Frank Viola Interview.

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

Frank Viola: Clarifying.

**UPDATE** 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 but it’s been brought to my attention that I might have come off a bit harsher than I meant to. In hindsight, this is probably true. I’m not going to take the original post down because I’m not a revisionist. But here’s what I would like to clarify.

I obviously don’t think Frank was literally going to hit anyone. That was meant to be a joke. The stuff about the old people at the bottom was also a poorly delivered joke meant to say that older people are typically those who would say AMEN and that I like to think people who like to say AMEN as sort of the AMEN corner. And since I haven’t heard someone say AMEN in about 10 years nor do I know of any young people who say AMEN and nod their head when listening to a speaker, I thought I’d try to be funny. Again . . . it was just a very poorly framed joke. Humor is not my strong suit. So no offense to people with gray hair I hope.

As for what I believe/know about Frank . . . 1) I don’t think he’s anti-semitic, 2) I don’t think he’s a horrible historian, 3) I think he’s a nice guy, and 4) I’ve got no problem with passionate people or people who arrive at different conclusions than I do.

As for what I stand by, 1) I think a conversationalist, house church, church-as-family guy wouldn’t resort to passionate Pentecostal-like preaching, 2) I think there were some great historical leaps made that made most everyone in there think that it was common sense knowledge, 3) there were a lot of high school students in there and even young college kids (and probably even some adults) who probably don’t have the ability to differentiate very well the difference between historical accuracy and historical stretches, 4) if you are going to take the endorsements of the blog and podcast, then it’s only fair that I get to revise my opinion after hearing someone in person, and 5) if you’re known in the blogosphere and in christian circles as the extreme, polarizing, passionate guy (that you get marketed as by publishers) . . . then don’t get mad when someone calls you on it. This last point is less directed to Frank and more directed at the supporters of Frank who have participated in the comments. Because I think Frank could actually care less about what some hack behind a computer blogs about. In that way, we’re both probably pretty ambivalent.

I apologize if it appears I made the post with ill intent or malice towards Frank. That’s not the case. I’m sure Frank is a nice guy. I’m sorry I came off like an ass. And I’m sure my jokes weren’t funny.

But I do stand by my previous reflections and do not apologize at all for what I felt like sitting there, bad jokes about snakes and Mike Tyson aside.

I really just wanted to correct my previous endorsements. While I am no Ted Kennedy or Caroline Kennedy, I don’t want someone to buy the book based off of my previous statements and defenses of Frank. I want them to be informed on both ends. And so if I persuaded someone to buy the book with my endorsement, which is what Frank and his publisher wanted us to do when he came on our podcast, then I feel like I’ve got a right to temper my endorsement if at any point I don’t feel like being as gung-ho about it as I was before.

So that’s that.

Frank Viola: I Was Wrong.

**UPDATE** I’d like to publicly update my statements. I know most of you probably don’t have the time to read through all of the comments below but it’s been brought to my attention that I might have come off a bit harsher than I meant to. I’m not going to take this post down because I’m not a revisionist. But here’s what I would have said. I obviously don’t think Frank was literally going to hit anyone. That was meant to be a joke. The stuff about the old people at the bottom was also a poorly delivered joke meant to say that older people are typically those who would say AMEN and that I like to think of as the AMEN corner. Most young people I know don’t say AMEN. Again . . . it was just a very poorly framed joke. Humor is not my strong suit.

As for what I believe/know about Frank . . . 1) I don’t think he’s anti-semitic, 2) I don’t think he’s a horrible historian, 3) I think he’s a nice guy, and 4) I’ve got no problem with passionate people or people who disagree with me.

As for what I stand by, 1) I think a conversationalist, house church, family guy wouldn’t resort to passionate Pentecostal-like preaching, 2) I think there were some great historical leaps made that made most everyone in there think that it was common sense knowledge, 3) there were a lot of high school students in there and even young college kids (and probably even some adults) who probably don’t have the ability to differentiate very well the difference between historical accuracy and historical stretches, 4) if you are going to take the endorsements of the blog and podcast, then it’s only fair that I get to revise my opinion after hearing someone in person, and 5) if you’re known in the blogosphere and in christian circles as the extreme, polarizing, passionate guy (that you both market yourself as and embrace) . . . then don’t get mad when someone calls you on it. This last point is less directed to Frank and more directed at the supporters of Frank who have participated in the comments. Because I think Frank could actually care less about what some hack behind a computer blogs about. In that way, we’re both probably pretty ambivalent.

