What do you think?
Rate this book
Pagan Christianity?: Exploring the Roots of Our Church Practices
This book - written by George Barna and Frank Viola - traces the historical roots of Protestant church practices and asks if the modern-way of doing church is a departure or a development from what Jesus and the apostles taught. Since the book released in 2008, it has never been refuted. The authors have responded to all objections and critics at the book site PaganChristianity dot org, which includes endorsements by scholars. This book is not a stand alone; it only deconstructs. The constructive sequels (Reimagining Church, From Eternity to Here, Finding Organic Church offer practical solutions. Frank Viola's newer books have been recommended by pastors and church leaders. They are for a wider audience. See the entire catalog on the author's blog.
269 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2005
666 people are currently reading
2969 people want to read
About the author
Frank Viola
64 books206 followersFrank is a bestselling author and in-demand conference speaker. You can find his books, podcasts, articles, messages, and courses at http://frankviola.org.
Viola doesn't interact on GoodReads. If you want to contact him, you can write him directly with a question or comment at frank@frankviola.com.
Viola doesn't interact on GoodReads. If you want to contact him, you can write him directly with a question or comment at frank@frankviola.com.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 629 reviews
December 5, 2012
I can see by the comments that people are pretty divided on this book. For those that say the author is good at pointing out the problems but offers no solutions, I would like to point out that the book has a sequal called "Re-imaginig Church" that does offer more detail on how to fix the problem. Some criticize him for not being and expert in Bible theology or church history and is therefore not qualified to make such arguments. To those I would ask if they demand the same "qualifications" when reading the writings of the apostle Paul or the disciples. These type of comments only enforce one of the main points of this book - that we now rely on prestige, positions, and qualifications more than we do on the Holy Ghost. It seems that those who are against this book are either unwilling to admit that there are serious problems with "doing church" or they have never read the Bible objectively without the "church goggles" that have been given to them by their pastors and/ or evengelists or other self proclaimed spiritual gurus. Someone in one of the comments had the audacity to suggest that the author does not provide good sources for his history. This is simply not the case as over 1/3 of the total page space is dedicated to listing sources and evidence for his arguments. Others have a problem with him stating a case for house churches as the only way to do things. Here's the bottom line. It doesn't matter if you agree or disagree with what is in the book. It either lines up with scripture or it doesn't. I will be the first to acknowledge that the Bible doesn NOT give a specific set of instructions are draw out one way to "do church". I also understand that the way we as Christians operate is in fact influenced by our culture and that there is nothing wrong with that to a certain degree. However, some things in scripture ARE plainly stated and when a system or way of doing things steals God's authority and gives it to men, when our resources are used to pay salaries and maintain facilities instead of feeding the hungry and taking the gospel to the lost, and when that system harms people and misrepresents scripture, then something has got to change. I am more than happey to discuss this with anyone, whether that be a new Christian or a "qualified" Bible expert. I'm not one to state my case and then write off everyone else as crazy. E-mail questions or comments for furthur discussion to mattpetersen_7@yahoo.com.
April 7, 2008
Frank Viola likes house church. Using the flawed proof texting method that he so vehemently criticizes in the book, he proves that it is the "only" New Testament way to do church. If he cites 1 Corinthians 14:26 one time he cites it 100.
Then in other places he sounds so much like Alexandar Cambell I wonder if he came from the Cambellite movement. Cambellites like to say, "If it isn't in the NT it is unscriptural." (Which is why the strict ones still don't use pianos in their meetings)
I dont recommend this book to anyone. I like house church too. But I don't want to make the mistake of concluding that everyone else is wrong then.
Then in other places he sounds so much like Alexandar Cambell I wonder if he came from the Cambellite movement. Cambellites like to say, "If it isn't in the NT it is unscriptural." (Which is why the strict ones still don't use pianos in their meetings)
I dont recommend this book to anyone. I like house church too. But I don't want to make the mistake of concluding that everyone else is wrong then.
December 23, 2008
This book was... not what I thought it would be.
Full disclosure: I am, for all intents and purposes, an atheist. I don't believe in invisible sky wizards, zombie jesus, space aliens from another galaxy, or thetans, or jolly old bald fat men ascending to another plane of existence, or anything like that. I don't care what you choose to believe in, but I don't like being told what I should believe in.
Now that that's out of the way...
I thought it would be a historical book that exposed the origins of modern day church practices that have been taken from and/or "borrowed" from Pagan traditions over the history of the church.
It does that. To a point.
But then it goes beyond that. In essence, the main point of this book, in my opinion, is this:
"Our version of Christianity is better than yours because yours sucks and you're doing it all wrong, and it says so in the New Testament."
This book had the potential to be a lot of things: historical, religious, inspirational, and so on, but in trying to be all of them, it was none of them. It had a few good points (chapter 11, about how modern day Christians tend to approach the bible out of context and as a jigsaw puzzle, was rather interesting), but overall I'd have to say that the constant tone of "contemporary christianity sucks because of x, y, and z and our way is better because we get back to the original meaning" got to be irritating as I progressed through the book.
The book is a bit unique in that it challenges Christians to re-evaluate their faith, practice, and way of doing both, and for that I applaud it. But the manner in which it presents it's argument (trying to be historical) compared with how it actually does it leaves much to be desired.
The author of the book has good intentions, considering his overall message and point -Christians acting like Christ in order to practice their faith, instead of parroting dogma, chapter and verse, and condemning others who don't act like them, eschewing them, and doing anything possible to "save their souls". He also goes on to talk about how modern day practices from the actual physical church building, order of worship, sermon, pastor, "Sunday best" clothing, music, tithing (pay attention, Mormons!) and "Professional" clergy, baptism, the lord's supper, and christian education, how all of these are rooted in either Greek, Roman, or pagan traditions that were absorbed into the practice at the time. Why? Well, membership was low, and instead of having people upend all their traditions, you simply adapt the "new" thing to their known way of life.
Ironically, the point the author makes of how the modern day church is "off" is very in sync with another author/philosopher's view on what was wrong with the church, and how it was all screwed up not because of the founder, but because of those who came afterwards - Nietzsche's "The Anti-Christ".
Did I learn a lot about the church history and it's practices? Yes. However, the historical analysis from someone who (as far as I know) is not trained in such practices makes the authority of the book suspect. In addition, the author was quite "unsanitary" when it came to making his arguments - he would be making a valid historical point, and then in the next sentence, attach religious-toned language about how following God/Christ was supposed to be this way. In certain ways, it feels (now that I think about it) that he was guilty of committing his own sin - of using historical analysis in a "jigsaw" puzzle method in order to make his point. It's either one way or the other, but it can't be both, especially when you are trying to trace the historical development of something objectively to prove a point.
Another issue I had with the book was the issue of citation. I got the impression that the author felt that if he just cited sources to support his point, then he'd done all his homework regarding how to "prove" his point, and then he would just go on to the next point. It was frustrating because there was no causal analysis that I'm used to having when I read historical texts.
Overall, I'm glad I read the book so that, if I ever get into another theological argument with someone who is a parroter of chapter and verse, I can more easily defend my argument. However, the writing of the book could have used much more revision, or better yet, an stringent academic approach to the topic which, I think, would have yielded much better, clearer, more sanitary results.
If you're a die-hard Christian fiending to get back at the way real Christians lived, I'd recommend buying this book. If you just want to learn about the history of the church and its practices, then I'd suggest borrowing and/or getting it from the library.
Full disclosure: I am, for all intents and purposes, an atheist. I don't believe in invisible sky wizards, zombie jesus, space aliens from another galaxy, or thetans, or jolly old bald fat men ascending to another plane of existence, or anything like that. I don't care what you choose to believe in, but I don't like being told what I should believe in.
Now that that's out of the way...
I thought it would be a historical book that exposed the origins of modern day church practices that have been taken from and/or "borrowed" from Pagan traditions over the history of the church.
It does that. To a point.
But then it goes beyond that. In essence, the main point of this book, in my opinion, is this:
"Our version of Christianity is better than yours because yours sucks and you're doing it all wrong, and it says so in the New Testament."
This book had the potential to be a lot of things: historical, religious, inspirational, and so on, but in trying to be all of them, it was none of them. It had a few good points (chapter 11, about how modern day Christians tend to approach the bible out of context and as a jigsaw puzzle, was rather interesting), but overall I'd have to say that the constant tone of "contemporary christianity sucks because of x, y, and z and our way is better because we get back to the original meaning" got to be irritating as I progressed through the book.
