I may not post any more of these, but it occurs to me it would be fun to have somewhere some of the ideas IWU undergraduate professors might joke about over coffee--ideological biases of a sort. This is not policy, this is not absolute. It's not even everyone. It's not make or break stuff. It's flavor, even prejudice.
Here's one that occurred to me today. As a piece of IWU mishnah, the word “worldview” immediately would cause knowing looks. The thoughts that immediately go through my head are 1) Reformed? Schaffer? Glenn Martin? (see James Smith's woes), 2) overly simplistic reduction of human motivations and machinations to overly simplistic macro-ideas, 3) inability to read the Bible in its complex contexts, reduction of the multi-genred Bible to overly simplistic propositions. ;-)
Who knows if I will ever come back to tell you the reaction "Barna" causes ;-)
Showing posts with label George Barna. Show all posts
Showing posts with label George Barna. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 02, 2010
Thursday, May 07, 2009
Barna at the Evangelical Press Association meeting
Heard Barna last night in Indy at the Evangelical Press Association (there was another Christian press group there as well but my brain was so fried it didn't stick). He was talking about his new book. Tyndale generously gave us all free copies. It's at the office but I thumbed through it. The title is something like The Seven Faith Tribes.
The idea of faith tribes is interesting. They were like nominal Christians, captive Christians (those are the good guys, the slaves to Christ), Muslims, Pantheists, Skeptics, Jews, and one other group I can't remember. There were stats as you expect.
What began to dawn on me as I skimmed more from the book and listened to him talk, is that his goal was not what I expected. It started with a pro-America pitch. America isn't what it used to be. I'm used to all that.
But what was so surprising is that his ultimate goal was not "let's help get America back to its Christian roots"! He pointed out common values between all seven tribes and then urged, let's all the tribes get back to our common values to make America better!
This is very interesting. So is this book aimed primarily at non-captive Christian tribes? Why don't all you guys get back to your core values, which are the same as Christian core values?
OR, is this the ultimate trajectory of civil religion, where in the end, American patriotism not only surpasses Christian values covertly (which is normal) but overtly? The important thing is to get America back on track, not to draw others to Christianity? Is this what Barna thinks?
The idea of faith tribes is interesting. They were like nominal Christians, captive Christians (those are the good guys, the slaves to Christ), Muslims, Pantheists, Skeptics, Jews, and one other group I can't remember. There were stats as you expect.
What began to dawn on me as I skimmed more from the book and listened to him talk, is that his goal was not what I expected. It started with a pro-America pitch. America isn't what it used to be. I'm used to all that.
But what was so surprising is that his ultimate goal was not "let's help get America back to its Christian roots"! He pointed out common values between all seven tribes and then urged, let's all the tribes get back to our common values to make America better!
This is very interesting. So is this book aimed primarily at non-captive Christian tribes? Why don't all you guys get back to your core values, which are the same as Christian core values?
OR, is this the ultimate trajectory of civil religion, where in the end, American patriotism not only surpasses Christian values covertly (which is normal) but overtly? The important thing is to get America back on track, not to draw others to Christianity? Is this what Barna thinks?
Thursday, February 05, 2009
Pagan Christianity 2
Last Thursday we began looking at Frank Viola's Pagan Christianity. For today I read through George Barna's Introduction and Viola's first chapter. So much build up... sorry I'm not to the concrete controversy yet! Someone complained last week that I reviewed the Preface.
Introduction
So Barna's introduction is more build up. There is a great sense of foreboding. The "institutional" church is in great crisis. It is like a plane that got slightly of course and has been flying for so long that it's way off course. It's like a cow that zig zagged, then a dog followed, then sheep, then horses, then people, then roads were built and cities and we're wasting thousands of miles of travel because we're stuck in that cow's rut.
What horrible shape we must be in! Sounds like Viola and Barna are the Luther and Calvin of the day, here to bring about a new Reformation!
