Starbucks and Salvation

Video Blogs 1 and 1(a)...

SO I just realized that I can video blog instead of always typing stuff out...fun times are sure to ensue.  I've recorded an introductory blog (split into 2 pieces due to a phone call) and hope you enjoy them... 

Fear not...

In many places in scripture, a command is directly given or implied in trying situations...fear not.  Some examples include Genesis 15:1 and 26:24; Exodus 14:13; Joshua 8:1 and 10:8; Isaiah 41:10; Matthew 10:26, 28, 31; 2 Timothy 1:7; Hebrews 13:6 and Revelations 2:10 just to name a few (quite literally, these are just a few of the references available).  Essentially, throughout scripture the teaching is given to not fear men, the world, or the world's circumstances because as those who have inherited God's Kingdom, those things have no power over us...we are living in this world, but not of it.  

Why then, are so many believers so quick to over-react, over-dramatize, and over-analyze occurrences/situations in the world?  Do we not really believe what read in scripture?  Do we not really think that Christ has indeed "overcome" the world as He promised?  Do we not really live in the confidence of who He is?  

What prompts this post you ask?  Well, the other day I was flipping channels on the radio driving through the Valley and came across a fairly well known preacher...not a local dude, but a nationally known guy being interviewed on a nationally known show.  Apparently the topic of the day was sexual immorality (isn't it always?) and instead of speaking on the positive issues of sexuality according to our beliefs, he was railing on and on about the state of the world, it's moral standing, etc...which by the way, always frustrates me, what do we expect the world to do, it's in a FALLEN state...anyway, I digress.  At one point he described sexual immorality as, "The river of immorality that is running rampant throughout our subdivisions and suburbs with its tributaries just waiting to move up your sidewalk and through your front door into your house!"  Now, let me state this to begin with...as soon as he finished speaking, the FIRST image that came to my mind was the river of slime in Ghostbusters 2.  You know, where the slime is running underground through the old train stations?  Haha...ok, now back to the serious stuff.  The rest of the interview (at least the 5 minutes or so I listened to it) was this beyond impassioned, at times downright scary, dissertation on the woes of our world and the manners in which all of Christendom was going to be sucked into the endless vortex of immorality unless we began legislating morality on a higher level in our courts, our books of law, and our churches.  I expected him to say at some point we should all build castles with moats and lock ourselves away so as to save ourselves from the flood of immorality that was heading our way.

Now listen, I'm the father of 2 daughters, and indeed I do pray often about their futures.  I know there are going to be instances where young men attempt to entice them to step into immorality and on top of that there will be instances where the world attempts to sway them through it's media.  I'm not ignorant of the pitfalls that await them...but I also am not LIVING IN FEAR, nor will I raise them in a spirit of fear!  From the time I grew up in the late 70's and early 80's people have been using scare tactics (speeches, statistical information, graphic media campaigns) to try and dissuade young people from entering into sexual situations and drug/alcohol use and guess what...they have failed miserably!  Fear is the devil's handiwork, and if we use his tools to try and implement God's standards, well the two just do NOT go together.  

There is a book I read not too long ago titled, "Following Jesus in a Culture of Fear".  I coupled that reading with the book, "The Culture of Fear: Why Americans Are Afraid of the Wrong Things".  Here are some excerpts from "Following Jesus in a Culture of Fear". 

 "Why do marketers and the media like to stir up fear?  Fear, like sex, is one of our basic instincts, a primal reaction.  Both...move us to act; just as 'sex sells', so does fear."

"Christian marketing exploits the same manipulative practices, suggesting that a particular product or a style of consuming will make us feel safer.  'Christian' then becomes more a description of certain kinds of safe products than a description of people."

"Following the teachings of Jesus will involve us in risky practices like clothing the naked, visiting the prisoner, caring for the sick, welcoming the stranger, and feeding the hungry...the life of Jesus will mean walking in the way of the cross, the way of self-giving love...such risky discipleship can hardly be described as 'safe'."

As a starting place for situations of fear, the book asks these reflective questions...1) Is the thing you fear actually present or fast-approaching, or far off in terms of distance, time, or likelihood? 2) Is the thing you fear really powerful and able to cause you harm?  3) Is the thing you fear really a threat...or does it seem scary because it is strange? 4) Are you afraid of losing something of real importance...or a thing that you shouldn't be so concerned about in the first place? 5) Do you fear so much that you are closing in on yourself or unjustly lashing out at others? 6) Does your fear keep you from doing things you know you should do? 7)Does your fear take away the joy you feel in the presence of things you love (like family) because you are afraid of losing them? 8) Is your fear the result of someone's attempt to manipulate you?  Is anyone profiting from your fear (like a politician, business or religious leader)?  These questions are intended to begin a process of putting fear in its' proper place.

I'm going to be re-reading both books I mentioned and will most likely blog about them in the days/weeks to come...until then, 

FEAR NOT!!!

Pagan Christianity part 4...

Christian Education: Swelling the Cranium - Viola begins this chapter of his book with the following, "In the minds of most Christians, formal Christian education qualifies a person to do the Lord's work."  Without education from a bible college or seminary, Viola states most Christians view ministers who fall into that category a "Pseudo Christian worker", and are not qualified to preach, teach, baptize, etc...since they have not been formally trained to do so.  He then points to the reality that in early church life of the 1st century, training for ministerial tasks were not academic in nature, but hands-on.  Apprenticeship, rather than intellectual learning, was the norm and was aimed "at the spirit, rather than at the frontal lobe."  Puritan John Owen is credited with the following statement regarding the 1st century, "Every church was then a seminary, in which provision and preparation was made."  Viola believes ministerial training has moved from the "...practical, experiential, or spiritual" to "...rational, objective, and abstract."  Viola walks through 4 stages of theological training...episcopal (led by bishops), monastic (led by monks), scholastic (led by the evolution of the university system) and seminarian (led by professors with a goal of producing "professional" ministers).  Each period was and is highly intellectual and study driven.  As the Reformation period arrived, the theologically trained pastor also arrived in Protestantism.  The gift of preaching was not emphasized as highly as training in exegesis of the scripture and biblical theology...it was assumed if they knew those 2 things, they could preach.  Historically, a bad assumption :)

