Ogres are like onions

Whether or not you have a child, you've probably seen the movie Shrek. Pictured here with his sidekick "Donkey", Shrek is explaining how Ogres have more depth than people realize. To illustrate his point, he smashes open an onion to show the layers that exist.

I recently used this clip to introduce Social Penetration Theory to my class. According to this theory, we all have layers. We reveal our layers through disclosing information to others. This is what we might call building a relationship. If you have friends, you have revealed several layers of yourself, which is how they know you as well as they do.

But friendships don't happen automatically. A process takes place. According to Em Griffin, "the main route to deep social [intimacy] is through self-disclosure." For example, Jack and Diane initially exchange very shallow information when they first meet, such as their names and the weather. If they continue to see each other and have more conversations, perhaps they will continue revealing things about themselves. One may invite the other to grab lunch. They discover they both really like chili dogs, specifically the ones served at the Tastee Freeze. Over lunch, they may find out they are both two American kids who grew up in the heartland. They might learn of the mutual acquaintences they have. This lunch ends with Jack and Diane wanting to hang out in the future. As spending time together becomes more frequent, deeper information will inevitably be revealed through conversation. The budding friendship is made stronger through deeper understanding of each other's family life, as well as future goals, fears and fantasies, and eventually, how each person truly sees themselves.

As we see in Jack and Diane's situation, we do not typically learn everything about someone all at once. It takes time. Furthermore, it takes effort from both parties. We would likely not see Jack pouring out his soul to an open-earred Diane, while she in turn reveals nothing about herself. As Jack shares information, Diane discloses the same depth of information, revealing the same layer that Jack has. This is what is known as reciprocity, where people share information at the same rate. We have likely all known people who share too much information, too fast. But this is not the norm, and it's certainly not the best way to enter into a mutually growing friendship. If you tell me that you like pizza, and I respond by telling you that I refuse to eat pizza because my little sister choked to death on a pepperoni, I come off as a little awkward. Rather, I would likely just give you the same amount of information that you gave me - whether or not I liked pizza, and maybe the type of pizza I preferred.

* * * *


"Relational evangelism" is a term that basically means building a relationship with someone and using your lifestyle to show them who Christ is. This is a popular approach among the postmoderns, of which (I suppose) I am a part. A criticism of relational evangelism is that it's not intentional enough. And though I agree that this could be used as a cop-out to never bring up a conversation about faith, I think sharing Christ through our relationships is the most effective approach.

Viewing evangelism through the lens of social penetration theory, we can see that people typically do not reveal who they truly are in the beginning stages of a relationship. As we share information about ourselves, they are likely to share the same depth of information. When they reveal more through conversations with us, they are inviting us to reveal more about ourselves to them.

The flip-side of this is that it's also very easy to turn people off to hearing more about us or what we have to say. Much like the ridiculous pizza example above, if I share with you that I'm from Little Rock, and you respond with "Well can I tell you about Jesus?", I'm going to take that as an awkward statement. Even if I allow you to proceed on your quest, I'm not going to be as open to your testimony as I would if you told me about Him after you gained credibility through a genuine friendship. Through our relationships, our shallow exterior layers are freely pulled away to reveal who we really are. When we have reached this point, according to a social penetration theorist, we are much more open to hear and reveal such central information as our questions or statements of faith.

As great as this theory is, it's not the Holy Spirit. When he leads us to share Christ, our calling is to be obedient. But I also believe that we were created with the need to trust people. When we earn that trust, however, we also earn that right to share our depth - and people are more likely to share theirs as well. The relationships you form can be an effective way to influence peoples' perception of Christ. If evangelism is important to you, be open to share your beliefs when you reach those intimate levels in your relationships. But also be open to listen and not shut down someone else's beliefs or questions. That's the middle of their onion you are hearing. It's an honor that they would be so open, whether or not we agree with them. If the sole purpose of your friendships is to add new Christians to the world, I applaud your optimism, but I question your methods and tact - and your authenticity as a friend!

