|
Post by karen sawyer on Feb 1, 2006 15:19:21 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 Denise on Feb 2, 2006 9:29:19 GMT -5
I am not sure I agree with everything this book is talking about, but at least we have to talk about it. I can't believe that a college would actually encourge their students not to read something that would make them think. I guess thats maybe the biggest part of this whole thing, isn't it? We aren't allowed to think and figure things out for ourselves. I guess we just can't be trusted with that responsibility. What a shame.
|
|
|
Post by GREG on Feb 2, 2006 10:57:24 GMT -5
I must respectfully disagree. Barna isn't so much espousing this idea as much as he is saying it's already happening. And, to say that churchless Christianity is like sexless marriage indicates a mal-informed view of what the church is. It indicates that church is a place and nowhere in Scripture does it say this. Believers are the church, so where there is a believer, there is the Church. The people about whom Barna wrote in his book are leaving the institutional church because it has become more about Churchianity than about Christianity. Barna isn't the only one saying this; McNeal writes about it (to a minimal degree and from a slightly different angle) in his book The Present Future.
Open Theism is a gnat of a problem compared to the heresy in this book? Really? Come on.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Feb 2, 2006 11:00:14 GMT -5
In a generation of young believers which is already confused about the nature and purpose of the church, I commend the stand these professors are taking. As imperfect as she may be, we must remember that the church has been purchased with Christ's blood, and God will see to her continual sanctification and purification.
|
|
|
Post by er on Feb 2, 2006 11:07:10 GMT -5
For those of you who haven't read Barna's book, you can find the audio of a presentation he gave on it as well as a written synopsis and limited discussion of the book's ideas here. www.keyspace.org/revolution.html
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Feb 2, 2006 11:11:13 GMT -5
What a revoltin' development! I am redefining appalled and shocked.
Such a Revolution would drop bombs and make craters in 2000 years of understanding of the Body of Christ as taught in 1 Cor 12 and Romans 12:4. How is it even possible that the Body of Christ could be the Body of Christ if all the members choose to revolutionize/revolt and do their own thing? Can it possibly be that Barna considers Paul's use of the body language to be a cultural phenomenon that can be safely dropped 2000 years later?
Yet on another level this view does have great advantages for the personal and physical realm as such a Revolutionary view of the body has great potential for my own personal body. All the sermons/reading/thinking that could get done while I sleep or play golf...wow, boggles the mind.
Or then again, maybe not.
I agree with Drury, open theism, as twisted as that problem is, truly is nothing to what will be created by this "new revolutionary" church. This development will not restore the church to a position of strength that impacts our society in the least bit and will hasten its fragmentation.
To think of all the trees that had to die for this book's existence. Shame.
|
|
|
Post by greg again on Feb 2, 2006 11:26:51 GMT -5
We must get beyond the idea in the US that the church is a brick-and-mortar establishment because that in and of itself is blasphemy. We're the only country in the world with that view of church. I can't possibly understand how a belief that God can't see the future is less damaging than people leaving the social club we call church for a smaller, more meaningful gathering of believers who are serious about their faith. Frankly, I'm glad people are beginning to get serious about Biblical Christianity and are shunning what is quickly becoming (if it hasn't already become) "churchiolatry."