Viola also tackles the issue of Sunday School in this chapter.  Most people know Sunday School as that time on Sunday morning where someone leads a lesson, usually out of a pre-printed book/study, and includes some doughnuts and coffee/juice if you're lucky.  You might be surprised to see how it historically began...Robert Raikes is given credit as being the founder of Sunday School.  He started it in Britain, specifically Gloucester for the purpose to teach poor children in the community the basics of education.  When Sunday School came to America in the late 18th century, the Sunday School Society was formed in Philadelphia.  It's purpose?  To provide education to poor/indigent children in the community.  Many of these Sunday School's operated independently of church, as pastors did not believe lay-persons could teach the bible (because they were not seminary trained...see the cycle?).  In the early 19th century, Sunday School shifted from an effort to help poor kids, to an evangelical mechanism (because helping poor people must not be evangelical in nature...my words, not Viola's).  Sunday School moved from it's original purpose to being THE recruiting ground for the church.  This continues to be the norm for most Protestant churches.  In the era of "institutions", Sunday School has become its own.  Grown out of the Sunday School concept was the institution of the "Youth Pastor" in modern church.  The last 70 years of American culture has seen a tremendous rise in emphasis on children and teenagers and the church is no different.  When the concern grew for "teenagers" (around the 1940's) the idea emerged that someone needed to be professionally trained (ugh,not that again) to work with them.  As the decades rolled on, age-segregated ministries began to flourish.  (on a personal note, I sat under a teaching time with Richard Ross, a widely respected leader of students who stated specifically in Southern Baptist realms we are now reaping what we sowed in terms of family dysfunction...he believes segregating the family was the worst thing we ever did in the church)  

Personally, this chapter holds a lot for me.  I remember being in a preaching class at bible college in KY, and it was the end of the semester.  An individual in that class who was slated to graduate was talking about a grade he received that he thought was unfair.  His concern was that he would graduate "magna cum laude" instead of "summa cum laude" and his exact statement was, "What kind of church will hire me if I'm just magna cum laude?"  I knew then he was not someone I would "go to war with".  Additionally, I've had the privilege of knowing my father-in-law for over 12 years now.  He is not seminary trained, and does not have any type of theological degree.  However, I would stack him up against any professor I ever sat under.  Why?  Because the man is driven to walk with the Spirit of God and for as long as I've known him, he spends a minimum of an hour a day in the scriptures and in prayer.  I can honestly say of all the theological schoolwork I went through, less than 10-15% of it is applicable in my life today.  

Re-approaching the New Testament: the Bible is Not a Jigsaw Puzzle - Viola believes the great power of tradition in the church affects our ability to weekly observe and take part in things that are not New Testament in nature without questioning them.  The practice of studying the bible known as "proof texting" also contributes to this, he believes.  Proof texting is the practice of lifting a verse or verses out of scripture and using them to prove doctrine or practice, without considering their context.  Various ideas throughout history have been formulated by this practice such as the role of women in the church (covering their head, remaining silent, etc...), qualifications of elders, and money just to name a few.  Viola notes that the bulk of the New Testament outside of the Gospel accounts is made up of Paul's letters to churches - letters that span about a 20 year period of time.  If you were to write 20 letters to your spouse, do you think time, culture change, and other influences might affect your writing?  The base of the writing would be the same...you love him/her.  But other factors might influence specific situations.  The same can be said of Paul's writings.  Therefore, proof texting is not a good method to examine scripture.  Culture must be looked at as well as the specific church issues facing each letter.  Additionally, Viola notes that the letters must be read as such...a letter.  It wasn't until the 16th century that chapters and verses were added.  Granted, this may make for easier reading, but it also makes for the possibility of pulling a verse or verses out of context for the sake of personal thought.  Viola notes the ways we proof-text the bible today is at its center, highly individualistic.  We place ourselves at the center of scripture, and find verses to support our inspiration, our promises, our personal doctrines, and so on.  (Note: I DO believe the bible inspires, and tells us of God's promises, doctrine, etc...but it does so as a whole, not in cut-and-paste mode)  Viola states we should "...learn to view the New Testament panoramically, not microscopically."  

Again, this chapter has great meaning for me personally.  Much of my early life in church was spent being berated by individuals for this action or that action as they strew about partial verses of scripture to support their admonishment.  Even in my adult years, that has not changed much.  You can search scripture and pull a few words here and there and blast most anyone for anything.  There was a movie several years ago titled "Saved".  It was not an award winning film by any stretch of the imagination, but it was provocative in that it examined real life attitudes and actions in western-culture Christendom, specifically in the world of teenagers.  One scene that stands out in my mind is when some of the "holier" teens have attempted to impart their spirituality on another teen they feel has gone over the edge.  As they launch their attack, she turns to them and screams, "The bible is not a weapon!"  She was right...it's not a weapon to pick apart each other with.  It's a story of redemption, of renewal, of a return to the way things once were between God and man before the Fall of man.

A Second Glance at the Savior: Jesus, the Revolutionary - this final chapter of Viola's book deals with our attitude/ideas about Jesus.  He describes Jesus this way, "...revolutionary teacher-radical prophet-provocative preacher-controversialist-iconoclast-and the implacable opponent of the religious establishment."  He points out Jesus "constantly defied the traditions of the scribes and Pharisees."  He describes Jesus as "revolutionary" because Christ came to change the future.  Early Christians were intensely Christ-centered, not institutionally centered.  Christ was the object of their life, and the New Testament points to the central-headship theme of Christ both in the life of the individual and in the life of the church.  As Viola concludes his book, he hopes it has a threefold affect...1) you begin asking questions about church as you know it, 2) you share his challenges about church with others, and 3) pray seriously about what your response is to what you read.  

