First off, Laughing with Sarah by Gene Jennings, certainly a far cry from the usual theooze offerings. This one seemed to be from a regular pastor from a regular multi-site church in a regular suburb somewhere in the US. The book starts in the forward with, "this is a book of sermons." Uh oh, you've lost me.

I'm skeptical of sermons, not because I don't think they're necessary, but because I think it's a failed exercise in a post-Christendom world. The last thing I want to do on a Sunday morning is sit and listen to someone talk for 40 minutes. Now I'm supposed to read about it? WIth that bias in mind I breezed through the book and heck, enjoyed what I took in, but I just couldn't shake it from my head that some poor sap had to sit and listen to the whole spiel for 45 minutes.

Story telling or sermons, whatever you want to call it, shouldn't be longer than TV. I don't' even pay attention to TV for 20 minutes, let along 40. Hopefully these chapters (sermons) were cut up into 3-4 parts. I know they weren't, but I would embrace that way.

So in terms of the run of the mill sermon content, these chapters in Laughing with Sarah are better than average. Why it's in book form I have no idea. This is something you should be able to get for free from the church website or blog. 1 star out of 5.

Moving on to the second book, which I'm still hashing through: The Gospel You've Never Heard from David Rudel. Firstly, he could have spent more time editing this edition because it seemed to be rushed. Secondly, he could also benefit from an extensive bibliography. Why a bibliography? Because the postulations he makes are at some points stupendously heretical.... or at least to the average churchgoer looking to pick a fight.

This is a tough book to get through not because of its writing, but because of its content. Chapter after chapter run of the mill evangelicals are challenged to abandon status quo theology and instead explore what scripture might actually say. A bibliography would've helped me research in depth some of the statements he was making. Since I don't have his resources I'm left with more questions than answers, and more skepticism than acceptance.

That's not to say this is a book to avoid. In fact, I'm a HUGE fan of books that challenge the mundane status quo that is evangelicals (usually loosely based on some spawn of reformed theology) that's left the church utterly powerless today. I recommend picking this title up and taking the ideas seriously, but exploring your own answers to the questions Rudel raises. 3 out of 5.

Laughing With Sarah and Gospel You’ve Never Heard Review is a post from: PomoTheo - Missional Perspectives

The debate is heating up again, but this time centered around the core function of the church--to make disciples (Matt 28:18-20). The question: Does preaching make disciples or is it an impediment (Kinnon).

Ed Stetzer rightly notes, and most would agree (less those in the middle of all-star preaching), that Rockstars behind the pulpit may not be God's sent gift from heaven. At worst it deifies the pastor, at best it creates a sluggish listening audience entertained by fancy words and illustrations while mostly inert to formulating a response.

The result is the continued treatment of Sunday morning, and subsequently the gospel itself, as a business machine churning out consumable spiritual wares. The Gospel becomes something to be promoted rather than proclaimed.

Preaching is one of the reasons we've lost effectiveness in our churches. John Piper may cringe when I say it, but he laments that without a good dose of hell and preaching the pulpit (and subsequently churches) become powerless. But perhaps it's the other way around--the pulpit has rendered our churches powerless.

How so?

When the community gathers I don't believe we're centered around the talking head (multisite churches) or rockstar lead pastor. We're not driven by the musical worship. We don't come together to be taught. We don't arrive to be entertained.

When the church gathers together there is a mystical, spiritual, and communal component that seeks to celebrate what God is doing in the midst of community, and to offer worship to the Father. The center of this exercise is focused squarely to the Son as represented by the Table. That's different than focusing on the preacher.

The center of church gatherings is not the preaching or the pulpit, but Jesus Christ. And it's up to us to pay attention to his examples. Christ commissions the church to make disciples. He also gives us the example of rescue. Mission.

The mission of rescue requires participants. Participants require discipleship and participation.

To exclusively focus on preaching as the core element of our gathering times is to remove participation from the hands of people who must adopt mission, and it minimizes discipleship. Church then becomes a listening exercise rather than a spiritually formative one.

Never in my life have I met a wholesome Christians ready to disciple another who were themselves discipled exclusively by preaching. Sermons just aren't the right impetus to make disciples.

We've elevated the wrong thing in our gathering times.

I'm not advocating removing preaching. I am suggesting it needs to be a component of the spiritually forming objective of re-aligning within God's mission to redeem and rescue creation.

