“Pagan Week” has been held over in view of the extended conversation I’ve had with Frank Viola, which turned out not to be a brief one-post interview after all. We got into some pretty big questions, which help frame a deeper understanding of his latest book on which he collaborated with George Barna. My review of Pagan Christianity: Exploring the Roots of Our Church Practices ran all of last week, during which I voiced a number of concerns with the book and pointed out some strong points. In the end, the biggest caveat with the book is that it’s overly prone to being misunderstood, but can be recommended as a good discussion-starter: just don’t mistake it for an attempt to provide comprehensive answers on each subject it addresses. In no small part, this conclusion fueled my desire to have a conversation with Frank around the book itself. As we did with my Interview with Paul Young (Author of The Shack), the conversation was conducted via email, and I’ve stitched it together in this format. As I said before, just imagine we’re all sitting around a table in your favorite independent local coffee shop. Frank and I converse for a bit, but you’ll get your comments in edgewise a little further on — for now, grab that latte you ordered, pull up an extra chair and pass the biscotti.
Bro.M. Frank, thanks for agreeing to this — I always enjoy connecting around some of these subjects.
Frank: Thanks for the opportunity to dialogue. I’m a fan of your blog so this is particularly encouraging for me.
Bro.M. Great! So tell me something of your background, your journey to this point. You’ve published a number of books already and been engaged in the house church movement for some time now, isn’t that right?
Frank: I spent thirteen years in the institutional church, traversing many different denominations. I think I counted 13 different brands of church, from CMA, Southern Baptist, Independent Baptist, Presbyterian, Church of Christ, Episcopalian, Mennonite, AOG, COG, to virtually every stripe and flavor of charismatic Christianity. Add to that 5 parachurch organizations and dozens of church-sponsored Bible studies. I was intensely involved in many of the above. And as I say in the book, I owe my salvation and my baptism to the institutional church. God has used it in my life as He has in the lives of countless others.
But in 1988, I dropped out. I gave it up for Lent. :-)
The reasons are complex. But in short, I was hungry for Jesus Christ, I was bored with church services, and I had grown weary of much of what I had seen in the churches I was a part of. I also had trouble connecting much of what went on to what I read about in the New Testament, particularly the teachings of Jesus and the apostles. To my mind, there was a disconnect between them and my church experiences.
That said, myself and a few others who also left the organized church began meeting around Jesus Christ in a simple way. At the time, we had no idea what we were doing, and we had no idea that others had forged similar paths before us. Looking back, I believe we were following our spiritual instincts. We Christians have a spiritual instinct to fellowship around Jesus Christ in a simple, relational way. As time went on, we discovered a church-life experience that I never knew existed. I call it “the organic expression of the church,” a term that owes heavily to T. Austin-Sparks.
In short, that experience wrecked me. I found Jesus Christ in depths that I never knew existed, and I found the experience of His Body in ways I never imagined.
Bro.M. I find I’m meeting a lot of people with very similar stories about an exodus from the institutional church. A lot of us value the background, but for one reason or another don’t want to be part of the institution anymore… so we’re all in good company! Is when you were drawn into the house church movement, then?
Frank: While I often speak at house church conferences, I wouldn’t classify myself as a “house church” proponent. There’s too much diversity in the movement. Some elements I agree with; others I do not. The movement also puts the emphasis on the wrong thing — the house. Meeting in a home doesn’t make a group of Christians a church anymore than meeting in a donut shop makes them police officers. (No offense to police officers. Sorry cousin Joey!) I trust you get my point. There’s nothing magical about meeting in a home. That’s not the issue.
I think the same can be said about the “emerging church” movement or conversation (depending on what one wishes to label it). Many of the leaders in the emerging church are good friends of mine. I agree with certain elements of it; others I do not.
