BSBKJVWEBYLTASVBBEWMBT4TDBY|HymnsMusicDonate
Menu
General

An Interview With a Modern-Day, Sunday-Morning-Church-Going Christian

sermonindex Aug 2, 2005

There has been a discussion on another thread where we have been talking about our "traditions" and modern practices in church today. I have often recommended the book "Pagan Christianity" by Frank Viola... which deals with the roots of many of our "traditions", which are rarely ever investigated yet considered biblical.This is an interview that Frank Viola conducted with an average church going Christian. Please read and comment.KrispyIn 1988, I left the organized church never to return again. Since that time, I have been gathering with Christians under the Headship of Jesus Christ.From the day I stepped out of institutional Christianity until this day, I have been asked the following question countless times: Why do the vast majority of Christians prefer the traditional church, with all of its unbiblical practices, over churches that are patterned after the New Testament?Just recently, I discovered an answer to that question. To my mind, the best means of passing that answer on is to share the following interview with you.Frank ViolaMay 4, 2005--------------------------------------------------------------------------------So tell me, Anna, why do you go to church?I go to church in order to grow spiritually.I see. Can you describe to me what your church gatherings are like?Sure. Our church services are essentially the same each week. First, the greeters give everyone a bulletin that gives announcements and tells about special events during the week. We then have praise and worship. I love the worship team at our church, and I enjoy the songs and the music.Are the people in the congregation free to request songs and start songs?Oh, no. Only the people up on the stage can do that. We just follow along. I think we have hymn books. But the words of the songs are put up on a projector screen.What happens next?Well, we then have announcements and the offering is taken up.How does that happen?Well, usually the pastor or someone from the staff will remind us about how important it is to give to God. He will sometimes read passages from Malachi on tithing and how a curse is upon those who don’t tithe and a blessing is on those who do.What is the money used for?From my understanding, the money is used to pay the pastor and his staff. It is also used to pay for the building and for other programs the church has.Have you ever been part of the decision-making process of how the money is to be used?Oh, no. That’s the job of the pastor and his staff. I think we have deacons who might help with this too, but I’m not sure.Alright. Then what happens after the offering?Well, that’s when the pastor preaches his sermon.How often does the pastor preach?He preaches every week, unless he is out of town and a guest speaker comes in. Once in awhile he’ll let the assistant pastor preach a sermon.So basically, every week you are hearing about the Lord from the same part of the Body of Christ?What do you mean?Well, every Christian is a member of Christ’s Body. Each member has a function, just like the physical members of your physical body. The pastor is but one member. But you are a member also. And so is every other Christian who is part of your church. So if the pastor is the only one ministering in the service, the people are only hearing from one part of the Body.Oh, I see. I never heard it put that way before.What if you had a question during the sermon, could you raise your hand and ask the pastor? And what if you had something you wanted to share with the congregation . . . a message, a word, a testimony, an exhortation . . . could you do that?I don’t think so. I’ve never seen that done before. It wouldn’t be appropriate.Okay. Let’s continue. What happens after the sermon?After the sermon, the worship team comes back on stage and plays a song or two. And sometimes the pastor will ask those who have needs to come up to be prayed for. In the last church I attended, this didn’t happen. So we just went home after the sermon.Do you know anyone at your church?Oh yes, there are three friends of mine who go also.How many attend your church?I think between 80 and 100. I’m not sure of the exact number.Other than your three friends, do you fellowship with any of the Christians at your church during the week outside of religious services?No. In fact, I really don’t know anyone else there. The pastor gives us a few minutes after the offering to greet one another. But I could never remember their names. I go to Sunday School sometimes and know some people there. They seem nice, but we don’t have a relationship outside of church activities. There is also a woman’s Bible study during the week. I’ve been a few times. The women are nice and we have discussions, but again, I really don’t know them well.Okay, you have described your church very well. Let’s see. In the beginning of my interview, you said that the reason why you go to church is so that you can grow spiritually. Correct?Yes, that is why I go.So would it be fair to say that your church helps you to grow spiritually by listening to the pastor’s sermons and by singing the songs led by the worship team?I guess that would be accurate.Have you ever heard how the early Christians had their church meetings in the New Testament days?No, how did they meet?Well, before I answer that question, let me say that there are churches today that meet just like the Christians did in the first century. So I will describe these meetings in the present tense. I belong to such a church.Okay, sounds good.First, everyone in the church knows one another. And quite well. We spend time together outside of religious meetings. There is a fraternity of sorts among us. We are like family in many ways.Second, we sing. But we have no worship leader, song director, or worship team. Instead, everyone is free to lead a song or request a song. And many of the people in the church have written many of our own songs. To be honest, our singing is very powerful even though none of us are professionals.Wow. That sounds great. I often want our church to sing a certain song at a service, but there is no way