I think Jesus would be surprised to learn that he started house churches. Last I heard, he went to Temple and synagogue and his apostles, whom he chose by name and granted the authority to lead his Ecclesia, did so too. As I recall, the first thing Paul did on his missionary travels was to go to Shul. The NT preserves bits and pieces of liturgy, not as reference manuals but “on the side”–everyone knew the liturgy, derived from Jewish liturgy, by heart. When they had to shift from Greek to Latin in Rome, then it gets written down (Hippolytus) but that doesn’t mean there was no formal liturgy before that.
There were house churches in the Empire during the persecution, out of necessity. But they were the houses of the rich and powerful Christians who had the resources to protect the others. So today’s house churches should be meeting in the homes of the richest and most powerful Christians, perhaps??
But as soon as possible, even before the Edict of Milan, Christians built public edifices for as high a level of liturgy as they could get away with. When Diocletian looked out over his capital, he is said to have been angered by the sight of dozens of defiant Christian church buildings. At Dura Europos we have the remains of one such pre-Edict-of-Milan non-house-church church building, modeled on Jewish synagogues, 2nd-3rd century, as I recall. Similar remains have been found elsewhere in Palestine and the eastern Roman Empire, outside the big cities.
The claim that Christianity started out formless and “low church” is a mythology invented by low church Protestants in the later Middle Ages and early modern era. It’s perfectly understandable, but historically credible, it’s not.

I will cry foul far more than Amen I expect.
For one thing – to split or multiply every year means never achieving accountability or community. More than 20 doesn’t feel like family? Well perhaps, but fission every year completely obliterates the notion of family. It also eliminates any real possibility for discipleship which requires long-term commitment to persons.

From early on in my faith the idea of house church strongly resonated with me, specifically as I valued what I later found out was called ‘koinonia’ as well as my reading of Paul, coupled with my anabaptist heritage, never allowed me to understand things like Ordination.
Yet as I have grown older, and especially since reading John Milbank, I have grown appreciative of liturgy and the sacraments as well as what in ecumenical conversations is termed ‘visible unity’. One of my strongest supporting elements for me against of remaining non-denominational was my strong conviction of pacifism stemming through Christlike enemy-love. Yet with Catholics like Cavanaugh it seems like many of my strongest convictions can also be seen in high church traditions.
My concern, and it less of a concern and more of constructive suggestion, is that this movement find someway to be public and have visible unity with older established churches without giving up it’s core. Is it possible? I don’t know.

My problem with books and ideas like this is that they are anachronistic and do not reflect the historical reality of first century households in either their Jewish, Greek, or Roman incarnations. (I haven’t read the book, but from your bullets, it looks like this one also perpetuates an anachronistic view.) They also perpetuate the historically inaccurate view that the “Orthodox and Catholic” models of church somehow sprang into existence in the fourth century. One can clearly see the ways that Christian worship developed from synagogue roots, it’s liturgical shape (frankly, projecting any other form into the first century shows no understanding for that time, culture, and context), and the ways the portion of a household that were used for business were repurposed for worship. We also have archeological evidence well before the fourth century demonstrating the same forms and structures that Christians were able to do more openly and elaborately once Christianity was legalized.
I see no benefit in projecting modern worship preferences and concepts of a nuclear family and nuclear family dwelling into the first century and calling that a “rediscovery” of the first century church. It’s just a reinterpretation of actual historical reality in light of your own tastes and preferences. If that’s how you want to “do church”, then that’s fine. But don’t claim it somehow has a basis in historical reality. At best, you are deceiving yourself. At worst, you are lying.

The House Church Book is an abridged version of Simson’s Houses that Change the World (1998). It is based on my reading of the first book that I would say, the whole “Third Reformation”/paradigm shift thing is a bit overstated. The reading of history is shallow. The biblical/theological approach is restorationist. And I wish he did more to dialog with missiologists and the work they’ve done in developing culturally appropriate church structures.
Having said that, I’m convinced that Simson is basically on target and that we need to embrace and nurture the house church movements — recognizing them as full churches. I believe that in the West these kinds of churches will become more and more culturally acceptable — and effective. This does not mean that the existing churches and their approaches are going to disappear. But my sense is that we are on the cusp of a restructuring that will include but transcend the so-called house churches. I suspect that things, at least in the US, will develop more along the lines of the simple/minimalist style churches advocated by Dave Browning (Deliberate Simplicity).
The whole thing has less to do with where churches meet but with how centralized or decentralized they structure themselves for ministry.
Simson’s frame of reference is the European context — although he has also lived in India and is aware of what is happening in the Asia.

