Building a Biblical Model for House Churches
The following is reprinted with permission from Paraklesis, a publication of Baptist Bible Seminary. The article first appeared in the Summer ‘08 issue.
The move from conventional congregations to house churches has been termed a revolution. Researcher George Barna estimates at least 1 million Americans have shifted to small-groups worshiping primarily in homes or businesses.
But the revolution comes in this statistic: by 2025, Barna predicts 70 percent of Christians will be worshiping in such “alternative faith communities.”1
While the trend is clear, the benefits and biblical focus of such gatherings is more muddled. The early church detailed in the New Testament indeed met “house to house,” and the Apostle Paul regularly gathered new believers in homes. But this is not an exclusive or biblically prescribed model for worshiping.
The home church model can work today, and in circumstances where proper ty is scarce or expensive it can be a practical approach. Pastors and church leaders, though, need to think clearly before moving to a house church model. They must keep a biblical focus paramount and not let relational benefits overrun sound doctrine and New Testament church polity.
Inside house churches
House churches are small bodies of believers that meet primarily in homes, have generally fewer than 30 members, and normally have unpaid lay leaders. These back-to-basics congregations do not start in a home with the goal of moving later to a permanent facility. They are designed to stay in a private residence or similar surroundings.
Because some meet in coffee shops, restaurants, or on university campuses, practitioners prefer to use other terms to describe this kind of church: simple church, organic church, koinos church, relational church, participatory church, etc.
What defines these churches is not location but emphasis. Decentralized in structure, they are committed to forming in-depth relationships. Most are very participatory, with prayer, Bible study, discussion, mentoring, and outreach, as well as food and fun. Many are nondenominational and independent.
The trend is not just a reaction to the megachurch. The next generation cares more about authenticity and community than institutions. Many are looking for a safe place to connect with God and friends. Smaller relational churches meet this need.
A growing number of North Americans identify themselves as “spiritual but not religious.” These people rarely attend a conventional church but will often seek alternatives. Face-to-face churches have great appeal in a culture that values intimate relationships, shared leadership, transparency, and teamwork.
Meeting Biblical Basics
There are three main uses of “church” (ekklesia) in the New Testament: believers gathering in someone’s home, the citywide or regional church, and the universal church. The Scriptures indicate common ordinary dwellings were used for spreading the Gospel and for discipling new converts during Jesus’ lifetime and later.
The Jerusalem church met daily from house to house to pray, study, break bread, and share (Acts 2:42-46; 5:42; 12:12), and Paul regularly gathered new converts into private homes. Lydia’s house in Philippi may have been Europe’s first church (Acts 16:14-15, 40). In Corinth, believers evidently met in the homes of Gaius (Rom. 16:23), Stephanus (I Cor. 16: 5, 15), and Chloe (I Cor. 1:11). Paul tells us his habit was to teach “publicly and from house to house” (Acts 20:20).
But the New Testament indicates the first believers also met in public places such as the temple courts and in synagogues—sometimes in large groups. Believers used rented facilities (Acts 19:9; 28:30-31) and public forums (Acts 16:13).
While the early church met in homes both for believers’ meetings and even some evangelistic efforts, it is not an apostolic blueprint for all congregations in future generations. No New Testament sermon or epistle gives direct commands to follow the house church as the prescribed form.
Because biblical truth can be less pronounced in home churches, leaders need to be discerning to what the Lord of the Harvest may be doing in our day. The return to simpler forms of church holds both great promise and grave dangers for the future growth of the North American church.
Starting a church in New York City, for example, may require non-traditional thinking. And this model is an option to explore.
Indeed, if He is raising up dynamic new forms of church that are biblical in doctrine and practice while evidencing true community, then we need to welcome and affirm them. But if the “revolution” means people are leaving biblical churches or leaving in a biblically improper manner, then we should not celebrate.
