I'm wrestling with this book as well...but I'm afraid there's too much truth in it to just list the complaints and walk away. Brandon critiques but doesn't really respond. Do you have an argument FOR the present role of 'pastor' as most churches know it?

I think Viola (along with Barna) actually make the case pretty well. I have read and reviewed the book here:
http://www.precipicemagazine.com/review-pagan-christianity.html

I don’t think we can deny that Greco-Roman pagan sources have infiltrated the church and its practices to a great degree. And this is true for Catholic and Protestant churches.

I think one of the questions that I raise in regards to the main thesis, is whether or not a practice should be considered more valid- as an expression of Church- simply because it existed within the first one hundred years or so of the church's existence. Viola is quite clear that he believes that the Church, as expressed in the Book of Acts, is the most potent form of Church to date- and closest to the fullness of intention that God had in mind.

Two questions:
1.) Is this true?
2.) Can we expect an expression of church from 2000 years ago to translate well into our contemporary context? Or do you new times, new context, demand a new approach?

Viola seems to think not. But I am not so sure.

Darren King (Precipice Magazine)

I find it funny how church buildings are labeled pagan when Jesus himself spoke in the ekklesias of Jews, or synagogues, of his day. Seems like church buildings are Jewish and not pagan in their "foundation."

Brandon -- Thanks for your take on Pagan Christianity! I've been wrestling with these issues since 1977, and set forth the initial findings of my research in 1981, "Building Up the Body: One Man or One Another?" (Searching Together, 10:2).
I don't think you've done justice to the compelling nature of the book. It is hardly "pseudo-academic." As I see it, PC has carefully documented how certain key traditions have emerged. Regarding the "pastoral office," PC is not setting forth new ideas, but scholars like Robert Banks, Howard Snyder and John H. Yoder have echoed its perspectives.
The perspectives found in PC can be seen, for example, in William Barclay's comments on 1 Cor.14: "Clearly the early Church had no professional ministry....There was obviously a flexibility about the order of service in the early Church which is now totally lacking. There was clearly no settled order at all....The really notable thing about an early Church service must have been that almost everyone came feeling both the privilege and the obligation of contributing something to it."
Anne Rowthorn noted, "It is primarily the system that oppresses. It took hundreds of years for the Church to become clericalized, and the present generation of clergy cannot be blamed for the ills of the institution they inherited" (The Liberation of the Laity, 1990, p.24).
I think PC makes a stong case from the unfolding of church history that what came to be an institution strayed far from the simplicity and beauty of what Jesus set in motion on the Day of Pentecost.
Jon Zens

While I agree with the idea that the current expression of church as an institution isn't working, I question the relevance of this book.

Is the first century expression of church in Palestine as recorded in the New Testament the only valid one? Is every office or functional position of the church limited to only those that we find in the New Testament? If that's the case then I guess we shouldn't have youth pastors, or church secretaries. Perhaps we shouldn't drive cars either, those aren't found in the New Testament.

Silly of course, but I guess rather than railing against paid staff and church owned buildings based on a first century definitions, I'd argue against those concepts based on the fact that they don't seem to be working in large part in this day and time.

That's the real issue here for me: can we not accept that cultures are different and that they change through history and that the church's approach and structures should also change to reflect that.

The book sounded interesting at first but reading about it here, it just sounds irrelevant to the world I live in.

Yeah, there's something irritatingly lofty about people like Viola and, presumably, Barna, who can rise above the situation we all face and float back to the pristine New Testament church.

Ah yes, the good old days, when shepherds were plural and no one was "the pastor" and we all just met in homes and prayed the Romans wouldn't throw us to the lions.

Unfortunately, that's not the world we live in anymore. We've been asked to steward our history and our influence in the culture, for God's sake.

Or maybe we should just throw that to today's lions, whoever they may be.

It sounds like Viola may be committing the age-old mistake of heresy by over-emphasis. There is a grain of truth in the claim that pastors might be seen as priests, but from everything I have seen, the train of congregational opinion is heading in the other direction.

While I wouldn't use rhetoric as strong as Viola's, I tend to agree with him regarding the traditional hierarchical pastor-led-church model. The top-down distinction between clergy and laity does a lot to inhibit the full development of believers as priests. The current paradigm only reinforces the Roman Catholic notion that you still need a "professional" in order to become a "good" Christian.

I'm also puzzled by the scripture-like weight granted to church history in defining ecclesiology. Repeating a faulty practice doesn't diminish its error.

Rick, the book is a historical study on the origins of many of our Protestant church practices. It doesn’t argue that just because something isn’t mentioned in the new testament it shouldn’t be practiced. There’s a discussion page for the book that answers many such questions – www.paganchristianity.org - along with endorsements by historians and scholars.

Regarding the chapter challenging the way the modern pastoral office operates today, here are some direct quotes from the book as well as from the book's discussion page.

The term ‘laity’ is one of the worst in the vocabulary of religion and ought to be banished from the Christian conversation.
- Karl Barth

I also believe that what goes on in them [support groups] is far closer to what Christ meant his Church to be...These groups have no buildings or official leadership or money. They have no rummage sales, no altar guilds, no every-member canvases. They have no preachers, no choirs, no liturgy, no real estate. They have no creeds. They have no program. They make you wonder if the best thing that could happen to many a church might not be to have its building burned down and to lose all its money. Then all the people would have left is God and each other.
- Frederick Buechner

The clergy-laity dichotomy...is one of the principal obstacles to the church effectively being God’s agent of the kingdom today because it creates a false idea that only ‘holy men,’ namely, ordained ministers, are really qualified and responsible for leadership and significant ministry. In the New Testament there are functional distinctions between various kinds of ministries but no hierarchical division between clergy and laity.
-Howard Snyder

Let us then ask first not whether there is a clear, solid concept of preaching, but whether there was in the N.T. one particular preaching office, identifiable as distinctly as the other ministries. Neither in the most varied picture (Corinthians) nor in the least varied (Pastoral Epistles) is there one particular ministry thus defined.
- John Howard Yoder

Increasing institutionalism is the clearest mark of early Catholicism - when church becomes increasingly identified with institution, when authority becomes increasingly coterminous with office, when a basic distinction between clergy and laity becomes increasingly self-evident, when grace becomes increasingly narrowed to well-defined ritual acts. We saw above that such features were absent from first generation Christianity, though in the second generation the picture was beginning to change.
- James D.G. Dunn

Thank you all for your comments thus far. They've all been constructive, thoughtful and helpful--and best yet--no one has stooped to the level of a personal attack on the book's author for holding the viewpoint he does.

