One particularly destructive modernist doctrine that has flourished over the past two decades is that of the “house church only” movement. These people adamantly teach that churches should only meet in the houses of Christians. Church buildings and common areas of worship are wasteful and worldly, they say, claiming that the early churches only met in peoples' homes.
As nonsensical as this sounds to anyone who has done a moderate amount of Bible study, this teaching is spreading quickly thanks to itching ears running to the Internet for their scratching.
First, let's establish a simple fact. Yes, churches can meet in a house. I don't know of any Bible-believing Christian who would take issue with that. Churches can, and historically have done so, meet in houses, caves, fields, forests, prison cells, fire stations, school buildings, gyms, town halls, barracks, alleys, barns, mason halls, granges, backyards, side walks, corn fields, and whatever other location meets their needs.
No Bible-believing Christian will dispute the fact that a church can meet at somebody's home. But, every Bible-believing Christian should dispute the assertion that churches must meet in a house.
Three thousand people cannot fit in your living room.
Why do I say that? Because the very first Christian church we see modeled for us in the Bible had more than 3,000 people in it (Acts 2:41)! That church did not fit in anybody's house. Not only did it have 3,000 people, but “... the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved,” (Acts 2:47) so there were soon over 3,000 people in the church.
Notice also in Acts 2:47 that the Bible uses the word “church” in its singular, not plural, form. It was one church, not a bunch of little churches put together into an association of churches. There is more evidence for this elsewhere in chapter 2, but it's certainly worth noting here.
This was one church with over 3,000 people in it – certainly far to big to meet at anybody's house. So, where did they meet?
Verse 46 of Acts chapter 2 shows us exactly where they met for church meetings. “And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart.” (Acts 2:46).
They met at the temple. What did they do there? As we read on in the book of Acts, we find out that the temple is where the apostles were preaching. The whole church (3,000+ people) met at the temple daily for preaching and teaching, with the apostles as the pastors and elders of the church.
That very first church in Jerusalem actually had a special building that they went to for preaching services, and this fact is plainly and unequivocally taught in the Bible.
Some might look at verse 46 and say, “look, they met in houses.” Look again at that verse. What did they meet house-to-house for? Church meetings? Bible studies? Nope. They met in houses for meals and, I believe that we can assume from the context, fellowship.
Just in case somebody were tempted to fixate on the “breaking bread” part of the verse and wanted to theorize that it was a symbolic way to refer to “teaching the Bible,” God added the “did eat their meat with gladness ...” phrase to clarify exactly what was being done at the individual houses.
The model established by that first Christian church in Jerusalem clearly teaches that it's just fine to have large churches (with thousands of members) and to meet at special buildings. In fact, a very literal and conservative interpretation of Acts 2 could actually prohibit home-based churches, although I do not believe that such a prohibition is warranted by the text. The lesson we can take from this passage is that a church can meet where ever it wants, including in a special building set aside for the purpose.
One fact is very clear. The first Christian church was not a home church.
The Bible does not tell a church where to meet – it just tells us to meet and leaves the location to the discretion of the local church.
Although Acts chapter 2 puts to rest the home-church-only heresy for any fair-minded, biblically-grounded Christian who desires to follow the apostles' doctrine and the apostles' model, it is worthwhile for us to take a look at I Corinthians 11.
“For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you, and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. For in eating everyone taketh before other his own supper and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? Have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? Or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.” [I Corinthians 11:18-22]
Paul is talking about when the members of the church at Corinth “come together in the church” and “come together therefore into one place.” Where did they come together? What building did they use? He does not say. But, he does go on to say where they did not meet.
“What? Have ye not houses to eat and to drink in?” says the Apostle Paul. Where are the Corinthians not meeting as a church? In their houses! Where ever they are meeting, they are not meeting in their houses, according to the Apostle Paul.
Perhaps they met in a field outside of town. Perhaps they met in a rented hall. Perhaps they met in a barn, or in a building that was built for the purpose. The Bible does not tell us where they met, but it does tell us that they did not meet in their houses.
That's two strikes against the house-church-only heresy. That's two for God and zero for man. “... let God be true, but every man a liar ...”
One common argument from the house-church-only crowd is to point to the history of the very early church and comment that there are no records of churches meeting in special buildings.
Firstly, let us recall that the Bible is the authority here, not man-made historical records which are incomplete at best and extremely subjective at worst. Since the Bible teaches that churches can and did meet at special locations, then we should have no need to go to man-made history at all. The Bible trumps all else.
Secondly, the people who make this assertion in support of the house-church-only doctrine are being very dishonest. Why? Because the first three centuries after Jesus' death was a time of intense persecution for the churches.
Notice what happened to the church at Jerusalem once persecution began there. They were beaten, arrested, killed, and dispersed. If anyone remained, they certainly were meeting in secret.
If the churches during the time of persecution were to meet publicly at a special location, guess where the Roman soldiers would have been on Sunday morning with their clubs and torches.
Of course, Christians met in smaller and more secretive groups during this time of persecution – perhaps even in people's houses – and there is nothing biblically wrong with that. It was a matter of survival. But, for somebody to use this to support their house-church-only teaching is quite dishonest once the facts are laid out.
Let's look at one more common argument.
“The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house.” [I Corinthians 16:19]
This verse is often used to assert that the churches did in fact meet in people homes. We have established that, based on the Bible, there is no problem with a church meeting in somebody's house, so if this verse were saying that there was a church meeting at Aquila's and Priscilla's house, that would not be a problem. But, that's likely not what is being said here.
Yes, there could have been a small church in some city or town in Asia which had no need for its own building, and was meeting at somebody's house. That is certainly a possibility, but it certainly does nothing for the house-church-only teaching. It simply meant that there was a church meeting at Aquila and Priscilla's house. They could have met anywhere they wanted.
But let's assume for a minute that there was a larger church in town. Why would some of the believers be at this couple's house?
For the answer to this question, we need look no further than the model of the church at Jerusalem – back to Acts chapter 2.
It's wonderful when we see how the Bible interprets the Bible, even when we have elected to impute other meanings to Scripture.
In Acts 2, we see that the church at Jerusalem did, in fact, meet in members' houses. For what? “... and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart.” [Acts 2:46] They broke up into smaller groups which met at members' houses for food and fellowship.
There is no reason to think that the church in Aquila's town was any different. They likely followed this same model. There would have been one church in town which met communally for preaching and teaching, and then smaller congregations – or, parts of the whole congregation – which met in people's homes for food and fellowship.
We also know from history that in those early churches, Christians who were without homes were housed by the Christians who did have homes. So, if Aquila and Priscilla had a large house, they likely had several church members living with them. Notice how in this instance, history lines up to support the Bible facts, not to establish them.
Similar references in Colossians 4:15 and Philemon 1:2 can be simply explained the same way. Even if these are references to independent local churches, it certainly does not add one ounce of argument for the house-church-only teaching, since we have already solidly established from the Bible that the early church did not meet exclusively in houses.
The bottom line is that the Bible does not tell a church where they must meet. It does not prohibit churches meeting in homes, nor does it prohibit churches meeting at special locations. It does provide a clear model of a very large church (3,000+) meeting at a special place for their preaching and teaching.
If a church elects to meet at a member's house, praise God! That's entirely up to them. If a church decides that it is more efficient and economical to meet at a special, central location – even in a special building set aside for that purpose – then, praise God! It's up to the discretion of the local church. To state otherwise is to step outside of the Bible and to make yourself an apostle rather than to follow the apostles' teaching.