I apologize if it appears I made the post with ill intent or malice towards Frank. That’s not the case. I’m sure Frank is a nice guy. I’m sorry I came off like an ass. I’m sorry my jokes weren’t funny. But I do stand by my previous reflections, bad jokes about snakes and Mike Tyson aside.

I really just wanted to correct my previous endorsements. While I am no Ted Kennedy or Caroline Kennedy, I don’t want someone to buy the book based off of my previous statements and defenses of Frank. I want them to be informed on both ends. And so if I persuaded someone to buy the book with my endorsement, which is what Frank and his publisher wanted us to do when he came on our podcast, then I feel like I’ve got a right to temper my endorsement if at any point I don’t feel like being as gung-ho about it as before.

So that’s that.

Original Post: For those of you who follow my Twitter, I spouted off a little live thought while at the A Sustainable Faith conference over the weekend. I got about a dozen emails from friends curious as to what I meant and if I would expound upon it. I should probably not mention anything and continue to give the guy the benefit of the doubt, which I have previously done here and on at least 4 prominent blogs (in the comments section) that took issue with Frank’s newest book, Pagan Christianity. We even publicly took Frank’s side in our podcast conversation with him, throwing softballs, as Tony Jones recently said we’ve become nefarious for in our interviews.

So since I’ve spoken out in multiple forums (including my own post) defending Frank and challenging the criticisms, and because I already spouted off at the mouth in my Twitter, perhaps it’s only fair (unfair?) that I share some of my thoughts after hearing him speak in person. I’m not trying to demonize or attack the guy, just giving my thoughts on what it’s like hearing him in person and how that differs from what I’ve said publicly elsewhere.

(picture stolen from Jordon Cooper’s Flickr while at Soularize) So here’s my rub with Frank’s talk. He basically did a Walk Thru the Bible presentation. Beginning with the Trinity in eternity past (I can’t remember the last time I heard that phrase) and then jumping to the Jews screwing with Paul. Seriously. For the first 5 minutes he talked about the Trinity and the history of what happened in eternity past. Now first of all, I’m a trinitarian (on my best day). But I think it’s pretty much the shakiest “doctrine” in the whole of the B-I-B-L-E. But if I do make my arguments based off of a Trinitarian foundation (ala Newbigin, Moltmann) I don’t know that I could construct an actual, literal, word-for-word account of the Trinity’s relationship with each other in eternity past. So that’s my first problem. Making some huge leaps in terms of assuming what the Trinity was like, said, and did amongst themselves. I just don’t see how it’s honest to describe “eternity past” almost word for word (and the conversations that went on then) when it is something that is barely given a cursory glance, let alone a full on description that lasts 5 minutes.

Then somehow and oddly he skipped over the entire Old Testament and began with Paul. Now I can understand that there is a lack of time but come on . . . if your ecclessiology doesn’t run through the called out community of Israel and it’s nature then you’re starting off on the wrong foot. He then went to talk in some of the most absolute, dogmatic terms that I’ve heard since my Southern Baptist days. He was spitting and yelling and talking about how every Gentile in Paul’s time drank blood out of skulls and that Paul’s thorn in the flesh was some crazy Jew and that the Jews were the problem with holding Christianity back. I’m not saying his talk was anti-semitic, but if I understood him right, I got the distinct feeling that he was ignoring and/or blaming the Jews. I kid you not, he was yelling so loud that the mic was cracking and he was breathing heavy and spitting. It was so freaking intense/insane. I was afraid he was either going to start calling down fire or that he was going to punch someone. People were “amen-ing” and nodding their heads and encouraging him. I felt like I was back in an old school revival.

So here are my problems. 1) He has some shady historical assumptions. Or at the very least, he spoke in such absolute terms that it made it seem like it was common knowledge what he was talking about. He literally said Paul’s thorn in the flesh was this Jewish guy who kept hassling him about the law. Now I’m no historian but that’s the first I’ve heard that, and I’m certainly pretty sure it’s not the majority interpretation. This is just but one example of the shady historical interpretations he spoke as absolutes. But it was primarily 2) the way he said everything. He was yelling. Raising his voice. And spoke in such absolute terms that you felt like an idiot for not believing what he believed or an idiot for not being aware of what was apparently common knowledge to everyone else.

