Comments on: Pagan Christianity?

By: Linda Nicola

Linda Nicola — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:06:59 +0000

“It’s a shame, really; this could have been a wonderful book challenging Christians to stop hating pagans so much by acknowledging how much pagan influence has shaped Christian identity. But instead, the authors pander to such hatred in their thinly veiled attempt to market the house church movement as a more “pure” (read: non-pagan) Christianity.”

I think this is a book you should write.

By: Carl McColman

Carl McColman — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 23:33:04 +0000

Yes, it's the Attwater dictionary, you can buy it here. It's pre-Vatican II, so in many ways it will be dated. But the definition of paganism is a keeper.

By: Rachel

Rachel — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 23:02:21 +0000

I read a few of the above comments, enjoying in particular Shadwynn’s.

But I have a question: is the “A Catholic Dictionary” you quoted the one by Attwater? Because I think I might buy it, just based off its lovely and oh-so-true definition for paganism.

And also, on the pagan and varied “precursors” to Christ: might those have been just ways that God was leading them to Christ, to prepare them for Christ? By giving them some Truth, as in foreshadowing, they would be ready to hear Christ’s message, etc. Like how we believe that there is foreshadowing in the Bible, with oh, Melchizadek’s offering of bread and wine a foreshadowing of the Last Supper. (There are some actual terms for this, but I cannot for the life of me recall them. Meh. o_O)
That’s how I see it.

By: Peggy

Peggy — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 00:32:14 +0000

The so called House Church movement is not an innovative concept. And it’s stirring up dissension which right there clues me in that it has a dubious agenda. Books such as this one are also not new. They have the deleterious effect of confusing those who are seekers of the Jesus of the Gospels. This is why I like the catechumate process–it gives an inquirer the opportunity to dip into church history and practice and learn the how and why of Christianity as it is today in all its myriad forms. My favorite Saint is Patrick who in the bloodless, swordless voluntary conversion of the Irish brought the best of culture and practice of a “pagan” people into Christianity. And the Irish were true Pagans in that they were an agrarian folk and not cosmpolitan/city oriented as the larger Mediterrarean culture which looked down on farmers and hearders. Such “work ” was fit only for slaves. There was a bias then and there is a bias now. Again, whose agenda does such division serve?

By: Jen

Jen — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 13:25:08 +0000

I listented to these two interviews with Barna and Viola, and I really enjoyed them. They were really helpful.

http://www.ptmin.org/barna_viola2.mp3
http://www.ptmin.org/barna_viola.mp3

By: james parker

james parker — Mon, 05 May 2008 04:26:36 +0000

Carl is right about “P.C.?” and Mr. Flowers is dead wrong; “P.C.?” is a work of “house-church” propaganda, no question. Why, even other “house-churches” are maligned and ridiculed, as they do not “line up” with the “Immaculate Conception” of Church, as imagined by Barna/Viola/Tyndale!

By: Carl McColman

Carl McColman — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 19:01:09 +0000

David, thanks for your tone of respectful disagreement (I welcome alternative viewpoints on this blog, as long as they aren’t expressed in disrespectful ways). Having said that, I do think we’ll have to agree to disagree. All interpretation is context bound, and as Mike Morrell noted on his blog, I’m a “category breaker” when it comes to reading and reviewing this book: a Neopagan-friendly, House Church-friendly, interfaith minded Catholic (yes, there aren’t too many of us, which is why I take what I do so seriously!). Obviously, in my context, Viola and Barna’s agenda of attacking paganism — and by extension, Catholicism — overshadows what laudable efforts they may be making in calling the body of Christ to a more faithful form of church.

I’m looking forward to reading other of Viola’s books that are more positive in their depiction of house churches. I think the Quakers had it right when they said, “Better to light a candle than to curse the darkness.” As far as I’m concerned, every author is entitled to write a stinker or two — I know I have.

I’m not calling these guys liars or even purposefully deceptive. I think they’re marketers. I think this book’s real agenda is to promote the house church movement but it has been beautifully packaged as an exposé of paganism within Christianity. Whether “clever marketing” amounts to lying, I will leave to my readers to decide. I do think that a title like “Why House Churches are More Faithful to New Testament Ecclesiology than Institutional Churches” would have been much more honest. But it also would have resulted in lower book sales.

By: David D. Flowers

David D. Flowers — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 18:17:20 +0000

I must respectfully disagree with you Mr. McColman. I think you should look deeper into the things Viola and Barna are saying… instead of getting caught up on the idea that we are talking about trading one way of “doing” church for another. There seems to be a lot of drama surrounding the practice of the church today that is unnecessary to say the least. We have lost sight of what is important: Christ!

The authors state their thesis very clearly. They are “making room” for the centrality, supremacy, and headship of Jesus in all things… particulalry in the church. Out of Christ comes an organic and natural Body life.

The thesis you have stated does not reflect the one stated by the authors. So, it would appear that you believe they are purposely deceiving their readers and are liars… OR… you are not being honest and you are reacting too qucikly based on your own ideas of the church conversation today.

Frankly, people are too fascinated with the church and seemingly disinterested in Jesus. I see something very disturbing in it all. Just my thoughts.

Peace brother.

David D. Flowers

By: Carl McColman

Carl McColman — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 13:35:10 +0000

Pagan Christianity is very much about the House Church Movement. The book's consistent message is this: "Since institutional Christianity is so infected by pagan practices, the best way to be faithful to the New Testament vision of the church is by joining a House Church." Never mind that I consider Viola's and Barne's reading of New Testament ecclesiology to be narrow, flawed, and intolerant, but I find the book's arrogant claim that once one is aware of the pagan influences in Christianity one is morally obligated to leave the institutional church to be offensive and insulting. Pagan Christianity is a classic bait and switch product: it purports to be a survey of pagan influence on the church, but its real agenda is to use that topic only for the purpose of manipulating people into becoming house church followers — not a very admirable marketing campaign for a community that claims to be the true embodiment of the priesthood of all believers.

By: Raynard Merritt

Raynard Merritt — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 13:23:08 +0000

The book is about “Pagan Christianity” not so much about the House Church Movement. If you want their ideas about “The Church” then pick up “Rethinking the Wineskin” by Viola.