I appreciate Ben\u2019s Epilogue. As I read it, two things stood out immediately:<\/p>\n
One: I was quite impressed that Ben could craft a response in less than 7,000 words! \ud83d\ude09 <\/p>\n
Two: I don\u2019t think the mug shot at the top of the Epilogue is a very good photo of Ben. He\u2019s a bit better looking than that \ud83d\ude09<\/p>\n
I\u2019m glad to see that BW3 acknowledges that both he and I have misread each other on some points. This is inevitable given the stale medium of Internet discourse (which I have never liked). And it\u2019s only exacerbated by our profoundly different paradigms and experiences.<\/p>\n
On a personal note, I\u2019m happy to learn that I misunderstood a few of Ben\u2019s points. It\u2019s good to know that he\u2019s not as far out in left field as I had originally thought. (grin)<\/p>\n
Let me repeat something I said at the front (in Part One of my Response). I could be completely wrong in all my views and Ben could be completely right. However, his arguments aren\u2019t new to me. I, along with many others who I personally know and respect in the Lord, have grappled with them for many years. We have listened carefully to those with whom we disagree, we have weighed their arguments, and we have not found them convincing. Of course, that could be an oversight on our part. Or it could mean that we who disagree with the conventional view of church may be on to something. (Hold that out as a possibility.) <\/p>\n
In addition, I never asked or sought to be published. Each of the publishers sought me out (to my shock). And after much prayer and counsel from people who I know and respect in the Lord, I agreed. I\u2019m very encouraged that these books are \u201cgetting out\u201d and creating conversation that touch on those things that relate to the headship and centrality of Jesus Christ. I stand with all that I\u2019ve written, yet I\u2019m keenly aware that I could be mistaken. So I welcome this sort of civil and gracious dialogue and feel that it\u2019s healthy.<\/p>\n
That said, let me wrap this discussion up by focusing on a number of topics that Ben addresses in his Epilogue. I trust that it will help our readers to better see my line of reasoning and why I\u2019ve come to various conclusions.<\/p>\n
***Counting Heads and Sitting on Limbs***<\/p>\n
The bulk of Ben\u2019s Epilogue invokes with I would call the argument of \u201ccounting heads.\u201d Ben appeals to it twice. It goes like this: \u201cWhat the majority of the church has believed is correct. The minority view is incorrect.\u201d Ben asserts that my views on the church represent a tiny, tiny almost invisible minority of Christians. Using his words, I\u2019m \u201cout on a limb\u201d that only a few others share. <\/p>\n
(Frank clears his throat.) <\/p>\n
I concede that in terms of my complete ecclesiology, I\u2019m part of a minority voice in the Body of Christ. (In terms of my views on the Trinity, however, I\u2019m in the majority. More on that later.) <\/p>\n
A few facts to consider.<\/p>\n
The Radical Reformation, which I and others identity mostly with, has always been in the minority. Most of these brave souls were exterminated in years past. In fact, if Ben and I were discussing these same issues some 500 years ago, after my \u201crejoinder\u201d (if I was even given a chance to write it), I would have been taken out and burned at the stake. <\/p>\n
Interestingly, however, this minority is growing in our day.<\/p>\n
Reportedly, 1500 pastors a month leave the clergy system (traditional pastorate) in the United States. (That number has been reported by Rev Magazine, Leadership Magazine, CT, Focus on the Family, et. al.)<\/p>\n
According to Gallop, 1 million adult Christians per year leave the institutional church in the U.S. and the number is growing. Most of them are still following the Lord and fellowshipping with other Christians. As Reggie McNeal has said, \u201cA growing number of people are leaving the institutional church for a new reason. They are not leaving because they have lost their faith. They are leaving the church to preserve their faith.\u201d George Barna has written extensively on this in recent years.<\/p>\n
Note: By nature, I\u2019m skeptical of statistics. Part of my early Christian journey was in the Pentecostal movement. And I quickly came to the conclusion that if a Pentecostal gives you a figure of those healed or saved, cut it in half and divide by two and you\u2019ll *probably* get the real figure \ud83d\ude09 Frankly, I have no idea what the real numbers are. But what I do know is that according to many researchers all across the board, the typical American evangelical, conservative, traditional church is on the decline. Many Christians are either shifting toward more liturgical church forms (Catholic\/Anglican\/Eastern Orthodox) or they are seeking to gather in more simple\/organic forms of church life.<\/p>\n