As I've read Viola's book a couple of times and done some of my own studies, with any book there comes criticisms and accusations.  Many in the western culture of Christianity have blasted Viola's book as being incomplete and not adequately researched.  I'll let you Google those responses yourself, as I'm not interested in comparing all the opinions.  Are there some things Viola may not have gotten completely right?  Possibly...just as it is possible with anything that ordinary man has written.  Pagan Christianity is not designed to be an inspired-without error book.  It is designed to raise questions and invite its readers to examine what they know about church to see if it matches up with scripture.  Viola wrote a follow-up to this book titled "Re-imagining Church" which I have not read yet, but plan to.  I have read another book by Viola titled "Finding Organic Church" and it is an awesome read.  Perhaps I'll share some thoughts from it at another time.  As followers of Christ we are bound to know why we do what we do and examine it.  You may be in a church where you won't be allowed to question...you may be in a church where change is not possible.  For you as an individual, you will have to decide what is best.  I know many who have stayed in churches where they didn't agree with everything that went on (because the reality is you won't a church where you agree with EVERYTHING unless you start the church of "you" :) ) because staying in that church meant seeing God change lives.  That's what it ultimately is all about...God changing lives through the power of His Son Jesus, and the indwelling of God's Spirit.  Sometimes, we have to look past other things to remain in a place where this occurs. 

Pagan Christianity part 3...

Ministers of Music: Clergy Set to Music - Viola begins this chapter in his book with a description of a typical Sunday morning in churches...singing of hymns, choruses, or praise and worship songs led by either a single person, or team of people, or a choir.  Viola states, "This is in stark contrast to the first-century way.  In the early church, worship and singing were in the hands of all of God's people."  Viola points again to the time period of Constantine and the "legalization" of Christianity as the time when the way music in the church was changed.  He ties the advent of church choirs to ancient Greece, where drama itself was parallel to religious liturgy.  By the mid 4th century, congregational singing was replaced with trained choirs and according to Viola, singing in worship was "now the domain of the clergy and the choir."

Viola points to the Reformation movement as restoring the concept of congregational singing and adding the use of instruments.  Congregational singing did not hit its peak until the 18th century, according to Viola.  The Wesleyan revival in England was the epicenter of this restoration.  The organ became the standard instrument used in Protestant worship, with the exception of Calvinistic congregations who believed as Calvin did that musical instruments were too pagan in nature.  

Viola also addresses the rise of 'worship teams' in contemporary churches today.  He notes they follow a similar pattern from church to church; upbeat praise choruses, followed by a time of individualistic, gentle, worshipful singing.  He states the described pattern originates from the mid-60's with the rise of Calvary Chapel, a church which focused on reaching the hippie generation.  In due time movements such as Vineyard, Hillsongs, and others followed suit.  

In this chapter, Viola states nothing is wrong with the above mentioned setting...if you like it.  He believes that many Christians feel the setting robs people of a vial function of a New Testament church: the opportunity to select and lead their own singing as was done in the early church.  He uses scriptural text such as 1st Corinthians 14:26 and Ephesians 5:19 as evidence of all in the church having ability to select and lead music.  In Viola's opinion, when worship songs of any genre are announced, initiated, and led by the "talented", the element of the service becomes more like entertainment instead of corporate worship.  Viola states that for 20 years, he has gathered with churches where every member has the opportunity to start a song for others to join in.  He states the worship then becomes more Christ-as-Headship centered, and less individualistic and subjective.  It seems with this chapter Viola is more concerned with the issue of "we are a New Testament church" than anything...to state a church meets in that fashion but doesn't employ worship that matches is a contradiction in his eyes.  One thought that crosses my mind is this...I would assume the New Testament believers who gathered did not have an extensive 'list' of psalms/hymns to work from, thereby limiting the possibility that someone would begin a song that others in the worship setting would know.  Today, in a church ranging from those born in the 1930's to those born in the last decade, the expanse of song choice would be unreal.  If the goal is corporate worship, having people stand up to lead a song that possibly half of the congregation would not know presents a problem.  I do believe as Viola states, there is a tendency for worship today to become too "entertaining", however I don't know that the idea of anyone rising up to lead a song is the answer.  It also seems that making this a focal point of discussion among church leaders misses the point that worship is to be a daily event, not a weekly one.  The strongest manner of worship being off the cuff and without liturgy rests in the home, worshiping with family and friends. 

Tithing and Clergy Salaries: Sore Spots on the Wallet -  I've expounded my own personal thoughts on this subject here http://www.starbucksandsalvationblog.com/starbucks-and-salvation/2010/02/money-money-money-moneymoney.html and here http://www.starbucksandsalvationblog.com/starbucks-and-salvation/2009/11/god-and-money.html and here http://www.starbucksandsalvationblog.com/starbucks-and-salvation/2009/10/giving-sacrifice-and-the-heart.html and probably a few other places but that's enough for now.  Let's examine what Viola has to say on it...

Viola begins with an examination of Malachi 3:8-10, which reads "Will a man rob God?  Yet you rob me.  But you ask, 'How do we rob you?'  In tithes and offerings.  You are under a curse-the whole nation of you-because you are robbing me.  Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house.  Test me in this, says the Lord Almighty, and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that you will not have room enough for it."  Viola rightly states this is one of the favorite passages of many Christian leaders, especially when giving is at a low point or is decreasing.  Viola states leaders will remind people their tithing is necessary for God's work to proceed and they are in danger of a curse from God if they don't.  Viola states, "God's work, of course, includes paying the pastoral staff and footing the monthly electric bill to keep the building afloat.  Viola advocates the tithe is biblical, but is not applicable to New Testament Christians.  Here's how...

In the Old Testament, Viola notes, there were 3 types of tithe for Israel as part of their taxation system.  A tithe of the produce of their land to support the Levites (priests), a tithe of the produce of their land to sponsor religious festivals, and a tithe of the produce of the land collected every 3rd year for the local Levites, orphans, strangers and widows.  This adds up to 23.3%, not the standard 10% which is often taught.  Viola also notes it was a portion of the produce of the land, not money.  Viola states, "With the death of Jesus, all ceremonial codes that belonged to the Jews were nailed to Christ's cross and buried, never to be used again to condemn us."  He notes we don't see New Testament Christians tithing as the Jews did, just as we do not see them sacrificing goats and bulls to cover their sins.  Viola states, "When it comes to financial stewardship, we see the first-century saints giving cheerfully according to their ability-not dutifully out of a command."  One of the most powerful testimonies of the early church was how they gave to the poor and needy.  

