My take on it may be a bit different than that of my colleagues. I haven’t subscriber to a “hard copy” newspaper in more than 20 years, but I do review the headlines (and read the appealing stories) of 7 newspapers every morning via RSS feeds. If those publications were to vanish, it’d certainly be a loss for me, though perhaps not insurmountable – emphasis on “perhaps” for a reason I’ll explain.

What concerns me the most, though, is that our society seems to be headed toward greater reliance on the Internet for news from sources that are disconnected to any kind of vetting entity. I trust the Los Angeles Times, New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, USA Today and other newspapers because I know they have a process of fact checking. They still get many things wrong, and the ideological bias each builds into their stories is undeniable, but at least I know it’s there and what slant to look for. If those publications die and instead I have to rely upon an endless series of untethered, unaccountable individuals and small organizations to provide current news, the chance of getting reliable reporting is greatly diminished.

In a world where almost everyone is a publisher and accuracy takes a back seat to immediacy, number of eyeballs attracted, independence, and personal expression, it will be hard to know what to believe. This has been driven home to me lately by the avalanche of misinformation about me – the only source of information whose veracity I can affirm without question – that I have come across in just the past few weeks. Here are a few examples.

“According to George Barna and his group of pollsters: 86% of Americans claim to be born again…”

Whoa, I would never even report that 86% of people in churches on Sunday are born again!

“Barna predicts that within 20 years, this House Churching group – one that he refers to as “Revolutionaries” – will comprise nearly 70% of U.S. Christians, leaving only 30-35 percent (primarily, aging Christians) in traditional church settings.”

Yikes! I have never provided any prediction about the percentage of people who will be in house churches at any given time in the future. Further, “revolutionaries” refers to a person’s commitment to their faith, not the type of faith community to which they belong. I think I know the data this reporter was drawing from, but he radically sliced and diced it in inappropriate ways and put words in my mouth that I would never say – and that nobody I know of can reasonally support.

“I just heard a George Barna stat about this recently less than 2% of the churches will hear their pastor preach a message on the Holy Spirit this year. Its alarming.”

It sure is alarming – although I’m not sure if it’s more alarming that this bogus statistic is attributed to me, or that this idea might have some basis in reality.

“According to a study done by the Barna Group, when a Chinese House Church pastor or leader is arrested or killed, the house church may disband, but out of it will form 5 other House Churches.”

It’s not bad enough that so much bogus research is attributed to me in the U.S. – now we have the digitali claiming that I have conducted research in China! I have visited China once in my life (last year) and I conducted no surveys while there.

George Barna taught for years at C. Peter Wagner’s Wagner Leadership Institute, and his writing appears in “Evangelism and Church Growth: Reference Library” published by Regal books, with contributions from the following notable authors: Elmer L. Towns, George Barna, C. Peter Wagner, Ted Haggard, Ed Silvoso, Jack W. Hayford, and Larry Stockstill. There’s no doubt in my mind that Barna is involved in a re-marketing effort which seeks to put a friendlier gloss on neo-evangelicalism, because its historically anti-gay virulence turns off many millennials.

I taught at the Wagner Institute for years? Man, I’d better request some back pay! In actuality, I taught a course there once, about 15 years ago, and I think it last two or three days; it may only have seemed like years to those who had to take my class. (Note: I was never invited back.) And the notion that I am involved in a “re-marketing effort to put a friendlier gloss on neo-evangelicalism” – well, let’s just say nobody has ever accused me of putting a friendly face on anything! It is quite an acrobatic leap, however, to go from noting that one of my books was included on a CD-ROM more than a decade ago to assuming that by writing about research on evangelism 15 years ago I must now be engaged in the re-marketing of “neo-evangelicalsim,” whatever that is.

George Barna, founder of The Barna Group, a research firm that specializes in studying the religious beliefs and behavior of Americans, calls Alpha an “anointed program in God’s appointed time.” According to Barna, Alpha is for anyone who thinks there may be more to life than meets the eye. People attend from all backgrounds, religions and viewpoints, investigating questions about the existence of God, the purpose of life, the afterlife and the claims of Jesus. Some want to get beyond religion and find a relationship with God that changes their lives, others come for the close, long-lasting friendships that are built during the Alpha courses, he said. Barna said the Alpha Course is being presented in 130 countries, with 6,000 courses in the U.S. and 25, 000 worldwide.

