A Review of Pagan Christianity (Part 2)
“Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment” (John 7:24).
Just as pagans built temples to honor their gods, so Constantine had in mind that very principle when he authorized the construction of church buildings after A.D. 327. They were not designed as humble little places where brethren could meet and offer up their worship to God; they were patterned after pagan temples, for the purpose of honoring God. Attending worship in the fourth century involved a purification process prior to worship; fountains in the courtyard were available so that congregants could wash before entering the building (22, 26). Washing to be clean, pure, and holy is accomplished in baptism for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38; 22:16; Rev. 1:5). Christians do not need to be purified again every time they meet. The blood of Christ continually washes away sins for those who repent and confess them to God (1 John 1:7, 9).
The altar (either a table or a chest with a lid) stood in the center of the building, and on the table were placed the bread and the fruit of the vine. The bishop's or pastor's chair stood in front of the altar, and several other chairs were placed in a semicircle on either side, but his was the biggest and most prominent chair—the one from which he spoke when delivering the sermon (23). In some of “our” church buildings today, one finds a prominent chair behind the pulpit where a preacher sits until it is time to speak. Few would probably know the origin of this practice, but the purpose is the same—to exalt the preacher.
Roman emperors, when they appeared in public, had lights carried before them, “accompanied by a basin of fire filled with aromatic spices” (24). Constantine, therefore, “introduced candles and the burning of incense as part of the church service” (24). Whereas incense was part of the worship under the old covenant (see Luke 1:9-11), no authorization appears in the New Testament for incense to be a part of the worship. Revelation 8:3-4 describes a symbolic use, where it is offered along with the prayers of the saints.
Gradually, worship ceased to be adoration offered by all to God, and instead became aimed more at the worshiper. The development of a “clergy” emerged, and they performed acts of worship for the laity to watch as spectators (25). Roman officials wore special garments; so the “clergy” began to wear them also, thus inviting respect for themselves. “Worship became more professional, dramatic, and ceremonial” (25). The modern-day entertainment extravaganza seems but an extension of what occurred in the fourth century. The only difference is that professional worshipers have turned into professional entertainers.
Architecture and lighting, not to mention the use of stained glass, was all designed to produce feelings of awe in the congregation (28). In other words, those present might not be taught the words of life or true Christian doctrine, but they might experience a “holy wow,” as one modern-day heretic put it. Everything became designed to affect the physical senses (30): sight (the art and lighting), smell (incense), and hearing (choirs). Trying to produce a spiritual response by means of the physical senses is a faulty approach.
The Steeple
At this point, the authors begin to discuss certain features of church buildings. The first one is the steeple (which churches of Christ generally do not have). “The Babylonians and Egyptians built obelisks and pyramids that reflected their belief that they were progressing toward immortality” (31). Although these disappeared with Greek philosophy, they became popular again as the now-apostate church began its march toward the establishment of Roman Catholicism. The authors describe how the steeple became so commonplace in London (32) and then close this section by expressing the opinion that the symbolism of the steeple contains the wrong idea. They affirm that God is here with us (33).
No one could possibly summarize all of the fascinating details that the authors provide in this book concerning the history of these matters; the reader is urged to procure a copy in order to receive the maximum benefit of their research.
The Pulpit
One criticism of the authors is that they omitted a piece of information that the reader needs to make a proper evaluation of this section. They begin by tracing what happened in Christian worship over time with respect to the one delivering the sermon and his placement. The bishop’s chair (described earlier) was replaced by the ambo (a Latin synonym for pulpit). It was a raised desk “taken from the Jewish synagogue” (33). Then Barna and Viola make the claim that an earlier origin came from the practices of the Greeks and Romans, who had desks and raised platforms.