Normally this wouldn’t bother me. I have no problem listening to or even conversing with people who come to different conclusions than I do . . . as long as they don’t take a rigid and absolute position. And secondly, because it’s odd after having such a cordial and generous conversation with Frank in our podcast for Frank to sort of change tones. Knowing that his book was full of such extreme statements and passionate opinions, I was pleasantly surprised after talking to him on the podcast. So I thought he was just misunderstood and so I publicly rode to Gondor’s aid. But apparently the book is the norm and not the exception. He was just as passionate, polarizing, and extreme in his talk. Which again, really, really surprised me. So much so, that I got up and walked out of the talk, which was easily over an hour long.

Now maybe I’m not being fair. Maybe I’m reading way too much into this. But it just rubbed me wrong. At a conference where everyone was friendly, laughing, and in great spirits every time you talked to them, I never saw Frank smile. I got the distinct impression that he was angry. And upset.

This could be due to the rumor I heard that he’s working on a written articulation of his thoughts about Emergent and why it’s wrong.

So this is what I think. I think Frank’s book may have some helpful things. But bottom line, I think he’s a passionate, extreme, polarizing character. Something that I defended him against and gave him the benefit of the doubt on. But now, I stand corrected.

So for what it’s worth, those are my thoughts.

Just for humor’s sake . . . as sort of visual evidence. Take a look at this picture of his breakout after he spoke. Count the number of people who are over the age of 40 (the amen section during the talk) and those under the age of 40. I think that says a lot of what people thought after his talk. I’ll give you a hint, 2 of the under 40 year olds include his wife and a guy who works for a seminary.

And if you were at the conference and came to a different conclusion or think I’m being unfair, feel free to add your perspective in the comments on whether you agree with my assessment or to let me know if you saw Frank crack a smile.

Pagan Christianity by Frank Viola.

Well when you give us feedback we listen . . . our podcast with Frank Viola, author of Pagan Christianity, is now live. You can subscribe to the podcast over on The Nick & Josh Podcast site.

I know Bob Hyatt, Joe Thorn, Daryl Dash, and Bill Kinnon have all pushed back with some concerns and criticisms for Frank’s Pagan Christianity. And Kingdom Grace has been hosting an open-ended discussion on her site. Consequently, the blogosphere has been humming with people sharing their reflection on Pagan Christianity.

Nick and I did our best to incorporate as many of the concerns and questions being raised during our conversation with Frank. And in my estimation, Frank responded to the criticisms graciously and respectfully. After listening to him share his side of things, I think some of the criticisms might be caricaturing Frank and Pagan Christianity in the same way that they are asserting that he’s caricaturing Christianity and church history.

To be fair, I haven’t yet read the book (free copy Frank?) and was only able to engage with it via Bob Hyatt’s blog and Frank’s website where he responds to the criticisms. Add to that the fact that The Nick & Josh Podcast is notorious for throwing nice fat pitches at our guests as opposed to throwing those nasty sliders, and you have a recipe for a pretty straight forward 30 minute conversation. My only complaint was that 30 minutes wasn’t near enough time for us to ask the questions we wanted to ask and for Frank to develop his thoughts and responses to those questions.

On the bright side, I’m planning on traveling down to St. Petersburg to the A Sustainable Faith un-conference where I hope to probe (non-alien) Frank some more about the criticisms and how he reconciles the practices of the church with it’s contextual, local, and specific place.

Anyway . . . I think it’s a great podcast (I’m biased) and I think Frank is a gentleman who is as bold as he is inquisitive.

Again, if you want to check out the podcast you can do so here. Nick also has a reviw up on his site.

Frank Viola & Pagan Christianity Podcast.

We’re doing a podcast with Frank Viola this week and will probably spend a good portion of our time talking about his new book with Barna, Pagan Christianity. It probably won’t be edited and up for a couple of weeks after that. But here’s the deal. I haven’t read the book. And although I’m moderately familiar with the content courtesy of the blog-o-sphere rumbling to life with it’s reactions . . . I really don’t have much to offer as far as conversation. So I thought I’d give any of my readers a shot at giving me some questions to ask. Just leave them in the comments and I’ll pick out 2 or 3 of the best and use those as my questions. Thanks.