Viral Jesus

Paul saw tradition as shaking hands with the world (Col. 2:8)

I recently had somebody write to me who was very angry with what I had written. In essence they were angry because I did not uphold Christian tradition. I looked at the Bible and didn’t see what the majority of 21^st Century Christians were seeing. In essence I was questioning the church practice that has come out of twenty centuries of human tradition. Since I didn’t come to the same conclusions as the majority, and pointed out historically where we started to veer away from the Bible in favor of traditions, I must be wrong.

Jesus and Tradition

I think it would be a very interesting to note everything Jesus, Paul and Peter (the only other New Testament writers who mentioned tradition) said about tradition. Here is the situation and how Jesus responded. To see the passages in their context, click on the links.

Pharisees: “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!” (Matt. 15:1-2).

Jesus: “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?  …Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.  You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:

“‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men. ’ ” (Matt. 15:3-9).

We also have a parallel passage in Mk. 7:5-15.

And that’s everything Jesus ever said about tradition. He saw it as something that separates us from God, not draws us closer.

Paul and Tradition

For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it.  I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers.  But when God, who set me apart from birthand called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus. (Gal. 1: 13-17).

See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ. (Col. 2:8)

So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter. (2 Thess. 2:15) (The word “teachings” is really the word “traditions” found in the other verses.)

In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching you received from us. (2 Thess. 3:6) (Again “teaching” is “tradition.”)

Peter on Tradition

For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, (I Pet. 1:18)

The bold phrase is one word in Greek “patroparadotou” which means “tradition handed down by fathers.” It is related to the other word “paradosin” meaning tradition.

So why is it that Jesus and Peter where strictly against tradition and Paul was usually against tradition but in Second Thessalonians he is in favor of tradition? Paul was in favor of the “traditions” he taught, which was biblical truth. The Thessalonians, like the rest of the people in that period didn’t have the New Testament like we do. At best they had the Old Testament and the teaching of the apostles. And in the New Testament we have the teaching of Jesus and the teaching of the original apostles…which reflected the teachings of Jesus. From that point on we need to be very careful of accepting traditions of men as they begin to veer away from what the Bible actually says.

Here’s an example of later tradition I mention in Viral Jesus which can get us off track.[1]

I exhort you to strive to do all things in harmony with God: the bishop is to preside in the place of God, while the presbyters are to function as the council of the Apostles, and the deacons, who are most dear to me, are entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ, who before time began was the Father and has at last appeared. (Ignatius of Antioch in his Letter to the Magnesians).

This is a tradition of man, the kind of thing Jesus, Paul and Peter told us to avoid. Yet it is where most people wanting to support church hierarchical structures go to for support, since they can’t support their view from the actual Bible.

What is my suggestion? Let just stick to the Bible and try to interpret it in its own historical context.

• Why do you think so many people like tradition?
• Why do you think people who try to uphold tradition even when the actual New Testament is so harsh towards the concept?
• Often times church tradition ends up being the exact opposite of what the Bible actually says. This was true for Pharisaical tradition as well. Why do you think we don’t notice?

Let's hope this passes for real fellowship.

Form follows function. It’s an often quoted aphorism. It was first mentioned in the art and architecture world but has come to be used even in such fields as biology. The architect Louis Sullivan is famous for this statement of the principle.

“It is the pervading law of all things organic and inorganic,
Of all things physical and metaphysical,
Of all things human and all things super-human,
Of all true manifestations of the head,
Of the heart, of the soul,
That the life is recognizable in its expression,
That form ever follows function. This is the law.”[1]

Note that in Sullivan’s mind this law applies to every sphere of life. I’d like to apply it to a modern Christian meeting. And, just as I rewrote I Corinthians 12: 12-26 in the Modern Ecclesiastical Version (MEV) I’d like to do the same for I Cor. 14:26-33a.

I Corinthians 14:26-33a in the Modern Ecclesiastical Version (MEV)

²⁶ What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone should sing hymns chosen beforehand, listen to a sermon, hope the pastor has a revelation, and avoid tongues or interpretations of tongues. The pastor must control these things for the strengthening of the church. ²⁷ If anyone speaks in a tongue the ushers will escort him out of the service for interrupting.[2] ²⁸ Such a speaker should keep quiet in the church as only those up front can speak.

