Several weeks ago, I announced that The Thin Edge would be hosting the very first blog interview of George Barna and Frank Viola, co-authors of the new book, Pagan Christianity: Exploring the Roots of Our Church Practices. Their eye-opening book has been printed under the Barna imprint of Tyndale House Publishing and officially launched earlier this month. Amazingly, the book has rocketed up the charts for Amazon: as of this moment, it’s ranked #16 among Christian books and #285 in all books (out of 6,000,000 titles) sold by Amazon.com. Reviews are also overwhelmingly positive. Out of 37 customer reviews at Amazon, 28 readers award the coveted 5-star rating: there were only 3 negative reviews.
If someone had predicted five or six years ago that these two men would collaborate on any type of book, I might have questioned your sanity and I would almost certainly have been willing to dismiss such a proposal as total nonsense. I had read books by both authors and—at least from my perspective—they seemed miles apart. In my mind, Frank Viola was the stereotypical, iconoclastic, “house church” advocate whose writings were relatively unknown in mainstream evangelicalism; however, nearly every American evangelical had the words “George Barna” etched in their minds through repeated quotations from The Barna Group in sermons, seminars, denominational training sessions, seminary classrooms, as well as print media. Well, all that has now changed!
Before we get started with the interview, I want to express my appreciation to George and Frank for their willingness to answer my questions. Each brother brings a unique perspective to Pagan Christianity, yet they have found common ground and a common voice within the pages of this project. One thing is certain: you will not be able to read this book and simply walk away unchanged by its message. Well, let’s get started, shall we?
Bill Lollar: In the introductory pages of Pagan Christianity, I sense different agendas being set forth by each of you. Frank, you seem more focused on identifying and removing the unbiblical church practices, stating that these things are preventing Jesus Christ from being the head of the church. George, you seem more focused on the individual’s journey into a vital relationship with God. Would each of you be willing to discuss what you bring to the discussion in Pagan Christianity?
George Barna: When you have a book with more than one author, you ideally want each author to bring something different to the process. Our vision is fully compatible: that people would honor God by being the Church and through their church-group experiences. That entails both one’s relationship with God and one’s experiences and practices as part of the body of Christ. If our introductions said the same thing, there’d be no reason to publish two of them; and if each of us brought the same material to the book, there’d be no reason for two authors. We are different people, with divergent backgrounds and ministry experiences, but I don’t see that as suggesting different agendas.
Frank Viola: George and I worked on the entire book together, including the introduction and preface. So I don’t think there are two different agendas. Perhaps a different emphasis; but not agendas. The book is written with one voice. I guess I would say that my main emphasis behind the book is on challenging those things that prevent the church from functioning the way God intended her to function. Much of that relates to authentic community, the headship, centrality, and supremacy of Jesus Christ, the freedom of God’s people, etc.
Bill: In the chapter on church buildings, Martin Luther is cited as an example of a Reformer who taught “that the church was not a building or an institution. Yet it would have been impossible for him to overturn more than a millennium of confusion on the subject.” What makes you think we’re in a better position today, five hundred years later, to take on such an institutional mindset?
George: The fundamental question is not whether we’re in a “better position today” to address this matter, but whether it is still a matter that needs to be addressed. Obviously, it is! The challenge remains: what has man created as a felt need that stands in the way of our ever-deepening relationship with God? Whatever it may be needs to be confronted at any period of history during which we become aware of such an issue.
Frank: The Anabaptists functioned quite well without buildings, a clergy, and rituals…that is until they were slaughtered all over Europe. Unfortunately, Luther and his followers had a hand in persecuting them mercilessly. You can read the tragic story in the book, The Secret of the Strength. Be that as it may, we are living in a time where there is monumental spiritual dissatisfaction with the traditional form of church. The fact that millions of Christians no longer attend the institutional church is clear evidence of this. Reggie McNeal said, “A growing number of people are leaving the institutional church for a new reason. They are not leaving because they have lost their faith. They are leaving the church to preserve their faith.” Despite the criticisms that have been launched against Pagan Christianity from some quarters, the overwhelming response has been incredibly positive. The most frequent response we’ve gotten sounds like this: “I’ve always known something was wrong with the modern church, but your book has given me language to understand and communicate what that ‘something’ was. I feel set free!”
Bill: It seems difficult to find examples of successful deconstruction and/or reformation today; and some people advocate leaving all forms of church structure behind, including the house church or even the organic church model. Can you guys point to specific examples where existing congregations have begun moving toward a more first-century model?
Frank: One of the misconceptions regarding the book is that we are suggesting that people return to a primitivistic “model” of church. That’s not true. I personally believe that there is no perfect “model” of church, and I don’t think the NT contains any ironclad model. Instead, I believe the church is organic. And as an organism, she will express herself in certain ways. Namely, she will be a face-to face community, she will make Christ her head, she will center herself on Jesus, all her members will function, she will not erect a clergy nor many of the other traditions we trace and challenge in Pagan Christianity. Our book doesn’t offer solutions nor does it give any specific prescriptions. Other upcoming books will do that. We want people to first absorb the startling message of Pagan Christianity, which is quite simple: That which we’ve believed to be Biblical for so long is in fact unbiblical. In answer to your other question, I know of many groups of Christians throughout the world that are seeking to be church in an organic way.
George: There are many house church or simple church groups that are very much spirit-led, loving communities of faith – and which will always remain below the radar of the media because they are not institutional or market-driven. I am also impressed by some of the intentional communities I have encountered in recent years, in which people have abandoned their comfortable suburban lifestyle to move to areas, in the company of other like-minded believers, to be the Church in a location lacking the physical presence of Christ. The biggest challenge, of course, is to resist the temptation to become a new institution, but rather to remain structurally simple and sensitive to the leadership of the Holy Spirit.
Bill: Frank, a number of your critics have taken exception to your opening statement in the acknowledgments: “Not long after I left the institutional church to begin gathering with Christians in New Testament fashion.” What may sound to you as a simple statement of your personal journey communicates something akin to arrogant elitism to others. What do you and George make of the charge that you have become something akin to terrorists who are bent on destroying the contemporary church as she exists today?
Frank: I don’t know anyone who interpreted that statement the way you’re suggesting except for one clergyman who quoted it in a way that isn’t reflected in the book. (He added a word or two to it.) I’m very much against pride and elitism. In fact, my humility prevents me from telling you just how humble I am <grin>. I tend to think that we’re on very dangerous ground to impute motives to someone’s heart because of the way they may phrase a sentence. Jesus had some strong words to say about judging people’s hearts. I’ll admit that I have to check myself against doing the same thing when I read other people’s material. It’s a very human, though fallen, thing to do.
Second, I would not refer to the contemporary church structure as a “she.” In the book, we are not using the terms “contemporary church” or “institutional church” to refer to God’s people. We are using those terms to refer to a “structure”…a particular “system.” That’s where some of the confusion lies, I think. People equate a service, a building, an institution, a system, and a denomination with the ekklesia. But such thinking is at odds with the New Testament usage of the word “church.”
