Over the last decade or so, a movement has been gaining a voice in Christian ministry literature. It’s known by several names–the micro church, organic church, simple church. Some micro churches are also house churches, but not all of them are. These terms aren’t necessarily all synonymous. But I’ve found that it takes a fairly careful observer to be able to distinguish significant differences between them. For our purposes right now, let’s assume they are roughly the same.
Micro/simple/organic churches all have a few characteristics in common. They are intentionally streamlined in organization. They don’t run programs, they probably don’t have paid staff, and they place much less emphasis on a Sunday morning service than more traditional churches do. Philosophically, they reject the idea of professional clergy in favor of a thoroughgoing commitment to the priesthood of all believers. In most cases, the motivation for staying simple (or organic) is ease of multiplication. It’s difficult to duplicate and plant a church that requires a paid pastor, gifted worship team, dedicated facility, and programs for outreach. But if a congregation is led by lay people, focused on discipleship and Bible study, and less concerned with professional worship experiences, it can easily be multiplied.
There are two major theological and/or philosophical motivations for micro churches.
The first is the desire to be “missional.” The term “missional” has come to mean a lot of things. But for micro churches, the emphasis tends to be that these congregations put the mission of the church before the institution to such an extent that they totally neglect the institution. For proponents of micro ministry, paid staff, programs, mortgages, and utility bills are unnecessary obstacles to fulfilling the Great Commission. So they jettison them. Related to this is the conviction that simple churches are easier to reproduce–and more smaller churches are better positioned to reach the lost than fewer larger ones. Neil Cole, founder of Church Multiplication Associates, is a leading spokesman in this part of the movement. (http://www.cmaresources.org/)
The second major impulse for many micro ministries is the conviction that the institutional church–with its paid clergy and programs and buildings–is a perversion of the first-century church. Many folks are looking for a more pristine church experience stripped of the baggage of tradition and polity and church politics. They find this original expression in the micro church. Frank Viola is an outspoken proponent of this way of thinking. (http://www.ptmin.org/)
Finally, many people see in micro churches a greater potential for more people to be involved in ministry. The old saying goes that 20 percent of the congregation does 80 percent of the ministry. The assumption in micro congregations is that there may be fewer people, but all of them are actively and intimately engaged in the work of the church. In other words, the micro methodology eliminates (or at least reduces the number of) passive observers in the church. Alan Hirsch is an articulate defender of this slice of the micro movement. (http://www.theforgottenways.org/)