Let me say, for all my tongue and cheek above, that their goal is great, to "get in touch with both the Word of God and the history of the church" (xxvii). "Our goal is to be true to His plan so that we may become the people He desires us to be and that the church may be all she is called to be" (xxix).
And let me also say that their definitions of things like "Pagan," "Pagan Christianity," and "Biblical" are carefully worded not to be simply dismissive of everything that had its origins in secular culture.
Chapter 1: Have We Really Been Doing It By the Book
The opening illustration is a guy who yells at his family trying to get them ready for church. They get to church late. Then they all have to smile and pretend they're happy while listening to a boring sermon about how "We at First Bible New Testament Community Church do everything by this book! Everything!" (3).
I'm assuming this image will resonate with a lot of American Christians? I certainly get the morning get to church panic. Actually, it applies in my family more in relation to getting to school. Obviously a pagan rather than a Christian problem. The problem--the institutional church! Naw, I don't think so. The problem--take a chill pill Dad and take a class in family management.
I do remember churches where what you wear and being on time is all important. Maybe they are the vast majority. The take away--Down with the institutional church! Naw, I don't think so. The take away is for a whole lot of people to get their priorities straight.
Sorry, my church isn't like that. People wear jeans and shorts and T-shirts if they want to. Those for whom dressing up is a (cultural) expression of God's holiness dress up--and shame on anyone who tells them they can't do this.
Are there people who look askance at the Schenck family if they're late? Probably. Maybe I need to pray about my attitude toward them because my thought is usually, you shallow loser for thinking that matters one iota. The institutional church the problem? Naw, I don't think so.
More importantly, Viola assumes throughout that the pastor is right about doing it solely by the book. He thinks the problem is that the pastor is not doing it by the book. Again, this pastor (and therefore Viola) at least borders on being the ignorant one.
When we look at the addresses on the Bible is says it was written to someone called (ancient) Israel and someone called "the churches of Galatia" and "to those who are at Rome." No one alive today is the actual audience of these books. And guess what, they were people embedded in a culture. It is impossible to extract yourself from culture, from "paganism." Paganism as Viola defines it will always, of necessity, of the nature of the case, always be inextricably intertwined with the business of being Christian, even of being an "organic" Christian.
So the biblical message is already thoroughly "pagan" in his sense, culturally embedded. And we don't go strictly "by the Book" because the living out of the gospel in their cultures (plural) has to be translated into living out the gospel in our cultures (plural).
Certainly Viola recognizes this to some extent. He says things a little like this in his notes. But the premise of the book seems to deny his acknowledgement as it gets into the details.
We'll see.
Introduction
So Barna's introduction is more build up. There is a great sense of foreboding. The "institutional" church is in great crisis. It is like a plane that got slightly of course and has been flying for so long that it's way off course. It's like a cow that zig zagged, then a dog followed, then sheep, then horses, then people, then roads were built and cities and we're wasting thousands of miles of travel because we're stuck in that cow's rut.
What horrible shape we must be in! Sounds like Viola and Barna are the Luther and Calvin of the day, here to bring about a new Reformation!
Let me say, for all my tongue and cheek above, that their goal is great, to "get in touch with both the Word of God and the history of the church" (xxvii). "Our goal is to be true to His plan so that we may become the people He desires us to be and that the church may be all she is called to be" (xxix).
And let me also say that their definitions of things like "Pagan," "Pagan Christianity," and "Biblical" are carefully worded not to be simply dismissive of everything that had its origins in secular culture.
Chapter 1: Have We Really Been Doing It By the Book
The opening illustration is a guy who yells at his family trying to get them ready for church. They get to church late. Then they all have to smile and pretend they're happy while listening to a boring sermon about how "We at First Bible New Testament Community Church do everything by this book! Everything!" (3).
I'm assuming this image will resonate with a lot of American Christians? I certainly get the morning get to church panic. Actually, it applies in my family more in relation to getting to school. Obviously a pagan rather than a Christian problem. The problem--the institutional church! Naw, I don't think so. The problem--take a chill pill Dad and take a class in family management.
