Frank Viola Answers Questions

I have not heard Frank Viola before so I was intrigued to attend one of his workshops at the Denver House Church Conference.  He has an intense personality (not unlike his books) and certainly brings to the table many, many years of simple church / house church experience.

He used this workshop to answer questions that he has been most frequently asked over the years.  My personal note is that I am serving as more of a reporter here and will reserve my own comments for another time.

1.  What are the reasons that people leave institutional churches?  Frank suggested that the best reason for leaving the institutional church is because of a deep revelation of Jesus Christ and his purposes that is powerfully compelling and that causes the person to realize that these purposes can only be fulfilled outside of the institution of church.  He acknowledges that most people leave the institutional church for other reasons: they are born rebels, they have been hurt deeply, they are not getting enough of their needs met, they want to be scriptural, etc, etc.  But Viola's hope is that these people would ultimately come to the place of seeking a deeper grasp of Jesus Christ as their core motivation.

2.  Who can start a house church?  Viola admits that he is controversial on this issue.  He asserts that spontaneous expressions of church start up all the time by all kinds of people and in all types of settings.  He believes, however, that most of these expressions of church will be short-lived.  He believes that there is an apostolic calling to plant churches, that those with apostolic callings are needed to bring revelation of Christ to the church, to center the church properly, and to nourish it.  He believes that church expressions that spring up spontaneously would do well to bring in outside apostolic guidance and input.

3.  I feel called to plant churches; what do I do?  Frank recommends three books to those who feel called to plant churches.  Two books are by Watchman Nee: "Normal Christian Church Life," and "Release of the Spirit."  The third is by Viola himself: "So You Want to Start a House Church."

4.  What can we expect in the first year or two in house church?  Frank suggest that you can expect to walk through four distinct seasons.  If you make it all the way through the four seasons, then you can expect these seasons to re-cycle:

1. Honeymoon-- everything is wonderful and beautiful.
2. Crisis--conflicts, disagreements, or problems with difficult people.  This can cause the church to self-destruct unless they are able to move on to the next season.
3. The cross--people in the group are able and willing to take their life and issues to the cross and die to self in the area that is being challenged.
4. Tested Body life--real community is experienced (at least for a while).

5.  What is the average life span of a house church?  Frank says that most churches survive from 6 months to two years.  He points back to the seasons just mentioned.  Unless churches can navigate through the inevitable conflics and crises, they will self-destruct at a fairly early stage.  He again asserts that they might do well to bring in outside help to navigate through the difficulties.

6.  What is your view on elders in a house church?  Viola asserts that a house church should never start with elders.  He points to scriptural examples of this precedent (Paul in the book of Acts).  He suggests that those who fulfill the role of elder should emerge naturally and organically as part of the body life growth.

7.  What advice can you give us about children?  Frank did not have specific advice on this issue.  He was concerned about children being cared for.  He was also equally concerned about the difficulties of being in community with parents whose commitment to their children supercedes their commitment to the church community.  In other words, children need to be neither neglected nor worshipped.

Frank Viola's materials can be found here.

I'm off to more of the workshop.

Comments

[Makeesha]

wow, I'm not familiar with Viola but I would be very leery of anyone who recommends nee as good reading material.

[Monte]

Wow! What a breath of fresh air. With some of the blogs I've been reading lately, I feel as if I have been beaten and bruised--not because I've commented, but just by the things they say to each other and about each other. Indeed, some of the "progressives" in our institutionalized churches and denominations are still so antiquated in their thinking. But their expressed arrogance, followed by statements of "I love you, brother", and "I may not agree with you, but I can still fellowship with you" is enough to make anyone sick to their stomach. Yours offers refreshment like a cool drink of water. I will enjoy keeping up with the information you provide.

[Patricia Durrett]

Regarding comments denigrating Watchman Nee.

