Here are some great messages to listen to and ponder if you are struggling in life and wondering where God is.   I'm sure there are many other such encouraging messages on the internet, and please let me know which other ones have been really helpful for you!   Let's 'share the wealth'!

Here are some from Bill Arndt,  Steve Estes,  Tim Keller,  and John Piper.

First, some messages from Bill Arndt on God's promises:  go to http://www.gardenchapel.org , then click the "Media" button on the left, then click the "Good News" button on the bottom, then click the "Sermon Player" button in the center.  Then scroll down to the following messages and click it to play it.  I've only listened to some of them... (marked * below if I listened and especially recommend it) but the ones I've listened to have been good.

*The Greatness Of God - 01/11/2009
*It's Not Over Until Jesus Says So - 02/01/2009
*It Is Well With My Soul - 02/08/2009
 Where is God when I need Him? - 05/31/2009
 Is God fair?  - 06/07/2009
 Am I going to make it?  -  06/21/2009
*God is in control  - 07/05/2009
*The Promises of God, Parts 1 through 5 - November-January
 Trusting God - 03/14/2010
and others...

Second, some messages from Steve Estes - There are many good ones from Steve and others at: http://www.cefcelverson.org/audiosermons.htm , such as:

*Your Tears in God's Bottle - June 28, 2009 http://www.cefcelverson.org/Audiosermons/2009.Jun.28.mp3
 and many others...

Third, some messages from Tim Keller, available at http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/bio/timkeller.html

*Praying our Tears,  http://download.redeemer.com/rpcsermons/tragedy/Praying_Our_Tears.mp3
*Praying our Fears,  http://download.redeemer.com/rpcsermons/tragedy/Praying_Our_Fears.mp3
*The Prodigal Sons, http://download.redeemer.com/sermons/The_Prodigal_Sons.mp3
 Who is this Jesus?
 Born of the Gospel
 Changed Lives
 How to Change

Finally, some messages from John Piper, available at http://www.desiringgod.org .  So many of John's sermons are excellent, but hardly knowing where to start, consider listening to some of his biography lectures.  They are not based on Scripture texts like his regular sermons, but are about particular past Christians' lives.  For example:

George Mueller - http://cdn.desiringgod.org/audio/conferences/bcp2004/20040203_piper_mueller.mp3
Adoniram Judson - http://cdn.desiringgod.org/audio/conferences/bcp2003/20030204_piper_judson.mp3
and others at http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Biographies
- John Newton, John Bunyan, John Paton, Charles Spurgeon, Charles Simeon, etc.

House Church Reading Notes, Chapter 9 - "Preaching and Teaching Ministry"

Much of this chapter's contents was covered earlier in the book.  The gist is that while preaching and teaching is important, it was not the central purpose of the weekly New Testament church gatherings and thus should not be our central purpose today.  The authors recommend that special 'teaching meetings' be held from time to time on other days of the week so as not to replace the regular house meetings.

I am curious to see what this would look like.... whether teaching would quickly fizzle out without a pre-planned 'main speaker' each week, or whether house congregations would quickly rise to the challenge and begin mutually contributing with gusto.

The question of to what extent women should participate in the meetings is also still extant, given the extreme differences between 1 Corinthians 14 and contemporary American church life.

Two interesting quotes from the chapter:

p.132 "...the push was always for mutual participation; for lots of people to share something, including a short teaching, rather than for one person to predominate..."  - from 1 Cor 14, as discussed before.

p. 135 "It is unhealthy for believers to exist exclusively in one isolated house church.  Each house church, properly speaking, is a part of the much bigger city church in whatever town it is located.  Though they may never all meet together in one place, and though there is to be no outward ecclesiological authority controlling them, all the congregations in a given area constitute the one body of Christ.  We are to cultivate an attitude of oneness, acceptance, love, concern, and cooperation with all the other believers in our city."      ---  I have myself experienced this "city church" experience rather by accident than by plan, and I have found that it is wonderful... to fellowship as regularly as possible with multiple 'spheres' of Christians within one's city...   However, how can this be done in conjunction with attending regular house church meetings with a consistent group of people, to facilitate strong fellowship and trust and sharing?   Probably more than one gathering per week is required.   Perhaps two or three or more....

notes from the book "House Church" by Steve Atkerson

Chapter 7 - Children in Church

In this chapter, the authors discuss the presence of children in house churches. 

- The scriptures are silent on children and church - nothing said about Sunday Schools (nor the lack thereof), etc.  Only Acts 21:5 mentions wives and children, escorting Paul and company out of the city on their journey.

