Several months ago, someone left a comment suggesting that the reason the early church met in homes, rather than larger buildings like temples or synagogues, was because they were just fledgling "church plants" and did not need a building to accommodate everyone. He said, "You do with what you have and be content." The same person also contended that there were no biblical commands to restrict church life to private dwellings, therefore keeping them relatively small in number. My friend posted his comments right before I left for Ireland and I failed to respond to his remarks, hoping that I would later address them in a separate post, since they were "off-topic" and yet worthy of exploration.
Just recently I was reading an excellent article, "In Defense of Biblical Churches: A Response to the Critics!" by an English brother, Beresford Job, of the Chigwell Christian Fellowship near London. Although we have never met face-to-face, I have recently corresponded with him and he really puts forth an excellent defense on this issue, so I will let his words speak for me:
I cannot for the life of me see any authority or basis for suggesting that it’s all right for us to do things differently from the apostles. It boils down to the simple fact that if churches now are to function in the way the New Testament shows us they did under the apostles, then being house based is, inescapably, the absolute optimum and ideal. And this is indeed what we find the believers doing in the New Testament. And I think it is worth noting too, and this is an historical point, that, at the time of Jesus, people’s religious lives were universally centered around specially consecrated buildings; and this was true of both Jews and Gentiles.
Yet it is fascinating to then discover that an exception to this rule came on the scene in the shape of the Christian Church. They alone had no public buildings in which to meet for their corporate gatherings, though there was not a reason in the world why they shouldn’t have had them like everybody else. Persecution was, for the most part, sporadic, and they had every opportunity to do what was, for everyone else, and for them before becoming believers, the most natural thing in the world—set aside special buildings, however simple and humble, for their corporate gatherings. But they didn’t! And why not? Because the very idea was for them to meet in each others homes, and not simply out of necessity until some later time. Indeed, history tells us that they were actually thought by some to be atheists, and for this precise reason that they had no special building in which their ‘god’ lived.
So, the apostles established churches to specifically be located in people’s houses. And far from being merely some accident of history, this was actually a part of the apostolic, and therefore biblical, blueprint. And given that Paul emphasises in his writings that apostolic tradition, as passed on by them to the churches from Jesus Himself ,was binding and a command of the Lord, then why on earth would anyone want to do things differently? Yet sadly some church leaders eventually did, and now some of us don’t want to any more.
A good friend of mine commented, "I do not believe the house group model…would fit my particular personality: rightly or wrongly, it ain’t for me." He later went on to explain that the sort of home-based congregation I described sounded like a "free for all" to him. Funny, isn't it, that we have moved so far from the house-to-house dynamics of the early church that a Christian would say, "If that's church, I wouldn't like it. It's not my cup of tea." Good thing for most people, I guess, that the simple church movement is relatively small right now.
Comments 8
As I have said before, I understand the urge to move to a simpler church model, but the mere fact that the apostles did not have large buildings to worship in is a far cry from an official endorsement of house churches only. Paul probably rented a large public space in Ephesus (the Hall of Tyrannous) to address the people of Ephesus and went there for over two years. There were lots of things that the Apostles did not use in their ministry, such as blogs, but I would not say that they were against their use. The same is true of specific church buildings. I am not sure that I have seen anything in the writings of the early church that specifically addressed this issue in a way that would satisfy the burden of proof that houses churches were nothing more than the most expedient method. I am not saying that they did not, but I have not seen it. Anyone have any references that are not based on conjecture and extrapolation?
House churches can be fantastic, but are they THE model that was given to us by the Apostles? I am not prepared to be so dogmatic. From personal experience, I have a hard time understanding how a church can function properly when is starts to get over the 150 mark, but that is not to say that they cannot function properly. I am just leery of falling into the Harold Camping-the-church-era-is-over-and-we-all-need-to-leave-our-congregations trap. Instead of looking to the size and structure of the church for the explanation of its problems, we need to look at the condition of our hearts. In the same way that creating programs, new buildings, etc will not fix the church, neither will getting rid of the programs and building. Our problems are much more basic than out external manifestations.
