Frank Viola

[Guest]

Ely: Unfortunately, no. I wish I had the opportunity to personally meet and interact with the dozens of men and women whose writings have influenced me and blessed me through the years, but I am so little afforded that opportunity.

I have a personal policy to "take with a grain of salt" those who speak against others unless their words contain facts I can verify, or unless the same protests have come from at least two or three other sources. The letter you posted, I think, gives Gene Edwards more credit than he deserves. Perhaps it's different in other parts of the world, but here it's been my experience that those who've read Viola's works have never even heard of Gene Edwards.

I agree with others in this thread who've said that Viola can be inflexible in his views, and neither do I agree with all of them. However, I believe one can be blessed by someone's views while being gracious about their flaws and those points on which we disagree. At least, that's the way I'd hope to be treated, considering the embarassingly large numbers of flaws I possess!

To balance out Viola's infrequently unyielding stance, I'd also recommend one read Wayne Jacobsen in tandem, whose writings can be found at www.lifestream.org. He brings up the excellent point that while house churches can be a viable alternative, they can also come with many of the shortcomings that those leaving organized religion were hoping to avoid. Therefore, he pleads that we utilize the best structure necessary in order to support the fragile Body life found in the centrality of Christ rather than promoting one ecclesiastical structure as superior over others. I agree.

Homer: Thanks for pointing that out! "Institution" is no worse a word than "fundamentalist" and yet our chosen semantics have given both words a negative connotation. Even though many so-called "institutional churches" have made their institutions a priority over the Kingdom, we still have to remember that God's Church must have order. I am changing my vocabulary immediately to better reflect my views. Thanks!

[Guest]

Ely, I apologize. After I submitted my previous post, I did remember one thing. You asked, "For example, have you had any testimonies from churches which he has started or 'shepherded'?"

The answer is yes, I think so. There is a house church community in Lithia Springs, GA which I believe was either started or greatly influenced by Gene Edwards or those in close and/or likeminded fellowship with him, if I'm not mistaken. I have had e-mail contact with one brother, Neil Carter, who attends there, and whose website can be seen at www.christinyall.com. It's my opinion that Neil is a solid brother with a compassionate nature, a passion for Christ, and excellent grasp of scripture. If he's been discipled or influenced in any way by the Gene Edwards ministry, then he is definitely a credit to that ministry, in my opinion.

UPDATE: I did a little research since the above post sounded too much like assumption and hearsay than I was comfortable with. And I was correct; the church at Lithia Springs (www.atlantasaints.com) to whom Gene Edwards and a brother in his fellowship, Tim Richey, was credited as influencing its formation, according to the FAQ page of Neil's site.

[Guest]

"pedigreed itinerent apostles"


What does he mean by that?

Sorry Rae. I haven't been online much and missed your question.

Viola's position is that the only people who are qualified to plant house-churches (or any kind of church I assume) are those who have been trained by an apostolic worker who, in turn, was trained by an apostolic worker. He particularly expounds on this in his book, "So You Want to Start a House Church?"

Viola sees Gene Edwards as the apostolic worker who trained him and sees himself as pedigreed to train and release others. He seems to believe that someone who plants a church outside of this apostolic chain is illegitimate.

This is my biggest area of disagreement with him.

It seems to me what is actually objected to is institutionalism which Webster's defines as "emphasis on organization (as in religion) at the expense of other factors. There is nothing wrong with being organized biblically (elders, deacons, deaconesses) as long as things are kept in proper biblical perspective, i.e. leaders with a servant mentality.

Homer, I couldn't agree more. When I use the term "institutional church", this is exactly what I have in mind. One of the appeals of the simple house-church is that it (hopefully) removes many of the trappings of institutionalism such as hierarchies, building expenses, salaries, formality, etc.

To balance out Viola's infrequently unyielding stance, I'd also recommend one read Wayne Jacobsen in tandem, whose writings can be found at www.lifestream.org. He brings up the excellent point that while house churches can be a viable alternative, they can also come with many of the shortcomings that those leaving organized religion were hoping to avoid. Therefore, he pleads that we utilize the best structure necessary in order to support the fragile Body life found in the centrality of Christ rather than promoting one ecclesiastical structure as superior over others.

Good point. Wayne Jacobson's articles have been very helpful to me. If I plant a church again (which I believe I probably will) we will rent a facility and do a "typical" Sunday morning service, because that is what fits the culture in America. In addition, we'll emphasize home fellowships. I would actually view the home fellowships as the "churches" and the Sunday meeting as a gathering of the "churches".

The Vineyard in Cincinnati takes this approach. They refer to their home meetings as "small church" and their Sunday gathering as "all church".
http://www.vineyardusa.org/upload/fall_2001.pdf