My Lunch with Barna...

My lunch with George Barna consisted of turkey, provolone, and lettuce on a croissant, with a dill pickle spear and some fruit.  For dessert, we had....  j/k

Seriously though, as things worked out at the Holiness conference, George ended up sitting next to me for lunch and I thoroughly enjoyed the opportunity to get to know him a little better, AND... ask him a few questions about the changes he foresees for Christianity and the Church in the coming decades.

By way of background, I mentioned to him that I had participated at the first three Emergent Conventions in San Diego.  I was hoping to establish a little bit of common ground, but Barna quickly interjected that the entire Emergent movement in the U.S. was simply a 'reaction' -- stemming primarily from conservative fundamentalist groups.  And although some proponents such as McLaren were getting a lot of press, the emergent movement (when compared with the "revolutionaries" he had been studying) was rather insignificant.

Frankly, I was floored.  I would have thought Barna to have been quick in resonating with many of the observations and convictions coming from the emerging church camp, but apparently that was not the case.  When we spoke about the "Generation 'O'" phenomenon, and how increasing numbers of former evangelicals are pursuing more ancient expressions of our faith -- again, Barna retorted by writing the whole thing off as an isolated agenda that Robert Webber had created and was pushing.  But when I pushed the issue further, citing the rise in neo-monasticism (something he himself had mentioned during his talk), he acknowledged that, yes, it was on the rise, and that some of the most promising models were located in the greater Washington D.C. area. 

At this point, I chose to change the subject and asked a question about 'revolutionaries' returning to local churches after their life-changing experiences.  I told Barna that it all reminded me of many years ago when I was on the pastoral team of a mega-church here in Southern California.  Many of our young adults had been going off to attend DTS's (i.e. Discipleship Training Schools) conducted by YWAM (Youth With A Mission), followed by at least one short-term mission. These were spiritually intense experiences (to say the least), and when these young adults returned to their home congregations, they often found it frustrating and difficult to blend back in.  The lack of spiritual passion and concern for the lost repulsed many of them. Unlike today, there were not very many alternative expressions of church for them to hook up with back then (the 80's).  Rather than encourage their passion and vision for ministry, we tended just to tell them to get on board with what WE were doing.  The result: they either left the Church or re-entered YWAM permanently.  Barna very much resonated with my experience as indicative of how institutional churches have responded to spiritual revolutionaries in the past. Hopefully, he added, we will learn from our mistakes.  I agreed.

Despite the rather shocking things he shared with me about the emergent movement and the ancient-future phenomenon, I nonetheless enjoyed my lunch with George and was grateful for the opportunity to talk with him.

.

photo credits -- above right: Google image; above left: (taken by me at Emergent '05 w/ a little help from Doug Pagitt)

Comments

[Jon]

Would Barna say the 'revolutionaries' are what we call 'missional' then? (I have not read Revolution.)

[Chris]

Jon,

Yes, I think he would. Being missional would be one of several things ALL followers of Jesus "should" be, but which people in traditional churches by-and-large have failed to be. In part, this is what has led revolutionaries to leave traditional forms of 'church' and pursue their relationship with Christ elsewhere.

[Jon]

I wonder if Barna is less-than-impressed by the U.S. expressions of emerging church because what he's seen tends not to be missional but merely hip?

[Keith Seckel]

Hi Chris,

Thanks for sharing your lunch with us! =O)

I can't speak to Barna's comments re: the resurgence of people seeking more ancient expressions of faith, nor can I comment on his insights into neo-monasticism (though those are interesting, and I would like to hear more).

But this struck me: I wonder if his comments re: "Emergent" (or 'emergence' or 'emergents' in general) being "reactionary" had anything to do with what I saw in his book Revolution. What he sees as a moving away from Institutional Models altogether.

From my (admittedly narrow and uninformed) perspective, it seems while there are myriad expressions within Emergent, they are still seen by many people as "church, but different".

McLaren's church and Doug Pagitt's church and others still meet in "church buildings" (even if the building itself is cool and edgy and unchurch-like in it's setup, liturgy, etc.). Pastoral Staff and Office Staff and a building to meet in and ministries which are led by Ministry Leaders, etc

At Emergent '05 I remember McLaren quoting some stats. He said 15% of churches in North America are growing numerically. 85% are steady or in decline. He went on to say 90-95% of the growth in the 15% of churches was coming from the other 85%: "transfer growth" -- people waking up Sunday morning and saying "I want to go to church, but I want it to be different."

I should say up front I think that is perfectly great! I think it is a move of The Spirit shaking trees and moving people into deeper relationship with Jesus!!! *NOTHING* wrong with that!

But it did make me wonder: "What about the people who wake up on Sunday and *don't* think about 'going to' church at all?" People who have no interest in what "church" has come to represent in America: building campaigns and 'ministry projects' and such. Event-driven "come to us for spiritual things" church. Or even "We have the answers, so let us leave our nice white neighborhoods and come and help you poor homeless people in the city, or you poor lost people"...

