Iconoclasm - "the deliberate destruction within a culture of the culture's own religious icons and other symbols or monuments, usually for religious or political motives. It is a frequent component of major domestic political or religious changes." (Source: Wikipedia)

And it happened as the ark of the covenant of the LORD came into the camp, that all Israel shouted with a great shout, so that the earth resounded. And when the Philistines heard the noise of the shout, they said, "What does the noise of this great shout in the camp of the Hebrews mean?" Then they understood that the ark of the LORD had come into the camp. And the Philistines were afraid, for they said, "God has come into the camp." And they said, "Woe to us! For nothing like this has happened before. "Woe to us! Who shall deliver us from the hand of these mighty gods? These are the gods who smote the Egyptians with all kinds of plagues in the wilderness. "Take courage and be men, O Philistines, lest you become slaves to the Hebrews, as they have been slaves to you; therefore, be men and fight." So the Philistines fought and Israel was defeated, and every man fled to his tent, and the slaughter was very great; for there fell of Israel thirty thousand foot soldiers. And the ark of God was taken; and the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, died. (1 Samuel 4:5-11)

There is presently a great shout arising in the camp of the Israelites (that would be the house church community). To what do we owe this disturbance in the Force? The ark of the Lord has appeared. Well, actually, it’s the next best thing; the new and highly anticipated book by Frank Viola and George Barna entitled Pagan Christianity. The book is actually a re-make of Viola’s 2002 book by the same name. But whereas that book garnered limited circulation among house church afficionados, this time, with the help of Barna’s name recognition, it has been published by a mainline publisher - Tyndale (which took the unusual step of including a "disclaimer" in the form of a "Publisher’s Preface")- which virtually guarantees widespread circulation . . . and much closer scrutiny. There’s a difference between playing triple-A ball for the Spokane Indians, which hardly anyone knows or watches, and playing for the Seattle Mariners. If you don’t understand the difference, then you probably won’t appreciate what’s about to happen to this book (not to mention its authors).

O.K., as you may be able to tell, I’m torn on this one. My heart’s tug and sympathies are with the Israelites (yep, the house church guys). But my concern is that the shout of joy and excitement over this book’s arrival may be premature. Let me say again, I’m a house church guy. I have left the traditional institutional church and plan to spend the remainder of my earthly sojourn pursuing my journey into the Kingdom of God in the fellowship of like minded believers for whom genuine ekklesia is the pursuit of God in the company of friends who have made a similar choice. We express that choice by defining Church (big "C") relationally rather than institutionally, and we express it through meetings in our homes and other non-traditional locations. It’s about values; not structure. And certainly not about which expression is "pagan" and which expression is not.

My challenge regarding the "Pagan Christianity" phenomenon is that I am in fundamental agreement with the thesis of the book, namely, that much of what seems to take place in the contemporary institutional church has little biblical foundation or precedent. The problem with the book as I see it consists of "attitude" and "over-reach". At heart, to label 2000 years of Christian practice and history as the triumph of paganism, and to describe all Christian reformations and spiritual awakenings over that period as "incomplete" (by your standards) is exactly what critical reviewers have labeled it as being: arrogance writ large. Furthermore, it is a basic principle of life that your writings will eventually be interpreted and applied by the "dullest butter knife in the drawer". And after they have read 250 pages of incessant argument that everything from the steeple to the communion table (and everything in between) is "pagan" in origin, they can be forgiven for not noticing the two or three interspersed paragraphs offering them a perfunctory reminder that "just because it is pagan doesn’t mean Christians should do it". Ahem. Right. As one critical reviewer (iMonk) noted with appropriate humor: Toilets are pagan in origin, so don’t use them. Welcome to "the theology of the dullest knife in the drawer".

Let me say right up front that I do not intend to give a "point-by-point" critique or review of this book. Enough reviewers have already done this, and more are coming, I’m sure. I simply want to offer a handful of observations which I think are relevant and should be kept in mind by anyone who reads the book (and, yes, I would encourage you to read it).

1. The Problem of Hyperbole, Over-Reach and "Either-Or" - This is the occupational hazard of revolutionaries, people passionate for a cause who often create false dichotomies or artificial dilemmas and then present you with an "either-or" choice: You’re either going to do church the ‘biblical" way or the "pagan" way. Sorry, fellas. False dilemma. I’m not biting. Such arguments are usually the product of "the heat of battle" and the best response is to reject the dichotomy and to re-examine the issue in the light of more information. Hyperbole and over-reach results in a dichotomy which says, "There are only two ways to do church - the pagan way or the biblical way." This often means, "There are only two ways to do church - the biblical way or my way." This is the "attitude" which seems to be communicated throughout this book. While I doubt Viola and Barna intended to communicate such an attitude, it has been picked up by enough readers to make it clear that it exists. They have fallen victim, if you will, to the occupational hazard of revolutionaries.

