Arguments against house church

[Alex Thornhill]

I came across this video on Youtube, presenting some arguments against house church, most of which I saw as flawed because of constant Bible references of meeting in houses. However, they did touch on some issues of authority, or lack there of among "house church"-ers. I think their arguments are worth discussing, to better defend ourselves, at times against our own brethren. I have work early tomorrow morning, so I can't type up much tonight, however, there are some "early church fathers" writings that allude to great authority being given to the bishops, in such early writings from Ignatius and Polycarp. Has anyone come across these "fathers" writings? Has anyone ever seen a lack of authority in the leadership of house church saints lead to division and heresy? Just figured I'd throw these things out there for discussion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZKD_7Z_QC8&feature=fvw

-Bro. Alex

[Alex Thornhill]

I would agree that it might be more expedient for an apostle to be unmarried, or at least it was in Paul's case, since he was an apostle, at a time of great persecution. However, I would still say that an elder must be married and with children, in order to provide an example to the assembly that he serves as one of the elders for. I would say it is more than an attitude towards women, but a necessity for him to have a wife and at least two children that he can be shown to rule his own household well. Most people that I have explained this to have disagreed, but my mind can not conceive of this any other way- is there another understanding that any of my brothers would have on this matter that would allow an elder to be unmarried or without children?

-Bro. Alex

David Huston said:

Just a thought. Could it be that it was advantageous (not necessarily required) that an apostle be unmarried since he had to move around so much? I don't think we ever read of Barnabas, Silas, Timothy, or Titus being married. Not to say that they weren't at some point, but it isn't mentioned. On the other hand, it was important for an elder to be married because he ministered in one locale and a big part of his responsibility was providing an example of Christian manhood to the assembly. This does not mean he was necessarily required to be married. The phrase "the husband of one wife" is actually "a one-woman man" in the original language. This speaks more of an attitude toward women than an actual marital state. What say you?

[Alex Thornhill]

I find this discussion helpful, because when multiple elders are appointed in assemblies and they are leading house churches, and then one of our brothers who disagrees with us points out that among us we have no way to recognize elders between our assemblies, and that with small gatherings of Christians studying for themselves, the conclusions and definitions of things can be different and cause an accusation of disunity among us, we need to be able to provide an answer. [that was one really long sentence :) ]

I'll type up more later.

-Bro. Alex

Glen Flanagan said:

Hopefully this won't open a can of worms but here it is none-the-less.

The apostles carried several titles and we could split hairs over who whas whatbut having to be married is not a criteria for the administrative offices any more than it is for the spiritual offices.

The criteria regarding marriage and administrative offices is 1) don't be a polygamist. 2) No divorce and remarriage 3) no adulterous situations. As stated, a 1 woman man.

Several will disagree with this also but we also have to understand the differences between administrative offices and spiritual offices. Administistrative offices are localized. Spiritual offices, i.e. apostles, prophets, pastors, evangelists, teachers, may be local or regional.

Just because one person holds an administrative office in his home assembly does not entitle him to perks and privileges at another assembly. The recognition thing, in my experience, has been in past times nothing more than expecting special considerations. The scriptures teach us that the servant is not fed before the master, nor does the servant take his rest before the master. i.e. don't expect kudos, recognition, etc.

It's like a janitor of acme inc. going to atlas ltd and saying, "hey, I'm a janitor at acme inc. Give me special consideration as such". the security at atlas ltd will probably throw the guy out on his ear.

Bishops, deacons, all administrative offices, and even spiritual offices are all positions of servitude. It is man that has placed prestige on these titles and positions and misused them, making them something they are not.

I guess my question would be, are we still looking for godly ways on how to defend home assemblies or are we discussing recognition rights of the servants between assemblies for administrative offices, and also whether marriage is a criteria for specific offices, and whether precatholic catholics were believers, etc.? I say this simply because this is what I was referencing about discussions. It's easy to get side tracked and off the main topic, which I initially understood to be some variant of "how do we defend home assemblies" etc.

[Alex Thornhill]

I was going to write more on my view of deacons, elders and bishops having to be married, but after re-reading your post the phrase "side tracked" stuck out to me, and I want to avoid getting sidetracked. So, perhaps the question of the offices needing to be married with children would be better answered in another discussion.

Also, as for "[winning] an argument" but "[losing] the soul" that you mentioned, another saying, "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still" comes to my mind. And our brethren who disagree with us, will probably continue to disagree with us, regardless of the Scriptures we show them, unless they are open to hearing from GOD on this matter.

