Pagan Christianity
By Fred | Wednesday, June 23, 2010
I read an interesting and informative book a while back called Pagan Christianity, by Frank Viola and George Barna. Frank Viola is a strong proponent of the “house church movement” and George Barna is the “Gallup” of North American Christianity—a researcher who conducts objective information gathering through polls and studies.
Pagan Christianity by Frank Viola and George Barna
This book investigates the roots of the practice of Christianity—not so much the doctrines and beliefs, but the origins of what we do and how we do it. As I said, it is quite informative and worth reading; I do question some of the conclusions throughout the book. I thought maybe I would spend some blog posts investigating what I think are some of the valuable thoughts as well as some of the conclusions that I think might be a bit hasty.
The introduction of the book opens with a quote by Joseph Campbell, noted for his theories about archetypes (that George Lucas tapped for his Star Wars saga):
“There is perhaps nothing worse than reaching the top of the ladder and discovering that you’re on the wrong wall.”
The implication, of course, is that we’ve been “doing it all wrong” in spite of our claims that “We do everything by the Word of God! The New Testament is our guide for faith and practice! We live…and we die…by this Book!” (p. 1). Over the next few blog posts I intend to interact with some of the material presented in this book, including having a “church building,” order of worship, the sermon, the paid position of pastor, dressing up for church, communion, Christian education, and more.
Category: Stuff
Comments (7)
Hi Fred,
An awful lot of what Christians practice today do in fact come from Pagan ritual ceremonies in history. I have read through out all your articles about this book and concede I’ll need to purchase this book in order to better understand some of the subjects that you’ve been talking about, however, as a whole, and in my own personal studies, I have only one trouble at this point. Historically the conversion between Pagan movement to Christian movement in your outline shows no reference to actual historical movements. When we discuss links of the Pagan tradition to the Christian tradition, there are innumerable well documented facts showing the decline of Paganism in result of Christian conversion. I wonder why you have excluded this from your exposition? You spoke of the first century church and made no elaboration of basis. I find your topic interesting. I would like, however, a more historical component to your overall views concerning the present day church.
Many Blessings, Adam.
I think there are two reasons for the decline of paganism–legitimate conversion and coercion (which I don’t believe is legitimate conversion).
The main reason I haven’t dealt with it in the blog posts is that the blog is specifically dealing with the claims of the book being reviewed. The book tends to paint every outside (cultural) influence as “pagan and therefore evil.” My response to the book is to challenge some of the conclusions of the book rather than write one of my own.
Maybe at a later date I may deal with the history that is missing from this discussion…
A good answer and as you’ve captured my interest in this author, I’ve purchased the book. Upon my read, I may have additional thoughts…
Or maybe not.
Adam.
Well, cash spent, I suppose I’ll finish this book painfully as I have with some of my own cultural learning texts (equally painful in learned writing).
Fortunately not all my texts are as biased and prejudice as this author really makes his mark with me, 1) In lack of any proof historically (My biggest beef), and in 2) Even in context of the Bible itself the author up to this point fails to make any real connections (assuming of course, that you take the Bible literally).
Now in all fairness, I have read in full the Preface, the Introduction and now deal with the first chapter in earnest. I provide here a summary of my own questions, of which I hope you’ll accept as an outsider’s opinion of value:
I’ll keep it short since everybody really needs to purchase the book in order to follow along with your personal challenges in the book and as I now read, can appreciate your challenges.
I take the more academic view in reason.
Preface (page xvii)- Deductions and Additions, 2nd paragraph – “As the official… God’s Word”.
WHERE!? What was added by the Pharisees?
3rd Paragraph – “The error… opposite direction.” WHICH SEGMENTS?! Just because the Sadducees denied the existance of spirits, angels, the soul, etc doesn’t mean this political group deleted anything from the actual accounts of the Bible. The author requires proof for his statements and none even tantalizes the imagination with a thesis of broad claim with one historical fact. The statement is complete sensationalism.
2nd paragraph (xviii) – “We break the scripture… principles.” HOW!? WHERE!? WHO’S PRINCIPLES?
5th paragraph (xviii) – “I believe the first century church… corrupted.” WHY!? ON WHAT BASIS? How can the author make such a broad sweeping claim without at least one Biblical reference or even better a historical reference proving the first century church was the original and correct theology in comparison to modernized church?
Preface (xix) 2nd Paragraph – “The normative practices… Christians” HOW IS IT NATURAL!? Isn’t God supposed to be supernatural?
A real tick off was here….
Preface, (XX), 1st Paragraph – “Such practices are foreign elements… fourth century”. WHO!!!!? And if we look at the real strong history of the 4th century, one needs to take strong note of the Scandinavian presence now flooding all of Old Europe. A new peoples arrived on the scene and while the Roman and Greeks were the leading authorities at the time, NOBODY discounted the arrival of the “TERROR OF THE NORTH”, otherwise more commonly known as the Vikings. It’s own history in itself presented itself passively on the world scene in the 2nd century, until the beginning of actual conquers of the 3rd century.
