You will need
the following viewers
to view many of the
files on this site.

Click here to
download
Adobe Acrobat Reader

Click here to
download
Microsoft PowerPoint Viewer

University church of Christ

Assembly Times

 Sunday

   Bible Classes (9:30)

   AM Worship (10:20)

   PM Worship (6:00 pm)

 Wednesday

   Bible Classes
(7:00 PM)

Location

449 North Gay Street

Auburn, AL 36830
Click Here for Specific Directions

Review of Chapter 8

AT HOME WITH WORSHIP

By Terry W. Benton

There is no doubt that many early Christians, as many do today, met in houses for assembled worship. There is no doubt that it is scriptural to do so. The only problem is when brethren begin to think that this is the only valid and "scriptural" arrangement for meeting. Some houses were just suited for large gatherings. There was safety there that the temple and synagogues did not offer after the Jews ran them out and sought their destruction. If that same thing were happening now, it would not be expedient to have a building that put our very lives in jeopardy. Often the same Jews would have run them out of other public buildings. Under the circumstances, homes were certainly good places to meet if you wanted privacy and some measure of safety. But, they were not always ideal for growth, and caves were often hard for the elderly and weak to get to, and the easy ones were too public for the purpose of holding regular meetings.

Synagogues

The Jews were not specifically commanded (as far as written revelation shows) to build synagogues for their meetings. But, the expediency of having a place to meet could not be denied. They were certainly authorized to meet for prayer and edification in every city, and after the return from Babylon, they found it expedient to erect such meeting-places. Jesus never made an issue of their having buildings to maintain and how costly it was to build and maintain them. He never made any issue about the cost-effectiveness of meeting in homes or gave any indicators that He thought the "house" was more intimate than the synagogue. Such arguments are manufactured in the imagination. Whether in house or common building, intimacy depends entirely on the individuals and their willingness to work together in unity.

Variety Of Meeting-Places

The book of Acts would show a variety of meeting places used by the early Christians. But, there was little permanence about any of their meeting places because persecution kept them on the move. A purchased building would have been out of the question, not because it was unscriptural, but because it was an open target (if constructed) and was therefore inexpedient in the early culture of persecution. There are places today where it is still not an expedient thing to own a building. It would get burned down, and nobody would insure it, and those caught in attendance there would get arrested. That, of course (thank the Lord), is not the case in our country, but it was in the first century, and still is in some places today.

House Churches

LaGard argues that "house churches" provided "love feasts" that were a "mirror image of our own Thanksgiving celebrations, with home, family, food, love, prayer, and shared memories"(p.146). First, he has merely assumed that churches met in homes for a food feast instead of a love feast (feasting on the love of Christ). See our comments on Chapter 7 for more extension on this issue.

Secondly, he assumes that common meals were center-stage to the churches at all when the only example is the rebuked example at Corinth.

Thirdly, he also tries to hint strongly, although he will confess later that he cannot be absolutely sure, that the home (for meeting-places) was the divinely intended arrangement. Of course, if this were so, it would be sinful to meet in the park, or by a river, or in a temple compound, or in a school. In fact, these other places had ALL the approval that a house had, or the synagogue had for the Jews. There really are no indicators that God preferred that we meet in houses. LaGard paints it that way with hints of imagined advantages. There are advantages to homes over public centers when you are needing to stay alive.

When James was killed and Peter was delivered by an angel (Acts 12), he went to the HOUSE of Mary where disciples were gathered for prayer.(Acts 12:12). LaGard says of this, "It would not be surprising if the reason the disciples were meeting there that night was because that’s where they normally met together for worship."(p.148). That would not surprise us either. Of course, we can say that that was an expedient place when open meeting places were dangerous alternatives.

It also seems to be acknowledged by LaGard on the one hand that in some texts "the houses...were large enough for even crowds to meet in (P.151), but on the other hand "there seems to be little question but that first-century Christians met together in small groups as house churches"(148). He says a wealthy member might have a room to hold 40-50 people. So, it seems that his view is that 40-50 would be "crowds" and "small groups" would be much smaller. His figures seems to have been pulled out of the air.

Artificial Number For

So-Called "House-Churches"

While LaGard gave a 40-50 "crowd" number, we find other indicators in the Bible that seem to suggest a different picture than the one he has painted. Consider the following:

1. 120 apparently in an "upper room". Acts 1:13-15

2. 3,000 gathered "daily in the temple". Acts 2:41,44,46

3. Thousands with "one accord in Solomon’s Porch". Acts 5:12

4. The "multitude" of disciples were "summoned" in Acts 6:2f

5. Cornelius had called together his relatives and close friends. Peter found inside "many who had come together" (Acts 10:24,27). Just 40-50? Do the math:

a. Six brethren accompanied Peter (11:12). This equals 7 outsiders.

b. Three men from Cornelius (11:11). This brings the total to 11 before we even get to Cornelius, his relatives, and close friends.

c. Cornelius, his relatives and friends. This would be considerably more. But, if a wealthy man’s house might hold 50, then that leaves only 39 relatives and friends with Cornelius. This probably misses the mark significantly. Especially when we look at other passages that seem to suggest a LOT greater number than 50 fit in many houses.

6. "For a whole year they assembled with the church and taught a great many people"(11:26). Can we think that this was only about 40-50 people?

7. The house of Mary shows "many gathered together"(Acts 12:12). Just 40-50?

8. Where do you imagine the Jerusalem conference on circumcision was held?(Acts 15). Just 40-50 in a "house church"? Do the math again:

a. Some of the sect of the Pharisees, which has to be more than 2.

b. The apostles and elders, which had to be more than 14.

c. The church, which was probably way more than 500. It is called the "multitude"(15:12,22).

