Last spring we wrote two articles dealing with the home church movement. We observed that this movement is loosely organized, and that its advocates appeal to various motivations and reasons to defend their vision of the home church. Moreover, this variety helps explain why some defenders of home churching do not want to move as far away from the organized church as others would. We have here a con­tinuum, a wide range of opinion, whose common con­viction is that some of those activities the church has been performing throughout history should be per­formed by Christians within the context of the home and family. For example, some defend the right of fathers to baptize their own children, while others (who don't nec­essarily want to defend "church at home") simply argue for the exclusive right of parents to supply religious train­ing to their children.

Throughout these articles, because of our reading audi­ence, we have assumed as true, without demonstrating it to be true, that God has ordained the church to be the custodian of the means of grace whereby the gospel is administered on earth — the church with its offices (e.g., Ephesians 4:11, 1 Timothy 3, Titus 1:5) and mandates (Matthew 28:18-20, Ephesians 4:12-16), which church is identifiable by certain characteristics of faithfulness. This claim required vigorous defense during the time of the Protestant Reformation, and continues to require defense today. Let us not forget that the Protestant reformers contended against not one, but two fronts — against the serious errors of both the Roman Catholics and the radical Anabaptists. The latter group believed that the Protestant reformers did not go far enough, and that full reforma­tion required, among other things, a return to the sim­plicity of organization that supposedly marked the early New Testament church. Today the same arguments con­tinue to be made against ecclesiastical offices, creeds, church government, and the like, so we need to be dili­gent in our generation to teach the Bible's comprehen­sive and integrated doctrine of the church, with the help of the useful and clear summaries of this teaching that we find in the Three Forms of Unity (along with the Westminster Standards).

But there is one aspect of the contemporary impetus for home churches that deserves further inspection by churches and church leaders, leading to humble self-examination. It is the unsatisfied craving for spiritual inti­macy. Some people are trading the organized church for the home church because they are searching for the kind of relationships that foster accountability, responsibility, friendship, authenticity, and intimacy.

It would be tempting, I suppose, and rather easy to join the chorus who issue this complaint. After all, to an out­sider new to the community or to the faith, the church can appear to be a rather unfriendly group, with its social is difficult to "get real" with other people in the church may have some validity. People with problems speak of finding more openness and understanding outside the church, among support groups designed to gather together people with similar needs.

Tempting though it may be to lend the strength of our voice to this complaint of those advocating home churches, our analysis of their claim — that the organized church today often fails to satisfy people's yearning for spiritual intimacy — begins with several cautions. In this article we'd like to look closely at this complaint, raising some questions about people's expectations and understanding of the church.

The Anonymous Church Attender⤒🔗

Our first question would be: Just what kind of "organized church" is here being criticized? Our generation has seen the rise of the mega-church, featuring professionals paid to provide a stunning array of services, churches whose most pressing Sunday morning "problems" include traf­fic control and stage choreography. It seems that these mega-churches intend to grow large enough to be able to scratch virtually every itch.

We shouldn't be surprised when people are unable to form meaningful relationships within such an organiza­tion and thus become disenchanted with "the church." Frankly, one may be inclined to ask whether the current success of the mega-churches is not based precisely on the popular aversion to commitment and accountability, both of which are entailed in something as elementary as church membership. That is to say, if people complain that their mega-church isn't providing much by way of spiritual intimacy, one valid reply could be: Of course it doesn't, since its very identity depends on the imperson­al anonymity that has more to do with the shopping mall than with the family of God! Moreover, it would be worth studying whether the programs attracting many people to mega-churches do not in fact segregate and isolate rather than integrate people-with-needs. Think about this for a moment: Are single moms best served in the church by being placed in a group of other single moms? Are young newlyweds or young parents best served by always grouping them for instruction and fel­lowship with others of similar station and circumstances? Is it possible that the very programs that seem so attrac­tive in effect obstruct the integrated fellowship the gospel aims to create?

