Strategies for House Church
Planting
I. The Need For Planting Strategies
Nobody knows how house churches multiplied within a city in New Testament times, but they must have done so.
This is because no church buildings or references to church buildings have been found dating from the apostolic
period, or post-apostolic period. This is in contrast to the period from the late second century onward, when church
buildings are mentioned frequently.
Instead, we find frequent references to house churches, usually in conjunction with public space (like the
schoolroom of Tyrannus, Acts 19:9). The natural limitation on group size imposed by meeting in houses is conducive
to several features of church life envisioned in the New Testament. Staying in homes would dictate that House
churches remain relatively small, which would facilitate body life and real community. As they grew, they must have
been divided and new churches planted, resulting in situations like that in Corinth, where Paul refers to the group as
one "church in Corinth," but also as "the churches" apparently referring to various house churches in the city.
Our strategies therefore, should create options that will have the desired effect-- adding healthy, growing house
churches, while respecting any restrictions imposed by sound ministry ethics.
Following are several strategies used for successful house church planting in the past. Remember that each of the
existing models was created at some time in the past by house church leaders, so we see no reason why house church
leaders today can't devise new methods, as long as we work together and communicate our plans.
II. The conventional method.
1. Definition and Theory
a) In this method, the leadership, teachers, and workers of the house church are divided as evenly as possible,
hopefully along existing lines of influence in the house church. For instance, if you have two couples leading
together, each couple takes their disciples and related friends, groups, ministry houses, and guests, and adds
new leadership as needed before parting ways.
b) This model promotes equality between the groups in terms of experience. The conventional model seems
to also offer a sense of continuity to the people in that they have some of the same leaders to look to, and
usually they have their friends with them as well. The results have, so far, been good. To date, the
conventional model remains the most successful model in use.
2. Preparation
a) Unless they are careful, the house church leaders could suffer major disruption of their long-standing
relationships when planting this way. After working together with a team for years, separating from them
could be difficult for some leaders. In-depth relationships and spiritual community support are just as
important for leaders as for non-leaders. Further, while suffering for the sake of the gospel is reasonable and
biblical, we don't want leaders to become aversive to further church planting attempts, or to lose
effectiveness because of depression.
To avoid such hazards, leaders in a conventional church plant should plan ahead carefully. The leaders need to build
deeply into relationships with others (usually their disciples) who will accompany them in the new church, because
they won't have their former fellow-leaders with them any more. If we build ministry spheres, and whole cell groups
are sent out together, people should already have good relationships in the new group.
(1) Normally, both sides would recognize new house church leaders only when they are ready to plant
(although they would have been "sitting in" leaders' meetings for some time). Both new teams should already
be looking forward to possible future planting plans.
(2) We prefer to delay recognizing new House church leaders until time for the plant in order to keep the
focus on house church planting. Exceptions would include spouses, where one spouse is a leader and the
other is not, or a clear need for more house church leaders in the current house church.
3. Transition
a) After the leaders decide how they will plant the group, go over your plans with the rest of the house church
members to make sure they agree to go to the side you envision for them. In the case of those not in a cell
group, you may need to discuss their options one-on-one. Be sure everyone decides which side they will attend
before the actual plant to avoid a lopsided division or "church-tasting." A taste-test approach could amount to
a popularity contest, which would be unedifying.
We think people should be taught that an important basis for deciding where to go is where they can be used by God
the most--that is, where they are needed. Other criteria could include relational history and ministry investment.
Remember, however, we can't replicate churches and at the same time stay with everything and everyone with
whom we have invested. In cases where ministry spheres are clearly defined everyone will know where they belong
and little needs to be said. Normally, the church plant should be known to all for months in advance, if not a year or
more. But we should never try to compel people to go to a particular house church against their will.
III. The Mission Planting Model
1. Definition
a. In the Mission Church model, the leaders of the original house church stay together, while sending out an
all-new leadership team with their own house church.
b. In theory this model has much to commend it, because the new leaders get the opportunity to take the next
step in ministry maturity-- taking responsibility for their own house church. This is an opportunity and a
challenge that sometimes results in unexpected progress in the lives of the new leaders. This experience
sometimes bears out the theory that some people won't learn to swim until the water gets too deep for
wading.