Is Preaching the Center of the Church? is a post from: PomoTheo - Missional Perspectives

There's a reason why I almost put down 'Jesus Manifesto' by Leonard Sweet and Frank Viola, the first 1/3 was kind of dull. Not because the information was boring, but it was kind of redundant, and 'obvious'. Mind you, I think that's the point, to me a conversation for three chapters on the centrality of Jesus to the Christian faith isn't necessary.

I can understand why it was crucial to include because their target market need to hear the obvious message because the foundation of Jesus has been lost in American churches.

With that being said, the final 1/3 of the book got me thinking about some important questions. For me personally, it forced me to explore some ideas in a way only an NT Wright publication could.... That's a tall order indeed and part of the reason I would recommend this book to the right person.

Jesus Manifesto is so obvious yet so crucial. Christianity today has been taken over by declining yet loud conservative and/or prosperity voice. Most churches in North America glorify only a few core things whether they know it or not: their lead pastor, money, the Bible.

The lead pastor is the CEO leader who gets all the face time. The Bible is set up on a pedestal that not even Jesus can supplant. Both are the wrong things to glorify. Lately, it seems the message coming out of Christianity are two things: do the right things to gain the favour of God and live in prosperity, and fight the moral cause to bash gays, ban abortion, and prop up creationism.

Something perhaps worthy to fight, but not cornerstones of the Christian faith.

In comes Jesus Manifesto which essentially points out the elephant in the room, or in this case the missing Jesus in our churches. We've replaced the CHRIST in CHRISTiaity with convenient truths that help pad the pews rather than seeking out a humble and authentic relationship with the creator of the universe.

The absolute foundation of the Christian faith is rooted in the person of Jesus Christ who, through his death and resurrection, rescued humanity while simultaneously leading his church and people to be part of the rescue plan of redemption here on earth. And this is only a glimpse of the grand revelation behind Christ (then and now).

Sweet and Viola could have lamented on the meaningless things that consume our time in church today, but rather, they focus squarely on the Jesus revelation, and how through Jesus we develop our identity and our response.

But this isn't just a 'be like Jesus call'.

I've been breaking down a paradigm of mine that believes the journey of a Christian is to 'be like Jesus'. It suggests that our job, or our pursuit, is to live a life more and more like Jesus Christ. I've been re-thinking this attitude namely because I don't think that's the whole story to the Christian life. Sure, you can construct a case to support the 'be like Jesus' clause, but I'm noticing something different when I read the New Testament. Here's where the book really come through for me personally.

The construct of 'be like Jesus' implies there's a) something you can do to earn 'more' of something from God, b) if we don't do 'enough' of whatever it is we're left with a sense of guilt and shame, c) the bible is clear that we cannot work towards anything, we're either saved by grace entirely or not, and most important d) to suggest we can 'be like Jesus' means we can individually pursue on our own strength, and gain enough knowledge, to know God.

Why is the last component so crucial? Because 'imitate Jesus' is a pursuit of knowledge. This is a stark contrast to what we find the gospels where Jesus lives in us and us in him. The former is an empty pursuit that leads to frustration, the latter outlines the incarnation of the gospel indwelt within the Christian.

We have received the fullness of Christ which leads to glimpses of the real Jesus for others. Those outside of the church will no longer see vain religion but Christ's love for them. Trying to 'be like Christ' is the tireless quest that breeds failure and relies on rules and regulations. This is the basis for formulaic (and empty) religion which people can also see.

When we opt to care more about rules sand regulations and morality over relationships and love of people, we no longer communicate the fullness of the gospel.

It's not about what cause (be it the abortion debate or daily devotions) you fight for, that's a vain pursuit, but how our Christian faith is rooted in the indwelling Christ which impacts the way we live.

Christians need to rethink whether they're seriously grounded in Jesus, or whether he's a fleeting expression that we've watered down to fit our empty and increasingly lifeless church and personal endeavors.

Jesus Manifesto gets 3.5 stars out of 5. This review was part of a free book for review program with Booksneeze.com.

Review: Jesus Manifesto by Len Sweet and Frank Viola is a post from: PomoTheo - Missional Perspectives

Maybe I'm not the target audience. Actually, I know I'm not. This is for a reader squarely planted in the middle of Christendom who takes in a conservative brand of Christianity weekly. To that person this book is certainly to geared to offend, (as most conservatives are quite easily offended it doesn't take much to receive such a response).

Farley began the book with great promise, the questions he posed caught my attention in his mini introductory exam.

In true or false style he poses the following:

Christians should ask God to forgive and cleanse them when they sin.