I do remember churches where what you wear and being on time is all important. Maybe they are the vast majority. The take away--Down with the institutional church! Naw, I don't think so. The take away is for a whole lot of people to get their priorities straight.
Sorry, my church isn't like that. People wear jeans and shorts and T-shirts if they want to. Those for whom dressing up is a (cultural) expression of God's holiness dress up--and shame on anyone who tells them they can't do this.
Are there people who look askance at the Schenck family if they're late? Probably. Maybe I need to pray about my attitude toward them because my thought is usually, you shallow loser for thinking that matters one iota. The institutional church the problem? Naw, I don't think so.
More importantly, Viola assumes throughout that the pastor is right about doing it solely by the book. He thinks the problem is that the pastor is not doing it by the book. Again, this pastor (and therefore Viola) at least borders on being the ignorant one.
When we look at the addresses on the Bible is says it was written to someone called (ancient) Israel and someone called "the churches of Galatia" and "to those who are at Rome." No one alive today is the actual audience of these books. And guess what, they were people embedded in a culture. It is impossible to extract yourself from culture, from "paganism." Paganism as Viola defines it will always, of necessity, of the nature of the case, always be inextricably intertwined with the business of being Christian, even of being an "organic" Christian.
So the biblical message is already thoroughly "pagan" in his sense, culturally embedded. And we don't go strictly "by the Book" because the living out of the gospel in their cultures (plural) has to be translated into living out the gospel in our cultures (plural).
Certainly Viola recognizes this to some extent. He says things a little like this in his notes. But the premise of the book seems to deny his acknowledgement as it gets into the details.
We'll see.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Pagan Christianity 1
I thought I might aim to read through Frank Viola and George Barna's book Pagan Christianity on Thursdays for a while. While I expect to disagree with it greatly, it is no doubt an important respresentation of where a whole lot of the church is today. That begs us to ask, what truth about the church does this book embody, even if I believe we should strongly disagree with a lot of the specifics of what it says. I am also proud to say that Frank Viola is my friend on Facebook. :-)
I start today with the Preface and Acknowledgements by Viola. First, I have enjoyed the interspersed quotes. They've picked some great ones.
In the Preface, Viola gives the main point of the book: "the church in its contemporary, institutional form has neither a biblical nor a historical right to function as it does" (xx). On the following page, he makes a more modest claim, "those who have left the fold of institutional Christianity to become part of an organic church have a historical right to exist--since history demonstrates that many practices of the institutional church are not rooted in Scripture."
I don't think I have a problem with the right of "organic" churches to exist. He defines an organic church as "a church that is born out of spiritual life instead of constructed by human institutions and held together by religious programs. Organic churches are characterized by Spirit-led, open-participatory meetings and nonhierarchical leadership" (xix). I don't have a problem with the house church movement in general. I will certainly grant to organic churches the right to exist. :-)
However, in practice a group of individuals just going with the flow of the "Spirit" might just as easily turn out to be a group that commits mass suicide to join a passing comet. What Viola and Barna don't realize is that what keeps the house church movement sane is as much its Christian subconscious as its use of the Bible itself. Nothing in the Bible itself will keep you from going off with David Koresh. Such groups certainly would claim to be Spirit-led. In practice, more than anything else, even more than the text of the Bible itself, it is our inherited Christian glasses that keep us on track. And these glasses would not wrongly be called "tradition."
Viola and Barna are not aware of their own glasses while they are in the process of enlightening the rest of us hoping that "every literate Christian would read this work" (xx) so they can be rescued from their ignorance.
Viola begins his preface with a "parable" involving Jesus, Pharisees, and Sadducees. I call it a parable not because Viola does, but to highlight the fact that he is passing on to us a tradition on how to interpret Jesus' interaction with "characters" in the story called Pharisees and Sadducees. No doubt most of Viola's readers will be familiar with the "tradition of the contemporary elders" that he passes on.
