01.03.08
Pagan Christianity
I’ve enjoyed some of the work of Frank Viola, but there have been times when I have found his analysis too “thin.” Darryl Dashhouse ongoing review of his new book in collaboration with George Barna is confirming my suspicion. Part One of Darryl’s review is HERE.
Darryl sums up the theses:
- 1) The origin of many of our church practices (examples: church buildings, orders of worship, sermons, pastors, tithing, clergy salaries) is non-biblical, and these practices are inconsistent with those 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.
- 2) 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.
- 3) “The church in its contemporary, institutional form neither has a biblical nor a historical right to exist.” (p. xx)
- 4) 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.
Darryl’s second post sums up the arguments that defend point two above. (And Joe Thorn has also begun 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 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.
Darryl asks, “Is it possible for institutional models to be redeemed? Viola and Barna say no. I’m not so sure.”
Darryl prefers the questions they offer. Granted that the implications of applying these changes might mean complete subversion of existing models..
- 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?
Darryl also quotes Boars Head Tavern, who posted a note 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.
This begins to sound like a discussion of structures, or the relationship between form and freedom. That kind of distinction might change our way of viewing this particular set of issues. It also begs our definition of church: it must somehow involve place and covenant, but it has little to do with buildings. No room for that discussion here.
In the end, I suspect that the flaw of their critique with regard to point “3″ is an insufficient description of culture and what constitutes accommodation versus appropriate contextualization. In other words, their description and critique is too thin and thus their semiotics is likewise thin. I’m thinking in particular of Kevin Vanhoozers work in this area and his book Everyday Theology.
But kudos for engaging this conversation, I’m sure it will generate plenty of response.
Jeanette said,
January 7, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Frank Viola is interacting with those who have questions and objections to the book at http://www.ptmin.org/pcobjections.htm
Jon Zens said,
January 9, 2008 at 1:42 pm
I have been the editor of Searching Together (formerly called Baptist Reformation Review) for 30 years. I’m one of those who has endorsed Frank and George’s book PAGAN CHRISTIANITY along with Howard Snyder, Robert Banks, Graydon Snyder, David Norrington, and other respected historians and professors.
I graduated from Westminster Seminary in 1972, and completed a D.Min. in 1983. I was a pastor for a number of years. I left the clergy system precisely because of the very things Frank and George unfold in the book. It’s very hard to dispute the historical facts, if one is intellectually honest with them.
As a former pastor, I can tell you this: if I had read this book in 1976, I would have reacted defensively just as some on certain Blogs have. I may not have done what the authors continue to exhort me to do in the book … spend time before the face of God and weigh the message of the book against church history, scripture, my conscience and my spiritual instincts.
Speaking as a former pastor myself, you can’t imagine how much of our egos and our identities are wrapped up with our position and our service. And you can’t imagine how very insecure we are as people. Having our positions threatened, no matter by whom or how, is something we may not handle too well. The exception is if we are broken people, and God has done a deep work in our spirits. If that hasn’t happened, we will tend to speak out of vested interests.
My advice to all of you — read the book for yourself. Weigh its arguments yourself. Bring the issues to the Lord yourself and in your local community, together. At the very least, go to http://www.ptmin.org/pcobjections.htm and take a look at Frank’s even-handed responses. He’s recently given examples of so called “overstatements” made by respected theologians like Karl Barth, James D.G. Dunn, Howard Snyder, Emil Brunner and others. The point he makes is striking and well-taken.
Don’t be tricked into believing that the book is as sloppy, nonsensical, irrational, inaccurate and incompetent as some have made it out to be. If it was, do you really think that scholars such as myself, Robert Banks, Howard Snyder, and others would have endorsed it? And I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss George Barna, as he does happen to be the most quoted Christian leader of our time. That doesn’t happen if a person is totally incompetent, sloppy, and irrational. In the past few years his understanding of “church” has changed dramatically.
This book is not going to go away. The arguments aren’t going to disappear. Read it, weigh it against the historical evidence provided, and most importantly, bring it to the Lord before you react.
