Book review: Pagan Christianity

[Guest]

I've enjoyed the book and the posts about the book. I have a little different question.

Does anyone believe in or has anyone experienced the "organic church experience" as described by the authors? And do you think the author's premise is the actual purpose of the Church?

From my side, in the pew, I can't say I never experienced anything on a spiritual level but it also isn't common place or expected.

[Guest]

Hi Murf,

Does anyone believe in or has anyone experienced the "organic church experience" as described by the authors?

Yes, I believe in it and have experienced it on numerous occasions. In my case, it was in the context of a house-church.

[Guest]

-The Sermon-

“There is a world of difference
between the Spirit-inspired preaching
and teaching described in the Bible
and the contemporary sermon”

1. One point of ‘vast difference’ listed by the authors is that today’s sermons are scheduled whereas biblical sermons were spontaneous. Is this true? What are the pros and cons of ‘regular’ preaching times?


2. A second point of ‘vast difference’ according to the authors is that today’s sermons are cultivated whereas biblical sermons were created on the spot. Is this true? What are the pros and cons of well-crafted sermons?


3. A third point of ‘vast difference’ given by the authors is that today’s sermons are delivered to a passive audience whereas biblical audiences were free to interrupt, give feedback, or ask questions. Is this true? What are the pros and cons of a passive audience?


4. Do you prefer a preacher ‘up’ on a platform (behind a pulpit) or ‘down’ on the level with the congregation? Do you feel comfortable when a preacher asks for interaction during the message? Why or why not?

5. The authors suggest the following steps in the development of the contemporary sermon:
STEP 1 The 5th Century BC Sophists create rhetoric
STEP 2 Aristotle (4th Century BC) creates ‘3-Points’
STEP 3 Sophisticated Greek philosophers converted to Christianity and introduced the ‘sermon’ (Styled monologue) into the church


6. The authors state that the contemporary sermon is ‘biblical in content, but Greek in style.’ Is this bad?


7. The Puritans gave us expository preaching, the practice of congregants taking notes, and the pastor’s use of crib notes while delivering his oration. Were these additions good or bad?


8. PC declares that the modern ‘sermon’ is bad because it 1) Hampers participation
2) Encourages passivity
3) Preserves the clergy/laity distinction
4) Does not equip the saints
5) Is often impractical
6) Creates, at best, short-lived results

Do you agree with the authors? Can you think of a sermon that changed your life for the better?

[Guest]

Does anyone believe in or has anyone experienced the "organic church experience" as described by the authors?

There seems to be many aspects of "the organic church experience". I have experienced some of the aspects in some meetings, and other aspects in other meetings. I think the most important aspect is the ministry of the body of Christ, that is, under the leading of the Holy Spirit, each member of the body ministers to the others for their edification.
I experienced this aspect in the so-called "(open)Plymouth Brethren", and the so-called "North Battleford Group" both of whom take on no other name that "brethren" or "the church" and do not consider themselves denominations. Neither of these has a "pastor" who sits in front on an elevated platform while the audience sits back as silent observers. With the "Plymouth Brethren", from the beginning of the meeting of believers, room is given for people in the congregation to minister one another in song, poetry, prayer, short talks, etc. each of which gives thanks and praise to God for his Son's sacrifice on the cross. The whole meeting is centered around Christ and the Remembrance of him in the bread and wine. With the "North Battleford Group" room is given for people to share a spirit-led spontaneous song or prophecy, a short talk, a word of exhortation, a suggestion for group singing, etc. However, both groups have rows of pews with the people all facing the front as in institutional churches. I have experienced many occasions in which the Lord had developed a theme. Though nothing was group planned, each talk or hymn suggested revolved around a common theme. It wasn't that someone started a theme and others followed. Rather some had prepared a talk of song, and without having talked to anyone else about it in advance, nevertheless fit into the common theme which emerged in the meeting.

On the other hand, I have been in home meetings in which everyone sat in a circle, but most of the time the meeting was not fully open to participation, and the meetings were pre-planned just like that of the institutional church.