After reading Brandon's posting, it got me thinking and questioning a few things, but I must say that most of those questions have already been answered to some degree in reading these comments. It's so refreshing when a site like this actually serves the purpose of edifying the Body.

This is far and away the most overstated, bombastic and ill-thought-out book I've read (and reviewed) in a long time.

"The contemporary pastorate rivals the functional headship of Christ in His church. It illegitimately holds the unique centrality and headship among God's people, a place reserved for only one Person- the Lord Jesus. Jesus Christ is the only head over a church and the final word to it. By his office, the pastor displaces and supplants Christ's headship by setting himself up as the human head."

Now- there's a lot of ways that last sentence could have gone down.

"The pastor often inadvertently displaces and supplants Christ's headship by setting himself up as the human head.""

"The pastor sometimes displaces and supplants Christ's headship by setting himself up as the human head."

"At his worst, the pastor displaces and supplants Christ's headship by setting himself up as the human head."

But that's not what Viola and Barna have said here. I'm a contemporary pastor, and simply by serving out my calling to elder, teach, shepherd, equip, love and correct our community, and by following the biblical model of being paid to do so (1 Tim 5:17) I am NECESSARILY, according to the language here, "displac[ing] and supplant[ing] Christ's headship." Apparently, I am the "human head" of our congregation.

Sheesh.

And worse: "For this reason, nothing so hinders the fulfillment of God's eternal purpose as does does the present day-pastoral role."

Ahh, Viola never fails to come through with that big, giant blustery overstatement! He seems bound and determined to end every single chapter this way.

So, I'm sorry.

I'm sorry that I, personally, as a present day pastor, hinder God's eternal purpose more than ANYTHING ELSE IN THE ENTIRE WORLD. More than sin, Satan, selfishness, brokenness. More than societal decay and idol worship.
"Nothing so hinders the fulfillment of God's eternal purpose as does the present day-pastoral role."

The book just gets sillier and sillier with each chapter...

Wow.
I didn't know there was such a time when humans ever could escape their culture.

His theology is intriguing and attractive.
His historical research and philosophical assumptions are deficient.

The greco-roman context was the all pervading setting of the day--it was taken for granted, like breathing air. Nobody was going to escape it. Somehow I don't think that 21st c. north american evangelical sensibilities were the agenda for those early christians.

This just demonstrates one of the most pernicious problems with evangelical pseudo-scholarship--a belief that history can bear out a vindication of some pie in the sky theory about "pristine" Christianity.

In this evangelicals are no different than the their historical-critical liberal opponents. It's the same drivel, with the same pipedream, just in the service of their version of the "tradition".

Again, intriguing theology, bad history.

Bob, I understand your vehemence and distaste for the book. However, I would have to ask you, and anyone else commenting, have you ever attempted to function as a church where you don't get paid a full-time salary, where everyone leads the congregation in some part of the weekly worship service, where there is a completely open format to the gathering without planning, and where everyone sees their distinctinve role in building up the body of Christ for maturity? (Eph 4:11-12) If not, then there really isn't much of a point in commenting.
Sure, you have your view of the relevant verses and he has his, but one of you is likely speaking from both sides of the issue and the other is not. Having been in both scenerios mentioned, I can say that experiencing the non-typical model of church is the most exciting thing I have ever experienced. Until I had (and currently still) participated in the world Viola is describing, I realized how ignorant I must have sounded beforehand. It changes the way you read the Scriptures, receive the sacraments, and view equipping in general. Please keep that in mind before writing books like this off as "silly."

I think the important points contra-"Pagan Christianity" (sic) have already been made. Let me add my voice. This book, in good modern fashion, is ahistorical - "we're above the influence of culture!" Right.

I recently debated a very free church individual about wearing clerical collars. I, for one, think they're ok when worn for the right reasons. He gave me the old "did Jesus wear a collar" routine. I'll say here what I said to him: this comes down to one issue and one issue alone. The issue is this: if Scripture is silent (or says little or is vague) on an issue, do we approve the practice or forbid it? Barna and Viola want to forbid them. I do not. I think the Holy Spirit has been active throughout Christian history. In fact, the early Church probably did some things we shouldn't do.

Finally, I wonder about Barna. This is not a personal attack, but the guy seems to have reacted VERY strongly against a negative experience with the Catholic church. Every few years he seems to come along predicting the apocalypse for the Church on earth, going further and further away from anything resembling an institution (except for his evergrowing institution known as The Barna Group). I think his information is suspect and his interpretations wildly skewed. It's fair game in the marketplace of ideas, but Christian leaders should get a used copy (who wants to support this stuff?) and be ready to address it.

As a former institutional pastor of 12 years, I would have previously disapproved of this book. However, I have come to grips with the reality that God is taking His church thru a paridgm shift. I very much enjoyed the preparation & delivery of sermons, corporate worship, etc. but was also honest enough to see the conflict of our forms of worship and practice with biblical principle. One primary concern, voiced in Mr. Violas book, was the congregant being a spectator rather than a participant in the gathering. Another was the waste associated with buildings and upkeep. I honor the womb that birthed my spiritual existance and I am not at war with the institutional church. I can, however, testify to the absoulte reality that my Father has led me on a journey away from many of the roots that I once held dear, and that I continue to encounter other non-angry believers & former leaders with no axes to grind, to whom He is speaking with an amazingly consistent voice. Thanks to these writters for having the boldness to challenge the sacred cows of our Christian culture.

I find it interesting that the same man who provides us with so many statistics on the state of the Church and the state of Christians, i.e. percentages of those who say they are Christians, but don't live any differently than those in the world, the great percentage who don't hold a Biblical Worldview, who rarely open their Bibles...are these the one's who are going to open their homes and shepherd people? I'm not surprised that Barna would be behind this book, seeing as he in an interview said he doesn't attend church either.

For those who are incessantly calling for a return to the first century, let me ask you—which NT church would you like to emulate? Cornith? Galatia? Laodicea?

First century churches had their share of problems and so do we. The solution isn’t discovered by looking back, but by looking to Christ.

Brandon,

No offense, but your post seems very emotional to me. You don't really seem to offer up any reason why Viola is wrong... you just assume that he is and expect your readers to agree.

Thorn,

I'm glad that you have heard the word "ekklesia" but you have misused it. Ekklesia and Synagogue are not synonymous. Ekklesia (the Greek term) is a gathering of people (usually for political purposes)... not the place where they meet.

Anti-Viola Comments,

You all seem to be reacting against what Viola has not said. Perhaps he hit a nerve. I encourage you to give yourselves a moment to look at what he actually said.

