I got the following off the New Testament Restoration Foundation website, ntrf.org. This man is a bit more radical than I am about the importance of meeting in homes, but I found his comparison of home meetings with baptism to be interesting. This is a letter from an English house church Christian to his Baptist friend with a little English humor thrown in.

Begin quoted material**************************** In Defence of Biblical Churches - A Response to the Critics!

Here, Beresford Job gives a biblical defense of meeting in homes to a friend who challenged him for imitating this and other New Testament patterns in an earlier letter. The name of his friend has been changed to protect his identity.

Essex, England Summer 2000

My Dear Oglethorpe,

Good to hear from you old boy! And so soon after you received my letter too. How is your lovely Martha? In jolly good health I trust! I've always said what a trooper of a wife you have there, and what a blessing she has been to you through the years. I say old chap, what a lucky fellow you are, and still neither one of you seem old enough to be great-grandparents. I only hope I shall fare as well when the years creep up on me. Lots of cricket and cups of tea, as you always say! That's the ticket!

I can see "all this dashed silly house church stuff" as you call it is really getting you going, and I must say your letter raised some things to which I really must respond, even at some length. So prepare yourself my old Baptist friend and cover your wicket, I've some real hard bowling for you to face.

Let me start with your assertion that it is not necessary for churches to meet in people's houses in order to be in alignment with the Word of God. Now then, that the New Testament churches, as set up by the apostles, were based in houses in just this way no one doubts, but the question is whether or not we ought to be continuing this practise. And the answer to that is tied up with what the believers in the New Testament did when they gathered together on Sundays. And what they did was twofold.

In keeping with apostolic teaching, as come down to us in 1 Corinthians, and especially in chapter 14 and verse 26, they firstly had a time of completely participatory worship and sharing together that all were free to partake in, and which no one led from the front. And of course this is as far away from having a church service (any type of church service) as you can get. They were simply led, freely and spontaneously, by the Holy Spirit, with no-one officiating in any way from the front. And then secondly they ate a meal together, this being the way they shared the Lord's Supper, referred to more usually today, and quite erroneously too, as 'communion'. And of course the point is that given such a set up when they came together, then by definition their way of gathering could only work properly if numbers weren't too large.

And what we see in the New Testament is that churches never moved out of houses into larger public buildings precisely because they never needed the extra space. And when you understand that the nature of a church anyway is a little extended family of God, and I don't think anyone would seriously challenge that as a pretty good and complete biblical definition, then it raises the question as to why anyone would want one to get so large that those who comprise it are no longer able to function in the way the Bible shows us they did. In the time of the apostles it is simply the case that there were many, many small churches, tied-in together simply through mutual relationships as brothers and sisters. What we have long forgotten is that Jesus is not only the Head of the Church Universal, as the theologians like to put it, or the Church Throughout Space and Time, as I prefer to say, He is also meant to be the Head of each individual church, leading personally as the Chief Shepherd. And of course given that in the New Testament the terms shepherd (or pastor) are synonymous with elder and bishop (or overseer), then the simple fact is that Jesus is Himself the senior elder, so to speak, of any church that is biblically set up.

So I am not arguing 'houses for houses sake', as you put it! That isn't the point at all! Indeed, as I emphasized in my letter, I don't actually like or use the terminology of 'house church', and much prefer to speak in terms of establishing biblical churches. A group of believers can meet as a church in someone's house on Sundays and yet still be completely unbiblical in virtually every other respect. No, I am arguing for the complete package, so to speak, and meeting in a house is but one aspect of the larger scriptural blueprint.

No, the point I am arguing is that we ought to be comprehensively doing things as revealed in the Bible. And in the New Testament we are presented with the simple fact, whether Christians like it or not, that the apostles set churches up in a definite and singular way. And although I know such an assertion is not popular, I must nevertheless stick by it (biblical truth is a stubborn thing and never ultimately goes away), and challenge our thinking which, in this regard at least, doesn't tend to let the mere Bible stand in the way of good ideas about what churches ought to be like. I cannot for the life of me see any authority or basis for suggesting that it's all right for us to do things differently from the apostles. It boils down to the simple fact that if churches now are to function in the way the New Testament shows us they did under the apostles, then being house based is, inescapably, the absolute optimum and ideal. And this is indeed what we find the believers doing in the New Testament. And I think it is worth noting too, and this is an historical point, that, at the time of Jesus, people's religious lives were universally centred around specially consecrated buildings; and this was true of both Jews and Gentiles.

