[rating:1]
(United States: Tyndale House Publishers, 2002, 2008.)
293 pgs
This book has been out for a couple of years now and so is not a new release. Nevertheless, due to its nature, I thought it might be good to review for the SLN. It is written to disturb people and it undoubtedly will. Frank Viola is the primary author, in partnership with George Barna. In a nutshell, the authors assert that practically everything the current church does is unbiblical and drawn from paganism, hence the title, “Pagan Christianity.”
This is not a new theme for Barna. In his book, Revolution, he wrote a scathing assault on the modern church and all but suggested that it be abandoned for a new form of church that he claimed was emerging. Viola backs up this effort with a sweeping study of every major practice in the church to repeatedly demonstrate that the practices so cherished by the modern church are nowhere to be found in the book of Acts.
You know that a book is going to transgress sacred beliefs when the publisher (Tyndale) actually includes a note at the beginning explaining why they agreed to publish a book that appears so condemnatory of the existing church.
Rather than evaluate this book page by page, I will focus on its key points and comment on the approach. It would take too much space to evaluate every argument put forth in the 293-page book.
First, it is helpful to critique current church practices. Much of what current churches do is unbiblical. So, I was intrigued with the title of this book and the approach it seemed to take. There are three general comments I would make at the outset of this review:
First, this critique is too sweeping. They argue: “”By contrast, a great number of the practices in many contemporary churches are in conflict with those biblical principles and teachings. When we dig deeper, we are compelled to ask: Where did the practices of the contemporary church come from? The answer is disturbing: Most of them were borrowed from pagan culture” (xix). Few would argue that worldly practices have crept into the church at various points. Yet the broad sweep that the authors argue that practically everything the church does is pagan, begins to seem like a stretch as the reader progresses through the material. Critiquing such things as the sermon as pagan, or churches being planted by people other than itinerant apostle-like leaders begins to sound like someone who is intent on thoroughly debunking the church with no stone left unturned.
Second, I am not familiar with Viola but one of the problems with Barna has been that he is neither a theologian nor a church historian. I suspect Viola isn’t either. Though they attempt to provide a wide-sweeping review of history, their footnotes reflect a heavy use of secondary sources. Likewise, the same sources are repeatedly cited. Clearly they have been influenced by a handful of radical writers and are now trumpeting their viewpoints. Despite the impressive looking footnotes at the bottom of the pages, closer examination leaves one with the impression that the writers have been unduly influenced by a couple of writers.
Third, after rejecting the existing church, the authors promote their own version entitled, “organic church.” They define this as: “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 non-hierarchical leadership)” (xix). The authors have a distinct vision of what the true church is like. It meets in homes and has no local leadership. They seem to feel that unless every person is actively speaking up in some way in the worship times, it is unbliblical. The authors do mention a couple of examples of attending such churches (though it does not appear that they promote such churches of which they are active members themselves), but they never mention a specific congregation. It comes across as extremely weak argumentation to criticize most existing churches and then to talk in vague terms of unnamed churches that get it right, as if the authors are protecting themselves from having their claims verified. The authors’ solution is a little too convenient. We have these idealized congregations described to us without any way of checking them out or visiting them. For people who have felt free to fire their broadsides at every church in their sites, it seems a little too easy to hide their own churches in a shroud of secrecy.
The following are a few statements I would challenge or question:
The authors begin by describing a fictional family that argues on the way to church and feels hypocritical dressing up to go to church on Sunday (3). The problem, it would seem, as they describe it, is not the nature of the church but the nature of people. The authors make it sound like people are bored and hypocritical attending traditional church but they would not feel that way if they participated in an organic church. They describe a family that argued on the way to church and now their spirits are not right as they sit in the service. Yet of course, it is naïve to suggest that people would not attend an organic church with improper motives or that people would not argue on the way to attend an organic church meeting. The primary issue is peoples’ hearts, not church structure. Of course we should be on the alert to do things as biblically as possible, but it is naïve to think the answer is structure.
I have participated in numerous church services where the Spirit of God worked powerfully and peoples’ lives were dramatically changed. To suggest that for the last 1600 years the church has been functioning incorrectly is to cause one to wonder how there are any genuine Christians in existence today. It makes me wonder what churches the authors have attended.
The authors claim that meeting in houses was a conscious choice of early Christians (15). This is clearly a stretch. The reason the early Christians met in homes was because their movement was persecuted and at times illegal. They were also generally drawn from the lower classes where money was sparse. To erect a building in the first century Roman Empire would have made it easy for officials to round up Christians for the local entertainment at the coliseum. As soon as Christianity was made legal, Christian churches began springing up everywhere.
The authors claim that early Christians avoided all contact with paganism (26). Clearly this is false. The first century world would not have been turned upside down if they had.
The authors argue that pews leave people as “mute spectators” (36). Certainly there are those who sit passively in church (in all churches). But pews were installed originally not to pacify the audience but so people could sit! There were elderly people in attendance. Certainly making church more comfortable is not clear evidence of introducing paganism into the church. Likewise, I am not sure which churches the authors have been participating in but pews are definitely on the way out in the majority of churches. The authors also argue that candles were introduced into the church from paganism (37). This seems to be a bit alarmist.
One of the chief concerns expressed is toward the sermon and the fact that the arrangement of pews forces people to look at the preacher rather than to each other. The authors suggest that people should be looking to Christ, the Head of the church, rather than to the preacher. Yet they equate looking at each other as looking to Christ. Anyone who has ever been distracted in church knows that it is far easier to be distracted when you are looking directly at other members versus looking to the front of the auditorium where the cross or other religious symbols are located.
