tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post8122698025121349181..comments2024-03-10T10:54:59.776-07:00Comments on Ben Witherington: PAGAN CHRISTIANTY: by George Barna and Frank ViolaBen Witheringtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comBlogger54125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-31583469394600176962009-04-10T07:08:00.000-07:002009-04-10T07:08:00.000-07:00This is #1 of Ben Witherington’s 14 part series on...This is #1 of Ben Witherington’s 14 part series on Frank Viola’s books <EM>Pagan Christianity</EM> and <EM>Reimagining Church</EM><BR/><BR/>1. Monday, June 30, 2008 <A HREF="http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2008/06/pagan-christianty-by-george-barna-and.html" REL="nofollow">PAGAN CHRISTIANTY: by George Barna and Frank Viola</A><BR/><BR/>2. Tuesday, July 01, 2008 <A HREF="http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2008/07/pagan-christianityreview-part-two.html" REL="nofollow">PAGAN CHRISTIANITY—REVIEW PART TWO</A><BR/><BR/>3. Wednesday, July 02, 2008 <A HREF="http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2008/07/pagan-christianityreview-part-three.html" REL="nofollow">PAGAN CHRISTIANITY—REVIEW PART THREE</A><BR/><BR/>4. Thursday, July 03, 2008 <A HREF="http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2008/07/pagan-christianityreview-part-four.html" REL="nofollow">PAGAN CHRISTIANITY—REVIEW PART FOUR</A><BR/><BR/>5. Tuesday, July 08, 2008 <A HREF="http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2008/07/pagan-christianity-postlude.html" REL="nofollow">Pagan Christianity--- Postlude</A><BR/><BR/>6. Saturday, July 12, 2008 <A HREF="http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2008/07/howard-snyders-review-of-pagan.html" REL="nofollow">Howard Snyder's Review of 'Pagan Christianity'</A><BR/><BR/>7. Friday, September 05, 2008 <A HREF="http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2008/09/frank-violas-reimagining-church-part.html" REL="nofollow">Frank Viola's Reimagining Church-- Part One</A><BR/><BR/>8. Saturday, September 06, 2008 <A HREF="http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2008/09/frank-violas-reimagining-church-part_06.html" REL="nofollow">Frank Viola's Reimagining Church-- Part Two</A><BR/><BR/>9. Sunday, September 07, 2008 <A HREF="http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2008/09/frank-violas-reimagining-church-part_07.html" REL="nofollow">Frank Viola's Reimagining Church-- Part Three</A><BR/><BR/>10. Monday, September 08, 2008 <A HREF="http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2008/09/reimagining-church-part-four.html" REL="nofollow">Reimagining Church--Part Four</A><BR/><BR/>11. Friday, September 12, 2008 <A HREF="http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2008/09/reimagining-church-frank-response-part.html" REL="nofollow">Reimagining Church-- A Frank Response Part One</A> [Frank Viola responds]<BR/><BR/>12. Friday, September 12, 2008 <A HREF="http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2008/09/reimagining-church-frank-response-part_12.html" REL="nofollow">Reimagining Church-- A Frank Response Part Two</A> [Frank Viola responds]<BR/><BR/>13. Friday, September 12, 2008 <A HREF="http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2008/09/epilogue-to-frank-discussion.html" REL="nofollow">EPILOGUE TO A FRANK DISCUSSION</A><BR/><BR/>14. Tuesday, September 16, 2008 <A HREF="http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2008/09/frank-coda.html" REL="nofollow">A FRANK CODA</A> [Frank Viola responds]Andy Rowellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15317283478472718864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-57799858048906131062008-09-30T19:52:00.000-07:002008-09-30T19:52:00.000-07:00I am sure that Frank Viola is a very charitable ma...I am sure that Frank Viola is a very charitable man. I do not question his character or his motives. I believe them to be out of a pure heart. Paul also had pure motives and much zeal when he was persecuting the Church. I just don't believe he is right in his interpretation of history or the scriptures. We know that many wise scholars find difficulty in coming to the same conclusions. We can all find scholars and professors that will support our doctrines and views.<BR/><BR/>I just don't think Frank gets the hurt and division some of his words are causing. I will say that atleast it is causing the Church at some level to wake up from her slumber and no longer ignore where she has fallen short. <BR/><BR/>You are right that in the end we all have to decide for ourselves. Again, I just hope we will truly see the Lord on our knees and allow His Word to speak to us before we take what man says hook line and sinker.MDNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13414370063657966991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-21165464932936557892008-09-30T17:54:00.000-07:002008-09-30T17:54:00.000-07:00MDN, I agree that the book itself lacks in Christi...MDN, <A HREF="http://www.morethancake.org/2008/06/george-barna-and-frank-viola-speak-out_19.html" REL="nofollow">I agree that the book itself lacks in Christian charity</A>. However, I would hasten to add that <A HREF="http://www.morethancake.org/2008/06/gorge-barna-and-frank-viola-speak-out.html" REL="nofollow">in my interview and in phone conversations with Frank</A>, he is much more charitable than the book lets on. I don't know if it is just writing style, or a marketing scheme... everyone will have to decide that for themselves.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00772168718321735432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-4043762584147617512008-09-30T16:58:00.000-07:002008-09-30T16:58:00.000-07:00My main problem with this book is that love seems ...My main problem with this book is that love seems to be the missing ingredient. It is foolish in my opinion for Frank Viola to say that he has history and the scriptures on his side. Obviously, we can abuse history and the scriptures for our own personal gain and belief systems. I pray that we will seek God and His Word before we follow the words of any man despite how much wisdom there appears to be.MDNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13414370063657966991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-91318389755767314982008-09-30T16:01:00.000-07:002008-09-30T16:01:00.000-07:00Thanks for your critique.You said that this critiq...Thanks for your critique.<BR/><BR/>You said that this critique is Part 1. Have you written any others and where would I find them.