Danny, please tell me if I'm off-topic or if you don't want this to be any kind of debate (and open to people who haven't read the book), ok? Thanks.
I don't know that I'm particularly interested in a debate, but I'm always open to discussion. The time constraints I'm currently under may limit my participation, especially since I seem to have trouble writing short posts (as this one will bear out). It's fine by me whatever direction this thread takes, though I personally would be mainly interested in hearing the reactions (good, bad or indifferent) of those who read the book.
I don't think one has to be "sold" on the idea of house-churches in order to concede that some (or all) of the points Viola makes are worthy of serious consideration. Each of the points he addresses could be topics for their own discussion threads. These include:
Church Buildings
Order of Worship
The Sermon
The Pastor
Sunday Morning Costumes
Ministers of Music
Tithing and Clergy Salaries
Baptism and the Lord's Supper
Christian Education
(Each of the above is a chapter title in Pagan Christianity)
To quote John Stott, "The hallmark of an authentic evangelicalism is not the uncritical repetition of old traditions, but the willingness to submit every tradition, however ancient, to fresh biblical scrutiny and, if necessary, reform."
Various groups in the past (early Anabaptists and Quakers come to mind) questioned these same points and concluded that they were not necessary to be the church and in some cases were even obstacles to the church functioning in the way it was intended. We don't think of 16th century Anabaptists or 17th century Quakers as "house-church movements" though they did by-and-large meet in houses out of necessity. When the Quakers eventually began to build their own meeting houses, the architecture reflected their ecclesiology in that the buildings were simple and the seats were arranged inward facing so that members looked at one-another. Along these lines of how architecture both reflects our values and dictates how we function, Viola quotes Winston Churchill: "We shape our buildings; thereafter they shape us."
Rick, in response to your statements:
You are correct that Jesus read and expounded on the Scriptures. This is no different from a sermon. In other words, the Jews "had sermons." They weren't invented" later.
And
I've posted that Paul and/or the Christians in Ephesus rented a philosopher's hall for two years.
No one familiar with the New Testament would dispute these claims. The question is, were the settings in which Jesus and Paul taught considered normative church gatherings? Was the earliest church methodology of gathered meetings based primarily around the didactic lectures of a single individual, or did it tend to be more interactive? Paul's description of church gatherings in the following scriptures lead me towards believing the latter:
1 Corinthians 12:14-26
Colossians 3:15-17
Ephesians 5:15-20
Ephesians 4:15-16
1 Corinthians 14:26
Romans 1:11-12
Hebrews 10:23-25 (emphasis on the words "one another")
I'm impressed by what I've read about a very large church in Ohio called Xenos Christian Fellowship (
http://www.xenos.org/aboutxenos/history.htm) which is comprised of myriads of small house-churches. They gather together on a Sunday in an auditorium for teaching (more like a college lecture than a sermon), but do not have musical worship or some of the other typical trappings of a Sunday "service". Rather, they consider "real church" (my term, not theirs) to take place in home gatherings.
It seems that a church can gather in an informal and interactive setting (such as a house) and
also meet in a setting geared towards instruction from a learned individual. The Quaker church I've been visiting lately has both "Meetings for Worship" (which have no agenda or program other than to encounter the risen Christ)
and "Meetings for Teaching".
Homer, you wrote:
I have been puzzled for some time with the thing about "house churches". Is the objection to the congregation owning a building as opposed to renting one? Or is it just a form of objection to the "institutional church", whatever that means?
I'll answer this from my own perspective and experience.
I was the associate pastor of a Vineyard church and was "in the pipeline" to plant a Vineyard in a neighboring city and be it's senior pastor, when I began to really wrestle with the question of what "the ekklesia" was supposed to look like. This took on many facets, including questioning the very points that Viola tackles in Pagan Christianity.
After much scripture study, prayer, discussion and reading I came to the conclusion that the
form of church as we had been doing it was not serving the intended
function of the ekklesia. Of particular concern to me (as a pastor) was the lack of spiritual maturity in so many folks who had been believers for years and years. It seemed that the imbibing of hundreds of Sunday morning sermons had had limited effect.
As a potential Vineyard church planter, I attended conferences and read various materials on church planting. I was astonished to read in the Vineyard materials that an initial milestone of a successful church plant was to obtain a building. A second major milestone was when the tithes were large enough to enable the planter/pastor to "go full-time". According to these materials, it was expected that 85% of the church budget would go towards the building and salaries. Materials I've read since then from other sources seem to corroborate this.
I began to have a real crisis of conscience. The people in our congregation were middle-class and blue collar folks that were barely making ends meet. Some were struggling to keep their cars running and their mortgages current. Why were we pumping thousands of their dollars a month into rent on a building that was only occupied a few hours per week? Why did we in "leadership" know so little about the dreams, visions and giftings of the people in our congregation? Perhaps because there was no provision made for them to step out, grow and function in their dreams, visions and gifts (unless, of course, their dream was teaching Sunday school, their vision was ushering and their gift was janitorial).
One Sunday that I was supposed to give the sermon, I instead broke the congregation up into groups of 10 or 12, had them move their chairs into circles (lucky thing we didn't have pews) and had each person share with their group about their God-given dreams, visions and gifts. It was a remarkable Sunday and the excitement was palpable.
I left that church and began meeting in a house with other believers. I dropped my pastoral orientation and instead assumed the role of a facilitator. I was continuously amazed at how the Holy Spirit would lead our gatherings and at the profundity of what would come out of rank-and-file believers once they were given the freedom and encouragement to express their spiritual gifts. It was not unusual for us to check the clock and discover that four hours had gone by in what felt like one! By the end of a gathering we were usually amazed and excited about how the Lord had given us a very clear message, but had done so not through a sermon but through a song sung by this person and a prayer spoken by that person and a scripture shared by another and a testimonial given by someone else. The term "Body of Christ" was becoming a manifest reality rather than an abstract idea. I won't bore you with any more details except to say that that house-church experience was wonderful beyond anything I had imagined. It has ruined me, as far as being able to sit passively in a congregation Sunday after Sunday goes.
One other thing I will mention about it: It was remarkable how much we were able to do with money now that it wasn't consumed by a building and salaries. We were able to help out people in difficulties--both members and non-members--in all kinds of tangible ways.
Could this type of thing only happen in a house? Of course not, but perhaps a house is more amenable to a low-overhead, egalitarian and interactive gathering, whereas a traditional church building (which is essentially an auditorium) lends itself more to the dynamic of a lecturer addressing an audience.
I suppose I ought to read the book and see what the objection is.
Needless to say, that would be my recommendation.
Some other recommendations:
An excellent essay by Len Hjalmarson entitled "Leaving the Church to Find the Church":
http://www.next-wave.org/jun01/leavingchurch.htm
Books:
Missional Church edited by Darrell L. Guder
Rethinking the Wineskin and Who's Your Covering, also by Frank Viola
Paul's Idea of Community by Robert Banks
Going to Church in the First Century by Robert Banks
The Problem of Wineskins by Howard Snyder
Ekklesia by Steve Atkerson
The Open Church by James Rutz
Houses that Changed the World by Wolfgang Simson
The Connecting Church by Randy Frazee
The Leadership Paradox by Denny Gunderson
The Externally Focused Church by Rusaw & Swanson
The Different Drum by M. Scott Peck
. Perhaps we need a Christian dictionary.)