A Review of Pagan Christianity (Part 7)
“Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment” (John 7:24).
George Barna and Frank Viola close out their interesting book, Pagan Christianity, by looking at baptism and the Lord’s Supper, Christian education, offering criticism of the way people interpret the Bible, and summarizing what they have presented throughout the book. Consideration was given previously to the material from chapter 9; so just a few comments will suffice.
Baptism
The authors are woefully inconsistent on this all-important subject. They observe correctly that in the New Testament baptism always accompanied faith and repentance. They go so far as to note that baptism is used “in place of the word faith,” and it is linked to salvation (182-83). But they provide a contradiction in their statements. They affirm that with respect to baptism by immersion or pouring that the “New Testament as well as early church history stand with both of these positions” (188). That’s news! Precisely where do we find a single text or implication that suggests the church practiced pouring water on anyone? If pouring (or sprinkling) were a common practice, surely the queen’s treasurer from Ethiopia would have received such (Acts 8:35-39). Even though they were in the wilderness and the eunuch was in the midst of his travels, Philip immersed him. Water was neither poured nor sprinkled on anyone; the claim of either lacks any merit whatsoever. They add in a footnote that immersion was the common practice but cite nothing on behalf of pouring.
They also need to cite the evidence for this statement: “Properly conceived and practiced, water baptism is the believer’s initial confession of faith before men, demons, angels, and God” (196). No, the eunuch’s confession was his verbal confession that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Baptism is the event by which God removes a person’s sins. In the summary at the end of the book, the authors express what they mean in similar words:
Baptism was the outward expression of Christian conversion. When the early Christians led people to the Lord, they immediately baptized them in water as a testimony to their new position (249).
Once again, they have made assumptions and cited no Scriptures. Baptism is not an outward expression of conversion; it is the last step in the conversion process. Before a person is baptized, he is lost in sin; after he is baptized, he is saved from his sins because the blood of Jesus washed them away while he was under the water being joined together in Christ’s death (Rom. 6:3-5). Baptism is not a testimony to one’s new position; it is what grants a person that new position—that which makes him a new creation. Sins are washed away in baptism by the blood of Jesus (Acts 22:16; Rev. 1:5). This is the only way that sins are removed; God gave no other plan. Baptism, the working of God (Col. 2:12), only succeeds when a person of accountable age believe, repents, and confesses first.
The Lord’s Supper
The authors insist the Lord’s Supper was “a festive communal meal” (Jude 12) (192-93) and that it should be an occasion of great joy rather than being observed with an attitude of awe or dread (194). In the summary they again posit: “The Supper was a full meal which the church enjoyed together in the spirit and atmosphere of joy and celebration” (249). One wonders if they have ever studied 1 Corinthians 11:18-34, where Paul severely chastised the Corinthians for confusing the Lord’s Supper with a common meal. He specifically told them not to have “a love feast” if they could not give due reverence to the Lord’s body and blood. It may be that Jude is referring to the Lord’s Supper in his short letter, but where is the proof for that assertion? The authors seem to be enjoining the very thing that Paul forbade. “But if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home…” (1 Cor. 11:34).
As for the mood of the Lord’s Supper, there is no doubt that we rejoice in that it reminds us of the salvation that we have in Jesus because of the sacrifice of His body and blood. But it is difficult to whip ourselves up to celebration status when we realize what Christ had to endure for us, that we are remembering His death until He comes, that we are to examine ourselves to make sure that we are not guilty of the body and blood of the Lord! A little somberness, introspection, and awe seem to be in order, all things considered.
Christian Education
One begins to grow weary with the authors’ pooh-poohing of just about everything. Christian education is not highly regarded by them. They do have a good idea about preachers being trained the way Jesus and Paul trained others, by being with them—observing how they taught and seeing the day-to-day things that were accomplished or the problems faced.
