Pagan Christianity: Exploring the Roots of Our Church Practices
Answers to Questions & Objections
Answers to Questions & Objections
Updated: 2024
This page contains responses to criticisms of Pagan Christianity and the constructive sequel Reimagining Church.
Frank Viola has written over 20 books since Pagan and Reimagining were released in 2008. The newer books are more popular and for a much wider audience than his old books on ecclesiology. The latter were only written for Christians who left the organized form of church or who were on their way out.
His newer books are for all Christians in all church forms.
The subjects of his newer books are about the kingdom of God, God’s eternal purpose, spiritual formation, hearing God’s voice, effective ministry, and the glories of Jesus Christ.
This page contains a comprehensive list of objections and their answers to those two volumes, including links with further responses.
The book debuted hitting #11 on Amazon.com (out of all 33+ million books). Since then, the book has often ranked #1 in Ecclesiology (on Amazon) and has regularly appeared on Tyndale’s top 10 best-seller list.
An often-overlooked fact is that Pagan Christianity is not a stand-alone book.
It is only the first half of the argument. As such, it’s very incomplete.
Since Pagan is not a stand-alone work, reading it on its own without the construction sequels is like hanging up the phone after 15 minutes during a two-hour conversation. And that always leads to misunderstandings and misapplications.
Reimagining Church is the necessary follow-up along with From Eternity to Here and Finding Organic Church.
Each book works together to form a complete picture.
Also, Pagan Christianity and Reimagining Church were written to a very narrow audience. They were NOT written for pastors or people who enjoy Sunday morning church services. The books were instead written to those who 1) love Jesus, and 2) left the institutional church or are on their their way out, and 3) are seeking Christian community outside institutional lines.
The books were written to give these specific people green-light permission that they have a biblical and historical right to exist.
Consequently, recommending these books to an institutional church pastor or a Christian who enjoys Sunday morning services in an institutional church is like giving a book of vegan recipes to a meat eater.
Take some time on this page. There are three parts to it. The page contains incisive interviews with Frank and George about the content of their book. It also includes public debates with scholars as well as scores of specific questions, objections, and critiques along with responses from the authors.
The page begins with insightful quotes, interviews with the authors, endorsements, resources, definitions, and a lengthy question-answer section.
Enjoy!
ENDORSEMENTS BY SCHOLARS
“I wish church leaders everywhere would calmly read and reflect on this book … the cumulative weight of Pagan Christianity is impressive. Christians today who want to see the church be faithful to the gospel of the kingdom should ask themselves: Which of our current traditions are consistent with Scripture and help us to be faithful communities of the kingdom? And which really nullify God’s Word? If churches confront that question prayerfully while seriously examining Scripture, many things may change.”
Dr. Howard Snyder, Professor of History and Theology of Mission at Asbury Seminary
“Viola and Barna’s Pagan Christianity (Tyndale 2008) is the best single source I know of that exposes how thoroughly pagan the traditional and contemporary understanding of the church is. Viola and Barna argue — rightly — that the passivity and impotence of the church today is largely due to this fact. Viola and Barna call us back to a New Testament understanding of church that is rooted in authentic communities in which believers share life and engage in ministry together.”
Dr. Gregory A. Boyd, prolific author and former professor of theology, M. Div (Yale) and Ph.D (Princeton)
“Pagan Christianity contains a wide variety of interesting and helpful historical information of which most Christians – or non-Christians – will be completely unaware. The book identifies – in part or in whole – the pagan roots of many of our current church practices, as well as indicates some borrowed from earlier Jewish or, occasionally, more recent Customs.”
Dr. Robert Banks, New Testament scholar, author of “Paul’s Idea of Community” and “The Church Comes Home.”
GO HERE for more endorsements by historians and scholars.
REVOLUTIONARY QUOTES
I am not here attacking Christianity, but only the institutional mantle that cloaks it.
Pierre Berton
A truth’s initial commotion is directly proportional to how deeply the lie was believed. It wasn’t the world being round that agitated people, but that the world wasn’t flat. When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.
Dresden James
Experience supplies painful proof that traditions once called into being are first called useful, then they become necessary. At last they are too often made idols, and all must bow down to them or be punished.
J. C. Ryle
I think we ought to read only books that bite and sting us. If the book we are reading doesn’t shake us awake like a blow on the skull, why bother reading it in the first place? . . . A book must be the axe for the frozen sea within us.
Franz Kafka
If Christianity is to receive a rejuvenation it must be by other means than any now being used. If the church in the second half of [the twentieth] century is to recover from the injuries she suffered in the first half, there must appear a new type of preacher. The proper, ruler-of-the-synagogue type will never do. Neither will the priestly type of man who carries out his duties, takes his pay and asks no questions, nor the smooth-talking pastoral type who knows how to make the Christian religion acceptable to everyone. All these have been tried and found wanting. Another kind of religious leader must arise among us. He must be of the old prophet type, a man who has seen visions of God and has heard a voice from the Throne. When he comes (and I pray God there will not be one but many) he will stand in flat contradiction to everything our smirking, smooth civilization holds dear. He will contradict, denounce and protest in the name of God and will earn the hatred and opposition of a large segment of Christendom.
A.W. Tozer
Here it is, plain and unvarnished. Unless I am convinced of error by the testimony of Scripture or (since I put no trust in the unsupported authority of Pope or councils, since it is plain that they have often erred and often contradicted themselves) by manifest reasoning, I stand convinced by the Scriptures to which I have appealed, and my conscience is taken captive by God’s word. I cannot and will not recant anything, for to act against our conscience is neither safe for us, nor open to us. On this I take my stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen.
Martin Luther
When you can assume that your audience holds the same beliefs as you do, you can relax a little and use more normal means of talking to it; when you have to assume it does not, then you have to make your vision apparent by shock — to the hard of hearing you shout, and for the almost-blind you draw large and startling figures.
Flannery O’Conner
He [Jesus] did not leave a book; He did not leave an army; He did not leave an organization, in the ordinary sense. What He left, instead, was a little redemptive fellowship made up of extremely common people whose total impact was miraculous . . . . It is hard for us to visualize what early Christianity was like. Certainly it was very different from the Christianity known to us today. There were no fine buildings . . . . There was no hierarchy; there were no theological seminaries; there were no Christian colleges; there were no Sunday Schools; there were no choirs. Only small groups of believers – small fellowships. In the beginning there wasn’t even a New Testament . . . . All of these parts [of the Empire] were touched because the fellowship itself had such intensity, such vitality, and such power . . . . If all the salt is washed out of [the fellowship], if all that is left is just the worldly emphasis of respectability and fine buildings, an ecclesiastical structure and conventional religion with the redemptive power gone, it isn’t partly good; it isn’t any good. Christ is saying that mild religion, far from being of partial value, is of utterly no value . . . . It is easy to go on with the motions; it is easy to continue a structure; it is easy to go on with a system. But Christ says it isn’t worth a thing.
Elton Trueblood
The real trouble is not in fact that the Church is too rich, but that it has become heavily institutionalized, with a crushing investment in maintenance. It has the characteristics of the dinosaur and the battleship. It is saddled with a plant and programme beyond its means, so that it is absorbed in problems of supply and preoccupied with survival. The inertia of the machine is such that the financial allocations, the legalities, the channels of organization, the attitudes of mind, are all set in the direction of continuing and enhancing the status quo. If one wants to pursue a course which cuts across these channels, then most of one’s energies are exhausted before one ever reaches the enemy lines.
John A.T. Robinson
Man’s mind, once stretched by a new idea, never regains its original dimensions.
Walt Whitman
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.
Upton Sinclair
Part 1 of 3: INTERVIEWS WITH FRANK AND GEORGE WHERE THEY ANSWER OBJECTIONS
Listen to the interview below where Frank talks about the Industrial Religious Complex and explains for whom the ReChurch Series (listed above) was created.
Part 2 of 3: DEFINITIONS (on page xxxi of Pagan Christianity, 4th printing, etc.)
As you read this book, we feel it is important that you understand how we are using the terms below.
Pagan
We are using this word to indicate those practices and principles that are not Christian or biblical in origin. In some cases, we use it to refer to those ancients who followed the gods of the Roman Empire. We are not using the word as a synonym for bad, evil, sinful, or wrong. A “pagan practice or mind-set” refers to a practice or mode of thinking that has been adopted from the church’s surrounding culture. We believe that some pagan practices are neutral and can be redeemed for God’s glory. We feel that others stand in direct conflict with the teachings of Jesus and the apostles and thus cannot be redeemed.
Organic Church
The term organic church does not refer to a particular model of church. (We believe that no perfect model exists.) Instead, we believe that the New Testament vision of church is organic. An organic church is a living, breathing, dynamic, mutually participatory, every-member functioning, Christ-centered, communal expression of the body of Christ. Note that our goal in this book is not to develop a full description of the organic church but only to touch on it when necessary.
Institutional Church
This term refers to a religious system (not a particular group of people). An institutional church is one that operates primarily as an organization that exists above, beyond, and independent of the members who populate it. It is constructed more on programs and rituals than on relationships. It is led by set-apart professionals (“ministers” or “clergy”) who are aided by volunteers (“laity”). We also use the terms contemporary church, traditional church, present-day church, and modern church to refer to the institutional church of our day.
