LESSONS FROM THE EARLY HOUSE CHURCH FOR TODAY’S CELL GROUPS

From the Christian Education Journal http://journals.biola.edu/ns/cej/authors/harley-atkinson/

Harley Thomas Atkinson

Toccoa Falls College

Joel Comiskey

Joel Comiskey Group

Abstract: As the apostles proceeded to carry out the Great Commission (Matt 28:18-20), they utilized a two-fold approach of meeting in the temple courts for large-group meetings and in the homes for more intimate small-group encounters. Very quickly, the house church became the definitive expression of church in the early Christian movement. In the wake of the Apostle Paul’s missionary journeys, numerous churches sprang up and virtually all of the New Testament churches mentioned in the letters of Paul were in private homes. The house church remained the most significant context for early church worship, fellowship, and Christian education up to the early part of the fourth century, when Constantine legitimized Christianity. At that point in history, basilicas replaced the house church along with the small-group style of worship, ministry, and teaching. This article will explore the early house church as a model of small-group meetings and how these gatherings served as the context for the ongoing life of the early church.

Key Words: house church, small group, cell group

________________________________________________________________________

Introduction

With the proliferation of various types of small groups in the middle part of the 20th century, James Davies, in 1984, asked the question, “Small Groups: Are They Really So New?” (p. 43). The author turned to the recent church history of John Wesley and his small groups to answer his own questions. However, we must go to the early church where Christians first assembled in homes to better answer the question Davies posted. The purpose of this article is to examine the house church of the early Christians as a model for the cell groups that proliferate in churches in the early 21st century.

Early Church Assemblies

Prior to his ascension, the risen Christ left his disciples with what is known today as the Great Commission (Matt 28:18-20), the command to make disciples by evangelizing, baptizing, and instructing. The disciples soon put into practice what they had learned in their small group with Jesus. After the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost and Peter’s sermon, the church exploded in numbers from 120 (Acts 1:15) to over 3,000 people (2:41). The rapid expansion and growth continued as converts were added to the church daily (2:47). As the Christian movement spread, the house church dominated Christian assemblies, as no place met their needs save the homes of the members (Filson, 1939, p. 106). As the early church spread outward from Jerusalem, many new Christian communities emerged in cities such as Antioch, Corinth, and Rome, as well as in the regions of Judea, Galatia, and Macedonia (Vandenakker, 1994, p. 6).

House-based ministry became so common that throughout the book of Acts, every mention of a local church or of a church meeting, whether for worship or fellowship, is a reference to a church meeting in a home. Men and women, ablaze with the Spirit of God, began to spread the gospel message from house to house (Acts 20:20). House churches played an essential role in the rapid growth and ultimate triumph of Christianity, and it would be safe to say that the first three centuries belonged to the house church movement. The practice of meeting in the homes of individual members lasted over a period of nearly 300 years—until the fourth century, when Constantine legitimized Christianity and basilicas replaced homes as the primary center of worship and instruction.

New Testament House Churches

As Christianity forged its way through the Roman Empire, the movement left countless house churches in its wake. Scripture is replete with examples of such. For example, when Peter was released from prison in Acts 12, he went to a house church at the home of Mary. Scripture says, “He went to the house of Mary the mother of John, also called Mark, where many people had gathered and were praying” (Acts 12:12, NIV). Then he entered the house of Cornelius, and through the proclamation of the gospel, Cornelius and his entire household came to faith in Chris. Roger Gehring (2009) proposes that this was the beginning of a house church in Caesarea:

Through the peace greeting and the proclamation of the kingdom of God, the peace of God rests on the son of peace and his household (Luke 10:5-7; Matt 10:12-13). After this Peter is invited to stay a few days (compare Acts 10:48 with Luke 10:7). Many exegetes view Acts 10:1-48, among other things, as the story of the establishment of a house church and thus the history of the founding of the church in Caesarea. (p. 108)

The church continued to spread out from Jerusalem through homes and house churches. The jailer’s house at Philippi became an evangelistic center after his conversion (Acts 16:16-40), and Jason’s house at Thessalonica was used for evangelism (Acts 17:5). After God opened up the heart of Lydia and her entire household was baptized, she invited missionaries into her home and offered them her hospitality for an undetermined period of time (Acts 16:14-15). Her house became a place where fellowship was enjoyed, a meeting place for worship, and a base of operations for Paul’s mission (Gehring, 2009, p. 131). In Acts 18:7-8 we read that Crispus, the synagogue ruler, and his entire household believed in the Lord.

