House Churches as a True Form of Christian Gatherings

Content

INTRODUCTION

Introduction

The article deals with a biblical justification for the necessity and sufficiency of the house meetings in our Christian gatherings. We would give first a brief historic perspective on house churches. Then, in the second part, we will examine various passages that are relevant for the topic on house churches. This examination will be the most important one, and consequently a long one. These passages are divided in five groups according to their clarity with respect to the relation between the Church and house. The second part will, thus, be divided into five sections according to the type of passages into consideration.

The third and fourth parts are concerned with the leadership and the autonomy of a local church.

The purpose of parts 1 - 4 is to establish the conclusion that the New Testament nowhere speaks about Christian Church buildings as public buildings. Instead we have only reports of house churches, which were private buildings. During the course of establishing the conclusion, we will convey a historic perspective of house churches. For instance, we will clarify the relationship between persecutions and house churches, whether persecutions can explain the fact that there is no mention of public church buildings. In addition, we will deal with the question of leadership and autonomy (independence) of local churches. During the exposition, under part 2, we will offer some arguments for Christian practice of public gatherings in house churches for Worshiping God.

The purpose of parts 5 - 7 is to give a more general argument for house-oriented practice. It is general because it will be based on one general principle, which is called the principle of silence. The principle of silence is our fundamental principle of Worship, observed in our local house churches. This principle can be applied for other biblical examples, and we will briefly consider various problems and objections in the application of the fundamental principle of Worship. At the end, there will be given more clarifications and new arguments for the validity of the fundamental principle. What this principle is about will be a prominent theme of parts 5 - 7.

What should be clear is that we do not merely argue for house churches in the sense that there is nothing wrong to gather at house churches. No, our claim is much stronger. We namely say that gatherings at public buildings for Worshiping God, in the form of established Church buildings, should not be practiced by genuine Christians. Such practice, is rightfully entitled as temple-oriented practice , and we urge all genuine followers of Christ to abandon the temple-oriented practice.

Many Christian would agree that there is nothing wrong with house-oriented Church practice. However, they would not be against a temple-oriented practice. In fact, many Christians are quite indifferent towards this issue. What we try to show is that a temple-oriented practice should be rejected on the basis that it is not a practice modeled on the New Testament public Christian Worship.
[ Return to the top ]

1. Some Historic Considerations

There is one great truth taught in the New Testament but which is shockingly ignored and unbelievably underestimated. The truth we are talking about is so great because of its importance for the Church growth. The truth is about the significance of the historical fact that Christians, in the apostolic period (the 1st century), only gathered at house churches, where breaking the bread and worshipping God was performed. It is noteworthy that Christians in the first three centuries did not know about church buildings. After the union of "Church" and State, during the reign of Constantine, Christians began to gather in public church buildings. Those church buildings were usually pagan temples that were transformed into "Christian" style and taste. Unfortunately this form of "Christian" gatherings has dominated almost two thousand years after Constantine, and has also infected genuine followers of Christ. Under the reign of Constantine, the Roman Catholic "Church" was born. This "Church" had a great influence in creating false notions about Church, priesthood, bishops, breaking the bread, salvation, worship, etc. Catholic conceptions about the Church and leadership have also influenced the Protestant leaders during the reformation. In their turn Protestant leaders have influenced free evangelical churches.

We have to remind you of the fact that Protestantism is not much better than Roman Catholicism. Other Christian groups who were against the union between the Church and State, who were against infant baptism, who were against ritualism in the worship, who didn't believe that baptism and dead faith could save, were heavily persecuted not only by Roman Catholics, but also by Protestants. Protestantism originated from Roman Catholicism as a protest towards some of the Catholic teachings. Notice that it is said " some ," because it was not so radical in it's protest as of those Genuine Christian groups existing before the Reformation, as Anabaptists . There were many groups of Christians existing before the Reformation, and they were known under various names. Unfortunately, we do not know so much about them, since they were characterized as heretics by the Roman Catholic Church. However, we can plausibly assume that they were gathered in house churches, especially in the light of the heavy persecutions. It is a known phenomenon, in the history and development of any branch of Church, that Christians gather in house churches when there are heavy persecutions. Compare Baptists and Pentecostals in the former USSR (Russia) and China, when there were heavy persecutions. We know for instance that Anabaptists were gathered in house churches. It could be also plausibly assumed that Anabaptists were influenced by other groups of Christians existing before 1000 AD, as for instance Donatists. This assumption is more explained in the very short article called " Some historic facts ."

These Christian groups were more radical in their protests against the Roman Catholic Church. In our opinion, to be a Protestant is not identical with being a genuine follower of Christ. Calvin and Luther were mere Protestants, and it is highly questionable if they were really following Christ and Christ's True Teaching (like separation between the Church and State, not to persecute other people, not to perform false ritualism in the Worship, etc.). Unfortunately the Protestant influence is so great among free evangelical churches because their local churches are not house churches.
[ Return to the top ]

2. Groups of Biblical Passages Relevant for the Topic

Why do we consider the point of houses churches as important? Is not the question about the form of Christian gathering simply a matter of decision made by the local church?

One principle for evaluation of certain practice concerning Worshiping our Lord is the principle of biblical examples. We believe that the principle is fundamentally important for our Christian practice. This principle is also relevant in our discussion about the issue of house churches. It will be shown that the only examples of Christian gatherings are examples of house churches. There are indeed many passages from the New Testament about house churches. These passages give us historical report how the first Christian gathered. They were gathered in private house meetings, where they had their service and worship. We have five groups of passages telling us about the relation between the church and the house. They are divided into five groups according to their clarity with the regard to the relation between the church and the house.

The first group:
Ro 16:5 Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Salute my wellbeloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia unto Christ.
1Co 16:19 The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house.
Col 4:15 Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his house.
Phm 1:2 And to our beloved Apphia, and Archippus our fellowsoldier, and to the church in thy house.
[ Exposition of the first group ]

The second group:
Ac 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
Ac 2:46 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,
Ac 2:47 Praising God, and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.
[ Exposition of the second group ]

The third group:
Ac 8:3 As for Saul, he made havoc of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison.
[ Exposition of the third group ]

The fourth group:
Ac 7:47 But Solomon built him an house.
Ac 7:48 Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet,
Ac 7:49 Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest?
Ac 7:50 Hath not my hand made all these things?
Ac 7:51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.
[ Exposition of the fourth group ]

The fifth group:
1Co 1:11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
1Co 1:16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
1Co 16:15 I beseech you, brethren, (ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints).
2Ti 1:16 The Lord give mercy unto the house of Onesiphorus; for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain.
2Ti 4:19 Salute Prisca and Aquila, and the household of Onesiphorus.
[ Exposition of the fifth group ]

[ Return to the top ]

The Exposition of the First Group

In the first group it is most clearly shown that the Christians of the apostolic period had their Church meetings in private houses, where they had public service. It also seems that these houses belonged to persons who were well respected among the first Christians. House churches were private houses chosen with care. It was a privilege to have a church in its own home. At least you were a respected person and were among the elders. We will return to this question of privilege when dealing generally about the leadership in Church.
[ Return to the top ]

The Exposition of the Second Group

The second group tells about the first Christians in Jerusalem. We know that there were more than three thousands Christians (see verses 41 and 47). Though they were in the Temple, they did break the bread in houses . The most holy action in the Christian meeting, namely the communion in Lord's supper, was performed in private houses . Notice that they were not in one house but in many houses, ("and breaking bread from house to house ," v 46).