New Testament Church, or First-Century Church
These terms do not refer to a particular form of church. We are instead speaking of the church of Century One that we read about in our New Testament. (In this book, first-century church is used as a synonym for New Testament church.) We do not advocate a primitivistic return to a particular model of the early church. Instead, we believe that a return to the spiritual principles, the organic practices, and the spirit and ethos of the first-century church, along with the teachings of Jesus and the apostles, should guide our practice of the church in our day and time.
Biblical, or Scriptural
These words are used first and foremost as source statements and secondarily as value judgments. Biblical or scriptural refers to whether a practice has its origins in the New Testament Scriptures. References to unbiblical or unscriptural practices do not automatically imply error. These words can refer to the fact that a certain practice does not appear in the New Testament (in which case it should not be treated as sacred). But they can also refer to a practice that violates the principles or teachings of the New Testament. The context will determine how these words are used. We certainly do not agree with the doctrines of “the silence of Scripture” and “the regulative principle,” which teach that if a practice is not mentioned in the New Testament then we should not follow it.
Part 3 of 3: ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
This section of the page was compiled from 2008 – when Pagan Christianity and Reimagining Church released – up until the year 2024.
These questions and answers are in addition to (not a repeat of) the objections the authors have answered in the interviews and debate links above.
Frank, I noticed that a popular author recently came out with a book which basically says the same thing that you wrote in Pagan Christianity and Reimagining Church, yet he seems to be more traditionally minded than you and George. I was irritated that he didn’t mention any of your books or give you credit, but he obviously has been influenced by your work. What do you say about this?
Frank, it’s been two years since you and George released Pagan Christianity. I have read a lot of blogs that praise the book and some that criticize it. I really appreciate that you’ve created this page to answer questions and especially that you are available to debate people on the book. How many of your critics have taken you up on a blog debate?
Answer: Since the book released in 2008, only one person has asked me to respond to their questions and objections in a public way. He wrote his criticisms of the book on his blog and invited me to respond, and he published my response on his blog for all to read. It’s intellectually dishonest to critique a book without showing the critique to the author first to make sure that one isn’t misunderstanding what they’ve read. This happens all too often. In fact, most of the critiques of the book have been written by those who didn’t read either the entire book or the constructive sequels, and thus, they misunderstood the content.
Frank, thanks for your books and articles and messages. They are changing my life. I have a friend who follows some blogger who is spouting that you don’t believe in leadership. I’ve read all your stuff so this is all way off to me, but I wanted your reaction. Oh, and would you be willing to debate any of these people?
Answer: You couldn’t be more correct. As you no doubt know, over one half of my book REIMAGINING CHURCH is all about leadership (including an exegesis on all the biblical texts on elders, pastors, etc.). I still find it fascinating that because Barna and I challenged the traditional form of leadership, which finds its roots in the Greco-Roman and Jewish worlds, some people assume this means we are against leadership. That’s a false assumption.
Also, in FINDING ORGANIC CHURCH, I explore the leadership that traveling apostolic workers provide. You can even find a definition of a leader in that book.
Frank, I gave Pagan Christianity to some friends and their response was, “Barna and Viola make a lot of good points, but they are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.” I’ve heard this so many times that if I hear it again, I’m going to scream. What’s your response to that line?
Answer: I think there’s only one baby worth saving – it’s the babe of Bethlehem, the Lord Jesus Christ. Everything else can be parted with, and most of it is clutter. To call the clergy system, the hierarchical/business-patterned leadership structure, the Sunday morning Protestant ritual, or the billions of dollars Christians spend on church buildings and overhead “the baby” is ludicrous in my opinion.
From the place where I’m standing, it seems to me that what we’ve done is substitute the bathwater for the baby, tossing the latter and keeping the former. In the words of biblical scholar Jon Zens,
“It seems to me that we have made normative that for which there is no Scriptural warrant (emphasis on one man’s ministry), and we have omitted that for which there is ample Scriptural support (emphasis on one another) . . . we have exalted that for which there is no evidence, and neglected that for which there is abundant evidence.”
But let me think about your question more, and I’ll tell you how I really feel about it. 🙂
It is some people’s opinion that you and George only use those historical sources that agree with your points in the book and exclude those which disagree. What’s your response to this?
Answer: Jon Zens, a highly respected historian and scholar, has answered this objection perfectly.
Since I don’t think I can improve upon his answer, I’ll quote it below. I’ll simply add that the issue really juices down to the type of book Pagan Christianity is. Scholarly books present every conceivable counter argument and respond to each one (that’s why it’s not uncommon for scholarly works to sometimes be 900 pages long with very few people reading them).
Popular books that are written to a non-scholarly audience do not do this. Pagan Christianity is deliberately a popular book rather than a scholarly one (that’s why it weighs in at 350 pages). I’m familiar with those works that disagree with the conclusions that George and I have come to. But we’ve not been persuaded by their arguments. The fact is, most of what’s in the book is historical fact that’s accepted by historians who make a different application from the data.
Here is Zens’ answer to the question:
“The bibliography alone contains hundreds of books showing a wide breath of the subjects at hand, many of which were written by scholars and historians who disagree with some of the authors’ conclusions. The book shows keen familiarity, for example, with two well-known liturgical scholars, Frank Senn and Gregory Dix and their work – scholars who disagree with some of the authors’ conclusions. Furthermore, a good number of the sources they use were written by Anglican and Catholic scholars who admit that various practices they embrace are of pagan origin; yet these scholars still uphold and defend their present form of church. (Barna and Viola go a step further and challenge some of those practices on biblical, spiritual, and pragmatic grounds. And then leave it to the reader decide if those practices are a help or a hindrance to what Jesus had in mind for His church.) Very simply, it was not within the scope of the book to examine the claims and counter-claims that others have made. The book states this very point in the preface, arguing that if they had dealt with every counter-claim and traced every practice in detail (making it a ‘scholarly’ work), it would have consisted of many volumes that few people would read. I think that one reason that PC (Pagan Christianity) has become a bestseller is that it is so accessible to the average reader. PC was concerned to boil things down to the key issues related to the shift from New Testament simplicity to post-apostolic bureaucracy. I’ve been studying ‘church’ issues for thirty years, and it would be my conclusion that PC accurately reflects the basic conclusions – even virtual consensus – of a wide range of NT theologians and church historians. For example, it would appear that James D.G. Dunn’s summary remarks capture the essence of PC’s heartbeat: ‘Increasing institutionalism is the clearest mark of early Catholicism – when church becomes increasingly identified with institution, when authority becomes increasingly coterminous with office, when a basic distinction between clergy and laity becomes increasingly self-evident, when grace becomes increasingly narrowed to well-defined ritual acts. We saw above that such features were absent from first generation Christianity, though in the second generation the picture was beginning to change’ (Unity & Diversity in the New Testament, Westminster Press, 1977, p.351).”
You make a good point about how the New Testament letters were arranged in our Bible. But what is your view of the canon of Scripture, and how it came together? Do you believe that the Bible we have is reliable?
Answer: My view of the canon is that the books that make up our Bible are inspired by God. They are true, accurate, and fully reliable. To my mind, modern critiques of the biblical canon have been refuted by many first-rate scholars.
Here are some books I would recommend that explain how we got our Bible. All argue that the Scriptures we possess are completely reliable. The Canon of Scripture by F.F. Bruce; Are the New Testament Documents Reliable? by F.F. Bruce; The Formation of the New Testament Canon by William Farmer & Denis Farkasfalvy; How We Got the Bible by Neil R. Lightfoot; The Birth of the New Testament by C.F.D. Moule; The Making of the New Testament by Arthur G. Patzia; By What Authority? by Bruce Shelley; Sola Scriptura by Ben Witherington III.
There are many more, but these will give you an idea.
Dear Frank, I really enjoyed the chapter on “Reapproaching the New Testament.” The analogy you gave about the sociologist really hit home. I agree that the order of the New Testament letters and the chapter/verse divisions makes seeing the Bible as a whole difficult. Do you know of a chronological Bible that leaves out the chapters and verses?
You talk about open church meetings where every member of the Body participates, both men and women. How do you deal with 1 Corinthans 14:33-34 where the women are asked to be silent?
I agree with your points about the Bible not supporting a professional clergy. But what is your opinion on those ministries that take money? Don’t you and George receive money for your books as authors? What’s the difference between that and what you address in the book? Also do you receive an honorarium when you speak? Thank you.
Answer: In the book, we are challenging something very specific: a paid professional clergy that receives a salary for being “the minister” to a local congregation. We discuss the biblical, historical, and pragmatic reasons for our challenge. By the same token, we have no problem with ministries that receive money from those who feel inclined to support them. For example, the New Testament teaches that church planters who spend their time on the road traveling to preach the gospel and raise up ekklesias have a right to live off the gospel (see 1 Cor. 9).
