What do you think of when you hear the phrase "the world?" Does it elicit a positive or negative response?

The Scripture has a lot to say on the subject of "the world" that, on a cursory reading, can seem contradictory. Consider, for example, what the Apostle John says. In John 3:16 he wrote: "For God so loved the world..." But then in 1 John 2:15 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." He records Jesus' words in John 12:47, "For I did not come to judge the world but to save the world," but relates Jesus' admonition in 15:19, "If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you."

It seems like poor John can't seem to make up his mind about "the world," and whether we should love it or hate it.

Of course, John wasn't confused. The Scripture draws a distinction between the people of the world and the fallen system of ideas that work in rebellion against God. In that sense, we are to both love and hate the world (Prov. 8:13). Part of what that means is living in the world (being present and active where God has sent us) but not being of the world (being influenced by and accepting a system profoundly opposed to God). Many Christians, however, are so fearful of being of the world that they completely isolate themselves from anything in the world. Under the banner of "separation," they've gone underground and disappeared from sight. That's not how we are supposed to live as citizens of God's kingdom - and it denies the missional nature of the church.

Perhaps a change of terms will help clarify the issue for us. For a moment, let's use "the people of earth" for "the world" (where we live) and the phrase "the attitude that rejects God's love, law and leading" for "the world" (its fallen system). Now, let's paraphrase: "Be among the people of earth (in the world), but not of the attitude that rejects God's love, law and leading (of the world)." This simple contrast should bring a great deal of clarity to a potentially confusing line of thought. Now read John 3:16 to say, "For God so loved the people of earth..." and 1 John 2, "Love not the attitude that rejects God's love, law and leading, nor the things that take priority over God's love, law and leading. If anyone loves the attitude that rejects God's love, law and leading, the love of the Father is not in him." It becomes apparent that John and other New Testament writers are dealing with two separate matters: a place of residence and the people God loves, and a condition of the heart that opposes God.

The Bible specifically tells us to live with "worldly" people. That's exactly what always got Jesus in trouble - hanging out with drunkards, sinners, prostitutes ... you know, the "bad" people. Paul emphasized the same point to the church at Corinth. The church had become confused about some things the apostle had taught earlier. In reaction, they began to disassociate with the world (people) around them. But Paul wanted them to understand that the solution to their problems - and they had lots of them - was not withdrawal from the people around them:

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 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

Paul's words make two things very clear. First, he has absolutely no intention to separate Christians from non-Christians. To him, the concept was laughable because it would negate the whole reason Christians live in the world. Second, someone who claims the name of Christ must be held to an incredibly high standard. If such a person forgets where his or her loyalty lies and adopts an attitude contrary to God's love, law, and leadership, faithful followers of Christ are to disassociate themselves from that person. They must choose. (This, incidentally, is the forgotten part of the biblical doctrine of separation. We are not instructed to separate from the lost, but from church members who live out and indulge in their deep depravity, until such time they give evidence of repentance.)

Some of us will choose to not participate in any of the world's systems, and opt for insulating ourselves in a self-made Christian bubble, a life constructed so that we can live out our days without ever even bumping into someone who doesn't believe or live as we do. Safely detached from the spiritual lepers outside, we can glory in Christian preschool through graduate school, Christian music, Christian romance novels, Christian leadership books, and even Christian Halloween candy. Thank God for those Christian Yellow Pages. The only thing we will not have is the personal influence of the gospel in the lives of those who do not know Christ. It's difficult to make disciples of people we won't even talk to. In a perverse twist of our Lord's expectation, many Christians find themselves of the world by means of some kind of pseudo-sacred imitation, but not in it.

