Pagan Christianity?: Exploring the Roots of Our Church Practices | 
|  | | | Title: | Pagan Christianity?: Exploring the Roots of Our Church Practices | | Author: | Frank Viola
George Barna | | Publisher: | BarnaBooks | | Type: | Book / Hardcover | | Publication Date: | January, 2008 | | ISBN / ISBN-13: | 141431485X / 9781414314853 | | List Price: | $17.99 | | You Save: | $5.76 | | Amazon Price: | $12.23 | |
 This book is also available, brand-new, from 3rd-party marketplace sellers at Amazon.com, from $11.10. |
The HTML code below can be pasted onto your web-site, your MySpace page, or blog - or any number of similar places - to create a link to this page: If, instead of a text link, you'd like to create a link to this page which will display the book cover, if it's available, then the code below will do exactly that:
Check for the same book at these other US book sites:
• [ Abebooks ] • [ Alibris ] • [ Barnes & Noble ] • [ Half.com ] • [ Powells ] … or check UK bookstores
| Editorial Review / Publisher's Information:
Product Description
Have you ever wondered why we Christians do what we do for church every Sunday morning? Why do we "dress up" for church? Why does the pastor preach a sermon each week? Why do we have pews, steeples, choirs, and seminaries? This volume reveals the startling truth: most of what Christians do in present-day churches is not rooted in the New Testament, but in pagan culture and rituals developed long after the death of the apostles. Coauthors Frank Viola and George Barna support their thesis with compelling historical evidence in the first-ever book to document the full story of modern Christian church practices.
| Other Items You May Enjoy:
Browse Books From These Related Subjects:
Customer Reviews:
• Typically American 17 July, 2008
The phenomenon of restorationism (a church body asserting its intentions to recreate the New Testament Church) is not a new one to American Evangelicalism. Generally initiated by those who have little or no understanding of the culture, history, and religious practices of those they wish to emulate, the temptation of a do-it-yourself ecclesiology (with the New Testament as their alleged guide) is irresistible for those feeling alienated by existing church practices.
The telltale signature of restorationist movements is to proclaim existing ecclesial structures to be hopelessly out of step with true Christianity. After all, if the Church needs to be restored, then one would assume something had gone terribly wrong else the entire project of restoration would be a colossal waste of time. Unlike reform movements, whose primary motivation is to pressure the existing Church to renew itself from within, the strategy for restorationists is to wipe the slate clean and imagine the Church could be restarted anew. The inevitable result is the affirmation of their own personal beliefs and practices covered by the authority of eisegetic interpretations of Scriptural passages devoid of any context apart from their own.
The latest installment of this characteristically American enterprise is now enshrined in Frank Viola and George Barna's Pagan Christianity?. Seeking to justify their own peculiarly postmodern American manifestation of what they believe to be "New Testament Christianity", they combine their own prejudices with such a staggering display of historical ignorance, that any informed reader is left shaking their heads at their garbled understanding of the Church's past. In their attacks on anything that smells of structure or authority, one can detect a sense of glee as they engage in their ill-informed attempts at iconoclasm.
Of course, the church that "emerges" from their deconstruction is remarkably like the sort of thing that would be hatched in the mind of a postmodern American with a disdain for hierarchy, tradition, and anything that might have been considered to be of enduring value prior to their own personal conversion. Their "analysis" is a mishmash of outdated secondary sources, out-of-context quotations, unsupported hypotheses, and personal prejudices amalgamated into an "any stick will do" style attack on historical Christianity. Even worse, on those occasions where legitimate experts on the field are cited (i.e., Dom Gregory Dix, Paul F. Bradshaw, Alexander Schmeman) their views are taken so out of context as to have them seemingly ally with the authors when in fact their views are quite the opposite.
Like other revisionists on both the left and right of the ecclesial spectrum, there is an overt removal of the New Testament Church from both the context of the Jewish practice that preceded it and the ecclesial practice that followed it. Once the Church is decontextualized, the inferred meanings of the texts of the New Testament are removed and new meanings assigned. In this sense, restorationists are best seen as sharing the deconstructionist methodology common to many postmodern revisionist thinkers.
