As a house Church pastor, I understand what you’re saying here. If you are going to run a house church, it needs to have a plurality of elders, belief statement, and it needs to have structure and order. Ideally, it needs to be part of a network as well for accountability reasons.
Many of the conversations I have with people regarding house Church focus around letting them know that we do have elders, a plurality of them, many of which with seminary degrees.
We’ve had a lot of people that have come from house churches which are just glorified alcohol and football brunches. Some are coming from house churches where everyone just showed up and they waited for the Holy Spirit to put a word on someone’s heart with no order whatsoever. So I totally get it. God bless! Merry Christmas!
Your comments on would-be "autonomous" churches reminds me of what has been going on with "Fundamental Independent Baptists" for decades. They proclaim that each church is completely autonomous and answerable to no one. This nonscriptural way of operating has, among other problems, made them ideal hunting grounds for child molesters, as they commonly shuffle people in ministry positions from one church to another without anyone in the new church knowing what has happened.
This is a very thoughtful and well written article…thank you very much. You have an obvious love and bias towards the church institution that I still see clouding some of your thinking. For example, when you use Clement and the other early church leaders writing to support your point of view, I think you have to ask the question, “So how did that work out?”. The answer is not very well, when you consider that those leaders sold out to Constantine in the fourth century, plunging the world and the church into horrific darkness for the next thousand years. It was the living, underground church that survived and preserved the New Testament documents during those thousand years, in spite of the leadership’s efforts to destroy them. Yes, there is scriptural support for servant leadership in the church…elders and deacons. But not for self-serving leaders who pad their personal nests with wool shorn from the backs of the sheep. The first apostles were missionaries, not pastors. If we ever see leaders working themselves out of a job, raising up young leaders and then leaving their secure positions to go and plant churches in unreached areas, then I’ll agree we have the kind of leadership you say we do.
Alan, thanks for you comment! I greatly appreciate your kind words, even in disagreements.
A few clarifying question: What do you mean by those leaders sold out to Constantine in the fourth century, plunging the world and the church into horrific darkness for the next thousand years?
Are you referencing the Council of Nicaea? The reason why I ask is that this council had to do with matters of the Trinity contra the Arians, not issues of the legitimacy of episcopacy (that was already assumed as legitimate by Bishops being called to the council).
Also, when you say there was a living, underground church that survived and preserved the New Testament, what do you mean by that? The council at the time was a universal council where the church in the east and west both were present. It is still to this day recognized as an ecumenical council in both the east and west.
I don’t want to assume anything. Just interested in what you mean by those things. You are correct though that I have my own biases, and I am more than willing to admit that. I agree with you though that there is evidence of leadership and not self-serving leadership.
In terms of church planting, I think churches with the historical episcopate plant churches just as well churches that are elder led or even congregational. There has been a movement of Anglican church plants in America, especially in Appalachia in recent years through the ACNA. Every form of polity has issues. The episcopacy certainly has issues and even presbyterian and congregational polities have issues. Where sinful humans congregate, there will always be issues. But, even though that’s true, Christ is with us and making His name great in the world. And that’s something we can agree upon and celebrate.
Thanks for your reply. I hope my comment didn’t come across as critical. I read it after I hit ‘send’ and realized I could have worded it better.
By ‘Sold out to Constantine’ I mean came under the government’s influence and control. Constantine, and the forces of darkness behind him, basically said “If you can’t beat them, join them”. All churches have, to one degree or another, been under heavy influence by wordly, carnally minded authority ever since.
I believe the Council of Nicea was convened to determine not only the nature of the Trinity (as if such a mystery could possibly be determined by a government committee…or any committee for that matter) but to establish the format and foundation for control of the Church by human government. Many such committees convened in the years that followed, and the noose grew tighter and tighter.
As Vladimir Lenin famously noted, “the best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.” That’s what governments, and by extension organized denominations, have been doing ever since. The last thing any government or religious leadership structure wants is liberty for their subjects.
Jesus turned the entire top-down paradigm upside down and showed that the way to be great in the kingdom is through service. Weakness is strength. God uses the base things of this world to confound the wise.