The book is a bit unique in that it challenges Christians to re-evaluate their faith, practice, and way of doing both, and for that I applaud it. But the manner in which it presents it's argument (trying to be historical) compared with how it actually does it leaves much to be desired.
The author of the book has good intentions, considering his overall message and point -Christians acting like Christ in order to practice their faith, instead of parroting dogma, chapter and verse, and condemning others who don't act like them, eschewing them, and doing anything possible to "save their souls". He also goes on to talk about how modern day practices from the actual physical church building, order of worship, sermon, pastor, "Sunday best" clothing, music, tithing (pay attention, Mormons!) and "Professional" clergy, baptism, the lord's supper, and christian education, how all of these are rooted in either Greek, Roman, or pagan traditions that were absorbed into the practice at the time. Why? Well, membership was low, and instead of having people upend all their traditions, you simply adapt the "new" thing to their known way of life.
Ironically, the point the author makes of how the modern day church is "off" is very in sync with another author/philosopher's view on what was wrong with the church, and how it was all screwed up not because of the founder, but because of those who came afterwards - Nietzsche's "The Anti-Christ".
Did I learn a lot about the church history and it's practices? Yes. However, the historical analysis from someone who (as far as I know) is not trained in such practices makes the authority of the book suspect. In addition, the author was quite "unsanitary" when it came to making his arguments - he would be making a valid historical point, and then in the next sentence, attach religious-toned language about how following God/Christ was supposed to be this way. In certain ways, it feels (now that I think about it) that he was guilty of committing his own sin - of using historical analysis in a "jigsaw" puzzle method in order to make his point. It's either one way or the other, but it can't be both, especially when you are trying to trace the historical development of something objectively to prove a point.
Another issue I had with the book was the issue of citation. I got the impression that the author felt that if he just cited sources to support his point, then he'd done all his homework regarding how to "prove" his point, and then he would just go on to the next point. It was frustrating because there was no causal analysis that I'm used to having when I read historical texts.
Overall, I'm glad I read the book so that, if I ever get into another theological argument with someone who is a parroter of chapter and verse, I can more easily defend my argument. However, the writing of the book could have used much more revision, or better yet, an stringent academic approach to the topic which, I think, would have yielded much better, clearer, more sanitary results.
If you're a die-hard Christian fiending to get back at the way real Christians lived, I'd recommend buying this book. If you just want to learn about the history of the church and its practices, then I'd suggest borrowing and/or getting it from the library.
October 15, 2014
Reading this book changed my view about many things that I thought I understood regarding contemporary, North American Christianity and the traditional, organizational church ...not the Body of Christ.
And it set me free to relate to my heavenly Father, through Jesus in the power of Holy Spirit, in a way I never knew even existed.
I recommend the book highly. But, get ready for a ride that will shock you and, sometimes, maybe even upset you! But you'll settle down after you pray!
You may choose not to like the book. But, you'll have difficulty arguing against Frank Viola's and George Barna's thesis because of their thorough original research in church history and their comprehensive and thorough documentation of what they found.
Blessings!
GaryFPatton (gfp '42™ 2012-04-15)
And it set me free to relate to my heavenly Father, through Jesus in the power of Holy Spirit, in a way I never knew even existed.
I recommend the book highly. But, get ready for a ride that will shock you and, sometimes, maybe even upset you! But you'll settle down after you pray!
You may choose not to like the book. But, you'll have difficulty arguing against Frank Viola's and George Barna's thesis because of their thorough original research in church history and their comprehensive and thorough documentation of what they found.
Blessings!
GaryFPatton (gfp '42™ 2012-04-15)
May 1, 2008
Note: I'm only half way through at the time of this review.
This is a book that when I get to the end of my day, no matter how exhausted I am, I have to read it. This is a sign of a good book to me. If I'd rather go to bed than read it, then it's not that good.
I have really enjoyed the historical references for how the modern church has evolved (or devolved according to the author). While I don't share the same passion for a pure form of early church worship, I can appreciate how this would be a desired form of worship for those who do have that passion.
I will say this book has definitely challenged my blind acceptance of all church traditions. To me, that can be a good thing. I'm not threatened by being challenged in what I believe and accept.
I do recommend this book to those who don't mind that challenge. I will caution that if you're diehardedly committed to your denomination, you might be threatened by the challenge this book can bring to your sense of security in being a member of your religious affiliation.
This is a book that when I get to the end of my day, no matter how exhausted I am, I have to read it. This is a sign of a good book to me. If I'd rather go to bed than read it, then it's not that good.
I have really enjoyed the historical references for how the modern church has evolved (or devolved according to the author). While I don't share the same passion for a pure form of early church worship, I can appreciate how this would be a desired form of worship for those who do have that passion.
I will say this book has definitely challenged my blind acceptance of all church traditions. To me, that can be a good thing. I'm not threatened by being challenged in what I believe and accept.
I do recommend this book to those who don't mind that challenge. I will caution that if you're diehardedly committed to your denomination, you might be threatened by the challenge this book can bring to your sense of security in being a member of your religious affiliation.
January 8, 2008
Finished this last night - wow! I dare you to read this and walk away WITHOUT a list of questions to ask your pastor. The information presented breaks my heart - how far we have moved from the origins of the early church, and how this seems to be limiting our sense of community and involvement as ministers in the body of Christ. Let me know what you think!!!
March 11, 2008
Wow! This one is heavy. You have to spend some time after you've read it to think about the implications. This is a book that by implication asks you at the end, "So what are you going to do about it?" I love the Hans Christian Anderson quote at the beginning. I also chuckled over "The Calf Path," by Sam Walter Foss, quoted in the introduction. I had seen it before, but not in years.
I thought a few of the "connections" to paganism were a little overdrawn, but all in all it is a compelling book.
I thought a few of the "connections" to paganism were a little overdrawn, but all in all it is a compelling book.
September 23, 2008
I couldn't finish it. The authors talk a lot about facts, but give very little proof - or take things out of context to prove their point. Neither author is a Church historian by training and it shows in this book.
quote:
"[Until the year 300]Neither did they have a special priestly caste that was set apart to serve God." pg 12
First off I doubt either the Catholic or Orthodox church would call the priestly function a "caste" - perhaps "calling" would have been a bit less abrasive. But, more importantly, where is their documentation to make such a statement? Did they forget about Polycarp?? Ignatius? Did the church come up with the office of Bishops and Presbyters just in time for the Council of Nicea?
Then I found this review. This pretty much sums it up for me.
If you want to learn about Early Church first read the Apostolic Father's themselves: The Apostolic Fathers
Or, if you want an overview of practice & doctrine these authors are quite good:
Chadwick
Bradshaw
Hall
Pelikan
Ware
"It is therefore befitting that you should in every way glorify Jesus Christ, who has glorified you, that by a unanimous obedience you may be perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgment, and may all speak the same thing concerning the same thing, and that, being subject to the bishop and the presbytery, you may in all respects be sanctified.....
For we ought to receive every one whom the Master of the house sends to be over His household, (Matthew 24:25) as we would do Him that sent him. It is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would upon the Lord Himself."
St. Ignatius (+117AD) in the Letter to the Ephesians
quote:
"[Until the year 300]Neither did they have a special priestly caste that was set apart to serve God." pg 12
First off I doubt either the Catholic or Orthodox church would call the priestly function a "caste" - perhaps "calling" would have been a bit less abrasive. But, more importantly, where is their documentation to make such a statement? Did they forget about Polycarp?? Ignatius? Did the church come up with the office of Bishops and Presbyters just in time for the Council of Nicea?
Then I found this review. This pretty much sums it up for me.
If you want to learn about Early Church first read the Apostolic Father's themselves: The Apostolic Fathers
Or, if you want an overview of practice & doctrine these authors are quite good:
Chadwick
Bradshaw
Hall
Pelikan
Ware
"It is therefore befitting that you should in every way glorify Jesus Christ, who has glorified you, that by a unanimous obedience you may be perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgment, and may all speak the same thing concerning the same thing, and that, being subject to the bishop and the presbytery, you may in all respects be sanctified.....
For we ought to receive every one whom the Master of the house sends to be over His household, (Matthew 24:25) as we would do Him that sent him. It is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would upon the Lord Himself."
