Birkdale Baptist Church

Life, Heart and Hope in Jesus

One of my favorite troublemakers is Frank Viola. When George Barna "entered" house church world (through his writings, at least), one of my comments was that he had not actually connected with any of the people in house church world. In other words, Barna was saying all the things house church people say, but not providing any solutions or awareness of the house church movement. And, I found Revolution to be a relatively unhelpful book for that reason (and several other theological reasons I have stated elsewhere).

In the follow-up book, Barna seems to have jumped whole hog into the house church world with none other than Frank Viola. Together they published Pagan Christianity which riled a lot of people up (me included) and not just because of the not-so-subtle title. For what it is worth, I think New Testament scholar Ben Witherington did a great job in his series on the book (starting here) and Frank was gracious in his response.

I like Frank. Sure, there are some areas we differ, but I like people with passion. He just sent me a copy of his new unpublished manuscript for his next book. So far it is really good and no mention of how just about everything I do in church is pagan (grin). Frank and I have been emailing a bit and it got me thinking about some research I did a couple of years ago to see if there really was a big movement of house churches out there.

You see, I am pro-house church (largely because I believe God uses all kinds of churches). I want house churches to "work." But, if you listen to some house church people, it sounds like there are movements everywhere in the states. And, I was pretty excited about them... but I could not find them. So many leaders say, "no, not a movement here yet, but check with Denver" (or Long Beach, or San Antonio, or Rhode Island). Anyway, you get the point.

I believe that God can and does use house churches, but the over-statement of their prevalence and effectiveness does not help. People like Frank know there is an uphill battle here, but I think an important one. And, I see people like Neil Cole and others working hard to advocate and demonstrate house chuch effectiveness. And, if and when it does break through, it could bring a huge change.

But, when Revolution came out (along with some spectacular headlines) we wanted to do some research and find out just want was going on... and here is the article we published a couple of years ago at the Center for Mission Research.

The Rise of House Churches and Alternative Faith Communities from the Center for Missional Research

The "revolution" has recently become big news-- many committed believers are rethinking (or leaving) the established church for alternative forms of church and/or community. The term, "revolution," popularized by George Barna in the book by the same name, describes many trends, but the main focus is on the move to non-traditional expressions of church (marketplace faith communities, house church, arts, etc.).

Rabbi Gellman (who has some positive things to say about evangelicals in general), wrote about the move away from traditional, organized church in Newsweek as one of the top religious trends for 2006. (His excellent article is here.) Though this trend has not yet been noticed by many in the evangelical church, it is growing in prominence and reputation.

Barna explains in his October 24, 2005, Barna Update:

Millions of people are seeking God without going through a local church. This controversial movement of people seeking to "be the Church instead of just going to church"...

Barna explains here:

In 2000, most of the nation's organized religious activity took place at or through local churches. Today, Barna's research points out, the action is shifting to newer forms of corporate religious commitment. In a typical week, 9% of all adults participate in a house church. An even greater proportion--22%--engages in spiritual encounters that take place in the marketplace (e.g., with groups of people while they are at their place of work or play, or in other typical daily contexts).

In one chart, he describes the transition to a Christianity that is less connected to a local established church:

Put simply, there is a significant group of men and women leaving the established / institutional church but holding to a form of Christian devotion. According to some, this has led to a dramatic increase in alternative faith communities, which in turn has led to some major theological and ecclesiological concerns. Although this is not the focus of our polling research, see here, here, and my own here for theological responses to Barna's book and the trend.

Who Are These Revolutionaries and How Many Are There?

This house-church trend has attracted the attention of even the secular media. Time magazine recently featured an article on the subject, NBC news did a television segment, (Since ecclesiology--the theology of church--has become such a big issue among our churches, we, at the North American Mission Board, have created helps that explain what a church is through some ecclesiological guidelines.) These issues will continue to grow in prominence, forcing us to evaluate what a biblical church is. And we can and must evaluate in the light of scripture, not just in the history of our history, tradition, and, for that matter, polling data.

What about the Numbers?

The numbers have made quite a splash--one headline declared "1 in 5 American Attend a House church." At the Center for Missional Research (CMR), we wanted to go deeper to help inform our churches about what this trend means for them. Over the last several months, we commissioned Zogby International to survey more than 3,600 people (1200 interviews on three occasions) about several issues, but particularly about their involvement in spirituality and alternative expressions of church.

We asked, "Do you meet weekly with a group of 20 people or less to pray and study scriptures as your primary form of spiritual or religious gathering?" Remarkably, 26.3% of the 3600 Americans who were asked that question indicated that they did--as their primary form of spiritual or religious gathering. Comparatively, in one of the three surveys, we cross-tabbed the number to those who considered themselves "born again." In that case, 42.1 % of those who identified themselves as born-again Christians said that they met weekly with a group of 20 or less people as their primary form of spiritual or religious gathering.

It should be challenging, exciting, and concerning that one out of four Americans consider their small or house group / church / synagogue / mosque to be their primary source of spiritual training. However, most of those who consider their small community to be their primary place of spiritual encouragement still attend church at a significant rate. Only a smaller percentage of those who attend a small spiritual community do not also attend church--but that is still a large number:

When we cross-tabulated the "small group" question with the "church attendance" question, we found that 50 out of 3,600 adults attend both a group of 20 or less and "rarely" or "never" attend a place of worship. If extrapolated, this is almost 1.4 percent of the American population and may represent the purest measure of those who are not involved in an organized church, synagogue, or mosque but still are involved in some alternative faith community like, in the Christian faith, a house church. That is about four million people--not a small number. Barna's people have estimated that a million Americans are involved in the "house church," or the Christian expression of the above trend.

This trend toward home based faith expressions may also explain the significant number of people who identify themselves as "spiritual but not religious." According to an earlier CMR/Zogby poll, 22% of people consider themselves "spiritual but not religious," particularly those who rarely or never attend church. The less frequently they attend church, the more likely they are to consider themselves spiritual, but not in a religious way. The chart below illustrates:

What Can We Learn?

While we don't celebrate the revolution if it means people leaving biblical churches, we need to recognize it is happening and ask "why?" A few years ago we were upset that so many from our churches were turning from us to Islam or Mormonism. Now things are different. They have not been recruited to another faith, many have been repelled by the practice of ours.

We need to look more deeply into the Word so we can lead our churches to be more biblical--with biblical covenant community, biblical leadership, biblical church discipline, biblical preaching, and other biblical, foundational characteristics. It does not matter if a biblical church meets in a cathedral or a coffee shop. That's not the point. But it must be a church because God has chosen the church to make known His wisdom (Eph. 3:10).

New biblical forms need to be welcomed and affirmed, particularly those that evidence more of the true community that many are finding in alternative faith communities. We need to bless all forms of scripturally-sound churches. Why? Because the church is essential. The church is not the center of God's plan-- Christ is. But the church is central to the plan of Christ for His name and fame to be more widely known.

Sitting in the faculty lounge at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and getting ready for my class.

I am glad to be part of the team, but I need to give them an updated picture.

I will be teaching "Becoming a Missional Church" (class syllabus is here) On Thursday, I will be spending the morning with uberbloggers Bill Kinnon and David Fitch (and David also moonlights as a professor and a church planter). We will be shooting video and I will share more details on that later.

Thursday I will lead a conference at Trinity from 3:15-6:45pm. I must admit to being confused about it so when I get more info, I will post it here.

