{"id":216,"date":"2008-09-12T12:11:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-12T12:11:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.beliefnet.com\/bibleandculture\/2008\/09\/reimagining-church--a-frank-response-part-one.html"},"modified":"2008-09-12T12:11:00","modified_gmt":"2008-09-12T12:11:00","slug":"reimagining-church-a-frank-response-part-one","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/2008\/09\/reimagining-church-a-frank-response-part-one.html","title":{"rendered":"Reimagining Church– A Frank Response Part One"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a>
Frank Viola\u2019s Response: Part One<\/p>\n

—
Frank Viola\u2019s Response: Part One<\/p>\n

—<\/p>\n

Okay, so in a moment of insanity, I accepted BW3’s challenge to appear on his blog and respond to his review of my latest book, “Reimagining Church.” www.ReimaginingChurch.org<\/p>\n

Just to prevent any confusion, I\u2019m the Frank Viola who was the high school baseball pitcher, not the major league Cy-Young Award winner (painful sigh). <\/p>\n

Truthfully, I’m both humbled and honored that BW3 would think enough of my books to (a) actually read them, (b) take time out of his grueling schedule to review them on his blog. And not just review them, but post a lengthy 4-part response to them. \u201cLoquacious\u201d has taken on brand new meaning for me (smile) (c) To receive Ben\u2019s gracious invitation to let me respond, and (d) to give me “the last word” in Bill O’Reilly style. (What a guy!)<\/p>\n

I’m impressed.<\/p>\n

Most people who differ with each other on issues like this embed themselves in their own circle. What Ben has done, therefore, is not only needed, but it\u2019s highly commendable. And I hope that those who are on both sides of the fence on this subject will learn from this exchange. Although I may disagree with what I call the \u201cinstitutional church model\/structure,\u201d I have great respect and appreciation for the people who are in it, including its leaders. (I owe my conversion and baptism to them.) God has used many people who belong to the institutional church in my life, and that continues till this day. Some of the most godly, mature Christians I\u2019ve ever met are members of it in fact.<\/p>\n

By the same token, Ben is not attacking those of us who meet outside the institutional church structure\/system. He\u2019s addressing the ideas behind why I and others feel that we have a solid biblical basis for gathering the way we do. Too many times God\u2019s people on either end of this discussion resort to personal attacks and the judgment of heart-motives of their own brethren in Christ. But we have not so learned Jesus Christ. I\u2019m glad that Ben and I can have a substantive conversation on the issues and hope that similar conversations will continue in the Body of Christ.<\/p>\n

Consequently, I\u2019d like to begin by thanking Ben for this opportunity. (I reserve the right to retract that last sentence after I read Ben\u2019s reply to my response. (smile))<\/p>\n

Let me begin by listing my credentials. <\/p>\n

I’ve never been to seminary (visiting seminary libraries doesn\u2019t count). I’ve never been to Bible college. I don’t speak Greek or Hebrew or Latin. (I don\u2019t even remember Spanish, even though I took two classes in high school.) I don’t part my hair down the middle or the side (it\u2019s difficult to when you don\u2019t have any). I still have a mustard-like fast ball, but I lost my wicked curve at age 27. And contrary to popular opinion, I wasn’t born during the first century.<\/p>\n

Oh, and Philippians 2:4-8 happens to be one of my favorite passages in the entire Bible.<\/p>\n

I’m quite content with the above. There are the Pauls of this world (professionally schooled in Tarsus and Jerusalem). And then there are us Peters, who have no such credentials. (I love A.W. Tozer and G. Campbell Morgan for that reason, by the way. They were autodidacts.)<\/p>\n

All told: another eminent scholar like Jon Zens or Robert Banks or Howard Snyder or Leonard Sweet or Miroslav Volf or Stanley Hauerwas should be engaging Ben on some of these subjects. Not an erstwhile baseball pitcher. <\/p>\n

But then again … what fun would that be? \u2018Tis a lot more thrilling to see an erudite scholar unsheathe his sword on a poor, ignorant \u201clayman\u201d who can barely wield a plastic knife, right?<\/p>\n

Three more points of introduction. <\/p>\n

First, I\u2019m keenly aware that I could be mistaken in many of my views. I\u2019ve made many mistakes in my life, but God has graciously taught me through them all. I have also changed my views over the years upon receiving further light, and I\u2019m constantly open to new light. As I say in the book, I\u2019m still learning, I\u2019m still in school, and I\u2019m still open to hear the Lord through all of His little ones \u2013 both scholars and new converts. I trust that this will always be the case. I\u2019m so thankful for the many close friends that God has put in my life and taught me through. And I\u2019m thankful for my relationship with Ben. Every day I thank the Lord for His mercy and grace in my life. I am nothing; Christ is everything. This will always remain true. What you will read in my response, therefore, is how the terrain looks from my hill right now. Albeit, I\u2019m looking at the back of the rocks, while Ben may be seeing their front.<\/p>\n

Second, I\u2019m not a promoter of \u201chouse church.\u201d Those who are familiar with my work know that I\u2019m quite critical of much that goes on in the modern house church movement, and as I say in my book, I do not believe that \u201chouse church\u201d is the only model of church. In fact, it\u2019s a myth to believe that there is one \u201chouse church\u201d model, as is commonly assumed. The house church movement is very, very diverse. There are elements of it that I agree with, some elements that I love, and other elements that horrify me. As I like to say, meeting in a home doesn\u2019t make you a church anymore than eating a donut makes you a police officer. (smile) If interested, readers can listen to a recent message I delivered at a house church conference at http:\/\/www.ptmin.org\/Dallas2007.mp3 for more details. If nothing else, it will give you my heart on the matter. More on this subject later.<\/p>\n

Third, I wish you all could see the comical banter that Ben and I pass along in our private emails. It\u2019s huge fun. I love the guy, and I\u2019m deeply thankful for this opportunity to interact with him on this venue. (So if you happen to see me poke fun at Ben and vice-versa, don\u2019t be alarmed. We do this often in our private emails.) The truth is, there\u2019s a healthy respect there.<\/p>\n

On that high note, I shall respond to Ben’s 4-part eBook (ahem [cough] \u2026 \u201creview,\u201d sorry). <\/p>\n