In the book, we are simply challenging this system and structure on biblical and historical grounds. Our arguments aren’t really new at all. In fact, we quote a plethora of scholars and theologians along with the leaders of the Radical Reformation who said the same things. And while George and I have been called “anti-Christs” since the book came out, I don’t recall anyone calling us “terrorists.” But I suppose I’ll take that title over “anti-Christ” … just don’t call me lukewarm! <smile>. In short, I fell in love with the church after I saw and experienced a living, breathing expression of the Bride of Christ without the religious trappings that so often veils her beauty. To borrow a phrase from Charlie Rich, the ekklesia is the most beautiful girl in the world. And setting her free is one of the main motivations behind the book.
George: The entire book is written out of a sense of compassion for the body of Christ—not out of a desire to destroy anything other than that which stands between us and Christ. Theologically, of course, it is ridiculous to believe that we could “destroy the contemporary church as it exists today.” God’s Church will prevail against all manner of confrontation. But realize that what Frank and I are opposing is not God’s Church but man’s practices and habits that have replaced the true Church. I don’t think wanting to restore purity to our relationship with God and to our faith practices, and doing so through open and honest conversation and confrontation of the facts, makes us terrorists. Except, perhaps, to those whose own kingdoms feel threatened.
Bill: The main targets of your book—identified by nine specific chapters—represent virtually everything that happens on a typical Sunday morning in congregations around the world: church buildings, the order of worship, the sermon, the pastor, Sunday morning costumes, ministers of music, tithing and clergy salaries, baptism and the Lord’s Supper, and Christian education. If these things were immediately jettisoned in response to your book, what do you think would happen?
Frank: Just one word of clarification for those who fell out of their chair when they read your list 
We believe in baptism and the Lord’s Supper (please read that sentence again :-)). We simply point out in the book that the way they are practiced today has few points of contact with New Testament teaching and example. My only answer to your question is that many people have left these practices behind who have read the book, and they are now exploring fresh and creative ways to be the church with others in ways that (they believe) are more faithful to the teachings of Jesus and the apostles.
I receive many emails from people who have testified to the above. I also receive emails every week from pastors who are having a major crisis of conscience as a result of reading the book. Perhaps someday I’ll post those letters (with their permission of course), because they are fascinating. If nothing else, they demonstrate that the book is striking a chord in the hearts and minds of many Christians, including leaders in the institutional church. My hope is that the Lord will gain much for Himself through it.
George: If your scenario occurred, one of the healthiest things imaginable would happen: we would have to go back to the original documents provided by God to discover what He intended in the first place! In my own experience, that was the starting place for our house church: assuming that we had to begin at square one and rediscover what “church” means, in its various manifestations. We spent several months studying the scriptures together, praying for guidance, wisdom and courage, and emerged with many insights that drew us to a completely different approach to our relationship with God, each other and society than we had entered the process possessing. When you become scared to examine yourself—whether in relation to practices or beliefs—you’re probably in danger of losing sight of your real purpose.
Bill: There are many wonderfully gifted believers who—with utmost sincerity and great sacrifice—have invested their entire lives in the institutional church system. I’m talking primarily about pastors, church staff, denominational staff, and missionaries around the world. What will happen to these brothers and sisters if your book brings the impact you have both expressed a desire for? Do we have any obligation toward these servants of the Lord?
George: The danger inherent in your question is the assumption that because good people have engaged in bad practices, we have to “grandfather in” their errant practices, as a means of protecting them. If these are, as you suggest, gifted, sincere, godly people, who are truly committed to doing what is right for God, then achieving a better understanding of their situation is in their best interests. And, as gifted people who understand faith and want to serve people well, they will find abundant opportunities to continue to serve with impact. Our society is very needy; those who love God and His people will have ample chances to utilize their skills and experiences in ways that bless others.
Frank: Yes, in order to help pastors and leaders who are struggling with the question the book raises, namely, the unbiblical nature of the clergy/laity system and the paid professional minister, some of my friends and I have created an “Ex-Pastors” web page. That page includes an “Ex-Pastors Survival Guide” along with personal testimonies from pastors who left the pastor system. Some of the letters that pastors have written us in response have brought some of us to tears.
Bill: You equate “organic church life” as the model set forth within the New Testament and you define that model as “a grassroots experience that is marked by face-to-face community, every-member functioning, open participatory meetings, nonhierarchical leadership, and the centrality and supremacy of Jesus Christ as the functional leader and head of the group.” Your definition puts nearly every existing church in the unenviable position of not qualifying as a true ecclesia (or church) of Jesus Christ. Is this your intention? Could you speak to the alienation that Pagan Christianity must be creating in the hearts and minds of those who read it?
Frank: If I may quote from the book, we say, “There is no blueprint or model that we can tease out of the New Testament by extracting verses and trying to imitate them mechanically. The church of Jesus Christ is a biological, living entity! It is organic; therefore, it must be born.”
If there is “alienation” going on, I’ve not seen it. What my co-workers and I are seeing is that hundreds of people are sending emails and letters saying that they are so thankful for the book because it’s setting them free from things that they have been in bondage to for years. Some of these people have left the institutional church years ago to gather with other Christians in a simple way, and the book has given them “Scriptural permission,” as it were, to do what they are doing now.
As to your other question, I’ll let the great theologian Emil Brunner answer it. This, of course, is his opinion. He writes, “The New Testament ‘Ecclesia,’ the fellowship of Jesus Christ, is a pure communion of persons and has nothing to do with the character of an institution about it; it is therefore misleading to identify any single one of the historically developed churches with the true Christian communion.” For me the real question is, what does the Word of God say about the practice of the church and how can we be more faithful to it? That’s the one I’d like to explore. And I plan on doing so in my next book.
George: For a lot of readers, the greatest value of the book may be in causing them to re-evaluate what authentic ecclesia is. That will be an uncomfortable journey for some; it certainly has been for me. But when it comes to the things of God, many of us prefer confronting the unvarnished truth to accepting historically or culturally filtered truth.
Bill: What do you think about Christians living totally outside the box of organized religion, including the organic model that the book promotes? I’m referring to the Revolutionaries, because if your [George’s] research proves accurate, that’s where a lot of believers could be in the next twenty years. Can’t meeting weekly with the same group of believers become boring, ritualistic, and unfulfilling?
George: Absolutely—which is why it’s so important to have the spirit of the living God at the heart of the group. When God is truly present and is given the opportunity to orchestrate our times together, it is unimaginable that things will become “boring, ritualistic and unfulfilling.” Keeping God at the center of things has always been a critical issue for the Church, regardless of the approach people have taken to facilitating communal faith. Make no mistake about it; we’re not saying that it is necessarily easy for a group of believers to remain in a proper and dynamic relationship with God. But that is certainly the expectation God has of us – that if we truly love Him and want to grow in our relationship with Him, we will respect Him enough to allow Him to lead us to places we could never hope to reach on our own.
