You previous comments make sense given your background. However, they also open up the very point Viola is making.
Most Christians don't care to know or go out of their way to know Church History. Most folks in the pew neither care, nor frankly understand the process and systematic implications of their beliefs. They simply want God lifted up in praise and brought down in word.
I agree that there are many ways and forms that this can occur in. However, the bulk of your comments are comments I catch myself making. I spent $58k getting a seminary education. I spent two years in internship. In the end it equips but frankly, Seminary if anything provides some technical tools, a network, and the credentials to ordain.
Has your education background colored your perception of the thesis. If you didn't have the Seminary background and just read the work are the arguments compelling? As the resident academics within our communities we have been taught that the theological world operates according the praxis of our learning community. Would your opinion change setting aside the burden of the pastorate?

I appreciate you expressing your true feelings. I respect your opinion and I understand your concerns.

However, I still get the impression that you and many others have come to this book with a great deal of assumptions and emotional baggage. These things are keeping people from hearing the call to return to Christ's centrality, supremacy, and headship in the church. A call that any true Christian should take seriously.

Read my review at amazon compared to yours. There is an obvious misunderstanding with this book. One of us hears an attack on the church... and the other hears an exaltation of Christ.

In my review and in all of my comments elsewhere... I have stated over and over that this book is not about "doing" church or about "forms." This book is about returning to the person and work of Christ... it is about spiritual revolution, not religious reformation. When we examine the New Testament without bringing the last 1700 years of church practice with it... we will see a church that gathered around Christ.

We must be willing to accept that the pagan origins documented in this book sound an alarm that should result in great concern from us. We must be open to a paradigm shift and be willing to lay aside many things before we will hear the clear exaltation of Christ in his Body the church. And this is the purpose of the book. "To make way" for Christ!

Out of Christ is born the church. Out of Christ is born this "form" you see Viola describing. It is natural to first see this as strictly being forms. In time, you should see things differently.

According to Christ's person and work (life & teachings), the institutional church is not allowed to exist in its many models of human hierarchy. The "model" of the insitutional church contradicts the teachings of Jesus. Without this "Gentile" form of leadership... you have no institutional church.

Now, your readers may not agree because they have not taken the time to rethink Jesus' words. Nevertheless, you must not confuse the thesis of this book with "doing" a different "model." The claim is that the "organic" church is born out of the natural faith of Christ(i.e. life and teachings) and the institutional church is born out of man's wisdom in applying pagan models of leadership and acquiring all sorts of religious practices. I would rather people become even more upset by this thesis... than they hear something else and be upset for the wrong reasons.

I don't know how else to clarify the primary point of this book. For those who have not read it... it is best not to enter into this conversation. And for those who will read it... please leave your baggage at the door and ask the Lord to help you receive new light in Christ.

I have always viewed the search for truth in this way: You find out you are walking in truth and strengthen your faith... OR you find out that you were wrong... and you can correct your error. Either way... Christ is exalted and you win! All those who love truth should take a right view of these things.

Peace,
David D. Flowers

Finally, a more reasoned response than just the shock and awe of "he said WHAT?! NO HE DIDN'T!!!"

...

I do plan on reading the book because I think it probably makes a series of legitimate, albeit tangential points regarding the role of disciples in the church. I do think we as custodians of the church (that means everyone, not just janitorial staff) ought to think long and hard about how much power and authority we bestow upon God's anointed leaders, knowing that they are fallible creatures.

But that doesn't mean that the form itself of the institutionalized pastorate inherently usurps the authority and headship of Christ. To claim this is, in my opinion, cutting off the nose to spite the face. And if it's His nose and His face... woe to whoever does that.

bolla atcha hoy...

G*Nat

Brandon – I think Pagan Christianity has dealt honestly with Scripture and church history in dealing with the traditions under scrutiny. The chapter on “The Pastor” is especially crisp and sharp in showing how what is practiced in almost all denominations is seriously out of touch with the New Testament. The Scriptures you list will certainly provide no evidence for today’s “Pastor.” Frank and George do deal with some of the texts you mention, especially 1 Pet. 5:2 and 1 Cor. 9. I have to wonder if you just skimmed the book instead of fairly reading it. There are also a huge amount of first hand sources in the book quoting from the church fathers. Let me overview some of the texts so you can see why George and Frank added them or not.