Well, I was very pleased to read this about myself because prior to the release of that article I knew very little about the Alpha program. I was surprised to have endorsed a program about which I knew next-to-nothing; to boldly cite statistics about that same unknown program; and to add a marketing pitch to boot. I guess I am simply more clever than I realized.

We also suspect that Focus may be feeling the pull of George Barna’s polling research denigrating “religious right” activism…

I did research that denigrates “religious right activism”? That’s news to me. I recall doing research that encourages Christians to get more serious about their faith, but beyond that, this is another of those “you stumped me” claims.

Our Lord Jesus preached until He was left with only the twelve, and He had no qualms about that. He is Sovereign, even if the devil and George Barna would try to use statistics to prove to us otherwise.

Now hold on a minute. Granted, I have had some pretty bad business partners in a few companies I started outside of The Barna Group. And sure, there were days when I thought one or more of my business partners were Satan. But in all fairness, I have never partnered with the devil to use statistics questioning the sovereignty of God – if for no other reason than the recognition that the last person you want to tick off is the One who is sovereign.

These are just a few of the errant claims about my work that others have made on the Internet in the past two weeks. I shudder every time I try to imagine how many bogus research claims and ignorant analyses of my work have been made on the Web. If people butcher my work this way, what would an information universe without news groups tethered to a semblance of truth be like?

Bad information presented in the media is nothing new. That’s as old as media itself. But as the last unregulated frontier of influence, the Internet is both a blessing and a curse. I am praying that somehow we will figure out ways of identifying the good from the bad that appears on the Internet – and that we do so sooner rather than later. I fear that I won’t miss the smudgy print of newspapers, but I will miss news groups that have a tradition of making a good faith effort to report facts accurately and with some degree of integrity.

Recently someone sent me a review from the Internet of a book about two guys who love the local church and have decided that I don’t. I’d been aware of the existence of the book and had heard that it was rather insulting toward me and the research I’ve done over the last decade, in particular. One section of the review of the book said this:

“Both authors are out to mercilessly destroy all things related to George Barna. Well, not really, but Barna has been a champion of the ‘Christ without church’ cause, and I must say… they crush Barna.”

Admittedly, I was startled – and hurt – by that characterization. Somehow I have become the “champion of the Christ-without-church cause.” How did that happen? Yes, I wrote a book (Revolution) that states the Bible does not call us to “go to church” but to be the Church. That does not mean that we should never assemble with other believers to worship God, to serve others, to grow together or to share our faith with non-believers! To the contrary, the meaning of church is not a building with programs and events but a gathering of people who love Christ and want to honor Him through their lives. Attending a service at a conventional church may accomplish that – and, according to our research, often does not. The challenge is for us to convert our alleged beliefs into action in order for people to know us by our love and to enable them to evaluate us by the spiritual fruit we bear.

Americans–perhaps people everywhere, I don’t know–do have a tendency to shortcut the facts. Reporters regularly misquote people or present subjective perspectives under the guise of journalistic objectivity. Lawyers and politicians have elevated the practice of manipulating facts to fit their case to a fine art. And sadly, my own observation suggests that many pastors regularly abuse scriptural passages (e.g., proof texting) and data to further their arguments. And Christians, based on our studies, are often indistinguishable from everyone else when it comes to how we treat other people who disagree with us.

One of the most memorable pieces of correspondence I have ever received was from an internationally-known pastor who had written a smoldering book opposing a book I had written about church marketing. The odd thing was that I had attended the church he pastored for several years. He had taught with great passion about love and morality, including the importance of following scriptural commands. He taught at great length on Matthew 18:15-20 – how to handle disagreements with other believers. He rightly emphasized the importance of going to the other person first, to state the objection. But in the real world, when he disagreed with my book he simply wrote a negative, nasty book in response.

After the publication of his book, I wrote him a letter and asked why he never bothered to speak to me directly about his concerns prior to the release of his book, and how his approach was consistent with his teaching from the scriptures. His response was that books are a different matter. He even went so far as to say to me that if I couldn’t take the criticism, I shouldn’t write books. Of course, my issue wasn’t with criticism: it was with how he had handled it, especially after all his impassioned preaching about doing things biblically.

