It is interesting, however, that the church was in their home. Lightfoot says that there were no church buildings as such before the third century. Since Lightfoot made that statement, however, archaeologists found a most interesting place in Rome. Roman houses - unless they were the great mansions- were relatively small. What archaeologists found was a place with the facade of two houses still untouched, but with the internal walls torn out to make a larger room. And from everything that was found there, the archaeologists believe that this was a church building. This structure is dated at the end of the second century. But whether one accepts Lightfoot's starting point in the third century, or whether one dates it at the end of the second century, it really makes no difference. There is no biblical norm as to where, and where not, the church should meet. The central fact is that the early concept of the church had no connection with a church building. The church was something else: a group of Christians drawn together by the Holy Spirit in a place where they worked together in a certain form...
_______________________________

Hello everybody,

Modern Christianity is as much dependent upon their buildings as the Jews were upon the temple or should I write: The Temple. How devastating to their pride to be told that not one stone would be left upon another.

Wish Shaeffer would have lived to further develop this statement: The central fact is that the early concept of the church had no connection with a church building.

Buildings translate into security for many, today. A safe place for a funeral, a marriage, or just to sit in silence each week.

Wish it were otherwise, ye living stones,