I agree with your support of (a) & (b), and with (b) do stress the aspect of some form of overseer. A non-traditional house church which has begun near us illustrates this. The leader of this house church was pastoring in this area, and left his wife for another woman with the usual fallout a situation like this causes. Less than a year later, he and some supporters from his former church have formed a house church; he has never reconciled with his previous wife, recognizes no overseer other than Jesus since pastor's been fogiven anyway. What testimony does this give the community? Barna's the one who told us divorce is as common in the church as out of it.

Churches in the NT began with some kind of apostolic authority. Berea, Thessalonica, even Thyatira didn't start with a group of disgruntled believers who thought they could do it better than Antioch. I think that's why Paul defended his apostleship so vehemently, he did have authority to do this and Timothy et al received commission/authority from Paul. That's what ordination is. Home churches have enormous potential for revolutionizing the world when they are connected through the larger body of Christ. My point isn't about whether home church pastor is forgiven or not; I am addressing accountablility. "Everyone not getting what they need at First Church, be in my living room Tuesday at 7 pm." The home church must exercise some form of accountability. Now, if First says, "Everyone not getting what they need here, we starting a new ministry in Bob's living room Tues at 7pm", I'm behind it. Churches, like Christians, shouldn't be out there as lone rangers.

Kevin

great that you are doing this series.

i feel there are more options than a), b) or c). In my opinion, we are moving from a singular to modular way of understanding and relating to church.

the same phase transition has already happened in banking (do you really "go" to "one" bank? or do you utilize many forms of financial management from many providers?)

As a part of Church, believers may have one cluster than has a higher level of commitment than the others but form strategic relational links with many conferences, churches, web sites, movements and even tap into great magazines (like CT)

thats not the same as forsaking the assembly of ourselves together.

I have to agree with Andrew that this is an important idea as I have come to agree with the idea that in the next 5 years the model of paid minister, local meeting center, and program-laden ecclesiology will completely die away in favor of more malleable and relationally-motivated assemblies.

Right now, the local church I serve is reviewing its bylaws and policies, which I think is the time that every local church minister thinks seriously about starting a house church (ha!) but at the same moment there is a feeling that the institutional operation has to be defeated and disabled in favor of something that represents better the "body of Christ" metaphor. I don't believe that's an accidental association.

I agree Kevin that b) is the trendiest church, a) is the church in need of rescue and c) is the dangerous ground of modernity. However, I think Andrew is dead on: the medicine for the malady musn't be as straightforward as the malady itself.

peace-
c.k.

however, if i can argue with myself and take another tack . . .

it is possible that in our enthusiasm to shift away from ecclesiocentrism and embrace the "missio dei" and its accompanying renewed focus on the Kingdom as separate from the church, that we have in fact weakened the "missio ecclessiae". And if this is the case, then Barna's book is lemon juice in the open cut.

Maybe its time to get back to a renewed understanding of the "city church" in the New Testament.

Maybe we need to be less concerned about raising questions of debate as to whether or not Barna got everything right in his book or, like OTHER extra-Biblical books, we read it, examine it, glean from it, and then set out to realighn what we do in our churches (or outside our churches) with what the Bible presents....

Nice postings here; they're forcing me to think...
I agree with Andrew that believers have strategic relational links with many groupings of Christians at home, work, church, and parachurch. My desire, perhaps answered by Andrew's second post, is that I'd still like to see the worshiping community get the central and essential place among those relational links.
I can't agree with C.K. (sorry) that in "the next 5 years the model of paid minister, local meeting center, and program-laden ecclesiology will completely die away..." The truth is, church models are remarkably resilient, and usually what ends up completely dying away are not the models but the predicters of death.

One more comment: I recommend Eugene Peterson's latest book, CHRIST PLAYS IN TEN THOUSAND PLACES. He argues (compellingly) that HOW we go about Christianity is essential. From my forthcoming review in Leadership:

"As [Peterson] says in an epigram, “Only when we do the Jesus truth in the Jesus way do we get the Jesus life.”

What is the Jesus way? The ancient scriptural and ecclesiastical means of Sabbath and wonder, Eucharist and hospitality, baptism and love. ...

Some have seen Peterson as a precursor of the emerging church, since he challenges the church’s reliance on high-tech, efficient means. But his writing challenges every pastor equally by insisting there is no shortcut to love, time-consuming and pain-inducing love, for slow, sinful human beings made in the image of God who deserve our attention, listening, hospitality, and wonder."

I believe George is prophetic in his understanding of the future of mainline churches and the church in general. As a pastor in a large mainline institution, I see the signs of terminal illness everywhere: declining membership and involvement; lack of spiritual hunger, no passion for outreach. I sit in denominational meetings where the whole focus is on maintaining the status quo. Yes there are vibrant churches and members in the congregation. Yes, there is significant church planting going on. But the overall health of the church is in series jeopardy.