9. There was a "multitude" in Antioch. Acts 15:30. Was this just 40-50?

10. A riverside meeting. Acts 16:13. It was a regular location because no idea of a "house church" prevailed to make them think that a house was God’s preference.

11. Many of the Corinthians. 18:8-11. Can you visualize that this was a house church that held 40-50 max?

12. Notice that 12 men in Acts 19:1,7 are called "some disciples", not a crowd or a multitude.

13. The school of Tyrannus was a meeting place (19:9-10). A house church was not the preferred method of intimacy and growth. Nor can we picture that only 40-50 met there.

14. The Corinthians were "come together in one place"(1 Cor.11:20). This place left open the possibility for unbelievers coming in and observing (1 Cor.14:23-24). Does this seem like a private "house church"? I don’t know where they were meeting. It does not seem to matter to God (Jno.4:21-24) as long as we all know where that one place is and when to meet there.

15. Jesus and his disciples were at a table in a "house". This figures to be 13 people. But the text says "many tax collectors and sinners" were also there in that same house. (Matt.9:10). The wording seems to suggest a much higher figure than 40-50 people in all.

16. In a ruler’s house we find "flute players" and a "noisy crowd". (Matt.9:23). Just 40-50?

17. We find Jesus talking to "the multitudes" inside "the house".(Matt.12:46;13:1). Do you think that Matthew considered that rich people’s houses would only hold about 40-50 people?

18. Luke 5:17-19 and Luke 14:1ff seem to imply crowds much bigger than 40-50 did often meet in houses.

19. Jesus spoke of a "great supper" with wide open invitations. Surely the master of the house expected much more than 40-50 people. There were people and "still there is room"(22-23). The parable implied that the man’s house was very large and could hold a multitude of people. Could it be that many of the "house churches" were meeting in a certain house BECAUSE it accommodated very large crowds?

Though churches often met in certain member’s houses, there was never an emphasis on "house-churches" or any implications about the superiority of that arrangement over another.

Jerusalem’s House Churches?

In an effort to support the idea that the Jerusalem church was composed of many smaller "house churches", LaGard suggests the following:

All of which may explain how, in Jerusalem, there could be three thousand disciples (and growing daily) without their necessarily meeting all together in one place on the Lord’s Day (even assuming that all 3,000-plus remained in Jerusalem long beyond Pentecost).

Answer:

    First, no one contends that all meetings were public or even at the same location. Nor would we contend that smaller groups of the congregation never got together on a smaller scale. There are times when we have half the church over to our house for hospitality reasons and/or for Bible studies. We also break down into smaller groups for special class purposes to meet the special needs of a certain group. So, it is not difficult to understand that the church at Jerusalem broke down into classes at different homes at times. But, it is also clear that they assembled the whole group together at times either in the temple compound, or in large facilities at another location. The "multitude" was seen in a house other than the temple at times as we saw earlier. The Jerusalem conference in Acts 15 does argue clearly that the "multitude" had a place to meet and settle the issue of debate. Acts 6 shows the "multitude" was again together selecting special servants "among them". This argues that their assembly was very large and was not composed of separate churches.

Secondly, the fact that they met often enough to know who was qualified to meet the criteria the apostles set forth in Acts 6, also argues that they had a place to meet to take the Supper together. They did seem to form several different congregations in the Judean area, so the church in Jerusalem did not have to remain too large. The churches in Judea were further depleted of local numbers when the church scattered throughout Judea and Samaria. So, even though "multitudes" were still gathering in Acts 15, they did not have to be over 3,000 in number.

Thirdly, LaGard makes a footnote that:: "Some commentators, including McGarvey and the Expositor’s Bible Commentary, observe from Acts 2:46 that such a large number could only meet in the temple courts. However, they do not address the question of where the church met on the first day of the week to observe the Lord’s Supper." (p.148). But, he forgets that where they continued in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, is where they also continued in "the breaking of bread"(Acts 2:42). The texts tells us that "THE breaking of bread"(the communion) was in the temple (Acts 2:46) and "breaking bread"(common meals) was spread from "house to house". Whether McGarvey addressed this specifically or not, the fact is that there were places in Jerusalem for large crowds to meet, and given that admission, we cannot claim that the supper was never observed in their large meetings. We know they DID meet in large crowds (Acts 2:44).

Special Setting In Houses?

On page 151 LaGard asks, "is it possible that there is something special about the setting of a home in which, not only doors of hospitality, but also hearts are opened?"

First, if there was something "special" about one "setting" over another, Jesus and the apostles never recognized it.

Secondly, the only time mention is made of a heart "opening" was by a river and had nothing to do with a "setting"(Acts 16).

Thirdly, if "settings" were important to opening hearts, then this would argue for "mood-setting" devises that should be used to assist the gospel.

On page 151 he also argues, "One thing is certain: the house church arrangement on the Lord’s Day stood in stark contrast to both the priestly system of the temple and the rabbinic office in the synagogue".

First, there is no mention of any "house church arrangement". So, how can it stand in contrast to something else? Did it stand in stark contrast to the assemblies the apostles taught in from Solomon’s Porch? Did it stand in stark contrast to the assemblies held at the school of Tyrannus?

Secondly, where is there any mention of only meeting in houses on the Lord’s Day? Why should we allow the very premise of LaGard’s book to stand without proof?