Faith is an amazing thing that needs to be communicated effectively and delicately. Our relationships allow us to enter into these important conversations.

Twitter Tracker

As I mentioned in my last post, I recently opened a twitter account (you may follow me @thadaniel if you like). While the idea of twitter is still rather silly to me, I can't help but admit I'm somewhat addicted at checking my account. I like seeing what people are up to, and I narcissisticly enjoy letting people know what I am doing. What can I say - I like staying in the know :)


www.imb.com/rainnwilson


One tweet that recently caught my eye was from Rainn Wilson, who plays the character "Dwight Schrute" on The Office. He wrote "Baha'is don't have mega-churches, just mega-potlucks." Interesting thought from a non-believer (that is, a non-believer in Jesus Christ as God's Son and Sovereign). His comment was a tactful one, not directly putting down a mega-church, and you could even argue he was not implying anything negative. Nonetheless, he brings two different aspects of faith communities together: a building used to house worship and to act as the central base, and a meal, which represents a basic need, an opportunity to be in fellowship, and bringing people together on a level playing field.


http://tinyurl.com/2gxnd38

To some, a mega-church represents establishment, power, an institution, and consumerism. I personally don't look at it that way; however, its easy to understand how others could. Even for me, a person who has no problem with a mega-church for being big, it is easy to fall prey to marveling over state-of-the-art facilities, the best programs, high-tech worship productions, etc. For many, however, these frivolous things are necessary to get them to come to church. Without such trappings, some would have never come to know Jesus. For this reason, you'll never see me write or speak against mega-churches.

Now that that's out of the way, let me get back to Wilson's tweet. Between mega-bricks and morter and mega-food, I'll always take the calories. I want to be a part of a community that brings people together, that provides opportunities for people to share something, and recognizes the things we have in common. If we do not eat, we die. If we are without people, we are miserable. If we cannot be heard, what we have to offer the world will never be known. I have never been to a Baha'i temple. I've seen one, and it looks like it's just a house. If I'm merely judging from Wilson's portrayal of the faith, it seems Baha'i has its priorities right when it comes to making meeting together more about our commonalities, expressions, and needs as opposed to our entertainment, comfort, and visual delight.

Mega-churches have the same ability to make meeting together about what's important. I whole-heartedly belive many of them do. My hope is that all communities - big, medium, and small - will constantly challenge their approaches to being that genuine community of faith that draws people in and helps change them forever. When this happens, our message to the world is clear. We are not about fog machines, lcd projectors, or 3rd stories. We are about Jesus, who truly knows our needs, who is the reason we have something in common, and who gave us the ability to offer something to the world.

Mega-potlucks will be held daily in heaven. Let's keep (or start) practicing.

Who is in Front of Us?

I’m an old man.

Technically speaking, that is. I don’t like learning new things on computers, cell phones, pdas, pdfs, iPads, ipods, blackberries, blueberries, Burberrys, or schnozberries. I don’t like technological change (my granddads would be so proud).

"Schnozberries"

An unfortunate fact is that technology does change, and with it, the way our lives socially operate. It never fails on nights when I’m out with friends that at least two of them are playing Words with Friends on their iPhones. Few hours go by where I do not pick up my smart phone to send a text message. I even recently opened a Twitter account, something I once said I’d never do. Apparently I do have the capability to become a conformist, but I won’t adapt to anything else. That is until I get my next phone.

The truth is it’s difficult to navigate through life today without some sort of connection to the ever-fluid multi-media rat race. How do you stay connected to your real-world social network if you aren’t connected to an online social network? Think about the last get-together you attended. How did you hear about it? A text? An e-mail? A direct tweet? A Facebook message? No matter the channel, you most definitely did not hear about it through someone knocking on your door, and you probably didn’t even get a phone call. Even among close friends, frequent face-to-face interaction has been passed off to electrical wires and hi-speed connection.