They do not comment on an even earlier origin that comes from the Bible, which may have simply been born out of common sense. Sometime around the middle of the fifth century B. C., when the Jews were allowed to return to Jerusalem after their captivity, it was deemed appropriate for all the people to gather together in the open square to hear the Law of Moses read (Neh. 8:1-3). What followed is cited below:
So Ezra the scribe stood on a platform of wood which they had made for this purpose…. And Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people, for he was standing above all the people; and when he opened it, all the people stood up. And Ezra blessed the Lord, the great God. Then all the people answered, “Amen, Amen!” while lifting up their hands. And they bowed their heads and worshiped the Lord with their faces to the ground (Neh. 8:4-6).
Why did Ezra stand on a platform above the people? The purpose was not to exalt himself, as is often alleged today, but so that the people could see who was speaking to them. Otherwise, they would simply have heard a voice coming from somewhere in the crowd. Someone might counter by saying that Jesus taught multitudes while sitting down. Yes, and there is nothing wrong with doing so (obviously), but the careful reader of Matthew 5:1 notices that Jesus “went up on a mountain, and when He was seated His disciples came to Him.” In other words, Jesus first selected a spot on the mountain, and once he was seated, disciples came to hear Him speak. They undoubtedly were below Him on the mountain, where they could both see and hear Him.
The idea of a platform, then, was for practical reasons, and those same reasons exist today. The purpose for having an elevated platform is not necessarily to assuage the vanity of one reading a Scripture or delivering a lesson. When we have smaller devotional groups meeting in homes or at the building, we use a different system of either sitting or standing.
The authors continue this section by saying:
Our word pulpit is derived from the Latin word pulpitum which means “a stage.” The pulpitum, or pulpit, was propped up in the highest elevated place in the congregation.
In time, the phrase “to ascend the platform” (ad pupitum venire) became part of the religious vocabulary of the clergy (33).
This is interesting information to have, but they conclude this section by claiming that the “pulpit elevates the clergy to a position of prominence” (34). (This false charge was made 50 years ago in a book called Voices of Concern; it is merely being recycled.) They claim that the pulpit “puts the preacher at center ‘stage’—separating and placing him high above God’s people” (34). First of all, the Bible does not speak of preachers or elders (pastors or bishops) as clergy. Second, most people do not view speaking on a platform the way the authors do. Now perhaps some do think that way, but it is scarcely possible that Ezra did. And if Ezra could speak from center “stage” with no impure motives, then why cannot others follow his example?
The Pew
According to sources cited by Viola and Barna, “for the first thousand years of Christian history…the congregation stood throughout the entire service,” although sometimes wooden or stone benches were available for the aged and sick (34). One wonders how such an arrangement would be received today. Eventually, backless benches were brought in and placed against the walls; later they were placed in a semi-circle around the pulpit (35). The modern pew was introduced in the 14th century but was not commonly found until the 15th (35).
Most Americans have heard about box seats at sporting events, but in the 18th century, someone invented box pews. They were sold to families and considered private property. Today, someone may hear a church member complain that someone sat in his seat (as though he had a reserved pew), but in those days, it would have actually been the case. As strange as it may sound, these private pews had cushioned seats, carpeting, curtains, padded armchairs, fireplaces (say what?), and even special compartments for pet dogs (seriously?) (35). They had locks on them, and a key was needed to open them. They certainly changed from the time of just standing through the worship.
Although perhaps a little overstated, the authors boldly proclaim:
The pew is perhaps the greatest inhibitor of face-to-face fellowship. It is a symbol of lethargy and passivity in the contemporary church and has made corporate worship a spectator sport (34).
In this case, they may actually have a point.
Although many newer church buildings have adopted the semi-circular style, older buildings may have 25 or more rows stretching from front to back. Years ago, a fellow observer and this writer were sitting at the rear of a classroom, he remarked about the students in front of us who were all facing the teacher. “You know, the backs of their heads don’t have much personality.” (Although that is true, it never kept the Study Hall teacher from recognizing a student by the back of his head from 30 seats away.)
The point is that church buildings with numerous rows, one behind another, are not conducive to either worship or fellowship. Basically, we see the backs of heads rather than faces. When we meet in smaller groups, we sit so that we can all see each other. For a class or a youth meeting, we will sit at tables so that we can all see each other. Or we sit in a semi-circle or a circle. Not only is interaction greater, but singing is of a higher quality.
