Why Vital Congregations? Why Not House Churches?

I just read Bishop Schnase's daily post, called The Most Significant Arena.  He ends, "Imagine how God could use our churches all the more to change lives, foster communities in Christ, and relieve suffering if we really behaved as if local churches provide the most significant arena through which we make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world. Imagine!" 

I am imagining.  I'd love to see it.  I have seen glimpses.  I've even helped make a few happen.  I remember Grace Church in Saint Louis hosting visiting youth work teams to rehab homes of elderly neighbors.  I worked side-by-side leading that project with African graduate students whose loans members of the congregation sponsored. I remember New Hope UMC in rural Randolph County hosting annual chili dinners with bazaars.  People came from far and near.  Many of the neighbors were Amish. They contributed quilts and other items in honor of their neighbors who through the year transported them to town and allowed use of a telephone.  Yes, I've seen congregations do vital ministry.

But Bishop Schnase walks through the history of Methodism back to Wesley, showing how every 'method' had a purpose, for creating and sustaining accountability.  Frankly, I've not experienced a lot of that in 'congregations.' I've tried to make it happen.  But I've not found the dynamic system of a 'congregation' very conducive to that purpose.  It is a voluntary association, with at least one staff-person who is held accountable by a paycheck and supervision, or maybe a few other staff.  But volunteerism does not lend itself well to accountability, in my experience, which is extensive.

Early Methodism focused NOT on congregations, but through small groups. In fact, the development of Methodist congregations was discouraged.  People were already in a congregation, a state-sponsored Episcopal parish church.  Then in America, the circuit riders built class meetings, NOT congregations.  When they left the circuiting life they might be 'located' to a congregation.  But that was not where the mission was happening.

How is it that we Methodists became congregationalists?  Very early we left that to the Presbyterians, then to the Baptists.  Meeting houses, maybe.  But congregations?  The congregation simply was NOT the revolutionary structure for being Methodist.

Maybe it still isn't.  There's a house church movement gaining steam: of people who are disenchanted with congregations as they know them, who want a freer and smaller expression or form of the Church. This includes younger people, secular people, who are not likely to show up or be interested in involvement in a traditional congregation.

Frankly, I have found 'Christian' collegiality and accountability more in and through secular organizations than through congregations.  I've been active with Jobs With Justice, Health Care for All, Faith Based Community Organizing.  I find these to be people who are DOING the gospel instead of mostly talking about it or wanting someone else to do it FOR them.

I'm a pastor.  I am paid by a congregation. I make my living seeking to raise up and equip folks for ministry, including accountability.  But honestly, I don't think it is going very well.  Maybe "vital congregations" is just not the best way to DO Christian faith.  Maybe we are sustaining the form to keep ourselves employed, more than to DO the function.  I will keep trying and consider it faithful.  But sometimes I wonder.