Viola and Barna begin their argument with an assault on church buildings. Their concern is not any particular problem with architectural style or the lavishness of furnishings but over the very idea of buildings being used for the specialized purpose of Christian gatherings. While the reason given for this aversion to architectural utility is passages in the New Testament that state the early Christians met in each others homes, the hidden reason is likely that one of the authors has been involved for two decades in the "house church" movement and seems to have made an idol out of a situation that grew out of necessity, was not intended as representative of a command, and was not in fact even followed strictly at the time.
The fact is that the Book of Acts clearly state that the early Christians continued to worship in the Temple and the synagogues and largely carried on the established practices of Judaism. It is only where it came to the specifically Christian cultic practices among that they retreated to their homes - the only place available for them to freely express their faith in Christ - but there is no indication that it was ever intended as normative.
They go on in rapid fire succession to rattle off a series of complaints against church buildings with allegations of their history that have little or no historical support. Many things they claim were adopted from paganism were also present in the Biblical faith of the Jews that God commanded. It never occurs to the authors the same church they accuse of importing paganism is the one that was laying down its lives in martyrdom for its refusal to compromise with paganism.
Their claim that there were no special places of worship prior to Constantine also does not stand up to careful scrutiny. Yes, they often met in houses, but these "houses" were often the villas of wealthy members of the Church. It was common for expensive homes in the Roman era to have special rooms set aside for cultic purposes and these served as places of worship for the local Christian community. There were also theological schools in places like Alexandria and Antioch that developed (a point the authors acknowledge) and these likely also had places of worship associated with them. There have been numerous archaeological finds that have discovered pre-Constantinian Christian worship spaces that were obviously set apart for that purpose. The reason for having few specifically constructed church buildings was simply that Christianity was for much of the first few centuries a persecuted religion In times of severe persecution, the Christians often had to meet in total secrecy and places like the Catacombs in Rome and other secluded spots were employed. Once the persecution ended, such restrictions were abandoned. The authors make much of the grandeur of the basilicas built by Constantine, but fail to mention such notable places were pilgrimage sites and hardly the norm. In most of the Roman Empire, local churches would continue to be rather humble affairs.
The authors' biases are again on display as they go as far in their tirades as to claim Jesus had a negative view of the Temple. Forgetting that the construction of both Jewish temples were ordained by God, they completely distort the obvious meaning of the passage - a negative view of the Jewish authorities - and transfer the negative view to the Temple itself. Jesus referred to the Temple as His Father's House - it contained the very presence of God in the Holy of Holies - and, far from downplaying its significance, chased out the moneychangers for defiling it. The passages they do cite give Jesus' accusations against the Jewish leaders. His statements on the destruction of the Temple was not because the Temple was an evil but because they had rejected the very presence of God who stood before them.
The authors continually make the point that Jesus overthrew the existing Jewish structure and replaced it with a non-hierarchal, non-liturgical ekklesia. But the picture painted in the New Testament is entirely different. In Acts, it states the early Christians kept to the teachings of the Apostles, fellowship, the breaking of bread, and the prayers. In the context of the Judaism the early Christians practiced, there is definitely a hierarchy and liturgy implied in these words.
The "teaching of the Apostles" demonstrates that there were those in authority to teach the truths of the faith and authority implies hierarchy. This is bone out as the Apostles are sought out for all major decisions. When controversy erupted over Paul's mission to the Gentiles, the disagreement was brought before the Apostles and elders at Jerusalem who decided the issue in council. In his epistles, Paul makes a point that he too is an apostle and shares the same authority. Paul instructs Timothy to appoint elders in the churches; throughout the New Testament, the Apostles ordain others' ministries by the laying on of hands.
All of this should not be surprising - the early Christians did not live in an egalitarian society. Even before the Church, there is an implied hierarchy in the Gospels - Peter, James, and John form an inner circle among the twelve and every list of the twelve has Peter first and Judas last. Most importantly, there is a hierarchy within the triune God as the three persons relate to each other in hierarchal fashion. Thus, it is natural that Christ's body is also hierarchal and reflects an order.