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03179620746545588008noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-49590083094150796392008-07-25T14:11:00.000-07:002008-07-25T14:11:00.000-07:00Ben you said:"I personally knew we were in for tro...Ben you said:<BR/>"I personally knew we were in for trouble even from the beginning of the 2008 edition of this book when early on we are told that Isaiah died by being sawed in two. This may be in Foxe’s Book of Martyrs (an early example of Protestant hagiography complete with myths, legends, half-truths, and yes some truth), but it is not in the Bible and we don’t have any historical evidence to verify it. So much for presenting us with “just the facts Mam, just the facts.”"<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>I could be wrong, but I thought this came from one of the second Temple Jewish writings, what some call "pseudoepigrapha".<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>JNORM888Jnormhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06749159886390240183noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-49889491890530001152008-07-23T08:36:00.000-07:002008-07-23T08:36:00.000-07:00I want to add that I have been a senior pastor for...I want to add that I have been a senior pastor for 8 years. I agree that the Church needs to look a lot more like Jesus then it does. In many ways as a whole we have lost our focus on missions and holiness (living Christ-like lives) and have become more concerned about keeping up with the "Joneses" so to speak, but we do we live in a different time period and culture. Bottom line is the gathering of believers for singing, hearing the Word, prayer, and fellowship still is effective when Christ is the center! <BR/><BR/>House churches in my opinion without being attached to a mother church is dangerous due to the lack of accountability and being more separated from the larger body of Christ. I am all for meeting in homes and small groups, etc... but even in those settings you are going to have the same struggles and issues we see in what they call the "institutional" church. Sorry for being so long. We must pray. God's blessings!MDNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13414370063657966991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-20609595284884612072008-07-23T08:17:00.000-07:002008-07-23T08:17:00.000-07:00Thank you so much for your response and willingnes...Thank you so much for your response and willingness to speak out against Pagan Christianity. Frank Viola says that he wants to open up dialogue, but his response to my email that I sent to him was, "Thank you for your very long email. Remember, man belongs to Christ, not to any man." He also sent me two links proclaiming more of his propoganda. It saddens me greatly.<BR/><BR/>I agree the problem with the church is not where or how. The Bible is never clear on how we should do it, but it is clear that we are to live and follow Christ. It is clear that we are to repent and turn from our sin. It is clear that we should love and serve others. It is clear that we are to go and make disiciples, teaching them to obey everything God has commanded through the power of Christ. This is where the Church today is missing the mark. It is a heart issue. How long before we realize this? God's blessings to you!MDNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13414370063657966991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-67256977572224255622008-07-11T12:05:00.000-07:002008-07-11T12:05:00.000-07:00Interesting that you quote from Simon & Garfunkel-...Interesting that you quote from Simon & Garfunkel--that song is particularly apropos, I think, since it's seemed to me for a while that Barna's "just trying to keep the customer satisfied."Rob Harrisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13744370123241743193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-27360410745757165902008-07-11T06:22:00.000-07:002008-07-11T06:22:00.000-07:00Thanks for posting this extensive series of review...Thanks for posting this extensive series of reviews. You and I share some of the same frustrations and I'm glad to see that not everyone is swallowing this book whole without seriously considering some of the glaring difficulties it poses as far as the historical evidence is concerned. Thanks!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15421447380225473152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-86046602959008019262008-07-10T11:25:00.000-07:002008-07-10T11:25:00.000-07:00J.R., My mistake.J.R., <BR/><BR/>My mistake.Chris E W Greenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09820193671216321896noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-75104177200597700772008-07-10T08:49:00.000-07:002008-07-10T08:49:00.000-07:00Hey Christ, on balance Pagan Christianity does say...Hey Christ, on balance Pagan Christianity does say <A HREF="http://www.morethancake.org/2008/06/george-barna-and-frank-viola-speak-out.html" REL="nofollow">on page xxix</A> "...just because a practice is picked up from culture does not make it wrong in and of itself, though we must be discerning." But then, you are not the only one to miss this tree through the forest.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00772168718321735432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-47128798532350046502008-07-09T19:01:00.000-07:002008-07-09T19:01:00.000-07:00Tom, I don't think you've got your history right, ...Tom, <BR/><BR/>I don't think you've got your history right, but I suppose Ben will respond - perhaps ineffectively - to you on that score. <BR/><BR/>I want to ask you - and by extension all those who hold with Barna and Viola on this issue of the "paganization of Christianity" - why you assume that because something derives from "pagan" sources that it necessarily perverts and pollutes "essential" Christianity? <BR/><BR/>For instance, legal codes are of pagan origin, but that did not keep the Israelites from Israelitizing them. Knowing that the structure (if not some of the content) of the Ten Commandments derives from pagan law does not in any way demean their value as God's word. <BR/><BR/>Or for another example, the New Testament was written in Koine Greek - a pagan tongue - and the writers made extensive use of pagan literary and rhetorical devices. <BR/><BR/>I could multiply examples, but you see my point. <BR/><BR/>I don't mean to disrespect you, but I can't for the life of me understand what it is about structure (literal, conceptual, relational) that bothers you.Chris E W Greenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09820193671216321896noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-86945221453453488312008-07-09T15:07:00.000-07:002008-07-09T15:07:00.000-07:00Mr. Wintherington wrote; And this brings me to ano...Mr. Wintherington wrote;<BR/><BR/><B> And this brings me to another of their claims— that there is no evidence of church buildings before A.D. 190 when they are mentioned by Clement of Alexandria. Wrong and wrong. Here again archaeology