Pagan Christianity
Posted by Melody on February 16th, 2008
A new book is out by George Barna and Frank Viola. There is a chapter that implies the position in the church of ‘pastor’ (synonym for ’shepherd’) is anti-biblical in it’s present practice.I have not read the book, but it is being thoroughly discussed at www.outofur.com where I have posted this comment:
Put any group of people together for any length of time and a leader will emerge (no pun intended). Is that pagan? And since the term ‘pastor’ is another word for ’shepherd’ would it not seem odd for a shepherd to be just another sheep in the flock? Jesus calls himself the good shepherd and states that his sheep know his voice. He will leave the flock to find that one sheep who has gone astray. He does not send another sheep to find the lost one, does he? Jesus told Peter, “Feed My sheep.” Peter was a guy with a lot of problems including denial of his friendship with Jesus. Why would Jesus say such a thing to him?
All this is not to imply that the position of Pastor is not continuously abused by many who hold it and many pastors have led their flock astray. But they will answer to God personally for their disobedience.
February 21st, 2008 at 7:08 am
Here is an interesting take on Barna and his book. http://www.crosswalk.com/blogs/bburneylive/11568633/
February 23rd, 2008 at 6:14 pm
the crosswalk and out of ur reviews were really biased and horrible. here are some great reviews on the book. as someone who read it, I think the book is awesome and I agree with these reviewers. http://www.paganchristianity.org/reviews.htm
October 30th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
It’s a great book. I thoroughly enjoyed it. I highly recommend you read it. Worthwhile to evaluate the facts. It’s based largely on a classic work by EH Broadbent called The Pilgrim Church. Both of them really contrast the worldly church as manifested through Catholicism and other denominations with the true church as manifested by revolutionary groups like the Anabaptists, Methodists and Mennonites who sought to worship God in simplicity without legalism and institutionalization. The modern house church movement is much the same. They’ve been tarred with the wrong brush because there are many counter emergent movements rooted merely in experientialism without truth. A lot of people that I have met in the house church movement are seekers of truth and lovers of Christ, passionately wanting to take a hold of the priesthood of all believers and live as a genuine body.
Never-the-less, regardless of theological differences, I love Paul’s attitude about rejoicing that Christ is proclaimed (Phil 1:18). Considering all the heresy that Paul had to deal with, I think it’s a phenomenally graceful viewpoint.
November 15th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
Joshua, as you can see I don’t post much here anymore which is why I missed your comment until today. I have no beef with the house church movement per se. I do think it is largely a backlash against the ‘organized church’ which in so many ways has abandoned the preaching and teaching of Biblical doctrine and truth over the last 30-odd years. It’s interesting that you mention Anabaptists and Mennonites. They are basically the same thing. I am a member of a Mennonite Brethren Church with strong family ties to the ‘First Mennonites’ and find that Mennonites are one of the most organized and institutionalized groups of believers ever. Maybe the Amish are in the lead on that one, but I would never classify Mennonites as either ‘revolutionary’ or ‘without legalism and institutionalization’. It has only been in the last 50-60 years that a Mennonite would dare to marry outside the prescribed gene pool (my father-in-law actually did). It has only been in the last 30 or so years that they have allowed non-Mennonites to attend their schools (Hint: you can tell a Mennonite by their last name - it takes time to learn but it can be done).
I would agree with you that many in the house church movement are lovers of Christ - but I would caution that there is no inherent spirituality in such an arrangement and it is fraught with just as many pitfalls as the organized church. I would submit to you that the Catholic Church became worldly not because it was organized, but because hearts became hardened to the Lorship of Jesus Christ and then the organization became corrupt. If you think there is not corruption in Amish and Mennonite circles, you obviously haven’t spent any time there. The Bible tells us that “the heart is deceitful, and above all things, desperatly wicked, who can know it?” (Jeremiah 17:9) In light of all this, I find the New Testament Church described in the Bible to be organized down to the church officers and their responsibilities, with church growth in mind. If you don’t have friends in a house church , how would you ever even find one? It could be really tough if you moved to a new town and looked in the yellow pages for a ‘house church’ to attend. Hmm….
Having said all this, I can’t even find the original post I was commenting on. I’m not necessarily a Frank Viola critic and I’m responding more to what you have said than on the original post.
Thanks for stopping by.