The authors suggest that over 230 billion dollars of church assets are invested in church property that is generally used a few hours a week (41). Certainly this is a valid, though not a novel, comment. The authors go on to say there is not a “shred” of evidence in Scripture for church buildings (42). One problem is that the authors assume that everything in the Old Testament was cast aside once Christ came. The fact that Jesus regularly taught in the synagogues or that Paul made wide use of them seems unimportant. Synagogues could be founded any time there were ten Jewish men. This would have been the size of some homes. This was a place of teaching and regular meeting. While clearly the Church took on new forms, much of what was of value, such as regularly meeting for worship and instruction, continues to be important for Christians today.
The authors allege that the current Protestant order of worship comes largely from paganism (55). They also claim that the Puritans believed that the sermon was the primary way God spoke to people (62). Again, this seems a stretch. The Puritans upheld Scripture. What they did hold to was the biblical injunction of exhortation. Certainly the sermon is a powerful tool for encouraging people to obey what God told them in His word.
The authors charge much of public prayers with utilizing archaic King James English. This may have been true a generation ago, but again, such comments makes me wonder what churches the authors have been visiting lately. The authors state that the frontier revivalists focused exclusively on evangelism (65). Again, this shows a shallow knowledge of church history. The great revivals at Cane Ridge and frontier Kentucky occurred when itinerant preachers were preparing the people on the frontier to take communion. Their messages were on consecration for people presumably Christian who needed to prepare themselves before taking communion.
The authors also argue that many people in the church today are driven by pragmatism (67). They explain pragmatism as using whatever works “regardless of ethical considerations.” Clearly this is an exaggeration. Pragmatism in the church is often done without careful consideration of whether the behavior is biblical, but generally church leaders do not flippantly discard ethics just to build their numbers.
The authors claim that D.L. Moody was solely concerned with peoples’ conversion (70). Again, this is an exaggeration and demonstrates a weak knowledge of Moody. He was indeed the premier evangelist of his day, but even a cursory look at his life demonstrates a heart for more than evangelism. The authors also suggest that the first century Christians were not focused on reaching their world in their generation (71). This particular point seems a bit strange, especially in light of both how rapidly the church spread in the first century as well as the degree to which early Christians were willing to suffer to spread the Gospel.
The authors claim that Protestantism is highly individualistic and subjective (73). Interestingly their alternative is house churches where people simply begin sharing whatever song, or prayer, or poem, or thought comes into their mind. Perhaps one of the authors’ biggest complaints is that they believe verses such as 1 Corinthians 14:29 direct Christians to participate interactively in worship services (88). They suggest there should not be traditional sermons in services but rather, people should share what Christ puts in their heart and people should feel free to interrupt or ask questions. They argue that when people are not allowed to “preach” in traditional services, they are treated like “second class” members (98). They argue that Scripture exhorts each member to exercise their gifts and if they do not do so in the worship service, the church is not properly functioning. The truth is that not all of the gifts of the Spirit are public speaking gifts. People may have the gift of service or mercy and never speak a word in a public gathering. Yet they could be fully exercising their gifts. It is simply erroneous to think that every person must speak in a public worship gathering if the church is to function properly.
The authors debunk numerous other church practices such as ordination (123), paid clergy, and dressing up to go to church (148). That is an interesting one. In the authors’ eyes, dressing up to go to church is an effort to appear or to be “good” in the eyes of God (149-150). They completely neglect the reality that we, as creatures, are drawing near to worship our Creator. Surely there is room for preparing ourselves for such an encounter! Too often the authors suggest a church practice and create a straw man with particular motives only to deride those motives. This is not strong argument.
The authors also condemn the practice of tithing (171). They find an interesting antecedent back to feudal land leasing as the genesis of the church’s practice (177). Often, in such arguments, the authors’ footnotes suggest a strong dependency on limited and biased sources. Interestingly, the authors even condemn asking people to pray the sinner’s prayer (189). They believe that baptism was supposed to be the public confession of conversion. Yet is seems confusing how praying to repent of your sins and to be converted can be bypassed in favor of baptism. One would seem to lead to the next.
The authors also reject Sunday School, youth ministers, developing programs for teenagers apart from adults. They also argue that only itinerant church planters are biblically sanctioned to start churches. Finally, and almost comically, Viola argues that for 2,000 years Christian readers have been unable to understand the New Testament because they do not understand the order it was written or the context (239). Then he declares that finally it is possible due to recent studies. Then he footnotes a book he wrote himself! At this point in the book, the reader may well suspect that the authors believe that after 2000 years of the Church, Christianity has been blessed to have two wise Christians who have finally deciphered the Scriptures and now see how the Church is supposed to be run.
I began this book, curious at what these authors noticed in the modern church. I am not overly sensitive to those who critique the church. I am fully aware of many of its problems. But I have had a problem with George Barna ever since he wrote about “revolutionaries” who have rejected the traditional church. He writes as a sociologist with limited theological or biblical training. Viola attempted to conduct a thorough study of Church History but it becomes clear that he has a rather superficial knowledge of it as well.
I think this book simply goes too far. It certainly touches on issues where the church needs to be revived. Yet discounting everything the church does is too sweeping. Their solution is also dissatisfying. It may be one way to do church, but to suggest that it is the only way to do church is presumptuous. I think the authors touch on some areas that invite further investigation, but to charge so many church practices to paganism is too radical. I don’t recommend this book. It misrepresents history and Scripture and may be more confusing than helpful.