There was an obvious disconnect between your podcast and his afternoon session. It would have been good to talk to him one on one over the weekend, but we only spoke in passing. It seemed he very much agreed with a lot of what Tim Keel said at the round table Saturday night…but I couldn’t help but wonder if he felt like he was in the middle of the whole “pagan christianity” up there between those different perspectives. My two cents.

hey josh
it doesn’t feel any better being over 40 and seeing yor peer group sit in those kinds of circles. thanks for sharing -

whats up will. glad to see you stopping by. and again . . . i hold no bitterness over you jacking my coke.

i did want to speak with him about my reflections. but he was always surrounded by the typical autograph hound types you get at conferences. he did jump in and agree with tim. but i’m not so sure he knew exactly where tim was coming from on the theological perspective. plus he said “brother tim” way too much for my tastes. again, i had flashbacks to my old pot luck dinner baptist days. amen?

i am glad chris pushed back a bit with his reflections. did you get the feel that he was “angry” being up there? or at the very least, just bored with it? it might just be me, but he just seemed flippant with the whole thing. and i’m wondering if that doesn’t have to do with some of his thoughts on the church emerging, etc.

btw will, you didn’t tell me you were at prince avenue. you might have hung out with some of my friends during the time you were there.

lowpocket.
i’ve got nothing against 40 year olds. i should probably clarify. i was meaning to say that those over 40 and those with white hair have a stronger inclination to prefer absolute, dogmatic, declarative statements. which seem a bit out of place in a church emerging conversation/conference. so it’s less to do with the age and the type of people who enjoy that type of presentation.

Hmm. The really interesting thing, to me, is that most people who take the “paganism/greek philosophy/whatever was baptized into the church” are not big fans of ideas like the Trinity. I hope I’m not showing my backside too much, as I haven’t actually read the book, but that’s at least what I understood his thesis to be, so it’s just surprising that he would be such an old school Trinitarian. And to skip the entire Old Testament and the gospels??? He sounds quite odd. At least he yelled…..

that would be my thought as well alan. great point. i didn’t bring it up because i don’t want people to think i’m poo-pooing on the trinity. but to me, the idea of the trinity is closer to a metaphor borrowed from greek thought than it is a biblical construct. it seems highly shaped by greek and ‘pagan’ influences.

i’m not even banging on him for beginning with the trinity. that seems like a lovely place to start when discussing the relationality and posture (that of embrace) of the church. it’s just that i’ve got a huge problem when your whole argument is that we’ve created traditions that are pagan all the while creating an extra-biblical historical story of what eternity past was like. sort of ironic.

that’s a hell of a weird start. and again, maybe my problem was just that it was a weird tone and conversation to have at an “emergent” event. but there was just something about the whole deal that just felt “off”.

seriously.. what do ‘trinity’ and ‘eternity past’ have to say to each other?

two greek abstracts that have served as best guesses at some sort of truth.

sad to hear about your encounter. I too heard a very different person in your podcast, as well as in his blog interviews.

Wow, I wouldn’t have expected to hear the phrase ‘eternity past’ at an Emergent event. I haven’t heard it for years either.

It sounds like he drew on material from another of his books - God’s Unending Passion. Here’s an excerpt from a book review of it:

We end up understanding the Kingdom better, which is essential in living out an unending love affair with God.

In the second section of God’s Ultimate Passion, Viola introduces the concept of a homeless God.

That part where God gives Jesus a wife, the church, like he gave Adam a wife, Eve, because it wasn’t good for Jesus to be alone - that just seems weird to me.

About the under/over 40 thing: statistically speaking, maybe the numbers support what you said…but person by person, some of the most influential voices don’t fit your under 40/over 40 statement.

what about Brian McLaren, Andrew Jones, Scot McKnight, Jim Wallis and Diana Butler Bass? (And Jim Henderson of course whose views I know particularly well)

What about Mark Driscoll? What about all the under 40 very conservative Christian bloggers? There are lots of them out there just as there are lots of young emergent/emerging Christian bloggers. Young men have been some of the most rigidly dogmatic Christians I’ve encountered. Older people often have their views moderated by age and experience into at least a kinder gentler conservatism, if they stay conservative.

