For much of my life I was taught that the English word “Church” which comes from the Greek word “ekklesia” means, “Called Out Ones”.

After this definition is given, the speaker will typically go on to tell his audience how the Church is “called out”, to be different.  So, far there would seem to be little reason for a disagreement on this, since the Greek word does indeed have etymological roots of “called out” but it is not just word origin that determines what a word means, but context.  The context of “ekklesia” comes from secular Greek, which defined the word as “called FORTH ones”, or “gathering” which would equate to our “town meeting” or perhaps even political bodies such as the Senate. (see here), thus The Church is more of a Body than we suppose.

Perhaps someone would think this is a trivial or semantically minute point but it really has had huge ramifications on how Christians have conducted themselves as “The Church”.

Recently I posted an introductory article about Frank Viola’s book – Pagan Christianity but now I have completed the reading of that book & would like to share a more in depth review.

First, let me say a thank you to Kurt F. for sending me the book & for graciously desiring my thoughts on it.  I appreciate it & am honored that he has sought my input.

As I said in the introductory article, I immediately had difficulties with the book because in the Introduction of the book, Viola presented a hypothetical family who he was clearly trying to depict as being stunted in Christian growth & merely going through the motions of “church” – and implying the fault for this lay at the feet of the “institutional church” & all of its trappings.  Yet, when you look at how the family was presented, it became obvious that their problem was not the type or location of fellowship they were experiencing but possibly that NONE of them were even regenerated.  Exchanging an institutional church setting for a comfy living room would not have made a difference if the person is not even a Christian.

But at the urging of Kurt F. I plodded along in the book, looking for nuggets of value.

Knowing my stance on the nature, purpose, & function of the Church & especially the so-called clergy (see here), a friend recently sent me a book to review.  The book is called "Pagan Christianity: The Origins of Our Modern Church Practices" by Frank Viola.

I have just begun reading it but was already put off by the acknowledgment/dedication page which reads:

To my forgotten brothers and sisters throughout the ages who courageously stepped outside the safe-bounds of institutional Christianity at the risk of life and limb. You faithfully carried the torch, endured persecution, forfeited reputation, lost family, suffered torture, and spilled your blood to preserve the primative testimony that Jesus Christ is Head of His church.  And that every believer is a priest... a minister... and a functioning member of God's house. This book is dedicated to you.

Anyone familiar with this website should think at first glance of that dedication that I would whole-heartily amen it -- but I don't.  It is a blanket statement that makes it appear that ANYONE who ever opposed institutional/traditional Christianity at any point in history should somehow be lauded as a "forgotten" hero.  This dedication smacks of what I have identified as the Rejection Syndrome wherein people who find themselves rejected from a main group will tend to tolerate among themselves almost any error for the sake of not excluding others as they have been excluded (see here).

As a matter of fact, though I was eagerly interested in the so-called "House Church Movement", I had lost much of my interest after it appeared to be more about a group of people trying to get even with the "institutional church" for rejecting them or trying to re-create the "primative" first-century Church -- not even considering if our purpose is actually to emulate that group -- since they were far from pristine & perfect & actually may be just as much an example of how NOT to function as a Church as a pattern for today.  Besides, it is impossible to behave EXACLTY like that first-century Church since we no longer have all the elements of that Church -- like the inspired apostles & prophets.  We are actually in a better situation because we have the completed Word.

Someone recently forwarded an article to me about the official Southern Baptist blog where apparently a conflict is brewing over the “airing of the dirty laundry of the church”.  Keep in mind that the Southern Baptists are the largest Protestant denomination in America.

The article can be accessed here: http://greenvilleonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070827/NEWS01/708270301

In summary, it appears one or more pastors are upset about the forum’s vitriolic tone. Pastor Frank Page said:

“Almost immediately in my opinion, the blog degenerated quickly into a personal attack place, and so several of us including myself withdrew our endorsement.”

Certainly we should avoid “personal attack”, but at the same time we must understand what constitutes “personal attack”.  I don’t know the details of this specific situation but I am more than familiar with people throwing around the phrase “personal attack” when really it is their doctrine & character at issue – not their person.

One of the most practical ways to demonstrate what is meant by this title “rejection syndrome” is in how people often behave after a long term relationship ends in rejection.  Typically the person that has been rejected can & does respond in several ways:

1. Deep depression & resentment
2. Vindictiveness
3. Licentious liberation

This is also how people often behave when they have been rejected by their long term relationship with a part of the Church.  How often have you heard a person who was kicked out of a church due to doctrinal differences, go through some or all of the 3 phases listed above?

Just as in the practical relationship, a rejected Christian may start out depressed & blaming then perhaps move to vindictiveness or revenge against the rejecters & perhaps eventually even displaying wanton rebellion not against the rejecters but against anything that appears stable, “institutional” which is just another way to breakdown the “long term” aspect of relationship.  How often have you seen a divorced person go on to be a very promiscuous person, though that behavior was never characteristic of the person even before they were married?

I read the recent comment by the brother on Prayer for Oneness, and it was beautiful.  One of the main objections to love and unity among Christians is usually that to love in a doctrinally indiscriminate manner is perceived to actually compromise sound theology.  I think we need to have a bit of a different perspective on this so that we are not compromising either.

May I suggest that we not compromise sound doctrine (yay!) but that we rethink how we procede to bring others into an understanding of sound doctrine?  Can we love someone who's immature, in error, maybe even stubbornly WRONG in their doctrine?  I think we can because we know that Christ loved us when we were just that.  Okay, that's settled.

This story was originally posted on FoxNews.com http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288841,00.html 

It seems the Roman Catholic Church via Pope Benedict XVI has reasserted its long held position that non-Roman Catholic (more specifically -- non-apostolic succession) churches are not really part of the One Church.

This is another reason why debates need to be put forth & not just brushed under the carpet for sake of "unity".  The only way we as Christians are EVER going to have unity is to allow the principle of 1 Cor 11:19 run its course, as "mean" as people think disagreements are. We might be able to stay our disagreements, even for a few hundred years but the disagreements will rear their heads again (as this one has) if not settled once & for all -- not through force but through solid & even contentious dialogue but based on Scripture -- not emotionalism & speculation.