A Not-So-New-Nor-Radical-Revolution

For over 15 years now, anything Barna writes is something I have looked forward to reading and using in my ministry.  Barna is cited in my dissertation and my first book, It Takes a Church to Raise a Christian: How the Community of God transforms lives.  In fact, a significant part of my self-identity as a pastor was formed after reading his book, Turnaround Churches.

But in his newest “quick read”, Barna has crossed a divide and now challenges the very people he once equipped.  Introducing his fellow “Revolutionaries”, he writes:

The United States is home to an increasing number of Revolutionaries.  These people are devout followers of Jesus Christ who are serious about their faith, who are constantly worshipping and interacting with God, and whose lives are centered on their belief in Christ.  Some of them are aligned with a congregational church, but many of them are not.  The key to understanding Revolutionaries is not what church they attend, or even if they attend.  Instead it’s their complete dedication to being thoroughly Christian by viewing every moment of life through a spiritual lens and making every decision in light of biblical principles.  These are individuals who are determined to glorify God every day through every thought, word and deed in their lives.  (p. 8)

Frankly I love the imagery painted in this passage.  In fact, I yearn to know more and more of these kinds of people.  And it is very close (not exactly, but close) to what I would desire for how I would want the people of my church to be known. 

Now, a charge from Barna to Revolutionaries:

To survive and thrive in the midst of the spiritual battle in which you live, seek a faith context and experience that will enhance your capacity to be Christlike.  This mission demands single-minded commitment and a disregard for the criticisms of those who lack the same dedication to the cause of Christ.  You answer to only one Commander in Chief, and only you will give an explanation for your choices.  Do whatever you have to do to prove that you fear God, you love Him and you serve Him—yes, that you live only for Him. (p. 27)

Again, I am drawn toward this kind of language.  It is the kind of challenge that I would have loved as a young Christian who wanted to be radical for Christ.  But as I said in my last post, today I recognize that both the description above and the charge, while articulate, well intentioned and even inspiring, when properly understood in the way Barna intends it, is not a revolution but a retreat. 

Mr. Barna is endorsing a form of discipleship that is disconnected from the Biblical history of God’s redemptive dealings with his people and is endorsing a form individualistic Christianity where every individual answers only to his or her own personal assessment of what they need spiritually. (This is a great irony to me, because nothing has been more adept of demonstrating how deceived most Christian’s are about their own spiritual development, than Mr. Barna's polls)

And if I am reading this correctly, after years of challenging the church to change and be better equipped to face a changing world, Mr. Barna has thrown in the towel and told people to simply use whatever means they consider helpful to their personal and individualistic pursuit of the Christian life.  Indeed as the church is now only consider vital if an individual deems that it will "enhance (his or her) capacity for Christlikeness."

Please don’t misunderstand me.  I think this book is the product of a keen mind and a deep yearning.  George Barna is very good at listening to people with a finely tuned ear for both the resonant notes of true belief and the hollow clank of a faith-façade.  When it comes to describing the state of the church and the desperate need for renewal for the Church to continue to be “Jesus for the whole world” (to use N.T. Wright’s phrase) I have no reason to doubt him (p. 30-36).  His description of the seven passions of revolutionaries (p. 22-24) is a fine encapsulation of what true discipleship should look like in any age.  And his summary point is worth writing on a post-it note and putting on a bathroom mirror to serve as a reminder to every Christian every morning:

The hallmarks of the Church that Jesus died for are clear, based on Scripture: your profession of faith in Christ must be supported by a lifestyle that provides irrefutable evidence of your complete devotion to Jesus.  (p. 25)

But Mr. Barna’s means for encouraging this type of faith to come about is to succumb to a trend that is neither new or revolutionary. To make the local church just one of many options in our personal spiritual walk is not radical, at all.  In fact it is not all that new.  Mr. Barna himself noted the trend in a study in 1993 that I cited in my book, It Takes a Church to Raise a Christian.  George Gallup and Jim Castelli wrote of the “Believers vs. Belongers” gap in their study of American church life in 1989.   Indeed, according to researchers like Barna and Wade Clark Roof disconnecting church from faith was a hallmark of the BABY BOOMERs, the parents of this younger generation of Revolutionaries that Mr. Barna holds up as the harbingers of change. 