In addition, I personally support several ministries that help the poor around the world. And I have no problem with Christian authors being compensated for their labor in producing a product (like a book) or Christian musicians producing a resource (like a music CD), both of which cost a huge amount of money to create. (By the way, if you’re an author by trade, you’re pretty much living by faith. Very few books sell like that of Rick Warren or Max Lucado.) All of these things are worlds apart from a paid professional “clergy” that’s being salaried to minister to a local group of non-professionals called the “laity.”
As to your second question, I don’t have a problem with conference speakers receiving money for their speaking. However, I’ve chosen not to demand an honorarium. Taking my cue from Paul, I have never charged God’s people whenever I’ve ministered to a church or fellowship. If they wish to donate, that’s fine, but it’s never a demand. For further thoughts on this subject, I would recommend three books:
Roland Allen’s Missionary Methods, Chapter 6 – Finance.
Watchman Nee’s, The Normal Christian Church Life, Chapter 8 – The Question of Finance.
Christian Smith’s, Going to the Root, Chapter 2 – Do Church Without Clergy.
Hi Frank. I was reading a blog who talked about Eugene Peterson. Apparently Peterson spoke at a conference recently and said that “the church in America is the abomination of desolation!” The reviewer went on to praise Peterson for being a jolting prophet. The irony is that this same reviewer trashed the book that you and George Barna wrote, Pagan Christianity?, saying how harsh it was and how it was overstated. Man, doesn’t he see his hypocrisy? Why doesn’t he realize his bias? What’s your take on Peterson’s statement?
Answer: I’m not sure. The comment “the church in America is an abomination of desolation” trumps anything George and I say in Pagan Christianity. If one reads that sentence literally, it’s a carte blanche condemnation of all churches and all Christians, and a harsh one at that.
I personally think Peterson is one of the most gifted writers of our time. That said, I would not agree with the statement that “the church in America is the abomination of desolation.” As I’ve written in my book, FROM ETERNITY TO HERE, the church is the most beautiful girl in the world. In the eyes of God, she’s drop-dead gorgeous, blameless, holy, and pure. And Jesus Christ, her bridegroom, is out of His head in love with her. The modern church system, however, is a different thing (and many Christians wrongly confuse ekklesia with the religious system).
Frank, I saw someone on a blog say that you and George hang your “whole argument” on 1 Corinthians 14:26 and that this text is stating a problem not the norm. What is your reply?
Answer: This objection has been refuted by many scholars. See this article for details including quotes by top-shelf New Testament scholars. They all support my view of 1 Corinthians 14:26.
I read some negative reviews on your book and was honestly skeptical. But I bought it, read it, and loved it. I found the chapter on “Jesus, the Revolutionary” to be one of the best, and I wish all the critics of the book would read that chapter. It really gives a different view of the Lord. My question is, I’ve got a friend who thinks you and George are trying to get the church to return to the ancient practices of the first century. (He hasn’t read the book, he’s just read a few reviews.) I see that you mention the first-century church a lot in the book, but you also mention the organic church. Can you clear up the difference? I also love the quotes throughout the book. They by themselves are worth the price of admission.
Answer: The chapter entitled “Jesus, the Revolutionary” is my favorite chapter in the book. In fact, I would recommend some readers to read that chapter first before they get into the content of the book. It will help them to see the perspective from which we are writing.
As for the early church/New Testament church/first-century church, when we look at the New Testament and we read about the church of Century One, we can draw a distinction between two kinds of practices: Cultural practices and Organic practices.
Cultural practices would be those practices that are tied to first-century culture. For instance, the Gentile believers spoke Greek, they didn’t have Bibles, they met early in the morning so the slaves could gather before work, they used torches to light up rooms when they met in the evenings or early mornings, etc.
Organic practices are those practices that are tied to the DNA of the church. They embody the theology of the New Testament (e.g., the priesthood of all believers, the church as family, the headship of Jesus Christ, etc.). When we say “first-century practices,” we are often using that as a synonym for “the organic expression of the church.”
These practices are built upon the spiritual principles that transcend time and culture. Some examples are the every-member functioning of the body of Christ, the oneness of the body, authentic face-to-face community, the headship of Christ, every member functioning as a minister and a priest, etc.
We are essentially arguing that many of the practices that make up the modern, institutional church were borrowed from Greco-Roman culture. We argue that they not only have no root in New Testament principles, but in many cases, they violate the DNA of the church.
They run contrary to the organic expression of the body of Christ. Not to mention that they are outdated for our time — since many of them date back to the third, fourth, and fifth centuries.
For details on my views and experiences regarding organic church, go to Organic Church Articles.
Frank, man, thanks so much for this book. I just finished it and it’s rocking my world! Awesome book. A few people charged you and George with promoting “the only right model” of doing church. Other bloggers have corrected them saying this isn’t what the book says, yet they seem to just ignore it. I read the book and didn’t see where you guys say this at all. Why do you suppose these people keep banging that same drum?
Answer: Virtually none of the negative reviews have actually interacted with any of the specific points the book makes, and so far, none of the reviewers are willing to engage me or George directly. Also, more than half of the negative reviews were written by people who have never read the entire book or the constructive sequels.
You are right in observing that George and I don’t believe that there’s a “right method” for doing church. We simply point out that the New Testament churches didn’t operate like modern churches operate. We leave it to readers to decide if the modern institutional form of church is a departure or a development from the first-century churches. Also, the book intentionally doesn’t contain solutions. That’s the task of the constructive sequels. But again, those books in the ReChurch Series were written for people who have already left the institutional form of church (or are on their way out) and want to meet like the early Christians gathered. Any other audience is outside the target and scope of these particular books.
I read a particular blog that criticized Pagan Christianity. I keep wondering if the guy read the same book I did. Turns out he’s a pastor. He made the charge that you and George have been hurt by some pastor in your past and that’s why you’ve written the book. Could you respond?
Answer: I’d like to borrow this person’s mind-reading cap sometime 🙂
I’ve never been hurt by a pastor or any leader in the institutional church. In fact, all the pastors I’ve had a personal relationship with have helped me spiritually, and I have great respect for each of them. I’ve also been training pastors to have more effective ministries since 2015.
See The Insurgence Experience Mastermind. In addition, the books I’ve written since 2010 have been hugely popular with pastors and Christians in the institutional church. While I may disagree with a pastor on the subject of ecclesiology, it rarely if ever has affected my relationship with them.
Interestingly, every person I know who has dared challenge the clergy system has at one time or another been accused of being hurt by a clergyman and painted as a bitter, disgruntled soul. It appears to be a convenient way to dismiss or discredit anyone who dares to question the status quo. Personally, I’ve never seen this tactic work. It usually ends up backfiring.
While we’re discussing the clergy system, here’s a quote by John Howard Yoder. It contains some of his contra “one-man-preacher-pastor-clergy-office” insights, many of which map to the same points that George and I make in Pagan Christianity.
[Beginning of Yoder]
“The whole concern of Reformation theology was to justify restructuring the organized church without shaking its foundations.”
“There are few more reliable constants running through all human society than the special place every human community makes for the professional religionist . . . But if we were to ask whether any of the N.T. literature makes the assumptions listed. Is there one particular office in which there should be only one or a few individuals for whom it provides a livelihood, unique in character due to ordination, central to the definition of the church and the key to her functioning? Then the answer from the biblical material is a resounding negation [no].”
“The conclusion is inescapable that the multiplicity of ministries is not a mere adiaphoron, a happenstance of only superficial significance, but a specific work of grace and a standard for the church.”
“Losing the specific and original trait of the primitive community, the church by and large became again subject to the usual anthropologically universal pattern of the single, sacramentally qualified religionist. By and large . . . this pattern has continued to our day in churches of every polity and theology.”
“Let us then ask first not whether there is a clear, solid concept of preaching, but whether there was in the N.T. one particular preaching office, identifiable as distinctly as the other ministries. Neither in the most varied picture (Corinthians) nor in the least varied (Pastoral Epistles) is there one particular ministry thus defined.”
[End of Yoder]
By the way, I got a call yesterday from a former pastor at Willow Creek who wanted to encourage me regarding the book. He told me that many people are raving about it while others are being put on heart medication because of it. He continued to encourage me, which I appreciated very much. Another friend recently reminded me of the “BUT SOME” phenomenon that we read about in the Lord’s ministry. If you don’t know what the BUT SOME phenomenon is, here’s a preview:
Luke 11:14-15 – And he was casting out a devil, and it was dumb. And it came to pass, when the devil was gone out, the dumb spake; and the people wondered. BUT SOME of them said, “He casts out devils through Beelzebub the chief of the devils.”
John 11:45-46 – Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on him. BUT SOME of them went their ways to the Pharisees, and told them what things Jesus had done.
Matt. 28:17 – And when they saw him [Jesus Christ], they worshipped him: BUT SOME doubted.
And again:
Luke 23:5 – And they were the more fierce, saying, He stirs up the people, teaching throughout all Jewry, beginning from Galilee to this place.
A word of encouragement to anyone who takes a stand against traditional thinking. Some will appreciate it, BUT SOME will not. And whether you like it or not, there’s an excellent chance that you may find yourself stirring up the people.
It seems to be written in the bloodstream of the universe.
Selah.