On the other hand, be sure the new leaders actually have the ministry power to do the job. To date, the mission model
has been problematic, resulting in a somewhat higher proportion of failures, so try to be sure the new leaders are
ready. Your house church sphere leader and the elders must agree that your mission church is sufficiently
experienced and trained to make success plausible.
Also, the new church should plan on remaining in a mentoring relationship with the parent church for a period of
months (3 to 6 months or more is typical). The parent church, in consultation with their oversight leaders, should
decide when they are no longer needed. One method for insuring adequate supervision is to alternate between
separate house church leaders meetings and joint house church leaders' meetings for a period of time after the plant.
Finally, if the mission church looks shakey, sphere leaders may call on the planting church to "warrant" the new
plant. If it later fails, the sending church would be obligated to receive them back, so planting a failing church is a
major waste of time and effort.
2. Preparation
a. The size of the mission church should be adequate. In most cases, this means the actual attendance at the
new church (rather than the list of members) should usually be in the upper teens or higher if a student or
singles' group, and over twelve if middle-aged. In general, small churches are vulnerable to demoralization
during times when a proportion of their membership are missing for vacations etc. or some members are
lost. People may feel like the extremely small size of the group signals failure, and may lose confidence. Let
the mission group have the larger numbers. The experienced side is far less likely to fail, and therefore can be
smaller.
An exception to this would be cases where ad-hoc Bible studies have been started by members in the sending church,
and growth has justified planting them off as a new house church. Such groups may be quite small.
b. The new (mission) leaders should already have their own cell groups before the planting attempt occurs,
and the people in those cells should have demonstrated real life-changing growth before the planting
attempt. This is the best proof of readiness on the part of the new leaders. Be sure each cell group has "topend" and "low-end" potential (i.e. potential future leaders, and potential outreach to new people).
c. Try to build a "church within a church," in the sense that all of the functions of house church life and
growth are evident within the sphere of the new leaders before the planting attempt. In this way the
leadership can determine that the new leaders are sufficiently mature and experienced in Christian work to
succeed in their own house church. Also, the new house church will already have a structural and relational
basis for carrying on its ministry with a minimum of disruption.
3. Leaders' Meeting Experience
a. The new leadership should have been sitting in on leader's meetings for at least a period of months learning
how to lead a house church, how to think about ministry, and how to relate to other leaders.
b. In addition, try having the new team meet with each other separate from the old leaders periodically. This
enables them to get used to taking initiative and working with each other without help. They should evaluate
their own ministry sphere, and determine what action to take in various ministry situations. Then, they can
report to the old leaders on their conclusions. This should provide an opportunity for a fairly realistic look at
the ministry dynamic in the mission church before actually taking the risk involved in planting.
When the new leaders report on their ministry decisions they should also explain their thinking. In cases where
judgment is involved, encourage the new leaders to implement their own decisions, and note the outcome. The older
leaders should only overrule the new leaders' judgment in cases where they see clear evidence that serious damage
might result. Until we can trust the ministry judgment of the new leaders, we can't really have confidence in their
ability to lead a new church.
Note: These measures are also good for conventional house churches
4. Teacher/Discussion Leader Preparation
a. At least two good teachers must have been raised up among the new Mission Church leaders. Here again,
we see the need for planning. These teachers should have taught several times each in the Parent house
church with consistency before planting.
5. Building Composition
a. Adequate evangelistic and discipleship potential must be sent out with the new leaders. Their sphere of
ministry should show ability to attract and win new people, and to counsel, teach, and disciple the old.
b. Potential upcoming leaders should be present in both churches. The ideal is to have potential leaders
present in each cell. These should be known and agreed on by all.
c. The new house church should also take some fringe people, but should not be saddled with too many
problem people. The assumption is that the parent house church leaders will be able to rebuild even after
suffering heavy personnel loss. Normally, the formation and respecting of ministry spheres will
automatically lead to these results.