Christians struggle with sin because of their old self within.

We should wait on God even before making everyday decisions.

When we sin against God, we're out of fellowship until we repent.

Old Testament law is written on Christian hearts so we want to obey it.

The Bible tells us that Christians can obtain many rewards in heaven.

Christians will give an account for their sins at the great white throne.

Christians should tithe at least 10 percent of their income.

God gets angry with us when we repeatedly sin against him.

God looks at us as though we're righteous, even though we're really not.

It would have been much easier if he had answered the questions directly in the 10 points he presents them, but Farley doesn't--albeit all were in some form answered. (It would have helped me for clarity sake.)

The first quarter of the book seemed to be an endless tirade against Old Testament Law. I got the point, and I suppose I can understand why someone, who treats the OT laws as somehow relevant today, might require the explanation, but it seemed to drag on and on.

I also don't agree with the premise of casting away the entire of the OT law. It's not to say that OT Law should be followed, but I DO believe God had a plan in place with the law that wasn't achieved. I don't agree, which I believe is incompatible with Farley's premise, that God somehow changed the game and made salvation easier through the person of Jesus Christ.

However, I did pick up the essential piece: as Christians we need to be adamant to accept people over rules and propositions. I see how this could be a startling revelation for Christian types who prefer rules; these types are also routinely unwilling to test the statements of their faith treating opinions as canon. Farley does well to highlight some important themes that may sound right, but are not adequately supported in scripture.

Back to the thought on OT Law being the 'Old Law' and necessary to be cast away. I think the Law held a purpose in that it was through the law that the ancient Israelites were to usher in God's dream of new Kingdom. God's dream didn't change, but instead of law the incarnate Christ takes its place (or more specifically Christ replaces Israel as supreme example of God's Kingdom on earth and a glimpse of God's redemption plan to come in the future). To casually toss away the OT law, which I doubt Farley advocates but readers may certainly ascertain a flippant attitude about it, is careless and perhaps dangerous when it comes to understanding the grand narrative of scripture.

I also couldn't comprehend the idea of atonement and forgiveness. Farley spends the entire book condemning OT Law, however, when it comes back to forgiveness he goes back to the very RULES in the law to explain why forgiveness requires blood. Either the OT Law is dead or it's not. It doesn't make sense to suggest that Jesus has to fulfill OT Law if we're to cast it away right after. I'm fine with the Jesus and being a fulfillment of the law, I can work with that, but he could have made a better explanation on how Christ fulfills the very thing he argues against....

Furthermore on that subject, I wouldn't suggest God is even subject to the law -- which was presented for the people. There is no indication that God much follow rules set out for people, after all, he is God (although I'm certain the theological implications of what I just said are complex).

Farley's take on how Christians need to spend less time thinking about building rewards in heaven and feeling guilty about their sins and how it ruins fellowship with God is important (for the very same target audience I labeled earlier). I felt his explanations in the very least were enough to force readers to re-assess how they approach conservative Christian norms for seemingly foundational items (or at least items taken for granted).

Also, the latter chapters dealing with the Holy Spirit as advocate and not invisible guilt tripper was another gem to help set the reader free from potential 'rules and regulation' bondage and hopefully into engagement into a life centered around the person of Christ and his ministry to engage and redeem the world.

Too much time on the 'Old Law' with confusing returns to the very same thing he was trying to outlaw. But enough important elements to make it an average read. Wasn't for me, but for someone in the right space as he's likely shooting for it would be far more relevant.

2.5 starts out of 5.

Review: The Naked Gospel by Andrew Farley is a post from: PomoTheo - Missional Perspectives

There's endless debate going on in the blogosphere about the missional church vs. the 'attractional' or conventional church. 'Missional' supporters bash modern attractional churches for their seeker sensitive 'sit, be served, and consume' approach to church. Conversely, attractional churches offer their rebuttal questioning the effectiveness of missional churches to extend the gospel.

Here's the question: in today's North America who's right and who's wrong? Is one (missional) just a fad? Is the other (conventional) on the decline with the advent of post-Christendom thus forcing us to change our models?

Whether we like it or not, there IS one thing we can agree: the world outside the church is carrying on pleasantly without us and are in no need to wait for us to catch up.

There is another change many of noticed. Attendance is dwindling and mounting expenses (like big building mortgages and salaries) aren't being paid. Something has changed even if you can't quite put your finger on it. No longer can a quick alter call or wicked band pad the numbers on any given Sunday.