Yet it is fascinating to then discover that an exception to this rule came on the scene in the shape of the Christian Church. They alone had no public buildings in which to meet for their corporate gatherings, though there was not a reason in the world why they shouldn't have had them like everybody else. Persecution was, for the most part, sporadic, and they had every opportunity to do what was, for everyone else, and for them before becoming believers, the most natural thing in the world - set aside special buildings, however simple and humble, for their corporate gatherings. But they didn't! And why not? Because the very idea was for them to meet in each others homes, and not simply out of necessity until some later time. Indeed, history tells us that they were actually thought by some to be atheists, and for this precise reason that they had no special building in which their 'god' lived.

So, the apostles established churches to specifically be located in people's houses. And far from being merely some accident of history, this was actually a part of the apostolic, and therefore biblical, blueprint. And given that Paul emphasises in his writings that apostolic tradition, as passed on by them to the churches from Jesus Himself ,was binding and a command of the Lord, then why on earth would anyone want to do things differently? Yet sadly some church leaders eventually did, and now some of us don't want to any more.

You see, the real problem is that when most churches come together on Sundays they are functioning, albeit with an infinite number of variations, according to the teachings of the early church fathers, the fellows who rather unhelpfully made the changes, and not the New Testament at all. And the contrast is amazing. Churches today aren't just different from the New Testament ones, they are virtually their opposites. Think about it! The Bible shows that the believers came together as churches in people's houses on the Lord's Day for unled, open and spontaneous worship and sharing together, which involved most people present bringing teachings and revelations and the like. Further, they also ate a meal together; indeed, the very Lord's Meal! (That's what the Greek literally means, the main meal of the day towards evening!)

So what do we do instead? We meet on Sundays (at least we get something right) with those attending sitting in rows, in a service, in a public building (whether 'sacred' or not), led from the front by someone who, usually, is paid to do it as their job. Contrast further a leadership of plural, co-equal and locally grown elders with an imported professional 'one man pastor or priest' type leadership and you begin to see, if you are honest, just how in contradiction of the Bible's teachings we actually are. And of course in such a setting a shared main meal, to say nothing of each person being free to participate, becomes a complete nonsense; which is why the Lord's Supper was eventually jettisoned in favour of bread and wine services instead.

So I see from the Bible that churches should be house based because of what is supposed to happen when they come together; and what better setting is there for participatory worship and sharing and then eating a meal together? And of course no-one who really knows their biblical stuff would challenge that this is indeed the blueprint upon which churches were shaped and formed under the teaching and care of the apostles in New Testament times.

So how, my old friend, can you then possibly go on to liken what I teach and practise in this regard as "the virus of legalism creeping it's way into the bloodstream of even undoubtedly godly communities of Christians"? How on earth do you conclude that my contention that we ought to establish churches today in the same way the apostles did is "a legalistic bondage", and is further "the pride of self-assertiveness hidden behind supposed concerns for the truth"? My understanding of legalism, and do correct me if I am wrong, is that it is the imposition of teachings and practises on believers that aren't in the Word of God: and in what possible way am I doing that?

Biblical scholars of all shades are agreed that the New Testament churches met in the way I am describing, and all I am advocating is that we do things according to the teachings of Jesus and the apostles rather than going along with what the early church fathers later replaced it with. And although I fully understand that any one of us can assert what is actually biblical and true in a proud and sinful way (and may God forgive me if that is what I am doing), is it not also the case that it must, by very definition, be prideful for believers to assume they can better the Lord's ideas and teachings in any way? Now come along my dear friend, just who is actually being proud here: those who submit to the scriptures, or those who think there is a better way outside of them?

Let me put a question to you, and I give you fair warning that I'm going to bowl you a real bouncer now; so get ready to duck! Why do you believe in, and practise, baptism for believers by full immersion in water, as opposed to baptism of anyone, even babies, by, let's say, sprinkling them with a nice cup of tea? And your answer could only be that it is because baptism of believers, by full immersion, in water, is what we unfailingly see happening in the pages of the New Testament!

