Frank Viola & Jon Zens - An Interview

Jon Zens is the editor of Searching Together magazine living in Wisconsin. Author Frank Viola is a writer, blogger, and conference speaker living in Florida.

Published in Radical Reversal: December 2007

Tell us a bit about your current church situation: How long have you been a part of your house church? How big is it? How long has it been in existence?

[Frank Viola]: I’ve had two organic church life experiences where I was a non-leader in church life. I was in one such church for eight years (at its peak, we had around 40 adults in it). That church sent me out to plant other churches. I was also part of another church for five years before moving to the city where I presently live to plant a new organic church. (That church had around 50 adults in it at its peak.) Presently, I am laying plans to plant a new organic church in North Florida.

[Jon Zens]: We moved to Wisconsin in 1983 to be part of an assembly that began in 1980, meeting in homes and a community building. In 1981 an old, modest Lutheran church building was purchased. We tried to give it a home-like flavor. In the “sanctuary” were couches, chairs and a ping-pong table. We used the kitchen in the basement to eat together every Sunday.

We decided to sell the building and use some of the equity to start a Christian bookstore in the community. The building sold in 1998. We met in homes from 1998 – 2000. The bookstore opened in mid-2000, and we have been meeting in this rented space since then. Currently we have about 20 people in the fellowship.

Searching Together magazine is a ministry of our fellowship, so we are in contact with believers all over America and abroad. We are in fellowship with other simple churches in our region.[Note: the magazine began in 1984 and was instrumental in opening my eyes to a more biblical view of church life]

Is there any “structure” and “flow” when you gather together as church? For example, do you have a a topic or passage chosen in advance? Do you sing songs? Do certain folk “lead” or “facilitate” the discussion?

[Frank Viola]: The churches I work with don’t have a specific structure. Their meetings are different all the time. The sisters and brothers prayerfully plan their own meetings. Thus they gather in all sorts of ways. The hallmark of every meeting is that everyone is free to function and participate, and there is no human headship. The goal of each meeting is to display the Headship of Jesus Christ and reveal His unsearchable riches. The churches typically write their own songs. They also trade songs with other churches who have written them. (Some of the songs these churches have written are honestly the best Christian songs I’ve ever heard. It’s amazing what the Body of Christ can do when its creativity is watered and unleashed.) They also sing the great songs that our forefathers of the past wrote. That would include the classic hymns, the timeless songs from the Jesus movement, etc.

These churches have no official “leaders” or “facilitates.” They seek to meet under the Headship of Jesus Christ. My goal as someone who plants churches is to equip the members to gather under Christ’s Headship, to handle problems on their own, to build community, to train the church on how to have an ongoing relationship with Christ, and to make decisions by consensus. This model of leadership and gathering is rooted in the Triune God as well as in the teachings of the New Testament. And it’s markedly different from the traditional/institutional model which is rooted in the Greco-Roman style of leadership and concept of performance.

[Jon Zens]: We sit together around folding tables. We have a loose structure when we gather, which includes a mixture of singing, open sharing, a teaching and then open time for questions and discussion, and prayer. There is no “leader.” We do have one person who has been designated to step in if things seem to be going down rabbit trails, etc., but I can’t recall the last time such intervention was necessary.

With regards to leadership, how do you deal with the passages in the NT, esp. in the so-called “pastoral epistles”, that speak of qualifications for “elders/overseers/” and “deacons”? Also that Paul addresses his letters to “elders”.

[Frank Viola]: This is a large topic. Here’s the short answer. There’s been a lot of misteaching on what elders are and what they do. They aren’t officers, just older brothers who handle crisis. They don’t dominate the ministry of the church nor do they make decisions on behalf of the Body. Not all the churches in the first century had elders. And they weren’t a permanent fixture. Some of the churches I’ve worked with had elders, others didn’t. Paul never addresses his letters to the elders, only to the churches as a whole. (He mentions the elders only in passing in Philippians, then he speaks to the whole church as he does in his other letters.)

