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

[blyempowered]

Just to let everyone know, I'm here. I've been reading all responses. I must admit I'm so used to some of the stuff that's being talked about. I can hardly find any other way to see it other than how it already is.

I may be saying this to early but alot of the stuff we do is not scriptual but if it's not hurting the body (I mean really hurting) what's so bad about it.

I have to admit I love some traditions because they help to show unity, order, and possibly things that helped us make it through as people. I like when new things are incorporated because times are changing, so how people relate to things change as well.

I guess right now I really don't know what I'm trying to say lol So I'll keep reading and see where it takes me.

I think many of us (really can't speak for everyone so I'm assuming) would say the same thing, in regards to being so used to some of these things. To me, this book is showing me a lot of origins to why we do what we do. Some things are off track and some things are just.....whatever.

I'm going to disagree with your second line bro. A lot of these traditions (and again I don't have a problem with tradition when we understand why we do it and it has a purpose) have philosophically went against what Jesus taught and what the New Testament teaches us about life, spiritual growth, etc. For example, I believe that the black church emphasis on titles has caused division, hurt feelings, competition, etc., in the body and to me Jesus was not about division and competition (well there is one verse in which Jesus talks about division but I don't think he was talking about divisive division). You could make a case that the clergy/laity divide has went against what Jesus demonstrated as a leader. According to Philippians 2 Jesus was humble. I don't see evidence in the gospels of Jesus trying to make Himself seem better than the 12 disciples.

Just my 2 cents but I do get what you're saying! 

[phbrown]

Just to let everyone know, I'm here. I've been reading all responses. I must admit I'm so used to some of the stuff that's being talked about. I can hardly find any other way to see it other than how it already is.

I may be saying this to early but alot of the stuff we do is not scriptual but if it's not hurting the body (I mean really hurting) what's so bad about it.

I have to admit I love some traditions because they help to show unity, order, and possibly things that helped us make it through as people. I like when new things are incorporated because times are changing, so how people relate to things change as well.

I guess right now I really don't know what I'm trying to say lol So I'll keep reading and see where it takes me.

don't worry your not alone in that thought process. I think there may an aspect or two of this book that each us feel that way about.

For me its the physical architecture so I understand where you are coming from.

[LaylaMonroe]

Just to let everyone know, I'm here. I've been reading all responses. I must admit I'm so used to some of the stuff that's being talked about. I can hardly find any other way to see it other than how it already is.

I may be saying this to early but alot of the stuff we do is not scriptual but if it's not hurting the body (I mean really hurting) what's so bad about it.

I have to admit I love some traditions because they help to show unity, order, and possibly things that helped us make it through as people. I like when new things are incorporated because times are changing, so how people relate to things change as well.

I think we all kinda share in that sentiment. It's really hard to see some things differently, when you've only known it to be one way for all or most of your life. And then, even if you believe things should change, there's the matter of logistics. How do you change it? And then, you're only one person - not even the HMIC, so how do you convince others that it needs to change, and how do you make people become comfortable with the change.

Like, for example, if Jonathan were to really stop leading P&W the way he always has and now becomes more of a facilitator and less of a "leader," how on earth does he implement those changes without alienating the people??

What kinds of things are you talking about? I can agree to an extent. Like for example, the steeple. It was apparently included in church building architecture for pagan reasons. But, I don't think steeples have a profound impact on our worship at all, so I don't really think it matters. But there WERE a few other points that I think really DO negatively affect the body. If nothing else, it is IMO dangerous to add stuff to an already perfect pattern. If we believe in the 66, we can trust that what God gave us is sufficient. He doesn't change, so why must we? Adding stuff is one thing. Adding stuff and making it the firm and unmovable norm is dangerous... and that's exactly where we are right now.

Same question, what kind of new things are you referring to?

[LaylaMonroe]

I think many of us (really can't speak for everyone so I'm assuming) would say the same thing, in regards to being so used to some of these things. To me, this book is showing me a lot of origins to why we do what we do. Some things are off track and some things are just.....whatever.

I'm going to disagree with your second line bro. A lot of these traditions (and again I don't have a problem with tradition when we understand why we do it and it has a purpose) have philosophically went against what Jesus taught and what the New Testament teaches us about life, spiritual growth, etc. For example, I believe that the black church emphasis on titles has caused division, hurt feelings, competition, etc., in the body and to me Jesus was not about division and competition (well there is one verse in which Jesus talks about division but I don't think he was talking about divisive division). You could make a case that the clergy/laity divide has went against what Jesus demonstrated as a leader. According to Philippians 2 Jesus was humble. I don't see evidence in the gospels of Jesus trying to make Himself seem better than the 12 disciples.

Just my 2 cents but I do get what you're saying! 

I agree with that. And I'm still trying to find some scripture that deals with the clergy/laity divide. Was it ever God's intention for clergy to be regarded more highly than laity? What does "worthy of double honor" mean? Did He intend for us to don titles or just do the work (of an evangelist, for example). And a very serious question I have... why on earth are we ALL so very comfortable calling people by their titles when that is clearly NOT Biblical at all? There is no Biblical precedent for that, yet not only are we comfortable with it, there is no way we would ever change that in most protestant organizations.

