Particulars
of Christianity:
312
The Church Ethic
Examining the Models
Introduction
& 3 Models of Church Gatherings and Leadership
Examining the Models
Examining the Models
Conclusions and Study Expectations
Examining Church Gatherings
in the Gospels
The First Supper, Jesus'
Specific Instructions, Conclusions
Survey of Post-Ascension
Church Gatherings
Apostolic and Eldership
Functions in Acts and the Epistles
1 Corinthians 1-10 &
Introduction to 1 Corinthians 11-14
1 Corinthians 11-13
1 Corinthians 14
1 Timothy 2:12, Conclusions
on Women in Church Gatherings
Conclusions: 1 Corinthians
14, Church Gatherings & Leadership
Examining
the Models: Implications from the Trinity
Now
that we have defined the various models for church gatherings,
we can proceed to examining these models in light of the scripture.
For the most part our examination will be based upon a thorough
analysis of New Testament passages, which relate to the issue
of church gatherings. However, before we begin that part of
our investigation we can first assess some additional arguments
made by Frank Viola on behalf of his model. As we will see,
these additional arguments do not emerge from scriptural texts
which specifically deal with church gatherings. Instead, Viola
argues for his model on the basis of other scriptural truths
that he asserts are equally vital for informing us how to
conduct church gatherings and leadership.
The
first proof that we will look at is Viola’s assertion that
the triune nature of God itself establishes his model for
church gatherings and leadership. As we examine these lines
of evidence offered by Viola, we must keep in mind the essential
features of his model, which he states are required by these
scriptural truths. Here again are those defining characteristics
of Viola’s model.
1.
One, two, or three people should not dominate the leading
or teaching at church meetings or take up the majority of
the speaking.
2.
Church meetings are not defined or dominated by leading and
teaching from elders/pastors/bishops/overseers.
3.
There are no long teaching components during a church gathering.
4.
Every member, whether man or woman, has the right and the
responsibility to share and speak at the church gathering
by singing a song, reading a poem, acting out a skit, giving
a short bible commentary on a passage they read that week,
saying some encouraging words, giving a testimony of something
good God has done, or praying.
For
Frank Viola, the model comprised of these characteristics
is inevitably dictated by the community of the three Persons
of God. In the following quotes, Viola explains how the equality
of the three Persons of God itself requires equality (rather
than hierarchy) in the church and its gatherings.
As
such, the DNA of the
church will always reflect these four elements: 1. It
will always express the headship of Jesus Christ in His church
as opposed to the headship of a human being. (I’m using the
term “headship” to refer to the idea that Christ is both the
authority and the source of the church.) 2. It will always
allow for and encourage the every-member functioning of the
body. 3. It will always map to the theology that’s contained
in the New Testament, giving it visible expression on the
earth. 4. It will always
be grounded in the fellowship of the triune God. – Frank
Viola, Reimagining Church,
Chapter 1, Reimagining
Church
as an Organism, page 41
4.
You said the Trinity is noted for its mutuality. Yet don’t
John 14:28 and 1 Corinthians 11:3 teach that there is a hierarchy
in the Godhead? No. These passages have in view the Son’s
temporal relationship as a human being who voluntarily submitted
Himself to His Father’s will. In the Godhead, the Son and the Father experience
communality and mutual submission. It is for this reason that historic orthodoxy rejects the eternal subordination
of the Son of God. It instead accepts the temporal subordination
of the Son in His incarnation. – Frank Viola, Pagan Christianity, Final Thoughts, page 265
There
is a unified God – a plural in oneness. God is one Being in
three persons – all of whom are diverse, but not separate.
The Greek word koinonia
– which means fellowship – takes us to the heart of New Testament
ecclesiology. Koinonia reflects the unified
diversity inherent in the Trinity. And it is what characterized
the first-century church. – Frank Viola, Reimagining Church, Chapter 6, Reimagining Church Unity,
page 131
Let’s
return to our discussion of mutual subjection to the archetype
of the church: the Godhead. Because mutual
subjection is based in love, it’s rooted in the very nature
of the triune God. God, by nature, is Community. The one
God is made up of a Community of three persons who eternally
share Their lives with one another. Within the Godhead, the
Father pours Himself into the Son. In turn, the Son gives
Himself unreservedly to the Father. And the Spirit, as the
Holy Mediator, pours Their love from each to each. Within
this divine dance of love, there exists no hierarchy. There
exists no control. There exists no authoritarianism. There
exists no conflict of interests. Instead, there is mutual
love, mutual fellowship, and
mutual subjection. – Frank Viola, Reimagining
Church, Chapter 12, Reimagining Authority and Submission,
page 225
The
church is the community of the King. As such,
it’s called to mirror
the reciprocal love relationship that eternally flows within
the triune God. Thus within the fellowship of the church,
there is mutual subjection governed by mutual love. There
is no hierarchy, no control, and no authoritarianism.
– Frank Viola, Reimagining Church, Chapter 12, Reimagining
Authority and Submission, page 226
Stated
simply, the Trinitarian
nature of God serves as both the source and the model for
all human community. And it is within the love relationship
of the Godhead that the principle of mutual subjection finds
its true value. – Frank Viola, Reimagining Church, Chapter 12, Reimagining
Authority and Submission, page 227
Mutual
subjection, therefore, isn’t a human concept. It
instead stems from the communal and reciprocal nature of the
eternal God. And it is that very nature that the ekklesia
is called to bear. In
this way, mutual subjection enables us to behold the face
of Christ in the very fabric and texture of organic
church life. – Frank Viola, Reimagining
Church, Chapter 12, Reimagining Authority and Submission,
page 227
As
reflected in the quotes above and as he explains in his book,
Viola sees the eternal equality of the three Persons of God
as a model that creates the “DNA of the church.” The essential
point for Viola is that the subordination and hierarchy seen
in the Godhead after the incarnation of the Word does not
pertain to the eternal state of the Godhead prior to creation.
In this respect, Viola is one hundred percent correct. The
subordination of the Word of God to the Father is clearly
a post-creation issue that is not biblically ascribed to the
Godhead prior to creation.
For
Viola, this eternal equality of the divine Persons provides
the exact model that Jesus Christ established for his church.
In Viola’s understanding, because the Persons of God are co-equal
with shared authority prior to creation, in the same way the
believers in the church are to be without hierarchy in their
relationships with one another now. Since prior to creation
submission within the Godhead was mutual rather than directional,
there will be no hierarchical leadership structures in the
church. This, at least, is Viola’s argument.
Now
it is undeniably correct to ascribe co-equality to the Persons
of the Trinity prior to creation. And it is absolutely clear
that after creation the Word voluntarily takes a subordinated
position to the Father, which culminates ultimately in the
incarnation. Two things, however, are decisively less clear.
First,
where does Viola get the notion that there is mutual subordination
within the Godhead? While we can easily point to the incarnation
of as an example of the Word subordinating Himself to the
Father, what examples or indications to do we have that the
Father subordinates Himself to the Son? In order for subordination
to be mutual it has to be engaged in by both parties, but
we have no instances or indications of the Father subordinating
Himself to the Son at any point.
What
we see in the scriptural depiction of the Godhead cannot accurately
be categorized as mutual subordination. Instead, what we see
in the bible is directional and hierarchical subordination
wherein the Son voluntarily subordinates Himself to the Father,
but the Father is never seen as subordinating Himself to the
Son. If, as Viola suggests, church leadership is to be based
on what we see exemplified in the Godhead, then we must conclude
that church leadership is not characterized by mutual subordination.
If the Trinity is our model for church leadership and the
Trinity doesn’t exemplify mutual subordination then neither
will church leadership.
Second,
why does the pre-creation equality of the divine Trinity bear
any weight on the nature of church leadership and gatherings?
In
Viola’s mind, the connection is apparent. And yet neither
of his books addresses or explains why this must be the case.
From a purely hypothetical standpoint it is just as possible
that the temporal subordination and hierarchical positioning
of the Word under the Father provides an essential modeling
for church gatherings and leadership. It is therefore equally
possible that because the process of our salvation involves
the temporary subordination and hierarchical structuring of
the Godhead, so also the process of our salvation requires
temporary subordination and hierarchical structuring of the
church itself.
The
relevant scriptural passages that would touch on this subject
provide no indication that we must accept Viola’s position
over the equally plausible alternative involving temporary
subordination and hierarchy. Consider, for example, John 17:11
and 22-23 along with John 14:19-20 in which Jesus compares
the community of his followers to the unity He shares with
the Father.
John 17:11 And now I am no more in the
world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy
Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou
hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
John 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest
me I have given them; that
they may be one, even as we are one: 23 I
in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect
in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me,
and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
John 14:19 Yet a little while, and the
world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye
shall live also. 20 At that day ye shall know that I am
in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.
In
these passages, Jesus clearly relates our fellowship and unity
to the unity He has with the Father. However, even as Jesus
says these words He is himself in a position of hierarchical
subordination to the Father for the purposes of accomplishing
our salvation.
