Book Review: Pagan Christianity
I just finished studying Frank Viola’s and George Barna’s recent book, Pagan Christianity: Exploring the Roots of Our Church Practices. I want to start to say what I appreciate about the book and finish with what I think are some concerns.
Reading this book reminded me of the hours of ambitious dreaming and passionate debates that occurred during my bible college and seminary days with other visionary young radicals. It evoked the intensity with which I first went into the pastoral ministry, like a bull in a china shop, like Jesus with a woven whip into the den of thieves. In other words, I agree with almost everything they say. I have a problem with churches owning so much money, property and buildings; I question liturgy and orders of worship; I struggle with the one-man monologue sermon model; I have always wrestled with “full-time paid ministry” pastor positions; I disregard Sunday dress; I don’t like the control of worship music by a select and talented few; I don’t believe in tithing; I question the sacraments, formal Christian education, and our whole approach to the New Testament. In short, I too kick against the system. So, if you want to get an idea of what the authors insist are the pagan roots of most of our religious practices and compare them to the New Testament and early Church, get this book. With the plentiful footnotes and bibliography, it’ll give you enough to study.
But I have some concerns. Even before I got to the substance of the book, I read a line in the forward that concerned me. The following, they say, is their “proposal“:
the church in its contemporary, institutional form has neither a biblical nor a historical right to exist (p. xx).
This reminded me of something I read in Sam Harris’ book, The End of Faith… something to the effect that religion, or faith at all, has no right to exist. In his opinion faith has no grounds for being. It must and will become as obsolete as alchemy (p. 14). Therefore it should be purged from the earth, to the point that in the future adherents to a religious faith of any kind must suffer shame. When I read Harris’ book I immediately felt that, given any authority or legislative power, this would lead to some form of religiocide. Same with Pagan Christianity: such thinking, linked with power, will lead to, I don’t know… denominatiocide? I agree: anything that impedes human freedom and builds barriers between humanity and God must be challenged. But it feels dangerous to suggest that, as Viola and Barna do, “beyond dispute“:
that those who have left the fold of institutional Christianity to become part of an organic church have a historical right to exist– since history demonstrates that many practices of the institutional church are not rooted in Scripture (p. xxi)
I was infant-baptized in the Anglican communion, came to faith in the Baptist church, got baptized again, switched to Pentecostal, “got the Spirit”, drifted into Interdenominational, stopped going, joined a New Testamentish house-church style of community, changed to Presbyterian, received spiritual direction in the Roman Catholic church, and am presently a Vineyard pastor. I’m not willing to point my finger at any one of these denominations and pronounce: “You have no biblical or historical right to exist!” Conversely, I will not point my finger at any house church, emergent movement, or any other gathering that seems to look more like a New Testament church and declare: “You have the biblical and historical right to exist!” And I will tell you why.
Whereever we go, there we are. I’ve discovered that no matter how radical I become, no matter how much I try to look like the New Testament Christian, no matter how closely resembling the early church we might appear, it is all shot through with humanity, history, and heresy. The book doesn’t take into consideration the phenomenon that when two or three are gathered together in Jesus’ name not only is the Lord there, but there are also the principalities and powers. A new creature is formed when people collect for any common purpose, goal, vision, value, etc., etc.. No matter how radical and revisionist or restorationist the community is, the powers that would attempt to dehumanize us, oppress us or bind us are very real and active… just as real and active as in our most ancient denominations, churches and traditions. To make the extraordinary claim that the early church “understood God’s passion for His church, they lived it out” (p. 246) is therefore arguable. When I read between the lines of the New Testament, I see, along with the good, a very chaotic community that struggled with the same issues the contemporary church struggles with: ambition, power, position, money, possessions, charismata and worship, order, heresy, dress, the abuse of the sacraments, teaching, and so on. I’ve aborted the attempts and even the desire to return to a New Testament model of church. I don’t think we can know for certain what it was really like. And if we did, I think we’d uncover a very unattractive, sordid and sometimes repulsive mess.
