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

[blyempowered]

I wouldn't call it a 'major' difference.  There's only so many combinations of flipping the two that, after awhile, it wouldn't really matter.

I think a bigger difference (maybe) would be how long each was done. For example, a typical worship team sings three songs exhorting between each one as well as before and after. 

Well, what if the team only sang two songs? What about only one? What about only exhortation with no songs?


See what I'm saying?

I do. For example, it's funny how when we do call to worship and we're suppose to do invocation after that and sometimes the minister will forget to do the prayer (this is after praise & worship) and people will make a big deal because they forgot to do the prayer.....LOL!!!

In the "spontaneity" form it wouldn't matter.

[phbrown]

How many of you all would feel comfortable going to a worship gathering that didn't have an "order of worship" and just flowed?

i can handle but only because I'm going to sit there and wait till someone tells me this is what we are about to do... so in short that person becomes the church bulletin or program or order of service

[phbrown]

I swear fo' Gawd, if you ever type a sentence like this again.....


It's 'run', dude, 'run'.

the GW is back

[phbrown]

Alright, so let me dig in.

I found this quote interesting: "The meetings of the early church were marked by every-member functioning, spontaneity, freedom, vibrancy and open participation." I think you could make a case that most church services are not ran like this.

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.

Do you all agree with Luther presenting preaching as the main aspect of the worship service? It seems like before Luther the Eucharist (Mass/Communion) was center piece of the worship service. It seems to me like there's been a history of people putting in what they want for the worship service. From Luther making preaching the primary goal of the worship service to Zqingli proposing the Lord's supper quarterly. It just seems like so many have added their interpretation of what a worship service should hold and followers treated some of this as "major."

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

One last thing I'll say to jump start this discussion is the author's argument against pragmatism. I would make the argument that the "personal preference" argument comes from pragmatism, which basically says if it works, go with it.

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?

[LaylaMonroe]

I think their point is more about spontaneity than about the actual order and content. It's about everyone being involved in sharing and every member of the body functioning. I'd share more, but I'm omw to an appt.

Churchy, I'll answer the question abt order when I get back to the office. There is certainly an undeniable conflict, but I think God is helping me to reconcile it all, little by little.

Good questions you're putting out there, dude.

[blyempowered]

1. 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.


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


3. 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?

1. Right but the opportunity for EVERYONE to be involved would be there. In most church services, it's basically the choir, pastor and praise leaders participating. In this model everyone would be able to sing, testify, share the Word, etc.

2. Interesting.

3. Yes! Finney believed that the New Testament didn't prescribe a "specific" form of worship. Here's the quote: "Finney believed that the New Testament did not teach any prescribed forms of worship. He taught that the sole purpose of preaching was to win converts. Any devices that helped accomplish that goal was acceptable." Now to a certain extent I agree that the New Testament doesn't say you have to worship one way or another. At the same time I'd argue that there are certain things the Bible says as it pertains to worship. Here's a quote from another book I'm reading as well:

"As a result, we need not be overly concerned with the question of a correct form of worship. The issue of high liturgy or low liturgy, this form or that form is peripheral rather than central. We are encouraged in this perception when we realize that nowhere does the New Testament prescribe a particular form of worship......When Spirit touches spirit the issue of forms is wholly secondary."-Richard J. Foster

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.

[blyempowered]

I think their point is more about spontaneity than about the actual order and content. It's about everyone being involved in sharing and every member of the body functioning. I'd share more, but I'm omw to an appt.

Churchy, I'll answer the question abt order when I get back to the office. There is certainly an undeniable conflict, but I think God is helping me to reconcile it all, little by little.

Good questions you're putting out there, dude.

Right!!

[LaylaMonroe]

I think the "personal preference" notion is one of the most detrimental ideas that ever came into the church. Leaves too much room for highly infallible, issue-laden, carnal-minded people to destroy the muscle matter of the body of Christ. Whether we care to see it or not, there IS a blueprint. God, in His instructions and designs, was always very specific (think Noah's Ark, Ark of the Covenant, Solomon's Temple, the Lord's Prayer, fasting, etc). He didn't say do it however you see fit as long as you reach me in the end. He gave instructions, like a good leader does. He's the creative one, and our creativity should be reconciled with His, not the other way around.

I'm opposed wholly to personal preference.

[blyempowered]

I think the "personal preference" notion is one of the most detrimental ideas that ever came into the church. Leaves too much room for highly infallible, issue-laden, carnal-minded people to destroy the muscle matter of the body of Christ. Whether we care to see it or not, there IS a blueprint. God, in His instructions and designs, was always very specific (think Noah's Ark, Ark of the Covenant, Solomon's Temple, the Lord's Prayer, fasting, etc). He didn't say do it however you see fit as long as you reach me in the end. He gave instructions, like a good leader does. He's the creative one, and our creativity should be reconciled with His, not the other way around.

I'm opposed wholly to personal preference.

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.

[chevonee]

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.


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


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 sounds exactly like what you guys did on Skype the other night....LOL!! #thatisall

[blyempowered]

That sounds exactly like what you guys did on Skype the other night....LOL!! #thatisall

LOL!!!

