Barna Report on Christianity’s Contribution to Society

Posted on October 25, 2010 by rbirkey

The Barna Group has just added a survey report to their website entitled “Americans Say Serving the Needy is Christianity’s Biggest Contribution to Society.” Some interesting results from the survey that I found interesting:

“In response to an open-ended question… one out of every five adults (19%) mentioned how Christians in the United States have helped poor or underprivileged people to have a better life.”

“The most frequent response, however, was the inability to think of a single positive contribution made by Christians in recent years. One out of every four respondents (25%) said they could not recall anything of this nature. Skeptics (34%), unchurched adults (33%), and Independent voters (29%) were more likely than other people to fall into this response category.”

The survey also pointed out some interesting patterns and connections.

Although many churches are worried about offending people by sharing the gospel, less than 1% of the population complained that Christians are too aggressive in their evangelistic efforts. This corresponds with recent Barna studies that have shown that relatively few Christians discuss their faith with non-Christians in ways intended to encourage non-believers to adopt the Christian faith.
The people who seemed least aware of either the positive or negative contributions of Christians were the largest segment of Christians: Notionals. Along with the unchurched, Notional Christians were the segment most likely to not be able to identify either a positive or negative contribution of American Christians. Notionals currently represent about half of all Christians in the U.S.
Most of the non-Christian segments of the population cited serving the poor and underprivileged as the best thing that Christians have done.
Overall, there was a more extensive and diverse list of complaints about Christians and their churches than there was of examples of the benefits they have provided to society.
It is ironic that Baby Boomers – the generation famous for Woodstock, sexual liberation, the rise of recreational drug use, introducing the culture of narcissism, and the explosion in the number of divorces – was also the generation most likely to applaud the morals and values that Christians have stood for in the U.S.

I had never heard the term “Notional” Christians before. “Notional Christians” are defined as those who consider themselves to be Christian but do not meet the born again criteria: made a personal commitment to Christ that is important in their life today and believe they will go to Heaven after they die because they confessed their sins and accepted Jesus Christ as their savior.

Some Personal Thoughts

It seems to me that perhaps Evangelicals have over reacted to the very small percentage in our society who complain about evangelistic efforts (less than 1%). Perhaps we need to be more bold in our willingness and approach to share our faith with others?

Perhaps my generation (Baby Boomers) applaud the morals and values that Christians have stood for because we are now reaping the consequences of the choices we made, and are realizing what moral bankruptcy produces?

The “Notionals” who are unable to identify either a positive or negative contribution of American Christians are living out their label. They seem to have no “notion” about what it means to be a Christian (a follower or imitator of Jesus Christ). I wish they would realize this and either become a real follower, or find another term for themselves other than “Christian.” It is people who call themselves “Christian” but who do not live like a “little Christ” that confuse the meaning of the term and make it harder on those who are serious about following Christ.

Chapter 2: Temples, Priests, and Sacrifices

Posted on April 13, 2008 by rbirkey

Temples, Priests, and Sacrifices

Continuing in Chapter 2 of Pagan Christianity? authors Frank Viola and George Barna point out that the Old Testament Hebrews had a faith experience centered around the Temple, the priesthood and the sacrifice. But Jesus fulfilled all three of these by becoming the “Temple” made without hands, the final high priest who has made each believer a priest, and he became the final, perfect, sacrifice. He thus ended all three of these Old Testament practices.

The Greeks and Romans at the time of the early church also had temples, priests and sacrifices. The early church was the first non-temple religion ever to emerge. To the early believers, they themselves were the temple or house of God. Nowhere in the New Testament writings is the word church (ecclesia) used to refer to a building or a place. To “go to church” would have been a foreign thought to a first century believer.

We first see an example of the word ecclesia used to refer to a building in AD 190 by Clement of Alexandria. But even here it refers to a private home used for Christian meetings.

New Testament scholar Graydon F. Snyder writes:

“There is no literary evidence nor archeological indication that any such home was converted into an extant church building. Nor is there any extant church that certainly was built prior to Constantine. The first churches consistently met in homes. Until the year 300 we know of no buildings first built as churches.”

