When Jesus accused the religious leaders of reading Scripture while at enmity with God, it's a message to all. Why would anyone read Scripture if they are at war with God? Not because they know they're at war, but because they don't realize their hypocrisies, and feel as though they are special to God due to specializing and teaching His Word. One cannot be a Bible-reading hypocrite unless one doesn't do what the Bible says in its priorities. As Jesus said, Pharisees thought they had eternal life through the Scriptures, yet when God arrived in their midst, they were willing to give their hands in persecuting Him.

You and I, if we saw Jesus perform miracles routinely, would be amazed and easily convinced that the power of God was with Him. But the Pharisees were so threatened by the followings He had through these miracles that they tried to spin them as sinful, or proof of witchcraft. As you now, Pharisees would try to capitalize on his Sabbath-day miracles in order to denounce Him. Therefore, the religious leaders had passed from loyalty to God to self-loyalty, loving their leading roles more than loving God. They had become God for Israel, and they made the religious rules for Israelis, trying to seem wise in their eyes that they might keep their lofty positions as leaders.

Therefore, the religious leaders, especially the Sadducees who believed not in a human resurrection, did not know the real God. They had become cult leaders, and Israel was their cult, tightly in their grasp. It was God's job to loosen that grasp, and to expose the leaders as money grubbing self-servers. In this way, God would succeed in having the chief priest sacrifice the Lamb of God at Passover, to forgive the sins of His chosen ones, the true Israel which would moreover spread into the Gentiles. In order to be a chosen one, the people had to make Jesus their God, which infuriated the religious leaders such that the apostles and other disciples were inclined to flee Israel.

How much Bible should we read? How much preaching should we listen to? As much as you hunger for. But if you read the Bible as though it were a duty, and if the Word of God then becomes your too-much-honey, how is that good for you? What extra good does it do to continue reading after reading intensively ten times over, over 10 or 15 years? Are we that forgetful that we need to read it over and over and over each and every day? I sometimes wonder whether church writers who would compel us to daily Bible reading are like those leaders of Jesus' day who laid upon the people heavy / unnecessary religious burdens?

If you read Romans over and over, there comes a point where you have exhausted it. You know exactly what's coming in the text no matter where you pick-up to start reading. At that point, continued reading seems pointless, if you've grasped everything that Paul is pointing out, and if you're satisfied in knowing Paul's approach to missionary work from the way he speaks. If anything remains fuzzy in your mind, you can grapple with it by talking to other Bible readers about it. Once you've reached this point, you're a bit of a Bible expert. Don't get too proud for being able to dazzle your audiences with Bible expertise.

Due to Jesus' denouncements of religious leaders, some Christians today automatically project the sins of Pharisees onto all/most church pastors. I think this is a dangerous thing to do. I think we should not risk it. Let God judge the pastors, and if we see something amiss, maybe we should keep our eyes on our own logs instead. Constructive criticism is good, but slander is evil. Make a distinction between their having common faults versus their being self-interested wolves. Both kinds of church leaders exist.

Some people have made the point that, if we eat food three times daily, we should also read our Bible's three times daily. It seems to make sense, but it's incorrect, in my opinion, because once the Word is inside of us, what use is it to read it all over again? Rather, practice the Word that has entered us. Use it to make decisions, and impress God that way rather than impress your audience on how much Scripture you know. Quote scriptures to build others up rather than to inflate your ego. I'm one who believes that we can share Biblical principles without quoting word-for-word.

That is, I don't need to remember word-for-word if I have the basic understanding of a thing. There are different ways to reflect the Intent of the parables, for example, besides quoting them word-for-word. It would take me something like an additional 20 years of intense study to try to remember everything word-for-word. And some like to impress their audience on how they know the chapter-and-verse of various scriptures. I don't think we need to get that expert.

First-century Christians did not have Bibles. They visited churches to hear the Word as preached by the Apostles, even though no apostle was there, for apostles chose elders to carry on their work. No doubt, elders did not quote apostles word-for-word, but told what they had learned in their own words, finding new and useful, even more-clever, ways to pass on a message. Today, we are able to read in one week what it took 1st-century Christians 12 or more weeks to hear from church leaders. And there's no shortage of preachers online to listen to. But how stuffed in Bible teaching are we required by God to be? Do we think that, so long as we are stuffing ourselves continually, this is the will of God? There's not one instance in the Gospels where an apostle pulled out a Bible scroll before the other disciples to share a message.