Thirdly, how can LaGard know that Corinth met in a house when it says they met in "one place" and should eat their meals at home in their own houses? Apparently, their assembly was not held in a house.

Fourthly, LaGard has invented some terms and concepts that are foreign to the Bible such as "house church" and "fellowship meal". By using these terms over and over, perhaps some will get use to them and begin thinking they are biblical terms and concepts.

Just Wondering?

The fact that LaGard cannot tell by the Biblical evidence, but is only made to "wonder" suggests that his case for the house church is not sufficiently strong, and it shows that in the final analysis he spends an enormous amount of material on something he confesses he cannot prove. He says,

One simply has to wonder: Was it only a matter of fortuity that homes were used for teaching, or is it possible that there is something special about the setting of a home in which, not only doors of hospitality, but also hearts are opened? House church or no house church, in what setting is personal evangelism most effective? Have we robbed ourselves of special opportunities by shifting the venue of evangelism from the warmth of hearth and home to the relative coldness of auditoriums in church building? Have we thereby moved from the personal to the impersonal? From individual Christians’ teaching their own neighbors to having "gospel sermons" preached to mostly unidentifiable visitors—or, worse yet, to non-existent visitors?

One thing is certain: the house church arrangement on the Lord’s Day stood in stark contrast to both the priestly system of the temple and rabbinic office in the synagogue. In the house church, the role of official clergy virtually vanished in the midst of a simple fellowship meal. As did structured ritual and liturgy. And sacrosanct tradition. (151).

We do not take issue as to whether we ought to open our homes more, and that they provide additional opportunities for edification and evangelism. We admit that the hosts are certainly being warm to open their homes to a large group or to a small group. But, people can be just as cold or warm as their convictions will take them in any setting. Evangelism should not be confined to either houses or public meeting places. The "clergy" in a house can certainly be the head of that house. So, that argument does not fly. The house certainly does not prevent structure, ritual, or liturgy, or sacrosanct tradition. All of the things that Lagard merely imagines that are confined to church buildings or are automatically eliminated from the so-called "house church" are things we find are only included or eliminated by decision and planning, not by the "setting" itself. But, the amazing thing is that LaGard spends so much time and space on an issue that he can only "wonder" about, but by the same confession cannot prove.

Greater Intimacy In Houses?

It is possible that some people feel more relaxed in homes than in public meeting places. I have known some people to take on a different personality in large crowds or if it was even in a church building with small crowds. The setting seems to matter to some people, when it shouldn’t. But, I’ve known some people to feel more relaxed in public than in a home. The truth is that the setting is not God’s idea of how to get people to be intimate, more involved, or less tense. God’s idea is to get us all to individually work on our hearts so that we are comfortable with God and His people no matter where they meet. This point is missed to a large degree by LaGard when he says,

What all of this suggests is that the primitive church had an intimacy, informality, and degree of mutual participation largely foreign to our own experience. The importance of this emerging contrast is not simply between our modern church buildings and houses, per se, but between what typically takes place in a church building as compared with what might take place more suitably in a home. Each has its own natural ambience. Each has its own constraints, dictated primarily by the sheer difference in size. (p.151-152).

The truth is that many in the early church had intimacy dictated by the strength of their convictions and common love and loyalty to Christ. The truth is that many in the early churches did not love intimately, and it did not matter where they met with saints, they still would not have been intimate. Many lost their "first love"(Rev.2). None of this depended at all on size or location of meeting, but entirely on common love and faith.

He assumes that early churches handled the imagined need for "spontaneity" by avoiding even having 200-300 in a house. He says,

Just imagine for a moment a congregation of 200-300 members in one of our medium-sized church buildings. To think of this many people sharing a memorial meal together each first day of the week fairly boggles the mind. But not even that is the immediate concern. The more challenging question is, How can a congregation that size possibly have the kind of informal spontaneity which the early church apparently had during their gathered assemblies? (p.152).

First, LaGard does not tell us the degree of spontaneity that the early church had in their assemblies. We are made to imagine that it was different from our own.

Secondly, how "spontaneous" was the "multitude" gathered in Jerusalem in Acts 6?

Thirdly, how "spontaneous" was the multitude gathered in Acts 15?

Fourthly, how "informal" was the debate on circumcision in Acts 15?

Fifthly, do these gatherings need to be informal enough for two or three different discussions to go on at the same time on three different topics as when people are in an informal gathering at a party? Or, does it need to be much more formal and structured than that?

Sixthly, should it be informal to the degree that women can lead discussion "spontaneously" and "informally" in the assembly? Or, does it need to be much more structured than a party in which women lead conversations?

Seventhly, when a group is criticized as too "formal" and not "spontaneous" enough, they will soon be criticized again (like Corinth) for being "too informal" and too spontaneous. If Corinth was too informal before Paul’s letter, and most churches of Christ today are too formal, where is the perfect medium? Why didn’t LaGard tell us if he knows?

LaGard has not given the guidelines that will be just right. He has not offered anything specific to take the place of the form he would have us to be dissatisfied with. But, creating dissatisfaction does not help establish truth.

He does reveal that he is not really sure of his imagined idea of their spontaneity by saying that the early church "apparently" had more. But, that can differ from place to place in the first century as well as the twenty-first. He does not know how the best church of the first century really compares with the best church of the twenty-first century. It is imagination based on limited experience with the twentieth century and no experience with the first. He bases his imagination on a church that abused spontaneity to a fault. He says,

The gathered assemblies of the primitive church appear to have been far more participatory than what we experience; and, almost of necessity, therefore, more spontaneous and informal. So much so, in fact, that Paul is careful to caution that ‘everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way’ (1 Corinthians 14:40)." (p.152).

