Comments on: The Church Membership Question: Open Thread on Frank Viola’s “Why I Left The Institutional Church.” http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/the-church-membership-question-open-thread-on-frank-violas-why-i-left-the-institutional-church ...dispatches from the post-evangelical wilderness Sat, 21 Nov 2009 20:02:57 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Ron http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/the-church-membership-question-open-thread-on-frank-violas-why-i-left-the-institutional-church/comment-page-1#comment-463741 Ron Sun, 24 May 2009 10:31:15 +0000 http://www.internetmonk.com/?p=2254#comment-463741 I left institutional church about five years ago, and, along with a couple dozen other like-minded people, helped to form a network of simple/home-based churches in our area. Then again, one might say that this new thing arose from the rubble of a nondenominational church that disintegrated. Don't worry, I didn't do it. In fact, I nearly gave myself a nervous breakdown trying to hold that old, more traditional style church together. It might be most accurate to say that after having been left orphaned when the old church went belly up, simple church was the way that some of us found to continue our fellowship, minus the "church" building. And I have to be honest, for that first couple of years I missed what I had left behind. Heck, in that old church, I was one of the "stars" -- an ordained elder, a member of the worship team, a youth minister, and someone who other church members patted on the back and praised for being such an inspiration. Looking back, I'd have to say that one of the main things that God has done in my life since I left institutional church has been to deal with me regarding my own religious ego. And I've learned to to take genuine joy (rather than secret envy) when the Spirit speaks or acts in a powerful way through someone besides me. I'm also starting gain some of the wisdom involved in knowing when I should speak, when I should listen, and when I need to back off (even as a leader) and keep my pie hole shut. Another thing I've learned is that loving people in Christ is more difficult when you actually know them (including the scary things they keep in their refrigerators) -- but it's more authentic. It's amazing how much more I've gotten to know these people now that our relationships aren't centered around (and limited to) Sunday morning services. In case you couldn't tell, this simple/organic church thing has really started to grow on me. It just seems to sit better with my Spirit, and it really does seem to line up better with what I find in NT scripture. Now I'm not saying that it's all sunshine and roses. Far from it. Relationships are messy, and a lot of time and effort is spent patching up friendships and dealing with the squabbles of young married couples (which we seem to have in great abundance). And sometimes trying to get things to move beyond the merely social into spiritual dimensions can be like stirring mud. But when we do press in and get down to our Lord's business, it's real and authentic and obviously Spirit-led on a level I've never witnessed or experienced in a more formal church setting. So, all in all, I guess I largely agree with Viola and strongly relate to much of what he has to say. To my brothers and sisters in institutional churches, I wish you the best and all of God's blessings. And I'm not encouraging you to leave your church institutions, not unless the Spirit specifically tells you to. But I will say this -- institutional church, for the most part, seems to have lost some of the most central and essential elements of that original first century church, at least as it is portrayed in scripture. And while some of us have started to rediscover some of those elements in an organic church context, we're still light years away ourselves from what I think Christ ultimately intends for His church to become. I think Jesus is presently prodding and challenging His church, both of the institutional and noninstitutional varieties, to move forward from these comfortable swamps where we've gotten bogged down -- and, most importantly, to relearn the largely lost art of corporately hearing His voice and then doing what He tells us, even if it means making difficult and painful changes. Large institutions, unfortunately, are by their very nature resistant to change, and when change comes, it usually comes very slowly. People, though often stubborn and set in their ways, are a lot easier to redirect, especially if you just take them a few at a time. I left institutional church about five years ago, and, along with a couple dozen other like-minded people, helped to form a network of simple/home-based churches in our area. Then again, one might say that this new thing arose from the rubble of a nondenominational church that disintegrated. Don’t worry, I didn’t do it. In fact, I nearly gave myself a nervous breakdown trying to hold that old, more traditional style church together. It might be most accurate to say that after having been left orphaned when the old church went belly up, simple church was the way that some of us found to continue our fellowship, minus the “church” building.
And I have to be honest, for that first couple of years I missed what I had left behind. Heck, in that old church, I was one of the “stars” — an ordained elder, a member of the worship team, a youth minister, and someone who other church members patted on the back and praised for being such an inspiration.
Looking back, I’d have to say that one of the main things that God has done in my life since I left institutional church has been to deal with me regarding my own religious ego. And I’ve learned to to take genuine joy (rather than secret envy) when the Spirit speaks or acts in a powerful way through someone besides me. I’m also starting gain some of the wisdom involved in knowing when I should speak, when I should listen, and when I need to back off (even as a leader) and keep my pie hole shut.
Another thing I’ve learned is that loving people in Christ is more difficult when you actually know them (including the scary things they keep in their refrigerators) — but it’s more authentic. It’s amazing how much more I’ve gotten to know these people now that our relationships aren’t centered around (and limited to) Sunday morning services.
In case you couldn’t tell, this simple/organic church thing has really started to grow on me. It just seems to sit better with my Spirit, and it really does seem to line up better with what I find in NT scripture.
Now I’m not saying that it’s all sunshine and roses. Far from it. Relationships are messy, and a lot of time and effort is spent patching up friendships and dealing with the squabbles of young married couples (which we seem to have in great abundance). And sometimes trying to get things to move beyond the merely social into spiritual dimensions can be like stirring mud. But when we do press in and get down to our Lord’s business, it’s real and authentic and obviously Spirit-led on a level I’ve never witnessed or experienced in a more formal church setting.
So, all in all, I guess I largely agree with Viola and strongly relate to much of what he has to say.
To my brothers and sisters in institutional churches, I wish you the best and all of God’s blessings. And I’m not encouraging you to leave your church institutions, not unless the Spirit specifically tells you to. But I will say this — institutional church, for the most part, seems to have lost some of the most central and essential elements of that original first century church, at least as it is portrayed in scripture. And while some of us have started to rediscover some of those elements in an organic church context, we’re still light years away ourselves from what I think Christ ultimately intends for His church to become.
I think Jesus is presently prodding and challenging His church, both of the institutional and noninstitutional varieties, to move forward from these comfortable swamps where we’ve gotten bogged down — and, most importantly, to relearn the largely lost art of corporately hearing His voice and then doing what He tells us, even if it means making difficult and painful changes.
Large institutions, unfortunately, are by their very nature resistant to change, and when change comes, it usually comes very slowly. People, though often stubborn and set in their ways, are a lot easier to redirect, especially if you just take them a few at a time.

