Fast forward two years and the Globe & Mail published a peculiar article about Calgary's First Alliance Church (FAC), a huge evangelical church located in the heart of an industrial park in the South East. The gist of the article from what I gathered was the success of this particular brand of church in an age where attendance is dwindling to a trickle.

Not so for FAC who have boasted a reported 75% increase since the recession. Things couldn't be better. But is the reported success really indicative of ongoing trends in Calgary and beyond? Does First Alliance have the secret recipe to church success in the 21st century?

At FAC it's ABC: (attendance, big building plans, millions in cash). By these points they're doing admirably.  But how can a church be growing in what is supposedly an age of imminent collapse?

In my mind there are only two ways we can interpret the Globe's observations. Either FAC is growing because there is a resurgence (revival if you will) in Christian spirituality, or FAC is merely a burgeoning life raft jettisoned from a sinking ship.

[I don't mean to pick exclusively on FAC, they are merely subjects in the article and a good example of the typical successful big box church in any city.]

I don't for a minute believe there is a resurgence in Christian spirituality and all evidence from those who actually count this kind of thing points to the same. That would mean the latter must be true--Christianity is on the outs. Perhaps I should re-phrase. The dominant position Christianity used to have in our culture is no more. We can no longer assume the average Joe has any form of religious memory, nor should we believe that any form of lobby will reclaim a golden age of evangelicalism.

As we have observed culture around us changing the way we do church has largely remained stagnant. For the past 30 years it's revolved around a mostly  consumer oriented model of build it and they will come. Although the article itself probably takes liberties when they describe the lead pastor's attitude towards church, (...bring people to God? “Through parking and bathrooms", he replies,) it accurately reflects a predominantly individualistic brand of contemporary evangelicalism, ("if it’s going to be, it’s up to me") seen throughout.

With this context let's go back to the question I posed: does FAC have a recipe for church success? Indeed, they DO, and that recipe is simply: they do church really well. At FAC the music is top notch, the lights are flashy and dashy, the preaching is relevant, and a variety of programs are available to support their upper-middle class demographic and beyond. Their million dollar budget pays off in the pew as a generation of consumer oriented attendees placate themselves with 'church' of the highest quality.

But this is evangelicalisms problem not FAC, the majority of churches attempt to engage in the same pursuit for great church 'service' unknowingly forming their congregations to correlate good church with great shows. The correlation? In the consumer age if everyone is trying to provide a 'service' (double entendre intended) dissatisfied consumers will eventually check-in to something better. That something better is FAC; small churches who play this game don't stand a chance.

The exodus is already on the way. After all, FAC has grown by 75% and remember there's no revival underway. That means the growth experienced by the churches who put on the best show is predominantly through transfer Christians jumping ship from one church to another. Be it additional services or even pseudo church-plants, growth can be attributed to fickle consumer oriented Christians looking to meet their demands of what 'church' should be.

This likely doesn't come as news to many who pay attention to demographic trends in our culture today (or heck, just read the newspaper). What IS, however, surprising is how many benefitting from these shifts are unaware their growth is attributed to transfers. This is crucial because the inability to identify the transfer trend contributes to a repetitive and vicious cycle whereby churches try to come up with the latest attractive fad (online church?!?) while simultaneously ignoring the root problem--an exponentially declining rate of discipleship. No disciples = no replication (unless you think altar calls still work.)

The Globe article was a surprising wake-up call for many at FAC and beyond. In a sense they are being forced to re-asses their insulated view of themselves and empathize with Joe Average's perceptions of the most glamours churches of the lot.

It's not just the biggest and best who need to pay heed either. A lack foresight will eventually lead to everyone's demise. When will this happen? For the smallest it already has. For the largest? Years to come, perhaps decades. And although we can pass the problem to upcoming generations of lead pastors who will inherit big box buildings with empty pews, it would be far more astute to fundamentally address the paradigm of how we do church and change it from one of self-centric consumerism to Christ-centric networks of Kingdom participants.