²⁹ When the pastor speaks, nobody should weigh in, but rather listen carefully to what is said. ³⁰ And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, they should keep it to themselves. ³¹ For the pastor has seminary training, so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. ³² The spirit of the pastor is subject to the control of the pastor. ³³For God is not a God of disorder but of peace; so in order to avoid all disruption the order of service will be thoughtfully supplied in the bulletin, everyone can read along, speak in unison in the printed italics sections and sing along with the worship leader, the songs highlighted in bold. A time for fellowship will be provided in the fellowship hall at 11:15 AM after the service. Coffee and donuts will be served.

• What do these changes in form tell us about the changes in the function of the church from the 1^st Century until now? Do you think these changes make the church better or more deeply connected with God?
• Do you think having an order of service is what the apostle Paul had in mind when he penned “Let all things be done decently and in order” in I Cor. 14:40?
• Why do we need a special place for fellowship?
• Who gets to participate in the actual gathering in the 1^st Century and in the 21^st Century?
• Who lead the church gathering in the 1^st Century and who leads now?
• What life is recognizable in this expression (see Sullivan’s penultimate line)?

Opps, something went wrong!

I Corinthians 12: 12-26 Modern Ecclesiastical Version (MEV)

¹² The organization is a corporation with a 501(c)3 tax deductible status, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one organization. This, of course, has everything to do with the way business works. ¹³ For we were all organized by the denomination into one organization—whether Americans or those other people, rich or poor —and we were all given the one set of doctrines to profess.

¹⁴ Now the organization is not made up of one part but is designed as a hierarchy. 15 The foot should say, “Because I am not clergy, I am down here on the bottom.” ¹⁶ And the ear should say, “Because I am not on the staff, I should just listen and take notes.” ¹⁷ If the whole body were an eye, it wouldn’t be very practical, since the organization is designed to entertain the ears. ¹⁸ In fact, the denomination has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as they wanted them to be, with the head indispensible, the other parts not so much. 19 After all, if the organization didn’t have a head, what would happen to the organization? ²⁰ As it is, there are many parts, but the head is most important.

²¹ The eye cannot say to the head, “I don’t need you!” But the head can certainly say to the feet, “I don’t need you!” ²² Those parts of the organization that seem to be weaker are indeed dispensable, ²³ and the parts that we think are less honorable don’t get much honor. And the parts that are unpresentable just shake hands at the door, ²⁴ while our presentable parts honor the unpresentable with a smile. That’s the way the world works. The denomination has determined the structure of the organization and has ordained the head, ²⁵ so that there should be no division in the organization, but that its parts should express great respect for the ordained head. ²⁶ If one part suffers, it’s no big deal, but if the head suffers every part suffers with it; if the head is honored, every part should rejoice.

• In the MEV who do you think is the head?
• In the actual New Testament who do you think is the Head?
• Where did the Spirit go?
• This is the way the world works, but were we ever told to copy the world?

This isn't what the New Testament is talking about.

We have a bad habit of reading our own church practice back into the Bible. Then after doing so, we see the Bible as supporting the church practice we just read back into the Scriptures. Let me give you an example. When we read the following words in the Bible what comes to mind: apostle, pastor and evangelist. Most of us, unless we have some experience in organic churches automatically view these as titles to an “office.” We certainly don’t see descriptions of spiritual gifts. That is to say we view these as titles to an official position which carries with it responsibility, power, privilege, control, respect and status, not spiritual functions. The KJV even inserts the word “office” in the New Testament six times out of nowhere. It’s not in the Greek text. This is all nonsense. That isn’t what was going on at all in the Scriptures.

So, let me show you how this works. Let’s look at I Pet. 5:2-3.

Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve;  not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock.

Nor this.

If we force this verse through all the encrustations of modern Christendom we see the word “shepherd” which is the same word in Greek as “pastor” and see an office. Later on we see the word “overseers” which is the word translated bishop and again we see an office. Then we see the reference to money and assume that this justifies paying pastors, just like we do today.

Now here’s an interesting little tidbit. Both the words translated “Be shepherds” and “overseers” are not actually nouns referring to titles/positions but verbs referring to action. The noun is up in verse one “elders.” So this is a passage about what elders DO not what they ARE. When we put it through what was actually written, in its historical context, not through the meat grinder of our Christendom ecclesiology and 1,800 years of tradition, we get something like this.