Frank: I’ve been meeting and working with organic churches for the last twenty years. And this is what I’ve discovered during that time. If a church is operating according to her organic nature, and she’s being encouraged from time to time to remain true to it, she won’t get stuck in dead rituals. Instead, she will be very flexible, she will be seasonal, she will be elastic, and she will adjust herself according to the need and the season. It’s when her members pull away from the life of God, which is ever fresh and new, that the church will then move into the rote, and the rote can turn into bondage.
[End of Interview]
Ordering Information for Pagan Christianity:
Within the United States, please contact Present Testimony Ministries or The Barna Group for discounted copies direct from the authors. Single copy price: $12.00 USD. All major credit cards accepted.
Within the UK/Europe, please contact Harvest Books & Crafts in South Wales. Single copy price: £8.00 + actual postage cost. Every effort is made to dispatch orders via Royal Mail within 24 hours of payment. Credit/debit card payments accepted by telephone to (01443) 408962.
Comments 52
good interview! I’m going to print it out and read it again…thanks for giving me notice that you did it!
Robin
Posted 27 Feb 2008 at 5:59 pm ¶Great interview! Thanks for the stats on Pagan Christianity.… It appears that many Christians are making a statement that they want change in the church.
Posted 27 Feb 2008 at 9:41 pm ¶Bill,
Posted 28 Feb 2008 at 4:22 pm ¶Great interview. Thank you!
It is nice to hear from George also.
Bill,
Thanks for asking those pointed questions.
Tom
Posted 06 Mar 2008 at 4:12 am ¶I am the pastor who referred to Barna/Viola as “anti-Christs”; though potentially alarming, you all ought to know that Barna/Viola referred to me (and all other “contemporary pastors”) as anti-Christs on p. 109 of “P.C.?”. On that page, Barna/Viola refer to all “contemporary pastors” as the “seed of Diotrophes” (see 3 John 9, 10), and as “Nicolaitians” (see Rev. 2:6); don’t be fooled by these terms! If you will do your research, you will find that these terms scream ANTI-CHRIST louder than the terms themselves. However, I am “up for the challenge”: Between me and my ministry, and Barna/Viola/Tyndale’s “ministry” of attacking and belittling those of us in pastoral ministry, we will just see who is an “anti-Christ” and who is a “seed of Diotrophes” at Christ’s judgment seat (Romans 14:10)!
Posted 06 Mar 2008 at 7:37 pm ¶James Parker: For the benefit of those who may not have a copy of the book (including myself at the moment), why don’t you provide an exact quotation that demonstrates your accusation; otherwise, I’m afraid no one will take your words seriously and you might be thought guilty of “bearing false witness” against your brothers.
Posted 07 Mar 2008 at 1:19 am ¶“P.C.?” p. 109:
“The seeds of the contemporary pastor can even be detected in the New Testament era. Diotrophes, who “love(d) to have the preeminence” in the church, illegitimately took control of it’s affairs (3 John 9-10). In addition, some scholars have suggested that the doctrine of the Nicolaitans that Jesus condemns in Revelation 2:6 is a reference to the rise of an early clergy.”
p. 137:
“By his office, the pastor displaces and supplants Christ’s headship by setting himself up as the church,s human head”
p. 141:
“In other words, the contemporary pastor is but an old (Roman Catholic) priest written in larger letters!”
And so on, their rant goes (if you want more, just let me know!).
Posted 07 Mar 2008 at 2:05 am ¶James,
If you fall within the definition of “contemporary pastor” as described within the section of the book under discussion, then I’d be concerned that indeed you may have some “anti-Christ” stuck to yourself.
I find it interesting that’s there’s more NT evidence for snake handling than for “The Pastor”. Pastor is only mentioned once in the NT (Eph. 4), whereas handling snakes is mentioned twice (Mk. 16:18, Acts 28:4-5).
Tom
Posted 07 Mar 2008 at 2:23 am ¶James: I think you are misreading the authors’ intent in exposing the unbiblical “clergy” system versus attacking those individuals who find themselves caught up in that system. Did you read the following quote (someone else sent it to me) at the beginning of the chapter you cited above?
If this quote is accurate, it doesn’t sound to me like Barna and Viola hate pastors and think they are anti-Christs. Why don’t you deal with the real issues they are presenting, like why we continue to perpetuate the clergy/laity system within the church of Jesus Christ? If you prefer to name-call, then I suggest you do it somewhere else.
Posted 07 Mar 2008 at 3:29 am ¶In regards to this question:
I can well imagine it’s a question that many folks currently in institutional churches, including paid clergy, are asking after reading or hearing about this book. But after thinking about it for a while, it occurred to me that if we Christians were discussing the fallacies of SOME OTHER RELIGION such as Buddhism or Hinduism, or even groups like LDS or Jehovah’s Witnesses, I don’t think we would let the thought of “what’s going to happen to those poor folks if they abandon their beliefs” stop us from aggressively trying to show them the error of their ways! If a Christian missionary leads a Muslim to Christ, and that conversion results in the individual losing his livelihood (or even his life), we might pause sympathetically for a moment, but then we would immediately rejoice that he “saw the light”, regardless of what it had cost him, right? We institutional Christians (and I’ve been one all my life) are very quick to point out that sincerity is no substitute for truth–at least, we say that about OTHER PEOPLE. But what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The fact that OUR devotion to an institutional church system, which the book clearly shows is rooted in paganism, is sincere and well-intentioned does not immunize us from the potential consequences of the coming deconstruction of that system. I say “coming deconstruction” because I have no doubt that it’s going to happen one way or another. Either the institutional church will continue down its current path toward irrelevance and eventually fade to black, or else enough Christians will wake up in time and INTENTIONALLY shake off the chains of institutionalization and get back to the New Testament concept of true Christian community under the leadership of Jesus Christ.
However it happens, there will inevitably be good, honest, sincere Christian folks who will suffer loss of one kind or another. I personally would rather take my lumps at a time and place of my own choosing rather than wait until the walls fall down around me. “Pagan Christianity” has shaken me to my core, and I’ll never be able to look at the institutional church the same again….thank God.
Posted 07 Mar 2008 at 4:06 am ¶Let me get this straight: 1) for Barna/Viola/Tyndale to “name-call” pastors like myself as the “seed of Diotrophes” is fine, 2) for you, Bill, to “name-call” me by calling me a “name-caller” is also fine, 3) for me to respond to these vicious, historically ignorant and biblically flawed attacks against my ministry is not o.k., and I am to “go somewhere else”! Cry me a river, bill!
Posted 07 Mar 2008 at 3:31 pm ¶I am not alone in my objections to this book, which is causing much grief and division (such as we are experiencing right here, right now) among Christians. The proof, is that Tyndale is planning a “rewrite” of “P.C.?” where Barna/Viola intend to “soften their language” where it has been taken as offensive.
