I had not realized that George Barna was involved in the ongoing church change movement or emergent conversation until I read this post by Tony Myles. Barna has moved away from simply polling and interpreting church trends to publicly throwing his support behind people who leave churches in his book "Revolution". Apparently people are leaving churches that they find irrelevant to the world today, and striking out on their own, forming small groups that meet in houses. Barna calls these individuals "revolutionaries". Myles links to a post by Ken Schenck which is very hostile to the conclusions and ideas put forth by Barna.
I haven't read the book, actually, I hadn't heard of it until these 2 posts, so I will not address the book, just Schenck's post. The first thing that really jumped out at my was in the 2nd paragraph of the post.
"It is a wholly invalid process to critique what the church is NOT until he establishes a biblical baseline for what the church IS! This effort, to be of value, must begin with a clear and precise ecclesiology; stating what the Church is, not what Mr. Barna wants it to accomplish."
I'm sorry, I thought that one of the ways to define what something is, would be to look at what it isn't. What is a dog? Well, it doesn't lay eggs, fly, hibernate, etc. What is the church? It isn't the world, a building, or pews. I would have to disagree with Schenck on this, the church can be defined by what it is (the body of Christ) as well as by what is isn't (the specific place, time and way people meet).
He goes on to say:
"Barna describes his understanding of the church from passages in Acts 2, 4, and 5. But it is worth noting that at that point the Gospel has not even been proclaimed to the Samaritans, God-fearers, or the gentiles. The true nature of servant-hood, forgiveness, and grace has yet to be encountered."
I don't get that either. What does he mean that servant-hood, forgiveness and grace hasn't been revealed? What was Jesus doing all of that time? Isn't Jesus the true nature of servant-hood, forgiveness and grace?
Lastly, this quote of his smacks of the same arrogance he attributes to the revolutionaries:
"it encourages them to seek other more exciting venues for their ministry instead of the old fashioned local church. To the laity it legitimizes dropping out of church and going golfing—just so long as they go on a mission’s trip with a Para church organization occasionally and have a neighbor Bible study with a few friends on Tuesday evenings so they can skip church and go golfing on Sunday mornings."
Why the smug golf references? And most importantly, why is going to a traditional service on Sunday "going to church" and going to someone's house each week and studying the scriptures "skipping church"? If so, did anyone in the book of Acts ever go to church? Schenck does exactly what his faults Barna for - defining what something is by what it isn't. If a house meeting doesn't meet at a church, facing a pastor, on a Sunday morning, then it isn't church.
Scheck may have some valid complaints about Barna's book, and maybe I will read the book. At the same time, perhaps going back to house churches may give the church renewed vigor. People may start to focus on what they can do for Christ and the kingdom, instead of what the church can do for them.
"You're a revolution I want to be ... Revolutionary" David Crowder Band
Recent Comments