3. Their church experience was public.
Today we think in terms of insider church experiences and outsider ministry. Things like prayer, worship, Bible study, Communion, etc., we do with one another as insider activities. Outsiders cannot see what we are doing. Then we have outsider activities like evangelism, outreach to the poor and social justice projects. But here is one of the more startling life group lessons: this insider/outsider line was non-existent in the first century. For instance, as they met in homes with windows that had no glass panes and were built adjacent to other homes with a streets only six feet wide, a house church meeting would have been on public display.
Question for us today: How can we let outsiders see our life with God and with one another so that our lives are a witness?
4. They experienced a lot of failure.
The first century church was far from some kind of perfect model for us to follow. (Just read 1 Corinthians.) We are talking about real people with real problems. Small groups are messy. There is no ideal way to do church that is going to eliminate this reality. And we need to quit talking about church as if we will suddenly find the secret. I’ve looked and the more I look into the life group lessons of the early church, the more I see how much we share in common.
Question for us today: How do we create space for people to deal with reality instead of trying to get beyond reality and attain some kind of higher-plain of spirituality?
5. They expected to meet with God when they gathered.
They had a tangible reality of the life of the Spirit. This was not some kind of escapist spirituality that often gets equated with extremes of modern-day charismatic experiences. The early church depended upon the living presence of Jesus in their midst who would speak, heal and touch lives.
Question for us today: How can we slow down and make room, so that we can train our ears to hear God as we meet?
6. They were team-based.
If we are academically honest about how we understand the history of life group lessons from the early church, we have to admit that we have very little detailed data about how leadership operated. Some have argued therefore that the early church was absolutely flat, that there were no appointed leaders. Then there are others who read the modern approach of singular leadership into the early church. We cannot read the New Testament to find some kind of house church leadership manual. We have to enter into the story and read between the lines. And we must be careful not to read our current experience into theirs.
New Testament theologian Gilbert Bilzekian wisely states, “Whatever leadership structures existed in the early churches, they were inconspicuous, discreet, self-effacing and flexible. … They were invisible servants, whose role is to equip the body” (Community 101, 97).
New Testament leadership was not about hierarchy, determining who is in charge, or leadership recruitment strategies. Leaders led out of their character, their knowledge of God and their love for others. They would have formed a set of people to whom others would have naturally looked. Michael Green comments on how this kind of leadership would have naturally operated:
“Leadership was always plural: the word ‘presbyter’ from which we derive ‘priest’ is regularly used in the plural when describing Christian ministry in the New Testament. They were a leadership team, supporting and encouraging one another, and doubtless making up for each others’ deficiencies” (Evangelism in the Early Church, 25).
It’s safe to conclude that the early churches did not operate around the modern idea of a singular leader. But we insist in our modern group strategies that we build groups around individuals. We do this with small groups, cell groups, missional communities and–well you get the picture.