Rejoice in the Sinking Titanic – A Last Hoorah For Evangelicalism in Canada is a post from: PomoTheo - Missional Perspectives

You know the ones I'm talking about. The 'missions' trips that fly over to far-off lands with a purpose to do something aid related (occasionally it's just to win souls which is a terrible reason to embark on such a trip). Usually the purpose is to build some houses (that the locals could build), fix some buildings (that locals could fix), or maybe build some wells (see buildings). None of these items are in themselves bad ideas, they are simply delivered as part of a bad aid package and reinforces a deeply consumeristic form of Western Christianity.

What can you do to stem the tide of useless missions trips? Here's the start of a list of questions to ask prior to planning a short term missions trip. (Maybe someone wants to make an infographic of this? :P)

When considering a short term missions trip (1-4 weeks) or program consider the following questions:

• If you answered YES then your church needs a fundamental shift in how it views mission. The church doesn't have a mission, rather, the mission has a church. To regard missions as something only a missionary does fulltime demonstrates an anemic view. Most contemporary churches fall into this paradigm, but imagine the results of valuing local missions first and compelling everyone to exist in that local mission rather than regarding the qualified missionaries as the only ones capable to 'do' mission.

• If you answer 'MONEY' then don't go.Let's crunch some hypothetical numbers. 3500 x 15 people = $52,500 in flights alone. That money could potentially purchase many times more resources than what you're slated to contribute. Are you interested in helping people? If so then how much good can be done is a relevant question? Do you build 1 well or send the money so the locals can build 5?

  If you do happen to opt for the giving route rather than going be sure to send cash (it's OK to demand accountability BTW). But don't send your used junk overseas, that's a whole different problem.

• If you answer 'NO' don't go. One of the things short term missions work (and other foreign aid) inadvertently does is eliminate local employment. Do a quick benefit analysis where you compare if the trip primarily benefits the sender or the recipient. To put it simply, Mexicans know how to build houses, your teenagers don't need to show them how. Let local workers work, you on the other hand should think twice about replacing them. Of course, if you're not trying to alleviate poverty and you want the experience of helping someone in a far off land then so be it, there are many programs out there to do just that (I'm simply suggesting it's not the best way to address the fundamental need of poverty).

• If the answer is 'NO' don't bother. Don't even think about going because your well will break in 4 months and will sit rusting in a field because nobody will know how to fix it (or the parts aren't available).

• If the answer is 'NO' then don't go. This is a tough one. Short term missions are designed in many churches to give Westerners their fix for doing something good in the world. Feelings themselves aren't deep spiritual convictions and become fleeting thoughts a month after return. Other times a bunch of white guys get what they think is a good idea and decide they need to go to far off places to 'train' local leaders. Apart from the obvious colonialist mindset behind this intention (do African countries really need to learn from a dead church how to evangelize?), sometimes there are worthy skills to share. In those cases, given everyone has the internet, would it better to teach for free (or nominal fee) via Skype or fly yourself over to the community costing local church and sending organization unnecessary money or not?

• If the answer is 'NO' don't go. There are emerging 'sectors' in developing nations that will rent kids to plop them into orphanages to be hugged by hapless North American saps. Unless you have an explicit relationship with a local organization you're not an expert nor a solution to a devastating local issue. Find an organization to partner with if you're interested in helping.

• If the answer is 'YES' then don't even plan. I don't imagine many churches would compel their parishioners to borrow to go on a trip, most international trips are a luxury of well-to-do churches. However, I know of a number of kids who work hard over summer or various fundraising activities to go on missions trips that have little impact for the local community. There is value for life changing experiences, but let's not call them missions trips (more on that later).

• If the answer is 'YES' then don't go. Do you even have a local missions ethos? Does your church regularly participate in the needs of the immediate community? If the answer is NO then you must recalibrate your church towards the local needs before ever contributing something internationally (of course, this point is moot if your intentions for missions trips is to do something cool for the youth group).

