Thanks for coming on board with an excellent question! Feel free to visit often and participate actively!

Actually, many people have "blamed" many N.T. church practices on persecution! But where do you find persecution first starting? When in the N.T. record do you first find instructions to make houses the "base of operations"? Where do you first find houses used as meeting places, places of fellowship?

Which was there first? Persecution or house meetings??

From another perspective: you say that now in the west meeting in houses "isn't necessary". Can I ask you, where in the world is the church the most healthy, vibrant and effective? Where it meets as participants in houses or where it mostly meets as "spectators" in "sanctuaries"?

Rather than persecution being the "necessity" behind meeting in houses, I believe that religious control (by men who will not acknowledge Christ as the head of His church)is the necessity behind meeting in cathedrals!

This is my perspective, but let's hear what others have to add as well!

You ask 'Which was there first? Persecution or house meetings??' Well, surely, they both came together, in the sense that the THREAT of persecution would have been there from the start, so no-one obviously would have considered building a church property. So house meetings and antagonism towards Christians went hand-in-hand so to speak. So I don't see how your point answers my question at all, really, does it?

As to where in world the church is growing most rapidly - you make a good point. But couldn't it be argued that at least partly the reason for such growth in eg China, is the very threat of persecution itself - this purges and purifies the Christian - and induces them to take risks to share the gospel etc - and so the church grows. We in the West are often laxadaisical in our faith because we have it so easy - we're so secure in things of the world, we don't NEED to rust in God so much (terrible sad reality, isn't it?).

Finally - you say that "religious control (by men who will not acknowledge Christ as the head of His church)is the necessity behind meeting in cathedrals" - surely you're not suggesting that 'religious control' is the reason most Christians meet in church buildings (which you call cathedrals)?

Anyway - hopefully as we continue to discuss this issue, our thoughts will come closer together.

take care
tom

Hey, brother, feel free to disagree right up front, if you want! That's how we all learn best, by either finding out we were wrong and must change to get in line with scripture or by finding out our position can withstand a challenge and we get even more firmly established UPON SCRIPTURE! Either way, a challenge can only drive us to the truth!

When I asked, "Which came first, house gatherings or persecution?" I meant in the actual historical record in the book of Acts? On the day of Pentecost (Acts 2) when 3000 were saved and baptized, was there persecution? When did house meetings start? (2:46) Where did persecution start??? Acts 4
How many were arrested? For how long? What was the sentence? Was this really serious persecution that would have affected their meeting in buildings (if they had been so inclined)?

When was the next persecution? (5:17,18) What motivated these arrests? How many were arrested? How long were they in prison? What was their punishment? The final outcome? Was this really a major persecution? What effect did it have on the apostles? (5:41,42)

My point is that early Christians never thought of Christianity as a religion!
It was whole new way of LIFE! It was not something to "theologize" about or sit and hear "sermons" on, it was something to LIVE! Where do most folks live? IN HOUSES! So where is the best place to live Christ together? IN HOUSES! New Covenant Christianity makes ordinary people holy, makes ordinary places holy, makes ordinary food and meals holy, makes ordinary days holy, makes ordinary lives extraordinary because the indwelling Christ TRANSFORMS EVERYTHING! So New Covenant Christians don't even think about holy priests (that's what they ALL are!), they don't think about holy days (every day is holy), they don't think about holy buildings (every one of thir houses is holy because those who dwell there are holy, because Christ who dwells in them is holy!) So even if someone had thought of building a Christian "sanctuary" it would not have been any more holy that the cottage home of the most humble believer!

Tom, you suggest that part of the reason why the early Christians were so effective was because of the persecution. I'd like to challenge your thinking in reverse! Was not the reason for the persecution the effectiveness of the Christians???? Read Acts 2 and 3 and down to 4:4!
Then read from there down to 5:18! Which produced which? Did persecution make believers effective? Or did effective believers upset "the religious establishment" so much that persecution was the effect and not the cause?

Now my next question is this: Which have been proven to be more effective:
-believers, who meet in houses, who are active participants in a holy lifestyle, or
-believers, who meet in church buildings, who are passive spectators of "holy rituals"?

Which do you think God really intended? Which did the apostles teach and model?
When we preach the gospel and see people saved, which should we teach and model:
-active participation of every believer in a holy lifestyle or passive observation of holy professionals doing their thing for us???

