Considering Pagan Christianity

No, I have not yet read this one.  Lots of people are.  I see it on people’s blogs.  Some rave about it, and others are less enthralled.  Peter Jones has a good critical review of Pagan Christianity at Reformation 21.  What seems to be the problem with the book?

First, Peter mentions that the book does not seek to explain paganism proper.  Viola seems to use it merely to describe a non-Christian influence that is to blame for everything he doesn’t like about the “modern” church in the West.

 “This unexamined term is used as a whip to drive out of the present temple all the money-changers and their godless activities. In addition to “dressing up for church” and Sunday School (“swelling the cranium” 199), such pagan activities include: the notion of a “personal savior” (190); the liturgy (even the hymn-prayer-hymn sandwich); the sermon, the ordained, salaried ministry or “pastoral office” (136); robes; youth pastors; elder directed communities; baptism; the Lord’s supper (“a strange pagan-like rite”197); taking an offering and tithing; denominations; Bible Colleges and seminaries; instruments; hymns and church buildings, and choirs. For its all-knowing pretentiousness, one statement is mind-boggling. (Alas, it characterizes so many of Viola’s generalizations.) Dismissing the place of the sermon in Christian worship, Viola reveals: “…the truth is that the contemporary sermon preached every week…is often impractical…[and] has little power to equip God’s people for spiritual service and functioning” (98-99). He also “knows” that “the Sunday morning service is shamefully boring” (76). How does he know? If these judgments have Barna polling data to support them, they are not mentioned!”

Second, Viola’s book is yet another that traces all the problems to the church back to Constantine making Christianity a legitimate religion.  Okay, it isn’t quite that reductionistic.  But it sounds like all those books that only talk about what is wrong with America (similar to Obama following the stichk of many college professors).  It flattens out reality.  I went through that phase briefly after the Iran-Contra scandal (I was disillusioned by the end of Reagan’s 2nd term).  What happens is you only see what is wrong, and don’t acknowledge what is right.  Yes, Americans have done some horrendous things.  But we hardly have a market on that.  And Americans have done some fantastic things (and are currently doing them in places like Africa).

The same thing is done to the church.  Books are written lamenting what is wrong with the church, but not balancing it with what is right.  Perhaps I need to re-write that to what is perceived to be wrong.  Not all of the things Viola laments are wrong.  Let’s see if this makes sense.

1. God is the Lord of history.  Constantine was not an accident, but was actually for the well-being of the church.  In Revelation we see the rise of the Beast (second member of the counterfeit trinity) and the Harlot.  The Beast forces people to worship him (a counterfeit Messiah) through persecution.  The Harlot seduces people to worship prosperity.  Through history these 2 forces have been at work to deceive people from worship of the true God.  The church in most nations is experiencing either persecution or prosperity at any given time.  The church tends to thrive under persecution, but it can thrive in the midst of prosperity as long as it does not worship prosperity.

So… becoming a legitimate religion was not a bad thing.  It was a good thing.  Some of the results were good.  And some of the results were bad, like when the Church became enamored with power and position.  That is not Constantine’s fault; nor does it mean we should seek to be persecuted and marginalized.

2. Churches in different cultures have devised various ways to fulfill their calling to their culture.  Over time these innovations (some legitimate and some illegitimate) became part of the baggage churches have to lug around.  The form has taken precedence over the function.  Some of these forms have outlived their usefulness (assuming they had some), while others are just not used properly and need to regain or revise their function.  So, Viola does no one a favor by uniformly bashing practices without looking at why they were instituted and whether or not those practices are still good ways to fulfill that function.

Viola seems to forget that every church exists in a culture, and will take up legitimate cultural practices.  Those practices may or may not translate to other cultures.  But Viola sounds very much like some Fundamentalists by denigrating anything as “pagan” that doesn’t match his personal preference.

We do need to re-evaluate many things that churches do.  In the process, we will probably continue many of those things.  Some we would undoubtly say need to be put to rest.  But doesn’t sound like a book trying to analyze and discern- merely attack.

3. There was no golden era of the church.  We have a tendency to idolize a portion of time in church history (some the early church, others the Reformation or the Puritans).  Each era of church history had ways in which they were faithful (some more than others), and ways in which they weren’t.  No era of church history, like any nation, is all good or bad.  Even the best periods of church history are marred by sin.  Their sin in no way discredits the things they got right.  Otherwise all periods are discredited because they have sin.  The Celts were seduced by Pelagianism.  The Puritans could be legalistic at times.  Luther had the Peasants’ Revolt, Calvin had Servetus, leaders of the Great Awakening had slaves and the list goes on.

Is Viola willing to be as critical of himself and the practices he affirms?  Perhaps that book is coming soon.  Yes, the church is far from perfect but it isn’t a horrendous as Viola seems to think.

Come to think of it, maybe I won’t read the book.  I’m finding my mortal existence slipping away, and there are so many things that need my time and energy.  I don’t need more whiny books.

Update: I went back to Dan Kimball’s comments on the book.  He admittedly like “origin” books.  He does disagree with Frank on some things, and asks some good questions.

Here’s what rubs me the wrong way: calling any practice not explicitly in Scripture pagan.  The 2 things should not be made synonymous.  To do so is to be purposely inflammatory, or just plain ignorant.  Both of those are problematic.  Perhaps more people need to read John Frame’s Worship in Spirit and Truth, which interacts with the Regulative Principle to help us make distinctions just like this.