Frank's World
 | Frank Viola's Pagan Christianity? is making the rounds of the blogosphere these past few weeks, and since I was one of those who dared to request a copy to review, I now offer the following: |
It looks sort of like this:
 People hear tales of a new book coming out that will address issues surrounding church structure and leadership, and they imagine a rescue mission coming their way... |  ...only to realize that the focus of the mission was neither medicinal nor rescue, but "search and destroy" -- and everyone not currently living in Frank's World is in the crosshairs. |
 Many people were expecting something resembling a converation, an exchange of insights and ideas, a springboard for discussion and mutual learning... |  ...only to find themselves on the unexpected receiving end of a licking that left everyone not currently living in Frank's World unable to sit for a week. |
 And you'd think that when someone relentlessly and mercilessly comes at you with one of these... |  ...it would be strange to be labelled "pagan" for feeling the need to respond with a couple of of these. |
And in Frank's World, church history -- as it relates to church structure and leadership -- looks like this:
 |  |
 |  |
One example: Frank claims that the Reformers are guilty of foisting sermons on the Body of Christ, and that the early church knew nothing of one speaker doing most or all of the talking. This would be a shocking revelation to those who heard Moses deliver the entire book of Deuteronomy (do we really believe that Moses photocopied it for distribution?), or Nehemiah reading the law to the entire population of Jerusalem, or those who sat listening to Jesus preaching the Sermon on the Mount, Peter preaching at Pentecost (we only have a record of part of Peter's whole sermon), Stephen's long speech just before being martyred, or Paul preaching so long that Eutychus fell asleep and was briefly dead, before Paul resusitated him and kept right on preaching. (Bob Hyatt has a great chapter-by-chapter series going, and the iMonk is clever and pointed when he feels the need.)
The most provocative -- and hilariously silly -- line that everyone has been jumping on has to be "The church in its contemporary, institutional form neither has a biblical nor a historical right to exist." Even though they're amending it say "...nor a historical right to function as it does", and despite Frank's claim that he's not against culture, you can't escape one very real conclusion: Frank's World is the only true Biblical way for the church to meet or organize, and anyone who disagrees is obviously hopelessly blinded by, enslaved to, and probably getting a paycheque from the Pagans.
Frank is obvious on a crusade, and is zealous for everyone to buy into his worldview, but honestly, his not-even-thinly-disguised and shrill agenda drowns out what could have been a thought-provoking discussion-starter (see Darryl Dash's Next-Wave book review for a better way to ask the same questions).
 |
posted by Robbymac at
11:00 AM
11 Comments:
Aw, c'mon now. Tell us what you really think :)
Rock on with your bad self, Robbymac! :)
"...probably getting a paycheque from the Pagans."
hehehe ... would it be rude of me to point out that now Frank is getting a paycheck from the Pagans?
I don't see anyone denying that Viola is the source of the harsh and uncompromising tone in the book. He would probably offend people less if he used more nuanced language and let some of the more minor issues slide.
At least he didn't start calling established religious leaders blind guides, hypocrites, a brood of vipers, or people who make their disciples twice as much a son of hell as themselves.
I disagree with some of your points in this post.
a) Viola makes it clear that not everything that is "pagan" is a compromise and needs to be rejected. In the introduction to the book on page xxix "Also, just because a practice is picked up from culture does not make it wrong in and of itself, though we must be discerning. As author Frank Senn notes, 'We cannot avoid bringing our culture to church with us; it is a part o our very being. But in the light of tradition we need to sort out those cultural influences that contribute to the integrity of Christian worship from those that detract from it'"
b) the authors correctly identify the sophists and Greek oratory as the source of what we call the sermon today. They make a distinction between NT preaching (I would use the word proclamation) and the homily. Given that Viola believes there is a legitimate form of preaching in the early church you'd be hard pressed to make the case that he believes "the early church knew nothing of one speaker doing most of the talking". He would likely say such ministry isn't the rule and the biblical and historical evidence indicates this is the case.
c) I agree with Frank's assertion that the contemporary church forms have almost no biblical basis because they don't. While many people think this claim is bogus I don't see anyone pulling out their bible and making their case. There is nothing I've seen in this book that indicates that Frank has a exceedingly narrow definition of legitimate ecclesiology. You may be able to make that case from other writings but not from this book.
The more I study scripture on the subject the narrower my view of biblical ecclesiology becomes. While very little is spelled out as any kind of model to adopt there is enough discussion of the nature of the church, 1Cor 12 for example, that leads me to believe that contemporary church forms limit and impede the working of spiritual gifts and mutual love in the body of Christ. While I'm not convinced that a church would need to sell of its building to come in to harmony with the idea of church as the living body with each member serving another, it would have to be radically different.
I think scripture is pretty clear but we've been proof texting to protect our sacred cows and sacred positions for so long we've ignored it.
Co-heir,
Honestly, I think Frank has a lot of good things to say, which is why his bombastic style -- which overshadows some good questions and insights that he makes -- is such a tragedy.
Bob,
Thanks for your series on this book; you've been a voice of thoughtfulness and honest reflection.
