The paragraphs in blue are Prue’s. Some minor responses will be made followed by a broader overview of the situation of the early church.

 

The gospel, with its simplicity, does not lend itself easily to traditional ideas about study.

 

This is largely true. The gospel is simple and even children can grasp the essence of it if explained appropriately. However, the scriptures themselves contain far more teaching that just the kerygma (the essential gospel) prompting even Peter to comment " There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures." (2 Peter 3:16, ESV)

 

The notion of an in-dwelling spirit which guides and teaches is simply too much for most people.

 

The Holy Spirit is promised to those who are God’s and He will lead us into truth. However, if the work of understanding scripture belonged to the Spirit alone then all believers would have the same understanding. But just as there were arguments even among the apostles, so it is today and ever has been. Christians are called to love truth, to find it, and cherish it. Unfortunately, we still have the effects of sin acting on our bodies and minds and while ever we are in these rags we should expect disagreement and misunderstanding of scripture. If this notion seems controversial to Prue, I suggest she poll a broad (preferably international) cross-section of members and workers from her group. About the only points of commonality will be the method of ministry and the emphasis on meetings in the home. There is no broad consensus on other topics. So if Prue believes the Spirit is enough (and I don’t doubt His power) then why is there no consensus in her group?

 

It is not thought that Jesus had a formal religious education - he did not require it of his followers, nor did he engage in religious studies.

 

If by “formal religious education” Prue means that Jesus did not go to seminary, then yes that’s true. Seminaries weren’t invented then. That’s where our agreement ends. In first century Palestine, tuition primarily took place at home with the parents holding the role of instructor. Religious education was also conducted in the synagogues.

 

The place of learning was exclusively the home in the earliest period, and the tutors were the parents; and teaching in the home continued to play an important part in the whole of the biblical period. As it developed, the synagogue became the place of instruction. Indeed, the NT and Philo support Schürer‘s view that the synagogue’s purpose was primarily instructional, and only then devotional; ^[i]

 

He was part of a normal family and every indication in scripture is that He had a normal childhood (apart from the fact that He was a prodigy (Lk 2:46-47)). He learnt Joseph’s trade. His parent’s were observant of the Law and since no-one lives in a vacuum, He would have been raised with the manners and customs of His time. As an adult He also taught at the synagogues. (Mt 4:23, 9:35; Mk 1:39, 6:2) If He Himself gave religious instruction according to custom, it is a logical inference that He had also sat under such instruction as a child. We know that at an early age He confounded men but we also know that He grew in wisdom (Lk 2:52). When He returned to His hometown and taught at their synagogue the people were surprised asking, “Where did this man get this wisdom and these mighty works? Is not this the carpenter’s son?” (Matthew 13:54b-55a, ESV). We can infer from this that Jesus had again increased in wisdom and understanding during the period that He had been absent from His home village. We have no reason to suspect that Jesus did not sit with the other children for instruction at the local synagogue. Since He acted as an adult instructor Himself, we could well conclude that He approved of the customary method of teaching.

 

Prue goes on to say that He didn’t require formal religious education of His followers either. This is anachronistic in that it tries to first insert a modern practice into that era and then deny that Jesus’ disciples used it. They all lived in the same culture and they all would have sat under the same method of teaching – learning from their parents at home and from teachers at their local synagogue. So no, they didn’t go to seminary, but yes they had formal religious education according to the manner of their time. Further, as disciples they followed Jesus and sat under His instruction, again a fairly normal practice for the time as the followers of a rabbi (teacher) would often travel and live with him as he taught them. Jesus was not an innovator in this sense. Again, He was following custom. Doubtless any true Christian would love to have had the privilege afforded His disciples – sitting for over three years under God Incarnate.

 

A good example of the irrelevancy of higher education was shown in Paul. Paul was a chief Pharisee who learned from the great rabbi Gamaliel, and most likely he was a member of Israel's supreme judicial and administrative council, the Sanhedrin. But Paul's formidable religious education proved a hindrance to him. It is likely that his education went no further than helping him to reach out to Jews who only knew the Law. 

