So call me a pagan... 6

In chapter five of "Pagan Christianity?" Viola takes on the "Pastor."

Oh, Frank...

"So prevailing is the pastor in the minds of most Christians that he is often better known, more highly praised and more heavily relied upon than Jesus Himself."

When I was in College, I can remember being around some folks, and in the midst of our conversation, apparently I made a number of derogatory remarks about myself and men in general. After maybe one too many remarks from me like that, one guy looked at me and asked "Man... What did she do to you? Must have been something bad..."

Halfway through this book I'm starting to wonder who the pastor was that hurt Frank Viola so badly...

The main thesis of this chapter is: "There is not a single verse in the entire New Testament that supports the existence of the modern-day pastor! He simply did not exist in the early church."
So where did we get pastors?

Glad you asked. 

"If contemporary pastors were absent from the early church, where did they come from? And how did they rise to such a prominent position in the Christian faith? The roots of this tale are tangled and complex, and they reach as far back as the fall of man."

This chapter does indeed run from the creation and our apparent desire stemming from the Fall to "have a physical leader to bring them to God."
See, "human societies throughout history have consistently created a special caste of revered religious leaders."

Ahhh...

I love this: "We can see this instinct rear its ugly head in the history of ancient Israel. It made its first appearance during the time of Moses. Two servants of the Lord, Eldad and Medad, received God's Spirit and began to prophesy. In hasty response, a young zealot urged Moses to "restrain" them. Moses reproved the young suppressor saying he wished all of God's people could prophesy. Moses had set himself against a clerical spirit that had tried to control God's people."

I see... that's the real problem- a clerical spirit. No mention or discussion whatsoever follows of Moses' complete capitulation to that clerical spirit and the establishment of the OT Priesthood... at the command of God, of course.

It gets better- "The seeds of the contemporary pastor can even be detected in the New Testament era." Wait- I thought they couldn't be detected!- oh... he only means that when talking about the pastoral role positively. Apparently, there's all kinds of evil pastors in the NT!
"Diotrephes 'who love[d] to have the preeminence in the church, illegitimately took control of its affairs. 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."

Bastards! Sneaky pastor bastards!

"Alongside humanity's fallen quest for a human spiritual mediator is the obsession with the hierarchical form of leadership."

But wait- didn't the early church have leadership?

"That it had leaders is without dispute. But leadership was unofficial in the sense that there were no religious "offices" or sociological slots to fill... Leaders were organic, untitled, and were recognized by their service and spiritual maturity rather than by a title or an office."

Again- I think I know the kind of church Viola is arguing against. Some Baptist (and other) churches have a single "elder" (the pastor) and a board (usually called "deacons" who serve with him. Often, the cult of personality around the pastor makes these deacons a rubber stamp for him.

But seriously- has Frank not been keeping up with contemporary church trends? Seems like Barna could have filled him in, at least. I think he's arguing against a form of church that is passing from the scene, and without the radical chemo that Viola  proposes.

Here's what I see out there- a lot of protestant churches (more and more, in fact) that recognize that leadership is a team sport. That pastors and "elders" is an interchangeable term, and that while some of the elders may be paid by the church for the work they put in, all are tasked with the job of shepherding the people (and encouraging the people to do the work of ministry- not simply do it themselves).

Yes- the pastor who thinks the buck stops with him, and that he rules the church needs to read the NT again.

But here's the problem: rather than calling for Reformation of the pastoral role, the authors seem to be calling for abolishing it. "The real question is, should we support an office and a role that has no basis in the New Testament?" they ask, and would not stay for an answer...

What is wholly and completely absent from this chapter (and so far, the entire book) is a discussion of the many Pauline commands to leadership in the church as well as commands to the people about how they were to interact with their leaders.

The whole argument seems to hinge on the idea that "The Greek word translated 'pastors' is poimen. It means shepherds. Pastor, then, is a metaphor to describe a particular function in the church. It is not an office or title."

Great. What does that even mean?

All through this chapter, Viola conflates the rise of the monoepiscopate (single bishops- he mistakenly takes "mono" in the word to refer to "monarchial" rather than "one" or "single") with the  role of pastor in modern protestant churches and suggests "There is not a single verse in the entire New Testament that supports the existence of the modern-day pastor! He simply did not exist in the early church."

And therefore, should not in ours.

The whole chain of logic here is specious.

He admits that Eph 4 says: "He gave some as apostles, some as prophets, and some as evangelists and some as pastors and teachers" and he goes on to say "The word is used in the plural. It is pastors. This is significant. For whoever these "pastors" are, they are plural in the church, not singular. Consequently,  there is no biblical support for the practice of sola pastora (single pastors)"

He posits "Elders naturally emerged in a church through the process of time. They were not appointed to an external office." There's that word again... "Office." What does even that mean??? Raise your blog hand if the elders in your community occupy an "office."

