Jason Evans 27 June 2007 Articles, General 1,971 views 2 Comments Print This Post  Email This Post

I have often times been asked why we believe in the “house church”
model. I don’t. In fact, I try hard not to use that phrase any longer.
As a model, it is as full of flaws as any other. But I guess I am
still a strong proponent for this not as a model as much as the result
of my theology and convictions.

There is one reason why I highly value the way we have chosen to
function: sustainability. I mean this in many ways:

- it’s economically more sustainable

- it’s sustainable in the sense that it is not personality dependant
on one individual and therefore can continue to exist and evolve even
as “leaders” and other participants change

- it’s also more sustainable on an environmental level, making use of
space that already exists rather then building/renovating another is
important to me

- it enhances the use of resources for justice and mission by cutting
down, if not completely eliminating, overhead

It’s also more just in the sense that it allows more participation by
many. Because of the economic implications, the marginalized and the
poor can have greater access and more prominent voice. They also have
a greater opportunity to initiate something more “organic” (to use
Neil Cole’s language) themselves rather than be dependent upon an
ecclesiastic system that by and large does not advocate for them at
times. I know this is not true across the board but seeing as the poor
are one of the most mentioned subjects in Scripture their access and
interaction within ecclesiastic structures/models should be a priority
I am thinking.

As well, what my experience in recent years has provided that my
previous experience did not is a slow detoxification of three things:
1-the identity of a leader, 2-our idea of fulfilled mission and 3-the
identity of a congregation.

For me, it has challenged my own dependency on authority and false
ideals of success. It has provided an empty canvas for us to think
more creatively about how we participate with Jesus and his kingdom.
It has also provided ample space for those that have participated in
community with us over the years to consider their action rather than
rely on a leader to meet their needs.

While I don’t always appreciate the term “house church”�the name is a
misnomer for many and implies many things that I don’t necessarily
want to imply�I do appreciate the response it evokes in many. The
phrase itself seems to be received as a threat to many peoples’
system. At first, it took me awhile to get over that. Now, I
appreciate it. I’m forced to wonder, ‘Why is this such a threat to
you? Why does this raise so much emotional reaction?’ It implies, to
me, that there is something prophetic about it. So, I have no interest
in it as a model but I appreciate, still, the implications of being
the church in this way.

…. So, maybe I am a supporter.