Book review: Pagan Christianity

[Guest]

Matt & Dane,

I've really been enjoying reading your impressions of the book so far. It's been interesting to me that your take has been so different from my own. For example, the chapter on Sermons was one of my favorites! I'm looking forward to seeing what you think of the rest of the chapters and your overall impression of the book as a whole.

- Danny

[Guest]

I have been reading the book. I am not yet finished. I didn't know such a book existed. This has been my own understanding of the polity of the early church for almost 50 years, and I was always searching for such a church.

I found an assembly of the so-called "Plymouth Brethen" (open brethren) in Winnipeg at age 21. Many of the practices of the early church could be observed in the meetings. Jesus was the centre of the Sunday morning meeting every week. Nothing was pre-planned, but every man could minister as the Lord led. Unhappily, women were not permitted to open their mouths except in singing group hymns. This practice was based on Paul's words that a woman is to keep silent in the church. Every hymn suggested, every prayer, every discourse, was centered around Jesus and what He accomplished on the cross. The culmination was "the breaking of bread". Thus body ministry (at least male body ministry) was possible, even though the physical building was typical of that of most evangelical churches, with pews, a pulpit. and a communion table.

This is true of the church with which I now meet also, except that each Sunday meeting begins with someone "opening the meeting". This person has been asked by the elders to do so, and he usually suggests a number of hymns and may also exhort those gathered. This usually takes about half an hour. Then he "leaves the meeting open" to others to minister as led by the Spirit. Sisters are also welcome to participate The whole meeting is not centered around Christ's sacrifice, and the communion seems to be an attachment as it is in other churches, rather than the main feature. However, the "order of service" is not predicable. Although the elders usually administer the communion near the end, they sometimes do so at the beginning or middle.

At this point, I would like to respond to a couple of Mattrose's comments:

1. He seems to have a big problem with an official 'office,' but in my life I don't see much difference b/w an official 'office' and an unofficial 'role.'

From my experience in years of fellowship with the "Plymouth Brethren" I would have to say that there is a huge difference. Elders are not appointed or elected in that group. Yet because of their ministry certain men are recognized as elders. During the years I fellowshipped with the brethren, I knew who two or three of the elders were, but there were other men who were "exercised" in their ministries to a strong degree. Yet, I wasn't quite certain whether they were yet recognized as elders. This is quite different from an officially ordained "elder", where there is no question as to whether or not he is, in fact, and elder.

2. He says the 'office' was a late development, but then says it started with Ignatius and lists his life as (35-107). That's pretty early! What's more, he says the 'one bishop' rule didn't catch on in other regions, but then the footnote lists a bunch of regions that it DID catch on in that early. This hurt his point in my opinion.

Yes, he said that the one-bishop rule had not caught on in other regions. However, the footnote does not list "a bunch of regions that it did catch on in that early." Rather, the footnote lists four cities in Asia where it did catch on. It seems that by "other regions", Viola referred to regions other than Asia. Indeed, he specifies in the same footnote that "it had not yet reached Greece or the cities in the west.

[Guest]

Matt did another good review, capturing, I believe, the essence of the "Pastor" chapter.

Just like Matt, I'm a "paid pastor" (though not for much longer) - yet I did not have many problems with the concepts of this chapter. The history behind the contemporary pastor was fascinating, and pretty consistent with what I know of Church History. For some time now (mostly thanks to Steve's lectures) I've really been struggling with the whole pastor-thing. Viola's thoughts have only reinforced what has been brewing within me.

The funny thing is that being a Methodist I had the same reaction to Viola's definition of ordination as Matt did (who is Wesleyan). I am not "ordained" in the Methodist Church, only "licensed." As in Matt's case, what was going on in my ministry was "endorsed" and "affirmed" - which fits Viola's description of primitive ordination.

Danny ... I'm so glad you recommended this book. I'm really loving it!

peace,

dane

[Guest]

Hello Shel,
I was wondering if Barna & Viola cover the primitive and early Jewish church in Jerusalem(?). Matt mentioned they wrote about Ignatius, a Gentile. I'm really interested in (Jewish) N.T. era and Intertestamental information (circa 200BC-150AD).

[TK]

Danny said

I've really been enjoying reading your impressions of the book so far. It's been interesting to me that your take has been so different from my own. For example, the chapter on Sermons was one of my favorites! I'm looking forward to seeing what you think of the rest of the chapters and your overall impression of the book as a whole.