• Measurement is important when doing foreign aid, and not how many wells you build, but how many wells are still operation in 1 year, 2 years, 5, and more. One of the failures of short term mission help is that it only offeres a band-aid solution at best to a situation we care to learn little about.

• If you answered 'YES' then you need to consider a paradigm shift in evangelism. One thing you shouldn't be measuring, and the one thing many nonetheless do, is conversions. Why? Because a) the 'sinner's prayer conversion' is the by-product of a highly consumerist brand of Christianity that has little bearing in scripture. So not only are you measuring something only the Son can judge, you're measuring a fleeting moment in time (that people readily mimic to get the free stuff you're giving them). Conversions are a process stemming from intentional and usually lengthy discipleship. Measuring a prayer is akin to

After reflecting on these questions maybe you'll want to reconsider your short term missions aspirations (after all, it's a ton of work). I know a lot of youth leaders going the local route to wide success for both community and student. (Conversely, I know a lot of pointless trips happens because elder boards just feel one trip every two years is a necessary rhythm of the church.)

At the end of the day is your trip really more about you then helping the local people? It's important to experience another part of the world, especially ones much poorer than your own, which can become important paradigm shifting experiences. But let's call a spade a spade and plan for a trip focused on tourism not missions.

Enough with bursting short term missions dreams, what are some noble reasons to embark on a short term trip?

• If the answer is YES then send a small team to fact find and begin the process of both creating strategy to address a distinct need, and the right people who will compel everyone back home to jump on the bandwagon.

• If the answer is YES go. There are times when you're helping a community overseas and THEY want to connect with YOU. A lot of people you're helping don't necessarily want a check carte blanche, they want to know the people sending them cash too. SEnd a small team to see what's going on, meet the local community, and report back.

• So long as you have a support network at home then go! But now we're outside the realm of short term missions.

Did I miss any? Your thoughts?

10 Questions to Ask Before Embarking on Short Term Mission Work is a post from: PomoTheo - Missional Perspectives

Sacrilege follows the same narrative as his pervious books, charting out interesting stories about mission and community legitimized through a journey through scripture.

In this case every chapter was an exploration around a central idea of one particular verse in the Matthew 5 Beatitudes. It was really cool for me to read through right after preaching through the same series. I resonated with many of his ideas and had a good sense our own missional community was on the right track (the track of figuring it out as we go along previewing the Kingdom of God in our neighborhoods and beyond.)

For the Conservative Christian reader they'll be offended in a variety of places, but my hope is many will pick this book up, and even if you hate it, it will plant the proverbial seed in the hardened heart of those who have a faith that's more like Pharisees than a Jesus movement (no not THAT Jesus Movement).

The title "Finding Life in the Unorthodox Ways of Jesus" is a bit of a misnomer. They are Jesus' ways ergo they are the foundation for orthodoxy. The fact Jesus' Beatitudes have been reduced to rules and regulations to uphold rules and regulations highlights our need for a refreshed perspective of the Gospel.

As with many of these missional church writers (they aren't he worse by the way), I'm getting a bit tired with the 'new book every 8 months'. Alan Hirsch I think has a new one ever 4. Yes, they can write, some with great thoughts, but part of me wonders why you have to write something every few months? Yes, the publisher wants more books to sell, yes you get more money, but when it comes to lasting ideas, the magnus opus, well that doesn't happen when you're reiterating the same material every year.

Obviously there's a business reason behind all of this, but there's a saturation point for materials on 'missional church' (most from the same people).

So having said that, Halter's book isn't THAT much different than the last two. I would highly recommend reading at least one, and using one as a study guide for your formation around the ideas of missional church. His practical writing style is very accessible to the 'lay person' and will have an impact on your perception of community.

Do you have to get every Halter release? Probably not. But Sacrilege was certainly enjoyable.

Note: "This book has been provided courtesy of Baker Publishing Group and Graf-Martin Communications, Inc. Available at your bookseller from Baker Books, a division of Baker Publishing Group".

