Pagan Christianity?: Exploring the Roots of Our Church Practices

The phenomenon of restorationism (a church body asserting its intentions to recreate the New Testament Church) is not a new one to American Evangelicalism. Generally initiated by those who have little or no understanding of the culture, history, and religious practices of those they wish to emulate, the temptation of a do-it-yourself ecclesiology (with the New Testament as their alleged guide) is irresistible for those feeling alienated by existing church practices.The telltale signature of restorationist movements is to proclaim existing ecclesial structures to be hopelessly out of step with true Christianity. After all, if the Church needs to be restored, then one would assume something had gone terribly wrong else the entire project of restoration would be a colossal waste of time. Unlike reform movements, whose primary motivation is to pressure the existing Church to renew itself from within, the strategy for restorationists is to wipe the slate clean and imagine the Church could be restarted anew. The inevitable result is the affirmation of their own personal beliefs and practices covered by the authority of eisegetic interpretations of Scriptural passages devoid of any context apart from their own.The latest installment of this characteristically American enterprise is now enshrined in Frank Viola and George Barna's Pagan Christianity?. Seeking to justify their own peculiarly postmodern American manifestation of what they believe to be "New Testament Christianity", they combine their own prejudices with such a staggering display of historical ignorance, that any informed reader is left shaking their heads at their garbled understanding of the Church's past. In their attacks on anything that smells of structure or authority, one can detect a sense of glee as they engage in their ill-informed attempts at iconoclasm.Of course, the church that "emerges" from their deconstruction is remarkably like the sort of thing that would be hatched in the mind of a postmodern American with a disdain for hierarchy, tradition, and anything that might have been considered to be of enduring value prior to their own personal conversion. Their "analysis" is a mishmash of outdated secondary sources, out-of-context quotations, unsupported hypotheses, and personal prejudices amalgamated into an "any stick will do" style attack on historical Christianity. Even worse, on those occasions where legitimate experts on the field are cited (i.e., Dom Gregory Dix, Paul F. Bradshaw, Alexander Schmeman) their views are taken so out of context as to have them seemingly ally with the authors when in fact their views are quite the opposite.Like other revisionists on both the left and right of the ecclesial spectrum, there is an overt removal of the New Testament Church from both the context of the Jewish practice that preceded it and the ecclesial practice that followed it. Once the Church is decontextualized, the inferred meanings of the texts of the New Testament are removed and new meanings assigned. In this sense, restorationists are best seen as sharing the deconstructionist methodology common to many postmodern revisionist thinkers.Viola and Barna begin their argument with an assault on church buildings. Their concern is not any particular problem with architectural style or the lavishness of furnishings but over the very idea of buildings being used for the specialized purpose of Christian gatherings. While the reason given for this aversion to architectural utility is passages in the New Testament that state the early Christians met in each others homes, the hidden reason is likely that one of the authors has been involved for two decades in the "house church" movement and seems to have made an idol out of a situation that grew out of necessity, was not intended as representative of a command, and was not in fact even followed strictly at the time.The fact is that the Book of Acts clearly state that the early Christians continued to worship in the Temple and the synagogues and largely carried on the established practices of Judaism. It is only where it came to the specifically Christian cultic practices among that they retreated to their homes - the only place available for them to freely express their faith in Christ - but there is no indication that it was ever intended as normative.They go on in rapid fire succession to rattle off a series of complaints against church buildings with allegations of their history that have little or no historical support. Many things they claim were adopted from paganism were also present in the Biblical faith of the Jews that God commanded. It never occurs to the authors the same church they accuse of importing paganism is the one that was laying down its lives in martyrdom for its refusal to compromise with paganism.Their claim that there were no special places of worship prior to Constantine also does not stand up to careful scrutiny. Yes, they often met in houses, but these "houses" were often the villas of wealthy members of the Church. It was common for expensive homes in the Roman era to have special rooms set aside for cultic purposes and these served as places of worship for the local Christian community. There were also theological schools in places like Alexandria and Antioch that developed (a point the authors acknowledge) and these likely also had places of worship associated with them. There have been numerous archaeological finds that have discovered