I have been asked by one of my commentators to reply in a more substantive fashion to the arguments presented in Pagan Christianity by George Barna and Frank Viola. I must reiterate that my purpose in this post is not to discourage people from reading Pagan Christianity nor do I believe that this book is “evil” or that must be avoided at all costs in order to keep one’s faith in the church intact (a charge that has been thrown around by many a critical reviewer). As stated in my previous review, I love Frank Viola for the work that he does with God’s help to plant New Testament style churches in the 21st century. Such a ministry is one that rightly and prophetically calls the church to question its practices and to discern what is fitting and fruitful for life in the Kingdom of God. Although Frank and I do not know one another well, I am a friend of his work and therefore, this review - while quite critical of many of the presuppositions and arguments of Pagan Christianity should not be construed as a personal attack on Viola’s work (nor even upon that of George Barna). What I hope to present in this second part of my review of Pagan Christianity are simply the deeper levels of my wrestling with the arguments and calls that Viola and Barna make for the church.
I know that both of these men deeply love Christs’ church and desire wholeheartedly to see it come more and more under the headship of Christ. This is, in my opinion, a position with which nobody wants to argue. Nevertheless, I do have some disagreements with both the substance of their arguments and the method by which the arguments are made. It is true that many of Barna and Viola’s arguments are arguments with which I agree. Each of them, I think, has its merit. However there are some issues that I have with this book that I think compromise their contention that what they write represents “unmovable historical fact” and that the reader has but two choices: either “ignore” these facts and be outside the true church or “be faithful” and act on what they have read by abandoning the institutional church. This argument is reiterated in various ways throughout the book but I believe the authors articulate it most clearly in the first chapter:
If you choose to ‘take the red pill’ and be shown ‘how deep the rabbit hole goes’…if you want to learn the true story of where your Christian practices came from…if you are willing to have the curtain pulled back on the contemporary church and its traditional presuppositions fiercely challenged…then you will find this work to be disturbing, enlightening, and possibly life changing.
Put another way, if you are a Christian in the institutional church who takes the New Testament seriously, what you are about to read may lead to a crisis of conscience. For you will be confronted by unmovable historical fact.
On the other hand, if you happen to be one of those people who gathers with other Christians outside the pale of institutional Christianity, you will discover afresh that not only is Scripture on your side - but history stands with you as well” (p. 7).
There are two glaring problems with the above contention that, from my perspective, compromise the validity and genuineness of the authors’ research from the start. First is the contention that any book, any perspective, any written account can present “unmovable” historical fact. Anyone who has taken on even a mildly serious study of the history of the Church knows that there is no such thing as “unmovable historical fact.” It just doesn’t exist. We have good guesses, great theories, quite a few primary sources, and a great deal of opinions and perspectives about what all of these things mean. But good history must always make clear and understand that there are always more layers, more perspectives, more undiscovered artifacts and writings that may someday invalidate or disprove any set of facts that exist currently. Good history, like good theology, is never done with a clinched fist. In the same way that good theology works under the assumption that God is a mystery and our “theology” is speculative at best, good history works under the assumption that “the facts” are not always (and actually, rarely are) “unmovable,” irrefutable, uncontested, or even “factual.” Thus, the false dichotomy set up between the “faithful” believer and the “unfaithful” Christian who doesn’t buy this book’s argument appears to be based on a particular reading of history and upon a particular way of understanding Scripture that not all Christians share.
This leads me to my second issue with the starting point of this book as a whole: the privileging of the New Testament over the whole witness of scripture. As one who has learned what little I know about the Old Testament from a scholar in the “Canonical criticism” tradition, I find it utterly untenable and even unethical to favor the New Testament over the Old as Scripture that informs the way we do church. In the New Testament, when the we see references to “the Scriptures,” we know that the authors are likely referring to the books of the Old Testament. To place the New Testament over and above the Old Testament as a faithful guide for church practice is a refusal to bring the whole Scripture to bear on our perspective and we are rightly offended and suspicious of the claims of any writer, preacher, or teacher who makes such a refusal.