|
|
|
Post by jimmyspencer on Feb 2, 2006 13:53:49 GMT -5
FEAR...can you smell it? it simply amazes me that folks so offended by words could write such offensive rubbish. as a follower of jesus for over 20 years and as a pastor for over 10 I am appalled and saddened by the gross asssumptions in this article. this board will be proof positive at the continued closed mindedness of american "christians"... since when did the local organization of the church become the vehicle of God? It is the people within the brick and mortar facilities that make up the hands and feet of Christ..and if those saints choose to congregate outside the walls of your set up organization and choose to fellowship amongst each other-- then God bless them if they are practicing the teachings of Jesus. As a pastor I have for years groaned at the consumerism in the local church and longed for the Church to rise up and act...this is what you have been praying for right??? revival...REVIVAL! well now you have it . people have become so impassioned at following Jesus that they are questioning use for the structure of many of these "local churches"...are you above this...have you become "indespensible to God" Why are they questioning your structure local church leaders? Because most local churches are full of consumers who show up to "church", hear a message...grade the message and go on there merry way....this is not the life Jesus called us to...and what Revolutionaries are doing is questioning the legitimacy not of the Church..but of "local brick and mortar" structures that claim to do God's work and imbezzle His money for their strucures, paychecks, and comfort. That was the temple of Jesus day, that was the religous leaders of Jesus day...that was one of the things that Jesus came to deliver us from! I know the Church will never die because the Bilble says so..but do not mistake your man made structures for THE HOLY CHURCH..you may have members of it in your pews (or chairs) but THEY are Church...those who have faith and live out Mathew 25:31-46. Do not make the mistake of the catholic church and believe that man can only approach God through you. You, church are simply a manifestation of the love of your Master, you are a tool, God in all His power would be just fine if every brick and mortar facility on this planet were scattered..just like he was fine when He scattered the walls of His own Tempe in 70 AD. No man... or group of elders... bind God,or His work. God always prunes what is not fruitful, and has no interest in producing fruit. When the branch consumes all the resources intended for bearing fruit..the branch is cut off and thrown away. This is biblical. This is not a question of who's right or wrong but where is there fruit? So maybe the local church and it's leaders should fear. the Church on the other hand will thrive. jimmy spencer---www.shemamovement.com
|
|
|
Post by Ljenkins on Feb 4, 2006 18:43:39 GMT -5
Whether you agree or disagree with Barna is not the issue. The meditation and prayer to God should be whether Barna is right about the declining church. An if so, what can be done. As to the first question, it is easy to see that he is right when it comes to the denominational church. What is more difficult to see is whether there is a or soon will be a decline in the 'mega church' movement. Here, I see the signs of it already. The sermons are good but watered down with every cultural icon possible. The attendees seem excited within the service, but don't seem to have any emotion upon exiting. There seems to be a lot of organized groups, but no passionate self-organized like-minded groups. There are a lot of children, but the programs barely mention Jesus and instead focus on values. Alot of youth mission trips that involve socially concsious activities, like building Habitat for Humanity houses, but no actual preaching the gospel. My point is that these new churches seem so intent on getting people in the doors, and invloved, but not as much in developing passionate disciples. They seem to be sowing the seeds in the shallow soil or even sowing seeds amongst the weeds. The answer to this problem is already prescribed for us in the Bible. Either the pastors in these churches begin to lead their congregation and bring in deeper soil, even at the expense of killing the weeds, or indeed the seeds will sprout but the weeds will surely choke them out, and in the end, the 'church' will be left with weeds. The seeds that sprouted will either die or God will lead them to a spot with good soil. And it may be just a small group of like-minded seeds gathering together. That, I believe is simply what Barna is observing, the beginning of God leading the sprouted seeds to deeper soil.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Black on Feb 7, 2006 10:45:32 GMT -5
All I can say is that if Jesus was here physically today and if He would say the same things he said then, He would be as dangerous to our religious institutions as He was to the institutions then...He would also be as reviled today as He was then by those who so vigorously defended those institutions...
|
|
|
Post by bill on Feb 21, 2006 0:37:18 GMT -5
While reading Barna's “Revolution,” I was reminded of people I've known and interacted with over the past decade or so, who took mission into their own hands. We also took Bible study into our own hands. This was long before “Emergent.”
However, with Barna's research in mind, and looking back from a higher elevation, I began to see what looks like natural “emergence.” The kind of emergence that occurs when an element has been taking on increasing energy and is just starting to jump to the next quantum level. It is order forming out of chaos. It is the beginnings of a phase change.
