Category Archives: Church

Reimagining Church: Review, part 1

Posted on by
Reply

A few weeks ago Ben Witherington III (BW3) posted a multi-part review of Frank Viola’s book Reimagining Church, which was followed by a conversation between Viola and BW3 about the issues raised. I offered my own response to part 1 of BW3’s review, and later reported on the ongoing debate. I was also sent my own copy of the book. I have now read part 1 of the book, “Community and Gatherings”, representing almost exactly half of the book. Here I am offering a review of this part, or perhaps more precisely my general reflections on it. I intend to continue reading part 2, “Leadership and Accountability”, which promises to be more controversial, and I will share my thoughts on that here in due course.

I must say that I was a little disappointed by the first half of this book. The strength of BW3’s criticism had led me to expect something far more novel and controversial! What in fact I found, at least in part 1, is mostly material to which I reacted “Well, of course! Doesn’t everyone believe this?” It turns out that most of the issues on which BW3 disagrees with Viola, apart from the one of hierarchy which I will come back to in another post, are peripheral matters in Viola’s argument, or places where he has allowed himself to be carried away by hyperbole. Sure, there are places where Viola’s exegesis is not as strong as it might be, but, for example, he is following a common evangelical understanding in seeing the “Let us make …” in Genesis 1:26 as reflecting the Trinity.

Now I wonder if my reaction is so different from BW3’s because of differences between the British and North American church scenes. I have heard it said that the North American church is five years ahead of the British, in every trend whether good or bad. But on this matter I can’t help wondering if the British church is ahead, and by about 25 years. Viola is basically promoting the vision of a house church movement which he has been involved in for 20 years but is presenting as something novel to his primarily North American audience. Maybe this really is new to most North American Christians, or maybe they just have short memories. But my memories, based on over 30 years as an evangelical Christian, go back to a British house church movement which probably started in the 1960s and was certainly influential into the 70s and 80s. I was never personally involved in such a group, but had close contacts with some who were, and heard a lot of teaching from that direction, mostly in the early 80s.

Specifically here in Chelmsford but relating also to national trends, that was a time when many Christians who had been touched by the charismatic movement were re-examining what it meant to be church, and contrasting what they found with their experience in rather traditional churches. Many, some of whom were and still are my friends, left to set up and join what started out as house churches. These churches soon outgrew the homes they met in and started to meet in hired halls, but they kept many if not all of their house church distinctives as well as a generally charismatic approach. And in practice these are many of the same things which Viola is now teaching in America, 25 years later.

In other ways some of these house churches took a very different direction from what Viola teaches in terms of leadership and authority. To a greater or lesser extent they became involved in the shepherding movement, of which one of the leaders was Derek Prince but from which, as I mentioned in passing recently, he later dissociated himself. One of the groups I had close contacts with in fact put themselves under the leadership of the infamous Bishop Michael Reid, whose teaching on authority must be the complete antithesis of Viola’s. But I will come back to this issue. At least one other Chelmsford house church group from that time is still in existence, as Chelmsford Community Church which identifies itself as

born out of the house-church movement, around 30 years ago.

Personally, in the 1980s I didn’t join one of these house churches, but in 1985 I did move from a traditional evangelical Anglican church to my current church which although officially Anglican was, and still is now, very much focused on church as community rather than institution. I can’t claim that we put into practice every part of Viola’s teaching, but, except concerning leadership, we acknowledge the principles Viola teaches while making allowances for the more traditional preferences of some of our members, and for what we are required to be and do as Anglicans.

But perhaps I am wrong to claim that the house church movement is a British invention. I just retrieved from my bookshelves a book which I have kept since the early 1980s, although mostly unopened: The Community of the King by Howard A. Snyder, published in 1977 by IVP in the USA. This book is referred to and quoted by Frank Viola, and indeed much of what he writes, at least in part 1 of Reimagining Church, is very similar to what Snyder was teaching 30 years ago – although perhaps Snyder is more cautious than Viola in recognising that even new forms of church are still institutions with structures. That Viola is dependent on Snyder and others of his generation doesn’t make his teaching wrong, but it does explain why there is little in it which is new to me.

