The Organic Church � Doctrines of Demons and of Men: Part 3
By John Beardsley - August 30, 2011
In recent posts on this blog we have noticed that emerging church leader Leonard Sweet has links to the NAR.[3] The co-author of his book, Frank Viola, also has roots in the NAR. He has been connected with the House2House group, a movement that is ostensibly about �house� churches, but in reality is concerned with building the networking apostolic cellular model of church for the purpose of building the kingdom of God on earth. This is the same Dominionist goal that is characteristic of the NAR: �This amazing network of churches is rapidly transitioning as a network to embrace the simple church models that the Lord is blessing all around the world,� leading to the �transforming work of God in bringing people to Christ. . . leading to dramatic advances of the Kingdom of God.� John Arnott of the Toronto �Laughing Revival� has been a notable contributor to the House2House magazine.
A key name associated with Frank Viola is Heidi Baker, whose frequently appears with her husband Rolland. They flourish in the New Apostolic Reformation and can often be found on the Elijah List (chief organ for the NAR)[6] and OpenHeaven.com (a radical Dominionist group).[7] The Bakers spoke at the Global Awakening �Voice of the Apostles� conference, October 28-31, 2009 along with other NAR apostles Randy Clark, Che Ann, Bill Johnson and John Arnott. Heidi was featured along with Latter Rain cult leader Rick Joyner at his MorningStar Ministries �Harvest Fest� held September 24-30, 2009. The list of interconnections and associations with the NAR could go on and on�
Neil Cole is another well-known name associated with Frank Viola and the House2House movement. He is also connected with Leadership Network.[10] Furthermore, Frank Viola�s book Organic Church: Growing Faith Where Life Happens is endorsed by such notables as Bob Buford (head of Leadership Network) and John Maxwell.
Leonard Sweet endorsed one of Frank Viola�s earlier books, Reimagining Church: Pursuing the Dream of Organic Christianity, by connecting it to the idea of �God�s Dream,� an increasingly common metaphor. Viola has also authored From Eternity to Here: Rediscovering the Ageless Purpose of God, described as �a whole new way of looking at the Scriptures, at Jesus, at the church, and at me,�and endorsed by such Emergent leaders as Leonard Sweet, Brian McLaren, Dan Kimball, Shane Claiborne and many others.
Characteristic of all of these recent emerging convergences, a MANIFESTO accompanies the agenda being promoted jointly by Sweet and Viola. It is called �A Magna Carta for Restoring the Supremacy of Jesus Christ a.k.a. A Jesus Manifesto for the 21st Century Church.� This Manifesto does not hearken back to the written Word of God in order to follow Jesus or His teachings. Instead it speaks of �implantation and impartation� and �incarnation.� This is based on imaging, imagining, visualization, meditation, and following a �Presence,� even using the term �cosmic Christ.�The document also makes this amazing statement � an example of psycho-spiritual biblical revisionism:
The Bible does not offer a plan or a blueprint for living. The �good news� was not a new set of laws, or a new set of ethical injunctions, or a new and better PLAN. The �good news� was the story of a person�s life, as reflected in The Apostle�s Creed. The Mystery of Faith proclaims this narrative: �Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again.� The meaning of Christianity does not come from allegiance to complex theological doctrines, but a passionate love for a way of living in the world that revolves around following Jesus, who taught that love is what makes life a success . . . not wealth or health or anything else: but love. And God is love.
It also seems to claim we are Christ: Jesus Christ cannot be separated from his church. While Jesus is distinct from his Bride, he is not separate from her. She is in fact his very own Body in the earth. God has chosen to vest all of power, authority, and life in the living Christ. And God in Christ is only known fully in and through his church�.We, collectively, as the ekklesia of God, are Christ in and to this world.[15] (A Magna Carta for Restoring the Supremacy of Jesus Christ a.k.a. A Jesus Manifesto for the 21st Century Church,� by Leonard Sweet and Frank Viola, JULY 8, 2009)
Those in the organic churches while arguing they are not condemning what they coined the Institutional Church (any organized group of people attending service in what they know as a church building) they are quite vocal in pointing out its problems. In their literature they are not so kind even condemning of the pastorate as a position or office calling it unbiblical. Much like a cult, Viola�s organic church process preys on the discontented, making his way sound appealing and therefore people following him are taken hook, line and sinker by the teachings of his and George Barna�s book Pagan Christianity which is the primer for Reimagining Church, proudly stated at the end!
The picture coming into focus with part 3 demonstrates the duplicity these people operate with routinely. It is not a conspiracy, it is right out in the open � it is an agenda! An agenda that can easily be traced to the teachings of liberal theology, restorationism, Manifest Sons of God, and more recently the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR), the Leadership Network and even following the playbook of the homosexual agenda.
The teachings exposed are a frontal assault on the basic tenets of Christianity trampling on the Word of truth, the Bible (Mat 7:6). While the writers of Pagan Christianity, Reimagining Church, and The Jesus Manifesto offer lip service that they are all about the centrality and supremacy of Christ they are taking advantage of the frustrations many may feel, even in a solid Bible Believing Church. Similar to the cults, Pagan Christianity is a tool for playing the heart strings of many within organized churches that are inundated with programs, filled with men�s ideas of business management, psychology. The "Institutional Churches" (as they use as disparaging term) are where they are making inroads because men and women have been weakened by poor leadership who abandon scriptures for something else, something "relevant" but reap what has been sown with a the convergence in a river of lies sweeping over them.
So many dissatisfied by the programs and psychology are looking for something new they think is missing. Next, along comes Pagan Christianity naming a list of things wrong with the church and showing many alleged pagan roots that largely draw on resources outside of scriptures to make their points. (A separate study would be needed to cover them all!)
Am I saying all of the criticisms laid at the steps of the organized churches are erroneous? Not at all! But I state they are using propaganda to mislead the reader for another agenda � theirs being the restoration of the Church, but restoring it to what kind of Church? The Organic Church or Emergent Church? Take your pick, they have the same creator and it�s NOT the God in the Bible! Here are two quick reminders:
From the Jesus Manifesto, The Jesus Manifesto states, �The earth awaits a body of Christians in every city who will receive Jesus utterly and completely. A body who will esteem Him above everything else, giving Him His rightful place of supremacy� (pages 158-159).
Where are we told this? Certainly not in scripture but it is straight out of heretical restoration, kingdom and dominion theology!
In a recent endorsement made by Frank Viola for a book released 6/30/2011, �Jon Zen�s book [The Pastor Has No Clothes] demonstrates beyond dispute that the clergy-system (in the form of the modern pastorate) is not only unbiblical but also contrary to the headship of Jesus Christ. I hope that every Christian reads this volume with an open heart and mind, especially those who deem themselves "leaders" in the body of Christ. I applaud Jon for his courage in adding another Scripture-based book to help foment the growing revolution that God has begun today - a revolution designed to give His church back to His beloved Son." (emphasis in bold mine)
- More evidence of the hate of the pastorate and proof they are teaching revolution in the churches it is not Biblical reformation!
The gates of Hell have not prevailed against the Church, nor will they. This talk gives smells a bit of Mormon restorationism that somehow the Church is dead. No, some churches are dead but some remain, maybe a remnant but God knows who and where they are. Viola in his piece of why he left the institutional church brings the accusation to the churches that they are the ones throwing the baby out with the bath water while he has stepped into a hole of his own making. He and Barna in Pagan Christianity, plus his own teachings are often contradictory, eclectic and confusing to the new believers. They hope to sway people towards Christ but again what Christ and what Church? His Organic Church following his teachings is no different than the popery of others and in my opinion an of those in the remnant that remain that seek to follow the Biblicist paradigm, the way of the Bereans and the Solas of scripture.
What Is the Evidence Showing Us? - Based on the preponderance of the evidence (only a fraction of what there is), I have revealed a number of snares for believer and non-believer alike. Viola and Sweet do not directly advocate the extreme ecumenism (inclusive of Islam) but they are connected with those who do, with numerous positive quotations and endorsements exposed in this series. Their friends are opening the doors making it inclusive to false religions, no Hell, some openly universalist. I refer you to the appendix of part 2 of The Jesus Manifesto endorsers for the details.
Our site has been up since 1997 warning of the dangers we were seeing with everything from Promise Keepers, Psychology, rock music with a Christian name, and a host of fads. Today it is easy to see how these things were a means to an end. Within the churches these worldly things helped to undermine and supplant scriptures and the use of scriptures to defend truth.
