Revolution
George Barna has provided information about the beliefs and trends of the Christian church and American culture for 25 years. His recent book, Revolution, has raised some questions regarding the local church. His interpretation of the current direction of the church is at best an “informed guess.” But even if he is correct, that does not mean it is the right and best action.
If people do not properly implement the local church, it is not the fault of the local church concept. If a cook fails to properly follow a recipe, it is not the fault of the recipe if the dish does not taste right. The Scripture defines what the church should be. It is not the fault of the church if the recipe is not being followed.
Those who are dissatisfied with the church are discontent with a poor substitute, not the real thing. At other times in history believers have been dissatisfied with circumstances in the local church. This frustration and disappointment has served to bring revival and reformation as believers move closer to the New Testament model.
Could the Revolutionary trend Barna has identified be the early stage of a new revival or reformation in the church? Historically, it is common for believers to become dissatisfied with existing conditions in the organized church that are inconsistent with the NT ideal. When this occurs we first see efforts to adjust and correct the errant practice. Invariably, leaders of this “revolution” are raised up from within the existing church (often from obscurity) and call for reform. When the course correction is resisted, the leaders of the reform movement eventually are forced to separate from the existing structure.
For a while it appears that the separatists are radicals who oppose the “church.” But in reality they are opposing the practices that have developed in the structure of the church that have moved the church off course or hinder its progress.
As others hear the message of the reformer, they will go through a similar process of reform and attempt to correct the existing structure. If this fails, they too will become separatists and join the ranks of the reform movement. Eventually, these reformers form new congregations and develop a new structure that emphasizes the ideals that birthed their separation.
Elements of this progression can be witnessed throughout the history of the church, even at its very birth. John the Baptist was one such reformer. His call to repentance produced a following that prepared the way for the coming of Christ. Of course, Jesus brought much more than reformation to the existing religious practice, but the effects on the organized structure are very similar.
The followers of Christ first attempted to incorporate the teachings of Christ within the organized Jewish faith. Initially, there was good progress, but eventually resistance developed and the new movement was forced to separate. In fact, they became the “called out” assembly–the Church. The missionary efforts of the Apostle Paul followed a similar pattern.
In later centuries other separatists followed this familiar practice. The Novatians, Donatists, and others in the ancient church challenged popular errors that had crept into the organized structure. Eventually, the points of disagreement became so sharp they separated from the larger movement, much of which devolved into the Roman Catholic Church.
It is important to understand, throughout the Middle Ages groups of faithful believers existed separate from the Catholic Church. John Wycliffe and others prepared the way for Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation.
The Holy Club, established by John and Charles Wesley, was a reaction to the stale formalism of the existing organized churches. The Methodist churches developed from this movement that emphasized holiness and Christian ideals.
Even the revivals of the Great Awakenings in America show the marks of reform and revolution. These revival preachers were met with varying degrees of acceptance and rejection by the established churches. In their wake new churches were organized. As the old denominations departed from the NT ideals, new groups emerged to carry on the ancient faith.
One such example is the Free Will Baptist movement. Benjamin Randall disagreed with the Congregational Church and was forced to separate from the organized denomination that populated New England. For a while he preached in the open fields to those who would listen. In time, new churches were established and a new denomination was born.
The second Great Awakening in America followed the first by 100 years. Many have hoped that a third would take place in the next century. It is later than anticipated, but it may finally be upon us. If this reformation follows the historical pattern, new churches will be birthed, some existing churches will be revitalized, and some churches will fade away.
Barna has identified the emphasis of the new reformation, but perhaps he misinterprets the meaning of the separation. The organized local church will not become insignificant, it will just be different.
This is perhaps the first time in history we have had such freedom of travel and such proliferation of information to be able to witness the micro-development of a Reformation or Great Awakening as it happens. Historians have identified previous events after the fact. Barna’s research may be showing us what it looks like while it is taking place.
The Revolutionary separatists will likely follow the same pattern as their ancestral counterparts. Some are working within the local church, some are outside the structure of a local church–but only until there is a sufficient assembly to form a new local church.
