When I read Barna's book, I did not see it as an attack on the Church, but as a critical look at the organizations we have built up to act and support the Church. Being a revolutionary as he defines one does not prevent someone from listening to a true Christian leader...and nothing in Hebrews states that the leaders are organized as they are today. The reason is that the church organization as we know it didn't exist at the time.
Barna is correct when he writes, "the Bible neither describes nor promotes the local church as we know it today." I would add it also does not describe or promote any of the structures that any mainline national or international denomination has in place. The church in Acts (and the church in Hebrews) would have almost no resemblance to what we have today.
Does that mean that the church organizations (and associated things like ritual) need to be tossed aside? I would lean towards a no on that. But it also doesn't mean that they shouldn't be reworked, and maybe tossed aside for a new way of being the Church.
I would look at Barna's book as a call for those of us in leadership in the church to take an honest look at our structures, worship, programs, etc. and discern is thsi really doing what God intends. We then have to be ready to toss them aside if God points us in another direction.
I would agree. I was fascinated about this book when I first heard about it. After getting and reading it a few months later, I was a little disappointed.
Barna clearly had an agenda in writing this book. It seemed to me that it wasn't so much about observation and research as it was about justifying why it is ok to be outside of a church group.
The fact that people are leaving establised church groups and thriving in their faith does not point to the fact that you do not need to gather, journy and commune with others, or that it should be done. What it says is that we are lacking in our current ways of doing things, and need to seek the heard of God again, to do it like it should be done.
IMHO
Gordon:
I'm intrigued about both your reaction to and interpretation of this work from Mr. Barna. Your characterization of Barna's book is not at all what my digestion of the work is. That's OK. It's clear the book gave you indigestion. For me, it was delightful, insightful fare.
Mr. Barna always has been and still is, a dedicated supporter of THE CHURCH. Unfortunately, what you are reacting to is the context of what Church means to you. Nobody in the U.S. has dedicated more of their life's energy to nurturing and reforming the church than Mr. Barna. The book entitled REVOLUTION is simply a recognition that other forms of CHURCH have emerged outside the content of the CHURCH you find yourself in. That's OK...it's simply a reality.
Furthermore, the book reveals that new kinds of Christians have emerged in quantifiably significant numbers in the U.S. --- outside of the traditional form of what has historically been defined as 'Christian' (meaning primarily 'Church members --- however you wish to define that peculiar term ).
I would encourage you to venture outside your Church to meet these folks and befriend them. Perhaps God has a message for you that only they can convey.
Read the book again, as a sociologist, rather than from the entrenched perspective of a pastor.
My reaction to Revolution by Barna was quite similar to Gordon's. I took it as a call to leave the church, and that revolutionaries could do church by themselves.
Like Gordon I found myself in agreement with Barna's assessment of the church in America. Who could disagree with the criticisms? But the individualistic style of Christianity which he seems to laud is, in my opinion, self-sytled arrogance.
Hey, guess what, we all have to learn to live with and love people we can't get along with and who drive us nuts. Just because a church is laden with unbiblical tradition doesn't mean it is beyond salvaging.
What struck me the most was this: believers with the discernment and guts to call a spade a spade are very much needed in our churches if there is to be reform. Appealing to their natural instinct to find greener pastures doesn't help us. Please, oh please, give me people (the revolutionaries) who want change. Don't draw them away with calls to alternative forms of church.
What if we leave the traditional structure? I believe we ARE the Church. That's part of the problem, I believe with Traditional Church...it reinforces the idea that if you leave the building or the organization that you've left the Bride of Christ...when in fact you ARE the Bride of Christ if you have surrendered your life to Christ and continually follow, love and serve Him.
My wife and I have been leading a house church "The Mission" (www.missionhousechurch.com) for over a year now and we love it! We get to be the church and not attend a church.
I don't agree with everything in Barna's book. I think that what we'll see in the next twenty years are "Hybrid" Churches where leaders and pastors of traditional churches are willing to listen to those who are frustrated with the traditional model and will gladly modify some of what's broken in order to stop the bleeding (or mass exodus) from their Church.
I still love the whole Body of Christ. I just have made a decision to express my faith, and to be more involved in the practice of church than in the attendance of a service.
