Thanks to Lynn for raising this question! We have no biblical evidence that the early church met weekly in large worship gatherings, but the New Testament is crystal clear that they met in homes. In the very early stages, the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem met daily, not weekly, in the temple courts, but please keep in mind the uniqueness of the holy city. I doubt that Gentiles would have been allowed in the courts of Solomon’s temple; if not, it didn’t matter, because they also met regularly in their homes, usually involving a fellowship meal (see Acts 2:42–47). Even Jewish Christians were more than likely banned from the temple courts when Jewish persecution (Acts 8:1) really began to heat up. Remember Saul of Tarsus going from house to house (because that’s where everyone knew they gathered), dragging men and women away to prison (Acts 8:3)?
I’m not a scholar in church history, but I have read historians who point out that it was 300 years later—around the time of the Roman emperor, Constantine—before they find any credible evidence of buildings being erected and used by Christians for a formalized, weekly worship service. Once this custom was widely embraced and implemented, there was no turning back for most of Christendom—there are some rare exceptions—even though I believe that, in doing so, the Church suffered a serious blow, perhaps even a crippling wound by our enemy, in terms of the intimacy, power, fellowship, and the organic growth experienced in those first 300 years.
So, to answer your question, as each house church grew to capacity they simply expanded into other homes throughout their respective region. There was no stopping the growth! You’ve probably seen illustrations of the power of doubling: one becomes two, two becomes four, four becomes eight, and so forth. Imagine starting with only one house church and seeing it (and each one after it) reproduce only once a year: within 10 years there would be 32 churches (seems like a slow beginning), within 20 years the number would rise to 1,024 churches (the pace is picking up), in year 30 there would be nearly 33,000 churches (even Southern Baptists would be proud of this), and in 60 years you would find 1,073,741,824 congregations meeting in homes.
That’s why the early Christians were accused of turning the world upside down!
Great stuff Bill. I love the Acts 20 passage where Paul gives a great picture of what Church looked like then, and ought to look like today (IMO):
Paul did both home to home and public teaching, warning, and encouraging. I was talking with someone today who said, “Its not the package, but the product.” I tend to agree. However, the product has a much better chance of being preserved and propagated if packaged properly!
This raises another question for me…sorry, I should be stopped, I know.
They were meeting in homes, right? That is, up until around Constantine, like you pointed out. But as far as the home meetings goes, how does church hierarchy figure in? Deacons, elders, and the like. I don’t have the Bible passages at my fingertips at the moment, but there was some sort of pecking order, wasn’t there? If so, was it in the individual homes, or was their a central authority, so to speak…maybe an apostle or a qualified teacher, that they were accountable to to preach the word accurately? The bulk of Paul’s letters were written in response to various false teachings that were creeping up w/in the church. I’m not saying one big meeting house was the answer, I’m just pondering.
I only ask this in light of the fact that the church we attend here in WA governs itself independently (a smaller Reformed church), while our church back in OKC is governed, ultimately, by the SBC’s bylaws. My brother used to home church. There was zero accountability and it became “The Gospel According to Dave”. It was dismal at best. I’m not saying every home church suffers this, but my brother was accountable to no one. His teaching was erroneous and his family suffered. (He openly admits this.) There has to be some accountability, doesn’t there? (I probably don’t have to qualify my statement by saying this, but I’m not talking about Apostolic succession or anything like that.)
Brothers,
A good example of a “house church” without the insanity of no authority structure and with the care and accountability of elders is Christ Fellowship of Kansas City. It is a reformed and baptistic church with three elders, each of which hosts a segment of the congregation in their home. There is unified leadership, authority and accountability with all the benefits of what Bill is talking about here. I would like to drive out and look over their shoulders soon as we look to send out men we have trained for ministry to plant churches.
Tom:
That’s a great passage! I just love the whole chapter, watching the scene unfold, pregnant with the emotions that are finally released in verse 37. The interesting thing is that Paul could have stopped by Ephesus and visited the entire group of believers, but he intentionally sailed past their port and disembarked at Miletus, thirty miles away. He knew how much they loved him and how there’s no way he could have just “popped in” for a 24-hour visit (see verse 16); plus, he was a man on a mission, hoping to be in Jerusalem for the Feast of Pentecost.