Some who are highly critical of PC read a review copy sent out by Tyndale. When they received the review copy, as I did, the publicist let you know that Frank was available for a debate/dialogue/interview on your blog or web site. I find it telling that many of those who have written harsh, lopsided reviews have refused to take advantage of taking Frank on in a debate/discussion on their forums.
It’s so much easier to trash a book out of hand than to actually have a dialogue with the person with whom you disagree. It is imperative to be sure we understand another’s position, in order to fairly represent it to others. Thomas Dubay offers some pointed wisdom in this regard:
“Initially we should concentrate on understanding why the speaker is saying this, on exploring his mind . . . . When a person refers to a position he does not share, he should make a conscious effort to represent that opinion fairly . . . . Much of our disagreeing is due to an unconscious caricaturing of the other view . . . . One listens only when he listens sympathetically, that is, honestly wanting to find whatever truth there is in what is being said . . . . We need to learn to love the truth, even the painful truth, the truth that runs counter to our emotional preferences and vanity . . . . One listens wholly only if he is willing to modify his present position if the evidence warrants it . . . . The person who will not discuss is probably either insecure and/or closed to what the possible result may be . . . . The open person reads and cites all of the evidences . . . . The acid test of openness is the seeking of evidence and the bowing to it” (from the “Appendix” in Caring: A Biblical Theology of Community, Dimension Books, 1973; published in Searching Together, 14:4, 1985)
The truth is, the book asks more questions than it answers and it’s designed to create dialogue. Frank’s availability to answer questions is clear evidence of this. Such a dialogue would be so helpful to the Body of Christ and the emerging conversation.
For those who don’t know him, Frank is well respected in emerging circles. He was recently one of the speakers at the 2007 Soularize along with many other emerging church speakers and N.T. Wright, a man whom Frank knows, loves, and respects.
Frank’s work has been endorsed by Brain McLaren (who is a good friend of his), Andrew Jones, Spencer Burke, Alan Hirsch, Dan Kimball, and others. (Hirsch wrote a positive review on the book recently and I hear rumors that Kimball and Jones will write reviews soon.)
It would be good, then, for those who are troubled with PC and are misunderstanding it, to engage directly with Frank with questions instead of hiding behind a computer screen and trashing him and his work.
For those of you who wish to read the book for yourself instead of allowing the opinions of someone else to decide what to think about it, you can get a discounted copy immediately at http://www.paganchristainity.org
I’ll end this email with two incisive comments about the book from two different blog commentators who went toe-to-toe with misleading reviews/comments:
Beginning of Quotes:
(1) “I think Viola’s greatest strength is his ability to shock us into seeing our assumptions and to drag us kicking and screaming to the precipice of honest self-examination….”
(2) “It is very important to note that the institutional church has hardly been the only thread of history in Christian expression. Throughout history, there have been pockets of believers outside the institution. The Holy Spirit has always moved outside the walls of the traditional, conventional church.
And what does history reveal about those people? That quite often, they were persecuted, tortured, and brutally murdered by the institutional church.
The ecclesiology that Viola and Barna (and others like them) are calling to the carpet has been fiercely defended to the point of silencing anyone who would dare to question it.
So, you are presenting quite a skewed view of history when you ask your questions as if no one has ever put forth what Viola and Barna are saying prior to this generation.
Even just in the last 500 years, there are many who have chosen to speak out against the church who have been silenced in the worst ways. John Hus. William Tyndale. Any number of the so-called Radical Reformers and Anabaptists. And it continues today, even though the tactics don’t necessarily include wood and fire.
In many ways, the work of Viola and Barna follows right along in the same thread of thinking as what motivated Martin Luther and the Reformers of his day to speak out against the structures they saw as hindering the priesthood of believers.
Your criticisms are probably very similar to those leveled against Luther during that time. “For 1500 years we have got it wrong? We are operating under the authority of St. Peter himself. How dare you imply that we are not honoring God?”
