2008/11/19

review: Reimagining Church


Reimagining church
Frank Viola


I never bothered to read Viola's earlier book, Pagan Christianity, which was the talk of the bologosphere about a year ago. From the reviews I saw, I expected that I would know much of what he had to say, already. I looked forward to this book, though, as a much more positive offering. The previous book, if you like, set out what had gone wrong with the church; here, Reimagining church: pursing the dream of organic Chtistianity would surely reset the balance by suggesting what to do about it.

Well, it does. Sort of. The trouble is, I had an overwhelming sense of déja vu. For in chapter after chapter, as if he is describing something new, Viola describes to near perfection the tradition I grew up with. That's generally known as the "Christian Brethren", a decidedly vague name, on account of how that group (if it can be called a group) has never sought a name, or an identity, or any kind of denominational structure. In a sense, it's no surprise that Viola should rediscover Bretheren ecclesiology: after all, in the early chapters he warmly quotes F. F. Bruce, who was for most of his life a leading member of a Brethren assembly.

So, the book takes us through the reasons for Christians meeting together, the centrality of the Lord's supper, the open participation of all believers [ok, so for the Brethren, "all" has tended to mean "all men". Things have moved on], pluarality of leadership, elders as emerging gifted indivduals, not office-holders, consensus as a means of assembly decision-making, and so on. If you picked up any text on Brethren distinctives, you would find exactly the same stuff - even to the repeated phrase of "being gathered to Christ alone".

One point of divergence, perhaps, is that Viola stresses the value of meeting in homes rather than set-aside sancturaies: togetherness, rather than pews facing a pulpit (or altar, if you're of a higher church persusaion): Brethren have often - and in recent years, particularly - tended to own premises for the assembly to meet in, but frequently will meet "in the round" rather than in traditional church format.

So what shall I make of Viola's suggestion that this is how church should be? Well, the Brethren movement, if we shall call it that, has lasted some 170 years, but is becoming close to defunct: those that kept their distinctives have mostly whithered away; those who have embraced other ideas are often indistinguishable from other free churches (with notable exceptions). Part of me is thrilled to see these ideas rehearsed afresh, because I have held many of them very dear for a long time; part of me is disarmed, to say the least, that they should be presented as if discovered for the first time. (If, dear reader, you want to see a sometimes tenuous argument that these ideas have been present throughout church history, you might try to lay your hands on the truly ponderous The Pilgrim Church, by E. H. Broadbent. You should buy a case of Red Bull at the same time.)

As regards content and presentation, the book is fairly easy to read, though frequent long quotes from other authors put me off, rather. The rhetoric is over-blown at times, giving rise to some questionable bits of theology: even though I tend to find the conclusions sound, the argument is sometimes rather dodgy.

This is stuff that I feel as if I know a great deal about, in theory and in practice (what works, and what does not). I'm going to have to look for other reivews of this book, I can see...

11 comments:

Linda said...

Andrew,
Interesting to hear your thoughts from that background and perspective. It seems that many of the values being highlighted in both emerging and house church circles have flavors of anabaptist beliefs and methods. (I'm not very familiar with this, but guessing this includes or is closely related to both Brethren and Quaker streams.)

I agree that this isn't something new, but more of a rediscovery or return to former values and practices. Because these values and practices are enduring traits of the church, this isn't surprising. It is likely we will see the methods of practice contextualized in many different forms for today yet recognize a commonality of underlying values.

Anonymous said...

if you are looking for an anabaptist take on this - then Stuart Murray's Post Christendom or Changing Mission are both excellent reads IMHO

PS if you're wondering where I've popped up from American Ruth put me onto your site.

This is the first post I've read. I've heard a bit about viola but haven't dipped into the book yet.

Anyway pleased to meet you :)

Andrew said...

@Grace: I went and re-read your review after writing mine. The Brethren have something in common with the Anabaptists - by coincidence (or the Holy Spirit!), rather than by any particular ancestry. E.H.Broadbent would have made a connection, I'm sure. The Quakers, hm, are something else entirely. In a sense, the lack of new-ness is rather reassuring, yes.

In another sense, it's clear that sociologically these patterns are relatively fragile (groups that have embraced these values don't last, and don't manage to spread them widely(*)): that might be part of bearing the image of Christ; it might be that they're not very good.

(*) caveat: the Brethren's impact in world mission is very substantial indeed.



@seethrough faith: welcome. I shall add those books to my too-long `to read' list.

Linda said...

