Darryl's Blog
A wrong (or at least insufficient) solution
I've been blogging about Viola and Barna's new book Pagan Christianity. So far we've covered the first two what I've listed as the four assertions of the book:
- The origin of many of our church practices (examples: church buildings, orders of worship, sermons, pastors, tithing, clergy salaries) is non-biblical, and these practices are inconsistent with those of the early church. "Almost everything that is done in our contemporary churches has no basis in the Bible." (p. 4) Much of it was lifted from pagan culture.
- Just because something does not appear in the Bible does not mean it is wrong. However, our non-biblical church practices often hinder the development of our faith and keep us from encountering the living God.
I'm pretty much prepared to accept the core of these points with some reservations. They don't always get the history right, and they overstate the case. I accept that many of our practices are non-biblical but "inconsistent with those of the early church" is another matter. But still - they do have a point that some of our practices today can be held sacrosanct when they can and do get in the way.
But it's when you get to today's assertion that, in my view, the wheels fall off. Viola and Barna argue:
- "The church in its contemporary, institutional form neither has a biblical nor a historical right to exist." (p. xx)
Wow! There's a bit of a jump to get to this point, and I'm not sure if I missed a step somewhere. It could be that Viola and Barna are correct, but I don't think they've proved their case. Pointing out problems with a model means that the problems need addressing. It doesn't necessarily mean that the entire model must be scrapped.
It's one thing to argue that there are problems with our existing ways of doing church. I'm fully prepared to accept this. It's also okay to argue that models of church sidesteps these issues, but it could be that they end up encountering a whole set of other issues - as is the case. But is it possible for institutional models to be redeemed? Viola and Barna say no. I'm not so sure.
I'd much prefer to ask questions like these:
- Is there a way to use buildings missionally and in a way that expresses the true nature of the church?
- Can orders of service be structured so that the corporate nature of worship is emphasized, and performance is minimized?
- How can preaching and teaching promote spiritual growth and emphasize the giftedness of the body?
- How can churches move beyond being pastor-driven?
- How can our giving be channeled beyond maintenance to mission and care for the poor?
- How can we recover the biblical emphasis on baptism as initiation into discipleship, and communion as a robust communal celebration?
- How can Christian formation take place that his holistic?
These are excellent questions, and they may or may not lead to shutting down institutional churches. I don't think they have to. This book, I think, gets at the right questions, but ends up presenting the wrong (or at least insufficient) solution.
By the way, it's theoretically possible to have discovered that pretty much everyone from the church fathers on got it wrong, and that you are right - but it's highly unlikely. This is especially true in this case, because Scripture is largely descriptive (not prescriptive) in how churches can be shaped. Barna and Viola don't make a sufficient case for anyone to say that almost everyone has got it wrong until now.
Boars Head Tavern has posted a great quote from Eugene Peterson:
What other church is there besides institutional? There’s nobody who doesn’t have problems with the church, because there’s sin in the church. But there’s no other place to be a Christian except the church. There’s sin in the local bank. There’s sin in the grocery stores. I really don’t understand this naïve criticism of the institution. I really don’t get it. Frederick von Hugel said the institution of the church is like the bark on the tree. There’s no life in the bark. It’s dead wood. But it protects the life of the tree within. And the tree grows and grows. If you take the bark off, it’s prone to disease, dehydration, death. So, yes, the church is dead but it protects something alive. And when you try to have a church without bark, it doesn’t last long. It disappears, gets sick, and it’s prone to all kinds of disease, heresy, and narcissism. (Eugene Peterson)
They also have another amazing quote: those who seek to correct the church’s moral failings and produce a "pure" church are "...looking to the Law rather than to the Gospel. We need rather to look at the Gospel. It is not about what we are to do to purify the church (Law), but about bringing the Gospel to the church as she is" (from a lecture by Ron Feuerhahn).