But could they not build one big public building and have their special church meetings there, so that they could be gathered all together? Someone would say that it was not necessary for them to build a big church building in Jerusalem since there were already one Temple. We read that they were also gathered in the Temple. In the same vein it is said that the Temple had precisely this role enabling Christians to be all together. This line of reasoning is totally wrong, for following reasons.

The Temple was not a Christian building but a Judaistic religious center of that time. Christian special meetings were not in the Temple on Saturdays but in private homes on Sundays, (cf. Acts 20:7, 1 Cor 16:2). The supreme head of the Temple was not Jesus but Caiphas, who was the high priest at that time in Judea. The Temple in Jerusalem was not the Church because of the obvious fact that Jesus was not the head of the Judaistic religious body. However, the Church is Christ's Body on the Earth, where He is the Head over it, and we are members of His Body.

First Christians were in the Temple because they wanted to win other Jews for their faith. The most significant fact is that they chose to be gathered in houses and not to build a large building. Nothing hindered them to build one large building where they could be gathered together. They had enough money for such project and there were no divisions between them. Furthermore, it is not so clear that the first persecutions happened immediately. If there were no immediate persecutions then they could be gathered in large public buildings if that was their wish. But they did not. However, for the sake of argument, we will grant the assumption that persecutions of first Jewish Christians by Judaists happened immediately. The problem with the assumption is that it ignores the case of Gentile churches. The first heavy persecutions did not affect Gentile Christians. Only Jewish Christians were persecuted but not Gentile Christians. Gentile Christians could, if that was their wish, to be gathered in large public buildings. They did not. The only form of church among Gentile Christians were house churches.

There were not yet persecutions of Gentile Christians during writing of Acts and other Scriptures of the New Testament. We read that Jewish Christians became persecuted by Judaists, namely Jews who rejected Jesus' Messiahship. Roman officials were quite tolerant towards Christian religion. We read that Paul was preaching before great Roman officials as Agripa and Festus. Furthermore, we read that both Agripa and Festus even protected Paul's life from Judaists (Acts. 25). Thus, we do not have reports in the New Testament about serious persecutions of Gentile Christians. However, it is an established historical fact that the first reported persecution of Gentile Christians started in AD 64, during the emperor Nero. How serious was it?

In AD 64 a fire destroyed much of Rome; the emperor Nero killed a "vast multitude" of Christians as scapegoats. For the first time, Rome was conscious that Christians were distinct from Jews. But there was no formal senatorial enactment proscribing Christianity at this time. Nero's persecution was local and short.

The profession of Christianity was defined as a capital crime, in AD 111, and not during the 1st century. The governor of Bithynia in AD 111, the younger Pliny, told the emperor Trajan that to his surprise he discovered the Christians to be guilty of no vice, only of obstinacy and superstition. Nevertheless, he executed without a qualm those who refused to apostatize.

Early persecutions were sporadic, caused by local conditions and depending on the attitude of the governor. At any time in the 2nd or 3rd centuries, Christians could find themselves the object of unpleasant attention. A pogrom could be precipitated by a bad harvest, a barbarian attack, or a public festival of the emperor cult. Yet , long periods of peace occurred.

In 248-250, when Germanic tribes threatened the empire, popular hostility culminated in the persecution under the emperor Decius (reigned 249-251): by edict all citizens were required to offer sacrifice and to obtain from commissioners a certificate witnessing to the act. Many of these certificates have survived. The requirement created an issue of conscience, especially because certificates could be bought by bribes. Under renewed attack (257-259), the great bishop-theologian Cyprian of Carthage was martyred. The persecuting emperor Valerian, however, became a Persian prisoner of war, and his son Gallienus issued an edict of toleration restoring confiscated churches and cemeteries. The church prospered from 261 to 303, but the empire suffered external attack, internal sedition, and rampant inflation. So, Christians had 40 years of peace. But during that period there are no reports about public Church buildings.

In February 303 the worst of all persecutions erupted under the co-emperors Diocletian and Galerius. The persecutions ended and peace was reached with the Edict of Milan, a manifesto of toleration issued in 313 by the joint emperors Licinius and his Christian colleague Constantine.

Therefore, the usual explanation for the existence of house churches, namely the explanation appealing to heavy persecutions of Christians, is not a good one. First Gentile Christians could gather at large public meetings during the 1st century, but we do not have any report from the New Testament that they gathered so. We only read about house churches. Why is the whole New Testament so silent about one practice that dominated 1700 years in the Church history? Is this not a peculiar thing to think about? It is very peculiar that in the Apostolic period, where Apostles were still active, Christians did not gathered in public Church buildings, if it is really a case that public Church buildings are to be preferred. It is clear that Apostles had other preferences than what majority of Christians held throughout 1700 years of Christian history. Obviously, Apostles preferred rather house churches.

An interesting observation with verses of the second group is that the first Christians "did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart" (v 46). The point is this: even if they were so many there was no division among them. Even if they were so many you did not feel lonely in such large fellowship. The fact is that in the large fellowships individuals tend to be isolated and lonely. This was not the case with the first Christians in Jerusalem. They were of "singleness of heart." They regarded each other as members of one single family. How was this possible?

It was possible precisely because of the manner how they gathered together. They were gathered in the homely atmospheres of the house churches, about 10 to 40 individuals together, depending on the size of the house. Houses on that time were usually small, not as our modern houses. In such homely atmospheres there was a single-mindedness in one brotherly love, as members of one family love each other. In such homely atmospheres there was also a holy atmosphere, filled with the order. They prayed together, someone taught or preached the word of God, they sang and praised the Lord, supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit were manifested. Most importantly, the Communion in the Lord's supper, in the remembrance of what our beloved Lord did for us, were performed in a homely atmosphere of house churches.

There were at least one hundred such small house churches, interconnected with each other in one living organism. Truly, the Church in the Jerusalem was not one organization but an organism , a living body of our Lord Jesus Christ. If one house church exceeded their limit due to the constraints of the space, then there was formed a new house church. It was so simple! This fact leads us to the next observation.