IV. "Three for Two" House church Planting.
1. Definition and Theory
a. In some cases, you can cooperate with another house church to produce a new house church. This is the socalled "Three for Two" planting attempt. This is to be distinguished from a reorganization, which may involve
more than one church, but does not result in an actual gain in numbers of house churches. We have also seen
4 for 3 or 5 for 4 arrangements, especially when opening up a new geographical area or special field (age
group, special affinities, etc.).
b. In most situations, a "three for two" planting attempt is the result of an inequity in growth, either at the
upper, or lower end. In other words, a house church may have grown in terms of numbers without having
raised up adequate leadership (excessive low-end growth) or has developed leaders without having grown
very much in numbers (excessive high-end growth). Both of these situations are problematic.
I) In the case of the "low-end only" church, why has the church increased in numbers but not in
leaders? Has there been an activistic focus that might result in a superficial understanding of
community and maturity (i.e. evangelism is the only thing that matters)? If so, such a group needs to
grow up into the fullness of Christ, and build real depth, or they will always need to depend on others
to supply their leadership. The leadership, in consultation with their supervision, need to determine
whether it might be better to wait in a no-growth situation, using the crowding as incentive to
complete the work of discipleship.
ii) In the case of the "top-end only" church, a different question arises. Namely, if the leaders are so
mature and numerous, why is no one interested in listening to their message? Are there moral or
ideological problems (such as an unbalanced tribalism or search theology) which will make them illsuited to lead a group of new Christians? Is their concept of maturity limited to a "Bible club"
mentality? Generally, if a house church needs more members, the first place to seek them is in the
world, not from another church!
These are the painful questions that have to be asked and resolved in the case of a "three for two" church planting
arrangement. In cases where they can be resolved, the "three for two" model has proven to be a successful model,
answering many of the needs for sharing resources. Upper level leaders, like the elders, Pastoral, Student Ministries,
or Adult Ministries staffers should get involved in making this judgment.
2. Procedure
a. The elders or other overseers should be approached first with a proposal, or with a request for help. The
house church leaders must demonstrate 1) real need or opportunity, 2) that the people they propose to send
include good workers and members, and 3) that only a reasonable number of marginally involved people are
being sent to join the new group.
b. Your sphere leader will undertake a search for a suitable house church before that house church's leaders
are approached. This is to prevent friction between house churches as well as wasted time. It is not our policy
to have house churches canvassing the fellowship for "three for two" arrangements, as this would waste much
time, and cause unnecessary stress on the part of house church leaders. Besides, one house church is rarely in
a position to assess what is happening in another, still less the overall needs of the fellowship.
c. If the supervisory staff find a possible house church partner, the initiating house church leaders or sphere
leader should approach the other house church leaders only in confidential discussion. They should carefully
avoid the appearance of applying pressure to the other leaders by agitating the members of the other house
church. If the proposed partner church is interested, negotiations can begin.
d. The elders or supervisory staff should be informed of the outcome of the negotiations. When everyone
agrees, the workers and members of the house churches should be approached. All who join the planting
attempt must agree freely to go. Leaders should avoid compelling or pressuring people to go on the planting
attempt. We may plead and persuade, but not pressure.
e. Before the plant, make sure the people from both sides who will be in the new group meet with each other
socially and in other ways, so the first meeting of the new church is not the first time they meet each other.
Try to build community before going out.
V. Deciding on A Church Planting Model
1. Who makes the decision about which model to follow?
a. This decision is made by the original house church leaders in consultation with the elders or staff
supervisors. The elder's policy is to extend freedom of choice to house church leaders in this area, provided
that reasonable requirements for survival of both new churches are present. Also, the option being chosen
should not cause excessive delays in planting.
b. First, determine whether the original leaders want to continue working together. If one or more leaders
prefer the challenge of starting a new house church with their own disciples, they are allowed to, given the
same provisions as above (including approval from the sphere leaders). Even in cases where the leaders of a
given house church are unable to agree, this basic right of the worker to stay with his/her work remains with
few exceptions.
c. It should be obvious that if you intend to plant a Mission Church, or a "three for two" house church, the new
leaders must also be willing to play their part. However, the decision for how to plant should be made by the
house church leaders and supervisory staff, not by potential leaders or members. It would definitely be
erroneous to put the decision up for a vote in the house church, because the result would be confusion and
dissension. Instead, the leaders should arrive at a solid defensible position, and then present it to the opinion
leaders in the group, and finally to the whole church with full persuasion.
