I’m busily preparing my review of Pagan Christianity; I’ve got a couple chapters left to read, but already I can tell that my draft post is going to get split up into a brief series, as many have done. This morning though, I took a break from reading the book and listened to Drew Marshall interview Frank Viola (listen online or download). I’m glad I did, as it paints a slightly different portrait of Frank and of the book — or what he’s trying to say through it. I was asked for a thought on it Sunday evening and I suggested that although I would agree with most of what it says, it’s full of pejorative language that I found unhelpful, and wasn’t sure yet if I’d be recommending it. You’ll have to come back for my further thoughts. Others have opined already, including Robbymac, the iMonk, and Bob Hyatt rounding out a few of the loudest “nay’s” with Kingdom (nee Emerging) Grace summing up a more balanced view from her series. Oh, and there’s more from Darryl Dash with links to others. People are definitely buzzing. The thing I appreciated about the Drew Marshall interview is that Frank doesn’t come off quite so strongly opposed to just about everything we do… he sounds more balanced or less… uh, “bombastic,” to use someone else’s word, on air than in print. If you’ve reacted strongly to the book, the podcast might be worth a listen. More thoughts to follow.
Frank Viola meets Drew Marshall
2 Responses to “Frank Viola meets Drew Marshall”
Speak Your Mind
Additional comments powered by BackType
Subscribe Posts











January 24th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
I haven’t read the book, not sure if I will. But as I read different reactions around the net, there seemed to be a bit of a pattern to the reactions. “Professional” ministers, including the ones you mentioned above seem to take to book more personally than others. Just and observation :-).
January 24th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Good observation, Rick — and it’s an understandable position for them, as the book fundamentally challenges their methodology and calls for an end to it. Darryl Dash’s review offers a restatement of a lot of Viola’s questions in ways that aren’t as objectionable. I’m not 100% siding with either of them, but I will say that I tend to agree with Darryl that the case isn’t made as strongly as the extent of the footnotes in the book make it appear.