The Premise
There are no known church buildings prior to the time of Constantine. During the apostolic era and for the next two centuries, churches met primarily in the private homes of its wealthier members. This necessarily meant that the typical congregation consisted of less than a hundred or so believers.
The Purpose
There was a massive expansion of the early church as they gathered in small communities. The move of the Holy Spirit was awesome in and through these small congregations. These house churches were like dynamite in their locale. Every member seemed to be active in the body of Christ as they met together in private homes. The Kingdom of God spread mightily through the whole people of God.
Everything in the New Testament was written to churches that met in private homes. The relationships the New Testament describes work best in situations where everyone knows each other. These smaller settings foster the intimacy and accountability that characterized the New Testament church. A loving, family-like atmosphere is more easily developed (one of the things families do is eat together and celebrating the Lord’s Supper as an actual meal is much more conducive to a smaller setting). Achieving congregational consensus is easier when everyone knows everyone else and open lines of communication genuinely exist. The many “one another” exhortations of Scripture can be much more realistically lived out. Participatory worship is natural to a smaller setting and is more meaningful. Also, freed from the burden of maintaining a dedicated campus, more assets are available for the support of ministers.
The Professors
According to Anglican evangelist David Watson, “For the first two centuries, the church met in small groups in the homes of its members, apart from special gatherings in public lecture halls or market places, where people could come together in much larger numbers. Significantly these two centuries mark the most powerful and vigorous advance of the church, which perhaps has never seen been equaled. The lack of church buildings was no hindrance to the rapid expansion of the church; instead . . . it seemed a positive help.”[1]
A Yale University archaeology pamphlet stated, “The first Christian congregations worshipped in private houses, meeting at the homes of wealthier members on a rotating basis . . . Worship was generally conducted in (either) the atrium, or central courtyard of the house.”[2]
Graydon F. Snyder, professor of New Testament at Chicago Theological Seminary, observed that “the New Testament Church began as a small group house church (Col. 4:15), and it remained so until the middle or end of the third century. There are no evidences of larger places of meeting before 300.”[3] Again quoting Snyder, “there is no literary evidence nor archaeological indication that any such home was converted into an extant church building. Nor is there any extant church that certainly was built prior to Constantine.”[4]
The ESV Study Bible notes that “Early Christian churches, since they were small and not recognized as a legitimate (or legal) religion, met in homes . . .
...there is extensive archaeological evidence from many cites showing that some homes were structurally modified to hold such churches.”[5]
Martin Selman, lecturer in Old Testament at Spurgeon’s College in London, wrote that “The theme of the ‘household of God’ undoubtedly owed much to the function of the house in early Christianity as a place of meeting and fellowship (e.g. 2 Tim. 4:19; Phm. 2; 2 Jn. 10).”[6]
Reformed scholar William Hendriksen, said “since in the first and second centuries church buildings in the sense in which we think of them today were not yet in existence, families would hold services in their own homes . . . The early church numbered many hospitable members, ready and eager to offer their facilities for religious use: meetings, services, etc.”[7]
According to Anglican commentator W.H. Griffith Thomas, “For two or three centuries Christians met in private houses . . . There seems little doubt that these informal gatherings of small groups of believers had great influence in preserving the simplicity and purity of early Christianity”.[8]
In his mammoth work New Testament Theology, Donald Guthrie (lecturer on New Testament at the London Bible College) wrote that “the expression ‘in church’ (en ekklésia) . . . refers to an assembly of believers. There is no suggestion of a special building. Indeed, the idea of a church as representing a building is totally alien to the NT.”[9]