]]> By: GreggG http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/the-church-membership-question-open-thread-on-frank-violas-why-i-left-the-institutional-church/comment-page-1#comment-456631 GreggG Fri, 15 May 2009 22:07:22 +0000 http://www.internetmonk.com/?p=2254#comment-456631 Hey, this is my first post. is there just a lot of spam here or is there some useful info shared? Leave me a post and introduce yourself Peace, Hey, this is my first post.
is there just a lot of spam here or is there some useful info shared?
Leave me a post and introduce yourself
Peace,

]]> By: Jim http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/the-church-membership-question-open-thread-on-frank-violas-why-i-left-the-institutional-church/comment-page-1#comment-272202 Jim Sun, 17 Aug 2008 22:43:08 +0000 http://www.internetmonk.com/?p=2254#comment-272202 I agree William. Reimagining Church is a great book! Also liked Viola's essay on the gifts of the Spirit. http://frankviola.wordpress.com/2008/08/06/stripping-down-to-christ-alone-rethinking-the-gifts-of-the-spirit/ I agree William. Reimagining Church is a great book! Also liked Viola’s essay on the gifts of the Spirit. http://frankviola.wordpress.com/2008/08/06/stripping-down-to-christ-alone-rethinking-the-gifts-of-the-spirit/

]]> By: William http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/the-church-membership-question-open-thread-on-frank-violas-why-i-left-the-institutional-church/comment-page-1#comment-271502 William Sat, 16 Aug 2008 17:03:17 +0000 http://www.internetmonk.com/?p=2254#comment-271502 I just finished reading Viola's new book "Reimagining Church" and it's excellent. It makes his testimony much more understandable. Now I know where he's coming from and I can appreciate it. I highly recommend the book. There's a sample chapter at www.reimaginingchurch.org I just finished reading Viola’s new book “Reimagining Church” and it’s excellent. It makes his testimony much more understandable. Now I know where he’s coming from and I can appreciate it. I highly recommend the book. There’s a sample chapter at http://www.reimaginingchurch.org