The next observation in dealing with the verses of the second group is that "the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved." The Church of the first century was an expanding church, in spite of the lack of the modern infrastructure. How was that possible? The great factor in the expansion of the Church was namely the form of their gatherings, which were featured with one family consciousness. They regarded each other as members of one single family, like brothers and sisters. Remember what our Lord did say in His prayer: "Neither pray I for these alone [for apostles] but for them also which shall believe on me through their word. That they all may be one ; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me " (John 17:20-21). People who were first time in Christian meetings were attracted by the quality of the Christian fellowship. We strongly believe that large meetings can never produce such peculiar homely atmosphere where every member knows each other with a perfect familiarity . They were truly one in the Spirit.

The expansion of the Church and the quality of the Christian fellowship were interrelated through the praxis of the house churches. Christendom expanded with a hyper exponential growth in the first three centuries. This expansion was featured by an important element; namely there was a freedom involved in the conversion to Christianity. Many men and women became converted through their own free choice, in spite of the danger of persecution. This was not the case after the third century, when people were forced to accept the "Christian" faith. It was first after the third century that Christians began to be gathered together in large buildings. They began to be called "Catholics." But not all Christian accepted the new Catholic praxis, as it was the case with Donatists. If you were accustomed to be gathered in house churches, would you gladly accept to be gathered in some large building were some official appointed priest led the meeting? Certainly not! There were many those who refused and were persecuted by the new State religion. Because of the persecution they had to flee out of the cities.
[ Return to the top ]

The Exposition of the Third Group

In the third group we read only one verse: "he made havoc of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison." Here we do read how Paul "made havoc of the church," by entering into every Christian house. Why did he do that? From the first two expositions, we can see more clearly the answer. It is because he knew that many Christian houses were house churches, where Christians together worshiped daily our Lord. In this verse it is indicated that there is some relation between the Church and Christian houses.

The only way to destroy the Church of that time, "to made havoc of the church," was to destroy house churches, since church-houses were the only form of the local Christian gatherings.
[ Return to the top ]

The Exposition of the Fourth Group

To repeat, it was not so easy for the Catholics to transform the three century aged house-oriented praxis into the temple-oriented praxis. The proponents for the Catholic Institution had to convince other Christians that their praxis was correct and blessed by God. Only way to convince other Christians was to apply the Old Testament teachings about the priesthood, rituals etc. This had leaded the Catholic Church to renew the Old Testament ritualism, to build new temples, to create a new order of priests, etc.

The fourth group of the verses deals precisely with this Catholic idea of the Old Testament ritualism. We read that Stephen criticize Jews for their understanding of the Temple and the ritualism connected to the Old Testament way of worshipping God. The center of the Judaism was the Temple in Jerusalem. Jews did not understand that the Temple is just one Old Testament picture of Jesus' body, which is His Church. We are the Temple, as His Church here on the Earth, (cf. 1 Cor. 3:9, 2 Cor. 3:3, Eph. 2:19-22, Heb. 9:11).

It is interesting that immediately after his critic against the idea that God is living in a building made of the stones, he is saying to them:

"Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye."

The above verse is the transition to the second theme in Stephen's speech. Namely, Jews did kill the prophets. From Stephen's speech, we infer that there were two reasons why unbelieving Jews were "stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears":

1. their confidence on the Old Testamentary ritualism with the Temple in the center of their cult
2. their persecution of the true prophets of God.

People tend to build large buildings because they believe that a large building is the sign of their greatness. This tendency is not so new. It was known already in the days of the Tower of Babel. Instead of trusting in God, people trust in the greatness of the size of their gatherings. Small gatherings are the key for the Church growth.
[ Return to the top ]

The Exposition of the Fifth Group

The fifth group does not clearly teach that the true form of Christian gatherings are house churches. Nevertheless, they are significant because of its plausible possibility, seen in the light of our previous four expositions. In the light of the previous clear groups of verses, we can plausibly assume that houses belonging to Chloe, Stephanas and Onesiphorus were also house churches.

Why should it be so significant that it was contentions among those of the house of Chloe, if that house was not one house church?

Stephanas house was the first Christian house of Achaia, and the family of that house "addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints." As the first house with such dedicated family "to the ministry of the saints," it is highly plausible to believe that Stephanas house was a house church.

Onesiphorus household was mentioned with Prisca's and Aquila's names, two already familiar persons who had a church in their home, as seen from the first group of verses. Therefore, it is plausible to assume that Onesiphorus house was a house church as well.
[ Return to the top ]

3. The Leadership in the Church

To repeat, first Christians were gathered in house churches, and one city could have many such small house churches. But all those house churches were one body in the city where they lived, one church as an organism. It was not a coincidence that they were gathered in house churches. In a house church, which were in the home of some bishop, the atmosphere were dominated by agape. Agape is divine love manifested in the personal fellowship and feeling that we are one family, brothers and sisters in the Lamb. The experience of belonging to each other as a family, as a brotherhood, is the fundamental building stone for the Church growth.

To have such a church in its own house was a great privilege. We read that house churches belonged to persons who were respected and well known. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that house churches were houses that were chosen with care. At least person who owned the house were a respected person and were among the elders of the city.

There are two reasons supporting our assumption that house churches belonged to respected, experienced Christians, who were among elders.

First, house churches were considered to belong not only to the person who owned privately the house. In some sense , all brothers and sisters in Christ shared the house. In what sense? It was shared through a personal fellowship, where members acted as people belonging to a family. It was not impersonal sharing, as it can be a case when sharing a public house. No, rather it was a sharing of something familiar, belonging to family. It involved personal fellowship. All house churches in the city were the Church of the city. Consequently, all house churches belonged to the whole body of believers. But would not a house church become a public house after all, since it belonged to the people of God, where people met and had fellowship? Yes, it would become some kind of a public house, but not in one important sense of public houses. Which aspect of public house was avoided? What was avoided was to make a sacrament out of the place of worship. What was avoided was the danger of sacralizing places of worship. House churches were private houses where mundane activities took place, where one family lived, where children were raised, etc. Because of being a private place, it was not possible of being a house becoming sacral. Since a great variety of mundane activities took place in the private house, it could not become a house that was strictly used only for public services exclusively dedicated for God. But the point is that a person, who privately owned a house where church meetings took place, had to serve members of his local house church. It required an unselfish attitude, so that fellowship, sharing and love were possible. In order to have such unselfish attitude, the owner of the house, where Christian public Service took place, had to have a great measure of maturity and experience in the Christian faith. His house was the place where the spirit of fellowship and sharing was nurtured. His house, through the spirit of sharing, belonged to brothers and sisters in Christ. In other words, the house belonged to the kingdom of God. The evidence of owner's unselfish attitude can obviously be seen already in the first four chapters of Acts, where we read that the first Christians shared everything. The point is that the unselfish attitude required a noble dedication "to the ministry of the saints," with great sacrifices and genuine love.