In his challenging book Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger, Ronald Sider made a good point. He said, “The early church was able to defy the decadent values of Roman civilization precisely because it experienced the reality of Christian fellowship in a mighty way . . . Christian fellowship meant unconditional availability to and unlimited liability for the other sisters and brothers — emotionally, financially and spiritually. When one member suffered, they all suffered. When one rejoiced, they all rejoiced (1 Cor. 12:26). When a person or church experienced economic trouble, the others shared without reservation. And when a brother or sister fell into sin, the others gently restored the straying person (Mt. 18:15-17; 1 Cor. 5; 2 Cor. 2:5-11; Gal. 6:1-3). The sisters and brothers were available to each other, liable for each other and accountable to each other. The early church, of course, did not always fully live out the New Testament vision of the body of Christ. There were tragic lapses. But the network of tiny house churches scattered throughout the Roman Empire did experience their oneness in Christ so vividly that they were able to defy and eventually conquer a powerful, pagan civilization. The overwhelming majority of churches today, however, do not provide the context in which brothers and sisters can encourage, admonish and disciple each other. We desperately need new settings and structures for watching over one another in love.”[10]
The Proof
The word “church” (ekklésia) in the New Testament never refers to a building. It fundamentally means assembly, gathering, meeting or congregation.[11] It is clear from Scripture that the early church met in the private homes of its more affluent members.[12] For example Philemon, who was wealthy enough to own a slave, also hosted the church (Phlm 2b). Church hostess Lydia was a prosperous businesswoman who sold expensive purple fabric and could afford servants (Ac 16:14). Aquila and Priscilla were tent makers, a lucrative first century trade (Ac 18:1-3). Gaius’ home was big enough to host the whole church (Ro 16:23). John indicated that Gaius had the means to generously support missionaries (3Jn 1-5). Less well known is the fact that the early church continued this practice of house churches for hundreds of years after the New Testament writings were completed. What are we to do with the fact that the early church met mostly in homes?
Persecution
The most common explanation for the existence of early house churches was the pressure of persecution, similar to the situation that exists today in China or Iran. Clearly, gathering in a house is much safer during times of persecution. In many parts of the world, the persecuted church gathers for fellowship in networks of underground house churches — small communities that secretly gather in the living rooms of believers.
Even the absence of persecution, however, would not rule out a deeper, purposeful preference by New Testament writers for smaller, Roman atrium sized congregations. The simple fact of the matter is that everything in the New Testament was written to congregations that were small enough to meet in someone’s home. The inter-personal, “one another” relationships advocated by the epistles work best in such smaller settings. Arguably, the New Testament ideal for church life is best realized in a smaller, family-like setting (scores rather than hundreds or thousands of people).
A Purposeful Pattern
Might the apostles have laid down a purposeful pattern of meeting in houses or at least of congregations containing scores of people rather than hundreds of congregants? What practical effects would meeting in a home have on one’s church life? It is a design axiom that form follows function. The apostles’ belief concerning the function of the church was naturally expressed in the form that the church took on in the first century. Some of the distinct practices of the early (house) church are worth considering.
1. The Church as Family: One over arching significance of the New Testament church lies in its theology of community. The church was depicted by apostolic writers in terms which describe a family. Believers are children of God (1Jn 3:1) who have been born into his family (Jn 1:12-13). God’s people are thus seen as part of God’s household (Ep 2:19, Ga 6:10). They are called brothers and sisters (Phm 2, Ro 16:2). Consequently, Christians are to relate to each other as members of a family (1Ti 5:1-2; Ro 16:13). Out of this theological point that God’s children are family arises many church practice issues. The question becomes, what size congregation best facilities our functioning as God’s family?
2. The Holy Meal: Many scholars are persuaded that the Lord’s Supper was originally celebrated weekly as a full, fellowship meal (the Agapé Feast). Each local church is to be like a family (1Ti 5:1-2), and one of the most common things families do is to eat together. Early church meetings, centered around the Lord’s Table, were tremendous times of fellowship, community and encouragement (Lk 22:16-19, 29-30, Ac 2:42, 20:7, 1Co 11:17-34). Rather than a funeral-like atmosphere, the Lord’s Supper was celebrated in anticipation of the Wedding Banquet of the Lamb (Re 19:6-9). The larger the congregation, the less family-like and the more impersonal the Lord’s Supper as a true meal becomes. It is difficult to have the Lord’s Supper as a family meal in a large, impersonal gathering.
