Book review: Pagan Christianity

[Guest]

First let me say that I am highly impressed with the Viola-Barna book Pagan Christianity. They give a very thorough historical background for their primary thesis that the various aspects of Christianity today have their origin in pagan culture --- in Greek and Roman practice.

There is one matter in which I think the authors are in error. Under the subheading FROM PRESBYTER TO PRIEST p. 113, we read:

Clement of Rome, who died in about 100, was the first Christian writer to make a distinction in status between Christian leaders and nonleaders. He was the first to use the word laity to distinguish them from the ministers. Clement argued that the Old Testament order of priests should find fulfillment in the Christian church.

Actually, Clement did no such thing. First, it is highly unlikely that Clement, the fellow-labourer of the apostle Paul should stray so far from apostolic practice by the time he wrote the letter, shortly after Paul and Peter’s death. But, more importantly, the passage in question in chapter 40 from Clement’s letter to the Corinthians (in spite of the misleading title in The Ante-Nicene Fathers) does not describe the practice of the church at all, but the practice of Hebraism. Clement wrote the letter to the Corinthians because their sectarian spirit, rather than having been corrected by Paul’s letters to them, had progressed from bad to worse. Now, instead of their partialities being toward apostolic brethren such as Paul and Peter, they were directed toward the young upstarts who wished to depose the overseers and become overseers themselves. Clement wrote extensively about the results among the Hebrews when certain seditious people rebelled against the authorities whom God had established. He began by relating the results of envy as it arose in Cain, Jacob’s brothers, Moses’ fellow-countrymen, Aaron and Miriam, Dathan and Abiram, and King Saul. He then states that even in his day, it was envy and jealousy which caused Peter and Paul’s death.
All of this is meant to convict those who were envious of the overseers, and wanted to be overseers themselves. Clement then gave examples of the rewards of faith and humility. He mentions Rahab, Christ Himself, Elijah, Elisha, Ezekiel, Abraham, Job, Moses, and David. These should be our example, rather than the others.

Now going ahead to chapter 40, Clement shows that God is a God of order, and asks his people to do all things orderly. This is true both under the system God established with the Isralites, and with the system He established among the Christians.

So he begins chapter 40 by declaring that God always wants things done in an orderly fashion for all of his people.

Forasmuch then as these things are manifest beforehand, and we have searched into the depths of divine knowledge, we ought to do all things in order, as many as the Master has commanded us to perform at their appointed seasons.

Clement then describes how God, with the Israelites, requested offerings and divine service to be performed at appointed times:

Now the offerings and ministrations He commanded to be performed with care, and not to be done rashly or in disorder, but at fixed times and seasons. And where and by whom He would have them performed, He Himself fixed by His supreme will; that all things being done with piety according to His good pleasure might be acceptable to His will. They therefore that make their offerings at the appointed seasons are acceptable and blessed: for while they follow the institutions of the Master they cannot go wrong. For to the high-priest has proper services have been assigned, and to the priests in their proper office is appointed and upon the Levites their proper ministrations are laid. The layman is bound by the layman’s ordinances.

Notice Clement switches from “we” and “us” to “they” (the Hebrews) who performed their divine services orderly and at the proper times. Next (chapter 41), Clement requests that each of the Corinthian brethren also perform their service to the Lord in an orderly and timely way:

Let each of you, brethren, in his own order give thanks to God, maintaining a good conscience, and not transgressing the appointed rule of his service, but acting with all seemliness.

Then Clement goes into greater detail concerning the orderliness of the Hebrew sacrifices and offerings:

Not in every place, brethren, are the continual daily sacrifices offered, or the freewill offerings, or the sin offerings and the trespass offerings, but in Jerusalem alone. And even there the offering is not made in every place, but before the sanctuary in the court of the altar; and this too through the high-priest and the aforesaid ministers, after that the victim to be offered has been inspected for blemishes. They therefore who do anything contrary to the seemly ordinance of His will receive death as the penalty. You see, brethren, in proportion as greater knowledge has been bestowed upon us, so much the more are we exposed to danger.

Clearly, Clement is saying that just as those under the First Covenant received the death penalty for acting contrary to God’s ordinances, we who are under the New Covenant, because we have a greater knowledge of God’s will, shall be in danger of receiving an even greater penalty if we act contrary to his ordinances for the church.

Since Clement wrote in the present tense of the daily sacrifices being offered, some have supposed that he must have written this letter prior to the cessation of sacrifices in 70 A.D. But Bishop Lightfoot, who has made a thorough study of Clement’s life and letter to the Corinthians had a comment about this idea. Lightfoot who published a two-volume text in Greek and English with his commentary and notes, states that “to this very early date however there are many insuperable objections.” He also made reference to Josephus’ account of the Mosaic sacrifice Antiquities of the Jews ,written within two or three years of Clement’s letter. Lightfoot says that in that account “the parallels to Clement’s present tense … are far too numerous to be counted”.

