I appreciate the article’s attempt to challenge shallow narratives about the early church. That part is needed. The early church was not leaderless, not anti-doctrine, and not allergic to reverence. But I still believe the piece overcorrects and forces a false choice. The New Testament, and much of church scholarship, gives us a fuller picture. The claim that “organic” church language is mostly modern myth does not hold up when read against both Scripture and serious ecclesiology. The early church practiced ordered leadership, yes, but it also practiced participatory gathering, household-based discipleship, and shared ministry among the saints. The issue is not “institution versus house.” The issue is fidelity to Christ’s pattern.
Lesslie Newbigin is crucial here. In The Household of God (first published in the 1950s), he argued that different traditions each hold part of the truth about the church, and that no single structural model can claim total biblical completeness. He treated the church as missionary, eschatological, and communal, not reducible to one form. That directly challenges simplistic claims that one institutional expression alone captures New Testament intent.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer in Life Together gives another anchor. He was not advocating for anarchic spirituality. He called for concrete, disciplined, Christ-centered life in community, where believers bear one another, confess sin, submit to Scripture, and live as a real brotherhood under Jesus. That vision aligns with the shared-life texture of Acts and the participatory expectations of 1 Corinthians 14. It is ordered life, but not spectator Christianity.
When we move into modern evangelical scholarship, the same pattern appears. Robert Banks in Paul’s Idea of Community argued that Pauline communities were relational, body-based, and participatory, not built on passive consumption. Howard Snyder in The Problem of Wineskins warned that structures can either serve life or suffocate it when institutions become self-preserving. John Howard Yoder in Body Politics emphasized the visible, shared practices of the church as a living political witness, not merely a managed religious audience. These are not fringe voices. They are serious theological contributions that press us back to New Testament ecclesiology.
If we go even further back, the patristic stream also resists narrow institutional reduction. John Chrysostom’s preaching repeatedly pressed ordinary believers into active holiness, mutual care, and embodied discipleship. Cyprian and Ignatius underscore oversight and unity, yes, but neither can be honestly used to defend celebrity driven hierarchy or spiritual passivity among the people of God. Historical order is real; domination is not biblical order.
So what are we saying? We are not saying leadership does not matter. We are saying leadership exists to equip the saints, not replace them. Ephesians 4:11–12 is explicit that ministry leaders are given “for the equipping of the saints for the work of service.” If the saints are mostly watching and a few professionals are doing the ministry, we are outside the intent of the text.
We are also not saying houses are automatically biblical. A living room can host spiritual abuse. A cathedral can host faithful witness. A storefront can host healthy church life. Form alone does not sanctify anything. Christ’s lordship, scriptural authority, holy character, accountable leadership, sacrificial love, and mission to the lost are the real tests. The strongest path forward is not nostalgia and not institutional defensiveness. It is reform rooted in Scripture and confirmed by the best of church history. That means we reject chaos and control at the same time. We reject personality cults and leaderless individualism at the same time. We reject shallow activism and shallow traditionalism at the same time.
The early church was not built on branding. It was built on repentance, doctrine, prayer, table fellowship, shared suffering, and public witness. That is why Acts 2:42 and 2:46 still matters. They were devoted to apostolic teaching and also breaking bread from house to house. Temple and table. Public and personal. Leadership and participation. Order and life.
That is the synthesis this debate keeps missing.
If the goal is faithfulness, then we should stop arguing for our preferred format and start asking better questions. Are believers being discipled into obedience to Jesus? Are leaders accountable and non-dominating? Are gifts in the body actually activated? Are the weak protected? Is sin confronted biblically? Is mission central? Is Christ truly preeminent?
Yes, I wish we could find ways of exploring what it means to be “church” without falling into a polarised argument.
For me, one of the biggest questions every generation surely needs to address is:
“How is God continuing his work of bringing Christ’s light into dark places,and are we enabling that to flourish or are we creating unnecessary stumbling blocks?”
Well said. Also, the Church Project (based in the Houston area and spread to different states and countries) models something much like what you are describing, I think: A weekly gathering in a larger space for a body led by elders and a pastor, in addition to weekly House Churches with their own pastor/leader to facilitate study, prayer, community, service, outreach, etc. from a high-touch accountability perspective. I wrote about this before discovering Church Project, but I like the way they've embodied it: https://shespeakstruth.substack.com/p/the-late-church
Amen. The Lord brought us out in a good way, from the traditional church setting in 2003. We have been in ministry almost 3 decades and experience hyper charasmania, unhealthy prophetic stream, celebrity christianity and conference culture. Always felt something was off. We started a house church in Charlotte NC and the Lord lets us back to FL last fall. We are in rest mode and will be planting here soon. We believe in elder led house churches with shepherds and deacons of course but it is all team ministry. Plurality of elders and everyone ministers in one sense or another. Teaching and training for the work of ministry in and out the four walls. We are a family on mission. local community work and missional o=work locally and abroad. Sorry for the long response.
sounds really good brother. where in Florida will you be doing this? I have really good friends in the Sarasota area. actually two couples. One of them is in our house church in Virginia and moving there. they would love to meet you
Thank you for reorienting this discussion, esp the questions at the end. That's where church leadership should be focused. There's more than enough there to consider! Would appreciate reading more posts addressing those leadership questions.
1000% where my mind went but you are far more articulate thank you.
3 random points to Add:
The early assembly was participatory as well, far more than the synagogue (1 Cor. 14), the celebrated the eucharist originally not as liturgical formal practice but in the context of the Agape meal (something I brought back in my time in ministry to small groups and they loved it).
