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

[phbrown]

i guess in the end I'm having a hard time imagining how a large group (100+) people interact as they minister to one another spiritually...

I can easily see this working with 10-20 people. Not a problem in fact I think i would be able to spiritually grow in a place like that.

Its just when I start thinking of larger and larger groups do I see this breaking down.

The early christian church was small. And that is the reason it was able to function the way it did.

[sjonathan02]

Yeah, I mean maybe I just don't get it. Yes, church service is more than a movie or football game. But other than charging emotions, what does setting the atmosphere do? Does it really make God move? Is there any evidence that God moves when, and only when, an atmosphere is "set"?  If we just focus on Jesus, isn't that enough? (all rhetorical... and at this point, probably redundant).

Is there any evidence that 'setting' it is bad? I'll be honest, I don't understand running around the chu'ch (where is that in the Bible? ). But, shouting, praising, lifting hands, etc. that's all biblical and I don't see a problem with it.

I mean, how else does one 'put on a garment of praise'? 

i guess in the end I'm having a hard time imagining how a large group (100+) people interact as they minister to one another spiritually...

I can easily see this working with 10-20 people. Not a problem in fact I think i would be able to spiritually grow in a place like that.

Its just when I start thinking of larger and larger groups do I see this breaking down.

The early christian church was small. And that is the reason it was able to function the way it did.

So, adding to the number, daily, kept the number small? 

[LaylaMonroe]

I wish I could remember everything I wanted to say regarding chapter 2.  Unfortunately, I didn't take notes on it like I did chapter 1.  I can say that I understand where the author is coming from in showing how even the edifice has a pagan influence.  1. However, I come away with the feeling that he feels that because of the pagan influence regarding the construction of the building, we as new millennium believers can't break from tradition and worship God for who He is, based on our personal relationships with Him. 

We don't need to go back to meeting in individual houses in order to have that face to face interaction.  We just need to WANT to have face to face interaction. 

2. There are some molds that we MUST break free from in today's church.  I see so much traditionalism in churches today, it's almost laughable- especially when you consider how little some of those traditions really add to the body as a whole.  In Eph. chapter 4, Paul talks about what God gave to the church, in terms of people.  And, he talked about the purpose of those people and the function of the body itself.  3. I think we need to evaluate what we "add" to church services against the criteria he set:

- "for the perfecting of the saints..."- Does XYZ practice enable that?  Maybe we should consider chucking it.
- "for the work of the ministry..." - How exactly does having a church anniversary or choir reunion or anything else traditional bring that into effect?
- "for the edifying of the body of Christ"....and so on.  There's so much that goes on in the church today that do nothing to promote the growth of the body that I think we need to do away with.  But, WHERE we worship, in and of itself, is not a concern to me, in general.

If you put your #1 and your #3 together, we'll have a nice solution to the whole church building issue. I made a note on p33 in the discussion re: the steeple. My note was a question that read: if a symbol no longer means to the people what it meant at its origin, is it still bad/pagan? I mean, who really knew what a steeple meant? I sure didn't. So if I put a steeple on my church, does it still mean what it used to mean? Does it still symbolize that Christians are trying to reach God through a piece of construction?

Idk. But anyway, I don't think church buildings are bad, even if they are rooted in paganism. I just think we need to re-think the money we spend on them, and reconsider what we add to these services. I meant what I said in the Lounge a few months ago about taking everything out, including the announcements. It's all pomp and circumstance. Who needs it? I say ax it all. Let's go back to the basics. That's the name of my new church: Back to the Basics New Testament Assembly of the Acts of the Apostles Holy Living Gathering Place for the Ekklesia.

2. So true.

[LaylaMonroe]

Is there any evidence that 'setting' it is bad? I'll be honest, I don't understand running around the chu'ch (where is that in the Bible? ). But, shouting, praising, lifting hands, etc. that's all biblical and I don't see a problem with it.

I mean, how else does one 'put on a garment of praise'? 

So, adding to the number, daily, kept the number small? 

I don't think you're getting what I'm saying. I don't see anything wrong with any genuine expression of praise, whether there's a Biblical precedent or not. I do think that the expectation that we can use emotions to "set" an atmosphere is hype and fruitless. You don't have to "set" an atmosphere to praise the Lord, nor do we have to set an atmosphere in order to receive blessings from the Lord. And I still don't even know what "setting the atmosphere" even MEANS!

I guess that's my overall point. We are taught (indirectly) that if the atmosphere is set, then God will move. I just don't have a reason to believe that's true.

[lordluvr]

Man, is Churchy going to be surprised when he finally checks back in. LOL

[LaylaMonroe]

i guess in the end I'm having a hard time imagining how a large group (100+) people interact as they minister to one another spiritually...

I can easily see this working with 10-20 people. Not a problem in fact I think i would be able to spiritually grow in a place like that.

Its just when I start thinking of larger and larger groups do I see this breaking down.

The early christian church was small. And that is the reason it was able to function the way it did.

They would probably have had a hard time imagining things as we do them today.

