Below I have listed the links to Ben Witherington’s 14 part series on Frank Viola’s books Pagan Christianity?: Exploring the Roots of Our Church Practices and Reimagining Church: Pursuing the Dream of Organic Christianity. Witherington, an Asbury Theological Seminary New Testament professor, a United Methodist, and a prolific commentary writer defends a more traditional and sacramental understanding of the church against the charges by Viola that most churches have drifted far from the New Testament understanding of the church. Viola argues for a more “organic” model of church that meets in homes–similar to “house churches.”
Witherington and Viola (together with Jon Zens who engages in lengthy rebuttals in the comments to Witherington’s earlier posts) address a number of interesting issues: paid pastors vs. lay leadership; church buildings vs. homes; solo leadership vs. shared leadership; worship services vs. edifying meetings; hierarchy vs. equality in the Trinity; serious vs. joyful Lord’s Supper; preaching vs. participation; God-centered vs. human-centered; reverent vs. informal. Almost all of the discussion is exchanging quick comments about biblical texts which is refreshing (Eph 4:11, 1 Cor 14:26; Matt 16:18; Heb 10:-24-25). It is very long but very casual and informal and pointed and blunt not stuffy. It took place last summer but it is still a fascinating exchange. The posts get friendlier later as Witherington and Viola get to know one another and Witherington likes Reimagining Church better than Pagan Christianity.
Usually I see New Testament scholars defending a more flexible early church structure over against the systematic theologians who defend structures that developed later. Here you have a New Testament scholar and United Methodist arguing from the biblical text for the legitimacy of later development. If one pictures a large spectrum between low church and high church, this is really an argument between low church (Quaker, house church, Anabaptist, baptist, free church, Mennonite, charismatic, Pentecostal) on the one end defended by Viola and Zens against high church (Roman Catholic, Episcopal, Methodist, Presbyterian) on the other end defended by Witherington.
I have sketched some of this low vs. high church spectrum at my post: 60 Theologians on an Ecclesiological Spectrum
I also have a Working bibliography of biblical studies books on ecclesiology
Witherington occasionally refers to his own books: Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians and Making a Meal of It: Rethinking the Theology of the Lord’s Supper. He also has books on baptism and women in ministry and various Christian traditions and commentaries on almost every book of the New Testament.
Note as well that Frank Viola has a new book out called From Eternity to Here.
Ben Witherington 14 blog posts on Frank Viola’s Pagan Christianity and Reimagining Church.
1. Monday, June 30, 2008 PAGAN
CHRISTIANTY: by George Barna and Frank Viola
2. Tuesday, July 01, 2008 PAGAN
CHRISTIANITY—REVIEW PART TWO
3. Wednesday, July 02, 2008 PAGAN
CHRISTIANITY—REVIEW PART THREE
4. Thursday, July 03, 2008 PAGAN
CHRISTIANITY—REVIEW PART FOUR
5. Tuesday, July 08, 2008 Pagan
Christianity— Postlude
6. Saturday, July 12, 2008 Howard
Snyder’s Review of ‘Pagan Christianity’
7. Friday, September 05, 2008 Frank
Viola’s Reimagining Church– Part One
8. Saturday, September 06, 2008 Frank
Viola’s Reimagining Church– Part Two
9. Sunday, September 07, 2008 Frank
Viola’s Reimagining Church– Part Three
10. Monday, September 08, 2008 Reimagining
Church–Part Four
11. Friday, September 12, 2008 Reimagining
Church– A Frank Response Part One [Frank Viola responds]
12. Friday, September 12, 2008 Reimagining
Church– A Frank Response Part Two [Frank Viola responds]
13. Friday, September 12, 2008 EPILOGUE
TO A FRANK DISCUSSION
14. Tuesday, September 16, 2008 A FRANK
CODA [Frank Viola responds]
4 replies on “Ben Witherington on Frank Viola’s Pagan Christianity and Reimagining Church”
Andy,
Could you help me better understand what you have in mind when you speak of “structures that developed later,” or “later development”?
When I was learning more about church history, I was bowled over by the epistles of St. Ignatius of Antioch. These letters make bold claims about ecclesiology and the Eucharist, and date from around 107 AD. Furthermore, Ignatius was a disciple of St. Polycarp, himself a disciple of the Apostle John. The date of his writings and Ignatius’ proximity to the apostles lend great authority to his testimony.
I would appreciate your insight into how you, Yoder, and other low church advocates account for Ignatius’ testimony.
Do you doubt the authenticity of these writings?
Was Ignatius of Antioch an outlier? If so, what record do we have that his advice was rejected as radical and out of step with the faith received from the apostles? How was it that he was recognized as a saint if his admonitions were not accepted as authoritative?
If Ignatius was not an outlier, what is the best account you have read as to how he, separated so little from the Apostle John, got so much so wrong, and how it was that his testimony was not rejected by his contemporaries?
I would appreciate your insights on this. For it seems to me that unless Yoder et al have some reason to discount Ignatius’ epistles that I am not aware of, the historical record is quite clear that high respect for the bishop’s authority, the conviction that the Eucharist is truly the body and blood of Christ, and a necessary connection between the bishop and a valid Eucharist are neither “later” nor “developments.”
Eric
Even if the date of 107 is correct, the thoughts of Ignatius on ecclesiology and the Eucharist could be described as a later development. What Jesus and Paul taught on these subjects dates back to the period from the early 30s to the mid 60s. So, about a half-century would have passed before Ignatius taught what he did–more than enough time for views to change or develop.
Andy,
A good post. Wanted to compliment you on the way you put such a variety of links on one post. I am grateful, in particular, for your ongoing bibliography on ecclesiology. Very helpful.
Dear Andy,
I’m hoping you can help out me and my “husband”. We married two years ago and despite the fact that he is from Africa, it turns out we are indeed blood-related. We already have a child together and praise the Lord, she does not have any developmental problems. We are struggling with the decision about whether or not we should remain in our marriage covenant knowing that God has forbade siblings to wed, but that HE also hates divorce. Please advise, Andy and God bless.