3. Participatory Worship: Early church meetings were clearly participatory (1Co 14, Heb 10:24-25, Ep 19-20, Col 3:16). Any brother could contribute verbally if operating out of his spiritual gifting. The prerequisite for anything said was that it be edifying — designed to strengthen the church. Since public speaking is a great fear for many people, participatory meetings are best suited to home sized gatherings, composed of people who all know each other and are true friends. Participatory meetings are impractical for large numbers. After church meetings in Roman homes were replaced by meetings in much larger basilicas, participatory worship was replaced by worship services.
4. One-another: The Scriptures are full of the “one another” commands (Heb 10:24-25). Church is to be about accountability, community, and maintaining church discipline (Mt 18:15-20). These ideals are best accomplished in smaller congregations where people know and love each other. Church is to be about relationships. A large auditorium of people, most of whom are relative strangers to each other, will not easily achieve these goals. Nominal Christianity is harbored as it becomes easy to get lost in the crowd. Churches that meet in homes best foster the simplicity, vitality, intimacy and purity that God desires for his church.
5. Consensus: The New Testament church had clearly identified leaders (elders, pastors, overseers), yet these leaders led more by example and persuasion than by command. The elder-led consensus of the whole congregation was paramount in decision making (Mt 18:15-20, Lk 22:24-27, Jn 17:11, 20-23, 1Co 1:10, 10:17, Ep 2:19-20, 4:13-17, Phlp 2:1-2, 1Pe 5:1-3). Achieving consensus is possible in a church where everyone knows each other, loves each other, bears with one another, is patient with one another, and is committed to each other. However, the larger the fellowship, the more impossible it becomes to maintain relationships and lines of communication. Also, in a large congregation, the pastor necessarily functions more like the CEO of a corporation. An informal homelike setting is an effective place for the building of consensus.
6. Multiplication: The first century church turned their world upside down (Ac 17:6) and did so while meeting in homes. House churches are low cost, can reproduce quickly, and have great potential for growth through evangelism. We need to think small in a really big way! God does not equate bigness with ability. Paul reminded that “God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things — and the things that are not — to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him” (1Co 1:27-29, NIV).
7. Resource Allocation: The New Testament urges the generous support of missionaries, evangelists, qualified elders, and the poor (1Co 9, 1 Ti 5:17-18, 3 Jn 5-8). Which group of believers would better be able to fund church planters and assist the poor, a thousand believers organized in a single traditional church that meets in their own church sanctuary, complete with a Sunday school complex and family life center (gym) or a thousand believers networked together in cooperating house churches? Surveys of Protestant congregations in America reveal that on average 80% of church revenues goes toward buildings, staff and internal programs; 20% goes to outreach. In house church networks, those percentages are easily reversed. Being freed from the burden of constructing church buildings and their resulting expenses also allow greater sums of money to go toward the support of church workers and the needy.
Gathering as a church in a house is about as simple as it gets. Not nearly as much money is required to do this kind of church planting work. Like the early church, a simple house can be enough for the fellowship of the church. Money has become a primary factor in many ministries today. It is a major concern, topic of conversation and source of conflict. Without a lot of money, it seemly has become almost impossible to do the Lord’s work. However, when we examine the early church, money was not a primary issue at all. The early disciples planted churches in homes, had simple gatherings in homes and multiplied into other houses as the fellowship grew.
8. Scores of Congregants: Since the New Testament church met almost exclusively in private homes, the typical congregation of the apostolic era had to have been relatively small.[13] No specific number is ever given in Scripture, but there were generally no more people than would fit into a wealthy person’s home (in the atrium or perhaps courtyard area). The overall pattern is for smaller rather than larger congregations. Though house churches are at the opposite end of the spectrum from mega-churches, it is important to avoid the mistake of thinking too small. Like Goldilocks’ porridge, the size should be just right; not to small and not too big.
