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

[sjonathan02]

That's not Biblical,

Lots of things aren't Biblical, but that doesn't make them wrong. *shrug* As Nessa said in another thread a few weeks ago, some things are left to preference. The order of service we currently use today isn't Biblical, neither are the wedding ceremonies we have, and a whole list of other things. *shrug*

[blyempowered]

Lots of things aren't Biblical, but that doesn't make them wrong. *shrug* As Nessa said in another thread a few weeks ago, some things are left to preference. The order of service we currently use today isn't Biblical, neither are the wedding ceremonies we have, and a whole list of other things. *shrug*

I can't WAIT for us to discuss chapter 3! It takes the whole "order of worship" concept!!

So Sjohn, I feel like your point is that at the end of the day we can't condemn one thing as "unbliblical" without condemning everything else that is "unbiblical" as "unbiblical." Almost like the "can't have your cake and eat it too" thing. Am I right?

SN: I agree with LaRue's logic on the "set the atmosphere" but I understand what you're saying as well!

Btw, I just wanna say that I am so thankful that our discussion have been very mature and we've been able to disagree without attacking one another! I wasn't a part of the classic LGM debates but it seems like this one is much more civilized than the ones in the past.

It would be so nice to have FuriousStyles in this discussion....*sigh*

[LaylaMonroe]

I disagreed with Nessa then, and I disagree again today.

But I didn't say it was "wrong" just because it's not Biblical. At least I don't think I did (I didn't go back to check). I think it's either manipulative or ignorant. Either you know there's no such thing as setting an atmosphere for the purpose of making God move and you're trying to work on people's emotions - or you really believe there's a such thing as setting an atmosphere to make God move. IMO, it's one or the other.

What pleases God to move is our faith in Him. Holiness. Obedience. Doing His will. Praise and adoration. Worship. None of those things are atmospheric. Spiritual atmosphere is just hype that no one (so far) has been able to describe logically. What is it, a "feeling" in the air? A level of excitement? A degree of longing? A certain volume? <--- rhetorical

I'm tapping out. We gotta agree to disagree on this one.

[blyempowered]

So when does something that is "unbiblical" become wrong?

[sjonathan02]

I disagreed with Nessa then, and I disagree again today.

But I didn't say it was "wrong" just because it's not Biblical. At least I don't think I did (I didn't go back to check). I think it's either manipulative or ignorant. Either you know there's no such thing as setting an atmosphere for the purpose of making God move and you're trying to work on people's emotions - or you really believe there's a such thing as setting an atmosphere to make God move. IMO, it's one or the other.

What pleases God to move is our faith in Him. Holiness. Obedience. Doing His will. Praise and adoration. Worship. None of those things are atmospheric. Spiritual atmosphere is just hype that no one (so far) has been able to describe logically. What is it, a "feeling" in the air? A level of excitement? A degree of longing? A certain volume? <--- rhetorical

I'm tapping out. We gotta agree to disagree on this one.

No problem on this end, sis.  Tap out it is.

[sjonathan02]

So when does something that is "unbiblical" become wrong?

I believe that's the BEST question you've asked in quite some time, sir.


I have no answer; but, that's a darn fine question. *slow head nod*

[blyempowered]

From you Jonathan that's a very big deal....LOL! Thanks bro!

I'm probably thinking too deep and I understand that what I'm about to type is in cyberspace forever so let me say this:

If we're arguing overall that when it comes to certain practices, customs, etc., personal preference wins (not saying everyone agrees with this but it seems to be the overall prevailing thought in modern Christianity), then could it be said that the Bible cannot be used to argue for or against a particular practice or custom? In other words, can we say that the Bible should not be used when it comes to debating merits of particular customs, practices, etc.?

#justasking #random #thinkingoutloud

[LaylaMonroe]

I agree, very good question, Churchy. I haven't thought it through, but off the top of my head, it becomes wrong when it:

1. Adds to, or takes from the purposed function of the body of Christ or its members

2. It directly or indirectly goes against a characteristic or principle of Jesus Christ.

3. It separates us from Jesus.

4. It makes anything mandatory or strongly encouraged that's not mandatory or strongly encouraged in the Bible or by law.

I have a few more but my brain is dancing. I'll add on as it comes back to me.

