Henry Imler July 9th, 2008
I love to read reviews. I come by this honestly. Contrary to what some think about grad students, we don’t have all the time in the world to read books. I therefore must reply on the judgement of reviewers to help me select books for consumption and integration into my life and thought processes.
Enter Pagan Christianity. This controversial book by Frank Viola and George Banna suggests that “[m]ost of what present-day Christians do in church each Sunday is rooted not in the New Testament, but in pagan culture and rituals developed long after the death of the apostles.” A very bold claim to make. I have not read the book (see 1st paragraph), but I have a good friend that has and from talking to him about the book, Pagan Christianity tries to be very careful with the research it utilizes to bolster the bold claims that it makes.
Last week I happened upon an ongoing review of Pagan Christianity by Ben Witherington (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4). He is a good biblical scholar who currently teaches at Asbury Theological Seminary, a good school and one at which I am looking for my next stage of studies. Witherington is in a good position to speak on the specific claims made by Pagan Christianity. The manner though which I does this is a different matter entirely.
The strong point of his review is his knowledge of early Christianity and his interpretation of the New Testament on matters of the church as an institution. As I was telling Scott, the weak point is his almost flippant treatment of the book. He will at once give the writers and their ideas credit and at the same time dismiss their research and claims in cursory terms. In addition to this, the very way he refers readers to [his books] is flippant as well. The way he lists himself as an authority through referencing the fact that he wrote a book on it does not do it for me. What I want is actual and dispassionate interaction with the claims. Witherington does this in part, but he often does not and this weakens his review. He comes off as polemical at times – and polemics only serve to whip up the choir. With that said, I am not dismissing this review in the least, only saying that it needs to be read with a critical eye.
Typing of which, Witherington’s reviews should not be the last word on the matter. Jon Zens evaluates and “reviews” Witherington’s review. He has worked up responses to three of Witherington’s posts and is working on a fourth. Anyone who is navigating through this book and it’s reviews should take a moment (ok, 20-30 minutes) and digest what Zens is saying there. There is some healthy criticism of Witherington there.
What this boils down to is not merely looking to see if Pagan Christianity gets a “TRUTH” checkmark or not, but instead an opportunity to navigate the various positions on how to conduct Church and to evaluate the claims of people with obvious stakes in their positions.
With all of the above said, I look forward to reading Pagan Christianity and then revisiting the above reviews later this summer.
![Hundie Jo [Dot] Com](http://www.hundiejo.com/wp-content/plugins/ttftitles/cache2/7d6a910bbe08845c0836a517a70936d5.png){kind=small}
