If you have any questions, let me know!

Expand full comment

Thanks for sharing this. A few replies:

First, on the ideas behind this, I would say I am "all in" on preparing for 2100. That is a good place to start (as usual, Len has a way with words that makes you think differently). If we "begin with 2100 in mind" I think it radically changes the way we engage in what we're doing in the kingdom today. (Of course, we might as well say the year 3100, but that's so far away it's hard to even conceptualize--will be planting churches on another planet or moon in colonies there?) Instead: since my kids as well are likely to live to 2100 (although just barely) it is helpful for me to ask what kind of church they might leave behind when they pass. What will THEIR legacy be? This is why I care so much about more portable, less institutional church models that empower their generation to actually facilitate the change, not me. I think it's time to hand the keys of the kingdom over to them. It's why I think less clergy-centric church life, where everyday Christians lead everyday Christian community, is so important. It's why I think we need more multi-vocational leadership and clergy, more people on mission globally by keeping their career and doing their job in another country, instead of quitting that job to raise money. All these things flow from the 2100 motivation. Is what we're doing now working? Yes, more or less, it's in decline but not in crisis, most might say. But is what we're doing now going to work in 2100, or even 2050? I have little confidence that is the case.

And then on the practical ask you make here: it was a rewarding thing for me to be a part of the past NEXT Ventures/Future Church Initiative and I wrote about the experience and the other kinds of orgs that were nominated here:


Expand full comment