How many times do we need to read the parable of the 4 types of seeds/soils? Once we get it, we've got it roughly for life, on the inside. The Intent of the parable is to say that not all Christians will remain Christians. The one who takes this to heart remembers, for life, to stay deeply rooted, and we grapple with what it means to be deeply rooted if it concerns us. If it doesn't concern us, we don't bother trying to know it. The one who's concerned is the one most likely to get a deep root.

It may not hurt to over-read the Bible, but neither should we worry about whether not reading regularly will uproot us. I'm sure that some are aghast at my word, "over-reading." They don't think such a thing exists. The over-readers are the ones who preach over-reading. There are different kinds of Bible readers, some who read minimally daily, or some who read intensely because they can't get enough of it. But the time can arrive when intensive readers have become satisfied. At that point, a little dust could accumulate on their Bibles. But before we judge them as unconcerned backsliders, ask how much Bible they carry in their hearts, and, more importantly, how they trying to change their "old man" according to what they have read.

Today, we have much Christian music laced with Biblical themes to remind us of everything. How much stuffing do we need, do you think, to be acceptable to God? Is there such a thing of trying to be over-righteous? Is God never happy with our efforts, ever whipping us into obedience? No. Everytime He sees us changing our thinking, or our plans, to suit The Way, He's happy as a cowboy on a 12-horse wagon making tracks in the splashing mud. See, I just invented a parable. Do you like it? No need to whip the horses if they're going forward in a world of mire.

Read the Bible as you feel need for it, but don't get caught into feeling guilty if you know it's already in you, if others maintain that daily Bible reading is a must lest we offend God. There are people who do need it because they have neglected Biblical principles, but for those who have become stuffed, it's better to read when you are willing rather than compelled out of guilt feelings. Same goes with prayer. Don't pray repeatedly as if the more words you speak, the better God appreciates you. One choice word from the heart is better than a mountain of rote words.

Do we honestly think that God wants us to thank him for food three times daily, and before nighttime snacks too? This is a nasty rote exercise from churches. Isn't it better to thank God genuinely for all foods, and their good tastes, only once in a while, than to repeat the same words at each meal? Give yourselves a break, Christians. I often say, "that was very good, Lord, thank you." It pops out of my heart genuinely, AFTER I eat, which I feel is more than good enough for God. We could say that not all Christians are being used of God as intensively as a chosen few, and therefore not all of us need to be hooked up to God in prayer as intensively. There is a point of abuse in demanding how much work we offer to God. I don't think prayer should be work, yet it is a good work when the Spirit works it in us. It shouldn't be our work, is what I'm saying. No one considers it work when we WANT to ask God for something. It becomes a work when its rote.

Rote: "mechanical or habitual repetition of something to be learned." The Jews at the Wailing Wall come to mind. If God says to us, pray each day at noon without the Spirit moving you, it would be abuse. We would have no guidance in what to say. Our words would seem meaningless, dry, without the Oil in our hearts. It is better to pray once daily for short moments when cuddling up to the Oil alone than to pray one hour daily with backs bent to the ground, as might some Muslims to show off their "spirituality" to one another at a mosque.

But if we're sinning, the Oil might not materialize in our hearts. The person unconcerned then strays deeper into the sin, and becomes one of the four seeds. But the one who is concerned about the failure of the Oil flow seeks to know why God is not happy enough, to make a correction(s). If that correction is not possible for the person, there's going to be trouble, like cracks in the walls of your house.

It's good to thank Him before a meal, of course, if you feel inclined, or if you like joining the Spirit at those times, but to do it out of duty, as if it were a sin not to, seems wrong. If you like joining the Spirit momentarily before and during eating, do it, absolutely. But if I understand Jesus correctly, God would have us pray in our closets, alone with Him, much more than around the dinner table with others. If anyone feels that praying before all meals is the best we need to do, it's not nearly enough. God wants us to gather alone before Him to reflect on our lives, and to let Him see our concerns laid open before Him, our Doctor. It's what He loves to be when we get naked before Him. He saves us over and over from a multitude of things, which makes us keep coming back for more. WE LOVE GOD. Dangers in this world should be the glue that sticks us to God. The poor one, in fear of starving or losing the house, gets stuck to God more than the rich one.

I like to pray at bedtime when all the day's distractions are evaporated. If someone wants to pray once every three days, who am I to say it's not enough? Sometimes, my "prayers" are without words, just reflection. To look into the mirror of God and not like what I see at times. In the meantime, God may be quietly loving it. Easy, son, all's good, you're here. Comfort.

