May 2011 DISCUSSION: Pagan Christianity by Frank Viola and George Barna

[LaylaMonroe]

With which part do you think you disagree--the 'not everyone is called part' or the 'everyone can dissect the Word' part?

I mean, we don't have the phrase 'jack-legged preacher' for nothin', right?   We KNOW that cats can manipulate the Word for profit and nothing more, right?



I think I may have to retract my 'everyone' can dissect the Word.  Some folks can, and do, come up with faulty interpretations of scripture. 

The not everyone is called part.

But I'll admit I haven't given it enough thought to have an opinion one way or the other. I'm just realizing that my stance (which is the same as yours) is rooted in my upbringing; it's one of the many things that was given to me.

I guess I'd want to start by asking (myself) the question: what IS preaching (Biblically, not traditionally or historically)?

OAN, I do believe that, with the help of the Holy Ghost, everyone CAN discuss and dissect the Word. The Bible wouldn't have told us to study it so that we can rightly divide it if righteous division weren't possible.

[blyempowered]

Based on my observation preaching is more for proclamation particularly reaching the unsaved. When I get home Ill do some more study. Very good question LaRue.

[phbrown]

So I agree with Finney but not sure if I agree that anything necessary can and should be done. Now some argue that personal preference is fine when there's nothing specific in the Bible mentioned....hmmmm.

I remember in my history class a teacher told us that when some missionaries first came to the Americas. They would preach the gospel to the Native Americans after they captured them.

If the native said they believe that Jesus is Lord They would chop off their head! That way the native wouldn't sin again

And then if the Native said they did not believe that Jesus is Lord guess what?

They would Chop off their head! Cause they were lost.

[LaylaMonroe]

Based on my observation preaching is more for proclamation particularly reaching the unsaved. When I get home Ill do some more study. Very good question LaRue.

Yeah, observation just isn't cutting it for me these days. I need to know what the Word says/implies.

As I said, I haven't studied this subject at all. But off the top of my head, the examples I'm thinking of make it clear that preaching isn't Biblically defined as a message shared for the purpose of reaching the unsaved. I think that's another one of those things WE defined for ourselves, packaged and sold... and now it's law. Just like the idea that preaching is for the lost, teaching is for the saints, or the notion that Sunday service is for preaching and Wednesday Bible Study (or other classes) is for teaching. Where'd that come from? US.

[phbrown]

I guess I'd want to start by asking (myself) the question: what IS preaching (Biblically, not traditionally or historically)?

hmm ... umm ... wow. ...

Preaching = Teaching to me ... but I just made that up so i could be wrong

[blyempowered]

I disagree phbrown. Preaching and teaching has two distinct purposes, at least based on my understanding.

@LaRue yeah I've been trying to figure out how we came to the conclusion that Sunday should be preaching and throughout the week its teaching. I vehemently disagree with that notion.

[LaylaMonroe]

Well I'm going to try to get started on my response to Ch3. Basically, I want to focus on the four things listed in the "What is Wrong with this Picture" section on pgs 74-79.

The authors start the four-item list by saying "Not only is the traditional order of service unscriptural and heavily influenced by paganism (which runs contrary to what is often preached from the pulpit), it does not lead to the spiritual growth God intended."  Then they ask you to consider these four points.

1. The Protestant order of worship represses mutual participation and the growth of Christian community.

I disagreed with this entire section, since their premise was that there is "absolutely no room" for anyone to share anything at all in today's protestant church and that the current order of worship "silences" church members. Although I think there could've been a point in there somewhere, I found this to be quite an exaggeration since today's churches have small groups, interactive classes, devotion/testimony service, and lots and lots of fellowship opportunities.

2. Second, the Protestant order of worship strangles the headship of Jesus Christ.

Can't say I thought of it like that before, but I can agree with that statement, and the subsequent explanation. One statement that had a heavy impact on me was "Jesus Christ has no freedom to express Himself through His body at His discretion. He too is rendered a passive spectator." That was... whew... I'd love to hear your feedback on that bold statement. I used bold because we'd all agree that Jesus has freedom to express Himself in our worship services, but is it truly AT HIS DISCRETION? Idk... I don't think so. Even our little line at the bottom of the programs "subject to change by the move of the Holy Spirit" makes me roll my eyes because it's just a meaningless caveat when weighed against what really takes place in worship services.

