It is interesting to think about this. If what he is saying is true, and I have seen lots of his trends become true, then it is sad revolution. This would be a major step backwards for the body of Christ.

It does confirm what I am seeing locally. Probably everyone would agree that people rely less on churches today than they did 20 years ago. It would seem to be the next phase of that trend.

I haven't read the book (my disclaimer), but from what I have read about the book, I am confused about why house churches are being labeled as not a part of the church? House churches are a local church, they are often a part of a larger group that meets together regularly and does all of the stuff (meet regularly, partakes in communion, worships together, serves together, is a community) that a larger church does. Many of the churches in history would be considered "house churches" by today's standards. House churches are very different things than only going to Christian concerts or an only on-line community as your gathering.

I think what Adam S. is saying hints at a mistake Barna has made regarding his terminology. As Kevin Miller shows, Barna does say that whether or not one attends a local church (small ‘c’) is irrelevant. However, Barna also says that Christian community is vital and is a mark of the revolutionaries (he specifically addresses this as “spiritual friendships” on page 24). Isn't this church (small ‘c’)? I think Barna has made an unfortunate error with his terms. When he says "local church" I think he is really meaning, and I interpret him in this way, "traditional congregational church." I think Barna does still believe in the need for churches. In actuality he is (or more correctly, the revolutionaries are) just broadening the understanding of what a church really can be.

In talking about the “local church” (p. 36-38) Barna writes, “…the Bible neither describes nor promotes the local church as we know it today” (this is hard to dispute). He goes on to say, “Revolutionaries realize…that the core issue isn’t whether or not one is involved in a local church, but whether or not one is connected to the body of believers in the pursuit of godliness and worship.” I would argue that this is a contradiction. Barna says the “local church” is unnecessary but I think this idea of being connected to a body of believers is another way of defining a local church. The point here is that revolutionaries (or whatever you want to call them) are still interested in the church (small ‘c’) and still need the church. These close connections in the body of Christ are essential and without them there is no such thing as the Church universal. I think Barna has done a great disservice to “revolutionaries” by using his terms in this way. This problem has caused critics such as Miller to focus on the wrong issue. Instead of talking about the importance of the local church (and Barna’s declaration of it’s irrelevance) we need to talk about the church taking new forms. Are the “alternative faith-based communities,” family centered faith experiences, etc, appropriate forms of the local church? (see page 49) Some may disagree with this and believe the church needs to continue to be a congregational church that meets in a building, etc, but let’s at least be talking about the right issues. I think there are not very many revolutionaries, emergents, or whatever you want to call them, who would say it is no longer important for Christians to be closely connected with other Christians in the Body of Christ. This is foundational – I don’t think we need to disagree over this. The point of discussion should be around these new expressions of the local church and the growth of these new forms.

I apologize for writing so much. As I read Barna’s book and Miller’s critique I was highly frustrated because I am convinced we are discussing the wrong issue.

By the way, a fantastic book that everyone in this conversation should read is “A Churchless Faith” by Alan Jamieson.

I suppose Barna has lost hope in church as we know it and this book is his rationale. He titled his latest newsletter: "Surveys Show Pastors Claim Congregants Are Deeply Committed to God But Congregants Deny It!"

A constant, unceasing diet of church malaise would push anybody to embrace a revolution, right-minded or otherwise.

Any institution or movement with live human beings involved will be flawed: these Emergent and "revolutionary" churches will be no less flawed than the churches they broke from. Rejecting the dysfunction of the parents doesn't automatically make children healthy, and emancipation doesn't always set you free.

Regards,

Rich.

having written a little about Kevin's review of this article on my blog, I find that the entire crux of agreement/disagreement come from the definition of the word "church." A new generation (cliche, no doubt) ecclesiology is emerging that defines "church" by it's 1st century roots as simply the gathering of Christians. The problem is the presupposition born in the 4th C. that the church is an institution/organization. The reality is that the institution has lost its identity, just as the emerging movement is succeptible to do as it becomes more and more organized.

I believe fully that the institutional church can be reformed and redefined (which is why I serve there), but I do feel that it will be an "outside-in" process. The trend that Barna suggests should arouse passion in organized traditional churches for self-reflection and redefinition in the light of Scripture so that the "Body" may reflect in its entirety the intentions of Christ.