While we agree that Jesus calls us to Be the Church, the only way to fulfill the New Testament example is through a local gathering of believers. The ordaining of elders, commissioning of missionaries, shepherding the flock, discipline of erring members–these practices cannot be accomplished without some kind of organized structure. Throughout Acts and the epistles we see local gatherings of believers. They gathered together on the first day of the week. That is the norm.
We should avoid the tendency to identify the American church as The Church, as if what happens here defines all of Christianity. American churches have had a significant role in world evangelism, but only for this time and place. The story of the Christian Church is much older than America and will continue regardless of what happens in this country.
If every church on this continent closed tomorrow the Church of Jesus Christ, including local gatherings of believers, will remain somewhere until Jesus returns.
Posted in Current Issues, D6 Post on Facebook
March 16th, 2009 at 9:09 am
This is well thought out and presented. Thanks Danny.
I think for many, Barna’s words of the “insignificance” of the future local church is where the criticism of his book begin and end. The growing house church movement that Barna refers to is taking root and will likely be more significant as time goes on. Why? Simply because church is so expensive these days. Unless you have an existing building, it’s almost impossible to rent a place in a large city where we want to plant new works. Our mission work here in Denver has been uniquely blessed in that area, but many others in my area are failing for that very reason forcing the necessity of home church.
I really like your analogy with the cook and recipe. That, I believe, is at the heart of what Barna speaks of and I think you have presented it very well.
March 16th, 2009 at 9:34 am
I agree that when the church has departed from the NT model in the past that inevitablly reformers have risen from within it’s ranks and brought revival and reformation, but it should be remembered that the reformers have not been totally faithful to the Scriptures either, witness some of the excesses of the Great Awakening and other reform movements. Great care should be taken to make sure that FWB’s remain faithful to the concept of the local assembly. It is still God’s way of doing church!
March 16th, 2009 at 10:44 pm
Danny,
I speak for myself alone here, but part of why I am taking the time to comment is because I too have been asked by others what I think about Revolution. These discussions led to some concerns not touched here – and some diffent analysis then yours.
Your comments on what the Bible teaches about the local Church is excellent. I certainly agree with a lot of what you said. My comments should be read in light of the fact I agree wholeheartedly with your description of the Church.
However, (and it’s been several months since I read Barna) doesn’t Barna assert that the local church is an ‘abiblical’ idea in his book? I think an overview of Revolution has got to start with what Barna himself says the Bible teaches about the local Church. Granted, it’s your review so you can do whatever the heck you want! The problem though goes beyond how the Revolutionaries view Church, and beyond Barna’s description of these groups. The problem many of us have is with what Barna teaches and not just with those he describes.
Speaking of those he describes, if they hold to the same position – that the local Church is abiblical – why would you assume that they will re-enter or form local congregations in the future? I think Barna is actually dead on in his description of the future of this new movement. It seems to me that the attitude of large segments of this movement is a major difference between much of this so-called Reformation and past movements. Many abandoning the local church today apparently do not actually view it as mandated. Those you described from the past (maybe all of them) left their local congregation and the larger structure they were a part of because of their radical commitment to what they viewed as the biblical notion of the local church – whether over a need for a more Biblical organization, or over requirements for members or ministers, etc…. Barna has unfortunately provided a supposed Biblical reading to support the notion there is no such thing as a Biblical mandated local Church…an idea I believe would be foreign to many of the individuals who often risked their popularity, positions, and in some cases lives to remain faithful to. Even those I know who embrace the Parish concept don’t embrace anything like what Barna promotes.
How you could compare the past, where people left the local or parish church out of a radical commitment to what the gathered body or larger structure was supposed to Biblically model, with the present movement that is being supported by Barna and others on the opposite notion that no such thing even exists is a little perplexing (well, I always was a little slow). I repeat – one group leaving the Church because of a strong commitment to the Biblical concept is the exact opposite of Barna – who according to his book (if I recall correctly) does not even believe in the biblical nature of the concept – and radically different from those who feel no compulsion to be a part of a movement that does not meet their needs. One can certainly disagree with me here, but I think individual want and desire is driving this new Revolution much more then a faithfullness to the Biblical concept.
