The House Church:

ChristopherHall · #1 08-25-2007, 06:17 PM

Here are some Scriptures implying where the early church conducted it's gatherings...

Acts 2:1-2
1And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
2And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.(KJV)

Acts 2:46
46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,(KJV)

Acts 8:3
3 As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison.(KJV)

Acts 20:20
20 And how I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you, but have shewed you, and have taught you publickly, and from house to house,(KJV)

Romans. 16:3-5
3 Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus:
4 Who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles.
5 Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Salute my wellbeloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia unto Christ.(KJV)

1 Corinthians. 16:19
19 The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house. (KJV)

Colossians. 4:15
15 Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his house.(KJV)

It seems like the New Testament pattern leaned more toward holding Christian worship in the home as opposed to a constructed edifice. One would assume this was on account of persecution. I know in Iraq they found an ancient home that was a gathering place with an entire room modeled to be a baptismal (surely this illustrates the importance of baptism in the early years of the church). I'm not denigrating the idea of assembling in a church, I'm just making an observation. This would explain why the early Church could easily support the ministry, care for the poor, widows, and the needy. Without the overhead costs of construction and property their finances were free for direct mission support and benevolence.

It is interesting to note that "church buildings" as we know them were not built until 250 to 300 years after the time of the Apostles. It's interesting because the Apostles didn't ever choose to establish a "Christian synagogue" or "house of worship" other than the home. It's often claimed that this was because of persecution...yet even when doing rather well Christians still chose to congregate in smaller congregations based in homes over meeting in temples or buildings made especially for worship. While many view their decision to meet in homes as a necessity of circumstance...could there be more to it? Could the Apostles have chosen to meet and establish congregations in homes by design?

The first century church spread like wildfire throughout the Roman Empire. What did they do that allowed for this to happen? We know they walked in the power and anointing of the Spirit of God, but was more to their methods? It seems that Paul and others routinely established several churches in a given city while traveling and spreading the good news of Jesus Christ. They did this as they communed with individuals "house to house".

By the time the Apostles left a city they may have had a few "churches" established in homes throughout the community. This allowed for the church to grow exponentially throughout the region in a very short period of time. We see the same trends in nations such as China and Korea where there has been resistance to Christianity when the church has resorted to meeting privately in homes. The first century church had no concern over land or property but rather pooled their resources and put them toward sustaining the ministry, charity, and evangelism.

I once read how on average, American churches spend nearly 80% of their resources on property (building, maintenance, grounds, utilities, etc.) and around 20% on charity and outreach. The New Testament model in the book of Acts appears to invert those statistics. The early New Testament church appears to have use 80% or more of it's resources for evangelism and charity with 20% or less being spent on actual property. Their primary concern were "souls" therefore their simplicity and their budget reflected that vision.

Such a model today would allow for a number of "churches" to be established in various homes throughout a city or metropolitan area very quickly. It wouldn't be a conventional "church planting" it would be a movement, a silent tidal wave if you will, of believers gathering in the harvest in their homes. Institutional churches in an area wouldn't be able to compete with a steadily growing movement of local churches gathering in homes. The closeness of community, fellowship, and relevant teaching would leave all the glitz and thronging masses of belching mega churches ringing hollow. Such small gatherings would also allow for a more personal or intimate setting for expounding upon holiness. Such holiness and Christian simplicity could be witnessed by those attending in the very home where they gathered.

Also money hungry charismatic mega churches wouldn't be able to compete with a message unclouded by the pressure of the prosperity gospel to "give give give and be blessed". Many fear churches are only out for their money. Sadly, mega churches have mega expenses and yes...there is pressure to get as much money as possible to sustain the mega operation. Anyone familiar with the quacks on television have seen this. A humble church gathered in a minister's home would offer a safe haven, a shelter in the storm, from such extortion. The sole focus of the New Testament church model is...Jesus only.

Here's another question on my mind; do we put too much emphasis on church buildings? I'm not saying it's wrong to have a church building, I'm only asking if our focus is sometimes more on physical structures than on the huddled masses of those truly in need who are lost in the shadows of our steeples? Do the financial burden of our churches often limit our ability to glorify the Father by doing good to those in need? And can the overwhelming expense often reduce a preacher to a hireling?