It is easy for us to continue missing the mark on both of these implications. Often our lives as Christ-followers look no different from the system of the world. We too often settle for a truncated holiness that has a shiny gloss of Christian spirituality, but is for the most part inoffensive to the world, while overlooking greed, arrogance, and injustice. John described the world's system - the attitude that rejects God's love, law, and leading - very clearly. After he implored us not to love that attitude in 1 John 2:15, he continues (paraphrasing): "For all that is in the people of the earth (the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life) is not from the Father, but is from the attitude that rejects God's love, law and leading." Verse 17 then confirms the eternal contrast: "The attitude that rejects God's love, law, and leading is passing away, with its lusts; but the one who does the will of God abides forever."

But in this "world vs. world" dichotomy, we find a subtlety that often blinds Christians. On the average Sunday morning, there is as much of the world in the church's building as there is in the world outside it. Why? Because "worldliness" does not reside in Tennessee, Canada, or Russia, i.e., the earth; it resides in human hearts and attitudes - in both believers and non-believers the world over. That is why separation from the world is not a matter of avoiding people, but a constant warring within ourselves against the attitude that would see us reject the love, law, and leadership of God over our lives.

As the sent church of God, we must love the people who live on this earth 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.

This becomes an important distinction in regards to contextualization, the focus of this series (see parts one, owo, three, and four and five). Contextualization reminds us that we genuinely need to be IN the world while not being OF the world.

I express it as being: biblically faithful, culturally relevant, counter-culture communities for the Kingdom. Or, for this conversation, we are:

-biblically faithful (driven by scripture)
-culturally relevant (living in and among the world with people in cultures)
-counter-culture communities (not being of the world's system, values, or morality)
-for the Kingdom.

As it turns out, John wasn't confused at all - but the church often is.

Please feel free to weigh in, give your opinion, and discuss how the church is called to be in and not of the world-- and how that relates to contextual ministry. And, as always, if there is your first time here, you might want to review the comment policy.

I just added a new event in the NY area. Well, it is actually not that new-- I had been planting to speak at a denominational meeting up there for a while. However, we decided to add a church planting event, open to folks of all denominations, the next day.

Multiply! September 28, 2010

The Multiply! Conference asks what would it look like if a multiplication movement swept the Northeast?

The morning session (8am-12:30pm) is open to all, and will feature a muti-denominational presentation & discussion from Viral Churches. I will be sharing about what a church multiplication movement looks like and what it will take to see one in North America, particularly in the Northeast.

Everyone is also welcome to the afternoon session, but the conversation will be geared more toward church multiplication movements in the SBC denominational context.

This is a FREE event. However, your registration is greatly appreciated so that we may accommodate your meal needs well. And, if you are among the first 100 registered, you get a free copy of the Viral Churches book.

To register email Kathy at kaubrey@bcnysbc.org. You can download the brochure for more information here.

See you there...

We've been discussing the issue of contextualization here at the blog (Parts one, two and three of the newest series "Calling for Contextualization") and the conversation has been good. As you probably know, this is not a topic all will agree on, but it is an important one to talk through, and I am hoping that through this series we can at least clear away some of the misconceptions that are often attached to this conversation.

Part of what makes this issue of contextualization difficult is that some leaders aren't even comfortable with the idea of "engaging culture." Some well-known pastors argue that the church must not only maintain its own distinct culture (a good thing), but be completely separate from the culture around it (an impossible and even unhelpful thing).

Let me begin with two high-profile examples from two men that I admire. In both cases, I think we would probably have much in common, but they have each recently taken "engaging the culture" to task -- and they have done so in a way that I think confuses more than clarifies the issue.

In all of the discussion and debate revolving around the issue of contextualization most will agree that knowing the truth of the gospel is not enough, but that we are called by God to also make it known to make disciples. As the Apostle Paul wrote, "... how can they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how can they believe without hearing about Him? And how can they hear without a preacher? And how can they preach unless they are sent?" (Rom 10:14, 15 HCSB).

The desire for contextualization is often driven by a hope for clear gospel communication. (I've touched on this a bit in part 1 and part 2 of this series.) However, agreement on our calling to make the gospel known to make disciples will only help us to see the need for contextualization if we define it properly.

