Book Review: Pagan Christianity
Pagan Christianity by Frank Viola and George Barna (Barna Books, 2008) is sure to ruffle some feathers. In the authors’ attempt to “explore the roots of our church practices,” they aim their guns at nearly every aspect of the institutional church.
Books that critique the current worship practices of the Church come and go. But rarely does one come across a book that so vehemently opposes everything about the institutional Church. Viola and Barna are convinced that the housechurch/organic church movement is the way of the future because it is the only authentic reproduction of the past.
Viola and Barna believe that for almost 2000 years, the Church has been seriously misguided. Layers of tradition have stifled the true Christian experience. In order to recover the early church of the apostles, we must see the church as an “organic entity.”
An organic church is simply a church that is born out of spiritual life instead of constructed by human institutions and held together by religious programs. Organic churches are characterized by Spirit-led, open-participatory meetings and nonhierarchical leadership. This is in stark contrast to a clergy-led institution-driven church.
Pagan Christianity takes the readers through the history of many of our church practices. The authors argue the following:
-
The church should not contain any hierarchy at all.
-
The senior pastor is actually an obstacle to the fully-functioning body of Christ.
-
The idea of a sermon in a church gathering is pagan (after all, that brings about a clergy/laity distinction).
-
Church buildings take away from the biblical teaching that the Church is a people.
-
Any routine in worship is wrong. All liturgy, whether Protestant, Catholic or free church is misguided and stifling to the Holy Spirit.
-
Dressing up for church is a leftover from paganism and hypocritical for Christians.
-
No one should lead in singing. To have a worship leader picking songs is an affront to freedom in Christ.
-
Tithing is completely unbiblical and now serves to prop up the unbiblical institutionalized church and the salaries of unbiblical clergy.
-
Baptism and the Lord’s Supper have been coopted by pagan mysticism.
-
Christian education doesn’t work because everything is mind-focused. Discipleship should be an apprentice-ship, not just filling the head with information.
-
The Bible needs to be read in context, not as a jigsaw puzzle.
-
We need to be like Jesus - revolutionaries who are ready to turn aside all tradition.
A few areas of agreement (and I do mean a few):
-
It’s good to question why we do things a certain way in worship. I do not find fault with the authors for posing good questions.
-
We do need to recover the celebratory aspect of the Lord’s Supper, and I think that placing the Supper within the context of a community meal might help.
-
The Bible does, indeed, need to be read as a narrative, and not merely as a list of selective verses.
-
We need to be willing to throw out traditions that are unbiblical.
Some areas of disagreement:
1. First off, I disagree with the underlying premise of the entire book - a premise that says the early church was untainted and uncorrupted by human tradition. I often ask this question to those who want to get back to the early church: Which early church do you want to be like?
Corinth? (Do you really want incestuous church members and no-rules-at-all worship gatherings?)
Galatia? (Is it good to model a church that has so quickly abandoned the gospel?)
Thessalonica? (Do you want to be the church that has lost the eschatological hope of the new heavens and new earth? A church drowning in grief?)
Sure, we can learn from the earliest churches. But I disagree that there is some pristine, uncorrupted, untainted early church that we must aspire to be.
2. I dislike the way Viola and Barna put forward their argument. They leave no room for discussion on the issue. If you disagree with them, you must love the traditions of man more than God. It becomes impossible to enter into honest dialogue because of the way they have set up the predicament.
3. Pagan Christianity is a historical book that hates history. That might sound like an oxymoron; after all, the book is filled with historical dates and references. But the authors are convinced that all Christianity from the second-century on has been wrong, unbiblical, and harmful to the gospel. In other words, church history is the story of a church that does not at all resemble what Jesus intended.
