The Narrow Path Ministries

I've just become familiar with Frank Viola.

I'm interested in your opinions on his writings and teachings.

Peace,

pete b

He used to pitch for the Minnesota Twins I think!! Oh I bet you're talking about a different Frank Viola
Or maybe he did start a ministry - who knows?

If it thats FV then he was traded to the Mets in 79. He is a lefty?

I've read many of Frank Viola's writings, many of which can be read at www.ptmin.org. They were instrumental in my decision to leave my church and join a home church. Even though I am not as big a cheerleader for home churches as he is (believing more along the lines of relational Christiantiy a la Wayne Jacobsen of www.lifestream.org) I do appreciate his writings and have, thus far, found no fault with his beliefs. I do believe he is a great resource for the church today and would highly recommend Rethinking the Wineskin and Pagan Christianity (both books of his, the latter exposing the pagan roots of the Catholic church adopted by Protestant churches) to anyone.

I've been a convinced house church (or better, non institutional church) man for about a year now. I've read some article by Mr Viola which are excellent and apparent;y, he is very talented. However, you might want to read this. It's an article by several bible teachers (one of whom is my pastor) voicing some serious concerns about Viola and his mentor, Gene Edwards:

http://www.house-church.org/genart_one.htm

ybiM,
Ely

Ely, I've read that article before. Inasmuch as its authors are telling the truth, it seems to be accurate, especially since in Gene Edwards' later writings, a certain arrogant and elitist spirit seems to come across. However, I do not think Frank Viola should be "tainted" by association simply because Edwards was his mentor, and he still respects the man.

The brothers who wrote that article do seem to have a quarrel with Edwards, but other than his attitude, surliness and rudeness (on which we have only one side), it remains unclear to me why they would feel the need to warn the world about him, seeing as how he's in no egregious sin or teaching dangerous doctrines (as far as I am aware). I choose to judge people based on my experience with them and do my best to stay above the fray and out of any disagreements others might have with them. In other words, I don't take sides in issues like these. Their quarrel isn't my quarrel; their concern isn't mine.

The bottom line for me is that even if Edwards is a loose cannon and straying brother (and to believe that we must take only this single account of such), Frank Viola is nevertheless a great resource to the non-institutional church, and I'm thankful for whatever contributions Gene Edwards invested into Viola's life in order for him to be such a blessing to me.

I've read many of Frank's books. I particularly liked "The Untold Story of the New Testament Church" which uses the Book of Acts as a framework for surveying the New Testament Epistles.

Rethinking the Wineskin, Pagan Christianity and Who's Your Covering really had an impact on me and came at a time when I was very disillusioned with the "institutional" (for lack of a better word) church. They were instrumental in pushing me to explore the house-church model.

Viola is certainly an iconoclast and I found I have to be careful with my attitude when I read him because he can adopt a strident tone which makes it very easy to become angry and indignant at the "institutional" church (as a system). By the same token, the questions he asks and points he brings up do need to be addressed.

I don't agree with all of his conclusions; particularly his view that only pedigreed itinerent apostles are qualified to plant house churches.

"pedigreed itinerent apostles"

What does he mean by that?

I don't agree with all of his conclusions; particularly his view that only pedigreed itinerent apostles are qualified to plant house churches.

Has he thrown off the fetters of the "institutional church" only to invent a few of his own? Rather than go back to simple Christianity, he seems to complicate it in other ways.

And what is the "institutional" church anyway? If we understand "institutional" in its normal sense (its not a biblical word), it means "establish". Did not Jesus say He would establish His Church? When the Church appointed the first deacons, the Church began to be institutionalized.

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.

Sorry, seems I got off the subject of the thread!

Royal Oddball 2:9,

Thanks for your thoughts.

Can I ask you something. Have you had any personal contact with Frank or do you know anything about hsi personal conduct. For example, have you had any testimonies from churches which he has started or 'shepherded'? Or do you know if he is part of a church himself?

ybiM,
Ely