Frank Viola begins his book, Pagan Christianity, by arguing, "the church in its contemporary, institutional form has neither a biblical nor a historical right to function as it does." He has left "the institutional church to begin gathering with Christians in New Testament fashion." That pretty much sums up the message in this manifesto against the contemporary church. Everything from having a "professional pastor" to meeting in a church building are "extra-biblical practices" adopted from "pagan culture."
I have some serious issues with his logic as well as his scriptural exegesis. To me, the wheels come off the book with this question: "Just because it is ‘biblical,' is it a universal command or standard for all time and places?"
Matthias was chosen as the replacement for Judas by drawing lots. Is that the "biblical" way to choose leaders? (Incidentally, we never hear about Matthias again.) Property was held communally, rather than individual ownership, in the early church. Is that the "biblical" approach for all time? Paul spent three years in the desert of Arabia as his training for ministry. Is that the "biblical" way to prepare for Christian service? The Holy Spirit struck Ananias and Sapphira dead for lying about their church giving. Is that the "biblical" way to deal with those who cheat on their giving records? And should we only use the Old Testament as scripture since the New Testament wasn't written in "biblical" times?
Frankly, if I read Acts and the letters to Corinth correctly, I'm not sure I'd want to belong to a "New Testament" church! The life and energy of the church of Christ derives from, well, Christ. And that life and energy creatively adapts to the pagan culture it find itself in. Like Paul, it has "become all things to all people so that by all possible means [it] might save some. [It does] all this for the sake of the gospel" (1 Corinthians 9).
The Church is the living, active "Body of Christ," and not a form or structure locked in a time or place.
Login to comment
Alternate Login
Use your social media account to login.
Login with your ReFrame account
Comments (23)
But none of us take as literal or universally binding the descriptions in Acts 2 to share everything equally with everyone (we don't), any more than we meet together every day (not feasible) or meet in the (non-existent) Israeli temple courts.
Mandating adherence to the universal, timeless Christian principle of loving God in Spirit and truth is one thing... Mandating strict and literal adherence to the practical outworkings of that as modeled in Bible times is absurdly legalistic, as well as logistically impossible. "He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant--not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." 2Cor 3:17
I thought the book was excellent and the authors made their case.
Tom
Rather than reading Pagan Christianity with a crtics eye, it may be helpful to read it with a critical mind.
When God says Get out of her my people "Babylon the great" , this is so Jesus can write the name of the city of God New Jerusalem on our foreheads.
Easter is the Goddess of fertility, Astaroth of Babylon, she is not a when but a WHO. She makes the merchants of this world rich by her delicacies, notice how much money the merchants make off the Roman feasts? That is how they are made rich. The world loves it's own... These feasts are of this world.
Unless you get out of her, Jesus cannot write the New Jerusalem on your forehead because you are still in Babylon, just a heads up. Get out of her my people. You cannot be part of the first resurrection (election). But you will rise at the second resurrection like everyone else...
I guess the question would be, what do we mean by Biblical? What is the Biblical way to choose leaders? There are many ways iterated in the Bible. Praying, fasting, revelation, prophecy, vision, wisdom, casting lots and more. So why would we choose drawing lots as the only standard? We could extrapolate a Biblical principle that choosing leaders should always be guided by the Holy Spirit and that there are some Biblical qualifications to be met (no alcoholics, no kids out of control, no philanderers, etc). In the second chapter of Acts some property was held in common, some was held individually. Peter was very emphatic about establishing Ananias and Saphira’s right to hold personal property. The problem was lying, not private ownership. Plus we see many more positive examples of private ownership (House of Judas on Straight Street, Peter’s house, Lydia’s house, etc). I think these are straw man objections james is raising.
However, when it comes to subjects like ministry roles established by God (“And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues”) or explicit guidance about the use of prophecy or speaking in tongues, these are non-negotiable. Not critical to salvation, but clearly intended by the author to be standard practice.
There are cases of culturally appropriate guildlines, situationally dependent instructions or personal preferences that Paul mentions (hair length, marriage, etc.) but he is usually very careful to say, “these are my opinions”, or this is a cultural taboo. However, when Paul spends 4 chapters in Corinthians giving guidance on proper conduct of fellowship meetings proper ministry roles and proper use of the gifts of the Spirit, we should take this seriously. I believe God leaves room for human creativity and innovation but the principles and roles should be considered seriously if that was the intent of the author.
Bob makes a great point!
With that said, it is clear in the epistles that there are certain practices that churches are commanded to follow: (All quotations from NASB)
"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us." (2 Thess 2:15)
Did Paul care if churches follow the traditions that he spelled out?
"Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you." (1 Cor 11:2)
And if people sought to do otherwise, his response was:
"But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God." (1 Cor 11:16)
And what traditions are these?
An extremely clear one is found in 1 Cor 14:26:
"What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification."
From this and surrounding context, it is clear that church assemblies were interactive meetings in which the Holy Spirit uses everyone to edify one another. The purpose of assembling together was to love and edify one another, not to be edified by the few up front.