Let me give a quick example. When discussing the liturgy, the authors seek to show how the order of worship of medieval Catholicism is still visible in Protestant churches. There should be no order of worship, no routine, no liturgy whatsoever. The authors compare and contrast the liturgies of varying denominations to show how they are all unbiblical. But nowhere do the authors entertain the notion that perhaps the similarities in liturgy point to the value in structuring our worship a certain way. Have the greatest thinkers of the past 2000 years been blinded by tradition? Or have the great Christian thinkers seen value in the way Christian worship has developed?
4. Pagan Christianity will drive more evangelicals to the Roman Catholic Church. Just watching an author like George Barna go from one fad to another in the past twenty years is enough to exhaust anyone who tires of the evangelical merry-go-round. Even though Pagan Christianity condemns Roman Catholic tradition, its equating of Roman Catholicism with Protestantism in areas of church practice will undermine this book’s argument. Many disenchanted evangelicals will try out the “organic” churches that Barna recommends, only to discover the same fallenness in this expression of the “church” that they saw in the institutional church they left. Burned, confused, and disappointed, many will turn to Rome for the stability they long for.
5. Pagan Christianity will give ammunition to those who already dislike the churches they have encountered. I do not believe the book will launch a new organic-church movement. I believe the book will give justification to those who have already removed themselves from their local bodies of Christ. Pagan Christianity, if taken seriously by many Christians, will not lead to a renewal of the church, but to ecclesial amputation - as more and more disenchanted church members abandon their church families in order to seek after the “pure church” of the first century. They will keep chasing the pot at the end of the rainbow, only to find it eludes them because it doesn’t exist.
written by Trevin Wax. © 2008 Kingdom People Blog
Excellent review, Trevin. I thought the book brought up some important issues but proposed all the wrong solutions.
By the way, I’m absolutely loving your blog.
Comment by Darryl — January 2, 2008 @ 9:15 am
[...] Trevin Wax gives a short review of Pagan Christianity. [...]
Pingback by The Boar’s Head Tavern » — January 2, 2008 @ 9:42 am
Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
Jesus was an observant Jew and the early church was the child of its Jewish mother. To suggest otherwise borders on some kind of gnostic anti-semitism.
Comment by iMonk — January 2, 2008 @ 9:54 am
[...] Trevin Wax has written an excellent summary of the problems with this kind of thinking by reviewing …Pagan Christianity. This is excellent commentary by Wax. [...]
Pingback by restless reformer » Those Silly Pagans, Co-opting the Church… — January 2, 2008 @ 9:57 am
There is an interesting discussion over at Brant’s blog on similar matters:
http://www.branthansen.typepad.com
Comment by Zach Nielsen — January 2, 2008 @ 12:12 pm
Here is the direct link:
http://branthansen.typepad.com/letters_from_kamp_krusty/2007/12/we-quit-going-t.html
I would encouage people in this discussion to ask lots of questions and seek understanding before lobbing critiques. Critiques are good, but being well informed before you give them is better. Humility is something I think I read about in the Bible…
Comment by Zach Nielsen — January 2, 2008 @ 12:13 pm
[...] Posted by Matt under Practical Theology | Tags: George Barna | Trevin Wax has a great summary of George Barna’s latest and greatest, Pagan Christianity. After checking out his interaction with Barna, you need to click over and [...]
Pingback by Conversation on Barna’s Latest « Catching Meddlers — January 2, 2008 @ 1:25 pm
The church should not contain any hierarchy at all.
I’ve yet to read this book but I just finished Organic Community. I think organic community is a great idea in the fact it is supposed to be verb-centric instead of noun-centric meaning we are stepping outside of the walls and becoming the church instead of being known as the church (There is a doing verses being factor). However, I fear that in removing hierarchical leadership and suggesting the use of revolving power instead that there will be no direction in organic community. I agree that hierarchical leadership can corrupt and thats why we need leadership development. I love the heart and idea of organic community but I fear it will leave people wondering where they are and there will still be this exclusiveness that we see in the institutionalized church.