Contextualization is not so easy to define because people use the word differently in different traditions. Yet, as I did when defining culture, I think it is important to consider how evangelicals define and use a term if we are to have any meaningful conversation in the evangelical community. Thus, we look again to The Evangelical Dictionary of World Missions, where Gilliland explains that contextualization is a tool to "to enable, insofar as it is humanly possible, an understanding of what it means that Jesus Christ, the Word, is authentically experienced in each and every human situation" (Gilliland, Dean. "Contextualization." In The Evangelical Dictionary of World Missions. Ed. Scott Moreau. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2000).

There are other variants of that view and I will not try to address each one. For that, I would suggest reading Contextualization: Meanings, Methods, and Models by David Hesselgrave and Edward Rommen. And, it should tell us something that whole books would be written on the subject.

Thus, all definitions of contextualization address communication. Gilliland says elsewhere, "Contextualization is, first of all, concerned with communicating by appropriate and understandable means that salvation is in Jesus only." (Cited by Darrell Whiteman in "The Function of Appropriate Contextualization in Mission" in Appropriate Christianity, edited by Charles Kraft. William Carey Library, 2005).

Though communication is not all that contextualization includes (as subsequent installments will discuss), it is a central part of the concern.

What is Contextualization?

Most generally, to contextualize is to place something in a particular context. Thus, I would say that any definition of contextualization must include presenting the unchanging truths of the gospel within the unique and changing contexts of cultures and worldviews. This requires us to retain the nature of the truth and the integrity of the message while explaining and applying such things in the necessarily unique or specific ways that enable hearers to understand and respond.

Maybe Pictionary will help me make this point.

Most of us are familiar with the classic party game, Pictionary. The "artist" gets a name of a person, place, or thing and he has to draw the picture so that his team can guess it, without ever using any words to help. Imagine if I was playing a game of Pictionary at a party. I am assigned to draw the person President George W. Bush. So, in efforts of simplicity and speed, I draw a picture of a bush. I'm playing with a pretty quick crowd, so they guess it right away. "BUSH!!!"

They've partially got the answer, but not all of it, so it doesn't count. So, I start pointing at the bush and make hand gestures, moans, and grunts (but no words). I use my hands to say, "that's right, but more." Again, the crowd is smart, so they can see the clue has something to do with a bush so they start guessing. "Tree!... Plant!... Green!... Photosynthesis!... Oxygen to carbon dioxide!... Krebs Cycle!" (I told you they were smart.) Now, they're getting way off base, but I can't say anything, so I just keep pointing at that bush. I point at it harder and harder and keep gesturing and grunting and, at this point, I'm getting mad.

The others never get it. I know what it is. I know they should know it. It is so obvious. But they don't.

I get frustrated, and yet, I never gave another clue.

Too often, I think this is what many evangelicals look like in the twenty-first century. For example, many today in American culture want to talk about "spirituality," but are unfamiliar with the gospel and not warm to the idea of spiritual absolutes. Some well-meaning Christians hear the spirituality talk and want to move people to the gospel, but the unexplained theological language and the old evangelistic approaches that were targeting a different worldview amount to noise that leaves the hearer in the dark trying to guess. It's like we, as believers, start communicating through our gestures and grunts, but they don't get it. We wind up giving clues that lead them in circles, and not to the truth. We know the answer, and we want them to know the answer, but we just can't make a solid connection.

Without contextualization, the words and arguments we use can amount to ineffective clues.

We Already Contextualize

Let's be clear about this issue of contextualization; everyone does it. Everyone. Whether or not they use the term, all have contextualized, because every presentation of the gospel must be given to a particular audience, in a particular culture. If you share the gospel with others, then you are contextualizing. You either do it properly, or poorly. For example, you do it poorly when you are attempting to share Christ with the unchurched person in front of you, but present the gospel as if you're speaking to someone who is already familiar with the claims of Jesus.

