Book Review - Pagan Christianity
By Darryl Dash |
| |
 (8)
|
|
| |
"I can't believe this book is getting published by a big-time publisher," writes blogger Brant Hansen [1]. "This is going to be interesting...This book is going to honk people off."
 The book he's talking about is Pagan Christianity [2], originally written by Frank Viola but now updated with George Barna as co-author. Here, in a nutshell, is the argument of the book: The origin of many of our church practices (examples: church buildings, orders of worship, sermons, pastors, tithing, clergy salaries) is non-biblical and inconsistent with the practice of the early church. "Almost everything that is done in our contemporary churches has no basis in the Bible." (p. 4)
Much of it was lifted from pagan culture. Just because something does not appear in the Bible does not mean it is wrong. However, our non-biblical church practices often hinder the development of our faith and keep us from encountering the living God. The church must return to its biblical roots. At a personal level, we must ask questions of church as we know it and pray seriously about what our response should be.
This book threatens a lot that pastors and churches hold dear. But that shouldn't scare us. If they're right, it doesn't matter what it threatens. This book has to be evaluated on the evidence and the strength of its arguments, not on how much it will cost us if they're right.
Most of the book traces the origins of common church practices today. They succeed in showing what should be fairly obvious: many of our practices do not appear in the Bible, which in itself does not make them wrong. Barna and Viola argue, however, that many of these practices are harmful. However, they don't always get the history right, and sometimes overstate the case. Still, they do have a point. We should question practices that get in the way of faithfulness.
It's when you get to their solution that, in my view, the wheels fall off. Viola and Barna argue: "The church in its contemporary, institutional form neither has a biblical nor a historical right to exist." (p. xx)
Wow! There's a bit of a jump to get to this point, and I'm not sure if I missed a step somewhere. It could be that Viola and Barna are correct, but I don't think they've proved their case. Pointing out problems with a model means that the problems need addressing. It doesn't necessarily mean that the entire model must be scrapped.
It's one thing to argue that there are problems with our existing ways of doing church. I'm fully prepared to accept this. It's also okay to argue that models of church sidesteps these issues, but it could be that they end up encountering a whole set of other issues - as is the case. But is it possible for institutional models to be redeemed? Viola and Barna say no. I'm not so sure.
I'd much prefer to ask questions like these:
* Is there a way to use buildings missionally and in a way that expresses the true nature of the church?
* Can orders of service be structured so that the corporate nature of worship is emphasized, and performance is minimized?
* How can preaching and teaching promote spiritual growth and emphasize the giftedness of the body?
* How can churches move beyond being pastor-driven?
* How can our giving be channeled beyond maintenance to mission and care for the poor?
* How can we recover the biblical emphasis on baptism as initiation into discipleship, and communion as a robust communal celebration?
* How can Christian formation take place that is holistic?
These are excellent questions, and they may or may not lead to shutting down institutional churches. This book, I think, gets at the right questions, but ends up presenting the wrong (or at least insufficient) solution.
By the way, it's theoretically possible to have discovered that pretty much everyone from the church fathers on got it wrong, and that you are right - but it's highly unlikely. This is especially true in this case, because Scripture is largely descriptive (not prescriptive) in how churches can be shaped. Barna and Viola don't make a sufficient case for anyone to say that almost everyone has got it wrong until now.
Boars Head Tavern [3] has posted a great quote from Eugene Peterson:
What other church is there besides institutional? There's nobody who doesn't have problems with the church, because there's sin in the church. But there's no other place to be a Christian except the church. There's sin in the local bank. There's sin in the grocery stores. I really don't understand this naïve criticism of the institution. I really don't get it. Frederick von Hugel said the institution of the church is like the bark on the tree. There's no life in the bark. It's dead wood. But it protects the life of the tree within. And the tree grows and grows. If you take the bark off, it's prone to disease, dehydration, death. So, yes, the church is dead but it protects something alive. And when you try to have a church without bark, it doesn't last long. It disappears, gets sick, and it's prone to all kinds of disease, heresy, and narcissism. (Eugene Peterson)
The Tavern also has another amazing quote [4]:
"those who seek to correct the church's moral failings and produce a 'pure' church are...looking to the Law rather than to the Gospel. We need rather to look at the Gospel. It is not about what we are to do to purify the church (Law), but about bringing the Gospel to the church as she is" (from a lecture by Ron Feuerhahn).