Too down institutions celebrate and reward the good looking, well-spoken, well-mannered, well-dressed, and well-educated. Jesus was a carpenter and He mostly chose uneducated commercial fishermen to build the church. Down to earth, rough people like that aren’t given very much consideration in churches. They’re talked down to and aren’t made to feel very comfortable in the environment…not on purpose, that’s just how it is.
His kingdom is like treasure hidden in a field…no one sees, no one knows, and man cannot take credit. But it’s there, and it thrived in the underground through the dark ages when the Constantinian system was trying to destroy it. If not for the Church…the hidden, persecuted church…I believe our Bibles today would be based upon the Latin Vulgate only.
It’s true that organized religions have had some success replicating themselves, but so has McDonalds. So have the Mormons.
Just because a person or an organization has some success doesn’t mean it’s doing something of eternal value. Unless the Lord builds the house, those who labor to build it are laboring in vain, right? Temporal results don’t necessarily equal an eternal reward.
I think the House Church movement might be people who love the Lord finally coming out from under the thumb of top-down control, which I believe is how it was in the first few years following the resurrection.
The Lord bless you too! I apologize if anything I’m saying isn’t well written or comes off as cocky. That’s not my intent at all. I’m typing this reply on my phone and it’s not easy to do a thorough job. I’m sure you and I could have a great conversation in person over a cup of coffee.
In closing, I don’t think the structure even matters all that much. If there’s love for God and each other, that’s all that really counts, and without that it doesn’t matter if it’s in a house church or a cathedral.
I remember reading a few weeks ago an article from Adoremus on the history of the Mass. In it the author mentions two books, Edward Adams' The Earliest Christian Meeting Places and a German book named Altar und Kirche by Stefan Heid. These works are mentioned in a context very similar to your article: "More recently, the idea of “house churches” in early Christianity has come under scrutiny, and scholars have argued for A MORE FORMAL AND HIERARCHICAL SETTING of early Christian liturgy." I haven't gotten my hands on either of these yet, and idk if there's an English translation of Heid's work, but its an interesting and relevant claim.
That’s fascinating. It’s always a comfort to know that it’s not just me reading sources in isolation and that others are drawing similar conclusions. I will have to look into this.
Also, I would lean Anglican as well. The ACNA is so effeminate and weak though (which is why I would never join it), however, the CREC is a great place for Anglican leaning reformed folk because many churches are high church like an Anglican church and the Presiding Minister essentially acts as an Archbishop.
ACNA seems to vary greatly by diocese. I'd like to see a senior presbyter of CREC receive episcopal orders from one of the sound ACNA dioceses, then conditionally ordain the remaining presbyters as priests. No need for absorption or amalgamation, but plenty of room for fruitful cooperation in mission.
Okay I'll bite. I grew up in house churches and have visited many house churches or former house churches that have then grown and developed. Have never enjoyed institutionalised or corporatised churches quite as much as house churches or former house churches, as they often fail at the most important part of what a church is meant to be - encouraging, equipping and expecting congregants to actually live the Christian life. To be frank, they are too large and too corporate for the pastors to have any real and deep involvement with their flock.
I think the strongest part of your argument is there needs to be a singular authority instead of wishy-washy decentralised democratic approach. The best house churches I have been a part of have a pastor or leader who has been called and vested with spiritual authority. That requires that the other members recognise and respect that man's God-given authority, unless he acts in a way which means it is withdrawn.
I acknowledge that without the guardrails of an instituional church with committees and rulebooks and bylaws, this can get difficult. But it was the same in Clement's own time, as per his letters. People can be difficult to lead, pastors can do the wrong thing. But ultimately a church is a spiritual organism, the body of Christ, not a material organisation.
As is the way with spiritual things, it's difficult to build a human system that accounts for all the varied nuances which will inevitably arise, without crushing the spiritual aspect altogether.
