Back in October I posted this article in response to George Barna's new book, Revolution. I had read the first few chapters and was excited to see that one of the leading church trend analysts of our time had discovered what so many people had been trying to say, and trying to explain about how they feel regarding their church experiences. Within the first few pages I was captured by his recognition of some of the thoughts of what he calls "revolutionaries" of the faith. For instance, I posted these paragraphs from chapter 2, stating my agreement of Barna's presuppositions:
As we journey together, I want to show you what our research has uncovered regarding a growing sub-nation of people, already well over 20 million strong, who are what we call Revolutionaries.
What "established systems" are they seeking to "overthrow or repudiate" and "thoroughly replace," in Webster's words (defining the word "revolutionary")?
They have no use for churches that play religious games, whether those games are worship services that drone on without the presence of God or ministry programs that bear no spiritual fruit. Revolutionaries eschew ministries that compromise or soft sell our sinful nature to expand organizational turf. They refuse to follow people in ministry leadership positions who cast a personal vision rather than God's, who seek popularity rather than the proclamation of truth in their public statements, or who are more concerned about their own legacy than that of Jesus Christ. They refuse to donate one more dollar to man-made monuments that mark their own achievements and guarantee their place in history. They are unimpressed by accredited degrees and endowed chairs in Christian colleges and seminaries that produce young people incapable of defending the Bible or unwilling to devote their lives to serving others. And Revolutionaries are embarrassed by language that promises Christian love and holiness but turns out to be all sizzle and no substance.
I still agree with the heart of what Barna is saying. But since I posted such elation at the premise for the book in October, I wanted to follow up (now that I have read it cover to cover) on some of the definitive statements he made later in the book, with which I am not on board. For instance, in chapter 7 he is speaking about why there is a shift away from the "congregational" church, but to what "kind" of church are these new generations of Christians shifting? Here's what he says on page 62 about why the shift is taking place:
Perhaps the major reasons are people's insistence on choices and their desire to have customized experiences. The issue of choice is remaking many facets of modern experience.
And on page 64:
Now its virtually impossible to craft a "typical" spiritual pattern, especially among people under the age of 40. Growing numbers of young adults, teenagers, and even adolescents are piecing together spiritual elements they deem worthwhile, constituting millions of personalized "church" models.
And Barna's "solution" on 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.
Hmmm... Now here is where I have to disagree. The last thing this culture needs is the encouragement to create your own unique tapestry of church based on personal experience. The last thing we need is to promote more individualism. Barna offers the personalized, individualistic church as an alternative to the "congregational" church.
Maybe he misunderstood something in his analysis and study of the "don't go to church, be the church" language we speak. When we say those words we DON'T mean stop congregating with people and instead create your own personal Jesus experience without any oversight, leadership, or accountability.
I do believe that Barna was not prescribing what we should do, but his primary focus was to describe certain passions that are cultivated by a "revolutionary". However, his apparent indifference toward whether or not you are in a congregational or a personalized church as long as the passions are cultivated is not something I can endorse as a "be the church" mindset. The underlying view of individualism as the book continues on unfortunately distorts the passions he describes in the opening chapters.
Now, having said that, I want to conclude by saying that I think critics of Barna's book have missed an important point by throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Yes, there is some bathwater in the book, which should be thrown out. But there is also a baby.
I listened to a broadcast the other day on Moody Bible Institute's Open Line radio where Bryan Liftin and David Wells discussed Revolution and took phone calls for 55 minutes. It was that broadcast that actually prompted this post. I felt that these guys had some good things to say, but they missed some of the major points of Barna's book because they were too upset about his prognosis about people leaving congregational church to create a personal church. They spent most of their time defending the institution of the church, but then took callers who agreed with their defense, yet were not connected with a congregational church at the time because of one of the burnouts Barna describes in his book. Irony.
So I still think his book is worth reading. The fact is, many people are feeling the way he describes. But there are better alternatives we can offer than what Barna prescribes. The fact is, the gospel of Jesus Christ creates community, not individualism. The question "revolutionaries" need to ask themselves is this, "Am I created for community, or is community created for me?"
I don't think it is possible to truly understand the Christian life until we remove the first-person singular pronouns from our dominant ways of thinking and living. It is not about "me", "I", and "my" way of thinking and doing church. It is about God. Period. And God is about living and loving others in Christian community. We often use the term "family" to describe our Christian community--the church. If this is true, and the church really is a family, then one of the most fundamental elements we must recognize in being a family is that you don't get to pick your relatives. But you DO have them.
Now, to go back to Barna's thesis. It's when the church loses it's identity as a family, and becomes more of a corporation that causes the revolutionary spirit to rise up.
So am I backtracking on my original post regarding the book? Not really. Just clarifying some things. Perhaps this is just a second reaction to the book that is balancing out my first. It's always good to revisit.
Wayne Jacobsen also has some balanced thoughts on the book here.
I wanted to be the first to comment so I could emphasize something. I believe this is an extremely important paragraph:
"Maybe he misunderstood something in his analysis and study of the "don't go to church, be the church" language we speak. When we say those words we DON'T mean stop congregating with people and instead create your own personal Jesus experience without any oversight, leadership, or accountability."
The reason it is so important is because the phrase you see in our literature and hear in our language can be so easily misunderstood. Wayne Jacobsen's article, which is posted as one of the primary links explaining the values of Oasis, spouts this phrase. It usually goes something like this: "Why I don't Go To Church Anymore" or "Stop Going To Church" or "Don't GO To Church."
That phrase is not about rebellion. It's not about leaving all forms of structure and organization, not even church organization. But it is about promoting a way of life over another. It speaks of Christians who are tired of the way of life that has become empty, meaningless, ritualistic religion that is defined by going to meetings, programs, or buildings.
Basically, if that's all church is to you... then stop!!! You see, here's where the confusion comes. What am I saying "stop" to exactly? Meetings? Buildings? Programs? Or is it something else? YES, it's something else. Something deeper than those things. If you stopped those things but don't stop the deeper problem then all you've done is remove the vessel, not the poison. The vessel is not the problem. In fact, the vessel can be used to either distribute poison or to distribute life. Which of those is distributed is usually up to us, and how we do church.
You see, what I am saying is that Oasis DOES value meeting together... in a building... and organizing programs to help people to better know Jesus. But along with that, we also want to try and make our fellowship very conscious of the possible dangers of falling into the same meaningless pattern with our very structures. We don't ever want our vessels to begin distributing poison.
I believe we need structure and organization. We need to meet together. Paul's churches were not without either. In his letters we read about his instruction to them for leadership and even their meetings.
So again, there are two ways you can interpret the phrase "Don't GO To Church". You can interpret it as LAW and therefore break free from all church organization and institutions, live your own life in a personal spiritual revolution (I should add the word "unbiblical" to that). OR, you can see the SPIRIT behind the law, and recognize that church is something we ARE, every day. And this life of BEING the church must be more than meetings, buildings, and programs.
Posted by: chris | February 08, 2006 at 07:35 AM
Yeah, I read the posts here, another review and then listened to that poster's link to OpenLine. It was a good discussion; But man I wish Barna coulda been on there. It seems they are correct in their analysis on Barna's individualism-driven personal spirituality, though I will witness it first hand as I delve throught the book myself. Cool-wierd how God throws something at you he wants you to digest all at once.
Timeline:
I read the old post here
a poster puts the link up for openline
(I listen)
the youth minister at Stafford Church (Where I worship corporately) gives me a copy of Revolution (though I didn't say a word about it)
I read this reactionary post by Chris.
Anyway, I am compelled to comment.
I'd like to think Barna has a solution to the problem, but I don't think he does: that frustrates him. It has to. Just like all of those callers who had the desire and passion for Christ, but didn't know how to make it real and practical--no way to funnel it into action.
Even the facilitator along with the two guests, like Chris said, promoted getting reacquianted with a status-quo church, even if you've been burnt out, and cause change. They took a neutered plot of barnas and tried to "rightly" apply it.
Here's the deal: I believe the truth is that honestly no one has the real solution. The population has no visible, ubiquitous alternative to church as we know it (Or I guess as I know it.)
Oasis is that alternative, but the world doesn't know it exists yet. How frustrating! How depressing. Barna is conceptually being swept away by the culture he's trying to embrace, and the rest of the Christian culture can only look upon and judge what he says as heretical or not, totally missing the crying out of an individual who sees spiritual promise for God's kingdom, but doesn't have the right tools to do it.
Man.
That makes Oasis job, and those stragglers who constantly stand on the edge of hope and despair for those status-quo churches much more pressing, and important to enlighten people on how God intended us to express his gospel.
Posted by: Josh Lynch | February 10, 2006 at 11:08 AM
[quote] "Here's the deal: I believe the truth is that honestly no one has the real solution. The population has no visible, ubiquitous alternative to church as we know it (Or I guess as I know it.)
Oasis is that alternative, but the world doesn't know it exists yet." [end quote]
Boy Josh, that's a pretty big order to fill! Thanks for the kind words. But I know that we, too, will always have the opportunity to fall short if at any time we remove our eyes from the glory and sovereignty of God in all we do and replace that vision with ANYTHING else.
I couldn't agree more with this statement:
"Barna is conceptually being swept away by the culture he's trying to embrace, and the rest of the Christian culture can only look upon and judge what he says as heretical or not, totally missing the crying out of an individual who sees spiritual promise for God's kingdom, but doesn't have the right tools to do it."
Good observation.
Posted by: chris | February 10, 2006 at 01:57 PM
Yeah, no pressure! no pressure!
Really, not only Oasis, but all bodies of believers and "REVOLUTIONARIES", the call is to make known the gospel to the world.
I'm not trying to say (and I didn't explain this much) that Oasis becomes the juggernaught, but Oasis-like entities. Gospel-enabling vehicles.
People know there is more to living the Gospel, but their are too many obstacles in the traditional local church. Barna presents this problem and how an individual sold out for Christ in the post-modern world looks like, but not what the post and "post post-modern" church looks like.
On the other hand, not everything that is ubiquitous is necessary. (So my comments about Oasis taking over the world were a bit Dr. Evil-ish, and so I apologize.)
It is late, but this has me thinking about another topic tied to the visibility of Christianity in America:
I guess I've been having this internal dialogue a bit about Christianity and politics and the visibility of it; more importantly, the legislating and lobbying of "Christianity"-stamped morality.
I don't think this branded morality is a good thing for spreading the gospel, especially when it is used for political leveraging. Sort of like Christian Gum sold at a Christian bookstore. Did that statement seem like a cheapening of the word "Christian"? Sure did for me.
Maybe another topic for another day.
Posted by: Josh Lynch | February 11, 2006 at 03:42 AM
I am looking forward to reading that post, Josh. I'm tracking with you.
Posted by: chris | February 11, 2006 at 08:07 AM
I haven't finished reading Barna's book yet (it may take me another year), but I think it is an interesting analysis of a growing trend in Christianity. When I started reading it I wasn't even sure what side Barna was on, not knowing anything about him. I sensed his sort of admiration for "revolutionaries" but wasn't sure if he considered himself one.
With that said I find that in many ways he has succeeded in "describing" Oasis, and not much more. I'm not the most intuitive reader in the world (I think I rank in the top 3 billion) so perhaps I missed it or haven't gotten to it yet, but was his purpose to give a solution to something? I feel like he is just stating his analysis of a growing trend and that it is up to us to do something with it.
Now we spend a great deal of time talking up house church and its importance in our lives, so isn't any meeting with other Christian believers an opportunity for God's work. Why then do we assume that if a bunch of people are leaving the "traditional" church that they are leaving the Church or God at all? I think most of these so-called revolutionaries are very much fellowshipping with a congregation, just not in the typical sense. I have no proof of this of course. Maybe Barna will give me the info.
What it all boils down to though is that I want to have a relationship with God that meet God's approval. If it contains some "personalized" elements, fine. But above all else, be Biblical. I think we (Oasis) are and I am responsible (as are the other "MEMBERS") for keeping it that way.
Posted by: 100-ft Mike | February 11, 2006 at 04:44 PM
Fine comments brothers! But I think everyone is dancing around the issue.
Chris, I am really concerned with your wish-washy-ness. Taking both sides of the argument! Your slipping back into the traditional thinking. Your frustration with that thinking eventually lead you back here. Remember?? I think you need to read the book again. Barna does have some ideas or insights as to what the impact of "the revolution" will be.
Page 103 Impact On Believers: As this transformational movement grows, sparked by the spiritual renewal of believers, the faith experience and expression will be substanially altered. For instance, believers will not have an institution such as the local church to use as a crutch or excuse for wimpy faith. Each Revolutionary consents to be personally responsible for his spiritual state-whether that's growth or stagnation... The failure to develop a robust spiritual life becomes the responsibility of the person God intended: you. ... Believers will bear the obligation for performing acts of community service, promoting the gospel, growing their family in faith maturity, worshipping God, developing intimacy with God, understanding and applying the Scriptures, representing the Kingdom in every aspect of your life, investing every resource for holy outcomes, and being connected to a community of God-loving people. No more waiting for others to do the job; every Revolutionary must handle the duty to BE "The Church" with dedication and excellence....
In the end, the Revolution (real intimacy with God, no matter what) transforms believers so they/we (God working through us) can transform the world. Their/our perception of faith becomes more real and personal. Their/our relationship with God becomes more natural and intimate. The Bible becomes a true book of life-giving wisdom, indispensable for right and holy living. The very life of the believer becomes a means of worship and outreach. Tent-making - the practice of working a non-religious job as a means of paying the bills while facilitating one's desire to be a genuine representative of Christ in the world- moves from a quirky, first-century idea to a defining, personal lifestyle.
Page 105 Impact On The Christian Community
... when a massive number of it's constituency is transformed, the body itself is reshaped, by definition. New leaders will gain recognition and authority among believers. Their role will not be building new institutions, rather, providing guidance in the construction of new hearts and minds that produce a thriving Church community. Weaving together the spectrum of ideas, talents, and resources of believers into richer ministry tapestry will be their challenge. Power, authority, and resources will be defined, awarded, recognized, and utilized in different ways as The Revolution matures.
Differnt educational methods and training will emerge. Technology will become more important in the networking and restructuring of The Church. (much like we're doing now).
"Christian community" has generally been limited to the relationships facilitated within the walls of the building or within the local congregation, The Revolution is bursting open the walls of the worldwide Church to birth a truly international network of relationships. ... impossible to quantify or contain. ... view of the Church and of their own responsibilities will also bring forth a renaissance in global missions.
Page 107 Impact On Local Churches
page 108 Impact On American Culture
Read it!!
Now about gathering with the local church, whether that's in a house-church setting, in the larger, traditional, congregational setting, or in a coffee shop, you must ask the question, what do we gather for. Yes, there is something special about worshipping and expressing yourself to God among and with other believers. And even when non-believers see your sincerity and total surrender and dedication, without fear of what others think, that can have a lasting, life changing impact on them, much the way it did in the days of the Hebrew temple worship. Fact is though, that doesn't happen in most large gatherings. Most Americans are some-what conformists. We don't want to be different or stand out in the crowd or make people think we're weird. That's why we sit in pews, or line the chairs up in rows. So we'll all be in line, so we'll look and act like the guy sitting next to us. Decent and in order and all the same.
Spiritual Worship (I don't know what other kind their is) is defined by Paul in Romans 12:1 Therefore, I URGE you brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God. THIS IS YOUR SPIRITUAL ACT OF WORSHIP. Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be TRANSFORMED by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is- His good, pleasing and perfect will.
That, my friends, is worship! To be so in tune, so in step with God, that you no longer conform to the world and it's sinful nature. Make your body obey the Word of God that you have filled your mind with. Killing the flesh!! How many of us do that together in the "Sunday Worship Service"?? Barna talks about that in his book too. Page 93 The Marks Of A Revolutionary.
Yes, there is something special about singing together. But frankly, I can do that by myself! I do do that by myself. That's what personal relationship means, personal, intimate. Just me & God. In the shower, driving to work, at work, at the supper table, in my closet, whatever. Most people think I'm waving at them. HA HA. I'm really flapp'n my hands to God!! That's OK!
So why get together?? Chris, I've read your writings and heard you teach it before! It's about what YOU BRING . It's not about what we get out of it, the programs, the good singing, the inspirational, theological, hermonuetical, 3 pointer good preaching, oh that really blessed me, ... Although those things can be good and can be a blessing and are beneficial, the purpose for gathering with other believers is to allow you to be a blessing. It is for you to use your spiritual gift(s), to build up, encourage, edify the other people who have gathered, wherever that is, home, church building, Dunkin Donuts, etc. (Eph 4).
Again, for most of The Church (the believers), that doesn't happen. It's not our culture. Barnes discusses this specifically in chapter 4, page 29, How The Local Church Is Doing. Those are some sad statistics he quotes there. The sad truth is that corporately we keep doing the same thing over & over and expect a different result. Ask the believers there where you are. Do all of them have the opportunity to use their gift when you gather? Does one administer, one bring a word of wisdom, one a word of knowledge, one prophecying in proportion to his faith, one serving, one encouraging, one contributing, one leading, one showing mercy, one teaching?? I'm not saying each gift has to be used each time you gather, or that everyone is to that point of allowing God to use them in that way. But how often is "Sunday Worship Service" one person leading the singing, one or two playing music (the same ones do the same things over & over, never encouraging anybody else to use their gift).
Do you feel free enough or bold enough to speak in the "service", not just when someone asks you to pray or at the appointed time as outlined in the bulletin, but when God is telling you too?? How often does the same person preach and then everyone goes racing to beat the Baptists to Bob Evans and forget it all ever happened? Is what you're doing there, wherever you're gathering, no matter how many people, is it building up The Body of Christ, helping them to reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge (relationship) of the Son of God, becoming mature, attaining the whole measure of the fullness of Christ (being like Him). Now I ask you, isn't that what we gather together for?? Isn't that what we need each other for? To help one another attain that deep relationship with the Son of God, to encourage each other and all the more as we see the day approaching??
That's why the old traditional ways don't suit lattedatte everybody. The revolutionary can't stomache religion. Going through the motions, same ole thing, over & over. It's gotta be real or we can't handle it. Why waste your time?? Read Isaiah 1. God can't stand it either! And if you have made that commitment to be the revolutionary, to be transformed in every facet of your life, you yearn for that deeper personal relationship with God and with others, and that is not happening where you gather, wherever that is, then you have either got to allow God to use you to change the culture there, to change the thinking, or you have got to move on and gather with other revolutionaries who "get it"
You see the revolution, being a disciple of Christ, is about living the life! It's about following and being like Jesus, whatever the cost. It's not something you join. I DID NOT JOIN THE CHURCH!! Some convoluted institution that we have made it to be. I became part of "The Kingdom" of God when I accepted His gift of salvation, when I put my trust in Him. I was adopted into the family by His grace. And because He first loved me, because He died for me, I want to give my life to Him. ALL OF IT!! My attitude, my character, relationships, behavior, ... refer to Barna's book page 94.
And so we are connected to other believers! We have a deep bond with God and can relate to others because of that bond. Paul in his letter to the Romans was not concerned about religious activity or ceremonies or completing a checklist of events. He was concerned about people being tuned in to God. Not once did he rant about being present every time the doors were open. His message was profoundly simple: stay in touch with God! Read Barna chapter 11.
The local church is supposed to be about ministry, regardless of who benefits. The Kingdom of God does not sustain any forms of internal competition, so help people grow at your own expense and don't worry about if they're going to become a life long member of your church. The local church (whatever form it is) can only be justified when it is blessing people, no matter where they hang their spiritual hat. Success in the local church has nothing to do with membership or services/meetings or who's in charge of the building fund, but everything to do with relationships and being a servant. Barna page 138.
We're called to be faithful not successful. What matters most is working together as a community of believers in love with Christ Jesus, no matter how far apart we may be (geographically), doing whatever we can to advance "The Kingdom". We don't need or want the public recognition or the glory or the credit for bearing fruit that will last, that belongs to God. Barna page 134
Finally, figure out how to create more revolutionaries (disciples) among those who are not aligned with the Christian faith community. Your neighborhood is packed with people who are not focused on knowing, loving, or serving God. What a great challenge to your ministry! Whether you motivate them to connect with God within your congregational, traditional, institutional structure, or some other less binding form, the challenge is to raise up God-honoring people and lead them, drag, push or pull them into situations where they can love and be loved more deeply. That's Church!
Mark
Posted by: Mark Murray | February 17, 2006 at 05:44 PM
Mark, my brother, you really took off the kid gloves with that post didn't you. Man, I don't see you for a couple of months then all of a sudden... BAM! That's what I love about you. You're straight up honest. Thanks for your post. I hope I can answer your concerns.
First of all, did you say this: "Chris, I am really concerned with your wish-washy-ness. Taking both sides of the argument!" just to get my attention? Or do you really see that in my two posts about the book?
I am in Cincinnati as I type this, and do not have a copy of the book in front of me, but having read it as well as your quotes, I will still stand by what I said here:
"Maybe he [Barna] misunderstood something in his analysis and study of the 'don't go to church, be the church' language we speak. When we say those words we DON'T mean stop congregating with people and instead create your own personal Jesus experience without any oversight, leadership, or accountability."
[Whether you call it "tradition" or "emerging", I still believe God has designed the local church as the primary means to accomplish his Kingdom purposes on earth.]
And here is another excerpt from my post:
"I do believe that Barna was not prescribing what we should do, but his primary focus was to describe certain passions that are cultivated by a 'revolutionary'. However, his apparent indifference toward whether or not you are in a congregational or a personalized church as long as the passions are cultivated is not something I can endorse as a 'be the church' mindset. The underlying view of individualism as the book continues on unfortunately distorts the passions he describes in the opening chapters."
[This idea of church can become just as dangerously distorted as the "traditional" church you speak of.]
And here's one more excerpt:
"Now, having said that, I want to conclude by saying that I think critics of Barna's book have missed an important point by throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Yes, there is some bathwater in the book, which should be thrown out. But there is also a baby."
Mark, maybe to you it has appeared that I was talking out of both sides of my mouth. But I think I shared why I made this follow-up post. I had read the first quarter of "Revolution" and said, "YES! Finally, someone gets it!" And I still stand by that enthusiasm. It is vital that we understand church is LIFE, and PEOPLE (particularly the "sent people of God"), not buildings or programs or a dying institution.
But the impression I was getting as I continued to the end of the book was that a Revolutionary was more about himself, and not about God, and the God-community. I became concerned at how Barna consistently presented the "Revolutionaries" in a positive light and the local church in a negative light [by the way, I have NEVER recommended separating these two, in fact they cannot be separated -- maybe not every church member is a revolutionary follower of Jesus, but every revolutionary follower of Jesus is most certainly a church member].
Mark, many of the things you spoke of in your post had to do with what happens in the traditional church's gathered settings and meetings. And you're right, if that is all there is to the LIFE of such church members, then sadly they are missing out on the vibrant Christian life that we see described in the pages of the New Testament.
I know it's difficult to know this because you aren't here, living among us, fellowshiping with our community of believers. But you can be assured, we have not forsaken these principles. Simple church life is still the vibration of life that flows through the bones of Oasis by way of house church meetings and everyday ministry; while we also are enjoying the amazing and powerful presence of God in celebrative worship gatherings. God is moving in both. That is why you see posts on this web site like Chad's, where he describes the beauty of the sound of everyone singing as one voice to the new songs being written for our fellowship to sing together to their God. And you also see posts like Des Jeffer's most recent one, where he talks about the growth and encouragement people are continually experiencing as they gather with their house church family.
All in all the key is to find a way to do the very thing you said in your last paragraph, Mark. You said: "Your neighborhood is packed with people who are not focused on knowing, loving, or serving God. What a great challenge to your ministry! Whether you motivate them to connect with God within your congregational, traditional, institutional structure, or some other less binding form, the challenge is to raise up God-honoring people and lead them, drag, push or pull them into situations where they can love and be loved more deeply. That's Church!"
I agree 100%.
Posted by: chris | February 18, 2006 at 12:58 AM
Yes it did seem, at least to me, that you were sort of, kinda, maybe, two sided in your comments. And yes, I also said that to get your attention. If you want the ass to do what you want, you first must get his attention!
Barna, does get it. He does describe what the emerging, revolutionary church will look like. You have to look for clues in what he said, much like you have to really study the Bible to get a decent picture of what Jesus is describing as The Church.
Barna state on Page 103
"Impact On Believers":
As this transformational movement grows, sparked by the spiritual renewal of believers, the faith experience and expression will be substanially altered. For instance, believers will not have an institution such as the local church to use as a crutch or excuse for wimpy faith. Each Revolutionary consents to be personally responsible for his spiritual state-whether that's growth or stagnation... The failure to develop a robust spiritual life becomes the responsibility of the person God intended: you. ... Believers will bear the obligation for performing acts of community service, promoting the gospel, growing their family in faith maturity, worshipping God, developing intimacy with God, understanding and applying the Scriptures, representing the Kingdom in every aspect of your life, investing every resource for holy outcomes, and being connected to a community of God-loving people. No more waiting for others to do the job; every Revolutionary must handle the duty to BE "The Church" with dedication and excellence.......
And on Page 105
"Impact On The Christian Community"
... when a massive number of it's constituency is transformed, the body itself is reshaped, by definition. New LEADERS will gain recognition and authority among believers. Their role will not be building new institutions, rather, providing guidance in the construction of new hearts and minds that produce a thriving Church community. (Maybe much like Mr. Jacobson describes leadership). Weaving together the spectrum of ideas, talents, and resources of believers into richer ministry tapestry will be their challenge. Power, authority, and resources will be defined, awarded, recognized, and utilized in different ways as The Revolution matures.
Differnt educational methods and training will emerge. Technology will become more important in the networking and restructuring of The Church. (Just like you & I are communicating and encouraging one another and instructing one another now).
"Christian community" has generally been limited to the relationships facilitated within the walls of the building or within the local congregation, The Revolution is bursting open the walls of the worldwide Church to birth a truly international network of relationships. ... impossible to quantify or contain. ... view of the Church and of their own responsibilities will also bring forth a renaissance in global missions.
Page 107 Impact On Local Churches
page 108 Impact On American Culture
Barna does talk about leadership, accountabilty, and oversight. It just might not be the established or structured way that you are seemingly decribing it.
Ref: Barna page 139 How The Local Church Responds; God does not need us protecting Him and His Kingdom. He desires us to be Kingdom minded and open to following through on His plan for it's advancement. Christian leadership is about listening to God and humbly following His lead, doing things that facilitate life transfromation, and not worrying about the credit and applause. If Barna was indifferent about participation in the local body (whatever form that is) or if he was ascribing to "personalized church" or total individualism, then why did he make the above comments. Seems to me he is trying to help the hard headed tradionalist understand what is happening and how we work together to truely become one body. Again reread the appendix beginning on page 131.
I do not think that he misunderstood BEING THE CHURCH-again read what he states above, Or that he suggests that we should not be in fellowship with ALL Believers. Yes he is describing the passions that need to be cultivated. But he is describing exactly what Paul is teaching in Romans: genuine worship, fearless outreach, consistent spiritual growth, wise investment of resources, opportunity for servanthood and ministry, and meaningful spiritual relationships. Reread chapter 11 "The Marks Of A Revolutionary.
Barna is not stating that being a revolutionary is all about self, being personalized or self-centered. It's about being in relationship with God and living the life NO MATTER WHAT. Sadly sometimes we must make a choice. If the local group of believers that you are currently hangin' with doesn't "get it", then somethimes you have to move on and develope relationships with those who do "get it".
And Chris, dear brother in Christ, I was NOT including Oasis in the "most" that I made reference to. I did not mean to suggest that Oasis was abandoning these principles and passions. I was only refering to your comments in the post and not the way the local body there does things. Just as an observation from afar, it does seem that as you have grown spiritually and in number, that you have also grown more traditional in your practices. That could be a good thing. I'm not condemning, Just be careful to listen to and obey God, not man.
Please express my love to all the believers there. Until we meet again, LOVE
Mark
Posted by: Mark Murray | February 18, 2006 at 06:27 PM
Mark, you know I love you -- even though you did call me an "ass" on my own web site :). But bro, "becoming traditional" is not the main problem of the church. Forms and practices has never been what "be the church" has been about to me. But it's always been a MINDSET. The way we think and talk about church will effect the way we LIVE as the church. The form is not what I am concerned about. It's the function that concerns me more. That is why I can be absolutely okay with Oasis (appearing from afar) to be more "traditional" as you say (I prefer the word "orthodox" -- because I believe that provides a better definition for the reason why things may appear "traditional"). If you are referring to "traditional" as having a Sunday gathering with a time of theological Bible teaching and celebrative worship, the fact is, we have ALWAYS had that. Nothing has changed. Yeah, there may be more people now, but nothing about those meetings have changed. Likewise, we still have home church meetings like we have always had.
Yes, I am providing more leadership training as we grow, and we are making every effort to follow the clear biblical instruction for preparing elders to spiritually lead those who call themselves the church.
You mentioned of Barna: "Barna does talk about leadership, accountabilty, and oversight. It just might not be the established or structured way that you are seemingly decribing it."
Nor is it the way the Scipture describes it. And if I have to choose between Barna or Paul, I will choose the God-inspired words of the apostle Paul.
I have not denied that Barna's book has some very good and crucial points for today's church. Like I said in the original post, there is both a "baby" and some "bathwater" in there, and the baby must be revealed to the modern church while the bathwater needs to be tossed aside. And those who are students of culture must have the discernment to know where both are.
Be careful of two things my brother: (1) don't drink the emergent kool-aid. When the pendulum swung from the modern church to the postmodern or "emerging" church, it sure looks like the gospel is being viewed through the lens of culture, rather than vice-versa. We MUST understand the culture, but we have to view culture through the lens of the gospel. And the gospel is going to be offensive, foolish, and ugly to those who are perishing. And (2) Be careful of allowing your passion to be driven by bitterness and anger. I'm not saying that's where you are, Mark. I am just saying that the war is not against "tradition" and "old church institutions".
You can break free from both of those and still never live the "be the church" life. Conversely, there are many people who are in those contexts who are more "be the church" in their Christian life than I will will ever know.
I will let you in on a little secret about myself Mark. I suppose I have grown weary of reading about church and how to do church the right way and how to avoid doing it the wrong way. About 6 months ago (it was around the same time I decided to begin studying Romans), I had a thought in my mind that there were probably much deeper problems in the world of church than the forms and models. And as I began studying the book of Romans this thought began to unfold for me like a flower. It was like God's voice was speaking through the Scripture, saying to me, "Back up. Tell them who GOD is. Tell them of His sovereignty. Tell them of his great wrath and righteousness. Tell them what He has done for them to save them from His wrath. And all the forms of how we live this Christian life in response to God's great work of the Gospel will work themselves out."
So honestly, man, we have not really focused on much other than the awesome, amazing, indescribable sovereignty of the Living God. He is really, really opening our eyes and revealing Himself to us as we dig into scripture like we never have before. And as long as we continue on this track, I frankly do not care what the form is. As long as God is glorified and we are satisfied in Him, then things are good and right. It's when the glory is taken off from God and placed on something else -- like us, or culture, or house church, or buildings, or mega-church, or purpose-driven church, or emerging church, or whatever. I am done with all that garbage. It's about GOD. It's about His glory.
I love you Mark. Your thoughts are stimulating. Rest assured. I have not strayed from the "be the church" path and into binding forms of institutionalism (my wife won't let me). But I'd like to think of myself as having discernment to see when another gospel is being preached in the name of "being the church".
Posted by: chris | February 18, 2006 at 10:14 PM
WOW. Let me have it! You know I wasn't calling you names.
I'm with you all the way man! But I am still not seeing the bath water (the unbiblical part). But I guess as long as it functions it really doesn't matter.
The ONLY gospel is Jesus. Amen!!
Mark
Posted by: Mark Murray | February 19, 2006 at 09:49 AM
I know you weren't callng me names. Just having some fun with you. Man, I miss you. Thanks for the chat. This is always good for more people than you realize.
Posted by: chris | February 19, 2006 at 01:46 PM
Chris,
You stated in your last comment:
You mentioned of Barna: "Barna does talk about leadership, accountabilty, and oversight. It just might not be the established or structured way that you are seemingly decribing it."
Nor is it the way the Scipture describes it. And if I have to choose between Barna or Paul, I will choose the God-inspired words of the apostle Paul.
You know what side I will choose too. At least I hope you know. But like I said, I'm just not seeing the "bath water".
Just so I'm clear. I want to be "Biblical": Define local church. Are you saying that ALL christians must be part of or join an existing body, one that's "orthodox"? That we must be accountable to and look for leadership from that body? Or is it "Biblical" to regularly meet with a handful of christians, be accountable to and look for leadership from each other, and work together on simply being the church, without any "oversight" from some other body?
Like you, I'm really sick of feeling like have to defend myself and the form in which we function as "The Church". All I want to do is worhip freely, in spirit and in truth, draw deeper to God, experience the joy only He can bring, and share that joy with others. But somehow, there's always some "structure" to contend with.
Huh? Maybe that's the way Paul felt too. Seems like every book he wrote he was contending with some faction or false teaching or structure or sin of some kind. Guess some things never change.
Love Ya
Mark
Posted by: Mark Murray | February 21, 2006 at 10:00 AM
To your questions I am going to say, "Yes" and "Yes". You asked:
"Are you saying that ALL christians must be part of or join an existing body, one that's "orthodox"? That we must be accountable to and look for leadership from that body? Or is it "Biblical" to regularly meet with a handful of christians, be accountable to and look for leadership from each other, and work together on simply being the church, without any "oversight" from some other body?"
I guess my question is, what's the difference between those two things? When I use the word "orthodox" I take it to have more meaning in terms of "belief and doctrine" than in practice and model of church. When I say that we are making every attempt to be orthodox I am stating that we are structuring our fellowship in such a way that accountability of scripture is very evident, which means leadership is becoming more and more visible.
"Structure" is not a bad word.
When structure becomes equal to doctrine then you have something bad. But structure in and of itself is not bad. And the apostle Paul was certainly for helping his churches provide structure for people to grow. If Paul did not believe in the local church then I would have to wonder why he wrote individual letters to each of them, giving them specific instructions about their practices and their faith. For example, First Corinthians is a letter to a local church with much, much instruction about the structures of their fellowship.
I suppose a literal definition of "local church" could be given in two ways. A practical definition based on what we see both today and in the scripture might be: "local church" is the way to describe a community of believers in Jesus that form and minister in a certain geographical location, and it would be based upon the teaching and common beliefs; however, it could also be used to refer to all collections of Christian, bible-believing congregations in a certain city. See the difference -- one refers to the specific church I fellowship and serve with, and the other definition refers to all the different fellowships within my city.
But I think the main emphasis of your question may be on the issue of "structured leadership". Am I correct? Is this what you are wanting me to answer? If so, I do believe that a biblical local church must have a leadership that holds the church accountable to orthodox bible teaching. Paul speaks of these leaders as elders or overseers. He also includes a group of servants in the church set aside to accomplish tasks, and calls them deacons (see 1 Timothy 3). Early on in the days of the New Testament church the apostles began structuring leadership and ministry service based upon the giftedness of the members (see Acts 6:1-6).
I totally understand where you are coming from. These titles have been severely abused by the modern church, even to the point of where now in many "local churches" they do not function in the way the Bible says they must function.
However, we cannot just toss these instructions of Paul aside simply because they have been abused and given a bad reputation in today's church. Instead we must make every effort to recover true biblical leadership in ANY and ALL of our different forms of local church -- whether it meets in a house or in a big building, or whether it shares meals or eats small pieces of cracker, or whether it's relaxed and conversational or liturgical and formal.
All of those forms CAN and MUST provide biblical, orthodox, leadership for the fellowship.
Posted by: chris | February 21, 2006 at 11:35 AM
GOOD ANSWER! Yes & Yes! I agree with what you have said. But I still didn't see the bath water in Barna.
I quess my question is this; Is it ok, Biblical, "Orthodox" for me and the handful of people I meet with, located here in Waverly, to be accountable to you (Oasis) there in Middleport, or The Plains, or wherever it is that you are??
Wouldn't it be better to "join" a local church, if one exists, and be covered by that leadership?? I mean why start another work?? Are we just being "pig headed" and self-centered, unwilling to submit to "authority", if we choose a different venue or different form??
When you moved back here, why didn't you just hook up with a local church in Middleport or Athens, instead of starting something new?? I know, I heard the different flavors theory. But to some, we are in error because we're doing things the way we want, not the way God wants, according to the scriptures . "Unorthodox"
When we say the form is not really important, meaning where we meet, style, etc... isn't arguement over those things keeping believers from true fellowship together?? And if the form is really not important to us, then why don't we just "join" a local church and like (or endure) whatever flavor it is?? Don't we really just want our own way?? We want to do things our way. We know best, or at least, better than the way they're doing it. We don't like the way some one or some church is doing things, so we just go some where else or we start our own little group. Where does it end?
I just want to be able to see where God is working and hop on! Why does that seem to be so difficult??
Mark
Posted by: Mark Murray | March 11, 2006 at 02:53 AM
I believe that one of the best ways to be diligent in the great commission Jesus gave to make disciples of all nations is by indigenous, autonomous church planting. So, to plant a new church is to be obedient to the great commission. It is an effective, organic, and practical means of evangelism. And there should be lots of them in every city.
Meaning, Mark, that you and the little community of people meeting in your house are set up to do just that. Yes, I also believe that accountability is important and healthy, which means networking with other churches would be a wise decision as well. But not for the "covering" of their leadership; for their "relationship" and encouragement. In every church leadership must arise from within. If you sense that God has blessed your fellowship with a diversity of gifts (pastors & teachers, evangelists, prophecy giftedness, etc.), from which a healthy structure of leadership will develop (i.e. elders, deacons, etc.), then you must consider the fact that God is forming a new church from among you.
The authority of the church begins with Jesus. He is the head. And Ephesians 4 says that he calls some to be "apostles". This does not mean that there are apostles today. But in the context of Paul's letter he is describing the various ways Christ has handed gifts to the people in the church for the church to grow and be mature. One of those people has an "apostolic-like" gift, which means he will lead the way and cast vision for a local church. Then he might just move on and do it again in another place.
Which leads me to answer your question about why I did not "join" another church, rather I planted a new church, when I moved back to southeastern Ohio. It is because God had instilled a vision in me to plant a new church. If He was calling me to begin a new work, then I needed to trust Him that He would also provide me with the necessary resources and raise up the leaders around me to serve in the work with me. And He has proven faithful as always.
No new churches would begin without that initial calling (and it usually ultimately begins with ONE person). And when they are "home grown", meaning indigenous (occurring naturally from a given location), then they may be criticized or questioned or persecuted. yes, perhaps even from other local churches. It's sad, but true. It happened to me also.
So, I suppose the question is, do you sense God calling you to plant a new church? Or to connect with an existing church?
Either way, there will be leadership. In the one (the new plant), leadership will be developed as you faithfully journey on. In the other (connecting with an existing body), the leadership is more obvious from the beginning.
If, in fact, God is calling you to plant a new church altogether I would be glad to help you any way I can in the development of leadership.
Posted by: chris | March 11, 2006 at 09:11 AM