In conclusion: Barna and Viola have raised some valid issues. Some dynamics of church life that should be present often aren't. We need to take these seriously. But they don't make their case, and their conclusion ultimately falls short. There is room for all kinds of churches, including the institutional. What matters more than structure is the life contained within, and that can come only from God- who, it seems, is more than willing to give us that life.
On a somewhat related note, check out John Piper, who argues that we can redeem Christmas even though it has pagan roots. writes about the pagan roots of Christmas. Some of what he writes applies to this book.
Update: Trevin Wax has an excellent review. His last line: "Pagan Christianity, if taken seriously by many Christians, will not lead to a renewal of the church, but to ecclesial amputation - as more and more disenchanted church members abandon their church families in order to seek after the “pure church” of the first century. They will keep chasing the pot at the end of the rainbow, only to find it eludes them because it doesn’t exist."
Darryl, I really think you have brought a lot of wisdom into the questions you have asked and how you have framed them. To set Peterson on his head somewhat, I think part of the problem is that people feel the church has become all bark and no bite. These are always the concerns one hears when people raise issues about the institution. Like yourself, however, I've become increasingly wary of those who want to critique/deconstruct but offer nothing substantial in place of what's there.
That being said, I think Trevin Wax nailed it on the head. What exactly is this mythical beast called "the early church?" Given that they were no less sinners dependent on the grace of God than we are, relying on the Spirit to guide them in the absence of much of what we call scripture today, is it really appropriate, in our desire to peg everything to scripture, to lock God into a box whereby he cannot do anything if it's not explicitly spelled out in scripture? Isn't this a rather neurotic response motivated by a desire not step outside the lines lest God clout us a good one on the noggin? Or worse, might it not be more likely a desire to set boundaries where God has given us freedom in order for individuals to exercise unwarranted control over others by using the Bible as a club? That certainly would be a familiar but unfortunate refrain.
Darryl, glad you are reviewing this one. I suspect... maybe you can confirm or clarify.. that the fatal flaw of their critique is an insufficient description of culture and what constitutes accommodation versus appropriate contextualization. In other words, their description and critique is too thin and thus their semiotics is likewise thin. I'm thinking in particular of Kevin Vanhoozers work in this area.
Darryl - I appreciate your levelheadedness in reviewing a book this polarizing. It's always great to get an honest cross section of what hits home and what's a bit overstated, rather than more polarization. Your blog is the first I've heard of this book, and I'm intrigued by the premises it sets out. I've certainly spent a bit of my own time mulling through some of the points it makes, and I'd love to see/be a part of exploring solutions.
To the premise you explore here, there does seem to be something to the assertion that institutionalization of Christianity in practice quickly begins to undermine the relational and communal nature of the early church. I think the problem with most churches today isn't as much getting people in the doors or keeping them from moving on, as it is connecting people to other people in meaningful ways. The presentation-style, pastor-centric worship service and the inherent isolation of a crowd both work directly against this need for connection.
Many churches have been embracing the recent renaissance of small groups in order to offer a space for community, but it seems telling that you have to go outside the church building/service to pursue what many folks I've known have described as essentially where church really happens.
I'm with you that institution isn't all bad, but I'd like to see churches (heck, just groups of people even) who explore using the helpful aspects of institution in service of authentic community rather than attempting to create and foster authentic community from within an institution.
Mike:
Good thoughts. You're right, they have valid concerns, even though their solutions are lacking. But I hope their concerns don't get lost in the discussion.
Len:
"The fatal flaw of their critique is an insufficient description of culture and what constitutes accommodation versus appropriate contextualization." That's bang on. Since there is no expression of church apart from culture, the church should adopt "pagan" practices. But, as you say, what is accommodation vs. appropriate contextualization?
Jonathan:
Thanks for the encouragement and your thoughtful comment. "There does seem to be something to the assertion that institutionalization of Christianity in practice quickly begins to undermine the relational and communal nature of the early church." Yes! I wish Barna and Viola had said just that. That is indeed an issue we need to do a lot more thinking about.