LOST DISCIPLESHIP METHOD: The Didache (late 1st/early 2nd century) reflects teaching (didachē) for instruction, while kerygma was proclamation of the gospel. Both were present, but gatherings were not dominated by monologic sermons. In Acts 20:7–12, Paul’s meeting at Troas is described with the Greek word dialegomai—meaning dialogue, discussion, or debate. This suggests Paul’s teaching was interactive, closer to rabbinic methods of question-and-answer, rather than a long formal sermon. Interestingly enough, in pedagogical circles the idea of the socratic seminar and its benefits in terms of memory retention, assimilation, and internal transformational change are well known. I applied it to small groups and for the first time saw people whom I never thought would mature actually growing in their faith.
I know it’s small in the discussion but…I’m not a fan of the term “church” it doesn’t have biblical origins either.
NT: ἐκκλησία (ekklesia) = assembly of believers, “called out ones” = emphasis on community.
History: κυριακόν (kyriakon) through Germanic languages = The Lord’s house = emphasis on location/place the people are gathered.
Tyndale controversially removed every mention of “church” and replaced it with “congregation” but KJV 1611 restored “church” under pressured from ecclesiastical authorities.
Yes, very well said. My wife and I planted a house church in 2023 which is on pause now because the Lord called us back to Florida. We are planning on planting here in the next month or so. I will say that both house church and traditional are needed. Unity is the key to growing the kingdom and having a powerful church that impacts, communities, cities and regions. There is a lot of detail in what the Lord called us to do in Charlotte with the house church but the body grew in their knowledge of the Word through teaching that involved dialogue, questions, etc. Everyone participated. It was never a listen to the preacher and go home to reflect. I don't have issues with that but I believe people grow through questions and dialogue from what is being taught or read. Did not care for sermons but teaching through the books of the Bible chapter by chapter, verse by verse.
Amen! Thanks for sharing. I turned my small church of about 100 into missional house church groups which they loved and grew in depth from. A milestone was celebrating the Eucharist as agape feast. Many reported the first few times they felt like they were doing something wrong. lol, that's how strong man made traditions are. But when I asked them to meet in their missional communities on a Sunday morning to challenge the prevailing paradigm of "church" (4 months of prep for this) I had to walk back a church split. We had to negotiate and eventually found a way forward. The next Sunday I invited the disgruntled groups to offer their feedback in an open session processing time on Sunday morning. Risky. Yet every testimony was about how deep the fellowship was and how different. This is small church New England. We need more depth, less cotton candy Christianity imo. House church is not the only way to get it, but if structured well it is one way.
It’s very hard to come out of a mindset that has been programmed for years in westernized Christianity. We still struggle occasionally with the residuals at times.
It is worth noting that when Paul addressed the problem with the supper at Corinth, he did so in a letter addressed to the laity directly. Of course the elders would read the letter as well, but they were not the sole or direct recipients.
What percentage of the NT was addressed directly to clergy?
What might that mean for understanding the roles of clergy in regards to God's word?
You’re right. Most of the New Testament is written to whole churches, not a special clergy class. Paul expected regular believers to hear God’s Word, understand it, and obey it.
That means Scripture belongs to the people of God. Leaders are called to teach, guard doctrine, and equip the church, but they’re not owners or gatekeepers of truth. Healthy leadership serves and guides without controlling, and a healthy church actually knows the Word.
At the heart of this discussion is a deeper theological confusion shared by both primitivist and hierarchical readings of the early church. Both assume that identifying an “original” model settles the question of faithful church life. Scripture never makes that assumption. Jesus did not give His disciples a fixed institutional blueprint; He gave them authority. When He spoke of binding and loosing (Matthew 16:19; Matthew 18:18), He entrusted the church with the responsibility to discern, govern, and order its common life under the Spirit’s guidance. The early church did not merely preserve a form—it exercised judgment.
This is precisely what we see throughout the New Testament. The Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 does not appeal to an earlier pattern and declare the matter settled; it discerns, debates, listens to testimony, weighs Scripture, and then binds a decision suited to new circumstances. Paul does the same in his letters, addressing worship, leadership, discipline, and community life differently in Corinth, Galatia, and Thessalonica—not because the gospel changed, but because pastoral realities differed. Unity was grounded in Christ, not in uniformity of practice.
Seen this way, primitivism is not a return to biblical faithfulness but a denial of biblical authority. It freezes the church at its earliest moment and strips it of the very authority Christ gave it to live wisely in history. At the same time, appeals to later uniform liturgical or hierarchical systems as if they were divinely fixed from the beginning make the opposite error—confusing faithful development with timeless mandate. The early church neither idolized its first forms nor absolutized its later ones. Neither forensic archaeology nor forensic document retrieval will ever settle this issue.
The historical record, read carefully, supports this biblical vision. Early Christians valued order, leadership, and reverent worship, yet they adapted these in response to persecution, culture, mission, and growth. Homes became gathering places not because intimacy was an ecclesial ideal, but because circumstances demanded it. Structures emerged not because uniformity was required, but because love, discipline, and truth needed to be protected. What remained constant was not form, but fidelity to Christ.
Faithfulness, then, is not found in dismantling structure in the name of the “early church,” nor in preserving structure as if it were itself the faith. It is found in the church’s ongoing willingness to bind and loose responsibly—to order its worship, leadership, and life together in obedience to Christ and attentiveness to the Spirit. That is not a betrayal of the early church. It is precisely how the early church lived.
Yes—exactly. I think what unsettles us is that this kind of freedom really is messy. There isn’t a manual we can simply follow, no 500-page discipline, no exhaustive canon law that removes the need for discernment. And that can be frightening, because most of us would rather be certain than responsible.
