Examining the Roots and Rationale of the Modern House Church Movement
The landscape of Christian worship has seen a marked shift in recent years, with a growing number of believers drawn to the simplicity, intimacy, and shared responsibility found in house church models. Notably, leaders like Francis Chan—through the “We Are Church” movement—have catalyzed much of this momentum, calling for a return to practices reminiscent of the earliest Christian communities. But how closely does this model align with the ecclesia of the first century? Is the yearning for deeper fellowship, mutual edification, and mission-focused stewardship truly a recapturing of the spirit and practice of the New Testament church?
The Early Church: An Overview
In the earliest decades following Christ’s resurrection, Christians did not gather in grand sanctuaries or dedicated religious spaces. Instead, the ecclesia—literally the “called out ones”—met in the homes of believers, sharing meals, prayers, teaching, and the breaking of bread. These gatherings were intimate, familial, and participatory. The Apostle Paul greets several house churches in his letters (see Romans 16:5, 1 Corinthians 16:19, Colossians 4:15, Philemon 1:2), and the Book of Acts describes believers meeting “from house to house” (Acts 2:46; 20:20).
The Scale and Spread of House Churches
Scholars estimate that by the early fourth century, just before the conversion of Constantine and the legalization of Christianity, roughly 400,000 house churches may have existed throughout the Roman Empire. Early Christian gatherings were often limited by social and legal constraints—persecution made public worship risky, and believers relied on the hospitality of others to sustain their communal life. The structure of the house church provided protection, fostered strong relational bonds, and encouraged the active participation of all members.
Francis Chan and the “We Are Church” Movement
Francis Chan’s vision for the church echoes this ancient paradigm: small, reproducible communities where every believer is discipled and equipped to disciple others, where giving supports the needs of the poor and the progress of the gospel, rather than maintaining facilities or programs. This model intentionally removes the distance between leadership and laity, emphasizing shared spiritual responsibility and communal discernment. House churches, in Chan’s approach, are designed to multiply rather than accumulate members, keeping gatherings small enough for authentic fellowship and accountability.
Theological and Practical Resonances
The allure of the house church model lies in its resemblance to the early ecclesia in several key ways:
- Mutual Edification: In smaller gatherings, believers can truly “walk together” in the faith, bearing one another’s burdens and spurring one another on toward love and good deeds (Hebrews 10:24-25).
- Shared Leadership: Rather than relying on a single pastor or professional staff, leadership is distributed, echoing the plurality of elders and the priesthood of all believers seen in the New Testament.
- Simplicity and Stewardship: Without the financial and logistical demands of maintaining a large building, house churches can direct more resources toward mission, mercy, and tangible needs.
- Intimacy and Accountability: Smaller communities naturally foster deeper relationships and create space for honest confession, mutual encouragement, and genuine discipleship.
- Missional Flexibility: Like the early church, house fellowships can adapt rapidly, meet in a variety of settings, and more easily multiply as new believers are added.
Challenges and Considerations
Of course, the house church model is not without its challenges. New Testament house churches functioned in a unique historical context—one shaped by persecution and social marginalization. Today, house churches must navigate questions of doctrinal oversight, sustainability, and unity within the broader body of Christ. And while intimacy can flourish, so too can insularity or division if not intentionally guarded against.
Modern Institutional Churches: Strengths and Struggles
Many believers, as mentioned, find connection difficult in larger, “corporate” congregations. While megachurches offer resources, programs, and opportunities for impact, some lament the loss of familial closeness and meaningful participation that marked the earliest gatherings. The yearning for something deeper—a place where everyone is known, needed, and able to contribute—is a legitimate call back to the roots of Christian community.
Chan’s description beautifully echoes the “Starfish” model advocated by Wolfgang Simson, a concept drawn from his influential writings on organic, decentralized church life. In this model, leadership is not centralized or hierarchical but is instead multiplied, much like the regenerative abilities of a starfish—if you cut off one of its arms, it grows another. The focus shifts from building institutions to cultivating people, and from collecting followers to equipping leaders who can, in turn, nurture new communities.
In practice, as this describes, a group of believers gathers in a home and intentionally mentors emerging leaders from within. Once the group reaches a size (for example, 15–20 members) that naturally limits intimacy and active participation, another gathering is launched—often in a nearby neighborhood or adjoining town—under the guidance of one of these mentored leaders. The process repeats, encouraging organic multiplication rather than dependence on a single “mother church.”
Periodically, these house fellowships unite in larger general assemblies—monthly or quarterly times of worship, testimony, celebration, and communal discernment. These gatherings strengthen the shared identity and broader unity of the movement without diminishing the intimacy of each local assembly. New baptisms, shared stories, and collective prayer for healing and mission become the heartbeat of this extended family, echoing the rhythms seen in Acts 2:42–47 and Acts 4:32–35.
Such a model is indeed closely aligned with the patterns described in the Book of Acts, where believers met from house to house, shared resources, and appointed elders in every place. The absence of heavy financial commitments to building maintenance frees up funds for tangible mission—caring for the poor, supporting local and overseas outreach, or responding generously to crises within the network. When a member faces hardship, the entire fellowship can rally support, embodying the mutual care that marked the earliest Christian communities.
In essence, the Starfish model resists institutional inertia by prioritizing mission, discipleship, and adaptability. It embodies the principle that every believer is a priest, that every home can become a hub of the Spirit’s work, and that leadership is a gift to be multiplied, not hoarded. While no model is without challenges—questions of doctrinal soundness, healthy accountability, and sustainable multiplication must all be addressed—this approach offers a compelling, deeply biblical vision for church as a living movement rather than a static organization.
On that note, back in 2004 I had a conversation with my spiritual father about this and he mentioned in India, where house churches have experience expodential growth, the set up the model as follows, when a member has been discipled amd they leave the group the become and elder, and these house are broken down into territories where each house group leader as an elder, walks in unity thte other elders, They wilo generally form thses into groups of twelve house Church. Then one elder is chosen by Holy Spirit, from which each elder gets a witness to, and that elder represent the twelve house Churches in a regional conferanmce of elders.
Ultimately, whether in rented halls, humble homes, or public spaces, what matters most is the living witness of Christ’s body—flexible, generous, Spirit-led, and fiercely devoted to one another and to the world God loves.
Conclusion: Returning to the Roots?
In sum, the contemporary house church movement, and models like Francis Chan’s “We Are Church,” are in many ways an intentional return to the rhythms and relationships of the first-century ecclesia. While not a perfect replication—history cannot be rewound—there is a powerful resonance between the early gatherings of believers and today’s house church fellowships: a longing to know Christ together, to serve one another, and to bear witness to the world in the context of simple, Spirit-empowered community. Whether in homes, sanctuaries, or under open skies, the heart of the church remains unchanged—the people of God, called together, living out the gospel in word and deed.
~Dr. Russell Welch
Elder/ Apostolic Teacher: Highway to Heaven Church and Founder and Shepherd of Remnant Warrior Ministries / Remnant Warrior School of Spiritual Warfare.
Radical Disciples - A Remnant Revolution 