It is also worth noting that Snyder’s book, which includes explicit positive teaching about the gifts of the Spirit, would probably have been accepted in its day only by charismatics; whereas Viola deliberately avoids suggesting that charismatic manifestations are of the essence of his house churches.

So, to return to Viola’s book: he starts by asking his readers to reimagine the church as an organism rather than an organisation, as a community modelled on the Trinity as a community of three. While he rejects “Biblical Blueprintism”, he is strongly opposed to the religious tradition which has shaped so many of our churches. He recognises that the “DNA” of the church will produce different forms in different environments, but accuses traditional churches of violating this “DNA” by forcing the church into unnatural forms.

Viola continues by reimagining church meetings. Here I think BW3 is right to criticise his classification of four kinds of church meetings, at least if he intends rigid distinctions between them rather than different emphases. But he is right to insist that regular gatherings of the church should primarily be for “Mutual Edification”, allowing every member participation. He notes how the Reformation embraced the principle of the priesthood of all believers but did not allow this to be worked out in practice in the church.

Perhaps the most revolutionary part of Viola’s teaching is on the Lord’s Supper. He rejects the idea of distributing token pieces of bread and drink in favour of sharing full meals, “The Lord’s Banquet”. It would be very hard for traditional churches to fully embrace this teaching. But in practice churches like mine have regular potluck style meals very much like what Viola proposes, as well as celebrating the Lord’s Supper or Eucharist in a more traditional way.

The next sacred cow Viola tries to slay is that of the church building. He makes a good point that the early church generally met in homes, although BW3 is surely right to object that there were exceptions to this. And Viola makes a good case for why this is right and proper, including pointing out (p.89) the scandal that in the USA alone

Christians give between $9 and $11 billion a year on church buildings. How much freer would their hands be to support the poor and needy as well as to spread the gospel if they didn’t have to bear such a heavy burden?

Archbishop John Sentamu noted last week (thanks to David Keen for the link):

It would cost $5 billion to save six million children’s lives. World leaders could find 140 times that amount for the banking system in a week. How can they now tell us that action for the poorest on the planet is too expensive?

But if the church just in the USA can find twice that $5 billion for its own buildings, shouldn’t the Archbishop also be calling for some of that money to be spent instead on saving children’s lives?

But a problem Viola doesn’t address in detail is the one which the 1980’s house churches here in Britain quickly faced: what happens when a congregation grows too large for a home? Perhaps this is not such a problem in Viola’s central Florida. But here in Chelmsford there are few homes which can comfortably house meetings of more than about 20 people; gardens are often no larger and the weather can never be relied on. Viola writes (p.85):

What did the church do when it grew too large to assemble in a single home? It certainly didn’t erect a building. It simply multiplied and met in several other homes, following the “house to house” principle (Acts 2:46; 20:20).

But if a group of about 20 divides, or multiplies, because it has filled a home, it becomes two groups of only ten, each not really large enough to be a viable independent church or provide a broad base of fellowship for its members. In fact they become the spiritual equivalent of nuclear families, rather than the extended family model which is more appropriate for the church. Also if each group needs several leaders, it can be very hard to find an adequate number of people who have the necessary gifts and maturity to lead even a very small church.

It is for reasons like that that many churches like mine have adopted a home group or “cell church” model, offering a combination of small group meetings in homes with larger central meetings. But of course the central meetings require a building, owned or hired by what is then necessarily some kind of officially organised church. Viola does allow for large group gatherings but apparently only on special occasions, not regular ones which might encourage ordinary Christians to find their sense of belonging in a larger group.

Viola is right to point out that the chief New Testament model for the church is the family. But it is not the modern American or British nuclear family. It is really not at all clear what kind of size of church Viola has in mind, although his final example implies an “organic church” of more than a dozen or so. He is indeed right that many people today are looking for the kind of close community offered by this family model of the church. But churches like mine work very hard on offering community like this without going all the way with the house church model. And the very visibility of a church building at the geographical heart of a community draws into the family people who might never be reached through home based fellowships.