pre-Constantinian Christian worship spaces that were obviously set apart for that purpose. The reason for having few specifically constructed church buildings was simply that Christianity was for much of the first few centuries a persecuted religion In times of severe persecution, the Christians often had to meet in total secrecy and places like the Catacombs in Rome and other secluded spots were employed. Once the persecution ended, such restrictions were abandoned. The authors make much of the grandeur of the basilicas built by Constantine, but fail to mention such notable places were pilgrimage sites and hardly the norm. In most of the Roman Empire, local churches would continue to be rather humble affairs.The authors' biases are again on display as they go as far in their tirades as to claim Jesus had a negative view of the Temple. Forgetting that the construction of both Jewish temples were ordained by God, they completely distort the obvious meaning of the passage - a negative view of the Jewish authorities - and transfer the negative view to the Temple itself. Jesus referred to the Temple as His Father's House - it contained the very presence of God in the Holy of Holies - and, far from downplaying its significance, chased out the moneychangers for defiling it. The passages they do cite give Jesus' accusations against the Jewish leaders. His statements on the destruction of the Temple was not because the Temple was an evil but because they had rejected the very presence of God who stood before them.The authors continually make the point that Jesus overthrew the existing Jewish structure and replaced it with a non-hierarchal, non-liturgical ekklesia. But the picture painted in the New Testament is entirely different. In Acts, it states the early Christians kept to the teachings of the Apostles, fellowship, the breaking of bread, and the prayers. In the context of the Judaism the early Christians practiced, there is definitely a hierarchy and liturgy implied in these words.The "teaching of the Apostles" demonstrates that there were those in authority to teach the truths of the faith and authority implies hierarchy. This is bone out as the Apostles are sought out for all major decisions. When controversy erupted over Paul's mission to the Gentiles, the disagreement was brought before the Apostles and elders at Jerusalem who decided the issue in council. In his epistles, Paul makes a point that he too is an apostle and shares the same authority. Paul instructs Timothy to appoint elders in the churches; throughout the New Testament, the Apostles ordain others' ministries by the laying on of hands.All of this should not be surprising - the early Christians did not live in an egalitarian society. Even before the Church, there is an implied hierarchy in the Gospels - Peter, James, and John form an inner circle among the twelve and every list of the twelve has Peter first and Judas last. Most importantly, there is a hierarchy within the triune God as the three persons relate to each other in hierarchal fashion. Thus, it is natural that Christ's body is also hierarchal and reflects an order.The passages cited for their position have nothing to do with the structure of the Church. For example, they cite the worldly desires of some of the twelve who attempt political maneuvers and are rebuked - but the rebuke states nothing about the existence of hierarchy but only their worldly desires. It is quite clear that the authors have long ago came to their conclusions and now are "proof-texting" their answers with passages that have no real bearing on the subject.The liturgical dimension of the early Christians can be seen in the phrases "the prayers" and "the breaking of bread". The prayers refer to the normal liturgical prayers of observant Jews but now given a Christian emphasis. These would develop over time into the Christian prayers of the divine office. The breaking of bread refers to the communion meal and was thought to reveal Christ to the believers (see the allusions to this in the story of the Road to Emmaus in Acts). The breaking of bread at a meal had long been a liturgical act at Jewish meals similar to our own praying grace. The Holy Communion was ordained by Christ as part of a liturgical meal celebrated by a people for whom the consumption of food followed liturgical rules. Considering that all Christian were at that point observant Jews (else the Council of Acts 15 would have been unnecessary), the thought they were somehow non-hierarchal or non-liturgical is merely an anachronistic application of postmodern American ideals on first century Near Eastern people.Turning to the evolution of modern Protestant worship, Viola and Barna continue their pattern of misguided historical analysis. First, they infer the source of the Protestant worship was the medieval mass promulgated by Gregory the Great. Here they ignore that the Gregorian Mass was an amalgamation of elements from existing Roman and Franco-Germanic liturgies and these followed the basic pattern of liturgy outlined by earlier writers such as Hippolytus and Justin Martyr and going back to the Didache at the turn of the first century. The Didache itself follows a pattern taking elements of Jewish practice that date back to the Second Temple period. This is further verified by the practices within the Byzantine Churches whose liturgy developed separately but still maintained the early structure indicated by the early Christians. Even the Church of the East, stretching from Persia to China, followed