Comment by Kaleb Heitzman — January 2, 2008 @ 5:29 pm
Ecclesial amputation? Not sure I see that resulting from home / simple churches. As for chasing the “pure church” at the end of the rainbow, not sure I see this occurring, either. Perhaps just the opposite is occurring in both cases: not of Paul, not of Appolos, just plain folk gathering out of shared love for the man Jesus.
Following Christ isn’t about clerical experts with all the answers (as Jesus often reminded the religious hierarchy of his day), it’s about Christ, his body, and his Kingdom. All-body participation is a hallmark of simple church, as it seems to be in the churches of Acts.
I say “bravo” for George having the courage to bring these issues into ecclesial prominence.
Comment by John L — January 2, 2008 @ 7:01 pm
I come from a Campbell-Stone Restoration Movement background and I agree with Trevin: the premise of attempting to re-create the 1st century church is seriously flawed…and I can tell you from experience that it does not ultimately end up where it hopes to go. It sounds to me that Barna is destined to repeat several of the mistakes that my non-denominational denomination committed. It makes me very very sad.
Comment by amtog — January 3, 2008 @ 1:03 am
Very good review of a very weird book (which I haven’t read). The book seems to smack of the “Hang Loose Brethren” book from back in the early 80’s. But I wonder, in light of Barna’s understanding of the nearly immediate demise of the Church, what does he do with the Canon of Scripture, solidified by such an ungodly and corrupt gang of bishops-who-shouldn’t-be?
Comment by Kenneth Myers — January 3, 2008 @ 12:57 pm
[...] reviewing the book, with Bill Kinnon threatening to do so. Trevin Wax has a review that appears HERE). I’m primarily interested in the third point. Darryl’s critique is this: There’s [...]
Pingback by NextReformation » Pagan Christianity — January 3, 2008 @ 1:48 pm
[...] is my friend Dash: Post 1, Post 2, Post 3, Post 4, Joe Thorn Intro, Part 1, Part 2, Alan Hirsh,Trevin Wax and I’m assuming iMonk. There is lots more to be found on [...]
Pingback by theheresy.com » Blog Archive » Pagan Christianity, the church and scripture — January 6, 2008 @ 10:19 pm
[...] a few. Here’s an incomplete list: Pastor Joe Thorn, theheresy, Letters from Kamp Krusty, Kingdom People, Dash House, The Kingdom Come, Sue’s Book Reviews and so on. Viola has answered some [...]
Pingback by Kiwi and an Emu. » Blog Ripples No. 1. — January 7, 2008 @ 4:20 am
Excellent post Trevin.
When you read 1 Corinthian 14:26 as a prescription for “worship” instead of an apostole aghast at the confusion of a Gentile church, what do you expect?
The liturgies of the early church are drawn from the Book of Revelation’s “new covenantalization” of the Jerusalem Temple liturgy and Viola’s reductionism is too simple minded to bother with that possibility or the fact that the “New Testament” church kept the liturgical hours of the Temple and that as early as Justin Martyr the congregations had a “president”.
Again, good job!
Comment by Charles — January 7, 2008 @ 10:44 pm
Forgive my misspelling of “apostle” above. I also suggest reading Schaff’s “The Principle of Protestantism” in response to this silliness. You are right. This is a history book that hates history.Viola is just a sectarian Pope who wants to draw people away from other churches and give them his “covering”.
Comment by Charles — January 7, 2008 @ 10:50 pm
By all means, let’s engage Frank Viola in a debate, but let’s address what he really says and not what we assume he means. Viola and Barna explicitly disown such restorationist notions as the positing of a mythical perfect church in the first century. They also say that they are not saying that it’s got to be in the Bible to be legitimate. They do refute the notion that exists in some conservative evangelical circles that everything these churches do comes straight out of the Bible. Their claim is that many traditional ways of doing things will not bear close theological examination. They’re right about many things. I’d disagree about some others. But this discussion can’t even begin if we read into their book some coventional primitivist and reconstructionist ideas that they in fact reject.
Comment by Frank — January 8, 2008 @ 7:23 am
I have started the book and one factor just kept making me smile ironically as I read it. Viola keeps decrying the fact that the church kept accumulating the trappings of the Government in terms of dress, actions, etc. Implicitly, Viola is making a church/state split that is all of the Enlightenment and nothing of first century Christianity (or Judaism for that matter). Just what does Viola think ekklesia is? It was the term for assembly of citizens of a city to make governmental choices. The ekklesia or church is ALL ABOUT GOVERNMENT. Since they were subject to King Jesus who had received all authority on heaven and earth it was perfectly natural to think that the church was the TRUE ekklesia in their respective cities. They took on the symbols of government precisely BECAUSE they believed they were government.
Also, the church under Constantine gets the Dan Brown treatment. I agree with N. T. Wright. Just what was the church under Constantine to do anyway; let the entire country fall into chaos and revolution? The unifying nature of the church was needed in that time to keep the empire from splitting and falling prey to the many deaths that continued warfare would have produced. They may have not gotten everything right, but they probably saved a lot more lives than the powerless, disjointed bodies that following Viola’s ideas would produce.
Yet, he still had a quote in the book worth the price of admission. He defined the mission of the church (and I paraphrase) “the mutual building up of believers to communally display Christ to the powers and principalities of the world.” I think all ministries of the church should be evaluated by that standard, and not its theoretical origin.
Comment by Caine — January 8, 2008 @ 2:24 pm
[...] buzz in the ’sphere. See Joe Thorn’s comments here, here, and here; Trevin Wax’s here; Brant Hansen’s here, and iMonk’s [...]
Pingback by relevintage - a blog by brad andrews — January 8, 2008 @ 2:33 pm
Brethren – In looking over the comments made about Pagan Christianity, it would seem that the book needs to be read first by some who are offering criticisms prematurely, and those who have read it need to pay more attention to what is actually being said. Frank has responded to many concerns about the book at http://www.ptmin.org/pcobjections.htm.
Pagan Christianity nowhere states that the early church was a pristine community with no problems. Of course, the early church had serious problems. The point being missed is that apostolic teachings (“traditions”) were brought to bear on those issues. Is it safe to say that we are bound to listen to those apostolic traditions too? These apostolic traditions are not tainted; they are from Christ. The patterns of the New Testament for church life have relevance for us, don’t they? Are we free to do as we please in the way we practice ekklesia? If the early church met for the purpose of “breaking bread” (infinitive of purpose, Acts 20:7), are we at liberty to substitute the “centrality of the pulpit”? If the early church had a communal meal together, are we missing something if we turn it into a snack tacked on to a preaching service?
How on earth can you say that the authors of PC “leave no room for discussion”? In many books the author sets forth his/her convictions with vigor based on hopefully a high level of research, but that in no way implies that the discussion has ended. At the end of each chapter in PC there is a “Delving Deeper” section with questions for further reflection. Readers are encouraged to weigh the evidence and discern what the truth may be and where it will take them. To me, the tone of the book is dialogical, not “our way or the highway.” I can appreciate how some of the statements in the book might come across to some as too strong, because the authors are challenging ecclesiastical apple pie and motherhood. However, such remarks are not made without having established historical documentation. The reader must weigh the evidence and the merits of the authors’ conclusions.