Notice
also that in these same passages Jesus equally relates our
being in Him and His being in us to His being in the Father
and the Father being in him. However, in Jesus’ own words
this concept of “being in” is directly tied to obedience.
His being in the Father and the Father’s being in Him are
due to His subordinating himself to the Father’s will through
His obedience. The same is true of us. Our being in Christ
and Christ’s being in us are inherently bound by our obedience
to His commands and teachings. Below is some of the surrounding
context for the statements from Jesus that we just quoted
above.
John 10:17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that
I might take it again. 18 No man taketh it from me, but I
lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I
have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.
John 12:49 For I have not spoken of myself;
but the Father which
sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and
what I should speak. 50 And I know that his commandment
is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.
John 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the
words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the
Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. 11 Believe
me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me:
or else believe me for the very works’ sake.
John
14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments….21
He that hath my commandments,
and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth
me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will
manifest myself to him. 23 Jesus answered and said unto
him, If a man love
me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and
we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. 24
He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear
is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me. 25 These
things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with
you.
John
14:31 But that the world may know that I love the Father;
and as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do. Arise,
let us go hence.
John 15:7 If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye
will, and it shall be done unto you. 8 Herein is my Father
glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples.
9 As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love.
10 If ye keep my
commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept
my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love….20 Remember
the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater
than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also
persecute you; if they
have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.
These
passages make plain that whatever connection exists in Viola’s
mind between the eternal equality of the Trinity and the church
is not at all scripturally apparent. In fact, the very passages,
which do relate the unity and fellowship of the Godhead to
the unity and fellowship of the church do so in direct correlation
to subordination, obedience, and hierarchy. It seems that,
the only implications we would be able derive from the scripture
itself on this subject is the opposite of what Viola proposes.
Contrary to Viola’s view, the words of Jesus recorded for
us in John 12, 14, 15, and 17 would lead us to expect that
just as there is temporary submission and hierarchy in the
Godhead since creation in order to accomplish salvation, there
will also be temporary subordination and hierarchy within
the church.
In
short, concerning the model for church leadership and church
gatherings, nothing necessarily follows from the Triune nature
of God. If anything, the Word’s voluntary post-creation submission
to the Father and the absence of any scriptures attesting
to the Father submitting to the Word would argue equally in
favor of the need for a temporary hierarchy and submission
to it in the church.
Examining
the Models: the Priesthood of All Believers
Another
proof, which Viola offers for a non-hierarchical model of
church leadership and gatherings, relates to comments that
Peter makes in his first epistle.
1 Peter 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable
to God by Jesus Christ.
1 Peter 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy
nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises
of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous
light:
In
these two verses Peter states that the church is a priesthood
and that we are all priests. The Book of Revelation speaks
similarly.
Revelation 1:6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him
be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
Revelation 5:10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign
on the earth.
Revelation 20:6 Blessed and holy is
he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second
death hath no power, but
they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign
with him a thousand years.
From
these scriptural statements Viola argues that since all Christians
are priests, therefore there are no special functions reserved
only for particular believers during times of corporate worship
and fellowship. (Viola refers to Peter’s epistle throughout
the quotes below. In the second quote Viola even references
the “living stones” of 1 Peter 2:5.)
Footnote
138: “The priesthood
of all believers refers not only to each person’s relation
to God and to one’s priesthood to neighbors, as in Luther,
it refers also to the equality of all people in the Christian community with
respect to formal function.” John Dillenberger and Claude
Welch, Protestant Christianity: Interpreted through
Its Development (New York: Macmillan Company, 1988), 61.
– Frank Viola, Pagan Christianity, Chapter 5, The Pastor:
Obstacle to Every-Member Functioning, page 128
The
unscriptural clergy/laity distinction has done untold harm
to the body of Christ. It has divided the believing community
into first and second-class Christians. The clergy/laity dichotomy
perpetuates an awful falsehood – namely, that some Christians
are more privileged than others to serve the Lord. The one-man
ministry is entirely foreign to the New Testament, yet we
embrace it while it suffocates our functioning. We are living stones, not dead ones. However, the pastoral office
has transformed us into stones that do not breathe. Permit
us to get personal. We believe the pastoral office has stolen
your right to function as a full member of Christ’s body.
It has distorted the reality of the body, making the pastor
a giant mouth and transforming you into a tiny ear. It has
rendered you a mute spectator who is proficient at taking
sermon notes and passing an offering plate. But that is not
all. The modern-day
pastoral office has overthrown the main thrust of the letter
to the Hebrews – the ending of the old priesthood. It
has made ineffectual the teaching of 1 Corinthians 12-14,
that every member has both the right and the privilege to
minister in a church gathering.
It has voided the message of 1 Peter 2 that every brother
and sister is a functioning priest. Being a functioning priest
does not mean that you may only perform highly restrictive
forms of ministry like singing songs in your pew, raising
your hands during worship, setting up the PowerPoint presentation,
or teaching a Sunday school class. That
is not the New Testament idea of ministry! – Frank Viola,
Pagan Christianity, Chapter 5, The Pastor:
Obstacle to Every-Member Functioning, pages 136-137
The
first-century church meeting is deeply rooted in biblical
theology. It made real and practical the New Testament doctrine
of the priesthood of all believers – a doctrine that all
Evangelicals affirm with their lips. And what is that doctrine?
In the words of Peter,
it is the doctrine that all
believers in Christ are spiritual priests called to offer
up “spiritual sacrifices” unto their Lord. In Paul’s language,
it’s the idea that all Christians are functioning members of Christ’s body.
– Frank Viola, Reimagining Church,
Chapter 2, Reimagining the Church Meeting, page 55-56
Open-participatory
church meetings are solidly based on the well-established
doctrine of the priesthood of all believers and the every-member
functioning of the body of Christ. – Frank Viola, Reimagining Church,
Chapter 14, Reimagining the Apostolic Tradition, page 248
As
we read these passages from Viola’s books, he makes it clear
that in his mind the equal, open-participatory meetings that
he envisions directly result from the priesthood of all believers.
What remains unclear is how the priesthood of all believers
requires that all believers function in the same ways or participate
equally during church gatherings.
Again,
a look at the biblical texts themselves breaks down Viola’s
deductions. In his epistle (which Viola himself references)
Peter is applying an Old Testament statement about Israel to the New Testament church.
Specifically, Peter is quoting Moses who, in Exodus 19, recorded
God’s own words when the First Covenant was inaugurated between
God and Israel.
Exodus
19:5 Now therefore, if
ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye
shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people:
for all the earth is mine: 6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These
are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children
of Israel.
7 And Moses came and called for the elders of the people,
and laid before their faces all these words which the LORD
commanded him.
Likewise,
even Peter’s use of the phrase “a peculiar people” is a quote
of Moses’ words about the Israelites in the Old Testament
as recorded in Deuteronomy 7.
Deuteronomy
7:6 For thou art an holy people unto the
LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special
people unto himself, above all people that are
upon the face of the earth.
For
comparison here again is 1 Peter 2:9.
1 Peter 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that
ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you
out of darkness into his marvellous light:
So,
in Viola’s view, the church is different than Old Testament
Israel
simply because in the church we are all priests. Since we
are all priests he reasons that we all function equally in
corporate worship and there is therefore no special function
which is reserved for some but not all. Viola directly contrasts
this concept with the Old Testament priesthood where various
roles and functions of corporate worship were limited to particular
persons and not available for any and all. And yet, the very
passage that Viola quotes as the basis of his view has Peter
describing the priesthood of the church with an Old Testament
description of Israel.
In
Exodus 19:5-6, the priesthood is applied to the whole nation
of Israel,
to all of God’s people. Within that nation of priests, out
of twelve tribes only one particular tribe was given special
responsibilities and functions in regard to the nation’s service
to God. Within that tribe (the tribe of Levi), one particular
family (the family of Aaron) was given special duties and
responsibilities. And within that family, one particular man
held the particular office of high priest along with all its
sacred and special duties, which no one else could perform.
Since
Peter is applying an Old Testament description of the nation
of Israel
to the church, it inevitably follows that whatever Peter is
saying is true for the church was also true for Israel.
If Peter uses Exodus 19:5-6 to say that everyone in the church
is a priest, then he can only do so because Exodus 19 similarly
says that all of God’s people are priests. The language of
both passages is the same. Peter is referencing an Old Testament
truth and applying it to the church of both Jewish and Gentile
believers.
In
light of this fact, Viola’s logic that the priesthood of all
rules out hierarchy, inequality, or limitation of function
fails miserably. The obvious reason for this failure is that
the priesthood of the entire nation of Israel
involved hierarchy, inequality, and limitation of function
during corporate gatherings and the service of God in general.
Consequently, the application of this Old Testament phrase
to the priesthood of all New Testament believers cannot be
taken to inherently rule out hierarchy, inequality, or limitation
of function or participation among the priests. In the Old
Testament they were all priests, too, just as we are in Christ.
And yet they did not all function or participate equally in
their priestly services. Therefore, we cannot conclude that
because we are all priests in the New Covenant, that we should
all have equal function and participation in our gatherings.
