No house church pastor/elder/overseer suffered ministerial “burnout” because of being overwhelmed with pastoral responsibilities, something that is widespread in the modern church. (One study reported that 1,800 pastors are leaving the ministry per month in the U.S.) He had only a small flock to look after, and if that flock supplied his financial needs so that the ministry was his vocation, he actually had time to pray, meditate, preach the gospel to unbelievers, assist the poor, visit and pray for the sick, and spend quality time equipping new disciples to do all those things right along with him. Church administration was simple.

He worked in unison with the other elders/pastors/overseers in his region. There was no striving to have “the biggest church in town” or compete with his fellow pastors to have the “best youth ministry” or the “most exciting kids’ church program.” People didn’t go to church meetings to judge how good the worship team performed or how entertaining the pastor was. They had been born again and loved Jesus and His people. They loved to eat together and share whatever gifts God had given them. Their goal was to obey Jesus and be ready to stand at His judgment seat.

To be sure, there were problems in house churches, and those are addressed in the epistles. But so many of the problems that inevitably plague modern churches and hinder disciple making were unheard of in the early church, simply because their model of the local church was so different than what evolved after the third century and since the dark ages. Again, allow this fact to sink in: there were no church buildings until the beginning of the fourth century. If you had lived during the first three centuries, how would your ministry have been different than it is now?

In summary, the more closely we follow biblical patterns, the more effective we will be in accomplishing God’s goal of making disciples. The greatest hindrances to disciple-making in churches today stem from unbiblical structures and practices.

The minister’s goal of making disciples should shape everything he does in ministry. He should continually be asking himself, “How does what I’m doing contribute to the process of making disciples who will obey all of Jesus’ commandments?” That simple test question, if asked honestly, would eliminate much that is done under the banner of Christian activity.

Let us consider the ministry of the pastor/elder/overseer,^[1] a person whose ministry assignment focuses him on a specific local church. If that person is going to make disciples who obey all of Jesus’ commandments, what should be one of his primary responsibilities? Teaching naturally comes to mind. Jesus said that disciples are made by the means of teaching (see Matt. 28:19-20). A requirement for one to be an elder/pastor/overseer is that he be “able to teach” (1 Tim. 3:2). Those who “work hard at preaching and teaching” should “be considered worthy of double honor” (1 Tim. 5:17).

Therefore, a pastor should evaluate every sermon by asking himself this question, “How does this sermon help accomplish the task of making disciples?”

Is a pastor’s teaching responsibility fulfilled, however, solely by means of his Sunday or midweek sermons? If he thinks so, he overlooks the fact that Scripture indicates his teaching responsibility is primarily fulfilled by the life he lives and the example he sets. The teaching example of his daily life is simply supplemented by his public teaching ministry. That is why the requirements for elders/pastors/overseers have much more to do with a person’s character and lifestyle than his verbal communication skills. Of fifteen requirements listed for overseers in 1 Timothy 3:1-7, fourteen are related to character and only one to teaching ability. Of the eighteen requirements listed for elders in Titus 1:5-9, seventeen are related to character and only one to teaching ability. Paul first reminded Timothy, “In speech, conduct, love, faith and purity, show yourself an example of those who believe” (1 Tim. 4:12; emphasis added). He then said, “Until I come, give attention to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation and teaching” (1 Tim. 4:13). Thus the example of Timothy’s character was mentioned before his public teaching ministry, underscoring its greater importance.

Peter similarly wrote:

I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed: shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock (1 Pet. 5:1-3; emphasis added).

Who inspires us to deny ourselves and obey Christ? Is it those whose sermons we admire or those whose lives we admire? Uncommitted, soft-style pastors inspire no one to take up their cross. If such pastors do preach an occasional message of commitment to Christ, they must preach in vague generalities, otherwise their listeners would question their sincerity. Most of the great Christian leaders of the past are not remembered for their sermons, but for their sacrifices. Their example inspires us long after they are gone.