Actually, I\u2019m not joking about the eBook. Ben\u2019s complete review exceeds 26,000 words. Compare that to the average-sized review of the same book:<\/p>\n

http:\/\/www.theooze.com\/articles\/article.cfm?id=2104
http:\/\/kingdomgrace.wordpress.com\/2008\/08\/06\/review-reimagining-church\/
http:\/\/www.internetmonk.com\/archive\/the-frank-viola-project-and-why-you-should-take-it-seriously
It took me awhile to wade through Ben\u2019s 4-part review. Unlike his books, I found the writing style a bit tedious. I\u2019d describe his style of writing on his blog as \u201can intellectual stream of consciousness.\u201d <\/p>\n

Consequently, I\u2019m responding to Ben\u2019s review in the order in which he wrote it. Therefore, it won\u2019t be as organized as a chapter in a book might be. After all, this is just a blog post anyway. (grin)<\/p>\n

This first post will be under 8,000 words.<\/p>\n

[Deep breath]<\/p>\n

MY RESPONSE TO PART ONE<\/p>\n

General comment: I\u2019m of the opinion that the bulk of Ben\u2019s review is based on taking for granted a number of theological points of view, all of which are contested. Yet he believes these points to be self-evident. His theological construct is popular among conservative American evangelicals, but I believe it\u2019s very hard to justify biblically. More on that later.<\/p>\n