Posted 07 Mar 2008 at 3:36 pm ¶The Thin Edge readers should see what James Parker originally said on a public blog:
“I could care less, whether you ‘post’ this on your sorry site, or not. You are an arrogant ignoramus, ‘approving’ two others (Barna and Viol). Of course, your warm endorsement of Viol shows up on his blog. What shameless sluttery is this! It never ceases to amaze me, how one ignoramus (yourself) endorses two others (Barna and Viol), and ‘presto!’; instant legitimacy! I think in your ‘heart of hearts’ you know what a joke you are, and that your ‘Imprimatur’ of these two anti-Christs impresses no one credible.”
While we were on a ministry trip James left a mocking, condescending message on our answering machine, leaving a phone number but not naming himself. My wife couldn’t believe what she heard. He sounded like a person out of control. Then I read James’ remarks calling the authors of PC “anti-christs” on a blog. Alarmed by such unbridled language, I called James and on two occasions I spoke to him for a total of about 1 1/2 hours. I read him the quotation from PC which distinguishes between the clergy system and those people in it. He just said, “I don’t buy that for a minute.” I repeatedly confronted James about his ungodly speech. I saw no evidence that he would take responsibility for his public words, and he just kept saying how bad PC was.
The truth is, contrary to what James says, Tyndale is not re-writing PC. Some sentences are being re-phrased and more questions are being added to clarify what PC is saying.
Bill L. has asked James to deal with the real issues. Instead of ranting and raving, why doesn’t James provide a biblical case for the traditional notion of “the pastor” — the practice which includes among other things one man being the place where the buck stops, who gives a sermon from behind a pulpit every week to the same people, and who is distinguished from the “laity” by being in the “ordained clergy.” If James can’t provide this from the New Testament, then the basic case made in PC stands.
James’ speech gives much evidence that he is the type of person that should be turned away from, not listened to. I have spoken to him directly twice about repenting of his careless, judgmental words to no avail. I pray that the Lord will touch his heart and soften his acid, un-Christlike spirit.
Posted 07 Mar 2008 at 5:25 pm ¶James Parker: See! I didn’t think you were interested in dealing with the real issues in the book. As far as I’m concerned, Barna and Viola have done the true Church a great service by exposing many things that weaken and encourage passivity within the body of Christ. If any grief and division has been stirred, it’s been through ungodly accusations (like yours) unaccompanied by any biblical arguments to counter the book’s claims. Get your own blog, James, if you have more to say, because you are no longer welcome here.
Posted 07 Mar 2008 at 10:00 pm ¶Wow!! Thanks Bill and Jon.
Posted 08 Mar 2008 at 2:07 pm ¶Just wanted to let you and your readers know that I’ve set up an online discussion forum for the book, following the discussion guide Frank has made available. The URL is http://www.paganchristianityforum.com . We welcome anyone who would like to participate in a thoughtful and civil discussion of the book.
Posted 08 Mar 2008 at 6:06 pm ¶Thanks.
In all this discussion, I have yet to see anyone resort to what the Bible says as opposed to man’s ideas and thoughts.
I have to strongly dissent from the views expressed in the stated extract of the book referenced by:
If I recall correctly, it was Jesus Himself who instituted pastors, along with apostles, prophets, evangelists and teachers, whose job is it to do the work of
From this passage alone, it is possible to immediately challenge Barna and Viola’s assertion that the role of the pastor is contrary to Scripture.
I was not aware that these offices have been done away with, since it is obvious we have NOT all reached that state of maturity that Paul talks of - nothing in the New Testament indicates this, and since Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever, I think it would be extremely foolish and dangerous to dispense with these offices without a direct and explicit word from God that we do so. In other words, Barna and Viola are attempting to add to Scripture, which is explicitly contrary to Scripture.
I do not accept that these offices should now, after almost 2000 years, be got rid of, just because somebody somewhere thinks they are outmoded. To me, this is perilously close to altering the Word of God, which Paul said in 2 Timothy 4:3-4 would happen in the Last Days:
If you take the advice of these gentlemen, I suggest that you are seriously in danger of heresy and worse.
Please study what the Bible REALLY says, not what man says - for as Jesus said in Matthew 15:6
In other words, man’s traditions can make God’s Word ineffective - which leads to the conclusion that man’s traditions are more powerful than God’s Word!!!
Posted 15 Mar 2008 at 4:03 am ¶John, I think the issue is not whether the word “pastor” is mentioned in the New Testament, but rather what did the word “pastor” mean AT THE TIME IT WAS WRITTEN compared to what WE understand the word to mean now, 1900-odd years later. The authors of the book are simply pointing out that the New Testament does not define what a pastor is or what he does. The word “pastor” (poimen in the Greek) appears only one time in the New Testament, and the Greek word means “shepherd.” OUR definition of what a pastor is has come about TOTALLY as a result of “man’s tradition” because the Bible does not define what a pastor’s duties are. Certainly there is no New Testament authority whatsoever for the office of a paid pastor as we understand the term today.
Posted 15 Mar 2008 at 5:41 pm ¶I have to make some comments to the following comment
is from 1 Timothy 5:17:
It is clear that the “elders” referred to are those who are in one (or more) of the “five-fold” ministries that Jesus established in the Church. It says here that we should honor these people by giving them a double portion - in other words, not only are they to be paid, but they are to be paid double the normal wages!!
In addition, Scripture teaches us concerning the “anointing” that is upon those persons in one of the “five-fold” ministries.
You need to study what the Bible says about “the anointing” - the power of Holy Spirit that is UPON a person (just as it was UPON Jesus and the early church members - all of them [Luke 4:18-19, Acts 2:1-4]) - which is different from the anointing that is IN every believer, from the time they are born again [1 John 2:27].
If you have ever seen in operation and been submitted to the oversight of a true, anointed pastor, you would understand how a true pastor is supposed to operate - he acts as an under-shepherd (under Jesus and the direction of Holy Spirit) to the flock of believers in a local church, but should also be accountable to a more experienced pastor - and I am not speaking of the denominational form of “bishop” and other such “clergy” positions.
I believe the Bible is VERY clear on the role of these anointed ministers of God -there is a lot in the NT, especially in Paul’s Letters that help us to understand the role these persons play in the local church.
However, unless you understand about the “anointing” and the active role that Holy Spirit is supposed to play in the lives of a local church congregation, including the operation of the “manifestations” of Holy Spirit as described in 1 Corinthians 12:7-11, you will not be able to fully understand the proper workings of the five-fold ministry positions and their involvement in the “edification” of the local church.
If you have never asked God for the gift of the empowerment of Holy Spirit, or as Jesus termed it “being endued with power from on high” or being “baptised in the Holy Spirit”, you will not, based on my own experience (and many others I have spoken to) be ablre to fully grasp and understand the enormous effect of the anointing on your own life and personal relationship with God.
Having said that, I came out of the denomination church (Church of England), went to a Baptist Church, then to a Pentecostal Church, and now a “Word of Faith” church,via a “charismatic” Bible School. I have to say that I have learned more about the Bible, and the power of God in my life in the last 3 years, than I ever did in the 40 years previously. Everything is at last starting to make sense, but most important of all is that my relationship with God is on a whole new level - it’s awesome.
