C.H. Spurgeon on House Churches?

I was intrigued when I came across the following excerpt from C.H. Spurgeon's sermon titled "Additions to the Church". You can read the whole sermon here: http://www.biblebb.com/files/spurgeon/1167.htm

"I want you to notice this, that they were breaking bread from house to house, and ate their food with gladness and singleness of heart. They did not think that religion was meant only for Sundays, and for what men now-a-days call the House of God. Their own houses were houses of God, and their own meals were so mixed and mingled with the Lord's Supper that to this day the most cautious student of the Bible cannot tell when they stopped eating their common meals, and when they began eating the Supper of the Lord. They elevated their meals into diets for worship: they so consecrated everything with prayer and praise that all around them was holiness to the Lord. I wish our houses were, in this way, dedicated to the Lord, so that we worshipped God all day long, and made our homes temples for the living God...

Does God need a house? He who made the heavens and the earth, does he dwell in temples made with hands? What crass ignorance this is! No house beneath the sky is more holy than the place where a Christian lives, and eats, and drinks, and sleeps, and praises the Lord in all that he does, and there is no worship more heavenly than that which is presented by holy families, devoted to the fear of the Lord.

To sacrifice home worship to public worship is a most evil course of action. Morning and evening devotion in a little home is infinitely more pleasing in the sight of God than all the cathedral pomp which delights the carnal eye and ear. Every truly Christian household is a church, and as such it is competent for the discharge of any function of divine worship, whatever it may be. Are we not all priests? Why do we need to call in others to make devotion a performance? Let every man be a priest in his own house. Are you not all kings if you love the Lord? Then make your houses palaces of joy and temples of holiness. One reason why the early church had such a blessing was because her members had such homes. When we are like them we will have “added to the church those who were being saved.” --C.H. Spurgeon (1834-1892)

This is interesting brother. Though house churches can be good in some ways, I have always wondered if God would want a church to stay in that way. Is it possible for a church to function fully as a house church is my question? I am not sure. I would be interested in studying and knowing more about it. Thanks!

Glad for this post!

The Scriptures seem to paint the picture that the church met primarily in the homes of its members in any locality. But, the evidence suggests that they also had larger public assemblies. Instead of an "either-or" I think the answer is "both-and." There is definitely a time for smaller gatherings. But there is also a time for larger gatherings, especially so that the local elders & fathers of faith may address the local body of Christ. A church that only has one of these formats will probably not thrive as it ought.

Thank you brother for posting this message on house worship. I hope to use it in one of my upcoming messages. We are to be the church 7 days a week and not just go to a church building 2 or 3 times a week. I believe the very reason many are not spiritual and on fire for God witnessing Jesus Christ to others continually is because they are not continually worshipping God in their homes everyday. Church is to be everyday.

I do believe as did Spurgeon that there is a need for public worship with others in the body of Christ but this is not to take the place of worshipping in our homes. When we separate our homes from our church life then this becomes the very reason many are not living the victorious Christian life.

Blessings to you!

KingJimmy wrote:

The Scriptures seem to paint the picture that the church met primarily in the homes of its members in any locality. But, the evidence suggests that they also had larger public assemblies. Instead of an "either-or" I think the answer is "both-and." There is definitely a time for smaller gatherings. But there is also a time for larger gatherings, especially so that the local elders & fathers of faith may address the local body of Christ. A church that only has one of these formats will probably not thrive as it ought.

Brother/s, over the past few months I've been coming to lean toward or agree with that same view more and more regarding this issue.

One of the main points I got from that Spurgeon quote was that we need to get away from the idea of viewing a church building as a "House of God"; for we are the house of God individually and corporately. A church building should be viewed as a place where we may gather for public worship and edification , not as a church. The day to day spiritual life of the church should be experienced and seen primarily outside of the building. It seems to me that that was a vital and key element in the first century book of Acts church.

StarofGod, you brought up a good question. I wish I had time to post a well enough thought out answer but I will have to wait for a later time.

Amen!! I could not agree more with Mr. Spurgeon. The idea behind his heart and teaching isn't to draw Christians away form public worship and corporate gatherings, for they are truly essential and necessary for the edifying of the Body. What I believe he is getting at is from the very heart of God to see the homes of these dear believers who are meeting corporately to be transformed into sanctuary's of the Lord.

