|
Post by karen sawyer on Feb 1, 2006 15:19:55 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 chad on Feb 2, 2006 11:51:32 GMT -5
The notion of existing as the church was a concept that was really foreign to me until I began to actively seek God. In this process of searching and studying it became increasingly apparent that our identity as believers should not be centered around anything superficial but rather something undeniably real. I came to realize that it seemed like my entire spiritual life had consisted of something like sitting at the dinner table waiting for the meal to be served. What I finally came to realize was that somehow I was missing out. I didn't realize how much until I got out of my metaphorical chair, walked into that metaphorical kitchen, opened my metaphoirical cookbook, and looked at that metaphorical recipe with my own eyes. Our spiritual lives do not, or at least should not, consist of waiting to be fed. There is nothing besides our own boundaries that inhibit us from seeing God with a clearer perspective. When we seek God we will find that God is seeking us and when those two things, His divinity and our depravity, meet in the middle a beautiful collision takes place (can't stop listening to that new Crowder album). I believe it is in this very place of spiritual realization that our lives then become a revolution of being. Thanks George. Thanks Chris. And thanks to all those others who have stood their ground in reflecting the truth of Jesus that we find so unmistakably in the scripture and in our lives. Not all revolution is bad and this one will, I believe, help release people into real life at last.
|
|
|
Post by ty on Feb 4, 2006 17:52:46 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 ME on Feb 4, 2006 18:46:11 GMT -5
I am a pastor of a "new" church that is currently meeting in a storefront. Our church has been transformed from a "country-club to an E.R. We have a motto "being the hands and feet of Christ" our goal is to "love God, love our neighbor". This is a new dynamic for our group, one that was born out of frustration in the traditional church and its inability to allow peopl to serve God. Barna is merely observing what is happening in the traditional church.
|
|
rufas
New Member
Posts: 1
|
Post by rufas on Feb 7, 2006 10:30:30 GMT -5
The sentence, "I am going to church" is a true statement because the building is a church building. However, that truth has led to some unbiblical thinking in that we can forget that when we gather we are gathering as the church. BUT Chris and Mr. Barna are taking that truth and also thinking unbiblically. One person is not the church and can't be the church. Just like one person is not an army and can't be an army. The Church and "a church" by definition is a body and a body has many members.
|
|
|
Post by slk on Feb 7, 2006 12:44:07 GMT -5
As a Producer of a Christian TV show that has Pastors as Guest I am finding that there are definitely two camps on this.... But every move of God has had the same reaction. We can ether go with God or fight against His moves. If we don't work with what the heart of God is showing through this research we will lose more of this generation. I am a product of the Jesus hippie movement of the 70's and would have stayed out of the church if God Wouldn't have changed my heart. I say to all pastors... bend to the voice of God on this one.
|
|
|
Post by 4yeshuahamasheagh on Feb 7, 2006 17:24:59 GMT -5
The blog by bethechurch.com is a good one. I also agree with slk -above. I, too, was a part of the "Jesus People" of the 60's and 70's - co-published a Jesus Paper, did street ministries, was in a traveling singing group - but the most significant thing in those days was Tuesday and Thursday nights when we would simply sit at the feet of Jesus ministering to Jesus and He to us for several hours at a time. But we blew it. As more and more people came in, we found bigger and bigger buildings. Pretty soon we were just like the big guys with a paid staff and a big beutifull building stuck on one street corner. We may have become too caught up in ourselves to the point where we had become less than intended by our King - yet - as Barna describes in his book - the King has not given up on America. Others have taken our place, and are becoming the Church more near to what Our Lord wants it to be. There's more. Just as practically no one outside the Jesus movement of the 60's and 70's even came close to an understanding of it - even to this day - so it is with the 21st century. We should hardly expect someone outside the Revolution to be able to even begin to understand it.
|
|
|
Post by chris on Feb 10, 2006 7:46:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by eric on Feb 11, 2006 2:25:08 GMT -5
When I read Barna's book (admittedly with claws RECOILED, not extended), I did not come away with the impression that he disagreed with the principle of covenantal relationships at all...merely the application.
Having said that, I'm wondering when we will start wrestling with the following questions:
1. At what point does the "church" cease to be the "church" and must it be downgraded to some other description, be it fellowship or another?