I really liked the chapter! I just didn't want to say so in 10 different ways so it ended up looking like I was more critical of it than I really was, haha.

Paidion responded to me...

From my experience in years of fellowship with the "Plymouth Brethren" I would have to say that there is a huge difference. Elders are not appointed or elected in that group. Yet because of their ministry certain men are recognized as elders. During the years I fellowshipped with the brethren, I knew who two or three of the elders were, but there were other men who were "exercised" in their ministries to a strong degree. Yet, I wasn't quite certain whether they were yet recognized as elders. This is quite different from an officially ordained "elder", where there is no question as to whether or not he is, in fact, and elder.

Still don't see a difference worth noting. You're saying elders are 'recognized' b/c of their ministry. How is that practically different from 'appointing' them to a board b/c of their ministry? It need not be! In my church you are appointed to the board by vote, and the vote is based on recognition of ministry. Many are great ministries but not board members. We don't care much about titles. This is quite possible within a traditional institutional church.

Yes, he said that the one-bishop rule had not caught on in other regions. However, the footnote does not list "a bunch of regions that it did catch on in that early." Rather, the footnote lists four cities in Asia where it did catch on. It seems that by "other regions", Viola referred to regions other than Asia. Indeed, he specifies in the same footnote that "it had not yet reached Greece or the cities in the west.

Fair enough on a technical level

But the general impression I got when reading the paragraph was that nobody else was using the one-bishop rule and the footnote deflated the point by acknowledging that many Christians were using it. What's more, since Greece is further away from the origin of Christianity than Asia, it'd be easy to argue that the one-bishop rule was a purer form of Christianity. Not that I'd make that argument, but one could do so.

Dane said...

The funny thing is that being a Methodist I had the same reaction to Viola's definition of ordination as Matt did (who is Wesleyan). I am not "ordained" in the Methodist Church, only "licensed." As in Matt's case, what was going on in my ministry was "endorsed" and "affirmed" - which fits Viola's description of primitive ordination.

Yes, this was definitely the funniest part of the chapter for me. Viola must be from a very different church background than I am from for him to describe ordination as an almost arbitrary appointment of some random person to an 'office' or position of power. The way ordination works in the Wesleyan church is exactly what he described as primitive and pure ordination.

[TK]

Chapter 6: Sunday Morning Costumes
This was a short chapter. Easy to agree with. Viola admits that it's less and less of a problem nowadays. He points out that congregational 'dressing up' is a recent phenomenon based on social status, not biblical command. He correctly points out the dangers of such a tradition: 1) It creates a false division b/w the secular and sacred. 2) It covers up the 'messy' lives of the congregants. 3) The formality stands against the simplicity of the early church. Viola then moves on to discuss the attire of the 'clergy.' He traces the history of clergy garb to the era of Constantine and declares, rightly, that this too adds to the distinction between 'professional' and 'non-professional' Christians.

Reaction:
Good chapter even if fairly obvious. Viola is even even-handed in the 'follow up' at the end of the chapter declaring that there's nothing wrong with dressing up so long as you don't look down on those who don't.

I do wear a suit & tie & jacket on Sunday for the early service. In the 2nd service I take off the jacket. We have a soup fellowship after that and I take off my tie. It's probably a good thing we don't have another service after that!

I agree with John Wesley that Christians shouldn't be the trend setters, but also shouldn't be the last one OUT of an old style. We should dress, barring insanity, pretty similarly as the culture. In my church culture, people dress up for church. I think there are dangers in this, but I think they can be addressed w/o getting rid of our suits.

But just for fun, I may dress down a bit on some near future sunday's and see what it gets me

[Guest]

Hello Shel,
I was wondering if Barna & Viola cover the primitive and early Jewish church in Jerusalem(?). Matt mentioned they wrote about Ignatius, a Gentile. I'm really interested in (Jewish) N.T. era and Intertestamental information (circa 200BC-150AD).

It's not that kind of book.

[Guest]

Hi Rick,

Backgrounds of Early Christianity by Everett Ferguson might be more along the lines of what you're looking for. Also The First Urban Christians by Wayne A. Meeks is quite interesting.

[Guest]

matt wrote:

But just for fun, I may dress down a bit on some near future sunday's and see what it gets me

i would recommend jeans and a red and black lumberjack shirt. and work boots. skip a shave as well.

TK

[TK]

Haha, I already skip the shave on numerous occasions. In fact, one of the most surprising realities that I've experienced in 5 years working in a church is how much the congregation comments about my facial hair and hairstyle.