Josh is there a construct you think fits what the Bible says better than the Trinity? Or do you think it’s the best one, but Frank Viola was was getting way too speculative when he shared the conversations in eternity past between membesr of the trinity?

Hmmm- shady historical assumptions and an abrasive tone?
Say it isn’t so!
yeah… I think the flaws in Pagan Christianity absolutely undermine the whole thing… and those flaws all pretty much revolve around what you saw coming out there.

on another note- call it whatever you want (I don’t think the idea of the Trinity is any more pagan than a lot of what Viola criticizes), but the idea of a relational God of Father, Son and Spirit is pretty much central to the Scriptures. I think I would call something like the age of accountability or the just war theory or supralapsarianism shaky looong before I pin that word on the theology behind “Trinity”. Just my 2¢

Did Viola talk ‘Paul’ at Soularize as well? I need to find the audio. I would be interested to hear N.T. Wright’s reaction to Viola’s commentary on the Jews.

Josh, perhaps you haven’t been keeping up, but other people in emerging circles have taken on deconstructionists and other theological skeptics. Scot McKnight has taken on Spencer Burke and Jamie Smith has taken on Peter Rollins. I could go on to talk about David Fitch and Geoff Holcslaw.There are really many of us in the “emerging” conversation who can recite the Nicene Creed without crossing our fingers. You don’t have to agree with us but when you wave the bloody shirt of antisemitism and assume the personal tone about Frank Viola that you’ve taken you poison the wells of conversation.This is the sort of polemical approach that turned many of us off whan the fundamentalists indulged in it. Surely we can do better in emerging church discussions.

frank. i didn’t wave the bloody shirt of antisemitism. and trust me, i keep up with what goes on in emerging circles. and you’re not poisoning the wells of conversation when you challenge the absolute dogmaticism that someone spouts. that’s not conversation. that’s al mohler.

Bro, that was strong.

Frank, you are trying to suggest some sort of mutiny. which is funny, since there has never been a party position nor a single leadership. As far as I can tell, emergent has been ok with disagreement right from the startings.

disagreement in charity, conversation, and humility. not in absolutes and shouting matches.

or maybe not… i think i may have read you wrong.

I think you should have Al Mohler on the podcast. And I’m not even joking. He seems like he would go for it.

Not that I have a right to make demands, but I would like an explanation of why “emergents” think it is ridiculous for folks to hold tightly to their beliefs and stances on certain issues. What exactly is the issue with believing in absolutes? And “we can’t know everything” or “we cannot know absolute truth” does not qualify as an answer because it is an absolute statement.

matt mc.

i mean i think you’re misunderstanding me. i have positions i hold. but i also recognize my own limited perspective. so although i may believe strongly in things, i simultaneously recognize my particular history and context and their role in shaping my views. when you do that, you quickly realize it’s hard to hold things tightly. you find your grip much looser. and again . . . i’m even fine if you do want to hold things tight. i just find it odd that you have to yell and scream in order to hold those things dearly.

I agree with you on that. Yelling and screaming are unnecessary. They’re signs of uncertainty in one’s beliefs, if you ask me. Too defensive.

helen. thanks for the excerpt. you make a good point about age. i guess i was just trying to be snarky. i definitely know a lot of folks older than 40 who are legit. i think it has less to do with age than it does mindset. i guess i was just trying to be funny pointing out that most people with gray hair say amen and most people who don’t have gray hair don’t. it was a bad joke i think.

BOB. thanks for stopping by man. you’re right. i do think the trinity is casually alluded to in a few places. which is why i lean towards trinitarian thought. my point was that it’s pretty “iffy” to recreate a historical reenactment of what happened in eternity past. that’s something for the drama teams and john hagee.