Which approach would suit the Enemy's purposes best? When the early church was so successful at reaching it's world during the first 2 -3 centuries, who do you think just may have been behind the "institutionalizing" of the church under Constantine in the 3rd century? How effective has the church been ever since???

Just a few thoughts for your consideration, brother! The more I consider these things, the more I see the wisdom of God in the simplicity of what He established right from the start!

Firstly - in answer to the question 'what came first, persecution or house churches?' The answer is of course 'persecution'. Jesus and his followers were persecuted before there was any 'house church'. Christ's persecution of course resulted in his crucifixion. Peter denied Christ 3 times for fear of persecution, and all the disciples fled the scene altogether. Then of course, where were the disciples when Jesus appeared before them - in a locked room - 'for fear of the Jews' (John 20:19/20). This was of course before the day of Pentecost, but it shows the real threat of persecution.

But you then ask "Was not the reason for the persecution the effectiveness of the Christians????" to which I totally agree. That is a very good point and I fully acknowledge it. Thanks for sharing that point - I feel it's important.

However, I don't think it can be argued that because there were no church buildings per se in NT times, therefore they can't be God's will ever. Lets face it, there was no New Testament then either - does that mean there should never be one? The whole NT church situation was a totally embryonic one - and in some ways is perhaps non-comparable to the situation today. In any case, the early disciples DIDN'T just meet in houses. Acts 3 finds Peter and John going to the TEMPLE for a prayer meeting. Other times, such as Acts 2 finds them holding a meeting in the open air. There is no biblical rule - 'Thou shalt meet in houses and NOT in other buildings'.

I agree totally with your paragraph saying that ordinary places and people are every bit as 'holy' and 'anointed as specific 'Christian buildings and 'ministers' - in no way was I ever disputing that matter.

Next, you ask "Which have been proven to be more effective: -believers, who meet in houses, who are active participants in a holy lifestyle, or -believers, who meet in church buildings, who are passive spectators of "holy rituals"? You seem to suggest the choice is between one or the other!! It's simply not like that in reali;ty - to suggest that all who meet in church buildings are mere passive spectators of rituals! Many; many Christians are FAR from being mere spectators - they are TOTALLY PARTICIPANT in Christian service every hour of every day. The organised church has helped nurture thousands upon thousands of utterly devout men and women - throughout the existence of the visible church - and many have been and still are a HUGE witness to myself. (also, to suggest that ALL who meet in house churches are "active participants in a holy lifestyle," is surely wishful thinking!).

You ask "How effective has the church been ever since? (the 3rd Century)"
Well, every revival that I am aware of in the UK (and there have been many, I can assure you!) have been connected with the Organised church. Where have all the missionaries that have, through time, sown seeds in China, Vietnam, Africa, and every nation of the world come from? From the organised,'institutionalised' church. We must NEVER belittle God's work through the institutional church.

But I think you make some extremely good points. I want to see both (or more) sides of the argument - not just to unrealisically look on house churches as a wonderful thing with none of the problems of the institutional church. My main concern here, though, is the NT example, and what it teaches us today, and what is merely 'cultural' or relevant only to that 1st century period etc.
Please continue to share your thoughts - my aim is not to argue that house churches are not proper today (quite the opposite actually) - but indeed, to find out in a reasoned way in what sense they ARE relevant. I'm still very keen on the whole house church idea - excited even - I just want to be so for the right reasons.

take care

tom

One final point - can someone tell me when did church buildings actually first appear. Was it really not until the 3rd Century and to what extent, or did they exist some time before that. I personally don't know. Do you know where I could read more about this?

Don't worry about being cut off because you challenge or disagree! This is what I would like to see take place on this forum continually! I hope you will be a great catalyst to that end. So please, keep your posts coming! I've often said that I learn far more from those who care enough to challenge and question and disagree than I've ever learned from folks who simply agree with me!

Brother, the only sound way to evaluate any doctrine or practice is to test it by scripture. I believe we will find scriptural practices or doctrines in scripture by way of MANDATE and by way of MODELLING, by EXPLANATION and by EXAMPLE, by INSTRUCTION and by IMPLEMENTATION. For example when we come to scripture to evaluate different views and practices of baptism (believer's baptism or infant baptism) which is clearly demonstrated by MANDATE and by MODELLING? So too when we come to scripture to evaluate the subject of meeting places: i.e. houses or specially constructed or prepared auditoriums/sanctuaries which are built, owned and operated by the saints...for which do we find a clear mandate and which do we find modelled in the N.T.?