to make requests like that.Third, when we meet, we don’t have a designated person who gives a sermon each week. Instead, the ministry comes from anyone who wishes to share. So if you were to visit a meeting, you’d find many different people in the church exhorting, encouraging, testifying, and bringing a word that magnifies the Lord. So instead of hearing from one member of the Body each week (as is the case in your church), we get to hear from many members. And everyone is welcome to share.Also, since our meetings are open, anyone can ask a question or add an insight when someone else is sharing. This happens quite frequently and it is spontaneous and very edifying.I don’t believe I have ever seen anything like this. What about the money? And what about the pastor . . . do you all have a pastor?Just like the first-century Christians, we don’t have a pastor. Instead, we realize that all of us are responsible to care for one another (we are the church). We make decisions together as a Body. We plan our meetings, our activities, and we decide how to handle our problems. We decide how to use the money we give. Tithing is not required (that was an Old Testament practice). But we do give. We give to the needs among us and to anything else the church decides to give to. We meet in homes so we don’t have the obscene overhead of a church building. And we have no clergy to support. Sometimes we bless the poor and needy. Other times we help other churches like ours to get off the ground. Other times the church here will put on something special for the community. And we give to that.So this is how the early Christians met?Yes. In fact, this is the kind of gathering the Bible is talking about when it says, "Forsake not the gathering of yourselves together . . . but exhort one another" (Hebrews 10:250. That is what we do. We exhort one another in our meetings. Because we are constantly encouraging one another in the church meetings as well as outside the meetings, our spiritual growth is not dependent on one man (a pastor). Instead, we have the privilege of getting fed from all the members of the Body . . . for every member of the church is encouraged to share in our meetings.I never thought of it that way, but it makes sense. It also sounds like there is a lot of freedom in this way of meeting.Yes, there definitely is. We are free to function in our meetings as the Lord leads us. We believe that every member of the Body is gifted and has both the right and the responsibility to edify one another in the church gatherings.How is this different from a Bible study group like the women’s Bible study group that my church sponsors? And how is it really different from a Sunday School class?It is very different. Your Bible study has a Bible study instructor or leader. And that person is under the pastor. While there may be more freedom to discuss things than a traditional church service, a Bible study is not a church meeting where every member brings something of Jesus Christ to share with every one else. In a church meeting, there is no leader except for Jesus Christ! All gather under His Headship. In a Bible study (or a weekly "cell group"), everyone does not have the freedom to make decisions on how church money will be used, how church meetings will be planned, what the church will do for the community, or for the Lord Himself. Everyone does not have the freedom and the responsibility to get the Lord’s mind on the affairs of the church. It is all prescribed by human leaders.Sunday School is similar to a Bible study. You have a leader who is in charge. And you basically go there to receive from the Sunday School instructor, not to share or to give. Nor do you get the benefit of receiving ministry from the other people in the class. Plus, Sunday School is an event that is part of the larger church. So it has time-restrictions and is ultimately under the authority of the pastor.I understand. What do you think the main difference is between your church and mine?There are many. But I’ll just list two. Your spiritual growth is dependent on the preparation, the study, and the insights of one man . . . the pastor. (If you attend Sunday School and Bible study, then it is dependent on three people.) It would also be dependent on the amount of will power you can muster up to spend time with the Lord during the week.My spiritual growth is dependent on an entire Body of believers who minister the Lord to me every week. I also have the privilege of spending time with these people outside of scheduled meetings. We seek the Lord together. We fellowship throughout the week, and we mutually encourage each other. The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ cannot express His fullness through one or two or three people. He needs a Body to do that. And that’s what I enjoy in a very real way every week. Plus, I don’t have to try to muster up my will power to seek the Lord during the week. My brothers and sisters in Christ help me with that.The other difference is that in your church, the pastor is the head of the church. He ministers to the people, and he makes the final decisions. He is in charge of the order of worship, and he has the final say on how the offering money is used. In my church experience, Jesus Christ is the Head of the church in a very real way. We let Him lead our meetings. He has the freedom to function through any one of the members of His Body that He chooses. We look to Him to make church decisions, and we, as members of His Body, are all involved and responsible for getting His mind and sharing it with one another.These are very new thoughts to me. But it makes a lot of sense.I’m curious. After hearing how your church experience differs from mine, do you think you would like to be part of a church like this . . . like the New Testament describes?Well, I think the way your church does things is great. But to be honest, I don’t think it’s for me. I like my own church. I enjoy the pastor’s sermons, and I like the fact that most of the people don’t know me and I don’t know them. I can come to church, enjoy the singing and sermon, and leave, not worrying about anything or anyone. Your way of meeting seems too serious and far too personal for me.