However it is a study of the Apostle Paul’s missionary travels that demonstrates the clearest evidence of New Testament house churches. In fact, all of the New Testament churches that are mentioned in his letters as having specific locations were in private homes (Meeks, 1983, p. 75). His letters make note of these house churches (oikon ekklesia) on a number of occasions. For example, in 1 Corinthians 16:19 he refers to the couple Aquila and Priscilla and “the church that meets in their house.” Aquila was a tentmaker and no doubt had a shop connected to his house. Regarding this house church, Gehring (2009) suggests, “In such a room or in the shop itself about twenty believers could have assembled for a house church meeting” (p. 136). Aquila and Priscilla maintained a church in their home wherever they lived, whether in Corinth or Rome (Acts 18:2ff, 26; Rom 16:3-5; 1 Cor 16:19; 2 Tim 4:19).

Paul baptized Stephanas’s household and used their home “for the service of the saints” (1 Cor 16:15). Paul asks that greetings be given to “the brethren at Laodicea, and to Nympha and the church in her house” (Col 4:15). Paul’s teaching to the church at Corinth assumes a small group setting where everyone is participating: “When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church” (1 Cor 14:26). Finally, Paul writes to a house church in his epistle to Philemon (verse 2).

Many more house churches are assumed (though not explicitly identified as such) in Scripture. For example, it appears that traces of two additional house churches can be observed in Romans 16:14-15,where Paul writes, “Greet Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermes, Patrobas, Hermas and the brothers with them,” and “Greet Philologus, Julia, Nereus and his sister, and Olympas and all the saints with them.” These names quite likely represent the members of two house churches, to which an undetermined number of additional Christians belonged, some relatives, others slaves or emancipated slaves (Gehring, 2009, p. 145).

The Size and Structure of the Early House Churches

Church historians agree that these house churches could have rarely been made up of many more than 15 or 20 people. Once a house church grew larger than that, it usually multiplied by simply starting another house church nearby. If not, the growth immediately caused problems (Simson, 1998, p. 40-41). In other words, these houses were simply normal-sized house structures. They were nothing out of the ordinary. Ralph Neighbor (2000) says this about house size: “Excavations in Jerusalem reflect that only the wealthy had homes with second-floor ‘Upper Rooms.’ For the rest, residences would usually not accommodate more than ten to twelve persons” (Kindle version, lines 578-579). Robert and Julia Banks (1998) note, “Such groups were not very large. Considering the size of average first-century houses (which were owned by less than 20 percent of the population), there were probably twelve to fifteen persons meeting in ‘the church in the house’ and no more than sixty to eighty as ‘the whole church’” (p. 29).

Since the houses of that time period differed from place to place, we cannot be overly dogmatic about the size, shape, and pattern of each house. Nonetheless, Gehring (2009) offers the following insights regarding the architectural design of the houses:

From an architectural point of view, the house offered certain strengths by providing space used in a variety of ways for missional outreach. To begin with, it should be pointed out that houses differ architecturally from one another. For the time period of the early Christian mission, Palestinian, Greek, and Roman types of private houses come into question. They were easily adapted, and they provided Christians with a low-cost venue for assembly. With relatively little effort it was possible to establish a Christian presence in the everyday life of the ancient cities. (pp. 289-290)

Normally a congregation met in a room, usually the dining room, of a private domestic house that was not changed or altered but was used for Christian purposes. The dining room, often in conjunction with the courtyard, provided space for teaching and preaching ministries, baptismal instruction, and other missional activities. It allowed the early Christians space for prayer meetings and the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. Carolyn Osiek and David Balch (1997) propose that by comparing archaeological digs of houses at that time, we can conclude that a typical house might have fit comfortably between 6 and 15 people. If the crowd spilled over into the gardens, more could have gathered (p. 30).

