|
Post by karen sawyer on Feb 1, 2006 15:15:41 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 tonyfelicitydale on Feb 1, 2006 18:19:37 GMT -5
I would like to post what I wrote to Kevin Miller, the VP of CT, when I read his article:
"I read Bonhoeffer’s “Life Together” back in my medical student days, and was greatly challenged. In fact it was one of a number of books, most noticeably those of Watchman Nee and Rolland Allen helped fill out the list, that challenged many of us in the starting of new churches, that have since then become the British “New Church” movement. It is interesting that from the early 70’s until the late ‘80’s this movement was known as the British house church movement, and faced many of the same criticisms that you level in your article. My, what a few years of existence does to make one appear more “orthodox” or “within the mainstream.” I don’t think CT would level those same criticisms at the British “New Churches” now.
That is just my point! Allow these new (house) churches to grow (and multiply rather than just get bigger, which was our mistake in England) and thrive and ten years from now CT will be thanking the Lord for these early stirring of the move of God in the first decade of the new millennium!"
Obviously I am biased towards house churches, being so involved in this emerging movement. Why don’t Christian movements learn from the lessons of the past? Why does the last move of God nearly always find itself in the place of persecuting the “next” move of God? It reminds one of the famous adage from the history books that “the only thing that we learn from history is that we never learn anything from history!” Many of us have prayed diligently over the past 5-10 years that as this movement was exposed to the light, we would be blessed by the leaders from the past. Up until now this has mainly been the case. I would love to challenge all of us to find good things to say about each other rather than bad! After all, Jesus did challenge us to "bless, and curse not!" Let's bless each other as we all seek to follow the Lord to the best of our ability
|
|
|
Post by ryan on Feb 2, 2006 6:03:53 GMT -5
I agree. I'm tired of people telling me how God is supposed to be working in my life. I haven't been a 'part' of a local congregation for years, although I have attended off and on so people saw me hanging around...my real faith community was a group of fellow believers that I lived and breathed and worked among from day to day...people like this Kevin Miller better wake up real fast and smell the coffee. God is on the loose and He isn't walking into the temples on Sunday morning.
|
|
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 2, 2006 10:31:03 GMT -5
It is quite disappointing and almost amusing to find the conclusion at the end of the CT article. All through the writing I was unsure whether he was really for or against this genuine move of GOD. I for one will do the one and not leave the other undone. We CAN have agreement in the body of Christ!
|
|
|
Post by Paul on Feb 2, 2006 10:43:35 GMT -5
It is interesting to think about this. If what he is saying is true, and I have seen lots of his trends become true, then it is sad revolution. This would be a major step backwards for the body of Christ. It does confirm what I am seeing locally. Probably everyone would agree that people rely less on churches today than they did 20 years ago. It would seem to be the next phase of that trend.
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Feb 2, 2006 10:44:42 GMT -5
I haven't read the book (my disclaimer), but from what I have read about the book, I am confused about why house churches are being labeled as not a part of the church? House churches are a local church, they are often a part of a larger group that meets together regularly and does all of the stuff (meet regularly, partakes in communion, worships together, serves together, is a community) that a larger church does. Many of the churches in history would be considered "house churches" by today's standards. House churches are very different things than only going to Christian concerts or an only on-line community as your gathering.
|
|
|
Post by Rich on Feb 2, 2006 10:46:20 GMT -5
I suppose Barna has lost hope in church as we know it and this book is his rationale. He titled a recent newsletter: "Surveys Show Pastors Claim Congregants Are Deeply Committed to God But Congregants Deny It!" A constant, unceasing diet of church malaise would push anybody to embrace a revolution, right-minded or otherwise. Any institution or movement with live human beings involved will be flawed: these Emergent and "revolutionary" churches will be no less flawed than the churches they broke from. Rejecting the dysfunction of the parents doesn't automatically make children healthy, and emancipation doesn't always set you free.
