Pagan Christianity

I recently read Pagan Christianity, in which Frank Viola seeks to establish three basic premises.

First, people want to connect with God, but the “institutional” church prevents them from doing so. Viola explains, “These are people who have experienced the initial realities of a genuine connection with God. They can no longer endure the spiritual teasing offered by churches and other well-intentioned ministries. God is waiting for them. They want Him. No more excuses” (p. xxvi).

Second, the “institutional” church prevents people from connecting with God because it has adopted pagan practices. Viola explains, “But if the church is following the life of God who indwells it, it will never produce those non scriptural practices this book addresses. Such practices are foreign elements that God’s people picked up from their pagan neighbors as far back as the fourth century… And that is why the church is in the state it is in today…” (p. xx).

Third, people should leave the “institutional” church to form “organic” churches that are free from pagan practices. Viola views the NT church as the quintessential “organic” church. He explains, “So we would argue that on theological grounds, historical grounds, and pragmatic grounds, the first-century church best represents the dream of God… the beloved community that he intends to create and re-create in every chapter of the human story. The first-century church teaches us how the life of God is expressed when a group of people begin to live by it together” (p. xix).

From here, Viola proceeds to elaborate on his second premise by identifying nine church practices that are (in his opinion) rooted in paganism. Let me give you two examples.

The first is the church building (p. 9-46). According to Viola, “Christians did not erect special buildings for worship until the Constantinian era in the fourth century” (p. 11). Again, “Most of us are completely unaware of what we lost as Christians when we began erecting places devoted exclusively for worship. The Christian faith was born in believers’ homes, yet every Sunday morning scores of Christians sit in a building with pagan origins that is based upon pagan philosophy. There does not exist a shred of biblical support for the church building… It is high time we Christians wake up to the fact that we are being neither biblical nor spiritual by supporting church buildings. And we are doing great damage to the message of the New Testament by calling man-made buildings ‘churches’” (p. 42-43).

The second example is the expository sermon (p. 85-104). According to Viola, “Neither homilies (sermons) nor homiletics (the art of sermonizing) have a Christian origin. They were stolen from the pagans. A polluted stream made its entrance into the Christian faith and muddied its waters. And that stream flows just as strongly today as it did in the fourth century” (p. 89,93). Viola goes so far as to argue that the sermon actually harms the church. How? (1) It “makes the preacher the virtuoso performer of the regular church gathering.” (2) It “stalemates spiritual growth. Because it is a one-way affair, it encourages passivity.” (3) It “preserves the unbiblical clergy mentality.” (4) It “deskills the saints.” (5) It “is often impractical” (p. 97-99).

Having described the nine church practices that are (in his opinion) rooted in paganism, Viola points to the need for “organic” churches. He comments, “The one who plants a first-century-styled church leaves that church without a pastor, elders, a music leader, a Bible facilitator, or a Bible teacher. If that church is planted well, those believers will know how to sense and follow the living, breathing headship of Jesus Christ in a meeting. They will know how to let Him invisibly lead their gatherings. They will bring their own songs, they will write their own songs, they will minister out of what Christ has shown them – with no human leader present!” (p. 234). Again, “Organic church life is a grassroots experience that is marked by face-to-face community, every-member functioning, open-participatory meetings, non hierarchical leadership, and the centrality and supremacy of Jesus Christ as the functional leader and head of the group. Put another way, organic church life is the ‘experience’ of the Body of Christ. In its purest form, it is the fellowship of the triune God brought to earth and experienced by human beings” (p. 241).

That’s a general overview of the content of Frank Viola’s Pagan Christianity. By way of critique, I believe Viola’s overall assessment and proposed solution is deficient. Why?

1. It’s historically selective

First, he fails to engage the scholarly literature that challenges his claims. Furthermore, he’s far too dependent upon secondary sources that seem to support his arguments; e.g., the writings of Robert Banks.

Second, he’s convinced that all churches since Constantine have been pagan and unbiblical. In other words, church history is the story of a church that isn’t really the church. If what he says is true, then why has it taken nearly 2,000 years for it to emerge? Does his assessment reflect the facts? Or, is his assessment culturally-determined? In other words, is it possible that the “organic” church movement has only appeared at this juncture in North America because it is merely the result of a therapy-driven generation, seeking personal fulfillment in some sort of communal context?

Third, he has an overly idealistic view of the early church. When he speaks of the NT church, what does he mean? Is he referring to the church at Corinth – an immoral church? Is he referring to the church at Galatia – a legalistic church? Which church should we strive to be like? We can most certainly learn from the example of the NT church. However, the suggestion that there’s some perfect, pristine, uncorrupted, and untainted early church, for us to emulate, is questionable.

Fourth, he has taken some NT church practices (e.g., gathering in homes) as normative practice. However, he fails to wrestle with the very real possibility that these practices exist for practical reasons as opposed to theological reasons. If they exist for practical reasons, then they were never intended to be normative. Are there any theological grounds for suggesting that such practices are binding upon all people in all places at all times?

2. It’s biblically selective

Viola establishes his entire vision of the church on a very selective interpretation of Scripture. Let’s take his concept of spontaneous church gatherings as an example. It’s based on two presuppositions.