Posted 15 Mar 2008 at 9:38 pm ¶I rejoice with you in your journey of discovery over the past few years, I can definitely relate.
In regards to I Tim. 5:17, I will say first of all that it’s a debatable point whether or not this is referring to money. The word “honor” is not a word that is used to refer to money, but rather to “respect.” Secondly, there is no clear New Testament passage that explicitly equates an “elder” with a paid pastor such as we have today. In fact, in Acts 30:33-35, Paul explicitly addresses this issue to the Ephesian elders: “I have never coveted anyone’s silver or gold or fine clothes. You know that these hands of mine have worked to supply my own needs and even the needs of those who were with me. And I have been a constant example of how you can help those in need by working hard. You should remember the words of the Lord Jesus: ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’” According to Paul, elders are to “work hard” like he did in order to NOT be a burden on the church and to free up those resources to help “those in need.”
Thirdly, Paul (or his mentorees such as Titus) ordained (or recognized) elderS (multiple) in each city. There is absolutely no New Testament evidence for one compensated person having final authority in a local church, the way we have senior pastors today.
Please don’t misunderstand my intention. I have the utmost respect for the those whom God has gifted (and given as gifts) to the church, i.e., apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers. But the context of the New Testament record reveals that those are ROLES or FUNCTIONS, not paid positions of authority. Having professional clergy in the church has hurt the church on two fronts: it has put a far greater burden on pastors than God ever intended any one person to bear, and it has also allowed Christians to abdicate their God-ordained role royal priests. Christianity has gone from the only religion in the world that had no priest, temple or sacrifice, as God intended, to becoming just like all the other world religions with our church buildings (temples), paid clergy (priests), and sacrifices (liturgies and orders of service).
Posted 16 Mar 2008 at 8:50 pm ¶Related to the paid professional pastor issue, the strongest scriptural precedent that I am aware of is the section in 1 Cor 9:
5 Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?
6 Or do only Barnabas and I not have a right to refrain from working?
7 Who at any time serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat the fruit of it? Or who tends a flock and does not use the milk of the flock?
8 I am not speaking these things aaccording to human judgment, am I? Or does not the Law also say these things?
9 For it is written in the Law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing.” God is not concerned about oxen, is He?
10 Or is He speaking altogether for our sake? Yes, afor our sake it was written, because bthe plowman ought to plow in hope, and the thresher to thresh in hope of sharing the crops.
11 If we sowed spiritual things in you, is it too much if we reap material things from you?
12 If others share the right over you, do we not more? Nevertheless, we did not use this right, but we endure all things so that we will cause no hindrance to the gospel of Christ.
13 Do you not know that those who perform sacred services eat the food of the temple, and those who attend regularly to the altar have their share from the altar?
14 So also athe Lord directed those who proclaim the gospel to get their living from the gospel.
NASB 95
Also, Alexander Strauch has an excellent book on biblical eldership which describes the biblical pattern of pastoring being a function within the body of Christ verses the professional clergy system.
But 1 Corinthians 9 is a hard one to dismiss. It seems that this could be for more than just apostles and evangelists, since Barnabas is included with Paul.
Posted 19 Mar 2008 at 2:39 pm ¶I totally agree that, according to I Cor. 9, the apostles who planted churches in the New Testament era had a reasonable expectation that their living expenses would be covered to one degree or another by the members of the churches they planted. The question for us is who exactly was Paul referring to when he said “the Lord directed those who proclaim the gospel to get their living from the gospel.” Was he referring only to those who had an apostolic ministry (which I think would include Barnabas due to his close association with Paul at that time)? Are we to interpret I Cor. 12:28 and Eph. 4:11 to mean that ALL of those roles would be filled in EVERY local ekklesia (and would be compensated by the local ekklesia), or were at least some of those roles intended to be filled by traveling itinerant preachers who would be supported by MANY local ekklesias so no one group would be burdened with multiple paid ministers?
In any case, I think it would be very difficult to build a Scriptural case for the way our modern-day pastors (paid or not) have become the central authority figures in local churches.
Posted 19 Mar 2008 at 6:14 pm ¶A comment to Brian — Barnabas is specifically called an “apostle” in Acts 14:14. 1 Cor.9 in context refers only to itinerants who spead the gospel. In Acts 20:33-35 Paul commends his example of working with his hands to the elders in Ephesus. Why is this perspective often omitted in the discussion of elders? The attempted use of 1 Cor.9 to butress the traditional notion of “supporting the pastor” does not reflect a careful use of Scripture.
Posted 19 Mar 2008 at 6:40 pm ¶George and Frank just did a 70-minute audio interview on the book. You can listen to it freely at http://www.ptmin.org/barna_viola.mp3
Posted 24 Mar 2008 at 12:12 pm ¶Going to the Root by Christian Smith (1992 Herald Press). In my opinion, a better book on the whole topic of church as we know it. Check it out.
Posted 24 Mar 2008 at 7:14 pm ¶Not long ago, I was a salaried pastor in a local church with a team of elders. We called ourselves a pastoral team. I read Alexander Strauch’s book years ago, and agreed with it.
However, about a 18 months ago, I was introduced to Frank Viola’s writings (including PC?). I agreed with a lot of what was written, but had a hard time with the notion that official leadership in the church was hindering the functioning of the Body the way the Lord designed it. The reason was because our leadership team was very strong and in control. We believed that the Lord had designed it to be that way so that the church would be protected from doctrinal error and disorderly conduct.
I have since come to realize how arrogant and faithless that attitude was, as if we could actually do better than Jesus Himself! And all the while I believe we were sincere in our motives, yet hurting the church.
I became convinced through the Scripture that what Frank was saying is true. I still had to struggle with what kind of steps I would have to take to be faithful to what I now knew to be true.
In short, I stepped out of the role of “pastor”, gave up the salary, and have been trying to be simply a brother in Christ. Another of the pastors in our church has done the same thing. It has not been easy, and there have been many who have left us, in favor of “order” and “structure.” But there is an incredible freedom from living up to anyone’s expectations and looking to the Lord Jesus for direction.
By the way, the Lord has met our every need, and I want to encourage others like me who are wrestling with what to do with a new knowledge of the Truth. He is faithful, and His promises are still true. He will never leave you nor forsake you.
Posted 25 Mar 2008 at 12:47 am ¶“But there is an incredible freedom from living up to anyone’s expectations and looking to the Lord Jesus for direction.”
Howie, you just put your finger right on the key issue for me. As a salaried pastor also, I know what I need to do, and am initiating the process of stepping down in a way that will hopefully be the least disruptive as possible. I love the people at my church very much, and I don’t want to cause division or confusion. But I know what I need to do in order to be faithful to the Scriptures. (I was about to write, “faithful to God’s call on my life,” but I’m coming to realize that I’ve used that phrase to justify a lot of things that were really more about pleasing others or fulfilling my own agenda than about truly pleasing God. No more.)