Darryl,
I would look at European Churches for Canadian churches future. I haven't read this book, but based on your reviews I agree with their conclusions. I won't ever return to an institutional church. Most of my friends aren't going back either. I respect those who have stayed but disagree that the institutional church is worth saving. It's time for something radically different. My problem is I don't know what that is but would rather stay away from Churches then suffer through practices that don't make sense to me.
Anyways, it's been a long time but I've been keeping up with your blog.
Keep up the great work and Happy New Year!
Rob
Rob,
Thanks for keeping up with the blog. I hope you find something radically different that you're looking for.
I was thinking of what I heard from Alan Roxburgh last year. God often works in the most unlikely places and where you might least expect, which gives him hope for local congregations.
It's always good to hear from you. Hope we can connect some time in person.
I haven't read the book in question, but I have read books from both Barna and Viola on the subject of church. I don't think I remember Barna advocating any particular approach to church in Revolution. He just kept talking about the death of the congregation but never really defined what he meant by that. Viola is definitely a hard core house/simple church advocate.
I've never been comfortable saying that the New Testament prescribes a specific approach that should be followed in all places in all times. Like a couple other people in this thread I think any organization we form will look different in different. The question becomes what does scripture say about church that is universally applicable? I don't see a lot of pastors and church leaders scouring the scriptures to understand what it means to be the church. A lot of pastors are "ecclesial relativists". They would say the form doesn't matter as long as it works. In short I think you can error on both sides.
An New Testament purist may point to 1Cor 14 and say scripture specifically directs the church given everyone an opportunity to minster for the edification of the whole body. I don't go there because it seems reckless to take one specific direction to a specific church and apply to every context. However there are some places where scripture speaks of the nature of the church that is applicable across the board.
Consider 1Cor 12 and Paul's description of the body, the spiritual gifts and relationships between members of the body. How does one structure an organization associated with a group of believers that complements the nature of the church as Christ's body? If one were to drink all of what scripture says about how Christ's body works, how the kingdom works and the numerous admonitions about what to do as believers to each other you would be hard pressed to come up with the standard template we've been using since the reformation. I hesitate to say one approach to church is biblical and one is not, but I'm very willing to say that some approaches to church are more consistent with what is described in scripture and some are less consistent.
If you primary understanding of church stems from the reformation idea that a biblical church is one with correct preaching of the word and the correct administration of the sacraments then you would arrive at what we have now. I'm afraid I'll be revealing my anabaptist leanings here, but the reformers were wrong. Their idea of church was rooted in a reaction to the church they were reforming. I can't reconcile Paul's theology of the church as Christ's body with a church whose primary expression of being the church is a gathering of people who sit and listen to one guy talk.
While it might seem a little audacious to say everyone from the early church until now got it wrong but protestants and evangelicals have been saying that on a variety of issues at different times. The reformation itself said the very same thing about the church. Do we believe the church was largely wrong about slavery up to the abolitionists in recent centuries? Do we believe the church was largely wrong about the equality of men and women until recently? Do not a great many of us believe the church was wrong to use the power of the state to further its ends? There are all kinds of really important issues where Protestants, Evangelicals and even Roman Catholics have come around to admit the church was wrong for a very very long time.
LT:
You have some excellent thoughts. I think that's the point: I think we all acknowledge that we need to not settle for what the institutional church has become in many cases. We shouldn't be a crowd that merely gathers to listen to a sermon. That's why I think Barna and Viola's book is a valuable one in many ways, and institutional churches should wrestle with the issues they raise. You can even say that you think organic/house churches are the best model. But that is different than saying that "the church in its contemporary, institutional form neither has a biblical nor a historical right to exist."
You're also right in your last paragraph. I acknowledged that it's theoretically right, and in fact it does happen, that we discover almost everyone got it wrong until now. But it's rare, and when it happens we should (a) be very careful and humble (b) be aware that we are probably blind to many things others will see clearly. All I can say is that it's possible that Barna and Viola are right and everyone up until now has been wrong, but I don't think they've made a sufficient case.
