Reinterpreting Church and Church Leadership
A few months ago a very good friend passed along a copy of a book he said made a big impact on him. My friend is very passionate about home groups and home churches. His family and mine served in the same church for about four years until my wife and I moved away. We were in a home group together, which felt more like a family than anything else. The book: Reimagining Church, by Frank Viola. Its premise is to persuade Christians to return to what Viola refers to as the "organic church"--a church radically different than what most of us belong to today. For my friend, it's this small, intimate, familial congregation that appeals to him, and understandably so.
While I will address specific examples, I also want to cut to the chase: I did not like the book for two main reasons. First, Viola sets up a dichotomy you are forced to choose from. Either you buy into his exact view of what church should look like ("organic") or you are in a church that does not fit the mold of scripture ("institutional"). He returns again and again to these two ideas and how his organic church is right and your institutional church is wrong. Personally, I am not keen on teachers who believe they and only they have the one true truth on nonessential issues. (And by nonessential, I mean in this case the structure of one's church does not impact salvation.)
The second reason this book fails is simple exegesis. Specifically, the writer mixes prescriptive text and descriptive text whenever it suits him. Prescriptive instructs us on what something should be, while descriptive describes what happened. When we read the Bible, prescriptive text should form our doctrine, our theology, our ecclesiology, etc. Descriptive text, however, gives examples. They could be good examples or bad examples. Often Viola uses descriptive text to say this is how it should be. He uses passages that are good examples of church assembly for sure, but are not prescriptive. Be it Jesus, Paul, John, Luke, or Peter, the writer's support is time and again simply an example of what the early church looked like in the first century, not what it had to look like 2,000 years later.
As I say this, I am convinced studying Acts (as well as Paul's letters) is imperative for building a church congregation. There are many examples that seemingly worked well and should be incorporated into our practices today. And to Viola's credit, much of his criticism of what he calls the institutional church is fair, if not completely accurate. For instance, there is often too much power concentrated in one or two people in the church. Also, many churches suppress the giftings of its congregants. Additionally, everyone should "amen" when Viola writes, "The New Testament envisions the church as a family that takes care of is members. Not only spiritually, but physically and financially--in every way that a nuclear or extended family takes care of its own." These all are the things that drew my friend into this book. Unfortunately, while Viola's diagnosis of the symptoms is on point, his prescriptions are more on par with blood-letting and snake oil than any actual cure.
One topic especially irritating is that of elders. Viola's larger point is that there are no offices in the church aside from Jesus as its head. He introduces the topic of elders by stating, "In the Greek language, elder (presbuteros) merely means an old man." This is true, but it is also a term meaning a rank in an office of leadership. The writer's entire premise is off, which mars his on-going dismissal of elders as anything other than older Christians passing along the occasional bit of wisdom.
As far as teaching goes, it was not only elders who were able to teach the church, according to Viola. Using 1 Corinthians 14:24-26, Viola argues, "teaching could come from any Christian who had a word of instruction for the church." Unfortunately for Viola's eisegesis, this passage reads:
Further complicating his line of reasoning are verses 33 and 34, which read:
I also want to address Viola's view of the terms "overseer" and "shepherd." In the writer's mind, these roles lack any real authority and decision-making responsibilities. In fact, Viola writes that elders, "never made decisions for the church." Leaning into the metaphor, he stresses that shepherds cared for their flock. While this is true, the shepherd literally led his flock. He made decisions of where to graze. Even Jesus speaks of the shepherd leaving the 99 to locate the one missing sheep.
Sticking with the parable, this shepherd decides to bring the sheep back to the flock. He didn't stand next to the fluffy bovidae advising, "you know little lamb, in my experience going over that hill there and separating oneself from the safety of the flock is usually dangerous, but you do you." No, the shepherd dragged the dang thing back to the rest of the herd. The point is, eldership is most definitely an office in the church instituted by holy scripture. And the role most definitely is tasked with making decisions. Although Viola is right to warn of abusive elders and leaders who lord their authority over others, one could not be an overseer or a shepherd without making any decisions for the church body.
