Beresford Job's Biblical Church - 6

In this series on Beresford Job's Biblical Church, we've been looking at how early, mainstream (small-c) catholic Christianity departed from NT practices. This time, we cover ch. 6, which covers the NT traditions relating to weekly church meetings. (At this point, the book starts to diverge from his shorter lecture series. But those following the latter may want to finish up, with A Summation TR 5, available here.)

If you're like most Christians nowadays, it's hard to imagine!

Church gatherings in New Testament times would be virtually unrecognizable to those whose only experience is that of being part of churches which adhere to the legacy left us by the Early Church Fathers. (83)

In NT-era churches, what was a weekly church meeting? Job turns to 1 Cor 11-14 to see what apostolic-era church meetings were like. The essential points are:

• "a church gathering [is like] the functioning of a biological body" (85)
• It wasn't a service led from the front, but was rather "a time of sharing together in which all were to take active verbal part, and which was completely open, spontaneous and collectively participatory." (85)
• The things to be shared were the spiritual gifts, or their products: as Paul says, "When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church." (86)
• Following Jesus' instructions, each meeting included a collective meal, the Lord's Supper, which was a full-fledged meal, and not a token or merely ceremonial one. (88-91)
• All this was done in a home, as no special buildings existed. (91)

Job emphasizes that scholars of early Christianity agree on all this. His main point is this: the early "fathers" - really, early bishop-ruled, mainstream Christianity, invented traditions which conflicted with those laid down by Jesus and his apostles. Better to follow the latter. (92)

Think about a loyal employee. Suppose he's confused about whether the Boss wants him to do A or B. If he knows that the Boss prefers A, he'll do A. "Your wish is my command" will be his attitude. He won't dither about whether the Boss will permit him to do B, or whether or not other employees are doing B.

But suppose other employees have muddied the waters - some say the Boss wants them to do B, and a few claim to have heard someone who heard someone who heard the Boss express a preference for B. But if the faithful employee finds a written memo which clearly implies that the Master wants A done, then he'll hop to it.

Job says

I am simply arguing that Jesus... [and] the Apostles - knew best, and that it is not possible to come up with better ways of doing things than what we see already revealed in the pages of scripture... [which] contains not the slightest hint that its teachings and practices were supposed to be replaced by something different later on. (92)

Next time: The Choice.

Beresford Job's Biblical Church - 5

This time, the Great Baptism Fiasco! (For those following via his mp3 lectures, this post on Biblical Church ch. 5 corresponds roughly to Part 2 TR 4, available for free here.)

This chapter can be simply summarized: the biblical model, evident throughout Acts, is that Christians are baptized (1) ASAP after the believe in Jesus, (2) wherever was convenient, and (3) seemingly by whatever believer it was who, as it were, led the baptizee(s) to Christ. (69-71)

In contrast, the early catholic tradition went through a couple of phases about the tradition of baptism.

Phase 1: one can only be baptized (1) after a longish period of preparation, (2) in a church meeting, (3) by the bishop or someone authorized by the bishop, and not by anyone else.

Job would say that the new (2) and (3) encroach on the priesthood of all believers in Christ. But in this chapter he directs most of his fire at (1) and the justification for it. Why the change?

Regarding (1), it seem that many Christians in the era of the early fathers believed that one is saved by baptism (baptismal regeneration) and that baptism only "washed away" past sins. Thus, one needs to be really, really careful about getting baptized. It is a one-time deal, and if one commits serious sin afterwards, one is out of luck! (Although later a system of penance provided some way back.) In the words of Tertullian, "Those who understand the importance of baptism will rather fear its attainment rather than its delay..." (73) About the time gap, for some early catholic churches, this could be as long as 3 years! (78) That is, after believing in Christ, one had to undergo a long program of "instruction... fasting, exorcism and blessing" before baptism. (78)

But this preparation tradition was eventually eclipsed by another.

Phase 2: But if baptism saves people, isn't it stingy to withhold it from infants? Surely so! Thus, the first element changed. All babies from Christian parents are now baptized, soon after birth. Gone is the big baptism prep, and the idea that baptism is some big prize to be attained only after a lot of work. (75-9)

In Job's view, the NT practice is simply better, and no reason has ever been found to depart from it. And,

...infant baptism is based purely on the teachings and traditions of the Early Church Fathers, and [has] nothing whatsoever to do with the teaching of the New Testament. (78, original emphasis)

Is sum,

Rather than being a spontaneous act having come into a relationship with Jesus and repented of sin, baptism now became a ritualistic entry ticket into the organization of the now institutionalized church. (80-1)

Next time: what was the apostolic tradition about weekly church meetings?