[blyempowered]

I agree, very good question, Churchy. I haven't thought it through, but off the top of my head, it becomes wrong when it:

1. Adds to, or takes from the purposed function of the body of Christ or its members

2. It directly or indirectly goes against a characteristic or principle of Jesus Christ.

3. It separates us from Jesus.

4. It makes anything mandatory or strongly encouraged that's not mandatory or strongly encouraged in the Bible or by law.

I have a few more but my brain is dancing. I'll add on as it comes back to me.

Good points!!

Does the clergy/laity divide fit this?

[sjonathan02]

From you Jonathan that's a very big deal....LOL! Thanks bro!

I'm probably thinking too deep and I understand that what I'm about to type is in cyberspace forever so let me say this:

If we're arguing overall that when it comes to certain practices, customs, etc., personal preference wins (not saying everyone agrees with this but it seems to be the overall prevailing thought in modern Christianity), then could it be said that the Bible cannot be used to argue for or against a particular practice or custom? In other words, can we say that the Bible should not be used when it comes to debating merits of particular customs, practices, etc.?

#justasking #random #thinkingoutloud

The Bible has to be our guide, the final authority. Point blank, period.

Where the debate/discussion comes in is when the Bible is not specific concerning a particular point AND people, on either side of the debate/discussion, believe that their side is the correct side.  The problem with that belief is that neither side can prove their case using the guide, the final authority--the Bible.

I agree, very good question, Churchy. I haven't thought it through, but off the top of my head, it becomes wrong when it:

1. Adds to, or takes from the purposed function of the body of Christ or its members

2. It directly or indirectly goes against a characteristic or principle of Jesus Christ.

3. It separates us from Jesus.

4. It makes anything mandatory or strongly encouraged that's not mandatory or strongly encouraged in the Bible or by law.

I have a few more but my brain is dancing. I'll add on as it comes back to me.

I agree with the above poster. Very good list. *slowly nods head*

[LaylaMonroe]

You know, on second thought, I don't know about that. I kinda think that any teaching, doctrine, practice, custom, tradition or habit that's NOT Biblical is dangerous for a believer. I also think it's dangerous for believers to try to define when it's ok and when it's not, when personal preference should prevail and when it shouldn't.

When it comes to teaching - directly or indirectly - it should never be left to pers preference IMO. We're too fallible. And that's how we got where we are today. And there are 66 accepted books to learn from. Why add to it???

[sjonathan02]

Good points!!

Does the clergy/laity divide fit this?

Only if said divide is extremely prevalent, imho.


I have no problem with the pastor being the pastor. He's read more than I have (simply a fact); he's study more than I have, etc.  As a result, I have no problem with what he does in preparing for Sundays and Wednesdays.

If I have an issue, there are some things in the area of service where I possess this look---->

[blyempowered]

Only if said divide is extremely prevalent, imho.


I have no problem with the pastor being the pastor. He's read more than I have (simply a fact); he's study more than I have, etc.  As a result, I have no problem with what he does in preparing for Sundays and Wednesdays.

If I have an issue, there are some things in the area of service where I possess this look---->

I see!

The Bible has to be our guide, the final authority. Point blank, period.

Where the debate/discussion comes in is when the Bible is not specific concerning a particular point AND people, on either side of the debate/discussion, believe that their side is the correct side.  The problem with that belief is that neither side can prove their case using the guide, the final authority--the Bible.

Good points!

[blyempowered]

The author accuratley described how the church I attend is set up LOL.

the podium, the special chair for the pastor, where the deacons sit ... wow  not sold on the need to change it but it is interesting to think of "so this is how someone came up with this idea"

Why? #justcurious

[blyempowered]

you know what I just realized ... LGM forum operates exactly how the author describes what the early church operated like.

Everyone here is on equal footing (mainly because you don't know if you are talking to a pastor or something many times)

Anyone can start a thread

it allows us all to have 1 on 1 conversations

and its overhead is lower than most churches.

crazy maybe the internet church is going to be the future like online schools...

Possibly because my prediction is that the institutional church will decline in this decade and more people will go to forms of church/gathering like internet, coffee shops, etc.

[blyempowered]

Okay, I'm at work, so I'm just gonna flip through the pages of Ch2 and share the thoughts I wrote in the margins, and stuff I underlined, and "wow"s and all that....

The first sentence that impacted me was on p14, "When Christianity was born, it was the only religion on the planet that had no sacred objects, no sacred persons, and no sacred spaces." That was heavy to me because today, we have a lot... the sanctuary is sacred and I actually teach a class on that. The communion table is sacred. The communion elements are sacred. The clergy vestments are sacred. I could go on and on.