VI. New House church Leadership Composition
1. When we plant house churches in Xenos, we are planting a team.
Thinking in terms of teams means studying things like the personality composition of the leaders of both house
churches. Studies of house church growth have shown that some balance in the composition of personality types
in a leadership band is preferable. Also, some compositions should be avoided if possible, because they tend to
cause problems for growth and quality of fellowship.
2. Types of composition to avoid
a. The most common problem in house church leader composition is the all-passive leadership. In this
context, "passive" means that a person is, comparatively speaking, less directive in his/her ministry style, and
more fearful of confronting others. They are also less apt to be abusive or forceful when they do confront
than their more aggressive brethren.
On the negative side, the passive leader will tend to be less willing to initiate new projects or methods. They may be
less strategic in their output because they tend to react to situations, rather than proactively creating new situations.
Such leaders may find it hard to motivate people because people generally feel motivated more by innovative and
aggressive personalities. But leaders with passive tendencies can overcome all these problems with experience and
growth. They may also be too soft on issues of sin, whether of commission or omission.
On the positive side, these kind of leaders often project more warmth, and sometimes (though not always) more
stability than the aggressive type. They may be better able to project grace and kindness in their relationships. They
are definitely more apt to reflect before acting, and therefore can serve as a needed restraint in situations where the
more aggressive leader is inclined to "lunge."
i) When an entire leadership group is composed only of this type, they face the dangers of apathy,
indecisiveness and boredom in the leaders as well as the members. To solve this problem, no answer is
as effective as introducing one or more aggressive leaders into the house church. Repeatedly, passive
leaders are the ones who restrain aggressive ones from wrongful action. At the same time, they
depend on the aggressive leaders to demand action, and to provide the stimulation that is so
important for excitement and good evangelism. This passive/aggressive duality may be related to the
"transactional/transformational" leadership duality found commonly in leadership literature of the
past two decades. Be sure to distinguish between positive aggression and aggression that is only
exercised in a negative way (i.e. a problem-oriented outlook). Positive aggression involves initiation of
ideas for solving problems, and agitation for action. Those who are aggressive only when expressing
recriminations or demanding personal rights are not reflecting a helpful leadership style.
b. The all-aggressive leadership is much less common, but no less problematic than the all-passive. In the few
cases where leader groups have been composed of all, or mostly aggressive leaders, the results have been very
poor. These house churches have manifested a lack of patience toward the members of the house church. At
the same time, they have a tendency to change direction abruptly and erratically at times.
i) Be aware of the tendency to reject or belittle leaders of the opposite type. Study shows that diversity
is important in a leadership group. Leaders should realize that any feelings of condescension toward
other types of leaders are usually a very immature expectation that everyone "be like me," not to
mention a lack of humble recognition that "I need others to balance my extremism and oppose my
self-indulgence." Leaders should expend effort to appreciate the value of other types of people in the
local church.
3. Other factors that need to be checked for balance are:
a. Subjective vs. objective leaders. Church leadership composed of all subjective or all objective leaders have a
poor record in our fellowship. The all-emotional leadership is to be avoided because of the danger of hysteria
or panic. All cognitive teams tend to be too boring to hold a group's interest.
b. Male vs. female strength. Try to get an aggressive passive balance in both sexes, even though this may lay
outside your control. Complete balance between men and woman is never possible, but relative balance is a
plus.
d. Leaders who are "stay at home" or are depth-oriented (tribalistic) in their relating, vs. those who tend to
enjoy outreach and new relationships (diffuse). If a house church is made up of all depth-oriented leaders, the
group will tend to become ingrown, and to many, suffocating. If the leadership is all outreach and
stimulation oriented, the group might become shallow, activistic, and ill-suited to personal growth or
discipleship.
e. Leaders and members strong in evangelism, vs. those strong in pastoring and discipleship. Hopefully both
new house churches have those strong in high and low end work.
f. Note; Many of these factors will automatically be balanced if the aggressive-passive balance is present.