If a pastor is not setting an example of obedience as a true disciple of Jesus Christ, he is wasting his time delivering any sermons. Pastor, your example speaks ten times louder than your sermons. Are you inspiring people to deny themselves and follow Christ by denying yourself and following Christ?

But how can a pastor, by means of the example of his lifestyle, teach people who primarily know him as a Sunday-morning orator? The closest they actually get to seeing him live his life is a five-second handshake as they dutifully exit the church building. Perhaps there is something not quite right about the modern pastoral model.

^[1] It seems quite clear that a pastor (the Greek noun is poimain, meaning shepherd, found only once in the New Testament) is equivalent to an elder (the Greek noun presbuteros, found numerous times in the New Testament), and is also equivalent to an overseer (the Greek noun episkopos, translated bishop in the KJV). Paul, for example, instructed the Ephesian elders (presbuteros), whom he said the Holy Spirit had made overseers (episkopos), to shepherd (the Greek verb poimaino) the flock of God (see Acts 20:28). He also used the terms elders (presbuteros) and overseers (episkopos) synonymously in Titus 1:5-7. Peter, too, exhorted the elders (presbuteros) to shepherd (poimaino) the flock (see 1 Pet. 5:1-2). The idea that a bishop (the KJV translation of episkopos) is a higher office than pastor or elder and is one who oversees numerous churches is a human invention.

For many years and in many ways, I unknowingly followed practices that worked against the goal that God wanted me to pursue, the goal of making disciples. But gradually, the Holy Spirit graciously opened my eyes to my errors. One thing I’ve learned is this: I should question everything I’ve been taught and believed in light of God’s Word. Our traditions, more than anything else, blind us to what God has said. Worse, we are very proud of our traditions, certain that we stand among an elite group who has a greater grasp of truth than other Christians. As one teacher sarcastically said, “There are 32,000 denominations in the world today. Aren’t you fortunate to be a member of the one that is right?”

As a result of our pride, God resists us, because He resists the proud. If we want to make any progress and be fully ready to stand before Jesus, we must humble ourselves. To those, God gives grace.

Modern church facilities that copy the American model are expected to have, at a minimum, enough divided space to provide separate rooms for separate ministries to all age groups. In the early church, however, special segregated ministries for men, women, and all age groups of children were unheard of. The church was unified in every sense, not fragmented in every sense. The family unit was kept together, and parental spiritual responsibility was reinforced by church structure, rather than eroded by it as it has under modern church structure.

Does a church building contribute to the making of disciples or hinder it? Historically, disciple making throughout the centuries has succeeded better without them, and for many good reasons.

Meeting in houses, as did the early church for the first three centuries, where a joy-filled meal, teachings, songs, and spiritual gifts were shared for probably three to five hours, provided an environment for genuine spiritual growth for believers. Members of Christ’s body felt like participators, as they sat facing each other, rather than how modern church attendees feel—like spectators in a theater, seated to look at the backs of each other’s heads while trying not to miss the show on the stage. The casual atmosphere of a common meal led to transparency, authentic caring relationships and true fellowship, of no comparison to modern “fellowship,” which too often is little more than a shallow shaking of hands with complete strangers in the next pew when the pastor gives the cue.

Teachings were more like question and answer sessions and open discussions among equals, rather than lectures given by those who wore odd clothing, spoke in theatrical voices, and stood high above the polite (and often bored) audience. Pastors didn’t “prepare a weekly sermon.” Anyone (certainly including the elders/pastors/overseers) might receive a teaching that the Holy Spirit gave.

When a house became cramped, the elder(s) wouldn’t think of obtaining a bigger building. Rather, everyone knew that they had to split into two house meetings, and it was just a matter of finding the mind of the Spirit regarding where the new meeting should be held and who should provide the oversight. Fortunately, they didn’t have to collect resumes’ of strangers and church-growth theorists in order to scrutinize their philosophical or doctrinal slant; there were already aspiring overseers right among them, who had on-the-job training and already knew the members of their future little flock. That new house church had the opportunity to reach out evangelistically in a new area, and demonstrate to unbelievers what Christians were—people who loved one another. They could invite unbelievers to their meetings as easy as inviting them over for a meal.