And there are times when I celebrate with God, at bedtime prayer, on the good days. We shouldn't let prayer time become a copy of the previous days. That's rote. There you are with God once again, say something different pertinent to your walk at the time. If you don't feel connection, say something like, "Lord, here I am. Not everyone in the world is coming to you right now, but here I am. I'd like to talk, Father, I need you."

I sometimes talk out loud, to make more sure He's hearing. It's a one-way conversation so far as words go. I lament that very much, but He's decided that He cannot reveal His existence to His enemies, and thus he can't be talking audibly with us (in English) but for a few scattered times, and usually in very short sentences, for me, anyway.

In Old-Testament Israel, God wanted the people to gather only three times annually. The question arises as to whether synagogues were invented to rake in the $$$, because synagogues arose under the Pharisees. Certainly, the vatican knew that, if Christians met in homes, there was little way for the vatican to get some of the money that Christians donated to each other, to the poorer ones of the churches, where money transferred privately. But if large church centers could be formed where the priests would collect and distribute donations to the poor, the vatican could get its cut, per church, per thousands of churches worldwide, and hence churches started to pop up everywhere, with missionary workers to get them started where no churches were before, but for the wrong reasons if to lavish the too-lavish vatican.

Before long, donations stopped going to the poor of the churches but went to the "work of God" instead. I think this is a Protestant mentality to this day. The "work of God" includes raising the number of church goers, and so we can see how this can be abused for $$$ instead of genuine concern for poorer ones.

I really like home churches, but if a pastor seems to tarnish even the very concept, it could be evidence that he's speaking out of his desires to pay his own bills through church donations. I don't think God would view that too kindly.

Why don't we hear pastors teaching that home churches are excellent? Is it because denominational heads forbid it? Do denominational leaders undercut a great way for Christians to get together, in a setting of close contact between each other, for the sake of keeping the $$$ rolling in? I don't know.

In the video below, the speaker says multiple times that he's not attacking church buildings in favor of home churches, yet it sounds to me as though he ought to be. The comments below the video are dear:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4ro3RGWZX4

We might get the impression that popular people, or those who like being popular, would not want to be part of a home church with only seven or eight people. On the other extreme, people not popular in big-audience situations will likely get proper attention in a home church. Home churches could attract people who dislike giving money to as much as 80-percent of the church bills, and in this way there are like-minded people in that regard in home churches. Pastor worship, for lack of a better phrase, would be rare in home churches. These are two reasons that church buildings are not going to encourage home churches. There shouldn't be a rift involved, but one is developing.

What about meeting in local parks for the warmer months? There's options as to where to meet outdoors, and you void, to a degree, the repetition of meeting in the same home.

One big bonus is that you can freely talk politics to fully understand the anti-Biblical agendas of current liberal leaders without the fears (not justified) that some pastors have in doing the same. Our enemies are a glue that keep us together, so to speak. Our enemies remind us why we are on earth. Our enemies strengthen our resolve for Jesus. They have no idea what benefits they are to us. The weeds remind us that we've got to grow taller, into the Sonshine. The snakes and scorpions remind us of how thankful we should be not to be snakes and scorpions anymore. Thank you, Obama, snake, for causing the Christians of your country to arise and speak out. Thank you, trudeau, parasite, for teaching us what a human parasite talks like.

The video owner above has a video on ten things "wrong" with home churches, according to some Christians, but the speaker doesn't delve into why some of these reasons are not very good.

If church buildings had true shepherds of God, why don't they step down saying, please appoint four willing and capable men to do the preaching, each once monthly, and save yourselves the $55,000 (or more) you pay me? Give it to the poor instead. Because, I assume, denominational heads won't allow it, because they want their money cut. If big churches were truly led by men of God, I dare say that at least 15-percent of Protestant churches would have unpaid preachers. That's one in every seven churches, how fantastic would that be? The reason I'm using only 15-percent is that roughly half of Protestant churches have gone toward apostasy at the leadership level, starting decades ago.

Imagine a pastor sacrificing his pay on behalf of the poor of the church. That would make the pastor responsible for all of that money, year after year. Imagine how big the smile of God would be on such a pastor. Now you now how God smiled on the apostle Paul, his willing work horse.

Give me a church where the right preachers preach for no money, and I'm sold on that leadership. That's where I begin to get excited. Yet I think a home church is better still, because people can contribute there, be shepherds there if they wish, be preachers there if they wish, be counselors there if they wish, be loved there, known there, trusted there.