Pharisees are those who added to Scripture. Sadducees are those who took away from Scripture. Both of them took steps to put the Son of God to death. Let he who has ears to hear, hear. The interpretation is that those in the "institutional" church oppose the spirit of Jesus by adding "reams" of things that are not in the Bible. Meanwhile, there are many practices of the early church that the institutional church has removed from its practice.
Why do I call this a Violian parable? Because it is a (contemporary) traditional interpretation of the Pharisees and Sadducees that goes well beyond the Bible. For example, it is true that Jesus and Paul disagreed with the Sadducees on the topic of resurrection. But nowhere in the Bible is the objection made to the Sadducees that they take things out of Scripture. The objection is to what they teach (e.g., Matt. 16:12). In other words, Viola is following traditions of his own outside the Bible without knowing it. I don't have a problem with it--he does.
As a matter of fact, although Viola can claim some good scholars behind his understanding of the Sadducees, the idea that they did not believe in angels and restricted Scripture to the Law are both a matter of significant debate among scholars. Both of these claims are based on single statements (e.g., Acts 23:8), the meaning of which is genuinely ambiguous.
On the matter of the resurrection, it is important to point out that on this issue the Sadducees were actually more Scriptural than the Pharisees, since only one passage in the Old Testament points to resurrection (Dan. 12:2) and many deny it (e.g., Job 14:14). The Sadducees thus represent with the Old Testament Scriptures the approach that Viola and Barna are advocating!
With regard to the Pharisees, it is true that they had traditions on how to keep Scripture. So do we! Because the Bible does not address every possible situation that might occur--indeed, the overwhelming majority of decisions we must make in life are not addressed in the Bible--we are forced to apply more general biblical statements to the specifics of our world and situation.
Is Viola against abortion or pornography or pre-marital sex. These are appropriate Christian beliefs. But the Bible has no verse against abortion. Indeed, the only explicit comment on the death of an unborn child (Exod. 21:22) involves a fine in distinction from "serious injury" that might occur to the mother. The oft quoted Matthew 5:28 as a prohibition of lust was about adultery and thus is not about unmarried individuals lusting after each other. And it would be difficult to find any explicit prohibition of pre-marital sex in the Bible other than an assumed expectation for women to be virgins when they married.
What I am saying is that the common Christian prohibitions on things like abortion, pornography, and pre-marital sex is appropriate Christian working out of basic principles in life that is exactly the kind of "tradition of the elders" that the Pharisees generated over time. Jesus criticizes them sometimes for what they add and especially for the misplaced emphasis of their worst representatives.
But in Matthew 23:3 he tells the crowds to obey their teaching. He affirms their tithing of mint, spice, and cummin (23:23)--which is added tradition on how to tithe. And perhaps even more significantly, Paul identifies himself as a Pharisee in the present tense in Acts 23:6.
My point is that before the book even begins, in Viola's preface, he has already demonstrated a penchant to interpret Scripture within a tradition, and the impossibility to apply it without in a sense "adding" to it.
This is going to be fun!
I start today with the Preface and Acknowledgements by Viola. First, I have enjoyed the interspersed quotes. They've picked some great ones.
In the Preface, Viola gives the main point of the book: "the church in its contemporary, institutional form has neither a biblical nor a historical right to function as it does" (xx). On the following page, he makes a more modest claim, "those who have left the fold of institutional Christianity to become part of an organic church have a historical right to exist--since history demonstrates that many practices of the institutional church are not rooted in Scripture."
I don't think I have a problem with the right of "organic" churches to exist. He defines an organic church as "a church that is born out of spiritual life instead of constructed by human institutions and held together by religious programs. Organic churches are characterized by Spirit-led, open-participatory meetings and nonhierarchical leadership" (xix). I don't have a problem with the house church movement in general. I will certainly grant to organic churches the right to exist. :-)
However, in practice a group of individuals just going with the flow of the "Spirit" might just as easily turn out to be a group that commits mass suicide to join a passing comet. What Viola and Barna don't realize is that what keeps the house church movement sane is as much its Christian subconscious as its use of the Bible itself. Nothing in the Bible itself will keep you from going off with David Koresh. Such groups certainly would claim to be Spirit-led. In practice, more than anything else, even more than the text of the Bible itself, it is our inherited Christian glasses that keep us on track. And these glasses would not wrongly be called "tradition."