Posted 26 Aug 2007 at 6:44 pm ¶Here’s a different angle: look to Revelation. The churches are addressed by city. I realize that there are all sorts of theological explanations for this that exist on many different levels. However, it seems to me reasonable that the Church will be addressed in end times (in part) by location. I am in Charleston, SC, and if the Lord came today, I don’t have any reason he wouldn’t have anything to say “to the Church in Charleston.”
So what? Well, whether you go to a simple church or an institutional church (for lack of a better name), God expects us to work together in our communities. Historically, simple churches (note that they aren’t always house churches!) lend themselves more to inter-body cooperation that institutional churches. While this point can be argued on theoretical grounds, it is far simpler to point to the degree to which institutional churches don’t cooperate and simple churches do globally today.
I have more to say about how persecution fits into this point, but will save it until later. I don’t like long-winded comments, and fear this may have already become one.
Posted 27 Aug 2007 at 7:30 pm ¶Your phrase “we have moved so far from the house to house dynamics of the early church” is again implying that your concept of the small house group type church is the God-given once-for-all pattern for Christian meeting. I just don`t feel that you have ever effectively proved that point. I don`t believe it is intentional, but there seems to be such a sense of spiritual arrogance which says, “Hey, for the past 2000 years you got it so wrong, but now—hey—presto, we have pulled this spiritual rabbit out of the hat and this is how it should have been all the time.”
I think that I put forward the view in an earlier post that the words of the Lord Jesus to the woman at the well are the most pertinent to the whole question of worship. She equated worship with a place—this mountain, that mountain. Jesus said the place isn`t important: what is important wherever you meet is that the worship is in Spirit and truth. I haven’t got any hang-ups about where, but it appears that you do, my brother. Just be careful you don`t become a one trick pony. (Google the phrase if it’s unfamiliar to you.)
Posted 28 Aug 2007 at 8:34 am ¶JKK: Thanks for mentioning Paul’s use of Tyrannus’ hall/school (depending upon the translation) in Ephesus. I have been expecting someone to bring it up. Here is the context of that passage and my response to it:
A couple of things I would like to point out. Paul’s missionary practice upon entering a new community was to use the synagogue as a platform for the Gospel. In the city of Ephesus, he used this approach for three months but growing antagonism within that Jewish community forced him to relocate. When you take a wider look at his ministry, Paul took the Gospel wherever he could find a hearing, whether in the Areopagus or the marketplace or a riverside prayer meeting or even a prison cell.
Also there is nothing in the text to suggest that the hall was “a large public space” as you suggest or even that Paul rented the building. It could have been simply a small room (perhaps even annexed to someone’s home) conveniently located near Paul’s residence and provided by one of the disciples in Ephesus. But whatever the case, it was used as a place to meet DAILY with his disciples. No mention of church meetings or worship. In Paul’s case, it opened up the possibilities for a much wider ministry to the Greeks, since they would not have been welcomed in the synagogue.
There is a clear distinction between where Paul evangelized and where the early saints of God gathered regularly for mutual encouragement in the faith. I go to all sorts of places to engage unbelievers with the Gospel, but I prefer to gather with my spiritual family in a more intimate setting where we can interact, share a meal, and spend hours together without incurring huge financial costs (as required in keeping a dedicated building). I have a pastor friend in Florida who tells me that it costs them $30,000 per year to keep their relatively small (200-seat) facility operational. It’s paid for, but it costs that much for insurance, maintenance, and utilities.
So what would constitute an official endorsement more strongly than the apostles’ practice, given the wide options available to them? When they wanted to meet together as the body of Christ, they met in homes. Could they have contributed their resources and built a special building to worship in? Sure! Everyone else did—the Jews and the Greeks—but NOT the early Christians. No, they made a conscious break from the cultural norms, under the direct guidance of the Apostles, and met in house-sized congregations scattered throughout their cities, towns, and villages. And they did this for 300 years! Sounds like an apostolic model to me.
Why NOT look to size and structure for an explanation of the church’s problems? I can only think of a couple of reasons: money, power, prestige, and influence. We have built a huge “industry” and it’s just too costly to dismantle it. Pastors, seminary professors, and denominational leaders aren’t going to give up their stable salaries and benefit packages for the church to return to its NT roots. No way! So they will continue to tweak the current systems/structures or appeal for a more sincere, heart-pure approach within current methodology.
