Reimagining Church: Pursuing the Dream of Organic Christianity

Frank Viloa is a widely sought after public speaker who speaks at churches, conferences, and other church meetings and gatherings. He is the author and editor of one of Christianity’s most popular blogs (frabkvolia.com), and has authored numerous best-selling books, many which some label as controversial, such as Pegan Christianity, Epic Jesus, Beyond Evangelical, God’s Favorite Place on Earth, From Eternity to Here, Jesus Manifesto, Jesus: A Theography, and Revise Us Again, some of which have been translated into as many as fifteen different languages. Frank’s life and ministry seeks to help people in the church answer the daunting cry, “There has got to me more to Christian life than this!”IntroductionViola contents that today’s church is a far cry from what God intended it to be and from what the New Testament model was. Many in the church realize this, yet cannot quite identify the problem or articulate it, and as such do not know how to go about resolving such a serious and disheartening issue. Because of their frustration, people are leaving the institutional church in masses. Viola contends that the answer to this abandonment and to the problems seen in the institutional church is a call back to the organic ideals of church – a church free of programs and dead weight that hold churches back from being the missional body they were called to be. Viloa contends that it is time to reimagine the church as an authentic fellowship of believers who are joined together in a fresh, new (yet biblio-historically familiar) Christ-centered environment where the church is an organic, living representation of Christ as He intended all along.Through fifteen chapters spanning 318 pages, Viola expounds on how and why the church should return to its organic roots. The book is divided into to two parts. Part one, Community and Gatherings, covers seven chapters on the church in general. Part two, Leadership and Accountability, spans eight chapters and covers issues in leadership such as oversight, decision-making, authority, and submission.Book Summary:As the book opens, Viola clarifies that “it’s the present practices of the church that I’m seeking to reimagine, not the church itself” (Viola, 13). He clearly outlines his purpose so that there is no misunderstanding. He writes that the purpose of the book is “to articulate a biblical, spiritual, theological, and practical answer to the question, Is there a viable way of doing church outside the institutional church experience, and if so, what does it look like?” (Viola, 12).In the introduction, Toward A New Kind Of Church, Viola contends that the institutional church in its present state is ineffective, and “without biblical merit” (Viola, 15). As such, it is not able to be reformed nor is it renewable. The church needs to be based on a new paradigm, one built on the New Testament’s concept of church as an organism, not an institutional organization. By organic, Viola is referring to a paradigm that best resembles that of the New Testament model as he sees it, free of institution, programs, clergy, structure, buildings, and such.As part one opens, Community and Gatherings, Viola uses chapter one to remind readers that the church Jesus had in mind was an organism, not an institution. As an organic church, the Body of Christ should be “born from and sustained by spiritual life instead of constructed by human institutions, controlled by human hierarchy, shaped by lifeless rituals, and held together by religious programs” (Viola, 32). After a brief summary of the DNA the church should be marked by (p. 35), he gives the four most prevalent church models found today, as well as the problems he sees with the first three (the fourth is the organic church, the church he, of course, sees no problems or concerns).Chapter two, Reimagining The Church Meeting, summarizes that various corporate gatherings found in the New Testament record, which were apostolic, evangelistic, decision-making, and church meetings. The New Testament church meeting, according to the author, was one where believers met. While unbelievers may have been present, they were not the focus of church meetings. Christ directed these meetings, and every believer was encouraged to function and participate. “One-anothering” was the dominant ingredient in the 1stcentury church meeting, and an open format put everyone on equal footing. According to Viola, the “only sustaining force of the early church gathering was the life of the Holy Spirit. The early Christians were clergyless, liturgyless, programless, and ritualless” (Viola, 63).Chapter three, Reimagining The Lord’s Supper, elaborates on the differences Viola sees between the New Testament practice of the Lord’s Supper and that of today’s church. To Viola, the early church broke break together as they shared meals, and this was their practice in observing the Lord’s Supper (or the Lord’s Banquet, as the author calls it). This practice transcends time in that it points backwards to the Passover Meal yet points forward to the Marriage Supper of the Lamb. According to Viola, it is also a shadow of the Triune God and the relationship between the personages of God.In chapter four, Reimagining The Gathering Place, the author contends that the preferred, even exclusively authentic, place to gather for Christian is the home. Buildings were absent