If the goal is to obey Jesus and make disciples, wouldn’t we be wise to follow His methods for making disciples? They worked quite well for Him. They also worked quite well for the apostles who followed Him.

And how well are modern methods working to make disciples who obey all of Christ’s commandments? When studies of American Christians, for example, repeatedly show that there is virtually no difference in the lifestyles of most professing Christians when compared to non-Christians, maybe its time to ask some questions and re-examine Scripture.

Here is great question to ask ourselves: How did the early church succeed so well at making disciples without any church buildings, professionally-trained clergy, Bible schools and seminaries, hymnals and overhead projectors, wireless microphones and tape duplicators, Sunday school curriculums and youth ministries, worship teams and choirs, computers and copy machines, Christian radio and TV stations, hundreds of thousands of Christian book titles and even personally-owned Bibles? They didn’t need any of those things to make disciples, and neither did Jesus. And because none of those things were essential then, none are essential now. They could be helpful, but none are essential. In fact, many of those things can and actually do hinder us from making disciples. Let me give you two examples.

Let’s first consider the modern essential of having only Bible school- or seminary-trained pastors lead churches. Such was an unheard of concept to Paul. In some cities, after he planted churches, he departed for a few weeks or months, and then returned to appoint elders to oversee them (see, for example, Acts 13:14-14:23). That means those churches, absent from Paul’s presence, had no formal eldership for some weeks or months, and that most elders were fairly young believers when they were appointed. They had nothing close to a two- or three-year formal education that prepared them for their job.

Thus, the Bible teaches that pastors/elders/overseers do not need two or three years of formal education to be effective in their ministry. No one can intelligently argue against that fact. Yet the modern requirement continually sends a message to every believer: “If you want to be a leader in the church, you need years of formal education.”^[1] This slows the process of creating leaders, thus slowing the making of disciples, thus slowing the expansion of the church. I wonder how well the American companies Avon and Amway would have saturated their targeted markets if they required every salesperson to move his or her family to another city to receive three years of formal training before he or she could be released to sell soap or perfume?

“But pastoring is such a difficult and complex task!” some say. “The Bible says we shouldn’t put a new convert in the position of an overseer” (see 1 Tim. 3:6).

First, it comes down to the definition of a new convert, and clearly Paul’s concept was different than ours, because he assigned people to the office of elder/pastor/overseer who had only been believers for a few months.

Second, one reason modern pastoring is so difficult and complex is because our entire system of church structure and ministry is so far removed from the biblical model. We’ve made it so complex that indeed, only a few super-human people can survive its demands!

“But God forbid that a church might be overseen by someone without a Bible school or seminary education!” others say. “That untrained overseer might lead his flock into false teaching!”

That apparently wasn’t Paul’s concern. The fact is that today we have Bible-school and seminary-trained clergy who don’t believe in the virgin birth, who approve of homosexuality, who teach that God wants everyone to drive a luxury automobile, who claim that God predestines some people to be damned, or who say without flinching that one can gain heaven without obedience to Christ. The modern Bible school and seminary have often served to further false doctrine, and the professional clergy have served to further it more. Church “commoners” are afraid to challenge them, because the professionals have been to seminary and can pull out more “proof texts.” Moreover, those clergy have defined and divided their churches from the rest of the body of Christ by their peculiar doctrines, to the point of even advertising those differences by the very names they place on signs in front of their church buildings, sending a message to the world: “We are not like those other Christians.” To add further injury, they label anyone who disagrees with their unchallengeable and divisive doctrines as “divisive.” The Inquisition is still very much alive and well, led by men with diplomas. Is this the example Jesus wants set by those who are supposed to be making disciples who are known to the world by their love for one another?