Finally, in regards to elders, Viola writes, "'Elder' means mature man. 'Shepherd' means one who nurtures and protects a flock. And 'overseer' means one who supervises." Shortly later, he continues, "New Testament leadership can best be understood in terms of verbs rather than nouns." In case you are not a grammartarian or keen on observation, Viola uses and defines (in his own way) the words "elder," "shepherd," and "overseer," which all happen to be, in fact, nouns.
Aside from misunderstanding the role of elders, Viola also gets wrong the trinity. Like many of his ilk, the idea of a three-personed God mutually submitting to themselves creates "an absence of hierachical structures" to be followed in church life. The writer attempts to argue there is no leadership within the trinity. That idea of mutual submission lays the foundation for such an argument.
Yet, is mutual submission within the trinity real? I would argue no. As would many others much smarter than me. First, the Father sends the Son. The Son never sends the Father. We see the Son praying to the Father, but never the Father to the Son. Also, even the names Father and Son indicate some form or hierarchy. An adult son is under no legal obligation to submit to his father, yet within the context of Judaism and Christianity, we know the son still honors his father. Therefore, if Viola's view of the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is the foundation of how he views leadership within the church, but this view of the trinitarian relationship is wrong, then his view of leadership within the church is also wrong. (None of this is to touch on the idea of eternal submission, which is far beyond the scope of this blog post).
The body broken. The bled shed. Perhaps not "morbid" but certainly somber. And very clearly Jesus instructs us to remember him as we participate.
Viola continues his arrogance when he writes that "most modern 'church' [scare quotes around the word church are frequent] buildings reflect the boastings of this world rather than the meek and lowly Savior whose name we bare." He refers to any sort of hierarchical leadership as "ego-massaging models." Additionally, "Protestant denominationalism has too often descended into a human institution that cracks the whip of despotism before its dissenters." And Viola notes that any Lord's Supper led by a clergy apart from a family-syled meal "does violence to the mutual participation that's present in the triune God." This all seems a bit overkill to me.
All of Viola's bitterness makes sense, when he reveals he, "Used to belong to one of the largest Pentecostal churches in the state of Florida." The combination of Pentecostalism and megachurch structure would push me towards radical church views as well. Unfortunately, Viola takes these views too far. Rather than a helpful critique of errors and abuse found in many churches today, Viola leaves us with a bitter screed against anything that doesn't fit his predetermined view of ecclesiology. To use his own term, this book is purely "ego-massaging."
While I will address specific examples, I also want to cut to the chase: I did not like the book for two main reasons. First, Viola sets up a dichotomy you are forced to choose from. Either you buy into his exact view of what church should look like ("organic") or you are in a church that does not fit the mold of scripture ("institutional"). He returns again and again to these two ideas and how his organic church is right and your institutional church is wrong. Personally, I am not keen on teachers who believe they and only they have the one true truth on nonessential issues. (And by nonessential, I mean in this case the structure of one's church does not impact salvation.)
The second reason this book fails is simple exegesis. Specifically, the writer mixes prescriptive text and descriptive text whenever it suits him. Prescriptive instructs us on what something should be, while descriptive describes what happened. When we read the Bible, prescriptive text should form our doctrine, our theology, our ecclesiology, etc. Descriptive text, however, gives examples. They could be good examples or bad examples. Often Viola uses descriptive text to say this is how it should be. He uses passages that are good examples of church assembly for sure, but are not prescriptive. Be it Jesus, Paul, John, Luke, or Peter, the writer's support is time and again simply an example of what the early church looked like in the first century, not what it had to look like 2,000 years later.