Next (chapter 42) Clement describes the ministries and order under the New Covenant, how each of them acts in his own appointed order.

The apostles received the gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ was sent forth from God. So then Christ is from God, and the apostles are from Christ. Both therefore came of the will of God in the appointed order. Having therefore received a charge, and having been fully assured through the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and confirmed in the word of God with full assurance of the Holy Spirit, they went forth with the glad tidings that the kingdom of God should come. So preaching everywhere in country and town, they appointed their first-fruits , when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be overseers and deacons to them that should believe. And this they did in no new fashion; for indeed it had been written concerning overseers and deacons from very ancient times; for thus says the scripture in a certain place, I will appoint their overseers in righteousness and their deacons in faith.

The last is a loose quote of Isaiah 60:17 from the Septuagint:

I will give your rulers in peace and your overseers in righteousness.

To sum up, there is no evidence that Clement was using “laity” or “layman” to distinguish the people of the church from their leaders. Rather, he was using the word “layman” with reference to the religious practices of the Hebrews. Not did Clement argue “that the Old Testament order of priests should find fulfillment in the Christian church” as Viola stated. Rather Clement argued that just as there was order in worship in the Hebrew priestly system, so should there be order in the Christian church.

[Guest]

Excellent research Paidion. You should email that to Viola.

[Guest]

The "Morning Costumes" chapter seemed like a "no-brainer." Yet, I found it very refreshing to read. It's funny how one can get so ingrained in traditions, that you don't even see them as traditions anymore.

While growing up my mother always made sure we had on our "Sunday best" on Sunday. We weren't allowed to wear them any other day of the week - as if they were some religious relic. The argument that my mom gave seemed pretty convincing at the time: "if you were going to see the President, you'd put on your best, right?"

Even if I could think outside of the box when I was a young boy, I still didn't have the wherewithal to challenge mama. Looking back now it's amazing that God didn't strike me dead because I wore my powder-blue leisure suit. I looked pathetic, not prophetic.

Last year I was invited to preach at a community Easter service in a small, historical church. I had promised myself that I'd preach anywhere that I was ever invited to preach. But when I learned that they required I wear a robe, I declined the invitation. I figured there are plenty of preachers who would do a much better job than me, and who wouldn't mind putting on a robe. I didn't regret the decision.

peace,

dane

[Guest]

Dane said
Last year I was invited to preach at a community Easter service in a small, historical church. I had promised myself that I'd preach anywhere that I was ever invited to preach. But when I learned that they required I wear a robe, I declined the invitation. I figured there are plenty of preachers who would do a much better job than me, and who wouldn't mind putting on a robe. I didn't regret the decision

Although I do agree that it doesn't matter what we wear on Sunday mornings, Paul said that he became all things to all men so that he might win some. I think Paul would have wore a robe if it ment he would have an oppertunity to share the gospel.
It appears a bit hypocritcal to refuse to "dress up" as we discuss the traditionalism of those who refuse to "dress down".

We can become just as pridefull in our jeans and tee shirts as those in their suits and ties.
Just a thought, Jeremiah

[Guest]

Although I do agree that it doesn't matter what we wear on Sunday mornings, Paul said that he became all things to all men so that he might win some. I think Paul would have wore a robe if it ment he would have an oppertunity to share the gospel.
It appears a bit hypocritcal to refuse to "dress up" as we discuss the traditionalism of those who refuse to "dress down".

We can become just as pridefull in our jeans and tee shirts as those in their suits and ties.
Just a thought, Jeremiah

I think that might depend on one’s view of what the robe signifies. If one thinks that wearing it indicates or emphasises a distinction or even implies superiority of clergy over laity, then I can understand a reluctance to seemingly align oneself with and thus affirm that view. It would not then be simply complying with a dress code.

I’m sure the Apostle Paul used discernment in the practical application of ‘becoming all things to all men’.

[Guest]

That's a cheap shot, 21centpilgrim.

When Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians that he became "...all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some...", he was referring primarily to his preaching to both Jews and Gentiles. Paul was uniquely positioned to take the Gospel to both groups, but also took a lot of heat from each group for interacting with the other. Paul was not referring to going along with any custom in order to preach the Gospel. In fact, in the very next chapter of 1 Corinthians, Paul makes it clear that although "Everything is permissible", "...not everything is constructive."

In Romans 13:4 Paul challenges, "Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own Master he stands or falls." He then goes on in the rest of chapter 13 to make it clear that in "disputable matters" we must be obedient to our conscience.