However, they link education back to the pagans and to Greek philosophy. They toss in a quote by Martin Luther, who said of universities: “What else are the universities than places for training youth in Greek glory?” (205). Just because the Greeks were pagans does not mean they had no good ideas. The authors seem to enjoy taking potshots at—of all things—logic. They claim that “academics adopted the Aristotelian method of thinking that centered on rational knowledge and logic” (204). While it is true that rationalistic thought erroneously tries to deny miracles, still what is the complaint about being rational and logical?
Jesus used logic in an expert fashion to discredit His enemies (Matt. 22:23-33). Why anyone would decry logic is unintelligible. If the writers of Pagan Christianity did not make a logical and rational case for their position, who would buy the book and read it? No one cares what a raving lunatic has to say. We pay attention to something that is logical. They seem to protest the fact that religious education was not separated from “instruction in church dogma and morals. Christianity was an intellectual religion” (209). Why would anyone complain about this fact? Jesus never taught His disciples to go out into a sheep pasture and just experience feelings. The fact that Jesus taught the people presumes they had the intellect to understand and grasp His teachings, along with the will to do them. Is there some teaching of Jesus that circumvented the intellect?
Bible Classes
Yes, these are picked on, also. The authors provide a history of the modern “Sunday School concept,” which contains many facts of interest, but then they draw a ridiculous conclusion: “As a whole, we don’t view the contemporary Sunday school as an effective institution.” Two observations are in order: The first is that, apparently, many brethren agree with the authors because they do not attend Bible study. They must believe it is a waste of time, or they would be present in order to learn. The fact that classes for children did not exist in the first century does not mean they are sinful. We do not know that they went door-knocking, either, but many have obeyed the gospel as a result of such efforts. Anything is acceptable if it furthers New Testament goals and does not violate its teachings.
The second point is that Viola and Barna may have a point with respect to many curricula, some of which are barely a cut above worthless. For that reason we have developed the 5½ year Chronological Bible Odyssey that covers both the Old and the New Testaments. Students get to study the Bible systematically and in context. Many curricula do not provide people with the foundational facts they need in order for everything else to make sense.
God expects us to know the Book, and Bible classes are an excellent way of accomplishing that goal whether the format we use was practiced in the first century or only for the first time last week. God did give Hebrew parents the responsibility to teach their children (Deut. 6:4-9). Parents today have the same charge (Eph. 6:4). A Bible study, where children and parents are studying the same material on Sunday morning and Wednesday night, is helpful to the family.
How to Approach the New Testament
This chapter could have been a fraction of the length that it is. After decrying the power of tradition (manmade traditions), which is a Biblical concern that Jesus expressed concerning the scribes and the Pharisees, the authors begin a long campaign against “proof texting.” They actually provide some good examples against the practice, implying that the pre-millennial doctrine was constructed by lifting various verses out of their context (223). They also cite Matthew 18:20 as a verse taken out of context and misapplied—yes, even by some brethren. Jesus is not talking about two or three being gathered together for worship but for purposes of withdrawing fellowship (233).
However, Barna and Viola go too far in urging people to examine a verse in its context. They act as if no one has historical insight into the New Testament. While it is the case that a novice may have no idea when the epistles were written, almost any time a letter is studied, it is put into its historical context. Those who study the Bible (in Bible classes) usually have a chronological chart, or Paul’s letters are tied into certain events from the Book of Acts. Yet one would think that no one has a clue about any of these matters. They seem to be underestimating the knowledge that Bible students have. Maybe the people they have influenced not to have classes are the ones who need this information. Then they actually lament the fact that the Bible was divided up into chapters and verses because it makes it easier to chop the Bible up into fragments and “proof text” with the pieces. People would “proof text” anyway without the divisions; it would just make it harder to find what verses some were using.
The Humorous Assault on Logic and “Proof Texting”
The authors define the concept of “proof texting” broader than most people do; they do not even realize that they stand guilty of that which they condemn in others. They associate the work of the scholastics and “proof texting” with “the rules of Aristotelian logic” (222). They fail to distinguish, in any meaningful way, between “proof texting” and making a Biblical case for or against a position that someone has taken. They say that men resort to “fallen human logic” (223). There is nothing fallen about logic, and Aristotle did not invent it any more than Euclid invented geometry. Aristotle discovered what worked and was logical and what was not. God is the author of logic—not man.
