family church

Here’s a scenario which might appear strange to us but not to those who lived in the earliest days of the church:

A guy my age, as a father, grandfather, and yes, as a great-grandfather might have several dozen of his own kin coming over for a regular meal and a meeting in Jesus name. That’s not to mention all the in-laws of each married child from the other side of their families. Several dozen would certainly qualify as real church according to anyone with whom I’m acquainted including my own relatives which disapprove of house church.

Young teens married then and lost no time in bearing children. There was no birth control being practiced as a rule and the lights went out early.

Yes, it would have been quite possible to host a “family church” in which the teeming crowd overwhelmed the house. We can’t assume that all the family members would have become Christians, nevertheless the numbers could have been surprisingly high.

In round figures, Carolynn and I might have married and had the first of our 6 children at age 15, who each had 6 kids by the time we were 40-something… you get the idea and can have fun with the math. That’s a big bunch, no? It must also be mentioned that the average age of a male in the Roman empire was only 40-something at death. So I’ve been told. Wars, disease, and persecutions took their toll.

I don’t get the idea that “family church” was the norm then but I believe it is perfectly acceptable and not to be apologized for. I do believe that we should invite others, too, whenever possible. Each person brings something. Why would we not welcome them into our fellowship or hesitate to join theirs? If we are practicing hospitality we surely would. That said, I do believe that the meetings were to be intentional and regular but that wouldn’t exclude spontaneous ones. What is ‘regular’ may vary, I freely acknowledge. That’s a topic for another day. I just wanted us to consider the domestic situation of some of the large Christian families in the ancient world. The Bible, btw, mentions several household baptisms. There are also major implications here for the Lord’s Supper and eldership, too.

Just how easy is it?

I’m occasionally informed that house churching is easy - so easy and simple that anybody could do it. Certainly, if God is in it, it can and it will happen. Surely, churching of about any kind - even house churching - has frequently been made more complicated than originally intended.

House churching would need or at least want, it seems to me, some sort of a stable household. This would disqualify many, if not most, in the US where the divorce rate for the saved is about the same as the lost. Of course, folks remarry and start again but there are a lot of unstable households even where one or both parties are believers. Where such marriages are intact, there is often great disharmony which would make the gatherings a strain on everyone. Who would want to be in the cross-fire?

Both spouses should be in general agreement about doctrinal things, ‘twould seem. Then, there might ought to be a basic agreement on the format of the meetings. Then, there should be a willingness to love everyone else involved at all times. Then, there should be a willingness to be open and intimate in one’s home setting which is a little like being on an examination table.

Anybody left? Anyone can declare themselves to be a church but how about all those one-another commands which require dying to self?

Again, almighty God can cause these would-be barriers to instantly evaporate but is house churching really easy? Has it been for you? For me, I’d have to say yes and no. More no than yes, I suppose, as I reflect today. Rewarding? I’m sure about that. But if it is so easy, why are there not more of us? Why is the fold up rate of house churches so high? What’s the hold up if it’s so simple and easy?