There is currently a phenomenon sweeping the world called ‘house church’. It has been said that more Christians worldwide belong to house churches than any other kind of church. Studies show that the most rapid church planting movements today use small home gatherings (David Garrison, Church Planting Movements, p.35). Those of us who take seriously Christ’s directive to make disciples of all nations (Mat 28:19-20) might well ask what lessons can be learned from the house church movement. But, first, let’s define what a house church is.

What is a House Church?

A house church is not simply a prayer group or Bible study group familiar to most Christians today. Although there is much in common between them, a house church is not even a cell group, which belongs to a pyramid structure with a senior minister at the top. Different from traditional congregations dotting our western landscape---with a building, career clergy, lots of expensive programs, and the main Sunday morning service---house churches are an attempt to get back to the basics of Christian community and mission. Stated positively, house churches are fully functioning churches in and of themselves, with the freedom to partake of the Lord’s Supper, baptize, marry, bury, and exercise discipline. They are lay led and meet in homes in groups of 10-30 people for prayer and worship, Bible study and discussion, mentoring and outreach, as well as food and fun. Because they are typically autonomous, they more easily adapt to persecution and growth, but are also more vulnerable to bad theology and behavior. Consequently, many voluntarily become part of a house church network for health, stability, and accountability. If this sounds like the next new fad being promoted by reactionaries and misfits, think again; house churches have a long and noble history.

House Churches Then and Now

The house church is as old as the New Testament itself. Jesus chose twelve to be with him as disciples who would later be sent out as apostles (Mark 3:13), effectively modeling the type of intimacy, interaction, and accountability only possible in a small discipleship circle. The apostles found themselves leading a Jerusalem church numbering in the thousands and meeting primarily in private homes soon after Pentecost (Acts 2:46, 5:42, 12:12, 16:14-15, 20:20). The apostle Paul wrote to groups of disciples throughout the Roman Empire, greeting by name folks who hosted Christian gatherings in their homes (Rom 16:3-5; 1 Cor 16:19; Col 4:15-16; Philemon 1:2).

First century homes were able to accommodate at most 35 people comfortably (Del Birkey, The House Church, p.55). This helped maintain a kind of up-close-and-personal atmosphere in the early church meetings. As such, many New Testament directives begin to make real sense in this context, such as instructions to accept (Rom 15:7), instruct (Rom 15:14; Col 3:13, 16), encourage (1 Thes 5:11; Heb 3:13), forgive (Eph 4:32), confess our sins to (Jam 5:16), and pray for one another (Jam 5:16). Everyone had God-given capacities (1 Cor 12:7-11) that they used to build up others: “When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church” (1 Cor 14:26; see also Col 3:16, Eph 5:19, Heb 10:24-25).

This kind of small home group pattern seems to have existed up until about the early fourth century, after which the emperor Constantine (c. 313 AD) began constructing church buildings. Private home meetings were marginalized and eventually outlawed for fear of heresy and splinter groups. But, according to Peter Bunton in Cell Groups and House Churches and Wolfgang Simson in Houses that Change the World, that’s not the end of the story.

Priscillian, a Spanish nobleman in the late fourth century, was joined by some bishops and priests in rebelling against the state church and fomenting a lay movement of house churches, called ‘brotherhoods’, throughout Spain and France. There were, however, legitimate concerns about Priscillian’s espousal of Gnostic-Manichean dualism, in which salvation consisted of freedom from the evil nature of matter. He was eventually arrested and executed in Trier, France.

Similar movements followed over the next millennium: Cathars, Bogomils, Waldensians, Lollards, Hussites, etc. Some attempted to reform the state church, whereas others wanted to separate from it. Some were more orthodox in their doctrine than others. A common element was meeting in private homes. Whether this was due to persecution and poverty or from theological conviction is difficult to determine. House churches, however, continued to challenge the established church in its thinking and practice in the wake of the Reformation.

Martin Luther (1483-1546), the German Reformer, suggested in his 1526 book The German Mass and Order of Service, that a third order of service in private homes should supplement the public Latin and German language masses. The purpose would be for prayer, Bible reading, baptism, and the Lord’s Supper. Luther later changed his mind because of the potential divisiveness of such groups, which could start claiming they were the only true Christians.