Peace, Keith www.keithgiles.com
Keith, I'm elated you're a part of the house church movement. And, I agree it will (as it should) play a vital role in the transformation the traditional church model must undergo in the years ahead. My greatest concern is that many believers leave churches out of an unwillingness to stay put in adversity experiencing the joy of working problems out amid conflicts with others. Often revolutionary-speak is a veil for a lack of perseverance and an unwillingness to submit to authority.
Scott,
I agree, the housechurch movement tends to attract malcontents who only want to bag on "that church we just left", and our house church has been pre-emptive in shutting all that down before it can start. We want to enjoy the goodness of "being church" without bashing those who are experiencing something different.
In my experience, I left the traditional church because no one within the church I was on staff at would support us or take us seriously. Many I speak to in the house church movement have had the same experience that I had. So, maybe some leave because they just don't want to "work it out", but most I've talked to, when they've tried to "work it out" have been told that what they want to do is not Biblical (my favorite response of all), or that it will fail (so they shouldn't try), or that if they want to try their ideas of "being church" they will need to leave and do it outside.
kg http://www.keithgiles.com
I thought Barna's book was very weak in the deception of the modern church make-up and governments. The modern church elevates men to unbiblical vaulted positions over the sheep and cuts off the Holy Spirit when it moves amoung the people. The modern church puts a lot of weight on human intelligence and not the revelation of the Holy Spirit. John says there are many instead-of-Christs who will not recognize Christ in His body but will cut them off from nourishing the body. You people who defend the "traditions of men" will account for it all and by the way call no man leader/teacher or Rabbi. Free at last!!!
Interesting. By my count he uses the word "organize" in some shape or form at least 13 times. This looks like a classic example of what Christian Schwarz calls the Technocratic Paradigm. Anything as organic as the Church that Barna describes and that I am most happily part of is certain to be extremely threatening to the author. How do you spell control? O r g a n i z e.
Beware the leaven of the Pharisees.
I have not read Barna's book, but have read many articles by he and others concerning his findings. I have also been outside of organized 'church' for over 15 years, after having been a very active particpant in it for about 20. I just wanted to make a couple of points in regards to your article.
First, it is important to emphasis "necessarily" when referring to the quote"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)." Organized religion and modern Christianity strongly suggests that in order to grow and function as a healthy believer in Christ one must be a dedicated member of an organized group of other Christians. This is not necessarily so. We all know that one can attend, even lead, an organized group of believers and be disfunctional or even spiritually dead. On the same token, since it is in Christ whom we grow and are nurtured, a believer is more than capable of funcioning in this life without the trappings of organization.
Also, it is important to remember that those who feel called out of organized religion are not 'abandoning' the church. We are still members of the Body of Christ, the Church.
suzir
No question, there is lots wrong with the traditional church structure, but Barna's book does a lousy job of dealing with it.
His analysis is almost entirely based on anectdotal information from the disenfranchised. This is like using the opinions of employees who have quit and been fired to manage your complany. I know many people who have left the church and a significant number left because the church wouldn't do what they wanted. There was a lot more inability to deal with authority than there was with the church structure.
The book is also very short on objective data, which is especially surprising from Barna.
Can the church (small "c") be saved. Some days I am not so sure, but I am going to keep working at it. Websites like the "Ooze" help me look at it from a different viewpoint, and I need that. I wish that I also could say that Barna's book was also a valuable resource.
Gerry
You can't leave the church...you ARE the church!
These people left a structure and an organization, but they are still part of the Body and now choose to worship in a different..some say more "Biblical" way.
peace, keith http://www.keithgiles.com
Gordon, I'll add my comment as well, for what it's worth. Simply, it is a misunderstanding to interpret Barna as saying no local congregation can provide a robust spiritual life. You would be seriously mistaken to think that being part of any congregation provides a robust spiritual life, more so, than being part of an informally organized group of believers. I, like many others, have been part of congregations ("Bible preaching" congregations, if you will) that were a waste of my time; not community, weak teaching, very ingrown "club" mentality, no vision or sense of mission. Those congregations, while still part of The Church, do not provide a robust spiritual life. I do not believe Barna's comment was meant to trash all congregations. anyway, those be my thoughts. -tom
I totally agree with Barna that the present church needs a major overhaul. We are in a decline, and will become irrelevant if we do not change drastically.
