Church Buildings vs House Churches

One of the great topics of debate in modern day Christendom is the issue of building church buildings vs meeting in small gatherings from house to house.

Those who defend the house church movement argue that for the first 300 years of church history there were no such thing as church buildings. It wasn't until Constantine became emperor in Rome that the emphasis of church architecture came into be. They say that in church buildings it takes away from authentic community life as well as the freedom for believers to excercise their spiritual gifts.

Those who defend meeting in church buildings argue that it doesn't matter the locality of the meeting. They say that the meeting and gathering of homes was something that took place because of the culture of the day. But because our culture is different, there is no need to gather in homes anymore. They give stronger emphasis to believers hearing the preaching of the Word, and to getting people connected into ministries that build up the church.

What are your thoughts on this issue? And what Scriptural grounds would you give to defend your thoughts? Would love to hear comments from you all on this popular topic.

Hi Mattie...

Thanks for this thread! The topic of the "house church" movement has been discussed at length, but it is always interesting. I've been researching the history of Church customs for a few years now. I'm currently gathering this information while writing a book about the subject. Tentatively entitled "[i]Traditions of Men[/i]," this book will examine the current state of Church traditions and practices, and where they originated. These practices are then cross referenced with what we know from the Scriptures (and to an extent, history) about the early Church.

As you are well aware, many of our most cherished customs and practices in regards to Church history are based upon the masked transformation of Roman pagan traditions into Roman Catholicism. This includes the concept of a designated “sacred” Church sanctuary or cathedral. This work is extensive, because there are so many of our accepted practices that are unwittingly based upon the Roman pagan traditions. This includes everything from our terminology, our “places of worship,” our “holidays,” the “order” of our services – to the responsibilities of Church leadership.

It is difficult to give Scriptural grounds to either defend the practice of a designated “Church building” where congregants meet once, twice, thrice or multiple times at designated weekly meeting hours – because there are few to none in this regard. The early Church met “daily” at one another’s homes. The order of the meeting is rarely mentioned (except in regards to being conducted in “decency and in order”). Many believers incorrectly believe that the modern building and meeting is based upon the Old Covenant Temple or Tent, or the New Testament synagogue. A proper understanding of either will reflect how little these compare with the modern Church meeting place.

Anyway, I am quite interested in this topic. I currently attend a small, local, non-denominational congregation. The pastor is not even a “full-time” minister (in regards to official work hours and compensation). However, our meetings are reminiscent of those held around the world (opening with prayer, “praise and worship,” “offering” time, announcements, greeting one another, another song or two, sermon, “altar call” and special prayer, closing prayer/announcements). It would be interesting to have witnessed the meetings held by the early Church. I suspect that they might look a whole lot like the meetings of believers in closed countries where you could die for your faith.

Thanks for starting this thread!

:-)

I don't really think that it matters where you meet as believers, as long as you meet as believers. I think that both areans are scriptual

Mattie wrote:

One of the great topics of debate in modern day Christendom is the issue of building church buildings vs meeting in small gatherings from house to house.

Those who defend the house church movement argue that for the first 300 years of church history there were no such thing as church buildings. It wasn't until Constantine became emperor in Rome that the emphasis of church architecture came into be. They say that in church buildings it takes away from authentic community life as well as the freedom for believers to excercise their spiritual gifts.

Scripture does not see it this way. Scripture places the same emphasis on both.

[u][b]Acts 2:40-47[/b][/u]

[b]A Vital Church Grows[/b]

[i]And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, “Be saved from this perverse generation.” Then those who gladly[g] received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them. And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers. Then fear came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles. Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need.
So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.[/i]

reading over this, it is improtant to note that the Lord added to the church daily. He does not specifiy if it is House Church or in the Temple. Why, because people are getting saved. It does not matter where they are getting saved.

Those who defend meeting in church buildings argue that it doesn't matter the locality of the meeting. They say that the meeting and gathering of homes was something that took place because of the culture of the day. But because our culture is different, there is no need to gather in homes anymore. They give stronger emphasis to believers hearing the preaching of the Word, and to getting people connected into ministries that build up the church.

Id there no need to gather in homes anymore? That is of personal opinion. I beieve that it is important for families to meet in dwelling places. The Church is our family, and it is always good to invite family over.

