I loved this story from a church plant in Albania linked to Radstock (whose work I warmly commend) from the Radstock blog: very inspiring …

It was late. Anthony, Besi and i had been showing the Turkey-Croatia European football (soccer) match on the wall of Spiro’s restaurant. (Big place, mostly for weddings. Must seat about 25% of the village.) It had gone into extra time, then penalty kicks. Turkey won. Is Turkey in Europe? Nevermind, too late to discuss that. So after packing up, we were ready to go, except for the usual wrestling match over who would pay for what. About four of us engaged in 5 minutes or so of shouting, pushing others away and throwing our money over the counter to Spiro and his wife, each of us insisting we were picking up the tab. Meanwhile, Spiro threw it back, insisting that nobody was going to pay for anything — it’s a beautiful charade that has a lot of connection with Albanian hospitality. One of my favourite moves, not to be used too often, is the throwing of one’s money onto the floor. I’m not sure, but I think this means, “if you’re not going to accept this, this money has no value to me. Do not shame me by refusing.” Like I say, it seems you have to pick your spots with that one, whereas, grabbing other people’s arms and pushing their money back toward their pocket can be used without any fear of overkill. Somehow Spiro gets enough cash out of these episodes to be one of the richest men in the village. Anyway, that done, we were bumping along the road from Jub to Katund i Ri and, ultimately, Sukth in the old church VW van. It jars the bones, even at only a few miles per hour. We were tired and mentally berating the Croatians for giving away the game in the last minute, sending it to extra time, when Besi turned to me — “Brian, in 5 years, when we are enjoying the church in Jub, imagine what we are going to think about these nights.”

“I’ll still this road”, I replied.

But he’s right, I’ll love the memories. Here’s what I wrote, back in October 2006, to some friends about what was then a slightly fragile church in Sukth:

Chicken of the Sea

We went for the second week running to Sukth, this afternoon. The Durres church has started a congregation in this village. Five years ago, we sent a youth team from our church to Durres and this is one place where they went house to house, visiting non-believers, sharing their faith. Christina, our daughter, was on it. We’ve sent other groups since in 2004 and 2005. The church started early this year, I believe. They have 15 or 20 people in their orbit, but for the past two weeks it has been about 7 or 8 plus our contingent of 8 from Durres. Today it was 3 men and 5 women from the village. Three of the women were Audrey’s age (forty-something!) or up, and the rest under 30, including a newlywed couple, wife aged 17. Welcome to village life. We met in a grim, bare, one-story, flat-roofed house, about 40 chairs crammed into one room in precise rows. The floor was bare concrete, and immaculately clean. The song books were falling apart. As it got dark outside, I realised they don’t have electricity in the house, so it got darker and darker inside. After a few songs, Miri, a local farmer and elder in the Durres church (of which Sukth is considered a sub-set for now) preached on Luke 12, Jesus’ parable about the man who unwisely sought security from his massive barns and pleasure from his merry lifestyle. Miri opened by telling of how he once planted 30 hectares in a ‘get rich quick’ scheme which did not work. I was conscious that I was by far the richest person in the room. Outside, six or eight of the neighbour’s turkeys prowled around (pula deti — chicken of the sea, so named because they originally arrived in Albania from afar on ships, apparently). A few kids would come inside, peek in the door while we sang or listened to Miri, then run off, chicken of the church, in a child-like way. It was Audrey’s first visit, as she missed last week. “Everyone in our church ought to visit this place, she concluded. Just eight people, but getting on with church.” I was on those 2004 and 2005 teams. People thought we were turkeys, since we did things like tidy up the school for free (Albanian traditional value — only a stupid person works for no personal gain). It was hot and hard. The kind of place you imagine Jesus tramping through, where the villagers had their traditions and were getting on just fine, thanks, without the likes of Him, even if life was a bit grim and survival very difficult. I thought of that young couple, now with hope in a hopeless place. I’m glad those teenagers from our church weren’t chicken of the village. -
- October 30, 2006

I think we had 20 locals last week at the worship in Sukth. They are fired up about Jub. The women want to do more visits to Jub to evangelise. Has your church doubled in the past two years like the one in Sukth? I wonder why nobody writes best-sellers like The Poverty-Driven Church.