As church leaders became landlords of 8th century Europe, a tithe to them became the same as a tax.  The tithe was instituted as a fusion of Old Testament practice and a common system of leasing land.  By the end of the 10th century, the leasing system had diminished almost immediately...but the practice of tithing to the church leaders remained and was viewed as a moral requirement.  

Viola points to the New Testament as evidence against pastoral salaries.  He notes that elders and church leaders had earthly vocations, not full time ministries.  Constantine initiated payment for clergy when he elevated Christianity as the official religion of Rome.  Creating a professional ministry base lapses the church into passive dependence on one or a few people to do all the work.  Viola additionally believes paying pastoral staff encourages them to be a "man-pleaser".  A pastor's meal ticket is attached to how much his congregation likes him.  

As a pastor, this eats at me as much as anything I've encountered.  I've seen and heard pastors refer to people as money...I've witnessed them back down from certain things because those pushing were "givers" to the church...I've watched them burn out or slowly fade in enthusiasm due to being worn down by monetary issues (building campaigns, the fights over "designated receipts", bill payments and other issues).  Western culture is so entrenched in pastoral salaries and the idea of "professional" staff that I don't know if it's possible to "step back" and consider another way.  I know of a few pastors who are seeking to reverse the trend through writing books or having speaking engagements or other things that become their 'salary' leaving them to shepherd their church for free.  Rick Warren of Saddleback Valley actually paid back his entire salary to the church and "reverse" tithes, living on 10% of his income and giving the 90% to the church.  Warren's is an unusual circumstance obviously, as he is a multi-published author...but perhaps the idea is applicable to all pastors.  

Baptism and the Lord's Supper: Diluting the Sacraments - Viola notes in today's church culture, new converts to Christianity often have a "waiting period" before they are baptized.  He states, "In the first century, this was unheard of."  According to David Wright, "At the birth of the church, converts were baptized with little or no delay."  Baptism was the early Christian's initial confession of faith in Christ.  In our culture, the "sinner's prayer" has become the earmark of confession.  Baptism in the early church was an expression of faith as well as an act of faith.  In the 2nd and 3rd centuries, a movement began where converts of Christ had to go through a period of instruction, prayer and fasting before being baptized to "prove" themselves.  Sometimes the waiting period would be up to 3 years!  The thought began to develop that a person could only be "saved" by baptism and only that act of baptism could forgive sin.  If a person sinned after being baptized, they could not be forgiven.  So by the 4th century, the waiting period for baptism became standard.  This transformed into some, like Constantine himself, waiting until their deathbed to be baptized, so they would not "lose" their salvation.  

In examining the Lord's Supper, Viola notes "Rivers of blood have been shed at the hands of Protestant and Catholic Christians alike over the doctrinal intricacies related to the Holy Communion."  For early Christians, the Lord's Supper was a festive, communal meal.  They had joy and celebration, and broke bread at the beginning of the meal and concluded the time with the passing of the cup.  It was in essence, a Christian banquet...with no professional clergy to officiate.  Viola states today's observance of the Supper we are "...told to remember the horrors of our Lord's death and to reflect on our sins."  By the 4th century the Lord's Supper had moved from a feast, to a ritual.  The ritual overtones ascribed supernatural powers to the event, with the priest calling down God from heaven and having Him "indwell" in the form of a piece of bread.  As the ritual moved even further into what is theologically known as "transubstantiation" (the belief that the bread and wine actually changes into the body and blood of Christ), naturally people approached the event with fear, awe, and dread in some cases as opposed to emotions associated with a feast.  

Viola's concerns with both practices is genuine.  Baptism is a practice that will probably be the most difficult to biblically replicate.  In the first century, a confession of Christ was met with the possibility of imprisonment, being ostracized by one's family, and in some cases death.  To immediately baptize someone who would confess Christ under such circumstances is applicable as they may not have another chance.  Today however, in western Christianity at least, repercussions as these to a confession of Christ do not exist.  In some Muslim countries, that is not the case, but Viola's book is targeted at church life in Americanized regions.  Therefore there may be some wisdom in examining a person's life before they are baptized.  So many people associate "getting saved" with walking down an aisle, shaking a preacher's hand, and repeating a formatted prayer that the process of baptism for them is just another portion of that saving equation as opposed to being a true representation of a life-changing encounter with Christ.  Likewise with the Lord's Supper, today it has been robbed of it's joyous overtone.  It is more ritual than anything, and even today churches and denominations accuse one another of not "doing it right" because one practices it each Sunday and another may practice it once a quarter.  The joy of early Christians over the triumphant death/resurrection and return of Jesus has been replaced with a somber, almost mournful rite.  In both instances we should seek whatever it takes to reclaim the 1st century attitude towards these 2 important pieces of the church. 

Taking the next few days off...

So I have friends due to arrive in 2 hours from Kentucky for the weekend, then Valentine's Day on Sunday, then my wife has her birthday on Monday, sooooo, I'll be taking the next few days off.  For those of you looking forward to Pagan Christianity part 3, hang on, it will be up Tuesday or Wednesday of next week.  For those of you not looking forward to that, well, sorry 'bout your luck :)

Let me say this...through much reading of blogs the last few days, I've determined the top 3 ways to get a rise out of Christians, especially Southern Baptists is to blog on women in ministry, different ways to prepare a sermon/message, or giving/tithing.  Wonder what that says about us...

For your viewing pleasure...have a great weekend!  Go Big Blue!!!

Pagan Christianity part 2...

This post...the Sermon, the Pastor, and Sunday Morning Costumes...

