viola strikes back (pun intended)

As mentioned before, Frank Viola and George Barna have written a book called Pagan Christianity that delivers a rather stinging critique of widely accepted church practices. They are coming under a lot of fire for it. Frank has a website where he tries to engage people (critics and acolytes alike). I have really appreciated the responses he makes. Take this one for instance, he makes a case for the alleged overstatements in the book. He says that all prophetic comment is given to overstatement. What do you think….

One of the charges against the book is that you and George are using overstatements, etc. Your response?
Answer. What’s an overstatement? The answer largely depends upon which hill a person is standing on at the time they read a book. What some say is an “overstatement” others say is a “prophetic challenge.”

I remember once hearing a friend charge an emerging church book with being “riddled with overstatements.” Today, this same friend feels that the author made his case. What happened? New grooves were cut in his brain that didn’t exist at his first reading.

When a particular book is loved and loathed at the same time, the vital question to ask is . . . are these “overstatements” backed up by reliable evidence? If they are, then I wouldn’t call them “overstatements.”

The traditional understanding of church is so entrenched in our thinking that it’s very difficult for us to analyze our current practices critically. What we’re up against is a mindset. All of the solutions that Christian leaders have given — more prayer, more preaching, more Bible reading, more good works, etc — all assume that the present-day ecclesial mindset is correct and shouldn’t be tampered with. At bottom, we are really dealing with a problem of how we think and conceptualize.

Let me see if I can illustrate this. I was in a conversation not too long ago with someone who argued that they understood the church to be God’s people, a face-to-face community, the very Bride of Christ in a locality, and not a building, a denomination, or a religious service. Minutes later this person began saying to someone else, “So which church do you go to?” This is one example of how deep the mindset runs. It’s burned into the circuitry of our brains. (If you didn’t catch that, read the book and learn where the idea of “going to church” came from. And how it’s at odds with the NT understanding of church.)

Another example was when I was in a conversation with a pastor of a small church. Some of the church members were present with him in the living room. He told me how much “his people” didn’t look to him before they make decisions. How “his people” were free. How “his people” were not controlled by him in any way. Nor were they dependent on him but on Jesus. (Interestingly, everyone in the room would look to him before they threw in their comments and at him as they spoke. Both he and they were completely out of touch with this.)

Anyway, this pastor was completely unconscious of the fact that he kept using the term “my people” as he continued to tell me how they belonged to the Lord and not to himself. Again, the clergy mindset runs deeper that many of us can imagine. (Overstatement?)

I believe that one of the ways to help break this mindset is to state the truth graciously, but without compromise and dilution. This naturally opens one up for the charge of making overstatements. Yet I believe the important question is not “is a sentence overstated?,” but “do the authors support and justify that statement with their arguments and research?”

Keep in mind that a big part of what we are doing in the book is to bring together many of the “overstatements” made by competent and reputable historians, scholars, and theologians along with their research which supports those statements. Here’s a sampling of what I mean. Consider for yourself if you feel these are “over-the-top, overstatements” or not. At face value, they sure seem that way to me:

- Karl Barth

- James D.G. Dunn

- Emil Brunner

- Frederick Buechner

-Howard Snyder

- Reggie McNeal

I have a friend who likes to say “the solution to all the problems of the church is to shoot all the pastors and burn down all the church buildings.” Now that’s what I’d call “Overstatement City.” And no, I don’t agree with it; it’s just a sick joke.

As a potential reader of this controversial book (Pagan Christianity), my advice is simple: read the book for yourself and interact with the arguments made, look at the footnotes and check them out for yourself, and then decide if what we’re doing is inflating it with fluffy overstatements or if what we’re saying is substantiated by hard historical evidence. Also keep in mind that the book has been endorsed by some top-drawer historians and scholars.

On that fine note, let me rehearse a story that captures the entire thrust of “Pagan Christianity,” which is essentially a polemic/deconstructive work that seeks not to offer solutions, but to challenge conventional church practices and thinking.

A mother and daughter were working together in their kitchen preparing their Easter dinner. As was her custom every year, the mother took a ham out of the fridge and put it on a cutting board. She would then cut about an inch off of both ends of the ham. Once the mother did this, the daughter stopped her and said: “Mother, why did you cut both ends off the ham?”

