<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: America&#8217;s Most Innovative Churches</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.desertfather.com/2006/12/22/americas-most-innovative-churches/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.desertfather.com/2006/12/22/americas-most-innovative-churches/</link>
	<description>for the glory of God and the good of Greenville</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Jan 2010 12:32:44 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Jim Miller</title>
		<link>http://www.desertfather.com/2006/12/22/americas-most-innovative-churches/comment-page-1/#comment-2754</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim Miller</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Mar 2007 20:37:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://desertfather.com/2006/12/22/americas-most-innovative-churches/#comment-2754</guid>
		<description>I have to disagree with Jonathan&#039;s &quot;shady&quot; comment. Where do you get a panel qualified to rank innovative churches without going to innovative churches? If the adjudicators DIDN&#039;T include pastors of such churches, someone would be crying foul on that basis. Frankly, I hope each of these pastors listed their own church first. Otherwise, they have no business on the panel.

I wonder why we need to take issue with these lists. Why don&#039;t we take issue with churches that AREN&#039;T reaching people for Christ or growing good disciples. Better yet, why don&#039;t we focus our energies on doing these things ourselves?

As far as the most innovative churches being the ones we never hear about, there is a degree of truth to this, but it&#039;s a slippery slope. How effective is their innovation if they aren&#039;t doing anything new enough to attract at least SOMEONE&#039;s attention?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have to disagree with Jonathan&#8217;s &#8220;shady&#8221; comment. Where do you get a panel qualified to rank innovative churches without going to innovative churches? If the adjudicators DIDN&#8217;T include pastors of such churches, someone would be crying foul on that basis. Frankly, I hope each of these pastors listed their own church first. Otherwise, they have no business on the panel.</p>
<p>I wonder why we need to take issue with these lists. Why don&#8217;t we take issue with churches that AREN&#8217;T reaching people for Christ or growing good disciples. Better yet, why don&#8217;t we focus our energies on doing these things ourselves?</p>
<p>As far as the most innovative churches being the ones we never hear about, there is a degree of truth to this, but it&#8217;s a slippery slope. How effective is their innovation if they aren&#8217;t doing anything new enough to attract at least SOMEONE&#8217;s attention?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jonathan</title>
		<link>http://www.desertfather.com/2006/12/22/americas-most-innovative-churches/comment-page-1/#comment-669</link>
		<dc:creator>Jonathan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Dec 2006 14:51:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://desertfather.com/2006/12/22/americas-most-innovative-churches/#comment-669</guid>
		<description>I agree - not being sour grapes our anything having served at one such church (NewSpring), but it seems shady to me that the list creator&#039;s church came in at #2 and many of the top 10 are pastored by the ajudicators.

Also striking that the super-majority are boomer-seeker-style in methodology.  Not a good representation.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree &#8211; not being sour grapes our anything having served at one such church (NewSpring), but it seems shady to me that the list creator&#8217;s church came in at #2 and many of the top 10 are pastored by the ajudicators.</p>
<p>Also striking that the super-majority are boomer-seeker-style in methodology.  Not a good representation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