What are your thoughts on this issue? And what Scriptural grounds would you give to defend your thoughts? Would love to hear comments from you all on this popular topic.

I tend to like House Church more then meeting in the temple for intamacy factor that comes with it. I find that "pouring your life" into someone is easier done in a smaller grou than a larger.

I tend to like meeting in the temple with the Church for the messages given to man from God. I love coming together to worship and praise the Lord. There is something special when you have firm believers together, praising the Name of the Lord together. I love listening to Godly men teach about the Lord.

I think that they both have their place in importance. I think that it is unwise to HAVE to choose one over the other. Not all people learn and grow the same. To truly have people grow in the Lord, they need to grow in the way that God leads them. Some people grow more in House Church, some int he Temple, some with both.

Excellent thought Miccah. I agree with you as well. What matters is that the Gospel is being preached and disciples are being made. It is up to God how to lead them for He is the Chief Shepherd. Awesome.

2) The clergy laity structure is probably the #1 reason true on-fire believers leave the organized Church. It is not New Testament Christianity and is a result of the Roman Catholic system as stated.

As Jim pointed out, the dispute really isn't over the building itself, but the structure of the meeting/fellowship.

Mattie, I am in a process of reading Art Katz's book [b][url=http://www.benisrael.org/writings/online_books/true_fellowship/tf_contents.html]True Fellowship[/url][/b], you may find it great blessing and eye opening on this subject.

I don't think the real subject is "Church Buildings vs House Churches", this is just scratch of the surface. The real thing and problem is much deeper. And it's not so difficult to point the problem, but to show example of true fellowship intended by the Lord.

If we just point the problem, and don't give the real answer, [i]through the example[/i] our lives, better said - the life our local fellowship, we are just half the way, and will never achieve the final purpose. What we see more today is pointing out the errors (which are true errors and should be pointed), but without real example to show the truth and say (not necessary with words) "This is how it should be", you will left the people confused and in the half way!

Many say, we should move from the buildings where it stinks, to the houses, thinking that this will solve the problem by itself, but later is finding that in the houses also could stink if it is not builded on good apostolic foundation, on denying ourselves, on forsaking all and serving. Here is a quote from the book above:
A church with apostolic foundations is that body of people whose central impulse and principle of life, being and service is one thing only, namely, a radical and total jealousy for the glory of God.

However, I think gathering in a building once or twice a week, from start is making you to be short off some realities that cannot be experienced from once or twice meeting in a week, and sitting on a bench listening sermon. You are short of the realities of every day life as a Body, struggles, victories, [b]failings[/b], the real you, accountability, and again accountability for brothers and sisters, building the fellowship in the every day situation and life, building the character in a such environment. We are Body. We have need one each other. We are family, brothers and sister. We cannot accomplish the purposes of God alone, He made Body, and we must function as a Body - living organism. Not in any away can be accomplished something significant for the Kingdom of God, as a club of individuals, meeting few times a week, everyone for their own interests.

1Co 10:24 Let no one seek his own good, but that of his neighbor.

Firstly (but not by value), we are commanded for our exhort one another, daily, for our good:

Heb 3:13 But exhort one another [b]daily[/b], while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.

Heb 10:24 And let us consider [b]one another to provoke unto love and to good works:[/b]
Heb 10:25 [b]Not forsaking[/b] the assembling of ourselves [b]together[/b], as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: [b]and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching. [/b]

Secondly, God intended to work in this world, through His Body. If the legs doesn't function you cannot go anywhere, although you have arms.

W.Nee is summing this very well:

The vessel through which the Lord Jesus can reveal Himself in this generation is not the individual but the Body. " God hath dealt to each man a measure of faith " ( 12. 3), but alone in isolation man can never fulfil God's purpose. It requires a complete Body to attain to the stature of Christ and to display His glory. Oh that we might really see this!

Oh that we might really see this!

Tears_of_joy wrote:
Not in any away can be accomplished something significant for the Kingdom of God, as a club of individuals, meeting few times a week, everyone for their own interests.

1Co 10:24 Let no one seek his own good, but that of his neighbor.

