So call me a pagan... 2

A number of people have commented here and elsewhere, that you have to look past the "overstatements"  in "Pagan Christianity" and once you do that, there really are some good ideas in the book.

Well...

I'm certainly going to try. No, really!
But here's the thing.

What if the whole premise of the book is not just an "overstatement"... but a kind of big, huge, whopping over-reach of such grand proportions and sheer arrogance that whatever good is said later is completely eclipsed by the magnitude and complete nerve it takes to open one's mouth (or type on one's keyboard) and make such an Al-Gorsian I-Invented-The-Internet kind of statement?

You know... what if?

Before we go chapter-by-chapter, I just wanted to deal with a couple of key statements.

The first is arguably the central tenet, the supporting pillar of the whole book. It's found on page xx of the intro, written by Frank Viola, and it says this:

"We are also making an outrageous proposal: that the church in its contemporary, institutional form has neither a biblical nor a historical right to exist."

Again, I'll give you a moment to go back and read that again. Slowly.

Okay- got it?
1st Baptist down the street? Illegitimate.
Willow Creek? Saddleback? Illegitimate.
Mars Hill (pick one)? No right to exist.

Okay, everybody... shut 'em down!
Seriously- party's over. We're done here.

Please do as Frank has done and leave "the institutional church to begin gathering with Christians in the New Testament fashion..."

Can someone call Rick and Bill and let them know? And you better break the news to Mark Driscoll. This is really gonna hit him hard.

Viola is absolutely correct about one thing, though. This is an "outrageous" statement.
("Outrageous - greatly exceeding bounds of reason or moderation")

So far beyond the pale is this central tenet of the book that I have trouble taking the rest seriously- even on the parts where I might agree.

And the whole book seems BUILT on silly, misguided ideas like this and like "Nothing so hinders the fulfillment of God's eternal purpose as does the present-day pastoral role."

Really?

"Nothing"?

NOTHING?

So... ME. I'm doing more to hinder God's purpose in the world than say... sin, than Satan, than brokenness and selfishness and all the other crap out there.

Little old me?

Like I said before- Whoa.

Joe Thorn encapsultes the problem here well:
"I do not want to dismiss the authors’ concerns, but it’s hard for me to take them seriously when they so grossly overstate things.Don’t get me wrong. I enjoy provocative books. I want others to challenge me and force me to re-think my practices and beliefs. The problem for me is that the book reads more like an ecclesiological version of the Loose Change conspiracy theories concerning the 9/11 attack. A lot of information is collected, assumptions are made, and in the end the final interpretation of history is simply wrong. Not only does their attempt to uncover the truth fail, but more importantly I fear their legit concerns will be ignored by many while others will read the book as gospel because it presents itself as unquestionable history with Barna’s research seal of approval."

Just the page before he drops the whole "right to exist" bomb, Viola makes this other central-to-the-book statement: "I believe the first-century church was the church in its purest form, before it was tainted or corrupted."

Now, while that's not outrageous, per se, it's simply wrong.
Viola acknowledges that the church had problems, but was "an organic entity" that "expressed itself far differently from the institutional church today."

As someone who's thought a lot about organic expressions of church in the last couple of years, and is doing his best to lead and coach a community in being an organic expression of who they are as Christ-followers, not who I desire them to be, one of the things I've had to learn is that everyone is different. Big revelation, eh?

That is, an organic expression of church here in Portland will probably look and feel and even function differently than one, in say, Idaho or Florida- different people, different place, different outworking of church.

Here's my outrageous proposal: The same holds true for different times as well.

See, I'm not in the "back to the first church!" camp. Maybe briefly in Bible College, but now?

I'm just in the "back to loving Jesus and working that out in community" camp.  I see the church  both dealing with problems and maturing over the centuries. A living organism changes, it grows.

And the problem with making a statement (as Viola does) like "I left  the institutional church to begin gathering with Christians in the New Testament fashion..." is that it implies that it's impossible to be an organic, faithful-to-Jesus community of people, unless you look just like they did back then- you know, when the church was "in its purest form, before it was tainted and corrupted." 