|
|
|
Post by dan on Feb 2, 2006 10:48:04 GMT -5
I am halfway through Barna's book. And I can see, after reading some of these comments posted here, why some might feel nervous to state that they agree with George Barna's thoughts... I mean, what if he IS correct? Why does that have to be "a step backwards"? Why can't it be just the shot in the arm we (believers) need to actually get off our high horse about "church" and simply LIVE AS the church Christ calls us to be? At the midway point, I am having a hard time finding things I DISAGREE with in Barna's book. But I am, after all, only on page 79... As George so earnestly stated in the preface, he urges people to read the ENTIRE book before making a blanket judgment on it's value. And, as one other poster above mentioned, he does have a fairly solid track record... and if he is correct, then let's use this info to springboard FORWARD, more in alighment with Christ's designs for His children.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Feb 2, 2006 10:49:56 GMT -5
Barna has written a great book that provides less statistical information and more personal commentary on trends that he has witnessed for years. Barna is a reformer at heart. That should be clear from the work he has been doing for years. As most reformers can attest, at some point you grow weary of your efforts to bring reform and begin to flirt with the possibility of revolution, and sometimes if reform begins to take hold it looks more like revolution. Things are changing and we in the church would do well to pay attention to those changes. Our definition of "church" is an important part of the discussion, and I would say that Barna's book and choice of words was directed more toward "regular" churchgoers than those of us who spend most of our time thinking about church and theology. House churches, simple churches, or whatever you choose to call them are a natural progression in the development of the church organization. That's not to say that the larger institutions will cease to exist, but there will be a growing number of people that they simply won't be able to reach. Other forms of church are going to fill that gap.
|
|
|
Post by Gary on Feb 2, 2006 10:51:52 GMT -5
The First Great Awakening did NOT bring all new people into the "Church". The three major denominations were Congregational, Episcopal and Presbyterian. The first two were supported by taxes as "State Churches" that hated the new movements and resisted all that happened. The theology was Armenian and challenged the hyper-Calvinist ideas of the day and led to the American Revolution. New movements arose we now call Baptists and Methodists. Then they were lay led, small groups that met in houses and taverns. Read "The Churching of America" for more information and "The Fourth Great Awakening" by Fogel for a Nobel Prize Economist's take on the power of todays' spiritual movements. Barna is just catching up to Fogel and Starke's insights. It is time for CT and Leadership to do the same and stop idolizing the old European model of community building.
|
|
|
Post by Pator Mark on Feb 2, 2006 10:54:04 GMT -5
I just returned from a conference led by Reggie McNeal author of The Present/Future. The thought process,the trend issues and the conclusions appear to be in perfect concert with Barna's. I am a senior pastor who entered into the ministry - having come out of the "Jesus People Movement" In those olden days, it was vogue to be relational, real, and radical. The demise of the local church which is not relational, real and radical is most likely the work of the Holy Spirit. On the otherhand the revitilatization of the local church that is relational, real and radical is also most likely the work of the Holy Spirit. I remain excited about the future of the local church - large or small. An authentic expression of the virtues and values of the Christ is not just a 20 somethings dream - it resonates deep within the soul of us 50 somethings as well. "If your in a dead church get out of it" may leave us with alot of empty buildings for a season but the church that is built upon the foundation of His Word - adorned with the beauty of of worship in Spirit and Truth and that is held together with the fabric of intimate relationships is going to explode upon the scene. That church will bring transformation. This new revolution is just another wakeup call to a church that has been in a deep sleep for a very long time. Those who rise will shine.
|
|
|
Post by Rick on Feb 2, 2006 11:44:09 GMT -5
Thanks for the link to the Barna article in CT. As I read the article, I thought for the upteenth time about how vital it is that Christians today regain confidence not merely in biblical ends but also in biblical means. There is hardly an evangelical figure who does not say that he longs for more well-grounded disciples of Christ who make a difference by leading radically Christian lives. But all these same figures seem to think that God's Word has nothing authoritative to say about the way this happens. The article chronicled how Barna has gone from one methodology to another over the years. The reason: no sense of a clear and authoritative Word from God about ministry methods and organization. Surely, writ large over the record of the late 20th and early 21st century church in America will be the words: "Biblical Ends Vainly Pursued by Unbiblical Means"!