That said, if everyone participates in a discussion in an orderly fashion, I can see it taking place. It's no different from being in a seminar. When I teach workshops, I always try to get the people involved, whether there are 25 or 125. I want to hear from everyone, if possible. They can share their thoughts and ideas, revelations, etc. The church gatherings can function the same way. People can raise their hands to share, or submit their thoughts on a piece of paper, or take turns presenting the lesson, etc.

What we have today is primarily one head person who does all or most of the talking and teaching and the only way others give input is when it is asked of them (now that's coming from my perspective... I know some churches have plural leadership). That in and of itself can contribute to this thing we have now where the pastors are thought to have more power and spiritual regard than the laity... and other stuff, but I gotta go. LOL

Man, is Churchy going to be surprised when he finally checks back in. LOL

 

He's gonna be on Cloud 9! LOL!

[LaylaMonroe]

The discussion is going great, though! I'm enjoying it. Haven't even added all my comments yet... lol. I didn't wanna monopolize the discussion.

[blyempowered]

SHABADANLONG!!! The Lord hath done wonderful things in this thread! THIS is what I envisioned! Great topics! Great discussions!!! YES!!! SHONDO!!!! Yes LaRue I'm on cloud 42 and LL yes!!! I've been checking on and off and now that I'm home I'm about dig in.....SHONDO!!!

[blyempowered]

Ok, I must admit that a couple of times when talking to the praise team I have used "set the atmosphere" and I do believe that part of it is hype. You could make the case that getting the people in one mind and one place (mentally, spiritually, etc.) is setting the atmosphere, but my concern is what biblical precedent (if the Bible is our guide) do we have of someone "setting the atmosphere?" I kind of think that the "set the atmosphere" concept (and probably 80% of what we do in church today) is a product of socialization. We saw one church do it and just passed on and passed on.

Ok, there was something earlier discussed about taking stuff from ancient Judaism and paganism. It seems to me that the author is arguing that NOTHING should be taken from Judaism and paganism. I'm with him on paganism, not as sold on the Judaism point. Again, I feel like he would argue (and I'm assuming) that the Old Testament is irrelevant to New Testament Christians. To me, Christianity came from Judaism just as a movement to radically shift some things. We still do some Judaic practices today. For example, standing to reverence scripture. In some country churches for special programs the men and women sit on the opposite side of one another. That's Judaic too. So I'm not sold yet on his view about taking in Judaic practices, but I'm still open-minded.

Next thing, I'm with LaRue as far as lowering down how much money is spent on the building. I'm not sure if I totally agree with his argument of what church buildings take away from the worship experience. Again, I still think it could be a "what you make of it" type thing. I wonder how many pastors would be willing to redesign certain things in their church building to make it more "open-participatory." A few questions I want to pose....

Does anybody buy the idea that worship in the New Testament was not clergy-led and that everyone participated and it should be the same way today?

Do you buy the idea of the clergy/laity divide not being the original intent? If so, do you see the current church getting away from it?

At the end of the day, what are we to do if most people are arguing that none of it matters? My thing is that most people (again I'm assuming) would not view these issues we've discussed so far as heaven/hell issues. They would view it as "to each its own" and therefore not feel like the issues matter.

There's probably more but I don't remember what everyone discussed....LOL!

[lordluvr]

SHABADANLONG!!! The Lord hath done wonderful things in this thread! THIS is what I envisioned! Great topics! Great discussions!!! YES!!! SHONDO!!!! Yes LaRue I'm on cloud 42 and LL yes!!! I've been checking on and off and now that I'm home I'm about dig in.....SHONDO!!!

Now, imagine him saying all of that in the voice of Chris Rock.  Hilarious!

[sjonathan02]

I don't think you're getting what I'm saying. I don't see anything wrong with any genuine expression of praise, whether there's a Biblical precedent or not. I do think that the expectation that we can use emotions to "set" an atmosphere is hype and fruitless. You don't have to "set" an atmosphere to praise the Lord, nor do we have to set an atmosphere in order to receive blessings from the Lord. And I still don't even know what "setting the atmosphere" even MEANS!

I guess that's my overall point. We are taught (indirectly) that if the atmosphere is set, then God will move. I just don't have a reason to believe that's true.

Conversely, there's no reason to believe it's not true, either.

In addition, how does one differentiate between one's genuine praise and praising because of emotion?

Neither do I know what 'focusing on Jesus' means in a corporate setting.

Since we have no definitive proof that 'setting the atmosphere is a bad thing (and, I define that as one setting the atmosphere for, again, a football game, pep rally, party for an intended guest, wedding, funeral, etc), I don't see why one would throw out the baby with the bathwater. *kanyeshrug*

[lordluvr]

Regarding that whole "atmosphere" discussion.  I believe that concept took its roots from II Cronicles, chapter 5, where the Levites were ministering to the Lord to such a degree that his cloud filled the temple, and they could barely stand to minister as a result.  In the church today, saints are chasing that experience, waiting for his cloud (translated by some as presence) to fill the place.  There are some things about that line of thinking that I don't necessarily agree with.  Unfortunately, I don't have time to discuss it now.  I've got to hit the road.  By the time I get back home, there will likely be 15 new posts about a variety of subjects.  So, I may not return to this.  Hopefully, I will.