In the earliest years, perhaps for the first century and a half, there were probably no structural adaptations for Christian worship, but rather believers adapted to the available structures. The size of the meeting space in the largest house available would limit the size of a worship group. When the group became too large, another home was founded in another location (Osiek and Balch, 1997, p. 33). Carolyn Osiek, Margaret Macdonald, and Janet Tulloch (2006) envision a variety of types of houses were used for church gatherings:

Some Christian groups must certainly have met in more modest accommodations, even in some of the grimier apartment houses (insulae) or “tenement churches”. . . . But there is no reason, given the ample evidence of the ownership of some rather spacious houses at Pompeii by persons of modest social status but less modest wealth, why groups of worshipping Christians. . . could not have met in a peristyled domus (a building featuring a colonnade). It seems best to leave open the possibility of a variety of different configurations for house-church meetings, in the earliest years at least. (p. 9)

Excavations near Corinth uncovered an atrium house, which contained a series of rooms surrounding a courtyard. It accommodated nine people on the couches placed along the walls, and in the courtyard there would have been room for several more. If all of the couches were removed, there would have been room for about 20 people (Gehring, 2009, p. 141). According to Gehring, “Because of the physical limitations of the triclinium [dining room] . . . these first Christian communities were small, family-like groups in which individual pastoral care, intimate personal relationships, and accountability to each other were possible” (p. 290).

A very limited number of wealthy homes could fit up to 120 people (the upper room), but this was the exception rather than the rule. Robert Banks (1980) explains,

The entertaining room in a moderately well-to-do household could hold around thirty people comfortably—perhaps half as many again in an emergency. The larger meeting in Troas, for example, was so large that Eutychus had to use the windowsill for a seat (Acts 20:9). A meeting of the “whole church” may have reached forty to forty-five people—if the meeting spilled over into the atrium then the number could have been greater, though no more than double that size—but many meetings may well have been smaller. (pp. 41-42)

By way of summary, we can safely agree with John Vandenakker (1994), who argues,

The relatively small size of these house churches, as well as their household setting, promoted a more personally focused experience of catechesis and discipleship. It would not have been difficult for the Christians of these house churches to get to know and support one another in a very direct and personal manner” (p. 12).

One might easily conclude that the constricted size of the houses was a significant reason for the powerful impact it had on the environment, in that the house churches could not grow beyond the size of a small group due to lack of space (Gehring, 2009, p. 290). And it was this smallness that provided the ideal context for nurture, community, sharing, and evangelism (Acts 2:42-8).

The Life and Activities of the Early House Church

The religious activities that occurred in the house churches were various, but all were associated with or conducive to small-group community. The book of Acts reveals to us that the homes were used for prayer meetings (2:42; 12:12), fellowship (2:42), communion (2:42, 46), evangelism (2:47), and teaching (2:42; 5:42).

The house church meetings were quite flexible. Paul wrote to the house church in Colossae, “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God” (Col 3:16). Paul wanted the house church believers to freely share, to encourage one another, and to rejoice in God’s goodness. We do not see a rigid agenda. Rather, the meeting was a time to minister to one another and meet needs. The writer of Hebrews exhorts the house church members to do something similar: “Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful. And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds. Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching” (Heb 10:23-25). The Holy Spirit used each member as an instrument of edification.

The members enjoyed each other’s presence, laughed together, and experienced rich fellowship. Banks and Banks (1998) suggest, “Meetings were informal, joyful, and social” (p. 29). The early church saw itself as God’s new family. Many of the house church meetings were also hosted and led by the same family. The intense love of these early Christ-followers permeated the meeting. They saw themselves as brothers and sisters and wanted to serve one another as Jesus served his own disciples. For some early Christians, propose Banks and Banks, “the church family replaced the original family that they had lost upon conversion. For others relationships in their churches restored or deepened the family bonds that already existed” (p. 32).

