Church Without Church

Beresford Job video

2009-08-18T10:40:00.003-04:00

Here - straight from the horse's mouth. With occasional karate chops.

The series on Job's Biblical Church will resume soon...

Beresford Job's Biblical Church - 11

2009-05-22T06:16:00.000-04:00

Ch. 12 is entitled, "To Submit or Not to Submit". Here, Job tackles the verses often cited to support the idea that laymen must submit to clergymen, in Protestant churches, typically the Head Pastor.

He first points out that if you start reading through the epistles in the New Testament, you get all the way through Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, and Ephesians "without so much as a single word being either written to, or concerning, church leaders." (143) Evidently, they were addressed to whole assemblies, or groups of assemblies in a town.

But 1 Thessalonians 5 says, "we ask you, brothers, to respect those who work hard among you, who are over you in the Lord and who admonish you. Hold them in the highest regard in love because of their work." (144) Ain't that hierarchical leadership?

No. Job argues that the culprit here, and also in Romans 12:8 and 1 Tim 5:17 is the word proistemi. This is normally translated "stand before", "stand over", or "have charge over". Vine's Expository Dictionary lists these meanings: "'to stand before', hence to lead, to attend to (indicating care and diligence)." (144) Frustratingly, without citing the sources, Job cites F.F. Bruce and "some of the newer Bible translations" as endorsing the translation "care for you". (144)

Job is certainly right that if this is what was meant, then those texts take on a different color - they are exhorting people not to bow to hierarchical authority, but rather to respect their spiritual parents, as it were, who care for them.

But I don't think enough has been said here. What are these newer translations? NIV, NLT, HCSB, CEV, translate as above, or something like "your leaders". Note: leading terms are ambiguous - they can have to do with hierarchical leaders, or with those who provide initiative and guidance without have any special office or rights. A "leader" could be a king or pope (hierarchical) or the bravest guy in the platoon. (non-hierarchical) The coach, or the pro-Bowl middle linebacker.

The excellent Good News Bible has "[those] who guide". Score one for Job's preferred rendition. The Message (not a translation, but a paraphrase) has "honor those leaders who work so hard for you, who have been given the responsibility of urging and guiding you along in your obedience." (1 Thess 5:12) But is that right?

Perhaps Job was referring to the TNIV, which has

Now we ask you, brothers and sisters, to acknowledge those who work hard among you, who care for you in the Lord and who admonish you. (1 Thess 5:12)

Perhaps this explains why there was no reference - this 2002 revision of the popular NIV Bible has been perceived as wrongheadedly politically correct because of its rigorously gender-neutral translations. (e.g. "and sisters" above instead of "brothers" for adelphoi) They actually have a website constructed to explain various departures from the NIV. In any case, the TNIV translates "lead" for the same word in Romans 12:8.

The IVP Bible Background Commentary says that proistemi

...was especially applied in the Greco-Roman world to patrons, sponsors of clients and religious associations. If that sense is in view here, those would be the Christians who opened their homes for the churches to meet in them and sponsored them, providing what financial and political help they could... (595)

I suspect that is a dead-end, though. Why would those be singled out as ones who "labor among you"?

All in all, it seems to me that it is best to translate this verb as "lead" - leave the ambiguity in the translation which is in the original. It is up to the reader to discern that Christ-like, "foot-washing", servant-leadership is in view. I think Job is right about the meaning of these passages; I just don't think it makes the case to cite (without citing) an authority or two as to the proper translation. It's really interpretation that matters, in the context of the teaching of Jesus and it's fit with that of the apostles.

Next time: more Greek-word-fu.

Beresford Job's Biblical Church - 10

2009-05-19T04:32:00.000-04:00

Chapter 11 is complicated, and if you're following this series, this is a good reason to buy the book, and carefully check it against the Bible to see if it is accurate. Here, I'll summarize the case.