Here is what I lay at the doorstep of those who bring these Pagan Christianity, Reimagining Church, The Jesus Manifesto, The Shack and a list of other books to the churches � You are foolish false teachers and harbingers of spiritual death to apathetic lukewarm churches remaining today. You offer nothing new. You are reintroducing the old ways (so-called) as new knowledge which is nothing more than the old Gnosticism condemned in scriptures and wrestled with for over a thousand years by those who stand by what the scriptures teach! Repent!
For teachers claiming to be all about the centrality of Jesus Christ in our lives they are foreigners, tares among the wheat in many ways, as discussed in part 1 and part 2 of this series. Some have argued how can you say something bad about making Christ central in your life and in the church? Logic dictates you cannot � until you qualify the Jesus they are talking about is NOT the Jesus of the Bible! There are other Jesus' and the scripture teaches us even long ago there were and would be others claiming His name and teaching another Gospel. Beware, a whole host of books are being pushed at us to help us on our way into the Emergent Church, Organic Church or something else they consider relevant wherever we are today. These books are laced with an old leaven revived in the pits of Hell, it is a poison that blinds the eyes and ears of those taken in by it, I have seen it! Dr Francis Schaeffer's insights to this are also priceless:
"We have come then to this fearsome place where the word Jesus has become the enemy of the Person Jesus, and the enemy of what Jesus taught. We must fear this contentless banner of the word Jesus not because we do not love Jesus, but because we do love Him. We must fight this contentless banner, with its deep motivations, rooted into the memories of the race, which is being used for the purpose of sociological form and control. ...
If evangelical Christians begin to slip into a dichotomy, to separate an encounter with Jesus from the content of the Scriptures (including the discussable and the verifiable portions of Scripture), we shall, without intending to, be throwing ourselves and the next generation into the millstream of the modern system. This system surrounds us as an almost monolithic consensus." Dr. Schaeffer, Francis A. Schaeffer, Escape From Reason, Chapter 7
Personal Message to Readers
If you are offended, hurt, and or convicted by what I shared, good! Whether you like what you�ve read or not, your eyes have been opened and if you are caught up in it, know that you can escape your snare. My intent for the articles parts 1 through 3 are largely inspired by persons my wife and I love that we see ensnared by the lies exposed here. I will not be more specific on the Internet but suffice it to say we see a number of them going down the emergent/organic path unwittingly. - Please accept the hurt with the heart intended! Proverbs 27: 5-6 "Open rebuke is better than secret love. Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful." We are sure there are other Christians who are ignorant of the duplicity being used to pull them away from a Biblical faith. My personal experience in dealing with the arguments coming from the Organic Church reminds me of dealing with the cults including Catholicism, Mormons and Islam � it is a dangerous path.
If I got through to you, please don�t continue to be played the fool and follow this path a moment longer! The Bible has this to say of the matter, Proverbs 14:16 �A wise [man] feareth, and departeth from evil: but the fool rageth, and is confident.� Depart the evil, and seek the truth of scriptures! Turn from these old dark paths unto the light that is found in the Bible and expose these evildoers. Let this rebuke (correction) be one that takes you on God�s paths, not the paths of men or of demons!
In all of the discernment work I have done to date, I have found what is coming into focus to be the most disturbing of all. The archive of files Biblical Discernment Ministries (BDM) site has become more of a historical picture of what is coming in these dark days we live.
Now for a word for my critics, consider this. Since 1997 BDM has asked for NOTHING in the way of monetary assistance. It is a ministry and does not try to sell you books, seek speaking engagements or get you to go to the latest seminar or conference. These men I have exposed are my opposite!
2 Peter 2:1-3 �But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.�
My exhortation to you: If they are not making merchandise of you don�t let them! Wise up, ask questions! Most importantly, pray for wisdom to know the truth and don�t be afraid or intimidated to speak out. If a false teacher can be bold in carrying out his agenda, we can be bold in defending the true gospel.
There is much more you can read on these topics revealed on sites linked with BDM such as Apprising Ministries and Herescope � I hope they are of help to you as well.
God�s promise to you that turn to Him, here is the Bible�s doctrine on the tree of life! Not some confusing heretical mumbo jumbo of some man�s ideas:
Re 2:7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.
Re 2:11 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.
Re 2:17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth [it].
Closing Thoughts
I often hear two things from the teachers today, first asking what is relevant for the church today? Second is a comparison to the lukewarm church at Laodicea, Revelation 3:15-16 �I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.�
Both miss the mark, how about a comparison to the Church at Sardis - it is written, "Rev. 3:1 And unto the angel of the church in Sardis write; These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars; I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead."
� Any church claiming the name of Christ, claiming to being alive and relevant to this generation while teaching another Jesus has no life, no Holy Spirit in it � it is dead.
What a joyous day it will be to put the mess of this world with all of its trials and tribulations is behind us when we meet Jesus in the clouds!
To read all the articles on Frank Viola go to this site
So this is what you do, ET? You don't even research the material someone presents but you do pay Attention to what people say about them?
Man, it's a good thing Jesus didn't come in your day cause you'd be right there with the Pharisee calling him Beelzibub.
You've got a Pharisee spirit about you, sister. You seem to want to control everyone's thinking, actions, nd words.
Did you even READ the book, or anything about his ministry before you went to other views?
Or did you do, whAt you normally do?
The sAd part is that you posted and endorsed a guy who said that pastors could spew forth lies and his followers were obligated to listen nd agree because he was their spiritual leader.
Pagan Christianity released in 2008. The book debuted hitting #11 on Amazon.com (out of all books). Today, interest in the book is still very strong as it's often rated the #1 book in Ecclesiology (Amazon) and regularly appears on Tyndale's top 10 best-seller lists.
Critiques and objections continue to be written, yet most of them are a rehash of the arguments that have already been addressed and discussed on this page.
An often overlooked fact is that Pagan Christianity is not a stand-alone book. It is only the first half of the argument. As such, it's very incomplete. Reimagining Church is the necessary follow-up. Pagan Christianity deconstructs while Reimagining Church constructs. Both books must be read together to form a complete picture.
Take some time on this page. It contains incisive interviews with Frank and George about the content of the book. It also contains public debates with scholars as well as scores of specific questions, objections, and critiques along with responses from the authors.
The page begins with insightful quotes, interviews with the authors, endorsements, resources, definitions, and a lengthy question-answer section. Enjoy!
"I wish church leaders everywhere would calmly read and reflect on this book ... the cumulative weight of Pagan Christianity is impressive. Christians today who want to see the church be faithful to the gospel of the kingdom should ask themselves: Which of our current traditions are consistent with Scripture and help us to be faithful communities of the kingdom? And which really nullify God�s Word? If churches confront that question prayerfully while seriously examining Scripture, many things may change."
Dr. Howard Snyder, Professor of History and Theology of Mission at Asbury Seminary
"Viola, F. and G. Barna, Pagan Christianity (Tyndale 2008) is the best single source I know of that exposes how thoroughly pagan the traditional and contemporary understanding of the church is. Viola and Barna argue � rightly � that the passivity and impotence of the church today is largely due to this fact. Viola and Barna call us back to a New Testament understanding of church that is rooted in authentic communities in which believers share life and engage in ministry together."
Dr. Gregory A. Boyd, prolific author and former professor of theology, M. Div (Yale) and Ph.D (Princeton)
I am not here attacking Christianity, but only the institutional mantle that cloaks it.
Pierre Berton
A truth's initial commotion is directly proportional to how deeply the lie was believed. It wasn't the world being round that agitated people, but that the world wasn't flat. When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.
Dresden James
Experience supplies painful proof that traditions once called into being are first called useful, then they become necessary. At last they are too often made idols, and all must bow down to them or be punished.
J. C. Ryle
I think we ought to read only books that bite and sting us. If the book we are reading doesn�t shake us awake like a blow on the skull, why bother reading it in the first place? . . . A book must be the axe for the frozen sea within us.
Franz Kafka
If Christianity is to receive a rejuvenation it must be by other means than any now being used. If the church in the second half of [the twentieth] century is to recover from the injuries she suffered in the first half, there must appear a new type of preacher. The proper, ruler-of-the-synagogue type will never do. Neither will the priestly type of man who carries out his duties, takes his pay and asks no questions, nor the smooth-talking pastoral type who knows how to make the Christian religion acceptable to everyone. All these have been tried and found wanting. Another kind of religious leader must arise among us. He must be of the old prophet type, a man who has seen visions of God and has heard a voice from the Throne. When he comes (and I pray God there will not be one but many) he will stand in flat contradiction to everything our smirking, smooth civilization holds dear. He will contradict, denounce and protest in the name of God and will earn the hatred and opposition of a large segment of Christendom.