St. Ignatius (+117AD) in the Letter to the Ephesians
August 25, 2009
A powerful book. If you're not at a place in your spiritual walk where you have a firm faith in God, this will yeild an uneasy, angry, or (even worse) flippant reaction. To me, however, it addressed and/or confirmed many vague concepts I've had about "church" vs "The Church" over the past years. It's a book that will change your understanding of biblical worship and community.
My overwhelming reaction was dissapointment when I realized there were VERY few people you can honestly work through a book like this with. Any pastor or church worker will never be able to deal with it honestly because they've basically staked their entire lives on this book being wrong. Therefore, I won't even try to have an honest discussion with them about it. Then there are people who just aren't ready for it...they're convinced that American Church is birthed directly from the bible and have no willingness to look outside that box for the truth.
While I find this book inspiring and informative, I mostly find it sad that it's something that can't really be shared. Maybe just passing it along to someone is the best hope of a future honest discussion of the concepts...
My overwhelming reaction was dissapointment when I realized there were VERY few people you can honestly work through a book like this with. Any pastor or church worker will never be able to deal with it honestly because they've basically staked their entire lives on this book being wrong. Therefore, I won't even try to have an honest discussion with them about it. Then there are people who just aren't ready for it...they're convinced that American Church is birthed directly from the bible and have no willingness to look outside that box for the truth.
While I find this book inspiring and informative, I mostly find it sad that it's something that can't really be shared. Maybe just passing it along to someone is the best hope of a future honest discussion of the concepts...
December 14, 2025
Pagan Christianity? by George Barna and Frank Viola is a thought-provoking read, but it’s not meant for the casual skeptic or the disillusioned critic of faith. It’s best suited for Christians who deeply love Jesus and His Church but have found themselves outside organized religion and traditional church, longing to understand how things got this way and wanting a real experience of church as the New Testament presents it.
The book powerfully exposes the historical roots of many church traditions, but it’s only the deconstructive half of a larger conversation. To stop here is to miss the redemptive “reconstruction” offered in later works like Reimagining Church and Finding Organic Church.
Unlike this book and the constructive sequels, Viola's new book "The Untold Story of the New Testament Church: Revised and Expanded" [2025] is astonishing and is written to all Christians regardless of church form because it explains the New Testament letters in a powerful, clear, and exciting way.
The book powerfully exposes the historical roots of many church traditions, but it’s only the deconstructive half of a larger conversation. To stop here is to miss the redemptive “reconstruction” offered in later works like Reimagining Church and Finding Organic Church.
Unlike this book and the constructive sequels, Viola's new book "The Untold Story of the New Testament Church: Revised and Expanded" [2025] is astonishing and is written to all Christians regardless of church form because it explains the New Testament letters in a powerful, clear, and exciting way.
August 2, 2012
Viola's book is well done. I was a surprise, after all, Viola is not a scholar of the subject of the history of the church. He does a great job covering a lot of the traditions added on to what Christ created, many who gave this book one star seem to take it personally as if Viola was condemning Sunday worship, and their ways of doing things. Viola is only showing the difference between church in the Bible and church today. Of course it will reveal the many man made ceremonial traditions, and show our hearts, but that's the point! we are suppose to question and ask, are we doing things in the freedom that Christ gave us? This doesn't mean house church, but let me tell you as one who has done house church, YOU CAN'T HIDE! I mean you are force to know people, there is no back seat, you face people, you learn their needs, IT'S SCARY! But i still see the need for the church to meet at a big building to hear God's word from someone given the gift of teaching.
December 5, 2008
This book was very challenging for me to read. I am an Ordained Minister who has grown up in church & worked in churches since 1998. This book examines the roots of modern Institutional Christianity in great detail with thousands of footnotes throughout the book. Frank Viola & George Barna examine the roots of the church building, the order of worship service, the sermon, the pastor, the sunday morning dress-up routine, ministers of music, tithing, ordinances of the church, christian education (a.k.a. sunday school). It is an eye-opening book that is a tremendous challenge to any Christian attending an Institutional church. Even the publishers admit on the first page that they don't agree with everything Frank & George write. But the do agree that it does need to be carefully examined and addressed if we are to continue to make the claim that we do everything "by the book."
August 4, 2015
In perusing the other reviews of this book, people seem to be equally divided. Personally, I loved this book - but I am currently very disappointed with organized "church" in most of its present forms. Viola and Barna can always be expected to do their homework and present it in a compelling fashion. They do not disappoint here. Chapters cover the origins of most church traditions (Catholic/Orthodox & Protestant) from the church building, the sermon, and sacraments to the pastor as "head" of the church, and tithing. According to the authors, almost every ritual that we perform has little to no New Testament origin. They contend that many of these traditions are either carry-overs from Jewish Law (for which Christ died to replace) or 3rd-5th century paganism, or the Reformation, and the Great Awakening.
There are more interesting points to consider than I can list here, but the resounding theme here is that the corporate church structure prevents Christ from working in each and every member of the body. Furthermore, they believe that it actually stifles the body's ability to fully experience the Lord's presence due to excessive control.
"...the Protestant order of worship strangles the headship of Jesus Christ. The entire service is directed by one person. You are limited to the knowledge, gifting, and experience of one member of the body - the pastor...Jesus Christ has no freedom to express Himself through His body at His discretion. He too is rendered a passive spectator."
No one who has read my reviews over the last year does not know that I am on an alternative journey to the traditional church model. Those who are not ready for or do not aspire to grow in this way will be offended to some extent by this book. One reviewer suggested that the author's believe the house church movement is the answer, but they do not say that. They believe that any meeting that seeks to impose the will of a few on the many rather than seeking the will of Christ is detrimental to all.
There are more interesting points to consider than I can list here, but the resounding theme here is that the corporate church structure prevents Christ from working in each and every member of the body. Furthermore, they believe that it actually stifles the body's ability to fully experience the Lord's presence due to excessive control.
"...the Protestant order of worship strangles the headship of Jesus Christ. The entire service is directed by one person. You are limited to the knowledge, gifting, and experience of one member of the body - the pastor...Jesus Christ has no freedom to express Himself through His body at His discretion. He too is rendered a passive spectator."
No one who has read my reviews over the last year does not know that I am on an alternative journey to the traditional church model. Those who are not ready for or do not aspire to grow in this way will be offended to some extent by this book. One reviewer suggested that the author's believe the house church movement is the answer, but they do not say that. They believe that any meeting that seeks to impose the will of a few on the many rather than seeking the will of Christ is detrimental to all.
March 6, 2014
Description/blurb: Many Christians take for granted that their church practices are rooted in Scripture. Yet those practices look very different from those of the first-century church. The Bible is not silent on how the early church freely expressed the reality of Christ's indwelling in ways that rocked the first- century world.
Are we really doing church “by the book”?
Why do we "dress up" for church?
Why does the pastor preach a sermon at every service?
Why does the congregation sit passively in pews?
Why do we have pews, steeples, choirs, and seminaries?
Not Sure? This book reveals the startling truth: Most of what Christians do in present-day churches is rooted, not in the Bible, but in pagan culture and rituals developed long after the death of the apostles. Authors Frank Viola and George Barna support their thesis with compelling historical evidence and extensive footnotes that document the origins of our modern Christian church practices.
In the process, the authors uncover the problems that emerge when the church functions more like a business organization than the living organism it was created to be. As you reconsider Christ’s revolutionary plan for his church-- to be the head of a fully functioning body in which all believers play an active role--you’ll be challenged to decide whether you can ever do church the same way again.
Are we really doing church “by the book”?
Why do we "dress up" for church?
Why does the pastor preach a sermon at every service?
Why does the congregation sit passively in pews?
Why do we have pews, steeples, choirs, and seminaries?
Not Sure? This book reveals the startling truth: Most of what Christians do in present-day churches is rooted, not in the Bible, but in pagan culture and rituals developed long after the death of the apostles. Authors Frank Viola and George Barna support their thesis with compelling historical evidence and extensive footnotes that document the origins of our modern Christian church practices.
In the process, the authors uncover the problems that emerge when the church functions more like a business organization than the living organism it was created to be. As you reconsider Christ’s revolutionary plan for his church-- to be the head of a fully functioning body in which all believers play an active role--you’ll be challenged to decide whether you can ever do church the same way again.