 

We’re given no reference and no context as to why Paul’s education proved a hindrance to him. But the claim regarding how his education would not be overly beneficial on the mission field is easily disproved. He argued with the Greek philosophers on their own turf (Ac 17:15-33) and even knew their poetry. Conversions followed.

 

Paul warned his people about academic pretensions and the distractions of study.

 

Without a scripture reference a meaningful response is difficult.

Genealogies; legalisms or history have no relevance to the relationship which God seeks to engender with His people.

 

Although no scripture reference is given, I suspect Prue is referring to:

 

"As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith." (1 Timothy 1:3-4, ESV)

 

In the context of which Paul writes, we can agree. I don’t know if she has another thought in mind. I could assume but I have little to go on.

 

People engaging in theological/philosophical debates demonstrate little appreciation or love of the simplicity of the Gospel, and usually are making statements about themselves.

 

Prue’s site contains liberal helpings of such sweeping generalizations and rhetoric. In response to this we simply point to Paul who engaged in theological/philosophical debate with the Greeks. No Christian would question Paul’s appreciation and love for the simplicity of the gospel.

 

Having initially responded to some of Prue’s assertions, we’ll move on to a broader overview. It is hard to know where to start because she has packed many unspoken assumptions into a few paragraphs.

 

What always exposes the hypocrisy of those who despise “formal religious education” is the simple question, “Who do you have to thank for your copy of the Bible?” The religious 2x2 zealot will usually answer, “God”. Certainly this is true but in reality it is a dishonest answer designed to avoid the implications of the more complex answer. In reality, bible scholars throughout history have often taken on the task of translating the scriptures into the vernacular. The English translations Prue quote from were the result of a devoted team of scholars – as are the translations of Tacitus and Suetonius whom she references. In fact, Prue draws readily from the work of many historians and scholars of the Bible. They did not gain the necessary knowledge and skills by despising “formal religious education”. At this stage I do not think Prue is being dishonest. I do think she has not fully thought through the implications of her rejection of “formal religious education”. I would invite her to do so as her usage of the work of scholars runs at odds with her other claims which are, I suspect, merely indoctrination talking.

 

1. Task of translation

 

At first glance, it may seem irrelevant to ask why the task of translation has any bearing on whether or not some/all Christians should have formal religious education, or how it has any bearing on the practices of the primitive church. Let me state my assumption up front: the conditions in which the primitive church was born and grew are so radically different to our conditions that (some) formal religious education is absolutely necessary for church leaders and for those who have responsibility in preaching and teaching the Word.

 

I will revisit this assumption in concluding.

 

The scriptures were penned over a period of around 1500 years by people from all walks of life, across a developing culture from an agrarian age to (what was then) a modern economy under the Roman Empire. Not only do individual words change meaning over time but individual writers may use phrases in different ways. As no writer is divorced from their culture, they also will employ figures of speech and idioms peculiar to their time and place in history.

 

As an example, consider 21^st century Australia. Imagine a sign on a pub door declaring “No persons under the age of 18 are allowed to drink.” Then consider the fall of this civilization and in 2000 years time along comes an archaeologist who excavates the ruins of a city and finds this well-preserved sign. First, she must translate the sign into her own language (which surely won’t be Australian English). Then she must place it in its context (e.g. the building, the culture, the tribal behaviours of the period). Then she needs to decipher the idioms involved (if any). What if she assumes a literal translation? No person under 18 is allowed to drink in this building. Can under 18’s drink outside the building? Are they forbidden all drinks, even water? Or is “allowed to drink” a figure of speech that is not contained by the literal definitions of the words? We know that it is referring to alcohol, but no mention of alcohol is on the sign.