What drives me is the Lord Jesus Christ and the experience of His beloved Bride. I’ve made the discovery that Christ can only be known in the depths when His people live in a face-to-face community that’s centered on Him. Perhaps that’s not always the case; there are no doubt exceptions (Jeanne Guyon is one who comes to mind). But it’s been my experience and observation that this is generally the case. We were built to love Him, know Him, experience Him, and express Him in community, not as an individual. And that’s what ekklesia is all about. So it seems to me anyway. To put it another way, I believe in a deep ecclesiology.
Bro.M. I like the observation about not emphasizing the house — it’s the same argument as not emphasising the “church building,” which is consistent with the church being the people of God, the Bride. “Deep ecclesiology” is one of those terms we’re starting to see more of, so thanks for the link to your article on it — it saves me a followup question! So what led up to this book? It’s been a long-time project for you, if I understand correctly. Tell me something about that, and about George Barna’s involvement.
Frank: Since the late ’90s, I’ve written a number of self-published books that represent my very imperfect attempt to explain what I’ve discovered and experienced in the way of church life. All of those books, with the exception of “The Untold Story of the New Testament Church,” have been revised, expanded, and re-written. “Pagan Christianity” is the first of those revisions. Others will follow.
This one took me about four years to write. The research was rather difficult, especially the footnoting. The original edition came out in 2002 and was released without an editor. (Gulp.) Consequently, what I thought to be humorous and witty comments were taken by some people to be strident and inflammatory. An editor pointed this out to me and for that I’m grateful. Those statements were removed from the new version.
One of the motivations for writing the book was to encourage Christians to rethink their church experience. To question their cherished traditions. To ask questions that few Christian seem to be asking. And to give God’s people permission to experiment with new forms and expressions of the church which are faithful to Scripture.
When one realizes that much of what we’re doing today has no root in the Word of God, it has a liberating effect. We are free to pursue the Lord corporately in fresh and creative ways.
Bro.M. That makes good sense — the result should be freedom, not just a different set of constraints.
Frank: My outstanding motivation is for the headship of Jesus Christ. Right or wrong, that’s where my burden lies, and I’m quite jealous about it — His headship that is. I also have a lot of confidence in God’s people if they are equipped and turned loose to express the Lord in creative ways. Ways that stand outside the box and color outside the lines. My experience of organic church life ruined me, and I believe that deep down inside, every Christian longs for it. “Pagan Christianity,” for us at least, is designed to clear away some of the debris that we believe keeps us from experiencing what God desires all of His children to experience.
Anyway, George read the original version and wanted to publish it to get a wider audience. He went through the old manuscript and did a good deal of revising. He also contributed some new chapters, so the second swing was a collaborative effort, and it made the book much better.
While all the rhetoric in the first edition that caused some folks to have seizers have been removed, I’m told that some people are flipping out about the style. This is confusing to us because most of the feedback we’ve gotten has been on how gracious the spirit is behind the book. One man, a pastor of many years, said it was written “pastorally,” and leads people by the hand.
A friend of mine who is part of the emerging church conversation made an interesting observation. He said that when people hear a radical message that’s not just advocating tweeking the present system, but actually challenging its structural integrity and advocating a complete overhaul of it — and doing so confidently instead of insipidly — some confuse that with unsavory rhetoric and will attack the writing style.
I’m not sure. I’ll simply say that we didn’t write the book in the style of an arm-chair scholar. It’s not a book disseminating sterile historical information. I’m someone who lives and breathes for the church of Jesus Christ. This incredible Christ has overwhelmed my life. And she, the ekklesia, is my passion. Therefore, the writing style and message is not just aimed at the frontal lobe, but at the heart, the spirit, and the conscience. There’s passion and energy behind the book. For better or for worse, that passion is rooted in a jealousy for the centrality, supremacy, and headship of Jesus Christ and the freedom of His beloved Bride. That doesn’t make me infallible in my conclusions; it just means that these issues have moved from my head to my heart. (I agree with N.T. Wright when he said that about 1/3 of what I’m telling you is probably not correct. But I don’t know which 1/3 it is.)