In fact, Peter’s application of the priesthood of Israel to
the New Testament church implies that just as the priestly
nation of Israel had specialized and hierarchical function
among its members, so will the church of Jesus Christ.
Examining
the Models: One-Anothering and Mutual Ministry
One
of the proofs that Frank Viola offers in his books in support
of his model for church gatherings and leadership is the concept
of what he calls “one-anothering.” For Viola, this term (“one-anothering”)
is synonymous with the idea of mutual ministry where every
believer present at a church gathering has the right and responsibility
to participate, share, and function equally. As we have seen
from his model, Viola believes that this notion of everyone
participating or “one-anothering” was the chief characteristic
of New Testament church meetings.
The
early Christians gathered in open-participatory meetings where
all believers shared their experience of Christ, exercised
their gifts, and sought to edify one another. No one was a spectator. All were given the privilege and the responsibility to participate.
The purpose of these church meetings was twofold. It was for the mutual edification
of the body. It was also to make visible the Lord Jesus
Christ through the every-member functioning of His body. –
Frank Viola, Pagan Christianity, Chapter 12, A Second Glance at the Savior: Jesus,
the Revolutionary, page 243
Again,
“one-anothering” was the dominant ingredient of the early
church gathering. – Frank Viola, Reimagining Church,
Chapter 2, Reimagining the Church Meeting, pages 52-53
As
Paul pulls back the curtain of the first-century church gathering in 1 Corinthians 11-14, we see
a meeting where every
member is actively involved. Freedom, openness, and spontaneity
are the chief marks of this meeting. “One
another” is its dominant feature – mutual edification
its primary goal. – Frank Viola, Reimagining Church,
Chapter 2, Reimagining the Church Meeting, pages 53
For
Viola, proof that New Testament church meetings involved every
member participating and functioning equally comes through
the New Testament occurrences of the phrase “one another.”
The
spirit of “one-anothering” pervaded the entire meeting. It’s
no wonder that the New Testament uses the phrase one
anothering nearly sixty times. Each
member came to the meeting knowing that he or she had the
privilege and the responsibility to contribute something of
Christ. (Incidentally, women had both the right and the
privilege to participate in the meetings of the church. See
endnote for details.) 6 – Frank Viola, Reimagining Church,
Chapter 2, Reimagining the Church Meeting, pages 55
On
pages 186 and 187 of Reimagining Church,
Viola provides a list of one-anothering passages. Here are
the “one another” verses that Viola lists.
-
be devoted to one another (Rom. 12:10)
-
honor one another (Rom. 12:10)
-
live in harmony with one another (Rom. 12:16; 1 Peter 3:8)
-
love one another (Romans 13:8; 1 Thess. 4:9;
1 Peter 1:22; 1 John 3:11)
-
edify one another (Rom. 14:19; 1 Thess. 5:11b)
-
accept one another (Rom. 15:7)
-
admonish one another (Rom. 15:14)
-
greet one another (Rom. 16:16)
-
agree with one another (1 Cor. 1:10)
-
care for one another (1 Cor. 14:31)
-
serve one another (Gal. 5:13)
-
bear one another’s burdens (Gal. 6:2)
-
bear with one another (Eph. 4:2)
-
be kind and compassionate to one another (Eph. 4:32)
-
speak to one another with psalms, hymns,
and spiritual songs (Eph. 5:19)
-
submit to one another (Eph. 5:21)
-
forgive one another (Col. 3:13)
-
teach one another (Col. 3:16)
-
admonish one another (Col. 3:16)
-
encourage one another (1 Thess. 5:11)
-
exhort one another (Heb. 3:13; 10:25)
-
incite one another to love and good works (Heb. 10:24)
-
pray for one another (James 5:16)
-
confess sins to one another (James 5:16)
-
offer hospitality to one another (1 Peter 4:9)
-
be humble toward one another (1 Peter 5:5)
-
fellowship with one another (1 John 1:7)
After
reading these references or perhaps even looking at the verses
in context, one could easily ask, how do we know that these
statements are referring to church gatherings? Being able
to answer this question is absolutely critical to Viola’s
argument. And yet, he doesn’t even seem to see it coming or
recognize the need to prove that these verses are talking
about church gatherings. In his book, Viola provides no further
explanation of these passages. He simply lists them and then
concludes with the following quote.
With
dramatic clarity, all of these “one-another” exhortations
incarnate the fact that every member of the church is to share
the responsibility for pastoral care. Leadership is a corporate
affair, not a solo one. It is to be shouldered by the entire
body. Consequently, the idea that elders direct the affairs
of the church, make decisions in all corporate matters, handle
all of its problems, and supply all of its teaching is alien to
New Testament thinking. Such an idea is pure fantasy and bereft
of biblical support. – Frank Viola, Reimagining Church,
Chapter 9, Reimagining Oversight, page 187
But
again, how do we know that these passages are instructions
for what we are to do when we gather together for church?
How does Viola know that these passages are referring to church
gatherings?
First,
this is a very weak argument that Viola offers here. It operates
entirely on circular reasoning. It works like this. How do
we know that church meetings are characterized by every member
participating and sharing equally with one another? Well,
the New Testament speaks repeatedly about our loving one another,
caring for one another, forgiving one another, etc. But how
do we know those instructions pertain to church gatherings?
Well, we know these “one another” instructions pertain to
church gatherings because “one-anothering” is a chief characteristic
of New Testament church gatherings. But then the first question
resurfaces. How do we know that the chief characteristic of
New Testament church gatherings is every member ministering
to one another by participating, sharing, and functioning
equally? The passages containing “one another” instructions
are first presented as proof for a particular model of church
gatherings. But in the end, it becomes necessary to first
presume a “one another” style of gathering in order to justify
associating all these passages with church gatherings. In
other words, only if we first assume that “one anothering”
is a key feature of New Testament gatherings can we conclude
that “one another” passages are referring to church gatherings.
Second,
the context of these passages makes it clear that these “one
another” instructions are general rules for Christian living,
and do not referring to the much more specific topic of church
gatherings at all. Consider Romans 12:10, which tells us to
honor one another. Are we only to honor one another at church
gatherings or is this an instruction to close-knit communities
about living together
with one another in general? Or what about Romans 13:8, which
says “love one another?” Are we only to love one another at
church gatherings? Or are we to live with love towards one
another throughout our daily lives together? The same can
be said of all of these “one another” references, which all
seem to speak simply of Christians living in loving, supportive,
caring, honoring relationships and behaving toward one another
with kindness and compassion. There is nothing in any of these
passages or their context, which indicates that the New Testament
authors intended them as directions for how to conduct a church
gathering. This remains nothing more than Viola’s assumption.
Again,
it must be said that nowhere in his books does Viola attempt
to provide an answer to these essential questions. The only
answer he does provide is his own conclusion that church meetings
are characterized by everyone participating and functioning
equally. But again, how does he know that? Verses such as
these don’t themselves lend any support to Viola’s conclusion
unless one has already decided that his conclusion is valid.
But if one has already decided that Viola’s conclusion is
valid what need is there to support it with verses such as
these? Without that conclusion in place we would likely conclude
that these are simply instructions that Christians live with
love and care for one another, not necessarily having any
bearing on what structure a church gathering should have.
When
we come to Viola’s mention of Hebrews 10:25, however, we find
that there is, in fact, a specific reference to “gathering
together.”
Hebrews 10:23 Let us hold fast the profession
of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful
that promised;) 24 And
let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good
works: 25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some
is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching. 26 For if we
sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of
the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
27 But a certain fearful
looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall
devour the adversaries.
First,
let us notice that these verses from Hebrews 10 is not a chapter
discussing what happens in “church gatherings.” Verse 23 tells
the readers to hold fast to their profession of faith. Is
this an instruction for church gatherings? Not at all. Instead,
it is a reference for Christians to remain faithful without
doubting. Verse 26, is speaking about sinning after receiving
the knowledge of the truth. Is it only forbidding sinning
during church gatherings? Obviously not. It is simply an instruction
for Christian living in general and does not pertain to church
meetings. It is clear then that verses 23 and 26 don’t pertain
to church gatherings, but what about verse 24? Verse 24 simply
instructs the Christians to consider one another and to encourage
each other unto love and good works. So, there is nothing
in verse 24 in and of itself that would lead us to conclude
the author of Hebrews is instructing Christians regarding
how to conduct church gatherings.
It
isn’t until we get to the next statement, in verse 25 that
we find mention of church gatherings. But so far this seems
to be a series of instructions whose only connection to one
another is that they all relate to staying part of the Christian
community including holding to the faith, being considerate
of one another, encouraging each other toward love and good
works, not sinning after they’ve come to Christ, and not abandoning
church gatherings. In short, rather than “considering one
another” being a description of the “church gathering,” instead
“considering one another” and the “gathering at church” are
listed as separate items on a list of related items. The only
comment made about the “church gatherings” in verse 25 is
that Christians should not stop going to them. But nothing
in this passage provides any information about the features
of the church gathering itself.
