Francis Schaeffer, in his book The Church at the End of the Twentieth Century writes concerning the Church erecting buildings:
"It is interesting, however, that the church was in their homes. J.B. 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. The Church was something else: a group of Christians drawn together by the Holy Spirit in a place where they worked together in a certain form..."
I think the question must be asked: 300 years and no church buildings throughout the Roman Empire? Why would that be? Could it have been due to lack of finances or political connections to buy land and build a structure? Probably not because we know just from reading the New Testament that there were numerous connections to wealthy, influential people who certainly could have purchased some land and had a building erected (Joseph of Arimathea, Zaccheus, Matthew the disciple, Manaen a member of the court of Herod in Acts 13:1, Lidia in Acts 16, influencial women in Thessalonica in Acts 17, Dionysius the Athenian Areopagite in Acts 17).
Could it possibly have been for fear of death and persecution? I don't believe it was because physical persecution simply wasn't as widespread as we modern Christians like to conceive it to be, even in Rome, and then that was really only at certain periods of time.
I’m beginning to think – primarily because of my study through the Book of Acts – that it is more likely that early Christians didn’t have independent worship buildings for 300 years because they correctly perceived themselves as the New Temple and intentionally rejected autonomous buildings for worship. A perfect example of the beginning of this way of thinking can be found in Acts 7 when Stephen declared that he now had no need of the Temple nor a high-priest to come into God's presence for him, but rather he himself had direct access into the Holy of Holies (Acts 7:48-50, 55-56).
This idea can be found in the 2nd century as well in a letter written by a Christian named Marcus Felix writing to a man named Octavius, where Felix writes, "You mistakenly think we conceal what we worship since we have no temples or altars...How can anyone build a temple to Him when the whole world cannot contain Him? Isn't it better for Him to be dedicated in our minds and consecrated in our hearts rather than in a building?"
Now, at the same time, early believers would have also understood through the apostles teaching that they themselves were now incorporated into the newly confected family of Jesus. This would have naturally lead them to congregate to worship and break bread in homes rather than temples. This would havve had the effect of continually reiterating to them – and reflecting to the world around them – their new life and position in the Messiah, thus allowing the fullest possible expression of these teachings.
As church historian J.G. Davies has written in his book Secular Use of Church Buildings:
“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.”
I wonder, can we recover again these central ideas of temple and family in all its glory and missional impact? In my opinion, the Church must do so because we are – both individually and corporately – in our essence homo adornas (worshipping man) and not homo sapiens (thinking man). The Father is seeking worshippers not pedantic intellectuals (John 4:23), and each of us are called to be living sacrifices not sedate contemplaters (Romans 12.1).
In other words, we are comprehensive, 24/7, body and soul worshippers who are true temples (1 Cor.6:19-20 / 2 Cor.6:16-17) living as family members (Mark 3:33-34 / Luke 8:21 / Ephesians 2:19 / 1 Timothy 3:15 / 2 Cor.6:18) because we are in union with the Arch-temple, Jesus. This association can most clearly be seen in 2 Corithians 6:16-18 when Paul moves from declaring us to be the Temple, to the Lord declaring to be our father and us his children.
These two elements, Temple and Family, are two of our most central identities here and now in Christ's Kingdom. and unfortunately, so little of it is lived out in the Church today. I wonder, can these doctrines take root again as it did in the first century Christians and cause a re-formation in our day? Can Christ’s People once again be the Presence in a city rather than our buildings? Will the Family of Jesus take on the strenuous work of bearing the burden of serving our neighborhoods in word and deed, or will we continue to idolatrously rely on land and buildings believing that somehow they will do the work of the Gospel for us?