Right now I am sitting in a meeting listing to my friend Chuck Hunter speak from his paper, "How We Evangelize Pre-Christian People; Four Strategic Themes." It is part of his forthcoming book The Apostolic Congregation: Church Growth Reconceived for a New Generation (no links because it is not out until Sept. 2009, but you can see his earlier writings here).

Here is a picture of Chuck (George) Hunter talking with Carl George.

While I am at the meeting, let me share a little about the group, its situation, and its future.

The American Society for Church Growth meets every year. But, the last few years have been a challenging time and they are rethinking some things. The incoming president, Bob Whitesel, proposed last night to change the name ot the "Network for Great Commission Research."

I am one of those who believe that the Church Growth Movement lost much of its way from its original missiological and research roots (along with some theological concerns I have shared elsewhere). While doing my Ph.D., I specifically chose not to study Church Growth and did my Ph.D. in missiology because I thought missiology was the tool we need today.

So, I was a little surprised when two years ago, Gary McIntosh (pictured here talking with Dan Reeves) asked me to speak on this at the celebration of the 50th anniversary of Donald McGavran's book, The Bridges of God, at Fuller Seminary in Pasadena.

Gary asked me to present both my concerns about, and my challenge to, the Church Growth Movement-- and I did so here in this paper, "The Evolution of Church Growth, Church Health, and the Missional Church: An Overview of the Church Growth Movement from, and back to, Its Missional Roots"

The introduction shares a bit about how I felt while presenting my paper right after Gary McIntosh presented an overview McGavran's life. So, I wrote about that challenge in the intro to the paper:

I felt challenged because the American application of the Church Growth Movement has, in my estimation, moved away from McGavran's original emphasis of mission. While still valuing the approach and learning much from it, I desire to honor the request of those who invited me by sharing a personal journey out of mainstream Church Growth into a more missional approach.

I think there is much we can learn from research and hope that the missional church emphasis (with which I more closely identify) does not abandon well-done research as it rejects the excesses of the Church Growth Movement. Simply put, I pray we have the wisdom and discernment to learn the best from the Movement-- and I believe that includes its missiological and research roots. And, for that matter, I hope the movement returns to those roots.

Back to the meeting... there are some remarkable thinkers and writers here (just look at the pics!) and I look forward to learning from them. My shelves would be much lighter if it were not for their books!

Updated: The paper will be in a future academic journal so I can't post it here (yet). In the meantime, below is a Wordle of the paper:

If you have been following my Twitter feed (or Al's for that matter), the you know we met this morning in California to make an attempt at reconciliation. (I am here to speak at Biola and present a research paper on understanding younger evangelical views of justice and the Kingdom of God.) Al is here, it appears, to meet with important pastors in Southern California to tell them that he's kinda' a big deal.

For those of you new to the conversation, you can watch the first part first to see how the split began. As you can tell, Al is opinionated, arrogant, a know-it-all, and clearly misunderstands all things missional. Hmmm...

Check out the first video here:

Here is the video from our talk today. Seems to me things have gone from bad to worse:

I am not sure we are making much progress getting reconnected to God's mission and am hoping Al learns his lesson and can't build his ministry around his ego.

We just released some new research on small churches in Facts and Trends. You can read it here.

In the last week, I have visited with hundreds of pastors of small churches-- and I love their passion and appeciate their service. Even though many seem to forget, the vast majority of churches are small. We did this research at the request of a group of SBC small church pastors. We think it will be helpful to small churches of all kinds.

Here are some excerpts:
Most pastors of smaller-membership Southern Baptist churches see what God is calling their congregations to be and do and have laid the groundwork for accomplishing the mission, but their efforts to lead are frustrated by "turf" battles and a failure to clarify and evaluate plans.

According to a new study by LifeWay Research published in the November/December issue of Facts & Trends magazine, those pastors could see their congregations make progress by evaluating church ministries, organizing to reach their goals and planning for the future...

"The effectiveness of local church ministry often is jeopardized by poor organization," said Scott McConnell, associate director of LifeWay Research. "Understanding God's calling and the context of the church is important, but leadership requires knowing where you are, knowing where you need to go and knowing how to get there. Most small church pastors actively pursue the first two but many struggle with the third."

The study, which surveyed 350 pastors of congregations that average fewer than 100 in primary worship attendance, was conducted in March 2008. It found, among other things, that 67 percent of small church pastors are frustrated with how slowly progress is made at their church.

The inertia, however, isn't for lack of trying. According to the study:

Most pastors of small churches have assessed their church's cultural context. Three-fourths have studied their communities. Ninety percent have examined trends in their congregation. Seventy-one percent say they try to be actively involved in their community.

Most pastors of small churches see what God is calling their church to be and do. Ninety-four percent say they clearly see the needs, hurts and problems God is calling their church to address. Eight out of 10 have shared with the congregation a clear, compelling picture of what God is calling their church to look like several years from now.

The obstacles to missional progress, however, are familiar to every pastor. While two-thirds of the pastors surveyed indicated their church makes regular changes to improve their effectiveness, 49 percent said lay leaders in the congregation often resist change to protect their area of responsibility. A full one-third of them said their church had experienced disruptive conflict in the past year...

There are many more charts, a PowerPoint, and other information here.

Here is a Wordle of my recent Twitter activity while in Europe. I'm wrapping up my blogging series by providing all the links in one place and sharing and few more things (including some downloadable resources) that may interest you.

You can get some background information here in an excellent story written by Natalie Kaspar.

On to Europe...

First, here are my Central and Eastern Europe Mission Posts (in order).

Why We Are In Europe
Vision and Video from Europe
Planting Churches in Budapest and Beyond
OneApp
More from Poland
Teaching English and Telling the Gospel
When the Mission gets Lost in the System
Planting Churches in Moravia with Steve Brown

Second, here are some Central and eastern Europe Videos.

Church Planting in Europe
Vision for Budapest: Trey Shaw
Mission Strategy for Churches in CEE
Interview with Trey Shaw and Ed Stetzer
On Global Missions
Interview with Jeff Noble: Krakow
Interview with Polish Professor of English
Interview with church planter Steve Brown

And here is a pretty neat new video to add to the bunch:

Fourth, here are some links to help you connect with the people working in CEE:

Sebastian and Erin Vazquez

Shea and Rachel Massengale

Doyle and Karen Fletcher

Allan and Sue Weaver

You can find several on Facebook as well.

And, be sure to follow Natalie Kaspar and Larry McCrary on Twitter as well. If you want more information, be sure to interact with them.

Finally, are are some "Concept Papers" for Europe Planting
This is from Leadership Network's European church planting strategy teams. All are worth downloading.

Preparing to Plant
Midsized Missional Groups
Models of Missional Engagement - Europe
Church Planting within Historical Reformation Churches in Europe

I will be discussing these papers and other things at Leadership Network's Innovation3 gathering which, as best I can tell, has more speakers than 10 normal conference combined. It looks pretty amazing, so click the link above and register.

Anyway, back to Europe: thanks for following a long. Thanks for all of you that have expressed an interest. And, I hope you will consider it a place you can partner in church planting!

J.D. Payne has written a valuable book that shines some much need light on church planting teams. Having taught church planting and evangelism courses in evangelical institutions for nine years and served with several church planting teams, Dr. Payne is aware of the lack of quality church planting resources, particularly resources addressing church planting teams.

