Forge

The Sentralized Conference

April 23, 2012, by No comments yet

The next Sentralized gathering will be in Kansas City this September 27th – 29th. You may ask, “Do we really need another conference?” Well we would answer with a resounding, “Yes” for three reasons.

First, we believe there is a need to continue to bring clarity to the missional conversation. Unfortunately, the use of missional language has become confusing in many circles. Some view “missional” as the latest church growth strategy, or a better way of doing church evangelism. Others see missional as a means to mobilize church members to do missions more effectively. While still others believe missional is simply the latest Christian buzz word that will soon pass when the next trendy topic comes along.

However, we would argue that those who believe missional is merely an add-on to current church activities, or perhaps even a passing fad prevalent only among church leaders, have simply not fully grasped the magnitude of the missional conversation. While it may sound like hyperbole; the move towards missional involves no less than a complete and thorough recalibration of the form and function of the church of Jesus. Perhaps even more importantly, it involves a paradigm shift in our understanding of God and His mission. By bringing together some of today’s best missional thinkers; we desire to assist God’s people in thinking deeply about God’s mission in the world.

Second, we want to ensure the missional conversation moves beyond theory. We want to inspire and propel the church to engage in God’s mission in life changing ways. That is why a significant feature of the conference will focus on practical engagement; through the stories and personal examples of some of the best missional practitioners around.

Third, the concept of “place” is a very important piece of the missional conversation. A theology of place speaks to the realization that God has placed us in a particular location for a reason. This is especially important when considering where we live—or our neighborhoods.

But the topic of place is also important because of the emphasis it puts on relationships. As more people are less interested in the programs and activities of the church, we must engage and create space where people have opportunities for meaningful conversations and deepening relationships. There are two significant places this can happen today. First is within places of neutrality, or common ground, call Third Places. The other is within our own homes as we facilitate biblical hospitality by opening up our lives by welcoming others into our homes.

All of this has influenced the way we envision the Sentralized gathering. We desire your time at the conference to be a wellspring of relationships, networking and collaboration. We want you to experience a place to sit and listen to one another.

At Sentralized there are no “green rooms” for VIPs to hang out. In fact, there are  no VIPs. Our speakers are only speakers when they are doing speaking. Otherwise, they are one of “us”. When speakers are not presenting a session  they will be hanging out with the attendees to visit, answer questions, and be a part of the overall Sentralized community.

To help facilitate this we have created “living room” spaces around sponsors’ displays and throughout the commons area. There will be numerous opportunities for you to cultivate relationships and exchange ideas, not only with other conference participants, but also with each conference presenter. We want you to have real opportunities to interact personally with each of the speakers. To have the chance to get to know the presenters and to ask questions that are applicable to your ministry setting. Here are a few comments about the “Living Rooms” from participants of last year’s gathering:

The Living Rooms spaces were one of the many aspects that made Sentralized the most helpful and encouraging conference I have ever attended. ~ Matt

One of my favorite parts of the conference was the opportunity to have conversations with several of the presenters. It provided a vibe throughout the three days that was very unique. ~ Bill

Can’t tell you how special it was to actually have time to ask questions of the speakers throughout the conference. It meant a lot to me to be able to literally hang-out with folks. ~ Michelle

If you desire to gain a clearer, deeper understanding of the missional conversation, but would also benefit from knowing how to engage your local context, then join us this September in Kansas City. You can learn much more about the conference here and you can check out the registration page here. Hope to see you in September!

The Road to Missional

October 20, 2011, by 1 comment

In the introduction of  The Road to Missional  Michael Frost pushes back on those who suggest that “missional” is simply the latest church buzzword that is quickly losing its usefulness. He writes:

If the missional conversation is over, it occurs to me that it probably hasn’t really ever been had. That’s because “missional” is not a style or a fad. It’s not an add-on, the latest church accessory, the newest cool idea for church leaders. The fact that some are suggesting the conversation is over leads me to think that they weren’t listening in the first place. My call — and the call of may other missional thinkers and practitioners — was not for a new approach to doing church or a new technique for church growth. I thought I was calling the church to revolution, to a whole new way of thinking about the seeing and being the followers of Jesus today. I now find myself in a place where I fear those robust and excited calls for a radical transformation of our ecclesiology have fallen on deaf ears.

