The Church In The Home ~ Rolfe Barnard

It is a matter of history that for the first two hundred years after Christ the church never had special buildings of their own, and when at last they did the art of exhortation degenerated into the issuing of commands. Many groups which began in homes and have now become well-known organizations have lost out in spiritual effectiveness since they moved into special buildings for their gatherings. This has not happened suddenly. A special building is not a sin but merely a sincere effort to glorify God, which may ultimately involve more drawbacks than advantages.

A study of the Acts of the Apostles and the epistles of the New Testament, especially the epistles of Paul, confronts us with the church in the home. Four times “the church in the home” is specifically mentioned. For instance, the apostles wrote letters to churches and to individuals and sent greetings to or from the church in So-and-So’s house. In Romans 16:5 we read, “Likewise greet the church that is in their house” (the house of Aquila and Priscilla). In I Cor. 16:19 we read, “The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house.” And from scriptures like this we gather the idea that the church in the home of Priscilla and Aquila was a firmly established church of that time. Again, in Col. 4:15 we read: “Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his house.” And then in Philemon verse 2 we hear Paul addressing himself to Philemon and the church in his house. Not one single instance can be found in the New Testament where the early Christians ever built what we call a house of worship. Sometimes they will meet down by the riverside where Paul will preach and God will open Lydia’s heart that she will attend upon the Word. In Jerusalem for a while the temple was used as a place of public testimony, but also in addition to the public testimony in the temple every house of every believer was a place of meeting. We need to carefully note Acts 2:46 and then read with great care Acts 5:42. For a while, you understand, before the Jews really came to understand the issue, Jewish believers were welcome in the temple and were asked to speak.

When the temple was denied the preachers, then only the house remained. Then Paul and others journeyed into Gentile domain, and being Jewish believers, were permitted for a while to preach in synagogues. There the God-fearing people and the proselytes whose hearts God had been opening and preparing, He saved, and out of them little groups called New Testament churches gathered. But later, as the issue was more clearly defined and the Jewish people understood its implications, the synagogues were closed to the preachers of the gospel, and then only the house or “the church in the home” remained. Over twenty times in the Acts of the Apostles and in the epistles we read of believers carrying out their united worship in the home of a believer.

The word “church” is, of course, of Latin origin. The Greek word translated “church” in our Authorized Version is “ekklesia” and it means “the called out ones.” EK equals out from; KALEO means to call. This word is also translated “assembly.” The word “church” or “assembly” is found 115 times in the New Testament. It is used once for a town council (Acts 19:39), and twice for a mob or unlawful council (Acts 19:32-41). The word “church” or “assembly” is used twice for Israel in the old covenant (Acts 7:38). But the word “church” is used 110 times for the body of Christ or believers.

The church is not: (1) A building. (2) A denomination. (3) An organization, nor (4) Many bodies organized, such as synods, conventions, associations, denominations, Church of England, etc. The church is: (1) A body of believers. Read carefully Eph. 4:4 and I Pet. 2:5. (2) A fellowship—one fellowship. (3) A living (not organization but) organism. The church as one body is clearly shown in such passages as I Cor. 12, Romans 12, Col. 1:18 and Eph. 1:22-23. The church is a body of called out ones. Read chapter two of Ephesians, especially verses 19 and 22. The church is a “building,” yes, but it is a building that is being built by the Holy Spirit, not with brick and mortar and hammer and nails—and it is a building indwelt by God the Holy Spirit. It has Christ as the Chief Cornerstone and the Foundation of the church, as to order, structure and doctrine, as outlined here in this passage. Well-nigh buried under the elaborate structures which man has built upon it is the church (so-called) of today—but God’s purpose concerning His true church has not changed. Let’s review just a moment the assembly of called out ones. It is the building of God. It is the household of God. It is the body of Christ. It is the pillar and ground of truth. It is a holy temple. It is the habitation of God. It is a heavenly colony sojourning here on earth, bearing witness in the power of the Holy Spirit to the risen, ascended, glorified Lord. That is the church.

