Home church vs special building

This is a very important issue, since it comes up so often in Baptist circles. At the basis of this question is whether the NT is to be descriptive or prescriptive. Mnay have sought to go "back to the NT church" but is this possible, wise, or even demanded in Scripture? Are we given examples, teaching and doctrine upon which to build, or are we locked into a first century model? and if we "progress" in ecclesiology, how much is too much?

I don't believe we are called to be sandal-clad, itinerent preachers, and all be worshipping and ministering in home churches. Much of what we do is not first century, but that's OK IMO.

 

A "building" has nothing to do with a church. Many bush churches meet underneath trees or canopies. Other African churches meet in old storage buildings or other makeshift shelters. The church is the gathered body of believers.

In historic protestantism three components are necessary for a true church to exist: the possession and preaching of the true gospel, the right performance of the ordinances, and church discipline (edifing and corrective). Any who possess these three traits have the right to call themselves a church. (But many small groups who call themselves churches do not possess all three.)

 

One thing the NT church did that we don't do is to meet daily, they witnessed daily, and daily people were saved.

But did they always meet in homes, or is that where it was most convenient?

The NT church was also under severe persecution and I doubt it would have been wise to take the time to build a church with a nice pretty sign out front directing the soldiers to the exact spot where they could freely murder those who were following Christ. Didn't they often meet in homes in secret for this very reason?

~Lorelei

 

Great idea, PB.
Lorelei brings up the most pertinent point imo. Christians were being hunted down, so of course they weren't building churches. Did they not do so immediately in countries when conditions politically made it possible for them to do so?

Having said that - a church can be anything & anywhere. Home, warehouse, tent, field, etc.
Just because apostles and others met in homes does not make this the only model for a church. It was just plain, common sense on their part.

 

One thing we need to remember is that the Church isn't a building, it's the body of Christ.

So, to my way of thinking, if a group of believers meet in a home, it's every bit as much a church as a group who meets in a special building. A home-based meeting IS NOT just a bible study.

Anyway, that's my two cents worth.

God Bless!!!

Adam

 

The "house" church is a good viable New Testament practice that should not be dismissed in our modern culture. But if we look at ALL the gatherings of the New Testament churches, I think we will find that, though homes were probably the predominant meeting place, they were not the ONLY meeting place (Acts 2:46, temple courts; Acts 4:23,31, the place they were, not specified; Acts 5, possibly the same place as Acts 4:31, but probably too large a gathering in these cases for a home; Acts 5:42; Acts 6:1-8, the whole multitude was gathered somewhere; etc.).

 

Notice several things from this passage. These early believers were continually devoted to the apostles' teaching. They were feeding regularly on their teaching of Christ. They were growing in their knowledge of Jesus rapidly. They were also devoted to fellowship. Fellowship means "a sharing in common with." What did these believers share with each other? Everything, including their material possessions! They sold their possessions and shared the proceeds with anyone who had need. It's important to note that this sharing of possessions wasn't legislated from the top down. It came from within their hearts, being birthed by the Holy Spirit. They were also continually devoted to sharing the Lord's Supper with one another. In fact we read in vs.46 that "day by day they were breaking bread from house to house, sharing their meals together with gladness." They were with each other all the time. They ate meals together. In fact when they ate their meals with one another, they would pause and remember Christ in the breaking of bread and the passing of the cup. They were also continually devoted to prayer. They were praying constantly, seeking God's direction and will for their lives. Notice also that God's blessing was upon them. He was working great signs and wonders through the apostles, giving them favor with all the unbelievers, and adding to the church day after day. Notice additionally where they met -- the temple and homes. They would meet in large groups at Solomon's porch at the temple to hear the apostles' teaching, and would then get together in homes to break bread, pray, and praise God together. Notice also, that this community didn't depend on any special buildings. What do you suppose would have happened if the temple grounds were closed off to the early Christians? Would the church be shut down? Not on your life! This group of people was too vibrant and alive for their existence to depend on a special building. If the temple grounds were closed down, they would just continue to meet in an open field, at a riverside, or in homes. It's impossible to define these people in terms of programs. You can't define them as the ones who meet at the temple and from house to house. No, there's something much more dynamic and alive here. This was a community of people who shared their very lives with one another. Church was not just a part of their life, it was their life. For them, church was a seven day a week, Christ-centered community.

Now, compare that early church to what we observe in the church today. There's not much to compare is there?! If our church buildings were shut down, I wonder if our churches would fold as well. If the programs were shut down, would the church also collapse?

