Mechanisms, Means of Grace and Missing the Point.

In his book, Revolution, George Barna holds up the fictional example of two Christians who meet each week at the “Church of the Green” opting for golf and good conversation over church participation. Not simply reporting the obvious, Barna, declares instead that “the local church is one mechanism that can be instrumental in bringing us closer to Him and helping us be more like Him” (p. 36), charging Revolutionaries to ask themselves, “Does the mechanism provide a way of advancing my faith?” (emphasis mine)

For Mr. Barna, the local church is no more spiritually significant than taking a walk by a lake. Indeed in one section, he clearly implies that often the walk is better than attending a worship service. Which--to be honest--is an accurate statement of many of our personal experiences. 

But for Barna, those personal experiences are really all that matter to the true revolutionary. (Mr. Barna makes his assertions based on some biblical arguments that I will begin to address in the next post.)

But while I believe that Mr. Barna is terribly mistaken in his understanding of the local church, it is not entirely his fault.  In many ways, Mr. Barna’s approach to the church is rooted in what Emil Brunner called, “The Misunderstanding of the Church” in his book by that title written over a half century ago. 

Brunner writes that regrettably the Reformers categorized the church as a “means of grace,”  with the unintended result of making the church on par with every other way that God sovereignly and savingly reaches into our lives.  And soon it was easy to think of the church as only a means to an end (albeit a vaunted means) and that end is God communicating his grace to each person.

I believe that unwittingly we have seen the same idea in evangelicalism when an evangelist like Billy Graham leads someone to a “personal relationship with Jesus Christ” and then exhorts people that the first thing to do is to find a Bible believing church that can help you “grow in your new relationship.”

In other words, the church is not necessary, but it is at least potentially helpful.  On this score at least, George Barna is in good company.  And frankly, he could even count the ultimate hip Christian, Bono, amongst his “revolutionaries.” 

But Barna goes down a path that would make our ancestors blanch.  While the Reformers and the evangelicals of the past would challenge churches to live up to their calling as a means of grace (even if in Brunner’s and my opinion that is still too lowly a calling), Barna starts with the negative.  He assumes that the local church is at best “abiblical” (p. 37) and that the purpose of Jesus teachings is to make us all disciples who are able to be spiritually “self-governing” (p. 70) and even suggests that at best, real revolutionaries will only drop by churches now and then (p. 138). 

For the Reformers, addressing the collectivism of the Catholic Church of the day, considering the church a “means of grace” was a way of containing the power of the hierarchy and reasserting the authority of the Word.  They never would have considered that people would eventually take that to mean that the church was optional.  (All of the Reformers followed Cyprian that “You can’t have God as your Father if you don’t have the Church as your mother.”  And they meant actual churches, not just some mystical “Church Universal” because everyone could affirm that—but more on that next post.) 

Brunner reasserts that the church, the specific fellowship of believers to which you and I are to be baptized into, nurtured at the Lord’s Supper, worship amongst, hear the proclamation of the word, and grow in grace and faithfulness is nothing more or nothing less than a replication of the fellowship of the Triune God on earth. 

The fellowship of Christians is just as much an end in itself as is their fellowship with Christ. This quite unique meeting of the horizontal and the vertical is the consequence and the type of that communion which the father has with the Son “before the world was;” (John 17:5, 24) in the supernatural life of the Christian communion is completed the revelation of the Triune God...the very being of God is agape--that love which the Son brings to mankind from the Father, and it is just this love which is the essence of the fellowship of those who belong to the Ecclesia. (p. 12-13)

While I personally would love to always be considered in the same "camp" as Bono, I believe that that we would all be better off listening more to Brunner:  “(The) togetherness of Christians is...not secondary or contingent: it is integral to their life just as is their abiding in Christ.” (p. 12, emphasis mine)

Next Post: Big C, Little c, C(c)hurch.

Comments

[James]

Maybe part of the problem with this whole discussion revolves around what the definition of 'church' is. Some people view the Church as the institution, the organization, the building, etc. I think most people who are frustrated or no longer participate in fellowship have this definition of church.