This, I think, was the 5 minute period between the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost and whenever someone said "Okay- what's next?" And it for sure was before the Corinthians decided to "go organic" with some fairly radical ideas about family relations.

My point is this: Organic expressions of church today can and do happen in house churches, in pub churches and even in churches with (gasp) buildings. The church is a spiritual entity and endeavor. The outside trappings that this book rails against may or may not be healthy, depending on how they are used, and I'm going to be the last one to say that we don't need to rethink how we use things like buildings and programs and video venues (especially video venues).

But for all my critique of consumeristic church as unhealthy and all my emphasis on and hope in organic expressions of Church, even my cajones aren't sufficiently large to enough to do what Viola and Barna are doing here.

Tell everyone else they have no right to do church they way they want to.

Man.

And I sure hope I'm not the only one who sees telling people they have no right to do church a certain way while trying to wave the flag of "organic" church is inherently self-contradictory.

Comments

[Rick]

Way out on a limb and not doing apologetics for the book - but I read it differently. He seemed to me to be saying there's no biblical right and no historical right. He might have something on the particulars of a "biblical right" to be the way things are, but I think he's wrong on the "historic right" side of things. I also don't think those two things mean that there's absolutely no right to do it the way we're doing things. There's a "social right" and a "traditional right" and probably a "community right" - all kinds of words you can put in front of "right".

Maybe it's a poor choice of words all around. I'm not a fan of being churchy, but at the same time to put out there something inflammatory just for the sake of enflaming, that's bad form. I've got the book and haven't picked into it yet - waiting for a flight next week to read in one sitting if I can.

[Bob Hyatt]

Actually- I agree with you! I think what he meant and how it hits are two completely different things. And you what- if it were simply one statement like this, I'd totally let it slide.
But it's the freakin' central tenet of the book!

Seriously- If you have to go back and explain and hedge and expand and revise because so many are misunderstanding you (taking you literally, actually), that's a good sign that you probably need to do some revision and rewording.

Viola has said about that statement: "No doubt, there's a better way of phrasing that sentence; but it seemed to make sense to us at the time."

No doubt.

Tomorrow I'll get off the soap box and start dealing a bit more fairly with the book. But for today, I want the authors and others to understand that the way you say something is as important as what you say- and the way they have said A LOT in this book is extremely off-puttng.

[Pistol Pete]

I would question the premise of the statement "biblical right to exist". God's people (Israel and the Church) took many forms in the Scriptures. They took on different structures to survive and thrive in the surrounding culture.

Just because the Church as it now exists doesn't appear in the Bible doesn't mean it shouldn't exist now. One could argue that since ice cream is not in the Bible, it has no "biblical right to exist". Do we want to do away with ice cream?

[Rick]

Totally agree - kinda like politics, where if you've got to do something so brash to make a comment, you probably didn't have much of a comment to make in the first place.

I can't read his name without it sounding french like voila'. That probably hurts him as I read it, too.

[grace]

Probably a more accurate statement would have been a "biblical mandate to exist" in this particular form or model.

For people like yourself who have already thought through these issues, that is a given. However, I am sure that meeting in a pub, you have encountered the mentality that still questions the "right" of a church to exist outside of brick and mortar, denominational forms.

[Rose]

Bob,
I probably should not comment since I have not read the book and probably won't. (Not a priority right now)...from what I can gather from reading what others are saying it smacks of Barna's statement when he was with OTM a year ago, paraphrased, there is absolutely no spiritual transformation happening in the church...(only in the those that are disenfranchised "real" Christians outside the church)...honestly, I would like to invite him to see some pretty generous, passionate followers of Jesus living out their lives to serve others within our faith community...my thought was, wow, he is reconstructing btw I get that is going on all over the place and needs to happen )and maybe in a few years he will begin to reconstruct and not make it about "all or nothing" "this or that" "black and white" and I seriously don't like the continual diatribe that demonizes anyone that meets on Sunday morning, pays people that actually work so that the community has some form and makes hard calls about resources etc...okay, I am going back to my highly paid pastoral work :)

[Robin Dugall]