Christians now choose churches based upon particular doctrines, and having the right theology has become the most important thing rather than having the right lifestyle, all because a biblical model has been abandoned.

^[1] The modern emphasis on professionally-trained clergy is in many ways a symptom of a larger disease, that of equating the gaining of knowledge with spiritual growth. We think that the person who knows more is more spiritually mature, whereas he may be less so, puffed up with pride from all he has learned. Paul did write, “knowledge makes arrogant” (1 Cor. 8:1). And surely the person who listens to daily boring lectures for two or three years is prepared to give weekly boring lectures!

What about church buildings? They are another modern “essential” that the early church did quite well without. Do they help in the process of disciple-making?

When I was a pastor, I often felt more like a realtor, banker, general contractor, and a professional fundraiser. I’ve dreamed of buildings, searched for buildings, remodeled old buildings, rented buildings, built new buildings and repaired them when God sent rain through their cracks. Buildings consume lots of time and energy. The reason I did so much that revolved around buildings is because I was certain, like most pastors, that there was no way to succeed without a building, a place for the church to gather.

Buildings also consume money, lots of it. (In the United States, some congregations spend tens of millions of dollars on their church buildings.) After my dreams of having buildings were fulfilled, I often dreamed of the day when the mortgages on my buildings would be paid off, so we could use all that money for ministry. It once occurred to me, as I was teaching my congregation about good stewardship and getting out of debt, that I had put the whole of us in debt together! (I was certainly teaching by example.)

Most church buildings are used for a couple of hours once or twice a week. What other organization in the entire world builds buildings that will be used so little? (Answer: only cults and false religions.)

That money-sucking hole causes a lot of problems. A pastor with a building always needs a flow of money, and that affects what he does. He is tempted to cater to the wealthy (who often give without any sacrifice), compromise any teaching that might offend some, and twist Scripture to make it serve his end. His sermons gravitate to subjects that don’t hinder the money flow and encourage its increase. Because of that, Christians sometimes begin to think that the most important aspects of being believers are (1) paying tithes (which, incidentally, Jesus said is a minor commandment) and (2) attending church (where the tithes are collected each Sunday). This is hardly the picture of disciple making. Yet many pastors dream of having congregations where everyone would just do those two things.If a pastor had a congregation where just half of the people would do those two things, he could write books and sell his secrets to millions of other pastors!

The facts reveal this: There is no record of any congregation buying or constructing a building in the book of Acts. For the most part, believers met regularly in homes.^[1] There were never any collections for building funds. There are no instructions in the epistles for church building construction. Additionally, no one thought of building a church building until Christianity was 300 years old, when the church married the world under Constantine’s edict. Three-hundred years! Think of how long that is! And the church flourished and multiplied exponentially, even during times of intense persecution, all without buildings. Such phenomena have been repeated many times in the centuries that followed. It has happened in China rather recently. There are probably more than a million house churches in China.

^[1] See Acts 2:2, 46; 5:42; 8:3; 12:12; 16:40: 20:20; Rom. 16:5: 1 Cor. 16:19; Col. 4:15; Philem. 1:2; 2 John 1:10.

“Then they will deliver you to tribulation, and will kill you , and you will be hated by all nations on account of My name. And at that time many will fall away and will deliver up one another and hate one another. And many false prophets will arise, and will mislead many. And because lawlessness is increased, most people’s love will grow cold. But the one who endures to the end, he shall be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world for a witness to all the nations, and then the end shall come” (Matt. 24:9-14, emphasis added).

Again, had you asked those who originally heard Jesus that day, “Do you expect that you will be alive to see the fulfillment of these things?” they would have certainly answered in the affirmative. Jesus kept using the personal pronoun you.

As we just read, after the “birth pangs” will come an event that certainly has not yet occurred, a time of unprecedented, worldwide persecution of Christians. We will be hated by “all nations,” or literally, “all ethnic groups and tribes.” Jesus was speaking of a certain specific time when that would occur, not a general time over hundreds of years, because He said in the very next sentence, “And at that time many will fall away and will deliver up one another and hate one another.”