I think it\u2019s unwise to ignore all of this or fall into the temptation of judging those Christians who\u2019ve taken those turns.<\/p>\n
What \u201cReimagining Church\u201d does is bridge the gap between the Catholic\/Anglican\/Orthodox emphasis on the Godhead and authentic Christian community and practically applies it to organic forms of church life. <\/p>\n
But beyond all this, the most striking thought that shot through my mind while reading Ben\u2019s \u201ccounting-heads\/Frank\u2019s-out-on-a-thin-limb\u201d argument was . . .<\/p>\n
This is the same exact same line of reasoning that was launched against John Wesley some 200 years ago. And it was launched by the clergymen of his day.<\/p>\n
Early on, Wesley\u2019s critics were filled with sentiments that he and his movement had departed from the historic church.<\/p>\n
I find this ironic seeing that Ben has been serving in a denomination that owes its very existence to John Wesley.<\/p>\n
Add to that: this same line of argumentation was leveled against all the Reformers, who in turn, leveled it against the Radical Reformers. <\/p>\n
And history repeats itself as it so predictably does. <\/p>\n
Historical sidelight: Shortly before the Diet of Worms, the pope dispatched one of the major theologians of the day, Cardinal Cajetan, to speak to Luther. What the pope told him was \u201cdo not argue with him on the substance of the issues. Just simply insist that he\u2019s obligated to submit to my authority and the authority of the Church.\u201d
Hmmm . . .
Note that I (and everyone else I know for that matter) cannot fill the shoes of a John Wesley or a Martin Luther. But the point remains. As one writer for Leadership Magazine put it recently, \u201cThe heroes of church history began as reflective Christians who doubted what everyone else took for granted, and as a result, were in almost every case marginalized \u2026 If renewal comes from the margins\u2014as it nearly always appears to do\u2014then by amputating our margins, we do what the chief priests and scribes did when a needed voice showed up at the margins of their community.\u201d
If we will take \u201cthe counting heads\/out on a limb\u201d argument to its logical conclusion, then Ben and I ought to join the Roman Catholic Church and submit to the pope. The last time I checked, the RCC is the largest segment of the Christian world today.<\/p>\n
The fact is, the church as an institution has been wrong on the issue of slavery throughout the centuries. It\u2019s been wrong on the issue of \u201cthe sword\u201d (shedding blood over doctrinal differences) since the fourth century. It\u2019s been wrong on the unholy wedding between church and State since Constantine. It\u2019s been wrong on the place of women throughout the centuries \u2013 treating them as second-class citizens and degrading them in its theology. (Interestingly, Ben himself broke with the majority historical voice on this issue.) <\/p>\n
Point: the \u201ccounting heads\/out on a limb\u201d argument doesn\u2019t seem to hold up very well when put under the magnifying glass of church history. The tiny, tiny minority has often been proven in the long run to be correct. <\/p>\n
Consequently, I think the question of ecclesiology should be settled (where possible) by comparing arguments rather than by coun
\nting noses.<\/p>\n
***Exegesis vs. Theology***<\/p>\n
One of the constants in this discussion has been the hermeneutical question. To my thinking, because the Scriptures point to Christ, we cannot restrict ourselves to authorial intent. We must ask and answer relevant questions about the God to whom the Scriptures so truly and reliably reveal. In other words, we can\u2019t build our views about God on exegesis alone. We must also do theology because theology is ultimately about God.<\/p>\n
In this connection, Ben accuses Grenz, Giles, Volf, and Bilezekian of not \u201cgrounding their theologizing in a close reading of Scripture\u201d and then says there\u2019s \u201cnot an exegete among them.\u201d <\/p>\n
Really? I encourage our readers to pick up Stanley Grenz\u2019 monumental work, \u201cTheology for the Community of God.\u201d Flip over to the back. You will find a 13-page, tiny-font Scripture index referencing the scores of texts that Grenz grounds his theology in. Throughout the book, Grenz\u2019 roots his theology solidly on compelling exegesis. Also pick up Gilbert Bilezikian\u2019s \u201cCommunity 101\u201d and watch how he grounds his theology in the NT text time and time again. Do the same for Kevin Giles\u2019 books, \u201cThe Trinity and Subordinationism\u201d and \u201cJesus and the Father.\u201d Giles grounds his views solidly in the NT and the consensus of the church historically. Read those books and then decide whether or not Ben\u2019s charge that these men \u201cdo not ground their theology in a close reading of Scripture\u201d is true or not. <\/p>\n
