A Review of Pagan Christianity (Part 1)
“Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment” (John 7:24).
One of the most significant (because it is relevant) books in recent years to be published is Pagan Christianity: Exploring the Roots of our Church Practices. It was first copyrighted in 2002 and then again in 2008 and 2012 with succeeding editions. The authors are Frank Viola, a leader in “the organic church movement” (according to the back cover), and George Barna, who has written dozens of books, including The Frog in the Kettle. This one is well-researched; just the chapter dealing with church buildings contains 213 footnotes. A quotation from Arthur Schopenhauer appears after the Table of Contents page and is cited below:
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as self-evident (xii).
No one could doubt that the above lines are true of Christianity, which went through those stages. After Constantine, however, Christianity was accepted almost unquestioningly. The problem is that the same can be said of error. Evolution was, in its inception, opposed and rejected. After several decades, it was accepted as self-evident, even though it has never been proven scientifically.
Divorce was once regarded as a disgrace. When Nelson Rockefeller desired to run for president in 1964, many thought his divorce would keep him from being successful; they were right. However, in 1980, the divorced Ronald Reagan handily won election—twice. Abortion was despised for decades until the Supreme Court legislated it into legality from the bench. Now even a large number of those opposed to it do not want Roe v. Wade overturned (reportedly). Many people were originally repulsed by homosexuality, but now this perversion is considered a bona fide relationship by half of the country. The point is that all of these things that are immoral according to the Bible are now regarded as acceptable—even though they are wrong.
A similar process occurred with the adoption of instrumental music. Today, most people consider it so self-evident that mechanical instruments of music be part of worship to God that they have given up trying to find Scriptural authority for the practice. Yet for hundreds of years it was not used by Christians, and it was vigorously opposed whenever introduced. All of these examples prove the point that teachings which are first resisted but later accepted does not prove they are true. Error often follows the same pattern of acceptance as truth. Therefore, just because an idea is new and objected to strongly before being embraced as an inviolable practice does not mean it is true. Perhaps the authors do not mean to imply that the teachings presented in their book will first be rejected before being accepted, but the reader does get that impression.
The authors explain that many current traditions became accepted over the years that are not a part of the original concept of the church, and in this charge they are correct (xxi). Equally accurate are they in saying some things in the New Testament are no longer being observed by professing Christians (xxii). The main thesis of the book is that many “Christians” today practice what actually came from pagan culture! They do establish this hypothesis as the chapters unfold, although there are some things they do not consider thoroughly.
They mostly reject institutional churches and so do we, but our reason is that denominations lack Bible authority for their very existence. In their place the authors favor organic churches, which are “Spirit-led” and “open-participatory” with “nonhierarchical leadership” (xxiii). We too reject hierarchies invented by men. If open-participatory means that all are involved in offering up worship, we have been teaching that for centuries. The real danger lies in their phrase, Spirit-led. If they mean that Christians must be led by what the Spirit revealed in the New Testament, we agree, but if they refer to personal nudges and feelings, we are at odds.
By the Book
Viola and Barna are coming at the focus of their discussion from a different position than those of us in the churches of Christ do. For example, they state: “We are taught to obey our denomination (or movement) and never challenge what it teaches” (5). One of the first things this writer remembers hearing as a visitor was the preacher saying, “Don't take our word for anything you have heard taught here today. Search the Scriptures to make sure that you are being taught the truth.” This same sentiment has been expressed in congregations all over the world. It may be true that denominations do not encourage investigation, but the Bible does. The Bereans even checked out an inspired apostle to be certain that what he taught was in harmony with the Old Testament (Acts 17:11).
On many occasions this writer has assured brethren that he would never intentionally say or write anything that he knew to be untrue, but as a fallible human being, the possibility of error is ever-present. Therefore, what he or anyone else teaches must be compared with the Scriptures. If they are in agreement with each other, then the doctrine should be taken to heart—and applied. If they do not jell, the teaching should be challenged. Many Catholics have reported that they were taught not to ask questions, and the attitude of many in denominations is, “This is what we teach; it is our doctrine.” They do not often defend those beliefs, they just point out that these teachings make them Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist, etc. In centuries past, many of these groups would defend their beliefs, but such rarely occurs today. The authors of the book are probably correct when they say “we Christians never seem to ask why we do what we do” (5). For that reason the material they present is refreshing, and much of what they conclude members of the churches of Christ have been saying for centuries.