You make a good point that the Lord Jesus and His disciples faced persecution/crucifixion etc BEFORE Pentecost. That is certainly true, but even the ministry of the apostles during the Lord's earthly ministry was based IN HOUSES!

See the Lord Jesus' mandate of such a practice in such passages as: Matt.10:12-14; Mark 6:10; Luke 8:39; 9:4; and 10:5-7.
See the consistent modelling of this practice in: Mt.8:14; 9:10,23,28; 13:1,36; 17:25; 26:6,18; Mark 1:29; 2:1,15; 3:19; 9:28,33; 10:10; 14:3,14; Luke 4:38; 5:29; 7:36,37,44; 8:51; 10;38; 14:1; 19:5,9; 22:10 and John 11:20,31

You have mentioned the early believers sometimes gathered in the temple and you are right! Sometimes they gathered there because there was a large court (the Court of the Gentiles) which could accomodate thousands of people, as in Acts 2:46. In the N.T. it was the practice for the whole church in a city to assemble together (all the saints in the city!) And that is still God's purpose today, but denominationalism (with it's own kingdom and building -centered mentality) is the greatest force in opposition to such purposes of God! At other times they went to the temple to preach the Gospel, because that was where people were normally gathered. We should still seek such places for the very same reasons today!

But none of these examples give any justification for Christian assemblies to build their own building where they are in control of who is allowed to be a member and who is not! There are no New Covanant instructions or examples of offerings taken for the building or maintenance of such buildings! Collections are never to be wasted on mortgages, taxes, utilities, insurance and staff salaries!!! Collections were to be invested in eternal commodities: i.e. in people and in the Word of God- getting people into the Word and the Word into people! These are the only investments which are guaranteed eternal returns!

You are right, I did give the impression that all who meet in houses are total participants and the vast majority of those who meet in institutional church buildings are passive spectators! That obviously is not a consistent rule! There are folks who go to house churches simply because their friends do, and they are not participants, but rather just along for the ride! In the same way, there are many godly, involved, obedient saints who minister effectively in institutional churches. No question about that! Nor is there any question that God has done mighty things through institutional church ministries based in sanctuaries/auditoriums!

However, we should never base practices/doctrines on results or success of such in the past. In the very same way, God has mightily used and blessed and accomplished great things through the lives and ministries of men who believe and teach and practice infant baptism! But such "results" are no reason to believe that "infant baptism" is a scriptural practice!

So, please forgive me, it was never my intention to belittle the work of God through institutional churches, just as I would never seek to belittle the work of God through many Reformed/covenant theologians who hold to infant baptism. I simply maintain that the practices of building "church buildings" and baptizing infants find no basis whatsoever in any SCRIPTURAL MANDATE OR MODEL.

Tom, your approach to this subject is to be highly commended and not criticized! Far too many people accept ideas without any personal questioning or sifting of issues. For that very reason, many Christians are very shallow in their approach to the things of God! They have no deep personal convictions for what they supposedly "believe"! I sense that you have an open mind, you are not being critical for criticism's sake, you genuinely want to find a solid basis for what you practice!

An excellent book which addresses the very questions you have asked about the first appearance of use of "church buildings" or "Christian temples" is "The Open Church" by James Rutz, published by Seed Sowers. The first chapter is entitled: "The Disastrous Success of A.D.313: How the church managed to hog-tie itself!"

Tom, keep on digging and asking the hard questions with a willingness to obey whatever the Lord teaches you, and He guarantees that you will know the truth! (John 7:17) The Lord only refuses to teach those who are unwilling to acknowledge and obey the truth which He shows! (Mark.11:27-33)

THanks so much for your very reasoned reply, and I apologise for not responding sooner.

I very much admire your humility in admitting giving perhaps the wrong impression regarding the 'organised' Church. I appreciate that so much.

In fact, basically, I agree with most if not all of what you say. Our views aren't that divergent after all. I guess it's just that you seem more sure that what you're saying is correct, and I believe so too, but still have some reservations.

I'm on the email discussion forum now, so have posed the same query there!

Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts - much appreciated.

Hope your fellowship in these matters here, on the e-mail list or on the newsgroup will be of encouragement to you and to others as we all develop scriptural convictions as we search the scriptures daily whether these things are so. (Acts 17:11)