If I may, I feel like "house churches," "the early Church meeting in houses," and "the house church movement" need to be all disentangled. The former is the umbrella which the latter two are under, the second is the prooftext for the latter, and the latter is what Mr. Robinson is responding to. Sure, the early Christians met in houses, but they also met in synagogues (Lk 4:15, 44; Acts 13:5; 14:1; 17:1-3) and the Temple itself (Acts 5:12, 21; Lk. 19:47; 20:1; 21:37), "institutional religion" as we may call them. Further, it's entirely presumptuous to assume that house churches were just overglorified coffee hours with priests in jeans, when many archaeological sites of house churches prove that if used long enough the congregants meeting therein made it more and more "liturgical"/"churchy"/"institutional" (e.g., Dura Europos) and overlooks the NT evidence for liturgical religiosity (I document this in an essay I wrote). House churches were an entirely pragmatic way for a dispossessed and marginalized religious movement to fulfil its communal basis (cf. Heb 10:24-25), because it'd draw too much attention to themselves to purchase and build on property, but in homes that some people might've owned long before converting to this "cult"? That'd draw less attention. The house church movement entirely overlooks the relevant historical and theological realities that contextualize the secondary passing mentions (i.e., non-mandated) of houses churches in Acts. Meeting in a house church needn't be "egalitarian" or "non-liturgical," and Orthodox house churches can attest to this, they just need to be...in a house.
Perhaps Clement is the coin to tip the scales for me as well. I had already made strides towards the episcopate based on Acts, to the contrary of my congregationalist training. I read Clement about 6 months ago for the second time, but not particularly closely. To have a contemporary apostolic era witness may be the nudge over the edge.
Conservative Presbyterian here. :) I see little difference to the governmental structure of the conservative Presbyterian branches and the Anglican. Except with the Anglican it is one man vs the Presbytery. Looking into Anglicanism, it would seem that there would be more important issues at stake when consider it converting. Main ones being the Westminster confession vs whatever confession the Anglicans hold to.
Some interesting reflections. Maybe the issue isn't so much a structural/hierarchical one but the assumption that organic equals democratic, in the sense that there is no active leadership which brought the accountability and doctrinal guard rails that you are concerned are missing? My own reading of the early church and what I believe we should pursue is both radically organic/relational as well as affirming and responsive to the gifts and roles Christ continues to give to his church (Eph 4). This seems to provide a blend of organic flexibility/autonomy as well as a relationally based recognition of leadership/authority with all the benefits that brings...
After reading (and enjoying!) this post, I re-read 1 Clement. It seems to me that Clement uses the terms "bishop" and "presbyter" interchangeably. For example, in the passage you quote from chapter 44, Clement speaks against dismissing good men from "the episcopate", and immediately goes on to speak a blessing on "those presbyters".
I agree heartily, however, that the vision of independent churches that are disconnected, or merely informally connected in terms of their government, is a very different thing from what we see in the New Testament, especially in Acts 15. But I think there is another step to demonstrating that in affirming "the episcopate", Clement was affirming the bishop as an office distinct from, and in some way superior to, that of the presbyter.
The house church movement is essentially a reversion back to the church impotent when she was just being birthed after Pentecost. Home Churches were the start with a telos to a Cathedral. To glamourize such a Christianity is effeminate and silly.
We moved from the LCMS to the ACNA (in an AngloCatholic diocese) a little over two years ago, after my husband's annual re-examination of the rationality and coherence of his worldview, mainly for reasons of the episcopacy.
It sounds like you're working out questions you have yourself. I'm also Presbyterian, but enjoy visiting other churches while on vacation. I really liked the time we visited an Anglican church. The rector was welcoming and the service, though more liturgical than my denomination, felt familiar. I don't if any one denomination follows the form of the early church perfectly. Sometimes we are called to a church that might be pretty imperfect, but the Lord may want us there for His purposes. Something to prayerfully consider. I don't know how theological that sounds, but I'm a poet, not a theologian!
As a house Church pastor, I understand what you’re saying here. If you are going to run a house church, it needs to have a plurality of elders, belief statement, and it needs to have structure and order. Ideally, it needs to be part of a network as well for accountability reasons.
