A Review of Pagan Christianity (Part 6)
“Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment” (John 7:24).
More than half of Pagan Christianity by George Barna and Frank Viola consists of the chapters already reviewed that covered the church building, the order of worship, the sermon, and the “pastor” system. Most of the documented material has been of great interest, and it reinforces what the churches of Christ have been teaching for the last three centuries and beyond (whenever we can find records of earlier times). Some of the applications of the material are biased in favor of house churches, but the main body of the material is of great value.
“Sunday Morning Costumes” is the title of chapter six. The authors quote at the outset of the chapter from Luke 20:46, in which Jesus cautions the people to beware of those “who desire to walk in long robes….” The second half of this chapter is definitely better than the first; it deals with the garb of the “clergy.” As already presented, the Bible makes no distinction between “clergy” and “laity”; that was an artificial distinction that came along later (see 5-26-13). Once that unscriptural distinction was made, however, it did not take long for Clement of Alexandria to argue that the “clergy” should wear better garments than the “laity.” He thought that the minister’s clothes should be simple and white (150). This idea may have been borrowed from Plato, who wrote that “white was the color of the gods” (151).
After the time of Constantine, the garb of the priests matched that of Roman secular officials; within the next hundred years, the “clergy,” according to Jerome, ought not enter the sanctuary wearing everyday garments. Bishops, then, wore purple from the fifth century onward (151). This false separation between members of the body of Christ, the development of the “sanctuary” (unknown in the New Testament), and special dress for some would have had brethren in the first century shaking their heads in wonder. But departures from God’s Word were only getting started.
In the next two centuries, special vestments were used similar to those worn by the Levitical priests, which is easy to understand, since a special priesthood came out of the Old Testament rather than from the New. However, during the Reformation (700 years later) the black gown worn by scholars became the garment of the “clergy” (152). Zwingli apparently first introduced it in 1523, and Luther began to wear it in 1524 (152). The clerical collar dates back to 1865 and was invented by Anglicans (153). It is of value to know when these various changes occurred and to understand that none of these was practiced by Jesus, the apostles, or our brethren in the first century. Those preaching for the churches of Christ have never worn special, distinctive garments or vestments to distinguish themselves from the rest of the members.
The reader wonders, however, why the authors of this book take it upon themselves to badmouth wearing one’s best clothes for worship. They ascribe our current practices to Horace Bushnell, a Congregational minister, who in 1843 published an essay called, “Taste and Fashion.” He argued that “sophistication and refinement were attributes of God and that Christians should emulate them” (147). That was the beginning of the idea of dressing up for worship in order to honor God—something the authors refer to as a “mindless custom” (148).
Frankly, this writer thinks they have overlooked some Biblical principles which they ought to have considered. Joseph had been sold as a slave by his brothers and then unjustly imprisoned when a false accusation had been made against him. He was put in charge of the prison, where he eventually met the king’s butler and interpreted his dream for him. After two years, Pharaoh had dreams concerning which no one could interpret. The butler recommended to him Joseph who was still in prison, and he was summoned to appear before Pharaoh.
But not before he shaved and changed his clothing. When one appears before the king, he should not be frumpy and unkempt. We should not need an essay written by someone more than 3,500 years later to figure that out. In Exodus 19, God gave Moses instructions to the Israelites who were about to receive God’s holy law at Mount Sinai. He told Moses: “Go to the people and sanctify them today and tomorrow, and let them wash their clothes. And let them be ready…” (10b-11a). Moses gave them these instructions, “and they washed their clothes” (14). It made a difference to God on this occasion that the people’s clothes were clean. No, this is not a pattern for Christian worship, but it lends credence to the idea of decorum is one that is found in the Scriptures.
Jesus excoriated a man who came to a wedding improperly dressed for that event. He had him bound hand and foot and cast into the outer darkness (Matt. 22:1-13). No, this is not a pattern for New Testament worship, either, but it does show that certain occasions require certain clothing. We recognize that God did not give dress requirements for worship, but does that mean that it is appropriate for young people to come dressed in AC/DC or Kanye West T-shirts? Would Viola and Barna be happy if everyone came dressed for worship like they would for a hayride? What is their problem that they feel they must call it a “mindless custom” for people to be clean and wear good clothing to appear before the King of kings in worship?
