Christendom Measurements for a Post-Christendom World

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So ask me in 10 years how many people.

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

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

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