Many of the conversations I have with people regarding house Church focus around letting them know that we do have elders, a plurality of them, many of which with seminary degrees.
We’ve had a lot of people that have come from house churches which are just glorified alcohol and football brunches. Some are coming from house churches where everyone just showed up and they waited for the Holy Spirit to put a word on someone’s heart with no order whatsoever. So I totally get it. God bless! Merry Christmas!
God bless and Merry Christmas to you as well!
Sorry for all the talk to text typos. I was cooking breakfast for some people in the body. Have a wonderful Christmas!
Your comments on would-be "autonomous" churches reminds me of what has been going on with "Fundamental Independent Baptists" for decades. They proclaim that each church is completely autonomous and answerable to no one. This nonscriptural way of operating has, among other problems, made them ideal hunting grounds for child molesters, as they commonly shuffle people in ministry positions from one church to another without anyone in the new church knowing what has happened.
This is a very thoughtful and well written article…thank you very much. You have an obvious love and bias towards the church institution that I still see clouding some of your thinking. For example, when you use Clement and the other early church leaders writing to support your point of view, I think you have to ask the question, “So how did that work out?”. The answer is not very well, when you consider that those leaders sold out to Constantine in the fourth century, plunging the world and the church into horrific darkness for the next thousand years. It was the living, underground church that survived and preserved the New Testament documents during those thousand years, in spite of the leadership’s efforts to destroy them. Yes, there is scriptural support for servant leadership in the church…elders and deacons. But not for self-serving leaders who pad their personal nests with wool shorn from the backs of the sheep. The first apostles were missionaries, not pastors. If we ever see leaders working themselves out of a job, raising up young leaders and then leaving their secure positions to go and plant churches in unreached areas, then I’ll agree we have the kind of leadership you say we do.
Alan, thanks for you comment! I greatly appreciate your kind words, even in disagreements.
A few clarifying question: What do you mean by those leaders sold out to Constantine in the fourth century, plunging the world and the church into horrific darkness for the next thousand years?
Are you referencing the Council of Nicaea? The reason why I ask is that this council had to do with matters of the Trinity contra the Arians, not issues of the legitimacy of episcopacy (that was already assumed as legitimate by Bishops being called to the council).
Also, when you say there was a living, underground church that survived and preserved the New Testament, what do you mean by that? The council at the time was a universal council where the church in the east and west both were present. It is still to this day recognized as an ecumenical council in both the east and west.
I don’t want to assume anything. Just interested in what you mean by those things. You are correct though that I have my own biases, and I am more than willing to admit that. I agree with you though that there is evidence of leadership and not self-serving leadership.
In terms of church planting, I think churches with the historical episcopate plant churches just as well churches that are elder led or even congregational. There has been a movement of Anglican church plants in America, especially in Appalachia in recent years through the ACNA. Every form of polity has issues. The episcopacy certainly has issues and even presbyterian and congregational polities have issues. Where sinful humans congregate, there will always be issues. But, even though that’s true, Christ is with us and making His name great in the world. And that’s something we can agree upon and celebrate.
May the Lord be with you!
Hi J.M. -
Thanks for your reply. I hope my comment didn’t come across as critical. I read it after I hit ‘send’ and realized I could have worded it better.
By ‘Sold out to Constantine’ I mean came under the government’s influence and control. Constantine, and the forces of darkness behind him, basically said “If you can’t beat them, join them”. All churches have, to one degree or another, been under heavy influence by wordly, carnally minded authority ever since.
I believe the Council of Nicea was convened to determine not only the nature of the Trinity (as if such a mystery could possibly be determined by a government committee…or any committee for that matter) but to establish the format and foundation for control of the Church by human government. Many such committees convened in the years that followed, and the noose grew tighter and tighter.
As Vladimir Lenin famously noted, “the best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.” That’s what governments, and by extension organized denominations, have been doing ever since. The last thing any government or religious leadership structure wants is liberty for their subjects.
Jesus turned the entire top-down paradigm upside down and showed that the way to be great in the kingdom is through service. Weakness is strength. God uses the base things of this world to confound the wise.