As we saw last time, New Testament assemblies/churches meet in homes. This keeps the numbers down, and so the kinds or levels of leadership suited to large organizations are simply irrelevant. There will be no CEO. (125)

Job examines Acts 1 and Acts 6 - in both, the fledgling Christian community in Jerusalem had some tough decisions to make. In both, Peter takes the lead. But how? Not by himself making the call. Rather, he leads by framing the issue and giving an argument about the best way forward. In short, he didn't order, but rather persuaded the assembly. The consensus of the whole group was the key - Peter played an active, stimulating, and guiding role in the formation of it. (125-8)

In another episode, Acts 15, the leaders (apostles & elders) not only convene the meeting, but they, on behalf of and in front of the assembly, argue through a matter. The result? Consensus. Quoting Acts 15:22, "Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided..." (130, original emphasis) Job comments,

What a contrast this is to clergy-led doctrinal convocations behind closed doors at denominational headquarters; or even just an individual Minister of an individual church unilaterally deciding how things ought to be! (131)

Some of the toughest decisions a church must make have to do with disciplining members by kicking them out (hopefully temporarily). Jesus in Matthew 18 seems to imply that this is the work of the whole assembly, and this is confirmed by Paul's handling of sexual immorality in the Corinth assembly, 1 Cor 5. (131-4)

In sum, churches should have non-hierarchical leaders - their elders standing not as a special class, but just brothers along with the rest, with no positional perks or powers. They should lead by moral authority, having earned the right to influence people's free choices, so that they follow Jesus together. (140-1)

There is a place in the world for hierarchical leadership - Job cites government and family, in which the mayor or husband does by virtue of his position stand "above" those under him. But "there is no hierarchy in a biblical church because one already exists: Jesus - and everyone else!" (136) Jesus should function as head not only of the universal church, but on individual assemblies, and he doesn't need middle management. (136)

At the end of the chapter he makes a very interesting argument. God has ordained hierarchical leadership in the family - husband over wife and kids, and parents over children - see Ephesians 5 and Col 3. (136-8) (I would hasten to add that this is Christ-like, non-domineering leadership.) Suppose that the Rev. Lovejoy, picture above, is a legit hierarchical leader over a family - which means that they should submit to him. Job points out that this is not consistent with the hierarchies just mentioned. Suppose Lovejoy wants the wife to teach Sunday-school and the husband doesn't want her to. To whom should she submit, pastor or husband? Again, suppose Lovejoy wants the kids to give all their allowance to cause X, and mom and dad disagree. What should the kids do? Job says, "we are presented in a nonsensical and absurd impasse" (139) - so long as we take the idea of hierarchical clerical leadership seriously. But, we should not. Sorry, Lovejoy!

Next time: What about NT exhortations to obey our leaders?

Beresford Job's Biblical Church - 9

2009-05-15T04:11:00.004-04:00

In chapter 10, Job says that if he's going to get on a plane, he insists that certain things be in place: wings, pilot, engine, and so on.

Similarly, there is an "irreducible minimum" of structural elements that should be in place in a biblical church - not a real church (Job grants that traditional, institutional churches are real churches) but rather one which is faithful to the apostolic tradition as delivered in the Bible. (119-20) What are these structural elements?

Governance by the consensus of all in the group, with (non-hierarchical) leadership provided by men the group recognizes and respects as spiritually mature (elders).
Meeting in a home or homes.
Meeting on Sunday, with "a time of corporate worship where the format was that all were free to participate as the Holy Spirit led. No one person convened the gathering from the front." (121)
And "the heart of their [Sunday] gathering was the Lord's Supper observed as an actual meal which all present shared". (121)

Why hold out these structural elements? Is it because Job is a legalist, eager to point the bony finger of condemnation at those who do things differently? No. Rather, it is because "the design of a thing" - whether on airplane or an assembly - "corresponds directly to its function". (122) A local assembly is supposed to function as "a little, local, extended family of God's people." (122) And the above structure, in Job's view, best facilitates that sort of corporate life.

In a humorous thought experiment, Job asks us to imagine a "family gathering" in which the family assembles in a rented hall, and then after some chit-chat, the dad or someone gets up and offers an extended speech. They then share a cup of cofee in the foyer and chat some more, and skatter back to their respective homes for a meal. Some family gathering! It is indeed a family, but it is disfunctional. (123-4)

With this chapter, Job begins part 2 of his book, wherein he covers the actual functioning of biblical churches in some detail. I think he actually qualifies points 1 & 3 above - stay tuned. The above is just the bones - he's going to put some meat on it, until you can discern an actual animal.