The early church also did not have a priestly tribe or caste. They understood that every believer was a priest unto God and encouraged each other to act and worship accordingly. They each brought sacrifices of praise, thanksgiving and their very selves in worship to God.

It was much later, when Roman Catholicism evolved in the 4th to 6th centuries, that a professional priesthood was started, they erected sacred buildings, and turned the Lord’s Supper into a mysterious sacrificial event. Later, the Protestants dropped the sacrificial use of the Lord’s Supper (as it should have), but it unfortunately retained the priestly caste and the sacred church building concepts to this day.

In my own mind, I find it incredible that many in the church today still hang onto the remnants of this kind of thinking. Our houses of worship are not any more holy than any other place, including our own homes, or public buildings, schools, bars, and the like. Holiness and sacredness have nothing to do with physical things or places. Separating the secular and sacred was a gnostic idea, a heresy that the early church constantly battled. Ascribing sacred or holy qualities to objects of any kind is idolatry.

I also find our modern ideas surrounding what we call pastors or elders hard to square with the New Testament. The idea of a hierarchy of leadership with a “senior” pastor, or “head” elder along with associate or junior pastors and leaders is not in the New Testament. Elders and pastors were regular church members who were gifted in leadership and other teaching and pastoring gifts. Since these gifts were given by the Holy Spirit, the individuals so gifted were acknowledged and expected to function using their gifts for the edification (building up) of the body. They had no concept of these words (pastor, elder, bishop) describing an organizational position or a separate category of holiness. Jesus Christ was considered the only “head” of the church.

In my opinion, our modern traditions and expectations about the “senior pastor” position are more similar the the Roman Catholic “priest” idea than to the New Testament concept and practice. Others have called this phenomenon the “pedestal complex” (Chuck Colson and others) and have written and spoken extensively about the inherent dangers. In the New Testament, all believers are saints, priests, and uniquely gifted by the Holy Spirit to function and serve in the body of Christ. No one is more important or necessary than another. All are equal in Christ… this is the message of the Gospel.

When we put pastors, elders or other church leaders in a special category, or up on a pedestal as it were – consciously or subconsciously – we are practicing another form of idolatry.

Finally, I am also pained by the somber, joyless and introspective manner in which we often focus on the Lord’s Supper. What happened to experiencing it as an actual meal (as the original was) and a body life celebration or a “love feast?” Why have we abandoned that tradition of the early church? When Paul wrote to the Corinthians about their excesses in it, he never suggested that they discontinue the love feast altogether!

I my mind’s eye I can imagine a group of believers gathered around a meal in a home, weaving together fellowship, prayer, song, thanksgiving, confession, and scripture reading, as they also share bread and wine to remember what Jesus Christ did on their behalf. I hear responses in laughter, quiet reflection or prayer as well as the whole range of human emotion and expression as they “do this in remembrance of me.”

I find myself longing for that experience.

Chapter 2: The Church Building – Inheriting the Edifice Complex

Posted on April 13, 2008 by rbirkey

Well, here we go. Chapter Two of Pagan Christianity? deals with the first specific example of a pagan practice adopted by the church. That being the idea that the church is a building or a place. The authors point out the love affair we tend to have with brick and mortar. When Christians begin to meet and form a new church, most of the time they think they must secure a building.

Furthermore, the idea is so ingrained we unconsciously equate the two ideas without thinking:

“Wow! Look at that beautiful church we just passed!”
“We have gone to church every Sunday for the last three years.”
“Isn’t it great to be in the House of the Lord this morning?”
“We must show reverence when we enter the sanctuary of the Lord.”

The authors make the statement that none of these type of statements or ideas have anything to do with New Testament Christianity.

I have to agree. The church is people.

Chapter One: Have We Really Been Doing It By The Book?