Book Review: Sacrilege – Hugh Halter is a post from: PomoTheo - Missional Perspectives

Without owning words (although some, even on this blog, have tried) missional churches seek to re-orient the church towards the driving force of missio Dei. The mission has a church, not the other way around, as the saying goes.

The missional paradigm is not an attempt to re-orient towards a particular set of doctrines or theology. For example, the declining Emergent church tends to be associated with a more left-leaning theology whereas missional is a language translatable into any number of traditions.

The organic nature of the movement is striking a resonating chord with churches from all traditions partly due to the absence of one central voice from one particular 'school of thought'. As such the mega-church could opt to adopt a missional posture along with the high-church liturgical traditions. Albeit such a move would be chaotic and likely push 25% or more of congregants to more safer pastures, but the opportunity is there should leaders choose the adventure.

Here's the thing, one of the core elements of missional church that speaks loudly to the identity of the movement is in fact discipleship. I don't know who Mr. Breen is reading or what communities he's watching, but I have yet to read or see a missional community that wasn't fundamentally postured in such a way that highly values and invests into relationships.

Discipleship is at the forefront of the missional movement, it's foundational to its survival and I know of no single leader who thinks otherwise. (I also know of no one leader who can say their church is a resounding success when it comes to discipleship, as in it's REALLY hard to disciple.)

If discipleship is the lynch pin of any church movement then the conventional/attractional church would've died off decades ago. All the evangelical churches I've attended defy their name--they aren't good at evangelism and they're even worse at discipleship. Yet they're still around (albeit set to finally disappear in a couple generations.) It seems pretty easy to fake authentic community and it also seems to take a really long time for that inauthenticity to fizzle out.

That's not to say discipleship is not important, I completely believe it is core to the church. Discipleship is also foundational to missional churches; without this foundation a community ceases to be missional in both essence and function.

If Mr. Breen is encountering churches floundering to find identity beyond say, Kingdom works, then perhaps he's encountering leaders from conventional attractional church paradigm seeking to plug and play the latest style of ecclesiology for short term gain. That's not a problem of missional church, that's an issue of bad leadership.

I also disagree with Breen's assumption representation of a missional culture comes as a direct product of discipleship. If that was the case we wouldn't have a missional movement since all disciples would propagate their new missional DNA.

That's not what we observe partially because conventional churches aren't making enough disciples (practical reality), but more likely mere discipleship does not change someone's fundamental perception of mission. If your church is postured so that mission is merely the 'wheels of the car', or a subset of the church's function, then any disciple emerging from that context will believe the same.

Breen also demonstrates a very linear view of discipleship and Kingdom work. Again, it seems he's treating mission as the ministry of the church charged with good works and evangelism--mission not as function of the church but as an off shoot.

He states emphatically,

If your church community is not yet competent at making disciples who can make disciples, please don’t send your members out on mission until you have a growing sense of confidence in your ability to train, equip and disciple them.

If that were the case (and it seems to be) then exceptionally few churches would be doing little more than spoon-feeding the same Christians year after year. I'm not saying that's desirable, I'm merely stating what we see in practice. It also robs the mission away from the saints and places is square in the hands of the qualified few. Again, I'm not saying that's what's desirable, but I am saying it's the product of linear (perhaps Pauline) interpretations of mission.

Discipleship isn't teaching someone the essence of being a Christian, it's not exclusive to rational understanding of faith. If that was the case one could be discipled simply be listening to a sermon(s). Rather, discipleship is a holistic endeavour that primarily seeks a life worth living. It is the development of character and virtues that cannot grow without the activity of mission. While you're living out your faith you become that 'preview of what is to come'. To suggest one cannot be 'sent' on mission without being properly discipled divorces two items that are inseparable.

Jesus started his ministry extolling virtues in the Beatitudes that the Twelve (and others) were to live out. Persecution wasn't for being an evangelist (proselytizer) but for being an advocate for all the things were just outlined (peacemaker, mercy, meekness, etc.) That's a whole lot of doing while they were learning.