Beresford Job's Biblical Church - 8

2009-05-05T07:21:00.000-04:00

In chapter 8, Job tackles some common objections. Most of these are summarized below.

Objection: God blesses these so-called unbiblical churches. (105)

Reply: "Yes of course he does! [I'm]... grateful to him that he does." (105) God is so gracious, he blesses even the half-obedient.

Objection: "But the Holy Spirit leads believers to do these practices and to form together into these types of churches." (107)

Reply: Not if I'm right about what the Bible says. God wouldn't act contrary to his expressed will. (107-8)

Objection: "We must renew the churches from the inside and remain in them and be the influence for change." (109)

Reply: This is logically impossible. A New Testament style assembly and a traditional, institutional church have several contrary properties (e.g. no hierarchical leadership vs. hierarchical leadership). It is nonsense to suppose that you could reform the latter into the former, as no group of people could be both. (109-11) Really, "This [objection] is usually just a cover for maintaining the status quo and leading a quiet life." (109)

Objection: "Going on about all this just upsets people. You're just causing trouble and being divisive and unloving!" (110)

Reply: Sorry, but how could it be somehow wrong to test Christian practices by the Scriptures? I'm not going to go with the normal ways if I think I'm thereby disobeying God. Just as the ancient Jews preferred the "oral law" to God's actual law, so present day Christians prefer common Christian habits to the pattern set out by Jesus' apostles. But that makes no sense. (110-1)

In short, and this is the point of the brief 9th chapter, the work of the Reformation isn't yet done. Autonomy from Rome, salvation through grace, believers baptism, the gifts of the Spirit - all these have been recovered by a succession of reforming, world-wide movements. But biblical church practice hasn't been recovered. After searching the scriptures, Job is convinced that Jesus is saying, "Give Me back My church!" (114)

...I want to live according to what I read in scripture... I need to know that I am in conformity to his revealed Word, for only then can I know that I am in conformity to him. Only then, and this is what matters to me more than anything else, can I know that I am safe from doing my will, and free to be doing his. (115)

That, ladies and gentlemen, is the heart of an actual disciple of Jesus, and a servant of God is Jesus' mold. Not my will, but yours.

Beresford Job's Biblical Church - 7

2009-05-01T06:17:00.000-04:00

As we've seen, Job has argued that the church practices which derive ultimately from the early "fathers" are not only "un-biblical, they are actually anti-biblical." (95) Their foundational error was imposing top-down, government style leadership, "with the Bishop presiding as the big chief at the top of the pecking order." (95) Churches, which had heretofore been independent organisms, now became assimilated to "a multi-national organization". (95) This led to havoc with various doctrines, including teaching about baptism, and the very practice of weekly meetings was totally transformed. (96)

Job now anticipates a certain popular but lame defense against all this: but we're Protestant - we base our teachings and practices on the Bible.

He replies: although Catholics may be "more deeply immersed" in the anti-biblical practices he's been discussing, Protestants are in just a little less deeply. (96-8) Despite our scripture-only rhetoric, and our smug self-image as the biblically-based wing of Christianity, in light of the comparison of biblical church practices and ours, "it becomes unnervingly clear just how inconsistent we have acually been." (101) Job believes in the Reformation, but things its work of returning Christians to the Bible needs to be pushed forward, in the arena of church practice. (101)

If you find that you're not doing what the Master wants, it is pointless to console youself by reflecting that other of his servants are doing things he likes a teeny bit less than the things you're doing! And if you accept the premise that the New Testament best reveals God's will, then to obey God is to obey it. And it simply can't be obeyed through a normal, institutional-church-going lifestyle - the practices are logically incompatible. (99)

Job recaps a list of anti-biblical practices which most Christians take for granted as normal.

