The book, Pagan Christianity, is out of control at this point.  Not only are the authors attacking things (buildings, orderly worship and pastors) for which there is no biblical prohibition (and, some would argue – see 1 Peter 5, for example – much biblical support and benefit to the Body); in the following chapters, they set up straw men to attack: dressing nice and song leaders.

Let’s see if we can address these quickly: In Chapter Six, they explain the origins of dressing nicely for worship.  Originally, many Reformers were opposed to nice dress (and, granted, the Bible is critical of dressing to impress – 1 Peter 3); and, it seems, that nice dress became the norm when a few popular pastors decided it would be a good idea.  It eventually became unacceptable in many circles to wear “street clothes” to worship.

A few Red Flags:

• This is becoming (or has become) a non-issue in most Christian communities; I cannot tell you when (or if) I’ve ever stepped into a church where there was even an unspoken dress-code.  I wear jeans to church when good (usually older, but not always) gentlemen wear their best suit and tie.  They don’t look at me askance when I lead worship in those same jeans and a polo shirt (or even a nice t-shirt).  Granted, the priest wears vestments, but the reason that has value is the symbol it represents, and I think symbol is a powerful tool of ministry.  Not to mention, I find Viola and Barna to be utterly devoid of any sense of reverence for God, and their lack of respect for Christ oozes into a disrespectful posture toward those who “dress up” for Him.
• The original reason that ties and pretty dresses became the norm are absolutely irrelevant; the question is: why do you dress the way you dress before the Lord (anywhere)?
• Last, the chapter reeks of a legalistic bias toward dressing down.  This is dangerous, because the shunning of someone for dressing nicely is as bad as shunning the person who has no nice clothes to wear.  So, who’s the legalist?  Who’s focusing on externals here?  N.T. Wright said in a recent interview with Equip: Resources for Worship, “Informality … can become a pseudo-formality.”  This was in reference to styles of worship, but it can apply to dress as well.

In Chapter Seven, the dynamic duo take on the evils of “leader-led music” in worship.  They talk of how choirs, an immitation of Roman culture, were introduced into the Church by Constantine’s reforms.  Through a long process, they tell that “sad” tale of the evolution from choir to worship team (though, for many, the choir is still a ministry in Church).  They point out that this leads to a passive priesthood being told what to sing and for how long.

Now, those of you who don’t like to sing anywhere but the shower, raise your hands if you want to do away with these scoundrels who are squashing your potential for priesthood!

This chapter depends on two proof-texts, pointing out that we are commanded (in a couple of isolated places in the Pauline Epsistles) to “speak to one another”, “singing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs”.  That’s it.  That’s the only argument from scripture for which they want to belittle those who are gifted to share music and lead people to the Throne of Grace!  They even put “lead worship” in quotes, which implies that these people don’t really lead worship!  How insulting!  Of course, I could call what they do “writing a Christian book” in quotes… but I’m above that.

Their valid points (yes, there are two) are almost lost amidst the divisive, condescending rhetoric (for example, on p. 163, they write that “Special seats were assigned to choir members to show their special status,” to which I had to respond, “No.  To show the choir where to sit.”  How many of you choir people feel utterly superior to your non-singing brothers and sisters?).  But, as I admitted, they make two valid points, and I should, in fairness, address them:

• Corporate worship so often suffers from “I” syndrome – the over-use of intimate, first-person-singular songs which should be used in intimate settings (“I Love You Lord”, “Jesus, Lover of My Soul” etc. are best used in settings such as prayer and communion).  Much better for corporate worship are “We” – centered (or, better, “You”-centered) songs: “Because We Believe” “We Bring the Sacrifice of Praise”, or even “I” songs converted to “We” songs, such as “We Exalt Thee”.  This plurality allows the Body to truly sing as a Body, and not a group of individuals.
• They desperately (and rightly) want every member of the Church to be free to contribute to the worship of God and building one another up.  They write, “There should be an outlet for this ministry to be expressed.” (167).  In my graffiti, I wrote, “There is,” and drew a little church with two wings: one wing for the formal (corporate worship in the sanctuary) and one for the informal (organic worship in the home).  But I don’t think they go far enough; since not everyone can or wants to lead a song, then we need to inspire people to share and edify the body in many creative ways (writing a psalm or a poem, using photography, sharing a devotion they’ve read or a journal entry they wrote)!  That’s what home-fellowship is for and, as I’ve stated in previous posts, this is something that should happen in every church but does not deny the validity of the entire local Body getting together for formal worship gatherings.

