The Advantages of the
Phil Lancaster
This
article is taken, with slight editing, from the NT Restoration Newsletter, August,
1991; 2752
The
For the first three-hundred years of its existence the church met primarily in
the homes of its members, not in specially designed buildings. There can be little
dispute that the meeting place for the first-century church was the home. Romans
16:5 (as well as 1 Corinthians
In 2 John there is a warning to the church not to receive false teachers into
their house (v. 10). This is not (as is often assumed) referring to individual
Christians who might have unbelievers in their homes for social and
evangelistic purposes; rather it is a warning to the church not to allow false
teachers to participate in the meeting. (Just one more example of how our
failure to adhere to the practice of the early church has led to a misunderstanding
and hence misinterpretation/misapplication of Scripture). Since participation
in the meeting implied the opportunity to speak it would have meant potential
harm to the church if a false teacher were allowed in the meeting. Paul
addresses this same danger elsewhere (2 Tim
Conversely, there is no real evidence that the early church met anywhere else
for their weekly meetings. True, Acts 1-5 pictures a church that was meeting
daily in houses and in the temple (
Were House Churches Cultural?
Some have speculated that this was a cultural phenomenon. The early church, it
is argued, met in homes in accordance with the culture of its day. Since in our
culture we are accustomed to meeting in buildings, we should continue to do so.
We should not think that the house-church is normative since it is a culturally
relative practice. This line of reasoning is easily answered. What other
religious group of the first century (besides the church) met exclusively in
homes? We know of none. The Jews met in the temple and synagogues; the pagan
religions at that time met in their pagan temples and shrines. So not only was
the house-church not the culture of the day, it actually went against the
culture of the day. The church could have patterned themselves after the other
religions of that day and met in specially designed buildings—the pattern was
there—but, significantly, they chose not to!
The Result of Persecution?
Others have suggested persecution as the reason that the early church met in
homes. This is usually based on a popular yet over-simplified view of church
history. It is a common assumption that the church suffered persecution on a
massive scale for the first three-hundred years of its existence. However, the
idea that the church was under constant persecution during this time has been largely
over-blown (as a perusal of any reputable church history manual will readily
show). The fact is, all persecution before A. D. 250 was sporadic, localized
and, more often than not, the result of mob hostility rather than the decree of
a Roman ruler. Moreover, the Roman rulers who were favorably disposed toward
Christianity outnumbered those who opposed it.
This is seen not only in church history but even in the book of Acts. Luke goes
to great lengths to show that the Roman authorities did not consider
Christianity a threat, but instead (whenever the Jews tried to eradicate
Christianity via the legal system) viewed it as a religious matter quite out of
their jurisdiction (cf. 16:35; 17:6-9; 18:12-16; 19:37-38; 23:29; 25:18-20;
25:24-27; 26:31-32). Richard Longenecker, in commenting on Luke's purpose for
writing Acts, puts it succinctly: Luke also takes pains to point out that
despite differences between the Christian message and that of Judaism, the
charge of religio illicita [i.e. illegal religion] had never been accepted by
any well-informed Roman official (The Acts of the Apostles, Expositor's Bible
Commentary [12 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981], 218-19). Even when
persecution did break out the church made no secret about where it met; hence
Saul knew just where to go when he went from house to house dragging members of
the church off to prison (Acts 8:3), and unbelievers knew just where to go if
they wanted to hear more about Christianity (1 Corinthians 14:23-25).
For the
Still others have dismissed house-churches as something characteristic of the
church in its infancy stage only. The apostles, it is argued, would naturally
have expected the church in later centuries to develop its own forms and
structures in keeping with the progress of Christianity. (One searches in vain
for any indication of this supposed expectation). Apart from a complete lack of
evidence to substantiate it, this explanation is demonstrably false. The church
of the First Century had a much different mindset than the church of later
centuries. Its main focus was on the coming of the Lord. Its members were
looking for and anticipating his arrival in their lifetimes. This is evident
from several passages: they were eagerly waiting for His Son and for the mercy
that would accompany him (1 Corinthians 1:7; 1 Thessalonians 1:10; Jude 21);
they were looking forward to the day of God and were speeding its coming (2 Pet
3:12) as they set [their] hope fully on the grace to be given [them] at the
revelation of Jesus Christ (1 Pet 1:13); in short, they were waiting for the
blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ
(Tit 2:13).