The flesh called for spontaneity to a point of disorder. The Spirit of God called for order. This does not tell us that God disapproves of the order we might have in modern churches. The only thing we can be sure about is whether we put any heart into songs, prayer, giving, preaching, and communion. Even then, we can only be sure of ourselves individually at a given moment, and discern the lack of growth in others over time. We can participate to greater degrees in anything. For example, I can participate with a song or prayer to as great a degree as I would like. Sometimes I soar in my thoughts as I engage my thoughts into the sentiment of a song. There are also times when I am distracted in my life and in my thoughts so that I do not participate with the same degree of heart. I leave disappointed in myself, but not disappointed in others or in the things we did together. I have sat in meetings where I was so involved with the sermon that I was not aware of what my children were doing. I have also sat in meetings where I was not so involved with the lesson as I should have been. We all need to learn how to be engaged and how to participate with our hearts, but this would be true whether we added more leaders per assembly or not, or whether we asked that people speak in turn or not.

No "Audience" In Homes?

LaGard argues that homes never had an "audience", but this is not so. He argues,

..."apart from times when sermons were being preached—there seems not to have been ‘an audience’ as we know today. When does a home ever have an audience? Just as a family interacts with one another around the house, in the house churches of the first century the family of God actively participated with one another in their mutual worship." (p.153).

But, as we saw earlier, there were many times when Jesus was the main or only speaker in a house. When someone has the attention of others, that person has an audience, and it does not matter how large or small that audience is. The word is defined as "1. people gathered in a place to hear or see. 2. any persons within hearing. "(Thorndike-Barnhart Dictionary). When did homes NOT have people gathered and hearing? When a man reads a book or letter to a group of people, he has an audience. LaGard imagines that interaction is a given, and would automatically happen in all groups of people if they were meeting in a house instead of a church building. This is not a given. That is merely assumption and spinning.

The Issue Changes To Large Versus Small

It had been the issue that a "house church arrangement" is better than the school-house arrangement (actually he made it a building arrangement). But, LaGard found little biblical support for the "house church" over any other arrangement. So, now he switches to the issue of "large versus small". On page 153 he says,

"Lest we miss the point, let me reiterate that the issue is not so much whether we meet in an actual house as opposed to a church building. Rather, it’s the contrast between small versus large; participant versus spectator; active versus passive; personal versus impersonal. It’s simply axiomatic: The larger the gathering, the less personal, interactive, and truly participatory it’s likely to be".

So, LaGard has now switched from the "setting" of the "warmth" of the "house"(away from the "coldness" of a building), and now tells us that is not really the issue. He now says it is the SIZE of the group and the amount of participation.

Remember, that he had already argued that you could get "crowds" of 40-50 in some houses. So, if you can cut the crowds down to 2-3 people, you will get "participants"(not spectators), "active"(not passive), "personal"(not impersonal). He says "the larger the gathering, the less personal, interactive, and participatory it is likely to be". Therefore, the smaller the gathering, the more personal, interactive, and participatory it is likely to be. Thus, 2-3 is far better than 20-30. As you can see the argument is pure spin, and goes against every congregation in the New Testament. We know they did not shoot for smallness, and they did not set any limits of largeness.

People can be as personal as they want to be, no matter how small or large the crowd. People can participate in song, prayer, communion, and in study to the degree they want. They may not all be able to LEAD in any act, but they all MUST participate to worship God in all activities of the assembly. If some do not vocally participate in a leading capacity, does this mean that they should start a new church where they will do the leading every time?

Five Acts of Worship?

Lagard says, "Over the years, we have spent an inordinate amount of time and energy arguing with others about the so-called ‘five items of worship.’ And yet it seems as if we never once stopped to realize that those ‘acts of worship’—as practiced among us today—are mostly an orchestrated religious spectacle for which we have reserved seats each week." (p. 153-154).

If this is true, then we need to learn how to sing from our hearts. We need to learn how to give a heart’s amen to another’s giving of thanks. If we are merely hearing someone else sing, then we need to repent and sing. If we are merely hearing someone else pray, then we need to repent and pray along. If we are merely watching others eat some bread and drink some fruit of the vine, then we need to repent and actually "commune" with our hearts. If we are merely watching others give, then we need to repent and give with gratitude and graciousness. If we are merely watching someone talk, then we need to repent and hear the Spirit speak to the church.

I would not know what else to include if the activities that engage our hearts in honor and admiration of God does not fall into one of the five categories of either singing, praying, giving, learning, or communion. Perhaps these can break down into sub-categories, but I find nothing inherently wrong with talking about the five acts of worship. These are things we do together in worship to God. The Bible does not use the expression "five acts of worship", but neither does it use the expression "five steps to salvation". I suppose one can abuse the expression, but in all cases of conversion there is hearing, believing, repenting, confessing, and baptism. Perhaps they are not specifically mentioned altogether in one verse, but they are either stated or implied by all the evidence of what is involved in the process of conversion to Christ. Therefore, there is nothing particularly wrong with talking about the five steps to salvation. There might be something wrong with failure to talk about God’s part (the main part) in all of the process, and there might be a failure sometimes to focus on WHO we are worshipping rather than HOW we are worshipping, but those failures are not in the descriptions but in the emphasis.

Set-Piece Ritual?