Since Viola and Barna use pagan as part of their title, it would be appropriate to let them define what they mean by the word. The origin of the word, they explain, referred to country dwellers who clung to the traditional Roman pantheon. Most Christians dwelt in cities, and they grouped all of those non-urban individuals together (pagans) (7). They may have been moral individuals and believed in the support of family and government; they just were not Christians.
The thesis includes two additional aspects. The first of these is the historical fact that the Emperor Constantine exercised a great influence upon the church which Jesus had established. Brethren had endured wave after wave of persecution, but it ended when Constantine issued the Edict of Toleration (311, 313). The second postulate is that Constantine also took pagan elements and made them Christian. The authors say that many of the elements of paganism “were absorbed by Christians in the first half of the first millennium, particularly during the Constantinian and early post-Constantinian eras (324 to 600)” (6-7). Keeping these principles in mind provides the framework for understanding the remainder of the material in their fascinating book.
The Church Building
The opening lines of chapter two could not be any closer to the truth: “MANY CONTEMPORARY CHRISTIANS have a love affair with brick and mortar” (10, emph. theirs). They refer to this obsession as having an “edifice complex” (10). Worse, many cannot distinguish between the church, which the New Testament describes as a body of believers and a mere building where Christians meet together for worship and other activities. Of course, we are not surprised to hear visitors look around at the ceiling and walls and comment, “You have a nice church here.” But it is painful to hear members (who ought to know better) echo the same sentiments. One brother frequently said, “I'm going down to clean the church.” This writer responded by saying, “It's about time. A lot of the members need straightening out.” It is doubtful that the point was ever actually perceived, but it was repeated several times anyway. Those who refer to the building as the house of God make the same mistake. Christians are the house of God (1 Tim. 3:15).
According to the authors, it was not until A.D. 190 that anyone used the Greek word ekklesia (which means literally “the called out” and usually refers to an assembly of people) to refer to a meeting place for Christians (11-12). We owe Clement of Alexandria for that inaccuracy, as well as coining the phrase, go to church. Since Christians comprise the church, we do not go to ourselves; we go to a place where we can meet other members, which are all part of the church, and together we offer up our worship to God. Furthermore, brethren did not build any buildings in which to meet until after A.D. 300 (12).
Viola and Barna affirm that Constantine “began ordering the construction of church buildings” (18) shortly after his mother, Helena, took a trip to Jerusalem in A.D. 327 (21). He built nine of them in Rome (some of them at public expense) and others in Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and Constantinople (21). The authors credit him with being “the father of the church building” (21). Of course, this information makes it look as though the church building was man’s idea and therefore not authorized, but that is not entirely the case. The New Testament teaches that brethren met on the first day of the week, which was the practice of Christians in the first century (Acts 20:6-7; Heb. 10:25). However, being required to meet necessitates a place to meet. We know that at times brethren met in houses (1 Cor. 16:19; Col. 4:15). They also met in an upper room (Acts 20:8). The New Testament does not specify where many others met. Where did the 5,000 meet in Jerusalem? Perhaps they congregated in an area of the temple (for a while). Brethren could meet in the open, but such an arrangement has disadvantages related to the weather. They could have rented a place to meet on the Lord’s day, or brethren could buy (or build) a facility to use. None of these options is specifically forbidden. All of them are authorized by implication by the fact that Christians need a place to meet. So, while Constantine’s motives for building a building may differ from ours today, it does not take away from the fact that physical structures are authorized.
Constantine’s Motives
It would appear that the Roman Emperor desired to pattern Christianity and its practices after paganism.
The church edifices built under Constantine were patterned exactly after the model of the basilica. These were the common government buildings, designed after Greek pagan temples (22).