However...
My biggest problem with his book is the use of anecdotal information from people who have left the church. I know of several people in my community who have left the church because they prescribe to a wacky Christianity that the church would not follow. There are lots of problems with organized religion but unorganized religiion is not necessarily the answer.
Hey Keith! I am in San Francisco where the house church movement is alive and strong. I have to admit I have yet to run across anyone who can give me a clear biblical basis for doing only house church and not having a corporate gathering.
That aside my main concern about house churches or alternative church structures is how do they do evangelism? A primary reason for the existence of the church is to evangelize. If you are meeting in a house how do you reach out and get unchurched people involved? Now I am sure people invite their friends but most of the unchurched I run across really need to check out church on their own terms part of which means the opportunity to be there but be anonymous... impossible in a house church IMO.
Also this trend to break away from the large gathering seems self-serving (MY needs are more important) as there are a multitude of non-Christians, new Christians and baby Christians who need the examples of more mature Christians to develop their faith.
You have to feel a little sorry for Barna. He's spent decades trying to reform the church by presenting them with hard facts and figures. I've heard probably dozens of traditional pastors who would quote his data endlessly all to prove that the 1) world was horrible, 2) thing were so much better 20 years ago, and 3) our ministries are right on target. People for years have been taking his data, misconstruing it to fit their agendas, and ignoring his suggestions. That's enough to make anyone go a little extreme.
(5)
When I read Barna's book, I did not see it as an attack on the Church, but as a critical look at the organizations we have built up to act and support the Church. Being a revolutionary as he defines one does not prevent someone from listening to a true Christian leader...and nothing in Hebrews states that the leaders are organized as they are today. The reason is that the church organization as we know it didn't exist at the time.
Barna is correct when he writes, "the Bible neither describes nor promotes the local church as we know it today." I would add it also does not describe or promote any of the structures that any mainline national or international denomination has in place. The church in Acts (and the church in Hebrews) would have almost no resemblance to what we have today.
Does that mean that the church organizations (and associated things like ritual) need to be tossed aside? I would lean towards a no on that. But it also doesn't mean that they shouldn't be reworked, and maybe tossed aside for a new way of being the Church.
I would look at Barna's book as a call for those of us in leadership in the church to take an honest look at our structures, worship, programs, etc. and discern is thsi really doing what God intends. We then have to be ready to toss them aside if God points us in another direction.
Posted by zenpilgrim | Posted at 04/29/2007 10:57 AMI would agree. I was fascinated about this book when I first heard about it. After getting and reading it a few months later, I was a little disappointed.
Barna clearly had an agenda in writing this book. It seemed to me that it wasn't so much about observation and research as it was about justifying why it is ok to be outside of a church group.
The fact that people are leaving establised church groups and thriving in their faith does not point to the fact that you do not need to gather, journy and commune with others, or that it should be done. What it says is that we are lacking in our current ways of doing things, and need to seek the heard of God again, to do it like it should be done.
IMHO
Posted by Matt Tew | Posted at 04/29/2007 9:06 PMGordon:
I'm intrigued about both your reaction to and interpretation of this work from Mr. Barna. Your characterization of Barna's book is not at all what my digestion of the work is. That's OK. It's clear the book gave you indigestion. For me, it was delightful, insightful fare.
Mr. Barna always has been and still is, a dedicated supporter of THE CHURCH. Unfortunately, what you are reacting to is the context of what Church means to you. Nobody in the U.S. has dedicated more of their life's energy to nurturing and reforming the church than Mr. Barna. The book entitled REVOLUTION is simply a recognition that other forms of CHURCH have emerged outside the content of the CHURCH you find yourself in. That's OK...it's simply a reality.
Furthermore, the book reveals that new kinds of Christians have emerged in quantifiably significant numbers in the U.S. --- outside of the traditional form of what has historically been defined as 'Christian' (meaning primarily 'Church members --- however you wish to define that peculiar term ).
I would encourage you to venture outside your Church to meet these folks and befriend them. Perhaps God has a message for you that only they can convey.