Bro.M Frank, I’ve got to confess that I struggled with the writing style a little as well — you probably saw that in my review. Ultimately I concluded that the issues are emotionally-charged, as we’re all invested to some degree in the ways we’ve practiced our expressions of church. To shake that up can be quite disorienting! I love that perspective from N.T. Wright as well. I’ve heard Brian McLaren use it also, and it’s a beautfully humbling posture for us when we can keep it at the forefront of our opinions. I have a cynical, sarcastic wit at times and I’m a writer as well, so I’ve been misunderstood with some of the things I’ve said and written — so I can sympathize.
Frank: Brennan Manning is an incredible writer. I once (very literally) sat at his feet and asked him while he was seated: “As a more seasoned writer giving advice to a less seasoned writer, what is the most important piece of advice you can give me?”
His answer — “If it doesn’t move you, throw it in the trash can. If it moves you, write it!”
Underneath the content of “Pagan Christianity” is what for me has been a breathtaking and electrifying vision of Christ and His church. And that vision burns within me still. It comes through the book at times as well as through my spoken ministry.
I’ve noticed that people who are used to objective-seminary-professor-styled-even-toned lectures often find fiery-preachers who have an emotional edge a turn-off. When I heard Brennan Manning preach at a conference workshop last year, a few people didn’t like the fact that he raised his voice while he preached nor the absolute way in which he talked about God. Most loved it, however, and they were mesmerized by the passion in his spirit. The same thing happened when I first heard Tony Campolo many years ago. He yelled, beat the podium, and gave an impassioned, fiery, high-pitched message about Jesus and the poor. Many were turned off by the style, thinking him an angry man. Others were moved greatly.
It seems we’re all drawn to different styles. But I think it’s counterproductive to impute base motives to a person whose style we don’t like, whether in print or in speech.
I appreciate the words of A.W. Tozer on this score:
If Christianity is to receive a rejuvenation it must be by other means than any now being used. If the church in the second half of [the twentieth] century is to recover from the injuries she suffered in the first half, there must appear a new type of preacher. The proper, ruler-of-the-synagogue type will never do. Neither will the priestly type of man who carries out his duties, takes his pay and asks no questions, nor the smooth-talking pastoral type who knows how to make the Christian religion acceptable to everyone. All these have been tried and found wanting. Another kind of religious leader must arise among us. He must be of the old prophet type, a man who has seen visions of God and has heard a voice from the Throne. When he comes (and I pray God there will not be one but many) he will stand in flat contradiction to everything our smirking, smooth civilization holds dear. He will contradict, denounce and protest in the name of God and will earn the hatred and opposition of a large segment of Christendom.
Some recent movements in the Christian faith appear to be opposed to the kind of ministry-style that Tozer is speaking of, equating it somehow with arrogance and dogmatism, while others are captivated and changed by it.
Related question: Peter exhorts God’s people when they minister to “speak as the oracles of God” (1 Pet. 4:11). That’s a text worth discussing, I think.
On another note, it’s fascinating to me how much attention this book is getting now that George’s name is on it. It’s like Frank Viola didn’t exist before Barna… except in major league baseball of course :-) Maybe I should return to pitching!
(Disclaimer: I’m actually not the MLB pitcher of the same name (head drop). People confuse us all the time. I have been trying to swap jobs with the other Frankie V. for a while now, but he continues to decline for some reason. Sigh.)
Bro.M. Well, don’t give up on either career! I gather the reaction to the book has been mixed, to say the least. Some of the endorsements are pretty glowing, but I think I actually saw someone call you guys “antichrists” the other day. Are you surprised by this? What’s been the strongest reaction or criticism?
Frank: The overwhelming response to the book has been incredibly positive. We get encouraging letters constantly from readers.
As would be expected, the main criticisms seem to be coming from people who are invested in the institutional church somehow. I’m told that the book is making Reformed ministers scream and Fundamentalist pastors break out into apoplectic fits. As for the strongest reaction, I’ve been getting hate mail from Quakers and bodily threats from the Amish. Does that count? :-)
From what I’ve seen, some critics of the book are incredibly articulate. They are highly gifted writers — the kind of people you’d love to have in your corner if you were under attack. It’s been reported that at least half the reviews are by people who didn’t read the book or surface-skimmed it. (Interestingly, a friend of mine recently made the observation that “Pagan Christianity is the most reviewed book by those who haven’t read it.”)