Brad Boydston writes,
“Simson’s frame of reference is the European context — although he has also lived in India and is aware of what is happening in the Asia.”
Even in Europe Simson’s views and theories are not entirely uncontroversial. He moves primarily in “independent charismatic” circles and appeals to the same folks who have also embraced Cesar Castellanos “G-12″ (Groups of Twelve) leadership development and cell group model.

My question is on a more practical level than theological: If we are to have Apostle, Teacher, Pastor, Evangelist, and Prophet represented in each house church, and each of them had a spouse (a generalization) that would be half the group of Twenty. So how is that work out when multiplying?

A couple points based on the comments so far:
1. There is nothing mutually exclusive about house/free/organic church and sacramentalism/liturgy.
2. I agree that house churches are not THE prescribed biblical model for church structure. I do not believe there is such a thing.
3. That said, there is a ton the institutional church can learn from this movement. And so far nobody has addressed the really radical point up for discussion, the point about shared leadership.
4. Replication once a year is a little much. But there are a lot of churches that probably should have replicated long ago. And replication doesn’t have to mean division. A broad network of interrelated churches who have their own local integrity and vision is, IMHO, a valid way of expressing the catholic church.

All good points Travis.

It does sound compelling though…

I have spent about 10 years or more attempting to do just what Simson is advocating … I agree with most all of his point. The rub, however, is that it is MUCH harder to actually implement than it is to theorize about Human nature tends to sabotage the process. For example it is hard to get an apostle, pastor, teacher and evangelist to work together in practice … ambition, and the need for an income stream tend to get in the way. I have always believed in the five-fold gifting team but I have yet to see it actually work.
The same with the housechurch of under 20 … the tendency is to go inward and stagnate unless there is some external apostolic gifting constantly stiring it up and casting vision.
Finally, it is hard to raise money for “apostolic” ministry in the US, which then only leaves the option of some kind of self-employment or tent-making.
It is a worthy vision to pursue … and I heartily agree with it … but the obstacles are numerous and daunting.

@ Jason, I think the idea would be to have an Apostolic community” with missional church planters who have a variety of giftings located externally to the network of house churches … or one might also have a teacher as a member of one house church, an evangelist in another, etc., and encourage them to circulate around the house churches. It would not be at all realistic to have all five gifts resident in each house church of 12 to 20.
I do agree that there is room for a variety of church structures and that house churches should not be held up as an exclusive model that the whole church must adopt. The whole idea of annual multiplication of house churches is rather unrealistic … they can be multiplied but not be articifially dividing or splitting them .. more likely by starting new onees along the lines of the Organic Church by Neil Cole. I think that house churches might be most useful in attempting to reach the unchurched … but not as a substitute for liturgy or existing churches

Simson’s book came to me at an interesting time in my life, particularly as I was rethinking church leadership structures. I’ve always been a part of pyramid-shaped leadership structures, with one man at the top with various forms of leadership fanning out underneath. Simson has challenged me to consider whether or not this is biblical.
Ephesians 4 offers a compelling case for a leadership structure of a different shape. As @josenmiami pointed out, it is very difficult to maintain a flat leadership structure, but isn’t worth fighting for? Wouldn’t that involve real gospel transformation of the leaders themselves? Wouldn’t it demand that they give power away rather than grab for control? I think it’s worth pursuing, and I’d love to be a part of a church that tries this. God, after all, specializes in the impractical.

Simson’s offering might not be the final answer, but I believe it is a good contribution to the conversation. In my experience, most organized-church leaders who have been seminary trained have a subjective bias toward their own way of “doing” church based on training and because of the suggestion that maybe what they are currently doing needs change.
Hans von campenhausen’s “ecclesiastical authority and spiritual power in the first three centuries” (hendricksen press) offers a clear picture of the increase in ecclesiastical authority and its offset to spiritual power during those three centuries. I highly recommend this book to those interested in an analysis of the early church.

Most of the problems in today’s organized-church stem from issues of fights over power (consider 15000+ christian denominations worldwide), or of the failings of organized-church leaders whose public sin results in the church being judged by the world. Small gatherings that are under the radar screen of the media, even if they engage in power struggles or experience the sin of leaders, will not invite this judgment.

