April 2008 Column

April 2008 ElPasoFishnet column
(c) 2008 El Paso Scene

Thanks to my stepson, Will Summers, I’ve enjoyed two unique church experiences in the last two years. One was a Quaker meeting in Austin; the other was a small Mennonite church in Waco. If Will continues to move around the state, who knows how ecumenical I may become.
Both these congregations practiced what might be called “simple church.” Both met in non-traditional venues (the Quakers used a city recreation center; the Mennonites had adapted a house for church use). Both were small, with 30 to 35 adults attending.
Both of the services were simple in style. The Quakers had no music and met in silence for most of the meeting. The Mennonites worshipped with guitars and contemporary songs.
Both were participatory. The Quakers had no clergy and no sermon; some of those attending shared reflections after the time of silence. The Mennonites had a married couple as co-pastors; the teaching that morning was given by the woman co-pastor, punctuated by invitations for others to give their thoughts.
At Waco’s Hope Mennonite Fellowship, the service was entirely bilingual. The leader was completely fluent in both English and Spanish, and everything was translated into the other language.
The point of mentioning these two “simple churches” is precisely because not much is written about them. “Megachurches” get more press. Many of us have heard about churches whose attendance numbers reach 10,000 or more, whose pastors have become superstars, such as Bill Hybels, Rick Warren or Joel Osteen.
When we drive by a huge sanctuary, with a “church campus” that sprawls over acres and acres with facilities ranging from school buildings to a gymnasium, we often assume they must be doing something right. Our secular culture, after all, teaches that bigger is better and these values often spill over into the faith community.
The success of simple churches may be more substantial, but they are certainly less visible.
The term “simple church” came up while I was doing some web surfing on various alternative church movements, including “house churches.” House churches are typically small groups that meet at a home, acting as an independent church led by lay leadership (or with leadership responsibilities shared by all). Simple churches may be as large as 50 to 70 people, but typically have few if any paid staff and minimal overhead, meeting in non-traditional facilities. Almost all house churches are simple churches, but not the other way around.
House churches and simple churches should not be confused with start-up churches that are just going through a simple phase while hoping to grow bigger. Church “plants” often begin at a home or rented facility (often a school building) and are led by a founding pastor whose salary is subsidized by a denomination mission fund or outside employment.
The advantages of the simple church include greater intimacy among its members, a higher level of commitment (as opposed to the 80/20 principle common in most traditional churches: 80 percent of the work is done by 20 percent of the members) and better stewardship of finances. With little if any money going to salaries and buildings, more giving is directed toward outside charity and ministry.
Many years ago, I read about an El Paso house church that was led by a retired pastor and whose members decided jointly where to give their money. That struck me as an ideal arrangement.
Of course, small size is no more a guarantee of spiritual health than row after row of packed pews. Small congregations can become just as self-centered and misdirected as any other church, and perhaps more easily so.
I’m not saying that big is bad, either. But one of my core Christian beliefs is that most of the important connections we make with other Christ-followers happen in small groups. A big church that effectively encourages small groups, particularly home groups, can have the best of both worlds. There are also many people who might never step foot in a traditional church who might come to some kind of alternative fellowship.
A newspaper friend and I had a recent conversation in which I asserted that daily newspapers and churches share a similar problem: A whole generation of people have grown up without the habit of reading the paper every day or going to church regularly. Fewer people subscribe to the paper, and fewer people attend church.
And just as the Internet and alternative publications (like this one) prove that people are still hungry for news, non-traditional forms of church can easily tap into a hunger for fellowship.
Among the issues facing anyone looking for a house church or simple church is where to find one. Larger, traditional churches have street-front visibility and may even advertise. Simple churches grow by word of mouth, often among fellow defectors from a traditional church.
There are networks (house2house.com, for example) for these congregations. But a search for El Paso connections came up empty.
If you’re involved with a house church or other form of “simple church,” I would love to hear from you. Send me a note at limbird@gmail.com. Warning: I assume that any emails sent to me are fair game for mentioning in this column or posting on my soon-to-be-ready website and blog. If you don’t want to be quoted, please say so in your message.


Randy Limbird is editor and publisher of El Paso Scene. ElPasoFishNet seeks to serve the
local community of Christ-followers.