Josh, is there a podcast or good summary of things talked about by Viola at this conference? I would be interested in hearing exactly what he said. There are important things to be said about the Trinity and pre-creation, but it almost sounds like he was giving the typical fundamentalist conversations that God and Jesus had. He just sounds like a real odd cat. I mean, as someone staunchly Trinitarian, I would still not skip the OT or remake conversations or whatever.

yeah. they recorded it. i recorded my own tape of it, but i want to make sure those who put on the conference don’t want to release it first. if they put it up, i’ll link to it. if they don’t, i’ll put my copy up on the podcast.

Cool deal. I look forward to hearing it one way or another.

well, if all that is true i definitely agree. and if i’d been there i might have just walked out. nothing turns me off more than arrogant absolutist bellowing.

i enjoyed the podcast interview you guys had with him, but i have to admit even then some of his framing language irked me.

i guess i’m gonna have to break down and give the book a look.

Dear Alan. Frank’s message was a very short but passionate version of the story he tells in his book “The Untold Story of the New Testament Church” - http://www.ptmin.org/untold.htm

The book goes into detail on the narrative and discusses what he bases his conclusions on. He also talks about the importance of Israel and the Hebrew faith in his book “God’s Ultimate Passion.”

As to your other question, Frank and N.T. Wright share wide agreement on Israel, Jesus, Paul, the New Testament, and the kingdom of God. Frank has great respect for Wright and deems him not only a friend, but one of the foremost scholars of our time.

Blessings.

JEANETTE. thanks for the heads up on those books. are there any excerpts of either of those 2 books floating around online without having to buy one or both of those books? but since you’ve read them, we’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and trust that frank values and believes in Israel’s part in the narrative of the church. and we’ll also defer to your inside know on bishop tom. although i don’t think anyone was challenging their friendship. rather i think some of the commenters just thought that might be an interesting debate.

so thanks for jumping in here. we’ll tentatively defer to your judgment on the jewish stuff since you’ve read the books. i think most of our (some of us at the conference) frustration had to do with the tone, historical work, and absolutism that was taken.

either way, thanks for your comment.

josh,
absolutley no offense taken about about over/under 40’s. thats not what i meant at all. didn’t mean to open any cans with that.

i was just sayin when one is over 40 - like i am - and live where i live - it gets pretty desolate for peer’s over 40 who are thinking, asking, searching, or pondering a journey such as this. most around here would rather sit in the circle of the pic u posted.
peace out
mj

Josh,
This past weekend’s emergent conference was the first one I have ever attended. I went to get a feel for what some emergents are like. I guess I was seeing things a little differently than you. I did not get the feeling that Frank Viola was bashing or against the Jews, legalism yes, but not the Jewish people. I am sorry that he made you feel like an idiot but I kind felt that way listening to Pastor Keel and another brother try and answer the question on “What would stop them from becoming another dead denomination” (or something like that). I enjoyed Frank’s Passionate presentation and I enjoyed Pastor Keel’s teaching. The difference between the two was stark - Viola seemed to be sharing from an experience in discipleship while Keel was presenting interesting theories that he might try.
Also talking with Chris Haw he said he did not consider himself a part of the emergent church. He also came off to me as a very angry person. But I could be wrong with that impression.
I did think that the conference was well organized and it did present different styles and views and for that I appreciate it.
I would not want you to make the mistake of confusing passion with dogmatism - the difference is in the Spirit - I did not get the feeling from any of the main speakers that they were dogmatic - it seemed to me that they were all still seeking.

LOWPOCKET. no worries man. thanks for sharing.