To use Breen's car metaphor, mission isn't the wheels. Let Kingdom work become the wheels. Discipleship can be the engine, but mission is the current and future destination. Mission is the lens that we filter our church through: worship through the lens of mission, Kingdom work through the lend of mission, and discipleship through the lens of mission.

So yes, missional church is bound to fail, just how the conventional church is now failing, because of a lack of investment in discipleship. However, the posture of churches with a missional identity is in my opinion far more conducive when it comes to valuing long term relationships necessary for discipleship. It is that posture that I do not see practiced in most conventional models of church so if anybody is in danger of dying it is the church growth/contemporary that's already experiencing exodus.

Mike Breen is Wrong: Why Missional Won’t Fail is a post from: PomoTheo - Missional Perspectives

Given all that, call me a cautious believer in the idea that we can do more for the kingdom of God by doing it together with people of common conviction--which usually means in a denomination--than by doing it alone.

There's a problem with this statement.

Combining with like minded communities or organizations is not exclusively correlated with a denomination. [I'm not suggesting this was Stetzer's conclusion FYI.]

It can be connected, but if the conclusion is partnerships for a kingdom purpose primarily happens in a denomination then you simply aren't looking.

Looking within denominations for partnerships works, but what's even greater is when you stop limiting your partnerships to denominational boundaries.

Go ask any missionary in the field how they regard partners. There you will witness firsthand Kingdom purpose that knows no denominational bounds--for them it is a factual matter of survival.

The receding cultural influence of denominations should only highlight the necessity to stretch BEYOND. After all, if we're truly interested in Kingdom purpose church theology shouldn't be a governing factor on who we partner with.

I wholly echo the necessity to partner with someone, it could be a denomination, but in my experience denominations are far more limiting locally than they are innovative. [In my post-Christendom context, not a middle class conservative suburban context.]

That's not a reason to 'strike out on your own', however, as the lone ranger church planter will never succeed, ever.

Do Denominations Matter? Confusing Partnerships is a post from: PomoTheo - Missional Perspectives

You know the stats. Declining attendance, small churches closing the doors, the same pre-Fall launch and gusto to invite new fresh blood into the church with the latest program and sermon series.....

Unless you're the best and brightest (the best show), most churches are dwindling in size. Their importance has already lost out in our culture today, although some have isolated perceptions legalism can return to provide the moralistic balance society needs.

The question is why isn't anything happening? Why, if churches all face the same threats, are we not seeing massive overhauls of how we 'do church'?

I think the answer is quite simple. The single element preventing most churches from embracing a dangerous gospel is our appetite for risk.

Or put another way, a predominantly middle class North American church is too comfortable in their role as guardians of traditions to rock the boat. Middle class generally = a desire for a quiet 'not in my backyard' lifestyle. Trouble is that insular lifestyle is generally invisible to the world around it. It's also not the lifestyle of the church.

It's actually incompatible.

The solution would be adopting a culture of risk. Unfortunately, we simply do not have a suitable theology of risk that highly regards leading a community continually on the brink of change.

That culture also includes churches at a leadership level. Think about this:

A middle-aged professionally trained pastor has very few transferable skills outside of the church. To propel the church thru a risky change to a mostly transient church population is a literal threat to his livelihood. You're not going to risk your mortgage payments if you know getting another job is slim.

On one hand that's a sad prospect for the established church. On the other hand it's a sobering reality of the current culture in our churches. [I guess that's bad and bad news.]

This doesn't imply every church operates in this fashion, my sense there's a slow resurgence in our leadership and community oriented churches centered around Christ, driven by mission into our communities, worship, and discipleship.

Slowly we're experiencing change.

Why Some Churches Will Never Adopt Mission is a post from: PomoTheo - Missional Perspectives

Many churches are trying to make some form of transition from 'seeker sensitive' to 'missional'. Some would think this is an impossible switch.

