It is not an overstatement to say that the words church and worship are widely misused and misunderstood by christians today. Worship typically refers to a Sunday morning service consisting of singing and a sermon. You will rarely hear the word worship used outside the context of music. Church typically refers to a building, an organization, a denomination, and again, an hour-long Sunday morning service.
When prodded, some people will expand their explanation of worship to include worship as a lifestyle and their explanation of church to a broader scope to signify the people of God. Yet often, in their next breath, they will default to the more commonly understood and accepted usage of these words.
There is a movement to recapture the understanding of who we are as the people of God and what it means to be the people of God in our world today. A part of remembering the “forgotten ways” is to examine the traditions, practices, and methods that we have adopted over the years in order to determine if they contribute to or detract from our apostolic imagination and movement ethos.
The book, Pagan Christianity, by Frank Viola and George Barna, is a helpful tool in this process. Subtitled “exploring the roots of our church practices,” the book asks “are we really doing church by the book?” The book documents the origins of many modern church practices, challenging whether the practices contribute to the church being an organic and dynamic expression of the body 0f Christ.
Pagan Christianity is effective in its function of dissecting church practices. While it describes principles found in the early church, it does not suggest a particular model of church as prescriptive for the church today. The value and strength of this book is in the historical examination and deconstruction of tradition. It is a helpful addition to resources which study early-church history and practices.
People involved as leaders and members of existing expressions of church can benefit from this book by using the information presented as a lens through which to examine traditions and practices in order to determine if they are producing effective results in their communities. The intent is not to jettison every tradition or practice, but rather to view them with an objective eye toward their value in enhancing or hindering the fellowship.
People who have already experienced some deconstruction in their practices will find the historical information helpful in supporting and permitting the process of adapting religious traditions for their current cultural context rather than remaining bound to traditional practices as though they are sacred and inviolable.
Those who have become involved in simple and house church models of church will find the book supportive and encouraging of loosely structured models of church.
The book will be most dangerous in the hands of those who will use it as a hammer to denounce every model of church except those they deem the most pure and ideal.
The authors themselves do not promote a specific model of church nor a complete return to new testament methods of gathering. Do they have an ideal in mind? Perhaps. While they are careful to not suggest a model, their subjectivity does leak through in tone and attitude. This has been the biggest complaint by critics of the book.
The book could have benefited from greater objectivity. However, it is helpful to remember that none of us are as purely objective as we might like to believe ourselves to be. Complete agreement with the authors’ conclusions is not necessary to appreciate the valuable information presented in the book and to realize the importance of examining the topics the book addresses.
12 responses so far ↓
sonja // January 21, 2008 at 5:10 am
Grace wrote …the book asks “are we really doing church by the book?”
Hmmm … I wonder if that’s really a good question to be asking? I wish someone would ask this question … “are we really being church by the book?” and then write a collaborative (with several authors of more than one gender and ethnic/socio-economic background) book which answers it.
grace // January 21, 2008 at 9:01 am
sonja,
I think that it is the right question for this book. Personally, I’m glad that this book mostly stayed in the realm of deconstruction.
There will be more than one book (and millions of blog posts) written with the thesis you suggest, some good and some not so good.
Ed G. // January 21, 2008 at 9:12 am
interesting… this week our pastor (who had never heard of the book) announced that we would be starting an experiment for the next four weeks. no music. no sermon. no videos, drams or other church props. our gathering was going to be based strictly on what we as individuals brought to it. our homework was to go out… listen for god… live the lives we were intended… and when we come together next week, bring something that reflected your week.
andym // January 21, 2008 at 9:20 am
the problem about the idea of “church by the book” (or ‘The Book’), is that there is no clear model of church in the NT.
You can argue a whole host of models from the scant verses that speak of how the fellowships were organised, and its reasonable to say that it actually varied from location to location, even within the 50 or so years covered between Acts and Revelation…
Peggy // January 21, 2008 at 9:44 am
Even better than the wrap-up, you have done a spectacular job of SWOT analysis, Grace (my old management hat just popped on): you looked at the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats presented in this book…and there are some of each.