F. F. Bruce has well said, Whatever was implied by the church's adaptation in
her thought and life to the conditions of a second and further generations of
Christian existence in the world, her teachers continued, long after A.D. 70 (1),
to emphasize the certainty, and indeed the nearness, of the Parousia [i.e.
second coming]… Each successive Christian generation is called upon to live as
the generation of the end-time, if it is to live as a Christian generation.
[emphasis in original] (The Book of Hebrews [The New International Commentary
on the New Testament.
A Nomadic Church
The church of the first century followed in the footsteps of Abraham and the
other Old Testament saints who were looking forward to the city with
foundations, whose architect and builder is God (Heb 1 1:10). This present
world was a place in which they as strangers and aliens in a foreign land
showed the temporary nature of their stay here by dwelling in tents (11:9) and
in deserts and mountains, and in caves and holes in the ground (11:38). Because
their nomadic actions showed that they were anticipating another country, their
badge of honor is that God is not ashamed to be called their God (
The question must be asked: Has today's church demonstrated this alien mindset
by its plethora of building plans? Or is it rather the case that our actions
show forth a materialistic mindset that has been conformed to this world—one
that reasons to the effect that we're going to be here for a while so we might
as well settle down and get comfortable? It cannot be denied that, even to the
most casual observer, today's church is largely materialistic. We are a product
not of the First-Century church but of the Fourth-Century church. Moreover, we
have adopted not the alien philosophy of Abraham but the world's philosophy
that bigger is better, only we've changed the words to God deserves the best.
Is this not how we've justified posh mega-churches, plush pews, stained-glass
windows, extravagant church organs, exorbitant choir robes and the like
(usually to the neglect of real needs of the saints, such as food, clothing and
shelter)?
The contrast between the First-Century church practice of meeting exclusively
in homes and the current church practice of meeting in specially designed
buildings raises significant questions about the priorities and mind-set of
today's church. Are we eagerly awaiting and speeding the coming of our Lord? I
trust we are—in spite of our building mentality. My concern is that we are
secretly hoping he won't come until after we've had sufficient time to build
and enjoy that new addition to the building.
Is Bigger Better?
It is often argued that a large church is better equipped than a small church
(or, in this case, a house-church) to organize and finance those causes which
are biblical, such as the sending of missionaries. However, this argument
assumes that local churches are to be completely independent of each other. It
certainly does not argue against a network of house-churches which cooperate
with each other in the sending out of missionaries. In fact, the argument
backfires. One mega-church with one thousand members could never match the
resource potential of a network of house-churches with one thousand members, for
the mega-church of necessity must allocate huge amounts of its resources for
the building itself (initial building costs as well as maintenance and utility
bills—all of which could exceed hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars).
The above has of course been argued purely from a pragmatic perspective since
that seems to be the basis upon which the mega-church builds its ecclesiology.
It needed to be shown that the New Testament pattern is in fact more
financially pragmatic than the institutional church. From a purely New
Testament perspective this kind of argumentation is unnecessary. The church of
the First Century did not equate bigness with ability. The words of Paul to
this effect bear repeating: God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame
the wise; God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He
chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things
that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before
him (1 Corinthians
The world system operates from the principle that bigger is better. To those in
this system, success is measured by size and might is measured by muscle. This
is not the way it is to be with those who claim to be not of the world. On the
contrary, to adopt the world's philosophy of strength is to be conformed to
this world (Rom 12:2). Unfortunately, this is just what the contemporary church
has done. This is a serious charge but one that is easily substantiated. A
quick browse through the aisles of any Christian bookstore will soon reveal the
immense popularity of how-to books filled with all kinds of suggestions for
church growth, including everything from management techniques to marketing
strategies. (One wonders if one hasn't stumbled into a Wall Street bookseller’s
warehouse by mistake!) One such book is blatantly entitled Marketing the Church
(George Barna, NavPress, 1991)—not even an attempt at subtlety!
These techniques and strategies are, of course, conspicuously absent from the
scriptures. True, an attempt is made now and again to quote a Bible verse here
and there to give the appearance of being biblical. Nevertheless, as one checks
the references, one is made painfully aware that this amounts to little more
than prooftexting. No amount of make-up can for very long disguise the
world-philosophy that it masks.