I would like to point out that those of us who meet together in House Church do not meet as a "club". That is something for those who knit, have classic cars, and wear silly hats, j/k. But in all seriousness, House Church is just as vital as "traditional" church. To group House Church in with a club is inacuurate at best.

Every, and I strees every, House Church meeting that I have been in attendance to focuses on the Lord in some form or another. To imply that people are out for selfish interests who go to House Church (or clubs as you would), is also inaccurate.

House Church is not for everyone, as is neither is the Temple, but the Lord is. Let us find Him wherever He may be located.

In Christ

Dear Miccah, I got confused by your post. I read it few times and also I read mine again. I think you have missed what I wanted to say. Please read again, and ask me if something is not clear in it, because from your response I can see that you are responding to something that is not said. I haven't said that house churches are clubs, I haven't generalized things.
The church which I am part of is gathering in a house, also.

I would be thankful if you read again the post and ask if something made confusion.

Thank you very much.
Kire

I would like to point out that those of us who meet together in House Church do not meet as a "club". That is something for those who knit, have classic cars, and wear silly hats, j/k.

Most people attend church just like they would a college class. Here are a list of things about college classrooms.

1) You must pay tuition.

2)It's nearly immoral to question the professor. If you do talk to the professor, there is usually a part of you that just wants brownie points. Either that or you just want to get a better grade.

3)When you come to class, no talking. Sit down, be quiet, and listen. If it's a good day there might be a movie or something to watch.

4) The only time you talk to the people in the class is right before or after class. You might get with them some other time, but only if you need something.

5) Your only there to graduate.

I'm sure most of you can put the parrallels together. :-o

Tears_of_joy wrote:
I would be thankful if you read again the post and ask if something made confusion.

Thank you very much.
Kire

Brother Kire,

I am sorry if I misunderstood you. I have been known to do that at times, hence the back and forth with the postings. I stand corrected.

Blessings

Brother Kire,

I am sorry if I misunderstood you. I have been known to do that at times, hence the back and forth with the postings. I stand corrected.

Blessings

Grace and peace from Jesus unto you also, brother.

the early church was meeting in houses because they were a persecuted church...
china for instance.
Try and be a christian in pakastan, or some of the other radical muslum countries of today...
House churches are probably the only way...
Constantine made it possible for Christians to worship without blantant persecution, praise God.
I honestly believe a persecuted church is a stronger church. Why be luke warm as a believer when your persecuted?
I do have a few problems with house churches, because I was in one for awhile.
lack of accountability for moral charector, no one wanted to be the heavy..
and it was hard to put a stop to goofy doctrine with no one who would have the final say what was conscidered good doctrine or bad doctrine.
but there may be other house churches who do quite well, and I would like the closeness that it does offer.
my two cents.

Tears of Joy, what you said was also very true. The issue is a body of believers becoming jealous for the glory of God. It isn't about locality as much as about a corporate jealousy for God's name to be honored.

True Fellowship is a wonderful book!

PreachParsly wrote:

I would like to point out that those of us who meet together in House Church do not meet as a "club". That is something for those who knit, have classic cars, and wear silly hats, j/k.

Most people attend church just like they would a college class. Here are a list of things about college classrooms.

1) You must pay tuition.

2)It's nearly immoral to question the professor. If you do talk to the professor, there is usually a part of you that just wants brownie points. Either that or you just want to get a better grade.

3)When you come to class, no talking. Sit down, be quiet, and listen. If it's a good day there might be a movie or something to watch.

4) The only time you talk to the people in the class is right before or after class. You might get with them some other time, but only if you need something.

5) Your only there to graduate.

I'm sure most of you can put the parallels together. :-o

I was asked to clarify this. It really wasn't directly for or against any type of church structure but about the commonly mentality of going "to church" or attending a fellowship. Here are the parallels.

1) Most people think going to church is about tithing. If you don't give a certain way, your not welcome.

2) The non-spoken rule is to never question your pastor. If you do your rebelling against authority.

3) Most aren't encouraged to be involved. Sitting and listening to your pastor sermonize is enough. If it's a good day, something worth watching may happen.

4) Most don't have any connection with the people other than saying "Hi" or something short before or after the service.

5) People only go to church because they think it's what they need to go to heaven.

