Greetings, this is Pastor David Bass at New Geneva Orthodox Presbyterian Church with a moment of truth, where we challenge you to think through an important issue of life and faith. Today, I want to ask you, is the family church, the online church, and the home church a real biblical church in the true New Testament sense of church? But before we delve into this subject, let me say that we at New Geneva have appreciated your listening to our broadcast from week to week. I've loved speaking with many of you over the years, meeting you as you have visited our church.

What we have proposed to do is sponsor a time to meet and fellowship with you during the course of the year, and we call it a spaghetti fellowship dinner that we will have on the last Wednesday of every month at 5 p.m. Unfortunately, we will not be able to do this as we had planned this coming Wednesday, January 25, owing to a family commitment that I have on that day. But we will reschedule that spaghetti fellowship dinner for Wednesday, February 22nd at 5 p.m. here at the church. So please set aside this date on your calendar.

Now, back to our topic, is the family church, the home church, or the online church a real biblical church in the true New Testament sense of church? Many people have become so disenchanted with the organized church that consists of denominations that they have sought out alternatives, which they feel better reflect the New Testament model. Many of their critiques have a measure of truth to them. Let me point them out. For example, many denominations have wandered far astray from the simple gospel message of salvation by grace through faith in the Savior, our Lord Jesus Christ.

Instead, these denominations have pursued other agendas like social change or world peace and ecumenical relations with other world religions. Also, many denominational churches have lost the feeling of fellowship in church life with endless programs and worship services that mechanically run through the motions and then send everybody home. Many denominations and churches also have an edifice complex, as it's called, an edifice complex instead of an edifice complex, an edifice complex in which they spend many millions of dollars on buildings and grounds that could otherwise go to ministry.

Also, many denominations are top-heavy with officials and leaders with fancy titles and armies of bureaucrats that are out of touch with the person in the pew, and they waste countless hours and dollars shuffling paper and telling others what to do. Now, these criticisms are certainly legitimate in instance after instance, and I've made some of those same criticisms myself over the years. To answer them, the family church, the home church, and the online church have offered their model of ministry. Well, what are these models, and how do they function? And more importantly, how do they measure up to the New Testament model of the church?

First, there is the family church, and here, the father and parent feel that the family, with however many children may be a part, is sufficient for New Testament biblical church worship. And mostly, this is done in the home on Sunday or perhaps on another day of the week even. Generally, the father leads in worship, teaching and leading in prayer, though others in the family may also participate.

Now, many families in the patriarchal movement, a whole separate topic we could deal with, many families in the patriarchal movement, which sees the family patriarch, that is the eldest father, as priest of the family, and they have adopted this family church model. There is also the online church, however. Here, some Christians have begun to take advantage of cyber technology and networked with other Christians to gather in cyberspace for worship.

And though there are hundreds of internet churches available online, the term internet church is generally reserved for churches that have a majority of its members meet, connect, or congregate by way or use of the internet, where religious services are conducted through internet technology. Well, it consists primarily of a public website or maybe an interactive space on a public website or social network. And sometimes, they are extensions of existing brick-and-mortar churches that merely offer this alternative to their regular services.

But increasingly, the online church is taking its place as a permanent alternative to gathering in a mutual space and time for physical corporate worship of believers. And then there is, of course, the house church. And presently, this is the more popular model, offering greater fellowship than the other two models, while at the same time preserving the egalitarian, decentralized atmosphere that's cherished by those seeking alternatives to the traditional church.

In the house church model, building upon its namesake, the house church is generally a number of families and individuals who meet together in members' homes for worship, fellowship, and teaching. Now, advocates of home churches harken back to the romantic days of the book of Acts. They point out that this is how the early church did it. For example, in Acts chapter 2, day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts. Also, every day in the temple and from house to house, they did not cease teaching and preaching that the Christ is Jesus, from Acts 5.

Or in Acts 20, Paul said, I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable and teaching you in public and from house to house. Well, they say, these advocates, with virtually all of Christian worship taking place in the homes of believers, wouldn't it be biblical to return to this simple apostolic model? Well, these and other similar arguments try to make the case for home churches. For example, instead of ordained, seminary-trained pastors and teachers with built-in biases to the Bible, the advocate of the home church says, we in the home churches teach one another out of the Bible without any preconceived notions.

This is a preconceived notion in and of itself, though, however. We only teach what the Bible says, they would say, but of course, that's a whole other lesson, too. And they also say, instead of top-down authority structure dictated by bishops and elders and pastors and deacons, we in the home church choose our leaders by how we see God has gifted them. Leaders come to the fore naturally, they say. They also say, our costs in the home church movement are considerably lower than traditional brick-and-mortar churches that fund buildings and pastoral staffs and denominational headquarters.