a similar pattern in its own unique liturgy despite being essentially cut off from contact with the Roman Church.The liturgical developments within Protestantism were, not surprisingly, a mixed bag - some good (the reintroduction of preaching to a key role) and some bad (the anti-sacramental nature of much of its worship) just as the developments in the medieval West had also been much of a mixed bag. Unfortunately, many of the liturgical reforms introduced by American Protestantism is far more reflective of American culture than the practice of the early Christians. Viola and Barna's project, like other restorationist attempts, always end up telling us far more about the participants than the early Church.Yet it is not just the most formal elements of Christian worship that the authors wish to abandon - even so basic and obvious a part of the service as the sermon is found wanting. Here the authors blame it on rhetoricians and philosophers - an assertion so absurd that it would be funny were it not the fact that the naive will take this drivel seriously. Yes, philosophers and rhetoricians often spoke at length about topics - but so did rabbis and those in authority in any endeavor. The Apostles would preach in the synagogues or in public squares where they could communicate the Good News. They also would speak at length in specifically Christian gatherings where they could teach the truths of the faith to the Church. The authors credit Augustine and Chrysostom with making pulpit oratory part of the faith - and they certainly were wonderful preachers - but fail to mention the many great sermons (available in any collection of the ante-Nicene Church Fathers) of those who preceded them. They fail to accept that God can make use of the gifts He has bestowed that are offered to His service in love. Yes, the original twelve were largely a rather unsavory group but God had no problem making use of the obvious gifts of Paul and Luke who were clearly of a far different social strata.As low as their opinions are of sermons, the authors think even worse of those who give them - particularly the authority attached to them. They ridiculously claim that there were no "official offices" with slots to fill, yet among the first things they did was choose a successor to replace the position of Judas in the twelve and even gave criteria for their nomination. The emergence of the office of bishop was, contrary to their claims, quite natural. As local church's reached points of self-sufficiency, they no longer needed to rely upon the evangelists or the church that had sponsored them. We see first the Church in Jerusalem having such leadership under James the Just and then both Antioch and Smyrna following under Ignatius and Polycarp. As more churches became established, the practice of episcopal leadership spread.As mentioned earlier, the early Church had all their leadership ordained by the Apostles. We see this most clearly in Acts and in the letters of Paul. The imposition of hands was a long established practice within most cultures of the time in conferring leadership and this certainly was not lost on the early Christians. Unfortunately, this does not tickle the ears of today's trendy egalitarians and they need go to great lengths to try to make square pegs fit in round holes.After some rather immature tirades against clerical garb and music ministries, the authors then turn their attention to the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper. Their obvious biases show by claiming the early Church practiced believers' baptism. There is in fact no evidence of this - baptism was a long standing ritual practice in Judaism (John the Baptist did not invent it) and there were no such restrictions. There are passages in the New Testament where converts' entire families were baptized (presumably including small children) and Paul makes a connection between baptism and circumcision. The sacrament was the entry into the New Covenant with Christ and was open to believers and their children.Since the early Church was growing primarily through conversion, it is natural that most early baptisms would be of adults. But you simply never hear of the children of early Christians baptized after some peculiarly American version of "being saved." They all claim to be Christians from their childhood. The only period where there was hesitation was due to some believing wrongly that there were great obstacles to salvation if they fell from the faith after being baptized and hence delayed it until close to death but this practice would be condemned.The Lord's Supper/Communion/Eucharist was an outgrowth of Jesus' liturgical act on the night of His betrayal. The authors make much of the separation of the bread and cup from a full meal as menttioned in I Corinthians but fail to mention that Paul condemns them for their practices and replies with instructions that describe only the bread and cup. They consider the possibility that the separation was done to end abuses but then conclude it was incipient paganism. Their evidence for this: nothing. They just assume a twisted reading of the facts that concludes Christians who were willingly dying for Christ couldn't wait to be pagans. It is almost shocking to read the sheer arrogance of these two pseudohistorians who obviously not encountered the writings of the patristic Church firsthand but rely upon the inaccuracies of anti-Christian writers like Will Durant.The reasons for later developments are quite clear if one uses the