In Defense of Biblical Churches: A Response to the Critics! by Beresford Job Here, Beresford Job gives a biblical defense of house churches to a friend who challenged him for imitating this and other New Testament patterns in an earlier letter. The name of his friend has been changed to protect his identity. 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 seem old enough to be great-grandparents. I only hope I shall fare as well when the years creep up on me. Lots of cricket and cups of tea, as you always say! That’s the ticket! I can see “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, even at some length. So prepare yourself my old Baptist friend and cover your wicket, I’ve some real hard 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 the Word of God. Now then, that the New Testament churches, as set up by the apostles, were based in houses in just this way no one doubts, but the question is whether or not we ought to be continuing this practise. And 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. In keeping with apostolic teaching, as come down to us in 1 Corinthians, and especially in chapter 14 and verse 26, they firstly had a time of completely participatory worship and sharing together that all were free to partake in, 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. And then secondly they ate a meal together, this being the way they shared the Lord’s Supper, referred to more usually today, and quite erroneously too, as ‘communion’. And of course the point is that given such a set up when they came together, then by definition their way of gathering could only work properly if numbers weren’t too large. And what we see in the New Testament is that churches never moved out of houses into larger public buildings precisely because they never needed the 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 one to get so large that those who comprise it are no longer able to function in the way the Bible shows us they did. In the time of the apostles it is simply the case that there were many, many small churches, tied-in together simply through mutual relationships as brothers and sisters. What 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 personally as the Chief Shepherd. And of course given that in the New Testament the terms shepherd (or pastor) are synonymous with elder and bishop (or overseer), then the simple fact is that Jesus is Himself the senior elder, so to speak, of any church that is biblically set up. So I am not arguing ‘houses for houses sake’, as you put it! That isn’t the point at all! Indeed, as I emphasized in my letter, I don’t actually like or use the terminology of ‘house church’, and much prefer to speak in terms of establishing biblical churches. A group of believers can meet as a church in someone’s house on Sundays and yet still be completely unbiblical in virtually every other respect. No, I am arguing for the complete package, so to speak, and meeting in a house is but one aspect of the larger scriptural blueprint. No, the point I am arguing is that we ought to be comprehensively doing things as revealed in the Bible. And in the New Testament we are presented with the simple fact, whether Christians like it or not, that the apostles set churches up in a definite and singular way. And although I know such an assertion is not popular, I must nevertheless stick by it (biblical truth is a stubborn thing and never ultimately goes away), and challenge our thinking which, in this regard at least, doesn’t tend to let the mere Bible stand in the way of 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 boils down to the simple fact that if churches now are to function in the way the New Testament shows us they did under the apostles, then being house based is, inescapably, the absolute optimum and ideal. And this is indeed what we find the believers doing in the New Testament. And 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 around specially consecrated buildings; and this was true of both Jews and Gentiles. Yet it is fascinating to then discover that an exception to this rule came on the scene in the shape of the Christian Church. They alone had no public buildings in which to meet for their corporate gatherings, though there was not a reason in the world why they shouldn’t have had them like everybody else. Persecution was, for the most part, sporadic, and they had every opportunity to do what was, for everyone else, and for them before becoming believers, the most natural thing in the world - set aside special buildings, however simple and humble, for their corporate gatherings. But they didn’t! And why not? Because the very idea was for them to meet in each others homes, and not simply out of necessity until some later time. Indeed, history tells us that they were actually thought by some to be atheists, and for this precise reason that they had no special building in which their ‘god’ lived. So, the apostles established churches to specifically be 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. And given that Paul emphasises in his writings that apostolic tradition, as passed on by them to the churches from Jesus Himself ,was binding and a command of the Lord, then why on earth would anyone want to do things differently? Yet sadly some church leaders eventually did, and now some of us don’t want to any more. You see, the real problem is that when most churches come together on Sundays they are functioning, albeit with an infinite number of variations, according to the teachings of the early church fathers, the fellows who rather unhelpfully made the changes, and not the New Testament at all. And the contrast is amazing. Churches today aren’t just different from the New Testament ones, they are virtually their opposites. Think about it! The Bible shows that the believers came together as churches in people’s houses on the Lord’s Day for unled, open and spontaneous worship and sharing together, which involved most people present bringing teachings and revelations and the like. Further, they