priesthood, or any clergy/laity divide - or any hierarchical, position-based leadership structure
set liturgy, to be follow in meetings
meetings as services, led from the front
infant baptism
(lengthy) pre-baptismal instruction
"denominationalism" - or devotion to particular leaders or meeting-styles
bread and wine communion services
formal church membership
special religious buildings (100)

At this point, one may be concerned that Job is a mean, finger-pointing legalist, who enjoys condemning his brethren. To the contrary, I have never observed anything remotely resembling this in him. And to make clear that he's not pointy that bony finger of condemnation, he says,

I do not say that the wrong practices themselves are necessarily sinful, or that to observe them out of genuine ignorance is either, but once we do become aware of the truth then we are duty bound to act. (102)

Not acting, once the knowledge is in place, is, sad to say, hypocrisy; it is preferring human traditions to the will of God, whilst publicly claiming to be devoted to the will of God. And this is like the hypocrisy Jesus condemned in his fellow Jews, who overrode the clear commands of Moses for the sake of their own traditions. (102) To point this out is not mean or self-righteous; when one employee suddenly gets clear on what precisely the Boss wants, he naturally tells his fellow employees, and if they won't listen, he'll obey anyway.

Next time: Objections and Replies.

Beresford Job's Biblical Church - 6

2009-04-28T08:13:00.001-04:00

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

2009-04-25T07:42:00.000-04:00

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

2009-04-21T06:54:00.002-04:00

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

2009-04-17T04:00:00.002-04:00

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

2009-04-13T06:38:00.001-04:00

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

2009-04-10T16:22:00.002-04:00

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.

How the other side lives

2008-10-27T08:01:00.009-04:00

Why do I practice New Testament style church? Big subject!

Here's one approach, though: it's about as different from this as a church could be. (Read it - it's quite thought-provoking.)

No brand.
No 30-ft waterfalls.
No "inspiration" about which you feel guilty later.
No Big Chief around whom everything revolves.
No stadium seating.
No staffers with walkie-talkies.
No commercial breaks.
No CDs of the music for sale.
No abuse of the word "awesome".
No trouble finding a parking space.
No tithing.

I'll wager that our coffee is better. He may have us beat on the hair, though. OK - he may have me beat. BUT - we have food, friends, and family-like fellowship.

PC? Spoof Commercial

2008-10-20T17:54:00.005-04:00

HT: Jilliefl1

It's interesting how controversy makes a thing more popular than it might have been if left alone. Did that happen with this book?

BW3 on PC? PART 1

2008-10-09T23:00:00.002-04:00

"[O]ne of the top evangelical scholars in the world," Dr. Ben Witherington III (photo left modified from BW3's site), weighed in on Pagan Christianity? here:
PAGAN CHRISTIANTY: by George Barna and Frank Viola.

Here's a taste of BW3's perspective on some of the problems with PC?:

[T]here are no such thing as ‘institutional churches’. Churches have institutions of various sorts, they aren’t institutions. Furthermore, the Bible is full of traditions and many of those developed after NT times are perfectly Biblical. It’s not really possible to draw a line in the sand between ‘Biblical principles’ and traditions. The question is which traditions comport with Biblical tradition and which do not. And there is a further problem. It is ever so dangerous to take what was normal in early Christianity as a practice, and conclude that therefore it must be normative. It may have been normal in the NT era for non-theological reasons, for example for practical reasons. (paragraph 7, original emphasis)

Read what follows on his blog, if you haven't already. Pay special attention to his description of holy or unholy spaces (paragraph 37f). Who do you agree with on this issue, BW3 or the authors of PC?? Take part in the poll at the top of the main page; it closes October 31, 2008 at 11 PM EST.

Book: Frank Viola's Pagan Christianity? with George Barna - 2

2008-10-07T00:56:00.003-04:00

Edifice Complex!?!

Yup-o, you betcha.

The Church Building: Inheriting the Edifice Complex is the title of the second chapter of Pagan Christianity?. Viola and Barna bring the reader through the history and mutations of the church building and its parts, claiming (of course) that these are rooted in pagan tradition. Here is a brief summary of their case:

Ancient Judaism had this arrangement: Temple, priesthood, sacrifice.