Bob - I have always loved reading your posts...still will in the future too! I've been in pro-ministry for over 30 years. Most of the pro-pastors I know are VERY VERY VERY defensive about somebody inferring, telling, implying, hinting or whatever that what they are doing is either irrelevant, unbiblical, or ineffective. A local pastor I know got angry with me one day when I told him that a person who is following Jesus has the right to have some "bad" days. He was offended because he assumed that I was badmouthing his preaching..his assumption, "if someone is under MY ministry, people should not be having big spiritual problems; they should be living the victorious Christian life". So, in regards to this book, sometimes the only way to get people questioning and looking critically at the traditional "church" paradigm is to go for the jugular. I think your voice, Barna's and Viola's as well as many others can be prophetic in a era in history where it is desperately needed. The problem with prophetic "ministry" is that the voices are often either ignored or met with hostility. I just received my copy of the book...I'm going to read it next week. So, I'll email you my comments soon. IN the meantime, thanks for your comments...although I don't agree with everything you say, I am a better follower for listening to you and taking you seriously!

Robin

[Bruce Gerencse]

Perhaps you are being a little outrageous too :) Oh wait you are using exaggeration to prove a point :) Perhaps Viola/Barna do the same.

I believe God's people are given wide latitude on how to do "Church." For this reason we must consider how well the modern 1950's Protestant version of Church is working out. Perhaps God is saying "Hey how'd that experiment work out?"

As a life long Baptist, with almost 30 years in the pastoral trenches, I can say that how we have structured Baptist Churches with a singular leader HAS hurt the Church as a whole.

The pastor becomes god. the head honcho. The bwana. The final authority. The last word. The chairman of all boards. He sets the direction. He is the master planner.

The late Lee Roberson of Tennesse Temple fame said "everything rises or falls on leadership." Yep, and that's why the Church is in the state she is. The mantra should be "everything rises or falls on God."

The Bible teaches the priesthood of the believer yet it is rarely practiced today.

I don't blame pastors necessarily. Passive, lazy Church members are quite content to let the pastor do the work and be the Church. Then, if they don't like it they get a majority and vote him out. Is it any wonder the average pastor stays less than three years at any one Church?

I think Viola and Barna are over the top. I agree with some of your sarcasm and exaggeration. But, IF they provoke a hard look at how we do Church in American then it will be worth it.

Does anyone think the American Church is healthy and vibrant?

Bruce

[Bruce Gerencse]

Perhaps you are being a little outrageous too :) Oh wait you are using exaggeration to prove a point :) Perhaps Viola/Barna do the same.

I believe God's people are given wide latitude on how to do "Church." For this reason we must consider how well the modern 1950's Protestant version of Church is working out. Perhaps God is saying "Hey how'd that experiment work out?"

As a life long Baptist, with almost 30 years in the pastoral trenches, I can say that how we have structured Baptist Churches with a singular leader HAS hurt the Church as a whole.

The pastor becomes god. the head honcho. The bwana. The final authority. The last word. The chairman of all boards. He sets the direction. He is the master planner.

The late Lee Roberson of Tennesse Temple fame said "everything rises or falls on leadership." Yep, and that's why the Church is in the state she is. The mantra should be "everything rises or falls on God."

The Bible teaches the priesthood of the believer yet it is rarely practiced today.

I don't blame pastors necessarily. Passive, lazy Church members are quite content to let the pastor do the work and be the Church. Then, if they don't like it they get a majority and vote him out. Is it any wonder the average pastor stays less than three years at any one Church?

I think Viola and Barna are over the top. I agree with some of your sarcasm and exaggeration. But, IF they provoke a hard look at how we do Church in American then it will be worth it.

Does anyone think the American Church is healthy and vibrant?

Bruce

[Bruce Gerencse]

sorry for the double post. Accident.

Bruce

[Aaron]

"Does anyone think the American Church is healthy and vibrant?"

It depends where you go. That's a fairly subjective question although I assume you mean Christianity within the United States in general?

[Bruce Gerencser]

In general. I oaint with a borad stroke. I realize there are some Churches who are thriving and doing the work of God's kingdom. They are the exception to the rule.

In our neck of the woods.......rural NW Ohio...seen one seem them all.

The biggest difference is the worship band :)

[Rich Kirkpatrick]

How you say it? Indeed.