There is a legitimate complaint that many "leaders" of song, prayer, or teaching can be too predictable. That is, some men lead prayer, for example, as if it is rote memory and on automatic pilot. When the same expressions are used with little to no variation, the prayer seems to lose the main element of sincerity. A prayer does not need to be eloquent to have meaning, but it needs to feature sincerity. If a man talks to another man, even though it contains some of the same appeals and requests, he needs to talk in such a way as to come across sincerely (because he really is sincere). If it begins to sound memorized, then it loses effectiveness in its communication. God is interested in actual appreciation, not mechanical "thank-you-s". There are so many things for which to give thanks, that it is hard to pick just the same old few things to talk about, unless one does not really think about being fervent and effectual in prayer.

Song leaders need to be less predictable. Why not say something about the song? Why not think about WHY you have selected the particular songs you have selected? Put some thought into the moments of congregational singing. Try to make it orderly AND spiritual. Try to emphasize the heart. There are many who do not know HOW to sing. I’m not talking about the science or mechanics of making a tune come out your mouth, but how to make melody in the heart, how to strike the chords of the heart in union and unity with the sentiment of the song. We need song leaders who know how to do this and how to pull other hearts into the meaning of the song. But, whether the leader knows how to do this or not, we need to learn how to sing from our hearts no matter how nicely the tune and pitch sounds to the human ear.

Preachers and teachers need to care about their lessons, the value of it, and the value of the souls they are influencing. The gospel is not just dry facts, but a treasure, and the teacher is sharing the treasure with friends. We need to feel eternity in our hearts. We need to be passionate about souls and passionate about what we are preaching. Likewise, every student, whether preaching or learning in another role, need to be passionate about how we listen and learn. God loves it when a person "receives with meekness the implanted word". Those that "gladly received the word" are not being mere "spectators" in a stand. The real involvement is going on in the heart of the listener, and this is not mere passive involvement. We must not come to be entertained by oratory skill, but come to learn and thereby grow.

If it can be said that "Apollos watered", it must not be the case that all preaching was evenly distributed among the members. There is the preacher (Apollos) watering the rest of the group (planted, I might add, by other than the waterer). Flowers are not passive when water is showered upon them from one person. They soak it in and convert it into useful empowerment. The man who waters the flowers give the flowers power to strengthen themselves. The flowers actively take in and utilize the water showered upon them. The picture LaGard paints is shallow. Moving all learning situations into homes will not make hearts hunger and thirst for righteousness, and that is a shallow fix for an inward problem.

We need to learn how to effectively "commune" with Christ when we take the memorial supper. It does not matter where we hold the communion service, or how much we eat or drink of the memorial items. What matters is that we do it and do it with deep meditation and devotion. Paul said it was the failure to "discern" the Lord’s body and blood that resulted in many (yes even in the first century) being weak and sickly. Proper discernment, reflection, and thought can only be strengthening to the Christian. Paul had no complaints about the location of their assemblies. That was not an issue, and had better not be allowed to be an issue now.

Worship Performance?

LaGard says, "In the intimacy of the first-century house church, there simply wasn’t room for anyone confusing worship with performance".

First, when a leader starts a song in a "house", what makes that less a "performance" than if the same leader leads that same song in a building? Isn’t this argument another straw-man argument?

Secondly, when a teacher teaches a lesson in a "house", what makes that less a "performance" than if the same teacher teaches that same Bible lesson in a building? Again, LaGard is spinning.

Thirdly, the assumption that a "house", rather than convictions and brotherhood, is what creates and maintains "intimacy" is also a false argument.

Fourthly, the assumption that first century churches were, in fact, house churches by conviction that that is the way it is supposed to be, is also a false argument.

Fifthly, the assumption that meeting in a house is by nature non-"performance"-oriented is a baseless assumption. I have performed many times in homes with my guitar and harmonica. I do not ever recall performing anything in a church building.

Sixthly, the assumption argues that when the church met in the school of Tyrannus, it was "performance" oriented, but had they met in a "house" it would not have been performance oriented. This is just too much spin.

Any Leaders Equals Clergy?

LaGard paints all participants in the modern churches with ugly, lifeless colors when he says,

"By that tradition, there are always people up front leading whatever worship is taking place, and then there’s everybody else, sitting in the pews following along in the set-piece ritual. In effect, it’s the clergy and laity, which we pretend not to have, but undoubtedly do have, at least in function." (p.154-155).

But, the arrangement of someone leading up front cannot make an automatic "clergy and laity" unless we accept that someone can offer something "on our behalf". Since all could not and did not lead at the same time, then the issue of someone leading while we participate in learning is not an issue of clergy and laity. Otherwise, the first century church was just as guilty. Was it clergy and laity in function when one man spoke and others listened? No, the function is not the same as a clergy-laity system unless there is a separate priesthood functioning in behalf of others who are not allowed to be priests. LaGard is making a false distinction. He cannot hold that a song-leader offers on behalf of the singers, or that a prayer-leader prays a prayer that others do not engage. He cannot hold that because there is a teacher, and all others are listening, that this is a clergy offering in behalf of the laity. Otherwise, all would have to teach at the same time, or write books every time LaGard is writing one. We cannot allow false arguments to go unchecked, especially when we know that the speaker or writer does not believe and follow his own arguments.

Official Ritual?

