northphoenixhousechurch.com

Edited by Jon Zens, Searching Together is a journal published quarterly by Quoir. This issue from 2015 contains thoughts from Jon Zens, Dennis J. Mulkey and T. Austin-Sparks. The excerpt below by Jon Zens is from a section called Christ Alone:Five Challenges Every Group Will Face. You can obtain this copy by clicking here.

A brochure promoting a conference put on by the Willow Creek Church in Illinois announced, “Thousands of leaders across North America gather together to hear speakers from all over the world, participate in interactive dialogue, and have practical training-which focuses on helping the church raise up leaders, as well as helping leaders in churches develop their leadership gifts.”

The truth is, since 250 AD the visible church has been all about leaders. If you read church histories, the great bulk of the content is about this leader and that leader. It cannot be denied that what church has been about is “leadership.” The thousands of books about leadership and the many aspects of “pastoral leadership” testify loudly to the lop-sided emphasis on this subject that dominates the church landscape.

Jesus, however, did not share our inherited views about leadership. When talking about the religious leaders of His day, He noted that they liked to be greeted publicly as “Rabbi, Rabbi” (in our day it would be “Reverend, Reverend”). Christ told His audience, “don’t be called ‘Rabbi,’ for I alone am your Teacher, and you are all brothers and sisters.”

He went on to assert, “don’t call anyone ‘Father’ on earth, for One is your Father in heaven. Neither be called ‘leaders,’ for One is your Leader, the Anointed One. The greatest among you will be the one who takes care of others.”

Jesus told us rather clearly not to be called “leaders,” yet history of the church is mostly about people wanting positions with titles so that they can be set above others as “leaders.” Even in groups meeting outside mainline churches, the emphasis often still falls on “leaders,” and much energy is devoted to continually training more non-leaders to become “leaders.”

How can we expect it to be clear that Jesus is our Leader when we spend so much time focusing on human leaders? Our Lord specifically said that calling humans “leaders” would detract and deflect from His singular Leadership. Typical concerns about “leaders” should never be an issue in organic groups. Function together for a period of time as a priesthood of all believers, and see what He reveals in your life together down the pike.

The topic of “leadership” comes up all the time in groups on Facebook. In this instance I responded, and my thoughts speak to why worrying about leadership is vastly premature in believing groups.

[David Munley:] In your view, how does God develop leaders?

[Jon:] Given the flow of church history and the accretion of assumptions, this is a question with many layers of concerns that could be addressed.

But in a nutshell, I would say that Father is not focused on developing leaders. His purpose is to see Christ formed in His people. When believers function as simply brothers and sisters in a community for a length of time, the expression of Christ and specific aspects of giftedness blossom in His Bride.

It is my observation that this is the crucial dimension absent from the great majority of “church leaders.” They have rarely lived out the life of Christ in the body for sustained periods of time as non- leaders. The NT speaks about “knowing” one another. This reality comes only through long-term relationships.  A huge problem is that many leaders are not “known.” You know a person when you’ve seen them function in all the vicissitudes of life as a brother or sister.

As I said in 58 to 0-How Christ Leads Through the One Anothers: “In the NT, the organic way for everything to develop is through the functioning of all the living stones together. To focus on leaders without having first a functioning body is to put the proverbial cart before the horse-with far-reaching dire consequences. If a group is filled with Jesus and his guidance, ‘leaders’ will probably not be on their minds; if a group lacks the fullness of Jesus, they will probably become fixated on the need for ‘leaders.’”

[Billie Ritter Ford:] I think a leader is one who steps out ahead of the group and says let’s try it this way.

[Jon:] That’s true, but what many miss is that anyone in the body can say, “let’s try this.” Everyone participates in the Spirit’s leadership. We are used to just looking at a few as “leaders.” But the Lord brings leadership out of all the saints as time goes on-if the open opportunity and loving atmosphere are present. Spirit-leadership can be seen as shifting and floating among the whole priesthood.

Father removed Moses and Elijah from the scene, and when the three disciples looked up, they saw only Jesus, and the voice from the Shekinah glory proclaimed, “This is My beloved Son, hear Him.” How could our One focus be any clearer?