Incidentally, Giles and Grenz appeal to Scripture in the books I\u2019ve cited above far more than Ben does in his theological book, \u201cThe Problem of Evangelical Theology.\u201d (I just plugged your book, Ben. (smile) ) <\/p>\n
I believe that Ben has set up a straw man implying that theologians don\u2019t do exegesis. That\u2019s just not true.<\/p>\n
Right or wrong, it\u2019s my opinion that Ben confuses exegesis with theology. Karl Barth believed that exegesis was not theology; it was only the beginning of theology. I would agree. Very simply, the biblical text points us to something outside of itself. The Bible is not a book about the Bible. The Bible is a book about the Lord Jesus Christ. <\/p>\n
***Canonical Criticism vs. Historical Criticism***<\/p>\n
Ben suggests that we don\u2019t have \u201cpermission\u201d to read the latter part of the canon back into the earlier part. My question is: \u201cWho is the permission giver?\u201d \u201cWho can give or deny us that permission?\u201d<\/p>\n
I wonder if implicitly Ben is suggesting that the exegetical scholar is the one who grants such permission. If that\u2019s the case, then the exegetical scholar who denies canonical criticism is viewed as standing as king over the whole realm of biblical interpretation and tells everyone what is and what is not permissible. <\/p>\n
Interestingly, not all exegetes are bound to the narrow methodology that says you must interpret a text by just restricting yourself to ask one question, \u201cWhat did the author have in his head at the time when he wrote that text?\u201d<\/p>\n
Again, I address this in \u201cBeyond Bible Study,\u201d www.ptmin.org\/beyond.pdf I\u2019ll just say that we can learn a great deal by looking at the NT\u2019s own way of interpreting the OT. Matthew quotes Hosea saying, \u201cOut of Egypt have I called my Son\u201d and applies it to Jesus Christ. Such an interpretation clearly had nothing to do with the authorial intention of Hosea. But this is typical of the way the NT utilizes the OT. It sees the full meaning of a text coming in the fullness of light that we\u2019ve received in Christ.<\/p>\n
Just so we\u2019re clear: I believe that the meaning of Scripture *includes but exceeds* the product of the modern hermeneutic. The modern historian doesn\u2019t have the last word on the meaning of Scripture. The interpreters of Scripture prior to the Renaissance, Reformation, and Enlightenment still had the basic equipment they needed to understand Holy Writ: the Holy Spirit and their fellow Christians through the ages. Just because they didn\u2019t have modern historical science does not mean that they were incapable of understanding the Scriptures. Such a thought is absurd to me. To think it is the height of Western, Enlightenment arrogance in my view.<\/p>\n
Brevard Childs, like myself, accepted historical criticism. Childs\u2019 position was that historical criticism is a good beginning, but not a good stopping place. We don\u2019t stop with the historical information of the text. We rather go on to see the fullness of the canon. Thus Childs didn\u2019t deny historical criticism. The problem is that some are setting canonical criticism and historical criticism up as an either\/or choice. But that\u2019s a false choice. One can advocate the historical study of Scripture and yet say that historical study needs to be inserted into a larger and richer context, i.e., the existing canon of Scripture which contains a revelation of Jesus Christ. <\/p>\n
My book, \u201cThe Untold Story of the NT Church,\u201d is mostly a work of historical criticism written on a popular level. But just like Childs, I\u2019m insisting that the interpretative process is not completed by historical criticism alone.<\/p>\n
Put another way, the biblical texts are not just a grab bag of individual books. They are an organically united, canonical collection and they are only fully intelligible as such. <\/p>\n
***Jesus Christ Speaking Through the Members of His Body***<\/p>\n
This is not a black vs. white matter. I can\u2019t identify with Ben\u2019s statement of speaking \u201cAS Jesus.\u201d I have no idea what that means. <\/p>\n
I affirm that Paul\u2019s statement, \u201cyet not I, but Christ lives in me\u201d is an actual, and not a metaphorical, reality. Therefore, I believe that Christians can \u201cspeak by the Spirit\u201d (1 Cor. 12:3). Prophetic utterances occur in the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12-14). The Spirit of Christ still inspires, anoints, and speaks through His people. At the same time, we are exhorted to judge every prophetic utterance and discern what in it rightly represents the mind of God. Why? Because NT prophecy is not understood by looking at the OT mediatorial prophet as its model. NT prophecy is not the same thing as the ministry of the OT prophets, because OT prophets had a mediatorial position. NT prophets and those who prophesy do not have this mediatorial position. So what they say must be judged. <\/p>\n