I finished this chapter (steaming a bit, I must admit!), and wrote in the remaining white space on the last page:

While I can barely get through their divisive, arrogant tone, I do see a lesson here [for our own Community Group meetings]: Open (not eliminate!) the structure, urge more participation, foster more creativity.  Corporate songwriting experiment in small group time, perhaps?

Pagan Christianity doesn’t stop with church buildings and orderly worship.  Since much of this book nauseates me so, I’m going to hurry up a bit, so I can be done with it and – hopefully having convinced a few people to spend their money on better things – get on to more encouraging posts.

What can I say?  I’m a completist.

(Edit: I tried to be brief, but I just have so much to get off my chest about this book!  I was going to try and devote one post to four chapters, but I couldn’t; sorry!)

The sermon.  Here’s the deal: they argue that Paul and Peter and all the apostles’ preaching was not the same as your pastor’s Sunday morning sermon.  They were apostolic workers.  They came, they preached, they empowered the Church, and they left.  What happens on Sunday is derived from “pagan” philosophers who peddled their thoughts and their great whit and wisdom for a buck (PC, pp.89-91).  When pagan philosophers began to get converted to Christ, they just kept using the same oratory skills they had learned, and began using them for the work of Christ.  They became expert teachers who now had captive audiences on Sunday morning.

Green Flag: I will agree with them that the sermon can often be a struggle for me, personally.  I often want to raise my hand, ask for clarification, put in a different take on a passage than that of the preacher, shout, “Preach it!” etc.  Admittedly, the modern setting for the sermon is not conducive to this.  I would love to see a change there; for the pastor to… ask questions (non-rhetorical!), give opportunity for parishioner questions, and take time to discuss the passage at the end.  Robert Webber, in Blended Worship, describes second century worship practices, which would often involve a reading of scripture, followed by the congregation: “The people then stand to comment on what they experienced in the story, together creating their own sermon.” (35).  Granted, I don’t think that our 1-hour-service-mega-churches can do this (and I have my own views on mega-churches), but most smaller congregations, church plants which are under 200-members (my idea of a large church), could easily make their sermons more interactive.  Heck, even the Puritans had this practice!

Red Flags:

1. Okay, the pagans became Christians and began using their skills and gifts for God’s kindgom.  Hmmmm… how is this bad?
2. The Greeks understood the style that was used by the philosophers; it was a language they could understand.  Therefore, it would be a way of communicating the Gospel effectively.
3. Feedback and discussion are often, but not always, warranted.  Sometimes we receive and process what is given; I don’t recall Jesus asking for commentary on the Sermon on the Mount.
4. They argue that the preacher is the star, and that everyone else is the “silent pew warmer” (PC, 98).  That makes me wonder what narrow slice of the Church he has been in in the past few years.  In the past ten years, my experiences with the Church have been with pastors whose sermons were designed to train us to follow Christ and to know how to know Him better thru His words.  I don’t feel like I have been spoon-fed.  Furthermore, the Sunday sermon is less than 1/168 of the week; that leaves the rest of the week for maturing Christians to spend gathering in homes and taking the example of the pastors and their sermons and feeding one another on the Word of Truth.

That said, while sermons can be unhealthy – if they are the only source of teaching and training in the Word available (and if that is the case with your church, you need to start a freaking community group in your home!) – they are often good training.  And, while there is no prescription for a single pastor to give a weekly teaching, there is absolutely no Biblical argument against it, as long as it is designed as part of a balanced spiritual diet, one that frees the rest of the body to encourage and build up one another.  Viola and Barna only know of one tiny slice of the Church, and yet they use that tiny slice to generalize life in the entire Body.

This chapter’s review will only be one post.  It’ll be shorter, and there are hardly any Green Flags.

Barna and Viola have orderly worship down to a science (they think).  Here’s their conclusion about most all “Protestant”* worship:  “The order of worship… includes a three-fold structure: (1) singing, (2) the sermon, and (3) closing prayer or song.”  My, how sad and lame that order sounds; thankfully, that’s not my experience, at all!

