In the book Pagan Christianity? authors, Viola and Barna, make a very interesting statement about the evolution of Christianity. You might imagine that change took place in a series of continual increments, little by little, throughout the 2000+ years since Christ. This is not the case. Viola and Barna state, "There were three historical periods when a bevy of changes were made in common Christian practices: the era of Constantine, the decades surrounding the Protestant Reformation, and the Revivalist period of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries."
The first period mentioned is the era of Constantine. Constantine became emperor of the Western Roman Empire in 312. By 324, he had consolidated power over the whole Roman Empire. Constantine's conversion is infamous. Before the battle that made him emperor, he saw the sign of the cross in the sky. He took that to be a sign from God (Yahweh). He won the battle and later legalized Christianity throughout the Roman Empire.
Historians state that this event is both the greatest and worst thing that could have happened to Christianity. This era is characterized by monumental changes in the practice of Christianity.
Prior to this time period, there were no "church buildings." By the end, great basilicas were built and revered as holy spaces. Obviously, much funding was needed for the building and maintenance of these structures. Much, much more in the book.
My interest in this subject is not to condemn buildings. Viola and Barna do not condemn them either. They do however, decry what they term, an "Edifice Complex." Edifice complex speaks to a dependence we have developed on our buildings. We rarely use the term "church" in a manner consistent with its original meaning. Instead, "church" has become synonymous with the building where believers worship.
Most significantly, we cannot seem to think about fellowship and Christian mission without first thinking of a building.
What are your thoughts?
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
change and buildings
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
As humans we are visual people and that is where are emphasis goes. If someone would ask you about me, you would probably descibe my physical appearances first and then my character traits. Which is perfectly normal, because people can recognize me if you say the tall, bald guy who has a Clooney like chin and Michael Phelps like build.
But because that is someones first impression of me, it then in some cases becomes what you think of me. Or maybe how you categorize me. It would be a lot better if we could categorize people by characteristics not physcial attributes.
Isn't this the same arguement on why people have racial prejudices. We are to busy looking at the outside and not at the inside. If we could judge a church on the people on the inside and not the building or name on the outside, then we got something.
Hey lets find a barn big enough and go for it.
From a business point of view-- Christianity evolved from a grassroots movement with low overhead to a complicated instution with high overhead. Viola and Barna argue that this development has come at a high cost to the integrity of Christianity.
Probably need to get rid of the preachers also.
Post a Comment