Viola and Barna suggest that Jesus came as a “Revolutionary, tearing apart the old wineskin with a view to bringing in the new” (p. 246). My take on that parable is that when the new enters the old, the old simply cannot hold it. It will fall apart. And I think this is exactly what Jesus does: he simply enters our world, like a computer virus, and our systems, traditions, beliefs, theologies, practices, religion, spirituality… everything!… slowly, or rapidly, begin to unravel. They cannot hold him. He came as a free man within the system, but not part of it. He was an observant Jew and Rabbi… except when he wasn’t. And he wasn’t precisely when our liberation was at stake. And this, it seems to me, is the best way to be… personally and corporately. It would be irrational of me to lightly dismiss all human and historical developments as illegitimate. It would be naive of me to attempt to return to the New Testament style of doing church. There is something more important to do no matter what ideology, faith, religion or tradition we find ourselves in. What I’ve decided to do is live freely myself while challenge all ideas, beliefs, traditions, powers and systems that threaten the well-being and liberty of all people everywhere.
If you liked this post, or would like to use it, please buy me a beer!
This is a good review, but the line you quote is not from the book. Here’s what the authors say about it on their answer page http://www.ptmin.org/answers.htm I thought it was pretty good.
“question: A number of people are reacting to this statement in the book — “the church, in its contemporary, institutional form, has neither a biblical nor a historical right to exist.” What did you mean by that exactly?
–
Answer. This statement appears in the Advanced Reader Copy of the book which went out to reviewers and magazines. The published edition (hardback) which was printed a few weeks afterwards and sent to bookstores phrases it this way:
‘We are also making an outrageous proposal: that the church in its contemporary, institutional form has neither a biblical nor a historical right to function as it does. This proposal, of course, is our conviction based on the historical evidence that we shall present in the book. You must decide if that proposal is valid or not. (page xx)’
Note the words we use are “a biblical nor a historical right.” That simply means that what we are calling “the institutional church” (the book defines this) has no “biblical” merit or justification. And historically, it can be demonstrated that the church in its present form didn’t originate with God, but from human inventions and traditions. (This is what we give historical evidence for in the book.)
This doesn’t mean the church in its present form is evil, bad, sinful, or useless. Nor does it mean that God hasn’t and isn’t using it, despite its shortcomings. It simply means that the institutional form we’re speaking of has no “Scriptural basis.” And as we argue in the book, many of its features actually contradict the teachings of Scripture.
Let me offer an example. Suppose that someone in our time began to say, “We need to change the way we have the Lord’s Supper. From now on, we’re going to replace the fruit of the vine with Dr. Pepper and the bread with french fries. (All those between the ages of six and ten break out into applause.) And instead of remembering Jesus Christ and His death/resurrection, we’re going to remember David’s victory over Goliath.”
Now suppose this idea catches on. And after three hundred years, it’s essentially the universal way that Christians take the Lord’s Supper (Eucharist). It goes unchallenged and unquestioned. In fact, most Christians can’t conceive taking the Lord’s Supper any other way.
Is there anything morally wrong with drinking Dr. Pepper or eating french fries (not counting the opinion of some nutritionists). I’d say no. Is there anything wrong with remembering and celebrating David’s victory over Goliath? I’d say no. But, I would argue that the original meaning and intention that Jesus Christ and the apostles gave to us (“handed down”) regarding the Lord’s Supper has been utterly changed and emptied of its original meaning. And whatever the Lord’s Supper was originally supposed to embody in the mind of God has been lost. Thus, to my thinking, taking the Lord’s Supper in this new fashion has no Biblical merit. Or to put it differently, in this particular form “it doesn’t have a Scriptural or historical right to function as it does.”
In like manner, we are saying that the modern, inherited, institutional form of church has strayed far, far afield from the New Testament concept of “church” in the teachings of Jesus and the apostles. And we are asking the question: Should we keep supporting this inherited form or should we begin to do things differently?