Instead it now takes a TWO to SEVEN year journey with people as they battle through discipleship is an action that requires our profound attention. Building and re-building character is not an individual or spectator process.

So conventional churches can do two things: put on a better show with more 'relevant' attributes, or they can try to explore a different change.

But this isn't (shouldn't) be about bills and $$$. Ask yourself a simple question:

Is your church capable in its current model to address this need to enter into God's mission to redeem humanity and usher in his Kingdom?

If not are you OK with that? Or do you suppose your CHRISTianity could have greater impact? I would opt for the latter in a big BIG way.

In comes the 'missional' paradigm where something subtle yet monumental changes. No longer do we acknowledge mission as a small ministry but rather the primary lens we filter our purpose through.

Rather than assuming the pastors and the missionaries 'do mission' missional church affirms EVERYONE to exist for the sake of missio Dei. And this isn't an affirmation to join an outreach ministry our church program, but to leave on mission in the places you already exist: your neighborhood, your job, your run club, your kid's soccer team.

On one hand the change could be subtle, the existing infrastructure in conventional churches can support this neighborhood/missional model (they just call them small groups). The catch is the power remains in the building and the clergy who retain authority over congregation thus stymieing the emergence of an organic discipleship movement.

But there's more.

The top box is a modern perspective on how church postures itself to the world outside. There are no 'one-size fits all' church models, you can have a variety of different models, even attempts at missional church. Some are trying to catch up with the progressing culture, others seem to be reacting negatively to it (fundamentalism), but eventually you hit the end of your box and can't progress until you exit. Think of all the expressions as the same mannequin just different jeans.

The circle perspective represents a post-Christendom view of church community along with the world it leads. We can see everything that makes up culture is on the outside ('language'). You're not labeled a pagan if you don't go to church or say certain prayers. Rather we see that some are on a closer journey towards Christ (in the middle) compared to others.

Inside the circle is your city, culture, community, etc., and in one of the great and many paradoxes we live with everyday, we see the church community is NOT out of culture but leading it, yet not necessary a part of it. So not 'of' culture but simultaneously not 'out of' culture.

In my mind it's crucial for a church to adopt the posture in the circle because what you do when you gather (at church) has direct implications on how your community adopts mission. You can't affirm people to do 'outreach' in their communities when actions on Sunday's are the complete opposite (constantly creating a polemic against non-Christians and only having pastors as participants in service.)

[A timely blog post by Brad Brisco discusses how leadership changes when you change models in: transitioning from traditional to missional.]

It's safe to say that no single church is on the outside looking in. But that's the safe thing to say.

I firmly believe God can work within any paradigm, and he does. But I also know the church is mandated to be the place where we are serious about connecting into God's mission to redeem creation. The current church system in my mind is growing ineffective with this mandate.

With the advent of post-Christendom, the decline in discipleship and thus mature Christians in current systems, should force churches to think hard about whether the popular model that celebrates individualism and consumption propel the church to be leaders and catalysts in their communities as agents responsible to provide a glimpse of the 'what is to come' in God's unfolding Kingdom on earth.

There's more to be had in our faith and we need leaders to step up and risk it all for the sake of the Gospel.

Missional v. Conventional – Who’s in and Who’s Out? is a post from: PomoTheo - Missional Perspectives

Technorati Tags: attractional church, emergent, evangelicals, mission, Missional, missional church, missionality, protestants

After You Believe is preceded by Surprised by Hope, an exceptional work that challenges the conservative Christian perspective of heaven (that we say a prayer and go to heaven by eternity.) It's not only a challenge but quite simply a return to orthodoxy. I found Surprised by Hope to be an exceptional contemporary work that should hit everyone's must read list.

Simply Christian precedes Surprised by Hope. Simply Christian is another gem, not quite on par with Surprised by Hope IMO, but best described as a contemporary 'Mere Christianity'.

But of course, this post is about 'After You Believe'. Admittedly, the third was my least favorite, however, that's not to suggest it's not an important read. Rather, the first two, especially Surprised by Hope, were of exceptional value that could not be matched in the third. (I was reading Brian Mclaren's latest while reading After you Believe and the former doesn't hold water against the latter.)

Simply Christian dealt with the 'urges of humanity (beauty, relationships, justice, spirituality)'; Surprised by Hope deal with Heaven & Kingdom language; AFter you Believe dealt with Christian character.

