My answers:1. Have the authors convinced you that Scripture does not support the role of pastor in its contemporary form? If so, why? If not, which of their biblical and historical arguments do you find flawed?Yes. However, I'm not convinced that the current role of pastor (in its purest, most Godly and selfless form) is a bad one. I just wouldn't allow myself to ever use scripture to justify the role of a pastor, special reverence of a pastor, special deference to a pastor, or anything that implies that his office is a "sacred" one.
I did, however, find one argument to be flawed. I wrote next to it "what the Frank Viola???"
On p107, the authors argue that because the word "pastors" is found in the NT three times, and is plural, it means that they are plural in the church. That is the weakest, lamest, most inaccurate argument I've ever heard in my life. Just because it's plural in the TRANSLATED VERSION OF THE BIBLE doesn't seal the case for multiple pastors in one church. Ephesians 4:11 says that He gave some apostles... does that mean we have to have multiple apostles in each church?
Unless I'm misreading here, I just thought that was way off. So far off that I'd feel better knowing that I did misread this.
2. What in these two chapters was new to you? What came as a shock or a surprise?The teaching on the sophists was both new and shocking. I've never so much as heard that term before, never heard of those people, never knew there was such a thing. I immediately went to Wikipedia to read up on them. It was shocking indeed.
SN: I didn't get to do the etymology study (will do so in a moment), but I was wondering if that's where the word "sophisticated" originated?
3. Do you agree with the authors‘ assessment that it is more spiritually beneficial to receive ministry from a local body of believers where interaction and open sharing take place than it is to hear a sermon from the same person week after week, year after year? Explain.I'll come back to this one. I think it could be more spiritually beneficial, but I feel my brain tapping out, so I'll come back.
4. Have you ever found yourself evaluating your church experience based on the "quality" of the sermon? (In other words, if someone asked you, "How was church today?" your answer would include a description of the sermon.) Have you ever heard someone else do this? Explain.Yes.
In fact, I have a story. About a month or so ago, I traveled to South Georgia with a young preacher friend of mine. He just turned 21 the other day, but he's a very good preacher (if you can overlook all the antics and hype tactics that have been ingrained into him). The service was awful:
- There were a total of 8 people present.
- There were no musicians.
- The pastor led p&w (in his flesh) for about an hour and some change - AFTER we arrived, which was about 45 min. late.
- The pastor was a very... ummm, how shall we say it?... flamboyant, excessive, attention-hungry, immature, hyperactive, loud, kid.
- After the sermon, he talked for about half an hour.
It was really just awful. So, when we were on the way back to Atlanta, my friend's pastor called him and asked how the service went. My friend told his pastor that "
well, Layla said the only thing good about the service was the Word," (which was exactly what I had said).
The pastor, who is an Apostle in the truest, most Biblical sense of the Word, replied "
That's just silly and immature. The Word IS the service."
