House churches vs. Buildings: when a loss is counted as a loss

When many people think of “church,” they think of either/both (1) buildings and (2) incorporated entities. A “new” church plant involves a specific location, as well as incorporation papers, officers, budgets, etc. A new church can be seen from the road. It can be visited. It can be seen in public documents.

In movements and similar networks in less-free areas, churches are understood to be gatherings of believers. They are often in houses or other locations. They do not have their own buildings. They are sometimes illegal or at least “gray”–unregistered, unincorporated. They cannot be “seen” easily.

A church with a building can go out of business because it has too few members whose donations can pay the bills. (See this well-known story about Ryan Burge and the closure of his church.) When these churches go out of business, their members typically start attending a different church–but it is still counted as a loss.

A house church, on the other hand, can shift locations without it being a loss. They may change to a new house for security reasons. They may migrate with migrant workers. A single house church may multiply into three new house fellowships as people share the Gospel, and the original may meet less or cease to meet altogether. There is a much more dynamic ebb and flow.

This is one reason why, in networks of house churches, the actual count of house churches and believers is difficult–there is an ebb and flow to the actual number, in a process very different from building-oriented networks. Though it makes it hard to track, it also makes it very easy to scale–it’s a feature, not a bug.