April 5, 2010
This is the most footnoted book I have read in years. It reads like a long research paper one would have written for a graduate school class. The church building appeared around A.D. 327 during the time of Constantine. The pastors chair originated about the same time from the seat of the judge of the Roman basilica. Tax-exempt status for churches and clergy came from Constintine in A.D. 313. Stain glass window came about A.D.1081-1151 by Georgery of Tours and the Gothic Cathedrals originated duing 12th century based on the pagan philophy of Plato. The steeple is rooted in Babylonian and Egyptian architecture but was popularized by Sir Christopher Wren in 1666. The pulpit made its arrival in A.D. 250 from the Greek ambo. The pew was an evolution from the thirteen to the eighteen century in England. The standard order of worship as we know today came out of the reformation . The Sermon was borrowed from the Greek sophists. so on and so forth. This was one of the most facinating books I have read in some time. I woke up at 1:30 this morning to finish the book. It was just that interesting.
March 26, 2010
Explained why so many things about the contemporary Christian church did not seem to mesh with what the early church was about. The authors(George Barna & Frank Viola) did an incredible task of tracing the origin of everything that is done in the average "church" and reminding us that the church was always people in the New Testament not a building. As i reread the letters to the churches by Paul, i noticed they were not addressed to a pastor or elder or deacon or priest- they were either addressed to the "church at Corinth" etc. or to an individual. The early church met in homes-they did not have professional religious people who got paid to be a spiritual master of ceremonies,and they did not have ornate buildings/temples like all other religions did. The origin & the early history of pews is enlightening and funny. There seem to be many discrepancies between the concept of the "church" that Jesus had in mind & churches today. I am still processing and plan to read it for a 3rd time. To use an old phrase because i am an old guy - it blew my mind!!
November 3, 2014
This book should have been written as mandatory reading for believers several hundred years ago. This is what we've been missing. Frank Viola takes it back to scripture and reveals how many (MANY) of the church cultural items we don't even think about today are rooted, NOT in scripture, but in pagan practices. Why do we do the things we do in church? A must read.
November 25, 2024
This is a shameful book. It does not know what it is supposed to be, because its author is incapable of analysis beyond the level expected of a mediocre undergraduate student. This is not a theological book, because this author’s theology is deranged and ahistorical, essentially made up by himself. He at least has the self-awareness to recognize his lack of training disqualifies him from putting forward works which can compete with trained theologians from any camp, Protestant, Catholic, or otherwise, so by his own admission this does not even attempt to justify or defend his theological insanity.
This is a shameful book. This is not a philosophy book, because this author is so colossally ignorant as to disregard philosophy as too pagan to incorporate into the Christian life. The author is fundamentally Marxist. He rejects authority, he rejects elites, he rejects the necessity of training of any kind in order to be qualified for positions of any kind in the Church, namely because he rejects the concept that there are positions of any kind in the Church. He has boldly proclaimed that the Church has no hierarchy, that no one person ought to be given the dedicated role of teacher, because we all are teachers. ‘Every member functioning’ has become his delusional rallying cry to attack the notion that organizations, including the Church, have order, structure, and leaders. He decries philosophy, because philosophy is for the intelligent, and I am not sure this author believes that intelligence beyond the middling level he has attained has a place in his vision of God’s Kingdom on Earth.
This is a shameful book. This is not a history book, because this author is not a scholar and is not qualified to write a history book. In fact, he even acknowledges this, and preempts criticism by claiming that he is writing a book for the masses, not for scholars, because he wants to ensure that normal people will read it. He has citations, but rarely if ever does he cite to a primary source. He is flippant and careless in his claims. For the most part, his facts are correct, but this does not avail him. He is learned enough to recognize the strong assertion of the mono-episcopacy in Ignatius of Antioch, and is stupid enough to dismiss it on its face as an innovation. He knows enough to recognize the presence of a notion of a sacramental priesthood in Clement of Rome, or at least of a sacerdotal class, but does not know enough to let that have any impact on his interpretation of what he thinks the Apostles taught. Because, of course, a 21st century non-scholar, non-theologian, non-historian whose idea of ‘church’ is the equivalent of a hippy home bible study would know better what the apostles taught than those taught by the apostles themselves.
This is a shameful, shameful, shameful book. It has no home – it belongs to no category of writing, for it is not qualified to be received by any. It presumes to take on the entirety of Christianity beyond the Apostolic age, and its author would be wise to do a little more homework before he attempts to dismantle the oldest institution in the history of mankind. He has chosen to impugn the motives of Christians who suffered death rather than bend the knee to paganism by dismissing the entirety of their worldview as a pagan accretion they were apparently too weak or stupid to prevent. He has tossed out Augustine, he has dismissed Clement; Ignatius is comprised, Cyril’s theology is patently unbiblical, John Chrysostom is nothing more than a manipulative rhetorician. There is not a brick in the foundation he views as structurally sound, so he has abandoned the building altogether. There are parts of the building he likes. He likes the canon of scripture, he likes the idea of regular gatherings of believers at set weekly intervals, he likes singing of psalms and spiritual songs. He has picked out his favorite components, and has forgotten that one cannot have a window, a soffit, or a doorway if there is no building to begin with. He has destroyed every reason one could ever have for wanting to be a part of Christianity, then gleefully invited the disgusted onlookers to hold hands with him in the rubble. Saddest of all, he cannot grasp that everyone else, us who remain in the safety, warmth, and glow of the glorious edifice of institutional Christianity are quite happy to stay here while he wallows in the cold, lifeless muck outside. I suppose in his own way he will be happy, because no matter what else you may say about it, at least are all equals in the mud.
This is a shameful book. This is not a philosophy book, because this author is so colossally ignorant as to disregard philosophy as too pagan to incorporate into the Christian life. The author is fundamentally Marxist. He rejects authority, he rejects elites, he rejects the necessity of training of any kind in order to be qualified for positions of any kind in the Church, namely because he rejects the concept that there are positions of any kind in the Church. He has boldly proclaimed that the Church has no hierarchy, that no one person ought to be given the dedicated role of teacher, because we all are teachers. ‘Every member functioning’ has become his delusional rallying cry to attack the notion that organizations, including the Church, have order, structure, and leaders. He decries philosophy, because philosophy is for the intelligent, and I am not sure this author believes that intelligence beyond the middling level he has attained has a place in his vision of God’s Kingdom on Earth.
This is a shameful book. This is not a history book, because this author is not a scholar and is not qualified to write a history book. In fact, he even acknowledges this, and preempts criticism by claiming that he is writing a book for the masses, not for scholars, because he wants to ensure that normal people will read it. He has citations, but rarely if ever does he cite to a primary source. He is flippant and careless in his claims. For the most part, his facts are correct, but this does not avail him. He is learned enough to recognize the strong assertion of the mono-episcopacy in Ignatius of Antioch, and is stupid enough to dismiss it on its face as an innovation. He knows enough to recognize the presence of a notion of a sacramental priesthood in Clement of Rome, or at least of a sacerdotal class, but does not know enough to let that have any impact on his interpretation of what he thinks the Apostles taught. Because, of course, a 21st century non-scholar, non-theologian, non-historian whose idea of ‘church’ is the equivalent of a hippy home bible study would know better what the apostles taught than those taught by the apostles themselves.
This is a shameful, shameful, shameful book. It has no home – it belongs to no category of writing, for it is not qualified to be received by any. It presumes to take on the entirety of Christianity beyond the Apostolic age, and its author would be wise to do a little more homework before he attempts to dismantle the oldest institution in the history of mankind. He has chosen to impugn the motives of Christians who suffered death rather than bend the knee to paganism by dismissing the entirety of their worldview as a pagan accretion they were apparently too weak or stupid to prevent. He has tossed out Augustine, he has dismissed Clement; Ignatius is comprised, Cyril’s theology is patently unbiblical, John Chrysostom is nothing more than a manipulative rhetorician. There is not a brick in the foundation he views as structurally sound, so he has abandoned the building altogether. There are parts of the building he likes. He likes the canon of scripture, he likes the idea of regular gatherings of believers at set weekly intervals, he likes singing of psalms and spiritual songs. He has picked out his favorite components, and has forgotten that one cannot have a window, a soffit, or a doorway if there is no building to begin with. He has destroyed every reason one could ever have for wanting to be a part of Christianity, then gleefully invited the disgusted onlookers to hold hands with him in the rubble. Saddest of all, he cannot grasp that everyone else, us who remain in the safety, warmth, and glow of the glorious edifice of institutional Christianity are quite happy to stay here while he wallows in the cold, lifeless muck outside. I suppose in his own way he will be happy, because no matter what else you may say about it, at least are all equals in the mud.
