The Institutional Church vs. House Assemblies

[Buff Scott Jr.]

The Institutional Church vs. House
Ekklesials — Assemblies

[Questions from my audience]​

Query ​

“In a recent message you spoke of the early believers meeting in private homes and similar places, and that the meetings were mutually inclusive, involving anyone who might wish to share or express himself. If believers adopted such meetings today, would there not be ‘voices of ignorance’ trying to teach one another, as well as a diversity of opinions? Would there not be more confusion than order?”​

My Response​

In such meetings, varied opinions would not be discouraged, as diversity yields growth. No one, however, would be coerced into conforming to someone else’s conception or interpretation of truth. Although everyone would be urged to look for pearls, a few would find lesser stones. Those few would not be rejected. As to “voices of ignorance” trying to teach one another, we must not forget the early believers practiced the method I am here describing, and we don’t refer to them as “voices of ignorance.” Their “family circles” and “family discussions” brought out the best in each of them. The least effective method of communication is pulpit preaching and lecturing. The most effective method of communication is mutual dialogue.

There should be a mutual exchange of ideas by as many who might wish to participate, both male and female. Participation would not be compulsory, but everyone would be encouraged to get involved, for “group therapy” or mutual ministry would be the crux of each meeting. Someone with the gift of leadership would lead each session.
​

Query
“But how do you manage order in a setting where everyone is encouraged to participate?” ​

​

My Response​

A wise leader will maintain order, very much like an earthly father maintains order in a family discussion. Disorder was prevalent in the meetings at Corinth (I Cor. 14). Everybody was trying to speak at the same time. Paul told them to speak “one at a time” (verse 27). Then he told them that “everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way” (verse 40).

It is noteworthy that the “pulpit minister” or “pulpit pastor” isn’t even mentioned or referred to. Where was he? Wasn’t he supposed to be the center of attraction and the core of attention? He wasn’t there! His office was invented centuries later, thus forming the first major cancer in the body of believers.
​

Query
“Some time ago, you indicated it’s wrong to meet inside church buildings. Where do you meet? Do you meet in some structure?” ​

​

My Response​

I have never indicated it is wrong to meet in some structure. I have said that our church structures are monuments that testify of our idolatry. A few readers—somehow—understood me as being opposed to meeting in any structure. The issue is not whether it’s right or wrong to meet somewhere. That is not what I addressed. The issue is whether or not we have built church structures and edifices and set them apart—sanctified them—as holy articles or entities. I say we have. If I’m correct, we are as guilty of idolatry as were the children of Israel who erected Asherah poles as symbols of worship. God told Israel in no uncertain terms, “Do not make idols or set up an image or a sacred stone for yourselves, and do not place a carved [consecrated] stone in your land to bow down before it” (Lev. 26:1).

In truth, Protestants and Catholics have done just that! Catholics have not only set up “consecrated stones” in the form of church structures, but they have made idols and images and bow down to them. Protestants, on the other hand, have set up their elaborate edifices and crosses and view them as sanctuaries and revered designs. Oh, there may be a few exceptions, but the rule seems to be universal. There’s an old maxim, “Our heart is where our money is.” If we will but consider the hundreds of thousands of dollars—yea, even millions—that are spent on church structures, designs, religious inventions, and edifices, and compare that amount to the few dollars we spend on seeking and saving the lost and feeding the genuinely destitute, we don’t need a professor to locate our hearts. If this isn’t idolatry, I’ve lost my ability to reason.

We fail to see that God no longer “lives in temples built by [human] hands” (Acts 17:24). His only sanctuary today is the believer’s heart (1 Cor. 3:16). But try telling this to the average pew-warmer. He views his church edifice and its “sanctuary” as holy places, and he feels he must go there in order to worship and make contact with his God. However, his “sanctuary” is no holier than the toilets in the West Wing!

Men seem to learn but little from history. Moved with pride, swept with unreasoning fears, in every generation there are those who spend their time and money to erect the same idols and to perpetuate the same errors of their sectarian forefathers. There has never been a human idol erected that did not betray God’s trust and eventually bring disaster to its erectors and their idolatrous followers.
​

Query
“Suppose the house meeting becomes too small to accommodate everyone?” ​

​

My Response​

That would be an ideal time to start another house assembly. Apparently, the early believers used the same method. Each house assembly would be set up and organized in the same manner as the first assembly, with wise leaders who encourage mutual participation. It would not be an ideal time to build a “church structure.” The early believers did not build and own “church houses” and fancy edifices. They met in each other’s homes and in public places—yes, even by the riverside. Church buildings were not built until some time around the second century. They have become monuments to our failures. Jesus said to get out and go, but we have moved in to stay. We seem to want to do the opposite of what our Master instructed. “Oh, for fallen man, When will he regain his footing again?”—Selected.
​

Query
“What ‘acts of worship’ would be emphasized?”​

​

My Response​

Everything would be an expression of worship, for worship for the committed believer never ends, if I understand Jesus’ conversation with the woman at the well in John 4:21-24. He said simply that worship in the new age, the Christian or grace era, would be anytime and the place where we are.
​

Query
“But what about the pulpit preacher? Where does he come in?”

