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

[sjonathan02]

Well I don't play, but I've been to more than a few services without music and I'll be the first to admit, I don't usually enjoy it. In fact, when I went to my own church a few weeks ago, the musicians were very late (and left early ) so they did P&W without music. It wasn't that great, but it also made me wonder how come it wasn't that great? Like, they cut the set short (lots of exhortation and only one song - usually there's 2-3 songs and some exhortation), and the exhortation seemed to be almost pleading for cooperation, with an apologetic tinge to it. Why is that? Why can't we worship THE SAME without music?

We're conditioned. Someone/something down the line was successful at shifting our focus from pure worship that only required clean hands to a modern form of worship that requires perfect music, perfect harmonies, perfect lighting, a perfect temperature, perfect positioning and perfect settings.

Gold.

[blyempowered]

Love what LaRue has said. #thatisall

[blyempowered]

Let me ask this for understanding:

I know a little bit about the old testament offerings but I need clarification on how those offerings can be used by preachers today as justification to take up a certain amount, especially on these Christian praise-a-thon programs. If firstfruits was an old testament concept that (based on my knowledge and please correct me if I'm wrong) was not taught by Jesus or anyone post-resurrection, how can that be used as a way to collect offerings?

And back to the music thing: not only did someone do a good job shifting our focus from pure worship to worship requiring perfect harmony, perfect music, perfect lighting, etc, but we (the body/laity) did a poor job in not questioning these assumptions/beliefs over time. I feel like we are at the point of no-return on this issue.

As far as the clergy salaries: for now I believe it's ok for a pastor to receive a salary BUT I am absolutely opposed to preachers setting a particular price and refusing to do ministry work unless that particular price is being paid. We had a discussion some years ago on this subject and I do understand why some do honorariums (past issues of folk taking advantage of them) but again, ministry must be done with the mindset of Jesus and I'm not convinced that Jesus would ask for a particular amount to do ministry.

[sjonathan02]

*wonders why Churchy LOVES cans of worms*

[LaylaMonroe]

*was wondering the same thing, and was saying to myself "Okay, so clearly Churchy didn't learn his lesson last week"*

[blyempowered]

LOL I haven't said anything from the book...ha!

[LaylaMonroe]

Let me ask this for understanding:

I know a little bit about the old testament offerings but I need clarification on how those offerings can be used by preachers today as justification to take up a certain amount, especially on these Christian praise-a-thon programs. If firstfruits was an old testament concept that (based on my knowledge and please correct me if I'm wrong) was not taught by Jesus or anyone post-resurrection, how can that be used as a way to collect offerings?

I have never been able to understand how the firstfruits offering translates to our time today, so I really can't answer your question. I have been asking about that since the first time I heard a pastor raise a firstfruits offering - and no one has really been able to explain it to my satisfaction. What I'm told, basically, is that it's an offering of your entire first harvest. Obviously, my problem with that is that I'm not clear on how you translate that to today? Do you give your first hour's pay? First day's pay? First week? First paycheck (which might be 2 weeks, might be a whole month). Or what if you're a consultant or contractor? Do you give the entire first invoice? It just doesn't compute adequately in my head.

As I've said IRT other things, I think that most times, if pastors are raising first fruits offerings, it is a gimmick to get more money (to support all this extra stuff we're doing).

And back to the music thing: not only did someone do a good job shifting our focus from pure worship to worship requiring perfect harmony, perfect music, perfect lighting, etc, but we (the body/laity) did a poor job in not questioning these assumptions/beliefs over time. I feel like we are at the point of no-return on this issue.

I think corporately, we may be at the point of no return, but not in local assemblies. I do get the point though, because as I said earlier, I don't particularly enjoy corporate worship as much without the music, vocals, strings, etc.

Gold.

Love what LaRue has said. #thatisall

Thank you. TGBTG.

[LaylaMonroe]

Okay, I'm a week late, but I've finally caught up... with last week's reading. LOL. Finished Ch9 this morning on the train.

My additional thoughts (on baptism):

The Apostolic Church is doing something right. We are the only denomination I know of that baptizes immediately upon confession. We do not plan or schedule baptisms or wait until the person's whole family can be there, etc. When a person comes to the altar to receive Christ, we baptize them right then and there. If they come to the altar for any other reason, we are trained to ask them if they have received Christ as their Savior and if they've been baptized in Jesus' name. If they say "no" we ask them if they are ready to do so today.

I agree with that, and I'm not sure how we ended up disconnecting baptism from the initial expression of faith. The two should indeed be simultaneous, per scripture.

As for the sinner's prayer, I think we've had discussions on that before. I'm not opposed to it. I consider it to be a minor thing. As long as the sinner's prayer is accompanied by sincere repentance, confession of faith, and baptism as immediately as earthly possible, I'm cool.

[LaylaMonroe]

As for communion: the authors do a good job (as usual) of telling us what the early church did, but I think they failed at showing scripture that supports having a full meal as communion.

As you all know, I'm Apostolic. As anyone, anywhere can tell you, there is NO communion service like an Apostolic one. Try it.

I'm comfortable scripturally and traditionally with the way we do communion (as long as those little convenient twofer cups aren't used). I see nothing wrong with communion consisting of a cracker, a piece of bread, wine, or grape juice. It doesn't matter to me. I also don't care whether a clergy person facilitates it or not. And I thought it was interesting that the authors seemed to "blame" Calvin for introducing the period of reflection and examination into the assembly during communion. Duh! That's scriptural! So we should be saying 'thank you, Calvin!!'

