As I mentioned in an earlier post, I’m reading through the concluding chapter of Roger W. Gehring’s House Church and Mission: The Importance of Household Structures in Early Christianity. (See my posts “Church and Meals” and “Architectural Significance of Houses in the NT.”) Remember, Gehring does NOT argue that the early church ONLY met in houses, nor does he argue that the church today MUST meet in houses. Instead, he examines the scriptural and historical/archaeological evidence to determine the significance of houses in the early church.
In his conclusion, Gehring discusses three significant aspects of houses for the early church: the House as Building (Architectural Significance), the House as Community (Socioeconomic Significance), and the House as a Church (Ecclesiological Significance).
Gehring says that it would not have been unusual for the early Christians to meet in houses. In fact, many other religious groups met in houses including “members of the cult of Mithras, the mystery associations, and particularly the Jews in their house synagogues.” (pg 291) These house meetings were socially and legally acceptable.
However, there was something different about the social makeup of the Christian meetings. Gehring explains:
Simply gathering in a house did not automatically lead to the reconciliation of individuals from diverse backgrounds in the church. Meetings in a house Mithraeum (the cult of Mithras) were exclusively for men; the members of the collegia were most often from the same social level. The membership in house synagogues was a bit more socially diverse, but even here there was the tendency toward community formation according to profession and nationality, which also led to exclusiveness. As a rule, Christian house churches integrated a large diversity of individuals from a variety of backgrounds. This is primarily related to, and grew out of, the inner structure of this new faith (Gal 3:27-28). Christ had enabled salvation for everyone; consequently, a diversity of people was supposed to live in loving unity one with the other. (pg 295)
If we look around at the Christians with whom we generally spend time and if we notice that they are primarily from the same ethnic, social, economic, professional, or national background, then we should also recognize that the early church meetings were much more diverse.
The social diversity also helped the early church in their mission. Gehring says:
Another socioeconomic factor in early Christian missions was patronage. Most scholars agree that the role it played in missional outreach and church development cannot be overemphasized. By making their houses available for Christian assembly, householders provided and guaranteed the material and organizational foundation for church development. Early Christians took advantage of the social network in the household, profession, guild, and association of the householder to promote missional outreach and congregational development. The contacts of the pater familias with powerful individuals in urban government and society were often quite useful (cf. Jason, Acts 17). The publicly respected householder was able to provide legal protection and a certain social legitimacy for the faith community that met in his home. The extended family, including slaves, clients, and friends, as well as the contacts of the householder with his professional colleagues and business partners offered an entire network of relationships. Once accepted by the householder, Paul, his coworkers, and many other Christians became trusted insiders within this network of relationships and as a result were able to quickly reach out and touch the lives of large numbers of people for Christ. (pg 292)
According to most research today, when a person becomes a Christ as an adult, within a year or two they lose all connections with their unbelieving friends, neighbors, coworkers, and family. Why? Because the new believer is pulled into an already existing network of Christian relationships. The new believer does not have time or opportunity to foster existing relationships, and those existing relationships with unbelievers are soon replaced by relationships with believers.
If Gehring is correct, then the early church worked differently. Instead of only pulling the new believer into the church and relationships with other followers of Jesus, the church also reached out through the relationships of their new brother and sister in Christ. The new believer introduced and encouraged relationships between their old unbelieving friends and their new believing friends.
Thus, evangelism and mission worked primarily through existing relationships. And, since the church was made of a diversity of people, these relationships began to reach through all sectors of society. (By the way, this process is very similar to what the authors recommend in “The Rabbit and the Elephant.”)
Why did this work for the early church? Because they considered one another family of the same household (“oikos“). The household of this time period was composed of more than a nuclear family. The household included extended family and slaves as well as business partners and social relations. When the new believer became part of God’s family, his new brothers and sisters in Christ immediately were part of his family along with those “extended” relationships that he brought in with him.
Today, society works differently. But, I do believe that the church can do a better job of helping new believers maintain relationships with their unbelieving friends. I also think that the church can help new believers through Christian community involvement with those existing relationships. Thus, new believers should be encouraged to introduce their existing friends and acquaintances to their new brothers and sisters in Christ.