In The Barnabas Factors: Eight Essential Practices of Church Planting Team Members, Payne examines the life of Barnabas in Christianity's first church planting efforts. He uses this as a model for contemporary church planting team members. Each chapter of this work addresses a particular "Barnabas Factor, " a healthy aspect of Barnabas' life that assisted in Kingdom expansion. The is broken down into eight practices and chapters that include:

1. Walks with the Lord
2. Maintains an Outstanding Character
3. Serves the Local Church
4. Remains Faithful to the Call
5. Shares the Gospel Regularly
6. Raises Up Leaders
7. Encourages with Speech and Actions
8. Responds Appropriately to Conflict

Payne's book also includes a guide to assist church planters in selecting and
developing team members according to the Barnabas Factors. Each chapter
includes an application section, "Points to Ponder for Team Development."

I was happy to write the forward to this book, and have included that here below.

Foreword

In this book, The Barnabas Factors: Eight Essential Practices of Church Planting Team Members, J. D. Payne addresses the desired characteristics of team members in the context of church planting teams. He does this by examining the life of Barnabas in Christianity's first church planting efforts.

This book is different from anything I've seen in church planting books. While it is generally expected that a book will start with a concept and then move to the use of scriptures to back up that concept, J. D. takes a completely different approach. This is a very straightforward, non- glitzy look at what the Bible has to say about team ministry in church planting. The principles laid out and explained in this book are taken directly from the scriptures through an in-depth look at the life and ministry of Barnabas.

It's not really a revolutionary idea to draw one's understandings from the biblical text, but it is a foundational principle that we often miss in our quest for effective leadership and exponential growth. The primary reference point for J. D.'s book is a candid look at biblical references to Barnabas. To put it simply, the primary case study for this book is the life and ministry of Barnabas.

Case studies can be powerful. They give us insight into the motivations, principles, and goals of the one being studied, while allowing us a window for viewing our own circumstances through the filter of someone else's experience. By looking at the biblical principles in Barnabas' life and ministry, this book has a high scriptural component that provides an even clearer window into your own church planting experience. After all, nothing is able to speak to the soul like God's Word. Similarly, when we think of church planting in the Bible, we might easily be drawn to the more-famous Paul. Yet as you read the words of this book, you will find that Barnabas's experiences aren't too far removed from your own planting journey. He wasn't the star. He was more like most of us--an ordinary guy who surrendered to a great call to simply do his best to assist in the greatest mission enterprise ever.

Barnabas probably lacked some of the oratory skills or apologetic artistry of more famous guys like Peter or Paul, but Barnabas's faithfulness provides a glimpse into how we can be better church planters in a calling that is often trying and always in need of greater staying power, faith, and steady determination.

Through an examination of Barnabas's life and ministry, J. D. has identified eight characteristics of successful church planting team members. He applies these characteristics not only to the individual church planter, but also to the church planting team. He then examines each of these characteristics in detail and helps the church planter apply them to the everyday needs of the church planter and his team.

As you read this book, you will come to a greater understanding of these biblical qualities. This understanding will aid you in either building an effective team from scratch or in reforming your present staff to function and live as a team.

Although The Barnabas Factors is not a how-to book or a strategy manual for the team approach in church planting, J. D. has provided a very nice and concise application section at the end of each chapter entitled, "Points to Ponder for Team Development."

I personally believe this application section is one of the best features of this book. These questions are designed for the church planting team members to use in sharpening their own application of the principles taught in this book. It would greatly benefit you and your team to systematically study and discuss these "Points to Ponder for Team Development" during your weekly training/staff time. Another good option might be to use these reflection questions in a retreat or weekend training event for your team.

As you read this book and continue along your church planting journey, let me encourage you to always center all that you are and all that you do on the gospel. As you prayerfully strategize on how to employ the knowledge gained in this book in your own team setting, keep the message of the gospel front and center. J. D.'s methodology for extracting his material straight from the scriptures is a good reminder for us to always, always, always keep the proclamation of the gospel as our chief purpose.

May God greatly bless you and work through you as you assemble and grow a team for a great harvest.

You can order the book at Amazon.com.

It's Saturday night and I am home working on my message for tomorrow. We are working through Ephesians and cover 1:7-14 tomorrow. I am taking a break from reviewing to share a little update from the last couple days.

First, let me say that the National Outreach Convention in San Diego was, as usual, well done and challenging.

It inspired me to write my Catalyst Monthly article on the need for "change" movements to work to convert people to Christ, not just to another (albeit perhaps important) agenda. If I publish it as written, I anticipate complaint mail from emerging, reformed, Baptist, contemporary church, charismatic, denominational, and missional people (except the ones in those groups who are actually reaching lost people-- they will forward it to those who are not which will then generate more mail.)

But, that is OK. I will probably tone it down a bit. But, honestly, I am tired of hearing about everything but evangelism from some movements. Or, when I do hear about evangelism, it is attacking, mocking, or criticizing how others do evangelism. So, bring it on. Send the mail. If saying that we need more converts makes people mad, I say, "Let's get 'em mad!" I am mad that people are going to hell.

Rant over...

Anyway, here are my presentations and other bits of info from the conference yesterday. From my church planting session early yesterday, I promised I would post all the research I cited. Well, you can find it here. Everything I mentioned (and much more) is there.

During my afternoon session, "Learning and Discerning from America's Largest and Fastest Growing Churches," I referenced this article about how we can learn from each other. And, here is the PowerPoint I used. Feel free to steal it and pretend you came up with it.

Just before Francis Chan spoke in the final session, they showed a couple of videos. I told some folks I would post them here. Unfortunately, I can't find the one for the Compelled By Love small group study (sorry), but I do have the one from Sent: Living the Missional Nature of the Church. You can see the video here:

By the way, if you want to follow along with all the videos from Sent (there are several more coming), you can do so by adding this widget to your blog (it is already on the right sidebar on this blog). The code to embed is part of the widget and it will automatically update with the new videos as the Threads Media people load them. The first of our Ed-vs-Al videos are already posted here. I promise you will enjoy the Al videos. It is funny how the name "Al" comes up in so many missional and theological debates, so you can expect to hear more.

You can follow Al on Twitter here and participate with the widget here:

Grab the Embed Code

Thanks for saying hello at the NOC. I hope it encouraged you to reach more people for Christ. It encouraged and challenged me.

Gotta' get back to working on my message now!

Well, when this is posted I will be in sunny San Diego at the National Outreach Convention. The annual convention is the largest gathering in the country for the purpose of outreach every year. I have been for the last several years and am glad to be back again.

Let me share some good things about some friends today... and then one bad thing about a very self-centered "Christian" leader, Al.

First, the good friends...

My schedule starts early with a church planting session at 7a.m. (Since that is 9a.m. my time it does not seem so early.) It will be a dialogue time with those interested in "Church Multiplication -- Planting & Daughtering New Churches." We meet in the Town and Country Boardroom.

After that I have a few meetings. One of them is with my friend Dan Kimball, who gives me hair advice. We have called our meeting here the "annual Kimball / Stetzer NOC meeting." I am hoping to get more info about their not-so-secret new emerging church network that is explicitly evangelical and intentionally missional. More on that later, I think. I will also ask Dan why he does not follow me on Twitter. I used to follow him, but I stopped because he was not reciprocating. Just sayin'.

