Thread: Pagan Christianity

Yet another MOVEMENT or so it seems. Does anyone have any insight into this book by Frank Viola and George Barna "Pagan Christianity". I am going to read it for the sake of being able to dialogue with my friend who suggested I read it. But is this book "PAGAN" or are they making some valid points about the Hierarchy of the church their view that it is way off compared to the early church leadership structure.

Any insights?




Pagan Christianity by Frank Viola and George Barna

I've read it. It's probably going to be a big hit, if it's not already, with modern evangelicals.

Originally Posted by JM

I've read it. It's probably going to be a big hit, if it's not already, with modern evangelicals.

OK but you are not telling me anything? What can you tell me about the content and the good or the bad or the ugly!

He basically throws the established church out the window, under the bus, and over the cliff. The most 'spiritual' among us are those Christians who have been burned by the 'church' and are now self seekers out there amongst the bushes and weeds.

But, then again, I'm a part of the 'established' church, and worse than that an educated member of the clergy, so I can't really see clearly about anything. I should trust a pollster / statistician to inform me of proper ecclesiology.

Obviously the Christian Church, its modes of thought, behavior and governmental structures, would bear certain elements of the particular time and place that it grew up in. It did not develop in a vacuum, but in the womb, so to speak, of the Roman Empire. (A heritage that I value as a proud member of Western civilization.)

We could simply call all of this 'pagan' and purge every perceivable influence from our way of churching that is not strictly 'scriptural' (as, say, Nietzsche desired to see all 'negative' Jewish elements purged from traditional Christianity to form a 'positive' neo-Christianity fit for the Übermensch). This would be quite a revolutionary, messy act of uprooting, assuming for a moment that it is possible.

Its a silly book with a silly thesis.

It also has a silly title, since the word "pagan" was the Latin for "rural" or "hick". "Conservatism" rules the hinterland, more so than population centers, hence it took several more centuries for the "pagans" to be converted, long after Christianity took root in Greco-Roman society.

So, which side here--Viola/Barna or the Church--is inadvertently revealing some "pagan" ignorance? Just sayin'.

As to the OP, I recommend adding some outside reading, to your reading this little book. Douglas Bannerman's book on the church (Scripture Doctrine of the Church) is about as good as it gets, exegetically and historically.

He basically throws the established church out the window...

That's exactly it.

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

Its a silly book with a silly thesis.

It also has a silly title, since the word "pagan" was the Latin for "rural" or "hick". "Conservatism" rules the hinterland, more so than population centers, hence it took several more centuries for the "pagans" to be converted, long after Christianity took root in Greco-Roman society.

So, which side here--Viola/Barna or the Church--is inadvertently revealing some "pagan" ignorance? Just sayin'.

As to the OP, I recommend adding some outside reading, to your reading this little book. Douglas Bannerman's book on the church (Scripture Doctrine of the Church) is about as good as it gets, exegetically and historically.

Thanks Bruce. Trust me I am not buying it (well I am buying it to read) but I am not buying it I dont want to refute this without knowing what they are saying. My friend really does think this is valid so i do want to engage him. Thanks I will check out the book you recommended.

Sort of OT, but I assume the co-author is not Frank Viola the former Minnesota Twins pitcher?

"Pagan Christianity" is no Christianity at all. Neither is whatever Barna's peddling.

Originally Posted by Berean

Sort of OT, but I assume the co-author is not Frank Viola the former Minnesota Twins pitcher?

Why not? A baseball player seems just as qualified, if not moreso, to write about the Church as Barna is.

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

Its a silly book with a silly thesis.

The book is nothing but pure Anabaptist drivel. Though I will not yet doubt the erudition of the authors in the respective fields, they demonstrate little-to-no understanding of (at least) the Reformed theology of worship and practice. It is hard, however, to accept the academic accuracy of a book which can claim

It is no wonder that the so-called Reformation brought very little reform in the way of church practice. [!] (p.61)

And in a footnote on the same page:

The Protestant Reformation was mainly an intellectual movement....it hardly touched ecclesiastical practice. [!]

How anyone can attempt to pass off such statements as facts is beyond my ability to comprehend.