A.W. Tozer
Here it is, plain and unvarnished. Unless I am convinced of error by the testimony of Scripture or (since I put no trust in the unsupported authority of Pope or councils, since it is plain that they have often erred and often contradicted themselves) by manifest reasoning, I stand convinced by the Scriptures to which I have appealed, and my conscience is taken captive by God's word. I cannot and will not recant anything, for to act against our conscience is neither safe for us, nor open to us. On this I take my stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen.
Martin Luther
When you can assume that your audience holds the same beliefs as you do, you can relax a little and use more normal means of talking to it; when you have to assume it does not, then you have to make your vision apparent by shock -- to the hard of hearing you shout, and for the almost-blind you draw large and starling figures.
Flannery O'Conner
The real trouble is not in fact that the Church is too rich, but that it has become heavily institutionalized, with a crushing investment in maintenance. It has the characteristics of the dinosaur and the battleship. It is saddled with a plant and programme beyond its means, so that it is absorbed in problems of supply and preoccupied with survival. The inertia of the machine is such that the financial allocations, the legalities, the channels of organization, the attitudes of mind, are all set in the direction of continuing and enhancing the status quo. If one wants to pursue a course which cuts across these channels, then most of one�s energies are exhausted before one ever reaches the enemy lines
John A.T. Robinson
Man's mind, once stretched by a new idea, never regains its original dimensions.
Walt Whitman
INTERVIEWS WITH FRANK AND GEORGE
Audio Interview with George Barna and Frank Viola (35 min.)
Audio Interview with George Barna and Frank Viola (68 min.)
Print Interview with George and Frank: 1
Print Interview with George and Frank: 2
Print Interview with George and Frank: 3
Scholarly Debate I: Jon Zens. vs Ben Witherington III
Scholarly Debate II: Frank Viola vs. Ben Witherington III
Audio Interviews & Messages
ENDORSEMENTS
43 Endorsements by Scholars, Historians, Pastors, and Teachers
Pastors Weigh-In on Pagan Christianity
RESOURCES
Discussion Guide to Pagan Christianity
Sample Chapter of Pagan Christainity
Sample Chapter of Reimagining Church
Audio Chapter of Pagan Christianity
Audio Chapter of Reimagining Church
VIDEOS
Spoof Commerical
RELATED ARTICLES
10 Straw-Man Myths About Pagan Christianity & Reimagining Church
Why I Love the Church: In Praise of God's Eternal Purpose
A Word to Authors - Aspiring and Actual
The Cost of Challenging the Status Quo
Have You Heard?
The Disconnect Between Eastern and Western Medicine: An Analogy
Misrepresentations
Response to Mark Driscoll
Neil Cole & Frank Viola Discuss Missional Organic Church
Willow Creek on Pagan Christianity
DEFINITIONS (on page xxxi of Pagan Christianity, 4th printing, etc.)
As you read this book, we feel it is important that you understand how we are using the terms below.
Pagan
We are using this word to indicate those practices and principles that are not Christian or biblical in origin. In some cases, we use it to refer to those ancients who followed the gods of the Roman Empire. We are not using the word as a synonym for bad, evil, sinful, or wrong. A �pagan practice or mind-set� refers to a practice or mode of thinking that has been adopted from the church�s surrounding culture. We believe that some pagan practices are neutral and can be redeemed for God�s glory. We feel that others stand in direct conflict with the teachings of Jesus and the apostles and thus cannot be redeemed.
Organic Church
The term organic church does not refer to a particular model of church. (We believe that no perfect model exists.) Instead, we believe that the New Testament vision of church is organic. An organic church is a living, breathing, dynamic, mutually participatory, every-member functioning, Christ-centered, communal expression of the body of Christ. Note that our goal in this book is not to develop a full description of the organic church but only to touch on it when necessary.
Institutional Church
This term refers to a religious system (not a particular group of people). An institutional church is one that operates primarily as an organization that exists above, beyond, and independent of the members who populate it. It is constructed more on programs and rituals than on relationships. It is led by set-apart professionals (�ministers� or �clergy�) who are aided by volunteers (�laity�). We also use the terms contemporary church, traditional church, present-day church, and modern church to refer to the institutional church of our day.
New Testament Church, or First-Century Church
These terms do not refer to a particular form of church. We are instead speaking of the church of century one that we read about in our New Testament. (In this book, first-century church is used as a synonym for New Testament church.) We do not advocate a primitivistic return to a particular model of the early church. Instead, we believe that a return to the spiritual principles, the organic practices, and the spirit and ethos of the first-century church, along with the teachings of Jesus and the apostles, should guide our practice of the church in our day and time.
Biblical, or Scriptural
These words are used first and foremost as source statements and secondarily as value judgments. Biblical or scriptural refers to whether a practice has its origins in the New Testament Scriptures. References tounbiblical or unscriptural practices do not automatically imply error. These words can refer to the fact that a certain practice does not appear in the New Testament (in which case it should not be treated as sacred). But they can also refer to a practice that violates the principles or teachings of the New Testament. The context will determine how these words are used. We certainly do not agree with the doctrines of �the silence of Scripture� and �the regulative principle,� which teach that if a practice is not mentioned in the New Testament then we should not follow it.
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
Thanks for being so available to answer questions. I don't know any other authors that do this; I wish there were more. I've read your entire series on the church and I want to know if you had the whole series in mind in the beginning or if it just came to you as you were writing the books?
Answer. Many years ago I had a series of books in my head that were designed to turn the sod on how we view and practice the church. I attempted to self-publish that series, and without a professional editor, did the best I could. When Tyndale approached me with interest in one of the books in that series back in 2006, I reframed the entire library in my head. So the series that you find on the ReChurch Library page, which is the order in which they released, is the order that I wanted to see them come out.
Frank, it's been two years since you and George released Pagan Christianity. I have read a lot of blogs that praise the book and many that criticize it. I really appreciate that you've created this page to answer questions and especially that you are available to debate people on the book. How many of your critics have taken you up on a blog debate?
Answer. Only one person in these two years has asked me to respond to their questions and objections in a public way. He wrote his criticisms of the book on his blog and then invited me to respond, and he published my response on his blog for all to read. So only one person in two years.
Frank, thanks for your books and articles and messages. They are changing my life. The new book is incredible. I have a friend who follows some blogger who is spouting that you don't believe in leadership. He also says that you wrote your postchurch article because people were going churchless after reading Pagan Christianity and you were regressing. I've read all your stuff so this is all way off to me, but I wanted your reaction. Oh, and would you be willing to debate any of these people?
Answer. You couldn't be more correct. Both ideas are just plain wrong. As you no doubt know, over one-half of my book REIMAGINING CHURCH is all about leadership (including an exegesis on all the biblical texts on elders, pastors, etc.). I still find it fascinating that because I challenge the traditional form of leadership that finds its roots in the Greco-Roman and Jewish worlds that this means I am against leadership. I'm espousing leadership the way Jesus taught it and the way it was practiced by the apostles and in the churches (all of which were organic and not institutional). As I point out in "Reimagining," Jesus took dead-aim at both the Jewish and Gentile models of leadership, yet many Christians aren't aware of this. In FINDING ORGANIC CHURCH, I go into great detail on the leadership that traveling apostolic workers provide. You can even find a definition of a leader in that book. The other bit about Pagan Christianity is just plain ludicrous. In that book, George and I spell out that we aren't espousing a churchless expression of Christianity, but the organic expression of the body of Christ -- which is far more intense than the traditional/institutional form. The sequel, REIMAGINING CHURCH, discounts the postchurch view by name on page 40. And yes, if you look at the rest of this Q & A page, I've offered to debate those who wish to discuss these issues in the light of the New Testament. (Note that straw men collapse pretty quickly during a debate.) So far, only one person has taken me up on that.
Hi Frank. I read your article on The Ooze about leaving the institutional church and I really enjoyed it. I agree with all that you said and can identify with your reasons. Some people don�t seem to get what you�re saying. For instance, a few people condemned you for being bored with church, saying that boredom isn�t a good reason to leave a church. A few others said that you basically bailed out of the church instead of trying to fix it and that you don�t love the church, or else if you did you would remain in it and try to reform it. I�d like to hear your response. Thanks.