Posted on March 16, 2008 by rbirkey

Frank and George open up this first official chapter of the book Pagan Christianity? with a story which reminds me of the way Patrick Lencioni writes his books. The fictional story style pulls you in and gives you a more or less “real life” scenario to relate to as the main idea is introduced. Their story is of a typical Christian family and how they bicker, fight and get on each others nerves as they get ready to “go to church.” Then, once at “the church” they put on a different persona as if nothing is wrong, and go through the motions of being a “perfect” family. The husband/father named Winchester, starts thinking about all this during the sermon and then wonders if the pastor ever has a morning like his. Pastor Farley passionately claims in his sermon that “their church does everything by the book!” Yet Winchester sits and wonders if the Bible ever mentioned that people should dress up for church. This train of thought just snowballs into many other questions like: Why do my kids hate Sunday School? Why do we go through the same predictable ritual every Sunday morning? Why do I wear this uncomfortable necktie every Sunday morning when all it does is cut off blood circulation?

Coming out of the story, the authors state that:

“As startling as it may sound, almost everything that is done in our contemporary churches has no basis in the Bible.” And that “precious little… maps to anything found in the first century church.”

Questions We Never Think To Ask

It was the Greek philosopher Socrates (470-399 BC) who invented the Socratic method also known as the dialectic. He believed that truth is found by dialoguing and relentlessly questioning a particular issue. It was his habit of doing this – especially of long held traditions – that eventually got him killed for “corrupting the youth” of Athens. He was not alone. Many others have given their lives for similar reasons including Isaiah, John the Baptist and Jesus. Many thousands more have been martyred over the centuries for asking hard questions in pursuit of truth.

Christians today are typically encouraged by our leaders to believe, think and behave in certain ways. We are encouraged to read our Bibles, but usually through a particular lens of tradition (Baptist, Reformed, charismatic, etc.). We are taught to never challenge those traditional teachings, or if we do, to run the risk of being labeled heretics, be shunned from leadership or membership, or be accused of fomenting disunity, and leading God’s people astray. (I Randy, have personally seen and experienced some of this over the years.)

However, at this point in the chapter, Viola and Barna issue an amazing statement to all those who feel their rebellious spirits (including mine) rising to the surface. “We do not stand with you. Our advice: Either leave your church quietly, refusing to cause division, or be at peace with it. There is a vast gulf between rebellion and taking a stand for what is true.”

Instead, the authors invite the reader to ask the tough questions about why we do the things we do, and to discover where those traditions came from. Most Christians that claim to know The Book, and order their lives by it, have have never really explored this topic, and are not conscious of the non-biblical roots of many things that are often passed off as “Christian.”

A Terrifying Invitation

So, Viola and Barna invite the reader to the “untrodden path.” The path of asking tough questions. They claim that as you read their book, you will be surprised at how little of our modern ideas and practices of doing church are actually from Jesus, the Apostles or the Scriptures. Most of it was lifted right out of pagan culture. We think of pagans today as those who practice no religion at all, but the early Christians understood them to be polytheists, who followed the gods of the Romans. It was this brand of paganism that dominated the world at the time of Christ and into the 4th century, during which many of its elements were absorbed by the church. Two other periods stand out as times of great influence on our current church practices: The Reformation, and the Revivalist era in the 18th and 19th centuries.

In this book, chapters 2 – 10 will each trace a currently and widely accepted church practice. Not only will each chapter reveal where the practice originated, but more importantly, how it hampers the healthy functioning of Christ’s body (the church) today.

“Warning: If you are unwilling to have your Christianity seriously examined, do not read beyond this page. Give this book to Goodwill immediately! Spare yourself the trouble of having your Christian life turned upside down.”

The authors rephrase this warning in a couple more ways. If you are in the institutional church, this book may lead to a crisis of conscience. If you tend to resonate with Christian experience outside the institutional church, you may be encouraged as you discover that history and Scripture may stand with you more than you knew.

PERSONAL REFLECTION

As you know by now, if you are reading this blog… I took the challenge and plunged ahead with the rest of the book. I would have to say that I am at heart more of a rebel, and tend toward a questioning and analytical mind. This is why I ended up outside the institutional church in a “house church” during the 1970′s and into the 80′s. This is where I first experienced and came to appreciate “body life,” “small groups” and “contemporary worship.” I have often reflected on the events that lead to this development in my life, and can see how God used it to draw me to Himself. Otherwise, I fear that I was headed toward a rejection of Christianity and the church due to some very negative experiences I had witnessed within it.

