bob.blog

BWIII on Pagan Christianity

New Testament Scholar Ben Witherington demolishes Pagan Christianity...

"First a word of disclaimer. I know Frank Viola, indeed for some years he has asked me loads of good and telling questions via email. I did not really know what his take was on various matters, but I gladly answered his questions. It is interesting to me that this book appears to take no notice of various of these answers which I have given, nor are any of my works found in the bibliography at the end of the book. Perhaps I have missed something in the minutiae of the truly minute footnotes at the bottom of each page, but now I am wondering why exactly I have answered all those questions over the years. It’s a pity.

Frank Viola is a sharp person, but neither he nor George Barna really interact in this book with the scholarly literature that would call into question their strident claims and theses. They are arguing a particular case, and so they largely cite sources that support their case, for example Robert Banks’ work on Pauline house churches comes in for heavy usage. Their claim to present us with bare historical fact and to stand always on the Biblical high ground needs to be seen for what it is from the outset--- good and powerful rhetoric meant to warm the cockles of the hearts of all who affirm Sola Scriptura, but when one actually examines some of the major claims closely, they will not stand close and critical scrutiny...

"My point in the above critique is simply this--- calling more high church worship ‘pagan’ is not only a tragedy which impoverishes the soul. It’s a travesty. And saying over and over again that there is not a shred of Biblical evidence for sacred buildings, particularly church buildings reflects both historical myopia and bad theological analysis of a theology of holiness and worship. Such a view is narrow where the Bible is not narrow, and it fails to grasp the great breadth of ways in which God can be truly, and Biblically worshipped and served, and is indeed worshipped and served around the world every single week. We do not need to be liberated from holy worship—we need to be liberated in and by it, in whatever form it may legitimately take. And that’s the Biblical truth."

more here

So call me a pagan... over and out.

Okay- I was an hour and a half into trying to finish my review of Pagan Christianity, but I'm bailing out now.

I'm sorry- the Adventure in Missing the Point that this book represents is simply too ridiculous to keep reading, much less put that much effort into writing about.

What I hate most about this book is that I have a deep love for the church and a serious desire to see it recover more organic, less-institutional forms of community life. I also have a desire to see it exercise biblical forms of church life, including the development of elders and other leaders and honestly, I think that Viola is so far afield in these areas and actually works against much of it...

His view of the pastorate, of elders, of what organic church could and should be is so narrow, and so ungenerous to any other way of seeing it, while at the same time so over-the-top self-important ("READING THIS BOOK TAKES COURAGE") that it makes me want to slam my computer on the floor, and I've already done that once in the last few weeks, so...

I'm out.

I leave this book with the knowledge that from here on out, when I begin speaking about "organic" church, I'm probably going to have to explain not just what I mean (which I'm used to) but what I don't mean. And that's what really gets me most about this...

Too many good concepts absolutely ruined by this book.

For those hungry for more, click here, here, and here.

And if you are as tired of thinking/reading about this book as I am, click here for something infinitely more spiritually and intellectually valuable.

Out of Ur Vs Pagan Christianity- the Smackdown

Rock on.

Out of Ur on the huge shortcomings of Pagan Christianity...

My concern with this book is that it is not what it claims to be. Viola argues that he has presented a careful and thorough exploration of Scripture and Church history. He simply hasn't.

In the chapter “The Pastor,” Viola’s entire biblical argument against the modern pastorate is based on the fact that the word “pastor” appears only once in the New Testament. He does reference (in parentheses) several other passages, as some of you have noted. But he does not interpret them and allow them to challenge his conclusion. Consider the following (Look these up; I can only list them):

o    James 3:1
o    1 Timothy 3:1; 5:18
o    1 Peter 5:2
o    1 Corinthians 9:9

Taken together, these passages don't mean that the pastorate ought to look like it does today. But they do make the issue more complicated than Viola acknowledges.

Regarding church history, Viola says there was no official leadership in the church until the second century. However, Clement of Rome, in the late first century, spoke of the office of bishop (and its "dignity") as if it were established fact (see his Epistle to the Corinthians). Viola also fails to acknowledge that the need for official leadership arose, in part, as a safeguard against heresy—serious heresy, like denial of the deity of Christ.

Viola glosses over the tremendous complexities of historical shifts, as the one from Roman persecution to Constantinian support of Christianity. The clarity of hindsight tells us that Constantinianism did untold damage to the church. But the church fathers must have imagined the shift as the fulfillment of God's kingdom on earth. It is little wonder, then, that they took full advantage of their liberty and built churches where they could gather in peace.