So, right off the bat, Pagan Christianity made my brain throw up a two red flags that forced me to question the validity of their findings throughout the book. As I read and as I questioned, I formed at least two other critiques that are partly based on the first two: To begin with, while much of their findings are based on “facts,” a great deal of their research - even down to quotations of church fathers and other figures - comes from secondary sources and not from in-depth research and reading of the primary sources of their arguments. The authors may have done such research but their “abundant footnotes” do not indicate thus. Furthering this critique, it seems that what the authors have done quite often is “proof text” from people who do not share their own arguments (Emil Bruner, Karl Barth, and John A.T. Robinson, for example). “Proof texting,” by the way is something against which they warn the readers with regard to the Scriptures - apparently such a warning only applies thereto and not to extrabiblical writings. At any rate, my first substantive beef with this book is that while footnotes are in abundance, many of those footnotes indicate a only a cursory glance at church history coupled with hasty, ideological inferences therefrom that do not showcase, in my view, any substantive engagement with the thought of the people they use (carelessly in my opinion) to make their arguments. In short, while this book is full of “facts” it is - in my humble opinion - poorly researched and based mostly on a particular opinion of how we are to interpret the bible as well as a particular reading of the so-called “facts” of history. I believe that a book which claims to represent “unmovable historical fact” must be far more careful, nuanced and in depth than Viola and Barna have been. While the authors admit that this isn’t a scholarly book, the task which they have taken on is unfortunately one that requires (whether they want to provide it or not) a scholarly (i.e. more nuanced, in-depth and genuinely thoughtful) engagement with the original sources on a more substantive level than they have provided. So in that particular sense, the book has failed to do what it claims to do. It is, as far as history and biblical study go, far ideologically biased and surface-level than it should have been in order to accomplish their goals. I know that “objectivity” is something that is less and less in fashion these days and I’m not suggesting that their reading be more objective. I’m simply suggesting that the theological declarations and practical assertions the authors make are by no means plain when considered in light of the multifarious theories of historical analysis and biblical and theological study. In short, I believe that what the authors have endeavored to do with this book is, essentially, impossible. As I alluded above, history books are always interpretations of history and the idea that any of it is “unmovable” is utterly absurd to my mind given that for every historical fact claimed by one author, there is another conflicting view of that fact which must be brought to bear.
This leads me to my second substantive issue with the book as a whole: the authors’ understandings of theology, church history, church structure, etc. are all based upon particular readings of scripture which they seek to universalize (thus, the precarious situation of the reader who is left to choose between “accepting” historical “facts” or the person who “ignores” the “facts” and is, therefore, “unfaithful”). A related issue for me is the reality that the institutional church as they describe it does not jibe with my own experience of the institutional church. While I agree that things such as church buildings, orders of worship, the sermon, etc. often need rethinking and maybe even undoing or abandoning, there are other aspects of their thought that I believe come not from an honest engagement with Scripture or even church history or theology but, rather, from opinionated ire and from a particular (and not necessarily consistent) reading of scripture. I am not saying that their reading of scripture is not one with which I often agree but I’m am saying that in their writing, there is a theologically precarious universalizing tendency with regard to many issues and practices which are by no means universally understood, accepted, agreed upon or even experienced in the fashion in which they are presented them. For instance, consider their thoughts regarding theological education:
Contemporary theological teaching is data-transfer education. It moves from notebook to notebook. In the process, our theology rarely gets below the neck. If a student accurately parrots the ideas of the professor, he is awarded a degree…Theological knowledge, however, does not prepare a person for the ministry (216).”
I have studied in two theological seminaries from two very different traditions (one a well-known, prestigious U.S. seminary and the other a smaller but no less competent one). I’ve also spent time studying in a religion department in a moderate-to-progressive Baptist university, a Christian studies department in a self-proclaimed fundamentalist Baptist college, and a humanities department at a “secular” state college. In thinking about my experiences (reading through journals and recalling class sessions and conversations with students and professors) I’ve realized something incredibly strange and ironic in light of the authors’ contentions about “theological education”: none of these places have been places where the authors’ description of “theological education” holds true.
In other words, the past seven years of my life have been spent in “theological education” and (with only a few exceptions) not a single theology, church history, biblical studies, or ministry course which I have taken fits the description which the authors provide for “theological education.” I must confess that this is the feeling I get throughout my reading of this book. The authors describe a reality, I consider it closely - thinking through my personal history in the church, and I realize that the church, the seminary, the whatever has not been the same for me as it has for them. Maybe I’ve just been in churches that are good at playing the game but something tells me that what’s really at play is the fact that the authors of Pagan Christianity have unfortunately presented - not a portrayal of the institutional church as it actually exists but, rather, a caricature thereof (at least in my own experience).
