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

Updated February 20th, 2010.

(**NOTE: For this post the terms preaching or sermon are distinctly referring to the act of one person talking at length about their perspective of a particular topic which is treated as the apex of the particular worship expression of a given church service.**)

If you're a serious churchgoer then perhaps you operate under an assumption that when it comes to preaching/sermon more is better.

Some evangelicals even think that the sign of a good church is the quality of the preaching. I'm not sure how this is measured between preacher to preacher, but I surmise it has a lot to do with individual relevance, captivation, and good feelings after the service.

I recall seeing this quote from a 'motivational' missional poster:

Is it true? Is preaching a form of violence to those who have to sit there and take it? Have you ever felt that way? If you’ve felt that way can you imagine what someone off the street might experience?

Many church traditions make preaching the central component of their gatherings (church) it can't be bad thing can it?

I remember being blasted by a number of conservative Christians after noting the tagline in the picture above on a Facebook status. These people lamented on the crucial importance of not only hearing a sermon, but the very action of preaching the 'Word' (treating the Bible and Christ as the same thing).

Dare I suggest that the very act of PREACHING (delivering an exposition, an expository sermon, teaching doctrine, etc.) can impede mission in the post-Christendom world?

You wouldn’t think it was an issue given the rhetoric coming out for major voices in the US. Vintage Church, a book by multi-site video preacher Mark Driscoll, outlines the necessity of preaching to be the foundational element of any ministry.

Jesus' ministry included feeding the hungry, healing the sick, loving the outcast, and befriending the sinner. But we must never forget that Jesus' ministry began with preaching. Thus, preaching is the first priority of ministry that leads God's mission, which is accompanied by various other ministries that support, supplement, and sustain the preaching of God's Word in truth with passion....

Because Jesus begins his ministry in Matthew 5 with the 'Sermon on the Mount' we conclude that the heart of our Triune and missional God consists of preaching? That's incredible boring and incredulous to think that Pastor Joe Blow posses any type of transformative power simply be speaking opinionated truths from the gospel.

**For more reading on this subject check a Dave Fitch article on 'Can missional church be multisite?'**

It made sense during biblical times (and still is in many places) time to have open air and lengthy bouts of 'sermonizing' since this was the primary teaching method. Auditory learning was crucial for an illiterate audience. The gathering in the church building made sense because the qualified clergy who had the information were usually housed there.

We now exist in a time where everybody can read and prefer to test an experience rather than adopt somebody else's rule book.

I don't believe that preaching is always barbaric like the poster says, but seriously? Does the heart of the church community center around the preaching? Because 99% of the time that means it's centered around preacher and not the proclamation of the redemptive message (assuming the message is even communicated as such.)

Is that all we got? Is our post-Christendom culture really yearning to be stuffed into a building once a week to sit and listen to a lecture? The only aspects in our current culture that have people sit and consume the talking head are preachers and comedians.

Isn't there more to our community/church experience?

Preaching in its raw form takes place on whichever day (usually Sunday) when the community (commonly referred to as the church), gather together to worship God. What I question is why preaching (and subsequently preacher) are placed on a pedestal over and above every other single component of community.

The fact the people inside the church walls tolerate 30-45 minute sermons (that sometimes stretch into speeches) removes attention from a variety of participatory elements of our church services. Rather than being the community pointing our worship towards God the Father, we are the community sitting quietly listening to the anointed few (which makes us bad Protestants, FYI).

If your tradition truly believes in the priesthood of all believers (thus the creation of a horizontal organizational structure) then seek to break down the clergy laity difference. I'm beginning to notice that many churches glorify 'leadership development' but in actuality don't develop leaders nor create an environment for new leaders (many believe it's better to create buildings for thousands to see one and to multi site via video rather than build new leaders for smaller congregations).

In the consumer church model we've created a laity-clergy-missionary model that's made 90% of all Christians inert. Failure to create leaders to share God's redemption story with their community and having a non-participatory worship service will only exacerbate this problem.

Typically the only time the greater community gathers together the moments are spent sitting down, shutting up, facing the front, putting money in a bag, and listening to one man's perspectives on my life. My sense is the world outside the church walls are more interested in participating in a living community, not consuming a subpar spiritual product. Count me as part of that group.

Shouldn't we put our weight somewhere else? My sense is there's something deeper to be experienced, something that is truly worship AND can be understood by our current cultural context.

The solution isn't to exclude 'preaching'. However, we should look hard at how we treat preaching in the post-Christendom world. Moving away from exhortations towards formation is one method. Let's go back to Dave Fitch for some more insight:

I suggest this little snippet from Willard is essential to understanding the role of preaching in the Missional Church. For here in the missional church gathering preaching is not a.) for the purpose of distributing information and self help points on how to improve your Christian life, b.) not an inspirational talk done by a convincing and charismatic speaker. Neither is it c.)someone speaking as an expert from above – although the preacher will be gifted in teaching/preaching and have studied the Scriptures well.

Instead preaching for the missional church is a preaching among the church, out of the community, interpreting what God is doing among us and calling us living into the reality of that. It is a clarion call to live into the reality that “Jesus is Lord ” and all that that might mean for us in our lives and context. We preach like this relying on the Scriptures unfurling the reality of God at work in the world all under the work of the Holy Spirit. The preacher must speak authentically, he/she must be known in and among the congregation (by at least some people everyday in the congregation). He/she must be involved in the lives of people in everyday life. He /she must proclaim the gospel reality of Jesus Kingdom breaking in, the transforming power of God’s forgiveness, defeat of the powers and his working for the renewal of all things INTO THE SITUATIONS WE ARE LIVING. (I strongly suggest this can’t be done via a video screen).

This adjustment will impact our worship, but that's OK given that the apex of Christianity is not Bible, it is not preaching, it is CHRIST. Preaching is a component to bring a community into the reality of who Christ is, it takes the message of God's redemption plan for creation and translates it into the here and now.

How will this look? The community will celebrate surrounding their time with scripture, remembering sacrifice and celebrating intercession (redemption and hope made imminent). The apex of community celebration is communion (the sacraments). If the reality of your church service is centered around the Table and not the preacher you are forced to adjust your object of worship (from preacher or bible to Christ).

Celebrating the reality of Christ in our community today reaffirms and commissions us to exist in between the time of resurrection and eternal hope--to engage in God's mission to reach out and reclaim what's been broken and in turn redeem it.

Of course, we already know this. Doing it on the other hand....

Preaching: An Impediment to the Missional Church? is a post from: PomoTheo - Missional Perspectives

Technorati Tags: Missional, preaching, sermon

5. PREPARE FOR A SUSTAINABLE WAY OF LIFE OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME. (as opposed to projected growth and financial sustainability after three years). EXPECT GROWTH TO BE SLOW, BUT OF MIRACULOUS VARIETY. YOU MAY START WITH 10-20 PEOPLE, EXPECT NO SIGNIFICANT NUMBERS FOR THE FIRST FIVE YEARS. IT TAKES FIVE YEARS TO BUILD A MISSIOANL PRESENCE. BY THE FIFTH TO EIGHT YEAR, GROWTH WILL HAPPEN.

Full article here, and the missional church related articles at Pomotheo.

Key Component of Missional Churches — Prepare for the Long Haul is a post from: PomoTheo - Missional Perspectives