But woe unto you, O torrent of human custom! Who shall stay your course? When will you ever run dry? How long will you carry down the sons of Eve into that vast and hideous ocean, which even those who have the Tree (for an ark) [cross] can scarcely pass over?I've felt uncomfortable "at church" for more than 30 years now. I love it in the house of the Lord, but I hate what we do "there." Now, don't get mad. My foot goes in my mouth enough as it is, I don't need anyone else trying to stick theirs in too. I want to delve into the history of the church for a while and it may get uncomfortable for some. Rebellion is not on my mind, rather revolution. "There is a vast gulf between rebellion and taking a stand for what is true," as Frank Viola writes.(1)
Augustine, Confessions Book I Chapter 16:25
Taking a long look at some of the things we find in our regular worship and comparing them with the Bible lies at the core of these next few posts. Then, on to discussing ways that we can return if we are lost or how certain practices can be more rightly grasped if they help. I want to look at some of our "traditions" and see where they come from. "We cannot avoid bringing our culture to church with us; it is part of our very being. But in 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."(2)
Many of you know I am not really a "denominational" kind of guy. I follow Christ, not Paul or Cephas. I don't mind if you go to a Baptist church, Methodist, Catholic or whatever.(3) "But they don't do things by the Bible there!" you say. So say you. Most of what we do at church isn't by the Bible either. "Going to church" for instance isn't in the Bible. Culture affects how we worship, and Christianity has grown largely because it conforms to outside cultures.
To Romans, I become a Roman, to Greeks, a Greek. But Paul isn't talking about Christ conforming to them, Paul means that he pours himself into the cup of the culture around him, like water. The water doesn't change, it erodes some parts and nourishes others. Christianity should not be conformed by the culture, but bring it to fruition.
If you feel comfortable where you are, fine. Don't get twisted out of shape by what you read. In fact, just stop reading.
But I hope you aren't comfortably secure where you are and I hope you don't stop reading. God never promised "security." In fact, in order to trust properly, to have great faith, we cannot really ever "feel" very secure at all. And it is the faithful He calls. And it is to adventure that He calls us!
To that end I venture the journey ahead.
Next: What is the "Church?"
(1) Frank Viola and George Barna, Pagan Christianity
(2) Frank Senn said in Christian Worship and Its Cultural Setting
(3) I believe in One Universal Church, just as the creed says. Christ has One Body. We are to be One with Him as He is with God the Father. 1 Corinthians 1:12,13 "Now I mean this, that each one of you says, "I follow Paul," "I follow Apollos," "I follow Cephas," and, "I follow Christ." Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized into the name of Paul?"
5 comments:
Bring it on! If we're doing the right thing then we'll stand. If not, we should be shown so and we should change.
I don't mind being wrong at all. That way I can be shown the right way. And I like the right way.
Richard Halverson once wrote on the overcontextualization of the Church in world cultures, "When the Greeks got the Gospel, they turned it into a philosophy; when the Romans got it, they turned it into a government; when the Europeans got it, they turned it into a culture; when the Americans got it, they turned it into a business."
It's certainly oversimplifying things, but it's true none the less. The Gospel does not need be twisted into different cultural settings, nor deform the cultures into which it goes. But it should prune that which does not bear fruit and bring to fruition that which has been fallow.
Like the comment you just made...how progression of the gospel has taken over the years.
i am currently reading Pagan Christianity and thus far really intrigued and enjoy it. My intent to read the book was more for the historical side than the house church movement. I do agree with much of what Frank says, but I am unclear on his complete stance on the whole Law of God. he seems to be more emergent than someone who believes in the whole Law of God; someone like a Spurgeon, Ravenhill and so on. he almost seems a little contemplative and mystical to me.
The house church entices me, however it may be only because of my confusion now on the "church system". I am not convinced yet that he is completely correct. But I will continue to read with discernment and open mind.
Thanks, Testing the Spirits, great to have new commentators!
I enjoyed the book very much as well. As I had studied the middle ages in uni for a while, it really interested me in a few details that i had missed.
C.S. Lewis pointed out that we were never meant to be solely spiritual nor physical creatures, but a mixture of both. Perhaps we shall discuss this in another post, but the mystical aspects of Christianity are certainly there. We cannot deny them completely without becoming Sadducees, who denied the soul, the resurrection, any sort of afterlife and whatnot. If we believe even one of those, then we cannot deny the mystical part of Christianity. Nor are we meant to though. I think a large part of the vitriol that goes around is in part due to a misunderstanding of what "spirituality" really means. That is certainly another post. We can take both ends, the physical and the spiritual, and draw each out farther than it is to go though, and that is the danger we see present in materialism and in superstition.
I don't know if Viola is completely correct either, but neither does he. He admits that at least, which a lot of people don't. But he wants to be as Biblical as possible - and there is a lot of theological discussion to go with that that we won't get into, but in general, I think that is a good thing.
What is Viola's stance on the Law? I dunno, but you can ask him on his website. I imagine he takes the same position that Paul does (and DaveE and I do.) That is certainly a long discussion, but you can Paul's epistles. Boiling it down to the Old Covenant of Law and Death being replaced with the New Covenant of Love and Grace - not in usurping it and taking it over, but revealing the reality from the shadow, the plant from the seed.
I like to say, God has built up for Himself a Temple/Kingdom made of Living Stones, founded on the Cornerstone and Architect Himself, Christ, whereas the Old Covenant a quarry and blueprint of what those stones and the temple would look like and what type of people would populate the kingdom.
Post a Comment