In recent years there has been a resurgence of the idea that Christians should meet in houses (some say ONLY houses) rather than in a larger church building. This is certainly not anything new as we see the early church sometimes met in homes in Scripture. As the churches grew and became more established, they naturally moved towards larger places to meet and have traditionally done that (where permitted) ever since.

There is nothing wrong with meeting in a home, but with maybe the greatest resurgence of the “house church” idea happening in the last 50-60 years or so, it is certainly worth discussing. What I would like to do in this article is mainly address those who teach today that a house church is the ONLY biblical model and that the traditional church as we typically see it today, is not biblical. I’ll primarily be addressing the main points made by authors, such as Frank Viola (probably the leading author and major proponent of house churches).

In his books, “Reimagining Church” as well as “Finding Organic Church” and “Pagan Christianity,” Frank Viola writes about an idea that is commonly referred to as “Restorationism” which has been sought after by many people in many eras. At its root is simply the idea of “getting back to the basics” of church and claiming that house churches are the “biblical” way to do it. Viola also calls it “simple” or “organic” church.

His main argument is that the “modern” church is unbiblical and has roots in pagan practices as, he believes, the New Testament church 1) met only in homes, 2) did not have leaders, 3) had no liturgy (structure) to the service. He cites verses (full or in part, often out of their context) to “prove” his point. He cites other authors (including himself!) who agree with him. He takes out of context quotes from some authors that he knows do not agree with his view and uses them in such a way to make it seem like they agree with him, or at least support his idea.

He basically argues for something he calls “the organic expression of the church,” which “takes many different forms depending on culture and time, but which is always consistent with NT principles and the nature of God.” The first part of this statement essentially allows for the modern church to exist but then he focuses on the second part of it to show why he believes it to be unbiblical and pagan. But he acknowledges it is okay to do things that are not in the Bible and/or were developed by pagans...just not when it comes to “doing church.” This is simply hypocritical teaching, as his premise doesn’t hold up to scriptural examination.

He effectively picks and chooses verses (or parts of verses) that support his premise, and does not regard or attempt to explain those that do not support his premise. For example, he states the church today should be based only on what the early church was like. Let’s look at the very beginning in Acts 2:41-47. We read:

So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. And fear came upon every soul; and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles. And all who believed were together and had all things in common; and they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need. And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they partook of food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.

The church started at this point, initially with 120 people (1:15) and after Peter’s sermon, grew by 3,000, with more being added to that number daily. They were devoted to the Apostle’s teaching (indicating hierarchy that is NOT pagan in origin or nature...but that’s another point of error he makes), to fellowship, breaking of bread and prayer.

They had all things in common, meaning they basically shared everything they had. They even sold things that they either had or made, to make sure no one had need. We see the same in 4:34-35. They met together every day.

They met in the temple, not homes (showing it’s not pagan in origin) and went to homes to eat and further fellowship.

In Acts 3 and 4, Peter and John are going to the temple to teach. Now, 5,000 “men” are in the faith, with likely more if we consider women and children. A number far too great to meet in homes and hear the Apostle’s teaching. Logically that would still be occurring in the temple.

Acts 5 shows the Apostles in the temple teaching. So we come to 5:42, which says...“And every day in the temple and at home they did not cease teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ.”

In Acts 9, Saul was going to Jerusalem to the synagogues to search for Christians (meaning that’s a place they were meeting) and later, after his conversion, he began to proclaim Christ in the synagogue as well.

In Acts 13, 17, 18 and 19 we again see teaching in the synagogue.

In Acts 19:9-10, we see believers meeting in the “hall of Tyrannus” for 2 years just while Paul was with them.

In Acts 21, Paul is teaching believers in the temple.

Through the rest of Acts, we see Paul in the synagogue or temple teaching.

We have to go all the way to Acts 20:20 to see teaching in homes again, where it reads...“...how I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you in public and from house to house...” with the “public” part referring to him teaching in the temple or synagogue.

So with the early church there are only two occasions where teaching happens in homes and many more where it happens in the temple or synagogue. Nearly every other mention of homes has to do with hospitality in some way.

There are only four other occasions mentioned of actual churches in homes in the NT; Romans 16:5, 1 Corinthians 2:19, Colossians 4:15 and Philemon 1:2. At no time is there ever a command, nor even a hint of command, indicating that meeting in a house is the right way for believers to gather. It is not forbidden as it obviously occurred in the early church.

In addition, the idea that God’s people gathering to worship in a building is a “pagan” idea completely ignores the biblical fact that God commanded Israel to construct the temple and gather there to worship Him. Then, as we get to Revelation, we see that in heaven His people currently worship God in a temple. Viola ascribes to pagan ideology something God instituted for His people, and currently practices Himself in Heaven. This is poor biblical teaching.

Even from a logical standpoint, it makes sense that as a church is small with only a few believers (especially as the Gospel is just starting to spread), they would meet in homes. But it is also logical that as they would grow out of those homes, larger buildings would be found to use for their gatherings.

The Bible gives us freedom in this area. But there are also instructions to guide us in the use of our freedom. No “type” of church is prescribed. There are good and bad home churches just as there are good and bad traditional churches. What matters most is how devoted they are to the Apostle’s teaching and the things that flow from that. Frank even allows for “culture and times” to affect what the church may look like, but then disallows for “culture and times” to affect the church meeting as it is today. That is a very poor defense for his premise.

Viola even states in “Reimagining Church” that...“I’ll be the first to admit that I am not beyond correction in my views. I’m still growing and learning.”...as well as... “In addition, I would never claim that there is one “right” way of doing church. And I certainly do not claim that I’ve found it.” He goes on to say that this particular model of “organic church”... “And for me and scores of other believers, we have found these ways to match our deepest longings as Christians.” Notice the “deepest longings” are what he and others want matched.

Then he proceeds to attempt to justify why the traditional church is wrong and his way is right. See the hypocrisy there? I think he is in great need of correction in a number of areas. The measure of whether something is right or wrong is not whether it meets the “deepest longings” of people, but whether it is in accordance with the scriptures.

This is just addressing ONE point of error that I see present in his writings and the writings of those who subscribe to this kind of ideology. If he can be this wrong at one point, the likelihood is that he is wrong at other points as well, and I believe he is.

Is a house church okay? Sure...so long as it seeks to follow the description of what the Bible teaches us that a church is to look and be like. Is the traditional, modern church okay? Sure...so long as it seeks to follow the description of what the Bible teaches us that a church is to look and be like.

I hope this article has been helpful and informative to you. If you would like to discuss this further or if you have questions about this, please feel free to contact me and I’d be happy to speak with you about this further.

Blessings as we serve Him together!

Chris Kiiskinen is an Elder at Grace Bible Church