If Dane had felt that donning a robe went against his conscience, but did it anyway, he would have, in Paul's words, "condemned himself" by going against his conscience.

I too would not wear a robe to preach in a church, or do a number of other things that are often done in churches, because I believe they are wrong.

[Guest]

...I think Paul would have wore a robe if it ment he would have an oppertunity to share the gospel.
It appears a bit hypocritcal to refuse to "dress up" as we discuss the traditionalism of those who refuse to "dress down".

I appreciate your remarks, Jeremiah. I am not so pious to think that I am incapable of being hypocritical. As a truth, my eyes have, on more than one occasion, been opened to the sour fact that my actions have not kept pace with my ideals - and the label hypocrite might fittingly be slung upon my shoulders.

But in the instant case I went in the direction that seemed right for me.

I labor to walk humbly with my God; being grateful for His grace which repairs my wrongs and reminds me of my continued dependence upon Him.

peace,

dane

[Guest]

Mort, Peace to you brother.
I believe that Paul in 1Cor. 9 was subjecting himself to outward regulations that ultimatly were not essential- in regards to putting himself under the law. These people who were under the law- Jews- had missed the gospel and got caught up in outward conformity, and traditions of men. Both Paul and Christ rail against this self righteousness and yet Paul wanted to serve all even tho he was free from the regulations of man. -Isn't doning a robe a secondary issue that we can have liberty in?

I was not calling Dane a hypocrit, but that the situation seemed hypocritical. In many things we all stumble, I do not live up to my own expectations that I believe God would have of me and I sin daily. Am greatful that His mercies are new every morning. I need God's grace as much as my brothers in IC's. Our enemy is the devil and we must continualy resist him by humbling ourselves, even when we are right
It is hard to communicate at times, and easy to be misunderstood in type without the tone of speech and being face to face.

The Lord bless and keep us all, Jeremiah

[Guest]

Chapter 7: Ministers of Music
It's hard to say what I thought of this chapter. On one hand I do think singing should be very corporate and participative. On the other hand, Viola didn't do a great job of explaining how what he was describing is much different from what a lot of churches do. It seemed he was trying to paint a picture that contemporary churches are just a bunch of people listening to leaders and, to some degree, I'm sure that is a problem. But he didn't convince me that having designated worship leaders was problematic in any way. In fact, as I thought through the chapter, I imagined plenty of problems with his ideal.

I mean, I totally agree that singing should be corporate and participative (as I said), but some people are gifted to lead in that area. Some are gifted in creativity and artistic ability to write. Some are gifted singers. Some are gifted to know exactly what songs God would be honored to here at such and such a time. I don't think a free-for-all is an attractive system for worship singing.

The way I'd imagine it, you'd often end up with lousy songs being written. Does his vision entail believers telling other believers that they aren't gifted in song writing? What if the songs written are heretical? What if the songs written are 'individualistic' just like the style Viola condemned? I guess I just imagine it becoming very chaotic like the church of Corinth.

I wouldn't want a free for all. And I wouldn't want a 'show'. I suppose I take a middle position on this chapter b/w what Viola was condemning and advising. I think the best system is to have Spirit-led and gifted individuals lead the body of believers in singing. I think there is almost certainly going to be more than 1 musically gifted person in the group no matter if it's a group of 10 or 1000. I think as many as are gifted should have opportunity to lead. But some aren't gifted and wouldn't even want to lead.

He hinted at being against instruments in worship. I think that is a silly position to take. Instruments are neither good or bad. They are tools. They can enhance or hinder worship singing. That's up to how Spirit-led the believers are.

[Guest]

Hi Matt,

This is a topic that is near and dear to my heart. I became a Christian while on the road as a professional musician. I have played and recorded in worship bands for 20+ years. I also write worship songs and lead worship on a regular basis. I've seen what an idol worship music can become to a church as well as to individual musicians. It can be a wonderful thing but can also be filled with human ambition and pride.

It's hard to say what I thought of this chapter. On one hand I do think singing should be very corporate and participative. On the other hand, Viola didn't do a great job of explaining how what he was describing is much different from what a lot of churches do. It seemed he was trying to paint a picture that contemporary churches are just a bunch of people listening to leaders and, to some degree, I'm sure that is a problem. But he didn't convince me that having designated worship leaders was problematic in any way. In fact, as I thought through the chapter, I imagined plenty of problems with his ideal.

Perhaps because of my background, I found a lot of resonance with what Viola was saying in this chapter. I was in the Vineyard (and other Vineyard-like charismatic churches) for many years. The Vineyard is known for it's worship music. It is not unusual in those churches for the worship set to go as long as the sermon. The worship leader is often also a pastor, but even if not, they have become a sort of second-level clergy. The congregation comes to believe that it is not possible to gather for worship without a musician to be the worship leader. I've seen fledgling home groups fail to launch because they couldn't find someone to do worship.