Answer. Good questions. First, when I said I was bored with the institutional church, to my mind, that betrays the lack of life that I found there. Note that I was a part of many institutional churches representing many denominations and movements. All very diverse, yet having a very similar structure and order of worship (as all institutional churches do). Over the last 21 years since I�ve been out, I�ve visited a number of institutional churches now and then and have even spoken in them. And this has only strengthened my resolve, not weakened it. The bottom line is that Jesus Christ is anything but boring! He�s the most exciting, incredible, amazing Person that a mortal can know. And knowing Him in an organic expression of the church . . . where a face-to-face community is pursuing Him, loving Him, encountering Him, knowing Him, and expressing Him together is anything but boring.
Thus for me, if a ritual becomes boring, it simply means that it lacks life and should be changed so that God�s people can re-connect with their risen Lord who is anything but boring. I affirm all who find the Sunday morning Protestant order of worship (or high-church liturgy) exciting, helpful, and full of life. But for me and millions of other Christians, who haven�t found it that way. Therefore, I would ask that they equally affirm us. We are all brethren in Christ even though we may find our Lord in different ways.
Second, regarding the other objection, this again exposes the very problem that I, George Barna, Jon Zens, and many others have tried to address. There is a vast difference between a religious system and a way of organizing Christian worship (a la, �the institutional church�) and the Body of Jesus Christ (a la, �the ekklesia�). I have never given up on the church. In fact, I profoundly love the church and am a functioning member within her body. It�s the institutional system that I�ve given up on and for good reason. I don�t believe it�s biblical nor do I believe it can be easily adjusted. Not without major division to God�s people and no little hostility from the top of the hierarchy.
In fact, I would say that I found her . . . the living breathing experience of the bride of Christ . . . outside the religious system.
For those who feel that the institutional church system is biblical, I would simply challenge them to show it to me in the New Testament. (By the way, I�m not inviting people to answer this challenge on a blog that I�ll never see.) I speak for millions of Christians when I say this, but we gave up on a system that we felt was tried and found wanting. Does God use that system? Absolutely. Does it do any good for people? Yes, no question. Are God�s people in it? Yes, of course.
But that�s not the question that many of us are asking. We are asking a different question. Namely, we are asking: what did Jesus Christ teach about His body and what did the apostles teach about the church and how it should function and be expressed in the earth? Those are the questions I grapple with in my book REIMAGINING CHURCH.
My article is just a short primer. The book tells the rest of the story and uses the New Testament to articulate it.
I hope that helps.
Note: Leonard Sweet just weighed in on Reimagining Church again � you can read the entire transcript.
See also The Disconnect Between Eastern and Western Medicine: An Analogy
Frank, I gave Pagan Christianity to some friends and their response was, �Barna and Viola make a lot of good points, but they are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.� I�ve heard this so many times that if I hear it again, I�m going to scream. What�s your response to that line?
Answer: I think there�s only one baby worth saving � it�s the babe of Bethlehem, the Lord Jesus Christ. Everything else can be parted with and most of it is clutter. To call the clergy system, the hierarchical/business-patterned leadership structure, the Sunday morning Protestant ritual, the billions of dollars we spend on church buildings and overhead �the baby� is ludicrous in my opinion.
From the place where I�m standing, it seems to me that what we�ve done is substitute the bathwater for the baby, tossing the latter and keeping the former.
In the words of NT scholar Jon Zens,
It seems to me that we have made normative that for which there is no Scriptural warrant (emphasis on one man�s ministry), and we have omitted that for which there is ample Scriptural support (emphasis on one another) . . . we have exalted that for which there is no evidence, and neglected that for which there is abundant evidence.
But let me think about your question some more and I�ll tell you how I really feel about it :-)
It is some people's opinion that you and George only use those historical sources that agree with your points in the book and exclude those that disagree. What's your response to this?
Answer. Jon Zens, a highly respected church historian and NT scholar, has answered this objection very well. Since I don't think I can improve upon his answer, I'll quote it below. I'll simply say that the issue really juices down to the type of book Pagan Christianity is. Scholarly books present every conceiveable counter argument and respond to each one (that's why it's not uncommon for scholarly works to sometimes be 900 pages long with very few people reading them). Popular books that are written as polemics do not do this. Pagan Christianity is deliberately a popular book rather than a scholarly one (that's why it weighs in at below 350 pages). I'm very familiar with those works that disagree with my conclusions and thesis. But I've simply not been persuaded by their arguments. Here's Jon's answer:
The bibliography alone contains hundreds of books showing a wide breath of the subjects at hand, many of which were written by scholars and historians who disagree with some of the authors' conclusions. The book shows keen familiarity, for example, with two well-known liturgical scholars, Frank Senn and Gregory Dix and their work � scholars who disagree with some of the authors� conclusions. Furthermore, a good number of the sources they use were written by Anglican and Catholic scholars who admit that various practices they embrace are of pagan origin; yet these scholars still uphold and defend their present form of church. (Barna and Viola go a step further and challenge some of those practices on biblical, spiritual, and pragmatic grounds. And then leave it to the reader decide if those practices are a help or a hindrance to what Jesus had in mind for His church.) Very simply, it was not within the scope of the book to examine the claims and counter-claims that others have made. The book states this very point in the preface, arguing that if they had dealt with every counter-claim and traced every practice in detail (making it a �scholarly� work), it would have consisted of many volumes that few people would read. I think that one reason that PC has become a bestseller is that it is so accessible to the average reader. PC was concerned to boil things down to the key issues related the shift from New Testament simplicity to post-apostolic bureaucracy. I�ve been studying �church� issues for thirty years, and it would be my conclusion that PC accurately reflects the basic conclusions � even virtual consensus � of a wide range of NT theologians and church historians. For example, it would appear that James D.G. Dunn�s summary remarks capture the essence of PC�s heartbeat: "Increasing institutionalism is the clearest mark of early Catholicism - when church becomes increasingly identified with institution, when authority becomes increasingly coterminous with office, when a basic distinction between clergy and laity becomes increasingly self-evident, when grace becomes increasingly narrowed to well-defined ritual acts. We saw above that such features were absent from first generation Christianity, though in the second generation the picture was beginning to change" (Unity & Diversity in the New Testament, Westminster Press, 1977, p.351).
You make a good point about how the New Testament letters were arranged in our Bible. But what is your view of the canon of Scripture and how it came together? Do you believe that the Bible we have is reliable?
Answer. My view of the canon is that the books that make up our Bible are inspired by God, true, accurate, and reliable. To my mind, modern critiques of the Biblical canon have been refuted by many first-rate scholars. Here are some books I would recommend that explain how we got our Bible. All argue that the Scriptures we possess are completely reliable. The Canon of Scripture & Are the New Testament Documents Reliable?by F.F. Bruce. The Formation of the New Testament Canon by William Farmer & Denis Farkasfalvy. How We Got the Bible by Neil R. Lightfoot. The Birth of the New Testament by C.F.D. Moule. The Making of the New Testament by Arthur G. Patzia. By What Authority? by Bruce Shelley.
Dear Frank, I really enjoyed the chapter on "Reapproaching the New Testament." The analogy you gave about the sociologist really hit home. I agree that the order of the New Testament letters and the chapter/verse divisions makes seeing the Bible as a whole difficult. Do you know of a chronological Bible that leaves out the chapters and verses?
Answer. There are several. One is called The Narrated Bible in Chronological Order by F. LaGard Smith (Harvest House). Another is The New Testament: A Translation by William Barclay (Westminster John Knox Press). Another is called The Books of the Bible (International Bible Society). This one isn't all chronological; it categories some of the books by literary genre. With the exception that this Bible follows old scholarship on the dating of Galatians, it's a solid work. In addition, Thomas Nelson is releasing The NKJV Chronological Study Bible in October. I've not yet seen it so I cannot comment.
You talk about open church meetings where every member of the Body participates, both men and women. How do you deal with 1 Corinthans 14:33-34 where the women are asked to be silent?
Answer. Great question. Some of the best scholars disagree on this subject. You can read my interpretation of that text, as well as the one in 1 Timothy 2, in Reimagining a Woman's Role in the Church. Hope you find it helpful.
I agree with your points about the Bible not supporting a professional clergy. But what is your opinion on those ministries that take money? Don't you and George receive money for your books as authors? What's the difference between that and what you address in the book? Also do you recieve an honorarium when you speak? Thank you.
