Out of Ur Vs Pagan Christianity- the Smackdown

Rock on.

Out of Ur on the huge shortcomings of Pagan Christianity...

My concern with this book is that it is not what it claims to be. Viola argues that he has presented a careful and thorough exploration of Scripture and Church history. He simply hasn't.

In the chapter “The Pastor,” Viola’s entire biblical argument against the modern pastorate is based on the fact that the word “pastor” appears only once in the New Testament. He does reference (in parentheses) several other passages, as some of you have noted. But he does not interpret them and allow them to challenge his conclusion. Consider the following (Look these up; I can only list them):

o    James 3:1
o    1 Timothy 3:1; 5:18
o    1 Peter 5:2
o    1 Corinthians 9:9

Taken together, these passages don't mean that the pastorate ought to look like it does today. But they do make the issue more complicated than Viola acknowledges.

Regarding church history, Viola says there was no official leadership in the church until the second century. However, Clement of Rome, in the late first century, spoke of the office of bishop (and its "dignity") as if it were established fact (see his Epistle to the Corinthians). Viola also fails to acknowledge that the need for official leadership arose, in part, as a safeguard against heresy—serious heresy, like denial of the deity of Christ.

Viola glosses over the tremendous complexities of historical shifts, as the one from Roman persecution to Constantinian support of Christianity. The clarity of hindsight tells us that Constantinianism did untold damage to the church. But the church fathers must have imagined the shift as the fulfillment of God's kingdom on earth. It is little wonder, then, that they took full advantage of their liberty and built churches where they could gather in peace.

By failing to deal seriously with the messiness of history, Viola is woefully ungracious to the historical figures themselves. Men like Athanasius, John Chrysostom, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa and others in those early years of priesthood felt the full weight of their responsibility as shepherds of men’s and women’s souls. They made mistakes, to be sure, but they are brothers and sisters in Christ and, as such, deserve to be read sympathetically.

Viola’s use of sources is also a bit irresponsible. He relies too heavily on secondary sources. Other times he cites authors who do not support the whole of his position. Karl Barth (p.122), for example, disapproved of the clergy-laity distinction, but he worked firmly within the established church. After all, his magnum opus was entitled Church Dogmatics.

While failing to reference key Scriptures and glossing over historical complexity, Viola pronounces his interpretation as if every other is heresy and abomination. I could ignore the cavalier tone if it did not claim to be “immovable, historical truth.”

Read the rest here...

Comments

[Bishop]

I was just wondering if the pub where you meet is open for "business as usual" during your meetings there? We meet in a coffee shop during normal business hours on Sunday evenings, and I'm not sure that it helps what we are doing nor that it endears us to the community. We have become the "official church" of the coffee shop, but I'm really wrestling with where we are right now.

[Bob Hyatt]

Hey-

No- we meet just before they open. So, our last few minutes together are us cleaning up, rearranging tables, talking... Often customer's will wander in during this process. Many of us then hang out and eat...

I can't imagine doing what we do while they were open without really annoying the crap out of everyone :)

[Mike Morrell]

Bob, some of us http://zoecarnate.com/#relational>house church. Without paid clergy present. We practice the priesthood of all believers, and we see leadership as verb rather than noun, function rather than office.

Do you really have a problem with the way we do church? Or are you saying c'est la vie, and just wish that we house churchers would stick to our own ecclesiological sandbox without trying to deconstruct yours?

[Bob Hyatt]

"We practice the priesthood of all believers, and we see leadership as verb rather than noun, function rather than office."

Huh. Us too! :)

I have said on numerous occasions that I have no problem with house church, small church, big church (though I think certain ways of doing/being church are less healthy and they tend to cluster towards the larger end of the spectrum).

My problem (and a big problem it is) is Viola's constant assertions that certain churches have "no biblical or historical right to function" they way they do.

You know that feeling you get when someone tells you that you aren't a real church without paid, trained clergy??? I get that same feeling when people like Viola say that we can't be a real church WITH them.

[Mike Morrell]

Gotcha Bob. I understand what you mean. And for whatever it's worth, I'm not a fan of telling anyone what their form of church should or shouldn't be. At the same time, we all (at least ideally) are practicing what we believe to be best or fitting, and I think it's okay to advocate for these ideas with gusto.

BTW, what think ye of http://www.dankimball.com/vintage_faith/2008/02/house-churches.html>Dan Kimball's initial review?

[Bob Hyatt]

Dan is SUCH a nice guy... but at the end of the day, he sees exactly what I see in this book: "This book does argue that almost anything but the house church/organic church model is not healthy or biblical."

[graham]

Hi Bob,

If you're interested, I've just posted a mini-response to the review at Our of Ur. Mainly, because I didn't think it was very good.