For example, the cause of poverty is troubling and was one of the key issues of injunction for OT prophets. Institutional churches could eradicate poverty if the issues of "overhead" and "operations" costs were eliminated. Enter here the example of house churches or loosely organized Christian communities: no overhead? Send whatever we can get our hands on to combat the march of poverty on America and the world. From a prophetic perspective, this is the duty of the Body.

To me, this is an issue of semantics (again) and priorities. I don't think Barna should be swallowed whole here, but the data and stats should get us thinking.

Looks like that has already begun.

peace of Christ to you all.
c.k.

I am halfway through Barna's book. And I can see, after reading some of these comments posted here, why some might feel nervous to state that they agree with George Barna's thoughts... I mean, what if he IS correct? Why does that have to be "a step backwards" as Paul, the first commenter, mentioned? Why can't it be just the shot in the arm we (believers) need to actually get off our high horse about "church" and simply LIVE AS the church Christ calls us to be?

At the midway point, I am having a hard time finding things I DISAGREE with in Barna's book. But I am, after all, only on page 79...

As George so earnestly stated in the preface, he urges people to read the ENTIRE book before making a blanket judgment on it's value. And, as one other poster above mentioned, he does have a fairly solid track record... and if he is correct, then let's use this info to springboard FORWARD, more in alighment with Christ's designs for His children.

I posted this at Kevin Cawley's blog and thought I'd put it here also; is it plagiarizing if I copy from myself?

We can justifiably criticize the church of today until the King comes back. Problem is, the churches of the NT were as immoral, unfocused, distracted, ungodly, cold, unscriptural, etc as we accuse the present day church. Read Paul's epistles; Carnal Corinth, fighting heresy in Galatia, divided Philippi, and who would want that SLAVE OWNER Philemon for a member? how would you like to be a member of the church in Thyatira? Yet Jesus called the group at Thyatira a church, extended His love to them, and offered them opportunity to repent. And they were all probably revolutionary house churches! With young men sleeping with their stepmoms! For some reason, Jesus still loves this dysfunctional group called the church.

I don't see these definitions of church as mutually exclusive.

I do attend a local congregation. It is flawed, but it (and many of the other local congregations) is also the most organized picture of Christ that I see around me. When Katrina hit, our church was able to send 50 men to San Antonio to help with relief efforts. Our buildling hosted over a hundred displaced people. I don't say these things to brag, but to point out the power of a highly structured organization.

Obviously, such structure can become too rigid. For this reason, I try to stay involved in many different parts of the body of Christ--

--a Bible study that meets in my friends house before work

--a LIFE group that utilizes our church building but functions autonomously

--my family as we study and worship together

--my fellow christian co-workers as we discover what it means to serve God through our "non-Church" occupations

--a drama group that shares their talents in various venues

--even this online community (which I love).

I agree with so the direction of this conversation. We need to expand our vision of church--but expanding means we add to our current vision.

Hello Dabeime,

Well, where there are humans, there are problems, no doubt. But I have two comments:

First - I'm not sure if you've read Barna's book, but he is not condemning "the church" for being immoral or ungodly... he is actually simply saying that "the church" is missing the boat (my words, not his). And I agree. The point he makes is that amazing growth was taking place in the lives of the people who were part of the early church and he sees that modern churches have tended to lose sight of this in lieu of creating "bigger and better" church machines (again, my words, not his.)

Second - I guess I don't see the point you are making in your post... Of course God loves our dysfunctional churches - because God IS love. He can't NOT love us. The issue really comes down to our effectiveness on the culture around us and more and more people are simply "turned off" by the typical church because the typical church keeps offering the same plate of stew - while those around are craving - even screaming for - fresh bread...

Barna has written a great book that provides less statistical information and more personal commentary on trends that he has witnessed for years.

Barna is a reformer at heart. That should be clear from the work he has been doing for years. As most reformers can attest, at some point you grow weary of your efforts to bring reform and begin to flirt with the possibility of revolution, and sometimes if reform begins to take hold it looks more like revolution.

Things are changing and we in the church would do well to pay attention to those changes. Our definition of "church" is an important part of the discussion, and I would say that Barna's book and choice of words was directed more toward "regular" churchgoers than those of us who spend most of our time thinking about church and theology.