We in the home church movement thus have more resources for actual ministry. These are the various stronger arguments that home church advocates bring forward for their movement. But we must ask, I in particular must ask, how well do these arguments hold up to the scrutiny of the Bible and the history of the church? I must ask this. Four concerns that I have.

First, family churches, online churches, and home churches fail to conform to the New Testament description of churches. Yes, family churches, online churches, and home churches fail to conform to the New Testament description of churches. And sometimes we get the impression that the first Christians enjoyed a pure fellowship, blissfully free from the suffocating structure of the institutional church. The rule that governed them was the rule of love, of course. Well, certainly the book of Acts does describe a wonderful spirit-wrought harmony and joyful fellowship among the initial converts to Christ.

This is documented in Acts chapter 2. It's hard to picture them at a congregational meeting, for example, debating among themselves the finer points of Robert's Rules of Orders. We will grant this. But at the same time, the New Testament does show how the Lord gave to the early church a definite order and organization. Yes, the New Testament also demonstrates a definite order and organization.

Presbyterians and Baptists and Episcopalians and other structured church bodies may disagree on the fundamental shape of that order, but we all agree that in the early church there was, in fact, an organized system of church government. First, the church had an appointed and acknowledged leadership. The ascended Jesus gave leaders to the church. He did. Apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastors and teachers, as Ephesians chapter 4 articulates.

And Paul told Titus, very important, Paul told Titus, as part of his assignment, to put what remained into order, that is, to appoint elders in every town. In Acts chapter 6, in a very orderly fashion, men were chosen and appointed to assist with distributing food to widows in the church. They were the first deacons, they were. And when Paul greeted the Philippians, he included the overseers and deacons that were serving there in Philippians chapter 1.

Well, surely, if the Lord Jesus Christ considered ordained leadership to be incidental, as the home church movement does, ordained leadership incidental to the health and well-being of his people, or merely an optional accessory to the church, he would not have provided for them, insisted on them in every New Testament congregation. The first Christians were commanded to obey your leaders and submit to them, Hebrews 13 and 17, and also to respect those who labor among you and who are over you in the Lord and admonish you, in 1 Thessalonians chapter 5, verse 12.

What these commands presuppose is that in some way, beyond mere common consent or unspoken agreement, as it is in the home church movement, that beyond this, certain men were set apart and acknowledged as church leaders. Also, the worship of the church necessitated some degree of order and structure, too. We get liturgy from this idea. Who would teach and who would preach? Who would decide who would be baptized and who would do the baptizing?

How was the Lord's Supper to be administered and to whom? Well, certainly, informal agreement was not sufficient for handling these matters. If worship was to be done decently and in order, then some formal organization had to exist to maintain that order. We insist that we are the direct descendants of this order. Also, the Bible's several provisions for church discipline assume a structure of authority in the church.

If you don't have church discipline and structure for it, then you don't have a church, dear believer. However, church discipline requires some provisions for due process. It's impossible to conceive how church discipline can be carried out fairly and consistently in the absence of recognized leadership. That is, without church membership, too, and without some rules ensuring a just proceeding. In the book of Acts, the Holy Spirit, who in spectacular fashion brought mass conversions to Christ, also in a less dramatic but no less significant work, also brought organization to the church.

In chapter 15 of Acts, when there was a sharp disagreement among believers concerning circumcision, the apostles and elders, in verse 22, the apostles and elders held a council in Jerusalem to adjudicate the matter. Their decision was binding, too, on all the churches. This requires, indeed, what we have in our modern form, church membership. Again, we see the presence and activity of acknowledged authorities and discernible structure in the church. So, the churches in the New Testament had a definite structure, a structure given by Christ himself, in Ephesians chapter 4, for example.

On the other hand, by their very nature, home churches, home churches lack ordained leadership and formal organization. Although the early church had elders and deacons, home churches have no provisions for ordaining such. The organization and structure necessary for faithful church discipline is lacking, too. In this way, home churches fall short of the biblical norm for Christian congregations. They are not New Testament churches in this regard.

Now, I don't deny that Christians may be blessed by the fellowship that they enjoy in a home church. They may love the people in their group, and they may receive edifying teaching, but the question must be asked. If the structure of New Testament churches is normative, and if that structure included officers and provisions for church discipline, then if we are not involved in churches that seek to mirror, in some meaningful way, New Testament churches, are we being as faithful as we should when it comes to our relationship to the body of Christ? Are we being faithful in house churches, or online churches, or family churches?

The obvious answer comes back, no, we are not. If you are in a home church, or an online church, or a family church, let me ask pointedly, who are the church leaders you are called to obey? Were they made leaders by others, or were they self-appointed? Danger, yellow flag. If they wished to exercise church discipline with you, is their authority one that you have formally submitted to as well?

