In Defense of Biblical Churches

In Defense of Biblical Churches: A Response to the Critics!
by Beresford Job
(A strong English advocate for house churches. www.house-church.org)

So, the apostles established churches to specifically be located in people’s houses. And far from being merely some accident of history, this was actually a part of the apostolic, and therefore biblical, blueprint. And given that Paul emphasises in his writings that apostolic tradition, as passed on by them to the churches from Jesus Himself ,was binding and a command of the Lord, then why on earth would anyone want to do things differently? Yet sadly some church leaders eventually did, and now some of us don’t want to any more.

You see, the real problem is that when most churches come together on Sundays they are functioning, albeit with an infinite number of variations, according to the teachings of the early church fathers, the fellows who rather unhelpfully made the changes, and not the New Testament at all. And the contrast is amazing. Churches today aren’t just different from the New Testament ones, they are virtually their opposites. Think about it! The Bible shows that the believers came together as churches in people’s houses on the Lord’s Day for unled, open and spontaneous worship and sharing together, which involved most people present bringing teachings and revelations and the like. Further, they also ate a meal together; indeed, the very Lord’s Meal! (That’s what the Greek literally means, the main meal of the day towards evening!)

So what do we do instead? We meet on Sundays (at least we get something right) with those attending sitting in rows,  in a service, in a public building (whether ‘sacred’ or not), led from the front by someone who, usually, is paid to do it as their job. Contrast further a leadership of plural, co-equal and locally grown elders with an imported professional ‘one man pastor or priest’ type leadership and you begin to see, if you are honest, just how in contradiction of the Bible’s teachings we actually are. And of course in such a setting a shared main meal, to say nothing of each person being free to participate, becomes a complete nonsense; which is why the Lord’s Supper was eventually jettisoned in favour of bread and wine services instead.
So I see from the Bible that churches should be house based because of what is supposed to happen when they come together; and what better setting is there for participatory worship and sharing and then eating a meal together? And of course no-one who really knows their biblical stuff would challenge that this is indeed the blueprint upon which churches were shaped and formed under the teaching and care of the apostles in New Testament times.

So how, my old friend, can you then possibly go on to liken what I teach and practise in this regard as “the virus of legalism creeping it’s way into the bloodstream of even undoubtedly godly communities of Christians”? How on earth do you conclude that my contention that we ought to establish churches today in the same way the apostles did is “a legalistic bondage“, and is further “the pride of self-assertiveness hidden behind supposed concerns for the truth“? My understanding of legalism, and do correct me if I am wrong, is that it is the imposition of teachings and practises on believers that aren’t in the Word of God: and in what possible way am I doing that?

Biblical scholars of all shades are agreed that the New Testament churches met in the way I am describing, and all I am advocating is that we do things according to the teachings of Jesus and the apostles rather than going along with what the early church fathers later replaced it with. And although I fully understand that any one of us can assert what is actually biblical and true in a proud and sinful way (and may God forgive me if that is what I am doing), is it not also the case that it must, by very definition, be prideful for believers to assume they can better the Lord’s ideas and teachings in any way? Now come along my dear friend, just who is actually being proud here: those who submit to the scriptures, or those who think there is a better way outside of them?