Church House OR House Church?

By Roger Upton

I am often asked why we choose to meet as a church in our home. Some suppose we are merely being separatists. Others generally assume we are trying to gather up enough members to collect enough money to build ourselves a church building. This isn't true at all. We meet as a church in our home, quite frankly, because there is no other New Testament precept for doing otherwise! There simply is no scriptural basis for the church meeting in a specially constructed religious building. It is a fact of scripture and a fact of history that the early church met in the private homes of its members. Theologian Lawrence O. Richards observes:
"We know a little of the form of the local NT ekklesia. Early believers did not meet in public buildings ("churches") for at least the first 120 years of the Christian era. The typical meeting of the church was in a home" [New International Encyclopedia of Bible Words. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991, p. 167].
Several other scholars echo this point:
"The word 'church' is never used in the New Testament to refer to a house of worship. That was a later development. The early Christians did not have church buildings. They met in public buildings or private homes" [Turner, J. Clyde. The New Testament Doctrine of the Church. Nashville: Convention Press, 1951, p. 7].
"These [early] churches, you must understand, were not great bodies of ecclesiastical dignity which met in magnificent [buildings]. They were, instead, communities of humble disciples which met as conveniently as they could... This church in the house was as genuine and as proper as the church in any cathedral in the world. [Laurin, Roy. L. First Corinthians: Where Life Matures. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1987, p. 325].
When most people think of church, they think of a brick and mortar building with a steeple on top. But the idea of erecting a special building for worship, no matter how prevalent in our religious culture, is foreign to New Testament Christianity. We know from the Bible that almost every time the meeting place of the early church is mentioned it is mentioned as being in someone's home:
" Romans 16:3-5 - "Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus... likewise, greet the church that is in their house."
" 1 Corinthians 16:19 - "The churches of Asia greet you. Aquila and Priscilla greet you... with the church that is in their house."
" Colossians 4:15 - "Greet the brethren who are in Laodicea, and Nymphas and the church that is in his house."
" Philemon 1, 2 - "To Philemon... and to the church in your house."
Several other passages describe the church meeting in homes: Acts 1:13-14 - the church met together in the "upper room" at Pentecost (upper rooms were not hotel rooms but the top floor of private homes); Acts 2:46 - The church met from "house to house"; Acts 8:3 - Saul persecuted the church at "every house"; Acts 12:12 - The early church gathered in prayer at the "home of Mary"; Acts 16:15 - Paul established a church in Lydia's home; Acts 17:4-7 - The angry Jews went looking for the church in the "house of Jason"; Acts 20:20 - Paul taught the church at Ephesus "from house to house."
In addition, other passages of scripture infer that the early church met in homes: Romans 16:23 - Paul sends greetings from Gaius, who "hosts the whole church" (unless Gaius owned his own church building, this saint let the church meet in his house); James 2:1-3 - the apostle commands the church to let poor people sit in the best seats, not beside the footstool (ottoman). The footstool was a common piece of furniture in first century homes! 2 John 10 - exhorts the church to forbid false teachers from coming into church assemblies which he refers to as "your house."

There are several reasons why the early church met in homes:

1. The setting was one of close intimacy. The church is the household, or family of God (1 Tim. 3:15). What better place for a family to meet than in the intimacy of the home? Meeting in private homes served to magnify the sense of "family-ness" among believers. It also allowed for the mutual participation in the meeting commanded by scripture (1 Cor. 14:26). It is nearly impossible to foster a sense of intimacy, belonging, and participation in a "church building" which divides the congregation up in isolated pews, pulpits, and choir lofts.
2. The early church wanted to distance itself from Judaism and paganism. Both Jews and pagans met in lavish synagogues and temples. Both believed that worship was localized. The early Christians viewed the synagogues and temples as places of false worship (cf. Rev. 2:9; 3:9) and did not desire to be associated with them. They even shunned calling themselves a synagogue, which was the tradition designation for a religious meeting. Likewise, they changed the meaning of ekklesia (the word we translate "church") from one with secular political overtones to a word descriptive of God's new covenant assembly. The Christians understood that they themselves were the spiritual temple and dwelling place of God (1 Cor. 6:19; 1 Pet. 2:5). They knew that Christ had made an end to localized worship (Jn. 4:21-24). Therefore they did not need a building or a temple in which to meet.
3. The early churches were concerned about stewardship. The early churches were more concerned with using their collective finances and resources to care for needy saints and ministry efforts rather than the construction and upkeep of religious buildings. Today, extravagant sums of money are sunk into church buildings, building maintenance, and salaries. Wasting money on these vain, materialistic things while the poor and needy go unattended is not good stewardship.
4. The early church understood that it was only here for a short time. They understood themselves to be "strangers and pilgrims" on their way to their real home, with no desire to put down roots on this earth (Heb. 11:13-16). Therefore, they had no reason to build religious monuments. They saw no value in getting comfortable in this world like their unbelieving neighbors. They had the hope of Christ's immanent second coming in their hearts and minds. Why throw away their resources on buildings and land when they knew it would all pass away eventually?