 

These are exactly the difficulties that are faced when anyone approaches scripture. The reader of a Bible is consciously or unconsciously relying on the ability of the translators to engage history, archaeology and ancient languages in order to present the modern reader with an understandable translation. To further complicate matters translators understand very well that they bring their own peculiar prejudices to the task. They must attempt to identify what could bias their work and try to be as objective as possible. And they must work within the reference of the objectives of a particular translation. Is the translation more literal, with the result that idioms and alien customs create obstacles for the reader? Or does the translation go down the path of dynamic equivalency where figures of speech are translated into corresponding modern idioms and phrases, where a more vernacular approach is employed at the expense of literal accuracy?

 

What has been mentioned so far still grossly understates the task of the translator.

 

2. Fruit of undertaking the task

 

New Testament Manuscript Distribution by Century and Manuscript Type*
Cent.	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	Totals
Papyri	1	31	20	5	9	13	3												85
Uncial		3	16	44	60	29	27	47	18	1									245
Min.			1	1	3	4	22	13	125	436	586	569	535	248	138	44	16	4	2745
Lect.								116	143	241	490	298	313	168	194	73	11		2147

^[ii]

This table lists extant New Testament (NT) papyri, uncials, miniscules and lectionaries that are in Greek. A similar table could be constructed containing extant NT manuscripts (MSS) in languages other than Greek. The total count would then be well over 20,000 documents available for the NT translator. If one also studied the Patristic writers (Christians from the following centuries after Christ) the entire NT bar 11 verses is quoted. NT scholar and textual critic (one who studies ancient documents) Bruce Metzger did a comparison study based on just the extant Greek MSS of the NT compared to other books from antiquity and how reliable modern reconstructions of these books are:

 

^[iii]

 

The results of this study cannot be overstated. Our best current Greek critical reconstructions of the NT are over 99% accurate. In fact Norman Geisler (quoting Metzger, I believe) states that only 40 lines of the NT are in any doubt as to the original wording and none of those lines impact on essentials of the Christian faith.

 

Now what does this have to do with formal religious education? The scholars who have dedicated their lives to bringing us accurate, trustworthy Bibles could not have achieved any of this without significant investment in their education in the fields of ancient language studies, textual criticism, history and archaeology. This alone ought to silence those who despise formal studies in religion and history. The response may be that this is fine for translators but the average Christian doesn’t need to know any of this. This would seem to me to be a naïve and foolish assumption. If one knows nothing of the process of biblical transmission and preservation, upon what basis is the person trusting what they read in the bible? This reeks of the blind faith which skeptics often accuse Christians of indulging in. Is there warrant for Christians to act in this manner?

 

3. Biblical admonitions to study and know scripture

 

Let’s see what scripture says in response to the preceding question.

 

"“Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." (Matthew 22:36-37, ESV)

^[iv]

The Christian is commanded to engage their mind and to love God with all of it. This is not blind faith. On the contrary Jesus often pointed out the culpability of those who should have known better because the scriptures were available to them but they had not sought understanding (Mt 21:42; Jn 7:42, 10:35). In one of His more devastating critiques He states:  “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God." (Matthew 22:29, ESV)

 

On another occasion He admonishes a group: "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me," (John 5:39, ESV) The scriptures do point to Christ but they did not see because they were looking for the wrong thing. But Jesus did not assume understanding on the part of His followers. Before He left: "And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself." (Luke 24:27, ESV) "Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures," (Luke 24:45, ESV) He grounded their understanding in the teaching of the scriptures and He promised: "When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth." (John 16:13, ESV)

 

John proclaims: "Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. " (John 20:30-31, ESV) It was his stated purpose that studying the scriptures could provoke saving faith in the heart of reader.

 

Of enduring interest is the reaction of the potential converts in Berea: "Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so." (Acts 17:11, ESV) They are on record for all of history as being noble precisely because they didn’t rely on blind faith but carefully weighed Paul’s claims against scripture. Paul followed in Jesus’ footsteps by reasoning from scripture with Torah believers in the synagogues (Ac 9:20, 13:14ff, 17:2, 17; 18:4, etc.)

