Yesterday I mentioned the argument at the core of the new Barna and Viola book Pagan Christianity. Most of the book is about the following main point:
The origin of many of our church practices (examples: church buildings, orders of worship, sermons, pastors, tithing, clergy salaries) is non-biblical and inconsistent with the practice of the early church. "Almost everything that is done in our contemporary churches has no basis in the Bible." (p. 4) Much of it was lifted from pagan culture.
This is the strongest and bulkiest part of this book. In fact, most of the facts in this section should be obvious to anyone who has thought through these issues. Viola and Barna provide some documentation and tease out the effects of these practices.
- Churches are not buildings, and the early church met in homes. Church buildings began with Constantine. Buildings express and influence the character of the church in negative ways, and consume lots of resources.
- The order of service is not biblical, and reduces mutual participation within the church, and puts too much emphasis on the pastor. It's also frequently boring, encourages passivity, and focuses too much on church as a one-hour event.
- Sermons come from Greek culture. They turn the preacher into a "virtuoso performer", stalemate spiritual growth, elevate clergy, and are often impractical. Preaching and teaching God's Word is scriptural, but not the way that we do it.
- Pastors are a form of hierarchical leadership, and churches have become pastor-driven. One-man ministry suffocates the functioning of the church, fosters dishonesty, and ignores the plurality of leadership in the New Testament church.
- Dressing up for church is a recent innovation, and it creates a division between sacred and secular, encourages people to mask their real selves, and goes against the primitive simplicity of the early church.
- Music has become a professional event led by specialists, rather than an a corporate affair in the hands of all of God's people.
- Tithing is an Old Testament practice that did not apply to the early church. Clergy salaries are not biblical. We are to support the Lord's work financially and give generously to the poor, but our resources should not just go to fund salaries, operational costs, and buildings.
- We have replaced water baptism with the sinner's prayer, and separated the Lord's Supper from its proper context of a full meal.
- Christian education is rational, objective, and abstract, rather than practical, experiential, and spiritual. Seminaries prop up the pagan practices of the church.
They make some good points, and a lot of it should not seem new. I've been surprised in the past, though, by those who don't know some of these things.
My review of this part of the book (remember - there's more to come):
- There are some real issues here that need to be confronted. How can we avoid, for instance, funneling too much money to institutional maintenance? Are we really giving enough to the poor? How can we overcome one-man ministry and the passivity that's common in many of our churches? How can we function as bodies and not as one-hour events? We shouldn't avoid these issues.
- The authors sometimes overreach. I don't buy all of their arguments. Are all buildings wrong, or is there a way that we can use them missionally? Did Paul really teach that elders/pastors should never be paid? Are seminaries always focused on head-knowledge, or can they also help form someone in practical and holistic ways? Arguing that there are issues that need to be addressed is not the same as saying that everything needs to be chucked - especially if you agree that there is some flexibility in how the church is shaped.
I haven't even come to the solutions they propose yet. Don't forget this is only the first of what I see as the four main points of their book.
Overall, Viola and Barna raise some important issues that need to be addressed, even if they do get a little carried away at points. The real question is how to respond. That comes next.
Update: Joe Thorn is about to blog through this book as well. "I’m blogging from my Blackberry because I have to begin venting my thoughts on this a bit or I will explode..."
In large parts I follow both your bullet points when you come to the review. And I guess I could add more to both relevant questions - and questions I would like to ask them back.
One thing I think about is what we should understand as authoritative and not. I sense as a strong emphasising on what kind of way to be and gather as a church is biblical and not. I understand that they would say most of our traditional church practices are non-biblical, but also that they suggest new practices that would be back to the ways of early church and bible.
But to wich degrees are the practices of the early church to be understood as autoritative for us? And to wich degree does the Bible mean to give us autoritative instructions about how to structure and function as a church?
Is it helpful to make this a issue about biblical or not - or does it sharpen the fronts in unneccessary ways?