CHRIS. Thanks for sharing your perspective man. you’re probably right. i guess it just depends on what side of the aisle you’re on i suppose.

dude, you got a recording of Frank’s keynote??! You are the only one, because, coincidentally, both our recording and Frank’s personal recording got messed up and they are unlistenable. Ours didn’t even record and Frank’s sounded like aliens choking to death. I asked him, “are you sure this isn’t you?” He had simply chalked it up to the will of God that no evidence of his keynote existed… UNTIL NOW!!!

yeah i’ve got it josh. let me convert it and i’ll email it over to you guys. what else are you missing? i’ve got 6 or 7 talks.

It would seem to me to be a very prejudicial statement to count the number of over 40 vs under 40. I am 47. I also spoke at conference and most of those attending my session were under 40, but who cares what age. That seems rather silly! I was doing “emergent” things before there was “emergent” over 15 years ago. Again who cares! Why does age make a difference? I understood that there was at least 8 under 40, so? About “Anti Semitic”. How can that be applied simply because he didn’t cover the old testament in that particular talk? As far as yelling and being passionate, that is simply styles. Personally, I think that emergent sometimes intellectualizes too much and is not passionate. What about the angry prophets, speaking of the old testament. And, what about Matthew 22, Woe to you pharisees. There is plenty to be angry about. Anger is in fact a part of worship, as is sorrow, joy, and doubt. I am sorry if everything must always be happy and pleasent. I work in a world where the poor and oppressed a constantly being beaten down and diminished. ANd, when we fight for their rights we become very angry and passionate.

BRUCE. Yo man. definitely didn’t say anti-semitic. as i recall, i think i said it wasn’t anti-semitic. and i also clarified the age thing a couple of comments back. you may not have had a chance to read them. but i said it was more of a joke. i don’t think you have to be young to “get it”. whatever the hell “it” actually is. in fact, i know a lot of older folks who get “it” while a lot of the younger folks are just trying to jump onto the next fad. i was making a joke (albeit poorly delivered) about the kind of people who like to say amen.

and i’ve got no problem with being angry about injustice. but i don’t think i’m going to do a walk through the bible presentation yelling and screaming. so let’s not put words in my mouth man. i got mad respect for what you’re doing down there. and i appreciate your perspective. but i’m not saying it’s not ok to be angry. i’m saying its not cool to give a keynote talk and be angry. and to give the appearance that you’re going to hit somebody or pull some snakes out of your pocket and go holy roller on them. anger can be a very useful device. but i’m not sure what a bunch of people sitting idly at a conference did to warrant anger.

Josh,
“Yelling and screaming - Angry - Hit somebody - pull snakes out of your pocket - go Holy roller”
I find your description of Frank Viola’s style of delivery very unfair. Is it what he said or how he said it that you have a problem with? You have attacked the man, is this what you are about? To say he “give the appearance that you are going to hit somebody” when did he do that? Brother, as Pastor Keel said - Language is important - I would encourage you to go to Frank Viola with these concerns of yours before broadcasting your attack to the world.

I also attended the conference and was a witness to the “emotionally charged” diatribe. Frank’s “delivery style” definitely was not what I had expected (nor my “cup of tea”). I had read many of his books: “Untold Story”, “Rethinking the Wineskin”, “God’s Ultimate Passion”, and lastly “Pagan Christianity”. My eyes were opened in each of these books to concepts I had never really explored - I rate each book highly. In each of these books, I detected a passion (not anger, but passion) for making us aware of how far from the early church we really have strayed. I read Frank’s books like I read Shane Claiborne’s book: I cannot totally re-do my life to live the life of Shane (my family would leave me) but there are many pieces that CAN be used to shift our lives that direction.
Now, back to the speech. His talk was based around his book on re-ordering the Epistles so that they tell a narrative. I am hugely in favor of that, having read Michael Goheen and Craig Bartholomew’s “Drama of Scripture” that gives the metanarrative of the Bible as a 6-act drama (inspired by NT Wright). When we are able to see the overarching Grand Story, in its proper sequence and context, we can more clearly see the MOVEMENT of God, and his calling us into that missional movement.
All this to say that while I love wrestling with message of Frank’s books, I don’t think he did justice to his ideas by his “presentation style” nor the very narrowed point he was trying so hard to make. (Suggestion: Barna might consider doing more of the book tour gigs for “Pagan”…)
But I will also say that the broad spectrum of speakers that the Cohort guys put together makes me love the Emergent thing even more!