On church unity, Viola makes some good points, and a historically debatable link between sectarianism and the clergy/laity divide. He is right to look for unity primarily not through doctrine but through “organism”. But he goes too far, in my opinion, in expecting Christians from very different traditions to join together in the same house church. Indeed in his example he notes that “the sparks began to fly” and there was a messy split before a new consensus emerged among the survivors. In practice, and especially if we are talking about quite small groups, house churches of the kind he recommends will work best if the members take rather similar positions on basic issues which divide evangelicals. Each house church should of course also accept the validity of other positions, and not allow any barriers to fellowship with groups taking different positions. It is somewhat ironic that Viola comes on strong about things that fragment the body of Christ but doesn’t recognise that for house churches the walls of a house necessarily do this. He rightly considers inadequate the kind of ecumenism in which only church leaders meet together. But his readers are left in the dark about what unity should mean in practice, in a city where there are more Christians than can fit into one home.

Viola sums up this part of the book by studying how church practice links with God’s eternal purpose. Although some of the details are exegetically debatable, he certainly makes a good point that the mission of God is far more than to save individuals, it is to build a new community.

I can see why Viola’s book annoyed a good scholar like BW3. If I look at it as an academic monograph I can find significant weaknesses. There is exegesis which is not fully justified in the text, and perhaps not all of it is justifiable. There are generalisations and flights of hyperbole which would not be expected from a careful scholar. Contrary opinions are dismissed without proper analysis. And there are conclusions reached without being fully explained.

But Viola does not intend his book to be an academic monograph. I’m sure he would have written very differently if he had intended it as such. It is written not for scholars, not even for theologically educated church leaders, but “To every Christian who has reimagined church”. It is written to make ordinary Christians think, to react, and to discuss the issues raised. Indeed each chapter closes with questions for reflection and discussion. A judicious use of provocative hyperbole helps to make a book fit for such purposes.

Well, I have written over 2,000 words on this already, nothing like BW3’s 26,000 in four parts but still quite a lot. So I will leave this review here for now, and read on into the more controversial part about leadership and accountability.

Updated 1st October to add some links, also to clarify what Viola had to say about multiplying groups and to add the sentence starting “Viola does allow for large group gatherings …”

Reimagining Church: the debate continues

Posted on by
Reply

Last Saturday I posted some thoughts about the first part of Ben Witherington’s review of Frank Viola’s book Reimagining Church. Since then he has posted parts two, three and four, all long and making a total review of 26,000 words! He has graciously allowed Frank Viola to respond, this time in two parts, another 15,000 words. And he promises one more post from himself and a final word from Viola. I would have liked to comment further on this debate, but in a busy week it has been as much as I can manage to read it all.

For more about the book, see the Reimagining Church website and Frank Viola’s blog of the same name. I wish I had time to read these as well.

I do intend to write more about this in due course, but my life is getting busier at the moment so I can’t promise anything soon.

To keep you all going, an extract from part two of Frank’s response to Ben:

Subordination is mutual in the Godhead. The Father totally gives Himself in His fullness to the Son. That’s why the Son is the Logos, because He contains the Father in His fullness. The Son’s very essence is that of a gift from the Father. How, then, can that not imply some moment of mutual subordination in the Trinitarian dance of love? The Father isn’t saying to the Son, “Hey, I’m here to run your life.” That’s not the giving of a gift. The Father’s relationship to the Son is an act of love, and act of self-giving, of dispossessing Himself for the sake of the Son, who in turn, dispossesses Himself back toward the Father and surrenders Himself to the same Father who in effect surrendered Himself to Him. So there’s a mutual surrender involved. Ben’s rejection of this is at the heart of his view of the Trinity. Functional subordination, then, occurs among all the members of the Trinity, not just of the Son to the Father. It happens in a distinctive way in each case, nonetheless it really happens. The Spirit also subordinates Himself in that He comes to glorify Christ.

Reimagining church without worldly hierarchy

Posted on by
Reply

Usually I greatly appreciate what the well known Methodist Bible commentator Ben Witherington III (BW3) writes on his blog – although I don’t always have time to read his longer posts. But I have some serious issues with what he writes in his latest post, the first part of a review of Reimagining Church by Frank Viola.