"Instead they were recognized by virtue of their seniority and spiritual service to the church." Seniority, huh? Like Timothy?

"According to the New Testament, recognition of certain gifted members is something that is instinctive and organic. Every believer has the discernment to recognize those within his or her church who are gifted to carry out various ministries.
Strikingly, only three passages in the New Testament tell us that elders were publicly recognized."

And with that statement, Viola seems to attempt to sidestep the true biblical picture of eldership in the NT. What are the "only three" passages? Acts 14:23, "1 Tim 3:1ff" and "Titus 1:5ff."

"Ff" means "and following" and is used here mainly as a way to minimize what
are in actuality long passages on the qualifications of elders in the church.

The first passage, Acts 14, says this: "They preached the good news in that city and won a large number of disciples. Then they returned to Lystra, Iconium and Antioch, strengthening the disciples and encouraging them to remain true to the faith. 'We must go through many hardships to enter the kingdom of God,' they said. Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord, in whom they had put their trust."

Say what? They appointed elders?

Timothy says: "This is a trustworthy saying: “If someone aspires to be an elder, he desires an honorable position.” And the rather long list of qualifications follow.

And Paul wrote to Titus: "I left you on the island of Crete so you could complete our work there and appoint elders in each town as I instructed you." (Titus 1:5)

Now look-I'm not arguing for some "office" of elder (I'm still not even sure what that means... Does it become an office if a church holds elections for elder?)
Evergreen does it this way: The first elders were chosen by me, the church planter. Why did I do that? See Acts 14...
As for now though, the elders constantly look around the community and ask "Who is already doing the work of an elder? Who shepherds and teaches people? Who is caring for this community in that way?" When we see someone like that, a man or woman, we approach them and ask if they'd consider being an elder. If so, we work through the biblical qualifications with them, and if after that and prayer we  (the current elders) feel like we should move ahead, we bring that person before the whole community and ask for feedback. We say "We think so and so is an elder. Over the next couple of weeks, if you affirm or have some concerns about that, would you talk to us?" If nothing comes up, we do the biblical thing and "appoint them" as an elder.
Why do we do that? Why isn't it simply a matter that is "instinctive and organic... [where] every believer has the discernment to recognize those within his or her church who are gifted to carry out various ministries"?

Well, first, we really want to know who to invite to the meetings :)

Second, we need to ensure that one member of the body doesn't choose to say "Well, Brian is my elder, but not Sarah." And that's exactly what I fear would happen if we really believe that "every believer has the discernment to recognize those within his or her church who are gifted to carry out various ministries." I'm not saying that people are stupid. But I've seen enough BAD, HORRIBLY BAD elders who were unanimously elected to "the office" to know that "every believer has the discernment to recognize those within his or her church who are gifted to carry out various ministries" just ain't so.
The people should not be left out of the process... but Paul and Barnabas felt entitled as church planters and leaders in the church to appoint elders and they instructed others (like Titus and Timothy) to do the same. Someone in the church needs to compare those who desire to be elders against the biblical qualifications and taking the words/thoughts/consensus of the community into account, make the call as to whether they should be recognized as elders. In Paul's language, this would be "laying hands on" or appointing someone to the tasks of elder (defined as, among other things, teaching and preaching in 1 Tim 5).

Viola's ultimate argument is that the work of ministry should be carried by the whole community, not just one person. I've known a few churches where some would joke that they expected the pastor to do everything, but in reality, that simply doesn't happen anywhere.
The call here to work out the priesthood of the believer in community is needed. But the unhelpful rhetoric just keeps on rolling in this book.

"The contemporary pastorate rivals the functional headship of Christ in His church. It illegitimately holds the unique centrality and headship among God's people, a place reserved for only one Person- the Lord Jesus. Jesus Christ is the only head over a church and the final word to it. By his office, the pastor displaces and supplants Christ's headship by setting himself up as the human head."

Now- there's a lot of ways that last sentence could have gone down.

"The pastor often inadvertently displaces and supplants Christ's headship by setting himself up as the human head.""

"The pastor sometimes displaces and supplants Christ's headship by setting himself up as the human head."

"At his worst, the pastor displaces and supplants Christ's headship by setting himself up as the human head."

But that's not what Viola and Barna have said here. I'm a contemporary pastor, and simply by serving out my calling to elder, teach, shepherd, equip, love and correct our community, and by following the biblical model of being paid to do so (1 Tim 5:17) I am NECESSARILY, according to the language here, "displac[ing] and supplant[ing] Christ's headship." Apparently, I am the "human head" of our congregation.

Sheesh.

And worse: "For this reason, nothing so hinders the fulfillment of God's eternal purpose as does does the present day-pastoral role."

Ahh, Viola never fails to come through with that big, giant blustery overstatement! He seems bound and determined to end every single chapter this way.

