Brant Hanson reviews a book that looks interesting. Its not out yet, so obviously I haven’t read it but here’s some of his summary that are a bit on the radical and provocative side:
– The “church building” concept is foreign to Jesus’s idea of what the church is for. It has “stalemated the functioning of God’s people since the 4th century,” and “There does not exist a shred of biblical support for the church building.” And — oh yeah — buildings cost American churches $50-60 billion annually. There’s that.
– The order of worship now defeats involvement of all the believers, and instead focuses on a few talented people, in the face of the practices of the New Testament church.
– Also, feel free to get them started on “Sunday School”, dressing up for church, worship “pastors”, pews, the idea of “sacred spaces”, and — get this — the “church fathers”, who they treat less as all-knowing guides, and more as believers who imported their paganism to re-interpret the meaning of the church. (This will cost the authors hip points.)
There’s lots more there, and not all of it I agree with. I think in a lot of ways we can take the culture of the 1st century church as straight jacket absolutes. However, I will say I believe the church has institutionalized a lot of things that aren’t Biblical requirements and I’d be a lot more comfortable with a church that was a bit more diverse in its organization and methodology.
![Image of The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31Jl6fhDLxL._SL75_.jpg "The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith")
23 Comments(+Add)
This looks like a fantastic book designed to make us think. The church building concept has stifled the growth of Christianity for centuries. Is it not telling how the Chinese church went from 8 million to 80 million mostly from home gatherings?
I believe I may buy that book.
Michael Frost (Australian) makes similar point in his recent book Exiles. On the one hand, when I read such things I tend to agree… on the other hand I wonder, given our culture, would we see the same results as the Chinese if we did away with all the building?
I suspect the future lies somewhere in the middle.
You can thank pagan Babylon…..er, Rome for what the “church” has become.
How anyone can support roman catholicism is beyond me. It is the head, of the counterfeit body.
BTW I don’t support Barna and his l”ook good for the sinners” approach either.
The problem is the church abandoned the scriptures 1700 years ago and as for the church fathers, I take huge issue with much of their theology.
No need to let us know… we get the brunt of how you appear to us let alone them…
iggy
Along the lines of pagan Christianity, on Fox News Sunday today Chris Wallace asked Joel Osteen if Mormons were Christians. Osteen replied:
“Yes, I believe they are”.
We now have evangelical preachers endorsing anti-christ theology as Christian. Pagan Christianity.
“…The problem is the church abandoned the scriptures 1700 years ago ”
The church as in Roman Catholicism, or the church as in all believers? Hyperbole is so hard to interpret sometimes.
Tim — I’d love to get your reaction to the book, as a whole.
I, too, think the primitivist impulse is a bit unhealthy. The idea that we should — or even can — restore the N.T. church, in toto, doesn’t wash.
I don’t think the authors subscribe to that idea, either, though. Fact is, they’d say, so much of protestantism (and, clearly Catholicism) is taken as “This is what church is”, when it’s unrelated, or opposed to, the original understanding of Jesus and Paul.
I work in evangelicalism ground-zero, and I can tell you, people think a church isn’t a church without clergy (with Bible College degree), a building (or building plan), a pulpit, preaching-centered worship events, etc. If so many believe these ideas are biblical, they need to learn otherwise, and this book may help them do that.
Anyway, you may still disagree with parts, but I’d love to get your take. It’s not about idealizing the first century, thankfully…
Brant,
As soon as I get ahold of a copy I’m sure you’ll hear them. Although I’m afraid we may be a bit too much of a like mind.
Especailly as I read your third paragraph in your comment. As I mentioned before, I’d like to see a bit more diversity in the western church reflecting the differences in cultures of the communities the church is located in.
I believe the amount of money that many churches spend on buildings is sickening. Truly repulsive. Makes me sick just to think about it.
I knew Joe would be coming with that sooner or later.
Haha, Merry Christmas Tim
Same to you brother.
Americans will never do away with building, building, expanding and building. We have this ridiculous manifest destiny hang-up in just about every area of life.
“We must grow, be bigger, and build a General Steel building to house it!”
I agree with Joe. In talking with a friend who attends a large church, newly built, full of all kinds of amenities, she commented that in the summer, when all the “dedicated” members head to the lakes on the weekend, the offering dips so low that there is a sort of hand-wringing concern that the church will meet its operating budget.
Operating budget. Never mind other things the church could be doing with money — we’re talking light bills and stuff like that. Discussion on ways to find longer-lasting light bulbs and ways to reduce copy machine costs become the concern at various meetings, she said. Frankly, I’d have fewer misgivings about getting together with some Christians and have a party than sitting around and dwelling on ways to meet my operating budget of a monster building we’ve made.
