|
Post by unkleE on Nov 17, 2009 20:56:10 GMT
I have just finished reading a book, "Pagan Christianity", by Frank Viola and George Barna. The book discusses the origins of many current western church practices, and argues that they have pagan rather than christian origins. I wanted to ask if anyone here with more historical knowledge than I have could comment on this thesis, please. The book examines a range of practices, including church buildings, the form of worship services, the clergy-laity division, the role of the pastor in Protestant churches, training and christian education, tithing, baptism and the Lord's Supper/Communion/Eucharist. They say many of the current practices on these matters didn't enter the church until after several centuries, most often at the time of Constantine. Now leaving aside the question (important though it is) of whether we each find these practices good or bad, I'm interested in whether the authors are historically correct. Specifically: - Were the first church buildings converted pagan temples given to the church by Constantine? (Previously christian had met in homes, some modified for this purpose, but still homes?) And was it only after Constantine that church buildings became considered as sacred spaces rather than just meeting places?
- Likewise, is it true that the emergence of the hierarchical clergy/priestly class, with special status "above" laypeople, only occurred in the third century? And that Constantine reinforced the distinction by giving the clergy status and wealth that he deemed appropriate?
- Were "normal" church meetings conducted with open participation until the clergy class was established, whereupon the clergy took on many roles previously open to all - sermonising, sacraments, conducting worship, etc?
- And was the commemoration of the Last Supper (by whatever name we choose to call it) originally a full meal, a celebration in which all participated, before it became a token "meal" and sacred ritual performed and presided over by clergy?
My perception is that all of these are true, but I might be pre-disposed to that conclusion, or have been selective in my reading. Does anyone have any ideas?
|
|
Petersean
Clerk
A page of history is worth a volume of logic.
Posts: 36
|
Post by Petersean on Nov 17, 2009 21:45:10 GMT
My impression of the Viola/Barnes' book was that it was a rehashing of Hislop's The Two Babylons - everything distinctive about the Christianity that Viola and Barnes don't agree with is actually an injection of paganism into Christianity, usually under Constantine. Viola and Barnes endorse their version of Christian religious practice, which looks amazingly like what 21st Century, evangelical Americans with no tradition of sacrament, ritual, law or hierarchy would be comfortable with, as opposed to, say, anything a group of First Century Jews would actually do. For example, "Were the first church buildings converted pagan temples given to the church by Constantine?"Well, this is clearly wrong. The first buildings that Christians used for religious practices were synagogues. Presumably, Viola and Barnes meant to add "after the Christian community was expelled from the synagogues." At which point, though, do we say that the "Pagan innovation" was "house churches" and that the Christians returned to dedicated sacred spaces, such as synagogues as soon as they could? "Likewise, is it true that the emergence of the hierarchical clergy/priestly class, with special status "above" laypeople, only occurred in the third century?"If so, why the concern in the First Letter of Clement for the position the presbyters who had been ordained by the apostles as part of the apostolic plan for the continuation of the church: 44:1 Our Apostles, too, by the instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ, knew that strife would arise concerning the dignity of a bishop;
44:2 and on this account, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed the above-mentioned as bishops and deacons: and then gave a rule of succession, in order that, when they had fallen asleep, other men, who had been approved, might succeed to their ministry. First Clement is typically dated to the end of the First Century, so if Viola and Barnes were right, then this is far too early for anyone in the marvellously egalitarian early church to be concerned with the "dignity" of ecclesiastical positions. Were "normal" church meetings conducted with open participation until the clergy class was established, whereupon the clergy took on many roles previously open to all - sermonising, sacraments, conducting worship, etc?
And was the commemoration of the Last Supper (by whatever name we choose to call it) originally a full meal, a celebration in which all participated, before it became a token "meal" and sacred ritual performed and presided over by clergy?According to Justin Martyr in his First Apology, written in the middle of the Second Century: CHAP. LXV.--ADMINISTRATION OF THE SACRAMENTS.
But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss.(3) There is then brought to the president of the brethren(4) bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to <greek>genoito</greek> [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.
CHAP. LXVI.--OF THE EUCHARIST.
And this food is called among us E<greek>ukaristia</greek>(5) [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. <b>For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.</b>(6) For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me,(7) this is My body;" and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood;" and gave it to them alone. After reading Pagan Christianity, I had the ironic thought that if Viola and Barnes were really true to their claim of going back to the 'original' Christian practices, the one thing they definitely would do would be to throw out the use of the New Testament because we know that the earliest Christians were definitely not quoting from texts that had not yet been written.
|
|