I also underlined the "huge tongue, many little ears" metaphor. Though it pains me to acknowledge it, and I'm sure it would most others, the truth is that overall, we DO come to church primarily to hear what the Pastor has to say. That's unfortunate, but true.

To be continued...

[LaylaMonroe]

Continued....

3. Third, for many Christians, the Sunday morning service is shamefully boring.

I have to disagree. The Sunday morning service is a lot of things, many of which are distasteful or unfortunate... but boring isn't one of them. The authors need to step foot in the Pentecostal or Apostolic church and get a taste of our flavor. It's anything but boring. From the spirited invocation or intercessory prayer (complete with preaching chords played in the background), to the banging choirs, to the upbeat offering selections, to the charismatic and artistic preaching, praise breaks... there's never a dull moment. Even communion is rarely solemn in the Apostolic church. We goes IN on communion... lol. Barna and Viola may want to come visit GKC. 

Another comment from this point is that I thought they were quite contradictory in their claims that the Protestant church of today offers "little in the way of freshness or innovation." What do you want, New Testament church or innovative church? I'm not sure I understand how you could have both.

I did wholly agree with this quote, and found it quite disturbing (though it's nothing I didn't already know):

This is done to market worship to the unchurched. Employing the latest electronic technology, seeker-sensitive churches have been successful at swelling their ranks.

SMH @ us. And to think, I've been teaching this stuff for years... SMH.

4. Fourth, the Protestant liturgy that you quietly sit through every Sunday, year after year, actually hinders spiritual transformation.

I mostly agree with this, but with some inexplicable reluctance. I agree that it does encourage passivity, as they asserted. It does limit functioning, too... but I'm not positive that I can say that it implies in and of itself that putting in one hour per week is the key to victorious Christian lifestyle (although I think some denominations do seem to give that impression).

I agree that "we grow by functioning, not by passively watching and listening" and thought that was a solid point.


Other random observations:

On page 75, they referred to the days of the week as being named after pagan gods. We just discussed that in our Ch2 convo.  Aren't we smart?

I thought there was a very interesting point on p71 at the bottom: "yet it does not map well with the mind-set of the first-century Christians who did not appear to be pressured into trying to get the entire world saved in one generation."

That caused me to wonder... what exactly was the mission of the 1st Century Church? Hmmm...

[blyempowered]

Well I'm going to try to get started on my response to Ch3. Basically, I want to focus on the four things listed in the "What is Wrong with this Picture" section on pgs 74-79.

The authors start the four-item list by saying "Not only is the traditional order of service unscriptural and heavily influenced by paganism (which runs contrary to what is often preached from the pulpit), it does not lead to the spiritual growth God intended."  Then they ask you to consider these four points.

1. The Protestant order of worship represses mutual participation and the growth of Christian community.

I disagreed with this entire section, since their premise was that there is "absolutely no room" for anyone to share anything at all in today's protestant church and that the current order of worship "silences" church members. Although I think there could've been a point in there somewhere, I found this to be quite an exaggeration since today's churches have small groups, interactive classes, devotion/testimony service, and lots and lots of fellowship opportunities.

2. Second, the Protestant order of worship strangles the headship of Jesus Christ.

Can't say I thought of it like that before, but I can agree with that statement, and the subsequent explanation. One statement that had a heavy impact on me was "Jesus Christ has no freedom to express Himself through His body at His discretion. He too is rendered a passive spectator." That was... whew... I'd love to hear your feedback on that bold statement. I used bold because we'd all agree that Jesus has freedom to express Himself in our worship services, but is it truly AT HIS DISCRETION? Idk... I don't think so. Even our little line at the bottom of the programs "subject to change by the move of the Holy Spirit" makes me roll my eyes because it's just a meaningless caveat when weighed against what really takes place in worship services.

