I am currently reading the book ‘Pagan Christianity?’ and though I agree with some aspects of it I think that there are a few anomalies. I also have a problem with its purist and somewhat scathing tone. While the author makes several relevant points re Pastoral dominance, the unscriptural clergy/laity divide, congregational passivity, erroneous teaching on tithing and the Greeco/Roman influences on traditional Church worship among others, there are several areas where to my mind he falls down (too numerous to mention in this forum). The author does not do a good job of describing what the church really is in its essence. His impression of church (even while he cries down the institutional church) seems to suggest that church is somewhat limited and held captive by the tone and structure of its Sunday gathering. The church in his writing seems more defined by “doing” than “being” even while he tries to promote a concept of organic church. He  is still limiting his discussion to organisational church. What churches do on Sunday is merely but one expression of the Church and has nothing to do with the true organism of the church, the body of believers, who on the basis of an INDIVIDUAL experience with Christ, become a part of this organic body.

I think Viola misses the point by thinking that the organic church is merely a way of “doing church” that is “non-institutional” etc through open, participatory meetings. This is but one expression of organic church life which focusses on the gathering of believers; it is clearly not the only expression.The Church in its organic expression to my mind, crosses time lines, ethnicities, races, nationalities, and denominations. This is the Church of which Jesus spoke when He said that the gates of hell will not prevail against it. If this Church was truly held captive by the Church’s institutionalism over the centuries, then the gates of hell would have prevailed and we wouldn’t be having this conversation; the Church would have died. Viola’s tone also seems to imply that God’s hands have been virtually tied because churches which exist today may not be exact replicas of the New Testament paradigm of church. We are actually still the New Testament church which will continue to evolve till Jesus returns; this is one of the vagaries of being human and living in a fallen world among fallen, imperfect people and systems.

If the New Testament church was all that Frank suggests it was cracked up to be, there would have been no need to write epistles. Paul in fact wrote epistles/letters because he was attempting to deal with the many challenges and imperfections which the church faced then; just like today. The NT church was far from perfect; and I mean extremely far; just read any of the Pauline epistles and this becomes obvious. And by the way I am a part of an informal, simple gathering (similar to House church)but am a bit disappointed that the book is coming across as a case for the existence of house churches; nothing wrong with House churches but because I start my home business in my basement does not mean that it has to remain there to preserve the spirit or ethos of my values as a businessman. We must be careful not to adopt an attitude of following practices as a rigid “letter of the law” as opposed to understanding the principle/spirit of the thing. The global church today is much larger than what would have existed in the NT so chances are that we will continue to evolve different modes of functioning. Because our seemingly human ideas for church life are not found replicated in exactness in the NT does not make these ideas “un-biblical” as Frank repeatedly suggests in his book. The proof-test comes in determining whether what we do lines up with the principles  of scripture. And if we are obedient, submitted followers of Christ then He will emerge new ideas and innovations in us.

It seems trite therefore to be suggesting that because there are no worship leaders/worship teams in the NT that it is therefore un-biblical to have them now. There were also no new testaments to read in the NT church; yet we read and study them now don’t we? A good book to stimulate discussion but academically flawed in its failure to understand the role of history in shaping and emerging God’s eternal plan. God is not a static God of the past; He is the first and last, the beginning and the end ( and there is a lot of time-span and change in that loaded statement). Remember “Jesus Christ Lamb of God slain before the foundations of the world”? God is always several steps ahead of us flawed human beings, even when we do have a knowledge of and experience with Him. I think that several of Viola’s arguments, while well intentioned, degenerate and lose some credibility because of his dogmatic interpretation of a few verses of scripture. For example church was both open and participatory as well as governed by continuous teaching and preaching of the word; it need not be one or the other. Be assured this conversation will continue.

While I do agree wholeheartedly with the premise of a missional paradigm, as with any movement we must be aware that too far east is most definitely west. While God is calling us into relationship with our communities and while we as the church have always been called to live the Gospel there must be no compromise with sin. If we take note of Jesus’ encounters with people and if the missional paradigm proports to follow the path of Jesus then even as we embrace others we must do it as Jesus did. In all of Jesus’ interactions with sinners His message was usually “neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more”; this was always clear. God does not expect us to grow comfortable with sin so that we can reach others; Jesus is clear on showing others what a life of righteousness is; He never tows the middle. At the end of the day, the goal of a missional way of life must not be to make people so comfortable with sin that coming to church is a breeze. The holiness of Christ challenged those with whom He came into contact to turn from sin, so even as He hung out with publicans and sinners it was never from a stance of participating in their falleness. This is not something to make light of; the walk of the cross is a walk of holiness and righteousness. Yes we did go extreme with the stance of legalism in expecting us all to look the same and sound the same once we were Christians; but the definition of Christian/church must not change. We are the ecclesia or called out ones, called to be salt and light. We can only be this if our lifestyle is different as a result of our own personal transformation by the power of Jesus Christ. At the same time we must rid ourselves of the “Christian club mentality” if we hope to reach the lost. I would hate to see the concept of missional become degenerated to a point where there seems to be a complete absence of standards and where people think that anything goes. Mind you, from my readings of Michael Frost and my watching of a number of videos I do not believe that this is the true definition of missional but ultimately as people get hooked on a new word and on a movement there is always the possibility of it being watered down and evolving into something that it was never meant to be. This is why it is necessary to keep the dialogue gong but to also lace it with prayer and a careful study of the scriptures. I do agree with the stance of a need for balance.