|
Post by karen sawyer on Feb 1, 2006 15:18:41 GMT -5
Welcome to the Revolution Chat message board. Please feel free to browse the topics posted, suggest new ones or reply to this article.
There are multiple pages of comments. Please be sure to visit each page to see what has been said. You can find the scroll bar for sub pages at the bottom left of this page.
Thank you, The Staff of Revolution Chat
|
|
|
Post by David on Feb 2, 2006 10:38:34 GMT -5
It seems to me that when you take the local church out of the life of a christian, you also take the Pastor out of His life - and Jesus said the sheep are scattered without a shepherd. He not only died to save you, but to give gifts to the church (Eph. 4) which include the Pastor. Hearing the voice of a Pastor is the most important voice for a christian to hear - not the only voice - but definitely the governing voice (I Cor. 12:28) that puts the other gifts - apostle, prophet, evangelist, teacher - in their proper place in your life. Paul's last words to the leaders of the church in Ephesus is noteworthy to this point - "Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock among which the Holy Spirit has made you an overseer - shepherd the church of God, which He purchased with His own Blood". Without Local churches, we are without Pastors. Without Pastors, we will not have the ability to sustain any "revolution" in any person.
|
|
|
Post by Robert on Feb 2, 2006 10:40:04 GMT -5
George Barna began his career by writing about the non-Christians in church (people who attend but don't really believe). Then he moved to getting non-believers into church (the seeker movement). Now he writes about true believers who don't go to church.
First, let's understand George has a career at stake here. He needs to write the next book, come up with the subject for his speaking tour and training sessions (look for "How To Get Revolutionaries into Your Church" training).
Finally let's remember that Biblical Community (the local church) is a product of the work of the Holy Spirit. When a group of people are Spirited-filled, as Barna claims the Revolutionaries are, church occurs almost spontaneously.
Mr. Barna is wrong - the local church will remain - flawed yet beautiful. The church ain't going away until He returns to claim her.
|
|
|
Post by David on Feb 2, 2006 10:41:22 GMT -5
How many of the "revolutionaries" dropped out of the local body not out of conviction for a purer life but anger about a perceived insult or snub?
We can justifiably criticize the church of today until the King comes back. Problem is, the churches of the NT were as immoral, unfocused, distracted, ungodly, cold, unscriptural, etc as we accuse the present day church. Read Paul's epistles; Carnal Corinth, fighting heresy in Galatia, divided Philippi, and who would want that SLAVE OWNER Philemon for a member? how would you like to be a member of the church in Thyatira? Yet Jesus called the group at Thyatira a church, extended His love to them, and offered them opportunity to repent. And they were all probably revolutionary house churches! With young men sleeping with their stepmoms! For some reason, Jesus still loves this dysfunctional group called the church.
|
|
|
Post by wayne on Feb 4, 2006 17:49:51 GMT -5
I think human beings reinvent themselves continually according to the waves of culture around them. Change always brings tension. If we view the tension and the fray of dialogue as a gift that exposes the heart and directs us to the source of discomfort, we're more on course than ever. Pain is a gift, as it directs to the part of the body that needs attention, correction and care. When shouts and cries are heard because someone is in pain, it brings the rest of us to their aid. The dialogue, silly and tiring as it may seem to us, is the fruit of confidence – that we can ask hard questions and be free to be wrong as well as right. In attempting the conversation, we're coming alive.
|
|
|
Post by dan on Feb 4, 2006 18:05:36 GMT -5
I think we're still missing the point here... Barna is not blasting "the church" - he is simply stating, quite accurately, that "the church" if failing in it's effectiveness in reshaping our culture - his stats show this to be true, and if we just look around and use our eyes and ears, we would see that, except for a few minority cases, this is an accurate statement.
|
|
|
Post by mark on Feb 4, 2006 18:20:10 GMT -5
I believe George is prophetic in his understanding of the future of mainline churches and the church in general. As a pastor in a large mainline institution, I see the signs of terminal illness everywhere: declining membership and involvement; lack of spiritual hunger, no passion for outreach. I sit in denominational meetings where the whole focus is on maintaining the status quo. Yes there are vibrant churches and members in the congregation. Yes, there is significant church planting going on. But the overall health of the church is in series jeopardy. Evangelical Christianity is in trouble in general. We are defined by what we’re against and not for what we believe in. Too many people are tired of the hypocritical Republican, white, male brand of religion what we promote. Today people hunger for an authentic spirituality with the living God. Sadly, they have left the “church” because we have no real vitality to offer them. We have no consuming vision to offer them other than growing our institution.