[...] me get my 1 complaint out of the way (in addition to my gripe from yesterday). I’m not sure why every conference feels the need to have “worship” music before [...]

CHRIS. Fair enough Chris. you make a good point. i used language in the same way. and i slipped into the same caricature of what frank did. so i apologize. although the first 2 really happened and aren’t just language. now that i apologized for creating a caricature, perhaps frank would like to apologize as well.

Josh, Frank is from a pentecostal background. He went from there right into house chuch gatherings. This is the type of preaching he heard as a young, growing Christian. He’s not yelling at anybody. He’s just using a preaching style in which being loud is a way of showing how passionately you mean what you’re saying. If that’s not your cup of tea that’s fine but mindreading on the basis of traditional differences in preaching style is a perilous enterprise. And as far as dogmatism goes I’m one of Frank’s best friends and I think of myself as a postmodern Anglocatholic. He gets along very well with people who differ with him. I just don’t see what he has to apologize for.

fine guys. i stand corrected. i don’t want an apology. i’m just saying if you guys want me to apologize . . . then it should go both ways. frank used extremes and polarizing language and spurious historical conclusions.

all i did was make a joke about punching people and playing with snakes.

i’m not joking about the yelling or angry tone. i worked in megachurches where we used million dollar sound systems and lights. just because i grew up in a particular tradition doesn’t meant that its exempt from critique. or that for the rest of my life i have to be known for being a “big sound system and lights guy” talking about how to have a better marriage.

so that’s cool that frank grew up pentecostal, but surely your communication styles change once you collide with another paradigm.

and i guess that’s my point. you would think a house church guy would be all about conversation and low key relaxed generous tones. like a family and friends around the dinner table.

so i’m not apologizing for that. i’ll apologize for my poorly delivered jokes about snake handling and punching people. i suppose those were done in bad tastes.

and for the record, i don’t think frank is anti-semitic, a bad person, or even a bad historian. i’m sure he’s a lovely bloke. i just defended him countlessly and in numerous places for things that in hindsight aren’t true. so i don’t want to be known for recommending someone and telling them what they’re about only to come off like a liar because it’s not true. that’s the point of the post.

Thanks for the clarification, Josh.

Josh – I thoroughly enjoyed Frank’s presentation, as did many others both over and under 40. Many of us thought it was powerful and arresting. Some of us were quite impressed that he spoke for over an hour without any notes and recited the story of the early church in order from memory and did it in a captivating way. He was jovial and personable during your interview with him, and he smiled and was quite comical and witty during his message. Frank was passionate at certain points in delivering his message, but he was not angry. He also made it very clear that he was leaving a lot out of the talk due to time, and the documentation for his historical conclusions are found in his book on the Story of the New Testament Church. I also saw him smiling throughout the conference, and laughing also. From what I saw he was one of the most approachable and accessible speakers there. I constantly saw him talking, smiling, and laughing with the people at the conference.

Your public assessment of Frank Viola reflects neither the majority of people who were there nor the people who know him. Your assessment was also premature. Premature because you did not speak to Frank directly about your concerns after his message was given, and wrong conclusions were drawn because had you spoken to him you would not have been able to say what you did publicly. Had you spoken with him I think your “distinct impression that he was angry and upset” would have evaporated. Your actions seem to communicate that you wanted to come away with unsubstantiated conclusions, and you did.

