Can a simple, organic, house church do missions? (When the term “house church” is used, I am speaking of a variety of expressions of the Body of Christ that gather together. Other terms such as simple church, organic church, small church, single cell church or home church could just as well be used here.) Can our Lord raise up apostolic teams and send them to the nations out of our house churches and networks? The answer is yes! But, there needs to be some changes in the way we think and approach missions or we will fall into the same traps that plague the institutional missions effort.
Over a year ago a couple in our house church (we’ll call them Al and Sarah) expressed their call to go to another country to reach an unreached people group and the need to begin to raise support for the work the Lord was calling them to do. All of us in the church confirmed their call and were excited about this possibility. A few weeks later during a time together Al and Sarah shared their concern that they may not be able to get the support they need in a house church context and were considering returning to the large institutional church that they used to attend in order to have a greater opportunity to raise support and acquire the needed care and advice.
We were now confronted with a situation where a member of our spiritual family wanted to fulfill their call but up to this point there was no real model to follow or “path” to assist them in knowing what they should do. We knew the option of returning to the institutional church was not a good one, but we also knew that we would need to make some clear efforts to be their support base. We are their family, and we did not want to ship them off to a group of strangers to provide the guidance and expertise needed to get to where they needed to go.
This is the reason for this series of ten articles. Hopefully it will spawn some discussion, but most of all spur us all to take the gospel of the Kingdom into the regions of our world where there is no witness, no preaching and no church. Basically to those who are out of reach. “How will they hear unless someone is sent?” (Romans 10:14-15)
One of the greatest needs a church has is to grasp the scope and sequence of what is needed to bring her to a place where she is actually reaching the world around her. This would include local, regional and even to the point of reaching an unreached people group (definition: A people group or ethnic group, within which there is no viable indigenous church or churches with sufficient strength, resources, and commitment to sustain and ensure the continuous multiplication of churches. In other words – they are “out of reach” of the church to bring the gospel to them! For more info go to www.house2harvest.org/research_upg.html)
This is based on the model that Jesus gave the church in Acts 1:8 when he said; “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” Typically, the church understands its call to reach its “Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria” but has trouble accomplishing the mandate to go to the “ends of the earth.”
This understanding of the call to be missional can be extremely frustrating for the already established house church. Alan Hirsch states in his excellent book; “The Forgotten Ways” that we must first know Christ, and from that relationship we develop mission, and it is not until then that the church forms. (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2006, pgs. 143-144.) This is the ideal. But what do we do if we are already functioning as a community of faith and discover our apostolic role to the world around us, even to the extent of reaching out to the ends of the earth?
It is at the ends of the earth that we find the unreached people groups who still do not have access to the gospel. They are out of reach! Up to this point in missions’ history, we have left this task to the institutional church and missions organizations. Certainly these organizations have developed great skills and tools that are invaluable to the missionary. But they bring with them a degree of baggage that continually disrupts the spontaneous expansion of the church.
What does a house church or house church network do? Is apostolic (pioneer, frontier) missions an option for the house church? I believe it must be. It is part of her DNA. How do we implement a clear missions vision in the midst of our churches and then follow through with the missions vision of sending teams to some of the most unreached peoples of the world?
In this 10 part series I will be sharing the simple process of:
• Study God’s Word
• Pray for the Nations
• Find a “Champion”
• Pray for harvest, and opportunity for all to participate in that harvest
• Seek the Lord for His Plan
• Follow the Plan
In my next blog I will be sharing about the simple process that begins with studying the word of God and prayer.
[Don is available to come to your area and share with your group or network to assist your church to reach the unreached. dondavis@house2harvest.org ]
May 3, 2011 at 8:12 am
[...] just posted the first of 10 articles on his site The Dreaming Revolutionary on the subject Becoming an Apostolic Simple, Organic, House [...]
May 3, 2011 at 12:04 pm
Don,
Interesting article and concept you have going here.
I am intrigued by a couple of statements you made in the article and the fact that you utilize the word “apostolic”.
Could you provide me with your understanding and/or definition of “apostolic” which you are using in this particular development of thought?
In my opinion, the answer to your question, “Can our Lord raise up apostolic teams and send them to the nations out of our house churches and networks?” …….is – no.
OUR house churches and networks are incapable of producing “apostolic” anything – however, the Church in a locality based upon an accurate understanding of Christ as the foundation and governed by the Holy Spirit is required to produce apostles who then go and perform the calling God has for them.
Regarding the couple who felt the call to go, you stated, “up to this point there was no real model to follow or “path” to assist them in knowing what they should do.”
Scripturally, there is a ‘model’ which is found in Antioch (Acts 13) when the ekklesia is fasting and ministering to the Lord and the Holy Spirit spoke to separate Barnabas and Saul for the work He had called them to do.
So, in obedience to the Holy Spirit, they fasted and prayed some more, laid hands on Barnabas and Saul and then sent them “away” – which means they freed them fully to pursue the calling God had for them.
It appears from the tone of your article that you are intimating that “training” and “funds” were required for this couple and is what ultimately held them back from pursuit.