A major flaw in many Western house churches is that they are simply too small and thus lacking in both leadership and a healthy diversity of spiritual gifts. In working with American house churches for nearly twenty-five years, I have observed that many lack anyone present who is qualified to be an elder. A malaise often sets in. The church becomes little more than a “bless me” club that gathers for a meal, some singing and a play time for the kids. Even among those who do have an elder, the congregation is usually so small that he cannot be supported. Unless he is retired or is self-employed and willing to neglect his business, time devoted to the church in equipping, leadership, training, disciple-making, evangelism and teaching is in short supply. As a result, little disciple making occurs. Being too small is a violation of the New Testament norm. Intent on holding to the New Testament example of meeting in homes, some house churches violate the New Testament pattern of having elders and consistent, quality instruction. It is far better to not meet in homes if it means having the blessing of elders and teachers and a diversity of spiritual gifts operating.
The Matthew 18 restoration process detailed by Jesus assumes more than two or three families in a church. Counting the various gifts dealt with in 1 Corinthians 14 reveals the presence of a healthy number of believers. That qualified widows and elders were supported by early house churches (1Ti 5:3-16) also required more than just a handful of believers. Having a plurality of elders in a single house church is also unlikely in too small a setting (Acts 14:23).
Regarding the size of first century homes, it is interesting to observe that the meeting room of the Lullingstone Villa house church in Kent, England (built during the Roman occupation) measured approximately 15’ x 21’.[14] Fuller seminary professor Robert Banks gave his opinion that “the entertaining room in a moderately well-to-do household could hold around 30 people comfortably — perhaps half as many again in an emergency . . . it is unlikely that a meeting of the “whole church” could have exceeded 40 to 45 people, and may well have been smaller . . . In any event we must not think of these as particularly large . . . Even the meetings of the “whole church” were small enough for a relatively intimate relationship to develop between the members.”[15] Dr. Banks’ numbers may be a little on the low side. An examination of floor plans in Pompeii shows typical atriums measuring 20’ x 28’.[16] Jerome Murphy-O’Connor measured six homes in Pompeii and found the average atrium to be 797 square feet.[17] A house known to be a Christian meeting place at Dura-Europos (in Syria) could, according to the Yale archaeologists who excavated it, seat 65 to 70 people.[18] Acts 1:15 records 120 assembled in the upper room.
Progression
Suppose there had been no first century persecution. Are we to assume that church buildings would automatically have been constructed so that individual congregations could swell to enormous size, limited only by the dimensions of the largest building affordable? Some argue that the practice of meeting in homes was merely an initiatory phase of the church’s early development, a transitory step toward later maturity. That is, house churches were characteristic of the church in its infancy, but not in its maturity. It was right and natural, it is argued, for the church to grow beyond these early practices and develop ways that are far different than the practices of the apostles as recorded in Scripture. Thus the erection of cathedrals, large worship services, the rise of a presiding bishop over a city of churches, the development of the modern hierarchical presbytery system and sometimes even the eventual merger of church and state after Constantine are seen as good and positive developments.
In answer to this, it should be noted that the apostles seem to have intended for churches to adhere to the specific patterns that they originally established. For instance, the Corinthians were praised for holding to the apostles’ traditions for church practice (1Co 11:2). Sweeping appeals for holding to various church practices were made based on the universal practices of all the other churches (1Co 11:16, 1Co 14:33b-34). The Thessalonians were directly commanded to hold to the traditions of the apostles (2Th 2:15). The apostles were handpicked and personally trained by our Lord. If anyone ever understood the purpose of the church, it was these men. The practices that they established for the church’s corporate activities would certainly be in keeping with their understanding about the purpose of the church. Respect for the Spirit by whom they were led should lead us to prefer their modes of organization to any alternative that our own creative thinking might suggest.
Also telling is the total absence of any instruction in the New Testament regarding the construction of special buildings for worship. This is in contrast to old covenant Mosaic legislation, which contained very specific blueprints regarding the holy tabernacle. When the new covenant writers did touch upon this subject, they pointed out that believers themselves are the temple of the Holy Spirit, living stones that come together to make up a spiritual house with Jesus Christ as the chief corner stone (1Pe 2:4-5, Ep 2:19-22, 1Co 3:16, 6:19). Thus at the very best, church buildings are a matter of indifference to our Lord. At the worst they can be a carnal throwback to the shadows of Mosaic Law.