Another argument that LaGard sets forth is the argument that meeting in houses will naturally expand participation by women. He thinks they will talk more, and he thinks this will be good, if we can get all to meet in a house rather than a church building. He says,

One of the more interesting aspects of the house-church dynamic is the way in which, by comparison, the visibility aspect of larger assemblies tends to impact the crucial issue of gender roles. The more recognizable a leadership role, the more women are limited in their participation. With the reduction of "official ritual" led by recognizable worship leaders (song leaders, for example), there may be a wider framework in which women might participate without "teaching or having authority" over men. Particularly would this be true, I believe, during times of open discussion. As long as the principle of male spiritual leadership is duly maintained in both practice and spirit, dynamics might vary with each situation. (p.155).

The level of participation depends on the arrangement, full assembly, a discussion class, or a reading, or a lecture. It is not appropriate to interrupt a reading or a lecture, but a discussion class may open up for more VOCAL participation. Participation is NEVER limited. Vocal participation may be limited by the nature of the assembly or class. Whatever is understood or proclaimed to be the nature of the assembly determines the level of vocal participation of both men and women, whether held in a house or in a building. Mood-setting "dynamics" are carnal, not spiritual. Order and heart involvement and participation of heart is what God wants from each of us in any assembly or class, no matter where it is held.

The Invitation Song

I do not know when brethren began inviting aliens and wayward Christians to come to the front during the singing of an invitation song. But, it is certainly not wrong to invite a response with a song. It should not be thought of as the only way to end a sermon and the only way to legitimately invite people to respond to Christ’s invitation. Just like a common tradition of two songs and a prayer can be changed around in various ways, it can certainly be changed and the invitation song can be eliminated or retained. There is nothing wrong one way or the other. Surely, there ought to be open invitations either mentioned or understood at some point in all assemblies. Reminders that the invitation is always open, whether assembled or not, should be given regularly. But, the means of reminder can be with or without a song. LaGard complains,

"Of all the differences between 21st-century worship and primitive Christian practice, surely the strangest innovation is the perfunctory call for a ‘response’ at the end of every sermon, accompanied by the near compulsory invitation song." (p. 156).

While it may differ in a measure from what we can only imagine that the early church did, still we see Peter bringing his speech to a close, people responding with a desire to know what to do, and Peter inviting them to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for remission of sins. Whether we can imagine the early church giving "announcements", a "closing prayer" or an "invitation song" or not, does not make these things unscriptural or something we should seek to avoid. We might try various arrangements to keep it fresh, and to keep people from thinking that there is only one acceptable arrangement. The main thing is to really invite people to the Lord’s blessings. We must avoid being too critical of arrangements, but criticize our own hearts if we are not sincere about what we are doing or singing. There are inappropriate ways to remind people of the Lord’s invitation. Just put some serious thought into it. We know a song leader has not thought much about his song selection when he leads "O Why Not Tonight?" as the morning invitation song. We have no problem with churches that want to eliminate an "invitation song" if they so choose to make other arrangements for reminding people of the Lord’s invitation.

Will House Churches Evangelize Better?

People who never study with people in their own homes and never invite people to meetings at the church building will not likely invite people to a designated house. The house church has the same problems that LaGard imagines to be confined to churches with buildings to meet in. He says,

Our concept of evangelism, by contrast, is both vicarious and corporate. Instead of personally going out and taking the gospel to a dying world, the idea now is to bring lost souls into our Lord’s Day meetings so that someone else can present them with the good news of Christ. In practice, of course, that is more theory than reality. In the end, we have evangelistic sermons aimed at people who aren’t even there. Either that, or we have sermons of exhortation which inevitably, at the last minute, are robbed of their punch by awkward, contrived transitions into the obligatory "invitation"…again, for mythical people who still aren’t there. Because we haven’t invited them. Because we don’t seem to really care about the lost. Because that’s not our job. (p.157).

But, the house-church does not solve these things. Many find that meeting in houses is not a better way to evangelize. It can only be better if every individual studies individually with others in their own homes (many members having home Bible studies that may lead up to the student coming to the assembly house or church building). But, when a person has become comfortable with one member by personal study, then it makes no difference when invited to assemble in another member’s house or in a church building. A designated house (owned by a brother) is not itself a better evangelistic situation than a house owned by the local church. It is personal studies that make the difference in the growth of any church, no matter where they assemble. But the designated assembly house, is not a better place to invite visitors or bring them.

Discipline Is Better In Houses?

Quote: Moreover, if drastic church discipline should ever be necessary, only the house-church scenario makes much sense of Paul’s instruction: ‘With such a man, do not even eat’ (1 Corinthians 5:11). The ongoing table fellowship of the house church, both specially on the Lord’s day and throughout the week, played such a significant part in the Christian’s experience in the first century that the threat of its being withdrawn could actually be an incentive for the sinner to come home. Back to the table. Back to the fellowship. Back to the family again. (158).

First, this would have been a fine time for Paul to argue that the church at Corinth should meet in homes. But, Paul apparently did not believe it mattered where the church the met, a long as they taught each member to eat their meals at home (1 Cor.11:17ff).

Secondly, when the principle of "hospitality" has members "eating from house to house" instead of in one whole assembly, Paul’s instructions make perfect sense. It is a false argument to say that "ONLY" the house-church scenario makes sense of Paul’s instructions.

Thirdly, Paul’s argument assumes a different scenario than one meal, a "fellowship meal" on the first day of the week in the assembly. LaGard would argue that you should prevent an erring brother from coming into the assembly where the "fellowship meal" is being held. I don’t think that this is what the text demands.

Fourthly, the best explanation is that the erring brother never gets invited into homes. When brethren are hospitable, and hospitality toward one is removed, he will notice it and miss it. Perhaps he invites brethren to his own house and no accepts his invitation. Is this not an effective way to discipline?