What I have experienced in at least the past 10 years of worship (first in a non-denom church in the Reformed tradition called Holy Trinity, and later in the churches of the Anglican Mission in the Americas is what Robert Webber calls the historical “four-fold pattern” of the worshiping church.  That pattern is something I have modeled all worship experiences after (strangely, even before I knew it existed!), dating as far back as 1992!  That pattern is simple, and it has emerged in virtually every worship tradition, from high-church Anglo-Catholic-Orthodox to informal Pentecostal or Baptist traditions (I daresay, even the simplicity of a Quaker service echoes this pattern.

Enough preamble; here it is: Gathering together in God’s presence (this involves songs of procession and praise, and often prayers for forgiveness and words of invocation); the service of the Word (involving the reading of scripture, the teaching, and a response to the message, which can include the Creeds or a time of meditation); the time of Eucharist, or thanksgiving – a chance to respond to the goodness of God, primarily (but not always) through the celebrating of the Gospel in Holy Communion (also, a time for prayer and singing); and a Sending out into the world, in which a benediction is proclaimed and songs of mission and purpose are sung triumphantly – and we are sent out to love and serve Christ with gladness and singleness of heart!

Think about your church worship pattern.  Is it merely song-sermon-song/prayer?  Is it really that pedestrian?  Or – regardless of your tradition – is there something more?  Isn’t there something just… amazing… about entering a time set aside each week to be with the larger body of Christ, to be ushered into His presence (in a special way, not one that diminishes, but augments, our other times with Christ)?  Shouldn’t we love Christ and the wonder of His majesty enough to prepare our hearts, to prepare our thoughts, to prepare our voices?

Now, I’ve been to the churches that have – in some well-meaning attempt to “reach” people – tried to remove the historic four-fold pattern of worship (one that at least goes back to the second century).  The song-sermon-prayer thing sometimes does happen, and it is sad.  But that is not because of some inherent failure or “paganness” of formal worship; it’s because certain churches want to do in the formal gathering what was meant for the living room.  Those churches miss out on the mystery and majesty of God – as much as a church that refuses to acknowledge God’s majesty in the first place.

Two more things: 1) They give a very weak and non-detailed argument that the Catholic/Orthodox liturgies (from which all our worship – in one way or another – is descended) are taken from “pagan” forms.  This troubled me, until it occurred to me that, that may be just what the Holy Spirit had in mind.  In their bold and insightful work, Colossians Remixed, Brian Walsh and Sylvia Keesmaat explain that many, many terms and titles attributed to Christ by Paul in the letter to the Colossians were terms originally used to describe the Caesars!  They argue that he meant that as a direct assault on the “genius of Caesar” while at the same time giving Christ the glory due His Name.  Does the origin of these terms cheapen or dilute the power of the words?  Not in any way!  In a similar way, we (and Viola and Barna, no doubt) use things our culture can relate to (we co-opt the titles of the Caesars of our day) to allow people in our culture to better grasp and understand the good news of Jesus (coffeeshop ministries come to mind).  I imagine that the use of “pagan” forms in Christian worship had a similar noble (and biblical) purpose.  If those patterns had then faded with their usefulness, I’d say, great; but they haven’t.  Something tells me they have a purpose when something like the Doxology or the Creeds or the Prayers of the People unite millions around the world every Sunday.

2) Viola and Barna argue – toward the end of the chapter – that organized, patterned worship in a formal setting makes Christians into passive recipients.  While I disagree that it necessarily does this (I’ve never felt more vibrant than when participating in responsive readings at a very traditional Episcopal church near Seabrook Island, SC), I would also suggest that active participation is not always biblical.  “Be still, and know that I am God.”  That’s what much formal worship does calls me to.  And it sounds like God sometimes wants us to just… receive.

Here’s an email from my friend/brother/priest, Alan Hawkins.  Alan is a church-planter in the Anglican Mission in the Americas, and is passionate about building community and enabling the saints to minister to one another.  Here are his thoughts on the recent posts:

Hey Tom,

10.  The thing I have been becoming comfortably disturbed by is the fact that the church has the Gospel (a perfect message of redemption, love, forgiveness, etc.) and at the same time the church lives completely inconsistently in that message.  Perfection comes in the next life!