It is possible to have elders (or their equivalent) exercising sound judgment (King James = “Rule Well”) without having positional (organizational) authority. This may be the kind of leadership and authority that the New Testament upholds.
On the other hand, moving from “decently and in order” to “being organized” (a necessary part of efficiency) – both of which fit with the NT – to “creating an organization” (which I believe is going beyond what the NT calls for), inherently calls for a hierarchy of authority.
I suggest that the entire NT as it addresses the church can be understood and lived without the creation of an organization with positions of authority.

What if any organized church as we know it today came instead to be known as a parachurch organization whose real purpose was to be a church support organization? If the people came to understand that they are in fact the church, they would be less lilkely to hand off their responsibility to be the church to paid professionals, or to the organization that the professionals lead. Under the parachurch concept, the people would own the responsibility to be the church, and the organization, with its trained leaders, could effectively train, mentor and support the people in their calling to be the church.

Historians are taught to read other historians critically, that is, ask, “where is this guy coming from, what axes is he grinding.”
Von Campenhausen has written valuable books. They don’t come out of nowhere, however. Recommending von Campenhausen alone on the history of institutional development in the early church is like recommending reliance solely on David Brooks to understand Conservatism or Arianna Huffington to understand anything.
John Fuellenbach, for instance, has shown that if one chooses not to start from the Weberian “original charismatic formlessness gives way gradually to greater institutionalization and power structure” sociology, one will discover that institution, form, liturgy, shape was present from the start. It became more elaborate after persecution permitted Christians to flaunt their structure, but the structures and hierarchy were there from the beginning. There’s a good bit of the Weberian presuppositions in von Campenhausen–not that he got it from Weber, rather, it was just in the air, taken absolutely for granted by most scholars of von C’s generation.
Frankly, the presupposition that movements start out free-form and charismatic and harden into structure makes no sense to me, even in the abstract. My observation of human behavior suggests that, at least prior to the French Revolution, major shifts, new movements etc. involved transforming structures, not leveling them and starting free-form. Ancient/traditional cultures could not understand the kind of total revolution put in place in the modern era.
And Jesus explicitly affirmed the non-Weberian, transformative rather than leveling/revolutionary thrust of the Kingdom: what must I do to be saved? First, keep the law, THEN sell all and follow me. Not one jot or tittle. . . . I have not come to abrogate the Law but to fulfill it. . . the examples can be multiplied.
There’s a parallel here between the old Protestant pitting of law versus gospel (wrongheaded) and the “New Paul” studies of the last few decades.

MD: “I suggest that the entire NT as it addresses the church can be understood and lived without the creation of an organization with positions of authority.”
Sorry, but take a look, for instance, at the Upper Room after the Ascension when they chose Mathias. The apostolic college clearly has a sense of its special, hierarchical authority, authorized by Jesus, so much so that they cannot leave Judas’s place among the Twelve unfilled.
And they authoritatively establish the criteria even to be entered into the lot: all potential replacements for Judas have to have been with Jesus’ group from the beginning of his ministry.
“Hey, fellas, who sez? Who are youse guys to think you have the authority to make up those kinds of rules? I think we should put this to a vote of all 155 of us in this room. What makes you 11 think you’re such hot stuff?”
And then there’s Paul, so concerned to prove that he has the same 12-Apostle authorization as the other 11 plus the-one-the-eleven-chose. If there was no hierarchy, no differing levels of authority, then why was Paul so all-fired sensitive on the matter?
And then there’s the choosing of the deacons, by the Apostles. And the recognition that, though Deacon Phil could baptize, he couldn’t confer the Holy Spirit. And why did the folks at Caesarea think it so darn important to get that Peter fella up there to give his blessing to accepting Gentiles into the Ecclesia?
And then there’s the pesky matter of the Council of Jerusalem, of the 12 plus Paul deciding the Big Issue instead of putting it to a secret ballot vote of all the members of the Ecclesia.
And I’m just getting warmed up–the special role played by the Apostles in the first days after Pentecost–the Temple authorities are dealing with them and even with a hierarchy of sorts within the 12 — Peter and John or just Peter taking the lead.
Not to mention the idea that Paul and Barnabas could not just launch out on their own authority to evangelize Asia Minor but needed to be authorized by the Church at Antioch, which probably had more than 20 members by then?
And after Paul’s conversion he has to be introduced by a trusted intermediary to the elders at Jerusalem to get the Good HouseChurchKeeping seal of approval, rather than being introduced to all the members at Jerusalem who got to vote on whether to trust the former persecutor?
No positions of authority in the NT? No hierarchy? Little groups of 20 max constituting the whole of the Ecclesia of Christ Jesus?