1) Ben opens his review asserting that he believes the vision of church that\u2019s presented in my book den
\nies, ignores, and reinterprets much of the NT ecclesiology. I would suggest the opposite. Namely, that the modern institutional paradigm for church that Ben embraces as biblical denies, ignores, and reinterprets much of the NT ecclesiology. I argue in my book very specifically how the churches in the NT fit the organic expression of body life that I describe. Many examples are cited from Scripture. Given Ben\u2019s claim, I\u2019d like to see one or two examples of a United Methodist church in the NT, for example. For instance: Show me in the NT the church building, show me the modern Methodist pastor, show me the order of worship, show me the weekly sermon delivered by the pastor to a passive audience every week\/month\/year, etc. In fact, I\u2019d like to see just one example of a *modern* pastor in the NT.
2) Ben goes on to correct me, saying that the body metaphor is not the only metaphor of the church in the NT. I\u2019m well aware of this and am in agreement. In fact, I dedicate an entire chapter to the family image \u2013 an image that dominates the NT.
3) I found Ben\u2019s comment about my use of Dr. King\u2019s speech to be curious at best. It\u2019s hardly a paraphrase. I think I lifted 5 words from the speech in total and credited Dr. King with it. No doubt, Dr. King\u2019s work is an area where African-American sensibilities vary widely. However, I have many African-American friends who are involved in ministry, and I\u2019ve consulted with some of them about this. Their response to me was, \u201cWe don\u2019t see how any African-American would be offended with the way you used the speech. We feel it actually honors Dr. King\u2019s speech.\u201d For that reason, I had no trouble using it. But Ben is very right in saying that I have no intention of offending anyone. That would include an institutionally-minded clergyman like Ben Witherington (smile Ben \ud83d\ude09
4) Regarding the T. Austin-Sparks quote, Ben didn\u2019t quote him entirely. The quote begins with, \u201cThe ministry of the Holy Spirit has ever been to reveal Jesus Christ, and revealing Him, to conform everything to Him.\u201d He also left these parts out of the quote: \u201cNo human genius can do this. It is all the Holy Spirit\u2019s revelation of Jesus Christ. Ours is to seek continually to see Him by the Spirit, and we shall know that He\u2014not a paper-pattern\u2014is the Pattern, the Order, the Form. It is all a Person who is the sum of all purpose and ways.\u201d This quote opens up the \u201cReimagining the Church as an Organism\u201d chapter. Sparks is speaking in the context of church formation. He\u2019s reacting against what I call the \u201cbiblical blueprint\u201d approach to church planting, which says, \u201cstudy the bible, research, activate your frontal lobe, imitate, and presto, an instant church is born.\u201d Sparks\u2019 point is that the pattern for the church is a Person. And a revelation of Christ by the Spirit is necessary. T. Austin-Sparks was not an anti-intellectual. No more than I am. His books \u201cThe School of Christ\u201d and the \u201cThe Stewardship of the Mystery\u201d are without peer in their unveiling of Jesus Christ and the church in God\u2019s eternal purpose. They show a depth of spiritual insight and scholarship that\u2019s found in few writers today.
5) Ben opines that my assertion that the major images of the ekklesia as being living entities is \u201cfalse.\u201d (Note: Ben really likes using words like \u201cfalse,\u201d \u201cerror\u201d, \u201cwrong,\u201d etc.) He offers Paul\u2019s image of the church being a \u201cfield\u201d as proof (see 1 Cor. 3). A field, to Ben\u2019s mind, isn\u2019t a living image. He believes that Paul has dirt in view here. My response: I seriously doubt that Paul was talking about an acre of dirt when he said to the Corinthians \u201cyou are God\u2019s field.\u201d I believe Paul had a wheat field in mind, or something similar. (Compare with other texts in the NT and in Paul himself; wheat is often an image of believers.) Ergo, a \u201cfield\u201d is a living image. To confirm this, Paul uses the language of \u201cplanting\u201d and \u201cwatering\u201d in that same text. Images of life and growth. The point I was making is that the ekklesia is depicted as an organism in the NT over and over again. I don\u2019t understand how this can be denied.
6) To my mind, Ben argues that \u201cbuildings\u201d are a hierarchical image of the church because \u201cbuildings have structures.\u201d Maybe I\u2019m not very smart, folks, but where do I locate the hierarchical structure of a building? I understand that buildings have a ceiling and a roof (along with walls, etc.), but they\u2019re built from the bottom up. Even so, is that what Paul and Peter are trying to convey when speaking of God\u2019s house\/ building? Or are they trying to convey that the church \u2013 which is comprised of God\u2019s people \u2013 is the dwelling of God? And does not the NT teach that Jesus Christ Himself is the foundation, the cornerstone, the capstone, and the temple itself (as embodied in His people)? So where are we supposed to connect the dots of human hierarchical\/ top-down\/chain-of-command social structures within the image of the church as building\/temple?
7) I\u2019ve never denied that the church is without a particular expression or anatomy. I\u2019m not a \u201cpost-church\u201d Christian as I state in the book. The physical body \u2013 which is a living entity \u2013 has a distinct expression. An anatomy, if you will. So too does the ekklesia of God. (This is one of the main points that I make in \u201cReimagining\u201d). However, to leap from \u201cexpression\u201d to \u201chierarchy\u201d is nonsensical in my opinion. A plant has an expression and an anatomy too. But there\u2019s no hierarchy between the leaves of a plant or between the roots, stem, and branches. Each provides for and supports the other. So it is with the ekklesia of God.
8) Again, the house of God is made up of \u201cliving stones.\u201d This is a living, breathing image.
9) The main point of all of this, of course, is my contention that the church is a spiritual organism and not a human organization. Ben appears to deny this \u2013 despite the fact that countless evangelical churches and organizations have in their mission\u2019s statements, \u201cThe church is an organism.\u201d And many of them add \u201cand not an organization.\u201d \u201cReimagining\u201d affirms this but it seeks to draw out the practical implications. If the church is an organism, then what does that mean *practically*? That\u2019s the question that the book seeks to answer.
10) One comment on the word \u201corganization.\u201d While the church has an expression, an anatomical structure, if you will, I wouldn\u2019t call it an \u201corganization.\u201d No more than I\u2019d call my physical body an organization, or a family an organization, or a bride an organization, or a wheat field an organization. Being a living organism doesn\u2019t exclude the idea that organisms do have a certain anatomy or expression. Nor does it mean that it\u2019s a chaotic, disorganized blob of life. (Although sometimes it can look that way!) Nor does it mean that it won\u2019t have \u201chabits.\u201d One of the definitions of \u201cnature\u201d is that it includes innate tendencies, instincts, and habits. I talk about this in terms of the DNA of the church. Perhaps there may be better language for communicating all of this, but I haven\u2019t found it yet.
11) If I believe that the church is a spiritual organism and Ben believes that it\u2019s a human institution, then obviously our paradigms are hugely different and this will account for our differing interpretations of many NT texts. This emerges in the area of Christology and the believers\u2019 unification with Christ also.
12) In the book, I quote one scholar who incisively observes, \u201cWhen the Greeks got the gospel, they turned it into a philosophy; when the Romans got it, they turned it into a government; when the Europeans got it, they turned it into a culture; and when the Americans got it, they turned it into a business.\u201d Ben denies that the church follows a business model. However, I believe he completely misunderstands my point about this. I am not claiming that the leaders of institutional churches think and act like business men, which is what he understands me to say. His justif