Answer. In the book, we are challenging something very specific: a paid professional clergy that receives a salary for being "the minister" to a local congregation. We discuss the biblical, historical, and pragmatic reasons for our challenge. By the same token, we have no problem with ministries that receive money from those who feel inclined to support them. For example, the New Testament teaches that church planters who spend their time on the road traveling to preach the gospel and raise up churches have a right to live off the gospel (see 1 Cor. 9). In addition, I personally support several ministries that help the poor around the world. And I have no problem with Christian authors being compensated for their labor in producing a product (like a book) or Christian musicians producing a product (like a music CD), both of which cost a huge amount of money to create. (By the way, if you're an author by trade, you're pretty much living by faith! Very few books sell like that of Rick Warren or Max Lucado.) All of these things are worlds apart from a paid professional "clergy" that's being salaried to minister to a local group of non-professionals called the "laity."
As to your second question, I don't have a problem with conference speakers receiving money for their speaking. However, I've chosen not to do so. Taking my que from Paul, I have never charged God's people whenever I've ministered to them. That would include conference-speaking as well when I labor in helping or planting a church.
For further thoughts on this subject, I would recommend three books:
Roland Allen's "Missionary Methods," Chapter 6 - Finace.
Watchman Nee's, "The Normal Christian Church Life," Chapter 8 - The Question of Finance.
Christian Smith's, "Going to the Root," Chapter 2 - Do Church Without Clergy.
Hi Frank. I was reading a blog who talked about Eugene Peterson. Apparently Peterson spoke at a conference recently and said that "the church in America is the abomination of desolation!" The reviewer went on to praise Peterson for being a jolting prophet. The irony is that this same reviewer trashed your and George's book, Pagan Christianity?, saying how harsh it was and how it was overstated. Man, doesn't he see the hypocrisy here? Why doesn't he realize his bias? What's your take on Peterson's statement?
Answer. I'm not sure. The comment "the church in America is an abomination of desolation" trumps anything George and I say in Pagan Christianity. If one reads that sentence literally, it's a cart blanche condemnation of all churches and all Christians, and a harsh one at that. I personally think Peterson is one of the most gifted writers of our time. His books on spiritual formation are without peer. That said, I would not agree with the statement that "the church in America is the abomination of desolation." As I've written in my book, FROM ETERNITY TO HERE, the church is the most beautiful woman in the world. In the eyes of God, she's drop-dead gorgeous, blameless, holy, and pure. And Jesus Christ is out of His head in love with her. The modern church system, however, is a different thing (and many Christians confuse the ekklesia with the religious system.) We point out in Pagan Christianity? that the modern church system is unbiblical and hinders the church from being all that God called her to be. But I wouldn't call it the "abomination of desolation." That's a bit much, I think.
Frank, I saw someone on a blog say that you and George hang your "whole argument" on 1 Corinthians 14:26 and that this text is stating a problem not the norm. What is your reply?
Answer. First, we never hang any argument on that one text. And it's certainly not the "whole argument" of the book, since the book is a study in why we do what we do in our churches today.
We used 1 Corinthians 14:26 as one example of what a NT church meeting was like. There are other texts we list throughout the book when we describe a normative church meeting in the NT - Heb. 10:24-25; Col. 3:16, etc. These are clear exhortations for every member functioning in corporate gatherings. Heb. 10 is the one most often used by pastors to get people to "go to church." Yet the whole text is about mutual exhortation. This was the pattern in the NT church. And that pattern is rooted in the strong NT theology - namely, the priesthood of all believers (1 Pet 2, etc.) and the every-member functioning of the Body of Christ (1 Cor. 12; Rom 12, etc.). It's also rooted in the spiritual instincts of every Christian. We have a spiritual instinct to share with others what God has revealed to us. We don't develop this thought (the early church meeting) in the book because Pagan Christianity is a study in what we do today and why we do it. We simply leave it to the reader to decide if the Sunday morning order of worship, which grew out of the Catholic Mass, is superior to the NT church meeting. My next book develops this idea.
Second, I know very few scholars who interpret 1 Cor. 14:26 as Paul stating a problem. Most all of them, including the top-drawer exegetes (F.F. Bruce, Ben Witherington, Gordon Fee, et al.) show clearly that this text is referring to what should be the norm. It's an exhortation and a "description of what should be happening" in Corinth's gatherings (as Gordon Fee put it). Later in the chapter, Paul simply reels in some of the chaos in the meetings without removing the open-participatory nature of the gatherings. This text harmonizes with both the spirit of the NT as well as other examples and exhortations throughout it. So it seems to me.
P.S. Keep in mind that in the above I'm strictly speaking of the kind of meeting that's envisioned in 1 Corinthians 14. There are other types of meetings that an ekklesia will organically have also (because they too are built into its spiritual DNA). I discuss the different kinds of meetings organic churches have in REIMAGINING CHURCH, Chapter 2.
I read some negative reviews on your book and was honestly skeptical. But I bought it, read it, and loved it. I found the chapter on Jesus, the Revolutionary to be one of the best, and I wish all the critics of the book would read that chapter. It really gives a different view of Jesus. My question is, I've got a friend who thinks you and George are trying to get the church to return to the ancient practices of the first century. (He hasn't read the book, he's just read a few reviews.) I see that you mention the first century church a lot in the book but you also mention the organic church. Can you clear up the difference? Oh, I love the quotes throughout the book. They by themselves are worth the price of admission.
Answer. "Jesus, the Revolutionary" is actually my favorite chapter in the book. In fact, I would recommend some readers to read that chapter first before they get into the content of the book. It will certainly help them to see the perspective from which we are writing.
As for the early church/New Testament church/first-century church, there does seem to be confusion among some readers. I've answered a similar question below, but I'll come at it from a different perspective here.
In short, when we look at the New Testament and we read about the church of Century One, we can draw a distinction between two kinds of practices: Cultural practices and Organic practices.
Cultural practices would be those practices that are tied to first-century culture. For instance, the Gentile believers spoke Greek, they didn't have Bibles, they met early in the morning so that the slaves could gather before work, they used torches to light up the rooms when they met in the evenings or early mornings, etc.
Organic practices are those practices that are tied to the DNA of the church. They embody the theology of the New Testament (e.g., the priesthood of all believers, the church as family, etc.), and they express the visible image of the invisible God (the Trinitarian Community). When we say "first-century practices" we are often using that as a synonym for "the organic expression of the church." These practices are built upon the spiritual principles that transcend time and culture. Some examples are the every-member functioning of the Body, the oneness of the Body, authentic community, the headship of Jesus Christ, every member is a minister and a priest, etc.
We are essentially arguing that many of the practices that make up the modern, institutional church were borrowed from Greco-Roman culture. We argue that they not only have no root in New Testament principles, but in many cases, they actually violate the DNA of the church. They run contrary to the organic expression of the Body of Christ. Not to mention that they are outdated for our time -- since many of them date back to the third, fourth, and fifth centuries.
A perfect example is the clergy/laity class distinction, and its cousin, the secular/spiritual dichotomy. In the book we trace these disconnects historically and show that they have pagan roots. But we go further. We show how and when these dichotomies infiltrated the church. Finally, we show how they do not square with the organic nature of the church, violate New Testament teaching, and in the end, prove harmful to the Body of Christ.
In short, those practices of the first-century church that are reflections of the DNA of the church, express its organic nature, embody New Testament theology, and spring out of the life of the Triune God ought not to be ignored or over-contextualized to the point that they disappear. My next book, due out in August, will explore this subject in far more detail.
HTH.
Frank, man, thanks so much for this book. I just finished it and it's rocking my world! Awesome book. Thanks too for listing the reviews. I've been following the reviews on this book and I'm perplexed. A few bloggers have charged you and George with promoting the only right model of doing church. Other bloggers have corrected them saying that this isn't what the book says, yet they seem to just ignore it. I read it and didn't see where you guys say that at all. Why do you suppose these people keep banging that same drum?
Answer. I'm not following all the reviews, so I really can't say. Nor would I dare judge the motives of my brothers and sisters in Christ. (Jesus had some pretty harsh things to say about those who engage in that sort of thing.) Some of my friends are reading all the reviews. Their comment is that virtually none of the negative reviews have actually interacted with any of the specific points the book makes, and so far, none of the reviewers are willing to engage me or George in a debate or discussion. They've also pointed out that half the negative reviews were written by people who have never read the book.
If we make a point in the book that's incorrect historically or biblically, I'd be happy to stand corrected. But no one has come to either of us with their corrections.
You are right in observing that George and I don't believe that there's a "right method" for doing church. A recent review done over at Kingdom Grace made this quite clear. The book doesn't suggest or imply the one "right" method. That's something that a few readers are bringing to the text themselves. In fact, the book says little about what we should do next outside of prayerful consideration before the Lord. (Some readers have been frustrated by this. They want the five-step silver bullet solution.)
