There is a human tendency to want to go backwards in time, to return to idyllic time when things were simpler and people were less sinful. If only we could go back to Puritan New England, then all of our problems would be gone. If only we could go back to the 1950s, then America would be better off. If only we could go back to the 1st century church, then all of evangelicalism’s problems would fade away.
There is a danger in conservatism to replace caution with regression. To see the past as a Golden Age and the present as some kind of science experiment gone horribly wrong. The future, in many cases, is an unmitigated disaster, doomsday always lying on the horizon. The past is canonized, never changing, and always representing the way things ought to be. The present is a deviation from The Way.
This is what I find especially troubling about a book like Pagan Christianity?. Although it asks many of the right questions, and holds up a giant mirror to evangelicalism, the solutions the authors propose practically amount to nothing. Going back to the first century is not a solution, it won’t solve any of our problems. As Travis rightly points out, the first century church was just as screwed up as we are.
If we really want to clean up the Church and get rid of all the problems, the solution is really quite simple: kick all the people out. The problem with Christianity, both in the first and twenty-first century, is that it is made up of sinful people who are constantly doing sinful things.
Look back to the early chapters of Acts and the epistles. People were dying, people were forcing Gentiles to convert to Judaism, young men were sleeping with their stepmothers, some had already abandoned the Gospel, and Jesus was just about to completely leave others. And this is what we need to “get back to?” I’m not suggesting we’re better off now than we were then; no, we’re exactly the same, pagan practices or no pagan practices.
What I am suggesting is that going back to some pre-Constantinian ecclesiastical Eden is a pipe dream. The perfect New Testament church never existed, except in people’s minds. We should certainly give an honest critique of the Church, in whatever form we find ourselves in, but provide real solutions, not fantasy. (Ironically enough, this post contains no answers, but I would like to provide my thoughts on another day.)
Filed under: The Body of Christ | Tagged: Religion, Christianity, Church, Frank Viola, Pagan Christianity, George Barna
Interesting thoughts. I laughed when you said that the solution is to get rid of the people, but I actually agree with you. People tend to put the past on a pedestal, whether it was really any better or not.
With your points about not going back to the first century, I agree in part. I think that the people back then had problems just like we do today, and we shouldn’t be trying to model their behavior. However, I also think that we have to be careful in assuming any old thing we want to do today in worship or church structure should be pleasing to God. I think God gave us a model in the New Testament that we should be trying to mirror, and in that way, I think we should be comparing our practices today with those in the NT.
Great topic though. And do you think Pagan Christianity is worth reading? It sounds interesting…
Thanks for the comment Nate. I agree with you, just because we want to do something doesn’t mean we can do it. The NT does give us a model for what the church should look like; in my understanding it is Saints+Gospel (or Word)+Sacraments (or ordinances). To go beyond that, like where we meet, is going too far, IMO. It is clear the early church met in houses, but in Jerusalem, they also met in the Temple. Are we inhibiting God’s purpose for the church if we have a building? Not necessarily.
As for the book, yeah I think it’s worth reading, if only to get you thinking about things you have perhaps not thought about. As I said in the post, it does ask good questions, which is exactly what a good book should do. And there are things that are spot on that need to be addressed and critiqued by Christians.
Kamp Krusty is reviewing the book http://branthansen.typepad.com/letters_from_kamp_krusty/2007/12/i-cant-believe.html
Sarah
[...] Ben Witherington on Pagan Christianity Posted on July 1, 2008 by Mike F. Ben Witherington critiques Frank Viola and George Barna’s Pagan Christianity. He does a good job of exposing the bias and academic trickery behind the book. (Although I do think it asks some of the right questions, as I wrote here.) [...]
There’s no need to dream about getting back to how the church was during the few centuries… that church still exists! It’s largely unknown in the Western world, but look up Eastern Orthodoxy. This church is still alive and kicking, and hasn’t deviated it’s teachings since the original ecumenical counciles which set in place the main Christian doctrines and combated the early heresies.
And in regards to the comments: “the problem with Christianity, both in the first and twenty-first century, is that it is made up of sinful people who are constantly doing sinful things.”
I think the only real problem is the last half, that we’re still (consistantly) doing sinful things. To try and say imagine a church not made up of sinners would be to take away the whole reason for the church in the first place. One of the major misconceptions I think people have about Christianity is that we’re supposed to be perfect, sinless people, when in reality such a state is absolutely impossible in this world and life.
The sequel to “Pagan Christianity?” is out now. It’s called “Reimagining Church”. It picks up where “Pagan Christianity” left off and continues the conversation. (“Pagan Christianity” was never meant to be a stand alone book; it’s part one of the conversation.) “Reimagining Church” is endorsed by Leonard Sweet, Shane Claiborne, Alan Hirsch, and many others. You can read a sample chapter at http://www.ReimaginingChurch.org. It’s also available on Amazon.com. Frank is also blogging now at http://frankviola.wordpress.com/
Jill, thank you for your two comments. I get the feeling you work for the publishing company, but I’m still letting your ad go through because it’s important to the conversation.