The body of Christ must listen to the Lord. Each person in the body, and the body as a whole is able to hear the Son’s voice. We want to hear from our Leader. In order for His leadership to prosper among us, we must stop looking to one or a few, and cease calling people “leaders.”

please subscribe

On the back cover of this book by Ross Rhode, it reads “By returning to what we once had…we can recover what we once enjoyed.” Ross builds a case that we must return to the principles of our forefathers. Included are examples of viral church movements in history, most recently the underground church in China. Published in 2012 and around 225 pages, this is a serious study. Below is an excerpt.

As society changed around the church, the church adapted to society. This is not entirely bad. We do need to communicate to the society around us in ways that are understandable. But when we adopt the elementary principles of the age in which we live, we become enslaved by them (Col. 2:8). It is one thing to adopt customs such as dress, music, or figures of speech. (Obviously moral discretion needs to be observed in these issues as well.) It is entirely another to accommodate ourselves to values and principles. We have noted in some detail how the early church succumbed to the foundational principles of the Roman Empire. This was not the last time we became enslaved to deceptive philosophy and human tradition.

These changes through the ages have slowly but surely disconnected us from our biblical roots. They have also disconnected us from God Himself. The behavior of the early church was far simpler and yet much more profound. It was based on the new covenant. The Spirit of Christ lived in every believer in an abiding relationship. He spoke to them and they obeyed Him because He was their Lord. This loving obedience was lived out in every aspect of life both individually and in loving community.

Clergy creates a barrier to this new covenant behavior because now “laymen” need leadership or perhaps even permission from clergy to function within the church system. Some even feel they need the clergy to access God.

The special buildings and services keep us from abiding and obeying all day long. We tend to feel we need to go to a special service at a special time in a special place. We’ve come to rely on the special program, event, or project as the best way to minister to our non-Christian friends. Furthermore the service is not based on listening individually and in community to God. It is based on a scheduled, planned, programmed, and timed agenda. Where is there room for the Holy Spirit to do something different? What happens when He wants to do something not 
previously programmed?

Christianity has become knowledge and ritual/event/project/program based. It is no longer new covenant/abide/listen/hear/obey based. Or, more succinctly, it is knowledge based not obedience based, human based not Jesus based. We have been disconnected from the God of the new covenant by the system. At the very best, we can know and abide in Christ in spite of the system.

The most dangerous disconnection of all that the Christendom system perpetrates on Christians is our disconnection from Christ Himself. In Christendom, Christ can no longer easily function as the Head of the church who is intimately connected to all parts of the body, which in turn are connected to each other. The system itself distances us from our Lord.

Paul’s extended metaphor in 1 Corinthians 12 is an organic metaphor based on God’s design of His creation. And in this structure, He is Head and absolute Lord. He controls everything. There are no human lords and no mediators between God and man. That is Christ’s function (1 Tim. 2:5). The whole new covenant structure is based on the Spirit of Jesus in us and working through us. He does this individually and corporately.

What then does new covenant life look like? For individuals it looks like the abiding relationship in John 15:1-17. We are so closely connected with Jesus that we are like the vine (Jesus) and the branches (us). As individuals, we are so deeply connected with Jesus that it is impossible to tell where the vine ends and the branch begins. The abiding relationship is marked by deep intimacy.

First Corinthians 14:26-32 is shared new-covenant lifestyle in action. We don’t need to copy this as though it were an order of service. Paul is merely mentioning what kinds of things happen when Christians get together and the Spirit of Jesus leads them corporately. Each and every Christian plays spontaneous roles based on his giftedness, maturity, experience, and most of all the leading of the Holy Spirit.

This is new-covenant Christianity expressed in new-covenant wineskins.  It has no clergy. This Christianity has no order of service, because it doesn’t have services. There are no special buildings; it can be done anywhere that seems fit. There are no special hours or days, no sacred time. It can meet weekly if that seems to be what the Spirit wants, but it will probably also just be a group that hangs out together and meets spontaneously all together or in smaller subgroups, all through the week.