This fact does not mean that buildings are unauthorized—just that, when they were built, a poor model was chosen. Like the pagan temples, the front of the building usually faced east (22), and each building was replete with an elevated platform (what we would today call a stage) and “a rail or screen that separated the clergy from the laity” (23). In the center of the building was an altar table or “a chest covered with a lid” (23). The bread and the cup were placed on the table. Another piece of furniture was the “bishop’s chair,” called the cathedra. The bishop preached from that chair (hence the phrase, ex cathedra) (23).
One might begin questioning at this point about the bishop, since the New Testament teaches a plurality of bishops or elders in a congregation (Phil. 1:1; Acts 14:23). It must be noted that in less than 200 years, a few departures had occurred from the doctrine of the New Testament. Initially, churches had two or more elders, and one of these began to be called the president because he presided over the meetings. At first he had no more authority than the other bishops, but over a period of time he became known as the bishop, and he eventually assumed a greater authority than the others. Constantine influenced the church to have a hierarchy not unlike the Roman government, although there was no universal bishop in his day to correspond to the emperor. Nevertheless, the church Jesus established was definitely headed in this erroneous direction, which culminated with the papacy.
In two centuries, a fascination had arisen regarding relics, which were bones or other objects related to dead Christians. When Helena, Constantine’s mother, went to Jerusalem “she reportedly found the cross and nails that were used to crucify Jesus” (20). The emperor himself “promoted the idea that the bits of wood that came from Christ’s cross possessed spiritual powers” (20). The chest with the covered lid in buildings allegedly contained “the relics of the martyrs” (23). Of course, none of these concepts is even remotely Biblical; nevertheless, fondness for these objects persisted for more than a thousand years; some may yet hold them in high regard—despite demonstrable fraud.
What happened during the two centuries following the establishment of the church is that “Christians began to adopt the pagan view of reverencing the dead” (15). Not only did they revere the relics, which honored the dead, they eventually began praying for the martyrs and then later to them instead of to the Father through Jesus. Those who gave their lives for the cause of Christ shall indeed receive honor from God for their faith, as the book of Revelation teaches, but nowhere does the Bible authorize these types of practices.
Even if it could be proven that we had the nails which were used to crucify Jesus, why should we expect them to have some sort of magical properties (like curing illness)? If we had the bones of an actual martyr, would that make God more disposed to bless us than He is now? These would only be material objects. Furthermore, the Bible provides no reason whatsoever to pray for the dead. Once the spirit departs from the body, a person’s life is over, and his eternal abode is already fixed. If he, like Lazarus, was taken by angels to Abraham’s bosom, no individual possessed with an ounce of kindness would want him removed from Paradise. On the other hand, it would do no good to pray for the rich man because, as much as we could wish otherwise, he will remain in torment as the result of the way he chose to live his life. Those of us who remain on earth have no power to override the decisions that the departed made while they were still alive. Nothing can be altered once anyone leaves this earth. Therefore, nothing can be accomplished in trying to pray for them.
Likewise, nothing profitable occurs by praying to the martyrs (or any other faithful Christian who had died). We might be grateful for their lives and their examples of faithfulness and good works, but these admirable qualities that they possessed do not elevate them to the position of Deity. Not only did God never imbue them with the power to answer prayers, they could not do so without being Divine, which of course they are not. The Scriptures are clear on this point. When Jesus went to Capernaum, a paralytic man was lowered through the roof of the house where Jesus was teaching. When Jesus said to the man, “Son, your sins are forgiven you,” the scribes reasoned in their hearts, “Why does this man speak blasphemies like this? Who can forgive sins but God alone?” (Mark 2:5-7). They were correct: Only God can forgive sins! They just did not want to admit that Jesus is God. Martyred Christians or other dead brethren, therefore, have no power to forgive sins, since they are not God. It is futile and wrong to pray to them.
When church buildings began to be built, the chest covered with a lid (which served as an altar) in the center of the building often contained relics inside, and therefore this altar was considered the most holy place in the building. Eventually, a church was not considered legitimate unless it contained at least one relic (23). Of course, in the first century, since Christians had not built such structures, neither the building (the non-existent one), nor the altar were considered holy. Through Constantine’s influence, however, many things were about to change; departures from the faith were about to occur.