2. The Danger of Historical Absolutism - Amateur historians should always be careful about offering "historical absolutes" to "prove" their point. Very few things in the history of the church are "absolute," as any student of "historical theology" already knows. The beliefs and practices of God’s people have shifted and changed over the centuries within broad parameters which we now refer to as "historic Christianity". The challenge that his book will soon face will probably be a book by a knowledgeable and trained church historian who will come along and tell "the rest of the story" about the history of the institutional church and its "pagan" roots. The danger of "historical absolutism" leads quickly to other dangers, such as the danger of "historical revisionism"; re-writing history (or being very selective in your historical anecdotes) to fit your paradigm. This then leads to a "dismissive" attitude toward all of that portion of Church history that doesn’t fit your paradigm. Sorry, but as an evangelical Protestant, I am not prepared to reject the Reformation as "incomplete" simply because it didn’t live up to my interpretation of biblical purity 500 years after the fact. Many of those reformers paid with their lives for their "incomplete" reforms, and Europe endured a hundred and fifty years of religious warfare and strife over those same "incomplete" reforms. Again, do we really want to dismiss the Evangelical Awakening in England (or its American counterpart, the Great Awakening) and the 100 years of social transformation it brought about, simply because John Wesley didn’t practice New Testament-style house church the way we understand it today? Do we really want to disparage and dismiss the transformation of the American Frontier into "the Bible Belt" as a result of the Second Great Awakening of 1795-1811 simply because it was led by denominational clergy who didn’t practice our understanding of biblical house church? I, for one, do not.

3. The Challenge of "Descriptive" Versus "Prescriptive" - Let me inject a note of biblical reality. No where in the New Testament does Scripture "prescribe" house church (or any other form of "church") as the approved form of ekklesia. My friend Neil Gamble once looked me in the eye over dinner and said, "We are never commanded to plant house churches. We are commanded to make disciples". I hate it when he’s right, but he’s right. Scripture describes the early believers as gathering in homes ("the ekklesia which meets in your oikos"), but no where does it prescribe that they do so. Scripture prescribes values (a la 1 Corinthians 14), but not structure. And there are even times when the expression of those prescribed values is flexible. Could genuine New Testament ekklesia take place in a 13^th century cathedral? Sure it could. It could also take place in a Starbucks. And, yes, even in your home. There is a danger in taking the descriptive life of the New Testament ekklesia (as it appears, say, in the book of Acts), and then saying, "The N.T. Church did it this way (descriptive), ergo, we must do it that way, too (prescriptive)". If you’re going to go down that road then I’m going to insist that you also wear a toga and sandals to house church. Why? Because that’s how Paul and the boys did it! And if you’re going to go down that road, then iMonk was right: Toilets don’t appear in the New Testament, so don’t use them.

4. The Danger of Iconoclasm and Cultural Cannibalism - I began this article with a definition of "iconoclasm". You might want to re-read that now. Why? Because we stand on the brink of a new wave of iconoclasm - the intentional rejection, if not the out-right destruction - of our Christian cultural heritage for the simple reason that it doesn’t agree with someone’s understanding of "biblical purity." While I DO NOT believe that this was either Barna’s or Violas’ intention, it may well be their unintended result (remember the "dullest butter knife in the drawer" principle). Christian history records several outbreaks of just such iconoclasm, nearly all of which ended poorly for all concerned. Iconoclasm broke out during the Protestant Reformation as certain reformers sought to purify the church of either Catholic or "pagan" influences (you mean we’ve been through this before?! Yep.). During the English Civil War, Bishop Joseph Hall of Norwich described the events of one such outbreak of "iconoclasm" in 1643 when troops and citizens, encouraged by a Parliamentary ordinance against superstition and idolatry, went on a "cleansing spree":

If you can not read that passage with regret and a degree of shame, then you really don’t know what I’m saying here. So let me be more blunt. Beware the "purist" and the iconoclast. They are often, in reality, cultural cannibals who are willing to consume their own culture out of an ill-conceived principle or mis-understood interpretation of "biblical purity". It wouldn’t be the first time in Church history. I have no desire to wage open warfare against what is my own cultural and religious heritage, despite its many obvious failures, flaws, abuses and shortcomings. Nor do I have any interest in such iconoclasts telling me or my house church that I need to give up CDs of orchestrated worship music and only sing a capella, because that’s probably how the early church did it. Sorry, I enjoy my Michael W. Smith Worship CDs . . . and have no desire to become a house church extension of the Church of Christ (Non-Instrumental). Been there. Done that. Burned the tee shirt (instead of the CDs).

O.K., Time to wrap this up. By now you are probably thinking that I am opposed to this book. No, I am not. This is a book that eventually had to be written, if not by Barna and Viola, then by someone else with similar passions. In my semi-informed opinion it represents a final "push of the pendulum" among that wing of the house church movement which has been critiquing the institutional church for years. This pendulum swing has been building momentum in that wing of the house church movement for several years now. I am hopeful that perhaps the pendulum will soon begin to swing back in the other direction. Some in our movement have said that this is the book that will guide our discussions for the next year. While they are probably right, I sincerely hope not. Not because the book isn’t worth discussing. It is. But for me it is time to move on. This book and the discussions which surround it will (I fear) generate more heat than light. And at the end of the day it represents an intra-mural squabble among Christians as to whose form of "church" is more "biblical" or more "pagan". Y-A-W-N! Personally, I’m still in favor of flush toilets, regardless of who invented them. And when viewed from the outside by our Postmodern culture (some of whom will, in fact, read this book) this intra-mural squabble among Christians looks and sounds like an argument among opposing members of the crew of the Titanic as to the color & origin of the carpets, the design pattern of the China, the uniforms of the crew and whether or not the ship really is unsinkable or should have been designed differently. But the savy Postmodern unbeliever has already written off the conversation and is busy lowering a lifeboat. And they really don’t care whether that lifeboat was designed by a Christian or a pagan. All they care about is whether or not it floats.