House churches, simple churches, or whatever you choose to call them are a natural progression in the development of the church organization. That's not to say that the larger institutions will cease to exist, but there will be a growing number of people that they simply won't be able to reach. Other forms of church are going to fill that gap.

I think Barna needs to do a better job of distinguishing between the church as a cultural "form" (which can change and adapt with the times) and the Church (note the capital) as the God-ordained institution for corporate worship, the preaching of the Word, the administration of the sacraments, and (perhaps the most overlooked yet most important function of the Church) the proper practice of Church Discipline.

Without the Church we cannot have true sacraments and true Church discipline. In our self-driven consumer mindset people will not seek these out.

Also, I wish Barna had more of a global outlook on the Church. Like many American Evangelicals, he tends to see the Church exclusively through the prism of American culture. This is shallow. I was fortunate to spend a significant part of my formative years in another country, and I know that what happens in upper middle class suburbs or ex-urbs in America is not the whole of the Church. I also wish he had more of a historical outlook. The Church has survived far far darker days than we face now here in America.

Jesus spoke of both the centrality and the ultimate triumph of The Church when He said, "I will build my Church...and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it." Note whose Church it is and who the builder is. Note that it will withstand even the most vigorous assault against it and emerge triumphant.

I don't know if Bill Jones, or Scott Ramsey read Barna's book - my hunch is "yes." But I think Barna makes it pretty clear that he is talking about "the church" in America - he continually gets back to that point. So, it seems a bit silly to be critical of him as not having more of a global view -- I think he does have a global view - he just happens to be speaking (in this book) to the American church - at least that was my take.

After reading Barna's book, and speaking as someone who has been entrenched in "the local church" as a leader for many years... I can honestly say that when we claim that the sacraments cannot occur outside the walls of the local church, we are simply not being accurate. Why can't communion and baptism take place with a group of Christ followers in someone's home? There is nothing sacred about these needing to take place within an organized church facility or system - at least not according to scripture. This is the exact issue Barna is speaking to in his book and I think I agree with him - (note that I said 'I think' - I want to go back and read this book a couple of more times...)

Dan McGowan,
The point I'm trying to communicate is, would Barna, had he been living in that day and using his criteria, have labeled those churches effective? would he say that Philemon had a biblical world view though a slave owner? would he call Corinth an effective church?

Does a follower of Christ in North America need a community of Christians (church) that is more decentralized or centralized? That seems to be the question under discussion. Barna is excited that many people are moving to a more decentralized faith, a faith outside of the congregational model of the local church. It seems that Barna is simply embracing the extreme logical conclusion of Protestantism. If we don't need a pope, then we don't need any church hierarchy and bureaucracy.

The first century church was a "mini-movement." If the Church of the 21st century was still mini, it would have failed at its mission (all the world). Are we still supposed to act like we are small, or should we figure out how to do "big" well? Celebrating people leaving the local church to "do Christianity" elsewhere is not the response this emerging leader is ready to reach.

Barna would have had problems with the churches of the New Testament, just like Paul did. Barna is not holding up a particular church model as being without blemish. He is, however, pointing out a trend that is occurring in American churches and finds that this is a trend that he is excited about. As I'm sure you know, he has been pretty dissatisfied with some past trends in the American church.

Churches will likely never be perfect as they will always be collections of imperfect human beings. If you read the book, you will find that Barna addresses problems in the church in America and suggests that there is already a movement addressing those problems. He then encourages his readers to join in.

Criticizing the church is not the focus of the book, but a massive change in the way American Christians approach the institutional church is what Barna is predicting. That prediction and the fact that Barna is happy about it has produced the backlash. Read the book and disagree with what Barna says if you must. We would all do well to consider what he has to say.

Dan is correct in his analysis of the book. I think Barna is correct in his analysis of the church, and Kevin offers some important clarifications in his follow up post that clear up Barna's position and frame the debate a bit more fairly.

I think we're still missing the point here... Barna is not blasting "the church" - he is simply stating, quite accurately, that "the church" if failing in it's effectiveness in reshaping our culture - his stats show this to be true, and if we just look around and use our eyes and ears, we would see that, except for a few minority cases, this is an accurate statement. I don't think it's fair to hold the church it Philemon (for example) up against "First church of Anytown" because the two are different animals...

I will say this, somewhat as a "Point-Counterpoint" sort of statement...