I also underlined the "huge tongue, many little ears" metaphor. Though it pains me to acknowledge it, and I'm sure it would most others, the truth is that overall, we DO come to church primarily to hear what the Pastor has to say. That's unfortunate, but true.

To be continued...

Very good stuff!

1. I think his point is that the Sunday worship service hour should be totally open for everyone to speak. So when he says "absolutely no room" he may have been talking about the worship service hour. But I was thinking (like you said) that small groups, testimony service, etc., may be that "open-participation" element. But he wants that open-participation element in every aspect of church.

2. You know I was thinking about the "service subject to change" thing on the programs. I kind of looked at it as positive. Never really thought of it the way you put it. And yeah, I think Jesus is not the main feature of many services in the church. Jesus is kind of on the side pew while everything else is being High and lifted up. And as you said, many do come to church to hear the pastor. Again, that's why I believe many people join the church primarily because of the pastor and not the overall aspect of the church.

[LaylaMonroe]

What happens if you have bunch of introverts? for example lets say LL, Sketchman, and Myself are gather together ... I can pretty much guarantee that LL will do all of the talking and Sketch might fiddle with his ukulele and I might play around with my bass.

I think that's fine as long as everyone else has the opportunity to share or minister and it's not the LL show, which is what today's church is... mostly. It's a show starring Pastor Superstar and First Lady Diva, co-starring Josie and the Pussycats Praise Team.

Cultural differences work the same way. even in a spontaneous environment what you think is important is what is going to happen *shrug*

Huh?

I thought (I may need to re read this portion to see what the author was trying to point out) the reason for pragmatism was because if it isn't going against what the bible says then it is up to personal preference?

That's what many believe. I'm not one of the many.

[LaylaMonroe]

Hmmmm.

Some would argue that because of different contexts (Bible context vs contemporary context) that things must change and some things that were in the Biblical context can't be applied to the contemporary context. Does context matter or not? This may be digging deeper than expected.....lol....but the "contextual" argument is used a lot to justify the "personal preference" thing.

Context definitely matters. Even most literalists will concede that it matters, at least to an extent.

[blyempowered]

Here are a few quotes I found on preaching:

"Human presentation, through the Holy Spirit's power, of God's acts of salvation through Jesus Christ. This proclamation of God's revelation functions as God's chosen instrument for bringing us to salvation by grace. "

"The great prophets of the OT heralded God's direct messages against the sins of the people, told of coming judgements, and held out future hope of the great Day of the Lord."-Deuteronomy 11:19, Nehemiah 8:7-9, 2 Chronicles 15:1-2; 17:7-9; 35:3.

"Although the NT uses some 30 different terms to describe the preaching of John the Baptist, Jesus, and the apostles, those most commonly used can be grouped under either proclamation (to herald, to evangelize) or doctrine (to teach). Many scholars define these emphases as either gospel preaching (proclaiming salvation in Christ) or pastoral teaching (instructing, admonishing, and exhorting believers in doctrine and lifestyle). -Acts 7:1-53, Acts 2, Colossians 1:28, Ephesians 4:11-16; Acts 20:17-21, 27), 1 Timothy 4:13-16; 5:17.

[phbrown]

2. You know I was thinking about the "service subject to change" thing on the programs. I kind of looked at it as positive. Never really thought of it the way you put it. And yeah, I think Jesus is not the main feature of many services in the church. Jesus is kind of on the side pew while everything else is being High and lifted up. And as you said, many do come to church to hear the pastor. Again, that's why I believe many people join the church primarily because of the pastor and not the overall aspect of the church.

so, is the author saying that Jesus isn't powerful enough to be in charge of a worship service if he wanted to?

To me it seems like the author is saying that the order of service is more powerful than Jesus... *shrug*

[blyempowered]

That's what I interpret too....*shrug*

[LaylaMonroe]

Oh wow! And sorry I think we were both typing at the same time.....LOL!!

But let me ask you this: does this "spontaneity" of worship go against in some form your emphasis on order and structure? I'm just asking to be asking....LOL!