[sjonathan02]

You know what, Jonathan - you are actually in a position to make that happen. And I don't think it would be too drastic or uncomfortable a change. Sure you can't effect change in the church worldwide right now, but you sure can make a difference in your local church. Maybe that's your responsibility, even. *just thinking*

Yea, I thought about that as I typed that post.

[blyempowered]

I agree with that. And I'm still trying to find some scripture that deals with the clergy/laity divide. Was it ever God's intention for clergy to be regarded more highly than laity? What does "worthy of double honor" mean? Did He intend for us to don titles or just do the work (of an evangelist, for example). And a very serious question I have... why on earth are we ALL so very comfortable calling people by their titles when that is clearly NOT Biblical at all? There is no Biblical precedent for that, yet not only are we comfortable with it, there is no way we would ever change that in most protestant organizations.

Idk what else to say.....LOL! The problem I have with titles is again the elitism but also giving titles to people not doing the work of the title. For example, how can you be a Bishop when you have not successfully served in your church as a pastor? Some may point to Paul "The Apostle" as a justification for the use of title. At the end of the day I see the title situation as two things:

1. Socialization (and I know yall gonna get tired of hearing me use that word but I just believe it applies to 80% of what happens in church today). We see one do it and everyone else starts it.

2. A mechanism of self-esteem, especially in the black church. I've been hammered on this before but one thing I love about white churches is (based on my experience) how the pastors don't emphasize titles as much. For example, in some white churches they will call the pastor Bro. so and so. Some say it's not a race issue and some people I know don't have a problem with titles as long as the work is being done. I'm contrary on both points, but more contrary on the race point.

[LaylaMonroe]

Idk what else to say.....LOL! The problem I have with titles is again the elitism but also giving titles to people not doing the work of the title. For example, how can you be a Bishop when you have not successfully served in your church as a pastor? Some may point to Paul "The Apostle" as a justification for the use of title. At the end of the day I see the title situation as two things:

1. Socialization (and I know yall gonna get tired of hearing me use that word but I just believe it applies to 80% of what happens in church today). We see one do it and everyone else starts it.

2. A mechanism of self-esteem, especially in the black church. I've been hammered on this before but one thing I love about white churches is (based on my experience) how the pastors don't emphasize titles as much. For example, in some white churches they will call the pastor Bro. so and so. Some say it's not a race issue and some people I know don't have a problem with titles as long as the work is being done. I'm contrary on both points, but more contrary on the race point.

Can you provide any Biblical precedent for bishops first pastoring? I've had a hard time even identifying and categorizing the bishops and pastors in the NT. We only know the apostles for sure because they are clearly identified. Bishops aren't listed as clearly. So how do we know that they had to first pastor before becoming bishops?

I would love for someone to make that argument. LOL. It won't work.

Couldn't agree with you more. In fact, you mentioned socialization earlier and I intended to reply, but couldn't at the moment because I was on the BB. But I totally agree that socialization should be considered a necessary part of this discussion.

Agreed.

[phbrown]

Matthew 23:8-10 NKJV...
But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. 9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10 And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ.


...

[blyempowered]

Can you provide any Biblical precedent for bishops first pastoring? I've had a hard time even identifying and categorizing the bishops and pastors in the NT. We only know the apostles for sure because they are clearly identified. Bishops aren't listed as clearly. So how do we know that they had to first pastor before becoming bishops?

I would love for someone to make that argument. LOL. It won't work.

Couldn't agree with you more. In fact, you mentioned socialization earlier and I intended to reply, but couldn't at the moment because I was on the BB. But I totally agree that socialization should be considered a necessary part of this discussion.

Agreed.

To be honest, I don't see evidence that Bishops had to pastor before becoming Bishop. The only thing I could see is 1 Timothy 3 and Acts 20. I've been taught that the title of "Overseer, Bishop, Elder" are interchangeable. Would "pastor" fit in that category? Idk. My understanding of "Bishop" is that they basically oversee Pastors. I just don't believe you can be a Bishop and not served faithfully as pastor of your own church.

[blyempowered]

Ummm I don't see what i posted.....LOL!!! Basically I was just saying that 1 Timothy 3 and Acts 20:28 may support Bishops as pastor. I was taught that "elder" bishop" "overseer" are the same title but used interchangeable, not hierarchical.

[musicbishop]

Okay first admit I haven't really dug really deep in this book and my memory of reading doesn't serve me to well. But here it goes:

I think many of us (really can't speak for everyone so I'm assuming) would say the same thing, in regards to being so used to some of these things. To me, this book is showing me a lot of origins to why we do what we do. Some things are off track and some things are just.....whatever.