The Sermon: Protestantism's Most Sacred Cow - before I dive into Viola's thoughts on the sermon, allow me a few discretionary moments to speak on my own.  I've been on an 12 year journey into and through ministry.  I can't begin to state the number of times I've heard these type phrases (not necessarily about me, but in general); "He's an impassioned speaker!" "He has such a great delivery!" "He has a way of speaking to people that is unreal!"  You'll notice all example began with "he"...I have grown up in the Southern Baptist tradition remember. ;>) The point is this...whether it is a youth ministry event speaker, a conference speaker, or a Sunday morning preacher, you rarely if ever hear anyone talk about how incredible someone shepherds the flock or tends to the needs of their congregation or lives with kingdom mindedness...its all about the speaking.  It's as if a person only needs to have great oratory skills to make a kingdom impact...but I digress.  Viola has this to say about New Testament examples of preaching...it was comprised of different messages to different audiences; it was sporadic, not scheduled; it often revolved around specific needs or issues; it was extemporaneous and often lacked structure; it usually encouraged and welcomed feedback instead of its hearers being limited to a "sit and get" mentality.  Viola notes that sermon delivery as we are accustomed to today has its roots not in the early church, but in Greek culture and philosophy.  It was the Greeks orators who were set apart by their placement and dress and Aristotle is credited with the 3 point structure so many of today's preachers are taught in their seminaries.  Around the 3rd century active, participatory church meetings began to die out, and church services began to emerge.  During the same time, pagan leaders were being converted to Christianity (which is a good thing) and brought with them the structure and status of professional 'teachers'.  The drawback to this infusion is church meetings moved away from a participatory, all inclusive expression to a sit and get methodology.  In the early days of Roman Catholicism, the Eucharist or Lord's Supper was center stage of the church service.  With the Reformation, Luther again moved the sermon to center stage.  John Calvin argued the preacher was the "mouth of God".  As the Puritans moved forth, they sought to mimic Calvin's expository preaching style (verse by verse) and raised further the sermon in importance.  Viola believes the elevating of the sermon has harmed Christianity in the following ways: 1) it makes the preacher the "virtuoso performer" of the service, the hearers become "muted spectators" instead of active participants of the meeting; 2) the sermon actually "stalemates spiritual growth" by suffocating participation and encouraging passivity; 3) it creates an "excessive and pathological dependence on the clergy", by creating the image of the preacher as "religious specialist" and reducing all other persons' involvement; 4) instead of equipping the saints, it "de-skills" them...Viola suggest preaching and teaching in the NT actually sought to lead the church to be able to function "without" the presence of clergy; 5) Viola believes today's sermons are often "impractical" with speakers spouting as experts on things they have never experienced.  IMO, which is what a personal review is, I tend to agree with Viola in theory that the sermon as we know it today has not really fulfilled what Christ intended for His believers.  In today's consumer driven church mentality, people by the 10's of thousands file into buildings on Sunday mornings, sit back and wait for something to be delivered to them, nod their head accordingly (or shake it no if need be) and then file out having been unchanged, unchallenged, and in many ways not transformed by the Spirit and Word of God.  Some of this lies within the responsibility of the hearers...too many of them are truly seeking what God would have in store for them.  However, in recognizing that it falls upon us who are delivering the message to seek what God would have us to do in response to their lackadaisical attitude.  Jesus surely encountered many who did not really care what He had to say...but He continued to push until He hit the right button.

The Pastor: Obstacle to Every-Member Functioning - "I majored in Bible in college.  I went to the seminary and I majored in the only thing they teach there: the professional ministry.  When I graduated, I realized that I could speak Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, and the only thing on earth I was qualified for was to be pope.  But someone else had the job." Anonymous 

Viola makes these following statements in regards to the word 'pastor' in the scriptures...it is only used once in the NT (Ephesians 4:11...in the English Standard Version, which is touted as the closest word-for-word translation we have 'pastors' reads 'shepherds' in English); in the Ephesians passage it is plural, not singular indicating there were many pastors in the Ephesus church; the word 'poimen' which is translated to pastor or shepherd is not about an office or title but about a function within the church.  Early church leaders such as Ignatius, Clement of Rome, and Tertullian were the first to espouse or put into place hierarchical structures within the local church of leadership.  This occurred late 1st century into the 2nd century.  Over the centuries their ideas evolved into bishop/presbyter (priest) led churches.  When Constantine elevated Christianity to the official religion of the Empire, the pastor/clergy position took on a new head of steam.  Civil power was afforded to members of clergy, and Constantine issued a mandatory yearly salary to all members.  They were exempted from paying income tax (which, by the way is a great thing in my opinion ;>) ), and they were exempt from mandatory civic duties (such as serving in the army) as well as being free from trial in secular courts.  Under Constantine, leading in the church became less about a calling and more about a career choice.  During the Reformation period, Luther, Calvin and others rallied around restoring the biblical idea of the priesthood of all believers.  This was only a partial restoration according to Viola, as they continued to elevate the idea of clergy being called and ordained as opposed to being open to anyone.  In the Reformer's eyes, "ordination was the key to having power in the church."  Acts of contempt or ridicule toward a pastor were treated as serious offenses, as if they had been directed toward God Himself.  Viola states today, the single pastor position in church divides the church into "1st and 2nd class Christians" and "suffocates our functioning" in the local church.  It makes the pastor a "giant mouth" and transforms the church member into a "tiny ear".  Additionally, this position places undo stress and pressure on the pastor.  Depression, burnout, and emotional breakdown occur at abnormally high rates among pastors.  The need to be "perfect" can drain any mortal dry.  In Viola's words, the pastor position as it is in today's church "fosters dishonesty" among pastors, as their church members expect them to "always be cheerful, completely spiritual, and available at a moment's call."  They also "expect that he will have a perfectly disciplined family" and should "never appear resentful or bitter".  Anne Jackson wrote a book titled "Mad Church Disease: Overcoming the Burnout Epidemic" which hits these points Viola has made right on the head.  If you are reading this post, and are a church member or minister, I highly recommend her work.