Hey Frank. I want to thank you so much for the book. I was floored by it! An amazing work. I’ve been following one guy’s blog and he’s slamming the book. Makes one think that you and George believe devils exist in church buildings and every traditional Christian is a pagan! He’s leaving out so many points you guys make in the book and then accuses you and George of failing to acknowledge those points.
Answer: Thanks for the kind words. Someone recently said that “the book is a bombshell dropped on the traditional church playground so don’t be surprised if some people do whatever they can to discredit it, that includes being intellectually dishonest.”
It’s possible to be captured by the same spirit one opposes and not even realize it. Church history bears this out plainly.
A number of people are reacting to this statement in the Preface of the book. “The church in its contemporary, institutional form doesn’t have a biblical nor a historical right to function like it does.” What did you mean by that exactly?
Answer: Here is the statement: We are also making an outrageous proposal: that the church in its contemporary, institutional form has neither a biblical nor a historical right to function as it does. This proposal, of course, is our conviction based on the historical evidence that we shall present in the book. You must decide if that proposal is valid or not.
Note the words we use are “a biblical nor a historical right.” That simply means that what we are calling the institutional form of church has no “biblical” justification. And historically, it can be demonstrated that the church in its present form didn’t originate with God, but from human inventions and traditions. We give historical evidence for this in the book and it’s never been successfully discounted.
This doesn’t mean the church in its present form is evil, bad, sinful, or useless. Nor does it mean that God hasn’t and isn’t using it, despite its shortcomings. In the book itself, we give credit to the institutional form of church for leading us to the Lord and baptizing us.
Our point is that the institutional form we’re speaking about has no “Scriptural basis.” And as we argue in the book, some of its features contradict the teachings of Scripture.
Let me offer an example. Suppose that someone in our time began to say, “We need to change the way we have the Lord’s Supper. From now on, we’re going to replace the fruit of the vine with Dr. Pepper and the bread with French fries. (All kids between the ages of six and ten break out into applause.) Oh, and instead of remembering Jesus Christ and His death/resurrection, we’re going to remember David’s victory over Goliath.”
Now suppose this idea catches on. And after three hundred years, it’s essentially the universal way Christians take the Lord’s Supper (Eucharist). This practice goes unchallenged and unquestioned. In fact, most Christians can’t conceive taking the Lord’s Supper any other way.
Is there anything morally wrong with drinking Dr. Pepper or eating French fries (not counting the opinion of some nutritionists)?
I’d say no.
Is there anything wrong with remembering and celebrating David’s victory over Goliath?
I’d say no.
But, I would argue that the original meaning and intention that Jesus Christ and the apostles gave to us (“handed down”) regarding the Lord’s Supper has been utterly changed and emptied of its original meaning. And whatever the Lord’s Supper was originally supposed to embody in the mind of God has been lost.
Thus, to my thinking, taking the Lord’s Supper in this new fashion has no biblical merit. Or to put it differently, in this particular form “it doesn’t have a Scriptural or historical right to function as it does.”
In like manner, George and I are arguing that the modern, inherited, institutional form of church has strayed far afield from the New Testament concept of “church” in the teachings of Jesus and the apostles. And we are simply asking the question: Should we keep supporting this inherited form or should we begin to do things differently?
I hope that helps.
Here are some questions I want you to address. Do you believe that the only kind of meeting a church should have is an open meeting where everyone shares equally? Does the Bible really teach that? Do you believe it’s wrong for Christians to meet in a building? Do you deny that the early church met in the Temple as well as in homes? Do you believe there are never times when a Christian can preach and teach from the Bible?
Answer: These questions are all answered in the book itself as well as in Reimagining Church (in more detail). And the answer to all of them is “no.”
To be specific, we show that there were two kinds of meetings in the New Testament: 1) apostolic meetings — where someone ministers to an audience temporarily for equipping, and 2) church meetings — where every member functions and participates to display Jesus Christ.
In many (if not most) modern churches today, what we call “church” is in a way similar to an apostolic meeting, though it never ends and there’s no equipping for God’s people to gather under Christ’s headship. And the first-century styled “church meeting” has been utterly abandoned.
What most Christians call “church” today is really a religious service/performance that’s dominated by the preaching of typically one person. We’re challenging this in the book on biblical and historical grounds. Not that it’s bad, wrong, or God doesn’t use it. But on the grounds of whether or not it’s what Jesus had in mind.
The fact is that we Protestants keep repeating a 500-year-old ritual with little change. Thank God some of us have broken through to something different, and we’ve found an entirely new universe on the other side.
In the same way, we never say it’s wrong to meet in a building. (A “building” and a typical “church building” are two different things, and we’re questioning the purpose/function/usefulness of the latter.)
I don’t believe there’s anything wrong with meeting in a building in and of itself. We point out in one chapter how Paul of Tarsus rented the hall of Tyrannus for apostolic meetings in Ephesus. I myself have held apostolic meetings in a rented building for a time to raise up a church or to hold lengthy conferences for a network of churches. I’ve also seen some church buildings renovated to be more conducive for every-member functioning.
The church in Jerusalem did use the Temple at times, but it wasn’t in the way that many people assume. The Jerusalem saints didn’t meet in the Temple per se. They gathered in the Temple courts (Solomon’s porch) which was a large outside area with a roof over it. They did so for a certain period of time to hold apostolic and evangelistic meetings. This was during the birth of the Jerusalem church. They also used it to accommodate the large city-wide council they held regarding a schism in the church of Antioch.
The apostles also visited the synagogues for evangelistic purposes. But the assembly held its church meetings in homes throughout the city. We make this point in the book, and it’s something often misunderstood today. There are apostolic meetings, evangelistic meetings, and church meetings. And there’s a big difference between “the work” and “the church,” something that my book Finding Organic Church explores.
Finally, I’m all for preaching and teaching in church meetings, in apostolic meetings, and in conferences. I myself do it. It’s the shape of the order of worship and the modern sermon that we challenge in the book. The modern sermon being an oration that a pastor is paid to deliver to the same congregation every week ad infinitum. We challenge these things on historical, biblical, and pragmatic grounds.
Again, God has and does use it. But that is not the question we’re asking in the book.
I hope that clarifies.
Can you give some clarity on what you mean by the words “biblical basis,” “unbiblical,” and “unscriptural practices”? These words in the book seem to be causing a lot of confusion to some people. They think you are arguing for only one way of doing church that replicates the first-century church across the board. Can you shed light on this?
Answer: Great question! As with most authors, when I sit down to write (or as N.T. Wright puts it, when I sit down in front of my computer and “open a vein”), I have one or two audiences in mind to whom I’m speaking.
When George and I wrote Pagan Christianity, our primary audience was the evangelical Christian world who have left the institutional church or were on their way out. That would include Charismatic/Pentecostals also. Consequently, in the book, George and I speak that language.
Terms like “biblical basis,” “Scriptural support,” “biblical merit,” etc. are pretty well understood by most people in that tradition, and I’d dare say, by most Protestants in general.
I was in the institutional church for thirteen years. During that time, I was part of about a dozen different Protestant denominations and five different parachurch organizations. Without exception, all of them claimed that their practices were “based in the Word of God.”
Terms like “biblical” and “Scriptural” were a big part of their theological and ecclesiastical vocabularies.
To some people, these terms can conjure up all sorts of ideas. To some, they may conjure up what the Church of Christ doctrine calls “the silence of the Scripture.” That doctrine teaches that if something is not mentioned in the New Testament, we shouldn’t do it. And if it is in the New Testament, we must do it. (In Reformed circles, it’s known as “the regulative principle.”)
I don’t hold to that doctrine at all. To my mind, it’s an unlivable doctrine, and it’s highly legalistic. “The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life,” Paul said.
Nor do I hold to what I call “biblical blueprintism.” This is the idea that within the pages of the New Testament lies an ironclad pattern for doing church that is as inflexible as the law of the Medes and Persians.
No such pattern exists. Historically, those who believed they had “the pattern” and claimed to practice it ended up splitting six ways to Sunday. Because not everyone agrees on the specificities of the pattern.
What I do believe, however, is that the New Testament contains a revelation of Jesus Christ and His church. As we say repeatedly in the book (especially at the end where we field questions), the church of the first century was organic. And that organism we call the church has the same DNA today as it did in Century One.
Thus when we use terms like “biblical” or “Scriptural” or “first-century church practices” or “first-century experience” or “biblical merit,” we are speaking of the organism called ekklesia as it’s discussed and envisioned in the New Testament, the features of which she possesses yesterday, today, and tomorrow.
It’s important to know that this book intentionally, deliberately, and with forethought does not discuss the above in any detail at all. In fact, we repeatedly say in the book that the whole question of the New Testament organic church will be dealt with comprehensively in the next volume (REIMAGINING CHURCH, which has been available since 2008).
That book answers questions like: What is normative in the first-century church vs. what is culturally relative? Is there such a thing as a New Testament ecclesiology? Can biblical principles actually work in the 21st century? And what is a narrative ecclesiology?
