On Frank Viola, Church Structure, and the Thought That Our Way of Doing/Being Church is the Best Way

A friend of mine posted a comment about Frank Vola.

I made the comment:

I still think Viola uses Scripture to argue for a church model that is not clearly defined in Scripture. Without it being clearly defined, we have the liberty to be different.

I once did church thinking I was being church better than everyone else because the structure was "more biblical." I don't want to go there again. Maybe it's my fault, but Viola's teachings (and those of other house church/organic church leaders) lead to that prideful thinking. When I look back, at least from my faulty perspective, God has impacted people through His ministry through me more in a "corporate" setting than in a conversational, mutual ministry setting.
 
And when it comes down to it, structure doesn't matter. Fruit, especially love, is what it is all about. And Viola always leads people to argue about inessentials.

My friend and his wife - another friend - both then shared replies explaining things.  I do not feel comfortable sharing their replies here.  But I will share my reply back to them.

I appreciate the beauty of your journey and the inspiration Viola has been to you, yet I find his teachings dangerous - not in that good, radical follow Jesus way, but in that divisive, church is better the way I do/be it way. Now, I do think that we all should be doing/being church the way that we feel best. If not, we need to change.  But we don't have to come across that our way is the only way.

I did read the article, 10 Straw-Man Myths About “Pagan Christianity” & “Reimagining Church." Twice. To see if I missed him addressing my main thought about him. And I don't think he did address my complaint.  Maybe he did in a roundabout way but not in a way that satisfied me. Why is church structure an essential? 

We could all be going to churches that are structured correctly. Whatever that means. And that would not matter. The problem with church is not the structure; it's the lives of the people outside of the structure.  I agree that some structures are more conducive to inspiring people, but that structure changes culturally.  For me to be dogmatic about the way I connect with God and expect that to be the structure would cause the church to stagnate once the culture I am ingrained in has passed society by.  This has been one of the greatest problems facing the church.

There are people called to church leadership. There are leadership positions clearly established in Scripture. Everyone wanting to be church leaders or theologians makes an unhealthy church. Not being a leader does not make anyone less important. It actually makes everyone the part of the body they should be. What makes a healthy, vibrant church is everyone living out the faith in their homes, their communities, and their workplaces. We might disagree, but I think mutual leadership is more of an appeal to the Thoreauish individualism of America than to the early church.

I used to be overly cynical about the traditional, sanctuary church and its leaders. But now serving as a pastor, I know I don't want people to just show up, eat up, and leave on Sundays. But I also don't believe in open leadership. I want people to come, be involved in one another's lives, encourage one another, and go out and live the faith in a radical way that makes them shine the light of Jesus in our culture. Open leadership really is irrelevant to that happening.

There is a reason you find people to minister to who are burnt out from institutional church.  That's because we serve a great God who knows who to send people to to minister to them, and you and Eric are great ministers.  But the danger we face in ministering to people who have been turned off from the same things that we have been turned off from is that cynicism can flourish.

I think it is fine and great to do church differently. I am happy Viola invigorates you and others. But I would hope that there would be enough grace to not tear down different expressions of the faith. Just like you don't like the traditional, sanctuary church acting like they are the only game in town, I think nobody should act like they are the only game in town. The kingdom is big and expansive, and once we get dogmatic on structure we lose some of our witness.

I am not so kind to say that I am not trying to convince you. I would love to convince you, Eric, and the whole world that the church can be a megachurch with 50,000 people and it can be a group of three worshiping in a clearing in the woods. It can have top-down leadership; it can have mutual leadership. It can have worship leaders with a planned, rehearsed, and flawless presentation; it can have a lady who brings out her guitar and sings spontaneously. I have seen empty, passionless Christians in churches of all varieties, from organic churches to megachurches. I don't think the structure is the issue.  Total surrender to Jesus is.

