I get emails —
What scriptures are best used to support or mandate the idea of large congregations breaking up into small groups or cell groups?
I don’t know. I’ve not thought that much about it. I mean, a small group (cell group, family group, Acts 2 group, soul talk, etc., etc.) is just a bunch of Christians meeting to talk about the Bible. Why does that require a command, example, or necessary inference?
When I was a kid (and wooly mammoths ruled the earth), we had what they called “zone meetings,” which were small groups by an even less inventive name. And no one demanded CENI authority.
In fact, I guaranty you that those raising the supposed authority issue really just don’t want to give up Sunday nights at church where someone else does all the work. It’s just an excuse. Really. (Sorry for the exasperated tone, but we really do sometimes throw up CENI for the most selfish reasons.)
Nonetheless, there’s ample authority for small groups. Let’s start with Acts 2 —
(Act 2:46-47 ESV) 46 And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, 47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.
The first church ever — with over 3,000 members at its founding — met at the Temple, which was about the only place in Jerusalem that would hold such a large crowd. Obviously enough, there were no church buildings. Of course, there were synagogues, but the church preferred to meet together as one some of the time, and the Temple was huge. It could hold the entire congregation at once.
However, the Temple was no place for a covered dish dinner. It was no place for most kinds of teaching. With no PA systems, terrible acoustics, and the din of animal slaughtering (over 100,000 lambs were slaughtered at the Temple on Passover!) and the Levites singing and playing instruments, not to mention pilgrims by the tens of thousands, the Temple was not the best place for quiet study.
Thus, the early Christians met in homes, where they ate together. And this is surely where much of the teaching took place.
We see the same “pattern” in Ephesus. Look at how Paul described his ministry there —
(Act 20:20-21 ESV) 20 how I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you in public and from house to house, 21 testifying both to Jews and to Greeks of repentance toward God and of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.
Paul taught publicly and in private homes. Why? Because the church typically met in private homes, but sometimes also met together as one.
It was illegal for a church to build a building under Roman law. Therefore, the early churches met in houses. And a typical Mediterranean house wouldn’t hold but 30 or so people.
Archeologists have found a Second Century Christian home modified to hold a larger crowd (up to 70!), even though we know the Jerusalem congregation had thousands of members. It must have required hundreds of houses for the Jerusalem congregation to meet and eat. And yet they were one church, one congregation, under one set of apostles and elders.
Just so, the church in Ephesus was but one church under one eldership, but they met in houses. After all, they surely had more than 30 members.
The evidence for this arrangement can be found in more subtle references throughout the New Testament. This earlier article gives the technical discussion of the Greek. The conclusion is that the many references in the New Testament to a church meeting in a house is not a reference to a house church at all, but to a citywide church that sometimes separated itself to meet separately in houses.
Thus, the “pattern” is not several congregations in one town, all meeting in separate buildings under separate elderships (treating each other as competitors), but a single congregation that met separately in houses, due to architectural necessity, but which sometimes met as one. Hence —
(1Co 14:23 ESV) 23 If, therefore, the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are out of your minds?
Paul’s reference to the “whole church” coming together plainly implies that sometimes less than the whole church came together.
Where did the united church meet if they couldn’t fit in a house? Maybe they prevailed on the local synagogue. Maybe they borrowed a local amphitheater. Maybe they met by the river. The Mediterranean weather would let them meet outdoors, you know. But it was surely much easier to teach classes and to eat meals together in homes. And so they did both.
We are given no details, but plainly it’s permissible for less than all to meet under the authority of a single eldership. After all, this is exactly what we do when we “break up” into our separate Bible classes. The fact that our classes meet in a single building is inconsequential — and I’ve attended plenty of churches that had some classes meeting in a separate building.
In short, the suggestion that we lack authority to meet in small groups is without logic or support. The modern church meets in small groups every time we break up into separate classes. And the ancient church actually broke up into separate houses to eat and to study together.
Indeed, there’s far better authority for a single, large church to meet both as one and in houses than to have multiple congregations in the same city, competing for members and refusing to cooperate in evangelism and benevolence, as though being united in purpose and mission might violate some rule.