Also, a random thought that hit me several times throughout this chapter: I'm not really concerned about taking things from ancient Judaism. That's okay with me. I'm not thrilled about taking things from pagans though, but I did have a thought about that further on in the chapter. I'll share that when I get to it.

And who decided that those things were suppose to be sacred?

I'll add: in my church (Baptist as you know) the pulpit and communion table are still considered sacred and that's what I was taught. I'm not as sold on that these days. I will admit: I have operated in that "sacred" belief. For example, a childhood friend put keys on the communion table during a wedding rehearsal and I was like "get those keys off"....LOL!

Also, the pulpit is seen as sacred in our church and this has been a major issue because sometimes I"ll direct in the pulpit or stand in there to help the choir. Of course, some of the older people don't want people except clergy in the pulpit. I'm beginning to not buy that as much.

[blyempowered]

On p25, I was fascinated by their explanation of how "Worship became more professional, dramatic and ceremonial." Again, this is all causing serious conflict with everything I value... I've been teaching order and professionalism... even ceremonialism... for over a decade. This is causing a bit of mental chaos.

The sentence that reads "The professional clergy performed the acts of worship while the laity looked on as spectators" really hit me because that's exactly what we do today. Even in the charismatic churches where people participate by hollering "yes!!!" or "amen!" or whatever, and run and dance, etc... there's still a significant element of performance for an audience taking place. When I was young, any time someone would refer to the congregation as an audience, the Bishop would correct them. To this day, I don't use "audience" to refer to the congregation. But the truth is, in most cases, it really IS an audience.

If you're feeling that way just right now, how do you think I will feel when he starts talking about music?.....LOL!!!

[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.

Here are some of the things that I've seen/experienced with respect to those who chase the "cloud experience":

1. Most of what I've seen is more of an appeal to the emotions than anything else.  Now, don't get me wrong, the people are sincere.  But, their appeals to God and their expectations of God are more emotional than scriptural.  They equate things like whether or not the praise team is singing with intensity to "a move of God", or whether the congregation is clapping their hands loud enough or yelling praises loud enough to invoke His presence.  So, pastors will have their congregations clapping, yelling and screaming for minutes at a time until he "feels" the presence of the Lord.

Why do I have a problem with that?  Actually, this is one of the areas in which I agree with the author(s).  The author(s), starting in chapter one, mentioned one important thing: that when Christ came, the need for mortar temples was done away with, because our bodies became the temple of the Lord, which means He's ever present with us.  We don't need to invoke his presence.  Rather, we need to acknowledge it.  If we spent more time acknowledging His presence and being led by his Spirit (Romans 6-8), we'd spend less time chasing His presence and being out of His will.  If we spent less time preserving Old Testament and pagan rites and rituals and spent more time yielding to His will, we'd (as individuals and as a collective body) walk in the power that was granted to us.  We'd be doing the "greater works" that Christ told his disciples of.  We're so steeped in tradition and custom and ritual and rite that we fail to see, acknowledge, use and benefit from the greatest gift we've been given, God in us.

[LaylaMonroe]

I honestly think people are naturally inclined to reject those things that challenge their core belief systems. Reading and digesting this book is hard for me because it really leaves me wondering where this leaves my ministry. Have I had it wrong all this time? Majored in minor things? Perpetuated false theories, man-made doctrines and hype? Most importantly, how do I now do what I'm called to do without incorporating all the additives and impurities?

I suspect that IF the authors have good points to make, musicians may wonder the same thing. Or reject it or dismiss it. *shrug*

Either way, this is challenging. And I'm thoroughly enjoying all parts of the discussion.

[blyempowered]

I honestly think people are naturally inclined to reject those things that challenge their core belief systems. Reading and digesting this book is hard for me because it really leaves me wondering where this leaves my ministry. Have I had it wrong all this time? Majored in minor things? Perpetuated false theories, man-made doctrines and hype? Most importantly, how do I now do what I'm called to do without incorporating all the additives and impurities?

I suspect that IF the authors have good points to make, musicians may wonder the same thing. Or reject it or dismiss it. *shrug*

Either way, this is challenging. And I'm thoroughly enjoying all parts of the discussion.

Absolutely! I feel the same way!