If they were being unfair, how would you appeal all of these things? Well, this brings me to my second concern. My second concern is that the family church, the online church, and the home church are more vulnerable to poor or even abusive leadership. As we are sadly reminded on a regular basis by the news, leadership failures can plague any church of any kind. And I readily acknowledge this.

No church structure can guarantee the full protection of God's flock from leaders who are incompetent, shepherds, or even hurtful to the sheep. Who leads and what makes a qualified leader is manifestly a matter of great importance to Christ. In both 1 Timothy and in Titus, Paul lays down certain qualifications for elders, doesn't he? You know these. And Peter, knowing the inherent danger of heavy-handed leadership in the church, warns elders not to domineer over those in their charge, but to be examples to the flock in 1 Peter 5, 1-4.

In fact, we even see in the Bible a certain circumspection regarding church leadership. James 3 says, Not many of you should become teachers. And 1 Timothy 5 says, Do not be hasty in laying on of hands. Well then, given the New Testament caution concerning church leadership, the character of men who are to lead and the manner in which they are to lead, a church must take great care in how it selects, trains, and tests her potential leaders. But is this possible without some formal process in place, dear listener?

What is more, in a formal church structure, there are, or at least should be, a mechanism in place that ensures some accountability for leaders, accountability for leaders, which is not present in home churches. I know that that is the case, however, in Presbyterian churches. There is definite accountability. I am accountable. Myself, Pastor David Bass, I am accountable to my elders and to the men at Presbytery.

If a church member has a complaint about the leadership, about me, well, he will be heard. He may even bring it to the Presbytery if he believes the elders have not fairly handled his complaint. And even then, there is a further court. If he is still not satisfied with the Presbytery, he can appeal all the way to General Assembly, the larger body in the Presbyterian system. Well, this provision of accountability is a biblical principle.

It's not the invention of spirit-quenching church bureaucrats. No, Paul gives explicit directions on how charges against elders are to be handled in 1 Timothy 5. Well, underlying these formal constraints against poor or abusive leadership is the biblical understanding of human sin, too. Even otherwise, godly men may overstep their bounds once in a position of authority, or they may have certain flaws that render them unfit for leadership.

And my concern is that in an informal home church that lacks accepted provisions governing leadership and any formal accountability for leaders, the possibility is increased of the wrong people becoming leaders. You may have experienced this already, or you smell something wrong, or you know something is wrong with the leadership in your home church already. Leaders may emerge based on the strength of their personality or their charisma, or maybe based on their knowledge of scripture or ability to teach.

They may be natural leaders, but they may also not possess the biblical qualifications or even the character to lead in a way that is humble and not self-seeking. There's too many self-seeking leaders in churches all across the country, even in home churches, online churches, and family churches. Well, my third concern is that the family church, the online church, and the home church may rob believers of the resources of the broader church. Oh, yes, very narrow these churches become. Most likely in a home church or an online church or family church, you will not enjoy the services of a trained pastor and preacher.

Again, at the risk of sounding self-serving, I admit this, it seems to me that Christians will be better off sitting under the teaching of a man who has spent time studying the scriptures, theology, and the work of ministry, and whose overall fitness for pastoral work has first been tested by others. I have been tested in the Presbyterian church, as have all of my colleagues. I don't want to sound like a clerical snob, though. I know all too well my own shortcomings, though, as a pastor and as a teacher.

And I admit that there are men who may be more gifted and better than I at preaching and teaching, but maybe who've never had an opportunity for theological study or ministerial training. But on balance, surely churches that have the structures and means to produce a learned and trained ministry will receive better teaching than those that don't. In traditional churches such as ours, the Presbyterian, elders and deacons are also trained and tested. Again, it doesn't make our church perfect, not by a long shot. I won't say that.

But the point of all this is that traditional churches have far more resources available to them for the raising up of qualified leaders and servants of the church. Furthermore, a home church, because it is by definition unaffiliated with any one ecclesiastical body, and because it does not have a formal commitment to any particular body of doctrine, they will not benefit from a developed and time-tested confession of faith or a system of Christian theology to ground its teaching and worship. These things are so valuable.

Both a trained clergy and a shared body of doctrine, that is a confession of faith, for example, will help prevent what may be a particular vulnerability with a home church. And that is a teacher who focuses primarily on his own personal interests or passions, I don't know how many hobby horses, and a particular narrow doctrinal foci I have seen over the years in these kinds of churches. Indeed, a home church will probably tend to attract very like-minded people to its fellowship, only magnifying the potential of a teaching ministry that dwells inordinately on a few choice issues.

Oh, I've seen so many things like demonic deliverance or eschatology or some such thing as this. Unless I'm mistaken, for these reasons, it seems less likely that in a home church, especially in the long run, a believer will hear the whole counsel of God, less likely, and they will not be exposed to a faithful ministry of systematic Christ-centered scriptural exposition of the scriptures. Well, my fourth and final concern is that the family church, the online church, and the home church may offer a narrow vision of the kingdom of God. The family church, the online church, the home church may offer a narrow vision of the kingdom of God.