I know you're in the thick of it like I am as part of a Christian institution. At times it's easy to despair. I think it's important for our institutions to step up and really wrestle with these issues without necessarily having Barna and Viola's solution as the foregone conclusion.
Darryl, thanks for your review.
Here's my take on this.
I'm tired of critics who rant about the church. It is easy to be a critic. The church is certainly an easy target.
What interests me, and what will get me to buy the book is solutions - innovative ideas for change.
I don't need someone else to tell me the church is in a world of hurt. I do need someone to show me new ways to go. I want real insight that leads to positive, effective change.
Darryl -- I'd like to comment briefly on your interaction with Pagan Christianity. Of course, you raise a number of issues that would require a chunk of time to fully explore. I'm just selecting a few matters at this time.
You say, "They don't always get the history right." That is an assertion I would have to challenge. I thoroughly read a pre-publication copy of PC. I've studied the topics covered in PC in 30 years of historical research, and it would be my judgment that their research and conclusions are right on. I suggest that every one who reads your blog should read the book for themselves and decide if what they are saying has historical and biblical merit.
I think the questions you raised about using buildings missionally, re-structuring worship services, moving away from being pastor-driven, channeling giving to the needy instead of maintenance, etc., are excellent. The huge problem is that your queries in fact call into question the very fabric that holds most churches together. They challenge the pillars of that which most people associate with "church." The reality is that 99 out of a 100 churches would flat-out reject even questioning these fundamental features of American Christianity, such as the centrality of the pastor and the pulpit. Your questions challenge what most church leaders view as non-negotiables.
If you are not aware of this already, you might be interested to know that Frank has responed to some of your concerns, and many others, at www.ptmin.org/pcobjections.htm
I’d also advise your readers to read this excellent review for another vantage point.
http://branthansen.typepad.com/letters_from_kamp_krusty/2007/12/i-cant-believe.html
Thank you for considering my remarks! Jon Zens
Thanks, Jon.
I'm not an expert in church history but I look forward to reviews by those who are. From what I could see I would emphasize a bit more continuity between synagogue and early church than they do. I didn't agree with their conclusions on Paul's teaching of payment for ministry, even though I agree with them that Paul's actual teaching may be subversive to our status quo. I look forward to reading more critical reviews from better history scholars than me.
As I say they do raise some important issues. I agree with you that the book is worth reading for those who want to explore these issues.
Darryl --
Time will bring forth further comment from competent historians, but as you may have noticed, in the book itself are recommendations by Howard Snyder, Robert Banks, David Norrington and Graydon Snyder, who are all recognized scholars in church history.
There are over a 1000 footnotes in the book. The documentation is not shoddy. That doesn't prove that every jot and tittle is correct, but I certainly found that the major points in PC were soundly established.
As you know, the synagogue was not an institution rooted in Old Testament revelation. It was of purely human invention for Jews in foreign lands. However, it would appear that in some ways there was more freedom in the synagogue that there is in most Protestant churches! At least Paul & Jesus could have an opportunity in such a meeting to comment on the OT text, "does anyone have an exhortation?"
1 Cor.9 is often a key proof-text used as a basis for supporting pastors. However, this context clearly has in view itinerant workers, not resident elders.
The 1 Tim. passage is interesting because if the text refers to helping elders financially in some way, then all the elders are possible candidates, not just the "preachers." The text says "especially those." By our practice we alter it to "only those who labor in the word." When have you heard of a church helping a non-pulpit person financially?
It's interesting how preachers will point to 1 Cor.9 to garner support, but you don't see Paul's words to the Ephesian elders cited with equal vigor -- "you know these hands of mine have supplied my own needs & the needs of my companions. In everything I did, I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the weak" (Acts 20:33-35).
Jon
Thanks, Jon. I may be skeptical but I'd like to hear from more scholars, especially the critics. It's often through the interplay between the two views that you begin to sort through the real issues.
I agree with many of the main points of the book, so you don't have an argument for me. I find the dismissal of the institutional church, however, a stretch given the evidence they present. I don't think they've shown that it's beyond being redeemed.