A few last words on Chapter 2 of PC. Then, I promise, I will be less… yeah, I guess “wordy” is the correct term!… in the rest of the posts.

I think that Viola and Barna are teetering on the edge of (or have jumped headlong into) a legalism that could really go to further splitting the Church.  This book could be a whole lot more constructive and useful, were it not written in such combative, adversarial language.  This book’s tone doesn’t invite discussion – it squashes it.

A better book for looking at the need for getting the Body of Christ out of the sanctuary to take part in home-based worship is The Second Reformation by William A. Beckham.  While not a perfect book (I’ve only read one perfect Book!) it has a great sense for the balance of whole-Church formal worship and home-based fellowship; he refers to churches that only meet in one as a “one-winged church”; the “two-winged church” sees the need for recognizing the majesty of God in formal gatherings as the local Body of Christ in public settings, and also the need (and deep desire of Christians everywhere) to really share life with a small, consistently caring home-based fellowship.

Acts 2:46 shows that the early house-church fellowships would gather together in public places very regularly, and then disperse to respective homes.  The Bible refers to the balance of “the temple” and “house to house”.  There is precedent for a balance of large and small gatherings.

The thing that’s really important to recall, however, is that the Bible never says, “Follow these laws about how to gather; wear these clothes and meet with this many people; oh, and don’t you dare meet in public too often!”  There are principles to take note of: we are all His temple; we are a priesthood of believers; we are to meet together, and everyone has something to offer.  But there are no hard and fast rules about how that is to be carried out.

As you might have guessed if you read my previous post, I don’t think Viola and Barna’s chapter (in Pagan Christianity?) on church architecture is without its problems.  Here are a few (in my mind) glaring issues:

1. Frank and George seem to denigrate the visual arts in worship (though they do not think it worth devoting a chapter to).  Their basic argument seems to be that it originated with honoring dead saints.  Two problems with that: a) what’s wrong with honoring those who have gone before us?  Honoring that “great cloud of witnesses” is far from idolatry; b) the origin of the first Christian worship art is irrelevant – the question is, how do we use the arts in our worship?  Art can be used in so many edifying and God-honoring ways!
2. In addition to many things that the Constantinian era brought from Roman culture into the new church buildings, “The Roman custom of beginning a service with processional music was adopted… Choirs were developed and brought into the Christian Church.” (25) etc. etc. etc.  All I could say to this was what Barna himself said in the introduction to the book, “we cannot avoid bringing our culture into the church”.  I have yet to see how processionals and choirs, regardless of their origins, detract from the worship of the Church.  As a former raging Petra fan (okay – I’m still a ragin Petra fan!), I’ve seen God take, redeem and use many things from the “world” for His glory!  To paraphrase Larry Norman, “Why should the devil get all the good choirs and processionals?”  Viola and Barna – as I will opine in my posts about Chapter 3 – are woefully unconvincing in their arguments that formal worship is unedifying to the Body of Christ.
3. [The Gothic cathedrals] relied heavily on the teachings of the … Greek philosopher Plato.  Plato taught that sound, color, and light have lofty mystical meanings.  They can induce moods and help bring one closer to the ‘Eternal Good’.  The Gothic designers took Plato’s teachings and set them to brick and stone.” The authors argue that the influence of a “pagan philosopher” is somehow negative and manipulative; that the use of color, awe and beauty somehow puts parishioners in the wrong frame of mind.  I would argue that art and beauty, being an inherent part of our being created in God’s creative image, belong in the Church, whether in a Gothic cathedral or an apartment living room!
4. To continue from #3, “So with its use of light, color and excessive height, the Gothic cathedral fostered a sense of mystery, transcendance and awe… borrowed from Plato and passed off as Christian.” (29)  Two thoughts: a) Is a sense of awe really so bad in the presence of God?  b) On a personal note, I recall my Chrysalis walk – a youth retreat in the tradition of the Catholic Cursillo.  I spent a three-day weekend at Greene St. United Methodist Church in Piqua, Ohio (the most beautiful, majestic church building in all of Ohio, as far as I’m concerned).  The sanctuary was big, old and beautiful.  The back of the balcony, if I recall correctly, was adorned with a large mural depicting a Bible story.  The sense of awe I had in that place had a lasting impact on me, but not in the way that the authors warn; the smells, the echos, the cold stone mixed with warm company – these set the stage for a life-changing event in my life.  The sense of awe prepared me to receive what God had for me.  I don’t see that as a negative.
5. “The main message of Gothic architecture is: ‘God is transcendant and unreachable – so be awed at His majesty.’  But such a message defies the message of the Gospel…” (30) Since when?  Emmanuel, God-with-us, the intimate Lover of our souls, is awesome and majestic.  He is the most wonderful of paradoxes!  If Viola has lost touch with God’s transcendance, then I fear for him.  And, by the way, I’ve been in some rather majestic cathedrals, and many of those times I have felt closer to God than ever; somehow acknowledging his transcendance brings us closer to Him!