The passages cited for their position have nothing to do with the structure of the Church. For example, they cite the worldly desires of some of the twelve who attempt political maneuvers and are rebuked - but the rebuke states nothing about the existence of hierarchy but only their worldly desires. It is quite clear that the authors have long ago came to their conclusions and now are "proof-texting" their answers with passages that have no real bearing on the subject.
The liturgical dimension of the early Christians can be seen in the phrases "the prayers" and "the breaking of bread". The prayers refer to the normal liturgical prayers of observant Jews but now given a Christian emphasis. These would develop over time into the Christian prayers of the divine office. The breaking of bread refers to the communion meal and was thought to reveal Christ to the believers (see the allusions to this in the story of the Road to Emmaus in Acts). The breaking of bread at a meal had long been a liturgical act at Jewish meals similar to our own praying grace. The Holy Communion was ordained by Christ as part of a liturgical meal celebrated by a people for whom the consumption of food followed liturgical rules. Considering that all Christian were at that point observant Jews (else the Council of Acts 15 would have been unnecessary), the thought they were somehow non-hierarchal or non-liturgical is merely an anachronistic application of postmodern American ideals on first century Near Eastern people.
Turning to the evolution of modern Protestant worship, Viola and Barna continue their pattern of misguided historical analysis. First, they infer the source of the Protestant worship was the medieval mass promulgated by Gregory the Great. Here they ignore that the Gregorian Mass was an amalgamation of elements from existing Roman and Franco-Germanic liturgies and these followed the basic pattern of liturgy outlined by earlier writers such as Hippolytus and Justin Martyr and going back to the Didache at the turn of the first century. The Didache itself follows a pattern taking elements of Jewish practice that date back to the Second Temple period. This is further verified by the practices within the Byzantine Churches whose liturgy developed separately but still maintained the early structure indicated by the early Christians. Even the Church of the East, stretching from Persia to China, followed a similar pattern in its own unique liturgy despite being essentially cut off from contact with the Roman Church.
The liturgical developments within Protestantism were, not surprisingly, a mixed bag - some good (the reintroduction of preaching to a key role) and some bad (the anti-sacramental nature of much of its worship) just as the developments in the medieval West had also been much of a mixed bag. Unfortunately, many of the liturgical reforms introduced by American Protestantism is far more reflective of American culture than the practice of the early Christians. Viola and Barna's project, like other restorationist attempts, always end up telling us far more about the participants than the early Church.
Yet it is not just the most formal elements of Christian worship that the authors wish to abandon - even so basic and obvious a part of the service as the sermon is found wanting. Here the authors blame it on rhetoricians and philosophers - an assertion so absurd that it would be funny were it not the fact that the naive will take this drivel seriously. Yes, philosophers and rhetoricians often spoke at length about topics - but so did rabbis and those in authority in any endeavor. The Apostles would preach in the synagogues or in public squares where they could communicate the Good News. They also would speak at length in specifically Christian gatherings where they could teach the truths of the faith to the Church. The authors credit Augustine and Chrysostom with making pulpit oratory part of the faith - and they certainly were wonderful preachers - but fail to mention the many great sermons (available in any collection of the ante-Nicene Church Fathers) of those who preceded them. They fail to accept that God can make use of the gifts He has bestowed that are offered to His service in love. Yes, the original twelve were largely a rather unsavory group but God had no problem making use of the obvious gifts of Paul and Luke who were clearly of a far different social strata.
As low as their opinions are of sermons, the authors think even worse of those who give them - particularly the authority attached to them. They ridiculously claim that there were no "official offices" with slots to fill, yet among the first things they did was choose a successor to replace the position of Judas in the twelve and even gave criteria for their nomination. The emergence of the office of bishop was, contrary to their claims, quite natural. As local church's reached points of self-sufficiency, they no longer needed to rely upon the evangelists or the church that had sponsored them. We see first the Church in Jerusalem having such leadership under James the Just and then both Antioch and Smyrna following under Ignatius and Polycarp. As more churches became established, the practice of episcopal leadership spread.