Not so fast, I've seen it work, once.

The one church that's successfully transitioned from a 'sit and consume' to a 'go and incarnate' model did so (and are still doing so) after two+ years of investment. 25% of the congregants were lost as deadweight (they wanted to sit and consume so they were permitted to make a choice to find more comfortable grounds.) The remaining 75% stayed, learned, grew, and started to transform their communities. Long story short, opportunity after opportunity arose that propelled the church as leaders in the community.

The transition worked here, but is it replicable (and is there an accompanying book and study guide)?

No study guide as of yet, but one of the key items that gave this particular church HUGE success was the way it was lead.

This was a Chinese church. Actually parts of it still are. English, Cantonese, and Mandarin. In this case, the English pastor was not responsible to face the elders nor explain himself to the other more rigid congregations. The lead pastor, overseeing all three, was the point person for this engagement.

As such, there was far more leeway to attempt great change (on the English side).

This is key. In some ways the English pastor had a buffer zone between him and the elders board, and the larger more affluent Chinese congregations.

If he was left alone to transition just the English side (or heaven forbid all three), and simultaneously face off with elders and others who didn't want change, success may have not been so easy (not that it was).

How many pastors try as they might to lead their congregations (set in their ways) towards a posture that's giving rather than settling?

How many of those pastors give up after 2-3 years because they've met so much resistance from within that they've exhausted their spirituality and bodies?

I'd say most.

If you're looking to lead change within your congregation the first thing you need to do is find advocates at the highest levels. Many churches still exist in a hierarchical structure, thus, to successfully lead a 2-3 year transition you're going to want key leaders on board prior to launching.

Of course, someone will be smart and will state that by changing the hearts of the people (congregation) you can illicit change.

That may be true, but generally churches aren't driven by the people, most are alarmingly Pharisaic in their operation. And if something does in fact crop up from the masses then it's released to start something new rather than changing the established community.

Find your advocates, and if you can find your buffers--people who will stand between you and the inevitable flow of continuous bad news. It will keep you sane and free you up to do what you really like to do: go and be the hands and feet of Christ in your community.

Leadership Buffers for Missional Church Transition is a post from: PomoTheo - Missional Perspectives

What bemuses me (or maybe it amuses me?) is the nature of church planting today. Churches still insist on massive capital campaigns in order to plant a church.

Tens of thousands of dollars to infrastructure and salary in order to take the 'risk' of church planting.

I want to simply state it can be done for nothing. (I do'nt know if it can be done well, but it certainly can be done for less.

I'm approaching year 3 of Calgary Church and it's cost ME money to be the leader of the church movement. It hasn't been much, mostly tied up in food, but salary and rentals have never been part of the equation.

As such, the 'church plant' has an air of longevity attached to it--a key factor necessary to be a community in a post-Christendom culture (no religious memory).

This process is really quite simple. Find great leaders, build into them, tell them to get a real job, and then ask them to lead a plant of like-minded people part-time.

I know it's not that simple, but run-of-the-mill big box churches would do themselves a favor by stepping up to the plate and out of their constrained paradigms to do something different and potentially more effective in planting the gospel in the community.

Let's be frank, fully subsidized plants in our day an age are a dying bread. Time to innovate and step out of ordinary.

The Age of New Church Planters is a post from: PomoTheo - Missional Perspectives

If you're church is feigning interest in anything missional then you need to come and start, engage, or complete your dialogue.

HEre is a link to the Facebook event.

On February 16th & 17th at 7:00 p.m. Dr. David Fitch will present two separate lectures on The Future of Evangelicalism: Forging a New Faithfulness in a Post Christendom North America. Dr. Fitch is the Betty R. Lindner Professor of Evangelical Theology at Northern Seminary, IL.

David Fitch is also the founding pastor of Life on the Vine Christian Community, a missional church in the northwest suburbs of Chicago. Additionally, he is co-founder of Up|Rooted, a group that gathers church leaders and thinker to engage the issues of the church in a post-modern context. Up|Rooted now has chapters all over the Chicago area.

