A Review of Pagan Christianity (Part 4)
“Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment” (John 7:24).
Frank Viola and George Barna, who authored the book, Pagan Christianity?, could have performed a valuable service to the religious world if they had done the research they did on the origin of the aspects of Christian worship but not allowed their bias in favor of house churches to influence them so greatly. They try too strenuously to link some aspects of worship to pagan practices when the foundation for the practice exists in the Scriptures. So, at times they declare truth, but on other subjects they ignore it.
Baptism
The reader is probably expecting that the authors will mess this Biblical teaching up badly. No, most of what they say is surprisingly and refreshingly correct. No, they do not go so far as to say that baptism is in order to obtain forgiveness of sins, but they show that baptism in the New Testament was by immersion and that it is linked to salvation. Of course, anyone reading the New Testament could figure this out, but before sloughing them off, the question should be asked: “How many in the religious world would ever acknowledge these facts?” Consider a few of the things they say.
First, they acknowledge that sprinkling and pouring were not practiced in the New Testament (188), a fact which those in the churches of Christ have taught and debated for years. Second, they also point out that baptism occurred at the time a person believed and repented, citing Acts 2:37-41, 8:12ff, 27-38, 9:18, 10:44-48, 16:14-15, 31-33, 18:8, 9:1-5, and 22:16 (188). Wow! These verses read like a sermon chart of conversions that brethren have been using for years! Third, they not only point out that there is no “sinner's prayer” in the Scriptures; they trace the origin of it to D. L. Moody in the 19th century, adding that it was not popularized until the 1950s with Billy Graham's Peace With God tract and later with Campus Crusade's Four Spiritual Laws (190). That prayer appears below:
“Lord Jesus, I need You. Thank You for dying on the cross for my sins. I open the door of my life and receive You as my Savior and Lord. Thank You for forgiving my sins and giving me eternal life. Take control of the throne of my life. Make me the kind of person You want me to be” (190).
Notice that the person says nothing about repenting of his sins, and baptism is absent as well. One might expect that the authors would be offended by this replacement for baptism, yet remarkably they conclude, “There is nothing particularly wrong with it” (190). What? How about the fact that it is not authorized in the Scriptures? What is the point of saying that baptism is associated with salvation and that the Bible does not contain a sinner's prayer if, after calling attention to these facts, the conclusion is, “But it's okay”? Adding that this prayer should not replace water baptism merely confuses the reader (191).
The fourth benefit of this section is that the phrase personal Savior originated in the mid-1880s and was popularized by Charles Fuller, who used the phrase continuously in his popular radio program, Old Fashioned Revival Hour, which was broadcast from 1937 to 1968 (191). Jesus is the Savior of all mankind and was never designated as someone's “personal” Savior. Thus, the value of this chapter is two-fold. It shows the origin of certain practices in history and contrasts them with what is actually taught in the New Testament.
The reason the chapters on worship and the sermon fail (while the one on baptism succeeds) is that, while pagans gave oratorical messages, so did those preaching the gospel. The authors erroneously conclude that, since pagans were fascinated by rhetoric, they therefore introduced the idea of a sermon. The authors apparently have a desire to get rid of the sermon in order to establish their practice of the organic church. Therefore, they fail to notice Biblical precedents.
The Sermon
The writers claim that the sermon arose from pagan practices and that it is a hindrance to worship. They believe the concept of a sermon in worship is flawed for the following reasons. It “freezes and imprisons the functioning of the body of Christ...by allowing pulpiteers to dominate the church gathering week after week,” they charge first (97). Second, the sermon actually stifles church growth because it “encourages passivity” (97). Third, it makes the preacher a “religious specialist—the only one having anything worthy to say” (98). Fourth, it “de-skills” rather than equips the saints (98). Fifth, today's sermons are impractical (99).
The problem with these objections is that they are a matter of conjecture rather than a matter of fact. Such charges could be true, and in many denominations they may be true, but they do not inherently need to be true. In churches of Christ, the sermon is probably about half of the worship time on a Sunday morning; on Sunday evenings, it may constitute two-thirds of the time. At any rate, these things are expedients without any Scriptures to specify any lengths of time. Paul preached until midnight in Troas, which may have been the bulk of the worship time that evening (Acts 20:7).
