There can be no question that the New Testament ekklesia met in homes, beginning when the disciples returned to Jerusalem after Jesus’ ascension. The gathered in the upper room of the home of Mary, mother of John Mark—almost certainly the same upper room where the Apostles had shared their last meal with Jesus (Mark 14:12-31). There, they chose Matthias to replace Judas Iscariot as the twelfth Apostle (Acts 1:12-26). It must have been a substantial home since about 120 people attended this meeting. In all likelihood, the Holy Spirit came to the assembled disciples in the same home (Acts 2:1-4).

Throughout the New Testament, there are references to the ekklesia meeting in private homes:
* After Pentecost, the Jerusalem ekklesia met in homes (Acts 2:46; 5:42)
* Lydia’s home in Philippi apparently served as a gathering place for believers (Acts 16:40)
* Paul taught “from house to house” in Ephesus (Acts 20:20)
* Prisca and Aquila hosted churches in Rome (Romans 16:5), Ephesus (1 Corinthians 16:19), and almost certainly in Corinth, where they first met Paul.
* A church met in Nympha’s home (Colossians 4:15)
* Another church met in the home of Archippus (Philemon 1:2)

Advocates of house churches today sometimes claim that all of the New Testament churches met in homes (see www.hccentral.com, for example), but there are indications of larger group meetings. In Jerusalem, the believers met in the temple courts every day (Acts 2:46). In Corinth, Paul mentions Gaius as “host to me and to the whole church” (Romans 16:23). Paul carried out much of his mission in Corinth at the school of Tyrannus. While the focus of this effort was primarily evangelistic, it is certain that believers flocked to his classroom. If you had been in Corinth at the time, wouldn’t you? Since Paul believed in encouraging others in a variety of ways when Christians assembled, it is certain that some of those meetings became early “church services.” And Romans 16 at least hints of some central organization of the various ekklesia groups meeting in the imperial capital. Later, we know that Christians met in the catacombs of Rome.

One of Paul’s primary strategies in establishing the church in the cities he visited was apparently to identify a believer with a home large enough to accommodate Christian assemblies. Lydia, Crispus, Priscilla and Aquila, Narcissus, Chloe, Gaius, Onesiphorus, Titius Justus and Philemon may have all offered the opportunity for meeting places. Only about 3% of the urban population lived in private homes. Most lived in apartments (insulae), so finding homeowners was no easy task and must have represented a major victory in Paul’s mind.

Why homes as opposed to other sites? Some have suggested that it was to avoid persecution, but this certainly cannot be the case since the Jerusalem ekklesia met in homes before any persecution began. Furthermore, there is no evidence that there was any safety in meeting in homes; after all, Saul (later Paul) apparently had no trouble finding Christians in houses (Acts 8:3). In addition, despite the accounts in the New Testament, persecution of Christians (see ET&N 4.1) was generally sporadic and localized.

It is far more likely that house churches were simply more practical. It’s not like Christians, even if they had the funds, could just construct a building or rent a hall. Roman officials, particularly emperors, were notoriously suspicious of any group meetings, considering them breeding grounds for seditious activity. This was especially true of groups meeting after dark, as the early Christians often did. Homes probably represented the only available meeting place for many groups of believers. In addition, the home is the logical place for a family, as the ekklesia is described throughout the New Testament, to meet.

Historically, the house remained the primary Christian meeting place until after Constantine converted and the Edict of Milan ended persecutions. Initially, it is likely that the use of a home was an expression of the hospitality of its owners. Beginning in about the middle of second century, a subtle shift began in the form of the domus ecclesiae—still private homes, but now often converted to the needs of the ekklesia. Archaeological excavations suggest that Peter’s former home in Capernaum later became a domus ecclesiae. Many of these renovations were undoubted financed by the group. The domus ecclesiae continued to function as a home surrounding the meeting place.

A third phase in house churches began in about 250, when many of the domus ecclesiae became full-time church buildings (aula ecclesiae), perhaps donated by the original owners. These private buildings continued to possess many characteristics of homes but were no longer used as such. Finally, after 313, the church began to meet in public buildings and to erect ornate basilicas, and the era of the house church slowly came to an end. The demise of the house church and the institutionalization of the church led inevitably to the entrenchment of an increasingly hierarchical leadership seeking to ride herd on the flock. The Jesus cult that had begun as a countercultural, underground movement became the Holy Roman Empire.

Paul described the church as an organism (1 Corinthians 12) with each of its members carrying out an important function, even if it didn’t seem so. Just as living organisms generally develop more specialized cell functions as they become larger and more complex, so too it is probably natural that the organism that is the church would develop some specialized functions as the church became larger and more complex. This does not, however, imply that those specialized functions are hierarchical in nature.

Not surprisingly, house churches today create highly disparate opinions. Some see them as the panacea for a hopelessly worldly and compromised institutional church. Others see them as hotbeds of heresy that spawn the Wacos and Jonestowns of our time.

There are now basically three church models:

1. The program-based organizational church characterized by clergy, staff, committees, and a (largely inactive) congregation. In such churches, the primary focus is the weekly Sunday service, when one of the professional clergy preach to an audience. This is the primary model in most people’s minds when they think of church. It is an unbiblical model on several levels: members are not really considered equal, there is little opportunity for mutual edification, it is difficult to foster meaningful relationships, and the church was never meant to be a performance. Churches using this model are, for the most part, genuine in their efforts, and many do a lot of good in their community, but it simply is not what Jesus appears to have intended for His church.