I haven’t read Viola’s book, and more or less all I know about it comes from BW3’s review. Here BW3 writes quoting a key pasaage:

[Viola] describes very straightforwardly how he reimagines how the church ought to be– “organic in its construction; relational in its functioning; scriptural in its form (aha! it has a form); Christocentric in its operation; Trinitarian in its shape; communitarian in its lifestyle; nonelitist in its attitude; and nonsectarian in its expression.” (p. 26). Now that’s a tall order. Let’s see how he develops these ideas and blueprints for the 21rst century church.

While BW3 appreciates many of Viola’s ideas, he offers sharp criticism of some aspects of them, and especially of Viola’s suggestion that the church should not be hierarchical. BW3 writes:

I also have a problem with those who have a problem inherently with the notion of hierarchial leadership structures, because in fact such structures are Biblical not merely in the OT, but in the NT as well, as documents like the Pastoral Epistles and Acts make clear.

Much later in the review he returns to this issue, and roots it in the doctrine of the Trinity:

the blueprint Godhead provides us with a reason to expect that in the church there will be a hierarchial pattern of ordering things. … it will involve a leader and follower, shepherd and sheep, pastor and congregation, apostle and co-workers hierarchy— something Frank wants to avoid at all costs, seeing it as either inorganic or simply fallen human structures.

But surely BW3 gets this wrong. The Bible, in the Old Testament as well as the New, offers stinging criticism of worldly models of hierarchy. When the Israelites asked for a king, this was God’s response through Samuel:

Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king. 11 He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plough his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the LORD will not answer you in that day.”

1 Samuel 8:10-18 (TNIV)

But, despite “you yourselves will become his slaves”, the people insisted on having a king, so God granted their request (8:19-22), not because hierarchical leadership was his plan but because he respected his people’s wishes. Even then, God had special requirements for the king of Israel, to keep him humble and not like the kings of the surrounding nations,

so that he may learn to revere the LORD his God and follow carefully all the words of this law and these decrees 20 and not consider himself better than his fellow Israelites and turn from the law to the right or to the left.

Deuteronomy 17:19-20 (TNIV)

So it was really nothing new when Jesus gave his own teaching which effectively outlaws hierarchical structures among his disciples:

Jesus called them together and said, “You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 43 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 44 and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. 45 For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Mark 10:42-45 (TNIV)

A dispute also arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. 25 Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. 26 But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. 27 For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves. …”

Luke 22:24-27 (TNIV)

Indeed Jesus didn’t just teach this, he also modelled it, in his life as well as in his death:

When he had finished washing their feet, he put on his clothes and returned to his place. “Do you understand what I have done for you?” he asked them. 13 “You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and rightly so, for that is what I am. 14 Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. 15 I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. 16 Very truly I tell you, servants are not greater than their master, nor are messengers greater than the one who sent them. 17 Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them. …”

John 13:12-17 (TNIV)

So, in the light of this fundamental teaching from God spoken out by Moses, Samuel and Jesus, what do we make of the evidence BW3 has in mind, that “hierarchial leadership structures … are Biblical … as documents like the Pastoral Epistles and Acts make clear”?

First, as always we have to be very careful about taking what we read about what happened in the New Testament church as normative. The early believers sometimes got things wrong, and were corrected for it. This means that we should always give priority to specific teaching of Jesus and the apostles over following examples recorded without explicit teaching to commend them.

Nevertheless, we must accept that the apostles did arrange (here I deliberately use a very generic word) that certain people would have leadership positions, such as being elders, in local churches, and Paul explicitly taught Titus to make similar arrangements (Titus 1:5). Since Paul called himself “a slave of Christ Jesus” (Romans 1:1, literally, Greek doulos), it is easy to infer here a hierarchy: Jesus > Paul > Titus > elders > ordinary church members.

But is this what the Bible really teaches? No, because Paul’s instructions must be understood in the light of the teaching of Jesus which I already quoted. And this was Paul’s understanding; in accordance with Jesus’ words “whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant” Paul called himself a slave of Jesus but a servant (diakonos) of the church (Colossians 1:24-25, compare 1 Corinthians 3:5, also 2 Corinthians 4:5 which uses doulos), and he notes that even Jesus took the very nature of a slave (doulos) (Philippians 2:7). Peter appealed to elders to be “not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock” (1 Peter 5:3, TNIV).