2. What elements or characteristics are necessary to make covenantal relationships qualify as "church?"
For example, in college (many years ago), I lived in community with believers and shared much: Beliefs, Relationships, Meals, Prayers (Clothes, CD's, Money, Food, and a whole lot more...) Did that qualify our experience to wear the title "church," or was something else missing? Is their enough within Scripture itself to set the guidelines for us, or is it necessary to rely on the IRS or religious history?
It seems to me that until we settle these basic questions, every other question may simply be held hostage to our personal and very individualistic take on the issues at hand.
|
|
|
Post by dave on Feb 11, 2006 2:27:15 GMT -5
I wonder how many of the young adults who now need to be reached are the children of Christians who have been in Church most of their life.
If the mandate of the Church is to protect, nurture, and grow the lambs as well as pursue the goats, why have we arrived at a time in history when so many of the goats are former lambs?
Perhaps our emphasis on the benefits of a belief in a Savior have had the opposite of the intended effect. Instead of believers in Christ denying themselves and taking up the cross, believers have indulged themselves and ended up just as empty and lost as the rest of civilization.
Perhaps if the Church returned to a sacrificial understanding of holiness, and perhaps if the Church was more obsessed with the truth than the Church is obsessed with feelings, more lambs would grow up to be sheep and less would grow up to be goats.
|
|
|
Post by focus on Feb 11, 2006 2:28:23 GMT -5
Seems to me that critics of Barna routinely waste their energies propping up and knocking down the straw man that "Revolutionaries" are individualists who avoid community and accountability. Neither are true, but rather than deal with the real premise of the book--that there are increasing numbers of devoted believers who are seeking alternate forms of community outside the institutional church--we keep talking about Barna's Revolutionaries as unaccountable egoists. What a boring distraction, when we could be talking about how local churches could be connecting with these groups without expecting them to give it up and come back full time.
|
|
|
Post by chris on Feb 11, 2006 10:11:57 GMT -5
I got the impression from Barna that he may even consider many in the emerging church movement to be too insititutional.
I don't think it is as easy as painting with a broad-stroked brush when talking about "revolutionaries". I would consider myself as someone who has the passion of a revolutionary, but I certainly do not fit this quote (taken directly from Barna's book, page 66):
"Ultimately, we expect to see believers choosing from a proliferation of options, weaving together a set of favored alternatives into a unique tapestry that constitutes the personal "church" of the individual."
I, for one, do not see this as a healthy means of community and accountability.
|
|
|
Post by 4yeshuahamasheagh on Feb 12, 2006 23:35:39 GMT -5
Hi Eric - this is a reply to your post. I'm not really sure if I understand what you have said - however, based on what I think you said - may I add this - the "church" is the "called out ones". The church is the people of God. The church is never a building or a man-made institution. Our problem is having grown up in a culture that defines the "church" in a much different way than God defines it. Jesus said that "where ever two or three are gathered in My Name - there I am in the midst of them." The church meets every time my wife and I pray together. The church meets every time my children and I get together for fellowship. Like the religious leaders that Jesus had to contend with in the days before His crucification - religious leaders of today seem to be getting in the way of the move of Holy Spirit. Why did Father wait so long after giving the promise of a Savior to actually send a Saviour in the person of Christ Jesus our Lord? I don't know? Why has He allowed His church that He loves so dearly to languish so long under man's control before doing something about it? I don't know. But doing something about it He is. And we in the North America and Europe are seeing but a shadow of what is happening in the rest of the world. There is a fresh move of Holy Spirit moving across the the face of this planet today. In his book, George Barna has simply given us a glimpse into a part of it. Rather than criticize another for his best efforts to wake us up - we should be on our faces before God in humble repentance and prayer - "If my people who are called by my name will humble themselves and pray, and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from Heaven and heal their land." (I quoted that from memory - please feel free to correct me if I got it wrong.) We should pray, and repent, and pray, and seek His face, and pray some more. Then I think that we will really begin to see what He is doing in these days and even become a part of what he is doing.