I plan to tackle some constructive alternatives in the sequel, which I submit to the publisher on Tuesday (it comes out this summer). I certainly don't believe that I have all the answers. As I've stated in some of the recent interviews (see above), the issues are quite complex. I'm still in school and believe that as long as I draw breath, I'll always be.
Those who read "Pagan" and want to know my views on ecclesiology should read FROM ETERNITY TO HERE (endorsed by some of the major voices in the Christian world). "From Eternity" is a narrative theology of the Misseo Dei (Eternal Purpose of God) putting Jesus Christ and His church at the center. The book unfolds God's dream for a community on the earth that reflects the community of the Triune God -- tracing this theme from Genesis to Revelation. They will also be interested in THE UNTOLD STORY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH which is a narrative ecclesiology unfolding God's quest for community through the New Testament chronologically. Both books develop the chapter in Pagan Christainity entitled "Reapproaching the New Testament: The Bible is Not a Jigsaw Puzzle," which challenges the cut-and-paste/clipboard approach to Bible study and offers a fresh way to approach Scripture.
I've been reading a particular blog that's critiquing Pagan Christianity. I keep wondering if the guy read the same book that I did. Turns out he's a pastor. He made the charge that you and George have been hurt by some pastor in your past and that's why you've written the book. Could you respond?
Answer. I'd like to borrow this person's mind-reading cap sometime :-)
I've never been hurt by a pastor or any leader in the institutional church. In fact, all the pastors I've had a personal relationship with have helped me spiritually, and I have great respect for each of them. There are numerous pastors who read my books, and some of them are my friends. While I disagree with them on the subject of ecclesiology, it hasn't affected our relationship to date. Interestingly, every person I know who has dared to challenge the clergy system has at one time or another been accused of being hurt by a clergyman and painted as a bitter, disgruntled soul. It appears to be a convenient way to dismiss or discredit anyone who dares to question the status quo. Personally, I've never seen this tactic work. It usually ends up backfiring.
While we're discussing the clergy system, I've been reading John Howard Yoder lately. Here are some of his contra "one-man-preacher-pastor-clergy-office" insights, many of which map to the same points that George and I make in "Pagan."
[Beginning of Yoder]
"The whole concern of Reformation theology was to justify restructuring the organized church without shaking its foundations."
"There are few more reliable constants running through all human society than the special place every human community makes for the professional religionist . . . But if we were to ask whether any of the N.T. literature makes the assumptions listed -- Is there one particular office in which there should be only one or a few individuals for whom it provides a livelihood, unique in character due to ordination, central to the definition of the church and the key to her functioning? Then the answer from the biblical material is a resounding negation [no]."
"The conclusion is inescapable that the multiplicity of ministries is not a mere adiaphoron, a happenstance of only superficial significance, but a specific work of grace and a standard for the church."
"Losing the specific and original trait of the primitive community, the church by and large became again subject to the usual anthropologically universal pattern of the single, sacramentally qualified religionist. By and large . . . this pattern has continued to our day in churches of every polity and theology."
"Let us then ask first not whether there is a clear, solid concept of preaching, but whether there was in the N.T. one particular preaching office, identifiable as distinctly as the other ministries. Neither in the most varied picture (Corinthians) nor in the least varied (Pastoral Epistles) is there one particular ministry thus defined."
[End of Yoder]
By the way, I got a call yesterday from a former pastor at Willow Creek who wanted to encourage me regarding the book. He told me that he spent an entire evening reading all the reviews on Pagan Christianity and went on to say that many people are raving about it, but some are being put on heart medication because of it. He contiuned to encourage me, which I appreciated very much. Another friend recently reminded me of the "BUT SOME" phenomenon that we read about in the Lord's ministry. If you don't know what the BUT SOME phenomenon is, here's a preview:
Luke 11:14-15 - And he was casting out a devil, and it was dumb. And it came to pass, when the devil was gone out, the dumb spake; and the people wondered. BUT SOME of them said, "He casteth out devils through Beelzebub the chief of the devils."
John 11:45-46 - Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on him. BUT SOME of them went their ways to the Pharisees, and told them what things Jesus had done.
Matt. 28:17 - And when they saw him [Jesus Christ], they worshipped him: BUT SOME doubted.
And again:
Luke 23:5 - And they were the more fierce, saying, He stirreth up the people, teaching throughout all Jewry, beginning from Galilee to this place.
A word of encouragement to anyone who takes a stand against traditional thinking: Some will appreciate it; BUT SOME will not. And whether you like it or not, there's an excellent chance that you may find yourself stirring up the people.
It seems to be written in the bloodstream of the universe.
Selah.
Hey Frank. I want to thank you so much for the book. I was floored by it! An amazing work. Hey, I've been following one guy's blog and he's doing a good job slamming the book. Makes one think that you and George believe devils exist in church buildings and every traditional Christian is a pagan! He's leaving out so many points you guys make in the book and then accuses you and George of failing to acknowledge those points. Didn't know that spin doctors existed in the emerging church until now. Would you debate this guy if the opportunity arose?
Answer. Thanks for the kind words. Someone recently said to me that "the book is a bombshell dropped on the traditional church playground so don't be surprised if some people do whatever they can to discredit and dismiss it, that includes being intellectually dishonest."
It's possible to be captured by the same spirit one opposes . . . and not even realize it. Church history bears this out all too plainly.
Yes, I'd be willing to do a public debate.
A number of people are reacting to this statement in the book -- "the church, in its contemporary, institutional form, has neither a biblical nor a historical right to exist." What did you mean by that exactly?
Answer. This statement appears in the Advanced Reader Copy of the book which went out to reviewers and magazines. The published edition (hardback) which was printed a few weeks afterwards and sent to bookstores phrases it this way:
We are also making an outrageous proposal: that the church in its contemporary, institutional form has neither a biblical nor a historical right to function as it does. This proposal, of course, is our conviction based on the historical evidence that we shall present in the book. You must decide if that proposal is valid or not. (page xx)
Note the words we use are "a biblical nor a historical right." That simply means that what we are calling "the institutional church" (the book defines this) has no "biblical" merit or justification. And historically, it can be demonstrated that the church in its present form didn't originate with God, but from human inventions and traditions. (This is what we give historical evidence for in the book.)
This doesn't mean the church in its present form is evil, bad, sinful, or useless. Nor does it mean that God hasn't and isn't using it, despite its shortcomings. It simply means that the institutional form we're speaking of has no "Scriptural basis." And as we argue in the book, many of its features actually contradict the teachings of Scripture.
Let me offer an example. Suppose that someone in our time began to say, "We need to change the way we have the Lord's Supper. From now on, we're going to replace the fruit of the vine with Dr. Pepper and the bread with french fries. (All those between the ages of six and ten break out into applause.) And instead of remembering Jesus Christ and His death/resurrection, we're going to remember David's victory over Goliath."
Now suppose this idea catches on. And after three hundred years, it's essentially the universal way that Christians take the Lord's Supper (Eucharist). It goes unchallenged and unquestioned. In fact, most Christians can't conceive taking the Lord's Supper any other way.
Is there anything morally wrong with drinking Dr. Pepper or eating french fries (not counting the opinion of some nutritionists). I'd say no. Is there anything wrong with remembering and celebrating David's victory over Goliath? I'd say no. But, I would argue that the original meaning and intention that Jesus Christ and the apostles gave to us ("handed down") regarding the Lord's Supper has been utterly changed and emptied of its original meaning. And whatever the Lord's Supper was originally supposed to embody in the mind of God has been lost. Thus, to my thinking, taking the Lord's Supper in this new fashion has no Biblical merit. Or to put it differently, in this particular form "it doesn't have a Scriptural or historical right to function as it does."
In like manner, we are saying that the modern, inherited, institutional form of church has strayed far, far afield from the New Testament concept of "church" in the teachings of Jesus and the apostles. And we are asking the question: Should we keep supporting this inherited form or should we begin to do things differently?
No doubt, there's a better way of phrasing that sentence; but it seemed to make sense to us at the time.
I hope that helps.
Here are some questions I want you to address. Do you believe that the only kind of meeting a church should have is an open meeting where everyone shares equally? Does the Bible really teach that? Do you believe it's wrong for Christians to meet in a building? Do you deny that the early church met in the Temple as well as in homes? Do you believe there are never times when a Christian can preach and teach from the Bible?
Answer. These questions are all answered in the book. And the answer to all of them is "no." To be specific, we show that there were two kinds of meetings in the NT: 1) apostolic meetings -- where someone ministers to an audience temporarily for equipping, and 2) church meetings -- where every member functions and participates to display Jesus Christ.