So what are the models of leadership which are commended in the Bible? As we have seen, clearly not the hierarchical model as understood by “the kings of the Gentiles”, in which each person is in effect the slave of the one in authority over them. I find the following models (I don’t claim that this list is exhaustive):

  • Leader as steward or manager (oikonomos): This important model is obscured in many modern Bible translations, but the idea goes right back to the creation (Genesis 2:15) and is found in Jesus’ parables (Luke 12:42-46, 16:1-8) and in Paul’s instructions for overseers (Titus 1:7; also 1 Corinthians 4:1-2, 9:17, Ephesians 3:2,9, Colossians 1:25, 1 Timothy 1:4, 1 Peter 4:10). The point here is that leaders are commissioned by God to do his will, and have no independent authority to impose on the people entrusted to their care.
  • Leader as shepherd or pastor: This image also goes back to the Old Testament, with God as the shepherd of his people (Psalm 23:1) and human leaders also as shepherds who are held accountable by God (Ezekiel 34). In the New Testament Jesus is the chief shepherd (1 Peter 5:4, John 10:14) and elders in the church are shepherds (or “pastors”, the same word in Greek) of the flock that has been entrusted to them (1 Peter 5:2-3). This model is similar to that of the steward.
  • Leader as father or mother: This is a significant biblical model of leadership, and one which goes back to all eternity in that it is a Father and Son relationship, not one of master and slave, which is found in the Trinity. (This is the answer to BW3’s attempt to root hierarchical subordination in the Trinity; a son is not just in submission but he is also the heir to his father and so is or should be treated with respect and love by the father.) In the Old Testament authority was primarily through extended families known literally as “fathers’ houses” (Exodus 6:14, Numbers 1:2 etc, see KJV). The judge Deborah was called “a mother in Israel” (Judges 5:7). Paul made use of both of these metaphors: “Just as a nursing mother cares for her children, so we cared for you … For you know that we dealt with each of you as a father deals with his own children …” (1 Thessalonians 2:7-8,11), and he called Timothy and Titus not his servants but “my true son” (1 Timothy 1:2, Titus 1:4). Paul also saw the church as a family (patria) under one Father (pater), God (Ephesians 3:14-15) Nevertheless Jesus cautioned against human use of the title “Father”, along with “Rabbi” and “Teacher”, because of the way such titles are abused by “those who exalt themselves” (Matthew 23:8-12).
  • Leader as servant or slave: We have already looked at this one, so I will reiterate it simply by quoting Paul’s instructions for relationships between Christians which must include those between leaders and those they lead:

In your relationships with one another, have the same attitude of mind Christ Jesus had:
6 Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a human being,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!

Philippians 2:5-8 (TNIV)

Plant churches that are shaped by their culture, but reflect Christ

Posted on by
9

David Keen, a Church of England vicar, has some interesting quotes from Graham Cray, Bishop of Maidstone and lead author of the Church of England report “The Mission Shaped Church”. These quotes are specifically about church planting but also relevant to strategies for an existing church. The emphasis is probably David’s.

You will need to go where they are, you will not get them to come to you. Plant churches that are shaped by their culture, but reflect Christ. The Christian distinctive stays, but otherwise the shape of the church is substantially decided by the actual lifestyle and circumstances of the people you are trying to reach. The very shape of church we are used to can be a stumbling block to the gospel. No one expression or shape of church life will fit the whole of our diverse culture. I suggest that to have in mind what a church plant will look like probably won’t work. We need a baptised imagination in the practice of mission, not just dreaming up what we think we are going to do under God as we begin. …

The first stage of our strategy is to reach people where they are, in the form of community they actually live in, and not the ones we believe they ought to live in. You plant churches in networks, communities of people who do have a relationship with one another, not in streets of people who ought to have a relationship with one another.