from the New Testament landscape, and as such, the house church is the best (and only) way to genuinely model the church gathering because only the home testifies that the people of God are the church, not a building, and only the home best allows for the biblical concept of one-anothering. The home represents the humility of Christ and reflects the family nature of the church.Chapter five, Reimagining The Family of God, illustrates the biblical metaphor of family used to describe the New Testament church. Familial terms are used more than 130 times in the New Testament (p. 99). This is because the early church spent time with each other, took care of each other, showed affection to each other, grew together, shared responsibilities, and reflected the triune nature of God in their relationships.In chapter six, Reimagining Church Unity, Viola condemns the sectarian idea of denominationalism that divides the people of God. The only criterion for acceptance into the early church was faith in the risen Savior, not doctrinal creeds or codes, church covenants or faith statements, or any other requirements placed upon people by modern churches. Unity cannot be achieved through organization or doctrine, but rather through an organic expression of the church assembled under the headship of Christ.In chapter seven, Church Practice and God’s Eternal Purpose, the author discusses the mission of God and His eternal purpose for the church. It isn’t man-centric, nor is it even about redemption. The eternal purpose of God is to create a visible body through which He can express Himself. This Body is the Church.Part Two, Leadership and Accountability, begins with chapter eight, Reimagining Leadership, where Viola distinguishes between positional and functional leadership. Positional leadership casts authority in terms of slots to fill or descriptions to carry out, titles to sport, and ranks to pull” (Viola, 145). Functional leadership is more about how things work and what needs to be accomplished. Its main focus is the “function” particular positions perform as opposed to the position itself. According to the author, the modern pastor or elder role is nothing more than a tyrannical, positional leadership role, one which hinders the church, is unbiblical, and unneeded. “The modern clergy system is a religious artifact that has no biblical basis” (Viola, 160). Human mediators are not only unwarranted, they are also unscriptural, says the author. Christ is the only leader needed in the church.In chapter nine, Reimagining Oversight, and chapter ten, Reimagining Decision-Making, the author paints a portrait of organic church life where every member, in community with each other, comes to a consensus through the leadership of the Holy Spirit, thus eliminating the need for official human leadership. In fact, elder means nothing more than “an older person,” and no elder ‘office’ exists. Elders, that is, older men, where called elders only because they modeled spiritual servanthood and sought to be an encouragement to the younger men in the church. They are to be servants, nurturers, and faithful brethren, and nothing more – not a teacher, not a positional leader, and not a preacher or modern day minister. Those who had oversight in the early church led by example and not by influence or coercion. Their sacrificial service was a model for others as they made decision together as a group.Chapter eleven, Reimagining Spiritual Covering, chapter twelve, Reimagining Authority and Submission, and chapter thirteen, Reimagining Denominational Covering all deal with the concept of spiritual covering, accountability, and genuine spiritual submission. To Viola, the modern day concept of covering is synonymous with control and power, often garnered through fear and intimidation. The church should be filled with mutual submission between its members. Instead of mutual submission, however, the church today expects submission to a hierarchal system and to a denominational organization.Chapter fourteen, Reimagining The Apostolic Tradition, begins with what apostolic tradition is not. It is not a set of rules created by the apostles. It is not a manual for church practice. It is, however, the physical expression of the spiritual aspects, habits, and tendencies that are found in the DNA of the New Testament church. “Observing apostolic tradition means being faithful to what was theologically and spiritually significant in the experience of the early church” (Viola, 248).Chapter fifteen, Where Do We Go From Here, seeks to charge readers to put the last fourteen chapters into practice. If one desires an organic church expression, it will not happen through cosmetic changes. More than just the surface must be changed. It will require a completely new paradigm where structural and organizational elements of the church are torn down so the church can be built back properly. Attempts at renewal through the mega church, restoration movements, cell churches, and the emergent church have not worked because these churches still possess many of the elements that traditional churches hold, mainly the hierarchical clergy system and institutionalism. Until these components are removed, there will continue to be barriers to true biblical community. The book ends with Viola’s answers to common objections to the organic house church model, as well as a bibliography and endnotes.Critical Evaluation:Reimaging