When Jesus came, He ended all three, fulfilling them in Himself. He is the temple who embodies a new and living house made of living stones--'without hands.' He is the priest who has established a new priesthood. And He is the perfect and finished sacrifice. Consequently, the Temple, the professional priesthood, and the sacrifice of Judaism all passed away with the coming of Jesus Christ. Christ is the fulfillment and the reality of it all. (11)

Greco-Roman paganism had temples, priests, and sacrifices too. But in the New Testament, the church was not a building, but a group of Christians. Meetings were held in homes (not a temple building), led by every believer (not a special caste of priests), and only offered "spiritual sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving."(13) By the time Roman Catholicism was established, it continued practices associated with paganism and Judaism. When Protestants had their way, they "retained the priestly caste (the clergy) as well as the sacred building." (13)

I will spare you the graphic details, but here is the basic, early time line of church evolution according to PC?:

1st-3rd Century - house church
2nd -3rd Century - sacred spaces and sacred things, ceremonial representation of the Lord's supper
Constantine(!) builds church buildings (Christian temples) on sacred sites even though he is practically pagan; actually, that may explain why he did it
~rituals performed: for cleansing of the commoner to enter the building and so on
~congregants: a passive role
~clergy don sacred garb
~professional music, choirs
~note the equation: church building + culture = holy shrine
Church buildings mutated from basilicas to Byzantine domes, Romanesque 3 story buildings associated with Charlemagne, Gothic cathedrals, to protestant modifications based on these models, to mega-church complexes.

In each mutation, there is a philosophical (and/or psychological) framework for the structure and the associated decorations and floor plan. This is where they make their point. The location and design of church buildings and the placement of items within our church buildings shape the way we worship and, therefore, these factors shape our faith. Additionally, taking care of these buildings consumes too much of our time, energy, and rapidly depletes financial resources.

It is high time we Christians wake up to the fact that we are being neither biblical nor spiritual by supporting church buildings. And we are doing great damage to the message of the New Testament by calling man-made buildings 'churches.' If every Christian would never call a building a church again, this alone would create a revolution in our faith. (43)

In their 'delving deeper' section at the end of this chapter, Viola and Barna answer hypothetical questions raised by some anybody. One answer they give gets to the heart of their message...

Although Scripture never discusses the topic specifically, church buildings teach us a number of bad lessons that run contrary to New Testament principles. They limit the involvement of and fellowship between members. Often their grandeur distances people from God rather than reminding them that Christ indwells each believer. As Winston Churchill said: "First we shape our buildings. Thereafter, they shape us." This has definitely been the case with the church building. (44)

...in 5 key points:

(1) it is unbiblical to call a building a 'church,' 'the house of God,' 'the temple of God,' 'the sanctuary of the Lord,' and other similar terms;
(2) the architecture of the typical church building hinders the church from having open-participatory meetings;
(3) it is unscriptural to treat a building as though it were sacred;
(4) a typical church building should not be the site of all church meetings because the average building is not designed for face-to-face community; and
(5) it is a profound error to assume that all churches should own or rent buildings for their gatherings. (46)

How a church building affects one's faith requires introspection. In my experience, the building is more of a practical nuisance than spiritual hindrance. However, the two may not be mutually exclusive. In one church, more people met (for more hours) discussing the maintenance and special upkeep of the building and its pieces than would meet for any other purpose, with the possible exception of meeting to preserve the substantial endowment fund, though these were definitely not mutually exclusive issues.

What's your experience with church buildings? Have buildings shaped your faith? Do the lessons we learn from church buildings run contrary to the message of the New Testament?

Next time in this series: Sunday Mornings
In the meantime, stay tuned for related posts.

My Mystic Self: Book Review - Pagan Christianity

2008-09-29T20:00:00.001-04:00

My Mystic Self: Book Review - Pagan Christianity

Here's one take on the book that I ran across this evening.

More perspectives to come...

Book: Frank Viola's Pagan Christianity? with George Barna - 1

2008-09-29T14:21:00.002-04:00

In a moment of clarity tangentially related to Pastor Farley's sermon on doing everything by the Book, Winchester Spudchecker found himself entertaining sacrilegious thoughts about the Sunday morning ritual pew pantomime at the First Bible New Testament Community Church (of Pensacola, perhaps). "Have we really been doing it by the Book?"