"Church people" and "God people"

Posted on by
Reply

From a post by Jeremy Myers, which I had bookmarked to respond to and have just come back to:

When it comes to people who claim a connection with God, there are “church people” and “God people.” Church people focus on what they are doing for God, and God people focus on what God has done for them. Check out this quote from David Bosch’s book Transforming Mission:

Kingdom people seek first the Kingdom of God and its justice; church people often put church work above concerns of justice, mercy, and truth. Church people think about how to get more people into the church; Kingdom people think about how to get the church into the world. Church people worry that the world might change the church; Kingdom people work to see the church change the world (p. 378. He is quoting Howard Snyder, Liberating the Church).

And here is what gets me the most: In my experience, there are not a lot of “God people” or “Kingdom people” in the typical Sunday gathering of the church. Most of the “God people” we’ve ran into recently don’t “attend church” at all. Why do you think this is?

I am glad to say that in my church there are “God people” and “Kingdom people”, as well as some “church people” but we are working on them. I don’t think I would continue to “attend church” if it was full of “church people”. But we are still struggling to get beyond the mindset that the best way of getting people into the kingdom is to get them through the church doors.

The greatest obstacle to the advance of the kingdom of God?

Posted on by
Reply

Despite what I wrote in my last post I have found something to blog about, courtesy of Eddie. Hamo the Backyard Missionary has written a provocative post The Problem is Christianity, about the Christian scene in his own Australia but also largely applicable here in England, and I dare say also, even all the more so, in North America. Eddie quotes Hamo’s own summary of his post, so for variety I will quote some different parts, with just an extract from the summary:

The greatest obstacle to the advance of the kingdom of God in most of the West is … a resurgent Christianity.

Here is part of his explanation:

The Church of England Newspaper May 26, 2008 says, “Islam is being institutionalised, incarnated, into national structures amazingly fast, at the same time as …. the ‘excarnation’ of Christianity… out of state policy and structures”. Whilst this may be sad for those who sentimentalise about the loss of the fides historica (inherited conventional religion), it is surely a sign of the judgement of God on the human construct of privilege and compromise called “Christianity” and a preparation for a return to radical Christ- centred faith that disappeared from Western society long ago.

I was especially struck by this point:

The people of God can only know their deepest inward identity as the Bride of Christ through an immediate and passionate awareness, in the Spirit, that Jesus is their Bridegroom (John 3:29; Rev 19:6 – 8). Where this is lacking, much of what transpires as Christian spirituality is simply “spiritual masturbation.” It may have the appearance of godliness, but is part of a religious culture that lacks the interpenetrative power of holiness (2 Tim 3:5).

I wish I dared to use “spiritual masturbation” as a post title, but I don’t want to seem too shocking. The verse referred to is this:

having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people.

2 Timothy 3:5 (TNIV)

Does Hamo really mean that we should have nothing to do with these practitioners of “Christian spirituality [which] is part of a religious culture”, the supporters of “the fides historica (inherited conventional religion)”? That is certainly a strong challenge. If Hamo is right, we who are looking for the kingdom of God (I hesitate to say “we Christians” because that makes us sound like supporters of the Christianity that Hamo criticises) should abandon any attempt to preserve the institutional Christian basis of our society and instead accept with joy the role of outsiders with a prophetic message.

If this is right, the latest Church of England report Moral, But no Compass is fundamentally flawed. This report calls for a reverse in the decline of the influence of the church within the government corridors of power, even for the appointment of a government “Minister for Religion”. I don’t suggest that the report has no value, for it has clearly identified some of the ways in which the British government is failing to take proper account of what Christian churches are doing, especially in the charity sector. But in so far as it is at least in part a call for the re-establishment of church influence over the state, and inevitably vice versa as a corollary, this report seems to be an attempt to restore “the human construct of privilege and compromise called “Christianity””, also described as “the greatest obstacle to the advance of the kingdom of God”.

So let us, as believers in Jesus, set aside both the spiritual adultery of looking to the state for support and affirmation and the spiritual masturbation of looking for it in our own religious culture. Let us instead seek our spiritual satisfaction only in God, in worshipping him in holiness.

