A Case for Reformatting Our Weekly Gatherings

A Sneak Peak Into My New Book

Update (Aug 21, 2025): I received some really helpful feedback on the original post below that has brought me a lot of clarity about what I’m actually arguing for regarding the format of the church’s weekly gatherings.

After further thought, I’ve realized that it's not strictly open meetings that I believe are the biblical instruction, which entail a specific type of format that our house churches practice. Rather, it seems to me that open participation is the biblical instruction regardless of the meeting format.

“Open participation,” the way that I mean it, entails:

1. A highly intentional effort to drive organic, Spirit-led engagement by all members, training them to steward their gifts in the gathering.

2. The practice of corporately weighing everything that is said and done in the gathering. (This doesn’t mean that everything actually gets weighed verbally, but that a culture is created where this can happen whenever it needs to happen, again, within the gathering.)

The way I presented my argument in the original post below could lead one to conclude that they have to choose between the biblical instruction for open participation and all their current practices. However, this is not exactly what I believe.

Open meetings and "traditional" church meetings are mutually exclusive — yes. But open participation can theoretically be practiced within a wide range of structures/liturgies. It’s up to each church to lean on the Holy Spirit to decide (1) how much predetermined structure they’d like to implement and (2) how to ensure that the biblical instruction of open participation is still being followed within each weekly gathering. The format can vary from one body to the next, and from one season to the next, as it does in our churches. The thing that cannot vary is the conviction to facilitate Spirit-led engagement from all members and the corporate weighing of prophecy (in the general sense, which includes all activity in the gathering).

There are also some readers who commented on how the historical evidence actually points to a developing liturgy and more formal leadership structure within a very short period of time in the early church (before the start of the second century). It appears that the radically open meetings we read about in 1 Corinthians 14 did not remain the norm for long. This is true.

Regarding early church history, I am working to clean up my arguments a bit there, too, so as not to suggest that open meetings were even what Paul's churches were practicing. We only know that they practiced open participation, though there's no evidence that they used the exact same format of open meetings that my house churches use.

However, my arguments in this post and in the coming book will continue to rest largely on the Bible over and against church history, not blind to it. While I'm trying not to get too much into church history in this book, I realize that I may need a bit more of it to clarify my position for certain readers.

Please continue praying for this venture, and thank you for your ongoing feedback. It’s extremely helpful!

---

Original Post: Hello Friends!

I’ve been working hard on my next book, Unless God Builds It: A Radical Proposal to Rethink the Church.

Below is the first fully formed chapter, which I invite you to read AND critique. I don’t plan to share all my chapters like this before it’s published, but I’m feeling led to ask for your feedback on this one. Whatever you feel may be helpful, please share in the comments below this post or in a private DM.

I appreciate all of you, and I thank you for your faithfulness to God and his church!

---

The morning of December 1, 2019, I paced my living room floor for a couple of hours, praying: God, show me what it looks like to build your church. I have no idea what I'm doing, but I believe that you know the way and will teach me.

I had just left the church I was working for as the Adult Discipleship Pastor, where I spent my final two months answering people's questions about this new "house church" thing I was gearing up to do: how I planned to support myself, how the church would grow, how I’d guard against false teaching, and what I’d do with the kids, etc. All these were questions with one straightforward answer: "I don't know, but I'm going to seek the Lord and find out!"

With that chapter of my life now behind me, this was finally Day 1 of seeking the Lord and finding out. As I prayed that morning, God's first move was to interrupt my prayer with a phone call.

On the other end of the line was a man named Jonathan, who had been leading a church in his home for about seven years. Someone had given me his information a few weeks earlier, and I left him a voicemail, which he was just now returning — not coincidentally — on the first day of my new adventure. He invited me over to his house on the spot, and, since I had literally nothing else going on, I went — eager to see what God had planned.

For three hours, we got to know each other — sharing our backgrounds, our hearts for God, our desires for the church, and our theological convictions. I remember thinking to myself (and commenting to my wife afterward), "I've never met anyone like this before." He seemed so Spirit-filled, despite not having attended a "normal" church in years. Go figure!

Part of Jonathan's story involved a couple of trips to India shortly after he was saved, where he learned about the spiritual life and ministry from a man who he felt was the closest thing to an apostle that he'd ever met. They spent some months backpacking together through remote villages and visiting various churches that this man had planted. One thing in particular that Jonathan picked up from him and brought back to the States was the way that he taught the churches to conduct their weekly gatherings. Jonathan had been operating his house church this way ever since, and he shared it with me that day.