My wife and I recently had a discussion revolving around the inescapability of electronic communication. She is a kindergarten teacher. She had to be trained on a Promethean smart board so she could teach 5 year olds how to stare at a screen and move images around through the power of touch. A part of me wondered why children are being taught this way so early. It didn’t take either of us long to realize the necessity of training kids at a young age with the latest means. They will be using it when they get home, so to not prepare them in their most frequent interactive means is a great disservice. This became painstakingly clear when we were visiting the family of a little girl she used to nanny. The child, whose diapers Anne changed just 2 years ago, taught us (in broken toddler English) how to use Steve Jobs’ iPad. It goes to show the role of rapidly-emerging technology in the future and the way in which younger generations will be better prepared to use it.


"Kid with iPad"

This fall, I am serving as an adjunct professor at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. The courses I will be teaching are in communication. I was surprised (though not anymore) to see that the textbook from which I teach dedicates more than one page to electronic communication. Text messaging is even a key term in the book’s glossary. And truthfully, it should be. Though I’ve run across many in the academic world opposed to these “high-tech” approaches, resisting them may not only diminish students’ ability to function in the real-world at the highest level, but it may also limit professors’ adequacy to relate to their students.

What does this mean for the Church? You’d be hard pressed to find a church whose pastor does not text, whose worship leader does not tweet, or whose website doesn’t have an interactive feedback option. That being said, we often don’t know how to properly use these channels. From a PR perspective, organizations long ago understood the power of the web. Churches have unintentionally done the same, as they use their websites to highlight service projects, connection to their cities, suburbs, and towns, and ministry opportunities existing within the church. On an interpersonal level, however, I believe church leaders fall prey to a common problem among other organizational executives: engaged while e-communicating, but disconnected to their immediate settings.

Mike Thompson, whose book The Organizational Champion I’ve recently referenced, warns executives and leaders of the danger of this approach. “You never see [organizational champions] pick up their mobile device and grab a text message during a conversation,” he says. A simple enough thought that few leaders practice. And why don’t we? Because leaders have to multi-task.

With great power comes great responsibility. – Peter Parker (a.k.a Spider-Man)


Being able to handle multiple moving parts is one of the reasons leaders are given leadership. And when involved in ministry, work never stops (sometimes even for us volunteer leaders!). There is never a shortage of something that needs to be done. While tens to hundreds to thousands of people rely on the hard and constant work of their spiritual leaders, multi-tasking often comes with a price.

When you are talking to someone who is constantly looking around, staring at their computer screen, or texting, does it make you feel like you are being listened to? Of course not – because they aren’t focused on you, which means they cannot react to everything you say. I read this and for some reason think I have the supernatural ability to focus on the person in front of me while sending a text message in response to a tweet that someone sent me from their iPhone which conveniently also sent to my e-mail inbox. The fact is I cannot give someone my attention while electronically interacting with others. It won’t happen – at least not the way I am needed in that moment that someone comes to me to have a discussion.

As church leaders, we need to be able to multi-task. But many times, we are needed more to focus on who is in front of us. When we are engaged with the people we interact with, our communication is more clear, our understanding is more precise, and the meaning we create with those people is valuable to them as well as us. Multi-media brings about convenience and many time-saving solutions. But in adopting the latest e-trends and adapting to a faster-paced world, we cannot lose our ability to stop what we are doing and give the person in front of us our eyes, our ears, and our focus.

Here's What I Mean...

"When we speak, we do something. Our words literally do something. Speaking is action."

These words echoed in my interpersonal communication grad class like an iPod stuck on repeat. Dr. Mirivel, the hard-lining Frenchman who consistently found a way to critique the most well-written of papers lived by this motto (and he said it often): speaking is action. This thought is echoed in the speech act theory (which I'll leave alone for this posting). Its really not a hard concept to grasp. During one presentation in this class, I incorporated a video of myself asking a girl out, to which she refused as she pushed a knife through my chest. The point was that her words were more than just words. They caused real, physical pain. When we speak, things really happen as a result. Thus, speaking is action.

