Category: Books / Videos

Del Birkey’s well researched treatise on House Church was originally published in 1988 and re-released in 2019. It reads like a text book so if you’re into scholarly works, this book is for you. I hope you read the following excerpt carefully, it’s essential to model when doing life together.

The original Christian small group had gathered together with their Master-Teacher. The end was pressing upon him. His society had sought him for signs. He refused to give the kind they wanted, but he did signal his most significant clue for all who would follow him. He conquered with the sign of a towel. With the washing of their feet he established the symbol for servant work. He declared, “I have given you an example” (John 13:15). This lesson was forthrightly simple. Jesus wears the towel-apron of a servant, and we must wear it, too. After all, he said, “No servant is greater than his master” (v. 16).

In this manner, Jesus contradicted all other models of influence and self-importance. The one who makes the towel his or her badge is not the one who maneuvers for a place in the power structures of life. “The sign of the towel was not a put-on. Servanthood was not a role Jesus played on earth’s stage, but his real character.”

Jesus gave servanthood to his body, the church. Jesus conquered  with the sign of a towel, and he gave that quality of attitude to his disciples. Leadership in his body is not the real issue-servanthood is. Life in his church is not the same as life in secular society. On the contrary, kingdom life calls for an entirely new model, not merely a new definition.

Jesus clashed head on, therefore, against centuries-old authority structures. He turned the whole issue of authority on its head and recast it into an issue of servanthood. Jesus acknowledged that the Gentile model of leading was rigidly hierarchical. After a minor scuffle over who was to get the seats near the king (Matt. 20:25-28), Jesus unveiled the kingdom model. The Lord went to the core of the problem. He said, “Their great men exercise authority over them” in such a way as to achieve outward behavioral conformity to their ways.

Jesus had a better idea, however. His leadership ethic in kingdom work would achieve inner heart commitment to God’s ways. The way of authoritarian leading, he said, “shall not be so among you!” Instead, if you want to get ahead, you will have to succeed at serving. If you want to be first, you must be the very last, the servant of all (Mark 9:35). Greatness among his followers, he
declared, will be measured not in quantities of personal rank and acumen, but in qualities of personal humility in servanthood.

A little later, after a bout with the religious elite leaders, Jesus further contrasted the two models of leadership (Matt. 23:1-12). Faulting and chiding them, he made the distinctions stark. They created a faulty dichotomy between word and deed, but his teaching made them synonymous. They laid heavy burdens on others, but in the kingdom all are brothers and sisters and share. They maintain high visibility for personal praise, but Jesus said that whoever acts proudly will surely be brought down. They gave preeminence to those with titles, rank, and power, but Jesus said the preeminent will be the last in the kingdom. He said they should stop calling their leaders with pompous titles. The Gentile model worked from the top down, the kingdom model from the bottom up.

The church confirmed its servanthood in its ministry. The reason is simple and Jesus’ conclusion could not be clearer. “One is your Master, and all you are brethren” (Matt. 23:8). Evidence gathered from the occasional letters to the New Testament house churches and the other epistles provide ample principles and insights for the practicing of servant leadership in Christ’s church. It is not a question of whether or not we will have leadership, but rather a question of how it will be put into effect.

It may be, suggests Marlin Miller,

that the equivalents for our word “leader” in the first century culture were not used for the Christian church because of the shifts in understanding that took seriously Jesus’ teaching that “among you there shall be servants and not rulers.” The old language for leadership was linked with the language for ruling and domination.

The language of New Testament leadership is one of horizontal relationships, of leading and following, of voluntary submission and service toward one another. The only final authority believers acknowledge is the absolute authority of Jesus as Lord (Phil.2:10-11).  He has no other intermediaries.

This servant leadership in the house church takes initiative in helping the group form a consensus rooted in the Jesus tradition and moving in the direction of fullness in Christ. If we see that kind of servant leadership in the sociological context of the house church, it makes much sense. It can manifest itself more wholly in the context of small size and direct interrelationships.

Furthermore, the kind of persons equipped to be elders in the New Testament house church are the kind of persons who demonstrate the qualities which encourage and build family solidarity.  In this way, the house church context provides a congruity between such characteristics of leaders and the biblical style of leading. 