Church is an exciting, refreshing book that the church needs to hear. This is so not because everything Viola has to say is correct (there are more problems in this book than there is help), but because in the areas where Viola is correct, he is refreshingly correct. One could say that there is a great paradox to this book – the author has simultaneously written one of the best books on the market about the need for a fresh new movement in the church free of tyrannical leadership and consumeristic mentality, while also making some of the most grave theological and interpretive errors imaginable from a scholar such as Viola.Regarding what is right with this book, Viola correctly contends that the modern day church is in trouble. Who could argue with that statement? Viola is correct when he purports that the church of today needs a comprehensive overhaul and that a surface fix will not work. Liturgy, tradition, a hierarchical structures have indeed infected the church and rendered it septic. Denominationalism and sects have indeed divided the church. Power-hungry leaders have indeed despoiled and besmirched the church. In these and many other areas concerning the state of the church, Viola could not be more precise and on target.Furthermore, Viola’s argument that the church is a family, and ideal which seems to be all but lost in the many or most of the churches in America today, is right on target. It is no coincidence that the New Testament uses familial terms approximately 130 times. This is because the church is to be a family under the household of God. Yet many churches act like a dysfunctional brand of the family – they do not care for each other, love each other as they should, serve each other, or forgive each other as they should. The functional family does all these things and more. Viola’s chapter on reimagining the family of God (chapter 5) alone makes the book a worth-while purchase, as readers can learn from Viola how to discern if their church resembles a function or dysfunctional family! The chapter is powerful, truthful, and timely.The book is filled with light humor, relevant illustration, poignant quotes from a multiplicity of authors, and real-life examples of organic practice as witnessed firsthand by the author. Viola is passionate about the organic church movement, and this book makes that very clear. There is much to be absorbed about the church from this book and, despite its many shortcomings, is a book every pastor or church leader should read (although they should be sure to take their blood pressure medication before they begin!!).While there are many positive features to this book, there are more far more concerns. For instance, Viola argues that the home church is the preferred model because it alone demonstrates that there is no distinction between the secular and the sacred things of God (p. 92). Religious meetings in a religious building are unscriptural because, declares the author, God makes no distinction between that which is sacred and that which is not. However, this is not true. The word sacred means, “That which is consecrated and revered as holy or set apart for the use of God or hallowed by association with supernatural manifestations.” Not only does God set apart people, making them sacred (set apart for God), God also made land sacred (Exodus 8:22), entire cities (Deut. 4:41), food (1 Samuel 9:23), wages (Isaiah 23:18), and instruments for worship (Exodus 26). While this evidence may not be proof for the existence and usage of church building per se, it at least demonstrates that a separation between that which was sacred and that which was secular was common place in the biblical world and thus cannot be used as a line of evince in favor of house churches where the sacred amalgamates with the secular.The author also demonstrates an overly simplistic and naïve attitude towards the church. For instance, he imagines a church where one’s doctrinal views are not discussed and where no one wants to know what doctrines others embrace (p. 131). However grand and honorable this may appear, as new believers begin to study the Word of God together the natural effect of such study will, or should, be bible doctrine. As one studies, they will begin to formulate teachings (doctrine) about the Bible. Paul encouraged believers to be trained not only in matters of faith, but also in matters of doctrine (Greek: didaskalia). Knowing what one believes is an essential part of Bible study, and there is nothing intrinsically or inherently wrong with Bible doctrine, despite public opinion to the contrary. Admittedly, the formulation of doctrine can cause division, though it does not have to. However, varying interpretations are a consequence of a fallen work marred by sin, and these varying interpretations may indeed lead to divisions in theological positions. Yet for the church to formulate no thoughts on issues such as salvation, the gifts of the spirit, the Trinity, etc., will indicate that the group has not yet advanced beyond spiritual immaturity (Heb. 5:12).Viola seems to be guilty of the hermeneutical unpardonable sin – eisegesis. Instead letting the text speak simply and concisely, Viola seems to read his own interpretations into biblical passages and Greek definitions. For example, he quotes Jesus saying, "The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those who exercise authority over them are