Those who are more mature (elders) are to look out for (oversee) God’s flock (not theirs) by shepherding them (watching over while standing among). This may take you away from your money making activities, but be willing to sacrifice and don’t be controlling (lording over).

Nor this either.

It’s different isn’t it? There is no mention here of position or office. This is the more mature believers looking out for the less mature. In our modern parlance that’s called discipleship. But it probably didn’t involve some curriculum; it was life on life between friends.  Yet we end up using this verse to justify exactly the opposite of what it is talking about. Curious isn’t it?

One last thought on this. Form follows function. Said a different way, what the early Christians did tells us how they were structured. Look at I Cor. 14:26-33. This passage is our only view of how Christians actually behaved when they met together. It is not described in any other place in the New Testament. What we have here is a group of people who are all ministering under the control and direction of the Holy Spirit. Where’s the human leader? What is his/her title? How do they control what happens?

There is no leader other than the Holy Spirit. Since there is no leader there is no title. Humans aren’t controlling what happens but someone/anyone under the direction of the Holy Spirit might say just enough to get the group back on track if things stop having a Holy Spirit led order. I develop this more in Authority: How Jesus Leads a Church. I also develop this whole subject in greater detail in my book Viral Jesus.

Where’s the priest? Where’s the pastor? Where’s the sermon? Where’s the order of service? Why aren’t elders or pastors controlling what is going on? Where is anything we normally see in a Christian service? Where is the human control? What does that tell you about leadership structure in the Early Church? Now go look at I Cor. 12:12-31 with fresh eyes and ask yourself: Where’s the priest? Where’s the pastor? Where is clergy of any kind? Hierarchical, positional structure is very important to the modern church. But the first generation of Christians would be totally bewildered and offended if they were to hear what we do and how we organize ourselves. Their question to us would probably be, what happened to Jesus?

• What would I Cor. 12:12-31 say if it was describing how we do church today?
• Have you ever experienced Jesus leading a group of Christians with no designated human leader? What was the experience like, refreshing, powerful or confusing?
• Do you believe it is even possible to have a church without official leaders who have the power to make decisions?

Ordination, maybe not such a great idea.

Full disclosure: I was ordained 27 years ago. This may surprise you when you read what I write below.

Those of us who are aware of Christian history know that the year 313 AD was an eventful year for the Christian faith. What had originally seemed like an incredible victory for the Christians soon began to be viewed as a mixed blessing. Now, with nearly 1,700 years of hindsight, many view Feb. 3, 313AD as one of the darkest days in Christian history. So what happened in that day? On that day the new Roman emperor Constantine signed the Edict of Milan, which officially recognized and tolerated Christianity. Even more, it tolerated other religions, but did so because it chose to tolerate Christianity. In other words, Christianity was first among supposed equals. All other religions had to credit their toleration due to Christianity.

Obviously this seemed like good news to the Christians. But, given the historic context it went beyond good, it seemed like the miracle of miracles. Just seven years before the Christians were in the midst of the most severe persecution they had ever suffered in the Roman Empire; the Diocletian persecution under an emperor by that name. Any Christian found, both adults and children, were forced to sacrifice to the pagan gods on pain of death. Many chose death. Now, seven years later the Christians were being not only tolerated but considered the most important religion in the empire. A miracle right?

So what happened at the dramatic switch? Very quickly a number of things happened. Romans, who could see who the emperor was favoring were “becoming Christians” in droves. But these weren’t necessarily new disciples of Christ as much as converts in name only. Second, in order to handle the influx of “new Christians” the church asked the government to be able to use large buildings (instead of homes and apartments) for their meetings. To do this they were given access to the Roman courthouses, called basilicas. This reinforced their tie to the government. Third, leaders of the Christians, called at that time elders or bishops, were quickly organized into a copy of the Roman government’s hierarchical leadership structure. These leaders were even validated by copying the Roman ritual of being installed into official governmental office, called ordination. This concept of ordination was completely foreign to Christianity until the Church became associated with the Roman government.