His statement obviously speaks of the falling away of Christian believers who will then hate other believers, as non-believers can’t “fall away,” and they already hate one another. Thus, when worldwide persecution begins, the result will be a great apostasy of many who claim to be followers of Christ. Whether they are genuine or false believers, sheep or goats, many will fall away, and they in turn will reveal the identities of the other believers to the persecuting authorities, hating those they once professed to love. The result will be the purification of the church all over the world.

Then there will also be a rise of false prophets, one of whom is prominently featured in the book of Revelation as the antichrist’s accomplice (see Rev. 13:11-18; 19:20; 20:10). Lawlessness will increase to the degree of draining what little love remains in people’s hearts, and sinners will become utterly heartless.

Am I advocating taking three-month old believers and giving them oversight over churches (the very thing that Paul did)? Yes, but only if those believers meet the biblical requirements for elders/overseers, and only if they are given oversight of churches that follow a biblical model. That is, those churches must first of all be newly-planted gatherings that are submitted to a mature founding minister, such as an apostle, who can provide some oversight.^[1] That way, newly-appointed elders are not entirely on their own.

Second, the congregations must be small enough to meet in homes, as did the early churches.^[2] That makes churches much more manageable. That is probably why one of the requirements for elders/overseers is that they successfully manage their own households (see 1 Tim. 3:4-5). Managing a small “household of faith” is not much more challenging than managing a family.

Third, the congregation must consist of people who have responded in repentance to a biblical gospel, and who are thus genuine disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ. That eliminates all of the challenges that arise from trying to pastor sheep who are actually goats.

And fourth, the pastors/elders/overseers must follow their biblical role rather than a cultural role. That is, they must not hold a central, all-important, spotlight position as they do in most modern churches.^[3] Rather, they must be single parts of the entire body, humble servants who teach by example and precept, and whose goal is to make disciples, not by being Sunday-morning orators, but by following Jesus’ methods.

When that pattern is followed, then some three-month-old believers can oversee churches.

^[1] In Paul’s first letter to Timothy and his letter to Titus he mentions leaving them behind to appoint elders/overseers in the churches. So Timothy and Titus would have provided oversight to those elders/overseers for some time. They would have probably periodically met with the elders/overseers to disciple them, as Paul wrote, “The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, these entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2).

^[2] See Acts 2:2, 46; 5:42; 8:3; 12:12; 16:40: 20:20; Rom. 16:5: 1 Cor. 16:19; Col. 4:15; Philem. 1:2; 2 John 1:10.

^[3] It is notable that Paul’s letters to the churches are addressed to everyone in the various churches, and not to the elders or overseers. In only two of his letters to the churches does Paul even mention elders/pastors/overseers. In one instance they are included in the salutation, added as if he didn’t want them to think that they were excluded recipients (see Phil. 1:1). In another instance Paul mentions pastors among a list of ministers who equip the saints (see Eph. 4:11-12). It is also especially notable how Paul makes no mention of the role of elders as he gives certain instructions that we would think would involve elders, such as administrating the Lord’s Supper, and the resolution of conflicts between Christians. All of this points to the fact that elders/pastors did not hold the central, all-important role that they hold in most modern churches.

Scripture foretells in other places of the antichrists’ persecution of believers. For example, it was revealed to John, as he recorded it in the book of Revelation:

And there was given to him [the antichrist] a mouth speaking arrogant words and blasphemies; and authority to act for forty-two months was given to him. And he opened his mouth in blasphemies against God, to blaspheme His name and His tabernacle, that is, those who dwell in heaven. And it was given to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them; and authority over every tribe and people and tongue and nation was given to him (Rev. 13:5-7, emphasis added).