No doubt, there’s a better way of phrasing that sentence; but it seemed to make sense to us at the time.
I hope that helps.”
correction noted. thanks.
I like your conclusion in the last paragraph. Well said.
My undergraduate degree is in religion, with a focus on the history of Christian theology, so I’m probably more aware than most people how things that were never in the Bible became tradition, and then became dogma. But it hasn’t stopped me from going to church. It hasn’t stopped me from reciting the Nicene Creed every Sunday – sometimes it’s nice to have someone else write poems, songs, and statements of belief in pretty language. Sometimes I like to use my own words, too.
I think the important thing is to teach people the difference between what’s scriptural, what’s “required” by God, and what is just tradition. That way, nobody has to stop doing traditional things that bring them closer to God, but it might keep people from berating those who refuse to do traditional things that aren’t scriptural.
And speaking of “scriptural,” the Bible itself is a document not untainted by human hands. But that’s a whole ‘nother story.
I agree with Tom. Many churches have strayed far from Christ and the centrality of His gospel of the forgiveness of sins offered through His Word and sacraments.
I do think this is quite an expected outcome of a fallen creature, that they naturally tend to stray from God… and to the self. This stuff is nothing new, read St. Paul’s letters.
Very good post, np! More great food for thought.
Thanks.
– Steve M.
“Pagan Roots”? There’s a shock! Who would have thought that Christianity would have pagan roots? Oh, wait, maybe the hundreds of thousands of pagans, like me, who became Christians over the last 2000 years! Is this really worth a whole book?
I think you’re both observant and way smarter than me. I’d probably put a period after “I’ve decided. . . to live freely.” I think that takes care of the rest.
I though it was a fascinating read, but I love history and like to be challenged. I wouldn’t give it to someone who enjoys institutional church forms. Here’s a page with some worthwhile endorsements.
http://www.paganchristianity.org/endorse.htm
Sounds like a book I might be interested in reading – the tradiitional roots of Christianity and the changes to the way ‘church is done’…I am down with the convo. I think it was a great piece of writing NP and well said. I think we need to admire the actions of the 1st Century church and what they stood for – but we also need to realize that has to relate to a 21st century reality – oh the fun of living.
I am not a denominational person per se – oddly enough NP – a lot of people have your experience with the variety of churches also…and this seems like a good thing (enlightening in a way). I look at the traditions and I am mixed on all of it – I prefer simplicity but I do admire ritual (on some level) – but that’s the struggle for me.
I tend to agree in general with what has gone before. It does strike me, though, that the different traditions do tap into the wide variations in the human psyche. One problem lies in sifting what is helpful and unhelpful. The other problem lies in perception. I am cynical about Catholicism and scornful of Pentecostalism.
Who made me judge?
David, nice review. I haven’t read the book, but am aware of both Viola and Barna. Both seem to have radical leanings (especially Viola) and am not surprised at their rather antagonistic approach to everything institutionalized.
I’ve been a Vineyard guy for over 20 years, but I consider myself a Lutheran expatriate, and occasionally seek out good liturgical service. One of the strengths of liturgy is that it forces you to keep focused. I’ve been dismayed by much of the recent Vineyard “worship” music, which is sorely lacking in content (i.e. truth), and the whole existential approach to spirituality that I don’t remember from the early days. That being said, I do agree that our liturgy (even the Vineyard has one) needs to be challenged and reviewed. I agree with much of what you say- there’s much that we take for granted that is certainly questionable. I also agree with your cautions about the book; even their revised statement is going too far. And, I suspect that Viola actually believes the original statement.
I have spent some time in that emerging edge of Christianity, and think that at the bottom of a lot of it is simply a bunch of folks who can’t “play nice with others.” The driving force often seems to be an anti-establishment attitude, more than a pro-church attitude. It sounds to me like you are essentially pro-church, even though you may question some of the same things as the anti-establishment folks. That’s why I read your blog.