]]> By: Jeremiah Lawson http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/the-church-membership-question-open-thread-on-frank-violas-why-i-left-the-institutional-church/comment-page-1#comment-271240 Jeremiah Lawson Fri, 15 Aug 2008 19:12:34 +0000 http://www.internetmonk.com/?p=2254#comment-271240 j Michael Jones, i read Crazy for God last year and he's definitely mellowed on some things. I think in his earlier works he seemed to reveal the idealistic approach and he's outgrown that. j Michael Jones, i read Crazy for God last year and he’s definitely mellowed on some things. I think in his earlier works he seemed to reveal the idealistic approach and he’s outgrown that.

]]> By: st upid http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/the-church-membership-question-open-thread-on-frank-violas-why-i-left-the-institutional-church/comment-page-1#comment-271217 st upid Fri, 15 Aug 2008 18:15:48 +0000 http://www.internetmonk.com/?p=2254#comment-271217 how can church be something you leave? how can church be something you leave?

]]> By: Andrew T. http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/the-church-membership-question-open-thread-on-frank-violas-why-i-left-the-institutional-church/comment-page-1#comment-271141 Andrew T. Fri, 15 Aug 2008 16:22:18 +0000 http://www.internetmonk.com/?p=2254#comment-271141 I think the best response to this article yet can be found in Josh S's response: If the Church in America exhibits the quintessentially American value of excess, he displays the equally American value of instant and complete gratification. I've read Viola extensively (even the early stuff that most folks haven't even heard of) and, for a time, I was won over completely. But as I began to really examine his arguments and his reasons for leaving, I began to believe that he lacked a sufficiently universal vision of the Church. If leaving the church is the only option, then where has good been for the past 2,000 years? And who is this one man to say that he's now God the vision that God has failed to transmit for so long? While I admire his honesty, I don't agree with his conclusions. It seems he's done what so many of the pastors in his previous churches did: he's created a personal following who are loyal to him even though the vision of the church he puts forth is narrowly conceived within his sphere of personal experience. When we focus on ourselves, we miss the point entirely. I think the best response to this article yet can be found in Josh S’s response:

If the Church in America exhibits the quintessentially American value of excess, he displays the equally American value of instant and complete gratification.

I’ve read Viola extensively (even the early stuff that most folks haven’t even heard of) and, for a time, I was won over completely. But as I began to really examine his arguments and his reasons for leaving, I began to believe that he lacked a sufficiently universal vision of the Church. If leaving the church is the only option, then where has good been for the past 2,000 years? And who is this one man to say that he’s now God the vision that God has failed to transmit for so long?

While I admire his honesty, I don’t agree with his conclusions. It seems he’s done what so many of the pastors in his previous churches did: he’s created a personal following who are loyal to him even though the vision of the church he puts forth is narrowly conceived within his sphere of personal experience. When we focus on ourselves, we miss the point entirely.

]]> By: j. Michael Jones http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/the-church-membership-question-open-thread-on-frank-violas-why-i-left-the-institutional-church/comment-page-1#comment-271138 j. Michael Jones Fri, 15 Aug 2008 16:18:29 +0000 http://www.internetmonk.com/?p=2254#comment-271138 Jeremiah, Regarding Frank Schaeffer, maybe in the beginning he may have had some idealism about finding the true (orthodox) church. The church itself may have embellished that a bit as they made him their poster boy. However, I think he now admits he likes the orthodox for more practical/pragmatic reasons. First of all, a deep sense of community he found there. He also likes the non-critical attitude. For example, he can choose not to go to his church for weeks or months and when he returns no one questions his decision. But as far as theological, liturgical or structural purity . . . I think he’s lost his idealism and his certainity. Jeremiah,

Regarding Frank Schaeffer, maybe in the beginning he may have had some idealism about finding the true (orthodox) church. The church itself may have embellished that a bit as they made him their poster boy.