[Guest]

1. One point of ‘vast difference’ listed by the authors is that today’s sermons are scheduled whereas biblical sermons were spontaneous. Is this true?

I think the difference is that in the institutional churches the sermons are scheduled whereas the sharings in the early church were given by God, either spontaneously or given to the ministering person when he or she was preparing. In some churches sermons have been prepared for the whole year, and certain ones given for each Sunday. Surely such practices leave no room for the moving of the Spirit on those gathered.

What are the pros and cons of ‘regular’ preaching times?

I think having a regular preaching time relegates those gathered to the status of an audience. There is a place for such a thing. In the early church, when Paul made one of his rare visits, the church gathered to listen to him. But in the regular gathering unto the Lord each Sunday, the Holy Spirit was given sway to move upon the people to edify each other in mutual ministry. I think when Paul was at one of those gatherings, he was no more prominent than any other member of the body.

2. A second point of ‘vast difference’ according to the authors is that today’s sermons are cultivated whereas biblical sermons were created on the spot. Is this true? What are the pros and cons of well-crafted sermons?

In my opinion, a talk given can be inspired by the spirit of God during a person's prayer and communion with God in the person's own home, and shared later when God shows him where it fits into the meeting.

It's not the fact that it is spontaneous that makes it Spirit led (although that often happens). What makes a sharing Spirit led is submission to God and looking to him for what is shared, rather than running ahead of God in the strength of the self.

3. A third point of ‘vast difference’ given by the authors is that today’s sermons are delivered to a passive audience whereas biblical audiences were free to interrupt, give feedback, or ask questions. Is this true?

Yes, I think this is true. To have a Spirit-led assembly room must be given for body ministry. Otherwise the Holy Spirit is quenched.

There must have been opportunity to do so in the first-century church. Otherwise, Paul's statement would be meaningless, that sisters were to be silent in the assembly --- that if they had any question, they were to ask their husbands at home.

What are the pros and cons of a passive audience?

I don't think there are any true "pros", unless we consider being spiritually lazy a "pro". I have already given the main "con". It quenches the Spirit.

4. Do you prefer a preacher ‘up’ on a platform (behind a pulpit) or ‘down’ on the level with the congregation?

I think when one who shares is on the level of the congregation, he or she somehow shows himself or herself to be on the same level in the sight of God. It encourages interaction. A person on a platform, separated from the people, somehow suggests to the people that this person is an "official" and "expert" in the things of God, and no one else is qualified to question what he says.

Do you feel comfortable when a preacher asks for interaction during the message?

I have almost never seen it happen, even in a church which practises body ministry, although I have sometimes done it myself. When given the opportunity people in the congregation can be quite challenging at times. That is good for the speaker.

5. The authors suggest the following steps in the development of the contemporary sermon:
STEP 1 The 5th Century BC Sophists create rhetoric
STEP 2 Aristotle (4th Century BC) creates ‘3-Points’
STEP 3 Sophisticated Greek philosophers converted to Christianity and introduced the ‘sermon’ (Styled monologue) into the church

6. The authors state that the contemporary sermon is ‘biblical in content, but Greek in style.’ Is this bad?

Yes, it is bad because it is merely rhetorical speech. Since it leaves no room for interaction, it leaves no room for the Spirit to move a member of the congregation to interact. Indeed, if it is nothing more than a man-made speech with biblical content, it may leave no room for the Spirit even to influence the passive congregation.

[Guest]

Hey Paidion Thanks for the feedback, once again. I am very strong agreement with you on many of your points. One quote, though, requires a bit more balance. You said...

In some churches sermons have been prepared for the whole year, and certain ones given for each Sunday. Surely such practices leave no room for the moving of the Spirit on those gathered.

I have never used a lectionary, not do I intend to. But I think there is some merit to preaching through the 'whole' counsel of God and that is one of the main purposes of a lectionary. Plus, just b/c the specific text is selected in advance doesn't mean the Spirit doesn't have freedom to move through the preaching of that text. Usually, the preachers who use this system still have quite a bit of preparation to do, they generally take the passage or a rough outline and then prepare their own message. And it's up to that preacher how much interaction he wants to allow. So I wouldn't say they leave 'no room' for the moving of the Spirit on those gathered.

