(This article is a reworking of an actual letter written in reply to someone who had raised serious questions concerning the whole concept of church as we at the fellowship here have come to understand it. The name of the recipient has been changed for the sake of privacy and a few other alterations have been made for the sake of readability.)

 

Essex, England
Summer 2000

My Dear Oglethorpe,

Good to hear from you old boy! And so soon after you received my letter too! How is your lovely Martha? In jolly good health I trust! I've always said what a trooper of a wife you have there, and what a blessing she has been to you through the years. I say old chap, what a lucky fellow you are. And still neither one of you seems old enough to be great-grandparents. I only hope I fare as well when as many years have crept up on me. 'Lots of cricket and cups of tea!'  as you always say, 'That's the ticket!' 

I can see that, 'All this dashed silly house church stuff' , as you call it, is really getting you going; and I must say your letter raised some things to which I really must respond, and at some length too. So brace yourself my old Baptist friend, and cover your wicket; I've got some tough bowling for you to face.

Let me start with your assertion that it is not necessary for churches to meet in people's houses in order to be in alignment with God's Word. Now you know full well that the New Testament churches, as set up by the apostles, were based in people's houses, and no one doubts that this is the case. But the question is whether or not we ought to be continuing such practice. And of course the answer to that is tied up with what the believers in the New Testament did when they gathered together on Sundays. And what they did was twofold.

Firstly, and in keeping with apostolic teaching as revealed in Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, and in particular chapter fourteen and verse twenty-six, they had a time of completely participatory worship and sharing together in which all were free to partake, and which no one led from the front. And of course this is as far away from having a church service, any type of church service, as you can get. They were simply led, freely and spontaneously, by the Holy Spirit, with no-one officiating in any way from the front. Indeed, precisely because they were meeting in people's lounges there was no front for anyone to lead from. Then, secondly, they ate a meal together, this being the way in which they shared the Lord's Supper; referred to nowadays, more usually, and quite erroneously, as Communion. And of course the point is that, given such activity when they came together, their way of gathering could only work properly if, by definition, numbers weren't too large.

So what we see in the New Testament is that churches never moved out of houses into larger public buildings precisely because they never needed extra space. And when you understand that the nature of a church anyway is a little extended family of God, and I don't think anyone would seriously challenge that as a pretty good and complete biblical definition, then it raises the question as to why anyone would want a church to get so large that those who comprise it are no longer able to function in the way the Bible shows us they did. It is simply the case that, at the time of the apostles, far from there being large churches around there were rather just many, many small ones tied-in together through mutual relationships as brothers and sisters. What it appears we have long forgotten is that Jesus is not only the Head of the Church Universal, as the theologians like to put it (or the Church Throughout Space and Time, as I prefer to say), He is also meant to be the Head of each individual church, leading each one personally as the Chief Shepherd. And of course given that in the New Testament the word shepherd (or pastor) is synonymous with both elder and bishop (or overseer), then the simple fact is that Jesus is Himself the senior elder of any, and each, church that is set up biblically.

I am not arguing 'houses for houses sake', as you put it! That isn't the point at all! Indeed, as I emphasised in my letter, I don't actually like the phrase house church one bit, and much prefer to speak in terms of planting and establishing biblical churches. A group of believers could meet regularly as a church in various houses on Sundays and yet still be completely unbiblical in virtually every other respect. No, I am far from arguing 'houses for houses sake'. I am rather making a plea for the complete package, so to speak; and meeting in a house is but one aspect of the (larger) scriptural blueprint.

The real point I am arguing is that we ought to be comprehensively doing things as revealed in the Bible. In the New Testament we are presented with the simple fact, whether anyone likes it or not, that the apostles set churches up in a definite, singular and particular way. And although I know such an assertion is not very popular, I must nevertheless stick by it if only for the simple reason that it just happens to be true. Biblical truth is a stubborn thing, to be sure, and it never ultimately goes away. I must therefore challenge the thinking which, in this regard at least, doesn't appear to let the Bible stand in the way of various good ideas about what churches ought to be like. I cannot for the life of me see any authority, or basis, for suggesting that it's all right for us to do things differently from the apostles. It comes down to the simple fact that if churches are to function in the way the New Testament shows us they did under the apostles, then being house based is, quite inescapably, the complete optimum and the absolute ideal. It is simply what we find believers in the New Testament doing.