After marriage we ended up at a small urban church (without a building) for a number of years, and then we migrated back into the more institutional church as our kids got older. We have been fairly happy in it for over 10 years. However, in the last couple of years I have sensed a new restlessness and dissatisfaction with some of the negative sides of it. Change is so very hard, long and difficult. The typical hierarchies of leadership I have seen to be unhealthy and damaging to people. It is very difficult to foster a new vision for being the church in a community that needs the church to be all that God intended. I am worn out with all the programs and activities required for involvement.

And so, given these inner urgings, this book is tapping into my roots and the experiences I once had in a more organic and non-institutional church setting. It is igniting a hunger and a fire to regain what has been lost, and to reshape it within the urban culture I find myself in at the beginning of the 21st century.

It was Francis Schaeffer who said that,

“Each generation of the church in each setting has the responsibility of communicating the gospel in understandable terms, considering the language and thought-forms of that setting.”

I believe this why the book Pagan Christianity? is so important. It raises the foundational questions and issues that the church must face if it is to communicate the gospel in the language and thought forms of current post-modern and post-Christian America. All we need do is look at Europe, the birthplace of the Reformation, to see what will happen if we don’t.

Helping to lead “contemporary worship” in a 1973 house church

Evangelistic Atheists

Posted on June 11, 2007 by rbirkey

Recently, George Barna has conducted a survey and published results that reveals an emerging movement of atheists and agnostics who are intentionally and aggressively making a united effort to belittle people of faith, and discredit their personal beliefs in God. For the study, atheists were defined as people who have determined there is no God and agnostics are those who doubt his existence.

This new survey shows some alarming gaps between Christians and other people of “active-faith” (defined as simply having gone to church, read the Bible and prayed during the week preceding the survey.) and those Americans who are in the “no-faith” camp. According to the study, “most atheists and agnostics (56%) agree with the idea that radical Christianity is just as threatening in America as is radical Islam.” Wow! This view is so misguided it is frightening!

The study also reveals that, “two-thirds of Christians (63%) who have an active faith perceive that the nation is becoming more hostile and negative toward Christianity. ” No kidding! I wonder where they get that idea?

As a Christian who believes in God, I have a difficult time with the misguided belief that my faith is “just as threatening in America as is radical Islam.” Where do these people get this idea? How many Christians have committed acts of terror? How many people have had their heads cut off in the name of Jesus? How many people really believe that people are being tortured, mutilated, humiliated and murdered by fanatic, fundamentalist Christians? Where do the atheists and agnostics in this survey get these warped ideas?

I fear that it is partially due to our “news media,” which loves to paint a negative biased picture of people of faith on a regular basis in print, on the radio and in mass media. The “entertainment” industry also does this on a regular basis in movies, TV shows and in music.

Then there is the realm of politics, where public servants who profess a belief in God are maligned, slandered and denigrated by those of a more “liberal” and “progressive” party or label. Their views and even their very right to serve the citizens they represent, is questioned.

So, we know the caricatures that are widely promoted in the public arena. But the facts bear out a different picture when the lifestyles of “no-faith” people are compared with people of “active faith.”

People of “no-faith” are:
• Less likely than active-faith Americans to be registered to vote (78% versus 89%)
• Less likely to volunteer to help a non-church-related non-profit (20% versus 30%)
• Less likely to describe themselves as “active in the community” (41% versus 68%)
• Less likely to personally help or serve a homeless or poor person (41% versus 61%)
• More likely to be registered to vote as an independent or with a non-mainstream political party

Another glaring difference between the groups is the paltry amount of money that “no-faith” people donate to charitable causes. In 2006, the average “no-faith” American donated just $200, and “active-faith” Americans averaged $1,500. If you subtract church based giving from these figures, “active-faith” adults still donated twice as much as atheists and agnostics. Looking at it a bit differently, just 7% of active-faith adults failed to contribute any personal funds in 2006, compared with 22% among the no-faith adults.

So, I ask… which group generally does more good for our society, especially toward those who need help… the poor and needy? Which group exhibits good citizenship, care for others and involvement in our society? Which group actually more often practices what it preaches? Which group contributes less toward the common good?