I should have said before now that I’m using Tim Keller’s great new book The Reason for God, as my primary source for our series on apologetic questions. Some time ago I asked the congregation what were the main questions they were asked by unbelievers and their responses mapped on very closely to the questions Keller addresses in part one of The Reason for God. The main difference was that in our context the question, ‘Why doesn’t God reveal himself more clearly?’ was more prominent than Keller’s related question of the reliability of the Bible - perhaps because ours is a more secular and pluralistic context.

There’s a useful website that goes with Keller’s book with a number of additional resources including audio talks: http://www.thereasonforgod.com/

On Sundays at the moment we are focusing on and exploring ‘The Questions of Faith that People Ask.’ Here is the conclusion for the second question. Here are some ideas for answering the question ‘How can you claim there’s only one true religion?’ if it comes up in conversation.

1. If people tell the story of the blind men and the elephant, ask them: ‘How do you know it’s an elephant?’

2. People may say: ‘If you were born in, you’d be a Muslim not a Christian.’ But the same goes for the pluralist. ‘If you’d been born in Iran you wouldn’t be a pluralist.’ In other words, your belief that all religions are equal (or misguided) is as culturally and social conditioned as my belief in Jesus (more so since going to church is now a minority activity in our society).

3. Jesus claimed that he was the only way to God (John 14:6). If all religious roads lead to God then Jesus was a liar and Christianity is false. In which case, not all religions lead to God.

4. People sometimes ask if you fully investigated all religions before deciding to follow Christ. Two responses: (1) You don’t need comprehensive knowledge before you can be confident something is true. You don’t read every newspaper and interview multiple eye-witnesses before believing a sports result. (2) I didn’t decide Christianity was the best religion; Jesus laid claim to my life.

5. Ask people to define religion. Jesus is not another religious figure, but the end or opposite of all religion. Religion is about an upwards movement of humanity towards God. Jesus represents of downward movement of God towards humanity.

6. Because Jesus is God’s initiative towards humanity, the message of Jesus is a message of grace. It is not dependant on human achievement, but upon God’s gracious and completed work. So Jesus alone gives assurance of salvation.

On Sundays at the moment we are focusing on and exploring ‘The Questions of Faith that People Ask.’ Here is the second part of the answer for the second question.

How Can You Claim there’s Only One True Religion?
The humble claim that Jesus is the only way

[Jesus said:] ‘Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me. In my Father’s house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. You know the way to the place where I am going. ’Thomas said to him, ‘Lord, we don’t know where you are going, so how can we know the way?’ Jesus answered, ‘I am the way and the truth and the life. No-one comes to the Father except through me. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.’ Philip said, ‘Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.’ Jesus answered: ‘Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, “Show us the Father”? Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.’ (John 14:1-10)

What is religion? Religion is (1) human beings trying to know the ultimate reality (however that is defined); and (2) human beings trying to be saved (however that is defined). Religions are the stories of human quests to know God. They are the account of human religious longings, searching, efforts, rituals. They purport to tell us how we can reach up to God. But the message of Jesus is the exact opposite. It is the story of how God has reached down to us by sending his Son, Jesus.

1. Jesus is God showing us God
Philip asks: ‘Show us the Father.’ Show us God. Reveal God to us. And Jesus says: ‘Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.’ Jesus himself reveals God to us. He shows what God is like. Through Jesus God is near. Through Jesus God is with us. Later on John (who recorded these words) says he has written so that people who were not there to see Jesus could know Jesus and by knowing Jesus know God. Each one of us can know God through Jesus. The analogy of the blind men and the elephant is right to depict humanity as blind, unable to grasp to full picture. But it ignores the possibility that God can personally and graciously reveal himself.

2. Jesus is God reconciling us to God
Thomas asks: ‘Show us the way.’ Show how the way to God. Show us the way of salvation. Jesus says: ‘I am the way and the truth and the life.’ Jesus is the peace-maker who makes peace in the war between us and God. He spoke these words on the night before he was killed. Jesus makes peace by dying. He dies in our place. He makes things right with God by offering a sacrifice – and that sacrifice is himself. Religion is about us trying to be right with God. The message of Jesus is that God has made us right with God. And he has done it through Jesus. That’s why Jesus is the only way to God.