But Jesus didn’t leave the church without guidance. He gave us something more demanding and more relational: His presence, His Spirit, and a way of handling life together. He gave us procedures—how to reconcile, how to forgive, how to discern together, how to correct with humility and love—but He did not give us a comprehensive rulebook that could replace wisdom. What He gave requires trust, listening, patience, and courage.
Freedom and responsibility really are inseparable here. The authority to bind and loose is not the authority to control outcomes, but the authority to walk with God in real time. That kind of partnership asks more of us than obedience to a system—it asks for maturity. And yes, that is deeply challenging. But it is also an astonishing invitation: God trusting His people with real agency, real discernment, and real participation in His work in the world.
That tension may feel uncomfortable, but it’s not a design flaw—It’s a feature.
I think the distinction between primitivist and hierarchical is an argument too many make. If you just look at what the Bible says, there are essentials that are seen in both healthy house and institutional churches. I lean towards house church because I believe that human nature defaults to wanting to be ruled and have order. And the larger the size, the more apt we humans are to replace Jesus and the Holy Spirit with a tangible leader we can see. Just like Saul and the people of Israel.
Agree. I would only add the importance of the difference Jesus Himself made abundantly clear: He came to fulfil the scriptures but also make a new covenant. The “organic” part is the evangelisation of the Gentiles, sending them out with nothing but the Holy Spirit. The old saying “don’t put the cart before the horse” comes to mind.
This article would be a better persuader if it wasn't written with such a snide view of what house church life is like. It is not correct to say that there was a singular form used by the early church. Probably the best early document that talks about church practice is the Didache, and it's not even referenced in this post.
Most likely, there were many different forms in practice. When, for example, Paul wrote to the church at Colossae, he was probably writing to a couple of more formalized groups and some which were more informal. Yet, he addresses them all as one church at Colossae. Phrases like "the church that meets at your house" confirms the idea that some were meeting in simple homes. I agree with the author that there were also churches that were meeting in more substantial buildings as well. It was a hodgepodge of experimenting and learning.
Both house church proponents and those that like liturgical hierarchy need to avoid arguing that the entire early period was all about their form. Most churches were undoubtedly meeting in homes. They were not using advanced, formalized liturgies. There were leaders, for sure, but it was more like the leadership on a new mission field: spotty, immature at times, and growing. Contrary to this post, it was, in fact, more free form and jazzy than classical and highly rehearsed.
One of the great things about the Bible is that it does not lay down a form for us follow. As somebody who works in global missions, I say praise God for this. It allows for the gospel to be poured into many different cultures and find a home. This should not be a license for disorder. But, when a gospel movement takes off in a new culture, like it did in the first century, it will not be neat and orderly. That will come with maturity.
This was a very important read. It would be interesting if churches tried to do something a bit closer to this ancient tradition, particularly as we are closing in on 2000 years since Jesus's resurrection.
There is a very important difference between being “blinged out in gold chains” and carrying a beautiful reminder of Christ’s victory over death with you as you minister to his people. Beauty and reverence doesn’t have to mean excess. I would argue, actually, that the modern church’s pendulum swing away from perceived ecclesiastical excess is part of the reason for its bleed-out of young people. They’re tired of gray walls and sneakers.
lol that’s your problem with Eastern Orthodoxy?? Priests being proud to wear a beautiful cross?? There are legitimate reasons to take issue with Eastern Orthodoxy, I suppose, but this is low hanging fruit, my friend.
‘Bling’ as you call it is, as are all things in Orthodoxy, meant to teach or to show the way to a higher order. Nothing is ‘decoration’. It may mean ‘shiny stuff’ to you but to those who understand the underpinnings of beauty and the importance of knowing and remembering, they are far more than good luck charms.
Look in the New Testament for how we are to "do" church. Pretty much all that Jesus and Paul said about this is cryptic. John the Baptist said that Jesus would come to baptize in "fire and Spirit." That doesn't sound like the baptisms in traditional institutional churches, which instituted the "baptism of John" (water). Jesus, when asked by the woman at the well about where was it appropriate to worship God--in the Temple or on the mountain?--responded, essentially "neither," because in the new covenant people would worship God in Spirit and in truth. Paul in 1 Cor. 14, "When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. 27 If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. 28 But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God. 29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said." No liturgy. No pastor. No dogmatic lecture from a pulpit. No theater style seating. There are two times when "priest" is mentioned in the New Testament: in reference to Christ who is our "High Priest," and by Peter who referred to us all as a "holy priesthood." "Priest" is not a formal office in the church, and went away when the Old Covenant was superseded by the new. And yet, in the majority of Christendom, priests exist. Why? And altars....They were a fixture in the Temple, the place where a sacrifice was made for sins. Does the existence of altars in many Christian churches deny the finished work of Christ on the cross, where His sacrifice reconciles us with the Father? Why must the sacrifice of Jesus be reenacted on an altar every Sunday, in some churches?
Say what you will about the "home church." It's not perfect, but it seems to be closer to how the body of Christ is to operate in this world.
This argument relies on a massive amount of cherry-picking and creates a false dichotomy between "spiritual" worship and the clear, structural commands found throughout the New Testament. You are quoting 1 Corinthians 14 to argue for a leaderless, spontaneous gathering, yet you completely ignore the Pastoral Epistles (1 & 2 Timothy, Titus) where Paul explicitly writes to establish church order. He commands Titus to "appoint elders in every town" (Titus 1:5) and outlines strict qualifications for Overseers and Deacons. The New Testament is not a free-for-all; it is a structured community where Hebrews 13:17 commands us to "obey your leaders and submit to them." You cannot obey a leader that does not exist.