Hopefully you are right though and those leaving the Church will ignore the likes of Barna and form new local Churches. However, if they do it out of convenience, or marketing, or just a reversion to tradition then it will not be long before they leave again. Being a part of the diversity of the local Church is often hard. If it was not established by Christ and the Apostles I honestly would probably do my own Christian spiritual journey…certainly in a place like Charlotte I never would have driven out to Gastonia to teach Sunday School and sit under preaching. I would have embraced Barna’s model and stayed in Charlotte and joined my friends from other traditions at the local park or pub, to grow in my spiritual journey with other twenty-something Seminarians who had the education and social concerns and same spiritual needs as I did. I sadly know that this option would have been a live one for me.
Based on your reading Danny – what would those who do not currently feel it is necessary to be a part of the Church, because it is not fulfilling their spiritual journey’s needs view to be a biblical Church anyway – one where the first priority is their needs?
The problem seems two fold – dissatisfaction with local church experience by some and the additional belief by others like Barna that the local Church it is not a biblical concept. Scott is right; this is of course a non-negotiable for many of us. Now I could care less if your local Church meets in a house, a school, a warehous, etc…. I also agree that there may be reasons to leave and form new ones. This period may call for a period of limbo as in the past. However, I appreciate the broad group of Evangelicals (shoot for that matter I bet a number of non-Evangelicals as well) that have roundly criticized a number of Barna’s claims. Sadly, much of what occurs today may be nothing more then part of the larger cultural picture sociologists of religion have been discussing for some time. American religion (especially Christianity) is becoming increasingly an individual commidity. What leads you to believe that at least large segments of what is now occurring are not a part of this larger phenomenon? I for one would be slow to call actions (that best I can tell) frequently mirror the larger cultural attitudes a Reformation – a Revolution, probably…A Revolution to mirror the larger individualism our culture loves, well I quit going to Tunica years ago but the odds look good!
I agree with parts of Barna’s analysis of what is going on. I definitely think he has good intentions, and like many Christians I have benefited from his statistical info. I can even benefit from aspects of his books Pagan Christianity and Revolution. Scott is right though, it all begins and ends with many of us with his understanding of the local Church. Barna’s error here affects everything else. At the end of the day, I for one have more in common with non-Evangelicals who affirm the biblical mandate of the local Church then I do with an Evangelical pollster who apparently does not. I am afraid as much as I agree with your viewpoint of the local Church, this discussion of Barna’s work miss analyses the connection of many current attitudes toward leaving the Church with those of the past. It also gives no advice on how we should respond to a teacher who promotes a non-vision of the local Church many Evangelicals and at least a few FWB’s reject. Should we promote a leader who sees the local Church as insignificant for the future? Does such a belief raise serious questions about Barna’s outlook on discipleship and calls to embrace a shifting ministry model? Do you think one can not believe in the local Church and even understand what Biblical discipleship is about? You don’t have to answer those questions, they are more there to lay out the deep concerns some of us are wrestling with. I am not calling Barna a non-Christian and I am certainly not looking for any battles – but as one committed to the local Church and a rejection of individualized or click driven Christianity, to say I am troubled by all this would be a gross understatement. If I have misrepresented what Barna said about the local Church in Revolution… I will gladly change my observations and rejoice that I misread and misunderstood Barna with so many others.
I appreciate you writing about this – it is good to see a FWB leader taking up issues that are important to Evangelicals and the broader FWB community. Unless otherwise compelled I’ll just read any comments you make
March 17th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Charles,
Great to hear from you. You do go into some areas I didn’t address in the earlier post, but it is good to discuss them.
In light of other statements Barna has made about the significance of the church, it is a bit confusing to understand his theological beliefs here. If he is advocating a departure from his previous view about the church and embracing the idea that the local church is “abiblical,” then he is mistaken and I hope he comes to a better interpretation of what Scripture teaches about the church. I acknowledge that some statements in Revolution raise questions. I don’t recall the expression “abiblical” but he does clearly identify some “revolutionaries” who illustrate that view. Frankly, I believe those revolutionaries are wrong. In fact, I question, “Why are they not in a local church?”