...

The early church was a thing of beauty. It was a vibrant, exciting, body of people living in community with one another. How far we have drifted in 2,000 years! Oh, that God would restore us to our rightful heritage!

I believe one of the primary hindrances to vibrant New Testament church life has been that the church has held tenaciously to man-made traditions, and have rejected apostolic traditions. Jesus taught clearly that the tradition of man was to be spurned whenever it came into conflict with the Word of God. "And the Pharisees and the scribes asked Him, 'Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with impure hands?' And He said to them, 'Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, 'This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far away from Me. But in vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.' 'Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.' He was also saying to them, 'You nicely set aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition'" (Mark 7:5-9).

However, it is just as clear that the apostles of Christ developed traditions which they expected the churches to keep. Consider the following passages:

"Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ. Now I praise you because you remember me in everything, and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:1-2).

"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us" (2 Thess. 2:15).

Additionally, the Scriptures show us that the apostles expected all the churches to follow the same patterns that they had established. For example, when Paul dealt with the issue of head coverings he wrote, "But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God" (1 Cor. 11:16). When Paul was establishing guidelines for orderly church gatherings he wrote, "... as in all the churches of the saints" (1 Cor. 14:33). In this way he referred to a universally practiced apostolic tradition to justify his guidelines. If a church broke with established apostolic tradition, it received a rebuke, "Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only?" (1 Cor. 14:36). Paul is saying, "If you think that God gave you some new revelation that it's all right to change the practices of the church, guess again! If so, you are the only ones He gave it to, because none of the other churches are practicing that!"

There are many apostolic patterns of church life that are widely embraced today including the freedom of the local church to govern itself, a plurality of elders, meeting on Sunday as the "Lord's Day", believer's baptism, and the sending out of missionaries. However, there are other apostolic traditions that are not widely embraced including church gatherings designed for mutual edification of every member, the love feast, one cup and one loaf used in the Lord's Supper, meetings held in homes rather than specially designed religious buildings, and church discipline. It is my conviction that these apostolic traditions need to be recovered and applied to church life today as well as these others!


The Setting For The Gatherings Of The Early Church


What was the normal setting for the wonderful life of the early church? Where did they meet? The answer may surprise you. The early believers met primarily in homes! This can be easily substantiated from the Scriptures.

Acts 2:46 "And day by day continuing with one mind in the temple and breaking bread from house to house they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart."

Acts 5:42 "And every day, in the temple and from house to house they kept right on teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ."

Acts 8:3 "But Saul began ravaging the church, entering house after house and dragging off men and women, he would put them in prison." Saul knew where to find the gatherings of the church -- in homes!

Acts 16:40 "And they went out of the prison and entered the house of Lydia, and when they saw the brethren, they encouraged them and departed." Even at this early date, the church had already found a meeting place in Lydia's home.

Acts 17:5 "But the Jews, becoming jealous and taking along some wicked men from the market place, formed a mob and set the city in an uproar; and coming upon the house of Jason, they were seeking to bring them out to the people." It appears that the Jews knew that the church met in Jason's home, and thus began there in their quest to find them and run them out of town.

Acts 20:20 "how I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you publicly and from house to house."

Romans 16:5 "...also greet the church that is in their house."

1 Corinthians 16:19 "The churches of Asia greet you. Aquila nad Prisca greet you heartily in the Lord, with the church that is in their house."

Philemon 2 "...and to Apphia our sister, and to Archippus our fellow soldier, and to the church in your house."

Col. 4:15 "Greet the brethren who are in Laodicea and also Nympha and the church that is in her house."

2 John 10 "If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds." Here we have a warning to the church not to receive false teachers into their house. This doesn't refer to individual believers allowing non-Christians into their homes for social or evangelistic purposes, but rather is a warning to the church not to allow false teachers to participate in their meetings. Since involvement in the meetings meant an opportunity to speak, it would have meant possible harm to the church if a false teacher were allowed into the meeting.

Thus, there is much evidence from the Scriptures that houses were the primary meeting places in the early church.

A little research into church history will reveal another very interesting fact -- the church of Jesus Christ had no special buildings for worship for the first 200 years of its existence! Even then, church buildings were very rare until the time of Constantine in the 4th century. How could these early Christians possibly advance the cause of Christ in the world without church buildings? The answer is that they did so very well. In fact the enemies of the Christian faith said that they had turned the world upside down. They made their mark for Christ in the first century, without special buildings, seminaries, mission boards, denominations or programs. When is the last time you heard a non-Christian say that about the church today?