T
todd Aug 2, 2005

First of all, this isn't a real interview right? It just sounds to nice and neat and perfect. But I do think it's an effective way to communicate what he wants to get across. But really it's like a "mock interview," right?I liked much of what he said. One thing I'm not clear on is his view about church leadership, authority, structure. It seems like his church doesn't have ANY. Just like the first-century Christians, we don’t have a pastor. Instead, we realize that all of us are responsible to care for one another (we are the church). We make decisions together as a Body. Now I'm assuming he means they don't identify someone as the pastor. But according to Ephesians 4:11, there were pastors in the New Testament church, right?

S
saved_matt Aug 2, 2005

excellent post Krispy espeically the last comment by the woman, very revealing.I will have to look more into what he says about tithe being an old testament practice though. I've always brought my tithe and i'm in a house church like the one described by the interviewer, definite food for thought.thanx

E
Eli_Barnabas Aug 2, 2005

Be careful about this sort of thing. It sounds right, but at the root of it there is no difference. Both the idealistic "church service" and the "home church" are human ideas.I'm saying this only because I've known people really into this, yet it becomes terribly devisive and ironically: programmed.Don't be tricked, the New Testament Church had leaders, teachers, apostles, prophets, etc. It was not any and everyone doing what they wanted. As a matter of fact, women did not say anything at all in the New Testament church gatherings. I'm sure that many "home church only" members ignore this.But, let me just say I am not defending one or the other. The New Testament Church was what it was because they were in love with Jesus and were obedient to His Spirit. They did not program anything. All that you read in Acts is extremely natural. They naturally met in the homes... they naturally met in the synagogues... because they loved Jesus, they loved each other and wanted to learn, grow, fellowship and worship. There was nothing programmed.So let's not make a program of home church. Let's stop making a program of 'church' church. Let's fall in love with Jesus and His Spirit. Allow the Church to be NATURAL. How do you do this? Simply love Jesus and obey the Word. And no where in the Word does it say: meet in the homes, or, meet in the church. We simply do it because it is naturally the best way of meeting. Does anyone understand???Well, don't take this post wrong. This natural theory is something I've been thinking about a lot. I find people get mixed up in the do's and don't's of "how to do church" and it because messy.Love Jesus, love each other, obey the Word. Nothing else to worry about.In Christ,-Eli

sermonindex Aug 2, 2005

I wondered myself if this is a real interview... but I know as much as you do, since I posted everything he wrote concerning the interview. The author says it's real... I cant say that it isnt. I've read enough of his material that I dont think he would lie about it or make it up.As to pastors... the word pastor in greek is interchangable with elder. Yes, they had pastors/elders. The leadership seems to be plural, not singular as we often see today. The pastor at the apex of the triangle, then elders, then deacons on and down the food chain... that's what we have today. That whole structure seems to have come from the reformers who kept the structure they had when they were in the Catholic Church.Krispy

S
saved_matt Aug 2, 2005

The leadership seems to be plural, not singular as we often see today.I'm currently reading watchman nee's normal christian church life and this is what he concludes is taught by scripture that there was no singular head in the churches during the first century, the reason for this would be that if the church was following one man he could veer off into error, where there is less chance of this happening if the church is led by a group of spiritual elders. But like eli said church shouldn't be a free-for-all but shouldn't be led by any one person.