Caspar von Schwenckfeld (1490-1561) became an outlawed Reformer because of strong disagreements with Luther over ecclesiology. He was on the run throughout Europe fleeing persecution by Lutheran preachers, all the while starting home fellowship groups that focused on prayer and Bible study. To avoid further aggravating the state church, he did not encourage baptism or the Lord’s Supper in these gatherings.

Jean de Labadie (1610-1674), a Jesuit priest turned Protestant minister and theology professor, began establishing ‘conventicles’ in Switzerland and Holland. These home gatherings were for prayer, singing, Bible study, discussion, and free prophecy. He refused to bow to the authority of the Reformed church in Holland, would not sign the Belgian Confession, and was eventually excommunicated.

Philip Jacob Spener (1635-1705), founder of Pietism, sought to supplement Sunday morning services with home groups called ‘pious gatherings’ in which the priesthood of all believers would be practiced. Pastors or professors would serve as qualified facilitators of these groups, whose focus was discipleship and holiness. As such these were not full-blown house churches, but rather home cell groups. Spener’s movement was eventually suppressed in his hometown of Frankfurt, but it went on to influence the Moravians and Methodists, who in turn sparked the 18th century Great Awakening.

John Wesley (1703-1791), Anglican priest and founder of Methodism, sought to gather the thousands of converts from his public preaching into small groups of six to twelve people for accountability and discipleship. These ‘classes’ and ‘bands’ gathered together regularly as an entire ‘society’ for a lecture-type teaching and hymn singing. At the time of his death, Wesley had established roughly 10,000 small groups.

Today, there is a massive influx into the Body of Christ through both full-blown house churches and cell groups. China, Cambodia, Cuba, India, and Vietnam together have over 100 million people involved in house churches. Other places like Korea, Singapore, Equador, El Salvador, and Columbia, are seeing tens of thousands enter the kingdom through cell groups, with its equal emphasis on cell group home meetings and large group worship services (Joel Comiskey, Home Cell Group Explosion). North Americans and Europeans have been slow in adopting either approach. However, this is changing as evidenced by the rise of influential cell churches and related ministries (Dove Christian Fellowship International, Bethany Cell Church Network, Touch Publications) as well as by the thousands of house churches, regional house church networks, and home church resources that are emerging (see the websites: www.housechurch.ca, www.house2house.tv, and www.ntrf.org).

Practical Lessons for Today

There are some important lessons we can learn from this brief look at house churches and cell groups.

Early Church Example: During its first three centuries Christianity was a network of small discipleship circles that met in homes. That this was a deliberate pattern initiated by Christ and propagated by the apostles is seen in the New Testament.

Exponential: Because of their multiplying nature house churches and cell groups are able to accommodate a harvest which is beyond the capability of the traditional program-based church. To fulfill the Great Commission in the face of global population growth, we need to get smaller to grow bigger.

Efficient: House churches in particular are natural, simple, inexpensive, duplicatable, and easily adapted to all contexts regardless of poverty or persecution or a lack thereof.

Equal Opportunity: Since the Reformation there has been mainly a theoretical assent to the Biblical principle of the priesthood of all believers. With their participative and interactive nature, both house churches and cell groups are able to practically release so-called lay people to utilize their spiritual gifts.

Entropy: Autonomous groups are often precursors to cults and sects. As such, to maintain health (doctrinal and behavioral) and prevent instability (scattering and insularity), house churches in particular need to be involved in relational accountability networks with others of like mind. This will also prevent the pride and prejudice that often accompanies those involved in something new. Cell groups, on the other hand, are already part of a built-in pyramid accountability structure within their cell church. Traditional churches, hopefully, would then welcome the emergence of the house church phenomenon as a divine renewal agent for the health of the entire Body of Christ, rather than persecuting it as in times past.

About the Author

Rad Zdero, Ph.D., earned his doctorate in Mechanical Engineering from Queen’s University in Kingston, Canada. He is currently part of House Church Canada, a team fostering a network of house churches in the greater Toronto area. Contact www.housechurch.ca, rad@housechurch.ca, 905-820-8846, Mail: Box 42067, 128 Queen St.S, Mississauga, ON, Canada, L5M-4Z0.

Original Publication of this Article

Rad Zdero, “The House Church Movement: A Brief History”, The Free Methodist Herald, vol. 80, no. 3, page 6-7, May/June 2002, www.fmc-canada.org.