tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post858695224126585845..comments2024-03-10T10:54:59.776-07:00Comments on Ben Witherington: PAGAN CHRISTIANITY—REVIEW PART FOURBen Witheringtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comBlogger26125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-72606675486582365892009-04-30T00:38:00.000-07:002009-04-30T00:38:00.000-07:00Todays Christianity has Pagan DNA it cannot be ref...Todays Christianity has Pagan DNA it cannot be reformed The manifestations we can see in Christian churches and Messianic Judeism is Baals,Baalzebubs spirit..The work of Gods Spirit is not apparent today Eliah will come to prepare the way for Jesus and TRUE GOD OF ABRAHAM AND ISRAEL WILL POUR OUT HIS TRUE SPIRIT It will be new community Pagan DNA cannot be encluded in itnadiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10000776015110864759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-50985802049473856812008-08-24T23:17:00.000-07:002008-08-24T23:17:00.000-07:00Hi Dr. Worthington, I used a rather lengthy quote ...Hi Dr. Worthington, I used a rather lengthy quote for a series I am doing on Elders. You can see the portion I quoted on my blog "<A HREF="http://www.morethancake.org/2008/08/elders-lead-healthy-family-support.html" REL="nofollow">More Than Cake</A>". I hope you approve. Thanks.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00772168718321735432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-9223034524986583642008-07-23T11:01:00.000-07:002008-07-23T11:01:00.000-07:00Ben, excellent critque! Frank teaches the scriptur...Ben, excellent critque! Frank teaches the scriptural support of Apostles. he seems to hold to a belief that this support is 'limited' to Apotles. Of course I disagree.Corpus Christi Outreach Ministrieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03164866291727500237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-6760230768631189652008-07-15T09:11:00.000-07:002008-07-15T09:11:00.000-07:00Hi, BenI am responding to both your comments to my...Hi, Ben<BR/>I am responding to both your comments to my replies to Part Four and the Postlude under the Postlude thread.<BR/>-- Jon ZensJon Zenshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18362615295779522769noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-24562036862326080482008-07-12T07:48:00.000-07:002008-07-12T07:48:00.000-07:00Thanks, Ben, for your kind and gracious comments. ...Thanks, Ben, for your kind and gracious comments. I'm pressed for time right now, but will reply to your comments on Monday. I just responded to your Postlude.<BR/>Jon ZensJon Zenshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18362615295779522769noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-82597205689171567882008-07-10T18:19:00.000-07:002008-07-10T18:19:00.000-07:00Hi Jon:You have put a lot of effort into these res...Hi Jon:<BR/><BR/>You have put a lot of effort into these responses, so thank you. I am a NT scholar who is also aware of the various ways the church has wandered away from Biblical models of various things. While I appreciate your pointing out materials from John Owens etc. and I realize of course that the term pastor has a fuller and richer sense than it may have had in the early church, the main function of these posts is to deal with the Biblical and theological errors in what is being said in and undergirding Pagan Christianity and by you, and as a second order issue, your misreading of the earliest period of Christian history. <BR/><BR/>The charge of anachronism is a serious one, all the more serious when you make it of a historian who has devoted his adult life to immersing himself in the primary sources in the primary languages and in early Christian history. <BR/><BR/>And my responses to you are that I am most concerned with your misuse of Scripture, and the leaps in logic that are so clear in what you say about the early church structure and function. I have time here to point out three things---<BR/><BR/>1) in regard to theology, it is simply false to say that the life of the church is modeled on the life of God if we are talking about anything ontological. The ontological equality of the three members of the Trinity involves their divinity, whereas human beings are only equal in being human. They have neither the capacity nor the power to function in various ways that God functions. And interestingly the ontological equality in the Trinity does NOT imply a functional equality or sameness of role for them, particularly if we are talking about the function of the Son or the Spirit on earth. <BR/><BR/>The Son is clearly subordinated to the Father, and the Spirit subordinate to both the Son and the Father. This is why, for instance, we hear that the head of Christ is God in 1 Cor. 11. <BR/><BR/>Both Johannine theology and Pauline theology recognize the functional subordination of the Son and the Spirit to the Father. The Son can say nothing but what the Father gives the Son to say and so on. All the use of agency language of the Son being the agent of the Father and the Spirit being the agent of the Son make this very clear. <BR/><BR/>If one wants to draw an analogy between that and body life, then what we would EXPECT in the body is an equality in regard to value and personhood of all members of the body of Christ, but clearly enough a division of labor, and a different in function amongst those body members. This is what a Biblical model that draws analogies between the life of God and the life of the church would need to conclude, and as you well know it is possible to push this too far--- see Wayne Grudem, for example. It is also possible to go too far in the other direction and miss the functional subordination of the Son and the Spirit. The latter seems to be your problem.