Book review: Pagan Christianity

[Guest]

But, I'm not sure that all of this happens just because there is a paid-professional in the church. Even if you remove the fact that someone is getting a salary for ministry, you probably will still find some who are content to let others do the "work." And you will most certainly find some who will try to become the "leaders" even if they aren't drawing a salary.

peace,

dane

I think that's a great point. I was at a youth event a month or so ago. There were over 100 teens divided into 4 teams. They were told to make a fort out of cardboard boxes and tape. It was very interesting to watch some of the kids take leadership in creative design. Other kids just went to work at preparing pieces of tape. Some kids just sat down to relax with their friends. Some kids just criticized the ideas being put to practice. None of those kids were paid to make their cardboard house, and yet problems emerged. Many ended up letting a few do the labor. Some didn't get a chance despite having what I thought were good ideas.

What we have here is a people problem, not a form problem. People problems are, ultimately, solved via truth & love.

[Guest]

Matt, I have no reason to doubt any of what you said in your last two paragraphs above. What can one say? -- other than "Very commendable!"

[Guest]

Chapter 9 of 'Pagan Christianity' was pretty hard to disagree with in my opinion. He was basically pushing for the Lord's Supper to be part of a regular meal instead of a special ceremony and for baptism to be done by immersion immediately upon conversion instead of after a period of preparation. He's against the idea that an ordained clergy must officiate these sacraments. Any believer can serve communion. Any believer can baptize. I have long agreed with these positions.

[Guest]

In chapter 10 of Pagan Christianity, Viola argues against the idea that only 'formal Christian education qualifies a person to do the Lord's work.' He claims this is the mindset of most Christians. He comes out against 'academic' (instead of 'hands-on') training. He says 'every church' was a 'seminary.' Viola is against Aquinas's main thesis that God is known through human reason. We have made Christianity mostly about the head when it is supposed to be about the heart (he later phrases it that we are more interested in the tree of knowledge than the tree of life). He describes the pagan origin of seminaries, bible-colleges, sunday-school, and even the position of 'youth' pastor. All of these are organizational and have the ability to cut-off the headship of Jesus Christ in Christian gatherings and/or the unity of the church.

Reaction: I, personally, don't know many preachers or teachers who don't preach and teach the priesthood of all believers from within institutional churches. I don't know many educational institutions that aren't moving towards a more 'hands-on' approach to ministerial preparation. I don't know many churches that don't highlight the idea that head-knowledge, alone, is of no spiritual value. I don't know of many Wesleyan churches that would keep a highly degreed but spiritually unqualified pastor around for long. Because of my ignorances in these realms, this chapter seemed, again, like over-statement in my context.

[Guest]

I don't know many churches that don't highlight the idea that head-knowledge, alone, is of no spiritual value.

Although I might not have used as many negatives in one sentence as our brother Matt did, I would have said the same thing ... :)

I did not go to seminary, but I had some "advanced" classes. I think it would be a fair statement to say that most of my fellow students understood that passing the class did not make them a better servant of Jesus. In fact, I recall a few professors even making that very point - that head knowledge alone did not make one a better servant.

All in all it was a good chapter, reminding the reader that a seminary graduate is just that: a seminary graduate. Nothing takes the place of the Spirit of God falling upon a humble, obedient servant - regardless of his/her education.

peace,

dane

[Guest]

Chapter 11: Reapproaching the NT

In this chapter, Viola/Barna argue against the pop-practice known as proof-texting. They discuss how proof-texting was popularized by the addition of chapters, verses & by the approach of John Nelson Darby. All of these combine to take away the 'personal touch' of, for instance, the letters of Paul. PC even attacks the current 'order' of Paul's Epistles (by length) claiming that this also detracts from proper interpretation. Viola/Barna do indicate, in the 2nd half of the chapter, that similar mistakes in interpretation and institutionalization occur in many house-churches too.

Reaction: While this chapter seemed a bit out of place in this book, there wasn't much new here. We all tend to recognize the dangers of proof-texting and yet we all tend to do it sometimes. I think they, perhaps, over-stated the negative effect of chapters/verses/order of the NT canon, but nothing to get upset about.

[Guest]

Chapter 12: A Second Glance at the Savior

Here, Barna (I suspect, for some reason, that this chapter is more th work of Barna than Viola) makes the strong case that Jesus was a revolutionary. Other than that, the chapter is basically a summary of the conclusions of the authors found in the previous chapters.

