“The hallmark of an authentic evangelicalism is not the uncritical repetition of old traditions, but the willingness to submit every tradition, however ancient, to fresh biblical scrutiny and, if necessary, reform.”      — John Stott Ever wonder where our contemporary church practices come from? Authors Frank Viola and George Barna in their book Pagan Christianity (Tyndale 2008) take a hard look at the roots of our church practices and traditions. They pose the simple question “how do these [current church] practices square with Scripture and the practices of the first-century church.”  Surprisingly, many of our typical church traditions are rooted historically in pagan practices. So where do our religious traditions come from? Regarding our notion of “the church”, the early Christians understood that they themselves were corporately the temple of God (ekklesia in Greek).  They understood that they were the “body of Christ”… that God took up “residence inside of His people.” They understood the church to be the assembly of God’s people, rather than a meeting place or building. During the first three centuries, churches met in private homes. In these house churches, “every believer recognized that he or she was a priest unto God” as described in 1 Peter 2. With the evolution of Roman Catholicism in the 4^th to 6^th centuries, sacred buildings were erected and became associated with “God’s house” for Christians, much as the temple had been for the Hellenistic and Jewish faiths. A special priestly caste was set apart to serve God and to receive the Eucharist (the bread and the cup). This professional priesthood was first encouraged by Constantine when he became emperor of the Roman Empire in 324 AD. A physical barrier, in the form of a rail or screen, was constructed to separate the clergy from the laity. The Eucharist was performed by the priest at the altar. In front of the altar was a throne-like “bishop’s chair”. The holy priest would preach the sermon while seated in this chair. Such formalization led to “a loss of intimacy and open participation. The professional clergy performed the acts of worship while the laity looked on as spectators.” Thus was created the great divide which “fostered a monopolizing clergy and the inert congregation.” “By the 5^th century, the concept of the priesthood of all believers had completely disappeared from Christian practice. Access to God was now controlled by the clergy caste.” The 16^th century Protestant reformers modified the architecture, making “the pulpit the dominant center of the building rather than the altar table.” The reformers believed that “the people could not know God nor grow spiritually unless they heard preaching”. Unlike the Catholic church service which emphasized the sacraments administered by a priest from a central altar, the Protestant church service emphasized the sermon preached by a minister/preacher/pastor from a central raised pulpit. Thus, even to this day, the great divide remains between the clergy and laity in most Catholic and Protestant churches. The authors consider the professional priesthood and the separation of clergy from laity to be “unbiblical” to the extent that it absolves the church members of their biblical responsibility to be “priests”. In effect, the biblical “priesthood of believers” in most Protestant churches is nonexistent. The authors suggest that we believers need to step outside the “safe bounds of institutional Christianity” and be willing to preserve “the primitive testimony that Jesus Christ is Head of His church. And that every believer is a priest…a minister…and a functioning member of God’s house”. Why should we care that the “priesthood of believers,” as exemplified in the early church, be preserved?  The authors would argue that this practice is at the core of authentic Christianity. Such a church is “organic” in that it is “Spirit-led” with “open-participatory meetings” and “nonhierarchical leadership”. This contrasts sharply with a typical “clergy-led, institution-driven church”. The abdication of leadership responsibility to professional clergy ultimately results in the lack of transformation among the church members. The hierarchical separation of the pastor from the congregation causes the members to loose touch with “both the Word of God and the history of the church”. While the authors carefully document the “pagan” roots of numerous traditions which have influenced the modern church (such as architecture, church hierarchy, professional clergy, communal worship on “Sunday”, the sermon, the order of worship, “dressing up” for church, the celebration of the Incarnation at “Christmas” on December  25^th, etc.), that does NOT appear to be the core message of their book. The authors pose the poignant question “how can a Christian passively sit in a pew and affirm the priesthood of all believers when he is passively sitting in a pew?” To their way of thinking, we parishioners must take personal responsibility for our actions within the Body of Christ. We are encouraged to attend churches which fosters the biblical view that every believer is a priest “not only before God, but to one another”. Toward this end, the authors close by emphasizing the strengths of the first century church. Author Frank Viola is a proponent of the "contemporary house church movement," which encourages church meetings in private homes. This approach places Jesus Christ at “the center of the meeting. He is glorified through the songs, the lyrics, the prayers, the ministry, and the sharing.” While this particular church model may pose logistical problems, particularly for larger church gatherings, the clarion call for reform remains. As members of the Body of Christ, we are to accept our biblical responsibility to be “functioning priests”. Therein lies the cure for the disease of hyper-authoritarian church leadership, among other things. Dr. Jon