<BR/><BR/>2)You seem also to have a taxonomy that assumes that what Paul does in an evangelistic setting has little or nothing to do with the roles he would play in a house church setting, but frankly this is false. Preaching, mentoring, shepherding go on in various places and forms in both settings. Paul is an apostle in all these settings, and when he commands his Corinthians to obey his teaching as a Word from God, he is most certainly operating as not merely one member of the congregation but as an authority figure over it. <BR/><BR/>The question then becomes was the apostolic office in some form passed down through church history. As you are surely aware, the second century church believed it was--- in the office of the bishop, in particular the itinerant monarchial bishop like Ignatius. Of course there were overseers in local congregations but there were overseers above them of the churches as a whole. Not only were their itinerant bishops, there were also itinerant prophets and teachers-- see the Didache. <BR/><BR/>The problem for you is that you have picked Paul's most problematic church--- Corinth, which he spends the most time correcting to be the basis of your model for what church life, body life, and leadership ought to look like. I dare say that if you didn't have 1 Corinthians, much of what you say would not follow at all even on the basis of the rest of the Pauline corpus. <BR/> <BR/>3) It is of course true that Paul tells all Christians that they have a responsiblity to each other to exhort one another etc. Of course this is true. Why would you assume that he was referring to doing this in some church meeting or public meeting? Or why would you then assume that when Paul says that 'some are called to be apostles, prophets teachers' he means everyone, when clearly he doesn't. What we can say is that both things are true-- there were those who had the gifts, the regular function and therefore role of teaching etc. in the church, and there was also as well the responsibility of all to be their brother's and sister's keeper, exhorting, calling to account etc. Both things are true. If by 'organic' church you mean the elimination of the former category in favor of everyone being free to do whatever they feel led to do, spontaneously, then you have badly misread Paul, and other parts of the NT, and it will not do. It is a very serious denial of what Paul says about leadership. So back to the Pastoral Epistles once more with feeling-- it is irrelevant that the term applied to them is later. They were called this for a good reason-- Timothy and Titus are called upon and trained by Paul to train up and appoint other leaders than themselves to various churches in various places-- both elders and deacons, and even overseers. This did not mean that Timothy and Titus ceased to have an ongoing authority over such local church officials, or simply planted churches and then left the locals in charge. This is false-- they continued to have oversight OVER the overseers etc. This is why Paul keeps have to jump start Timothy to fulfill the pastoral roles he is called to do in such instances. He is not to back down from leadership because of his age, or natural temerity etc. Not all authority was local in the early church, nor did all authority grow out of the indigenous life of the local house churches. There was a larger concept of the church of God as a whole, and the apostles and their co-workers had roles across and above such local congregations. And yes, they had every right to be paid, though they could if they chose refuse to be paid. <BR/><BR/>As is the case with any lively renewal movement spurred on by enthusiasm, and what is seen as a prophetic witness, and by the Holy Spirit, there are always excesses and mistakes-- errors of enthusiasm often. But my concern in these posts is not with that. My concern is with the errors in Biblical interpretation, errors in critical judgment about the character of the early church, errors in reading early Christian, not the later and even Reformational history of the church. <BR/><BR/>I hope you will carefully rethink what you are saying as I always do my best to do-- and that way iron can sharpen iron. The function of iron on iron is not just to produces sparks, but to sharpen. <BR/><BR/>Blessings on your ministry as I have no wish to try and pour cold water on what the Spirit is doing through you. The church always needs reformation. Always-- and so does yours. You need to understand that God can write straight with a crooked stick, and we are all crooked sticks. Just because God uses us, doesn't mean we have our theology and praxis straight.<BR/><BR/>Ben W.Ben Witheringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-14778979477436477102008-07-10T14:56:00.000-07:002008-07-10T14:56:00.000-07:00Ben,In part four of your review, you spend the bul...Ben,<BR/><BR/>In part four of your review, you spend the bulk of your time showing from the New Testament that there are specific people who do pastoral work and other functions. It seems to me that you are missing the main point of PC in this regard. The authors are saying that the tradition of “clergy” in Roman Catholicism and “the pastor” in Protestantism has no organic connection to what is portrayed in the NT, and it comes into conflict with the teachings of Jesus and the apostles.<BR/><BR/>While Reimagining Church explores the function of first-century shepherds, overseers, and elders in detail, I’ll just make a few observations in response to your review.<BR/><BR/>1) You seem to assume that contemporary “pastors” and the elders, shepherds, and overseers mentioned in the NT are on the same plane. But PC is rightly saying that this is not the case. A whole doctrine of “the pastor” has been repeatedly articulated in hundreds of books – with minor variations, of course. Here are nine books from various perspectives which, if taken together, would pretty well give the contours of what people have in mind when they hear the word “pastor.”<BR/><BR/>Edward Schillebeeckx, Ministry: Leadership in the Community of Jesus Christ; Richard Baxter, The Reformed Pastor; Hezekiah Harvey, The Pastor: His Qualifications & Duties; David S. Schuller, et al., Ministry in America: A Report & Analysis, based on an in-depth survey of 47 denominations in the U.S. & Canada, with interpretation by 18 experts; Norman Shawchuck & R. Heuser, Leading the Congregation: Caring for Yourself While Serving the People; Robert L. Randall, Pastor & Parish: The Psychological Core of Ecclesiastical Conflicts; Melvin J. Steinborn, Can the Pastor Do It Alone?; Stefan Ulstein, Pastors [Off the Record]: Straight Talk About Life in the Ministry; and John A. Sanford, Ministry Burnout.