original sources and a little common sense. First of all, only the bread and cup are essential. Nothing else is mentioned in any account of the Last Supper. Then there is the implied connection with between the bread and cup and the Passover lamb. They also came to realize the connection in Hebrews as the central ritual of the priestly order of Melchizadek (a type of Christ who offered up a meal of bread and wine). The Church saw this was no mere dinner but that their sacrifice of bread and wine was being united to Christ's sacrifice on the Cross and that he was "revealed in the breaking of bread".Of course all of this formal understanding and deep thinking about God's Holy Word is a bad idea and the authors proceed to list their complaints against every center of theological training in Church history from the great theological schools in Alexandria and Antioch to the monasteries to the medieval universities to their Protestant counterparts to the seminaries to the little Bible College down the road. Apparently, the Church would have been better off without them even though they preserved the Scriptures and kept alive the remains of Christian culture during times of great social upheaval.Oddly enough, after giving us chapter upon chapter of some of the most horrid proof-texting ever put to print, the authors then complain about proof-texting! They also at the end introduce the idea that house churches are not always a good idea and some instruction is needed to lead them. But wait - doesn't such assistance imply something like the sort of stuff given in seminaries and doesn't the idea that some people are needed to train others institute a de facto hierarchy? Oh, and in case you are wondering where all this wonderful training is brought down to a practical level and who will be the trainers - you can get it in one of the authors' other books. One immediately is reminded of what Orwell wrote in Animal Farm: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."It will be interesting to see what the future holds for the house church movement. Now that so much of the patristic Church is assigned to pagan beliefs, I suspect that the formulations of faith hashed out beginning at Nicea will be called into question. One can expect to see the house churches wrestling with the same heresies the patristic Church faced as new leaders decide the early Church actually believed something else entirely. The refashioning of old heresies in new wineskins is yet another characteristic of restorationist movements.The sort of nonsense we see in Pagan Christianity is nothing new. Hosts of restorationist movements in the past have mounted similar endeavors - each from their own uninformed perspective. While they all had their unique complaints, all had in common the elevation of American ideals to the level of divine command. For them as well as for Viola and Barna, even this error pales in comparison to their belief that their efforts are unique, revolutionary and important. How typically American!

There were two events in the Middle Ages that sparked major reform in the church. The first was the nailing of Martin Luther's Ninety-five Thesis (or topics for debate) on the door of Castle Church at Wittenberg in 1517. The second was the publishing of the New Testament in English by William Tyndale in 1525 (for which he was executed as a heretic). In my opinion, "Pagan Christianity" is a "church-quake" of equal magnitude.The fact that a major publisher like Tyndale would publish this book is astonishing. Most of Frank's earlier works have been published "in the underground" through his own publishing house, "Present Testimony Ministry." As such, he has had a wide following in the house-church movement, but little known outside. That's about to change. In the preface to "Pagan Christianity," Tyndale offers their explanation on why they would publish such a controversial book stating it was out of their "desire to see the church operate according to biblical principles and be a full expression of God's grace and truth." So the church doesn't operate according to biblical principles, and is not a full expression of God's grace and truth?" Shocking! But that's the main point of "Pagan Christianity" and its plea to return to the beginning. The fact that Tyndale supports this endeavor, and is willing to put their reputation on the line, seems to add potent legitimacy to the most controversial book written since Luther and Tyndale raised such a ruckus 600 years ago.And while Luther paid lip-service extolling the priesthood of all believers, he did very little "practically" to blur the distinctions between the clerical class and the laity. The same church hierarchy that Luther railed against simply changed its suit. The Catholic priest who officiated over all things spiritual morphed into the Protestant pastor*, who did the same. Ouch!Consider these words from Paul regarding God's purposes for the Church:And this is the purpose: that through the church the complicated, many-sided wisdom of God in all its infinite variety and innumerable aspects might now be made public to the angelic rulers and authorities in the heavenly sphere. Eph 3:8-10 (Amp)Please read those words, carefully, again. Perhaps a third time. Now look at the average "church service". As "Pagan Christianity" points out, the order of the protestant ritual is the same, week after week and year after year. The denomination doesn't matter. High church or low church, all follow the same predictable pattern. Here's