I would not classify Yonggi Cho's cell church model as 'house church.' I have ben involved with a couple of house churches over the years and moderated a church planting discussion list full of predominantly house church people for two years.
The house church movement exists independantly of the 'emerging church ' movement. Some in the emerging movement have gone into house churches. Those in the emergent church movement may label the house church movement as an emerging movement. But many in the HC movement have never heard of McLaren.
'The house church movemen't is not really an accurate term since it is not really an organized movement.
When I use the term 'house church' I do not just mean a church that meets in a house. Plenty of churches meet in a house and follow basically the same liturgy, whether formalized and written down or informal, that goes on in church buildings. The type of house church movement I am referring to is also known as 'simple church', 'a return to New Testament Christianity' or various other terms.
'House church' Christians can come from a variety of theological backgrounds. For example, one could be Calvinist, Armenian, or hold to the Open View, and go to a house church. The house church may be made up of only of people who hold to this view, or of a mixed group. A house church could be charismatic or rabidly anti-Charismatic. Some are Fundamentalists who insist on women's silence, and others take an alternate interpretation of the passages on this section.
Here are some general trends in 'the house church movement' in the US, the UK and elsewhere.
1. Belief in mutual edification in church meetings with multiple members using their gifts (as opposed to limiting it to hymns and one speaker with a sermon.) 2. Biblical church leadership structure. (x) 3. Meeting (generally) in homes, rather than in special purpose church buildings. 4. Emphasis on community, building relationships with others in the church, and loving one another in practical ways. 5. Eating the Lord's Supper as a part of a full meal.
I am hesitant to include 5, because many house churches these days may separate the meal from the Lord's Supper and have the bread and cup as a separate event from a pot-luck meal, but it many house churches do try to emulate primitive church practice by incorporating the Lord's Supper into a meal or eating the Supper as a meal (as 'Supper' implies). Basically, 'house church' is a movement to return to the type of church structure and practice we see in the scriptures. Some in the movement argue for this based on Paul's commands to hold to the traditions he has taught.
Comments on point number 1. In a house church this could take various forms. Some have discussion Bible studies. Other house churches may have people take turns giving rather long discourses, with certain teachers or elders taking a leading role.
Comments on point number 2. In many house churches, this is interpreted as having a plurality of elders that meet up to the Biblical qualifications. Many house churches reject the idea of the one-man pastorate over a group of non-pastoral elders. This model--of having the cleric pastor and non-cleric board elders-- evolved in Geneva in the Reformation area, not as a doctrinal practice, but just as their way of having church leadership and civil leadership combined in an attempted theocracy. It evolved into common church practice if not a matter doctrine in certain Presbyterial churches. House church leaders in the US who argue for a plurality of elders generally see the elders as pastoral figures (see Acts 20:28, I Peter 5.)
There are also house churches that are egalitarian and almost like early Quakers in their view of church government. They favor consensus in church meetings and view elders as 'older brothers' in the Lord, rather than seeing them also as an in an official position. With the growth of the house church movement, those from this sector of the house church movement seem to become an ever-increasing smaller percentage.
There are also some house churches that are similar to other house churches except they have one elder, or pastor, like many 'institutional churches.'
Comments on point number 3. Many Christians almost consider it sacriledge to do away with church buildings and meet in homes. However, house church Christians realize that the early churches--many if not most of them, at least--met in homes. There is no scriptural example of using church funds to build church buildings, and certain not most of the money.
Comments on number 4. In some house church communities, people cut each other's grass, make a special effort to share their goods with those who are needy in the church, or outside of it, and things of that nature. There is an emphasis on really getting to know one another and be like a family.
Comments on point number 5. Jesus introduced the practice of remembering Him through the bread and cup at the end of an actual meal. "The Lord's Supper" implies an actual meal, and it is apparent from I Corinthians 11 that the Lord's Supper, or an attempt at it, was eaten as an actual meal. Paul's letter to correct Corinth did not tell them to use tiny wafers and glass thimbles, but rather to tarry one for another (apparently wait for the poor to arrive before eating the meal.) The church apparently ate the Lord's Supper as a meal for some time, calling it the Agape, until over time the Eucharist and the Agape were separated into two events, and the Agape, without the Eucharist, lost its impact and fell out of favor.
Other than basic doctrines related to the function and meeting styles and locations of the church, 'house church' is not a set of church doctrines. The same is true of another movement, the emergent movement. House church values coincide in some emergent values, but they are not the same movement.
House Churches in Missions
House churches are growing on the missions fields. Here in Indonesia, many of the expatriate missionaries here serve as coaches to local church planters, helping them get started planting house churches. Many of them come from denominational backgrounds. House church in it's earlier, perhaps 'pure' form is not denominational. The Southern Baptists are behind house church now, posting the Church Planting Movements book on their IMB website. I have met people form a variety of other denominational backgrounds who are involved in planting house churches among unreached people groups. One goes to a Reformed church here in town. I also know of Baptists, Mennonites, Charismatics, and Anglicans. Here in Indonesia, non-denominational churches are not completely and clearly legal, though some do exist.
House churches are also growing rapidly in China, Vietnam, India, Cambodia, and other parts of the world.
If you think about it, the idea that to evangelize a nation, you should build a church building for every 100 or so people is pretty foolish. In times of 'revival', where many are coming to Christ, a congregation could waste valuable energy in construction projects when they could be focusing on the in-coming harvest. A denominational evangelism coordinator here in Indonesia noted that when they sent an evangelist out to start churches, he would start with a meeting in a home. The congregation would grow rapidly and there would be a lot of evangelism. But once they got to a certain size, the church's focus would change to getting a building. They would put together proposals to ask for funds, etc. At this point, their focus changed and evangelism would drop off. The coordinator for the denomination thought it was a good idea, for evangelism and church growth, to keep the meetings in homes. That is a pragmatic argument, but in scripture we see the saints meeting in homes and we have no record of their renting facilities or feeling the need to build temporal structures.