Second, many of those houses were visited daily by Christians of the city, apart from their public meetings. The host of the house had to have some qualities in meeting people, helping them, guiding them, etc. The host of a house church had many duties and responsibilities. He had a daily contact with Christians, and through such contacts served them, expressing care and love of Christ through counseling, spiritual sensitivity and care. He was a person who had wisdom and understanding of God's words and God's will. Through his wisdom, he was spiritually sensitive concerning the doctrine, and he could meet people with different beliefs, talking to them, guiding them, helping them. In the virtue of all these responsibilities and duties, he had a special role and place in the Body of Christ, making him respected and well known among followers of Christ in the city.

Thus, it is reasonably to assume that houses, where Christian public service occurred, belonged to respected brothers, and in the virtue of this natural respect they were simply elders or overseers. The word "bishop" from Greek "episkope", means precisely an overseer, who takes care of various spiritual needs in the body of Christian believers. We are of the opinion that there were no practical differences between bishops and elders. The difference in these two terms are just the difference in emphasizing different functions/ qualities of the one and same person who had great responsibilities to serve children of God.

From now on, everywhere the term "elder" is used, it should be understood synonymously with the term " bishop ", and vice versa . These two terms will be used synonymously, treating them with the same meaning.

It should be noted that persons who did not own a house, where Christian public service took place, could also be among elders. It should not be implied that all elders were only those who had church in their house. Far from it. An elder could be a poor person, not possessing anything, but who had a great wisdom in our Lord, who had a gift of teaching, preaching or even prophesying. Nevertheless, we can be sure that every person who had church in their homes was among elders, and we shall speak of those elders only.

There was not one bishop in a city. On the contrary, one city could have 50 church-houses, and therefore there would have been 50 bishops in the city. One house could count about 10 to 40 members, led by the bishop who owned his house. If one church house became too large in it's development then it was ready to form a new house church with a new bishop. So simply was it!

A bishop was an overseer, and was caring for the guidance of the church by the right doctrine. He was also a pastor because he cared for the souls of those gathered in his house. He was truly a servant to those who was gathered in his house. "He who wants to be first has to be last." In such spirit it was very difficult to have a struggle for leadership and power. Unfortunately, there were also those who perverted such order, and developed the Roman Catholic system of churches, with the perverted meaning of the word bishop. A bishop was a person with good character traits; a man who was married to one woman and who had a family in an established home, (1 Tim 3). We understand why it was so naturally that a bishop was married. The reason for this was a simple one: he had a home where Christians could be gathered and worship God. This understanding of the word "bishop" is totally different from the Catholic notion, which is a worldly copy of the power struggle for leadership.

With this ecclesiological perspective of the Church, we can observe that we do not need to be bothered about all economical worries that is typically connected for a congregational style of large church buildings. Our offered perspective is really a simple way for the growth of the church in an atmosphere of agape. Still, we could ask ourselves: why shouldn't we gather in larger assemblies?

First, it is not forbidden for Christians to gather in larger assemblies, as long as the meeting place, usually in one public house, does not become sacral, used restrictively for this purpose.

Second, it is sometimes good from time to time to be gathered all together. It is a great experience of belonging to a great family. It is very encouraging for the spiritual growth. However, there is a danger of being in a large assembly, where there is a great mass of people, because of susceptibility to mass emotions. We should not use mass manipulations in our evangelizing, as it is seen in great religious campaigns. Rather, we should let the Holy Spirit to work in a personal way.

In any case, an established pattern and practice of gatherings in large assemblies have a great tendency to be impersonalized fellowships, with no experience that we are family in the Kingdom of God. Furthermore, the congregational form of the church is often accompanied by some conceptions of the leadership in the church, which are of centralistic nature. An extreme form is the Roman Catholic system. Other Protestant Churches have inherited some Roman elements, (as infant baptism, ritualistic manner in the ministry, etc), that also pertains to the conception of leadership and authority.

There is only one who is the head of the Church, namely Jesus Christ. All we are members of His body. No man has an apostolic authority in the church (e.g. the Pope in the Roman Catholic Church), and only the Bible is our Supreme Authority. We are all priests unto God, (cf. Rev 1:6 and 5:10). But we have different talents and ministries. Some are good in evangelizations, some in mission, some as teachers, some as counselors, etc. Some are bishops. Some bishops are good teachers, but some are good counselors.

We recognize many talents and functions of each member in the Church. However, there are two important functions pertaining to the leadership in the Church. There are bishops and missionaries. The bishop or pastor is the one who is an overseer of a local house church , (there can be more than one bishop overseeing one local house church; there can be bishops without having a house church). The function of the ministry of a bishop should not be mixed with worldly connotations. He is spiritually serving a home where the Worship occurs. Usually, it is by natural and practical circumstances that someone becomes a bishop. If someone regularly has church meetings in his home then naturally we would regard him to be a bishop.

There can be many bishops in the same town. They are not missionaries. However, if there are many local house churches in the town, then all these churches are the Church of the city. If the Church of the city is strong and big enough then it can send missionaries to other cities. Local house churches would and should economically support these missionaries. Bishops should otherwise be economically independent persons, who have some income from a secular profession. However, this would be decided autonomously by the local church. If the local church want to support economically their bishop then they are free to do so.

We make distinctions between missioners and bishops. A missionary builds new churches but does not belong locally to them, since a missionary travels. A missionary let the people in the town, who believed in his message, have the responsibility for the further development of the Church in the city. A bishop is not a traveling missionary. He is an overseer for the Christians belonging to his local church. Both bishops and missionaries have the same authority. Bishops are not more privileged in the authority than missionaries and vice versa. The only exception of this rule was in the Apostolic period. Apostles on those days were also missionaries, but a special kind of missionaries. An apostle of Christ was a Prime Witness of Jesus' Resurrection. The necessary condition for a person to be an apostle of Jesus was that the person had seen the Bodily Resurrected Jesus in order to give the Prime Testimony for the truthfulness of our fundamental Christian belief. They were also a special kind of messengers who was sent and appointed by Jesus Himself, or they were appointed by an another apostle provided that certain conditions were fulfilled. The apostle had the authority of the one who sent him. Please read more about it in the section of an another article dealing with the ministry of the Apostle. Only these kind of missionaries had the highest authority in the Church. Nowadays we do not have such kind of missionaries.
[ Return to the top ]

4. The Autonomy of the Local House Church

To repeat one of our observations: There could be more than 5000 followers of Christ. Recall that on the day of the Pentecost, 3000 souls believed in Peter's preaching and became Christians. In spite of the large number of Christians in one city, they were gathered in many small houses. Now with this perspective of House-churches, we get a clear picture of one Church that was a great body spread in many small house churches like members of the body, united through one living Spirit by holding to the true doctrine and growing in brotherly love to one another.

