Share

Viola's Organic Church Undermines Other Churches

One of the most significant and potentially dangerous themes in Viola’s Reimagining Church is his unwavering willingness to empty, undermine, anathemize, and otherwise destroy all institutional churches in favor of his brand of organic church.  He calls institutional church “heresy” and tells his readers to vacate it and overthrow the clergy and denominational systems.  He rejects any possibility of reformation from within existing church structure, and he rejects any possible co-existence between organic church and institutional church.  All this divisive rhetoric is based on his judgment, which comes from his “experience.” 

I’m not sure what sort of vast experience Viola has working within denominations to try to bring about reformation, or what sort of divine revelation he has been given to initiate the end of all institutional Christianity.  Maybe he has both.  However, he himself says that he may be wrong and that he’s open to being corrected.  And it seems to me that calling for a black-and-white, all-or-nothing solution that overturns a 1900 year-old paradigm should be based in an “I know,” not an “I might be wrong,” and it should be carried out in a less sensational way. 

I believe that the church should be revolutionized in much the way that Viola does, but since I wrote my first chapter in my book, I’ve realized that there must be a way to affirm and cooperate with the work of God in all His churches, leading all the churches to a more full expression of the “manifold wisdom of God.”  That is, the Universal Church's unity should be expressed through the love and mutual service of all the types of churches that exist now, whether organic or institutional.  In contrast, Viola believes mainly in the unity of organic churches (which are the only ones Viola recognizes).  Viola’s division of his “remnant” from the larger pool of “heretic” institutional churches is another blow against real Christian unity that already has roots in our common savior, our common doctrine, and our love.  

As such, it participates in the muddying of God's name and distorting of God's character just as much as denominational disunity.  

Do institutional churches unnecessarily hamper the ministry of their people, thus showcasing a wrong picture of Christian life and propagating an unhealthy corporate culture?  Absolutely.  Does that make those expressions of the church so hopeless that we should torpedo them, “reeducate” and steal what sheep we can, and bypass them in our quest for Christian unity?  I no longer think so. 

Viola seems to be trying to speed up this revolution through violent techniques (his separatist rhetoric) and full-scale separation, the very principles he speaks against when dealing with issues inside the organic church.  As Viola rightly says, successful church life requires each Christian to take up the cross and deny themself, laying down some rights for the sake of love and corporate unity.  However, where is this preaching of the cross when dealing with our bretheren rooted in the institutional church?  I say let’s make self-denial (the cross) the same standard for dealing inside church and across churches.  

Unity between organic churches and institutional churches would be extraordinarily messy and a hotbed of potential misunderstandings and offenses--just like unity between any two or three sin-marred people.  But to me, whether to strive for such unity is not really an option.