Dr. Fitch is the author of the very successful book, The Great Giveaway (Baker, 2005).
His latest book is The End of Evangelicalism (Wipf & Stock, 2011).

The Lecture will take place in the Ambrose University College Gymnasium as part of the Murray W. Downey Lectureship series. Admission and parking will be free.

Dave Fitch Lectures Coming to Calgary is a post from: PomoTheo - Missional Perspectives

Jason Coker is dissecting a failed missional church plant--his own. I was glued at his assessment in the aptly named: "Missional Postmortem: Intentionally unorthodox decisions that may have contributed to morbidity.

This got me thinking, the response at Pastoralia has been tremendous, but I wonder if I can capture some of the online wisdom to fuel an existing church plant--my own.

So piggybacking off of Jason's honestly (I hope he doesn't mind the hijack) here is my appraisal of Calgary Church one, maybe 2, (or is it 3?) years after 'launch'.

Calgary Church is alive and kicking, in fact, we're just starting off--I think. It's tough to gauge where we're at since there are exceptionally few precedents for successful missional church plants in a largely post-Christendom urban culture.

All I can say is that we have 10, 20, maybe 40 people who cross-over with Calgary Church that come from different sectors in our city. We've been adamant with our vision to join God in the places he's already at work in our networks, or city, and beyond. We're focused to communicate this intention with would be 'suitors' who come knocking on our symbolic 'door', and then building into those people to be the hands and feet of God's mission in their networks.

But I'm getting ahead of myself. Here is an appraisal with some key elements describing our movement. I'd appreciate some thoughts.

We don’t have a core team:
This isn't for lack of trying. We initially started off the whole concept of church planting by going through some heavy discussions and 'assessments' with the denomination that was part of the seminary I attended. During that time I worked to connect with some potential suitors who could have become key elders in the movement.

Long story short I was too unknown to the denomination, coupled with an unknown organic missional model, meant there would be no supporting denomination if my wife and I wanted to pursue a plant.

Since I'd lose my faith in a conventional evangelical setting, we were happy to commit to the road less traveled.

That didn't meant the search for leaders stopped. I identified people from my old church that may have resonated with our vision, but that didn't pan out either. We even connected with the missional communities in our city (we found ONE other missional community and many cool house church networks), but they were exclusive to a specific community which didn't work for us.

Even our Christian friends who might have become neat people to journey with along the path of intentional community living didn't pan out.

That left us pretty lonely to start.

We were fortunate that through my work in web marketing, the 'church' had a web presence. It wasn't to attract people into a building :P, but it was meant to share ideas.

A community in the area we lived caught a post and contacted me. Turns out that community was (is) on the ground running for a few years doing some really 'unconventional' things with pretty regular people.

We quickly partnered together and in Summer 2008 launched some regular gatherings. The partnership did two things: 1) it provided a leadership base stretching across three communities; 2) it offered us a critical mass of people. The difference between meeting together with 4 people versus 20 is a big difference.

However, to this day, Calgary Church still suffers from the lack of an elders body. We're still searching, we're building into the people we have, but it's tough to be a 'church' when you're missing this massive piece.

We have established secular work beforehand:
Through my time in seminary I was working part time in my own consulting business. I've moved 'full time' now. I actually have a great set up to be bi-vocational, I'm just missing the 'vocation' side of things :P. My wife is back at school and will be a teacher. We'll both carry on in our work indefinitely.

This is positive and negative.

It's great because the 'church plant' doesn't expire when we lose funding. In fact, there is no end date.

The negative is there's no end date! We do'nt have to 'pull the plug' at any time since we can just readjust. That could mean sitting stagnant in one place for too long....

I try to preach and teach:
I dont believe that we need a good dose of the 'pulpit' in order to be a real church. I do, however, highly value gathering and worshipping together. We (Calgary Church) meet monthly for 'church' with our two other communities. These have been amazing times, but I want more.