Second,
it is important to note that while the English translation
of verse 25 does include the words “one another” after the
word “exhorting,” most Bible translations render the phrase
“one another” in italics, which indicates that it doesn’t
actually appear in the Greek text of the verse. The Greek
merely says “but exhorting.” The word “exhorting” is rendered
in the participle form, which is equivalent to having an “-ed”
or “-ing” ending on an English verb. And it follows the Greek
word “alla,” which means “but.” Because of this conjunction
“but,” it might be assumed that the author’s intention is
to contrast not gathering together with encouraging. And that
is sound enough reasoning. However, a mere contrast between
“gathering together” and “encouraging” alone would not necessarily
have implications for the entire overall structure and format
of the meetings. It could very well be the case that “encouraging”
contrasts to “not gathering together” because Christians are
encouraged merely by seeing each other at the meetings. This
would not at all imply that the format of the meetings involves
Christians vocally encouraging one another by every member
ministering in an open-participatory manner. And even if we
assume that the encouraging is vocal, this still does not
necessitate that the encouraging dominates the very structure
of the meetings. After all, even the monopolized Pseudo-traditional
model of today often includes an interval for Christians to
greet and encourage one another. So, even if we assume that
the encouraging occurs during the gathering that would not
necessarily overturn other passages describing a structure
in which elders generally dominate the speaking and teaching.
But
more importantly, it would appear that the phrase “but encouraging”
does not necessarily relate to the structure of the gatherings
at all. Once again we note that the phrase “one another” is
not present in verse 25, but is an interpolation inserted
by the translators. The Greek simply says “encouraging.” The
phrase “but encouraging” should not be connected with the
statements before it about gathering together. Instead, the
context indicates that it is more accurate to connect “but
encouraging” with the long statement that follows after it.
Consider the content of verses 26-27. Here the author speaks
of losing the atonement for sin and states that, in such a
case, all that remains is a fearful waiting for judgment.
Clearly the phrase “but encouraging” is meant as part of this
lengthy statement. The author is not telling his audience
that encouraging one another in
general and diverse ways is part of the structure for
church gatherings. Instead, he is telling his audience that
as Christ’s return draws ever nearer, they should be giving
the very specific exhortation that for
those Christians who willfully turn away from Christ, nothing
remains except condemnation. Instead of forsaking the church
gatherings themselves in verse 25, in verse 26 they should
be exhorting that forsaking Christ leads to eternal damnation.
Consequently, neither the occurrence of the phrase, “exhorting
one another,” nor the contrast of that phrase to “forsaking
church gatherings” is intended as a statement about the type
of general and diverse forms of encouragement that Viola asserts
define the structure of church gatherings. It is simply a
very specific exhortation to go to such gatherings contrasted
to a prohibition against forsaking those gatherings.
Therefore,
we can learn nothing more about the features and conduct of
church gatherings from Hebrews 10:25 than we can from any
of these other “one another” passages. All the passages provide
are general instructions for Christian living. They do not
provide indications or instructions that church meetings should
involve every member participating and functioning equally.
To force that conclusion from the text is an exercise of circular
reasoning and a clear example of taking unrelated verses,
lifting them from their contexts, and unjustifiably connecting
them simply to support a presupposed conclusion or pet doctrine.
Viola himself repudiates such interpretive practices, as we
will see after the next section.
Examining
the Models: The New Testament as a Guide
Another
issue raised by Frank Viola in his books, which is relevant
to the question of how we study the New Testament, is the
question of how to interpret scripture. In both Pagan
Christianity and Reimagining Church, Viola explains that modern deviations
from New Testament church gatherings and leadership are due
to inadequate and faulty methods of interpreting the bible.
Contrarily, he claims that correct methodology will result
in the model that he has put forward in his books.
The
first problem that Viola points to as one of the culprits
for today’s false systems of church gatherings and leadership
is what he calls “biblical blueprintism.” In the quote below,
Viola explains what he means by this term and why he feels
it is faulty.
As
stated in chapter 1, some hold to the concept of “biblical blueprintism.” According to this paradigm,
the New Testament is a detailed manual for church practice.
We simply need to study the practices of the
early church, imitate them, and presto, we’ll have a “New
Testament church.” But this viewpoint is flawed on two counts.
First, it turns the New Testament into a modern replica of
ancient Judaic Law. Second, those who hold to the biblical blueprint model disagree with one
another as to which practices ought to be followed to create
a “New Testament church.” – Frank Viola, Reimagining Church,
Chapter 14, Reimagining the Apostolic Tradition, page 243
Note
the two reasons Viola identifies as the faults behind this
view. We will cover these two arguments as we proceed into
further examination of Viola’s quotes on this topic below.
According
to Viola, “biblical blueprintism” is the view that the New
Testament serves as a guide for church practice whose instructions
are accessed by studying the practices of the early church
and imitating them. In the next few quotes, Viola provides
further explanation of what he views as the first flaw of
“biblical blueprintism.” (We’ll repeat the first quote from
above for emphasis.)
As
stated in chapter 1, some hold to the concept of “biblical
blueprintism.” According to this paradigm, the New Testament
is a detailed manual for church practice. We simply need to
study the practices of the early church, imitate them, and
presto, we’ll have a “New Testament church.” But this viewpoint is flawed on two counts.
First, it turns the New Testament into a modern replica of
ancient Judaic Law. Second, those who hold to the biblical
blueprint model disagree with one another as to which practices
ought to be followed to create a “New Testament church.” –
Frank Viola, Reimagining Church,
Chapter 14, Reimagining the Apostolic Tradition, page 243
Long
ago I learned an invaluable lesson: The
New Testament should never be handled as a manual of floatable
doctrines and isolated teachings. The New Testament is
a whole. It’s essentially a story. What is written in the
letters of Paul and others is part of that story. The New
Testament story contains a consistent message. It’s the message
of the New Covenant. This covenant is not an updating
of the Old Covenant. It doesn’t include a new set of rules to
replace the old set of rules. The Old Covenant contained a
set of rules by which men and women were to live. – Frank
Viola, Reimagining A Woman’s Role in the Church, An Open Letter,
page 2
When
Jesus Christ entered the scene, all of this radically changed.
Our Lord inaugurated a New Covenant which made the old one
obsolete. The New Covenant did away with rules.
– Frank Viola, Reimagining A Woman’s Role in the Church, An
Open Letter, page 3
For
this reason, the New
Testament doesn’t supply us with a detailed blueprint for
church practice. It’s a gross mistake, therefore, to try to
tease out of the apostolic letters an inflexible code of church
order that’s as unalterable as the law of the Medes and
Persians. Such a written
code belongs to the other side of the cross. This, of
course, doesn’t mean that the New Testament is silent when
it comes to church practice. It certainly isn’t. But the
New Testament isn’t a manual for church practice. It’s
rather a record of how the living, breathing organism called
the ekklesia expresses
herself on earth. – Frank Viola, Reimagining Church,
Chapter 14, Reimagining the Apostolic Tradition, page 244
As
Viola himself explains, the reason he feels that it is wrong
to view the New Testament as a guide for church practice is
because the New Testament doesn’t include rules that we must
follow. This in essence is what Viola refers to as the first
flaw of “biblical blueprintism.” Viola isn’t simply saying
that the New Testament is much more than a detailed set of
rules, he is objecting to the idea that the New Testament
contains any set of rules at all.
There
are several major problems with Viola’s statements here.
First,
Viola’s view of the New Testament is utterly false. Surely,
the New Testament contains rules by which Christian men and
women are to live. To claim otherwise is to throw out the
authority and purpose of the scriptures altogether. Is Viola
claiming that “anything goes” after the cross? That’s what
his comments indicate.
Consider
that according to Viola, God did away with rules and teachings
about how we are to live when He replaced the Old Covenant
with the New Covenant. This means that for Viola, the New
Testament didn’t update, modify, remove, suspend, replace,
or add to Old Testament rules. Instead, according to Viola,
the New Testament did away with rules altogether. Viola’s
view on this isn’t merely inadequate, it’s completely wrong.
In our studies titled “The Redemption” and “Liberty
in Christ,” we show from the New Testament itself that Jesus
did establish a new covenant that did contain laws and that
the authors of the New Testament repeatedly described Jesus’
teaching in such terms.
Second,
as we might guess, Viola is not only falsely depicting the
New Testament, but he is also grossly misrepresenting his
own view in contrast to “biblical blueprintism.” For instance,
surely Frank Viola would agree that Jesus commanded us to
love one another? Doesn’t that constitute a rule? Do Christians
have to believe in the resurrection of Christ? If so, can’t
we call that a rule?
Of
course, unless he foolishly wishes to split hairs and argue
semantics, Frank Viola would agree that these are rules. (And
no doubt he would agree that there are other rules also.)
But beyond that, how can someone write several books citing
New Testament passages to build their case for what church
gatherings and leadership should and should not be, if they
don’t believe the New Testament contains an instructive model
for church practice? Consider Viola’s next quote.