Here is a quote that the author would certainly apply to house church advocates:

“Primitivism retains the most minimal commitment to God’s action in history (in the life of Christ and usually in the first century of apostolic activity) and then seeks to make only this first-century “New Testament church” normative for contemporary practice. This is usually articulated by a rigid distinction between Scripture and tradition (the latter then usually castigated as the “the traditions of men” as opposed to the “God-given” realities of Scripture). Such primitivism is thus anticreedal and anticatholic, rejecting any sense that what was unfolded by the church between the first and the twenty-first centuries is at all normative for current faith and practice (the question of the canon’s formation being an interesting exception here).”
– James K.A. Smith, Who’s Afraid of Postmodernism? Taking Derrida, Lyotard, and Foucalt to Church (pp. 128-129)

How would you answer the charges the author makes to those (like house churches) who argue for apostolic practices as “normative” and who “ignore” God’s hand in the unfolding of Church history?

[Frank Viola]: I wouldn’t classify myself as a “primitivist” in the sense that this author is using it. For instance, I don’t believe that we Christians should try and imitate the practices of the New Testament church and do nothing beyond that. If that were the case, we’d all have to wear togas, sandals, and speak Greek! However, the church of Jesus Christ is an organism, and it has a unique DNA. That DNA is part of Christ Himself. Therefore, the church’s DNA is unchanging. “Jesus Christ is the same, today, yesterday and forever” (Hebrews 13:8). Consequently, when the church is following her organic nature, in many ways she will look the same as she did in the first century. She will also flesh out the unchanging principles of the New Covenant, such as the priesthood of all believers, authentic community, the family of God, the Headship of Christ, the every-member functioning of the Body, etc. Tragically, the Christians of the third, fourth, and fifth centuries borrowed many of the pagan practices of their Greco-Roman neighbors and brought them straight into the Christian faith. And we have unthinkingly accepted them.

The problem with this is that many of those practices violate the DNA of the church. Instead of fostering the Headship of Jesus, those practices have usurped it. Instead of encouraging the priesthood of all believers, they have restricted it to a few. Instead of embracing the every-member functioning of the Body of Christ, they have suppressed it. So long as a church embraces a new practice that doesn’t violate the church’s DNA and the teachings of Scripture, then there’s no problem. But when it does, that practice should be abandoned. As Jesus said to the religious leaders of His day, “You nullify the Word of God by your tradition.” I believe that many of our modern church traditions have done this very thing. I’ve written a book entitled Pagan Christianity that establishes the above historically.

[Jon Zens]: I think the author has loaded the deck, so to speak. Generally, Protestantism has affirmed that Scripture is the final court of appeal for faith and practice. All post-apostolic history is subject to the scrutiny of the New Covenant documents. So, indeed, nothing after the apostles can be said to be binding or normative on believers.

What I am advocating is not to approach the New Testament with a wooden literalism. We must capture and practice the fundamental perspectives it unfolds. There is a great deal of freedom in how the body of Christ functions. In the New Testament we are not given a book like Leviticus that tells us in detail how to carry out church-life. But no church structure or way of doing things should contradict or squelch the New Testament basics like the priesthood of all believers, open/participatory meetings, making decisions with one-mindedness, and no caste system (clergy/laity).

Those who say “we want to follow the New Testament” are not throwing out all of church history, but they are saying, as did Robert Brinsmead: “To embrace the gospel means that we confess that all history but Christ’s stands under the judgment. It is His history plus nothing which justifies our existence” (Judged By the Gospel: A Review of Adventism, Verdict Publications, 1980; p.359).

The author would have to face the reality of history that the post-apostolic visible church since Constantine was under the thumb of civil leaders. As John Kennedy pointed out in Torch of the Testimony there have always been those minority groups that questioned and challenged the state-based form of Christianity. Until the Anabaptists blossomed in the 1500s such minorities were usually liquidated by the sword of the “Christian” magistrates!

It would seem that Protestantism, at least in theory, has stood for a form of “primitivism,” affirming sola scriptura, Scripture alone. So what is really so radical about those outside the institutional church who advocate following the New Testament patterns? Is it that they actually wish to practice what they see in its pages?

