Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Tearing down walls > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 7/30/2002 10:43 AM (GMT -6)

Hi all-

CT, August 5th, 2002—article entitled: “The Third Coming of George Barna” reviews Barna’s carrier, recent disappointments, and future plans. In the article there’s this statement:

“The aftermath of September 11 settled it for him [Barna]. He had thought perhaps it would take persecution or war to shock America into spiritual reflection. As a traumatized nation streamed into churches, the church had a moment of opportunity. ‘The sad outcome is that when we needed great leadership, we didn't have any guts,’ he says. ‘That moment of opportunity was squandered.’”

I wasn’t in the States during the attack. I shortly visited for medical reasons the month after but didn’t travel or talk to many church leaders.

What do you think is behind Barna’s comment? Is it accurate? What do you guys think?

Tom

"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde

BJS
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587

Posted 7/30/2002 11:10 AM (GMT -6)

I'm not sure what he means. I think I would have to see the context of the article. Is it on-line?

Brett

"Siste viator et memento mori."

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 7/30/2002 12:47 PM (GMT -6)

quote:

I'm not sure what he means. I think I would have to see the context of the article. Is it on-line?

Yeah, it's at: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/009/1.32.html

I was just interested in general opinions of how people thought the Church did at responding to 9/11. Barna thought church leadership basically missed it, though the article doesn't detail what he means.

I have mixed feelings. For example, I know of churches in NY who when they discovered Muslims were afraid to go shopping for fear of reprisals arranged with neighborhood mosques to do any Muslim lady's shopping for her if she's provide a shopping list. That's cool.

On the other hand I understand that SINCE 9/11 some 30,000 Americans have converted to Islam. Muslim leadership in the USA spun the event very well (Islam is a religion of peace, etc., check us out). There was a lot of interest in Islam after 9/11 and evidently thousands were pleased with what they found.

Tom

"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 7/30/2002 6:58 PM (GMT -6)

The Barna article left me sad... sad for him. I can totally relate to his frustration, disappointment -- even cynicism -- about the American church. I'm not convinced that the problem is primarily a lack of leaders, however. I think its more fundamental than that.

I think its too much religion and not enough love. And I have no idea what to do about it, other than preach.

I never for a moment thought the 9/11 tragedy would permanently change anything. When Americans are scared, they run to God. When its done, they're done. Its the American way. Our national religion has always been Deism. Its form is a vague belief in an most useless and inconsequential God whose purpose is to insure our "blessing" and comfort us when we're afraid.

Doc

"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6

writerdad
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448

Posted 7/30/2002 8:22 PM (GMT -6)

My sister's friend works in a hospics and he once told her this" "You would think that death would change people, but, you know, it really doesn't. A person dies the way they lived. If a person was bad, it death usually doesn't make them better."
It does not surprise me that 9/11 really didn't change people, but I would say that many in America (both Christian and non-Christian) didn't want to be changed. Much of the church in American is about capitalism and being affluent. Tom, as far as 30,000, americans converting to Islam since 9/11, I would personally doubt that 9/11 had anything to do with it. I believe Islam was already growing before that and the 30,000 is probably simply a part of a continuing growth. Harold

BBBCanada
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763

Posted 7/31/2002 5:40 AM (GMT -6)

Hey! Anyone read the book of Corinthians? It seems that Barna's focus is totally on the evangelical church which doesn't include a total panoramic view of the whole body of Christ.

This kind of "throw your hands up, I'm done with the church because we see all the crap in it" attitude is very disheartening. Aren't our expectations a little too high for the body of Christ?

Franky Schaffer was the same way and he took off to the Orthodox church. CT did a review on him and they said, "He's still angry." I don't think that persecution is the answer either. Neuhaus talks about how people who think we need good 'ol fashion persecution just do not know what they are talking about. They have never been persecuted. It's not something you would wish on your worst enemy.

Sometimes I don't know exactly what we're looking for. Sometimes I think it is like a recipe. A little of this, a little of that. I think of it on a local scale. A healthy church needs a combination of a many ingredients working together for it to be healthy.

This does not mean that we do not have an infusion of the Holy Spirit in our midst.

However, I think we have as Barna says, our fair share of cultural influence infecting the church in subtle ways that are not always apparent.

Brandon
"Sharing a prison cell unites you much more powerfully than sharing a conference table."--Ecumenical Jihad: Ecumenism and the Culture War

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 7/31/2002 2:26 PM (GMT -6)

Whatever the church and its leadership were doing before 911, it was the same thing they were doing after 911; the message and work of the church and its leadership did not change.

Below is a synopsis of Barna's points:

First, Per Barna, here's the heart of the problem:
"..."Nothing's changing, and the change that we see is not for the better," he says. His constant surveying of the American public reveals no turning back from moral and spiritual relativism."

