General Baptist National Missions Blog

Pagan Christianity

November 24, 2008

Pagan Christianity written by George Barna and Frank Viola has caused a firestorm among many believers. These authors are just two more ill-informed, foolish writers who have jumped on the bandwagon to proclaim that the church is broken and worse than sin itself. 

The authors go to great lengths in an attempt to show how the church is presently operating more like a pagan organization than a Christian organism. This book leaves the reader with the impression that the Church, as it operates today, is not what God intended. I found the book both frustrating and typical of postmodern thought about the church.

While not stated in such terms as Barna and Viola use, the House Church makes many of the same claims to justify a move away from the typical structure of today's church. Below is an excerpt from a critique of Pagan Christianity by Ben Witherington III. I reccommend you take the time and visit his blog to read the whole article.

One of the odder features of the book Pagan Christianity which surfaces immediately in the first real chapter is the attempt to see early Christianity as rather like Melchizedek (‘without antecedents, without succesors’), and so basically something entirely unique and different from either early Judaism or other sorts of ancient religions. Ttis conclusion involves not just an assertion about a difference in theology but a difference in praxis as well.

We are given the usual litany about Christians meeting in homes, and how they did not have church buildings. This is of course partially true, so far as we can tell, but frankly they didn’t just meet in homes, nor were there any mandates for them to do so saying “in order to be truly Christian thou shalt meet in cramped quarters.” They also met in Solomon’s Portico, which is to say in the Temple precincts as the early chapters of Acts informs us, and furthermore they went to synagogue services in purpose built buildings, and furthermore they occasionally rented halls, like the Hall of Tyrannus in Ephesus, and later in the first century, as the archaeological evidence makes clear, they met in caves, namely the catacombs in Rome, as well. I don’t see much of a movement in the church today to go back to cave dwelling J

The authors of this book are right to critique the modern western church for having an edifice complex, and spending too much money on buildings and too little on missions, evangelism, other forms of ministry. But there is absolutely nothing in the NT which either suggests or requires that Christians should only meet in homes. And furthermore, the major problem with these sorts of arguments are that they ignore the differences in social setting, then and now.

Christians met in homes so often and for so long because they were part of an ‘illegal religion’ a ‘superstitio’ as the Roman’s called it. They did not meet in public because they wanted to meet in peace, and in freedom. It isn’t because they thought ‘small group house church ministry is cool or Biblical’.

Nor is it true, that Christianity was the first non-Temple based religion in antiquity. There were plenty of tribal religions in the ANE that could not afford and did not have Temples, or priests. They did sometimes have ‘high places’ where they would offer sacrifices, as the OT mentions.

It is not enough to say that NT theology indicates that it was Christ who was the perfect sacrifice, who is our high priest, and who fulfilled the function of temples did away with all such things. What one would have to argue is that Jesus came saying “I came that you might not have buildings any more”. Church buildings are not, and frankly probably shouldn’t be called temples because literal sacrifices are not offered in them. Sacrifices of praise and self-sacrificial offerings yes, real sacrifices no. This however does not in any way suggest that bodies of believers should not have purpose built buildings. That’s an example of over-egging the pudding, as the British would say, or as I would put it, over reading the evidence by a lot.

And this brings me to another of their claims— that there is no evidence of church buildings before A.D. 190 when they are mentioned by Clement of Alexandria. Wrong and wrong. Here again archaeology helps. If one goes to Capernaum one can see, through the glass floor of the modern church there, the ‘house of Peter’, which was expanded into a Christian meeting place. It was no longer just a home, it was enhanced so it could be a better place of worship—house becomes church building, so to speak. How do we know this? Because of the Christian graffiti in the walls left by Christians, some of which goes back at least to the early second century, and probably back to sometime after 70 A.D. when both Jews and Christians relocated, and one of the places they went was Capernaum.