The point is not that the Christian religion is a better way to God or the best way or the only way. The point is that God himself has done what no religion could do. God himself has bridged the gulf between God and humanity. God himself took the initiative. God sent his son, Jesus. God made the sacrifice. Religion is all about what I do for God or what I do to find God. But the message of Jesus is that God has done it all. God has found us. God has provided the way. And that way is Jesus.

This claim is both exclusive and inclusive. It’s exclusive because Jesus is the only way. But it’s also inclusive. It’s not some narrow sectarianism. Jesus is the way for anyone who comes through him. He says that in his Father’s house there are ‘many rooms’. In other words, there’s plenty of room. There’s enough room for everyone who comes and all are invited.

This is a truth that humbles. It is not an arrogant claim that we and we alone have worked out the truth about God. It is not an arrogant claim that we and we alone have achieved goodness and perfection. It is the humble claim that we are ignorant people who have received God’s revelation in Jesus. It is the humble claim that we are bad people who have received God’s reconciliation in Jesus. The message of Jesus is not about what we do to earn our place in heaven. It is all about what God has done for us through Jesus. And so:

- we proclaim it confidently because it is from God

- we proclaim it humbly because it is not from us

The following are my final edited extracts from an email dialogue that I had recently with someone who wishes to remain anonymous. It followed a talk in which I questioned the privileged status given to sermons.

Questioner:
… I also think that the words used to describe preaching and teaching seem to carry some sense of formality, which fits better with a sermon model, than a relaxed discursive model. I haven’t felt that you’ve really engaged that - but again because you don’t ‘feel’ there’s any weight behind the argument …

My reply:
I have never disputed the presence of monologue in the Bible. What I question is the privileged status that it accorded. I see no evidence for this …

Again, there is no reason to suppose preaching and proclamation have formal connotations. That is an anachronistic reading in to the text. They have formal connotations for us so we suppose they did then. As I said, Acts 8 says the people preaching the gospel as they were scattered and these were not the leaders. I think Stott says they ‘gossiped’ the gospel. But the word Greek word used is ‘preached’. The problem is we assume preaching = sermons. In the only church gathering in Acts (that I can think of off the top of my head!!) the word used in the Greek is ‘dialogue’ (Acts 20:7).

On Sundays at the moment we are focusing on and exploring ‘The Questions of Faith that People Ask.’ Here is the first part of the answer to the second question.

How can you claim there’s only one true religion?

Watch: Religion

How would you respond to the statement: ‘It’s arrogant to claim that your religion is the only true way’?

Let us start by considering the counter claim – that all religions lead to God or that all religions are equally valid.

1. It is untenable to claim that all religions lead to God
To claim that all religions lead to God is untenable because the claims of the different religions are incompatible. Hinduism and Buddhism, with some variations, believe the human problem is that we are trapped within samsara - the cycle of rebirth. For Buddhists this is characterised by dukkha – suffering and dissatisfaction. Escape is through enlightenment through the four noble truths and the eightfold path. In Hinduism escape is either through enlightenment, devotion or selfless action – or a combination of all three. There is no cycle of rebirth in Islam. The problem is human weakness and paradise is earned through submission to the will of Allah, particularly through the five pillars of belief, prayer, fasting, alms and pilgrimage. In Shintoism the problem is cosmic disharmony and the goal is a healthy, balanced life. You cannot easily reconcile these beliefs!

Sometimes it is said God is like a mountain and the different religions represents different paths up the mountain.

But the world religions do not even agree on the destination let alone the roads. We are not climbing the same mountain! Some forms of Hinduism believe in a number of gods who appear in different forms. Other variations of Hinduism believe that everything is god (‘monism’); that god is immanent throughout the world. Animists believe in local deities or ancestral gods. Islam believes in one personal deity, Allah, who is transcendent over the world. Indeed the ultimate sin in Islam is idolatry, believing in any god apart from the one God, Allah.

I was talking with some Muslim friend the other day. I was trying to persuade them that Jesus was God and they were trying to persuade me that he wasn’t. We can’t both be right! Either Jesus is God or he’s not. It’s not a question of different perspectives on the truth. They are mutually exclusive assertions.

