Beresford Job video

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

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 - 9

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?

1. 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).
2. Meeting in a home or homes.
3. 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)
4. 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.

How the other side lives

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.

BW3 on PC? PART 1

"[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

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.

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

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

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.