As far as giving weekly at church fellowships and enduring the sovereignty of a pastor we may not agree 100% with, we need to know that these are the very things God uses to test us. A recalcitrant, unwise spirit will gripe to others and stir strife among brethren and make all of his/her qualms publically known. He or she will publically say that "we don't need to pay tithes - it's old Testament law" or "the Pastor shouldn't have a monarchial position in this fellowship" and thus they bring instability and confusion to the minds of those whom God has not yet spoken to concerning this. They usurp the role of the Holy Spirit with their own contaminated spirit and would diffuse their own unsavory odor among the flock of God.

I have found that over the years God uses the principle of the tithe and spiritual submission at the pastoral level to engender discipline, humility, and refining for His choicest saints. Many people - and some reading this right now - cannot accept this. Men are fueled to bring confusion to such things usually by way of personal gripes and deep-seated issues they feel prompted to "make known all." A fool will open his mouth without discretion and reveal all the secrets of his heart, but a wise man will keep them in and ponder and wait for more illumination from God.

Many house churches had their birth in the seat of spiritual pride. Of course, there are execptions to this, but most house church people I've talked to are bitter about something or someone and demonstrate no sense of the grace and glory of God. Conversely, there are many tradtional churchgoing people of the same temperature. Therefore, whether you attend a house church or a tradtional church has no bearing whatsoever on your maturing in God (I wish it were that easy).

I would, in fact, dissuade people from aligning themselves with independant house churches and instead have them look to be broken, humbled under a Pastor they may not agree 100% with. I don't agree with my Pastor on a few things (both doctrinally and musically) but God would have me submit to him. If I were to let my pride and emotions take control, I would leave the church and step out of the will of God.

If you want to be a first-rate Christian, let God break you and teach you patience and humility. It may take years and years before He finally calls you out, but one day He will, and honor you for all the years you honored Him by submitting "not my will, but Thy will, O Lord." If you step out prematurely you'll only extend your wilderness sojourning.

Brother Paul

Could you expound on this Paul ?

Sure, do you need it to be more clear? I've read it over a few times and am trying to figure out how else to word the thought. Can you please be more specific on what is unclear to you or unfinished; it would sure help me out!

Thank you!

Brother Paul

Basically, if you could just expound on the term "choicest Saints" and how the "fool" statement applies to this thread topic.

Thank you for the clarification.

If what you are taking objection to is read in context with the rest of my post, I think it is clear that I am not promoting God's partiality among saints, but "choicest" meaning those who have resolved to surrender and deny self and God enrolls them in His school. Remember, God looks upon the heart of man and His eyes go to and fro upon the earth to act on behalf of those who honor Him. Not all saints honor God, many are contaminated with pride, self-worth, embroiled in doctrinal debates and pressing their convictions upon others. There are choice saints who are not "choice" in and of themselves, but these are ones God has singled out because He sees the heart, the yearning, the constant hatred and waring against sin, the quest for righteousness and purity and Christ to shine through their detestable lives. And so God, in his unspeakable grace and mercy, "chooses" them, even from the rest of the flock, and begins breaking and refining them in ways that other saints are not able to comprehend -- because they themselves are not willing to go there, to pay the price.

Now, as far as the word "fool" goes and how it pertains to this thread, the scripture I drew it from is found in Proverbs 29:11 - "A fool uttereth all his mind, but a wise man keepth it in till afterwards." Please note, I have not called anyone a fool in this thread; I chose this scripture to address the common reason most object to tradtional, established churches and run off to form house churches where they can be in control.

Most of the people I know in House Churches, are there because of False Doctrine and Shepherding Movements.

I agree this is a huge probability. I wouldn't expect anyone to remain in a church where error is promulgated. However, for many people, "error" can be nothing more than a disagreement on tithing or music selections. Contrary to popular belief, there are still quite a few curches that preach the truth; it's the peripheal things that cause quarrels and provoke "church hopping." I merely contend that these are the things God in His wisdom will often use to sandpaper a saint, to break the will of him or her, to humble, to destroy the coveting of money (which is the main reson people are offended with the doctrine of tithing).