I think Frost hits on a key point here, namely, those who think “missional” is a passing fad — whose time has already “come and gone” — simply have not fully grasp the enormity or breath of the conversation. It involves no less than a complete reorientation, or recalibration, of the way we understand the nature of God, church, mission, and the gospel.

Sentralized Missional Church Conference

September 4, 2011, by 3 comments

There is less than four two weeks 2 days until the kick off of the Sentralized conference on September 29th. It will begin with a book release party on Thursday night featuring both Michael Frost’s new book, “The Road to Missional” and Hugh Halter’s “Sacrilege.” You can now take a look at the rest of the conference schedule, as well as specific titles for each talk here.

I believe this conference is going to play a significant role in the ongoing missional conversation in the United States. There are essentially three reasons we have taken the time and effort to put Sentralized together.

First, we believe there is a continual need to bring clarity to missional language and concepts. Unfortunately, the use of missional terminology has become confusing in many circles. Some view “missional” as the latest church growth strategy, or a better way of doing evangelism. Others see missional as a means to mobilize church members to domissions more effectively. Still others believe missional is simply the latest Christian buzz word that will soon pass when the next trendy topic comes along.

However, we would argue that those who believe missional is merely an add-on to current church activities, or perhaps a passing fad prevalent only among church leaders, have simply not fully grasped the magnitude of the missional conversation. While it may sound like hyperbole; the move towards missional involves no less than a complete and thorough recalibration of our understanding of God’s mission, as well as the form and function of His church. By bringing together many of today’s best missional thinkers, we want to challenge God’s people to critically consider the significance of missional concepts and principles.

Second, we want to ensure the missional conversation moves beyond theory. We want to inspire and propel the people of God to engage His mission in life changing ways. That is why a considerable portion of the conference will focus on practical engagement; through the stories and personal examples of some of the best missional practitioners from around the country.

Third, we desire Sentralized to be a wellspring of relationships, networking and collaboration. To help this take place we have created “living room” spaces around sponsors’ displays and throughout the commons area. There will be numerous opportunities for you to cultivate relationships and exchange ideas, not only with other conference participants, but with each conference presenter. We want you to have real opportunities to interact personally with each of the speakers. To have the chance to get to know the presenters and to ask questions that are applicable to your ministry setting.

Hope to see you later this month.

Sentralized Missional Conference

May 14, 2011, by No comments yet

I am very excited to share some details about a conference scheduled for this September here in Kansas City. I believe the Sentralized Conference is going to play a significant role in the ongoing missional conversation in the United States.

There were at least two major reasons for organizing a conference like Sentralized. First, we believed there is a need to continue to bring clarity to the missional conversation. Even with the considerable amount of writing and dialog around missional concepts over the past decade, the use of missional terminology remains confusing in many circles. Unfortunately some view “missional” as the latest church growth strategy, or a better way of doing church evangelism. Others see missional as a means to mobilize church members to do missions more effectively. While still others believe missional is simply the latest Christian buzz word that will soon pass when the next trendy topic comes along.

However, we would argue that those who believe missional is merely an add-on to current church activities, or perhaps even a passing fad prevalent only among church leaders, have simply not fully grasped the theological and missiological magnitude of the missional conversation. While it may sound like hyperbole; the move towards missional involves no less than a complete and thorough recalibration of the form and function of the church of Jesus, as it attempts to discern how to participate in God’s mission. By bringing together some of today’s best missional thinkers and authors; we desire to assist God’s people in thinking deeply about God’s mission in the world.

Second, we want to ensure the missional conversation moves beyond theory. We want to inspire and propel the church to engage in God’s mission in life changing ways. That is why a significant feature of the conference will focus on practical engagement; through the stories and personal examples of some of the best missional practitioners around, participants will struggle with how to practically organize the church around God’s mission.

The conference will kick off with a book release party involving two new books that will be released in October; “The Road to Missional” by Michael Frost and “Sacrilege” by Hugh Halter. In addition to Frost and Halter other speakers throughout the conference will include Alan and Deb Hirsch, Dan Kimball, Neil Cole, Mike Breen, Lance Ford, Mindy Caliguire, Helen Lee, Kim Hammond, Michael Stewart, Eric Mason, Rickie Bradshaw, and Geoff and Sherry Maddock.