Operating budget.
That is an Americanization — or westernization, whichever you prefer — of the concept of doing and being church if I’ve ever heard one.
Frank Viola’s hatred of anything BUT house churches is well-known for many years. I’ve read his earlier stuff, and it’s got some very good points, but it’s written in much the same spirit as the ODM’s, except his target is any church with a “leadership structure” of any kind.
Still, when his ministry contacted me to read and review the book “Pagan Christianity”, I immediately said YES (and hopefully my copy will arrive soon). I’m hoping that Frank’s harsh style of writing and his black/white view on everything will be tempered by Barna’s influence, because Frank has some really thought-provoking things to say, but his judgmental style of writing often occludes some of his better work.
And also, since we’re all still growing and maturing, I’m hoping Frank has chosen a more grace-based approach to house churches, rather than mocking and dismissing all who “sin” by having elders or pastors.
Hey Robbymac…
Honest question: Did he (Frank Viola) ever hold that it was sin by having elders or pastors? I got the impression, in this edition at least, that he thought it was great to have people with those giftings, but didn’t think the “office” of pastor existed in the N.T.
You may be exaggerating for effect — no biggie — but I actually wanted to know.
My in-laws church built this “cathedral” and the majority of their budget goes to keeping that cathedral up and running. It just stinks. Church isn’t supposed to be about itself.
I don’t mind leadership — love and crave it, actually. Is having leadership in a house church anathema by its definition? What is the definition of a house church — does it require not having leaders, whether we call them “elders” or “guy who leads the singing” or not?
I’m curious about that. I’m unfamiliar enough with house churches to not really be able to grasp the anti-leadership conflict/problem. The closest I’ve had to a house church experience would probably be a periodic Bible study in various people’s homes.
The big-spending on more and better and bigger buildings, though, really gets to me.
Each house should have a teacher. God may raise up an elder, but there would be a pastor/elder who alternates to different houses. The amount of money save from buidling payments and staff salaries would be substantial.
And the interaction and accountability among believers would take a quantum leap. But I agree with Julie, the American mindset is entrenched.
Chris P,
well thank God!!!
the Holy Spirit must have held the Gospel in trust until you and your friends brand of church showed up 300 years ago so they could receive it and hoard it for the people they approve of.
I wonder what Mr. Viola does with Ephesians 4 and its description of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers?
The greek their for “gift” refers not to the endowments, but to the persons themselves…
i.e. the persons that are apostles, prophets, etc. are the gifts to the church.
sounds like offices to me…
I think you could argue for a biblical case against the institutional form of “pastors” only as the “supreme” office over and against “elders”, but I dunno…
Brandt,
I don’t think that any of the five-fold gifts in Ephesians 4 should be considered “offices”; Frank and I are in total agreement on that one. I think that the five-fold ministries of pastor, teacher, prophet, apostle, and evangelist are gifted people who serve by equipping others to do works of ministry. It’s got NOTHING to do with positional authority, imo. Again, Frank and I agree totally on this one.
But Frank is firmly in the camp of “we have no leader but the Holy Spirit”, which I think is not biblical either, specifically because God HAS gifted some people with the spiritual gift of leadership. The Pastoral Epistles (I & II Timothy, Titus) give clear instruction about the kind of character that these leaders must have. In order to have a “God is our only Leader” theology, you have to ignore these Scriptures, which would be equally unbiblical to elevating any of the five-fold ministries to “offices” of positional authority. (cf. Matthew 20:25-28, where again Frank & I are in agreement).
All that to say, while I can’t definitively say that Frank calls it “sin”, he DOES say things like “everything in our current understanding of church has NO BIBLICAL RIGHT TO EXIST”, which is just as damning.
Frank has a lot of good things to say and for churches to reflect on — I hope I’ve been clear on that — but it’s his rigid and iconoclastic “my way or the highway” mentality that I hope has been chastened by time and wise counsel (maybe from Barna?).
I agree that too many congregations spend too much on their facilities. I also agree that too man congregations have too many programs designed to feed the spiritually obese…
I also think comments like “the church, in its contemporary, institutional form, has neither a biblical nor a historical right to exist” are, for the most part, worthless. This statement is way too general, non specific, to be taken seriously – it reminds me of Ken’s outlandish statements that are meant to shock more than communicate.
I’ll probably read the book, and like Frost’s book I’ll probably agree with a lot of it. – that said…
To say “the church” is meanignless… is he talking about the spiritual Body of Christ? Is he talking about congregations in America? Just what is “the church” that has no right?