Building or "house to house"

How did the 1st Century Church worship and fellowship-was it in buildings that they purposefully had made, or was it house to house? I know occassionally they met or gathered in Solomons porch/temple, when the whole Church came together. But on a consistent basis, how did they meet-to me, it seems it was from "house to house" which shows the mobility-which is what a body or living organism does, it moves. Your thoughts please. :-)

reformer wrote:
I have ponder that question many times, it does state that they did meet house to house, but then they also could have meet in buildings regularly as well.

I think we need to tread on thin ice here! I know how this thread can go down hill fast. This has been a hot topic many of times. I for one am not opposed of a healthy discussion. I may be a bit gun shy on this only because many are very passionate about this topic. So it was shoot first and ask questions later!! :-P I may be reading to far into this, but hopefully it won't go bad!

I for one am in a quandary on this subject. I have had strong opinion on one side of the fence, but the past year I feel that I have taken a different stance in my view...I would say the verdict is still out right now for me! :-)

May the Lord bless you

Thanks for responding. If I may ask-what kind/style of Church do you attend now-in a building, or "house church"?

I myself, lean more to the house to house, or home church-because of scriptures like these:

Rom 16:5 Likewise greet [b]the church that is in their house[/b].

1Cor 16:19 The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with [b]the church that is in their house[/b].

Col 4:15 Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and [b]the church which is in his house[/b].

1Tim 3:5 - (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

Phm 1:2 And to our beloved Apphia, and Archippus our fellowsoldier, and [b]to the church in thy house[/b]

Though, currently, I somewhat fellowship, with a local assembly in a building.

I also think about scriptures like these:

Acts7:48 Howbeit the most High [b]dwelleth not
in temples made with hands[/b]; as saith the prophet, 49 Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest? 50 Hath not my hand made all these things?

Acts 17:24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, [b]dwelleth not in temples made with hands[/b]; 25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;

What do you think?
Again, thanks for replying, I appreciate it.

House to house or building? Yes! In reality, there is no real difference between the two. Homes are buildings too! Cosmetically, there are general differences of course. I think it is evident that the early church used whatever was most prudent at any given time. They met house to house, in the temple, along riversides, in schools, in "upper rooms." Permanent chapel like structures though, don't appear in the archeological record until about the time of Constantine. That's not to say that wealthier people didn't remodel their homes to serve in a similar fashion though.

KingJimmy wrote:

Permanent chapel like structures though, don't appear in the archeological record until about the time of Constantine. That's not to say that wealthier people didn't remodel their homes to serve in a similar fashion though.

I wonder if the introduction of the Edict of Toleration had something to do with that? The logic being that it would not have been practical to have a dedicated "place of worship" before then, due to the varying degrees of opposition against the church.

Having said that, as a "house-churcher" who still attends a denominational service on the occasional Sunday, I don't look at the common "building based" worship service as being "church". After all, dinguishing between true and false converts is incredibly difficult, thereby making it possible that becoming a "member" will involve becoming "unequally yoked with unbelievers".

Home fellowships, on the other hand, require a high level of intimacy to function, and that tends to create an environment where lives are exposed, subtle character changes can be challenged, and people feel free to "confess (their) faults, one to another, that (they) might pray for one another and be healed".

And then there is the issue of "eldership" (I won't elaborate right now).

I guess my point is to say that I don't see in Scripture anything against having a dedicated "place of worship", but I would place much more emphasis on the "home based fellowship", and even beyond that, onto a worship that is totally "without walls", being lived out in daily life, wherever that might be.

I guess my point is to say that I don't see in Scripture anything against having a dedicated "place of worship", but I would place much more emphasis on the "home based fellowship", and even beyond that, onto a worship that is totally "without walls", being lived out in daily life, wherever that might be.

For a practical consideration also, but, when we meet in chapel style structures, to some degree we make it impractical for people who work unusual hours to have any real fellowship with the rest of the church. The house church model makes things much more simpler by far.

I think there is some danger in having house fellowships with respect on who is going to lead it, who will govern it? Who will teach?

Biblically speaking, leadership is much more of a function than "position" or office. For when we usually think of leadership, we think of a person heading a program who tells people to do such and such so as to cause the show to go on.

Biblical leadership is best seen in Hebrews 13:7 & 17:

Heb 13:7 Remember those who led you, who spoke the word of God to you; and considering the result of their conduct, imitate their faith... 17 Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you.

Leadership here is not in the traditional way that we have known it in the church. Rather, one is a leader because they speak and live the word of God, and those who hear them obey the preached word, and imitate the conduct of these men. "Institutional" Christianity knows little to nothing of this.

