Is the House Church Model Biblical?, pt. 4: Further Topics to Consider

In our three previous posts here, here, and here, we began addressing the question of whether the house church model is biblical. We looked at the use of the word "church" in the Bible, at instances of Christians gathering in homes that may or may not have been dedicated house church gatherings, and at the one-another commands in the New Testament. All three of these categories make a convincing case for the biblical nature of the house church model.

In this post, we want to address a few other related topics that may have come up for you as you read these posts. And these topics only add to further evidence for the biblical nature of house churches. Those topics are:

• Citywide networks of house churches

• Elders and leadership in house church networks

• Relationship to other expressions of the church

  
  

Citywide Networks of House Churches

We have mentioned in previous posts that no single house church ought to exist in isolation, at least not for very long. House churches are healthiest when they are part of a larger relational network of others committed to gathering in a similar fashion. And these networks are healthiest and most beneficial the closer they are geographically.

As we mentioned in the first post in this series, one of the three uses of the word "church" in the New Testament relates to the church in a given city. This is why many of Paul's letters were written to church bodies he referred to by their city names, such as the Romans, Ephesians, Thessalonians, and Corinthians. Jesus similarly addresses seven churches by their city names in Revelation 2 and 3. And it appears that these church bodies at the city level may have been composed of networks of believers gathering in different houses (see, for example, the multiple greetings in Romans 16, which we highlighted in an earlier post).

We also advocate that today's house churches be part of a wider city-level network. And we hold the idea of the "city" loosely. Such a network may span official municipal boundaries to include a larger metropolitan area or rural region. Or, in a very large and diverse city like New York City, Toronto, or London, we might see a need for multiple networks in the same area, either because of the large population or because of networks from different social and linguistic backgrounds.

These networks might have other opportunities for those gathering in singular house churches to gather, relate, pray, serve, or partner in mission with people from other house churches. They might have occasional larger worship and prayer gatherings, times for teaching, regular prayer meetings, and the like. In this sense, they function as the church in their city, joining believers from multiple house churches.

And it is at this level of the church (at the city level) that we advocate for identifying leadership.

Elders and Leadership in House Church Networks

Although a particular house church might have a person or two who clearly facilitate, host, and even take on a strong sense of leadership, those people don't necessarily need to be appointed to formal leadership. Instead, we see a clear case in the New Testament for appointing elders and deacons at the city level.

In Jerusalem, the church appointed seven men to serve tables, possibly as deacons (Acts 6:1–7). In Ephesus, there was a group known as the Ephesian elders (Acts 20:17–28). At the end of Paul and Barnabas' first missionary journey, we see that they appointed elders in all the cities they had visited (Acts 14:23). In Crete, which is a region, Paul instructs Titus to appoint elders in all the "towns" (Titus 1:5).

Similarly, house church networks today may opt to appoint elders (and possibly deacons as well) at the city level. These elders should meet the qualifications for elders/overseers and deacons described in 1 Timothy 3:1–13, Titus 1:5–16, and 1 Peter 5:1–5. Notice that most of these qualifications have to do with character, not education and credentials, including having demonstrated stewardship of ministry in their own house (1 Timothy 3:4–5).

A question often arises about how a network in a particular city and its elders relate to more conventional churches in the same city or region.

Relationship to Other Expressions of the Church

This is a good question. Because we identify as the Church in Topeka or the Church in Scranton, does that mean we don't recognize other Christians and churches in our area as the true church if they aren't part of our network? No, that's not what we're saying. We are, however, trying to live into the model we see in the New Testament. So we are trying to be the Church in Topeka or the Church in Scranton, while also recognizing that other God-fearing, Bible-believing, Holy Spirit-filled believers around us are not formally part of our church network.

Going back to the very first post in this series, the first (and arguably the most important) use of the word "church" in the New Testament is that of the universal church. This includes all faithful followers of Jesus across space and time, including believers in our own cities with different organizational affiliations. Our unity with them is not based on organizational affiliation. Our unity is based on our affiliation with Jesus (Ephesians 4:5). In a sense, we are all part of the one true church in our city, and we shouldn't let manufactured structures divide us. Paul had strong things to say against such divisions at a city level in 1 Corinthians 1–3.

Concluding Thoughts

Making the case that the house church model is biblical is not meant to be an attack on other models. Yet we do have convictions about why we do things the way we do. We believe the biblical case is robust for a simple expression of the church, often gathering in homes, living out the one anothers, and relating from house to house in a citywide network.

Meanwhile, we receive plenty of healthy skepticism and even some groundless criticism because what we're doing isn't the way most of us are used to gathering as the church. Hopefully, this series of posts has helped you either gain the conviction you need to move in this direction, remain where you are, or at least appreciate the legitimacy of those of us who are doing things differently than what is normal from your experience.

If you appreciate this post, we encourage you to share it with someone else who might benefit from it. You can also read similar posts on similar topics here and here. And we encourage you to join one of our upcoming coaching cohorts to learn more about how you can start gathering with others in simple ways.