New Testament churches met in homes instead of public buildings (Romans 16:5, 1 Corinthians 16:19, Colossians 4:15, Philemon 1-2, 2 John 10-11, Acts 8:3, and Acts 20:20-21). Meeting in homes began with the birth of the church and lasted for approximately 300 years. Early church historian Henry Chadwick, former professor at Oxford, writes, "The earliest churches were simply private houses... It was not until the fourth century that churches acquired a 'public' style of architecture and became recognizable as such."¹

While most professing Christians today are unaware that the early church met in homes, even those who are aware of this fact typically believe that they are free to depart from the model of the New Testament. Yet this is a crucial mistake. Very few today understand vital truths that the New Testament repeatedly describes about church life, summarized by two statements. First, apostolic example and tradition are prescriptive, not merely descriptive. Second, the traditions that the apostles handed down are to be practiced in all churches everywhere. Several verses exemplify these two precepts:

That is why I sent you Timothy, my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach them everywhere in every church. (1 Corinthians 4:17)

This is my rule in all the churches. (1 Corinthians 7:17)

So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter. (2 Thessalonians 2:15)

Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us. (2 Thessalonians 3:6)

Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you. (1 Corinthians 11:2)

In today's churches, diversity of practice is celebrated. The above verses clearly speak against diversity of practice in favor of uniformity, a strange and unpopular concept today. Even concerning controversial issues, Paul writes, "If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God" (1 Corinthians 11:16). Practices, no matter how difficult or counter-cultural, should be observed uniformly "as in all the churches of the saints" (1 Corinthians 14:33). Paul was very familiar with the churches in Judea, Asia Minor, Macedonia, and Greece -- places that were incredibly diverse linguistically, culturally, and religiously (Jewish versus Gentile/pagan). In this light, it is all the more remarkable that Paul emphasized such uniformity of practice.

The foundation of meeting in house-churches is thus the apostolic model. But there is more to church gatherings than the venue. Whether in a house-church or building, there are key elements described in the New Testament that we must practice. Most of these practices are facilitated by being in a house-church. What are some obvious practices and traditions of the apostolic church? Five characteristics are particularly highlighted in the New Testament.

1. Church is primarily a time for people to come and give with their words, not to be spectators. The early church meetings were interactive, around a meal, and felt more like a family dinner. Thus, in the New Testament, group interaction and encouragement were a centerpiece: "When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson..." (1 Corinthians 14:26). Ben Witherington III nicely summarizes Paul's teaching in his letters to the Corinthians:

   The worship, at least in Corinth, involved the participation of most, if not all, of those present. It was not a performance of a few superstars for the benefit of the many, who were reduced to an audience. Worship and fellowship were acts that required giving by all the participants... He definitely does not assume or support the notion of a preacher or a service dominated by preaching, unless one concludes that prophecy was the equivalent of preaching. Paul, however, expects several prophets, not just one, to speak in a given act of worship. Paul also knows nothing about a special class of Christians with "ministerial" gifts, a special class of Christian priests or clergy. The clergy-laity distinction does not exist in the NT [New Testament].²

   In the fourth century, after the Edict of Milan, the church departed from the apostolic model and began to meet in a fashion similar to pagan Greco-Roman models. Churches became more like theaters where most people were passive and did not bring a hymn or a lesson. In contrast, the very purpose of the apostolic church's gathering was so that each person could "encourage one another" (Hebrews 10:25).
2. The New Testament assumes that each member of a church will have strong accountability. "But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler -- not even to eat with such a one" (1 Corinthians 5:11). This passage presumes that people in the church know a great deal about one another's lives -- after all, greed is not always outwardly visible. This kind of accountability requires time and deep relationship. In many churches today, you may be sitting with people whose names you do not know. The anonymity of most modern churches is completely antithetical to the New Testament practice which calls for radical accountability.
3. Those who are elders or pastors should actually be in the lives and serving those whom they are supposed to be shepherding. This presumes that the pastor and elders know the people in their church, and know them well! The word "pastor" is the word "shepherd" in Greek (poimenas). In Jesus' parable, the pastor (shepherd) goes after one lost sheep out of a hundred. Sadly, in many of today's churches, the pastor does not even know the names of many people who are regularly in the church. How different this is from the compassionate shepherd Jesus describes who knows each of his sheep by name! Ezekiel 34:1-10 offers a powerful warning to leaders, which those who call themselves pastors should remember and heed. In this passage God's wrath comes down upon shepherds who have supposedly been tending God's people for centuries, but have instead proven negligent. (Also see Acts 20:26-35.) Accountability and close shepherding would necessarily limit the number of believers in a given church: shepherds can properly tend a limited number of sheep.
4. The Lord's supper was celebrated as a meal, based on the Passover meal and looking forward to the Marriage supper of the Lamb. It was meant to be an interactive time of sharing, not a time of individual silence. Moreover, the mournful introspection now seen as appropriate to the Lord's supper only conveys half of the emotion that the meal actually represents. Instead, we are to both remember the sacrifice of the Lord (the Passover) and anticipate his joyful return (the Marriage supper of the lamb). (See Luke 22:14-18 and Revelation 19:6-9.) The modern practice of a sip of juice and piece of bread was developed in the fourth century as the church took on institutional characteristics; it was no longer possible to share a meal as hundreds of people poured into buildings. However, expediency cannot and should not alter the sacraments, which is exactly what has occurred in churches since the fourth century.
5. The New Testament redefines the notion of the priest. Peter tells us that all believers are priests (1 Peter 2:9) and that the Holy Spirit has been given to all believers (Acts 2:17). When our churches elevate one or more people, sometimes physically on a lofty podium, sometimes through titles or garments, we abandon and betray the biblical principle of the priesthood of all believers. Indeed, Jesus clearly prohibited the wearing of costumes (robes, headdresses, stoles, or staffs) and the use of honorific titles (Matthew 23:5-10). Our meetings should demonstrate the priesthood of all believers, as the apostolic model surely does, unlike the modern, hierarchical model. The modern theater-model for church in which the "professionals" face the audience could not be more different than that described in the New Testament.