There are some outside of the institutional church who have argued that “house churches” are not the answer: they can become isolationist, inward-looking, focused on “distinctives” and caught up in a “house church movement” mentality. Some of these same people have argued for church as a loose, ad hoc, dynamic circle of relationships-in-Jesus and that regular meetings aren’t necessary or even beneficial. What is your take on this?

[Frank Viola]: In response to an earlier comment, let me point out that this entire interview is tightly focused on ecclesiology. I applaud the Christians in the second, third, and fourth centuries who endured untold persecution for their faith. I also applaud the acts of mercy that they engaged in which demonstrated the reality of the Kingdom of God on earth.

But our discussion here relates solely to the “ecclesiology” of the church, how it meets together and what its leadership looks like. That’s a different discussion altogether. And our forefathers in the third and fourth centuries departed from the apostolic tradition that was handed down to them regarding these practices. George Barna and I seek to make a historical case for the above in our book Pagan Christianity: Exploring the Roots of Our Church Practices (Tyndale, 2008). The book is fully documented with over 1,000 footnotes substantiating our claims. If anyone has read the first edition, this one is 10x better in every way. And it expands on the ideas that Jon and I have presented in this interview.

That said, in response to your question: I agree that “house church” per se is not the answer. I’ve stated my own concerns with the modern house church movement in many places. Many of those concerns coincide with what’s stated above; many of them go beyond them. In Dallas this year, I delivered a message at the National House Church Conference where I discussed 14 mistakes made by Christians outside the organized church in the past and exhorted the audience on things we can do to avoid repeating them.

That said, the New Testament does not envision an amorphous, nebulous church. The church is not simply relationships. Neither is it individual Christians who have tea and cookies every now and then. The word “ekklesia” has in view a shared-life community of God’s people who assemble together regularly.

The New Testament bears this understanding out. Every church in the first century was a tangible, locatable, visit-able, visible community where Jesus Christ was Head. People could see the church, experience it, visit it, and become part of it.

If I were living in the first century, for instance, I could visit the church in Corinth that met in Gaius’ home. I could visit the church in Ephesus that met in the home of Priscilla and Aquila. I could visit the church in Colossae that met in the home of Philemon. I could visit the church in Laodicea that met in the home of Nympha. I could attend their meetings, meet its members, observe them as they shared their lives together and as they expressed Christ in their gatherings. Try to read the letter of 1 Corinthians with an amorphous church in mind. It simply won’t hold up. The assembly in Corinth was a close-knit community that experienced many problems in their corporate life (1 Cor. 1-11) and had regular meetings that could be visited and observed (1 Cor. 14).

I think Robert Banks’ classic book Paul’s Idea of Community makes an indisputable argument that the church as envisioned in the New Testament was such a locatable, visible, touchable community, not a nebulous entity. The “phantom” church has no Scriptural basis.

[Jon Zens]: I find it difficult to square what is revealed in the New Testament with the notion that church consists of spontaneous interactions and ongoing relationships between believers. There seems to be “more” than that in the pages of the New Testament. How could Paul write letters to groups of believers in a city without there being some kind of mutual commitment to one another to carry out the gospel together? What did Paul mean when he said in 1 Cor.11, “when you come together as a church” to celebrate the Lord’s Supper? Paul wrote to the “saints, bishops and deacons” in Philippi. In Acts 14, Paul and Barnabas came back to churches and elders were recognized. There are many other such perspectives like these in the New Testament.

There is, I suppose, always the propensity to over- or under-organize. The organic church has a minimum of organization, with the emphasis falling on caring relationships. As I see it, some groups put too much emphasis on organization — “a biblical church must have elders,” and others are so “loosey goosey” that it woukd be very difficult to carry out Christ’s will together.

I think we see in the Book of Acts the body functioning in such a way that there is an inward spiral (building up one another) and an outward spiral (reaching out in ministry to the needy). House churches will avoid a navel-gazing, isolationist attitude by reaching out to the needs of their community or the world in concrete ways. House churches will avoid elitism and unhealthy focus on distinctives is by exalting Jesus Christ together in humility, keeping in mind that the Body of Christ is much larger than a few small groups. There is certainly a huge difference between the Lord moving people to do church in non-institutional ways, and getting caught up in a “movement,” which leads to various problems.