Then too, one should compare the recent news reports that in Jordan by the river they have found perhaps the very earliest church structure—associated with the 70 and possibly even dating from the late first century. My point is this--- early Christians did not have an allergic reaction to buildings, not even to purpose built buildings. It was the social situation which dictated what it was wise and prudent to do about housing Christian meetings in that era, not some theological principle. It is not helpful to say, “until 300 there were no buildings first built as churches”, unless you add “until the 4^th century Christianity was illegal!”.....

To read Ben Witherington's full critique and as well as the other Three parts go to his Blog Spot.

Posted 11/24/2008 in Stephen Gray

0 Comments - Add Comment

Does Size Matter?

November 14, 2008

A lot of controversy exists in the church world about proper and right size of a congregation. Every pastor seeks to grow, but often church growth is viewed with suspicion and contempt. Are larger congregation easier to control? Are they truly doing God's work and do they produce strong disciples for Christ.

It is assumed by many that in order for a church to grow it must sacrifice God's truth and water down the message. It is also assumed by many that as a church grows, discipleship and intimate community are reduced. In a book by Scott Thumma and David Travis, Beyond Megachurch Myths: What We Can Learn from America's Largest Churches these assumptions are clearly revealed as false.

The larger a church grows, the easier it is to control, the greater the impact and involvement of discipleship and the more opportunity for worshippers to engage in intimate relationships. The scientific world calls this phenomenon, "Power Scaling". In essence, the theory states that the larger an organism, the less energy it takes to keep it alive.

For years scientists expected that the energy used to keep a Mouse alive and moving was much less than that of a larger animal like an Elephant. Contrary to popular belief, something scientists have yet to explain, the facts reveal just the opposite. Power Scaling reveals that the larger an organism, the less energy is needed to keep it alive.

George Johnson, a science writer, reports; "As organisms grow in size they become more efficient. That is why nature has evolved large animals, he said. It's a much better way of utilizing energy. This might also explain the drive for corporations to merge. Small may be beautiful but it is more efficient to be big." While humanistic scientists believe this phenomenon to be an effect of evolution, we understand it as part of God's created order.

What does that have to do with the church? Simple. Smaller churches take more resources, and greater effort to keep alive and moving forward than do larger churches. Relationships are more forced, and discipleship is stalled or declining.

Church growth is a mandate. In fact, it is a natural happening of a healthy organism/organization. If a church is healthy it will grow. As the church grows, management is easier, takes less energy to keep alive and creates greater opportunity for effective outreach in the community. We should not fear size. We should celebrate and encourage churches to grow rapidly and larger.

Posted 11/14/2008 in Church Planting

0 Comments - Add Comment

Called and Sent

November 12, 2008

As I did my devotions this morning I was reminded once again of the importance of God's calling.

John 11: 41-43 says, 'Then they took away the stone from the place where the dead man was lying. And Jesus lifted up His eyes and said, 'Father, I thank You that You have heard Me. And I know that You always hear Me, but because of the people who are standing by I said this, that they may believe that You sent Me.' Now when He had said these things, He cried with a loud voice, 'Lazarus, come forth!' And he who had died came out bound hand and foot with grave clothes, and his face was wrapped with a cloth. Jesus said to them, 'Loose him, and let him go.'”

What a powerful story! Jesus raised a dead man back to life against all odds. No one would have imagined that Lazarus would ever breath again. Jesus told Martha that she would the glory of God if she simply had faith. Seconds later, Martha understood.

It's hard to imagine what the crowd was experiencing at that time. To use a Bushism, "Shock and Awe" was probably the order of the hour. However, something peculiar happens at the end of this portion of scripture. Once Lazarus was raised from the dead, and came out of the tomb, Jesus told those around Lazarus to "loose him, and let him go." Why didn't Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead and have him exit the tomb without the grave clothes? Interesting isn't it?

It may be that Jesus wanted the people to understand that Lazarus had been dead. So, he raised him with the grave clothes still on him so they would not have any delusions that Lazarus, Mary, Martha ad Jesus had pulled a trick on them. Could be but I don't think so.