In fact, I was taught in Bible college that you are to distance yourself from your sheep so that they don't see the errors in your life and thus lose respect for your "authority." Biblical authority and leadership is in how one lives one's life so as to cause others to follow in the same steps. It is not in the running of programs and beating people into "submission."

KingJimmy wrote:
For a practical consideration also, but, when we meet in chapel style structures, to some degree we make it impractical for people who work unusual hours to have any real fellowship with the rest of the church. The house church model makes things much more simpler by far.

Bingo. Spontaneous obedience to the exhortation to "not forsaken meeting together" vs enforced attendance to a fixed location. This is the true issue to be raised. The litmus test is where the "place of worship" [b]rules[/b] us, or [b]serves[/b] us.

KingJimmy wrote:
Biblically speaking, leadership is much more of a function than "position" or office. For when we usually think of leadership, we think of a person heading a program who tells people to do such and such so as to cause the show to go on.
...
one is a leader because they speak and live the word of God, and those who hear them obey the preached word, and imitate the conduct of these men. "Institutional" Christianity knows little to nothing of this.

You move into a house, and look out the back yard, and notice a big old tree, with branches the size of your torso. Its leaves and fruit indicate abundant health, and a thought crosses your mind, "It would be almost criminal not to put up a rope swing here." After all, it would be safe, your children would enjoy it, and it wouldn't require a lot of effort to put it up. Essentially, the tree demonstrates a trustworthiness that invites you to trust your children's safety with it.

Change the story a little, and now we have an unwritten rule that says that all houses must have a rope swing. Now, we look out our backyard trying to figure out which tree is least likely to fall over. Where before, there was overwhelming qualification for the task, now we are assessing which qualifications to overlook.

Likewise, we tend to approach our church life with the expectation that there [b]must[/b] be an elder/pastor/deacon/etc or it isn't a "real church". The result is, we seek to minimise what to overlook in Paul's words to Timothy and Titus.

However, if instead we focus on "sumbit(ting ourselves), one to another", we will find ourselves recognising the elders and deacons, the five fold, etc as God sends them. Not only that, now rather than placing them on a pedistal and allowing them to control us, they become members of our community who serve alongside us, in their leadership roles. We follow them out of the respect they have earned from us and they lead us out of a loving concern for our souls.

Again, I am not trying to say that every minister is the kind of controlling hireling decribed above. In fact I know that the opposite is true.

In fact, I was taught in Bible college that you are to distance yourself from your sheep so that they don't see the errors in your life and thus lose respect for your "authority."

Biblical authority and leadership is in how one lives one's life so as to cause others to follow in the same steps. It is not in the running of programs and beating people into "submission."

When I think of "buildings" they are more governed by other men, by organizations, like SBC or AOG. Not that those are error proof, but there is a high level of accountability.

This really isn't true. I've never heard of a bishop of any denomination removing a pastor from a church because he was an arrogant control freak. Nor have I heard of a bishop removing a pastor from a church because he was known to lie, or have unruly children.

The fact of the matter is, these governing bodies/denominations hold pastors to very little accountability. If you are a pastor, the only thing you will get in trouble with in most denominations is if you teach that Jesus was a woman, have an affair, steal money from the church, or withhold your tithes from the denominational headquarters. There is a very low system of accountability in most denominations.

True accountability is where your brother looks you eye to eye on a regular basis, and holds you to account.

But one day will come, that house fellowships will be the only way we can have "church".

Indeed. It is almost impossible to organize a denomination in China the same way you would in America. It's simply too risky to have such a larger superstructure when your life may be on the line for it. Then you quickly find out what is truly needed and what is not.

How many churches are in America? Just because you may not have heard of it doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

True at that. I'm sure somebody out there has. But "the system," in general, doesn't encourage such. For many bishops think much more "practically" e.g. in dollars and cents. So far, the denomination which my church belongs to, I've yet to see such. And they are pretty old-school Weslyean/Holiness types.

Indeed, if they have a church without a pastor in it, and there is the possibility the church may be foreclose on their land/building due to lack of a minister qualified to run it, they will stick whoever they can in there to keep such from happening. I have seen them stick an untested man from my church in there, without so much as a background check or reference from our pastor as to the moral integrity of the man. About six months later, the man was arrested by the police for soliciting for "a crime against nature" to an undercover cop at a rest stop along the interstate. Such, I can't say, didn't surprise me. And my denomation is no insigificant denomination, and our district which has over 300 churches, is no unimportant district. Yet, our overseer/bishop appointed the man anyway.

reformer wrote:
How many churches are in America? Just because you may not have heard of it doesn't mean it hasn't happened. However, there is truth to what you are saying in denominations, not wanting to ruffle feathers. Plus it also works not only for pastors, but the lay person. Probably you have heard of a person being disciplined out of the church for disobedience. I have!