As mentioned earlier, the early Church had all their leadership ordained by the Apostles. We see this most clearly in Acts and in the letters of Paul. The imposition of hands was a long established practice within most cultures of the time in conferring leadership and this certainly was not lost on the early Christians. Unfortunately, this does not tickle the ears of today's trendy egalitarians and they need go to great lengths to try to make square pegs fit in round holes.
After some rather immature tirades against clerical garb and music ministries, the authors then turn their attention to the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper. Their obvious biases show by claiming the early Church practiced believers' baptism. There is in fact no evidence of this - baptism was a long standing ritual practice in Judaism (John the Baptist did not invent it) and there were no such restrictions. There are passages in the New Testament where converts' entire families were baptized (presumably including small children) and Paul makes a connection between baptism and circumcision. The sacrament was the entry into the New Covenant with Christ and was open to believers and their children.
Since the early Church was growing primarily through conversion, it is natural that most early baptisms would be of adults. But you simply never hear of the children of early Christians baptized after some peculiarly American version of "being saved." They all claim to be Christians from their childhood. The only period where there was hesitation was due to some believing wrongly that there were great obstacles to salvation if they fell from the faith after being baptized and hence delayed it until close to death but this practice would be condemned.
The Lord's Supper/Communion/Eucharist was an outgrowth of Jesus' liturgical act on the night of His betrayal. The authors make much of the separation of the bread and cup from a full meal as menttioned in I Corinthians but fail to mention that Paul condemns them for their practices and replies with instructions that describe only the bread and cup. They consider the possibility that the separation was done to end abuses but then conclude it was incipient paganism. Their evidence for this: nothing. They just assume a twisted reading of the facts that concludes Christians who were willingly dying for Christ couldn't wait to be pagans. It is almost shocking to read the sheer arrogance of these two pseudohistorians who obviously not encountered the writings of the patristic Church firsthand but rely upon the inaccuracies of anti-Christian writers like Will Durant.
The reasons for later developments are quite clear if one uses the original sources and a little common sense. First of all, only the bread and cup are essential. Nothing else is mentioned in any account of the Last Supper. Then there is the implied connection with between the bread and cup and the Passover lamb. They also came to realize the connection in Hebrews as the central ritual of the priestly order of Melchizadek (a type of Christ who offered up a meal of bread and wine). The Church saw this was no mere dinner but that their sacrifice of bread and wine was being united to Christ's sacrifice on the Cross and that he was "revealed in the breaking of bread".
Of course all of this formal understanding and deep thinking about God's Holy Word is a bad idea and the authors proceed to list their complaints against every center of theological training in Church history from the great theological schools in Alexandria and Antioch to the monasteries to the medieval universities to their Protestant counterparts to the seminaries to the little Bible College down the road. Apparently, the Church would have been better off without them even though they preserved the Scriptures and kept alive the remains of Christian culture during times of great social upheaval.
Oddly enough, after giving us chapter upon chapter of some of the most horrid proof-texting ever put to print, the authors then complain about proof-texting! They also at the end introduce the idea that house churches are not always a good idea and some instruction is needed to lead them. But wait - doesn't such assistance imply something like the sort of stuff given in seminaries and doesn't the idea that some people are needed to train others institute a de facto hierarchy? Oh, and in case you are wondering where all this wonderful training is brought down to a practical level and who will be the trainers - you can get it in one of the authors' other books. One immediately is reminded of what Orwell wrote in Animal Farm: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
It will be interesting to see what the future holds for the house church movement. Now that so much of the patristic Church is assigned to pagan beliefs, I suspect that the formulations of faith hashed out beginning at Nicea will be called into question. One can expect to see the house churches wrestling with the same heresies the patristic Church faced as new leaders decide the early Church actually believed something else entirely. The refashioning of old heresies in new wineskins is yet another characteristic of restorationist movements.
The sort of nonsense we see in Pagan Christianity is nothing new. Hosts of restorationist movements in the past have mounted similar endeavors - each from their own uninformed perspective. While they all had their unique complaints, all had in common the elevation of American ideals to the level of divine command. For them as well as for Viola and Barna, even this error pales in comparison to their belief that their efforts are unique, revolutionary and important. How typically American!