I'm paraphrasing what Jonathan told me about their gatherings, but essentially, he said, "We all just sit in a circle, direct our eyes toward Jesus, and let him lead us wherever he wants. Nothing is pre-scripted. There is no official liturgy. There is sometimes a lot of silence. But this isn't a lack of structure or design; it is the intended structure and design, meant to train people to depend on Christ as opposed to the next item on the agenda — giving the Spirit of God full control of the gathering."

As you might imagine, this talk with Jonathan seemed like a divine appointment to me. I had never read a book about house churches. I had never been to a house church myself. And I had never met someone who had been to a house church, either. Again, I had little to no idea what I was doing, besides being committed to rely on God for everything. And here — on my first day of this new adventure, while praying for direction — God sent me someone with experience and practical wisdom that I could immediately apply to my first Sunday gathering. (He also sent me a friend in Jonathan, whom I've been doing this alongside ever since.)

Before this conversation, I hadn't decided how to structure our weekly gatherings, but I felt that they would probably look different than any kind of Sunday church service I had seen. I knew that meeting in homes didn't guarantee any improvement if we just did all the same things you would typically do in a church building. While there may be some benefits to meeting in a smaller setting, the place of meeting or the number of people in attendance was not going to be the one thing that changed everything. My basic conviction was that the "silver bullet" for the church always has been, and always will be, the Holy Spirit — a conviction that I still hold just as strongly today.

So, what Jonathan presented to me that day hit a chord in my spirit — a way of meeting that, above all things, emphasizes letting Jesus be the leader. What I didn't know then was that Jonathan's model wasn't a new invention, but a return to the biblical pattern I was about to discover in the word. This way of gathering — which I'll hereafter refer to as an "open meeting" due to its emphasis on open participation from all members — has become foundational to my understanding of equipping the church and making disciples. Having practiced it every week for almost six years now, I feel more strongly than ever that the church must return to it (yes, return to it), and I'll make my case for this throughout the rest of the chapter.

The Open Meeting

One of the first questions I typically get asked about house church is: "What do your Sunday services look like?" In one way, the answer is very simple. But in another way, the concept is so foreign to most people that it requires a lot of explaining.

Each week, our churches gather in someone's home (though any meeting place is fine). It's typically anywhere from five to twenty-five people, including children, but we know that just two or three people gathered in Jesus' name constitutes a church (Matthew 18:20). We enjoy some initial chatter as we wait for everyone to arrive, and we seat ourselves in a circle around the room.

At the start of the meeting, we all turn the eyes of our hearts to Jesus in prayer, asking and expecting him to lead the gathering. We allow space for silence all throughout our time together — not awkward silence (at least, it doesn't have to be) but intentional. For the most part, we've learned to be comfortable with the silence, though it wasn't easy at first and still isn't always easy for me. But it is important because it leaves room for the Holy Spirit to dictate what happens next.

As each person feels led to share something that God is stirring up in them, we encourage and expect one another to do so. Each of us does our best to share whatever gift from the Holy Spirit is at work in us that day. In the same way, we may perceive that the Spirit is not prompting us to say anything or is telling us to stay quiet, in which case, we do that just as faithfully.

So, for example, here's what a normal gathering in my home might look like.

I call everyone's attention to let them know that we're getting started. I open with prayer, welcoming the Lord the lead us, and only praying as I feel prompted by the Holy Spirit. As I sense that it's time for me to finish praying, I fall silent, leaving space for others to discern if the Spirit is prompting them to share.

Perhaps someone feels a desire to pray more. Believing the Spirit of God stirs these desires within them, they pray out loud so that we can all join them in agreement. A couple more people might pray, and then someone's prayer stirs someone else to start singing. If we know words, we all join in. After the song, there may be another, or we may sit in silence again, waiting on the Lord to move through someone else.

At this point, someone might share a revelation they received that week or a testimony of something God is doing in their life. That inspires more prayers of thanksgiving and worship. Maybe someone has a scripture on their heart, so they share it, and this causes someone else to share a verse that comes to mind.

As each of these things occur, we may start to see a theme arise and perceive what the Lord wants to teach us that morning.

Often I will feel led to teach, but I am always waiting for the Spirit to give me clarity, and willing to remain silent if I am not confident that my teaching will build up the church that day. The question is not whether what I have to say is true, you see. The question is whether what I have to say is what God has to say that morning. If it isn't what God is saying to our church in that moment, then I want nothing to do with it in that moment. We're not in the business of tickling ears and puffing each other up with knowledge, but of ministering Christ, who is alive. So, what I'm always trying to discern by faith is whether or not Christ is wanting to say anything specifically through me, and it's what others are trying to discern in their giftings, as well. We'll talk more extensively about this discernment process later in the book.