<BR/><BR/>The host of assumptions about the role of “the pastor” in such books cannot be substantiated in the NT. The “office” of pastor set forth in Protestant tomes is unknown in the NT. That is the essence of what PC is setting before its readers. <BR/><BR/>For example, Puritan John Owen believed that “on this office [‘pastor’] and the discharge of it He hath laid the whole weight of the order, rule, and edification of His church” (The True Nature of a Gospel Church, edited & abridged by John Huxtable, London, 1947, p.55). Southern Baptist Frank Owen crystallized the essence of what church people assume is to be the operational standard:<BR/><BR/>The OT had the prophet and the priest . . . . In Evangelical Christianity the church has merged the two OT figures into one office called ‘pastor’ . . . . This fellowship, like a flock, needed a leader like a shepherd . . . . An orderly church needs one overseer, one shepherd, one pastor . . . . the pastor needs to have general oversight of the education, music, youth, activities and any other ministries in the flock . . . . Allow this old veteran to observe that chaos easily develops where no one is in charge. If the church is to be one flock, it needs one shepherd. Let him be first among equals” (Western Recorder, January 14, 1981, p.11).<BR/><BR/>2) In your reactions to PC’s chapter on “The Sermon,” you seem oblivious to the deeply entrenched and thoroughly misguided traditions that cluster around the post-Reformation defenses of “the minister.” As the quotations from J. Owen and F. Owen reveal, the scale has been inordinately tipped to a position that you can’t even discover on the pages of the NT. <BR/><BR/>PC is simply uncovering and exposing the glaring disconnect between the body life described in the NT, and the clergy-centeredness that was concretized in post-apostolic times.<BR/><BR/>3) You seem to miss the point that the nexus of responsibility to “bind and loose” is committed to the believing community, not to “office bearers.” You say, “Jesus, according to Mt.16, founded his church on a leader named Peter. He was given the keys to the kingdom and the power of binding and loosing.” But whatever Matt.16 teaches, that is not the whole story, is it? <BR/><BR/>In Matt.18 we see very clearly that the “keys” to bind and loose are in the possession of the ekklesia. The epistles are addressed to bodies of believers, not to leaders. Even at Corinth where problems and immaturity abounded, Paul addressed the believers as possessing the spiritual resources to face and resolve their issues. He never addressed “leaders” separately as if problem-solving fell specifically upon their shoulders. <BR/><BR/>4) You aver that the shepherding “task is not given to everyone . . . . in no case are all Christians called and gifted to do shepherding.” In saying things like this, I think you are missing a vital NT perspective. Without denying that some individuals function as “shepherds,” it is nevertheless the case that the task of general oversight and pastoral care is given to everyone in the body. If you think about it, all the characteristics of elders are to be marks of the whole community – including instruction (Heb. 5:12; Rom. 15:14). The many facets of caring – including warning the unruly, comforting the feebleminded, supporting the weak – are to be fleshed out by the community as the whole body functions (1 Thess. 5:14; see also the 58 “one another” exhortations given to the believing community). In Gal.6:1-2, those in the body who are walking in the Spirit are to be involved in the restoration process when others become ensnared in sin. In 1 John all the brethren are to “test the spirits.” As John H. Yoder observes,<BR/><BR/>The whole concern of Reformation theology was to justify restructuring the organized church without shaking its foundations … But if we were to ask whether any of the N.T. literature makes the assumptions listed -- Is there one particular office in which there should be only one or a few individuals for whom it provides a livelihood, unique in character due to ordination, central to the definition of the church and the key to her functioning? Then the answer from the biblical material is a resounding negation …. The conclusion is inescapable that the multiplicity of ministries is not a mere adiaphoron, a happenstance of only superficial significance, but a specific work of grace and a standard for the church …. Let us then ask first not whether there is a clear, solid concept of preaching, but whether there was in the N.T. one particular preaching office, identifiable as distinctly as the other ministries. Neither in the most varied picture (Corinthians) nor in the least varied (Pastoral Epistles) is there one particular ministry thus defined. (“The Fullness of Christ: Perspectives on Ministries in Renewal,” Concern, No. 17, Feb. 1969).<BR/><BR/>5) An especially revealing passage is Heb.12:15 where the verb episkopeo appears. The noun form of this verb, of course, refers to “overseers,” or “elders.” We get our word “Episcopal” from it. So here we have the action of “overseeing” applied to the whole body of brethren. R.C.H. Lenski makes these observations: “Episcopos is a bishop; the participle bids all the readers to act the part of episcopoi, overseers, by exercising continuous oversight of each other” (The Interpretation of Hebrews, p.443). Lenski translates this as, “continuing to exercise oversight lest anyone be dropping away from the grace of God.” Elders (overseers/shepherds) simply model this oversight and pastoral care for the rest of the church. <BR/><BR/>6) When any of Paul’s churches were in crisis, Paul didn’t write his corrective letters to “the pastor.” He instead writes to the whole church, and he exhorts the entire church to deal with the crisis. Contrast that with today’s practice. If there was a crisis brewing in the typical traditional church today, letters would be addressed to the pastor, not the congregation. In fact, a close look at the Pauline letters, as well as those of Peter, James, and John, reveals that the apostles never mention a single pastor. That there were elders/overseers/shepherds in some of them is without question, but they clearly didn’t have the kind of prominence that the modern pastor is given today. (For an insightful discussion on the role of first-century elders, see R. A. Campbell, The Elders: Seniority in Earliest Christianity. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1994.)