[quoted]All of this makes me wonder--is the house church movement a reaction against the megachurch, or the logical outcome of the megachurch?[/quoted]

Undoubtedly, people are leaving for both (and more) reasons - biblical and unbiblical reasons. What if it's simply a case of people trying to reach the disenfranchised...the forgotten...the written-off...or those whose worldviews don't fit within the foundational worldview of the modern church?

Having attended a liberal, mainline denomination (now in decline) as a youth, lived for years in complete rebellion, actively attended and served as a member of a successful mega-church (to whom I am deeply indebted) for 5 or 6 years, and being an avid follower of the emergent conversation, I have witnessed the issue from a number of perspectives.

It seems to me that we need a larger perspective. Our intense focus on the church misses the larger view of the Church and the even larger perspective of the Kingdom. Jesus likened the kingom to yeast in bread...spreading throughout the loaf..yet we often speak, act, think as though each molecule of bread must come to the center of the loaf.

Perhaps some people leave for hyper-individualistic reasons as Kevin Miller and others have discussed. But perhaps people are leaving their local church because the people on their hearts have been left behind by the church. We've done a great job at establishing the hospital where patients can come - if they have the strength. What if this new movement - if it is a movement- is about establishing trauma units on the front lines of society and culture? Can we find grounds to celebrate a both/and perspective? And can we celebrate that people might be leaving local churches to start a new church on the larger Kingdom grid?

Are they pursuing Christ "apart from a local church," or dissatisfied enough with the way their church functions to investigate other options?

I haven't read Revolution, so maybe someone can help me. The excerpts, reviews and comments I've read suggest that the "revolutionaries" are willing to go on "apart from a local church." Is this true?

That's much different from joining or starting a house church which, though it's still uncommon, is still very much a church, though it lacks the trappings of conventional churches. Though informal in some ways, it still has teachers, elders, pastors, and so forth.

I think it's probably a little bit of both (reaction against & result of). I do wonder what the future holds.

I found particularily interesting, the point about mega-churches costing so much that it leaves little for good works. I work at a certifiable (though nowhere near as big as many others) megachurch (approx. 2,000 members), and I see first hand how things like mortgages, utility bills, etc. eat up all the money.

I for one can see the value in both house church / small groups and the mega-church. Perhaps what the future holds is not one or the other, but a hybrid of the two.

"What if the cell groups decided to lose the mother church?"
You mean like some kinda wierd thing called "indigenous church planting?" I pray for it everyday.

I have read both Barna's book, "Revolution" as well as a book by Reggie McNeal called "The Present Future" which addresses similar tensions and themes but from a different POV from Barna. Still, both books raise the issue of urgency and call to action.

My own journey includes about 30 years of service within the local church in the area of music, worship and the arts. And, after 30 years, I can honestly say that I really don't see where we (the typical local church) have really made that much of a difference in people's lives. Yes, we've probably done some good things over the years - like kept some kids off drugs, or kept some women from having abortions - that sort of stuff. But, overall, I don't see that big of a difference in the world - in general.

In fact, I wonder if we (the local church) have done more harm than good in some cases?

I don't think the problem is "the mega church" and to point a finger at them is to ignore the bigger issue - ME! Am I honestly a follower of Christ or, as McNeal says in "Present Future," am I simply a "club member trying to get more club members for my club?"

I crave something more authentic in my encounters with the Lord. And, I imagine, He does too.

For us as a community (http://mars-hill.net) it has really boiled down to a stewardship issue.
When you find yourself in a position of dedicating more of your cash funds to property and less to people, I think there is a flag that should be raised. Our community made the decision 2.5 years ago to relieve ourselves of the building we were in contract under (thankfully we had the foresight to have a no-penalty clause w/ 60 day notice written into the conract) in order to free up the finances that our people were giving. The result was incredible allowing us to participate in people's lives in a way we could not before. We were able to support a family (for 6 months) on a move from Dallas to help with a church plant in California where the huband now pastors and the wife now leads the music (yes, in a building...). We were able to support a friend's work in India (where the recent attacks were in Bhopal) and able to support a number of arts/missions endeavors all around the nation.
Truth is, for us it was one of the best decisions we have made as a community. We may be small, but our impact has and is increasing as a result of our stewardship.

