Biblical and Practical Advantages for Meeting Within Homes
Whenever we think of
planting churches, we imagine the process as starting within a home and,
eventually, ending with the purchase of a building. We tend to pity those who
do not have the means to secure their own "sanctuary." We might even
look upon them as "second-class" churches because they lack the
apparent amenities of a spacious building. But should house-churches really be
pitied? Are they truly "second-class" churches? The following truths
will help to answer such questions and, hopefully, demonstrate the practical
wisdom of gathering within homes over large, religious edifices.
1. For the first three-hundred
years of its existence, the Church of Jesus Christ met almost exclusively in
private homes, as opposed to large buildings specially designed for religious
services (Acts 20:20; Romans 16:5; 1 Corinthians 16:19; Colossians 4:15;
Philemon v.2; 2 John v.10). Howard Snyder notes that "Christians did not
begin to build church buildings until about A.D. 200. This fact suggests that,
whatever else church buildings are good for, they are not essential either for
numerical growth or spiritual depth. The early church possessed both these
qualities, and the church’s greatest period of vitality and growth until recent
times was during the first two centuries A.D. In other words, the church grew
fastest when it did not have the help or hindrance of church buildings" (The
Problem of Wineskins, p.69).
2. There is nothing wrong about
meeting in a building per se. However, if a group chooses to do so it must be
careful to not erect a structure or procure internal furnishings which stifle
mutual edification and participation from the saints (e.g., pulpit, pews, a
rigid "order of worship," etc.). In other words, any property or
building must be held lightly and should be an expression of a clear biblical
understanding of the true nature of the church. Buildings, therefore, should be
functional and conducive to the body-life principles of the New
Testament (Romans 12:4-8; 1 Corinthians 12:4-14; 14:12,26-32; Ephesians
4:11-16; Colossians 3:16; Hebrews 10:24-25; 1 Peter 4:10-11). Structure, you
see, is important, for the structure of your congregational meetings can
either liberate the saints for ministry, or it can suppress genuine interaction
and participation!
3. Homes are conducive to the
family concept and mutual edification which should mark the gatherings of
Christians. It is amazing how "religious" and tight-lipped people get
when they enter a church building. The setting and furnishings all give the
impression that one has entered the holy of holies and that the only thing
expected of him or her is to be silent and "maintain an attitude of
worship." What a contrast this is with the atmosphere and setting of the
house-church where the saints interact, serve and fellowship with one another!
Mutual edification is much easier in a home than in the more traditional church
setting. Many people have difficulty sharing burdens or a word of exhortation
in a common church structure, but such difficulties are greatly reduced when
the assembly meets in a home.
4. To speak of a "church
building" is to apply a wrong and misleading name since, according to the
New Testament, God’s "building" or "temple" is not a
pile of bricks but, instead, the people of God – "You are God’s field,
God’s building" (1 Corinthians 3:9,16-17; 6:19; Hebrews 3:6; 1 Peter 2:5).
Is it not obvious that our ecclesiastical traditions have distorted the clear
teaching of Scripture? Walter Oetting writes,
"If you had asked, ‘Where is the church?’ in any important city of the
ancient world where Christianity had penetrated in the first century, you would
have been directed to a group of worshipping people gathered in a house.
There was no special building or other tangible wealth with which to associate
‘church,’ only people!" (The Church of the Catacombs, p.25).
5. A home is a much better setting
for the celebration of the Lord’s Supper which, by the way, is an informal,
full-on meal (Matthew 26:17-29; 1 Corinthians 10:16-22; 11:17-34). The late
William Barclay once said, "There can be no two things more different than
the celebration of the Lord’s Supper in a Christian home in the first century
and in a cathedral in the twentieth century. The things are so different that
it is almost possible to say that they bear no relationship to each other
whatsoever. The liturgical splendor of the twentieth century was in the first
century not only unthought of; it was totally impossible"
(The Lord’s Supper, p.101).