"And let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds,
not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near." (Hebrews 10:24,25)
Unfortunately, most contemporary church services, whether Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant are the exact opposite of Biblical command. Not only is the contemporary service not in scripture, with pastor and worship leader guiding the flock through a religious ceremony, it is actually opposite of what Paul commanded.
And I don't have time to outline the argument for celebrating the Lords supper as full meal or the leadership of plural, homegrown elders? (Acts 20 and 1 Peter 5 clearly express that elders, overseers(bishops), and pastors refer to the same role. There is no bishop over priests. There is no senior pastor over elders.)
So, to conclude, the apostles did lay out some directions on how the church is to function. We must be careful in our Biblical interpretation and know which commands are based on the culture and which are meant to be universal. But, I would argue that interactive meetings is not based on Greek culture, but the priesthood of the believers. Celebrating the Lords supper as a full meal is because the church is a family and people, whether Jew or Greek, in the 1st century or 21st century, deepen relationships over food. Having a plurality of elders/overseers/pastors is because Jesus is the Senior Pastor ("Chief Shepherd" in 1 Peter 5:4) of the local church as well as church universal.
Originally God's temple was nothing more than a tent...but as His people became rooted His temple became a house...and then a very large and impressive temple under Solomon.
Who is to say the church (not to be confused with The Church, the Body of Christ) is not to progress as such? Nowhere in the Bible does it speak against or condemn our church system. In fact wasn't it Paul who claimed that he had every right to be paid and provided for as a servant of Christ? But he said he didn't so that he wouldn't be a burden to those he visited.
I would like to argue that our current system isn't the ONLY system. But I think for many it is a good system and it works. Churches do a lot of good and reach a lot of people as they are.
All this does is create division. There are far too many other problems in the world and in the church to be arguing and pointing fingers about paying pastors and meeting in church buildings.
"It's pagan."
Not its not. It may be similar to pagan styles but so what? Does it bring people to God or away from God? When I go to my organized church do I feel inclined to go sacrifice a frog on an altar or kneel down and worship the God of all creation?
The same argument can be made about Christian rock and pop. "Well I was to a KISS concert and people were drinking and drugs and sex and-"
Yeah. But have you ever been to a CHRISTIAN rock concert? I can't recall every being to or hearing about a mainstream Christian rock concert that had drinking, drugs and sex...in fact the last one I went to turned into an improptu worship service.
Look at the fruit people and stop causing division. This is just plain stupid.
You want to go have a "New Testament style church" go right ahead. I won't stop you. If you feel God's calling you to do that go right ahead. More power to you! May you be richly blessed and do the work God has called you...but it doesn't mean the other way is wrong.
The book "Pagan Christianity" was just re-issued with help by George Barna, who tracks so many issues and trends for the body of Christ. It ties in very well with Barna's recent book "Revolution," explaining how so many fervent, zealous believers can no longer maintain their relationship with Jesus in a traditional church as corporate institution setting.
I thought it was terrific and explained why so much of what we accept as "church" in the United States has nothing to do with being the body of Christ. So much is empty tradition that is not in conformity with the Bible (principals and models for the Body od Christ) and does not enhance our relationships and community as His family.
The book is about being the church (body/community/kingdom of God) not going to church.
I highly recommend the book being read in a prayerful way with a Bible in hand and the Spirit of Truth as your mentor.
I'm not sure I understand this logic. I understand that things change and Christians (or, some Christians) adapt to the culture. But by what criterion are you choosing which scripture that should apply to the modern church? You might say the holy spirit, but couldn't that be considered a subjective process?
I suppose I just need clarification in that, earlier in the post, you're quoting all this scripture that Christians should not adhere by, and then you quote the one passage (1 Corinthians 9) at the end that we should follow. How do you make such a distinction?
I have not read the book and so am not really qualified to comment, so please take this with a grain of salt. However, IMHO, the following observations spring to mind.
1) Haven't we all seen something like this before, by which I mean about once a week during my lifetime? Someone announces that he is leaving the church "to begin gathering with Christians in New Testament fashion." Much energy is invested by all, and then the whole thing disintegrates in about 10 years amid mutual accusations of heresy. Again, I haven't read the book, but this is not the kind of announcement that should be welcomed. It is not a good thing if a group is leaving the institutional church. Sometimes necessary, as in the Reformation, but always a necessary evil.
2) The rejection of a professional ministry reminds me of a discussion we had in my church recently. We were studying the Bible to find out the Biblical principles for the calling of ministers, and the question of whether a full time paid ministry is necessary came up. Many Bible verses were thrown back and forth, but no conclusion was reached. Why? Because this is one of those topics, like the Trinity, in which the word is not present in the Bible but the concept is. True, the Bible never does use the word "ordained" or mention seminary and it never says that ministers must be paid for full time work. But if you look at all the responsibilities given to ministers and everything the Bible has to say about it, it becomes clear that it really is calling for a professional ministry. (I am not a full time minister myself.)
My point here is that Mr. Viola is making a mistake by trying to start from scratch. Rather than turning his back on the institutional church he should learn what lessons it has to offer on this subject as well as all the others. He, and the people who follow him, will be much better off in the end.