The bias of the authors appears to reach a climax when they protest the following practices:
1) Memorizing verses that inspire
2) Looking for commands
3) Looking for verses to “control and/or correct others”
4) Looking for verses that make good sermon material
5) Looking for “verses that will prove your particular doctrine so that you can slice-and-dice your theological sparring partner into biblical ribbons” (230).
Whoa! What cynicism! Sounds like somebody has not won many arguments lately, doesn’t it? What could possibly be wrong with memorizing inspirational verses? The reader should make certain that they are translated correctly and that they understand the proper meaning from the context, but with those safeguards, what can the problem be? As for the second one, God gave commands to be remembered; surely they should not be ignored. As to number 3, did not Paul say that the Scriptures were given by inspiration of God in order to reprove and correct people (2 Tim. 3:16-17)? What could possibly be wrong with the practice of number 4? Does Viola not look for verses to discuss in his mutual edification meetings?
Number 5 is full of “spin,” but rhetoric aside, why did Paul oppose false teachers in the first century? What he did through inspiration is something the rest of us must do through study. Did Paul slice and dice Elymas the sorcerer theologically? No, he just left him blind for a season. Most of the time Paul “reasoned” with his opponents. Perish the thought that he might have used Aristotelian logic!
The authors conclude that “the time is ripe to cause both verse and chapter divisions to disappear from the text and to be put on the margin in as inconspicuous a place as possible” (231). Yes, and we might as well handwrite them on papyrus while we are at it. Pardon the sarcasm, but blaming actual “proof texting” on verse divisions in the Bible is about as legitimate as blaming the abundance of printed Bibles for it. No one is going to give up chapters and verses; what needs to be fixed is handling the Scriptures improperly.
What do the authors want? In answer to trying to do everything by the Book, they say that people can do that—“But there is no rushing mighty wind!” (238). Wow! Talk about not reading something in its context! Do they really think that every Lord’s day should be a Pentecost? Have they not read that the miracles were to cease (1 Cor. 13)?
They again use loaded language when they say: “There is no blueprint or model that we can tease out of the New Testament by extracting verses and trying to imitate them mechanically” (238). Who said that imitation must be mechanical? Did the martyrs of the first three centuries give their lives mechanically, copying what their predecessors had done?
What is funny, however, is that Barna and Viola “proof text” and use the pattern of the first century to try to establish their “house church” practice. They appeal to a few Scriptures for what they advocate today. Presumably, they would not use logic to establish their case, and surely they are not imitating brethren in the first century mechanically.
Miscellaneous Comments
The writers caution that topical studies “can easily lead one astray” (240). Topical studies have a tremendous value; they enable us to see what all of the teachings in the Bible are on a certain subject, which causes us to avoid taking one Scripture out of context.
“The New Testament church had no fixed order of worship” (247). In Corinth they did not, and Paul told them to fix that problem: “Let all things be done decently and in order” (1 Cor. 14:40).
“The church had traveling apostolic workers who planted and nurtured churches” (248). We no longer have apostles, and the church has already been planted in most communities in this nation. We need preachers, however, to evangelize in those areas.
“Eldering and shepherding…were not special offices” (248). Eldering and shepherding were the same thing (see article #5). If they were not special offices, then why do we have qualifications for them (1 Tim. 3; Titus 1)? Jesus is the Head of the church, but He desired that qualified leaders be appointed in every congregation.
“The early Christians did not divide themselves into various denominations” (249). The authors have stated a truth here, but they cited 1 Corinthians 1:12, which could be an instance of “proof texting.” Are they guilty of doing the very thing they warn others against?
Pagan Christianity has a great deal to offer with the research Viola and Barna did to find out the origins of many of the practices in Christianity today. Unfortunately, they appear to have developed a negative attitude to almost all modern practices. They would have done better to have criticized the errors and praised the things that Christians are doing that are good.