In the Old Testament, the tents of the families were to be positioned in such a way where the door of the tent was facing the Tabernacle. This speaks of the presence and shekinah glory of God beaming into each tent and each individual dwelling! Would to God the homes of each Christian family would see the heavenly vision and call for this model. As brother Ravenhill used to say, "Forget getting Christ back into the schools, get Him back into the Home!". This plea could not be prayed and trumpet-blasted loud enough in today's Christian culture.

I personally believe, that the truest expression of revival is not when the "Big-Tent Revival" is filled and the roof is blowing off with God's glory, but when the glow remains on the faces of His people so much so that it goes into the homes. That we would have the testimony, "we looked to Him, and our faces were radiant" not just in public worship, but in home worship. What if every Christian man or woman was able to say as David said, "I will walk WITHIN MY HOUSE with a perfect heart"? Tragically, I don't think many can boldly say that. We walk within our churches with a divided heart because our homes are not in order, and then we walk within our houses with a hypocritical heart because we treat our families differently at home than we do in public. Would to God that He would raise up Priests and Kings in the home--that our houses of wood, hay and stubble would be transformed into a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.

Oh, that prayers and praises would not cease to go up to heaven from our homes, and that the God-commissioned priests of their homes would rise early as Job did and trim the wicks to ensure the oil is flowing and the family is sanctified by the Word of God and prayer. When a man is set on fire by God the first beneficiary of that fire should be those whom he lives with, in his home. That is true revival, and that is true home worship.

--Kevin

I agree so much with what is being said. I am not a part of the house church movement and I can see that there are pitfalls that are possible for both the I.C. and the H.C. I would ask where the practice of tradition is most likely to be found? Many in the I.C. have been awakened and see the tradition that is no better than what Catholicism has promoted for over the millenia. It is most grievous to one who gains sight within this setting. Wasn't Christ also grieved by what religion had become. Who was Christ often at odds with? So is it any wonder why there is such fallout and division? I do know first hand the us against them mentality and I do repent of it but I believe it to be a natural reaction. How one deals with it is a good topic for discussion. Maturity and conviction will overcome it and even allow Christians who have experienced this to counsel others reacting to this like dilemma. The gatherings and fellowships should be beyond this hurt and rebellion. We as Christians are to forgive and move on to better things and that should be a necessary promotion so our worship of Christ can continue unimpeded.

As for leadership, I think it a bit much that a start up church would have it altogether since the start ups in the N.T. were often without such leadership. Men were sent to help raise up such missing elements and I am sure it was not done within a time restriction. It takes a lot more faith to ask God to raise up leadership (and we must be very cautious of how we dispense this terminology) than feel the need to meet a model quickly. We should recognize these deficiencies and ask God to provide regardless of either model. Even though a church consist of 500 it would be very possible that none are qualified. How quickly men will dismiss this possibility for it is the common belief that there is strength in number. There is strength in number as long as that number is of God's strength.

I too agree with what Greg wrote. I do want to be be unaware of what has happened that has caused this movement such growth around us to get such footing.

If we dare not compare 99% of American Christians to Chinese Christians (and such a comparison is never to be made as we do not hold to man as our standard) then may God do a mighty work in the church in America.

Wait......maybe He already is.

House churches need mature apostolic leadership in order not to be caught up in excesses. I found many institutional churches here in the UK sound in doctrine but void of the expression of the Holy Spirit in the body of believers. How sad.

StarofGOD wrote:

This is interesting brother. Though house churches can be good in some ways, I have always wondered if God would want a church to stay in that way. Is it possible for a church to function fully as a house church is my question? I am not sure. I would be interested in studying and knowing more about it. Thanks!

As far as God wanting a house church to stay small, there are different models being debated among Christians and I am still not too sure which is the best. The vast majority within the house church movement would argue that new house churches should be started when one gets too big, and acquiring bigger church buildings should be completely avoided. Of course those who favor traditional churches would argue for moving into a bigger location as the local body grows. Then there is what is known as the "cell" church model which meets in a big facility on Sundays and breaks up into home meetings during the week. In the "cell" home groups, the difference between them and the house churches is that they are not viewed as independent churches whereas the house churches are. The "cell" groups are typically under the authority of the leaders who lead the bigger Sunday meetings. As I stated before, I am leaning toward the idea of favoring both big and small gatherings like most have posted here so far.