As I say this, I am convinced studying Acts (as well as Paul's letters) is imperative for building a church congregation. There are many examples that seemingly worked well and should be incorporated into our practices today. And to Viola's credit, much of his criticism of what he calls the institutional church is fair, if not completely accurate. For instance, there is often too much power concentrated in one or two people in the church. Also, many churches suppress the giftings of its congregants. Additionally, everyone should "amen" when Viola writes, "The New Testament envisions the church as a family that takes care of is members. Not only spiritually, but physically and financially--in every way that a nuclear or extended family takes care of its own." These all are the things that drew my friend into this book. Unfortunately, while Viola's diagnosis of the symptoms is on point, his prescriptions are more on par with blood-letting and snake oil than any actual cure.
ELDERS
One topic especially irritating is that of elders. Viola's larger point is that there are no offices in the church aside from Jesus as its head. He introduces the topic of elders by stating, "In the Greek language, elder (presbuteros) merely means an old man." This is true, but it is also a term meaning a rank in an office of leadership. The writer's entire premise is off, which mars his on-going dismissal of elders as anything other than older Christians passing along the occasional bit of wisdom.
As far as teaching goes, it was not only elders who were able to teach the church, according to Viola. Using 1 Corinthians 14:24-26, Viola argues, "teaching could come from any Christian who had a word of instruction for the church." Unfortunately for Viola's eisegesis, this passage reads:
But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he his called to account by all, the secrets of his heart are disclosed, and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you.This does not support Viola's argument. It does not say "any Christian who has a word of instruction" can stand up before the congregation and teach. It essentially says, each person has a gifting to offer the body.
What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up.
Further complicating his line of reasoning are verses 33 and 34, which read:
As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says.Now most complementarians will not even take this so literally to forbid women from ever speaking in church. Some contextualization is necessary, and it's understood to mean that this is a matter of order and submission to church authority. After all, earlier in the same letter Paul assumes women are praying and prophesying in gatherings. Yet, if Viola is taking a strict understanding of verses 24-26, then to remain logically consistent, he needs to take the same approach a few sentences later. And if he wishes to remain logically consistent, then this approach to verses 33 and 34 actually contradict his argument surrounding verses 24-26.
I also want to address Viola's view of the terms "overseer" and "shepherd." In the writer's mind, these roles lack any real authority and decision-making responsibilities. In fact, Viola writes that elders, "never made decisions for the church." Leaning into the metaphor, he stresses that shepherds cared for their flock. While this is true, the shepherd literally led his flock. He made decisions of where to graze. Even Jesus speaks of the shepherd leaving the 99 to locate the one missing sheep.
Sticking with the parable, this shepherd decides to bring the sheep back to the flock. He didn't stand next to the fluffy bovidae advising, "you know little lamb, in my experience going over that hill there and separating oneself from the safety of the flock is usually dangerous, but you do you." No, the shepherd dragged the dang thing back to the rest of the herd. The point is, eldership is most definitely an office in the church instituted by holy scripture. And the role most definitely is tasked with making decisions. Although Viola is right to warn of abusive elders and leaders who lord their authority over others, one could not be an overseer or a shepherd without making any decisions for the church body.
Finally, in regards to elders, Viola writes, "'Elder' means mature man. 'Shepherd' means one who nurtures and protects a flock. And 'overseer' means one who supervises." Shortly later, he continues, "New Testament leadership can best be understood in terms of verbs rather than nouns." In case you are not a grammartarian or keen on observation, Viola uses and defines (in his own way) the words "elder," "shepherd," and "overseer," which all happen to be, in fact, nouns.
MUTUAL SUBMISSION
Aside from misunderstanding the role of elders, Viola also gets wrong the trinity. Like many of his ilk, the idea of a three-personed God mutually submitting to themselves creates "an absence of hierachical structures" to be followed in church life. The writer attempts to argue there is no leadership within the trinity. That idea of mutual submission lays the foundation for such an argument.