This is a question absent from the research. We also don’t have any statistical research of where these people are several years later. What happens to them, what do they do? These questions are not part of the research. My anecdotal evidence suggests these people become marginal in the practice of their faith or get swept into some false teaching.
I understand a person may leave a particular church. But why stay out? There is something wrong somewhere–in the theology or in the personality (or both). We all probably know people who assert they can be a Christian without going to church. It has been my experience these people don’t stay faithful. Typically, there is a personality conflict or some other factor that compels the person to refrain from submitting to the fellowship of a local church.
Submission is a key element here. We have a degree of choice in what group we may choose as our authority, but we do not have a choice to reject all authority. We cannot just be in submission to God alone, when He has told us to submit to other believers (Hebrews 13:17; 1 Peter 5:5). As I mentioned earlier, without some organized structure this type of submission to discipline and instruction is not possible. There may be extreme circumstances were individuals are secluded from other believers (persecution, pioneer mission work, etc.), but the New Testament ideal illustrates Christianity is a fellowship of believers. Even Paul and Barnabas were sent out by and reported to the church at Antioch.
I may have unintentionally dismissed these “lone wolf” revolutionaries, because I don’t expect much from them. The revolutionaries who embrace the local church were more my focus. Those who develop a hunger to live out the principles of biblical Christianity are the ones who make a lasting difference. There may be a recluse here and there throughout history that has contributed to the advancement of the kingdom of God, but typically, the work of Christ is accomplished by those who gather together, submit to one another, and work as a body.
Scripture tells us there will be a defection or “falling away” (2 Thessalonians 2:3). We do not know where we are at any given moment on the “prophetic timeline.” As with many prophesies, we can identify their fulfillment after they pass. It is difficult to interpret what is happening as events unfold. We can’t be certain, at this point, whether we are approaching a new era in church history or the end. Fortunately, in either case, our course of action is the same–be faithful. I guess I’m being optimistic and hoping that we are on the brink of seeing revival in the American church. It has happened before in dark times. I pray it happens again.
I know I haven’t touched on all your questions, but I wanted to lay out these ideas before any additional discussion.
Danny
March 18th, 2009 at 6:02 am
[...] a comment » Last week, my blogging friend Danny Conn posted a well-thought out critical review of George Barna’s book “Revolution”. Like it or not, the idea that the local [...]
March 18th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
Thanks for some further insights Danny – and Scott for posting the link. You both have excellent insights – of course you’ll have to judge that compliment against it’s source!
Danny – Knowing that your reflections were on particular sub-sets of the Revolutionaries was helpful.
Again – I appreciate you writing about this. This is a pretty important topic and I think you do a superb job at laying out some of the parameters of the Church concept (parameters that themselves allow for a wide diversity). I do wish someone in FWB would address more fully what Barna has said about the local Church concept. At least for me it would help to contrast my own reflections and expose any areas where I may have misread. (An aside – I don’t mean one highly inflected sentence from a sermon; where the speaker knows he is sure to be met with a host of those AMENS that we ministers covet so).
Danny, as good as your writing on the local Church is, I nominate you! Scott’s writing is readable as well – so, if Danny declines I’ll go ahead and nominate Scott. Well, ok – I guess if I don’t have time to wade through Barna’s books and some of his recorded speaking engagements after Revolution came out, I can’t get to upset if you both decline.
Anyway, I can’t thank you enough for laying this out Danny and discussing it. Stop by Duke when you are in NC.
CC
March 18th, 2009 at 10:24 pm
You are so gracious. I’ll see what else I can find.
Here is something from his more recent, Revolutionary Parenting.
“Revolutionary parents see their church as an invaluable partner in a long-term effort to raise a mature follower of Christ.” (Revolutionary Parenting, Barna, 106)
March 19th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
I know Danny – suggesting a project for other people is a special talent.
Someone asked me to sort of sum up the root of what I see as non-negotiable with Barna, so I’ll break the ending of my first post and do so…and this is where I would like to know if I am wrong as you research this (time permitting of course).