I would think a defense of house church is still necessary, when we approach those that disagree with us, because house church and multiple elders are great truths, but outside of the Word and Spirit working on the brother we are talking to, there is not much hope for these concepts to work on him in a way that will convince him.

-Bro. Alex

Glen Flanagan said:

Hopefully this won't open a can of worms but here it is none-the-less.

The apostles carried several titles and we could split hairs over who whas whatbut having to be married is not a criteria for the administrative offices any more than it is for the spiritual offices.

The criteria regarding marriage and administrative offices is 1) don't be a polygamist. 2) No divorce and remarriage 3) no adulterous situations. As stated, a 1 woman man.

Several will disagree with this also but we also have to understand the differences between administrative offices and spiritual offices. Administistrative offices are localized. Spiritual offices, i.e. apostles, prophets, pastors, evangelists, teachers, may be local or regional.

Just because one person holds an administrative office in his home assembly does not entitle him to perks and privileges at another assembly. The recognition thing, in my experience, has been in past times nothing more than expecting special considerations. The scriptures teach us that the servant is not fed before the master, nor does the servant take his rest before the master. i.e. don't expect kudos, recognition, etc.

It's like a janitor of acme inc. going to atlas ltd and saying, "hey, I'm a janitor at acme inc. Give me special consideration as such". the security at atlas ltd will probably throw the guy out on his ear.

Bishops, deacons, all administrative offices, and even spiritual offices are all positions of servitude. It is man that has placed prestige on these titles and positions and misused them, making them something they are not.

I guess my question would be, are we still looking for godly ways on how to defend home assemblies or are we discussing recognition rights of the servants between assemblies for administrative offices, and also whether marriage is a criteria for specific offices, and whether precatholic catholics were believers, etc.? I say this simply because this is what I was referencing about discussions. It's easy to get side tracked and off the main topic, which I initially understood to be some variant of "how do we defend home assemblies" etc.

[Keith Wood]

Hi Steve,

I was wondering how you look at Jesus's statement, "Matthew 18:20 (KJV)
20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them? " Is this a legitimate assembly of believers (i.e. church) in the eyes of Jesus?

Steve Stevens said:

Hey Bro. Alex, great thread topic! I watched the video and read through all the posts, so here is my assessment: The video is full of conjecture and logical fallacies. It appears that the creator of the video has some beef with what he (or she) feels is a rejection of leadership. Through a series of unproven accusations they attempt to "prove" that house churches are unbiblical and in fact of the Devil I understood them to say. However, the video begs the questions (1) what is a legitimate "house church" and (2) Are house churches a rejection of Christ appointed leadership in favor of "self-appointed" leadership with no accountability?

First of all I think there needs to be some definition of terms because "house church" can mean a lot of different things. To some a house church is one family who spends Sunday mornings by eating breakfast, listening to some gospel music, having a time of prayer and then privately reading Bible for a while. In addition the Father may deliver a devotion from the Word. The order and ingredients may differ but the main point is that it is one family only.

For others a "house church" is several families gathering on Sunday morning at one house and following much the same routine with the addition of singing, teaching etc... Often the Fathers will take turns doing the teaching but there is not a sense of dedicated leadership over the group or gathering, it's more just fellowship based on the fact that they all mostly see eye to eye on several key beliefs.

The third option is a generally more diverse group who gathers in a house because they believe that it is biblical to do so in order to foster close relationships with the other members of the body. They engage in all the same edification and worship practices that the other two do but the marked difference is that there is a more clear sense of leadership because the group is led by a deacon or elder. With that leadership is the authority to reprove, rebuke and exhort (2Ti 4:2) with patience and doctrine. We can discuss who has that authority and where it comes from later but for now the question is: what is a house church?

It's important that we are careful what terms that we use when talking about these things because they influence our thinking. "House church" is not really a biblical term even though there are references to the church in your house in Paul's writings. The way it is used today is to differentiate between church "types." Paul only understood one type of "church,” the ekklēsia - "the called out ones." The church was not defined by the meeting place, in fact they also met at the Temple (Acts 5:42) but it was not called the "temple church." Therefore when we apply these unbiblical terms we sort of buy into the whole misunderstanding of what the church is or isn’t.