Point:
Technical correctness
and outward conformity to a prescribed form of church has
never been God’s desire. – Frank Viola, Reimagining Church,
Chapter 14, Reimagining the Apostolic Tradition, page 243
How
can Viola say such things? Doesn’t Viola consider it a matter
of technical correctness that church leadership is not hierarchical
and authoritarian? Doesn’t Viola believe that it is technically
incorrect for church meetings to be dominated week after week
by one or two persons? Of course he does. The following quotes
all show that Viola believes the New Testament clearly provides
rules for church practice.
The
truth is that there are numerous practices of the early church
that are normative for us today. These practices are not
culturally conditioned. – Frank Viola, Reimagining Church,
Chapter 14, Reimagining the Apostolic Tradition, page 248
Point:
Normative apostolic
commands are binding
on the contemporary church. But normative apostolic practices are as well. By normative, I mean those practices that
contain a spiritual subtext and are the outworking of the
organic nature of the body of Christ. Such practices are not
purely narrative. They carry prescriptive force. This means
that they reflect the unchanging nature of God Himself. And
they naturally emerge whenever God’s people live by divine
life together – irrespective of culture or time. In
that connection the Book of Acts and the Epistles are awash
with references to the apostolic tradition. In
1 Corinthians 4:17, Paul declares how he taught
his ways “everywhere
in every church.” To Paul’s mind, doctrine and duty – belief
and behavior, life and practice – are inseparable. In
short, that which is included in the apostolic tradition is
normative for all churches yesterday and today. The exhortations
of Paul to “hold firmly to the traditions just as I delivered
them to you” and to practice what “you have learned and received
and heard and seen in me” are the considerations that should
guide our church life. – Frank Viola, Reimagining Church,
Chapter 14, Reimagining the Apostolic Tradition, pages 247-248
According
to Viola, apostolic commands and practices are binding and
carry prescriptive force. He even quotes New Testament passages
providing examples of commands, which are prescriptive “for
all churches yesterday and today.” So, isn’t it obvious that
the New Testament therefore contains “rules” for church practice?
Of course it is.
In
addition, as we have seen Viola himself argues that the modern,
institutional system of church gatherings and leadership is
a violation of the New Testament. How could Viola even make
such a claim if he does not believe that the modern, institutional
church system is breaking some of the rules laid down in the
New Testament? It is clear that Viola himself believes that
the New Testament offers rules for church practice. Otherwise
he could not write several books and online articles citing
New Testament passages to support his view of what the churches
gatherings and leadership should and should not be.
Either
Frank Viola is being intentionally dishonest about his own
opinion or he is speaking foolishly without fully realizing
what he is saying.
Third
and finally, since Viola himself uses the New Testament as
a manual of rules for Christian living and church practice,
he is wrong to identify this as a point of distinction that
separates his model from other models. In the first quote
from Viola that we looked at on this issue, he listed two
flaws with “biblical blueprintism.” The second flaw was that
those who wish to use the New Testament as a guide for church
practice “all disagree with one another as to which practices
ought to be followed.”
As
stated in chapter 1, some hold to the concept of “biblical
blueprintism.” According to this paradigm, the New Testament
is a detailed manual for church practice. We simply need to
study the practices of the early church, imitate them, and
presto, we’ll have a “New Testament church.” But this viewpoint
is flawed on two counts. First, it turns the New Testament
into a modern replica of ancient Judaic Law. Second, those who hold to the biblical blueprint model disagree with one
another as to which practices ought to be followed to create
a “New Testament church.” – Frank Viola, Reimagining Church,
Chapter 14, Reimagining the Apostolic Tradition, page 243
Note
that there are at least two serious problems with Viola’s
identification of this second flaw. First, Viola makes a logical
error. By saying that the second flaw of “biblical blueprintism”
is that those who hold to it all have different models, Viola
has committed a logical fallacy. Just because proponents of
the “biblical blueprint” approach disagree with one another
in their conclusions, it does not logically follow that therefore
every individual model is wrong. It only
logically follows that not all of them can be simultaneously
correct. Logically speaking, it is entirely possible that
one model is correct and the others are incorrect. Consequently,
this is another instance where Viola is either being dishonest
in his portrayal or is not himself exercising clear thinking.
Second,
by unfairly and incorrectly portraying the problem in this
way Viola leaves himself out of the very category he is critiquing.
Viola’s argument is that all models based on the biblical
blueprint approach to church practice are proven wrong by
the fact that they disagree with one another. However, since
Viola himself uses the New Testament as a guidebook of binding
commands and prescriptions for church practice, he is just
another “biblical blueprint” proponent offering yet another
model for church practice, which he believes to be correct.
Even more to the point, Viola is simply providing one more
“biblical blueprint” model to disagree with the others. Consequently,
that collective disagreement should in turn disprove his own
model as well, that is, if Viola’s criticism was valid (which,
of course, it is not).
Therefore,
regardless of what Viola wishes to portray for his own advantage,
the differences between the alternative models cannot simply
be attributed to whether one believes that the New Testament
provides binding commands and prescriptive practices. Instead,
the real explanation must be found elsewhere. The real explanation
behind the different models for church gatherings and leadership
lies in how well, how effectively, how comprehensively, how
consistently, and how reasonably any particular model is derived
from studying the New Testament.
So,
while it serves Viola well to mischaracterize the cause of
his differences with his opponents, it is not a valid explanation.
It is merely an erroneous oversimplification made either by
oversight or dishonestly. In either case, like the other models
we have described above, Viola’s model will have to be evaluated
on the merits of his biblical analysis and not some red-herring
about how his opponents have erred by taking the New Testament
as a prescriptive guide for church practice.
Examining
the Models: Interpreting the New Testament
In
addition to his faulty argument that the New Testament as
a whole should not be viewed as a “blueprint” for church gatherings
and leadership, Viola also argues that incorrect models result
from applying a flawed interpretive method to particular passages.
Viola calls this flawed interpretive method “proof-texting.”
And according to Viola, proof-texting is the culprit that
is to blame for his opponent’s mistaken views.
Not
surprisingly, having
changed the biblical model of the church, we have become adept
at building support for our approaches through proof-texting.
Proof-texting is the practice of taking disparate, unrelated verses of
Scripture, often out of context, to “prove” that our position
squares with the Bible. As you read this book, you may
be stunned to discover how many of our esteemed practices
are way off the mark biblically. – Frank Viola, Pagan Christianity, preface, xxviii
First,
it should be said that as you read Viola’s books, you indeed
are stunned to discover how many of his esteemed practices
are way off the mark. But, of course, Viola does not mean
to include his own practices as resulting from proof-texting.
It should be noted, however, that what concerns us is not
Viola’s criticism that proof-texting is the cause of faulty
models. Instead, what concerns us is Viola’s understanding
of what proof-texting is. As we will see, Viola has again
mischaracterized and misrepresented a key issue involved in
this discussion.
In
the above quote Viola defines proof-texting as “taking disparate,
unrelated verses of Scripture, often out of context, to ‘prove’
that our position squares with the Bible.” As we continue
we will first compile Viola’s descriptions of “proof-texting”
into a composite definition. Then we will see whether Viola’s
definition of “proof-texting” is an accurate one. And finally,
we will take a look at examples from Pagan Christianity and Reimagining Church where Viola interprets scripture in order
to see how he himself fairs against his own definition of
“proof-texting.” Sadly, the case is remarkably similar to
Viola’s criticism of the “biblical blueprint” approach, which
it turned out that he himself employed. (We have already seen
one example above where Viola himself proof-texted 1 Peter
2 regarding the priesthood of all believers.) Below is another
passage, where Viola explains for us how “proof-texting” works.
You
look for verses that will prove your particular doctrine
so that you can slice-and-dice your theological sparring partner
into biblical ribbons. (Because of the proof-texting method, a vast wasteland of Christianity
behaves as if the mere citation of some random, decontextualized
verse of Scripture ends all discussion on virtually any subject.)
You look for verses in the Bible to control and/or correct
others… Each of these approaches is built on isolated proof-texting. Each treats the New Testament like a manual
and blinds us to its real message.
– Frank Viola, Pagan
Christianity, Chapter 11, Reapproaching the New Testament:
The Bible Is Not A Jigsaw Puzzle, page 230
(Notice
that in the final sentence of the above quote, Viola ascribes
proof-texting to those who “treat the New Testament like manual.”
We have already seen how Viola himself treats the New Testament
like a manual. Consequently, we should not be surprised that
we will see Viola also using proof-texting.)
Throughout
his books, Viola couples proof-texting to what he calls the
“clipboard approach” of studying the New Testament.
You
could call our method of studying the New Testament the “clipboard
approach.” If you are familiar with computers, you are
aware of the clipboard component. If you happen to be in a
word processor, you may cut and paste a piece of text via
the clipboard. The
clipboard allows you to cut a sentence from one document and
paste it into another. Pastors, seminarians, and laymen alike have
been conditioned by the clipboard approach when studying the
Bible. This is how we justify our man-made, encased traditions
and pass them off as biblical. It is why we routinely miss
what the early church was like whenever we open up our New
Testaments. We see verses. We do not see the whole picture.