Sonja,
Yeah, if you read the iMonk's piece, he makes mention of Frank being the new conference guru (which is where the money is, I hear). I hope the irony glistens. :)
It,
Yes, I'm aware that Frank makes the claim that we must "be discerning", but he then proceeds to denounce 99.99% of what churches have done and now do as being pagan, unbiblical, and in God's way, so his "be discerning" sounds more like "think like me" than actual Berean discernment (Acts 17:11).
As for preaching, I didn't bother mentioning (but maybe I should have) that Frank's assertion that the first three years of the Church (when Acts 2:42-47 mentioned the actual practice of the early church -- devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching, for example) is not "normative" and was only for establishing the church, and that 1 Cor. 14 was the "true" norm. That's much like the bogus cessationist theology that tried to relegate the gifts to only the first few years of the church. I don't buy it, either from cessationists or from Frank.
As for current church forms, no-one is trying to say that they're biblically mandated. But Frank has ZERO right to try and make his own narrow view into the "one true church model", either. That's what people are reacting to.
If you read the previous post on this blog, you can easily see that I'm not a big fan of hierarchical power positions in churches, either. That's why I keep saying that Frank's caustic style and "my way is God's way" attitude is such a tragedy. It will cause more people to write him off, and do little other than thrill the already-convinced and irritate those with a decent grasp on church history, and on the biblical teachings about leadership.
Yes, I'm aware that Frank makes the claim that we must "be discerning", but he then proceeds to denounce 99.99% of what churches have done and now do as being pagan, unbiblical, and in God's way, so his "be discerning" sounds more like "think like me" than actual Berean discernment (Acts 17:11).
I disagree. He is criticizing flawed ecclesiology in the church not attempting to present a balanced view of good and bad. He isn't denouncing 99.99 of the ministry of the church. It is true that he doesn't leave a lot unscathed but the judgment has to be made on the strength of his arguments. The question shouldn't be the volume of his criticisms but the validity of them.
As for current church forms, no-one is trying to say that they're biblically mandated. But Frank has ZERO right to try and make his own narrow view into the "one true church model", either. That's what people are reacting to.
Where in the book does Viola put forth the one true church model? I haven't seen it.
As for preaching, I didn't bother mentioning (but maybe I should have) that Frank's assertion that the first three years of the Church (when Acts 2:42-47 mentioned the actual practice of the early church -- devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching, for example) is not "normative" and was only for establishing the church, and that 1 Cor. 14 was the "true" norm.
I don't think it is safe to appeal to one passage of scripture (1Cor 14) and base an entire ecclesiology on it. But I do agree with the general gist Viola has on Christians meeting in the temple. At the birth of the church there were 11 main guys that we know had been with Jesus from the beginning. Aside from a handful of others like the guys up for apostolic promotion in Acts 1 and the women no one knew much about Christ. The only way the church could have been born was completely relying on the apostles.
I think you could make a case for larger group meetings in a similar situation if it ever arose today. If you have a few qualified teachers in a sea of brand new Christians I can see large group preaching and teaching being a biblically valid approach. New Christians often benefit a lot from this type of ministry.
For mature Christians or an established local church I see dominance by this kind of ministry as a big hindrance to how the body functions. Looking at Paul's analogy of the temple, Jesus' words about leadership and authority, all the "one anothers" in scripture it is difficult for me to see how this can be accomplished in ministry dominated by a few people.
I don't believe you can give a biblical basis to conventional church ministry by appealing to Acts 2. I think it is a stretch. I don't see the same correlation with cessationism, because there are lots of very specific things in the early history of the church we don't consider normative (drawing lots for apostles, greeting with holy kisses etc...)
Cessationism forces one to write off so much in the New Testament that is very clearly universal. I'm still stunned at how so many intelligent people wrap there heads around the tenuous leaps one has to make cessationism work as a theology.
For those interested, Frank is interacting with readers, answering questions and responding to objections about the book over at www.ptmin.org/pcobjections.htm
Some recent interviews appear there also where he interacts with some common critiques.
RM, I too appreciated the removal of all those exclamation points in the new edition.
The issues raised by you, Bob H, Imonk... are important. Thanks for adding some balance to the conversation. LT, xlnt thoughts, well presented.
The bottom line for non-theologians like me is that PC has opened a fascinating conversation. Reading the original version of PC last year has prompted me to read other books about 1c ecclesia.
While there are myriad early-church issues we could (and should) discuss, I believe an important reality is becoming clear: "religious institutionalization" has, for nearly two millennia, hindered faith communities from understanding and experiencing the horizontal, lay-led, participatory, all-body ministry that was intentionally created by the man we follow.
Rob,
I'm only on chapter 9 but hope to opine more fully soon, based on the notes I've been making. I keep thinking this book is a lot of Frank and not a lot of George... the preface/intro that each wrote almost have a point of contention between them. Having read the earlier form, how much has changed, what's new besides some of Barna's stats in chapter 5?
Hee hee.
Creative use of images with your review, well done.
This is reminding me of lyrics from a one-time favorite song of mine (as opposed to my all-time favorites, which ironically are more likely to change):
"There´s no fakin´,
Fry like bacon,
You´re a pagan!"
yes and amen to your take "it said." and for some folk its just gonna take an ol' fashioned shaking from God to bring them closer to the true foundation. some people just outsmart themselves. sometimes to find out what something is you find out first what it isn't!
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home