I do not subscribe 100% to any one teacher and I sift every teaching with the Word. No one person has all of the truth however, Watchman Nee did have a powerful witness during his life. Few have done greater than Watchman in a lifetime? There are millions of home churches today in the Far East directly attributed to his ministry. Have you done greater than that? If you have then you can criticize him. Instead why don't you try reading his work and comparing it to scripture.

The Spiritual Man (3 Volumes) by Nee, however, is considered a Christian classic and it was given to the body of Christ to open the believer's understanding concerning the conflict between the soul and spirit operating within a man. Effective and powerful Christians will learn to "divide the (regenerated) spirit from the (unregenerate) soul" using Holy Writ. The new born spirit must teach the soul the things of God.

Hbr 4:12 "For the word of God [is] quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." (KJV)

http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/nee/sprtmnv1/1968v1c2.htm

Most of the religious nonsense I read on blogs is human wisdom from the soulish realm of human thinking . . . coming from and influenced by the religious traditions of men.

Regarding the religious blogs . . . "niceness" comments . . . I agree. It is sickly sweet. Jesus was very brutal to the Pharisees and Saducees. He called them "vipers" and "unlearned." He did not mince Words about the truth. I am also very blunt when I am certain of heresy. However, I always use scripture to rebuke it because I am not divine. The Word will stop the mouths of all men. It is time for Christians to standup, take a stand, and be counted to refute this nonsense today but not with opinion; rather by the power of the Word of God and under the Holy Spirit's initiation.

II TImothy 2:17 "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. But shun profane [and] vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some. Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity."

The Lord knoweth them that are his...amen.

[Makeesha]

Patricia, you made a lot of assumptions in that comment and came accross very attacking. It would have been more respectful to ask me questions instead. I have read some of Nee's work and I think he had some seriously dangerous ideas about leadership and covering and if someone is saying that he is a good example, I would be leery of them. I also don't agree with his ideas about the nature of man. And I have no idea what you're talking about regarding the world of blogging, apparently I'm out of the loop on that one.

[Ryan]

I'm with Makeesha there. But I also want to say to Patricia that it is ridiculous to assert that we cannot criticize people with huge spiritual accomplishments. Few people did more to advance the nation of Israel than King Solomon, but does anyone here want to vouch for his ultimate character?

And yet, he wrote approximately three books of Holy Scripture, and we certainly take that seriously. The obvious conclusion from the Word is that truth can come from all types of sources, but no human being can possess enough wisdom, or accomplish enough great deeds, to make them worthy of unthinking emulation.

[Ryan]

Sorry... the above link with my name is broken. Here's the working link: www.thecoredowntown.com/thecoreblog.html

[Patricia Durrett]

Makeesha - Without one example of error sited specifically in scriptures, you did denigrate Nee and Viola. You accused without scriptural evidence. This is an unsupported accusation. You gave a broad sweeping opinion on theology without substance.

This happens all the time on Christian blogs. I hate that.

This is a public forum seen by many therefore I felt compelled to post a different view. Watchman Nee's ministry opened up Asia to the Gospel in a mighty way. I do not believe that was of the devil.

This one book is full of insight and illumination that is according to scripture. Practically speaking the truths work wonderfully in my life helping me to discern when I am walking after the spirit and when I am walking in my flesh. Few books (other than scripture) have had that kind of impact affecting my walk. As a result I repent more readily than I ever did before and I am very quick to get right with my fellowman. What a wonderful benefit. I heartly recomment every Christian read - The Spiritual Man by Watchman Nee.

[Makeesha]

I never denigrated anyone. I'm sorry you feel the need to defend these men. I have no doubt they have done great things for the Kingdom but like all men, I also believe they have made errors. I call it like I see it. Nee made errors, some of them serious. He elevated the role of "leader" to almost demigod status and required that he not be questioned because he was called by God. I can give you references off blog if you want to email me for them. As I said in the first place, I do not know Viola's work but I do know Nee's work and either Viola doesn't know Nee's work enough or he agrees with him, either way, I personally would be forced to question the judgement of a man who recommends Nee. That's all I said. You are reading into my comments. This was not a scripture by scripture, point by point post of Nee's work, if that were the case I would be happy to oblige you and give references and the whole bit. But this isn't my blog and that would be inappropriate in this context.