Posted 28 Aug 2007 at 9:29 am ¶Tom: Thanks! I agree that there’s far too little cooperation going on. And I think denominationalism is one of the greatest contributors to the polarization of God’s people.
Chris: I am truly sorry if my posts sound arrogant to you. If anything, I was hoping to convey the opposite tone of humility and repentance in confessing that the church has gotten it wrong for nearly 2,000 years. While many seem to think we’re rich and in need of nothing (Rev. 3:17), I am one very insignificant voice to the contrary. I think that the condition of the Western church is shameful—rather than something to boast about—and it may explain our lack of spiritual power compared to the mighty exploits being experienced in other parts of the world. Our brothers and sisters in China, for example, are exploding in growth and power as a direct result (I believe) of meeting in small, mobile, easy-to-reproduce, low-overhead congregations. The same is true in South America. Do the math.
I agree with your point about worship: it has nothing to do with place. I wouldn’t look to a weekly meeting in someone’s home to fulfill my desire for worship. There is a lot more at stake than that! I don’t look at “church” as a place I go to worship, but as a family I belong to and friends I relate to and a context in which I can live out the Gospel. Those of us who belong to a local church and attend a large worship gathering rarely see each other more than once a week (if that). Why? Because we don’t have a close relationship. Why? Because we simply sit in the same building each week for worship and assume that’s the end of our spiritual duties. We may worship together, but we aren’t really fulfilling the spirit of the “one another” passages of Scripture, due to our lives only intersecting on Sundays. I contend that church is far more than that.
Posted 28 Aug 2007 at 10:15 am ¶The point I was making about arrogance was not a personal one, but a general comment on some of the “enlightened” views that I have been reading on this subject by some of its supporters. What does it mean to “be church”? Surely that is my life as a Christian, wherever I am, not just when meeting with fellow believers. My being salt and light in the office and factory where I work, living with my blood family (most of whom are not Christians), my leisure time as I referee, all that I do should reflect the fact that I am someone whose life has been transformed by the power of God. And funny though it may seem, the closest relationships that I have, have grown from sitting in a building worshiping alongside fellow believers. It’s a strange (and one that I have never heard) view that assumes that our responsibilities to and for each other start at 11am on a Sunday and finish at 12-30pm approx. We pray for one another, if there is a known need we practically help one another, we fellowship informally with one another. To be a caring, compassionate, practical Christian community is not the exclusive domain of the house church.
Posted 28 Aug 2007 at 1:13 pm ¶I don’t think that denominations have much to do with the problem. If they did, then non-denominational churches would enjoy unity amongst their diversity, but for the most part they don’t… they want conformity and uniformity. I think if two different congregations believe differently then there’s no problem saying one is “of Apollos” and one is “of Paul” when appropriate (not always so!), so long as we all know and acknowledge that both are of Christ, and that they need to work together most of the time. We can’t pretend we all agree the same because we don’t.
Small, simple churches allow us to be united closely with a tight-knit group. This model is somewhat exclusive by nature—you get close to your 12 disciples, then you are less close to everyone else than you are to them. However, this isn’t the same as division…small, different circles can still cooperate! I think this is a topic worth exploring.
Posted 28 Aug 2007 at 2:04 pm ¶I am delighted to see that, after all, there’s someone out there who cares about what is supposed to be the God-order of things, especially as also valued in the days of the biblical apostles. Many people, unfortunately, think that because something has been done by the majority for the longest automatically makes it the right thing; and such people do not consider that before it became the majority’s practice, it was done differently. That the people of God were 70 years in captivity to Babylon didn’t in any way mean that was how it was meant to remain—no wonder when it was time to return to the God-intended order, many remained in Babylon—after all, the already have “vineyards, houses and many other ‘investments’ in Babylon…and, what is more, the instruction to do this came from God himself at the inception of the 70 years, as they must have argued!
Truth is, there are many things in the Church today, not just fellowship meetings, that have been greatly influenced by “traditions of men” and which many have become very comfortable in, having known nothing else in their time…however, a time is coming, and indeed has come, when God is raising men and women who will insist on doing things the God-way; saying NO to traditions.
Posted 24 May 2008 at 9:11 pm ¶Post a Comment