\nication was \u201cin my church we pray before every decision, etc.\u201d But that wasn\u2019t my point. I\u2019m not suggesting that the leaders of these churches are unspiritual or materialistic. I am speaking of the *structure* of such churches. My point is that the structure of the institutional church (which I define in the book) is one that imitates modern business patterns and methods. The typical American church, for example, has a structure that\u2019s basically similar to that of a company that has stock-holders (the members of the church), a board of directors (the leadership staff or clergy), a hierarchical structure, a CFO (church treasurer), and a CEO (the pastor). So it\u2019s organized very much like a business.
13) The constitutional scholar and historian Andrew C. McLaughlin in a book called \u201cFoundations of American Constitutionalism\u201d argued that the sort of covenantal thinking that we find in Puritanism \u2013 which is rife throughout American evangelicalism \u2013 is identical to the sort of thinking that led to the formation of the earlier business corporations of that day.
14) Now let\u2019s get to Genesis 1. (Ben alludes to my references to Genesis 1 and 2 in Parts Two and Three also, so this will cover his critiques there as well.) The problem here is one of hermeneutics. Ben is assuming that the hermeneutical debate is over. And that a conservative version of the modern approach has totally won. But this isn\u2019t true. The debate is not over. The question is not closed. There have been developments in theology that challenge the modern hermeneutical model. One of them is canonical criticism. Probably most associated with the late Brevard Childs of Yale. Canonical criticism basically says that every part of the Bible must be interpreted in its relationship to the entire Canon. Therefore, when the NT was created and the canon expanded, the meaning of the OT actually changed from our perspective. It became fuller. Why? Because now it could be completely interpreted from the standpoint of Christ. Recall how the resurrected Christ interpreted the Scriptures beginning from Moses through the Prophets to Cleopas and his companion on their walk to Emmaus. Post-resurrection interpretation goes beyond authorial intent. The modern hermeneutic rejects this. According to the modern hermeneutic, authorial intention *is* the meaning of a particular text, period. Christological interpretations of the OT that would be figurative or typological are rejected out of hand.
15) Now the subject of hermeneutics is a huge one. But it\u2019s where many of our differences in interpretation lie. I\u2019ll reference C.H. Dodd\u2019s classic book, \u201cAccording to the Scriptures,\u201d as well as the work of Hans Frei, Karl Barth, Dietrich Bonheoffer, Edmund Clowney, and James A. Sanders \u2013 all of whom held to this canonical approach to Scripture and believed that all Scripture must be interpreted in the light of Christ. I\u2019ve discussed this issue in depth elsewhere, so if you want a more comprehensive understanding, take a look at http:\/\/www.ptmin.org\/beyond.pdf In it, I give many examples of how the meaning of OT Scripture went beyond authorial intent and understanding. Therefore, I would pitch my tent with Hans Frei in his claim that we should understand the literal meaning of Scripture to be the story of Jesus Christ. The literal meaning shouldn\u2019t be isolated in the authorial intention of the writer (if that can be discovered). Instead, the literal meaning of Scripture is about Jesus Christ.
16) Consequently, I am not asserting that the author of Genesis 1 had an understanding of the Trinitarian nature of God. However, to my mind, this is a moot point. And it touches on the limitations of Ben\u2019s modern hermeneutics. Those who hold to canonical criticism would say that Genesis 1:26 can indeed be viewed as a Trinitarian reference. Dr. Michael L. Brown, who is a first-rate OT scholar, agrees with me here. See also D.J.A. Clines, et al. On another note, I find it hard to believe that the \u201cour\u201d in Gen. 1:26 is referring to God and his court of angels, as Ben suggests. For this would mean that humans were created in the image of God *and* in the image of angels. Perhaps Ben believes this, but I\u2019m unconvinced. No, Gen. 1:26 is in keeping with the complex nature of the Godhead.
17) A related note: I agree with both Barth and Bonheoffer who stated that the interpretation of Scripture should not be limited to an academic context. When we talk about interpreting the Scriptures, we\u2019re talking about unfolding their meaning in the life of the church. Not unfolding their meeting in an academic history course. The scholar, therefore, should submit himself to the life of the church as being the context in which biblical interpretation acquires its full meaning. This gets into John Howard Yoder\u2019s \u201chermeneutics of peoplehood.\u201d Stanley Hauerwas has written powerfully on this subject as well. Ben seems to assume that interpretations acquire their meaning by meeting certain academic and intellectual canons of interpretation.
18) To put a finer point on it, the problem I\u2019m underscoring here is the assumption that the meaning of Scripture, and therefore, the ground for any legitimate theology, is simply one where any unregenerate exegete can figure out the meaning of the inspired text. It assumes that the meaning of Scripture is accessible to the unregenerate scholar simply because he can follow the secular canons of interpretation of historical documents. I believe, along with Barth, Bonheoffer, Yoder, Hauerwas, et al. that proper Scriptural interpretation requires the Holy Spirit working in the believing community. Academic tools can help, but they can\u2019t take us there in and of themselves. We interpret Scripture together in the context of the church.
19) Now on to a fundamental point in BW\u2019s theology. I disagree with Ben\u2019s opinion on what the NT teaches regarding our union with Christ. In effect, he denies our participation in the divine life. I certainly do not agree with Mormon theology and flat-footedly deny that we become \u201cgods\u201d or divine beings. I\u2019ve never taught or believed this. I believe that our union with Christ Jesus is actual, real, and even experiential. Ben\u2019s whole perspective is quite \u201cZwinglian\u201d on this issue. The absolute distinction between God and human beings requires that the church be in and of itself nothing but a human organization. A human organization in which Christians come together to build one another up and obey God together. It\u2019s based on the classic American evangelical theology in which a relationship to Christ is seen as substitution. And we\u2019re excluded from it. According to this view, so many texts that speak of our union with Christ (Christ IN us and we IN Christ) are taken as metaphorical instead of actual. I believe, along with many other theologians, that this idea is flawed. Christ is the Vine and we are the branches. This is one of scores of images that speak of the kind of union that we have with Jesus Christ.
20) Ben seems to think that God gives us a sort of separate kind of eternal life, rather than His own life. Peter says that we are partakers (sharers) of the divine nature. That\u2019s not simply an abstract \u201cpositional\u201d statement. It\u2019s real. The same life that God lives by dwells in us. And we can live by that life. In the words of Jesus Himself, \u201cAs the Father has sent me and I live by the Father, so He who partakes of me shall live by me.\u201d Christ is life. And He is *our* Life. Paul says \u201cChrist lives in me.\u201d Not in some positional, metaphorical, abstract way. But in an actual way. \u201cPartakers\u201d doesn\u2019t convey the idea of two boards that are glued together as two completely separate things. Partaking involves an actual participation in something. We aren\u2019t united to God in that we become God by nature. But the divine energy, the divine action, and the divine life is shared with us.
21) This moves us into the question of Christology. Ben\u2019s language almost sounds Nestorian to me. While the divine nature doesn\u2019t cease to be divine in Chris