Wow, this is all great right? The most experienced Christians must have been ecstatic? Not so much. Here’s what happened. Christian leaders, who had been informal leaders, recognized and respected for their Christian maturity, now became “officials” with an “office” and began to act like their government counterparts; as if they had power and control over those “below” them. Very rapidly their spiritual lives began to deteriorate. For more on this read Chapter 5: The Crumbling of a Viral Jesus Movement in my book Viral Jesus. The experienced Christians soon became disgusted by their own leadership. Some retreated to the desert to seek the holiness that was no longer being demonstrated by their leaders. These desert pilgrims became known to history as the Desert Fathers. This was the beginning of the monastic movement, which was a direct response to the degradation of Christian leadership.

One of these Desert Fathers was named Pachomius. Thomas Merton, a Catholic monk, writing of this response to the carnality and veniality of the new clergy wrote this about Pachomius. “Power of any sort was suspect, even that of the ordained clergy. Pachomius, like many other early monks, took a dim view of the priesthood, seeing ordination as ‘the beginning of the thought of love of command.’”[1]

So how long did this process take? Pachomius was about 21 years old at the signing of the Edict of Milan. And he died only 35 years after its signing.  The total degradation of Christian leadership didn’t take long at all, well within one lifetime. And that degradation started when Christian leaders were given official positions, titles, power and command; this in contrast to merely being respected for maturity and holy living. In 1870 Lord Acton famously said, “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” He was writing that comment about Pope Pius IX; but he wasn’t the first Christian to realize that giving official power to Christian leaders harms them and harms the Church. Pachomius could have told him that about 1,550 years earlier.

• Were you aware that monasticism was a response to the degradation of the Christian leadership after they became “clergy”?
• The hierarchicalization of the Church started before the Edict of Milan but was vague and sporadic before then. Are you surprised by how rapidly the leadership of the Church deteriorated after the Edict of Milan?
• Did you know that the idea of ordination comes from the pagan Roman government and was non-existent before the 4^th Century? How do you feel about that?
• Do you think title, power and control are necessary for Christian leadership to function? If they don’t have these things, how can they lead?

Is this any more worldly...

In my last post, Two Dangers: Danger One I stated: In the early years of my faith I was warned to avoid two dangers to my spiritual life and ministry. Those two dangers were being fleshly and being worldly. I could not agree more and I completely disagree. Let me explain.

In that post I discussed how inadequate the traditional definition of “being fleshly” was. In this post I’d like to discuss the idea of being “worldly” that many of us have. I was raised that this was “being worldly”: having long hair, wearing the current youthful fashion (a suit and tie was OK), using the current slang and other such “worldly” behavior.

...than this?

I think that misses the point entirely. I don’t think our hair style, our clothing and speech habits (as long as they are gracious and modest) have anything to do with worldliness. But there is such a thing as worldliness and it is very dangerous to our spiritual lives. Actually there are four very pointed passages about worldliness in Galatians and Colossians.

So also, when we were children, we were in slavery under the basic principles of the world. (Gal. 4:3)

Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods. But now that you know God—or rather are known by God—how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? You are observing special days and months and seasons and years! (Gal. 4:8-10)

See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ. (Col. 2:8)

Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”? (Col. 2:20-21)

In the context Paul is saying that going back to the structure and logic of Jewish religion was worldly and looking at reality through Greek philosophy was worldly. See the context here Gal. 4 and Col. 2. The Galatians were trying to become more godly through following Jewish religious rules. The Colossians were succumbing to some Greek philosophical thinking, probably a form of early Gnosticism.

So what do Greek philosophy and Hebrew religion have to do with each other? Why are these both examples of the hollow and deceptive, weak and miserable principles of the world which lead us to slavery? They are both attempts of humans to accomplish their goals by human effort. Greek philosophy whether Platonic, Aristotelian, Stoic or Epicurean was based on one simple idea: We can make our life better by figuring things out by our own human wisdom and effort, our own “philosophy.” Philosophy, after all, means love of wisdom.

But why did Paul single out Hebrew religion. Wasn’t Hebrew religion instituted by God? Wouldn’t it therefore be good? Not exactly. Hebrew religion was based on a covenant God made with Israel. That covenant was the Law. In essence it was humans trying to live for God by keeping the rules in their own effort. According to the writer of Hebrews there was something wrong with this covenant which required God to give a new one. And the new covenant was superior and made the old one obsolete (Heb. 8:6-13). The old covenant of the Law was based on men striving to please God with their own human effort. The new covenant was based on living in the power of the Spirit under the direction of the Spirit.