However, I think he now admits he likes the orthodox for more practical/pragmatic reasons. First of all, a deep sense of community he found there. He also likes the non-critical attitude. For example, he can choose not to go to his church for weeks or months and when he returns no one questions his decision. But as far as theological, liturgical or structural purity . . . I think he’s lost his idealism and his certainity.

]]> By: Jeremiah Lawson http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/the-church-membership-question-open-thread-on-frank-violas-why-i-left-the-institutional-church/comment-page-1#comment-270457 Jeremiah Lawson Thu, 14 Aug 2008 16:56:40 +0000 http://www.internetmonk.com/?p=2254#comment-270457 Yeah, that's the big misgiving I still have about Frank's whole approach. In a way it reminds me of another Frank (Schaeffer). It seems as though American Christians seem to forget in each generation that the church as it is is messed up. The impulse to figure out what the "real" church is and either make the church you're at into that church, make a new on that fits it, or decide that somewhere else you haven't joined yet must be the real church and you must joint it and tell everyone else to is just what happens in every generation. These impulses happen the world over but in the United States they do seem to take on a peculiar, uniquely American quality. I mean, at the risk of putting it too broadly we wouldn't have the United States of America we have if people didn't found the country on the twin impulses of wanting to renovate or replace the status quo. I think the two ways we keep seeing this impulse play itself out is in Americans who start yet another emerging/reforming/reformissionary/house church/real church movement on the one hand or crossing the Tiber/returning to Orthodoxy on the other. The impulse is fundamentally the same and in American spirituality more or less equally fundamentalist in its scope. Note that I'm not automatically saying it's bad but that it does show a certain lack of historical context. You'd think people had no idea that anticlericalist movements have been going on since the apostolic era. :) Yeah, that’s the big misgiving I still have about Frank’s whole approach. In a way it reminds me of another Frank (Schaeffer). It seems as though American Christians seem to forget in each generation that the church as it is is messed up. The impulse to figure out what the “real” church is and either make the church you’re at into that church, make a new on that fits it, or decide that somewhere else you haven’t joined yet must be the real church and you must joint it and tell everyone else to is just what happens in every generation. These impulses happen the world over but in the United States they do seem to take on a peculiar, uniquely American quality. I mean, at the risk of putting it too broadly we wouldn’t have the United States of America we have if people didn’t found the country on the twin impulses of wanting to renovate or replace the status quo.

I think the two ways we keep seeing this impulse play itself out is in Americans who start yet another emerging/reforming/reformissionary/house church/real church movement on the one hand or crossing the Tiber/returning to Orthodoxy on the other. The impulse is fundamentally the same and in American spirituality more or less equally fundamentalist in its scope. Note that I’m not automatically saying it’s bad but that it does show a certain lack of historical context. You’d think people had no idea that anticlericalist movements have been going on since the apostolic era. :)

