BWIII on Pagan Christianity

New Testament Scholar Ben Witherington demolishes Pagan Christianity...

"First a word of disclaimer. I know Frank Viola, indeed for some years he has asked me loads of good and telling questions via email. I did not really know what his take was on various matters, but I gladly answered his questions. It is interesting to me that this book appears to take no notice of various of these answers which I have given, nor are any of my works found in the bibliography at the end of the book. Perhaps I have missed something in the minutiae of the truly minute footnotes at the bottom of each page, but now I am wondering why exactly I have answered all those questions over the years. It’s a pity.

Frank Viola is a sharp person, but neither he nor George Barna really interact in this book with the scholarly literature that would call into question their strident claims and theses. They are arguing a particular case, and so they largely cite sources that support their case, for example Robert Banks’ work on Pauline house churches comes in for heavy usage. Their claim to present us with bare historical fact and to stand always on the Biblical high ground needs to be seen for what it is from the outset--- good and powerful rhetoric meant to warm the cockles of the hearts of all who affirm Sola Scriptura, but when one actually examines some of the major claims closely, they will not stand close and critical scrutiny...

"My point in the above critique is simply this--- calling more high church worship ‘pagan’ is not only a tragedy which impoverishes the soul. It’s a travesty. And saying over and over again that there is not a shred of Biblical evidence for sacred buildings, particularly church buildings reflects both historical myopia and bad theological analysis of a theology of holiness and worship. Such a view is narrow where the Bible is not narrow, and it fails to grasp the great breadth of ways in which God can be truly, and Biblically worshipped and served, and is indeed worshipped and served around the world every single week. We do not need to be liberated from holy worship—we need to be liberated in and by it, in whatever form it may legitimately take. And that’s the Biblical truth."

more here

Comments

[Joe Miller]

Hi Bob, I just came to your post today. I recently finished an interview with Viola and Barna. Some of my conclusion reflects what I am reading from you.

I would love to read some of your specific thoughts on my summary. Maybe you could fill in some blanks with your own insights? If not, I understand. But could I then have your permission to post your comments above in my comments section?

I hope we can interact some more.

[Jim]

A fellow scholar responds incisively to Ben Witherington's review of Pagan Christianity. Read it here, http://www.paganchristianity.org/zensresponds1.htm

[Molly Hoyst]

Hi Bob,
I came to this page because I thought I might find something of interest. I am sorry, but I was very disapointed. You use sentences like, "loads of good and telling questions ". Is that supposed to be discriptive?

Here is another example of poor writing, you wrote: "calling more high church worship ‘pagan’ is not only a tragedy which impoverishes the soul". I think if you plainly state, "The Church is not a Pagan religion." That would make it clear about what you are trying to say. All statements should be brief and to the point.

Another example: You wrote, "particularly church buildings reflects both historical myopia and bad theological analysis of a theology of holiness and worship" . I am sure no one but you understands what you are trying to say here. If others don't understand your writing,
"They are just stupid, aren't they, Bob"? Sorry, I am just trying to give you some helpful criticism.

[Bob Hyatt]

Hi Molly- sorry you were disapointed (sic). I didn't write this review. As it says in the first paragraph of this entry, NT Scholar Ben Witherington did.

You wrote: "Another example: You wrote, "particularly church buildings reflects both historical myopia and bad theological analysis of a theology of holiness and worship" . I am sure no one but you understands what you are trying to say here. If others don't understand your writing,
"They are just stupid, aren't they, Bob"? Sorry, I am just trying to give you some helpful criticism."

Again, like I said, I didn't write that. And to be honest, I have no idea what you are trying to say. Maybe if you were a bit more brief and to the point?

[grace]

Gotta love it when a rant is full of errors.
Kind of loses its punch. ;)