In conclusion: Barna and Viola have raised some valid issues. Some dynamics of church life that should be present often aren't. We need to take these seriously. However, their conclusion ultimately falls short. There is room for all kinds of churches, including the institutional. What matters more than structure is the life contained within, and that can come only from God- who, it seems, is more than willing to give us that life.
[1] http://branthansen.typepad.com/
letters_from_kamp_krusty/2007/12/i-cant-believe.html
[2] http://www.paganchristianity.org/
[3] http://boarsheadtavern.com/
[4] http://www.boarsheadtavern.com/archives/2008/01/02/0657454.html
 Darryl Dash, a member of the paid clergy in Toronto, Ontario, is married to Charlene, and is father of two children. He blogs at dashhouse.com and loves the Revolution. |
| |
|
(8)
|
|
I left the institutional, man made, man headed church long before "Pagan" came out. I did read it and it only confirmed everything the Holy Spirt revealed to me years ago. If this books offends you, you might be part of the problem. We were NEVER intended to gather in large groups and be lectured to by the same person week after week, when there are Spiritualy gifted people sitting in the pews going to waste!!!!!!
I see that people are asking the question "well what other kind of church is there?" They are failing to realize what the church actually is. WE are the church. It's very simple, yet people have made it so complicated. I was looking into church history far before the book was published. It's actual history, not just something that the authors of "Pagan Christianity" just threw together. Even if the history is a little off, the references to scripture are not. When the Roman Church (before it became the Roman Catholic Church) was first implemented, they killed countless christians who wouldn't conform to the institution. Remember, Jesus was accused for shakin' up the institutional way of doing things. He made it so simple for us. I often wonder why we have taken a step backwards and have made it so difficult to be a believer.
Also, I have had the opportunity to speak with some atheists and agnostics. Most of them have concluded the reason why they don't believe, or are on the fence is because of the institutionalized church. They see what the institutionalized church does, not the change of character that Christ has made in ones life. I could go on and on, but I will not take up too much of this review.
If you haven't, read the book. Have your bible next to you so you can go through all of the scripture references. If your scared to read it, you probably would have been scared to follow Christ when he was on the earth.
I think the book is right on target!
Good morning
I have been reading several critiques or reviews of this book, and there is one common theme amongst them. Seems pretty much all the reviewers who are clergy make no reference to the chapter on the tithe. I would imagine this one would trouble them the most. And after doing my own biblical reading, I can definately see why. 10% is not New Testament scripture.OUCH.
What other kind of church is there but institutional. The answer si relational...or maybe invisible! You see the only church which is highly visible is the institutional one...However...other simple and communal forms have existed from the first century on. Study the Waldenses, the Anabaptists...there has always been a remnant but often these "non institutional Christians" were persecuted and often killed off to protect the sanctity of the institutional church. The Waldenses were all but exterminated under the inquisition and the Anabaptists were persecuted and many were martyred even by Luther and Zwingli.
The "institutional church' is the most visible but the organic has always been visible in the world by those who came in contact with these believers.
Hi Frank,
You're right, it's only a short book review. I wouldn't say I disagree with the book either - there's much in the book that is very good.
It's a good but imperfect book. They raise lots of valid issues that should be discussed. I would add to your last sentence - we need a lot more discussion (and progress) in many of the issues they raise.
Darryl, I trust you won't mind if I point put that all you've really said here is, "I disagree with the book." you really haven't demonstrated that you're right either. This isn't a criticism; this was just a brief book review. In the same way this book confessedly doesn't make the whole case for Viola and Barna.This is why we need a lot more discussion in 'emerging' circles about the church.
|
Also, I have had the opportunity to speak with some atheists and agnostics. Most of them have concluded the reason why they don't believe, or are on the fence is because of the institutionalized church. They see what the institutionalized church does, not the change of character that Christ has made in ones life. I could go on and on, but I will not take up too much of this review.
If you haven't, read the book. Have your bible next to you so you can go through all of the scripture references. If your scared to read it, you probably would have been scared to follow Christ when he was on the earth.
I have been reading several critiques or reviews of this book, and there is one common theme amongst them. Seems pretty much all the reviewers who are clergy make no reference to the chapter on the tithe. I would imagine this one would trouble them the most. And after doing my own biblical reading, I can definately see why. 10% is not New Testament scripture.OUCH.
The "institutional church' is the most visible but the organic has always been visible in the world by those who came in contact with these believers.
You're right, it's only a short book review. I wouldn't say I disagree with the book either - there's much in the book that is very good.
It's a good but imperfect book. They raise lots of valid issues that should be discussed. I would add to your last sentence - we need a lot more discussion (and progress) in many of the issues they raise.