So, I'm sorry.

I'm sorry that I, personally, as a present day pastor, hinder God's eternal purpose more than ANYTHING ELSE IN THE ENTIRE WORLD. More than sin, Satan, selfishness, brokenness. More than societal decay and idol worship.
"Nothing so hinders the fulfillment of God's eternal purpose as does the present day-pastoral role."

This book just gets sillier and sillier...

Comments

[Mike Swalm]

that's it. I'm giving up my pastoral role in my church and leaving my church because we at one time had a steeple. Then i can start the church of Mike where i'm the sole member led only by Jesus. i'd ask you to join, but then one of us would probably be pastoring the other, and that's heresy.

so long, cruel church.

mike.

[Fred]

Bob, shame on you for totally screwing up God's eternal purpose!

In his reaction to pastoral abuses, Viola seems to be pushing the pendulum all the way to the other extreme.

[Chris Leonardo]

"Nothing so hinders the fulfillment of God's eternal purpose as does the present day-pastoral role."

Can I just say I'm pretty much uninterested in reading Barna and Viola any longer? Barna's last one was fine but had the flaws of the new guy on the bandwagon, a little too enthusiastic that the perfect way had been discovered. Have a few Viola's on my 'to read' but am feeling far from intrigued.

Oh and Bob, what you said about the Go Go's being awesome? I agree man, and I'm quite a Bangles man myself, their 'hazy shade of winter' cover is awesome.

Now, back to hindering God's eternal purpose. Makes me feel kinda powerful, like I could have delayed it a day or so just by my work today...

[Scott]

I think what your doing is important criticism of this book, Bob. Thank you for that. I would have gotten mad and quit reading by now, but you have avoided that and actually held these claims up to Scripture. I also think you are exactly right. Viola has seen the dark side of a likely evil pastor and now wants to justify his angst. The fact that he wrote a book about it (uh... twice!) is only confirmation of Hebrews 12 teaching on the root of bitterness - by it many become defiled. Thanks for taking this on.

[Bob Hyatt]

Well... I want to be careful. It's what I'm "wondering" which is different than what I know...

As it stands, regardless of WHY the book was written, and where this animus comes from, it's there, so I'm trying to take it chapter by chapter.

Again, I'm in sympathy with many of the desires of the authors. But- their thesis that 1st church=best church and where they take the whole thing both disturb me.

Not to mention all the over-the-top sweeping broadsides...

[robbymac]

This is one of the best review series on this book that I've seen, Bob. Great biblical work!

I've read a number of Frank's other books, and they all fit this exact same pattern: he points out some good things, but instead of concluding with how churches and their leaders can be more biblical, he concludes that leaders are unbiblical (thereby ignoring Scripture) and if anyone dares to disagree with Pope Frank, they are obviously and blatantly a slave to pagan Christianity.

It's a pity that some of Frank's good questions get occluded by his (almost SOL-ish) shrillness that we all must do what he says, since he is the first person since the Apostles to recognize the true way to do church.

I keep intending to write my own review of PC, but in the meantime, this one (and the iMonk's, of course) are putting into coherent language some of my own thoughts on the book.

[ScottB]

Everything I read about this book makes me think that Frank just represents another form of fundamentalism. When are folks going to figure out that there is no pure, unenculturated form of Christianity - it will always and must always borrow extensively from its surrounding culture, because it exists in dialog with it?

[Chris]

Bob,
I guess it depends on the way you read the Mr Viola's book. You say: "Halfway through this book I'm starting to wonder who the pastor was that hurt Frank Viola so badly..." Why try placing emotional pain as the reason for Mr Viola's writing of this book? Are you so sure the Lord did not inspire him to do this?

I personally believe change is needed and if it means starting over then why not? It seems to me that the Lord, throughout His history with men, is always calling men out to something new.

You say: "I'm sorry that I, personally, as a present day pastor, hinder God's eternal purpose more than ANYTHING ELSE IN THE ENTIRE WORLD."

If you remember it was Paul, or Saul at that time, who never would of thought he was the biggest enemy to God's eternal purpose. The religious leaders though history have at times been the greatest enemy of the Lord's purpose. Jesus called the Pharisees (kind of our Pastors) of his day blind. Jesus also made sure that his disciples knew that they were not to lead men as the Pharisees did. Just because a leader calls himself a servant it does not make him one.

Throughout time when true change has happened in the church it does not start gradually but violently.
My prayer would be that we take these things before the Lord and seek Him before jumping to conclusions.

the son of a wonderful father
who was also a pastor

[Joe Miller]

Hi, an excellent alternative to Viola's book is "The Ancient Church As Family" by Dr. Joe Hellerman. His work is well researched and addresses many of the "pagan" influences on our faith. Dr. Hellerman's contribution is a blend of good history AND respectful discourse.