Expecting too Much — and too Little←⤒🔗

A second caution we must observe in responding to this criticism involves the meaning of spiritual intimacy. More than a few pundits have noted that ours is a therapeutic culture, in which religion (along with education, politics, and jurisprudence) has come to be viewed and practiced as a tool or instrument designed to meet people's needs rather than (in the case of religion) to express faith and love toward God the Creator and Redeemer. To be sure, one basic human need is the need for intimacy, for the kind of relationships with other people that permit and encourage authenticity ("being yourself" and "being real"), transparency (no "masks" to hide our insecurities and weaknesses), and mutuality (sharing hopes, disap­pointments, failures, and milestones). However, we may legitimately ask our home church friends — and we cer­tainly must ask ourselves — whether God has ordained and designed the church for this kind of intimacy.

To avoid misunderstanding, let me say that God has indeed created people to become more by living in fel­lowship with others than they could be by living in isola­tion from others. His creation of Eve testifies to that, along with the gift of procreation. Moreover, we do con­fess, "I believe a holy catholic church, the communion of saints" — by which we mean, among other things, that "everyone must know himself bound to employ his gifts readily and cheerfully for the advantage and salvation of other members" (Heidelberg Catechism, Lord's Day 21, Q/A 55). But this very confession assists in clarifying the caution! Notice that the orientation embedded within the communion of saints is other-directed and outward-serving, rather than inward need-fulfillment and personal satisfaction. In other words, we must warn our home church friends, and ourselves, against expecting too much from the church — and expecting too little from ourselves.

On the one hand, we expect too much from the church when we burden it with expectations and demands for satisfying human emotional and psychological needs that are better met by other God-ordained institutions like marriage and family and friendship.

Admittedly, the church administers the gospel today in a culture where these institutions are being vigorously challenged, whose purposes are being eroded by neglect and selfishness. Ours is a pervasively dysfunctional culture. All of this points to the desperate need for the church to provide biblical instruction designed to rehabilitate these institutions, and to disciple members as they implement this instruction. But at the same time, we may not properly expect the church to provide the benefits and satisfy the needs for which God has created these other institutions.

On the other hand, we expect too little from ourselves when we exempt ourselves (by erecting a "church" in our home) from the faith-obligation inherent in believing a holy catholic church, namely, the obligation to use our gifts readily and cheerfully for the benefit of fellow mem­bers. We may ask those leaving the organized church because of its alleged indifference to spiritual intimacy whether, and to what extent, they have devoted them­selves to using their gifts to benefit others. Here we con­front the danger of hypocrisy, in ourselves and in the church. There seems to be no shortage of church mem­bers who desire more programs or activities tailored to particular interests, groups, or needs. It becomes increas­ingly easy to base one's "choice" for church membership on these considerations. But the question may be asked: We who desire more church-sponsored fellowship, do we even now open our homes and hearts to the stranger among us? We who pronounce that the church should "do" more to encourage prayer, are we even now using every opportunity available to pray with those in need and to employ this gift for the advantage and salvation of other members within our reach?

The Mystery of Christian Spirituality←⤒🔗

Religious spirituality is indeed a deeply mysterious enter­prise. Who is able to plumb the depths of our human capacity for using spirituality to induce false guilt, to manipulate others, or to serve ourselves? And yet, if the church, through its officebearers and its activities, does not seek to cultivate a closer walk with the Lord and with his people, through public worship, Bible study, prayer, and Christian fellowship, then where must believers find such cultivation?

In terms of Christian spirituality, every faithful preacher wrestles in reverence before God as he faces the challenge to declare the same gospel to both tender consciences and toughened hearts, seeking the proper way to soothe the one and soften the other. The right medicine dis­pensed in the wrong dosage can be fatal. Again, in seeking to culti­vate a closer walk with the Lord, every faithful elder weighs carefully the differences between productivi­ty in the church, consisting of activities with objectives and goals, and activism, a kind of busyness simply for the sake of "doing some­thing."

So when we hear the criticism from our home churching neigh­bors that the organized church is often incapable of providing spiri­tual intimacy, we neither adopt the criticism as self-evident nor dismiss it as delusional. In the light of Scripture we reflect on it, evaluate it carefully, and learn from it.