There is not one single chapter and verse command that such is the only way to do it, it's simply that this is how we see it happen every time it does happen, and nothing in the Bible would suggest it needed to be changed in some way in the future. Now then, I don't know of anyone who's changed the water bit and uses cups of tea, but traditionally millions of believers have, and still do, change just about everything else about baptism. But you are a Baptist, and I know you take the Bible more seriously than to subscribe to such things as baptising babies; but here comes my challenge dear boy, and I insist you think it through carefully.

Why not actually just go along with infant baptism? Isn't it OK that some people baptise babies and other unbelievers, and do so by sprinkling them with water as opposed to immersion? What's the problem? Who are you to say it isn't what the Lord wants? Are you not being legalistic and putting people into bondage by insisting that there is one way, and one way only, for baptism to be done? Could not your position that we should baptise only in the way we see the New Testament church doing be "the virus of legalism finding it's way into the bloodstream of even undoubtedly godly communities of Christians"?

On what basis can you assure me that your belief and practise in this regard isn't merely "the pride of self-assertiveness hidden behind supposed concerns for the truth"?

I know full well that you would respond by simply asserting that the New Testament shows us clearly how the early church baptised, and that we ought therefore to do it the way the apostles taught, and not someone else - including the early church fathers! And I would agree with you entirely, and I would do so because you are as right about it as anyone could possibly be! So how then is what I'm saying about church, and about how churches ought to be set up, any different?

As a Baptist you are fully aware that the biblical practise of baptism was changed and completely perverted by the teaching of church leaders who came along after the apostles had died, and I know that you defend and stand for biblical baptism, as you should, with great fervour. But in exactly the same way that infant baptism, for example, is a complete misunderstanding and mockery of baptism as taught by the Bible, so it is with the way most churches are set up and function and operate as well.

The ways of 'doing church' that I am challenging are as unbiblical as infant baptism, whilst the way I am advocating that church ought to be 'done' is as biblical as believers baptism by full immersion in water. And in exactly the same way that you might challenge someone who believes in infant baptism to justify what he believes about it, then I challenge you to do likewise concerning how a church ought to be set up and function.

I'm just about done now, but before I go let me reassure you concerning the very last point you made. I know you were horrified to discover that there are American believers who are doing what I am advocating as well; but I don't think that can, on it's own, establish that it must therefore be some kind of satanic deception.

And anyway, I was practising and teaching all this long before I was aware that others were doing likewise across the Atlantic. As you know full well, I got it from the Bible and not from reading other people's books or anything like that. Indeed, I'd never read any of this in a book anyway.

And you know this phobia of yours concerning all things American really can go too far. I am aware that the very worst of most things tend to originate over there, including many supposedly Christian things too, but a country that gave us Tom and Jerry and Star Trek can't be all bad now, can it? And having moved quite a bit amongst biblical churches across the States I can personally witness to what a fine bunch of Christian folk they actually are. You're going to just have to stop moping over the fact that they won their War of Independence and aren't our colonies any longer! And I know they came into the war in Europe a bit late as well, but do try and put these things behind you. And they still make the best milkshakes in the world.

Well, it's time for me to go old friend! I look forward to your reply and will be expecting to face some tough bowling from you too. Send my love to dear Martha, and don't overdo things in the garden like you did last year. Your roses are as beautiful as ever again now, so don't go spoiling it all by doing your back in again and ending up in bed for a week.

The Lord bless you,

in Him,

Beresford Job

*************************************end quoted material

What do you think?

-- Anonymous, February 04, 2001

Answers

Danny,

This is a response to a message made in another thread. But since this has to do with church meetings, I think it would fit better in this thread.

I've read that it is a myth that Christians were consistently and universally persecuted throughout the Roman Empire for 300 years. Persecution came sporadically and in different areas. Christians might have been able to build church buildings in some areas.

What if I went to a church that used beer instead of wine/grape juice for Holy Communion, I might ask someone 'Why do you use beer instead of grape juice instead of grape juice or wine? The apostles used the fruit of the vine.'