4. Timing
a. When the house church is already at a size that calls for a planting attempt soon, we have to weigh the
dangers of poor leadership composition against those of overcrowding, zero growth, and demoralization if
we wait until we are able to provide leaders of both types. We are always right to wait for planting if leaders
lack biblical character qualities.
5. Balance not to be understood as preference
a. Realize that we are not suggesting that one type of temperament is better than another-- just the opposite!
We are arguing that all types are needed, and that problems arise when this fact is ignored or denied. This is
exactly the thrust of I Cor. 12. Diversity is the pattern God intends for the church, and leadership teams
benefit from it as well.
VII. Time Needed to Plant a Church
1. We doubt that very many can be adequate house church leaders in the modern western setting when less
than three years old in the Lord. In rare cases, we are prepared to bring in one team member who may be as
young as two years in the Lord (e.g. a spouse of an older believer). Most Christians will need over four years of
rapid spiritual growth and learning before they will be ready.
a. This position does not square well with the example of Paul, who apparently regularly installed
leaders who were younger than three years, and sometimes less than two years. However, Paul may
have been drawing from a base of mature believing Jews and God-fearing Gentiles. These would have
been middle-aged men and women who knew the Bible and who had enjoyed a personal relationship
with God for many years before meeting Christ. Even though they would have to learn an entirely new
way of doing things, these believers would have probably grown rapidly. The same is sometimes true
today when true Christians transfer in from other churches.
Another limiting factor in our culture is the sophistication of fortifications raised up against the knowledge of Christ
in the modern west. For instance, western people are literate and better educated, and this fact dictates that modern
house church leaders be capable of a more sophisticated level of persuasion. Missionaries report on the other hand,
that in many tribal cultures they successfully appoint leaders of house churches at a much earlier stage of growth
than would be practical in the west. Also, the failure of family in the west and widespread drug use and sexual
immorality are factors that leave young people often needing more time to grow before leading. On the other hand, a
good background, or former spiritual growth in another church could shorten the time needed to be ready.
b. Based on these factors, we suggest the period from beginning a new house church to the next planting
attempt will usually need to be two years, sometimes longer. An exception would be college-aged house
churches, where we find experienced leaders may often plant after less than two years. Set a goal in your
church to plant again in 2 years or in 3 if this is the first time your team has lead a house church. Student
house churches should plan on 2 years, or more for their first church.
VIII. Other Considerations
1. Consider the time of year when planning house church planting attempt. Certain times of the year are
better than others. The most questionable times are late November and December, and spring. The best times
are late summer/early fall and early winter after the holidays. Consult the past history of your own group to
discover if your group doesn't fit these norms.
2. Your group supervisors (and through them, the elders) should be informed if you are planning a church
plant. You need to get an outside perspective on your plan for the sake of objectivity, and the elders reserve
the authority to veto planting plans if necessary. Your plan will need to be reviewed at several levels in our
organization, so don't wait too long.
3. Some of the proposed new house church leaders may be objectionable to the fellowship at the time planned.
Make sure they qualify well in advance of the proposed date for planting. Leaders requires the character
requirements for a deacon in I Tim. 3.
4. Marriages and likely marriages will have to be considered, especially if they involve leaders. The elders will
resist plans to establish only one spouse as a servant team member, or house church leader, because of the
very poor record of such arrangements in the past.
IX. Execution
The object of a plan of execution is to move from one meeting to two meetings in a way that is edifying and
motivating. With adequate preparation, you can usually avoid any of the likely problems, and make planting a time
of high excitement and vision.
1. Lack of understanding-- The members don't understand the reasons for, or the importance of, church planting
a. You should tackle this problem well in advance through a process of careful instruction. It's often a good
idea to begin pointed instruction in cell groups months before the planting attempt. Even though you may
have taught on it earlier, you probably have new members in the group who missed the earlier instruction.
You should also take the initiative in the house church meeting to lead the attitude of the house church in the
right direction a few weeks before planting. By taking initiative early, you can avoid complaints and
unedifying remarks from members who don't understand. Ideally, the group has seen planting as its goal
since the time of the last plant.
b. Point out that the house church's prayers to God (that he would grant growth) have been answered.
