I certainly wouldn’t have cast my message as prophetic. But I do sense that an old husk of accumulated know-how needs to be removed from our approach to ministry. Each generation needs to experience first-hand both the grace and the mighty deeds of God. That’s my prayer for the under 30 crowd.

I wonder if some thought needs to be put into marks of church-age prophetic leadership, as opposed to mere charisma or worse, false prophetic leadership. You began to address it in the Lucy article – love for jesus. But how can others recognize that?

Sociologists have shown that ideas spread like viruses. Person to person, without programs or structures. We need a “viral” church model that is anti-program, anti-institution, and pro-relationship.

Consider this: church “growth” and “planting” are agircultural metaphors. The bible is full of easy to understand agricultural metaphors like this. But think about it: the goal of a plant is not to become a REALLY BIG plant with no offspring. Rather, every flower, bush, and tree has a plan to scatter seeds. Whether by wind, water, animals, or other means.

We should have a truly organic church — not just at our fellowship but also by planting new churches all over the place.

But the “failure” motif didn’t originate with you Lisa, of course. It was a widely-held axiom at the time I moved up here.

The Cleveland church’s ministry has been blessed in amazing ways - such a bounty of fruit! Your article just got me thinking.

BTW-did you read the article in Leadership magazine that discussed church franchising! Goodness imagine a McXenos.

Link to article http://blog.christianitytoday.com/outofur/archives/2008/02/franchising_chu.html

Actually, if you listen to Guzzo’s testimony on the issue, he was already struggling spiritually before leaving Columbus. The entire approach taken at that first effort was flawed.

The bold and courageous will flock to it and revel in it; they will use it for the glory of grace.

Others will feign disinterest and will pretend with stubborn indignation that they are not interested or able to use it. In time, their hearts will be softened and moved and excited by the possibilities and they will submit to use this amazing tool.

I agree with what you’re saying here, it seems like sending out qualified leaders like Tom will give others a chance to step up and get broken and used by God in ways that they weren’t before. It will also serve to let God work in other neighborhoods and areas that the sent people are going to. God’s Great Commission is pretty genius because it’s an answer to stagnation and “staying home”.

Dr. Hugs and I talked about this at STR - it seems like Xenos should be doing a lot more of this!

However, I think you err by claiming you “beat” facebook to the punch- when exactly did basecamp launch? Facebook has been online since February 2004.

“Calvary is perpetually sending leaders out to plant extra-local churches.”

With the above in mind and that Xenos has a reported history of “failed” extra-local plants, what does this mean for NeoXenos who also has experienced growth which then appears to flounder or stagnate? Was sending equipped leadership Xenos’ true calling?

Also the article reads…

“Sending” is far more-compatible with the Xenos paradigm, since Willow’s “holding back” strategy means increasing organization, structures, buildings, bureaucracies, budgets, policies and many other elements not conducive to a “relational model” of fellowship.

This was at one time a great part of Xenos’ paradigm - mission’s became a focus not only world-wide but also extra-local - however, many plants never took off (ie Pittsburgh) due to apparent failure at other plants. Did we forsake our vision?

Could it be said that the amazing growth in Xenos was in part due to the passion of the Body to “GO” - whereever the need or “call” seemed evident? That the zeal for the Lord’s cause spilled over resulting in several mission fields and several church plants. People were willing to sacrifice in many ways (many made life style choices to live very modestly and gave heavily) - giving was not limited to missions but a “building fund” and other such endeavors were heavily supported. Was this the abundant life we were corporately called to do?

So are passion and zeal for the Lord’s glory what drives a church’s growth? Should a mission’s focus of “GO,” whether extra-local, inner city or world wide, be a greater part of vision or a paradigm? If so, what does this mean for NeoXenos?

Is the vision something that is merely for an individual’s leading or has the Spirit called us to a more corporate action?