6. To spend large sums of the
Lord’s money on building projects, maintenance and renovation is a waste of
God’s money (at least in most cases). It is to squander money on that which is
to perish. Instead of using such funds to send out more church planters, feed
the poor, assist needy believers, and promote the spread of the Gospel, we
"evangelicals" have used it to build elaborate cathedrals and huge
auditoriums which, in most cases, are only used once or twice a week. Is this
being a good steward of the financial resources which God provides? How many
churches even stop to consider the necessity of a church building in the first
place? Do you think that on the great day of judgment
Christ will be pleased with our plush and gaudy edifices? Does it grieve your
heart that most "evangelical" churches have a larger budget for
building projects, staff salaries, and maintenance than for missions, the poor, and people-oriented ministries? What does this reveal
about our priorities?
7. The building of permanent and
extravagant structures appears to betray our belief that Christ is coming soon
and that, as believers, we are a pilgrim people. One brother has said it well,
"To spend wasted money and time building large, beautiful places of
worship knowing that the Lord might come at any time was unthinkable to the New
Testament church. The fact that the church today has no problem with the idea
of spending both time and money building large, extravagant buildings is really
only a reflection of just how much we’re not expecting Jesus to come
back any time soon! The church of the first century followed in the footsteps
of Abraham and other Old Testament saints who were "looking forward to the
city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God" (Hebrews 11:10)
. . . 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?’"
8. House-Churches are an effective
witness to unbelievers. Meeting within a home means that the Gospel and
brotherly, Christian love becomes audible and visible to all. The unbeliever,
therefore, observes our fellowship and hospitality as well as hears our prayers
and songs. While it is not the only method of witnessing that God may use, it
is an effective one.
9. The idea that Christians must
meet in specially designed buildings is contrary to the New Testament which
places no significance on where one chooses to worship (John 4:20-24;
Acts 17:24). In fact, such an emphasis on buildings, temples, and external
furnishings comes from an Old Testament economy and not from the New Covenant
which attaches no importance to such matters.
10. Some have supposed that if
Christians were to meet in homes, a great deal of reverence would be lost. The
"service" would lose its formality and the proper reverence directed
toward God would diminish. But this argument assumes that a Christian
gathering is to be "formal," whereas we know from the New Testament
that early church meetings were quite simple and informal. They were nothing
like the highly liturgical and formalistic meetings that mark our places of
worship. Moreover, we must remember that reverence is the attitude of one’s
heart toward God and is, therefore, not dependent upon its external
surroundings. Besides, why can’t reverence for God be maintained within the
house-church setting?
11. It is not necessarily
"cultic" to meet in a home. A group is considered "cultic"
when its doctrines deviate from Scripture; when it possesses an authoritarian
form of leadership; or when individual members are not permitted freedom of
thought – not simply because it chooses to meet within a home! In fact,
the "cultic" argument against house-churches is really
counterproductive, for many cults and false religions own vast amounts of
property or religious buildings (e.g., Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Christian
Science, Masons, Islam, et al.). Should we assume that these groups are
legitimate simply because they possess "official" places of worship?
Furthermore, many Christian denominations, which own large churches and
property, are not always free themselves from false or
aberrational teachings, apostasy or unfaithful pastors? Thus, meeting in an
"official" church building is no guarantee that a congregation will
be free from cultism or heresy. We must remember the words of John Newton:
"Let not him who worships under a steeple condemn him who worships under a
chimney."
12. Historically, many renewal
movements which helped to correct the abuses of the established and
institutional churches, have met within homes (e.g., the Anabaptists,
Mennonites, the Methodist "class" meetings, the early Brethren
movement). Thus, contemporary evangelicals must remember better their
ecclesiological heritage and roots.
13. Persecution has historically
forced Christians to abandon official church buildings and meet within homes
where, instead of growing weak because they must gather in houses, they have
grown strong, close-knit, and learned more fully what it means to be the family
of God. It has been the house-church model which has most consistently
promoted such qualities, not the church building model.