Sometimes I sense that others in the gathering have gone full-on spectator mode and are idly waiting for me to speak, since I'm the "leader," and that's what they've been trained to do. Instead, they should be looking to their true Shepherd, Teacher, and Leader (who is Christ). When I sense this, I will try to avoid teaching with my mouth because I am trying to point them away from relying on me and toward Christ. Any God-appointed shepherd should understand that this is ultimately their role. I tell them, "If it doesn't look like I'm leading, that is my leading. If it doesn't look like I'm teaching, that is my teaching." Again, here, silence is important.

Besides me, others may end up teaching, also. It just depends on what we discern God is doing that day. And usually, teachings turn into open conversations that turn into prayer for one another and so forth.

Last, but certainly not least, we enjoy the Lord's Supper together every week. This is not out of obligation — we do not believe there is a law around this — but out of a genuine desire for it and faith that it benefits our souls. No matter what else occurs, the Lord's Supper ensures the gospel is always proclaimed.

In the church that I lead, this gathering normally lasts about two hours but will often go a little longer. One of the other churches regularly meets for over three hours long. (They're the more charismatic bunch.) The length isn't particularly relevant except that it's not predetermined. If God's still moving, we want to be sensitive enough to realize it and not end the meeting prematurely. But on the flip side, if God has done all he want to do in that setting, it doesn't make us any less holy to end a little earlier than usual.

What I've shared here is only an example of what a gathering could look like because, again, God is in control, and it's different every time. There's no prescribed structure to our gatherings, except that when we don't know what is next, we always turn our eyes to the Lord and wait on him.

In theory, there's no reason that an entire gathering couldn't be filled with one kind of activity. For example, what if God has one person on his mind who he wants to bless that day? So he stirs them to share their struggles at the beginning of the gathering, and we spend the rest of the time ministering to that person — speaking truth into their life, praying over them, etc. Is that a waste of a Sunday because we didn't have a sermon or a lesson of some kind? Or was the "sermon" actually in the various scriptures that were shared, expounded upon, and applied to this person's unique situation? Was the lesson in how the person was so humble to ask for help, or how someone corrected their thinking with such love and gentleness? If God was the one inspiring and empowering our ministry, then wasn't it actually what we all needed and desired more than anything?

You can apply this principle to any of the various activities that could happen in our gatherings, and it holds true: a meeting with only prayer and worship, a meeting with just scripture and discussion, etc. I'm not saying this happens often. I'm only making a point that God, at his sole discretion, gets to decide what we do. And if we believe that this is what God is doing in us, then why would we want anything else?

In this, we are learning that we don't have to force things like teaching, singing, scripture reading, etc. We don't need to create an agenda — in fact, we largely resist it — because if we just learn to be faithful with sharing the grace given to each of us, then all these things will happen naturally, and the church will be built up as God intends. The key, then, is that we all learn to be faithful stewards of the grace given to each of us. The key is that we learn the way of the Spirit. The key is discipleship.

The Origin of Ekklesia

Despite that the term "church" is still widely used for the church building, most of my readers have heard that this is a deviation from its original meaning. The physical building is not what the authors of the Bible, nor anyone for many centuries, were referring to when they used the term that we translate as "church." This term in Greek is ekklesia, and it refers to the people that make up the Body of Christ. Yet still, there's more to the meaning of this word that has been missed by most Christians — yes, even most church leaders.

Ekklesia suffers from a common linguistic phenomenon called the etymological fallacy ("etymology" having to do with the origin of words). Its definition in everyday usage is different than if you separate it into its parts and translate each of them literally based on their original meaning. A good example of this phenomenon in English is the word manufacture. Its root, from the Latin manu factum, literally means "made by hand." In actuality, the word has come to mean the exact opposite, referring to the large-scale production of goods by machinery in a factory. If a factory owner wrote about the latest "manufactured" products, someone reading that text thousands of years from now might be led to believe the owner was celebrating handmade goods, though that wasn't their intention at all.

A similar thing has happened with the term ekklesia. In all the books I read for seminary and pastoral training, I was told something like this: Ekklesia means literally "called out ones." It is derived from ek-kaleo, where ek means "out of" and kaleo means "to call." Therefore, the reason we are called the ekklesia is because we are a people who have been "called out" by God — from darkness into light, from sin into righteousness, from Satan's kingdom into God's kingdom, etc. The problem with this definition is that it entirely fails to convey the functional meaning of the term ekklesia — that is, how it was used, defined, and understood in the first century.