James discusses those who came into the assembly with fine apparel in the first century versus those who entered with filthy clothing (2:1-7). The church was cautioned not to show partiality toward the rich and against others. It is possible that the poor man came directly from work without having time to clean up. The important thing is that he was present. We have some who may fall into that category today, but for those who have the choice, there can be no condemnation for coming with our best appearance.
Music
Chapter seven deals with the music that is characteristic of most churches (but not of the churches of Christ). It was in the fourth century, during Constantine’s reign, that the idea of the choir in Christian worship was born. Choirs had been used in Greek dramas and pagan temples (158-59), but the much older Song of Solomon had parts for a chorus to sing. How much influence the pagans may have had over the church might be debatable, but the authors are accurate when they say that “singing was no longer done by all of God’s people but by clerical staff composed of trained singers” (159). Churches went so far as to ban congregational singing—allowing only “trained choirs” to sing during worship. We do know that in the New Testament all the congregation was to engage in singing. Both Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 exhort all the brethren to speak, teach, and admonish one another as they are praising and glorifying God. Choirs have never been authorized.
Gregory the Great, who lived at the end of the fifth century, was regarded as a pope, but he was not the first universal one, which Boniface III claimed for himself in 606. “Gregory wiped out the last vestiges of congregational singing, believing music was a clerical function and the exclusive right of trained singers” (160). This chapter goes on to discuss the funeral dirge as having pagan roots that made its way into common practice in the early third century (161).
The authors make a most perplexing statement—one that defies logic. They already acknowledged that at the time of Gregory, all “singing at this time was without musical instruments” (160). But then they say: “The major musical contribution of the Reformers was the restoration of congregational singing and the use of instruments” (162). Excuse us for stating the obvious, O authors, but nothing can be restored that was not there in the first place. The Reformers may have restored congregational singing because that was done in the first-century church. But, as researchers, they should well know that no New Testament passage speaks of Jesus, the apostles, or any church as using musical instruments. It is, therefore, illogical to say that the Reformers “restored” it. They did not restore it; they added it. Likewise, they err when they say that John Huss was among the first to bring instruments of music “back into the church” because they were never there to begin with (162).
But having made the above statements, they once again contradict themselves:
Interestingly, there is no evidence of musical instruments in the Christian church service until the Middle Ages. Before then, all singing during the service was unaccompanied by musical instruments (162).
Apparently, they do not realize that, since instrumental music had never been used in Christian worship, it could not possibly be restored. Once again, their research outstrips their applications of it. They also accurately point out that John Calvin (one of the most influential voices of the Reformation) was steadfastly opposed to the addition of musical instruments into Christian worship (163).
There follows an interesting examination concerning the modern practices, in which the “praise team” has largely replaced the choir (164). Modern songs and practices are also further discussed. The authors cannot find anything wrong with any of the practices, so long as the congregation is happy with it. It is too bad that they do not see a precedent toward worship being set by either the two types of offerings brought by Cain and Abel or the dramatic disapproval of God upon Nadab and Abihu who changed God’s specifications of worship to suit themselves instead of doing what God authorized. If God did not put in instruments of music, praise teams, and bands, why have Viola and Barna not considered that He did not want them there? All of those could have been done in the first century.
“Tithing and Clergy Salaries: Sore Spots on the Wallet”
Most religious denominations will not be happy with the subject matter of this eighth chapter. Since the churches of Christ do not teach tithing and do not have a “clergy,” most of the criticism again misses us, but it is interesting to see how the authors handle the subject. They demonstrate that tithing is an Old Testament practice, which is true. No verse says anything about tithing in the New Testament. The authors provide some details as to what was required under the Law of Moses; however, they misspeak again when they affirm that “all ceremonial codes that belonged to the Jews were nailed to Christ’s cross and buried…” (173). They did not cite Colossians 2:14, which is the verse that says: “having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to His cross.” Notice that this verse does not specify “ceremonial” requirements; all of the Law of Moses was done away with!
