I would be surprised if laymen are really reading church history. Then again, my dad goes to a book group at his church, and they’re reading Augustine’s Confessions. So maybe there is a wide interest.

As Bryan has noted, Augustine is the main except Evangelicals traditionally made towards the study of the Early Church, and then they tend to downplay the parts of his theology that are very “Roman Catholic”.

These pitfalls are the same ones that have plagued Western civilization as a whole, and have to with proper historical emphasis. What I mean by that is that there can be too much time line thinking associated with it. Thus, our perspective of the Eternal can become jaded by the context of the past and present.

When I think of the reasons homosexuality, for instance, has become acceptable in some denominations, I think this is a key reason why. People look at Christianity as though it is evolving, and that it was once one thing and it is becoming something altogether different as it is adjusted to compensate for societal and modern changes. We see this also in the church’s attempts to remain “relevant.”

Another obvious pitfall is adhering to traditional thinking discovered in histor that may not be Biblical. Just because people have believed something for generations doesn’t mean its sound scripturally. Not to pick on the Catholics, but take transubstantiation or the immaculate conception for instance. Particularly the latter has no Biblical basis whatsoever, but is a traditional teaching. I believe Jesus’ response to the Pharisees is pertinent to us today, when he said that they had nullified the Word of God in respect of their traditions.

As I said before, I believe Church History is important. But I think the most important Church History is recorded in the New Testament, particularly the Book of Acts. But linear thinking has put the “early church” in a separate category. Catholics have even gone so far as to deified these early saints.

To simplify my theological perspective of this dispensation (to be defined as Ascension until present), I will say it like this: God, who is eternal and unchanging sent his Son who was the express image of His person. People in every generation since Christ’s ascension have the opportunity to be born of and endued with the power of His Spirit for the purpose of reconciling the world back to the Creator by demonstrating His love by manifestation of the Truth. The experience available to believers today is no less powerful than it was on the day of Pentecost. The message of the Gospel remains the same, that the eternal Word of God was born of a virgin, lived a perfect sinless life, demonstrated the love of God by liberating those captive to sin and disease, willingly gave himself as a sacrifice for sin, was buried, rose from the grave, and ascended to his Father, and that all who call upon His name shall be saved.

The increase interest in church history is seen in some Evangelical circles as well. And by “recent years” I mean beginning around the ’60s.

Chris Austere, you said,

“People look at Christianity as though it is evolving, and that it was once one thing and it is becoming something altogether different as it is adjusted to compensate for societal and modern changes. We see this also in the church’s attempts to remain “relevant.””

Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you; are you arguing that the Church shouldn’t be relevant? Please explain what you mean.

Also, I would argue that the evolution of Christianity is not only good, but essential. Evolution doesn’t necessarily have to be one thing becoming something else altogether; it can also be something improving and enhancing to become something better. Humanity has unquestionably advanced in numerous ways over the last 2,000 years. Shouldn’t our understanding of God advance as well? And if so, shouldn’t our practice adapt along with new understanding?

One needs only to read the Old Testament to observe the evolution of Judaism. Here’s just one of many examples. Early on, other nations are avoided and despised. But after several hundred years, along comes Jonah, which climaxes with God saying of the Ninevites (the inhabitants of the heart of the ruthless, pagan Assyrian empire which would eventually obliterate Israel): “Shouldn’t I love these people too?”

If the Old Testament shows an evolving faith, and the New Testament shows a radical evolution in the transition of covenants, isn’t it reasonable to conclude that our faith should keep progressing even though the scriptural cannon is closed?

Or maybe I totally misunderstood your argument. Or maybe I’m a foolish fool.

I agree with you that it’s perfectly fine–indeed, necessary–for the church to change. The first century church wasn’t perfect, and it’s not unrealistic to expect that we can learn from the past and improve the church.

On the other hand, part of this depends on what we mean by the evolution of Christianity. We should be clear: truth is truth. E.g., the definition of sin doesn’t change from century to century. In that respect, Christianity doesn’t evolve, because it’s based on the same unchanging truth.