This term originated around the 5th Century B.C. in Athens, and it referred to a specific type of civic assembly, where a summoned body of eligible citizens (every male citizen over eighteen years old) would gather to openly discuss civil matters and democratically make decisions to govern their locality. It could also refer generally to those in the community who were able to participate in these meetings, not just the meetings themselves. These assemblies wouldn't be far from our modern concept of a town hall or neighborhood council meeting. In them, every member of the ekklesia shared the same speaking and voting rights — free to propose something of concern, to persuade others present, to question/challenge ideas being shared, etc. The ekklesia was, by definition, an open meeting and/or the people who had the legal right and responsibility to participate in it.

By the first century in the Greco-Roman world, this term had become a bit more flexible, so I want to be careful not to oversimplify how it was used in the days of the early church. However, it still commonly carried its original Athenian connotation that I outlined above, which emphasized not just any kind of assembly but essentially a civic assembly defined by open participation and democratic governance. This usage can be seen in Acts 19 — the only place in the New Testament where ekklesia does not refer to Christians or their meetings (vv. 32, 39, 41), which is why it isn't translated as "church" but "assembly." We also see this precedent at least a few times in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament), like in 1 Chronicles 13:1-4, 2 Chronicles 30:23, and Judges 20:1-7, where the ekklesia corporately weighs a matter.

None of this should be taken as conclusive evidence that God intended for his ekklesia (us) to have open meetings, and a more in-depth study would reveal that the term carries other (arguably more) significant implications than this. What little I have said here about ekklesia is nowhere near what the topic warrants. It is simply to highlight the remarkable connection between the most common term for the people of God and the format of the meetings which they happened to employ — a format that the church has deviated far from over the past seventeen hundred years. It is interesting, to say the least.

The Biblical Precedent for Open Meetings

Quite honestly, there is not a lot in the Bible that explicitly dictates what should occur in Christian gatherings. But if we carefully examine the scriptures on this topic, an important idea emerges — i.e., open participation — which I argue is not merely a good option but God's design so that Christ might be the functional head of each meeting. I use the word "functional" because we all agree that Christ is the head in truth. But the question is, how can we function so as to make Christ the head in practice. The role of headship belongs to no other person — not pastor, priest, or pope. For only the Head knows what the Body needs and how to coordinate each member for the greatest common good.

To start, let's take a look at two less obvious passages that hint at open participation in the gathering:

"And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit, addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart, giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ." (Ephesians 5:18-21)

"Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God." (Colossians 2:6)

While it is possible that Paul wrote these passages with a broader view of the Christian life in mind, there's evidence that he was thinking specifically about when they gathered.

The first sentence — "do not get drunk with wine… but be filled with the Spirit" — is almost certainly in reference to the Lord's Supper, which was a central feature of their gatherings. Getting drunk off the sacramental wine was unfortunately an issue Paul had dealt with before (1 Corinthians 11:21), hence the instruction here.

Also notice the "one another-s." They were to sing to one another. Intuitively, this activity doesn't fit quite as naturally into day-to-day life as it does into the gathering. They were to submit to one another — a possible reference to the practice of weighing/testing what people share in the gathering (1 Corinthians 14:29-32 and 1 Thessalonians 5:-21). And they were to teach and admonish one another. Beyond a shadow of a doubt, Paul viewed teaching as something that happened especially (though not exclusively) in the weekly gathering.

With this in mind, let us recognize the disparity between today's typical Sunday gathering and these New Testament instructions. In most churches, the pastor teaches, the worship leader sings, and the congregation submits.

But Paul says for all to do these to one another.

Next, the most obvious scripture that points us toward the practice of open participation is this:

"What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up." (1 Corinthians 14:26).

I cannot remember what I thought of this verse before I experienced an open meeting for myself, but I'm pretty sure that I never had any clue what Paul was talking about. I had no operating template for which these verses made sense. I'd never been a part of a gathering where each person was allowed, let alone expected, to share something of ministerial value. And any concept of it that I could imagine — with no plan, no outline, no agenda — would have seriously challenged my precious idea of "order." But here, we see that Paul is perfectly comfortable with it. His operating template for church meetings was that each person had something for edifying the others, and there was a way to do this "decently and in order" (1 Corinthians 14:40).