I've been studying the "house church movement" and thought it would make an interesting discussion. How would you view an Apostolic pastor if he felt that "house churching" was the biblical model for the church?

I don't know. Just some thoughts I had. Never mind me, sometimes I think too much. lol

Love y'all.

Michael The Disciple · #2 08-25-2007, 09:44 PM

Interesting writings. I mostly met in house Churches throughout my walk with the Lord. Biblical and practical in many situations.

Pastor Keith · #3 08-25-2007, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristopherHall

Here are some Scriptures implying where the early church conducted it's gatherings...

Acts 2:1-2
1And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
2And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.(KJV)

Acts 2:46
46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,(KJV)

Acts 8:3
3 As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison.(KJV)

Acts 20:20
20 And how I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you, but have shewed you, and have taught you publickly, and from house to house,(KJV)

Romans. 16:3-5
3 Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus:
4 Who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles.
5 Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Salute my wellbeloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia unto Christ.(KJV)

1 Corinthians. 16:19
19 The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house. (KJV)

Colossians. 4:15
15 Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his house.(KJV)

It seems like the New Testament pattern leaned more toward holding Christian worship in the home as opposed to a constructed edifice. One would assume this was on account of persecution. I know in Iraq they found an ancient home that was a gathering place with an entire room modeled to be a baptismal (surely this illustrates the importance of baptism in the early years of the church). I'm not denigrating the idea of assembling in a church, I'm just making an observation. This would explain why the early Church could easily support the ministry, care for the poor, widows, and the needy. Without the overhead costs of construction and property their finances were free for direct mission support and benevolence.

It is interesting to note that "church buildings" as we know them were not built until 250 to 300 years after the time of the Apostles. It's interesting because the Apostles didn't ever choose to establish a "Christian synagogue" or "house of worship" other than the home. It's often claimed that this was because of persecution...yet even when doing rather well Christians still chose to congregate in smaller congregations based in homes over meeting in temples or buildings made especially for worship. While many view their decision to meet in homes as a necessity of circumstance...could there be more to it? Could the Apostles have chosen to meet and establish congregations in homes by design?

The first century church spread like wildfire throughout the Roman Empire. What did they do that allowed for this to happen? We know they walked in the power and anointing of the Spirit of God, but was more to their methods? It seems that Paul and others routinely established several churches in a given city while traveling and spreading the good news of Jesus Christ. They did this as they communed with individuals "house to house".

By the time the Apostles left a city they may have had a few "churches" established in homes throughout the community. This allowed for the church to grow exponentially throughout the region in a very short period of time. We see the same trends in nations such as China and Korea where there has been resistance to Christianity when the church has resorted to meeting privately in homes. The first century church had no concern over land or property but rather pooled their resources and put them toward sustaining the ministry, charity, and evangelism.

I once read how on average, American churches spend nearly 80% of their resources on property (building, maintenance, grounds, utilities, etc.) and around 20% on charity and outreach. The New Testament model in the book of Acts appears to invert those statistics. The early New Testament church appears to have use 80% or more of it's resources for evangelism and charity with 20% or less being spent on actual property. Their primary concern were "souls" therefore their simplicity and their budget reflected that vision.

Such a model today would allow for a number of "churches" to be established in various homes throughout a city or metropolitan area very quickly. It wouldn't be a conventional "church planting" it would be a movement, a silent tidal wave if you will, of believers gathering in the harvest in their homes. Institutional churches in an area wouldn't be able to compete with a steadily growing movement of local churches gathering in homes. The closeness of community, fellowship, and relevant teaching would leave all the glitz and thronging masses of belching mega churches ringing hollow. Such small gatherings would also allow for a more personal or intimate setting for expounding upon holiness. Such holiness and Christian simplicity could be witnessed by those attending in the very home where they gathered.