Or worse: Closed-Minded Right-Wing Hypocriticalism. I'm not saying every church on the corner is like that -- but that is what Ned Flanders and the pastor character represent on The Simpsons -- and that is what 'church' on South Park is, and in many ways that is how many people have come to think of "church". Sadly, I think it is art imitating life when we see these models on TV and in movies.

So in Barna's book he paints two pictures that I noticed -- two types of "Revolutionaries":

1) People who assimilate into a hodge-podge of relational sets of people, each individual crafting his or her own spiritual smorgasbord. Not classic individualism per se, but many individuals participating in many loose sets, as opposed to one bound set with many people exclusively in it. People who don't point to any one group of people (let alone any one building) and say "that is my church" about only one thing -- but instead see many diverse aspects of their life and relationships as "this is my church, and this over here is also my church. And That and that and that -- all of these collectively make up my experience of the church; the body of Christ."

2) People who take 'church' to the people. Instead of building a church building and making it into a coffee house and opening it up as a rec center, people who instead choose to frequent the coffee house down the street from their office and the rec center down the street from their home, and relate to and give their lives away to the people they find there. Meeting in homes at various days and times and pooling funds to give away to the poor in their midst (if possible, at only one-degree of separation, like a group called "Relational Tithe").

Within the context of these two ideas of "being 'church'" it is easy for me to see how he would say "Emergent" churches are mainly reactionary since, in contrast to the ideas he describes as "Revolutionary" "emergent" churches still tend to be seen as "the same, just different" from "the church I grew up not liking to go to".

In one of his lectures online at Off-The-Map.org, McLaren asserts (as we move from Modernity into PostModernity) we are beginning to move from "early transition" (defining ourselves against what was, with a lot of deconstructionism still present) and beginning to move into "late transition" (where we define ourselves by what we are becoming.)

I think, by and large, the "Emergent" folks with whom I have relationship would say they are defining themselves by what they are becoming (personally, as well as organizationally and congregationally).

But I also think, by and large, the *world* at large still sees "church" ("Emergent" or otherwise) as "something you go to" and so Barna sees it as reactionary and early-transition.

Just my $2.00 (I'm wordy, so I took up ten two-cents-worth there. Sorry about that!)

~ Keith

[Seraphim]

Chris,

I'm not surprized he 'blew off' emergent. Yes Barna is a Christian. Yes he is 'studying' church trends.

But also he is a "writer/author" we seldomn speak 'well' of the competition.

Seraphim

[Mark]

I wonder if twenty years or so the revolutionaries will suddenly realize that they are missing something. Or maybe it will be the subsequent generation and not these people that Barna talks about. Maybe this something that they find they are missing is an intense, loyal connection to a specific body of believers... just a thought.

However, it seems to me that Barna's revolutionaries are "reacting" to the church just as the emerging church is reacting. Also, I know Barna concentrates on analyzing and interpreting statistically data but the examples of revolutionaries that he has given seem to me to be the exception rather than the norm. In the midwest at least, most people don't leave the church and intentionally involve themselves in a wide range of spiritual endeavors but simply allow "life" to crowd out "church activities." But then, I am somewhat biased in what I tend to observe (as we all are).

In Christ,
Mark

[Chris]

Keith, you may be on to something in differentiating between typical 'emerging' churches and Barna's idea of 'revolutionaries.' Revolutionaries want to 'be' the church in ways that are much closer to what the kingdom of God should look, and in so doing, pretty much write-off the institutional church. Although, Barna is quick to point out that revolutionaries are not "anti-church", which we HAVE seen plenty of in the vein McLaren has described as 'early transition' -- as you've pointed out.

I think that revolutionaries are, at their core, simply wanting to live their lives as followers of Jesus should: no games, no politics, no "slick" packaging -- just passionate followership. And as Jon pointed out as the discussion above began, revolutionaries are inherantly 'missional'. It's pretty hard to be a passionate follower of Jesus and not be - don't you think?

All of this has certainly forced me to confess: my angst toward YWAM in the 80's was largely unfounded and -- frankly -- embarrassing. But back then, I was eyebrow deep into the whole megachurch mentality.

Guess I've changed a lot more than I realize.

[Lauren]

Chris,

I don't know if you had a chance to read Christianity Today's article on Barna's new book "Revolution," but I think you'd find it addresses many of the concerns about "radical individualism" you've espoused recently. You can read it at http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/001/13.69.html -- would like to hear your reaction to "Revolution."

[bill]

While reading Barna's “Revolution,” I was reminded of people I've known and interacted with over the past decade or so, who took mission into their own hands. We also took Bible study into our own hands. This was long before “Emergent.”

However, with Barna's research in mind, and looking back from a higher elevation, I began to see what looks like natural “emergence.” The kind of emergence that occurs when an element has been taking on increasing energy and is just starting to jump to the next quantum level. It is order forming out of chaos. It is the beginnings of a phase change.