what Luther gave us 600 years ago, and what we are still following today:SingingPrayerSermonAdmonition to the peopleLord's SupperSingingPost-Communion prayerBenediction"Innumerable aspects?" "Infinite variety?" "Many-sided?" This is not the Chuch of Jesus Christ as described in the heart of God. This is "McChurch." The order of service is the same, and tastes the same, always, no matter where it's served up (and we Protestants think we have something over our Catholic brethren and their "rituals"). "Anointed" preaching? Perhaps. "Charismatic" preacher? Probably. But if it's all coming out of a single funnel, this is not classic Christianity. As Paul writes: "But if the whole were all a single organ (mouth), where would the body be?" I Cor. 12:19. If Paul was asking that question then, imagine what he would be asking now. If His body can't be found, could it be because His headship over His Church has been replaced by human agencies and traditions?An earlier writer, Elton Trueblood, wrote "prophetically" of the church's return to the primal genesis of the early church. He stated that Luther's reformation has some unfinished business. And just as Tyndale gave the scriptures to the common person, a second reformation will be ignited when the church is given back to the people with the abolition of the laity:"Our opportunity for a big step lies in opening the ministry to the ordinary Christian in much the same manner that our ancestors opened Bible reading to the ordinary Christian. To do this means...the inauguration of a new Reformation while in another it means the logical completion of the earlier Reformation in which the implications of the position taken were neither fully understood nor loyally followed."The more we study the early Church the more we realize that it was a society of ministers. About the only similarity between the Church at Corinth and a contemporary congregation...is that both are marked, to a great degree by the presence of sinners. After that the similarity ends, for we think it is normal for one man to do all the preaching, while the others are audience, whereas in Corinth, many did the preaching, "When you come together," reported their most famous visitor, "EACH ONE a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation" (I Cor. 14:26). The ministry of original Christianity was one of its most revolutionary aspects. In contrast to all previous models, the new fellowship emerged as a dynamic force without priest or rabbi or medicine man."One of the reviewers, if I understand him correctly, implies that the church is "progressive" in nature and questions whether or not we need, or should, return to the New Testament pattern. I suppose by "progressive" he infers that it has "evolved" into its current structure of three songs and a sermon with a "professional" class of Christians performing and an "audience" class of spectators. First of all, we need to be asking ourselves if what we are doing now is an improvement over what happened then. If we are to judge by the fruit of our endeavors with that of theirs, we are forced to concede that we have fallen far from something of sublime power and genius.Secondly, this idea of the Church progressing into something "new and improved" can't be found in scripture. Contrarily, Paul states prophetically that soon after his departure, ravenous wolves would come in and destroy the flock. Acts 20:29 "Pagan Christianity" really is the historical account of this destruction and the church's departure from the Apostolic blueprint. We can scarcely take any credit for remembering what they taught us and adhering to the traditions they passed on to us. I Cor. 1:11.Thirdly, the letters to the churches reveal a constant theme regarding church meetings, which is the MUTUAL CONTRIBUTION of ALL members under the HEADSHIP OF JESUS CHRIST. No priestly or pastoral caste system can be found or magically extracted from the New Testament accounts. No sermons, no pews, no passive priesthood:God has arranged the LIMBS and ORGANS in the body, EACH PARTICULAR ONE just as He wished and saw fit and with the best adaptation. But if the whole were all a single organ, where would the body be? I Cor. 12:17-19.And He has put all things under His feet and has appointed Him the universal and supreme Head of the church, a HEADSHIP EXERCISED THROUGHOUT(each member), which is His body, the fullness of Him Who fills ALL IN ALL--for in that body lives the full measure of Him Who makes everything complete and Who fills EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE WITH HIMSELF. Eph 1:22-23In Him EACH SEPARATE PIECE of building, properly fitting into its neighbor GROWS TOGETHER into a temple, consecrated to the Lord. YOU ARE ALL part of this building in which God Himself lives by His Spirit. Eph. 2:22YOU ALL belong to one body, of which there is one Spirit, just as YOU ALL experienced one calling to one hope. There is one...Father of us all, who is the One OVER ALL, the One working THROUGH ALL, and the One living IN ALL. Eph. 4:4His intention was the perfecting and the full equipping of (all) the saints, that THEY should do the work of ministering toward building up of Christ's body...Eph. 4:12For because of Him, the WHOLE BODY, the Church in ALL ITS VARIOUS PARTS closely jointed and firmly knit together...when EACH PART is working properly in all its functions, grow to full maturity, building itself up in love. Eph 4:16.Let the word spoken by Christ have its home in your hearts...as you TEACH AND ADMONISH AND TRAIN ONE ANOTHER in all insight and intelligence and wisdom in spiritual things. Col. 3:16But to EACH ONE is given the manifestation of the Holy Spirit...for the good and profit OF ALL. I Cor.12:7Now you collectively are Christ's body and individually you are members of it, EACH PART severally and distinct--EACH with his own place and function. I Cor. 12:27If the whole church assembles...