In the same chapter, there are two other verses which highlight the same idea:

"But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all, the secrets of his heart are disclosed, and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you [plural]." (1 Corinthians 14:24-25)

"For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged." (1 Corinthians 14:31)

It's worth noting, briefly, that to prophesy in this context may not be exactly what everyone today has in mind. In this section of scripture, Paul appears to use the term prophesy as a catch-all for any intelligible Spirit-empowered speaking — whether that be encouragement and consolation (v. 3), prayer or song (vv. 14-15, 26), teaching, revelation, interpretation of tongues, etc. (v. 26). He places all of these activities under the banner of "prophesying" and in juxtaposition to tongues, which are unintelligible. The promise that all believers will prophesy (Joel 2:28, Acts 2:17-18, cf. Numbers 11:29) is therefore fulfilled in myriad ways when we function like this.

As for Paul's instruction that women were to remain silent in the churches (1 Corinthians 14:33-35), I'll address that in a later chapter. For now, just note that, a few chapters earlier, he clearly permits women prophesying in the gathering (1 Corinthians 11:5). So we know that this particular instruction to be silent must pertain to something else.

With this in mind, it seems evident in the scriptures above that every member prophesying in the gathering was not only permissible but ideal. In the first verse, it is ideal for the potential conversion of any unbelievers in attendance. From an unbeliever's perspective, which experience do you think would be more convincing and impactful: (a) hearing God speak through one person or (b) hearing God speak through every person in the meeting who claims to believe in him? In the second verse, we see that everyone prophesying is to be desired so that all believers may learn and be encouraged. Which do you think is more likely to build up all of us with our variety of needs and differing levels of maturity: (a) the scriptures, teachings, and songs chosen by the same small team of people every week or (b) the scriptures, teachings, songs, and various other giftings that God is stirring in the hearts of every member present? I assure you, it is the latter, and Paul thought so, as well.

Yet still, some will argue that Paul didn't command open participation; he only said it's what they did. In other words, you might say that this passage is descriptive, not prescriptive, so it's no issue that most churches have strayed from this meeting template.

However, there are a couple of verses that challenge this notion, both of which are framed as a command. Here's one of them:

"Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said." (1 Corinthians 14:29)

Let me ask you to consider: Have you ever witnessed the public weighing of your pastor's sermon during the gathering — people freely sharing their thoughts, questions, concerns, and alternative viewpoints in front of everyone else? Have you ever disagreed with something the worship leader said or some lyrics in the song they chose, then felt the freedom to stand up and offer a correction? Can you even fathom such a thing occurring in your gathering? In most cases, the answer is no — in which case, this biblical instruction is not being followed.

Here's the second one:

"If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent." (1 Corinthians 14:30)

The idea here is that if, while someone is speaking, God gives someone else a revelation that they feel would be beneficial to share with the church, then the person speaking should be quiet in order for the revelation to be shared. Again, imagine that, while listening to your pastor's sermon, God blows your mind with something you've never seen before, which you think may help others. According to this scripture, it's at that moment the Lord has revealed his intent to quit speaking through your pastor and start speaking through you. Do you and your church follow this practice? If not, what justification can be offered for overlooking this clear biblical instruction?

Admittedly, one could maintain the position that God doesn't command us to practice open meetings on the premise that these orders were given specifically for the context of open meetings, which most churches no longer practice. But then, I would ask again, why are churches no longer practicing open meetings?

At the end of the day, shouldn't we take the practices of the early church a little more seriously than this? Surely, it isn't just happenstance that they functioned this way but something that Paul implemented himself. As a church-planter myself, I know very well that one of the first challenges you face is figuring out what your weekly gatherings will look like. There is a considerable amount of thought given (and rightfully so) to how to make the most of your time together on Sunday. It would be foolish to assume the apostles didn't think through this, also. And it would be just as foolish to assume they came up with it on their own, receiving no instruction from God (in Spirit) or even Christ (in the flesh) on the issue. Paul obviously believed that he did, hence the following pronouncement at the end of this passage:

"Or was it from you that the word of God came? Or are you the only ones it has reached? If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized." (1 Corinthians 14:38)

Despite this, I still hesitate to say that the Lord commands all churches to practice open meetings. I'll leave that to the Spirit and your conscience, simply reminding you that "whatever does not proceed from faith is sin" (Romans 14:23). I do, however, lean heavily toward the conclusion that open meetings are the wisest model for every church's primary weekly gathering, and that this format was given by God to his apostles for our edification. At the very least — by definition — it is more biblical than today's common practice.