This approach is still alive and well today, not only in institutional
churches but in house churches as well. Let
me use another illustration to show how easily anyone can
fall into it – and the harmful effects it can have. –
Frank Viola, Pagan Christianity, Chapter 11, Reapproaching the New Testament: The
Bible Is Not A Jigsaw Puzzle, page 232
Scriptures
that do not fit the shape of the institutional church are
either chopped off (dismissed) or they are stretched to fit
its mold. The cut-and-paste method of Bible study makes this rather easy to
pull off (no pun intended). We
lift various verses out of their chronological order and historical
setting and then paste them together to create a doctrine
or support a practice. By contrast the chronological narrative
provides a control on our interpretation of Scripture. It
prevents us from cutting and pasting verses together to make
the Bible fit our preconceived ideas. – Frank Viola, Reimagining Church,
Chapter 1, Reimagining
Church
as an Organism, page 44
We
can see how Viola’s idea of proof-texting and the “clipboard
approach” go hand in hand. And in the second to last quote
above, Viola promises an illustration of how proof-texting
works. Below is an excerpt of the illustration that Viola
provides.
Joe
has made another, more subtle mistake while interpreting this
passage. The verse
says that Paul and Barnabas appointed elders in every church.
Joe takes this to mean that every genuine church has elders.
Yet this text says no such thing. The verse is referring to
an event in south Galatia
during the first century. “Every church” means every church
in south Galatia
in AD 49! Luke is talking about four churches that Paul and
Barnabas just planted. Do you see the problem that we
run into when we blithely lift verses from their historical
setting? The truth is Joe is totally outside biblical grounds.
– Frank Viola, Pagan
Christianity, Chapter 11, Reapproaching the New Testament:
The Bible Is Not A Jigsaw Puzzle, page 235
In
his book, Viola uses Joe, a hypothetical Christian who is
studying the bible in order to learn about church gatherings
and leadership. In this illustration, we see Viola explain
that Joe has taken a single verse, Acts 14:23, and used it
to make a broader conclusion than the text intends. Specifically,
Joe has taken the statement of Acts 14:23 that “they had ordained
them elders in every church” to mean that every church of
the New Testament had elders. Viola is right and Joe is wrong.
Acts 14:23 only informs us of the appointing of elders in
the church communities of Galatia that Paul and Barnabas had
just established on their missionary journey. The passage
tells us nothing about whether elders were established in
every church that existed in the New Testament period. This
is indeed an example of proof-texting.
Now
let’s take a look at the New Testament interpretations that
Viola himself makes to see if he avoids the error that Joe
makes or whether Viola himself commits the same errors. Before
we proceed, let us compile Viola’s definition of proof-texting
from the quotes above.
According
to Frank Viola, proof-texting is or involves:
1.
Taking disparate, unrelated verses of scripture, often out
of context, to “prove” that our position squares with the
Bible.
2.
The mere citation of some random, decontextualized, isolated
verse of Scripture as if it ends all discussion on virtually
any subject.
3.
Cutting and pasting verse from the New Testament by chopping
out parts that don’t fit or stretching them beyond their original
intent to fit our doctrine or practice.
We
want to be clear that we do not disagree with the definition
of proof-texting cited here. What we want to do is keep this
definition of proof-texting in mind as we examine how Viola
himself interprets the New Testament in his books. We will
start with two examples from Pagan Christianity.
The
early church met for the purpose of displaying Jesus Christ
through the every-member functioning of Christ’s body. The
goal was to make Christ visible and to edify the whole church
in the process. Mutual edification through mutual sharing,
mutual ministry, and mutual exhortation was the aim. To our
thinking, what would make all the difference is if God’s people
were equipped and then encouraged to have meetings where every
member shared the Christ they had encountered that week, freely
and openly, as 1 Corinthians
14:26, 31 and Hebrews 10:25 exhort. The result: God would
be seen and thus glorified. Consider your physical body. When
every member of you body functions, your personality is expressed.
It is the same with Christ. When each member of His body shares
his or her portion of Christ, then Christ is assembled (see
1 Corinthians 12-14). – Frank Viola, Pagan Christianity, Afterword, page 268
In
like manner, the New Testament letters show that the ministry
of God’s Word came from the entire church in their regular
gatherings. From Romans
12:6-8, 1 Corinthians 14:26, and Colossians 3:16, we see that
it included teaching, exhortation, prophecy, singing, and
admonishment. This
“every-member” functioning was also conversational (1 Corinthians
14:29) and marked by interruptions (1 Corinthians 14:30).
– Frank Viola, Pagan Christianity, Chapter 4, The Sermon:
Protestantism’s Most Sacred Cow, page 88
Now,
our purpose at this point is not to assess the validity of
Viola’s conclusions. Instead, we are only assessing Viola’s
own approach to New Testament interpretation in light of his
condemnation of proof-texting as he has defined it. Recall
that one of the key features of proof-texting, according to
Viola, is taking de-contextualized verses out of their context
and citing them as if merely citing them proves your position.
Now look again at the above quotes.
In
the first quote, Viola clearly states his position “The early
church met for the purpose of displaying Jesus Christ through
the every-member functioning of Christ’s body.” He continues
to expound on his view of early church gatherings and then
cites three verses in two different passages 1 Corinthians
14:26, 31 and Hebrews 10:25. (The same is true for the second
quote above.)
Does
Viola actually provide the text of these verses? No. Does
Viola provide the context of these passages? No. Does he remove
the verses from their context? Yes. Does Viola provide the
historical context of the verses or the passages they come
from? No. Does Viola merely cite the verses without any exegesis
giving the impression that merely citing the verses demonstrates
the soundness of his position and refutes his opponents’ views?
Yes.
So,
we ask another question, is Viola using proof-texting? Without
quoting the text of these verses at all, let alone their larger
biblical or historical context, and without providing a discussion
of the content of the verses, but instead merely listing their
location in the scripture, Viola has absolutely proof-texted
these verses, even according to his own definition of proof-texting.
However,
perhaps it is the case that these are only rare exceptions
in Viola’s books. Unfortunately, they are not exceptions.
They are typical. In fact, they are the only type of biblical
analysis that Viola provides in the 500 plus pages contained
in both Pagan Christianity and Reimagining Church.
In order to prove the point, more examples are provided below.
As
we read the New Testament with an eye for understanding how
the early Christians gathered, it becomes clear that they
had four main types of meetings. They were: Apostolic Meetings. These were special
meetings where apostolic workers preached to an interactive
audience. Their goal was either to plant a church from scratch
or to encourage an existing one. The twelve apostles held
such meetings in the temple courts in Jerusalem during the birth of the church in Jerusalem (Acts 5:40-42). Paul held the same kind
of meetings in the hall of Tyrannus when he planted the church
in Ephesus (Acts 19:9-10, 20:27, 31). There are two
chief characteristics of the apostolic meeting. One is that
an apostolic worker does most of the ministry. The other is
that such meetings are never permanent. They are temporary
and have a long-range goal. Namely, to equip a local body
of believers to function under the headship of Jesus Christ
without the presence of a human head (Eph.
4:11-16; 1 Corinthians 14:26). For this reason, an apostle
always ends up leaving the church on its own. Evangelistic Meetings. In the first
century, evangelism commonly occurred outside
the regular meetings of the church. The apostles preached
the gospel in those places where unbelievers frequented. The
synagogue (for the Jews) and the marketplace (for the Gentiles)
were among their favorite places to evangelize (Acts
14:1; 17:1-33; 18:4, 19). Evangelistic meetings were designed
to plant a new church or to numerically build an existing
church. These meetings were done “in season.” They weren’t
a permanent fixture of the church. Philip’s trip to Samaria is an example of
this kind of meeting (Acts
8:5ff). Decision-Making
Meetings. Sometimes a church needed to assemble together
to make an important decision. The meeting in Jerusalem
described in Acts 15
was such a meeting. The chief feature of this meeting is that
everyone participated in the decision-making process, and
the apostles and elders played a helpful role. (See chapter
10 for details.) Church Meetings. These were the regular
gatherings of the church. They would be the first-century
equivalent of our Sunday-morning “church service.” Yet they
were radically different. The first-century church meeting
was primarily a believers meeting. The context of 1 Corinthians 11-14 makes this plain. While unbelievers were sometimes
present, they were not the focus of the meeting. (In 1 Corinthians 14:23-25, Paul fleetingly
mentions the presence of unbelievers in gathering.) – Frank
Viola, Reimagining Church,
Chapter 2, Reimagining the Church Meeting, pages 49-51
In
this long quote Viola lays out his position that there were
four distinct types of meetings in the New Testament church.
He lists each meeting and provides a description of each.
But how does Viola demonstrate that his conclusion that there
are four distinct meeting types is scripturally correct? Does
he provide a thorough discussion of the larger historical
narrative of the New Testament? No. Does Viola provide the
text of passages which he feels are relevant to the topic
he is discussing? No. Does Viola provide the actual text of
the surrounding passage for the verses he feels are relevant
to this topic? No. Does Viola cite these isolated, de-contextualized
verses without exegetical discussion as if simply citing them
proves his position? It would seem that he clearly does.