I'm going to disagree with your second line bro. A lot of these traditions (and again I don't have a problem with tradition when we understand why we do it and it has a purpose) have philosophically went against what Jesus taught and what the New Testament teaches us about life, spiritual growth, etc. For example, I believe that the black church emphasis on titles has caused division, hurt feelings, competition, etc., in the body and to me Jesus was not about division and competition (well there is one verse in which Jesus talks about division but I don't think he was talking about divisive division). You could make a case that the clergy/laity divide has went against what Jesus demonstrated as a leader. According to Philippians 2 Jesus was humble. I don't see evidence in the gospels of Jesus trying to make Himself seem better than the 12 disciples. Just my 2 cents but I do get what you're saying! 

With this I think the problem is with the person who carries the titles. Just look at our church today if we didn't have leaders with titles and what not how would the church be ran. it would probably be a complete mess for the most part because although we are the body of Christ we are still people as well. now I will say I don't agree with people just givin themselves titles a willie-nillie Eph 4:11 tells us and he gave some apostles and some prophets and some evangelists and some pastors and teacher 12 for the perfecting of the saints for the work of the ministry for the edifying of the body of Christ.  tell me if I'm stretching and I'll take a listen.

[LaylaMonroe]

I won't say you're stretching, but I will say your perspective is a common one for most anybody who hasn't read this book. I think once you "dig in" your perspective may change a bit.

[musicbishop]

I think we all kinda share in that sentiment. It's really hard to see some things differently, when you've only known it to be one way for all or most of your life. And then, even if you believe things should change, there's the matter of logistics. How do you change it? And then, you're only one person - not even the HMIC, so how do you convince others that it needs to change, and how do you make people become comfortable with the change.

Like, for example, if Jonathan were to really stop leading P&W the way he always has and now becomes more of a facilitator and less of a "leader," how on earth does he implement those changes without alienating the people??

What kinds of things are you talking about? I can agree to an extent. Like for example, the steeple. It was apparently included in church building architecture for pagan reasons. But, I don't think steeples have a profound impact on our worship at all, so I don't really think it matters. But there WERE a few other points that I think really DO negatively affect the body. If nothing else, it is IMO dangerous to add stuff to an already perfect pattern. If we believe in the 66, we can trust that what God gave us is sufficient. He doesn't change, so why must we? Adding stuff is one thing. Adding stuff and making it the firm and unmovable norm is dangerous... and that's exactly where we are right now.

Same question, what kind of new things are you referring to?

[/b]

Imma see if I can kill both of these with one stone.

Like praise and worship, the choir singing, the pastor preaching every sunday (although that isn't how it is at my church) children's church and list of other things that aren't scriptual, but are not set as outright wrong. Believe it or not some of these things are what help draw sinners to Christ and for the ones that have a hard time helps keep them around til Christ is actually within them, although it's ultimately Him and His word that keeps them in. Would we sacrifice drawing someone to Christ by throwing away things that change with the times?

I too agree that some of this stuff is trivial and doesn't matter as but a lot of things we do does affect how we worship and reverence(sp?) God.

Again I may be reaching so if so help a brother understand

[musicbishop]

I won't say you're stretching, but I will say your perspective is a common one for most anybody who hasn't read this book. I think once you "dig in" your perspective may change a bit.

believe it or not I'm scared to find out LOL

[blyempowered]

@musicbishop I pose this question to you: when does something unbiblical become wrong?

[musicbishop]

@musicbishop I pose this question to you: when does something unbiblical become wrong?

Yeah I saw where I blieve you posed this question ealier.

Me personally I see it wrong if it truly turns people away from Christ. I bold the truly because some people will use any reason to run from God just to justify them leaving the faith. Also because people run from churches because of things that don't sit right with their egos rather than really looking for God or searching God in the situation whatever it may be.

I could probably add more and this could change but this is where I am right now.


I have a quick question too. How many of us have really thought about this stuff before the scope of this book. I have to admit I never did.

[blyempowered]

I have. I've been interested for a long time in why we do what we do because as I've read the Bible and see things in today's church there's a disconnect. As I've seen so many arrogant "Christian" leaders over the years I've thought about these issues. Ill add more in a little bit.

[phbrown]

I won't say you're stretching, but I will say your perspective is a common one for most anybody who hasn't read this book. I think once you "dig in" your perspective may change a bit.

*slow head nod*

[phbrown]

Okay first admit I haven't really dug really deep in this book and my memory of reading doesn't serve me to well. But here it goes:
With this I think the problem is with the person who carries the titles. Just look at our church today if we didn't have leaders with titles and what not how would the church be ran. it would probably be a complete mess for the most part because although we are the body of Christ we are still people as well. now I will say I don't agree with people just givin themselves titles a willie-nillie Eph 4:11 tells us and he gave some apostles and some prophets and some evangelists and some pastors and teacher 12 for the perfecting of the saints for the work of the ministry for the edifying of the body of Christ.  tell me if I'm stretching and I'll take a listen.

you would be surprised. it would be different but it would still function... just imagine a choir with out a director the first time they sing a train wreck ... let them practice a bit and you would never know the difference.

[phbrown]

I have a quick question too. How many of us have really thought about this stuff before the scope of this book. I have to admit I never did.

I briefly studied historical architecture that's about it, never really thought about any thing else