*James 3:1 speaks of “teachers” receiving a stricter judgment. This has nothing to do with “The Pastor” so it wasn’t addressed.
*1 Tim.3:1 & 5:18 speak of “overseers” and “elders.” Again, in these verses there is nothing to substantiate the notion of “The Pastor.” In 1 Tim.5:17-18 you have mention of a body of elders. Frank and George deal with these texts in the book.
*1 Pet.5:2 mentions “elders.” What does this have to do with “The Pastor”? Frank and George make this point: they explain the biblical ministry of elders/overseers/shepherds in contrast to the modern pastoral office.
*1 Cor.9:9 refers, not to “The Pastor,” but to itinerant people, like Paul, who traveled, preached the gospel, and worked with assemblies. Frank and George make this point in the book also.

In addition, the book makes the point that the office of bishop was crystallized after the second century, beginning with Ignatius, not that it didn’t appear anywhere.

You seem to forget what PC is taking issue with. The authors have no problem with “saints, overseers and deacons” (Phil.1:1). What is being challenged is the traditional notion and practice of “The Pastor.”
Frank and George are very concerned about the health of the Body of Christ. In the last pages, they speak of their love for the church as the motive for raising questions about those practices that may violate her health. “The Pastor” doctrine, because it is of human origin, has served to seriously muddy the clear conviction of Paul – “the body is not one part, but many” (1 Cor.12:14).

You say, “the issue is not forms.” The point, however, is that traditional forms of church have stifled or blocked the organic nature of the church. Wouldn’t you agree if any form hinders the free expression of Christ’s life in the church that is a matter for grave concern? PC is suggesting – and I think rightly – that our inherited way of doing church does not engender organic life. Organic church does not require one form, one way of doing things, but one thing is for sure – the institutional forms generally conflict with organic life.

I know it is not your purpose to accomplish a detailed review, but “The Pastor” chapter is 40 pages long and has over 200 footnotes. I really do not think you have done justice to the weight of its presentation.

Jon Zens

Oh and one other thing...

D.D. Flowers,

I commend your ability to patiently and steadfastly defend Viola's (and your own) position without resorting to name calling or lashing out. It's likely that my willingness to take issue with one of the points in your latest response is directly related to my not having read the book yet. As my funds are crazy low right now, and because I want to continue the respectful tone of this thread, I am choosing NOT wait until I can buy and read the book, by which point these sentiments would be buried under an avalanche of hyperbole and a whole 'nother firestorm of controversy surrounding some other issue.

Having said that... I still find it awfully hard to digest the idea that "the model of the institutional church contradicts the teachings of Jesus." This seems to be the crux of the controversy. I'm open to a paradigm shift, I'm open to reformation... but unless Viola made a host of stipulations that render his model of "the institutional church" as being strictly entrenched in a particular form or style of rigid hierarchy (which it doesn't sound like to me after reading his Q&A at http://www.ptmin.org/pcobjections.htm) then I think both you and he have taken a series of legitimately underexplored principles (decentralized structure and hierarchy, personal discipleship, community involvement in worship, etc.) and pushed them past the point of reason.

just my $1.29 worth (inflation, ya know?)

holla

Mr. Flowers,

Can you help me understand your comment:

"According to Christ's person and work (life & teachings), the institutional church is not allowed to exist in its many models of human hierarchy. The "model" of the insitutional church contradicts the teachings of Jesus. Without this "Gentile" form of leadership... you have no institutional church."

Thanks!

Ditto to Jon, Jelani, ericpo... the above statements are quite sound and balanced. In order to understand where we are and what we are doing, we need to know where we came from.

There are bigger issues than just pinpointing one area -- the pastor. The pastor is NOT the reason the church exists. We are to equip anyone to go out and do likewise. Come and Follow. Go and Make Disciples. Is this the whole reason these two sections have been written, because of a few bruised egos?

I consider myself part of leadership even though I am not "staff," not a technical pastor. I lead because I choose to lead and my life reflects that choice.

A year or so ago, I wrote an essay of sorts on worship and sent it out to anyone involved in leadership and worship in our church, including our senior pastor. It covered the topic of presenting ourselves -- our lives -- to G-d, and not just singing pretty songs, as worship. I received a response back from the senior pastor who "reminded" me that preaching was more important than the worship (music) team. Because it [preaching] was mentioned in the Bible. Needless to say, this pastor and I have several moments of culture clash.