How
are Viola’s readers to know if the verses he merely cites
are at all relevant to the topic or if they indeed support
the conclusion that Viola is drawing from them? How are they
to know if these verses are related to each other or even
if they are related to the topic at all? How are they to know
if Viola is stretching these verses to fit his position or
chopping out nearby verses which contradict his position?
They don’t.
Again,
Viola is himself using proof-texting. In order to support
his view, Viola is removing these verses from their context.
He is not providing the text of the verses or their surrounding
context. And he does not discuss the verses in the context
of the whole of the New Testament historical narrative. Instead
he merely cites verse references as if doing so proves his
position. The following quotes all continue to show Viola
engaging in the same method of proof-texting that he condemns
as the cause of faulty models for church gatherings and leadership.
In
fact, one of the goals
of New Testament-styled preaching and teaching is to get each
of us to function (Ephesians 4:11-16). It is to encourage
us to open our mouths in the church meeting (1 Corinthians
12-14). – Frank Viola, Pagan Christianity, Chapter 4, The Sermon: Protestantism’s Most Sacred
Cow, page 97
In
the above quote, how do we know if Ephesians 4:11-16 is at
all related to 1 Corinthians 12-14? How do we know that getting
everyone to function means getting everyone to open their
mouths, contribute, and participate equally in the church
meeting? Viola provides no explanation or examination, only
de-contextualized, isolated, disparate verse citations.
The
regular meetings of the church envisioned in Scripture allowed
for every member to participate in the building up of the body of Christ
(Eph. 4:16). There was no “up-front” leadership. No one took
center stage. Unlike today’s practice, the teaching in
the church meeting was not delivered by the same person week
after week. Instead, every member had the right, the privilege,
and the responsibility to minister in the gathering. Mutual encouragement was the hallmark of this
meeting. “Every one of you” was its outstanding characteristic.
– Frank Viola, Reimagining
Church,
Chapter 2, Reimagining the Church Meeting, page 52
In
the above two quotes, how do we know that Ephesians 4:16 is
speaking about function at church meetings rather than in
the Christians community throughout the course of their weekly
lives together? Moreover, how do we know that what Paul writes
to the Ephesians is true for all churches? Maybe Viola is
just assuming this applies to all churches, just like Joe
did for Acts 14:23. Viola offers no explanation, just another
unexplained citation.
But
the gatherings of the
church are especially designed for every believer to express
Christ through his or her gift (1 Cor. 11-14, Hebrews 10:24-25).
– Frank Viola, Reimagining Church,
Chapter 2, Reimagining the Church Meeting, pages 57-58
In
the above quote, how do we know that Hebrews 10:24-25 and
1 Corinthians 11-14 require every believer to express Christ
in their church gatherings? How do we know that they are even
related to the topic of church gatherings? Surrounding context
might tell us, but Viola never provides it. In addition, don’t
Christians in hierarchical, institutional churches have these
passages in their New Testament? Does merely citing the existence
of these verses prove the institutional model to be in error?
Viola must think so. After all, that is all he does. He merely
cites the verses, as though further explanation or exegesis
is not even necessary. And yet this is proof-texting by his
very own definition of it.
In
the next quote we will see Viola continue to use proof-texting
to support his position by merely citing verses without providing
biblical context, historical context, or explanation.
While
all elders were “apt to teach” and all had the gift of shepherding,
not all who shepherded
and taught were elders (Titus 2:3-4; Tim. 2:2, 24, Heb. 5:12).
Teaching could come from any Christian who
had a word of instruction for the church (1 Cor. 14:24-26).
– Frank Viola, Reimagining Church,
Chapter 9, Reimagining Oversight, page 169
Again,
does his mere citation of these few verses without their biblical
or historical context prove Viola’s point that shepherding
and teaching were performed by persons other than elders?
Of course not. In fact, based on Viola’s presentation we don’t
even know if we can correctly associate these verses with
one another or with the topic he’s speaking about. This is
proof-texting.
In
the next quote, notice how Viola “proves” his point that elders
only emerged in a church community after a long time.
Just
as important, the elders
always emerged long
after a church was born. It took at least fourteen
years after the birth of the Jerusalem church for elders
to emerge within it (Acts
11:30). A good while after they planted the four churches
in south Galatia, Paul and Barnabas acknowledged elders in
each of them (Acts 14:23). Five years after Paul planted a church in Ephesus, he sent for the elders of the church to meet him
in Miletus
(Acts 20:17). When Paul wrote to the church
in Philippi, which was twelve
years old, he greeted the overseers who were present (Phil. 1:1). Point: There’s no case anywhere in the New Testament
where elders appear in a church immediately after it was planted.
– Frank Viola, Reimagining
Church,
Chapter 9, Reimagining Oversight, page 176
This
is a classic example of proof-texting. For comparison here
is the text of Acts 11:30 with some of the surrounding verses
for context.
Acts 11:27 And in these days came prophets
from Jerusalem unto Antioch. 28 And there stood up one of them named
Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that there should be great
dearth throughout all the world: which came to pass in the
days of Claudius Caesar. 29 Then the disciples, every man
according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the
brethren which dwelt in Judaea:
30 Which also they
did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and
Saul. 12:1 Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his
hands to vex certain of the church. 2 And he killed James
the brother of John with the sword.
The
context of this verse describes the church community of Antioch sending relief to the church community in Jerusalem. Verse 30, which
Viola cites as proof that elders emerged long after a church
was born, only mentions that the relief from Antioch
was sent to the elders in Jerusalem
by Barnabas and Paul. With that chapter 11 ends and chapter
12 begins with the account of James’ death by Herod and the
imprisonment of Peter.
How
in the world does Acts 11:30 prove that elders only emerged
a long time after a church community had begun? Note that
Viola doesn’t provide the larger biblical context, the historical
context, or even just the text of the verse for his reader.
He simply cites Acts 11:30 as proof of his position. Now it’s
true that this event took place around fourteen years after
the church community began in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost,
but the mere mention of elders in this passage says nothing
about when those elders “emerged” in that church community.
Similarly,
Viola states that “a good while after they planted the four
churches in south Galatia, Paul and Barnabas acknowledged
elders in each of them.” Again, Viola merely cites Acts 14:23.
But the verse itself says nothing about the amount of time
which elapsed between the churches being planted and the “acknowledging”
of elders in them. Here again is the actual text of that verse
and some of its surrounding context.
Acts 14:11 And when the people saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices,
saying in the speech of Lycaonia, The gods are come down
to us in the likeness of men. 12 And they called Barnabas,
Jupiter; and Paul, Mercurius, because he was the chief speaker.
13 Then the priest of Jupiter, which was before their city,
brought oxen and garlands unto the gates, and would have done
sacrifice with the people. 14 Which when the apostles,
Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes,
and ran in among the people, crying out, 15 And saying, Sirs,
why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with
you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities
unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the
sea, and all things that are therein: 16 Who in times past
suffered all nations to walk in their own ways. 17 Nevertheless
he left not himself without witness, in that he did good,
and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling
our hearts with food and gladness. 18 And with these sayings
scarce restrained they the people, that they had not done
sacrifice unto them. 19 And there came thither certain
Jews from Antioch
and Iconium, who persuaded the people, and, having stoned
Paul, drew him out of the city, supposing he had been
dead. 20 Howbeit, as the disciples stood round about him,
he rose up, and came into the city: and the next day he departed
with Barnabas to Derbe. 21 And when they had preached the
gospel to that city, and had taught many, they returned again
to Lystra, and to Iconium, and Antioch,
22 Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting
them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much
tribulation enter into the kingdom
of God. 23 And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed
with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they
believed.
Verse
11 of Acts 14 continues the account of Paul and Barnabas in
Lycaonia. After speaking to the Lycaonians, Paul is stoned
at the instigation of persons who had come down from Antioch
and Iconium. The next day, Paul and Barnabas depart to Derbe.
Verse 21 informs us that after preaching in Derbe, Paul and
Barnabas returned to Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch.
And in verse 23 we are told that they ordained elders in every
church. Now it is true that the churches in which elders were
ordained were those just mentioned here in the region of south
Galatia. However, what is important
is the time frame. How long was it between Paul and Barnabas’
initial visit to each of these cities and the establishing
of elders as mentioned in verse 23?
Viola
concludes and reports to his readers that it was “a good while.”
What constitutes “a good while?” Moreover, there is no mention
of the passing of many days, or months, or years, or even
a few weeks between one city and the next. (For comparison,
see Acts 11:25-26, Acts 18:8-11, Acts 19:1-10, Acts 20:1-3,
Acts 20:17-31, Acts 28:1-14.) Instead,
the text itself presents a very close proximity of
time between Paul and Barnabas’ departure from Lycaonia and
then from Derbe to their returning to these cities to ordaining
of elders in every city. Contrary to Viola’s contention it
seems that there was only a short while between the establishment
of these churches and the appointment of elders. In fact,
the clues that point to a rather quick series of events, in
turn, lead us to our next point.