In many (if not most) modern churches today, what we call "church" is in a way similar to an apostolic meeting, though it never ends and there's no equipping for God's people to gather under Christ's headship. And the "church meeting" has been utterly abandoned.
What most Christians call "church" today is really a religious service/performance that's dominated by the preaching of typically one person. We're challenging that in the book. In fact, we're challenging the entire Protestant liturgy. (Footnote: In my personal judgment, the church of Jesus Christ is dying for a lack of creativity. We Protestants keep repeating a 500-year old ritual with little change. Thank God some of us have broken through to something different, and we've found an entirely new universe on the other side.)
We never say it's wrong to meet in a building. (A "building" and a typical "church building" are two different things, and we're questioning the purpose/function/usefulness of the latter.) I don't believe there's anything wrong with meeting in a building in and of itself. We point out in one chapter how Paul of Tarsus rented the hall of Tyrannus for apostolic meetings in Ephesus. I myself have held apostolic meetings in a rented building for a short space of time to raise up a church or to hold a lengthy conference for a network of churches. I've also seen some church buildings renovated to be more conducive for every-member functioning. Interesting stories on that score.
The church in Jerusalem did use the Temple at times, but it wasn't in the way that many people assume. The Jerusalem saints didn't meet in the Temple per se. They gathered in the Temple courts (Solomon's porch) which was a large outside area with a roof over it. They did so for a certain period of time to hold apostolic meetings. This was during the birth of the Jerusalem church. They also used it to accommodate the large city-wide council they held regarding a schism in Antioch.
The apostles also visited the synagogues for evangelistic purposes. But the assembly held its church meetings in homes throughout the city. We make this point in the book, and it's something often misunderstood today. There are apostolic meetings, evangelistic meetings, and church meetings. And there's a big difference between "the work" and "the church," something that the next volume will explore.
Finally, I'm all for preaching and teaching in church meetings, in apostolic meetings, and in conferences. I do it, in fact. It's the shape of the order of worship and the modern sermon that we challenge. The modern sermon being an oration that a pastor is paid to deliver to the same congregation every week ad infinitum. We challenge these things on historical, biblical, and pragmatic grounds.
I hope that clarifies.
Can you give some clarity on what you mean by the words "biblical basis," "unbiblical," and "unscriptural practices"? These words in the book seem to be causing a lot of confusion to some people. They think you are arguing for only one way of doing church that replicates the first century church across the board. Can you shed light on this?
Answer. Great question! As with most authors, when I sit down to write (or as Tom Wright puts it, when I sit down in front of my computer and "open a vein"), I have one or two audiences in mind that I'm speaking to. When I wrote Pagan Christianity, our primary audience was the evangelical Christian world. That would include Charismatic/Pentecostals also. Consequently, in the book, George and I speak that language. Terms like "Biblical basis," "Scriptural support," "Biblical merit," etc. are pretty well understood by most people in that tradition, and I'd dare say, by most Protestants in general.
I was in the institutional church for thirteen years. During that time, I was part of about a dozen different Protestant denominations and five different parachurch organizations. Without exception, all of them claimed that their practices were "based in the Word of God." Terms like "Biblical" and "Scriptural" were a big part of their theological and ecclesiastical vocabularies.
To some people, these terms can conjure up all sorts of ideas. To some, I think they may conjure up what the Church of Christ doctrine calls "the silence of the Scripture." That doctrine teaches that if something is not mentioned in the NT, we shouldn't do it. And if it is in the NT, we must do it. (In Reformed circles, it's known as "the regulative principle.")
I don't hold to that doctrine at all. To my mind, it's an unlivable doctrine, and it's highly legalistic. "The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life," Paul said.
Nor do I hold to what I call "Biblical blueprintism." This is the idea that within the pages of the NT lies an ironclad pattern for doing church that's as inflexible as the law of the Medes and Persians.
No such pattern exists. Historically, those who believed they had "the pattern" and claimed to practice it ended up splitting six ways to Sunday. Because not everyone agrees on the specificities of the pattern.
What I do believe, however, is that the New Testament contains a revelation of Jesus Christ and His church. As we say repeatedly in the book (especially at the end where we field questions), the church of the first-century was organic. And that organism we call the church has the same DNA today as it did in Century One. Thus when I use terms like "Biblical" or "Scriptural" or "first-century church practices" or "first-century experience" or "Biblical merit," I'm speaking of the organism called ekklesia as it's discussed and envisioned in the NT, the features of which she possesses yesterday, today, and tomorrow.
What are some of those features which are native to her DNA? Features like the headship of Jesus Christ (He alone is the Head of the Body), face-to-face authentic community, the every-member functioning of the Body, mutual submission, the family nature of the church, the priesthood of all believers, etc. I'm speaking of the spiritual principles that embody the life of the church which are rooted and grounded in NT teaching. I sometimes call this "the organic expression of the church," "gathering in NT fashion," "meeting first-century style," or "NT-style church." Many different terms to describe the same concept, which is pretty broad.
It's important to know that this book intentionally, deliberately, and with forethought, does not discuss the above in any detail at all. In fact, we repeatedly say in the book that the whole question of the NT organic church will be dealt with comprehensively in the next volume (REIMAGINING CHURCH, which is now available). That's where the discussion of solutions will be engaged. The book will also answer questions like: What is normative in the first-century church vs. what is culturally relative? Is there such a thing as a NT ecclesiology? Can NT principles actually work in the 21st century? And something I mention in "Pagan," but never fully develop: What is a narrative ecclesiology?
That said, what we do in "Pagan" is make three points:
* Much of what we do for church today has no root in the NT. It didn't come from Jesus Christ, the apostles, or any NT author. And much of it didn't even come from Judaism. (So let's stop calling those practices Biblical and treating them as though they were God-breathed.) I personally find the history of our church practices to be fascinating, riveting, arresting, stunning, captivating, and even mind-blowing.
* Much of what we do for church today originated from Greco-Roman customs (the practices of pagans) and human-made inventions. (So let's acknowledge this and not pretend that they are inspired by God.)
* Many of those practices, we believe, actually hinder the church from being what God designed her to be and how she should function. (Be open to that possibility; it just might be true.)
One thousand plus footnotes later, we leave it up to the reader to decide if our accepted church practices are a development or a departure from what we find in the NT regarding the church.
The next book will explore that question in great depth.
So Pagan Christianity is not the end of the story; it's only the beginning. It's the "clearing away the debris" phase before a new foundation can be laid and a new paradigm introduced.
Hope that makes sense.
Now let me add an endnote to the subject I began this email with -- writing.
Here are choice words from Winston Churchill. They happen to be my experience . . . unfortunately.
"Writing is an adventure. To begin with, it is a toy and an amusement. Then it becomes a mistress, then it becomes a master, then it becomes a tyrant. The last phase is that just as you are about to be reconciled to your servitude, you kill the monster and fling him to the public."
And yes, I felt that way when writing my part of Pagan Christianity.
One of the charges against the book is that you and George are using overstatements, etc. Your response?
Answer. What's an overstatement? The answer largely depends upon which hill a person is standing at the time they read a book. What some say is an "overstatement" others say is a "prophetic challenge."
I remember once hearing a friend charge a particular church book with being "riddled with overstatements." Today, this same friend feels that the author made his case. What happened? New grooves were cut in his brain that didn't exist at his first reading.
When a particular book is loved and loathed at the same time, the vital question to ask is . . . are these "overstatements" backed up by reliable evidence? If they are, then I wouldn't call them "overstatements."
The traditional understanding of church is so entrenched in our thinking that it's very difficult for us to analyze our current practices critically. What we�re up against is a mindset. All of the solutions that Christian leaders have given -- more prayer, more preaching, more Bible reading, more good works, etc -- all assume that the present-day ecclesial mindset is correct and shouldn't be tampered with. At bottom, we are really dealing with a problem of how we think and conceptualize.
Let me see if I can illustrate this. I was in a conversation not too long ago with someone who argued that they understood the church to be God's people, a face-to-face community, the very Bride of Christ in a locality, and not a building, a denomination, or a religious service. Minutes later this person began saying to someone else, "So which church do you go to?" This is one example of how deep the mindset runs. It's burned into the circuitry of our brains. (If you didn't catch that, read the book and learn where the idea of "going to church" came from. And how it's at odds with the NT understanding of church.)