My first inclination was to say "leave it to Time to miss the point" -- but I don't think they're the only ones. We're overlooking the fact that the church exists even without 501C3 status. House churches aren't abandoning the "mother church" any more than Presbyterians (or any denomination) has abandoned Christendom by defining themselves as a denomination. House churches don't belong to Willow Creek or Saddle Back or which ever mega church spawned them. They belong to THE church, the body of Christ, and Christ has the capacity to recognize his church in all its configurarations, incomplete and lacking as some of them may be. When are we going to figure out that point is not names in the roll or even butts in the pew -- the point is helping people live like Jesus between Sundays, for the other 167 hours of their week that isn't spent in "church."

I've said for a long time that the move to house churches is a logical progression for the cell group movement. That's not to say that everyone who chooses cell groups will eventually move to a house church, but for people moving from more traditional structures to cell groups the further move to house churches can be a very natural progression.

Our definition of "church" and our understanding of how that is to function ultimately determines our opinion of house churches. The need for mutual accountability and some sort of authority structures to prevent the drift toward heresy and facilitate cooperation and unity make it a challenge to consider moving to house churches. However, all of the concerns about the potential problems are really just issues of scale. If you think of a house church as an incredibly small denomination then you begin to see that most of the concerns about house churches are equally valid for the largest of denominations.

The economic advantages of house churches are hard to argue. As someone who has previously worked in the area of non-profit fundraising and personally contributes to a number of organizations, I'm always interested in seeing the breakdown of each of my dollars. When you consider the immense amount of money spent on buildings to house our activities, it is easy to see the benefit of freeing up that money to be invested in other people and ministries.

Dan McGowan,

Very poignant comment. After 30 years service you’re brave enough to question what the effect is. That is rank honesty, I commend you. I would submit that those few kids kept off drugs, and the few prevented abortions, are enough to justify your efforts, but that’s just me. It IS very difficult to get beyond the “club member” mentality, because our society is so comfortable. We have a low tolerance for inconvenience or risk, and few role models to look up to.

I know a mother / daughter ministry team that have truly live like that most Christ-like figure of history, Saint Francis. They are intelligent, educated, and attractive, but have few possessions, drive a beat-up jalopy, wear thrift-shop clothes, and devote themselves to providing full-time ministry to poor urban churches in the form of free children’s programs. They are not supported by any missionary organization. They work part-time cleaning houses to support themselves, and receive a few small gifts of money, vehicle repairs, etc, literally relying on God for their daily bread. The church I work with first made their acquaintance when the congregation walked out of evening worship to find these strangers weeding the church flower beds. They just happened to walk by and thought the building would look nicer with some weeding, so they just got on their knees and did it. They are not crazy or weird. They DO have a sense of humor. They do not have saccharine Prozac personalities. They do NOT regularly attend any one church. I don’t know why they don’t, but I think most churches I’ve gone to would have a hard time embracing or tolerating people who make a sincere effort to live a Christ-like life. I know I can only stand to be around them for a few hours at a time because I start feeling like such a lousy Christian. True revolutionaries. A standard few can live up to.

I see a natural progression toward smaller church "units" connected through a larger structure. Maybe instead of progression I should call it a pendulum swing. So many megachurches started as small groups that the small group mindset still is a key value. The challenge is, I think, for the "church" (i.e., the larger structure) to release people to truly operate as the church in those smaller units.

Hi John,

Yeah, I didn't mean to imply that our efforts are NOT worth saving those kids from drugs or young moms from aborting. I'm sure you realize that is not my point. I am actually saying that if you take Christianity as a movement from when it began, how different is our world? Should it be different? Or is this the plan - barely inching forward over the course of two millenium. I just think we are missing out on something... perhaps we are not quite fully living for Christ as He desires us to... I just read a great post over at another blog site (www.transformingsermons.blogspot.com) posing the question - can we simply "Live The Bible?" without all the on-going interpretation that sometimes clogs us from really living? Just a thought.

The return to the "mini" can be seen as a pendulum swing, but only if you look at it from a limited perspective.

If you dig a little deeper you will find books like David Bosh's "Transforming Mission" and Frost & Hirsch's "The Shaping of Things To Come" that are actually giving words to the passions that are resulting in such decisions. They make the point that (Disclaimer: This is a very, very condensed version) Jesus never intended to establish an institution or new religion. His words sparked a movement, a revolt of sorts. But it was not political as the authorities of the day (or ours) understood. It was a movement against the powers that rule the world (greed, retaliation, selfishness, unforgiveness, etc.) and into the place where the Kingdom of Heaven breaks through on earth (through mercy, forgiveness, reconciliation, etc.). This was salvation, redemption.