In fairness it must be pointed out that isolationism, elitism, unhealthy elevation of distinctives, and a “movement” mentality are just as common in institutional churches as they can be in simple churches.

Frank, in your pre published book, Finding Organic Church, you write: “If you’re part of a simple church that feels there’s something lacking in your experience of church life and how it expresses Jesus Christ, give some prayerful consideration to inviting an experienced worker in to present the Lord to your group in a new way and “equip the saints” to function accordingly.”

It seems in your view that the biblical model is for a church planter to be engaged to help lay the foundations for establishing a house church. Would you say that this is an absolute necessity? How would folks, especially in remote regions, find a trusted and “experienced worker”?

[Frank Viola]: The New Testament mentions over thirty churches. Every one of them was either founded by or later equipped by a traveling apostle after its birth. Paul makes mention of different giftings in the Body that are necessary for the spiritual maturing of the local assembly (1 Cor. 12, Eph. 4, et. al.). One of his points is that one member of the Body cannot say that another member is not necessary – “the eye cannot say to the hand, I have no need of you.” Paul makes a clear case in 1 Corinthians 12 and Ephesians 4 that the itinerant ministry is in fact necessary for the proper development and growth of a local body of believers. My experience over the last 20 years bears this out. I would describe it as a God-ordained resource that no church should do without.

As to your last question, one of my co-workers helps churches in remote regions. He manages a website that helps house churches and intentional communities find outside help. Groups that are looking for outside help, whether in remote regions or in populated cities, can go to: http://www.housechurchresource.org

Jon, do you have any comments on this?

[Jon Zens]: I think it is safe to say that groups forming outside the institutional church will need help. (The truth is, most institutional churches need help, but usually are not seeking it!). There are many resources for aid in our day. The type and depth of help needed will vary from group to group. In most cases it would seem wise for brethren in a new assembly to form relationships as the Lord leads with trusted workers who are well-respected and of a good report among the brethren. My observation would be that it is vital for organic groups to get started on the right foot.

Though I think some of the charges about “house churches” being isolationists may be fair in some sense, I see Frank that you have begun interacting with folks in the “emerging church” movement in writing for their websites or conducting workshops at some of their conferences. Are folks in the emerging churches open to ideas about critiques of clericalism and other institutional traditions? What positive directions or changes do you see in this “movement”?

[Frank Viola]: House churches are not a monolith. Some are sectarian. Others are insular and isolated. Others are very open and inclusive. I’ve often made the statement that trying to describe a “house church” is like trying to describe a plant! Which type are we talking about? The same with “organic churches.”

I have good friends in the emerging church “conversation,” as it’s being called, who I see eye-to-eye on with respect to many aspects of the Christian faith. One of them has to do with how we treat our fellow Christian brethren with whom we disagree. At the same time, I also disagree with much of emergent theology. My views on the Bible, Jesus, the creeds, etc. are quite conservative.

Some people in the emerging “conversation” are very traditional when it comes to church practice and structure. Therefore, they take issue with my ecclesiology. Others, however, both embrace and support my views on the church. Still others, interestingly enough, are “closet supporters.” That is, behind closed doors they will express their agreement and love for what I’m speaking and writing about, but they would never make their views known in public. The reason: because it would alienate them from audiences that they are helping with respect to broader issues like social justice.

Jon, have you had dealings with the emerging church movement? Or any thoughts on it?

[Jon Zens]: My wife and I visited an Emerging church some 60 miles from us. I have read portions of several books by Emerging authors. I have read articles, pro and con, about the movement. Obviously, it is not a monolithic movement. A wide variety of persons have “joined the conversation,” as they say. I thought Frank’s article on the Emerging Church was very well done, and pretty well summarizes my perspective on this blossoming movement. They are questioning a number things about “church,” and I find that very encouraging. It does appear, however, that for the most point so far they are still not really challenging the traditional conception of “the pastor,” and other baggage that comes along with that practice. Perhaps this will come in time. It would seem that the Emerging movement is another graphic indication that people are becoming dissatisfied with the status quo of “church.”