I mean, I totally agree that singing should be corporate and participative (as I said), but some people are gifted to lead in that area. Some are gifted in creativity and artistic ability to write. Some are gifted singers. Some are gifted to know exactly what songs God would be honored to here at such and such a time. I don't think a free-for-all is an attractive system for worship singing.

Can I tell you a story? Many years ago the pastor of the Vineyard church that my wife and I attended was invited to speak at another church. I don't recall the denomination, but it was more "old fashioned" than the Vineyard. Our pastor decided to bring his "worship team" along (which included my wife and I). As we were setting up our gear at the church, we were thinking how blown away these folks were going to be by our awesome worship music. The service began and we played and the people enjoyed it. Then the pastor of the host church announced that before the guest speaker came up, sister Edith was going to perform a special song. Sister Edith, a little old lady, came up and sat down at the church's beat up upright piano and began singing "Since Jesus Came Into My Heart". The piano was out of tune and Edith was off-key. I thought it was quaint. But the next thing I knew, the palpable presence of the Holy Spirit filled the room. It is to this day one of the most Spirit-filled gatherings I've ever attended (and I've attended a lot of Charismatic meetings).

The lesson I learned is that it's not about how gifted we are. It's about our heart towards God.

The other problem is, who determines who is "gifted" enough to stand before the congregation and lead worship? Oftentimes (in fact, in my experience I'd say usually), such decisions are based more on taste than discernment (and sometimes on politics).

The other problem I have with your premise is that it seems to negate the idea of the Holy Spirit leading a meeting. I've played with some well-known and amazingly talented worship leaders, but the most intense worship times I've had were in a small gathering where there was no designated worship leader: Instead someone just started singing a song that was on their heart. It didn't matter if they weren't a gifted singer, because everyone else would join in (btw, stepping out and beginning to sing a song all by yourself makes you feel very vulnerable and when everyone else joins in, there's a neat sense of affirmation and support). When the song finished, someone else would start another song (or maybe a prayer, or maybe read a scripture). The result of doing worship this way was not only incredibly organic and Spirit-led, but looking back we could see a very clear message that was being given to us by the Lord.

The way I'd imagine it, you'd often end up with lousy songs being written. Does his vision entail believers telling other believers that they aren't gifted in song writing? What if the songs written are heretical? What if the songs written are 'individualistic' just like the style Viola condemned? I guess I just imagine it becoming very chaotic like the church of Corinth.

I've had to suffer through many lousy songs written and performed by worship leaders!

One of the interesting aspects of an egalitarian worship community is that if something seems "off", it can be brought up and discussed by the entire group. There are some popular worship songs which I have trouble with theologically. If I was part of a house-church where that song kept being sung, I could lovingly bring it up for discussion and see what consensus we might reach. On the other hand, if a worship leader up on stage at an IC keeps singing a song that I believe is theologically questionable or downright heretical, my only recourse is to try to get word to the worship leader (via email or maybe catching them in the hallway) or complain to the Senior Pastor.

Also, in an organic church, the group as a whole could put together their own songbook or hymnal. This process could lead to some great theological discussions! What's really cool is when an ekklesia starts writing their own worship songs.

The larger point here is about how an organic church functions and makes decisions. It is not "top-down", but "bottom-up".

I think the best system is to have Spirit-led and gifted individuals lead the body of believers in singing. I think there is almost certainly going to be more than 1 musically gifted person in the group no matter if it's a group of 10 or 1000. I think as many as are gifted should have opportunity to lead. But some aren't gifted and wouldn't even want to lead.

But again, who decides who is gifted and who isn't? If Sally has the heart of a true worshipper, loves worship music, loves to sing worship songs, knows many songs but doesn't play an instrument, is she excluded from being given a chance to lead worship because of our preconceptions?

He hinted at being against instruments in worship. I think that is a silly position to take. Instruments are neither good or bad. They are tools. They can enhance or hinder worship singing. That's up to how Spirit-led the believers are.

I think his concern is that oftentimes a reliance upon musical instruments in worship creates a barrier. Only musicians of a certain level of expertise are allowed to lead worship. And oftentimes, in my experience, the more talented the musician, the less regard is given to their spiritual maturity (or lack thereof).

Where I've come to rest on this issue is that worship led by musicians can be a wonderful thing, but it is not the thing. I'd like to be part of a church (and might be soon) where sometimes the worship is led by a band, sometimes it's led by a single musician and sometimes it's lead by the congregation itself with no musicians.

I blogged further about this topic a few years back:
http://stuffandeffluvia.blogspot.com/20 ... 5555174001