To attempt to institutionalize what Jesus began as a movement might be a little off the mark of Jesus' original intention. I would highly suggest the two above books. Bosch is written more texbook style (scholarly) and Shaping is more "everyman" reading. Has anyone else read these books?

"All of this makes me wonder--is the house church movement a reaction against the megachurch, or the logical outcome of the megachurch?"

I'd guess that it's a little of both but what kind of "movement" are we talking about? What and where are the real numbers? Surely interest is increasing but are we really looking at tens of millions? If so, then that's wonderful - just show me the documentation. Barna nor Time didn't.

Zane Anderson
House Church Network

I'm in a megachurch of 14,000. I've been in missions, church, and parachurch ministries for 30 years. Frank Tillapaugh had it right in his 80-something book Unleashing the Church. If a megachurch sees "cell groups" (a very dated term, btw) as things that need to be controlled, and that define the outer "walls" of the church to keep everybody inside of its influence, then it deserves to die a slow death.

If, on the other hand, the focus of any church is on equipping and releasing church members to minister through small groups, however God leads them, and with only minimal management, then that church will grow in size and spiritual impact. And more than that, those ministering "members" will see the "mother church" as a place to be re-fueled for their ministry. Will some become independent ministries? Of course! But that is what is supposed to happen.

As a culture, we have so controlled church ministries, like small groups, for so long out of fear that they may do something "wrong," or teach something not completely sound, that we've created a dependent, passive, visionless, listless body that won't do anything without permission. It's no wonder many are leaving that kind of controlling environment to find freedom in the Spirit to minister as God leads.

The American institutional church will go through a season of adjustment, and smaller more ministry-focused churches will begin to flourish, bringing many into the body of Christ who would never darken a megachurch door.

Barna is wrong, and has lost all objectivity and credibility by rather shamelessly and unprofessionally promoting an agenda he appears to like rather than reporting on trends. There are no elders and deacons in Revolution, and a leaderless, individualistic "church" is not a biblical church. It will die, just like a Spirit-less megachurch. The key to the future of the evangelical church is a new generation of leaders who will allow the Spirit to work through people rather than only through church structures; who will trust God's people rather than their programs; and who will lead from among and beside, rather than from above.

Check out "The Shaping of Things to Come: Inovation and Mission for the 21st Century Church" by Michael Frost and Alan Hirsch. This is a missiological "tour de force." I read this after working through Gibbs and Bolgers "Emerging Churches" and it really gave some clear vision on why, how and where the church will have to morph.

My gut is that the Church is on a process of recovering its deep, deep historical roots in order to discover God's future.

Pretty soon we'll recreate the Plymouth Brethren.

We, evangelicals, in our wonderful pursuit of bringing people to Christ, so stress the relationship to Jesus part, separating this relationship from any "religion or institution", that we have developed the theological flaw of churchless Christians. But how can one be with Christ and not be part of the Body of which He is the Head? This theology would be unthinkable to Christians of previous and better eras. We need to deepen our ecclesiology, and honestly evaluate if people are leaving their congregations because they have acchieved a higher level of maturity.

Clay,
I find it hard to believe that Barna is "promoting an agenda he appears to like" when the report itself runs counter to everything that his readers (typically established, denominational pastors) want to hear. It would seem foolish for a writer to "talk dirty" about his readers when his income depends on them as a base. However, if there was something genuinely occuring that needed explaining and discussing, it would make sense, as someone who sees it and has the influence, to report it.
Also, I'm not so sure that the lack of leadership discussion in his book is advocating no leadership in the church. His book is not meant to discuss leadership strategies, but instead to report on what is happening with the "everyman" outside the institutional experience.

Rene',
While I cannot agree more with you that there is a dire need to deepen our ecclesiology, I would wonder out loud at the presupposition that people leaving mega-congregations for smaller fellowships is the equivalent of becoming "churchless Christians". I believe you would find, as I have, that joining others in this type of community actually causes the believer to seek Christ as the Head of the church/Church even more deeply. Far from the notion that spirituality is posited only by the "front people" ("The Pastor", worship leaders, etc.), these smaller gatherings actually provide space for the individual to deeply search out their relationship to the Head, and discover how they intimately function as a part of the Body of Jesus. While the gathering of the "mega" allows one to slip in and out undetected and feel good about one's attendance without ever really connecting to the Head and discovering your role in the household of faith, it becomes much harder to do so in a smaller environment that is mature in seeking out Christ by way of the gathering of saints.