<BR/><BR/>7) Paul’s letters to Timothy and Titus weren’t called the “Pastoral Epistles” until around the eighteenth century. Timothy and Titus were not pastors as we conceive of them today. They were in Paul’s circle of apostolic workers, usually on the move. On occasion they tarried in a single location. Significantly, Paul never calls them pastors or elders. He does call Timothy an “evangelist.” <BR/><BR/>8) Our church practice has been so focused on “the pastor” that we have lost the broad pasturing responsibility entrusted to all the brethren. By paying people to “do ministry,” the people in the pew often end up participating very little, if any, in vital caring for one another. The reality is that “ministry” has traditionally shifted from the many to a few – often, only one. <BR/><BR/>9) In the discussion of one pastor versus a plurality of elders, you again seem to miss the point. The truth is that there is a well-defined doctrine defending the need for “one pastor,” summed up in Frank Owen’s sentiment – “An orderly church needs one overseer, one shepherd, one pastor.” In the NT, references to elders and overseers are always plural. There is no example of an ekklesia having one shepherd. “If any of you is sick, let them call for the elders of the church” (James 5:14). <BR/><BR/>As Wayne Grudem notes, “no passage suggests that any church, no matter how small, had only one elder. The consistent NT pattern is a plurality of elders ‘in every church’ (Acts 14:23) and ‘in every town’ (Titus 1:5)” (Systematic Theology, p.913). Once again, there is just no connection between the leadership described in the NT and the long-standing tradition of “the pastor.”<BR/><BR/>My observation would be that the great bulk of people who have been sitting in pews hearing sermons for 30-50 years are rarely equipped for ministry, are often biblically illiterate, and are essentially trained to be ears for the mouth of the body – spoon-fed and dependent on the charisma of one gift behind the pulpit (cf. Clyde Reid, The God-Evaders, Harper, 1966; The Empty Pulpit, Harper, 1967). David Thomas in 1898 summarized the situation well in his comments on 1 Cor.14:<BR/><BR/>The Christian church in assembly, on the same occasion, might have several speakers to address them . . . . If this be so: 1. Should Christian teaching be viewed as a profession? It is now: men are brought up in it, trained for it, and live by it, as architects, lawyers, doctors . . . . 2. Is the Christian church justified in confining its attention to the ministry of one man? In most modern congregations there are some Christian men who, by natural ability, by experimental knowledge and inspiration, are far more qualified to instruct and comfort the people than their professional and stated minister. Surely official preaching has no authority, either in Scripture, reason, or experience, and it must come to an end sooner or later. Every Christian man should be a preacher. Were the half-hour allotted in church services for the sermon to be occupied by three or four Christly men . . . . with the capability of expression withal, it would not only be far more interesting, but more profitably spent than now (“1 Corinthians,” The Pulpit Commentary, p.459).<BR/><BR/>In a sense, PC zeros in on and parses issues that are broadly discussed thematically in Jacques Ellul’s The Subversion of Christianity, in Nigel Goring Wright’s Disavowing Constantine, and in Colin J. Bulley’s The Priesthood of Some Believers.<BR/><BR/>If I may, I’d like to quote Frank in a recent interview he did with George Barna. The whole interview is worth hearing as they discuss the book and their views on the modern pastorate (http://www.ptmin.org/barna_viola2.mp3). In it, he issues this challenge to his listeners:<BR/><BR/>Pick up your NT and look for this man. Show me a man in the NT who preaches to the same congregation week after week, month after month, year after year. Show me a man in the NT who is called the head of the church. Show me a man in the NT that makes the decisions for a local church. Show me a man in the NT that represents the church in the world, that blesses civic events, that marries the living and buries the dead. And if you can find that man in the NT who fits all of those descriptions, then George Barna will give you $500,000.<BR/><BR/>This is a challenge to consider for all who assume that the modern pastoral office and role is firmly based in the NT. The fact is, such a job description cannot be found.<BR/><BR/>The fact of the matter is that while some pastors cannot accept the challenges in PC, there are many pastors who have testified that they have known deep down in their hearts that their role as pastors wasn’t in line with God’s will. Reading PC has helped them to get in touch with their consciences. You can read some of these testimonials on Frank’s blog at http://frankviola.wordpress.com/2008/07/03/pastors-weigh-in-on-pagan-christianity/<BR/> <BR/>In closing, I would encourage you to consider two essays that, I believe, capture the pulse of Pagan Christianity. You come across pretty dogmatically with your views, but it needs to be kept in mind that other adept scholars have come to different conclusions after examining the NT revelation.<BR/><BR/>*Gordon D. Fee, “Laos & Leadership in the New Testament,” Listening to the Spirit of the Text, Eerdmans, 2000, pp.121-146.<BR/><BR/>*John H. Yoder, “The Hermeneutics of Peoplehood: A Protestant Perspective,” The Priestly Kingdom: Social Ethics as Gospel, Univ. of Notre Dame, 1984, pp.15-45.<BR/><BR/>I think the following summary by Ernest F. Scott once again confirms that the pivotal points made in PC have been seen by others.<BR/><BR/>[The ekklesia] was not the Jewish community over again, with a few minor differences, but was a new creation . . . . [W]hen much of his spiritual teaching was forgotten . . . the church took on more and more of the character of an ordinary society. It sought its models deliberately in the guilds and corporations of the day, and before a century had passed a Christian church was almost a replica in miniature of a Roman municipality. It had a body of officers graded like those of the city, clothed in similar vestments and bearing similar titles. The conception of a unique society, representing on earth the new order which would prevail in the Kingdom, seemed almost to have disappeared (The Nature of the Early Church, Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1941, pp.31, 110). <BR/><BR/>Thanks again for considering my thoughts. – Jon ZensJon Zenshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18362615295779522769noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-71192384962835363592008-07-09T12:37:00.000-07:002008-07-09T12:37:00.000-07:00falantedios, I have known several guys who have do...falantedios, I have known several guys who have done just that. <BR/><BR/>Personally, I do get support as an Elder, but I also gave up a job opportunity to make a 6 figure salary to do so. Most guys I know, sacrifice a lot to minister full time. I know two pastors who have jobs as Janiotors so their time is free to minister, and I worked cleaning toilets for some time to self-support (and am looking for a job right now as well so I don't place an undue burden on our small congregation).