WHAT HAPPENED TO THE CHURCH?
Introduction (xxv)
1st paragraph — “Consequently, the motivation for this transistion… with authenticity and fullness.” IN ONE BREATH, the author states to heck with history and “Let the Lord Shine in”… in the next, “Let’s Study and create mortar walls of education…” WHICH IS IT? (proof: page xxvi, 1st parapgraph).
Page xxvii, 1st paragraph, “The recent story of the Christian… Alpha groups.” OR MAYBE society is done with religion all together in favor of real working connections? Just tossing it out there.
Introduction, 2nd paragraph: “… bevy of changes were made… and 19th century” The author presents an awful lot of history to cover when the original thesis was the ROOT of Paganism in Christianity. I don’t think the author can present the rest of the story this concisely in less than 300 pages
page xxix – “For example, we use cell phones,… sandals and togas.” First, on what historical proof! Second, how does modernized convenience make a difference to the practice of the Church?”
2nd paragraph – “Frank Senn notes, “we can not avoid bringing our culture to Church…. integrity of Christian worship from those that detract from it.” SICK, SICK, SICK! BIASED AND PREJUDICED!
HAVE WE REALLY BEEN DOING IT BY THE BOOK?
Page 6, 2nd paragraph:
“Strikingly…. Pagans were those Polytheists who… and Revivalist era.”
NOT ALL PAGANS WERE POLYTHEISTS AND NOT ALL FOLLOWED THE ROMAN EMPIRE!
THE CHURCH BUILDING, Page 10.
4th paragraph – “Rather they reflect the thinking of other religions – Primarily Judaism and Paganism.”
IS HE EQUATING JUDAISM TO PAGANISM!!!!? Is he for real!?
Now….
I’ve just begun this book and the book follows many of the troubles that I’ve had in my own personal studies alongside christian studies. The author just simply lacks any real references, any historical connections, covers too broad a historical timeline for a pop cover publication (1st century to 19th century) to be discussed in any reasonable understanding, is filled with personal and subjective opinions, smacks of propaganda both at the Pagan level and the Christian level and in its main exposition of introduction focuses ONLY on the Roman and Greek methodology, of which for the time period, while playing a very significant role, was NOT THE ONLY MAJOR INFLUENCE on the religious scene.
I think I’ve covered my thoughts and will be the last time that I post of this book. In short, I don’t recommend the book at this time. Perhaps as I finish the mind dulling reading, I might change my mind, but if the author continues on his current thought line, I think by page 50, I’ll be totally comatose.
Adam.
I think you’re looking at this book as a history text, which it is not. The subtitle of the book is “Exploring the Roots of our Church Practices.” This is what they have attempted.
I agree that there is a fair amount of personal and subjective opinions.
Hi Fred,
There is absolutely nothing wrong in the Exploration of Church Practice. I have continued to read on and will finish the book in a relatively short period of time. Opinions are certainly worthwhile in an exploration but need to be backed up. One can’t just outright make a statement without at least some proof of their side of the story. For example, were I to simply outright state, “Our Prime Minister is a terrible Prime Minister.” most reasoning minds would naturally ask the question why? And then I give my list of historical proofs… whether they are right or wrong is irrelevant. At least I am providing something to back my mouth up.
In the case of this author, however, Frank makes some really astonishing claims and then just delves into his own personal mindset of justifications without really backing up his claims to historical references.
I am not knocking down his book just to be controversial but when grand statements are being made, they deserve a little proofing, don’t you think? I realize the book is not a history book, however, and I think this is the problem I have with so many pop culture texts is that statements are made without any reference to anything.
Such authors might as well be writing their own personal diary as opposed to an educated and accepted theory of claim. Theory doesn’t mean PROVEN per se. Just that the facts or the experiment repeated time and time over and over again net the same results of conclusion. This is proven up until somebody else can throw a wrench into the whole equation and ends up with a different set of results.
If an author just simply wishes to give their viewpoint, then why attach the idea that there is an Exploration to be had? Just simply name the Book: My Personal Opinion About Such and Such.
I could live with this and the text would become valid. The Title suggests a historical connection to which brought me to purchase the book in the first place.
I think its extremely important that everybody understands at the very minimum their version of history, right or wrong — but gosh darn it, back it up! Even if the proof is wrong, at least you backed it up with some kind of historical or scientific validation.
Adam.
I find that much of the history (specifically the history of how practices were introduced into the Church) were quite well footnoted and documented. The occasions where opinion rather than fact are notable is particularly in those places where the footnotes are absent. I made note of that in one of the more recent blog posts.