Pro-Viola Comments,

So far you all seem pretty balanced... in fact, most of you seem to just be defending Viola against what he didn't say.

All,

I haven't read the book yet, but I know a lot about it and plan on reading it as soon as I can get a copy. Until then, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

God's Glory,
Lew

Ethan. Your question is not in line with what the authors are suggesting in the book. I encourage you to take a look at the conversation at http://www.ptmin.org/answers.htm where your question and others like it are addressed.

David Flowers:

If you're out there, I've inadvertently deleted your comment. ("Delete" and "Publish" are very close together.)

Please feel free to write again. I'll do better this time.

"pastor" is a gifting of the Holy Spirit not unlike the gifting of teaching, prophecy, helps, etc... The Elders are the spiritual "big brothers" for the congregation and it is these men who, with the pastoral gifting, are given by God as under-shepherds to the local church.

I wish I had the time and space to address each of the quotes/arguments from above. I don't so I'll just respond to a couple of the Biblical arguments listed.

(Full disclosure: I haven't read the book so I'm only responding to the quotes from listed in this post, and I am from a fairly conservative denomination.)

Firstly, focusing on one passage of Scripture which uses the word pastor (in Eph. 4) ignores the rest of the Scriptural picture. He excludes a whole host of other Scriptural passages which clearly show the pastor(s) (though admittedly using the words elder/overseer/bishop/etc. - they are all Scripturally the same, though I recognize that perhaps Mr. Viola might debate that point) as a servant to his congregation, and in an established office. I'd like to know if he deals with passages in 1 Tim. 3 and Titus 1 (which not only describe the office, but list strict qualifications for it), 1 Peter 5:1-4, Acts 6, 20:28 and so many more. The Biblical support and mandate for the office of pastor/overseer/elder is very strong.

Re: the old Aaronic/Levitical priesthood, sure it's no longer. But to argue that there should be no professional pastorate because the Old Covenant priesthood is no longer valid ignores the whole New Testament. Hebrews points to Jesus as the great high priest who fulfilled the Old Covenant so it has been replaced with the New. It does not say there should be no official leadership in the church.

Re: the quote "nothing so hinders the fulfillment of God's eternal purpose as does the present-day pastoral role", I think the distinction between the office itself and how it's fulfilled is important. Just because some are poor pastors with power issues, etc. does NOT invalidate the office. The Biblically mandated office is for the edification of the church (which ironically is the whole point of not only pastors, but apostles, teachers, etc. in Eph. 4. That is conveniently ignored in those arguments listed above.).

I think this might be an over-reaction to the mindset that the only way to be a pastor is to have a 4-yr M.Div. from a seminary and that the pastor is the only one who knows anything. That's certainly not Biblical (though I'm not against pastors being educated). So I can agree that some pastors have been a hindrance to the cause. But again, that does not invalidate the office.

Sorry, I just can't buy this premise. To see Mr. Barna give his name to it isn't surprising (given the recent Revolution book) but it is disappointing. The pastoral office is not pagan. It is Biblical and given by God for the building up of His church. Yes, it is people who've abused the office, but that doesn't mean it is pagan and non-Biblical.

It's OK. This isn't the first time.

I wrote too much to remember it all now.

If your readers are interested... they can read my review at www.amazon.com.

I will only say this... people are not reading the book closely. Many instead are reacting prematurely with emotion and pragmatism (i.e. spirit of the age) instead of wisdom and discernment in the Spirit of Christ. This was to be expected.

To Frank and George: You knew this was coming. Here you stand... you can do no other. And brothers... you do not stand alone. Thank you for your obedience.
To Tyndale: Thank you for staying true to your name.

May the Lord release his many members from the bondage of religion in order that she might reveal Christ in all of his majesty and splendor.

David D. Flowers

To Michael Schutz - actually Frank does go into detail on his claim that the NT "pastor" was not an "office." Please, read the book before jumping to conclusions.

And for the others who are making assumptions w/o reading the book, please... read the book. There are many, many comments being made that aren't particularly "wrong" but rather irrelevant and/or contrary to what Frank has actually written in this book.

I reviewed the self-published version of this book last summer -- found it in need of editing, and sometimes harsh in its tone. And I certainly don't agree with everything Frank says (e.g., Bob Hyatt's comment). That aside, I found it hard to dispute the majority of PC's conclusions.

If I had to summarize "Pagan Christianity?" in one sentence, it would be this: we have institutionalized, centralized, formalized, stratified, professionalized, academized, and mega-fied something that was intended to remain organic, holistic, distributed, participative, unworldly, fluid, and deeply communal.

Like it or hate it, "Pagan Christianity?" reached #11 on Amazon's book sales yesterday (!), and remains within Amazon's top 50. This shows a profound hunger today for more authentic expression of Jesus community without the unbiblical duality of "amateur" and "professional."

There are some excellent reviews (both pro and con), including David Flowers', over at Amazon. Give it a look.

I've read the chapter in question, and Viola does not support his thesis against the pastorate with any other scripture than Eph. 4. He simply avoids the complicated reality of the NT witness. His mistake is oversimplifying a complex argument.

Brandon,

I appreciate the fact that, like Viola, you "showed your cards" at the beginning of your article. As you said, you have moved towards a tradition that is both hierarchial and liturgical. It's clear that you have personally found this to be meaningful and you are "incurably biased" in that direction. I respect that and I think it is fair enough to reflect on the book from that personal perspective. (Although I found your sarcasm to be unhelpful and a bit arrogant: "Wait; it gets better.")

What I'm wondering is if you would be willing to now to take off your "individual Christian" hat and put on your hat as "Leadership assistant editor"? Step back and reflect on a country that is becoming increasingly both multicultural and post-Christian. Do you see anything in "Pagan Christianity" that might help us wrestle with these realities? How about taking another shot at this review?

Brandon,
Thanks for your review. I have read the book and have realized for some time the clergy-laity dichotomy, meaning the Pastor-congregation relationship. What Frank and George put forth is really nothing new. What the book does is stir one up to question why we do what we do in the light of the scriptures as well as from an historical perspective. Of course, if I am a paid Pastor the book is very threatening to my security. Can we be honest in our approach to this subject in the light of the scriptures and historical evidence? Or am I basing my conclusions wearing rose colored glasses or what satisfies my ecclesiastical bent. I believe there are Pastors. But we have taken the Post-Reformation model without searching the scriptures for the mind of God concerning Pastorship. Have we seen what the Lord means by Pastor or have I just accepted that postion because it has always been there. Let us have an open heart without fear we are going off. Can we not question our practices without fear of retribution by the religious establishment? Let us find ourselves rooted in Christ and be faithful to the scriptures.