This type of Christianity was not expressed only in the first few centuries of the church; new communities like this are springing up all over the world, including the West. The wineskin of Christendom cannot contain Christianity of this kind. There are too many historical incrustations that block immediate abiding access, listening, hearing, and obeying. These believers realize that the wineskin of Christendom actually distances them from God. It keeps them from fully encountering and obeying Christ. The negative consequences of Christendom are certainly not intentional on anyone’s part, but we must be honest with ourselves. Ignoring these ramifications will not help anyone connect with God on the deepest level.

Please subscribe for regular updates.

This recent (2023) book by Jon Zens is another short power packed read. Jon specifically discusses how current church leadership is harmful to both leaders and the congregation. An excerpt from the book is included below. For more information about Jon Zens, click here.

Because the blatant, brazen, and pervasive practice of one person ministry is so far from the Lord’s mind, it is no surprise that hosts of men, women, and children are deeply damaged by their tenure in it. At this time, the average pastorate lasts just over two years. “It’s lonely at the top of any organization,” said a 1998 bulletin of Denver Seminary. In 2016, John L. Thomas wrote, “burnout in the first three to five years has become so prevalent” (Encounter, 76:1, p. 68). One pastor confessed, “On the surface it looks like I have dozens of friends, but the truth is that I’m the loneliest man in town” (Aubrey Malphurs, “You Can Count On Me,” Moody Monthly). The effects of attaching the notion of divinity to the Pharaohs was noted by Barrows Dunham, “He became remote as gods are, unapproachable except by a few consecrated persons, mostly of his own family. A stifling etiquette surrounded him. He knew, in dreadful perfection, the loneliness with which power curses the powerful” (Heroes & Heretics: A Social History of Dissent, Alfred A. Knopf, 1964, p. 7). As Henri Nouwen observed, “The paradox indeed is that those who want to be there for ‘everyone’ find themselves often unable to be close to anyone” (The Wounded Healer, 1972).

Max Lucado observed, “We all lug loads we were never intended to carry” (Traveling Light, 2001). Pastors wear many hats and carry out numerous duties that the Lord never intended for one person to bear. Is it any wonder that so many collapse under burdens imposed by a job description nowhere to be found in the Lord’s heart?

I am not going to supply a list of statistics that reveal how much damage has been done by the one-person leadership model. But here are two that should break our hearts: “The majority of pastors’ spouses surveyed said that the most destructive event occurring in their marriage and family was the day the pastor entered the ministry…80% of adult children of pastors surveyed have had to seek professional help for depression” (The data was collected by Richard A. Murphy; cited by Ivan C. Blake, “Pastor for Life,” Ministry, July/August, 2010, p. 6).

The clergy-centered magazine, Men of Action, freely admitted, “Pastors are worn out, discouraged, and in need of affirmation. In fact, poll after poll reveals that most pastors are battling isolation, depression and loneliness. They are so beaten up by the ministry” (November, 1995, p. 4).

The history of the pastoral institution reveals a trail of devastation, burnout, broken families, mental illness, and suicide. The list of church leaders who have gone astray morally and financially is miles long (see The Roys Report, JulieRoys.com for a detailed sampling of pastoral failures). And what most often happens to those who fall? They go through various sorts of restorative rehabilitation and are sent back into the very same system that brought about their downfall. That’s the definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

But here’s the real point to be made: the whole system that showcases one-person primacy is corrupt to the core. The essence of its agenda puts Christ on the periphery and exalts those behind pulpits. This system fulfills Christ’s words: when you look to and depend on leaders, the leadership of Christ is minimized, or possibly eliminated. So how can we expect good fruit from a method that has no roots in the Lord’s mind?

We have built a hydra-headed infrastructure without any revelation from the Lord Jesus. Look at all the books, conferences, and seminars on pastoral leadership, better preaching, church administration, training leaders, and church growth. They are all pretty much built around the one-person model, which cannot be found in the New Testament (anywhere).

Roman Catholic theologian, Hans Kung, freely admitted that the bulk of religious traditions are not of divine origin.

Those who so far have not been seriously confronted with the facts of history will sometimes be shocked at how human the course of events was everywhere, indeed how many of the institutions and constitutions of the church-especially the Roman Catholic institution of the Papacy-are man-made (The Catholic Church: A Short History, p. xxv).

