For the first three-hundred years of its existence the church met primarily in the homes of its members, not in specially designed buildings. Romans 16:5 (as well as 1 Co 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” (Ac 20:20). There is an allusion to a church in Jason’s house in Ac 16:5-6, in Lydia’s house in Ac 16:40, and in Mary’s house in Ac 12:12. In 2 John there is a warning to the church not to receive false teachers into their house (v. 10). Contrary to popular belief, this is not 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. 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. Hence there is much evidence for the “house-church” in the New Testament.

 Conversely, there is no real evidence that the early church met anywhere else for their weekly meetings. True, the first five chapters of Acts pictures a church that was meeting daily 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 to develop a normative church practice. Moreover, since Jewish Christians were allowed to hold on to their Jewish heritage (cf. Ac 21:20-26), it comes as no surprise that the Christians in Jerusalem were still meeting in places like the temple 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, as these same passages in Acts clearly reveal. So the question is, 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. It is a fact that no other religious group of the first century (besides the church) met exclusively in homes. 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 the popular, yet over-simplified view of church history that the church suffered persecution on a massive scale for the first three-hundred years of its existence. However, the idea that the entire church was under constant persecution during this time is simply not true. As a perusal through any reputable church history manual will readily show, 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 by means of 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).

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 (Ac 8:3), and unbelievers knew just where to go if they wanted to hear more about Christianity (1 Co 14:23-25). And in at least one passage that speaks of the church meeting in homes, the writer plainly tells us that they were “enjoying the favor of all the people” (Ac 2:46-47). “Enjoying favor” and being persecuted are contradictory ideas.
 Still others have dismissed house-churches as something true 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 flies in the face of the mindset of the early church. The NT church’s main focus was on the coming of the Lord. Its members were looking for and anticipating his arrival in their lifetimes. They were “eagerly waiting” for “His Son” and for the “mercy” that would accompany him (1 Co 1:7; 1 Th 1:10; Jd 21); they were “looking forward to the day of God” and were “speeding its coming” (2 Pe 3:12) as they “set [their] hope fully on the grace to be given [them] at the revelation of Jesus Christ” (1 Pe 1:13); in short, they were “waiting for the blessed hope-the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ” (Ti 2:13). 

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” (He 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 excessive building plans? Or is it rather the case that our actions show forth a materialistic mindset that has been conformed to this world-one that says, “we’re going to be here for a while so we might as well settle down and get comfortable”? It cannot be denied that today’s church is materialistic. We are a product not of the first-century church but of the later, fourth-century church which moved into permanent “church” dwellings such as cathedrals. 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)?

 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. 
 
 

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 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). According to one recent survey, as much as 82% of church revenues in an average Protestant church goes toward buildings, staff, and internal programs, while only 18% goes toward missions!

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 Co 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” (Ro 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 evidence is faulty. 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 Co 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. 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 affects 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 not functional in a large setting. 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 such a 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.”

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. 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?”

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.