|
|
|
Post by ck on Feb 4, 2006 18:21:42 GMT -5
What we are dealing with now is a redefinition of what "church" actually is. even pre-Willow evangelicalism was not really "redefined" when the seeker sensitive model began to take root. New methods emerged (census/demographic data, etc) for doing "church" but never was the ultimate essence of "church" at question or under the process of redefinition. If anything, the processes and procedures underwent a facelift but the paid clergy, meeting center, program-laden identity stuck. fast forward to now, and we don't really see new procedures being described, but an entirely different ecclesiology based on returning the validity of 1st C. context, assessing evangelicalism less in terms of eschatology but of missiology (as a priority, not as mutually exclusive). It is not the activity (alone)of the church that is at stake, but the identity that comes through form and practice. I simply feel that bivocational ministry, decentralized meeting places, and fluid ministry are more the hallmarks of this ecclesiology and therefore will become replacements for the things already mentioned. These are replacements not because the other models are wrong, they simply don't fit a redefined ecclesiology. Please let me know if I'm just being naive and general about this. I have seen the underpinnings of it in the rise of multi-campus churches and house churches, and expect it to grow into a full ecclesiological shift in my lifetime. Barna or no Barna. peace- c.k.
|
|
|
Post by keithb on Feb 10, 2006 0:48:41 GMT -5
The Review by Sam Storms is as complete (at least the first part) as any review I have read on the book so far. The book causes such emotion that many simple respond without addressing Barna's mainpoints. I appreciate and concur with Mr. Stroms evaluation and rebuttle. (1) As mentioned in an above post the church has always and will always have trouble. Jeus told us the tares and the wheat will coexist until judgement day. Paul still refered to the saints at Corinth when they were not so saintly. Why? Was Paul lying? No they were in Paul's mnd (no matter how immoral and immature) the church at Corith and they were precious to him becuase they were percious to God. Other places we are told to lift up or rebuke those who are not living for God - and take heed lest we fall also. It seems if so many outside the local church truly loved God they would also be spiritauly strong enough to hold the line and remain in the "c"hurch instead of going "a wall". (2) The main point of contention many have is Barna's claim that the local church is not needed nor a biblical concept. He pushes it aside without addressing major passages that teach us what a local church should be and do. (well this is getting long so i better stop here) This is my first visit and am glad to have found this site. GBA Keith
|
|
|
Post by BOB on Feb 11, 2006 0:43:08 GMT -5
Where in scripture is a "universal" church (kirk) found? Matthew 16:18? I hear talk of "universal" but in most instances in scripture "church" is in reference to a "local" congregation. The governmental set up of church (pastors, elders,deacons,etc) found in the scriptures do not lend themselves to a "universal" setting but rather a "local" setting. Just wondering where is the "U" church (kirk) found in scripture I hear other refer to?
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Feb 11, 2006 0:47:11 GMT -5
Bob-
Matthew 16:18 is the closest reference to the "universal" church in Scripture, because Jesus said that His church will be built upon the confession that He is Lord. This is not a reference to a local autonomous congregation; it is a reference to the whole of all who belong to the Lord.
The second area of Scripture that lends itself to the 'universal' church idea is the image of the church being the Body of Christ. If this image is only a reference to individual congregations then there are many 'bodies' of Christ, which is contrary to the idea of the "One Body" (see Eph. 4:4).
Third, the apostle Paul wrote letters to many different congregations that he called the church. He even asked that some of his letters be sent to other regions to be read by the congregations there, which also gives weight to the universal church idea (see Col 4:16).
Never once in his letters does he identify himself with one particular congregation, such as "I Paul, a member of the Antioch church, write to you. . ." There seems to be an implied understanding in the New Testament that Christians belong to the One Church, but gather together as a community in the city they live in. This is attested to by Paul, Timothy, Titus, Silas, and others who traveled to other congregations, participated in the ministry there, and exercised authority in those congregations all without 'placing membership' in those congregations. If the Church is one (universal) then there is no need to 'transfer membership' from one congregation to another, because all Christians belong to the one Body, the universal church.
Everytime I visit a congregation other than my home congregation, I do not have to place membership to be considered a brother in Christ. Why? Because I belong to the Lord's Church, i.e. the universal Church.