Impartation and Ordination

Posted on by
Reply

Henry Neufeld asked the question, in this post at Threads from Henry’s Web, whether there is some kind of impartation, analogous to what Todd Bentley offers, in ordination to the priesthood or pastorate. The following is adapted and expanded from a comment I made on that post.

First I want to look at some biblical material which links impartation and what might be considered the biblical prototype of ordination.

We do have at least one mass impartation meeting in the Bible, in Acts 8:15-17, where Peter and John placed their hands on large numbers of people in Samaria and they each received the Holy Spirit. In verse 18 we read specifically that “the Spirit was given at the laying on of the apostles’ hands” (TNIV). These people were already baptised believers but had not experienced the Holy Spirit in their own lives. This sounds all very like Lakeland to me, although I am sure many of the people receiving an impartation from Todd Bentley have been filled with the Spirit before and are seeking a refilling (cf Acts 4:31, Ephesians 5:18) or greater power.

Within church tradition (at least Anglican and I think Roman Catholic) this event in Samaria is seen as the prototype of confirmation, rather than of ordination – a blessing imparted by the apostles and so now to be imparted only by bishops, but offered to all believers and not just those chosen for office in the church; also it is not transferable in that those confirmed do not acquire the power to confirm others. In fact not even Philip who evangelised Samaria seems to have the power to impart this blessing; he had been commissioned by the apostles with the laying on of hands (Acts 6:6) but for a different role as a prototype deacon, in what is understood in the tradition as the first ordination to the diaconate – not to the episcopate, so he could not confirm people. Note, however, that Philip had received the power to perform signs and wonders (Acts 8:6-7), something which is in principle available to all Spirit-filled believers, not just ordained clergy.

Now it is interesting to see what Simon the sorcerer made of this, in Acts 8:18-19. Presumably he received along with all the others the impartation which was not transferable, analogous to confirmation. But he wanted more, and made the serious mistake of offering money for it. What he wanted was the transferred power to impart the Holy Spirit to others, or in the terms of church tradition he wanted to be ordained or consecrated to the episcopate so that he could confirm others. Peter and John, as apostles, could presumably have performed this impartation, but for very good reasons refused to do so. So, whereas the non-transferable impartation was offered to freely to all who believed, the transferable impartation was carefully guarded.

It is not entirely clear how, if by any human means, the power to impart the Holy Spirit was passed outside the immediate circle of the apostles. We can surmise that when the apostles sent Barnabas to Antioch (Acts 11:22) he was given this power of transferable impartation; or, in traditional terms, he was consecrated bishop. When later (Acts 13:2-3) he and Saul/Paul were commissioned with laying on of hands for their missionary journeys, it may be that Saul was also given this power; certainly by the time he gets to Ephesus (Acts 19:6) Paul is able to pray for people to be filled with the Holy Spirit. However, Paul insists that he received his apostleship direct from the risen Christ, and not from the original apostles (Galatians 1:1). Paul seems to have passed his commissioning on to Timothy in some kind of ceremony of impartation (2 Timothy 1:6), and he and Titus (Titus 1:5) seem to have had the right to appoint elders and “bishops”.

This is, I suppose, the biblical basis for the (Roman and Anglo-) Catholic concept of the apostolic succession, that true bishops and priests must be ordained through an unbroken succession of laying on of hands from the apostles. Most Protestant Christians do not consider this necessary, and indeed do not have bishops. The ordination Henry Neufeld referred to was into the United Methodist Church which does have bishops, but they are not in the proper apostolic succession because the first American Methodist bishops were ordained by John Wesley, who was a priest, not a bishop. Interestingly, some charismatic and Pentecostal denominations, such as the one which consecrated Bishop Michael Reid, do consider it important to have bishops in a genuine apostolic succession.

Now while I would be surprised if Todd Bentley actually considers the apostolic succession to be important, his concept of transferable impartation seems to be in the same tradition. He believes in and practises laying hands, or cloths, on people so that they receive for themselves not only filling with the Holy Spirit but also the power to pass this impartation on to others.