[Bob Hyatt]

Bruce- thanks for the comments...

you said:
"I believe God's people are given wide latitude on how to do "Church." "

See, if I'm reading Barna/Viola right, I'd have to say- they disagree.
To be honest, I KNOW what they mean when they say "The church in its contemporary, institutional form has neither a biblical nor a historical right to exist."
The problem is, what they actually mean is no better than what they actually say.

Presbyterians have no "right" to their polity, nor Lutherans to theirs. Forget Methodists and Southern Baptists and Anglicans and all the others who have no right to to exist in their current, unbiblical forms.

"For this reason we must consider how well the modern 1950's Protestant version of Church is working out. Perhaps God is saying "Hey how'd that experiment work out?""

I absolutely agree- the answer is "not great."

"As a life long Baptist, with almost 30 years in the pastoral trenches, I can say that how we have structured Baptist Churches with a singular leader HAS hurt the Church as a whole."

Again- I agree.

"The pastor becomes god. the head honcho. The bwana. The final authority. The last word. The chairman of all boards. He sets the direction. He is the master planner."

Yes- I think that is extremely unhealthy. I think I might even say "unbiblical."
But see what I won't say?

"The Bible teaches the priesthood of the believer yet it is rarely practiced today."
Absolutely agree! To me, this is the hope of organic church... that we would get back to that place.
Here's the thing though- as I've been working out what organic church looks like in our context, I've seen how vital good elders are to people becoming better priests.

"I don't blame pastors necessarily."

Viola and Barna do :) Remember? ""Nothing so hinders the fulfillment of God's eternal purpose as does the present-day pastoral role."

"

[Matt W.]

"Does anyone think the American Church is healthy and vibrant?"

Not really. But is there a church history buff out there who would point to a particular season/generation that reflects "the healthy church" in the U.S.? Did it ever exist? Ever? Does anyone know of a pastor of any generation who looked around their church community and said, 'we've done it! we've arrived!'?

Apparently, Viola & Barna would say the U.S. church has NEVER been healthy. They may go over the top, but as we join their lament over the unhealth of the current church, I'm just wondering what it is we are comparing ourselves to?

[Jon Zens]

I have been the editor of Searching Together (formerly called Baptist Reformation Review) for 30 years. I'm one of the scholars 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.

To be blunt, Bob’s review is heavily lopsided and intellectually dishonest. It's filled with spin and out of context statements, all designed to discourage readers to give the book a fair hearing. As a former pastor, I can tell you this: if I had read this book in 1976, I would have reacted defensively just as Bob has here. 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.

Instead, I would have probably followed Bob's rash impulse to take certain statements out of context, leaving out the historical support the book furnishes. Bob has even been highly selective in taking Frank's fair-minded responses at www.ptmin.org/pcobjections.htm out of context and has refused to interact with his core arguments.

Very plainly, Bob has done a disservice here in this review. It seems obvious to me that it’s the impulsive, emotional reaction by a man who may feel threatened. Bob has so much as admitted this, then disappointingly attacks and blames the authors of the book for it.

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 don’t 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 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 duped into believing that the book is as sloppy, nonsensical, irrational, inaccurate and incompetent as Bob makes 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.

Now a word to Bob. I am aware of something many of your readers aren't. When you received your 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 you and many of the others who have written harsh, lopsided reviews have refused to take advantage of taking Frank on in a debate/discussion on your forum.

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, he 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)

Contrary to what you have said, Bob, 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.)

So why don't you ask Frank to appear on NEXT WAVE and engage him directly with your questions instead of hiding behind a computer screen and trashing him and his work on your blog? That's my challenge to you, brother. That, I believe, would help bring this conversation in the light and benefit all of God's people.

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 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:

"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…."

"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 [email protected] I'm available.

Sincerely,
Jon Zens
www.searchingtogether.org

[Bob Hyatt]

"It seems obvious to me that it’s the impulsive, emotional reaction by a man who may feel threatened. Bob has so much as admitted this, then disappointingly attacks and blames the authors of the book for it. "

That's it! You totally nailed it.
Me and everyone else who has a problem with the way this book is written/presented just feel threatened. Our arguments about the central thesis of this book are just a smokescreen to hide the fact that we are terrified that if this book gets into the hands of "the people", it's all over for us.