- Reviewed by customer ID: A2E2PA6UNK1E05
• Worth Mulling Over For Those Willing To Be Changed 17 July, 2008
If the title or contents of Pagan Christianity? provoked or offended you, than it's purpose was half accomplished. While far from inflammatory, it's writing style can come off as melodramatic and over-the-top. This is deliberate. Frank Viola and George Barna have concerns over many modern and traditional church practices, and they want you to take the concerns seriously as they discuss the benefits and hindrances of everything from church buildings and paid staff, to sermons and tithing, to methods of worship, baptism and communion. Steeped as we are, however, in the traditions as given us, a firm shake may be needed for us to realize the questions actually need answering.
This book goes to great lengths to show that each aspect of the Christian religion covered is without sound Scriptural basis, at least in it's most common forms found today. The intent is not to utterly these elements and practices from present Christianity, but rather for individual Christians to read the book, and come to terms whether, for example, the sermon as it has come to us adds or detracts from the faith, without conflating it with a perceived spiritual mandate.
A valid concern is that this book is too focused on the early church (first century or two after Christ) and on house churches that retain the open and egalitarian nature of the early church. Again, while this is definitely looked toward with preference against much of the accumulated traditions that have arisen since, there is also the understanding that we are not to merely mimic the early church.
"Therefore, adhering to the principles of the New Testament does not mean reenacting the events of of the first-century church."
Finally, a call is made for discernment. Even today we bring our own culture's perspective, assumptions and worldview to the faith.
"But in the light of tradition we need to sort out those cultural influences that contribute to the integrity of Christian worship from those that detract from it."
The intent of the book is to pose the questions, to knock the reader upside the head firmly enough that they have to consider where and how to balance themselves.
In addition, the book is brief in many of it's historical explorations, but the research has been done. For those interested in a deeper read, the footnotes in the back of the book can launch a broad and deep journey into the bowels of church history.
Full review & discussion at the Jesus Manifesto webzine.
- Reviewed by customer ID: ASX4M14UWONHR
• Pagan Christianity: Exploring The Roots Of Our Church Practices 21 July, 2008
The book's theme is that today's church government, forms of worship and practice have been taken from the pagan world rather than from the church as it is portrayed in the New Testament. When New Nestament Christians worshipped in the informal setting of a house and without professional clergy each person had an opportunity to use his or her spiritual gifts. The book has left me dissatisfied with current church practice, but I am wondering how today's church can recapture the New Testament church.
- Reviewed by customer ID: AL56EQY9WNPAD
• Amazing Journey 19 July, 2008
Upon the advice of a friend, who knew the desire in my heart to find like-hearted worship with others, I got this book and inhaled it! I couldn't stop reading . . .
You see, I grew up SDA. Surrounded and soaked in the traditions of the church and the institutions and thoughts thereof. Though I knew God on the heart level and lived outside of the box as much as I could --- I knew little life outside of those traditions and theories. I wasn't a back row sitter in the SDA church. I was raised going to church every Sabbath at 9 am. I was schooled my whole life in church school - through college. I worked at the church's summer camp throughout my 20's, I went to VBS, I was counselor at Bible Outdoor School, I taught and directed the local kids Sabbath School for years, I did oversee missions and local missions, I was a worship-leader, I even spoke from the pulpit many times. I put together programs and implemented them. I went to the wall for defense of the 'church.' Until . . . . God called me out.
At 35 my marriage was on the rocks. The Spirit lead my husband to a Wild at Heart Boot Camp put on by the Ransomed Heart Ministry team in CO and was awakened and transformed. After 35 years in the 'church' we'd never seen transformation like that. I was so blown away by his transformation and the non-existant permanent transformation of people inside the church that we were forced to take a large step bacd. We stopped going to church because when we did go -- we couldn't stomach it. It all seemed so wrong. We saw the foolishness of the traditions, the half-truths that were being preached, the posing and posturing of people during that 2 hours, and the stage-like performance of the pastor vs audience. I wanted to scream. I did and then we left. Originally we stopped going out of the shock of realizing that we'd been apart of something that claimed to change peoples lives -- but didn't. Then, it turned into more . . . .