Second, in view of this, here's Barna's strategy:
"He's doing research to identify the top influences on Americans' lives. He already knows the church isn't on the list. Movies, TV, contemporary music, the Internet, books, parents, and politicians are. In the short term, he's looking for ways to affect what he calls the SSI, or Strategic Sources of Influence. In the long run, he hopes to cultivate a new generation of leaders, locating them as early as high school and challenging them to participate in strategic development of their capacities to lead for Christ. Twenty or 30 years from now, he hopes to see the result in a healthy, dynamic church."

And finally, here's what Barna believes we the church should experience if all's done correctly:
"Again and again Barna returns to Acts 2, with its description of the vitality of the early church in Jerusalem. He's captivated by that elemental account of a church beginning to change the world. However, he identifies less with Peter and Paul than he does with Jeremiah and John the Baptist. Of all the biblical characters, "I resonate with them," he says. "I feel their pain."

I go back, now, to my opening statement: whatever the church and its leadership were doing before 911, it was the same thing they were doing after 911; the message of the church, the work of the church, and its leadership did not change.

I believe Barna--or rather, the writer of the article--is correct but not complete about the church's flirting with relativism; it isn't every church who's playing the flirt, and it certainly isn't relativism that is the only issue needing to be addressed. Further, the ultra-recruitment is, again, correct but not complete; exactly what is the practicum Barna is going to teach these newly adopted leaders? The article never says. Finally, a return to an Acts 2 mileu is fine if only, however, we were told exactly what this milue is and what relevance it has to the issue of the church and its leadership's problems. Barna's resonation with the message of the prophets of old, however, calls me to put forward what I think part of the answer is.

Doc, you stated the following: "I think its too much religion and not enough love. And I have no idea what to do about it, other than preach.". Yes, I agree with this. It is because the message of the gospel is based on and transmitted through love that your statement is true. But we need to define something about what it is to love others. This in a context of first bringing souls into the Kingdom of God, and second dicipling them.

Ray Comfort (www.raycomfort.com) is a wonderful evangelist who drove home something I had not taken as serious as I should have. In and effort to nail down why his (Comfort) converts weren't staying in Christ, his research led him to the great evangelists of old. He found one common denominator: they preached a balanced message of eternal punishment as well as eternal bliss; reject Christ and eternal damnation is one's destiny. Accept Christ--truly understanding what Christ's life, death and resurrection offers--and one finds eternal life. It was this stark balance that secured first a full evangelistic gospel message and secure converts for Christ. Moody, Finny, Wesly, etc., all preached hell as much of a reality--man's deserving eternal death if he will not truly repent--as well as the eternal bliss of everlasting life.

Comfort uses the parachute as an example of Christ. If one puts on a parachute because it's said that it will make the flight better, help one in troubles and needs, let one know that he's loved, the parachute quickly becomes a burden; for after a while, it simply doesn't feel good under this message. It's value is diminished, and the chances of tossing it aside are high. If, however, one puts on the parachute knowing that it is there to secure one's life in the event of a fall, the message of the parachute's purpose isn't a burden but a treasured asset. Proper understanding, therefore, of the full, gospel message is critical.

Comfort uses another example. If one has a life-threatening disease, the doctor will spend a long time explaining the threat to the victim's life and the ramifications of the disease. After spending this critical time explaining the hell of it, how much time do you think the victim will need to hear about a cure for the disease? Not long at all. This comes down to an understanding that in love we are to preach Christ in a context of the eternal damnation as the only other option for a person if they reject Christ; it is hell and hell alone where one spends eternity. This is a reality that in Comfort's view has been greatly neglected in evangelizing. Balance is needed for the sake of those who are only being told that God loves them. God, however, is just.

Enough to say that the Old Testament prophets were balanced: Jonah's message to Assyria (God Himself displayed the balance), Isaiah's messages to Israel, Jeremiah's messages to Judah. It was a message of "Come let us reason together" or perish. The question of the eternal destiny of these messages isn't my point, the balance of the preaching is.

With regard to discipleship, good, sound, Biblical teaching is first. Next, mentoring is in order. But the questions arise as to, first, just what is good, sound, Biblical teaching, and, second, who's a qualified mentor to insure the diciple's safety.

So many churches preach a message only of Jesus' love for them, but not of the consequences of rejecting Christ. In my opinion it's that we've become afraid to be so bold both about the reality of the existance of hell and that this is one of only two places a person will spend eternity. We don't have to preach hell, fire, and damnation (perhaps a slight overkill, eh), but we do need to be balanced, both from the pulpit and on the streets.

The church only livened up it's existing methods after 911--those preaching heresy and those preaching a true but unbalanced message. It's like wiping up the water faster because the leak is more fluid but never turning off the spout. Unless we preach and teach a full message, we won't see converts such as those Islam claimed to receive after 911. The parachute will quickly become burdensome, and people need more than that, and they deserve to know more than that.

"As for what was sown on thin (rocky) soil, this is he who hears the Word and at once welcomes and accepts it with joy; yet it has no real root in him, but is temporary (inconstant, lasts but a little while); and when affliction or trouble or persection comes on account of the Word, at once he is caused to stumble (he is repelled and begins to distrust and desert Him Whom he ought to trust and obey) and he falls away." Mathew 13:20-21, Amplified Bible.