I cannot help but believe that if Christians were fastidious about their communications – getting the facts right, refusing to stretch the truth, speaking well of others, admitting to mistakes and errors – the public image of the Christian Church would be far better. But, as with any significant change, it must be a transition that occurs one person at a time. It has to start with me. And with you.

Since the beginning of Barna Group in 1984 we have adhered to several iron-clad rules, one of which is we never say anything negative about those with whom we disagree. If the content on which we disagree is of importance, we attempt to interact with them directly. If it’s a difference of opinion, we accept that distinction for what it is. At the very least, we feel obliged to treat everyone with respect and dignity, no matter how stupid their opinions are. (I just threw that in to see if you’re paying attention.)

You have never seen a negative book review from me – and you never will. If I dislike a book, I simply don’t bring the book to people’s attention. You have never heard me speak ugly about bad research conducted by others – and you never will. If someone produces garbage research, I simply ignore their work and rely, instead, upon studies that are valid.

I know I have mishandled some disagreements with people over the years, so I’m not pretending to be perfect. And even our policies described above may not be the ideal way of handling disagreements. But it seems more advisable for me to hold my tongue and allow God to discipline people–including me–rather than to become Heaven’s Sergeant-at-Arms on earth.

It is disheartening to witness (and experience) the hostility within the body of believers about differences in beliefs and practices. I know; some people believe they have figured it all out and feel they have been charged by God with making sure everyone sees things as they do. What a huge burden the Lord has placed on them!

But seriously, if the world is supposed to know us by our love, shouldn’t it begin with how we treat each other? Certainly there will be different perspectives and interpretations of things, but have we really been called to harm others–especially family members–in our quest for describing and defending the truth?

I am called by God to serve, but not by undermining other believers. And I do not believe that other individuals have been called by God to build a career by disparaging people with whom they disagree–despite publishers’ claims that “controversy sells” or the delight of media producers who get to air controversial points of view. Just because we can do something doesn’t always mean we should.

Let’s ignore the uninformed notion that because people meet in a house church that those assemblies are not “organized.” Let’s also ignore the fact that I never said “20,000 evangelicals won’t attend an organized church but are meeting in homes.” I am probably misquoted as frequently as I am correctly represented. Several times I have had the odd experience of visiting a church when the preacher, unaware of my presence, proceeded to base his sermon, in whole or part, upon a misquoting, misunderstanding, and misrepresentation of studies I have released. People often hear what they want to hear, and if it’s not quite what they need, they “tweak” it to better fit their presentation, without letting facts get in the way.

But I digress.

What bothers me most is the statement that people meeting in house churches “can become isolationist and cult-like.” The critical word in this accusation is “can.” Alternatively, is it possible that house churches can become places of genuine worship and loving outreach? Is it possible that house churches can represent the kingdom of God more effectively than conventional churches? What about the possibility of a conventional church becoming “isolationist and cult-like” –- can that happen? Can the preacher in a conventional church teach heresy? Can a conventional church become so lost in its programs and routines that not a single person gets saved through that church over the course of a year (or more)?

I dread the day – which may be here – when church leaders, with good intentions, are comfortable imitating the insufferable journalistic practices of lazy or ignorant reporters who convert a single instance into a “trend.” We unjustly disparage good people by making such broad and unsupported claims. If we are supposed to be people of integrity and righteousness, our words should reflect truth and love.

I understand that the seasoned leader and “researcher” who made the inappropriate charge about house churches may not like that form of assembly. That’s legitimate – but he should simply have said “I don’t like to see people meeting in homes. There is the possibility that they may not behave the way I think they should.” If he has any evidence at all suggesting that this tendency among house churches is statistically provable and significant, or that it is greater than the propensity for conventional churches to become in-grown or cults of personality, I would be the first in line to study that data. In fact, the national studies Barna has conducted on this matter over the past five years point to exactly the opposite result.

If we are going to be honest, we have to admit that there have been and continue to be many conventional churches that “can become isolationist and cult-like.” And we would have to cite the parallel fear that the home groups, cell groups and small groups that have been organized and meet under the auspices of the conventional church run the same risk of “becom(ing) isolationist and cult-like.”

There are so many struggles, challenges, crises and issues facing the Church today. Do we need to create additional internal battles by criticizing the manner in which some people assemble – a means that best represents the ways of the hallowed early church – simply because of personal discomfort?