2 minute read
Over the last two decades, I’ve felt a steady pull towards the house church movement. My soul longs for its slow pace, warmth of hospitality, depth of community, and conscious removal of all the bureaucratic crap that usually dominates church life. I’ve quietly read books by its leading authors. Not gonna lie, there are times when I feel like Frank Viola and Neil Cole are really onto something with the elegant simplicity of what they call “organic church.” As soon as I walk into one of those living rooms, however, I’m always alarmed by the perpetual oversimplification.
The house movement seems premised upon restoring the purity of the infant Jesus communities though it never actually existed. They want to get rid of church buildings, clergy, liturgy, rituals, creeds, fancy hermeneutics, and modern cultural values. Riiiight… During the New Testament era, Christians met in Jewish synagogues and were indisputably beginning the process of developing clerical roles, prayer liturgies, and worship rituals. They wrestled with how to reinterpret the sacred texts and counterculturally pushed the boundaries of society’s values.
Of course, I’ve had a similar ongoing experience with high church beliefs and practices. My soul likewise longs for the sense of historical unity found within the creeds, the beauty of liturgy, the sense of transcendence in sacred rituals, the awe and wonder of cathedrals, and the reorienting rhythm of the Christian calendar. Yet when I entered St. Peter’s Basilica I literally felt nauseous. I wanted to savor the experience but instead my mind became fixated on the thought, ‘So, this is the indulgent corruption that inspired Martin Luther to write his Ninety-five Theses.’
Dr. Martin Luther King wrote of a Jesus-centered repurposing of Hegel‘s dialectical method. Dr. King believed there was great wisdom and opportunity for reconciliation in a process of thoughtful thesis, conscious antithesis, and discerning synthesis. I heartily agree. My aim, then, is to bring together the best of the house church movement with high church worship. I see no reason why organic community has to be anti-intellectual nor do I think ancient practices have to be stuffy. Why can’t a formal Eucharistic service be done in a living room or home chapel?1
The original beatniks weren’t traditionalists. They loved tinkering around with familiar forms to produce new insights and startling innovations. While I sincerely doubt any of ’em would give two shits about trying to merge house church community with high church worship, they probably would’ve been amused by the subversive act of pulling together core values from two diametrically opposed spiritual expressions. And, on a personal note, I just can’t choose between the two anymore. My soul has embraced the yin and yang of house church with high church.
Author
Lots of church plants in more high church traditions like Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, and Lutheranism start with worship services in living rooms. They do this during their “start-up” days, then graduate into “public company” status, which inevitably means a church building with a formal sanctuary just as soon as they can afford it. That’s where they lose me.↩