helps. If one goes to Capernaum one can see, through the glass floor of the modern church there, the ‘house of Peter’, which was expanded into a Christian meeting place. It was no longer just a home, it was enhanced so it could be a better place of worship—house becomes church building, so to speak. How do we know this? Because of the Christian graffiti in the walls left by Christians, some of which goes back at least to the early second century, and probably back to sometime after 70 A.D. when both Jews and Christians relocated, and one of the places they went was Capernaum. </B><BR/><BR/><BR/>Ben,<BR/><BR/>Perhaps the definition of “church building” is operative. <BR/><BR/>In Roger W. Gehring’s <I>House Church and Mission</I> (2004; Hendrickson) Gehring delineates between “house church”, “church house”, and “basilica” based on L. M. White’s <I>Domus Ecclesiae—Domus Dei: Adaptation and Development in the Setting for the Early Christian Assembly</I> (1982). (Actually, White identifies four stages of architectural development with a transitional form between “church house” and “basilica”, but three stages are sufficient for this discussion. White drew on the research of Krautheimer.) <BR/><BR/>The archeological evidence shows that churches that met in homes did so with little or no changes to the architecture of the private house. <BR/><BR/>Around 150 C.E. modifications begin to appear to private residences that allowed for their use by a larger community of Believers. Krautheimer adopts the term <I>domus ecclesiae</I> (“house of the church”) as a technical designation for this type of building (cf., e.g., Dura Europos, tituli Byzantis and Clementis). This trend continued with a gradual transition to ever larger buildings and halls (ca. 250-313).<BR/><BR/>Then, in 313 and beyond, with the Constantinian revolution, the Lateran basilica become the model for “church”.<BR/><BR/>For some relatively short time beyond 313 the non-basilica models continued to greater or lesser degrees.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Now, as to your statement about “the house of Peter” at Tell Hum, Gehring writes;<BR/><BR/><B>”…studies draw attention to the existence of local tradition about the house of Peter as early as the second half of the first century. In her pilgrimage journal (late fourth or early fifth century) Egeria tells of a church in Capernaum that was constructed from the house of Peter. This information has ben confirmed by findings of archaeological excavations beginning in 1968 and led by Virgilio C. Corbo and Stanislao Loffreda. A church building dating from the fourth century was discovered under an octagonal Byzantine basilica from the fifth century. Both structures are centered over a private house from the first century C.E. that has a number of features distinguishing it from all other buildings from the early Roman period as yet found in Capernaum. For example, fragments from ornaments and inscriptions indicate that this domestic house was used earlier than the third century by Jewish Christians for the purpose of worship. Two inscriptions with the name Peter are indication of a special relationship between this house and the apostle. Multiple restorations of the beaten lime floor in the living room of the house as early as the second half of the first century imply that the house aleady had special significance back then. (pg. 32-33) </B><BR/> <BR/>The footprint of the private house, which was probably Peter’s, that lies under the later constructions shows that the largest room was about 5 m. square. That is about the same size as the living room in my house. A church meets in my house. When 20-25 people gather in our living room—and spill into the dinning area—it is crowded.<BR/><BR/>There is no doubt that by the middle of the second century “church houses” began to appear on the scene. Even so, a church house is a far cry from a basilica.<BR/><BR/>When you use the term “church building” in reference to Peter’s house as it was in the first and second century, that term is misleading. You are implying that the “natural” growth progression was from house to basilica, and that Believers only met in houses “because they had to”. There was certainly a sort of progression, but it was not linear, nor was the basilica stage a “natural” step in the life of the early Church. Nor did Christians <I>have to</I> meet in houses—actually it was a preferred form that was exemplified by Jesus (his Galilean ministry was “domus-centric”, not Synagogue focused), the 12, the 70, and Paul. The basilica was a “natural” cultural adaptation/innovation by Greco-Roman Christians who had been provided great incentives, both positive and negative, to normalize Roman governmental forms in many areas, including architecture and ecclesiology.<BR/><BR/>Thus, I would say that V&B’s position that our attitudes and practices in regard to architectural structures has been greatly influenced by pagan sources.<BR/><BR/>TomVolkmarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06602468335600046640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-38886866277562426252008-07-03T20:36:00.000-07:002008-07-03T20:36:00.000-07:00It is definitely biblical for ministers to be paid...It is definitely biblical for ministers to be paid. Paul makes it very clear that while he has chosen to forgo pay (at least in Corinth) that people who preach the Gospel have a right to make a living from it (1 Cor 9:14). Ben covered this in more detail in a later post.Joelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10852497941271934646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-66117364325571643992008-07-03T07:52:00.000-07:002008-07-03T07:52:00.000-07:00(Ben, is there a comment delay? I left this yester...(Ben, is there a comment delay? I left this yesterday, but haven't seen it. Reposting.)<BR/><BR/>Ben says, "Everyone agrees that the church is a living thing and organism, not an organization."<BR/><BR/>Is that true? Of the 2 billion Christians on the planet, well over half probably see themselves as "belonging to an organization," rather than as active participants in a peer-to-peer network or “organism.” <BR/><BR/>Ben, I appreciate your interest in Barna/Viola. I've read the book and blogged an extensive review myself months ago. While I don't agree with everything they say, I can't help but think that we DO need to discuss and address our inherited ecclesial imbalances. One wonders if paid religious employment is simply a harmless cultural byproduct, or a serious departure from the heart of Christ.<BR/><BR/>My friend Len asks, "If I take a salary for the work I do for Christ, then how can I in good conscience ask someone else to make the kingdom of God their priority in all their waking hours apart from payment or ekklesial ordination?"