<BR/><BR/>These guys don't get written about in the popular magazines that only talk about mega-church success, so that is why you don't read about them.<BR/><BR/>If you don't personally know pastors/elders like this (which from your comment it seems you don't), might I respectfully suggest you are hanging around the wrong group and need to travel in different circles?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00772168718321735432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-45517564381724923902008-07-09T10:58:00.000-07:002008-07-09T10:58:00.000-07:00It would be nice, though, if ministers would at le...It would be nice, though, if ministers would at least PRETEND to take Paul's warnings about the dangers of accepting support seriously.<BR/><BR/>If you are suggesting that the image of a "snake-oil-selling huckster" is limited to the patronage system of the ancient world, I hope you will reconsider.<BR/><BR/>I'm not against paying ministers. But Paul seemed to believe that his example had some merit.<BR/><BR/>I mean, have you really ever counseled a student who said, "Dr Witherington, I want to minister in [insert location here]. There have been a lot of disreputable preachers in this area who have taken money from the church and given ministers a bad name. So I'm thinking of foregoing my right to support." <BR/><BR/>Does anyone even consider the fact that many unbelievers DO think that gospel ministry is just an easy way to make a buck?<BR/><BR/>Again, I'm NOT against supporting ministers. I'm against people not taking Paul seriously when he warns about the real dangers associated with accepting such support.<BR/><BR/>in HIS love,<BR/>nick gill<BR/>Frankfort, KY<BR/><BR/>PS - And it might be even MORE true today from a mainline denominational standpoint - many unbelievers think that its just another corporate job.Falantedioshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16142960942087875045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-64697112753988959892008-07-08T13:59:00.000-07:002008-07-08T13:59:00.000-07:00you make some good points toby... a lot worth deep...you make some good points toby... a lot worth deeper consideration.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00772168718321735432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-78841260912841046562008-07-08T12:40:00.000-07:002008-07-08T12:40:00.000-07:00Whether Barna and Viola's thoughts are biblically ...Whether Barna and Viola's thoughts are biblically supported or not pales in comparison with this one thing ... they only offer formats that appear to be similar to the early church … but they do not offer direction to the lifechanging God-experiences that made the early church what it was. <BR/><BR/>Basically, spiritual renewal is not as vital as renewal of format. For example:<BR/><BR/>They spend 9 pages on clothing of the clergy, 38 pages on the church building, 18 pages on the evils of sermons, 36 pages on the "order of worship" being established, and 14 pages about pastor's salaries. <BR/><BR/>But ... what about the "weightier matters"? Baptism: 4 pages. The very entrance into the covenant of God, and they only spend 4 pages? <BR/><BR/>Look at Barna's research. It's obvious that most "christians" do not know much about the Bible or what God requires of them. "Pagan Christianity?" simply reinforces that ignorance by suggesting leaderless groups follow a Spirit they know little of and a Bible they have great difficulty interpreting accurately.<BR/><BR/>I like their idea of unveiling how things were added into the church ... or taken away throughout the centuries. But ... what about the new birth? If anything has shifted since the book of Acts (the beginning of the church) it is this. America is filled with churches that are losing people because they do not truly encounter God in conversion. But is the problem the format? Or is it the substance?<BR/><BR/>Viola and Barna's quest is to meet in a format like the early church did. But if they do not encourage people to have the same experiences as the early church, then whatever format is created is empty. <BR/><BR/>Bottom line: The American church today is anemic, and recognizes it. And for a remedy, we keep turning to quick fix solutions. However, It is out of the new birth that we become new people, regenerate ... with an ability (at that point) to obey God and follow his Spirit as he leads. <BR/><BR/>With the early church, their doing (following God in their meetings) came out of their being (they were filled with God’s Spirit.. see Acts 2, 8, 10, 11, 19). If we just change our church formats, and do not allow ourselves to be filled and changed by God's Spirit, then we may in deed be pagans calling ourselves Christians.<BR/><BR/>Romans 8:9<BR/>"You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ."Toby Stevenshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17426623451104185124noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-4189496814192665712008-07-07T20:00:00.000-07:002008-07-07T20:00:00.000-07:00For those of you who have requested a source on th...For those of you who have requested a source on the close relationship between the synagogue and its worship services and teaching sessions, and what went on in house church meetings, you need only peruse James Burtchaell's important book From Synagogue to Church. Public Services and Offices in the Earliest Christian Communities (Cambridge U. Press, 1992).Ben Witheringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-20413125204466413772008-07-05T12:20:00.000-07:002008-07-05T12:20:00.000-07:00Yes, thank you for that clarification about the pa...Yes, thank you for that clarification about the pay.<BR/><BR/>I will keep an eye out for your stuff on Logos.