Brother, I hope this doesn't cause offense (and to be honest, I don't think it will, but have been wrong with much lesser asumptions :cry: ), but it seems that your posts are based on fear. I can see from the conerns you raised about this thread getting ugly quickly, that you are someone who cares for people, and that you wish to maintain unity on the boards, which is highly commendable. And perhaps I am using you as an example to illustrate a point about the [b]tendancy[/b] amongst those who subscribe to a "systematic approach"* to their Christianity.

As someone who is neck deep in "house based" Christianity, and have endured much misunderstanding from those in denominations, I have found that the main objection is the sence of rebellion in our camp. There are many house based Christians who have written off "the system" as the "great harlot Babylon" or whatever, and as a result, that is tranferred on all of us.

Having known Jimmy, over the years, I know that he has no ill feelings toward the "church", and is even a serving member of a denominational church. However, as any good Berean, he is not afraid to call a spade a spade, and has commented on tendencies, as experienced. Personally, I would make similar indictments, in spite of the fact that I attend a Baptist church, whose leadership contradicts the observations made.

It amused me when the church had there "organisational service" one of the preachers charged the congregation to "sumit to those who have the rule over you", but added that they needed to do it as the Bereans, prepared to question the leadership when necessary. The pastor knows that I host a home fellowship, with no direct affiliation with organised religion and that I am chrarismatic (they are cessationists), and yet the hand of fellowship has never been retracted, and there has never been a time that the conversation has drifted into, "Hey, I don't know how to break this to you, but you need to come into the organised church."

I notice that the misunderstanding was sorted out before I posted, but I guess I saw an opportunity to address a common misconception toward house churchers.
________

*sytematic approach - subscribing to the traditional model of church. Ie, meets in building on Sunday, ordained clergy, enforced tithing, etc.

Interesting experience you have there CJakForest with having a "house church" while maintaining the denominational affiliation. I am getting ready to move out on my own, and have been praying about having such an "experiment" (for lack of a better term) when I move out on my own at the end of this week. I hope to be able to get a few people from my church and people within my apartment complex.

Though, with gas prices being the way they are, it is unlikely that many from my church would consider attending my fellowship being that I live about 20 miles away from everybody else! However, I hope a few will come.

Watchman Nee once said that most Christians had never truly been to church. He said, most simply had attended what he liked to call "apostolic meetings." That is, a meeting where one man of extraordinary gifting and character preached in front of a large congregation. However, he defined the "church" as a local body of believers (within one city) who met together in a house together under the headship of Jesus Christ. In this context, each member exercised his or her spiritual gift according to the leading of the Spirit. No one man was in charge, save the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.

While Watchman Nee was a little off his rocker in some of his teachings, I think he really hit the nail on the head here. Truth be told, a "church" is to be a place where no one-man show occurs. No pope, no bishop, no sr. pastor... just Jesus Christ.

It is sad, in our ecclesiological systems we have written Jesus Christ out of the picture. He's somewhere up in heaven, and has nothing practical to do with how things happen down here on earth. Men are said to occupy His office and ministry here on earth until He returns. But until He returns, we'll run the show just fine!

Yet in all the Scriptures I have ever examined on the subject (and I've looked closely), there is never once in all of Scripture where one man is looked at as the "head" of the church local or universal. There is not one man who is looked at the funnel as which all ministry gifts and offices must flow through. Rather, in Scripture we consistently see Jesus Christ alone is the head of the church, local and universal. He is "the apostle," "the chief shepherd," "the high priest." Never is His ministry handed off to another.

Thus, Biblically speaking, even though well intended godly men have occupied the position of "senior pastor," at many churches, they have essentially attempted to occupy a place and ministry that is for Christ alone to occupy. No man can take His place and be boss. Thus, when we all come together, instead of looking for Christ to minister simply through one man, we should look for Christ to minister through everybody, distributing the gifts as He chooses and in His timing, in a godly order.

That's not to say there aren't times when Christ will give a special burden that one man alone will bear. Indeed, there is a place for apostolic men, prophetic men, and teachers to do extended speaking. Such, in reality, is what our traditional Sunday morning services are. But, they are not to be the life blood of the church.

Believers should frequently assemble wherever they can, and submit to the ministry of one-another. For in doing such, they submit to Christ who is ministering freely through whomever He wishes at any given moment.

Just some food for thought!

KingJimmy wrote:
Watchman Nee once said that most Christians had never truly been to church. He said, most simply had attended what he liked to call "apostolic meetings." That is, a meeting where one man of extraordinary gifting and character preached in front of a large congregation. However, he defined the "church" as a local body of believers (within one city) who met together in a house together under the headship of Jesus Christ. In this context, each member exercised his or her spiritual gift according to the leading of the Spirit. No one man was in charge, save the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.