called 'benefactors.' But not so among you; on the contrary, he who is greatest among you, let him be as the younger, and he who governs as he who serves" (Luke 22:25-26, NKJV).According to Viola, Jesus was condemning any flavor or form or hierarchical leadership, and was teaching that the form of leadership was in question, not the leaders. However, a plain reading of the text indicates otherwise. Jesus was speaking to the disciple, chosen leaders who would operate in hierarchical form and would hand down their leadership roles to the early church fathers, the first elders. He was speaking to them about “kings” and “those who exercise authority.” He said nothing about systems of leadership. He spoke about the people who were leading. The interpretive idea of this text could not be any clearer, which makes one wonder if Viola either 1) really knew what Jesus was saying yet twisted it to prove his point or 2) Viola simply is not as intelligent as the rest of the book would makes him sound. In either case, he does an injustice to other areas of the book where he is accurate by misinterpreting this text, as he loses credibility among his readers for such a poor interpretive stance on a simple text. This text cannot be used to support the idea that Jesus condemned hierarchical leadership, and to suggest so reeks of poor exegesis or excellent eisegesis.Along the same lines, Viola likes to play fast and loose with Greek definitions so that he can use those passages to support his position. For example, the author asserts that the meaning of the Greek word presbuteros in the New Testament is that of an old man, and thus does not in any way constitute an office of elder or overseer. It is important for Viola to make such an assertion for his entire lines of argument basically rise or fall based on the biblical concept of eldership, since he asserts that leadership in the church must be abolished in order for the church to return to its New Testament roots. Nearly all Greek or biblical dictionaries indicate that presbuteros originally meant old man but became synonymous with a man of authority in the New Testament times. For example, Eardman’s says, “A man of authority, originally an older man in the patriarchal family and social structure.” Also note another definition of presbuterous: "In the New Testament, the elders were as powerful as the priests (Mark 7:3, 5; Luke 22:66; Acts 5:21). Even after Christ, Paul and Barnabas continued to appoint elders for the Christian churches they founded (Acts 14:23). These elders had great influence in spiritual and religious matters, even laying hands upon persons to send them into the ministry of the gospel (1 Tim. 4:14). Even in heaven God has appointed twenty-four elders to lead the new people of God through Christ when He begins His eternal reign (Rev. 4:4, 10; 11:16; 19:4). Appointed elders today are called to pray for the sick (Jas. 5:14). Although denominations within the Church view the function and place of elders differently, the significance of spiritual leadership through mature, experienced men and women is vital in God’s community."A survey of various other dictionaries and lexicons all demonstrate the same meaning. Presbuterous may indicate someone of age, but it also indicates someone of authority within the church, and no one can simply redefine a word or ignore the first century understanding of that word to convince others of one’s preconceived conclusions. Granted, there are problems within the hierarchical system in most churches. Both congregational led systems and elder led systems are filled with abuses. But the answer to those abuses is reformation based on Scripture, not a redefining of terms in a manner inconsistent with the New Testament evidence.Viola is guilty of not only poor hermeneutics and poor research regarding the contextual definition of New Testament concepts, he is also quite arrogant and elitist in tone when writing about the New Testament church. While he on the one hand indicates that he loves all of those in the traditional church, including its leaders (even claiming to have close friends who are hierarchical leaders), he nonetheless refers to them as idol makers much like Paul encountered (p. 270). He also indicates that the traditional church is only “posing” as the church (Viola, 271) and is completely “unbiblical” (Viola, 276). Such an attack makes him guilty of the very same sectarianism and elitism he sought to condemn in chapters twelve through fourteen. This was unnecessary. If his position is as biblical as he asserts, it alone as truth would condemn any other system without his negative attacks.Viola’s primary problem with the church today is leadership and authority. To Viola, any authority is bad authority. To him pastors or other church leaders are not needed because Christian workers can edify each other and equip each other for the work of ministry (p. 65). This too, however, runs contrary to the clear teaching of the New Testament. Ephesians 4:11-16 makes it clear that God has called special groups of people, seeming both in position and function, to equip the saints – pastors, teachers, evangelism, apostles. Regardless of the proof-texting that is done, these still appear to be positions of leadership and authority, for how can the teacher teach if they cannot lead, and how can they lead if they can exercise no authority? Viola’s rogue, independent, anti-authoritarian