You can't just jump into "Jesus died to save you, and his resurrection demonstrates that he is who he said he is" because the person first needs to know about the one true God, their sin before him, and who Jesus is and what he has done. A person must first know they are lost before they will be found. I am fairly certain most of you will agree with the previous two sentences. If you do, you believe in contextualization, which is placing the gospel in a particular context. We may argue about the amount of contextualization, but we cannot argue with the need for such (assuming the definition mentioned earlier).

We can also turn the example around. The de-churched southerner who has grown up in an evangelical church where the Scripture is preached might not need convincing that the Bible is God's word, or that he or she is a sinner, but he or she may simply need clarity on the new birth, or how one responds to the gospel (personally via faith and repentance).

Contextualized Communication and Clear Gospel Proclamation

Contextualization is necessary because while the human condition and the gospel remain the same, people have different worldviews which in turn impact how they interpret themselves, the world and the things you say. People who care about contextualization care because they want a clear gospel proclaimed AND understood.

It's one thing to know the gospel, but it's another to make the gospel known. And making the gospel known is more complicated in America today than it was in decades past. Less people today have a general Christian orientation, or even a shared Judeo-Christian ethic. This means concepts (truths) like sin, death and hell cannot be assumed. So when we want to communicate the gospel and deal with categories like God, man, Christ and faith we must not only know them well, but also how to effectively make them known to the people God has sent us. Knowing where to begin and how to explain the truth to particular people are issues of contextualization.

We are already contextualizing. Let's do it well.

A new study done by the Barna Group "examined various expressions of "group" faith, such as: church attendance, small groups, adult Sunday school programs, church volunteering, and house churches." Below are excerpts from the nine insights they provided. (Be sure to read their whole article here.)

1. Women drive most faith participation. A majority of weekly churchgoers are women (53%). Small groups that meet for prayer or Bible study (60%) and Sunday school programs for adults (59%) are also more likely to be attended by women...

2. Religious activities are typically missing single adults, especially those who have never been married. Just less than half of Americans are unmarried; however, the Barna study found that two-thirds of those who attend church, go to small groups, and participate in Sunday school are married; and 69% of church volunteers are married...

3. Older adults also dominate faith involvement. Conventional wisdom suggests that older adults are more likely to participate spiritually, and the Barna research confirmed such thinking...

4. Regionally, Americans' faith involvement falls along stereotypical lines. Residents of the South make up half of the nation's small group attenders as well as a majority of its Sunday school attenders...

5. Catholics are not particularly active beyond worship attendance, while evangelicals participate in many different forms of "group faith." While Catholics make up one-quarter of all the nation's worshippers each week, they are only one-tenth of small group attenders, Sunday School participants, and church volunteers...

6. Attenders of larger churches involve themselves in the broadest spectrum of faith activities. Americans who typically attend a church of at least 500 adults were among the most likely to also attend small groups...

7. African-Americans represent a significant share of those involved in participatory faith. True to their community-oriented religious heritage and experience, blacks help to power the group religious expressions of the nation. While blacks are 13% of the nation's adult population, the segment accounts for one-quarter of America's small group participants (27%)...

8. Personal Bible reading is most common among small group attenders. In comparing a personal spiritual activity with participatory involvement, the study showed that two-thirds of church attenders (67%) said they had read the Bible outside of church in the last week - whether their church was a conventional or house church. Small group attenders were more likely to read the Bible personally (84%)...

9. Many religiously active Americans lean toward conservative political views, though there is more diversity than expected - especially among house church attenders. Churchgoers, small group attenders, and church volunteers are likely to be either politically conservative or moderate. House church attenders are unique in that one-quarter of such participants describe themselves as political liberals and nearly half are registered Democrats - uncharacteristically high levels compared with other faith activities, perhaps connected with the above-average proportion of black adults who report house church attendance. Further demonstrating their non-conventional and independent inclinations, one-quarter of house church attenders said they are not registered to vote, twice the national average.

Head over to the Barna Group and read the whole article and conclusion. Then come back to here to discuss. Which, if any of these, surprise you?