Suppose someone there answers 'The apostles used wine because beer was not widely available in Israel in the first century.' What is wrong with that answer? Well, for one thing, the Bible doesn't hint that the reason the apostles used wine was because beer wasn't widely available. The people at this church, for some reason, might think that beer is superior to wine for use in Holy Communion, but that is only because they value beer more than wine for this person. The Bible gives us no reason to assume that wine was a substitute for beer.

A friend of mine said it irritated him to hear people say that the reason Jews in the first century drank wine was because they didn't have a way to preserve fresh grape juice. He says they drank wine because they liked wine. Some modern American Christians who have an anti-wine prejudice might read their own ideas into history about the reason people drank wine.

But what about this argument that the reason the early Christians didn't build church buildings was because there was persecution, etc. Well, I don't see in the Bible any indication that the churches were looking forward to a day when they could put up church buildings. I don't see the church building as a norm in scripture. The concept doesn't even show up.

Like I said, I don't think is a sin to meet in a church building, but I do see some problems with the 'ediface complex:'

1) Many churches ignore Christ's teaching and the early church example of caring for the poor. A lot of money gets spent on building buildings, even borrowing money to do so. 'The borrower is servant to the lender.' 2) Congregations that meet in a house are often ignored or considered to be weird or a cult. 'Why don't they meet in a building like a real church?" some people may ask. Ironically, the apostles held meetings in houses. 3) Artificiality from speakers. It is easy for a minister to stand up behind a pulpit and give an uninterrupted speech in front of a congregation in a church building, and come off as perfect. Put him in his own living room, and let him talk in a natural environment. See how he acts around his kids. 4) Sunday-only Christianity. The church building reinforces the idea that the 'main event' for Christians is going to join in a very formal program. Relationships, bearing one another's burdens, loving one another, often gets replaced down to brief handshakes as people hurry out to beat the Baptists to Western Sizzler. 5) Theological error. Buildings are not responsible for teaching error, people are, I realize. But buildings help people play into the erroneous thinking that a church building is hallow ground. Think of how many preachers misuse verses that apply to the OT temple or to the church to refer to church buildings. We are God's house in this day and age, not a building of brick and mortar. Plenty of preachers say 'Isn't it good to be in God's house this morning.' How many kids get told to behave when they are in 'God's house?' 6) Houses are much better suited for a Biblical style celebration of the Lord's Supper which could allow fellowship during a meal eaten together. Pews and nice carpet are not a good environment for this. You might get food on the carpet. The formal atmosphere of the church building is not as suitable for fellowship as a home. Also, the pews are set up in a way to make fellowship difficult. I don't think any real scholar that studies communion in the first century disagrees with the idea that the early Christians ate a meal for the Lord's Supper. 7) Unscriptural church meeting. most church buildings the way they are constructed, are designed for the type of church meeting received from the Reformation, but are not designed for the type of church meetings scripture instructs us to have. They are not designed for meetings in which 'every one of you' talks, sharing doctrines, songs, revelations, etc. I Corinthians 14 contains instructions for church meetings. (See Heb 10:25 also- mutual exhortation.)

One person who works with church planting here in Indonesia says that when people go out to start a church plant, there is a lot of evangelism at first, but about he time the congregation puts together a proposal to get a building, the evangelism stops.

I can imagine why? this is a predominantly Muslim country. There are also Buddhist neighborhoods, but let's imagine this in a Muslim context. A couple of evangelistically gifted brothers go into a neighborhood and find opportunities to share the Gospel with people. Getting a church started become a matter of reaching people. Ministry is people-focused.

Eventually, they might get 20 or 30 people coming to meetings in a home. Well, the traditional mind-set takes over. The church planters follow what the think is the natural course of action- get a building and one of them becomes 'the pastor.' So, the way they do that in Indonesia is they put together a budget proposal on apiece of paper and start going around to churches asking for donations. Then they rent an office storefront (or 'ruko' which is similar), usually, since it is difficult to get building permits to build a church building. Then what happens? The church goes from being people-oriented to program oriented. The pastor is concerned with keeping the machine running- having people come to meetings.

He may do some evangelism. The clergy-laity gulf is established. The laity begin to think of evangelizing, etc. as the special job of the salaried minister.