Every local church, which is a house-church in some part of the city, is united with other churches like members are united in one body. There is no elected centralistic governing body of the Church, elected by men, so every church is autonomous as one member is independent of another member with the respect to its role in the body. The birth of a new local church does not need to be developed by some another (older) local church. It does not need to have some mother church from which is developed. A new local church can be independently born in some city by people who were led solely by the Holy Spirit, people who realized the important truth of House Churches. Reading the Bible and Gospels alone can save people. It is possible that people who became saved in such a way, independently of being in contact with other Christians, can also independently come to an understanding, by reading the New Testament, that Churches of Christ are House Churches. Let us think about the following situation.

Imagine a man who had never been in contact with any Christian. Assume further that he had never seen some church building. He is living in some part of China, for instance. Imagine further that he gets the New Testament and began to believe in the Gospel accounts of Jesus' life. He started to believe in Jesus, and so became saved. He begins to witness for other people about Jesus. We can imagine that some people became convinced by his testimony. What do you think, how would they gather in their meetings? They would certainly gather in house churches. Would they start to build some church building, if they never had the conception of church buildings? I doubt it. In fact, they would be skeptical towards such conception, since it would resemble the temples of their Buddhist traditions. They would instead study the New Testament and observe that Christians in the 1st century were gathered in many houses in the same city.

The autonomy of the local church is not absolute, because members of the body are also interdependent between each other in that they need to be belonged to the body. This interconnectedness is so natural in the True Church that it is not necessary to develop some hierarchical and centralized organization that will resemble an organism. Members of the True Church know the voice of their Lord, they can recognize the soundness of the doctrine by reading and studying the Bible, our only Supreme Authority. Only Jesus is our way, truth and life - only by Him alone we can come to our Father, by respecting His words which are written in the Bible. A person who does not follow Christ is not one of us. Our aim is to win such a person in love, that he/she can recognize the Truth. Unfortunately, many Christians are speaking about love with no care for the Truth. This characterless love is not agape. We should rather love in truth. Therefore, our concluding words of this section will be words of the Apostle John, "My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth." (1 John 3:18)
[ Return to the top ]

5. Significance of Biblical Examples

What we have established during our exposition is that the New Testament gives us only examples of house churches, but not of large public buildings that served as churches. Nevertheless, why should these examples be compelling paradigm for our local gatherings? Is it not the matter of local churches how they wish to gather? Are we not free to gather at public meetings, where we could worship our Lord.

I do not think so. Here follows my arguments why many of biblical examples should be respected and followed. Our insistence on gathering only in house churches stem from one more general principle, namely the principle of biblical examples. So, what follows would not be only applied to examples concerning house churches, but also to other issues concerning our Christian practice. We wish to understand why biblical examples have enormous significance for our doctrine and practice.

When we talk about biblical examples, then the reader should note that we do not say that we should follow every kind of biblical examples. There are two types of examples which can be safely ignored.

First type of examples pertains to mere mundane things, things not concerned with the service exclusively dedicated for worshiping Lord. We are not concerned with biblical examples that give us report of daily mundane life, but only concerned with examples pertaining to the Worship of our Lord. What many Christians do is to confuse these two areas of our life. It is certainly true that in everything we do should be motivated by our love towards our Lord. However, our mundane activities are not Worship. Worshiping our God is a holy thing, a separate thing, which is exclusively devoted to Him. If we are, for instance, at some wedding party then we are not there to celebrate God. Confusing these two things could be dangerous. We can come in danger to introduce new things in the Worship. We are free to enjoy music and play musical instruments, and at wedding parties it is quite appropriate to do so. However, we should not introduce music instruments in our Worship. Nowhere in the New Testament have we evidence that Christians used music instruments at their Worship. Music instruments were part of the ritual Mosaic Law and had strict regulations in the Old Testament Worship of God. Music instruments in the Ritualistic Liturgy of the Roman Catholic Church were introduced about 1000 A.D.. However, it was a subject of great controversy. The safe thing to do is to avoid it in our Worship.

Second type of examples concerns all things pertaining to Worship and Service exclusively dedicated for our Lord, but which we do not follow because there are clear instructions from the Bible that they were either (1) belonging to some obsolte part of a law, for instance of the Mosaic Law, valid only under old Covenants between Mankind and God, or (2) that we are free regarding them. In the second case, we can follow them if we wish, but it is not obligatory. For instance, there is nothing wrong in observing Sabbath. But we are not required to observe it. Paul is quite clear on this point:

What we are concerned with are examples concerning Worship of our Lord, but where there is no clear instruction that these examples should be ignored. Why are they so important if there are no clear instructions of ignoring them? This question is the central question of the whole article, and the rest of this paper will dwell on this important question.

From now on we are only concerned with biblical examples concerning our Worship, and where there is no clear instruction that these examples should be ignored.

The most significant feature of such biblical examples is that they serve one important function in avoiding to introduce new elements in the Worship which might be alien to God's will. By observing how Christians in the 1st century were gathered, I can be assured that God approved their practice of house meetings, and thus not be worried whether house meetings are according to God's will. However, I do not have the same assurance when concerned about the meetings in established public buildings. If the New Testament is silent of the Christian public service in public buildings, then I take it as a sign that we should not build church buildings, or make of some already public building into a church building. Can we be 100% sure that God approves of gatherings at church buildings? If not, then we ought not to do it, so that we can avoid the danger of introducing new elements in the Worship, alien to God's will. Thus, ought not the report of their practice of house churches serve as an example to follow? Are they just written for the sake of historic curiosity?

Furthermore, we should ask ourselves about the historic origin of meetings at church buildings, since there is no report of Christian church buildings in the New Testament. Such form of public meetings is highly suspect in the light of how it was introduced among Christians. It was introduced as a design for strengthening the union of "Church" and State during the reign of Constantine. Let us again recall what was said in the first section of our article.

In the light of the above historic perspective coupled with no biblical evidence for church buildings, should we continue to gather in public buildings? I believe that we should not, especially in the face of biblical reports that clearly speak of house churches.
[ Return to the top ]

6. Possible Objections and Answers

Let us consider some objections towards our understanding in importance of biblical examples, especially examples of house churches.