In The Radical Christian, Arthur Wallis said, “In the Old Testament, God had a sanctuary for His people; in the New, God has His people as a sanctuary.”[19] Through Christ Jesus, we ourselves are God’s temple and God’s church (1Co 3:16, Ac 20:28). Let us give heed to the penetrating words of John Havlik: “The church is never a place, but always a people; never a fold but always a flock; never a sacred building but always a believing assembly. The church is you who pray, not where you pray. A structure of brick or marble can no more be the church than your clothes of serge or satin can be you. There is in this world nothing sacred but man, no sanctuary of man but the soul.”[20]
The real issue, of course, is not where a church meets, but how it can best do what God requires of it. The problem is that a major reason church buildings have been erected is in order to hold more people than would fit into a typical Roman sized home (65-70 people). We wonder at the appropriateness of constructing large church edifices since having too many people in attendance can serve to defeat the very purposes for holding a church meeting in the first place. Large crowds are great for worship services, evangelistic meetings or to hear good teaching, but the weekly church gathering is to be about something completely different than these activities (mutual edification, accountability, encouraging one another, the fellowship of the Holy Meal, strengthening relationship, building consensus, etc.). J. Vernon McGee once opined, “. . . the Christians met in homes. I used to hold the viewpoint and I still do . . . that as the church started in the home, it is going to come back to the home.”[21]
The Proposition
Western Christianity is closely associated with church buildings. The word church in English usage can even refer to an edifice. Historically, little value has been placed on the New Testament example of house churches. Our fathers in the faith probably had compelling reasons to move church meetings from homes into sanctuaries. Indeed, there is nothing wrong in itself with a congregation having a church building. However, we need to remember that structure and systems exist for a purpose; they are not ends in themselves. There is a great necessity for us to have structures and systems that will benefit the effective functioning of the church. Gathering in larger houses facilitates participation, interaction, discussion and one-another ministry. Also, it is in such a setting that teaching can be done in a dialogue fashion rather than monologue; it is more pervasive and very effective. Arguably, using private homes is a much better use of scarce resources.
To function as effectively as the early church functioned, modern church structures, sizes and systems must be carefully considered. The structure should be informal, the size of the community ought to be under a hundred or so and the seating arrangement must be flexible. Since every member’s participation and ministry was highly valued and encouraged in the early church, a home is still a good setting wherein every person can comfortably contribute and function for the edification of the whole body of Christ.
Regretfully, due to the structure and the order of churches today, we are often missing some very important purposes of church gatherings — fellowship and the encouragement of one another (Heb 10:25). Church is not about passively attending formal services; neither is it to be a program. It is a people. Worship is not going to a service but doing service to one another. It should be about intimate fellowship with one another and actively encouraging one another. It is about interdependently functioning for the edification of all.
We are not arguing for meeting in houses simply for the sake of meeting in houses. We are suggesting that the apostolic church did not erect church buildings in large part because they simply didn’t need them. The letters which were written to the various New Testament churches were mostly written to house churches. Because they are written to house churches the instructions contained in them are geared to work in a smaller congregation of under a hundred — they were never meant to work in a large group setting. Consequently, they don’t work as well in large congregations. To attempt to apply New Testament church practices to a contemporary large church is just as unnatural as pouring new wine into old wineskins (Mt 9:17).
A reformation is needed to help God’s people function more effectively and biblically. Gathering in houses is not a perfect solution wherein we don’t have any problems at all. It is only a better and more effective approach (it has more advantages and less disadvantages). Problems will still occur and must be dealt prayerfully and wisely according to the wisdom of the Holy Spirit and with the counsel of experienced godly people. May we never forget that any church paradigm is weak and lacks life without the empowerment of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit of God is the life of the church; without Him any church is dead. Let us seek to be clothed with the power from on high as we constantly seek to establish His Kingdom on earth. May the Lord abundantly pour out His Spirit upon His body, the church!
The Practical
Who should host the meetings? New Testament writings indicate that the same family hosted the church every week.[22] This was probably due to the fact that larger homes, needed to host scores of people, were in short supply.
