How Christians Conquered Rome

Illustration by Judith Clingan

"The Christianity that conquered the Roman Empire was essentially a home-centered movement."[1]

"When the Greeks got the gospel, they turned it into a philosophy; when the Romans got it, they turned it into a government; when the Europeans got it, they turned it into a culture; and when the Americans got it, they turned it into a business."[2]

One glaring difference between the original church that we claim to have restored and ourselves is that the first, second, third and even fourth century Christians did not meet in public buildings as we do. They met in homes for the first 275 years. That's longer than the United States has existed as a nation.

This fact is usually dismissed as unimportant with little more offered. Or if the matter is pressed, then a likely response would be, "It doesn't matter where we meet," or "Where me meet is simply an expedient, not a matter of doctrine or faith." I believe these responses result from conditioning by the institutional system which has hypnotized American Christians.

The next defense offered by institutional, legal-minded Christians for meeting in public buildings is, "What's wrong with that?" I think that this response is a hedge some may use who do not wish to challenge the status quo. That is, little time or respect is given to this inquiry because it does not coincide with the traditional template into which many have invested their time, money, friendships, reputation and identities.

A second factor that prevents changing the status quo is that pulpits are generally governed by one man such that alternative ideas have no equal opportunity for expression. It seems that people may be so committed to their current practices that they may become overwhelmed by the consequences a different way of thinking may bring; therefore, they do not lend the time or energy to investigate the validity of the evidence presented to them.

George Barna writes:

When people suggest significant changes in some of their hallowed practices, cries of 'heretic' can be heard coming from all directions. Such protest is common largely because people have little knowledge of the true foundations of their faith.[3]

Knowledge of the true foundations of one's faith is exactly what Jesus asked His generation to understand—to reject the status quo of religious leaders' teaching and behavior in favor of His example that they saw with their own eyes, felt with their own hearts, and joined with their own knowledge of Scripture (Acts 1:1; Matt. 5—7; cf. 23:1-11).[4]

As long as any Christian looks up to another human-being instead of Christ, there will be maturity issues and lack of growth. Jesus was correcting this dependency that a hierarchy/oligarchy creates.  The limited increase in knowledge that occurs within a hierarchical system, such as we also have today in looking up to elders and preachers for instruction and approval, will never provide occasion for the maturity and equality that God desires among us. It is simply false that any Christian or group of Christians is above another. Rather than place power in the hands of a few, Jesus expects His followers to take personal responsibility.

I feel that it is important to note, however, that I am not advocating a right/wrong, good/bad approach which results in guilt and fear, but rather an if/then, wise/unwise philosophy which results in  either beneficial or burdensome consequences. The view that if something is not wrong then it doesn't matter could not be more false. Beliefs and behaviors have consequences that can lead to wrong-doing. If we continue operations in the church based on institutional, top-down, American business-like methods,  then individual growth will be hindered and that violates 2nd Peter 3:18 and Ephesians 4:14-15.

Guilt and fear are such prevalent factors in our religious culture that even this paradigm shift from right/wrong, good/bad thinking to if/then, wise/unwise reasoning takes time to absorb. Christians will only be able to make this leap of faith if motivation from guilt and fear is replaced with the truth that there is no condemnation in Christ (Romans 8:1). This view may be as foreign to current understanding in the church as Jesus' doctrine was to Jews of the first century because of the same factor of long-standing human tradition—the status quo of right/wrong thinking and the desire to punish those who challenge present power structures.

It seems the current institutional system is primarily concerned with possessing the right doctrine. On the contrary, those who view Christianity as equal behavior and function within the realm of personal responsibility see their salvation by grace through faith, resulting in daily growth because they desire to do God's will, rather than just possess it (Matt. 13:17). Therefore, they are able to trust God enough to switch from the good/bad mentality to the if/then method of interpretation. Many who 'possess' the right doctrine, or think in terms of "having the truth," are often stuck in limiting beliefs and simply repeat the same rituals for a lifetime. This is not the growth or maturity which is conforming to the image of Christ (Rom. 8:29; 2 Peter 1:5-8; Matt. 5:3-9; cf. Eph. 4:11-16).

