Book review: Pagan Christianity

[Guest]

The authors make the point over and over again that these things aren't necessarily wrong (the lighting, ambiance, buildings, etc...), but that they are not necessarily Christian. The point of this book to me seems to be that we have learned all of our lives to associate these certain practices and ways of doing things with Christianity, when in fact they had nothing to do with apostolic Christianity.

The way I read it, they were not saying that having a sense of awe and wonder at a building are wrong. I'm sure they would love looking at some of the architecture that was created in the past thousand years -- and would feel a sense of awe and wonder. I think their point is that the build up to these things in a church meeting caused the focus to go further and further away from a group of people meeting together to edify one another and more towards a focus on the building as what's important.

Dane wrote:

Now, I certainly agree that a church can be less friendly than someone's home - but is that always the case?

I think this is the terminology that they are trying to get us away from.

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

Matt,

I was having some trouble with the extra-biblical = un-biblical thing too. But I don't think that's what they are saying. They even make the point that if everything that is extra-biblical has to be un-biblical then we can't have air-conditioning or nice chairs or really any of the modern conveniences we have.

Their point is that these specific extra-biblical things are SO associated with the church that they are, for most people, inseparable.

Also, they believe (as I do) that these extra-biblical things actually many (most?) times hinder the church from functioning as the Lord intended it to. Air-conditioning doesn't hinder what the Lord set up... meeting halls ("church" buildings) where everything is centered around one or two men and everyone just stares at them and the back of each others heads, well, (I believe) does many times hinder what the Lord designed.

It's not that extra-biblical necessarily =s un-bibilical, but that if something that is extra-biblical hinders what is biblical, then maybe that extra-biblical thing is un-biblical.

[Guest]

Rae, I have to agree with your assessment, that is the way I thought the authors were trying to come across. I think in a few places they also exaggerated or broad brushed to make the point, but I don't think they were meaning to say this is how it always is, or all people are this certain way. We all know exceptions, we all probably know churches that are doing things quite well, as good as they can anyway with all this baggage in tow.

The point of the book from my understanding, is that these things are not necessarily wrong per-say, some are, or can be, a real hindrance to a deeper life in Christ's Body. For people who hold these things as sacred, this book can be a real eye opener for them and may lead them to give a little more grace to those who do not follow these current church "norms".

I give them 10 stars for stirring the pot!

Shel

[Guest]

Good thoughts everyone

I also give them 10 stars for stirring the pot, btw

[Guest]

Good thoughts everyone

I also give them 10 stars for stirring the pot, btw

Amen ... in spite of some of my criticism, I actually am enjoying the book!

peace,

dane

[Guest]

Chapter 3: The Order of Worship
In this chapter, Viola traces the history of the order of worship from the Catholic mass through the Reformer's and Revivalists. He points out that an 'order OF worship' has no biblical basis and is not the same thing as order IN worship. He does a much better job in this chapter, in my opinion, of actually making an argument that the 'order of worship' often interferes with the headship of Jesus Christ in Christian gatherings. Essentially, "Protestant liturgy cripples the body of Christ. It turns it into one huge tongue (the pastor) and many little ears (the congregation)."

His points are that the 'order of worship'
1) Represses participation/silencing members
2) Strangles the headship of Jesus Christ
3) Makes gatherings boring and predictable
4) Encourages passivity and 'weekend worship'

Reaction: This was my favorite chapter so far. I agreed with most of what Viola was saying. I've long attempted to make our church gatherings less formal and more participatory. But, to be honest, I've largely succeeded in this despite Viola's claims that such is basically impossible within the institutional church.

[Guest]

This is an exciting discussion! I imagine that Viola & Barna would be gratified that in our little corner of the Internet their book is doing what they intended, which is to generate thought and discussion.

If I recall correctly, Viola used to teach Philosophy at a public high school. I don't think his view is that "pagan" thought or custom is inherently evil or that it should be shunned by Christians.

What I take away as the overarching point of the book is not that things which are of "pagan" origins are automatically bad, but that we should be aware of the "pagan" origins of many contemporary church practices so that we can objectively evaluate their value.

Once we conclude that a certain practice is not "biblical" (in other words, not explicitly taught or modeled in scripture) and was unlikely to have been practiced by the earliest Christians, we can extract it and examine it to determine how well it facilitates the functioning of the Body of Christ. In that light, whether we deem it useful, irrelevant or detrimental, we know that it is not intrinsic to Christianity and/or the functioning of the church.

But Rae already said all this with greater eloquence.

Matt, your chapter-by-chapter critiques are great!

[Guest]

This was my favorite chapter so far. I agreed with most of what Viola was saying.

I agree. Most everything stated in this chapter was something that I've thought about before - and agreed with - or it was something new to me but still resonated very well with my heart.