Yet, is mutual submission within the trinity real? I would argue no. As would many others much smarter than me. First, the Father sends the Son. The Son never sends the Father. We see the Son praying to the Father, but never the Father to the Son. Also, even the names Father and Son indicate some form or hierarchy. An adult son is under no legal obligation to submit to his father, yet within the context of Judaism and Christianity, we know the son still honors his father. Therefore, if Viola's view of the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is the foundation of how he views leadership within the church, but this view of the trinitarian relationship is wrong, then his view of leadership within the church is also wrong. (None of this is to touch on the idea of eternal submission, which is far beyond the scope of this blog post).
COMMUNION
The poor hermeneutics in Reimagining Church do not end there. Viola takes on a puzzling and disconnected view of communion. He writes, "The Lord's Supper was never meant to be a morbid reminder of Christ's sufferings." Viola, however, is contradicted by none other than Jesus himself, who instituted the Lord's Supper by referring to the wine as, "My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins" (Matt. 26:28). Additionally, after breaking the bread and giving thanks, he told his disciples, "This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me" (Luke 22:19).
HYPOCRISY
Reimagining Church is also littered with hypocrisy. For instance, Viola questions the idea of unity through doctrine, asking, "Which doctrines and whose interpretations of them?" Yet here is a book describing what Viola believes to be accurate interpretation of what the church should look like. Further, he creates the dichotomy of the "organic" and "institutional" churches, with only the former being the correct view. The reader is left confused, though, since Viola also says there should no division on something like doctrine. Does that somehow not include doctrine related to the church?
As noted, Viola severely admonishes the so-called institutional church. But somehow, with a straight face, praises the Athanasian Creed in arguing for his view of the trinitarian relationship. How can a creed, written 300-400 years after the close of the canon, not be institutional?
A third example of Viola's hypocrisy is his attempted arguments against denominations. While I would agree with denominations not fitting the model of church instituted in the first century, it's a natural result of fallen men trying to follow Christ. Like Viola, I agree there would ideally be no denominations, but I do not believe we will see this until we are all reunited in the New Jerusalem. In his writings against denominations, Viola attempts to use quotes from John Frame and Charles Spurgeon to support his reasoning. Unfortunately for Viola, Frame is a well-known Presbyterian and Spurgeon was a committed Baptist.
BITTERNESS
What is most sad about this book is Viola's clear bitterness towards church that falls outside of what he sees as church. Time and again, the broad-sweeping narrative of organic versus institutional is marched out for the reader. Be clear: Viola sees little to no distinction between any churches that do not fit his organic model. It's either his way or the highway, and the highway is full of potholes, incorrect signs, and is most certainly headed in the wrong direction.
Viola condescendingly writes, "if the Spirit of God were to ever leave a typical institutional church, His absence would go unnoticed." He then names his imaginary institutional church "First Presbycharisbaptist" and criticizes it for requiring members to hold similar doctrinal views as the church. The nerve!
Viola continues his arrogance when he writes that "most modern 'church' [scare quotes around the word church are frequent] buildings reflect the boastings of this world rather than the meek and lowly Savior whose name we bare." He refers to any sort of hierarchical leadership as "ego-massaging models." Additionally, "Protestant denominationalism has too often descended into a human institution that cracks the whip of despotism before its dissenters." And Viola notes that any Lord's Supper led by a clergy apart from a family-syled meal "does violence to the mutual participation that's present in the triune God." This all seems a bit overkill to me.
All of Viola's bitterness makes sense, when he reveals he, "Used to belong to one of the largest Pentecostal churches in the state of Florida." The combination of Pentecostalism and megachurch structure would push me towards radical church views as well. Unfortunately, Viola takes these views too far. Rather than a helpful critique of errors and abuse found in many churches today, Viola leaves us with a bitter screed against anything that doesn't fit his predetermined view of ecclesiology. To use his own term, this book is purely "ego-massaging."
Comments
Post a Comment