Toward a House

by Eric Svendsen
Let us take up where we left off in our last issue. So far we have looked at several arguments in favor of the house-church being normative for the church even today, not least of which is the fact that it was the practice of the apostolic church. We also examined the possible reasons for this early-church practice as well as several objections to the house-church, and showed the difference in mind-set and priorities between the early church and today's church. We will continue along this line of discussion (both in this issue and in the next), showing the biblical basis for, as well as the practical advantages of, the house-church.

It is often argued that a large church is better equipped than a small church (or, in this case, a house-church) to organize and finance those causes which are biblical, such as the sending of missionaries. However, this argument assumes that local churches are to be completely independent of each other. It certainly does not argue against a network of house-churches which cooperate with each other in the sending out of missionaries. In fact, the argument backfires. One mega-church with one-thousand members could never match the resource potential of a network of house-churches with one-thousand members, for the mega-church of necessity must allocate huge amounts of its resources for the building itself (initial building costs as well as maintenance and utility bills--all of which could exceed hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars).

The above has of course been argued purely from a pragmatic perspective since that seems to be the basis upon which the mega-church builds its ecclesiology. It needed to be shown that the NT pattern is in fact more financially pragmatic than the institutional church. From a purely NT perspective this kind of argumentation is unnecessary. The church of the first century did not equate "bigness" with ability. The words of Paul to this effect bear repeating: "God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things--and the things that are not--to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him" (1 Cor 1:27-29). The world system operates from the principle that bigger is better. To those in this system, success is measured by size and might is measured by muscle. This is not the way it is to be with those who claim to be "not of the world." On the contrary, to adopt the world's philosophy of strength is to be "conformed to this world" (Rom 12:2). Unfortunately, this is just what the contemporary church has done. This is a serious charge but one that is easily substantiated. A quick browse through the aisles of any Christian book store will soon reveal the immense popularity of "how-to" books filled with all kinds of suggestions for church growth, including everything from management techniques to marketing strategies. (One wonders if one hasn't stumbled into a Wall Street booksellers warehouse by mistake!). One such book is blatantly entitled Marketing the Church (George Barna, NavPress, 1991)--not even an attempt at subtlety! These techniques and strategies are of course conspicuously absent from the Scriptures. True, an attempt is made now and again to quote a Bible verse here and there to give the appearance of being biblical. Nevertheless, as one checks the references, one is made painfully aware that this amounts to little more than proof-texting. No amount of "make-up" can for very long disguise the world-philosophy that it masks.

This leads us to our next consideration--the actual size of the first-century house-church. Some have argued that the church of the first century made it a point to meet in the homes of its wealthiest members, often concluding that several hundred people could meet together at once in these ancient mansions. A third-century house found along the River Euphrates which had been adapted for church meetings (and which could hold about one-hundred people) is usual held up as evidence. It is also pointed out that there is evidence to suggest that in some cases the wealthy members of the church willed their homes to the church after they died. This data is usually then transferred to the practice of the first-century church, Philemon often being cited as one example of a rich Christian who may have had a house large enough to accommodate hundreds of church members. However, this data is anachronistic. As has already been pointed out, the house found along the Euphrates dates in the third century; it does not represent the practice of the first-century church, and it certainly does not set a precedent since it was likely the exception and not the rule--even in the third century. Although it is true that there were some rich Christians in the early church, they were clearly in the minority. Paul bears testimony to this effect when he says: "Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth" (1 Cor 1:26). This is further substantiated by church historian A. H. Newman who says: "Christianity was recruited chiefly from the poor and the outcast" (A Manual of Church History [2 vols. Valley Forge: Judson, 1933 (=1899)], 150). There is no doubt that, where available, the church did indeed meet in the homes of its wealthy members. However, in NT times the architecture of houses was much more modest than it was in later centuries. NT scholar Robert Banks has demonstrated that this applied even to the wealthy homes; he says: "The entertaining room in a moderately well-to-do household could hold around thirty people comfortably--perhaps half as many again in an emergency. . . . it is unlikely that a meeting of the `whole church' could have exceeded forty to forty-five people, and many may well have been smaller. . . . In any event we must not think of these [church meetings] as particularly large. . . Even the meetings of the `whole church' were small enough for a relatively intimate relationship to develop between the members" (Paul's Idea of Community: The Early House Churches in Their Historical Setting [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988], 41-42).

The size of the house-church becomes a crucial factor for the relative effectiveness of other NT church practices as well. The Lord's Supper (properly conducted with one loaf and one cup), the Love Feast, mutual participation, etc., are all essential elements of a church meeting; yet all have been fully or partially abandoned in today's church simply because these practices are no longer functional. Why have they ceased to be functional? It must be kept in mind that the letters which are written to the NT churches are in fact written to house-churches. Because they are written to house-churches the instructions contained in them are geared to work in a small group setting--they were never meant to work in a large-group setting. Consequently, they don't work in a large-group setting.

To attempt to apply NT church practices to our contemporary large church is just as unnatural as pouring new wine into old wine-skins (Mt 9:17). Ironically, the institutional church has attempted to rectify this by abandoning the "new wine" and holding on to the "old wine-skins." Consequently, today's church more closely resembles Judaism or Catholicism than it does New Testament Christianity. The solution lies not in following the traditions of men, but in a return to the practice of the early church. Only in returning to her roots will today's church be able to act as a proper receptacle for "new wine."