Frank: The main argument being made by those who haven’t read it and/or who have skimmed it is that George and I are saying that everything that has pagan roots is wrong. That’s not our argument at all, and we state this in the book numerous times. But I suppose it’s a lot more fun (or effective in misleading others) by using straw-man arguments to discredit the book.
I had the privilege of speaking at a recent Emerging Church conference last weekend with Shane Claiborne and others, and I was encouraged by so many emergent folks who expressed appreciation for the book. A large number of the folks there, mostly in their 20s and 30s, also expressed deep appreciation for the message I delivered, expressing how much it impacted them. (I gave an abbreviated talk from my book “The Untold Story of the New Testament Church” with a focus on an indwelling Christ.) Their positive feedback was both humbling and encouraging. Many of God’s people are hungering for a deeper experience of their Lord. I see it everywhere I go. Some of these folks lamented the fact that several emerging church bloggers have used the exact same tactics that John MacArthur used against my friend Brian McLaren’s work in his book, “Truth War.” This disappointed them monumentally. I’m thankful that most of my friends in the emerging church love the book and are supporting it.
Someone recently observed that some Christians “have pointed a pious finger at Constantine’s influence on Christianity with respect to the nation-state while benightedly approving his unwholesome influence on church structure, ritual, and leadership.” It’s my observation that over the last 50 years, countless books have been written to try and reform the institutional church. Those books have been well received for the most part. Most of them talk about how pastors should give better sermons, how they should operate in a less-business-like fashion, how they should lead the flock more effectively, how they should pray more, how they should and can avoid getting “sheep-bite,” etc. etc. etc. Elton Trueblood said, “The basic trouble [with the modern church] is that the proposed cure has such a striking similarity to the disease.”
Bro.M Now there’s a phrase we could camp out on for a while, something to let sink in. But you’re proposing changes — or “cures” if that’s not overstating — that consist of much more fundamental changes.
Frank: George and I have come out with a book that doesn’t advocate repairing the system or tweeking the structure. Our position is that the modern pastoral office (the clergy system) just may be one of the major problems. (I think I heard dozens of computers shut off just now :-)
The book suggests that for too long we’ve been treating the symptoms and have failed to go to the roots. But this approach is unthinkable in the minds of many Christians. Our traditions are entrenched and even deified. J.C. Ryle put it best when he said, “Experience supplies painful proof that traditions once called into being are first called useful, then they become necessary. At last they are too often made idols, and all must bow down to them or be punished.” Or perhaps Dresden James said it better: “A truth’s initial commotion is directly proportional to how deeply the lie was believed. It wasn’t the world being round that agitated people, but that the world wasn’t flat. When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.”
Despite the fact that some don’t like the message, we by conscience stand with the evidence, because that’s where it has led us. Obviously, we could be wrong. At the same time, we wish that God’s people would be open to the possibility that our conclusions just may be correct. I stand with John Howard Yoder’s critique when he said, “The whole concern of Reformation theology was to justify restructuring the organized church without shaking its foundations.” “Pagan Christianity” seeks to shake some of its foundations.
By the way, while we’re on the subject of name-calling, I don’t usually fancy people defending me. I have a friend who wrote me recently and said, “Frankie V., I saw this guy on a blog say that you were a heretic, that you are not a Christian, and that you are a poor writer. I want you to know that I defended you… I told him that you are a good writer!” :-) At the same time, what Martin Luther King Jr. said is right on: “It’s not the words of our enemies that we remember the most; it’s the silence of our friends.”
Bro.M Well Frank, my raving-lunatic friend, I need to pause for a coffee refill. Can I get you one as well? What about the rest of you — what do you think about the controversy around the book, and the way that we deal with intra-faith critique? Wait, maybe that’s a good term, something we forget… intra- rather than extra- or inter-faith. What do you think?