The last thing needed is a controversy between the pros and cons of house church. The bottom line is, usually, that people like house churches for the reason that people like Bible studies: they get to talk when Bible talk happens. They don't just sit there listening for 30 minutes, but participate. As someone says: "The whole stage set up in church buildings with the congregation sitting as an audience bothers me." The solution? House churches. Each person can take turns choosing a Biblical topic for discussion. PARTICIPATION. Each person can introduce their topic briefly, with a few comments to get the ball rolling. PARTICIPATION. Any person can jump in respectfully to add to the conversation. PARTICIPATION. What can't church buildings understand about this need?

Home-churchers can be known closer by the rest of the "family," which is a valuable thing in God's eyes. It's called "fellowship," which runs skin-deep only in a one-hour church service. At a home church, people likely gather for at least two hours, with some food to boot. Happy and in good spiritual health is very good, don't rock that boat, church leaders. The common thread of Jesus makes (or should make) everyone comfortable with each other, like when you come in from a dog-eat-dog world where you're unappreciated as a Christian, but then find good friends for some relief. It's what Christians need, with Jesus sitting amongst them.

Don't compel people to come weekly. Don't make such rules. If only one person shows up one week, have a good time. What's the problem? If no one shows up, take the night off. What's the problem? Don't be stringent. Be mild rather than Mr. Rule Book, and if nobody comes any more, see if there's another house church for you to attend. Call the people back up a few months later to see if they want to start over again. They may have made the wrong choice in not coming out any longer. At any time, someone could jump into a relationship they shouldn't be in.

I think Jesus allows for such sins if there's hefty repentance and confession, but the believer may be reduced to walking on one leg, or something they don't like, to help keep them from repeating the sin. I don't think we can sin as Christians and get cleanly away with it, if that's what we plan to do. Sin is deeply disturbing to God. The rejoicing He had when you first converted is turned to sour milk in His mouth. Your standing before Him has gone down. You crippled yourself. Make sure you don't lose your other leg, but try to grow your first leg back as fast as you can. I know what it is to lose a leg. I made some big mistakes that won't be repeated.

It seems to me that someone(s) wrote a book(s) on how best to make a church successful, and then all churches started to perform in those ways when they saw churches growing. They developed SYSTEM. That's rote. That's why house churches shouldn't be systematic, but natural. Let the people do what they do. Let them meet. Don't obstruct. Once you check out a video on house-church training, you are learning to systematize it according to what someone else thinks is the right way to do it. The right way to do it is to open the door, let the people in, and fellowship. Decide together how to proceed rather than enforcing some outsider's ideas on how it should be done. Handle the people-problems as they come, they're nothing new.

Someone thinks I should pray at 5 am every morning, with a globe in front of me, praying for each country one at a time, but this is just not me. I don't like compelling God to do with nations what He's chosen to do, nor do I like guessing as to what He wants to do with each nation. It's absurd for me to pray for the nations as if I'm enlightening God on their needs. It's not my turf. It's way out of my hands. What's the use asking God to save people when it's His own primary goal? He knows who He's going to save, save your breath and stop bothering Him about it. I think Jesus will admire your efforts, and maybe enjoy seeing how long you can last at it, but don't be surprised if He doesn't encourage you in such a project. I suggest we be concerned with our own orb, the one we operate in.

Can a pastor preach in rote? Is there anything terribly wrong with preaching 12 sermons in a row that he preached in a row, and saved, 10 years ago? Would it be only a little better if he preaches the food that his sheep need at the time? To which sheep will he cater if there's 200 people standing before him each week? Doesn't that get a little too difficult, for one shepherd to be tending to so many sheep? Yup.

In a home church of 12 people, there are 12 shepherds for 12 sheep. Does that look like a good situation? No sheep could stray without being told by 11 others, "you're straying." It won't be accidental, but pig-headed. Stray if you must, but don't say we didn't warn you about that pack of wolves over yonder that mountain. We'll take you back so long as you're still alive. But in a church of 200, people stray, and either nobody cares, or nobody realizes. The sermon goes on, expertly shared, without a fault in doctrine, but out the front door somewhere, a lamb is crimson in its own blood. Every few months or less, another lamb. If only the church leaders had prepared house churches for some of them who need the attention.

For some, the pews can feel like cold shade while all the light is fixed onto the pulpit. Some say they like their pew to be a shady spot, who would rather not be noticed by others. Both of these types need help, fellowship, not just a chit-chat, but substantial friends.