NP, I have a similar background – amazing! Just the way life has been/God lead me. Though not all the different “denominations” in a similar order or all exactly the same ones. lol.
Alden said: “The driving force often seems to be an anti-establishment attitude”
That has absolutely been my experience as well. Certainly the established church falls into the traps of this world and will always have much upon which to improve. However, I don’t see the emergent movement as the answer by any means, nor “church bashing”. (I am not saying anyone here is saying anything like that, but in general, both the emergent movement and church bashing are very popular.)
I am also finding that there is such a thin line between the emergent movement and moving just a tad further into “The Shack”, “The Secret”, “Womanist Theology”, the “sacred feminine” etc. Personally, I find those very popular books and groups to be misleading people in a serious way. It is not that they are all bad or have nothing to offer, but it seems to be moving people ever-so-gradually into things that would be considered pagan.
p.s. I hope I am not misunderstood, as condemning all thought that might be considered unorthodox or emergent. One of my very favorite books is “Messy Spirituality” by Michael Yaconelli, and I believe he was considered emergent. It’s not a black and white thing, which is kind of my point.
I’m just coming to the end of the book and have really enjoyed it. It certainly helps to clarify how the church has become what it is.
But does that mean it’s all wrong and we should only adopt the organic church model that Viola/Barna propose?
As with most controversial books I take the good, leave the bad and try to find how it fits in with what God is doing in my situation at this time.
Balanced as a Beemer, and as refreshing as a power shower, have you ever thought about reviewing “The Shack” and telling us if it is pagan or not, also could you expand a bit on your ‘take’ on tithing, excusing the pun. Keep living free Dave, and don’t stop challenging whatever you see that binds us, Trevor
Hey NP! I have been waiting for this review. One of the things I love about you is your balanced view of things.
You said: I’ve aborted the attempts and even the desire to return to a New Testament model of church. I don’t think we can know for certain what it was really like. And if we did, I think we’d uncover a very unattractive, sordid and sometimes repulsive mess. Yep. You get a 2 thumbs up here!
What has concerned me about this book and others have mentioned here is that it can create division. Other Christ followers dogging brothers and sisters still in the ’system’ and serving there…called pagans or rebellious or anti-God!! It can also stumble new believers or weak believers to the point that they run from the church and never continue growing without the fellowship and help of the body! The emergent movement is wonderful. Freedom in Christ. Laying down the bells and whistes for the authentic. We still have to be cautious with our walk!
I agree with Aldens comment: I have spent some time in that emerging edge of Christianity, and think that at the bottom of a lot of it is simply a bunch of folks who can’t “play nice with others.†The driving force often seems to be an anti-establishment attitude, more than a pro-church attitude. See it all the time. And recently have experienced it first hand.
We as believers HAVE to sift it all. From the feminist/pagan/organic/established/old school/emergent assorted ingredents. And subject them to the truth. We are all one body right? Can we say to the hand that we don’t need them???
Thanks for the balanced review. So are you going to review “The Shack” next??
HUGS….
Do I sense a new tone?
Excellent review David, thanks for bringing it to my attention!
Hey NP – Just stumbled across your blog and fing myself agreeing with so much of what you are saying.
My background is un-churched. Startted to follow Jesus end of 2002 and now am training as an evangelist. Why am I telling you this? Well because I continually struggle with the way we ‘do’ church and when I sit in a church on a Sunday morning I’m continually wishing I was sitting in a cafe having breakfast with all my mates while they are eating their hangovers off!
The things is that I love what church could be. I love the possibilities. But I’m always frustrated! I struggle with so much, yet wait for the possibilities.
That said, I’m too not wanting to go back to the NT model coz I’m sure like you it was far from perfect.
I struggle to know as an evangelist how to handle my frustrations. I believe the church has missed the point in so many ways. I believe that the church gets it wrong in so many ways and stinks of irrelevance and just plain weirdness, yet I believe there is hope! I suppose its trying to hear what the Spirit is saying to the church.
