I do agree with the following assertions made by Pagan Christianity. 1. Church NEVER meant building in the New Testament. It always referred to a people. The authors do not show the "pagan" roots of ekklesia, though. It originated in the Greek calling of an assembly of citizens. Why did they leave this pagan connection out? Perhaps it would mean their home assemblies had borrowed something from paganism, too? Hmm....
The church was not then or is now a reference to buildings. It is the called out gathering of believers. There is too much attachment and expense used on buildings. I wish all buildings of worship were multipurpose so ministry could happen all week long. You know community gatherings, support groups, meals, benevolence, job training, afterschool tutoring, and the like. Our communities need so much more than just a once-a-week-song-and-speech gathering!
2. Sunday best is often prideful and discriminatory. I as a pastor of an inner-city mission seldom wear a tie. Our gatherings are literally "come-as-you-are-and-discover-who-you-were-made-to-be events. Over 16 years of service as a pastor I have encountered many who are reluctant to come because they don't have the "right" cloths.
3. The chief reason the New Testament gave was assisting others in need, not as an act of worship. The pastor that deals with giving/stewardship in terms of operations and staffing has mixed motives and conflict of interest issues. How many more could be served, evangelized and helped if these funds were directed away from staffing and electric bills for a worship center used only 3 times a week? I think we should support our teacher/pastor. There is direct teaching in the NT for this. I just wish it was not the biggest line item in the ministry budget.
more to come...
Showing posts with label Book Reviews. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Book Reviews. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Monday, May 10, 2010
Pagan Christianity -- Book Review
Lisa and I try to stay current with issues and books and thoughts in the world and Christendom. I recently had someone mention Pagan Christianity to me as something of controversy. My loving wife bought it for me Saturday. I have read half of it as of this writing.
This book supposes that most if not all of modern Christianity is based solely on ancient Greek and Roman paganism. Buildings, worship, ministry and so on are all warpings of the prototype church of the apostles. The authors list and footnote many correlations with the "Ah-ha!" of a film noir sluth. The "revelations" should shake the faith and practice of every person who claims to be a Christian.
My first observation is simple. These are not "Ah-Ha!" revelations. ANYONE who has studied church history is conversant with all these connections. The change in the church in the 300's AD when the faith came out of the forced hiding of an illegal group to a legitimate one was radical and tremendous. The influence of thought and practice has always influenced the way persons act and react regardless of group affiliation. No shockers are to be found in this book. The facts are not in dispute. I do however dispute the authors conclusions based on these historic facts.
Second, it is a logical fallacy to suggest that borrowing or even being influenced by Greek/Roman pagan practice means the church today is pagan. This is analogous to saying that since the Irish eat potatoes (produce borrowed from Native North Americans) Irish culture has been retrofitted to Native American culture. Or that since the Italians use noodles (brought back from China by Marco Polo) Italian cuisine and Chinese cooking taste the same.
There are passages of the Bible that cite pagan poetry (Acts 17), pagan mythological imagery like God splitting the heads of Leviathan (Psalms, Job, Isaiah) and this simply shows the writers were aware of the world around them and not that they believed in polytheism.
Third, the underlying premise of this book is the superiority of the "house church" and its promotion. Both authors attend this type of church and are attempting to create a historic justification for it. They are just as guilty as "pagan" Christianity in reading their philosophy back into the Sacred Text. The descriptions of worship do not proscribe a "house church" practice/form/gathering flow any more than they proscribe the current/ancient liturgy.
This book supposes that most if not all of modern Christianity is based solely on ancient Greek and Roman paganism. Buildings, worship, ministry and so on are all warpings of the prototype church of the apostles. The authors list and footnote many correlations with the "Ah-ha!" of a film noir sluth. The "revelations" should shake the faith and practice of every person who claims to be a Christian.
My first observation is simple. These are not "Ah-Ha!" revelations. ANYONE who has studied church history is conversant with all these connections. The change in the church in the 300's AD when the faith came out of the forced hiding of an illegal group to a legitimate one was radical and tremendous. The influence of thought and practice has always influenced the way persons act and react regardless of group affiliation. No shockers are to be found in this book. The facts are not in dispute. I do however dispute the authors conclusions based on these historic facts.
Second, it is a logical fallacy to suggest that borrowing or even being influenced by Greek/Roman pagan practice means the church today is pagan. This is analogous to saying that since the Irish eat potatoes (produce borrowed from Native North Americans) Irish culture has been retrofitted to Native American culture. Or that since the Italians use noodles (brought back from China by Marco Polo) Italian cuisine and Chinese cooking taste the same.
There are passages of the Bible that cite pagan poetry (Acts 17), pagan mythological imagery like God splitting the heads of Leviathan (Psalms, Job, Isaiah) and this simply shows the writers were aware of the world around them and not that they believed in polytheism.
Third, the underlying premise of this book is the superiority of the "house church" and its promotion. Both authors attend this type of church and are attempting to create a historic justification for it. They are just as guilty as "pagan" Christianity in reading their philosophy back into the Sacred Text. The descriptions of worship do not proscribe a "house church" practice/form/gathering flow any more than they proscribe the current/ancient liturgy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