Perhaps the evangelical church is merely seeing the fruit of too many decades of emphasizing the nature of the church as an "organization" almost to the exclusion of it spiritual nature as a "organism." The organic life of the body is mysterious and difficult; it isn't easily defined and reproduced like a commercial franchise; it requires copious amounts of unstructured relational time and openness to change and unpredictability. That's not the American-church way! The typical results-oriented evangelical American church has always defaulted to the organization side of the equation, simply because it is measurable and manageable. Even its attempts at cultivating the organic nature of the body have usually been programmatic, curricular, and structured.

The Catch 22 in the growth of the megachurch is that it requires constantly, even exponentially, increasing amounts of organization and management. Good church managers who produce results are too often the ones elevated to positions of leadership, rather than the spiritual leaders who are doing the less-measurable people work. But it is inevitable, especially if there is any difficulty or persecution, that the pendulum will swing back to the smaller and more organic model of church life.

Perhaps the new generation of believers seeking a more spiritual experience from "the church" has grown disaffected by often Spirit-deadening organization, programs, and leadership attitudes (doing trumps becoming). It's probably not so much about a "higher level of maturity," but rather about trying to find a more authentic level of experience. Isn't that, at least in part, what the Emerging church is about?

I am not worried about the future of the church. A new leadership will emerge in this generation that will understand better the need to build the organization around the organism, rather than thinking the organism is created by the organization. I am confident, despite the bleak outlook now, that evangelicalism will right itself (or better, God will right evangelicalism), and a biblically sound church will emerge for the future, with leaders who understand and live the model of NT leadership.

The most important thing is that the Word of God be taught without error. Clearly, error has occured in church bodies large and small.

The key is for individuals to "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."(IITim 2:15)

Agreed.
The problems come when you begin to interpret the Word of God based on cultural norms and influences and then attempt to defend your personal interpretation as biblical.
Arguing for any particular style of church is not what the Scriptures are there for. Arguing for what type of people we should be... now there's a novel concept.

Richard Dennis Miller-
Do you really believe that "rightly dividing the word" is the main thing?

Pharisees did that real well. They were right, but dead wrong. While I am diligent in my studies and even went for the seminary education to be "rightly dividing the Word of God," I have found the lack of authentic love in the church as one of the main things that has a huge impact on those twenty-somethings that grew up in the institutional church. They no longer come. Hypocrisy, back-biting, mean-spirited, un-disciplined leadership (which the congregation mimics) has taught them that it is not a community worthy of their time.

I attend a mega-church on Sundays but spend time in small groups with the disenfranchised young-adults. We discuss and focus on knowing Jesus. We leave "Christianity" at the door.

Justin (re: March 13 post),

First, a disclaimer. I read a pre-release version of Revolution, which is now buried in the clutter of an office and home move, so I can't provide quotes to respond to your concerns.

That said, I think even a cursory reading of Revolution reveals that Barna is very clear and unequivocal that he is advocating the "revolution" that he also describes. It is as much a blueprint for where he thinks the church should go as it is a "report" of where we are. Barna is excited and energized by this new vision for the future church, and is encouraging the church to embrace it. Since The Barna Group is the big dog in Christian research, he does not have to worry too much about losing church customers because of his controversial views.

Concerning leadership, the very nature of a revolutionary "church" is that it considers traditional, institutional expressions of the church irrelevant. Barna had already concluded in 2001 that his own efforts to raise up new leadership for the church had failed, and that the die was cast for the failure of the church. Revolutionaries, who are independent and individualistic, may look to mentors, counselors, spiritual directors, themselves (the "personal church of the individual"), and ultimately to their personal relationship with God, but they do not look to formal, traditional, biblical leadership roles like elders and deacons.

Barna's views, and his divergence on some issues from historical evangelicalism and eccleisology, are public knowledge and the subject of numerous articles. Check the CTLibrary for some good reading.