It is important to get fixed in our minds that the early church was taught to regard itself not merely as a collection of saved individuals but as active members of the body of Christ. Not only did all believers form the one body universal, but each group functioned as the body locally. In each of the three cases where these are mentioned (Rom. 12; I Cor. 12; Eph. 4) is no suggestion of only one man ministering to the whole group but each is shown as having the privilege of possessing some spiritual gift and the responsibility to minister this gift to the rest of the saints so that every believer is looked on as a minister to the rest. Modern research in education has shown that we learn little by merely listening, but when we try to impart what we know to others we really begin to master our subject. This shows us the wisdom of God in planting the church, not as a vast congregation of listeners, but as a small body sharing with each other what they learn from the Holy Spirit.

The picture we have of the early church, therefore is something very simple but very vital. Whenever two or three would gather together in the name of the Lord, there they would expect to find their once crucified, now risen Lord present in the midst of them. They would also expect the Holy Spirit to work in each of them and share with each other what was thus revealed. In Col. 3 we read, “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly…teaching and admonishing one another”—and this was addressed to a whole congregation, not simply to one man we call the pastor. As the Holy Spirit worked in the midst, some or all of the gifts of the Spirit mentioned in I Cor. 12 would be manifested for He divided severally to every man as He chose. Each would himself be edified by His gift, and those who heard would likewise be blessed. As each small group divided, and so grew into a number of groups, these continued in fellowship with each other, and all of the small gathering in one city would together form the church of God in Ephesus or wherever it might be. Yet each group would have no say in the way another was carried on. The Lord was the Head of each and worked in each as He saw fit, but they would be free to exhort and admonish each other, though not to command. We find that this true church did not usually get on well with organized religion, but if there was a division it always came about by the organized religious group casting out the true believers. Until this happened, we find the position pictured in Acts 2:46, “Continuing daily…in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house.”

~Rolfe Barnard

Savannah,

Just yesterday I bumped a really old thread where you had posted this same writing!

https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=41590&forum=35&1

In Christ -Jim

My wife and I were VERY involved in house churches for a number of years. I wrote extensively about it on this forum.

If anyone is interested I would be glad to share why we do not house church anymore. House churching can be a wonderful expression of the church when done properly, however I made some general observations about the landscape of house churching that led us to leave it and join a more "traditional" church by God's leading.

Krispy

So I dont start a fire-storm, let me say up front that this is MY experience and MY observations, and acknowledge that others may not have similar experiences. Also, the more "traditional" church that the Lord led us to started out as 5 families meeting in a home.

Now, having said that, one of the books that I used to recommend on here all the time was a book called "Pagan Christianity" by Frank Viola. It is one of the most popular books in the house church movement. While Viola makes a lot of good points in this book, anyone I have ever met who has read this book comes away admitting that Viola has a chip on his shoulder and an axe to grind.

Viola is considered to be one of the house church gurus. He has a tremendous amount of influence.

And in my experience this same attitude is prevelant in the house church movement at large. I say that having been to several house church conferences in different areas of the country, so I am not just speaking about my little corner of the world.

Many house churches reject the Biblical authority of elders/pastors, and I suppose that is my greatest issue with them. They also tend to disparage the idea of a man who has gone to seminary or Bible school. Now, I myself have a LOT of problems with seminaries and Bible schools mainly because they dont teach the Bible anymore. And I certainly agree that a man does not need a degree to be used of God as a pastor/elder/teacher.

But there is something to be said about a man who has been educated and trained soundly in the Word of God, and gifted as a teacher by the Holy Spirit... even tho education is mocked by some here on this forum.

Another thing that has bothered me about house churches is just about anyone is allowed to teach. Without the proper Biblical leadership authority in place this is very wreckless and dangerous from a spiritual standpoint.

A spirit of rebellion and pride is also very prevalent in the house church movement. There is an "us against them" attitude, and along with that there can be a haughtiness that goes hand in hand with it. The very same haughtiness that house churchers accuse the "traditional" churches of having. This can happen in ANY church... but I have experienced it the most in house churches. I was that way too.