Sobering words of our Lord.

Starkman

Edited by - Starkman on 07/31/2002 7:30:28 PM

writerdad
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448

Posted 7/31/2002 7:40 PM (GMT -6)

"not enough love." But how can people love when they believed they are saved by just believing and doing nothing? Many Christians were raised on the notion that they didn't have to do anything for God because God was doing everything for them.
I do not believe most Christians can love in a manner worthy of Christ because they do not have a lifestyle that is condusive to love. Dallas Willard makes this point forcefully in his new book Renovation of the Heart. God requires us to live a life of love that we will allow us to be examples of Christ's love. But that does not happen overnight. It is a lifetime commitment. But how many Christians are that committed? Harold

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 8/1/2002 1:25 AM (GMT -6)

Writerdad, this seems like a chicken-egg question. Christians don't love BECAUSE they don't cultivate a lifestyle of love, and they don't cultivate a lifestyle of love because they are not committed. Agree. But how do we get them committed?

It may be that the question itself is misguided. I can ask, HOW can I become more committed. But I'm not sure I can ask How can I make YOU more committed. In fact, I wonder if the best thing I can do to help YOU become more committed is perhaps just for MAKE MYSELF more committed.

Of course, we need (ALL need) to hear the Word challenge us to be more committed. We need to hear it strong. We need to hear it straight. We need to hear it comfront the American whats-in-it-for-me mindset. But in the end, the SPIRIT is the one who makes us more committed, and he does it, I believe, primarily by drawing us into a relation to the One whose love and grace WINS OUR HEART. If I try to do that for you, I get in the way.

"Oughts," "shoulds" "hell" "fear" "statistics" etc... will never fundamentally transform any of our self-serving hearts. We need them "battered down" by the love of the triune God.

Doc

"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6

writerdad
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448

Posted 8/1/2002 6:08 AM (GMT -6)

A person is committed by being committed. There is nothing you or I can do to make a person committed if they do not want to be committed. Period. But as I look around the church landscape one of things I've noticed is that Christians in America are comfortable with being Christians in America because its easy being "saved" in America. There is no challenge many times when you believe you are saved AND can pull down good money and being nice person at the same time. But God didn't make nice people, he made people who are willing to give up everything for him. If the leadership of the church in America has failed, it has failed because it has only called people to converts and not disciples, called people to be "saved" and not committed, called people to come forward rather than to count the cost.
Following Jesus is a lifetime of daily dying for him. Most Christians do not understand this.
I would add one point: "Batter them with the love of God." Yes, but also with the judgment of God. Sometimes people need to recognize the incredible consequences, both negative and positive, of their decisions. People need the love of God. But they also need to know the judgment of God as far as what the consequences of their decision will be if they reject God. I believe this is also part of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
I cannot make anyone do anything, so I do not try. I simply articulate what I believe is God's message. As Dallas Willard wrote:

It really isn't true that where there is a will there is automatically a way, though of course will is crucial. There is also needed an understanding of exactly what needs to be done and how it can be accommplished: of the instruments for the realization of that life and the order of their use.
Spiritual formation in Christ is an orderly process. Although God can triumph in disorder, that is not his choice. And instead of focusing upon what God can do, we must humble ourselves to accept the ways he has chosen to work with us. These are clealy laid out in the Bible, and esprecially in the work and person of Jesus.

eaglecam
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2002
Total Posts : 12

Posted 8/13/2002 5:58 PM (GMT -6)

This is my first post, and among such bright lights I hesitate to jump in. Nevertheless - splash! I was churched for years, attending Episcopal, Presbyterian, Methodist and Lutheran services over time. (Don't know how I missed the Baptists!) Additionally I attended a Catholic boarding school for three years. During all this time I was nominally a Christian, but had little knowledge of what that meant short of Lent comes before Easter.

What made the difference, and turned my priorities downside up, was relationship. It is a grief to me that much of the institutional church is so locked into programs and traditions that the reality of a relationship with the Lover of our souls is overlooked or pooh poohed. Every Lutheran I met knew about the Ephesians passage on being saved by grace; every one also firmly believed his/her works were good enough to get in heaven's gate. When I spoke of the present day reality of an alive Jesus I was regarded as an odd fanatic.

Those who streamed into the local church following 9-11 were hopeful of finding some reality. What many found were the same old religious productions they had fled as teens. Isn't it true that people want truth, want reality, and not game playing fakery in their lives? Can we as teachers, preachers and leaders in the church dare to address reality (Jesus) vs. sham (man's religious busyness)? There is something very attractive about Truth. If it is proclaimed there will be those who are drawn irresistibly to it.

Let's hear it for more Truth!

..."for him to see me mended, I must see him torn..." Luci Shaw

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 8/14/2002 1:39 AM (GMT -6)

Wecome aboard eaglecam-

I see you're from Willamsport. I'm from Richmond. My folks were born and raised in Baltimore. Beltsville, MD is named after our familiy. Big deal, right?

Blesings,
Tom

"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:51 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual