Yesterday’s post concerned the “Preface” (not the introduction… too many introductory sections in books these days). Today, I’m going to comment on the actual “Introduction” which is by the co-author, George Barna.

I struggle to comment on this introduction by Barna because, once again, I believe him to be sincere and, in no way do I wish to belittle him or his intentions. It is obvious through their comments that both Barna and Viola are intending to “wake up” the church from what they perceive to be a great hindrance to the furtherance of the Gospel and the life of the Christian. I may not agree with where they end up, but their sincerity and desire to bring people into closer relationship with Christ is not what I question – it’s the conclusions that I question.

Sometimes, when we have a personal experience that draws us nearer to our Lord we want to tell everyone about what we’ve experienced and then eagerly explain to them how we got where we were. Sometimes this experience is echoed by many and we undergo a paradigm shift. We begin to seek whether or not we have happened onto something that is revolutionary or unique. There are rarely experiences or means of approaching God that are wholly unique… most everything is shared by someone.

I do not say this to accuse the authors of this directly, nor would I be so crass as to say that men with their experience are blind to this possibility in themselves, but the introduction by Barna begins with language that leaves no room for disagreement until the very end (and then somewhat weakly). While there is no doubt that there are many Christians who have, indeed, experienced a deepening of their faith as they abandon the traditional church for the organic church; the entire introduction (except for the closing paragraphs) is written matter-of-factly as if the fact that the wrongness of the practices of the contemporary church are a foregone conclusion (prior to the citation of any evidence).

You could say I’m being harsh and, after all, Barna obviously believes in the thesis strongly so, of course his language would tend towards treating the thesis as fact. Perhaps so, but I don’t really get the impression that he thinks anyone can disagree due to the “preponderance of evidence” (yet to be cited). Right now (not having read everything), I get the impression that they found something they thought was true and went looking for evidence to prove it.

The primary opinion I take to task in this introduction is the following paragraph:

The recent story of the Christian church in America is a great example of this [forgetting to remember the past, we are doomed to repeat it]. The major changes in spiritual practice over the past half century have been largely window dressings. Pick a trend – mega-churches, seeker churches, satellite campuses, vacation Bible school, children’s church, affinity group ministries (e.g., ministries for singles, women, men, young marrieds), contemporary worship music, big-screen projection systems, EFT giving, cell groups, downloadable sermons, sermon outlines in bulletins, Alpha groups. All of the above have simply been attempts to rely on marketing strategies to perform the same activities in different ways or places, or with particular segments of the aggregate population. Whatever difficulties were present in the larger institutional setting that spawned these efforts are invariably present in the smaller or divergent efforts as well.
(p. xxvii)

Now, that’s a mouthful. It’s also wrong. See any room for disagreement? Nope – it’s a statement of fact. What’s convenient is that there’s no way to prove this because it’s subjective. All of the above is “window dressing?” All of the above is simply “marketing strategy?” This paragraph is a gross over-generalization. While it is true that some churches do use the above list as a marketing strategy… many do not. Some of the items in the list above are cultural or mere tools and should not be lumped into this list. Here are a few criticisms I have about his “list”:

  1. Downloadable sermons… really? Come on – you can have a problem with the concept of a sermon, but leave it at that – just because the sermon you already have a problem with is now downloadable is no more a marketing technique than Paul writing a letter because he couldn’t physically be there.
  2. Contemporary worship music? Is music forbidden in the church? Of course not. Is worship music forbidden? Of course not. So… how is that music being “contemporary” (which, by the way, means “from the present time”) suddenly a marketing technique or “window dressing?” Unless Barna is espousing the Regulative Principle and actually does believe that instrumental music is forbidden in a gathering of believers (I doubt that he is).
  3. Big-screen projectors? Goodness… so, if everyone uses a sheet they hold in their hand, it’s okay? If someone has a picture or graph or chart to share with people that shows some key thing in a visual way, they just make copies? Or is it okay to have an overhead when a child of God writes a new song they want to share with the organic gathering? Or, in the name of being Biblical and pure, is the songwriter relegated to singing it 20 times until everyone learns it?

I think you get my point. Now, I share some of his concerns (I think) – I have concerns about affinity groups, seeker churches, children’s churches, and absentee tithing. But I won’t call them “window dressings” or mere marketing techniques.