I read an article recently about Coordinated Management of Meaning Theory (CMM). This was the bane of my existence in grad school. An encompassing cousin of speech act theory, William Pearce and Vernon Cronen came up with CMM just so they could keep communication students up at night banging their heads against a wall. I hated this theory because of its ambiguity and black hole-like ability to suck in many different aspects of communication studies that may or may not have really applied. As defined, coordinated management of meaning views conversation from a participant's perspective, taking note of everything that could add to the perceived meaning of all parties involved. Confused? Me too. Basically, there is more going on in a conversation than just words being spoken. There are certainly things we explicitly understand, but many meanings are implied, assumed, and logically deduced. Regardless of what we understand or the degree to which we understand, a CMM theorist holds that communication is the primary means through which meaning is created.

Church leaders need to understand the implications of coordinated management of meaning. Well, first, communication scholars need to find a better way to explain it! In all seriousness, what do your conversations do to people? What do people understand about you, your vision, your approaches, and your outlook on life and ministry? What kind of social reality are you constructing for your church, the Church, and the person of Jesus Christ? This post could be completely dedicated to James 3 and the reminder that we need to watch what we say. My purpose is to be more specific than that.

What we say and do will have direct influences on the reality of our churches. But not just how we converse with people, but also how we react and respond to what others say. Remember, the name of the theory begins with the word "coordinated." This means our conversations produce meaning through a joint effort. If, for instance, I decide to tell someone in my small group that we will start using a particular curriculum and she replies, "Why are we using that curriculum?", my response will directly effect the meaning attached to her statement. If I respond, "Because I picked the curriculum, its the best one out there, so just accept it", then I label her question as an insult, and my response makes it such. However, if I respond by welcoming her questions and take the opportunity to let her know why this curriculum was chosen, her question will instead be viewed by both of us as a clarification. Even if she meant it as an insult, by simply choosing to respond as if no insult was spoken, the meaning of our conversation will remain positive. When we coordinate our conversations in a way that allows people to question, argue, and even disagree, we create an environment where people are open to change because its acceptable to be vulnerable. The meaning we create is that the churches we are a part of allow people to have new ideas. And as long as these ideas don't take away from scripture, this is a good thing.

Many people leave churches because they feel there is a certain mold they must fit to be included. Others leave because they don't agree with the mold or the existence of such. Churches have been socially constructed as places of rigidity, rituals, and closed-mindedness instead of organizations of discourse, learning, openness, and authenticity. In many cases, I do not believe this is how they actually are. Of course, some communities have become closed off from the outside world and do nothing to include those with any way of life that opposes the critical mass. This happens when the church's leadership creates a culture of absolutism and cognitive superiority. Critical dialogue cannot happen in such an environment.

To ensure that we engage a post-Christian culture, we must pay attention to the meaning our conversations bring. Growing up, I was reminded by my Sunday school teachers that I might be "the only Jesus someone sees." The Jesus I read about in the Bible didn't shun people for bringing up different ideas. Rather, he entered into deep conversation with them. And I'm not talking about the Sanhedrin; that was the group he had no tolerance for, as it was they who held so tightly to the law they squeezed the love out of it. Read the conversation Jesus had with Nicodemus in John 3 or the conversation with the Samaritan woman in the next chapter. He brought the absolute truth, which did not supersede his absolute love. In fact, they were complimentary. Scripture more than implies that our conversations should be conducted in the same way:

"Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone." --Colossians 4:6

What meaning do you bring to conversations with those looking to you for spiritual leadership?

Good Reads

Can't believe I've let a month go by since my last post!

I wanted to call attention to two books I'm currently reading, both of which so far appear to be great reads for church leaders. And they're not Christian books.