Now, as I look back at Mr. Barna’s own research and his regular newsletter that comes in my email inbox, I can understand the discouragement that he must feel.  Indeed it is one that I share with him and have sought to face head on because of research like his. But to his endorse ment and encouragement of discipleship that is disconnected to the local church, is to indulge the deep individualistic bias that is truly the enduring spirit of our age, to abandon the biblical notion of fellowship into the most tentative and fragile connections with people “who seem to be on the same wavelength” (p. 89) and to trust each individual to whatever they deem best.

In the following posts I will address Mr. Barna’s distinction of the Church vs. church, his understanding of fellowship and community and his assertion that the local church as found today is at best “abiblical”. 

But let’s at least begin by acknowledging that whatever is happening today in the world, has been happening for at least half a generation and probably a lot longer.  All that’s changed is one man is now giving up  on equipping the church to face the challenge of our age. 

Indulging individualism is not that revolutionary to me.

Comments

[Darryl]

This is one of the best assessments of Barna's book that I've read so far.

I'm all for new forms of church, and I hope that is what Barna is arguing for. I think the key issue he raises is what does it mean to be the church. Can some abandon the predominant model (meets in a building, sits in rows) and still have a strong ecclesiology, fleshed out in some non-traditional form such as a house church?

So I look foward to the rest of your posts on this book.

[Zema Chambers]

Several months ago, Barna was on TBN with Matt and Laurie Crouch. It was interesting to hear Barna say that he was "only reporting the trend" not commenting that he agreed or disagreed with the trend. I've not read the book, so I wondered if that is really true? As Barna was explaining his understanding of his data, Matt and Laurie picked up on the fact that things were on the change with people they knew. It was pretty funny when Matt asked for a comment from a pastor who was at another TBN location. I can't remember the pastor's name, but he was seriously backpeddling and saying that Barna really was "all wrong". Todd, did it seem to you that Barna was merely reporting from his data, or is he really promoting the whole idea of leaving "church" (as in the building) and walking in the trend of the "Revolutionaries"?

[Sue]

It sounds as though Barna's book may (unintentionally?)romanticize "lone-ranger Christianity" as the quixotic antidote for the perceived ills of the modern church.

In our poll-driven culture, many now confuse "the majority" with "the right." Perhaps Barna should take this into consideration when he presents data?

[Dan McGowan]

Right or wrong, Barna has taken a bold step to actually address an issue that is becoming much more common than, perhaps, some of us care to admit... because for we who work in churches (like me!) such a revolutionary movement would directly challenge my very means of income - not disounting, of course, that God can, and does, provide for us. That's a given. However, right now, this is the way "God provides" and if "the church" as we know it begins falling apart, what happens to our salaries?

Still, I was moved as I read this book (and my advice for anyone sharing a post here would be FIRST to read the book BEFORE you comment... seems only fair.) I was moved to consider that what if these trends Barna speaks about are accurate? If so, then we need to, at the very least, ALTER HOW we "do church" if we are going to honestly be servant leaders as modeled by Christ.

[DennisS]

In reading most of "It Takes a Church" today, I understand where you are coming from - and I agree with you.

I didn't catch this when reading Barna's report - but I read it prior to reading your book. Perhaps if you send him a copy of your book he will understand that a retreat from the church is far from God's Intention, far from "Living the Trinity".

Looking forward to what you have to say on Friday afternoon.

[James]

I, too, agree with your rejection of the individualistic implications of Barna's analysis.

However, let's say a Christian fits within this 'revolutionary' group, but the rest of the congregation he or she is a part of does not. Would this mean that the Christian in question would be approaching discipleship from an individualistic perspective?

I think in all honesty the answer would have to be no. The Christian in question is the one living out the faith, it is the rest who are not. I don't know about you, but if being a disciple of Christ means that in certain contexts I have to stand out as an individual in order to follow the Lord, then that is what must be done rather than follow the ways of men who are not living the faith.

Just some thoughts.

[Sue]

I only suggest this notion that Church is something which ought to morph according to whatever cultural pressures are put upon it has gotten us where we are today. Still, it seems, we press on looking for that "next level" that will cure the ills of the present generation's departure from what was already a "fix" for an earlier departure. Its a cycle of madness. Those who say "change the way we do church" in response to Barna data are like those who say "remodel the house" when the pilot-light goes out in the furnace. Everyone starts to get warm again as they work furiously on the makeover...but when it's all done, the same problem manifests, all over again.

[David M. Smith]

Hi James,

I think Biblical Christianity consists of “fitting in” and “standing out”. The two go together and are inseparable. When either the “fitting in” or the “standing out” are overemphasized at the expense of the other, the body of Christ is weakened. However, I can completely understand why strong Christians are leaving the local Church and going it alone out of discouragement and frustration.