Parts of a body, people. All parts of a body. Let's not get ahead of ourselves.

I am fully prepared to discuss these things in more of a private venue. I am well aware of what can happen in a comment section of someone's blog and would rather honor your request elsewhere.

(I also know that Frank Viola would be glad to discuss these things with those who truly want answers. You may contact him at: violabooks@aol.com)

If you are truly interested in discussing things I have written, please e-mail me at: DLF4Christ@aol.com

Again, people... please read the book. Seriously... please... leave your assumptions and baggage at the door and just read the book. This is the first step before honest edifying conversations can take place.

Your Brother,
David D. Flowers

After starting and stopping several comments on both this thread and the last one, all I can say is this: Thank God that after over 1900 years of the church going astray with the Lord looking the other way, He has finally brought us this book to set us straight.

David,
Don't get me wrong -- I for one am with you. Look forward to reading the book. In church. Most likely during the sermon. I'll be adding your email to my address book.

But that's because I am the stick that stirs the pot. And another mouth that often goes unfed.

Feel free to look me up on Facebook if you do that thang.

I have to agree with Justin above. I don't know why the Lord in His wisdom allowed us to go so far astray for nearly all of church history, but now that we've seen our pagan ways, we can hopefully correct it.

Excuse me now while I go offer my resignation as the pastor of my church.

Justin and Rob: Seriously, I am not trying to be disrespectful, but if you took that reasoning into other issues, one could say, for example, "I don't know why the Lord in His wisdom has allowed us to go so far stray by expending most of our resources on fancy church buildings and fat administrative salaries while 35000 children starve to death every day, and while millions of other children are forced into prostitution and other crimes just in order to break even on survival and we the Church do little or nothing about it."

I don't know why He has allowed us to get away with such an atrocity, other than He feels that He wants us to learn how not not be so rotten selfish. Really one could write a book full of the things that the church has been negligent or ignorant of. It's not like Viola's book is some kind of new revelation. I know many good believers, as well as many nonbelievers, who have seen this for a long time. That's why a lot of them remain nonbelievers.

Hi, Justin & Rob!
I would appeal to you to consider that some 500 years ago many in the Roman Catholic tradition come down hard on the Protestant Reformers, saying, "Rome has a long history of teaching certain doctrines. Who are you to question this long-standing way of doing church? Would the Lord let his church go so far astray for 1500 years?"
The Reformers replied that they wished for their consciences to be captive to God's Word.
When one considers just this one undeniable fact of history -- that from roughly 325 - 1800 is was an assumed necessity that church and state would function as partners -- is it such a difficult thing to believe that "church" drifted far from the purpose of Jesus?
John Stott made this insightful observation: "To me the essence of being a radical is being willing to subject one's inherited traditions and conventions to biblical scrutiny....A lot of our personal security is found in our convictions; we develop a personal stance and find our security in it, and then when anybody disagrees we feel threatened" (Evangelical Newsletter, April 30, 1982, p.3).
Jon

I feel the need to, once again, stress a point I made in the last discussion. I have read and reviewed PC. The point the authors make is NOT that institutional church is wrong per se, simply because it contains some extra-biblical, post-biblical practices. What Viola and Barna are saying is that we should feel free to let go of these "forms"- if the Spirit so leads, precisely because they are not biblically-founded.

In other words, the way I read them, Viola and Barna are trying to free us up to look at more organic methods of being church, rather than feeling some misguided commitment to forms that were not attested to in the earliest Christian communities nor the Bible to begin with.

First, George barna has, in recent years, has attempted to expand the scope of his influence from that of data collector and analyst to that of advocate and activist. The latter takes away from the validity of the former.

Secondly, we need more deconstructions of these books, and there are many, that tout a revolution of the church, but are based on dubious scholarship.

What's the deal on the prophetic messages which Frank is selling? What is the url?

Just goes again to show you what happens when you stick the word "pagan" on the cover of a book. Gets to you, doesn't it? More lessons in what happens when churches teach the doctrine of we're-right-you're-wrong-so-there.

Bravo Justin, Rob, and Darren.

To Mr. Viola and his apologists:

Have you never read First Timothy?

"...remain on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines,...
...6For some men, straying from these things, have turned aside to (V)fruitless discussion,...

Read the whole first chapter at least.

