House church (or “home church”) is an informal term for an independent assembly of Christians intentionally gathering in a home or on other grounds not normally used for worship services, as opposed to a church building, due to specific beliefs. They may meet in homes because they prefer to meet informally, because they believe it is an effective way of creating “community” and engaging in outreach, or because they believe small family-sized churches were a deliberate apostolic pattern in the first century and intended by Christ.
The U.S. has one of the world’s smallest number of house churches. Why? I believe it’s because of the perceived need continue the tradition to have some sort of corporate worship in official buildings. One could say that since the U.S. is so developed, and since we can afford creating official structures for worship, and that it’s a convenient practice, then there is nothing wrong with meeting in a church building. Correct, there is nothing inherently wrong with meeting in a church building, unless of course it interferes with God’s plan to get out amongst his people and spread the Gospel.
There’s a great deal of history behind the meeting of Christians in their homes. Sometimes, those reason for meeting were bad (e.g. hiding from persecution), and sometimes those reasons were good (e.g. building a community). I’d like to examine the positive and negative affects of “house churches”.
There is an abundant history of the early church thriving while meeting at each others houses. When the early first Century church began, the Apostles themselves met in an upper room in order to pray together, with both men and women in attendance (Acts 1). There are also many more inferences we can make about the 1st Century church about them meeting in their homes. It was regarded as common practice.
Negative vs Positive aspects of having a “house church”.
Having a “house church” takes away the opportunity for visitors to come to a well known public place and be welcomed. There are many programs that churches institute that facilitate the welcoming of visitors and current members. Programs range from door greeters, using name tags, and designating people to meet at least 1 visitor and invite them to lunch.
In contrast, having a “house church” would enhance the opportunities meet new people. This opens the door to allow visitors, who previously have been nervous about stepping into an actual “church”, to feel welcome in a non-threatening environment. Christians can then invite their friends, or their coworkers in order to evangelize. The programs that churches use to help welcome visitors are a symptom of a larger problem. That problem is that the church seems too large to be able to immediately recognize visitors and at the same time provide a welcoming environment for them.
A “house church” is not equipped well enough to conduct an adequate worship service. The restroom facilities, seats, and even the general acoustics are just some of the things under concern. This denotes that a feeling of “official corporate worship” is important to some in the congregation.
Sometimes we get so used to the amenities that the church building offers that we forget that the 1st Century church, as well as some of today’s churches, have thrived without such conveniences. When physical contraptions such as microphones, water fountains, or even the number of toilets get in the way of building personal relationships in a close community, then something is wrong with our mindset.
Establishing a “house church” ensures division in the congregation. As the number of house churches grow, the number of people still meeting at a building shrinks, and then you’ll have dozens of smaller congregations, instead of one big united congregation.
While unity is something we should strive for, having “house churches” doesn’t necessarily mean division occurs. If a large congregation decides to start meeting in their homes, then one might see where shear numbers might show division. We all know that church splits occur way too frequently! However, all of the “house churches” are united in one purpose: To strive to share the Good News about God. And along the lines of my earlier thoughts, “house churches” provide an excellent evangelism tool for sharing and showing God.
The congregation is already used to meeting at a particular building, it’s a tradition and changing that will offend someone. There is no sense in giving up something that is convenient for most people.
There will always be opposition to change. And change for change’s sake isn’t necessarily good. But the biggest hurdle face in the house church movement is having to change the mindset of those resistant to change. People must been convinced that change needs to occur. The argument for house churches is that is provides a better means of evangelism, and is a better tool for building communities. However, if meeting in a church building is absolutely necessary for some, then please allow those that want to meet at the homes to do so.
I’m currently trying to spur interest in starting a house church instead of meeting at the build on Wednesday night. So far, I’ve only been to peak the interest of young adults. It would be actually MORE convenient to meet in our homes on that night, than to drive to the building. I also hope to encourage others to start their own house church. The format of the assembly doesn’t have to mirror the corporate version; it doesn’t necessarily have to include singing, preaching, etc. In fact, singing would be discouraged because of the probability that it would make a new comer uncomfortable. “Church” is just a assembling of Christians, so lets try to make a non-threatening environment in which we can invite our friends and co-workers into our home!
Nice work, Mike … I think you did a good job of showing some of the general criticisms of house church, and answered them well. I think the one I’ve seen come up most frequently is the issue of division. There have been occasions, unfortunately, where people have used their home churches to teach doctrines that are not in accord with what the elders have set forth for their congregation as a whole. That is a danger. But the danger of problems like that shouldn’t keep us from doing something when the benefits could very easily outweigh the benefits, especially since this is something that is strictly Biblical.
I’ve been involved in house churches throughout my life, sometimes out of necessity. I grew so much more in those situations than I ever did in our public assemblies. You rely on each other more, and can reach out to your specific community more. It’s a much better environment for many reasons, which you have mentioned here.
As it happens, I thoroughly agree with your point on Wed. night services. It would be FAR more convenient to meet at our homes in small groups on Wed. night than to have everyone come together. That makes a lot more sense to me, and again, there are plenty of Bible passages to support this type of gathering. I honestly think much of the concern revolves around the tradition point. It makes people uncomfortable and they’re scared of “what could happen.”
Mike, this is amazing. I wanted to talk about house churches and you beat me to it! I too want to start meeting in homes in my area.
It seems that it is part of God’s pattern that Christians are to meet in homes. Here are many NT examples:
Acts 2:46, 5:42, 8:3, 12:12, 16:40
Rom 16:3-5
1Cor 16:19
Col 4:15
Phm 1:2
With so many examples, it’s impossible to deny that there is a pattern here.
Yes, it seems like those who oppose meeting in homes usually say that the first-century Christians did so because of persecution. I would disagree, because meeting in homes did not protect them! See Acts 8:3 and Acts 17:5.
Also, I like Wikipedia’s definition, because “house church” also refers to other places not normally used for services. For example, a church can rent conference rooms, assembly halls, and movie theaters. Those would be great for Sunday mornings where all the believers in the area could attend. Then meet in homes the other nights of the week.
Yeah I know … what’s the deal with our random acceptance of patterns?
I’d like to make a few comments about “house churches”…
I really don’t have a problem with them…lol. As Swango pointed out, the early church met in homes. It should be noted that the church met in the temple in Acts 2:46 as well. Paul also taught in the school of Tyrannus (I think I am getting that name correct?), the synogogues of the Jews, etc. It seems to me, that the location where people gather to do spiritual things is unimportant…and really has more to do with convenience, I think. One of the distinctions between Christian worship and Jewish worship was the religious significance about the place of worship. Jesus indicates that the physical place is of no consequence.
John 4:
19″Sir,” the woman said, “I can see that you are a prophet. 20Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem.”
21Jesus declared, “Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.”
If worshiping in a house seems to be more effective and convenient for the local church that you are a member of…then go for it!
Most churches that I have been a part of…typically, have programs where the members divide up into groups and have fellowship meals associated with a devotional. Every few weeks the members randomly mix up again. I always felt this was a great way to get to know the whole church….and to enjoy really good food! Haha.
Anyway…I love the house church concept…nice thoughts everyone.