My Response​

He wouldn’t. He would not be needed unless the congregation opted to place him in full-time evangelistic work. Mature and older men called “elders” would shepherd and guide the body of believers, as it was 2,000 years ago. Their role would not be authoritative, but likened unto gentle and loving fathers. They would not play the role of dictators but function as wise leaders.

Lest I forget, an interesting survey revealed that both Protestant and Catholic churches are complaining because so many of their members are leaving and attending house assemblies. Amen! May God speed the day when the Institutional Church will be forced to close her doors and join the many who have “seen the handwriting on the wall.” Within the next few decades, look for some drastic changes, for they are surely coming.

The healthiest factor of the house arrangement is that we don’t need a “celebrity” in the likes of a pulpit minister to spoon-feed us. All of us will mutually study together and learn together—and without any overhead expenses. This means we can take all monies pooled together, if that should be the group’s decision, and help support authentic evangelism or send it to Food For The Hungry or some similar humanitarian organization whose main function is to feed the genuinely destitute in foreign lands. We will not need a treasury!
​

Query
“With your emphasis on home churches, which is good, are you also emphasizing the necessity of biblical elders within those assemblies?”​

​

My Response​

Men with the gift of leadership will naturally rise to the top. For in every kind of cause, regardless of its nature, there must be either formal or informal leadership. When men with the gift of leadership rise to the top, and they will, the house assembly may formally or informally recognize them as their shepherds. No rituals are needed. No “special service” is required. If the group wishes to formally recognize their leaders, a simple announcement from someone who speaks for the others will suffice.

And so it is—or at least should be. I think you will agree that a comprehensive reformation is due throughout the Christian community. We haven’t arrived yet. The journey is long. Hop into the saddle and let’s go!​

​

 

[Josheb]

Among the multiple concerns inherent in the house congregation schema, the chief concern with house churches are the risk of heterogenous teaching, and the lack of external oversight and accountability. This is exactly what happened in the 19th century, and the house church movement has failed to address the problem. There is nothing wrong with a congregation meeting in a home and attempting to emulate the New Testament practices but if problems did not exist then much of the epistolary would not exist, either. Some of the problems the epistle writers endeavored to correct were systemic.

I think you will agree that a comprehensive reformation is due throughout the Christian community.​

No, I do not agree, and this statement is indicative of one of the problems in the house church movement: a bad ecclesiology.

We haven’t arrived yet. The journey is long. Hop into the saddle and let’s go!​

Been there. Done that. Found it part of the problem to be solved.

A "church" and The Church are not the same thing. The Church, those called out of the world into sacred service to God through His resurrected and ascendant Son, Jesus the Christ, is exactly where God wants it to be. That sounds strange to some, completely wrong to some, but the fact is if God is in charge, then everything, no matter how insane it may look to us here on earth, is exactly where God wants it to be and it all serves His purpose(s), and His purpose(s) alone. To say otherwise is to have a bad Theology and a bad Christology.



This post is not to be construed to say problems with alternative models do not exist. They do. The Church is a messy place. This should be obvious to anyone who has read the epistolary. Much, if not most, of it is spent correcting bad thinking, bad doctrine, and bad practices. The Church has attempted many different ways to make the Church healthier with mixed results. Why would anyone want to go back to a model that made for a messy Church? Because that's how they did it in the New Testament, that's why. The problem is the Church is supposed to be in constant reformation and one of the chief reasons specific episodes of reform exist is because maintenance was neglected. Christologically, the Church is impeccable. Practically, the Church is deeply flawed, and it will remain so this side of resurrection (or Christ's return).

 

[Buff Scott Jr.]

Among the multiple concerns inherent in the house congregation schema, the chief concern with house churches are the risk of heterogenous teaching, and the lack of external oversight and accountability. This is exactly what happened in the 19th century, and the house church movement has failed to address the problem. There is nothing wrong with a congregation meeting in a home and attempting to emulate the New Testament practices but if problems did not exist then much of the epistolary would not exist, either. Some of the problems the epistle writers endeavored to correct were systemic.