|
|
|
Post by jose on Feb 2, 2006 17:47:34 GMT -5
It is time that we as evangelicals begin to de-mistify George Barna and his statistical machine. This movement that he describes sounds like the “social gospel” movement where many young people leave the comforts of their suburban lifestyle and move back into the city to live and work among the poor and homeless. The problem is that these people do not really share the gospel with those that they “serve”, so the so called “social gospel” is really no gospel at all.
|
|
|
Post by myles on Feb 2, 2006 17:49:06 GMT -5
jose, i don’t know where you live or what you do, so i won’t touch your commitment to the gospel, which i have no doubt is a strong one. i would ask you however, to consider that living in somewhere other than suburbia means considering that the Gospel might have implications and means that don’t fit suburban marketing or propositional understandings. the dichotomy between how one lives and what one believes is a false one, and has been restricted to ‘religious’ beliefs, and i suspect that the younger evangelicals are trying to figure out how these things fit together. if you want to disparage them for not relying to a propositionalist mode of application of Scripture to put the two together, so be it. but i counsel you to talk first to those you disparage, rather than lambast them first.
|
|
|
Post by SKIP on Feb 2, 2006 17:50:29 GMT -5
George Barna has described something is happening. Although I do not ascribe to the term “revolutionary”. I am comfortable with being “obedient”. I have personally been involved in “non-traditional church methods for 4-5 years. I can tell you that I have been blessed to be around people who are desirous to deepen their understanding of and relationship with Christ and who know that we are part of the Ecumenical Church - The Bride of Christ - The Great Mystery.
My personal experiences at various leadership levels with the local church (or Traditional Modern Church - Barna is correct in his assessment that it is a man-centered/man-created model) have consistently demonstrated that man uses man’s techniques to grow and organization that is intended to do some good.
I have seen some of the good it does (and there is some). However, I have seen the Gospel Message jetisoned in favor of Seeker Sensitivity and Growth at all Costs (including blocking the work of the Holy Spirit). This is not Christ building His Church to advance His Kingdom…this is man building his kingdom to advance his church. I know because I was a radical participant in the project for over a decade in various local churches where we were anticipating the next “Purpose Driven” technique to advance the kingdom.
Lastly, let me say that what Barna describes can and does occur in the context of the local congregation. It is small groups of truly hungry believers who know there must be more who have the fortitude to find it. I can tell you that it does create a tension, especially if the means do not line up with the “vision of the single leader” of the local body.
As long as it lines up with the Vision of the High Priest on the order of Melchizedek who is building His Church, I say “go for it”!
|
|
|
Post by Mike B on Feb 2, 2006 17:53:11 GMT -5
I must say that I am amazed that there are so many on this blog commenting on Kevin Miller’s review of Revolution, rather than commenting on the book itself. I, for one, have read Barna’s book and found it to be quite challenging. I have also visited a dozen or more blogs to read the reviews that are out there because I am interesting what the “church” is saying about it.
I am a 48 year old boomer and feel I fit right in with the Emergent crowd in search for more than programs and boring predictability to occupy my time. I remain a member of a local church and attend 98% of the services and events that take place there. If I miss something, it is because I am out of town.
Yet I find myself identifying with Barna’s definition of a revolutionary. Although I would not call myself one, I do identify with the characteristics he gives them. Does this make me anti-church? Hardly! I accept the fact that the responsibility of my spiritual growth is mine alone. If I was to wait around for the leaders of my own church to fill that need, I would be waiting a long time. As a seeker sensitive church, most everything is geared down in case someone happens to walk in our doors and does not want to be offended by religious stuff. While I myself do not like the religious stuff, I too am a seeker. Yet when I look around, I find that the maturity level of many in our church levels out at the depth of the common seeker.
So what is one to do if one has an unquenchable desire for God and wants to go a whole lot deeper? The answer does not lay in forsaking the church. I have to find it for myself. So Barna’s understanding of what Revolutionaries do to meet their spiritual needs is correct. I am meeting more and more of them each day. So if people want to fault me for anything, fault me for wanting to grow deeper in my relationship with God. The answer to this issue does not lay with accusations being lobbed at each other, it is to address why so many think the church is failing them when it comes to their spiritual development. It’s a simple as that. They will not be looking for a program or an easy fix. They will settle for nothing less that an all out pursuit of God. I know this sounds like I am accusing those committed to the local church as not pursuing God. I do not intend that. What I am saying is that Revolutionaries want to pursue God at a much higher level than is currently being done at their local church.