The reviewer has been (lightly) praised for his honesty while challenged for having influences on his interpretation. Here's what gets me: Brandon's detractors poo-poo him for having those lenses while ignoring the fact that WE ALL HAVE AN INTERPRETIVE FRAME OF REFERENCE.
Would his opinions be different if he hadn't been a pastor, gone to seminary, studied Church history, etc.? Heck, yeah! Would George Barna drop napalm on institutional religion if he hadn't had bad experiences while a Catholic? Likely so.

I have to say that the arguments defending Viola - and Viola himself - sound helplessly naive. All the head wagging at "human institutions" ignore the fact that the Church of Jesus Christ is made of human beings who, by nature I'd argue, gravitate toward institutionalization in their socializing, be it in religion, child rearing, work, etc. Name a movement that hasn't moved toward institutionalization with any track record of success.

I admit: I have not read the book. I WOULD read the book if I had it, but I will never give my money to the authors. If anyone who agrees with them would like for me, another pastor in an institutional church, to read it, I'll happily let you purchase me a copy.

Any takers?

"Thank everyone who calls out your faults, your anger, your impatience, your egotism; do this consciously, voluntarily."
Jean Toomer

This will be my last comment on this thread. I don't post often anyway, and there is much work to be done, but a response to some of the more recent comments will I hope be helpful to Christ's church.

Jon, please don't compare Viola/Barna/PC with what happened during the Reformation. The Reformers were neither arguing for a return to primitive Christianity nor that the church had for its entire history drifted from the NT ideal. Many of the Reformers had studied patristic and post-patristic writings (Calvin for example) and identified themselves as being part of that tradition. It was hardly 1500 years of going astray. To understand why they would say that, read some of Tom Oden's work on patristic theology. What V/B/PC is claiming is much more radical and betrays an inadequate view of Christ's care for His body.

And JW, I would encourage a more cautious note from you as well. The claims you have made about what the church has and has not addressed are, well, rather myopic. I'm sorry to have to use that sort of language, but go back and re-read your post. The facts of history are that, whatever the practice of the church in the West today, the evangelical church has a rich history of engagement in social justice, both here and around the world. Is it true that in more recent church history we Western evangelicals seem to have lost our way when it comes to caring for the alien, the fatherless, and the widow? Absolutely. But that is hardly the equivalent of saying that we have been astray for **1900 years**.

And the reality is that God will not let His people wander too far afield... Much ink has been spilled, and many a pixel occupied, by the renewed cry within the newest generation of evangelicals, many of whom are working from within the church's institutions, for the church to remember to care for the poor and the defenseless. And the emphasis of several ministries within the Reformed tradition of continuing to reform the church around the Word of God should speak for itself.

Brandon, I have enjoyed your commentary of this book. I am not shocked by the reaction from both camps of people in the church regarding the role of the pastor. All though I am like you very respectful of the position, I think the position of pastor has been abused by many seeking power over their flock and I have witness very humble pastor truly loving our Lord's church and feeding and ministering to its needs. I believe the church has become to comfortable with the idea that the present position as pastor is more of CEO rather than a overseer of the flock in the role as teacher of the Word of God and shepherd too. Pastors today are involved in more of the day to day activities of budgeting, personel and politicing within the body that their primary responsibilities are as teacher and shepherd are diminished. Please keep it up.

"The point the authors make is NOT that institutional church is wrong per se, simply because it contains some extra-biblical, post-biblical practices. What Viola and Barna are saying is that we should feel free to let go of these "forms"- if the Spirit so leads, precisely because they are not biblically-founded."

Darren,
Nor does the spirit proscribe non-biblical traditional practices currently employed in the church either, which illustrates the dual edged nature of the subject. However, that is not the thrust of their argument, either, now is it.

How to broach this in a way that won't get the hairs all hackled up...hmmm, I'm trying to think how I can condense volumes of ancient and medieval history to a few salient lines that pertain to the subject...and I'm having a pretty hard time doing that.

I'll see what I can summate that will, hopefully, illuminate the simplicity and the complexity of the discussion.