That said, what we do in Pagan Christianity is make three big points:
* Much of what we do for church today has no root in the New Testament. It didn’t come from Jesus Christ, the apostles, or any New Testament author. And much of it didn’t even come from Judaism. I personally find the history of our church practices fascinating.
* Much of what we do for church today originated from Greco-Roman customs (hence the term, “pagan”) and human-made inventions.
* Some of those practices, we believe, actually hinder the church from how God designed her to function.
One thousand plus footnotes later, we leave it up to the reader to decide if our accepted church practices today are a development or a departure from what we find in the New Testament.
So Pagan Christianity is not the end of the story; it’s only the beginning. It’s the “clearing away the debris” tool before a new foundation can be laid and a new paradigm introduced.
One of the charges against the book is that you and George are using overstatements. What is your response?
Answer: What’s an overstatement? The answer largely depends upon which hill a person is standing when they read a book. What some say is an “overstatement” others say is a “prophetic challenge” or “polemic.”
I remember once hearing a friend charge a particular book with being “riddled with overstatements.” Today, this same friend feels that the author made his case. What happened? New grooves were cut into his brain that didn’t exist on his first reading.
When a particular book is loved and loathed at the same time, the vital question to ask is are these so-called “overstatements” backed up by reliable evidence? If they are, then I wouldn’t call them “overstatements.”
The traditional understanding of church is so entrenched in our thinking that it’s very difficult for us to objectively analyze our current practices critically. What we’re up against is a mindset. All of the solutions that Christian leaders have given — more prayer, more preaching, more Bible reading, more good works, etc. — all assume that the present-day ecclesial mindset is correct and shouldn’t be tampered with. At bottom, we are really dealing with a problem of how we think and conceptualize.
Let me see if I can illustrate this. I was once in a conversation with someone who argued that they understood the church to be God’s people, a face-to-face community, the very bride of Christ in a locality, and not a building, denomination, or religious service.
Minutes later this same person began saying to someone else, “So which church do you go to?” This is one example of how deep the mindset runs. It’s burned into the circuitry of our brains. (If you didn’t catch that, read the book and learn where the idea of “going to church” came from. And how it’s at odds with the New Testament understanding of church. No one “went to church” in the first century. They attended meetings, but it was the church that met.)
Another example was when I was in a conversation with a pastor of a small church. Some of the members were present with him in the living room. He told me how much “his people” didn’t look to him before they make decisions. He explained how “his people” were free. How “his people” were not controlled by him in any way. Nor were they dependent on him but on Jesus.
Interestingly, everyone in the room would look to him before they threw in their comments and at him as they spoke. Both he and they were completely out of touch with this. And again, the book argues that no one thought in terms of “my” people in the New Testament except the Lord Himself.
Again, the clergy mindset runs deeper than many of us can imagine. (Is that an overstatement?)
I believe that one of the ways to help break this mindset is to state the truth graciously, but without compromise and dilution. This naturally opens one up for the charge of making overstatements, being proud, being arrogant, etc. Yet I believe the important question is not “Is a sentence overstated?,” but “Do the authors support and justify their statements with their reason and research?”
Keep in mind that a big part of what we are doing in the book is to bring together many of the “overstatements” made by competent and reputable historians, scholars, and theologians along with their research which supports those statements.
Here’s a sampling of what I mean. Consider for yourself if you feel these are “over-the-top overstatements” or not. At face value, they sure seem that way to me:
“The term ‘laity’ is one of the worst in the vocabulary of religion and ought to be banished from the Christian conversation.” (Overstatement?)
– Karl Barth
“The clergy-laity tradition has done more to undermine New Testament authority than most heresies.” (Overstatement?)
– James D.G. Dunn
“The New Testament ‘Ecclesia,’ the fellowship of Jesus Christ, is a pure communion of persons and has nothing to do with the character of an institution about it; it is therefore misleading to identify any single one of the historically developed churches (which are all marked by an institutional character) with the true Christian communion.” (Huge overstatement? . . . read the part again beginning with “it is therefore misleading . . .”)
– Emil Brunner
“I also believe that what goes on in them [support groups] is far closer to what Christ meant His Church to be, and what it originally was, than much of what goes on in most churches I know. These groups have no buildings or official leadership or money. They have no rummage sales, no altar guilds, no every-member canvases. They have no preachers, no choirs, no liturgy, no real estate. They have no creeds. They have no program. They make you wonder if the best thing that could happen to many a church might not be to have its building burned down and to lose all its money. Then all the people would have left is God and each other.” (Big Matzo ball overstatement?)
– Frederick Buechner
“The clergy-laity dichotomy is a direct carry-over from pre-Reformation Roman Catholicism and a throwback to the Old Testament priesthood. It is one of the principal obstacles to the church effectively being God’s agent of the kingdom today because it creates a false idea that only ‘holy men,’ namely, ordained ministers, are really qualified and responsible for leadership and significant ministry. In the New Testament there are functional distinctions between various kinds of ministries but no hierarchical division between clergy and laity.” (Overstatement?)
– Howard Snyder
“A growing number of people are leaving the institutional church for a new reason. They are not leaving because they have lost their faith. They are leaving the church to preserve their faith.” (Overstatement?)
– Reggie McNeal
I have a friend who likes to say “the solution to all the problems of the church is to shoot all the pastors and burn down all the church buildings.” Now that’s what I’d call “Overstatement City.” And no, I don’t agree with it; it’s an off-color joke.
As a potential reader of Pagan Christianity, my advice to you is simple: If you are someone who has left the institutional church (or you’re on your way out of it), but you love Jesus, read the book for yourself and interact with the arguments made. Look at the footnotes and check them out for yourself. Then decide if what we’re doing is inflating it with fluffy overstatements or if what we’re saying is substantiated by hard historical evidence.
On that fine note, let me rehearse a story that captures the entire thrust of Pagan Christianity, which is essentially a polemic/deconstructive work that seeks not to offer solutions, but to challenge conventional church practices and thinking. (The constructive sequels provide solutions.)
A mother and daughter were working together in their kitchen preparing their Easter dinner. As was her custom every year, the mother took a ham out of the fridge and put it on a cutting board. She would then cut about an inch off both ends of the ham. Once the mother did this, the daughter stopped her and said: “Mother, why did you cut both ends off the ham?”
The mother stopped dead in her tracks and pondered the question. She was perplexed since no one had ever asked her why she did this before. She had done it that way as long as she could remember.
The mother answered and said: “Well sweetie, I don’t know the answer to your question. Your Grandma always cut the ends off her ham, and I have always done it the same way. I never ever asked why. Let’s call Grandma and ask her why she cuts the ham that way.”
So they grabbed the phone and called Grandma. The mother asked her own mother if she knew why she cut the ends of the ham off before placing it in the pan. The Grandmother fell silent. She never thought about it. She simply said, “That’s the way my mother always did it. Why don’t you call her and ask why?”
She hung up the phone and dialed the little girl’s great-grandmother, and she asked the question: “Why did you cut off both ends of the ham before cooking it?” The great-grandmother replied instantly: “It was because we couldn’t afford a pan large enough to hold the ham. So we cut both ends off to make it fit.”
This story can be applied to much of what we do for “church” every Sunday.
(At this point, I can faintly hear someone retort . . . “I’m angry at you for telling this story. I didn’t think Christians were supposed to eat pork!”)
And the discussion marches on. 🙂
F.F. Bruce was correct when he said, “Some institutions are allowed to grow so old and venerable that the idea of scrapping them is unthinkably sacrilegious.”
What do you say to the charge that you argue against institutionalization and organization in the church, yet you accept it in the likes of a Christian publishing company?
Answer: This is a false equivalent. With respect to the church, the question is not, “Is it organized?”
The question is, “What is the source of its organization?” Is its form and structure organic or institutional? There’s a big difference. My human body has a form and it’s highly organized. But that organization is organic, and it springs from life.
I believe the church is divine as well as human. It’s a living, breathing entity. That’s not pious rhetoric. It’s reality. I expound on this point at length in FROM ETERNITY TO HERE.
So the church, properly conceived and practiced, is not a human institution; it’s a living organism.
On the other hand, a Christian publishing company — much like a hospital, school, university, etc. — is an organization/institution that can be used for good in the world.
While God’s people may be part of it, it isn’t the ekklesia of the living God, and shouldn’t be equated with such. They are completely different entities. At least they should, I believe. That doesn’t mean, of course, that Christians are to act like non-Christians in their businesses. It simply means that the structure of the two entities is different.
A Christian organization may legitimately have a president, vice president, etc., but the church of Jesus Christ knows only one head. The members are “all brethren,” as the Master Himself put it.
Frank, the book has made some pastors angry, defensive, and accusatory. You and George really got them in a frenzy! I don’t understand this because you never attack pastors. You simply trace the roots of the modern pastoral office, and your arguments are unimpeachable.
Answer: Correct. We never attack pastors. As I’ve said before, much of my readership (of the numerous books I’ve published since 2010) are pastors. And I have worked with a number of them in the advance of the kingdom.
One thing that encourages me is a story a friend of mine told me long ago. He was a hungry Christian who wanted to know the Lord better. Someone put into his hands Watchman Nee’s remarkable book, The Spiritual Man. As he read it, he became so angry he threw it against the wall in a fit of rage. He decided he would never open it up again.