The subtitle of Miller’s article states “George Barna wants commitment to the local congregation to sink lower than ever.” Now come on! I read the book twice and did not find that at all. So the battle lines are quickly being drawn. Most of those who disagree with Barna seem to be from academia. Those in favor are from the Emergent movement.
The issue is really simple, what will the local church do with those within her walls who feel disenfranchised? Will they stand up and defend their definition of what a church should be and exclude the Revolutionaries, or will they embrace them and seek to meet their needs for spiritual growth? This issue will not go away. The church HAS to seriously consider this. If not, Revolutionaries will continue to leave church as we know it to form churches as they believe they should be.
|
|
|
Post by James on Feb 2, 2006 18:15:14 GMT -5
Barna wrote "It seems that God doesn’t really care how we honor and serve Him as long as he is number one in our lives and our practices are consistent with his parameters." This statement is puzzling and seems to show an inconsistency in Barna's reasoning. On one hand he is saying God is not concerned with our practices, but in the same breath says our practices have to be consistent with what He wants from us? ? This inconsistency aside, I think what Barna is seeing and praising are Christians who exalt themselves above the body of Christ and refuse to submit to God's authoritative design for his church. Can Christians meet in a house church? You bet because the New Testament shows us that early Christians met in homes. Can a Christian exist apart from the community of faith? No, and usually when Christians try they end up returning to the ways of the world so that one cannot distinguish them from an unbeliever. The church is supposed to be an outpost of God's kingdom in this world, and rather than run from it Christians should run to it for support, instruction, guidance, and help.
|
|
|
Post by nobody777 on Feb 3, 2006 12:42:58 GMT -5
I think I would have to maybe disagree a little bit with the notion of calling George a "reformer". As I have studied things, reformers do one thing; they attempt to RE-FORM. I don't think that Barna is as interested in RE-FORMing the old church system as much as he seems interested in recognizing that the Lord's Church is not defined by a religious system but as the Lord's body. The issue is not to try and re-form what man has built by his own strength, but to affirm that which Christ is building by HIS strength. The Church (the body of Christ) is fashioned by HIM and He is its only Leader. Unless everything else we do falls under that recognized leadership (rather than the mere hierarchy of man), it amounts to dead works. I like that Barna has made special distinction of a "revolution" rather than a "reformation." Martin Luther was a reformer. He accomplished some good. He was sincerely impacted by a truth... But Luther erred in that he sought to "fix" Roman Catholicism instead of flat out acknowledge that God never ordained this system to begin with. Because of Luther's errors Christians today have embraced many things in their gathering that have virtually nothing to do with Gospel reality - which is what George's book is all about. Institutional churches, in pattern with the reformers, merely substitute what was learned from the Roman Catholic organization and present it in updated fashion (i.e. sermons, pulpits, pews, elaborate edifices, tithing rituals, hierarchical leadership offices, etc.) - all borrowed from a man-made, man-manipulated order. This is not to suggest that meeting in buildings or having some measure of organization to a meeting is sinful (nor is my mention of the Roman Catholic Church meant to offend my Catholic friends), but the problem in organized religion today is that the meeting and this "order" has become the center focus of life instead of Christ Jesus Himself. Additionally, because Christ is not in the center, whatever "system" of organized religion people invest in, becomes an obstacle to the faith rather than a help and it also distorts a proper comprehension of what the Lord's true Church really is.
And because men glorify a pattern more than Christ, when that pattern falters many who are intimately involved in that pattern fail to see the separation between the pattern and the rulership of Christ. They presume something is wrong with the true Church (which is Christ's body) and so they seek to re-form and change it. But the true body is whole and beautiful and thriving. It lives in truth and is not identified or validated by the institutions of men. Men will organize, reorganized change and transform their systems untill those systems eventually rot and burn (as Jesus said, not one stone being left upon another) and they will remain frustrated until they learn to discern the body of Christ.