Earlier this week, we visited an art gallery in London, and one of the discussions that we have been having here in Europe has revolved around art and the church. Over the last few years, more churches seem to be interested in engaging culture through art.

For example, Sojourn Community Church was planted in Louisville, KY in 2000, immediately launching an art gallery to connect with their community. In 2010 they have a thriving church as well as a thriving Art Center (The 930).

Today, while I'm still in London with the Upstream Collective, my colleague Philip Nation is guest blogging for me.

In January, Ed asked me (and a few other friends) to do some volunteer ministry leadership at Two Rivers Church where serves as the interim pastor. It has been fun to help a great church regain her footing. Essentially, I preach on Sundays when Ed's schedule has him out of town and give guidance to the full-time ministry staff.

Yesterday, the church had an unusual opportunity to show who we are and who we hope to become due to some - ahem - unusual guests. It is the standard operating procedure of the Westboro Baptist Church to alert the media as to all of their shenanigans - I mean protests. So, about six weeks ago, a press release was sent out from Fred Phelps' group that they would be protesting at three churches in Nashville: Christ Church, Mt. Zion Baptist Church, and Two Rivers. In fact, we knew the exact time frame they would picket the church.

So, what were we to do? We did what any good Southern church would do: served food!

No - really - we did. Here's how we handled the protestors, counter-protestors, church members, and media.

I've received several emails asking me to comment on engaging culture. I will work on a blog post on the topic, but let me share some quotes in the meantime that might foster some discussion. Engaging culture, contextualization, and relevance are common issues in missiological discussion. They tend to be assumed as we are engage in God's global mission. As I see it, it is both necessary and dangerous to engage culture. I believe (and have often said) that the church must be a biblically faithful, culturally relevant, counterculture community for the kingdom of God.

But, keep in mind that people mean different things when talk about "engaging culture"-- and one should not assume that they agree (or disagree) without defining terms. Wikipedia has a helpful description at the beginning of the "culture" article: "Culture... is a term that has different meanings."

Missiologists (and missionaries) assume we should engage culture but debate how to do so discerningly. Here are a few responses on the subject.

Lesslie Newbigin wrote:

There is some really great discussion happening around the role of salvation in the missional conversation. Last week we began to look at the connection between missiology and soteriology and briefly talked about how salvation was viewed in missions history during the modern paradigm, beginning with the Enlightenment.

Here are some others who have weighed in on that question:

• Brother Maynard: Salvation in a Prologue to Missional Discussion (recap)


• Tiffany Smith: Examining how we think about...salvation and missions...


• David Fitch: Missional Soteriology: Does the Missional Vision Change How People are Saved?


• Jared Wilson: The Two-Fisted Gospel: A Manifesto for Kingdom Militancy


• Jonathan Dodson: What is the Gospel of the Missional Church?

Today, I would like to continue to look at the role of salvation in the missional conversation by revisiting one of the most influential and controversial figures in 20th century missions history (someone I have written about before in this series here and here) and talking about a major shift in the discussion in the 1970s. His ideas on salvation will become key...

J.C. Hoekendijk

With the rise of fundamentalism in the 1920s, the Social Gospel's counteraction began with painting salvation, not just as transformation in individuals, but increasingly as the annihilation of distorted and prejudiced structures. This trend was evident until a new era of confidence was birthed in the 1960s, ushered in particularly via J.C. Hoekendijk.

Is a church's financial health somehow connected to its spiritual vitality? The new survey, American Congregations 2008, is released today and suggests this is the case. A press release from the Hartford Institute for Religion Research at Hartford Seminary gives the broad strokes.

Produced by Faith Communities Today, the survey is based on responses from more than 2,500 Oldline Protestant, Evangelical Protestant, Catholic & Orthodox and World Religions congregations.

The Cooperative Congregational Studies Partnership (CCSP) conducted the survey. It updates results from surveys taken in 2000 and 2005, and is the latest in CCSP's series of trend-tracking national surveys of U.S. congregations.