Some people have tried to get round this by saying that religious truth is not like ordinary truth. Religious beliefs refer to ethical intentions. If I say ‘God is love’ I am really saying, ‘I ought to be loving.’ But this is not what the major religions believe. Pluralists start out arguing every religion is true, but in order to do this pluralists must say that in reality every religion is false.

2. It is disrespectful to claim that all religions lead to God.
The only way you can claim all religions lead to God is by ignoring their central truth claims – and that is disrespectful. The only way you can say all religions lead to God is by ignoring what they actually claim and viewing religions as stories made up to convey profound experiences. You reduce religion to something that societies constructs either to control or to comfort the members of that society.

You may say religion refers to an inner reality that is true for the individual concerned, but not true for everyone. The problem is this is not what adherents of the major religions claim. They claim to make metaphysical statements. So the only way you can say that all religions are true in some inner, personal sense, is actually to say that all religions are false.No-one wants to be told that we don’t really believe what we really believe. You are not taking religious truth claims seriously. They start out by trying to value every religion, but in the end pluralists value no religion.

3. It is arrogant to claim that all religions lead to God
There is a traditional story called ‘The Blind Men and the Elephant’ which was written as a poem in the 19th century by John Godfrey Saxe. It begins:

It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.

The first blind man feels the stomach of the elephant and concludes it is a wall. The second feels the trunk and concludes it is a snake. The rest conclude it is a spear, tree, fan and rope, depending upon where they touch. Saxe’s conclusion is:

So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!

What the story purports to show is that all religions are blind attempts to understand ultimate reality that all reflect the truth, but none grasps the whole truth. But the real question is: How do you know it’s an elephant? How do you know it’s not a wall and five of the blind men are wrong? The story actually reveals the arrogance of the pluralists or relativists. They claim to be the sighted ones in a world of blind men. They claim the know the truth towards which others can only partly, blindly stumble.

4. It is intolerant to claim that all religions lead to God.
The move to religious pluralism is often driven by the question: How can we live together in a pluralistic society? Pluralists claim that believing Jesus is the only way is intolerant. But tolerance is not saying every belief is valid. That is often how tolerance is conceived in our society, but it is a perversion of true tolerance. True tolerance says: ‘These are my convictions, but I respect your right to hold different beliefs.’
Indeed, far from leading to tolerance, saying every religion is true actually leads to intolerance. As soon as this attitude meets a claim to absolute truth (and that after all is the nature of religious truth claims) it cannot tolerate it. You can say what you like, the pluralist says, as long as you don’t say it is true. A claim to absolute truth must be rejected, even suppressed. When it comes to absolute claims, pluralists are extremely intolerant.

True tolerance, in contrast, can cope with absolute claims.True tolerance says: ‘These are my convictions, but I respect your right to hold different beliefs.’ True tolerance depends on love – not on pretending everyone and everything is right. True tolerance is conviction plus respect for others. Jesus said we are to love our neighbours as ourselves. So Christians need firmly to oppose prejudice against Muslims and other religious adherents. Christians need to be loving our Muslim neighbours. If we keep at a distance then our communities will become polarised. Jesus says: ‘The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.’ (John 14:10) God does his work through the words of Jesus – not through , law, manipulation, or financial incentives. When they came to arrest Jesus one of his followers drew a sword, but Jesus said, ‘Put it away’. God’s work is not done through force. God’s work is done through the message of Jesus. So Christians may try to persuade you to follow Jesus. But no Christian who is true to Jesus will ever want resort to or the law or manipulation to do God’s work. God’s work isn’t done that way.

The following are further edited extracts from an email dialogue that I had recently with someone who wishes to remain anonymous. It followed a talk in which I questioned the privileged status given to sermons.
Here I’ve assembled together extracts from one particular line of argument than ran through our dialogue. It concerns the precedent set by Moses in Deuteronomy.

Questioner:
What did Moses actually do, on the edge of the land, to best prepare the Israelites for active immediate obedience to God’s Word? Surely if there was a better method of doing it than giving three monologues, he would have employed that method? Why did he preach then, when he so desperately wanted the Word to sink into their hearts and produce heart-obedience? …
Why is it significant that Moses preached on the edge of the land? …

1) He was the paradigmatic prophet (I think that’s one of Peter Adam’s points).