For more information on the conference schedule, speaker bios, and registration go to the Sentralized Conference website here. I hope to see you in KC this September.

Kansas City Sentralized Missional Conference

May 1, 2011, by 1 comment

The Church in a Broken World

April 20, 2011, by 1 comment

Check out these two challenging and inspiring talks by Micheal Frost from the recent Upstream Collective Vision Tour in Prague.

What Does Place Have to Say to “Missional”?

March 26, 2011, by 2 comments

The following video clip with Michael Frost speaks to the importance of recognizing and participating in the reign of God in our local context. It is a very brief, yet good reminder of the importance of place in the missional conversation.

I am very excited that Michael will be joining us here in Kansas City in September along with a long list of other missional thinkers and practitioners for the Sentralize conference. A website will be up soon to describe all the details, but for now be sure to mark your calendars for September 29th to October 1st!

What does place have to say to the word “missional”? from Parish Collective on Vimeo.

The Marginalization of the Church

March 25, 2011, by No comments yet

This past weekend I conducted a workshop on transitioning existing churches in a missional direction. We began our time together making sure the group was on the “same page” in regards to the state of the church in America. For a portion of that discussion I shared the following article on the marginalization of the church. This section of the document comes after a brief discussion on the shift into a period of Post-Christendom taken from Douglas John Hall excellent little book The End of Christendom and the Future of Christianity.

The magnitude of the marginalization of the church during this time of post-Christendom has been expressed by many. In the introduction of The Church Between Gospel and Culture, George Hunsberger writes about the crisis in the life of churches in North America: “The crisis, most simply put, is that the social function the churches once fulfilled in American life is gone.” [1] Eddie Gibbs in the book Church Next argues that “mainline denominations are facing an avalanche of problems that place question marks over their future. Some of these problems are so pressing that they may even threaten the denominations’ survival.” [2] In the book Death of the Church author Mike Regele offers a concise summary of the multiple issues involved in the marginalization of the church when he writes:

At the brink of the twenty-first century, the king who knew not Joseph is the collective culture of which we are a part. The combined impact of the Information Age, postmodern thought, globalization, and racial-ethnic pluralism that has seen the demise of the grand American story also has displace the historic role the church has played in the story. As a result, we are seeing the marginalization of the institutional church. [3]

The marginalization of the church that these and other authors [4] speak of can be validated in an array of church statistics and trends. In 2005 Sally Margenthaler painted this picture of the American church landscape:

Despite what we print in our own press releases, the numbers don’t look good.   According to 2003 actual attendance counts, adult church-going is at 18 percent nationally and dropping. Evangelical attendance (again, actual seat-numbers, not telephone responses) accounts for 9% of the population, down from 9.2% in 1990. Mainline attendance accounts for 3.4% of the national population, down from 3.9% the previous decade.  And Catholics are down a full percentage point in the same ten-year period:  6.2% from 7.2% in 1990. Of the 3,098 counties in the United States, 2,303 declined in church attendance. [5]

More recently David Olsen, Director of the American Church Research Project [6] and author of The American Church in Crisis has compiled comprehensive data on the state of the church in the United States. The research provides reliable attendance numbers for each of the 3,141 counties in the U.S., for each state, and for the nation as a whole. [7] One of Olson’s most significant findings is the apparent “halo effect” [8] that has been evident in the majority of polls on church attendance. Polls conducted by organizations such as Gallup and The Barna Research Group have consistently reported weekly church attendance in the range of 40 to 47 percent over the past four decades. However, Olson and other sociologists [9] effectively argue that church attendance numbers are in reality much lower.

A study published in the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion compiled data from more than 300,000 Christian congregations in the United States and found that the churches totaled 52 million people in attendance, or 17.7 percent of the American population in 2004. [9] The research of the American Church Research Project showed that 17.5 percent of the population attended an orthodox Christian church on any given weekend in 2005. [10] The total percentage was broken down into three major church categories including; evangelical at 9.1 percent, mainline at 3 percent, and Roman Catholic with 5.3 percent. [11]

One addition insight gleaned from Olson’s research is the simple fact that the growth of the American church is not keeping up with the robust growth of the American population. From 1990 to 2006 the population of the United States grew by 52 million people, which happens to be the same number of people who attend church on any given weekend. “In 1990, 52 million people attended worship each week – in 2006 the number remained unchanged. However, because of the sizable population growth, the percentage of Americans who attend church is declining.” [12]