So, I think that Barna is both right and wrong. So-called Emergent church is reactionary. Of course it is, it's mostly X-Gen which is a realistic, reactionary generation. However, there is still real emergence, from the sociological perspective. What ever it is, it will emerge from chaos when a significant number of Barna's “Revolutionaries” find one another. I'm studying all I can on this now because I want to help light the fuse. I'm tired of church as usual.
|
|
|
Post by 4yeshuahamasheagh on Feb 21, 2006 18:42:39 GMT -5
This is a reply to the comments made by Chris Bounds, Keith Drury, and David Smith of Indiana Wesleyan University as follows: "Encouraging our people to buy it would be like promoting a book that celebrated pre-marital sex and extra-marital affairs as the wave of the future. People do not need encouragement toward such behaviors. What this book promotes if far more serious than pre-marital or extra-marital sex: it is a dangerous book."
First off "this is a dangerous book" - I see your point. But to whom is it dangerous? Is it dangerous to the Kingdom of God or is it dangerous to man-made institutions? If you read the book with an open mind you may find that it's major premise is based on carefully carried out research. The book is informing you about what God is doing in America today. It is about what God is doing - and neither you nor I nor anything else can stop what God is doing. Your putting the book "Revolution" on a "don't read list" certainly won't stop it. As a matter of fact - doing that will probably result in more people reading the book than otherwise would have read it.
Finally - as a person who has been a part of what George Barna calls the "Revolution" long before the book came out - I'm saddened by your comparing Barna's book to the promotion of "a book that celebrated pre-marital sex and extra-marital affairs as the wave of the future." Do you know what you are saying? You are saying that the book is promoting sin. If it is promoting sin, please tell us what is the sin in loving God with our whole heart?
|
|
|
Post by lonnie on Feb 21, 2006 22:06:34 GMT -5
What surprised me about the article from the professors was an almost pharasee-ic “only we Biblical Scholars can truly interpret Scripture” attitude. It actually scared me. Consider:
“…from a biblical standpoint, this text would fail any and all of our exegesis classes.”
-The statement is self-defeating. Are they talking about a biblical perspective or the perspective of “our exegesis classes?” I know that they work hard at good exegesis, but the reality is that Jesus couldn’t have been a member of a Wesleyan Church until after the Last Supper when he pledged to (temporarily) give up his drinking habit.
“My suggestion to Mr. Barna; this book should have been co-written with a team of scholars who would join together with to utilize Barna’s sociological strength of reporting trends of culture and opinions of society…”
-Maybe it’s not intended, but what I hear in this statement is, “Only WE SCHOLARS should be allowed to interpret the Bible. You stick to your surveys and let us interpret them for you.” Again, they may have a valid criticism of Barna’s premise, but I think it’s arrogant to presume that his problem is that he is not a “scholar.”
“His ecclesiology, with a myopic preoccupation upon individual discipleship and a personal relationship with Christ, simply follows to its logical conclusion a shallow Americanized model of the Church…”
-Unfortunately my experience with the “shallow Americanized model of the Church” is that the typical church is myopic in it’s self-focus. As Eric has lamented before, new people are put on the conveyor, sized up, plugged into the place “deemed appropriate” and subsequently siphoned for everything the church can get out of them. It’s definitely not universal to every church in America, but the American church has in many ways become more concerned with “preserving the corporate values” than making disciples in Jesus name. Ironically churches such as this tend to attract people who are looking for a church (club) that has the best member benefits.
“…the Church is the primary means of God’s saving grace…”
-Enter the Reformation. ‘Nuff said.
Again, I don’t disagree with the understanding that maintaining a connection the “fellowship of believers” is quintessential to maintaining a growing relationship with Christ. And I don’t think that these professors are malicious in their intent. My reservations are centered around the insistence that “our exegesis” is the only right one. My brother-in-law has recently become a Jehovah’s Witness, and now he is told that he can only read what they tell him he can read. If Barna is so far off-base, bring him front and center and, through discussion, help students see the errors. Incidentally, I wonder how many times these three men have quoted Barna when his statistical analyses supported their viewpoint.