It could be that Jesus wasn't powerful enough to remove Lazarus' grave clothes. That idea seems silly all together. If He can raise a man from the dead, surely grave clothes are no object. Honestly, the scripture doesn't really tell us why Jesus allowed Lazarus to come out of the tomb still bound.

Jesus raised him from the dead, but he asks Lazarus' friends and family to loose him. I wonder if this story doesn't help us understand our role in God's Kingdom work. Without a doubt, Jesus raises those dead in their sin back into life. But a life of sin leaves its mark on the heart and soul of fallen creatures. While it is the power of God that raises them to new life, we as co-workers with Christ spend our lives helping fellow believer become unbound from the stench of their sin stained grave clothes.

Do not misunderstand; I am not belittling the power of Jesus to set us free. Nor am I stating that Jesus' power + something else, makes us whole. What I am saying is that this side of the grave, we will always wrestling with the stinging smell of sin. God completely forgives, but consequences still remain. Those affects of those consequences will stay with fallen humanity until the day God redeems the whole earth. I believe we are called and sent to share the glory of God with sin-sick people, watch Jesus raise them to new life and then spend our lives helping one another become unbound from the grave clothes of sin.

Posted 11/12/2008 in Stephen Gray

0 Comments - Add Comment

Why do YOU do what you do?

November 6, 2008

How we do church, is not as important as why. If we don't have a good foundation of "why" we do what we do, then "how", doesn't really matter. If we concern ourselves with the "Why", then how we do church, (or any spiritual thing for that matter) will naturally follow. Understanding why, is infinitely more important than understanding how. Our orthodoxy is much more important than any man-made concept of orthopraxy. What we hold dear about the “why” will always be reflected in what we do.

We do not attract that which we want, but that which we are. In other words, everything we do flows out of what we think. Everything flows out of our theology of "Why". The size of a church, its ministry and growth (or lack of) is the direct result of what we think. The question then must be answered. What do we "THINK" about God, and His mission to the world? And how does our belief about God's mission effect our co-mission?  Are we on the same mission? Why did Jesus do what he did? The main issue for churches to discuss is not "How" but “why”.

Churches often spend more time bantering over, and fighting about "HOW" to do missional work and little time discovering "WHY" we are to do what we do. Just consider how much energy the churches spend on arguing over endless methodologies and you will discover the truth in that statement.

More churches today fight over foolish things like, changes of worship style, services, color of carpet, and color of paint on the wall. Many seem to worship their methods and traditions more than Christ Himself. When a church says that no change is needed, in effect, what they are saying is “What is, and has been, is all that God wants to and can accomplish through this church”. And yet, the harvest is still ripe!

The fact is, God blesses every form, kind, style and method of church. He even uses opposing denominations. God uses Baptists, Wesleyans, Arminians, Calvinists, house church movements, attractional churches, purpose driven and etc... Yet many of them openly contradict one another. Many of the founders of theses movements openly, and strongly opposed one another. Still today, we debate over the endless minutiae and forget the main thing. Yet, we cannot deny that God has, and is still using these very different groups in powerful ways all across the world.

How is it that God can pour out his power, inexhaustible resources, and send His Holy Spirit on people groups who seem to stand in such sharp contrast to one another? How is it that God can bless those who seem so opposed to one another?

The Answer: God seems infinitely more concerned about why the church exists than splitting theological or methodological hairs. It seems to me that we are more concerned than God with how-to-do-church.

Ask yourself this: Why do you do what you do?

Sunday worship, board meetings, money, outreach and the like must all have a "So that..." attached to them. The church exists “so that”... sinners might be saved, …the Father might be glorified, …the Body might be built up, …people might be discipled and trained to work in the harvest.

Without a proper "so that..." we simply have a place where the righteous meet the righteous, where our emotional well-being is served, where our bank account is well padded, where our church is safe from outsiders.

So, what is your "So that…"? As you look at your life and the life of your church regardless of denomination, method or style, "why" should be infinitely more important than "how".

Posted 11/6/2008 in Stephen Gray

2 Comments - Add Comment