Barna’s take on the Biblical notion of the Church: The Bible does not mandate the local Church concept. As far as scripture goes there is no such thing, it is a construct we have created. The real question (and best I could tell only important question for Barna) is you being the Church. This is what I got out of Revolution and a partial transcript/overview of a talk session Barna was a part of with 2(?) other pastors… (that is not the only thing I got out of Revolution, there were a number of very good things).
My observation: No self respecting Evangelical or FWB would deny the importance of being the Church – but, that has to be understood partly in relation to the local Church or for others the Parish Church concept, which really emphasizes the local Church in its own unique way. Otherwise, being the Church is devoid of its Biblical connotations – it becomes a meaningless phrase that can be molded to our own personal expectation, desires, etc… This is where I found your scriptural and historically based comments on the local Church dead on – I plan on stealing a couple of those sentences and giving you zero credit, another talent that is not so unique to me!
The Individual’s Christian Experience in Relation to the Local Church: If it is beneficial for you to take advantage of the local Church and if it meets your spiritual growth needs, then it is a great thing. If it does not, don’t sweat it – you can access other mediums to grow spiritually and you can be the Church with other people who have similar spiritual interests.
My observation: This is how we can make sense of Barna’s doublespeak concerning the importance/un-importance of the local Church – it is not a Biblical concept, it is a personal choice or need based construct – Barna can take it or leave it, promote it or deemphasize it depending on the audience or paragraph or book, because the local Church is not rooted in Scripture. Although, if I recall correctly after the first round of generally strong critique he did “clarify” on eklessia. I find this approach to the local Church amazingly at ease with larger trends and attitudes in American Spirituality in general – I tend to agree with Barna’s critics, who state that Barna essentially analyzed correctly the state of affairs, and then deployed a definition of the Church that lets him define Christianity and discipleship in a way that embraces what his research on attitudes and actions discovered. I will resist the urge to go into preacher mode and comment at length on itching ears, etc… plus, then I’d have to face up to the fact my ears itch a little bit on some issues as well
While I would not agree with Ben Witherington up at Asbury on some things about the Church (probably a host of things – for one I am certainly more Free Church oriented) his comments on Viola’s and Barna’s Pagan Christianity sums up what I see going on in Barna’s recent works as whole – the highlighted portion sums up my concern – my million dollar question – is Barna playing lose and fast with scripture and historical evidence – if yes, how should we respond individually and corporately? The main concern for me is what Barna is teaching and how I as an individual and we as a corporate group should respond, since he is being promoted as helpful for discipleship – a concept that I believe must be linked to a Biblically based concept of the local Church?
Everybody makes mistakes, says dumb things (a regularly occurrence in my life-I bet I’ll read this post tomorrow and find some comment that will embarrass me!), contradicts themselves, contradicts Scripture – but, from my vantage point Barna is (was?) not making isolated gaffes. It is a much bigger issue. If you get time to look into this, I want to comprehend the grid that informs Barna’s public teachings. I think I already do, but if someone else can show me where I am wrong and how we can make sense of Barna differently this is certainly an issue I would actually rather be wrong on!
These comments from Witherington are from some time back – when I had to research and answer some questions about Barna within a para-church setting. I think a discussion ensued between Witherington and Viola over Witherington’s critique, but to my knowledge the basic premise of Witherington on this stayed the same – if you find otherwise, again I am wide open to any recent developments and again I don’t embrace everything Witherington says – but I think that unlike Barna, he is trying to be intellectually honest. For more detailed popular critiques on Barna you can read what articles in print media as diverse as Christianity Today and Reformation 21 had to say about Barna’s more recent claims. This of course should be an immediate red flag – when Witherington, Christianity Today, and Reformation 21 all have articles criticizing Barna’s claims you have a good indicator something is awry. Within Evangelicalism that is a fairly diverse group.
Witherington on Barna/Viola:
“First a word of disclaimer. I know Frank Viola, indeed for some years he has asked me loads of good and telling questions via email. I did not really know what his take was on various matters, but I gladly answered his questions. It is interesting to me that this book appears to take no notice of various of these answers which I have given, nor are any of my works found in the bibliography at the end of the book. Perhaps I have missed something in the minutiae of the truly minute footnotes at the bottom of each page, but now I am wondering why exactly I have answered all those questions over the years. It’s a pity.