I also will get a chance to hang with Greg Ligon, publishing guru of Leadership Network where I hope I will be offered a huge book contract to take back to LifeWay and B&H Publishing. Now, I would not sign with any publisher other than the one that has a book at #1 on the NY Times bestseller list (Love Dare) but I can use it as leverage for future negotiations. Think big, Greg, really big, because you won't have to pay it.

Now, the main reason I am going is my workshop. It is a "featured" workshop which means, "we want you to come to the conference but not be a keynote speaker so will this be enough?" It appears that I and several others got listed in that catagory, though I would come just because it is such a great conference. For that matter, I think the some of the "non-featured" workshps look better than mine. (But, you should come to mine anyway.)

My workshop is from 1-2pm and it is called, "Learning & Discerning from the 100 Fastest Growing Churches" in the Town & Country Golden Room. I will be presenting some information about the churches on the fastest growing church list. It will be practical and include some practical takeaways. Now, if you are an angry Calvinist recently graduated from seminary with grave concerns about, well, growing churches, then this seminar is not for you. (However, happy Calvinists are welcome.) Since this is right after lunch, it may be 5 people and me, but we will see. I will probably post my notes later here at the blog.

Finally, Ron Forseth and I will hang out. Ron is a friend and has been for a while. I am a hotel guy, but I have actually spent the night at Ron's house. I can only say that for about 3 people. Ron is the King of all things Sermon Central. I have written about them before in what become a much debated post about plagiarism. Anyway, we are doing some preaching research in partnership with them and we will talk about that and catch up a bit.

And, lastly, there is a book signing. Book signings are very lonely when you are a D list celebrity like me, so please come by the Atlas lobby at 2:30pm and ask me to sign a book.

In between meetings, I will walk around a bit and lament the fact that all the world does not have San Diego's weather.

Then the former friend...

It appears that my simmering conflict with Al has now gone public. The video is below. I am not quite sure what to say, but I think it points out just how confused the missional conversation has become. Seems like everyone wants to be missional but what when they say "missional" they really mean "edgy," "innovative," or "contemporary."

But, Al wants to take ownership of the word. He thinks there is no mission without him.

This is not the first time that has happened. I have seen several key missional leaders get offended at how others use the word and Al seems to be one of them. But, I think I there are important issues here and you will see the dialogue played out over several episodes. If seeing my misery makes you happy, feel free to post on your site as well.

Many people asked who Al was when I twittered about his misunderstanding of missional, his ego, and his attitude. Actually, many suggested who he might be. Now, the truth must be told...watch here for the first of three episodes:

You can also embed the widget on the right sidebar that will stream all the videos.

This could get ugly.

I did an interview this morning with a national secular magazine about the efficacy of "door-to-door outreach" and will link to the story as soon as it's available. Much of what I shared came from some research we did at the Center for Missional Research on whether or not door-to-door is an effective tool.

Here is what we published last year:

Every Saturday morning at First Church, dedicated church members meet to do something both their parents and grandparents did before them--door-to-door visitation. They visit people in the neighborhood who might be new church prospects with the hope they'll begin personal relationships with Christ either that morning or the next Sunday at church. Recently there has been a growing debate among those assembling for outreach as to how to approach their task. Some on the team want to share the gospel with every person they come in contact with--or they believe they're putting the person's eternal destiny at risk. Others suggest that the team should simply invite people to hear their biblically faithful, gospel-preaching pastor tell them about Jesus during his Sunday message.

Who's right?

We (the North American Mission Board's Center for Missional Research) decided to find out. By partnering with a polling firm1 to ask 1,200 random Americans we discovered that the answer just might be--"both."

When you knock on a stranger's door, more people are open to a church invitation than a gospel presentation--but a significant minority are open to both. According to the survey, Americans are far more open to people coming to their door with that simple invitation than trying to tell them how to get into heaven (53 to 35%). The only exception to this trend is among African Americans, nearly half of whom are okay with someone coming to their door with an evangelistic message--15 percent more than any other ethnic group surveyed.

These stats tell an important story--many people are open to an invitation to your church and some are open to hearing about heaven. Even 40 percent of the most unchurched are open to an invitation to your church, which is something that the whole church can do-- something that's much less scary for the typical believer and takes less training. It is helpful to know that many people are open to a church event invitation where, perhaps, they can hear the gospel in an understandable way. Imagine how many more houses your church group could visit if every person could be convinced to make one visit and one simple invitation.

Many people, including me, were surprised that the negative reaction was not more pronounced. But, the numbers are here and, surprisingly, more people are open than we think--particularly if they are approached in a respectful manner.

This survey also contradicts the long-held belief that young people would outright reject church groups coming to their door. In fact, despite being known as one of the most difficult to reach demographics in the country, people between the ages of 25 to 34 were virtually just as likely as their next elders (ages 35 to 54) and considerably more likely than the 70+ crowd to appreciate someone coming to the door and inviting them to church.

As you'll see in the chart below, it's only those on the low and high ends of the age spectrum that will generally shun a door-to-door invitation to church more often than not.

Ideological and socio-economic factors also play a part in how open people are to door- to-door church invitations. More than two-thirds of those who call themselves conservative would likely listen to your church invitation, should you come to the door. But churches in "blue states" should take note--only a little more than half of self-described liberals would do so.

In fact, as you put together different components of the research, you begin to see a clear picture of the type of community where door-to-door church invitations could be most successful. If you were picking such a place, you'd probably settle on a poor to working class community that's ideologically conservative with a high number of Protestants. All three of these demographic groups recorded higher than average openness to church invitations through the door-to-door method--all were above 60 percent. Conversely, it's not as well received in a liberal, well-to-do or middle class, non-Protestant community.

Yet any good news about door-to-door church invitations can only be limited as we look at the study. The fact remains the unchurched are far less interested in being invited to church by someone they don't know knocking on their door. Only 39 percent of those surveyed who attend church rarely, on holidays, or never would be okay with someone coming to their door and inviting them to church, according to the survey. The numbers are consistently worse when asked about "counseling" for "heaven," or what we would call personal witnessing. In other words, the very people we say we want to get into our churches the most are the people least likely to be impacted by one of our favorite outreach strategies.

Now more than ever, we need to look toward new methods to get the unchurched into our churches. Some people will be reached through door-to-door methods. Others will not. While more than half of Americans would listen cordially as a stranger at their door invited them to church, more than 60 percent of the unchurched might tune us out before the invitation left our mouths. Now, the cross is always a stumbling block, but we also want to be sure that our methods are less so.

The message of the gospel is too important to be spread through just one strategy--and if God leads you and your church to a certain strategy, you should use it. Door-to-door methods can be and are used to reach people. At my own church plant, we went door-to- door passing out flyers and free popcorn to invite people to our preview service. This method can still be an important part of our evangelism strategies, but our study shows that not everyone is open to such an approach. Let us ask God to show us additional ways to reach the unchurched--through relationships, service, ministry, and invitations to visit. Remember, God wants to see the unchurched connected to a family of faith even more than we do.

I have attached a PowerPoint presentation covering the same data. You can download it below.

"But how?"

That's a good question. Living missionally is a biblical and exciting theory, but it doesn't matter if we can't answer the practical question concerning how to actually do it. There are a lot of answers to that question, and we examine some of them in Session 5 of Sent. In that session, we take a look at Paul's example of cultural engagement when he walked into Athens, the pre-eminent city of learning and philosophy in his day. Rather than avoiding the Athenian culture, Paul actually found a way to use it as a bridge to walk his hearers to the gospel.