Also money hungry charismatic mega churches wouldn't be able to compete with a message unclouded by the pressure of the prosperity gospel to "give give give and be blessed". Many fear churches are only out for their money. Sadly, mega churches have mega expenses and yes...there is pressure to get as much money as possible to sustain the mega operation. Anyone familiar with the quacks on television have seen this. A humble church gathered in a minister's home would offer a safe haven, a shelter in the storm, from such extortion. The sole focus of the New Testament church model is...Jesus only.

Here's another question on my mind; do we put too much emphasis on church buildings? I'm not saying it's wrong to have a church building, I'm only asking if our focus is sometimes more on physical structures than on the huddled masses of those truly in need who are lost in the shadows of our steeples? Do the financial burden of our churches often limit our ability to glorify the Father by doing good to those in need? And can the overwhelming expense often reduce a preacher to a hireling?

I've been studying the "house church movement" and thought it would make an interesting discussion. How would you view an Apostolic pastor if he felt that "house churching" was the biblical model for the church?

I don't know. Just some thoughts I had. Never mind me, sometimes I think too much. lol

Love y'all.

Can't agrue with the gist of your posting, house churches are the biblical model, but sadly it will be slow to catch on here, to use a Wolfgang Simson analogy. It is like someone has been making Xerox copies and no body never questioned to see if the original copy is the right one.

The current, pastor, building centered ministry with a de-mobilized laity that meets for special services was the model they told me to run with out of Bible College, but as I go older I questioned it effectiveness.

Pastor-limits saints ministry and makes them passive with three goals, pray, pay and obey.

Building Centered-leads to the idea that much of what God does only happens within the four walls of a designated building which limits God doing anything or very little outside of that model.

Special Structured Services-prohibits the I Cor. 14:26 type of ministry from happening.

But alas, after reading this it only makes me depressed, longing so much to see this reality, but seems so far away, a pipe dream.

OP_Carl · #4 08-25-2007, 10:15 PM

Party at Christopher's house!

10:00 a.m. tomorrow. Breakfast will be provided.

Pardon me. Where are my manners? Welcome to AFF!

My observation has been that there are many things we Apostolics do that have merely been carried over from our Protestant roots, often without re-evaluation. Most of the stuff the Protestants do, and did, was carried over from the RCC.

We live in a time where the Apostolic church paradigm is still influenced by the pushback against the Latter Rain movement a generation ago. People have found solace from Latter Rain's wreckage in structure, decorum, order, and properly vetted leadership.

Centralized organizations are designed to maintain doctrinal purity and stabilize the faith. House churches open up the door for a multitude of mistaken interpretations to be taught as gospel. I know the Spirit guides us to all truth, but some people are strong in some areas but weak in others. I value biblical insights from people that have been grounded and/or trained in good study methods. I have heard, also, divine revelation from uneducated hicks that was spot-on, so what I would recommend is balance.

Here is a little thought experiment for you:

If house churches are such a good idea, why do we call Paul's letters of approbriation to them books?

God bless you, and don't get too wrapped up in this site. Or anywhere else on the internet, either.

Michael The Disciple · #5 08-25-2007, 10:36 PM

Quote:

OP Carl

Centralized organizations are designed to maintain doctrinal purity and stabilize the faith. House churches open up the door for a multitude of mistaken interpretations to be taught as gospel.

Oh brother. The Orgs around now all teach much false doctrine in my opinion. And with an org it cant be changed.

Michael The Disciple · #6 08-26-2007, 12:05 AM

If we made doctrine on the house Church the same way we do that tongues is the only evidence it would be a solid doctrine. All the examples we have of Christians meetingwere in house Churches. I dont count the Temple because it was also used by the Orthodox Jews.

Beyond that we are only shown house Groups and no scripture supporting building buildings. Isnt that the way we arrive at the evidence doctrine?

OP_Carl · #7 08-26-2007, 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Oh brother. The Orgs around now all teach much false doctrine in my opinion. And with an org it cant be changed.

Opinions. Now there's a can of worms . . .

You're right in the sense that orgs can be too slow to react, or they can preserve the wrong things, or become cancerous and only exist to serve their own interests.

It kind of reminds me of the democratic republic form of government. It's the worst form of government that has ever, in history, been implemented. Except for everything else that's been tried . . .