The
text does not tell us whether any gap between the establishing
of the churches and the ordination of elders in them was intention
on the part of Paul and Barnabas or whether it was forced
upon them due to the mistreatment they suffered during their
initial visits to these cities. The larger text seems to present
that Paul and Barnabas were only in each city a short time
before essentially being forced to leave, perhaps even only
a matter of days. And consequently, since they revisited the
cities and since their time in each city was short, this would
imply that it was also a relatively short time, perhaps only
a few weeks or months, before they returned to appoint elders.
In addition, if the intervening gap was indeed a forced interruption
due to mistreatment, then the passages would not demonstrate
proof that the apostles intentionally waited a long time in
order to allow for elders to naturally emerge on their own,
as Viola contends. But all of these issues go completely unaddressed
in Viola’s remarks, replaced instead by a citation of mere
verse references.
What
is our point here? Are we saying that Viola is necessarily
wrong when he says that it took a long time before elders
were appointed in these Galatian cities? No. At this point,
we are not examining the validity of Viola’s conclusions.
Our point is simply that Viola himself is relying upon proof-texting
to support his point of view. In this case, he merely cites
Acts 14:23 as if the mere citation of that verse proves that
there was a “good while” before elders were ordained in these
cities.
As
Viola continues to support his point that elders “always emerged
long after a church was born,” he continues to employ proof-texting.
In his next sentence Viola states “Five years after Paul planted
a church in Ephesus, he sent
for the elders of the church to meet him in Miletus (Acts 20:17).” By quoting Acts 20:17,
Viola has not proven that “elders always emerged long after
a church was born.” The text only states that elders were
present five years after the Ephesian church was born. Acts
20:17 says nothing about when those elders “emerged.” From
all we know from Acts 20:17, the Ephesian elders could have
been present from the beginning of that church community.
All that Viola has proved here is that he himself resorts
to proof-texting. And, of course, similar comments can be
made of Viola’s use of Philippians 1:1 as support for his
conclusion that “elders always emerged long after a church
was born.”
More
examples could be cited from Viola’s writings, but we will
not belabor the point further. What we have seen in these
above examples typifies the kind of approach to interpreting
scripture that Viola uses throughout both Pagan Christianity and Reimagining Church.
In fact, cases where Viola employs actual scriptural, linguistic
analysis in the context of larger biblical and historical
context are very rare in these books. For the most part, Viola
has simply provided his own series of proof-texted interpretations
and left the thorough and legitimate study of the topic for
his readers. However, Viola is not simply listing these verses
as part of a suggestion to his readers to look into the matter
and point them in the right direction. Instead, Viola has
attempted to persuade them of his own view by offering these
verses as his proof without context or analysis. Consequently,
Viola is using the same faulty methodologies that he attributes
to his opponents.
In
conclusion, Viola is right to identify proof-texting as a
cause behind wrong understandings of church gatherings and
leadership. But Viola is wrong in his claim that proof-texting
distinguishes his model from other models. Instead, Viola
himself constantly engages in proof-texting to support his
views. We will continue to see examples of this as we proceed
through our investigation. As we do, our job will be to go
beyond proof-texting into a full-fledged examination and exegesis
of the New Testament teaching on this issue.
Examining the Models: The Value of Logical
Assessment and Biblical Knowledge
There
is one additional note we should address regarding Viola’s
approach to scriptural understanding. In the following quotes
Viola explains that extensive Biblical knowledge and sharp
reasoning skills fall short in giving us spiritual understanding.
The
teaching of the New Testament is that God is Spirit, and as
such, He is known by
revelation (spiritual insight), to one’s human spirit. Reason
and intellect can cause us to know about God. And they help
us to communicate what we know. But they fall short in giving
us spiritual revelation. The intellect is not the gateway
for knowing the Lord deeply. Neither are the emotions.
– Frank Viola, Pagan Christianity, Chapter 10, Education:
Swelling of the Cranium, page 206
In
short, extensive Biblical
knowledge, a high-powered intellect, and razor-sharp reasoning
skills do not automatically produce spiritual men and women
who know Jesus Christ profoundly and who can impart a life-giving
revelation of Him to others. (That, by the way, is the
basis of spiritual ministry.) – Frank Viola, Pagan Christianity, Chapter 10, Education:
Swelling of the Cranium, page 206
According
to Viola, understanding God comes through spiritual insight
between God and our human spirit and not through studying
the scripture and subjecting our study to reasonable analysis.
There are several problems contained in Viola’s point of view
on this issue.
First,
the Bible itself is proof-positive that God reveals Himself
to us chiefly through human reasoning and through knowledge
of information. While it is certainly true that the prophets
who wrote much of the Bible did received direct revelation,
it is equally true that God inspired them to write down their
revelations. Why would God have them write down their revelations,
unless God intended us to come to a knowledge of him by reading
their revelations? And if God’s preferred and main method
of delivering spiritual insight to us was through direct spiritual
revelation, why would we even have the Bible? Why would he
inspire men to write the scripture for the rest of us to read?
Wouldn’t God just communicate His truths to us via spiritual
revelation directly? Furthermore, the idea that the Bible
constitutes the sole authority in our lives as Christians
can only be validly maintained so long as we allow rational
and thorough biblical examination to be the judge of our beliefs
and practices.
The
moment we resist a logically superior, better informed biblical
analysis in favor of an irrational conclusion, based in whole
or in part on ignorance of the scripture, we can no longer
claim that the bible is our authority. If we do, then we are
authorizing the inexplicable, rationally-evasive, factually
baseless intuitions of our own mind. We may wish to believe
that such misguided intuitions are not our own human inventions,
but that they are instead special revelation inspired by the
Holy Spirit. But doesn’t it seem arrogant to make such claims?
Would we not be “puffed-up” in our own minds just as the Corinthians
who were rebuked by Paul?
The
fact is if God used human language, human history, and human
reason and logic to build and preserve His revelation to us
through the pages of scripture and if we claim to hold those
pages as our sole source of spiritual understanding then we
must acknowledge the inherent contradiction that occurs when
we prefer our own unsubstantiated or uninformed intuitions
over a knowledgeable and reasonable assessment of God’s Word.
To maintain such a preference would be a dangerous elevation
of one’s own thoughts to the status of divine inspiration.
Those who entertain such a concept make themselves, rather
than God’s word, the authority in their lives. They may be
quite comfortable with that choice, but the rest of us are
on far more solid ground by continuing our commitment to the
informed, analysis of scripture (even if we disagree with
one another.) The only alternative would be to submit ourselves
to the unsubstantiated notions of someone else’s personal
imagination without reasonable inquiry thereby making them
our authority instead of God and His word.
Whatever
we think spiritual revelation and understanding is, we must
certainly conclude that it should at least logically be sound
and consistent with scriptural facts. It absolutely cannot
be anything less. It cannot be the case that divine revelation
from the Holy Spirit will, when examined, be found to be logically
flawed and contradictory of biblical facts. We can through
sound reasoning and a thorough knowledge of scripture acquire
or even confirm sound biblical understanding. But we certainly
cannot claim sound understanding is gained from logical error
and the contradiction of biblical facts. We can be sure that
the Holy Spirit is not logically challenged or factually mistaken.
Regardless
of whether it is currently the case that some people receive
direct, special revelation from the Holy Spirit, the fact
is that the rest of us must test or examine the claims of
such persons. And when we test them we are to use a reasoned
and informed analysis of the scripture.
For
these reasons, we must conclude that Viola’s notions of spiritual
understanding are, for all real purposes, devoid of any real
value for his readers. If Viola truly believed what he writes
in these paragraphs he would not author over 500 pages of
what he certainly feels are logically sound and scripturally
informed arguments in favor of his position. If direct spiritual
insight held the supreme value he attributes to it and scriptural
knowledge and logical analysis were as insufficient as he
says, wouldn’t Viola simply tell us about what God directly
communicated to his spirit and expect that God would tell
our spirits the same? Wouldn’t he leave the bible and logic
out of it since, according to his own arguments, they might
not adequately communicate his truly valid spiritual understanding?
From
the fact that Viola has downplayed the value of logical analysis
and thorough biblical knowledge, we might expect that the
arguments he offers in his books will not exhibit a high regard
for logical soundness or a thorough consideration of biblical
information. Whatever we find in his arguments, the bottom
line is that by attempting to use reasonable argument, scriptural
knowledge, and even human language to convey spiritual truth,
Viola affirms the necessity and usefulness of biblical knowledge
and human reason at least for the purposes of assessing spiritual
claims made by himself and others. And truly this is what
we need logic and biblical knowledge for anyway, to evaluate
the spiritual understandings offered by others. Logic and
biblical information make us all equal players with God’s
Word acting as our referee. Special revelation divorced from
informed and logical analysis of the scripture leads to accepting
and following mistaken notions about God’s teaching. Since,
in any case, we need to apply logic coupled with thorough
biblical examination, what use is there in supposing some
other kind of mystical, personal wisdom from God that circumvents
and is unavailable to both?