14. The house-church is a culturally
relevant model which can be adapted in any geographical region or culture. This
is not necessarily so when attempting to erect a church building in a foreign
country, for not only do building permits have to be secured before the church
can "officially" gather (in some cases taking several months to
obtain), but the building itself is often viewed with suspicion and identified
more with the "Americanization" of their culture and land. By
establishing churches within the existing homes, people will tend to feel less
threatened by foreign missionary structures and more apt to participate in a
setting that is both familiar and comfortable. Roland Allen, in his classic
work, Missionary Methods:
By our eagerness to
secure property for the church we often succeed in raising
up many difficulties in the way of our preaching. We sometimes, especially
perhaps in such a country as
15. The church building model, with
its plush carpeting, soft pews, and various attempts to encourage a family-home
atmosphere, will never fully achieve its goal because, from the outset, it’s
the wrong setting and structure. Unconsciously, it is desperately trying to
be a house-church, but never will. It wants all the benefits and blessings
which meeting in a home brings, but is unable to shed its rigid and
institutional shell.
16. The argument that the early
church was forced to meet within homes because of persecution will not stand
for the following reasons: (1) Persecution of Christians was not as intense and
widespread as is commonly assumed. It was sporadic and did not necessarily
affect all the churches at the same time. (2) When persecution did arise, they
primarily gathered in the catacombs where greater safety and privacy could be
found. (3) Even when persecution did break out, the early Christians made it no
secret where it met; hence Saul knew just where to go when he sought to
imprison Christians (Acts 8:3). The interesting point here is that when
believers were faced with persecution, many of them still continued to meet
within homes. This demonstrates a continued preference, even in the face of
hostility, for the house-church model.
17. Even the great Protestant
Reformer, Martin Luther, believed in and understood the value of having Christians
meet within homes in order to have their services. In fact, Luther wrote about
three types of divine services. The Latin liturgy and the German service were
for the unlearned people, many of whom were not even believers. Those services
should continue, he believed, for the primary purpose of evangelism. However, a
third kind of service was most needful – a "truly evangelical" one.
It would be held privately for those "who want to be Christians in earnest
and who profess the Gospel with hand and mouth." Luther describes such a
gathering:
[They] should sign their
names and meet alone in a house somewhere to pray, to read, to baptize,
to receive the sacrament, and to do other Christian works. According to this
order, those who do not lead Christian lives could be known, reproved,
corrected, cast out, or excommunicated, according to the rule of Christ
(Matthew 18). Here one could also solicit benevolent gifts to be willingly
given and distributed to the poor, according to
Luther confessed,
however, that he did not have the people to implement such an important task
(this is because church attendance in Protestant territories was compulsory and
also because a high percentage of the members were unregenerate):
As yet I neither can nor
desire to begin such a congregation or assembly or to make rules for it. For I have not yet the people or persons for it, nor do I see many
who want it. But if I should be requested to do it and could not refuse
with a good conscience, I should gladly help and do my part as best I can.
What needs to be
understood here is that Luther was not talking about a small group within a
large parish. Rather, he was talking about small house-churches with their own
sacramental practice and ministry of the Word!
18. The kind of church meeting
described in the New Testament suggests a small group setting as its primary
worship context. Much of what the New Testament records about early church gatherings
will not fit into the large group meeting, no matter how much we try to force
it. Paul’s exhortations to the various churches presupposes
the small group or house-church setting:
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 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
wineskins (Matthew 9:17). Ironically, the institutional church structure has
attempted to rectify this by abandoning the "new wine" and holding on
to the "old wineskins." Consequently, today’s church more closely
resembles Judaism or Catholicism than it does New Testament Christianity
("Toward A House-Church Theology" [Part 2] New
Testament Restoration Newsletter [October – 1991, Vol.1/No.6] p.2).
Written by Darryl
M. Erkel (1997)
Suggested
Del Birkey,
The
[ed.
Steve Atkerson] Toward A
House-Church Theology (Atlanta, GA: New Testament Restoration Foundation, 1996).
John R. Davis, "How
Church Structures Can Effectively Help or Hinder Church Growth," Evangel
(Autumn – 1992), pp.73-83.
Robert Banks, Paul’s
Idea of Community (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers Reprint, 1994). See
also Robert & Julia Banks, The Church Comes Home (Australia:
Albatross Books, 1986).
Frank A. Viola, Rethinking
the Wineskin: The Practice of the New
Lois
Barrett, Building the