Nominal Christians?

LaGard argues (p.158), "Nominal Christians don’t clutter house churches!"

First, he has argued that first-century churches were in fact house churches, but we saw plenty of nominal Christians at Corinth, Sardis, Ephesus, and Laodicea. So, LaGard is spinning. He has no valid argument about the place of meeting at all. It made no difference then or now.

Secondly, the truth is that many "house churches" are lead by "nominal Christians" who did not get along with others in buildings or houses. His claim is that this does not happen in house churches. How can we take him or his argument seriously?

Knowing The Flock

LaGard says, Suffice it to say for the moment that many flocks today are so big that there’s simply no way the shepherds can know their sheep by name. Nor, worse yet, by need"(p.159).

This would be true of many flocks, but not most flocks. The average congregation runs about 70-100 members. This breaks down to about 40 households. A shepherd that cannot know this many sheep by name and need is not a good prospect for shepherding. A "fold" of literal sheep was about 100. The shepherd knows them one by one because he loves his sheep. A man that does not take enough interest in the flock to know 100 families should not be appointed to be a shepherd.

In larger congregations there should be more elders and deacons so that the "needs" of the flock does not outgrow the ability of leadership. When a flock outgrows the ability of the leadership, then it is time to start a new work in a different area of town, or grow more qualified leaders.

Knowing the flock should be the special and greatest focus of the elders. It is because of this interest that the members feel confident enough to select and appoint them. The hospitable interest and spiritual depth and teaching ability are two main things that urges members to want to appoint that man as an elder or shepherd.

Since an elder can know two members better than three, does this argue that elders should seek to keep the flock at the minimum? Or, do we set arbitrary figures? Remember that many houses held "crowds"(LaGard’s word) and "multitudes"(Bible word). Do we now try to trim houses down to arbitrary figures below 40-50?

Small-Group Worship Model?

LaGard argues, But the instrument issue likely would not even have arisen if the rest of us hadn’t already flunked the same Shibboleth test by departing from the small-group-worship model of the primitive Christians. (p.162).

First, he assumes that there IS a "small-group-worship model". Where is this "model" found?

Secondly, houses increase the likelihood of using the instruments that many have in their homes already. If the worship is so informal and spontaneous, what is to keep a brother or sister from spontaneously playing the piano that is often found in the very assembly room of the house?

Thirdly, LaGard says the two issues (non-instrumental music and small-group-worship) are "the same". So, if it is a sin to use the instrument in worship (and it is) then it is also a sin to meet in large groups contrary to the "model". But, the two issues are not the same. There is a model of singing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs with melody made in the heart and not on carnal instruments. There is no model about the size of a group. LaGard invented the idea. There is no pattern of group sizes. If anything, the preponderance of the evidence shows that large groups were the norm and small groups the exception. So, there is no "model" at all on the matter of group size. LaGard "flunked" sound reasoning on this one.

No Weekly Contributions?

LaGard claims, The truth is, there is simply no evidence that the early church ever made weekly contributions as part of an apostolically-mandated worship ritual. Their contributions, when made, were special collections intended to meet particular needs"(p.164).

First, all collections are "special collections" intended to meet particular needs. The need may be in Jerusalem, far away from Corinth, or wherever we may find ourselves. Or, the need may be in helping preachers like Paul, or local elders given to the ministry of the word (1 Tim.5:17,18), or to "widows indeed"(1 Tim.5:16), or to the support of many preachers, or to the weekly needs of the saints, or to the up-keep of edifying materials and the place of assembly whether rented or purchased. Every week there are "special needs" both locally and in other places.

Secondly, Paul told the Corinthians to follow the precedent set by the Macedonians and the Galatians. He told them to collect funds every first day of the week (1 Cor.16:1-3). The direction of the need was Jerusalem in this case, but that is not the extent of need, and therefore the principle of when to gather needed funds is set in this passage.

Thirdly, the divine precedent is to look for needs, even far away, and give every first day of the week. The door-way to generosity, in Corinth’s case, started with the need far away in Jerusalem. Philippi set a precedent of supporting preachers time and again. The precedent for when to collect needed funds is "on the first day of every week". The uses of collected funds is varied.

Fourthly, the giving is to be done in view of how one has been prospered. Therefore, it is a gift of personal sacrifice out of personal appreciation. This makes it a "gift" for expressing homage to God and it is to be given when the assembly meets on the first day of the week. It is therefore an expression of worship to be included when the saints meet for communion on the first day of the week.

Fifthly, LaGard claims there is "no evidence" for this. But, the passage states a precedent and command. How is this not "evidence"?

Cancel The Whole Chapter, LaGard Concedes He Has No Proof

What a waste! It is amazing that so much hype, spin, and imagination could be put into a book designed to stir "radical restoration", but then we get to the end of the chapter and hear the author concede that he has not proven his case. Real restorationists are people of the book who prove their beliefs by rightly handling the word of truth. But, when something cannot be proven, the matter is left alone because it is considered an unjustifiable and non-biblical opinion. LaGard builds his case with hype, spin, and imagination, and then has to confess in the end that he has proven nothing he has said.

Quote: "If pressed on the issue (which, so far, I’ve managed to sidestep), I don’t know that I’m prepared to say unequivocally that the house church was a divinely-intended arrangement. Not in the sense, at least, that it plainly violates God’s will if we meet, instead, in purpose-built houses of worship. However, I have no doubt but that moving away from the house-church concept has given rise to a system without scriptural support which has fundamentally changed the form and nature of worship as practiced in the apostolic church." (P.166).