It is an honor to host the assembly. In a very real sense the host family represents the church in a way similar to the elders. Although it is good for people to learn hospitality, some families probably should not be asked to host. It is not a good situation when the church arrives at a home to find the sink and counter tops covered with a week’s worth of dirty dishes, the living space in a mess, toys all over the floor and the extra folding chairs needed still out in the yard from a party and splashed with dirt from a recent rain. People who keep pets in the house may be disqualified due to the large number of people with allergies. Those who live far away from the core grouping of families probably should not host.
How can a church keep from wearing out the host family and their home? Some people really do have the gift of hospitality and won’t mind hosting the church every week, but admittedly this can be quite taxing, especially if the church meets in the family’s living space. One solution is to acquire a home with a basement or perhaps a second floor that can be modified for use by the church, separate from the family’s living area. Church members could rotate coming over to help set up before the meeting and in cleaning up afterwards. This will help take the burden off the host family. Another alternative is for the meeting location to be rotated every few weeks, with all who have suitable dwellings sharing the load. Each home could have its own house rules, such as: please take off your shoes when entering the house, no children jumping on the furniture, no eating in the living room, etc. The problem with this rotating approach is that as the church grows in size, less and less families will have large enough homes.
What if the available homes are just too small for a meeting? The leadership needs to be ever sensitive to the size of the homes available in which to meet. All things associated with a church meeting must be edifying (1Co 14:23). It is simply not edifying for a body of believers to be crammed into a home that is too small to hold them all. Those who study Western church growth have found that once a church reaches around 80% of its comfortable seating capacity, it will stop growing. (Contemporary studies suggest 30” per person are needed).[23] One alternative is to add on to a home to make the meeting room bigger, to knock out a wall, to remove bulky furniture from the church meeting room, to finish a basement area or to close in a garage. Since the church planter himself has to live somewhere, the ideal is for him to buy or rent a home to live in that is big enough for the church, thus saving the need to rent a second location for church meetings. If all else fails, renting an apartment clubhouse or some similar arrangement can work, as long as the objective is not to hold more people than could fit into a moderately well-to-do first century home (upwards of one hundred people or so). The typical first century house church was composed of scores of people, but not hundreds and hundreds of people.
How can we keep the neighbors from complaining about the cars? One worry we have that the early church did not concerns our automobiles. It is important not to annoy one’s neighbors. Be sure to fill up the host’s drive way to get as many cars as possible off the street. It helps to park only on one side of the street. When the church is small, the meeting can be rotated every few weeks between different homes, thus taking pressure off the same neighborhood street. The church planter should consider buying or renting a home with plenty of off street parking or that is across from a school or near a business with parking that is closed on Sundays. Having enough parking can be a real problem. If suitable parking cannot be found, build or rent a home-like church building with plenty of parking! One rule of thumb is to provide one parking space for every three people you expect for the meeting. Studies indicate that when 80% of comfortable parking capacity is reached, a church will stop growing.
What type of property damage can hosting the church cause? It is common to experience spilled drinks, greasy food on the upholstery, crayon markings on the floor and table cloth, tracked in mud, sweat rings from glasses on nice furniture, etc. During one home church meeting a teenage girl ran through a sliding glass door. One time a group of small children, playing outside, disturbed a wasp’s nest and received multiple stings. A stray dog, later found to have rabies, bit several people as they arrived for church. Someone might trip over a garden hose carelessly left on the sidewalk. Be mentally and (medically) prepared for accidents. Be sure you have home owner’s insurance.
How would you handle a situation where visitor’s children, or the children of a newly attending couple, are destructive? Some couples’ standards of acceptable social behavior are vastly different from others’ standards. It may shock and amaze you at how indifferent some parents are to the destructive actions of their children. In such cases you must calmly, politely, and directly ask them to please control their own children. (And, expect them to be offended no matter how tactfully you approach them!). Doubtless, they will not have a good idea on how to control their children, so be prepared to help them with child training. Have a good supply of child training books on hand that you can give out.