Thank you for your courage and for your words of encouragement.
Posted 25 Mar 2008 at 12:15 pm ¶Related to the men who have left the professional pastorate, and the concepts of the emerging church, and the Alexander Strauch teachings, I have a few questions…actually a lot more than I probably should post, but…
If we accept that Apostles who have an itinerant ministry of establishing churches have a right to earn their living from the gospel, (1 Cor 9) who are the Apostles in the emerging churches? (authors and speakers?)
The scripture in Titus 2:15 is one of several that can serve as an example, and without getting into hermaneutical issues, “these things speak and exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you.” Who will take on this authority in the emerging church where men believe that it is better to be a brother in Christ? (we don’t need to review the point that there are some/many in the church that have been spiritually abusive, or that many in church leadership are not operating scripturally)
Are only those who have started a fellowship, the founder of an independant church, functioning as apostles, and therefore entitled to “earn their living from the gospel” as the Lord directed—or is an apostle only one who has established more than one, or many churches?
Did Peter, James and John, the pillars of the church, who kept Jerusalem as the center of their ministries, elders of the local flock, had believing wives, and earned their living from the gospel, sin in not obeying Paul’s admonition to support themselves with their own hands?
Is there anyone who feels that a deconstructionist approach to becoming more Biblically centered ignores the relationships of love, loyalty, and submission that we are to have as (and to) overseers?
This is along the lines of, do we think that God is not aware that he has given us (leaders who are overseers of our souls and must give an account)are imperfect peopel who serve as mentors, shepherds, and fathers?
Will sheep who take on this emerging church concept be separated, scattered and maimed?
Shouldn’t we all have a Paul in our life?
Posted 25 Mar 2008 at 3:15 pm ¶Shouldn’t we all have a Timothy in our life?
Is God requiring us to abandon the existing relationships that we have with professional clergy?
I certainly don’t have answers to all your questions, and I can’t say for certain that the answers I do have all totally correct. But here are my thoughts, for what they’re worth.
I don’t think Viola and Barna are saying that there is no place for authority in the church. But I understand them to have a different viewpoint on the BASIS of spiritual authority. In the institutional church, authority is vested in professional clergy who “rule” by virtue of their position, not necessarily because of their giftedness. I understand Viola and Barna to say that as fellowlaborers we are to recognize the giftings God has given to one another and submit ourselves to one another in those areas of giftedness. In other words, if I have a brother in my fellowship who is gifted to be a teacher, I am to voluntarily submit myself to him because of his giftedness, NOT because he holds a paid position in the church. His authority comes from his God-given gift, not from some ecclesiastical appointment. My reading of Titus 2:15 is that the “authority” Titus has comes from God, not from Paul or anyone else.
I’m not sure it’s accurate to characterize Peter, James and John as “elders of the local flock,” as with the elders Paul spoke to in Ephesus. Peter, James and John were apostles. Therefore I don’t think we can compare what Paul said to the Ephesian elders with what he said about Peter, James and John.
It seems to me that the use of the word “deconstructionist” in this context, with a clearly negative connotation, is somewhat presumptuous for the simple reason that there’s no biblical foundation for the “construct” we have now to begin with. What we know as the institutional church is a man-made structure, plain and simple. We can debate whether or not God has or can still use something that is man-made, of course, but in the end there’s nothing inherently sacred about the organizations that make up the institutional church today. Still, I understand where you’re coming from, and I would never advocate that we shouldn’t have relationships that are characterized by love, loyalty and submission. But again, what is the basis for that loyalty and submission? Is it based on an institutional hierarchy of leadership that has been built by men? Or is it based on a SHARED responsibility to be submitted one to another by virtue of the giftings and experiences God has given each of us?
I certainly am aware that every person of spiritual influence in my life has been imperfect, as am I. I don’t think perfection is connected to giftedness and by extension, spiritual authority. For me, at least, the fact that every spiritual leader I’ve ever had has been imperfect has nothing to do with my views on the place of spiritual authority in the church.
My view on your question about “sheep” in the emerging church and whether or not they’ll be separated, scattered and maimed (”without a shepherd,” is what I hear you saying) is that every believer DOES HAVE a Shepherd–Jesus Christ. I think we tread on dangerous ground when we assume that “the laity” are incapable of spiritual growth without the guidance of the professional clergy. Yes, we ALL NEED EACH OTHER in order to be the body of Christ, but that’s not the same thing as saying there are two classes of people, the laity and the clergy, and only the clergy have the understanding and spiritual authority to guide the laity. As I read the New Testament, those who functioned in roles of spiritual authority in the local ekklesia were simply saints whom God had gifted in some particular way, but they were all still “sheep” and they all had the same Shepherd. Surely Jesus is able to keep His sheep by His own power.
As to whether or not we should all have a Paul and all have a Timothy, again, it depends on what basis those relationships are built. Have they been divinely assigned by God or are they artificially imposed by a man-made institution? While those two things aren’t necessarily always mutually exclusive, they certainly aren’t always equivalent either.
I don’t think God is categorically requiring us to abandon existing relationships with professional clergy, but I certainly do believe He is calling us to reconfigure those relationships based on biblical authority rather than man-made ecclesiastical traditions.
Thanks for the thought-provoking questions, they certainly are prompting me to further evaluate the Scriptures and my own biases.
Posted 25 Mar 2008 at 5:39 pm ¶When most people read Ephesians 4:11 they concentrate on the 5-fold ministry. The real focus of this passage is the result of the 5 fold ministries work:
1) Equipping the saints
2) the work of service
3) becoming a mature person
It seems to me that the pastor and other 5-fold ministry members are put in the body for a reason. That is to equip the saints for the work of service, and to get them to grow up and be a mature man that can’t be fooled into false doctrine. In most of today’s churches the pastor does the work of service and feels it a threat to his ministry if anyone else does. He has missed the mark completely. In God’s body it is the saints who do the ministry.
By the way there is an expiration date in the Ephesians 4…”until” we become mature. Then we no longer need to be equipped. Thats a whole other discussion, because most pastors once they got you won’t ever let you go.
Posted 27 Mar 2008 at 5:15 pm ¶Thanks to those who have allowed these comments. They are interesting, enlightening, and revealing.
As a retired “pastor” I thought much over the years about some of the thoughts expressed in PC. But did nothing much about them.
It is sad to read of Mr. Parker’s attitude. My impression is that PC found where his goat is tied, and so upset the applecart for him. Truth will prevail, and at this time I would prefer to be with Frank and George when I stand before the Lord than with James Parker. What was that old adage? “My mind is already made up, don’t confuse me with the facts” ???