Sorry to throw the Quakers in. Sometimes the funny hats confuse me. ;)

I wonder what the parallels are in regard to sustainability, impact, and longevity. I see similar questions being raised in regard to the missional movement. Perhaps we can learn from those who have gone before.

Andrew said...

Oh, the hats can get confusing :-) That reminds me of a blog post I need to write...

Learning from those who have gone before? Steady on, there!

Anonymous said...

Cool review, brother. Few pick up the brethrenism aspects which, of course, all not all harmful. Not to mention the Quaker connection.

Though Viola claims FF Bruce as his ally, this is a stretch. Bruce did indeed believe in real church officers - overseers and deacons.

God speed.

Andrew said...

@Z: thank you. There's a possible epitaph for brethrenism: "not all harmful" :-)

I don't recall Bruce's specific take on elders and deacons, but the brethren view - of those as roles not offices, and filled by those who show evidence of exercising relevant gifts - isn't so far removed from Viola's perspective. As you say, a stretch, maybe.

Mike Morrell said...

I agree with the Stuart Murray recommendation. I'd like to see you blog more about Reimagining - if the ideas aren't 'new' to you, what do you find helpful (or not) about them, regardless of their relative novelty?

As a decade-long house-churcher, I wrestle with these questions a lot. (I blogged about Reimagining a bit here. In brief, where I wash out is: I still enjoy the house church emphases of the direct leadership of the Trinity in our gatherings ('direct' being a rather tricky word; I fully acknowledge the problem with language, immediacy, and analogy that postmodern theologians grapple with) and the priesthood of all believers for the 'open-sourcing' of the Church. That said, I like the anabaptist emphasis on the political and social dimensions of the gospel, and I've gotta say, I'm more and more drawn to High Church smells & bells do - what's a guy to do? For now, I think 'what to do' in my decidely low-church (basement church!) expression is to compost church history and let something organic grow from its decay; liturgy is 'the work of the people' after all and can work, even thrive, in an open-source setting.

Andrew said...

Hi Mike,

Thanks. Your blog about Reimagining has a lot of content to read and links to follow...

There's immense strength in the stuff Viola is talking about, and I'm hugely encouraged to find others discovering it for the first time. For example, the real, practical outworking of the priesthood of all believers - needing only Christ as the mediator between God and man - is profound. Too often it has lip-service, but then people are allowed to imagine that "The Pastor" is on a different spiritual plane from them. And so on. And that means that we must all take responsibility for the health of the assembly, and the care of our brothers and sisters. And so on.

Years ago, someone (I forget who, but someone famous in those circles) wrote in a Brethren magazine of frustration at being asked to "dump outside the door 1850 years of church history". I thought that was a telling phrase, if I remember it aright: partly because so much of our art, our culture, our language, our poetry, and much else, is shaped by our Christian heritage, and to ignore that is to impoverish our worship. And partly because what we're left with is the cultural baggage we picked up with the founding of the Brethren "movement" and all the terrible 19th century poetry that goes with it.

It's plain that, like so many moves of God's spirit over the centuries, the original zeal has departed in most places, leaving a rather ossified assembly: soundly based, somehow, but not moving forward. I'm encouraged to see others advocating the same ideas all over again, and fearful of the same outcome befalling them.

I like your idea of composting church history -- or perhaps some similar verb (putting it in the blender? shredding? holding a garage sale?) -- and have indeed introduced elements of liturgical worship to some Brethren in England and some Baptists in Australia. I didn't get as far as incense and bells, though sometimes I do a bit of subversive holding aloft. Such things can either constrain us or liberate us, depending on how we approach them.

Nana said...

I found your blog via Mike, and was surprised to see the tag Brethren. I am an American who is part of the Church of the Brethren, which was started in 1708 in Germany. The group moved to the US in the 1720s. We are a part of the Anabaptist stream.
I read Pagan Christianity and found it very familiar as well...no buildings or paid staff, and leadership called out of the community by character are in our background. The goal of our group originally was to be as like the early church, so it is no surprise, as you say,to see many similarities.
One thing that bothered me about Viola's book was his implication that only those started by a travelling apostle have any validity..that most house churches are not the real early church! I appreciate his caution about it being artificial without the willingness to be more risky, but still.
The comments you make about your Brethren could be said about mine, except our group is more liberal, and women have been licensed and ordained for years. We wander now between those who tend towards salvation only and those who want to feed and educate. I am grateful for a background that taught me about the Kingdom, though.
Thanks for your and others' insights. Marla Abe, Hudson Valley, NY

Andrew said...

Marla,
Thank you. I think one thing is for sure: good (God?) ideas will keep coming up, over and over again.