The Narrow Path Ministries

I just have a link to insert (not intending to interrupt the discussion):
Ben Witherington's Blog
Pagan Christianity Book Review:
Part 1

I haven't read it yet.
Posted for: fyi, Thanks,

Thanks for posting that, Rick. I have been thinking about the book under review. Witherington's thoughts on it do seem to be very informative, as they usually are.

OK thanks Rick. I read the review by Witherington, and don't know what to do now. I am expecting the copy of Pagan Christianity to arrive any day and am wondering if I will waste may time reading it.

Anyway, Witherington wrote something I question:

In other words the priesthood of all believers is in no way an argument against their being ordained leaders of various sorts in the church, leaders who are both anointed and appointed not from below but from above, appointed by leaders.

I believe the early church had the office of deacon. Consider how the first ones were chosen:

Acts 6:2-4 (New King James Version)

2. Then the twelve summoned the multitude of the disciples and said, “It is not desirable that we should leave the word of God and serve tables. 3. Therefore, brethren, seek out from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business; 4. but we will give ourselves continually to prayer and to the ministry of the word.”

Here we see that the office was to be filled by those chosen by the other brothers, the Apostles doing no more than prescribing the qualifications. McGarvey comments: "No ingenuity of argument can evade the conclusion that this gives the authority of apostolic precedent for the popular election of church officers."

Perhaps we need to arrange a Viola - Witherington debate!

TK wrote:Hi Matt- much earlier, on the original thread of this topic, you wrote:

Second, I am not convinced leaving is as great a step of faith as staying and being a change agent.

the reference was to Viola's new book "Reimagining [pagan] Christianity" and its claim that many are leaving traditional churches for a more "organic" experience.

My question is this: at some point is it not better to leave, than to rock the boat too much?

Oh, I do think there are times when leaving is a valid and good option (and may be the right choice). I just think Viola was making it sound too black and white (as if leaving required a big step of faith and staying was more along the lines of disobedience).

Frankly, I think it takes more 'faith' to stay and believe that God can take something distorted and make it new and fresh.

Witherington's review is very good. Thanks for the link Rick.

My class is getting more and more annoyed by Viola's overstatement and method of argumentation. So I think I am glad that this Sunday will be our last week in the book, haha. The discussion has been great, but 12 weeks is enough.

Yeah, Matt....you've been hard-at-it for a while now, huh? (even here).

I had the book from my library but didn't have time to read it: Job hunting & just found one.

At any rate, I just saw Ben Witherington has four blogs (Parts One thru Four) and a Postlude. (I'm just now reading Part Two).

Matt, you're a great teacher, Brother!
Keep up the good work,

i just got the book from my library- i suspect it will be one of those frustrating books because I will want everyone to read it but no one else probably will.

TK

Question for Matt-

i have been reading this book and it is indeed very challenging. i hope it doesnt make me "bitter" about how my church does things- after all they dont know any better.

since you are a minister in a church that likely follows very similar practices outlined in the book, how did the book affect you? i mean, if you agree with the book, it's a big UH-OH. maybe you have already discussed this elsewhere. if so, i apologize.

I am really struggling with the idea of giving the book to friends that are employed by the church I attend- i dont want to be responsible for giving them a crisis of conscience.

do you see what I mean?

TK

Hey TK,

Thanks for the question I suppose if I agreed with Viola 100%, reading the book as a pastor in an institutional church would have created a crisis of conscience. But, as it is, I agreed with lots and disagreed with lots.

For example, on the topic of clergy salaries. I agree with him that there are dangers in such things. But I think he overstated by implying that a church cannot use such a system in a way that is pleasing to God. The book challenged me to avoid the errors that are common with such practices, and to teach our church to avoid them. The book has made me bolder in my emphasis on the essentials and in my statements regarding tradition when done simply for traditions sake.

Some chapters/themes weren't very relevant since our church is already strong in the areas he was mentioning (participation/openness). Other chapters/themes I counted as mostly overstatement (clergy salaries, etc). Still other chapters I am looking to implement (having the Lord's Supper as part of a meal).

Hope that answers your question

In Christ,
matthew

This was on Frank's blog today....

----------------------------------------------------------

Question: Frank, I gave Pagan Christianity to some friends and their response was, “Barna and Viola make a lot of good points, but they are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.” I’ve heard this so many times that if I hear it again, I’m going to scream. What’s your response to that line?

Answer: I think there’s only one baby worth saving – it’s the babe of Bethlehem, the Lord Jesus Christ. Everything else can be parted with and most of it is clutter. To call the clergy system, the hierarchical/business-patterned leadership structure, the Sunday morning Protestant ritual, the billions of dollars we spend on church buildings and overhead “the baby” is ludicrous in my opinion.

From the place where I’m standing, it seems to me that what we’ve done is substitute the bathwater for the baby, tossing the latter and keeping the former.

In the words of NT scholar Jon Zens,

It seems to me that we have made normative that for which there is no Scriptural warrant (emphasis on one man’s ministry), and we have omitted that for which there is ample Scriptural support (emphasis on one another) . . . we have exalted that for which there is no evidence, and neglected that for which there is abundant evidence.

But let me think about your question some more and I’ll tell you how I really feel about it J

-------------------------------------------------------