Posted 27 Mar 2008 at 10:07 pm ¶As an ordained Baptist minister no longer serving as a paid professional in a church, your book helped me understand why my experience within the institutional church model almost destroyed my faith. Today, I love using my spiritual gifts as just a member of of the body of Christ. The feeling is indescribable when Jesus Christ is allowed to function as the head. At fifty, I now feel as spiritually renewed as I did when I was first saved. I have shared your book with men who still pastor. The ones who are honest and open share with me a life of loneliness, hurt,and isolation. They usually can overcome their feelings by withdrawing into some kind of distracting activity. They have no clue that God has prepared for them a way out. Heart-breaking.
Posted 29 Mar 2008 at 4:20 pm ¶Here’s a spoof video on the book that someone created recently.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=hslswIal9u4
Posted 30 Mar 2008 at 11:31 am ¶When I read I Cor 9, it seems clear to me that Paul’s message was one of freedom. An apostle (or evangelist or pastor) has the freedom to accept money, as they have the freedom to take along a wife etc. That does not give them a right to a salary. As I’m sure you know, when Paul first arrived in Corinth, he was not supported by the ekklesia, but made his living by producing tents with Aquila (Acts 18:3). There came a time however when it made sense to go into full time ministry.
Is is wrong to be paid for doing ministry? I don’t think so. Was it common in the New Testament? Certainly not. Did it look like the typical pastor in today’s church. Most certainly not! Here is a 7.5 minute documentary of a friend of mine who is the closest thing I’ve seen to a New Testament style full time minister. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCoyPSq-eDA
Being paid is permissible, but it is not always profitable (for the kingdom).
Posted 31 Mar 2008 at 5:54 am ¶As far as 1 Cor. 9 goes, I think it’s a stretch to include “pastors” in the list of those who should be considered for full-time support. The moment a church starts to financially compensate a brother or group of brothers in the local body because of their role, that church will have a clergy/laity distinction, whether it is called that or not. In such a church, there will always be a dependence upon that man/those men to direct its ministry.
I don’t think it’s wrong to help someone who has a genuine need, but it should not be done on the basis of one’s gifting or role in the church.
Posted 31 Mar 2008 at 2:15 pm ¶Doug’s observation is well taken;
At the same time I’m reluctant to accept the possible ideas behind the usage of the phrase “full time ministry”.
Tom
Posted 31 Mar 2008 at 2:39 pm ¶Having come from a background first, of 20 years of home church, and then a 12+ year “trial” in institutional churches, my husband and I believe we have been led full- circle back to our genuine Christian roots of meeting in the home — this time with a much more tweeked and gloriously enhanced perspective of full-sharing - one with another -of the spirit of life and liberty that lives in us by the spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ.
During our trial, we spent several years each in three different churches, serving whole heartedly. Having served (and getting “burned out”) in church #2 as a church secretary and my husband as a church board member, we experienced first hand, from the inside out the many issues of traditional church. I was in communcation with many men and their wives who were pastors or in leadership roles within the organization. My heart ached for them because of the incredible stress that they and their children faced non-stop. My heart was grieved because of the tremendous striving in the flesh to keep the machinery fed and maintained with people’s finances and countless hours of volunteerism with very little lasting fruit.
While in church #1 and church #3 and to this day, I have been employed in a parachurch ministry office. In this job of about 8 years, I have read hundreds of letters and emails from devoted believers all across the country, and spoke by phone to countless many more who became frustrated to the point of needing to leave the institutional church to save themselves from lukewarmness and/or from becoming disfunctional. They were exhausted from religiousity and irrevelance and superficial relationships. Many had no opportunites to express their particular gifts and talents, while others were never led into a discovery of what their part and place was is in the body of Christ.
We fearfully admit that the greatest challenges were always about money first, then and reputation and selfish ambition and control.
We would not trade our experiences of what we learned in the institutional church for anything. But after 34 years of biblical research and personal experience, what we read in PAGAN CHRISTIANITY? witnessed very strongly in our spirit as to what the Holy Spirit wants addressed in today’s Christianity. This book is for those “who have ears to hear” and desire to go deeper into the Lord’s passion to be one with His body.
Posted 03 Apr 2008 at 2:06 pm ¶Laurie, my 15 year experience in the institutional church parallels your experience. I strongly agree with your comments concerning the value of our experiences, but it grieves my heart to see so many sincere and wonderful people who I grew to love settle for this kind of life in Christ.
My friends leading the institutional churches use their evangelistic efforts and conversions to destract them from the awful spiritual attrocities within the institutional church-many that you described.
I have been trained to believe that anyone who takes these positions is a traitor to the body of Christ-the local church (institutional church).
I just had a conversation with a pastor who said that the organic church would not work- it is the nature of man to be controlled by other men. He then said that those who control them need to be gentle and humble servants, but control them nevertheless. In my experience, how this usually works out is that the pastor will be gentle until you disobey or question his strict orders/program or unChristlike conduct, then the rules change-no more Mr. Nice Guy.
My biggest challenge in understanding how the organic church works is to understand how a house church defends itself against false doctrine without a leader. I have never seen this process applied. Therefore, it leaves me somewhat nervous and feeling vulnerable. Does any one have experience with an organic church defending the truth and not having it destroy the church in the process?
Posted 04 Apr 2008 at 12:28 am ¶Greg Moore wrote;
Greg,
What if the organic church has several “leaders”? Would that make it easier to understand? “Leadership” within an ekklesia is always a reality. The question actually is whether the leadership is the kind that Jesus exemplifies and calls for. I would encourage you to read chapters 5 and 6 from Rethinking the Wineskin by Frank Viola. Here is the opening paragraph:
In my experience, the best defense of truth is accomplished through consistent, Biblically informed, Spirit led teaching. It is very important for those who lead in the ekklesia to be able to distinguish between truths which are essential and non-negotiable, and truths which are of lesser importance and best left to preference. (And that can be a BIG topic…) Though it is important that elders in a local assembly are willing and able to defend and teach correct doctrine, the main thrust of scripture appears to be more about how the whole congregation functions rather than on the importance or function of leaders. It is the shared responsibility of the whole congregation to desire, determine, and follow the leading of Christ. That “shared responsibility” is best worked out through consensus. Leaders work together with the whole assembly to reach a unanimous decision through singleness of mind. So, when doctrinal error arises leaders need to be ready to lead the congregation in understanding the problem and making correction and at the same time the congregation as a whole is to function in admonishing and building one another up (Rom. 15:4; Col. 3:16; I Thess. 5:11 for instance).
I hope I’ve helped to answer your question. It is somewhat difficult for us to address and understand because of our “church culture” indoctrination and what we have been taught as being “the Word of God”…which as often as not is mixed with other stuff–which is the main point of Pagan Christianity, isn’t it?
Tom
Posted 04 Apr 2008 at 9:51 pm ¶Thanks Tom for your explanation. How does an ekklesia do this-”when doctrinal error arises leaders need to be ready to lead the congregation in understanding the problem and making correction”.
How does someone successfully lead by consensus instead of by brute authority? For someone who has spent many years within the traditional church, consensus feels like leaving decisions up to chaos, mob rule, and corruption by immature and carnal believers. We attempted to equip the saints, but the results did not build enough confidence to trust them with the most important decision making processes.
