I would hope this book, which i consider very challenging and biblically based would cause us to ’search the scriptures” to see if what Barns & Viola say is true.

Yes Pagan Christianity is “radical” - “especially for someone” born and bread in the system it must seem totally infuriating and “off the wall”…but so also were Luther’s thesis and those of reformers throughout the history of Christiandom. Tyndale was burned at the stake for trying to make the bible available to the common man and for the heretical idea that each “individual had a right and responsibility to study the scriptures” rather than be told by “the church” what to believe!

You may not agree but Pagan Christianity is a very literate and challenging work. Viola certainly is not the first to hold such beliefs. Study the Waldenses, Zinzendorf and the Moravians, the Anabaptise (many of whom were persecuted by Luther. We have beliefs challenged. It’s healthy>

I’m not defending Frank…he doesn’t need defending. But I know he is a dear brother with a “message” that we all need to at least consider in the light of scripture. I have read it twice and have been challenged by it as has my wife also. I do not take Frank’s word for it but it has caused me to really dig into God’s word and it has made me THINK!

I encourage you to read this book with an open mind then “search the scriptures” and pray and see if there is something there for you. If not. That’s OK too. More importantly, whether or not you read it or agree with it, I challenge you to read your Bible. If you don’t know what it teaches you will only be tossed to and fro by Frank’s writings.

Blessings

“Also, just because a practice is picked up from culture does not make it wrong in and of itself, though we must be discerning. As author Frank Senn notes, ‘We cannot avoid bringing our culture to church with us; it is a part of our very being. But in the light of tradition we need to sort out those cultural influences that contribute to the integrity of Christian worship from those that detract from it.’

It is in our best interest to scour the words of God to determine the core principles and ethos of the early church and to restore those elements to our lives.”

I think in this discussion more thought needs to be given to the assumption that what is called “church” is actually the ekklesia that Christ is building. As I said in another context, “One thing that’s helped me is that once you define ekklesia as an action context where kingdom work takes place (like Mt 18:15ff, 1 Cor 5:1ff, 6:1ff), then you begin to see that ‘church’ is defined by ‘who’ and ‘what.’ As a result, it is not hard to discern that not all that calls itself ‘church’ is actually ekklesia. To put it way too simplistically, yet somewhat truthfully for illustration’s sake, Christ is building the ekklesia, not ‘church.’”

I found the book to be uniquely refreshing and historically accurate. It is, of course, a tough pill to swallow for those having vested ecclesiastical interests. As Upton Sinclair observed, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it” (cited in PC, p.182).

Jon Zens

The point is that the implementation is always part of the message. If I’m telling people that part of their job is to take care of widows and orphans (which in our culture would also reflect other global poverty issues), yet I’m spending most of my personal money on all the latest fads and condoning the church spending money on elaborate buildings, presentation systems and programs to server the church members, doesn’t that completely undermine my message?

When Paul talks about each person having an opportunity to speak in a church gathering, and our worship services are limited to two or three people ever having an opportunity to share, shouldn’t that make us question our current methods?

When the Bible never speaks about utilizing a church “building,” and we have churches all across America spending tens of millions of dollars each (or more) on buildings, shouldn’t that make us question our current methods?

When churches are building these buildings instead of using resources to help those in need, shouldn’t that make us question our current methods?

When the Bible speaks very strongly against a clergy/laity division, never mentions a professional approach to ministry, and never condones the payment of church leaders, shouldn’t that make us question our current methods? (1 Timothy 5:17 refers to *honor*, not payment. How a translation translates this verse is now one of my tests of a good translation.)

When the Bible speaks of the church confessing sins to each other, praying for each other, taking care of each other, and most Christians in most churches barely even know each others’ names, shouldn’t that make us question our current methods?

Our gatherings, relationships, leadership style, location, and use of resources are as far away from NT descriptions as you can image. Anyone giving a good objective look at the NT church, and then looking at modern church organizations, can see that. Especially unbelievers.

I’m not sure how much freedom Christ gives us in the implementation of His church. I think we have some freedom within the descriptions that the NT has given us, but the current modern church is very far outside of those descriptions.

And in reality, I have experienced more freedom outside of the modern church than I ever experienced inside of it. It is the fullness of Christ that I am seeking, and I believe that this is based much more on my obedience to Scripture than my ability to be strategic and innovative. I wish it were based more on the latter - I’m better at it! But strategy and innovation only make sense when you’re staying true to Scripture - not just in theology, but in practice also.

We are warned in scripture to not do things in vain repetition. We are also shown by scripture the dangers of allowing our methods to become tradition and standard practice where as we become stagnant, apathetic, and dead. This is the problem with a segment of traditional churches who refuse to change in order to reach a new generation. The same dangers can and do apply to a philosophy that says our methods and the details of how we carry out those methods have to mimic that of the NT church. Methods and Principles are different.

A healthy church will be found doing those principles given to us by the founders, an unhealthy church will most likely not be found following through with those principles. What the church looks like while practicing and putting those principles into action can look different in style and in the details of how those principles are being acted upon. Whether it is in a home church or a “institutionalized church” I don’t think it matters, what matters is, are we doing the principles that the Bible makes clear his church should be doing?

One last thought…I think it is a bit over doing it to suggest that for one to believe that the methods used in the NT Testament church were culture specific is moving towards saying that the theology of those methods were culture specific as well. I am sure some churches may do this, but if they are trying to minimize theology based on culture, I would seriously doubt that their church has a solid Biblical foundation to begin with. Methods cannot be confused with Principles. It reminds me of what Rick Warren says in the PD Church book, We must change our methods, but not change our message. The theology of the Bible does not change, but Christ gives us freedom in how we implement it.