I have nothing more to add to this discussion so if you care to talk about it off blog I will be happy to do so.

I also am wondering why you read blogs or comment on them if you "hate" what "always" happens (very unfair and broad accusations by the way). I think perhaps you are looking for a different type of discussion that goes on in blogs and maybe you'd be better off reading articles or sticking to face to face conversations.

[Patricia Durrett]

Makeesha,

I will let Watchman answer for himself in his own words about authority.

"In my early Christian days I sedulously (diligently) sought to avoid all that was evil and deliberately set myself to do what was good. And I seemed to be making splendid progress. At that time I had a fellow-worker who was two years older than I, and we two were always disagreeing. The differences that arose between us were not concerning our own personal affairs; our disagreements were about public matters and our disputes were public, too.

I used to say to myself: If he wants to do that bit of work in such-and-such a way I shall protest, for it is not right. But no matter how I protested, he always refused to give way. I had one line of argument—right and wrong: he also had one line of argument—his seniority. No matter how I might reason in support of my views, he invariably reasoned that he was two years older than I.

However many irrefutable evidences I might produce to prove that he was wrong and I was right, he produced every course of action he adopted—he was two years older than I. How could I refute that fact? So he always won the day.

He gained his point outwardly, but inwardly I never gave way. I resented his unreasonableness and still clung firmly to my contention that he was wrong and I was right.

One day I brought my grievance to an elderly sister in the Lord who had a wealth of spiritual experience. I explained the case, brought forth my arguments, then appealed to her to arbitrate. Was he right or was I?—That was what I wanted know. She seemed to ignore all the rights and wrongs of the situation, and looking me straight in the face, just answered quietly, “You’d better do as he says.” I was thoroughly dissatisfied with her answer and thought to myself: If I’m right, why not acknowledge that I’m right? If I’m wrong, why not tell me I’m wrong? Why tell me to do what he says? So I asked, “Why?” “Because,” she said, “in the Lord, the younger should submit to the older.” “But,” I retorted, “in the Lord, if the younger is right and the older wrong, must the younger still submit?” At that time I was a high school student and had learned nothing of discipline, so I gave free vent to my annoyance. She simply smiled and said once more: “You’d better do as he says.”

At a later date there was to be a baptismal service and three of us were to bear responsibility together—the brother who was two years older than I, a brother who was seven years older than he, and myself. Now let’s see what will happen, I thought. I always have to do what you, who are my senior by two years, tell me: will you always do what this brother, who is your senior by seven years, tells you?

Together we three discussed the work, but he refused to accept any suggestion put forward by his senior: at every point he insisted on having his own way. Finally he dismissed us both with the remark: “You two just leave things to me; I can manage quite well alone.” I thought, What kind of logic is this? You insist that I always obey you because you are my senior, but you need never obey your senior.

Forthwith I sought out the elderly sister, spread the matter before her, and asked for her verdict on the case. “The thing that annoys me,” I said, “is that that brother has no place for right and wrong.” She rose to her feet and asked: “Have you, right up to this present day, never seen what the life of Christ is? These past few months you keep asserting that you are right and your brother is wrong. Do you not know the meaning of the Cross?”

Since the one issue I raised was the issue of right or wrong, she met me on my own ground and asked: “Do you think it right for you to behave as you have been doing? Do you think it right for you to talk as you have been talking? Do you think it right for you to come and report these matters to me? You may be acting reasonably and rightly; but even if you are, what about your inner registrations? Does the life within you not protest against your own behavior?” I had to admit that even when I was right by human standards, the inner life pronounced me wrong.

