I Can't Believe This Book is Getting Published

...by a big-time publisher.  This is going to be interesting.

It's Frank Viola's new and improved Pagan Christianity.  And Tyndale is printing it, thanks to heavy-hitter and pollster-guy George Barna, who gets co-author credit. 

This book is going to honk people off.  Already is, even though it's not officially "out" yet (but you can get one now at their site.)  They sent me an advance copy to review on Kamp Krusty, because of the enormous influence I exert in the lives of both of my readers.

Here's what's a-ranklin' church folk:  They authors are basically saying -- get this, from a major Christian publisher --that the church, in its contemporary, institutional form, has neither a biblical nor a historical right to exist. 

I'm pretty sure I'm aptly summarizing, because it says -- quote -- "the church, in its contemporary, institutional form, has neither a biblical nor a historical right to exist" in the preface. 

And then things start getting controversial:

-- The "church building" concept is foreign to Jesus's idea of what the church is for.  It has "stalemated the functioning of God's people since the 4th century," and "There does not exist a shred of biblical support for the church building."  And -- oh yeah -- buildings cost American churches $50-60 billion annually.  There's that. 

-- Pulpits, altars, clergy vestments (shoot: clergy, for that matter), nuns, stages, sermons, performance-oriented worship, "sacred relics", buildings named after saints, and such are borrowed from pagan traditions, not from the church of the New Testament.

-- Making preaching the center of church gatherings has no biblical precedent.  Christianity "still has not recovered" from John Calvin's insistence on leading worship services, himself, from a stage.  Luther and Calvin believed each believer had access to God, not through the Eucharist, but through "the preached Word" -- something the writers say is not a biblical idea. 

-- The order of worship now defeats involvement of all the believers, and instead focuses on a few talented people, in the face of the practices of the New Testament church.

-- Protestant churches get the ol' familiar "order of worship" from the Catholic Mass.  And here they approvingly quote Will Durant, who says the mass was "based partly on the Judaic Temple service, partly on Greek mystery rituals of purification, vicarious sacrifice, and participation." 

-- Then there's the chapter on sermons:  "The Sermon:  Protestantism's Most Sacred Cow"

-- And the one on the "office" of Pastor, which the authors say doesn't actually exist in scripture:  "The Pastor:  Obstacle to Every Member Functioning"

-- "Tithing and Clergy:  Sore Spots on the Wallet" is a fun follow-up chapter.  They don't see a biblical basis for tithing to an instutional church, or "tithing" at all, for the Christian. 

-- We don't need Bible colleges.  Never did.  We've inhaled far too much of Athens' approach to knowledge, and the point of knowledge, and misapplied logical tools to the Christian life.

-- And don't get them started on the biblical basis of youth ministers.  Actually:  DO get them started on the biblical basis of youth ministers.  It won't take long:  There isn't any.

-- Also, feel free to get them started on "Sunday School", dressing up for church, worship "pastors", pews, the idea of "sacred spaces", and -- get this -- the "church fathers", who they treat less as all-knowing guides, and more as believers who imported their paganism to re-interpret the meaning of the church.   (This will cost the authors hip points.)

-- Most modern church-people misunderstand how to read the Bible.  They impart qualities to it that aren't biblical.  They don't pay attention to context, and miss the point, and widely apply particular verses that were written for specific situations in a specific context.

Like I say, I'm amazed Tyndale is publishing this.

It's footnoted out the wazoo, but it's readable for high-schoolers.  It's written to be accessible, which means, instead of saying it's "painstakingly documented", I can say it's "footnoted out the wazoo."  Of course, this doesn't make it true, but some people care about quoting other people.

They're going to make a lot of people think.  (What I've seen so far is a reaction against such a "negative" book, but not much refutation on the things that matter.)  The authors' point is not -- insofar as I gather -- that a practice is evil to the extent that its roots are pagan.  That's not it.  The point is that what we consider proper "church" has more to do with surrounding cultures than what Jesus had in mind. 

And honestly, now:  "Too negative", as a central criticism, means, "I prefer the status quo, and...that's about all I got."  As the authors point out, Jesus was a revolutionary, and a "negative" one at that, to those whose first interest was enforcing their version of religion.  They got pretty mad at him.

The authors warn people up-front:  If you think all the trappings of "church" are Holy Writ, the book may be too much for you.  And they're right. 

Did I mention I'm surprised Tyndale is publishing this?  I'm glad they are. 

(By the way:  Before reacting to my bullet-point summaries, read the book.  They make arguments I don't have space to repeat here.)