(A research paper featuring a more detailed analysis of the house church phenomenon is also available from Ken. For a copy, contact Ken here or at 
)
Notes
1 George Barna, Revolution (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 2005), 13,49,54,64-66.
Ken Davis, M.A., is Director of Church Planting at Baptist Bible Seminary and leads Project Jerusalem. Ken has been involved in church planting for over 25 years. He served as chair of Baptist Mid-Mission’s North American Church Planting Ministry Council, and he co-founded the School of Church Planting, which has provided training for over 300 church planters worldwide. Davis came to BBS after serving nineteen years as the missions professor at Crossroads Bible College in Indianapolis, a school specializing in training leaders to reach multiethnic urban America.
- 446 views
You said:
I actually wish there was less of an authority dimension to pastoring in the NT… I don’t want the responsibility and don’t like to tell people what to do. But there it is.Is what we are seeing a call for authority or a call to serve? Did Christ call the apostles to be rulers and leaders or to be servants? What was the point of washing the feet of the apostles? So that they had clean feet when they ruled over the church? No, to show them how they should relate to one another, as servants, not worrying as much about who was “in charge” as they were in how they could serve one another. Even Hebrews 13:17, often quoted as a support for pastoral authority, is not as clear cut as we might like to think. Hebrews 13:7 tells us who the leaders are being spoken of and why they are leaders: because of their lives and their faithfulness. If you want to lead the congregation, do so by exhibiting your service and the faithfulness of your own life, not by telling them what to do.
And he said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those in authority over them are called benefactors. But not so with you. Rather, let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves. For who is the greater, one who reclines at table or one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at table? But I am among you as the one who serves. (Luk 22:25-27)
But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? (Romans 9:20) http://thesidos.blogspot.com/
[Arthur Sido] Is what we are seeing a call for authority or a call to serve? Did Christ call the apostles to be rulers and leaders or to be servants?Both. The passages that emphasize the service quality of the leadership do not negate the the passages that clearly indicate authority. Peter warns that the elder is not to “lord it over” the flock, but does not reject the term “elder” which is—there’s no escaping it—a term of authority. So Peter (along with others) bring the ideas together. The role is one of care and protection (Acts 20:28… most clear in the term “shepherding”) and also one of leading and ruling (1Tim.5:17, 1 Tim3:4-5) as a service to those under them (“for they watch for your souls” …Hebrews somewhere)
It’s not that hard to see how it can be both. I’ve met more than enough believers who “just want somebody to tell them what to do.” That in itself can be a problem on their part, but my point is that all groups of people need (and want) someone to help them make decisions. (In a way, it’s a bit of God’s sense of humor that He has put me in that sort of role in my church—I’m extremely indecisive… analysis paralysis big time—but ultimately it’s lots of opportunity for His sufficiency to overcome my insufficiency).
Anyway, the “servant leader” cliche is actually a really solid idea.
Edit:
About Heb. 13.17, yes it does reveal the things you mentioned. It also says “rule” and “obey.” (Like I said before, I actually wish it didn’t say that, because “live and let live” is certainly easier!)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I understand your sensitive nature on the house church issue. It is currently en vogue to attack the institutional church. It is clear you took my comments that way, though—as stated—I have a deep appreciation for and love for what we all think of as typical church. Aaron has seemed to correctly grasp my meaning (perhaps only after my second comment), for which I am thankful. I still am baffled by your continued misreading, as noted in your latest assessment of my supposed position in your comment to Aaron.