<BR/><BR/>Today’s stark lay/clergy division is not easily found in the NT. Some have unique leadership gifts, others have unique spiritual gifts, some have both. But these should all flow together, as co-laborers, as co-servants. Barna/Viola are encouraging us to get the CEO (pastor) off the stage, get rid of the stage, and let the gifts of true community emerge organically, and in proper order. All Christ-followers should be encouraged to be active participants in the ecclesia rather than pew-sitting spectators of “religious experts.” Today's church rarely encourages this, and, at best, presents "task-oriented" roles for "laity." <BR/><BR/>The emerging idea of "missional" parallels much of the underlying purpose of Barna/Viola's book. Missional church is in the hands of the so-called “laity”; missional engagement takes place within the ordinary, everyday rhythm of life; missional rejects the dualistic thinking of seeing a dichotomy between secular and sacred (HT). <BR/><BR/>So much more to say - better said over a long conversation and tea than a blog comment! Keep up the good work.John Lhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05642239691210008441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-36194358166597032292008-07-02T22:19:00.000-07:002008-07-02T22:19:00.000-07:00I liked your critique.But..."Magic is when humans ...I liked your critique.<BR/><BR/>But...<BR/><BR/>"Magic is when humans try to manipulate the divine for their benefit."<BR/><BR/>So does make "petitionary prayer" on the same level as "magic?"Zack Allenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17624381145188381774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-33050699763321980752008-07-02T13:58:00.000-07:002008-07-02T13:58:00.000-07:00BW3Thank you. and I will be sure and so just that ...BW3<BR/>Thank you. and I will be sure and so just that my brother!<BR/><BR/>Chris Green,<BR/>I make much the same point in my summary. The book, PC, is not well done. I think the interviews and talking with Frank Viola on the phone are much more balanced. The book does not say what people want it to say.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00772168718321735432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-69127634234342186042008-07-02T13:19:00.000-07:002008-07-02T13:19:00.000-07:00To J.R. Miller-- you are most welcome to link to t...To J.R. Miller-- you are most welcome to link to these posts, but if you quote from it, please do it in context. <BR/><BR/>BW3Ben Witheringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-5525168670792392472008-07-02T12:50:00.000-07:002008-07-02T12:50:00.000-07:00Jon, Another thing. What are "NT values"? Isn't th...Jon, <BR/><BR/>Another thing. What are "NT values"? Isn't that - like "traditiona values" in American politial discourse - a kind of macguffin useful only to advance one's own interpretative agenda? <BR/><BR/>Besides, what makes it a "value"? What constitutes it as a "New Testament," and not a Pauline, or Petrine, or Johannine value? Why would you not call it an ancient, Palestinian value? Or a value of patriarchial societies? Or a value of oppressed people groups?Chris E W Greenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09820193671216321896noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-36787028516244583182008-07-02T11:42:00.000-07:002008-07-02T11:42:00.000-07:00Wow, a great read. I just finished an 5 part inter...Wow, a great read. <BR/><BR/>I just finished an <A HREF="http://www.morethancake.org/2008/06/gorge-barna-and-frank-viola-speak-out.html" REL="nofollow">5 part interview with Barna and Viola</A>. My <A HREF="http://www.morethancake.org/2008/06/george-barna-and-frank-viola-speak-out_19.html" REL="nofollow">summary to the interview</A> resonates with everything you are saying. <BR/><BR/>I would love to get your thoughts regarding the summary if you have time. If not, may I have permission to quote some of your writing?<BR/><BR/>Thanks!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00772168718321735432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-1195487891855441552008-07-02T11:40:00.000-07:002008-07-02T11:40:00.000-07:00Jon, I know this is Ben's blog, and (perhaps) he'l...Jon, <BR/><BR/>I know this is Ben's blog, and (perhaps) he'll see fit to respond to your comments. But I can't help from offering my own response, for what it's worth to you or others. <BR/><BR/>1. I must say your defense of the book outdoes the book itself! :-)That is quite a feat, and a commendable one in many ways. <BR/><BR/>2. Your tone remains irenic throughout, which, again is no small accomplishment when you so obviously disagree so strongly with Ben's position on these matters. <BR/><BR/>3. Your scholarship is evident, and I must say you advanced some impressive proponents of this "organic" model. In fact, your scholarship goes beyond that of the book you're championing (see my pt 1 above). Although, I think you forgot to include Emil Brunner, who has much to say on these issues that you would find congenial, I bet. <BR/><BR/>However, at the end of the day, all your hard work leaves me, at least, as unconvinced as PC did. Even if I'm more impressed with you than I was with them (Barna and Viola)! <BR/><BR/>You sum up the argument v. well. (By the way, I've read several of Viola's works - admittedly most of them not with a kind eye - and Barna's <I>Revolution </I>, and I think you've misunderstood them, or, at least, you've cleaned up their argument for them in such a way that what you're saying only partially overlaps with what they're saying! Perhaps what you're saying is what they <I>want</I> to say, but I don't think they've actually done it.)<BR/><BR/>You wrote, "In the period when the early church blossomed incredibly with divine love and spiritual power, it had no special buildings, no clergy, and no fixed ritual... <BR/><BR/>"When church edifices, clergy and fixed rituals became prominent, the visible church became focused on perpetuating itself and lost the simplicity of Christ. This is why I believe the information in PC has appeared for such a time as this, when the Body of Christ needs to recapture a NT vision regarding the 'new humanity' in Christ."