All that being said, it is still vitally important for the spiritual health of Christians that they be connected to a specific community of faith within the larger Body of Christ.
|
|
|
Post by dan on Feb 11, 2006 1:06:18 GMT -5
Did I read a different book from some of you? Wait, let me get it... okay, holding it in my hand - black cover, red and white letters - big word "Revolution" on the front... yep, this is the book.
Are we really so narrow minded as some of these posts indicate? Can we actually stop for one moment and SIMPLY CONSIDER that Barna might be onto something here - even if it tampers with our cozy, comfortable relationship with our local church?
You know - the Bible makes it clear that in the end times, lines of division will be drawn. We will actually be amazing and surprised at who takes what side - sides, by the way, that Barna has painted quite clearly in this book - we are either FOR Christ - totally, or we're not. No middle ground.
Yeah, Barna may not be 100% on the mark - but we're really not saying here that the majority of our local churches are succeeding are we? Come on! Look around!
As I said on another blog - at least Barna has taken the time to REALLY DO the research... rather than simply invent stats to support some twisted thesis - as is done all over the place. I think we are going to see much of what he has stated here come to fruition. And, if not, then God be praised anyway!
|
|
|
Post by jams on Feb 21, 2006 0:10:05 GMT -5
I think most of us(Christians)feel threatened by the idea that maybe there is a very real potential for healthy discipleship outside of the "church." We haven't witnessed enough successful examples to concur with Barna's findings. He's really hanging himself out there, using his credibility to validate what he perceives to be the future of the church.
|
|
|
Post by dan on Feb 21, 2006 22:13:11 GMT -5
As I have been reading what the critics have to say about “Revolution” I am somewhat surprised at the blatant lack of honesty with their remarks. All these “scholarly critics” seem to have this need to make sure that everything they say against Barna and his book is couched in typical “Christian-ese” - I guess that’s so they can justify their attacks.
But really, the reason church leaders are getting upset is more simple than that.
If the church doors close, then the money to pay salaries goes, too. Me thinks this might be one of the MAJOR contributing factors to all this “theological criticism.”
|
|
|
Post by Morry on Feb 24, 2006 1:49:35 GMT -5
I won't make any claims for myself as to "spiritual maturity," but after growing up in church all my life--really churches: Baptist, Pentecostal/charismatic, then PCA Presbyterian--I felt like something was missing as to a central emphasis and the way we as the church lived out life together. I feel like I discovered what was lacking--not to sound cliche, but an emphasis on the centrality of Jesus Christ in all things--and the way this would look in practice: being the Body of Christ in deference to one another, with each member taking full responsibility for the direction and gatherings of the church. In short, I discovered house churches. Sure, not all of them are alike, and yes, they can be volatile, but since the popular introduction of the internet just over a decade ago, people who are willing to gather with one another outside of hierarchical, rigidly institutional lines have been on the increase. Our church is among a significantly smaller subset of house church in that we live in community with one another, in a neighborhood on the edge of Atlanta. We also have a church planter who periodically visits us (anywhere from a few times a year to every other year) to help gauge our health in both practical body life and weightier spiritual matters. We are networked with about 25 other such house church communities around the world, and we try to be good neighbors to those around us. Now, are "we" the trend of What Is To Come? I doubt it, not fully. I don't think there will ever be one monolithic form of church--there never has been. But there are a growing number of us, and if you feel so inclined to this path, welcome.
|
|
|
Post by t on Feb 24, 2006 2:02:50 GMT -5
I think community and fellowship is absolutely essential for a believer to continue to grow in their walk with the Lord. Is church in the traditional sense the only way to foster community? I am not so sure that it is. I am not saying it is a good thing that are best and brightest are not attending church, but I think it should serve as a wakeup call to churches everywhere. Instead of worrying about putting on a great show, worry about impacting lives and sharing the good news of the salvation found through Christ. I for one have had enough of the megachurch/minichurch aspiring to be a megachurch era, lets just go back to basics, maybe then church will not seem like such a painful experience for these believers who are not attending.
|
|
|
Post by pat on Mar 8, 2006 22:05:38 GMT -5
I was darn excited when I discovered this book from Barna. I may be one of those “paid church ministers”, but I definately feel and see the need for a revolution. Yet, I was rather dissapointed with the book. It seemed way to easy to make the jump to “just embrace the Jesus way of life all by yourself.” It is easy to see this book as saying that we don’t need the church at all. Now, I don’t think this is what Barna is really saying. But in our hyper-individualized consumer culture it sure is easy to read this book that way.