It is asserted that according to PC “church history is the story of a church that does not resemble what Jesus intended.” This criticism is overstated, but does express an important historical reality. As I see it, it isn’t too hard to conclude that most of what called itself church strayed far away from what Jesus intended. When you consider the one angle of the far-reaching impact and implications of Constantinianism infecting the visible church, it is no wonder things went so far astray. From 325AD until relatively recently is was assumed by Roman Catholicism and later Protestantism that church and state would be joined together. Political intrigue became embedded in ecclesiastical proceedings. As Lewis Berkof observed regarding the Council of Nicea in 325AD:
“A settlement forced upon the Church by the strong hand of the emperor could not satisfy and was also of uncertain duration. It made the determination of the Christian faith dependent upon imperial caprice and even on court intriques . . . . The sequel clearly proved that, as it was, a change in emperor, an altered mood, or even a bribe, might alter the whole aspect of the controversy. The party in the ascendancy might all at once suffer elcipse. This is exactly what happened repeatedly in subsequent history” (The History of Christian Doctrines, Banner of Truth, 1978, p.87).
How would it be possible for church to be as Jesus intended when Caesar’s sword backed ecclesiastical powers? Is anyone prepared to defend the idea that the dominating religion from 325 – 1700AD resembled what Jesus intended? Is it any surprise that for the most part the visible church “got it wrong”?
“Have the greatest thinkers of the past 2000 years been blinded by traditions?” Absolutely, in certain areas of practice. Pagan Christianity shows how this happened. A crucial question for everyone is, “How do we discern between apostolic traditions and human traditions?” We all know what Jesus said about human traditions. They multiply, they annul God’s Word so they can be kept, and religious leaders persecute those who question and violate such “teachings of men.”
I think it is sort of a low blow to discredit George B. because you’ve watched him “go from one fad to another in the past 20 years.” In the Christianity Today interview with him several years ago, I could see that he was reaching a high frustration level with evangelical church leaders. I sensed he was on the verge of a paradigm shift. Don’t we have to allow room for a person to grow in his/her understanding of things?
To suggest that Frank is a “sectarian Pope who wants to draw people away from other churches and give them his ‘covering’” is very unkind and untrue. Frank wrote a book, Who Is Your Covering?, which refutes and rejects the whole notion of people needing some type of human “covering.” If you knew him, you would know that he has a heart full of passion for the spiritual prosperity of the Body of Christ. Any form of sectarianism is repugnant to him.
For another perspective on PC, I would refer you to Alan Hirsch’s review, http://www.theforgottenways.org/blog/2008/01/07/pagan-christianity/htm
Jon Zens
Comment by Jon Zens — January 8, 2008 @ 3:14 pm
Jon,
If “any form of sectarianism is repugnant to Frank”, perhaps starting off with a title accusing anyone who doesn’t see things the way he does as “Pagan” might have been a good start?
Charles
Comment by Charles — January 8, 2008 @ 6:25 pm
Charles — The title of the book is Pagan Christianity? Exploring the Roots of Our Church Practices. It is a question, not a dogmatic conclusion. The book is an invitation to look at historical evidence to see if many things we do as “church” actualy have pagan sources, and may be obstacles to the realization of true ekklesia.
Jon
Comment by Jon Zens — January 9, 2008 @ 3:48 pm
Trevin,
I am very confused by your review. You say “We need to be willing to throw out traditions that are unbiblical” but in your review you don’t seem to acknowledge that any exist. You mention it might be good to recover certain practices but what about throwing any out? Disenchanted church members are leaving churches not because others are pointing out problems but because we who are in the churches refuse to acknowledge that real foundational problems exist in the way we function as the church. Viola and Barna’s book gives those who are disenchanted hope that CHANGE might be on the way.
Comment by C. Pridham — January 10, 2008 @ 7:31 pm
Charles has come close to nailing it:
When you read 1 Corinthian 14:26 as a prescription for “worship” instead of an apostle aghast at the confusion of a Gentile church, what do you expect?
We really do view 1 Cor 14:26 as a prescription for “gathering” - herein lies the majority of our differences, and so your assessment is very accurate.
I personally believe that if you implement the ideas of 1 Cor 14:26 into some corporate gathering - it will compeletely rock your Christian boat - you’ll be shocked at the level of Jesus in your meetings. You can even do it in the church sanctuary if you want - the Lord doesn’t view that part of your building as evil at all. If you can pull Jesus out of the person standing next to you - you’ll have a whole lot more of Jesus than if you are just exposed to one person’s ideas and theology and life’s understanding.