How did it happen that believers left living rooms to gather in large cathedrals? The change came primarily in the 4th century through Constantine, the Roman emperor. When he wedded church and state together, making Christianity the official religion of Rome, he authorized the construction of special buildings designed for Christian worship. A great influx of new buildings sprouted up across the empire. It was at the same time that multitudes of people were coming into the church out of paganism following the example of their emperor. In order to accommodate them, the church began introducing ritual, ceremony, and pomp into the meetings of the church -- things very familiar to ex-pagans. Soon the clergy began to wear vestments to set themselves apart from the laity. The informal, interactive, vibrant meetings of believers in living rooms were replaced with formality and passivity, in large, impersonal buildings. And for the next 1,700 years this has been the rule in the church of Christ. Even the reformation, though bringing back to the church an orthodox understanding of theology, never really dealt with restoring orthodox apostolic practices to the church. The reformation replaced the priest with the pastor, and the altar with the pulpit, but many New Testament distinctives of church life were still buried under hundreds of years of tradition.

Could it be that there was good reason for the church to meet in homes from the very beginning? Could it be that rather than being a step up, it actually became a step down when the church decided to forsake homes entirely for large building-centered worship? I believe the answer is "yes."

We see a Biblical pattern for the assembling of larger gatherings of believers for the purpose of being taught the Word of God. In Acts 2:46 we find the early church gathering in large numbers at the temple (probably Solomon's Portico (Acts 3:11). Undoubtedly, this was where the early believers were taught by the apostles (Acts 2:42). We also find Paul and Silas teaching large numbers of Christians at Antioch for a year (Acts 11:21, 26). Where did these believers meet to be instructed in the things of God? Well, it's obvious that "considerable numbers" can not be instructed in a house! Perhaps these believers met outdoors, or in a rented facility (Acts 19:9). In Acts 20:20 the apostle Paul states to the Ephesian elders that he had taught publicly and from house to house. Evidently, Paul not only taught in homes, but also in a public setting of some kind. Therefore, the Scriptures provide the pattern of the early church meeting in large gatherings to be instructed. If there is a Biblical pattern for the church meeting in these larger gatherings, and if there is access to a building large enough to accommodate them in a comfortable setting, I see nothing wrong in utilizing these buildings, especially if exorbitant amounts of money are not needed to secure them. But if the gatherings of the church take place only in large buildings, then I believe that the church will miss out on some vital aspects of Biblical church-life.

In the large building-centered gatherings it becomes extremely difficult to practice using one loaf and one cup in the Lord's Supper to symbolize our unity together in Christ (1 Cor. 10:16-17); enjoy a Love Feast in conjunction with the Lord's Supper (1 Cor. 11:20-22, 33-34; Jude 12); participate in meetings where each one is allowed opportunity to minister to the saints (1 Cor. 14:26); develop deep and intimate relationships with one another so that when one member suffers all the members suffer (1 Cor. 12:26); and obey all the "one-another" commands of the New Testament. These were all essential elements of church life in the first century, but have been largely abandoned because with our present structures they cease to be functional. For these reasons I believe it is important that we return to the New Testament norm of the church meeting in homes. These "house churches" may choose to cluster together in a larger setting at certain times, but New Testament church-life will not be reserved only for these "public" gatherings, but will be experienced and lived out with other believers during the week as they meet together in homes.
</font>[/QUOTE]</font>[/QUOTE]</font>[/QUOTE]</font>[/QUOTE]Quotes taken from http://www.solidrock.net/publications/anderson/books/house.church.html

 

This is just wrong, they met in the Temple, which WAS a special building, a very special one. They also met in homes yes, but they DID meet in the temple and to suggest the "didn't depend" on that building to be there is supposing too much.

But the temple wasn't shut down so that is where they met. You don't know what they would have done because that wasn't an issue. You can't base you belief on an assumption...suppose the temple courts were shut down, maybe they would build a little red brick church too, who knows! You can't say it is wrong because you don't think that is what they would have done. We have the Word of God so that we don't need to "think" about what we should do, God is clear on all important issues, I trust in that.

Amen to that one. I agree that too many people today think church is for just a few hours a week. You can still meet daily in a church building, or fellowship throughout the week in homes and meet at the building (or in thier case temple) other times too.

Both, not just homes.

Again the same.

Right, therefore a building just wasn't practicle, but it doesn't say that meeting there was a must or preferrred.

So they needed some place to meet and the home worked out well, doesn't say that it was preferential to the temple, just where the place was found.

