Pagan Christianity Questions

Prologue: I know I am going to get blasted for writing this. Well, probably not, because no one reads this blog. ☺ But I’m writing it because I think it’s important that people do their research, understand bias and generally proceed with caution when it comes to matters of faith. One other note: If you search the net you will find an absence of scholarly review on this book (including this one). No offense to those who have reviewed it.

In the introduction to the republished book Pagan Christianity, co-author (not really since this book was written several years ago by Viola himself) George Barna uses an amazing statement - “the biblical model of the church” pg. xxviii. My first question to Barna is what “biblical model of the church” is he referring to? Is there really a “biblical model of the church” explained in scripture or does scripture tell the story of many fledgling churches surviving, learning and attempting to define their faith in a first century world very different than our own? What we do know is that when we read scripture we read about several different New Testament churches and their practices varied according to geographic location, cultural and spiritual influence. An example would be the Lord’s Supper - see the differences in this tradition between gospels and epistles. What we also know is that each of these different churches were unhealthy in many ways and they were fighting heresy from both Jewish and pagan sources. See Paul's letters. So, it is quite difficult for us to point back to a "healthy biblical model of the church."

Barna also writes, “Does that mean we must go back to the Bible and do everything exactly as the disciples did between AD 30 and 60? No. Social and cultural shifts over the last two thousand years have made it impossible to imitate some of the lifestyle and religious efforts of the early church. For example, we use cell phones, drive in automobiles, and utilize central heat and air. The first-century Christians had none of these forms of human convenience. Therefore, adhering to the principles of the New Testament does not mean reenacting the events of the first-century church. If so, we would have to dress like all first-century believers did, in sandals and togas!” pg. xxix.

My next question is, who gets to choose which early church “principles” we observe and which ones we don’t? Barna & Viola? Let's be honest, they are promoting "one acceptable Biblical model for church." What about the disciples of A.D. 101? Were they already so far off base that they have nothing to say about worship, church structure, form or function? Some New Testament “books” are dated as late as the A.D. 90’s and some scholars argue for even later dates but Barna and Viola seem to indicate that most of what happens in the church after the first century is pagan. Hmm?

These are just a few of the many obvious questions and this is only the intro of the text.

Epilogue: I’m completely biased. I admit it. I can’t stand organized, hierarchical, clergy-laity splitting religion. I lived and worked in that for many years and was slandered for leaving my former denomination in pursuit of a different ministry. I was actually made to sign a document agreeing not to come on the church property b/c they were saying that my involvement in a different ministry in the same town fell under a “no compete” realm. I never signed a no compete clause when I was hired to do youth ministry. I didn't even know we were competing for people as if they are some commodity. Anyway, I'm sure I would have had a strong legal case against their actions if I had wanted to be as mean as they were. The point is - I know, first hand, how the corporate pagan model of the church can chew people up and spit them out. I get where these cats (Barna/Viola) are coming from.

Incidentally, after being "excommunicated" (so funny), I was having coffee with a friend, who is equally frustrated with what the “church” has become and he asked me how it was possible that I continued to do anything involving church. I said, “I haven’t lost faith in what God can and will do with his church. I still believe that Jesus can use his church to bring faith, hope and love into the lives of those who need it."

It’s funny, but there is a paper-thin distance between my thoughts and convictions about church and Barna/Viola and yet I find myself being highly critical of these guys. I think they have some good things to say, but I think that the book just came off as arrogant, pharisaical and fundamentalist to me. It’s clear that they are promoting house church as the only true "biblical model" for church and that just seems very narrow minded and divisive. That's it. That's my issue with the whole thing and the sad thing is that the good things they have to say in the book will be lost because they made this one huge mistake and by being so "fundamentalist" in their approach they are more akin to the '"fundamentalists" who are so angry with them than I imagine they care to be.