What does he mean, “teaching you in public and from house to house”? The “house to house” part is simple enough, isn’t it? But we really have to disengage from our present concept of “public” as it relates to teaching/preaching, lest we impose on the text a meaning that is not there. I’ve learned in Britain, even, that their “public schools” are the same things as America’s “private schools” and their “private schools” are what Americans would call “public schools.” Paul seems to be making a distinction between the teaching that occurred in the house churches that constituted the “Church in Ephesus” versus his instruction in the public square.
The word translated “publicly” is only used four times in the New Testament (Acts 5:18; 16:37; 18:28; 20:20) and most lexicons/dictionaries define the word as “in the open” or “belonging to the state” or “in a public setting.” In the first century, especially in an new church setting like Ephesus, I would take it to mean that Paul held some of his teaching sessions in the public square. It does not necessarily infer that large crowds attended anything like we would imagine to be a “worship service” or even a “Christian conference.” I would imagine the scene where he gathered with a group of fellow believers in a public place, like a Starbucks or a sidewalk cafe or a park or pub (as in “public” house), enjoying a pint with his brothers/sisters and teaching interactively while the unbelievers listened in.
What do you think?
Lynn, I would point you toward an article by Wayne Jacobsen on leadership in a relational church setting. Another good read is over at the HouseChurchBlog and it may answer some of your questions.
The most obvious thing to keep in mind is this: if we’re so “off base” in our present “church in a box” approach to Christian worship, then we must also consider that our church leadership paradigm is also in serious need of recalibration. The above articles point out that the body only has one Head, Jesus Christ, so there really is no “top-down” pecking order in the church. Those who serve as elders and deacons in the truest biblical sense should only be viewed as servants or, to use Paul’s favorite phrase, bondslaves of the ekklesia.
Thanks to Stephen for the “heads up” on Christ Fellowship of Kansas City. Jim Elliff, one of the elders there, is a long-time friend of mine.
It would seem to me that he is referring specifically to teaching the Ephesian church both corporately and individually. In other words, it seems that he is speaking of something like this.
“teaching you” – meaning the church.
“publicly” – occasions when all or at least some of those believers who resided in individual houses met together as one house.
“from house to house” – the kind of up close and personal teaching that occured in the homes of individual participants in the local Ephesian church. Could have been in the setting of a visit from Paul to get to know each family, share a meal with them, answer their questions and even teach them Christian doctrine – and no subject was off limits … ie, sex, marraige, divorce, confession, forgiveness, the Second Coming, etc.
One thing for sure, the house to house commitment of the average pastor pales in comparison to the compassionate and passionate pastoral teaching ministry of the great Apostle.
Tom, thanks for continuing the exchange!
Paul is talking to the elders of the Ephesian church: each one serves the body of Christ that is scattered across Ephesus, meeting in many different homes (comprised of rich, poor, Jew, Gentile, slave, free, male, and female). We don’t know how many house-based congregations comprised the church in Ephesus, but Paul was there for three years and there could have been many. Let’s just suppose that there were 20 congregations in Ephesus, each one composed of 25 people (inclusive of children) and each one of them assigned to an elder for spiritual oversight, pastoral care, encouragement, and teaching. When Paul would think about the “Church in Ephesus,” he would have in his mind a group of 500 believers, meeting in 20 different geographical locations in the city, under a plurality of elders (whatever number had been appointed to this role) and deacons scattered throughout as well.
In his statement, “teaching you in public and from house to house,” (ESV) we could describe the sentence structure like this: Paul is the subject, “teaching” is the verb, “you” is the direct object (which, by the way, is plural), and there are two adverbial phrases that describe the geography of his teaching: “in public” and “from house to house.” I don’t believe Paul is using ecclesiological language here (corporate/individual), but rather he’s simply stating where his teaching occurred in Ephesus. Some of it took place in public and some in the homes of believers, regardless of whether it was limited to a single family or a gathered congregation that met regularly in that home.
Anyone else reading this? Please feel free to comment.
Lynn has written a great post referencing this conversation. Well worth the read. God bless you Lynn.
http://biblicalchristian.wordpress.com/2007/05/18/thoughts-on-teaching-and-relational-christianity/