Is it possible to equip the church so that it can faithfully follow our Lord? Although the HS indwells every believer, many do not yield to the HS influence and control over their lives. Therefore, my past church tradition exerted strong human authority over the congregation so that the church would stay on track. There is a great deal of confidence in what God is doing through the church, as long as the church is following the agenda of it’s spirit called and led leader.
Greg
Posted 08 Apr 2008 at 9:18 pm ¶“Therefore, my past church tradition exerted strong human authority over the congregation so that the church would stay on track. There is a great deal of confidence in what God is doing through the church, as long as the church is following the agenda of it’s spirit called and led leader.”
What I think is interesting about the above comments is that research has shown that of 10,000 American clergymen polled in 1987, 95% of Episcopalians, 87% of Methodists, 82% of Presbyterians, 77% of American Lutherans, and 67% of American Baptists said they do NOT believe that the Scriptures are the inspired and inerrant Word of God in faith, history, and secular matters. So I think it’s fair to ask what qualifies professional clergy to act as the final arbiter of God’s will for mankind if they don’t even believe the Bible is inerrant? Basically that means they can decide which parts of the Bible they want to impose on their flock, right? Kinda scary if you ask me.
Posted 08 Apr 2008 at 10:02 pm ¶Dear PCF Owner,
I believed for most of my life that I was a true defender of the truth and faith. I sincerely believed that my fellowship of churches were a holy remnant that remained true to God’s word. Now I see that they ignorantly and to their own demise twisted the scriptures to promote the only ministry model that they have ever known. I now realize that I was following a similar leadership model to that of the Roman Catholic Church during the Inquisition. I now have a different perspective. I want to witness Jesus Christ, the head, leading His people.
Posted 08 Apr 2008 at 10:18 pm ¶You and I are singing out of the same hymnbook, Greg! Ooops–probably not a good metaphor, given the subject matter!
Posted 08 Apr 2008 at 10:25 pm ¶Greg,
Sorry I haven’t replied to your questions…been busy and a lot of high water in NW Arkansas.
I’ll get back to you as soon as possible. Maybe someone else will address your questions before I do. I suspect that PCF Owner will do an even better job than I would ;o).
Tom
Posted 10 Apr 2008 at 11:54 pm ¶I must say I have enjoyed the “spirited” dialogue that has gone forth from this firestorm of a topic.
I confess I haven’t read the book (just heard about it today), so those of you who have read it, please enlighten me:
It’s quite obvious that the authors hold up the “New Testament” church as the model for today. Is there ANY reference whatsoever to the Old Testament model of church? What about the tabernacle? The temple? There were definitely both tithes and paid clergy in those models. (Check out Numbers 18, among other passages). I would like to know (honestly, I don’t mean that sarcastically) if and how Barna and Viola deal with the OTHER models of church that God chose to save as a model.
Thanks!
Tom
Posted 15 Apr 2008 at 6:59 am ¶Are you saying that God has saved OTHER models for us to follow today? I too am not being sarcastic. Thank you.
Posted 15 Apr 2008 at 4:47 pm ¶Tom: Thanks for joining the discussion!
Here’s a quote from Pagan Christianity:
I know you just discovered the book, but I would suggest that you get your hands on a copy, read it, and I think many of your questions will be answered.
From my own perspective, there ARE NO MODELS of “church” in the Old or New Testaments. The tabernacle & the temple were designed as places of sacrifice: whether slain animal, grain, or incense. People didn’t get together once a week to sing and listen to preaching, as we typically think of “church services”. The synagogue model (if you will) was established by tradition in the intertestamental period, not by the command of God in Scripture; therefore it’s really not under consideration as a model any more than the temple of Diana would have been.
Posted 15 Apr 2008 at 5:17 pm ¶Tom, there are numerous references in the book to Old Testament practices. The question is whether or not Jesus and the apostles carried over OT practices into the New Testament era. In trying to answer that question, we can look at what they SAID, what they DID, and what they TOLD OTHERS TO DO.
Without taking the time to examine in depth all the passages in the NT relating to this issue, suffice it to say that there is no NT evidence that the early church had priests, temples, or sacrifices. Nor is there any reference by any of the apostles to tithing as it was practiced in the OT. Giving cheerfully yes, formal tithing no. There are references to the apostles having the right to be supported financially by the churches they planted, but no mention of paid clergy as we understand the term today. On the contrary, Paul specifically told the elders at Ephesus that they should “work hard” in order to be able to help the needy in the church!
Coming from an institutional church background, it has been a struggle for me to learn to avoid superimposing our traditions back onto the NT record. For instance, when we see the term “pastor” in the Bible, we have a picture in our minds of what that term means AS A RESULT OF OUR CHURCH TRADITIONS. But in fact, the NT only uses that term one time, and there is no further explanation of what the office of pastor should look like. Everything we believe about the office of a pastor is a result of human tradition without any Biblical support whatsoever. And that’s just one example of how our view of “church” has been shaped by man-made traditions rather than actual scriptural foundation.
Posted 15 Apr 2008 at 5:25 pm ¶Greg,
In an attempt to respond to your question…
This article by Hal Miller might be useful. Maybe give it a read and let us know what you think and if it goes some distance in answering your question.
http://frontierharvestministries.blogspot.com/2008/03/as-children-and-slaves-authority-in-new.html
Tom
Posted 16 Apr 2008 at 5:00 am ¶Tom,
Bill’s response to your question is good.
I might add…
Hebrews chapter 8 speaks to the passing of the old priesthood, sanctuary, and covenant. Jesus is now our eternal High Priest who “serves in the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not man” The old priesthood and sanctuary served as a “copy and shadow” of the reality that is now in heaven.
So, if there actually were a “model of church” in the Old Testament, than that “model” was “taken out of the way” by the blood of Christ.
The People of God are the sanctuary and “model of church” for today. (Heb. 9:11-15; I Cor. 3:16)
Tom
Posted 16 Apr 2008 at 5:22 am ¶I certainly appreciate all the thoughtful responses. I will definitely pick up the book and give it an open minded read.
My only initial problem is that if we do away with the institutional model, where and how are we going to be able to argue about things like women in leadership, etc.
Tom
Posted 16 Apr 2008 at 5:48 am ¶The issue of what an organic church looks like is the subject of the sequel to PAGAN CHRISTIANITY? The sequel is called REIMAGINING CHURCH and it comes out in August. It will discuss leadership, authority, a women’s role in the church and many other aspects of organic church. In the meantime, you can learn more about these subjects by checking out the interviews with George Barna and Frank Viola at http://www.ptmin.org/answers.htm
Posted 16 Apr 2008 at 12:27 pm ¶Trackbacks & Pingbacks 2
[…] Lollar has a terrific interview with George Barna and Frank Viola regarding their book Pagan Christianity. […]
[…] UPDATE :: The interview, The Thin Edge hosts joint interview with Barna & Viola, is now available to read […]
Post a Comment