------------------------

MY OFFICIAL REVIEW:  Well, I liked it, doggone it.  A lot.  I like it because people need to think about this stuff.  And this book will bug a lot of the right people.  In love.

Mostly, I like it because I think they're right about pretty much everything -- that matters, anyway.  I'm an honest reviewer, no? 

The church Jesus envisioned was never about sacred buildings, sacred relics, sacred preaching, special clergy, spectator events, great orations, musical stars, non-stop knowledge accrual, and theological sophistication.  The church is a people, called out for God's purposes, mystically bound together by Christ, and led by Christ. 

In other words, they agree with me.  So, obviously, I highly recommend.

Five stars.

Comments

[Dave S]

Has anyone here ever been to a small group Bible study where everyone shares "what the scripture means to me." It's not always pretty.

[shaun]

Brant,
sounds like a pretty good read. I have never read either of these authors ( I have read Tozer though) but I feel that God is leading me in the same way as this missional or emergent or what ever you want to call it movement. I am Glad to read your comments and I can Identify with the views you blog about ,right there in front of God and everybody. This is all still a new way of thinking to me. But I can say from personal experience that The highly organized institutional church was one of the most effective tools of the enemy to get me to stop walking with God . Don't get me wrong I learned many great things in a Baptist church in my youth and I saw people who became Jesus to me. I also saw and felt the glaring judgment of people who were so caught up in order and doing things according to "sound doctrine" that they could care less about actual people.
I would love it if my younger kids could get to adulthood without ever experiencing that feeling of being an outsider in the church where they have been going for years.
We are called not to love doctrine or knowledge or programs or artifacts or music or chanting or order. We are called as the people of God to love God and to love people. Not just love them in some disconnected false piety that allows us to be condescending because we are so "Righteous" . That's a pant load (and I think you know what I mean) Chet. WE ARE NOT RIGHTEOUS!!! WE ARE FILTHY! WHAT MAKES US THINK WE ARE BETTER THAN ANY ONE? IS IT BECAUSE WE ATTEND SERVICES AND WE FEEL SOME SPECIAL TINGLY FEELING FROM CERTAIN WORDS OF SONGS WE SING TOGETHER ? CAN WE REALLY BE THAT DILUTED? Sometimes yes , I am afraid so. But as a certain really great song from one of my all time favorite Christian musicians says ,"Surely we can change, something". Thanks for your honesty Brant
Peace

[robbymac]

Jon,

I've read several of Frank's earlier books ("Who Is Your Covering?" which I agreed mostly with, and "Straight Talk To Elders", which was difficult to finish due to Frank's insistence that ALL CHURCHES ARE WRONG -- but he's right). But his negativity about anything BUT house churches -- saying stuff like it all "has no right to exist" -- may not sound judgmental to you, but it sure read that way to me. And I'm not a fan of institutionalized churches either, but Frank's writings were over-the-top negative.

I liked a lot of his points, but it was his excessive negativity and anti-church attitude that kept me from recommending his books to others. I'm HONESTLY HOPING that this new version will be more gracious than the original version. Because Frank DOES have a lot of good things for everyone to think about and wrestle with.

I look forward to my copy arriving, and I hope it is something I can pass on and recommend to others. But I will reserve further comment until the new version arrives.

[Kyle]

Brant,

As a member of your church I raise two questions about your comment above:

1. I understand in your usage of the phrase "the great unwashed" within its context to mean "everybody" "the masses" "the regular folk". However I take issue with this being the commonality uniting the Body of Christ. Our "busted-ness" is not what unites us as the Church, but what unites us as fallen beings (sinners and saints). What unites us as the Church is our holiness in Christ. So, if we are a "holy priesthood" shouldn't that be what is referenced as our signifying bond of commonality? Our holiness not our sin?

Which brings me to my second question.

2. If we are the "holy priesthood" of the only God, sanctified and justified by Him, for Him, what on earth (or anywhere else) could "dis-empower" us but ourselves? By "ourselves" I mean our own individual decisions with regard to obedience to Christ (e.g. "being in The Light", "remaining in Him, and He in us", "loving Him with all of our heart, soul, mind, and strength", "loving neighboors as our selves") I find it a bit insulting (and I don't mean that in a harsh way) if you seem to believe that any structure has the ability to "dis-empower" The Church.

I'm not sure if that's what you're saying or not (please forgive me if I've misunderstood), but I'd be grateful if you'd clarify the "dis-empower" comment.