Wright re-uses the term 'virtue' to highlight the need for Christians to adopt more than vein morality goals or individual authenticity when it comes to maturing in Christ. He compares three primary ways people approach their faith:

1: The wait for Heaven Option (condemning and discarding this world a la evangelicals right-wing)

2: The work for the Kingdom Option (a la left wing)

3: The live out by way of Anticipating the Kingdom

The third option is Wright's proposition to reclaim virtue in Christian culture that's barely skin deep.

Wright is not the most accessible writer, but given his content and scholarship he IS highly accessible. For that reason it makes sense for Christians to pay attention to the message he is trying to communicate. It's not necessary to accept everything he's saying part and parcel, but it DOES emphasize the need to accept his words as grounded in scholarship and orthodoxy.

The conversation obviously extends beyond virtues and character, including church systems and interesting expositions on passages in Romans and Corinthians to support his ‘KIngdom’ perspective (which is in many ways the antithesis of the unfortunately popular neo-reformed perspective).

In the very least, permit all three of his books to alter your Christian paradigm. After all, where you settle is where you'll die.

Simply to Surprised to After You Believe – NT Wright is a post from: PomoTheo - Missional Perspectives

Others have questioned whether, within the missional paradigm, this move is the right one. (Dave Fitch: Do you trust an author of the church who leaves the their church?.

I understand the dialogue, but I think there's a bigger question pertaining to the demand of missional (and related) books coming out from juggernaut US publishers. We know Americans purchase an incredible amount of Christian materials like books, CDs, etc. So when something new enters the playground every publisher clamours to release a multitude of titles (in this case around Emergent, Missional, or related topics).

What I'm worried about is the extent by which the leading missional writers are flooding the market with books and spending their time hawking their books and study manuals at all the biggest conferences and gatherings. I fear we're missing an opportunity here....

I don't have an issue with writing books. I don't want to tell someone how to spend their time, and I also value the contribution of the leading voices in the organic church movement.

What I'm having trouble understanding is how quickly some writers are being pushed to release book after book, usually containing similar material, complete with correlating study guide, for the consumption of the general mass.

It seems ironic, that the very same consumerist system that has stymied 4 generations of churchgoers into passive spectators is contributing to the development and perhaps survival of missional thinkers through the purchase of their products.

It's smart business sense I'm sure.

But at what point does an organic church movement slowly replace and morph into the very same system it's reacting against?

At a recent conference in Orlando missional church was the hot topic. Mega church America is slowly realising that their reach is dwindling and they're incapable of engaging culture with their current show. So all the popular missional voices arrived to share their piece. Along with their contribution came a gluttony of glossy books, fancy banner ads, study guides, DVDs, and more trinkets.

There's a balance that's missing here; a posture that needs to be reclaimed.

Badly needed resources for truly organic missional movements don't have resources to attend conferences, and certainly can't afford the hundreds for books and study manuals to train even a group of 12.

This IS about Kingdom extension isn't it?

Here are two suggestions to prevent missional from being just 'another' movement that falls by the wayside.

1) Conferences need to go online and need to be free; the talks and workshops should be available to download and should be free as well. Honestly, who's making money from selling public lectures by Michael Frost? Also, with the advent of live streaming (and the environmental factors of flying thousands of ppl to conferences along with the cost incurred by the sending church) conferences can be viewed and participated with online. I've seen a few like this already and encourage others to offer the same.

2) Open source materials. Open source implies two things: 1) Free; 2) Expanding resource with contributions from the wider community. I'm tired of paying through the nose for missional training manuals that were photocopied and coil-bound. Offer this stuff for free. It boggles my mind why fantastic content is sent to the publishers rather than to the masses online. The reach will be exponential.

I understand this does bring up implications of how does one receive compensation to create said manuals and materials. However, in all of church-dom there's gotta be a few folks willing to offer up significant contributions for free. Somebody out there can find financial backing to pay for their time so they can create a lasting resource for missional development for free.

Heck, if you have the cash, send it to me and I'll do it!

Change is needed because at this point we're one Chris Tomlin CD away from going mainstream....

How Ironic: Missional Writers Consumed by Free Market Engine is a post from: PomoTheo - Missional Perspectives

Follow more details at his blog that still remains active.

With Great Sadness we Say Goodbye to Internet Monk is a post from: PomoTheo - Missional Perspectives

The Christian Zionist movement is cleverly shrouded behind the guise of evangelical fundamentalism, yet it looks more like a well-oiled Republican warmongering machine bent on destroying all hell-bound Arabs in the name of their American Jesus.