Comment that, "We are excited to realize that the job we embarked on three (?) years ago has finally been
completed!" Argue that the most exciting part of house church growth is now at hand--an opportunity for new
workers to step forward and fulfill their role in the Body of Christ.
c. You may want to denounce an antigrowth mentality that would seek its own comfort and let others remain
lost by not planting.
d. Explain the various components of the planting effort, remembering how foreign some aspects might seem
to those who are not accustomed to growth through house church replication. We should explain that, "In
this fellowship, we use the strategy of house church planting, in much the same way as the New Testament
Church did, and it has had striking success..."
e. Explain the advance of the church in light of the biblical concept of spiritual warfare. Point out the high
stakes in the war.
2. Disturbing supportive relationships
a. If you have built clear ministry spheres, this problem should be at a minimum. However, even the best
planning cannot avoid all disruption in the relational area. Point out these three facts to those who are having
a problem in this area.
i) First, the two house churches are not moving to separate cities, so they will be able to see friends
from the other side as often as desired. Weekly they will see them in Central Teaching, as well as
classes and other activities.
ii) The adjustment will be easier than they think. Those who have been involved in church planting are
able to point out that they were expecting to be depressed etc., but found that the new situation was
fine after only a short time. Note the tendency of some to inflate the danger involved in change, and
find ways to counter such inflation in love.
iii) Thirdly, we should point out that it is reasonable and appropriate to suffering loss for the sake of
the gospel. If Paul had never left some friends, we probably would not be believers today, etc.
3. Unfamiliarity with the new meeting place and/or the suddenly small house church meetings
a. Simply warn people in cell groups, worker's meeting and/or house church that the smaller meetings will
call for a higher level of involvement. The leadership should also mention the different feeling once the
smaller groups are formed, and call for feedback on it. People will usually correct their own view as they talk
about it.
4. Sluggish outreach.
a. The amount of outreach in each of the new house churches may be reduced after division for the simple
reason that there are only half as many people actively witnessing. At the same time, new groups often
experience a higher level of motivation immediately after a planting attempt. Also, habits in the area of
follow-up may be slack because the larger group others could take care of follow up relying on key people
who will not be around after the plant. Try to have the new house church hit the ground running, and be sure
early opportunities for follow-up are not wasted. Otherwise, the church will find itself in the position of being
without good outreach and bridges.
b. Cell group leaders should urge cell group members to pray for continued action in the new house church.
Having first-timers at the first meeting of the new house church would be good for morale. Watch for signs of
fatigue and encourage your members not to falter just before the finish line.
c. Both partner groups in a plant should continue to pray for the other group, and leaders should keep their
members informed about progress in their sister church.
d. Some house churches use the last meeting of the combined house church as a special night to review past
blessings, to give thanks to God, and to create motivation for further outreach. This is the so-called "Harvest
Meeting."
i) A good way to do this is to combine a short talk by a teacher with several testimonies from members.
New Christians should share how they were reached by someone in the house church (this stresses the
importance of human agency). The teacher should point out that the home wants to plant a new group
so others can be reached and grow. Another effective type of testimony is a worker or leader who did
little or nothing until the last house church division, but who decided at that time to step up.
ii) The teacher might then briefly review the harvest of the whole house church family of which this
one is a part. For example: "This house church began eleven years ago with fewer than thirty people.
Now, there are nine house churches with over 400 people involved. Over 2/3 of the 370 new people are
people converted through the house church! If we do no more than continue at the same rate, in
eleven years from now this house church family will have 133 house churches with 5,320 people and
over 3000 new Christians!"
iii) House church leaders should generously praise the members for the tremendous job they did in
the previous house church.
iv) Stress the necessity of every member of the Body contributing their shares if this goal is to be
reached (Eph. 4:15,16). The house church leaders should communicate that they really believe in the
idea of a replicating church planting movement and that they cannot make it without the workers.
v) Remind them that Satan prefers this time for attack. Point out the most likely areas where vigilance
is needed.
vi) Point out that the church planting attempt includes risks, and may fail. Point out that if it does fail,
you will reunite and try again. (see below on failure)
5. New Leadership-- Consider verbally recognizing the new leaders at this time. A short discussion of the theology of
leadership can be included either when the announcement is first made, or at the last meeting of the combined house
church.
a. Give a suitable presentation on the nature of leadership aimed to teach new people why aspiring to house
church leadership is a good thing. Texts such as Mk. 10:40-44 and John 10:1-15 are very suitable here. Young
believers will hopefully conclude that they too are called to serve and later be recognized as leaders. Call on
members to show respect for the new leaders just as they did for the old ones. Paul consistently did this (I Cor.