- The traditional church practices segregation... children are grouped by age and taught separately from the adults for the duration of the church meeting.

- Their recommendations for house church practices:
  1. Relax - children will be somewhat unpredictable and noisy sometimes no matter how much their parents try to keep them quiet - just accept that and move on.

  2. All the adults can help keep tabs on all the kids.
 
  3. Try to find creative ways to keep the kids involved in the main assembly - occasional kid-focused lessons, etc.

  4. No problem with occasional special separate events for the kids, with games, videos, or whatever.  Just not every week.

  5. Hosts can feel free to make clear a set of house ground rules at the beginning.
 
  6. If infants are too noisy / fussy, parents can be encouraged to take them to a different room / etc.
 
  7. Try not to let the meeting become too boring / stagnant, for everyone's sake, but especially the kids' sake.
 
 

My thoughts on this -- I like the idea of reducing the segregation of kids from their parents and other adults.  This reintegration would seem to promote better connections between kids and parents.  As one of my friends recently said, when kids graduate out of the high school youth group, they tend to drift away from church because of the sudden "disconnect" between participating in the fun game night with interactive youth-focused lessons to the sudden "dry, boring" (feeling) time of silently listening to lectures in pews or prayer time.  But if all of church was small intimate group time, and if kids were used to participating (at least from high school on), there would be no disconnect.

I do think there will likely be 'difficulties' with younger kids - at least until everybody gets adjusted to it.  Many young families looking for a church will probably not initially choose a house church because they're looking for the convenience of nurseries and kids' programs.  Your thoughts are welcome.

Also, I wonder how to integrate the "women keep silent in church" principle (of 1 Cor 14 and 11).  I assume that boys would naturally be expected to keep silent in church until they reach 'adulthood' (age 12 for Jewish boys... cf. Jesus in the temple...) and even then to wait for their elders (cf. Elihu in Job), and I guess girls would keep total silence and ask their own fathers at home or talk after the 'assembly' with others about their questions (e.g. other older women, etc).  But it would seem productive to me to have times when the girls could participate verbally too... perhaps not in the 'main assembly' but at some other before/after time?  And the young children?   Our culture tends to put kids on a pedestal of honor, and it is also a very feminist culture, so these differences would be painfully obvious at first.  After time, though, this pattern (women and kids quiet during assembly/teaching/worship time, but participatory at all other times) might come to feel quite normal, as it was through the ages of the Jewish synagogues, etc.

Chapter 8 - "Thoroughly Biblical Church" - "What are the irreducible requirements for a church to be biblical?"

They suggest 5 basic Biblical church practice patterns (covered earlier in the book in more detail) -
1. They met on the first day of the week
2. They met in houses
3. Their worship was open and spontaneous with "no one leading from the front" and every (male) person sharing
4. The Lord's supper was a full meal, each time they met
5. They used non-hierarchical male plural leadership (indigenous, functional/not-positional, consensual)

They mention that item 1 and 2 could be modified if necessary, as the situation demands, but unless extenuating circumstances were present, there would be no need to deviate from that pattern. 

Also they say (p. 125) "But let me make it clear as well that I do not by this mean that everything has to be in place from the word go... Of course the Lord's Supper as a full meal ought to be in place from the very start as there is just no possible reason for such not to be the case, but eldership, for example, would normatively arise much later.  And it is often the case as well that someone might take an initial lead in the corporate weekly gatherings until the others learn how to begin playing their part.  But the thing to grasp is that it should nevertheless be quite clear where the church was heading..."

My thoughts--  I basically agree.  I also think that the transition from modern American traditional church to what they're suggesting is so radical that there would definitely be a lot of struggle and difficulty at first.  But it may well still be worth the change...

Reading notes on Chapter 6 , of "House Church" edited by Steve Atkerson

The author of this chapter (Stephen David) presents 10 reasons for house churches.

1. "One another ministry" - i.e. everybody ministering to everyone else as in 1 Cor 14, not just a few clergy ministering to the lay people

2. "Intimacy and accountability" - i.e., it happens best in small groups, not large church settings

3. "The Lord's Supper" - as a full meal.   The author says "It is difficult to have the Lord's Supper as a family meal in a large impersonal gathering and formal structure."   I'm not sure if I fully agree.   I've been to church potlucks that have more than 100 people present, and it's possible to have good fellowship with the small group around your particular table.  But I certainly agree that the "sit-in-your-pew-and-silently-drink-the-little-plastic-cup-of-grape-juice-and-little-cracker" thing as is more typical of Lord's Supper observation is pretty far removed from the full-fellowship-meal paradigm of the NT.