The phrase one another appears more than 50 times in the New Testament. These phrases instructed the early believers on how to cultivate relationships among themselves. Furthermore, the Apostle Paul taught the early Christians that each member had an essential part according to his or her giftedness (1 Cor 12-14; Rom 12; Eph 4). He placed a high emphasis on participation because each person had a contribution to make. Paul addressed his letters to everyone in the house church because they were all ministers. When writing to the Corinthian house church, Paul says, “When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church” (1 Cor 14:26). Paul assumed that they would energetically minister to each other.

We also know, according to Scripture, that the early churches prayed together. After Peter was supernaturally released from prison, we read in Acts 12:12, “He went to the house of Mary the mother of John, also called Mark, where many people had gathered and were praying.” They specifically were praying for Peter to be released from prison, but we can assume that prayer characterized the house church meetings.

Luke describes homes being used for prayer meetings (Acts 12:12); for an evening of Christian fellowship (Acts 21:7); for holy communion services (Acts 2:46); for a whole night of prayer, worship, and instruction (Acts 20:7); for impromptu evangelistic gatherings (Acts 16:32); for planned meetings to hear the gospel (Acts 10:22); for following up (Acts 18:26); and for organized instruction (Acts 5:42).

Announcements and communication were also important activities in the early house churches. News from visitors, sending of letters from one city to another (e.g., Paul’s letters, 2 and 3 John), warnings of persecution, and accounts of actual persecutions were all important types of information that passed through the house churches (Osiek et al., 2006, p. 14). The house churches also served as centers of social services for those members who were in need. Young widows and the poorer family members looked to the house churches as a means of support. Apparently, there were some attempts by families to avoid their own responsibilities (1 Tim 5:4, 5, 8, 16) (p. 14).

Finally, the early church was encouraged to practice hospitality. For example the Apostle Paul urged the church in Rome to practice hospitality (Rom 12:13), the writer of Hebrews reminds believers not to neglect hospitality of strangers (Heb 13:2), and Peter challenges Christ followers to offer hospitality ungrudgingly (1 Pet 4:9). Osiek et al. conclude, “Hospitality emerges early as a key virtue in early Christian groups” (pp. 31-32).

Why the House Church Emerged as the Center of Church Life

Apart from the reality that the Christian movement was in its infancy and initially possessed no buildings, there were other reasons homes emerged as the centers of ecclesial life. The fact that Paul landed on a successful strategy of establishing house churches was “probably not without careful thought and consideration of the social structure existing at that time” (Atkinson, 2002, p. 87). There were at least three reasons for the emergence of house churches: (a) the home and extended family were central to the efforts to convert people to Christianity; (b) the household offered security and community to Christians who were marginalized by the Romans and Jews; and (c) the home or household provided an already existing venue that embodied Christian values.

A Strategy for Evangelism

The emphasis on the home as the foundational unit of society was strong in both the Jewish and Roman cultures. In light of this, Michael Green (1970) emphatically proclaims, “Sociologically speaking, the early Christians could not have hit on a sounder basis” (pp. 208-209). He goes on to suggest that in the Roman Empire, the family was a complex institution with the father serving as the undisputed head. Each household consisted of immediate relatives, slaves, freedmen, hired workers, tenants, and sometimes trusted friends and business partners (p. 209). Subsequently, the Apostle Paul and other church-planting missionaries made purposeful efforts to convert entire households, making house churches central to the advance of Christianity (p. 210).

