Wednesday, November 16, 2005
The Future Of The Church
Jollyblogger gives an incredibly well done, if lengthy, critique of George Barna's new book , and follows it up with some Calvin quotes. Barna is looking for ways to fix the church and David thinks Barna is confusing the casues and the cures, while admitting there are big problems.
I agree with David whole heartedly in his review, but I am going to put things a bit more simply. Books like this are big on "using the tools of today to build today's church." Why? In my opinion that's what got us into this mess to begin with.
God does not change, and neither, fundamentally, do we. Why is the question, "What do we do today," instead of "Why aren't we doing it like they did then?" Bottom line, it is easier to look around than it is in. It is easier to say, "Scoiety has changed around the church" than to say "The church has quit doing what it is supposed to do."
Let me give you a minor example. In the Prebyterian church we are, well we were, big on order. Committees, parlimentary rules, procedures and bureacracy. Remember when I said bureacracy was a good thing? I really believe that. I am a Presbyterian, in part, because it's bureacratic nature prevents the abuses of a preisthood, like say the pre-Reformation Roman church, or ugliness of so many modern Pentecostal ministries. But more and more, there are calls on large and small scales to reject that bureacracy because it is "too cumbersome and political." All that means is people are not doing it well, not that it is wrong!
I love the church -- it does not need to be "rethought" it just needs to be done right.
I agree with David whole heartedly in his review, but I am going to put things a bit more simply. Books like this are big on "using the tools of today to build today's church." Why? In my opinion that's what got us into this mess to begin with.
God does not change, and neither, fundamentally, do we. Why is the question, "What do we do today," instead of "Why aren't we doing it like they did then?" Bottom line, it is easier to look around than it is in. It is easier to say, "Scoiety has changed around the church" than to say "The church has quit doing what it is supposed to do."
Let me give you a minor example. In the Prebyterian church we are, well we were, big on order. Committees, parlimentary rules, procedures and bureacracy. Remember when I said bureacracy was a good thing? I really believe that. I am a Presbyterian, in part, because it's bureacratic nature prevents the abuses of a preisthood, like say the pre-Reformation Roman church, or ugliness of so many modern Pentecostal ministries. But more and more, there are calls on large and small scales to reject that bureacracy because it is "too cumbersome and political." All that means is people are not doing it well, not that it is wrong!
I love the church -- it does not need to be "rethought" it just needs to be done right.
