Final Thoughts on Pagan Christianity
This will (probably) be my last post on Pagan Christianity, (the previous two being here and here) and I wanted to address some comments (and an email) that I have received over the past few days.
The book (Pagan Christianity) has apparently been a bit of a controversial deal on the blogosphere, it seems that every time it’s mentioned there are both proponents and opponents that are vocal about their support/dissent. Any time you have this sort of discourse then the time must be taken to understand both sides of the argument.
The common theme I am hearing is that Reimagining Church, puts in place a new construct after PC tore the old one down. I, however, have a problem with this concept from the start. Pete Rollins in a podcast with Josh Case from The Nick and Josh Podcast (now the Josh and Josh podcast, as Nick’s gallivanting the globe) discussed the idea of deconstruction ending with reconstruction, and said (paraphrased here) “Deconstruction is the lava that keeps the flow of ideas moving, we should never stop deconstructing.” I completely agree with Rollins here, and I hesitate whenever I hear the word “reconstruct.”
The reason far my tepid outlook on reconstruction is the fear that what we reconstruct will simply become another monstrosity of “orthopraxy” (I say orthopraxy in the term of right practice in regards to how we do church) that must again be torn down. When we reconstruct we make the assumption that we have found the “right” way of doing things, which seems to be an arrogant statement in light of how long we (Christians) have been chasing the idea of orthopraxy.
I’m not saying that any reconstruction is bad, in fact we will certainly reconstruct as we go, but we need to keep the urgency of deconstruction with us at all times, lest whatever practices we build, to better engage in our (post)modern culture, become standardized and passed down to later generations in which they will have little (or no) effect.
That being said, I will indeed read Reimagining Church, if for no other reason than I’ve now been told by several people that I should do so.
I have also been told that I misunderstood the intent of Viola/Barna in Pagan Christianity. From the e-mail I received:
you seemed to have missed the point. Barna and Viola are NOT arguing to go back to a biblical blueprintism. They are instead tracing where the protestant traditions came from and raising questions. Frank’s new book REIMAGINING CHURCH — the constructive follow-up to PAGAN CHRISTIANITY –deals with the very issues you address, like contextualization.
While this may be true, I still feel that I what was being laid out in PC was this ideal of “Biblical Blueprintism” (good phrase by the way), and I don’t think I’m the only one who was under that impression.
One final statement: This book, regardless of whether or not those who read it agree or disagree with it, has sparked a great deal of conversation in regards to how we “do church,” and if for nothing other than that fact the authors need to be commended.
email2friend