Evangelical Christianity is in trouble in general. We are defined by what we’re against and not for what we believe in. Too many people are tired of the hypocritical Republican, white, male brand of religion what we promote. Today people hunger for an authentic spirituality with the living God. Sadly, they have left the “church” because we have no real vitality to offer them. We have no consuming vision to offer them other than growing our institution.
mk

Kevin-
thanks for the redirect on my comment regarding the next "5 years." I think what I see is that, yes it has been the predictors of death not the models that ultimately disappeared in the past. What we are dealing with now is a redefinition of what "church" actually is. even pre-Willow evangelicalism was not really "redefined" when the seeker sensitive model began to take root. New methods emerged (census/demographic data, etc) for doing "church" but never was the ultimate essence of "church" at question or under the process of redefinition. If anything, the processes and procedures underwent a facelift but the paid clergy, meeting center, program-laden identity stuck.

fast forward to now, and we don't really see new procedures being described, but an entirely different ecclesiology based on returning the validity of 1st C. context, assessing evangelicalism less in terms of eschatology but of missiology (as a priority, not as mutually exclusive). It is not the activity (alone)of the church that is at stake, but the identity that comes through form and practice. I simply feel that bivocational ministry, decentralized meeting places, and fluid ministry are more the hallmarks of this ecclesiology and therefore will become replacements for the things already mentioned. These are replacements not because the other models are wrong, they simply don't fit a redefined ecclesiology.

Please let me know if I'm just being naive and general about this. I have seen the underpinnings of it in the rise of multi-campus churches and house churches, and expect it to grow into a full ecclesiological shift in my lifetime. Barna or no Barna. :)

peace-
c.k.

The review’s subtitle, “George Barna wants commitment to the local congregation to sink lower than ever,” is inaccurate. It was added by an editor after my last read of the copy and does not represent the book’s views or my understanding of those.

How often do these editors do this and misrepresent what the original authors meant in CT publications? Wow. That certianly makes blogging important when discussing something so grass roots such as ecclesiology. If indeed we are under a shift, we need to have as open a discussion as possible.

I am a pastor of a "new" church that is currently meeting in a storefront. Our church has been transformed from a "country-club to an E.R. We have a motto "being the hands and feet of Christ" our goal is to "love God, love our neighbor". This is a new dynamic for our group, one that was born out of frustration in the traditional church and its inability to allow peopl to serve God. Barna is merely observing what is happening in the traditional church.
ME

Kevin:

Barna's report on top 10 religious trends for 2005
begins with this statement:

"Ignoring reporters’ questions about church growth figures by stating, “church attendance is grossly overrated as a measure of anything that is spiritually significant,” the researcher instead offered four factors that he described as “indicative of the reshaping of the church in the U.S."

Barna seems to dismiss the local congregation as having any significance--which seems close to the "foe" line that the editor inserted.

I'm not an alcoholic, I'm just sober-challenged...
I'm not fat, I'm just think-challenged...
I'm not arrogant, I'm just humility-challenged...
I'm not a racist, I'm just humanity-challenged...
I'm not a pervert, I'm just purity-challenged...
There's nothing wrong with MY church, we're just...........................

...effectiveness-challenged?

...grace-challenged?

...too comfy to give a rip?

Yeah, comfy - the key to everything, I imagine... he said, sitting on his padded desk chair, at his pc computer, a glass of fresh OJ by his side, nice photos on 4 walls, carpet under his feet...
dang, now I feel guilty!

In Willow Creeks magazine, "Willow," Barna describes how churches today can best support revolutionaries. He states: "Consider that the role of the local church is to help people honor and get close to Jesus. It is meant to support each person's efforts to be Christ-like."

I disagree that is THE point of the church. Perhaps it is just me, but this feels like America's 230 year experiment in independence applied to the church. It's not about "us," it's about "me" and "you." I scratch your back, and you scratch mine. But only when I ask for it; I want my independence.

The local church in America has failed at helping people see the corporate nature of the Christianity. The local church should help me to realize that "us" is more important than "me."

Barna claims it's only about the "us" of the Church, not the "us" of the local church. But how can I see myself as part of the Church, when I can't even commit myself to a local church? That sounds like an excuse to not have to sign on and be held accountable.

I will not disagree with Barna that the local church has problems. But when the local church is broken, let's fix it, not celebrate people leaving it!

I think the most interesting thing to note in Barna's book is that he points out... all the things that most people think of as "church" in our generation are not prescribed in the Bible. I don't think Jesus set out to build an orgnization, and I don't think we need to read the NT with glasses that put a 20th - 21st century spin on the "organizational religion" of the Apostles. There are a lot of people out there seeking more than the meeting-based church organizations can do. Option C - (as the author puts it) might be closer to what God is asking of us than A or B. John 3:8... Jesus told Nicodemus that those who are led by the Spirit are like the wind... Be free...