Sermons do not encourage passivity any more than one person leading a prayer does. Everyone listens and evaluates. Those in Berea searched the Scriptures to see if what Paul was teaching was true (Acts 17:11). Many congregations hand out a sheet of paper containing certain things to look for in the sermon. Everyone is encouraged to participate so that this part of worship is a learning experience (that is—Christians are edified in the process of glorifying God).
What violates the harmony of heaven and earth if a “religious specialist” should preach a sermon? What glory lies in someone spiritually ignorant teaching brethren? Paul told Timothy to take heed to his doctrine (1 Tim. 4:16), a Scripture not mentioned by the authors. If someone devotes his time to studying the Word of God, what harm does that cause the church? Does that practice imply that no one else knows anything? Certainly not! Many brethren of all ages can present everything from invitations to messages during worship. Many present a brief lesson at the Lord's Table; many lead in prayer. Just because many denominations have one man who dominates their service does not mean that all of us are that way.
Many years ago, this writer was approached by a visitor who was impressed with how many “laymen” took part in our worship. He was told to be sure to count the preacher as a laymen since we did not have any “clergy.” He never seemed to be able to grasp the concept. What Barna and Viola say they want in a service is already being done and has been done by members of the body of Christ. We do take pains to equip the saints, including encouraging young men to preach (1 Tim. 2:2).
Below are some statements the authors make and counters to them.
“The sermon...has very little to do with genuine spiritual growth” (86). This is simply false, and Christians know it from their own and other people's experiences.
“...Jesus did not preach a regular sermon to the same audience” (87). Yes, and none of us is Jesus, either, nor do we have the same mission He did. What did Paul do while he was in Corinth for 1½ years and in Ephesus 3 years? He taught them publicly and from house to house. Yes, others may have taught also, and he certainly taught at times outside the public assembly, but how do Barna and Viola know that he did not speak most weeks to these brethren?
On the other hand, the writers insist that the prophets “spoke extemporaneously...rather than from a set script” (87). Hello! They were inspired directly by the Holy Spirit! However, when Ezra read from the Law of Moses to all the people, he had a Script, written by God. Similarly, the apostles spoke extemporaneously “and without rhetorical structure” (88). Peter certainly had a structure on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:22-36). Stephen likewise had one. How effective would anyone be if he just stood before brethren and rambled? Likewise, the apostles and Philip were filled with the Holy Spirit; no one today is. We present the Scriptures in an effective manner as possible, but we do not speak by inspiration.
The authors complain that with sermons no interchange of ideas can occur. First, that kind of give and take occurs in Bible classes all the time. As for sermons, listeners are encouraged to ask questions. Most materials are available in writing or through CDs. Anyone can examine and comment on these things at any time; opportunities are endless. All of these objections to the sermon are primarily without merit.
Under the Law of Moses, all the nation was to gather together every seven years to hear the law read as a nation (Deut. 31:10-13; Josh. 8:30-35). After the captivity, Ezra and others “read distinctly from the book, in the Law of God; and they gave the sense, and helped them to understand the reading” (Neh. 8:8). In the New Testament, the church “continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship” (Acts 2:42); when did they do that? For a while, they had daily opportunities, but worship (as the church) always was utilized.
Spiritual gifts were used to edify one another, but many brethren possessed them and could use them. This, however, was in the infancy of the church—before the complete Word of God was revealed (1 Cor. 13). Once inspiration ceased, the dynamic for worship in assemblies also changed—at least as far as inspiration was concerned. Spiritual growth and equipping are still goals even if they are accomplished differently than in early church assemblies. The important thing is that the Word of God is taught.
The Organic Church Defined
So what are the authors getting at? Why have they done all of the research in order to attempt to show that practically everything in Christianity has come from a pagan influence? Much of what they demonstrate is true, although they have been over-zealous in making their case and failed to see that many practices are from the Scriptures rather than pagan influence. One might think that their thesis is that we should forsake things that are unauthorized and go back to following Biblical principles. That would have been the thesis if members of the body of Christ had written this book (see Back to the Bible, published in 2010 by the Bellview Church of Christ in Pensacola, Florida).