also ate a meal together; indeed, the very Lord’s Meal! (That’s what the Greek literally means, the main meal of the day towards evening!) So what do we do instead? We meet on Sundays (at least we 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 honest, just how in contradiction of the Bible’s teachings we actually are. And of course in such a setting a shared main meal, to say nothing of each person being free to participate, becomes a complete nonsense; which is why the Lord’s Supper was eventually jettisoned in favour of bread and wine services instead. So I see from the Bible that churches should be house based because of what is supposed to happen when they come together; and what better setting is there for participatory worship and sharing and then eating a meal together? And of course no-one who really knows their biblical stuff would challenge that this is indeed the blueprint upon which churches were shaped and formed under the teaching and care of the apostles in New Testament times. So how, my old friend, can you then 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 my contention that we ought to establish churches today in the same way the apostles did is “a legalistic bondage“, and is further “the pride of self-assertiveness hidden behind supposed concerns for the truth“? My understanding of legalism, and do correct me if I am wrong, is that it is the imposition of teachings and practises on believers that aren’t in the Word of God: and in what possible way am I doing that? Biblical scholars of all shades are agreed that the New Testament churches met in the way I am describing, and all I am advocating is that we do things according to the teachings of Jesus and the apostles rather than going along with what the early church fathers later replaced it with. And although 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 doing), is it not also the case that it must, by very definition, be prideful for believers to assume they can better the Lord’s ideas and teachings in any way? Now come along my dear friend, just who is actually being proud here: those who submit to the scriptures, or those who think there is a better way outside of them? Let me put a question to you, and I give you fair warning that I’m going to bowl you a real bouncer now; so get ready to duck! Why do you believe in, and practise, baptism for believers by full immersion in water, as opposed to baptism of anyone, even babies, by, let’s say, sprinkling them with a nice cup of tea? And your answer could only be that it is because baptism of believers, by full immersion, in water, is what we unfailingly see happening 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, it’s simply that this is how we see it happen every time it does happen, and nothing in the Bible would suggest it needed to be changed in some way in the future. Now then, I don’t know of anyone who’s changed the water bit and uses cups of tea, but traditionally millions of believers have, and still do, change just about everything else about baptism. But you are a Baptist, and I know you take the Bible more seriously than to subscribe to such things as baptising babies; but here comes my challenge dear boy, and I insist you think it through carefully. Why not actually just go along with infant baptism? Isn’t it OK that some people baptise babies and other unbelievers, and do so by sprinkling them with water as opposed to immersion? What’s the problem? 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”? I know full well that you would respond by simply 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 someone else - including the early church fathers! And I would agree with you entirely, and I would do so because you are as right about it as anyone could possibly be! So how then is what I’m saying about church, and about how churches ought to be set up, any different? As a Baptist you are fully aware that the biblical practise of baptism was changed and 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 you should, with great fervour. But in exactly the same way that infant baptism, for example, is a complete misunderstanding and mockery of baptism as taught by the Bible, so it is with the way most churches are set up and function and operate as well. The ways of ‘doing church’ that I am challenging are as unbiblical as infant baptism, whilst the way I am advocating that church ought to be ‘done’ is as biblical as believers baptism by full immersion in water. 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 a church ought to be set up and function. I’m just about done now, but before I go let me reassure you concerning the very last point you made. I know you were horrified to discover that there are American believers who are doing what I am advocating as well; but I don’t think that can, on it’s own, establish that it must therefore be some kind of satanic deception. And anyway, I was practising and teaching all this long before I was aware that others were doing likewise across the Atlantic. As you know full well, I got it from the Bible and not from reading other people’s books or anything like that. Indeed, I’d never read any of this in a book anyway. And you know this phobia of yours concerning all things American really can go too far. I am aware that the very worst of most things tend to originate over there, including many supposedly Christian things too, but a country that gave us Tom and Jerry and Star Trek can’t be all bad now, can it? And having moved quite a bit amongst biblical churches across the States 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 they won their War of Independence and aren’t our colonies any longer! And I know they came into the war in Europe a bit late as well, but do try and put these things behind you. And 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 too. 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 go spoiling it all by doing your back in again and ending up in bed for a week. The Lord bless you, in Him, Beresford Job |