During the next 4 years God walked us into throwing out everything we once knew. We saw the bigger picture of what the modern 'church' was doing to people and telling people and the half-truths that exist there -- we were convinced that the way they were worshiping and what they were preaching was so very misleading! Of course, we knew that God may still work within the brokenness of the institutionalized church, but we wanted more of the original. Yet, had no way of finding it. We thought we were all alone. We continued to walk with God -- journeying as a family into amazing truths re-discovered and re-claimed as He brought them back to us.
We were moved to write books, create online redemptive communities, host like-hearts at our home, put on Freedom Events at the local grange hall, in the mountains, at coffee shops -- we tried many things to find others searching for what we were searching for. Hungry for what we were hungry for. Walking with God lead me to buy many books on Amazon from authors like Greg Boyd, John Eldredge, CS Lewis and then I would see your book. I tried to order the older version of "Pagan Christianity." But it was never available when I went there. It was either not the right time, or something was set against me getting it.
God continued to journey us.
Then, my like-hearted warrior friend called me from the East Coast and said, "You've got to read this book, "Pagan Christianity." I did. I inhaled it. I cried. This book confirmed for me, with logics and statistics and history, what my heart already knew. God was already walking us away from the legalized, systematized, institutionalized and programitized way of worshiping. Away from the counterfeit. And all I wanted was to find the Church. The Church that Barna and Viola speak of in their book. All of a sudden, though we didn't have a local fellowship, I felt like I wasn't alone. Someone put into writing what I knew to be true and the why's! And now when I tell my 'church' friends about my walk and mention this book -- all I have to do is mention the authors and my friends actually take notice for they've heard of Barna from the pulpit!
After reading the book and after journeying through the concept of spiritual alliances, I decided to severe my spiritual alliance with the SDA church (that took 6 months -- they didn't want to let go!). I was convinced, after reading this book, that I wanted to be aligned with the True Church. The Bride who is gathering in the First Century tradition. People who walk with God in the New Testament Tradition -- the dream of Jesus. I am done aligning myself with a man-made institution. An angel stands at the entrance to those places and warns, "Jesus has left the building!" to all those who have eyes to see.
Now, I look forward to finding the Church to fellowship with in New Testament, early Celtic Christian style-- living in community organically, worshiping in that dynamic flow that Viola and Barna talk about. I have met a few like-hearts and have networked with them across the country but am needing to find worship where I live. That, my friend, Frank Viola, is harder than it seems for many of us. I appreciate your effort to connect us, but so far nothing for North Idaho. I know that there are not many. The path is narrow. There are few that find it. There are few with eyes to see. But I thank you my friend, for having the guts and the walk with God that cumulated in a book that helps us mystics out with the history and proof that help us jump away from the fire into the arms of God and His Bride. God has and will continue to use your book and your heart to call people out to the 'real.'
Your walk is confirmed by my walk prior to ever reading your book. The Spirit is moving. The Trinity is moving. Aslan is on the move. We are at the End of the Age. I do crave fellowship with the Church---I pray it happens more constantly for this little family in Idaho.
www.landofiona.com
- Reviewed by customer ID: A22JP2VREKRO7K
• The Pieces Finally Fit 20 July, 2008
I recently read this book. I grew up in a Christian church and was taught the whole ball of wax. (Go to church three or more times per week, tithe 10%, etc., etc.) As I grew older, matured, studied more about Chrisianity and our role in God's kingdom, things just didn't seem to "fit". It seemed like the church's teaching didn't fit exactly with what the Bible teaches. Your book FINALLY put the pieces together. What a burden of guilt has been lifted from my shoulders! I can now see the big picture! We WERE on the right track! The verse: "the Truth shall set you free" has so much meaning now. WE are the church!
Thank you so much for writing a book that needed to be written. Our purpose (as Christians) is so much clearer now.
- Reviewed by customer ID: A77V9B218A6WM
|