The first is his understanding of 1 Cor. 14:26. He views this verse as proof that all meetings of the church should be spontaneous, lacking any order of worship. But is such an interpretation valid? Does this verse refer to every church meeting? Is this verse normative for all churches? Does this verse necessarily exclude some sort of order? How is this verse to be interpreted and applied in the context of what Paul says in 1 Cor. 14:40 – “ But all things must be done properly and in an orderly manner.” Viola reads far more into 1 Cor. 14:26 than is there.

The second presupposition is his understanding of the priesthood of all believers (e.g., 1 Pet. 2:5). Viola interprets this truth as implying open participation in public worship without any order of worship or church leadership. But is this a legitimate interpretation of the priesthood of all believers? The priesthood of all believers isn’t an argument in favour of open participation at church meetings. Nor is it an argument against the recognition of leaders in the church. Nor is it an argument against expository preaching. Nor is it an argument against remunerating those who give themselves to preaching and teaching God’s Word (1 Tim. 5:17). Nor is it an argument against gathering in church buildings. The priesthood of all believers is simply related to the fact that, in Christ, we all have access into God's presence, where we present our sacrifices before Him (Rom. 12:1-2 / Heb. 13:15).

I find that Viola draws far too many implications and conclusions from Bible verses that really don’t lend him the support he thinks they do.

3. It’s logically inconsistent

Overall, Viola’s assessment of church practices isn’t very convincing. To demonstrate this, I will respond to his criticism of the church building. Some are a waste of money. Some are erroneously treated as “sacred space.” Some are viewed as the church instead of the people who meet in them. However, Viola’s suggestion that the NT church's practice of gathering in homes is normative for all churches in all places at all times, and that church buildings are rooted in paganism, is poorly argued.

First, there's no doubt that NT believers gathered in homes (Acts 2:42,46). However, they also met in the temple (Acts 3:1 / 5:19-21,25,42 / 22:17), synagogues (Acts 13:5 / 14:1 / 17:1-2,17 / 19:8) and halls (Acts 19:9). According to archaeological evidence, they also met in caves – the catacombs in Rome. This demonstrates that the early church met wherever it was expedient. There was no right or wrong place to gather for worship.

Second, NT believers (and most believers up until the 4th century) gathered in homes, because they were labelled as a superstitio – an illegal religion. In other words, they couldn’t meet in public. They couldn’t own property for the purpose of gathering for worship. (This is similar to the situation in China today.) NT believers didn’t meet in homes, because they thought it was particularly biblical, spiritual, or beneficial. They gathered in homes, because they had no other choice.

Third, the NT never commands believers to meet in homes or in any other type of building. All Scripture is inspired (2 Tim. 3:16). However, we must be careful to distinguish between verses that are prescriptive (they state what should be) and verses that are descriptive (they describe what is). This distinction is important. Why? (1) It keeps us from arriving at wrong conclusions. Are we to conclude from what Paul says in Rom. 16:16 that we should greet one another with a kiss? (2) It warns us to make certain that what we hold to as non-negotiable is based upon prescriptive (not descriptive) portions of God’s Word. This clearly applies to the house-church movement. There’s nothing in Scripture that says we must meet in homes, barns, temples, or any other kind of building. If we’re going to call something doctrine, hold to it as non-negotiable, disagree with others over it, abandon a local church because of it, and break the hearts of fellow-believers, then we better make certain that it’s actually prescribed in Scripture!

Fourth. we can’t blame the lack of fellowship within local churches upon a building – an inanimate object! This is an overly simplistic assessment. Changing the venue of a church gathering will not necessarily foster fellowship. In the final analysis, it’s up to individuals to recognize the need for it and, therefore, seek it.

4. It’s theologically and spiritually bankrupt

Viola is an active participant in the Emergent Conversation. See his Will the Emerging Church Fully Emerge? An Invitation for Serious Reflection and Open Dialogue. It’s available on the Internet.

According to the Emergent Conversation, the church must adapt to a postmodern society. (1) There are those who are interested in adapting methodology, so that the church can reach out with greater effectiveness. And so, they’re discussing missions, services, leadership, etc. (2) There are those who are interested in adapting theology. They’re discussing the doctrine of justification, the nature of the atonement, the inspiration of Scripture, the reality of hell, etc.

I have a two-fold concern with the second group: epistemology and spirituality. As Don Carson puts it, “The postmodern ethos tends to be anti-absolutist, suspicious of truth claims, and wide open to relativism. It tends to adopt therapeutic approaches to spirituality, and – whether despite the individualism of the Western heritage or perhaps even because of it – it is often attracted to communitarian wholeness” (Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church). I perceive both of these in Viola’s Pagan Christianity.

5. It’s ecclesiastically subversive

Viola openly encourages people to leave their “institutional” churches to form “organic” churches. In so doing, he portrays the Christian’s enemy – not as the flesh, the world, or the devil – but as the local church. I can’t help but think that this brazen attack preys on people who are already spiritually discouraged or emotionally vulnerable. It tells them that at the root of their problems is their local church. It gives ammunition to those who are already discontent, unhappy, or vulnerable. For this reason, Viola’s Pagan Christianity will lead to ecclesiastical amputation. It will cause disenchanted and discouraged Christians to abandon their church families in order to seek after Viola’s pristine and perfect “organic” church. How do I know? I’ve already seen it…

Quotable: “The hallmark of a true experience of God is a sense of awe, and accompanying it, a sense of unworthiness… The final explanation of the state of the church today is a defective sense of sin and a defective doctrine of sin” (Martyn Lloyd-Jones).