They go back to Abraham in Genesis 14:20 and try to knock that verse out as a precedent for tithing, but this verse preceded the Law of Moses, and they would do well to ask the question, “Where did Abraham get the notion that he should give a tenth to God?” Did he just make it up off the top of his head? Was it what most of the religions of his day were doing? Or was he already in the habit of giving God a tenth? They do not address the origin of what Abraham did; they spend time ridiculing the tithe instead.
They do cite Jacob’s commitment, also, from Genesis 29:20-22 but then quote someone who said there was “no theological significance” in what Jacob did. How does the man know that? Why does God put these insignificant details in the text, then? Jacob decided that, if God prospered him, he would return a tenth of all that God gave him. The authors, in trying to minimize the value of these texts, come off looking like a couple of cheapskates. In the New Testament, there is no command to tithe, but there are several examples of those who gave beyond a tenth. That is the principle we ought to be concerned with.
Next, Viola and Barna try to establish that the tithe was introduced as a practice of the church with the rise of the “clergy.” Cyprian of Carthage in the third century argued that “just as the Levites were supported by the tithe, so the Christian clergy should be…” (176). Since there is no “clergy” in the New Testament, one cannot appeal to either the New or the Old to justify paying them salaries. However, the authors go a bit far in saying that no one should receive support. They claim that “ministers were unsalaried for the first three centuries” and that Constantine changed all that. If it is the case that no one received any remuneration for three centuries, then the reason was that they gave up their right to support, but the New Testament clearly teaches that they were entitled to it. The passage that is ignored by Viola and Barna is conspicuous by its absence: 1 Corinthians 9:1-14.
In this text Paul established that anyone who preaches the gospel has a right to live of the gospel. Paul is pointing out that he gave up certain rights, but they must first be rights before they can be given up. Paul had the right to take along a believing wife or to be supported as a preacher of the gospel, but he gave both up. Those who fight in an army do not pay their own way; the army pays them. Those who are fighting in the Lord’s army are paid for by the Lord. The ox is not to be muzzled when he treads out the corn. Those who sow spiritual things have a right to partake of the material things of those whom he is benefiting. Just as in the Jewish system the priests were entitled to eat of the offerings, so in the Christian system, those who preach the gospel should be able to live from the gospel. This is only a comparison; Paul is not saying that preachers are the same as Old Testament priests.
The authors of the book explain none of these things. Instead, they spend their time trying to show that pastors do not deserve large salaries—after they have already shown that the pastor system was not Biblical to begin with. If the pastor system is not authorized, why spend time trying to show that such men do not deserve to be paid? They argue that, “when the church functions as she should, a professional clergy becomes unnecessary” (181), which is true. But they seem to lump a preacher into that same category as “clergy” when his work is legitimate, according to the New Testament, and he has a right to expect to be supported. The only concession the authors make is that Paul, as “an itinerant apostolic worker” could have received support, but he gave it up. Paul is not just making the case for himself personally, however; he is including all who preach the gospel. As for being itinerant, Paul was in Corinth 1½ years and in Ephesus 3 years. What the authors advocate resembles the anti-“located preacher” arguments of years gone by.
Barna and Viola claim that the idea of collection plates began in 1662 and that Queen Elizabeth began the practice of having ushers (182). While this may be true as to the origin of our modern practices, the fact is that Christians gave to the Lord in the first century whether they had collection plates or not. Judas kept the treasury for Jesus and the disciples (John 13:29). Paul commanded brethren to give on the first day of the week (1 Cor. 16:1-2). They may not have given their monetary gift to God in the same way that we do (with collection plates), but they obviously had some system.
The authors of Pagan Christianity are somewhat of an enigma. They desire to show how paganism has influenced Christianity and at times are over-zealous in trying to make that connection, but then they do not want to go so far as to actually condemn people for partaking of all these pagan ways. Customs (such as clothing and the use of collection plates) change. What is important is that our organization is Scriptural (local congregations independent of one another without any hierarchies), that within the church we have God’s arrangement, and that our worship practices are authorized. We should divest ourselves of anything truly pagan.