I may not agree with the rhetoric of Viola at times, but it would be much more interesting to see you actually interact with the substance of the book rather than the straw man that you have erected.”
End of quotes.
As is fitting for all Reformers and Revolutionaries, the sober words of Gamaliel come to mind.
“Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men . . . For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.”
Unfortunately, I don’t have the time to respond to comments here. But feel free to write me at jzens@searchingtogether.org. I’m available.
Sincerely,
Jon Zens
http://www.searchingtogether.org
len said,
January 10, 2008 at 10:07 am
Jon, I find myself in an odd position with regard to this book. I agree that there is no biblical basis for many common practices; I agree that any practices that have no clear NT basis must be carefully assessed according to biblical principles or trajectories; I am doubtful that the early church was an ideal we ought to try to recover. George writes,
While we have “great leeway in the methods we use to honor and connect with Him,†we need to “sort out those cultural influences that contribute from those that detract†in order to “determine the core principles and ethos of the early church and to restore those elements to our lives.â€
And my sense along the way is that the complexity of that sorting task is not really understood. George argues first that the 1st C Church is not normative. But then he says it is, at least in its principles and ethos (if not practices). And this word “institutionalization” begs definition, for the reasons I have been blogging about this past week. Otherwise, I fear, we set up a straw man then knock it down, which doesn’t contribute to dialogue or clarity and only creates needless division.
In this book “institutional” becomes the basis of all evil. What does that word mean? I fear we lose the nuance that is needed to contribute to genuine discernment in the broader community. If we don’t work together at the discernment, then inevitably we exchange communal discernment of what the Spirit is saying to the churches for a few strident, charismatic and convincing voices.. er, that would be George and Frank. Is that really their goal? I hope not. In some ways to me the debate behind the debate of “pagan Christianity” is “who decides what is normative and which principles reflect the New Testament ethos?” and then eventually, which modern ekklesial practices are really pissing off the Lord. And what do we do about it?
In the end, I wish this book would go away. No disrespect to Frank, George, yourself and endorsers, some of whom I know and love. I’m not convinced that polemic is all that helpful within this conversation around the gospel and culture. I would rather have careful and respectful dialogue. I fear that the approach Frank and George have taken, broad and sweeping statements.. will only create bad feelings and division.
Jon Zens said,
January 10, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Len — Thanks for your response. I can appreciate the complexities and nuances that you wrestle with — as do I.
From what you said, I’m not sure whether or not you have read the book carefully yourself. The book itself would appear to respond to some of your key concerns. Also, if you haven’t already, I’d really encourage you to give close attention to Frank’s responses to concerns about PC at http://www.ptmin.org/pcobjections.htm
Your suggestion that the early church is not an ideal to recover leads me to ask, “Should we not be concerned when some key things we view as vital for doing church are clearly at odds with apostolic traditions?”
Emil Brunner concluded in 1952 that “The organization of the church and in particular its legal administration is a compensatory measure which it becomes necessary to adopt in times and places where the plenitude of the Spirit is lacking” (The Misunderstanding of the Church, p.51). It just seems to me that Viola/Barna in Pagan Christianity have captured some important historical documentation that helps us grasp how the organic expression of ekklesia was lost for the most part, and a stifling ecclesiastical organization rose to the ascendancy.
The authors encourage dialogue and discussion. They know they haven’t spoken the last word. But it won’t do to dismiss the book as divisive, when in fact they may have done the church a great service by providing a solid historical basis for revisiting and scrutinizing the inherited ecclesiastical traditions.
Jon
len said,
January 10, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Jon, well.. solid historical basis needs some qualification. Example: chapter 3 assumes that no church community up to the time of Constantine has ever erected or met in a building that wasn’t first a home. There seems to be some evidence to the contrary… http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9950210/
Pagan Christianity Review Index | nathangann.com said,
January 13, 2008 at 7:44 pm
[...] – 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. [...]