Sunday Morning Costumes: Covering up the Problem - the practice of dressing up for church is a relatively recent phenomenon according to Viola.  In the late 18th century, dressing up for social events was only done by the very wealthy.  Common folk had 2 sets of clothing...work clothes, and another set for going into town.  With the advent of mass textile marketing and production, the middle class were born and to demonstrate their new status, they would "dress up" like the wealthy.  Interestingly, John Wesley wrote against wearing expensive or flashy clothing in church.  Even early Baptists condemned fine clothing teaching it separated the rich from the poor.  However, mainstream Christians continued to wear their 'best' whenever they could.  In the late 19th century, Horace Bushnell, a Congregational minister in Connecticut, published an essay titled "Taste and Fashion" in which he espoused traits like sophistication and refinement, including matters of dress, were attributes of God and Christians should embrace them.  Church members now wore their formal clothing not merely to honor God, but to emulate Him.  Viola believes "dressing up" for church violates these basic NT principles...1) it reflects a false division between the secular (worldly) and sacred as we have access to God's Spirit at all times, not just on Sunday morning; 2) it presents the message to those outside the church that those inside the church "have it all together" when in reality it "fosters the illusion that we are somehow good because we are dressing up for God"; 3) it "smacks against the primitive simplicity that was the sustaining hallmark of the early church."  Early Christians did not dress to exhibit their social class.  Quite the opposite, the NT is filled with exhortation that social class is abolished in Christ and His church.  James rebukes the church in chapter 2 of his letter for showing favoritism among classes.  Today, though many churches have 'loosened' the dress code for worship, in many areas of the country church appearance is more important than church involvement.  

As a pastor of a church plant, I am acutely aware of the potential of those who may join the church to be more enamored of me then they are of Christ.  I am not stating they should be, nor do I believe that of myself.  In this culture however, many people are more attracted to a pastor/leader then they are a movement of God.  At the recent Verge conference, Ed Stetzer made this statement, "We tend to build churches around dynamic personalities.  This may work for a while, but will fail in the long run."  My desire for Springwater is that it will be a church that will celebrate MANY anniversaries in the Surprise, AZ community.  For that to occur, it cannot be built around me.  I am grateful for Viola's thoughts and research concerning the pastoral position and what it is biblically.  His are not the only thoughts I've read on the subject, and prayerfully, they will impact how I lead and shepherd the church.  Next post, we tackle Music Ministers, Tithing & Clergy Salaries, and the Lord's Supper & Baptism.  Au revoir!

A personal review of "Pagan Christianity" part 1...

In January 2008 Frank Viola, with the assistance of George Barna released a book titled "Pagan Christianity", subtitled "Exploring the Roots of our Church Practices". In Viola's own words, "Our reason for writing it (the book) is simple: we are seeking to remove a great deal of debris in order to make room for the Lord Jesus Christ to be the fully functioning head of His church."

The book takes a look at these issues: are we really "doing" church by the book (Bible); the issues of the church building, order of worship, sermon, pastor and other professional ministers, tithing, the Lord's Supper and baptism, Christian education, dressing up for church, and finally looking at the New Testament and Christ more in-depth.  I've decided to tackle the 12 chapter book in four posts, looking at 3 chapters at a time.  Today I'll discuss "Have we really been doing it by the book?", "the Church building", and "the Order of Worship"...enjoy.

"Have We Really Been Doing it by the Book?" - a current trend in churches, both established and new churches, is to make statements on their website/brochures/bulletins such as "We are a New Testament church" or "Everything we do at XYZ Church is taken from the Word of God".  We are taught by leaders in and out of our churches to read and digest the Word of God...but we do so by the lenses of tradition, perspective, and personal experience we have in life.  This opening chapter of Viola's book serves as a springboard for the remainder.  In it he describes how "...you may be surprised to discover that a great deal of what we Christians do for Sunday morning church did not come from Jesus Christ, the Apostles, or the Scriptures."  Moreover he states, "Strikingly, much of what we do for "church" was lifted directly out of pagan culture in the postapostolic period."  Viola sets forth a strong argument for refusing to bury our heads in the sand and stating, "We've always done it this way.'  Viola's book is intended to supply the reader with enough information to spur them on to greater study, both of Scripture and of the church and her history.  

"The Church Building" - perhaps no where in the world (with the exception perhaps of Rome) is the church building more closely associated with success/validity than in America.  Upon moving here to Arizona, one of the earliest questions I had as a church planter in one of my meetings was how soon did we need to think about being in a building campaign.  You see, in my mind, I could be mobile and rent facility upon facility forever and be comfortable with that.  I was quickly told however that until we had a building, people in the community would not think we were "for real".  I have to admit, that surprised me in this area, especially a large metropolitan area.  I understand all to well the Southern mentality...that a church building means you've arrived.  I suppose I was thinking this part of the country may be different.  Viola's concern with the church building begins with this realization, "Ancient Judaism was centered on three elements: the Temple, the priesthood, and the sacrifice.  When Jesus came, He ended all three, fulfilling them in Himself."  In my own study of scripture, I see Christ becoming our lead priest/mediator, the the new Temple of God's Spirit clearly taught in the perspective of being our bodies...obviously, Christ fulfilled the ultimate sacrifice as well.  So I believe Viola to be on target with his initial thoughts re: the church building.  In the New Testament, we see the early followers of Christ meeting in homes, not extravagant buildings, and the Greek word for church (ekklesia) was not used to describe a location, but a group of people.  According to history, specific buildings for church worship were not built until the times after Constantine officially endorsed Christianity as the Roman religion.  Additionally, Viola notes that early church's were built on the idea that all believers were part of a royal priesthood unto God.  Sacrifices were done away with and replaced with spiritual practices of worship and praise and thanksgiving.  As Roman Catholicism grew, it synchronized Judaism with new Christianity and pagan (polytheistic followers in ancient Rome) practices.  Thus, the professional priesthood was born and buildings were constructed.  Early buildings began as monuments over sacred places or burial grounds.  Viola spends much of the chapter detailing the finer points of the early church buildings and how they borrowed greatly from polytheistic traditions of the day.  For brevity, I will not spend time discussing these, but jump ahead.  Late in the chapter Viola gets to the point of the chapter - what difference does all this make?  In his words, "To put a finer point on it, the church building is based on the benighted idea that worship is removed from everyday life...the disjunction between worship and everyday life characterizes Western Christianity."  He adds that worship is seen as "something detached" from our life and is packaged for "group consumption" instead of being an individual practice.  Personally, I see reality in this and have grown up in a time where "going to church" meant one thing as a believer, and the rest of one's week meant entirely something else.  Viola is spot on in challenging the reader to think outside the box when it comes to the necessity of the building.  Churches quarrel weekly and pastors pull their hair out when dealing with monetary issues of the overhead associated with today's buildings.  More importantly, believers get too wrapped up in "going to church" instead of "being the church".  Buildings also impart a potential divide between church leaders who are partial to staying away from the trappings of a building.  John Newton stated, "Let not him who worships under a steeple condemn him who worships under a chimney."  Like Viola, I believe today's Christian should take seriously the importance we place on church buildings.