|
|
|
Post by Ed on Feb 20, 2006 23:53:33 GMT -5
I agree with Barna's seven traits. But I don't think those make for a revolutionary. These traits have always been there, functioning in most churches. I disagreeessment is that there are a whole different set of issues at work that his research didn't find. Having done a fair amount of survey research for clients, I know that you get what you look for. What his seven traits don't address is church organizational structure. This is one of major blindspots of the evangelical church. They can offer excellent programs and a sound, ethical administrative structure, and still fail to be a healthy church. The mainstream church also can offer the same, but tends to be lost in the value of process. What I'm seeing is that a healthy church is made up of healthy people. Depending on your theology the seven traits can be programmatically used to hide the worse stuff imaginable. So, what is this kind of church? I'm coming to the conclusion it is one where people are honest with themselves. By this I mean they don't either blame the church for their miserable life, or don't transfer the responsibility for their own spiritual happiness over to the church and especially to the pastor. What is required is a great deal of honesty, respect, transperancy and a firm grasp on the nature of God's grace. In a sense the precondition for the seven traits is mature self-honesty followed by genuine repentance. And it starts with the pastor in the pulpit. People do what they see their pastor doing. The result will be seen in the seven traits and by what I refer to as personal initiative to do the right thing. And the church organizational structure has to provide space for this initiative to take root and develop. I appreciate what Barna is saying. His dilemma is that he may be too immersed in his own religious context to see beyond these seven traits.
|
|
|
Post by jim on Feb 24, 2006 1:54:06 GMT -5
There is a tendency for satisfied church-people to pooh-pooh the observations Barna has made. I read someone here say "There are thousands of churches where... deep and long-lasting relationships" with the body of Christ are central. Thousands? Really? I'd love a list becuase the churches I have undoubtedly had the misfortune to experience are not like that. The institutional church (which, incidentally was never intended to be an institution at all) has lost the plot. Barna is right about that much though I haven't read his book... maybe he's gone too far toward an individualistic faith. It's time for the church to face facts instead of disparaging the ever growing cloud of witnesses that is looking toward a dimly visible horizon. It's time for the church (the community, the body, the people of God) to die to its institutional self. And if we won't (which is more likely, I'm afraid) then it's time for those of us afflicted with a holy dissatisfaction to come out.
|
|
|
Post by leo on Feb 24, 2006 2:00:46 GMT -5
As someone whose church is probably one of those that you might say “really” preaches the word I see the other side of the complaining. I hear things like “I can not bring my unbelieving friends to this church. The sermon would be over their head.” or “Spending a year preaching through one book of the Bible is too much detail.” We really do need to own our growth eventually and not expect so much of our leaders. When you are preaching to the masses there is no way to speak to everyone’s needs. Part of the point of growth is to realize this and stick it out with each other. We married into this family, or were adopted into it, and though it is dysfunctional, I love it.
|
|
|
Post by art on Feb 24, 2006 2:12:41 GMT -5
Obviously, we, like all believers, are each at a different place in our spiritual pilgrimage. As a minister on staff at a local church, I, too, get frustrated that I am "not getting fed" enough here. But whose fault is that, really? Who is responsible for my spiritual growth? Me. The Holy Spirit deals with me about me. Me and my sin. Me and my relationship with others. Me and my tithing. Me and my personal study. Me and my view of God. While it is no one else's responsibility to "make sure" I grow, the people in my local church do play a large role in my growth. My Systematic Theology professor once said (quoting someone else, I believe), "The beauty of the Church is that our own understanding is enriched by others' experiences." Great quote. Is it possible for "the church" to effectively feed everyone at every level to the satisfaction of each individual? No. Some are hungry for the word, while others are there because it's Sunday morning. It's what they do on Sunday. There is only so much a church can offer pilgrims. If the church leadership is obedient to what the Spirit of God is leading them to do in that local fellowship, He is free to move unfettered by the "system." If, however, the Spirit says, "Do this. Go here." and, for financial reasons or complaints from members, we go elsewhere, we are setting ourselves up for failure and are sidestepping blessings. It is obedience, both individually and corporately that will mature believers and win the lost. Our problem is that we have compromised. On a final note, we have also become guarded, and understandably so. One of the greatest things those who are more mature can do, is share their struggles and failures and how God has restored them or corrected them. This may give hope to the child, as well as warnings. There will be some who will give blank stares or eye rolls, but how many times did Jesus say, "Those who have ears, let them hear."?
|
|
|
Post by Allen on Feb 24, 2006 12:44:21 GMT -5
Thank you George Barna for the book and thank you bloggers for posting your coments. It has all been interesting.