While I totally agree (I think) with Barna, that we (believers) must actually LIVE as we see modeled for us in the pages of scripture - it still all comes down to - WILL we? Or, more to the point - will I?

This has really been hitting me hard lately - as sort of a "fork in the road" kind of issue... All of us must exist in this world - no matter where in the world we live. And to do so means we need to work, have relationships with people, continually face temptations, etc. etc. etc. So, while it sounds "lofty" to suggest that "Christians must live as God intended" - I wonder if that is really possible? And, even more controversial - is it NECESSARY?

I mean - if we have come to a saving relationship wtih Jesus, then that's really all we need, right? We have, as one of my friends puts it, our "fire insurance!" We aren't going to hell - and that's a good thing!!

But then, the Bible has page after page of illustrations on how we then live our lives ABUNDANTLY - under that umbrella of "saved." And I think this is, essentially, what Barna is saying, without saying it, and with the added oomph of his name, his research and his trend-visions... which, I think, should at the very least, cause us to pause, consider and then act.

As I said on another post, the issue is not whether the organized church should die - that's not realistic. The issue is - will we who ATTEND church actually BECOME "the church"??? And that, friends, is a very difficult decision to make, if we are gut honest about it...

Like most discussions, this one revolves around the definitions of critical words. Here the most obvious hang-up is with differing definitions of the extremely important word "church." If we do not agree on its definition this exercise will prove unfruitful. For any activity to be fruitful it must move us toward understanding and obeying the will of God.

The word "church" has come to us from God in His inspired scriptures, so its meaning should properly be found there, not elsewhere. In due respect to all, no one who calls Jesus Christ their Lord has the license to re-define what the church is on the basis of tradition, culture, or personal opinion. Using biblical words with unbiblical meanings is a subtle, but unfortunately very common, way of adulterating God's Truth. The Apostle Paul, who taught more about the church than anyone else, said that the very words he used were taught by the Holy Spirit (I Cor. 2:13). If we want to make points outside what God says in the scriptures, integrity demands that we coin and define new words and not alter God's, deceitfully implying that our opinions enjoy God's authority.

I, and I strongly suspect many others, would love to participate in this and other blog discussions, but just cannot get past the general - I'm not talking about every single post - disregard for God's Word. It seems that one often must abandon the Bible to participate, or else do as I am briefly trying to do here, continuously argue for its relevance, authority, and careful understanding/application, and, because of that, risk being rejected by the webmaster for not "sticking to the topic."

The First Great Awakening did NOT bring all new people into the "Church". The three major denominations were Congregational, Episcopal and Presbyterian. The first two were supported by taxes as "State Churches" that hated the new movements and resisted all that happened. The theology was Armenian and challenged the hyper-Calvinist ideas of the day and led to the American Revolution.

New movements arose we now call Baptists and Methodists. Then they were lay led, small groups that met in houses and taverns. Read "The Churching of America" for more information and "The Fourth Great Awakening" by Fogel for a Nobel Prize Economist's take on the power of todays' spiritual movements.

Barna is just catching up to Fogel and Starke's insights. It is time for CT and Leadership to do the same and stop idolizing the old European model of community building.

Barna is both correct and incorrect.

He is correct in pointing out that many Christ followers have discovered that their faith does not disappear as they jettison much of the traditional church program attendance lifestyle. They (we?) have actually found freedom to be Christ-ian since they are no longer attending Christ-club meetings 3 or 4 times a week.

He is probably incorrect in extrapolating the current trend into the future as if nothing (or no one, like the Holy Spirit for instance) will impact or improve the trend. Come to think of it, maybe his book will be one of those course correcting influences!

Phil

We've gone through the periods, the Early Church, the Period of the Church Fathers, the Dark Ages, the Reformation, and the Denominational era. In the Reformation, some thought it was best to hold on to as much of the old form as possible, changing only what was expressly forbidden in the Scripture. Some thought it best to abandon all but what the Scripture expressly requires. Some stayed with the Roman church. Others formed denominations, a church divided by doctrinal statements. Now we are shifting again. I don't think the denominations will fold up and quit. But the church is still on the move, moving out past those forms and structures. The Church is living still, within the Roman church, within the denominations, and in the new forms of the church that are emerging. Let every believer find his/her place in this exciting new era.