4. "Simple Church" - far less money and time-overhead is required to maintain the church meetings, and it is far easier and cheaper to multiply house churches than modern/expensive/separate-building churches.  Also he mentions the difference he's seen firsthand between overseas church-planting that relied on incoming international donations to build church buildings in the cities to be reached, vs others that were self-supported and met in houses.  The ministries supported by foreign money were viewed with more distrust by the locals and were targeted during times of unrest.

5. "Bi-vocational leaders" - He mentions that apparently the NT house church elders were mostly bi-vocational (having some job other than church leadership which provided for their families).  Exceptions included Paul once in a while, but he was more of a church-planting missionary than a church elder rooted in one city, and even Paul worked as a tentmaker many times.  The author suggests that elders are worthy to receive voluntary financial gifts from the people they minister to, citing 1 Tim. 5:17-18 "The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, "You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing," and "The laborer is worthy of his wages.""  He suggests that "traveling elders" who minister to a large area as special teachers (or missionaries, going into areas in which there are no churches) would be most suited for full financial support.
He also quotes Acts 20:33-35 where Paul is talking to the Ephesus elders: "I have coveted no one's silver or gold or clothes. You yourselves know that these hands ministered to my own needs and to the men who were with me. In everything I showed you that by working hard in this manner you must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He Himself said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'""

6. "Ease of access for unbelievers" - i.e. unbelievers feel more comfortable coming over to a home for dinner and discussion than they would feel going into a "church sanctuary".   I'm not sure if I agree that all unbelievers would feel more comfortable...   Some might want to sit unnoticed in the back!  But surely the friendly fellowship of a home environment would be a good and helpful dynamic for unsaved visitors.
The author reminds that we, the people of God, ARE the sanctuary of God nowadays (1 Cor 3:16, 1 Pet. 2:5-9, etc).

7. "Persecution" - i.e., church buildings are an unnecessary "target" in hostile lands.  Houses are lower profile.  For example, there are some 80 million Christians meeting in house churches in China these days.

8. "Nourishment and Multiplication of churches" - i.e. it's easier to plant new house churches than to plant big building-based churches.

9. "Discipleship and multiplication of leaders" - the author notices that discipleship in traditional large-building churches is often relegated to specialized "leadership training centers or bible colleges".  On the other hand, "quality mentoring and overseeing is manifested more in such small gatherings [of house churches], thereby identifying and motivating more potential leaders." (p. 107)   I agree that it COULD work that way, but I think the mindset of the leadership is key in either large-church or house-church settings... i.e. if leaders are actively looking for younger folk to mentor and disciple, then either large- or small-churches could be effective in this, and vice-versa: even in house churches, mentoring doesn't happen automatically.  But small churches / house churches are probably an easier setting for discipleship and getting to know people.

10. "The poor, the needy, and missions" - related to some of the earlier points about money, and quoting many scriptures from the NT about the importance and practice of the CHURCH helping the poor and needy.   Obviously, if there is no church building costs and maintenance costs, and fewer or no staff salaries, all this money could go toward supporting missionaries in places where there are no churches, and toward helping the poor ("especially those of the household of faith" Gal. 6:10) in one's local community.

Overall, a good roundup of reasons, in my opinion, why the house church paradigm is actually "better" than the large-church-with-separate-church-building paradigm in most cases.   I like part of his ending summary on page 109 -- "There is so much good to speak about the modern day church.  Yet a reformation is needed to help God's people function more effectively and biblically.  Gathering in houses is not a perfect solution wherein we don't have any problems at all.  It is only a better and more effective approach.  In saying this, I mean it has more advantages and less disadvantages.  Of course the problems that occur, based on different situations, places and culture, must be dealt prayerfully and wisely according to the wisdom of the Holy Spirit and with the counsel of experienced godly people."

(next chapter:  "Children in Church"   !  )

Chapter 5 - "House Church Theology",  12/19/2009

This chapter and the next chapter (Ten Reasons For House Churches) overlap quite a bit.

One point that's made is in response to the question "Why meet in house churches instead of traditional large church buildings?"  The authors respond by turning the question around - If everyone agrees that the NT church met in houses, why should we do things differently than they did?