While population growth and church attendance figures vary in different regions of the country the numbers are alarming regardless of location. Olson writes:

America’s population is growing at dissimilar rates throughout the nation. The Sunbelt states (the southernmost states from Virginia to Southern California) continue to grow most rapidly in population, while the Great Plains region and the Rust Belt (the industrial cities bordering the Great Lakes) have stagnant growth rates. The rate of population growth creates a major impact on whether the church can keep up with the increase in the population. In Arizona, for example, church attendance grew 7.3 percent from 2000 to 2005, robust growth by any standard. However, the population grew by 15.3 percent during that same period, producing a new attendance percentage decline of 7 percent. Typically, the faster a region’s rate of population growth, the more difficult task the church faces in keeping up with those increasing numbers. . . [However] in no single state did church attendance keep up with population growth! [13]

Paralleling Olsen’s finding on those who are moving away from religious affiliation the 2008 Religious Landscape Survey conducted and published by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life discovered that the fastest-growing segment of religious affiliation in the county is the nonaffiliated (16.1 percent of adults age eighteen and older). [14] Furthermore, those moving into the unaffiliated category outnumber those moving out by greater than a three to one margin. Throughout the previous two decades, this percentage of unaffiliated Americans had held between five and eight percent, meaning that the unaffiliated group has more than doubled in the past ten years. In the face of such startling statistics some researchers are predicting that if current trends continue, sixty percent of existing churches in America will disappear before the year 2050. [15]

Specifically focusing on Southern Baptist Churches, Ed Stetzer has written on the concerning trends of evangelistic impact in the vast majority of SBC churches in North America. [16] Stetzer cites statistics from the Leavell Center at New Orleans Baptist Seminary that “tell a disconcerting story – 89 percent of churches in the Convention are not effectively reaching the lost. According to the study, only 11 percent of the churches are experiencing healthy growth. [17] Stetzer goes on to describe the criteria used by the Leavell Center to measure church growth health as the following:

*  10 percent total membership growth over five years
*  at least one person baptized during the two years of the study
*  a member-to-baptism ratio of 35 or less in the final year of the study
*  for the final year of the study, the percentage of growth that was conversion growth must be at least 25 percent

Furthermore, when reporting on membership trends in SBC churches Stetzer contends that if current trends continue, over the next 50 years “projected membership of SBC churches would be 8.7 million in 2050, down from 16.2 million in 2008. . . . Using U.S. Census projected population figures, SBC membership could fall from a peak of 6 percent of the American population in the late 1980s to 2 percent in 2050.” [18] In The Fall of the Evangelical Nation, Christine Wicker offers a troubling summation of the wide variety of statistical data when she writes:

Evangelical Christianity in America is dying. The great evangelical movements of today are not a vanguard. They are a remnant, unraveling at every edge. Look at it any way you like: Conversions. Baptisms. Membership. Retention. Participation. Giving. Attendance. Religious literacy. Effect on the culture. All are down and dropping. [19]

———————————————————————————-

1 George R. Hunsberger, “Introduction,” in The Church Between Gospel & Culture, ed. George R. Hunsberger and Craig Van Gelder (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), xiii.

2 Eddie Gibbs. Church Next: Quantum Changes In How We Do Ministry (Dover Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000), 66.

3 Mike Regele, Death of the Church (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 182.

4 See David Bosch, Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission(Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1991), Craig A. Carter, Rethinking Christ and Culture: A Post-Christendom Perspective (Grand Rapids: Brazo, 2006), Rodney Clapp, A Peculiar People: The Church as Culture in a Post-Christian Society (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1996), Mike Erre, Death by Church (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2009), Michael Frost, Exiles: Living Missionally in a Post-Christian Culture(Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2006), Darrell Guder, Missional Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998) and Lesslie Newbigin, Foolishness to the Greeks: The Gospel and Western Culture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986)

5 Sally Morgenthaler, “Windows in Caves,” Fuller Theological Seminary News and Notes (Spring 2005), Retrieved July 23, 2009 fromhttp://churchconsultations.com/resources/faqs-resources-and-info/a/apostolic-movement-in-the-emerging-world/windows-in-caves-by-sally-mogenthaler/

6 http://www.theamericanchurch.org/

7 David Olson, The American Church in Crisis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008)

8 See Stanley Presser and Linda Stinson, “Data Collection Mode and Social Desirability Bias in Self-Reported Religious Attendance,” American Sociological Review 63, no. 1 (February 1998): 137-45.