attitude does more harm than good, for it places the church in a position where it has no God-ordained leaders to protect, equip, lead, serve, etc. It also places the church in an unbiblical position, one free of elders. Elders were clearly in position service to the church, as demonstrated when Paul called for the elders of Ephesus (cf. Acts 20:17). Was he calling all the senior citizens to meet with him? Or was he calling the God-appointed leaders of the church to meet with him. Only the latter makes sense in the context.Yet another concern is that of his position on the Lord’s Supper. Not only does the author take the biblical imagery much farther than the New Testament writers ever intended, he quotes someone who wrongly labels the practice as a sacrament (p. 73). A sacrament confers grace. The Lord’s Supper does not. It is merely a memorial of what God did in the past and may also point towards the future. It is also an ordinance, something the Lord himself ordered His followers to observe. While the author is correct in his understanding of the Lord’s Supper as a way to remember the Lord’s resurrection, we do not “drink his blood and eat his flesh” through the Lord’s Supper so we may “obtain life” (John 6:53). The Lord’ Supper is a celebration, not an issue of salvation. John 6:53 is a passage of salvation, and no credible scholars see this passage any differently. Without drinking his blood and eating his flesh spiritually we have no eternal life. Once we do, one time, we then have eternal life. To use this passage as a Lord’s Supper text eerily resembles the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. The Lord’s Supper is a memorial, not a literal partaking of His flesh and blood.Furthermore, the author takes the imagery of the Lord’s Supper too far. He asserts that, “A careful reading of Scripture will show that… God the Father is food to God the Son” (Viola, 79). This is categorically strange, and rather mystical in nature. Yet after “a careful reading” of his supporting passages, nowhere does one find such this teaching in Scripture. Jesus said that man lives by bread and by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. To Jesus, His father’s words were spiritual food to him, not the Father himself. And to the extent that this is true spiritually, its connection with the ordinance of the Lord’ Supper is weak at best, and likely nonexistent.From a practical standpoint, there seems to be much lacking with the organic church, at least as described by Viola. He readily admits that there is no equipping of the saints by pastors, teachers, evangelist, or apostles, but rather by Christian workers. Also absent from these churches, at least as described by the author, is the biblical concept of outreach. How are they reaching out to grow? How is the Great Commission being fulfilled? Where is the corporate worship both the New Testament and Old Testament describe? Where is the discipleship? Why did it take two years for one church to begin to grow into the church Viola thought it should be? Where is the extensive, in-depth Bible study? In the organic church there seems to be a lot missing! Also, if this is the true expression of the church, then why does it not more accurately reflect the culture around it? Why is the overwhelming majority of its participants middle-class, education, Caucasian people (less than 30% make up all other ethnicities besides Caucasian). In this respect, it looks more like a movement of a subset of the culture more than it does a genuine reflection of Christianity.ConclusionThe other objections and concerns this author has are numerous. Yet space does not permit a rendering of any of the other problems. It will suffice to say that there is much information in Reimagining Church that is valuable and profitable for the Christian who wants to learn more about how to introduce community and fellowship into the church. Viola is right. “The institutional church as we know it today does not reflect the church that God originally intended” (Viola, 278). He is also right when he asserts that, “The church that Scripture envisions is organic in its nature and expression, and the Lord desires to recover it” (Viola, 278). Yet where Viola errs seriously is in his attempt to eisegete passages and Greek words in order to create a prescription for organic church not necessarily required by Scripture. Yes, church in the home builds fellowship and community, and creates a condition conducive to one-anothering. Yes programs, tradition, and power-hungry leaders are ruining the church. Yet so would a movement with no accountability, no leadership, no teachers, no worship, and no sacred places. Maybe the traditional church is a swing of the pendulum too far to the left, but Reimagining Church is a pendulum swing too far to the right. Once the pendulum settles, maybe we can find just the right place to be – the place were an organic expression of church can be found while maintaining biblical ideals and holding fast to those things that are ‘right’ with the church today, whatever that might be.

I have been aching for something more pertaining to my relationships with the other members of the body of Christ. I wasn't quite sure If what I was after was biblical or realistic. Frank Viola's books are opening my eyes and giving me hope that my search will be satisfied! And that God is guiding the whole process!