As a minister - as every minister I know has been - I am inflicted with tremendous pain by the body of Christ at times.  I understand hurt.  Maybe yours has been more extreme.  But I also see tremendous beauty.  It's amazing.  As Tony Campolo said, "The church is a whore but she's my mother."

I view Facebook as a place of conversation, more of like saying something publicly so that other people respond with their thoughts. If that is not what Eric and you want with it, let me know. Because I still want to be your friends on here, but I don't mean to upset you.  I post on Facebook to hear what others think of what I think or am experiencing. I just assumed others do too.  After Eric's last refusal to comment, I did quit commenting on his posts for a while. But what sort of friendship is it that does not talk about different ideas and disagree at times? Personally, I am not just engaging in mental sparring. Although you are probably not intending this, stating that is my motive is a way to dismiss my thoughts and not consider them. If there was any evil in my comment it was to arrogantly hope that Eric would consider what I wrote initially: "When it comes down to it, structure doesn't matter. Fruit, especially love, is what it is all about. And Viola always leads people to argue about inessentials."

To sum up, I don't think the problem is institutional versus organic versus house or versus some other kind of church.  The problem is bad church versus the kingdom.  The kingdom can manifests in all sorts of believers, no matter how many they are or how they are structured.

Interactive Sermons, Preaching, and the Role of the Sunday Morning Gathering

A friend sent me a message asking me the following:

What is your take on interactive preaching on Sunday mornings? What I mean is, if you have a question or a comment should you share it during the sermon? I have started to study it more. Again, just curious.

Here was my reply in case you are also wondering about it.

We did it for a while, and I liked it.  As a listener, I have a tough time remaining focused once a preacher has stated something that spurs me down a side road.

On the pragmatic side, I don't think interactive preaching can be done well in a large setting, and we keep growing larger and larger.  We want to be a church of 100, so I believe that we need to start behaving like a church of 100.  When we had interactive preaching, we only had a few people interact.  It was these same people every week who had something to say.  Interactive preaching also hampers the point of the message from getting across.  A preacher should be wrestling with what God wants him to say to the congregation throughout the week.  His week's worth of prayer and seeking God's thoughts should not go out the window because someone else brought up a controversial tangent. 

Another alternative if you want more involvement would be to open the mic up for anyone to share at some point during the service.  I have seen this done and have enjoyed those gatherings.  I have not experienced it regularly, and I would assume that the same people would get up and speak week after week. 

As for history of the sermon, you might want to read a chapter in a book by Frank Viola called Pagan Christianity.  I would have loaned you my copy while you were here if I would have known then that you were interested in this.  It is titled "The Sermon: Protestantism's Most Sacred Cow."  Viola is a house church guy and does not like the sermon as it is today.  He has a lot of good things to say, although he also has a real agenda against sanctuary church.  I also have a love for the church meeting in houses, but that is not what everyone is called to.  Viola makes a good argument that the sermon is not mandated by Scripture and really did not arrive at its current form until the 4th century with the speaking of Augustine and Chrysostom.  He has the faulty logic that since it originated in pagan circles, it is automatically evil, but that is another long discussion for another day. 

The sermon is not a Scriptural mandate.  The purpose of the sermon is to educate people.  If there is a better way to educate, then we need to be willing to discard the sermon and use the better way.  After all, the sermon is just a tool; education that leads to action is the goal. 

The key thing to remember is that the purpose of any education is to lead people to a place where encountering God transforms them.  If we just educate people on grand theological concepts or historical information that have no practical value, then the process of transformation is stifled. Bad education is worse than no education at all because the people in the church then feel they have done something they were supposed to do when all they have done is sat through a lesson unchanged.  Religion is the exact opposite of transformation.  Being educated can easily fall into being a religious ritual void of its power. 

A read through of the book of Corinthians would show that the church was definitely not just one or two people standing up at the pulpit while everyone else was led.  It was definitely more of an interactive experience.  Prophets would get up and share a message they felt on their heart from the Lord.  "When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation"  1 Cor 14:26b (ESV).  It would have been a much different experience than what we currently have.  Maybe it is something to strive for.