sermonindex Aug 2, 2005

Eli... I'm not advocating leaderless churches. Not at all. You have not read Mr. Viola's books I am assuming. What I reject is the westernized notion of what leadership is. Churches set up like corporations. We have been programmed in America to think that is what biblical leadership looks like. But God is not an American, and he is doing much more outside of our borders than He is doing inside our borders.And it's happening under a much different concept of "church leadership" than we know of...Krispy

C
Compton Aug 2, 2005

I enjoyed reading the interview. It's message resonates with me. For the most part I think there is a great deal of virtue in this movement. I have several good house church friends who want me to join them...However I remain hestitant before buying in. Maybe someone here can help me with my reservations. I see the house church movement in two different lights:1) The home church movement that desires an expression of Christian bodily worship that is more then didactic instruction. This could mean that it is a healthy movement. It all depends on the heart of the people involved.2) The home church movement is rooted in a critique of traditional churches, with many communities being established by refugees from bad experiences. This could mean that it is an unhealthy movement. It all depends on the heart of the people involved.Both the idealistic "church service" and the "home church" are human ideas.I think this is correct. Here is the paragraph that reminds me that the more things change, the more they stay the same...Have you ever heard how the early Christians had their church meetings in the New Testament days?No, how did they meet?Well, before I answer that question, let me say that there are churches today that meet just like the Christians did in the first century. So I will describe these meetings in the present tense. I belong to such a church.The interviewer leads the woman to ask a simple question, and then doges the answer. To be fair, the problem is he couldn't answer his own question. (What is he...an archeologist or an anthropologist? ;-)) I don't think there is enough surviving records of ancient Jewish and gentile Christian communities to reconstruct the "first century church" in our times. I admit that the house church holds an appeal of brotherhood and community that is almost non-existent in many traditional churches. The fact that the house church movement doesn't promote a single man to run the show also has a temporary appeal.I realize the house church doesn't claim to be leaderless...just somehow more led by the Spirit then traditional churches that appearently are led by men. However, in my experience, the lack of formal authority structure doesn't mean that a single man isn't running the show anyways. Whenever there are numbers, there will be at least one silverback dominating the group. Maybe it's best that there is happy recognition of this man, or men, rather then pretending that we have achieved utopia. As previously stated, the differences of the home church movement are very attractive to this weary church goer...if they really are differences. It all depends on the heart of the people involved. All of these discussions about the "biblical" model for church leaves me wondering why we keep trying to answer questions of substance with mere attention to outward form. If the apostles had thought that there was only one correct church organizational structure, they would've instructed us accordingly. MC

sermonindex Aug 2, 2005

Compton... very thoughtful post. I know from experience that house churches do attract those who are angry at the traditional church. When someone comes in like that it needs to be dealt with immediately because a critical spirit is contagious. We've actually asked people not to attend after a period of time because they were not getting beyond their issues with the traditional church.I went thru that myself, but was able to get over it. We're to the point now where on some Sundays, if for some reason our group isnt meeting, we visit a traditional church. My main reason for doing this is so we can meet other believers in our community.Krispy

Z
ZekeO Aug 2, 2005

Compton wrote:All of these discussions about the "biblical" model for church leaves me wondering why we keep trying to answer questions of substance with mere attention to outward form.This site is dedicated to inward form, but a river has banks(outward form). I don't know if you are familiar with the building trade. When they want to throw cement down, to control where the cement goes they put up what is called 'shuttering'. Its wooden sides that keep the the cement in a shape that is usable and what the originally intended design of the builder was. That is all it is, what is the wineskin that needs to be put in place to hold that which comes from God. What practises, attitudes are helpful in keeping the church all that God intended it to be. Paul called himself a masterbuilder. The temple of the Jews was detailed in its design, how much more will the church be built according to his specifications. Now its just to agree on what that is. :-) If the apostles had thought that there was only one correct church organizational structure, they would've instructed us accordingly.We are given the correct organisational structure. Saints->deacons->elders (in the local church)apostles, prophets, preachers, teachers, evangelists (operating translocally)In reading the NT we are given snapshots of what they did, it is interesting to see what they did to get a picture of what apostolic ministry would/could/should entail.

