The authors of this book provide evidence that the earliest churches probably had a maximum attendance of around 35. That is based primarily on archaeological evidence. We know the first century Christians met in homes, we know the kinds of homes which were often used for such meetings, and we know how big they were. These gatherings were limited in size by the homes in which they met. As the Christian community in any area grew they would start new house-meetings.
According to the archaeological evidence, it was not until the early third century that Christians had any special buildings. The earliest identifiable Christian meeting place is the house-church of Dura Europos in modern Syria (pictured is the baptistery of the 3rd-century house church at Dura-Europos, now on display in the Yale University Museum, USA. This is the oldest Christian church ever discovered. The baptismal bath is visible. The surviving frescoes of the baptistry room are probably the most ancient Christian paintings.) It was simply a private home remodelled as a Christian gathering place around AD 232. This house was essentially a house with a wall removed between two bedrooms to create a large living area. This house could accommodate about 70 people (Pagan Christianity? page 14-15).
I don't think Viola and Barna are suggesting that our practice of meeting in special buildings is necessarily "wrong". They are simply saying that we cannot claim to be continuing or restoring a first century Christian practice if we do. The very nature of meeting in halls or special church-buildings affects the kind of meetings we have, and meetings in halls or special buildings have a remarkably different character to meetings held in homes around a meal table.In my view, much of the intimacy of the early church/ekklesia was probably lost in the shift from homes to special buildings. Certainly the informality, spontaneity and full participation would have been lost as the church went to structured formal services.
11 comments:
What are the frescoes of? They look like women wearing head-coverings?
The frescoes are of Jesus healing a paralytic (the earliest known representation of Jesus), the Good Shepherd, Peter walking on water, the women at the tomb of Jesus, the woman at the well, Adam and Eve, and David and Goliath. Apparently these were also popular images in the catacombs.
The frescoes are interesting - though actually some of the catacomb frescoes clearly show Christian women veiled at Eucharistic meetings. Not all of them depict NT scenes.
Some of the Dura Europos frescoes show Old Testament scenes as well.
Possibly - though the OT scenes might be the Synagogue at Dura Europos: there is a DE Synagogue and a DE House church.
However the women veiled at a Eucharistic meetings is in the DE house church. How do view that in the light of 1 Cor 11 which some interpret as saying "there is no such custom (of sisters wearing head coverings) in the churches of God"?
I'm not an expert on Dura Europos, but I have read that the frescoes in the house church include scenes of Adam and Eve and David and Goliath. The synagogue is quite separate and its frescoes are quite spectacular, and I'm certainly not confusing the two.
You asked: "How do view that in the light of 1 Cor 11 which some interpret as saying "there is no such custom (of sisters wearing head coverings) in the churches of God"?)
I have never argued this and it's not my personal point of view, so I'm not the best person to defend it. Perhaps you should ask the person who said/wrote that.
What is your point of view?
(Only a link you have to your blog suggests differently? Since by your phrase "full participation" the implication was that head coverings for sisters - whether they speak or not - are invalid?). Thank you.
I have given my point of view about women's roles on another thread. Click on the topic "Neither male nor female" in the right sidebar and you will go to those messages. I've only touched briefly on headcoverings. I have no intention of getting sidetracked onto that subject in the near future.
However, if someone has linked to my blog you should not presume that I agree with everything on the site that links to this one. I have no idea which sites or how many link to my blog.
This comment really surprises me: 'by your phrase "full participation" the implication was that head coverings for sisters - whether they speak or not - are invalid. I cannot see how you could make that inference from my phrase "full participation". It certainly wasn't implied. I made no connection in my comments between "full participation" and head coverings.
Thanks for explanation. I also should explain further: it is your link to the SisterSpeak website which I was referring to, as this site appears to be saying head coverings are irrelevant. To have a link to a site which does not reflect your own views at all about head coverings and sisters speaking is unusual!
Maybe the SisterSpeak site should be asked to address what they make of the catacomb pictures of veiled sisters at a Breaking of Bread?
"Thanks for explanation. I also should explain further: it is your link to the SisterSpeak website which I was referring to, as this site appears to be saying head coverings are irrelevant. To have a link to a site which does not reflect your own views at all about head coverings and sisters speaking is unusual!
I don't think there is anything unusual about linking to sites where there is substantial agreement. That does not mean that I agree with them on every point. I haven't said that that site does not reflect my views on women speaking. The only comment I made about headcoverings was in respect to the statement that "there is no such custom (of sisters wearing head coverings) in the churches of God". However, I don't see that idea being promoted on the sistersspeak website. If it's there (and I'm taking your word for it) it isn't a major part of their case.
I think they have a disclaimer on their site saying that they don't necessarily agree with all the points of view of all their contributing writers. That works both ways. I've never met two people yet who agree on everything!
Maybe the SisterSpeak site should be asked to address what they make of the catacomb pictures of veiled sisters at a Breaking of Bread?
Maybe they should. Have you thought about asking them?
Thanks. I might do that. They seem generally against it - though seem are a little confused about the issue.
Post a Comment