As to whether or not a house church can function fully as a house church, I would say definitely yes. I say yes because that is what we see in the book of Acts and in the epistles.
For the first two hundred plus years there were no Christian church buildings so most of the basic church practices(such as partaking of the Lord's Supper, administrating church discipline, etc.), took place in believers' homes. That is one of the points that Spurgeon seems to be arguing in the OP. He seems to be exhorting "common" believers to step up and live up to their God-given authority as kings and priests of God in their own homes, like the first century church did.

KripyKritter wrote:

What IS wrong with house churching is when it is permeated with an "us against them" mentality, and a "rage against the institutional church". Sadly, my experience has been that that permeates most house churches. I was involved in that and I know of what I am speaking about. I have had to do a lot of repenting for that.

I agree. I've had the same experience. It seems to me that there may be a healthy middle ground between the current prevalent mindset of those in the "house church movement" in the west, and the mainline western "traditional" churches. In the former it seems that there is not enough respect for the preaching of God's Word, order in meetings, and leadership, and in the latter it seems that many times there is too much strictness and abuse of leadership which ends up quenching the Spirit. In other words, one seems to be too loose and the other too strict.

In the traditional western churches the main event is the Sunday church service which is pre-programmed and very orderly and the main focus there is the preaching of the Word. In the house church movement they tend to have no such big orderly services or meetings. They focus more on encouraging everone to get involved in developing their gifts within gatherings as described in 1Cor.14. So I've been thinking, why can't we have both?

I think the emphasis of the Scriptures has always been about Whom you gather with than the style and size of the box you are meeting in. The emphasis has been upon the edification that happens when you gather together as a community with the risen Lord.

Everything else is cosmetic detail, that while good to talk about from time to time, is frankly, just a little bit on the boring side for me. Is God there? Is the Gospel being preached? Are the saints loving one another? Are people growing in their faith?

That stuff is much more important to talk about... which is why Paul never expounded on meeting in homes vs. meeting in rented quarters vs. meeting in public spaces. Surely, it was talked about. Practical things have to be done in the work of the kingdom. But, he surely didn't waste any valuable paper and ink to do such.

:-)

*edited*

Thank you for the reply Oracio. I am agreeing with the majority consensus here concerning both/and. However just a couple thoughts. Acts 2:46 they continued daily with one accord in the temple. And also the churches in Revelation certainly do not appear to be house churches. Though I wonder if houses churches were considered to be part of each church.

I agree with Krispy.

What Does a Normal Church Look Like?

That's a loaded question with no easy answer. I know this, if the church is iron sharpening iron, it will often be a loud and abrasive place, where friction and heat exist, and where sparks often fly.

StarofGOD wrote:

Thank you for the reply Oracio. I am agreeing with the majority consensus here concerning both/and. However just a couple thoughts. Acts 2:46 they continued daily with one accord in the temple. And also the churches in Revelation certainly do not appear to be house churches. Though I wonder if houses churches were considered to be part of each church.

Good questions. They caused me to do a little digging this morning. I will be doing further research and maybe posting some findings later. So far It seems clear that the first Christians met in the Jerusalem temple not only for evangelism but also for fellowship and public worship. For quite some time I bought into the view that they met there only for evangelistic purposes and not for fellowship, and that they only met in houses for fellowship. But it seems to me now that verses like Luke 24:53 clearly refute that view. Also from Acts 9:1-2 it seems that they also met in the Jewish synogogues for public worship. I may post more Scripture references at a later time. What does seem to be clear is that there were no special buildings dedicated as "Christian" only. Those in the house church movement argue that the first century Christians could have built church buildings of their own but chose not to purposely, that it was not just due to persecution. But I'm not too quick to agree with that view anymore.

As to the churches in Revelation, Christ is addressing the whole church in each city. In each city there was only one main church and they often, if not always, broke up into multiple house churches. So for example the whole church at Ephesus was very likely broken up into multiple house churches in the city(see Acts 20:20). A clearer example of this is in Romans 16:3-4 where Paul is addressing the whole church of Rome but specifically greets the particular house church that met in Acquila and Priscilla's home. Each house church was independent from other house churches(they could function fully as a church).