Reaction: This was basically just a summary. Some might prefer to ONLY read this chapter.

[Guest]

Afterword/Q&A

This section is the 'altar call' (so to speak) for the book. The Q&A is helpful, if not repetitive. Once again, PC makes that case that institutions corrupt. They give props to the Radical Reformation. They doubt the ability of institutional churches to develop organic house-churches.

Reaction: The end of the book was sorta lackluster in my opinion, so I don't have much to say. I will say this: I liked the book enough, as a conversation starter, to lead some of my own small groups through it. In fact, there's enough interest in these topics that we'll be reading through this book in 3 different setting

1) My SS class
2) My men's group
3) My young adults group

I think I will post my handouts as we go

[Guest]

Pagan Christianity
-Introduction-

“When the Lord Jesus walked this earth, His chief opposition came from the two leading religious parties of the day: the Pharisees and the Sadducees. The Pharisees added to the sacred Scriptures… The error of the Sadducees moved in the opposite direction. They subtracted whole segments of Scripture… [the Church] has fallen into the errors of both the Pharisees and the Sadducees… We break the Scripture just as much by burying it under a mountain of human tradition as by ignoring its principles.”

1. Do you think Pagan Christianity is correct that Jesus’ chief opposition came from the religious institutions?


2. Do you think we struggle more with the error of the Pharisees or Sadducees today in the church?


3. Viola praises those “daring souls who have taken the terrifying step of leaving the safe camp of institutional Christianity.” Do you think leaving the institutional church is the best solution to the problem?


4. Barna claims that “millions of Christians throughout the world are leaving the old, accepted ways of ‘doing church’ for even older approaches” and that “the heart of the Revolutionaries is not in question.” Do you agree with either/both of his statements?


5. Viola believes “the 1st-century church was the church in its purest form.” Barna agrees, but asks: “Does this mean we must go back to the Bible and do everything exactly as the disciples did?” He answers his own question with a “No” and comments that “God has granted us great leeway in the methods we use to honor and connect with Him.” What is the difference between something anti-biblical and something extra-biblical?


6. Barna claims that “the contemporary church is like a jet airplane that has no capacity for in-flight course corrections.” Do you agree with this statement?


7. In chapter 1, the authors state that “As startling as it may sound, almost everything that is done in our contemporary churches has no basis in the Bible.” What do you think they are referring to?


8. The authors recommend “the Socratic method” of extensive questioning as a means to arriving at truth. Do you agree with this method?


9. The authors offer this advice: “Either leave your church quietly, refusing to cause division, or be at peace with it.” Do you think there are other options?

[Guest]

Pagan Christianity
-The Church Building-

1. PC states that “the church building is so connected with the idea of church that we unconsciously equate the two.” In how many ways do we use the term ‘church’ today? Is this harmful?


2. PC claims that the phrase “go to church” would have been a foreign thought to the 1st century believers. How is the term “church” (Ekklesia) used in the NT?


3. PC points out that Christians did not erect special buildings for worship until the 4th century. Why do you think the early church met in homes?


4. PC suggests that “when Christianity was born, it was the only religion on the planet that had no sacred objects, no sacred persons, and no sacred spaces.” Do you agree with this? Is it true of the church today?


5. PC assures its readers that “remodeled houses… cannot rightfully be called church buildings.” Do you think there is a significant difference b/w a contemporary church building and home re-structured to serve as a meeting place for the church?

6. PC suggests the following historical progression:
Step 1 Reverencing the Dead
Step 2 Monuments in Cemeteries
Step 3 Decoration of Monuments/Catacombs
Step 4 Constantine Constructs to Legitimize
Step 5 Built for Performance over Participation
Step 6 Accepted as correspondence to the OT
Step 7 Stained glass added by Gothic architects
Step 8 Pews popularized in 15th century
Step 9 Protestants made pulpit center stage
Step 10 Steeples reach toward heaven in 17th century

7. PC declares that “every building we encounter elicits a response from us.” What does our facility communicate about our values and beliefs?


8. PC reports that 18% of annual church income goes toward facilities and that 50-85% of a church’s income goes toward overhead costs. The authors claim that 95% of house church income goes directly toward ministry. Do you think institutional churches spend too much money on buildings?


9. PC quotes a scholar who says the average sized church in the NT Era was 30-35 people. What is different about smaller gatherings?