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

[phbrown]

[phbrown]

Question: Why did we start reading this particular book again?

[blyempowered]

This won't answer your question but I like this book because it challenges traditional views of how we do church. I've said for a long time that I believe a good bit of what happens in church is manmade.

Yet this book discourages me (as evidenced in lounge) because I'm not totally sure we'll get back to that blueprint because we can't even agree if its a blueprint or foundation. To me, pragmatism has won historically and continues to win.

Idk...now I'm rambling....LOL!

[sjonathan02]

@SJ irt PHB's assessment, I agree. Quite tactful.

That said, although the wind has departed from my sails, I was definitely enjoying the book and moreso the dialogue. I see no reason we can't get back on track if everyone wants to.

I know personally it'll take some effort to readjust my focus, but I'm willing if y'all still want to.

I agree with the above poster.

[lordluvr]

I'm still in.  I don't know if it's the writing style or the fact that I'm always looking for good supporting evidence that the author(s) don't produce until I'm ready to totally discount their statements, but I did lose interest in the book at some point. 

[LaylaMonroe]

One thing that I agree with (Ch7) is that our musical worship CAN (and in many cases HAS) become more like entertainment than corporate worship. Don't get me wrong, as a musical person, I love the entertainment (lol) because I love good music, good vocals, good harmony, modulations, inversions, staccato, vibrato, and other dynamics. But what I love most is the purity of worship and a lot of times we lose that with the entertainment.

Just a point.

[lordluvr]

One thing that I agree with (Ch7) is that our musical worship CAN (and in many cases HAS) become more like entertainment than corporate worship. Don't get me wrong, as a musical person, I love the entertainment (lol) because I love good music, good vocals, good harmony, modulations, inversions, staccato, vibrato, and other dynamics. But what I love most is the purity of worship and a lot of times we lose that with the entertainment.

Just a point.

Point taken, and agreed with.

[sjonathan02]

One thing that I agree with (Ch7) is that our musical worship CAN (and in many cases HAS) become more like entertainment than corporate worship. Don't get me wrong, as a musical person, I love the entertainment (lol) because I love good music, good vocals, good harmony, modulations, inversions, staccato, vibrato, and other dynamics. But what I love most is the purity of worship and a lot of times we lose that with the entertainment.

Just a point.

Yep, I concur.  At the same time, this isn't something new for me.  I've this very thing on this site a few times. 

[blyempowered]

So did the author convince any of you all that we should get rid of choirs, praise teams ,etc., and just go totally to congregational singing?






















Why am I asking this?.....LOL!

[LaylaMonroe]

So a question (that we've discussed a zillion times over) to revisit: can God still get the glory if we don't sound good? If we just all sing, and maybe sound a mess, no rehearsal, no perfection, no excellence, will He receive our gifts and be as pleased as He would be if we did it the "professional" way?

[sjonathan02]

So did the author convince any of you all that we should get rid of choirs, praise teams ,etc., and just go totally to congregational singing?






















Why am I asking this?.....LOL!

Nope.

[sjonathan02]

So a question (that we've discussed a zillion times over) to revisit: can God still get the glory if we don't sound good? If we just all sing, and maybe sound a mess, no rehearsal, no perfection, no excellence, will He receive our gifts and be as pleased as He would be if we did it the "professional" way?

I believe God gave gifts to be used to edify the body. As a result, I believe the focus of music ministries need to be more inclusive than exclusive.

I don't possess the mind of God so I can't answer as to what pleases Him concerning the sound of music.

[blyempowered]

So a question (that we've discussed a zillion times over) to revisit: can God still get the glory if we don't sound good? If we just all sing, and maybe sound a mess, no rehearsal, no perfection, no excellence, will He receive our gifts and be as pleased as He would be if we did it the "professional" way?

Hmmm. That's a good question LaRue!

[blyempowered]

So a question (that we've discussed a zillion times over) to revisit: can God still get the glory if we don't sound good? If we just all sing, and maybe sound a mess, no rehearsal, no perfection, no excellence, will He receive our gifts and be as pleased as He would be if we did it the "professional" way?