Justin -- Actually I wasn't comparing PC to the Reformers. I was responding to your concern about "How could the church be so wrong for so long?" The Reformers were suggesting that a number of some pretty basic issues had been way out of kilter for a long time. All I'm saying is that what the Catholics said to the Reformers -- "What right do you have to say that our long-standing tradition is erroneous?" -- is the same kind of thing that some are saying about PC. All I'm saying is that it is not out in left field to investigate the question, "Have some misguided church practices clouded the centrality of Christ in his church?"
For the record, one of the most eminent 20th century theologians, Emil Brunner, wrote "The Misunderstanding of the Church" in 1952, which echoes and affirms the key perspectives of "Pagan Christianity." In fact, I would say that overall Brunner is often more blunt and to the point than PC is! Here is one sample: "Properly speaking, New Testament Christianity knows nothing of the word 'sacrament,' which belongs essentially to the heathen world of the Graeco-Roman empire and which unfortunately some of the Reformers unthinkingly took over from ecclesiastical tradition. For this word, and still more the overtones which it conveys, is the starting point for those disastrous developments which began soon to transform the community of Jesus into the Church which is first and foremost a sacramental Church" (pp.72-73). Sounds a lot like a certain book we are discussing!

Sheerahkahn,

I'm not sure where you're going with your comment about my comment.

I look forward to your upcoming clarifying post.

Shalom,
Darren

There are so many people who want so desperately for something to be wrong with the church instead of them. Revise a bit of history and the problem with the church is those pesky pastors and buildings. Couldn’t be the thirty thousand dollar car in my driveway, the over limit credit card, the bigger house so we could have more space decision. It couldn’t be that I don’t know what my gifts are even though I can read and do have a bible. I am sure it is not the refusal to love my neighbor as myself or the love God with all my HMSS. No it’s those power hungry guys who just want a paycheck. I heard they hurt kitties too.

Come on people, citing pieces of someone’s writing is not scholarly. People with an ax to grind can use history in any way they choose to grind it. This argument is not new but still not strong.

I have to be honest. As a pastor in a similar environment as Barna and Viola are describing. One of the many reasons that we started our church is do our best to do it biblically. I think that there is not one set model stated in the bible to have church. Just like there is not one way to worship. God gave us principles and as long as we as the church lift up Jesus that is one of the keys. Sure there will be different styles, different ideas, different models, and different Government structures. We have to keep Jesus first. Major on the majors and minor on the minors. A church model is a minor. Jesus is a Major!

Reading all these posts (OK, skimming many) has been interesting but frustrating. I have a question concerning Acts 13:1. It names 5 men as prophets (proclaimers, I would think) and teachers. Which one was The Pastor? Or was it someone else who is never even mentioned in the very important process of sending off missionaries?
Then consider 1 Cor 12 which teaches us to expect that different people have different gifts, abilities, and function. Why then do we expect that somebody gifted in teaching to be a pastor? Or a gifted pastor to be a leader? Or a teacher? The problem with The Pastor concept is not that he/she is a full-time paid professional, but that we try to roll all these functions into one person. The congregation then tends to look at this person as the focus of the congregation. In turn The Pastor tend to consider the congregation as "his thing". Many professional servants of Christ have resisted these tendencies. Alas, many have not.

For those still worried that the Pastor has too much power or, on a different concern, is embodying all the functions that should be shared, cf. another commenter's earlier remarks about the letters of Clement and Ignatius. Yes, all Christians should embrace the ministry they are gifted for. Christian leadership, no matter its particular look, should be one of service that equips others for ministry. This is true for Catholic bishops to Baptist pastors.

Sarah (and others) have made the comment that God would not let his people go so far wrong for so long. This is misleading.

The true Church is not and has never been the institutional church. The parables of the Kingdom in Matthew 13 are all about the wheat and the tares that can't be told apart. The real church has always existed WITHIN the institutional church. It's true that shepherds his sheep on the true path -- but one should not assume that no institution called a church can ever go astray for very long. This is just not true.

There is no complete "model" for church organization stated or implied in Scripture. In fact, if you were to summarize what the Scripture actually says, it seems to say that there is such a thing as God-ordained leadership for the true church, and that they ought to be able to teach, that they ought to love and care for God's sheep, that they should be respected by those they lead, and that they will be rewarded by Jesus. The modern office of Western evangelical Protestant pastor (to choose one particular tradition) does NOT follow from this without addition and cultural and historical context. Neither does any other model of pastor from other traditions.

God provides godly leadership and teaching for the sheep in his true Church in many ways -- sometimes through ordained institutional pastors. Sometimes from godly Christians without ordination.

The mistake is to assume that our human institutions are coterminous and identical with God's church.