Only scripture can dictate what the church is and what the acceptable way for Christians to meet and worship is. (1 Cor 11:1,2). Therefore if I said I ran a "house hospital" as opposed to a "traditional" or "organized" hospital but there were no doctors, nurses or equipment to provide care, you would legitimately say that I had no right to call it a hospital. As it relates to the church, when people say they have a "house church" where there is no provision for 1Co 12:4 “diversities of gifts," or for discipline, or for accountability, there is in effect no true church.

The question of house churches then is does it fulfill what the Lord commanded for the New Testament church? Jesus said "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him." In Mark 14:22-24 the scriptures say he explained his meaning: "And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them and said, "Take, eat; this is My body. Then He took the cup, and when He had given thanks He gave it to them, and they all drank from it. And He said to them, "This is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many."

This is known as communion whom some have wrongly interpreted as a single ceremony or sacrament the church occasionally carries out. What Jesus is saying is that in order to be saved one must be a part of the Body of Christ. That requires that we participate in the functioning of the body just like your liver, heart, etc must participate in the functioning of your own body! Listen to Paul and think about it in that context: 1 Corinthians 11:27: "Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord."

Since the church (called out ones) is referred to as the "body of Christ" (Romans 12:5) it stands to reason in the context of 1 Cor. 11 that “partaking in an unworthy manner” could mean using the church to satisfy your carnal needs. This would make one guilty of the body (of Christ). These people don’t discern what the Lord’s body is! 1 Corinthians 11:29 “For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.” The Lord’s body is the church!

The judgment comes in because one cannot be saved apart from the body of Christ just as your arm cannot live apart from your body. Those who are not in biblical fellowship with the body are not part of the body. John 6:53 NKJV, “Then Jesus said to them, ‘Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.’” But John 6:56 NKJV says: “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.” Eats and drinks carries the connotation of an ongoing relationship as opposed to a once in a while ceremony.

Conclusion: In other words Paul was saying that a person who lacks true fellowship with the body of Christ becomes condemned through isolation and doctrinal error, so in some ways the video you referenced was right if you are talking about a person who cannot get along humbly with others and appoints himself as the leader of a “house church” which consists of only his family but lacks any of the other elements of the New Testament body. That person is doing well by leading his family, but it cannot rightly be called a church assembly, and thus the person is not part of the body of Christ.

I realize that this is a very controversial point and I personally know and love many good friends who are “home churching” because of corrupt leadership of their local churches. However, my advice would be for them to move (no matter how difficult that might seem) and become a part of a legitimate New Testament assembly.

[Keith Wood]

Hello again Steve,

I wanted to know your position regarding the words of Jesus. You then responded with a myriad of questions for me. I welcome your response if you'd like.

Steve Stevens said:

Good question Bro. Keith, I guess I'm not sure what definition you are using for "a legitimate assembly of believers." Are you suggesting that the body of Christ or the church can be any two or three believers who meet together? If so, what did Jesus mean by "tell it to the church" in verse 17? Who was the church?

Keith Wood said:

Hi Steve,

I was wondering how you look at Jesus's statement, "Matthew 18:20 (KJV)
20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them? " Is this a legitimate assembly of believers (i.e. church) in the eyes of Jesus?

[Nathan Miller]

Interesting postings and some great comments here. I'd like to offer just two little things for consideration without straying too off the topic.

1. Two of the major reasons why I believe that a typical church of today (leader-centered or building-centered) is an insufficient structure/organization to bring about God's glorious church is that it: a) does not properly allow most members of the body to truly grow up in the Lord and to function fully in the body, and b) it tends to foster a parallel-spiritual life where it becomes easy, even the norm, to be one person "at church" and another at home or work. While no home church is necessarily immune to either of these, it certainly provides an atmosphere of daily life and allows people to lower their guard more and come out from behind the Sunday facade, while providing more opportunities for genuine growth and service.

2. Regarding authority, Jesus said, "my sheep know my voice". Sheep will go to their master. Saved saints in love with their Lord will obey him without coercion or arm-twisting. Submission to Jesus' authority is dependent upon recognizing His authority. What one may sometimes consider to be submission to spiritual authority, may simply be acquiescence to a man--which is not necessarily the same thing. What is needed for submission to authority is not someone who simply makes the ultimate decisions or has the last word in some matter, but men who reveal the authority and will of Jesus to others through the various gifts of ministry: apostolic, prophetic, teaching, shepherding, evangelizing... Wherever you have a revelation of these gifts (the more, the better) and you have people willingly submitting to the authority of Jesus, you have true leadership and authority.

[Donnie Gillum]

Nathan, I'll stack an "Amen!" on top of Sid's reply.