Thanks.

I really like your blog.

[Molly]

Even if the only part of your review I read was this,
-- Then there's the chapter on sermons: "The Sermon: Protestantism's Most Sacred Cow"

-- And the one on the "office" of Pastor, which the authors say doesn't actually exist in scripture: "The Pastor: Obstacle to Every Member Functioning"

I'd want a copy...

But then you added THIS...

-- Most modern church-people misunderstand how to read the Bible. They impart qualities to it that aren't biblical. They don't pay attention to context, and miss the point, and widely apply particular verses that were written for specific situations in a specific context.

I'm sold. No, actually, I think I already wrote the book in my own head, via many late nights staring at ceilings trying to think things through.

And yet I'm also flopping around like a fish out of water, wondering where to go from here? (I keep looking at Eastern Orthodoxy and then turning back to a Michael Frost "Exiles" way of thinking, back and forth, back and forth)...

Honestly, I just don't trust us. I don't trust *me*, that's for sure. I've been through HOW MANY different stages thus far? Jesus-People-Hippy-Stage, then Charismatic, then Republican Christian Right, then patriarchy-homeschool-have-a-million-children group, then the Disallusioned Pastor's Wife camp, then Emerging, now...a big fat question mark (who loves Jesus. Er, does that count for anything?). Each one of those I was *sure* was supported in Scripture---was what God wanted. I really did. That's why I don't trust me, and I have very little trust left for the interpretations of everyone else...

I'm so annoyed with Sola Scriptura I can't even see straight if you mention it to me (so don't mention it), the idea that the Bible is so easy for anyone to understand. So I guess I'm afraid of what happens if we say the stuff the above reviewed book says is true... I mean, aren't we just taking the wild and wacky exploits of Protestantism and making them even WORSE (meaning, now we'll have the joy of having that many more little pope's running around claiming that the way *they* read the Bible is the *right* way???)...

There is a HUGE part of me that wants to throw off all structure like so much shedding exoskeleton. And this, oh, this sounds GOOD: The church is a people, called out for God's purposes, mystically bound together by Christ, and led by Christ.

But that statement is defined by whom?

See, that's the part that sounds scary, not in a good way.

[Brant]

Kyle -- I used "great unwashed" ironically, to allude to elitist attitudes.

Yes, you can "disempower" yourself. ("Disempower" isn't a word I use much, by the way...) But if you grow up being taught the wrong things, like, oh, you shouldn't do X or Y, simply because you didn't go to Bible College, well, that hurts, too.

Personal experience: Structures are in place that will STOP you from using your gifts in many places, if you aren't on staff. Regardless of your gifting, you will not be allowed to do certain things through official church channels, because someone else's salary and position is at stake.

If you need examples, I can furnish them at length. Not just involving me, but a lot of people. That's disempowering, yes.

Dave S. -- You have a great point. I don't like small group Bible studies, to be honest.

That said, have you been to any 'worship services' where only one person teaches, and no one is encouraged to bring a word of instruction, or follow-up with a question -- it's just an oratory, didactically presented to masses? I've been to a few (thousand) of them. It's not pretty, either.

And, proof-texters would note, if it weren't so ensconced in tradition, it's in direct opposition to Paul's explicit directions for order in worship. Direct opposition. But I'm not a proof-texter.

Molly -- Well put. I don't know where to start.

I have a feeling a formula isn't going to do it, or (as you know) treating the Bible as a How-To manual isn't going to do it, either.

That's why I, and I'm guessing you, are so drawn to Jesus. I just keep re-reading the Gospels. I suppose I'll get back to Paul's letters soon (I do like Acts) with a healthier understanding of his part of what was a conversation.

I suspect throwing up our hands is the perfect thing to do.

I don't say that to be cute. I've just seen how the relinquishing of control, Big Plans, Big Programs, and My Ideas has been a predecessor in the past to God doing things.

The mistake here is to engage our utopian tendencies, or desire to be Right, or win arguments, or parlay some new idea, albeit anti-instutional, into a new church growth model, and then write a book about it to assuage my constant need for significance. I've had it with that crap.

Oh, we'll have plenty of people saying we're "throwing the baby out with the bathwater", as though Christmas were about an instruction manual, born this day in Bethlehem.

But mystery is mystery, which means we can't figure it out. But we know that God favors humble hearts, people without Grand Plans and Programs, and prostitutes drying his feet with their tears, and He's the head of the His People, so we have to be okay with it. His people, called out for His purposes, not ours.