Other Formats — and Why Open Meetings Should Be the Default

What then? Are open meetings the only format Christians are free to use when they meet? No. There may be a host of reasons that we gather in a different format, sometimes with a more "structured" approach — a bible/book study, prayer meetings, large conferences that focus on teaching, etc. Even in the early church, believers gathered in the temple or the synagogue to hear the apostles teach and to pray (Acts 2:46; 3:1; 5:12). Though there was still likely some degree of public discourse and open participation, those meetings definitely had a different emphasis from their primary weekly gatherings in homes, which Paul describes in 1 Corinthians 11-14.

In our network of house churches, we see great value in periodically gathering all the churches together for teaching, prayer, and fellowship. Every six weeks, we meet in one larger building for this purpose (which a non-profit in town allows us to use for free). In these gatherings, there is a predetermined leader who teaches for (typically) a longer period of time, and there is a shared meal afterward. After the teaching, however, we still have an open floor, since it is very important to us that we give space for the Spirit to speak through anyone.

Additionally, we meet in a variety of ways throughout the week. We have men's and women's groups. There are prayer meetings and bible studies. Etc. Some may be more structured or planned than others. There is no rule to this, except that the Spirit would lead and empower all that we do, which is something we make every effort to discern.

As you can see, not everything that's of the Spirit has to be spontaneous. The Spirit uses leaders to facilitate. The Spirit can create an agenda. The Spirit can write a sermon days or weeks before it is given. The Spirit can inspire plans and structure and direction that all serve to build up the body of Christ. So please don't hear what I'm not saying.

The question is not whether the Spirit can do these things but whether he is doing these things. Thus, what I am challenging is the belief that the Spirit is the one who is leading and empowering churches to structure their primary weekly gatherings the way that they do, training their members to sit quietly, spectate, and passively rely on a predetermined structure as opposed to relying on the Holy Spirit to proactively share the grace within them.

Pastors express frustration in their church's consumeristic tendencies, all the while perpetuating a system that forces them to consume every Sunday (often the one time during the week that they are available to participate). Unless a person has some unique role in the gathering, their participation in it is more or less limited to singing what they're told to sing, praying what they're told to pray, responding to the sermon with the occasional "Amen!" (if they're so bold), and putting money in the offering plate. While their participation isn't without value, what little they are allowed to do is often severely limiting to what the Holy Spirit has put inside of them for the sake of others.

Our biggest concern, then, should be that these gatherings may not be fully Spirit-led, for in them, Christ is functionally confined to whatever and whomever is on the agenda that day, despite his clear intent to manifest through each person for the common good (1 Corinthians 12:7). Just as Abram listened to the voice of Sarai when she told him to go into Hagar (Genesis 16:2), so the Holy Spirit will listen to us when we tell him to go into our plans. He will use them the best he is able, but it will never yield the true promise. It will never yield the same supernatural result as him coming into us.

Put simply, the open meeting should be our default gathering format because, more than any other, it makes Christ the functional head. Other formats can have value, but they should remain secondary. Since the primary weekly gathering is usually the one time everyone sees as essential, it makes sense for that time to be an open meeting. This gathering is far too important — and its potential for discipleship far too great—not to structure it in a way that fosters full dependence on the Spirit from every member.

I can't give you a one-size-fits-all plan for how to begin. In many cases, moving toward open meetings may require drastic change, and that change should be approached with prayer, wisdom, and care. For me, the only path I could see was to step outside the institutional model entirely and start a house church. That may or may not be what God leads you to do. The point is to seek the One who has all wisdom and follow his lead.

Ultimately, it isn't very complicated: gather believers in a room, and let the Spirit lead. The only way to learn is by doing, and you'll soon discover both challenges and opportunities you’ve never faced before.

But to do this well — meaning, for it to be a long-term fruitful experience that builds the church — you'll need to learn the ways of the Spirit. This includes things like communal discernment, speaking the truth in love, ministering the gospel, exercising church discipline, mutual submission, appointing leaders, and more — all things we'll cover throughout this book, and apart from which it will not work. That is to say, the ways and the wisdom of the institutional church largely do not apply here.

You may also find, as we have, that smaller, more intimate settings — like a home — allow this format to flourish. The larger the gathering, the harder it becomes for true open participation to work well.

In the end, the goal is simple: to be open to whatever God may do and whomever He may use, so that every member functions as intended and the whole body is built up. This was the pattern of the first Christians in their house churches, and the biblical witness shows that God still desires it today. It’s time we return to this design for Christian gatherings.