A previous comments states,
"We have to keep Jesus first. Major on the majors and minor on the minors. A church model is a minor. Jesus is a Major!"

This is the issue for all of us believers: Christ! I am afraid many are rambling on in "Christ-centered" language but have no idea what this means. I believe this strongly.

There is an obvious DISCONNECT between the person and the works (i.e. life and teachings) of Jesus and our church practices. Being Christ-centered has much more to do than just talking a lot of good about our Lord in a service designed to appeal to the emotions of man. It is not enough to mention his very name, but to reflect him in our practices.

This is where PC is going... the centrality, supremacy, and headship of Christ being first! It should be very clear what we all need to be doing here. Stop some of these fruitless conversations and rediscover our Lord.

Some have understood the authors of PC as trading one "model" for another. They have failed to see that this book calls for a complete removal of all models so that we may start again with Christ.

This is the problem I have with those who talk continuously about the "house church movement." Those who want a movement will get a movement... and nothing more. Those who desire Christ... will find a well that springs life eternal. Talking about models and movements distract us from seeing Christ as the center. The authors have not done this... and neither should the readers.

We can know Christ is first when our faith and practices reflect his life and teachings in every aspect of our lives. Out of the natural faith of Christ will come a natural "organic" Body life. The starting point is in dealing with the Christ of the Gospels honestly and reacting to him.

The New Testament writers were consumed with all things Christ... NOT the church. This is why all attempts at reforming the church will fail to produce that which is lasting. Let's not focus on symptoms, but go to the root of the matter: Christ!

I read the Gospels and I can't help but think... the great majority of professing believers have not read this... or they simply don't care about what Christ has said.

The only way to remove all doubt concerning church practice... is by sitting at the feet of Christ as a learner... and being filled to the point that Christ is all that comes out when we get up. Once we are willing to truly put Christ first by obeying his commands... we will then learn what it means to BE the church.

Models are not majors, nor are they "minors." Models have nothing to do with this book or this conversation. This is (or I should say "ought to be") all about the centrality, supremacy, and headship of Christ Jesus our Lord. The purpose of this book could not be stated more plainly.

Let us learn of Christ... and everything else will be as it should.

Your Brother,
David D. Flowers

The sales pitch for PC? at barna.org includes a list of offending church practices. Several are:

* ... The early Christian church met in homes.

* The pulpit was a piece of stagecraft borrowed from Greek culture in which professional speakers delivered monologues in public debates. ...

* Preaching a sermon to an audience was ushered into the church world late in the second century. Sermons were an extension of the activity of the Greek sophists, who had mastered the art of rhetorical oratory. (end quotes)

To merely recite that "the early church met in homes" is a misrepresentation. We are certain that they also met in public places such as the Temple and synagogues. One verse, Acts 2:46, records public and private gatherings. The areas around the temple could accomodate up to 200 thousand people at once according to one source. That's a lot of jammin.

Obviously, some homes then were as specious as some church buildings today.

As for the pulpit and the sermon (sermon defined as reading and explaining) being of Pagan origin - that idea is discounted by one passage, as well. Nehemiah 8:4 Ezra the scribe stood on a HIGH WOODEN PLATFORM built for the occasion. Nehemiah 8:8 They READ from the Book of the Law of God, MAKING IT CLEAR and GIVING THE MEANING so that the people could understand what was being read.

With so meager a knowledge of the scriptures, are the authors of PC? competent to "deconstruct" the practices of others?

The Pagan Christian controversy occurred in the mid to late 1800's in Europe. Theological liberals, as always, were attempting to discredit the Faith by any possible means. I am aware of at least 3 volumes concerning pagan influences. The one by E. Hatch, quoted frequently by Viola, was translated into the German language by A Harnack. What sort of guy was he? He was a man of immense learning but he denied the authorship of several NT books. Even his own dad criticized his view of the resurrection and concluded that his own son was not a Christian.

Across the ocean, American clerics were lapping up liberalism like gravy. Harnack was offered a job at Harvard. Hatch died an early death...

No doubt, the enemies of the cross today will be thrilled by the way Christianity has been "shaped" by their values, despite the stated purpose of the authors of PC?

Christians should indeed examine their methods and reject undue influences of outsiders. That's what it means to be in the world but not of it. Water is necessary to float a boat but look out when the water enters the boat.