9 Kirk Hadaway and Penny L. Marler, “How Many Americans Attend Worship Each Week? An Alternative Approach to Measurement,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 44, no. 3 (September 2005): 307-22.

10 Olson, 28.

11 The division into evangelical, mainline, and Roman Catholic denominations is based on the typology found in the Glenmary Religious Congregations and Membership Study. All African American denominations are considered evangelical in this typology. Eastern Orthodox churches are included in the total number but are too small in attendance to receive their own category distinction. The classifications can be found at the Association of Religious Data Archives at http://www.thearda.com/

12 Olson, 36.

13 Ibid., 37.

14 Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, U.S. Religious Landscape Survey(Washington, D.C.: Pew Forum, 2008), Retrieved July 1, 2009 fromhttp://religions.pewforum.org/

15 Norman Shawchuck and Gustave Rath, Benchmarks of Quality in the Church(Nashville: Abingdon, 1994), 12.

16 Ed Stetzer, “The Missional Nature of the Church and the Future of Southern Baptist Convention Churches,” in The Mission of Today’s church: Baptist Leaders Look at Modern Faith Issues (Nashville: B&H, 2007), 73.

17 Ibid.

18 Rob Phillips, “Southern Baptists Face Further Decline Without Renewed Evangelism Emphasis,” Lifeway Research, published July, 2009, retrieved August 4, 2009 http://www.lifeway.com

19 Christine Wicker, The Fall of the Evangelical Nation: The Surprising Crisis Inside the Church (New York: HarperOne, 2008), ix.

What is Missional Church?

March 11, 2011, by 8 comments

I was reminded recently of the continual need to “reframe” (or perhaps rescue) the use of the word “missional.” As a result I have up-dated a previous post that speaks to the basic tenets that I believe are necessary for a thorough understanding of “missional.”

The term “missional” has become a popular buzz word over the past couple of years. Because of its frequent use, some people have assumed that “missional” is a new word. However, the term was used by Dr. Francis DuBose, former professor at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, in a wonderful book titled God Who Sends published in 1983.

Despite the fact that missional language has been in use for at least a quarter of a century, it is being applied today in such a wide variety of ways that it many times results in confusion. Some view missional as the latest church growth strategy, or a better way of doing church evangelism. Others see missional as a means to mobilize church members to do missions more effectively. While still others believe missional is simply the latest Christian fad that will soon pass when the next trendy topic comes along.

I would argue that those who believe missional is merely an add-on to current church activities, or perhaps even a passing craze prevalent only among church leaders, have simply not fully grasped the magnitude of the missional conversation. While it may sound like hyperbole; the move towards missional involves no less than a complete and thorough recalibration of the form and function of the church of Jesus.

But if an accurate and faithful understanding of missional is that significant to the life of the church, then how are we to best define the word? In other words, are there core characteristics that should inform the way we understand the missional concept? I believe there are at least three major theological distinctions that help to undergird the missional conversation. Without such a foundation we run the risk of simply attaching the word “missional” onto everything the church is already doing, and therefore ignoring the necessary paradigmatic shift.

1. Missional Church is about the missionary nature of God and His Church.

Those in the missional movement recognize both God and the church are intrinsically and principally “missionary” in nature. God is a missionary God who sends a missionary church. In fact, a survey of the term “sending” in its various forms in Scripture reveals the missionary nature of the Triune God, as well as the very essence of the church. The redemptive activity of God, his relationship to the world, and his dealing with mankind is described in Scripture by the word “sending.” The word “sending” is the “sum and substance of God’s creativity and activity” (Georg F. Vicedom, The Mission of God, 9).

Scripture is replete with sending language that speaks to the missionary nature of a Triune God. God the Father sends the Son, and God the Father and the Son sends the Spirit, and God the Father and the Son and the Spirit sends the church. In the Gospel of John alone, nearly forty times we read about Jesus being sent – either from the evangelist or from Jesus’ own lips. In the final climatic sending passage in John’s Gospel, Jesus sees himself not only as one sent but also as one who is sending: “As the Father has sent me, I am sending you” (John 20:21).

