As someone who is from the San Francisco Bay Area, and who wants to see the gospel preached there, I can “amen” this video’s general message:
– Matt Emerson discusses unity as relates to Eph. 4 and the SBC.
– Tim Henderson asks if Marcion was the first to write a gospel.
– Bobby Grow outlines historic dispensationalism and then he discusses the continuation and discontinuation between historic and progressive dispensationalism.
– If you’d like a resource for early Rabbinic writings there is one available now!
– Trevin Wax says that gospel community is essential for understanding the gospel.
– Scott Lencke discusses healing from hurt caused by other people.
– Halden Doerge talks about place and ideology and then place, ideology, and incarnation.
– Jim DeYoung’s eleventh entry on Rob Bell’s Love Wins is available.
the archives near Emmaus 
There are a copule thoughts I had on the video and its subject matter.
1) Why has church planting become such a phenomenon in the past 10 years? Personally I think it something very good to consider. It is my desire to see churches birthed in a cold and dark western Europe where I am. It is also different from the typical perspective of building upward, whereas I believe God’s call is ultimately to build outwards. But it seems that we moved away from the phenomenon of church growth in the 90’s to the phenomenon of church planting in the past decade. What I hope is that people are more interested in following the voice of Jesus than simply getting on a popular bandwagon, for church planting is the ‘in-thing’ to do. I think all in the video would agree, and you would agree, too, Brian. But it’s just a challenge. What is more important here – the voice of Jesus or church planting?
2) Why were 98.5% of the people in the video white, middle-aged and middle-class? The only person who wasn’t that stuck out was the one African-American pastor. Is this simply a phenomenon amongst this grouping of people? Are others missing out on something important? Or is this grouping of people (of which I would fall under) more swayed by what is the “in-thing” than other groupings of people?
Scott,
I am not sure why church planting has picked up. I am sure there are negatives and positives associated with the trend. For instance, like the modern missions movement, some of the denominational rivalry was very bad while the motivation that it gave people to preach the gospel (though not pure) was good. I assume there is something similar going on now. These church plant groups want to emphasize their brand, maybe it will spark others to be more active in evangelizing as well.
I think this video portrays white, middle-aged, middle- class males because it is Acts 29ish and I get the feeling that this is most of their make-up (i.e. Neo-Reformed). That is why I said I agree with “this video’s general message” because I do think we need more thriving churches planted in the Bay Area. I don’t know that the Neo-Reformed are the best people for the job, but maybe they will ignite a fire under others who need to take up the challenge?
I am all for church planting, but I would genuinely like to see the rise in house churches. I think house churches offer a more intimate setting for true discipleship, without the temptation of getting caught up in growth and the frills of a formal congregation.
Somehow it posted before I could ask the question. Brian, do you think the Bay Area would be more receptive in a house church setting?
Brian –
Thanks for the thoughts. We are moving forward in Christ, even if we (including me) are not perfect.
And by house church, I mean remaining a house church. Haha.
@Ryan: I think house churches can be successful in San Francisco. I’m not sure that this would be the same for the whole Bay Area (Oakland, San Francisco, San Jose, and Marin are all very different places). I know some churches (like my home church there) are split between house groups around town and a Sunday gathering as a whole. Personally, I like gathering in a larger group on Sunday (and by large I means 80-120 people….not 20,000) because being a Christian in San Francisco can be very lonely. So it shouldn’t be an either/or but a both/and.
@Brian: Understandable. I am not too much familiar with the Bay Area and its churches. However, I know that many cities who are generally resistant to Christianity base their judgments against the idea of an organized institution, which more often than not is more concerned with numbers and getting people into the system than genuinely caring and walking alongside of them. I have always generally felt that house church networks would be a great way to shatter this thinking in those resistant churches, as well as influence true discipleship in the areas already favorable to the Gospel message. I like your idea of both/and. I, too, enjoy a corporate gathering (within reason regarding size) which is ideally good for fellowship.
My question has always been: why are there not more house churches, or are they there and we just do not know about it?
I am not sure why there are not more house churches. I personally see value in them though I have little interest in participating in one that is isolated from a larger church body. I think this is in part because I don’t think there are enough qualified leaders who can survive the pace of modern society to care for traditional churches of two or three hundred so I am doubtful that someone who works sixty hours as an engineer or restaurant manager will do much better.
Theoretically the church would be healthy enough to not need one or two primary leaders, but again, reality smacks us in the face.
A sincere thought, from a sincere believer in the Bay Area: before we get super excited about new “networks” and church planting, I would love to see a true, Spirit-led revival in *existing* churches that are already preaching the Word in spirit and truth. I would believe that is the goal of this new network, but it seems like so often we are addicted to the “shiny and new” initiative that we leave behind those who are already laboring hard for the Kingdom. That said, I think it’s important for church bodies to be connected to each other and support the general idea of this.
Tami,
It is very true that we need to see people care about the churches that are already there. Some should be willing to join an existing body in hopes of injecting new life into it by bringing their Spirit-given gifts and talents. It is a true danger that people would leave their current church for the “new and improved” version.
Thanks for the comment. Great insight.
Thanks! That indeed is where I feel called to be at this time in my life (but who knows, maybe God will eventually call me to a house church or church plant! I’m open). If every active believer vacates a church just because it’s not the “new and improved” thing going on, then we (a) discourage good pastors who are working to build community and (b) end up depleting that church of the very people who could help restore it to vibrancy and keep it healthy.
God bless.
Tami,
I agree with everything you are saying. I think it would be preferred that people in churches remain and strengthen their churches while areas of the Bay Area in need of a church receive one (I am sure there are many neighborhoods that could use small church plants). I don’t think it is good for people to bail on their current church for the new kid on the block.