Toward a House

by Eric Svendsen
For the first three-hundred years of its existence the church met primarily in the homes of its members, not in specially designed buildings. There can be little dispute that the meeting place for the first-century church was the home. Romans 16:5 (as well as 1 Cor 16:19) speaks of the church that met in the house of Aquila and Priscilla. When Paul wrote to Philemon he also addressed his letter to Archippus and to the church in his house (v. 2). Likewise, when he wrote his greetings in Col 4 he mentions the church which met in the house of Nympha (v. 15). When Paul taught the newly formed churches, he did so from "house to house" (Acts 20:20). There is a probable allusion to a church in Jason's house in Acts 16:5-6. In 2 John there is a warning to the church not to receive false teachers into their house (v. 10). This is not (as is often assumed) referring to individual Christians who might have unbelievers in their homes for social and evangelistic purposes; rather it is a warning to the church not to allow false teachers to participate in the meeting. (Just one more example of how our failure to adhere to the practice of the early church has led to a misunderstanding and hence misinterpretation/misapplication of Scripture). Since participation in the meeting implied the opportunity to speak it would have meant potential harm to the church if a false teacher were allowed in the meeting. Paul addresses this same danger elsewhere (2 Tim 2:14-26) when he says that such practice only "leads to the ruin of the hearers" (v. 14). Hence there is much evidence for the "house-church."

Conversely, there is no real evidence that the early church met anywhere else for their weekly meetings. True, Acts 1--5 pictures a church that was meeting daily in houses and in the temple (1:13, 2:46, 5:42), as well as in Solomon's Porch (5:12). But this was at a time before there was any attempt at a developed ecclesiology. Moreover, since Jewish Christians were allowed to hold on to their Judaism (cf. Acts 21:20-26), it comes as no surprise that the Christians in Jerusalem were still meeting in places like the temple, the synagogue and Solomon's Porch. Yet even these Christians were also practicing things distinctive of the church, such as meeting together on the Lord's Day and meeting in homes. The question then becomes, Why did the early church meet in homes?

Some have speculated that this was a cultural phenomenon. The early church, it is argued, met in homes in accordance with the culture of its day. Since in our culture we are accustomed to meeting in buildings, we should continue to do so. We should not think that the "house-church" is normative since it is a culturally relative practice. This line of reasoning is easily answered. What other religious group of the first century (besides the church) met exclusively in homes? I know of none. The Jews met in the temple and synagogues; the pagan religions at that time met in their pagan temples and shrines. So not only was the house-church not the culture of the day, it actually went against the culture of the day. The church could have patterned themselves after the other religions of that day and met in specially designed buildings--the pattern was there--but, significantly, they chose not to!

Others have suggested persecution as the reason that the early church met in homes. This is usually based on a popular yet over-simplified view of church history. It is a common assumption that the church suffered persecution on a massive scale for the first three-hundred years of its existence. However, the idea that the church was under constant persecution during this time has been largely over-blown (as a perusal through any reputable church history manual will readily show). The fact is, all persecution before A.D. 250 was sporadic, localized and, more often than not, the result of mob hostility rather than the decree of a Roman ruler. Moreover, the Roman rulers who were favorably disposed toward Christianity outnumbered those who opposed it. This is seen not only in Church history but even in the book of Acts. Luke goes to great lengths to show that the Roman authorities did not consider Christianity a threat, but instead (whenever the Jews tried to eradicate Christianity via the legal system) viewed it as a religious matter quite out of their jurisdiction (cf. 16:35, 17:6-9, 18:12-16, 19:37-38, 23:29, 25:18-20, 25:24-27, 26:31-32). Richard Longenecker, in commenting on Luke's purpose for writing Acts, puts it succinctly: "Luke also takes pains to point out that despite differences between the Christian message and that of Judaism, the charge of religio illicita [i.e. illegal religion] had never been accepted by any well-informed Roman official" ("The Acts of the Apostles," Expositor's Bible Commentary [12 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981], 218-19). Even when persecution did break out the church made no secret about where it met; hence Saul knew just where to go when he went "from house to house" dragging members of the church off to prison (Acts 8:3), and unbelievers knew just where to go if they wanted to hear more about Christianity (1 Cor 14:23-25).

Still others have dismissed house-churches as something characteristic of the church in its infancy stage only. The apostles, it is argued, would naturally have expected the church in later centuries to develop its own forms and structures in keeping with the progress of Christianity. (One searches in vain for any indication of this supposed "expectation"). Apart from a complete lack of evidence to substantiate it, this explanation is demonstrably false. The church of the first century had a much different mind-set than the church of later centuries. Its main focus was on the coming of the Lord. Its members were looking for and anticipating his arrival in their lifetimes. This is evident from several passages: they were "eagerly waiting" for "His Son" and for the "mercy" that would accompany him (1 Cor 1:7; 1 Thess 1:10; Jd 21); they were "looking forward to the day of God" and were "speeding its coming" (2 Pet 3:12) as they "set [their] hope fully on the grace to be given [them] at the revelation of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet 1:13); in short, they were "waiting for the blessed hope--the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ" (Tit 2:13). F. F. Bruce has well said, "Whatever was implied by the church's adaptation in her thought and life to the conditions of a second and further generations of Christian existence in the world, her teachers continued, long after A.D. 70, to emphasize the certainty, and indeed the nearness, of the parousia [i.e. second coming]. . . Each successive Christian generation is called upon to live as the generation of the end-time, if it is to live as a Christian generation" (The Book of Hebrews [The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990], 259). To spend wasted money and time building large, beautiful places of worship knowing that the Lord might come at any time was unthinkable to the NT church. The fact that the church today has no problem with the idea of spending both time and money building large, extravagant buildings is really only a reflection of just how much we're not expecting Jesus to come back any time soon! The church of the first century followed in the footsteps of Abraham and the other OT saints who were "looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God" (Heb 11:10). This present world was a place in which they as "strangers" and "aliens" in a foreign land showed the temporary nature of their stay here by "dwelling in tents" (11:9) and in "deserts and mountains, and in caves and holes in the ground" (11:38). Because their nomadic actions showed that they were anticipating "another country," their badge of honor is that "God is not ashamed to be called their God" (11:16).

The question must be asked--Has today's church demonstrated this "alien" mind-set by its plethora of building plans? Or is it rather the case that our actions show forth a materialistic mind-set that has been conformed to this world--one that reasons to the effect that "we're going to be here for a while so we might as well settle down and get comfortable"? It cannot be denied that, even to the most casual observer, today's church is largely materialistic. We are a product not of the first-century church but of the fourth-century church. Moreover, we have adopted not the "alien" philosophy of Abraham but the world's philosophy that "bigger is better," only we've changed the words to "God deserves the best." Is this not how we've justified posh mega-churches, plush pews, stained-glass windows, extravagant church organs, exorbitant choir robes and the like (usually to the neglect of real needs of the saints such as food, clothing and shelter)?

There are other reasons for the house-church (which will be explored next issue) but these are sufficient to introduce the topic. The contrast between the first-century church practice of meeting exclusively in homes and the current church practice of meeting in specially designed buildings raises significant questions about the priorities and mind-set of today's church. Are we "eagerly awaiting" and "speeding" the coming of our Lord? I trust we are--in spite of our building mentality. My concern is that we are secretly hoping he won't come until after we've had sufficient time to build and enjoy that new addition to the building.