Many in house churches react strongly against sermons. They much prefer an informal and conversational approach to sharing the scriptures. Most would probably not be comfortable having one person stand up and share a teaching for 20 or 30 minutes. Yet, from passages such as 1 Cor. 14, there seems to be room for a variety of ways to participate when believers gather together:

a word of wisdom
a revelation
a word of knowledge
prophecy
teaching
exhortation
tongues
interpretation of tongues
psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs

In exercising some of these gifts, it may well be appropriate for one person to give an extended teaching. Of course, there would be time for questions and input from others afterwards. However, it seems that in particular, from my limited experience, there is not enough exhortation and other expressions of sharing listed above, in many house church settings.

What has been your been your experience in your own gatherings as well as other gatherings you’ve visited? It seems that many groups tend to fossilize into a rhythm or pattern that’s eventually just as structured and predictable as a typical church service in an institutional setting. Often they get very comfortable and inward with 20% of the folks doing all the talking. How do we guard against such tendencies? Especially if you have “no leaders”?

[Frank Viola]: With respect to the churches I’ve been a part of and have worked with, we firmly believe in the exercise of all spiritual gifts and all modes of ministry. Teaching, preaching, exhortation, prophesying, etc. are included. What we don’t have is weekly “sermon” given by the same person week after week, or by the same group of people week after week.

There needs to be a distinction made between “apostolic meetings” and “church meetings.” In an apostolic meeting, a Christian worker will minister to a particular church for an extended period of time. The worker (or workers) will preach and teach regularly. But these sorts of meetings are temporary; they don’t extend on forever. And their goal is to equip a particular body of believers.

In the church meeting, everyone is free to share. In those meetings, you may have one or two people give extended messages from time to time. But all are free and encouraged to share in the meeting. All things are fluid, and there is tremendous variety.

1 Corinthians 14 envisions a “church meeting.” Paul’s ministry in Ephesus in the school of Tyrannus and his one week with the church in Troas (where he preached a young man to sleep and out a window!) is an example of an “apostolic meeting.”

That said, you are right in that many house churches do not have a fully functioning spiritual priesthood. In many house churches, most of the believers are passive, and some (a few usually) tend to over-function and monopolize the gatherings.

Is there a viable and non-theoretical solution for this? Absolutely. I come back to the role of the itinerant worker. It’s the job of those who are called to apostolic ministry to correct this problem. Workers strengthen the under-functioners and equip them to function in the meetings. They also help to bring the whole church into balance, wherein everyone’s relationship to Jesus Christ is deepened and each one brings his or her part of the Lord in the meetings. They do a whole lot more than this of course, but your question was aimed at the church’s gatherings.

[Jon Zens]: The main features that emerge in 1 Cor.14 are 1) multiple participation by the brothers and sisters; 2) no one is “up front” leading the gathering; 3) everything expressed is to build up the others present. Each group is going to have a unique chemistry, of course. The key to me is to let the Holy Spirit guide each meeting. Some assemblies have difficulty getting people to participate; others have a few that tend to speak too much. Paul wrote 1 Cor.14 because certain perspectives had been forgotten. As William Barclay noted about 1st century meetings, “The really notable thing about an early Church service must have been that almost everyone came feeling that he had both the privilege and the obligation of contributing something to it” (The Letters to the Corinthians; rev. ed.; p.134).

Any group can fall into ruts. Each person has the responsibility to help everyone keep on track. It is probably for a group to evaluate it’s life together from time to time.

There simply is no biblical basis for “the sermon” being a part of a gathering. However, that does not preclude a person giving an extended teaching, accompanied with interaction and discussion, as the Lord leads. “Let the one who teaches, teach,” said Paul. However, teaching in the body is to be shared by all, and problems will result if one person overshadows the others in each meeting. When the Spirit is indeed leading the times together, a variety of Christ-exalting expressions should come to fruition.

What about “salaries for clergy”? Many Christians justify this practice by pointing to 1 Cor 9:1-14; 1 Tim 5:17,18. How would you answer this?

[Frank Viola]: The text in 1 Cor. 9 has in view traveling apostolic workers. The context is clear on this. Interestingly, the entire thrust of the chapter is on how Paul waved his right to be supported by God’s people. And I personally applaud present-day workers who do the same.

