« On the psyche and art |
Main
| Ascendit Deus in jubilatione »
A question
Yesterday I was procrastinating by reading a blog by a writer for the New Yorker; in an article from October 2005, linked on his blog, he has a facinating discussion of Ivy League college admissions policies and the ways in which Ivies are in "the luxury-brand-management business", that is, that "Harvard" means much more as a brand than as a college founded as a sort of meritocracy. (He discusses, for instance, the ways in which the numbers of Jewish students have dropped as Harvard has -- for this purpose -- changed its admission policies). Thus those that are meant to represent the brand Harvard are generally WASP-types.
Then, I was reading a short bit on Sheena's blog,The Pastor's Wife about a book she's borrowing from her husband, a Presbyterian minister in London. In it, she quotes from a book called Cities: Missions New Frontier thusly:
We [Christians] hold to the basic conviction that all are equal before God and thus we owe it to our neighbours to be open and hospitable. Yet we are also torn by the common fears about jobs, competition and the unseen effects newcomers may have on our lives. We know we should love them but we’d rather do it from a distance.
As for the churches, we subtly prefer to keep them homogenous, that is, composed of people like ourselves. We may disguise our feelings, but newcomers catch on. People know when they are wanted and trusted…. Among all the barriers to reaching urban ethnics, the matter of attitudes is the most formidable.
I wonder then -- and I invite your response as I'm just beginning to think through these issues -- if we as the Church, in North America and elsewhere, have branded ourselves like Gladwell discusses the Ivies doing? Do the face of our churches look too much like a luxury-brand-management strategy, rather than as 1) a living, vital, culturally and economically diverse group of people and 2) a community who responds to the gospel through ministries of mercy?
This is the question behind the whole missional church conversation. Barna's latest book "Revolution" talks about the trend of millions of folks leaving the big box churches to go to smaller house churches that are more incarnational.
Good thoughts and questions.
Russell
Thanks for this Ashley. I think our churches (by and large) are not as they should be. What worked 100 years ago when the much of the population went to church, is not enough now.
Solid biblical preaching is great and I obviously would advocate that, but if your congregation is not in the habit of bringing unbelievers to church, for whatever reason, then that is a lost opportunity. We must go to the lost I think, not expect them to come to us.
Great thoughts, Ashley (and Sheena).
1. The more I've thought about this subject over the past year, the more I realize how complicated it is. A "diverse" church community in downtown St Louis is going to end up looking quite different from a "diverse" church community in Santa Barbra or (for that matter) Edinburgh. I consider Niddrie (the church I work for) quite diverse, but diverse for the area that it is trying to minister in. There aren't any black members, for example - but that's because there really aren't any in the area. There are Asians, however, because there is a significant (if small) Asian population in that end of town.
2. I've often wondered about the effectiveness of "culturally diverse" communities that end up that way because we are shipping folks in. So, for example, you have a group of WASPs from suburbia who decide they want to reach the inner city. So every week they drive 45 mins downtown to worship. (Ironically, you'll find very few newcomers from the local community coming along.) Is that what we're supposed to do when we say we want to reach our communities? I love the example of City Church of East Nashville (PCA) who require their church planters to actually live in the urban, run-down communities they are serving. They adopted a sort of "parish" system, where different folks are responsible for ministering to different blocks of the neighborhood. And it's WORKING.
3. I fear the rise of "emergent" is making the whole thing worse. As much as I have some sympathies for the movement, it is largely obsessed with building a church for the white middle class. Sure, they may say they are being "relevant" - but they are really only being relevant for the young, white, middle class - those who often have church backgrounds anyway. The (arguably) biggest church movement at the moment seems to care little for true incarnational ministry, as much as they may preach it.
(I'll step off my soap box now.)
:) Michaela
Thanks for the discussion so far. Personally I don't think that home churches are the answer, although I understand the compulsion to not be a part of a big consumer style church. I think it's increasingly the case that we need both the larger corporate church body as well as the intimacy afforded by smaller groups.
And I agree with what you've all said so far that the church needs to engage the culture its in -- whether in city-centre churches or in suburbs. (And Mic you're quite right that diversity looks different in different locations; Santa Barbara is an interesting case in point; I don't know any congregations there though that effectively reach the upper class eschalons or the immigrant workers there).
Mic, I also like what you're saying about the emergent movement pandering to WASP types; I think that's really quite true. You don't see that movement in other parts of the world as far as I know. I do think that a major problem is that we tend to section off into various factions and we aren't very good about being the Church global. (That's one reason why I like the Presbyterians together movement). (This is also not to say that ecumenicism is the answer, cuz I don't think it is; but it isn't to say that we shouldn't work with another denomination if they and us are both ultimately committed to the gospel).
I imagine that there are several things that need to happen so that our churches meet the real needs of the real people living where we are:
1. We need to live exactly where we're ministering
2. We need to know the culture where we live
3. We need to love the people of that culture and on some levels embrace that culture
4. We need to serve the people where we live.
5. We need to make ourselves and our services accessible to new unchurched people (not that we 'dumb down' or pander to them but that we realise that there are/should be non-Christians who come to/are a part of the church.
(I'll be away for a week starting Sunday, but I hope more discussion is generated while I'm away!)
Ashley
"1. We need to live exactly where we're ministering
2. We need to know the culture where we live
3. We need to love the people of that culture and on some levels embrace that culture
4. We need to serve the people where we live.
5. We need to make ourselves and our services accessible to new unchurched people (not that we 'dumb down' or pander to them but that we realise that there are/should be non-Christians who come to/are a part of the church."
I joined a church in North Minneapolis (Minnesota, USA) that began with the mission to reconcile the people of the city to God and to each other. The population in North Minneapolis is largely African-American, although there is a growing population of Asian immigrants, especially Hmong. North Minneapolis is known, throughout the state of Minnesota, for its poverty, and the often-associated epidemics of drug dealing, gang banging, and teen pregnancy.
Our church, The Sanctuary Covenant, considers itself a "Hip-Hop Ministry" because once a month (or so) DJs and rappers lead the praise and worship portion of the service. The other weeks there is an R&B or soul emphasis, including an amazing back-up band. Every week there are quite a few visitors, many of whom, with their tattoos, piercings, and hip-hop flava look nothing like the "cultural christians" of Minnesota.
When the church began two years ago, they simultaneously incorporated a non-profit, secular community development corporation that receives some gifts from the church, but primarily does its own fundraising. The focus of this group is community building through various programs including placement of volunteers in local schools, specialized workshops to empower youth in areas of dignity and identity, and work-training and job placement programs to help adults achieve living-wage jobs.
All of these things, including our committment to stay in North Minneapolis, speak to the pastor's vision and our desire for relevance. It's an issue that isn't without questions, though. A friend of mine, who also attends, feels that too much emphasis can be put on relevance or "seeker-friendly" appearances; she's honest about her strong aversion to Hip-Hop music, though ;).
One thing I would like to see is more outreach to the local Asian community; I don't know how to do it, though...
I will close this loooong and dryly informative post by giving props to the two mostly-suburban churches that got behind our pastor's vision and gave very generous gifts that allowed Sanctuary to start with so much administrative and artistic support. These two churches, neither of which belong to the Covenant denomination with which we are affiliated, both believe in the reuniting of Christ's body on earth, his church, and we do cross-denominational gatherings and our pastors swap pulpits.
Blah, blah, blah; I feel like this was a me-me-me post, but in light of the discussion, I think it's useful as an example of practical application of the ideas Ashely was discussing.
Amy
p.s. I don't know how to italicize my quotes from the previous posts. Sorry.