(and) ALL prophesy--giving inspired testimony and interpreting the divine will and purpose--and an unbeliever or untaught outsider comes in...he will worship God, declaring that God is among you in very truth. I Cor. 14:23What then is the right course? When you meet together, EACH ONE has a hymn, a teaching, a disclosure of special knowledge or information, an utterance in a strange tongue or its interpretation. But let everything be constructive and edifying and for the good of all. I Cor. 14:26I want to bring you some spiritual strength, and that means that I will be strengthened by you, EACH OF US helped by THE OTHER'S faith. Roman 1:12Open your hearts to ONE ANOTHER as Christ opened His heart to you, and God will be glorified. Rom. 15:7ALL OF US have no veils on our faces, but reflect like mirrors the glory of the Lord. II Cor. 3:18You should be most careful that there should not be in any of you that wickedness of heart...but help EACH OTHER to stand firm in the faith everyday, while it is still called "today." Heb. 3:14And let us not hold aloof from our church meetings, as some do, but let us do all we can to help ONE ANOTHER'S faith. Heb. 10:25These scriptures, and many others, support what Frank and George have written regarding what went wrong, and the institutional scandal that replaced the "one anothers" of the New Testament with a religous, top-heavy heiarchial** structure of "professional" Christians. Dirty laundry? You bet! But it's time to clean up our act! Christ is returning for a church without spot or wrinkle. Could those be "age" spots? Christ is not returning for an "old" church. He is returning for a church that has renewed the glorious dew of her youth. This is a church that has not only renewed her first love for her Lord but for "each other" as well.Mathew 19:6 states that whatever God brings together, let no man tear apart. In its infancy, the church was wedded to specific Apostolic teaching regarding spiritual and practical ways she was to conduct herself when meeting together. "Pagan Christianity" exposes the chasm that subverted these teachings and seeks to bridge the gap between what was, what can be, and by the grace of Christ, will be again.Buy and read this book first and then consider: Normal Christian Church Life, The Rethinking the Wineskin: The Practice of the New Testament Church The Company of the Committed The Incendiary Fellowship Unfinished Business: Returning the Ministry to the People of God Note to Tyndale: Thank you for following the sacrifical example of your namesake in publishing this book. You've done a great service to the church and to those who love the truth, no matter the cost. One suggestion: When "Pagan Christianity" comes out in paperback, please make the footnotes bigger? We "older" bespeckled readers would really appreciate that.*Note to Pastors: I love you guys. And your love for our Lord is unquestionable. But imagine if all of your efforts were multiplied exponentially. Imagine if in a church of, say, 500, there was not a single "super-star" minister, but 500 ministers, each ministering Christ to one another. That is the paradigm of the New Testament. And ready or not, here SHE comes!**Interestingly, Eph.4:10 states that the gifts of Christ are given to various persons so "that the whole universe from LOWEST TO HIGHEST might know His presence." Here all ideas of "heiarchy" are turned upside down.

The three stars are not because it's a dull book! It is required reading for anyone who needs to ask `how should we do church?' Reading the book for me was like being on a rollercoaster. One minute I am shouting a firm AMEN! The next I am shaking my head in disgust because there is some serious bad teaching. Then I am saying, 'Yes... and... so what?'There are some extremely important facts in this church which need to be disseminated widely. And yet I frequently felt that the authors* spoiled their message by going too far with their conclusions, creating an unfair straw man representing many churches or interpreting the Bible incorrectly. To me, this book is written by a man* with an agenda rather than someone who I can trust to come up with the whole truth.Do not give this book to an immature Christian. Most of the book is what I would regard as Romans 15 territory. I need to say:- You are not guilty because you dress smartly to church- You are free to go to an East-facing church with an altar if that is where you need to be- Your haven't sinned because you tithe to a church that owns a building and employs a pastor- Don't look down on your brother because he goes to Bible College and likes listening to sermons.In the wrong hands, this book can make one person self-righteous, falsely guilty, or it can even cause someone to withdraw from church completely - one family I know did just this because of Frank Viola's teaching. They later regretted this and joined an elder-led church.Let's start with what I like about it.I `get it'! A revolution in our church life needs to take place. The old wineskins are strangling what remains of the Christian church. To the extent that (as the authors* put it) this is a `conversation starter', it is a graet book. And it's a conversation we urgently need to have. I totally, totally agree that:1. We are wasting far too much money on buildings2. One-man leadership is unscriptural3. Too many people are in paid ministry4. Discipleship begins in the home5. Church leaders need to spend time in the real world and have vocational skills6. Many of the most revered men in history - `church fathers' - were false teachers, guilty of paganising, Romanising and Philosophising and intellectualising our faith into something very different form the simple faith our earliest brethren had.7. We have for years been making believers into dumb, passive spectators, consumers of entertainment even, and we have failed to make them into true disciples.The chapter on education was one chapter in which I profoundly agreed with the authors*. To quote one sentence, 'Plato and Aristotle are the fathers of modern Christian education'. It would be an eye-opener to many within the church to see how deeply immersed our faith is in Greek Philosophy and I believe a strong case is made. There's also a useful section questioning the role of the Sunday School and the Youth Pastor.Now comes the health warning. There are some issues on which I profoundly disagree with the authors.I was bracing myself for their attack on the sermon. And yet what they said did not really impress me.Quote from Page 88:'...apostolic preaching recorded in Acts possessed the following features:- It was sporadic- it was delivered on special occasions in order to deal with specific problems- it was extemporaneous and without rhetorical structure.'Wrong, wrong, wrong!Firstly, we need to distinguish preaching (announcing the gospel to unbelievers) from teaching (primarily directed at Christians). This is a common error - the Greek words translated thus are consistent here. The chapter indicates that the authors* are actually referring to teaching.In what way is teaching daily in the temple courts and 'filling Jerusalem with their teaching' and concentrating on the ministry of the word (see Acts 2:42,46, 4:2,18, 5:28, 6:2) sporadic and on special occasions? Is this characteristic of Paul, who taught the Ephesians 'the whole counsel of God' (Acts 20:27)?Are you seriously accusing Paul, who wrote the incredibly tightly argued Romans, Galatians, Ephesians etc. of not having rhetorical structure??? Bear in mind here that these letters were dictated and not written. And look at how he deals with the crowds and the Roman officials in Acts 21-26. Paul was surely one of the most brilliant speakers of his day. And how could Appollos refute the Jews in public debate without the use of rhetorical structure? (See Acts 18:28).Whilst I agree that teaching in the early church was more interactive than in the modern church (and I would welcome a return to this), it is simply wrong to suppose that teaching was an 'every member' function. It was reserved for 'faithful men' (1Timothy 2:2) who were suitable qualified. To open up teaching to anyone was to give a platform for false teachers, who were to be silenced (2Timothy 2:16-18, Titus 1:9-10, 2:15, 3:10).Teaching is not a free-for-all.My other big gripe with the book is the weak teaching on eldership.Quote from page 123-124:'Elders... were recognised by virtue of their seniority and spiritual service to the church. According to the New Testament, recognition of certain gifted members is something that is instinctive and organic. Every believer has the discernment to recognize those within his or her church to carry out various ministries.'No! No! No!!If that's the case, then why does Paul warn the elders in Ephesus for three years night and day with tears to be on their guard against false teachers (Acts 20:31)? Why does he bother sending Titus to Crete to examine the character of men before they can be appointed as elders?The reason is this. It is often the pushiest characters, the cleverest schemers, the most plausible talkers who end up getting positions of prominence in the church. And they can easily fool the majority and end up ruining churches. Elders are appointed and recognised publicly. They need to be above reproach and be tested. Non-elders are commanded to respect and honour them. The process of appointing them is neither 'instinctive' nor 'organic' (whatever the latter term means).Two other points. Paid ministry is perfectly acceptable scripturally (1Cor 9, Gal 6, 1Tim 5, Luke 8 and 10). And short quotes, 'proof texts' are used frequently by Jesus and the apostles throughout the New Testament. Again, the authors* make some good points here, but carry their arguments far too far.Most of my Christian life has been spent in less formal churches, led by unpaid elders, or leaders of some description. And it hasn't always been pretty. One of the main problems has been the lack of church discipline, poor knowledge of scripture and sloppiness when it comes to who is allowed to teach and lead. On occasion, plausible leaders have ended up falling into serious sin because nobody bothered testing their character as the Bible says we should. The authors seem to advocate the very type of church I would now run a mile from rather than take my family to.By all means get the book and see what you think. I believe there are far better books that cover similar ground however. I for one would recommend Steve Malz's book  How the Church Lost the Way: And How it Can Find it Again  as well as David Pawson's  Word and Spirit Together: Uniting Charismatics and Evangelicals  and  The Normal Christian Birth . Also look out for his excellent talk on 'De-Greecing the Church' by doing a google search or purchasing the CDs from his website. All of these materials cover the better parts of 'Pagan Christianity' in a more complete and balanced way.*There are the names of two authors on the front cover. But whenever the author refers to himself, he says `I (Frank)'. I'm left wondering how much of it George Barna actually wrote. A mischievous part of me asks, 'Does Frank take over his `organic church' meetings in the same way?' How the Church Lost the Way: And How it Can Find it AgainWord and Spirit Together: Uniting Charismatics and EvangelicalsThe Normal Christian Birth