<BR/><BR/>To put it bluntly, I think for all your hard work you got it wrong - historically, exegetically, theologically, and sociologically. <BR/><BR/>The "early church" - who, precisely, belongs in this grouping anyway? When and where and how and why did the change come? You aren't going to blame Constantine, are you? - <I>didn't</I> experience an "incredible" blossoming of divine love and spiritual power! Luke's Acts is full of stories of conflict and disappointment, of disruption and deception and disorder and discord (I'm out of control here!). Only a cursory reading of Acts could miss that. And only a myopic reading of church history - can you say von Harnack? - would miss the many powerful outbreaks of "divine love and spiritual power" in places decidedly unlike 1st century Palestine! <BR/><BR/>Also, even if there were a special dispensation of love and power experienced by the first Christians - and I don't think for a moment that there was - and even if the statement that the "early church" had no special buildings, no clergy, and no liturgy were true - and it isn't, but I don't have time right now to go through the literature! - there is no reason to think the two are "organically" (I couldn't help myself) connected! One could just as easily, and as sensibly in most instances, argue that the "early church" experienced "simply Jesus" because there were no Gentiles in the mix, or because there was no technology (tv monitors, mics, amplifiers) to speak of (an argument people do make), or because the women were kept separated from the men during the gatherings (ditto), or that there was no offical canon and no compiled New Testament text for them to read (Marcion made a similar argument to this), or because there were very, very few literate people (maybe 2 or 3 in each group), or because they were mostly poor artisans and farmers, or because they hadn't yet thought through their beliefs to the point of establishing creedal dogmas (von Harnack's argument). <BR/><BR/>I could go on, but that would be useless. You see my point (I hope!).Chris E W Greenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09820193671216321896noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-20277649911323844452008-07-02T09:34:00.000-07:002008-07-02T09:34:00.000-07:00Ben,For years I have deeply appreciated your insig...Ben,<BR/><BR/>For years I have deeply appreciated your insightful studies, especially concerning the cultural settings of Jesus, Paul, the church and women. You have truly opened some crucial gates for better understanding and applying the New Testament documents.<BR/>Your review of Pagan Christianity (PC hereafter), however, was quite disappointing. It didn’t breathe the same careful and unbiased air that your published works do. It rather gave the clear impression that you hadn’t read the entire book, and that what you did read, you didn’t read very carefully. I think this opened you up to making some of the mistakes in your review which I will outline below. Furthermore, the authors have already answered many of your objections quite satisfactorily at http://www.ptmin.org/answers.htm The interviews with Barna and Viola are particularly helpful. I suggest you and your readers take the time to read and listen to them.<BR/>You begin by mentioning that your works were not found in the bibliography of PC and that you somehow had expected them to be. However, in some of Frank’s other books he does in fact make reference to your writings and contributions. It is my understanding, therefore, that Frank’s questions to you were not about the subjects in PC, but about issues relating to his other works, particularly his book, The Untold Story of the New Testament Church, which is a popular narrative of the first-century church. Your work is cited there a good bit. <BR/><BR/>It’s clear from some of PC’s footnotes and acknowledgements that Frank has consulted many competent historians on his research for the book (some of whom obviously disagree with you on certain points). PC is primarily a historical work. Since you are a NT scholar, and not a church historian, one wouldn’t expect you to be consulted for the material in this particular work.<BR/><BR/>The thrust of your critique seems to lie in your assertion that the authors don’t deal with the scholarly literature of those who disagree with their conclusions. It implies and wrongly assumes that they were, at best, ignorant of such literature or, at worst, were less than honest in discussing it. <BR/><BR/>A careful reading of the source material and the bibliography of PC demonstrates that they were well aware of “the scholarly literature that would call into question their strident claims and theses,” and were not persuaded by them. The bibliography alone contains hundreds of books showing a wide breath of the subjects at hand, many of which were written by scholars and historians who disagree with some of the authors' conclusions. The book shows keen familiarity, for example, with two well-known liturgical scholars, Frank Senn and Gregory Dix and their work – scholars who disagree with some of the authors’ conclusions.<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, a good number of the sources they use were written by Anglican and Catholic scholars who admit that various practices they embrace are of pagan origin; yet these scholars still uphold and defend their present form of church. (Barna and Viola go a step further and challenge some of those practices on biblical, spiritual, and pragmatic grounds. And then leave it to the reader decide if those practices are a help or a hindrance to what Jesus had in mind for His church.)<BR/><BR/>Very simply, it was not within the scope of the book to examine the claims and counter-claims that others have made. The book states this very point in the preface, arguing that if they had dealt with every counter-claim and traced every practice in detail (making it a “scholarly” work), it would have consisted of many volumes that few people would read. I think that one reason that PC has become a bestseller is that it is so accessible to the average reader.<BR/> <BR/>PC was concerned to boil things down to the key issues related the shift from New Testament simplicity to post-apostolic bureaucracy. I’ve been studying “church” issues for thirty years, and it would be my conclusion that PC accurately reflects the basic conclusions – even virtual consensus -- of a wide range of NT theologians and church historians.<BR/><BR/>For example, it would appear that James D.G. Dunn’s summary remarks capture the essence of PC’s heartbeat:<BR/><BR/>Increasing institutionalism is the clearest mark of early Catholicism - when church becomes increasingly identified with institution, when authority becomes increasingly coterminous with office, when a basic distinction between clergy and laity becomes increasingly self-evident, when grace becomes increasingly narrowed to well-defined ritual acts. We saw above that such features were absent from first generation Christianity, though in the second generation the picture was beginning to change (Unity & Diversity in the New Testament, Westminster Press, 1977, p.351).