The only thing that really stops the 1 Cor 14:26 thing from working is the “Diotrephes syndrome” (3 John 1:9) - where you have a person who is considered to legitimately have a “monopoly” on the gathering and therefore is entited to and allowed to completely dominate the setting. You can tell a “Diotrephes” a mile away - they won’t receive anything you say - which will make the meeting rather boring and meaningless to you - in that you won’t be allowed your opinion or revelation at all.
For some reason, women do the 1 Cor 14:26 thing quite naturally - but men have this “alpha dog” thing where they are sizing each other up all the time. My wife loves the institutional church - her view of it is sitting in the nursery talking to the other women. My view is quite different.
Comment by Jerry — January 13, 2008 @ 6:30 am
[...] – AJ Vanderhorst review. – Alan Hirsch here and here. – Andrew Jones review. – Bill Kinnon review. – Boar’s Head review. – Bob Hyatt has 4 reviews at this point: Link 1 Link 2 Link 3 Link 4 – Daryl Dash review here and here with more to come. – God Grown review. – iMonk’s humorous review. – Joe Thorn has four reviews so far: Link 1 Link 2 Link 3 Link 4 – Jordon Cooper review. – Josh Brown podcast with Frank here. – Kamp Krusty has a really good review. – Kingdom Grace is taking 2 weeks to discuss the book, so keep tabs here. – Len Hjalmerson review. – Microclesia review. – Nicholas Fiedler review. – Steve Eastman review, and interview with Frank here. – The Heresy review. – Tom Gilson review. – Tony Morgan review. – Trevin Wax review. [...]
Pingback by Pagan Christianity Review Index | nathangann.com — January 13, 2008 @ 10:45 pm
[...] about it; the response is surprisingly emotional and negative. The review most cited is the one by Trevin Wax at Kingdom People; however, the most sarcastically negative response has to be from Michael Spencer at internetmonk. [...]
Pingback by The Wandering Heretic » Blog Archive » Pagan Christianity? — January 21, 2008 @ 5:22 pm
I’ve haven’t read the new version of Pagan Christianity with Barna’s input, but I have read the first, less-hyped version of Viola’s book - and I have to say I initially had mixed feelings about what Viola was communicating. To be perfectly honest, I found myself cheering in those instances when Viola exposed the questionable origins of some church tradition, doctrine or practice that I already viewed as mindless religious bunk. On the other hand, I found myself bristling and getting all defensive when he would tip one of my own sacred cows. That said, I think that (while I still don’t agree with everything the book has to say)Viola has done a valuable service to the prevailing church culture of the West. Truth be told, we need to have our cows tipped. We have become shameless control freaks when it comes to a church that does not belong to us. It belongs to Jesus. And He is not just some historical figurehead from whom we can derive legitamacy for our precious institutions and programs. He is a living person who literally exists and who is trying to communicate with and direct His people in the present tense. And I think it’s high time we started seriously questioning ourselves, opening our spiritual ears to what He is trying to tell us, and looking for ways to remove our rearends from the throne that rightfully belongs to Him alone.
Comment by Ron Park — January 24, 2008 @ 10:18 pm
Hi, an excellent alternative to Viola’s book is “The Ancient Church As Family” by Dr. Joe Hellerman. His work is well researched and addresses many of the “pagan” influences on our faith. Dr. Hellerman’s contribution is a blend of good history AND respectful discourse.
Comment by Joe Miller — February 17, 2008 @ 2:16 am
After a lifetime of church involvement, from “laity” to volunteer and paid staff, it is INEXPLICABLY OBVIOUS that organized religion continues to fail time after time to achieve true spiritual growth. It is a man-made system and a man-made system can only reproduce what it is - a monotonous, lifeless “body” that is expecting little more than a few “warm and fuzzies” in an occassional Sunday morning service.
