A Response to “Pagan Christianity?”
4. Concluding Remarks
The church has long endured criticism of the kind that authors Frank Viola and George Barna present in Pagan Christianity? A great many cults and sects have been established over the centuries, on the premise that traditional Christianity has hopelessly deviated from the purity of the first-century church, and that the true church needs to be restored anew.[1] These groups rarely agree on what true Christianity is supposed to look like, but all share a radical outlook that seeks the overthrow of traditional Christianity. Viola and Barna consciously place themselves within this stream.[2] I have argued for a different approach. The Lord has preserved and maintained his church through the ages. The Holy Spirit has always been at work in his elect. The gates of hell have never yet prevailed and never will (Matthew 16:18). The church may often need reformation (even very thorough reformation, as was the case in the 16th century), but she will never need a complete and total restoration. We can stand in continuity with the ancient church, while honestly dealing with her errors. It is true that our church meetings today may not look, in every respect, like the humble gatherings of the earliest Christians. But that does not concern us. The differences you will find are superficial in nature: concerning form, rather than substance. What you will find, however, is a clear continuity – from the earliest churches to our churches today – of faith, and of the core elements of worship. We know from the Scriptures that the early church read the Scriptures, taught the Scriptures, ordained elders and deacons, sung songs of praise, exercised church discipline, practiced baptism, and gathered around the Lord’s Table. Today in our churches, we seek to do these very same things, to the glory of our God. He has not seen fit to stipulate for us every detail about how these things are to be done. That being the case, we must of necessity rely on Christian prudence, drawing on the accumulated wisdom of two thousand years of Christian practice.
Viola and Barna do identify some genuine errors and deficiencies that are common in Christian practice, but they fail to diagnose the root problems, and as a result fail to prescribe any genuine solutions. Indeed, the argumentation is astonishingly shallow, focusing always on external matters like clothing and church buildings, and almost entirely neglecting the sinful attitudes of the heart that can make those things problematic for the Christian in the first place. Hence, they unfairly slander Christians who do these things with the right heart and the right motives.
Their book sets out to demonstrate that on “theological”, “historical” and “pragmatic” grounds, contemporary church practice is wrong. Did they succeed? Well, merely pragmatic arguments are insufficient to establish that the Church is in sin against God. To argue historically that our practice originates outside the Bible, whether through pagan influence or otherwise, is irrelevant when discussing the mere circumstances of worship. And theologically, Viola and Barna offer astonishingly weak arguments, barely interacting with the pages of Scripture. They particularly emphasise the principles of the priesthood of all believers and the headship of Christ, claiming that contemporary church practice denies both. And yet, they present no good reason to believe that either of these principles (both of which we would affirm, in their biblical senses), carry the implications asserted. Their argumentation, in the end, is not persuasive.
Moreover, I am convinced that the alternative to traditional Christianity offered by Viola and Barna would be genuinely disastrous for the souls of those who would attempt it. The “organic” church meetings they insist on are disorderly assemblies, in which attendants are encouraged to be driven by emotion and contribute impulsively.[3] Their meetings are thoroughly man-centred, with the focus on what individuals share and experience, not objective biblical truth. They distain reverence and cherish informality. They have no sermons, and Scripture is not exposited. Attendants only receive short extemporaneous teachings offered by anyone in the assembly, whether qualified or not. They refuse any clear leadership and authority structure, thus rejecting biblical church offices. They rush people into baptism without preparation and practice a mockery of the Lord’s Supper. In short, what they describe is not a church at all, but a bizarre Jesus-themed social club. Christians who abandon sound churches for such meetings would suffer extreme spiritual malnourishment.
I do not presume the know the state of the souls of Frank Viola and George Barna. It may be that they are both just badly mistaken sheep. And yet, in every outward sense, in word and deed, they are indistinguishable from wolves, and ought to be regarded as such. For this reason, I cannot recommend Pagan Christianity? for anyone. There is nothing true or good in this book that has not been articulated better by far sounder teachers. The book does not even stand as a good presentation of their own idiosyncratic views, with barely any serious engagement with Scripture, and argumentation that is often contorted and, at times, simply incoherent.
For any Christian who was considering reading this book, I hope I have saved you the frustration of having to read it for yourself. For anyone who has read it, and have been troubled in conscience by its claims, I hope I have been able to grant you some relief. For anyone dissatisfied with your current experience of church, and found the vision of Viola and Barna attractive, I hope I have been able to convince you to reconsider and seek a true, biblical church. Overall, I hope the principles I have laid out will help us all be more discerning about these kinds of arguments going forward, and that we would not be so quick to receive such accusations against the church. Recall what the Scripture says: “The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him” (Proverbs 18:17). You may not have personally thought much about your doctrine of the church (ecclesiology) before now, but the historic church certainly has. Please continue to do your own study on these matters, reading Scripture carefully and drinking deeply of the vast well of wisdom left to us by our forefathers in the faith.[4]
May the Lord strengthen his church. May the Lord defend his flock. May the Lord grant us wisdom and discernment and guide us into all truth. Amen.
[1] This movement has been known as Restorationism or Primitivism, with roots in the Radical Reformation (i.e. the anabaptists), and continuing in the Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Stone-Campbell movement, and many others. See this article: Got Questions. (2022). What is Restorationism? https://www.gotquestions.org/restorationism.html
[2] See Question 5 of the Q&A with Frank Viola and George Barna in Pagan Christianity? (Kindle location 264)
[3] This is how they describe their meetings: “Participants do not know who will stand up and share next nor what they will share. There might be skits; there might be poems read; there might be new songs introduced and sung; there might be exhortations, testimonies, short teachings, revelations, and prophetic words. Because everyone is involved and people contribute spontaneously, boredom is not a problem. The most meaningful meetings are generally those in which everyone participates and functions.” [Question 1 of the Q&A with Frank Viola and George Barna in Pagan Christianity? (Kindle location 261)]
[4] To start with, I would recommend Chapter 26 (“Of the Church”) in the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith.
0 Comments