Sunday Sermons

The House Church Movement

Mark Dunagan
03/06/05 - Sunday Morning

The House Church Movement

Meeting in a house is a Scriptural option (Hebrews 10:24-25). This lesson is not against Christians who happen to meet in someone’s home, rather in this lesson I would like to address a movement that has a specific agenda and theology. “Feeling that established churches have lost their spirituality and are frozen in traditionalism, the people of this movement have broken away from mainline denominations to establish these new circles of fellowship. LaGard Smith’s book Radical Restoration, and John Mark Hick’s work, Come to the Table, both that promote this movement have had considerable impact among institutional churches of Christ. Among non-institutional churches, this movement has been felt in at least seven states” (True Worship, Florida College Annual Lectures 2005, Jim Deason, p. 170). Yet, this movement is also progressing in the denominational world as well.

Worshiping in Homes

“The claim, is made by those in the house church movement that meeting in houses is an exclusive apostolic pattern. Beresford Job of the Chigwell Christian Fellowship in London, England writes that after the dispersion from the city of Jerusalem, ‘we are left with the sample fact that whenever churches are located in scripture they are always, without exception, in people’s homes’. Smith places great emphasis on what he sees as a pattern by saying, ‘Maybe that’s where it all went wrong in the first place. Maybe the church should never have left home’ (p. 143). (F.C. Lectures p. 172). Yet as one reads the New Testament we find that local congregations met in all sorts of places, including the Temple (Acts 2:46; 5:12), and a school (Acts 19:9). All the Corinthians were clearly not meeting in a home (1 Corinthians 11:22 “What! Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink?”) The church in Jerusalem had a membership that included 5000, and that is just counting the men (Acts 4:4). Did they all meet in one home? “Why is there such strong emphasis placed upon meeting in houses by those in this movement? The answer lies in the fact that they see the function of any given assembly hindered by large numbers. They believe churches must be small in order to facilitate the informality and spontaneity which they believe characterized the New Testament church” (F.C. Lectures p. 173). Yet the church in Jerusalem flourished and was not hindered by large numbers (Acts 2:42-46; 5:14).

Spontaneous, Informal Worship

“Beresford Job writes, ‘When believers came together in each other’s houses as churches their corporate worship and sharing together was completely spontaneous with no one leading from the front…all present are free to take part without the controlling presence of anyone leading the proceedings’” (F.C. Lectures p. 173). Robert Banks argues, “The best arrangement for a congregation’s meeting is not a rectangle containing rows of seats, all looking forward to what is happening in a space at the front. The best arrangement is a circle, in which each participant can look at the other, address the other, and hear from the other, preferably a circle around a table” (The Church Comes Home, Robert Banks, p. 37). Of course, the Bible says nothing about the “right” seating arrangement, indicating it is a matter of indifference to God. Steve Akterson argues from 1 Corinthians 14 that congregations must “allow any of the brothers who so desire to verbally participate in the meeting” (Ekklesia: To the Roots of Biblical Church Life, p. 37). Actually, when one examines 1 Corinthians 14, one does not walk away believing that someone who has something to say, must be given a chance to say it. First, only two or three tongue speakers were allowed to address the assembly on any given meeting (14:27), the same was true of prophets (14:29). IN addition, the women were not allowed to address the assembly (14:34). Added to this, members were not to simply say something spontaneously, rather they first had to have something of meaning to say (14:30; 14:26 “Has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation”). The claim is made that our services are not interactive enough, yet on any given Sunday morning (not to mention Sunday night, Wednesday night, and our monthly singing), we have at least nine different men leading the congregation through different phases of worship.

Mutual Ministry

With all the emphasis on spontaneity and interactive worship, it should not surprise us that this movement wants to eliminate the need for a preacher. Jon Zens quotes from David Thomas’ comments on 1 Corinthians (Pulpit Commentary): ‘Surely official preaching has no authority, either in Scripture, reason, or experience, and it must come to an end sooner or later’ (Ekklesia, p. 129). Smith writes, “The very concept of worship focused around a pulpit flies in the face of the dynamic, mutually-participatory house churches in the apostolic age. Houses don’t have pulpits” (p. 211). A congregation does not have to have a preacher, yet the New Testament clearly authorizes the office or work of an evangelist (Ephesians 4:11). Such evangelists did work with local congregations. Timothy was told to remain at Ephesus (1 Timothy 1:3). Philip stayed in the city of Caesarea for some 21 years and worked with the church there (Acts 8:40; 21:8). Timothy was told to “do the work of an evangelist” (2 Timothy 4:5), and that work included preaching (4:2), and it was preaching directed not only to non-Christians, but to the members of the local congregation as well (4:3; 2:2; 1 Timothy 6:17; 6:2; 5:20; 4:11,13,16). Timothy clearly did not have to do all the preaching or teaching, but from the above passages it is clear that he was doing a good amount of it. While elders also teach, it is a false distinction to claim that evangelists are men who only seek to teach the lost, and that elders alone address the church. Again, read Ephesians 4:11, the Bible does not teach that assemblies were basically up for grabs to anyone who wanted to say something. Definite teachers did exist, who equipped the saints.

