I have been studying house churches for a short while, and have come upon a question that I would like for you to answer. Has there been a sustained period of house churches? By this, I mean, that I have observed a trend throughout the history of house churches, that they begin and flourish as house churches, but with their success they generally organize into congregations and become traditional churches. For example, Wesley's open air preaching, and the circuits are now the Weslyan and Methodist denominations. Menno Simmons' house church movement became the Mennonites. The anabaptists had their roots in house churches, but are now organized in congregations. It seems that house churches are better suited as "course corrections" for God's church than as the authoritative organizational structure for God's church. Do not take this as a negative post. I am impressed with the house church, and am merely attempting to fully understand. Thank you for your help in answering this question.
posted
Hi Jose, I am no historian, but I think you have made a very interesting observation which has probably captured very succinctly what happens when second and third generation believers accept, as their pattern, what their parents did...without any personal exercise or scriptural conviction relative to "why we do what we do"!
Someone has observed the following as a pattern of what usually happens over 3 generations from any sort of restoration of scriptural truth to the lives and practices of the Lord's people: (1)A MAN sees a truth of scripture and obeys it. (2)A MOVEMENT is established as others follow the MAN. (3)A MONUMENT (solid and unmoveable!) but with no life is the result in the third generation.
However, it seems to me that when believers only option is to meet in homes (because of persecution)there is a continuity to the practice which does not usually happen without it!
I do not wish for persecution, but I do believe it is far better for the church than materialism and social acceptability! Such has been the norm in the western world where the church is presently very institutionalized, fragmented, and largely ineffective!
What do you think?
Your brother in Christ, Bruce
David Anderson
posted
I think much of the sustained history of the house churches was simply unrecorded and unnoticed. We may read of the first buildings in the second century but must realize that these buildings did not catch on everywhere at once. In some localities house churches may have gone on and on for hundreds of years.
Very good question, brother. I'll try to find some more info.
posted
In Africa, there are faithful brethren my church supports who worship under a big tree. I suppose that's the first "tree church" I have ever heard of, but I do not doubt they are Christians worshipping in spirit and in truth.
My church at present meets in a simple building with no kitchen or classrooms, but we could have the same simple worship easily in a home, were there not 80 of us. Brethren frequently show hospitality one to another and invite brethren and seekers alike into their homes for dinner and fellowship. We are all decidedly non-IC.
Jesus cares not for the material structure or lack of such over our heads as we worship him. He knows his people. His remnant has always been and will continue, in homes or buildings or under trees or on bridges*.
It is not the home (or structure or lack of one) that sanctifies the worship, but the Lord Jesus Christ in whom we live and move and have our being, who sanctifies those who worship in the home.
A good history resource describing many small independent gatherings of Christians, though it does not say where those groups are today, is The Pilgrim Church, by EH Broadbent.
*For a photo of a structure where met a "bridge church," see http://homepages.enterprise.net/sisman/ Interestingly enough, the group later moved to a house and thus became a house church..
Email this page to someone.