Another example was when I was in a conversation with a pastor of a small church. Some of the church members were present with him in the living room. He told me how much "his people" didn't look to him before they make decisions. How "his people" were free. How "his people" were not controlled by him in any way. Nor were they dependent on him but on Jesus. (Interestingly, everyone in the room would look to him before they threw in their comments and at him as they spoke. Both he and they were completely out of touch with this.)
Anyway, this pastor was completely unconscious of the fact that he kept using the term "my people" as he continued to tell me how they belonged to the Lord and not to himself.
Again, the clergy mindset runs deeper that many of us can imagine. (Overstatement?)
I believe that one of the ways to help break this mindset is to state the truth graciously, but without compromise and dilution. This naturally opens one up for the charge of making overstatements. Yet I believe the important question is not "is a sentence overstated?," but "do the authors support and justify that statement with their arguments and research?"
Keep in mind that a big part of what we are doing in the book is to bring together many of the "overstatements" made by competent and reputable historians, scholars, and theologians along with their research which supports those statements. Here's a sampling of what I mean. Consider for yourself if you feel these are "over-the-top, overstatements" or not. At face value, they sure seem that way to me:
The term �laity� is one of the worst in the vocabulary of religion and ought to be banished from the Christian conversation. (Overstatement?)
- Karl Barth
The clergy-laity tradition has done more to undermine New Testament authority than most heresies. (Overstatement?)
- James D.G. Dunn
The New Testament 'Ecclesia,' the fellowship of Jesus Christ, is a pure communion of persons and has nothing to do with the character of an institution about it; it is therefore misleading to identify any single one of the historically developed churches (which are all marked by an institutional character) with the true Christian communion. (Huge overstatement? . . . read the part again beginning with "it is therefore misleading . . .")
- Emil Brunner
I also believe that what goes on in them [support groups] is far closer to what Christ meant His Church to be, and what it originally was, than much of what goes on in most churches I know. These groups have no buildings or official leadership or money. They have no rummage sales, no altar guilds, no every-member canvases. They have no preachers, no choirs, no liturgy, no real estate. They have no creeds. They have no program. They make you wonder if the best thing that could happen to many a church might not be to have its building burned down and to lose all its money. Then all the people would have left is God and each other. (Big Matzo ball overstatement?)
- Frederick Buechner
The clergy-laity dichotomy is a direct carry-over from pre-Reformation Roman Catholicism and a throwback to the Old Testament priesthood. It is one of the principal obstacles to the church effectively being God�s agent of the kingdom today because it creates a false idea that only �holy men,� namely, ordained ministers, are really qualified and responsible for leadership and significant ministry. In the New Testament there are functional distinctions between various kinds of ministries but no hierarchical division between clergy and laity. (Overstatement?)
- Howard Snyder
A growing number of people are leaving the institutional church for a new reason. They are not leaving because they have lost their faith. They are leaving the church to preserve their faith. (Overstatement?)
- Reggie McNeal
I have a friend who likes to say "the solution to all the problems of the church is to shoot all the pastors and burn down all the church buildings." Now that's what I'd call "Overstatement City." And no, I don't agree with it; it's just a sick joke.
As a potential reader of this controversial book, my advice to you is simple: Read the book for yourself and interact with the arguments made, look at the footnotes and check them out for yourself, and then decide if what we're doing is inflating it with fluffy overstatements or if what we're saying is substantiated by hard historical evidence. Also keep in mind that the book has been endorsed by some top-drawer historians and scholars.
On that fine note, let me rehearse a story that captures the entire thrust of Pagan Christianity, which is essentially a polemic/deconstructive work that seeks not to offer solutions, but to challenge conventional church practices and thinking.
A mother and daughter were working together in their kitchen preparing their Easter dinner. As was her custom every year, the mother took a ham out of the fridge and put it on a cutting board. She would then cut about an inch off both ends of the ham. Once the mother did this, the daughter stopped her and said: "Mother, why did you cut both ends off the ham?"
The mother stopped dead in her tracks and pondered the question. She was perplexed since no one had ever asked her why she did this before. She had done it that way as long as she could remember.
The mother answered and said: "Well sweetie, I don't know the answer to your question. Your Grandma always cut the ends off her ham, and I have always done it the same way. I never ever asked why. Let's call Grandma and ask her why she cuts the ham that way."
So they grabbed the phone and called Grandma. The mother asked her own mother if she knew why she cut the ends of the ham off before placing it in the pan. The Grandmother fell silent. She never thought about it. She simply said, "That's the way my mother always did it. Why don't you call her and ask why?"
She hung up the phone and dialed the little girl's great-grandmother, and she asked the question: "Why did you cut off both ends of the ham before cooking it?" The great-grandmother replied instantly: "It was because we couldn't afford a pan large enough to hold the ham. So we cut both ends off to make it fit."
This story can be applied to much of what we do for "church
Sorry, this is the original html for the site. http://www.paganchristianity.org/answers.php
Dr. Phil, coming from a man who preaches a baptism of a spirit with an unintelligible unscriptural prayer language I doubt you know what is rebellion if you were in it, brother.
First REASON with God, and His word, THEN CAST the TREE TRUNK FROM YOUR EYE, and later judge...
Dr. Phil, coming from a man who preaches a baptism of a spirit with an unintelligible unscriptural prayer language I doubt you know what is rebellion if you were in it, brother.
First REASON with God, and His word, THEN CAST the TREE TRUNK FROM YOUR EYE, and later judge...
There is a reasoning with god but it is all based on having first heard the word of God, when I speak of God It is the father of the lord Jesus Christ and he speaks with his children Spirit to Spirit, not Spirit to mind as some would try to convince others of.
Yes I do believe the word of God.
I do not believe your word of unbelief that praying in tongues is unscriptural, actually It is blasphemy as far as I am concerned, and you seem to enjoy it.
Not being willing to have an hear to hear the word's of the kingdom..
The Kingdom of God operates by having an ear to hear and then choosing to believe what is heard and mixing faith with the word's of the kingdom.
There is a reasoning with god but it is all based on having first heard the word of God, when I speak of God It is the father of the lord Jesus Christ and he speaks with his children Spirit to Spirit, not Spirit to mind as some would try to convince others of.
Yes I do believe the word of God.
ME: Not enough to research the baptism you say you have and the Biblical tongues (you don't have) and say you speak.
I do not believe your word of unbelief that praying in tongues is unscriptural, actually It is blasphemy as far as I am concerned, and you seem to enjoy it.
ME: I know you don't, brother. It is also expected, for the Scriptures say that in the last days people will drift from the faith and follow things that tickle their ears and follow it no matter what is written.
Even Jesus spoke against tongues. "VAIN REPETITIONS" in Matthew 6:7 is Greek for botolageo. THAT WORD MEANS PERPETUAL STUTTERER.
Jesus even says that it is an UNBELIEVERS prayer, brother. STUDY THYSELF TO SHOW YOURSELF APPROVED.
Not being willing to have an hear to hear the word's of the kingdom..
ME: I challenge you to search this doctrine out, brother. Are you willing?
The Kingdom of God operates by having an ear to hear and then choosing to believe what is heard and mixing faith with the word's of the kingdom.
The Kingdom of God cannot be seen or entered into unless one is BORN AGAIN, brother. It is Scriptural.
uuuh, Agapeton you havne't read the book either, so what your point, not have to read any of his books, nor do you know about any of these people who endorse his book... they are are or have been PASTORS OF large churches , and are now PAID SPEAKERS who get PAID to give lectures because its maor money in lecturing than pastoring a church. uuuuh, funny how Viola can judge and cndemn pastors standing before the congregation preaching on Sunday's yet he stands before and audience (congregation) and speaks during his speaking engagements and HCARGES FROM $2,500.00 to $5,000.00 for a 45min to one hour speech!
So what is the difference in his speaking engagements, and a pastor ministering the word of God on Sunday morning to a congergation (audience) which is the same as the audience Viola is speaking?
Also, most all those pastors who endorse Viola beleive in speaking in tongue, becasue Viola's assocaiates including Leonard Sweet are connected to the NAR movement, and most of these pasotrs, have many unbiblical beliefs and teachings.
After reading... no, AFTER doing MY RESEARCH, and reviewing the list of those who support Viola, I can no longer wonder why, because these are the men who teach in error of what scripture says.
You are agree with some one and a teaching you know nothing about, just becasue you are young in the word yourself, and easily influenced by doctrines that itch your ears, and agree with your disdain and anger for the church for whatever reason.... you are confused since coming out of the Catholic church seeking something new... especially, since you are not rooted and grounded spiritually in God's Word of Truth as you should be and You would like to THINK you are...