In my opinion, Barna "gets it"! Rather than wasting time complaining (or spending all energies worrying) about the problems inherant in organized religion, he is discerning the body of Christ - who IS the Church. He is focusing on those who are the Church in action, whether they identify with man's organizations or not. I agree with George that God is moving and we would do well to recognize His movement without getting too worked up over patterns one way or another. I think until Christ becomes CENTRAL we will continue to divide and never get along. The day of denominationalism is over. It's time to discern the Church and live what He has called us to be in Him and together.
|
|
|
Post by dan on Feb 4, 2006 17:58:40 GMT -5
Barna would have had problems with the churches of the New Testament, just like Paul did. Barna is not holding up a particular church model as being without blemish. He is, however, pointing out a trend that is occurring in American churches and finds that this is a trend that he is excited about. As I'm sure you know, he has been pretty dissatisfied with some past trends in the American church. Churches will likely never be perfect as they will always be collections of imperfect human beings. If you read the book, you will find that Barna addresses problems in the church in America and suggests that there is already a movement addressing those problems. He then encourages his readers to join in. Criticizing the church is not the focus of the book, but a massive change in the way American Christians approach the institutional church is what Barna is predicting. That prediction and the fact that Barna is happy about it has produced the backlash. Read the book and disagree with what Barna says if you must. We would all do well to consider what he has to say.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Feb 4, 2006 18:09:02 GMT -5
The First Great Awakening did NOT bring all new people into the "Church". The three major denominations were Congregational, Episcopal and Presbyterian. The first two were supported by taxes as "State Churches" that hated the new movements and resisted all that happened. The theology was Armenian and challenged the hyper-Calvinist ideas of the day and led to the American Revolution. New movements arose we now call Baptists and Methodists. Then they were lay led, small groups that met in houses and taverns. Read "The Churching of America" for more information and "The Fourth Great Awakening" by Fogel for a Nobel Prize Economist's take on the power of todays' spiritual movements. Barna is just catching up to Fogel and Starke's insights. It is time for CT and Leadership to do the same and stop idolizing the old European model of community building.
|
|
|
Post by dan on Feb 4, 2006 18:18:57 GMT -5
Maybe we need to be less concerned about raising questions of debate as to whether or not Barna got everything right in his book or, like OTHER extra-Biblical books, we read it, examine it, glean from it, and then set out to realighn what we do in our churches (or outside our churches) with what the Bible presents....
|
|
zeke
New Member
Posts: 2
|
Post by zeke on Feb 7, 2006 10:16:52 GMT -5
Rejecting the dysfunction of the parents doesn't automatically make children healthy, and emancipation doesn't always set you free. Rich, maybe this kind of thinking reflects a part of the problem: this concept that the local church is the parent and we are the children. We have one father and one high priest. We are accountable to each other and the Lord and no one else. Investing the kind of authority that we do in our pastors is unhealthy and puts a great burden on them, which they inevitably respond to as the fallen human beings that they are. We would do well, I think, to stop treating the institutional church system like it's our king and that we need it to worship and serve. It collects our tithe and spends 85% or more of it on its own buildings and staff, largely neglecting the needs of the poor. If we have to leave the IC to be obedient to what we feel is God's call on our life, then we should leave without a second thought! It's not a question of emancipation. It's a question of loyalty to Christ rather than to a building, a pastor, and a staff.
|
|
|
Post by 4yeshuahamasheagh on Feb 7, 2006 16:51:50 GMT -5
I like Zeke's comments better than the rest in this thread. Getting back to the Christianity Today article - I don't think Barna's intended audience was his critics. I think it was those who already identify with the "Revolution." I'm sure that Barna is not a bit surprised by the way his book is being received. I should think that he would feel that he somehow missed the mark if he hadn't stirred up a horrnets nest of cortroversy among those who set in their ivory towers and pontificate about things which they appear to know very little.