Because we meet once a month teaching and preaching are at a minimum. I find we are unable to edify our community as a whole as often as we'd like. This can leave participants feeling 'underfed' and perhaps even spiritually cold.

Small group like gatherings have cropped up which are great, and we'll hopefully build into those in the New Year to fix the 'teaching/discipleship' side of things.

We don't have any desire to provide a ready-made solutions for kids"
Since we only meet once a month and since we're small kids are actual participants in our worship (even if it's just drawing on walls....) If we ever grow though, I still don't see a drive to create a kids or youth 'programs'. Having said that, our partner King's Bridge saw a need in the community for a parents conversation over coffee afternoon and that's launched.

I can see doing community oriented kids things, but an element connected with worship? Not on the horizon.

We're re-interpreting worship as driven by music and preaching:
We're making it up as we go along. When it comes to worship we don't equate our gathering times as one driven by music then capped off by a 40 minute sermon. Rather, we prefer to let mission drive our worship. We want to hear how God is interceding in the midst of the community.

We still teach, preach (albeit very very briefly), and we certainly shy away from music. It may be because we have so many recovering worship team people, but music is not something we use as integral to our services. Because of our strict 'no Chris Tomlin' policy (lol) we've probably lost interested folks since we don't have heart string pulling worship times.

We still use music, but we try to add them as accents to our liturgical time. I don't see this changing and if that keeps us small then.......

We don't advertise but we do lead:
I noted earlier that King's Bridge found us online. We DO have a web presence aptly named "Calgary Church" since I didn't want to 'brand' us, but rather let that come organically from the community (we still don't have a name).

The website has enabled us to communicate VERY clearly what we're about. That's been a blessing and a curse. A curse because 75% of people who inquire about connecting with us never make it past the first email after we suggest they 're-read' our vision and highlight the fact we have no Sunday service for people to 'join'. A blessing because 75% of those who inquire about connecting never do.....

Calgary Church is in fact a leader online for churches in our city. Having said that, nobody searches for 'missional church' in their city, and those who do search for churches are looking for a steeple and choir (or big box and electric guitars).

Our primary connection for interested people is in fact the web. As such we've attracted similar types of people: under 40 (actually under 30), reacting or recovering from previous church experience, looking for something different, want to capture another level with their faith.

This doesn't help our cause for bringing in older and sometimes wiser people, but it doesn't help us build into the right people to be the future older and wiser people....

We're illegitimate children:
Calgary Church isn't even a real church (bureaucratically), and I'm not even an official 'clergymen' recognized by the state. I've passed various tests, assessments, and accreditation, but that's irrelevant when you don't work for the right church.

I do'nt think anybody from Calgary Church cares since biblical we're definitely journeying together as a God-fearing missional community. But our illegitimate status has in the past prevented would be suitors from jumping on board. Not sure if this is a positive or negative yet.

It also means we don't have members, and although I don't think having members so we can vote on policy is a big deal, it does mean you have created affinity with congregants. Right now we don't 'own' anybody, which isn't a bad thing, but it becomes hard to hold people accountable for not participating with the community in various ways.

So, you may ask, why haven't I looked for another denomination to help?

You think I haven't tried?! There are no denominations, nor para-church planting organizations, in our city (some are emerging and I'm willing to be wrong here) looking to plant a missional, organic, un-orthodox, urban, multi generational and ethnic, church with a non-white young leader at the helm. Some of the larger churches are definitely looking at ways to plant churches, which I've had opportunity to explore, but those are all of the conventional variety (not that those are bad, just not my voice).

So here we are, one, two, maybe three years in the mix, building a core, slowly adding the right people, and watching as God is transforming our communities and ourselves.

I know there's much more to be had, but I think we're missing some pieces to get there....

Missional Appraisal: Intentionally unorthodox decisions that may be contributing to morbidity is a post from: PomoTheo - Missional Perspectives