I think it is worth noting too - and this is an historical point - that, at the time of Jesus, people's religious lives were universally centred round specially consecrated buildings. This was true of both Jews and Gentiles. And it is fascinating to then discover that an exception to this rule came on the scene in the shape of the Christian believers, those strange people who followed a carpenter claiming He was God become man. They alone, of all the spiritual persuasions of the day touting for people's religious allegiance, had no public buildings in which to meet for their gatherings. There was not one good reason in the entire world why they shouldn't have had temples or sanctuaries or shrines like everybody else, but they didn't. Persecution was, for the most part, sporadic, and they had every opportunity to do what was, for everyone else, and for them too before becoming believers, the most natural thing in the world: setting aside and consecrating special buildings, however simple and humble, for their corporate gatherings.

But they didn't! Why not? Because they had actually been taught by the apostles that meeting in each others homes was actually what Jesus wanted them to do. Far from being out of necessity, or something similar, until some later time came when changes could be made, it was actually the Divine intention. Indeed, history tells us that they were actually thought by some to be atheists precisely for the reason that they had no special building in which their god lived.

So we see that the apostles established churches to be quite specifically located in people's houses. And far from being merely some accident of history, this was actually a part of the apostolic (and therefore biblical) blueprint. Paul emphasises in his writings that apostolic tradition, as passed on by them to the churches from Jesus Himself, was binding on believers and was actually the command of the Lord. So why would anyone therefore want to do things differently? Yet sadly church leaders came on the scene, and as early as the first century too, who did want to do things differently to the apostles; and it seems that the Christian Church hasn't since wanted to correct their mistakes.

You see, the real problem is that when most churches come together on Sundays they are functioning, albeit with an almost infinite number of variations, according to the teachings of those pesky old 'Early Church Fathers' fellows who made those changes, and not actually according to the New Testament at all. And the contrast is nothing short of amazing. Churches today aren't just different from the New Testament ones, they are virtually the opposite. Think about it! The Bible shows us that believers came together as churches in people's houses on the Lord's Day for open and spontaneous worship and sharing together. This involved most people present bringing teachings and revelations, and the like, and such gatherings most certainly didn't need anyone leading from the front. Remember, when a church meets in someone's lounge there isn't even a 'front' to lead from. Further, they ate a meal together; indeed, the very Lord's Meal! (That is, as you know full well, what the Greek in that passage in Corinthians about the Lord's Supper literally refers to, the main meal of the day towards evening!)

So what do churches traditionally do instead? They meet on Sundays (at least we still get something right) with those attending sitting in rows, in a service, in a public building (whether 'sacred' or not), led from the front by someone who, usually, is paid to do it as their job. Contrast further a leadership of plural, co-equal and locally grown elders with an imported professional 'one man pastor, or priest' type leadership, and you begin to see, if you are just willing to be honest, just how contradictory to the Bible's teachings our churches actually are. In such a setting a shared main meal, to say nothing of each person being free to participate and with no one presiding 'from the front', becomes a complete nonsense. Indeed, that is the very reason why the Lord's Supper was eventually jettisoned by the Fathers in favour of bread and wine services, it just didn't fit in any more with the priesthood and 'services' they introduced into the life of the Christian churches.

So we see in the New Testament that churches were house based because of what was supposed to happen when those in them came together: and what better setting could there possibly be for participatory sharing and worship, and for eating a meal together? And of course no-one who really knows their biblical stuff would challenge that such is indeed the blueprint upon which churches were shaped and formed under the teaching and care of the apostles in New Testament times. As you well know, I could quote volumes from the very best evangelical biblical scholars of our time who would all confirm everything I have written concerning what churches were like as planted by the apostles and those who went by their teaching and practices. This is no mere 'slant', or interpretation, on my part; it is simply what New Testament churches were like. So how, my old friend, can you possibly go on to liken what I teach and practise in this regard as, '...the virus of legalism creeping it's way into the bloodstream of even undoubtedly godly communities of Christians ? How on earth do you conclude that the contention that we ought to establish churches today in the same way the apostles did then is, 'a legalistic bondage ? On what possible basis do you manage to conclude that this must therefore be, 'the pride of self-assertiveness hidden behind supposed concerns for the truth ?

My own understanding of the error of legalism, and do correct me if I am wrong, is that it is the imposition of teachings and practises on believers that cannot be established from the Word of God. If the equal, and opposite, error of licence is enforcing too little of what scripture does teach, then legalism would be the enforcement of that which it doesn't, and in what possible way am I doing that? Biblical scholars of all shades are in agreement (it is simply a matter of the narrative history of certain biblical passages) that the New Testament churches met in the way I am describing, and all I am advocating is that we likewise do things according to that same teaching of Jesus and the apostles rather than going along with what the Early Church Fathers later replaced it with. I fully understand that any one of us can assert what is actually biblical and true in a proud and sinful way (and may God forgive me if that is what I am here doing), but is it not also the case that it must, by very definition, be prideful and arrogant for believers to assume they can better the Lord's ideas and teachings in any way? Come now, my dear friend, be honest! Just who is actually being proud here: those who submit to the scriptures, or those who think they have a better way of doing things?