As startling as it may sound, almost everything that is done in our contemporary churches has no basis in the Bible....The truth is that precious little that is observed today in contemporary Christianity maps to anything found in the New Testament church. (4)

This is how the first chapter of Pagan Christianity? opens. Their point: most of our churchy traditions come from the polytheistic Roman Empire of Constantine's era, the Reformation era, and the Revivalist era.

[I]f you are a Christian who takes the New Testament seriously, [Pagan Christianity?] may lead to a crisis of conscience....
...if you happen to be one of those people who gathers with other Christians outside the pale of institutional Christianity, you will discover afresh that not only is Scripture on your side--but history stands with you as well. (7)

In light of this revelation, rebellion against the church you attend or its leadership is not an option. According to the authors, you should just leave quietly (in Pastor's face; the pastor rarely likes to lose a parishioner under any circumstance nowadays) and let the practitioners of paganism continue to live in the Matrix, where they are merely batteries feuling the institution with their checks and pocket change...or be at peace with it, Cypher. "There is a vast gulf between rebellion and taking a stand for what is right," they say on page 5. This is good advice for the trouble maker, who doesn't necessarily care about what is true: the one who likes to cause a riot over the placement of flowers or something like that. But for those of us who do care, ask the difficult questions, and attempt to peacefully seek the kingdom of God in good standing with the church organization and its leadership, a rebel label is our lot, stamped on our pictures in the church directory and database in the church office. This is where the heartbreak occurs, when the peacemaker is pegged as a troublemaker.

Is there solace in being right (if we, the honest askers of difficult questions, are), with Scripture and history on our side (if they are)?
Is anyone in this situation now, where your questions, despite your efforts to frame them with respect and love, are getting you in trouble?
Can anyone offer encouragement to these honest seekers?

By the way, Pagan Christianity? has a little brother, Reimagining Church.

Next time: Chapter 2: The Church Building

Home (Simple, Organic, New Testament, Biblical) Church Beginnings

2008-09-22T16:09:00.000-04:00

George Barna of The Barna Group thinks that there is a Revolution happening and that North American Christianity is in for or in the midst of a change...church without church as we know it.

I became familiar with the emergent (emerging, or however it is referred to now) movement and the organic church while ~~serving~~ ~~employed~~ working as Student Ministries Director at a church, spring 2003. One of my compatriots had been reading a lot of emergent literature from many of the well known authors of late. He expressed many of the same frustrations I had through years of growing up in the church, Christian college, and into professional life as a Christian and eventually into professional ministry at a church.

Truly most frustrating are the obstacles to discipleship and increasing faith within the church. That is to say, it is exceptional to find a conventional church set-up that disciples Christians to be more like Christ than they are like the world. Perhaps, then, the rule might be that conventional church set-ups are designed to make nominal disciples. (What do you think?) The obstacles I encountered as a church employee included counter-factual accusations about (perennially) shirking responsibilities listed in the job description and (once) mismanagement of budget accounts, committees, lack of assistance (usually in the form of volunteers), squelching attempts to follow biblical imperatives, seeking a particular type of parishioner ("Those are the kind of people we want at our church; it's your job to follow up with that doctor and his wife."), marginalizing people who are "not like we are", prioritizing events over relationships, lack of love for one another, divisive votes on different superficial yet all important decisions, shrinking participation with increasing ideas for ministry teams, the stress of performing on Sunday morning, and I could go on.

After about a year of prayer, thoughtful reflection, and seeking guidance from others, I decided to leave the position. During my transition from SM Director to whatever it was God was calling me to (I didn't know what was next really), a friend approached me about giving home church a try.

That's one way to begin my story relating to home church...What's yours?

Feel free to comment and add similar stories or links to other sites and blogs here.

Link: "Simple/House Church Revolution:" Introduction

Next time: The first in a series of posts on the ever more popular, revised and updated Pagan Christianity? by Frank Viola and George Barna.