May 1, 2023
This book attempts to shockingly explain why everything you are familiar with in the Christian church is actually rooted in paganism, and is therefore harmful to the believer, but fails in its logical conclusions, that are at best results of ignorant mistakes in data it presents with objective knowledge, or at worst, deceptive omissions. I wasn’t expecting how much I would dislike this book. It came highly recommended, so I hope the time I’m spending here will help anyone else considering reading it, or maybe even mislead by its conclusions.
In just the intro, I found myself onboard with many of the complaints of the modern churches’ characteristics, but was a little concerned with what I could predict would be what the book would show as a conclusion. I was right in those concerns, but I wasn’t prepared for how bad it was going to get.
The book follows a trail of common Christian church generalizations and various liturgical practices, and with each example, the authors’ declaring the pagan origin, and the objectively harmful consequences of its participation.
Sometimes deeper theological points are admittedly excluded in an attempt to speak only of proposed unsuspecting origin and misuse, but the blanket statements are not void of their personal animosity, as exemplified in the claim that early church communion was not ceremonial and later became “magical”.
There is some historical research on church traditions. Unfortunately anything the authors can show that are remotely similar to, or dating back to, Greek/Roman pagan practices is necessarily bad and harmful to Christian’s: ie; expository sermons, meeting in a building other than a house, having any sort of clergy/pastor/etc. The primary charges against modern Christianity from the authors, and my criticisms of those charges, are as follows:
-Tradition: There are plenty of problems in various church traditions but this book makes “tradition” necessarily a bad word. Personally, I am not a fan of many specific traditions found throughout Christendom (from “high church” to “contemporary services), nor am I a fan of evangelical celebrities then and now, but the authors are creating a tradition, or harkening back to proposed early church traditions, while arguing against them. Anything deemed “tradition” (ie, the traditions the authors don’t like) is necessarily pagan and bad. They fail to see how traditions inevitably change when people are allowed to bring their various cultural practices into the global body of the church, especially once legalization of being an open Christian becomes a possibility. This is historically the case from 400AD churches and the Reformation, to churches today in China, Africa, and the Middle East.
-Church buildings: To the authors, a church building is necessarily bad. Their objective prescription is a home church environment, because that’s where the early church met. What they fail to mention throughout the book, is that the early church was persecuted, so the hidden element of their actions aren’t taken into account when considering the use of distinct and advertised Christian buildings.
-Sermons: Every sense of preaching is condemned, in preference to an open group exchange. According to the authors, sermons are “not found in the Bible.” This completely ignores where, recoded in the Book of Acts, Paul makes an apologetic sermon referencing pagan beliefs of the culture, and Peter preaching to the crowd at Pentecost referencing and teaching directly from Old Testament prophecy. Most especially it ignores our greatest example of Jesus and The Sermon on the Mount. Expository preaching is said to come exclusively from Greek tradition, and therefore bad, yet missed the end of Luke when Jesus teaches on the road to Emmaus how the Old Testament is all about Him. In attempt to show a way out of relying on sermons, the reader is told to (Vaguely) “encounter Jesus.” There isn’t anything necessarily wrong with a home church, but the authors use any perceived benefits, and use in history, to eradicate anything like sermons, and even call them objectively wrong.
-Liturgy: the book is insulting to all liturgy, insisting that all of it comes from pagan origin (therefore bad) and could not have come from within the early church, including the aforementioned preaching and communion as a sacrament.
-Denominations: There is a significant criticism of denominations as if they are only a result of later church creations. While there are ample reasons to criticize certain denominations and reasons for divisions, the authors act as if the early church was never divided. It isn’t accurate as the New Testament is full of divisions that could be called different denominations. For example, splits where different churches were following different apostles (ie, “I am of apollos,”etc.). Also the fights against the Judaizers/circumcision party in the New Testament, and the vast amounts of early church writing against heresy, stand as examples that these divisions are nothing new and not a necessary result of “pagans”.
-Preachers: The authors state that no one in the early church would have imagined a “pastor” for the church, as if Rabbis (because of their additional religious knowledge, were always sought after and looked to) weren’t a thing, that Jesus’ *sermons* didn’t exist (along with Peter and Paul’s sermons in Acts), and the early church wasn’t persecuted (keeping them hidden in homes rather than having a public display of their faith). What the authors fail to mention throughout the book, is that the early church was persecuted, so the hidden element isn’t taken into account when being against certain clothing to distinguish Christianity from other groups, or clergy from parishioners, or the use of distinct buildings.
I also have general issues with the presentation of the information. There are a handful of quotes without references, and Atheist Historian Will Durant’s words on the church seems quoted more than any other individual person. Religious history doesn’t need agreement to be conveyed accurately, but in many cases, this one included, the data is tainted by personal feelings. The authors call out theologians for quoting pagan philosophers, and uses it to make the statement, “regardless of how much we wish to deny it, contemporary theology is a blending of Christian thought and Pagan philosophy.” Following this logical conclusion, we could make the statement that “this book’s theology is a blending of Christian history and atheistic misconception.”
There is also several moments used to insult Martin Luther and the Reformation.
As well, they state that Jesus’ teaching is “sporadic and spontaneous,” which removes eternal purpose and intent to everything Jesus did.
In conclusion:
Don’t get me wrong, there is a lot wrong with church trends and associated costs, but I don’t agree that a set aside place of worship is necessarily; wrong, of pagan origins, nor should be necessarily considered Constantinian. A lot of the complaints about general evangelical issues are correct, and somethings mentioned need to be criticized (teachings on tithing today, believer’s baptisms, sinner’s prayer, problems in Sunday schools and youth pastors, and Darby proof texting), but the objective conclusions that nothing good comes from listening to a pastor or participating in a liturgy outside of a home church without a central preacher, or that they are harmful and detracting from faith, is absolutely false and baseless.
In the author’s logic, all possible abuses in the church are necessary consequences to having a church building or a pastor, but again ignores any issues the early church had and dealt with.
Sweeping statements like “Jesus and His disciples knew nothing of special clothing.. (ie) wearing special garb for religious purposes,” show that the authors have no fundamental understanding of God’s people under the mosaic covenant, even if littered with qualifying loaded terms.
All in all, this book is as full of cherry picking and proof texting history, as the author’s accuse institutional churches.
In just the intro, I found myself onboard with many of the complaints of the modern churches’ characteristics, but was a little concerned with what I could predict would be what the book would show as a conclusion. I was right in those concerns, but I wasn’t prepared for how bad it was going to get.
The book follows a trail of common Christian church generalizations and various liturgical practices, and with each example, the authors’ declaring the pagan origin, and the objectively harmful consequences of its participation.
Sometimes deeper theological points are admittedly excluded in an attempt to speak only of proposed unsuspecting origin and misuse, but the blanket statements are not void of their personal animosity, as exemplified in the claim that early church communion was not ceremonial and later became “magical”.
There is some historical research on church traditions. Unfortunately anything the authors can show that are remotely similar to, or dating back to, Greek/Roman pagan practices is necessarily bad and harmful to Christian’s: ie; expository sermons, meeting in a building other than a house, having any sort of clergy/pastor/etc. The primary charges against modern Christianity from the authors, and my criticisms of those charges, are as follows:
-Tradition: There are plenty of problems in various church traditions but this book makes “tradition” necessarily a bad word. Personally, I am not a fan of many specific traditions found throughout Christendom (from “high church” to “contemporary services), nor am I a fan of evangelical celebrities then and now, but the authors are creating a tradition, or harkening back to proposed early church traditions, while arguing against them. Anything deemed “tradition” (ie, the traditions the authors don’t like) is necessarily pagan and bad. They fail to see how traditions inevitably change when people are allowed to bring their various cultural practices into the global body of the church, especially once legalization of being an open Christian becomes a possibility. This is historically the case from 400AD churches and the Reformation, to churches today in China, Africa, and the Middle East.
-Church buildings: To the authors, a church building is necessarily bad. Their objective prescription is a home church environment, because that’s where the early church met. What they fail to mention throughout the book, is that the early church was persecuted, so the hidden element of their actions aren’t taken into account when considering the use of distinct and advertised Christian buildings.