A Sense of Community

The New Testament household was deemed a basic political unit and offered security and a sense of belonging that may have been lost in the larger social structure (Malherbe, 1977, p. 69). With the existing household as the nucleus, the house church served as the basic cell of the congregation in the very early years of the Christian movement (Meeks, 1983, p. 75). The house church not only enabled Christ followers to have a distinctive style of worship (as opposed to the synagogue worship of the Jews), it was the hospitality of the homes that made possible, in the words of Floyd Filson (1939), “common meals, and courage-sustaining fellowship of the group. The Christian movement really rooted in these homes” (p. 109). Vandenakker (1994) adds,

An Expression of Values

While the church exists apart from the structure it embodies, the home draws out the triune values of love, (the aforementioned) community, and family transformation. Thus the early house church practices were linked and even determined by the venue—the what was determined by the where. Ralph Neighbour (2000) writes,

There is a very important reason for the early church to be shaped in homes. It is in this location that values are shared. It may be possible to transmit information in a neutral building, but few values are implanted there. Value systems are ingrained through living together in a household. Something stirs deep within when life is shared between the young and old, the strong and the weak, the wise and the foolish. In the house groups, all participated and all were impacted by the values of the others as Christ lived within them. (Kindle version, lines 584-585).

Lessons for the Contemporary Cell Group Movement

Much can be learned from the early house church regarding contemporary cell groups. First, hospitality must be a priority; second, meetings should be organic; and third, churches must have a healthy balance between small and large group meetings.

Practicing Hospitality Through Cell Groups

The genius of the house church structure was that it changed lives where people lived and worked. People saw Christianity in living color. The early disciples lived Christ’s command: “By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another” (John 13:35). Thus it was natural for the home to be the base of operation for the early church. As we have observed, the home was the center of life for people.

One of the principal ways to imitate the early church success is found in the practice of hospitality (Rom 12:13; Heb 13:2; 1 Pet 4:9). Cell ministry often fails to expand because of the lack of hospitality among church members. Instead of seeing their homes as God’s possessions, people view them as their private castles. For example, sharing meals with other leaders, with other group members, and with neighbors will elevate the experience of community throughout the church. It will also redeem the home and provide practical ways of making it a center for ministry.

While the home is not the only place to have a cell group—some will lead groups at work, a restaurant, or on a university campus—it is a primary setting to engage people where we live and work. Christians need to see their neighborhoods and work places as mission fields and planting home cell groups as the main strategy.

Organic Nature of Meetings

We can also learn from the early church about the organic nature of the cell meeting. While some people prefer structured cell meetings, we must see the need to focus on edification as the primary goal of each cell group. In other words, it is not the lesson material that makes a great cell meeting as much as the ministry that takes place among the members. Cell leaders must listen more than talk, encourage each person to participate, and not allow one person to dominate the entire meeting. Cell groups probe deeply into people’s lives and are more like the early house churches when they are dynamic, free flowing, and controlled by the Holy Spirit.

Balancing Small and Large Group Meetings

History tells us that the foundation of the early church was the house church structure. We can also see that individual house churches were connected to other house churches, as well as larger congregations. At times, those house churches met regularly together, as in the case of the Jerusalem church and the church in Corinth. At other times those connected house churches met less frequently in the larger gathering. Besides worshipping together and receiving the apostles’ teaching, we do not know exactly what they did in those larger gatherings.

Today’s church is often imbalanced toward two extremes. Some independent house churches do not acknowledge connections with larger church celebrations. On the other hand, the majority of today’s churches have become imbalanced on the Sunday celebration side. Small groups are often a programmatic technique to keep people coming back to Sunday celebration, rather than being at the very heart of ministry.

Churches must determine if they are going to view the cell group as the church and the primary care structure for members or simply another program to keep people coming back to the Sunday gathering. If the church chooses to prioritize cell ministry, those cells and cell leaders need to be equipped, coached, and cared for in a cell structure that includes training, coaching, and celebrating together.

The principal role of the pastor is to care and equip the cell leaders who in turn will care for the rest of the church. When cell groups are gathered in a larger celebration, it should be seen as a gathering of the house churches to celebrate. In a cell-group strategy, the cell meetings should be seen as a primary place of ministry, while not neglecting the importance of gathering those house groups for worship and the preaching of the Word.