I've long attempted to make our church gatherings less formal and more participatory. But, to be honest, I've largely succeeded in this despite Viola's claims that such is basically impossible within the institutional church.

Thanks for your honesty Matt. This is exactly what I was trying to point out in my earlier post - that the authors exaggerate way too much the contrasting point in order to make their own point look better. They didn't need to do this! After a while it becomes a little annoying. A little more intellectual honesty would have gone a long way with me.

peace,

dane

[Guest]

I've long attempted to make our church gatherings less formal and more participatory. But, to be honest, I've largely succeeded in this despite Viola's claims that such is basically impossible within the institutional church.

Could you describe what this looks like in your meetings?

[Guest]

Could you describe what this looks like in your meetings?

Sure

I'll give you 4 examples

Sunday mornings:
We have a church that seats about 250 in 3 sections of pews. I really dislike pews. We had a traditional service as described in the book. Little to no participation. But, as I said, this can be overcome little by little. Here are some simple methods to increasing participation (and it's not as if you haven't heard of these things before, of course)
1. We verbally free people up to move around during the time of singing
2. We allow for songs written by people in the congregation
3. We have a time prior to announcements where people greet each other
4. We allow for praises and prayer requests to be shared during announcements
5. We don't always stay behind the pulpit during the sermon, but come down to the ground level
6. We sometimes include a specific testimony of a member as part of the sermon (we pick one that fits the message)
7. We have a soup fellowship after service each week

Sunday night
When I started 5 years ago, the evening service was just a poorly attended version of the morning service. Our senior pastor was usually pretty tired. We had 3 or 4 hymns and then a message from the pulpit. I volunteered to take over this service. I decided to try to turn it into a full hour of group discussion. I stood at the halfway point of the hymns in the middle of the middle section. I asked a lot of questions to provoke discussion. Attendance doubled and little by little it has become a very 'talkative' service. We don't do any music. It's an hour (at least) of discussion.

Wednesday Night Prayer Meeting
We always had a very small group (about 15) that met in the sanctuary and prayed for 30 minutes and did a 30 minute bible study. A few months ago I made the decision to move the service out of that big sanctuary (seemed silly) and into our fellowship hall. I set up chairs in a semi-circle and used portable walls to create a more cozy atmosphere. We start with a 'story behind a hymn' and then sing that hymn. We share praises and prayer requests together. I even encouraged a few of them to make coffee so as to change the atmosphere to less formal and just this week I finally had that happen, haha! Whenever prayer is done we do a Bible study and, once again, it's a participative discussion. People feel free to ask questions or share insights.

Men's Group
Another good example would be my men's group. This is exactly the same as a HOME group, but works best at the 'church building' because of the central and known location. We gather around a table and fellowship together, pray together, study the word together.

I have another small group for young adults that does meet in a home. That's nice too. But, to be honest, it never would have gotten started without its basis in the institutional church.

* one thing that is helpful for us is that the 2 side sets of pews are angled in...so it creates a slightly more rounded feel. But i agree with the authors. i wish we would have selected chairs.

[Guest]

Hi Matt,

It sounds to me like you and the other leaders at your church have put a lot of effort into creating ways that interactive community can occur (on Sunday nights, Wed. nights, etc.).

It appears that on Sunday morning only a tiny bit of room is made for spontaneity in an otherwise tightly programmed service. Of course, the larger the number of people, the more programmed it would have to be.

I have another small group for young adults that does meet in a home. That's nice too. But, to be honest, it never would have gotten started without its basis in the institutional church.

This is a really good point. One of the shortcomings of house-churches is that they are difficult to "market". In other words, people in our culture are conditioned to think of church as a building that you go to ("A purveyor of religious goods and services", as the book "Missional Church" puts it). If I moved to a new city and wanted some Christian fellowship, I would know how to find an "institutional" church (Yellow Pages, Google search, driving around looking for church buildings, etc.), but I wouldn't know how to find a house-church and, if I did find out about one, might feel uncomfortable coming to an intimate gathering in a house full of strangers. This is a cultural thing.

I think perhaps the model that works best in our culture (and seems to have Biblical precedent) is the scattered/gathered paradigm (aka "house-to-house and Solomon's Portico"). That is, the church meets in homes throughout the area but then those "house-churches" also come together for corporate public worship. The difference is in the emphasis. In this paradigm, the house-church is considered the primary "form" of ekklesia and the corporate public worship is secondary. The corporate public worship serves as an entry point for new people, but the goal is to get them into house-churches. The corporate public worship serves the house-churches, not vice-versa. As I mentioned earlier, Xenos Christian Fellowship (http://www.xenos.org) in Ohio seems to work this way.

In the scattered/gathered paradigm, the same challenges exist as far as keeping people from becoming passive receivers of ministry; wise stewardship of money as it relates to buildings & salaries; whether there is a need for "professional" clergy; etc.