]]> By: DaveD http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/the-church-membership-question-open-thread-on-frank-violas-why-i-left-the-institutional-church/comment-page-1#comment-270447 DaveD Thu, 14 Aug 2008 16:23:01 +0000 http://www.internetmonk.com/?p=2254#comment-270447 His critiques are, for the most part, accurate. His solutions are not quite there, I think. The church is not just for fellowship. It is there for correction. The idea of correction implies authority. If Jesus and Paul both gave leave to ask someone to seek religion elsewhere that means there is an authority structure that can do the asking. This seems to be lacking in home churches in America. One of the problems of the American church is that in many ways we view the ministry as a vocation; the same as the business world. We seem to elevate college, and yes, seminary degrees over a true walk with God. We look for the degrees first and then see if the prospective pastor/elder/etc. at least looks like he's following our idea of Jesus: doesn't drink, doesn't smoke, preaches the right things. The building thing has been a concern of mine as well. Conversely, we don't live in 1st century Palestine anymore either. Needy folk don't just congregate in easy to service areas. Yes, there is the homeless and there are countless ministries to them, but in general, the poor, the sick, the naked are spread out in America. Having a central location that they can come to for help is more efficient. Shallow relationships is another problem I have had. This comes from the top, though, and from within. The leadership sets the stage for what the church will be like. It is their duty to live out an example of community and require that of the members. It is also our job to create community. If no one in the church you belong to likes the things you do may I suggest you need to find a different church. As far as being bored with the preaching of the Word...yep been there. When you study on your own, or have been through a bible college or something similar, you cover a lot of the ground that are popular sermon topics. Sometimes you want to get past the milk and to the meat. A lot of churches I have been to never get past the milk. Sometimes they even get angry if meat is served. I still don't think this is reason enough to start your own church. Leave the one you're in, maybe. As a pentecostal, I am ashamed of Pentecostals turning away the man in need but I don't think I'm all that surprised. Just because you sit in or pastor a Pentecostal church doesn't mean you really believe (as opposed to intellectual assent) what you teach. That's true in any church/denomination you see. Why did it take so long for the removal? Good question. I suggest that it did so because Frank and his friend had a mustard seed of faith, maybe, but not much more. Maybe it was because, by his own words, they weren't in submission to God's appointed authority or understand the authority given to them. Think of the Centurion. The sons of Sceva tries to use Jesus name without any belief in in it or Him or any understanding of delegated authority. I think Michael's series on "Where is Jesus?" has a good point as well. Either way, do we really want to throw stones at someone for doing something we take as a matter of faith doesn't happen anymore in a way that is different from the way we think it should be done if we were to do it? All in all, I'm enjoying this series quite a bit. DD His critiques are, for the most part, accurate. His solutions are not quite there, I think.

The church is not just for fellowship. It is there for correction. The idea of correction implies authority. If Jesus and Paul both gave leave to ask someone to seek religion elsewhere that means there is an authority structure that can do the asking. This seems to be lacking in home churches in America.

One of the problems of the American church is that in many ways we view the ministry as a vocation; the same as the business world. We seem to elevate college, and yes, seminary degrees over a true walk with God. We look for the degrees first and then see if the prospective pastor/elder/etc. at least looks like he’s following our idea of Jesus: doesn’t drink, doesn’t smoke, preaches the right things.

The building thing has been a concern of mine as well. Conversely, we don’t live in 1st century Palestine anymore either. Needy folk don’t just congregate in easy to service areas. Yes, there is the homeless and there are countless ministries to them, but in general, the poor, the sick, the naked are spread out in America. Having a central location that they can come to for help is more efficient.

Shallow relationships is another problem I have had. This comes from the top, though, and from within. The leadership sets the stage for what the church will be like. It is their duty to live out an example of community and require that of the members. It is also our job to create community. If no one in the church you belong to likes the things you do may I suggest you need to find a different church.

As far as being bored with the preaching of the Word…yep been there. When you study on your own, or have been through a bible college or something similar, you cover a lot of the ground that are popular sermon topics. Sometimes you want to get past the milk and to the meat. A lot of churches I have been to never get past the milk. Sometimes they even get angry if meat is served. I still don’t think this is reason enough to start your own church. Leave the one you’re in, maybe.

As a pentecostal, I am ashamed of Pentecostals turning away the man in need but I don’t think I’m all that surprised. Just because you sit in or pastor a Pentecostal church doesn’t mean you really believe (as opposed to intellectual assent) what you teach. That’s true in any church/denomination you see.

Why did it take so long for the removal? Good question. I suggest that it did so because Frank and his friend had a mustard seed of faith, maybe, but not much more. Maybe it was because, by his own words, they weren’t in submission to God’s appointed authority or understand the authority given to them. Think of the Centurion. The sons of Sceva tries to use Jesus name without any belief in in it or Him or any understanding of delegated authority. I think Michael’s series on “Where is Jesus?” has a good point as well.

Either way, do we really want to throw stones at someone for doing something we take as a matter of faith doesn’t happen anymore in a way that is different from the way we think it should be done if we were to do it?

All in all, I’m enjoying this series quite a bit.

DD

]]>