(We’ll continue the interview tomorrow, after we’ve refilled our coffee cups!)
I don’t and won’t consider myself an expert in Bible theology. I believe the Bible. You either believe or you do not. There are some things I’m not sure of, however they will be revealed one day. As for people defending a religion, the Bible, the Koran etc, I don’t think it’s our job as followers of Jesus Christ to try and force, coerce or manipulate anyone into following or to believe in Christ or whatever religion man chooses to follow regardless if it is false and leads someone to hell. I believe part of following Jesus Christ is to bring the message with gentleness Roman’s 14:1-, I believe this is talking about believers, we would do well to heed these words. Let God be the ultimate Judge. Matthew 13:24-30 how does this fit in to the whole thing? I don’t think there is a man alive today that can tell, explain or interpret the Bible completely the way God laid it out. We all go by someone’s interpretation, thoughts, we need to rely on the Holy Spirit to reveal the Truth to us. It’s amazing, whenever we humans are involved with anything, we will truly indeed complicate it, mess it up try to control it you name it we will do it. The early church in Acts was awesome, yeah they had problems just like we do today, they were humans too! However, I believe there was a much more central focus on Christ and not on religion or man. But we do see what happens as man gets more and more involved and the years progress, a big mess! Thanks guys.
I wanted to return and respond at least briefly to your comment, #49. I don’t intend to do a full point-by-point response, just pick up on a few points now that I’ve had more time to go back and read your comment more carefully. My last comment was mainly intended to make sure that the discussion didn’t run off onto personal attacks, which are helpful to no-one.
And yes, I am Canadian. :^)
Thanks for your thorough response. As I noted, it’s been 20 years since I looked at the LDS teachings in any detail, and the memory isn’t what it was. I appreciate your filling in the gaps and adjusting where appropriate. Obviously we have a different interpretation of some of the material, but I want to at least be sure we’re agreed as to what LDS teaches. I know that some of the teaching of the church has changed over time, and perhaps some of what I presented represents doctrines that have changed or been renounced. (Not saying the Catholic / Christian churches have never done this!)
Small note about Joseph Smith’s parents — I didn’t mean to imply that they testified against him… I believe they were asked a question and simply responded truthfully. The form of divination (or whatever term one prefers) that Smith used to find treasure had something to do with putting stones in a hat…. I gather his parents were asked if this were so and they responded in the affirmative; Smith himself later denied it.
Concerning the Father inhabiting a planet in a mortal body as Jesus did, no, there’s no logical reason this could not have happened. And you are correct to bring up the doctrine of theosis in context of this discussion, but theosis doesn’t teach that we become God in the same equivalent sense that God is God. This is no doubt one of the biggest points about LDS doctrine that differs from Christianity, viz., understanding of the afterlife. LDS teaching is that its adherents will become Gods (gods?) and populate and/or rule over their own planet as God the Father does over ours. I may not have that stated quite right, so please adjust if necessary. Christianity obviously understands the afterlife in quite a different way to this.
Regarding the meaning of “orthodoxy”, I don’t mean to say “my beliefs” but rather those which the Christian church has historically taught specifically concerning major doctrines upon which there is general agreement. Minor doctrines are seen by some as major and worth dividing over, but that’s not my intent…. there’s a lot of things the church disagrees on, but a couple of the historical creeds and a few doctrines built upon them are generally somewhat safe to refer to as “orthodox” in the minds of the church as a whole.
I would have to applaud the LDS position you describe toward such things as disaster relief and education. I’m not familiar with the specifics of course, but in these matters we can certainly agree, and can both say at least that such actions are part of the most appropriate responses to the teaching of Jesus. Would that more of us (in all camps) remember this.
Thanks again for this conversation.