In light of so many human traditions being turned into laws, Kung asks, “Is it possible to imagine Jesus of Nazareth at a Papal mass in St. Peter’s, Rome?” (The Catholic Church, p. 6).

Are we willing to admit that the long-standing practice of one-person leadership is strictly a human tradition, not having any foundation in the New Covenant revelation? And yet we have put all our eggs in the one-leader basket, and we have built church buildings and ministries around this false assumption. Are we concerned that the one-leader idea has hindered the ekklesia’s true mission in Father’s eternal purpose?

Jack Deere gives a great illustration that we can use to think about “church.” “If you were to lock a brand-new Christian in a room with a Bible and tell him to study what the Scripture has to say about healing and miracles, he would never come out of the room a cessationist” [a person who believes that certain Spirit-gifts ceased with the closing of the New Testament canon] (Surprised by the Power of the Spirit, Zondervan, 1993, p. 54). I would reframe Jack’s illustration like this: if you were to lock a brand-new Christian in a room with a New Testament and tell him to study all it says about ekklesia, would he ever come out of the room with any revelation about one person being the key to church-life, and who would preach a sermon every Sunday morning? Yet we have constructed our key notions about church upon a foundation that is nowhere to be found in the New Testament. Isn’t this cause for alarm and re-evaluation?

We have in place a system centering on the leadership of one person. This way of doing church has hurt both the leaders and those in the pews because it is not the Lord’s heart-it is not in line with His eternal purpose in Christ. Are we going to continue the insanity of doing religious things over and over, expecting a different result, or are we going to wake up and stop focusing on leaders and pursue our true Leader, Christ?

Jesus is Family is another great book by Jon Zens. His books are power-packed and can be used for personal study or for group discussion. I recommend all of his books, they can be found on his website. Below is an excerpt about prickly people.

As we have talked about ideals in Jesus’ family, we must face the reality that ekklesia in this age is far from perfect. After people commit to following Christ, “then Jesus calls his friends into community with others who have been chosen for the same path.” Jean Vanier went on to say, “This is when all the problems begin! We see the disciples squabbling among themselves, wondering who is the greatest, the most important among them! Community is a wonderful place, it is life-giving; but it is also a place of pain because it is a place of truth and of growth the revelation of our pride, our fear, and our brokenness.”

Years ago Vernon Grounds wrote a terrific article, “Fellowship of Porcupines,” in which he pointed out that we all are capable of poking each other with our quills. Most of the time we don’t mean to, but it happens nevertheless. That is why Paul knew Christ’s family had to be a community of forgiveness. “Bear with each other and forgive one another; if any of you has a grievance against someone, forgive as the Lord forgave you.” Paul knew there would be rough spots in the Body, but he encouraged the saints to let the Lord’s life flow through them in kindness, just as they had received from Him.

The truth is, many of us struggle with imperfection in the Lord’s family. A lot of the time this occurs because we are longing for that safe family, and often it seems to take years to find it. After we function with joy in it for a season, we soon learn that it’s not the utopia we thought it would be. Then we then sink into various negative reactions.

Henri Nouwen spoke about the dangers of desperate people looking for a “final solution.” “It is sad to see,” Nouwen said, “how people suffering from loneliness, often deepened by the lack of affection in their intimate family circle, search for a final solution for their pains and look at a new friend, a new lover or a new community with Messianic expectations. Although their mind knows about their self-deceit, their hearts keep saying, ‘Maybe this time I have found what I have knowingly or unknowingly been searching for.’ It is indeed amazing at first sight that men and women who have had such distressing relationships with their parents, brothers or sisters can throw themselves blindly into relationships with far-reaching consequences in the hope that from now on things will be totally different.”

When we come into a spiritual family with the highest of expectations, thinking this is it, we run the risk of creating even deeper problems. Nouwen underscored the point, “by burdening others with these divine expectations, of which we ourselves are often only partially aware, we might inhibit the expression of free friendship and love, and evoke instead feelings of inadequacy and weakness. Friendship and love cannot develop when there is an anxious clinging to each other.”

