Category Archives: Christian trends

Barna Friday: Revolution Defined

03 Friday Nov 2006

Posted by in barna, Christian trends, George Barna, off-the-map, revolution, revolutionconference

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

Here at the RevCon the first speaker was George Barna.

Here are my notes of his content, unnedited with my take…..>>>>>

Most Americans have always viewed the goal of life as ongoing shared experiences
We work to enjoy comfort and options and control in all facets of our lifee — including church.

Yes, there’s a revolution of faith — but it’s triggered by many other revolutions
[He enumerated several which are mostly obvious to all of us.]
Websters definition of Revolution: the repudiation and thorough replacement of an established system.
Or: A radical and persuasive change in society or social structures, systems, routines, or rules.

There are millions of devout followers of Christ who are repudiating the systems, routines, and rules of the institutional Christian church.

20 million people are involved in this revolution today.

For these “revolutionaries”:

1. God is their top priority
Many claim this, but the question is,
What are you REALLY committted to?

2. They want more of God in their lives, but are willing to do whatever it takes to get that.

3. They want to live their faith, not just understand and talk about it.

4. Their ultimate goal is not selfish, but having more of God in their lives.

In a nutshell, they are God Crazy.

Who are they?

a. Some have tried literally everything else in life — and come back to God via futility.

b. Some were pursuing God, had a profound experience, and couldn’t settle for anything less

c. Some had dormant faith, many churches, groups, activities, programs, and eventually found it meaningless … then came back and found God in more significant way

CRs (Christian Revolutionaries) have:

*No use whatsoever for churches that play political or religious games
*No use for churches that provide entertaining events rather than transformational whole-life experiences
*No use for church stewardship campaigns — which serve their own institutional building needs or salaries or power
*No use for churches that soft-sell sin to expand their institutional turf
*No use for pastors more concerned about their own popularity instead of truth
— who measure success by numbers of people, square footage, number on staff, money raised
*Decided that no longer should the church be expected raise their family spiritually
*Made a decision to not enroll children in spiritual babysitting instead of preparing for spiritual war
*Choose to leave places that promise Christian love but exemplify lifestyles that are indistinguishable from the world system.

The Revolution is about Transformational Christianity.

CRs are NOT rebels, but revolutionaries — an important distinction. CRs major on those elements that matter most to God. In taking a stand, they are simply choosing to honor God — to honor Him, not human institutions.

Church — little c institutional church — is what people made up to control processes.
As humans we’ve made that processs “holy” while losing the sense of what is truly sacred.

So they say, “let’s go back…”

Instead of thinking of worship as an event each week, choose to learn how to engage in worship every day

Learn that work, family, neighborhood contains daily opportunitites provided by God for each of us — to live out our lives as an act of worship

God made us to worship him, not manipulate people into salvation

God called us not so much to preach Jesus but to be Christ to the culture

It is more about caring than competing

More about being vulnerable and real in conversation than being right

CRs are embracing their own personal responsibility for growing — acknowledging that when they appear before God, they won’t be able to say, “but my church let me down…”

CRs do not worry about tithing — money…. they don’t really own anything — everything was given them by God
CRs are portfolio managers for the kingdom of God, so to speak

CRs dont’ think about voluntaring some of their free time for “the Lord’s work”.

Instead, they are sensitive to the opportunities that God gives us every moment of every day

Not merely content to be a “member”…. but a participant in genuine community — even though smaller — they seek to love, care, support, accept … and experience a true sense of community

CRs recognize that it’s not a chruches job to raise up their children. Friends, families, faith can help — but ultimately its our job

DIFFERENT LIFE

The journey of a CR [is unique?] each leads different life.
[Common thread?] a growing sense of dissatisfaction;
… a search for greater authenticity…insight…. leads each one to the foot of the Cross.

They find it,
they get excited,
they go back to their conventional church and explain to their leaders what excitement they’ve found —
and the leaders typically patted them on the back and and said, “get plugged in”
“we are the professionals — fit yourself into our structure” —

DIFFERENT MODELS

But now, being transformed people, they can’t sustain their engagement in that system any longer.
So they extricate themselves — sometimes from anger — which becomes a spiritual issue they must deal with.
But in [working through] their isolation, frustration, irritation, eventually they lead completely different lives.

Now, their moral perspectives are different.
The way they view money is different.
Their belief system is different.

When you look at the many denominations of the institutional church, there are few actual differences [in belief or personal character traits] across denominations.