House church folks tend to be incredibly independent minded and individualistic... which as a red blooded American I can appreciate, but Paul taught that just the opposite should be true for the Body of Christ. We need each other, and we are to be dependent upon one another.

Now... an organic house church that adheres to Biblical church structure, leadership and authority can be incredible! But in my experience I have found that house churches like that make up maybe 5% of house churches.

So I am NOT against house churches, but I see a lot of spiritual danger in that movement.

Eveyrone likes to point out how the persecuted church meets in homes, etc... and thats true. But they are not thriving because they meet in homes or caves. They are thriving because they are being persecuted. People forget that. Here... meeting in a home is a luxery.

Krispy

A couple of brief ideas Krispy. Most house churches are born out of a desire to return to a Biblical model of Plural Pastors, a more authentic Body life, and are more anti-Religious than rebellious. They see the Pulpit, The building, and the Tithe as a system that controls and kills body-life, rather than enhances it.

You said; " but I see a lot of spiritual danger in that movement." I would contend that most in the House Church would express the opposite....that the danger of following dead religion, sit down stand up, listen to a lecture, shake hands and tell everyone you love them, go home, and eat your ham, and return next Sunday all dressed up and clean and shiny....and call that serving God, and walking in Love with Christ....IS dangerous, and if hypocritical is too strong a word, then disingenuous.

But, your right, mostly, they are struggling. Why? There is an old saying ; "You can take the boy out of the country, but you can't take country out of the boy. It is the same with religion. Often, one expects and feels secure, less exposed, in a setting where men can institute order.....like a church "service"...[ no service to God, especially ]...but it creates an orderly system....and is ran by a Priest/class type fellow..[ usually fellow..].

This feels very safe, and really you do not have to expose, or give anything of yourself...except the tithe that makes everyone feel better, and greases the gears to maintain the overhead and salaries.

So, the house church adapts the same model...the big church in the little house....and the pews become the couch......and the pulpit belongs to the leader. Without Godly Shepherds the church would perish, if possible. Let us not, however, associate Shepherds with directors, or leadership. They are instituted to assure that the Holy Spirit, who is the LEADER and LORD, is not quenched! and God is allowed to use ALL the body, fitly joined together, to edify itself in Love.

One has a Psalm, One has a teaching, One has a Testimony, One has a Prophecy!...and each one is allowed to minister to another as He leads, and anoints. We are a NATION of PRIESTS!...remember?

Just because saints have seen this truth, and veered out into the unknown, and labor because of uncharted waters and the rocks and eddies.....does not make it wrong. There is no doubt that THIS IS the New Testament model, and that the OLD....pulpit/pew/Priest/Lay Minister Class/ Drone Class model is being diminished as we speak; and of course the owners of that religious model, as the Pharisees of old, would rather murder than relinquish their hold on it.

The question must be for any Biblical fellowship; Is Jesus Lord in the community of that fellowship, and is He Lord of the meetings? and IS the least of the brethren used, and honored, as much as any other, including the elders?....and does your fellowship have a Christ centered World view?...all the way down to the kitchen table and the market-place.

It's interesting, brother Tom, that in what I wrote I allowed for the fact there are in fact house churches that are doing it right and that it is "incredible" (the word I used) when it's done right.

You responded by painting non-house churches with a broad brush and over generalizations. That is a prevailing pass-time in many house churches.

Not every "traditional" church operates like what you described. For instance, our church does not teach tithing. Many churches have very sincere love for one another and are very relational. Many churches pool their resources and do tremendous community outreach and missional work.

What I am saying is this: regardless of what type of church your PREFER (and when you boil it down, we are talking about preferences here), it needs to be done right and orderly and Biblically.

Krispy

Sree... Your experience sounds wonderful and praise worthy. Thank the Lord! You have found a good church.

Krispy

Savannah... thanx for the link. I just had a minute to look at it, but it was enough to spark my interest. I will take a longer look at it when I have more time.