My approach in no way denies the teachings of Christ for some lawless existence, or in any way denies personal responsibility to God. In fact, I am claiming that the institutional church system hinders personal responsibility and that the if/then approach increases it through awareness that the institutional system, that is often viewed as the "only way, truth and life" actually hinders all three. If this paradigm shift in thinking is not realized, then I am afraid that one may view some as "wrong" or "bad" simply because they are not in agreement with each other.

If this is true, then I present to you the Lord's question: "If you love only those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?" (Mat. 5:46-47). Jesus is questioning the mentality of accepting only those who agree with us, rather than also being open to those who may challenge our current way of thinking.

Nevertheless, if the conversation about Christians meeting in homes for parts of four centuries stays afloat, defense statements like, "We must meet somewhere," or "Paul went to the synagogue," or "Jewish Christians met in the Temple" may surface. While these comments are certainly true, they beg the question rather than answer it. Why did Christians meet in private homes for over 275 years? If it doesn't matter, then why did they do it?

Evidently, it mattered to them. Every other religion met in public places. Jews met in synagogues into which Paul went on the Sabbath, and Roman polytheists, or pagans, met in temples into which some Christians went to eat meat, but the Christians chose not to build such temples made with hands. They met in each other's homes until the time of Constantine. Since the early Christians had a choice whether to meet in a public building or a private home, it would seem worthwhile to investigate why they chose the private setting, rather than just dismiss this fact as unimportant.

1st Timothy 3:14-15 from the KJV states, "These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly: But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." Do we project our idea of "house of God" back on to the churches of the first century? Teachers will verbally acknowledge that the word "house" means "household" and that modern Bibles so translate, but do we not act as if the building in which we meet is the "house of God?" And that the church is a "place" instead of people?

Is it not how some prayers are worded? Could it be that our sustained practices are based on a flawed interpretation of verses like 1st Timothy 3:15 and when it is pointed out, we are so vested in our form of inherited Catholic/Protestant church tradition that we simply dismiss the fact? Are we so vested in the institutional system, that we have become to big to fail as a group, so we continue to throw money at it?

The problem I see with the "possessing the right doctrine" approach is that we have taken a verse of how we are to "behave in the household of God" and institutionalized it into "possessing the right doctrine in the house of God" and condemn everyone who does not conduct the same ritualistic, institutional pattern we do. This institutional mentality has become consequential and has caused us to drift into/remain in falsehood.

For example, we began keeping the ritual act of giving on the first day of the week and condemning those who don't. (See the post on The Great Apostasy and the Institutional Church). It does make a difference where we meet and the consequences involve a lot more than just a hang-up on public buildings. The Christianity that conquered the Roman Empire was not an institutional system. That developed hundreds of years after the New Testament was finished. The way Christians conquered Rome was through personal responsibility and that begins at home.

REFERENCES 

[1] Robert Banks and Julia Banks, The Church Comes Home (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1998), 49-50.

[2] Richard Hanson, The Church Between Gospel and Culture, ed. George R. Hunsberger and Craig Van Gelder (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996), 149; quoted in Frank Viola, Reimagining Church (Colorado Springs: David C. Cook, 2008), 45, n. 23.

[3]George Barna, "Introduction," in Pagan Christianity, xxvii.

[4] The Sermon on the Mount reveals the progression Jesus makes in His teaching from taking power out of the religious (institutional) rulers hands and putting God's authority back into the hands of His disciples—He is simply describing personal responsibility. He begins by describing how a Christian behaves in The Beatitudes (5:3-9); how the world views Christians (vv.10-12); how we are to view ourselves (vv.13-16); how the scribes and Pharisees misinterpreted the Law of Moses (vv.17-20); the particulars of their teaching errors (vv. 20-48); their hypocritical behaviors based on love of money (6: 1-34); and how to properly beware of falsehood and to behave with integrity (7:1-27). This progression that Jesus makes in His sermon is subverting the power that the scribes and Pharisees have over the people in the synagogues. This takes great personal responsibility to undertake. Jesus is leading by example. Jesus clearly states in the sermon that He is not contradicting, or teaching anyone, to violate the Torah (Law of Moses). Nevertheless, this is what He and His disciples are accused of by the same leaders (Matt. 26:59; see esp. Acts 6:9-15; Acts 21:28).