Toward a House

by Eric Svendsen
In this the last of a series of articles on the house church we want to further explore the affect of the size of a church meeting on various aspects of ecclesiology, and then examine one last area of the theology of the house-church. We've already alluded to some NT practices that are adversely affected as the size of the church meeting increases (see last issue); similarly, the concepts of intimacy, accountability and church discipline are all directly affected by the size of the church meeting.

Intimacy was one of our Lord's most critical concerns for his church. This is evident from his prayer in John 17 (the real Lord's prayer) in which he prays "that all of them may be one" (v. 21,22), that they may be "brought to complete unity" (v. 23), and this "to let the world know that you sent me" (v. 23). Paul echoes this concern when he writes, "[we have] opened wide our hearts to you. We are not withholding our affection from you, but you are withholding yours from us. As a fair exchange--I speak as to my children--open wide your hearts also" (2 Cor 6:11-13). Similarly, Peter tells us to "love one another deeply, from the heart" (1 Pet 1:22). All of these texts indicate that a mere pretense of intimacy in our relations with one another is both insufficient and unacceptable; on the contrary, our relations are to be characterized by a genuine, transparent, deep, committed love for one another.

Closely allied with intimacy, accountability is also an important theme in the NT. James 5:16 says, "confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, so that you may be healed." Later in that same chapter it says, "if any among you strays from the truth, and one turns him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from his way will save his soul from death" (vv. 19-20). In similar vein, Jude 22-23 says that we are to "have mercy on some who are doubting; [and to] save others, snatching them out of the fire." Jesus said, "If your brother sins, go and reprove him in private" (Mt 18:15, NASB). In short, we are to "bear one another's burdens, and thus fulfill the law of Christ" (Gal 6:2). It was not difficult in the small house-churches to "test the spirits to see whether they are from God" (1 Jn 4:1). It was obvious in such a close-knit group who was living in righteousness and who was living in sin, for they held each other accountable. This meant exhorting one another on a daily basis (Heb 3:13) to abstain from sin, no less to confess individual sins to one another. Indeed, this was one of the identifying marks of the early church. In one of the earliest outside testimonials to this aspect of the early church (A.D. 111-112), Pliny, a proconsul in the Roman Empire, wrote the following to the Emperor Trajan: "they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before sunrise and reciting an antiphonal hymn to Christ as God, and binding themselves with an oath--not to commit any crime, but to abstain from all acts of theft, robbery and adultery, from breaches of faith, from denying a trust when called upon to honor it" [italics mine] (from F. F. Bruce, New Testament History [New York: Doubleday, 1969], 423-24). One cannot read this testimonial without a deep sense of awareness that today's church is demonstrably shallow in comparison. How many contemporary churches are characterized by this kind of accountability? I dare say not many. Personal accountability is seen as something that is culturally relative. Since in our western culture we are creatures of isolation (you mind your business and I'll mind mine), accountability in today's church amounts to little more than making sure one attends both Sunday and Wednesday night services! Suggesting that one give an account of his words, thoughts and actions during the week is tantamount to sticking one's nose where it doesn't belong. What a sad commentary on today's church! No wonder sexual immorality (no less other sins) has become so rampant in the church--and especially among her so-called leaders! Plainly and simply, there is no accountability; and where there is no accountability, there is no effective guard against sin.

Although clearly taught in Scripture, church discipline is rarely practiced today. The standard excuse given for not practicing church discipline is that the recipient would then only leave the church and go to another. Instead (it is argued) we should "love them back to obedience." We should not be harsh with them, but rather should reaffirm them and restore them. In response to this it must first be said that it is the epitome of arrogance to presume that we are being more loving by not disciplining than the Apostle was by disciplining (1 Cor 5:5,11). To discipline one who is in error is to love him (Heb 12:6). Moreover, the church is commanded to practice church discipline--it is not an option! To refuse to practice church discipline (for whatever reason) is to compound the sin. In such a case the church becomes just as guilty as the one she refuses to discipline. Jesus said, "Why do you call me 'Lord, Lord' and do not do what I say?" (Lk 6:46). The church that refuses to discipline is in open rebellion against Christ and therefore has no right to call him "Lord." To that extent it ceases to be a church of Jesus Christ and has itself become a candidate for church discipline!