Krispy

"Hmm “plural pastors” how many pastors do they need in the living room or kitchen-could it be too many want to be the pastors. Do they get to keep all their money or maybe give a little every now and then to at least help out and maybe someone (one of the pastors) has found a missionary work that is legit so they can give some support but no tithing.
need help understanding!"...Needhelp.

The first church there ever was in Jerusalem was a house church...".Acts 2:46
"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,"...and

" And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ!"

There were perhaps 25,000 or more in this early first model. They also met at Solomons portico, a broad square type brick park...I imagine when the weather was good.

Paul at Ephesus met the elders at Miletus, and most scholars think there were as many as 200....to shepherd a massive Church of 50,000+. These were all house churches.. Homechurches can be very large. I visited one in Cleveland'; " People of Destiny "...and they met every week in a rented Gym at a high school...for a couple of hundred dollars a MONTH..WITH PERHAPS 800 PEOPLE....and then everyone went to a home meeting during the week...with different venues now and then...very successful and large.

"Do they get to keep all their money or maybe give a little every now and then to at least help out and maybe someone (one of the pastors) has found a missionary work that is legit so they can give some support but no tithing.
need help understanding!"..Needhelp

You are under no forced giving...but you give as you are led....and out of love for Jesus and the gospel, of course they gave money...to send out, and to receive.and for various mercy ministries the church endeavoured....and probably used with much more merit than the current systems today.

my wife and I had a very bad home church experience. the small home church we attended was very cult like and controlling and a spring off the "shepherding movement". We couldn't do anything unless our spiritual covering heard from God for us on things like where to live, what type of car to drive and where to work. and if we didn't tithe we were scolded too...

Whenever you encounter a church like that the Holy Spirit will always say the same thing if you listen... it goes something like this:

"Run Forrest... Run!!"

Thats called an abusive church.

BUT, what jimp describes is something I long for. a group of saints that we could be intimate, with, pray for each other, study the word, break bread, share the gospel/ ministry together.. where I live it seems like there are only large churches with their own agenda and home churches who are critical of every church who is not a home church and men with ego's who want to be the pastor and "spiritual leader" of the home church they attend.

This can be encountered in a house church or in a fellowship that meets in a building. Our church meets in a church building that we purchased 2 yrs ago after having started in a home 5 yrs previous, and rented a SDA sancutary on Sundays afte it got too big for a home.

We average probably between 150-200 on Sundays. We have home groups. I have to tell you, these people are our family... we LOVE them. I dont know how we lived without this fellowship. I pray you find that too! Doesnt matter if it is a house church or a "traditional" church.

This is not an issue of which style is better, or more Biblical, or whatever. God clearly uses and blesses both kinds of churches.

I long for a true example of ACTS. I have been wanting to start a prayer meeting in my home on Friday evenings like Leonard Ravenhill did and watch God move.

So what is stopping you? This is how most churches start, and how most revivals start. The Welsh revival started by one man praying... and then one person joined him... and then another...

Krispy

Wow, lots of good responses if we can cut through the rabbit trails and red herrings and stick to the main issue. This issue is not really about some movement called house church, or some guy named frank viola... it is about the instructions of Christ and the apostles clearly recorded in the new tesamenent. It is not simply about where you meet but how you meet, though there are definately draw backs to having a building.

My friend Ian wrote on this subject:

"Why take 2-300 years to get around to building ‘a church’? Its bcos the Apostles had a reason NOT to do it. Not bcos they couldn’t afford it or that persecution stopped it.

There’s a fundamental reason why they are problematic: The true church is a set of relationships in Christ. Building a church building changes that, and a certain group of people “own” “the church” : see the subtle shift? “The church” is now centered around who owns, or controls, the building, so the building itself, and the committee which owns it, becomes “the church”.

(ironically, similar to Marxist theory: who owns the capital controls the people.)

“The committee” or registered society which is formed to legally manage the building then becomes subject to the civil authorities ….. ??? See the problem?"

Jim