A couple of points:
1. You seem bent to want a precise size determination from me. This is a logical straw man, which you well realize. All New Testament scholarship agrees that the standard NT practice was that of the house church. This would have varied in size. Perhaps some congregations were 6-8 people. Perhaps others were 50, and perhaps others still were larger. But, all agree that they (1) did normally meet in houses, and (2) would have generally been smaller than most of today’s congregations (in America at least). You can define “little” and “big” anyway you want, I suppose. As for the word ekklesia, your definition is correct. But, and this is what you seem to not wish to acknowledge, the NT overwhelming uses the word church in connection with the house church (small gathering), since that is what the local church typically was. Now, obviously the NT has no problem with regular large gatherings (in fact, the initial church gathering at Pentecost seemed to be very large….or more accurately a small group gathering, turned Spirit-driven evangelism crusade, turned large group gathering). For that reason no one should feel guilt for having large gatherings–this is well within the biblical pattern and should encouraged and embraced, and thus a congregation of 5,000 is legitimately a church in the fullest sense of the term. Yet we do ourselves no service to completely deny the reality of the small group gatherings, which many traditional church have typical done (though by no means all).
2. The chief issue for me is what weight NT practice should hold for the believer? In the Baptist tradition we generally refer to ourselves as a “New Testament Church”. This, historically, has meant that we pattern and govern ourselves according to the prescriptions AND descriptions of a New Testament congregation (note, I also realize that phrase has had other, also important, meanings). Thus, we are to obey the clear commands of what we are supposed to do, as well as model the clear practices of what the 1st century believers did do. For example, this is why many Baptist churches are beginning to practice communion weekly (no command to do so, but a clear practice). If I were to say of such a church, “they have faithfully reclaimed a biblical practice”, would this imply that once a month churches are being anti-biblical? No, but it does imply they are not follow a particular practice as closely as the weekly church does. Now, to repeat my initial statement: “The house church has faithfully reclaiming the overwhelming standard practice of the NT era”. By following the clear model of meeting in each others homes, the house church has faithfully reclaimed a New Testament practice. This is simple logic. My home church (where I served as associate pastor before being commissioned to my current pastorate) has insituted a model that attempts to be faithful to the large group/small group model–though without subsuming the house gatherings to a status that is good though “less official” than the larger gathering of saints. Elders lead these groups, each of which is considered to be an ekklesia of Christ’s people. They receive teaching, worship, prayer, do ministry, take communion—they have even had baptisms and taken offerings at times (though for the benefit of the larger gathering we have them tithe to it). They also choose to gather with the larger ekklesia on Sundays for worship and teaching from the Word. That Church sees the house churches as the primary “level”, while seeing the larger gathering as an important and essential aspect of true church.
3. In many traditional models of the church the house churhes are merely explained away (“well, that is what they did in the first century”. Or, “well, they weren’t allowed to buy buildings and were being hunted, that’s the only reason they met in homes”). I would disagree with that assessment, forcefully.
4. As for Paul submitting to his church, have you forgetten that he was sent on his missionary journey by the Alexandrian church? Thus, we have an Apostle who needed to be commissioned and authorized by a local assembly for ministry. Frankly, this is a beautiful expression of Jesus’ teaching on servant leadership. As Jesus has authority over the church, still he submitted himself to it by dying for it. Likewise, the apostles held an authority (in Christ) over the church while simultaneously being submissive to it. Do we not as pastors do the same thing? Are we not (in some sense) in authority over our congregations while at the same time subject to our congregations decisions? Indeed, we are.
You said: “The connection to house churches is that I’ve consistently seen a strong aversion to the idea of authoritative leadership in these groups (though, as I said earlier, I’ve only seen a few first hand—still, 100% of them are authority-averse).”
You are absolutely right. I guess I’ve seen the best and worst of what the modern house church movement offers. Far too many are motivated more by an aversion to spiritual authority than a submission to NT practice (but frankly many of our churches do the same thing with an extreme form of Congregational polity). With that said, when done well, I still stand by my praises of the movment.
As far as your disagreeing with my views on clergy (if only by 33 degrees), actually I would agree with everything you said. I fully embrace the concept of “pastoral authority” (obviously only when practiced according to the fruit of the Spirit listed in Galatians). That is, of course, taken way to far by many (but also completely denied by others). I wasn’t reacting to the concept of authority, but rather the two-tiered system of spiritual brought about by Catholicism.