The point that everyone is missing here is not that the New Testament church is what we should all be emulating.

The fact is that the eternal Church of Jesus Christ started way before time and space. It started in God Himself.

If you really want to know how to have church, you must look there. How do the Father, Son, and Spirit relate to one another? Do we see any rituals there? Do we see any hierachy there?

Do we see anything there except unbridled freedom, love, and the exchange of divine life?

Adopting extra-biblical practices isn't necessarily unkosher. We see this in the Torah, as God directs Israel to adopt certain ideas, visual-prompts especially, and outward actions that actually reflected (or contrasted) pagan practices around them.
Not that we shouldn't examine such things and ask thoughtful productive questions, but we should be cautious in being retro-reactive to our already fragile and increasingly emaciated traditions.

Brandon, I am half way thru and find the book interesting albeit a tad boring in places and also somewhat of a caricature of the est church.

But you haven't actually argued for an alternative.

You have simply said that you don't like what Viola says.

I think you argument is much weaker than his!

So how do they "do church" in places like China? Hmmm...maybe they are more like the New Testament? We are looking at this from a western perspective, perhaps we should look at this differently?

I had some concerns about the book when I reviewed it, and ended up posting a 5-part review. There was much about the book which was quite good, so to get further clarity I took the time to do an interview with Frank, beginning with part one of three parts. Well worth the effort, and helped explain where and why Viola and Barna are not saying some things it sounds like they are.

i actually saw this book in our local borders bookstore the other day, and thumbed through it for a few minutes. (living as i do in the bible belt, i had to keep it hidden inside a Playboy magazine so people wouldn’t feel the need to ‘lift me up’ in prayer requests this coming sunday…)

anyway, the facts raised in the book are interesting; i’m just not sure that all the conclusions drawn should be taken as gospel (pun intended).

some thoughts:

first, did anyone ever think that Jesus didn’t leave us a signed copy of his sure-to-be-bestseller, Running Your New Church: WIWD (What I Would Do), was because one-size-fits-all was never God’s intention?

second, anyone who can read the minutiae of the OT priestly and temple directives and not immediately think “meeting minutes” needs to read a few more Dilbert cartoons.

third, the primary conclusions we should draw from all of paul’s (non-)prescriptive letters is that (a) he had OCD, (b) his zealous practice of christianity mirrored his zealous practice of judaism as a pharisee, and (c) there’s no fanatic like a convert.

finally, most of our christian holidays and observances are rooted in pagan practices, too; and, as if that were not enough, the common tune to which we sing luther’s ‘A Mighty Fortress Is Our God’ is lifted from an old german drinking song.

my apologies for the tone of my comments today. my three teenagers’ attitude of the-main-problem-with-the-rest-of-the-world-is-that-it-hasn’t-figured-out-my-greatness-yet seems to be rubbing off on me…

guys, i've heard this argument for the past 3 years and frankly t's getting lame. the idea of pluristic leadership is absolute nonsense.
while i disagree with the modern iterpretations of corporate church, clearly the bible teaches, bishops, elders, deacons.Timothy was commanded to lead...hello. Paul clearly in his letter expressed "leadership". the pastor is first among equals, responsible for the guidence of sound doctrine. he is also part of the 5 fold ministry gifts mentioned in ephesians, the purpose of such ,again clearly defined, to equip the saints. i.e. to facilitate movement. the striking of the shepherd is an age old tactic of the devil whos instruments all too often are flesh and blood. the warning is to guard against such who seek to divide the flock of God for their own purposes or gain or book sales or noteriety.
what arrogance and foolishness, dogmatic, insolence.

While there's been a lot of argument about the validity of the pastorate, I'm more concerned about what Brandon says is Viola's fundamental point: that we need to return to New Testament church practices because many practices come from other less ancient pagan cultures. First of all, is Viola really making the argument that the only church practices occurring during the first century are valid? If so, how can one make that argument from (NT) scripture, since the New Testament itself was assembled by church leaders long after the first century? If those church leaders that assembled the new testament had already adopted 'pagan' institutions, how can we trust their judgment about what writings were canonical?

I agree that the church should move toward a less hierarchical model of leadership and participation. But I think the argument that the office of pastor must be rejected because it has 'pagan' origins is rather dubious, to say the least.

All great questions to explore.

It makes me wonder though, what is the origin, pagan or biblical, for publishing "christian" books for profit? Does not the Scripture say that what God has given us freely, we should also freely give? Was this how the early church did it? Did Paul sell his letters to make a profit? Maybe someone can research that...

I also wonder the origin of taking surveys that are used to direct the church. I don't recall Paul taking surveys of the church at Corinth to figure out their theology or practices. Instead he had relationships. Is the business of doing surveys organic church or corporate church?

I think we should examine ALL of our practices using the same measuring rod... not just some of them.

Hi Milt, good questions.
You asked, "If you really want to know how to have church, you must look there. How do the Father, Son, and Spirit relate to one another?" Do we see any hierachy there?
Yes, Jesus came to do the will of the Father, prayed to the Father, etc... The Holy Spirit is sent by the Father to do another work. So yes, we do see roles and hierarchy.

You asked, "Do we see any rituals there?
Yes, I suggest you read the Old Testament and the book of Revelation and the New Testament which talks about several rituals such as communion, baptism, etc..

Again, great questions.

It is interesting that when you turn the page from John's gospel to Acts, the very first recorded act of the apostles was to nominate three candidates to replace Judas followed by casting lots to choose between the three. Wonder where they learned that trick? Surely they had watched Jesus make decisions in that manner during their three years walking with him.

I am from Scotland and am interested in the debate. I belong to a local Church which has men who do the work of elders and deacons and, since they have the qualifications and do the work, are recognised as such by us. They also hold down secular jobs.

I have been commended by my local Church to the grace of God for Gospel work and Bible teaching. I have no salary and look to God to provide my family's needs. I left my employment 10 years ago when I was commended and can testify to the faithfulness of God.

We meet every Sunday to break bread in accordance with 1 Corinthians 11, have a plurality of elders, own our own building, fund our own activities, and believe in the priesthood of all believers. There is no pastor and each brother is free to pray, give out a hymn, read the scriptures etc.. as God gives them opportunity. We leave the format of the Breaking of Bread in God's hands and quietly wait upon Him. We have some who are gifted of God to preach and teach and they do so. Every one of us has a gift from the Holy Spirit and we seek to exercise it in accordance with 1 Corinthians 12. Scripture is central to our gatherings and we believe in it's inspiration and sufficiency. We also have outreach among the children and youth of our village and all of the believers in the Chruch live in the village locality.