From my perspective, part of the problem is the over controlling nature and the under performing example of many Pastors. Tod seems to be the exception, not the rule. He has the mentality and spirit of a true shepherd. When Pastors don’t have what it takes to lead by example, the local Church becomes just another social organization. Most of us have unlimited resources for proper exegesis. We can’t benefit as much from a Pastor who can explain a passage as we can benefit from a Pastor who lives a passage. Most Churches choose a Pastor based on the former and not the latter.

[James]

David,

I agree, many Christians become frustrated because they do not see their congregations living the faith. This frustration is especially noted in my generation (X) and my brother-in-law's generation (post-1982). These two generations see far too many leaders in the church speak the faith, but not enough (though there are many) setting the example of living the faith.

[Mark La Roi]

What an engaging post! I see a lot of Christian bloggers and others who have been hurt by a church at some point who begin to take up the so-called "Lone Ranger" life style, and it is so painful to watch because many of them don't even realize it.

A person doesn't have to stay in one congregation every Sunday for the rest of his or her life, but the regular gathering is so important to spiritual growth. The comments and even criticisms that come from others are often a good barometer of either where we are, or where our actions make us seem to be.

[Eric Wilbanks]

I'm seeing a lot of posts that seem to center on the apparent dichotomy of "local church driven" vs "individualized" faith. I'm curious...Why only the extremes? In other words, why is it that anything not local church oriented is automatically individualized and "lone ranger"? And what does that say about our willingness to wrestle with the truth that Jesus dwells in the presence of two or more? At what point does a spiritually enriching experience with other believers cross the line and suddenly become "church"? At what point does a church experience cease to be church and become merely "fellowship" or simply hanging out (i.e., how many things can you remove before you get to the essentials that define church)? And if we all know and understand that church is not a building, what happens to the practice of our faith if designated buildings are suddenly taken out of the picture (as they are for a majority of believers around the globe)?
Before we can wrestle with the validity of Barna's research, shouldn't we wrestle with these bigger items?

[Mark La Roi]

"In other words, why is it that anything not local church oriented is automatically individualized and "lone ranger"?"

~Speaking for myself and what I've grasped from the postings, I don't think that it's referring to anything not centered on the local church, but the danger inherent in moving away from a regular gathering with a body of believers.

Even in countries like China and Iraq where one is risking his/her life by identifying with Christ, there is a great effort made to sustain the regular gathering of believers in house churches of even only a few, because of the benefits that gathering provides.

I do believe that people walking with Christ will notice when the gathering has ceased to be fruitful, and will do something about it. It's kinda like having a lamp plugged into the wall that provides light for reading. When the plug comes out of the wall, (the lamp is no longer plugged in) those who actually were reading will know it instantly.

Those who weren't actually reading won't immediately notice anything.

[Ted]

As a pastor, I too long for people to be wholly devoted followers of Jesus in every aspect of life. But it's a tad ironic that the "revolutionaries" who love Jesus so much have no need of the church.

Yeah, church is full of messed up, half-hearted followers. And yeah, honest pastors sometimes wish they too could be done with the church.

I think what drives "revolutionaries" away from the church is its plodding nature. The "Revs" are too mature. They have no time for bunglers. (God help us if that was the attitude of the Apostle Paul). But that is simply pride and selfishness--and that isn't "revolutionary"--its familiar Adam.

[David M. Smith]

Hi Ted,

It sounds like you are saying that if those who have left the Church weren’t so sinful, they would be in Church every Sunday right along with all of the other sinners.

Don’t you think this issue is a little more complex and solving this problem a little more important than to simply blame original sin? Perhaps if those in the Church and leading the Church weren’t so comfortable and complacent, the trend would change. In our country, over one million babies are aborted every year. In Africa, millions of people are dying of starvation because of foreign aid and corrupt governments. In our world, Islamic terrorism threatens billions of people. In our Churches, we respond by having another picnic and marriage seminar. In our Churches, second hand smoke is considered more evil than materialism.

The trend away from Church by serious Christians will not change until fasting and prayer is considered more important than donuts and coffee, until timeless and Biblical truths are considered more important than felt emotional needs, until sacrifice and commitment are considered more important than a Rick Warren tape and book, until Pastors care more about the Body of Christ than they care about their career and the size of their Church.

Becoming serious again about the Body of Christ may not increase the number of People attending Church, but it will definitely improve the type of people in Church and therefore representing Christian values.