House Church Talk - Pattern or simply an adaptation?

[Glenn Frank]

Hi everyone,

My family and another are looking at starting a 'house church' but are
currently a part of an organizational church.

In talking with the pastor of the church that we are currently a part of,
the question came up from him asking if the fact that the early church was
meeting in homes was one of necessity or if indeed it was a pattern to be
followed for the future.

In other words, are we sure that the way they did their gatherings was
really intended as a pattern to follow (no building... Meet in homes... Etc)
or was it simply that they were doing the best they could with what they had
available in their situation. They were kicked out of the synagogues, they
culture and the Roman government was hostile to them and looked upon them as
a splinter group of Judaism.

I didn't feel like I had a good answer to that question and wanted to see
what you all had to say.

He also said that it seemed to him that a small meeting group in a home
would be better off being a part of a more traditional structured church
simply because of the 'added resources' of other ministries in the church
where the group could refer people with specific needs which could not be
sufficiently addressed in the small group setting. (i.e.: severe marriage
conflict, drug abuse issues, etc ... He was thinking of ministries geared
specifically to these issues). He was of course arguing that the home group
would be better off as a sub ministry of an established church rather than a
house church all to its self.

Any comments or answers to these would be appreciated!

Thanks

Glenn Frank