As the Lord brought my friend through different experiences in life, some quite difficult, he picked the book up again. This time, however, it became a new book to him. Same words, same message, same book. But he now stood in a different place, a place where he could receive its message.
For the last thirty years, this man has been preaching the spiritual truths found in that book.
This same thing has happened with some who read Pagan Christianity. One leader wrote me a kind letter apologizing. He said he hated the book and bought into the lies against it. Then he had some experiences in his church and in his life and he re-read the book. It was brand new to him and it helped him greatly.
This has been a pattern. While some people initially reacted to the book negatively, the overwhelming response we have received over the years is incredibly positive and encouraging. I’m thankful for this. For as we say in the book, “Our reason for writing it is simple: We are seeking to remove a great deal of debris in order to make room for the Lord Jesus Christ to be the fully functioning head of His church.”
The fact of the matter is that millions of Christians are leaving the institutional church to find what their hearts are longing for. Many of them are longing for a deeper relationship with Jesus Christ and the experience of ekklesia. There are between five and twenty million of us in the United States who have left and that number is growing.
A recent study stated that one million Christians leave the institutional church every year in America. As Reggie McNeal has said, “A growing number of people are leaving the institutional church for a new reason. They are not leaving because they have lost their faith. They are leaving the church to preserve their faith.”
Our book is giving many of these people language to communicate why they feel this way as well as historical warrant for their decision.
Do you believe that the church should have no leadership? Doesn’t the Bible teach leadership?
Answer: Yes, the ekklesia has leadership. As my friend Hal Miller has said, “Leadership is. It could be good or bad. But it always is.”
It’s the type of leadership that’s the issue. Official, top-down, hierarchical leadership is what we discuss in the book. When we trace the origin of the modern pastoral role, for instance, we’re contrasting that office with the New Testament concept of shepherd/elders/overseer, which is very different in our view.
REIMAGINING CHURCH explores leadership in the church in great detail. It also discusses the issues of “covering,” “accountability,” “authority,” and “submission.” It takes a very different view on these issues than what’s commonly taught in both Catholic and Protestant circles.
I read a review of the book that said, “Their overarching conclusion is that if a method wasn’t used in the first-century church and was invented by someone who isn’t a Christ-follower, it doesn’t belong in the ministry of today’s local church.” I read the book and didn’t get that at all. Care to comment?
Answer: You’re right, we don’t say that nor do we believe it. Our argument is that only those pagan practices that are in disharmony with the teachings of Scripture, which contradict the nature of the church and that don’t square with the headship of Jesus should be re-examined, and in many cases, discarded.
We say this very thing in the opening of the book where we defend the calendar we all use as well as pile carpets and chairs, all of which were invented by pagans. What you’ve described is known as a “straw man argument.” Some employ the bogus argument because they never read the book, others employ it out of intellectual dishonesty. They intentionally misrepresent the book hoping that others won’t read it.
One reviewer said that you and George “used your book to raise the house church movement as the one sacred method for gathering the believers.” Is that what you’re doing in the book?
Answer: Not at all. First, I’ve gone on record saying that I don’t believe a “home church movement” exists. (For details, see House Church vs. Organic Expression.)
Second, I am not an advocate of house church (or home church). I advocate the organic expression of the church, which isn’t the same as a house church. (Most “house churches” aren’t organic at all. We state this in the book, in fact.)
I’ve often said that asking someone to describe a “house church” is like asking someone to describe a plant. The variety is that immense.
In short, I’ve never proposed “house church” as a solution to anything. The truth is, if I had to choose between some house churches and some institutional churches, I’d join those institutional churches in a heartbeat. But again, that’s not the issue. The issue is what does the New Testament envision for the church? What is God’s idea of church? What is Jesus’ idea of church?
I saw that one person wrote that you and George “hate history” and believe that the historical church has done nothing good after the post-apostolic period.
Answer: Again, I don’t see how anyone who reads the book can come away with that idea. We repeatedly commend Christians after the post-apostolic age, even if we happen to disagree with their ecclesiology.
George and I state in the book that we owe our salvation and our baptism to the institutional church. So the issue is not whether or not God can use or is using the institutional church. We repeatedly acknowledge that He has and is. But the good is often the enemy of the best. And His blessing is not the equivalent of His full endorsement.
The body of Christ has been around for the last 2,000 years, and it has discovered the riches of Christ in many areas.
I, for example, have drawn much from the early Christian writers in the way of their theology and insights into Christ. The same is true for many movements that ended up becoming denominations.
Many Christians after the post-apostolic age were spiritual giants in my view, and I have great respect for them. But that doesn’t mean that they saw perfectly in all areas. And it doesn’t mean that their ecclesiologies were correct.
There has always been a line of Christians who stood outside the institutional church. They have been called the Radical Reformation, the Trail of Blood, the Pilgrim Church, and the Left Wing of the Reformation.
The great theologian Jurgen Moltmann said that “the church’s future lies with the left wing of the Reformation.” Our book can be seen as a foretaste of that. George and I stand with the Radical Reformers. It is their story that has been forgotten and lost. And it is their ecclesiology that has been ignored. Pagan Christianity, Reimagining Church, From Eternity to Here, and Finding Organic Church (the ReChurch Series) all bring that ecclesiology to the forefront.
Some have assumed that your book takes the position that just because a practice is pagan in origin it’s evil and should be tossed. I read the book and know that this isn’t what you’re saying. Can you give some clarifying words?
Answer: We actually write early on in the book that this isn’t our argument. We use the example of pile carpets, chairs, and the Western calendar, arguing that these inventions are of pagan origin, yet they shouldn’t be discarded because of it.
The book also states that we don’t address Christmas and Easter for the same reason. (See the next question for details on that.)
The first argument of the book is that most of what we do in our “inherited” churches today does not come from Jesus, the apostles, or the word of God, but out of pagan tradition, so let’s stop calling it “biblical” and treating it as if it were sacrosanct. (Many Christians act as though these things were written with the finger of God.)
The second argument of the book, which is the main point, is that many (not all) of these practices violate the DNA of the church, hinder the headship of Jesus Christ, and suppress the functioning of His Body. They also contradict many of the core teachings of the New Testament, such as the priesthood of all believers.
Our ultimate goal is to see the centrality, supremacy, preeminence, and headship of the Lord Jesus Christ restored in His church again, and that’s the point we make repeatedly.
In Pagan Christianity, you address many of the pagan traditions that have shaped the modern church. But how come you never discuss the so-called “Christian” holidays like Christmas and Easter which have pagan roots?
Answer: The scope of the book is to treat those church practices that hinder the functioning of the body of Christ and suppress the headship of Christ.
For that reason, we do not address the Western calendar that we all use on a daily basis. Nor do we address pile carpets or chairs, which are commonly used in church services. All of these are pagan inventions. We do not address them simply because we do not see how they hinder the functioning of the body or the headship of Christ.
I am aware of the history behind when Christians began celebrating the birth of Christ and His resurrection, and whenever I hear it, I find myself yawning. Our spiritual forefathers chose to compete with the pagans by redeeming certain days for Jesus Christ that had traditionally been kept sacred by their heathen neighbors.
History is clear that the Christians chose those same days to honor their Lord instead of going along with the pagan celebrations. It was a testimony against paganism and a way to “redeem the days.”
I find nothing wrong with this at all. (Of course, I am not at all suggesting that promoting Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny is celebrating the birth of Jesus and the resurrection. Those have nothing to do with the Christian meaning of Christmas and Easter. I’m speaking of the celebration of these two events where Jesus is glorified on those holidays.)
It is not dissimilar to when Martin Luther and William Booth took bar tunes created by pagans, and redeemed them by setting Christian lyrics to them. Do you realize that many of the classic hymns that we Christians sing routinely were originally put to pagan tunes long ago? Again, I personally see no problem with this.
Consequently, to think that a certain day or musical tune holds some type of ritualistic evil is superstitious at best. What is more, this sort of thinking is actually pagan.
How, why, and when God’s people remember and celebrate the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ is a matter of personal conscience (Romans 14:1-6). Therefore, I have never had a burden to address these things. I stand with Paul, who was a non-legalist, in his conclusion about observing certain days: “Let every man be persuaded in his own mind.”
One person indicated that the flaw of the book is an insufficient description of culture and what constitutes accommodation versus appropriate contextualization. Is this a fair assessment?
Answer: We address this issue in the book. Again, I’m all for redeeming certain pagan practices, those that can be redeemed.
But there are other practices that cannot be redeemed, because they strike at the very heart of the gospel and contradict the organic nature of the church which flows out of the triune God.
The words of F.F. Bruce on this score are fitting:
“The restatement of the gospel in a new idiom is necessary in every generation — as necessary as its translation into new languages. [But] In too much that passes for restatement of the gospel, the gospel itself disappears, and the resultant product is what Paul would have called “another gospel which in fact is no gospel at all” (Gal. 1:6f.). When the Christian message is so thoroughly accommodated to the prevalent climate of opinion that it becomes one more expression of that climate of opinion, it is no longer the Christian message.”