Frank Viola is a sharp person, but neither he nor George Barna really interact in this book with the scholarly literature that would call into question their strident claims and theses. They are arguing a particular case, and so they largely cite sources that support their case, for example Robert Banks’ work on Pauline house churches comes in for heavy usage. Their claim to present us with bare historical fact and to stand always on the Biblical high ground needs to be seen for what it is from the outset— good and powerful rhetoric meant to warm the cockles of the hearts of all who affirm Sola Scriptura, but when one actually examines some of the major claims closely, they will not stand close and critical scrutiny.” – This can still be found on Witherington’s blog and so can the other articles. (This pretty well sums up my opinion of Barna’s work, you can understand that if I believe this about Barna’s total project – even when he is helpful in isolated ways, I am not going to be very excited about his promotion).
Thanks Danny – you are definitely the man. Your exposition of Scripture and interaction on this is a huge credit to Randall House (although I know this is your personal blog, and it does not necessarily represent the views of your work organization).
CC
March 25th, 2009 at 9:31 pm
This is my first visit here.
The question was asked at Post 4 above by Danny,
“I understand a person may leave a particular church. But why stay out? There is something wrong somewhere–in the theology or in the personality (or both). We all probably know people who assert they can be a Christian without going to church. It has been my experience these people don’t stay faithful. Typically, there is a personality conflict or some other factor that compels the person to refrain from submitting to the fellowship of a local church.”
I live in a very predominantly Roman Catholic area. One local church here is Charismatic-Pentecostal, on the wild side, so it would not serve as a place for me or my family to worship.
Another church rejected my membership application, and the pastor suggested I find a church that believes like I do. That after attending there five years, being requested to attend the membership class, and having substituted as a Sunday school teacher for the pastor whenever he was otherwise occupied.
I could go on, with much more.
I am very sure the trouble is not with me. The trouble is with our very sick local churches almost everywhere.
Norm Geisler and Ron Rhodes came out with a book last year titled Convictions Without Compromise. I just got it, and enjoyed reading it. Main point in that book: In essentials, unity; in nonessentials liberty; and in all things charity. I think they got that right, though I don’t know the chapter and verse reference on that one.
Some folks major on the minors and are unwilling to admit to their fellowship anyone who may have studied the Bible, church history, apologetics, hermeneutics, and theology more thoroughly and deeply than they have.
And here I am just a retired English teacher and reading specialist. But I guarantee you one thing, I really do know how to read, and read more by accident than most folks do on purpose, and have been doing so for a very long time.
I did produce two standard reference works on Bible study titled The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge and Nelson’s Cross Reference Guide to the Bible.
You will find the answer and solution to the problem given in the cross references I have furnished for Romans 15:7 and Hebrews 6:9.
Be sure to look them up and consider them carefully!
March 26th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Greetings, Sir,
I appreciate your comments and welcome you to this discussion.
Your experience illustrates the point that personality and theological issues are generally involved in people not associating with a local church. Although I had the perspective of the individual in mind at the time, I do not suggest these issues could only be the fault of the individual. I have Christian friends who sincerely desire to be in a local church but have very limited options due to the region of the country in which they live.
Your desire to be associated with a local church implies you do not hold the view that the local church is irrelevant.
I agree there are many problems in the churches, but the solution is not to abandon the local church concept, but rather return to a biblical model.
March 26th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
Thank you, Danny, for responding most perceptively to my comments.
Local churches sociologically fall into two basic types: “village churches” and “camp churches.”
“Village churches” are so structured that a person must literally be born into the local church nine months early, before entrance into this world, or they will not be welcomed. People are not there primarily because of a desire for spiritual fellowship and spiritual growth. Newcomers are “frozen out of the fellowship,” not welcomed, isolated, and otherwise rejected, and never admitted into the leadership.
It is a good thing, I suppose, that I am not God! For if I were, I would find a way very fast to close every church that fits the “village church” sociological structure.
Why? Such churches are an absolute disgrace to the Gospel, and dishonoring to our Lord Jesus Christ.
