Frank Viola and Re-Imagining

July 3, 2009  |  thought  | 

I attended Frank Viola’s “Re-Imagining the Church” conference held just outside Toronto, Ontario, Canada, in my hometown of Newmarket, last weekend. I took advantage of it being there and had the opportunity to visit my family. I want to thank Frank for personally inviting me. Even though I am not directly involved with the house-church movement which he espouses, he still thought it would be worth my while to attend. And it was. I’m glad I went. I want to try to articulate a few observations I made about the conference. Please forgive the fact that this is not a professionally written essay, but a quickly jotted observation I wish to share with you.

It was sold out with 200 registered. It took place in a very comfortable, plush sanctuary with state-of-the-art audio-visual equipment. We were seated at large round tables with approximately 10 people per table. I didn’t know anyone. It was a little awkward for me, but I sat at a table and introduced myself as best I could. I made an effort to say hi to Frank since he was so kind as to invite me. We’d never met except online. I’ve received some free copies of his books and reviewed one or two on this blog. He is very friendly, kind and has a warm sense of humor. Viola is obviously passionate about Jesus and his body, the church. There were a couple of times I felt like I was at a good ol’ Pentecostal revival meeting. I admired his passion and his zeal for the church. I also admired… and I told him this… his team of several men who showed incredible comraderie with Frank. I told him it must be wonderful to have such a group of strong supporters with him at all times. He agreed. I think that shows wisdom. It also shows that he is a team player, and that is often a good thing.

Something happened to me that was both uncomfortable and humorous. At one point we were to go around the table and introduce ourselves and talk about our own story with house-church. They started to my right and went around the table, so I was the last one. They talked about their negative experiences while in the institutional church and how they were either trying to find a house fellowship to be a part of, or trying to start a house fellowship, or being involved in one already. They talked of the benefits of not having authority figures, hierarchical leadership, brick and mortar buildings, paid staff, set meeting times, impersonal services, and all the rest. They had success stories of how things were going in their house-churches. Then it got to me. I said,Well, I feel very much like a fish out of water here, but not only do I go to an institutional church… I pastor one!” “Oh!” some said, “They’re okay. They’re fine! In fact, I got saved in one!” Etc., etc. It was both cute and funny. (Just on a side note, I think I detected in the voice of many people the need for legitimization. That’s one problem with the house-church movement. It is still in its early stages, and because of the lingering entrenchment of institutional Christianity, most house-churchers seem to struggle with feeling illegitimate, disconnected from the “real” church. Just a thought.)

The truth is, I’ve been a part of house churches or house fellowships or whatever you want to call them, as well as the institutional church. In my opinion, you just need to pick which pan you want to fry in. The house-churches have their own peculiar problems just like institutional churches do. But, more importantly, I think both struggle with much of the same issues: power struggles, the prevalence of the principalities and powers, locale, time, relational conflict, authenticity, realness, commitment, money, etc., etc.. In fact, one gentleman gave a presentation of his desire to start a network of house-churches because there is strength, security and safety in numbers, which is just another word for movement or denomination or fellowship. He’s right but, whether he likes it or not, he’s talking denominationalism in its earliest stages.

You see, the moment you have any expectations at all on others as a group, especially in the interest of that group, you have the inception of institutionalism. If you want no institution, then you can have no expectation at all on others. None at all!: not monetary, moral, missional, or anything. No expectations or desires whatsoever. And almost all of us find that impossible because of the style religion has morphed into today and which we have wholeheartedly adopted. I think true freelancing is excellent, but it is extremely rare. Extremely! I think institutions can be good. But the effort it takes to fight for an institution’s continued liberation from the principalities and powers is so arduous that very, very few are willing to acquire it.

Viola says that he has been outside of the institutional church for over 20 years. But the problems that he admits so beset the house-church movement sound remarkably similar to what, say, my denomination, the Vineyard movement, presently struggles with. The issues of theology, purity, passion, mission, power and authority, money, commitment, isolation versus networking and clustering, are identical. We are all talking about the same old solutions to the same old problems. So, if I were Frank Viola, this is what I would be struggling with:

First of all, decide what you want to be: institution or not. Like there is no kinda pregnant, there is no kinda church. You either are or you aren’t an institution. I’m married. Marriage is an institution. It can’t be helped. Lisa’s and my struggle is how to be in loving commitment without falling prey to horrid dangers of institutionalism. So, if they decide not to be institutional, then forget trying to organize, inspire, or motivate groups of people according to a particular vision or goal. I realize that all of Viola’s fears would come rushing in: heresy or just plain theological silliness, power-struggles and abuses, drifting away from the biblical Jesus and faith, lone-rangering and maverick leadership, cultism, and a complete lack of control over what’s going on in people’s homes. However, if he’s willing to become institutional (which I think he does if he wants his passions to bear fruit), then I would say this:

I think Frank Viola and company just need to admit that they are a church-planting movement and get on with it. Now, from my observation, all of the people at my table were people who have left the institutional church with unsavory memories of it. I totally understand that and don’t judge that at all. I believe them. Been there, got the scars! Given some too! But Viola should realize that his primary mission field is people who have left the institutional church and are looking for a way to fellowship with other believers in a safer, more authentic, and more biblical way. There was talk about saving the lost too, but this is obviously secondary because it is the found who finds them. I know many, many people who’ve left the institutional church, so the mission field is huge and the harvest is ripe! Some are ex-pastors too, so there are teachers out there looking for an audience. I suspect this will focus their efforts to accomplish their dreams and also give the people joining a feeling of legitimacy, that they are still somehow connected to the historic, holy, catholic church and not on some cosmic cult ride. Of course, having said this, it creates the problems Viola is trying to avoid, like structure, organization, hierarchy, trained and educated leadership, control, financial need, etc.