16:15-16 & parallels). Some groups lay hands on the new leaders and pray for them at this time.
X. Failure in Church Planting
Regardless of how much we prepare, house church planting always contains the risk of failure. This is a reasonable
risk, and if you handle it in a godly way, failure will do little or no harm.
1. Attitudes
a. The first thing to realize is that failure is not the end of the world. Any time Christian workers go out to
work, they must realize that failure is a distinct possibility. However, the grace of God enables us to face
failure with courage and humility. Anyone who is too ego-involved or legalistic to risk having to admit failure
is ill-suited to Christian work.
b. If our members have a naive mentality in this area we should speak to it early on. Some young Christians
may expect nothing but success in Christian work. But why should we expect no failure in Christian work,
when there is virtually no other area of life or work where we would expect to have no failure? For too long,
workers in Xenos Fellowship have experienced nothing but success. In a more realistic scenario, it will
sometimes be necessary to try ministry projects like church planting more than once before achieving
success.
c. Discontinuing an unfruitful group should be viewed as a good way to renew morale and gain confidence
through reorganization and retooling. It is sometimes the shortest path to fruitfulness.
d. In cases of failure, the leadership should point out certain truths to the work force of both house churches:
Namely, that God has not been unfaithful, nor has anything unusual or catastrophic occurred. Instead, they
need to understand that a Christian ministry project was attempted and it failed. Anyone who has ever tried
to witness and had their message rejected should be able to understand failure in ministry. We have no
promise in Scripture of perpetual success, only eventual victory. Further, the house church will now be called
on to bend to the task of ministry and eventually to try again!
i) The immature may have certain negative tendencies that need to be countered by the mature. Failure could
lead to a sense of guilt and failure that is unacceptable to the ego-involved and the legalistic mentality.
Therefore, they will seek ways of shifting the burden of blame and guilt off self, and onto others. Leaders will
often discover feelings of hate and recriminations at such a time, and should be prepared to counsel and
teach the young a true attitude of Christian grace. Don't underestimate the extent of temptation in this area
and hence relax vigilance, giving opportunity to the devil. The leaders of failed house churches are
particularly vulnerable to accusation at this time.
2. Recovery
a. The fact that a failure has occurred should be determined by the elders in consultation with the staff
overseers. We should never jump to the conclusion that a church has failed when it is only being tested and
sifted. Such temporary reversals are to be expected as a normal feature of Christian work. Unless we teach
members to expect this beforehand, the work force of struggling house churches will tend to lose their
composure during times of adversity. Avoid hysteria.
b. In this fellowship, we have a safety net of other house churches to fall back on in time of distress.
Recombination of house churches has proven to be an effective answer to the problem of failed house
churches.
i) When failure occurs, the sending, or sister, house church is usually responsible to help the failed
church through recombination or other acceptable means.
ii) In most situations, the leaders will need to step down from leadership (but not from the Servant
Team) at the time of recombination. This is necessary in order to prevent proliferation of leaders
without proliferation of house churches. It will also help in the efficiency of the newly constituted
house church. Every leader should be willing to forsake the title of house church leader if necessary
for the benefit of the house church.
iii) In many cases, leadership may call for recombination with a house church other than the sister or
sending house church in order to better serve the strategic needs of the moment and/or to avoid
problems. This is especially likely if the plant happened many years earlier.
Conclusion
The multiplication of house churches poses a mortal threat to the kingdom of Satan. No one knows this better than
the enemy himself. Yet, in spite of the most vicious counterattacks, the church should be able to continue to advance
if careful planning and sound theory animate their actions.