"The Order of Worship: Sunday Mornings Set in Concrete" - growing up in church, it didn't take long to memorize the order of things to come on Sunday mornings.  Oh, it was printed each Sunday for you in bulletin form, but if the copy machine ever failed to work you knew from the previous X number of Sunday's what was coming in terms of the service.  Even in churches that don't publish bulletins, at times they can fall into a trap of doing the same thing in the same order.  Viola describes the standard Protestant order of worship in this way: the greeting, prayer/scripture reading, a song service, announcements, an offering, a sermon, a benediction/dismissal...additionally there may be an altar call/invitation, additional singing, and the Lord's Supper and/or baptism. There may be some minor rearranging of things, but can you see these aspects in your church?  Viola states early church meetings were marked by "...every member-functioning, spontaneity, freedom, vibrancy, and open participation."  Early church was not marked by strict structure of service or even by starting at 10:50 and ending by 11:55!  In the 16th century, during Martin Luther's campaign against Roman Catholic policy and worship, specifically the manner in which they viewed the Lord's Supper.  His revisions of the Catholic Mass are largely the basis for Protestant order of services today.  Many critics of Luther state he did nothing more than shorten the Catholic Mass and made no real changes other then a few choice words or phrases.  There was still little in the way of participation, and the entire thing was still directed by "professional" clergy or pastors.  Luther's order of service was singing, prayer, sermon, admonition to the people, Lord's Supper, singing, prayer, benediction.  Look familiar?  In the coming years, other changes were made by other church fathers such as adding what is known today as the Lord's Supper Table...some did away with all musical instruments and sung a cappella....in all areas however, the lead pastor/clergy led the whole thing from the central point, the pulpit.  Very little interaction occurred and the people were encouraged to enter in with somber (sometimes called reverent) attitudes as opposed to biblical instruction to enter His gates with thanksgiving!  Later additions to the order of service included a greater focus on the sermon (17th/18th century) as well as the practice of the altar call/invitation of the Frontier-Revivalists.  Viola is quick to point out there is nothing inherently wrong with any of these principles...just that it is clear they did not originate with Christ, the apostles, or the New Testament Scriptures.  It doesn't mean they are wrong...just that it is wrong to state a church is doing things "by the book" when it comes to their order of worship.  Viola does have these concerns however with this style of worship...1) it represses participation and growth.  The participants of worship are largely silent, sitting, and stoic (my words, not his).  2) the headship of Christ is strangled...the entire service is directed by 1 or at most 2 persons.  There is no freedom for Christ to speak through His body.  (interestingly, in my tribe...baptists...much is made of Christ speaking through His body in certain times/places such as business meetings and other standards of congregational polity, just not in worship...this, to me, is bothersome)  3) for many, this order of worship is shamefully boring.  There is little variety or spontaneity.  The routine becomes tired, meaningless, and invisible.  Viola properly notes seeker-sensitive or contemporary churches have made moves to "upgrade" the worship service with media, theatrical modernizations and technology.  However, in many of these cases the service is still painfully predictable and dominated by a few.  4) Viola states the repetitive nature of the service hinders transformation as it encourages a passive lifestyle, limits functioning of the Spirit, and implies that one hour a week is the key to living victoriously in Christ.  In this chapter, Viola does a fantastic job of examining the barriers a worship service can potentially place in the life of a believer.  Opponents of this style of thinking concern themselves with worship becoming a "free-for-all"  with no regard for order or control.  However, Viola notes that indeed the Apostle Paul did give us guidelines for orderly worship (for example 1st Corinthians 14) in his letters.  Granted, some of his guidelines must be looked at in context of his day and the specific church at Corinth (such as verses 34 and 35) but indeed he did give good advice.  Personally, some of the greatest services I was blessed to attend at my church in Kentucky were services were we allowed people to pray aloud, share scripture, or bless the Lord with their words during the service.  Those days we recognized the work of Christ in people's lives in a much different way.  

Viola raises many interesting points throughout this book and in large part, I agree with them.  In my next post I'll deal with the issues of the sermon, the pastor, and dressing up for church.  I look forward to your comments and thoughts!

Money money money money....MONEY!

Tell me if you've heard these statements before (or similar ones) in church-life...

"God doesn't need your money!" "God owns the cattle on a thousand hills, what is your checkbook to Him?"
"The owner of everything in the universe doesn't need your stuff, He owns it all!"

There has been, since I can remember even as a young child, movement in churches on the part of preachers, deacons, evangelists, Sunday School teacher, and everybody else in-between to remind all who would hear that God doesn't need any of our money to do anything with, as He owns it all and has it all.  We talk at length about God's provision, and how if He wants something to succeed He will make it happen financially.  We speak of His unlimited resources and how giving to the church (tithing) is just an obedience aspect...that God doesn't NEED us to give, but asks us to in order that our priorities in life are changed and challenged.