Read the book again, as a sociologist, rather than from the entrenched perspective of a pastor.
Posted by Bill Dahl | Posted at 04/29/2007 9:41 PMMy reaction to Revolution by Barna was quite similar to Gordon's. I took it as a call to leave the church, and that revolutionaries could do church by themselves.
Like Gordon I found myself in agreement with Barna's assessment of the church in America. Who could disagree with the criticisms? But the individualistic style of Christianity which he seems to laud is, in my opinion, self-sytled arrogance.
Hey, guess what, we all have to learn to live with and love people we can't get along with and who drive us nuts. Just because a church is laden with unbiblical tradition doesn't mean it is beyond salvaging.
What struck me the most was this: believers with the discernment and guts to call a spade a spade are very much needed in our churches if there is to be reform. Appealing to their natural instinct to find greener pastures doesn't help us. Please, oh please, give me people (the revolutionaries) who want change. Don't draw them away with calls to alternative forms of church.
Posted by Scott | Posted at 05/02/2007 12:11 PMWhat if we leave the traditional structure? I believe we ARE the Church. That's part of the problem, I believe with Traditional Church...it reinforces the idea that if you leave the building or the organization that you've left the Bride of Christ...when in fact you ARE the Bride of Christ if you have surrendered your life to Christ and continually follow, love and serve Him.
My wife and I have been leading a house church "The Mission" (www.missionhousechurch.com) for over a year now and we love it! We get to be the church and not attend a church.
I don't agree with everything in Barna's book. I think that what we'll see in the next twenty years are "Hybrid" Churches where leaders and pastors of traditional churches are willing to listen to those who are frustrated with the traditional model and will gladly modify some of what's broken in order to stop the bleeding (or mass exodus) from their Church.
I still love the whole Body of Christ. I just have made a decision to express my faith, and to be more involved in the practice of church than in the attendance of a service.
Peace, Keith www.keithgiles.com
Posted by Keith Giles | Posted at 05/02/2007 12:23 PMKeith, I'm elated you're a part of the house church movement. And, I agree it will (as it should) play a vital role in the transformation the traditional church model must undergo in the years ahead. My greatest concern is that many believers leave churches out of an unwillingness to stay put in adversity experiencing the joy of working problems out amid conflicts with others. Often revolutionary-speak is a veil for a lack of perseverance and an unwillingness to submit to authority. Posted by Scott | Posted at 05/03/2007 6:08 AM
Scott,
I agree, the housechurch movement tends to attract malcontents who only want to bag on "that church we just left", and our house church has been pre-emptive in shutting all that down before it can start. We want to enjoy the goodness of "being church" without bashing those who are experiencing something different.
In my experience, I left the traditional church because no one within the church I was on staff at would support us or take us seriously. Many I speak to in the house church movement have had the same experience that I had. So, maybe some leave because they just don't want to "work it out", but most I've talked to, when they've tried to "work it out" have been told that what they want to do is not Biblical (my favorite response of all), or that it will fail (so they shouldn't try), or that if they want to try their ideas of "being church" they will need to leave and do it outside.
kg http://www.keithgiles.com
Posted by Keith Giles | Posted at 05/03/2007 12:33 PMI thought Barna's book was very weak in the deception of the modern church make-up and governments. The modern church elevates men to unbiblical vaulted positions over the sheep and cuts off the Holy Spirit when it moves amoung the people. The modern church puts a lot of weight on human intelligence and not the revelation of the Holy Spirit. John says there are many instead-of-Christs who will not recognize Christ in His body but will cut them off from nourishing the body. You people who defend the "traditions of men" will account for it all and by the way call no man leader/teacher or Rabbi. Free at last!!! Posted by Mike | Posted at 05/07/2007 3:15 PM
Interesting. By my count he uses the word "organize" in some shape or form at least 13 times. This looks like a classic example of what Christian Schwarz calls the Technocratic Paradigm. Anything as organic as the Church that Barna describes and that I am most happily part of is certain to be extremely threatening to the author. How do you spell control? O r g a n i z e.
Beware the leaven of the Pharisees.