By the way, it\u2019s reported that Bishop Butler, an Anglican clergyman, supposedly scolded Wesley once saying to him, \u201cSir, this matter of Christians being inspired by the Holy Spirit in spiritual gifts is a horrid thing, a horrid thing.\u201d I find that interesting, given this discussion.<\/p>\n
***The Godhead and the Church Fathers***<\/p>\n
Ben says with absolute certainty that the NT says nothing of the relationship between Father, Son and Spirit before creation except that God \u201ccreated the universe, or God was planning to redeem it. That\u2019s all folks.\u201d <\/p>\n
I can\u2019t agree. John 17:24b is just one example of a text that tells us something about the relationship between the Father and the Son before the foundation of the world. And there are more such texts folks. \ud83d\ude09<\/p>\n
I\u2019ve never said nor do I believe that the Father died on the cross. My point was that the principle of the cross is found in the Godhead. God is love. Thus His nature is to dispossess Himself and pour His life into the other members of the Godhead. Calvary was merely an outworking of this principle, which is rooted in God\u2019s nature and worked out among the Trinitarian Community.<\/p>\n
The views on the Trinity that \u201cReimagining Church\u201d advocates is held by Catholics today, by Orthodox today, and by most Anglicans and Lutherans, as well as many people in Reformed and other denominations. <\/p>\n
Regarding my views of the Trinity, Ben says I\u2019m wrong on the Eastern Fathers and I\u2019m wrong on the Trinity. First, when I wrote about what the Eastern Fathers believed in my response, I was essentially quoting their writings themselves. Second, those who have s
\ntudied the writings of the Fathers in detail know that subordinationism was considered a heresy and that the Fathers did not believe that there was a chain-of-command hierarchy in the Godhead. Some, however, have quoted the Fathers out-of-context in their attempt to try to justify a hierarchy in the Trinity (Augustine is sometimes used for this). <\/p>\n
A challenge to our readers. Read Kevin Giles two books (mentioned above) and the Appendix in Gilbert Bilezikian\u2019s \u201cCommunity 101.\u201d They will clearly show that the view on the Trinity taken in \u201cReimagining Church\u201d is in line with the historic teaching of the church. Note that I quote them in the book also.<\/p>\n
Case in point. When the Eastern Fathers \u2013 Gregory of Nyssa and the other Cappedocian Fathers \u2013 stated that God the Father is the fount\/source of the Godhead, some said, \u201cYou\u2019re teaching subordinationism.\u201d And they insisted, \u201cNo, we aren\u2019t. The Father is the fount of the Godhead, but what He begets is One who is fully like Himself, and therefore, He is not subordinate to Him.\u201d So the accusation of the subordination of the Son was specifically made and denied by the Eastern Fathers.<\/p>\n
Contrary to Ben\u2019s claim, I am not blending together the three Persons of the Trinity. I\u2019m simply insisting that their glorious distinctive relationships are intelligible only when seen in the context of an overarching analogical resemblance. Yes, the three Persons are different. But they have an analogical resemblance to one another. They are distinct, but not separate. The Father\u2019s gift of Himself to the Son is not the same as the Son\u2019s gift to the Father. But they are analogous, and the term \u201csubordination\u201d can name one element of that analogy. Further, their relationship to one another is rightly named \u201clove,\u201d and therefore can be understood as being analogues. The relationship between Father and Son, then, is a matter of mutual submission. They just submit in different ways. \u201cPerichoresis,\u201d as the early Christians called it, the \u201cDivine dance,\u201d is what makes our human relationships intelligible in our relationship to God.<\/p>\n
Regarding Ben\u2019s comments on the members of the Trinity having different functions, this is what theologians call \u201cappropriation.\u201d The great theologians throughout the centuries, without any exception that I\u2019m aware of, have all said that appropriation must be done very carefully. It should not be thought to mean that if we appropriate creation to the Father, that only the Father is involved in creation. In fact, all the members of the Trinity are in their own distinctive ways involved in creation. The same is true for every Divine act. All the members of the Trinity are involved in the incarnation, in the atonement, in the resurrection, in regeneration, in sanctification, etc. Each Divine act is associated with a specific member of the Godhead, but that doesn\u2019t mean that it\u2019s an activity *exclusive* to that member. <\/p>\n