The text in 1 Timothy 5 simply has to do with giving honor to elders who serve the church a great deal. Honor is not a financial salary. That idea has to be imputed into the text. For those who want more detail on the above, I answer this question extensively in my book Pagan Christianity. There’s not enough space and time to cover it adequately in this interview).

[Jon Zens]: Certainly neither of these passages envisions our conception of a “salary.” 1 Cor.9 refers specifically to itinerant workers who are worthy to be helped materially by the brethren. 1 Tim.5:17-18 refers to a body of elders. There is nothing here about supporting “clergy.” I find it interesting that there has been an inordinate focus on 1 Tim.5:17-18 regarding “supporting preachers,” but it is usually overlooked that Paul had just spent the previous 13 verses talking about helping widows. Why don’t we spend the bulk of our time looking at how we can meet the needs of those hurting indeed, instead of using so many resources for the “salary” of “the pastor,” which is not even a function revealed in the NT?

Frank, you have written a number of books that talk about many aspects of church life. Can you tell us a bit about your recent book, God’s Ultimate Passion ? In what way does this book relate to church life?

[Frank Viola]: I would encourage your readers to read the reviews of the book on Amazon.com. The reviews present a good overview of what the book is all about. In short, the book tells a new story . . . a new narrative . . . of what God is after foremost. And amazingly, that narrative has everything to do with the church.

The narrative the book tells is not really new. But it’s been forgotten and lost, largely. Thus my readers have repeatedly said that it brought the message of the Bible to life for them, anew and a fresh.

In many ways, God’s Ultimate Passion is my most important work, and it’s a great foundation for my other books that deal with the nuts and bolts of church practice.

Jon, over the years, you’ve written a number of articles in your magazine, Searching Together. What 2 or 3 articles do you feel have had the most influence on others?

[Jon Zens]: That’s very hard for me to judge. From the feedback I know about, my 1993 article, “Four Tragic Shifts of the Visible Church” has impacted and encouraged many. I think my 1980 article, “‘As I Have Loved You’: The Starting Point of Christian Obedience” put some pieces together that became a turning point for more Christ-centered functioning in the Body. “Building Up the Body: One Man or One Another?” in 1981 caused quite a stir and was a catalyst for many to think through the traditional way of doing church.

With so many books and blogs about church outside the traditional/institutional mainstream, why do so many people continue to attend church even when they are aware of alternatives? Even when they are aware of problems? What are some of the reasons or excuses you’ve come across that people use?

[Frank Viola]: I would argue that the average mainstream Christian is unaware that there are millions of Christians who meet outside the organized church. I say that based on my experience. It’s still a relatively new and unknown idea among mainstream Christianity in the West.

For those who have heard and are aware, I think several factors come into play:

Tradition is hard to break and there’s considerable risk in doing so. So for many, it’s too costly, to frightening, or too risky to take the plunge. Many people like the institutional church the way it is.

Some have been pretty unimpressed with the “house churches” they’ve seen or been a part of. And I don’t blame them for that. Many (read it again – not all or most, but many) . . . many house churches are as dull, shallow, and boring as are many institutional churches. So there’s no draw.

[Jon Zens]: It’s very hard for people to break with a long-standing comfort zone. Often it takes a bad experience for folks to wake up, have a revelation of some serious problems, and then actually exit. Large numbers are leaving institutional churches for a variety of reasons. In 3rd world countries “house church” is not that shocking of a concept, for things are already pretty simple. But in our country to move from church buildings and programs to a informal setting is a change of staggering proportions.

I think George Barna pointed out in 2006 that for 90% of the people who attend an alternative church, the simpler version was not where their primary commitment was found.

I have found over the years that not a few people have read a lot about Christian community, and say they long for it, but the truth is they have no experience in it, and if they entered the life of such a context, they would find it difficult to get along with others. In other words, there are a lot of arm-chair Christian community folks who talk a lot about “what the church should be,” but who haven’t lifted their little finger to practice Christian love with others.

Click here for more from Frank Viola

Click here for more from Jon Zens

Frank Viola & Jon Zens – An Interview