<BR/><BR/>Maybe the price will even work out so that a lowly church planter can buy it :-)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00772168718321735432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-71883844965967851432008-07-05T12:15:00.000-07:002008-07-05T12:15:00.000-07:00I am happy to report that all my Eerdmans socio-rh...I am happy to report that all my Eerdmans socio-rhetorical commentaries will soon be available on the Logos package I believe. As for pay for ministers, the principle of Jesus was a general one given to all-- "a workman is worthy of his hire". This was as true of a prophet or an apostle, or some other sort of workman. Paul is not saying that the teaching of Jesus is only relevant for apostles. Indeed Gal. 6.6 rules this out as he tells the Galatians to take care of their own teachers, providing them with all good things. <BR/><BR/>BW3Ben Witheringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-58327494163710082272008-07-05T11:53:00.000-07:002008-07-05T11:53:00.000-07:00Oh, one other question. Are any of your commentar...Oh, one other question. Are any of your commentaries available in the Logos/Libronix format? I don't buy paper anymore for commentaries :-)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00772168718321735432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-87149370076648506982008-07-05T11:47:00.000-07:002008-07-05T11:47:00.000-07:00Bill Barnwell,I have experienced this first hand. ...Bill Barnwell,<BR/>I have experienced this first hand. Even after I did an interview with Frank and George, people still find reason to judge me as "two-faced" for having criticisms of the book. You can't win for trying with some people.<BR/><BR/>Dr. Witherington, <BR/>I would like to draw your attention back to Bill's comment (the second one on this thread). Can you explain how the right of financial support for the Apostle is the same for the pastor?<BR/><BR/>Also, when did the use of "Pastoral Epistles" come into use?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00772168718321735432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-23328599723297182002008-07-05T04:33:00.000-07:002008-07-05T04:33:00.000-07:00Two small points, and thanks for all the good post...Two small points, and thanks for all the good posts. First, I certainly do not assume that all is well with the mainline churches or traditional churches. Like any group involving human beings there are issues and problems. My view is simply this--- not only have Viola and Barna failed to make their case, in fact their views are less Biblical when it comes to ecclesiology than the array of views found in the mainline churches, and yet, they try and present their views as the 'most Biblical viewpoint'. It simply isn't so, hence the vigor in the rebuttal. I'm not particularly fond of grandiose claims that have no real Biblical substance behind them. I do think that some of the critique of mainline churches is valid. I do not think that the alternative they offer is more Biblical.<BR/><BR/>As for the celebration of the Lord's Supper, it is indeed a sacrament and should be treated as such--- with both understanding, respect, and as a means of grace. See my book Making a Meal of It.<BR/><BR/>Blessings,<BR/><BR/>BW3Ben Witheringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-81173632498837094722008-07-05T00:02:00.000-07:002008-07-05T00:02:00.000-07:00Dr. Witherington Sir, I have read all four reviews...Dr. Witherington Sir, <BR/>I have read all four reviews and believe you offered needed criticisms to Viola's and Barna's over-enthusiasm in qualifying their views as biblical and all that contrasts as un-biblical. All that one needs to do is take corrective insight to an extreme place and it too becomes error. I think this is the greatest weakness in the book. <BR/><BR/>You are right to highlight some of these errors and deficiencies. Yet I note an overly aggressive tone in your critique that I do not see in many of your other reviews and critiques. I am not suggesting that you are being mean-spirited, rather unusually vigorous. I find this odd and perplexing because despite the book's shortcomings they are right to highlight that something is largely amiss in the Church today.<BR/><BR/> Your spirited pursuit to show where they lapse gives me the impression that you think all is well and biblical within the average church experience today. That somehow Jesus intended that His Church would be largely identified with being a four-walled structure adorned with stained glass where you attend a pre-programmed service once a week for an hour where the extent of your fellowship is five minutes in a church lobby. A place where your worship and the extent of God's interaction with you is all printed out in a neat and tidy bulletin (Protestant stuff).<BR/><BR/>That somehow Jesus intended that His Church be a temple structure where people can observe a “levite” priestly clergy clothed in felt vestments and silly hats perform rituals, burn incense and conduct sacraments with sacred implements on behalf of a passive audience who is dependent on their mediation (Catholics stuff). <BR/><BR/>That somehow Jesus desired His Church to be identified with a high ecclesiastical atmosphere, shrouded in mystery where His sheep are “fed” through the singing of chants and liturgies in a language that they can’t even understand (Greek Orthodox stuff).<BR/> <BR/>The underlying stress of Viola and Barna is that people think the Church is something they go to and not something they are as the people of God, set apart to be His possession, His Church, His dwelling place, His temple, His house. They are correct to highlight this and they are correct to point out that the way the term “church” is thrown around today tells you how far removed we are from God’s understanding. <BR/><BR/>Linguistically and grammatically it doesn’t even make sense to say, “Where do you go to church?” Or “I’ll meet you in the church lobby.” It’s like saying, “Where do you go to assembly of people?” and “I’ll meet you in the assembly of people lobby.” It may seem like a slight linguistic error, but the bending of the straw will tell you where the wind is blowing. There are consequences to such thinking. Namely church becomes a spectator sport in which membership and attendance become the key features rather than deep, abiding relationships that expose sin, encourage faith, strengthen the fainthearted and empower the release and exercise of gifts. <BR/><BR/><BR/>In a day and age in which western Christianity is subject to the same statistical numbers as secular society in terms of divorce, teen pregnancy and porn addiction, one has to wonder what Christ thinks of our church framework. <BR/><BR/>Your reviews do not seem to take into account Viola’s and Barna’s passion to see the Church breakout of the stagnation of Sunday-morning dress-up Christianity in which an ekklesia tries to survive predominantly on the gifts and talents of one individual- the pastor. <BR/><BR/>So my questions to you are simple: As a N.T. scholar do you think the western church has largely developed