***Soundbytes or Building Blocks?***<\/p>\n
I believe that Ben misses the point, here. I\u2019m not naming various scholars as members of a single school of thought that I subscribe to. Not at all. I\u2019m simply crediting those people who have helped me answer specific questions.<\/p>\n
Thus when I quote and cite scholars who are Roman Catholic, Anglican, and part of other denominations, I do so because they drew the same conclusions that I have on certain questions. Quoting them doesn\u2019t mean that I agree totally with their entire model or vice versa. What it does mean, however, is at a minimum, their handling of certain texts draw the same basic conclusions that I\u2019ve drawn.<\/p>\n
To get more specific: I own all of F.F. Bruce\u2019s work and have studied his exegesis and life for years. Bruce wasn\u2019t your typical Plymouth Brethren. He believed in 1 Cor. 14:26\/Heb. 10:24-25 open-participatory meetings (as do I); he believed that women could speak in those meetings (as do I); he disagreed with J.N. Darby\u2019s \u201cbiblical blueprintism\u201d approach to ecclesiology as well as his dispensationalism (as do I); he didn\u2019t believe in a clergy nor a single pastor system (as do I); he believed that elders were plural in the local assembly (as do I); I could go on. <\/p>\n
The fact is, F.F. Bruce\u2019s ecclesiology was far closer to mine than it is to BW3\u2019s. Further, Bruce was a formidable exegete. And in my view, one of the greatest NT scholars of this age. <\/p>\n
The same is true for Gordon Fee. While we may not agree on every detail of our ecclesiology, there\u2019s wide agreement. For instance, Fee believes that 1 Cor. 14:26 was prescriptive. He believes that God through the Spirit speaks through the church, etc. He believes that Paul was an itinerant apostle. He believes in a plurality in elders in every church. He denies top-down authority leadership structures. <\/p>\n
What follows are some direct quotes from Fee that make the same identical points that I make in \u201cReimagining Church\u201d that Ben took issue with in his review.<\/p>\n
“God as Trinity, including the Holy Spirit, is the ground of both our unity and our diversity within the believing community\u2026\u201d (\u2018God in Three Persons: The Spirit and the Trinity\u2019 in \u201cPaul, the Spirit, and the People of God,\u201d p. 45).<\/p>\n
“One of the more remarkable features of the New Testament Epistles is the twin facts (a) that they are addressed to the church(es) as a whole, not to the church leadership, and (b) that leaders, therefore, are seldom, if ever, singled out either to see to it that the directives of a given letter are carried out or to carry them out themselves” (\u2018Laos and Leadership Under the New Covenant\u2019 in \u201cListening to the Spirit in the Text,\u201d pp.132-133).<\/p>\n
“Closely related to this is another reality that is easily missed in an individualistic culture, namely that the imperatives in the Epistles are primarily corporate in nature, and have to do first of all with the community and its life together; they address individuals only as they are part of the community. In the early church everything was done allelon (‘one another’)” (p.134).<\/p>\n
“Leaders do not exercise authority over God’s people\u2014although the community is to respect them and submit to their leadership; rather they are the ‘servants of the farm’ (1 Cor.3:5-9), or ‘household’ (1 Cor.4:1-3). The New Testament is not concerned about their place in the governance structures . . . but with their attitudes and servant nature. They do not rule, but serve and care for\u2014and that within the circle, as it were.” (p.136)<\/p>\n
The truth is, Gordon Fee\u2019s ecclesiology is far closer to mine than it is to BW3\u2019s. Further, Fee is an excellent exegete. (I quote him at other times in \u201cReimagining Church.\u201d)<\/p>\n
And Robert Banks\u2019 work on the anatomy of Paul\u2019s authority in the church is incomparable, bar none. <\/p>\n
Point: The way that Bruce, Fee, Banks, Howard Snyder, and even in some places Dunn, handle the Biblical text is in *many cases* the same way that I handle the text. <\/p>\n
Contrary to Ben\u2019s statement, the \u201cbuilding blocks\u201d of my theology of the Godhead and the relationship between Jesus Christ and His church maps tightly with the theology of Bonhoeffer, Grenz, Volf, and Giles. The difference lies in the *practical application* of that theology. I believe that if we apply their theology practically, it will not lead us to justify a Catholic church, an Anglican church, a Lutheran church, or an American Baptist church. Instead, it will lead us to the organic expression of the ekklesia. <\/p>\n