Instead, Viola and Barna are in favor of a mutual edification meeting in which all members take part, which is allegedly directed by Jesus Himself. The meeting described in the book consisted of 30 people meeting in someone's home, which is certainly Scriptural if that is the entire church. The words used to describe the worship are spontaneity, creativity, freshness, and the meeting is “marked by incredible variety” (78). The same could be said of Robin Williams (when he is clean). Surely, the curiosity of the reader is piqued by such a description. So, what did they do in their worship?
After greeting one another (was there a set time to begin?), a few began singing a capella, someone led a prayer, and more songs and prayers followed. The claim of incredible variety may be overstated, since that is what members of the churches of Christ always do—except we figure out ahead of time who will be singing and who will be praying. We have seen “spontaneous” song leading and praying. It is embarrassing to have two men begin a prayer at one time or two groups of brethren singing different songs at the same time. Furthermore it is not being done “decently and in order” (1 Cor. 14:40).
Sometimes someone would exhort the others regarding what had just been sung. At some point they sat down, and “a woman stood and began explaining what the Lord had showed her during the week” (78). Apparently, the Lord did not show her that she should be quiet in the assembly (1 Tim. 2:11-14). After three minutes a man “shared a portion of Scriptures,” and then another individual presented more words of edification. “A woman then broke into a new song that went right along with what the two men had just shared” (79). Really? How did the whole congregation sing it if it was new and they had never heard it before? Was it something like Weird Al's parody: “This Song's Just Six Words Long”? This action was followed by another woman who “read a poem that the Lord had given her during the week” (79). Did He send it to her through e-mail or regular post? And what is the Biblical basis for the Lord giving out poems? Did He give them to Shakespeare and Longfellow, also? And why did He not send her a poem that shows that women have not been given authority to lead in worship?
These events were followed by more testimonials, exhortations, poems, songs, and encouragements. Nothing is said about when the meeting came to a close. They sang with arms around each other, some wept, and it is described as electric (79). Viola claims that the meeting was led by the Lord Jesus Christ—that He was directing the church (79). This statement is false. The Lord would never direct worship contrary to the teachings of His apostles which were inspired by the Holy Spirit (John 16:12-13). No mention is made of anyone giving to the Lord on that occasion, nor is there any reference to the Lord's Supper, in which His death is memorialized. So, basically organic worship involves singing, praying, exhortations, and testimonials—primarily it is a touchy feely gathering which apparently appeals more to the emotions rather than to the intellect. The church after the day of Pentecost was taught the apostles' doctrine (Acts 2:42).
And what have the worshipers received when it is over? They feel good, yes, but what have they learned? The statement is made that “the glories of Jesus Christ” were revealed” (79). How? Was it through the testimonials or through the Scriptures, which teach about the glories of Christ? Although Viola would probably answer both, he nevertheless stresses the subjective over the objective Word of God, which is peculiar in a book that seeks to find origins for worship practices. Those 30 people who met in someone's home (and since this is all spontaneous and the Lord is directing it, they should not have to be told the location of the meeting) “stood up to tell us what they had experienced in their relationship to the Lord Jesus Christ that week” (79).
Thus, most of the worship emphasizes what somebody felt that the Lord had done for them that week, including the giving of songs and poems to them. We know that the Lord did not give them these things; so their worship is based on their imaginations and feelings. Also, it seems peculiar to describe worship as electric when all that Jesus said is that true worshipers should worship in spirit and in truth (John 4:23-24). Truth is objective. One can use the Bible to teach others. Whenever someone says, “Here's what the Lord did for me last week,” most people realize immediately that he will have no objective proof of whatever follows. God did not call us to present our subjective feelings and experiences but to teach the gospel of Christ, the objective Word of God. Why would someone want to abandon the excellent teaching of the Word for someone's spontaneous, subjective, alleged experiences?
In a parting shot, Viola talks about thawing out “God's frozen people” by making “a dramatic break with the Sunday morning ritual” (79). Setting cold formalism against touchy-feely subjectivism is a false dichotomy since these are not the only two options that exist. Any type of worship (even that which is called spontaneous) can eventually become predictable. Hugging each other during worship does not change error into truth. For all of their insight, Viola and Barna miss a great deal in what the New Testament actually teaches. They prove to be better historians than students of the Word.