George Barna's Revolution
Today I was reading George Barna's book Revolution, in which he says, "...If we place our hope in the local church, it is a misplaced hope. Many well-intentioned pastors promote this perspective by proclaiming, "The local church is the hope of the world." Like most advertising slogans, this notion is emotionally appealing. The trouble is, the sentiment is not biblical. Jesus, and Jesus alone, is the hope of the world. The local church is one mechanism that can be instrumental in bringing us closer to Him and helping us become more like Him. But as the research and data clearly shows, churches are not doing the job. If the local church is the hope of the world, then the world has no hope."
How do you respond to that? Do you believe that the Bible describes or promotes the local church (regardless of denomination or style) as we know it today?
posted by Tiffany @ 4/26/2006
7 Comments
7 Comments:
Here is an interesting question? Is the book of acts Descriptive or Prescriptive? Meaning is it just merely an account of how things were then, or is it a pre-scription on how church should be?
Barna's book is quite good. I think one of the main reasons the "local church" as we know it is so critical of the emergent movement as a whole is because of this very type of argument...so many seem to put things like the Bible and the Church ahead of God Himself. We must never do this...the two are important but not God.
If Acts was descriptive of how the church functioned then, was not the church then made up of sub humans just as it is today with all kinds of problems as well as blessings? What pattern is safe for the church today? Do we believe that God has left us to figure it out for ourselves?
Thinking about Jason's comment;
What has God provided for us to know Him? Is it possible aside from the Bible? What do we do with "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God?"
I hesitate to rule out the local church all together. It is easy to say put our hope in Jesus and not the church, but to me, it is going overboard. Jesus is the head of the church, yes. He is the image that we are to put on and become. But take away community and you miss the mark.
True, churches are not cutting it these days, but can we really just abandon the church? Maybe Barna is not saying this... maybe he is saying we need something different. Nevertheless, there is still a church. Universal... local... church... and it is this body of Christ that is using to change the world.
I cannot deny that I am about reforming the church. God has called me to the evangelical local church, but what I am doing is far from "evangelical." I cannot give up on the enormous group of believers who are not being effective. Some are here to do something different, and some of us are here to move and shake on the inside.
I here you are coming to the Twin Cities... send me an email and we shall have connect up. NAte
Great question, Jason! I think the book of Acts is more descriptive of what happened in the early church, but that doesn't mean I don't think it still can apply to our churches today. The people weren't perfect then anymore than they are today... but I think that in their time and culture they might have had a better understanding of the cost of discipleship and what it means to be the student of a rabbi they were following. I think we can learn from the way they built and sustained community.
I think the only "safe" pattern for church is one that is defined and led by the Holy Spirit and not man, which may look different in each setting.
I'm with Nate... I feel passionately about the local church, and I don't think Barna is saying that we should abandon the local church, but maybe redefine it. I think he's calling us to BE the church instead of simply GOING to church, which are two very different things.
My last thought is in response to anonymous who asked what we do with "in the beginning wa the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God..." If "The Word" represents Jesus, who was in the beginning and was with God in the Trinitarian community, then Jesus would be the primary way that God has provided for us to know Him. Would you agree? Not that I'm saying the Bible isn't God- breathed and a gift to us to understand God's character and works, but do you think that people who never have access to the Bible can still know Him? What other ways can we know and experience God? Just a thought...
I totally agree with Tiff in that Barna is looking for people to BE the church and not the church being a part of people. My good friend Dave uses the phrase "Church is not where God's people gather, rather, it's wherever God's people gather."
I am not sure where the teaching of John 1 as a reference to the Bible started? I remember being taught this in various denominations and christian schools, but clearly when you look at what is being said by John there, He was clearly talking about Jesus.
Rob Bell is often blasted in local papers and national magazines for whatever reasons as not being "Biblically Sound" in teaching. Anyone who follows his work knows he uses the Bible more than most I would say and always starts every sermon by saying let's turn to such and such passage. However instead of defending that he is Biblically Sound, he noted that while the Bible is an important tool it is NOT God. Is it inspired? Yes. But somehow the church as we know it has made the Bible bigger than God himself in a lot of ways I think. Thoughts?
Nice, Jason. I agree. The Bible becomes the end-all, final say in every single decision and arguement. While we need to measure our actions against scripture as it is the most direct revelation of God in language that we have, we have to be so careful.
Too often people forget that they might not be interpreting things accurately. In fact, most don't because they don't understand the culture, the original language, or the fact that the Bible is the document of humanity's experience of God. That experience of God changes as scripture and time progress.
One of the biggest things I have learned from seminary is that there are a whole lot more things that I need to hold more loosely than i did going into seminary. Meaning, there are more unknowns than I thought.
Great comments! NAte
Does not Paul tell us that Jesus is the image of the invisible God?
Is not the Bible the only account we have of Jesus' life and teachings? While it's true, people often interpret scripture incorrectly, is not the important issue to study the times, the culture, and to recognize truths that are timeless and not dependent on time or culture? Open conversation is absolutely necessary,but should we not be very careful, in recognizing our ignorance, not to hold lightly the very things that Jesus told us were most important. (that is if we accept that teaching of the Bible)
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home