By failing to deal seriously with the messiness of history, Viola is woefully ungracious to the historical figures themselves. Men like Athanasius, John Chrysostom, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa and others in those early years of priesthood felt the full weight of their responsibility as shepherds of men’s and women’s souls. They made mistakes, to be sure, but they are brothers and sisters in Christ and, as such, deserve to be read sympathetically.

Viola’s use of sources is also a bit irresponsible. He relies too heavily on secondary sources. Other times he cites authors who do not support the whole of his position. Karl Barth (p.122), for example, disapproved of the clergy-laity distinction, but he worked firmly within the established church. After all, his magnum opus was entitled Church Dogmatics.

While failing to reference key Scriptures and glossing over historical complexity, Viola pronounces his interpretation as if every other is heresy and abomination. I could ignore the cavalier tone if it did not claim to be “immovable, historical truth.”

Read the rest here...

So call me a pagan... 7

You didn't think I was done with "Pagan Christianity?" Christianity, did you?

(Hoped, maybe...)

(Before we dive back in, it's interesting to see others sharing some of my same concerns about not only the long leaps of logic involved in Pagan Christianity, but the general tone. See, I'm not crazy.)

The next two chapters deal with Dressing Up For Church (an issue consuming the minds and thoughts of millions and tearing congregations around the country apart at the seams) and "Ministers of Music: Second Class Clergy" a chapter title perfectly designed to ding the already fragile egos of music pastors nationwide :)

But seriously, folks...

Chapter 5 is a fine run down of the whole idea of dressing up for church in general, and clerical garb in particular. It's an interesting study and mostly helpful, but...

Again, the whole "early church as perfect church" bias shines through.
"...[D]ressing up for church smacks against the primitive simplicity that was the sustaining hallmark of the early church. The first-century Christians did not 'dress up' to attend church meetings. They met in the simplicity of living rooms. They did not dress to exhibit social class. In fact, the early Christians made concrete efforts to show their absolute disdain for social class distinctions."
(This last claim is footnoted. Apparently, this absolute disdain was displayed through "drop[ing] their general family name, which indicated their social status. They also called one another 'brother' and 'sister.'" Man- freakin' class warriors, those first-century Christians...)

Why quote this section? Do I think we should "dress up" for church? Well, if you call jeans, a button up shirt (I learned the hard way -the lapel mic looks very goofy clipped on t-shirts), sneakers and about half the time a ball-cap dressing up, then I guess I dress up.
No- I don't think there's much to dressing up for church and I really don't think much of clerical robes and such.

But the whole picture that's being pushed here is just silly.

Robbymac on Pagan Christianity?

Robbymac has read more books by Frank Viola than I... and so has seen that what I've seen in Pagan Christianity? is really a pattern that's discernible across a number of Viola's works...

And because it made me laugh and laugh, I'm just going to go ahead right now and nominate this post by Robbymac as the best response to Pagan Christianity? yet written.

So call me a pagan... 6

In chapter five of "Pagan Christianity?" Viola takes on the "Pastor."

Oh, Frank...

"So prevailing is the pastor in the minds of most Christians that he is often better known, more highly praised and more heavily relied upon than Jesus Himself."

When I was in College, I can remember being around some folks, and in the midst of our conversation, apparently I made a number of derogatory remarks about myself and men in general. After maybe one too many remarks from me like that, one guy looked at me and asked "Man... What did she do to you? Must have been something bad..."

Halfway through this book I'm starting to wonder who the pastor was that hurt Frank Viola so badly...

The main thesis of this chapter is: "There is not a single verse in the entire New Testament that supports the existence of the modern-day pastor! He simply did not exist in the early church."
So where did we get pastors?

Glad you asked. 

So call me a pagan... 5

In chapter five of "Pagan Christianity?" Viola takes on the "sermon." And again, here is probably where we are closest. I've written a lot about recovering interactivity and dialogue in sermon. We try to do this weekly-
sometimes more, sometimes less. But we always try to do what the people did in Nehemiah: "So they read distinctly from the book, in the Law of God; and they gave the sense, and helped them to understand the reading."-Neh 8:8

Our elders try to do what Paul instructs  in 1 Tim 4:13: and "devote [ourselves] to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching."

We follow Paul's example and use dialogue (Acts 20:7- the word for talk there is "dialogue"), but we try to avoid his example and speak for so long that people actually die (Acts 20:9).

We generally follow the New Testament pattern of "one will sing, another will teach, another will tell some special revelation God has given..." (1 Cor 14:26)

I'm not going to work through all of Viola's assertions in this chapter- some are good, some seem silly (like calling the sermon "unscriptural"- again, I know he says he MEANS extra-biblical... but does he not realize how the vast majority of people read this??? Unbiblical= wrong= sin), but I will say this:

Others weigh in...

... on Pagan Christianity?