\nt, the human nature does not cease to be human. (See the work of Jaroslav Pelikan and David Bentley Hart for a good discussion on this.) The divine and human do not, therefore, exclude one another. Christ is not on one side of the wall and the church on the other. Such an idea fundamentally misconceives the entire nature of the ekklesia. The church isn\u2019t something that we create. It\u2019s something that God has created.
22) Again, Ben seems to see the church as simply individual Christians coming together to build one another up and help one another in obeying Christ even while they continue to be essentially individual Christians with individual relations with God (the Puritan view). He conceives the church as simply an earthly, historical, non-divine institution. This is not the historic teaching of the church, however. The classic example is that of a fire poker plunged into a fire. The fire indwells the fire poker, yet the fire poker never ceases to be in and of itself iron. On the other hand, the fire never becomes a fire poker. But the poker glows like the fire does and it\u2019s hot like the fire is. The attributes of the fire become communicated to the poker. The poker *partakes* of the fire. Go ahead and touch the poker and you\u2019ll know right away if this union is metaphorical or not. The divine life is given to us at every moment as a gift. We do not possess it as if it\u2019s ours separately. The gift of the divine life is a perennial gift. But it never becomes our possession (this is one of the great fallacies of Mormonism). Dietrich Bonheoffer did a good job distinguishing between the image of God (the imago dei) and being like God\u2014possessing divinity as a possession of our own (the sicut deus). Bearing the image of God means being caught up in the life of the Trinity and expressing it. We humans were created to have God live His life in and through us. We aren\u2019t fully realized human beings when we don\u2019t experience this. In the words of one writer, \u201cIt takes God to be a human being.\u201d Ben and I disagree on this.
23) For some great classic reads on the church\u2019s union with Christ, I refer you to Watchman Nee\u2019s classic, \u201cThe Normal Christian Life,\u201d and his \u201cThe Secret of Christian Living\u201d (a newer publication). His book \u201cThe Body of Christ: A Reality\u201d is also worth reading. W. Ian Thomas\u2019 \u201cThe Indwelling Life of Christ\u201d is also recommended. (Warning: \u201cThe Normal Christian Life\u201d can change your life. It completely wrecked me as a young man. I still haven\u2019t recovered from it.\u201d)
24) My basic response to Ben\u2019s opinions on the Trinity is that I believe he misconceives it. And again, he does so in a very typical modern Western way. He honors the divine nature over the divine persons. In this framework, God becomes a box of attributes. The more biblical point of view, I would claim, is that which was taken by the Eastern Fathers who said that we must understand God in the first place in terms of the three divine persons, not in terms of the one divine nature. They certainly didn\u2019t deny the one divine nature, but they started in a different place.
25) The Eastern Fathers, along with the Western Fathers before the middle ages, rightly understood that all the members of the Trinity were involved in an eternal relationship depicted by a great dance. A relationship in which the Father totally gives all and everything that He is to the Son as sheer gift. The Son, then, is the retainer of the fullness of the Godhead. The Son, in turn, gives Himself totally to the Father by glorifying Him. In that sense, the Son could be said to be subordinating Himself, but the problem is, if we stop there, we miss the fact that the Father\u2019s act of filling the Son with His fullness and glorifying Him is also a kind of subordination. So in that sense, the Father and the Son each take turns subordinating themselves to one another.
26) Consequently, to take the moment of the Son\u2019s subordination and treat it as something distinctively belonging to the Son is to fail to deal with the very dynamics of the Trinitiarian life. It fails to deal with the Father\u2019s eternal dispossession of Himself in giving Himself to His Son eternally, and holding on to nothing of Himself. The Father is a Father because He has a Son; the Son is a Son because He has a Father. Each divine person doesn\u2019t exist apart from the others. That\u2019s one of the distinctions between the divine persons and the divine nature.
27) When Ben turns subordination into a distinctive trait of the Son, subordinationism actually becomes part of the Son\u2019s *unique* nature. We then start to move toward the very confused point of view that makes each person of the Trinity a being that has an individual nature. For this reason, Ben\u2019s opinion that there is a functional hierarchy in the Trinity is one that, according to Kevin Giles and Gilbert Bilezikian, does not reflect the teaching of the historic church. Jurgen Moltmann, Miroslov Volf, Kevin Giles, Gilbert Bilezikian, and Stanely Grenz are just some of the theologians who have written extensively on the non-hierarchical nature of the Trinity. (That\u2019s no shabby bunch of theologians, by the way.) I cite them in \u201cReimagining,\u201d and their specific works (which are referenced in the book also) take dead aim at Ben\u2019s opinion of the functional subordination of the Son. They address every objection he makes, and then some.
28) So what\u2019s going on in 1 Cor. 15:28ff? As Pannenberg observes in his Systematic Theology, the Father hands over the Lordship to the Son (see also Philippians 2:9-11). The Son in turn hands back the Lordship to the Father. Thus there is mutuality in their relationship. Even in the end, the Son does what He always does. He dispossesses Himself of what is His and gives it to the Father. But the Father does what He always does. He pours out everything that He is and has on the Son, including the glory of being Lord. To exegete hierarchy from that text, therefore, is quite a reach. A careful reading of the NT shows both the Father and Son engaging in a mutual exchange love, life, honor, glory, etc. I give examples of this in the book. The question I would like Ben to consider is this: Is it possible that you are wrong and Moltmann, Volf, Giles, Bilezikian, Grenz, et al. are all right? Is that a possibility in your mind?
29) Ben closes Part One with these words: \u201cI am afraid that what has affected and infected this discussion is secular notions of equality that assume that equal must mean \u2018the same\u2019 in all respects, or \u2018the same\u2019 in all functions. But this is not what the Bible either says or suggests.\u201d I deny that equality makes Christians the same in gift, role, and spiritual maturity. My book underscores that point repeatedly. So this is a straw-man statement. I would instead say that what has affected and infected the discussion are secular leadership patterns that project hierarchy back into the NT and contradict the historic teaching of the church. As Kevin Giles put it, \u201cHistoric orthodoxy has never accepted hierarchical ordering in the Trinity.\u201d We don\u2019t deny subordination\/subjection in the Christian life. We\u2019re denying the need for a chain-of-command. We\u2019re not calling for a gathering of equal figures who have the same rights. We\u2019re calling for a gathering of people who willingly give up their rights out of love for one another that springs from encountering Jesus Christ. Another element that has affected and infected the conversation is the proclivity to embrace one kind of hermeneutic as being the only legitimate hermeneutic, when the fact is that this debate is far from over.
30) Footnote to interested readers: I recommend three books on this subject. Stanley Grenz\u2019s \u201cTheology of the Community of God.\u201d Much of what\u2019s in \u201cReimaging Church\u201d can be supported theologically in Grenz\u2019s work. While I\u2019m not really a fan of systematic theology, Grenz\u2019s book is exceptional. He really got it. He understood how the Trinitarian Community works out God\u2019s purpose of bringing forth a community on earth that
\nreflects His nature. I\u2019m so glad he wrote this work before he left us. The other books are Kevin Giles\u2019 “The Trinity & Subordinationism” and \u201cJesus and the Father.\u201d Two essential texts on the topic.
31) I could go on with this, but my response is getting too lengthy for my tastes (and undoubtedly, for your eye-sight). So I\u2019ll rush through Part Two. <\/p>\n