They go on and on… through the evolution of the church building… some of their arguments are compelling (see yesterday’s post), and some are ridiculous (they compare the steeple to the Tower of Babel).  But the crux of the argument is: the church building is a barrier to ministry and must be done away with!

I’d say, no, they are a tool and need to be taken off the pedestal we have set up for them.  Is the church-building-versus-home-church argument really a matter of either-or?  Or is it possibly one of both-and?  In my last post, I recommended a few ways we could use our buildings in new ways, such as various parishes sharing buildings.  Of course, many who read this chapter of the book (such as church plants, and my own tradition of the Anglican Mission in America, many of whom lost their buildings as they left the fold of ECUSA) will find the question moot; they are already doing the first-century-church practice of renting spaces and meeting in homes!

I may have another post in me on this topic…

In Chapter 2 of Pagan Christianity (hereafter, PC), Viola and Barna take on both the history and value of the traditional church building. I’m going to go over some of the highlights of this chapter.

How I’d like to handle these chapters is to list what I call “Green Flags” (things that really ring true), “Red Flags” (things that don’t ring true or seem illogical) and neutral, interesting points (such as interesting facts, “so what?” statements and books cited that I just may want on my Christmas list – often from writers Viola doesn’t seem to like!).  If I get really wordy (like this post) I will divide Green and Red into two posts over two days.  Today: the Green Flags!

Green Flags:

1. “The New Testament always reserves the word church (ekklesia) for the people of God.  It never uses this word to refer to a building of any sort.” (14)  Amen to that!  The Church is the people of God.  No argument there.
2. “Meeting in homes was a conscious choice of the early Christians.” (15)  And it is a conscious choice of the organic fellowship groups we’ve been involved with for the past nine years!  Of course, this leads to a bit of a Red Flag (see below)!
3. “These homes [where the Church met] were never called temples.” (15)  Jesus is the Temple.  Amen and amen.
4. [Basilicas, the first dedicated "church" buildings, promoted by Constantine] were wonderful for seating passive and docile crowds to watch a performance.  This was one of the reasons why Constantine chose the basilica model.” (22)  This is one of the greatest arguments against church buildings as they stand today: creating the weekly “show” that has emerged in so many congregations (“The concert and the pep talk”, as I have mentioned).  While I will later argue (in the next post) that being a mere recipient is sometimes a good and godly thing, I think that this criticism of church buildings is quite legit; it calls to mind Robert Webber’s advice that we as a Church need to remove the terminology of “stage”, “audience” and “performance” from our worship vocabularies (Planning Blended Worship – sorry!  I couldn’t find the exact page yet!).
5. “… a loss of intimacy and open participation…” (25)  For the solution to this, I will refer you to the Red Flags below; however, I agree that intimacy and open participation need to be restored, and the BCB (big church building) doesn’t really lend itself to this!
6. After describing the long evolution of the church building sanctuary, the authors describe the pulpit, which “elevates the clergy to a position of prominence… it puts the preacher at center ’stage’ – separating and replacing him high above God’s people.” (34) This criticism resonates with me; as my friend/pastor Alan would say (ironically, in this case), “That’ll preach!”  I think that sanctuary designers are enslaved by certain preconceptions: elevated stage, rows of pews (or folding chairs), everything facing in one, boring direction toward the pulpit.  Why can’t we mix things up a bit?
7. “Every building we encounter… explicitly shows us what the church is and how it functions… it teaches what is important and what is not.” (37-8)  I think that to fool people into thinking that the pretty buildings on the corner are “the Church” is to rob many of what could be an invitation, to “close the doors of heaven” on many who would come over for dinner a decade before setting foot in a church narthex.  You’ll see below that I do not totally agree with a completely negative assessment of the church building, but I do intensely agree that we need to change the image that the word “church” places in people’s minds.  “[Certain] Social locations can teach good and godly people very bad lessons and choke their lives together.” (38)
8. (The BIG Green Flag) “Most contemporary Christians mistakenly view the church building as a necessary part of worship… [but] real estate owned by institutional churches today is worth over $230 billion.  Church building debt, service, and maintenance consumes about 18 percent of the $50 to $60 billion tithed to churches annually.” (41, emphasis mine)  The authors argue that a house church can use “more than 95 percent of its shared money for delivering … ministry, mission and outreach to the world.” (41)  I just kept nodding and nodding during this portion!  Owning a church building, versus the early-church habit of converting homes or renting buildings for worship and fellowship, is so often just a waste!