No, I do not agree, and this statement is indicative of one of the problems in the house church movement: a bad ecclesiology.

Been there. Done that. Found it part of the problem to be solved.

A "church" and The Church are not the same thing. The Church, those called out of the world into sacred service to God through His resurrected and ascendant Son, Jesus the Christ, is exactly where God wants it to be. That sounds strange to some, completely wrong to some, but the fact is if God is in charge, then everything, no matter how insane it may look to us here on earth, is exactly where God wants it to be and it all serves His purpose(s), and His purpose(s) alone. To say otherwise is to have a bad Theology and a bad Christology.



This post is not to be construed to say problems with alternative models do not exist. They do. The Church is a messy place. This should be obvious to anyone who has read the epistolary. Much, if not most, of it is spent correcting bad thinking, bad doctrine, and bad practices. The Church has attempted many different ways to make the Church healthier with mixed results. Why would anyone want to go back to a model that made for a messy Church? Because that's how they did it in the New Testament, that's why. The problem is the Church is supposed to be in constant reformation and one of the chief reasons specific episodes of reform exist is because maintenance was neglected. Christologically, the Church is impeccable. Practically, the Church is deeply flawed, and it will remain so this side of resurrection (or Christ's return).

Josheb, I always appreciate your input, but, naturally, I don't always agree with all of your input. As an example, "Some of the problems the epistle writers endeavored to correct were systemic." I disagree. They were local, such as at Corinth.​

 

[Josheb]

Josheb, I always appreciate your input,​

And the appreciation is appreciated.

but, naturally, I don't always agree with all of your input. As an example, "Some of the problems the epistle writers endeavored to correct were systemic." I disagree. They were local, such as at Corinth.​

"They were local, such as at Corinth...... which was constituted of house churches! Corinth used the house church system!!! So too did all the other cities and regions to which the epistles were originally sent. They all practiced that which this opening post advocates. The same conditions existed in Thessalonica, Ephesus, Rome, Colossae, Philippi, and throughout the regions of Galatia, Macedonia and Asia Minor. There were no church buildings where large congregations met and no institutional sects or denominations. The New Testament is a record of what occurred in house churches and the house church structure.

I reiterate: I am not saying house churches are always and everywhere bad. I am saying house churches can and do have problems. I am saying there is a certain irony to using the house church approach as a means of restoring Christianity to New Testament precedents because the New Testament precedents are messy.

They were local, such as at Corinth.​

Which is what house churches are: local! House churches are as "local" as it gets. That's one of the proverbial selling points of the house church.


Have you ever read "Pagan Christianity" by Frank Viola and George Barna? How about Viola's other house church apologetics? For the lurkers, despite a few important flaws, the book is worth the read. It's a bit alarming how much of our modern ordinary thought and practice has changed from the NT era.

 

[Buff Scott Jr.]

Josheb, I was among the first ones to order a copy of "Pagan Christianity" when it was published. I appreciate the book very much, and often refer to it.​

 

[Josheb]

Josheb, I was among the first ones to order a copy of "Pagan Christianity" when it was published. I appreciate the book very much, and often refer to it.​

Good book. Very informative, but poorly reasoned in places. Can you name three of its flaws? How about just two? (I mean flaws in the book's argument(s), not flaws in the house church model)

.

 

[Josheb]

Repost from another thread:

The op is good in that it highlights some of the benefits of a house congregation. However, many real and valid concerns in the apologetics of the house church model and the practical application exist and those not familiar with the house church model might benefit from knowing the plusses and the minuses. Here are a few:

1. The Church has always been a messy place. Therefore, any attempt to replicate the New Testament era structure is likely to (unwittingly) replicate at least some of the problems existing back then, especially the problems that occur due to the nature of the model.
2. Aside from the problems inherent in the model itself, problems (may) also occur as a function of the practice of the house church model. Again, any modern effort to replicate the house model should work actively to avoid replicating those problems wherever possible. Anyone interested in exploring and experiencing the house church model should know what to look for in these regards.
3. The arguments asserted by folks like Viola and Barna are faulty in multiple ways. Since we've both read their book(s) you and I can have that conversation in an informed manner, one that might benefit the lurkers.
4. The assumption the early structure of Christians organizing their expression of faith is the only true or valid structure and any other alternatives are wrong is incorrect. While you and I may not hold that viewpoint, that is the position of many house church model advocates, including Viola and Barna. One of their fundamental arguments is that the Church has been unduly and adversely affected by various paganisms (and, therefore, should be abandoned in favor of participation in a house church).

Care to discuss any of these points? Let me know. I am happy to take each point one at a time, focus on a few important aspects and keep the discussion of each point (relatively) brief.