Can a small, informal fellowship be a "church"?

[Joseph Gill]

Would you agree that the purpose for believers gathering together it is to encourage each other in the Christian walk, to love one another and express that love through good deeds? Seems to me this doesn't have to be done in an organized body... it doesn't have to be a chartered organization with a board of directors and a dedicated edifice... it can be a small, informal fellowship. For two years, while living in northern Japan, my wife and I fellowshipped with a house church comprised of two farming families.

Has anyone else here been a part of a house church? Any thoughts about smaller, informal
fellowships--like the house church movement--that are growing in popularity here in the
Western world?

[Pastor Rodrick Sweet,ThM]

This is a great question my brother, I believe that the overall answer is yes! If we look carefuly at the New Testament Church that is what the schurch was. I have had the joy of being a part of house churches in Houston they have been some of the best times for true fellowship and discipleship I have had.

[Joseph Gill]

Did you become very familiar with the workings of the house churches? How structured were their fellowship meetings? What was the liturgy: was it bible study exclusively, or was there space for other worshipful activity? Did those churches practice the ordinances (the Lord's Supper and baptism)? Were there appointed leaders (pastor/teachers and deacons)? Can I cram any more questions into a pithy post?

[Pastor Rodrick Sweet,ThM]

We can read all this in the NT itself. Their leaders were elders with one being the lead elder (pastor). Also The book of 1 Corinthians may give light on the way their worship may have looked.Read chapters 8-14.

[Joseph Gill]

Are you thinking that a passage like 1 Corinthians 14 gives us a normative picture of the NT era worship service? How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying. [verse 26] I read it that way myself, but there is precious little in that epistle, or in Acts, or anywhere else the New Testament that I can think of where a genuine liturgy is described. In Acts 20, for example, we seem to have "the love feast" of 1 Corinthians 11 being modeled, and we see Paul preaching, and we even see a break-out divine healing session when Eutychus fell from the loft. But would the usual Christian assembly at Troas have included corporate prayer? Corporate singing? Ecstatic worship? Formal bible teaching? I don't think scripture is very specific. 

 

I'm still curious about the structure of the house churches you've encountered. This isn't entirely an academic issue to me. A few years ago (to my discredit, I think) I got into an acrimonious debate in another online community with someone who insisted that a real church, "by its very nature.. is organized and.. has certain structure. It has a leader, the pastor. It has officers, [the deacons,] it has members and it has rules... [A church] also has outward functions that include evangelism, missions and doing works of mercy. Unless the informal group that meets has these elements, it is not a church." He went so far as asserting that a real church would also have a written code of conduct. I knew from my own experience (although, I am wary about relying solely on experiential knowledge) that a house church might not possess deacons, a written code of conduct, or programs for group ministry (evangelism, missions, good works, etc.). My correspondent's inflexibility seemed designed to question the validity of the house church movement, rather than to give a good faith definition of a "local church."

[newview]

I think house churches are wonderful and just as powerful as assemblies held in cathedrals.

Where two to three are gathered in His name...

[Joseph Gill]

I think we would better understand what a "church" is by best understanding it's Greek meaning. The Greek word for "church" is Ecclesia. Which is defined Administration of offices that governs the Body of Christ. When you use terms as administration, offices, and governing, structure and rules will always be apart of it's make up. The rules come from the Bible as well as it's structure. The Kingdom of God has government. Jesus is the King. The angels make up His army. And the Holy Spirit, who resides in the Earth is it's Governor etc..

 

According to the classic Thayer's Lexicon, the ekklēsia are the called out or forth: a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place; an assembly. For example, the word was used to refer to a gathering of Greeks in a Macedonian amphitheater in Acts 19:23-41, and so was translated "assembly" in verses 32 and 39 (KJV). Even in strictly theological use, ekklēsia connotes calling specifically; that is why Deacon Stephen was able to refer to Israel as the "church in the wilderness" (Acts 7:38)... they were defined by being called of God, not by operation of the five-fold ministry. I suppose you could argue that all references to the Christian Church are distinct from the non-Christian groups called "ekklēsia" in scripture, so "the called" is not sufficient for a definition of ekklēsia in the Christian sense. But I see examples in the bible where the discussion of the NT church emphasizes the act of assembling together (for example, 1 Cor. 14:34,35, where Corinthian women were enjoined from speaking in the church, but encouraged to ask questions from their husbands at home: clearly, the contrast being made is one of being in assembly and being out of assembly).

 

 

The five fold ministry offices (Apostle, pastor, teacher, prophet, evangelist) make up the governing body that is to govern the Body of Christ. Plus we have the gifts of the Spirit that are inside of all believers to help edify one another. So when you say you have a church, what I hear is that you have a set of people, who make up an Ecclesia: They hold one of five offices that will govern a particular body of believers. If the five fold ministry is not present or apart of your "fellowship" then you don't have a church/ecclesia. There should be some access to the Ecclesia if you have a church.

 

An interesting proposition. What we would have to assume about the several references to house churches in scripture, if this is true, is that in each house church the apostolic, prophetic, evangelistic, pastoral and teaching offices were represented. I'm incredulous that this could be true, but I do admit there are no descriptions of the internal organization in these house churches. Nonetheless, I suspect the verses like 1 Cor 12:28 and Eph 4:11 are not referring to particular assemblies, but to the universal church. The pastoral epistles make a stronger case that each local church must have a pastor/bishop and a diaconate, than Eph  4:11 does that every church must have the five-fold ministry in operation.

 

[Joseph Gill]

Interesting... you seem to identify the possibility that the formation of some house churches may leave the participants unhealthily segregated from the universal church. Perhaps some people have even founded house churches to escape accountability to church leadership? This deserves carefully consideration... thank you.