I don't want to jump the gun on either work, but they are both really good in two very different ways. The Organizational Champion takes a new view on leadership. While we typically think of leaders as those in charge of an organization, author (and Arkansas native) Mike Thompson argues that organizational champions can be found in any number of areas. This is especially encouraging for those of us who are not in a shepherding role of a church or ministry, but nonetheless want to be a part of positive change, efficiency, and growth within. And though this book is not aimed at church leaders, it provides a framework through which leaders and change agents within any organization can gain ideas, inspiration, and motivation to take initiative.



The Present is an allegorical exchange between a young and old man. The old man, playing the role of sage instructor, encourages the young man to focus on the gift of the moment. While I am (in some respects) a planner, I too often forget about opportunities I have in the here and now. Most people I'm around seem to do the same thing. What would happen if those leading our churches and the ministries within those churches recognized the power of the immediate tense? What more could we accomplish with our time and how much more effective could we be? The Present, through the power of narrative, presents readers with the fact that the present does not change, allowing us to put all of our energy into it rather than planning for and worrying over it. The present is now, so we are free to do something with it now. A great word of encouragement in the midst of an ever-changing culture.

So what are you reading now? Many books exist with great information on leadership, motivation, and organizational change. If you are a church leader, it would do you good to be reading one.

How Great the Pain of Searing Loss...

This has been a tough week for me. Two of my favorite shows went off the air. Their series finales were shown on Sunday and Monday nights. I'm speaking of Lost and 24. No more Jack Shepherd. No more CTU. No more Smoke Monster sightings or digital tick-tock commercial breaks. No longer will I hear Sawyer's insulting quips, Chloe's ridiculously bad acting, or either shows uncanny ability to make me eager to get to the next week. They are done. And I am all alone.




Not really alone, per say. I'm actually one of millions affected by the ends of both. These are two of the longest relationships I've had with shows, both of which I began in my first year out of college. I've watched every single episode. I am fully invested in every major character, and it almost feels like losing someone who played an integral part of my life. Of course, I'm being dramatic. Life will go on, other shows will take their place, and each actor will go on to other projects. While I and many others will argue that there may never be a show like Lost or 24 again, it will be ok. We will survive.



It's incredible how hard it can be to lose something so ingrained in our everyday function. Either show was a normal topic of conversation among friends. Both contained thematic elements I'd casually reference with others whom I knew watched. One of my buddies even checked into his honeymoon suite under the name Jack Bauer. Now that these programs no longer exist, there will be an adjustment period for many. And this time I'm not being dramatic; literally, we will have to adjust to our new reality.

Change is a difficult thing. I say that as someone who welcomes new surroundings, ideas, and people. I don't typically like routine, I can't stand monotony, and I absolutely abhor life without progress. So while I enjoy change, I know it's not easy. In fact, change is one of the hardest things for churches to endure. Anytime individuals have a constant (nice Lost reference) removed from them, it regularly takes a while for life to settle down. Organizations are made up of multiple individuals, in many ways subscribing to a group-think mindset. Once again, the adjustment is more drastic because the change affects many. Because there are multiple types of changes that churches must deal with, I'm going to focus on one in this post: when one of your own moves away.

I hate losing people. It's hard when people leave over conflict or differing preferences or any other reason you could think of. But when people move away, its almost harder because they want to go to a new city or new job, but not a new church. They are sad and you are sad. And it gets worse if they are people who had many responsibilities in the church. I write this with someone in mind.



At the end of the summer in 2008, Epoch Church had to go through this very thing. We lost Justin and Robyn Bourlon, when Justin took a new position with Kraft in Rogers, Arkansas, located 3 hours away. They had both been there from the beginning. Justin had left a church he was attending to be a part of the start-up, and Robyn became a part of the church immediately after she moved to Little Rock. They become engaged and married while they were with Epoch, Justin headed up our finance committee, they were small group leaders, etc., etc. It was a hard loss. Oh, not to mention that Justin was and is one of my closest friends. Several others in the church were in the same boat as I was. It was incredibly difficult to have been such a big part of their lives, for them to be such a big part of ours, and to know that there were several roles that needed filling in a church without a lot of resources.