I am grateful that you consistently chose to look through the lens intended by the authors — as that is not only the most helpful to your readers, it is the only way to get what they meant and avoid attacking the book for what it isn’t.
I am grateful to be alive in this time when so many are seeking diligently to remember those “forgotten ways” — and trust that the Holy Spirit will help us understand better and better that the church, the Body of Christ, the Bride of Christ, is defined by covenant relationships of attitudes based on love, grace and mercy…fleshed out in the actions of submission, service and initiation of that which is in the best interest of our Lord and our brothers and sisters.
The models matter little if the relationships, attitudes and actions are right.
Thanks, again.
Jeanette // January 21, 2008 at 10:14 am
Thanks Grace for such a fair and balanced review on this important book. It’s so refreshing to read your thoughts as they cleared up a lot of confusion over what this book is about. Your readers may be interested to know that they can continue the dialogue over at http://www.ptmin.org/answers.htm where Frank is interacting with those who have questions. There are some new reviews posted there and some interviews too. You are right that Frank and George didn’t write the book as objective scholars. They are very passionate about Jesus and His church and that comes through in their writing. Many blessings to you. Your blog is great!
oh me of little faith // January 21, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Grace, this book sounds interesting. From Barna’s recent words, I got the strong impression that he was an advocate for house churches. so perhaps his emphasis has shifted, or my perception was mistaken regarding his previous stance.
I love the idea that your pastor is trying, Ed. How incredibly refreshing.
Yeah, andym, the NT was just as dysfunctional as our contemporary Church. so many people romanticize the early church.
thanks, Grace, for sharing about this book.
Frank Viola meets Drew Marshall : Subversive Influence // January 22, 2008 at 12:48 pm
[...] Robbymac, the iMonk, and Bob Hyatt rounding out a few of the loudest “nay’s” with Kingdom (nee Emerging) Grace summing up a more balanced view from her series. Oh, and there’s more from Darryl Dash with [...]
Abuse By Negligence « MER Christianity // January 23, 2008 at 11:30 pm
[...] the web over the last fortnight. (A hilariously negative review here; a judiciously positive review here.) My novel Fallen was written to dramatize crimes that have become all too [...]
Bill Lollar // February 27, 2008 at 10:49 am
Hi, Grace. Just thought you and your readers might enjoy reading a new interview with George Barna and Frank Viola. I just posted it today: The Thin Edge hosts joint interview with Barna & Viola.
Bill Lollar // February 27, 2008 at 10:50 am
Hi, Grace. Just thought you and your readers might enjoy reading a new interview with George Barna and Frank Viola. I just posted it today: The Thin Edge hosts joint interview with Barna & Viola.
George Dunn // March 2, 2008 at 9:47 pm
George & Frank are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. The two biggest criticisms I have heard are: 1. They don’t provide a solution-model to “replace” the institutional church. 2. They seem to suggest that the “house” or organic church model should replace the institutional church.
Perhaps there is not model. I was (many years ago) swept into the Kingdom of God in a mighty revival and move of the spirit. Soon all of our friends and family also accepted Christ and were “born again” by the spirit. Instantly there was a bond and and a desire to be together and share our faith together. We were almost constantly together meeting from house to house. It was a loving family. Perhaps this coming together is just a natural outgrowth of truly being a loving family.
In our dysfunctional society with our dysfunctional families it is hard for many to understand this great bond of love that used to bind families together.
iEach of us could make a list of traits of “lvonign and close” families, the things successful families do; like eat together, spend time togeter etc and try to do those things. However that would not make us a family. It is by blood and by adoption that we become joined together into the family of God.
What we need is not worship, accountablility, new forms, but new hearts filled with the love of God.
Leave a Comment