<BR/><BR/>Here are some other observations for you and your readers to consider:<BR/><BR/>1) In the beginning of your review, you say: "I personally knew we were in for trouble even from the beginning of the 2008 edition of this book when early on we are told that Isaiah died by being sawed in two. This may be in Foxe’s Book of Martyrs (an early example of Protestant hagiography complete with myths, legends, half-truths, and yes some truth), but it is not in the Bible and we don’t have any historical evidence to verify it. So much for presenting us with ‘just the facts Mam, just the facts.’ "<BR/> I felt this was both a weak and misleading statement for two reasons. First, both Jewish and Christian traditions suggest that Isaiah was sawed in half. (Some believe this is alluded to in Hebrews 11:37.) This account is mentioned in the The Martyrdom of Isaiah, The Ascension of Isaiah, and the Talmud, for example. Just because it's extra-canonical doesn't mean it's untrue. Peter being crucified upside down is based on similar traditions. Yet authors frequently mention it without qualifying that it's based on tradition. <BR/>But second, and more importantly, this is an example of how it seems to me that a) your review doesn't provide hard proof to disprove the authors' specific statements (just because another author disagrees with one of their particular findings doesn't make it untrue or false), and b) your review reads too much into certain statements and disregards context. For instance, neither Barna nor Viola were trying to make a case for Isaiah's death in a specific manner, as those who haven’t read the book would easily assume by your review. It was a fleeting statement at best. Here's the exact statement in context. <BR/>Isaiah was sawn in half, John the Baptist was beheaded, and Jesus was crucified. Not to mention the thousands of Christians who have been tortured and martyred through the centuries by the institutional church because they dared to challenge its teachings (p. 4).<BR/>Therefore, to judge the whole book on that one statement, which does have some historical attestation, is quite an over-reach to say the least.<BR/>2) The authors do not suggest, as you have implied, that “house church” is the only form or model of church. In fact, if one reads the entire book, they will discover that the authors are quite critical of much that goes on in some house church circles today. Instead, they argue for something they call “the organic expression of the church,” which takes many different forms depending on culture and time, but which is always consistent with NT principles and the nature of God. In this regard, they issue various critiques on house churches in Chapter 11. On pages 240 and 241, they write: <BR/>Is “organic church” a synonym for “house church”? If not, what is the distinction? No, it is not a synonym. Some house churches are organic, while others are not. A number of present-day house churches are glorified Bible studies. Many others are supper-fests (the meetings revolve around a shared meal and that is about it). Some house churches are just as institutionalized as traditional churches—with a living room pulpit and chairs arranged in rows so attendees can listen to a forty five-minute sermon.<BR/>3) Much of what you have argued were points that the authors themselves agree with. For instance, in the book they never suggest that there is only one way to do church. In fact, the authors refute that very thought. They write:<BR/>The term organic church does not refer to a particular model of church. (We believe that no perfect model exists.) …. Note that our goal in this book is not to develop a full description of the organic church but only to touch on it when necessary. <BR/>4) They never suggest that it’s always wrong to use a building or that buildings are somehow inherently evil. Here’s a direct quote from them on this question:<BR/>Do you think it’s always wrong for a group of Christians to use a building for worship or ministry? Not at all. Paul rented a building (the Hall of Tyrannus) when he was in Ephesus, and the church of Jerusalem used the outer courts of the Temple for special gatherings. What we are establishing in this chapter are five key points: (1) it is unbiblical to call a building a “church,” “the house of God,” “the temple of God,” “the sanctuary of the Lord,” and other similar terms; (2) the architecture of the typical church building hinders the church from having open-participatory meetings; (3) it is unscriptural to treat a building as though it were sacred; (4) a typical church building should not be the site of all church meetings because the average building is not designed for face-to-face community; and (5) it is a profound error to assume that all churches should own or rent buildings for their gatherings. It is our opinion that each church should seek the Lord’s guidance on this question rather than assume the presence of a building to be the Christian norm. Tracing the history of the “church” building helps us to understand why and how we use them today.<BR/><BR/>5) You state: “There were plenty of tribal religions in the ANE that could not afford and did not have Temples, or priests.” The truth is, however, that the overwhelmingly vast majority of religions have been marked by the presence of, as John H. Yoder called him/her, “the religious specialist.” Yoder rightly observes:<BR/><BR/>There are few more reliable constants running through all human society than the special place every human community makes for the professional religionist . . . . in every case he disposes a unique quality, which he usually possesses for life, which alone qualifies him for his function, and beside which the mass of men are identifiable negatively as “laymen,” i.e., non-bearers of this special quality . . . . One person per place is enough to do what he needs to do . . . . the clergyman mediates between the common life and the realm of the “invisible” or the “spiritual” . . . . No one balks at what his services cost (“The Fullness of Christ,” reprinted in Searching Together, 11:3, 1982, pp.4-7).<BR/><BR/>As the authors argue in Chapter 5, the whole “clergy” tradition has no basis in the NT, and is one of the most enormous obstacles to the Body of Christ functioning as it should. Roman Catholic William Bausch makes these astute observations:<BR/><BR/>Our survey has shown us that no cultic priesthood is to be found in the New Testament. Yet we wound up importing Old Testament Levitical forms and imposing them on Christian ministry . . . . Nevertheless in practice there is no denying that there has historically been a gathering into one person and his office what were formerly the gifts of many . . . .