a dubious title

I am currently reading the book Pagan Christianity .

It is difficult to see those to words put together in that fashion, but I didn't let that scare me.

The book details the origin of the practices of Protestant and Catholic churches and how it contrasts with the original ekklesia (Greek: calling out) or church. The authors, Frank Viola and George Barna, cite how the original gathering of Christians (ekklesia) would never have understood the term church being applied to a building. That would have seemed as nonsense and gibberish. You can't go to the church because they were the church. The book also recounts that the first concept of a separate building (rather than individuals homes) was begun by the Roman emperor Constantine (circa 300 AD). His conversion to Christianity, saw the building of temples to worship but in the fashion and manner of the pagan temples and practices to which they were accustomed. They even discuss the architecture of any church building and how its form is not conducive to fostering the group interactivity of the original Christians.

Although this is interesting subject matter, and I am curious to see how the authors proceed in their conclusions. I hope not to find broad-sweeping dismissives. God's hand has been in the development of His Church from the beginning. Knowing that we are far from ideal in the ways in which denominational Christianity has evolved, I do know that God takes our human imperfections and failures and uses all for His good and purpose. I have already found a few conclusions that are drawn with which I take issue.
We shall see.