One
of the common questions raised regarding house churches relates to their
involvement in ‘mission’. What
can a (little) house church do, that is effective in its local community and
for overseas mission? This
question often comes from the perspective that larger churches have more
resources, and hence can be more effective in ‘mission’ eg a large church could
afford to totally fund a large team of indigenous church planters in
However,
organised churches are much more expensive to run than house churches, and
hence house churches potentially have much more resource available for
‘mission’. The recent Time Magazine article
on house churches quoted
These
figures seem generous to ‘standard’ churches ….. many ‘standard’ churches I have seen consume much
more than 75% of their budget internally, and few house churches would even spend
10% internally. In addition, if you
factor in the ‘value’ of all the volunteer work required for an organised
church to function, the actually running cost would be very high, with a
miniscule amount going outside the church for ‘mission, or to help the
poor.
As
mega churches continue to emerge, some people hope that they will bring some
cost efficiencies that will help increase what is going outside the
church. Unfortunately, the consensus is
that as churches get larger, they actually get more expensive (per person) to
operate, because they need to increase their quality, provide a much broader
range of ‘services etc. Occasionally I
hear proud reports that mega church WXY gave lots of money to some wonderful
cause (or saw lots of people ‘saved) …. I usually do some simple maths on this
to work out the giving (or salvations) per member of the mega church, and
always seem to find that the ‘achievement’ per member is great, but nothing
remarkable … in fact I know house churches that ‘achieve’ far more than this
per ‘member’.
I
recall a Management course I attended years ago … they gave the example of a
Government office building, and asked us to imagine it containing 1000
government employees with all the means of external communication cut off –
they suggested that these 1000 people would generate enough work just
organizing themselves, that they could be fully busy without generating any
‘output’. I immediately pictured the
church …. In a typical ‘organised’ church, the majority of time, energy and finance
can be consumed just keeping the ‘organisation’ running, with little or no
external ‘output’ …. it was a scary & sobering epiphany.
Talking
with a local church minister recently, he remarked how he would love to have
his church (about 150 people) sponsor a micro-enterprise bank in Asia (costing
about $5,000 pa for 2 years) – unfortunately they had just taken an offering
for other purposes, and some of their elders were opposed to the idea, but he
hoped to get the church to ‘buy’ into it. In contrast, I know of a house church where
just one family have personally sponsored a micro-enterprise bank, just through
giving the same amount as they were previously giving (tithing) to the
organised church they were in.
I
was fascinated to come across stories about a large church in
So what
can a house church do, that is effective in its local community and for
overseas mission? I am convinced that
if the people in a house church remain committed to a life of generous giving and commitment to building God’s kingdom locally and
internationally, they can achieve wonderful
things.