The mother stopped dead in her tracks and pondered the question. She was perplexed since no one had ever asked her why she did this before. She had done it that way as long as she could remember.
The mother answered and said: “Well sweetie, I don’t know the answer to your question. Your Grandma always cut the ends off of her ham, and I have always done it the same way. I never ever asked why. Let’s call Grandma and ask her why she cuts the ham that way.”
So they grabbed the phone and called Grandma. The mother asked her own mother if she knew why she cut the ends of the ham off before placing it in the pan. The Grandmother fell silent. She never thought about it. She simply said “that’s the way my mother always did it. Why don’t you call her and ask why?”
She hung up the phone and dialed the little girl’s great-grandmother, and she asked the question: “why did you cut off both ends of the ham before cooking it?” The great-grandmother replied instantly: “It was because we couldn’t afford a pan large enough to hold the ham. So we cut both ends off to make it fit.”

This story can be applied to much of what we do for “church” every Sunday.
(At this point, I can faintly hear someone retort . . . “I’m angry at you for telling this story. I didn’t think Christians were supposed to eat pork!”) And the discussion marches on . . . :-)

Here are some wise words from F.F. Bruce to chew on — “Some institutions are allowed to grow so old and venerable that the idea of scrapping them is unthinkably sacrilegious.”

BTW, the title about puns is that there is a Frank Viola that is a baseball star. But only the Americans would know that. :-)

January 13, 2008 | Filed Under reviews, theologia |  

Comments

18 Responses to “viola strikes back (pun intended)”

Pages: [1] 2 » Show All

  1. 1
    hamo Says:
    January 13th, 2008 at 4:46 pm

    gotta love a few well chosen ‘overstatements’!

  2. 2
    Eleanor Burne-Jones Says:
    January 13th, 2008 at 6:31 pm

    There’s a kosher version of the story involving chicken, and a poverty stricken family in Europe with a small oven. Many rabbis are involved in trying to work out if the tradition in her family is minhag or some form of halachah. :0)

    It is good these arguments are being made, though many of us were there a very long time ago and have since moved on to asking what next, and what is best practice now etc. So for some of us it is what we heard a long time ago in the seventies as people left established churches in the UK for house churches etc. It is a sad fact that those who do move to this outlook sometimes end up marginalised and have a very hard time finding any productive outlet in service because of experiencing such isolation and exclusion, and trying to pioneer without support or fellowship. The only group without ordained clergy or hierarchical structure round here are a tiny, elderly Quaker fellowship. There is only one Mennonite gathering in the UK and it is in London.So the reality, especially outside the large cities, is if you step out of hierarchical churches you enter an isolated form of solitary service.

  3. 3
    Darryl Says:
    January 13th, 2008 at 10:48 pm

    The critics are overstating their case…Oh wait, never mind. ;)

    You’re right, our thinking needs to be shaken up. There’s so much to like about this book.

    Maybe I should be happy with that they do such a good (not perfect) job in raising the issues, and be content with the discussion it’s started. I buy into the problems; I just don’t buy into returning to what after all was a cultural expression of the church described (not prescribed) in the NT. The discussion of contextualizing and redeeming the pagan still has to take place.

    Maybe other books will help - I think yours does, for instance.

  4. 4
    Eric Says:
    January 13th, 2008 at 10:58 pm

    I am currently reading the book and have only made it through the first two chapters. I like what I have read so far.

    You quoted Viola:

    “The traditional understanding of church is so entrenched in our thinking that it’s very difficult for us to analyze our current practices critically. What we’re up against is a mindset. All of the solutions that Christian leaders have given — more prayer, more preaching, more Bible reading, more good works, etc — all assume that the present-day ecclesial mindset is correct and shouldn’t be tampered with. At bottom, we are really dealing with a problem of how we think and conceptualize.”

    I think this is the key. Those who are shouting “overstatements” are having their paradigm rocked and they are reacting defensively. Those who are intrigued by what they are reading have already had their paradigm rocked.