There are many such churches in the UK and throughout the world which are independant, stand alone local churches, which look to scripture alone as the authority and guide as to doctrine and practice and gather in the way in which I have described. They have no Church councils, fund raising, salaried employment, hierarchical structures of Church Govt but rather try to adhere to the simplicity of the pattern in the New Testament. The Bible is for the whole world and as such a Church should be able to start and function wherever people are saved and be pretty much self sufficient. I have seen this in Africa and Asia where I have preached to new churches, some of which are very poor, have no money, pastors or buildings yet fuction as New Testament churches.

The only reason for the post is to suggest that there are many churches today which do have the same character as the churches in the New Testament, in my humble opinion, of course...

I am enjoying the posts since it gives me some insight into the views of others who are in established national and structured churches which look to church history and creeds, liturgies etc.. as being authoratative in some way.

A little over a year ago I purchased a pristine copy of the New Testament (no previous underlines or markings to sway my reading) in response to a desire to simply walk along with and sit at the feet of Jesus listening to his words and observing his way of life to discover if what we have, and what I served for 22 years, was truly what he intended. I figured I had nothing to lose taking off all the filters of what I had been taught (even in Bible college and seminary) since, if what I had grown to know as church was what he intended I would end up back there anyway. I did not.

I am excited to begin this book when I finish my current book because many of the issues you have outlined in your article are issues I too noticed along the path of my journey. I have been encouraged over and over again in the last year to discover I am not alone on this journey. And how exciting to see the first "main stream" author to address them.

The sound you are currently hearing is my forehead smashing repeatedly on the keyboard.

Which conversely, by sheer magnitude of chance, via random mashing of various keys as my forehead rolls spastically with each disbelieving descent, would produce a far more comprehensible work than what this book could hope for.

Good lord, how can anyone with half-a-brain, and a cursory knowledge of the bible take this book seriously?

This book doesn't even generate a "hey, this should start a good discussion!" type of compliment because it's fallacious from the get go. It's premise is weak, demonstratably wrong, and has no basis of support in the historical record ... in fact, it's blatantly crying out from the front cover, "Hey, you! Yeah you! Want to join me in my ignorance in all things biblical and historical!"

Good lord...the things some people write to make a buck...sometimes I wonder about Christianity and it's authors.

"Give a man a sword and he'll go to war, give a man a pen and he'll start a war."

Sheerahkahn and others offering vague critique, it would be helpful if you actually offered some examples to go with your vehemence.

There is a lot of emoting going on in this discussion; which is undertandable considering many have a vested interest in the topic. But lets offer subtance shall we?

There is an old saying that goes like this... "You can't judge a book by its cover."

It's simlple really. If you have not read this book... you have nothing to say. This would cut down on most of the comments that are in response to this poor book review.

I recommend more prayerful listening before your mouth is allowed to respond prematurely.

I truly wonder if some people are more interested in being amused by their own posts than they are interested in the truth of the Scriptures and the centrality and supremacy of Christ in all things.

As far as I can tell... Christ is absent from the content of many posts. When are faith and church practices are not rooted in Christ... something is very wrong. When are conversations about the church are not centered around Jesus Christ... we have been bewitched!

Word to the wise: Read the book before you pretend to know anything about the authors or the message of this historically accurate compilation of facts. Then you may decide what you will say and do about it.

Since the inspired penning of the Scripture... there has been war. Most of it is caused by people who ignore simple rules of Biblical interpretation in order to justify fleshly agendas in the name of God.

When we are willing to lay ourselves aside for an honest look at the history of the institutional church... and when we will apply a consistent and verifiable method of biblical interpretation... we will find the truth hiding behind our biases, presuppositions, and misconceptions about the clear teachings of Jesus and his first followers.

David D. Flowers

After thinking on this some more, please allow me to put a finer point on my questions for Mr. Viola and Mr. Barna.

- In addition to this book, Mr. Viola states on his website that at least 2 of his resources are "prophetic." Of course, to read his prophetic message you have to pay money. Mr. Viola, what is the origin for selling God's prophetic message? Pagan or Biblical?

- Mr. Viola (and Mr. Barna) also gets paid to speak at conferences where he spreads his message (as a side note, as a side note his upcoming conference includes a lot of worship... will that only be in a house church meeting... but I digress. Tell me, where do we see Paul selling his speaking time? I know he made tents to earn a living, but did he get money for speaking the Gospel? Did he charge admission like Mr Viola? So what is the origins of selling the message from God (which He gave freely)? Is that Pagan or biblical?

- Mr Viola and Mr. Barna also publishes this books with a copyright notice. What is the origin of copyrighting? Tell me, how many of Paul's letters were copyrighted and sold to the churches? If Mr. Viola's work is truly prophecy, as he claims in his blurbs, can we find some examples of prophets who copyrighted their message so they could sue other prophets who might try and repeat it? Is that Pagan or biblical?

- Finally, Mr Viola and Mr. Barna, you chose to publish your criticism of many good servants of the Lord Jesus Christ and have claimed that they are all serving a Pagan tradition. I am curious, is publishing a book that is distributed through godless sources the biblical approach or the Pagan approach? When Paul saw that a particular church was in error, did he write them directly or did he try to attack them by sending out letters to the Romans? So I would like to know, is your approach to correcting the Church Pagan or biblical?

I personally think that the pastorate-laity connection is obselete. It doesn't reflect for Gen Xers or millenials. Services are not as sensory and we don't get to lead them or plan them. We are not part of the leadership.

I went to seminary. It provided tools but none that could not have been learned in a year of additional undergraduate school. I think Barna makes a compelling case for a simplification of American Orthopraxis that should be heeded by the institutional church. The lesson is clear, some laity are tired of being preached at and ministered to. They don't want to be managed and instructed but want to be an active member of all parts of worship life. Even preaching, even (gulp) saying the prayers over the elements!

Joe, your questions make evident that you haven't read the book or if you did, you missed the point. Viola actually answers these questions at http://www.ptmin.org/answers.htm. Barna and Viola are speaking about the ekklesia not religious organizations, businesses or publishing houses.

Couple things:

1. It's not incumbent on Brandon to offer alternatives. I can see the value in his offering them, but it's just not necessary for him to have a valid critique.

2. RE: high AMAZON ratings.
Of course it's going to within the popular literature of evangelicalism...most evangelicalism is driven by congregational models of church that feed the arrogant individualism of our North American middle class social values. (i.e. "we all should have a say, we all are equal in our theological offerings", etc. Pardon me while I puke.)