It appears so, again, practicality

Again, both..not just in homes.

Again, it never says that the homes had to be where they met. We also know that many met in the temple and most often did both.

AND the temple.

I agree with a lot of what you say, but how can you base your argument that homes were preferred, when the Bible clearly states that they often met in the temple, and the Bible never specifies WHERE we are to meet, or which one is preferred. It just says that we should meet. The importance is on meeting, not where it is done.

~Lorelei

 

Lorelei,
You are just good at this!

I would also point out that in the OT, God demanded a special place of worship and even blessed Solomon greatly when he constructed the first temple - and it was VERY extravagant.
I suppose it could be said that was the old covenant and doesn't apply....

 

error

[ March 13, 2002, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: LP ]

 

You are totally misconstruing the quote which uses BOTH "temple" AND "special building." The writer is not an idiot who will use "temple" in one sentance, then in the next say there was no temple ("special building" in that sense). Rather, he uses "special building" in the sense that the context of its use indicates, which you seemed to have disdainfully disregarded.

The point is this: was the temple a special building constructed for and by the church? Was the temple a special building built with the church's money? Or did the church utilize a special building that was already in their community?

Irrefutably, it was the latter.

[ March 13, 2002, 04:48 PM: Message edited by: LP ]

 

I haven't "disdainfully disregarded" anything, I disagreed. Forgive me if I don't believe everyone you choose to qoute. At least my beliefs are explained using my own words by doing the study myself. But I guess it is ok to "disdainfully disregard" my context, since I am not some scholar and I didn't take 10 pages of someone else's words to state it?

Your "writer" is ignoring the fact that many of the Church members were also Jews and therefore their temple was the special building. They didn't see the realization at the time that the Jewish nation was going to continue to deny Christ and kick him out of thier temple. Those very church members held that Temple in high regard, they did not just meet there out of convenience. They met at the temple because of what it was, the house of God.

The Jewish members of it, yes.

The very tithes and offerings of those same Jews

They utilized what they recognized to be the House of God that was already constructed. It wasn't the City Hall building, they new what the Temple was and that is why those chose to meet there. Where better to meet then in God's own Temple?

Not irrefutably, in your opinion. My opinion may not come from years of study in some theological seminary, but I am child of God who does her best to try and read His Word to find the Truth that He has given us. You gave me thumbs down, but I guarantee you that God gave me a thumbs up, not for what I said, but becuase I went to His Word and searched the scriptures to see if what you said was true. The writer is not an idiot, but I am sorry, I don't think his words should be held in the same regard as God's. Are you saying that I am an idiot for thinking they should not?

~Lorelei

[ March 13, 2002, 05:15 PM: Message edited by: Lorelei ]

 

Lorelei:

Encouragement

I am glad you are diggin in the word. Here's a few things to look for in this matter.

In Acts 9 the Jewish midset you mentioned began to change, after Peter's vision of the sheet and the unclean animals. Most of the passages written in Acts about the NT pattern of where the church met were written after that period. And Paul directly addressed Gentiles in Acts in some of them. And the Corinthian passages were written to an overwhelmingly Gentile church. Same with Collosians. Only the Roman church of the passages above was a good mixture of Jews and Gentiles.

Also, the temple did, in fact, serve as "city hall" for the Jewish community, both prior the Diasporas, and afterward--that role for the temple took place whenever and wherever the temple existed, and when it did not, during the Diasporas, that role was carried out in the synogogues, especially the main one. Bottom line: the law of Moses was every bit as civil and criminal as it was religious.

Now, to get to the core matter.

It is not opinion, but is indeed irrefutable, that the early church (in Acts) utilized a special building that was already in their community. It is irrefutable that the temple mentioned was built long before the church had even come on to the scene. It is irrefutable that the church did not build the temple to meet in after becoming Christians. It is irrefutable that they utilized what was aready there.

Do you know any Baptists in 2002 that have cultural and emotional attachments to Jewish temples based upon their own past involvement in Judaism prior the institution of the church? That's not possible.

Do you know any Baptists in 2002 that still wonder whether the Jewish nation as a whole has rejected Jesus? I hope not.

Do you know any Baptists that, prior them coming to Christ, constructed and completely paid for buildings that might be used for a meeting place for the church today? If so, I say let's use those already existing and paid for buildings to the hilt. Because using already existing buildings is what follows, and what is, the NT pattern.