I know that George Barna is a respected analyst of American religious life and I know that both of these authors have worked hard to write a book that shows that many of our practices come from extra-biblical and sometimes pagan origins. But what I do not know is where they get the idea that their reading of the Bible is the only accurate one. Where do they get the idea that for the church to use something which may have pagan origins to draw people into closer communion with God is necessarily and without question a negative reality. While the authors scoff at the various elements of “church” they consider to be unfaithful, I can say that without preaching, without pastors, without liturgy, without the grandeur and beauty of cathedrals, without choirs, without what the authors cannot consider “church” - without all of these things, I don’t think that I would be a Christian. Each of these “non-biblical, pagan realities” have been necessary to my faith formation. And what is important is that I am not alone. Maybe it’s because I love theology or maybe it’s because I was a pastor’s son. But, then again, my life has not been perfect - and neither has my experience of the church. But I cannot help the fact that many of the Christian practices these authors would like to get rid of are practices which have consistently helped me to mature throughout my journey as a Christian person within the institution which they cannot seem to call a true expression of Church.
I do not deny the efficacy of New Testament style churches for growing people into mature followers of Christ. But I also cannot deny that my journey toward God and my continuing walk with Christ have been nurtured, sustained, and constantly allowed to flourish within the institutional church (in many different forms) which these authors claim has no right to exist. I desire to follow Christ and I love the Church. I believe that there are many forms of church in this world today and I cannot deny that - insofar as they remain faithful to Christ’s call to make disciples of all nations - they all have a biblical, historical and Spiritual right to exist. There are always changes, there are always problems, there are always cracks and struggles. What I cannot let go, however is the fact that the institutional church - in particular and localized forms - has been the fellowship which has brought me time and again into the presence of God and I refuse to abandon it outright. The church of Jesus Christ is a mystery that exists in many different forms. The idea that the institutional church as a rule prohibits “every member functioning” or “participatory” worship or any of the other realities discussed in Pagan Christianity is simply absurd. I have been in churches all my life that have allowed for all of these things. Certainly, I’ve been in churches whose use of the various extra-biblical and possibly pagan practices described in this book has been a hindrance to Christian (and basically human) flourishing. But I must confess that, for each one of these hindering church communities I’ve encountered, I have also experienced life-giving, Spirit-led, headship-of-Christ communities which have allowed my faith to mature and grow, not in spite of, but through the various practices which supposedly invalidate the right of such a community to exist. I love that Viola and Barna are so passionate about the maturation of Christ’s body but I do not believe that Pagan Christianity is effective in proving their thesis. It is provocative and even prophetic - but it is ultimately unable to deliver what it promises.
Although this review has been quite critical, I do encourage you to buy this book. Read it; interact with it; pray about it; and talk about it with your friends and family. But do not stop there. Read other encounters with similar material. Read the church fathers. Read church history. Read Roman Catholic, baptist, charismatic, mainline, Anabaptists, Orthodox and other house church writers and realize that - although many will claim to have all the “facts,” history, the church and theology are far too elusive to be fully understood by any one person. In the end, I don’t believe any form of church is the “right” one. Others in the various traditions I’ve cited might disagree with me - and that’s fine. What I know is that I am a Baptist-affiliated Christian who’s wife is a Presbyterian youth minister; who has served in ministry in Methodist, Episcopal and non-denominational churches; who finds affinity with Roman Catholics, Anabaptists and Quakers; who has lived in a Catholic Worker community; and who desires more than anything to serve Christ and Christ’s church - where ever and however it might spring up. I’m a theological and ecclesiological mutt and it’s going to take more than one book to convince me that the various forms of church life I’ve experienced have no right to exist.
Comments(0)
When, in an earlier post, I indicated that I was going to offer a review of Pagan Christianity (better late than never), I wrote that it would be “a review of Frank Viola and George Barna’s book, Pagan Christianity that compares aspects of their thinking to protestant liberalism a-la Adolf von Harnack’s book, What is Christianity.” 
