Pagan Christianity

A new book (or more appropriately, a re-release/new edition of recent book) is causing a bit of a stir in the ‘Christian Community’. It is called Pagan Christianity and it is by Frank Viola. In this book Viola points out how many of the things that are part of the modern church (like tithing, the message, clergy pay, etc) are not based in the New Testament, rather they grew out of pagan tradition and culture.

Now, I must confess that I have not read this book (nor will I). It seems like the height of ignorance to write about a book one has not read, but I contend that it is not. For this book has been written hundreds of times through the ages and I have read a few versions of this tale.

Many men through the ages have, like Viola, noticed a divide between the early church and the church of their age. When they notice that their church lacks an Essential Truth that was crucial in the early church and they seek to reclaim that Truth, their efforts are Godly. But when they focus on inessential truths (as Viola does here) their efforts to reform the church in accordance to the model of the early church fall into chaos.

In the 1300’s a man named John Wycliffe came to the conclusion that Viola has—the church has strayed from its roots. The church of the Apostles was not recognizable in the church of his day. Wycliffe noted that there was professional, celibate clergy and they alone could fully partake in communion. Mass was in a language that the common man (the laity) could not understand. And the people were discouraged (and sometimes prevented) from reading God’s word. Wycliffe translated the Bible into the vernacular and made it available to the laity—this revolutionized Europe (at least marked the beginning of revolution).

John Hus became a follow of Wycliffe in the 1400’s. He recognized that much of the church was based on mere tradition that did this tradition did not fit the times. He began to preach in Czech instead of Latin, he gave communion to the laity, and he lengthened the sermon because the people asked him to.

All of this led up to Luther. What did these three reformers have in common? They all had the same inspiration for their reform. They read the New Testament, saw the divide between the primitive church (the church as described in the New Testament) and the current church, and sought to make the current church like the primitive church. (I will not comment on the merits or success of their endeavors).

These reformers preached about the falsity of the donation of Constantine, they disputed the authority of the Pope over all the church, they sought to replace a clergy/laity divide funding by tithing with a notion of the ‘priesthood of all believers’, and they said all were equal so all could take communion.

When they announced their programs of reform, no one in the church was surprised. Nearly everyone in the church recognized the divide between the church of the apostles and the church of Medieval Europe.

Everyone knew that the donation of Constantine was a myth, but it was a convenient myth (it checked the political ambition of the Pope by appeasing him) and that is why it prevailed (the donation of Constantine was a forged document that stated that the Emperor Constantine had in the fourth century given the Pope authority over most of Italy. This of course conveniently legitimated the political control of Europe by the Pope).

The authority of the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) over the church had been contested for centuries, but Europe thought Christianity needed a head, so they kept this fiction.

Tithing was a Levitical institution, but the church in taking on the role of educator, moralizer, judge, and guardian of Europe had developed a complex infostructure and required lots of funding, thus the institution of tithing (often made mandatory) remained.

Communion wine was only given to the clergy to remind the common people of their status. There was a hierarchy and they were on the bottom. The leading minds of Europe thought this was necessary to maintain social order (which by that time had become the most important role of the church. The church was given special status and power by the state; in return they supported the king and state and kept the peasants in check. The belief shared by Catholics and reformers alike during that age was that man was tainted by original sin and if he was given freedom, he would bring destruction).

Viola’s claim that there is a divide between the early and modern church is not any sort of new revelation. Most have recognized this in the past for any half discerning reader of the New Testament realizes very quickly, like the great reformers, that the church of today looks completely different from the church described in the New Testament. We should be greatly worried if our church has strayed from the Essential Truth, but I contend that a difference in form alone (inessential truths) is not a problem.

The New Testament gives little direction about how a church service should function: whether church should meet in a home or a building, what type of music, if any should be played, the pay of preachers (Paul did not accept pay, but told Timothy he could request it), how long a message should be (or even if there should be a message), etc.

Bertrand Russell says if a great writer leaves something out, the absence of this thing is purposeful and we need to interpret the text with this in mind. The Bible is God’s Word, nothing in it or omitted from it is accidental. There is a reason why instructions for church procedures are largely absent: church service procedure consists of inessential truths and it can change depending on time and circumstance. In fact the Bible is vague on inessential truth so as to allow the church to adapt to every culture and every age. In adopting procedure and not focusing on inessential truth the church is best able to communicate the Essential Truth of the Word of God.

At times it may be best and convenient for people to meet in a home for church, in other times a field, and still other times for people to meet in an ornate cathedral. This is an inessential truth, so the Bible says nothing about it. That allows us to use whatever meeting place is best given our particular situation. Why do we meet in church buildings? Because as Christianity began to spread through imperial Rome the old Roman cults went bankrupt. There were numerous empty temples throughout the empire. Constantine wanted these buildings to be put to good use, so he gave them to the church.
These provided convenient places of meeting, so the church accepted. From this does it follow that we must meet in church buildings? Of course not, it was convenient for the earliest Christians, but it may not be convenient for us. But the mere fact that this tradition of meeting in a church building is rooted in culture does not make it wrong. It is not right or wrong, it is an inessential truth and that is why the Bible gives no instruction regarding it.