Thanks, Phil, for your “kind” response. (I will look at what you wrote carefully, especially for evidences that these are examples of hierarchical authority in the church.)

I’m sorry, Phil, but in my opinion each of your examples can be understood to be descriptive of the work of the early church without the operation of hierarchical, organizational power and control.
From your writing style, however, it appears that you are personally into power and control. There is a better way!
captcha: doxology concerning

MD: Each example I cited involves authorization,authority, hierarchy on any normal definition of the word: some people have authority to do things that others do not (Philip the Deacon compared to the apostles etc.).
From your reasoning style, it appears that you are determined not to see authority, structure, organization hierarchy so you just declare examples of it to be non-examples. Convenient.
What does authority and hierarchy mean to you? They are present in every aspect of our daily lives: some people are authorized to sign checks for a company, others are not; parents are authorized to discipline their children, teachers in loco parentis also are but random strangers on the street are not. Holders of library cards are authorized to borrow books from a library, others are not. Judges and juries are authorized to send people to prison, others are not. Judges have authority over juries, though–giving them instructions according to which jurors must decide their verdict. Juries are not authorized to write their own instructions and defy the judge’s instructions.
Authority and hierarchy are everywhere in the NT. It would be very odd if they were not. All human societies have hierarchy and authority. We can’t live without them. God made us in such a way as to need them in order to live with each other. God authorizes ubiquitous authority. All Jews and Christians who believe in God as creator recognized both God’s authority and God’s delegation of authority over creation to man. How could various forms of hierarchy and authority not be present in the Ecclesia of Jesus Christ, God Incarnate?
All of Paul’s epistles show him to be acting as an authoritative teacher to those he was writing to. And because some challenged his authorization, he explicitly affirmed that Christ himself called him to his Apostolic office. I don’t see how it can be clearer than that.
But from your style of reasoning, it seems clear that you cannot see this–sort of like the Dwarfs in C. S. Lewis’s The Last Battle. Since no example I can give would meet your definition of authority, so, for you, it is true, there is no authority or hierarchy in the NT.
So we agree. Is that a good style of writing?

Phil- Thanks for your softer writing style.
For most of my life (I am a 66-year-old layman) I believed, as you do, that the church could be structured and managed. It is only in the past 10 years that I began to open myself to the possibility that another interpretation of the accounts we read might be more consistent with what Jesus meant when He said “I will build my church.” If you are unwilling to take a look at the possibility that the church was not intended to be an organization, then we will never be able to do anything but argue positions.
I would like to refer you back to what I did write.
My overall intent (maybe not expressed well) was to suggest that I see another reading of the NT regarding authority in the church as a workable alternative to one that is commonly held.
I began by saying that I did not see Simson’s perspective as the final answer. So for you to make repeated remarks about groups of 20 is to focus where I do not live.
I also stated that von Campenhausen’s was AN approach worth considering – not THE approach. I do find what he wrote, however, valuable in broadening my understanding.
Regarding a few of your referenced examples-
Acts say that Paul and Barnabas were sent out by the Spirit, not by the Antiochian church leaders. Can the laying on of hands can be understood differently than conveying authority?
I don’t have a good understanding of Philip’s witness not involving the conveyance of the Spirit. I do agree with you that the apostles had a unique role. (I do not see that the role of the apostles was passed on to others.)
In the selection of deacons, my Bible reads that the task was given to the whole church – not the leaders. Does your translation read differently?
Yes, HUMAN society demands organization and structures. The question is – “Is the church a human society?” I see the necessity of creating organizations (seminaries, mission agencies, even local pastor/council-led organizations) to support the local church(es) – and that these organizations require a hierarchy of authority. I believe, however, that these organizations can be understood to be in the human realm – and thus propose that they then be regarded as parachurch organizations established to uphold the people who are the church.
A key question for me is: What happens when someone in the organized church refuses to submit to those in positions of authority. Are such persons automatically banished from Jesus’ Kingdom? I don’t believe so.
I take very seriously the questions I pose, and more seriously the possibility that I am wrong. If we are to continue, and since you seem to be far more educated than me, I would like your help in getting to the bottom of my questions, rather than your harsh criticism of the suggestions I make.
I would be glad to ask Scot to be an intermediary, providing my email address to him so that you and I might have a private, rather than public, conversation if you would like to continue.