Book: Beresford Job's Biblical Church - 4

In chapter four, Job discusses "the Early Church Fathers", namely Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Cyprian, who died between 100 and 246 CE. These are a fascinating cast of characters, but in this post I'll stick to summarizing what Job says about them, and how this relates to the notion of a Christian "tradition of the elders". This chapter corresponds to Part 1 TR 3, available to download here.)

In Job's view, theologically, these early leaders got it right, preserving the faith against a host of heretics. (50) But practically, when it came to church leadership, they replaced God's design for the church with an inferior model.

How so? A crucial point emerges from the speech of Paul in Acts 20:17-28, carefully compared with all the other relevant passages in the NT. This is that the following (Greek) words:

• elder / presbyter
  
• overseer (sometimes mistranslated "bishop")
• shepherd (often translated "pastor")

refer to one and the same class of men, each term emphasizing a different aspect of their role in church life. They are men who are more mature in the faith (elders) who watch over (oversee) the flock, as it were, shepherding individual members. He shows that this is no idiosyncratic opinion, but is acknowledge by pretty much all scholars of early Christianity. (54-7)

It takes some time to reflect on how profound this is: there simply is no concept of a "pastor" or "head pastor" in the New Testament, in the way we now understand those terms!

In short, the early (late 1st century to early third century) church evolved a system employing a laity/leadership class distinction. At the top was the Bishop - he was the top dog, the Big Cheese. Job gives some rather shocking quotes from various letters by Irenaeus (himself a bishop), c. 110 CE:

...be very careful not to resist the Bishop, that through our submission to the Bishop we may belong to God... we should regard the Bishop as the Lord Himself... always act in godly concord; with the Bishop presiding as the counterpart of God, the presbyters as the counterpart of the council of the Apostles... Thus, as the Lord did nothing without the Father... so you must do nothing without the Bishops and the presbyters. ...let all men... respect the Bishop as the counterpart of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God... without those no church is recognised. (59)

And Tertullian:

The distinction between the order of clergy and the people has been established by the authority of the Church... (60-1)

Thus, the norms implicit in the New Testament with overthrown. Moreover, church tradition has now been elevated above the NT and the apostles' tradition. Or has it? As Job points out,

...the Fathers claimed for themselves the same type, and measure, of authority that the original Apostles of Jesus possessed. They argued that what they taught was necessarily correct precisely because they, as those standing in a direct line back to the original Apostles, were saying it. (63)

The bottom line:

Historically Christian churches have supported, and submitted to, this tradition of the Early Church Fathers rather than being in obedience to the... traditions of... the New Testament. (64-5)

We've been basing our leadership practices not on the Apostles (and so, on the will of Jesus, which is the will of God), but rather on this ancient catholic tradition, which purports, like the mythical oral law of Moses, to go back to a divine source. But, it conflicts with the Bible, which we accept as inspired by God.

Nor is this only a Catholic problem; all mainstream Christian traditions, be they Baptist, Pentecostal, or many going by the name "house church", practice hierarchical leadership. In Job's view, "Any kind of 'stand apart' leadership is wrong. An elder is not the first among equals; he is just one amongst equals." (66) The New Testament model is of "locally grown, non-hierarchical leadership", not "one person in church who has come in from the outside". (67) He says more justify these strong assertions in later chapters - stay tuned.

Finally, Job pulls his punch a little. The early church fathers, he holds, aren't entirely to blame, because the NT canon was still being decided on. (50) Still, the church, after agreeing on the NT, should have re-examined her practices in light of it.

Next time: the great baptism fiasco!

Book: Beresford Job's Biblical Church - 3

Job's chapters 2 & 3 (which correspond to the second free mp3 lecture here) concern Jesus' stance towards the tradition of the elders.

Job starts out chapter 2 with a strong claim, that "Israel's religious leaders rejected him in the full knowledge that he was indeed their long awaited Messiah." (29) I think Job means to say that they should have known he was the Messiah. In any case, he points out that Jesus expects John the Baptist to conclude that he's the Messiah simply on the basis of his miracles in fulfilment of prophecy. (Matthew 11:2-6)

Here the plot thickens. It seems that the Pharisees had their own theories about Messiah validation. Job claims (citing this article - not available online - apparently you must buy it here) that they theorized there were three miracles which only bona-fide Messiah could do: healing a leper, casting out a demon who refuses to talk, and healing a man born blind. (See the book, 30-8, for their interesting justifications for these.) So, Jesus proceeds to do all three, knowingly triggering an official Messiah-investigation. (Lk 5, Mt 12, Jn 9)

There are some curious and interesting footnotes in ch 2. Job claims that the modern charismatic way of dealing with demons, e.g. asking their names and then doing verbal combat with them - resembles not the techniques of Jesus, but those of ancient Pharisaical Judaism. (35) (But what about Bob's Bible-fu?) And he interprets the "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit" as a a collective sin by the nation of Israel, of rejecting Jesus as their messiah. One more tidbit - the Pharisees taught that a fetus can sin?! (37) But I'm getting distracted.