We can put ourselves in a position to talk about the gospel through an understanding of culture. Paul didn't ask the people to come to him; he went where they were. He listened. He examined. He learned. Then he spoke. We can do the same thing.

It's called cultural engagement. But not in the surface-level, doing-what's-hip-so-people-will-like-us variety that we sometimes see played out. It's being relevant in the look-at-what's-happening-at-the-core-of-who-people-are-variety. It's loving people as they are but then showing them a better way.

In Athens the culture of the day was one of debate. That may not necessarily be the best mode of conversation in your circles. But maybe a helpful approach is to look deeper at the themes of films as a way of entering into talks about what seems to be driving or motivating humanity today--and then having conversations about a new way of life. Maybe it's time to read books of substance so that you might have conversations of substance. Maybe you need to go to the places where real people live real (and sometimes messy) lives and have honest conversations. Regardless of the method, it's about meeting people where they are and then giving them the choice to go further.

Wander through your own Athens. Look at the cultural idols. Let this burden your mind and spark your imagination. Let godly passion drive you to say "Give me Athens or I die." Then confidently share the gospel with those who may see its uncluttered message, trust its validity, and receive its Savior--Jesus Christ. You don't have to make the gospel, God, or the Bible relevant. They're already relevant. But we need to find relevant means to communicate that eternal truth.

You can find more information about Sent here.

Today we are electing a new president of our country, and while most seem to agree that change is needed, what that change should look like is hotly debated. I hope everyone gets out today and plays a part in this choosing our nation's leader. I believe it is civic duty and Christian responsibility.

Make no mistake, this election is different than previous elections for a number of reasons. One worth noting is that self-identified "born again" voters are split on which candidate will get their vote. Geogre Barna reports that,

...among born again voters there is a statistical dead-heat: 45% plan to vote for Sen. McCain, while 43% expect to cast a ballot for Sen. Obama. Even if Sen. McCain were to sweep the 10% who are undecided born again voters, he would fail to reach the 62% who rallied for President Bush in 2004.

Barna's research is careful to distinguish between "evangelical, born again Christians" and "non-evangelical, born again Christians," but things are changing even within the more conservative group (evangelical, born again). For example, in 2004 85% of these voters selected George Bush. But when Barna's research came out two weeks ago only 63% of the evangelical group said they are supporting the Republican candidate.

Most of the experts seem to believe Senator Obama will win this election, though it may turn out to be a closer race than many expect, and people of faith are playing a prominent role in all of this. Barna explains,

If the presidential election were held only among born again Americans, it would be a close contest. When the rest of the nation's voters are factored into the equation, Sen. Obama is staked to a commanding lead among likely voters, 50% to 37%. In large part this lead is due to the substantial support he receives among other self-identified Christians, that is, individuals who describe themselves as Christians but who are not categorized as born again. Among this group, 54% plan to vote for Sen. Obama, compared with 33% for Sen. McCain. This voting segment represents 36% of likely voters. (source)

So how are Christians to respond?

Well, I recently read a letter from a Methodist pastor posted at Ben Witherington's site. I found these two paragraphs helpful and insightful:

There is always - always! - a "contrarian" bent to the Christian political angle. After all, in the Roman empire the complaint filed against Christians was "they are turning the world upside down" (Acts 17). In a world that does not love the Lord Jesus, we will expect to find ourselves at odds with business as usual; we shun a judgmental spirit, but we do not refrain from making judgments. "The Church is not simply a 'voluntary association' that may be of some use to the wider public, but rather is the community constituted by practices by which all other politics are to be judged" (Stanley Hauerwas).

Abraham Lincoln told the truth about "sides" who boast of God: "Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; each invokes His aid against the other. The prayers of both could not be answered... The Almighty has His own purposes." Knowing this, we treat each other charitably, and look to God for something better: "With malice toward none; with charity for all... to bind up the nation's wounds - to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations."

We're about to choose a new leader for ourselves, and, regardless of who wins, some American Christians will be frustrated and disheartened. This is a difficult election for many Christians, but it should not-- it cannot-- eclipse our mission. And while politics and presidents can connect to the outworking of our faith, God uses the preaching of the gospel in word and deed to bring redemption to the broken, forgiveness to the sinful, hope to the lost and the real "change we need." It is not an elected official who will transform the country, but the grace of God at work in his church-- that is what changes lives, transforms cultures and turns cities upside down.

November 4th will come and go, but our mission remains the same, and our hope remains secure. That's change we can believe in.

I wrote an article for the Nov/Dec Issue of Outreach Magazine where I shared a few thoughts on preaching the gospel and living the gospel, particularly as it relates to the poor. (If you have not subscribed, click here to do so and you can read the whole issue.)

Jesus not only preached the gospel to the spiritually blind, hungry, oppressed and poor, he also demonstrated the gospel by acts of love that met the needs of those who were literally blind, hungry, oppressed and poor. There is much we can learn from Jesus here. His miracles were not simply testimonies to his divine power, but reflections of his divine love and compassion. I hope you will consider this issue with me as we enter into this holiday season. You can read the article below in its entirety.

Speaking of Jesus and Justice

Every church deals with "it." Some deal with it by referral to the agency down the street. Others find token ways to say they're dealing with it, when really they're not. Some send a few bucks overseas so someone else can deal with it. Most deal with it by not dealing with it at all. "It" is poverty. Some see it as the government's responsibility. Others hold to the historic and biblical precedent that family and the Church care for the poor. Yet, today's evangelical churches in America have often been unengaged in dealing with poverty. My own experience has underscored the truth that to be faithful to Scripture, churches must deal with it.

Out of Buffalo
My wife, Donna, and I planted our first church among the urban poor of Buffalo, N.Y. When I went there, Buffalo's population was declining by 3% per year. We bought a house for $70,000 in the middle of a crack epidemic. After spending an equivalent of $17,000 in renovations, we sold the house five years later for only$40,000 when we left Buffalo to plant another church. Our Buffalo experience showed us that it's not always easy to see people through God's eyes. The poor are poor for many reasons, not all of which are someone else's fault. Sometimes bad personal choices are involved. However, that fact doesn't give the Church license to tell people that if they really wanted to, they could get out of poverty. Instead, our job is to join Jesus on His mission to serve and care for the poor.

Talking the Walk
I must confess that I think churches talk more than they help. They brand themselves as caring for their communities through catchy slogans, yet they seem to talk more than they act. It kind of reminds me of that Brady Bunch episode in which Peter rescues a little girl from a falling shelf in Driscoll's Toy Store. The newspaper wrote about it and the TV station came out. And, you guessed it, the middle Brady son became obsessed with telling his heroic tale and couldn't stop talking about himself to his friends and family. It's no wonder no one wanted to be around the "hero." Self-congratulation is obnoxious and tiring. Likewise, I believe the world is growing tired of churches that occasionally helped the poor, took up an offering, or went on a mission trip and can't stop talking about those occasional experiences. People today find it odd that the Church founded by a Savior who came healing the sick and caring for the poor is now only marginally involved in His mission.