All told, I\u2019m perfectly fine with being characterized by sitting out on a limb. The truth of the matter is that many Christians of the past and a countless number in the present have taken their seat there also. In my estimation, Bruce and Fee, and even Snyder, are sitting on that limb too, but some of them are closer to the tree than others. (Unfortunately, those who were part of the original Radical Reformation were tossed off that limb to meet horrid deaths.)<\/p>\n
By the way, Ben\u2019s closing statement, \u201cthe consensus of the vast majority,\u201d is an oxymoron. A consensus means you don\u2019t think in terms of minorities and majorities.<\/p>\n
Anyways, that\u2019s how the tree looks from my humble limb \ud83d\ude09<\/p>\n
***Closing Words***<\/p>\n
I\u2019d like to thank Ben once again for this conversation. As I said in Part 2 of my response, I loathe this sort of academic discussion because 1) it typically doesn\u2019t get past the frontal lobe, 2) it often degenerates into something that grieves the spirit, and 3) it rarely if ever ends up changing anyone\u2019s mind. <\/p>\n
However, I sensed that there was a shot that Ben and I could demonstrate, by God\u2019s grace, how two Christians can have a vigorous, robust discussion on issues with which they strongly disagree and do it in a respectful, Christ-honoring way void of personal attacks and ad hominems. I certainly hope that this was the case. Our readers will have to decide if we pulled it off.<\/p>\n
I also hope this discussion won\u2019t end here, but that it rather becomes a \u201cstarter\u201d of sorts that others will continue in many other places.<\/p>\n
Methinks that if Ben and I keep going round the ben\u2019 on this topic (no pun intended), that his blog will become an echo chamber of sorts, where the same arguments will just be repeatedly echoed. (Counter-assertion arguments have already begun to show up, I think.) There\u2019s a lot to reflect on in what\u2019s already been said, I think. <\/p>\n
Regarding the book that provoked Ben\u2019s review in the first place, there are plenty of positive reviews (see http:\/\/www.ReimaginingChurch.org). And there are some not-so-positive reviews (like BW3\u2019s). \ud83d\ude09<\/p>\n
There are credentialed professors who wholeheartedly agree with the book (like Leonard Sweet who has made it required reading for his doctoral students). And there are those who wholeheartedly disagree with it (like BW3). \ud83d\ude09<\/p>\n
There are renowned authors who have endorsed it (like Shane Claiborne and Alan Hirsch). And there are renowned authors who haven\u2019t endorsed it (like BW3). \ud83d\ude09<\/p>\n
Suggestion: If this conversation has been of interest to you, I seriously hope that you will read \u201cReimagining Church\u201d for yourself instead of relying on someone else\u2019s review\u2013 whether good or bad. Many of the arguments made in it haven\u2019t been touched on in this conversation by the way.<\/p>\n
Add to that: if you suffered the pain of reading \u201cPagan Christianity,\u201d then you owe it to yourself to read \u201cReimagining.\u201d For one simple reason: \u201cPagan\u201d was only the first half of a conversation \u2013 the deconstructive side. The constructive half \u2013 which is the most important \u2013 is found in \u201cReimagining.\u201d \u201cPagan\u201d was never meant to be a \u201cstand-alone,\u201d and it\u2019s not complete without \u201cReimagining.\u201d<\/p>\n
That said, I hope our conversation will continue in the church at large, and I trust that it will be Christ-honoring\u2013 friendly dialogue among brethren rather than hostile debates among enemies. I\u2019m of the opinion that with respect to dialogue, the journey is more important than the destination\u2014 the process more important than the outcome.<\/p>\n
Despite our differences in ecclesiology, I stand with Ben Witherington III in our shared testimony that Jesus Christ is this world\u2019s true Lord. And I affirm him as a gifted member of the body of Christ.<\/p>\n
It\u2019s been an honor.<\/p>\n
Your brother who sits on a limb,<\/p>\n
Frank<\/p>\n
p.s. I\u2019ve not watched too much of Bill O\u2019Reilly. But in some of the episodes I\u2019ve seen, he doesn\u2019t really give his guests \u201cthe last word\u201d despite his claim. However, to quote Hebrews, \u201cI shall think better things\u201d of my brother Ben. (smile) Ultimately, the Lord Jesus Himself will have the last word, eh?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
I appreciate Ben\u2019s Epilogue. As I read it, two things stood out immediately: One: I was quite impressed that Ben could craft a response in less than 7,000 words! \ud83d\ude09 Two: I don\u2019t think the mug shot at the top of the Epilogue is a very good photo of Ben. He\u2019s a bit better looking…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":199,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-211","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"yoast_head":"\n