The answer to the occasional hyper intellectual pastor or control freak power abuser is NOT, i repeat NOT, giving the reins to the tyranny of the majority in the name of some egregiously misunderstood articulation of the "priesthood of all believers".

My basic point is that I see churches marked by power issues at every turn and this book plays in to the tendency of the ubiquitous "lay power players" who sell printer ink for a living coming in to tell a trained, committed pastor how to do his job whenever they don't like what that trained pastor is doing.

I appreciate what Mickey and others have voiced above. I too have struggled with much of what was written in the book. I've found that most who have shared the same struggles are glad this book was published. I learned early in my journey of organic/house church that authors and researchers such as Viola, Barna, Cole, Simpson and others were very helpful to me. They allowed me to be able to openly talk as a seminary student in a conservative tradition about what I was struggling with. They helped me to know that I wasn't alone, even among my peers and denominational leaders. They also put words to the feelings I was having and gave an avenue for discussion. The cutting tone and sarcasm of some in the blog postings I've been reading over the past few weeks shows me that the struggles I've encountered within my own denominational background and culture are not specific to one group as well.

I actually agree with many of the criticisms about the way we run our churches.

Here is a review of a good book on the subject by Dr. Joe Hellerman. The Ancient Church as Family He mentions as well some of the pagan influences on the formation of the church. Hellerman does an excellent job with scholarly integrity.

Read the review and get the book.

Oh, and the questions I posed earlier are not mean to dismiss the importance of the questions of how the pastorate has been damaged by bad practice. They are meant as a reminder that we can go too far in applying any standard; ultimately throwing out the baby with the bath water.

"Sheerahkahn and others offering vague critique, it would be helpful if you actually offered some examples to go with your vehemence."

Fair enough.

I have limited space here, so I'm going to choose my words carefully.

The concept of early Christianity was to get the Pagans to stop killing them, and listen to their preaching. Once they got their attention and some converted, the next objective was to ensure that the locals didn't revert back to past practices.
Wouldn't do to have a repeat of Paul's concerns with the Thessalonians, now would it.
So the purposeful objective of early Christian's was to turn the profane of the Pagan to the Glory of G-d.
This practice was on a small scale since the numbers of new christians in each town were small. The disciples, as well as later christians, methodology of converting the profane to G-d's glory eventually supplanted entire cultural Pagan institutions and holidays with the new Christianized celebrations and institutions.
Viola doesn't get the whole concept of turning the profane to the holy, nor does he comprehend the fact that his complaints do not stem from cultural implantation of pagan practices, but from the inherent corruption that man brings to any of his endeavors. Something he should be concerned about. However, I'm encouraged by this thought:
G-d works within the scope of our corruption, and though we hose things pretty badly, somehow, someway G-d brings it all home...turning our profane to his Glory.
Amen.

Sheerahkahn,

All good. I agree with you that early Christianity re-energized, re-defined, re-invigorated various practices to turn them from profane to holy. Indeed, this is historically accurate.

I'm wondering if you've actually read Pagan Christianity? though. Because, Viola does say at various points in the book, that he is not suggesting that if something is not in the Bible, that it should not be practiced. This is where I think a lot of people are misunderstanding the book.

I think we need to remember that Viola is very much a house-church guy. And I think his intention is to demonstrate just how many of our current Church practices are "extra-biblical", with the hope that many people will see that these practices are not "wrong", but merely, unnecessary. Perhaps then, I'm sure Viola feels and hopes, people would embrace something more organic like the house-church movement. Because, at present, Viola makes it clear that he thinks many Christians follow certain practices because they believe them to be biblically-based, when they are not.

"The concept of early Christianity was to get the Pagans to stop killing them, and listen to their preaching."

Ummmmm...ok.

The amount of persecution in the early church was not as pervasive as some people think.

It only came in occasional stages and the worst persecutions were geographically limited.

That among some other statements are interesting theological statements, but I don't know if they're any better history than Viola.

Origins are the topic today. Does anyone know if Frank Viola is a pseudonym for Gene Edwards. I am certain that years ago I read these same arguments - appropriately described above as 'pseudo-academic' - set forth in the same style but in lesser detail.

"Beyond Radical" and "How to Meet Under the Headship of Christ." etc.

"Pagan Christianity"? Yes,the conventional church has issues. Yes, pastors can get on a power trip. Yes, churches can even be toxic.Fleshly Christianity...carnal Christianity but "Pagan Christianity"? Really ? Sorry I can't get past the title. Any valid points that could be made are negated by the arrogant,divisive,presumptive title of this book.

George Barna, Frank Viola, Gene Edwards, Howard Snyder, Jim Rutz are all different people who have written about the same issues.

Has anyone read "Revolution" by George Barna. If so, what did you think about it?

Put any group of people together for any length of time and a leader will emerge (no pun intended). Is that pagan? And since the term 'pastor' is another word for 'shepherd' would it not seem odd for a shepherd to be just another sheep in the flock? Jesus calls himself the good shepherd and states that his sheep know his voice. He will leave the flock to find that one sheep who has gone astray. He does not send another sheep to find the lost one, does he? Jesus told Peter, "Feed My sheep." Peter was a guy with a lot of problems including denial of his friendship with Jesus. Why would Jesus say such a thing to him?

All this is not to imply that the position of Pastor is not continuously abused by many who hold it and many pastors have led their flock astray. But they will answer to God personally for their disobedience.

In 1970 we launched several house churches and I predicted the soon demise of the old institutional church. Was I ever wrong. There have been numerous mega churches come from the Jesus Movement. However, many of them actually have a guild system that raises up leaders through experience and proven character rather than schooling. It is a system I would vote for to replace the school system.

I have not read the book but have enjoyed reading this discussion.

A few comments:

1. I think it is unlikley that the church needs to look the same and be structured the same in every culture over 100's of years.

2. Every church will need leadership. Every style can become problematic or beautiful depending on how people handle it. God is big enough I'm sure to work in many different church/leadership structures as people seek & worship Him.

3. Healthy churches have leadership that equips people to serve and creatues a culture of teamwork, participation and service among the whole congregation. I've seen this develop in "Institutional" churches of many different shapes and sizes.

4. We need to be careful about superficial generalizations about what does or does not work or what leadership structure is or is not biblical.

5. This quote from the book seems like a real reach to me:

"nothing so hinders the fulfillment of God's eternal purpose as does the present-day pastoral role.”