This leads us to our next consideration—the actual size of the first-century
house-church. Some have argued that the church of the first century made it a
point to meet in the homes of its wealthiest members, often concluding that
several hundred people could meet together at once in these ancient mansions. A
Third Century house found along the River Euphrates which had been adapted for
church meetings (and which could hold about one hundred people) is usually held
up as evidence. It is also pointed out that there is evidence to suggest that
in some cases the wealthy members of the church willed their homes to the
church after they died. This data is usually then transferred to the practice of
the First Century church, Philemon often being cited as one example of a rich
Christian who may have had a house large enough to accommodate hundreds of
church members.
However, this data is anachronistic. As has already been pointed out, the house
found along the
House Churches Were Small Churches
There is no doubt that, where available, the church did indeed meet in the
homes of its wealthy members. However, in New Testament times the architecture
of houses was much more modest than it was in later centuries. New Testament
scholar Robert Banks has demonstrated that this applied even to the wealthy
homes. He says: The entertaining room in a moderately well-to-do household
could hold around thirty people comfortably—perhaps half as many again in an emergency....
it is unlikely that a meeting of the ‘whole church’ could have exceeded forty
to forty-five people, and many may well have been smaller.... In any event we
must not think of these [church meetings] as particularly large... Even the meetings
of the ‘whole church’ were small enough for a relatively intimate relationship
to develop between the members (Paul's Idea of Community: The Early House
Churches in Their Historical Setting [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988], 41-42).
The size of the house-church becomes a crucial factor for the relative
effectiveness of other New Testament church practices as well. The Lord's
Supper (properly conducted with one loaf and one cup), the Love Feast, mutual
participation, etc., are all essential elements of a church meeting; yet all
have been fully or partially abandoned in today's church simply because these
practices are no longer functional. Why have they ceased to be functional? It
must be kept in mind that the letters which are written to the New Testament
churches are in fact written to house-churches. Because they are written to
house-churches the instructions contained in them are geared to work in a small
group setting—they were never meant to work in a large-group setting.
Consequently, they don't work in a large group setting.
To attempt to apply New Testament church practices to our contemporary large
church is just as unnatural as pouring new wine into old wine-skins (Matt.
9:17). Ironically, the institutional church has attempted to rectify this by
abandoning the new wine and holding on to the old wine-skins. Consequently,
today's church more closely resembles Judaism or Catholicism than it does New
Testament Christianity. The solution lies not in following the traditions of
men, but in a return to the practice of the early church. Only in returning to
her roots will today's church be able to act as a proper receptacle for new
wine.
Intimacy and Accountability Require Smallness
Intimacy, accountability, and church discipline are all directly affected by
the size of the church meeting. Intimacy was one of our Lord's most critical
concerns for his church. This is evident from his prayer in John 17 (the real
Lord's prayer) in which he prays that all of them may be one (v. 21, 22), that
they may be brought to complete unity (v. 23), and thus to let the world know
that you sent me (v. 23). Paul echoes this concern when he writes, [we have]
opened wide our hearts to you. We are not withholding our affection from you,
but you are withholding yours from us. As a fair exchange—I speak as to my
children —open wide your hearts also (2 Corinthians.
Closely allied with intimacy, accountability is also an important theme in the
New Testament. James
It was not difficult in the small house-churches to test the spirits to see
whether they are from God (1 John 4:1). It was obvious in such a close-knit
group who was living in righteousness and who was living in sin, for they held
each other accountable. This meant exhorting one another on a daily basis (Heb.
Indeed this was one of the identifying marks of the early church. In one of the
earliest outside testimonials to this aspect of the early church (A. D.
111-112), Pliny, a proconsul in the Roman Empire, wrote the following to the
Emperor Trajan: they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before
sunrise and reciting an antiphonal hymn to Christ as God, and binding
themselves with an oath—not to commit any crime, but to abstain from all acts
of theft, robbery and adultery, from breaches of faith, from denying a trust
when called upon to honor it [italics mine] (from F. F. Bruce, New Testament
History [New York: Doubleday, 1969], 423-24). One cannot read this testimonial
without a deep sense of awareness that today's church is demonstrably shallow
in comparison. How many contemporary churches are characterized by this kind of
accountability? I dare say not many. Personal accountability is seen as
something that is culturally relative.