Jesus and Justice
In the initial thrust of His earthly ministry, Jesus announced, "The Spirit of the Lord is on me because He has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to set free the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor" (Luke 4:18-19). That same Jesus, just a few chapters later, explained, "For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save the lost" (Luke 19:10). If we are going to follow Jesus in His mission, we must see the biblical Jesus in both Luke 4 and Luke 19:10. When Jesus broke into history, He said He would serve the hurting. But He also came to seek and save the lost. If we are not serving the hurting, we are missing out on the Jesus of the Bible. If we are not sharing the Gospel with our lips, we are missing out on the Jesus of the Bible. Imagine the difference we could make in our communities if we not only told people that they must repent and be saved, but also loved them--talking about Jesus and acting in justice. That would be joining Jesus on His mission.

While we survey on a lot of serious topics here at LifeWay Research, we thought we would mix it up a little with a question touching on a topic that comes up during Halloween (or, as we call it around my office, Reformation Day). The topic: "haunted houses."

The belief that such places exist seems to be widespread (just watch the cable shows to catch the ghosts therein). Many churches have seen this as an opportunity, planning their own "house," calling it (subtly) "Hell house."

It is very interesting to me that people are still quite superstitious and regularly report a high level of belief in things such as haunted houses. (Of course, secular people would consider me superstitious for being an evangelical.)

On to the research...

As part of another project, we surveyed 1580 Americans with the following question: "I would be willing to spend the night in a house that was widely reported to be haunted." We were interested in the fear level that people have towards the "haunted," much like there are tribes throughout the two-thirds world who fear a hex or a curse.

Overall, 44 percent agreed they would be willing to spend the night. However, a remarkable high 47 percent disagreed. In other words, almost half of the random Americans we surveyed would be unwilling.

A few interesting results standout:

54% of males either somewhat or strongly agreed they would be willing to spend the night while only 34% of females agreed.

Interestingly, the age group most agreeable to spending the night in a "haunted house" -- those age 65 or older with 51% indicating they would do so. The age group least likely to do so was the 25-34 year olds with only 38 percent agreeing with the statement.

African Americans (72 percent) and Hispanics (53 percent) were disagreeable to the idea with 38% of Caucasians indicating they would not be interested in spending the night.

Region of the country seemed significant in that those in the south were significantly less likely than those in other region to "agree":

-South - 39 %
-Midwest - 46 %
-Northeast - 47 %
-West - 49 %

Marital status, education level, and income did not seem to influence a person's response to the question. But age, gender, culture and region all appear important when answering this question. Feel free to share your theories in the comments.

It is remarkable to me that so many are afraid. Perhaps we are more like the hex-fearing tribe in the two-thirds world than we like to admit. Anthropologists tell us that superstition is a universal trait and (like religion) it is found in almost every culture.

OK, since it's Halloween here is a polling question for my blog readers (with a small twist on the question): If you knew a house in your neighborhood was widely reported to be haunted, would you be willing to spend the night there? Post your votes (yes/no) and your comments on why or why not in the comments section. And, how would you deal with its reputation as a believer in your community? Is there a way to help people who believe in the supernatural (but respond in fear) to instead know the one who conquers fear, death, hell, and the grave? How do we (or can we) move from superstition to meaningful conversation?

[If you are interested in more (serious) research on church and culture, check out LifeWay Research's subscription email newsletter at www.lifewayresearch.com/insights. It is a twice monthly email with first release research with practical ministry application tips. Today's email introduces data and analysis on what Americans said when asked if they agreed with the following statement: I believe it is possible to communicate with someone after they are dead.]

Disclaimer: LifeWay Research, Ed Stetzer, the trustees of LifeWay, Thom Rainer, Johnny Hunt, and other people walking by the building today in no way endorse, promote, or believe in Halloween, haunted houses, and other things associated with this holiday that churches call everything but the H-word. Also, no animals were harmed in the writing of this blog post. And, it was made with recycled electrons.

I hate to post on top of a morning post (see here for some thoughts on our Love/Hate relationship with the world), but we just released some new research.

See here.

Some excerpts:

Only about half of Protestant pastors say they plan to vote for Republican John McCain in the upcoming presidential election, but McCain still holds a substantial lead over Democrat Barack Obama, for whom less than one-quarter of pastors polled indicate they will vote...

LifeWay Research found that 55 percent of Protestant pastors plan to vote for McCain compared with 20 percent for Obama. A full 22 percent are undecided.

Evangelical pastors are significantly more likely to support McCain than their mainline counterparts. Sixty-six percent of self-identified evangelicals plan to vote for McCain while 13 percent are for Obama and 19 percent are undecided.

Only 36 percent of mainline pastors plan to vote for McCain. Thirty-seven percent support Obama, and 24 percent are undecided.

"Protestant pastors are strongly for McCain, though that changes when you look at mainline versus evangelicals," said Ed Stetzer, director of LifeWay Research. "Mainline pastors reflect the American setting - they are split between Obama and McCain. Self-identified evangelical pastors are overwhelmingly for McCain."

Stetzer added that given the late date in the campaign, "there are a surprising number of undecideds."

There is more at the story here.

A few things were surprising to me:
1. Self identified "mainline" pastors not more pro-Obama (they were split).
2. A sizeable minority of pastors are still undecided.
3. A majority of pastors endorsed candidates outside of their church role.

Please take a look and share your thoughts below... I may not be around to interact, but when I am sharing political news (rather than mission news) that does not seem to stop a good conversation. :-)

While we survey on a lot of serious topics here at LifeWay Research, we thought we would mix it up a little with a question touching on a topic that comes up during Halloween (or, as we call it around... Ed Stetzer http://www.edstetzer.com

I hate to post on top of a morning post (see here for some thoughts on our Love/Hate relationship with the world), but we just released some new research. See here. Some excerpts: Only about half of Protestant pastors say... Ed Stetzer http://www.edstetzer.com

What do you think of when you hear the word "world?" What's your response, or reaction? A cursory reading of the New Testament can make it seem like John can't even make up his mind on the subject of "the... Ed Stetzer http://www.edstetzer.com

What do you think of when you hear the word "world?" What's your response, or reaction? A cursory reading of the New Testament can make it seem like John can't even make up his mind on the subject of "the world." In John 3:16 he wrote: "For God so loved the world..." But then in 1 John 2 he wrote: "Do not love the world or the things that belong to the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in Him."

In Session 4 of Sent, we discuss the difference between the people of the world and the fallen system of ideas that work in rebellion to God. In that sense, we are to both love and hate (Prov. 8:13) the world. Part of what that means is living in the world but not being of the world. But many Christians have responded in fear to being of the world, so much so that they've completely isolated themselves from anything in the world. That's not how we are supposed to live and it denies the missional nature of the church. We point it out like this in Sent:

The Bible specifically tells us to live with 'worldly' people. That's exactly what Jesus always got in trouble for--hanging out with drunkards, sinners, prostitutes (you know, the 'bad' ones). Paul emphasized the same point to the church at Corinth. The church had become confused based on some things the apostle had taught earlier. In response, the church began to disassociate with the world around them. But Paul wanted them to understand the solution to their problems--and they had lots of them--was not withdrawal from the world: I wrote to you in a letter not to associate with sexually immoral people--by no means referring to this world's immoral people, or to the greedy and swindlers, or to idolaters; otherwise you would have to leave the world. But not I am writing you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother who is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a reviler, a drunkard or a swindler. Do not even eat with such a person (1 Corinthians 5:9-11).

Two things become clear from Paul's words. First, he has absolutely no intention to separate Christians from non-Christians. The concept was laughable to him because it would negate the whole reason Christians live in the world. The second thing is that there is an incredibly high standard for someone who claims the name of Christ. If such a person forgets where his or her loyalty lies and adopts the manners and customs of another country, then Paul says not to give them the privilege of 'dual citizenship.' They have to choose.