As for your other points: yes, we should explore how different ways of being the church that are more biblical. Yes, we should support others who give much of their time to ministry, not just the preachers. I like the issues this book raises, but find that they get a little carried away in pointing t the solution. In other ways they don't go quite far enough.
You may be interested in this reaction just posted today:
http://bobhyatt.typepad.com/bobblog/2008/01/so-call-me-a-pa.html
Ahh.. and thank YOU Darryl for the recommend. Resulted in a nice long angry comment on my blog :)
So- to answer Jon's questions here:
"At least Paul & Jesus could have an opportunity in such a meeting to comment on the OT text, "does anyone have an exhortation?""
Huh. Just like our community, Evergreen. I and the other elders still preach, but we do so with dialogue, people feel free to interject questions and comments and we end every sunday with asking "What do you all think? What do you want to say? What questions or comments do you have?"
"1 Cor.9 is often a key proof-text used as a basis for supporting pastors. However, this context clearly has in view itinerant workers, not resident elders."
It's not JUST itinerant workers in view here. Paul rationalized NOT asking for financial support from those among whom he was starting churches, probably because he didn't want them to think he was simply after their money. But he seemed to be ALL IN FAVOR of churches paying others. In fact, he argued for the right of those who labored to be paid! C'mon...
'The 1 Tim. passage is interesting because if the text refers to helping elders financially in some way, then all the elders are possible candidates, not just the "preachers." The text says "especially those." By our practice we alter it to "only those who labor in the word." When have you heard of a church helping a non-pulpit person financially?'
Is that serious question?
Yeah- again, that would be ours- and in fact MOST churches who have staff who aren't the teaching pastor.
Now- we're maybe a bit unique in that we don't see much difference between "pastor" and elder- kind of like the NT.
We have 7 elders currently, three of whom are being paid by the community, 2 for full-time kinds of hours. My hope would be that this will grow as the finances of the community grow.
"It's interesting how preachers will point to 1 Cor.9 to garner support, but you don't see Paul's words to the Ephesian elders cited with equal vigor -- "you know these hands of mine have supplied my own needs & the needs of my companions. In everything I did, I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the weak" (Acts 20:33-35)."
Again- both myself, AND our other full-time elder (my associate pastor Chris) work on the side to supplement our income from the church. We work hard. We're not lazy.
Thanks Darryl for your civil disagreement with the ideas being but forth by Mssrs Viola and Barna. I'm not quite so civil and self-controlled :)
I think they, like Spencer Burke before them, are giving a lot of people walking away from churches of all kinds a great apology for doing so. And if they ALL connected to house churches like Viola advocates, that would be fine... but they're just not.
What other church is there besides institutional? There’s nobody who doesn’t have problems with the church, because there’s sin in the church. But there’s no other place to be a Christian except the church.
This is an interesting statement by Eugene Peterson but totally off base. THE PLACE TO BE A CHRISTIAN IS IN THE WORLD. That's the problem. We have lost the focus of what it means to BE a Christian...Christ In You> A New and living way - demonstrating the life and character of our risen Lord.
We are to be salt and light. Light only makes sense in darkness! If we are the light of the world we must go where it is dark and shine. Walking out in the sunlight with our flashlights is of no value. It is within the darkness of this world we are to shine not within the four walls of some "sacred space". God's purpose was not to create a new religious system to replace Judaism, but a new race of men and women born of the Spirit who would demonstrate the life and order of heaven to a dark and fallen world.
The problem is that we CALL OURSELVES ChristiaS. I BELIEVE THAT "THEY (THE BELIEVERS) WE CALLED cHRSITIAN BY THE SURROUNDING CULTURE WHO SOUGHT TO LABEL THESE "CHRIST" FOLLOWERS MUCH AS WE CREATED THE LABEL "MOONIES" FOR THOSE WHO FOLLOWED REVEREND MOON.
The real question is..if we do not self lable and just go about our everyday lives "in the world" will those who see us identify us with Jesus Christ?