The teaching and example of the New Testament should be sufficient to compel us to adopt the apostolic practices of church life. Yet in addition to the authority of God's word, there are numerous benefits of choosing the house-church model over the modern institutional model.

First, house churches are able to be far more effective in giving. Allan Karr at Golden Gate Seminary notes that approximately 75% of money collected in the American church goes back into the church itself (salaries, building costs, insurance, etc.). He notes that the modern church model is fine "if you like buildings. But I think the reason house churches are becoming more popular is that their resources are going into something more meaningful." In today's age of western Christians with so much wealth, can we stand before the Lord and justify spending 75% of funds on ourselves? The apostolic model is far more honoring to God with our finances, since we are at least four fold more effective in our giving -- giving that can work to build God's kingdom beyond our own needs.

Paul speaks to the second advantage of the apostolic house-church model when he writes: "I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another." (1 Corinthians 4:6) Paul writes to the Corinthian church that they should not "go beyond what is written" since that produces pride. In today's churches, people first "church shop" as they find a place that best suits them. They say, "I like the preaching here, the liturgy there, the people over here, and the worship there." Diversity of church practice produces a consumerist mindset that has led to pride and competition. Church has sadly become a product to be appraised and consumed, like a movie -- an object of judgment and comparison. In the apostolic model, Paul commands believers to not go beyond what is written, not to be creative and devise new models. This teaching would revolutionize church practice if Christians said, "We'll do what the apostles taught and not 'go beyond what is written.' "

The third, somewhat related, advantage is that house-churches squelch pride. For both members and elders, it is hard to boast too much over a small group of say, a dozen people! Far too many pastors of large megachurches have fallen, nearly always flowing from pride-related issues. Power corrupts, and the more power the more corruption. Politics creep in more and more once buildings and large budgets enter the picture. Our desire for large numbers is opposed to Jesus' concern of superficiality when large numbers followed him (see Luke 14:25-33).

The fourth advantage is that small churches grow more rapidly. (See Wolfgang Simson's book Houses that change the world for statistics on this subject.) The larger the church, the slower the growth rate. The early church went from a few dozen people to being nearly half the Roman Empire in a short amount of time by meeting in homes. Like yeast working its way through bread (Matthew 13:33), house-churches rapidly multiplied throughout the Empire without financial expenditure being necessary. A similar phenomenon is occurring today in China. For the sake of the gospel, "the church must get small in order to grow big." While pride produces a desire for large congregations and big buildings, apostolic example and a desire for church growth will lead us in the opposite direction -- to small groups meeting in homes.

The most important reason for the house-church model is because it is the "wineskin" given in the bible to contain the new wine, which is Jesus himself. We may try to put Jesus into the old wineskin of Old Testament practice, complete with an elite clergy, robes, and rows of passive spectators. But this is not the vessel given by Jesus and his apostles. The old wineskin will surely burst and spill the vibrancy of Jesus onto the ground; in most places, it already has.

References and additional reading:

I am grateful to Steve Atkerson and Beresford Job for their presentations at the North American House-church Conference 2006, which served as inspiration and source material for this essay. The following piece by Wolfgang Simson serves as good subsequent reading on the subject:

http://www.housechurch.org/basics/simson_15.html

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License.

Back to essays
Back to home