With CRs, there are significant differences:
During the time of their Investigation and initiating of spiritual transformation, they got involved in something in a more meaningful way.
Often, they tested new forms or structures.
Frequently when they made those connections, they joined spiritual minimovements:
homeschooling, spiritual discussions or study groups, parenting groups, parachurch ministries, prayer groups, networks… Each was a shared affinity anchored around their faith.

It was through that web that they began to be transformed —

Many of those individual connections are morphing into new forms of the church.

In the Bible — “church” is a called out people — who came together to love each other.

New forms, that ignore the non-biblical traditions: cyberchurches, intentional,
3rd place, marketplace ministries, house churches.

DIFFERENT IMPACT

These different forms have a different impact on culture.

Reshaping contours — In Year 2000, 65% – 75% have their spiritual main point of contact through conventional church

by 2025 — only 30-35% will rely on conventional church.
Where will the rest be? in the alternatives now springing up: house churches, cyber churches, independent worship, marketplace and parachurch ministries, etc.

People are taking their faith out of sanctuaries and into the world.

The essence is not about changing methodologies — style of music, titles of people who run, methods of teaching or preaching…
that’s not what revolution is about
Nor is it about allowing greater freedom.

It’s not even about allowing emerging generations to develop their own styles, or new leaders, or new places/venues to meet.

The Revolution IS about facilitating transformation through an intimate relationship with God —
a holistic approach — the top priority in life — not about going to church, but about BEING the church — because that’s what we’re called to be.

I don’t really have the authority to do this but… anyway…. I’d like to invite you to be part of this Revolution!

>>> End of George Barna’s morning message notes

Unity with diversity

14 Saturday Jan 2006

Posted by in Christian liberty, Christian trends, eschatology, evangelicalism, prophecy

≈ Leave a comment

The lack of unity in Christian circles is legendary. Most attempts at forging unity focus on either doctrinal agreement (and define unity as agreement with specific points) or on organization cooperation (agreement to submit to one ecclesiastial authority). By the way, I think these two kinds of bogus unity are what the false church grapple with in the Revelation prophecy about forcing their adherents to have the mark of the beast “in the forehead” (doctrinal agreement) or “in their hand” — cooperation or organizational agreement.

I think the Biblical position is that God created the unity when he chose those who are in reality the body of Christ, and we are asked to diligently preserve that unity. We can’t make it, and in the final analysis we can’t break it either. God is building his temple and each stone in it will fit together and be assembled on the other side of the veil without the sound of a hammer. All the shaping is done in the quarry, a la Solomon’s temple. In the meantime, the Lord knows those that are his.

How can we find, share, learn from, love and serve our brothers in Christ then? I really like this explanation, written by a missionary some years back and edited and compiled by Keith A. Price, and reproduced on Ken Allen’s eclectic website:
http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/openhse/fellowship.html

The basis for Christian Fellowship

These principles are based on many years of inter-denominational fellowship and are conclusions I have reached after making many mistakes and after having had considerable discussion with scores of Christian leaders. I am particularly indebted to the correspondence of Anthony Norris Groves – a dentist-missionary to Baghdad in the 1830s – who practised many of these principles. Although they have never before appeared in the form I now give, I have retained a number of the excellent expressions he used in his correspondence.

The basis of our fellowship is life in the Christ of the Scriptures rather than Light on the teaching of the Scriptures. Those who have part with Christ have part with us. Because our communion is one of life and love more than one of doctrine and opinion, we seek to show that the oneness in the life of God through Jesus Christ is a stronger bond than that of being one of us – whether organizationally or denominationally.

Because our fellowship is based on our common life in Christ, we do not reject anyone because of the organization or denomination with which he may be affiliated; nor would we hold him responsible for the conduct within that system, any more than we would a child for the conduct in the home of which he is merely a part.

We do not feel it desirable to withdraw from fellowship with any Christians except at the point where they may require us to do what our consciences will not permit, or restrain us from doing what our consciences require. Even then, we maintain our fellowship with them in any matter where we are not called upon to so compromise. This ensures that (inasfar as we understand the Scripture) we do not separate ourselves from them any further than they separate themselves from Christ.

We do not consider an act of fellowship to be indicative of total agreement; indeed, we sometimes find it a needed expression of love to submit to others in matters where we do not fully agree, rather than to prevent some greater good from being brought about. Our choice would be to bear with their wrong rather than separate ourselves from their good.

We believe it more scriptural to reflect a heart of love ready to find a covering for faults, than to constantly look for that with which we may disagree. We will then be known more by what we witness for than by what we witness against.