Do you know what I think would help all of us better understand what God is doing in America today? Learn more about what He is doing in the rest of the world. To better understand that - read Mega Shift by James Rutz. In Mega Shift James Rutz identifies 707 million "core apostolics." Mostly outside the USA. What is the core link between the "core apostolics" in the rest of the world and the Revolutionaries in the US? It is a passion for Jesus. It is a passion for the lost. It is a reliance upon Holy Spirit to reach the lost. It is the humble heart that is not building it's own kingdom but rather "seeking first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness."
|
|
jpr
New Member
Posts: 1
|
Post by jpr on Feb 7, 2006 19:31:19 GMT -5
I read the book thinking it would be focused on the problems of the traditional way we "do church" in America. I see no model in the Bible that is anything close to the traditional congregational church so commonplace in America today. To some extent, that topic was covered, however I don't see that as the focus of the book. I see the focus of the book being what "the Church" really is. It is those who belong to Christ, not those who are members of a local congregation. I would argue there are many church members in America who are not members of "the Church" and vice versa. I see this book as a challenge to all Christians to focus on the fact that we are “the Church” seven days a week, at work, in the store, at school, on the road, not just on Sunday mornings when we meet with a local portion of the Body of Christ. If we truly seek first "His Kingdom", rather than "our congregation", and then follow the prompting of His Spirit above the programs of the local church, we will see our local churches grow, if not in numbers, at least in discipleship maturity. It's really not a matter of whether the local church is good or bad, effective or ineffective. It is about how serious we as members of "the Church" are about loving the Lord with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength, and then our neighbors as ourselves. If this truly happened, the question of the role of the local church would become a moot point, because "the Church" would no longer be mute to the world.
|
|
scott
New Member
Posts: 1
|
Post by scott on Feb 7, 2006 19:49:21 GMT -5
I thought Revolution was an awesome book!! I realize some people will use it as an excuse to stay distant from God, but if their hearts are not responding, would they really be affected in a local church? I find it very exciting seeing God move in the hearts of so many people - for them to hunger for him, and get to true fellowship and the fruit of His Spirit! And for Him to blow away everything else that hinders! I had a dream a number of years ago where there were all of these castles in a valley. A great flood came from the distance and flooded the valley (i.e. cleaned house). A path illumined for me going up the side of the hill that turned from stone into a path of pine needles. As I walked up the path, I was at peace. I didn’t know fully where it was going, but I knew it was the path I was to be on and I was at peace. I think in Revolution we are starting to see this take place!
|
|
|
Post by eagle1 on Feb 7, 2006 19:53:47 GMT -5
I read "Revolution" by Barna when it first came out. It was encouraging to see Barna finally research and publish what I and my friends have been experiencing since 1998. I've been called a "church basher" by many, just because I called for a new paradigm in which believers would be released into the fullness of their call. What's so hard about believing that we should be equipped to do the work of the ministry? "When the old paradigm is dying, the new paradigm is birthed by those who are not afraid to be vulnerable". Graham Cooke “It was as if the ground had been pulled out from under one, with no firm foundation to be seen anywhere, upon which one could have built.” Albert Einstein Why did Jesus come preaching the Kingdom of God, and not the Church? I've been greatly encouraged of late as I have met many pastors who are sick and tired of "church as usual". Their congregations are in decline and they live powerless lives. They are not talking about the kingdom of God and looking for ways to build the kingdom. After we left our church community we started to watch for opportunities to serve people. We found ourselves hosting a lot of meals, telling God stories, and praying for people at every opportunity. Before we knew it people were getting saved, and our home became a hangout. "In times of rapid change, experience is our greatest enemy". JP Getty Have your read Rick Joyner's "The Hordes of Hell are Marching" lately? We may well be experiencing the beginning of the civil war of the church. www.etpv.org/1996-97/hordes.html
|
|
|
Post by My thoughts on Feb 7, 2006 20:06:44 GMT -5