Let's look at three reasons why the house church should be considered. Also, let's not fool ourselves into thinking that simply meeting in a house equals New Testament Christianity. There are several factors which make a church a biblical church, and meeting in homes is only one aspect of that. The church in the home is but a means to an end. That end is reaching full maturity as the Body of Christ.
1. The house church is the only scriptural pattern. This fact alone should make us take note of its importance. If we truly believe that the Bible alone guides our beliefs and our practices we be wise to follow the pattern of church gatherings as described in the scriptures. In all the NT, one cannot find a shred of evidence which supports the church as a religious corporation with buildings, land, and salaries.
Also, the Epistles were all directed to house church gatherings. The situations the Epistles address are in a house church context. NT precepts are therefore best suited for the house church setting. It is impossible to bend the principles and practices of the NT to fit the rigidly structured, tradition laden institutional church.
2. The house church fosters an intimacy and accountability that the institutional church does not and cannot. A contributing factor to the lack of discipline in the majority of evangelical churches is that no one really knows each other. I have ministered on staff in a large church before and have experienced this reality firsthand. How many people do we really know enough to confront them lovingly when they err? How close are we to each other to know when we fall into sin? The small group setting forces people to get to know one another intimately. Therefore they are more watchful and loving of one another.
3. The house church is more proactive to edification, fellowship, and learning. The majority of fellowship and learning in the institutional church comes from small-group settings such as Sunday School and discipleship training classes. However, even these kinds of groups cannot fully meet the needs of each believer to function as a NT church. People learn better in small groups and interact more freely and openly. With large groups, there is little opportunity for each person to exercise his/her spiritual gifts in the assembly.

Objections to the house church and answers to those objections.

1. The house church was a cultural phenomena. Some argue that the early churches met in homes simply because they lived in a primative first century culture. They reason that as the church became more enlightened and grew numerically, the building of church buildings was necessary. This argument simply does not hold water. The early Greeks and Romans erected magnificent religious monuments which still stand today. Likewise, the Jews had their temple and their synagogues. Since the early church was comprised of these Greeks, Romans, and Jews, had they wanted to they could have built church buildings. Every other religion during that time period, in essence, had their church buildings. The early church simply had no need to follow the ebb and flow of the religious culture. If anything, their meeting in private homes demonsrated their desire to be counter-cultural!
2. The house church was fine for them back then, the church has moved onto bigger and better things. Whenever the pursuit of "bigger and better things" means we do not carefully consider the scriptures we are in big trouble. The institutional church mindset is that "bigger is better." Large buildings, land, and massive crowds supposedly translate into signs of God's blessing and approval. The house church, they say, is small and uninfluential. Our reply is remember the words of God in 1 Corinthians 1:27 - "But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty."
3. The issue is not even important, it doesn't matter where you have church. This is true in a sense. Believers can meet anywhere. Paul and Silas had a church meeting in their prison cell (Acts 16:25). One simply can find no commandment that instructs the church to meet in homes. However, the early church did meet in homes. That much is clear from the scriptures. Why should we do any different? God did not allow the church of the first century to be described in such great detail simply for a history lesson. Had the Lord or his apostles desired that we deviate from the church practice found on the pages of the NT, surely it'd have been recorded.
Closing remarks.
I hope this article will challenge you to look into the scriptures and consider the house church. I will restate that meeting in a house does not necessarily make a church biblical. I am forthrightly making the claim, however, that the church found on the pages of the NT met in homes and so should we. But I am also forthrightly claiming that there are other things the church did found on the pages of the NT that we should also be careful to do. Things such as love one another, pray for one another, encourage one another, etc. These things, along with so much more, are all parts that make up the whole. They are means to the end. May the Lord of Glory put the desire in our hearts to seek to be a more biblical church.