Pagan Christianity: Exploring the Roots of Viola and Barna Exegetical Practices
After six posts from Pagan Christianity: Exploring the Roots of Our Practices, I think we need to Explore the Roots of Viola and Barna Exegetical Practices.
1. The Roots.
NOT LONG AFTER I LEFT the institutional church to begin gathering with Christians in New Testament fashion, I sought to understand how the Christian church ended up in its present state…
I searched scores of bibliographies and card catalogs. I also contacted a raft of historians and scholars, asking if they knew of such a work. My quest yielded one consistent answer: No such book had ever been penned. So in a moment of insanity, I decided to put my hand to the plow…
My hope in publishing this work is as simple as it is somber: that the Lord would use it as a tool to bring His church back to her biblical roots. (p. xiii)
After reading the book, some would argue that that moment of “insanity” never really left. Is the church really in such a bad state as Viola claims? Well, Viola has gone on to write about three more books, calling us back to our biblical roots.
2. The Exegetical Practices.
For a work that boasts so much, well, one would have thought that we would be dealing with two well-rounded exegete of both Scripture and church history:
In short, this book is dedicated to exposing the traditions that have been tacked onto God’s will for His church… We are also making an outrageous proposal: that the church in its contemporary, institutional form has neither a biblical nor a historical right to function as it does. (p. xx, emphasis mine)
The rest of the book is to back up this “outrageous proposal” of theirs: the book has twelve chapters, the longest of which is devoted to “The Pastor” (pp. 105-45), especially the “salaried pastor” (we discussed this ad infinitum).
For example, in their campaign against the “salaried pastor,” in a section at the end of each chapter called delving deeper, a Q&A, when asked about 1 Timothy 5:17-18 as a scriptural basis for paying pastors, Viola and Barna offered the following:
So the critical question becomes, what does “double honor” mean? Does it mean a clergy salary, an honorarium, or simply greater respect?
First, the specific Greek words that the New Testament uses for pay or wages are not used in this text. Rather, the Greek word or honor in this passage means to respect or value someone or something. The same word is used four times in 1 Timothy. In every case, it means respect.
Second, all Christians are called to honor one another (Romans 12:10). It would be absurd to take this to mean that all believers are to receive payment from one another. (p. 184)
Now this is just an example of the exegetical ability of Viola and Barna that is on display throughout the book. First, a word-fallacy has been committed: words have different shades of meaning. Why restrict a word to just one? Isn’t it capable of others? So what if honor is already used four times in 1 Timothy? Each use must be determined by its context, not its mere occurrence.
Second, Paul goes on to explain what he means by “worthy of double honor”: ”especially those whose work is preaching and teaching. 18 For the Scripture says, ‘Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain,’ and “The worker deserves his wages.” (vv. 17b-18).
And our little Greek conjunction gar, “for,” at the beginning of v. 18 provides the grounds for the instruction of verse 17. At this point, we don’t even need to comment on Romans 12:10.
In conclusion
Perhaps you might still want to go and purchase Pagan Christianity, but a word of advice: “Chew the meat, spit out the bones,” so says commenter Kyle Phillips.
Related Posts:
1. The Order of Paul’s Letters?
2. Tithing and Clergy Salaries: Sore Spots on the Wallet
3. Pagan Christian spilled into My Fellowship
4. The Pastor: Ostacle to Every Member Functioning
TC,
Thanks for keeping this exegetical focus. I celebrate challenging thoughts that call into question traditional practices. I like NT Wright and the other New Perspective thinkers because they do this kind of work. The big difference between them and Viola/Barna is that they do the work.
As you know, I’ve been crunched by dead institutionalism. I’ve got a real affinity for the direction Viola (and others) are going. But a wise guy once told me, it’s easy to tear down, much harder to build. We live in a very old building. There’s lots of remodeling to be done. Always is. Let’s bring in the light, but be careful with the heat.
I might be impressed by their sincerity; I’m not impressed by what little I’ve seen of their arguments.
Reading between the lines of something like Didache, one suspects there was a standard outline of how to do church in even earliest times, but also plenty of exceptions to the rules, not least because Didache was not known throughout the Christian world.