Frank calls his vision for the Church "Organic Church."On a side note, I don't much like the word "Organic." Have you ever gone to the store here in Boise called the "Co-Op", or to other places that have organic foods? These places attract mostly Hippies, Vegans, Witches and others that oppose Christianity. Now I'm not entirely sure why Organic and religions other than Christianity go together. Perhaps they are like Spirits. No matter the reason though, they just seem to attract the same people.In the world of Christianity, I live by the verse; "You will know them by their fruits." In other words; if you want to determine if something, or someone, is of God, just look at the end result (What it, or they, produce). In this case; what kind of people do organic stores attract? If organic stores attract those that oppose Christianity, then we can draw the conclusion that it's not Christian. So associating the word organic with the Christian Church, just rubs me the wrong way.Frank's book draws a line in the sand, which is his vision for how the Church should be, and dares you to cross over it. He very clearly spells out his viewpoints and defends them well. However, all that defense makes the book sound a bit desperate. It's like he is saying to the world; "Won't you please read my book so I can prove to you how wrong your way is?"Though he stops short of saying this, Frank seems to be saying that his vision for the Church is the only way, and if you don't accept it, you are doomed. Now I have to admit that I did not read each and every page word-for-word. I just couldn't. This brings me to my next side note and rant.Doesn't anyone use illustrations anymore? To me, a book that has nothing in it but line after line, and page after page of text, is very boring. Nice, well laid out illustrations break up this monotony, and provide you with a wealth of information. Ever heard the saying that a picture is worth a thousand words? Well, it's true. Frank... I'm drawing my line in the sand and I dare you to prove me wrong.Frank also uses the word "Institutional Church" many times in the book. Here we go again! The word Institutional makes me think of folks that have been committed to a mental institution. I don't much like the Church being compared to a mental institution and those that attend it to mental patients.Now in his defense, Frank does address this word in his book. He says that he could just as easily used the word "Traditional". Well, Frank...If you could have just as easily substituted the word Institutional for a less offensive word, why didn't ya?" Are you trying to make enemies of every Church going Christian in America? If not, I suggest choosing your words more carefully.So right from the start,"Reimagining Church" sets a bad tone by its choice of words. Perhaps Frank just wanted to rile us all up. I'm not sure of his intentions and I won't try to figure them out here. I do agree with most of what this book had to say. I mainly just didn't like the way it was said, and the manner in which it was written. The book Reimagining Church was dry and lifeless and did not make me want to run out and purchase his next book, "Pagan Christianity."Reimagining Church is all about how we have strayed from the original design that God laid out for us for the Church. In the New Testament;* Church was held in homes* There were no Pastors* No hierarchical structure* No strict division of laypeople, Pastor, clergy or staff, etc...* No firm structures to meetingsI was intrigued by 2 things in the book that I had not thought of before. The first is that the Church should be a family. Now interestingly enough, most Churches are families, or at least were started by families. Many Churches are run by husband and wife teams, with the husband as the Pastor and the wife often the worship leader. Then the kids often join on as staff. Many Churches start out in homes, but then when they grow, they naturally think of getting a bigger building. They do this because that's just the way it has always been done. As the Church grows bigger and bigger, it becomes more and more difficult to maintain that family dynamic and eventually its lost altogether.I love the idea of getting back to the family unit as the center of the Church. This solves the problem of husbands abandoning their families to go off to Pastor a church. Then as the Church grows, that family dynamic is maintained, because as a home Church, its maximum size is determined by the size of the home.The other idea that I thought was mind blowing was the part about the Lords Supper. In the modern day Church, we have reduced this supper to communion. The word communion does not even appear in the Bible. Communion is a stale and sterile practice that consists of tiny wafers, or crackers, of some sort and grape juice.The wafers are tiny so they are easier to pass around and hold in ones hand. Grape juice is used so we don't offend those that do not like alcohol, or those that think it sinful to drink wine. What I never understood about communion is how it became all about us. Our current Communion rituals cater to our needs, not the needs of Jesus.In many countries, they still use real bread and real wine, which in my opinion, is the way it should be. I wonder what Mosses would have said had the Israelites used present day arguments like that."Oh Moses! Really? Sheep's blood! "Why Cant we use something more hygienic on the door lintels like red markers?" Don't ya know I'm allergic to sheep's blood?"The idea that the book presents is that we should get back to the original idea and intention of "The Lords Supper." Instead