I agree that there is a revolution going on in America today. Indeed - there is a revoluton in "the kingdom of God" underwayon the entire planet. What has Barna done? He has given us a tiny glimpse into just our little corner of that global revolution.
I agree with those who say that the word "revolution" may not be the best choice of words to describe what God is doing in these days - but then that is probably because there is no better word in the English language to describe it.
That being said, just what is going on here and globally? [Some will say that Barna has oversimplified it - yet, my attempt is to boil it down even more - with this in mind: there are nearly 300 million people in the USA - and each have there own story. So I'll stick to the story of just one person - Jesus Chist our Lord].
Back to the question - What is going on here - or better yet - just exactly what is our Lord up to now?
I submit to you that He never changed his plan. He came as a humble child to humble parents to an unknown stable. He spent 30 some years living with a carpenter and his mother in an obscure city in a tiny country. He spent 3 years walking the dusty roads of that tiny country with a rag-tag group of a dozen young men.
After his personal mission on Earth - after he had uttered the words "It is finished" upon that inglorious cross he returned from the grave and spent several more weeks with those who had walked the dusty trails with him.
He gave them a simple command "Go and make disciples of all nations, teaching them to obey all that I have told you."
Now - how in the world were they to do that? First - He told them to wait for Holy Spirit - who would come upon them in power and guide them in all truth.
What do you suppose they were to do next? You got it - Go - in the power of Holy Spirit - and make disciples of all nations.
How would they know what to say and do? Holy Spirit would teach them. And Holy Spirit would teach those who became their disciples.
Now for the big question. Why do you suppose He led such a humble life and picked his disciples one at a time and then spent most of His time for the scant 3 years with just those 12? I submit to you that it is because that is exactly what He wanted them to do after he had gone back to His Father.
He wanted them each to find those who whould be discipled - one at a time - and in they in turn would do the same. Our master had a plan where every nation, people and tribe would be reached in this way. It is the way he builds every living organism - by one cell becoming two, and two becoming four and so on and so forth. It is also the way He has polulated the earth.
This whole plan with the organic Church went really well too for a few hundred years. It took that long for man to take over and set things up man's own way.
Sure, the organic growth that started in the first century has continued to this day. But greatly hindered because so few of those who have been redeemed have been about their Fathers business - that is personally finding lost sheep and personally discipling them - and that is all that is required for the exponential growth that is part of our Master's original plan.
For some - but not all - that means breaking free from man's institutions. But please do not get the idea that just because a person doesn't spend an hour once a week in the building on the corner that he or she is out of fellowship. Or that that person is somehow less a vital part of what God is doing today. I think you'll find that he or she has left the pew to be what God has called them to be. And I guess that if enough people were doing that it could be called a Revolution.
|
|
|
Post by brit on Mar 8, 2006 22:11:06 GMT -5
Wow.
I actually like the term Revolution and Revolutionaries, but I won’t use them, of course. It just seems more appropriate.
Two things I would say about this “Revolution.” First of all, the people who are truly a part of it are not saying they don’t need the Church. They are saying they don’t need churchianity. They are saying they don’t need man’s systems and forms and beauracracies and traditions and organizations. The Church is an organism, not an organization. And most people’s image of Church is the organization, which makes it a type of revolution, I guess.
But we really need to understand two things (they might be one thing with two parts … but we’ll leave it at that). First, that the true Church has always existed. True spirit-filled believers have always sought out relationship, community, holiness, miracles, personal and public revival and other things. That has always existed. Listening to Tozer and Ravenhill lately, they are saying much the same thing that these “modern” “Revolutionaries” are saying. The truth is not ours. We are His. He will have His people. He will have His bride.
Secondly, we will always have to deal with religion vs. relationship. Always. Until we stand before Him in Eternity and kneel and give an account of all we’ve done, we will have to struggle against those that want to organize, traditionalize, label, analyze and therefore kill the move of God. Sometimes those people will be ourselves.