As a regional minister overseeing more than 50 churches in the upper Midwest, I see a reason to applaud the home church idea. With small rural towns declining and even disappearing, churches shrinking until they cannot pay for heat, lights and upkeep less a pastor's salary and small towns full of empty church buildings, it is time to reinvent the church for rural ministries.

The home church is a revisitation of how churches began when populations were sparse. They worked then and they are working now. Minstry was hands on and personal. The home churches were usually safe places. The bulk of pastors and missionaries produced during the first half of the 20th century came from very small churches, some of which met in homes and school houses.

In addition, as Robert Logan, author of many church planting and organizational books says, the smaller, disconnected church is probably more resistant to persecution than the larger, connected group.

I am interested in seeing how many we can win to Christ by unconventional means in rural areas. Conventional means certainly aren't working.

I am fascinated by the discussion. I am not a fan of home churches or mega churches. Since I am currently attending a mega church for the first time, I must say that it has been simultaneously interesting and disturbing. I believe that a healthy church is focused outwardly, and is growing numerically as well as spiritually. That is the mantra behind the mega churches. I am not sure that I buy into the idea that therefore, "We cannot be a small church." That statement seems to divorce the megachurch from any real responsibility to meet the needs of members who are already discipled Christians. Their needs are to be met in small groups. We have found the small groups to be amazingly so ingrown at this outward reaching megachurch, that after four weeks no one, but the leader, even knew or cared to know our first names. We quit going when they cancelled the meeting and didn't bother to tell us about it. I am on my third small group, and this group (for women only) actually cares about each individual member and encourages spiritual growth and relationship growth. As a family, however, we feel a terrible lack of community. We don't know the right answer. Do we want to be in a home church? I don't think so.

Following the discussion, I agree with some that the house church is a natural evolution of the megachurch. Both the megachurch and the house church structure serve certain function. The megachurches give a greater perspective of a sense of belonging to a larger group of people ( a forerunner to the universal Church) while the house churches provide a place of high touch, low tech where people can feel connected and other people know your name and your favourite colour. Saying this, I am also reminded by certain posts that we must not lose sight of the fact that the Word must be preached correctly and that whatever church structure (and there is room for both), the purpose of the church is to make disciples of Jesus Christ.

Shalom

Alex

I was part of a church that was using 90% of the budget for the pastor's salary along with trips for the pastor and his wife. When I asked about how much actually goes towards ministry, I was shocked! It was disappointing, BUT, I still remember the words of Jesus when He said, "I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." The church, as I understand it, is not a building, but a people-- called out ones, that are to do the work of the ministry. In all fairness, I've been involved in missions work and have been supported by mega churches--they do a lot of good work too. Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. But thank you for bringing up this issue and causing us all to reflect on being 'good steward of His resources."

Having read Barna for years I find him to be great at gathering information but short sighted at times in interpreting the information he gathered. He often speculates a bit too much. With that said I am concerned at the ease in which we will take to task, blame or criticize the large church while assuming that smaller churches are healthier and connected. Having pastored in both large and small churches I can tell you, the reason many small churches are small is unhealthiness.

They reach few people for Christ, are run by very few workers, have closed systems of leadership to those whishing to join. Is it possible the unhealthiness of the small church is creating the home church revolution? Is it also possible the unhealthiness of the small church feeds the growth of mega churches? In our American version of Christianity we tend to think like republicans and democrats instead of Christians. We see the church often as the haves and have nots.

Politics often vilifies the large corporation, the rich person and the successful person and elevates to hero status the small, less equipped or resourced. I see this attitude rampant throughout the Out of Ur blogging. Big churches are impersonal, spend their money foolishly, compromise, entertain, coddle and soften truth, while smaller churches do what. Stay small, reach very few people and if they were to disappear from the neighborhood they were in, would the community notice a “Light” went out?

Home churches are great if they are started because of what they are for not what they are against. Of the dozens upon dozens I have come across they started because someone did not like the existing model of church. Most of the people I know in them did not come from a large church but a small one. In other words, Let’s sell a home church on the basis of it’s merits not the demerits of the large church. Let’s see if we can have a move of God without the attacking of large churches, modern churches, post modern churches, small churches. Let’s love all the churches, big small, emergent, modern, house or with other facilities. Just my rant.

Leoskeo:

And a very good rant it was. Thank you for the added balance and thoughtful insights.

Just as with people in the church, there are "strong" and "weak" churches, some "mature" and some "immature." Perhaps Paul's exhortation in Romans 14 concerning how we relate to one another as members of the body can apply as well, at least in principle, to churches: "Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions."

