Book review: Pagan Christianity

[Guest]

Going very well. A lot of good discussion and some funny jokes (especially in the week about clergy salaries, me being a salaried clergy and all). The general consensus of the class, though, seems to be that they agree with the author a little LESS than I do. Their major complaint seems to be his borderline hatred for organization

That being said, quite a few of them are actually reading the entire book for themselves instead of just coming to discuss the questions on the handouts. I think it's been edifying.

[_Paidion]

8. The Wesleyan Church now recommends each church share the Lord’s Supper each month (instead of quarterly). How often would you desire to share in the Lord’s Supper?

In the first two centuries, the communion (or "eucharist") was observed every Sunday. This was not "the Lord's Supper". The latter was a meal in honour of Christ (also called a "Love Feast") which culminated with the taking of the unleavened bread and the wine in remembrance of Jesus. I am not sure how or why the Love Feast was dropped from Christian practice.

[Guest]

Could you further explain the differences you see b/w Eucharist and Love Feast. I was under the impression that the Love Feast was replaced BY the Eucharist.

[_Paidion]

Could you further explain the differences you see b/w Eucharist and Love Feast. I was under the impression that the Love Feast was replaced BY the Eucharist.

At "The Last Supper", Jesus was celebrating the Passover with His disciples. As I read the narrative, when the celebration of the Passover was complete, Jesus took bread (unleavened) and wine (also unleavened, in that all yeast used to make wine is eventually killed by the alcohol) and instituted the Communion (sharing). The significance of using unleavened elements is that that which was signified (His body and blood) were pure and unaffected by evil. Leaven is often used in the Scriptures to symolize something evil or false (Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees).

This communion began to be called "The Eucharist" (Thanksgiving) in the early church, as thanks was given to Christ for having given His body and blood on behalf of those who follow Him. But the first century church continued to practice "The Lord's Supper", also called "The Love Feast", that is, they had a meal in common, and then ended it with the Communion or Eucharist. This is evident from Paul's description of it in I Corinthians 11:20-22

When you meet together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat. For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal, and one is hungry and another is drunk. What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing?

These words of Paul clearly show that the Lord's Supper was a meal. If you were hungry, you wouldn't come to a Communion to get a little piece of wafer or a cube of white bread. Nor if you wanted to get drunk, would you come to a meeting to take a sip of wine or Welch's grape juice. There's no doubt that The Lord's Supper" was a full-fledged meal with food and wine being consumed. Jude mentions "love feasts" in verse 12 of his letter.

In the early days of Christianity, enemies of Christ's Assembly accused Christians of having promiscuous sexual intercourse at their love feasts. Apparently, this accusation arose from the very terminology "love feast" and "koinonia" (sharing). Indeed, the word translated "communion" ("koinonia") was used in the Greek world of the day as a term for sexual intercourse.

It may have been partially because of these accusations that the Love Feasts were later dropped from Christian practice, and only the taking of bread and wine was retained . But modern Christians who want to get back to "early church practice" would do well to consider participating once again in the full version of "The Lord's Supper", or "Love Feast".

[Guest]

Thanks

I thought you were trying to make a case that 'love feasts' and 'communion' were completely separate events. But you seem to be saying that a full meal with 'communion' at the end was the early church pattern. I agree

I also agree that we'd do well to make it a full meal again.

[_Paidion]

Thank you, Matt. I'm glad I could clarify. Maybe you missed the following sentence in my previous post:

The latter [Lord's Supper) was a meal in honour of Christ (also called a "Love Feast") which culminated with the taking of the unleavened bread and the wine in remembrance of Jesus.

[Guest]

Broken thread -- thread continued on


http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?t=2544

[RickC]

Pagan Christianity
- Church Music -

1. PC, citing Eph. 5:19, Col. 3:16 & 1 Cor. 14:26, suggests that the modern practice of having worship leaders is in stark contrast to the early church in which worship and singing were in the hands of the people. Do these verses make his point?


2. PC states that in the early church ‘singing and leading songs was a corporate affair, not a professional event led by specialists.’ Have you ever felt like the music on Sunday morning is more like a concert than a time of corporate praise? When and why?


3. PC explains the following stages in history:
a) Choirs created to mirror imperial ceremonies
b) Clergy controlled hymns to prevent heresy
c) Congregational singing was banned in AD 367
d) Revivalists restored full congregational singing


4. PC says that there is ‘no evidence of musical instruments in the Christians church service until the Middle Ages.’ There are still some denominations that refuse to use instruments in worship today. What do you think of this practice?


5. PC complains that much of the ‘contemporary’ praise songs are individualistic (using 1st person singular pronouns—I, me, my). Do you think this is a negative?


6. PC traces the modern ‘worship team’ to the ‘Jesus Movement’ via the Calvary Chapel & Vineyard churches. The founders gave converted ‘hippies and surfers’ a stage for their music (Rock-n-Roll). Do you think this style of music is fitting for a church?


7. PC claims that ‘song leaders, choirs, and worship teams’ make corporate worship very unlikely. ‘When worship songs can only be announced, initiated, and led by the talented, this element of the service becomes more like entertainment than corporate worship.’ Do you agree with either/both of these statements?


