Response: Caution For Would-be House Churches

I appreciate the candid tone and pastoral concern reflected in the article “Caution for Would-Be House Churchers.” The author raises valid points—especially the reminder that not every attempt at starting a house church is healthy, feasible, or rightly motivated. The early church itself faced challenges of immaturity, division, and false teaching, so it is only fair to admit that any gathering of believers—whether in a cathedral, warehouse, or living room—is vulnerable to human weakness. That said, I find it important to offer a broader biblical and missional reflection on some of the cautions raised, especially as movements around the world rediscover the vitality of simple, Spirit-led gatherings that reflect the life of the New Testament church.

1. The Heart of the House Church is Not a Building—but a Lifestyle The author is right that the emphasis should not be “meeting in homes” per se, but on the essence of New Testament fellowship—intimacy, participation, and obedience to Christ’s commands. However, what we often see in Scripture is that these very qualities flourish most naturally in homes (Acts 2:46; Romans 16:5; Colossians 4:15). The early church did not meet in homes because it was fashionable or countercultural—it did so because homes fostered relationships, discipleship, and mission. The focus was not architectural but relational. Today, as many believers long for authentic community beyond programs and performance, the home remains one of the most practical and biblical environments for genuine disciple-making.

2. Counter-Cultural Should Not Mean Cultic Yes, some house churches can attract people with unhealthy attitudes—those bitter toward traditional churches or resistant to any form of authority. Yet this is not unique to house churches; unhealthy people exist in every expression of the body of Christ. The antidote is not to abandon biblical simplicity but to embrace mature discipleship and accountability. Jesus Himself was labeled a heretic and His followers a “sect” (Acts 24:5, 14). Countercultural obedience to the teachings of Christ will always be misunderstood by religious and secular systems alike. However, the answer to misunderstanding is not conformity, but clarity—building communities that are transparent, humble, and rooted in the Word and Spirit. Even here in Nairobi, Kenya, where African culture is naturally communal and relational, those who meet as simple house churches are often branded as cultic or rebellious.

This misunderstanding reminds us that the house church is not merely an alternative model—it is a call to die to self, to reputation, and to comfort. Pioneers of this movement must be ready to bear the cross of misrepresentation and rejection, just as Jesus and the early believers did. To embrace the house church vision is to live crucified with Christ—“no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me” (Galatians 2:20). There is a real cost to pay, but the reward is immeasurable: a church alive in the Spirit, free from worldly structures, and devoted to multiplying disciples in every home and heart. 3. Leadership and Order Are Non-Negotiable Where some house churches falter is in neglecting biblical order. Every movement needs mature leadership—not authoritarian control, but servant eldership (1 Peter 5:2–3). The New Testament model was simple but structured: elders shepherded, members ministered, and decisions were made through Spirit-led consensus (Acts 15:28). Therefore, house churches that thrive are not “leaderless,” but led differently—by example, not position; by function, not formality.

4. The Need for Cultural Wisdom The author correctly notes logistical challenges in the Western context—parking, zoning laws, neighborhood complaints, etc. These are real. But they highlight the need for contextual wisdom, not abandonment of the model. In persecuted or resource-limited regions (like parts of Asia or Africa), house churches are not only feasible but essential for survival and growth. Meanwhile, in Western societies, smaller gatherings in community centers, offices, or hybrid spaces can achieve the same New Testament principles while avoiding legal friction. The point is: the form must serve the function, not the other way around.

5. A Call to Balance—Not Fear The tone of caution is needed, but it must be balanced with faith. When the Spirit births something new, it often looks messy and uncomfortable at first. The Reformation, the Methodist class meetings, and the early missionary movements all faced similar skepticism. Yet, from small, obedient gatherings, God often births great renewal. Instead of discouraging would-be house churchers, we might better serve them by mentoring them—teaching biblical order, relational health, and mission focus. The goal is not rebellion against institutional churches but revival within the Body of Christ. The Church that Moves Again: The call to rediscover the church as a movement, not a monument, is not a rejection of tradition but a recovery of mission. As I wrote in From Monuments to Movement, the issue is not where we meet, but how and why we meet. Whether under a steeple or a shade tree, the Church is only authentic when it carries the life of Christ and multiplies disciples in every sphere of society.

Faithful indeed are the wounds of a friend (Proverbs 27:6). But even more faithful are the words of the Lord Jesus: > “Where two or three gather in My name, there am I with them.” — Matthew 18:20 Let us then gather boldly, wisely, and biblically—wherever the Spirit leads.