These are just some of the things I would say. I like Frank and think he’s on to something. I admire his zeal. Frank works hard to inspire others to find their original passion for Jesus again, their first love, or else it is all just a game. But many times I had the impression that they were fighting hard against being something that they already are… the church. They are just the church like it has always been since its birth. They are just the church in apparently new (some would say “biblical”) clothes. No. They’ve just rearranged the furniture, but the house is the same. It’s just a matter of style. My church works hard to be “organic”, “authentic” and “biblical”, and yet we are very institutional. Can’t be helped.  Like Frank said, “There is just one church!” Exactly! We may look different, but we are brothers from the same mother.

Contributions to nakedpastor are greatly appreciated.

gallery

56 Comments


  1. Oh you missed t he point there, Mark. By asking that, what she really wanted you to do was tie her to the steering wheel and spank her!

  2. D’oh! I’ll be ready for next time.

  3. Just to be a bit of a geek and history buff the house/simple/organinc church movement in america is really a late/slow growing offshoot of the UK house church movement
    {Itself part of the charismatic movements and somewhat influences but he plymouth bretheran (where you get the the heavy legalism and authoritarianishipness)} Tony and Felicity Dale who are pretty influencial in the house church lark were around in the 70’s when it was all kicking off over here and had moved to texas before the movement got centered around the magnificent seven and subsequent Fabulous Fourteen. The main differences from what I can tell is that the house church in the UK was very much born out of the charimatic stuff going on in 70’s for some it was the only place they were allowed to teach or practice the gifits of the holy spirit, for some it was a belief that his new experience needed new structures/forms and for some they believed it was part of restoring a corect (implicilty implied pure) form of christianity/church along with restoring the gifts of the holy spirit. The relationship to the charismatic renewal is really important in understanding it’s birth and growth into the new church movement in the UK for allot of folks coming into house churches in the 70’s in the UK their experience at bible studie gourps/prayer mettings early house churches and their steping into the charismatic experience were very interwieved. Whereas in the US it seems that the house church’s tend to simply reflect he theologies/practices of the churches they came out of, some HC will be charismatic or penticostal but their IC’s were also, some will be more classically evangelical in theology and practice much like the IC that the participants will have once be a part of. For the main in the UK the main thing was what the holy spirit was doing or the important emerging charismatic theology adn house churches were mearly the space that this was happening in where as in the current crop of house churches the non IC small/organic formuala is much more important focused on.

  4. Thanks for that. But why was it influenced by the Plymouth Brethren?

    Note also the danger of claims to ‘knowing’ by virtue of the Holy Spirit and subsequent authoritarianism.

  5. Many early house churches had come out of the plymouth bretheran movement or were influenced-inspired by the teaching of arthur wallice and david lillie (or teachers inspired by them) who were Plymouth B’s who had become convinced of the validity of spiritual gift (the charismatic thing) the distincitive between their teaching and the rest of charismatic teaching was that it wasn’t enough to simply have a return to the minstitry of the holy spirit evident in the new testament but also a return to the church governence, structure and form they saw evident in the new testament (this was also attached to a belief that this was a pre-eminent move before the end of the world or a great revival depending on who you listened to). Hence the influence and affect of the Plymouth Breathen being rife in early and alter house churches and networks.

  6. stumbled across all this talk on organic churches!! So is this the latest fad? Really turned off by the emergent church. Done enough research to know that is a dangerous way to go.

    So what I’m wondering is how does every one come together , and have fellowship with no clear direction as far as doctrine? You know there are some really off the wall beliefs out there, so how can you have things in common when people don’t agree on basic doctrines. It seems like you would always be discussing why you don’t agree with something someone else sees different. I think you need to establish the common denominator in order to produce any results for God. I know God is the common denominator, but everyone has a different idea of that!!

    I know I would be very frustrated if someone was really taking lightly the word of God. and twisting the verses to say what they wanted it to say . You can’t have a little truth, error has to be exposed as well. If not there is no absolute truth.

    The Bible says to stand , girding up your loins, a soldier ready to fight for the truth
    I’m so sick of the side show at churches thinking they have to add something to the word of god, or people will get bored. No God has always used his word to convict of sin, he doesn’t need our help. It’s not our job to make the unsaved feel comfortable. Jesus said the world will hate you so don’t be surjprised when they do. Some churches are too busy entertaining the goats and not feeding the sheep. It’s a slippery slope, and is falling into the hands of the antichrist to fulfill prophecy in the last days. The Universal Church!! It is deffinately happening. Anything goes, It’s not about Christ anymore, it’s about us!! It is sickening!!!! Just preach the Bible and people will know how to live!!

    So I can understand why the new movement, but I can see problems with this as well.
    I think the church needs to get back to basics, and do what God called the church to do, we meet admonish one another, the shepard feeds the sheep, and we go out to reach the lost, like jesus commanded us to do. We don’t need skits, videos, or clever little sermonets to spark our interest, we need to be something diff than the world. , we have a different calling. People aren’t going to like us, the gospel affends. I wonder what the martyrs think, when they hear some pastor say, don’t bring your Bibles to church , we don’t want to make anyone feel uncomfortable. WHAT? The martyrs were tortured, murdered for the very Bible we hold in our hands. How dare we have that attitude? That really gets me cranked.

    Why can’t we just stick to the Bible, and let God build his church.

Leave a Reply