MY RESPONSE TO PART TWO<\/p>\n

1) Ben begins by bemoaning the fact that I don\u2019t mention \u201cthe traditional church\u201d in my four \u201cways of doing church\u201d (as he puts it). He says he finds this amazing. The reason is simple. I\u2019m not listing \u201cfour ways of doing church.\u201d I\u2019m listing four way of \u201crestoring\u201d the church, which is stated in the subtitle. So obviously I wouldn\u2019t mention the traditional\/institutional church, because it\u2019s the very subject of the attempted reforms I mention. (I got the clear impression that because of his tight schedule, Ben was forced to skim-read my book.) Therefore, I\u2019m amazed that Ben would be amazed that I didn\u2019t add the traditional church as a reforming\/restoring paradigm. (smile)
2) Ben seems to feel that gathering in an organic way is a recent occurrence dictated by cultural breakdowns. I don\u2019t. If one reads books like the \u201cReformers and their Stepchildren,\u201d \u201cThe Torch of the Testimony,\u201d \u201cThe Pilgrim Church\u201d (the latter two books were originally endorsed and forwarded by F.F. Bruce.), they\u2019ll discover that there have always been Christians who left the institutional church to gather in simplicity under Christ. I believe the reason is because there are spiritual instincts at work that go beyond environmental factors. It almost sounds like Ben is saying that organic church life is only for those poor, befuddled souls who have broken families and no friends. (I hope that\u2019s not what he\u2019s saying or thinking, but it can easily be taken that way.) The fact is, I know scores of people who haven\u2019t come from broken families whose spiritual instincts and desire for more of Christ has led them to organic churches. I\u2019d also recommend George Barna\u2019s \u201cRevolution\u201d that goes into the spiritual reasons why so many Christians are leaving the institutional church \u2013 1 million adults a year in the U.S. and growing.
3) Straw man alert: I don\u2019t believe nor do I teach that \u201cthe body of Christ is made up of interchangeable parts where everyone is equally gifted.\u201d I actually discount this idea in the book. I affirm the diversity of gifts numerous times\u2014even the shepherding gift. Though I believe it\u2019s profoundly different from the conventional pastoral role.
4) Ben says I deny leadership in the church. On the contrary: I very much believe in leadership and dedicate numerous chapters to unfolding my understanding of leadership in the church. In fact, here\u2019s a direct quote from the book: \u201cEvery church has leadership. Whether it\u2019s explicit or implicit, leadership is always present. In the words of Hal Miller, \u2018Leadership is. It may be good or bad. It may be recognized and assented to or not. But it always is.\u2019 Depending on who is doing the leading, leadership can be the church\u2019s worst nightmare or its greatest asset.\u201d But to say that the church needs \u201chuman headship\u201d is, I believe, completely false. (Yikes, I\u2019m starting to sound like Ben now \u2013 \u201cYou\u2019re wrong, that\u2019s false, I\u2019m right, etc. etc. etc.\u201d) (smile) Okay, so let me restate it as a question: Where, pray tell, is anyone other than Jesus Christ called \u201cthe head\u201d of a church?
5) Ben seems to think that OT officers are precedents for NT ministries. I give an entire section to this objection and answer it. NT scholar Robert Banks in his seminal book, \u201cPaul\u2019s Idea of Community,\u201d excoriates the idea that the NT had \u201cofficers\u201d as we understand them today.
6) One of the major points in my book is to distinguish between those leadership forms that subvert the headship of Jesus from those which don\u2019t. Ben doesn\u2019t mention this at all, but instead gives his readers the inaccurate impression that I ignore the fact that the church has leadership.
7) Ben makes it sound as if I deplore large gatherings of Christians. I have no problem with large gatherings of Christians who come together for teaching and worshipping in song. I\u2019m sure many people find such meetings at Asbury Seminary enjoyable. Btw\/ Ben, if you pay for my air-fare, I\u2019ll accept your invitation to worship with you at Estes Chapel, and I\u2019ll even buy you a happy meal afterwards! \ud83d\ude09 But I would not call such gatherings a \u201cchurch meeting\u201d unless each member of the body is free to share, minister, and display Jesus Christ. A church meeting, as I\u2019ve defined it in the book, is a distinct type of gathering. Incidentally, I was part of the Vineyard once, and I don\u2019t think anyone can trump their large worship services. Not back in the 90s anyway. They were majestic.
8) Jon Zens has adequately answered Ben\u2019s opinion that the purpose of a church meeting is mainly for worship. See http:\/\/www.paganchristianity.org\/zensresponds1.htm
9) I believe the \u201cchurch meeting\u201d should be Christocentric. I don\u2019t see them as anthropocentric and am not sure why Ben would think that after reading my book. Neither do I see the meetings as detached from worship. Note that my definition of worship is much broader than Ben\u2019s. I define it in the book. My views on the man-centered nature of the modern gospel as well as the church are addressed clearly in the chapter entitled, \u201cReimagining the Eternal Purpose.\u201d Not sure how anyone can think I\u2019m anthropocentric after reading that.
10) Ben denies that Paul was itinerant. He cites his long stay in Ephesus and Corinth as proof. But being itinerant doesn\u2019t excluded lengthy, but temporary stays in various places. Trace Paul\u2019s *entire ministry* and you will see that he\u2019s consistently on the move. (I do this in \u201cThe Untold Story of the New Testament Church,\u201d which is a narrative ecclesiology.)
11) Ben claims that James was the decision-maker in the Jerusalem council on Acts 15. I address this in the book, but I\u2019ll summarize here. This interpretation reveals ignorance in how consensus decision-making is done. Consensus decision-making declares the sense of the meeting. In such meetings, votes aren\u2019t taken. It\u2019s not a democratic event, as Ben seems to think I\u2019m suggesting. In consensual decision-making, there\u2019s always some (usually those who are respected) who stand up and give the sense of the meeting. In Acts 15, James did this. In other such meetings it may have been one of the other overseers or apostles who were present. A close examination of the text makes clear that everyone was involved in the decision and there was \u201cmuch discussion.\u201d Luke doesn\u2019t give us the details. If we assume all that happened is what\u2019s in the text, than that was about a 5-minute meeting. Anyways, I lay this all out in the book step by step.
12) I\u2019m surprised that Ben thinks that Paul enjoyed going to synagogues just to worship with his fellow unconverted Jews. I don\u2019t believe this. It seems evident to me that Paul frequented the synagogue because had an open door to preach the gospel to the Jews there (\u201cto the Jew first,\u201d was his pattern. And he found them in the synagogue). Thus his purpose was \u201cevangelistic.\u201d Read carefully those accounts and notice that Paul would most often say at some point, \u201cOkay, that\u2019s it, I\u2019m leaving. I\u2019m turning to the Gentiles now.\u201d If Paul went to a synagogue as an obligation to worship, he wouldn\u2019t have made staying in it contingent upon their acceptance of the gospel. So as I say in the book, an evangelistic meeting can occur anywhere and in any context. Go to a bar and if you find yourself preaching to the crowd, that gathering just become an \u201cevangelistic meeting.\u201d
13) Ben utterly lost me on his reinterpretation of Hebrews 10:24-25. A rather bizarre way of making the text say the opposite of what it plainly says. The exhortation of the writer is an ongoing thing. Exhort one anot
\nher when you assemble together \u2013 not once, but continually. This text carries the same spirit as 1 Cor. 14:26. The assembly or church meeting is marked by *mutual* exhortation and edification. I think it\u2019s a few-mile stretch to say that this text is dealing with church discipline. Verse 24 is an appeal to exhort one another to good works. Church discipline is dealing with bad works. I see no indication of this in the text at all. Donald Guthrie and F.F. Bruce both exegete this text to envision a regular gathering where mutual encouragement takes place, as do other scholars.
14) Ben also suggests that \u201cone another\u201d is not an indicator of mutuality, but it involves a private setting. (?) I disagree with this completely and see no evidence for it. See Jon Zens\u2019 superb article \u201cBuilding Up the Body: One Man or One Another\u201d http:\/\/www.searchingtogether.org\/articles\/zens\/bodybldg.htm