So what Greek philosophy and Hebrew religion have in common is men achieving their goals through human ability, wisdom and effort. In other words, “we can do it ourselves.” That’s the basic, foundational principle the world. It is a theme that started in Gen. 3 and weaves its way through every chapter of the Bible from then on. The theological name for this is sin. It expresses itself in ideas like this: Those with the most power should have more respect. The richer the better. Fame and attention are important. When dealing with leaders, salute the flag (i.e. do whatever they say).

With that in mind, think about how we try to accomplish ministry by utilizing current American business practice. Isn’t that succumbing to the foundational principles of the world? What about setting up leadership structures based on hierarchy just like the world does? What about viewing our faith through the current philosophical lens be it modernism or postmodernism (both based on Greek philosophy)? Are we really as free from the taint of the world as we imagine ourselves? I develop these themes in more detail in my book Viral Jesus.

• Is the modern Church any better off than the Galatians with their human religious practices or the Colossians with their fascination with living the Christian life based on the current worldview?
• Why do you think we tend to define worldliness on surface issues like clothing rather than foundational issues like human striving?
• Do you think it is possible to be completely free of the world system?
• What do you think Christianity would be like if it wasn’t worldly? Would it be more or less effective?

Is this any more fleshly...

In the early years of my faith I was warned to avoid two dangers to my spiritual life and ministry. Those two dangers were being fleshly and being worldly. I could not agree more and I completely disagree. Let me explain.

In those formative years of my faith, when I was encouraged to avoid these dangers, they were defined something like this. Being fleshly: participating in sins like drinking alcohol, having sex outside of marriage and using drugs. Being worldly: having a wild hair style, wearing the current youthful fashion (a suit and tie was OK), using the current slang and other such “worldly” behavior. Some of these things are dangerous to our spiritual life. Others are totally superfluous to our relationship with God. My issue isn’t whether such things are dangerous to our spiritual life but rather if this is what the Bible is talking about at all.  To investigate that we need to actually go to what the Bible says about such things. In this post I’m going to investigate what being fleshly really is. In the next post I’m going to investigate what being worldly really is.

Being  Fleshly

...than idolizing Christian celebrities?

The definition of “being fleshly” I was raised with is partially right. There are deeds of the flesh, and we are told to avoid them by living in the Spirit. We can see this argument in Gal. 5:19-23. And, the deeds of the flesh mentioned Galatians 5 are in part about participating in sexual immorality and wild living among other things (although fashion isn’t mentioned). So the definition is partially right.

What isn’t mentioned in “being fleshly” is something else Paul mentioned in Philippians.

Watch out for those dogs, those men who do evil, those mutilators of the flesh. For it is we who are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh— though I myself have reasons for such confidence. If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless.  But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ (Phil. 3:2-7).

In the context Paul is talking first about circumcision, then about being proud of religious position and finally about religious accomplishment done through human effort. These issues, religious position, religious accomplishment and human effort oddly weren’t mentioned all that much. In fact, at least in my context, that was encouraged. Titled leaders were held in high regard, actually almost worshiped. And, by example and verbal encouragement we were expected to go out and “do might deeds for Christ.” Here’s the problem. We can’t do mighty deeds for Christ. Without his power and direction we can do nothing (Jn. 15:5). And being proud of religious positions as well as being impressed or “idolizing” such leaders clearly is fleshly behavior.

Whether our pride is in being of the tribe of Benjamin, how much zeal we have, how good we are at keeping the rules, or whether it is in being the pastor or vice president, having ministry success or being enamored with some famous Christian leader, writer, or TV personality, they are all fleshly behavior.

What was Paul’s solution to fleshly living? But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus (Phil. 3:13-14). It was pretty simple. The answer to fleshly living is to keep focused on Jesus and what He has asked us to do. Forget the titles and positions. Forget our human accomplishments and the admiration that comes with it. Forget about what our favorite Christian celebrity is doing. In fact, quit idolizing other Christians. Focus on Jesus. Obey Jesus. Walk in His power and Spirit. To do so allows us to ignore the foolish distractions.