Several of the key findings of the survey were reported earlier:

American congregations, as a group, continue to struggle, facing declining attendance at worship, eroding financial health, waning spiritual vitality and increasing uncertainty about their mission and purpose.

At the same time, some congregations have shifted to a contemporary style of worship that has catalyzed growth, and other congregations have benefited from focused leadership.

...

Among the new findings:

• Oldline Protestant congregations spend close to half their budgets on salaries and benefits compared to 31 percent spent on salaries and budgets by Evangelical Protestant congregations. Oldline congregations' pay premium is even more striking when one recalls that Oldline congregations are, on average, considerably smaller than other Christian congregations.


• American congregations have gone electronic. Web access is more the norm than the exception.


• A newly emergent trend is satellite congregations in which sermons are beamed in from the primary congregation.


• Congregations that changed to contemporary worship in the past five years show elevated levels of spiritual vitality and growth in worship attendance.


• Conservative congregations place more emphasis on the quality of their internal relationships than do liberal congregations; liberal congregations place more emphasis on ministry to the world outside their doors.


• As in 2000, money, worship and leadership lead the way as the areas of congregational life most riled with conflict. Conflict about leadership is the most likely to produce serious negative consequences.


• Creating strong interpersonal bonds and purposefulness decrease the likelihood of conflict.


• In clergy time usage, worship and teaching about the faith are the top task priorities for both Protestant families. The Oldline congregations put higher priority on worship and the Evangelical congregations put higher priority on teaching. Catholic/Orthodox leaders spent more time and attention on administration than any other task.

You can download the survey here. Check it out and come back to discuss.

Tonight, I'm reviewing the message I'll share at Two Rivers, where I serve as Interim Pastor. I love the people there, and am happy to be able to serve the body and work along side them. The Tennesean (our Nashville paper) recently did a story on Two Rivers focusing on its healing and movement forward. If you aren't from around here you probably don't know the details, but it has had some rough days.

Over the last few weeks we have looked at the relationship of the church, the kingdom of God, and mission. I want to bring these ideas to a close this week and move onto a new theme beginning next week. Please join the conversation in the comments. I enjoy the discussion!

The Church on Mission for the Kingdom

We may now see how when everything becomes mission, nothing is mission. The church does not point to a reality in itself, but rather to the kingdom of God and the reign of Jesus Christ. The church stands for something more elemental and invasive than itself. Because the kingdom is more all-encompassing and far-reaching than the church, the church must be recognized as a servant to Christ's kingdom.

I had a great time at Saddleback last week, and not just because it's in California. Where it was sunny. And warm. And very sunny!

As is my custom, I like to blog a bit about the service. First thanks to Rick Warren for inviting me to preach in the weekend services. I think there were 22 services where I spoke (that's not a typo-- it's twenty-two), though I only preached 4 times. You can see the video of that service here. (By the way, if you would like to hear about how Thom Rainer and I used to "despise" each other, you will want to watch the message.)

I am very pleased that my friend Alan Hirsch will be joining us in the conversation leading up to missionSHIFT this summer (July 12-15 at Ridgecrest). Alan has been one of the leading voices in calling the church to live missionally and he will play a significant role in guiding the discussion regarding the Missional Manifesto.

I asked Alan if he could stop by the blog and answer a few questions about all things missional and what is happening in his life and ministry right now.

Ed: What do you see in the church that is giving you hope that we are doing better at engaging in God's mission?

Continue reading Missional Mondays: Introducing Alan Hirsch.

Back in August of '09 I shared a bit about the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA), a new conservative Anglican organization that broke away from the Episcopal Church (The U.S. branch of the Anglican Communion) over controversies related to the authority of Scripture and homosexuality. But this is not just a group of conservative theologians who are trying to maintain orthodox theology, they are also working hard to stay on mission, which has led them to set a lofty goal for such a young fellowship of churches; to plant 1000 churches in the next five years! I have the privilege of speaking at the Anglican 1000 gathering, February 22-23, in Plano, TX.