And he uses guys with incredible hair and ripped abs, like David, so long as they don't get full of themselves and start thinking they're big shots. Obviously, this gives me, personally, great hope. Thank you.

[chris, in Kentucky]

Wonderful, Brant. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I've ordered mine.
Here's a thought for everyone regarding this line of thinking: Give it time, the truth will rise to the surface. Don't jump too quickly to defend the status quo. If this is opposed to what God wants to do, it will fail. If not...

I remember when Brant first posted on this (We Stopped Going to Church). I was skeptical, and sent him an email outlining my concerns. In the interim months, I have watched this, and stayed in touch with him on it, and I see it bearing fruit, and I also see the shallowness of my own objections. Give it some time, and see what God does with it.

Upon reading all of the replies up to this point, I have a question for Seth, on the meaning of his statement, "I don't think you can properly "know" reality until you know it the way the church sees it."

This statement raises some obvious questions, the most significant of which is: how do you define 'the church'? Since there are so many 'churches' out there, most of which have different views of reality (hence the plethora of denominations and doctrinal statements), and ultimately only one 'Church', how are we to interpret what you mean by this? I know the Catholic answer, and the Orthodox answer; the 'Protestant' answer doubtless is different (with hundreds of variants)...
This is not a flame, just a serious question, for this is the important issue raised by this book and this post; who gets to define what the Church believes? Who polices our orthodoxy? Who defines our canon? Who has authority to accept and reject? Who must we trust to save our souls by assuring that we are only taught the truth? And most importantly, how do we 'know' that this being/institution is the right one?

[chris, in Kentucky]

You gonna post a(n) (unretouched, please) photo of those abs? We've all SEEN enough of the hair...

[Brant]

Oh, yeah, like I'm going to post a picture of my abs on my blog. Real mature, Chris.

But I *will* do it if you can get the internet monk to do it.

[ScriptureZealot]

Luther and Calvin believed each believer had access to God, not through the Eucharist, but through "the preached Word"

Luther wanted to get the Bible into the hands of each person. The Catholic Church wanted only clergy to be able to diseminate (sp?) the Word of God. Luther preached, but didn't believe this is the main way to access God or know Him through His Word.

Sorry if I've taken that out of context. I haven't read the book.
Jeff

[RevJeff]

C'mon Brant what about this whole being real with each other thing you keep promoting...? SHOW US THE ABS! (mine are posted under (photos of) BUDDDHA!)

[Joe B]

My mouth is watering. I say "let the deconstruction begin."

[ryan b]

thanks for the review. i'll definitely be picking this one up.

[Wolfgang Amadeus M.]

Brant-

Intersting.

I am a "drop-out" from a very institutionalized Church..one of the oldest in the world- one of the largest- that is busy shooting itself in the foot.

I now go to a church- that historically met in houses to begin with. They had their struggles- had some of their Temples burnt to the ground. Had many people go after them because of their "revolutionary beliefs".

This church meets in a chapel- that is more like a meeting house, than a chapel. There are not religeous ikons, no crucifixes, no Nuns, no priests- at least the kind you normally think of- who are vested, everyone there is unpaid. We tithe- and it goes to the poor. We work in orchards, fields and cannaries, we do humanitarian work- for those in need all around the world- and the Red cross competes with us- when it comes to disasters. We live everyday as a Christian- no ifs and or buts. Its not something that is practiced just at the chapel on Sunday. Its a physical and spiritual way of life- and we all practice it daily. 24/7 Christianity.

This Christmas season has been one of the best for me- due to this. I can honestly say- that for once, in my life, that giving was the most important aspect of this season. I had no desire to recieve. It was nice to get gifts- but, I truly recieved more in giving. This is due to the community I am now in. Love does exist there. It is something that I have never felt anywhere else. I can use my talents-and gifts, in the community. I can also preach- give talks,if I am asked. Everyone in this community at some point or another does. Celebacy- isn't a requirement to the priest hood. And, we do study the sacred scriptures and learn from them.

We're all priests- and the women are part of that too- they share in the blessings of the priesthood.

Its a very different change from what I am used to.

We also meet in houses, study also in houses, we meet as a community and play as one too.

As I said- its not just a Sunday only thing.

Great article Brant-thanks for sharing it.

blessings
Wolfgang

[Bill Kinnon]

Brant,
What are "abs"? I'm not sure I have them.

Just finished the book. My head is still reeling. I confess I tend to be with Robbymac in his assessment of Frank's earlier books and also agree that Brother Viola has a lot of great stuff to say.