Reformed Christians should be aware that much of the "pagan element" of "Reformed worship" described has little foundation in actual Reformed thought. For example, the authors make the claim that "although Luther talked much about the 'priesthood of all believers,' he never abandoned the practice of an ordained clergy (p.55)." Such a facile connection suggests that the authors could have spent a bit more time understanding Protestant worship and practice -- and the biblical foundations thereof -- before attempting to demonstrate its pagan foundations.

When it comes to the basic structure and order of the worship service, the authors lament that Protestant worship makes the pastor the CEO and MC, thereby stifling the "every-member functioning, spontaneity, freedom, vibrancy and open participation...and often unpredictable [nature] (p.50)" of the early church's worship services, wherein Jesus alone was "leader, director and CEO (p.59)" of the service, speaking not through one pompous, usurping man, but through all. They even go so far as to suggest that the place in the New Testament where we see the roots of the modern pastor is John's epistle, where he refers to Diotrephes -- the man who loved to have preeminence among the church, and would not receive true brethren out of envy. This demonstrates little command over both Biblical exegesis, and of understanding the roles of pastor and people in Reformed worship.

They also make the claim that it is understandable the Calvin's teachings on worship reflected pagan principles, since he sought to derive them from the teachings of the early church fathers -- who themselves were influenced by a bad pagan/Jewish syncretism. This betrays one of the most fundamental flaws of the authors' methodology: they fail to realize how theology has been done as a discipline throughout history. The fact that Calvin made use of the church fathers does not imply that the source or foundation of his theology is in the fathers' writings: rather, that they both had a common source (scripture) and that it is incumbent upon successive generations of theologians to reflect upon the conclusions of their predecessors. Thus, Calvin's use of Chrysostom is not one of absolute dependency, but rather critical continuity; thus, for instance, his referring to Jerome does not indicate that an idea has its origin in Jerome, but rather that Jerome's writings embody a pre-existent idea (that is, an idea from scripture). The foundation of Calvin's thought will always be scripture; nor is this opposed -- in reality, it even requires -- use of the church's theologians who have interacted and read that same scripture.

Another fundamental flaw with the work (which flaw I cannot judge too harshly, since it is one which I also am continually trying to overcome in certain areas) is the prevailing assumption that similitude must indicate derivation. In some cases this may certainly be true -- but not in all. Also derivation of accidents does not necessarily imply derivation of substance: a principle can be found in scripture, and accidents or circumstances thereto appertaining derived from the practices of the day, if they be in accord with "the light of nature" (see WCF 1:6).

A final fundamental flaw is that the authors often point out a complete "lack of evidence" for certain practices in the early church -- for instance, "professional" preachers, or the teaching being done by one individual in a service. The seemingly ignored problem is that there is no more evidence for the contrary position, either. The only evidence for their positions is their own interpretation of scripture, which is lacking to say the least. Then, all subsequent history is read in that light and any derivation from their presupposition is labeled as a paganizing or Romanizing tendency away from the pure New Testament example.

More positively, it should be noted that many of the authors' concerns should be shared by Reformed Christians -- though almost always for divergent reasons. For instance, they are critical of different modern worship movements; but their reasoning is that these practices still place all the "power" in a "one-man-CEO" who runs the show, and leave no freedom for all the other members to exercise their gifts.

Finally, I would say that reading this book did offer one very positive lesson to me -- it forcefully drives home the point that one most thoroughly understand a position before boldly refuting it. It is one thing to observe a stack of "objective facts" (e.g., the Reformers continued to have ordained pastors, even though they taught in theory the priesthood of all believers); it is another thing to get inside your opponents shoes and actually understand why they do what they do.

Edit
I will say, however, that to a person not firmly grounded in our Reformed teaching, this book has the potential to be very dangerous. If one reads this, they should first take the time to understand the Reformed church's teaching on worship and the church, and the scriptural basis for why we do what we do.

Also, I apologize for the loose and very unorganized nature of the above thoughts; I wrote that very quickly.

Originally Posted by Prufrock

The book is nothing but pure Anabaptist drivel.

This is my new favorite one-line insult.

Originally Posted by prufrock

Originally Posted by contra_mundum

its a silly book with a silly thesis.