Vince Antonucci is the founder and lead pastor of Verve, an innovative new church for the unchurched on the Las Vegas strip. Vince's passion is creatively communicating biblical truth to help people find God. He is also the author ofI Became a Christian and All I Got Was This Lousy T-shirt.

Vince is also part of The Verve Foundation, which does community service to meet needs on and around the Vegas Strip.

His new book, Guerrilla Lovers, is another encouragement to the church to love in "deed and truth." I was happy to have the chance to ask Vince a few questions about the book. He'll be on the blog today answering your questions in the comments.

Today I want to introduce you to Linda Bergquist. She will be speaking at the missionSHIFT conference this summer. We are also excited to have her voice as a part of framing the Missional Manifesto.

Linda and her husband Eric live in San Francisco, California. She is a New Church Starting Strategist and the co-author of "Church Turned Inside Out" from Leadership Network (2009).

I have known Linda (Dr. Bergquist ) for many years. When I was a professor (oh so long ago) she took several of us on a tour of the marginalized communities where God was at work in the Bay area. She has a passion for people on the edge of society and the change that the gospel brings. You can find out more about her work in San Francisco at her site Plant Churches with Us.

To introduce her to you, I asked Linda to answer a few questions about herself.

We often hear of interfaith events and organizations, but is it possible for three very different religions to hold on to their beliefs, maintaining their differences, and still learn about one another? Bob Roberts, Pastor of Northwood Church in Keller, Texas, thinks so, and worked with local Jewish and Muslim leadership to pull off a three day "trialogue."

The Dallas Morning News covered the story and explained,

Members of NorthWood and the mosque will attend the regular worship service tonight at Temple Shalom. On Saturday afternoon, the Christians and Jews will visit the mosque. Finally, on Sunday morning, the Jews and Muslims will attend NorthWood for worship.

After each gathering, the three clergymen will answer questions about the differences and similarities of their faiths

Since Bob is a friend, I contacted him for details. i preached at Northwood a couple of months ago during their church planting focus. I stayed over at Bob's house and we talked late until the night about his engagement with Muslims around the world. So, I know his passion for Muslims and evangelism.

When I saw his most recent idea (and Bob has them regularly!), I had questions and thought you might as well. So, I shot him some questions via email. Below is the interview. Feel free to discuss below and Bob will be dropping by the comments.

I'm a small groups guy. In fact, I've led conferences on 'em, led my churches to do 'em, been a small group leader myself, and been in 'em. I believe in small groups. Whether you're a church plant or well-established church, people in small communities is essential for individual spiritual growth as well as church health.

Yesterday on Twitter I wrote:

"Most likely place transformation & missional engagement will happen is in small community-- not large"

I also linked to a video on missional small communities here where I talk about small groups and their impact.

Small groups matter, but some churches are struggling with their groups because they are unaware that there are different ways of implementing them, and that how your small groups work (or don't work) will make a difference in your church. Choosing the one that is right for your church is vital.

Rick Howerton is my guest blogger today. He's been a campus minister, small groups pastor, senior pastor, and has planted a successful church, The Bridge in Spring Hill, Tennessee. As the small group specialist for LifeWay Christian Resources, Rick spends every day talking with church leaders preparing to start a small group ministry, doing small groups, or re-strategizing their small group ministry. He is also the author of multiple small group training resources and Destination Community: Small Group Ministry Manual.

There is a another world out there. It is a world that, honestly, I have never entered. I have a Wii and play it with my kids. I see all the commercials for much more interactive games than my Wii Bowling, but they might as well be commercials for woman's clothing. They mean very little to me because I am not in that world.

But, this is a big world. For example, the first-person shooter video game, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, currently holds the record for the largest entertainment launch ever, bringing in over $550 Million in 5 days, outpacing the films "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince," "The Dark Knight," and any music album for a release.