What is another alternatives? If the brothers are gifted at starting churches, they could teach the new believers to read the scriptures in meetings, edify one another with spiritual gifts, and exhort one another not to sin. The congregation doesn't need a professional 'pastor' to lead a liturgy. Like the apostles of old, the church planters can move on and do other work and come back later after the Lord has matured some of the saints enough for them to be elders of the church and take responsibility for the oversight of the flock.

What are the priorities in financing church growth? Where does money get spent? Well, proposals here may include money for the pastors salary, the rent for the church building for a certain period of time, maybe a year, etc. I talked to one Bible college student who had a group of people meeting in one little neighborhood. He might have had 20 people or less meeting, and he started talking about some of the things he needed to set up a church later. One thing he needed was a sound system. Is a sound system necessary? I think not.

I think an evangelism strategy of winning people to Christ and have them all meet in one or more houses nearby in groups of 20 or 30 for their weekly meeting is a pretty good idea. Money for sound systems, rent for church buildings, etc. is unnecessary. Money can be given to those doing real evangelism, elders working hard, widows, and the poor within the congregation. Wouldn't it be better to spend money collected on paying a brother or sister's rent who is having a hard time than paying rent on a church building? Would it be better to spend money on the church than on a steeple house? If we want to spend on Jesus lavishly, like Mary of Bethany who poured ointment on his feet, what should we do? Jesus said in another passage that whatever you do to the least of these My brethren you do it unto me? Who are our brethren? Church buildings or those saints who obey the Father?

Actually-built church buildings here tend to be quite flammable. I don't get it. Stuff here is built out of brick or concrete. Several church buildings were bombed late Christmas Eve before midnight.

In the US, house churches are also a good idea for church growth. There may be less church burning there, but it would still work. Meeting in houses is the way the church in the Bible did it, so why would we expect that something else (building steeple houses) is the 'norm.' The early saints met in public areas or existing structures at times (the temple, perhaps Tyrranus' lecture hall) but we have no pattern for using church funds to build a building to meet in.

It is interesting to me that 'Restoration Movements,' Reformations, etc. often get stuck. They discover a few truths, make those the focal point of their movement, but generations later, when that first generation of leaders who are open to change in order to be consistent with the scriptures die away, later generations get stuck in the same mold as the first generation of the movement.

Usually, later generations think their movement has found it. They have a lot of pride invested in their movement. Think about Lutherans. Luther showed people that the Roman Church was in error about some things. But some staunch Lutherans, like Luther, are very much opposed to the idea that there is something wrong with infant baptism. After all, they reason, their movement is the right one. They don't push forward all the way into various other aspects of Biblical Christianity.

There are people in the RM that are the same way. They focus a lot on certain things the founders of the movement taught, pointing to scriptures to support their views, but when you point out an area where the RM has not returned to Biblical Christianity, they are resistant to the idea or just apathetic. One example of this is when we deal with the issue of how the church met. Another is spiritual gifts. Afterall, a CoC or CC attender may reason, if there were spiritual gifts today, wouldn't they manifest in my church. If there is a Biblical way of meeting that does not center around hearing one man preach a sermon, then wouldn't -my church be doing it? This type of person is resistent to pressing forward into obeying what the scriptures teach. Of course, all denominations have plenty of people with types of thinking. Some consider this to be 'denominational thinking.' Since CC's and CoC's are considered 'undenomination' I suppose we could say RM people who think like this have 'undenominational thinking.'

Of course, not all RM people are like this. 'Mutual edification Churches of Christ' may have caught hold of some of these concepts. Nelta's webpage has links to a newsletter in which some RM ministers express some similar views on the New Testament principles for meetings to those expressed in the message I posted of Rusty Entrekin comments on I Corinthains 14. Some people who used to go to Sign Out Front CoC's are now involved in house churches. I ran across someone who attends a house church who used to go to a SOF COC on the TruthQuest mailing list. The American CoC tentmaker I came over here to work with originally was interested in these same NT principles of meeting before I began to see them in the scriptures. He was visiting a Local Church Movement meeting which had open meetings, plural elders, etc. (their church name also translates 'Church of Christ' from Indonesian into English.) That is the movement Watchman Nee was a part of, though it seems to have taken a different direction doctrinally in some areas since then.

The idea that the average CC or CoC church meets and operates just like the church in the Bible just doesn't stand up in the light of scripture. The meetings are too different.

-- Anonymous, February 07, 2001