My point is this. We can’t see this Revelation as a solution, as if finding new traditions will solve the basic problem, which is the will of flesh to work out what God wants to do through His Spirit (Galatians). Who has bewitched us?
Of course I haven’t read the book and maybe Barna addressed these things. But my question is after reading this post … what is Barna doing about it? Its neat to talk about and analyze, but some of us are actually willing to remove the World and put on Christ and let everyone else discuss it.
Peace.
|
|
|
Post by david on Mar 8, 2006 22:39:10 GMT -5
From what I have read, house churches have been multiplying for some time. There was one in our area, though they would not call themselves that, We attended it about 4 times. They were sincere, Biblically knowledgebale people. Two of the couples cam from a church planted in the area by a former Rick Warren church staff member. They were musicians and rebelled against the worldliness of the performers and the church.
The house church movement needs Elder guidance by trained Elders. However, it could be what will save America from the path of European secularism. The traditional churches have too many "Professionals" in the Pastoral ministry.
What is needed are movements of House churches that have trained roving Teaching Elders. Forget the Clergy Clubs with their "Professional Conventions" with the Revs and Drs and other trappings. Let their be conventions involving all in the house churches. Back to the Basics based on sound doctrine, Biblical separation, and small group Bible discussions and fellowship. Some may even build buildings but keep attendance to a certain level through multiplication.
Mega churches and super star pastors can be detrimental to genuine spiritual growth and evangelism. Even in the Doctrinally sound ones.
I was a Pastor in a conventional church for 25 yrs. Enjoyed the ministry and the fruit of ministry. However, also among the Plymouth Brethren for a period in the late sixties. Church can be done much better than the conventional pattern. Perhaps conventional churches should start having cell Bible groups.
|
|
|
Post by jacks on Mar 8, 2006 22:40:57 GMT -5
I read the article in Time when I received it in the mail the other day.
Personally I believe that some are turning to house churches because of a disdain for spiritual leadership.
I also believe that there are sincere Christians in this movement who spurn the over-instutionalization of the church. One sobering statistic given in the article was that in some churches 75 percent of the funds are just for the staff and buildings.
I have no problem with paying staff, but I do have a problem with our obsession with buildings. Buildings are a necessity but the reality is that buildings are the main focus of many churches today. The most moving events are the building offerings and the building dedication. The most important churches are the ones with the bigger buildings.
When churches become businesses where the management of property and payroll become the main ministry, one can understand why some Christians would get tired of it and want to meet in homes.
|
|
|
Post by mags on Mar 8, 2006 22:44:26 GMT -5
In most churches, even fundamentalist ones, are businesses. Their elder model is the Pastor-as-CEO, with the committee being deacons. We use advertising and attractive campaigns, just like those we condemn, only not on their scale. We use specific "ministries" to attract a target audiences, like "Military ministry" or "[fill in the blank minority (except for blacks, we just don't have many of them period) ministry]. Many churches teaching focus on advertising and marketing, or wait, I think I mean evangelism(?). That's why many use Sunday school (like my home church, a very good fundy church) to stress evangelism, not theology. We want to be "practical" and want teaching to be "relevant to people's lives" hence the focus on application without exegesis, on "Bible Studies" where the primary focus is one something "practical" i.e relevant, like "Being a better wife" etc. What you don't see is a lot of Sunday school programs or Bible studies where people learn "Basics of Biblical Interpretation: Learning how to study and apply your Bible" (this would not consist in handing out Strong's), or "Systematic Theology." Perhaps "Church History" or "Apologetics"? No, we don't see that kind of thing. When we meet we're so "busy" "worshipping" most people don't know the other members, are not involved in their lives, and certainly aren't close enough with the local body as a whole to ask for things from fellow members.
Just because we're less light-show oriented and we aren't willing to stoop to taking polls and doing detailed demographic studies does not mean we are exhibiting the basis philosophy of the marketed church.