We simply must have a realistic, not utopian view of ekklesia. Unconsciously looking for “the perfect community” will always end in disaster. Again, Nouwen astutely observed, “To wait for moments or places where no pain exists, no separation is felt, and where all human restlessness has turned into inner peace is waiting for a dreamworld. No friend or lover, no husband or wife, no community or commune will be able to put to rest our deepest cravings for unity and wholeness.”

We see Christ in each other, we don’t look at one another after the flesh, but we also can’t forget that we are capable of letting each other down. Jean Vanier aptly captured this needed balance: “Communion means accepting people just as they are, with all their limits and inner pain, but also with their gifts and their beauty and their capacity to grow-to see the beauty inside all the pain.”

For blog updates please subscribe.

This is the second excerpt from Robert J. Banks classic book Paul’s Idea of Community about exercising authority. You can read the first excerpt here.

Paul exercises authority among his communities by persuading them to accept his point of view.  He does not try to coerce his converts.  His persuasion is based on his capacity to convince them, by word and example, that he desires for them what the gospel requires.

Two statements, both to troublesome communities, reveal the heart of Paul’s attitude. In the first of these statements he tells the Corinthians, “We do not lord it over your faith; we work with you for your joy” (2 Cor 1:24). The apostle-for all his divine call, diverse gifts, and founding labors-does not set himself in a hierarchical position above his communities or act in an authoritarian manner towards them. He refuses to do this since Christ, not he, is their master (4:5). As himself subject to Christ, Paul stands with them in all that he does. That is why he talks elsewhere of his belonging to the church, not of the church belonging to him.

He does not issue his approvals, encouragements, instructions, warnings, and censures in isolation from the community but as one who stands within it, surrounded by all the gifts and ministries the Spirit has granted its members. Even at a distance he can envisage them assembling together with his spirit present in their midst (1 Cor 5:3; Col 2:5).  Paul constantly forms new compound words with the prefix sun-, “with” or “co-,” to emphasize his fellowship with his communities.  He identifies with them in their weaknesses and strengths, their struggles and labors, their sufferings and consolations, their prayers and thanksgiving, their rejoicings and victories. When he speaks to them, he speaks always as one of them, even when he has the severest things to say. So in the second of these statements he writes to the Galatians, “Brethren, I beseech you, become as I am, for I also have become as you are” (Gal 4:12, RSV).

There are profound reasons for Paul’s identifying with his communities in this way and addressing them as he does. Did not
Christ identify himself with those he came to aid in the most far-reaching way? Paul writes that God sent “his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin,… condemned sin in the flesh.”  “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. Working together with him, then, we entreat you not to accept the grace of God in vain.”  In this respect Paul not only proclaims the gospel message and all that flows from it but embodies it, conveying its life through both his words and his deeds. Christ’s identification with humankind also affects the manner in which Paul can speak to his converts. For God draws people not through the exercise of power, but through the demonstration of “weakness”-or so it seems from a human point of view-in the cross (1 Cor 1:20-24). But then “God’s weakness is stronger than human strength” (1:25).
Because of Christ’s humility Paul cannot imperiously “command” his readers. When he addresses his communities he does so in
“weakness,” “fear,” and “trembling” (2:3). In doing this he is speaking “in demonstration of the Spirit and power” (v. 5). Christ “was crucified in weakness,” he says, “but lives by the power of God. For we are weak in him, but in dealing with you we shall live with him by the power of God” (2 Cor 13:4, RSV). In the death of Jesus, Paul finds an understanding of his own authority with the churches he was called to serve.

If you are enjoying these book reviews please subscribe so you don’t miss any. Thank you.

Paul’s Idea of Community by Robert J. Banks is a well researched study exploring the cultural settings surrounding Paul and the early church and its impact on early community life. This classic work is a deep dive so you better sharpen your steak knives and get the Worcestershire sauce out. The excerpt below is about the sharing of possessions.