My problem with the entire premise of the book is simple, the Bible presents no normative church formula. What we do know of the early church is that they meant both in houses AND Synogoges (read ACTS). Archeology has found ruins of Christian houses of worship throughout the middle east that date beck to the early centuries. Paul prescribes Elders/Bishops/Deacons (read here HIERARCHY). And lest we forget, most of the NT was written because this new thing called church was just as screwed up as it seems to be today.
Also, lets talk about the comment from Viola/Barna that “And historically, it can be demonstrated that the church in its present form didn’t originate with God, but from human inventions and traditions. (This is what we give historical evidence for in the book.)” Are we saying that the originators of the “institutional” church were not led by the Spirit. It’s amazing the Viola and Barna are qualified to make that judgment. For the record, they’re not!
I tried to read the book. I find I cannot force my brain to go into gridlock long enough for me to finish it, so I gave up. Truthfully, and without the sarcasm I have used throughout this post, I see no value in this work whatsoever
I want to comment on the idea that there might be some type of legislation to outlaw religion. I don’t read that to be Sam Harris’ intent. What I have heard him say over and over is that religion should not be held above critical dialog. It should no longer be given an exemption just because it offends people to have their beliefs examined.
The church certainly has a long history of using legislation to gain its ends and now Sam Harris is saying that the church should not have special support, either socially or otherwise, but be subject to the same requirements for merit as other institutions.
Most Christians don’t realize the profound pagan origins of Christianity in even its main doctrines, including the Nicean Creed. The motivations for the adoption of these beliefs are far from authentic spiritual motivations, but far more rooted in removing any Jewishness of Jesus and creating a power base to sustain Rome based on Greek and Roman world views.
Now there are certainly creative applications of these beliefs to create something authentic, but I find no evidence that these beliefs are the exclusive way to create authenticity and spirituality.
I find that religion is more about anthropology than about truth.
The book was written to be part of the ongoing dialog about church.
I find it very useful.
I agree that religion is primarily anthropological: the human response the the divine or revelation, etc. This is why I think that even though the book contributes to the ongoing dialog about church, I’m just not sure it is the healthiest. The anthropological religious journey isn’t holier just because it’s earlier. It’s human in the New Testament and the earliest church, and it is human now. For me, the question is the well-being of people, no matter what tradition or practice we find ourselves in.
NP said:
“For me, the question is the well-being of people, no matter what tradition or practice we find ourselves in.”
——-David, I do like how you put that. I think the problems lays in the difference we humans have as what the “well-being” of people looks like.
In America, “All men our created equal with certain inalienable rights, among these are….” But oh what a tangled web we have woven.
The Bible is all about the “well-being” of people. But oh what a tangled web we have woven.
Jesus’ Church is all about the “well-being” of people, but oh what a tangled we have woven.
I am all about the “well-being” of people. But oh how miserably I fail.
But it is a new day, so we try again to get it right.
MAKE IT A GREAT DAY.
jerry [fishon]
I’m a bit surprised by the reactions of some here toward the book. I read it (although I didn’t have an early copy claiming “…the church has no right to exist” which would have raised even my hypokinetic eyebrows) and didn’t find it to be heretical. I didn’t think the the book, or its premise, was an overt/or even covert attempt by the authors to incite a massive “church-as-we-know-it” exodus. I thought the authors were simply challenging the oft-used Christian claim that our modern churches are “Biblical” and based on “What Jesus Would Do”. I thought Viola and Barna did a pretty decent job debunking that position.
As someone who hasn’t attended church, per se, for over a year, reading this book actually DISCOURAGED me from badmouthing institutional churches to those of my friends who are faithful to them. It reawakened me to the idea that the church (whether that be institutional/organic or corporate/personal) has the main purpose of being in relationship with Christ as a picture of God’s love to the world. What picture is being shown to the world if I am badmouthing the place my brother or sister has chosen to worship the Lord? The book reminded me that I need to shut up and not interfere with the dynamics of my friends’ Christ-relationships.