The Bible clearly calls us beyond ourselves to unite with a group of others on the journey embracing the Jesus’ way of life. This is what church is (or at least is _supposed_ to be).
I guess I was left with the idea that we don’t need church anymore. I just can’t buy that. What I do buy is that we need radically different forms of church, perhaps some that haven’t even been dreamed up yet.
House Church, Simple Church, Organic Church…we shouldn’t forget: they’re still church! After all, church isn’t the building or the program or the traditions (or even the anti-traditions). The church is the people.
|
|
|
Post by jason on Mar 8, 2006 22:20:19 GMT -5
What we need are apostles, prophets, teachers, pastors, evangelists, miracle workers, healers, helpers, administrators, etc. I think I read that somewhere. That’s the diversity we should be searching for. But the only way that can happen is if we are willing to put off our own agendas and talents and just obey Him.
A corporate idea of the Body of Christ where we identify people’s talents and we put them all together so we can all perform in our strengths and look cool might be attractive on some level, but its not Christianity. And I would also take issue with the idea that people are revolutionary within the institution. I guess its possible, but I would have a couple questions. Why didn’t John the Baptist join his father’s institution (by the way, that was the priesthood initiated by God through Moses and Aaron)? Why wasn’t Christ born and raised as a priest? Have we actually read what Jesus said about those in the institution? “Pit of vipers” comes to mind. How long do you put up with old wineskins? You can’t put new wine into them. You can’t redeem the institution, only the people within them, which is why we love them and we don’t separate ourselves from the people of God who might still be a part of them. But we also love God enough to radically move forward to His standard and His purpose. What will that look like? Let God decide. And to use a proper description instead of a label … That, my friends is revolutionary.
|
|
|
Post by sbradley on Mar 8, 2006 22:46:29 GMT -5
Just read through the first chapter and it makes me sick. Here are two of his false assumptions on which he seemingly basis the rest of the book on: The universal church is more imporant than the local church, and true spirituality can be achieved outside of a local church setting. If I have seen anything these last couple of years, it is an increased push and concentration on the universal church at the cost of the local church.
|
|
|
Post by jackie on Mar 9, 2006 21:57:05 GMT -5
I remembering seeing Barna on TBN. He was talking with the younger Crouch children and pro-actively encouraging Christians to leave the organized church. It was both confusing and upsetting — I kept asking myself if this was the real Barna? I guess it is, sadly so!
|
|
|
Post by Amy on Mar 12, 2006 1:43:00 GMT -5
I just finished Revolution. His premise is that the nature of how Christians interact and establish faith communities is changing. In some ways his ideas are similar to those of Brian McLaren; Barna calls these “new” Christians Revolutionaries. Revolutionaries are more interested in being the church and producing fruit than in participating in a brick and mortar church. They have a deep abiding faith and express that outside the confines of the traditional church. He points out that all though church attendance is declining in the U.S., there is an increase in spirituality among Christians. Unlike many within the traditional church who are worried about declining numbers, he believes these Revolutionaries are going to transform not only the church but the country.
|
|
|
Post by Allen on Mar 12, 2006 23:16:35 GMT -5
What is the book "Revolution" about anyway?
First, let us read what Paul has to say, "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish." --Ephesians 5:25-27
What did Paul say? "Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it" Sounds like this "church" is pretty important to Christ - so important that He was willing to "give himself for it."
Paul goes on to say "That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish."
Now for my "take" on this whole "Revolution" thing - I think that George Barna is simply documenting what our Lord Jesus Christ is doing in His Church today. Christ is sanctifying His Church. He is cleansing it. He is preparing it to be presented to himself as a glorious Church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing. A Church that is holy and without blemish."
This clean-up job our Lord is doing on His Church is bound to rankle some of us who have personal vested interests in our own projects. But - we must put the flesh to death - Paul said, "I die daily". Jesus said we should be taking up our cross daily if we wish to follow Him.
So who are the "Revolutionaries?" I would say they are those inside and outside the traditional structures who are wanting to love and follow Jesus 24/7 with their whole heart - and who have put off the flesh - and are being built together "as lively stones" into His structure - in the power of Holy Spirit.
What think you?
|
|
|
Post by TRGTR on Jan 14, 2009 21:51:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by FRERE on Jan 14, 2009 21:52:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by GTRGTR on Jan 14, 2009 21:56:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by GTRGTR on Jan 14, 2009 21:59:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by GTRGTR on Jan 14, 2009 22:02:09 GMT -5
|
|