Now an interesting corollary of the traditional apostolic succession teaching is that if one rogue bishop chose to ordain or consecrate everyone at mass meetings and taught them to do the same, a situation could quite quickly come about in which millions of believers worldwide became bishops and would have to be recognised as such by the Catholic churches. One might however argue that this rogue bishop would be doing the right thing, in fulfilment of Moses’ prayer in Numbers 11:29 and Joel’s prophecy quoted in Acts 2:17-21, which foresee a universal outpouring of the Holy Spirit not restricted by the limited number of apostles who could mediate it.

What Todd seems to be doing is what the rogue bishop might do. Now I don’t mean to suggest that Todd actually stands in any literal apostolic succession, although that is possible. But he seems to be offering a transferable impartation to all, and teaching all to pass it on to others. On the traditional understanding he is consecrating all and sundry as bishops. In this way the impartation will soon make its way to every Christian worldwide who is willing to receive it.

Of course this begs the question of whether the impartation, what is passed on by laying on of hands, is in any way real in the spiritual realm. On that issue all I can say is that this kind of impartation does seem to have been significant to the apostles – also that thousands of people including myself have experienced something real if subjective when given the Todd Bentley impartation either directly or indirectly.

One lesson we can learn from all this is that there are no neat rules or formulae for how this kind of impartation works. God is not bound the apostolic succession but can do a new thing. As he raised up Paul independently of the established apostles, so he can also raise up new leaders even from stones (compare Luke 3:8), people like John Wesley, who was never a bishop, and apparently Todd Bentley. And given the weakness and apostasy of so many bishops in what remains of the original apostolic succession, at least the Anglican branch of it, it would hardly be surprising if God raised up a new source of transferable impartation which he chooses to use to pour out his Spirit on a needy world.

Pentecost news – I hope not!

Posted on by
Reply

Sally gives her answers to a “Pentecost Friday 5” of personal questions from her fellow Revgals. I don’t propose to join in this female pastors’ little game. But, in the light of current discussions, here is my answer to the bonus question

What would a modern day news coverage of the first Pentecost have sounded like?

There will be more Baal worshippers than Christians in Jerusalem by the year 50!

According to a new publication Religious Trends, the number of Christians shows a decline from 12 just two months ago to 11 last week. At this rate of decline there will be just two Christians left in 20 years time.

Philip, a spokesperson for the Christians, suggested that these statistics are misleading because they do not take into account new believers such as the reported 3000 converts yesterday.

This evidence seems to prove that this new religion is dead even before it starts. Caiaphas, the Jewish High Priest, told this newspaper that the situation entirely justified the action that the Sanhedrin were planning to stop the Christian leaders preaching.

Let’s hope and pray for better news coverage of this year’s Pentecost, tomorrow.

Christian research confusion

Posted on by
Reply

I feel for Benita Hewitt, the Director of Christian Research, and indeed currently their only full time person. She seems to have found herself in the middle of a media storm about apparently conflicting statistics on her organisation’s newly published Religious Trends 7.

Ruth Gledhill reproduces some tables from this publication giving a clearly shown estimate of church attendance in England in 2050 of 718,100. But this page on Christian Research’s own website, reproducing a March 2008 magazine article supposed to be summarising the figures in Religious Trends 7, gives a figure for church membership in England in 2050 of 1,898,000. That is a discrepancy of over a million! Are these supposed to be members who don’t attend? Even on the higher figure the predicted decline from 3,554,200 attenders or 3,764,000 members in 2000 is worrying, but by no means as catastrophic as the figure quoted by Ruth in The Times, and disputed by me and many others, yesterday.

So, what is going on? Even in the magazine article the final table suggests a total for “churchgoers” in Great Britain (not just England) in 2050 of 0.9 million, which agrees with Ruth’s figures. It also suggests that a mere 3% of those churchgoers will be under 30 – but on what basis are they predicting the habits of people not yet even born?

It seems to me that Christian Research has got its figures mixed up, or else there are some explanations of them in the full report which have not been picked up by newspapers or bloggers. This also illustrates the dangers of extrapolating current trends for long periods in the future

But, as David Keen writes in his take on the situation:

no complacency, the picture is still one of decline, and there’s no reason for folk to pat themselves on the back and reassure themselves with the knowledge that the Titanic isn’t sinking as fast as we thought.