Raymond, how do you interpret Revelation 22:18-19? This seems to be very black or white.Thanks
It is so easy to get off on Rabbit rails..That’s what “the church” has done over and over. And here WE go on another. It’s interesting to not that denominationalism (i.e. religious systems) is by its very nature divisive. This ridiculous LDS debate once again proves my point. I thought this blog was about Pagan christianity! I guess i was wrong. By the way who cares who is right and who is ‘wronng” as though it is some doctrinal test that gains admittance to the Kingdom of God. Christianity is about Christ in you, producing fruit…producing the character and life of God in mortal men and women…the divine infusing humanity. It is not by doctrinal “rightness” or revelation that we will rise or fall. Let’s get back to the point of the book. This conversation is just another example of what is wrong with religion vs what is right with Jesus Christ.
I’m sure Raymond would interpret Revelation 22:18-19 the same way I would — that it refers to the book of Revelation and not to the Bible as a whole. The canon as we know it did not exist at the time Revelation was written, so if it referred to the “Bible” as it existed at the time, it would have referred to the Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament.
I think that too often we (including myself) tend to think of “the faith” in terms of belief or assent to a system of beliefs, truths or theology. Almost as in a creed, “I believe in…”. I grew up with all this, was an avid bible scholar, was “churched”, baptized in water, educated in “the faith” and puffed up with knowledge (knowledge does indeed puff up but love edifies). Then I had an epiphany, and in a moment of great weakness surrendered my “religious christian” self to Christ. My search for meaning had led me to a point of desperation and absolute surrender and I cried out “Lord if you are there please take my life because if not I will take it. I’m empty. I want to know you as you really are!” It was not even a conviction of “sin” in the traditional sense of having done “bad things” (which I had) but a sense of deep emptiness, separation from Him, incompleteness and need for knowing God in an experiential way. As I lay there on the floor something marvelous happened. I was changed, in an instant Christ revealed himself and life came into me and the Lord lifted me up off of the floor. This began a new and living way.
As I began to study God’s word, apart from any “church”, the Holy Spirit began to enlightened my cluttered mind and breathe life into the word of God and into me and open my eyes to the marvelous truth of God. I began to see the Kingdom of God and began to experience a new and deep fellowship with God.
Years later I was to give up this wonderful relationship for “church”, good works and recognition as a “man of God” and I lost much ground, the peace of Christ and intimace with Him. I traded life for legalistic and self centered knowledge and works based Christianity. I stopped BEING a witness and settled for witnessing. I stopped being an ambassador for Christ and settled for recognition by the brethren. I traded honest open and intimate fellowship with God and with other believers for superficial churchianity. I traded spiritual prosperity for the material “prosperity gospel”. Instead of a genuine disciple I became a know it all theological Christian windbag and a spiritual phony! I was a tree with fake fruit wired onto the branches and I wondered why the world wasn’t attracted? Little did I realize the fragrance was the stench death and not life.
Now, once again, I’ve come full circle…back to the beginning realizing that “the way” is not some formula, or systematic understand of the scriptures or “truth of God’s word” but a living way. The truth is not some irrefutable mental assent to scriptural rightness or doctrinal purity but Jesus Christ is the truth. The life is not living up to a set of standards…being “religious” but once again is Jesus Christ. I’m re-discovering that Christianity is not a religion but “Christ in you the hope of glory.”
That is why I am thrilled that Pagan Christianity has dared to slaughter so many sacred cows. If we read it trying to decide if Barna and Viola are right then we lose. But if, on the other hand, we let it challenge us too look to Him for for truth and for life we will find; for He said “seek and you will find”.
I do not think that it is important that we “do” church by the book but that we BE church by the spirit of the living God. That we “bear fruit” to the praise of His glory. The church is not an end or even a means it is His creation..something He himself is building and adding to out of living stones. I’m so often reminded of the statement by the late Keith Green, “Going to church does not make you a christian any more than going to Mc Donalds makes you a hamburger.”
It is my prayer that reading Pagan Christianity will not lead you to seekinga better way to “do church” but to seeking Him! May we stop looking for anything less than Him. He IS the way, the truth and the life! He is the pearl of great price! All the rest is just procedure.