I think it is easy to forget that the leaders of the Jerusalem church weren’t in their position because of their knowledge of the Torah. They were in their positions because they knew Jesus.
|
|
|
Post by dan on Feb 21, 2006 22:09:19 GMT -5
George Barna, George Barna… hmmm - oh, yeah - I remember him… he’s that guy who helped bring to light some major issues in the church - so much so, in fact, that a lot of people have heralded him as a MAJOR leader within the Christian community - oh, THAT George Barna… the one who has actually TAKEN THE TIME to DO research - instead of just pontificate from pulpits AS IF they had done research - oh, him, the guy who people TRUST, the guy who has motivated entire church movements to reconsider HOW they do church and reach the masses who don’t know Christ and, because of that, are destined for hell… THAT ‘George Barna’…
Yeah, he’s probably full of crap, right? I mean, let’s not even CONSIDER that he MIGHT be on to something… cuz, you know, we couldn’t live without our polucks…
|
|
|
Post by dan on Feb 24, 2006 1:50:55 GMT -5
If a community exists to nurture itself, it's cries for commitment are brittle and miscued. If a community exists to nurture the world around it, and tend to itself, it's cries for commitment ring true to their need for shared support and mutual encouragement. Most classic churches spend 90% of their energies "nurturing" and modeling outward vision that ultimately seeks to grow the local church, often for misguided reasons – enter the glorification of larger communities vs. smaller ones. As a pastor and leader in various local roles, and in a national movement for about 20 years, I've watched us "tweak" our church systems to paint a new picture for folks who join us. When the church system itself is on the chopping block, our hearts are laid bare. A new generation seems to be voting with their feet. The object is not to retain them. It's to listen to their pain and frustration, even anger, and learn a few things from the communal fire.
|
|
|
Post by still on Feb 24, 2006 2:07:14 GMT -5
Wow! I'm not the only one! I spent about a decade in leadership of a small church plant, before that a year overseas, and have served in many churches and parachurch groups. Two years ago, after a decade attending the same church week-in and week-out, I felt it was time to move on and have been really discouraged by what I've found. Yes, the church is about community and relationships, but when I walk into churches, it's like walking into a shopping mall--hundreds of people going about their business with no connection to those outside their little circle. The mega-church "places-to-be" are geared to the seeking christians. If a mature believer shows up, there is no place for you. I never hear a sermon that I haven't heard before and none that deal with the questions I'm grappling with. The non-mega-churches have been decimated by losses to the mega-churches. Just the old and feeble are left.
|
|
|
Post by dan on Feb 24, 2006 2:09:08 GMT -5
It humorously amazes me how protective we are - how NON-able to LEARN we are - how UN-teachable we are. Nobody grows by clinging to their pet-peeve issues. A great many of us who now write and post to blogs were, at one point, champions against "the older generation" who were raging war with us over such life-changing issues as "guitars in the worship service" and yet, here we are, unable to move our own mountainous issues. It doesn't matter what we all SAY about "the church" - and it doesn't matter whether you think George Barna is "negative" or whatever... the REALITY is that most churches in America are NOT REALLY creating DISCIPLES. Yes, SOME are! Of course, SOME ARE... just like SOME men don't view porn... SOME women don't have a problem with overspending and SOME kids don't rebel. Not to pick on any one church, but I'm going to - only because I happen to think that SOME of what they do is DEAD ON RIGHT! Willow Creek (heard of it?) has a WEEKEND service that is created to attract ANYONE... it is NOT "church" as we know it. It is what some call "entertainment evangelism." Fine. It works for them. They get tens of thousands of people on a weekend. To their credit, they also offer a mid-week "believer" service that is designed for "real" worshipers of Jesus (my words, not theirs.) Now, here is my issue - the GOAL of Willow is to move folks from that weekend event into the mid-week believer service. Willow has been around for over 20 years... Logic tells me that, by now, that mid-week believer service should be HUGE - as in needing to meet at MANY church campuses - if, in fact, Willow has fulfilled their stated goal of transforming all those "seekers" into "believers." But it isn't that way - the mid-week service continues to be far less in attendance than the weekend services. Why? Because "fun church" is more desirable. All this to say - it ain't all that "fun" to be a disciple of Jesus. You get hollared at and stuff! It's MORE "fun" to be part of a jammin' church where the pastor and music director are more like Letterman and Shaffer... in the short term, this is great! However, over time, as we are now seeing, the substance has left the building - and people are beginning to notice - and they are leaving... And the reason they are leaving is NOT to go find a better show down the street... it's because (drum roll) they are not ENCOUNTERING JESUS where they currently worship. So, what's the solution? As corny as it sounds - Just Give Them Jesus! Well, kinda like they did in Acts 2:42-47... which, by the way, ended with a wonderful blessing from God of adding to their number DAILY those where were being saved... Talk about "a Church Growth Plan..."