The book is nothing but pure anabaptist drivel. Though i will not yet doubt the erudition of the authors in the respective fields, they demonstrate little-to-no understanding of (at least) the reformed theology of worship and practice. It is hard, however, to accept the academic accuracy of a book which can claim

it is no wonder that the so-called reformation brought very little reform in the way of church practice. [!] (p.61)

and in a footnote on the same page:

the protestant reformation was mainly an intellectual movement....it hardly touched ecclesiastical practice. [!]

how anyone can attempt to pass off such statements as facts is beyond my ability to comprehend.

Reformed christians should be aware that much of the "pagan element" of "reformed worship" described has little foundation in actual reformed thought. For example, the authors make the claim that "although luther talked much about the 'priesthood of all believers,' he never abandoned the practice of an ordained clergy (p.55)." such a facile connection suggests that the authors could have spent a bit more time understanding protestant worship and practice -- and the biblical foundations thereof -- before attempting to demonstrate its pagan foundations.

When it comes to the basic structure and order of the worship service, the authors lament that protestant worship makes the pastor the ceo and mc, thereby stifling the "every-member functioning, spontaneity, freedom, vibrancy and open participation...and often unpredictable [nature] (p.50)" of the early church's worship services, wherein jesus alone was "leader, director and ceo (p.59)" of the service, speaking not through one pompous, usurping man, but through all. They even go so far as to suggest that the place in the new testament where we see the roots of the modern pastor is john's epistle, where he refers to diotrephes -- the man who loved to have preeminence among the church, and would not receive true brethren out of envy. This demonstrates little command over both biblical exegesis, and of understanding the roles of pastor and people in reformed worship.

They also make the claim that it is understandable the calvin's teachings on worship reflected pagan principles, since he sought to derive them from the teachings of the early church fathers -- who themselves were influenced by a bad pagan/jewish syncretism. This betrays one of the most fundamental flaws of the authors' methodology: They fail to realize how theology has been done as a discipline throughout history. The fact that calvin made use of the church fathers does not imply that the source or foundation of his theology is in the fathers' writings: Rather, that they both had a common source (scripture) and that it is incumbent upon successive generations of theologians to reflect upon the conclusions of their predecessors. Thus, calvin's use of chrysostom is not one of absolute dependency, but rather critical continuity; thus, for instance, his referring to jerome does not indicate that an idea has its origin in jerome, but rather that jerome's writings embody a pre-existent idea (that is, an idea from scripture). The foundation of calvin's thought will always be scripture; nor is this opposed -- in reality, it even requires -- use of the church's theologians who have interacted and read that same scripture.

Another fundamental flaw with the work (which flaw i cannot judge too harshly, since it is one which i also am continually trying to overcome in certain areas) is the prevailing assumption that similitude must indicate derivation. In some cases this may certainly be true -- but not in all. Also derivation of accidents does not necessarily imply derivation of substance: A principle can be found in scripture, and accidents or circumstances thereto appertaining derived from the practices of the day, if they be in accord with "the light of nature" (see wcf 1:6).

A final fundamental flaw is that the authors often point out a complete "lack of evidence" for certain practices in the early church -- for instance, "professional" preachers, or the teaching being done by one individual in a service. The seemingly ignored problem is that there is no more evidence for the contrary position, either. The only evidence for their positions is their own interpretation of scripture, which is lacking to say the least. Then, all subsequent history is read in that light and any derivation from their presupposition is labeled as a paganizing or romanizing tendency away from the pure new testament example.

More positively, it should be noted that many of the authors' concerns should be shared by reformed christians -- though almost always for divergent reasons. For instance, they are critical of different modern worship movements; but their reasoning is that these practices still place all the "power" in a "one-man-ceo" who runs the show, and leave no freedom for all the other members to exercise their gifts.

Finally, i would say that reading this book did offer one very positive lesson to me -- it forcefully drives home the point that one most thoroughly understand a position before boldly refuting it. It is one thing to observe a stack of "objective facts" (e.g., the reformers continued to have ordained pastors, even though they taught in theory the priesthood of all believers); it is another thing to get inside your opponents shoes and actually understand why they do what they do.

edit
i will say, however, that to a person not firmly grounded in our reformed teaching, this book has the potential to be very dangerous. If one reads this, they should first take the time to understand the reformed church's teaching on worship and the church, and the scriptural basis for why we do what we do.

Also, i apologize for the loose and very unorganized nature of the above thoughts; i wrote that very quickly.

thanks! Great response! Very helpful!