But here comes the reason why I have a church gathering with a sermon that is not interactive.  It has nothing to do with a scriptural mandate one way or another.  It comes from the realization that visitors are most likely to check out our church and the seeking are likely to come seek God during that one hour on Sunday where we usually have the sermon, and visitors expect to hear a sermon.  That is what they have come for.  As a church, we have interaction with one another and sharing what God has laid on our hearts during our Christian Education time and Small Groups.  Hopefully, that it is also happening in relationships throughout the week. 

As for the visitors, I want to give them what they want in regards to the sermon and not turn them away from our service by making it impermeable to them.  They are coming to hear a message from the Bible.  I want to them to hear about God's grace and His great call on their life to surrender their life to Him and love their neighbor. 
 
We need to always be reminded that church is not that hour spent together on Sunday morning.  Church is us living our lives together as people surrendered to Jesus.  This gives us the liberty to tweak things during that hour.

Go ahead and give interactive sermons a try if you feel led.  There is nothing wrong with doing that.  Just make sure it is helping the body you are part of achieve the mission they are called to.

On Frank Viola's Pagan Christianity, Non-Instrumentals, Paid Ministry, and Following God's Calling

I received the following question from my friend Shannon:

Years ago when you were so anti-paid ministry and buildings, etc..., was much of that motivated by Pagan Christianity? I remember that being very influential. Now that you have moved into paid ministry, is that still a book you recommend?

I have feared reading it (though I have heard good things), because I wonder if reading how "everything we're doing is wrong" would do more to discourage and confuse me than to challenge and invigorate me. You know what I mean?

Here was my reply:

I actually had not read Pagan Christianity?: Exploring the Roots of Our Church Practices or any Frank Viola book at the time when we planted the house churches in Lansing, but I have just read Pagan Christianity. I started to work through it for Sunday School with the intention to show that most of our practices are not essential and can be changed to whatever is effective. It was way too divisive. I dropped it after week one. I can understand why some think it is divisive, but I just find it so liberating.

We did go through the chapter on sermons, The Sermon: Protestantism's Most Sacred Cow, in a preaching class I taught for people who would like to preach in our church. Viola is against the sermon. I agree with him that it can be a somewhat ineffective form of education, but it can also be a useful well to present a well, thought-out case for a subject. I shared Viola's chapter in the class to show that we have liberty to do whatever we think would best convey the Scriptural message in our sermons. We need to choose effective, yet Christ-like methods where we are not given a Scriptural command. Now some will say that the Bible tells us to preach the gospel, to them I would say read Viola's chapter on the sermon. Our form of preaching was not even around when that was written. Just because we use the same translated word, does not mean we are doing the same practice.

My problem with Viola's book is that Viola is like a non-instrumentalist when it comes to his method of deciding what is a right or wrong practice in the church. For those who do not know what I mean when I say "non-instrumentalist", it is those who believe that practices cannot be in the church unless they were expressly taught in Scripture. In the Restoration Movement, which I am happily a part of, there was a division over the instrument. Some argued that churches should not use instruments in worship because they are not used in the New Testament. Others argued that there is liberty where the Bible does not expressly teach something. If it isn't in Scripture, Viola presumes, like the non-instrumentalist, that we should not do it. I think that if it is not in Scripture, then we have liberty to do what is most effective. On a side note, I have seen many instrumental Churches of Christ/Christian Churches who take this non-instrumental approach to Scripture on all issues except the instrument. There is an old saying that our movement adopted: In Essentials, Unity. In Opinions, Liberty. In all things, Love.

Viola's book is a great read. It puts modern church practices in perspective, but you just have to realize that his conclusion is different because he comes from that non-instrumental (although I'm sure that he is from a different background) strain of interpretation.