On the other hand, our human understanding of truth does change. We shouldn’t assume that the 1st Century believers had a perfect understanding of the gospel. Surely they were wrong about a great many things, of which we–with the benefit of two millennia of study–have a better perspective. Additionally, the church changes its forms as the culture changes. So yes, Christianity does evolve, and it should.

Depending on how pedantic we are, one could argue with this. For instance, a century ago it wasn’t a sin to indulge in online pornography–because it didn’t exist. But lust has existed since the garden. The form of the sin might evolve, but the meaning has always been the same. That generalization may sound obvious, but there are always those who say “Well, I can do X because the Bible doesn’t say I can’t.”

http://www.current.tv/studio/media/21674856

I agree 100%, Jasen.

Humanity has certainly advanced technologically, medically, and many other ways, but has human nature, and the nature of sin, and the nature of becoming like Christ changed? Human nature was created good, it is only in our living our lives sinning against the Lord that we lose the image of God in which we were created. The nature of sin today is still the same as it was for Aaron and Moses. If Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever, then isn’t the Truth the same yesterday, today, and forever? Aren’t the ways he taught us to walk toward salvation the same for everyone, always?

Reading the earliest Christian documents, the Eastern luminaries such as John Chrysostom, Basil and Gregory of Nyssa, the Will and Ariel Durant “Reformation” and the contemporary work of Rodney Stark, Marta Sordi, and Mark Nanos you can begin to appreciate the Eastern Christian sensibility as opposed to the Western Christian sensiblity. The vast majority of people do not realize that Augustine in the Fourth century was not representative of the majority of Christians in the Fourth century, and his influence on the West is one root of the substantial differences that extend through Protestant denominations. Common Ground by Jordan Bajis is one of the best basic books on the similarities and differences between Eastern and Western Christianity which began in the first century.

As for the video, suffice it to say that much of it troubled me greatly. However, i know that Solomon’s Porch is on the extreme end of the Emerging movement, so I will not attribute all of what they show in that video to the movement as a whole.

MacArthur said, “If it’s just purely exercise, and you’re a strong Christian, it probably wouldn’t have any impact on your faith.” Pagitt should have addressed better what they were doing besides pure exercise to make it a “complete practice.” There are traditional forms of Christian meditative practices that might go well with body positioning.

MacArthur said, “Why would we need to import that? If you want to exercise, exercise. But why borrow a term that has been part of a false religion for centuries?” The term “yoga” might confuse people, but MacArthur is wrong in this statement. Christianity has a long history of borrowing terms and practices from other places, even in scripture. John’s used “Logos” which was a term associated with Greek Religion/Philosophy for hundreds of years.

Pagitt, “The Jesus agenda is a whole life, is a complete life, is a healed life.” That sounds like a very Eastern Orthodox way of thinking.

“Before following Jesus and recognizing Him as my Lord and savior, I was very involved in martial arts. I am aware there are differences in yoga and martial arts. But there are also parallels as well. One of which is what J.M. was speaking to, the fact that you are god. This should not be overlooked. There is no way to practice this without invoking the spiritual (demonic) side of the art. Yoga is a religion and when you practice it you are doing its form of church. The positions and breathing all have meaning and connection to the spiritual realm (demonic). whether as a practitioner you recognize it at the time is beside the point.Just because Jesus never used the word yoga, does not mean He wasn’t speaking out against it. The new testament is filled with warnings about false teaching and this is a false religion. We are to be lights, salt and set apart. This is just another way for us as Christians to have our cake and eat it too. Yoga is extremely dangerous because of the spirituality (demonic forces) it invokes.”

Furthermore, it was disturbing that Padgitt struggled to speak to what Jesus would have thought of it. Especially as a “pastor,” one should always be able to give an answer to that question.

You are on the money about Yoga. You might find a great deal more about this topic in Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future by Fr. Seraphim Rose. Born Eugene Rose in Southern California, Eugene was a philosophy major who studied with Watts and partied with Kerouac in San Francisco. Ultimately he discovered Orthodoxy, was baptized, and became a monk. Drawing upon his considerable knowledge of philosophy and other faiths, he wrote about the history of different faiths, how they came to America, and the impact they would ultimately have — years after his death. It is a very good book.