John Oaks' review of Pagan Christianity may be found here .
John Oaks begins with a reference to the disturbing, theological implications of the mega church, "The evidence, unfortunately, is that such churches do relatively little to foster true Christ-likeness on a deep level for those who join these churches." But, what is the evidence? Isn't this a fair question when he later criticizes Pagan Christianity for its lack of documentation? I have family and close, personal friends who are members of mega churches and churches following the Rick Warren approach. I do not think it unfair to raise questions and offer criticisms of others, but if one does, they should at least give some content and proof or at least a reason for the criticism.
By the way: when did the ICOC become interested in theological implications and theologically trained preachers?
I cannot understand how anyone could confuse organic church with the Emergent Church movement. If I didn't know about John's scholarship in other areas I would assume that he is not very attentive.
I think John should use the same measure of judgment for his own review as he does for Pagan Christianity. As I have re-read what John wrote, I too feel disappointed and angry, I too feel like I am being manipulated. John has presented numerous false dilemmas that should be challenged.
In addition to John's unfounded claim that the mega church is lacking and that organic church and the Emergent Church movement is synonymous:
Is participating in the worship (one of John's descriptions of organic church) excluded by the way church is done in the ICOC?
John fails to notice the distinction between worship and the church meeting. John regularly speaks of the worship, the worship service, form of worship, worship service, mode of worship. Viola and Barna speak of the church meeting. John is comparing apples to oranges. So no, the Granny Smiths don't make very good orange juice.
Pagan Christianity is no more opposed to the mega-church concept as little church, nor no less.
Mega church and the Rick Warren approach are not synonymous. There are mega churches that are openly critical of the seeker-friendly approach (the 9Marks group, John MacArthur, Alistair Begg to name a few). It would be a fair guess that most seeker-friendly churches are less than 300 in size.
Un-Biblical is not synonymous with anti-Biblical and un-Christian and un-spiritual. Turning on the AC for a worship service is an un-Biblical practice (there is no command to do it or an example of it being done). But that doesn't mean that it is unspiritual or wrong. To have a formal, corporate worship service is an un-Biblical practice (there is no command to do it or an example of it being done).
If the practices of the primitive church is not to be urged on all Christians; does John suggest that the writings of the Church Fathers are?
A false dilemma: "They claim that meetings in large buildings, known as basilicas, were borrowed directly from Pagan forms of worship." Basilicas are large buildings; the basilica was borrowed from paganism. The Jewish Temple was a large building; therefore Judaism is a pagan religion. Yes, ridiculous!
Another false dilemma: "The authors do not like strong leadership and hierarchical organization." It is simply incorrect that strong leadership is found only in a hierarchical organization. To reject hierarchical leadership is not to reject strong leadership.
A straw man (or two): The writers of pagan Christianity never claimed that "the only form of worship of the primitive church was in small house churches and that this "mode of worship is binding on the church today," or a "required part of worship."
Another false dilemma: "Viola and Barna imply that for all practical purposes, any practice adopted by the church, no matter the context, from their neighbors is, by definition Pagan and unchristian." Well, if it didn't come from God, if it didn't come from the Bible and if it didn't come from the apostles of Jesus, where did it come from. Christmas and Easter did come from paganism. They are therefore pagan and unchristian. But that is not to say that to celebrate these holidays, as many Christians do today, is sinful. What it does mean is that the Christian is not obligated to honor these days.
What is the difference between "the authors' freedom to vent their displeasure about any modern Christian practice with which they disagree by simply labeling that practice "Pagan;" and John Oaks' freedom to vent displeasure about practices he disagrees with by simply labeling it a trend, or Americanism, or mega church, or Emergent church, or fickle fads of fashion
Another straw man: John writes, "It is a false premise to say that the goal of the church is to restore every aspect of what the primitive church did." It is a false premise that the goal of Viola and Barna is to restore every aspect of what the primitive church did.
Here is my straw man (I hope it is just that and no more): John Oaks says "I believe that as a principle, restoring many or even most aspects of the Christianity we find in the New Testament writings and even in the writings of Church Fathers such as Clement of Rome, Ignatius and Polycarp is a good goal. For John to advocate that the writings of Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp should be a part of the New Testament Canon is extremely dangerous. The traditional canon of the protestant New Testament was firmly established in the 16 th century and has been accepted by every major Christian denomination to this day. For John to suggest that the writings of the Church Fathers should be added to the New Testament is to reject the universal opinion of trained theologians seems highly subjective.
At one point John writes, "The argument for this position is not given." John is doing more here than fighting a straw man or presenting a false dilemma. I hope he is not being purposefully deceptive. Perhaps the argument is not satisfactory for John or he may disagree with it. In my opinion the documentation and explanations provided in Pagan Christianity is extraordinary, especially for a book written in laymen terms and so brief in length, on such a vast topic.
I wonder if John is as critical of ICOC books and preachers. I have read several ICOC published books; more pages, smaller topics with absolutely no documentation whatsoever. No footnotes, no bibliography.
I assume that because John wrote this review the ICOC no longer censures what its members may read. Because John is greatly respected in the San Diego C/C I fear that there will be many who will decide not to read Pagan Christianity. That is disappointing.
A final thought. I think John has missed the premise of the book. Mega churches work, seeker-friendly churches work, pagan churches work, the ICOC church of 15 years ago worked, and it will probably work in the future. But do they accomplish what Jesus wants the church to be? If Jesus wants the church meeting to be a time of mutual edification, when every person participates and leads among brothers; not led by priests; the house church is the only way that will happen. Large church buildings are not wrong because they are pagan. They are wrong because they do not work. They are wrong because they prevent the church from the purpose stated in the New Testament.
Disclaimer: All information on this site is provided for informational purposes only! By no means is any
information presented herein intended to substitute for the advice provided to you by any health care or other professional
or organization.
You are a member of Dennis Wilhoit's Fan Club!
tweet this!