For all his emphasis on these physical expressions of fellowship, Paul never suggests that the members of his communities have “all things in common,” as did those at Qumran. The oneness of Christians in the gospel does not necessarily involve the pooling of all their material resources. Not that their attitude to property stays unaffected by their commitment to Christ and one another. They are to remember “the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that by his poverty you might become rich” (2 Cor 8:9, RSV). In practical terms this does not mean divesting themselves of all their property  so much as the sharing of their “abundance” and “prosperity” with those in want (2 Cor 8:14; 1 Cor 16:2). This should lead to the situation where “the one who gathered much had nothing over, and the one who gathered little had no lack” (2 Cor 8:15, RSV). In the spirit of the gospel such sharing should spring from a “loving” and “generous” heart.  Indeed without this voluntary response, even the total yielding up of one’s possessions is worthless, an “exaction” stemming from a “command” (2 Cor 8:8; 9:5). Paul insists that “each of you must give as you have made up your mind, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful  giver” (2 Cor 9:7, NRSV). And this opens up the possibility of people exhibiting a “wealth of liberality,” giving not only  “according to their means” but “beyond their means, of their own free will” even though in a situation of extreme poverty (2 Cor 8:2-3, RSV).

Paul does not call for the abolition of private property or for its transformation into joint ownership. But neither does he talk of people possessing a right to it. Any idea of rights is foreign to Paul. It cuts across all that he stands for. The gospel is about not the claiming of a right but the offering of a present. It is no accident that at the climax of his longest discussion on the sharing of possessions he breaks off into the exclamation, “Thanks be to God for his inexpressible gift” (2 Cor 9:15, RSV). All that the believer owns has to be viewed through the cross, feel its imprint, and become the basis for service to others. In some instances that will mean parting with things, particularly when there is more than enough; in others it will mean parting with some when there is really less than enough. Just occasionally, as with Paul himself, it will mean parting with all and not even asking for recompense.

Paul’s view of possessions goes beyond that characteristic of the Hellenistic associations. For Paul, the sharing of material possessions as a physical expression of fellowship was to take place voluntarily. Though the principle of mutual financial  support also lay at the heart of club life, it was a carefully regulated affair and kept within calculated limits. In this respect it mirrored the general practice of philanthropy in the ancient world at this time, which was to desire reciprocal returns.  If other motives sometimes surfaced, these concerned the expectation of official honor being awarded to the donor.  Even where gifts were  distributed without anything being received in return, it often took place on a quid pro quo basis, with the most worthy of the disadvantaged gaining most of what was dispersed.

Unlike the Essenes, Paul did not found communes as he moved around the ancient world, but this does not mean that he did not challenge common attitudes to property. Those who became members of his communities could never again look on what they owned with the same eyes.

Please subscribe, thank you.

I stumbled upon this great Called-Forth series by Kevin Geoffrey of The Biblically Correct Podcast. Highlighted below is episode #57 from late 2023. This is part 7 of 7. Watch it on YouTube here. Check out the podcast here and his website here. The rest of the series is linked below.

The “church” of God—Yeshua’s “Called-Forth”—was never meant to be based on form or structure, but on us: the people. In the Scriptures, we’ve been given a biblical pattern that reveals how we are supposed to work and function together as the Body of Messiah, and it looks nothing like “church” (or “Messianic synagogue”) as usual. In this episode, Kevin wraps up his 7-part series about biblical “church” with a candid word of exhortation, and a vivid sketch of what our gatherings and communities could look like… if we actually followed the Scriptures.

Episode 45, Part 1 – Why You Should Never “Go To Church”

Episode 47, Part 2 – What Is the True Church?

Episode 49, Part 3 – The Organic Structure of Biblical Church

Episode 52, Part 4 – WHERE the Biblical Church Would Meet

Episode 53, Part 5 – WHEN the Biblical Church Should Meet

Episode 55, Part 6 – The True Purpose of Church

Wow, a lot is happening, don’t miss anything, subscribe below.

Jon Zens shared this powerful quote several months ago from Elton Trueblood’s book The Yoke of Christ and Other Sermons. I’m definitely looking forward to reading this book. I’ve already reviewed a couple of Jon Zens’ books all of which I highly recommend. You can find the reviews on my Resources page and you can find more about Jon Zens by clicking here.

“He [Jesus] did not leave an army; He did not leave an organization, in the ordinary sense. What He left, instead, was a little redemptive fellowship made up of extremely common people whose total impact was miraculous…It is hard for us to visualize what early Christianity was like. Certainly it was very different from the Christianity known to us today.

