A Response to “Pagan Christianity?”
3.4 Chapter 3 Review – Sunday Mornings Set in Concrete
Viola and Barna next consider the liturgy of the church, or the order of service. This, they call “mechanical and predictable”, in contrast to what they believe was the practice of the New Testament church. Again, this conception of the New Testament church is not defended, merely asserted. A look at the footnotes reveals that Viola and Barna are merely echoing the questionable views of liberal scholars like Robert Banks.[1] In the book cited by Viola and Barna, Banks questions the authenticity of Paul’s pastoral epistles (1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus), and intentionally does not consider them in the formulation of his argumentation. This is a significant problem, because much of what we know about the government of the early church derives from those epistles. Banks’ conclusions would thus be highly suspect, at best. But it is on this shaky basis that Viola and Barna assert, “The meetings of the early church were marked by every-member functioning, spontaneity, freedom, vibrancy, and open participation (see, for example, 1 Corinthians 14:1-33 and Hebrews 10:25).” Even if that were so, it would not immediately follow that this was normative for the church today. But we would do well to consider both passages here.
Hebrews 10:25 reads: “not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.” I hardly see how this passage is relevant. Having an order of service provides no barrier whatsoever to the members of a church encouraging one another! We can be encouraged in and through congregational participation in the liturgy, as well as personal fellowship with one another before and after the formal service.
The passage from 1 Corinthians 14 is more substantial, so I will just quote the last portion:
26 What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. 27 If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. 28 But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God. 29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. 30 If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. 31 For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, 32 and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. 33 For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.
We must first observe that in verse 26, Paul is simply describing the practice of the church in Corinth. This is not a command for how the church should operate. Indeed, Paul is not even commending the Corinthians for their meetings. In fact, he is seeking to correct the chaotic nature of their meetings by imposing order onto these practices. The rationale for this that “God is not a God of confusion but of peace.” This gives us a firm biblical basis for having some kind of order of service. In the Corinthian context, Paul is eager to insist that everything that is done by the gathered church should be for the edification of the church as a whole, not just to show off each person’s miraculous gifts. This means imposing limits and order on how this is done. Our second observation is that this passage entirely concerns the use of miraculous, revelatory gifts, through which God gave inerrant, inspired revelation to the early church. In the first century context, I have no problem at all with these gifts being exercised for the edification and instruction of the church in their regular gatherings. This would be particularly useful prior to the completion and widespread availability of the books that would later constitute the New Testament. But I do not believe such gifts are normative for the church today. God no longer gives these revelatory gifts. If that is correct, it would be utterly impossible for a modern church to replicate anything in this passage, aside from applying the general principle that our meetings should be orderly. And even if Viola and Barna were to insist on a continuationist understanding of the revelatory gifts, the reality is that in most Christian churches (including my own), such gifts are entirely absent. We would be incapable of imitating the Corinthians, even if we wanted to.
Related to this, Viola and Barna understand that the “headship of Christ” over the church means he must be allowed to “express himself” through each member of the church, in an unstructured, spontaneous way. On this ground, they claim that having an order of service constitutes a denial of Christ’s headship. They offer no biblical justification for this narrow, idiosyncratic interpretation of the headship of Christ, and of course there would be none to offer. In practice, this approach to church meetings means worship will be driven entirely by the emotions, whims and will of man. I consider it the height of blasphemous presumption to call the spontaneous impulses of one’s heart the “expression” of Christ. In the absence of genuine revelatory gifts, the gatherings promoted by Viola and Barna are spiritually disastrous. By contrast, it is in the orderly Reformed worship service that Christ truly exercises his headship, where worship is regulated by Scripture and Christ ministers to us by means his pure Word.[2]
[1] See here for a critical review of Banks’ book Paul’s Idea of Community, cited in this chapter by Viola and Barna: Gilbert, G. (2001). Book Review: Paul’s Idea of Community, by Robert Banks. 9Marks. https://www.9marks.org/review/pauls-idea-community-robert-banks/
[2] Viola and Barna note that the Reformed worship service differs little in structure to what we see in the church throughout history, going back to the Church Fathers. We should rejoice in this fact! The practice of structured, liturgical worship can be traced back to some of the very earliest extant documents from the early church (outside Scripture). For example, the Didache (likely a first century document) describes an early communion liturgy with set prayers. Justin Martyr (second century) describes a typical, liturgical Sunday worship service in his First Apology. These are clear indications that the early church did not see it necessary to adhere to the “open-participatory” model, advocated for by Viola and Barna. It is extremely implausible to think that the church would have immediately abandoned this model, had it been taught by the Apostles. For a good summary of early church worship practices, see: Needham, N. (2016). 2000 Years of Christ’s Power Volume 1: The Age of the Early Church Fathers (revised edition). Christian Focus Publications Ltd. [pp. 72-81]
Next Section: 3.5 Chapter 4 Review – The Sermon: Protestantism’s Most Sacred Cow
0 Comments