We have pre-Constantinian examples of homes (Dura-Europos is the best example) that were converted to public use for the church. In other words, they ceased to be used as private residences and became exclusively public venues. Viola (and, I suppose by association, Barna) want us to believe that there is a moral point to be made about meeting in homes. There is no historical data whatsoever to suggest that the early Christians shared Viola's sentimental attachment to homes as the favored venue for church gatherings, and a good deal of evidence to demonstrate otherwise.
This would be nit picking, I suppose, if it weren't just one of several examples of a deeply flawed approach to history (don't get me started on their suggestion that Ignatius created the monarchical bishopric).
There is much in this book I like, and with which I agree. Let me emphasise however, that I have not read the book, nor have I studied the issue. I am merely going by what Darryl has stated in his posts and my own convictions. I also agree with something George said in his comments in the previous post:
"Having said all that, I don't think you can necessarily take the model that we have and expect that it will work the same way in another context, say in the inner city (how did you know I was going to go there). I don't think you can franchise the Church that way. "
In the past, I have had much trepidation about "institutional churches" and the almighty, "do-it-all" pastor. Still do. I LIKE the idea of meeting in a home as a small group with the interaction and sense of community that scene offers. Everybody could, and should, be able to participate in the discussion of Scripture, and also in the missional aspect of Christianity. Oversight would of course be necessary to prevent anyone from going "wonky," but if everyone held everyone else accountable then things should not get too far out of hand.
The thing is, if everyone would slow down and allow others to experience God in whatever way works for them and quit judging each other according to our own ideas of orthodoxy we would ALL be better off.
Is a handful of people gathering in a grass hut somewhere in the middle of Africa to study the Bible and worship God unorthodox? Why then is it any more unorthodox for a few families to do the same here in Canada or the U.S.? Is such a practice considered "church?" If not, why not?
I agree with George. The focus should be on GOD. Our primary purpose as Christians is, or should be, to worship God, and do what He has called us to do in our community. Whether in an institutional church, (in a building set aside for that purpose,) or in a house, or a garage, or a store-front, or a tent or a grass hut.
There are several other points with which I definitely agree: The role of Pastor, the order of service, the sermon, the required suit-and-tie to be acceptable/accepted, to name a few, but I hesitate to declare these practises things with which we should dispense entirely. If it works for you, DO IT. If you feel more comfortable in an institutional setting, GO FOR IT. If your chuch has a semi-professional-class symphony for the worship service, GOOD FOR YOU.
What works in T.O. or Boston, or wherever, doesn't necessarily work in downtown Hicksville. What sits well with the Educated, White-collar Crowd in Ottawa will not necessarily work with the uneducated, itinerant workers in Mexico,... or even those in your own town/city. Just let God be God and meet people wherever He or they choose.
Arthur:
What are you trying to do? Close down comments? ;)
Seems to work! ;)
I have read all the comments, even in the newer threads. I think many people have hit the nail on the head far better than I.
Maybe I am overly simplistic in my approach to many issues, but all I can say is: I refuse to put God in a box, preferring to let Him do whatever it is He wants to do, wherever, whenever, however He wants to do it. I also refuse to judge or condemn anyone whose experience with God is dissimilar to my own.
Yes, there are questions of orthodoxy and we can only judge those as they relate to Scripture. However, one's interpretation of what is Scriptural is not necessarily another's. (Hence Denominationalism.)
Culture, and/or context, determines much of how, or when, or where, God meets His people. The good thing, is He promises to meet us as long as we search for Him, and He ALWAYS meets us where we are.
One more quick comment:
I wonder, Darryl, if God spoke to you through an ass in today's society, would many people continue to listen to your sermons, or would many simply bail out in horror at the thought?
Come to think of it,... some would argue that God does speak to them through an ass every time they hear one of your sermons! :^)
Arthur:
Wait until tomorrow, dude...
I'm not worried.
I am, after all, your older brother, and it would be beneath you to retaliate against a (physically and mentally) infirm older person, wouldn't it?
Besides, the concept of "Hesed" would preclude such unkindness!