In a day when the population of the country is quite mobile, and often people are uprooted from their home communities because of employment requirements or economic conditions, churches ought to expect there will be newcomers to the church and the congregation who do not originate from the local church community, and should work hard to work these newcomers into the fellowship.
The pastor who invited me to seek another church that “believes like I do” made a rather remarkable, surely for me unforgettable, statement when he first visited my home.
He said, “Jerry, you talk too much about the Bible and too much about the Lord.”
That should have been my clue right then and there. But my prior experience of entering new churches had taught me to expect that over time people will get to know me and receive me into the fellowship. That did not happen at all in this pastor’s church.
When I “ghost wrote” Dr. Carl George’s book, Prepare Your Church for the Future, I learned about the village and the camp church categories. Carl said during a telephone call, “Jerry, you wrote my book. How could you not instantly recognize a village church for what it is? You shouldn’t have further darkened the door.” Carl was right.
Surely the pastor and board members at that church were totally unaware of Malachi 3:16.
The trouble is that there are no churches within nearly 30 miles of where I live that would be suitable to attend. For a time I attended a Wesleyan church where I was also asked to teach Sunday school, an adult class. The pastor was wonderful, the class was superb, but because of the distance I could not continue, particularly when conditions at school where I taught high school English became more demanding when I was placed under a different department head.
Interestingly, when I shared my “village church” experience with my class members, they said their own church once fit the “village church” pattern, but thankfully when they moved to a new building purchased from a Nazarene church congregation, there were enough newcomers such that the church was transformed into a “camp church.”
A “camp church” is a church where people are there because they have had the spiritual experience of the new birth and faith in Christ. They are eager to grow spiritually, love the Bible, want to talk about the Lord and His Word, and eagerly welcome newcomers and know how to bring them into the fellowship.
I suspect, therefore, that every church could learn much if they would take careful note who they lose out the back door. If they would check into why people are leaving, they could learn much that would help them turn the local church around and make it what it should be, an inviting and caring center that promotes spiritual growth. They need to focus upon what is involved in heeding what is written in Hebrews 3:13.
I found, working with young people, that one must not wait until Sunday to follow up on how they are doing spiritually. I kept in contact with my high school Sunday school class all through the week informally. It got to the place, a good place, where the parents would let me know if it had been too long since I last visited them.
March 26th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
I am aware of some “village” churches. Your definition would be humorous if it were not so accurate.
March 30th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
I, too, think those terms (village church and camp church) are great. They are very descriptive and relatable.
Jerome- You said we should “check into why people are leaving.” How is this done?
Is there a way to get honest answers where the one who walked out the back door feels comfortable and where we don’t get defensive?
Most guests and members/regular attendees that we lose will not tell us the truth, but they do tell other people…
March 31st, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Dear Adam and all,
The church that asked me to find another church that believed like I do did send one of their missionaries to talk with me some years later. I knew the parents of the missionary (they attended a different church, Methodist, in a small town nearby), and through them, the missionary (served in Spain) obtained my book, The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, and told me he greatly appreciated my work.
I was certainly most willing to share with him exactly what happened. He was most gracious and interested.
He told my wife and I that many he had talked to shared a similar reaction to the lack of acceptance, all having felt they had been “frozen out of the fellowship.”
The local church evangelist from that church and I shared excellent fellowship, and he introduced me to many at their local church camp.
I noticed, though, that the pastor’s wife kept a close eye on us (really me, I am sure) to listen in on all I had to say (before I had been asked to find another church).
I am absolutely sure I said nothing indiscrete or objectionable.
I guess they were afraid that since I was an author, I would try to change the doctrines of their church. That is what one board member’s wife told my wife at the grocery store.
I had no such intention, and never had.
When I accepted Christ as my Saviour I was attending a Methodist Youth Fellowship at the local Methodist church. I had been raised at Highland Park Baptist Church in Detroit. I surely did not try to upset my Methodist friends by arguing the issue of baptism! Or Calvinism!
When a Presbyterian pastor urged me to attend his church, since it was close to where I first taught school, I did. I didn’t discuss issues that Methodists might urge against Presbyterians, or that Baptists might urge against Presbyterians. I kept strictly to what the Bible teaches and avoided controversy.