The church today is still missing the mark on both of these implications, though. To begin with, our lives as Christ-followers often look no different from the system of the world. Too often, the divorce rate is the same in the church and outside. There's the same addiction to pornography. There's the same greed and materialism. There's the same focus on ourselves and our comfort.

On the other hand, we may not participate in the world's systems, but instead insulate ourselves in a self-made Christian bubble, a life constructed so that we we live out our days without ever even bumping into someone who doesn't believe or live as we do.

As the sent church of God we must love the people in the world with the love of Christ expressed in words and deeds, while hating the broken and sinful systems of the world that war against the Kingdom of God. It turns out John wasn't confused at all, but the church often times is.

Find out more about Sent here.

Eric Geiger is the Executive Pastor of Christ Fellowship in Miami, and the co-author of Simple Church. His latest book, Identity, is a challenge to believers to live out the reality of their God-given identity. You really should pick up both books. (Eric will also be part of a forthcoming interiew in my leadership book interviews.)

Eric and I wrote an article for Neue Quarterly. You can find our article on page 84, but there are lots of other articles you will want to read and all are available on-line here. You can read "Simply Missional" in its entirety below and feel free to comment.

Simply Missional
Ed Stetzer and Eric Geiger

Dell Computers has shattered the warehouse myth. Most companies love big warehouses. They feel safe with lots of inventory on large shelves in massive warehouses, always ready for that next order. In their minds, the well-stocked warehouse confirms the belief they will always be able to meet customer demands and customer expectations.

Dell disagrees with the warehouse approach. In the technology business, the product literally rots in value on the shelves. Because Dell does not want their best resources on the shelves, they only keep two hours of inventory. Which means that if you order a PC on dell.com, the parts will not arrive to Dell until two hours before your PC is shipped to you.

Dell wants their resources out there, on the street. Not in the warehouse, where the resources merely gather dust and produce no impact. So Dell has designed a very strategic process to move their resources to the street.

Sadly many churches are betting their futures on the warehouse myth.

Most churches build big warehouses and shelve a bunch of Christians (those rows look suspiciously like shelves). They design attractive programs to "retain" people in the sacred warehouse, keep precise records of how much inventory (people) is on the shelves, and brag about their warehouses being constantly open. And warehouse managers love to show other warehouse managers their newest warehouses while dreaming together of bigger and better warehouses.

God is calling churches to shatter the warehouse myth, to change their warehouses into strategic distribution centers, where people are distributed as salt and light to the world--sending them out on mission. Some churches are strategically challenging their people to be out there, and these churches have a strategic and simple process that moves people from the warehouse to the street. These churches are simple and missional.

They are simply missional.

We are often asked if there is a relationship between our two books Breaking the Missional Code and Simple Church, co-authored with David Putman and Thom S. Rainer respectively. Is there a relationship between a church being missional and a church being simple?

If you have not read our two books, here is the elevator conversation: Breaking the Missional Code helps leaders effectively exegete their culture so they can live on mission as a Biblically faithful and strategically contextualized congregation, focused on living for God's kingdom. Simple Church challenges church leaders to design a simple discipleship process that places people in the best environments for spiritual transformation, and to remove the clutter and the busyness that competes with the essential.

So is there a relationship between a church being missional and a church being simple? We believe so. Churches that are living as missional communities in their culture are often quite simple. These churches do not rejoice in their complex systems or impressive buildings, but in the micro stories of their members' transformed lives. In the same way, churches that are designed around a simple process are embracing the call to be missionaries in their culture.

As best we see it, the relationship between being missional and being simple is apparent for at least six reasons...

1. Being missional and being simple requires strategic thinking.
While Jesus is the one who builds His church (Matthew 16:18), He has given us responsibility and authority in His mission of redeeming people to Himself. Expressing ownership in the movement of the Church, the apostle Paul says, "I laid a foundation as an expert builder" (I Corinthians 2:10).

An expert builder builds intentionally and strategically. He envisions the completed building, lays out a blueprint for the project, and aligns people and resources to the project. An expert builder would never approach a project haphazardly and without a clear plan.

In both of our books, we challenge leaders to be strategic thinkers. Thinking strategically is not isolated to one aspect of church leadership. Church leaders who think strategically about their community also think strategically about their church.

These leaders do not expect mission to just happen. They prayerfully seek for the best systems and structures that both facilitate and validate effective missional thrust into their communities. It is incumbent upon leaders to think outside the (warehouse) box.

2. Living a missional life is a part of a simple discipleship process.

Jesus' famous words, known as the Great Commission, are often quoted yet also misunderstood in many churches. "Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded" (Matthew 28:19-20).

Many read, "teaching them everything" in Jesus' famous command. But Jesus challenges us to teach people to "obey everything." The end result of discipleship is obedience, not merely information. The test of our ability to disciple people is not how many times we gather people in the warehouse to download more information into their brains. The test of our ability to disciple is how we effectively move people to obey the command of being Christ's witnesses (Acts 1:8).

Many churches believe discipleship equates information. This faulty premise assumes that the only thing lacking is that church folk do not know enough. So when one of these churches seeks to ramp up their "discipleship," they typically look to add another type of curriculum or Bible study structure. Such churches produce a bunch of Bible Study junkies who sit in the warehouse with yet another workbook.

Electricians, mechanics, plumbers, scientists, lawyers, and doctors must practice their trade or profession. Would you want a heart surgeon who had just "studied" the heart to perform surgery on your child? Why do so many think that becoming a disciple can be learned through a workbook? Living the Christian life is not a workbook, it's a life lived.

Churches with a simple process seek to lead people to be doers of the word, not just hearers (James 1:22). Discipleship to these churches is not information, but transformation. And a true disciple is someone who seeks to transform the community around him. Such churches streamline their programming to create space in the lives of their people to live as a disciple/missionary in their community. Too many churches are filled with busy consumers rather than missional disciples.

Leaders of these simply missional churches understand that a broader vision for discipleship must be cast, a vision that results in obedience, not simply knowledge. By instilling in the hearts and minds of their members a paradigm whereby daily they look and listen for the activity of the Holy Spirit and the voice of God as they move through their day, these ordinary citizens are transformed into missionaries, sent from a Kingdom not of this world into a place that is dry and hungry for redemption on every level.

3. Simple churches offer less at the church building, thus creating opportunities for missional living.

The Scripture paints the picture that we are God's ambassadors in this culture (II Corinthians 5:20). Our citizenship is in heaven (Philippians 3:20) and we belong to His kingdom, yet He has sent us into this world to represent Him. Because we belong to His kingdom, the apostle Peter describes us as aliens in this culture. "Dear friends, I urge you, as aliens and strangers in the world, to abstain from sinful desires, which war against your soul. Live such good lives among the pagans that though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day He visits us" (I Peter 2:11-12).

The first part of Peter's challenge is critical: Live a holy and pure life. But the second part of Peter's challenge is equally important: Live a holy and pure life among those who do not know God.

Among. Not removed from. Not against. But among. Too many Christians have believed that lie that holiness is separation from sinners, instead of from sin.