Whether you agree or disagree with Barna is not the issue. The meditation and prayer to God should be whether Barna is right about the declining church. An if so, what can be done.

As to the first question, it is easy to see that he is right when it comes to the denominational church.

What is more difficult to see is whether there is a or soon will be a decline in the 'mega church' movement. Here, I see the signs of it already. The sermons are good but watered down with every cultural icon possible. The attendees seem excited within the service, but don't seem to have any emotion upon exiting. There seems to be a lot of organized groups, but no passionate self-organized like-minded groups. There are a lot of children, but the programs barely mention Jesus and instead focus on values. Alot of youth mission trips that involve socially concsious activities, like building Habitat for Humanity houses, but no actual preaching the gospel.

My point is that these new churches seem so intent on getting people in the doors, and invloved, but not as much in developing passionate disciples. They seem to be sowing the seeds in the shallow soil or even sowing seeds amongst the weeds.

The answer to this problem is already prescribed for us in the Bible. Either the pastors in these churches begin to lead their congregation and bring in deeper soil, even at the expense of killing the weeds, or indeed the seeds will sprout but the weeds will surely choke them out, and in the end, the 'church' will be left with weeds.

The seeds that sprouted will either die or God will lead them to a spot with good soil. And it may be just a small group of like-minded seeds gathering together.

That, I believe is simply what Barna is observing, the beginning of God leading the sprouted seeds to deeper soil.

Kevin

Thanks for the redux.

Having had the privilege of working more closely with George and also having had coffee and a number of talks with you on this issue I felt that you guys are more in agreement than disagreement.

You know that I am "off the map" so I won't even take up cyber space explaining my thoughts on this issue.

George is prescient - The traditional church will live on - the emerging church will emerge

The Converging Church is the one I think we are struggling to define and clarify

This line of conversation seems to be losing interest, but just to set the record straight. Kevin Miller, a friend and colleague, is right about last-minute editorial changes. The last few days before we go to press, literally hundreds of quick decisions have to be made about a host of editorial matters, and the two changes he points to were made by yours truly.

Despite the controversy surrounding the change in the subtitle, I feel the change we made was justified. Kevin quotes Barna as saying, “My goal is to help you be a revolutionary” (page 29), and according to Barna’s book, a revolutionary is one who seeks to “overthrow or repudiate” and “thoroughly replace” “established systems” (page 13 and earlier). Then he has an entire chapter (“How is the local church doing?”) that marshals all manner of statistics to show what a miserable failure the church has been. Barna concludes, “If the local church is the hope of the world, then the world has no hope.”

Yes, Barna specifically says “it is irrelevant to me” whether Revolutionaries are “immersed in, minimally involved in, or completely disassociated form a local church” (p. 29). And things like “there is nothing wrong inherently with being involved in a local church” (p. 36) So it is fair to say that he never repudiates the church in so many words. Then again, we all recognize that writers can say something strongly and powerfully while not saying it. In this case, I find it impossible to read his book and not come to the conclusion that Barna is not just indifferent to the local church, but that he wants to “thoroughly replace” and “overthrow” this “established system.” He is a revolutionary after all, and he wants all his readers to become so.

This is the reason I feel the subtitle of the CT article, though hyperbole to be sure, was warranted.

To be fair, since Barna never specifically says that he wants the local church to decline, it could be argued that the hyperbole was pushed too far, into the realm of inaccuracy. I would acknowledge that the argument has strong points. I just happen to disagree.

The same would be true regarding the other editorial change: the context of the book as a whole, and specific statements in it, make it point to the fact that Barna is antagonistic toward the local church. Again, strong counter-arguments can be made, but I just happened to disagree.

Last minute editorial changes like this happen all the time, and Kevin understands the hectic process at the very end a publishing cycle, having been a magazine editor himself. These last-minute changes rarely, rarely make any difference in meaning--this being the exception that proves the rule. He never expected an apology from me (though I offered one) for changing these matters without consulting him. I stand by them as accurate representations of what Barna inadvertently teaches, but not as expressions of what Kevin specifically intended to say.

All that being said, I am an equal opportunity offender. And if some Revolutionary out there has an specific article or story idea that CT ought to cover, do pitch us (cteditorial@christianitytoday.com). We’re decidedly pro-local church, but we’re interested in anything God seems to be doing on the planet.

Mark Galli, managing editor, Christianity Today.

Barna's most recent release on this issue casts the argument in a new light.

The "revolutionaries" are not the "roll your own" types they were supposed to have been. These are people who are serious about their faith.

Heck, I'm a revolutionary, I guess. I just happen to be fortunate enough to be in a church that "gets it." But after all these years I wouldn't waste my time in a Laodicean church. Neither do these people.