But do we make a sacrament out of the place of worship by simply gathering in the homely atmosphere of our brother's house? I don't see how is this possible, when such house is used for numerous domestic activities, which are quite of mundane nature. It is precisely for avoiding the danger of sacralizing places of worship, so that we perform public service at private house meetings.

What do we understand with the term "sacramentizing practices"? It might be that we put different notions around this expression, and therefore have a disagreement concerning the practice of church buildings. I understand the term in a following way: a recognition of a certain activity as serious and holy for our relation towards God. So understood, our gatherings, preaching, baptism, communion in Lord's supper, reading the Bible, praying, etc., are holy activities. In this sense, there is nothing wrong with sacramentizing some practice.

The crucial point is that we should not put a wrong activity as a holy one. For instance, worshiping idols, or regarding material objects, buildings or places as holy objects are clearly unbiblical.

Some activities are holy in the virtue that they are separated from mundane secular concerns, and are exclusively related to our relation towards God. The word "sacral" is simply another word for "holy."

I rather see some public building used exclusively for worshiping God as a form of sacralizing places, making some place as holy. Such attitude is clearly wrong.

How is it possible to make a sacrament of the place of worship by simply gathering in the homely atmosphere of our brother's house? Perhaps one answer might be: we attribute a special significance to the form of our Worship. But there is nothing wrong in attributing a significance towards a form of Worship as long as this form is approved from the Bible. More importantly, it is not the point of sacralizing a place of worship, but rather sacralizing one form of activity . There is nothing wrong in recognizing a certain activity as holy as long this activity is recognized as holy. Consider baptism and holy communion in Lord's Supper. These two activities are indeed holy activities, and we will talk about them a little bit later.

Any activity has a form and content. Both are equally important. And it might be here that many would disagree. Someone perhaps think that only the content of the Worship is important and that the form of the Worship can be safely ignored. If we adopt such attitude then we can end as extreme Charismatics, who sincerely worship and love God in content only. But are their form of Worship correct? The same applies for Catholics, Lutherans and Methodists. For instance, we might ignore the form of baptism and consequently approve of the infant baptism, or having adult baptism without immersion in water; and such practices are clearly unbiblical.

OBJECTION 3

You make a big assumption when you assume that they met in houses out of conviction.

I do not make any such assumption. I do not say anything about their reasons for gathering at houses. It might be the case that they had such conviction, but it is not for this reason for being suspicious towards the practice of gathering in public buildings, since I honestly cannot know the underlying motive behind their practice. It may be the case that they were not against gatherings at public meetings, but I do not know it as a fact. Since I do not know it, I would be very careful of not making any assumptions which would introduce new elements in the Worship that might be alien to God's will.

So, it might be the case that they were not against church buildings, but can we be so sure about it? Equally, I do not know what kind of convictions they had concerning church houses. But what I do know as a certain fact is that they had their Service and Worship in house churches. On this basis, I can have a full assurance that God approves of our meetings in our brethren private houses.

My attitude concerning church buildings stems from my uncertainty. And the principle, we should follow, concerning the Worship is that we ought not engage in a practice where we do not have a complete assurance of God's will. If we have a minimal doubt concerning a certain practice of Worship then we should not engage in it. What is not commanded should not be introduced, and this principle applies only to the matters of service and worship of God. This would be more explained at the end of this post.

OBJECTION 4

The Bible gives us as Christians many directives, ordinances, commands to follow. Think about communion, baptism, headship veiling. But we're never given explicit directives on how to practice them.
Start with Communion, leavened or unleavened bread?
Grape juice or wine?
Does it matter?
If we say it matters then we are making a sacrament out of it, putting merit on the physical item and not what it represents.
I believe the Bible is intentionally silent on the particulars so that we don't get caught up in that.

First let us consider your first part of the objection:

The Bible gives us as Christians many directives, ordinances, commands to follow. Think about communion, baptism, headship veiling. But we're never given explicit directives on how to practice them.

I might agree that there is a certain lack of explicit directives concerning communion, baptism and headship veiling. However, this would not imply that there are no implicit given directives, directives that were implicitly understood. How do we understand an implicit meaning of some biblical expression? By studying how relevant expressions are used in the Bible, their usage context, to observe the practice behind biblical expressions. By doing so, we can attain a greater understanding of these practices that would leave a few uncertainties. Meaning of the words or expressions are determined by their usage and not necessarily of explicit definitions Explicit definitions are found usually in dictionaries. However, it is basically through the usage and practice that we understand the meanings of our words, and in such a way meanings of words are implicitly given. Therefore, the biblical examples are worth to be studied in any serious bible study.

Let me repeat the whole point of the previous paragraph:

It is basically through the usage and practice that the meanings of our words are implicitly given. Therefore, the biblical examples are worth to be studied in any serious bible study.

We can never give a full meaning of our terms and expression only by explicit definitions. We must also consider how these terms and expressions are used . It is basically through a practice and examples that we understand our language. Through the study of biblical examples, we attain a greater understanding of the meaning of biblical terms and expressions. It is through the study of the examples that Greek and Hebrew scholars have determined meaning of a great variety of biblical expressions, and also studied how these expressions were used in daily life by comparing other works outside the Bible.

Let us now answer some of above specific questions without providing rigorous justification for my answers.

Leavened or unleavened bread? Our answer is: unleavened bread. Observe the first Lord's Supper, at the institution of Communion. It was instituted at the Jewish Passover, and we know that bread were unleavened.

Grape juice or wine? Our answer is: wine. Do we ever say of grape juice that it is wine? Also, the Bible does not condemn drinking "strong drinks" as long as we drink in moderate measure. For instance, a passage where both wine and strong drink are mentioned, and where it is clearly accepted in God's sight, is the passage where God in fact instructs us to rejoice in "strong drinks."

We see clearly that God has nothing against fermented wine, since the term is coupled with the expression "strong drink." However, this passage does not contradict with other passages where both wine and strong drink are abhorrent in God's sight. Reading all these passages, there is always a tacit understanding that we should not abuse in our drinking, to be intoxicated and drunk.

We see clearly from all these passages, that the term "wine" means fermented drink, where both aspects of wine, its positive and negative sides are described. These two aspects of wine, its use and its abuse, its benefits and its curse, its acceptance in God's sight and its abhorrence, are interwoven into the fabric of the whole Bible so that it may gladden the heart of man (Ps. 104:15) or cause his mind to err (Is. 28:7), it can be associated with merriment (Ec. 10:19) or with anger (Is. 5:11), it can be used to uncover shame of Noah (Gen 9:21) or in the hands of Melchisedek to honor Abraham (Gen 14:18).

Hebrew terms used in above examples are yayin , translated as "wine" and sekar , translated as strong drink. These terms are frequently used together, and they are employed irrespective of whether the writer is commending wine and strong drink as desirable or warning against its dangers.