-Sermons: Every sense of preaching is condemned, in preference to an open group exchange. According to the authors, sermons are “not found in the Bible.” This completely ignores where, recoded in the Book of Acts, Paul makes an apologetic sermon referencing pagan beliefs of the culture, and Peter preaching to the crowd at Pentecost referencing and teaching directly from Old Testament prophecy. Most especially it ignores our greatest example of Jesus and The Sermon on the Mount. Expository preaching is said to come exclusively from Greek tradition, and therefore bad, yet missed the end of Luke when Jesus teaches on the road to Emmaus how the Old Testament is all about Him. In attempt to show a way out of relying on sermons, the reader is told to (Vaguely) “encounter Jesus.” There isn’t anything necessarily wrong with a home church, but the authors use any perceived benefits, and use in history, to eradicate anything like sermons, and even call them objectively wrong.
-Liturgy: the book is insulting to all liturgy, insisting that all of it comes from pagan origin (therefore bad) and could not have come from within the early church, including the aforementioned preaching and communion as a sacrament.
-Denominations: There is a significant criticism of denominations as if they are only a result of later church creations. While there are ample reasons to criticize certain denominations and reasons for divisions, the authors act as if the early church was never divided. It isn’t accurate as the New Testament is full of divisions that could be called different denominations. For example, splits where different churches were following different apostles (ie, “I am of apollos,”etc.). Also the fights against the Judaizers/circumcision party in the New Testament, and the vast amounts of early church writing against heresy, stand as examples that these divisions are nothing new and not a necessary result of “pagans”.
-Preachers: The authors state that no one in the early church would have imagined a “pastor” for the church, as if Rabbis (because of their additional religious knowledge, were always sought after and looked to) weren’t a thing, that Jesus’ *sermons* didn’t exist (along with Peter and Paul’s sermons in Acts), and the early church wasn’t persecuted (keeping them hidden in homes rather than having a public display of their faith). What the authors fail to mention throughout the book, is that the early church was persecuted, so the hidden element isn’t taken into account when being against certain clothing to distinguish Christianity from other groups, or clergy from parishioners, or the use of distinct buildings.
I also have general issues with the presentation of the information. There are a handful of quotes without references, and Atheist Historian Will Durant’s words on the church seems quoted more than any other individual person. Religious history doesn’t need agreement to be conveyed accurately, but in many cases, this one included, the data is tainted by personal feelings. The authors call out theologians for quoting pagan philosophers, and uses it to make the statement, “regardless of how much we wish to deny it, contemporary theology is a blending of Christian thought and Pagan philosophy.” Following this logical conclusion, we could make the statement that “this book’s theology is a blending of Christian history and atheistic misconception.”
There is also several moments used to insult Martin Luther and the Reformation.
As well, they state that Jesus’ teaching is “sporadic and spontaneous,” which removes eternal purpose and intent to everything Jesus did.
In conclusion:
Don’t get me wrong, there is a lot wrong with church trends and associated costs, but I don’t agree that a set aside place of worship is necessarily; wrong, of pagan origins, nor should be necessarily considered Constantinian. A lot of the complaints about general evangelical issues are correct, and somethings mentioned need to be criticized (teachings on tithing today, believer’s baptisms, sinner’s prayer, problems in Sunday schools and youth pastors, and Darby proof texting), but the objective conclusions that nothing good comes from listening to a pastor or participating in a liturgy outside of a home church without a central preacher, or that they are harmful and detracting from faith, is absolutely false and baseless.
In the author’s logic, all possible abuses in the church are necessary consequences to having a church building or a pastor, but again ignores any issues the early church had and dealt with.
Sweeping statements like “Jesus and His disciples knew nothing of special clothing.. (ie) wearing special garb for religious purposes,” show that the authors have no fundamental understanding of God’s people under the mosaic covenant, even if littered with qualifying loaded terms.
All in all, this book is as full of cherry picking and proof texting history, as the author’s accuse institutional churches.
December 16, 2025
This book’s bluntness will unsettle anyone expecting gentle reassurances. “Pagan Christianity” asks painful but necessary questions suited mainly for devoted Christ-followers who find themselves spiritually homeless yet still loyal to the Lord. The exposé of pagan roots in modern traditions serves a larger purpose—to clear ground for something better. But the constructive vision lives in later volumes. Taken alone, the book is half a message, like hearing judgment without grace.
May 20, 2012
A Must Read Book for Many in these Days of Diminishing Evangelicalism
Frank Viola and George Barna have put together a book that every thinking Christian should read. Much of the information is not new. However, it has been put together with careful attention to detail and very thorough footnotes and sources.
This is not a book written to attack the Church although many may feel that way. It is a book written to address what at its root is a true proposition. Institutional Churches, whether Catholic, Protestant, Evangelical, Seeker Sensitive, and the list could go on, are at the core of their practise following many elements that do not in fact arise from the Bible or early church tradition. This is more than just a history lesson however.
When I first began reading this book, after having spent a great deal of time and effort in studying Organizational Leadership at a Master's level, I was first tempted to look at the arguments presented and just say, "So What?". Every culture's influence is exerted upon it's institutions. That is neither good nor bad in most instances, so unless the premise is that we should just return to the culture of the early church as if it were "the" culture of God then the argument is really not that strong.
As I read however, what I found is that this is far more than just culture being called into question. We're talking about hierarchies, philosophies and practices that find their root not just in cultural elements but in full scale adoption of systems, practices and their underlying belief system that include pagan temples, Greco-Roman pagan philosophy etc.
Then my next response was "Well, that's what the Reformation was all about wasn't it?" Well yes and no. Much of what took place at the Reformation was a rearranging of some things but in effect most of the elements of the existing Church system were left in place.
Today however, we have so much change taking place apparently in Churches with so many different "brands" available, surely these issues are being addressed? Well, not so much.
So is this a diatribe to destroy the Church? No. That's not what I read and further the litany of recommendations for this book from Bible Scholars and leaders within the Church should set that concern aside. Viola and Barna do have some suggestions to make and they are leaning in the direction of organic, non-institutional Churches. However even if that is not the decision of those reading this book, the information will equip even those remaining in the Institutional Church to be more discerning about what is really the faith preserved for all the ages and what is in effect just a stowaway that sadly in many cases has arisen to captain the ship.
5 Stars. A very important book.
Bart Breen
Frank Viola and George Barna have put together a book that every thinking Christian should read. Much of the information is not new. However, it has been put together with careful attention to detail and very thorough footnotes and sources.
This is not a book written to attack the Church although many may feel that way. It is a book written to address what at its root is a true proposition. Institutional Churches, whether Catholic, Protestant, Evangelical, Seeker Sensitive, and the list could go on, are at the core of their practise following many elements that do not in fact arise from the Bible or early church tradition. This is more than just a history lesson however.
When I first began reading this book, after having spent a great deal of time and effort in studying Organizational Leadership at a Master's level, I was first tempted to look at the arguments presented and just say, "So What?". Every culture's influence is exerted upon it's institutions. That is neither good nor bad in most instances, so unless the premise is that we should just return to the culture of the early church as if it were "the" culture of God then the argument is really not that strong.
As I read however, what I found is that this is far more than just culture being called into question. We're talking about hierarchies, philosophies and practices that find their root not just in cultural elements but in full scale adoption of systems, practices and their underlying belief system that include pagan temples, Greco-Roman pagan philosophy etc.
Then my next response was "Well, that's what the Reformation was all about wasn't it?" Well yes and no. Much of what took place at the Reformation was a rearranging of some things but in effect most of the elements of the existing Church system were left in place.
Today however, we have so much change taking place apparently in Churches with so many different "brands" available, surely these issues are being addressed? Well, not so much.
So is this a diatribe to destroy the Church? No. That's not what I read and further the litany of recommendations for this book from Bible Scholars and leaders within the Church should set that concern aside. Viola and Barna do have some suggestions to make and they are leaning in the direction of organic, non-institutional Churches. However even if that is not the decision of those reading this book, the information will equip even those remaining in the Institutional Church to be more discerning about what is really the faith preserved for all the ages and what is in effect just a stowaway that sadly in many cases has arisen to captain the ship.
5 Stars. A very important book.
Bart Breen
January 19, 2011
No, this isn't a "bash the Christians" book. It's a "bash the church" book (lowercase “c”). The authors' goal is to redirect Christians back to the original teachings of the New Testament, where the “Church” was never a building.
