glorycloud's Diaryland Diary ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- from Ben Witherington III's blog Howard Snyder's Review of 'Pagan Christianity'
Frank Viola�s 2002 book Pagan Christianity: Exploring the Roots of Church Practices has kicked up some fuss since it was revised with the help of George Barna and recently released under the Barna/Tyndale imprint. This is a ground-clearing book. Many Christians will be surprised�maybe shocked�to learn how much contemporary �Christian� practice has no biblical basis whatsoever. The question is: So what? Is such development merely the appropriate fruit of gradual adaptation to changing circumstances? Or is today�s church guilty of the charge Jesus leveled against the Pharisees: �You nullify the word of God by your traditions� (Mt. 15:6)? Legitimate adaptation and contextualization, or betrayal?
They celebrate those who have �left institutional Christianity� and have begun meeting in unstructured house churches�seen here as the only legitimate form of the church. The authors summarize: �The DNA of the church produces certain identifiable features. Some of them are: the experience of authentic community, a familial love and devotion of its members one to another, the centrality of Jesus Christ, the native instinct to gather together without ritual, every-member functioning, the innate desire to form deep-seated relationships that are centered on Christ, and the internal drive for open-participatory gatherings. We believe that any church that obstructs these innate characteristics is unsound, and therefore, unbiblical� (p. 263).
for the idea that it is possible for groups to meet �without ritual.� I have considerable sympathy with the book�s argument. Contemporary Christians, in my view, are not self-critical enough of the ways they do church�whether liturgical Protestants, revivalist evangelicals, Pentecostals, Charismatics, seeker-sensitive congregations, or �emerging� churches (not to mention the Roman Catholic and Orthodox traditions). Most of us do not pay enough attention to what the Bible plainly teaches about the nature and practice of the church as Body of Christ. So I wish church leaders everywhere would calmly read and reflect on this book. But that is not the end of the story. In the background here is a deeper question: How do we view changes in church practice over time? Legitimate development, or betrayal and maybe even apostasy? This debate has a long history, tracing back at least to Peter�s God-prompted decision to have dinner at Cornelius� house. In the Middle Ages people were anathematized, imprisoned, denounced, or burned at the stake depending on how they answered the question. Here also the issue of revitalization comes in. The logic behind the Center for the Study of World Christian Revitalization Movements holds that genuine renewal is not an either/or issue.
Traditionally, the church�s development through history has been seen in one of two ways: The �traditional orthodox� approach or the �secret history of the faithful remnant� theory. The Traditional View. The most generally accepted view�the traditional orthodox interpretation�is that God has guided the church through history, protecting it from heresy and apostasy, assisting it to adapt to changing circumstances. The development of clergy, liturgy, church buildings, and all the rest were the ways in which the church successfully adjusted as it grew and got more complex, and the way it extended its influence. Constantinianism�the development of the church after the conversion of the Emperor Constantine�is the key test case. In the traditional orthodox view (celebrated first by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History), the success of the church under Constantine was the great triumph of the church. God�s hand was in it all. In this view, it is foolish to expect the church today to look like the New Testament church (which was essentially a network of house churches with highly flexible leadership patterns). The New Testament church was the church in embryo; the little seedling that has now wonderfully put forth branches into all the world. The Secret History of the Faithful Remnant. The other view, unsurprisingly, is just the opposite. God has been working down through history through a mostly hidden underground church. The �institutional church� is corrupt and largely apostate. But God has an unbroken succession of the true church that has appeared from time to time in groups that the official church viewed as heretical or extreme. This true church has surfaced periodically under names like Montanists, Priscillians, Anabaptists, Waldensians, and so forth� and in networks of house churches today. This view has been advocated by various people�notably the German Pietist Gottfried Arnold (1666-1714), and today people like Gene Edwards. Pagan Christianity seems to assume this theory. In this view, Constantinianism was a great tragedy�the fall of the church. The only route to fidelity is a return to the New Testament pattern, some form of restoration to the original model. The choice here is rather clear-cut. But there is a third way, a mediating position that can be supported biblically, historically, theologically, and sociologically.
both the traditional view and the counter-view. Yes, God has been working through the �institutional church� down through history, despite its problems. Yes, the church has often been unfaithful, corrupt, and, in certain times and places, apostate. And yes, God has often worked through marginal groups�even sometimes rather extreme groups, like the �Montanists� � to enliven a �faithful remnant.� And yes, many of these groups were not really heretical doctrinally, yet were shamefully persecuted and often driven underground. The renewal-movement view holds that, despite the church�s frequent unfaithfulness, God has continued to work through �institutional� Christianity. It also observes that underground �remnant� churches can themselves become corrupt, or dysfunctional (I�ve known some), or moribund, needing renewal. Those of us in the Wesleyan tradition note John Wesley�s insights here. Wesley was outspoken in his denunciation of the failures of the Anglican Church in his day. Yet he did not abandon it. His views on the church, drawn largely from the New Testament, church history, and contemporary groups such as the Moravians, had much in common with the �secret history� view. But Wesley felt it was possible (and substantially proved it) to create a �faithful remnant� movement within the larger �institutional� church. This was British Methodism during Wesley�s lifetime. In this view, God has worked throughout history to bring new life to the church through a series of movements. This dynamic is foreshadowed already in the Bible, especially in Israel�s history. It can be documented over the centuries of the church. God has never given up on the church�even the �institutional church.� Neither should we. Yet in particular times and places the church may become so unfaithful that it falls under God�s judgment and may even disappear entirely.
We who find the renewal movement view convincing thus have a mixed reaction to Pagan Christianity. Though a valuable contribution, it is neither the last word nor the whole story. Some specific criticisms: The book speaks of �transformation,� but exactly what that means is mostly undefined. The authors paint with too broad a brush in speaking of �contemporary Christianity� and the �institutional church.� Many �traditional� churches do demonstrate genuine discipleship, community, and deep spirituality, whatever their imperfections. The book holds that local churches should be �autonomous,� despite what the Bible teaches about translocal networkings of the Body of Christ. And it largely ignores the contribution of Roman Catholic orders, an �institutional� form that in many notable instances faithfully embodied genuine Christianity for centuries.
syllogism is fallacious. It holds that because much church practice is pagan in origin, therefore such practices should be jettisoned. Viola writes, �Should we follow a model of church that is rooted in New Testament principle and example, or should we follow one that finds its origins in pagan traditions? That is the ultimate question� (p. 264). But the options are not that simple, and the �model� advocated is not as unambiguously New Testament as the authors believe. Second, the authors do not really deal with the key issue of contextualization. Yes, the New Testament vision of the church should be normative. But what does that really mean in very diverse cultural contexts? When it is appropriate to adapt cultural traditions, even �pagan� ones, and use them for kingdom purposes? Still, the cumulative weight of Pagan Christianity is impressive. Christians today who want to see the church be faithful to the gospel of the kingdom should ask themselves: Which of our current traditions are consistent with Scripture and help us to be faithful communities of the kingdom? And which really nullify God�s Word? If churches confront that question prayerfully while seriously examining Scripture, many things may change. �� Howard A. Snyder 7:53 a.m. - 2008-07-14 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
||||||
|
||||||