A few years ago, my wife and I planted a house church after serving and pastoring in a mega church we love. This decision wasn’t made out of a desire to critique or dismantle the mega church model, but rather out of a deep longing to build a church structure that was more contextually responsive to our community, our mission, and the way we believed church could be experienced in a more personal, intimate, and organic way.

Here’s why we chose this path:

1. Focus on Discipleship

One of the primary motivations for us was the desire to centre our time and energy on disciple-making. We believe that the ultimate purpose of the church is to make disciples—people who are fully devoted followers of Jesus. In a large church setting, it can sometimes feel like discipleship is secondary to programs, services, and the logistical challenges that come with running a large institution. In our house church, we felt there was a unique opportunity to create a space where deep, intentional discipleship could take place, where individuals could be nurtured in their faith and grow in a close-knit community.

2. Beyond the Building

While we had immense appreciation for the various ministries offered by our previous church, we began to question the emphasis that was often placed on the building and the resources that were directed toward maintaining it. The church, we realised, is not a building. It is the people. We wanted to cultivate a community that wasn’t dependent on the economic realities tied to a physical building but was instead rooted in relationships and mission. This shift allowed us to focus on being the church wherever we met—homes, coffee shops, parks, and even in community facilities in our own neighbourhoods—thus removing the limitation of needing a massive structure to house our ministry.

3. Go Small to Go Big

The idea of “going small to go big” became central to our vision for the house church. We didn’t see small as a limitation, but as a platform for multiplication and adaptability. The structure of a smaller church allows for practices that are responsive and agile, making it easier to adapt to the specific needs of the community and replicate in various contexts. By starting with a small, flexible model, we believed we could cultivate a movement that could expand naturally, as individuals embraced their role in making disciples and sharing the Gospel. We envisioned a church that could grow not just numerically, but relationally, with a deep sense of ownership and involvement from everyone in the community.

4. Measuring Success by Discipleship Stories

In the larger church context, success is often measured in terms of attendance, program numbers, and budgets. While these are not inherently bad things, we wanted to measure the health and success of our house church in a different way—by the stories of transformation. We wanted to hear about people’s growth in Christ—how they were being discipled, how their lives were changing, and how they were learning to embody the character of Jesus in their daily lives. In a house church, it became possible to track these stories closely, allowing us to see the fruit of disciple-making and spiritual growth on a personal level.

5. Reflecting the Early Church

Looking back at the church in the book of Acts, we found inspiration in how it was a grassroots, missional movement that spread rapidly due to its simple, community-oriented structure. The early church was focused on relationship, shared mission, and the spread of the Gospel in everyday contexts. We wanted our church to reflect those same values: being less about building an institution and more about living as a family on mission together. The Acts church was a place of belonging, where the Gospel was lived out in the rhythms of life, and we wanted to create that same kind of environment.

6. Everyone Serves

In our experience, large churches often have a structure where the majority of ministry is done by a small number of professionals and leaders, while the congregation serves as volunteers. But we desired something different. We wanted a church where every member took responsibility in the mission and ministry of the church. In our house church, everyone plays an active role—whether facilitating a Bible reading time, caring for a neighbour, reaching to them, contributing to the broader mission of the church. We envisioned a community where no one is sidelined, and everyone contributes to the work of discipleship, evangelism, and service.

7. A Church of Sacrificial Giving

We also felt called to create a church culture where giving was sacrificial, not driven by large campaigns, but by a genuine commitment to serve the mission. In the context of a mega church, large programs and staff salaries often dominate the budget. But in our house church, we wanted the bulk of our resources to go toward missions and directly supporting the needs within our own community—whether that meant helping a family in need or sending resources to advance the Gospel in another part of the world. Giving, for us, was always meant to be a reflection of the sacrificial love we have received in Christ, and we wanted to see that manifest in the life of the church.

8. Rhythms of Life and Community

Finally, we longed for a church structure that reflected the natural rhythms of life and community, rather than a one-size-fits-all programmatic approach. In a house church, the programs and activities flow from the lived experiences of the community. Instead of a packed calendar with events that feel disconnected from daily life, we wanted our church’s rhythms to be shaped by the everyday routines of our members—praying for one another, gathering for meals, serving together, and walking through life together. The church should be something that is integrated into the fabric of our lives, not a separate event that we attend once a week.