The term "sweet wine" or "new wine", from Hebrew tiros , sometimes has often been regarded as unfermented and therefore unintoxicating wine, but an example such as Hos 4:11, together with usage of the Talmud, makes clear that it is capable of being used in a bad sense equally with others. Furthermore, while there are examples of the grapes being pressed into a cup and presumably used at once (Gen 40:11), it is significant that the term "wine" is never applied to the resultant juice.

The term "new wine" does not indicate wine which has not fermented, for in fact the process of fermentation sets in very rapidly, and unfermented wine could not be available many months after the harvest (Acts. 2:13). It represents rather wine made from the first drippings of the juice before the winepress was trodden. As such it would be particularly potent and would come immediately to mind as a probable explanation of what seemed to be a drunken state.

Modern custom in Palestine, among people who are traditionally conservative as far as religious feasts are concerned, also suggests that wine used was fermented.

The same considerations apply for the New Testament usage.

Does it matter? Our answer: yes, it does.

OBJECTION 5

If we say it matters then we are making a sacrament out of it, putting merit on the physical item and not what it represents.

Yes, we make a sacrament out of it, but not for the reason that it is suggested in the objection.

First, we do not put a merit on the physical item but on the correctness of the activity we engage in.

Second, how do we know that, for instance, the grape juice represents Christ's blood in the cup of the communion?

Third, do not certain doctrines matter in our Christian practice? Do we make sacrament of our doctrines? Consider the doctrine of Holy Trinity, Christ's divine and human nature, Christ's Holy Sacrifice for our sins and His Resurrection? If we reject these doctrines then we are not genuine followers of Christ. Now, my point will be clearly seen by the confrontation of a following dilemma, when we try to answer the question: do we make sacrament of our fundamental doctrines?

(1) If we say that we do not make a sacrament of our fundamental doctrines, then why should my insistence on the form of our activities be regarded as "making a sacrament out of it"?

On the other hand:

(2) If we say that we do make a sacrament of our fundamental doctrines, regarding them as holy and indispensable for our practice, then clearly there is nothing wrong in "making a sacrament" in itself as long as it is clearly approved by the Bible.

Fourth reason, let us assume that my attitude is wrong, and that the form of our activities is not important. If so, why should we then perform baptism at all? Why should it matter whether we baptize infants or not? Why should we perform communion in Lord's supper at all? Why couldn't we just use apple juice in the cup? Why should it matter who preach, a woman or a man? All these questions pertains to the form of our Worship.

Fifth reason that it matters is that the Bible simply teaches us so. The Bible emphasized the significance of baptism, breaking the bread, and fellowship. All these activities are holy activities because they were heavily emphasized. Since they are significant and holy activities then we should engage in these activities correctly. Paul warns us of the danger in engaging in these activities in an unworthy manner (see 1 Cor 11: 21-30). See how Paul regards the communion of the cup and breaking the bread:

"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?" (1 Cor 10:16)

Wouldn't Paul's attitude be sacramentizing, since it mattered for Paul this act ? Yes, it would be, for there is nothing wrong with such attitude. And did Paul put a merit on the physical item? Certainly not. Neither Paul nor we put merit on the physical things but on the correctness of the performed act which represents something holy, namely the communion of the blood of Christ. Therefore, it matters whether we shall use wine or grape juice.

OBJECTION 6

The Bible is intentionally silent on the particulars so that we don't get caught up in that.

The objection could be valid if it is actually the case that the Bible is so silent as many Christians perceive it. However, even if we assume that the Bible is so silent, it is dangerous to provide such explanations because our (human) explanations can be after all wrong.

But is the Bible so silent concerning our Worship? And if it so silent, for whom it is silent? Perhaps it is silent for the Christians of modern 21st. century, who are not familiar with the cultural context of the Bible. But I do not think that the Bible was so silent for the Christians of the 1st. century. First Christians understood exactly what the New Testament terms "baptism", "breaking the bread", "cup of blessing", etc., implied. The Bible is not so silent, but is written in the language understood by the first Christians, and Paul took for granted that all these terms were clear for the speakers at that time. If you were in Corinth at that time you would exactly understand what Paul meant by 1 Cor 10:16, by observing how these terms were used, by engaging in their practice established in the first Church.

OBJECTION 7

The same can be said for mode of baptism, and style of headship veiling.

Anabaptists were persecuted and killed exactly because they rejected infant baptism. Were they killed for nothing?

The Bible provides clear instructions on the baptism. Acts. 8:35-39

"Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, ... "

First, what does the text say about the condition for baptism? The condition is "If thou believest with all thine heart." Believing with all our heart in Christ is per definition being a saved child of God (Acts 16:31, Rom 3:28, etc.). Furthermore, the term "baptism" means in Greek to immerse or submerge. Observe that they "went down both into water."

The same goes for covering the head under prayer. We must simply study all relevant texts for getting better understanding.

Next objection is objection 8. I have divided objection 8 into three parts. However, before reading the answer to the objection, please read 8A, 8B and 8C as a whole, as one objection, as one long sentence. However, I answer the objection by dividing it into three parts.

OBJECTION 8A

The early church picked applications of these principles that were appropriate for them ...

They "picked applications of these principles" not because they were appropriate for them but because they obeyed Christ's commandments as taught and shown by Apostles. Teaching is not just some intellectual doctrine but is life , taught not only by words but by an exemplary life. We do not follow Christ's Teaching because it is appropriate for us but because He commands us to do it.

OBJECTION 8 B

... and while the practice of the ordinances, being biblically commanded must continue today ...

Why must they continue today if it is just a matter what is appropriate for us? What if baptism, breaking the bread, certain gender roles in the Church are no longer appropriate for us at all? Should we abolish totally all these practices? It is quite inconsistent in maintaining that these practices must continue today and at the same time insist that it is a question on how it is appropriate for us.

OBJECTION 8C

... that does not necessarily mean that the same applications are appropriate for us today.

Why? Are we not holy and separated people for God? Why should secular culture determine matters that concerns only children of God? Why should people who doesn't belong to God determine how we should worship our Holy God?
[ Return to the top ]

7. The Fundamental Principle of Worship

If we look closely at the reasoning for the support of house churches, we will observe that all my crucial arguments are based on one important principle, namely the principle of silence concerning Worship. The principle says:

What the Bible is silent about concerning the Worship and Service of God, we ought not to introduce it. Alternatively stated, what the Bible does not command concerning the Service and Worship of God, we should not introduce it.

This principle applies only to Worship, and consequently my arguments would not entail that we shouldn't, for instance, drive cars. Worshiping God is a serious thing and it concerns how we should approach God both in our private worship and in our public meetings. Worshiping our God is a holy thing, a separate thing, which is exclusively devoted to Him.