We feel it biblical never to pressure people to act in uniformity further than they feel in uniformity; we use our fellowship in the Spirit as an opportunity to discuss our differences and find this to be the most effective way of leading others – or being led by them – into the light of the Word.

While enjoying such a wide range of Christian fellowship, we would not force this liberty upon those who would feel otherwise minded. In such circumstances, we enjoy fellowship as far as they will permit, then pray that the Lord would lead them further into this true liberty of the common life in Christ.

George Washington’s respect for religion

20 Sunday Nov 2005

Posted by in Christian liberty, Christian trends, christianity, religion and politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

No doubt any Christians who read my yesterday post would wonder how I could seem to face the loss of morality in our culture with equanimity. I do not. I share George Washington’s view, that religion and morality are the foundation of political prosperity:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?
Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened. 

My point is that the time of political prosperity is over; the time of social peace is past. It is now God’s time to clear the land for a new government, established in righteousness.

The United States, with its public education, its early infusion of enlightened, relatively tolerant Christian and Jewish minds, and its early spirit of freedom, was a great gift to human history. But the wineskins established by Washington are now old and worn, our current population is much more diverse culturally and spiritually, and freedom or license has multiplied in ways that would be shocking to George Washington.

What I was trying to say yesterday, is that true Christianity should not, (and, I believe, does not) identify with this or any other government, because the practice of true religion is an individual matter of conscience. Nowhere in the Bible do I see the imprimatur of governance handed to Christians. That is held in abeyance, until our personal obedience is complete. I think it is fact of history that morality cannot be legislated by human governments, and in a fallen world those who govern cannot always act squarely on the side of true religion and true morality — partly because of the limitations of human judgment and discernment; and partly because a government that is egalitarian and free must allow freedom of expression to those whose religion is different and whose morality is different. The first amendment is a good thing in a government in which immature and evil people are permitted to dwell with mature and good folks… even though the first amendment often creates conditions which are violations of the 9th commandment.

For example, it is the law of the land in the United States that a fetus does not have rights; that the mother can end its life if she chooses. A president swears to uphold the law of the land. Therefore a president must place his hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the right of a mother to kill the unborn child within her. From the first moment of a president’s tour of duty, he is thus a sworn opponent of what the Bible says in Exodus 21:22. (And no credible leader today would think to enforce Exodus 22:20).

Christians are taught to allow their experiences in life to humble them, to bear up under injustice, to submit to authority, for the purpose of learning lessons that will equip them to be merciful and humane “priests” and “kings” in a future age. Christians can live effectively as aliens and strangers, as guests in the countries where they reside, taxpayers and encouragers of what is good and noble and pure… but to grab the wheels of power and attempt to bring about the kingdom of God on earth has been proven to be a mistake in fact, as it is warned against in the Bible. Christ’s kingdom is not “of this world”.

So as society crumbles, and the elemental, foundational principles of social order (such as marriage, respect of parents by children, love of children by their parents, respect for law and order, etc.) melt away as Peter predicted they would, Christians have lots of work to do. Not by campaigning for power and attempting to turn back the clock on the United States — but by telling people not to worry, that the future will be tough but God is working to teach the world the lessons they need to learn — bitter at first, but sweet later.

I’m a Christian, but…

19 Saturday Nov 2005

Posted by in a happy God, Christian trends, christianity, eschatology, Theodicy

≈ Leave a comment

The Christian community in the first century was outside, and in many ways opposed to, the power-struggles and values of the society of their day — both Jewish and Roman. Yet the Christians were culturally relevant — they understood the weighty issues of the day, and respected and honored their hearers.

What they offered was intensely interesting to virtually every segment of society. Jesus was intensely interesting to Pilate, to Herod, to Caiaphas the High Priest, and to the Scribes and Pharisees, the leading religious thinkers of Israel. Paul was intensely interesting to Agrippa and Festus. In Ephesus, Paul was spared from almost certain death by the intervention of the leading (pagan) committee of Asia (“The Asiarchs” – Acts 19:31)

Kings and governors chose to hear from them because so many people were violently opposed to their teachings, and the recent events in Jerusalem had gotten the notice of leaders throughout the civilized world. Christians were a pain to leaders, partly because they did not fear the only real powers the State could muster: economic sanctions or lethal force. Still, Christians weren’t competing to grab the controls of temporal power. They were taught by their leaders to be submissive to the “higher powers” — the State. They were relevant but not worldly; involved but not confrontational. They were a bit prickly at times, because they also acknowledged a higher order, and the freedom of thought and action in religious matters that they believed had come from God to be the ultimate guide of their conscience — not the decrees of an unbelieving State. But they went to prison and the cross with songs on their lips.