2) It’s a crucial moment in Israel’s history when Moses really wanted God’s Word to make an impact – so why didn’t they have three days of Bible study instead if that would have been a better method of helping people to internalise the Word.

3) He’s not just a paradigmatic prophet. From what evidence we can construct about what is consequently the norm in Israel, it seemed to be what the priests did (certainly in Nehemiah 8) and was the norm in synagogues (e.g. Luke 4, Acts 13).

My reply:
You say Moses could have instituted a nation-wide programme of Bible study. But that’s what he did do in Deuteronomy 6:4-9! He instituted a nation-wide programme of life-on-life, ad hoc Bible conversation …
What Moses does in Deuteronomy is monologue, but it is not anything like modern day sermons. It is primarily a mixture of story-telling and law recitation.

But those issues aside, you cannot pick out the example of Moses, say that was the way to ‘best preparation’ then and is the ‘best way’ to prepare God’s people today. I could pick hundreds of other biblical examples (including Jesus himself) where people taught through dialogue, stories, Q&A, songs, aphorism and say those people thought that was the ‘best way’ to teach and it is the best way now. You cannot reason from one example to universal prescriptions …

You haven’t shown me any biblical case for privileging monologue. You have pointed to examples of monologue, but nothing to indicate that monologues should be central or primary. Examples alone will not do the job, because I can point to lots of examples of others forms of teaching. You can point to Moses; I can point to Jesus and Paul … Jesus is the prophet par excellence - the paradigmatic prophet if you like. And Jesus taught through stories, Q&A, dialogue, aphorism. So why not privilege parables? Or dialogues?
Questioner:
I’m not arguing for a particular style of sermon. I’m argue for the mode of delivery … Moses does do exposition, application and exhortation. He’s preaching. The style of his preaching is different to ours today, just like the style of Spurgeon or Calvin is different to ours today, but they’re still doing exposition, application and exhortation.

Your comment about Jesus highlights the difference in how we’re reading the texts. I agree that Jesus is the prophet par excellence. I do not agree that the Gospels will give you a complete - or even a clear or the best - picture of Jesus the prophet. Without the OT much of the Gospels frankly make no sense. The whole Bible reveals Christ, not just the Gospels. Moses is the paradigmatic prophet. He is that particular part of the shadow of Christ we see in the OT. Without Moses that picture of Christ as prophet would be lacking in the Bible.

My reply:
I’ve been uneasy with the Deuteronomy analogy and know I realise why. It’s a false rhetorical move. By calling what Moses did in Deuteronomy three ‘sermons’ it implies a similarity with what takes place in pulpits in churches today. Moses (probably) did monologue, but it was unlike modern sermons. It was story-telling and law recitation. Some people do story-telling in pulpits (though not many in my experience). I don’t know many who do law recitation. So Deuteronomy cannot represent a case for modern sermons.

I’m not sure what the distinction between style and mode of delivery is. I do exposition, application and exhortation when I lead discussions (what else would I do!). If you’re arguing for exposition, application and exhortation then we agree 100 percent. But as I understand it you want to go further and argue that exposition, application and exhortation should ‘primarily’ take place through a particular mode of delivery or style - i.e. monologue.

Please re-read your comments about Moses and Jesus and think whether you would employ that argument in any other discussion. Offering animal sacrifices? Stoning erers? Theonomism and theocracy? Would you really say that, since we need the OT background to understand Jesus, we should therefore follow the OT pattern? Of course, we need the OT to truly understand Jesus. But that doesn’t mean the OT is our norm and Jesus isn’t. What defines prophecy is not its mode. Just think of Ezekiel cutting his hair etc. etc.! Moses employs one teaching style in Deuteronomy (not sermons, but law recitation and story-telling) and Jesus employs a variety of different teaching methods in the Gospels. You can’t seriously want to chose the pattern of Moses over the pattern of Jesus! (Incidentally, I don’t want to chose either one - I want to allow both without privileging one.)

… I agree there is discontinuity and continuity between OT and NT. But my point is that you seem to be making Moses in Deuteronomy normative and Jesus sub-normative - and that seems an extraordinary move.