That pastor put me right to work. My high school Sunday school class grew from 8 to 40 regular attenders, and the youth group from a handful to 300 on our regular contact list.
But none of those churches were “village churches.” I would certainly be welcomed again to any of them, but they are all too far away to attend.
Even my former students who are now pastors (especially Pastor Emery Moss of Strictly Biblical Ministries in Detroit, who often has me on his radio program, and mentions me oftener than that) would welcome me with open arms and put me right to work! His church, though, is over 80 miles away.
But out here in the boondocks, where I live on 15 wooded rural acres where I have blessed peace and quiet, there do not seem to be any local “camp churches” looking for a Sunday school teacher.
But the real loss is to the church that declined my membership application. Anywhere I have served the Lord in a teaching capacity the attendance at the church and Sunday school increased, sometimes skyrocketed. So I grieve a little over the many who could have been reached for deeper Bible knowledge and spiritual commitment that were not.
Such choices make a huge difference for eternity.
I placed notes on how to remedy this problem in The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge at Hebrews 3:13; Hebrews 6:9; and Jonah 4:11. See also the cross references in Nelson’s Cross Reference Guide to the Bible at Romans 15:7.
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:40 pm
There is much more to say on all these most important and relevant issues. I hope my last comments were not a “thread killer”!
One most important point I neglected to address when answering Adam Clagg’s query is that the missing factor in our churches and pastors is that of taking special care to listen.
I am not accusing any of you here of that.
Listening, however, is at the very center of the problem.
Remember the Bible account (2 Kings 5) of the servants of Naaman giving him a constructive suggestion (2 Kings 5:13)?
Why didn’t Naaman immediately issue the order, “Off with your head!”?
Because he did not have what I call “Administrator’s Disease” (compare Romans 12:8, “he that ruleth, with diligence”) with its corresponding caution (Romans 12:14, “Bless them which persecute you: bless and curse not”).
Naaman was “open to suggestion.” His servants both respected him enough that they went ahead and made the suggestion, and believed in him enough that they did not fear retaliation.
It helps to have been an English teacher from 1962 until 2001, because when I read the Bible I am very aware of the literary structure present there. That is why I know that Romans 12:8 legitimately connects with Romans 12:14.
Pardon me if many of you are administrators!
But someone needs to tell you, and so that is why the Bible emphasizes the need to listen.
When we listen, we build trust in the person who is sharing with us what they wish to say. If they believe they can come to you and share, and that you will make the appropriate and justified Biblical response, you have won their loyalty.
If you have won that kind of loyalty, you won’t be losing folks out the back door.
(How do I know? My school administrators always noticed that students who were assigned to my classes in inner city Detroit almost never dropped out of school. They wondered why. I just told you.)
If you have won that kind of loyalty, and fulfill the rest of the Bible’s mandate for teaching Scripture (1 Timothy 4:16; 2 Timothy 2:2), you hardly need to be concerned about schism.
People will come, even flock to your church, because you demonstrated you care when you clearly and evidently demonstrate that you continue to listen. Provided, that is, that you also feed people spiritually, and teach them how to feed themselves.
The Bible does not sanction our creating or fostering a dependency relationship with our hearers. We should make every effort to so teach others that we literally teach ourselves out of a job.
Many years ago a remarkable black pastor was browsing books in John’s Bible and Bookstore, just like I was. I asked Pastor Goodin, “What are you doing to teach your flock how to study the Bible for themselves?” Pastor Goodin said, “Jerry, I would never do that. If I did, I’d soon be out of a job!” I told the dear pastor, “The opposite of what you fear is the truth!”
April 3rd, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Bro. Jerry,
Your comments are appreciated. Don’t worry that you have “killed the thread.” Actually, this post has received more comments than usual.
April 3rd, 2009 at 8:07 pm
Bro. Jerry,
As usual, your comments hit the mark. I’m glad you’ve chosen to come here and share some insights. I always appreciate the dialog I have with you.
I pray that all reading here attend a “camp” church and not a “village” one!