So, I think that Barna is both right and wrong. So-called Emergent church is reactionary. Of course it is, it's mostly X-Gen which is a realistic, reactionary generation. However, there is still real emergence, from the sociological perspective. What ever it is, it will emerge from chaos when a significant number of Barna's “Revolutionaries” find one another. I'm studying all I can on this now because I want to help light the fuse. I'm tired of church as usual.

[Rev. Fr. Stan]

I think the problem isnt that there arent enough "revolutionaries".

The problem across the church is nominalism. And neither the "next big thing that we will market" or the Ancient-Future church can cure that.

[Chris]

"And neither the "next big thing that we will market" or the Ancient-Future church can cure that"

A whole lotta truth in that. Makes me remember the song:

"Jesus is the answer
for the world today;
above him there's no other,
Jesus is the way."

[Benjy]

I have read Barna's newest book and thought it was ok. I think in the future that maybe this book will turn out to be insignificant when compared to emergent. Just my 2 cents.

[A Human Bean]

I have always wondered why people care what Barna thinks. He is a researcher who is good at research. He is not good at interpretation of research. His work should be put in the hands of practitioners to make it useful.

The emerging church did start out as a reaction against somethings, but it is that no longer. It is a movement with a positive message. Many things start out as reaction, but must morph it something else to be of significance (The Reformation for example.) The emerging church has succesfully made the transition and has no need to look back or answer ridiculous charges like those made by Barna.

[Pastor Art]

A question that we need to ask ourselves is; just what is the concept of emerging? By this I do not mean the movement, non - movement labeled as such but that which is arising - emerging/rising from the “main body” the norm. Revolutionary, emergent, prophetic, or whatever label tacked on there is movement among us as the Body of Christ. A crisis point a seismic stressor needing to be relieved. The idea of “emerging” from the dictionary is explained as something coming out of a fluid. When anything arises from water there are changes. The area effected rises to its point of tension cohesion - stress point. Once the pressure exceeds the strength of the material holding back the force seeking release at that point there is emergence. This process explosive and chaotic alters the calm surface, waves are formed spreading from the place of disrupted surface calmness forever altering that place and spreading throughout the whole - yes this is a picture of a tidal wave. This produces and “emergency” same root only explained as a sudden action.

There is dissatisfaction among us. There is contrast between Scripture’s picture of who we are and how we currently are. People as individuals and groups are grabbing hold of what appeals to them like a brass ring at a marry- go- round. And these rings are vital parts of the Scriptural message. However like the last morsel of bread in a famine many of us are placing this manna under our ragged cloaks and weaseling off to devour what we have in secret. Paul in first Corth. Saw this in his day. He said to the emerging community of his day; can the hand say to the foot I don’t need you … and so forth. We have some of us exploring monastic ways and teachings, Eastern Christian traditions, Celtic and the list stretches farther then east is from west. This emerging island has many peaks breaking through the water’s surface. These are seen first but they are based upon the deeper island yet to come. Which peak is the “true” peak? As the “mountains” break the surface which one do we stand on? An island or a continent with many mountain peaks has a common foundation at its base. None of the peaks are new the poor, justice, doctrine, prayer, and so on.

The very fact that these issues are voiced speaks to us that Yahweh is seeking a watchman to inform His people about His next move. After all He tells His prophet’s first before He acts.
Pastor Art

[Andy]

Seraphim, I'm sorry, but how about some self-examination before you assume other writers share your own pathology?

About insignificance, why not embrace it?? If emergent churches/people/whatever hold onto significance, they'll surely lose it. And the evidence I've seen is that much of the "emergent conversation" is a search for personal and group signicance.

On the other hand, I'm move by the growing talk about Jesus. I don't know if it's on the fringes or at the center of this whole conversation (who defines "center" -- Google? Blogrolls?). I suspect that amoung those anonymous revolutionaries (only visible in statistics since they aren't trying to be a "MOVEMENT") are many who want more of Jesus.

Back to significance...assuming that is defined by God not you or me, then the question is what makes God's church? The answer, I suppose, would expose a group of people cutting across every form of church who are living out the function God intended. My guess is that they are quietly paying attention to Jesus and doing what the Father is doing whether in 2's or 3's or 10's, 100's, etc.

[pavel/addai]

I'm not suprised he blew off Emergent just because of the numbers. Emergent so far from what I know has never ammounted to much in terms of actual numbers compared to other movements. Especially things like "Purpose Driven". After being on the ooze for over 3.5 years, I've often got the feeling that pomo is one of those "fake it to you make it", "Self fulfilling prophesy" kind of things. Where if you keep telling yourself "This is really big. This movement is at the heart of what society needs today". You can eventually make it happen by "Rhinocerous Success" :)

Now in terms of Orthodoxy and Ancient Future, I suspect he shot it down for the same reason.

[Mike Clawson]

Why were you surprised that Barna blew off the emerging church? I've never gotten any impression from him other than that he was your typical conservative evangelical. Why did you think that he would have any natural affinity toward the EC?