"Pagan," as used by the authors, pretty much just means "different from what the New Testament teaches." Their goal is to encourage Christians to embrace the original New Testament church.
Church buildings are wrong. Sacraments are wrong. Collection plates are wrong. Pulpits are wrong. You’ll get a earful, and if “wrong” means “not the way it was first done,” then the authors have a well-researched point. But an important distinction needs to be made: The New Testament church, in this book, should not be confused with the “first century church.” No extraneous Christian teachings are acceptable to Viola and Barna, who either ignore or condemn them. Even if some of these teachings are contemporary with New Testament writings. For example, church fathers Ignatius, Clement of Rome and Tertullian are criticized for introducing a clergy, and the Didache’s instructions are never mentioned by the authors, who insist that early Christian worship sessions had no structure. Perhaps the authors subscribe to the view that all of the New Testament Gospels and epistles were written in Paul’s time.
Part of the intrigue of this book, for me, is that I grew up in a nondenominational church similar to what the authors approve of as "organic," and that ignores all Christian instruction outside the Bible. This church has a bit more structure to their worship than what Viola and Barna recommend, but it does meet in homes and all members participate equally in the service. It's a "back to Jesus" movement patterned after the New Testament.
So, my church background may qualify me more than many reviewers to address both the pros and cons of the book's arguments. And as such, I do have one criticism, which drops it from a 5-star to a 4-star rating: The passion of the authors overflows, which should be a good thing, but here it's overwhelming. While they convincingly show that many Christian church customs differ from the first Christians, their underlying assumption that this is somehow bad gets pushed a little too hard for my taste, simply because in my experience, different church atmospheres and practices are appropriate for different people. We're all unique, and different things bring us closer to God.
But enough nit-picking. The book has a serious message for all who wish to pattern their manner of worship after the Bible.
"Pagan," as used by the authors, pretty much just means "different from what the New Testament teaches." Their goal is to encourage Christians to embrace the original New Testament church.
Church buildings are wrong. Sacraments are wrong. Collection plates are wrong. Pulpits are wrong. You’ll get a earful, and if “wrong” means “not the way it was first done,” then the authors have a well-researched point. But an important distinction needs to be made: The New Testament church, in this book, should not be confused with the “first century church.” No extraneous Christian teachings are acceptable to Viola and Barna, who either ignore or condemn them. Even if some of these teachings are contemporary with New Testament writings. For example, church fathers Ignatius, Clement of Rome and Tertullian are criticized for introducing a clergy, and the Didache’s instructions are never mentioned by the authors, who insist that early Christian worship sessions had no structure. Perhaps the authors subscribe to the view that all of the New Testament Gospels and epistles were written in Paul’s time.
Part of the intrigue of this book, for me, is that I grew up in a nondenominational church similar to what the authors approve of as "organic," and that ignores all Christian instruction outside the Bible. This church has a bit more structure to their worship than what Viola and Barna recommend, but it does meet in homes and all members participate equally in the service. It's a "back to Jesus" movement patterned after the New Testament.
So, my church background may qualify me more than many reviewers to address both the pros and cons of the book's arguments. And as such, I do have one criticism, which drops it from a 5-star to a 4-star rating: The passion of the authors overflows, which should be a good thing, but here it's overwhelming. While they convincingly show that many Christian church customs differ from the first Christians, their underlying assumption that this is somehow bad gets pushed a little too hard for my taste, simply because in my experience, different church atmospheres and practices are appropriate for different people. We're all unique, and different things bring us closer to God.
But enough nit-picking. The book has a serious message for all who wish to pattern their manner of worship after the Bible.
September 3, 2019
There are few books that I believe mass groups of people owe it to themselves to read. This is one that I believe every Christian should read. Why?
1. It challenges my thinking. I think that's a good thing. Too often I go through motions of something without truly knowing or acknowledging why. If I'm going to ascribe to a philosophy, idea or religion, it should "stand" on it's own without me having to make excuses for it or "smooth things over".
2. It's well cited. I'm big on this. If an author is going to make a claim as true, tell me where you're getting this information!
3. Most Christians are not aware of the contents of this book. It's called PAGAN Christianity because it makes (what I consider to be) viable claims about the practices within Christianity coming from "pagan" cultures/rituals/etc. (not Christian or Biblical in origin.) Some of these topics are: church buildings, the 'office' of church leadership, tithing, Christian education, order of worship, sermon, music, etc.
I would not have read this book in the past because:
1. I viewed it as heretical, inappropriate, contradictory to the things of God, etc.
2. I was afraid for my thinking to be challenged. (Christians are encouraged to stay away from information, people, etc. that contradicts the Bible and church culture because you could be easily swayed.
3. I already believed that I knew the truth about these topics and that it wasn't worth reading.
I changed my mind about these things above because I realized I was living in fear. In order for me to truly embrace my beliefs I need to thoroughly examine them and determine if they're worth my time.
This was one of the hardest books I've ever read. Because it challenged EVERYTHING I grew up believing to be true. So after a chapter, I went to every citation online to verify. I'm thankful this was book was put into my field of vision, the insight I've gained, the stimulating conversation between Hubby and I.
1. It challenges my thinking. I think that's a good thing. Too often I go through motions of something without truly knowing or acknowledging why. If I'm going to ascribe to a philosophy, idea or religion, it should "stand" on it's own without me having to make excuses for it or "smooth things over".
2. It's well cited. I'm big on this. If an author is going to make a claim as true, tell me where you're getting this information!
3. Most Christians are not aware of the contents of this book. It's called PAGAN Christianity because it makes (what I consider to be) viable claims about the practices within Christianity coming from "pagan" cultures/rituals/etc. (not Christian or Biblical in origin.) Some of these topics are: church buildings, the 'office' of church leadership, tithing, Christian education, order of worship, sermon, music, etc.
I would not have read this book in the past because:
1. I viewed it as heretical, inappropriate, contradictory to the things of God, etc.
2. I was afraid for my thinking to be challenged. (Christians are encouraged to stay away from information, people, etc. that contradicts the Bible and church culture because you could be easily swayed.
3. I already believed that I knew the truth about these topics and that it wasn't worth reading.
I changed my mind about these things above because I realized I was living in fear. In order for me to truly embrace my beliefs I need to thoroughly examine them and determine if they're worth my time.
This was one of the hardest books I've ever read. Because it challenged EVERYTHING I grew up believing to be true. So after a chapter, I went to every citation online to verify. I'm thankful this was book was put into my field of vision, the insight I've gained, the stimulating conversation between Hubby and I.
February 17, 2013
Viola attempts the massive project of examining the pagan roots of every major church tradition, from pews to paid staff. While he wins on many fronts, he does fall shot in a fell areas.
The Pros: Examining and critiquing a few church traditions is no small task. No other work takes on as many as Viola does. Why do we dress up on Sunday? Why are services each week pretty much the same? Why do we have a sermon every week? Why does the sermon take center stage? Why do we sit in pews? Why do we gather in a building? These and other questions are examined in light of the Scriptures and history. The roots in ancient paganism are revealed and the modern day relevance are critiqued.
The Cons: The tone of Pagan Christianity is pessimistic and gloomy, as if every new church tradition takes the church further from Jesus. Viola assumes the New Testament narrative is the only valid way and the most effective manner to approach God in worship. While this may have merit, it is still an assumption that needs to be examined. Viola's use of history is very one sided and biased. He laser focuses on the details that supports his point while often overlooking larger context.
The Conclusion: Viola concludes the most effective (possibly only valid) model of church is more casual home gatherings. The institutionalized church is not what God intended, it is a man-made system copied from pagan practice and ought to be discarded for a more social and socially integrated model much like what the author finds in the New Testament.
Overall: Absolutely worth reading. No matter how much you agree or disagree, Pagan Christianity will give you much to talk and think about. Even if you embrace much of the traditions he critiques, there is still value in deconstructing traditions and seeing them with fresh eyes.
The Pros: Examining and critiquing a few church traditions is no small task. No other work takes on as many as Viola does. Why do we dress up on Sunday? Why are services each week pretty much the same? Why do we have a sermon every week? Why does the sermon take center stage? Why do we sit in pews? Why do we gather in a building? These and other questions are examined in light of the Scriptures and history. The roots in ancient paganism are revealed and the modern day relevance are critiqued.