The Christian standard not only passes its verdict on what is not good, but also on that which is mere external goodness. Many things are right according to human standards, but the divine standard pronounces them wrong because they lack the divine life. On the day to which I have just referred I saw for the first time that if I was to live in the presence of God, then all my conduct must be governed by the principle of life, not by the principle of right and wrong. From the day I began to see more and more clearly that in relation to any course of action, even if others pronounced it right, and every aspect of the case indicated that it was right, I must still be very sensitive to the reactions of the life of Christ within me. As we advance in the approved course, does the inner life grow stronger or weaker? Does the inner “anointing” confirm the rightness of the course, or does an absence of the “anointing” indicate that the divine approval is withheld?

God’s way for us is not known by external indications but by internal registrations. It is peace and joy in the spirit that indicate the Christian’s path....."

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~gb/WatchmanNee.html

Are we being guided by the inner life which is our spirit or are we being guided by the flesh (soul)?

("demigod" - a figure of partial or lesser divine status such as a minor diety.)

[Makeesha]

as I've said, I'm familiar with Nee. It seems as though you are suggesting that if I knew Nee's work, that I would agree with him as you do. I have read his work and overall, I do not agree with much of what he says...but more than that, I don't agree with is overarching vision that guides his teaching nor am I grateful for much of the backlash and reprocussions from his teachings. Here's the situation, I disagree with you regarding a MAN...a mere man....get over it already. I don't think we really need to spend more time discussing it in the comment section of someone else's blog. As I said, you are welcome to email me if you want to discuss it off blog but I will no longer participate in vane and foolish arguments with you about a MAN. If you have your own blog, I recommend that you take your soap box there. It's disrespectful to do what you're doing on someone else's blog.

[Dennis]

To whoever can answer my question. Mr. Viola stated that church leadership needs to be re-defined to more closely match the servant leadership of the New Testament. After having been in the ministry for over 20 years, I would agree heartily with that statement. He also said that control (authority?) of the church is in the hands of all the members, not the pastor(s). This is where I need some clarification. Congregational rule seems to not be the New Testament pattern. "Submitting to those who rule over you in the Lord" (Heb. 13:7,17, etc.) seems to imply that there are those in the body who "rule over" the body in positions of authority and leadership. I understand that these men are not to be dictators, but I can't see them as not existing either, as if the church is THE authority. That concept appears to cancel the idea of leaders having any real authority - servant or otherwise. Could you tell me what this type of servant leadership actually looks like and in what way, practically speaking, the church is to "submit to those who have authority over them?" If the church is "ruling", they aren't in submission. If they are in submission, they aren't ruling. See what I mean? I need this clarified if possible.
Thanks,
Dennis

[Chris]

Dennis,

I agree that it doesn't make sense that the church or congregation is "in charge". Also, terms like: authority, submission, rule, etc. seem to contrast agains the idea of servanthood. I certainly don't have all the answers on this one and the best I can do is to point you to an article that lends a perspective that might be helpful: http://www.lifestream.org/LSBL.dec02.html.

Chris

[James]

Dennis,

In regards to that word 'submit' as referenced ...

------
"Submitting to those who rule over you in the Lord" (Heb. 13:7,17, etc.) seems to imply that there are those in the body who "rule over" the body in positions of authority and leadership.
------

... Viola devotes no less than about 22 pages on "Authority and Submission" in his book "Who is your covering" - see http://ptmin.org/covering.htm

I can highly recommend this book, as it deals with all aspects of Leadership, Authority, and Accountability.

In brief, the Greek word translated "submit" (hupotasso) is better translated 'subjection'. See Ephesians 5:21 and 1 Peter 5:5.

Viola explains that 'subjection' is by mutual subjection, ....

"to the Spirit of God and to one another out of reverance for Christ".

... "Mutual subjection helps to underscore the Bible's central motif: The universal preeminance of Christ (Eph 1:9-10; Col 1:15-20)."

[roger]

Dennis has raised such an important issue--one that cannot be addressed adequately in a few words. I would simply like to point out that our western way of looking at leadership is so intricately woven into a hierarchical/organizational system that it is difficult to imagine leadership from a different perspective. We have to be able to step away from our western perspective in order to see leadership that is relational rather than positional and to understand leadership that has God-given authority that comes from laying down one's life--for reals. Jesus spoke to this when he called for a different kind of spiritual leadership: "Jesus called them together and said, 'You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.'" (Matt 20:25-28).