Okay… before going on to the Red Flags tomorrow, (believe it or not, I have mental room for some…) I will offer a few final thoughts about the merits of this chapter:

I have begun chanting (much to the irritation of a few friends), “The Church around the world need never, ever build another church building!”  Now, before you get all mad and tell me all the reasons why this is a horrible thing to say, let me suggest something: some churches are so large and could so easily share their space with smaller parishes and congregations!  What if your local megachurch (I’ll pick on Calvary Church in Charlotte, NC, for example) offered three or four smaller churches (plants, aging congregations) a very modest rent to use their space?  What if a lot of their weekday activities (Bible studies, ESL classes, knitting circles, choir practice, youth group etc.) were transfered to other locations such as parks or homes so that smaller congregations could hold their weekly services (any given day of the week or rotating churches on a given Sunday) in their sanctuary?  What if a 30-member parish met in the fellowship hall while a 90-member congregation met at the same time in the prayer-chapel?  Oh, and all that rent can help the megachurches honor God by aiding in paying off those ridiculous mortgages that waste God’s money.

I’ve been part of three churches that shared buildings.  I hear it’s rather common in other countries.  It forces congregations to acknowledge each other and to cooperate.  That can’t be a bad thing!

While we’re at it, what if we did some major redecoration, like putting the pews in a circle around the pulpit so people could see each other?  Or, like many liturgical churches, why don’t we put the pulpit off to the side?  Many churches never plan on buying a building, and I think they are happier for it!

These are just a few ideas.  I’m sure a creative Body of Christ can come up with some major great ideas!  I’d love to hear them.  Here’s my one rule: please don’t comment just to say, “Church buildings are evil!  Burn ‘em all!”  Let’s dialogue on creative, constructive things to do with the buildings already in our possession.

Let me preface this review with a few quotes from the authors of Pagan Christianity?, Frank Viola and George Barna.

On page xxix, Barna’s introduction states that, “We cannot avoid bringing our culture to the church with us; it is a part of our very being.  But in the light of tradition we need to sort out those cultural influences that contribute to the integrity of Christian worship from those that detract from it.”

Later, Viola writes, “The fact is that we do many things in our culture that have pagan roots… our accepted calendar.  The days of our week and the months of our year are named after pagan gods.”  He then argues that a certain practice is wrong, not because of its pagan roots, but because “it does not lead to the spiritual growth God intended.” (75)

Well, I guess that that is what is at issue.  While the authors of this interesting volume want to argue against many (many!) “institutional church” practices based (at first glance) on the fact that they have “pagan” origin, when we get down to it, their book argues something else: stifled growth in the body, suppressed freedom and passivity are the main issue; origins are secondary.  They themselves have said above that cultural influences (including pagan ones) are acceptable, as long as they don’t stifle the growth of the believing community.

I couldn’t agree more!

What I will share in future posts is my enthusiastic agreement – and strong disagreement – with many of the conclusions that they draw from this confused thesis (Is the problem pagan origins or stifled growth?  Their minds were not demonstrably made up at the date of publication).

Next up: The (pagan) Church Building…