It would appear that you have an axe to grind. Why would you misquote Frank so badly? You say, Frank said that “every Gentile in Paul’s time drank blood out of skulls.” Frank didn’t say that. He was simply trying to capture some of the flavor of the Gentile background in the first century. There was also nothing anti-Jewish in his talk; he spoke of the Judaizers who went to Galatia as part of his story.

Your unmitigated bias is also displayed in your comments about Frank’s workshop. I was in this workshop and minus his wife, there were 8 people under 40 present, not 2 as you mistakenly (and dogmatically) report. There were 4 people from Ireland at the conference who all loved Frank’s main presentation, and three of them were under 40. I spoke to at least ten people who viewed his talk as the highlight of the entire conference.

I believe Tim Keel said at the conference that we need to learn how to “disagree well.” You have utterly failed to provide a loving model of how to disagree well with someone like Frank. You have erected straw-things and criticized them instead of taking the time to discern Frank’s heart. There may be areas indeed where you see things differently than Frank, but bypassing direct conversation with him - when he was fully accessible to you – has left your criticism bereft of credibility.

Jon

In hind sight, it might have been beneficial for Frank Viola to preface his talk with a bit about his journey from institutional to organic house church, including his Pentecostal heritage. Then he could humorously “warn” us that there might be some yelling and thumping forthcoming (especially for those of us coming from the soft-spoken mainline traditions). I guess the introduction might be able to cover some of this as well. I do like his stuff - it really causes you to re-think your underpinnings!

By the way, I did note in the bio that Frank was a teacher in public schools - I would be willing to bet that NO one fell asleep in his class!

i’ll be more than happy to go back and edit up my post so it makes you happy jon. i’m sorry if i ruffled feathers. but if i can’t give my honest reflections . . .

AGAIN . . . LET ME REITERATE.

1. i’m sure frank is a nice guy.
2. i’m sure frank is a decent historian.
3. i don’t think frank is an anti-semite. or an anti-dentite for you seinfeld fans out there.
4. i’ve got no problem disagreeing with someone.

so that is what i’m declaring definitely about what i think about frank.

as for everything else. LET ME REITERATE.

1. if a speaker wants to be passionate and speak in gross overstatements and extremes . . . then don’t be surprised when someone else pushes back in the same way.

2. if you’re going to do shady historical work in parts, or jump to shady assumptions . . . then don’t be surprised when someone else questions it.

3. if you’re going to scream and yell and be “passionate” . . . then don’t be surprised when someone asks what happened to “conversational, i’m in the living room with my house church” frank and why those two styles of communications are complete opposites.

4. if you’re going to appreciate and welcome the endorsement of his book on our podcast with over 250,000 subscribers and my blog with it’s endorsements that no doubt put money in frank’s pockets . . . then don’t get your feathers ruffled when i choose to remove my endorsement and clarify my previous positions. sorry to be pretentious but you can’t have it both ways.

5. if you’re going to pop off about the “pagan” roots of christianity . . . then don’t be surprised when someone else pops off at the apparent dogmaticism that reared it’s ugly head.

i like frank. i’m sure he’s a nice guy. but i didn’t like his keynote. i didn’t like his tone. i didn’t like his historical work. and i didn’t like his conclusions.

i gave him the benefit of the doubt before hearing him and endorsed his book and him without ever reading or hearing him. now that i have, it’s my right to take back that endorsement or at least couch it what i experienced this past weekend.

it’s nothing personal. if you publicly endorsed my blog or podcast previously and then had reservations about it at a later date, feel free to take back your endorsement. you don’t need my permission and you don’t need to have a sit down with me face to face. unless of course you say some shit about my momma at which point i’d have to kick you in your neck meat.

tongue in cheek obviously. have a little fun with it man.

[...] I’d like to publicly update my thoughts. I know most of you probably don’t have the time to read through all of the comments below [...]

i know nothing about this emergent shinanigans you are talking about but i just wanted to tell you that your use of the word bloke in one of your comments made me smile. and i said it with an accent which made me smile more. i think you are a swell bloke josh.