While Watchman Nee was a little off his rocker in some of his teachings, I think he really hit the nail on the head here. [b]Truth be told, a "church" is to be a place where no one-man show occurs. No pope, no bishop, no sr. pastor[/b]... just Jesus Christ.

[b]Yet in all the Scriptures I have ever examined on the subject (and I've looked closely), there is never once in all of Scripture where one man is looked at as the "head" of the church local or universal. There is not one man who is looked at the funnel as which all ministry gifts and offices must flow through. Rather, in Scripture we consistently see Jesus Christ alone is the head of the church, local and universal[/b]. He is "the apostle," "the chief shepherd," "the high priest." Never is His ministry handed off to another.

That's not to say there aren't times when Christ will give a special burden that one man alone will bear. Indeed, there is a place for apostolic men, prophetic men, and teachers to do extended speaking. Such, in reality, is what our traditional Sunday morning services are. But, they are not to be the life blood of the church.

!

Hey, would you mind elaborating, or sharing some of the details to the portions above that I have highlighted.

Also, if you have read "Pagan Christianiy" by Frank Viola & George Barna, how do you view the book, and what are your thoughts?

Thanks again :-)

Hey, would you mind elaborating, or sharing some of the details to the portions above that I have highlighted.

Sure.

I wrote:

Truth be told, a "church" is to be a place where no one-man show occurs. No pope, no bishop, no sr. pastor...

Various passages are cited to by those who advocate a hierarchy within the church. Such as Christ's calling Peter "the Rock," upon which the church would be built. Roman Catholics insist that this passage justifies papal authority. There is also the frequently alluded to "pastoral" epistles of Paul. It is said that Paul wrote to Timothy and Titus, who presided as bishops over the churches in Ephesus and Crete. Both interpretations though, have their origins in later church history, and not within the Scriptures.

Rather, instead of the episcopal structure (and all it's variants) that many form their churches/denominations around, in Scripture we see no such thing. Anywhere there were bishops/elders (as not every church had this ministry), they always existed in the plurarl, forming a sort of "college" of bishops/elders, to whom were left the responsbility of overseeing/shepherding the souls of the local church.

I also wrote:

Yet in all the Scriptures I have ever examined on the subject (and I've looked closely), there is never once in all of Scripture where one man is looked at as the "head" of the church local or universal. There is not one man who is looked at the funnel as which all ministry gifts and offices must flow through. Rather, in Scripture we consistently see Jesus Christ alone is the head of the church, local and universal.

As there was always a plurality of elders/bishops whever there were any, none were given an elevated status above the rest. There was no "first amongst equals" or "senior" office amongst them. Rather, they were all equals. Naturally, there were one's who were more mature than the others, and more gifted than the others. But, their function in this regard didn't make them another class of minister altogether. It's simply means they had a greater degree of influence, and higher respect was attributed to them for their labors.

Never would they have understood themselves as the "chief apostle" or "senior pastor" of their flock. In 1 Peter 5, not even the apostle Peter himself is tempted to think of himself as this way. Rather than recognize himself as the head of the church, he recognized Christ alone as the head of the church. Christ's sitting at the right hand of the Father in heaven doesn't make Him any less the head of the church here on earth simply because He's in heaven while we are on earth. No man can take His appointment, for this is His appointment alone. He is the head of the church local and universal. He is the One that is supposed to call the shots, both locally and universally.

Indeed, the notion of somebody having first place in the church in place of Christ seems to have it's origins in 3 John 1:9. A leader named Diotrephes is attempting to dominate the local assembly, so as to be "first," and is causing division as a result. John warns that if he gets to the church and things are not straightened out, he'll take care of the issue personally.

There simply is no place in the church for anybody but Jesus to be first place in all things. There can be no head but Him. He alone is the head of the church, which is His body, who we are all members of. 1 Corinthians 12 & 14 teaches that the multi-talented/gifted body of Christ has no head but Christ, who personally directs the ministries of us all. In any assembly therefore, there should be no agenda or any such thing. The only agenda should be for us to worship the Lord and edify the saints through the orderly exercising of our spiritual gifts.

Many churches, even Pentecostal/Charismatic ones, often attempt to control services in a way that is entirely contrary to the apostolic pattern delivered to us by Paul. They'll have an "order of service," or require that anybody who wishes to share a teaching, prophecy, or testimony first go through the proper "screening" agents so as to "protect" the people. These men act as funnels by which the gifts of God are allowed to operate. But, this has no basis to it whatsoever in Scripture. Jesus Christ alone is the funnel and distributor of the gifts, and He alone moves on men one by one to flow in those things.

When men take the place of Christ as head of the church, they usurp the authority that is His alone. God help us!