I shudder whenever the traditional church confuses principle with practice. The practice of the church should change often; principle should not. One of the difficulties I have with many in the house church movement is this same thinking: that the house church is the only acceptable practice for the church to hold.

Phil-
I replied once – but it didn’t post. I’ll try and recreate what I wrote before.
First – thanks for a softer tone.
I am a retired layman (66 years old) who lived most of his life believing that the church can be organized and managed. I have now come to question that assumption, having witnessed perpetual fights over power and control within the traditional organized church You will note that in my earlier posts I did not assert a different way, but offered a perspective to be considered.
I also want to clarify what perhaps you missed in my earlier posts.
I suggested that Simson has a way to be considered, but his is not the final word for me. Your repeated comments about groups of 20 as they relate to me are unfounded.
I also suggested that von Campenhausen offered AN analysis, not THE answer. (I still find his analysis of the first three centuries helpful.)
My questions relate to serious problems that I observe arising out of the idea that the church is an organization with hierarchical lines of authority; contrasted with the weight I give to Jesus’ statements “I will build my church” and “All authority is given to me.” If you are fixed in your position, and unwilling to consider another approach, then the best we can do is debate. If you are willing to consider my questions, then maybe we can have a meaningful conversation.
Yes, I agree with you that “all human societies have hierarchy and authority.” My question is focused on whether Jesus intended his church to be a human society.
I want to respond to four of the NT occurrences that you use to offset my ideas:
Appointment of deacons. My text says that the fellowship – not the leaders – appointed the deacons. Does this have any bearing on your thinking?
Commissioning of Paul and Barnabas. My text says that the Holy Spirit appointed and sent them. Does hands being laid on them signify authorization?
I recognize the special role (?office?) that the apostles had. I don’t read conclusively that whatever authority they might have had was passed on.
I just don’t have enough insight to know why Philip’s ministry did not involve his converts receiving the Holy Spirit. It seems a stretch for me to automatically conclude that this was an authority matter.
Question: Under your model, if someone refuses to accept the authority of one whom you believe has authority in the church, where does that leave that person in terms of Jesus Kingdom? Do you stand on the “binding and loosing” passage? If so, do you believe that your position holds for all such cases in the history of the organized church?
Maybe you and I should have a private conversation. I expect that Scot might be willing to be the intermediary to pass along my email address to you. But I would want to do so only if you would be willing to step out of your position long enough to consider the possibility that there might be another way.
Grace and Peace.

To illustrate the disconnect. Act 6 says specifically that the Twelve asked the disciples to choose deacons and THEN the chosen deacons were formally ordained by the Twelve by laying on of hands and prayer.
You read this text seeing only “the disciples chose them.” I read the text seeing the explicit mention of the Twelve (the Jesus-Chosen and Authorized Twelve) at the beginning and the hierarchical, very hierarchical ordination at the end, bookending the one part you focus on.
We will, apparently, never agree on the presence of hierarchy and authority in the NT. You can’t see it when it’s as obvious as it is in Acts 6.
Likewise, you concede that all human societies have hierarchy and authority then you proceed to remove the Church from that framework so that you can preserve your low-church, non-hierarchical theory.
Wasn’t the whole point of the Incarnation to unite God with human nature? Does that not dignify and raise human nature to a new level, yes, but without ceasing to be human? The Church is not merely a human society but to argue that hierarchy and authority have no place in it but do have a place in human society, you have to show why Jesus rejected this aspect of the God-created human nature that needs hierarchy and authority to function.
I’m not sure a private conversation will help–that’s what we are doing now anyway, since this thread is probably not being read by anyone else at this point.
Your last post however was very helpful because you revealed how you do exegesis, which reveals the root of of the problem. It’s exactly what I expected–you find a way to read one of the clearest pro-hierarchy passages in an anti-hierarchy way.
I did err, however, in forgetting that the Twelve did put the choice of deacons to the entire fellowship.