Soon after, a newlywed couple in our church volunteered to lead a small group. They had agreed to take the first year of their marriage to not accept other responsibilities and focus on each other. They reached their 1 year anniversary a month after the Bourlons moved away, and they recognized the need existing in their church. A few months after this, a new couple began coming to Epoch who had moved to be campus ministers at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Several months later, our small groups expanded and they became leaders. Just before this, a recent college graduate named Sam moved to Little Rock and became active with Epoch. He was in the process of passing his CPA. Therefore, he was an obvious choice to lead the finance team. He accepted and has willingly served ever since. Flash forward almost two years since Justin and Robyn left, and we still miss them. We could still use them. But their absence led to a realized need among the community. People volunteered to take their place.



Do you know why muscles get bigger when you lift weights? If muscle fibers are strained enough, they tear. Through the synthesizing of protein, these torn muscles are rebuilt with the capacity to take on the load that was previously applied to them. Through this process of the body adapting, lifters get stronger. This is an accurate picture of what can happen in a church when volunteer leaders leave. Much like a pruned bush, a broken bone, or an over-worked bicep, churches can grow stronger through these instances. If Justin and Robyn had not left, who knows if that first couple would have stepped up to become small group leaders? Maybe Sam would have never been asked to join the finance team. The Bourlon's absence, from an organizational stance, may have been a positive thing because of the urgency with which people in the church recognized a need for more leaders.

Change can be a tough pill to swallow. But in this case, we clearly see how a young church had an opportunity to be strengthened by losing some of its key leaders. I am not suggesting that you should be happy when leaders go; on the contrary, I dread the next time I see a friend move off (or I move off myself). What I firmly believe, however, is that churches must view changes within their communities as opportunities to be strengthened. And if you've noticed, I have only focused on organizational structure - I've said nothing about the work of the Holy Spirit, who is far better at preparing us to embrace and grow during changing times than we could prepare for on our own. The next time your church loses someone crucial to its mission, take your time to mourn. Take your time preparing for what must be done to fill their shoes. But be excited over who will step up and carry the load. When a church follows God's direction, there is literally no limit to who He will use and how He will use them, and what He will accomplish with what He has.

In other words, change can be an awesome thing.

Diffusion of Church Relevance

In the 1980's, America was undergoing its own AIDS crisis, especially in San Francisco. One of the projects responsible for drastically slowing down the spread of AIDS in San Fran was called Stop AIDS (not exactly catchy, but whatever). The key approach utilized by members of the Stop AIDS project was small group diffusion. Stop AIDS employed outreach workers to set up small group meetings throughout the gay community to discuss ways to prevent the spread of HIV. At the end of each small group session, the leader would ask those who would practice these measures and organize a small group meeting themselves to raise their hands.



Stop AIDS trained over 7,000 small group leaders and reached over 30,000 people through small group meetings. In 1983, there were 8,000 new cases of AIDS. By 1985, there were 650 new cases, which is still 650 important lives, but a dramatic decrease of new infections (91%).

This is a case I've read over, analyzed, and studied on numerous occasions. Stop AIDS used a communication theory called Diffusion of Innovations, which was the theory I covered in my master's thesis. There are many different areas that this theory can/has/should be applied within churches. Most churches already indirectly practice this. Small groups, community groups, cell groups, or any other name you choose to attach, is small group diffusion. But when we say the word "innovation," we're clearly referring to a new idea. Church small groups are not a new idea - but using small groups to spread the gospel may be (at least in America).