and gone the direction God intended? If not, where do you see her not reflecting God’s expressed intention? Do you think the distinction between clergy and laity has gone too far? <BR/><BR/>I have no problem with purpose-function buildings to physically attend to the needs of the church to come together in worship. Some house church proponents are flat out stupid to insist on living rooms and declare buildings off limits. But I must ask, do you think multi-million dollar cathedral buildings replete with adorned sanctuaries and alters is a move backwards in light of Jesus’ proclamation that God would no longer seek to dwell in temples made by human hands? (A huge paradigm shift in the minds of his disciples wouldn’t you say?) <BR/><BR/>Do you think the Lord’s Supper of “do this in remembrance of me” is done in any main line denomination that reflects the N.T. practice as instituted by Christ and upheld by His apostles. <BR/><BR/>I ask all this in an honest desire to know your thoughts. Your engaging rebuke of the book makes it seem as if the institutional framework and evolved hierarchy of many church traditions gets a passing grade in your book as being truly expressive of God's heart for leadership ("it shall not be so among you") and God's heart for dwelling places ("you are living stones being built into a spiritual house for a holy priesthood to offer spiritual sacrifices").<BR/><BR/>Blessings on you. -Matt BohlmanUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10783782323169373120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-25270606400614827292008-07-04T23:27:00.000-07:002008-07-04T23:27:00.000-07:00"I've come to personally find out that when one ta..."I've come to personally find out that when one takes issue with the "scholarship" of the book, you are accused of one or a combination of the following: (1) Not reading the book, even though you have, (2) Not paying close enough attention to Frank's footnotes,"<BR/><BR/>And that doesn't make the accusation untrue.<BR/><BR/>"And that pomposity is the biggest problem I have with this book and those who take its every word as gospel truth."<BR/><BR/>I can't help but notice the similarity the other way around. Isn't that the same as how people are treating this blog posts?<BR/><BR/><BR/>I don't really want to comment too much on these posts, partly because I know my knowledge is very limited, and because I am wary that I might be biased because I'm against church institutionalization. (though I do not set out to destroy them. am also currently in one, trying my best not to be a troublemaker.)<BR/><BR/>Plus, my points may be attacked with statements like "ah, typical of anti-institutional proponent." I don't like to participate in such discussions.<BR/><BR/>Name-calling and ridicules do not only happen on "the other side."zefirielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792895283256095075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-71614450525179130772008-07-04T15:25:00.000-07:002008-07-04T15:25:00.000-07:00Thanks Bill. One of the things that I find most pe...Thanks Bill. <BR/><BR/>One of the things that I find most peculiar about this is that it is so overwhelmingly a white middle class and blue collar reaction to the institutional church, primarily in North America, though you find the same spirit in much smaller numbers in Australia. This a cultural thing reacting mainly to mainline Protestantism in any form. <BR/><BR/>You won't find many African American folk backing this theology and praxis. It seems nothing like church to them, not least because they would like to get out of the humdrum of their homes and go somewhere special, dress up special, and give their best to God. <BR/><BR/>Blessings,<BR/>BW3Ben Witheringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-29645436518570898832008-07-04T14:41:00.000-07:002008-07-04T14:41:00.000-07:00Ben, I'm glad that you're doing this review series...Ben, I'm glad that you're doing this review series. You will now be probably added to the Enemy List of the "Pagan Christianity" enthusiasts. <BR/><BR/>I've come to personally find out that when one takes issue with the "scholarship" of the book, you are accused of one or a combination of the following: (1) Not reading the book, even though you have, (2) Not paying close enough attention to Frank's footnotes, (3) Relying on the "wrong" scholars. In your case, Ben, I guess just not being as credible as those cited in the Frank's footnotes. (4) Being an apologist for the real problems in the "established" church and being no better than those who tried to impede the efforts of the Protestant Reformers, (5) If you're a pastor or church leader, just being too afraid to have your world called into question since you unBiblically profit off the backs of those you serve.<BR/><BR/>And of course, when you catch PC getting its facts wrong, or overstating its case, or turning preferences into Biblical mandates, simply just respond that that's not what the authors really meant or said, even though they pretty much did, and instruct your opponent to go back and consult the footnotes.<BR/><BR/>The official Pagan Christianity blog has already posted a response to the first part of Witherington's critque. And give the PC folks credit for their zeal. On just about every mom and pop blog site that has linked to Witherington's review, some loyal PC disciple has been linking to the rebuttal saying stuff like "Another scholar pokes holes in Witherington's review!" and then posts the weblink back to the PC site.<BR/><BR/>In sum, don't disagree with the PC following. Your intelligence, motives, or both will certainly be called into question.