I'm only suggesting here that our way of looking at and understanding leadership is obviously amiss, hence our inability to put Jesus' words together with the role of a a spiritual leader that others are to obey. I believe it is our paradigms of leadership and the context (hierarchical systems) that we view leadership within that keeps us from grasping the nature and the role of true spiritual leadership.

I did a workshop at the Denver house church conference on "Re-thinking leadership" which I will try to post on in the near future. But please notice that the title is "re-thinking" not "re-thought." In other words, there is much to get a hold of here and, I believe, because of our mechanistic, western worldview it is very difficult to move into paradigms that embrace true, biblical leadership... But, hey, at least we are trying and the ongoing conversation on this issue is very important.

[PAD]

Just finished Reading "Covering" by Viola. FANTASTIC INSIGHT. I know it is true. This worldly doctrine of "covering" is not of God. It goes against the priesthood of the believer and the Headship of Christ.

[Jonathan Henry]

Thanks so much for summarizing the imformation from this conference. It's helpful to inform those who are not able to go to these conferences, etc. I check your site every couple of weeks for info like this.

[Dennis]

I really appreciate the responses to my question on leadership in the local church. I tried to explain the best I could what I was wondering about in this area. I do understand that the Western, Contemporary grid for leadership doesn't match the servant-leadership of the Bible, and that whatever our leadership is meant to be, it's not meant to be a dictatorship ("lording it over", etc.) But, just saying that our grid is wrong and that real leadership needs to be more "sacrificial" doesn't address the issue of authority. There is no doubt that Jesus was the ultimate example of a Servant-Leader. He served to the point of death for those He led - but He DID lead. I doubt anyone (except Judas) had any question about who was "in charge". He may not have led in a way that was dictatorial, but He didn't just "serve" and not exercise any authority at all. That's what my question is about regarding the house church, servant-leadership principles being raised in Mr. Viola's (and others) matrials. I agree with the need for our leaders to first be servants and sacrificial and loving, etc. But it doesn't address my question when people write back making sure I know how "servantish" leaders are supposed to be, but they don't go on and describe exactly what "authority" does look like in the New Testament grid (Paul talked a great deal about exercising authority over those he was "serving", even in one instance about turning a congregant over to Satan for the destruction of his flesh - whateve that means). The New Testament may emphasize a type of servant-authority we don't see much today, but authority was still in there somewhere. Where is "authority" in the house church movement - what does it look like in real life?
Dennis

[Chris]

Dennis,

As I said before, I don't feel like an "authority" on the matter. I do feel that the link I posted a few days ago has a lot of good answers in it. For me, I feel like we have a hard time making a paradigm shift from a corporate, heirarchical way of thinking to a Jesus way of thinking.

I'm not sure, but I think it's Frank Viola that points out that the bulk of the New Testament letters were not written to the leaders, but sim;y to the churches themselves. I think that's significant in light of how we learned that authority flows down the ladder. Paul seemed to simply shared what was on his mind with those who needed to hear it.

I think the best point I ever heard on the subject of authority uses the example of people who are naturally gifted in something. If someone needs their car fixed. they find someone gifted in fixing cars and rely on them for that knowledge, or service. Without lifting them up, and standing in awe of their great gifting they respect him for his particular knowledge and skill. That mechanic is gifted and has the power or ability, hopefully, to fix your car - or better yet - to equip you to fix it.

In ministry, that takes some grace and maturity to rest in knowing our giftings are there to be a part of what Jesus is doing, without being caught up in it. That's probably why Paul spent a dozen or so years in Tarsus before he went about ministering and probably why this road seems so long for many of us.

I often think of Paul's great call. When Ananias was sent to relieve him of blindness, he was scared. Instead of calming his fears by assuring him as to the kind of authority and leadership he would have in the church, God said this: "don't worry, I have told Paul all he will suffer for my name." I think that also puts a different spin on leadership and authority than what I'm used to anyway. I suppose the use of authority, and leadership is both a calling and a journey.