‘Nevertheless there has been in the last few years very considerable advance, advance so great and in so many different parts of the world that it is making a serious impression upon our minds. If it is true, as it is true, that outcastes in India, and labourers in Nigeria, and Uganda, and China and Corea, are capable, not only of being led and directed to do this work; but of doing it spontaneously of their own initiative, not in one or two rare cases only, but in many, we cannot but be impressed. The same results seem to follow the same teaching all the world over. The conviction that new converts can beget new converts leads them from strength to strength: the conviction that they will fall if they are not nursed leads them from weakness to weakness. The difference lies not in the nature or in the environment of the converts; but in the faith of the missionaries.’

You can read the entire book at http://www.gospeltruth.net/allen/spon_expanofch.htm , very interesting since it was written in 1927. Missionary leaders who at great cost and personal sacrifice were/are hindering the Gospel. Why? In business we call it the ‘not invented here syndrome’. Failure to recognize that good things, that contribute to the bottom line are somehow suspect and can’t be used if we didn’t think/plan/teach them. We have to do it our own way even if that means leaving God out of the picture.

My previous church life has included 4 years of para-church ministry, 2 in a concert/coffee house, and another 2 in sheltering/training/evangelizing homeless families. Then as church elder for 18 years, during the last 4 my wife and I lead an Alpha Course. When the pastor, that I helped bring in, turned my then current church from charismatic to something resembling Baptist I went looking for God in a new direction. Thought I’d found it in this new cool inner city church ministry with a vision for the youth, the poor, an the nations. They are doing house churches and after a year they appointed me a HC leader and turned us lose. That was just over a year ago, and I’ve discovered that our house church looks just like our cell group did at my old Baptist/charismatic church. We do house church on Wednesday night and big church on Saturday evening. We still have buildings (church, rectory, training center, and discipleship house), support a pastor, an apostolic fellow that travels around the U. S. who encourages and helps interested parties to start house churches, another who specializes in ‘inner healing’ ministry, and another who supports our 24-7 prayer ministry. Our house church ministry has had their successes in discipling people but also many failures.

I like the house church idea! Get away from the hugely expensive and unprofitable professional. Professional clergy/staff, professional church service, professional programs, professional counseling, professional missionaries, etc. Ask everyone to be a professional christian, discourage everyone from being a professional bystander. Make them stewards of their own money and time and their relationship to God and other people. Get them out talking to the rest of the world they live in, about Jesus, about His kingdom, their citizenship responsibilities and benefits if they choose him as their king. Warning them that time is running out, and that when the king comes back for His subjects, those that have rejected His kingship will not fare well.

I’ve decided I’m going to try for a ‘real’ house church. Everybody talks/writes about doing the stuff but it seems only a very few people are actually doing the stuff. I think I know why, house church is a lot more difficult than standard church. Unless you were born with the ability to heal the sick and raise the dead your Gospel delivery is probably lacking a bit of punch. Standard church puts that kind of stuff in the paid professional’s lap, not ours. We pay the bills, show up on time, be Christianly polite and civil. Leave the rest to someone who is especially educated, anointed, ordained, and can tell good stories. Then we both agree together that we won’t judge on another. Then we hope like hell that this arrangement is what is good and acceptable in God’s sight. Maybe it is, but I don’t think it’s what He’s hoping for. I know it’s not what He Himself said or did. Or even what He told us we would be able to do, or should do. So where does a 25 year veteran Christian start? For me, its been reading the Gospels, what does Jesus really, really say? Praying specifically, with some spotty results. Praying for the sick, nope, there still sick. Introduce myself to strangers; in the doctor’s waiting room, I’m sick. Didn’t tell them about the kingdom, Lord, help me to get past what holds me from talking about You. I was raised to be considerate of others and I think I feel like I’m forcing myself upon them when I share You.

So this is what it looks like in one man’s trench, the battle rages.

The Bible gives an example of what Jesus’ hand-picked followers started, being led by the Holy Spirit. These were the guys who developed our very theology. Who were performing miracles. I think we should take their suggestions regarding the methods and practices of the church a little more seriously.

If we claim that their methods and practices were culture-specific, it is only a small step to say that their theological implementation was culture-specific as well. This is the step that many Christians take today with a liberal theology. Claiming that there is no such thing as hell, for instance. We can’t claim that the theology is immovable while also claiming that the methods and practices are entirely relative.

Anyone can move multitudes. The question is, what are they being saved into? Does what they are being saved into look anything like the relational church described in the New Testament, where all believers contributed to the gatherings, lived simply, shared with each other, and were led by the Holy Spirit in an organic, functional way as the body of Christ, not as members of an organization?

This is what the house movement is about. It’s a lot more than just the location. Even comparisons to the New Testament church don’t matter to you, then I can understand why Barna and Viola sound nuts. But I’ve begun to take the New Testament a lot more seriously, so they make a heck of a lot of sense to me.

A church like New Spring is a perfect example of the need for the “institutionalized church.” When multitudes are being saved, there has to be some type of organization to help move those new believers into followers of Christ. Does the institutionalized church have to all look the same? Definitely not, but I believe it is important for them to exist. Home Churches may be great in some cases, but definitely not in all cases.

The Bible gave an example of how it was done in that culture at that time when it gives us the accounts of the 1st Century church. I can see where there would be serious challenges in a home church as much as there are in larger “institutionalized” churches.