Too down institutions celebrate and reward the good looking, well-spoken, well-mannered, well-dressed, and well-educated. Jesus was a carpenter and He mostly chose uneducated commercial fishermen to build the church. Down to earth, rough people like that aren’t given very much consideration in churches. They’re talked down to and aren’t made to feel very comfortable in the environment…not on purpose, that’s just how it is.
His kingdom is like treasure hidden in a field…no one sees, no one knows, and man cannot take credit. But it’s there, and it thrived in the underground through the dark ages when the Constantinian system was trying to destroy it. If not for the Church…the hidden, persecuted church…I believe our Bibles today would be based upon the Latin Vulgate only.
It’s true that organized religions have had some success replicating themselves, but so has McDonalds. So have the Mormons.
Just because a person or an organization has some success doesn’t mean it’s doing something of eternal value. Unless the Lord builds the house, those who labor to build it are laboring in vain, right? Temporal results don’t necessarily equal an eternal reward.
I think the House Church movement might be people who love the Lord finally coming out from under the thumb of top-down control, which I believe is how it was in the first few years following the resurrection.
The Lord bless you too! I apologize if anything I’m saying isn’t well written or comes off as cocky. That’s not my intent at all. I’m typing this reply on my phone and it’s not easy to do a thorough job. I’m sure you and I could have a great conversation in person over a cup of coffee.
In closing, I don’t think the structure even matters all that much. If there’s love for God and each other, that’s all that really counts, and without that it doesn’t matter if it’s in a house church or a cathedral.
God bless you!
I remember reading a few weeks ago an article from Adoremus on the history of the Mass. In it the author mentions two books, Edward Adams' The Earliest Christian Meeting Places and a German book named Altar und Kirche by Stefan Heid. These works are mentioned in a context very similar to your article: "More recently, the idea of “house churches” in early Christianity has come under scrutiny, and scholars have argued for A MORE FORMAL AND HIERARCHICAL SETTING of early Christian liturgy." I haven't gotten my hands on either of these yet, and idk if there's an English translation of Heid's work, but its an interesting and relevant claim.
That’s fascinating. It’s always a comfort to know that it’s not just me reading sources in isolation and that others are drawing similar conclusions. I will have to look into this.
Also, I would lean Anglican as well. The ACNA is so effeminate and weak though (which is why I would never join it), however, the CREC is a great place for Anglican leaning reformed folk because many churches are high church like an Anglican church and the Presiding Minister essentially acts as an Archbishop.
ACNA seems to vary greatly by diocese. I'd like to see a senior presbyter of CREC receive episcopal orders from one of the sound ACNA dioceses, then conditionally ordain the remaining presbyters as priests. No need for absorption or amalgamation, but plenty of room for fruitful cooperation in mission.
I appreciate this thought! That would be very interesting. I'm gunna have to chew on that.
Okay I'll bite. I grew up in house churches and have visited many house churches or former house churches that have then grown and developed. Have never enjoyed institutionalised or corporatised churches quite as much as house churches or former house churches, as they often fail at the most important part of what a church is meant to be - encouraging, equipping and expecting congregants to actually live the Christian life. To be frank, they are too large and too corporate for the pastors to have any real and deep involvement with their flock.
I think the strongest part of your argument is there needs to be a singular authority instead of wishy-washy decentralised democratic approach. The best house churches I have been a part of have a pastor or leader who has been called and vested with spiritual authority. That requires that the other members recognise and respect that man's God-given authority, unless he acts in a way which means it is withdrawn.
I acknowledge that without the guardrails of an instituional church with committees and rulebooks and bylaws, this can get difficult. But it was the same in Clement's own time, as per his letters. People can be difficult to lead, pastors can do the wrong thing. But ultimately a church is a spiritual organism, the body of Christ, not a material organisation.
As is the way with spiritual things, it's difficult to build a human system that accounts for all the varied nuances which will inevitably arise, without crushing the spiritual aspect altogether.
Curious on your thoughts in response.