2. Isolated home churches lacking any central organization. These churches may not always meet in homes, but they are typically small groups without clergy and often have no formal agenda for meetings. Some of these churches form a loose association with similar groups, but there is often no clearly defined leadership, and the potential for abuse and heresy is enormous. Furthermore, if one is seeking to follow the New Testament pattern, individual First Century house churches certainly did not consider themselves independent of the larger church—both within its city and worldwide. The church was counter-cultural, to be sure, but there is no evidence in the early years that it made any attempt to hide. It was not like a terrorist cell group, where the members have no knowledge of other cells.

3. Home churches that are part of a larger congregation. The “metachurch” or “cell church” has become increasingly popular. As mentioned, Paul described the church as an organism, and advocates of the cell model view small groups as the basic building blocks of the church, just as cells are the building blocks of living organisms. In form at least, the cell model is very close to the New Testament pattern. Romans 16:3-15 is probably the best example church organization in the First Century. It is impossible to determine just how many individual house churches Paul is addressing there, but there are at least four: Prisca and Aquila, Andronicus and Junia(s), a men’s group (v. 14), and Philologus and Julia. But the believers of the First Century would never have viewed their house churches as independent—they were part of the church in Rome, as well as the universal church of all believers.

The church in China today probably comes closest to matching the organization of the early church—individual groups of Christians meeting wherever possible, but probably not often as large groups, yet still considering themselves an integral part of the larger universal church.

The 16th Century Reformation focused on orthodoxy (from the Greek orthos, straight, and doxa, opinion), which related to the restoration of New Testament theology or doctrine, while the modern house church movement focuses on orthopraxy (orthos + praxy, practice), which relates to the restoration of New Testament practice. According to the New Testament Restoration Foundation, these practices are:
* Churches that meet in homes rather than in specially designed buildings:
* Church meetings that are informal and interactive:
* The Lord’s Supper celebrated weekly, as a full fellowship meal, using one loaf and one cup:
* Church Government By Corporate Consensus (led, as opposed to ruled, by elders)

In most house churches the primary focus is full participation by members for the purpose of mutual edification, which is certainly in line with biblical teaching about assemblies:
* “Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful; and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds,not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near” (Hebrews 10:23-25)
* “When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification.” (1 Corinthians 14:26)
* “Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God.” (Colossians 3:16)

If the church is a family then the assembly is a weekly (or more frequent) family reunion. Why is it necessarily better to have a small reunion than a large one? I suggest that the problem does not lie primarily in the size of an assembly, but in the hearts of the group. One of the reasons house churches often seem more caring and vibrant is because they are generally populated by people who are more committed to following Jesus. Would a group of 500 committed Christians be less effective in its mission than a group of 20 committed Christians?

Much has been written recently about the advantages of house churches, but less is said in defense of larger groups. In the chart below, there are several important functions or activities of the church with my comments about small and large groups.

So are small or large groups better? As always, we must look to Jesus to find the answer. Jesus interacted with individuals such as the adulterous Samarian woman (John 4:7-30). Jesus interacted with very small groups such as Peter, James, and John during His transfiguration (Matthew 7:1-8). Jesus interacted with small groups such as the Disciples during the Last Passover (Matthew 26). And Jesus interacted with very large groups, sometimes in the thousands, such as the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7). If large groups were ineffective for spiritual growth, Jesus could have trained the Disciples to be assistant Messiahs and divided the crowds into small-group breakout sessions. He didn’t do that—He taught the masses.

If we are to become what God wants us to be, it should therefore be apparent that we need a variety of interactions—individual, small group, and large group. Each type of interaction fulfills a unique function, and without any one of them, we will not fully mature.

For my own part, I would probably never be a member of a church group that did not include a small group ministry, but I would also probably not be a member of a house church that was not part of a larger congregation.

If you are interested, you can learn more about small groups from these advocacy sites:
House Church Central, Home Church dot org, House2House, New Testament Restoration Foundation, Small Group Network, Present Testimony Ministry. I present these resources for information only, and cannot voucher for their doctrine.

Not many comments about this issue.

One Texas subscriber wrote, “I am a fan (but not a total convert) of the house church movement. If persecution comes, we might all rediscover the ‘ancient way.’”

And an Australia reader said,
“I don't think I would like to be involved in (a house church) as I like the atmosphere of a larger church—not too large that you don't get to know people. The church that I attend has what they call cell groups. They have daytime ones for the ladies every two weeks, and the alternate week we all come together and have fellowship so we get to know each other apart from church on a Sunday. There are also cell groups for the men—also groups for couples at night on a weekly basis, youth groups, programs for every age from 5 to 105. And you stated that some churches don't have fellowship after church on Sundays. Well, our church does. The service usually finishes about 11:30 am and sometimes I haven't left till 12:30 and there are sometimes still people there. And the Pastor and his wife mix with the people as well, it is just one big happy family and the church does a lot of outreach as well. I guess it has to as that is what the church is called—Christian Outreach Centre or Center as you say in the states Watch out for them as they are in the USA now and if they impact your country as they have here in Australia then Praise God. I don't want to be any where else, it has everything I need.”

NEXT ISSUE: Speaking in tongues (against my better judgment!)

© Richard M. Soule, 2003 Unlimited copy and distribution permission is hereby granted on the condition that this copyright notice is included. Website: www.peculiarpress.com
Unless otherwise noted, all biblical citations are from the New American Standard Bible (NASB)