I like NT Wright and the other New Perspective thinkers because they do this kind of work. The big difference between them and Viola/Barna is that they do the work.
Kyle,
That’s the biggest difference.
I might be impressed by their sincerity; I’m not impressed by what little I’ve seen of their arguments.
Chuck,
Yes, some of their arguments are quite lacking.
And each generation of believers will always be challenged with how to do church.
Now if in each generation we could approximate “a shared-life community under Christ leadership” (Pagan Christianity, p. 256), then the challenge would met.
I accept that Viola’s expertise is not in exegesis. But is there in fact any evidence, apart from a debatable interpretation of 1 Timothy 5:17-18, for the Greek word timē, translated “honour”, ever being used to refer to literal wages? I know the word can mean “price” or “value”, and so “sale proceeds” as in Acts 5:2,3. But I don’t think there is any other place in the NT where it might mean “wages” or “salary”.
As for verse 18: Presumably the quotation about not muzzling an ox is not intended to be applied literally to pastors. The Greek word for translated “wages”, misthos, by no means always refers to literal payment – see for example, in a similar context, Matthew 6:2,16 where the hypocrites receive the misthos of being praised by men and women.
So, whatever Viola and Barna may have done, there really is a good case to be made for this passage having nothing to do with financial reward, let alone a regular salary, but being only about honour and respect in the usual senses of the words.
But is there in fact any evidence, apart from a debatable interpretation of 1 Timothy 5:17-18, for the Greek word timē, translated “honour”, ever being used to refer to literal wages? I know the word can mean “price” or “value”, and so “sale proceeds” as in Acts 5:2,3. But I don’t think there is any other place in the NT where it might mean “wages” or “salary”.
Peter,
Let’s move away from a word’s mere occurrence to its contextual usage. First, those texts you cited are not in the same context of 1 Timothy 5:17.
Second, Paul grounds his instruction from an OT text that he has applied elsewhere in a similar context, namely, 1 Cor. 9:7-14.
As for verse 18: Presumably the quotation about not muzzling an ox is not intended to be applied literally to pastors.
What is its contextual intention, then?
The Greek word for translated “wages”, misthos, by no means always refers to literal payment – see for example, in a similar context, Matthew 6:2,16 where the hypocrites receive the misthos of being praised by men and women.
Again, we need to let the context, not its use elsewhere, determine a word’s meaning.
Unless we can determine for sure that vv.17-18 exclude references to pay, then I do not see a similarity with Matthew 6.
While allowing for a nuance of what you’ve argued, both Fee and Towner argue strongly for financial reward.
So, whatever Viola and Barna may have done, there really is a good case to be made for this passage having nothing to do with financial reward, let alone a regular salary, but being only about honour and respect in the usual senses of the words.
By no means!
Paul doesn’t always mean the same thing when he uses the same word, sentence or OT passage. In 1 Timothy the part about not muzzling the ox could have been about not making the elder’s life difficult.
Here you have your exegetical principles backwards. The same word misthos is used in a rather similar context, about people who are worthy of it receiving it. The correct approach is to assume a similar sense of the word unless shown otherwise, rather than vice versa. This is also a matter of explaining the unclear from the clear.
There are more references to people receiving non-material misthos: Matthew 5:12,46, 6:1,2,5,16, 10:41,41,42, Mark 9:41, Luke 6:23,35, John 4:36, 1 Corinthians 3:8(?),14, 9:17,18, 2 Peter 2:13, 2 John 8, Revelation 11:18, 22:12. Luke 10:7 is interesting because here, where the same words are quoted that Paul quotes, the misthos is material but is not a wage paid in return for work. Against that there are only three other cases of misthos meaning literal wages: Matthew 20:8, Romans 4:4 and James 5:4.
So it is certainly wrong to presuppose that the word implies something material given in return for work. A better case could be made for the 1 Timothy passage saying that elders, like the disciples of Luke 10 and the apostles of 1 Corinthians 9, may accept hospitality and gifts to the extent that they do not have to earn their living.