If I may, I feel like "house churches," "the early Church meeting in houses," and "the house church movement" need to be all disentangled. The former is the umbrella which the latter two are under, the second is the prooftext for the latter, and the latter is what Mr. Robinson is responding to. Sure, the early Christians met in houses, but they also met in synagogues (Lk 4:15, 44; Acts 13:5; 14:1; 17:1-3) and the Temple itself (Acts 5:12, 21; Lk. 19:47; 20:1; 21:37), "institutional religion" as we may call them. Further, it's entirely presumptuous to assume that house churches were just overglorified coffee hours with priests in jeans, when many archaeological sites of house churches prove that if used long enough the congregants meeting therein made it more and more "liturgical"/"churchy"/"institutional" (e.g., Dura Europos) and overlooks the NT evidence for liturgical religiosity (I document this in an essay I wrote). House churches were an entirely pragmatic way for a dispossessed and marginalized religious movement to fulfil its communal basis (cf. Heb 10:24-25), because it'd draw too much attention to themselves to purchase and build on property, but in homes that some people might've owned long before converting to this "cult"? That'd draw less attention. The house church movement entirely overlooks the relevant historical and theological realities that contextualize the secondary passing mentions (i.e., non-mandated) of houses churches in Acts. Meeting in a house church needn't be "egalitarian" or "non-liturgical," and Orthodox house churches can attest to this, they just need to be...in a house.
Well stated, Evan. Thank you. That pretty well sums up my thoughts.
Perhaps Clement is the coin to tip the scales for me as well. I had already made strides towards the episcopate based on Acts, to the contrary of my congregationalist training. I read Clement about 6 months ago for the second time, but not particularly closely. To have a contemporary apostolic era witness may be the nudge over the edge.
Conservative Presbyterian here. :) I see little difference to the governmental structure of the conservative Presbyterian branches and the Anglican. Except with the Anglican it is one man vs the Presbytery. Looking into Anglicanism, it would seem that there would be more important issues at stake when consider it converting. Main ones being the Westminster confession vs whatever confession the Anglicans hold to.
Some interesting reflections. Maybe the issue isn't so much a structural/hierarchical one but the assumption that organic equals democratic, in the sense that there is no active leadership which brought the accountability and doctrinal guard rails that you are concerned are missing? My own reading of the early church and what I believe we should pursue is both radically organic/relational as well as affirming and responsive to the gifts and roles Christ continues to give to his church (Eph 4). This seems to provide a blend of organic flexibility/autonomy as well as a relationally based recognition of leadership/authority with all the benefits that brings...
After reading (and enjoying!) this post, I re-read 1 Clement. It seems to me that Clement uses the terms "bishop" and "presbyter" interchangeably. For example, in the passage you quote from chapter 44, Clement speaks against dismissing good men from "the episcopate", and immediately goes on to speak a blessing on "those presbyters".
I agree heartily, however, that the vision of independent churches that are disconnected, or merely informally connected in terms of their government, is a very different thing from what we see in the New Testament, especially in Acts 15. But I think there is another step to demonstrating that in affirming "the episcopate", Clement was affirming the bishop as an office distinct from, and in some way superior to, that of the presbyter.
For that, you would want St Ignatius of Antioch.
The house church movement is essentially a reversion back to the church impotent when she was just being birthed after Pentecost. Home Churches were the start with a telos to a Cathedral. To glamourize such a Christianity is effeminate and silly.
We moved from the LCMS to the ACNA (in an AngloCatholic diocese) a little over two years ago, after my husband's annual re-examination of the rationality and coherence of his worldview, mainly for reasons of the episcopacy.
It sounds like you're working out questions you have yourself. I'm also Presbyterian, but enjoy visiting other churches while on vacation. I really liked the time we visited an Anglican church. The rector was welcoming and the service, though more liturgical than my denomination, felt familiar. I don't if any one denomination follows the form of the early church perfectly. Sometimes we are called to a church that might be pretty imperfect, but the Lord may want us there for His purposes. Something to prayerfully consider. I don't know how theological that sounds, but I'm a poet, not a theologian!