"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."