Church Organization

In this movement the New Testament pattern of elders over a local congregation (1 Peter 5:2; Acts 14:23; Philippians 1:1) is being corrupted. Smith writes, “There is nothing to rule out the possibility that the role of elders in the early church might well have encompassed more than one level of involvement—even simultaneously. Perhaps there were elders shepherding the disciples in each house, depending upon their size and makeup. And perhaps elder oversight may have been exercised throughout a group of house churches which collectively comprised a larger, recognizable congregation” (p. 178). Notice how he is willing to believe something on a perhaps. We must have a Scripture, because faith comes by hearing, rather than as a result of “perhaps” (Romans 10:17), and Peter said we are to speak as one is speaking the utterances of God (1 Peter 4:11). As Deason notes, “There is no shred of evidence in scripture that would lead us to believe that there is scriptural authority for elders to oversee anything but the congregation in which they were appointed” (F.C. Lectures p. 176). Dick Blackford accurately observes, “As an aside, one thing that is really glaring in all their writings on this subject is the number of times they draw absolute conclusions after using such expressions as ‘it seems’, ‘perhaps’, it is likely’, ’from appearances’, ‘apparently’ etc” (F.C. Lectures p. 137).

The Lord’s Supper

One of the most recognizable features of the house church movement is the contention that the Lord’s Supper must be observed within the context of a common meal. “The meal is a potluck. Everyone brings something to share with everyone else. When the weather is nice, all the food is placed on a long folding table out in the carport. A smaller card table at the one end of the long table contains drinks, cups, forks, napkins, etc. A chest full of ice sits on the floor beside the card table. Kids run wildly around having so much fun that they must be collared by parents and forced to eat something. After a prayer of thanksgiving is offered, people line up, talking and laughing, to serve their plates. In the middle of all the food sits a single loaf of bread next to a large plastic jug containing the fruit of the vine. Each believer partakes of the bread and juice while going through the serving line. The reason for the event? In case you didn’t recognize it, this is the Lord’s Supper, New Testament style!” (The Lord’s Supper: Feast for Famine? Ekklesia: To the Roots of Biblical Church Life, Steven Atkerson, p. 23). Smith argues, “The most universally-overlooked feature of the Lord’s Supper as practiced in the primitive church is that—from all appearances—it was observed in conjunction with a fellowship meal. That is, a normal, ordinary meal with the usual variety of food. From its very inception, therefore, the Lord’s Supper was an integral part of a real meal” (pp. 128-129).

First, it is not accurate to say that from its inception the Lord’s Supper was an integral part of a real meal. The Lord’s Supper was instituted following the Passover meal, which was not a normal or ordinary meal. It was something only observed once a year, and the items in this meal where strictly regulated (Exodus 12). Secondly, Paul specifically condemns any attempt to combine the Lord’s Supper with a social meal, “Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper, for in your eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry and another is drunk. What! Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this I will not praise you” (1 Corinthians 11:20-22); “If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that you will not come together for judgment” (11:34).

Smith responds to such clear teaching by saying, “Here is where one must be careful not to be thrown off track by Paul’s ensuing question: ‘Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in?’ (11:22). Nor by his concluding line: ‘If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment” (11:34). Far from prohibiting a fellowship meal in conjunction with the Lord’s Supper, it is clear that Paul is saying (in current vernacular): If the reason you are participating in the fellowship meal is to feed your stomach, then you’d do better to stay home and pig out!” (130-131). Yet if that is true, then:

· Why didn’t Paul simply correct their abuses and keep the Lord’s Supper within the context of a social meal, especially seeing that it is argued that the Lord’s Supper cannot be observed without being associated with a meal? Is Paul preventing the Corinthians from partaking of the Lord’s Supper by telling them to eat at home?

· Paul did not say, “stay at home and pig out”, Smith is putting words into Paul’s mouth, he said to “eat at home”. Is Smith saying that gluttony is acceptable as long as it is practiced at home? By saying, “eat at home” and associating that eating with “hunger” (not pigging out), the Holy Spirit is clearly revealing that the Lord’s Supper has nothing to do with satisfying one’s physical hunger.

· “Smith’s position requires one to eat a full-course meal with ‘the usual variety of food’ but he is not supposed to do it because he is hungry!” (F.C. Lectures p. 141). Smith and other advocates of this view have the Lord’s Supper inherently tied to a social meal, which means that it is inherently tied to hunger, and “one’s own supper” (11:21), yet Paul said that the Lord’s Supper cannot be properly observed if it is tied to such things.

· Notice that the Corinthians were not meeting in a home (11:22), and the Holy Spirit does not place the Lord’s Supper within the Passover Meal, but places the institution of the supper after it (11:25). “If the church always met in homes, then Paul’s saying, ‘Let him eat at home’, would make no sense to the homeowner. He was already doing that” (F.C. Lectures, p. 142).