The authors discuss a couple reasons postulated by traditional big-church proponents for why the NT church met in homes: They were too poor to build church buildings, persecution prevented them, or that it was indeed God's plan for the church to progress out of its 'infancy' (house churches) into maturity (large church buildings).  They present a few reasons why each one is unsatisfactory.  I think they make a mildly good case, but not super-strong... their strongest point to me so far seems to be simply that the NT church met in houses, so in the absence of any other clear direction, there's no need to change - might as well stay with the same pattern.

Ah, but then (p. 86-88) they present (a summary of) reasons for why house churches are better.  (And in the next chapter, another author makes his own list of ten reasons, with some overlap to this chapter)

1. Community/fellowship is stronger in small groups/house-churches.  This includes the weekly Lord's Supper full-meals, and the fellowship/sharing time before and after.  Likewise accountability (p.87 #4) is really only possible with small groups, in which one can really get to know others.

2. Participatory meetings really require small groups to function well, and 1 Cor. 14 clearly expects church to be participatory.  Seems pretty clear to me.

3. (p.87 #5) The consensus-rule described in the NT only works in small groups.  (they don't cite Acts 6 and 15, but weren't they cases of consensus-rule in HUGE (~10000-people) church settings?  But one could say that Acts 15 was a small-group situation of elders-only..)

4. (p.87-88 #6&7) House churches are low-cost and much easier to reproduce themselves as growth occurs.  The money saved on buildings/salaries can be given instead to missionaries.   They mention "surveys" of US churches that say 80% of money goes to buildings and salaries on average, with 20% going to missions, and with house churches those numbers can be reversed.   This is a significant point, it seems to me.  Points 1, 2, and 3 above could fit the current popular US church model of a large central church with dedicated building, coupled with small groups that meet throughout the week.  But in this traditional large-church situation, the money is still funneling into the central-building/central-salaries...

At the end they discuss some logistical questions, parking, upholstery damage, child control, rotating to avoid wearing people out, the problem of "not enough space", etc.   These questions are also discussed in more detail later in the book.

Overall this chapter seems to be a summary of the preceding stuff in some ways.  I think the next chapter (chapter 6) is also somewhat summarizing.   Your thoughts are welcome.

Chapter 4 - "Congregational Consensus", 12/19/2009

In this chapter the authors develop some thoughts on church government.  They start by discussing the greek word "ekklesia", translated "assembly" or "church".  They mention that it was the same word used of secular political assemblies, or 'town meetings', when all the citizens of a city would come together to discuss issues and make decisions.

They share their thoughts that the elders are to be facilitators, not rulers, over the assembly.  They talk about the differences between "consensus rule" versus "majority rule", with the emphasis in consensus-rule being to get everyone on board before making the decision (if possible), not just 51%.

They raise some very interesting points about Hebrews 13:17, which says "Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you." 
The more common word for "obey" (Gk "hupakouo") is not used here, but rather the Gk word "peitho", which means "be persuaded by".   Then, the more common word for "submit" (hupotasso) is not used, but rather the rare word "hupeiko", which connotates "yield" as a pinned wrestler would "yield" to the victorious wrestler at the end of their struggle.  Thus the verse actually paints a picture of extensive dialog and 'consensus-building' before finally 'yielding' where necessary, not simply submitting unquestioningly to elders. 

This seems to fit well with Peter's directions in 1 Peter 5:1-3:
"Therefore, 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."

One thing they said seemed problematically oversimplified to me: on page 76 they wrote: "There are limits to what a local church, as a decision-making body, should decide.  Certain topics are out of bounds.... No historical church has license to redefine the historic Christian faith.... The elders are to rule out of bounds the consideration of harmful and heretical ideas.... This is because the church at large today, and throughout time past, already has consensus on certain fundamental interpretations of Scripture (such as which writings make up the Bible, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, the Gospel message, the Trinity, the future bodily return of Jesus, etc.)."

Unfortunately, this is the same argument the Roman Catholics (and the Eastern Orthodox, and various other denominations) use to try to force people to accept their views (since they allegedly represent 'the true church tradition, while all other churches have "gone astray").  Much could be said about this discussion, but in my opinion there really is no good way to apply "human-tradition guiderails" to doctrinal investigation.  Everything must be weighed by God's word.  Yes the elders should guide the church into truth/orthodoxy, but they should do so by appealing to God's Word, not the Westminster Catechism or a papal bulletin or the writings of church fathers or some alleged "orthodoxy" of some sort or other.  I'm not saying that "trajectory theology" is correct (cf. modern evangelical feminism, emergent/missional/postmodern/'God-is-still-speaking'rhetoric, etc).  But I am saying we need to follow Jesus' example of holding to "the commandments of God" rather than "the traditions of men" (Mark 7:5-13).  Elders also should be prepared to defend their belief in the closed canon of Scripture, and the other things the House Church authors mentioned - the Trinity, etc.  It seems unwise to allow elders to just handwave and say "The Church has always believed such and such".
I'd agree with them that each house church does not NECESSARILY need to 'reinvent the wheel' theologically.  They don't have to 'throw everything out' and 'start from scratch' each time a new house church is spun off... rather they can assume a common body of doctrine until questions arise.  But when questions do arise, they should be properly answered...