In a reply to Arthur you wrote: “I keep seeing the claims that the house church is more biblically sound or is in possession of some virtue that elevates it above the so-called traditional church but simply proclaiming it to be so doesn’t make it so”
Ok, so what is your position. Do you believe the house church model is less biblical? More biblical? Or equally biblical to the traditional church?
If, however, by “house church” someone means a small church which meets in a house, then as long as it is Biblical I am all for it. As many have pointed out, this is largely similar to how the NT church operated in its infancy. And let’s face it, many conventional churches which have buildings also started as “house churches,” even if it was before that term was in vogue.
Thus, I think you have to view all different types of “house churches” on a spectrum and evaluate each one in its context.
As far as the real world goes, I personally see great benefit in the “house church” model. I cannot remember where I heard it, but someone once said that the church age will likely end as it began, with the true believers meeting in small groups in homes. Obviously we are all aware of places in the world where this is a necessity, such as China.
If you are in a location where you are able to be part of a full-service, multi-staff church which is doctrinally sound and practically proficient, God bless you and may you greatly enjoy it.
There are many places in the country, especially in rural areas, where even the “fundamental” churches are beset with false teaching, legalism, conflict, traditionalism, ineffectiveness and even corruption. In such situations, starting a house church may be the only other alternative.
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
Paul, good thoughts—and I quite agree. The simplicity of the house church model is a great strength. Frankly, it took the first-century world by storm and I, for one, believe it can do so in the 21st century. Even in pastoral ministry I’ve brought more people to Christ in my living room (or theirs) on a weeknight than in the Church’s building on Sunday morning. In my church the small group ministry is exploding, and people are regularly coming and digging into God’s word. I’ve observed people who will attend a weekly small group for several years before ever setting foot in a larger church service (for a variety of reasons, mostly because they had a bad experience, didn’t trust the ‘traditional’ church, or something else. Not saying this is good, but it is a reality). In my last church the small group ministry was where most of our new converts first got saved.
Still, perhaps the great danger of the house church movement is its potential for a lack of solid leadership/teaching. On the other hand, some churches want to exercise too much control. I think it is probably most in line with NT practice to see this as semi-autonomous ekklesia’s, under the authority of an elder/pastor that works in cooperation with the larger Body. This is not the only method, of course. The rise of the “video-venue movement” (telecasting in a sermon) is one way to overcome the teaching problem (though I’m not sure how much legitimate “connection” this would actually provide between the larger church and the house churches).
It is also significant to witness that in opressive regimes where the “above ground” church was completely wiped out—when freedom came to the country churches immediately popped into existence because they existed all along in secretive house churches. Sounds vaguely familiar to the NT, eh? Perhaps there was a reason, after all, to this NT pattern.
[Ken Davis]An excellent extended review of “Revolution” by Barna can be found at Grace Chapel Church [URL=http://put_url_here] http://www.gracechapelchurch.info/Downloads/135%20-%20Revolution%20-%20…] And the reviewer highlights Barna’s fatal flaws that he also applies to those advocating house churches in the form Barna promotes, as described in Ken’s article and as some have expressed direct support for or are accepting to some degree. He does acknowledge what Barna might have observed that is true about whatever system is present regarding its imperfections but unlike many which includes Barna, the reviewer does not use such observations to justify Barna’s errors and the errors of many of those participating in the house church movement. He cites and elaborates on the following fatal flaws:1. DEEMPHASIZES BIBLICAL THEOLOGY2. DILUTES ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY3. OVEREMPHASIZES PERSONAL INDIVIDUALITY4. UNDERESTIMATES PROVIDENTIAL CERTAINTY5. WELCOMES SATANIC BRUTALITY“But his fragmented model leaves far too many unsuspecting Christians vulnerable to the snares that Satan lays for those who are detached from the local church; snares for which his book leaves no warning. To urge Christians to move away from the local assembly of believers is to put them in a dangerous position, because it is when they learn to live apart from the local church, Satan does his most deadly work.”Very good review.The move from conventional congregations to house churches has been termed a revolution. Researcher George Barna estimates at least 1 million Americans have shifted to small-groups worshiping primarily in homes or businesses.