Peter, all of the commentators I’ve consulted argue for pay. Not one builds a case from Matthew 6, to deny the obvious of 1 Tim. 5:17-18.
After considering your point some more on misthos, I concede to a degree. However, Paul’s use of the OT quote becomes clearer as we note its other Pauline use in 1 Cor. 9.
We don’t need to go to Matthew. 1 Cor. 9 would do.
So it is certainly wrong to presuppose that the word implies something material given in return for work. A better case could be made for the 1 Timothy passage saying that elders, like the disciples of Luke 10 and the apostles of 1 Corinthians 9, may accept hospitality and gifts to the extent that they do not have to earn their living.
I don’t think we’re looking at an either/or here. A both/and serves what the apostle has in mind far better.
For example, money was involved in supporting ministerial work in 2 Cor. 11:8-9. Paul mentions the same in Acts 20:33ff, but of course in the negative.
You seem to have both.
Thanks for bringing to my attention Chuck’s quotes. I didn’t see anything as old as the 2nd century, and most of them are much later, from the Reformation and later. Also most of them, I strongly suspect, are from people who have a personal financial interest in teaching that pastors should be paid! The most telling of these quotes, as one of the oldest and one of very few from a native speaker of Greek, Chrysostom as quoted by Calvin, seems to support my view.
More bad exegetical practice: ignoring Bible passages which don’t support your contention because you have found one which does support you. Don’t forget to heed “the whole counsel of God”.
Thanks for the interesting discussion. Early in this year, I had a hard discussion with a Bible College Graduate that had been working together with me in the same church over some of these same issue being discussed in the book “Pagan Chrisitanity.” In Thailand, as in most of Asia, titles are usually considered very important. In Thailand, the title “Ajan” in used for higher level secular teachers, and also Pastors /teachers in the church. Interestingly, the Thai Bible translates the word rabbi to Ajan. You would think that someone in the Thai church would take that into consideration but it seems not yet so. Once after I finished a Sunday morning message in which I made reference to Jesus’ instruction for us not to use this title, this young brother who was leading worship that day, ended the meeting by saying, Ajan Jay said that you don’t have to call him Ajan, but I don’t think that verse applies to Thai culture, so you can still call me Ajan. Another time, this brother was teaching and he told the congregation that if you really want God to bless you, you should 1. love tithing 2. love the church building 3. love the Ajan. After hearing this I decided that this certainly is the unholy trinity of the institutional church. The pastors fleece the sheep to feed themselves and build erections, concrete symbols of their ministerial success.
I highly doubt that the double honor Paul refers to was a regular salary. If it was material reward at all, most likely it was in the form of provisions for daily survival such as food and shelter. I do not see Paul promoting the establishment of a regular salary for elders and apostles or pastors. (What are the “Biblical” terms of reference for a pastor suppose to look like anyway?) I have yet to find anything in the Bible that the pastors would be worthy of a salary any more than the apostles, evangelists, prophets, (S.S.)teachers or other general ministers(deacons) in the church. I don’t have any problem with the idea of a congregation providing materially for someone who spends so much time in the work of the church that their other sources of income are threatened. I think this is what Paul could be saying, but I think too often the institutionalized church has gone to the other extreme with their system where they import a “professionally educated” pastor into a local congregation with the assumption that this pastor will suddenly do the work of overseeing a congregation about which he doesn’t have the slighted clue. In mean time the ones in the congregation, the elders, that should be naturally overseeing feel insecure about the teaching work next to Mr. M.Div. and end up being board members that together act like a cooperate committee overseeing the material concerns of their white elephant. God called Jeremiah to to pluck up and to break down, to destroy and to overthrow first than to build and to plant. So I might not agree with all of Viola’s conclusions, but I do feel he has a prophetic message for the church today.
Another time, this brother was teaching and he told the congregation that if you really want God to bless you, you should 1. love tithing 2. love the church building 3. love the Ajan. After hearing this I decided that this certainly is the unholy trinity of the institutional church. The pastors fleece the sheep to feed themselves and build erections, concrete symbols of their ministerial success.