Since in our Western culture we are creatures of isolation (you mind your
business and I'll mind mine), accountability in today's church amounts to
little more than making sure one attends both Sunday and Wednesday night
services! Suggesting that one give an account of his words, thoughts, and
actions during the week is tantamount to sticking one’s nose where it doesn't
belong. What a sad commentary on today's church! No wonder sexual immorality
(no less other sins) has become so rampant in the church—and especially among
her so-called leaders! Plainly and simply, there is no accountability; and when
there is no accountability, there is no effective guard against sin.
Modern Churches: Big and Full of Sin
Although clearly taught in Scripture, church discipline is rarely practiced
today. The standard excuse given for not practicing church discipline is that
the recipient would then only leave the church and go to another. Instead (it
is argued) we should love them back to obedience. We should not be harsh with
them, but rather should reaffirm them and restore than. In response to this it
must first be said that it is the epitome of arrogance to presume that we are
being more loving by not disciplining than the Apostle was by disciplining (1 Corinthians.
5:5,11). To discipline one who is in error is to love him (Heb. 12:6). Moreover,
the church is commanded to practice church discipline—it is not an option! To
refuse to practice church discipline (for whatever reason) is to compound the
sin. In such a case the church becomes just as guilty as the one she refuses to
discipline. Jesus said, Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord’ and do not do what I
say? (Luke 6:46). The church that refuses to discipline is in open rebellion
against Christ and therefore has no right to call him Lord. To that extent it
ceases to be a
Intimacy, accountability and church discipline are inseparable concepts. The
three go hand in hand. There can be no church discipline without
accountability, and there can be no accountability without intimacy.
To demonstrate that this is true, one need go no further than today's church.
It is no secret that church discipline is virtually non-existent in the church
today. Is this because today's church is so morally pure? Hardly. Rather it is
because there is no accountability. One could conceivably (and many in fact do)
attend the same church week after week, hiding himself in the back row,
partaking of all that the church meeting has to offer, and, for the rest of the
week, live as immorally as he desires without anyone being the wiser. To take
the problem one step further, the reason that there is no accountability is
because there is no intimacy. The same person described above could mingle
freely with others in the church and be in absolutely no danger of being found
out. What permits this? What permits this is the incredibly low level of
intimacy (or, more accurately, lack of intimacy) in most churches. A
half-hearted attempt at intimacy is usually made every church meeting, but this
rarely amounts to little more than a handshake and a smile accompanied by how
is everything?, usually in an aloof, alienating (albeit polite) tone of voice
that makes it exceedingly clear to the recipient that what is really expected
is no response at all.
Families Belong in Houses
Finally, the overarching significance of the house-church is found in its
underlying theology of community. The church is often depicted by the New
Testament in terms which describe a family; we are seen both as the household
of faith (Galatians 6:10) and as the household of God (Ephesians 2:19). Male
Christians (as well as Christians generically) arc called brothers (Colossians
4:7, 1 John
Granted, these references are familiar territory to most Christians; yet it is
striking that this concept of the church as family is. Seldom given more than a
superficial acknowledgment in today's church. Indeed, as we have already shown,
the degree of intimacy in most cases goes little further than a casual
acquaintanceship.
Not so in the New Testament church. The house-church of the New Testament was a
conducive setting for developing the kind of interpersonal family relationships
demanded by the New Testament theology of community. In the words of Robert
Banks, the house-churches blended with a further, theologically based
consideration (Paul's Idea of Community: The Early House Churches in Their
Historical Setting [
In contrast to this, today's church is far too large, rigid, and formal to convey
the New Testament theology of community. In the foreword to Del Birkey's book
(The House Church: A Model for Renewing the Church.
In closing, it must be insisted that the institutional church harbors (indeed,
accommodates nicely) nominal Christianity—it is the unavoidable consequence of
its structure. Only with difficulty can it qualify as a New Testament church.
The house-church, on the other hand, produces a very different kind of
Christianity. No one from the ranks of the uncommitted could for very long feel
comfortable in such an intimate setting. With its demand for accountability of
all its members and discipline toward the disobedient, the house-church would
soon weed out the uncommitted. The result would be a church which, although not
perfect, approaches the simplicity, vitality, intimacy, and purity of the New
Testament church. Few goals can be deemed more worthy of pursuit.
*** Comments RKM: The author of
this article is a futurist, but it doesn’t take away from the point he is
trying to make. The relationship between a “church” building and homes still
remains.