One might argue from Christianity's encounter with the Greco-Roman world about the adaptability of the gospel and about our Heavenly Father's willingness to meet us where we are. Other groups in that era were called by the name of 'church.' Their leaders: 'bishops.' Their assistants and messengers: 'deacons.' Many of these groups enjoyed meetings with a common meal, too. They had initiatory rites, too. Etc.

In Christ, all things can and should be redeemed.

This whole argument causes many passages of scripture to pop into my head, not the least of which is this one found in 1Corinthians chapter 3: "And I, bretheren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to babes in Christ. . . For when one says, 'I am of Paul,' and another, 'I am of Apollos,' are you not mere men? What then is Appollos (house church)? And what is Paul (church owned building)? SERVANTS THROUGH WHOM YOU BELIEVED, EVEN AS THE LORD GAVE OPPURTUNITY TO EACH ONE."

If the location of the meeting is the important thing, then it's all about works and the letter of the law, and grace is out the door.

The Pagan connection is nothing new despite those who act as if a rare discovery was just made. Besides the perspective of a pure church which went Pagan, modern "scholars" have also concluded that Jesus himself was Pagan.

Jesus: Pagan Christ or Jewish Messiah? by Laurence E. Dalton (Sep 30, 2000)

The Jesus Mysteries: Was the "Original Jesus" a Pagan God? by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy ( Sep 25, 2001)

Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth by John G. Jackson ( Dec 1, 1989)

The Pagan Christ: Is Blind Faith Killing Christianity? by Tom Harpur (May 2, 2006)

The Pagan Christ: Recovering the Lost Light by Tom Harpur ( Mar 1, 2005)

Pagan Christs: Studies in Comparative Hierology by John M. Robertson (Aug 14, 2003)

Let's get the big picture. Good.

It is not surprising that this "review" has turned into a bit of a heated debate. I have read every post up to this point, and have chosen to ignore those dripping with sarcasm.

I read the original release of Pagan Christianity (pre-Barna) about a year ago, and am in the process of carefully reading the new edition. I'll admit I was angry when I read it the first time, but I took the time to read it honestly, and researched the scriptures referenced within. We can debate our historical "sources" and what the church fathers did or didn't say, but I can't argue with Scripture.

The picture of the church I see in the NT and the one I've known all of my life are not even close. I can't reconcile passages such as 1 Cor. 14, Rom. 15:14, Col. 3:16, and others with the "ministry models" that have been taught in our evangelical circles for as long as I can remember.

As a result, after fifteen years in the "pastorate," I have left it, the position, the salary, the tax benefits, the expectations from others, etc., and for the first time in my life, have felt an incredible freedom to be a child of God and simply a member of the Body of Christ.

I want to say thank you to Frank, George, and others who have been bold enough to put their careers on the line to speak the truth.

Nothing has been subject to more analysis and scrutiny as the church of Jesus Christ. The status quo has been examined from every possible angle in every age. It's interesting to see who pops up in the late 19th century to link Paganism to the churches woes.

Viola refers to a book by Edwin Hatch more than 20 times in a single chapter of PC. That book "The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages upon the Christian Church" was the HIbbert Lecture series of 1888.

"The intention (of the HIbbert Lectures) being to benefit the Unitarian ministry, the aims of his trust were anti-Trinitarian, and its participants must be heterodox." Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Baker Publishing, 1984. Article on the Hibbert Lectures pp. 509.

Viola notes that Hatch "was one of the first to challenge the sermon." Truth is, Hatch challenged about everything Christian. Here's a note about the Unitarian agenda from the volume cited above: "Members of the American Unitarian Association, founded in 1825, have come to the conclusion that their movement is NOT a part of the Christian Church." p 1127. Article on Unitarianism.

I really loved the book and I'm enjoying the discussion guide that goes with it. Our church is having some great conversations from the guide. I downloaded it from http://www.paganchristianity.org

Sarah

Neither Viola nor Barna have endorsed Hatch's theology. They have merely used a source to support a historical fact, along with many other sources. I don't agree with the theology of a lot of CHRISTIANS. Does that mean that everything they say is wrong, untruthful, or unreliable?

I have been reading reviews on PC all over the web, and in other media. I guess I shouldn't be surprised how many people are willing to simply dismiss the research and the Scriptural evidence, because it questions what is dear to them.