(I'm linking to the reviews that are similar in conclusion to mine, mainly to counter the idea that "some", namely me, are taking statements out of context, twisting Frank's words, etc.)

This is a seriously good review by Trevin Wax: "Pagan Christianity, if taken seriously by many Christians, will not lead to a renewal of the church, but to ecclesial amputation - as more and more disenchanted church members abandon their church families in order to seek after the “pure church” of the first century. They will keep chasing the pot at the end of the rainbow, only to find it eludes them because it doesn’t exist."

iMonk makes me laugh: "The sermon is pagan. The book that tells you the sermon is pagan is not. No one should be the designated song leader. Instead, whoever is rude, loud and mentally ill should be allowed to lead. Do not discourage them, as this is hierarchical and pagan.
Restrooms are pagan. Do not use them.
Church should have no hierarchy at all. Please invite me to your conference where I won’t say this, or anything else.
All routine in worship is wrong. In fact, follow the following suggestions to be truly Christian:

-Meet on different days of the week, and don’t tell anyone when.

-The same with where you meet. Keep ‘em looking.

-Don’t use the Bible more than once every few weeks.

-Try out another religion entirely every so often, to break the routine.

Marriage is also pagan. Avoid it.

Parenting is a hierarchy. In fact, so is child care of any sort. Jesus said let the children come onto me, so get them into your meetings.

All of Paul’s commands to Timothy about the duties of pastors will be explained in a forthcoming, revolutionary, non-hierarchical book.

Your objections to my wisdom are traditional and pagan. As are you. And your little dog."

Bill Kinnon gives "a response to Frank's writing style. He writes as a "true believer." The house church movement is the "right way" to do church and everything else is the wrong way. Let me be blunt. I find the writing style grating and arrogant. And even after losing my affection for the megachurch world a number of years ago, I still found Frank's style off-putting. That style is alive and well in PC."

Joe Thorn here, here and here  (This is awesome: "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.")

Len Hjalmerson says in the comments to this post: "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."

Darryl Dash: "Barna and Viola have raised some valid issues. Some dynamics of church life that should be present often aren't. We need to take these seriously. But they don't make their case, and their conclusion ultimately falls short. There is room for all kinds of churches, including the institutional. What matters more than structure is the life contained within, and that can come only from God- who, it seems, is more than willing to give us that life."

So call me a pagan... 4

Okay- I thought the next two chapters of "Pagan Christianity?" would be ones I could wholeheartedly get behind, being as they are, critiques of the evangelical order of worship and sermon- two things that Evergreen does fairly differently than your standard evergreen church (see here for a run down on a typical evergreen morning)

But, alas... twas not to be.

Chapter three is a fairly long treatise on the origins of the "order of worship." You know,
Hymns/singing
Scripture Reading
Choir music
Pastoral prayer
Sermon
Prayer
Offering
Benediction.

Viola takes offense at this. "You can scour the Bible from beginning to end, and you will never find anything that remotely resembles our order of worship. This is because the first-century Christians knew no such thing" (pg 50)

You know, the further I get in this book, the more Viola sounds like someone who buys the Regulative Principle. He says he doesn't, but to be honest, he sure talks like he does.

So call me a pagan... 3

Let's get into the main parts of "Pagan Christianity?," starting with chpt 3: The Church Building.

Here, Viola does have some good things to say, and some challenges, particularly as regards how much is spent on buildings and structures by the Church in the West. But as is quickly being seen here as SOP (standard operating procedure) he buries all the good points he makes under an almost intolerable load of garbage- overstatements, mis-implications and outright non sequiturs.

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.

So call me a pagan...

I'm trying to think about how best to blog on Viola and Barna's new book "Pagan Christianity."
I say that because I had a feeling this book would "disturb" me, and so far, it has accomplished exactly that.

And what really gets me is that is exactly the author's (at least, Viola's) intention. That's what I take from the following breathless prose: "We now invite you to walk with us on an untrodden path. It is  a terrifying journey where you will be forced to ask questionsthat probably have never entered your conscious thoughts. Tough questions. Nagging questions. Even frightening questions. And you will be faced squarely with disturbing answers. Yet those answers will lead you face-to-face with some of the richest truths a Christian can discover...
However, if you choose to "take the red pill" and be shown "how deep the rabbit hole goes"... if you want to learn the true story of where your Christian practices come from... if you are willing to have the curtain pulled back on teh contemporary church and its traditional presuppositions fiercely challenged... then you will find this work to be disturbing, enlightening and possibly life changing."

In the words of Neo...

Whoa.

Of course, I don't think I'm disturbed like Frank wanted me disturbed, but we'll talk more about that later. 

Let's rewind.

 .