First, he cannot say it because it is NOT a divinely-intended arrangement. If it was a divinely-intended arrangement, he could prove it by the word of God.

Secondly, he knows that his whole premise has been built on, not the solid ground of God’s word, a thus-saith-the-Lord, but on the way he spinned his own words with his own imagination. This is grounds of marking a man as a fasle teacher.

Thirdly, not only did he not prove that all churches met in private houses, and not only did he fail to prove that God "intended" that churches make the arrangement of meeting in houses, but he also failed to prove that God favored small meetings in small homes above large meetings in large homes, synagogues, temple areas, or by a river, or in a school house. By his own admission, we can throw out his whole book.

Fourthly, he failed to prove that the Lord’s supper is an "integral" part of a common meal. Other than a few thought-provoking points here and there, the main premises of his book are unproven and unprovable.

The only thing LaGard proved in this chapter was that some churches met in member’s houses at times. But, this was not an issue anyway. No one denies that churches then and now assembled in houses. The only issue is whether churches were small groups that all met in houses by divinely-intended arrangement. The answer is "no". They were not always "small groups" and they were not given any divine indicators as to where God "preferred" that people worship Him. We must conclude that LaGard got his imagination going on a tangent, and the results will be needless divisions in churches. What a shame! "Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the traditions of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ"(Col.2:8).

The following things are "according to the traditions of men":

1) Making "house churches" the preferred or only legitimate arrangement.

2) Making "small groups" (though undefined) the preferred or only legitimate size.

3) Making personal houses the only legitimate "setting".

4) Making the Lord’s Supper an "integral" part of a common meal.

5) Making a "fellowship meal" a common meal rather than a spiritual meal.

Those who teach and accept such things are cheating themselves and others through philosophy and empty deceit. You are called on by God to "beware" of these and many other "traditions of men".

The House Church Denominations Are Not All They Are Cracked up To Be

Listen to the Voices of Experience

The following excerpts from an article by Wayne Jacobsen reveal the serious and real problems with the basic thinking of those who follow the reasoning that LaGard has used throughout his book. Listen carefully to the following:

It's Not the Form

For those who read BodyLife, you know I love seeing the body of Christ find ways to live out its faith and fellowship in household-sized groups where people can be active participants together in the journey of faith. The early church found the home to be the most natural environment for people to share God's life together.

It is easy to convince people that house church just might be the answer to all of they've desired in body life, that is until they get involved in one. It quickly becomes evident that meeting in a home isn't necessarily all it's cracked up to be. What do we do about the people who only want to use the group for their own needs? Where can we find enough people willing to pay the price to share that kind of life together? What do we do when the meeting is boring and we're tired of staring at each other?

Moving things out of a larger building and into a home does not of itself answer anything of substance. While it does provide the possibility of more active participation and deeper relationships, just sitting in a house together for a meeting does not guarantee that those things will happen. If people aren't discovering the substance of what it means to live as the church, changing the mechanics will only provide a platform for people to commandeer the group in their thirst for leadership or pull it down by trying to make their needs or passions the focus of the group.

What's wrong with the way we do church today has far less to do with the forms we use than it does the journey we are on. If we are looking for house church to meet the needs that more institutional forms couldn't touch, we are likely to be disappointed by our experiences in house church. Any time we begin with our needs as the focus, instead of God's purpose, we will end up disappointed by the results.

(Why House Church Isn't the Answer, By Wayne Jacobsen) Find this article at the following website: http://www.lifestream.org/LSBL.Feb02.html

Jacobsen further says:

If we are looking to relate to the church because we need acceptance, or security, or a place to demonstrate our gifts, or people to love us in a certain way or someone to tell me how I should live in Christ, we're already headed the wrong direction.

His contention was that congregations exist only as long as they can effectively overlap these needs. When they do, the congregation gets along famously. When they don't they get trapped in gossip, power-struggles, and people leaving to find congregations that will meet their needs or form new ones with a different group in control. There the cycle begins all over again while most never realize that the life of the church is not built on our self-needs, but on God's purpose in his people.

Changing the venue from a building to a home doesn't solve this problem. If we're going to seek to find church life by having our needs accommodated by others, we will find moments of fulfillment mingled with long, dry periods of discontent and frustration.

Scripture is clear. True life is only found in Jesus. There is life in no other--not even a correct arrangement of Christians in houses or buildings. That's what Paul meant when he called Jesus the Head of the Church, declaring that it was God's purpose for him to "have first place in everything." Our needs are not the focus of body life. His presence living among us is.

Here is the problem with most of what passes for church life today, including many house churches: Rather than teaching people how to live dependent on Jesus Christ, it supplants that dependency by its misguided attempt to take the place of Jesus in people's lives. Instead of teaching them how to live in him, they make them dependent on the structures and gatherings of what we call church. Our expressions of church life just become another thing to stand in the way of people living deeply and fully in him

Church life grows out of a group of people who are focused on Jesus. Focus on the church, and you will always be disappointed. Focus on Jesus and you will find him building the church all around you. - Unquote.

I don’t believe I could have said it better. The need we have is not a "radical restoration" of forms and new settings and arrangements. It is a need to be personally filled with the Spirit. We need to let Christ be ALL in ALL. When Christ is all, we are "at home with worship" wherever the church assembles.

Terry W. Benton

Terry's Website and E-Mail Address

www.pinelanechurchofchrist.com

terrywbenton@bellsouth.net