[This practice] goes astray, of course, when it translates to mean that only ordination gives competence, authority, and the right of professional governance. It goes further astray when eventually all jurisdictional and administrative powers in the church come to be seen as an extension of the sacramental powers conferred at ordination. In short, there is a movement here away from the more pristine collaborative and mutual ministries of the New Testament (Traditions, Tensions, Transitions in Ministry, Twenty-Third Publications, 1982, pp. 54, 30). <BR/><BR/>6) You seem to totally miss the point when you say, “I was also surprised by the bold claim that there were no sacred persons.” This is one example of how you didn’t read the book very carefully. Of course, the authors affirm that all of God’s people are “holy ones.” They write:<BR/><BR/>In the minds of the early Christians, the people—not the architecture—constituted a sacred space ( p. 11).<BR/>What was meant is that in Christ’s kingdom there are no “holy persons,” in the sense Yoder described above the “religious expert” who is a notch above the “lay” people because of some special ceremony, often called “ordination.” In Chapter 5, they effectively argue that the NT never envisions a sacred priesthood or a sacred clergy that’s set apart as more holy than the rest of the body of Christ. Again, a careful reading of the whole book before you did your review would have avoided making this mistake.<BR/>7) The “recognition” of functions portrayed in the NT is a very far cry from the “ordination” to office that developed in post-apostolic times (cf. Marjorie Warkentin, Ordination: A Biblical-Historical View, Eerdmans, 1980). You seem to merge the two together as if they are organically connected. A number of scholars, like Warkentin and Banks, have uncovered some fresh thinking of what ordination was in the NT that flies in the face of traditional assumptions on the issue. PC treats this subject quite competently in Chapter 5, and it’s treated in more depth in the sequel, Reimagining Church.<BR/><BR/>8) “The ecclesial structure of the NT church was hierarchial.” It would seem that Jesus’ corrective remarks to the Twelve ruled out such a model of leadership – “not so among you.” There are many scholars who would differ with your conclusion. One example among many would be Herbert Haag, a Roman Catholic himself, whose examination of the evidence led him to assert:<BR/><BR/>In the Catholic Church there are two classes, clergy and laity . . . . This structure does not correspond to what Jesus did and taught. Consequently it has not had a good effect in the history of the Church . . . . Among his disciples Jesus did not want any distinction of class or rank . . . . In contradiction to this instruction of Jesus, a “hierarchy,” a “sacred authority,” was nevertheless formed in the third century (Upstairs, Downstairs: Did Jesus Want a Two-Class Church?, Crossroad, 1997, p.109).<BR/><BR/>Another author who asserts this position would be Kevin Giles. This concept is dealt with in great detail in the sequel to PC, which releases in August.<BR/><BR/>9) You suggest that the NT views the Lord’s Supper as a “sacrament,” but I do not think this is accurate. And many scholars would agree with me. As PC points out, the Lord’s Supper, as instituted by Jesus and practiced in the early church, was a meal together. Leonard Verduin gave a number of reasons why the transformation of a meal into a post-apostolic “sacrament” was retrogressive and connected to alien pagan influences (The Reformers & Their Stepchildren, Eerdmans, 1964, pp.137-142). As Vernard Eller noted, “the whole style of thought that goes along with the concept ‘sacrament’ is just plain foreign to the N.T.” (“The Lord’s Supper is Not a Sacrament,” Searching Together, 12:3, 1983, p.3).<BR/><BR/>10) You say: “They could have saved themselves a lot of trouble by reading sources more recent than Will Durant and Shirley Case, neither of which represent the state of the discussion on such matters in the last 50 years.” I feel this statement is misguided. First, the The Story of Civilization is the most successful historiographical series in history. Second, a look at the bibliography and the footnotes reveals that the authors also rely on more recent historians. And third, simply broad-brushing Durant as outdated without giving specifics as to where the authors cite him with incorrect information and how and where those statements have been refuted by all modern historians is not compelling at all. The fact is that the pieces of history that the authors cite from Durant are attested to by many other historians, both past and present.<BR/>11) I was surprised and taken back by your disparaging comment that "Dan Brown would have liked this book." That struck me as a cheap shot that I find ridiculous. It also suggests, underhandedly, that Barna and Viola are not interested in truth or are making things up. After reading your review combined with that statement, I thought to myself, “It could be said, then, that Pope Leo X would have liked Witherington’s review!" I say that based on your approach which I felt was largely made of argumentation that omitted important facts that would call your conclusions into question. <BR/>12) You rightly note, “The question is which traditions comport with Biblical tradition and which do not.” This is the very question the authors ask again and again. I believe that PC has done an admirable job of trying to sort out the general contours of organic church life reflected in the NT from the subsequent trappings that sapped the life out of the church. There is great liberty under the New Covenant. But surely we are not free to do “church” is any way we please. Surely not everything that calls itself “church” is really ekklesia. Aren’t we supposed to pay attention to the “apostolic traditions” contained in the NT? Should not our church practices be in harmony with the teachings of Jesus and the apostles and consistent with the nature of God? Is the acid test of any church form whether or not it fosters and cultivates NT values? Isn’t it safe to say that the great majority of post-apostolic traditions only served to move the church away from Christocentrality and NT simplicity? These are the central questions that PC asks.<BR/>13) You make a wrong assumption about what the authors mean by “institutional church.” Here is their definition from their own words:<BR/>This term refers to a religious system (not a particular group of people). An institutional church is one that operates primarily as an organization that exists above, beyond, and independent of the members who populate it. It is constructed more on programs and rituals than on relationships. It is led by set-apart professionals (“ministers” or “clergy”) who are aided by volunteers (“laity”).<BR/>14) Your statement that “Everyone agrees that the church is a living thing and organism, not an organization,” fails to reckon with the fact that history is replete with examples where institutionalization kills life. The truth is that many forms of church are out of sync with the DNA of the ekklesia. Many environments are hostile to organic life. PC rightly points out that there is good reason to question if the inherited ways of doing church are conducive to promoting the growth of living forms.