sermonindex Aug 2, 2005

I think it's good this subject is brought up.My husband was a Pastor. And even then, we didn't feel right about the typical "order of service."We felt it should be, where each gift is used and everyone could share with each other (like those verses given earlier ... can the eyeball say to the ear, I don't need you :)That refers to Fellowship time and our gifts.If we check into 'how' we got to where we are, as far as "order of service and the Sunday thing", etc. I think you already know where this came from. Need I say more ?I agree with the guy, though I've never heard of him before. Haven't read his books or know the rest of what he believes, but from what this says above ... he's right on.BUT ~ the only thing I fear, is that we don't divide up the Body and feel, those of us who like this type of Fellowship, are better than those who don't or vice versa.I prefer this type, that he describes, but I still visit all my brothers and sisters, in whatever Building they meet at. And whatever Born-Again 'denomination' they attend.I have problems calling it "going to Church".That 'saying' also, comes from the same origin that I eluded to above. We are the Church and we go to "Fellowship" or "Assemble". The other idea that we put reverence into a 'building', in a sense, sort of bothers me. The reverence is to The Lord, no matter where we meet ... and we shouldn't act any different at the Building, then we do everyday. Like "Church on Sunday, then ? on Monday" - in our behavior.Also, the idea that the Pastor has as much power anymore is not scriptural. There are also "Teachers and Prophets" etc. that can keep the 'order' in the group, if things get wacky. There's a reason why these 5 gifts were listed in the order they are.Do you know how many teachers and prophets, etc. sit in a Church pew and are never heard or used ?That's a shame ... really !About "woman speaking in the Fellowship".Well, I do not by any means believe a woman should teach or usurp authority over men ... but that "keep silence" verse is being taken out of context. It was a problem in the fellowship, when Paul or whoever was speaking, these woman were asking their husbands or whoever ... "what's this guy talking about ?" or something. It was disruptive, If you read the verses that follow."Ask your own husband at home lady" ... type thing.I believe in all the gifts, and both male and female have them, so "where" are these gifts supposed to be used ?In Acts, they all participated together at their fellowship times.Anyhow, my whole thought is, The Body is the Church, and the Body is One Body, and should work together as one Body and respect each other's Gifts and burdens. By burdens, I mean, God may have given you the burden for evangelism, but this other guy may be a prophet and care more about something that goes in The Body, that you may not .... so we must Respect each other's "gift-burdens". Or someone with the gift of mercy, may not understand the prophet's motive and so on.That's all :-) There's a site I've been looking at recently, and so far, I like a lot of what I've read.NO MAN is 100% innerent - 100% of the time, so I don't follow 'a' man or any man at all, (because I'll have to stand before God alone One Day, and give an account for what, just I believe, without saying "He or she, taught me that." But I read a lot of Authors and like an awful lot. Mostly those from the old-paths view.Anyways, here's the site you could look at.Like I said, I haven't read every article yet.http://www.watchman.net/read.htmlLove one another. Bottomline, right ?

sermonindex Aug 2, 2005

Oh, and Pastor means "shepherd".Shepherd's "lead" the sheep, they follow by his example.Only 'goats' are 'driven'.And woman can "shepherd" woman.

sermonindex Aug 2, 2005

I don't know if you are familiar with the building trade. When they want to throw cement down, to control where the cement goes they put up what is called 'shuttering'. Its wooden sides that keep the the cement in a shape that is usable and what the originally intended design of the builder was. Zeke... how much do YOU know about the building trade?? It's called CONCRETE. Not cement. I think Mike will back me up on that one.(I'm a structural engineer...)Your doctrine is all messed up, my friend!! LOL :-P Krispy

sermonindex Aug 2, 2005

BUT ~ the only thing I fear, is that we don't divide up the Body and feel, those of us who like this type of Fellowship, are better than those who don't or vice versa.Annie... this is so true, and can be a real trap for many in house churches. Thats why I really love people who get saved and go straight into house churches... they dont have the biases and hurts that many Christians bring into the situation.Krispy

Z
ZekeO Aug 2, 2005

Zeke... how much do YOU know about the building trade?? Enough to get my point across! :-P :-P