Well it seems like the author is arguing throughout the book that "professionalism" goes against what God originally intended for the church to be. I think that point has some merit. Yet (especially when it comes to music ministry and other stuff) the verse about doing everything unto the Lord pops into my mind. To be honest, I've traditionally be on the side that says "as long as you give God your best, all he's looking at is your heart." I remember us having discussions of excellence and I think I argued that to me, excellence is subjective. Yet over the last 2-3 years my perspective has been challenged and reading this book challenges my perspective again.

Again, I do think certain things in church are made way more complicated than what they were intended to be but I feel like our culture affects how we think about church and everything else. Our culture is big on perfection, making an impression, etc., and that attitude is in the church as well.

Very good question LaRue!

[lordluvr]

So a question (that we've discussed a zillion times over) to revisit: can God still get the glory if we don't sound good? If we just all sing, and maybe sound a mess, no rehearsal, no perfection, no excellence, will He receive our gifts and be as pleased as He would be if we did it the "professional" way?

Here's the way I see it:

If we have a designated praise team and musicians, and there is a scheduled practice time.  There should be absolutely no reason to come away with a product that is not polished.  And, if a designated praise team with designated musicians with designated practice time(s) come together on a Sunday morning sounding a hot mess, ain't no way God is glorified in that, because the product shows where the heart is.  If the praise team and musicians are willing to offer up just anything, they're no better than Nadab and Abihu (Aaron's sons who offered up strange fire).  And we know how God felt concerning their offering. 

Beyond that, the word says in Psalm 33:

"1 ¶  Rejoice in the LORD, O ye righteous: for praise is comely for the upright.
2  Praise the LORD with harp: sing unto him with the psaltery and an instrument of ten strings.
3  Sing unto him a new song; play skilfully with a loud noise."

It didn't only say "make a loud noise".

Having said that, when a group of people gather together, with hearts on fire for the Lord, and they sing songs of praise and can't one of them hold a note, it won't matter, because their heart is in their praise.  And their love of God is shown in just the desire to give him praise.

Why is the 2nd example acceptable and the first not?  Because, in the first example, the lack of effort to perfect the song through rehearsal shows their heart toward God.  If you chose to be on the praise team, you are akin to the Levites whose job it was to minister unto the Lord.  Ain't no half-steppin' when it's your "job". 

[blyempowered]

Here's the way I see it:

If we have a designated praise team and musicians, and there is a scheduled practice time.  There should be absolutely no reason to come away with a product that is not polished.  And, if a designated praise team with designated musicians with designated practice time(s) come together on a Sunday morning sounding a hot mess, ain't no way God is glorified in that, because the product shows where the heart is.  If the praise team and musicians are willing to offer up just anything, they're no better than Nadab and Abihu (Aaron's sons who offered up strange fire).  And we know how God felt concerning their offering. 

Beyond that, the word says in Psalm 33:

"1 ¶  Rejoice in the LORD, O ye righteous: for praise is comely for the upright.
2  Praise the LORD with harp: sing unto him with the psaltery and an instrument of ten strings.
3  Sing unto him a new song; play skilfully with a loud noise."

It didn't only say "make a loud noise".

Having said that, when a group of people gather together, with hearts on fire for the Lord, and they sing songs of praise and can't one of them hold a note, it won't matter, because their heart is in their praise.  And their love of God is shown in just the desire to give him praise.

Why is the 2nd example acceptable and the first not?  Because, in the first example, the lack of effort to perfect the song through rehearsal shows their heart toward God.  If you chose to be on the praise team, you are akin to the Levites whose job it was to minister unto the Lord.  Ain't no half-steppin' when it's your "job".

Good points! The author would argue though that the Old Testament can not be used when discussing how the New Testament church should function. What do you think?

That's why when it's all said and done I personally believe this issue (and many of the issues we've discussed and will discuss) boils down to this: What is the role of the Old Testament in the life of a New Testament/Post-Apostolic age believer? I say this because a lot of what happens in the church traditionally is to some degree supported by the old testament.