I do not want to read anything into what you are saying, so please let me know if that was not the case. If it was, then, I would have a hard time reconciling on a scriptural basis what you are trying to “develop” as an ‘apostolic missions option’ for your house church(es).
There is no mention in the Antioch description of funds and/or training provided for Barnabas and Saul. Jesus, Himself, when he sent out (apostello) the 12 and, later, the 70, the first thing he told them after “GO” was not to take any money or even a bag to take up an offering.
Yet, they were to go in the power/authority of the Kingdom and all the things necessary to accomplish their mission, whether practical or spiritual, would be provided for them.
So, I guess a large portion of understanding what you are saying hinges on the definition of “apostolic” which you are using and exactly what is the DNA of the “house churches” that you are representing.
I’d appreciate some light on this so that I can understand your thinking and get what you are trying to say.
thanks.
May 4, 2011 at 10:18 am
Hi Bryon,
Thanks for the discussion! In regards to your question regarding my definition of apostolic, my definition is simple. Basically, an apostle, or apostolic team is when the Lord calls out His servants as he did in Acts 13 to go and make disciples where there are no or very few disciples. They are called apostolic because they are called on a mission to function as pioneers, not building on anyone’s foundation, but going where there is no Church. This is the definition that I posted several years ago on our site House2Harvest I agree, or biblical model begins with Acts 13 and others such as Luke 10. The principles that are revealed from these and other portions are vital to doing missions according to God’s plan rather than our own.
Certainly we must also recognize that in the 1st century there were no passports, entry visas or “restricted access” nations as there are today. Since I am discussing going to places where there are no churches, the situation can be quite different. That being said, we must never depart from the principles revealed to us from God’s word.
For sure, some of what I am saying is general and may not be spoken as exact as if we were discussing it face to face. But be assured, my question was can the “Lord raise up” apostolic teams. We do not have that authority, Jesus is our head and the commander and chief of any efforts to go and reach those who have never heard. Only He can initiate anything apostolic.
When I speak of model, and I not ignoring the biblical models available to us in scripture, but we also value the models in which the Lord has established for us to see that are working today. So when I was referring to model, I was referring to a contemporary, real time example.
Was I inferring that they needed training and funds. Of course! Try getting on a plane to Chine without a ticket, or entering a country without a legitimate reason for being there. Or try speaking to a group of people who have never heard about Jesus in their own language without language study. Now the Lord can supernaturally take care of all those things. But are we to wait until we get the language supernaturally, or should we learn the language? Should we not learn the skills needed to allow us to live and do business in another culture or nation? I think so. Yes, training and funds are needed.
I am a champion for the Luke 10 strategy, and believe it as our model in a local, regional context. But it does not apply to in every point when going to another country that requires you to have more than what you can carry in your bag. Some nations will not even allow you to come into their country without proof that you have enough funds to take care of yourself while you are there.
This is not an either go in the power of God or go with the financial support and training that you have received from the body of Christ, it is both. You can do both. But I agree that if your dependence is on the funding and the training you will fail. The power of God and being sent by prophetic direction is imperative.
In regards to the DNA of the house churches I represent, I do not represent any house churches though I am actively involved in many. I hope I am representing my Lord in what I say and do. I pray that these articles will communicate His will for His church.
God Bless, Don
May 4, 2011 at 2:18 pm
Don,
Thanks for your reply. It helps me gain an understanding of where you are coming from and a deeper glimpse into your heart. I am appreciative of what I see.
To move the dialog forward, I would like to ask you about your title for these postings, “Becoming an Apostolic Simple, Organic, House Church.”
Were the organic, house churches you are actively involved in and are referring to in this post birthed through the grace/ministry of an apostle? or how where they formed?
It seems to me that if they were birthed through the life of one called to function in the apostolic grace of Christ and accurate foundations of Christ were laid and there was a ‘continuing in apostolic doctrine’, the DNA of the local assembly would quite naturally contain apostolic character and the ability to function accordingly.
Am I understanding correctly that this is the case and by ‘becoming’ an Apostolic Simple, Organic, House Church, you mean the local assembly corporately learning to have that aspect of the grace of Christ to function? That aspect of the grace of Christ being the equipping and sending of those called to be apostles.
Regarding your definition of “apostolic”, I would like to expand a bit on the first portion of it.
Your definition was……
Basically, an apostle, or apostolic team is when the Lord calls out His servants as he did in Acts 13 to go……
If we are going to define an apostle this way, (and i am in total agreement) then we must understand what Father did to bring them to the point of calling out His servants “as he did” in Acts 13.
The “as he did” would have to include the history with God and the spiritual preparation of the one called to be an apostle is quite extensive, wouldn’t it? We shouldn’t discount the process of God taking men He destined to function as apostles and dealing with them through the course of their life to prepare them to function apostolically, should we?
I mean, Barnabas and Saul just didn’t show up at a meeting of the local assembly and then be sent out to be apostles. (excuse my being facetious, but you get my point) It seems the preparation preceded the actual commissioning and they were positioned to be “sent”.