Not so today. Now, the Christian community to a large extent has intertwined itself with the world system, and attempt to use money and political processes to gain access to the wheels of power. Everywhere I turn, I see Christians whining about the supposed restriction of Christian freedom by a State that, well, the Christian right feels has betrayed them. This brand of my fellow-Christians seems to have imbibed the notion that the State should be a partner of religion in the institution of morals, in the guiding of children, in the upholding of religious “norms” such as Christmas, prayer at public events, pledging allegiance “under God”, presiding over a religious marriage rite, etc.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I believe that all western governments, including the United States, has indeed become an ally of a number of elements in society that, in Biblical terms, are by definition immoral. I believe the Bible condemns murder, and specifically gives rights to the unborn fetus in Exodus 21:22 and following. (Though I acknowledge that most Jewish interpreters disagree with my reading of that passage). I agree that Biblical marriage is indeed between a man and a woman. I agree that the foundation of all human society in this fallen world is indeed the family unit, and that the integrity of marriage lies at the heart of that social foundation. I agree that children need to respect and honor their parents if it is to be well with them in life, and in their relationship with God. I think decent people in a democracy have a right and indeed a duty to try and keep their government moral.

But what I am taking issue with here is the notion that true Christian faith has somehow secured a place in the governance of the free world, at least in America. From a historical point of view, I believe that this idea is very dangerous to true Christianity, and very dangerous to the spread of true Christianity. Whenever Christians have gotten their hands on the controls of power, bad things have happened. Well, not always — a few leaders have from time to time been a little less vicious, a little less immoral than your run of the mill tyrants. But mostly, the worst leaders in history have been popes and quasi-religious emperors. These have been venal, corrupt, rapacious, and viciously evil. Among the most notable in this pantheon of “Christian” leaders has been Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain (who expelled the Jews from Spain in 1492), Pope Innocent III, who persecuted the Albigensians and Waldensians, and launched the Inquisition and the Crusades; institutional “Christian” escalation and support of African slavery from the 16th to the 19th centuries; and the 20th century’s own King Leopold II, who decimated the Congo in the name of Christianity and set the stage for Rwanda just a few years ago. Taken together, the number of souls killed by “Christian” leaders certainly must number in the hundreds of millions. And I believe God has been keeping this list, and is now in the process of bringing retributive judgment upon Christian institutions that have been involved with these evils. (Revelation 18)

I am an American, and thankful for the comparatively humane record of the United States over the last two centuries; (I believe the U.S. was in part the “Open Door” of opportunity to oppressed Protestants mentioned in Revelation 3:8) but I am not blind to the many ways we have failed to help the poor, and have at times been conspirators in oppressive actions by religious and political leaders around the globe. The point is, that the United States is not, and never has been a theocracy — a government truly ruled by God. It is a republic or a democracy — ruled by the people who are partly good, partly bad, partly religious, and partly secular; and its strength for good has come as much from its Thomas Paines and Thomas Jeffersons and its Abraham Lincolns (agnostics or deists) as from its George Washingtons, Jimmy Carters, or George Bushes (openly religious men).

But I digress. My main point in this essay is this: what is so strange about recent trends is that the first century relevance and yet alienation from the halls of power by true Christians has been replace by irrelevance, insensitivity to the poor, and a pawing after the privileges of power on the part of “Christians”.

And equally amazing: concern for the poor, concern for the environment, interest in checking governmental abuses and advancing the rights of human beings on all fronts has been taken up by agnostics, atheists, unbelievers of every stripe.

Today “Christianity” is less likely to be identified with the poor and oppressed, and more likely to be today the preferred religion of many powerful, educated people. Partly because Christianity identifies with morality and “family values” — which in my opinion is noble and good. But also partly, because “Christianity” confers power and privilege and social advantage in the United States, if not in many places on the globe.

Today the preservation of the environment is more likely to be advocated by atheists and agnostics than by Christians. The reality of human-induced global warming is being ridiculed by “Christians” — why? Is it because of the weight of scientific evidence, or the advantages to our privileged ways of life and the disdain they hold for environmentalists?

The rights of oppressed people are more likely to be championed by secular or irreligious voices than by Christians. And even the cause of “truth” — logic, investigation, true science — instead of being advanced by true Christians as it was during the Reformation — is now becoming, embarrassingly to some of us Christians, the domain of the skeptical, the atheist, the unbeliever.

Gotta run. Truth and justice demand that I finish my Work in time to watch the Ohio State/Michigan game.