P
philologos Aug 2, 2005

This site is dedicated to inward form, but a river has banks(outward form). I don't know if you are familiar with the building trade. When they want to throw cement down, to control where the cement goes they put up what is called 'shuttering'. Its wooden sides that keep the the cement in a shape that is usable and what the originally intended design of the builder was. That is all it is, what is the wineskin that needs to be put in place to hold that which comes from God. What practises, attitudes are helpful in keeping the church all that God intended it to be. Paul called himself a masterbuilder. The temple of the Jews was detailed in its design, how much more will the church be built according to his specifications. Now its just to agree on what that is.Now Zeke, I am surprised at you! ;-) Although the Romans had cement/concrete the Jews did not. Their temples were built of stone which was pre-cut and fashioned in the quary so that no sound of the hammer was heard when it was assembled. There was certainly no shuttering here.The whole point about a new wineskin was that it had not hardened and was flexible enough to accommodate the fermenting wine within. Old wineskines would just burst and be destroyed to the loss of the contents.We are given the correct organisational structure. Saints->deacons->elders (in the local church)apostles, prophets, preachers, teachers, evangelists (operating translocally) Is this an organisational structure or a relationship structure, and why did 'pastors' drop out of your list?Oh and btw a river with concrete banks is called a canal not a river. :-D

L
lastblast Aug 2, 2005

Anyways, here's the site you could look at. http://www.watchman.net/read.htmlGreat site GrannieAnnie! Here's an article there which very much relates to the present discussion titled, Churchianity today: http://www.watchman.net/articles/churchianity.htmlBlessings in Him, Cindy

C
Compton Aug 3, 2005

Zeke0,I agree with your points. I certainly wouldn't want to come across as a party-pooper when it comes to sharing church planning and government ideas! I'm not sure if the list of offices you mentioned are the same as a practical organization plan for day-to-day operations though. This is my observation with scripture...and this elusive subject.Perhaps I was sensitive to the claim that "ours" is the "Biblical model" or patterned after "The First Century Church". This is the rub...I don't think such an exclusive claim is easily demonstratable. Whether the church is episcopal, presbyterian, or congregational at it's basic starting point, everyone believes that their church is "biblical." Let me say all of this another way...if someone can convince me that they have discovered How Jesus and the apostles would run an organized church in the year 2005 I sure would be grateful.BTW, "Pennies on the Pile" is my favorite title for any post ever. :-D MC

J
Joshua99 Aug 3, 2005

The main focus and concern, I see in the first century church is Love for our God, resulting in deeply changed lives, so that obedience was their life. If they strayed from the Truth, it was dealt with. The Apostles spoke to the churches, by way of visits and letters to deal with error, and sin in the church. The local church leaders were raised up, under the apostles leadership, they gave clear and precise instructions(commandments)how to nurture spiritual life and how to deal with everyday issues that will arise.There where elders and deacons, as Paul states in 2 timothy 3. I see so many christians today, who don't know their bible,they don't have any foundational truths in their hearts to give an account why they believe in the Word of God. I don't expect any word of ecouragement or exhortation from this type of believer. Why? The Spirit of God is not going to speak through the natural wisdom of this day, people controlled by their flesh, worldly thoughts and ideas, the church is full of this problem. Without some standard in the Truth, all sorts of false doctrines and beliefs, will flood the local church and home churches. That is the condition for disaster if it isn't led by men and women filled with the Spirit, and established in the Truth. How many professing christians are desperate for God? Are they crying in prayer in repentence over their sin? No I don't believe so, why? It is not the conversation of most christians today. To have an "who ever wants to share" setting, with believers sharing from un-inspired books, most that are written today deny the word of God, in some form, good intentioned people who don't know the scriptures, can express ideas and topics that have nothing related to the bible and still believe Jesus taught that.I'm very open to more than one leader of a home group or church, but not a free for all banquet."Let me say all of this another way...if someone can convince me that they have discovered How Jesus and the apostles would run an organized church in the year 2005 I sure would be grateful.Yes, get the world and the business management ideas OUT of the church and let us all fall on our knees and cry out to Jesus to visit permantly His Church and purify her and make Him..KING and LORD over all the needs and the growing of His Church! :-) :-)

sermonindex Aug 3, 2005

*lastblast*In between all'a these guys talking, 'THANKS', for posting that article. I just went over and read it ... I hadn't gotten that far through his articles yet, to that one.Waving up to you, from way down here (between these guy posts :)Thanks again.Love in Him.

This discussion is locked.

Archived
1 of 196 posts