Thus many churches remind us of the movie The Village. In the Village, a group of people is disgusted with the culture. Each of them has been dramatically hurt by the world, thus they decide to create their own village deep in the woods. They build their own homes, make their own clothes, raise their own food, and marry other villagers. They never leave the village. From recreation to education, the totality of their lives is self-contained within the village. To prevent their children from desiring to wander outside the village, the founding elders construct an elaborate story to keep their own from wandering off to "the towns."

Many Christians live in a secluded village. They seek jobs with other Christians, spend several nights a week at church, place their kids in Christian little leagues, and only "fellowship" with other believers. They enjoy Christian radio, purchase gifts at Christian bookstores, exercise at Christian fitness centers, sip coffee at Christian coffee houses, and watch videos on the Christian version of youtube.com (Godtube.com). They lay their heads on their pillows at night thanking God they lived another day unscathed by the world.

Village life is not the Christian life. While those who disengage from the world believe they are obeying God, they are living the antithesis of the gospel. While the warehouse feels safe, the warehouse is dangerous. The warehouse mentality pulls us off mission and gives us a myriad of excuses to disobey God.

We have heard the cries from pastors for years, "Our people just do not seem to know lost people."

Hmmmm.

Perhaps our church people do not know lost people because our churches have kept people in the warehouse, losing opportunities to deeply engage in relationships with lost people. Church leaders often "guilt" people into coming to the church, removing them from the world that Jesus came to save.

All too often we have discovered that church programming dominates the schedules of members to the point that there is just no time nor energy left in members lives to do the very thing they were created for--live as redemptive agents of the Kingdom of God. This results in both a de-energized body and a gathering of individuals who do not feel fulfilled in their own lives because they are not using their natural, God-given gifts to work in the fields in which the Lord has placed them.

Churches with minimal programming help their people live among the world as missionaries by not asking them to live at the church, but to live as the church.

Churches with minimal programming encourage their members to know their neighbors, coach their kids' little league teams, attend the PTA meetings, and play in the city recreational leagues. And as Christ stepped into our culture, these church members are living incarnationally in the everyday environments life offers us. As Christ is Immanuel (God with us), these church members live God with us lives within the context of their communities.

4. Missional and Simple leaders know the culture.

Unlike many busy church leaders, the apostle Paul knew the culture and effectively engaged people with the gospel. His example in Athens (Acts 17) is a challenging reminder to enter the marketplace. Athens was filled with tons of little "g" gods spread throughout their culture. Every building was dedicated to a god and statues of gods filled the streets. The ancient satirist Petronius once joked that it was easier to find a god in Athens than a person. Athens was also the cultural center in the Greek world. Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle all taught in Athens. They spoke in the same place that Paul would speak.

Paul stepped into the culture of Athens and reasoned with people in the synagogue and also the marketplace, the agora. He spent time in the church building (the synagogue), but he also went to the marketplace. His words created such a buzz that he was invited to the Areopagus so the people could hear more. The Areopagus was the epicenter of ideas and philosophy.

Paul stood in front of the crowd and said, "Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you" (Acts 17:22-23). Paul essentially told the people, the only statue you got right is the one to the unknown God because you are admitting you do not know Him. All the other gods/statues are false; so let me explain to you the one true God you have admitted you do not know.

In his discourse to the people of Athens, Paul displayed his cultural knowledge in a missiologically discerning way. He walked around and noticed the statues in Athens, was disturbed by them, but still used them to build a bridge to start an evangelistic conversation. He also quoted a Stoic poet in his message because in the crowd were Stoic philosophers. Even his opening words to the crowd revealed his understanding of his context. He addressed the crowd with the words, "Men of Athens" because in the crowd were devotees of the great philosopher Plato. In Plato's famous writing about his mentor, entitled Socrates' Apology, Plato placed Socrates in the same position as Paul - in front of the men of Athens defending his teachings and beliefs. In Plato's writing, Socrates addressed the crowd, "Men of Athens." Now Paul, in the same position as Socrates, addresses the crowd in the same manner: "Men of Athens."

In other words, Paul did not wing it. Nor did he drive from his home to the warehouse and back to his home again. He understood his context, the culture surrounding him. And he placed himself and the timeless, flawless, and perfect message of Christ in the context of the culture.

Missional leaders fall deeply in love with the city or town in which God has placed them. They embrace and embed themselves in their community. Such leaders understand the vital key of incarnational ministry by living out the words of Jesus on a daily basis through a missional rhythm of being a blessing to the people (community) to which they are sent (Genesis 12:2).

When a church is marked by complexity, it is usually not filled with church leaders engaging their neighbors. They are too consumed managing the systems that keep the warehouse functioning. The warehouse has become the end instead of a means to effectively release and distribute people into the world.

5. Both Missional and Simple are people-focused, not program-focused.

When some Pharisees confronted Jesus for picking grain on the Sabbath, His response was, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath" (Mark 2:27). In other words, the Sabbath was a tool given by God for man's benefit. Man was not created for the benefit of the Sabbath.

Perhaps some church leaders need to hear a new pithy: "The program was made for man, not man for the program."

The problem is that for far too many churches what were once tools have now become a detriment. When tools become rules, our focus shifts to what we do and not who we are. But, there is a better way: missional disciples not tied up by programs, but using programs for what they originally were intended--tools to help them live better, follow more fully, and serve more readily.

Instead of utilizing people and resources to keep church programs functioning, missional leaders view their programs and resources as tools for people to encounter the grace of God. The goal is people, not program. They view their resources as tools for people's lives to be transformed, and they train their members to think this way.

Such Christians are trained to view their wallets as their missional budget, so that as they move through their daily paces, they are openly and consciously looking to respond to needs and opportunities. Missional focus is not just about monetary resources and responses either. Kindness, mercy, gentleness, and joy are viewed as fruit to be shared daily as disciples move in and out of restaurants, offices, and stores.

Churches with a simple discipleship process view their programs the same way --as tools. Their programs are slaves to the discipleship process God has given them. Their programs are offered as environments where God may bring about spiritual transformation. And because wise church leaders know that significant life change occurs when people engage in mission endeavors (personal or group), simple church leaders intentionally move people to mission environments. In fact, mission is a significant portion of the discipleship process in these churches.

6. Neither Missional or Simple is a church model.

While we are both grateful for the response to Breaking the Missional Code and Simple Church, we never intended either book to be perceived as a church model. Frankly, the proclivity of leaders to look for another church model is a sign of the church's shallowness, not its maturity.

There are so many unaddressed issues in our books (intentionally so) that prevent "missional" and "simple" from being comprehensive church models. We did not advocate or discuss issues that are critical in a church model: music style, teaching style, dress, type of sermon, church architecture, or church organization. All types of churches should be simply missional. What we are advocating is for church leaders to distill their ideology of what church is to the irreducible minimum that defines a church as God's gathered people, sent to a particular community as His redemptive gift to that community.

We need all types of missional churches--big, small, traditional, contemporary, with country music (did we say that?), hip-hop, some with guitars, some with organs. We need churches in homes and churches in well-marked buildings.

The container is not the issue. The issue is not staying contained.

All types of churches should seek to release their people to be missionaries in the culture. And all types of churches need a discipleship process based on knowing and doing. We believe having a process for discipleship is essential in any effective church model and that process must contain an equal amount of lab work and classroom study. We believe any effective church model will challenge and cause their people to be missional.

As you read this, Dell's parts are being moved to the street. Out of the warehouse.

What about the people in your church? They are your greatest resource. Are they being distributed to the world around them? Do you have a simple process to move them to missional involvement?