[blyempowered]

Ok, I wanna get back to something that's very interesting.

Again one of the fundamental ideas behind this chapter is the idea of everyone being able to participate in the worship service. One aspect is everyone being able to share the Word. Now here's where I'm going to muddy the water here. There are many (including myself) who believe that God does not call everyone to preach/teach. I'm fundamentally having a problem with this because it seems like according to the New Testament everyone was able to share something from the Word. As we'll see in chapter 4, the sermon has became something in which certain people are able to share. I'm saying this because I've been one that has wondered why so many are wanting to preach from the pulpit. Not that I have a problem with people preaching but I have wondered if more go into preaching for status or because they truly feel the call to declare the Word from the pulpit.

So, does this idea of "open participation" challenge your view on the call to preach and teach God's word?


Disclaimer: Many people criticize me when I say this, but I believe that over the centuries we've (not talking about us but you get the point) made Christianity way too complicated and put in too many unbiblical rules WITHOUT challenging them.

[sjonathan02]

Ok, I wanna get back to something that's very interesting.

Again one of the fundamental ideas behind this chapter is the idea of everyone being able to participate in the worship service. One aspect is everyone being able to share the Word. Now here's where I'm going to muddy the water here. There are many (including myself) who believe that God does not call everyone to preach/teach. I'm fundamentally having a problem with this because it seems like according to the New Testament everyone was able to share something from the Word. As we'll see in chapter 4, the sermon has became something in which certain people are able to share. I'm saying this because I've been one that has wondered why so many are wanting to preach from the pulpit. Not that I have a problem with people preaching but I have wondered if more go into preaching for status or because they truly feel the call to declare the Word from the pulpit.

So, does this idea of "open participation" challenge your view on the call to preach and teach God's word?


Disclaimer: Many people criticize me when I say this, but I believe that over the centuries we've (not talking about us but you get the point) made Christianity way too complicated and put in too many unbiblical rules WITHOUT challenging them.

Paul asks, in Romans 10, how can the Israelites hear unless someone is preaching (or something to that effect).  How can sermons be wrong?

Peter gave a sermon (or, are they calling it an empassioned plea/speech) in Acts.

Stephen, prior to being stoned, gave a sermon.


I'm not sure that sermons, in and of themselves, of bad.

I believe the problem comes when folks have to be passive during the sermon. I'd like to be able to ask questions if I desire. That may be from where the authors are coming. *kanyeshrug*

[blyempowered]

Paul asks, in Romans 10, how can the Israelites hear unless someone is preaching (or something to that effect).  How can sermons be wrong?

Peter gave a sermon (or, are they calling it an empassioned plea/speech) in Acts.

Stephen, prior to being stoned, gave a sermon.


I'm not sure that sermons, in and of themselves, of bad.

I believe the problem comes when folks have to be passive during the sermon. I'd like to be able to ask questions if I desire. That may be from where the authors are coming. *kanyeshrug*

When we get to chapter 4 bring this back up because the author makes the case that the sermon (the way it's done in the contemporary church) is unscriptural.

But if I'm not mistaken, you was one that had said that you didn't believe everyone was called to preach or teach the Word (correct me if I'm wrong). Does this chapter in any way challenge that notion for you personally?

[LaylaMonroe]

Paul asks, in Romans 10, how can the Israelites hear unless someone is preaching (or something to that effect).  How can sermons be wrong?

Peter gave a sermon (or, are they calling it an empassioned plea/speech) in Acts.

Stephen, prior to being stoned, gave a sermon.


I'm not sure that sermons, in and of themselves, of bad.

I believe the problem comes when folks have to be passive during the sermon. I'd like to be able to ask questions if I desire. That may be from where the authors are coming. *kanyeshrug*

^^^ surprised by that.

I just finished Ch3. I'm a few minutes from the office. Will post my thoughts when I get settled. 

[blyempowered]

Btw, @ Jonathan I wasn't trying to put you on the spot, I was just asking for the context of this discussion. Hope you didn't take it that way. If so I apologize.

[sjonathan02]

When we get to chapter 4 bring this back up because the author makes the case that the sermon (the way it's done in the contemporary church) is unscriptural.

But if I'm not mistaken, you was one that had said that you didn't believe everyone was called to preach or teach the Word (correct me if I'm wrong). Does this chapter in any way challenge that notion for you personally?

You're good, bruh. No apology necessary. You're correct about me saying that not everyone is called to preach the Word. But, everyone can discuss and dissect the Word. Two different things in my mind.

[sjonathan02]

^^^ surprised by that.

Why?

[LaylaMonroe]

Why?

*shrug* I dunno. Just never knew you felt that way.

You're good, bruh. No apology necessary. You're correct about me saying that not everyone is called to preach the Word. But, everyone can discuss and dissect the Word. Two different things in my mind.

I'm starting to re-think this... A few weeks ago I would've agreed. Now, I'm not so sure. I need to hit the Book...

[sjonathan02]

*shrug* I dunno. Just never knew you felt that way.

I'm starting to re-think this... A few weeks ago I would've agreed. Now, I'm not so sure. I need to hit the Book...

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.