|
|
|
Post by rob on Feb 24, 2006 2:10:39 GMT -5
The Book of Acts shows a number of ways of doing church: house gatherings, start-ups in schools, gathering in larger congregations at the Temple; so I don't know if the "how" matters as much as we think.
But all too often we look down at others who do it differently, when these people are still our brothers and sisters in Christ. I wonder if we ought to have something similar to the great feasts of the Old Testament, when all the Jews gathered together to proclaim their love and need for God and to acknowledge that they were a nation still.
Maybe I'm immature. But one book that profoundly changed my idea of the church is Bonhoeffer's "Life Together," and I'm not so hard on the corporate church as I once was. What we need, I think, is to become organized and yet remain an organism. And we simply cannot miss the truth that, though we do church differently, we who confess Christ as Lord are all one Body.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Feb 25, 2006 23:54:35 GMT -5
Does this suprise us when pop psychology and "individual therapy" has replaced the priesthood, sacraments, accountability of fellowship and community in America? The funny thing is that almost all of the housing tract companies here in AZ advertise as "communities" and "places to connect" etc. So the trend in secular advertising is going the opposite direction to the trend in the churches. So anticipate in another 30 years the protestant church will discover community again...it always is 20-30 years behind the culture it adopts as "spirituality".
|
|
|
Post by 4yeshuahamasheagh on Feb 26, 2006 9:08:08 GMT -5
my dear friends and fellow bloggers - there is something here that grieves me. I did a word search on the last 100 blogs on this site and found the word "church" came up at a nearly ten to one ratio over the word "Jesus" Folks, may I remind you of something? This is not about us. It is about Him. It is Jesus who is at the center of our lives and who is our focus. The question is "What is Jesus doing in these days?" In my opinion, the book Revolution is more about what He is doing than anything else. It did not appear to me to have at it's core a critique of the IC (institutionalized church). To find that, you'll have to read what Jesus had to say to the religious leaders in the New Testament. However, many who posted here seemed to feel the need to defend the IC. To you defenders of the IC I wish to ask a few questions. How many people have you personally led to Jesus in the past year? How many really close friends in Jesus do you have - where Jesus is the center of your fellowship and for whom you each would lay down your life for the other if need be? Can you tell me the essence of the sermon you heard a week ago? If these questions upset you, I have a suggestion. Pick up your Bible. Now read through Revelations Chapters 2 and 3. Having done that, go through the 2 chapters again, and pause at each verse and ask the Lord if that verse applies to you. This may take a while, but it will be worth it.
|
|
FBbondServant
New Member
Proverbs 27:17 As iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend.
Posts: 17
|
Post by FBbondServant on Feb 26, 2006 22:01:59 GMT -5
OH GOD how I do agree with the comment by 4yeshuahamasheagh.
Lord let me be chaste and pure so that I may do Your work here on earth.
