I’m glad that you enjoyed the interview. I won’t presume to answer for Frank – perhaps he’ll wander back in and answer for himself. But, I’ll answer a couple of your questions:

In Scripture, “sound teaching (doctrine)” seems to be associated with right living as well as right words (see Titus 2 especially).

I think most organic churches – at least the ones that I’m familiar with – do not “downplay the importance of the preached word”. Instead, they encourage the expression of all spiritual gifts as God works. But, since the traditional church has downplayed all gifts except teaching, it looks like teaching has been downplayed in organic churches.

Also, I’ve noticed that most organic churches make what I think is a scriptural distinction between proclamation (preaching) to unbelievers and teaching believers.

-Alan

Had I been you, I would have included the following questions that kind of flow with your style of questioning. If you know the answers by way of your association with Viola, please reply:

* Why does he make mention of the emergent church movement (in other interviews) so much? I’m with him on his concept of what the ekklesia should be, but the emergents are known for being high on “seeker-sensitivity” and low on sound theology, thereby producing a bunch of fish, but unfed ones. If he associates with them, why?

* What kind of strain (if any) has his move to organic church made on his wife and children?

* What does he think of the Christian film industry?!

* It seems that he doesn’t speak much about the “sound doctrine” reference we find in the NT. He also seems to downplay the importance of the preached word. My question, therefore, is what do organic church folks actually do when they gather? The reason I ask is because it appears a lot of unbiblical stuff would come out either by misinformed or new believers if they’re not consistently rooted in the Word (especially in a verse-by-verse, exegetical way). It would seem that if people aren’t getting a guided, regular diet of the Word, there would be a lot of room for out-of-context biblical ideas, eisegeting texts, and other kinds of error.

Thanks!

This conversation has resulted in my posting of a more complete expostulation of my thoughts at my blog; you (Alan) and your readers are invited to drop by and interact with me and my readers (who are mostly not baptists). And like the good book says, how good it is when brethren dwell together in peace in the blogosphere, for there is the blessing of God.

Well, check it out HERE if you please.

I think the Holy Spirit would be consistent in regard to Scriptures, although he can certainly reveal himself among groups that accept differing canons. The presence of the Spirit is paramount.

Yes, there are “house churches” with an episcopal leadership. I suppose it is possible for an organic church group to have one elder (bishop) for a span of time until others mature enough to be recognized as elders.

I’ll send you an email.

-Alan

>>Even if we know exactly which books are part of the canon and if we know exactly what form the church should take, without the Spirit it is worthless.

I would agree, I think. I would put it differently though, without the spirit it cannot be a church. My conversion took place in Latin America when I was around 12 or 13. I had not been raised in the church at all and knew nothing about Christianity until that time. The church I was going to was meeting in a (refurbished) garage and when I look back I see that doctrinally it was fairly fundamentalist and narrow-minded theologically. But in spite of that the people really loved each other and me and that was something new to me. That only comes from the Spirit. Charity is a theological virtue (Aquinas) and thus cannot be imparted apart form God's grace.

>>I would prefer the Spirit as leader of the church and designator of Scripture to a community much more than any episcopal form of govt or church council.

So then you are saying that you are open to the Spirit leading congregations into new discernments of the NT canon. A congregation could genuinely make the claim after studying, say, 1 Clement (a fine and edifying writing, as you know), that it is in fact uniquely inspired, like 3 Peter or Jude.

I am also thinking that you can certainly have episcopal government with home churches. But is that not the case with organic churches? I suppose not.

I am also working on a PhD and I am also focusing on the ecclesia, though in the context of converts form Islam. Would be happy to be in touch with you by e-mail if you have the time: winterlightning [a+] safe-mail [D0T] net

Salam.

AD

What does the Spirit have to do with the NT canon? The Spirit reveals God and truth to us, whether through Scripture or through other means. Even if we know exactly which books are part of the canon and if we know exactly what form the church should take, without the Spirit it is worthless.

I would prefer the Spirit as leader of the church and designator of Scripture to a community much more than any episcopal form of govt or church council.

By the way, I’m enjoying the conversation also. I didn’t think you were being “snarky” at all.

-Alan

Yes, it is good the Spirit is sent. But what does that have to do with the NT canon? When did the Spirit give us the canon? How do we know that James is uniquely inspired and that 1 Clement is not (or at least, not in the same way)? How do you know that other than trusting the judgment of the church fathers and, specifically, the Synod of Rome in 382?

Let’s just take the congregational, non-episcopal thinking to its logical conclusion: each congregation decides on its own what should in the NT canon. I don’t see how it can lead to any other conclusion. But I am enjoying this conversation, and while my writing may be pointed it is because I am trying to be brief, not snarky.

Yes, we can learn from the church father – both about the canon and about the church. But they cannot be our final source of understanding. I guess its a good thing that Jesus sent his Spirit after his ascension, otherwise we would not know where to turn at all.

-Alan

The question you ask at the end is precisely what I have in mind. I do disagree with some of the positions popular with some of the church fathers. But it seems like a genuinely important question: if they could mess up so hugely on something so basic as how the church is run, then why should we think they got the canon right?

Ultimately, if the organic model is correct then each congregation (or person?) should discern for itself what is and is not divinely inspired, right? That i fact was the at least in regional terms: the Roman church which was famously conservative did not use Hebrews or Revelation. Only after being influenced by the African Christians did they accept the apostolicity of these books.

In any case, my point is to say that the people who discerned what would go into the NT lived their faith in a way that was profoundly alienated from the NT is, to put it nicely, problematic.

You said: Your other arguments (Ignatius, Tertullian, etc) were from church history. This is exactly Frank’s point. Many believers take their understanding of the church from various people in church history without considering Scripture. I agree that the church developed into an institutional organization soon after the NT documents were written. However, I do not think this is how the church is described in Scripture.

But in the end you can’t (I suspect) have it both ways. If these messed up church leadership then they probably did not correctly discern which books were and weren’t inspired. That means the collection of books in the NT is wrong. Maybe Zwingli was right, and Revelation shouldn’t be in the NT. Maybe Luther was right and we should toss out James.

To say that there was one church that belonged to the NT and was “biblical” and then another one (fifty or so years later) that was early but “unbiblical” cannot be justified in any way shape or form.

The guys I have mentioned–Tertullian, Ignatius of Antioch–were the same guys who helped to determine what would be included in the NT and what would not.