J,
Thanks for this cultural perspective. The “unholy trinity of the institutional church” – that’s good.
Money often exchange hands in the matter of supporting someone ministerial (Acts 20:33ff; 2 Cor. 11:8-9).
I simply doing careful exegesis. Why ignore a text that has so much with the one in question?
I didn’t ignore 1 Corinthians 9. I wrote about it that it supported a position that elders “may accept hospitality and gifts to the extent that they do not have to earn their living”. But why do you ignore Matthew, and the parts of the Sermon on the Mount which also have “so much with the [text] in question”?
Peter,
I did grant Matthew 6, but perhaps not to your taste.;-)
1 Corinthians 9 is more than simply “hospitality and gifts.” In fact, it’s because the Corinthians were refusing to honor their obligation of supporting the likes of Paul, that we find this rebuke and correction from Paul.
I guess this debate will never end. However, it is something that needs to be dialogued still.
I still don’t think the issue is whether or not a pastor should receive a salary. It is more foundational than that. I believe the question to be asked is this: Is there any scriptural evidence that overseeing, feeding and eldering is a vocation in the same vein as secular professions?
I don’t think there is. Unless you can show, that Paul had every intent for the overseeing by elders was to be a paid professional vocation, you cannot justify a salary for elders. And we must never confuse Paul’s words concerning apostles, prophets and evangelists (traveling ministry) with local elders.
I don’t think Viola and Barna’s purpose is to trash the ministry of the pastor; I think they are calling “a spade a spade”. It needs reforming!
Jack,
Should never be view the same. I quite agree. But the man who devotes his life to ministering the gospel to a local church should make a living from it, so says the apostle Paul (1 Cor. 9:14).
Viola and Barna are against salaried pastors, period.
But I do believe our contemporary pastor needs some reforming.
TC said: “the man who devotes his life to ministering the gospel to a local church should make a living from it, so says the apostle Paul (1 Cor. 9:14).”
TC, I hope I don’t misunderstand you here, but it sounds like you’re inserting your own familiar matrix into your reading of this passage. There is no man or woman who appears in the NT spending their entire life preaching to one congregation in one location and getting paid for it. If you think otherwise, please name that person. Or show me one place where the same non-itinerant individual(s) are spoken of as preaching _and_ receiving money for it. Am I missing something?
As I read 1 Cor 9, Paul is talking about himself, Peter and Barnabas – apostles, every one. Paul is talking about itinerant workers having the right to be paid for their trouble. And well they should be! How many people are skilled enough to have a take-anywhere instant-income like Paul did? If you travel from church to church, I pray to God those churches don’t need to be told you have needs. Corinth needed to be told just once. And the moment Paul told them, he refused to accept payment from them. He was merely educating them for the sake of Timothy, Titus and others who might travel there in the future.
Therefore, as soon as you start moving from place to place like an apostle, TC, I’ll believe you have a *biblical* precedent for claiming this passage justifies your salary. That said – by all means – go on and keep drawing your salary. Tell the church it’s good because you need it and if they value your work among them I’m sure they’ll support you. However, if you want to quit being anachronistic in your interpretation of scripture, I suggest you stop using this verse about apostles’ love offerings to justify a monthly pastors salary that comes in perpetuity.
Grace and peace.
Bill,
I try to let the text speak. An insertion is not necessary.
As I read 1 Cor 9, Paul is talking about himself, Peter and Barnabas – apostles, every one. Paul is talking about itinerant workers having the right to be paid for their trouble.
Paul has more than the itinerant in mind: for example, in 1 Tim. 5:17-18, where he also quotes Deut. 25:4, he’s speaking not of the itinerant, but those who minister to a particular fellowship.
Rather, I see a princilpe at 1 Cor. 9:14 that is applied to both the itinerant and located.
Salaried pastors are hardly an anachronistic category. Furthermore, Paul draws on the fact that some ministered at the temple, hardly itinerant.
Be sure to check out Chuck quotes, ranging all the way from the 2nd century. Thanks, Chuck.
All it takes is some time and some good bible software. Interesting little debate.