Viola and Barna are not aware of their own glasses while they are in the process of enlightening the rest of us hoping that "every literate Christian would read this work" (xx) so they can be rescued from their ignorance.
Viola begins his preface with a "parable" involving Jesus, Pharisees, and Sadducees. I call it a parable not because Viola does, but to highlight the fact that he is passing on to us a tradition on how to interpret Jesus' interaction with "characters" in the story called Pharisees and Sadducees. No doubt most of Viola's readers will be familiar with the "tradition of the contemporary elders" that he passes on.
Pharisees are those who added to Scripture. Sadducees are those who took away from Scripture. Both of them took steps to put the Son of God to death. Let he who has ears to hear, hear. The interpretation is that those in the "institutional" church oppose the spirit of Jesus by adding "reams" of things that are not in the Bible. Meanwhile, there are many practices of the early church that the institutional church has removed from its practice.
Why do I call this a Violian parable? Because it is a (contemporary) traditional interpretation of the Pharisees and Sadducees that goes well beyond the Bible. For example, it is true that Jesus and Paul disagreed with the Sadducees on the topic of resurrection. But nowhere in the Bible is the objection made to the Sadducees that they take things out of Scripture. The objection is to what they teach (e.g., Matt. 16:12). In other words, Viola is following traditions of his own outside the Bible without knowing it. I don't have a problem with it--he does.
As a matter of fact, although Viola can claim some good scholars behind his understanding of the Sadducees, the idea that they did not believe in angels and restricted Scripture to the Law are both a matter of significant debate among scholars. Both of these claims are based on single statements (e.g., Acts 23:8), the meaning of which is genuinely ambiguous.
On the matter of the resurrection, it is important to point out that on this issue the Sadducees were actually more Scriptural than the Pharisees, since only one passage in the Old Testament points to resurrection (Dan. 12:2) and many deny it (e.g., Job 14:14). The Sadducees thus represent with the Old Testament Scriptures the approach that Viola and Barna are advocating!
With regard to the Pharisees, it is true that they had traditions on how to keep Scripture. So do we! Because the Bible does not address every possible situation that might occur--indeed, the overwhelming majority of decisions we must make in life are not addressed in the Bible--we are forced to apply more general biblical statements to the specifics of our world and situation.
Is Viola against abortion or pornography or pre-marital sex. These are appropriate Christian beliefs. But the Bible has no verse against abortion. Indeed, the only explicit comment on the death of an unborn child (Exod. 21:22) involves a fine in distinction from "serious injury" that might occur to the mother. The oft quoted Matthew 5:28 as a prohibition of lust was about adultery and thus is not about unmarried individuals lusting after each other. And it would be difficult to find any explicit prohibition of pre-marital sex in the Bible other than an assumed expectation for women to be virgins when they married.
What I am saying is that the common Christian prohibitions on things like abortion, pornography, and pre-marital sex is appropriate Christian working out of basic principles in life that is exactly the kind of "tradition of the elders" that the Pharisees generated over time. Jesus criticizes them sometimes for what they add and especially for the misplaced emphasis of their worst representatives.
But in Matthew 23:3 he tells the crowds to obey their teaching. He affirms their tithing of mint, spice, and cummin (23:23)--which is added tradition on how to tithe. And perhaps even more significantly, Paul identifies himself as a Pharisee in the present tense in Acts 23:6.
My point is that before the book even begins, in Viola's preface, he has already demonstrated a penchant to interpret Scripture within a tradition, and the impossibility to apply it without in a sense "adding" to it.
This is going to be fun!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