Your second argument for privileging Moses at Deuteronomy is that this became the pattern in the temple and synagogues. I confess I am not well read on the practices of synagogues. There is little in the Scriptures … The point is: I would rather follow the pattern of Jesus, the apostles and the apostolic churches than the pattern for the Jewish synagogues.

We’ve just finished the first year of Porterbrook Training Sheffield, a day-a-week training for church planting and missional church. From September we’re about to launch Porterbrook Distance Learning with the same content delivered through distance learning materials and three weekend residentials. With both Porterbrook Training Sheffield and Porterbrook Distance Learning, there’s a foundation year (designed with team and church members in mind) and an advanced year (designed for those with prior training or experience). Students can do either year or both. The cost for the distance learning is £450 a year (including the cost of residentials).

The Northern Training Institute, our programme for those training for church leadership, has also come under the auspices of the Porterbrook Network so we are now offering three courses - all ‘training for mission and leadership in the context of your ministry’.

Here’s the commendation from Tim Keller: “The Porterbrook Network is an innovative resource that offers affordable, high quality training for mission and ministry in the 21st century. I warmly recommend it.”

Here’s our latest leaflet (PDF, 1 MB).

We addressing questions people ask about faith on Sundays. But I recognise in conversation you don’t get twenty minutes to does a presentation. So how can we answer the question:’Why doesn’t God reveal himself more clearly?’ when we get asked in a break at work or in a noisy pub? Here are some pointers.

1. ‘What would you like? How would you like God to reveal himself? Would you like God to write something in the sky? “The heavens declare the glory of God” (Psalm 19:1). Would you like God to send you a message? He has given us the Bible. Would you like God to come in person? Jesus is God among us.’

2. ‘Jesus said: “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). Why not take a look at Jesus by reading a Gospel. See what you make of Jesus.’

3. Challenge people. ‘There are good reasons for taking the existence of God seriously. Your real problem is that you don’t want to admit there is a God to whom you are accountable. You reject God because you do not like the implications for your life.’

4. If people wish God existed then they will examine the evidence with more openness. So show people that it is good to know God and to live under his authority through your life and our life together. (See Deuteronomy 4:5-8; 1 Peter 2:11-12.)

5. Don’t be intermediated. A person’s reasons for doubting are just as ‘prejudiced’ as your reasons for trusting God.

Here’s more on the Total Church North America conference (from Drew Goodmanson) that Steve and I will be speaking at in August …

Be the Church

Total church is a way of thinking about church and mission in the 21st century which sees the local Christian community as integral to Christian living and Christian mission. The Christian life is ‘total church’ - our identity is communal.

Why Attend?

- Create a community centered on the gospel, equipped to do the work of the ministry.
- Make your community a community of church planters.
- See what it means to be the church on mission through ordinary life with gospel intentionality.
- Dialog with missional church leaders from across the world.
- Learn from seasoned practitioners how to form missional communities and transition traditional churches toward mission.
- Did we mention its in San Diego?

Dates: August 12-14, 2008

Location: San Diego, CA

Main Sesssion Speakers: Steve Timmis and Tim Chester are the authors of Total Church: A Radical Reshaping Around Gospel and Community (Crossway). They lead The Crowded House, a family of church planting networks that started in Sheffield, England. They have also started The Porterbrook Network to train people for mission and church planting in the context of ministry.

Break-out Sessions will be led by church planters and practitioners from The Crowded House, Kaleo Church, Soma Community and Providence Community.  Break-out sessions will be added but will include:

• Beyond Total Church – Sowing the Seeds of a Movement
• Moving from Traditional to Missional - “What do I do next?”
• Engaging the Domains of Society - From Business to Media and Beyond
• Communicating in a Post-Christian Culture
• Evangelising the Urban Poor
• New ways of funding a plant and planter in a missional movement

REGISTER EARLY BENEFITS!

1. Registering prior to July 12th and receive a discounted rate.
2. Immersion program. Lodging for out-of-town registrants will be provided by members of Kaleo Church on a first-come first-served basis as long as we have lodging available.  Space is limited.  This will save on hotel costs for the conference and give visitors an opportunity to see the life of the community at Kaleo.

Drew himself says: “I’d encourage all church planters to attend one of the most important church planting conferences to come. This one is a must attend for church planters who are thinking about planting missional churches to reach our culture.”

For more info go to www.churchbootcamp.com.