The other definition of course is the biblical one. The church is the body of Christ made up of baptized believers in Jesus Christ. Maybe some who have this definition become frustrated with the people rather than the institution, but for the most part I would guess that those who have this definition of church would be far more likely to see the importance of gathering together as a community because they recognize that they have a role to play in the body of Christ.

I would be curious to know which definition of church Barna is basing his conclusions on: institution or community of faith?

[Rev. Mike]

Tod, it really should come as no surprise that your view of church conflicts with Barna's. The Barna survey to which I referred on your previous post concluded that, at least in Barna's opinion, most church members do not hold a "biblical" world view. If that's the case, and one were to take it to the next step in calling that church apostate, then one might say that one would be better off separating from such an assembly than being led further astray. I disagree, but perhaps Barna makes better sense when viewed through that lens.

[Eric Wilbanks]

Barna actually makes the distinction as to his use of the word "church" right in the preface:

"Be forewarned that throughout this book I use the words church (small c) and Church (capital C) in very different ways. The distinction is critical. The small c church refers to the congregation-based faith experience, which involves a formal structure, a hierarchy of leadership, and a specific group of believers. The term Church, on the other hand, refers to all believers in Jesus Christ...the Revolution is designed to advance the Church and redefine the church."

And again on page 37:

“You should realize that the Bible neither describes nor promotes the local church as we know it today. The local church many have come to cherish—the services, offices, programs, buildings, ceremonies—is neither biblical or unbiblical. It is abiblical—that is, such an organization is not addressed in the Bible.”

Let's assume Barna's assumption merits debate. If so, this begs the question, "How much of the modern church is directly visible in the New Testament?" Equally important is this question: "Are established characteristics of church merely princple-centered and culturally relevant extrapolations? If so, how should they be approached in consideration for redefining church (small c)?"

By the way, there are MANY other books that address some of the same issues raised by Revolution. Two are "A Churchless Faith" by Alan Jamieson and "Organic Church" by Neil Cole.

[Dan McGowan]

When I first heard of Barna's book, Revolution, a few months back, I was hesitant to get it. This is because I work in a church - and have been doing so for nearly 20 years. At the same time, I have been feeling "stirrings" regarding "the local church" (not the Body of Christ church) for some time now - like, years - and having served with Barna as an elder in a church, having read other books of his, having known his heart on so many issues, having seen many of his concerns and trends come to fruition, I felt it was worth reading what he had to say.

So, I got the book and read it.

Nothing in the book shocked me, in terms of what He had to say, nor how he said it. It is, after all, "a George Barna book!" However, as I read the book I was keenly aware of the fact that it would not be widely accepted since it seems to, on first glance at least, slam the very organization in which the majority of Christians exist on a weekly or even daily basis.

Then, I considered the book from another angle... I wondered about the man, George Barna. Here is a guy who has done far more research in the area of Christianity and Trends and The Church than I ever have - and probably ever will! In fact, many leaders in the Christian community have come to trust Barna's visonary insights and some have even built their entire ministries around some of what he has had to say in the past. So we are left with only a few possibilities... #1 - Barna has snapped! All those years of counting check marks has fried his brain. #2 - Barna has been demon possessed and we are suddenly seeing his "Hyde" side coming out. #3 - Barna has uncovered the root cause of all the angst that so many in our churches deal with but will never voice for fear of being called a heretic. I vote for #3. And, for that reason, I think it's worth at least examining what Barna has to say on this issue...

Who knows? It might actually lead to churches making more of a Kingdom impact in the future...

[Jeff_R]

I think you've misunderstood Barna on this point. Although, admittedly, Barna, in the book Revolution does an exceptionally good job at mucking up his clarification of this point talking about "Church" v. "church".

Simply put, Barna absolutely believes in church - in the idea of Christianity in the context of community. In fact, the primary emphasis of Barna's point is that the modern institutional church has fundamentally failed at creating authentic, transformative Christian community, which is why his Revolutionaries are fleeing that model toward one where relationship and community flourish in a transformative way.

You seem to be judging the accuracy of Barna's claims based on this false dichotomy of local church v. no local church, when that is precisely what Barna is not saying. What is being jettisoned is the institutional, professional model of local church and is being replaced with a local body of believers who live out their faith together without the hierarchy, structure and governance of a formal, institutional body.

Of course, this distinction is no comfort for religious professionals...