Let me put this question to you, and I give you fair warning that I'm bowling you a real bouncer here, so get ready to duck! Why do you believe in, and practice, baptism for believers in water, as opposed to baptism for anyone, whether believers or not, even babies, by, let's say, sprinkling them with a nice (though well cooled) cup of tea? And your answer could only be that it is because baptism of believers in water is what we unfailingly see in the pages of the New Testament! There is not one single chapter and verse command that such is the only way to do it. There is chapter and verse command, of course, actually to do it, but there is no command whatever regarding the use of water for doing it. No, it is simply that this is how we see it happen in the pages of scripture every time it does happen, and nothing in the Bible would suggest the Lord planned to make changes to it at some later date. Now then, I don't know of anyone who's changed the water bit and who uses cups of tea, but traditionally millions of believers have, and still do, change just about everything else about it. But you are a Baptist, and I know you take the Bible more seriously than to subscribe to such things as the baptism of infants, or of unregenerate 'church members'. But here comes my challenge old boy, and I must insist that you think it through carefully and answer honestly and dispassionately.

Why don't you start going along with the practice of infant baptism and begin agreeing with and supporting those who do it? Is it not right and good that some people baptise babies? What is the problem with them so doing? Who are you to say it isn't what the Lord wants? Are you not being legalistic and putting people into bondage by insisting that there is one way, and one way only, for baptism to be done? Could not your position, that we should baptise only in the way we see the New Testament church doing, be, 'the virus of legalism finding it's way into the bloodstream of even undoubtedly godly communities of Christians'? On what basis can you assure me that your belief and practise in this regard isn't merely, 'the pride of self-assertiveness hidden behind supposed concerns for the truth ?

Now I know full well that you would respond to this (hypothetical) onslaught from me simply by asserting that the New Testament shows us clearly how the early church baptised, and that we ought therefore to do it the way the apostles taught, and not according to any other teaching: including that of the Early Church Fathers! (After all, where on earth did people think infant baptism came from in the first place? Those pesky old Early Church Fathers fellows again, that's where from.) And of course I would agree with you entirely, and I would do so because when you say that you are as right about it as anyone could possibly be about anything! So how is what I'm saying about church life and practice, and about how churches ought to be set up, any different from that baptism scenario?

As a Baptist you are fully aware that the biblical practice of baptism was not only changed, it was also completely perverted by the teaching of church leaders who came along after the apostles had died; and I know that you defend and stand for biblical baptism, as well you should, with great fervour. Yet in exactly the same way that something like infant baptism is a complete misunderstanding, and mockery, of true and genuine baptism as taught in the New Testament, so too is the way most churches are set up and function. The church setups and practices that I am challenging are as unbiblical as infant baptism, whilst the way I am advocating that church ought to be done is, conversely, as biblical as believers' baptism. And in exactly the same way that you might challenge someone who believes in infant baptism to justify what he believes about it, then I challenge you to do likewise concerning how churches ought to be set up and function.

Well, I'm just about done now, but before I finish let me reassure you concerning the very last point you made in your letter. I know you were horrified to discover that there are believers in America who are doing what I have been advocating concerning church life, but I don't see how that can, of itself, be, 'the final proof that all this house church stuff is some kind of satanic deception , as you put it. As you well know, I was practicing and teaching all this long before I became aware that others were doing the same thing across the Atlantic, and you know full well too that I got what I believe and practice in this regard from the Bible, and not from reading other people's books.

This phobia of yours concerning all things American really does go too far sometimes. I am aware, of course, that the very worst of most things tend to originate from over there, including many supposedly Christian things too, but a country that gave us both Tom and Jerry and Star Trek can't be all bad now, can it? And having moved quite a bit amongst biblical churches all over the States now I can personally witness to what a fine bunch of Christian folk they actually are. You're going to just have to stop moping over the fact that we lost the War of Independence and that they aren't our colonies any more and that we're never going to get those taxes they owe! And I know they came into the war in Europe a bit late as well, but do try and put it all behind you. Remember, they still make the best milkshakes in the world!

Well, it's time for me to go old friend! I look forward to your reply and will be expecting to face some tough bowling from you in reply. Send my love to dear Martha, and don't overdo things in the garden like you did last year. Your roses are as beautiful as ever again now, so don't risk spoiling it all by doing your back in and ending up in bed for a week again.

The Lord bless you,

in Him,

Beresford