[sjonathan02]

Here's the way I see it:

If we have a designated praise team and musicians, and there is a scheduled practice time.  There should be absolutely no reason to come away with a product that is not polished.  And, if a designated praise team with designated musicians with designated practice time(s) come together on a Sunday morning sounding a hot mess, ain't no way God is glorified in that, because the product shows where the heart is.  If the praise team and musicians are willing to offer up just anything, they're no better than Nadab and Abihu (Aaron's sons who offered up strange fire).  And we know how God felt concerning their offering. 

Beyond that, the word says in Psalm 33:

"1 ¶  Rejoice in the LORD, O ye righteous: for praise is comely for the upright.
2  Praise the LORD with harp: sing unto him with the psaltery and an instrument of ten strings.
3  Sing unto him a new song; play skilfully with a loud noise."

It didn't only say "make a loud noise".

Having said that, when a group of people gather together, with hearts on fire for the Lord, and they sing songs of praise and can't one of them hold a note, it won't matter, because their heart is in their praise.  And their love of God is shown in just the desire to give him praise.

Why is the 2nd example acceptable and the first not?  Because, in the first example, the lack of effort to perfect the song through rehearsal shows their heart toward God.  If you chose to be on the praise team, you are akin to the Levites whose job it was to minister unto the Lord.  Ain't no half-steppin' when it's your "job".

LOVES!

[lordluvr]

Good points! The author would argue though that the Old Testament can not be used when discussing how the New Testament church should function. What do you think?

That's why when it's all said and done I personally believe this issue (and many of the issues we've discussed and will discuss) boils down to this: What is the role of the Old Testament in the life of a New Testament/Post-Apostolic age believer? I say this because a lot of what happens in the church traditionally is to some degree supported by the old testament.

Baloney!

If the OT can't be used in discussing the NT church, then the OT can't be used to discuss anything else that happens or is referred to in the NT, including Jesus Christ.

The fact of the matter is that the OT was not done away with with the coming of Christ.  Christ came to fulfill the law and the prophets, not to destroy them.  That last line right there is way too deep for me to try to explain in a couple of sentences.  But, suffice it to say, the OT is relevant for a lot of reasons, even for discussion of NT practices and customs and procedures and such.

[LaylaMonroe]

^^^ that's the argument sabbatarians usually make.

[blyempowered]

Baloney!

If the OT can't be used in discussing the NT church, then the OT can't be used to discuss anything else that happens or is referred to in the NT, including Jesus Christ.

The fact of the matter is that the OT was not done away with with the coming of Christ.  Christ came to fulfill the law and the prophets, not to destroy them.  That last line right there is way too deep for me to try to explain in a couple of sentences.  But, suffice it to say, the OT is relevant for a lot of reasons, even for discussion of NT practices and customs and procedures and such.

I see what you're saying. Got a question: now the Greek word used in Matthew 5:17 in the KJV for "fulfilled" is "Pleroo" which means to bring to release, to carry into effect, causing God's will to be done, to make complete, etc. So my question would be, what's the difference between something being destroyed and something being "completed?"

Looking at the context of Matthew 5 (even to 7), some would argue that Jesus was presenting a new "interpretation" of the law. Again, this is why the issue, to me, boils down to figuring out what the use of the OT is for the Christian.

And related to that, has anyone read chapter 8? If so, has your views on tithing and clergy salary changed? Here's where I stand on the tithing issue: To be perfectly honest (since we're a family), I kind of have a problem with people preaching tithing to a point where it makes it seem like if you don't tithe you're under a curse. Part of the problem with that (as the author identified) is that most of the time people don't read the entire chapter or even consider the context of the time. I'm not against tithing per se, but how do we know that when it says in Malachi "bring tithes and offerings to the store house that there may be meat in my house", it is talking about money (the dollars we have) versus actual meat?

I won't try to debate the tithing issue because it's been debated entirely too much on LGM but just wanted to get your opinions of if how you felt about tithing was challenged.