Small story:

A SBC church I was part of had "caught the vision" to build a three story gymnasium--weight room, basketball courts, etc, all world-class. Price tag: 3.1 million. "We will build it so we can invite in the unsaved so we can share the gospel with them and lead them to Christ," was the rationale. As it went up, I kept looking at it and wondering, how in the world are we going to bid people to come and die in a place like that?

Meanwhile, not far down the road sat the YMCA, with very adequate physical fitness facilities, already filled with unsaved people. They were wide open and advertising for new enrollment.

Go figure.

Meanwhile again, about 99 percent of all Americans can, with the barest of effort, access the gospel: Christians meet all around where they live, Christian radio airs 24 hours per day (on 3 to 4 stations, typically), there are bookstores with dozens of Bible translations and thousands of Christian books in most towns, there are preachers on TV every Sunday and 24 hours per day (I was saved that way), etc. And most people in the US do already know some certain basic facts of the gospel--nearly everyone at least knows the Christmas story. Indeed, the U.S. is exceedingly, exceedingly, the most gospel-saturated society on planet earth.

Yet, out-of-sight and mostly out-of-mind sits over half the world's poplation--over half the world's poplation--who has never once, not even once, heard the gospel, or even the Wonderful Name of Jesus (this does not include reference to Jesus in the Koran). They cannot access the gospel, except with the most hurculean of efforts (like learning a new language and travelling to a new area, which they could almost never afford to do). They have no Christians in their area, no gospel radio in their language, no Christian TV (nor a TV), not even a Bible in their language, nor can most even read etc. Yet, by default we say to these that "we have 'caught a vision' to build a 3.1 million dollar gymnasium and weight room. God had called us to do it, brother!"

Go figure.

[ March 14, 2002, 10:10 AM: Message edited by: LP ]

 

LP,
Sorry but you are obnoxious and what you say is refuteable. They met in houses because they were being persecuted and for fellowship. The teaching was going on in the Temple Courts.
Also you failed to address my point about the OT and God's demand of Israel of a house of worship. He blessed Solomon in his construction of a most lavish Temple.
Now Jesus ushered in a new covenant - but where does he say to quit glorifying God in our places (buildings) of worship.
If you're so hung up on NT ways, why not dress as they did? Eat as they did? Travel as they did? Come to think of it, if you've used a phone or car....whoo boy!
Let's just take it to the max - bring the world under Roman rule because that's the way they did it in the NT.
Don't forget your donkey on the "drive" to work.

p.s.
"Church" as used in Revelation:
ekklesia {ek-klay-see'-ah}
from a compound of 1537 and a derivative of 2564; TDNT - 3:501,394; n f
AV - church 115, assembly 3; 118
1) a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly 1a) an assembly of the people convened at the public place of the council for the purpose of deliberating 1b) the assembly of the Israelites 1c) any gathering or throng of men assembled by chance, tumultuously 1d) in a Christian sense 1d1) an assembly of Christians gathered for worship in a religious meeting 1d2) a company of Christian, or of those who, hoping for eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, observe their own religious rites, hold their own religious meetings, and manage their own affairs, according to regulations prescribed for the body for order's sake 1d3) those who anywhere, in a city, village, constitute such a company and are united into one body 1d4) the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth 1d5) the assembly of faithful Christians already dead and received into heaven.

So, the very first definition "refutes" you.

[ March 13, 2002, 11:53 PM: Message edited by: Optional ]

 

We are to glorify God with buildings in the NT because the Bible says no where specifically that we are not to. Is that not arguing from silence, the weakest form of argument?

On the other hand, the NT pattern was that the church met in already existing buildings is not argued from silence. Whether you want to hold that as proscriptive (as I do) or descriptive (as you do), the evidence of it remains.

PackerBacker, as well as myself, already addressed the silly stuff of transportation modalities and all that in another thread; and I already addressed the OT matters there as well. You can search for the first matter. But the other is also here: Old Testament vs. New Testament Mission, Building, and Giving

[ March 14, 2002, 12:03 AM: Message edited by: LP ]

 

That's all you're going to address? A satirical comment?

How about:
"Church" as used in Revelation:
ekklesia {ek-klay-see'-ah}
from a compound of 1537 and a derivative of 2564; TDNT - 3:501,394; n f
AV - church 115, assembly 3; 118
1) a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly 1a) an assembly of the people convened at the public place of the council for the purpose of deliberating.

[ March 13, 2002, 11:56 PM: Message edited by: Optional ]

 

This is really becoming quite funny. Quite an extrapolation from the rending of the curtain to a proscription against building churches. But then you don't seem to have a problem making these extrapolations.