Running off to form a house church in these situations ends up being an actual detriment to the working and purposes of God. Remember, his ways are not our ways. Man's way says: "I don't think tithing is for today," and goes off and does the only logical thing he can muster in his human wisdom: he finds or forms a church that conforms to this mindset. If he is a "fool" (I'm sorry you take umbrage to this), he will uttereth all his mind to others and generate strife, and his purpose is to win others to his side. Do I need to go on? I hope you can see the connection now, and, again, I am not calling anyone a fool on this thread.

Grace and peace be with us as we hatch this out,

Brother Paul

No personal umbrage taken at all.

God bless you, dear sister. This is the mind of Christ, sobriety and a willingness for each of us to explain, expound, clarify, and, finally, come to a peaceful resolution. Have a blessed weekened.

Brother Paul

Even though you admit there are exceptions, you seem to think that almost everyone who leaves a traditional church, (to join, or especially to found, a house church) does so because they have a rebellious, discontented spirit and are unwilling to submit to leadership.

Yes, you are right; I do. If you go back far enough usually what you'll find is a disgruntled elder, an embittered worship leader, a preacher who was refused on account of pet doctrines. Please try to understand, I am [i]not[/i] referencing people who have left a church because of heretical teachings. Though even in such cases, it is unreasonable to assume every victim of heresy must go off and either form or join the obligatory house church. I contend there are an abundance of churches already established (well over 7,000, in fact) who have not yet bowed to Baal. I think we (myself included) have a tendency sometimes in these forums to make things out to be a little worse than they are. Usually, all we are doing is venting personal issues and concerns the best we can.

What is the difference between the pastor of an independent house church and any other church?

None whatsoever, unless, of course, one of them happens to be installed independant of God's will.

In [b]many cases[/b] those who founded what eventually became a new denomination [b]probably[/b] had wrong motives too. So what’s the difference?

Many cases? Sister, I challenge you to give me [i]even one[/i] example of a God-honored denomination which was built on wrong motives.

There is a very real risk that such a one will become so broken through taking this advice that they become unable to hear the call of God any more, let alone respond.

Well, I believe the risk isn't so much in the in the advice itself, but rather with the person to whom it is given and the amount of emotional baggage they carry. I do feel that what I have given is sound advice, and it should be accepted by those who can accept it. I can only comment on what I have observed in my own walk, and what the Lord has shown through different facets of His school, and, in general, the way He deals and refines His saints. You read Sparks, Poonen, Katz and they'll tell you the same. Running off with a separatist mindset to join or establish a house church (when one hasn't heard from God specifically) simply because your feelings got hurt or feathers ruffled is not always the wisest thing to do. God tests us in manifold ways, and the urge to leave our churches is often a standard God tests us at to see how teachable, docile, how readily we can submit to authority. He'll often permit a pastor or a deacon to rub you the wrong way and then He'll observe your reaction. If you leave the church, you flunk the test. God tests us and breaks us early on for plans and purpose He sees many, many years down the road. If we are only willing to submit and endure when we agree 100%, our faithfulness to his purposes will be brittle when we face incredible opposition later.

Of course, you can write all this off as subjective. That's your choice, and I don't want to debate this or try to defend my position. The most important thing, dear sister, is that we love the brethren and endeavour to walk humbly before God and sup daily at the feet of Jesus. If we are careful to do this, God will guide our steps in all things, regarding house churches, tradtional churches, etc.

Brother Paul

Off subject, but relevant.

When the end times come and the Church is persecuted, where will people meet? Will it be at the local established church, where the local authorities will be waiting to arrest you for beliving in Jesus, or will it be in secluded "house churches" where there is at least minimal safety?

Not the end times yet, just some food for thought.

I realize I'm entering this topic a bit late, but I'd like to share the name of a book that I've read, one that I believe is entirely relevant.

It's called [i]The Normal Christian Church Life[/i], by Watchman Nee. Personally, I found it a fascinating read, one I highly recommend. Nee discusses not only the whole "house church vs. separate building church", but the various offices of the Church (i.e., apostle, elder, etc.), how churches should be founded, how they should be managed (administratively speaking), etc. Of course, Nee provides scripture after scripture to explain his position.

One chapter in particular, "The Basis of Union and Division" was a real eye-opener for me. :-)

For His glory,

Mark