To repeat, what here is talk about is about the Worship of God and the Service exclusively devoted to God. I am not talking about secular matters, like driving cars, but the matters which are of holy character, and should be separated from mundane concerns. Worshiping God is a serious thing. When we approach God in our worship then we ought to know whether our approach expresses respect towards God. Worship is an act of devotion presented to God in His presence, and addressed to Him personally. That cannot be until the one who would worship has been accepted in the divine presence. He must know the way to the throne of grace. There is but one way, and Christ is that way. We must come by the way of the Cross when we approach God to worship Him. It is only the children of God who can offer true worship in the Father's presence, for only they know the way. Our secular culture, with the ideas of tolerance, does not provide this way, and consequently we should not be influenced by modern notions of worshiping God.

The offering of spiritual service to God in the celebration of His Holy Person is one of the highest, noblest employments in which man can engage, the supreme reach of the soul. It is certainly true that an aim of the Church is to seek the salvation of those outside the Kingdom of God, and the comfort, instruction, and edification of believers. But likewise let it not be ignored that primarily and distinctively and preeminently the Church is an organism for worship. If there were no reflex influence on ourselves, if there were no longer need of spiritual culture, if there were no longer need of Christianity as redeeming agency, the obligations of Christian worship would still continue, and will forever continue.

The worship of a Supreme Being seems to be a universal instinct, and because of the sovereignty, majesty, and holiness of God, must be surrounded by such safeguards, restrictions, and sanctities as will preserve the divine honor and secure the acceptance of the worshiper and his worship. It is of the utmost importance that every worshiper of God shall have a definite and clear understanding of what are the means and manner of worship, that it may be acceptable unto God with Whom we have to do. Without this knowledge the great mass of the world's population has for ages, like the Athenians, worshiped unknown gods. Rather than incur the wrath of heaven by a form of worship that is dishonoring and displeasing to God we should, instead of allowing ourselves ignorantly to worship, seek some divine message declaring what the mind of the Lord is, and follow it. Our worship rendered to God is of the utmost importance. It is rendered to the sovereign Lord of heaven and earth Who created us, Who preserves us, Who saves us, and Who is at last to judge us. Because He is the sovereign Lord of all, because He is infinitely high and holy, and has a watchful care over His worship that it be kept pure and holy, we are to be watchful and conscientious that our worship be rendered according to the divine appointment.

The Lutheran and Anglican Churches claim a place for rites and services which may be approved by the Church, so long as they are not forbidden by the Scripture. However, other Churches take much cautious ground and claim the line is to be drawn excluding everything which does not have plain divine appointment. In other words that which is not commanded ought not to be followed. To repeat, this principle relates only to the matters concerning Service and Worshiping God.

Therefore, when the Bible is silent about something concerning our public services in the Church, then I take it as a sign that we should not do it. All my crucial arguments were arguments of silence, as many would call it. These arguments are valid only if we accept the principle as the main premise. My arguments depend on the acceptance of the principle. And this principle is precisely under heavy dispute.

Now, why should we accept this principle of worship? I will give two types of reasons: (1) Scriptural examples supporting the principle, and (2) the argument of caution.

I. Scriptural Examples Supporting the Principle:
That which is not commanded ought not to be introduced in the Worship.

a) Gen. 4:3-5. Cain fell under the ban of this principle, in what respect to the matter and the manner of God's worship he set his own will in the stead of God's will. Cain stands forth as the first among rationalists in religion, and as a warning to his race. Observe that it is not reported up till this point in the history of humankind that God forbade offerings of "the fruit of the ground," nor that God forbade it later in the history. God was simply silent on this point. However, we read only of the examples of sacrifices which were approved by God during this dispensation, and through these examples we learn how to please our Holy God. There were not even given explicit directives or commandments of how sacrifices should be offered until the start of a new covenant during Moses. Furthermore, there is no verse in the Bible that forbids us to offer "the fruit of the ground" in the Worship, but we clearly do not offer such sacrifices. Why couldn't we offer "the fruits of the ground" in our worship if the Bible nowhere says explicitly that it is wrong? Even the Epistle of Hebrews does not forbid this, an epistle concerned with animal sacrifices. One could argue that a person in private worship could express her love by giving such cute offer, expressing appreciation for God's grace and salvation. This person is not an ignorant person concerning God's grace through Christ's sacrifice on the cross. Her motivation for offering vegetarian gifts are simply of pure artistic considerations. However, the only principle which can rule out such false practice is the principle under discussion.

b) Lev. 10: 1-3. The offering of incense to God with a fire "which He commanded them not" was the sin for which Nadab and Abihu were struck dead. It is not reported that they were punished because they violated some commandment but because they introduced a "strange fire" in the sacrifice. They were killed simply because they went beyond commandments concerning the offering of incense, and not because they did something which was explicitly forbidden.

To repeat, there is no commandment where God explicitly forbids offering of incense by using "strange fire." God only forbade Jews of using "strange incense," in Exodus 30:9.

Ye shall offer no strange incense thereon, nor burnt sacrifice, nor meat offering; neither shall ye pour drink offering thereon.

But "strange fire" is not the same as "strange incense." We use fire to burn incense. We can have right incense but not a right fire, and vice versa.

d) Numb. ch. 20. Moses were excluded from the promised land because he went beyond the command with respect to the rock and water at Kadesh.

e) When Jesus speaks of the Pharisees making void the ordinances of God by their tradition, He says, "In vain do they worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."

II. The Argument of Caution

Since our service and worshiping God is a serious and holy matter, then we should know whether we worship God in a correct way. If we are not sure about certain practice then we should not engage in such practice. The assurance has to be 100 % in order to avoid the possibility of displeasing our Lord.

If you are biblically 100 % assured that there is nothing wrong with church buildings then, of course, I will respect your view and practice. Perhaps you are right after all, I do not know. However, I am not so certain for myself and it would be wrong for me to worship God in public buildings.

My concluding words would be the words of His last commission, which refers not only to the extension of His Church, but to the purity of the doctrine and worship of His Church: "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen." They were to teach, not what things are not forbidden, but "all things whatsoever I have commanded you."

Addendum

There is an additional argument for the principle of silence. There are many false practises that the Bible neither forbids nor allows. For instance, in the Roman Catholic Church there are many orders of priests, buildings of statutes and images depicting God or saints used in the Worship. The Bible does not forbid statutes of angels or saints, neither does it forbid images of angels and saints. The Bible does not tell anything about establishing new orders of priests. Neither does it forbid. According to the Anabaptist tradition, all mentioned above practises are false, but the only principle that could rule out these Roman Catholic practises is the principle of silence.

Google Our Site