    I’m not saying that Viola is right in all that he claims, but, I do agree with him on this point. Those who are shouting the loudest probably have the most to lose if what Viola and Barna claim ends up gaining momentum…

  5. 5
    Darryl Says:
    January 14th, 2008 at 12:43 am

    Eric:

    Re: your last sentence - you’re right, people like me have a conflict of interest. If Barna is right and it catches on, I’m out of a job. I’m sort of OK with that actually, although I haven’t yet proven it by my actions.

    I think we all need to recognize we approach this topic with history, baggage, and self-interest on both sides of the issue.

    I’m appreciating some who review who really don’t have much to lose. Bill Kinnon for instance.

  6. 6
    Erik Says:
    January 14th, 2008 at 5:13 am

    Great points! I have actually heard that story about the ham before with the variation that it didn’t fit in the oven!

    With regards to the comment of “shoot the laity and burn the church.” It seems shocking to the verbalization however, this is not a new concept by any means. In fact, I was a little shocked when I discovered that “postmodern deconstructionism” was even at play in the 16th century!

    I am currently reading an ancient “pagan” text by Sun Tzu called ‘The Art of War’. Here is a quote to ponder:

    “Ultimate excellence lies
    Not in winning
    Every battle
    But in defeating the enemy
    Without ever fighting.
    The highest form of warfare
    Is to attack
    Strategy itself.”

  7. 7
    Eleanor Burne-Jones Says:
    January 14th, 2008 at 5:25 am

    I’m chuckling away at that quote, it’s so apt.

    I think the problem some of us have had over the years, is the difficulty of forming alternative groupings in order to facilitate teamwork in mission, without beginning to get into the process of re-creating the establishment.

    Why do we need teams? I mean that was another recurring theme, like why do we need to group? We can drop in on established churches for worship and so on. We can enter into practical service in our communities by joining in groups that have nothing to do with the church and most do this to some extent at least. But the divorce of practical service from discipleship weakened the whole picture, so that discipleship became something academic that happened in church/gatherings, and service was something else you did that fitted into a separate compartment.

    The whole picture was further complicated by people wanting to experience God powerfully in worship, which they tended to find easier in large gatherings (I never understood that, personally!). But that also leaves people kind of being the freaky misfit at the huge Spring Harvest convention. ‘Which church do you go to?’ ‘Er… How long have you got?’

    The challenge is that the shape of things to come looks more like a fractal than a Henry Moore, constantly changing, constantly being reinvented, so that it becomes hard to get traction on what needs to stay the same amidst what needs to change.

  8. 8
    grace Says:
    January 14th, 2008 at 8:57 am

    Although I’m in the minority, I don’t really see the authors suggesting a return to NT practice, but instead I believe they intent the recovery of the principles of spirit-led mutual ministry.

    I agree with Darryl that the book does a good job of bringing up the practices that need to be contextualized and redeemed.

    It remains to be seen if the next book will be helpful or not as far as extending the discussion to contextualization.

  9. 9
    alan hirsch Says:
    January 14th, 2008 at 10:12 am

    I agree with you Grace. I am all for redeeming culture. in fact because most of our symbols and rituals are now outworn, it is important that we find new ways to express old truths. This is essential to missionary work as you suggest.

    Having said that, I don’t think Frank would disagree. He goes after practices which undermine significant aspects of the NT church. I think that is the value of his and George’s book. So much of what we do undermines our understanding of ourselves. They need to be revisited!

  10. 10
    Gerard Kelly Says:
    January 15th, 2008 at 4:14 am

    hey al,

    intersting stuff… but have these guys ever been to a ‘Brethren’ meeting? Presses all the right buttons (preisthood of all believers, no clergy; everybody shares; back to radical community etc).. but took just over one generation to fossilise in many places. Same deal with the 70’s house-church movement in the UK - very exciting; loads of new energy; passion to get back to the NT model… but again, soon ran into issues of power and property.

    I don’t disagree with what these boys are saying… but I’m still not sure it’s the right debate to lead us into tomorrow. Isn’t there some way to inspire the recovery of apostolic genius within these gathered / pastor-led churches, rather than by deconstructing them - or am I just too much of an optimist?

Pages: [1] 2 » Show All

Leave a Reply

Comment spam protected by SpamBam

Copyright © 2008 The Forgotten Ways • Linear WordPress Theme • Powered by WordPress • Maintained by Noble Design