Miller concludes:

We have discovered a pattern of leadership in the New Testament house churches which provides both the model and the characteristics of what leadership should and can be in the house churches of our time. The recasting of authority, from the right to rule to the freedom to serve in a community of mutual subordination, is a biblical model which goes beyond both the restoration of hierarchical structures, on the one hand, and egalitarian individualism on the other.

Interested in more? Please subscribe below.

Jesus Unveiled is a relatively new book (2019) by Keith Giles. Filled with down to earth advice and practical guidelines for doing organic church together, it’s a book I would highly recommend. Below is an excerpt from the book about “What The Church Isn’t”.

As we’ve seen, the New Testament uses several words and metaphors to express the character, function, and personality of the Church.  Namely, the Church is a Body, a Bride, a Temple, and a Family.

Now that we’ve spent time exploring what the Church is, let’s take a hard look at what the Church isn’t. The New Testament doesn’t ever refer to the Church as an organization, as if it were a corporation or an industry. Instead, the Church is referred to as an organism. Therefore, according to the Apostles, and to Jesus, the Church that God designed is not intended to be thought of, or to be treated, like a business.

The Church that God always wanted is a family. This means that pastors are not synonymous with CEOs. It also means that the people in the Church are not to be thought of, or treated, as employees, commodities, tithing units, or assets. Instead, they are our brothers and sisters in Christ and should be treated as such-with love and respect.

This is about more than mere semantics. What you believe about something, how you talk about it, how you think of it, actually affects your behavior towards it or concerning it. So, I have found that, if you think of the Church as a business you will begin to expect certain things from it that you wouldn’t expect from a family, and vice versa.

For example, no one expects the family to grow in size each quarter or post an annual profit. Families don’t work that way, but corporations do. A father would not treat his daughter like an employee. Nor would he base his relationship on how much revenue she contributed to the family. Corporations may act that way, but families do not.

For a long time now, especially in the West, the Church has turned her gaze to the world of big business. She has based Her identity on a corporation rather than the organic, family-based, relational design laid out for us in Scripture.

Scripture makes it clear to us that the Church is an organism; a living Body made up of living parts which function best when they are interconnected. God’s design for His Church is relational.

“The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ.” (1 Corinthians 12:12)

A family is a social unit made up of people who share a common ancestor and engage in shared activities and beliefs. The family is grounded in love and it takes strength from the quality of the relationships developed over time.

Healthy families love each other in spite of difficulty, or hurt feelings. Families forgive and share.

Families pull together in a conflict. Families support one another and encourage one another. But when a family is run like a business it is impossible to maintain any of these foundational values of love, loyalty, sharing, forgiveness and protection.

A business is grounded in a completely different set of values. A business is a collection of talented people recruited to advance the interests of the company, build recurring revenue streams and add value to the business.

Whenever an employee becomes unproductive he is eliminated. 
Whenever a more talented employee is recruited, others are down-sized or let go. A business is ultimately about making money and growing larger. A business is mostly concerned with gaining market share and outperforming the competition.

So, if we treat the House of God like a business we will suddenly find ourselves engaging in activities that serve to grow the business and eliminate the competition.

Ideas such as love and family and service and community may become phrases used as metaphors to describe the activities of our business. They will not be expressed or embodied, in any real way, by those within our organization.

A business is concerned with growth, not with how happy, or healthy the employees may be. A business is concerned with numbers, finances and outward signs of success, it is not concerned with forgiveness, community or love.

The people who make up a family are called brothers and sisters. They are treated with love and respect. They are all valued for who they are as people, not for what they can do to improve the bottom line.

The people who make up a business are called employees. They are treated as assets which the company may exploit for financial gain. Employees are regarded as individual components which contribute to the overall success of the business. They are valued for what they can add to the company, not for who they are as people.

The Church, as Jesus designed it, is relational and organic. According to the New Testament, God’s plan was for His people to operate like a family, where He is our Father. He created a church that operates like an organism where He is our head, not like a business where we set up certain people as CEO’s and treat people as employees.

Clearly, the New Testament reveals that the Church is a family,  an organism and a Bride. It is never referred to as a business venture.

As we’ve seen over and over again, the mission of the Messiah was to build a suitable temple for God to dwell in. Jesus alone is the one who is qualified to build the temple of God, and we are that temple. We are a spiritual house of living stones “not made with human hands” but by the nail-scarred hands of God’s only son.