Yes, it does. But as I mentioned, the Lord is helping me to reconcile it all through revelatory insight and study of the Word. I experienced, and in some way, I'm still experiencing, major internal conflict with this book. It's causing me to question much of which I believe, teach, and establish. Although I would never wear such a huge title, I unquestionably do the work of an Apostle. I build, establish, correct, train, sow, and mentor, and I do so with the calling to restore order and structure to the church. I accepted my calling about twenty years ago, and on top of all that, I have a lifetime of exposure to the Pentecostal worship experience (and 5 years in the Baptist church). This is really all I know, and it's what I've held dear for my entire life. So yes, it is hard as heck to put all this stuff together and figure out what God is saying to me and what it means to my ministry and my calling.

But it's all starting to make sense.

And this week, I'm realizing that spontaneous worship doesn't in any way conflict with order and structure. One can have a spontaneous worship experience and still operate in order and with structure, and likewise, the opposites can also take place (spontaneous with disorder, not spontaneous with order, not spontaneous with disorder). So, the gift of government is still needed and relevant, even in spontaneous worship, just as it was in the New Testament.

[LaylaMonroe]

so, is the author saying that Jesus isn't powerful enough to be in charge of a worship service if he wanted to?

To me it seems like the author is saying that the order of service is more powerful than Jesus... *shrug*

That's what I interpret too....*shrug*

No, I think he's saying that Jesus won't force our hands so as to take over when He doesn't appear to be welcomed the way He wants to be welcomed. Remember that our God is a jealous God. He won't have any other gods before Him (and we can make an order of service, a pastor, a song, an auxiliary, or any other idol into a god) and He won't compete for our worship.

I don't think Jesus would take charge of a worship service if He wasn't welcomed in it as the center of it. Plus, can we even call it a worship service if He's not at the center?

[blyempowered]

Oooo good thoughts!

[blyempowered]

Its like Jesus is standing at the door and knocking and the door hasn't been opened due to them being too busy with other stuff.

[chevonee]

This is some very good stuff in this thread. Man I can't wait to get my book hopefully this week. I have to admit though, that this book is probably going to magnify a conflict that I have been dealing with for a long time with the way churches function these days. It seems like people would rather glorify the Pastor than glorify God.

Anywho lemme get outta here and finish reading the earlier posts in this thread.

[blyempowered]

Here are a few quotes I found on preaching:

"Human presentation, through the Holy Spirit's power, of God's acts of salvation through Jesus Christ. This proclamation of God's revelation functions as God's chosen instrument for bringing us to salvation by grace. "

"The great prophets of the OT heralded God's direct messages against the sins of the people, told of coming judgements, and held out future hope of the great Day of the Lord."-Deuteronomy 11:19, Nehemiah 8:7-9, 2 Chronicles 15:1-2; 17:7-9; 35:3.

"Although the NT uses some 30 different terms to describe the preaching of John the Baptist, Jesus, and the apostles, those most commonly used can be grouped under either proclamation (to herald, to evangelize) or doctrine (to teach). Many scholars define these emphases as either gospel preaching (proclaiming salvation in Christ) or pastoral teaching (instructing, admonishing, and exhorting believers in doctrine and lifestyle). -Acts 7:1-53, Acts 2, Colossians 1:28, Ephesians 4:11-16; Acts 20:17-21, 27), 1 Timothy 4:13-16; 5:17.

According to this last quote, preaching boils down to 2 categories: proclamation and pastoral teaching. In your opinion, how much of contemporary black church preaching falls in any of these 2 categories?

One of the major problems with church is not having preaching/teaching that challenges a change in action. Even though I believe in encouragement/empowerment preaching, sometimes that preaching does not cause for us to evaluate ourselves and see if we contribute to some of the problems being preached. For example, the "hater" phenomenon makes some good points but at the same time every problem we have in our lives is not because of "haters" but also because of ourselves at times. To me, too much of our preaching is focused on ourselves and not challenging us to do better in our lives or in helping others. I don't care how many empowerment/encouraging messages are preached, there should still be some element of application and ministry within.