Tall order but not only well worth it but possibly a manandatory assignment.
|
|
|
Post by ps on Mar 8, 2006 22:09:36 GMT -5
i think it is interesting that we can all read the same book and come out with complete different ideas (that’s the brilliance of the Bible…that plus the Holy Spirit equals amazing things!). the parts that stood out to me the most emphasized the difference in growth (seen through characteristics such as “Spirit-led, faith-focused, scripturally literate, and biblically obedient”) between the two types of Christians (labled traditional versus true diciple). last night i was discussing the importance of who you are surrounded by spiritually with the girls i lead in a small group. we hit on the fact that its not ok to just be around christians for support,but to be around Christians that are ernestly seeking after the Lord with their whole hearts (which I would agree to label a True Disciple…read The Master Plan for Evangelism by Robert E. Coleman…chapter 3…this book is great..eventhough the title and cover are a bit cheesy for me). we need to be challenged, pushed, held accountable…and the only ones that will do this are true disciples that are leading an obedient life in Christ. all of these things (including barna’s quotes) seem to state the obvious…but its just nice to have it stated…in writing. thoughts are not shared until they are communicated! another obvious statement.
|
|
|
Post by not me on Mar 8, 2006 22:49:09 GMT -5
This book is really turning my stomach. He is basically telling people to leave the church for true spirituality. He makes the two mutually exclusive, when I would say that no one can be spiritual who leaves the (not a) local church.
|
|
|
Post by louie on Mar 9, 2006 21:58:33 GMT -5
I hope you’ll keep your mind free from this and stick with God’s Word, pray for brother Barna and be sure to join the right revolution!
|
|
|
Post by hutch on Mar 9, 2006 22:25:40 GMT -5
I ordered "Revolution" by George Barna over a month ago and have just received it and finished reading it. It's 140 pages and a very easy read in one or two sittings. Barna's observations are profound and, from my perspective, right on the mark. He does a great job of avoiding a one-sided presentation and gives equal time to what his critics are saying and will be saying about his findings regarding "church."
This book could not have been more timely for me. At a time where my family and I have hit the peak of our struggle between staying true to time honored traditions of "doing church" and staying true to the genuine faith that leads us to "being the church", this book provided much insight and encouragement.
Rather than serving as a transforming agent in my life, this book has served as an affirming agent of the transformation that the Holy Spirit had already begun in my life and in the lives of my wife and children (ages 22 and 24.) I'm sure it will be the same for many others.
I am grateful to God in how He is presently answering the tough questions, regarding church, that have developed for me in recent years.
|
|
|
Post by van on Mar 9, 2006 22:28:12 GMT -5
Although I have not yet read "Revolution", I have read comments about the book. From what I have read, this book is a confirmation of the already well established fact of the "House Church Movement" impacting millions of Christians all across the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Europe, and elsewhere. It is also a confirmation of what James Rutz published about the house church phenomenon in his blockbuster book "MEGASHIFT" (Copyright 2005).
Few have ever considered that Jesus Christ NEVER made a statement such as "Blessed are those who go to church". On the other hand Jesus said "Where TWO (or more) are gathered in my Name, there Am I in the midst" (and that means anywhere, anytime, and without clergy). It may be in a home, under the apple tree, on a farm, at the ranch, in a supermarket, or wherever. Even the scripture in Hebrews "Forsake not the assembling of yourselves together" is taken out of context in the world of churchianity, and that scripture has nothing to do with an institutional church setting, sitting in the pews, or listening to preaching. It also does not say anything about a Saturday or Sunday "go to church" event.
True worship is a life lived in Jesus Christ 24/7, and is not a weekend event called "going to church". While all Christians would fully believe in taking the Gospel of the Kingdom of God to the unsaved and uncoverted, playing nursemaid to born-again Christians in a concept called "going to church" is not a biblical idea, but rather is one conceived in the minds of the religious.
There is no doubt that the institutional church world is being greatly impacted by the mass exodus from churchianity, and is destined to be rocked in the years to come.
|
|