George Barna began his career by writing about the non-Christians in church (people who attend but don't rely believe). Then he moved to getting non-believers into church (the seeker movement). Now he writes about true believers who don't go to church.

First, let's understand George has a career at stake here. He needs to write the next book, come up with the subject for his speaking tour and training sessions (look for "How To Get Revolutionaries into Your Church" training).

Finally let's remember that Biblical Community (the local church) is a product of the work of the Holy Spirit. When a group of people are Spirited-filled, as Barna claims the Revolutionaries are, church occurs almost spontaneously.

Mr. Barna is wrong - the local church will remain - flawed yet beautiful. The church ain't going away until He returns to claim her.

I haven't read the book yet, but if it's true , why the certain rise in Mega-Churches. I'm African-American and the churches in the area of Dallas I live in continue to increase in size. We are experiencing the rise in new larger and extravagant buildings as well as new fellowships forming looks like every other month to me. There may be a rise in whatever this is, but I don't know if I will call it Christanity. What ever a group of people who gather together to truly worship God want to call themselves is alright with me. But if the worship of the only true and living God is the object, guess what , your probably a church as the Apostle Paul new in the book of Acts when he recognized the church in specific homes.You may not meet in a "Church" but if Jesus is the Christ and you recognize him as your saviour and the rest of group are believers also, guess what, your part of the Church, and a
" church" by any other name is still a church, a place where those who worship God in Spirit and Truth gather to do just that. The church I attend began in a personal home some twenty years ago and eventually need for more space gave rise to a "Church". I advocate taking the gospel to other venues and divers places but the need for a central place of worshiping will always be necessary for a healthy and well balanced believer. Jesus set the church up when he left this earth. He established the hierchy of the "Church" ; Apostles, Prophets , Evangelists, Pastor-Teachers for the perfecting of his body. So if your neglecting to assemble yourself with other believers under a sheperds care , how can you be truly honoring God.Don't leave the body , just a find a "church" where this is happening.

Barna's direction seems like a natural consequence when there is no ecclesiology. Individuality reigns supreme and community goes missing. It is sad and unbiblical and makes us Christians especially susceptible to being so influenced by the forces at work in our culture... consumerism, individualism, image... etc.

I just returned from a conference led by Reggie McNeal author of The Present/Future. The thought process,the trend issues and the conclusions appear to be in perfect concert with Barna's. I am a senior pastor who entered into the ministry - having come out of the "Jesus People Movement" In those olden days, it was vogue to be relational, real, and radical. The demise of the local church which is not relational, real and radical is most likely the work of the Holy Spirit. On the otherhand the revitilatization of the local church that is relational, real and radical is also most likely the work of the Holy Spirit. I remain excited about the future of the local church - large or small. An authentic expression of the virtues and values of the Christ is not just a 20 somethings dream - it resonates deep within the soul of us 50 somethings as well. "If your in a dead church get out of it" may leave us with alot of empty buildings for a season but the church that is built upon the foundation of His Word - adorned with the beauty of of worship in Spirit and Truth and that is held together with the fabric of intimate relationships is going to explode upon the scene. That church will bring transformation. This new revolution is just another wakeup call to a church that has been in a deep sleep for a very long time. Those who rise will shine.
Mark Biel

If I can throw a bit of perspective as a non-North American who admitedly hasn't read the book... The quote that grabs my attention from Kevin's review is:
'Barna expects that in 20 years “only about one-third of the population will rely upon a local congregation as the primary or exclusive means for experiencing and expressing their faith.”'
As an Australian pastor in a 'non-revolutionary' (or whatever we'd be called) church - 30% looks pretty good! Especially if Barna is not counting emerging fellowships, house churches, whatever. We have less than 20% of the population attending monthly, and some constructive discussions arising between the traditional and emerging church thinkers. IMHO we need to spend less time arguing about the form of church (beyond ensuring we are biblically faithful), and more time doing the work of discipleship and evangelism.

Maybe God is just changing things a bit. (Don't forget he has a sovereign hand in all this.) And what really is success or failure in the terms of ecclesiology? Is there a success "benchmark"? Maybe our soiety is so screwed up and sinful that no matter what we do only 20 or 30% of the people will become Christ Followers? I seem to remember reading about the "great apostasy" in the NT. Perhaps we are it. Maybe this whole dialog is just the futile flapping of a fish out of water.