You later stated...

I have almost never seen it happen, even in a church which practises body ministry, although I have sometimes done it myself. When given the opportunity people in the congregation can be quite challenging at times. That is good for the speaker.

It's interesting, to me, that you have almost never seen this happen. I totally agree that it is preferable. Just this Sunday I was preaching at a church for the first time and I invited the small congregation to feel free to interact, ask questions, share insights, etc. Now, in this case, nobody did (perhaps they were not use to such a thing). But on a number of occasions at my home church there's some Sunday morning sermon interaction.

On Sunday night the whole goal is interaction. And it's very rare that there isn't much.

Thanks again!

[Guest]

An aside.

I went to my local library today to look at the theology section (actually about OT history & books chronology, etc.). While browsing I saw a Wesleyan pastor...the charismatic man I've mentioned here (FBFF) before.

"What are you looking for?" he asked.
"Just browsing around, really," I replied, "And you?"
"I'm trying to find Pagan Christianity," he said.
"They don't have it. I already looked," I reported.
Then he, looking at his watch, "Oooops!" had to hurry off for an appointment!

Anyways, I went ahead and "ordered" the book from the librarian. Since I kind of know what it says, I'll just speed-read it, prolly. Then I'll give it to Pastor.

Matt, I told him "I know all about that book from a Wesleyan pastor on the internet!"
Then I mentioned Pastor really needs a computer, cept he had to rush off!

[Guest]

I haven't been following this thread, or read the book, (busy with the Calvinism wars ) but I ran onto this:


“Constantinus Augustus, the great and the victorious, to Eusebius.

“I am well aware, and am thoroughly convinced, my beloved brother, that as the servants of our Saviour Christ have been suffering up to the present time from nefarious machinations and tyrannical persecutions, the fabrics of all the churches must have either fallen into utter ruin from neglect, or, through apprehension of the impending iniquity, have been reduced below their proper dignity. But now that freedom is restored, and that dragon, through the providence of God, and by our instrumentality, thrust out from the government of the Empire, I think that the divine power has become known to all, and that those who hitherto, from fear or from incredulity or from depravity, have lived in error, will now, upon becoming acquainted with Him who truly is, be led into the true and correct manner of life. Exert yourself, therefore, diligently in the reparation of the churches under your own jurisdiction, and admonish the principal bishops, priests, and deacons of other places to engage zealously in the same work; in order that all the churches which still exist may be repaired or enlarged, and that new ones may be built wherever they are required. You, and others through your intervention, can apply to magistrates and to provincial governments, for all that may be necessary for this purpose; for they have received written injunctions to render zealous obedience to whatever your holiness may command. May God preserve you, beloved brother.”

Thus the emperor wrote to the bishops in each province respecting the building of churches. From his letter to Eusebius of Palestine, it is easily learnt what measures he adopted to obtain copies of the Holy Bible.

This letter is dated either 324 or 325 AD. I had thought there were supposedly no church buildings prior to Augustine, but his letter seems to indicate there may have been a great many that were in poor condition.

[Guest]

Hi Homer,

I had thought there were supposedly no church buildings prior to Augustine...

I've never heard that before. It was under Constanine (who's imperial name was Constantinus Augustus) that the Roman Empire began funding the construction of church buildings and the conversion of pagan temples into church buildings.

[Guest]

Mort,

My mistake, I meant Constantine instead of Augustine. I will attribute the mistake to the on-going logomachy with the Calvinists.

Does not Constantine's letter imply there were many church buildings in existence prior to his reign as emporer?

Exert yourself, therefore, diligently in the reparation of the churches under your own jurisdiction, and admonish the principal bishops, priests, and deacons of other places to engage zealously in the same work; in order that all the churches which still exist may be repaired or enlarged, and that new ones may be built wherever they are required.