It's a fascinating historical note: During the early centuries of the Christian church, when it was expanding as it never has since, there was no "evangelisim" as we know it. They didn't invite people to church because church was for Christians, and Communion, being for baptized believers only, was the focal point of worship. Most Christians were converted through the tesimony of their co-workers and fellow members of society. And this expansion was still occuring well past the 2nd century. Why is that significant? Because by the end of the 2nd C, people didn't just "join" the church, they had to be become chatechumens and go through, usually, 3 years of chatechetical school. Yet still the church was expanding. Try that as a membership requirement and see how many "converts" you get each year. Yet, when you think of it, they just realized the Great Commission was not "Go ye therefore into all the world, handing out tracts and getting decisions for Christ, baptizing them and then letting them sit on your pews for 50 years. Amen." Actually, it was to make disciples who could make other disciples.
House church a rebellion to spiritual authority? Maybe in some cases. House church a reaction to lousy churches that confuse busyness with "ministry" with being spiritual? Very likely.
How many elders (pastors/CEOs) are renowned in their town for their hospitality? Wait, they're to busy "running the church" for that, aren't they? Maybe it wasn't a requirement for the office. I think I was confused.
|
|
|
Post by seperate on Mar 9, 2006 21:37:46 GMT -5
If we read in the bible and find out what the "church" really is, is it not about realationships with other christians? When the out side world see s the church acting in love to eachother, Jesus says when we act this way the world will know that we are HIS. Coming out of a church that did use small groups as a way to have a mid week service I learned that it was based around building relationships with one another instead of seeing these people on sunday and never really knowing them. Therefor you get to know one one another you get closer , more intimate relationships and learn that other people really care.
If you dont know those you go to church with how can you love them?
How can the world see that we love each other if we dont even know what the person on the pew sitting to our right or left is going through?
I think the biggest problem in alot of churches is they dont really disciple the people who walk into the doors on sunday, wednesday, whenever... I mean you hear this message on sunday, you might be taught on sunday morning but, how many places have you been where all the people in the church are moving in the "spirit" in GOD's power? We are supposed to be set apart from the world.
|
|
|
Post by nf on Mar 9, 2006 22:05:43 GMT -5
Barna does have some accurate observations, but his solutions are woefully inadequate and even injurious to the truth. There does seem to be a revolution coming (even, it seems in fundamentalism), but I hope that the revolution produces a body of people who are completely sold out for Christ and His word rightly applied. May God help us do our part to encourage that kind of movement.
|
|
|
Post by truthseeker on Mar 9, 2006 22:08:09 GMT -5
This abandoning of the church has already begun in the lives of some of my friends in Christ. This is truely sad as it seems that God is working more than ever on the face of the earth and that the birth pangs of the coming of Christ seem to come closer and closer together.
My friends seem to use excuses such as, the church just wants my money not my service, blaming the ministers of being greedy and corrupt, not humble and Godly. They say they don’t see the gospel of Christ being presented. Instead the gospel of the almighty dollar. I advise them to ask the Lord for a church to attend that has a Godly pastor and God fearing people whom fear the Lord. However, they seem defeated and say that they will serve God on their own and admittedly not very well. They think that they don’t need the church. I have counseled them that we are commanded not to forsake the gathering together of the believers. I have also shared with them Ephesians 4. I’m looking for any advice or help that may help with my counsel to my friends? Also if anybody knows of a good church to recommend in the Boynton Beach, Florida area that would be helpfull? Thanx
|
|
|
Post by pat on Mar 9, 2006 22:15:01 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 kerry on Mar 9, 2006 22:48:05 GMT -5
Here is a book to be written: “The Evolution / Reconstruction of G. Barna.” He has moved from - my words - almost Triumphant to Despairing to Repentant / Humble(d) to now a New Advocacy (with hesitancy). His often unstated presuppostions of his earlier books seemed based on a Willow Creek / Seeker Model / pastor as LEADER pastor.
I personnally feel he has both served the church & wounded a good many good servant pastors (”if you ain’t a strong visionary leader, why are you pastoring?”).
I guess I am giving Barna few more years to decide / discern where he is. His stats / data - even IF they are “objective numbers” - require an interpretive grid & his seems to be in flux.
|
|
|
Post by GTRGRT on Jan 14, 2009 21:50:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by GTRGTR on Jan 14, 2009 21:51:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by GRTGR on Jan 14, 2009 21:56:38 GMT -5
|
|