Man...

Wait until I actually get into the substance of the book and begin reviewing it proper before sounding off like this. You might even be shocked by the things I agree with the authors on...

And Frank, since I'm pretty sure he's reading this, is free to respond at any time, just like you. You didn't need an "invitation." Why should he?

[Bruce Gerencser]

Be nice guys :)

We as Pastors should feel threatened. Our whole livelihhod and calling is being brought into question, It is easy to corner up and raise our fists and fight. Once the fight is over we still must deal with the issues the book raises. I am reviewing a book on my blog that deals with similar issues (though much more briefly) that was written in 1935. These are not new issues.

Is it impossible to think that we got it wrong? Or some of it wrong? Or a little bit of it wrong?
Have we all not read the Bible and said "where is THAT Church?"

Aren't we as pastors tired of being administrators and butt wipers rather than teachers and servants?

I wince when my calling is questioned but I need to hear these guys (and others) out. I can be wrong.

Some of the reaction is towards Viola's "style." He is pointed, direct. In such cases.....look beyond the messenger and ask "is he telling the truth?" At the end of the day that is the only thing that matters.

Bruce

[Bob Hyatt]

Here's the thing- I've argued most of what Viola is arguing.
No- my livelihood isn't being called into question- not in the least- at least as long as we continue to heed the words of Paul the Apostle over guys who have a particular house-church axe to grind.

I've been advocating for YEARS for an abandonment of the pastor-as-CEO model, for smaller, more organic communities.
Do I think all pastors need to be paid? Of course not.

But when someone comes along and argues that it's UNBIBLICAL? Please...

I've reacted this way to exactly TWO books since starting this blog- this one and A Heretic's Guide to Eternity. Both by people ostensibly from the same or similar tribes as me and both espousing (this one more so than Spencer's book) views/ideas I have some sympathy with.

And the simple reason for that is I feel a lot more obligated to critique the ideas coming out of my own squad on the Christian team than those out of others.

Does Viola have some good, true and right things to say? Absolutely, and like I said, I'll get to them. But I think it's absolutely ironic that his whole thing is "let's uncover the true church from all the crap that's been piled on it" even as he covers his own good ideas with a pretty big pile of his own.

But even more than that- I think there's some real poison pills hidden in the assumptions here... stuff that's truly dangerous in the worst sense of the word. Stuff that declares the illegitimacy of whole communities...

My problem with this whole book is

1. Its tone- read my two posts to see what I'm talking about

2. Its foundational ideas- ditto

3. Where it's going- and I'll tell you, even if Frank himself disagrees- and that's towards a house-church-as-only-legitimate-expression of true Christianity. Frank gives this away in the very first sentence of the book.

Like I said- I'll begin dealing with the whole book bit by bit and in a somewhat more balanced fashion next- but right off the bat, I wanted to deal with these things because I think they are HUGE flaws in the whole structure of the argument.

For right now- I'm busy helping to pastor a community, so...

[Bruce Gerencser]

Bob,

Certainly there is a BIG DANGER in delegitimizing (is it a word?) any group. We are here now. We have got here after 2000 years of Church history. It does us little good to pee on the past. We certainly should examine how we got to where we are BUT if Viola and Barna are delegitimizing what we now have we will never find our way forward.

I have real problems with a number of sects. Catholics for example. But, I do not claim they are not Christian or not a Church. I would rather call them "a Church in error." But then that applies to every Church I have ever pastored :)

Bruce

[david]

didn't frank viola pitch for the twins back in the 80's?

[Bob Hyatt]

Different guy :)

[david]

he was a pretty good pitcher, though... i always respected him in spite of my hatred of the Twins.

[len]

Jon, 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.

And my sense along the way is that the complexity of that discerning 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. Funny tho this dynamic that we often create the thing we hate.

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.

[Dion Peachey]

Wow! Enjoyed the fireworks. I heard this book would be controversial and I guess the hearsay is right. I have never read a Barna book and don't have time to start just yet. How does this book relate to "Revolution"? Which one should I read first? Should I read either of them?