Why are we so stired up about all of this as if George Barna is saying something real new and profound? Revolutionary, is this a term used by Jesus? It's all semantic. Whether you called yourself a revolutionary or a disciple of Jesus, it doesn't matter. To be a radical follower of Jesus is not new concept because George Barna wrote a book about it. This is nothing extraordinary. A revolutionary lifestyle is suppose to be the norm for a Christian. It is nothing extraordinary. I think the reason why we North American Christians reacted to Barna's book (Whether we endorse it or against it) the way we did is because we haven't experience what true Christianity is. Maybe it's a reflection of our own unhappiness or dissatisfaction with our own Christianity and faith. But, this is a good thing! Our unhappiness and dissatisfaction reveals the real longing and hunger inside of us for authentic Christianity. With that being said, I chanllenge every Christians to a radical Christianity. Not in reaction to Barna's book but in obediance to the One who gave His life for us, our Lord and Master, Jesus Christ. I too have experienced some disappointment with the local churches. Some local churches are just a real mess. I prayed for them. I prayed that God will bring about renwel and healing. We have it so easy here in America. We have all the options, big church, small church, contemporary, traditional, seeker sensitive, emergent, so on and so forth. If we don't like one local church we can just go to the one across the streets. And if that doesn't work out, we can go and form our own group. This doesn't encourage us to deal with the messes that is brought about when you put messy people together. This is the spirit of America. We see this in Christian marriages as well as non Christian marriages. If I am unhappy with my spouse, I move on to greener pasture. Someone have said, "the grass is not greener on the other side, the grass is greener where you water it." The local churches aren't perfect. As a matter of fact, the universal church, is made up of messy, sinful, people whose lives are radically changed by the Gospel. What's my point? Don't write off the local churches. While they are not perfect, they are the local expression of the body of Christ. In it, there are those that belong to the universal church. Deal with the messes, don't run away from them. The mini movements that George Barna talks about in his book, could easily become an institution, a clique,or a group just like the local churches. I would say that most local churches started out with the vision to have an authentic christian community and to reach the lost, but over time, that got lost along the way. I have one last thought to those of us who become dissatisfied with the local churches, and who hunger for God and for radical Christianity. We have to check the motivation in our hearts. We need to make sure that we don't allow the root of bitterness to grow inside of us. Make sure that we have a Biblical desire for Christian revolution and not simply being disillusioned and bitter over the local churches. I would also caution against our desire to have a "personalized" Christianity. This is the spirit of rugged individualism. As Christians, we are "the called out ones" We are called out from the world, not from the local churches. We are called into a community. The called out ones, come together and form a community. That community is the local church. The local church is the assembly of believers. When messy people come together, there's going to be messy problems. But that's not the issue. The issue is how we're going to deal with the problems! Thank you for allowing me to share my thoughts. I hope it is helpful.
|
|
|
Post by gerard Mendes on Feb 19, 2006 17:57:28 GMT -5
I read the book and the response by Christianity Today.I E-mailed the author of the response and as of yet recieved a reply.This book does not imply a zero sum game or a either or conclusion.Today we have the mega and the mini movents.BOTH are valid.What ever it takes to further display the love of Jesus is a good idea to me.When the home church movement gets big enough to not be under the radar we will see the mainline churches do as they have in the past------if you cant lick 'em join 'em.
|
|
|
Post by brad on Feb 21, 2006 0:18:55 GMT -5
I read the book about a week ago, and it resonates with me deeply. I am (was) a church planter and denominational leader who has recently moved to a new ministry area in a new city. As result of being in a new setting, and not being the “senior pastor” I have had the freedom to seek out my spiritual formation in ways that I choose instead of those imposed by the church structure.
I have been blessed greatly by stepping out of the “weekly grind” of expected church stuff and focusing on formation through increased reading of Scripture, good books, and good blogs. Thanks for playing a part in that formation. Also I grow greatly by seeking out conversations with a few close friends and looking for ways to bless others.
Lastly, I have been totally amazed by the number of people I have spoken to recently that are finding or searching for their formation outside the local church. I believe Barna’s number that are projected for 2025 will take place much earlier.
|
|
|
Post by alex on Feb 21, 2006 22:19:14 GMT -5
In my reading Barna always seems to speak as a product of a consumerist, individualistic culture - now more than ever. The kind of privatistic spiritual “experience” that he advocates is appealing in a culture where it is chic to be “spiritual but not religious.” But from what I’ve seen, Barna displays an embarassing inability to handle Scripture and theology. The life in Christ is a “life together” and the unity in the body is one of the most powerful testimonies to the truth of the gospel.
|
|