In chapter 3 Job argues that Jesus neither accepted nor accommodated the non-inspired tradition of the elders. Rather, he "hated it and declared open warfare on it by breaking as many of its laws as he could on any occasion that presented itself." (39) e.g. healing on the sabbath (mud-in-the-eye techniques, evidently, were singled out), hanging out with "sinners", gleaning grain on the sabbath, not washing hands before meals. Jesus blasts the Pharisees for hypocrisy, for violating God's will whilst claiming to do it (i.e. to follow their "fence laws" / oral tradition). (Matthew 15)

All this sets up the task of the next part of Job's book: exposing "our very own Christian version of the tradition of the elders." (47, original emphasis)

What could that be?

Next time: What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Book: Beresford Job's Biblical Church - 2

This time, chapter 1 (which corresponds to his first free mp3 lecture here).

Some traditions of corporate religious life are ordained by God, and some are not. Of course, non-ordained, "man-made" traditions are often perfectly harmless, and they don't interfere with obedience to God's mandates. But other times, they are not so harmless.

Job points out that Paul makes a point of praising congregations for "maintaining" and "holding to" (not just the teachings, but also) the traditions he passed on to them. (1 Cor 11:2, 2 Thess 2:15, 3:6) And Jesus scolds people for forsaking God's orders for the sake of "your tradition" or "the tradition of men." (Mt 15:3,6)

In Jesus' day, there was "the tradition of the elders" (aka the oral law, the pharisaic law, or the laws of the fence or hedge). (Job cites this as the source of some of his information on this.) These were extra laws, devised and refined by generations of religious teachers, meant to prevent people of breaking any of the actual laws of Moses. Thus the 613 Mosaic laws were "fenced in by" something like 1500 extra ones.

The legalistic mindset in some of the examples Job cites are hilarious! God's law said: Don't work on the sabbath. (Hence, you should not harvest on the sabbath, for harvesting is work.) The fence-law makers, to protect this from violation, added that one may not walk through a field on the sabbath. Why? Well, you might separate a grain from the stalk, which would reaping on the sabbath. Or your foot-action might separate grain from chaff, which would be threshing on the sabbath. And the breeze of your garment as you pass might blow the chaff off the (one) grain, which would be winnowing on the sabbath. And if a bird comes to eat the newly emancipated grain, you have then been guilty of storing food (putting it aside to be eaten) on the sabbath. (23-4)

While first thought of as man made, extra helps, surprisingly, later generations thought of them as divinely inspired, and so just as binding as the Mosaic Law. The Pharisees taught that Moses was given a written and an oral law - two laws - the latter corresponding to the many fence laws. (25-6)

But what if there's a conflict between the two laws? By Jesus' time, it had been decided that the oral law - the teachings of the rabbis - should have precedence. So while in theory there were two equal laws, in practice, the oral law prevailed. Thus,

"Man-made established practice had ousted God-ordained established practice under the guise of obedience to God's will." (27)

Seems sort of obviously wrong, when it's other people, doesn't it?

Next: How did Jesus react to all of this?

Book: Beresford Job's Biblical Church - 1

In this series, I'll review Biblical Church: A Challenge to Unscriptural Traditions and Practice, by Beresford Job, chapter by chapter.

Job is a long-time house church elder, and has been active in promoting the idea of New Testament church. He is, I take it, one of the founders of the Chigwell Christian Fellowship in England. The book, it seems, is based on his series of lectures called Traditions.

I once heard him teach at a house church conference and instantly took a liking to him. He's got the accent of Roger Daltrey, the humor and front tooth gap of David Letterman, and the heart of Paul of Tarsus. He oozes practical wisdom and common sense, and is always eager to pass on his practical experiences as well as New Testament teaching on Christian life. He's not a scholar and doesn't pretend to be one (he has too much personality to!), but he's made good use of a lot of scholarship, as we'll see.

So order the book (mine came quickly) and follow along - join in the discussion! We'll start in a few days, and take our time.

The book is a bold one. It aims to prove that the prevailing traditions of church life followed by most Christians "are based on teachings which have little or nothing to do with the Bible." The traditions aren't just non- but are largely anti-biblical, "virtually the opposite" of what the New Testament teaches on church life. (15) While he holds that the Reformation restored a correct doctrine of justification and faith, the idea of sola scriptura never was allowed to reform church practice.

Bold words!

Next time: 2 laws, 2 sources, 1 ultimate authority.