Make no mistake, there is not one ounce of truth behind their reasoning.

Don't forget, YOUR brothers and sisters in the region aren't Jews, they are the indigenous CHRISTIAN ARAB PALESTINIANS. (And no, this isn't a call to anti-Semitism.)

Pastor Hagee in Jerusalem 3/8/10 (Part II) from Max J Blumenthal on Vimeo.

Ridicule Christian Zionists is a post from: PomoTheo - Missional Perspectives

Christendom Measurements for a Post-Christendom World

Wow, it's been a while since I've posted something new. I wanted to write something down quickly while it was still fresh in my mind. Here is the context for this post.

As the church I'm leading grows, albeit at a snails pace, I decided to check out some potential partnerships with church planting networks. I don't need to mention which one it was because most are the same, but I decided to do their quick 'survey' (100 questions) to see if I was up for the task of 'church planting.

For those who don't know my context I've launched a new missional network in Calgary. It's brand spanking new and mostly immersed in a post-Christendom environment. I took the test to see where I stood in line with other church planters (I guess there's an average of data out there.) Basically, most church planting assessments I've done conclude that I'm not really qualified.

Despite being an entrepreneur, theologically trained, and of course being acutely aware that I know very little about most things, I still fall short. In fact, most organizations would force me to jump through ADDITIONAL training beyond my years of church and masters studies to be adequately 'ready' according to their criteria.

Am I really inept, or is there an issue with the 'criteria'? Here's why I think the whole testing process is running amok.

Over half the questions in normal questionnaires assume Christendom. Questions like, "How many church services have you started from scratch", "How many people came to a new church event you started," "How many unbelievers came to a new church event you started? 5, 10, 100+?, "How many people have you invited to church in the past year?", "have you started an adult (youth, childrens) Sunday school class?" And my favorite, "how many people have you lead to Christ in the past year?".

I scored low because I couldn't answer these questions properly (in the way they were looking), because the questions are irrelevant to me due to the fact they deal with a culture outside anything I regularly participate in.

For example, in a post-Christendom world the point of church isn't to get people into the building. You can do little to attract people into a place where they have no memory of and know none of the stories about it. Thus it doesn't matter to me if I can start an adult Sunday school class, I'm more concerned about releasing adults to exist in their neighbourhoods offering previews to their neighbours of the Kingdom of God.

In a post-Christendom and missional perspective church isn't the hub of activity that one must center around week in and week out. It is certainly crucial to the community, but it's definitely not meant to be the focal point for new believers. In fact, it's quite the opposite, church gatherings are unashamedly un-attractional and make no sense to those in post-Christendom who visit right off the streets. (That's not to say that church can never be attractional, but that's a talk for another time.)

Church is a spiritually forming event, not an event to attract in newcomers. I got bad marks on those questions.

What also puts me on the outs with these assessments is my seeming inability to lead people to Christ. Fair enough, but I wish we'd measure effective church planters by life transformations (the New Testament church tried this no?), rather than the sinner's prayers. Sure, people coming to faith is a sign of a healthy church/person, but in a post-Christendom world that journey doesn't take place between the pew you sit in, the aisle you walk down, and the tent revival meeting you re-profess your faith in. The journey is LONGER in the least, and spiritually, mentally, and sometimes physically exhausting to the max.

The time we see professions of faith in post-Christendom culture is years upon years down the road--probably in the area of 7-10 years for those who start with zero religious/Christian memory.

So ask me in 10 years how many people.

Now I'm making a blanket observation here and I'm sure there are far more effective tools out there (as I haven't taken all, although probably I've taken most ).

Some questions that weren't included but should have been: "how many outreach programs have you started to meet a direct need in the community?" "describe how you have contributed to life transformations that happen in your community", "in what manner are you offering a foretaste of the Kingdom of God for those who have never been exposed to the gospel message?", "what aspects of social justice in your community are you actively participating in and what kind of injustices have you turned 'right'?" And so forth.

If we're interested in developing leaders who will be effective in capturing, understanding, and dialoguing over the needs of communities today then we need to stop using a rubric rooted in Christendom. If we don't adjust we'll just end up creating ineffective church leaders, we'll miss the most under-reached areas, and we'll be wasting resources, all while wondering aloud why we can't reach a new generation of 'unbelievers'....

Why Church Plant Assessments Miss the Mark is a post from: PomoTheo - Missional Perspectives