But the revolution comes in this statistic: by 2025, Barna predicts 70 percent of Christians will be worshiping in such “alternative faith communities.”1
I’ve no problem with churches meeting in houses. I do have a problem with arrogant “pastor” wannabes rebelling against the local church & the office of pastor by having “church” at home, then justifying it as more true to the NT since, after all, the first churches met in homes.
1. Many house churches have the following dangers: (1) bad theology, (2) weak teaching, (3) been started by bad motives, (4) etc.
2. Therefore, the house church model is suspect.
How about this applied to the other:
1. Many traditional churches have (1) bad theology, (2) weak teaching, (3) been started by wrong motives, (4) etc.
2. Therefore, the traditional church model is suspect.
Also, Alex, you posted the following quote (aprovingly): “To urge Christians to move away from the local assembly of believers is to put them in a dangerous position, because it is when they learn to live apart from the local church, Satan does his most deadly work.”
Umm…if somone is in a house church, how are they “living apart from a local church”? In what sense have they moved away from a local assembly? Of course, if they have went to a house church that strayed from biblical orthodoxy or orthopraxy then sure, that’s a problem (but its no different than if they went to another traditional church that likewise strayed).
To repeat my earlier question, am I to assume that you think the house church model is less biblical than the traditional church model? Equally biblical? (you’ve already stated your distain for the idea that it might be more biblical).
[Josh Gelatt] Shouldn’t we take a good, hard look at these criticisms of the house church movement, and then apply that same standard to the traditional churches. The argument against it goes something like this:I don’t want to sound overly pro-house church, because I’m actually pretty skeptical, but I noticed this, too. But do note that the “some have weak doctrine” argument is only one of several in the article. And there is certainly plenty of anecdotal evidence (for what that is worth) that the house churches have a bigger problem here on average than ‘traditional’ churches (unless you include the mainline denominations!).
1. Many house churches have the following dangers: (1) bad theology, (2) weak teaching, (3) been started by bad motives, (4) etc.
2. Therefore, the house church model is suspect.
How about this applied to the other:
1. Many traditional churches have (1) bad theology, (2) weak teaching, (3) been started by wrong motives, (4) etc.
2. Therefore, the traditional church model is suspect.
Maybe a better way to put that argument is to say that since there is a strong spirit of innovation in these groups, there tends also to be a doctrinal unfetteredness. I’m sure there are exceptions a-plenty, but we’re talking about general patterns here and reasons for caution here not reasons for outright rejection.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
My thinking on this issue is also shaped by the house churches that I have been in contact with. They were rebellous (didn’t want anyone in authority over them - the one I am thinking of splintered down to one family). They were theologically weak and bragged about it.
Roger Carlson, Pastor Berean Baptist Church
Don’t misunderstand, there are SOME things in “Pagan Christianity” (and even “Revolution”) that I would agree with. Much of what we see in the institutional church probably comes more from Roman Catholic (and even corporate) practices than from the NT. But, when they make a statement like “there is no shred of support in the NT for the office of pastor” I have to wince at the sheer lunacy of that statement. While that may be true of the concept of Senior Pastor, are they really denying the role of pastor/elder within a congregation? Seems nonsense to me.
The house church movement is no different than the traditional church movement in that it comes in many forms–much of which is simply wrong-headed. But I am speaking of the model itself, not the good or bad executions of that model (by comparison, I assume those of you defending the traditional model of the church are not also defending Unitarian or even seeker-sensitive forms of the traditional model).
I think we’d agree on one item…
- It’s not a house church if it meets in a building that exists only for the purpose of housing a church… for short “no ‘church building’ ”
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Discussion