Josh,
I realize that it is difficult to communicate through the “blog” medium so I appreciate your efforts towards clarifying the problem you had with what Viola had to say. It seems to me that the “emergent” effort is about providing an environment where people can talk. It is what I appreciated about the conference. I would like to encourage everyone to not only to talk but also to develop the ability to listen. So often I find I can turn people off because of something they said or did that offended me in some way. My loss. More recently I have been approaching people with the thought that they have something to give me if I will only let them. I have found it to be a great blessing to me. I personally have been blessed by Mr Viola and since you said you have not read his book I would encourage you to read Pagan Christianity and also The Untold Story - It might be an easier way for you to at least consider what he has to give. I thank you for your efforts towards encouraging discussion. There is a great hunger in this world to find the Lord that loves the world and His people who love each other.

your brother

thanks kristen. i’ll have to get you to use your accent next time i see you guys.

chris. thanks for letting me clarify myself.

Chris wrote: So often I find I can turn people off because of something they said or did that offended me in some way. My loss. More recently I have been approaching people with the thought that they have something to give me if I will only let them.

Chris I like what you’re saying - doesn’t this apply both ways? It not only applies to Josh listening to Frank Viola, surely, but also to other people listening to Josh.

Some of the commenters here have rushed to defend Frank Viola and have not seemed interested in whether Josh has made any worthwhile points.

Josh,
I can understand your feelings about editing your endorsement if your personal impressions cause concern about the character and tone of the person you have endorsed.

If you have given someone the benefit of the doubt, and then they prove you wrong by being an ass, there is a certain responsibility you feel towards those you may have influenced.

I am not saying this is true or not true of Frank specifically, but I hear that that was your feeling about your experience.

For any of us, if there are repeated accusations about our tone, it is time to look in the mirror and perhaps choose the route of humility rather than the role of misunderstood prophet.

And before I get both feet in my mouth, let me add that my few interactions with Frank have been pleasant. I believe he has ideas that could benefit the conversation. However, I am extremely uncomfortable with the polarity that seems to surround him.

One of the aspects of the emerging conversation that is different from other streams of christianity is that no one gets to participate in simply a “telling” role. In order to truly be a part, we also have to position ourselves as listeners.

Josh, I’m afraid that I can’t find any excerpts from the book, The Untold Story of the New Testament Church on the internet. As someone already commented, the book gives the historical documentation for Frank’s message at the conference. There are plenty of reviews on Amazon.com that might help give an idea of what’s in the book.
 
As for “God’s Ultimate Passion,” there are three excerpts that I found.
 
Chapter 8
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=185939090&blogID=264060737

 
Chapter 29
http://www.the-next-wave-ezine.info/issue101/index.cfm?id=24&ref=ARTICLES%5FBOOK%20EXCERPT%5F357

Some of this material appears also — http://www.ptmin.org/bethany.pdf 
 
The parts about Old Testament Israel are mostly in the middle section of the book. Frank has said that he believes N.T. Wright’s commentary on Romans 9-11 is the best he’s ever come across. Perhaps that will give you an idea of how he views Israel.
 
Thanks for clarifying your feelings and updating this page. I think the reason why so many people responded so strongly was because they heard the same talk you did, but they didn’t see anger or hostility in it. Anyone who knows Frank knows that he’s a passionate man, but he’s not at all angry. If anything, he’s too comical at times. So thanks for your recent clarification.

I continue to receive emails from people who were at the conference and have expressed how deeply moved they were by Frank’s message. I think different styles appeal to different people. Maybe that’s a good thing as we are all different.

I’m happy that this conversation took place and seems to have come to a peaceful conclusion.

Thank you for your blog Josh.

Many blessings,
Jeanette

One more comment after this one and this post ties Josh’s most commented post! go go go!

well i’ve been holding off because i didn’t want to be the one to push it over the edge. seems like cheating. but you gave me the invite. it’s a shame that my 2 posts where i’m somewhat critical are the most popular. i’d rather some of my more substantiative and constructive posts (for example in the sidebar) would have gotten more play. but controversy sells.