There were no fine buildings…There was no hierarchy; there were no theological seminaries; there were no Christian colleges; there were no Sunday Schools; there were no choirs. Only small groups of believers – small fellowships.

In the beginning there wasn’t even a New Testament. The New Testament itself was not so much a cause of these fellowships as a result of them. Thus the first books of the New Testament were the letters written to the little fellowships partly because of their difficulties, dangers and temptations. All that they had was the fellowship; nothing else; no standing; no prestige; no honor…

The early Christians were not a people of standing, but they had a secret power among them, and the secret power resulted from the way in which they were members one of another…What occurred in the ancient civilization was the organic development of the fellowship, but never a merely individual Christianity.

That would not have been able to survive. The fellowship was the only thing that could win. The early Christians came together to strengthen one another and to encourage one another in their humble gatherings such as are described in 1 Cor. 14, and then they went out into their ministry in the Greco-Roman world…

All of these parts [of the empire] were touched because the fellowship itself had such intensity, such vitality, and such power…If all the salt is washed out of [the fellowship], if all that is left is just the worldly emphasis of respectability and fine buildings, an ecclesiastical structure and conventional religion with the redemptive power gone, it isn’t partly good; it isn’t any good.

Christ is saying that mild religion, far from being of partial value, is of utterly no value…It is easy to go on with the motions; it is easy to continue a structure; it is easy to go on with a system. But Christ says it isn’t worth a thing.”

Elton Trublood, The Yoke of Christ and Other Sermons

Keep up with what’s going on, please subscribe.

This short fifty page narrative by author Robert Banks is quite engaging. This story is told by a fictional character called Publius Valerius Amicius Rufus who is invited to a Christian gathering for the first time. An excerpt from the book is below.

When everyone had seated themselves and Lysias had packed away the game, Aquila bowed his head slightly and asked the spirit of his god to guide all that now took place. As before he did this quite simply and matter-of-factly. After a short pause he then suggested we sing a song, the one the children particularly liked. This met with general approval. Gaius, who had a fine baritone
voice, led off and soon everyone was joining in, the children clapping their hands as they sang. I even managed to join in myself after a while. I enjoy nothing more than a good sing but don’t very often get the chance to indulge. We nearly lifted the rafters off in the last chorus, so goodness knows what the people next door made of it!

The song had no sooner finished than Clement closed his eyes and began to talk to his god. Like Aquila, he spoke in a quite ordinary fashion, almost as if his god were a close acquaintance in the same room. As Clement conversed with him, he repeated something that had been mentioned several times in the song, about the world as a present from the god to us. A strange idea, don’t you think? He expanded on this at some length. He went into a lot of detail about so often taken-for-granted things that we use, see, hear and smell every day which come from god’s hands. While he was talking, there were occasional murmurs of agreement from others in the room. At the end there was a loud affirmation from the whole group.

This same pattern repeated itself as different people spoke, women as well as men, and even one of the children. Some of the conversations with the god were as long as Clement’s, some no more than a few words. Most followed up in some way or other the subject which Clement had culled out of the first song. At one stage, for example, the Jewish weaver thanked the god for his generosity to his ancestors, listing a number of things which marked them out from other races, though also apologising for their constant failure to reciprocate. A very hesitant sentence or two also came from Tyro, in which he thanked the god that he now understood how much he had done for him, in particular the gift of his one and only son. At the end of this, the heads of each family present, and one or two of the others, went across the room and laid hands on him, welcoming him into their community and pledging him their future support. He was actually moved to tears by this and could scarcely express his gratitude to them. Despite the strangeness of the occasion, I must admit to being a little moved myself. As they resumed their places Hermas said there was a psalm out of the sacred writings which he felt was particularly appropriate to the occasion. He must have had a good memory for this kind of thing, for the recitation lasted
some minutes.

‘Would you like a copy of it?’ he asked Tyro when he had ended. ‘I could easily write one out for you.’

The other nodded, still a little overwhelmed, I think, by what had happened earlier and all the attention he was receiving.

Robert Banks, Going to Church in the First Century