I'll continue my review of the Viola/Barna book "Pagan Christianity" with a discussion of chapters 1 and 2. Chapter 1 is really an introduction to the book. Viola continues his overstatements by declaring that 'almost everything that is done in our contemporary churches has no basis in the Bible.' A major disagreement I seem to have with Viola is that he seems to equate the EXTRA-Biblical category with the UN-Biblical category. I also found it humorous that in a book complaining of pagan influence over the church, Viola begins by raving about the 'Socratic Method.' I like the Socratic method too, but then again, I'm not the one saying the church shouldn't have ANY influence from the world.
Chapter 2: The Church Building
In general, I agree with Viola's theology in this section. We don't GO to church, we ARE the church. I agree that too many churches spend too much time and money on buildings. I appreciated his account of the history of how congregations went from homes to holy cathedrals. But this is where Viola's EXTRA-Biblical ='s UN-Biblical equation gets goofy. He argues without an argument that the early Christians consciously decided not to build buildings and says that even though they did renovate homes into larger rooms used for services, "remodeled houses... cannot rightfully be called church buildings." Haha! Why not?
He makes a lot of statements that just leave me scratching my head. For instance, "The Christian building demonstrates that the church, whether she wanted it or not, had entered into a close alliance with pagan culture." What does he mean by alliance? Obviously he intends it negatively, but how is deciding to build a building a show of alliance with evil? Another example would be, "The message of the steeple is one that contradicts the message of the New Testament." Hmm. Well that sort of depends on what symbolism you're reading into the steeple. Viola was comparing it to Babel. I don't think of a steeple in that way at all. My point is that even if the original motivation for something was wrong, I am not bound by the author's intent.
But I agreed with a lot of what he said too. I'd prefer less distinction b/w the clergy and laity too. I'd rather teach right in front of people than behind a big pulpit. I wish churches were less 'performance' oriented. I agree that too many Christians don't understand that we (not the church building) replace the Old Testament temple.
1 comment:
You could probably argue that Christians started building their own facilities when the temple courts and the synagogs were no longer an option and congregations grew to large to meet in homes.
Personally I think we need to see buildings as tools not sacred spaces but they certainly are not evil. And if you are going to argue that the idea of having a building is stolen rather than pragmatic why not argue it was taken from judaism not paganism.
And even if it was taken from paganism why not argue it's an example of redeeming a great idea rather than adopting an evil practice. Unless of course you have some to you historical research with a pre set bias towards house churches because you have a hate on for "the institutional Church"
Post a Comment