However, the truth is, that all successful churches utilize the small group format to one degree or another, whether it is a conventional church with small groups, cell churches, or house churches. Conventional churches struggle with how to get people plugged into a small group program. Cell churches do a better job, but they will still have people who won’t commit to the cell group. But in house church, the small group is the church, so it’s not a struggle.

When I invite someone to my church, I am inviting people to a meeting that is designed, at it’s core, to provide “relational connection” as “the key ingredient” (Tony’s words), and not “just inviting people to show up for an event at the church” (again, Tony’s words).

The issue of relational connection is one of the main issues that led us to join a house church rather than to seek out another conventional church. It is the exact issue I’ve been struggling with for years – how do we design a weekly meeting that has a relational element to it? The answer, for me, was to drop the presentational stuff (which was hard for me to do) and focus on relationships as a regular course of being the church. It is much easier to tack “events” on to a weekly relational meeting than it is to tack on “small groups” to a weekly event.

Finally, and this is important, there are a number of people I’ve come into contact with in the past six months who have had extremely bad experiences with churches in the past – experiences that border on cult issues – and therefore they have a hard time trusting ANY church at all. Yet these people feel very comfortable to the idea of a church that meets in someone’s home, where one person is not in charge directing every aspect of the meeting. Perry, if your concern is that house churches can’t reach everybody, you should understand that conventional churches can’t, either, and there are definitely people in this world who would never find Christ in a large conventional church, but they will find it in the loving relationships in a house church.

phil 1:18

Glad we are on the same team…and we will have to agree to disagree on this one. Let’s keep loving God and loving others with everything we’ve got…and following His ways the best we know how…and if one of us OR both of us are wrong…then I believe He will weigh the motives of our heart and understand that we were really trying our best to follow Him the best way we knew how.

Agree?

Wow. If that’s your mental model of a house church, then you need to meet some people who attend one.

Granted, some house churches are formed out of pure bitterness and isolation, and house churches are just as prone to sitting on their thumbs as any conventional church is.

But the reality is this – if Jesus had intended for us to launch groups of thousands, with a single “pastor” at the top – he would have started the first one himself.

Yes, he preached to thousands, on occasion, at least. Yet the gospels speak of how he would do his best to escape those crowds. How he chose twelve specific people to pour his heart into them, and then told them (via the great commission) to do the same.

If the very Son of God chose “quality” over “quantity,” who am I to second guess him?

If Jesus had millions of dollars, he wouldn’t be building church buildings (large or small). If Jesus had thousands of followers, he’d be picking twelve of them and concentrating on those. If Jesus had to choose how to spend his time, he’d be spending it with people instead of preparing all week long for a large weekly event. At least, that’s what I’m finding in the Bible I’ve been reading.

I’m certainly not going to say that transformation can’t happen in a conventional church, of any size. But when it comes to discipleship, you simply can’t argue that larger is better. I’d argue that true discipleship doesn’t even occur on a level of 12-20 (a typical small group or house church size) but more on a level of 2-3.

Hey dude–something about Barna has always struck a chord with me. I do appreciate his research…but…he has never pastored a church!

I disagree that transformation does not take place at a church. Why? Because I have SEEN it…first hand. Transformation took place in MY life through attending a church…a large one…and I dare someone to tell me it didn’t.

The house church model has ONE problem–they neglect the great commission. If Jesus would have wanted us to sit around and suck thumbs…He would have commanded it.

BUT…what was HIS first calling on the disciples? Follow me and we will do deep Bible study? Nope! Follow me and we will figure out predestination? Nope! Follow me and I will make you fishers of me…in other words–we will reach people!!!

I am not saying the house church is totally evil–there has to be an element of community in the church for it to be truly successful…but without an event to stir the heart (remember the Day of Pentecost) then I think many will be missed.

Just my opinion!

If church activity means showing up and sitting through one more presentation (either large group or small group, informational or artistic), then Barna’s point is solid. That’s not what Granger is about… at least what I’ve seen of it.

So take heart, Tony! :)

while at church?

or…

while with the church?

i think location is the least of the necessary elements.

I think Barna is onto something, but I do think he takes his “vision” too far. I still think folks in America like to “go” to church.

IMHO, I think we can still be “attractional” but we also must be “incarnational.”

The questions I guess is this, how do we combine the two. What is the best way?