When this approach is taken, the larger celebration service is recognized as a time to minister to the leaders and members. Preaching focuses on expounding God’s Scriptures to make sure the leaders and members are well grounded in biblical truth. Then the teaching and preaching is reinforced in the house church setting through lessons that correlate with the preaching. For many church leaders this will prove to be a radical shift. Some might even think of it as diminishing the value of the large church services when, in reality, this approach elevates the celebration service as people will attend not as spectators and spiritual consumers but as worshippers and participants.

This has practical implications on areas as mundane as announcements and as impacting as vision casting. Announcements should focus on how the church is reaching people through the cell groups and give members a vision about what the church is doing to reach new areas through house-to-house ministry. Vision casting in these celebration meetings should be geared around existing cells and envisioning new groups. If there are visitors in the larger gatherings, they should be connected to cell members who will welcome them into a new family.

Conclusion

The early house congregations indeed belong to the category sociologists today call small groups (Meeks, 1983, p. 75). It is no understatement to say that the house church was a crucial factor in the first-century development of the early church, continuing into subsequent generations. And it is easy to conclude that the early house church serves as a helpful prototype of contemporary church-based cell groups. This can be done so far as we recognize that it must be done with caution, recognizing significant differences in social, cultural, and religious conditions. Banks and Banks (1998) profoundly note, “The challenge to the early Christians was to redeem a network of existing relationships; our challenge is generally to create community where little has existed before” (p. 45).

References

Atkinson, H. (2002). The power of small groups in making disciples. Toccoa, GA: Crooked Creek Publications.

Banks, R. (1980). Paul’s idea of community. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Banks, R., & Banks, J. (1998). The church comes home. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

Barclay, W. (1967). The Lord’s supper. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster.

Chadwick, H. (1967). The early church. London, UK: Penguin.

Davies, J. (1952). Daily life in the early church. London, UK: Lutterworth.

Davies, J. (1984). Small groups: Are they really so new? Christian Education Journal, 5(2), 43-52.

Filson, F. (1939). The significance of the early house churches. Journal of Biblical Literature, 58(2), 105-106.

Gerhing, R. (2009). House church and mission. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

Green, M. (1970). Evangelism in the early church. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Harrison, E. (1985). The apostolic church. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Klauk, H. (1982). The house-church as a way of life. Theology Digest, 30(2), 153-157.

Malherbe, A. (1977). Social aspects of early Christianity. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University.

Meeks, W. (1983). The first urban Christians. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Neighbor, R. (2000). Where do we go from here? A guidebook for the cell group church. Houston, Tx: Touch Publications. Kindle.

Osiek, C., & Balch, D. (1997). Families in the New Testament world. Louisville, Ky: Westminster John Knox.

Osiek, C., MacDonald, M., & Tulloch, J. (2006). A women’s place: House churches in earliest Christianity. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress.

Patzia, A. (2001). The emergence of the church. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity.

Schaff, P. (1952). History of the Christian church. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Sherrill, L. (1944). The rise of Christian education. New York, Ny: MacMillan.

Simson, W. (1998). Houses that changed the world. Cornwall, UK: Authentic.

Vandenakker, J. (1994). Small Christian communities and the parish. Kansas City, MO: Sheed and Ward.

AUTHORS

Harley T. Atkinson is a graduate of Talbot School of Theology with an MA in Christian Education and a Ph.D. in Christian education. He is currently professor of Ministry and Leadership at Toccoa Falls College and author of The Power of Small Groups in Christian Education. E-mail hatkins@tfc.edu

Joel Comiskey (Ph.D. Fuller Seminary) is an internationally recognized cell church coach and consultant and founder of Joel Comiskey Group. He has served as a missionary with the Christian and Missionary Alliance denomination in Quito, Ecuador, started a cell-based church in Southern California, and now coaches pastors in cell group ministry. He has written bestselling books on the worldwide cell group movement and teaches as an adjunct professor at Tozer Seminary. E-mail joelcomiskey@msn.com

HARLEY ATKINSON