Church leaders should be inspecting those sheep for worms or ticks, loneliness, or for overcoming recent sins which they don't want to admit, yet anyway. Is it of measurable benefit to speak to someone for only a minute or less after the "service." And why call it a "service," which has the connotation of offering something in return for money? Why collect the money immediately before the preaching, which makes us feel that we are paying to get a piece of the Bible in return? Is this the best we can do to be an example to outsiders, to make them trust us? If the collection plate is the stumbling block that keeps millions from church, isn't cancelling the collection plate the right thing to do to? And if they won't cancel it, what does it reveal about them?

If there were nothing in the news to make Christians suspicious of self-serving pastors, it might be a different, but with so many false teachers, it behooves the good churches to put a collection box at the back of the church, and NOT collect money during the "service." And call it something else, especially not a "worship service," as if to put a band-aid on "service" to hide the word. And the reason they call it a worship service is because there's almost zero fellowship.

And then there are Christians who blast churches for being "social clubs," as if it's sinful to have friendships and sociality together. I think they view the emphasis on chatting, after church, as evidence that they care not for the Bible. I would counter that they are so hungry for Christian friendship that they put off Bible topics temporarily to get it. In that case, why not have a fellowship "service" with the pews ripped out and replaced with tables? Can't some compromise (partnership) between Bible emphasis and friendships be accommodated in that way? If having too many tables all in the same room gets nauseating due to background noises, the solution is a warm-hearted and "quiet" home gathering. In winter, have a fire in the fireplace burning pieces of the church pews.

Gatherings don't need to be on Sunday mornings. Evenings have benefits. By the time you get home, it's about time for sharing alone with God, and you might feel more like doing so because of what someone said to you at "church." You might even say, "Lord, that pew wood burned wonderfully, it was so enjoyable, thank you."

The only problem that I can see with home churches is: people. Unless the people get along, the home church will be a dud. I don't see much success in a home church where some are tongues-slinging, new-apostles types who think they are the anointed ones, mixed with some weak of faith, and then also some doctrinal tycoons who would challenge your different definition of Biblical "oil" with a gunfight at high noon.

The good news: we are hearing that some home churches have succeeded for years. Maybe not with the same people from start to finish, but it's doable. Sooner or later, most everyone there should have similar outlooks, similar doctrines, similar attitudes, when those who don't fit in stop coming, or as people evolve to becoming like each other. But, the big win-win is the close ties between people, and the discipline of being good to your brothers and sisters whom you will get very acquainted with.

If the Next Life is to enjoy each other, why can't we start now? Friendships are a basis of life. Unfortunately, some people don't like some people, which is what we as Christians need to overcome. Be as likeable as you can. Leave your gun at home.

Someone says: "No accountability, no authority, no scholarship, no tradition, it sounds like a blast! What can go wrong?" No accountability is needed for the mature where Jesus is their boss, and no authority is needed for the mature who devote themselves to the Chief Rabbi. No scholarship is needed for the mature who have their own Bibles. Just be kind to each other, a little humble, tolerant, relaxed, have a donut, what could go wrong? I've been at many Bible studies where all went well without problems.

Home church is a Bible study plus. It shouldn't be called "home church" lest we think we need to copy regular church. It should be called a house gathering. Please don't call it a microchurch, or I'll take my gun out and start firing warning shots at the ceiling. Paul said, GATHER together. You are allowed to enjoy it, to be light-hearted or heavy-hearted. You can laugh out loud, or cry, or complain. You can feed the group with your knowledge of scripture. You can compliment someone who dazzles you on their knowledge. You can sing a solo. If it were my house gathering. I'll turn on the stereo, and we can sing to some good songs, and be happy, if it were my home gathering. The coffee's on, the cake is out, the plates are clean, and when we're done, there's a slice of hot pizza for all. Brothers and sisters, what could go wrong? Don't let the scare-mongers get to you.

There's an argument to be made that people are not only more receptive to the Word of God when they are enjoying an event, but that they receive it deeper, more welcomely. I would be happier if people coming in the door would yell, "Hi everybody, I'm here," rather than being reserved, too quiet, too proper, like in some church settings. You don't need to be like king David dancing into the living room fresh out of his cave, but please feel confident that you are welcome with all of your spirit. You don't need to hide any of it, if you don't want to. Free-as-a-bird spirits make the party, and we don't need alcohol to do it. Being cheerful is not unholy.

Some people almost fall asleep in church buildings because it's all listen, no talk, 52 times each year from the same man, and 520 times each decade. In a home gathering with 12 people, you might get to hear at least ten of them on multiple occasions, for a minute or two each time they speak, much better.

If it were my home gathering, there would be exactly zero dollars collected in "tithes and offerings." You would be urged to give some money to some good cause that Jesus would agree to, as your private offerings to Him.