1 other comment:

I think we need to be careful to avoid assuming anyone can lead a church - regardless of what title they have or don't have. Do we want to assume that years of training and experience in pastoral ministry has minimal or no value towards helping a person become a positive leader in the church?

The church is one of the few arena's where people in the group sometimes think they know as much as the leader/pastor does about how the organization should function etc.. You don't get this attitude as much in other settings. If someone has no training in or experience in teaching 3rd graders, running an accoutning business, building a house or managing a marketing department... most people would think they would be foolish and arroagant to walk into a classroom, CPA office, construction site or office and contend that their input and leadership should be valued at the same level as someone who has significant work experience and training in those settings. But this happens in the church all the time. People with no experience in trying to actually lead a congregation can assume they know every bit as much as a pastor who may have been in this role for years. Such an attitude needs to be re-evaluated from my perspective

One George Barna, in "Revolution," informed us that a round of golf on Sunday morning with a golfing buddy was a suitable form to church. Also:

"The Bible does not rigidly define the corporate practices, rituals, or structures that must be embraced in order to have a proper church." p 37

And: "The Bible goes to great lengths to teach us principles for living and theology for understanding. However, it provides very little guidance in terms of the methods and structures we must use" .... p 115

In view of these quotes and the hair-splitting analysis and condemnation of the "methods and structures" of others in PC?, are you absolutely certain he is the co-author?

When I read the Book of Acts, I see that it didn't take long for there to be a need for hierchical structure in the Church. This was due to two factors, the physical needs of God's people and theological questions. These are the same reasons we need a hierchical structure today.

rdm, hate to disagree with you. you said:

When I read the Book of Acts, I see that it didn't take long for there to be a need for hierchical structure in the Church. This was due to two factors, the physical needs of God's people and theological questions.

when i read the book of acts, i see it didn't take long for man to begin making the church in his own image. this was (is) due in part to two factors: God wasn't there anymore, and man was.

mike rucker
http://mikerucker.wordpress.com

oh, I want this book. I reallyreally want this book. I am breaking a commandment by looking at this book -- "thou shalt not covet." 15 Hail Mary's for me and 5 Our Fathers...

Why is it that anytime anyone dare suggest something "anti-church" or anti-establishment we automatically shoot it down and set it on fire? "How dare you go against our traditions!" (Sounds like another judgmental blast from the past.)

Have we uncovered our roots? Have we really looked at where these traditions came from? Examined them? Most early xtian art showed Jesus with short hair. Without a beard and carrying a sheep slung across his back. Which was borrowed from a popular pagan image from the Roman Empire. Jonah, in the belly of the great fish, was often shown lounging under a gourd, due to its roots in Yom Kippur which is when the text was traditionally read. (I love the links back to Judaism. After all, we all are linked and we gotta remember where we came from.)

But we fall into twisting things to fit our modern mindset. And when someone comes along to show that things may not be as close as they appear in our mirror, we gripe. Please just read the book and come to your own conclusion. Maybe do a little historical digging yourself.

The Jewish leaders were jealous of the Christians because they saw the huge amount of following they got. How did they see this? Because they met in the temple (Solomon's Colonnade) and in synagogues until they were kicked out. Then they met in houses.

What did these houses look like and how many were there? In at least one case 120+! That's larger than most churches! Was this normal? Well if you've ever been to Palestine, Asia Minor, even eastern Europe, a fair number of houses have courtyards between the sleeping areas and the kitchen and the barn enclosed in by a wall. Zealous people could easily fit 200 people in the greater 'house'. So what really is a first century house church?

Also, Paul stipulated that gatherings take place with order. And order by definition requires either structure or a leader having some form of control. Paul and his band appointed leaderS in all the churches they started. Did Paul and all the leaders also always have secular jobs or were they sometimes paid ministers? The impression I get from scripture is that they were given money to meet there needs by various people and communities. Was it employment in terms of the American IRS, I'm sure they would have to claim the income. :) I don't see anywhere in scripture that says full time paid ministers is evil, they should not be mere hirelings, though.

So what should the duties of a Senior Pastor really be? Is it head apostle for the local church? The hearer of God's vision for the local body? Perhaps in a megachurch. Or, is it less glorious (at least in the American mind set, NOT GOD's) and simply a full time doer of ministry? Visiting...er sorry taboo word...I mean connecting with people, encouraging to righteousness, teaching, feeding (physically, mentally, spiritually) as they are able, being the example of servanthood for people to see.

As a deacon in my church, I wish I had the resources to do ministry full time. Yet I see the paid full time Senior Pastor spend soooo much time trying to figure out how to put on a good show on Sunday, how to structure the appointed offices and hierarchy, how to do the right formula to make IT work. He misses the point that IT is getting out of the office and loving the body enough to show up at their house and care outside of Sunday. He's a thirty something emergeling that no doubt would love PC?

Why do Christian leaders believe the worlds definitions and apply derogatory labels to Christians and Christianity? Why help the enemy put us down?

I don't think it's so much that pagan practices have "infiltrated" the church as it is the fact that the church has historically been very effective at co-opting pagan traditions ... putting it's own "spin" on them if you like. The most outstanding examples are Christmas (Saturnalia), St. Valentine's Day (Lupercalia), and Easter (Oestre).

Whatever happened to doing things decently and in order? Since when is a mass or liturgy basically a bad thing? Why is it wrong for certain people who have the gift to spend their time studying the wholesome bread of the gospel so as to serve it well to their congregations?

Obviously, congregations have responsibilities too, but I don't get the argument at all.

Silly men.

Several of you - one without having read the book, discovered its fatal flaw: an invented view of the priesthood of all believers.

The authors of PC? keep repeating that “we are all priests now” as if that somehow proved their case. Ex 19:6 demonstrates that all were always a “kingdom of priests.” As priests, the saints have forever been a separated people having direct access to God, able to mediate for one another. The priesthood of all does not - never did - preclude the existence of physical structures or official leaders.

DA Anderson
House Church Network

Mr. O'Brien, based on much of the internet buzz, and after talking on the phone to Frank Viola, I penned an article that deals with the kind of discourse we should be having around this book.

I mention this article since it was the one that brought this to my attention.

I thought you, and all of your readers could benefit from this article on "Pagan Conversations."

The Jewish leaders were jealous of the Christians because they saw the huge amount of following they got. How did they see this? Because they met in the temple (Solomon's Colonnade) and in synagogues until they were kicked out. Then they met in houses.

This is not historically accurate. The first Christians saw themselves as Jewish.
The outer court of the temple was constantly filled with gentiles there to pray.

These kinds of statements perpetuate supercessionism and undermine the jewishness of the early church...