Obviously, you are aware of Saul’s transition to becoming Apostle Paul so I won’t belabor the point. He just had to go through the process of being emptied of all of his previous (the dung he mentions) schooling/training/experience and come to a place of receiving an accurate, relevant revelation of Christ.
It was this revelation of Christ which he received that he preached and utilized in birthing local assemblies and laying the foundations that the local assemblies were built upon. Because he had yielded his life to continuously be conformed to the revelation of Christ he had received, he was able to operate in the power of the Holy Spirit to do the necessary work, regardless of apparent need or circumstance.
There is much to say regarding your comments about funds and entering nations but I have hard time believing that in our day, we face more strenuous hardships than Paul did. (2 Cor. 11) Suffice it to say, that where the Father sent His worker, provision was made…through practical ways, such as the work of his own hands, a company of supporters and support from local assemblies; and also through supernatural, spiritual means when necessary.
Finally, I would like to respond to your comment……….
“When I speak of model, and I not ignoring the biblical models available to us in scripture, but we also value the models in which the Lord has established for us to see that are working today. So when I was referring to model, I was referring to a contemporary, real time example.”
In my opinion and from my experience, there seems to be no model in order to replicate or cookie-cutter either an apostle or local assembly. Rather, as a living organism, every local assembly should bear the nature of the source from which it is birthed (Christ) and not seek to imitate but reveal their God-given measure of Christ. Variety of function does not indicate an inconsistency of nature. The unsearchable riches of Christ are revealed through the variety of expressions that are contained in the singularity of His person.
And, so it is with apostles. At least, the ones with which I am familiar and who serve as my ‘contemporary, real time example.
Men who enter countries by doing manufacturing business and then who are led by the Spirit to connect with natives and train/disciple them establish the Kingdom in their local villages.
Men who visit Haiti to do “hurricane relief work” and invest a small amount of funds into native family’s lives to farm produce and livestock, all the while, gaining souls for the Kingdom and establishing elders in their towns.
Men who are advanced in age and can no longer travel but get connected via the internet with young men from China, Indonesia, Philippines and other foreign lands and build relationships. Then, hosts those sons of the faith in coming to America and spending a month with him at his home, teaching, training and equipping them before they are sent back to their country to establish the Kingdom.
And there are many more examples that can be listed. Whatever the example, the nature of the apostolic brethren I know is consistent while the circumstances and outward function varies down to the individual.
So, I guess I am beginning to see we have some different ideas regarding apostles and apostolic function.
Perhaps you are trying to reconcile an old style/concept of “missions” with your new way of doing church. The desire to ‘go’ and ‘send’ is still there but the structure and resources provided by the IC are no longer available to do so. Hence, the thought of the couple mentioned in the original post returning to the IC.
Still, I am impressed by and greatly appreciate your pursuit and willingness to seek for truth and guidance in what Father has you doing.
October 7, 2011 at 5:21 pm
Nice blog!
I think you would appreciate mine too.
Been housechurching and planting for 30 years now.
My blog is about Jesus, church and life in general
with a Star Trek theme.
http://notesfromthebridge.wordpress.com
Christopher “Captain” Kirk
November 23, 2011 at 8:37 pm
Brian,
Let me make a point or two.
1) When Paul went out, he was not really going to another country like missionaries today. He was traveling within the same Roman Empire where he was not required to learn another language and could easily take his work with him. The closest example we can understand was somebody who had the freedom to move around at the height of the British Empire.
2) Paul DID say that people who preach the gospel are worthy to be financially supported.
3) Paul did not receive support on most occasions because he already had a means of support. I.e he was not greedy, he acknowledged that the Lord had already provided for him.
4) When Jesus sent out the disciples during his ministry it was in a very local context, and for a short time. This is not the same thing as being sent across the world. I am not saying that we should not step out in faith however.
5) For some context for you, I am a sent out worker with financial support from other believers. My family and I could not do what we are doing without the support. In the country we live in I have a fairly decent language skills, but am still a long way off being able to realistically earn a living here. (There are many complex issues in this area.) But Brian, you are simplifying things far too much and sadly you are over-spiritualsiing the scriptures. The scriptures are everyday documents, and I don’t think that there is a financial model to follow in scripture other than: Trust in the Lord for provision and Be in debt to no one but to love them.
Trust me when I say that receiving financial support from others is a means of faith. People drop off at times. we never asked anyone to support us, we just told them of the vision and God put it on their hearts.
Now let me ask you some questions Brian.
1) Are you opposed to people financially supporting missionaries to send them out? Paul was not.
2) Are you financially supporting any missionaries yourself? If no, then why not. Don’t just leave it to God. God liked to and insists on using people to do his work. God is waiting for us to get into gear and do the job he has given us.
Don,
Thanks for starting this series. I hope to read your other posts. Now I know that we are not required to give 10% of our income to anyone BUT, if there were 10 people in a house church and they all gave 10% of their income, as a very rough rule, then they should be able to support one missionary full time in another country. And if one house church did not pull it off, then two certainly could.
God Bless you both!