of the abbreviated version, we call Communion; let's have the full meal deal. A real supper complete with real bread and real wine. The supper would be a time for sharing the good things of God with each other. A time of fellowship and getting to know each other better. We could even take turns going around the table and talking about the things God has done in our lives. A supper filled with true good will, remembering what God has done for us, and showing thankfulness and joy in that. Not some cold and somber event that last just a few minutes and is quickly forgotten.Reimagining Church condemns the traditional Church. I do agree that home church is what God probably intended for His Church. However, I disagree that there is no place at all in this world for the more traditional building based Church. He does not actually say this, but it is implied. I read a review of his book on Amazon that I thought was very insightful.The Pastor said that it's true that the Traditional Church model has gone astray and needs help. He pointed out though that just because it's broken, does not mean that we should throw out this model completely. It would be like throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Why not just try to fix what's broken?Of course there is also the example we are given in the Bible of not trying to put new wine in old wine skins. So I'm not sure what the answer is. What I do know though is that the traditional Church model is probably not going to go away anytime soon and perhaps not at all.Why cant home Churches and the more traditional building model of the Church co-exist?This is a good book and an excellent idea, but the book itself could have been written better.

this book put words to where my mind has been about church in a way that i would of had a difficult time on my own.great reference to see what the actual church is!

Many people have had major issues with this book and often with Frank Viola himself. And to be honest, it's not at all surprizing because if you've been a christian for even a short time, there is a more than good chance that "Reimagining church" will have wrecked the ground that we have been standing on for far too long. Things that committed, loving believers will have been taught as cast iron certainties will not simply have doubt poured on them, the words of this book will leave you in a variety of places; either with heels well and truly dug in, clinging to what you have always gone with or shaken & stirred/dazed and confused {take your pick} or ready to sound a clarion call (one way or the other) or ready to drop everything and actively look for and pursue what God wants.Personally, I think it is an excellent book. In a real sense, the messenger isn't really important, but the message certainly is. In fact, I'd say it was a crucial message and one of the grand things about the messenger is that it comes on the back of 20 years hard experience and reality. This is no theory book. One may end up amazed at how the church could have gotten things so wrong for so many centuries.I would recommend reading this book with both an open mind and a good Greek dictionary or lexicon. For a subject as potentially life altering as this, it would be a dangerous thing to simply take Frank Viola's word for things, no matter how persuasive he may be. Most writers of just about all shades can sound plausible ! The book {and others of the 'organic church' ilk, for want of a better term} also has the added plus of helping the actual bible come alive, or at least provides an alternative angle of approach to the one so many christians tend to take in the highly organized world of Christendom.I would even be willing to bet that people who have thus far been critical of christians {and not without good reason, sometimes} or simply not interested in God or Jesus might find this a good read. Such folk may well come away from a book like this thinking "I wish churches were actually like this !!." And they wouldn't be the only ones....

This should be required reading for everyone who regards himself as a church leader and after reading it should justify his position biblically. Perhaps all those calling themselves Christians should also read this in order to challenge those who claim authority over them. This is the stuff of revolution which could change the world almost as much as the the early New Testament church did - if only there were not church "officials" attempting to keep their congregations in a yoke of slavery and subservience. The head of the church is Jesus and he does not employ substitutes; this book makes this very clear and substantiates it from biblical history.

An interesting book, which challenges the way that the modern (Western?) church structure itself (buildings, pastors, programmes etc.), and how far removed this is from the New Testament church.The book lays out ideas for reimagining our church buildings, management, meetings etc. Occasionally I think the author over- argues his points (and his interpretation of scripture), but it's a very interesting challenge to how we "do" church.

Frank obviously just doesn't like church but doesn't really articulate a persuasive ecclesiology. Apparently you need to experience it from a church which is part of his network to understand and indeed to do it properly. Perhaps his church is great but he needs to open his eyes and see the life elsewhere too.

Well written and very thought provoking. Might not agree with everything he says but the direction he's going resonates with my heart. Only real criticism is that I feel he sometimes overstates his case.