I'll review Pagan Christianity this weekend at my humble corner of the Interweb. And I can't wait for Robbymac's Post-Charismatic to come out next year. (Not that they go hand in hand, but they do fit together somewhat.)

[Ed Brenegar]

Isn't the requirement that everything be "biblical" a non-biblical cultural requirement? Isn't what "we" think of as biblical, not the same thing that Jesus and Paul thought was "biblical"?
I hope they give a "biblical" rationale for why everything in the church must be "biblical" and why all cultural artifacts that are not "biblical" are somehow wrong.
I may agree on each of the specifics, but not on the rationalizations that lead them to their conclusions.
All this suggests to me is that we are clearly post-Reformational now, and it is unclear what comes next.
Where's Jesus when we need him?

[Note from Brant: Again, their point isn't that everything must be Bible-based. Rather, it's that much of what Bible Churches trumpet as Holy Writ just isn't.]

[J. Michael Matkin]

Part of what makes this uncomfortable for me is that I am sympathetic to much of what Viola (and now Barna - how much did he contribute, I'm curious to find out) has to say about the ways that the physical expressions of faith have become obstacles rather than avenues to experiencing God.

To criticize, for example, the poor historical assumptions at work in this book (or at least in the original version - I assume that the same basic arguments are in place) makes it sound like you are defending the status quo, which isn't the case at all. But while I realize that it sometimes takes a bomb-thrower to get people to pay attention, my fear is that this newly published version is going to fall into the hands of a lot of folks who are already sympathetic to its conclusions and provide them with some really questionable church history in the process.

And, as always with Viola's writing, I remain concerned most of all that the whole simple church/organic church/house church/pick-your-title church is not the early church reborn but just the early church reconstructed through the experiences of modern Christians who are dissatisfied with existing church structures and practices. My guess is that Paul or Timothy or Peter would be just as bemused by the house church movement as they would be by Latin Mass.

[John L]

I like Seth's reply, and wrestle not only with the tensions between love and knowledge, but -all- dualistic thinking about God.

I blogged an extensive review of PC some time ago and sense that Barna's reprint (with sorely needed editing) is going to shake things up - perhaps not unlike a "95 theses" for our time, though I do qstn some of Viola's spin on ecclesial history.

In August, Barna-Viola presales ranked 197,772 on Amazon. Today it's 10,505. I wouldn't be surprised to see this book reach and stay in the top 5,000 for months, maybe years.

It's fascinating that Barna saw such profound merit in this book to re-release it as co-author. This is a huge bet of one's career - George is showing some real courage here. Barna's transformation seems complete: from pollster to ecclesial reformer.

To John M (very first reply) - I think you're missing the point. Read this book.

Brant, you've got a great site! Happy new year.

[Ed Brenegar]

Brant,
I haven't read the book so I don't know the nuances of their argument of what constitutes a legitimate basis for the church. What other criteria do they promote other than being "biblical"?
My perspective is that everything is cultural, even that which is biblical is cultural. It may be 1st century or 21st century, but it is still a part of a cultural context. That doesn't mean it isn't relevant or even revelation, only that all of it is written from a specific cultural context.
The deeper question is whether there are values or principles that are trans-cultural and omni-temporal that we discover in Scripture. Some of my seminary profs would have us believe that all Scripture is universal, not rooted in a specific time and place, and, therefore, relevant, even the most egregious OT laws. Other of my profs taught from a perspective where the social/cultural context mattered and had to be interpreted to determine what was universal and what was particular. If the follow the former path, then we become blind to the culture, and if the former, we can easily ignore universal principles as simply culturally based and create a faith that is suited to my individual prejudices. From my perspective, this ultimately means that whatever church we have is a human creation trapped in a specific culture.
I'm not really an ecclesiastical nihilist. I actually believe that unless we treat that which cultural with seriousness, we will not understand how the Spirit of God calls us as the church into mission. We are at a time where the culture rejects institutionalism, and that is the new Gospel context. And that is what I see lying behind these critiques of the church like you describe above. As a result, this is less a "biblical" critique, than a post-modern social critique that finds easy support in Scripture. Ultimately, there has to be some organizational structure to the church. The question is what kind and in what proportion. And it is this question that right now does not have an answer.

[Brant]

Ed -- I couldn't agree more. Thanks for the clarification.

Again, I haven't read the original edition of this book; I'm guessing having an editor has really helped.