Looks like a rambled on enough. Thanks for listening.

Chris

[Curtis Taylor]

Just reading a copy of Viloa's PAGAN CHRISTIANITY. He takes the "Pastor" to task, as being a false office holder who is not supported by Scripture. On PAGE 142 he amusingly chides the term as it ONLY appears once in Eph. 4:11. "One solitary verse is a mighty scanty piece of evidence on which to hang the entire Protestant Faith!" He follows with yet a deeper discovery by comparing the fact that "snake handling" appears twice. "so snake handling wins out two verses to one verse... there is more Biblical authority for snake handling than there is for the modern Pastor."

I wonder how brother Viloa might score the "Passion" of our Lord, as this also ONLY appears once in Scripture. (Acts 1:3)

I am concerned by one who assigns import merely by frequency. Especially Holy Writ.

[Makeesha]

I don't think it's appropriate or healthy in any issue to take one view at the exclusion of all others. This is the problem I have with views like Viola's - the thinking that any pastoral authority is wrong across the board. Church history itself shows us that there was "pastoral authority" and there was "institutionalized offices". However, I think contextualization of the churches is key. House church works in a multitude of contexts but would not necessarily work in all contexts. And to disregard one model for another based on 1 idea seems very off to me.

Not to mention that I find it fascinating that people like Nee and apparently Viola will disregard the pastoral but completely elevate the apostolic. In the case of Nee, appointing himself as an apostolic authority in the lives of others and requiring unquestioning devotion and obedience to his authority.

I don't necessarily have a problem with the idea of no pastor - but someone DOES lead. You look at any group and whoever the people turn to when there is a problem is the leader.

Rob McAlpine has a very good balanced perspective on this issue in his online book "post charismatic" - it's excellent and worth reading.

[Makeesha]

oh and for the record, I do not agree with "traditional" ideas about covering and do agree with much of what Viola says. I just don't think one need throw out the entire role of the pastor and I do agree that it's a bit shady to create a theology on the number of verses given or not given to one particular gift or issue in Scripture. I also agree that the heirarchy that traditionally rules the institutionalized church is wonky and that we in westernized Christianity do need to take a better look at it and be willing to have our mindsets changed.

Again though, I always hesitate to throw out anything completely lest God be moving in it and through it unless God himself is dismantling it.

[Chris]

I'm not sure where we find institutionalized roles in the New Testament. Either way though, I believe that if authority is re-understood as being a resource instead of a job role, it won't matter if some are(or are called) pastor, prophet or teacher.

After all when it comes to authority, Jesus said that when the day of Pentecost would come, he would give authority and that it was its purpose is to enable his disciples to be witnesses for him. I believe that in the context of that scripture, the authority he was talking about was not as much role-based as it was resource-based. This seems to jibe with Ephesians 4 which tells us that apostle, prophets, evangelists pastors and teachers are provided to equip believers for maturity of faith and relationship with the Son. To equip others in this, "leaders" must have (to some extent, and in growing measure) that kind of relationship with Jesus. Again, from perspective, these seems less quantifiable as a role than as a standing in relationship with God and with those who are "following [leaders] as [they] follow the Lord.

[Chris]

Dennis,

One of your questions keeps popping up in my mind.

> Where is "authority" in the house church movement -
> what does it look like in real life?

In my mind, conciously or unconciously, I ask this type of question all the time - What is the current, real-life parallel to what we see in the New Testament?
What does it look like for a community of trusting believers to be built as living stones? How can we affect reconcilliation of tough relational conflicts such as the one noted in Corinth.

