One thing I've learned...

I had this long post written about the intricate reasons why Jason (husband) and I are comfortable with our decision to raise our kids in the house church atmosphere. But it felt boring and wordy and not like me at all. So, instead, I'd like to tell you a story -- one from our last year of service, as a part of our house church. One that made me think, yes, this is right, this is what we're meant to do for our kids.

It was a cold, snowless night in early December, and our kids were brimming over with Christmas spirit. For weeks, we'd been shopping, not just for the normal people, like cousins and grandparents and school teachers, but we'd been on the hunt for the perfect gift for each member of our sponsored refugee family, who had moved here in September from Thailand. We were busy finding little things like Barbie dolls for the girl who had admired my daughter's so much and a puzzle for a little boy who was in his first semester of kindergarten and a grown-up purse for the middle-schooler who wanted so badly to fit into American culture and silly video games for the younger men who were so blown-away by the possibility of our Wii.

The gifts were lovingly wrapped in bright colors, with bows, and the kids were so excited as we pulled them from beneath the tree and loaded them in a shopping bag. We dropped one, and it started making vrrrom noises -- a shake-up car for the little 3-year-old. My own 2-year-old almost threw a fit, but we talked again about how little Thomas had no toys, and we wanted to share some with him. Jaybin hesitated, then smiled. Whew -- the tentative Christmas spirit was back.

We arrived at the door in santa hats, excited. As always, it was a bit awkward to be there. Lots of bodies were packed into the small apartment and the unfamiliar scent of strange spices filled the air. The room is sparsely furnished with second-hand furniture and strange handwritten papers are taped to the wall. A lone calendar hangs behind the couch. A clock, still in its original Target box, is nailed above the window. And a little boy with bare feet and shorts peeked up at us from under his father's arm.

"We brought presents!" we said needlessly. Of course, they didn't understand. We don't speak the same language, but they could see the brightly wrapped packages. Hurrying awkwardly now, we passed them out. Everyone received two presents, one from us and one from the Zoellers, and their cautious smiles showed us that this wasn't a ritual they'd taken part in before.

Fast forward 20 minutes, with balls of wrapping paper lying around the floor and loud pockets of conversation saying we-had-no-idea what. We snapped photos and enjoyed the festive atmosphere. Someone broke out the gallon-sized orange drink and various mugs. I glanced over to where my 5-year-old was playing with a 10-year-old's first Barbie doll. And as I eavesdropped, I heard my daughter say, "Shoe, shoe, Tae-ae, can you say shoe?" And a tentative voice echoing of the names the clothing items as the Barbies got dressed for, well, the ball, according to my daughter. I don't know where Tae-ae thought they were going.

I learned something that evening -- children's church, in it's most basic form, isn't about flannel graphs or cute songs or banks filled with pennies for missionaries. It's all about learning to love others -- even those who don't look like us. And whether that happens in a classroom environment with a teacher and a chart keeping close track of attendance or a real-life experience of actually befriending a 10-year-old who can't speak a word of your language, the end goal should be the same. At least, for me it is. I want my kids to grow up to be lovers -- not sympathy lovers, who feel superior to the little boy without shoes in India, but true lovers of all people, even those with worlds completely apart from their own.

And if they can truly learn to have a natural reaction to love those who are different, rather than judge or feel superior or even just feel awkward, who knows, maybe a little bit of it will wear off onto their mom and dad.

Expanding on the "Why House Churches?" question

To really get to my answer to this question, I need to explain some things I've come to believe about the current, more institutional, structure of church. I believe that the existing structure, as it stands in most organized churches, is flawed. Like it or not, the current structure encourages and promotes passivity.

Services are a passive experience, no matter what time of day they are. The church body assembles and is led in a time of worship. While there is participation in this worship time, it is the responsibility of the worship leader to take the church body into the presence of God. Once they "arrive" the speaker proceeds to share the Word of God with the church for that week. Upon completion, most churches typically ask the body to actively offer their tithes to the church. Later in the week, a smaller committee assembles and determines how best to utilize these tithes. Small groups, or home groups, are often setup with a specific leader who takes as his/her responsibility the burden of preparing a lesson and leading the group through a study of some sort.

Commonly quoted statistics are that 20% of the church does 80% of the work. In other words, 80% of the church is passive. They are waiting for somebody else to take responsibility for their spiritual journey. They are waiting for their pastor to share the Word of God for the week in his sermon rather than engaging and actively pursuing the Word on their own. They are waiting for the church committee to decide what mission to support instead of actively throwing themselves into a heartbreaking environment and getting their hands dirty.

Granted, the church didn't set out to become this. It wasn't on purpose, it is just the by-product of the existing structure. Pastors are encouraged to increase numbers through passionate speeches and sophisticated programs. They are rewarded, both in prestige and monetarily, for doing so. That is why I have become excited about the home church structure. You can't be passive. It's almost impossible, just based on the way it is structured. If you don't engage the Word, it's your fault - not the pastor's. If you are not supporting a mission that you are passionate about, it's your fault - not the committee's. If you are not growing spiritually, it's your fault. The structure of a house church surrounds you with people who help hold you accountable to actively engaging what God is doing in and through your life.

Frankly, I don't care if it is a house church or a small group inside a larger church or even a huge mega-church as long as everyone is 100% engaged and actively involved in pursuit of God and his mission. From what I have seen, the house church is best equipped to encourage total commitment on every front of one's spiritual life. Doesn't mean it's the only way to do this, but structurally it is the easiest.

Why house churches?

A question I'm often asked by friends and family is why do I choose to attend a four person house church instead of joining a well established traditional church and starting my own program to carry out the ideas I have and therefore have a bigger impact? Well the short answer is that that type of thinking makes me cringe for some reason...but here is a more thought-out explanation of why I think the house church works:

• Financial Flexibility. As a church that meets in a house (or other alternative locations such as coffee shops) we don't have to pay for a building. We also don't have to pay a full-time pastor. The impact that our tithe/giving money can make under this structure is at least 10 times greater.


• Deeper Learning Experience. Often times when we meet, we will listen to a podcast from a well known national or local speaker. One of my favorite things about doing this is that we can pause and discuss in greater detail at any point. There are times when I'm listening to a certain speaker and I'm bored (to be honest), but then someone else will pause the podcast and make a profound point about what had just been said that I never would've thought of on my own and it totally changes my perspective. I think we miss out on moments like this in a traditional Sunday morning service where everyone quietly listens to one speaker.


• Higher Accountability. If you like to blend in at church and slip out when the service is over, you will be uncomfortable in a house church. When we meet, everyone is expected to contribute in some manner. It can be anything from praying, reading a psalm, sharing an experience from the past week, teaching an insight, or sharing an idea not directly related to church (I Corinthians 14:26). This higher accountability has caused me to study the scriptures with a passion that I've never done before because I can't wait to share my ideas the next time we meet.


• Shared Responsibility. In a traditional church, we normally pay or designate an individual or small group to be in charge of things like visiting those in the hospital, bringing meals to the sick, etc. It never made sense to me why that isn't the responsibility of everyone in the church. Why do we have to name specific people to do that? If we all aren't doing that, then what is the point of a church anyway? If you were in the hospital for a week would you rather get a visit from a pastor who was paid to be there or from several individuals that you've shared dreams with, prayed with, and sat down for meals with?

Well, there are more than just four advantages to the house church model but these four are the main elements that make the house church attractive to me. It is important to note these four elements can be present in the traditional church but the traditional church model makes it hard for these elements to be common among all members of the church body.