[blyempowered]

Regarding that whole "atmosphere" discussion.  I believe that concept took its roots from II Cronicles, chapter 5, where the Levites were ministering to the Lord to such a degree that his cloud filled the temple, and they could barely stand to minister as a result.  In the church today, saints are chasing that experience, waiting for his cloud (translated by some as presence) to fill the place.  There are some things about that line of thinking that I don't necessarily agree with.  Unfortunately, I don't have time to discuss it now.  I've got to hit the road.  By the time I get back home, there will likely be 15 new posts about a variety of subjects.  So, I may not return to this.  Hopefully, I will.

Yes, come back!

[LaylaMonroe]

@Jonathan, I'm gonna respond to that when I get home. I hope I remember what I want to say.

In case I forget, preparing a place for its intended use (i.e. stadium, theater, sanctuary, etc.) is NOT the same as setting an atmosphere. It was never, ever my intention to imply that. I think one is preparing a room/venue, and one is preparing a climate/feeling. I can't compare the two and if you go back to my original comment where I brought that up, you'll see that it wasn't a comparison at all.

That said, there are countless examples of God moving without any reference to an atmosphere. Being on one accord is not an atmosphere. Clapping or shouting is not an atmosphere. The word atmosphere, as I said, isn't even found in the 66.

[blyempowered]

This is the way I look at it: If people come to church with the right mindset, attitude, etc. (that starts before going to the building or whatever place of worship they go to), the "atmosphere" wouldn't have to be "set." #justsaying

OAN, this discussion and reading the book is making me reassess my perspective on if I believe church membership is necessary (related to institutional church).

[sjonathan02]

This is the way I look at it: If people come to church with the right mindset, attitude, etc. (that starts before going to the building or whatever place of worship they go to), the "atmosphere" wouldn't have to be "set." #justsaying

OAN, this discussion and reading the book is making me reassess my perspective on if I believe church membership is necessary (related to institutional church).

I don't think anyone would disagree with that.

@Jonathan, I'm gonna respond to that when I get home. I hope I remember what I want to say.

In case I forget, preparing a place for its intended use (i.e. stadium, theater, sanctuary, etc.) is NOT the same as setting an atmosphere. It was never, ever my intention to imply that. I think one is preparing a room/venue, and one is preparing a climate/feeling. I can't compare the two and if you go back to my original comment where I brought that up, you'll see that it wasn't a comparison at all.

That said, there are countless examples of God moving without any reference to an atmosphere. Being on one accord is not an atmosphere. Clapping or shouting is not an atmosphere. The word atmosphere, as I said, isn't even found in the 66.

I get that. While clapping or shouting is not an atmosphere, per se, there's nothing wrong with encouraging to participate in said practices (which is my point).


Now, I will say that those who try to 'Debow' folks into praise or worship are NOT the business at. all. (I believe I've said that before). 

Regarding that whole "atmosphere" discussion.  I believe that concept took its roots from II Cronicles, chapter 5, where the Levites were ministering to the Lord to such a degree that his cloud filled the temple, and they could barely stand to minister as a result.  In the church today, saints are chasing that experience, waiting for his cloud (translated by some as presence) to fill the place.  There are some things about that line of thinking that I don't necessarily agree with.  Unfortunately, I don't have time to discuss it now.  I've got to hit the road.  By the time I get back home, there will likely be 15 new posts about a variety of subjects.  So, I may not return to this.  Hopefully, I will.

We'll leave the light on for ya.

[blyempowered]

I believe he had a large influence on spreading the gospel. that is all I can say

Positive or negative?

I just don't see him as a positive part of the history of Christianity considering that (if the author is right) he took elements from other belief systems to form and create the ones that in some ways we have used for centuries to not question much off. Idk. 

[LaylaMonroe]

@Jonathan, the more I think about it the more I think we're just talking about two different things. I don't think there's anything wrong with encouraging people to praise the Lord. There's a whole book in the Bible dedicated to that very thing. I'm not trying to take away P&W leaders' jobs. My issue is with saying/implying that we have to set, change, or charge an atmosphere for God to move. That's not Biblical, and I believe it is rooted in emotionalism and hype.

@Churchy, if nothing else, Constantine gets credit for legitimizing Christianity in the eyes of the masses and for making Sunday a corporate day of worship (though I, of course, consider that to be a negative).

I remember learning about Constantine in Global Studies I (9th grade Soc Studies). He was quite an arrogant, self-centered guy if history is true.

[LaylaMonroe]

Oh and @Churchy, church membership may or may not be useful or efficient, but it can't be "necessary." It's just another one of those things we added in.

[blyempowered]

Oh and @Churchy, church membership may or may not be useful or efficient, but it can't be "necessary." It's just another one of those things we added in.

Hmmmm