Francis Schaeffer, The Church at the End of the Twentieth Century:

“Paul continues, “Likewise greet the church that is in their house.” Aquila and Priscilla were then in Rome. But when they were in Asia, as we learn in I Corinthians 16:19, they also had a church in their home. Apparently wherever Priscilla and Aquila went, people were saved and a church was then started.

It is interesting, however, that the church was in their home. Lightfoot says that there were no church buildings as such before the third century. Since Lightfoot made that statement, however, archaeologists found a most interesting place in Rome. Roman houses – unless they were the great mansions – were relatively small. What archaeologists found was a place with the facade of two houses still untouched, but with the internal walls torn out to make a larger room. And from everything that was found there, the archaeologists believe that this was a church building. This structure is dated at the end of the second century. But whether one accepts Lightfoot’s starting point in the third century, or whether one dates it at the end of the second century, it really makes no difference. There is no biblical norm as to where, and where not, the church should meet. The central fact is that the early concept of the church had no connection with a church building.”

George Barna, The Second Coming of the Church:

“The house church has emerged as yet another model vying for people ¹s participation. The house church appeals to Americans because it fits our culture: It is decentralized, has a horizontal structure, exerts low control and authority over its participants, and operates without historical traditions. House churches offer convenience in scheduling and location, are highly relational, and do not waste money on buildings and overhead. They represent the ultimate in flexibility.” JG Davies, Secular Use of Church Buildings:

“We have no temples or alters.” This statement, referring to Christians, comes from the pen of the apologist (defender) Minicus Felix, c 200, and all evidence supports its accuracy. Throughout at least the first two centuries there were no church buildings as such, and this was so remarkable that to the pagan population, it was considered grounds for accusing the Christians of ‘atheism.’ In a world notable for the number of its holy shrines and the rivers of blood that flowed daily from the sacrificial victims, Christians were conspicuous in that they possessed neither the first nor engaged in the second.”

London’s most popular preacher, Charles Spurgeon, “Additions To The Church.” #1167. 1874, Vol 20 page 205:

“New Testament believers did not think that religion was meant only for Sundays, and for what men now-a-days call ‘the House of God.’ Does God need such a house? He who made the heavens and the earth, does he dwell in temples made with hands? What crass ignorance is this!

“No house beneath the sky is more holy than the place where a Christian lives, and eats, and drinks, and sleeps, and praises the Lord in all that he does. There is no worship more heavenly than that which is presented by holy families, devoted to His fear. To sacrifice ‘home worship’ to ‘public worship’ is a most evil course of action. Morning and evening devotions in a cottage are infinitely more pleasing in the sight of God than all the cathedral pomp which delights the carnal eye and ear. Every truly Christian household is a church, and as such it is competent for the discharge of any function of divine worship, whatever it may be.

“Are we not all priests? Why do we need to call in others to make devotion a performance? Let every man be a priest in his own house. Are you not all kings if you love the Lord? Then make your houses palaces of joy and temples of holiness. One reason why the early church had such a blessing was because her members had such homes.”

Do you not know that ye are the temple of the Lord? Living stones? Pillars in the house of God?

D Z Anderson House Church Network http://homechurch.org alt.religion.christian.home-church