It's not the size of the church that matters, but the fruit of its faith. A megachurch can be fruitless and weak in faith; a home church can be fruitful and faithful. Our vision for Christ's church (it's not ours) should never be to accentuate the strong and eliminate the weak out of a misguided belief that there is some "ideal" church that is attainable. Our vision should be to "grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ...(who) causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love" (Eph. 4:7-16). Becoming the faithful, mature, love-marked body of Christ in the world is the goal, whether big or small, weak or strong.

It seems rather odd that from the comments I read that nobody is asking the question: What in the "Church" world is God doing?
It seems that a Sovereign Lord would be more likely the motive behind the move than the likes and dislikes of the people involved. Why might God be moving the Church in the U.S. to home church meetings? Is there something on the horizon that requires that the Church entrench itself in the most easily hidden, readily fluid, package as possible? I see a country that is in many ways becoming more and more violently opposed to the message of the Gospel. Could it be that God is preparing us for the future while at the same time helping a woefully ineffective Church find a new way of being relevant and infectous?

I seem to remember an old guy named Gamaliel saying something like "If it is of God, then you won't be able to stop it. If it is only of human origin, then it will fail" (my paraphrase).
My simple observation is that if house churches are faithful to the example of the early church, then they will fulfill the purposes of Christ, resulting in growth and health. If they grow, they will have to develop biblical patterns of leadership. If they don't reach out and develop, they will not be healthy and the movement will die a death of natural causes.

I started a church with a small group of ten nearly 17 years ago. Today we would be considered a larger church by Schaller's terms. Healthy cell groups or home groups cannot help become healthy churches, sooner or later. Either way, Gamaliel gets the last word.

Such FANTASTIC comments many of you are making.

Let me add this – I wonder if it is the church ‘structure’ that is the real issue, or if it is the church ‘people?’ I think the problem lies with the people.

We (21st century Christians) have become toxically selfish. Much of ‘the church’ isn’t about the community of believers anymore, it’s about individuality. The individual has to have everything according to his own specifications for his own individual Christianity. Herein lies the problem. We serve our own individual gods.

We want, want, and want more for ourselves. Many churches nowadays cater to the wants of the person and not the spiritual need.

Where are the Biblical spiritual leaders? Where are the pastors, lay leaders, and leaders that stand firm on the word of God and not put up with the degenerate Christian? Sure many of us are god followers, but where are the God followers. Where are the world-changers? Where are the Christians that know that their life is not their own and that we are to die to ourselves daily? I’m telling you, the 21st century Christian does not know how to commit daily suicide. The closest we get to committing suicide anymore, is just thinking about how it is probably the right thing to do.

When Jesus called some of his disciples, He said, “Come, follow me.” The Church’ needs a revival. It needs a reality check. Who are we to live for ourselves and not for God??? A.W. Tozer writes, “This concept of Christianity is in radical error, and because it touches the souls of men it is a dangerous, even deadly, error. At bottom it is little more than a weak humanism allied with weak Christianity to give it ecclesiastical respectability.... Invariably it begins with man and his needs and then looks around for God; true Christianity reveals God as searching for man to deliver him from his ambitions....”

I believe A.W. Tozer also wrote, “It must be God first, God second, and God third. Everything else falls after that.”

I think the Christian today lives in this such way: Me first, me second, me third, my spouse (lover, sex partner, or whatever you want to put there), my career, my money, how I appear to other people, my hobbies, and then God.
But that’s all ok, right? After all God didn’t create me for a friendship with Him. He created me for me…

As a United Methodist pastor, I have long advocated that we return to our Weslean Roots. House churches are vital, if we are to do the work Christ has commanded. How many times have you read in scripture that Jesus asked his followers to start a capital building campaign, or that he , in a miraculous event built a great temple or cathedral? Do we need all these "princes of the church?" The people of God have created huge buildings , monsters that require constant feeding, and leave very little resources to feed the hungry, clothe the naked and heal the sick. I for one am ready to follow "The Call", whether it be in a store front or little cottage, or from house to house among kindred souls. I am thrilled that others are envisioning this type of ministry. May we remain open to the voice of the Holy Spirit. No pastor can be all things to all people. House churches, I believe, will give us the means to reach those we are meant to serve.