George Barna's new book is entitled "Revolution" and is having some impact on the folks who have picked it up. I have read several of his books in the past and his ministry of providing statistics and cultural/church trends has been very helpful. His normal mode is to outline these trends and then consider recommendations for the church in light of them. However, his mode has changed with his new book. I spent a bit of time reading it the other day and was shocked to see what he said. His point is that many post-moderns have grown tired of the church in its present form. They are seeking a more authentic, 1st century, expression of their faith. I have seen those expressions and complaints myself (and share a few), so I think he is dead-on in his analysis. However, I was horrified to read the quote that reads "No informed Christian leader could make a straight-faced argument that involvement in a local church necessarily provides a more robust spiritual life than that seen among revolutionaries (his term for folks abandoning the church)."
Are you kidding me? I find this shocking. Not everyone who has been involved in a church has necessarily had a robust spiritual life, but that does not mean that the church cannot provide a robust spiritual life. Has he not read Hebrews 13? It states,
7 Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith. 8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. 9 Do not be led away by diverse and strange teachings, for it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace, not by foods, which have not benefited those devoted to them. 10 We have an altar from which those who serve the tent have no right to eat. 11 For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the holy places by the high priest as a sacrifice for sin are burned outside the camp. 12 So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood. 13 Therefore let us go to him outside the camp and bear the reproach he endured. 14 For here we have no lasting city, but we seek the city that is to come. 15 Through him then let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that acknowledge his name. 16 Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God. 17 Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.
Hebrews 13 speaks of, as a commandment, remembering your leaders, specifically in a church office related context. Why? Because those leaders care for your souls. Now some leaders may or may not do it well. That's always going to be the case. However, no self-informed Christian leader, like Barna, can say that living the Christian life APART from the church can necessarily provide a more robust spiritual life than those in the organized church. It is God's design for us to grow and be built by being a part of the organized church, no matter how messed up it is.
I think Barna would have better served the church by highlighting the criticisms of this generation and then advising them and the church how they can partner together for the church to be more effective both in the lives of the members and the lives of the world.
But this of course begs the question, does being a Christian make you part of the church? The answer is yes, but that is a bigger yes that you imagine. Asking that question is like asking, "Does being a husband make you married?" Notice I didn't ask, "Does being in love make you married?"
The premise behind Barna and many folks I bump into is that the structured, organized church is broken and can sufficiently be discarded for such reasons as style. But, is the organized church antiquated and out of date with first century believers? Can we just discard it and live more "robust, spiritual" lives?
I would answer no, and not just because I'm a pastor. You see Barna says that you can't find the context of church in scripture in any organized, structured way and that living church is simply living out Christ's commands. But that is hard to do without organized church.
How do you obey Christ and rebuke a brother and eventually take him to the church if it is not organized? How do you appoint elders and deacons if the church is not organized? How do leaders care for your soul if you are not organized? How are pastors ordained to ministry if the church organized? Why would Paul warn the Corinthians to eat at home so as not to make pigs of themselves during the Lord's Supper if the church is not organized? These are all direct commands of scripture. Obedience and thus loving Christ is living out these commands.
I agree that the church has structures that are traditional and formal by the very nature of an organization that has met for 2000 years, but that does not mean the organism as it exists today is non-biblical. Being a Christian does make you part of the church. But declaring to live a life outside the commands of scripture (which include the commands to organize the church) is an inherently non-biblical and non-christian attitude.
My urging for folks who want to abandon the church?. Don't. Reform it. Change it. Biblically challenge the structures that frustrate you. Love her, but don't leave her. Love that does not desire Godly change will just become empty criticism. Love that desires Godly change is effectual love.
(4)
PAGE: | 1 |
Comments
I think that Barna was saying that when there are two people, both professing to be Christians, it isn't safe to assume that just because only one of them is going to a "church" every Sunday they are getting a fuller expression of the Christian life. He is saying that just because a person goes to church it doesn't mean that automatically their walk with the Lord will be more alive that someone who is in Barna's term a "Revolutionary." That is why he uses the word "necessarily" which implies, If/Then correlation. I agree many local churches provide a very robust experience of the Christian walk, but it isn't "necessarily" so in all churches. Thanks, Erik
Posted by Erik | Posted at 07/23/2007 9:09 PM
I can see where Gordon is coming from. I'm assuming that the revolutionaries Barna is referring to are those who have been disillusioned, burned or otherwise rejected by the traditional local church. I too am a pastor, but having worked for years within mainstream churches, it became evident that an alarmingly small number of them are committed to staying viable to the next generation. Those organized churches need to simply die a natural death. If you can change the personality and DNA of an existing church in order to effectively equip and reach changing cultural shifts, then by all means do so. But most guys with vision like that end up in a perpetual state of frustration because they are fighting against a corporate machine (i.e. a church run more like a business organization than a living organism). Rare is the guy who can survive that for long. It is usually more preferable (and feasible) to have a baby than to raise the dead. Granted, there are great churches out there (with varying degrees of organization and "programs"). But God's Spirit (and I think Barna is trying to say this) is moving in a new direction THROUGH these revolutionaries to give birth to a new movement. As in any revolution, mistakes will be made. But instead of feeling threatened, the existing church should support and partner with the Spirit here. That way, both movements (and best of all, the world) can benefit.
Posted by Jeff | Posted at 08/13/2007 5:52 AM
I agree with Jeff. Those "revolutionaries" who truly want to be disciples of Jesus Christ will find themselves forming groups which others will call "churches," even if the revolutionaries dislike that term (and they shouldn't). Attempting to love the existing church into becoming a vital branch of the vine might only lead to frustration; Jeff's baby analogy is a great one. At the same time, I applaud you, Gordon, for fighting for churches as a concept. However, it is difficult to see how an American (which implies busyness) can live a "robust spiritual life" while being suffocated by the established church's programs and activities. Perhaps retirees can be devoted followers of Christ, but there is no time for the employed churchgoer to spend extensive quiet time with God AND build relatiionships with people in the community, living out the gospel to them. It's paradoxical but true: BEING the (real) church requires saying NO to the (brick & mortar) church!
Posted by Chris | Posted at 11/08/2007 9:52 PM
Jeff and Chris,
I agree.
Thanks,
Erik
Posted by Erik | Posted at 03/04/2008 7:40 PM
There are 0 logged in member(s) and 0 guest(s) on the system.
QUICK LINKS
(0)
George Barna's new book is entitled "Revolution" and is having some impact on the folks who have picked it up. I have read several of his books in the past and his ministry of providing statistics and cultural/church trends has been very helpful. His normal mode is to outline these trends and then consider recommendations for the church in light of them. However, his mode has changed with his new book. I spent a bit of time reading it the other day and was shocked to see what he said. His point is that many post-moderns have grown tired of the church in its present form. They are seeking a more authentic, 1st century, expression of their faith. I have seen those expressions and complaints myself (and share a few), so I think he is dead-on in his analysis. However, I was horrified to read the quote that reads "No informed Christian leader could make a straight-faced argument that involvement in a local church necessarily provides a more robust spiritual life than that seen among revolutionaries (his term for folks abandoning the church)." 
I agree.
Thanks,
Erik