• Why do we tend to focus on what we have accomplished?
• Why do we tend to stress our positions and titles? Why do we tend to become awed by the positions and titles of others?
• Why do we seek success? What is success anyway?
• Why do we tend to focus on Christian celebrities and be enamored with them?

Why house churches?

Some may be wondering why I am such an ardent promoter of house churches. The answer may not be what many suspect, so I thought I’d address it.

Is it because you are rebellious against authority?

Not at all. I’ve been accused of this many times, usually by those who felt they had authority over other Christians. While it is true such authority doesn’t actually exist in the New Testament, it belongs to Jesus the Lord; this is not why I was attracted to house churches. My feelings towards Christian clergy is actually loving concern. I believe most Christian clergy long to serve God and do serve God. I believe they often get wounded by the ecclesiastical system that we now have as much or more than “laity” do. And, it may come as a surprise to some; many of the proponents of modern house church were originally “Christian clergy.” I was. To be clear, my movement towards house church has never been motivated by anger, resentment, bitterness or rebellion at some leader or leaders. I was well into my movement towards house church before I ever even began to question such issues.

Is it because we only see house churches in the New Testament?

Not really. Again, that may be true, but it was not my motivation. I don’t believe God is that inflexible about ecclesiology nor do I believe God is asking me to be that inflexible. My commitment to house churches doesn’t come from wooden literalism. Nor do I believe that God has rejected or refuses to bless those who are not house church Christians.

Is it because house churches are more practical for the completion of the Great Commission?

Again this is true, and again it is not my motivation; or at least not my complete motivation. I love that house churches are frictionless. For what I mean by that read my post Sand in the Gears. But I don’t believe that if the modern church would just adopt house church structure that there would be some magical benefit to the Kingdom. Such an event would be passive. That is to say, it could be helpful but by itself it could not accomplish what God wants done. Further, I would not advocate such a thing because it would wound those who were not prepared and called by God to move into house church structures. For them the old wine is better (see Luke 5:39). To force such people into a structure they did not understand would not be a loving act.

Is it because house churches are a new covenant structure which doesn’t interfere with the Lordship of Jesus?

This is quite true and it is part of my motivation, but not my complete motivation. In the new covenant Jesus speaks directly into our hearts and minds (Heb. 8:10). He is Lord (see 1 Cor 12:3 and Phil 2:11) and there is no need to have human leaders with power, control and authority. And, I’ve experienced how wonderful it is when Jesus himself actually leads a meeting of Christians (see Authority: How Jesus Leads a Church) but this is not my entire motivation.

Then what is my motivation?

It is the symbiotic combination of a number of factors together. House church structure does not get in the way of the Jesus’ agenda of spreading his Kingdom. That can’t be said of more traditional structures and if I love Jesus I love what He wants. He wants His Kingdom to come and His will to be done on Earth as it is in Heaven. I am to seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness. I don’t want anything to get in the way of that.

I love that house church structure actually allows me to live fully and completely in the new covenant and the lordship of Jesus with no restrictions by human traditions or human control. So house church structure allows access to Jesus, both individually and in community, without any encumbrances. It also allows for the Gospel to spread without any structural impediments. I feel that is very important. But in and of itself this will not fulfill the Great Commission nor connect me/us more deeply with Jesus.

House churches are an empty shell without the power, presence and direction of Jesus himself. And, if we are not careful they can become just as much of a holy huddle as many traditionally structured churches have become. If we love Jesus we love his Kingdom and the spread of his Gospel. For that we need His power and we need to obey him explicitly as He gives specific instructions to our particular situations. House churches can be just as inept at ignoring Jesus as some traditional churches and some traditional churches and traditional Christians are following Jesus into the harvest under his command, for which they are to be commended.  So I promote house churches because their structures don’t get in the way of Jesus’ leadership and what He wants to accomplish. This is part of what I’m saying in my book Viral Jesus. But I don’t believe that Jesus has deserted more traditional structures and Christians.

• I’ve repeated a number of questions which have been posed of me as to why I promote house churches. What question would you ask?
• Does this sound to you like I have totally rejected more traditionally structured churches?
• Agree or disagree: structure isn’t important?
• Do you believe, as I do, that structure can unintentionally interfere with our relationship with God?