[LaylaMonroe]

One last comment on the whole "personal savior" thing...

I thought the personal savior discussion was like Ch6 - a ridiculous argument and a waste of paper. However, the authors made a good point that cannot be overlooked, and at the very least, it is worth a moment of reflection. They said something along the lines of: the introduction of Jesus as a "personal savior" helped facilitate the transition of Christianity from a corporate relationship to a very individualistic one. *just had to look it up* The exact quote I'm referencing says "...the phrase "personal Savior" reinforces a highly individualistic Christianity. But the New Testament knows nothing of a "Just-me-and-Jesus" Christian faith. Instead, Christianity is intensely corporate. Christianity is a life lived out among a body of believers who know Christ together as Lord and Savior."

I thought that was an interesting point because for all the talk we do about the "body of Christ" and how we are a family and ONE Church and all that, the truth is that we're really an individualistic group of believers. I can't place all the blame on that one silly phrase, but I do wonder if there are a bunch of "little things" that lend themselves to this transition toward individualism within the body.

[phbrown]

i forgot to read last night

[blyempowered]

I'm behind. May read chapter 9 during lunch.

[blyempowered]

One last comment on the whole "personal savior" thing...

I thought the personal savior discussion was like Ch6 - a ridiculous argument and a waste of paper. However, the authors made a good point that cannot be overlooked, and at the very least, it is worth a moment of reflection. They said something along the lines of: the introduction of Jesus as a "personal savior" helped facilitate the transition of Christianity from a corporate relationship to a very individualistic one. *just had to look it up* The exact quote I'm referencing says "...the phrase "personal Savior" reinforces a highly individualistic Christianity. But the New Testament knows nothing of a "Just-me-and-Jesus" Christian faith. Instead, Christianity is intensely corporate. Christianity is a life lived out among a body of believers who know Christ together as Lord and Savior."

I thought that was an interesting point because for all the talk we do about the "body of Christ" and how we are a family and ONE Church and all that, the truth is that we're really an individualistic group of believers. I can't place all the blame on that one silly phrase, but I do wonder if there are a bunch of "little things" that lend themselves to this transition toward individualism within the body.

Not necessarily directed at the "personal Savior" concept, but the individualistic direction the body of Christ has been headed in (particularly in this country) is something I"ve been saying on here for years. Christianity is not a "me, myself and I that's all I got in the end cause I found out and it ain't no need to cry from now on Imma be my own best friend" faith. It's a "when one hurts all hurts" faith (1 Corinthians 12).

[LaylaMonroe]

Not necessarily directed at the "personal Savior" concept, but the individualistic direction the body of Christ has been headed in (particularly in this country) is something I"ve been saying on here for years. Christianity is not a "me, myself and I that's all I got in the end cause I found out and it ain't no need to cry from now on Imma be my own best friend" faith. It's a "when one hurts all hurts" faith (1 Corinthians 12).

Amen.

I'm reminded of Romans 12:15 "rejoice with them that do rejoice and weep with those who weep."

[blyempowered]

Amen.

I'm reminded of Romans 12:15 "rejoice with them that do rejoice and weep with those who weep."

That's right!

LaRue basically said everything possible to say regarding tithing, but I'll just add this: I tithe but I also do not think tithing should be taught in a "your blessing is tied to the tithe" fashion. Issues like tithing is hard to have a good discussion on, especially in the church because people view the bible "as is" without looking at the scriptural context it is talked about. The author made a good point about how when Malachi 3 is read in context it's talking about oppression. At the end of the day, while I believe the Bible to be the Word of God, this book shows the danger of taking the scriptures "literally" without looking at context. Some people believe context is absolutely irrelevant when it comes to studying certain things. I think it is important to understand the context behind some of the scriptures being written. At the end of the day, tithing falls in that category.

I would never ever try to play a guilt trip with people who don't tithe. I would want people to give liberally, to the best of their ability but would NEVER put someone on the spot for tithing.

Oh and LaRue, I don't know if you already answered, but it seems like the author is arguing that the old testament is irrelevant when it comes to New-Testament/post resurrection Christians. Do you agree or disagree with that idea?

[lordluvr]

I'll make sure to read chapter 9...after I read chapters 6-8....

[blyempowered]

I'll make sure to read chapter 9...after I read chapters 6-8....

LOL!!

[blyempowered]

@LaRue that question about the old testament is in terms of practices, traditions and customs.

[phbrown]

I'll make sure to read chapter 9...after I read chapters 6-8....

LOL

[LaylaMonroe]

Oh and LaRue, I don't know if you already answered, but it seems like the author is arguing that the old testament is irrelevant when it comes to New-Testament/post resurrection Christians. Do you agree or disagree with that idea?

I've been trying to come up with an intelligent, well-thought out answer to your question, but I can't. I guess the question is just more simple than I'm making it. I don't agree with that idea, and I'm not even sure the authors are making that assertion anyway.

I certainly wouldn't go as far as to say that the OT is irrelevant. The premise of the NT was prophesied in the OT. Jesus is the Word. And "the Word made flesh" refers to the OT. So I could never say that and I don't think the authors are saying it either.

What I DO think is interesting though - and I always have found this interesting - is that modern day Christians DO INDEED pick and choose which parts of Levitical law and Mosaic law are considered Biblical mandates and which can be conveniently ignored. And THAT right there is something that every denomination and non-denomination does - except a few Hebrew Pentecostals, who observe all the OT laws and feasts.