15) Here again Ben\u2019s \u201cZwinglian\u201d approach emerges. He denies that Jesus Christ can speak through His people. I find this \u201cseriously problematic\u201d (to use Ben\u2019s phrase). This, I believe, is a reflection of Ben\u2019s misconception of the Trinity and the indwelling Spirit. Is not the Holy Spirit the Spirit of Christ? Doesn\u2019t God\u2019s Spirit inspire Christians? Romans 8 makes clear that Christ dwells in us by the Spirit, not metaphorically, but in actuality. In 1 Cor. 12, Paul argues that the Corinthians no longer serve dumb (mute) idols (v.2). Instead, they serve a speaking God. Jesus Christ has the power of speech through His Spirit (v.3). And where does He speak? Through His Body (v.4ff.). By the way, while Ben denies that Christ speaks through the body, I get the impression from his review that he believers God speaks through the \u201cpreacher.\u201d Why is it that God can speak through the \u201cclergy\u201d but not through the \u201claity\u201d? Especially when the NT cannot sustain such a division.
16) Like Zwingli, Ben believes that Christ isn\u2019t present on earth; He\u2019s only present in heaven. Luther\u2019s response to this was, \u201cDoes that mean that Christ is in heaven the way a stork is in a tree?\u201d Christ is in heaven, but He\u2019s also present on earth by the Spirit through the church. Acts 1:1 opens by saying that Luke\u2019s Gospel was a record of all that Jesus *began* to do and teach. The implication is that the Book of Acts was a record of what Jesus *continued* to do and teach through His body, the church. (See also John 14-17.)
17) Ben\u2019s view reduces the term \u201cbody of Christ\u201d to a very poor and weak metaphor. Paul\u2019s use of the phrase doesn\u2019t map at all to this. The statements about the body being totally separate from the head are addressed above in my discussion on our union with Christ. The body and the head are distinct, but they are not separate. John A.T. Robinson, Dietrich Bonheoffer (scholars) as well as Watchman Nee and T. Austin-Sparks (more popular writers) have written extensively about the intimate union between the head and the body. This union is an actual, real, and living thing. It\u2019s not metaphorical. Paul says so much in 1 Cor. 12:12. I recommend Bill Freeman\u2019s excellent book, \u201cThe Church is Christ\u201d and T. Austin-Sparks\u2019 \u201cGod\u2019s Spiritual House.\u201d In effect, Ben sees our relationship to Christ as purely external. This is a monumental subject; but the fact that Ben and I differ so much on it reveals why our views of ecclesiology are so profoundly different.
18) We\u2019ve dialogued about this in private emails, but when Ben reads my description of organic church meetings, he thinks of the small-group charismatic meetings that he\u2019s witnessed. (Others conceive it as a Quaker meeting or a Plymouth Brethren meeting.) None of this is what I\u2019m speaking about and this lends to some of the differences in our communication and understanding.
19) I don\u2019t buy the idea that the Lord\u2019s Supper is a static liturgical ritual. Rather, it can be celebrated in scores of different ways, still holding to the shape of a banquet that celebrates the Lord\u2019s death and resurrection in a corporate context. There\u2019s no evidence that the church had one fixed liturgy for the Supper throughout its life. And very early on it morphed into something very different from what Jesus gave us and the apostles practiced. (George Barna and I give an entire chapter to this in \u201cPagan Christianity.\u201d I have a friend who is an Episcopalian scholar and he agrees.) There was also no set form of the Eucharistic words until very late.
20) I\u2019ve never denied that the \u201cchurch meeting\u201d may include \u201cpreaching\u201d as Ben suggests. What I\u2019m saying is that it was never marked by one-man preaching a sermon to a passive audience. 1 Cor. 14:26 and 31 includes prophecy and instruction, for instance. I can see any gift inserted there. The hallmark, however, is mutuality. Note: apostolic and evangelistic meetings are different altogether. I expound this early in the book.
21) I agree that when someone shares in a meeting, at that moment they are leading. Again, I affirm leadership. The question is, what is leadership according to Jesus and how does it flesh itself out in the ekklesia? That\u2019s what \u201cReimagining\u201d seeks to grapple with.
22) Because apostles publicly endorsed overseers in some churches, Ben says that they were appointed from \u201cthe top down.\u201d Notice how he assumes that apostles were at the top of some kind of chain-of-command hierarchy. Acts 20 says it\u2019s the Holy Spirit who chooses overseers. Apostolic workers had the discernment, no doubt along with the input of a local church, to perceive who were already functioning as overseers. In the book, I give many more examples of this paradigm that\u2019s consistent with the NT narrative. Yet some of us can\u2019t seem to resist connecting the dots of hierarchy wherever we look.
23) Ben observes that I don\u2019t say a single word about Paul\u2019s stern warning about what happens when someone takes the Lord\u2019s Supper unworthily. And on that point, he\u2019s right. I mention this in \u201cPagan Christianity\u201d on page 192 and 196. I disagree with Ben that Paul is saying that we should take the Supper after we mourn over our sins. (The self-examination there had to do with ruptures in the believing community.) Like other scholars, I believe that Paul doesn\u2019t have in mind being unworthy while you partake, but partaking in an \u201cunworthy manner.\u201d Nonetheless, I should have added a bit about this to the chapter on the Lord\u2019s Supper in \u201cReimagining.\u201d My bad ;-( (Frank reaches out to give Ben a hug.)
24) I stand by my statement that the church met in homes for the first 300 years of its existence. I don\u2019t ever recall saying nor do I believe that they met *exclusively* in homes, as Ben asserts that I said. I\u2019ve stated in both \u201cPagan Christianity\u201d and in \u201cReimagining Church\u201d that the early Christians met in other places such as courtyards, cemeteries, rented halls, by rivers, along dusty roads, etc. I don\u2019t decry buildings altogether. Not by any means. In fact, in the book, I discuss different ways in which organic churches have and can use them.
25) The so-called findings of early church buildings in the second century, etc. have been challenged by other archeologists and historians. Upon closer inspection, most of these \u201cfindings\u201d turned out to be no more than a home in which a wall was knocked out to create a larger space. Some have been shown to be burial places, not \u201cchurches.\u201d It\u2019s a stretch, therefore, to call such adaptations religious buildings. We who gather in organic churches will often renovate a home to make it larger. We also knock out walls and revamp garages often. Imagine someone 1,500 years from now digging these renovated homes up and calling them, \u201cchurch edifices.\u201d Umm \u2026 okay. In short, these discoveries are being disputed. Just like the so-called ossuaries of Jesus that Ben himself has challenged. (Three cheers for BW3 for doing that for us! He da man. (smile))
26) I don\u2019t understand how having a large church is a \u201cmajor bump\u201d in my thesis. As I say in the chapter in ques
\ntion, when the church becomes too large for open participatory meetings, it meets in several locations and comes together periodically for special events. This is what the Jerusalem church did. I\u2019ve been in organic churches that did the same thing. No \u201cbump\u201d there. (smile)
27) One small observation for those who have a hard time understanding how I could cite people whose ecclesiologies and other theological views don\u2019t line up with my own. I\u2019m not a person who believes that someone has to be theologically correct in every point to glean truth from them. This, to my mind, is just plain silly if not narrow-minded. Therefore, I could read someone like Augustine and benefit from his theological insights in some areas, while disagreeing with him in others areas. I seek to root all my beliefs in Scripture; but countless scholars, theologians, and ministers of the Word \u2013 both past and present \u2013 have benefited the church by providing both language and insight into the Scriptures, regardless of their religious pedigree or denomination or belief system. I\u2019ve always believed this and probably always will. Shucks, there were things I myself believed years ago that I disagree with today. I find nothing inconsistent about this at all. For that reason, I can *even* learn from a Ben Witherington! (grin)<\/p>\n