The modern “Christian” church has done nothing but disappoint a world full of non-believers. We must stop feeding a system that continues its cycle of failure - it is time to be a true follower of Christ, rather than just a bunch of good “Christian’s” that look like everybody else.
Comment by Joel Spencer — February 21, 2008 @ 10:47 am
The greatest advice I could give to any honest truth-seeking person… would be to read the book for yourself. (Something many have obviously not thought of yet.)
Leave your assumptions at the door. Don’t read things into this book that are not explicitly stated by the authors. Open yourself up to whatever the Lord may speak to your heart. Deny your flesh and allow anything that must die (i.e. those things not of Christ)… to be thrown into the flames. Don’t look for models and forms… look for Christ!
If you go into this book with many preconceived ideas and a negative attitude of defense against what you already believe is unquestionably sound in your mind… then you might as well save yourself the effort and read something else that will make you feel that your church practices are infallible and beyond any need of revolution.
If you are interested… check out my review at Amazon.
You also can find me at: http://www.myspace.com/daviddflowers
I welcome sincere dialogue.
Peace.
Comment by David D. Flowers — February 22, 2008 @ 1:50 pm
I would echo earlier comments. If you haven’t read the book then please do so. You might be surprised, Frank and George actually have some positive things to say about institutional churches.
Personally I agree with lots of what George and Frank have written but not everything. How would I honestly be able to come to that conclusion if I had not read their book?
Comment by Richard Thacker — February 24, 2008 @ 4:08 am
I don’t intend to defend the book although I heartily endorse it and think it is an important work to be read and considered. I read the original version and now have read the joint version and I’am thrilled to see so much response. If the book gets us to think and dialogue then I believe it has accomplished the intent of the authors.
there is no doubt that Frank viola is involved and a peoponent of “organic” or house churches. His own experience obviously validates this. Like Frank, I myself have experienced not only the “institutional” church (in many denominations and forms) but also more intimate settings. I have found that there is no apt substitute for relationship, intimate relationship with God and with brothers and sisters. It si my opinion that the institutional model substitutes programs, rituals, and stuff for real open relationship vertical and horizontal,
I think those who so vehemently oppose this concept need to experience both and then make a decision. Perhaps “primitive” is better. Why not give it a try? Why are we so defensive of “the system”? What’s to lose by exploring other alternatives?
change comes hard but I’m reminded that the greatest revolutionary in history was Jesus Christ and His new “way” so threatened the people of God and their religious sytem that they called for the romans to crucify him! Well Frank and George, you’re in good company.
Comment by George Dunn — February 28, 2008 @ 12:48 am
Oh, for goodness sake. What did Barna ever do to earn all these silly slathering groupies? He’s just a second rate pollster with an ax to grind. He’s made a fortune telling the church how awful it is, and now he’s ready to burn the whole thing down.
Yes, he appeals all these wierdo types (”Uh, yeah, like, I was a student in a seminary and I, like, bought the line about the church. But then, uh, I read Barna and now I see the light. so uh, drop out, man.”
But he’s neither a serious scholar, nor a serious historian, and I’d say, he’s an untested statistition.
Here’s my criticism of the church: We can be so gullible as to let authors and publishers create a cult of celebrity.
George, keep leading the drop-outs brother. And, like we were before you and will be after you, we true “pagan” pastors and “pagan” church-goers, will keep pushing forward the kingdom of God with this “pagan institutional” Church that often stumbles but never retreats.
Great points in your review, my friend.
