Principles of Simple Church

How did the early church teach their children? Did it involve Sunday school, children's church, or nurseries?

At a Virginia house church conference, before a panel discussion was about to begin, I whispered to a friend that I bet the first question was going to be: “How do we handle the children?” Sure enough, it was. This, in my opinion, is the number one question asked by those contemplating the house church. It is a tremendous stumbling block, but it shouldn’t be. This chapter will examine three things: first, the differing philosophies or mind sets that the institutional and house church have toward children and the church; second, practical issues that arise; and third, the advantage to children of the church in the home.

Dear Nicolay,

Greetings, dear brother!  I hope your family is well.  Greet your wife, Anna, and children for me.

Nicolay, I should probably define what I mean by “a church planting movement”.

Neil Cole who was with us in Kiev in November of 2006 describes a church planting movement as follows:

“A rapid and multiplying increase of indigenous churches planting churches…”

The process of thinking about, practicing, re-thinking, re-imagining, and re-experimenting is exactly where the church needs to be today as it struggles to shed some irrelevant outer garments and seeks to uncover the shape it is morphing into.

I have seen the benefits of moving away from more traditional structures and into church forms that are simpler:

* Small, so that community and family can be experienced
* Participatory, so that every person’s gift is valued and developed
* Non-positional in leadership status, so that submission is mutual and leadership is situational and gift-based
* Non-programmatic, so that mission, discipleship, and leadership training is relationally-oriented
* Simple, so that it supports a 24/7, Jesus-following way of life

Dear Rich [1],

As I look at our churches, it does seem that we have become very complex and that you from America have helped us get this way.

There was a time when all that we had was the Bible and prayer.  Those were difficult days for us.  I remember the early 1990’s when ordinary men and women did very extraordinary things.  There was such a spontaneity to our evangelism and starting of new churches – even though many church leaders feared division in the church.  Even small groups threatened many church leaders.

As I began to think about leadership for simple, organic churches, one major thought came to my mind.  Jesus was a cross-cultural revolutionary who came and turned the world upside down.  One only has to read the Sermon on the Mount to understand that following Christ makes no worldly sense – to be poor in spirit, to rejoice when persecuted, and to mourn are all counter-cultural ways of life and thinking.  And, this Jesus is our best example for leadership.  I have always been amazed that during discussions on leadership people so often revert to examples from the Old Testament and examples from successful organizational leadership rather than simply focusing on what Jesus said and did.  Is not Jesus our greatest and best example?  And, His example is that He had no political or organizational power, no wealth, no school, no position, nor any possessions.  He had no authority except that authority which was derived from His relationships.

For years, I’ve tried to put my finger on it—the reasons why I left the professional pastorate. And you know, more than anything, I think it’s this: I lost my first love.

The reality is that much of what we call ministry today is really administration. It’s about adding things—programs and strategies and rules. In my 22 years as a pastor, I often administered more than I ministered, if that makes sense. I’ve come to see that I was an add-minister more than a minister.

For years, I’ve tried to put my finger on it—the reasons why I left the professional pastorate. And you know, more than anything, I think it’s this: I lost my first love.

The reality is that much of what we call ministry today is really administration. It’s about adding things—programs and strategies and rules. In my 22 years as a pastor, I often administered more than I ministered, if that makes sense. I’ve come to see that I was an add-minister more than a minister.

Organic Church. I've been using this term for around fifteen years now. Today it's become somewhat of a clay word, being molded and shaped to mean a variety of different things by a variety of different people.

T. Austin-Sparks is the man who deserves credit for this term. Here's his definition:

Participatory gatherings: wonderful, biblical, necessary. Do we really know how to do them?

One of my greatest joys in house church is the participatory nature of the gatherings.

My own transition to participatory church came after many years as a pulpit pastor. I echo the words of Scott William who said:

It seems easy on Saturday night to prepare three points on how to fix your marriage or how to quit sinning. On Sunday I have delivered the message, felt good about it, been complimented for it… but did it really change anything? Really?...

 

The Kingdom of God is the rule of God. And it rests upon the Lordship of Jesus Christ. The Kingdom of God produces the church . . . the community of the King.  The church, in turn, submits to the sway or rule of the Kingdom. As it does, the church expresses, represents, and advances God's Kingdom on the earth.

Properly conceived, the church is the community of believers who possess Divine life. This community joyfully enthrones Jesus Christ, expresses His sovereign rule in the world, and as a result, enjoys the blessings of the future age here-and-now (Rom. 14:17; Heb. 6:5).