My Photo

About Me

« A Mission to Forgive | Main | FOURS (not only did I get tagged, but I played along) »

February 13, 2006



....where, in addition, is the allowance for the transition from visible into invisible church? yes, being in yankee stadium doesn't make you a yankee, but being in their single-a ballclub makes you more likely to become a pro player than never having set foot in a stadium.

of course, faith and repentance is necessary to become a true part of the invisible church; but there's a contiuum between completely pagan and the invisible church--any closer someone moves along that contiuum to the "dividing line" between pagan and visible church, and then between visible and invisible, i will celebrate, and i believe that scripture will celebrate with me.

hope i'm not missing the point here...i didn't read the 'extended article', just your discussion of it.


So many of the criticisms of "Revolution" seem to stem from disagreement on what "the church" is. I'm sure I'm stating the obvious. But I feel like we're missing the point. On one hand we nod our heads vigorously as Barna's stats unveil the impotence that is the current institutional church model. But then we seem to want to defend "it" at all costs as if the buildings and programs were holy non-negotiables. I guess if I felt we were defending "her" instead of "it" I wouldn't be as concerned. Please...somebody...put me out of my misery.

Kevin, please help me understand in layman's terms why Barna's conclusions are wrong and why the writers/pastors you've endorsed on your blog are correct. Would you please explain your position here or link me to it. Thanks.

I'm not looking for a bandwagon to ride. However, it doesn't take a genius to see the dangerous waters Barna is treading on. We're talking about unimaginable money and power here. Whether he's right or wrong George is clearly the underdog. I'm sure he's not the first to have suggested we abandon the current model. But is he the most credible? My questions are these:

1. Are the "Church" and the "current model" of church synonymous?
2. If not (Question #1) is the "revolution" Barna suggests Biblically plausible?
3. What can we learn from this discussion that will bring glory to God?


Well said! I agree that it is not only ridiculous, but also very dangerous for us to dismiss the church on the grounds that it contains imperfections- it would be even more ridiculous to expect the church to NOT have some amount of imperfections.

However this very fact (that the church is not all that it SHOULD be) coupled with the love we see God has for the church, through the study of scripture, should inspire those with a true heart for God to not abandon the institution, but rather to give themselves whole-heartedly to bringing about the changes needed to make the church all that it has to be….


Brian's comment just helped make one of my points. Do we define "Church" based on the current model of "church?" I'm thinking the answer is no. And if the answer is "no" then why are we so defensive about Barna's message? I don't hear Barna advocating that we "dismiss" the Church but that we avail ourselves to wineskins more conducive to what God is doing now. This idea would seem to jive with books like "Experiencing God" where Blackaby encourages readers to look for what God is doing and join Him.

The comments to this entry are closed.