Your point about "water vs. Spirit" baptism is also historically and biblically inaccurate. You claim water baptism is merely "John's baptism," yet the Apostles practiced it constantly after the resurrection. In Acts 8, the Ethiopian Eunuch asks for water baptism the moment he believes, and in Acts 10, Peter commands water baptism for Gentiles after they have already received the Holy Spirit. To suggest water baptism is irrelevant or "old covenant" contradicts the explicit practice of the very Apostles who built the church.
Your attack on the word "Priest" simply shows your fundamental misunderstanding of etymology. The English word "Priest" is actually derived from the Greek word Presbyteros (Elder), which is a standard office in the New Testament. When historical churches use the term Priest, they are referring to the biblical office of the Presbyter found in James 5 and 1 Peter 5. While the Levitical priesthood ended, the New Testament clearly establishes a ministerial priesthood of Elders to shepherd the flock.
Finally, you are attacking a "straw man" regarding altars. You ask why Jesus must be "reenacted," implying that liturgical churches believe they are re-crucifying Jesus every Sunday. This is theological nonsense that no historic church holds. Ancient Christian traditions believe in anamnesis—a memorial participation where the one, eternal, finished sacrifice of Christ is made present to the believer. They do not believe they are killing Jesus again; they believe they are partaking in the finished work of the cross, just as Paul describes in 1 Corinthians 10. You are attacking a doctrine that no one actually teaches to validate your personal preference for a casual gathering.
You can twist the Scriptures all you like, but you won't find your house church in them.
I'll add that the matter/spirit distinction is largely gnosticism and secular materialism being smuggled into Christianity under the guise of religious "purity". Christ created human beings as embodied, physical creatures for a reason. Christ became incarnate for a reason. Christ instituted physical sacraments for a reason. The idea that the spirit is separate from the body in a Cartesian dualistic sense, that the spiritual, merely symbolic understanding of things is the "true" faith, is not a Christian notion whatsoever.
Amen! One of the oldest Church documents we have is the Didache, a manual for worship. It describes a highly structured worship service. A lot of contemporary worship is careless and chaotic.
Some interesting refection, but I feel it's built on a rather shallow caricature of restorationist approaches. Pursuing a more organic, relationally based model of church does not necessarily mean the rejection of leadership or structure and not all restorationists insist on the house as the ideal locus of the gathered ecclesia. I'm also not sure where the evidence is that the early church adopted the format of the synagogue and gathering in the temple courts doesn’t necessarily imply adherence to the established patterns of synagogue worship. I actually think the New Testament is deliberately silent on many of these issues, which ensures the gospel in eminently adaptable as it is sown and flourishes in a range of cultural and historical contexts.
Your statement “If the Apostles were so committed to the Synagogue and Temple, why did they end up in homes? It wasn’t a theological preference for “cozy” gatherings. “It was a matter of survival.””
The modern church through ecumenism, and zionist influence is why people are heading home for church, not because a couple of authors wrote about the paganism that influences all religions, at this stage. It is a matter of survival of Biblical Christianity. The amount of brainwash and money laundry, not to mention the education system to which most church pastors or priests get their education is less than ideal. Plus, the last five years, when churches closed their doors, in 2020, masked people, and pushed untested unknown injections from the pulpit proved they do not serve their people. If you find a church that is not influenced by these corrupt institutions, by all means, go.
The religious institutions are losing money right now, and they are in a panic. Been seeing more and more of these types of articles many places.
The early church had Bishops with Apostolic succession, they were liturgical and sacramental in their worship, and everything was centered around the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
I wondered where the following manifestations of the Spirit would fit into the above framework?
1 Corinthians 14:26-32 ESV
What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. [27] If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. [28] But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God. [29] Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. [30] If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. [31] For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, [32] and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets.
Acts 16, was not found as a citation/example of the House Church in the First Century as I went through your post, twice. I use it as an example for two points. First, after believing and being Baptized by Paul, Lydia encouraged him to bring his group to her home for worship. Paul’s group visited. Then they were jailed. Lydia’s house church continued. Second, after Paul & his group were turned out from the jail, they returned to Lydia’s house and
Acts 16:40 So they went out of the prison and entered the house of Lydia; and when they had seen the brethren, they encouraged them and departed.
We are not told that Lydia’s House Church ended, we are not told that a male took over leadership after Paul departed.
I am not ready to believe that Lydia did not maintain/continue her home as a place of Worship and that her dedication was a mere blip on the radar screen. I see Acts 16 as significant, I see Lydia as a house church leader in the 1st Century Church.
On your point about the Constantine efforts, I agree. Thank you
I appreciate the article’s attempt to challenge shallow narratives about the early church. That part is needed. The early church was not leaderless, not anti-doctrine, and not allergic to reverence. But I still believe the piece overcorrects and forces a false choice. The New Testament, and much of church scholarship, gives us a fuller picture. The claim that “organic” church language is mostly modern myth does not hold up when read against both Scripture and serious ecclesiology. The early church practiced ordered leadership, yes, but it also practiced participatory gathering, household-based discipleship, and shared ministry among the saints. The issue is not “institution versus house.” The issue is fidelity to Christ’s pattern.
Lesslie Newbigin is crucial here. In The Household of God (first published in the 1950s), he argued that different traditions each hold part of the truth about the church, and that no single structural model can claim total biblical completeness. He treated the church as missionary, eschatological, and communal, not reducible to one form. That directly challenges simplistic claims that one institutional expression alone captures New Testament intent.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer in Life Together gives another anchor. He was not advocating for anarchic spirituality. He called for concrete, disciplined, Christ-centered life in community, where believers bear one another, confess sin, submit to Scripture, and live as a real brotherhood under Jesus. That vision aligns with the shared-life texture of Acts and the participatory expectations of 1 Corinthians 14. It is ordered life, but not spectator Christianity.
When we move into modern evangelical scholarship, the same pattern appears. Robert Banks in Paul’s Idea of Community argued that Pauline communities were relational, body-based, and participatory, not built on passive consumption. Howard Snyder in The Problem of Wineskins warned that structures can either serve life or suffocate it when institutions become self-preserving. John Howard Yoder in Body Politics emphasized the visible, shared practices of the church as a living political witness, not merely a managed religious audience. These are not fringe voices. They are serious theological contributions that press us back to New Testament ecclesiology.
If we go even further back, the patristic stream also resists narrow institutional reduction. John Chrysostom’s preaching repeatedly pressed ordinary believers into active holiness, mutual care, and embodied discipleship. Cyprian and Ignatius underscore oversight and unity, yes, but neither can be honestly used to defend celebrity driven hierarchy or spiritual passivity among the people of God. Historical order is real; domination is not biblical order.
So what are we saying? We are not saying leadership does not matter. We are saying leadership exists to equip the saints, not replace them. Ephesians 4:11–12 is explicit that ministry leaders are given “for the equipping of the saints for the work of service.” If the saints are mostly watching and a few professionals are doing the ministry, we are outside the intent of the text.
We are also not saying houses are automatically biblical. A living room can host spiritual abuse. A cathedral can host faithful witness. A storefront can host healthy church life. Form alone does not sanctify anything. Christ’s lordship, scriptural authority, holy character, accountable leadership, sacrificial love, and mission to the lost are the real tests. The strongest path forward is not nostalgia and not institutional defensiveness. It is reform rooted in Scripture and confirmed by the best of church history. That means we reject chaos and control at the same time. We reject personality cults and leaderless individualism at the same time. We reject shallow activism and shallow traditionalism at the same time.
The early church was not built on branding. It was built on repentance, doctrine, prayer, table fellowship, shared suffering, and public witness. That is why Acts 2:42 and 2:46 still matters. They were devoted to apostolic teaching and also breaking bread from house to house. Temple and table. Public and personal. Leadership and participation. Order and life.
That is the synthesis this debate keeps missing.
If the goal is faithfulness, then we should stop arguing for our preferred format and start asking better questions. Are believers being discipled into obedience to Jesus? Are leaders accountable and non-dominating? Are gifts in the body actually activated? Are the weak protected? Is sin confronted biblically? Is mission central? Is Christ truly preeminent?
That is the conversation worthy of the church.
Yes, I wish we could find ways of exploring what it means to be “church” without falling into a polarised argument.
For me, one of the biggest questions every generation surely needs to address is:
“How is God continuing his work of bringing Christ’s light into dark places,and are we enabling that to flourish or are we creating unnecessary stumbling blocks?”
Well said. Also, the Church Project (based in the Houston area and spread to different states and countries) models something much like what you are describing, I think: A weekly gathering in a larger space for a body led by elders and a pastor, in addition to weekly House Churches with their own pastor/leader to facilitate study, prayer, community, service, outreach, etc. from a high-touch accountability perspective. I wrote about this before discovering Church Project, but I like the way they've embodied it: https://shespeakstruth.substack.com/p/the-late-church
Amen. The Lord brought us out in a good way, from the traditional church setting in 2003. We have been in ministry almost 3 decades and experience hyper charasmania, unhealthy prophetic stream, celebrity christianity and conference culture. Always felt something was off. We started a house church in Charlotte NC and the Lord lets us back to FL last fall. We are in rest mode and will be planting here soon. We believe in elder led house churches with shepherds and deacons of course but it is all team ministry. Plurality of elders and everyone ministers in one sense or another. Teaching and training for the work of ministry in and out the four walls. We are a family on mission. local community work and missional o=work locally and abroad. Sorry for the long response.
sounds really good brother. where in Florida will you be doing this? I have really good friends in the Sarasota area. actually two couples. One of them is in our house church in Virginia and moving there. they would love to meet you
We are in Tampa just south of Wesley Chapel. Closer to New Tampa. Would totally be down to meet
You may cross paths with Damien Gerke in that area. His recent book In the Way may be useful to you.
Blessings
Gary and Marie Barnes - 4406658656
Dave and Deb Hartman - +15095903102
Tell them George sent you!
I don't know if this would be helpful to you, but here's a link to the Church Project movement's home base: https://www.churchproject.org/
Man, that is literally 100% written by AI
Nailed it
Thank you for reorienting this discussion, esp the questions at the end. That's where church leadership should be focused. There's more than enough there to consider! Would appreciate reading more posts addressing those leadership questions.
Thank you for this comment.
Excellent, thank you. A valuable historical treatise contributing to this matter is: A History of Christianity in Asia (2 Vol), by Samuel Moffett.
Thank you. I will add that to my book list. Currently reading The Mind Of The Spirit: Paul's Approach To Transformed Thinking By Craig Keener
1000% where my mind went but you are far more articulate thank you.
3 random points to Add:
The early assembly was participatory as well, far more than the synagogue (1 Cor. 14), the celebrated the eucharist originally not as liturgical formal practice but in the context of the Agape meal (something I brought back in my time in ministry to small groups and they loved it).
LOST DISCIPLESHIP METHOD: The Didache (late 1st/early 2nd century) reflects teaching (didachē) for instruction, while kerygma was proclamation of the gospel. Both were present, but gatherings were not dominated by monologic sermons. In Acts 20:7–12, Paul’s meeting at Troas is described with the Greek word dialegomai—meaning dialogue, discussion, or debate. This suggests Paul’s teaching was interactive, closer to rabbinic methods of question-and-answer, rather than a long formal sermon. Interestingly enough, in pedagogical circles the idea of the socratic seminar and its benefits in terms of memory retention, assimilation, and internal transformational change are well known. I applied it to small groups and for the first time saw people whom I never thought would mature actually growing in their faith.
I know it’s small in the discussion but…I’m not a fan of the term “church” it doesn’t have biblical origins either.
NT: ἐκκλησία (ekklesia) = assembly of believers, “called out ones” = emphasis on community.
History: κυριακόν (kyriakon) through Germanic languages = The Lord’s house = emphasis on location/place the people are gathered.
Tyndale controversially removed every mention of “church” and replaced it with “congregation” but KJV 1611 restored “church” under pressured from ecclesiastical authorities.
Yes, very well said. My wife and I planted a house church in 2023 which is on pause now because the Lord called us back to Florida. We are planning on planting here in the next month or so. I will say that both house church and traditional are needed. Unity is the key to growing the kingdom and having a powerful church that impacts, communities, cities and regions. There is a lot of detail in what the Lord called us to do in Charlotte with the house church but the body grew in their knowledge of the Word through teaching that involved dialogue, questions, etc. Everyone participated. It was never a listen to the preacher and go home to reflect. I don't have issues with that but I believe people grow through questions and dialogue from what is being taught or read. Did not care for sermons but teaching through the books of the Bible chapter by chapter, verse by verse.
Amen! Thanks for sharing. I turned my small church of about 100 into missional house church groups which they loved and grew in depth from. A milestone was celebrating the Eucharist as agape feast. Many reported the first few times they felt like they were doing something wrong. lol, that's how strong man made traditions are. But when I asked them to meet in their missional communities on a Sunday morning to challenge the prevailing paradigm of "church" (4 months of prep for this) I had to walk back a church split. We had to negotiate and eventually found a way forward. The next Sunday I invited the disgruntled groups to offer their feedback in an open session processing time on Sunday morning. Risky. Yet every testimony was about how deep the fellowship was and how different. This is small church New England. We need more depth, less cotton candy Christianity imo. House church is not the only way to get it, but if structured well it is one way.
It’s very hard to come out of a mindset that has been programmed for years in westernized Christianity. We still struggle occasionally with the residuals at times.
You are correct sir. It is how we function, with leadership AND spontaneity in our house church in Lynchburg, VA.
It is worth noting that when Paul addressed the problem with the supper at Corinth, he did so in a letter addressed to the laity directly. Of course the elders would read the letter as well, but they were not the sole or direct recipients.
What percentage of the NT was addressed directly to clergy?
What might that mean for understanding the roles of clergy in regards to God's word?
Test the spirits!
You’re right. Most of the New Testament is written to whole churches, not a special clergy class. Paul expected regular believers to hear God’s Word, understand it, and obey it.
That means Scripture belongs to the people of God. Leaders are called to teach, guard doctrine, and equip the church, but they’re not owners or gatekeepers of truth. Healthy leadership serves and guides without controlling, and a healthy church actually knows the Word.
AI
Cc
At the heart of this discussion is a deeper theological confusion shared by both primitivist and hierarchical readings of the early church. Both assume that identifying an “original” model settles the question of faithful church life. Scripture never makes that assumption. Jesus did not give His disciples a fixed institutional blueprint; He gave them authority. When He spoke of binding and loosing (Matthew 16:19; Matthew 18:18), He entrusted the church with the responsibility to discern, govern, and order its common life under the Spirit’s guidance. The early church did not merely preserve a form—it exercised judgment.
This is precisely what we see throughout the New Testament. The Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 does not appeal to an earlier pattern and declare the matter settled; it discerns, debates, listens to testimony, weighs Scripture, and then binds a decision suited to new circumstances. Paul does the same in his letters, addressing worship, leadership, discipline, and community life differently in Corinth, Galatia, and Thessalonica—not because the gospel changed, but because pastoral realities differed. Unity was grounded in Christ, not in uniformity of practice.
Seen this way, primitivism is not a return to biblical faithfulness but a denial of biblical authority. It freezes the church at its earliest moment and strips it of the very authority Christ gave it to live wisely in history. At the same time, appeals to later uniform liturgical or hierarchical systems as if they were divinely fixed from the beginning make the opposite error—confusing faithful development with timeless mandate. The early church neither idolized its first forms nor absolutized its later ones. Neither forensic archaeology nor forensic document retrieval will ever settle this issue.
The historical record, read carefully, supports this biblical vision. Early Christians valued order, leadership, and reverent worship, yet they adapted these in response to persecution, culture, mission, and growth. Homes became gathering places not because intimacy was an ecclesial ideal, but because circumstances demanded it. Structures emerged not because uniformity was required, but because love, discipline, and truth needed to be protected. What remained constant was not form, but fidelity to Christ.
Faithfulness, then, is not found in dismantling structure in the name of the “early church,” nor in preserving structure as if it were itself the faith. It is found in the church’s ongoing willingness to bind and loose responsibly—to order its worship, leadership, and life together in obedience to Christ and attentiveness to the Spirit. That is not a betrayal of the early church. It is precisely how the early church lived.
Beautifully said. We Christians like to draw bright lines in the sand when so many things were/are left open to us to work out.
Yes!! Freedom and responsibility is just so so challenging for us.... yet God has invited us into this partnership with so much agency, amazing!
Yes—exactly. I think what unsettles us is that this kind of freedom really is messy. There isn’t a manual we can simply follow, no 500-page discipline, no exhaustive canon law that removes the need for discernment. And that can be frightening, because most of us would rather be certain than responsible.
But Jesus didn’t leave the church without guidance. He gave us something more demanding and more relational: His presence, His Spirit, and a way of handling life together. He gave us procedures—how to reconcile, how to forgive, how to discern together, how to correct with humility and love—but He did not give us a comprehensive rulebook that could replace wisdom. What He gave requires trust, listening, patience, and courage.
Freedom and responsibility really are inseparable here. The authority to bind and loose is not the authority to control outcomes, but the authority to walk with God in real time. That kind of partnership asks more of us than obedience to a system—it asks for maturity. And yes, that is deeply challenging. But it is also an astonishing invitation: God trusting His people with real agency, real discernment, and real participation in His work in the world.
That tension may feel uncomfortable, but it’s not a design flaw—It’s a feature.
Thanks John, very well said. I appreciate your input to this subject.
Amen!!
Excellent comment.
I think the distinction between primitivist and hierarchical is an argument too many make. If you just look at what the Bible says, there are essentials that are seen in both healthy house and institutional churches. I lean towards house church because I believe that human nature defaults to wanting to be ruled and have order. And the larger the size, the more apt we humans are to replace Jesus and the Holy Spirit with a tangible leader we can see. Just like Saul and the people of Israel.
Agree. I would only add the importance of the difference Jesus Himself made abundantly clear: He came to fulfil the scriptures but also make a new covenant. The “organic” part is the evangelisation of the Gentiles, sending them out with nothing but the Holy Spirit. The old saying “don’t put the cart before the horse” comes to mind.
This article would be a better persuader if it wasn't written with such a snide view of what house church life is like. It is not correct to say that there was a singular form used by the early church. Probably the best early document that talks about church practice is the Didache, and it's not even referenced in this post.
Most likely, there were many different forms in practice. When, for example, Paul wrote to the church at Colossae, he was probably writing to a couple of more formalized groups and some which were more informal. Yet, he addresses them all as one church at Colossae. Phrases like "the church that meets at your house" confirms the idea that some were meeting in simple homes. I agree with the author that there were also churches that were meeting in more substantial buildings as well. It was a hodgepodge of experimenting and learning.
Both house church proponents and those that like liturgical hierarchy need to avoid arguing that the entire early period was all about their form. Most churches were undoubtedly meeting in homes. They were not using advanced, formalized liturgies. There were leaders, for sure, but it was more like the leadership on a new mission field: spotty, immature at times, and growing. Contrary to this post, it was, in fact, more free form and jazzy than classical and highly rehearsed.
One of the great things about the Bible is that it does not lay down a form for us follow. As somebody who works in global missions, I say praise God for this. It allows for the gospel to be poured into many different cultures and find a home. This should not be a license for disorder. But, when a gospel movement takes off in a new culture, like it did in the first century, it will not be neat and orderly. That will come with maturity.
This was a very important read. It would be interesting if churches tried to do something a bit closer to this ancient tradition, particularly as we are closing in on 2000 years since Jesus's resurrection.
they do! It’s called Eastern Orthodoxy!
I’m sure Timothy and Paul were all blinged out in gold chains, you bet
Megachurch pastors are vastly wealthier than any Orthodox priest. And their prosperity gospel is far more heretical.
There is a very important difference between being “blinged out in gold chains” and carrying a beautiful reminder of Christ’s victory over death with you as you minister to his people. Beauty and reverence doesn’t have to mean excess. I would argue, actually, that the modern church’s pendulum swing away from perceived ecclesiastical excess is part of the reason for its bleed-out of young people. They’re tired of gray walls and sneakers.
lol that’s your problem with Eastern Orthodoxy?? Priests being proud to wear a beautiful cross?? There are legitimate reasons to take issue with Eastern Orthodoxy, I suppose, but this is low hanging fruit, my friend.
‘Bling’ as you call it is, as are all things in Orthodoxy, meant to teach or to show the way to a higher order. Nothing is ‘decoration’. It may mean ‘shiny stuff’ to you but to those who understand the underpinnings of beauty and the importance of knowing and remembering, they are far more than good luck charms.
All I know is that the home church I attended in college is the only church that has meaningfully impacted my faith.
Look in the New Testament for how we are to "do" church. Pretty much all that Jesus and Paul said about this is cryptic. John the Baptist said that Jesus would come to baptize in "fire and Spirit." That doesn't sound like the baptisms in traditional institutional churches, which instituted the "baptism of John" (water). Jesus, when asked by the woman at the well about where was it appropriate to worship God--in the Temple or on the mountain?--responded, essentially "neither," because in the new covenant people would worship God in Spirit and in truth. Paul in 1 Cor. 14, "When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. 27 If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. 28 But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God. 29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said." No liturgy. No pastor. No dogmatic lecture from a pulpit. No theater style seating. There are two times when "priest" is mentioned in the New Testament: in reference to Christ who is our "High Priest," and by Peter who referred to us all as a "holy priesthood." "Priest" is not a formal office in the church, and went away when the Old Covenant was superseded by the new. And yet, in the majority of Christendom, priests exist. Why? And altars....They were a fixture in the Temple, the place where a sacrifice was made for sins. Does the existence of altars in many Christian churches deny the finished work of Christ on the cross, where His sacrifice reconciles us with the Father? Why must the sacrifice of Jesus be reenacted on an altar every Sunday, in some churches?
Say what you will about the "home church." It's not perfect, but it seems to be closer to how the body of Christ is to operate in this world.