Jon Zens said,
January 31, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Len — This 3rd or 4th century “church” find in Israel does not really challenge the points made in Pagan Christianity. It seems like you are desperately reaching for straws to somehow water down the points in PC.
Even Joe Zias at the end of the article still had serious questions about this discovery. More time will be necessary to evaluate all the facts in this case.
The fact remains that “church buildings” were a later development. By around 250AD the rise of one bishop rule had taken place, and the clergy/laity divide was well in place.
It is this tradition, as James D.G. Dunn noted, that did more to undermine the authority of Scripture than most heresies. To this day people are still infected with the idea that certain important Christian activities can’t be done without “the benefit of clergy” (William J. Bausch, The Parish of the Next Millennium, 23rd Publications, 1998, p.39). To help with the glaring shortage of Catholic priests, the bishops instituted “SWAP (Sunday Worship Without a Priest — more accurately, Sunday Eucharist Without a Priest)” (Bausch, p.49).
When are we going to wake up and see that much in institutional Christianity is dying off? Bausch observes that :”All over Europe churches are becoming shops, restuarants, and mosques. As attendance declines and numbers dwindle, what do you do withlarge cavernous churches, chapels, and monasteries that require small fortunes to keep up?” (p.62)
Pagan Christianity is uncovering somwe of the root issues that need to be faced. As off-the-wall bishop Spong proclaimed in the title of his book, “Christianity must change or die.”
Jon
Joe Miller said,
February 17, 2008 at 12:26 am
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.
Dan McGowan said,
March 1, 2008 at 9:24 pm
I keep coming back to a reoccuring thought with regards not to the book in general, but to the overall theme: “Is ‘the church’ effective?”
My answer is – no. Not in the grand scheme of things.
For two thousand years we (man) have been meeting every single week, all over the world, in many, many, many buildings even in the same city, under various denominational headings and doctrines, singing songs about God, hearing sermons about God, going to Bible classes about God, having committee meetings about God, etc. etc.
And, really, what is different?
At some point – we have to STOP LEARNING (the Bible actually speaks about this quite strongly) and START DOING! I believe this is an underlying theme in PC… though not stated directly.
The Church – as it has been set-up, programmed and practiced – is simply and bluntly INEFFECTIVE in the advancement of KINGDOM TRANSFORMATION. It continues to be a “club” in many ways, where the members voice petty, pride-filled criticisms about non-essential issues to the Kingdom.
When will it end? Ever?
Barna and Viola may not be dead-on with every thing they say. But what they say is worth reading, examing and, as scriptrue points out, TESTING.
At least they didn’t write yet ANOTHER book on LEARNING HOW to BE a disciple!
Quite refreshing!
jim said,
January 19, 2009 at 12:54 pm
I really enjoyed PC and it seemed to address a lot of the questions I had in my heart about why I was feeling so dissatisfied and disconnected in a large charismatic church. After reading the book, I started only going to a house church for a while and really enjoy the fellowship, the freedom to ask questions and be real , and the real possibility to actually get to know other believers in a deeper way. However , I have found that just because you meet in a small group or house church doesn’t necessarily mean you will have deep spirit formed relationships, especially if the people aren’t willing to be real and open with each other . Currently , I also go to a traditional charismatic church which is smaller than the one I left and have found some really freindly people ther and a great freedom in the spirit. I think you can enjoy both , they both have their pro’s and con’s.
jim said,
January 19, 2009 at 12:54 pm
I really enjoyed PC and it seemed to address a lot of the questions I had in my heart about why I was feeling so dissatisfied and disconnected in a large charismatic church. After reading the book, I started only going to a house church for a while and really enjoy the fellowship, the freedom to ask questions and be real , and the real possibility to actually get to know other believers in a deeper way. However , I have found that just because you meet in a small group or house church doesn’t necessarily mean you will have deep spirit formed relationships, especially if the people aren’t willing to be real and open with each other . Currently , I also go to a traditional charismatic church which is smaller than the one I left and have found some really freindly people ther and a great freedom in the spirit. I think you can enjoy both , they both have their pro’s and con’s.