The Wilful Sunflower

Awesome! You have to check out Frank Johnson's blog, ProdigalGod.com. In his latest post, he talks about how the house church might be a better idea than a "real" church because it offers a truer sense of community and connectiveness, and is less threatening to non-believers.

Many unconverted people (at least in America - I suspect it's similar in many Western countries - I've been part of a church in France, and it had many of these same characteristics) think of church today in these terms: "I have to wake up early on a Sunday morning, get dressed in uncomfortable clothes, get my kids dressed to go to a place they've never been instead of playing, drive across town, walk into a building where the only people who say 'Hi' are the people at the door and the minister (and it's their job to say 'Hi'), turn my kids over to a stranger (!), be asked for money, have to stand up and introduce myself to a hundred or more people I've never seen, and then hear someone tell me what's wrong with me for half an hour." Obviously, that doesn't happen in every church, and hopefully, not in many churches. But that's the perception unconverted people have. No amount of persuasion to "come to church" will ever persuade them that it's a good idea.

After my time in Soulcare on Sunday, I'm inclined to agree that a house church is warmer and more welcoming than a "proper" church in a "real" church building. It's also less formal, with fewer rules and restrictions.

However, with regards to church as a place to evangelise and proclaim the Gospel, I'm more inclined to agree with Sakamuyo's assessment:

The Apostle Paul does mention in a few places conducting ourselves well in church so that we do not confuse the non-believers. But, I never get the feeling that the primary purpose of church was evangelism. I get the feeling there were 2 primary purposes. First and foremost, it was a time to give praise to God. It was a time for those who had chosed to follow Christ to come together and offer up their corporate worship. Second, it seems church was a time for the building up of the people of the church.

Reading Paul's letters, I get a feeling that church was largely a time for the members of the church, the followers of Christ, to come together to be strengthened, to be taught how to live rightly, to be discipled. I get the idea that the people of the church were built up so that outside the church, they could be beacons of Christ in their daily life. Sharing Christ was something done outside the church. It was something you shared in the way you lived among the people you regularly came in contact with.

Yes, of course non-believers are welcome in the church. But church isn't geared primarily for them. In I Corinthians 12 when Paul wrote of the spiritual gifts, he said, "Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good." (v7) He was talking about the common good of the Body, the church. In chapter 14 he went on to give instructions about the use of these gifts during church meetings, commenting, "Since you are eager to have spiritual gifts, try to excel in gifts that build up the church." (v12) So spiritual gifts were to be exercised during church meetings for the benefit of the believers, to build them up and encourage them. This backs up Sakamuyo's view that church was never meant to be primarily focussed on evangelism.