This argument relies on a massive amount of cherry-picking and creates a false dichotomy between "spiritual" worship and the clear, structural commands found throughout the New Testament. You are quoting 1 Corinthians 14 to argue for a leaderless, spontaneous gathering, yet you completely ignore the Pastoral Epistles (1 & 2 Timothy, Titus) where Paul explicitly writes to establish church order. He commands Titus to "appoint elders in every town" (Titus 1:5) and outlines strict qualifications for Overseers and Deacons. The New Testament is not a free-for-all; it is a structured community where Hebrews 13:17 commands us to "obey your leaders and submit to them." You cannot obey a leader that does not exist.
Your point about "water vs. Spirit" baptism is also historically and biblically inaccurate. You claim water baptism is merely "John's baptism," yet the Apostles practiced it constantly after the resurrection. In Acts 8, the Ethiopian Eunuch asks for water baptism the moment he believes, and in Acts 10, Peter commands water baptism for Gentiles after they have already received the Holy Spirit. To suggest water baptism is irrelevant or "old covenant" contradicts the explicit practice of the very Apostles who built the church.
Your attack on the word "Priest" simply shows your fundamental misunderstanding of etymology. The English word "Priest" is actually derived from the Greek word Presbyteros (Elder), which is a standard office in the New Testament. When historical churches use the term Priest, they are referring to the biblical office of the Presbyter found in James 5 and 1 Peter 5. While the Levitical priesthood ended, the New Testament clearly establishes a ministerial priesthood of Elders to shepherd the flock.
Finally, you are attacking a "straw man" regarding altars. You ask why Jesus must be "reenacted," implying that liturgical churches believe they are re-crucifying Jesus every Sunday. This is theological nonsense that no historic church holds. Ancient Christian traditions believe in anamnesis—a memorial participation where the one, eternal, finished sacrifice of Christ is made present to the believer. They do not believe they are killing Jesus again; they believe they are partaking in the finished work of the cross, just as Paul describes in 1 Corinthians 10. You are attacking a doctrine that no one actually teaches to validate your personal preference for a casual gathering.
You can twist the Scriptures all you like, but you won't find your house church in them.
I'll add that the matter/spirit distinction is largely gnosticism and secular materialism being smuggled into Christianity under the guise of religious "purity". Christ created human beings as embodied, physical creatures for a reason. Christ became incarnate for a reason. Christ instituted physical sacraments for a reason. The idea that the spirit is separate from the body in a Cartesian dualistic sense, that the spiritual, merely symbolic understanding of things is the "true" faith, is not a Christian notion whatsoever.
‘Seems to be’ is not equal to ‘is’. That’s how Jesus’s directive words about consuming His Body and Blood got lost.
Our house church in Lynchburg, VA. embrace history, creeds, confessions, Eucharist, authority, Psalms, etc. georgeloper@ Gmail.com
Amen! One of the oldest Church documents we have is the Didache, a manual for worship. It describes a highly structured worship service. A lot of contemporary worship is careless and chaotic.
Interesting article. Thank you. J☺️🎶
Folks thinking about these things should also read and factor in I Corinthians 14
“Christianity began in the catacombs and it is probably going to end there.” My favorite quote from Curtis Vaughan.
Some interesting refection, but I feel it's built on a rather shallow caricature of restorationist approaches. Pursuing a more organic, relationally based model of church does not necessarily mean the rejection of leadership or structure and not all restorationists insist on the house as the ideal locus of the gathered ecclesia. I'm also not sure where the evidence is that the early church adopted the format of the synagogue and gathering in the temple courts doesn’t necessarily imply adherence to the established patterns of synagogue worship. I actually think the New Testament is deliberately silent on many of these issues, which ensures the gospel in eminently adaptable as it is sown and flourishes in a range of cultural and historical contexts.
Orthodox is the only way, to live like the first church.
Amen. I wandered the protestant desert for almost two decades. Glory to God for bringing me to the Church that Christ established.
Your statement “If the Apostles were so committed to the Synagogue and Temple, why did they end up in homes? It wasn’t a theological preference for “cozy” gatherings. “It was a matter of survival.””
The modern church through ecumenism, and zionist influence is why people are heading home for church, not because a couple of authors wrote about the paganism that influences all religions, at this stage. It is a matter of survival of Biblical Christianity. The amount of brainwash and money laundry, not to mention the education system to which most church pastors or priests get their education is less than ideal. Plus, the last five years, when churches closed their doors, in 2020, masked people, and pushed untested unknown injections from the pulpit proved they do not serve their people. If you find a church that is not influenced by these corrupt institutions, by all means, go.
The religious institutions are losing money right now, and they are in a panic. Been seeing more and more of these types of articles many places.
BINGO!
This is a great apologetic for the Orthodox Christian faith. Thank you.
Amen. Glory to God!
The early church had Bishops with Apostolic succession, they were liturgical and sacramental in their worship, and everything was centered around the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
I wondered where the following manifestations of the Spirit would fit into the above framework?
1 Corinthians 14:26-32 ESV
What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. [27] If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. [28] But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God. [29] Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. [30] If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. [31] For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, [32] and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets.
Acts 16, was not found as a citation/example of the House Church in the First Century as I went through your post, twice. I use it as an example for two points. First, after believing and being Baptized by Paul, Lydia encouraged him to bring his group to her home for worship. Paul’s group visited. Then they were jailed. Lydia’s house church continued. Second, after Paul & his group were turned out from the jail, they returned to Lydia’s house and
Acts 16:40 So they went out of the prison and entered the house of Lydia; and when they had seen the brethren, they encouraged them and departed.
We are not told that Lydia’s House Church ended, we are not told that a male took over leadership after Paul departed.
I am not ready to believe that Lydia did not maintain/continue her home as a place of Worship and that her dedication was a mere blip on the radar screen. I see Acts 16 as significant, I see Lydia as a house church leader in the 1st Century Church.
On your point about the Constantine efforts, I agree. Thank you