Helen,
I agree, it should be both ways but since the Lord gave us all free will I only really have a say over how I respond to others. Just because someone wants to be nasty or fight I don’t want to empower them to dictate my response to be the same. Don’t you find that we to often give the control of our emotions over to others - I will be happy if - I will love you if.. I notice that we Christians tend to think the worst of each other instead of seeing the Spirit in each other as well. It does not change the reality that we are god’s children, just the enjoyment of it.

Chris, thanks for your response. Yes, I like your approach that *I* am the only one who I can control.

I heard the point you made - about how we give control of our emotions to others when we let them make us/keep us angry - in a lay counseling course I once took. I was very struck by it.

Christians do sometimes, unfortunately, seem to see the worst in each other, not the best.

I am an almost-atheist now but I did notice that about Christians when I was one.

I do feel he took quite a few leaps into areas where very he was on shaky ground at best. He obviously had opinions that he was passionate about but would have a hard time finding credible sources to support him. I really wonder where he came up with the whole thorn in the side “theory”? Maybe he has special access to III Corinthians that he will reveal in his next book. (Sarcasm-relax everyone)

Jeromy, what was Frank Viola’s ‘thorn in the side’ theory?

(I love how everyone has their own theory about Paul’s ‘thorn in the side’)

[...] partner with this wild and crazy ride we call “emergent/ing.” Sure he might be passionate and use rather absolutist language at times, but you can’t fit him in a fundamentalist [...]

Hi Helen,

Fancy seeing you here. Frank thinks that Paul’s thorn in the flesh might not have been a physical malady, but a person (or group) of heresy-hunting legalists, who opposed Paul’s inclusion of the Gentiles into the new covenant community. He’s not along in thinking this is a possibility, but it is a minority position in scholarly circles.

And I know the heat’s died down on this post, but for what it’s worth (and I realize that could be very little), I have Come out of the ‘Pagan Christianity’ closet.

…should have read “Not *alone in thinking this is a possibility…”

Hi Mike, yeah, I’m here sometimes. Thanks for the information.

jeromy. thanks for stopping by.

helen. thanks for moderating stuff while i’ve been away. it looks like you have experience doing this?

mike. thanks for the link. read it this morning.

Josh, yes, a little

[...] light of the conversation last week, I found this interview with blogger Brother Maynard to be interesting, dare I say [...]

Hi Bob, an excellent alternative to Viola’s book is “The Ancient Church As Family” by Dr. Joe Hellerman. His work is well researched and addresses many of the “pagan” influences on our faith. Dr. Hellerman’s contribution is a blend of good history AND respectful discourse.

oops.. I meant to address that to Josh.. not Bob.

[...] Josh Brown has some mixed thoughts of Viola’s message and presentation here. [...]

[...] their podcast feed set up with the audio from the conference. I know some of you were interested in Frank Viola’s audio that I previously mentioned. And there are some other good things on there with Danielle, Troy, and Tim being the ones I heard [...]

I am little late to this conversation so no one will probably read it; but, I need to call BS on some of F. Valdez’s defense of F. Viola’s talk. In particular “Frank is from a pentecostal background. He went from there right into house chuch (sic) gatherings. This is the type of preaching he heard as a young, growing Christian.” Now, its been awhile, but I have both read and heard Viola’s testimony. And while Pentecostal is part of it, so are a lot of groups. But more importantly - its been 20 freaking years since he was part of any of those groups. And he has given plenty of talks since then where he didn’t sound like this. A far more credible defense might be that this was an uncharacteristic talk on his part. It saddens me to see his friends coming to spin for him - almost like he learned to well from his association with GE. (Note for the irony challenged: This last line is meant to be read with a huge heaping of sarcasm.