Put another way, the only true temple of God is the one that is being built by Jesus, not one built by any man, pastor, teacher or leader.

Blessings and don’t forget to subscribe below.

This 520 page monster of a book by Rad Zdero is for serious scholars. It is a compilation of articles from over 35 leaders, practitioners and academics from around the world. The book contains sections on the origin of house churches, house church movements throughout history, house church movements today (2007) and practical lessons on starting a house church. The excerpt below is from a chapter entitled Constantine’s Revolution: The Shift From House Churches to the Cathedral Church (AD 300 and Beyond)

In the first century AD, a mere 40 days after his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ entered the heavenly realm to sit at the right hand of Power. After three long years of public ministry, punctuated by victories and challenges, he left a noble commission of making disciples of all nations to his small motley crew of followers. Yet, not many years later, first century believers had become known as those that had turned the world upside down.  They were able to make good strides in their journey of spreading the message of Christ to the then-known world through the empowerment that they received from the Spirit of God. In the process, they birthed new communities of faith in new linguistic, cultural, and geographic soil. Their preferred strategy initially forged by the apostles themselves-was that of an expanding network of simple, small, reproducible, grassroots house churches, as borne out by even the briefest survey of Scripture and described in detail by scholars. These home-based and house-sized groups were characterized by Spirit-led participatory meetings, consensus decision-making, the Lord’s Supper as a full meal, baptism of adults immediately upon profession of faith, co-equal teams of unpaid leaders, and recognition of apostolic teachings and practices as authoritative in all respects. House churches were networked together through occasional citywide meetings and by traveling apostolic teams that circulated from group-to-group and city-to-city.

In the second and third centuries, the Jesus movement continued to expand its influence through the faithful witness of its adherents. Bright minds, brave hearts, and able hands were put to the task of preaching the gospel, healing the sick, casting out demons, clothing the naked, fighting false teachings, and facing both sword and flame, believers preferring to die for Christ rather for living for Ceaser.

Many spiritual giants emerged during this era, especially those collectively known as the Early Church Fathers. Ignatius of Antioch (c.35.-c.107) wrote seven powerful letters to the churches while being taken by soldiers to Rome where he was literally thrown to the lions in the Coliseum.

Justin Martyr (c.100-c.165), a one time pagan philosopher, turned to Christ and thereafter used his verbal and written skills in rationally defending the Christian faith against skeptical philosophers, antagonistic governors, argumentative rabbis, and so-called Gnostic Christians, eventually being scourged and beheaded for his beliefs.

Cyprian of Carthage (d.258), a pagan rhetorician who converted to Christianity only 12 years before his martyrdom, became an important Christian leader whose writings influenced thinking on the nature of the church, Christian leadership, and the sacraments. These are but a few of the characters in a long line of Christian martyrs, thinkers, and influencers.

Yet, subtle shifts began to creep in amongst the churches. The Early Church Fathers, whose sincerity should not be doubted, nevertheless, advocated for moves away from apostolic approaches, toward a more institutionalized understanding of the church. These shifts included the development of clergy who were distinct from the ordinary so-called lay Christian, a hierarchical approach to one-man leadership, formality in worship meetings, a pre-baptism probationary period for adults, the beginning of infant baptism, the observance of special holy days, a gradual
rejection of miracles and spiritual gifts, and a rigidity in doctrine.

Doubtless, some of the centralization and control were well-meaning responses by the Early Church Fathers to the external challenges posed by heretical fringe groups that were gaining momentum (e.g. the Gnostics) and Roman imperial policies that vacillated between grudging tolerance (e.g. emperor Trajan) and outright persecution (e.g. emperors Decius, Gallus, Valerian, and Diocletian) of the Christian faithful.

To be sure, there were similar challenges that even the first century churches faced, which the letters of the apostles often addressed and which Jesus himself denounced in the book of Revelation. However, the apostles eventually died and were not able to check these tendencies personally in later generations.

This was all merely a preparation phase for the coming full-fledged institutionalization of Christianity under the emperor Constantine in the early fourth century AD, which finally displaced the early grassroots house churches with ‘The Cathedral Church’. This institutionalization, as we shall see, affected the church’s freedom, faith, form, and function.

Don’t miss a post, subscribe below

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.