Don\u2019t fall asleep yet, folks. The next post will include my response to Parts Three and Four of Ben\u2019s review. <\/p>\n

Yours in His bonds,<\/p>\n

FV2<\/p>\n

Frank Viola, the second<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Frank Viola\u2019s Response: Part One —Frank Viola\u2019s Response: Part One — Okay, so in a moment of insanity, I accepted BW3’s challenge to appear on his blog and respond to his review of my latest book, “Reimagining Church.” www.ReimaginingChurch.org Just to prevent any confusion, I\u2019m the Frank Viola who was the high school baseball pitcher,…<\/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-216","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"yoast_head":"\nReimagining Church- A Frank Response Part One - The Bible and Culture<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/2008\/09\/reimagining-church-a-frank-response-part-one.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Reimagining Church- A Frank Response Part One - The Bible and Culture\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Frank Viola\u2019s Response: Part One —Frank Viola\u2019s Response: Part One — Okay, so in a moment of insanity, I accepted BW3’s challenge to appear on his blog and respond to his review of my latest book, “Reimagining Church.” www.ReimaginingChurch.org Just to prevent any confusion, I\u2019m the Frank Viola who was the high school baseball pitcher,…\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/2008\/09\/reimagining-church-a-frank-response-part-one.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"The Bible and Culture\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-09-12T12:11:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"http:\/\/4.bp.blogspot.com\/_MCBNSn1DlAU\/SMqVPAjPkAI\/AAAAAAAABgQ\/U12bLpg-EEU\/s400\/51ZBC7xGy8L._SL500_BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_AA240_SH20_.jpg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Ben Witherington\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Reimagining Church- A Frank Response Part One - The Bible and Culture","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/2008\/09\/reimagining-church-a-frank-response-part-one.html","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Reimagining Church- A Frank Response Part One - The Bible and Culture","og_description":"Frank Viola\u2019s Response: Part One —Frank Viola\u2019s Response: Part One — Okay, so in a moment of insanity, I accepted BW3’s challenge to appear on his blog and respond to his review of my latest book, “Reimagining Church.” www.ReimaginingChurch.org Just to prevent any confusion, I\u2019m the Frank Viola who was the high school baseball pitcher,…","og_url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/2008\/09\/reimagining-church-a-frank-response-part-one.html","og_site_name":"The Bible and Culture","article_published_time":"2008-09-12T12:11:00+00:00","og_image":[{"url":"http:\/\/4.bp.blogspot.com\/_MCBNSn1DlAU\/SMqVPAjPkAI\/AAAAAAAABgQ\/U12bLpg-EEU\/s400\/51ZBC7xGy8L._SL500_BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_AA240_SH20_.jpg"}],"author":"Ben Witherington","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/2008\/09\/reimagining-church-a-frank-response-part-one.html","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/2008\/09\/reimagining-church-a-frank-response-part-one.html","name":"Reimagining Church- A Frank Response Part One - The Bible and Culture","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/2008\/09\/reimagining-church-a-frank-response-part-one.html#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/2008\/09\/reimagining-church-a-frank-response-part-one.html#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"http:\/\/4.bp.blogspot.com\/_MCBNSn1DlAU\/SMqVPAjPkAI\/AAAAAAAABgQ\/U12bLpg-EEU\/s400\/51ZBC7xGy8L._SL500_BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_AA240_SH20_.jpg","datePublished":"2008-09-12T12:11:00+00:00","dateModified":"2008-09-12T12:11:00+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/#\/schema\/person\/d1fd6c7893819eabc624db38ecfd8426"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/2008\/09\/reimagining-church-a-frank-response-part-one.html#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/2008\/09\/reimagining-church-a-frank-response-part-one.html"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/2008\/09\/reimagining-church-a-frank-response-part-one.html#primaryimage","url":"http:\/\/4.bp.blogspot.com\/_MCBNSn1DlAU\/SMqVPAjPkAI\/AAAAAAAABgQ\/U12bLpg-EEU\/s400\/51ZBC7xGy8L._SL500_BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_AA240_SH20_.jpg","contentUrl":"http:\/\/4.bp.blogspot.com\/_MCBNSn1DlAU\/SMqVPAjPkAI\/AAAAAAAABgQ\/U12bLpg-EEU\/s400\/51ZBC7xGy8L._SL500_BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_AA240_SH20_.jpg"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/2008\/09\/reimagining-church-a-frank-response-part-one.html#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Reimagining Church– A Frank Response Part One"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/","name":"The Bible and Culture","description":"All Things Biblical and Christian","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/#\/schema\/person\/d1fd6c7893819eabc624db38ecfd8426","name":"Ben Witherington","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/wp-content\/wphb-cache\/gravatar\/75e\/75ec11e1916a2008bc4cc638a0a0de2fx96.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/wp-content\/wphb-cache\/gravatar\/75e\/75ec11e1916a2008bc4cc638a0a0de2fx96.jpg","caption":"Ben Witherington"},"description":"Bible scholar Ben Witherington is Amos Professor of New Testament for Doctoral Studies at Asbury Theological Seminary and on the doctoral faculty at St. Andrews University in Scotland. A graduate of UNC, Chapel Hill, he went on to receive the M.Div. degree from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary and a Ph.D. from the University of Durham in England. He is now considered one of the top evangelical scholars in the world, and is an elected member of the prestigious SNTS, a society dedicated to New Testament studies. Witherington has also taught at Ashland Theological Seminary, Vanderbilt University, Duke Divinity School and Gordon-Conwell. A popular lecturer, Witherington has presented seminars for churches, colleges and biblical meetings not only in the United States but also in England, Estonia, Russia, Europe, South Africa, Zimbabwe and Australia. He has also led tours to Italy, Greece, Turkey, Israel, Jordan, and Egypt. Witherington has written over thirty books, including The Jesus Quest and The Paul Quest, both of which were selected as top biblical studies works by Christianity Today. He also writes for many church and scholarly publications, and is a frequent contributor to the Beliefnet website. Along with many interviews on radio networks across the country, Witherington has been seen on the History Channel, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, The Discovery Channel, A&E, and the PAX Network.","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/author\/bwitherington"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/216","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/199"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=216"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/216\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=216"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=216"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=216"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}