Worship was never designed to be for spectators but rather active participants. All are invited to sing (as opposed to having choirs). We are to speak to (also teach and admonish) one another in singing (Eph. 5: 19; Col. 3:16). We all honor God with our voices (as opposed to having mechanical instruments of music, which tend to drown out the singing). Although one brother leads in prayer, every member is praying and paying attention so that the Amen can be said at the conclusion (1 Cor. 14:16). We all engage in giving, since God has prospered all of us (2 Cor. 16:2, 2 Cor. 9:6-7). The Lord’s Supper involved every Christian remembering and honoring Jesus Who sacrificed Himself for our sins (1 Cor. 11:23-29). Each one has the responsibility to examine himself, which again requires an active participation. When the message is presented, it is not a time for passive acceptance. As the Bereans did (Acts 17:11), so does each one of us have a responsibility to search the Scriptures to make sure that the things being presented are the truth. If our idea of worship is to sit passively by and only observe what is happening, then we fail to understand worship entirely. The idea of worship as entertainment even more widely misses the mark.
The Building
The authors begin to wrap up this section of the book by describing the modern church building. Apparently, most brethren have what is called a “concert-style” facility, which contains a Communion table on the floor below the pulpit. Most Protestant churches, they tell us, have a table that is decorated “with brass candlesticks, a cross, and flowers” (36), which does not describe us. Viola and Barna seem to think that the design of the building determines that worship will be passive instead of active, and they cite no less than Winston Churchill in this regard, who said, “First we shape our buildings. Thereafter, they shape us” (44). Although some truth exists in this statement, the important emphasis is on who is meeting in any building—and why.
Everyone enjoys the blessing of free will. The fervor and sincerity of our worship does not depend on the place where we meet. It is far more related to our hearts. Did not Jesus say that a time was coming when it would not matter whether people worshiped God in Jerusalem or at Mount Gerizim? True worshipers would worship the Father in spirit and in truth (John 4:21-24). Christians can offer up acceptable worship to God in the worst designed building ever constructed, or they could be in the most suitable place ever and barely ooze forth worship that would just barely rank as vain.
The authors of the book also complain that buildings cost way too much money, which is probably true in many instances. They estimate that 50% to 85% of a church’s budget goes for maintaining the building. That figure is far too high for buildings that have already been paid for (41). Besides, it is not as though the building is only used an hour a week, in which case it would be difficult to justify the expense. We have meetings, Bible studies, and fellowship gatherings frequently—not to mention the use of classrooms. We always have work space available, as well as storage for the many materials we disseminate. Since many congregations print their own material, there must be storage shelves for paper, a copy machine, binding machines, laminators, and other equipment. It would be fairly inconvenient to have to transport all of the paraphernalia we use to a temporary location (songbooks, teaching materials, etc.).
The Solution?
One might wonder where all this criticism of church buildings is leading; the answer is that the authors recommend house churches (42). It is true that sometimes the first Christians met in homes, but in many instances the Bible does not speak of their meeting places (possibly because the place was not the important thing). What was important was that “they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers” (Acts 2:42). We agree that we ought to guard against an undue emphasis on the building because early Christians certainly did turn the world upside down without them (Acts 17:6) (41). And we ought not to think it is a holy place (like Solomon’s temple) because it should be functional instead of ornate and decorative.
Barna and Viola are so zealous over house churches that they see them where they do not exist. They list two examples that are assumptions. Acts 2:46 mentions that the brethren had unity as they were meeting in the temple (for the purpose of worship); then they ate meals and had fellowship together from house to house. Nothing faintly resembling house churches is suggested by the text. No one would see them there unless they were looking strenuously to find them. Acts 20:20 only refers to the fact that Paul took advantage of being in people’s homes to teach the gospel. He taught them both publicly and privately. The authors drew a conclusion not warranted by the evidence. House churches may have advantages in various locations, but they are not the only or best choice we have.