Admittedly there is reason why men like Viola have sought to point out the lack of Biblical foundation for certain traditions of the church. Far too often these traditions have been turned into sacred cows and maintained at all cost. The elevation of inessential truths to the level of Essential Truth leads to chaos when they are made the source of reforms, but just as problematic is the fact that this same elevation becomes a stumbling block when these truths are maintained. Some old time Christian missionaries told Africans that drums were the instruments of the devil and would not let them incorporate their style of music into worship. This kept Africans from worshiping God. Some people think the King James Version is the only authoritative version of the Bible. Forcing some to read this version prevents them from comprehended the Bible (and it makes Christianity appear old and outdated to others). The Bible gives no instruction on what form worship should take nor what translation from which one should read the Bible. The Bible fails to do this so that these inessential truths would not become a stumbling block to people receiving the Essential Truth. But Christians, though good natured, through their focus on maintaining inessential truths have become the very stumbling block the Bible warns them not to be.

What the Bible does give is clear and repeated instruction on the Essential Truths that the church must hold unto: the fallen state of man, man’s need for a savior, and the death and resurrection of the God who became man to save all mankind. This Essential Truth should be our focus. When the church strays from this Truth we must be concerned, but when it changes tradition with time we should not worry. Paul tells Titus (Titus 1:9) to hold fast to sound doctrine, (not the early church traditions of the Jerusalem church, but the Truth of the Gospel) and refute those who oppose it. Throughout the New Testament it is made clear that many false teachers will come and corrupt the Gospel, so we must be vigilant in holding fast the Truth.

Narrow is our road and it narrow we must keep it. We must judge all teaching against God’s Infallible Word so as to keep out false teaching (Galatians 1:8). When citizens lose their vigilant defense of liberty, they become slaves. When the church gets tired of judging all teaching against the Bible, they let in falsehood. For the broad road that leads to destruction is easy and wide and it can accommodate many strains of false teaching. But when we are focused on inessential truth it is difficult to protect the purity of the Gospel.

For indeed, just as Hus and Luther were inspired to reform the church over the discrepancies of Essential Truth between the ancient church and the church of their day (namely salvation by grace through faith versus salvation through the fulfillment of sacraments) some of their followers worked to destroy the church over inessential discrepancies between the early church and the current church.

For example a group of Hussites (followers of the reformer John Hus) read about the communistic configuration of the early church and decided that this was an essential truth. They set up a communistic society in the city of Tabor. They held all their property in common, their wives in common, and a contingent of them were nudists. By focusing on inessential truths they splintered the reform movement and prevented true and necessary reform of Essential Truth to occur.

In the same way a group of Lutherans broke off and called themselves the Anabaptists (they did not believe in infant baptism). They formed a communist society (that held all, including wives and children in common) and took up arms against their German princes. They were defeated and eventually grew into the Amish(!) of today. Because they focused on an inessential truth (the relation of the church to property) they discredited the reform movement and took the focus of the people from the Truth.

The early church held all property in common because it was being viciously persecuted and needed Christians needed to live in this radical community simply to survive. This account (found in Acts chapter 4) is descriptive and not prescriptive. If we compare our current church situation to the descriptions given of the church in the New Testament we will find them to be different, but we should not be surprised for we have a different culture. What would Viola have us replace our traditions with? The traditions of the early church? How could those work, they are based in a culture we do not share. We must examine the scriptures and be sure the church is not straying from the Essential Truth; this is emphasized over and over in the New Testament. But we should not concern ourselves with the ever changing controversies regarding inessential truths. The Bible is vague regarding them so as to allow the church to adapt to every culture in time so as to best present the Essential Truth. We should never let a controversy over an inessential truth become a stumbling block for presenting the Gospel. Focusing on inessential truths (either reforming or maintaining them) only leads to chaos (remember the Hussites and Anabaptists) or it makes one into a stumbling block (like the missionaries who said God could not be worshiped with music containing drums); either way the church is harmed. By focusing on inessential truths we lower our guard and allow false teaching to sneak its way in and corrupt the Gospel.

If we don’t notice certain traditions, then they aren’t doing any harm. The Devil would like to distract us and keep us from the Truth by making us focus on inessential truths—he could care less if our focus is on performing these traditions or reforming them. Yes, some of what the church does today is because of the involvement in the church by the Emperor Constantine and the problems his reforms created at various times show clearly the consequences of the state wrongly interfering with the church. Through the years we have discarded much of this and as years pass I imagine we’ll continue to discard more. But as we change we cannot simply destroy as the French did in their revolution, for that leads to chaos. We must reform within our tradition (found in the model of the American Revolution).

I am sure Viola has good intentions, but what good will his book do? No one puts up a Christmas tree next year because this is an old pagan tradition? He should not be focused on destroying, but on creating. Worst of all Viola seems to be oblivious to all the harm that focusing on essential truths has done to the church—both by those who want to maintain them and by those who want to expose and reform them. Any time we focus and argue over inessential truths we are taking our eyes off of the Essential Truth and opening the door for the Devil to come in subtly, but surely, corrupt the Gospel.

A few friends of mine both have full time jobs. During the week they prepare sermons and on Sunday morning they hold church in the basement of their house. Afterwards there is discussion, prayer, and a meal together. This new form of church seems to be better at serving our particular culture and time than the traditional go to a building/get preached at model. That approach does not work so well today because in the past community was a given; church did not need to encourage or foster community. But in an age of suburbs, shopping malls, and television community is all but destroyed and churches that do nothing to stem this destruction are dying while those that foster community flourish (as evidenced by the growth of home churches worldwide).

This is the way to change. It is not a break with the past; it does not focus on inessential truths and try to reform them with better inessential truths. Instead it focuses on how to best present the Gospel, the Essential Truth, to a dying world and how to best serve the followers of Christ in their walk with God.