IF we really believe that God will make things happen financially, and IF we really believe that He is going to pour out His resources (financial) on those things He is involved in and wants to succeed then the following information is troublesome...Southern Seminary and Southwestern Seminary are pulling programs due to financial reasons (see link for moreinfo http://www.kencoffee.com/2010/02/finances-hurting-seminaries.html)...according to this report from the Barna Group, 57% of pastors state the economy has hurt their local church budgets (http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/18-congregations/327-the-economys-impact-on-churches-congregational-budgets-part-1-of-3)...according to part 2 of the Barna report, the 3 ways churches are reacting to financial woes are to reduce spending, cut staff & missions, and reduce facility budgets (http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/18-congregations/334-the-economys-impact-on-churches-part-2-of-3-how-churches-have-adapted)...

Additionally on the money front, comes the charge that preachers/pastors/teachers who lead their church to consider giving/tithing from an aspect of grace as opposed to law (10% tithe) are "against" the law of God and borderline heretical.  For an excellent post on the subject, read here... http://kerussocharis.blogspot.com/2010/02/free-from-law-oh-blessed-condition.html The general idea is if you don't tell people they HAVE to give 10% to the church you're against God and His plans (even though it has been proven time and again the actual tithe of the Old Testament is closer to 25% and the New Testament teaches more about giving generously ABOVE your means as opposed to a percentage).  Interestingly enough, individuals who hammer the 10% issue rarely hammer home other Old Testament commands such as not wearing clothing of 2 types of material, not cutting the hair at the sides of the head, or rising in the presence of the aged/gray-haired (Leviticus 19:19, 27, 32 for example).  

If churches are cutting staff, missions, and facility funds due to the lack of financial support (God's support?) aren't those thing 3 pretty critical issues for the way church is done in America today?  Think God knows that?  Or maybe He knows a better way...maybe He knows by cutting "professional" ministers the church learns to rely on the people that make up the church to get things done a la the book of Acts. Maybe He knows that cutting back on facilities means that more people will realize the church is the group of people, not the building and they will actually get going in their communities.  Maybe not having money available to travel around the world missionally will get people to realize the mission opportunity across their street (NOTE: I AM for funding/participating missions around the world...it just seems sometimes we may not help our neighbor when we would rather spend a week in Barbados doing beach ministry...just saying).  Perhaps instead of looking at the current financial crisis as a huge negative in our churches, we should see what it is God is really saying to us.  

I know in my setting, both personally and as a church planter, one of the first things we are going to offer community-wise as a church is Financial Peace University.  We're going to band together with people in the church and community to assist one another in unloading debt, getting control of our finances, and putting ourselves in a position to give so sacrificially that a 10% mark is laughable.  As a church planter one of the things I will work at the hardest over our beginning months/years is developing a structure that leans toward people's tithes going less towards administrative stuff and more towards what the "storehouse" was intended for...distribution to the community.  Francis Chan of Cornerstone Church in Simi Valley, CA (http://www.cornerstonesimi.com/) currently has CC giving 40-50% of its budget to missions and instead of building a huge facility decided to meet outside in an amphitheater.  Eugene Cho of Quest Church in Seattle manages a non-profit coffee house in conjunction with Quest to minister to the community, provide jobs as well as outlets for local artists of all types and has led to the organization of One Day's Wages, a non-profit grassroots organization to fight global poverty (http://eugenecho.wordpress.com/).  The movement is rising...pastors/preachers/leaders who are tired of the status quo of church life...begging your people to give/volunteer/respond to God's vision.  Perhaps it has been the projection of vision that has been the problem.  Generations today respond to the cause, the personal story, to their role in that story...they won't respond to large buildings, huge budgets, and enormous overhead.  

Has God pulled His resources from the American church?  It's hard to say...one thing we KNOW He hasn't pulled is His Spirit.  His Son promised, "I will never leave you or forsake you."  If we place our focus there, we'll be just fine no matter what the economy looks like.

The importance of being who you're supposed to be...

Yesterday I picked our oldest daughter Katie up from school as usual, and began to head home.  She is 8 years old and in the 2nd grade.  As we drove home, we went through the usual song and dance of "How was your day?", "What did you do today?", etc...about 30 seconds into the conversation, Katie teared up a bit and said, "Well, there is something that is not making me have a very good day."  A learning lesson began...

Katie had been put into the position of class leader for the week, voted on by her peers.  Among other things, the class leader is responsible for monitoring their classmates during specific times of the day to see if they are paying attention.  If a fellow student is not paying attention, their name is written down by the leader and reported to the teacher.  That student then misses a portion of recess.  Katie had inevitably written some names down, and of course, those students had proceeded to call her names, tell her she was mean, and in general, just make the day tough for Katie.  We talked about the reasons she wrote their name down (they were all legit) and discussed Katie speaking w/ her teacher this morning about giving Katie specific infractions to look for and announcing those to the class (which had not been done) so that everyone would be on the same page in terms of behavior.  Katie's fear was that next week, when someone else was leader, she would get treated unfairly.  The bigger lesson of the day was in terms of who Katie is...

At one point, Katie asked her mother and me if she should stop being the leader this week.  We talked about how her classmates must have recognized something about her as they voted her leader (this was the first time this was done all school year).  We also talked about learning how to lead and leading in a just and fair manner.  We stressed to Katie that she has leadership qualities, and that conflict was no reason for her to abandon who she is...just an opportunity to learn how to lead better.

You see, life is really simple...God (whether you believe in Him or not) gifted and designed you for a purpose.  He created your personality, attitude, and other attributes you carry for you to be a specific person.  Most people find themselves in some type of life-crisis because they come to this startling discovery...they don't like who they are.  The reality of those discoveries is their dislike is for who they've become, not who they really are.  If we can teach children to embrace the way they are made, and reinforce that early on, then perhaps we can prevent crisis later in life.  If you're an adult reading this, and you're struggling, know that God created you specifically according to His design for your life, and He wants you to excel, not struggle.  Don't stop being who you're supposed to be...and if you're not being that person, then start today.