I found the book immensely helpful in unmasking some of the history behind traditional church practices, but I wish the authors had fleshed out the concept of “an organic church” a bit more. I believe that is the intent for the next book in the series.
Thanks for the review and for the discussion. They engender more thought, more questions, and hopefully, more wisdom and love in the long run.
So, to add to the growing list of commenters eager for it, will you review “The Shack” next?
I just finished The Shack and will comment Monday or Tuesday.
Thank you for your answer. Something to look forward to… :^)
I didn’t think it was about one journey being holier.
I thought it was more about finding out that a lot of the weighty church traditions aren’t as God inspired as they are presented.
But maybe that’s just what I get from it, because it underlines a lot of things I have already realised about church?
According to the back page, this book is one of a series. the sequel comes out this summer. Reimagining Church. That one is supposed to describe the organic church in depth.
Thanks for this review, I too have both admired and struggled with the book.
The challenge to consider well the roots and therefor ethe contemporary outworking of much of what occurs within churchworld is very welcome.
However, as much as I can acknowledge the truth that we do indeed know a fair bit about how the early church operated we don;t actually know enough to base any kind of restorationist model of church on. I’m also concerned by the unquestioning approach to the first century context of the church. They seem to feel that teh first church wasn’t formed by its cultural context, when of course it clearly was.
It seems to me that a better reading of Acts is to see how individuals and groups responded as they were shoved along by the Spirit, rather than the unfolding of a blueprint that ought to fit church eternally.
Thanks again for the thoughtful review.
Grace and peace
hey np, appreciated your wrestling with this book. Had read Dan Kimball’s 2 part blog on the book a few weeks ago which is also helpful. Peace and Love
http://www.dankimball.com/vintage_faith/2008/02/house-churches.html
[...] And a book review: I just finished studying Frank Viola’s and George Barna’s recent book, Pagan Christianity: Exploring the Roots of Our Church Practices. I want to start to say what I appreciate about the book and finish with what I think are some concerns. [...]
thanks for the recommendation, I just picked up the book from the library. of course, wife is automatically skeptical and says too many people nit pik. A common theme whenever I bring up anything to challenge her worldwide, which is Pat Robertson style ultra conservative. There is a boogie man around every corner……
I contacted one of the “endorsees” (Howard Snyder) who denied that he endorses the book, as (in his words) the book contains many “logical fallacies”; despite this, the lie of Snyder’s “endorsement” (?) of “P.C.?” continues to be “spun” by Jeanette and the other Viola/Barna/tyndale sycophants. Also, John Zens (another endorsee) shows his willful ignorance by affirming and defending the “Paul wrote 2/3 of the New Testament” myth, that is promoted in “P.C.?”, a book that is patently unbiblical, unhistorical, mean-spirited and petty. In other words, a prime “specimen” of Peter’s warning at 2 Peter 3:16!
This is a really good discussion.
http://thin-edge.org/2008/02/27/the-thin-edge-hosts-joint-interview-with-barna-viola/
Seems that the above commentator was thrown off that forum by the moderator.
Tom, thank you for the link to a great discussion. Here we are posting comments more than a month after the original post. But I needed to be reminded of some things today, and your timing was perfect.
Book just arrived from Amazon. Will check it out soon.
The sequel to “Pagan Christianity?†is out now. It’s called “Reimagining Churchâ€. It picks up where “Pagan Christianity†left off and continues the conversation. (“Pagan Christianity†was never meant to be a stand alone book; it’s part one of the conversation.) “Reimagining Church†is endorsed by Leonard Sweet, Shane Claiborne, Alan Hirsch, and many others. You can read a sample chapter at http://www.ReimaginingChurch.org. It’s also available on Amazon.com. Frank is also blogging now at http://frankviola.wordpress.com/