In summary, this chapter seems to present some common-sense practical thoughts on church leadership and consensus government.   Your thoughts are welcome.

A couple mini-posts today:

-----------------------------------------------------

1.  I just finished reading "House Church" by Steven Atkerson.   Very fascinating and controversial book.   Highly recommended for provoking thought.

I am wondering about various "church ministries" that exist today, and whether these would not be possible in a house church model, and which ministries would continue on unchanged, and whether if some ministries weren't possible if that would actually be a healthy thing somehow.

Ministry examples:

- Christian radio stations?  They'd probably be able to continue on unabated or with even better financial support

- Christian camps?  Likewise.

- Church choirs?  They would be replaced by other choirs, such as (Christian) school choirs, town choirs, etc.

- Music lessons in general?  Probably still continuing on unabated.

- Lengthy sermons that carefully and thoroughly expound a text?   Atkerson says that there is a separate place for "teaching meetings" for things like this, separate from the Lord's Supper fellowship/participation meetings that are the backbone and essence of "church."  But how would this work in practice?   On the plus side, "less teaching" might encourage the meditation and application of the smaller amount, just as in China they used to give out stones with a single Bible verse written on them to peasants, who would take the stone for a couple days or weeks and then swap.   On the negative side, Biblical illiteracy is already high in our churches... would reducing the external teaching exacerbate this?  But, it could be countered, the increase in shorter/participatory sermonettes might help to alleviate this...

- Christian colleges? and schools?  I suppose these could continue on...  with their related research/excellence thrusts...

- door to door evangelism groups?  These could continue...

- organ playing?  handbell choirs?  The development of beautiful music for God's glory that relies on big, expensive instruments of these types?   This would likely cease...  yes?

2. Thinking about Noah's flood and the decline in life spans from ~900 years down to ~120 years.  (cf. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/06/04/did-people-live-over-900-years  and John Sanford's book http://www.amazon.com/Genetic-Entropy-Mystery-Genome-Sanford/dp/1599190028)

The current creationist theories explain this through genetic bottlenecks (huge loss of genetic information from the healthy gene pool when 99.9% of the earth's population died in the Flood), which makes sense to me.

Theologically, I find it interesting that humankind's evil tends to be magnified and amplified whenever many people are placed together in close proximity (e.g. the tower of Babel, and modern innercities), and that God specifically commanded that people spread out and fill the earth (i.e. go live in rural areas, instead of condensing into cities, at least until the earth was filled....) ... God sought to reduce the pain of the evil, until the end would come when He would remove it completely.

Likewise, I think the same applies to Noah's Flood.   Why would God wipe them all out, while "never again" doing so throughout history, even though we are obviously just as evil?  One reason might be the lifespan issue.... when people are left to 'harden' in their sin for 900 years of life (as well as all their peers), perhaps the outcome is extremely horrible.   So God brought the flood to deliberately shorten our lives, out of mercy because our society would not get into the depths of evil that would otherwise occur.

As Tim Keller points out, for redeemed perfect saints as we will someday be, the innercity will be the exact opposite... the close proximity of perfect saints to each other will form a 'critical mass' that will foment glory and beauty and white-hot pure love, and that's why the new Jerusalem will be a (cubical) city (rather than a Garden of Eden).
3. A good wife is not 'snagged', but is a gratuitous/undeserved gift from God.

Maybe other types of wife can be 'snagged', but not this type.
4. Do babies go to heaven when they die?

I'll delay this post because I don't have the time right now.  But I think it's a question worth pondering.