 

In writing to Timothy, Paul underlines the importance of being grounded in the scriptures: "But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work. " (2 Timothy 3:14-17, ESV)

 

If Timothy was not well-versed in scripture then he would not have been able to fulfill the mandate laid on him by Paul. Consider the weighty expectations:

 

"If you put these things before the brothers, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, being trained in the words of the faith and of the good doctrine that you have followed." (1 Timothy 4:6, ESV)

 

"Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, to teaching." (1 Timothy 4:13, ESV)

 

"Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers. " (1 Timothy 4:16, ESV)

 

"O Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted to you. Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called “knowledge,” for by professing it some have swerved from the faith. Grace be with you." (1 Timothy 6:20-21, ESV)

"Follow the pattern of the sound words that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. By the Holy Spirit who dwells within us, guard the good deposit entrusted to you." (2 Timothy 1:13-14, ESV)

 

"Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth." (2 Timothy 2:15, ESV)

 

"And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth," (2 Timothy 2:24-25, ESV)

 

"I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths." (2 Timothy 4:1-4, ESV)

 

What a weight to bear! Timothy, who was immersed in the culture, customs and language of his time was given this charge as a leader in the churches. The elders of the churches had no less of a charge:

 

"Therefore an overseer must be…… able to teach," (1 Timothy 3:2, ESV)

 

"He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it." (Titus 1:9, ESV)

 

"Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood. I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them." (Acts 20:28-30, ESV)

 

How much more then should the church leader/teacher 2000 years removed from the fact be diligent and studious in acquiring knowledge of the scriptures in order to preach worthily and refute error?

 

Peter exhorted all Christians, not just the leaders, "but in your hearts regard Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you;" (1 Peter 3:15, ESV). This is a particularly interesting verse because the word translated defense is apologian.

 

665 ἀπολογία ( apologia ), ας ( as ), ἡ ( hē ): n.fem.; = Str 627 — 1. LN 33.435 defend oneself , make adj. formal justification ( Ac 25:16 ; 2Co 7:11 ; Php 1:7 , 16 ; 2Ti 4:16 ; 1Pe 3:15);^[v]

 

It is understood as being a formal defense as one would make in a courtroom. This is the task of apologetics in responding to skeptics and critics of Christianity. Yet Peter encourages all Christians to be able to defend their faith in some sense. Such a defense implies knowledge and reasonableness as opposed to dogma borne on blind faith. And as we noted earlier, Peter also recognized that though the gospel might be simple, the scriptures themselves contain much that is difficult and that the perverted of mind twist to their own destruction.

 

In conclusion, let’s revisit my assumption: the conditions in which the primitive church was born and grew are so radically different to our conditions that (some) formal religious education is absolutely necessary for church leaders and for those who have responsibility in preaching and teaching the Word.

 

Manners, customs, language and figures of speech are all so radically different now to what they were 2000 years ago, that it is a matter of responsibility for the preacher/teacher of scripture to be grounded in the way things were, such that they can accurately interpret and apply the teachings of scripture to our modern contexts. Jesus and the early church all received religious instruction according to the custom of their time and many of them went on to catechize in the same manner. Formal religious instruction as it is generally practiced today occurs in Bible colleges and seminaries, outside of these institutions under well-versed tutors, or through programs run by local churches. The manner and extent to which the student wishes to apply themselves will determine which avenue of instruction is most beneficial.

 

In addition we have a wealth of methods by which information can be disseminated, methods which were undreamed of in the first century Greco-Roman world. Computers, the internet, cheap books, multi-media and more, are all tools which can be applied to religious education. Religious instruction as one might receive at a Bible school is just information that is systematized and disseminated in a formal way. There is no hint in scripture that these methods and tools are intrinsically wrong. On the contrary, I would suggest that a refusal to embrace the tools at our disposal in order to advance the cause of the Kingdom is sin – the sins of intellectual laziness, intellectual hypocrisy and self-righteousness at its worst.