Last week, we began to examine LaGard Smith's plan for house churches as it is given in his book, Radical Restoration. We noted that he proposed radical changes to the Bible pattern for the Lord's Supper as a basis for further radical change in local churches. As we will see, his supposed "restoration" is not to restore the church we read about in the New Testament.
In order to set the stage for his supposed "restoration" of house churches after his design, LaGard Smith first asserts and assumes that house churches were the exclusive pattern in New Testament times. He alleges, "Maybe that's where it all went wrong in the first place. Maybe the church should never have left home" (143). Did every church have its beginning in a private house? Lest we still doubt, he adds, "There seems to be little question but that first-century Christians met together in small groups as house churches" (148). What proof does he offer? None! We are to accept his claim merely on the basis of his confident statement. For those still awaiting some semblance of proof for his assumptions, Smith adds,
"Historically, of course, we know that it was not until the third century that Christians began to erect what we today would recognize as church buildings. Piecing together archeology and history, it appears the primitive church typically met in a room (sufficiently large enough for probably 40-50 people) in the house of a wealthy member" (148).
This is as close as Smith gets to offering some evidence to substantiate his assertion, but it fails to sustain his intended point. First, he cites no facts or sources, merely his conclusions. This author, for one, would like to see the archeological evidence to suggest that the early church met only in rich people's houses that would seat forty to fifty people around LaGard's mandatory table for a common meal. Second, churches could and did meet in other places besides private homes without erecting such themselves. The very first church in Jerusalem met in the temple (Acts 2:41-47). Other saints met by a river side (Acts 16:13), in the school of Tyrannus (Acts 19:9), in a government-provided dwelling (Acts 28:30-31) and in a synagogue-type place (Jas. 2:2). Churches meeting in private homes is neither wrong nor is it mandatory, but may be either expedient or not expedient at varying times. Smith does not prove his point from Scripture, but claims to do so while merely fabricating it from thin air.
Having established his own pattern of assumption and assertion, LaGard continues that pattern in noting his plan for the rule of elders. He says,
"There is nothing to rule out the possibility that the role of elders in the early church might well have encompassed more than one level of involvement -- even simultaneously. Perhaps there were elders shepherding the disciples in each house, depending upon their size and make-up. And perhaps elder oversight may have been exercised throughout a group of house churches which collectively comprised a larger, recognizable 'congregation.' More thought-provoking for us, of course, is the third possibility -- that elders in individual house churches might also have come together as a group of city-wide elders to discuss matters of importance to the entire community of believers. Nothing necessarily precludes 'Jerusalem's elders' from being gathered from among elders in a multiplicity of house churches" (178 - emphasis mine, HRO).
Smith's plan is indeed radical, but not in restoring New Testament churches. The only churches he would "restore" with that plan are the early Catholic Church and the Crossroads/Boston Church movement. In the Bible pattern, there were "elders in every city" (Titus 1:5) and "elders in every church" (Acts 14:23). They were instructed to "take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops..." (Acts 20:28). Not a plurality of flocks, but only the one flock within which they were to serve as overseers. Even more pointedly, they were told to "tend the flock of God which is among you, exercising the oversight thereof..." (1 Pet. 5:2). Smith's city-wide eldership had its origin in Catholicism, not the New Testament. Why does he arrive at this anti-biblical plan for elders? He derives it from his subjective perception and fertile imagination that looks at the "possibility" of what "might" have been, "perhaps," rather than abiding by the things actually said in Scripture (cf. Deut. 4:2; Rev. 22:18-19).
If Radical Restoration were merely a defense of the authority for local churches to meet in private houses, we could all say, "Amen." Several passages show that such a practice is authorized (Rom. 16:3-5; 1 Cor. 16:19; Col. 4:15; Phile. 1-2). However, that is not the point being made by LaGard Smith. He contends that his brand of "house churches" is the binding pattern given in the New Testament. As one reads his book, the full design of those house churches, in style and structure, is plainly stated. He wants it small enough to meet around a table. (No more churches like Jerusalem.) He wants no located preachers to work with established churches. (No more churches like Antioch.) He wants all preaching and invitations eliminated. He wants preachers "reassigned" as evangelists, working only to start churches and then go elsewhere. (No more efforts like the three year work of "preaching the kingdom" and encouraging all to respond both publicly and from house to house as Paul reminded the Ephesian elders was done among them.) He would have elders do the "teaching" of the flock, but only in a style that is "mutually participatory" -- no directive teaching allowed. (No more elders like those Titus was to appoint in Crete.) He would eliminate weekly contributions and the treasury. Collections would only be taken up when special needs arise. (No more churches like Corinth who had contributions collected in a treasury in advance of Paul's coming to take it to a given need.) If the church must have a bank account, he would have any name on the account, except "Church of Christ." The same principle would hold when any member would seek to describe the group -- use any description other than "church of Christ." (No more descriptions of churches like those who sent greetings to their brethren in Rome through Paul.) The very things Smith wants to eliminate in his house churches were present in New Testament church. Again, that is not "restoration" -- it is destruction!
LaGard Smith envisions a nameless church without preaching, but full of eating common meals and informal banter, that discards the Bible plan for leadership and "traditional" acts of worship. In order to get his readers to look down upon churches already following the Bible plan, he refers to them and their practices in terms designed to prejudice. In contrast to those dreaded groups, Smith presents his proposed house church: "In the house church, the role of official clergy virtually vanished in the midst of a simple fellowship meal. As did the structured ritual and liturgy. And sacrosanct tradition" (151). There was no "official clergy" in first century churches that "vanished" around a table where they eat a common meal. There was, however, the very preaching of the gospel in assemblies which LaGard wants banished in his house churches. In the Scripture, we find that Paul and his fellow-workers preached to the church at Corinth (2 Cor. 1:19). Paul planned for such in Rome (Rom. 1:15). He preached the gospel to those in Galatia (Gal. 1:8-9). He preached to the church in the assembly at Troas (Acts 20:7). The preaching and teaching of the word were part of the worship that the Spirit directed to have a structure of orderly action (1 Cor. 14). That was the pattern for the first century congregations described by the Spirit as "churches of Christ" (Rom. 16:16).
But why is this movement arising among non-institutional brethren? Next week, we will note some factors that have aided the rise of this movement among faithful brethren and note some cautions for all of us to heed.