8. Viola suggests that every member should feel free to start a song spontaneously and states that this is exactly how the early church functioned? How does he know this and how would this work?


9. Would you enjoy singing songs written by people in your own congregation? Why or why not?

I recall this thread was broken, we took it back up in a new one, but discussion ended soon.

I still haven't read PC.

I was wondering, though, if it mentions or if anyone knows when clapping (applause after songs or speakers) first came into churches. I was basically "unchurched" from around 1982 till 2004 and this clapping has been new to me (and I find it exceptionally annoying)!

I'm probably totally off-topic for this thread.
But it's kind of related to some of the above and this thread's worth a *BUMP* -

Thanks!

[SamIam]

My position is that unaccompanied, congregational singing is the best method for Christians to worship as a group. Anything other than unaccompanied, congregational singing detracts from the purpose of offering the "fruit of our lips" as a sacrifice of praise.

1. PC, citing Eph. 5:19, Col. 3:16 & 1 Cor. 14:26, suggests that the modern practice of having worship leaders is in stark contrast to the early church in which worship and singing were in the hands of the people. Do these verses make his point?

I rather doubt that Paul's intention in any of these verses was to denounce worship leaders. On the other hand I concur that worship is something to be done by the congregation rather than by a specialist, with the congregation observing.

2. PC states that in the early church ‘singing and leading songs was a corporate affair, not a professional event led by specialists.’ Have you ever felt like the music on Sunday morning is more like a concert than a time of corporate praise? When and why?

My position is that anything other than unaccompanied congregational singing is a step toward a concert.

4. PC says that there is ‘no evidence of musical instruments in the Christians church service until the Middle Ages.’ There are still some denominations that refuse to use instruments in worship today. What do you think of this practice?

I am one of those "refusers." When you use an instrument you are demonstrating a concern about something other than the congregation reciting the text.

5. PC complains that much of the ‘contemporary’ praise songs are individualistic (using 1st person singular pronouns—I, me, my). Do you think this is a negative?

You can make the same observation of many of the Psalms. Many songs that are not worth singing use first-person pronouns, on the other hand some songs with first-person pronouns are useful.

6. PC traces the modern ‘worship team’ to the ‘Jesus Movement’ via the Calvary Chapel & Vineyard churches. The founders gave converted ‘hippies and surfers’ a stage for their music (Rock-n-Roll). Do you think this style of music is fitting for a church?

I recently read "Why Johnny Can't Sing Hymns" which argues than style is not value-neutral. The author argues that the values of popular music are not consistent with the values of Christian worship. He also argues that certain styles are not appropriate for certain occasions and illustrates by asserting that no one would invite a kazoo band to participate in their mother's funeral. I do not consisder "Rock-n-Roll" appropriate for Christian worship simply because it is something other than unnaccompanied congregational singing.

7. PC claims that ‘song leaders, choirs, and worship teams’ make corporate worship very unlikely. ‘When worship songs can only be announced, initiated, and led by the talented, this element of the service becomes more like entertainment than corporate worship.’ Do you agree with either/both of these statements?

It seems to me to be a practical necessity for someone to set the pitch and establish the tempo for unnaccompanied congregational singing to take place. In that sense, it would seem that a "song leader" does not make worship into an entertainment. I agree that if it requires someone with the talents of a performer, it has become a performance.

8. Viola suggests that every member should feel free to start a song spontaneously and states that this is exactly how the early church functioned? How does he know this and how would this work?

I don't know how the early church functioned, but that kind of singing can work very well, provided it is a relatively small group (although I've been in groups of more than 100 where it worked well). It works best if the group can sing the songs from memory.

9. Would you enjoy singing songs written by people in your own congregation? Why or why not?

Simply using the word "enjoy" demonstrates that you might be off the beam. Christian worship is not about what we might "enjoy." Our worship should be about what builds us up. No doubt that will bring us joy, but our pleasure is not the goal. My church has sung songs written by members. I think we should sing these songs, provided they are worth singing.

[IsaacJ]

Thanks to everyone for posting your thoughts to this exceptionally long thread! You kept me up past my bed-time reading! I haven't yet read PC, but have been reading some similar books so the topics have been fresh on my mind.

I wish you all lived in my town so we could just meet for a cup of coffee and talk on all of this stuff. I think it's great we're chewing on this. It's my opinion that persecution and hardship aren't far off for American Christians and that house-church type meetings are likely to become the new norm somewhere down the line. I feel the conviction to raise up those I'm discipling to understand what church is about and what's needed and not necessarily needed to be a healthy church.

I'm currently a salaried pastor (we'll see how long that will last), and getting more and more convinced that we have the right ingredients but in a setting where they can't blossom to all they're intended to. I'm working like mattrose to move people's minds and hearts in the direction of letting Christ lead the meeting and trying to erode the wall between what we consider sacred and normal in our lives. It's been massively rewarding so far and I'm seeing the Lord's fire being kindled. Lots of questions still though.