I've heard of newer church plants in progressive cities employing this type of outreach. Bread & Wine Church in Portland appears to center themselves around small group meetings. Duke Revard, one of Bread & Wine's pastors, explains their approach this way: "Gospel Communities are the central rhythm of Bread&Wine. We come together because of the Gospel. We are growing up into a deeper understanding and application of the Gospel. We are taking the Gospel to the neighborhood/city/world through intentional missional engagement. I believe this is the most effective way to reach an increasingly secular society."

Those subscribing to the Diffusion of Innovation model would agree. In less-churched areas of the country, regular involvement in a Christian community is a new idea to most. But why would breaking down the idea of a thriving, growing, multi-media driven church to that of a decentralized, small group-based, simple approach be so effective in a metropolitan, cutting-edge city like Portland? If you asked Revard, it comes largely down to cultural relevance. "People in the increasing post-Christian Pacific NW see church buildings as an injustice," says Revard. He goes on to explain that many Oregonians see large church buildings and technological approaches as money spent on self rather than meeting needs of people. "Therefore, the attractional model has seen its day, and we have to adapt."

As post-modern and anti-establishment as this approach sounds, the foundational purpose is to bring the Gospel to places and people where it is absent. If we go back to the previously mentioned diffusion of innovation theory, a specific criteria exists that new ideas must adhere to in order to be adopted. These 5 major characteristics are as follows:

1. Relative Advantage - There must more pros than cons to the new idea over the old idea it seeks to replace

2. Compatibility - It must meet the demand of the population to which its being introduced

3. Complexity - It must not be complicated to understand and apply
4. Trialability - It must be tried before one must commit to or make a decision about the new idea

5. Observability - Positive results of the new idea's adoption must be recognizable

1.With regards to introducing the idea of Christian community to the Pacific Northwest, Bread & Wine appears to have provided an innovation with the right elements to be adopted. A church community based off of small groups with the mission of being servant leaders in their neighborhoods holds appealing advantages to Portland's culture as opposed to the centralized church building model.

2. A culture already engaged in social justice issues (feeding the poor, sheltering the homeless, eating healthy) is compatible to a church that seeks to accomplish the same thing.

3. Having never been to Portland, I can't say this definitively. However, I've read the blogs, the books, and asked the questions. People in this part of the country are already looking for ways to stick it to the man and stand up for the little guy. Portland neighborhoods are full of people wanting to do good for others. Showing the community that this is Christ's desire too bridges a perceived gap that exists between human rights and Christian spirituality. The two should overlap, and Bread & Wine makes this a foundational tenet.

4. One thing that most smaller churches are great at is welcoming guests. Its hard to imagine a church with a Gospel community emphasis being anything less than welcoming to people who want to see what they are about. In a way, church communities are in a constant state of trialability.

5. This is the kicker. People will not continue with a community if they perceive their lives to be better off without said community. Many improvements may not be tangible. However, salvation, discipleship, biblical training, service opportunities, and neighborhood renewal result in noticeable results.

Bread & Wine's approach is working. In March 2009 they launched their first gospel community. Flash forward a little more than a year later and they are preparing to add their sixth, each consisting of 10-12 people. For those keeping score at home, that's a 500% growth rate in 14 months in a post-Christian, anti-American church culture. Clearly there is a work of the Holy Spirit going on here that cannot be seen, tasted, touched, or strategically planned by man. But there is a lot to be said for the structure of Bread & Wine and their approach to embrace the culture of Portland in order to bridge the perceived gap between followers of Jesus Christ and a thirst for social justice and genuine community.

As the idea of belonging to a church is being diffused throughout downtown Portland, many more people are likely to join these gospel communities. That's what typically happens when new ideas enter the early adoption phase within a population. Church planters in other American cities should take note of this new approach and pay attention to the model of small group diffusion. While no one can guarantee the absolute best practice for planting a ministry, social and cultural trends should be practiced. In many cases this is happening, and Bread & Wine is just one example. As the Church becomes more innovative in its outreach efforts, connectedness to its external community, and response to social concerns, I believe even post-Christian circles will realize its relevance.