My read on the book is that they agree with us, too. I may have read it too quickly, and missed something. But they use several examples of how specific instructions of Paul, for example, should be placed in specific context.

I'm thoroughly awash, by virtue of my job, in evangelicalism. And while the cultural winds may blow against institutionalism, I can tell you, the people I communicate with on a daily basis aren't feeling those winds yet. I think this book will be helpful for them to think critically about some of their own "givens" about what scripture is for, and what the church is.

Shoot, forget answers for now. They're not really asking many questions. Such is my own little context.

John L. and Seth -- Appreciate your perspectives.

Seth and I are talking about the influence of the Greek in different senses. This is one reason for my disclaimer about not unpacking my bullet points. Not Seth's fault, but mine, for not taking the time to write more precisely.

[T]

Brant,

I can't believe it's getting published either. I'm also more than a little surprised at Barna's "co-authoring"--maybe doing the stats that he has done on the church for so long has forced him to ask the question of what has gone wrong. The book looks like it raises some important points along those lines.

In reviewing the comments, I thought I'd throw in a couple thoughts: Mike Taylor asks a great question (what are the alternatives?) that needs to be asked. I hope he and many others keep asking it. In my own asking of that question, one prior question has been very helpful: toward what end? To take from Covey, "begin with the end in mind." If you ask what God has been hoping to accomplish in people, the answers will give a good basis for evaluating what we're currently doing, and what kinds of alternative things make sense to do (and not do). Barna is likely haunted by the fact that our practices are perfectly designed to get the results we have been getting. There are lots of good alternatives, but first, what's God's goal?

That leads to another thought I had in reading the comments. For those of you that read the highlights of this book and some of Brant's other posts on this topic and feel a little bit like he's pulling on a string that, if continued, will turn the whole church-thing (the parts we love as well as the parts we dislike) from a lovely garment into a useless pile of string, I completely sympathize, but that's not what's going to happen (exactly). Some things may die. That is true. But anyone who's done any work in a garden knows that some death in the short term is the price for increased life and health. And I assure you that for many, many folks bringing up these issues (not for all), the goal is increased life in the Church. Chris, from Kentucky, had awesome advice on that point in his comment (before the abs). Consider the messages brought by the prophets sent to Israel & Judah---not overly positive, but worth spending some time hearing.

[Becky]

Wow. This is such an interesting conversation, I don't feel very qualified to jump in. So, please forgive me if I sound ignorant but I haven been thinking the modern church a lot lately. Specifically, in terms of how it relates or helps our society.

I am the mother of a severly disabled child. We receive medicaid to cover the expenses that our health insurance does not cover. My husband has a great job but we qualify for medicaid due to the extreme disablilites that our daughter has.

I think society has a responsibility to provide for the weakest members but honestly, I feel badly that we are receiving help from the taxpayers of Texas. Shouldn't the church be able to take care of these things? It seems to me that our churches should have fewer billboards, multi-media presentations, beautiful buildings and staff and instead, take care of people who need help. Even here in the U.S.

Currently, we are waiting for a spot to open up for our daughter to have surgery for a feeding tube. I've been force feeding her with a medicine dropper. But, I have to take time out from that to make phone calls so that the nursery will be well-staffed on Sunday. There isn't anyone from my church offering to come over and help me force-feed my child. But, they will contact me if the nursery isn't full of workers on Sunday.

I only give this as an example. Obviously, it shouldn't be all about me. But, my eyes have been wide open to the failings of the modern church since my daughter was born. On the other hand, I haven't found any alternative.

I've already ordered the book. Thanks, Brant!

[chris, in Kentucky]

Becky -
"In your orisons are all my (our) sins remembered."

Anybody else think that the whole stinkin' point has been summed up by Becky, here?

Forgive us, Lord, for wasting time on the interesting at the expense of the important.

[Tom P]

Just a quick comment on Jon Zens' comment: "Frank does not "hate" that which is non-home-church. He does believe that the Holy Spirit, not human leaders, should guide Christ-centered meetings..."

Is the Holy Spirit somehow apperaing in physical form to lead these meetings? The last time I check the Spirit work through "human leaders" (and others).

[Jon Zens]

To Chris -- In the gathering described in 1 Corinthians 14, the body came together and "each one" had a song, a teaching, etc. The presence of Christ through the Spirit is promised to the whole body, not to human leaders. In this sense, each person present who contributes as the Spirit guides is part of the leadership of Christ over his body. In 1 Cor.14 there are no people designated to "lead" the meeting. We trust the Lord to lead the meeting through each person present.
Jon