Many say they are angry at this book. Personally i beleive it to be well researched and sincerely written. It probably saved me from a lot of misery because i had doubts to the way things were going on at church and didnt have the knowledge to question it as it was tradition and who was i to question tradition ?This book is power to the unsuspecting dumbed down sheeple in christianity, and please forgive me for that phrase but i was there before myself. This is how passionate i am about this book. Clergy / laity is not really biblical in a sense that they are the mediator between you and God but many try to fit that position. This is a clergy nightmare book but i believe it should be taught in church instead of wanting to brush it under the carpet as some would have done.Many pastors will try and tell you this is a bad book, i say its one of thee most relevant books in the modern age for any chrisitan.This is the longest review ive ever written, i dont usually review, it was worth it.

Having just finished reading this book my response is that although I agree in principle with many of the authors observations and criticisms of institutional religion, I felt strongly that the author failed to give a convincing alternative.. Even the so-called house fellowships make the same mistakes as the more organised churches. This book raises more questions that it does in providing constructive answers and therefore can be easily misunderstood. My view is that just because a modern church practice is not backed up by a specific verse of scripture, doesn't necessarily make it wrong. Equally, those house churches that try and model a biblical pattern of church life often end up falling into the same trap as the churches that they have left. One final point..Why does the author charge us to buy his book..after all, no one sold books in the NT and made a commission on each sale..Therefore modern publishing should be disregarded as unbiblical!

An excellent book which exposes that the origins of all the rituals and traditions of "Christian" churches have been inherited from paganism and from the second Temple period. The honest reader with an open mind will be faced with the dilemma of either continuing to attend an institution made by humans, or quitting church altogether and seeking God on a personal level where one worships God only in spirit and in truth. The decision is yours

In my opinion the authors do a great job in stating what the original church format and practices were. They also do a commendable job doing likewise with the modern mainstream churches, which bear little if any resemblance to the original church. We could argue all day about how we have gone from then until now and the relevancy of each change as some have done, even as far as producing a book in an attempt to counter this one. The fact is there has been a massive departure from the early church set up by Paul and other Apostles, which in my view is not justified spiritually or scripturally. I found that the authors have represented very well my own observations about how the early church practised their faith and how I see modern Christianity in light of this. I am not too taken up with the details of how each departure from the true faith came about, etc., as overall I do not consider this relevant, as any departure for whatever reason is wrong. The Apostle Jude exhorts us to 'earnestly contend for the faith which was ONCE delivered to the saints,' ie, believers, and Paul warned us that if any man or even an angel from heaven brought another gospel than the one he and his fellow apostles brought, they should be accursed. Strong warnings to get back to the very roots of the faith for all else is vain.So far so good for Viola and Barna. Five stars would have beckoned, but dear o' dear they nose dive after this. They ascribe most of the changes in Christian structure and practices to the influences of paganism, which may largely be true. They even titles their book 'Pagan Christianity,' yet they themselves have clearly come under the embrace of the greatest and most abominable pagan 'belief' in Christianity in promoting in this same tome the false doctrine of the 'triune god!' This is extremely ironic that those who have produced such an in-depth study of pagan structure and practices in Christianity as we know it, have seriously failed to identify the greatest example of paganism in the Christian 'belief' spectrum. i.e. the trinity concept, This is very difficult to grasp and seriously diminishes the value of this book. I have been kind in granting it three stars on account of my earlier observations. The authors describe (rightly) those from Protestant faiths as 'reformed Catholics,' but they are no better than this themselves as evidenced by their keen support for a false, triune god.