Question: Why is it okay to question certain Protestant or Catholic theology, but somehow heretical to question Protestant or Catholic ecclesiology?
I’ve read that some folks who haven’t even read the book say that you and Barna are telling people what they should do. I read the book and didn’t see any of this in there, and honestly I was frustrated a little because there was no practical instruction. Did I miss something?
Answer: No, you didn’t miss anything. You actually read the book. 😉 It’s easy for people to make all sorts of judgments on a book they haven’t read. It’s a little tougher to actually dialogue with specific points made in context.
On that score, a friend told me recently that he read two blog reviews on Pagan Christianity, and the reviewers hadn’t even read the book. All they were doing was repeating the same exact analysis that one or two other reviewers had written. The points they made completely misrepresented the book, and then refuted the misrepresentations.
In philosophy, this technique is called a “straw man argument.”
Let’s say you don’t like a book. You are so upset while reading it that it’s hard to pay attention to all the points due to the steam that’s blowing out of both your ears. You then review it, but you misrepresent the author’s arguments. You explain that the book makes various weak points (points, mind you, that the authors themselves never make).
Then you proceed to demolish those arguments in the eyes of your audience. Those who haven’t read the book for themselves think you’ve destroyed the author’s thesis. But in reality, you’ve done something deceptive.
Sometimes this is done deliberately. Other times it’s done when people carelessly read a work and miss the point, wittingly or unwittingly.
When Pagan Christianity was written, we concluded that we didn’t want to tell people what to do. Instead, we wanted them to make their own decision.
Another point to consider. We Western Christians want fast and easy solutions. “Microwave on high for three minutes, add water and stir,” is our mentality. But we’ll never come to valid solutions if we don’t fully understand the problems.
When we’re dealing with the issue of the church in its present form, it takes a paradigm shift of mammoth proportions to understand where to go next. The present paradigm of church that we’re stuck in right now runs deep. The present mindset is formidable. The hostile reactions by some when people simply question what we do in church today is proof positive of how deep it goes.
What do you say to the charge that you and George are defying God’s sovereignty by challenging the history of church practices?
Answer: I really don’t understand that argument. Did Luther and Melanchthon defy or deny God’s sovereignty when they challenged the church of their day?
Did Dietrich Bonhoeffer defy or deny God’s sovereignty when he spoke out against what was happening in the church of his day? Did Isaiah, Jeremiah, Zechariah, Ezekiel and Daniel defy or deny God’s sovereignty when they prophesied to Israel about its present course?
(Please don’t miss the point here. I’m not suggesting that George and I can fill the shoes of any of these men. I’m simply demonstrating that they were operating within God’s sovereign plan.)
I’m a firm believer in the sovereignty of God. But that sovereignty also includes prophetic voices who seek to bring God’s people back to the thought of God when they have veered from it. (That is the essence of prophetic ministry.)
Thus when I see someone challenging the church or seeking to bring a correction to a long-standing tradition, I don’t view it as a challenge to God’s sovereignty. I weigh it and decide whether or not that voice belongs to the Lord and is in line with Scripture. And if it is, it’s part of God’s sovereign action in space/time.
What do you say to the idea that you are romanticizing the first-century church? It had many problems, right?
Answer: My response is that I wish they would take the time to read my work before making such conclusions. I’ve written quite a bit about the problems in the first-century church. They are the same problems that any authentic organic church faces today.
I’ve gone on record (more than once) saying that most of the New Testament is made up of apostolic workers (church planters) writing to a church that’s in a first-class crisis. That’s hardly romanticizing the early church.
Why didn’t you get more into the issue of Constantine’s influence on the political outlook of the church in his role of marrying the church and the state?
Answer: We touch on it briefly, but one reason is space. The book is already over 300 pages long. The other and more important reason is because others have done an adequate job handling that question. People like Stuart Murray and the radical orthodox folks have made a strong case about the Constantinian influences on the politics of the church.
What George and I have done in Pagan Christianity is take that argument a step further and show how this same influence has affected much of our ecclesiology.
For some reason, it’s difficult for some people who agree with the first camp to connect the dots and take that extra step.
Some are assuming that you are wanting to create a first-century church in our day. Is that what you and George are advocating?
Answer: Not at all. And we make this clear in the book. The Alexander Campbell Restoration movement (which is the modern-day “Church of Christ”) as well as the Plymouth Brethren — both spawned in the mid-19th century — tried to do just that. And both movements ended up splintering into countless factions.
Reinventing a New Testament church is not where we are headed at all. Instead, we speak briefly about the organic nature of the church, a concept that’s explored fully in the constructive sequels.
I’m so glad you retained the footnotes in this edition. I find the history absolutely fascinating. I just wish some of the footnotes were put in the text. Did Tyndale give you a hard time with keeping the footnotes? I know that most publishers today require authors to use endnotes, which I don’t care for.
Answer: Both George and I requested to keep the footnotes because we felt with a book like this, they are not only powerful, but as you said, fascinating.
I’m glad Tyndale conceded. If you like history, the footnotes provide astounding information about many of the great leaders of the past such as Luther, Calvin, Wesley, and some of the early church fathers.
Some would charge you and George of creating division in the kingdom of God. What do you say to that?
Answer: I suppose that charge could be made to any person or group that challenges the status quo.
My hope is that people would read the book for themselves and make up their own minds as to whether or not what we are saying is warranted and biblically, spiritually, and historically justified and whether or not we have a divisive spirit.
On the other hand, I’m encouraged that many people have commended us for the gracious tone and spirit in which the book was written.
In fact, a top editor from a large Christian publisher (not the publisher of the book) told me personally that he felt the book was “pastoral” in that it took people by the hand and walked them through the arguments with a kind spirit. Yet it retained its Christ-centered, prophetic edge.
Interestingly, we warn people in the beginning of the book as well as at the end NOT to use it to cause division.
I recently read someone who accused you and Barna of being “full of pride” and also “bitter” and “angry.” This person hasn’t read your other books. But I didn’t find any pride or bitterness in Pagan Christianity or any other book you guys have written. To me, that book and a few others were written like A.W. Tozer’s books. Direct and prophetic. I’d like to hear your comment.
Answer: I guess my only question is: Has this person who imputed this evil motive to our hearts actually read the entire book as well as my other books in the catalog?
God forbid if we have written in a spirit of pride. I’m keenly aware that God resists the proud, but He gives grace to the humble. But I’m not sure I equate pride with challenging traditions. Pride is a motive of the heart. One can challenge something boldly and be humble while they do it. Tozer is a great example. So is Watchman Nee and T. Austin-Sparks.
You are correct in that Pagan was written in the style of the old prophetic literature: Tozer, Ravenhill, Wilkerson, et. al are some examples of that style. People who don’t understand the prophetic style have attributed motives of bitterness and anger toward them also, so I guess we stand in good company.
Ironically, some readers told us they didn’t think we were strong enough. Go figure.
I spent many years in the institutional church, and beyond much of it being boring, none of it was hurtful to me or caused bitterness or anger.
The bottom line here is that if someone enjoys church the way it is and they feel nothing needs to be changed, they shouldn’t read the book.
It wasn’t written for them. To repeat, we didn’t write the book for pastors or people who enjoy the typical Sunday morning church service. That was NOT our audience for this volume.
The book is well documented. There are footnotes on every page. What do you say to the person who dismisses this ?
Answer: The book has over 1,000 footnotes. We wanted readers to know that we weren’t blowing bubbles or building air castles when we tell the arresting story of where what we do comes from.
My editor at Tyndale, along with her staff, went through every footnote with a fine-toothed comb to make sure they matched up and were valid. This was a huge task, but it was very helpful. The footnotes shouldn’t be dismissed because they not only support our conclusions but they also shed further light on the arguments.
The book has been endorsed by some heavy-weight scholars and historians. Robert Banks, Howard Snyder, and Jon Zens being a few of them.
I applaud you for your courage in writing this book. Both you and George really have stuck your neck out here. Was it difficult for you to make the decision? Did you know you guys would get a lot of heat?
Answer: I wasn’t born to be popular. Yes, we knew the book would be unfairly attacked and that some people would work overtime trying to persuade people not to read it. God is in charge of all that. He simply asks us to be faithful.
Anyone who challenges religious traditions is raw meat for those who will uncharitably disagree. If you are going to tread those waters, you need to get used to the sight of your own blood.
In this connection, it’s important to keep this particular work in historical perspective. If this same book was published 500 years ago, the authors would have been roasted over a slow spit, boiled in olive oil, or suffer some crueler fate.
For that reason, the book is dedicated to those fearless souls who gave their lives because they refused to capitulate to man’s traditions in God’s house. I proudly take my stand in their lineage.
Just read The Secret of the Strength by Peter Hoover. It’s the story of the Anabaptists. We stand in their lineage.
In some ways, it’s fitting that Tyndale has chosen to publish this book. Read what happened to William Tyndale and you’ll understand that comment.
Tyndale was declared a “heretic.” He was strangled to death and his body was burned at the stake in the name of God. All because he took an unpopular stand for what he believed to be right and true in the eyes of the Lord. (I am thankful to Tyndale House for having the courage to publish our book.)