Intimacy, accountability and church discipline are inseparable concepts. The three go hand in hand; there can be no church discipline without accountability, and there can be no accountability without intimacy. To demonstrate that this is true, one need go no further than today's church. It is no secret that church discipline is virtually non-existent in the church today. Is this because today's church is so morally pure? Hardly. Rather it is because there is no accountability. One could conceivably (and many in fact do) attend the same church week after week, hiding himself in the back row, partaking of all that the church meeting has to offer, and, for the rest of the week, live as immorally as he desires without anyone being the wiser. To take the problem one step further, the reason that there is no accountability is because there is no intimacy. The same person described above could mingle freely with others in the church and be in absolutely no danger of being found out. What permits this? What permits this is the incredibly low level of intimacy (or, more accurately, lack of intimacy) in most churches. A half-hearted attempt at intimacy is usually made every church meeting, but this rarely amounts to little more than a handshake and a smile accompanied by the standard "how is everything?," usually in an aloof, alienating (albeit polite) tone of voice that makes it exceedingly clear to the recipient that what is really expected is no response at all.

Finally, the overarching significance of the house-church is found in its underlying theology of community. The church is often depicted by the NT in terms which describe a family; we are seen both as "the household of faith" (Gal 6:10) and as "the household of God" (Eph 2:19). Male Christians (as well as Christians generically) are called "brothers" (Col 4:7, 1 Jn 4:21--there are so many references supporting this that I could not possibly list them all!); female Christians are called "sisters" (Phlm 2, Rom 16:2). We are first and foremost "children of God" (1 Jn 3:1), who have been "born" into his family (Jn 1:12-13). Consequently, we are to relate to each other as to members of a family (1 Tim 5:1-2; Rom 16:13). Granted, these references are familiar territory to most Christians; yet it is striking that this concept of the church as family is seldom given more than a superficial acknowledgment in today's church. Indeed, as we have already shown, the degree of intimacy in most cases goes little further than a casual acquaintanceship. Not so in the NT church. The house-church of the NT was a conducive setting for developing the kind of interpersonal family relationships demanded by the NT theology of community. In the words of Robert Banks, the house-churches "blended with a further, theologically-based consideration" (Paul's Idea of Community: The Early House Churches in Their Historical Setting [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans], 61). The meetings of the NT church were meetings of families in reality, not merely in word. Their meetings reflected intimacy not only with their heavenly Father, but also with each other. In contrast to this, today's church is far too large, rigid and formal to convey the NT theology of community. In the foreword to Del Birkey's book (The House Church: A Model for Renewing the Church. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press [1988]: 12-13) D. E. Arnold states: "Although churches may proclaim God's message of love, community and care in a verbal way, the church structure may convey the opposite message. . . . Often the setting of the traditional church fosters a spectator mentality characterized by impersonal or superficial personal relationships that show little warmth or commitment. . . . Do our churches communicate the message of a loving personal God who wants personal relationships with humans? Or, while verbally communicating a personal God, do our churches communicate an impersonal God who does not enter into relationship with others?"

In closing, it must be insisted that the institutional church harbors (indeed, accommodates nicely) nominal Christianity--it is the unavoidable consequence of its structure. Only with difficulty can it qualify as a New Testament church. The house-church, on the other hand, produces a very different kind of Christianity. No one from the ranks of the uncommitted could for very long feel comfortable in such an intimate setting. With its demand for accountability of all its members and discipline toward the disobedient, the house-church would soon weed out the uncommitted. The result would be a church which, although not perfect, approaches the simplicity, vitality, intimacy and purity of the NT church. Few goals can be deemed more worthy of pursuit.