It's not as if the authors are questioning things such as the inspiration of Scripture, the Deity of Christ, or some major doctrine. They have questioned our church practices. Interesting that it wasn't until Stephen spoke about the temple that the Jews rushed at him to kill him.

I just found out that George Barna wrote a book that came before this one called "Revolution". Have any of you read it? Is it good? Can you tell me your opinions on it? What does he say in it?

"Flowers" talks about "assumptions and baggage" as if Barna/Viola/Tyndale have none-what a laugh! Another wants to avoid "dripping sarcasm" (she better not read "P.C.?" then!). Re B/V/T, Leosko is bang-on: "citing pieces of someone’s writing is not scholarly. People with an ax to grind can use history in any way they choose to grind it. This argument is not new but still not strong." D.Z. rightly asks:"With so meager a knowledge of the scriptures, are the authors of PC? competent to "deconstruct" the practices of others?" The answer is "yes" they are biblically incompetent, and "no" they are not "fit" to teach others. Consider the following false statement from B/V/T on p. 227: "The New Testament is made up mostly of the apostle Paul's letters; in fact, he wrote two-thirds of it". Such ignorance!

I am with you, Howie, in that every practice should be examined. That which is spurious should be rejected whether it can be traced to Paganism or not. Some church practices can be. Others, it's a bit of a stretch, at least for me.

Paul addressed the crowds at Mars Hill and at Ephesus just like other Pagans did. Did it make him one? Did it make his ministry one marked by Pagan influences? Does it make public speaking using rhetorical methods Pagan?

I don't see where anyone stated that the authors of PC? "endorsed the theology of Hatch." True, nobody is mistaken about everything and everybody is a reliable source on something. It's just interesting to see which ponds people are drinking out of. 20 something references in one chapter is significant, particularly when the source is a Unitarian lecture series from an academic culture when explaining away the Christian Church was in vogue. Again, that may have little or no bearing on the personal theology of the authors of PC nor of the accuracy of whatever's in view. I hope that clarifies the issue.

I do know that footnotes can be easily multiplied. The 9-11 Truth Movement has reams of them as do those who believe the US never sent men to the moon. :-)

Prove all things - hold fast to that which is good!

It would be good to read your thoughts about the book. Frank Viola and George Barna explained that the "most of what present-day Christians do in church each Sunday is rooted, not in the New Testament, but in pagan culture and rituals developed long after the death of the Apostles."

These are the same things being repeated again and again about this book on this blog. It's old news. Some like it, some don't, that's been established. Can we talk about Barna's "Revolution" please? That was the book that came before this one. What does it say? Is it good? What is his argument? I've heard that he predicts that the contemporary church will be almost non existent in twenty years. Is that what he says?

Until I have more adequate time to respond to all that I have read, I wish to give you a concern that is happening in our own church community. I have two families who some how got a copy of this book (Pagan Christianity) and are now practicing the books principles. The problem? Both of these families are spiritually young and immature. That is my dilemma as a pastor of a very healthy church. I am a shepherd and desire for people to be successful in their journey with God. I am truly disappointed in Frank and George for writing things that will have destructive results.

Bob

Bob, Pagan Christianity is only the first part of the argument. "Reimagining Church" is the second and most important part. No one should read Pagan Christianity and stop. They will not have the full picture. The book clearly says that there's a sequel and that it should be read afterwards. You can read a sample chapter at http://www.ReimaginingChurch.org. It’s also available on Amazon.com. Frank is also blogging now at http://frankviola.wordpress.com/.

I highly recommend reading "Reimagining". It may set to rest many of your concerns. I certainly did not come away from it feeling like Viola had anything but highest regard for the Church. That and to glorify Christ, the Head of His Church, seems to be the motive behind writing it.

I think you will find that the intent is not to blast the Church or destroy the lives of believers, but to offer a plan of rebuilding it according to the original design of the Chief Architect. The rebuilding process necessitates some dismantling, and it can be a painful process, but most things worth doing are.

Anyone thinking that the book "Pagan Christianity?" doesn't provide sufficient biblical and/or historical evidence for its case should read Beresford Job's book "Biblical Church: A Challenge to Unscriptural Traditions and Practice" to get a better understanding of this critical issue.

I did not read Pagan Christianity, I am thinking of getting one, I am wondering if the issue of how the church come to worship on Sunday insted of Satureday (Sabbath), is address