Posted by CJ | Posted at 05/08/2007 5:58 PMI have not read Barna's book, but have read many articles by he and others concerning his findings. I have also been outside of organized 'church' for over 15 years, after having been a very active particpant in it for about 20. I just wanted to make a couple of points in regards to your article.
First, it is important to emphasis "necessarily" when referring to the quote"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)." Organized religion and modern Christianity strongly suggests that in order to grow and function as a healthy believer in Christ one must be a dedicated member of an organized group of other Christians. This is not necessarily so. We all know that one can attend, even lead, an organized group of believers and be disfunctional or even spiritually dead. On the same token, since it is in Christ whom we grow and are nurtured, a believer is more than capable of funcioning in this life without the trappings of organization.
Also, it is important to remember that those who feel called out of organized religion are not 'abandoning' the church. We are still members of the Body of Christ, the Church.
suzir
Posted by suzir | Posted at 05/09/2007 12:45 PMNo question, there is lots wrong with the traditional church structure, but Barna's book does a lousy job of dealing with it.
His analysis is almost entirely based on anectdotal information from the disenfranchised. This is like using the opinions of employees who have quit and been fired to manage your complany. I know many people who have left the church and a significant number left because the church wouldn't do what they wanted. There was a lot more inability to deal with authority than there was with the church structure.
The book is also very short on objective data, which is especially surprising from Barna.
Can the church (small "c") be saved. Some days I am not so sure, but I am going to keep working at it. Websites like the "Ooze" help me look at it from a different viewpoint, and I need that. I wish that I also could say that Barna's book was also a valuable resource.
Posted by Gerry S | Posted at 05/15/2007 7:40 AMGerry
You can't leave the church...you ARE the church!
These people left a structure and an organization, but they are still part of the Body and now choose to worship in a different..some say more "Biblical" way.
peace, keith http://www.keithgiles.com
Posted by keith giles | Posted at 05/17/2007 8:06 AMGordon, I'll add my comment as well, for what it's worth. Simply, it is a misunderstanding to interpret Barna as saying no local congregation can provide a robust spiritual life. You would be seriously mistaken to think that being part of any congregation provides a robust spiritual life, more so, than being part of an informally organized group of believers. I, like many others, have been part of congregations ("Bible preaching" congregations, if you will) that were a waste of my time; not community, weak teaching, very ingrown "club" mentality, no vision or sense of mission. Those congregations, while still part of The Church, do not provide a robust spiritual life. I do not believe Barna's comment was meant to trash all congregations. anyway, those be my thoughts. -tom Posted by tom | Posted at 05/20/2007 6:30 AM
I totally agree with Barna that the present church needs a major overhaul. We are in a decline, and will become irrelevant if we do not change drastically.
However...
My biggest problem with his book is the use of anecdotal information from people who have left the church. I know of several people in my community who have left the church because they prescribe to a wacky Christianity that the church would not follow. There are lots of problems with organized religion but unorganized religiion is not necessarily the answer.
Posted by Gerry S | Posted at 08/16/2007 12:00 PMHey Keith! I am in San Francisco where the house church movement is alive and strong. I have to admit I have yet to run across anyone who can give me a clear biblical basis for doing only house church and not having a corporate gathering.
That aside my main concern about house churches or alternative church structures is how do they do evangelism? A primary reason for the existence of the church is to evangelize. If you are meeting in a house how do you reach out and get unchurched people involved? Now I am sure people invite their friends but most of the unchurched I run across really need to check out church on their own terms part of which means the opportunity to be there but be anonymous... impossible in a house church IMO.
Also this trend to break away from the large gathering seems self-serving (MY needs are more important) as there are a multitude of non-Christians, new Christians and baby Christians who need the examples of more mature Christians to develop their faith.
Posted by Chris | Posted at 09/26/2007 5:54 PMYou have to feel a little sorry for Barna. He's spent decades trying to reform the church by presenting them with hard facts and figures. I've heard probably dozens of traditional pastors who would quote his data endlessly all to prove that the 1) world was horrible, 2) thing were so much better 20 years ago, and 3) our ministries are right on target. People for years have been taking his data, misconstruing it to fit their agendas, and ignoring his suggestions. That's enough to make anyone go a little extreme. Posted by Ben Lancaster | Posted at 10/12/2007 10:58 AM