<BR/><BR/>And that pomposity is the biggest problem I have with this book and those who take its every word as gospel truth.Bill Barnwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06519140832310178588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-5508045896186788532008-07-03T22:17:00.000-07:002008-07-03T22:17:00.000-07:00I thought the early Christians share their resourc...I thought the early Christians share their resources with everyone who is in the church, regardless of whether they're elders, "pastors," or apostles?zefirielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792895283256095075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-70109555521224151292008-07-03T17:51:00.000-07:002008-07-03T17:51:00.000-07:00Matt:As for the role of women, the point is simple...Matt:<BR/><BR/>As for the role of women, the point is simple. What determines roles in the church are who is given what gifts and graces-- not gender, not race, not social standing etc. Women and men equally could be apostles, prophets, teachers, and were in the early church. But again the matter is not clarified by amalgamating all these roles, or suggesting that there are no roles at all, but each one can do all these things. That in fact is a violation of what Paul says about only those gifted and graced to be and do x,y, or z should do so. <BR/><BR/>Blessings,<BR/><BR/>BW3Ben Witheringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-13133222370638988302008-07-03T17:48:00.000-07:002008-07-03T17:48:00.000-07:00Bill: You need to understand the character of the ...Bill:<BR/> You need to understand the character of the book of Ephesians. It is a document meant to circulate through various Pauline churches, and to serve and characterize them all. Paul no more expects there to be 'some pastors' in every little house meeting, than he expects there to be 'some apostles' in such a single meeting. He is speaking in general about the church of God, not about individual churches. And herein lies a major problem with the ecclesiology of some house church folk---there are indeed a variety of texts where the phrase ekklesia tou Theou does not refer to a particular individual congregation but rather to all of them collectively as a single living entity. <BR/><BR/>For example, in Gal. 1 when Paul says he persecuted the church/assembly of God, he is not talking about attacking a particular house group. He is talking about the church as a collective entity (for other Pauline examples of this phenomenon, see my Galatians commentary).<BR/><BR/>Thus Ephes. 4.11 certainly provides no warrant at all for the notion that we must have multiple pastors in a single congregation, though that's o.k., as is having only one. Furthermore, the role of pastor is here distinguished from that of apostle and prophet, but it may well be linked with that of teacher. <BR/><BR/>Blessings,<BR/><BR/>BW3Ben Witheringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-83521547070104299742008-07-03T17:00:00.000-07:002008-07-03T17:00:00.000-07:00I really don't want to be first, but I see this po...I really don't want to be first, but I see this post has been up for several hours now, so...<BR/><BR/>Ben, once again you've made many good points, but I fail to see the connections between (1) your arguments against the book and (2) how [you seem to feel] those arguments are supposed to support the traditional views.<BR/><BR/>For example, I will grant you that the text alone of Eph.4:11 could conceivably refer to many solo pastors in many towns. (A clever idea I'd never thought of, by the way.) But I missed the part where you proved that it DOES mean that. And so if your argument was to refute the statement that there was no explicit support for "sola pastora", I'm afraid you seem to have missed the target.<BR/><BR/>Now, honestly, if I missed a detail of your words on that point, please correct me. I read it three times, but I really do feel like I must have missed the connection there, if you made one.<BR/><BR/>But I have more questions:<BR/><BR/>How do you justify using Paul's life as the context for the word "pastors" in Eph.4:11? Do you feel Paul was speaking of men like himself in that word of that verse? Or do you think Apostles are the same as pastors?<BR/><BR/>Likewise for Jesus, Peter and the 12 - aren't you using the example of apostles as the context for your arguments about "pastors"? <BR/><BR/>If you really feel that's the proper context of your text, I must be unaware of what reasoning supports that. Is it elsewhere? I know I'm being strong here, but I'm also sincere about asking. How do _you_ justify that? Because I can't shake it out of your post.<BR/><BR/>Is it because Paul's letters to Timothy and Titus are called "pastorals"? But that's just a scholarly convention. Yes, Timothy was told to "shepherd" among his many other tasks. But Titus is called an "apostle" (in the greek) in 2nd Corinthians. And Timothy _left_ Ephesus (2 Tim.4:9). So overall, by far, the careers of Tim & Titus make them look a lot more like traveling apostles to me, than the typical present-day 'pastor' or 'priest'. But if you think Tim & Titus were "pastors" I'd sure like to hear your reasons for that view.<BR/><BR/>Let me add, I don't have a single problem in this whole world with christians who want to be 'pastors' or have 'pastors' of the modern type. If you feel called to do that, do it. Or do it just because it's tradition and it works to some-such degree. Or heck, argue that it fulfils principles of the needs of the body, based on scriptural elements. Whatever you argue, stand to your own Master! I do not have a problem with those who continue this practice.<BR/><BR/>And get paid, too. Praise the Lord. I ain't got no problem with de-muzzling anyone who serves in the body of christ. Of course getting paid for the gospel is absolutely scriptural. And optional in at least one way, as you rightly said.<BR/><BR/>But continuing to say the whole practice is actually scriptural? I just don't see it. To me, the present-day practice doesn't matches what we see in the NT at all. Not at all. Not the text OR the context. Imho. ;)<BR/><BR/>But my actual point is simply that I thought your post was supposed to show that the present day practice of having 'pastors' or 'a pastor' is based solidly in scripture, and for all of the reasons I just stated (and implied) - I'm afraid I just don't see quite how your arguments succeed in supporting that point.<BR/><BR/>Now I don't know if you take requests, but I'd love to see a whole other post on this topic. Honestly, I'm sure you can do better. I've never been to seminary, but surely the standard, accepted justifications for equating present-day 'pastors' with the "pastors" Paul spoke of in Eph.4:11 does NOT rest entirely on views of Jesus and the Apostles.<BR/><BR/>Does it?<BR/><BR/>Is it really all based on this generalized concept of "shepherding"? If so, then why does Eph.4:11 distinguish between apostles and pastors?<BR/><BR/>But if you believe that is indeed enough, please explain how. Because I believe this is the central connection I missed in your post.<BR/><BR/>And sincerely, brother Ben. Thank you so much, once again, for continuing to be gracious and interacting about these things so far. I look forward to more.Bill Heromanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05283809456471966882noreply@blogger.com