I’m not writing to say who’s right or who’s wrong. I am writing though to learn what people think and how they interpret different religions. It’s the one way and probably the most important of all communication “seek first to understand” then to be understood. Jesus demonstrated this by asking questions of the people He came in contact with. Thanks guys
If God inspired the authors of the various books that were written to form one book, The Bible, how can Revelation 22:18-19 only pertain to the book of Revelation? Does this means that we should only go by the Old Testament? Or is the Bible only relevant for the people back then? If all these books form one book “The Bible” how do we then get to pick or choose which books are relevant and pertain to us? And for the guys who thought this was a commentary only for PC, forgive me, for wanting to learn about God’s Word.Thanks guys
Richard – on Revelation 22:18-19:
The book of Revelation would have originally been circulated on its own, not with other books of the Bible. The Christian canon as we have it today was not agreed upon until 393; the book of Revelation was argued against for inclusion, but ultimately of course it was put in. If one accepts the same author for Revelation and John’s gospel, it would be instructive to note that the gospel doubtless went through at least one and probably more stages of editing before arriving in its final form. Revelation, according to the cited verses, was not to be redacted in any way. A late date for Revelation puts it around the same time as the Gospel; an early date puts it as much as 30 years before the Gospel. Checking a few commentaries on Revelation should confirm that it is the majority view that the verses refer to Revelation and not to the entire canon… which at the time may well have not been closed. We just don’t actually know for sure.
Then too, one must take into consideration the method by which the books of the Bible, and the New Testament specifically, were written. No scholar seriously considers that the writers of these books actually knew they were writing scripture — this would be especially apparent with the epistles.
Maynard, I understand your points, however if Revelation is one of the books that make up the Bible would that not than pertain to the whole Bible? Thanks
No, it wouldn’t — the book of Revelation was originally circulated on its own and that’s how the original hearers would have understood it, and it’s a hermeneutical principle that “it cannot mean now what it never meant then.” Review the explanations I gave above, and you’ll find that if these verses refer to the entire Bible, then it’s quite possible that the New Testament itself violates them. The simple explanation is the more narrow application in this case.
I would like to add a comment regarding Richard’s question about changes to the book: the book ref in Rev 22:18-19 is the same book that the Lamb opened in Rev chpt 5. As Bro Maynard noted, this “book” was circulated on its own. Additionally, I would postulate that the “changes” referred to in Rev 22:18-19 are not so much the tangible writings of the book (which began as a vision, which was not written), but rather the story the book presents – that is the revealing of Jesus Christ and his Ekklesia and the subsequent battle between Christ and those are his with the unbelieving world. It is a spiritual battle, according to Eph 6:10-13.
I should like to shift back to Frank’s book for a moment: One of the questions brought up was why can’t the org church then be changed, if so much of it is paganistic practices? Besides the idea of starting a building project with a faulty foundation or trying to put new wine into old wineskins, there is this: The organized/institutionalized church systems of today are geared towards and promote individualism. Individualism, if you will recall, is what has all but disintegrated family in this country. Are you aware that most Muslims, who are very family oriented, will not even consider Christianity because our so-called Christian country is no longer family oriented? This hit me like a ton of bricks and mortar (church bldg) this morning. Following Christ is not to be an individualistic endeavor: there is a reason for Christ’s many-membered bride, the Ekklesia. God’s first desire is to have a people (not a single person) who meet together to worship him and to help each other, while spreading the good news to others. The org church system is a fractured house, beginning with preacher vs lay person, with many rooms (independent ministries). People meet a couple of times a week to do things and then spend the rest of the week on their own. There is no sense of family of God there. There is no daily gathering to solely minister to God in Christ – no horizontal relationship as directed by the Vertical relationship. Our relationship with God and with each other should be interdependent with regular meetings, accountability and most of all, with Christ as its head to lead and guide.
I have glanced through Frank V’s Here to Eternity, it is a work that is Blasphemous at best ….
[Note: The remainder of this comment has been removed since it violated the unpublished comment guidelines of this website by descending into an ad hominem attack on the author rather than commenting substantively on the content.]