Even if my suppositions in my earlier posts are correct - what does it look like to have leaders whose authority is so genuine and Christ-like that we easily submit to the wisdom they give and the example they walk before us? More importantly, how do we become the mature Christians that live up to the Old Testament prophecy that says that no-one will have to rely on a leader to know the Lord, but that we will all know him? When will we look to Jesus as our shepherd to the extent where we don't have to ask these kinds of questions which seek to know "what it looks like"? For the answers to these, I have hope and faith that I will undersand and live in that kind of reality as it is revealed to us. Until that time, most of our answers will be shots in the dark - even those answers which we are convinced about as being dead-on accurate.

When I try to reconcile the following examples of Peter and Paul exercising authority with what we know today, there seems to be little correlation to the church of today:

- Peter asks why Ananias and Saphira lied to the Holy Spirit – they
dropped over dead. In this example, his authority seems to be just part of who he is in the Lord.

- Paul rebukes the "Super Apostles" who tried to exercise authority
over believers – he pleaded with those he was in relationship with
to remember how he himself was a real apostle to them based on his
actions of love and respect so that they would return to the truth.
I like this example because he calls upon their memory of how he has
always been a true apostle to them and he does this without great force or chiding.

- Pharisaical Christians insist that the Gentile Christians should
be circumcised (A) – Paul recommends that such leaders cut
themselves off the whole way. Humor does sometimes get more to the point.

- Pharisaical Christians insist that the Gentile Christians should
be circumcised (B) – Peter and a group of leaders decide to correct this kind of bad
teaching and try to remove any roadblocks from the new gentile
Christians from coming to the faith. Their response as authorities is shown in their reaching out, more than than any kind of discipline against those of the "circumcision".

- There is adultery in the Corinthian church – Paul suggests a
pattern of confrontation, then disfellowship. Fortunately, the
guilty party saw the error of his ways and repented. Again his authority to speak into this situation is based on his relationship with the church and he prescribes the forces of relationship to address it.

From my perspective, there is much we just haven't yet experienced so we can't truthfully answer the kind of quesitons we're asking - yet!

I'm on vacation so it gives me a little time to think (hopefully not too much time).

[john]

Hey Roger, thanks for this post. I've read all of Viola's books and his insight into NT apostolic principles just changed me radically. This is a lively discussion and that's exciting to me. I have so wanted to see Christians face these issues. One point to remember about Viola's leadership "model" (if you want to call it that) is that it is the Headship of Christ. One of the key problems with "pastoral authority", besides not really having biblical support, is that it places a man where God is supposed to be, or more precisely, in the position of the God-man Jesus Christ. Note: You have to really read Viola throroughly to get the whole picture and it is not easily understood, but I think he really sees the heavenly vision, a living, breathing spiritual body that is One with God. Hey no one has this thing down. We are awakening! I believe God is awakening us and shaping us into a real, functioning body. (Obviously, I believe the Body has been dysfunctional and largely hijacked by the type of men Paul and Peter and John warned about.) A revolution is occuring. A revolution of the Spirit of God in His people. God bless all u.

[RickyRoubique]

Curtis said:

"I am concerned by one who assigns import merely by frequency. Especially Holy Writ."

I can appreciate your concern, although I think Viola is poking at how the Institutionalized Church has made a "career" out of doing just what you question.

Viola is exactly correct, though, in his denunciation of the modern day practice of assigning authority to positions whereas the New Testament affords authority to ANY person who represents the Truth in character and in word.

As Viola has stated, the New Testament affords zero authority to a perceived position (i.e., "form"), such as pastor or bishop, but rather authority flows from the function of a particular gift. In other words, when a person exercise his/her gift under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and who does so in Truth, he/she is in authority at that moment. Such a function affords to all members of the Body to be in authority whenever they utilize their gifts under the guidance of the Spirit.

This is why Paul exercised authority over the immorality in the Corinthian Church (I Corinthians 5), he did so because he represented the character and word of the Truth (i.e., Jesus Christ) and in fact calls upon the entire Church to exercise the same authority in uprooting the sin. Later, he calls the entire Church to reaffirm their love for the repentant brother. The ENTIRE Church is involved in discipline, not just some supposed "leadership" positions.

Therefore, the New Testament understanding of authority is function-based, not form-based.