Note that the antichrist will be given “authority to act” for forty-two months, or exactly three-and-a-half years. It is interesting that this is exactly one-half the time of the seven-year Tribulation. It seems reasonable to think that it will be the final forty-two months of the Tribulation that the antichrist will be given his “authority to act,” since his authority will certainly be completely taken away from him when Christ returns to wage war against him and his armies at the close of the Tribulation.

Obviously, this “authority to act” for forty-two months speaks of some special authority, as the antichrist will certainly be given some authority by God during his rise to power. This special “authority to act” could well be a reference to the time he is given to overcome the saints, because we read in the book of Daniel:

I kept looking, and that horn [the antichrist] was waging war with the saints and overpowering them until the Ancient of Days [God] came, and judgment was passed in favor of the saints of the Highest One, and the time arrived when the saints took possession of the kingdom….And he [the antichrist] will speak out against the Most High and wear down the saints of the Highest One, and he will intend to make alterations in times and in law; and they will be given into his hand for a time, times, and half a time (Dan. 7:21-22, 25, emphasis added).

Daniel foretold that the saints will be given into the hand of the antichrist for “a time, times, and half a time.” This cryptic phrase should be interpreted three-and-a-half years , according to a comparison of Revelation 12:6 and 14. We are told in Revelation 12:6 that a certain symbolic woman will be given a place to hide in the wilderness to be “nourished” for 1,260 days, which amounts to three-and-a-half years of 360-day years. Then, just eight verses later, she is spoken of again, and it is said that she will be given a place in the wilderness to be “nourished” for “a time and times and half a time.” Thus “time and times and half a time” is the equivalent of 1,260 days or three-and-a-half years.

So the word “time” in this context means year , “times” means two years , and “half a time” means half a year . This unusual expression found in Revelation 12:14 must mean the same thing as it did in Daniel 7:21. Thus we now know that the saints will be given into the hand of the antichrist for three-and-a-half years, the same time that we were told in Revelation 13:5 that the antichrist would be given “authority to act.”

I think it goes without saying that both of these forty-two month periods will be identical periods of time. If they begin at the antichrist’s declaration of deity at the middle of the seven-year Tribulation, then the saints will be given into his hands for the next three-and-a-half years, and Jesus will deliver them when He appears in the sky and gathers them to himself at or near the close of the seven-year Tribulation. If, however, those forty-two months begin at some other point during the seven-year Tribulation, then we could conclude that the Rapture will occur at some point before the end of the seven-year Tribulation.

The difficulty with the latter of those two possibilities is that it requires that the saints will be given into the hands of the antichrist before they are in danger and need to flee for the mountains at his declaration of deity. That seems illogical.

The difficulty with the former of those two possibilities is that it would seem to mean that the saints will still be on the earth during many of God’s cataclysmic and worldwide judgments of which we read in the book of Revelation. We will consider this difficulty later.

Now let’s return to the Olivet Discourse.

A question that often divides Christians is that of the exact time of the Rapture. Some say that the Rapture will occur just before seven years of tribulation, and can therefore occur at any time. Others say that it will occur right at the middle point of the seven years of tribulation. Still other says it will occur at some point after the middle of the seven years of tribulation. And still others say the Rapture will occur at the time of Jesus’ wrathful return at the end of the Tribulation.

This issue is certainly not worth dividing over, and all four camps should remember that they all agree that the Rapture will occur at some point within or very near that future seven-year time period. That’s a fairly narrow window in thousands of years of history. So rather than divide over our disagreement, we would be better off to rejoice in our agreement! And regardless of what we each may believe, it is not going to change what is actually going to occur.

That being said, I must tell you that, for the first twenty-five years of my Christian life, I believed the Rapture would occur prior to the seven-year Tribulation. I believed that because that is what I had been taught, and I also didn’t want to go through what I read about in the book of Revelation! As I studied Scripture for myself, however, I began to adopt a different view. So let’s take a look together at what the Bible says and see what conclusions can be drawn. Even if I don’t persuade you to join my camp, we must still love each other!