|
|
Post by trierr on Feb 24, 2006 1:46:07 GMT -5
While I hardly qualify as "spiritually mature," this describes almost exactly what I am going through. I have attended evangelical churches for over 20 years since my "conversion" experience. But I am increasingly disillusioned with church and it's focus on attendance, buildings and cash.
It seems that many very good people in my church are not really interested in knowing the biblical Jesus, but only the republican Jesus. My theology is going through extensive revisioning and I find myself increasingly attracted to Catholic reconcilliation. And that in itself disqualifies me from any position of leadership in most evangelical churches.
So, while this post asks a VERY pertinent question, what I want are thoughts on direction. Is it okay to settle for different? Is it okay to check out of the local church? What do we do about the wall?
|
|
|
|
Post by mike on Feb 24, 2006 1:47:06 GMT -5
I'm curious about the book's premise. It makes sense if you view "the church" as a building, a leadership structure, a set of by-laws, a denomination, or a doctrinal creed. The premise loses me, though, if you view "the church" as God's community of the redeemed. Periods of internal reflection are necessary in many Christians' lives, at many steps along the journey. But Scripture points to our ultimate destination as eternal communion with God, New Jerusalem, where "the dwelling of God is with men" (Rev. 21:3). The ekklesia is (or should be) a foretaste of that future. Personally, I can't think of any "spiritual giants" of the church's past who weren't involved in a community of one kind or another. If spiritually mature people are indeed leaving the church's formal structures (and I'm sure some are), I would argue that it remains the church's problem. The solution is not adding more classes, volunteer opportunities, or worship styles, but rather examining whether the church is truly focused on its mission to lead people to reconciliation and deeper communion with God and with each other.
|
|
|
|
Post by casey on Feb 24, 2006 1:48:14 GMT -5
I certainly have felt this way before. I believe that Barna is wrong though. The local church body is crucial in God working in the world today. God intends that we share life with one another. When I hit a wall and get discouraged, it is when I am in a me and God mentality. When I hit a wall and find ways to continue to progresss, I find it is a me, God, and the people God are using in my life deal. I think the look inward has to be forced to once again look outward. To see the pilgrims around you who are travelling the same road. To quit trying to find a church who does everything right, but find a church that is Biblically based and make it a little better.
|
|
|
|
Post by A on Feb 25, 2006 23:42:48 GMT -5
I have always wondered why people care what Barna thinks. He is a researcher who is good at research. He is not good at interpretation of research. His work should be put in the hands of practitioners to make it useful.
The emerging church did start out as a reaction against somethings, but it is that no longer. It is a movement with a positive message. Many things start out as reaction, but must morph it something else to be of significance (The Reformation for example.) The emerging church has succesfully made the transition and has no need to look back or answer ridiculous charges like those made by Barna.
|
|
|
|
Post by agent 8 on Mar 8, 2006 22:02:29 GMT -5
Yeah, i wasn’t gung ho on the label “revolutionary”. It kinda sounded real “us vs them”. But I figure, if Barna wants to call me (and others) some identifying word, so be it.
It’s funny…the obvious vocal critics of this book are…you guessed it…paid church ministers. They obviously have a lot to lose (job, dentity) should these trends be true. It seems like these critics try to paint Barna as an agenda pusher. I think he was just reporting facts…very conservatively too.
|
|
|
|
Post by gaffe on Mar 9, 2006 21:44:17 GMT -5
"The Church" I think is, or has become an American cultural form of something deeper and more important. There are followers of Jesus who live in other countries and have other forms of their belief. They love J as much or more than we do and don't have a "church" or a "small group" or a "house church." They continue to do what they've always done: eat together, visit, talk, hang out, discuss holy scriptures. The difference is that now Jesus is the motivation for all of it. All of the sudden, their lives make more sense. So, I've been thinking, what would a Jesus revolution look like in America without the "church" as we know it? Well, that's irrelevant, because we have the "church." Church is an American cultural form. These believers in other countries don't abandon their cultural forms, they acknowledge that Jesus is the bomb, the shiznit, the center of it all. Belief in Jesus isn't precluded by involvement with any cultural form, including the "church." BUT, belief in, and following of Jesus can happen in a "church", but that's just one tiny part of our lives. We have to realize this.
So, then, what would my life look like, given my existing cultural forms, if Jesus revolutionized my heart?
|
|
|
|
Post by bill on Mar 9, 2006 22:24:09 GMT -5
Will people such as those Barna describes actually, eventually build new institutions and remake/revitalize old ones? Will they gather so prominently to establish "contours" of some sort, or will they be like the saints through the middle ages who gathered in little groups and were almost lost from history? I only hope they do not decide "some animals are more equal than others". And "Napoleon is always right." (Some have suggested the Jesus movement led to authoritarianism, then back to the institutions... I wonder if Barna has researched that era and if he mentions it.)
In the 1500's, the Lollards were wiped out and the Lutherans began building a new branch of "the system". (Meanwhile, the Waldensians stayed "below" the radar in the french and swiss alps. It took them hundreds of years to systematize.)
I wonder which one Barna is predicting? Or will he suggest a new option?
I guess I'll have to read the book!
|
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Mar 12, 2006 1:39:51 GMT -5
It is almost as if Barna is advocating a spiritual version of Rousseau’s myth of the Noble Savage. For Rousseau, of course, the myth (now strong in the popular mind) was that the “natural man,” unfettered by the shackles of civiliation and technology, lived in a state of natural purity and goodness. Civilization, however, brings with it bondage, degradation, self-interest, and all sorts of other vices. Barna seems to have a similarly romantic image of the “Noble Christian Savage,” unfettered by the trappings of dry institutionalism, empty tradition, and other vices that often beset American evangelicalism.
|
|
|
|
Post by gold3245654 on Jan 21, 2009 20:48:41 GMT -5
|
|