As for paid ministry, it's effective in some areas. This town I am ministering would not accept a non-paid minister. In other areas, I would still advise tentmaking. The key is doing what is effective. The problem people, like me, have is that we often confuse our calling with God's universal truth. At the time of my dislike of paid ministry and buildings, my calling was for me to be a tentmaker, and I mistakenly thought that everyone else needed to be a tentmaker. Now my calling is different. God has room for both paid ministers and tentmakers, for buildings and houses, for praise bands and pianos, etc. We need to be sensitive to what God is calling us to and realize that everyone does not have the same calling.

In all of this, we need to remind ourselves that God calls us to be faithful, not effective.

Sunday Evening Service - What is essential?

When I was called to stay here at Antwerp, given the blessing of the leadership, and was making my rounds meeting with people in the church to talk with them about me being the minister at this church, I met with one individual. This individual presumed I was meeting with them to ask them to support the campus ministry I thought I was going to just a few weeks before. (Isn't it crazy how trying to follow God makes us appear wishy-washy at times?) [sorry for the somewhat bad grammar but I prefer to keep this gender neutral].

Anyway, when I sat down and began talking with this individual about staying in Antwerp to be the minister, they shared that they would not have been able to support me being a campus minister. This person's reason? Because I was not a supporter of the Sunday evening gathering. I did not attend it regularly, and I was on record as saying that it was no longer useful at meeting any pertinent goal.

So here I was, possibly going to minister to the most unreached segment of American culture, the college student, and this person would not have been willing to support that ministry because I did not participate regularly in the Sunday evening gathering.

What's important? Ministering to the most unreached people group in America or attendance at the Sunday evening gathering? There would be good reasons to not support me as a missionary to college students. One could think that I would not be capable of ministering to them. One could think that too much of the money would go to overhead in the organization I was going with. They could desire to send their money to another missionary. Or they could say that they just did not have the extra money to support a missionary at this time. There are legitimate reasons beyond those.

But I would say that one's view of the Sunday evening gathering should play no part in whether we support a missionary or not. I do not know the view on the Sunday evening gathering of any of the missionaries that we support. If we make our criteria go so far down the list of what a person believes as to include their view on Sunday evening gatherings as an essential, then I think we have made a list that is much too lengthy. What would not be an essential with such a lengthy list?

I could not verify it, but the following seems to be the only reason that I could find on the origins of the modern Sunday evening service. Sunday evening church was started in the late 1800s, early 1900s, because people wanted to sit under artificial light. It was a new novelty, and people were willing to come and listen to a Gospel message because of it. I would say, go ahead and start a Sunday evening service if it would provide a gate for people to hear the message of Jesus. Whatever we can do that is not compromising the Gospel and will allow us to share the message of Christ, we should do that. We are already doing those types of things all of the time; the question we need to ask is whether they are effective. If not, we need to discard them quickly.

Sunday evening service did not originally pop up, as many state, to give farmers who had to work in the morning an opportunity to go to church. Although that could have been the reason used in some communities to maintain the ritual. We no longer believe attendance in mass is necessary for one's salvation. If someone has to miss the morning service because of work, health, or some other means, it does not mean they cannot get plugged into a small group or a ministry. They can still be part of the fellowship in practices that actually provide fellowship.

Once a practice that is not an essential loses its effectiveness at drawing new people in, we should focus on the tried and true things, like bringing the Gospel to them through loving actions. Maybe inviting friends over to our house and sharing an evening of fun. Maybe going out and helping someone with the extra two hours we have saved. Maybe spend time playing games with one's family. Maybe spending that time in prayer. There are certain things that never lose effectiveness, and these should be the things we are primarily focused on.

Frank Viola quotes J.C. Ryle in the beginning of his book Pagan Christianity?: Exploring the Roots of Our Church Practices:

Experience supplies painful proof that traditions once called into being are first called useful, then they become necessary. At last they are too often made idols, and all must bow down to them or be punished.