". There was planetary talk and implications that the world is flat, not round.It wasn't always clear when he was quoting Scripture and when he was simply offering his own commentary on the Scripture.

Many home churches have room for discussions and dialogue, however there was none of that here, so there was no way to correct the preacher when he made outlandish claims. Or sometimes it was hard to discern what he was trying to get at, especially for my husband who was used to hearing some of the same words, but used differently. What did he mean when he spoke of "the Church"? Something invisible and spread out, but how did one know it when they saw it? These were questions my husband had that I honestly had never considered so had no way of answering. 

Nevertheless, much of what the preacher said was baked in truth or half truths, and all of it was delivered with impeccable charisma. He was likable, and because of that, one did not want to question the sermon notwithstanding the fairly minimal number of Scriptures quoted. He was a powerful orator who had a power over words, and so at a certain point truth mattered less because he presented himself fiercely and with gusto. There were many little things he said I appreciated and agreed with in theory. For instance, he said "We don't have to take everything to God in prayer first. Sometimes we just have to do what's right. God isn't going to change His mind." He spoke rightly of the differences between schismatics and heretics -- those who cause divisions over peccadilloes versus those who promote bad theologies. I thought this was a fair observation, however I was also reminded of 1 Corinthians 1:10 "Let There Be No Divisions Among Yourselves". Perhaps one of the reasons it is important to not become schismatic is we are more easily led astray by our own private interpretation and therefore more easily influenced by heretical dogmas when we are not kept in check by a larger, authoritative body of Christians. 

After the sermon, there was a potluck, a common feature of these sorts of home gatherings and the real "meat" of the event. I thought that perhaps then we might get the discussion that is often common at such gatherings, but it seemed for most, gears had been switched. It was an interesting experience for my husband, but I feel in order for him to properly understand home churches we will have to attend a few more to find the discussions we are hoping to have.