Because home churches lack ties with larger ecclesiastical bodies, it seems inevitable that they will struggle to maintain and communicate a vision for the kingdom of God that is broader than the personal concerns and ties of the people in the home church. What may develop is a kind of spiritual myopia in which the work of Christ beyond the small orbit of the home church gradually fades from view. Now, although the church I serve is a small church, New Geneva, we nevertheless belong to a larger denomination. We have a stake in that denomination's various ministries at home and abroad.

We pray for Orthodox Presbyterian missionaries throughout the world, for other churches in our denomination. We've had speakers visit from other places who are engaged in different types of ministries, like church historians, biblical scholars, Christian authors, missionary workers, pastors, and others, too. They have all broadened our horizons. But as for home churches, without that broader vision of Christ's church, I wonder, will their children grow up with an interest in devoting their lives to some form of full-time service in the greater church? You might be depriving your kids of these opportunities.

So, dear listener, if you are a participant in any one of these chimera, which is an impossible or idle fancy, a chimera is an impossible or idle fancy. And if you are a participant in any of these chimera, known as family church, online church, or house church, understand that although you may feel that you are in a real church, it is in reality an illusion. Even the appeal I often hear regarding the house church movement in China, for example, cannot apply to you. The house church movement in China, I acknowledge, is a real and respected phenomenon in the history of redemption.

But its emergence and growth is due to completely different forces than those in the United States of America. The house church movement in China, for example, began because of government repression rather than mere cultural dissatisfaction, as in the United States. We have never faced here the kind of persecution and repression that the church in China has. And also, whenever possible, note with me, the house church movement in China has opted for a trained pastorate to teach an ordained ministry of elders and deacons to serve and also property in which to worship whenever they have the opportunity.

One shining example, Exhibit A for me, is Living Stone Church in China's southwest province of Jizhu. It began, Living Stone Church began in China as a small church of 20 members in 2009 who rented an apartment. And all three of the pastors, however, who shepherded that church, even in its early days, were trained men who were experienced in Christian ministry before beginning the church. By 2013, Living Stone Church in China had over 400 members, and now it has over 1,000. Living Stone Church now owns its own building, having some 7,000 square feet of space in which to worship and minister.

They are a house church in name only, though still officially called a house church. They are characterized by all the features that the house church movement in the United States ostensibly eschews. That is, they have property, trained and ordained ministers, formal worship, and an official doctrinal statement. Examples could be multiplied all across China. In many respects, the churches of China are house churches precisely because they do not have the opportunities of denominational churches in the United States.

And if they did, and when they do, they invariably show up as organized, structured churches like ours, Living Stone Church being Exhibit A. All in all, if we are honest, the family church, the online church, and the house church are very poor substitutes for the New Testament model of the church. That is, ordered by definite structure, led by spirit-ordained ministers, taught by gifted teachers, and lived in a life of many families and individuals across a wider spectrum of life. You will find none of these elements in the home church, the online church, or the family church.

If you participate in such a church, I personally, lovingly, and humbly implore you to come into the broader stream of the life of Christ's church with all of its flaws, faults, and foibles. I admit freely, we have our flaws, faults, and foibles. Come to us. Come to New Geneva Orthodox Presbyterian Church. We need you as much as you need us.

But if not us, then find another Bible-believing, Bible-teaching church in your region. That's the important thing. In the long run, you will be blessed. The church at large will be blessed by you, and our Savior will be glorified by your presence in one of these churches. This has been Pastor David Bass at New Geneva Orthodox Presbyterian Church.

We at New Geneva have appreciated your listening to our broadcasts over the years, from week to week. I've loved speaking with many of you over the years, meeting you as you've visited our church. Please do. Please do that even now, today. What we have proposed to do is sponsor a time to meet and fellowship with you during the course of the year.

Once again, we call it a spaghetti fellowship dinner. We have it on the last Wednesday of every month at 5 p.m., except for this coming Wednesday, January 25th, owing to a family commitment that I have on that day. But we have rescheduled that spaghetti fellowship dinner for Wednesday, February 22nd at 5 p.m. here at the church. Please set this date aside on your calendar for meeting with us and fellowshipping with us. This has been Pastor David Bass at New Geneva Orthodox Presbyterian Church.

We meet for holy worship Sunday, 10 a.m. at 101 4th Street on the corner of 4th and Boulevard. Call us at 523-0196 or check out our websites, newgenevaopc.org, and then our new website, omnisprotestas.org, where we have cataloged our past radio messages. That's omnisprotestas, O-M-N-I-S-DASH-P-O-T-E-S-T-A-S.org. O-M-N-I-S-DASH-P-O-T-E-S-T-A-S.org. God bless you.