What about the dangers of small groups? Don’t we need the safety of larger numbers? Surely big churches with their properly trained leaders are less likely to become deceived or authoritarian than small house churches.

Hmmmm!!! Of all the questions that get put to us I think this is possibly the most bizarre. After all, when one looks back over 1900 years of church history you can’t exactly fail to notice that virtually everything that has happened at which we would now hang our heads in shame occurred precisely at the hands of churches with both large numbers and properly trained leaders (just whatever that means!) The Inquisition, the Crusades, the persecution of dissenters and the Anabaptists by the Reformers, the divisiveness of today’s several thousands different denominations, pastors getting rich by milking people of their money through the deception of the so-called prosperity gospel, sexual scandals galore amongst so-called Ministers, the perverse and ridiculous excesses of charismania (Toronto blessing, Pensacola et al!) and those who keep it all going, the authoritarianism and spiritual abuses of the so-called shepherding movement! This is not a history of which Christians ought to be proud. Yet it all came about from churches set up on the basis of having both large numbers and properly trained leaders. Further, would anyone seriously challenge the simple and self-evident fact that the Christian scene today is positively littered with deception, authoritarianism, manipulation and control, sexual and financial scandals, and all amongst believers who are part of churches which have both large numbers and properly trained leaders? Lastly, a quick glance at the plethora of cults and sects around today reveals that the vast majority of them are set up much like the traditional Christian churches; that is, congregations comprising large numbers and their own properly trained leaders.

So it always strikes me as being a bit rich when believers in churches with large numbers and properly trained leaders (again, just whatever that means) start sounding off about the dangers of small groups whilst conveniently forgetting the quite monstrous record their preferred way of doing church has. Two millennia of Christian history stand as eloquent and damning testimony precisely as to the dangers of large churches with properly trained leaders.

However, with that said we must nevertheless still answer the question, for there are indeed dangers inherent in small groups. And of course this should come as no surprise at all. Hence we have already seen the dangers of large groups as well. After all, life is dangerous, and in a fallen world deception and peril wait around every corner. Authoritarian characters who like to be in charge of things, and who get a buzz out of controlling others, pose a threat to small house based churches just as, when they become the properly trained Priests, Ministers and Pastors, or what have you, they pose a threat to traditional ones.

This is where we must remind ourselves that part of the blueprint in the New Testament for biblical churches is precisely that there they don’t have any hierarchy, and that both plurality of leadership and consensual decision making by the whole church (and not just elders) is the order of the day. This at least, as it’s designed to do,  minimizes the chances of control and manipulation occurring, and comprises a much less risky approach! Herein, indeed, is safety! Remember too that we are not advocating merely that churches should be small and meet in peoples homes, but are rather advocating an entire biblical blueprint which, if followed, greatly minimizes the risk of potential dangers arising. If a church such as we are describing stays close to what scripture teaches in these regards then it will, to that same extent, be protected from the dangers of authoritarianism and manipulation ever ready to encroach upon it.

Think of it like the safety features you get on cars (automobiles, to my American readers). The great danger with driving is, of course, an impact of some kind, and there are varying degrees of protection to be had. Some cars (usually older or cheaper ones) have virtually no safety features at all, and the dangers of driving therefore increase all the more. Get into an impact in these and it is very bad news indeed. However, other newer and more expensive cars have all manner of safety features built into them. There are seat belts and anti-skid brakes and multiple airbags, crumple-zones and computer controlled automatic deceleration when too close to the vehicle in front and traction control with various other such innovations. I know which sort of car I would choose to drive if I could afford it - a nice expensive new one!

Now it seems to me that the main danger inherent in being part of a church is primarily that of deception and/or manipulation and control brought about by any form of authoritarianism. It is the danger of too much power residing amongst too few people; or even worse, with just one person. So in scripture we see the appropriate safety features accordingly built in: no hierarchy of any kind, plurality of leadership, consensual decision making by the whole church, the autonomy of each church before the Lord (thus preventing multiple churches being ‘controlled’ by an hierarchy over them: or, to put it another way, thus preventing denominationalism). It’s perfect! And of course what it really boils down to is that the danger is always the emergence of what I call big cheeses, people who end up over lots of others, thereby almost inevitably succumbing to the very corruption of arrogance and pride which the biblical structure of churches is meant to protect them from.

In summing up then, I would want say that any group of believers who comprise a small church that meets in homes is vulnerable to such dangers as authoritarian leadership, insularity, spiritual navel-gazing, exclusivism and a whole host of other pretty rotten things too. But then a group of believers who comprise a large church that meets in a public building are open to precisely the same dangers, and church history bears eloquent testimony to that simple fact. It is simply the case that, whichever way you do church, you are open to similar dangers. So why not just do what scripture teaches? Why not just be a part of a smaller church that meets in someone’s home? I must say that I personally feel much happier, confident and secure facing the difficulties and dangers that come as a result of doing what the Lord wants rather than facing those which precisely result from doing something He hasn’t revealed or sanctioned in His Word.

Oh yes, I’d better say something now about biblically based house churches not having properly trained leaders. And I really must start by noting that rarely is the arrogance of all too many leaders of unbiblical churches, along with the ignorance of all too many of those who sit passively in their pews, revealed more clearly than when questions like this come up. After all, surely the only safe basis for future leadership being properly trained is the way in which the New Testament reveals that the early church, who I think no one would question did better than we are doing, went about it. And from the pages of holy writ it appears that they had precious little need for things like Theological Seminaries and Bible Colleges and the like. In fact, the whole emphasis in the New Testament was that leadership emerged from within the same churches they ended up being elders in, and were consequently known properly by the people. Those in the church knew these men had the necessary qualifications for leadership as they had had proved themselves and their testimony to them over many years. (And according to Paul the emphasis on the qualifications for an elder are predominantly to do with character anyhow, and not learning. Elders must be able to teach, of course, but that is not the main thrust of what scripture teaches. Rather, a holy, mature and stable Christian life is.) Apostles, prophets and teachers and the like who come in from the outside may well play a part in this training and instruction, but it is all done on-site in the same local situation in which these leaders are going to function. How different this is to the system unbiblical churches adhere to which, conversely, rather just creams potential leaders off from their churches and the rank-and-file saints in them, trains them in an environment totally alien to, and outside of, church life, proclaims them to be eventually properly trained professional experts, and then puts them in a totally unbiblical hierarchical leadership position as either Priest, Minister or Pastor - or whatever - over a church in which the people basically don’t know them from Adam. I have to tell you that if that is your idea of properly trained leaders then by golly gosh, you are most certainly welcome to them; but it certainly has nothing whatsoever to do with anything in we see in scripture.

Let me say too that some of the most mature, biblically learned and able teachers I have ever met are themselves part of churches such as we are describing and advocating. Anyone who thinks that this house church stuff is merely for those who reject, or feel they have little need of, either biblical knowledge or spiritual maturity, is well wide of the mark in their thinking. Obviously there are house churches that reject any solid biblical base, just like many traditional churches do, but equally there are many biblical churches in existence precisely because scripture is taken so seriously and known and understood so well. I would also remind my reader at this point my own personal preference for the terminology of biblical church as opposed to merely house church. As I say again and again, a biblical church will, necessarily, be a house church, but you can nevertheless have a house church that isn’t actually biblical in any other way. For us at the Chigwell Christian Fellowship, the only reason we do what we do, and are as we are, is precisely because of what we see in scripture, and precisely because we do take it so very, very seriously.