Admittedly I haven't read Barna's lastest but adsorbed a lot from this site. If the trend of "house churches" or cell churches is the wave of the future it certainly hasn't caught on yet. Our congregation (24 years old) has no property and meets in rented facilities. We have, maybe, 11 groups (??70 in attendance)and about 50 on Sunday morning in the very unattractive hall we rent. There is a lot being written about house churches but they really have not worked in America, with a few exceptions perhaps, according to what I can see and "experts" on the scene. Our church is probably the closest thing to a cell type movement, out of necessity. We have minimal structure and some don't stay for that reason. We are a part of a non-organized fellowship across the nation with many, many traditional churches. As a minister I have served in a number of the "traditonal" ones and found most of them non effective in the community and often painful to serve. But they were still the church of Jesus Christ. This congregation is a blessing to serve but we still have immorality and lack of commitment in the ranks. Restructuring to a house church doesn't change the nature of the beast - temptation and sin. But I must say the house church structure makes it difficult for the "marginal Christian" to survive as I have seen in the more traditonal congregations.

I haven't read Barna's book. However, there was one comment here that is blatantly false and a misrepresentation of the history of the American church on so many levels that I want to scratch my own eyeballs out.
"The First Great Awakening did NOT bring all new people into the "Church". The three major denominations were Congregational, Episcopal and Presbyterian. The first two were supported by taxes as "State Churches" that hated the new movements and resisted all that happened. The theology was Armenian and challenged the hyper-Calvinist ideas of the day and led to the American Revolution."

1. The church in America was booming after the Great Awakening. The New Light Congregationalists, the Baptists, and the Presbyterians all experienced extreme growth. Also, the Episcopal church didn't even exist yet. It was still the Church of England until after the Revolutionary War.

2. The greatest figures in the Great Awakening were Jonathan Edwards (Congregationalist)ield, Gilbert Tennent (Presbyterian), George Whitefield (Anglican/Calvinistic Methodist), and Ashael Nettleton (Presbyterian). I'm so glad that the Congregationalists and the Anglicans (Episcopalians) hated it.

3.Anyone who would call Edwards, Whitefield, Tennent, or Nettleton Arminian is either dishonest or just sadly mistaken. Arminianism piggybacked onto the movement later with the Wesleyan Methodist movement but was not a major contributing factor. In fact, when Charles Finney began holding his revivals, the Great Awakening actually began dying. Nettleton fought against this, but to no avail. (Granted, Finney was more Pelagian than Arminian, but many would claim him anyway.)The idea that Baptists were new movements that began meeting after the awakening is just plain silly. What about Roger Williams? What about William Kiffin? They were there beforehand. All in all, a better understanding of American history would benefit Christians. And just as a side note, I don't put much stock in anything Barna writes. His standards for placing someone in the "Christian" category when polling are so abysmal in comparison with Scripture, that I really don't think his statistics would do us much good.

This is a little late to the discussion, but it may add an important element in terms of isolating the working definition George Barna uses when thinking of exactly who a revolutionary is.

As is typical when identifying classes of Christians in his surveys Barna has several criteria for identifying Revolutionaries in his sample. For example, when identifying a respondent as being "born again" or "Evangelical" Barna does not directly ask if they are "born again" or "evangelical." Instead he asks questions like, "Does Satan exist?"

From his latest survey results, I noticed Barna included a section identifying the key traits of a Revolutionary:

"'Revolutionaries' were classified on the basis of meeting 11 specific criteria. They had have a clear sense of the meaning and purpose of their life; describe their relationship with and faith in God as the top priority in their life; consider themselves to be 'Christian'; read the Bible regularly; pray regularly; deem their faith to be very important in their life; contend that the main objective in their life is to love God with all their heart, mind, strength and soul; describe God as the 'all-knowing, all-powerful being who created the universe and still rules it today'; have made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is important in their life today; believe that when they die they will go to heaven only because they have confessed their sins and accepted Jesus Christ as their savior; and say that their faith in Christ has 'greatly transformed" their life.'"

The Barna Group:
The Concept of Holiness Baffles Most Americans

I'd guess there's a lot of Evangelicals out there who would self-identify with these criteria and yet who feel no urge to abandon their church.

Is there a disconnect between this operating definition and what Barna described in his book?

Regards,

Rich
BlogRodent