- recent books read and/or reread/skimmed, and in-progress (over the past couple months)
Philosophy and the Christian Faith - great review of philosophy... unfortunately I read it so slowly that I forgot most of it already... but it'll be a good reference
The Prodigal God - GREAT short exposition of the parable,and the gospel...
The Reason for God - excellent apologetic, sort of like a modern/postmodern version of 'mere christianity'
Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood - awesome, extremely helpful... especially on the role of women in the church, husband/wife roles, societal feminist myths, etc
Respectable Sins - very good so far... only part way through
30 Days of Prayer for the Voiceless - if you want your gut wrenched and your heart broken, this booklet is for you.  What about if you don't want your gut wrenched or your heart broken?  You probably need to read this booklet even more in that case.  I won't say any more.  I just think you should read it.  I have a copy if you want to borrow it.
30 Days of Prayer for the Muslims - great booklet!  informative, specific, loving... great all around.
Do Hard Things - I was disappointed in reading this book.  Maybe my hopes were too high.  Their basic message is: 'American teenagers:  Do hard things.  Don't accept other people's low expectations of you.  Look at us, we did hard things.  Look at X, Y, and Z, who also did hard things.  You can too."  I would like to see a bit more emphasis on "why".  E.g., Matthew 28 - the great commission.  Because Jesus commanded us to go into all the world and make disciples, and because that process is fraught with difficulty and demands courage and diligence, that is why we do hard things.  Not just because we want to pat ourselves on the back for having done hard things (they never recommend that, of course).  A better motivator might be Piper's biography series (the mp3's are great!)  Disclaimer - I only skimmed their book, I didn't read the whole thing through.
The Tragedy of American Compassion - awesome book, summarizing how Americans did charity before extensive welfare came along... and the why, and the results... lots of historical interest... fascinating... extremely relevant to the healthcare debate, etc
Renewing American Compassion - again, great book.  I'm only on chapter 1 or 2.
Blue Like Jazz - much better than I had anticipated.  It's more of a ramble than anything.  His own story makes me understand him better.  I'd probably disagree theologically/emphasiaically with him, but the book was worth reading.
Biblical Eldership - great comprehensive book.  The main difference highlighted in this book is the problem of the clergy/laity model and/or the single professional pastor / board of elders-in-name-only model, as opposed to the Biblical elders-leading-the-church model.  Slightly overstated at points, but very worth reading...
House Church - I'm only a few chapters in so far.  Very controversial, apparently somewhat self-righteous/hypercritical (upon first read), but a lot of good ideas!!  Some things he's emphasized so far - why do we have everyone sit and listen to a lecture for a while in pews, stand to sing, sit back down, etc, a bit of superficial greetings, when the NT pattern was to meet to eat a full meal (the Lord's supper) every week, and according to 1 Corinthians 14, the meetings were quite participatory - all the men were to come prepared to share...
Might this be more of an expression of american individualism than NT commands?   On the other hand, this decentralization/fellowship emphasis has many benefits, addressing the isolation of modern society, and especially preparing for persecution scenarios...
The Heavenly Man - fascinating biography of Chinese church leader.  Many accounts of miracles, etc.  Interesting to see the church in another culture.
Living Water -  by the author of The Heavenly Man, devotionals a couple pages each.  Very critical of american christianity, very focused on being "challenging"/"goading"/"pricking", i.e. using and poking with certain challenge passages of the Bible.   Helpful, but somewhat overly flavored by the author's experience.
When People Are Big and God Is Small - very good book.  The title says most of it.  There are stories, tips on how to fix the problems, etc.

Here are two short pdf documents about the gospel that are well worth pondering!  They talk about the author's realizations of the dangers of emphasizing "performance" rather than faith / trust / God's grace in our walk with Christ.  This message is not new... it is basically the same message preached by the reformers in the 1600's, and by many others before and after... each generation must discover the gospel again for itself...

http://www.stoptryingharder.com/Chapter1.pdf

http://www.stoptryingharder.com/Preaching_to_the_Exhausted.pdf

For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith".   Romans 1:17

...Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?   Galatians 3:3b

I read an interesting story in the book "Faith that Endures" (about the persecuted church) - actually two related stories.  One about a pastor who spent some 10 or 20 years in prison.  After coming out, he said that he had preached about many Bible verses beforehand, but while in prison he had nothing better to do than to just meditate on them, and apply them to his life... he was very appreciative of the whole experience, because it helped him get to know God much more deeply.  The second story about a man who wished to get the Bible out to persecuted christians in a certain country.  So he took small stones, and wrote one Bible verse on each one, and began distributing them to peasants, one stone per person.  The person would take the stone and meditate on that verse all week, and apply it.   One persecuted pastor made the statement: "it is dangerous to learn more and more truth without applying the truth one already knows."

I think that is quite true...