Comment by Mike Greiner — March 7, 2008 @ 8:55 am
There is an interesting print interview on the book, which has a great discussion afterwards. You can read it at http://thin-edge.org/2008/02/27/the-thin-edge-hosts-joint-interview-with-barna-viola/
Comment by Jeanette — March 24, 2008 @ 7:24 am
Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! After decades as an evangelical Christian (within mainline to charismatic to Conservative Baptist to seeker-sensitive churches), I finally found my way into the Eastern Orthodox Church. It has been no picnic getting here. There are massive cultural, emotional and ecclesiological hurdles to overcome, not the least of which is the prevalence of Viola and Barna’s broad take on Church history in the modern evangelical world, i.e., never mind that Jesus said He would build His Church and that the gates of hell would NOT prevail against it, the Church apostasized with Constantine’s reign, hell did indeed prevail, and we have to yet fully recover the “true NT Church!” Well, I’ve decided to believe Jesus here. The Eastern Orthodox Church has its share of human problems (ethnocentrism, nominalism, externalism, etc.) and historical sins and sinners, but formal and dogmatic apostasy isn’t one of them! It would be hard to find a more Christ-centered liturgy and hermeneutic of the Scriptures than in Eastern Orthodoxy. It has maintained roots as far back in Christendom as one can go in the sense that, historically, dogmatically and in terms of actual communion it has not split off from any other historically recognizable Christian body. All others have split off from it. The contemporary Orthodox Church is the historical continuation of the trunk of our Christian tree, so to speak. Returning to the Eastern Orthodox communion was my categorical rejection of what I consider now to be the Donatist tendencies I inherited from my Protestant background (Donatism being the heresy that the visible Church on earth can be reformed and purified by humans to contain only true believers). I believe such tendencies color many if not all modern attempts to “reform” the Church which come from outside of actual communion with those who have remained within its most ancient visible boundaries. I bless and love all those everywhere who genuinely love and seek to follow our Lord Jesus Christ. He honors faith wherever it is found. But after less than wholly satisfying attempts to piece together my own “orthodoxy” outside of the Orthodox Church with nothing but my Bible and the various Protestant interpretive traditions of my background to guide me, it is such a relief to find it all together here, whole and in its full context with riches I never anticipated (and, yes, struggles and problems, too, but of a significantly different sort). To those who aren’t sure what the Eastern Orthodox Church is, I recommend http://www.ancientfaithradio.com as a good source of information and other Orthodox links. Bless you, Trevin!
Comment by Ann — April 5, 2008 @ 12:19 am
You might enjoy a series that I am doing about this here:
http://kburchard.wordpress.com/
This was the subject of my degree thesis project. Some of my research is the foundation for the series on church structure, leadership, organic vs. organization, etc. I’d love your feedback. There are 4 posts on this thread right now. The most recent is a bit provocative.
You will probably be GREATLY challenged regarding the “Pagan Christianity” book’s conclusions by reading a critique of it by another HOUSE CHURCH GURU, Zane Anderson. Here’s his critique:
http://www.housechurch.org/blog/2008/02/18/pagan-christianity-real-hope-or-shrill-hype/
Zane is a House Church Movement leader, but he is incredibly articulate in his ability to punch holes in the prejudices that exist AGAINST organized churches in the house church ideology.
God bless you on your jorney friend,
Kenny / Hanford CA
Comment by kburchard — May 24, 2008 @ 2:08 am
Here are two really good interviews with the authors.
http://www.ptmin.org/barna_viola2.mp3 and http://www.ptmin.org/barna_viola.mp3
Comment by Don — June 14, 2008 @ 2:24 pm
Ditto to this;
I too am a child of the Stone/Campbell Reformation movement. I’m enough of a scion of that movement to recognize that Viola and Barna do not advocate “restoring the first century church”…rather, they recognize that many accepted patterns and practices have served to suffocate the Body of Christ instead of freeing her members to function within and out of the natural environment provided by the Spirit. Too many cultural practices have come to be accepted as “Biblically authorized” when in reality they are just cultural mandates that have been grafted in.
Tom
Comment by volkmar1108 — July 5, 2008 @ 4:59 pm