I have friends who are leaders in the body of Christ who I disagree with on the issue of ecclesiology. Some of them are pastors and evangelical scholars; others are Anglican bishops and scholars. I love what they’re doing in various areas of the faith. My disagreement with their ecclesiology doesn’t affect our friendship or my respect for them. The kingdom of God is much larger than our ecclesiological views. And so also is the body of Christ.
I do wish that Christians who disagree with each other would be respectful and charitable and fair in stating their disagreements. Some are, for sure. May their tribe increase!
I’ve written about this extensively in my book REGRACE.
Perhaps we’ll see a day when many more of God’s people can disagree in a spirit of grace and peace.
Frank. I read a review where the person argued that a church must have a leader in order to have a gathering where everyone shares and ministers and where Christians take care of each other. He said “Barna and Viola overestimate the commitment that Christians have to anything. Sheep won’t do much else but die without a shepherd.” What’s your response?
Answer: I’d say that this sort of thinking and assumption is one of the reasons why we’ve written the book. It runs deeper than we can imagine. It’s job security for modern clergy built on fear and helplessness.
My experience since 1988, when I first started meeting organically under the headship of Christ, as well as the experience of countless friends who have met in organic expressions of the church, is that God’s people can function well under the headship of Christ if they are equipped to do so.
In FINDING ORGANIC CHURCH, I trace how Paul of Tarsus raised up churches and equipped God’s people to function in his absence and without a local pastor. Some say this can’t be done today; yet experience defies such an assertion. Modern-day apostolic workers who follow Paul’s way of planting churches have done it.
Some have said that your book can’t be taken seriously because it uses secondhand (secondary) sources. Most books I read use second hand sources, so I don’t see this as an issue.
Answer: You are correct. A secondhand source is perfectly legitimate as long as the source is accurate. Also, it’s untrue that we never use firsthand sources. We do use them. But the secondhand sources provide explanation on the firsthand sources, so we use them (as most published books do). Also, those secondhand sources often contain firsthand sources in their explanations.
If we were writing to scholars, we would have used more firsthand sources. But the book wasn’t written for scholars, and the secondhand sources are valuable. Hence, we included them.
It’s worth noting that the book was published in 2008, and to date, no one has successfully debunked it. Some have tried, but their arguments have been discounted. (See the debates in the above links for examples.)
What do you say to the person who rejects the book without reading it because they believe that churches today didn’t get their practices from paganism but from the Jewish faith? So the premise of the book is wrong.
Answer: We demonstrate historically that this isn’t the case. My advice to such people is to look at the evidence we present by noted historians. Simply saying, “That can’t be true, I’m not taking this seriously” is hardly a convincing argument, especially from someone who hasn’t read the book and hasn’t interacted with the historical sources we cite.
As a friend of mine recently said to me, “Frank, these kinds of responses sound like — don’t confuse me with the facts.”
George and I don’t take anyone who has never read the book or has misrepresented it seriously. No one should.
How do you address the Scriptures in 1 Timothy and Hebrews about submitting to leaders?
Answer: These questions are addressed in the book. But they are also answered in great detail in REIMAGINING CHURCH. At the end of that volume, there’s an entire chapter of objections with my responses. All the passages that people typically use to justify a clergy system are answered.
Frank, what do you say to those who read the book, agree with it, but give it pastors and others in the congregation of an institutional church?
Answer: I am completely against this. It’s a misuse of the book. In the beginning of the book, we caution those who have “rebellious hearts” not to cause division in their church. If they choose to leave their church, they should leave quietly and take no one with them.
To repeat: The book was never written to pastors or people who enjoy the institutional form of church. To give our book to such people is a gross abuse of the book. It’s like trying to force people who love country music to start listening to classic rock. Wrong audience, wrong use.
What do you say to the person who accuses you and George of hating the church?
Answer: We wrote the book because we love the church. I’m an author and speaker who is internationally known for loving the ekklesia and unveiling her beauty. She’s the most beautiful girl in the world, and the glory that is within her is beyond telling.
Anyone with two neurons and a synapse cannot escape this conclusion, especially if they read FROM ETERNITY TO HERE.
I remember sitting down with a group of ministers from different denominations for a panel discussion. One of the men present was an Anglican minister. He was told that George and I hated the church. But he read From Eternity to Here, and afterwards, he said in front of the entire group of ministers, “This man absolutely loves the church!”
I was present when he said this about me, and it was a surprising encouragement.
Why don’t you talk about the pagan origin of Christians meeting on Sunday? The early Christians, Paul, and Jesus had church on the Sabbath as the Law commands, didn’t they?
Answer: We have no evidence whatsoever that the early church gathered for their meetings on the Sabbath.
Actually, the evidence shows that at least some of the early churches met on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2), which is the day of Christ’s resurrection (Mark 16:9). Nonetheless, Paul is quite clear on his understanding of the Sabbath.
The reason for this is that the early Christians saw God’s relationship to Old Testament Israel as part of the old creation. In Christ, God had destroyed the enmity (which was the Law) and the wall of partition that separated Jew and Gentile thus creating one new man . . . one new humanity . . . one new person which transcended all physical distinctions (Ephesians 2:14-16).
Consequently, the early Christians met on the first day of the week indicating that they were part of a new creation. Under the New Covenant, there is no “wrong” day for the church to gather.
For Paul, the Law was a shadow of Jesus Christ. Therefore, the Sabbath was merely a picture of Christ, who is our Rest. For this reason, Paul told the Colossian church to not allow anyone to judge them with respect to keeping the yearly feasts, the monthly new moons, or the weekly Sabbaths. All of these things were but a shadow of Jesus Christ (Colossians 2:16ff.). Now that we have the reality of Christ, the shadow is no longer necessary.
The writer of Hebrews is in agreement. The Law contained shadows of the New Covenant (Hebrews 10:1). And the Sabbath was a shadow of God’s rest, which is Christ Himself (Hebrews 4:4-10). Therefore, Christians are no more obligated to keep the Sabbath (literally) than they are to gather in a physical temple and offer animal sacrifices to God. These practices were photo pictures fulfilled and realized in Christ. Consequently, the Christian is free to separate unto God any day he wishes. He is not under bondage to keep the earthly shadows.
This debate was present in one of the churches in the first century. The church in Rome contained both Jews and Gentiles. The Gentiles knew their freedom from the Law. Thus, they had no obligation to keep the Sabbath. The Jews, however, felt that Sabbath-keeping was still necessary.
Paul’s answer to this dilemma was brilliant: “Let every man be persuaded in his own mind.” Paul told the church to let him who is free in his conscience to eat any food and to regard all days the same. To not despise the one who feels obligated to eat certain foods and to keep certain days holy. He then said to those who feel obligated to keep certain days holy and to eat certain foods not judge those who are free in all of these things (Romans 14:1-12). If we would all follow Paul’s exhortation, it would bring forth much peace in the Christian family.
Why don’t you and other biblical scholars use the names Yahweh and Yahshua but instead you all use the pagan names that have been given to Father (G_d) and His Son (Jesus)?
Because we are following the New Testament authors themselves who call the Son of God Iesous (Jesus), not Yahshua. Also, God is never called Yahweh in the New Testament. New Testament scholars are agreed in regarding the suggestion that Greek names are “pagan” — as if they carried some inherent non-Jewish religious flavor — to be nonsense. Consider how many New Testament Jews were named Simon or Philip or John. Those weren’t Hebrew names.
The foundational error in this sort of thinking is the failure to understand that the Judaism of Jesus’ day was Hellenized. Therefore, many Jews – and Christians – took Greek names. (The New Testament authors wrote in Greek.) There’s nothing wrong with this, and it’s not religiously “pagan.”
In addition, the roots of our heritage trace further back than the nation of Israel or even Abraham. It’s rooted in the Eternal Son, the Christ of God, before time and creation. That’s where the lineage of Jesus, the Son of God, originates and that’s where our true identity is located.
We Christians are part of a new creation which is neither Jew nor Greek, chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world. So we are neither Hebrew nor Gentile (see Colossians, Ephesians, and Galatians). And although Jesus was Jewish in His flesh, He was an eternal being, the first of the new creation, neither Jew nor Greek, but the beginning of what the early Christians called “the third race” and “new humanity.” See the Introduction to JESUS: A THEOGRAPHY as well as FROM ETERNITY TO HERE for details on this point.
In closing, the links on this page to other resources as well as the FAQ above have answered every critique and every criticism of Pagan Christianity and Reimagining Church since they were first published in 2008.
All objections to the books have been discounted and put to rest.
If you dare read Pagan Christianity, make sure you are the right audience for the book. Namely, you have left the institutional church (or you are on your way out), and you love Jesus and desire Christian fellowship. The book was not written to any other audience.
Also, it’s imperative that you read the follow-up books in the ReChurch Series to understand the entire argument.
That said, Frank’s newer books are his best and they are for all Christians in all church forms. Check them out here. And check out the YouTube channel also which explores these same topics in more detail.
You can also see Frank’s FAQ on his blog which answers many more questions on the topic of the church as well as other topics that his work addresses.