It is important to make clear that the church is a vital part of the missional conversation. However, the church must not be seen simply as an entity that sends missionaries; as admirable as sending and supporting missionary activity might be. Instead, we must recognize that the purpose of the church is derived from the very nature of a sending, missionary God, which in turn compels it to be sent as a missionary people, both individually and collectively.

2. Missional Church is about incarnational ministry (versus attractional/extractional) in a post-Christendom context.

Those with a missional perspective no longer see the church service as the primary connecting point for those outside the church. While there is nothing wrong with attracting people to participate in various meetings of the church, the missional church is more concerned about sending the people in the church out among the people of the world, rather than getting the people of the world in among the people of the church. Some have described this missional-attractional distinction as a challenge to “go and be” as opposed to “come and see.”

The attractional model, which has dominated the church in the West for the past several decades, seeks to reach out to the culture and draw people into the church. However, this approach only works when there are no significant cultural barriers to overcome when making the required move from outside to inside the church. “And as Western culture has become increasingly post-Christian, the attractional model has lost its effectiveness. The West looks more like a cross-cultural missionary context in which attractional church models are self-defeating. Furthermore, the process of extracting people from the culture and assimilating them into the church diminishes their ability to speak to those outside.” (Alan Hirsch, Defining Missional, Christianity Today)

On the other hand, missional churches see their primary function as one of actively moving into a community to embody and enflesh the word, deed, and life of Jesus into every nook and cranny. Alan Hirsch speaks of the “missional-incarnational impulse,” where the word “missional” expresses the sending nature of the church, while “incarnational” represents the “embedding” of the gospel into a local context. In other words, “missional” speaks to our direction – we are sent; while being “incarnational” is more about how we go, and what we do as we go. Eugene Peterson’s “incarnational” rendering of John 1:14 in the Message paraphrase illustrates this well when it states, “The Word became flesh and blood and moved into the neighborhood.”

3. Missional Church is about actively participating in the missio Dei, or mission of God.

Many times we wrongly assume that the primary activity of God is in the church, rather than recognizing that God’s primary activity is in the world, and the church is God’s instrument sent into the world to participate in His redemptive mission.

This key distinction clarifies the difference between a church with a missions program and a missional church. A church with a missions program usually sees missions as one activity alongside many other equally important programs of the church. A missional church, on the other hand, focuses all of its activities around its participation in God’s agenda for the world. God’s mission must form and inform everything we do. All activities of the church must be catalyzed by and organized around the missio Dei.

As the sent, missionary people of God, the missional church understands its fundamental purpose as being rooted in God’s mission to restore and heal creation and to call people into a reconciled relationship with Himself. It is God’s mission that calls the church into existence. In other words, we can no longer see the church as the starting point when thinking about mission. Instead, the church must be seen as the result of God’s mission. In the words of South African missiologist David Bosch: “It is not the church which undertakes mission; it is the missio Dei which constitutes the church.” Or stated in a slightly different manner; “it is not so much that God has a mission for his church in the world, but that God has a church for his mission in the world” (Christopher Wright 2006, 62).

Alan Hirsch on Cultural Distance & the American Missionary Problem

February 14, 2011, by 3 comments

Below are two very helpful videos presentations by Alan Hirsch from last year’s AND conference at Granger Community Church. The bulk of the first video is spent on the very important topic of cultural distance and the problem it creates for meaningful communication of the gospel. Building upon the cultural distance discussion, he then proceeds to examine the “missionary problem”, of having the majority of American churches attempting to reach the same population segment, that is 95% of churches in America are trying to reach the same 40% of the population.

This leads to what he refers to as the “strategic problem”, which recognizes that 60% of the population has no interest in identifying with the contemporary church that is represented by 95% of the churches. The last several minutes of the presentation is spent in a time of Q&A. When viewing the first video you may want to skip over the the opening song, as well as the goofy skit on the tension between missional and attractional that precedes Alan’s talk.

The second video deals with the five-fold ministry of Ephesians 4. Alan argues that we will never create or sustain a movement until the church recaptures the role of the Apostle, Prophet and Evangelist.

p>