What if no one takes you seriously? Western Christianity is so associated with church buildings that meeting in a house is countercultural. Many people (saved and lost alike) will suspect you to be some type of cult. Others will assign you amateur status and not take you seriously. This negative perception is enough in many church planter’s minds to justify renting or buying a dedicated church building. One way to help overcome it is to identify with some respected Christian association or faith statement. For example, some house churches take on denominational names, such as Baptist, Evangelical, Congregational, Reformed, etc. Others adopt a well known statement of faith, such as the First London Baptist Confession of 1646.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] David Watson, I Believe in the Church (Great Britain: Hodder & Stoughton, 1978), p. 121.
[2] “Unearthing the Christian Building”, Dura-Europos: Excavating Antiquity (Yale University Art Gallery), p. 2. Italics my insertion.
[3] Graydon F. Synder, Church Life Before Constantine (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1991), p. 166.
[4] Ibid., p. 67.
[5] Lane Dennis, ed. ESV Study Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2008), p. 2217.
[6] ,J. D. Douglas, ed. New Bible Dictionary (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale, 1982), p. 498.
[7] William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary on Romans (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House), p. 22.
[8] W.H. Griffith Thomas, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1984), p. 422-423.
[9] Donald Guthrie, New Testament Theology (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1981), p. 744.
[10] Ronald Sider, Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1977), p. 190-191.
[11] Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (University of Chicago Press: Chicago, 1979), p. 240.
[12] Acts 16:40, 20:20, Romans 16:3-5a, 16:23, 1 Corinthians 16:19, Colossians 4:15, Philemon 1-2b, James 2:3
[13] While we cannot say for sure that every church met in a home, it is a fact that when a meeting place is specified in Scripture, it is in a home. Perhaps some congregations were large and therefore met in big buildings, but this is an argument from silence.
[14] Author’s measurements taken from on-line schematics found at http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/content/imported-docs/k-o/lullingstone-pp.pdf
[15] Robert Banks, Paul’s Idea of Community: The Early House Churches in Their Historical Setting (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1988), p. 41-42.
[16] William Smith, A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities (London: John Murray, 1875), p. 430.
[17] Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, Saint Paul’s Corinth: Texts and Archaeology (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2002), p. 180.
[18] Graydon Synder, Church Life Before Constantine (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1991), p. 70. The home’s impluvium had been tiled over and benches were added around the walls. Further, a wall had been removed between adjoining rooms creating a 714 square foot area. A raised area was added at the front (for a podium?).
[19] Arthur Wallis, The Radical Christian (Rancho Cordova, CA: City Hill Publishing, 1987).
[20] John Havlik, People Centered Evangelism (Nashville: Broadman Publishers, 1971), p. 47.
[21] J. Vernon McGee, Thru The Bible: Philippians and Colossians (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1991 ), p.190
[22] For example Philemon, Nympha, Gaius, and Prisca and Aquila.
[23] www.crosscreekchurch.org/PDFs/80PercentRule.PDF. Other studies indicate that people seated to eat need 13.5 square feet each. Thus, to seat 100 people requires 1350 square feet. In addition, a kitchen area is needed plus an area for parents with crying children. Also, having foyer area is ideal to keep the inevitable late comers from disrupting the meeting.
Note: NTRF offers a teacher’s resource to help lead a discussion of New Testament church life called The Practice of The Early Church: A Theological Workbook. See our "Resources" section to request one.
Steve Atkerson
Married since 1983, Steve Atkerson and his wife Sandra have three children, two in college and one married, and one grandchild. A graduate of Georgia Tech, Steve worked for several years in electronics before enrolling in seminary. While there he served on the part-time staff of a 14,000 member Baptist church. After receiving an M. Div. from Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary, he ministered on the pastoral staff of a Southern Baptist Church in Atlanta with a membership of around 1000 folks. Then in 1990, after seven years in the traditional pastorate, he resigned to begin working with churches that desire to follow apostolic traditions in their church practice. He thus has transitioned all the way from mega churches to micro churches! He travels and teaches about the practice of the early church as the Lord opens doors of opportunity. Steve is an elder at a local house church, is president of NTRF, edited Toward A House Church Theology, authored both The Practice of the Early Church: A Theological Workbook and The Equipping Manual, and is editor of and a contributing author to both Ekklesia and House Church: Simple, Strategic, Scriptural.
No comments:
Post a Comment