2 thoughts.

1 Corinthians 14:26 comes up relating to the norm. This is kinda funny when you read the context, including verse 34-35.

The other thing I never hear inthis discussion is how God has operated through history from the beginning with a plan. Consider the sculpter who is assigned to make a bronze stature of, say, general Brock. He does some drawings. He then makes a small model, then perhaps a halfsize model; then a fullsize model which he uses in a process to cast the final bronze statue.
Now consider God, who works through history setting up the "final" form by first setting a pattern for it in the Greeks. They develop "Logos" and over time God allows this concept to be refined, so that when the final Word comes (in John 1:1), it comes not out of the blue, but from a history that God allowed to develop; one that actually enhances the message of the Gospel and places it in a context. Paganism is not as Godless as we may think, from a certain perspective, for they are searching for truth (in an image they don't understand).
And thirdly (I did say 3 things, right?), I think the principles of the Gospel are not culturaly based. They are based on the character of God (holiness and righteousness are 2 attributes that come to mind). Christianity grew out of Jewishness, which grew out of whatever (Jewishness is pretty old going back to Mr Moses - think that developing of the bronze thought here). The Gospel was meant to cross cultural boundaries in a way that Jewishness could not (it was for Jews and Gentiles). That's why love is the focus. Agape is spoken in every language. If how you do church is different than I - that's okay. When we focus on the form, though, we begin to slide back under the Law (which is about form and rules). The Gospel is about grace, not whther I own a building or not. The Law was there to point to Grace. Holiness (Christ-likeness) is our goal. What the Law could not do in rules, God did in Grace (love). Do a house church, then, that fit the culture of the 1st C and fills a void in today's chaotic society, or do a mega-church which has a place in 21 C. We may challenge both forms (among the myriad of others) for various reasons, but God is bigger than all that and will use those that pursue Him with everything they got (Matthew 22:37ff).

A main point of the authors is that what the institutional church does may not be wrong but it is also not necessarily sacred. And I agree. I do believe that in many institional churches we see a two- class system. The people are spectators and the clergy are the holy class.
This along with other practices such as treating bible study as an academic exercise rather than a transformational experience has sadly numbed out the masses.
I have witnessed and experienced more transformation through the recovery movement than I have in most churches. In Christian recovery we believe God speaks through all of us. We are His priests. We expect God to show up ...and He does. In our church we have an open microphone during our main worship because we believe God will speak through His priests. On a weekly basis our people are testifying to the power of God. Such testimonies about what God is doing now bring the church family closer to God and create an expectation in our church family that God will show up on their lives today and throughout the week.
I don't think many people in the institutional church share the same experience .

The answer lies to this book in an effective, New Testament approach to leadership, which is clearly articulated as a group of elders. Pastors take on too much and become the De Facto leaders of everything. That was not the intention of the Apostle Paul. Even the business world, which I live every day, is wise enough to know that one man cannot lead without a team. I doubt this book would even be in print if the role of Elder were revered and respected.

I always seem to be a lone voice in the crowd...but I am a pastor that left the "structured" church for "house" church and found it all to be as backward, ingrown, unchristlike, painfully biblically illiterate and dangerous to the faith of believers as the institutional church was...in fact, for us it was worse. Every Eden has its snake. I'm pastoring in a traditional church now because the house stunk. These arguments seem so dumb....what's next Christian nudists preaching against the clothed...a book and a movement: lets all get back to eden! Ugh.

This is a "hot" topic and I've enjoyed and appreciated the many posts here. I believe that one of the main reasons we are sharing passionatley our (bias) one way or the other is simple (maybe simplistic:-))

What if its true? What if much of this and other boooks are simply defining the end of an era? For many Laity (I use that word intentionally) for many the institutional church has lost its attractiveness. many of you have referred to culture, and one thing we all know is that this next generation is not endeared toward orgaisations and institutions. Relationships are the key (that may be a key aspect of the early church!)

All that this book flags is that things are changing. the way we do church is already undertaking a major shift (read Revolution- Barnaand other emerging church material) the question for each of us currently in leadership and paid for by church tithes is will you engage in future possibilities??? (there being no building or paid staff etc) or will you fight to protect the status quo (your salary etc)

Either way i believe we live in exciting times!

I like what these authors are saying and applaud their efforts to draw us as Christians closer to a Biblical model of how we do church, even if they are a bit 'bombastic' and sensationalistic.

But the real issue is not the 'system' but the 'sin' that goes undealt with in many churches. The reason we are seeing an exodus from the institutional church is because people have real problems caused by real sin, that is rarely if ever dealt with by the leadership.

Lamentations 2:10 says that 'false prophets have not exposed your iniquity so as to restore you from captivity.'

The real problem with institutional Christianity is not how we structure our services but that we simply do not do the ministry of Jesus and the Apostles. Their ministry was simple-- preach repentance, cast out demons, heal the sick, and instruct in righteousness.

For the most part, the American church doesn't do even one of these things. Not one. We are not doing New Testament ministry.

This is why the sweeping majority of people in church on Sunday morning will tell you if asked, that they do not feel close to God. And it is our responsibility as shepherds to correct ourselves and embrace Christ and His ministry. Even if it means losing our own.

What I can't believe is that people are not just getting on with empowering all believers to live out their God-given role in the church. Why not just help them identify the ministry that God has designed them to fulfill and then care for them and support them as they do it?

No Pastor? Sounds like Quakers! In the 1600's they had this same debate . . .

On the other hand, the Quakers also believe in continuing revelation - which could be a theological justification for an evolution of church form.

I haven't read the book yet. However, based on the past two reviews it seems to have some good and some bad. Concerning the pastorate, I feel it is wrong condemning it. Jesus clearly raised up twelve apostles to lead from among his followers. In Church History, Church leaders are clearly seen in all major cities of the world at the time - including James the Just, first leader of the Church in Jerusalem after Jesus ascended into heaven. Lay leadership and house churches sound great too, but it's silly to say the modern pastorate is rooted in pagan thought. I agree with all those commenting who have said all styles can work!

If, as some in these comments are suggesting, "the church" IS actually working and our two authors, Viola and Barna, truly are "out to lunch" - - then why the angst in so many of these comments?

Something ain't working, folks, and at least Barna and Viola had the courage to take steps to bring some of the issues to light.

Isnt it interesting how none of the so called "Pastors" who made a critique of the book, make any reference to the chapter on the tithe. Maybe its because "NEW CHRISTIANS" under the "NEW COVENANT" didnt tithe. OUCH now thats gotta hurt the most!!