The Cons: The tone of Pagan Christianity is pessimistic and gloomy, as if every new church tradition takes the church further from Jesus. Viola assumes the New Testament narrative is the only valid way and the most effective manner to approach God in worship. While this may have merit, it is still an assumption that needs to be examined. Viola's use of history is very one sided and biased. He laser focuses on the details that supports his point while often overlooking larger context.
The Conclusion: Viola concludes the most effective (possibly only valid) model of church is more casual home gatherings. The institutionalized church is not what God intended, it is a man-made system copied from pagan practice and ought to be discarded for a more social and socially integrated model much like what the author finds in the New Testament.
Overall: Absolutely worth reading. No matter how much you agree or disagree, Pagan Christianity will give you much to talk and think about. Even if you embrace much of the traditions he critiques, there is still value in deconstructing traditions and seeing them with fresh eyes.
October 11, 2024
Just absolutely fascinating. This book dives into history to show that much of what we do for “church” was lifted directly out of pagan culture: elaborate temples and the set up of church buildings, the order of worship, the sermon, the pastor, dressing up on Sundays, tithing and clergy salaries, baptism and the Lord’s Supper, and Christian education.I HIGHLY recommend this book to Christians who are willing to wrestle with questions and to have their assumptions and traditions challenged. I will also say that this book is part 1 which presents many problems in the way we “do church” but there is a part 2 called “Reimagining Church” which presents hopeful solutions! This book is authored by practicing Christians, so although it critiques problems in the church, it doesn’t do it in an overly negative or belittling way.
Chapter 1 ends with this warning that sums the book up well: “If you are unwilling to have your Christianity seriously examined, do not read beyond this page. Spare yourself the trouble of having your Christian life turned upside down. However, if you want to learn the true story of where your Christian practices come from….if you are willing to have the curtain pulled back on the contemporary church and its traditional presuppositions fiercely challenged…then you will find this work to be disturbing, enlightening, and possibly life changing. Put another way, if you are a Christian who takes the New Testament seriously, what you are about to read may lead to a crisis of conscience. For you will be confronted by unmovable historical fact.”
Chapter 1 ends with this warning that sums the book up well: “If you are unwilling to have your Christianity seriously examined, do not read beyond this page. Spare yourself the trouble of having your Christian life turned upside down. However, if you want to learn the true story of where your Christian practices come from….if you are willing to have the curtain pulled back on the contemporary church and its traditional presuppositions fiercely challenged…then you will find this work to be disturbing, enlightening, and possibly life changing. Put another way, if you are a Christian who takes the New Testament seriously, what you are about to read may lead to a crisis of conscience. For you will be confronted by unmovable historical fact.”
September 30, 2021
I was raised in a legalistic Protestant Baptist household since I was an infant. I have considered myself non denominational for the past 5 years or so. I am now 25. Over a year ago I stopped attending my church because I would just leave depressed and confused with questions that I felt like no one could answer. More recently I started wondering why churches did the things they did, where it came from, and why it wasn’t in the Bible. I started questioning a lot about my faith and how I was raised and the logic of what we did.
I don’t remember how I came across this book but after I read even just the first chapter I was in awe. I was shocked that it seemed like pastors and people who called themselves Christian’s didn’t know about church history and how seriously messed up the “modern” church is and how it’s fallen completely away from how it originally is supposed to be. It makes me frustrated for the modern church and pastors with masters of divinity that don’t teach the background of the verses they teach and it makes my heart ache for the “passive people in the pews” who don’t know any better.
I have never been interested in church history or theology until now. I see everything in a new light after reading this book and I highly recommend it to all who want a actual historical look of the Church and how what we know now to be the Church came to be. This answered so many questions I had and is making me look deeper into my faith.
I don’t remember how I came across this book but after I read even just the first chapter I was in awe. I was shocked that it seemed like pastors and people who called themselves Christian’s didn’t know about church history and how seriously messed up the “modern” church is and how it’s fallen completely away from how it originally is supposed to be. It makes me frustrated for the modern church and pastors with masters of divinity that don’t teach the background of the verses they teach and it makes my heart ache for the “passive people in the pews” who don’t know any better.
I have never been interested in church history or theology until now. I see everything in a new light after reading this book and I highly recommend it to all who want a actual historical look of the Church and how what we know now to be the Church came to be. This answered so many questions I had and is making me look deeper into my faith.
March 10, 2009
This is an excellent book. I don't hand out five stars easily.
But it's a deconstruction, and let me say emphatically that a deconstruction is definitely needed, but don't leave yourself there. After the deconstruction of "the system," you have to reconstruct. Process for a while if you need to, but pick up one of these for when you're ready:
- Viola's follow-up book, "Reimagining Church"
- the fictional, but relevant book, "So You Don't Want to Go to Church Anymore" by Jake Colsen
- Wayne Jacobsen's classic, "The Naked Church (Revised Third Edition)"
- or something by Floyd McClung, like "You See Bones, I See an Army"
I would personally suggest "So You Don't..." or "The Naked Church". The first, if fiction helps you process or read faster. The second, if non-fiction is easier for you.
But it's a deconstruction, and let me say emphatically that a deconstruction is definitely needed, but don't leave yourself there. After the deconstruction of "the system," you have to reconstruct. Process for a while if you need to, but pick up one of these for when you're ready:
- Viola's follow-up book, "Reimagining Church"
- the fictional, but relevant book, "So You Don't Want to Go to Church Anymore" by Jake Colsen
- Wayne Jacobsen's classic, "The Naked Church (Revised Third Edition)"
- or something by Floyd McClung, like "You See Bones, I See an Army"
I would personally suggest "So You Don't..." or "The Naked Church". The first, if fiction helps you process or read faster. The second, if non-fiction is easier for you.
July 21, 2020
This book was not what I thought. I thought it would delve into the pagan "holidays" that Christians ignorantly celebrate and their history.
This book is more about the church not being a building and the current church Christians attend, the way the church is turned into a business, etc. are actually from paganism.
The chapters discuss different topics and the new publication includes delving deeper with questions and answers. Some of the chapters are about the pastor, the clothing worn to church, tithing, etc.
The bottom line; do not trust what a pastor tells you about what the Bible says. You are responsible for reading and studying the Bible on your own.
I'd recommend this to a Christian who believes the pastor is their final authority or if you're afraid to take a serious look at all of the traditions you follow.
This book is more about the church not being a building and the current church Christians attend, the way the church is turned into a business, etc. are actually from paganism.
The chapters discuss different topics and the new publication includes delving deeper with questions and answers. Some of the chapters are about the pastor, the clothing worn to church, tithing, etc.
The bottom line; do not trust what a pastor tells you about what the Bible says. You are responsible for reading and studying the Bible on your own.
I'd recommend this to a Christian who believes the pastor is their final authority or if you're afraid to take a serious look at all of the traditions you follow.
November 29, 2024
Not the most enjoyable read by any means, but one that every Christian -- and especially anyone who works for a church! -- REALLY needs to wrestle with.
If you are a pastor, or planning to become one, there is no excuse for not reading this book carefully and critically. I'm definitely NOT saying you have to agree with every single thing, but you DO need to be able to justify all the things your church is doing that are really not biblical.
From having a building, to preaching a long sermon to a passive crowd, to practicing communion/Lord's supper (and much much more) -- this book dives into how all our current church practices came to be. I personally don't think they're all bad, but some absolutely are. With millions of young people leaving the church, maybe it's time to revisit some of these practices that have evolved over 2,000 years...
If you are a pastor, or planning to become one, there is no excuse for not reading this book carefully and critically. I'm definitely NOT saying you have to agree with every single thing, but you DO need to be able to justify all the things your church is doing that are really not biblical.
From having a building, to preaching a long sermon to a passive crowd, to practicing communion/Lord's supper (and much much more) -- this book dives into how all our current church practices came to be. I personally don't think they're all bad, but some absolutely are. With millions of young people leaving the church, maybe it's time to revisit some of these practices that have evolved over 2,000 years...
March 17, 2015
While it would be foolish to take this as a new gospel, both Barna and Viola bring up excellent support and points that show the current model of what "church" is, is flawed. Lots to chew on. Plenty of questions to ask yourself and others. Why do we do what we do? Why do we believe what we believe?
We should always be questioning, learning, discovering. This is a good catalyst to do so.
We should always be questioning, learning, discovering. This is a good catalyst to do so.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 629 reviews