<BR/><BR/>15) You assert: “Christians continued to meet with Jews in synagogues.” I see no evidence in the NT that Christian gatherings were held in synagogues. The times Paul and a few others visited synagogues was not to have a gospel-based gathering, but to proclaim Christ from the OT evangelistically. <BR/><BR/><BR/>16) The authors aren’t against tradition. In fact, they argue for what they call “the apostolic tradition” which is mentioned within the NT. Moreover, they don’t believe that a practice is wrong just because it may be post-apostolic or invented by pagan sources. They repeat this point throughout the book. They write:<BR/>The way in which we practice our faith can, indeed, affect the faith itself. Does that mean we must go back to the Bible and do everything exactly as the disciples did between AD 30 and 60? No. Social and cultural shifts over the last two thousand years have made it impossible to imitate some of the lifestyle and religious efforts of the early church. For example, we use cell phones, drive in automobiles, and utilize central heat and air. The first-century Christians had none of these forms of human convenience. Therefore, adhering to the principles of the New Testament does not mean reenacting the events of the first-century church. If so, we would have to dress like all first-century believers did, in sandals and togas! (p. xxxix). <BR/><BR/>….<BR/><BR/>The use of chairs and pile carpets in Christian gatherings has no biblical support either. And both were invented by pagans. Nonetheless, who would claim that sitting in chairs or using carpets is “wrong” simply because they are postbiblical inventions authored by pagans? The fact is that we do many things in our culture that have pagan roots. Consider our accepted calendar. The days of our week and the months of our year are named after pagan gods. But using the accepted calendar does not make us pagans (p. 74-75). <BR/><BR/>17) Keep in mind that the constructive side of the authors’ argument is only tangentially discussed in PC. Not much attention is given at all to defending what NT-based church life looks like. Nor is any attention given to refuting many of the counter-arguments to it. This is quite deliberate. Interestingly, I noticed that your review gives full attention to this matter, when the book doesn’t. This has created some obvious misunderstandings on what the authors fully believe about the subject.<BR/><BR/>The sequel called Reimagining Church which I, Leonard Sweet, Shane Claiborne, Alan Hirsch, Rad Zdero, John White, and others have heartily endorsed, does this very thing. In Len Sweet’s words, “In Reimagining Church, Frank Viola is at the top of his game, showing a serene, soaring mastery of the theology of church as organism rather than organization” (quoted from http://www.ReimaginingChurch.org). <BR/><BR/>Reimagining Church carefully refutes such popular concepts as hierarchical leadership structures in the church, official ordination, common myths about the purpose of the ekklesia meeting, et al., and it paints a compelling picture of organic church life that’s rooted firmly in the nature of God and NT principles. I hope that all of your blog readers will read both PC and Reimagining Church and analyze for themselves the merits of the arguments.<BR/><BR/>There are many other matters I could speak to in your review, but these will suffice for now. I will plan on responding to your “Part 2.” <BR/><BR/>In closing, I would like to make this observation that I would think should give us pause for serious reflection. In the period when the early church blossomed incredibly with divine love and spiritual power, it had no special buildings, no clergy, and no fixed ritual (cf. Graydon Snyder, First Corinthians: A Faith Community Commentary, Mercer, 1992, pp.248-249; William A. Beardslee, First Corinthians: A Commentary for Today, Chalice Press, 1994, pp.136-137). When church edifices, clergy and fixed rituals became prominent, the visible church became focused on perpetuating itself and lost the simplicity of Christ. This is why I believe the information in PC has appeared for such a time as this, when the Body of Christ needs to recapture a NT vision regarding the “new humanity” in Christ. <BR/><BR/>Given that PC is truly a ground-breaking book (no other book traces and documents the origins of our modern church practices, nor issues the sort of specific challenges that Barna and Viola do), it’s sad to me that a person with your acumen would not attach more value to the book (as other scholars have), but rather go out of his way to dismiss it without a substantive basis.<BR/><BR/>You accuse Barna and Viola of being too sure of themselves and their views on church history. That may or may not be the case. Having read and listened to them in many interviews, I would say that’s hardly the case. But after reading your review, I had to ask myself that same question of you. Since other competent scholars and historians that Viola and Barna cite and quote disagree with your analysis of church history and ecclesiology, is it possible that you’re a bit too confident in your take on those subjects?<BR/><BR/>I would encourage folks to read the book for themselves carefully, prayerfully, and critically. Do not be persuaded by a review, either by a Robert Banks, a Howard Snyder, an Alan Hirsch, a Ben Witherington, or even myself. Read it for yourself before God and test it against Scripture. And above all, follow your conscience rather than what any human being says.<BR/><BR/>There are many other matters I could speak to in your review, but these will suffice for now. I will plan on responding to your “Part 2.” <BR/><BR/>– Jon Zens <BR/>www.searchingtogether.orgJon Zenshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18362615295779522769noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-81085595042996052062008-07-02T05:49:00.000-07:002008-07-02T05:49:00.000-07:00"Sacrifices of praise and self-sacrificial offerin...<B>"Sacrifices of praise and self-sacrificial offerings yes, real sacrifices no."</B><BR/><BR/>how can you say the anti-type is not <B>real</B>? <BR/><BR/>animal sacrifices, NO<BR/><BR/>real sacrifices, yesshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05891048379892936852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-78701712395820013262008-07-02T04:06:00.000-07:002008-07-02T04:06:00.000-07:00Heb. 11.37 says 'they got sawed in half'. It says ...Heb. 11.37 says 'they got sawed in half'. It says nothing about Isaiah as a singular prophet, and in case there is no personal reference here to any particular prophet.<BR/>BW3Ben Witheringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.com