Intellectuelle

We live in a suburb, in order to get our son into the best special ed program possible. I grew up in the country, and have spent time living in the city.
It is difficult for me to separate the effects of suburban life from the effects of parenting a child with special needs, because the experiences coincided, for us. Both can have some isolating side effects.
I think spiritual health in the suburbs may demand a little more conscious mental and social discipline. You need to focus and set priorities.
Today I was surprised to find our newest neighbor, who moved in a week ago, has posted an introduction to their family on the door of every house on our street. Voila! This is a first for us, in twelve years of suburban life (four apts and two houses).

I may be dense, but I just don't understand the purpose of these questions.

There are Christians all over the world, in all different living circumstances, including in solitary confinement in Communist prisons, in uber-crowded urban capitalist Hong King as well as those "who drive mini-vans and tend manicured lawns (or pay someone else to tend them)" Why we need to consider what spirituality "looks like" for city vs country dwellers (Or those who *gasp* PAY someone to tend their lawns) is beyond me. Why is this a distinguishing factor in what "spirituality looks like", anyway?

God knows what America is like now, SUVs and all. And if Christ lived in a time where there were SUVs, I'm sure He would not have been too concerned about the bourgeois-ness of it all and would have been happy to materialize there in the back seat, and would probably even eat at some fast food place with his suburbanite pals.

OOPs! I hit "post" too soon. I know that you are trying to post a balanced view of this issue, but my ultimate question is, why exactly is this a concern?

God knows how to use people and sanctify them in all kinds of conditions, and in fact, in His providence He places people where they are. I think that you cannot make blanket statements about "spirituality in the city" (Or country, or suburbs) any more than you can make generalizations about "spirituality of (insert racial group here)"

Of course, I stated above the very real possibilty that I may just be dense ;-)

The New Jerusalem will not have suburbs.

New Urbanism is MacDisneyish dribble. It is plastic, forced community. We have a New Urbanist community here in Memphis. It beats the ghettos, sure, but the extent of socio-economic diversity found there is the full range from upper middle class to filthy rich. Every fifth house looks the same; quite an advance from the old cookie cutter suburbs. The entire community is made to look like something it is not - its aesthetic is more resort than authentic neighborhood or hometown. New Urbanist communities are to genuine community what the Magic Kingdom is to real kingdoms, and what Starbucks is to a real cafe. Like so much in America, they offer the impression of the real, if you can afford it. Some yuppies like to feel like they're actually human. And some folks who have read a bit of Wendell Berry sell some second rate "spirituality of place" titles that teach us that our social and spiritual problems have to do with sidewalk layout and attached garages. Why not read Beldon Lane and Eric Jacobson while drinking a grande iced americano at a Starbucks? That seems to me to be the icon of the Books & Culture set. No matter how hard Evangelicals try they will always be culture-lite and 15 years late. Populists can only destroy cultures, they can never understand them.

Thanks for your comments, ochlophobist. However, rather than just laying the critique heavy, do you have any positive ideas to add to the conversation? What do those already in the suburbs do to get away from this 'culture-lite' as you call it?

Samantha, I understand your questions and I realise that indeed Christ would be present to those suburbanites; however he was quick to denounce those who privileged their culture above truth and grace and I have no doubt that some of that is needed wherever we may live, but especially in the 'comfort' of the suburbs. (Hey I spent most of my life in the suburbs...)

I totally agree with Samantha-I think she got it exactly right.We make things too hard, looking too much to the outward appearance of things. We bring the savor of the gospel to whatever cultural cuisine we find ourselves in.

But we underestimated the anonymity of the city—the fact that people come here to mind their own business and hope others follow suit.

Cities don't automatically make people gregarious; what they do is provide ample public space within which people can interact more often. I know I can't walk three blocks in my neighborhood without running into someone to chat. The way space is structured in cities is a powerful tool with which to advance the gospel.

Ilona, I'm not disagreeing with you -- it is true we bring the gospel to the city, country or suburb. But I imagine because different people are into different things in each of these places, they privilege different things in the country or the city for instance, and therefore it stands to reason that Christians in these places will live out the gospel differently. All I'm asking is that we begin to think through these issues. How might the gospel look different for you or for me, living as I do as an Amerian in a British city?

jpe, thanks for your personal reflections that because space is structured differently we relate to others differently; thanks very much for the specific instance of the ramifications for the gospel.

You know, I think many, many people who live in the cities today have a similar amount of comfort, and in many cases, more money than people in the suburbs, due to the economic reality of limited space. *Most* people in America (even those who have not reached the middle class and who would certainly be considered poor) live in comfort or even luxury compared to much of the world. How does their spirituality compare to a dirt-poor Christian collecting dung to plaster their walls in Ethiopia?

I think this question just bugs me because I sense an assumption (similar to the one we dealt with in the fair-trade coffee issue) that somehow weath and comfort automatically equals complacency. I think it certainly *can* lead to complacency, but I am sure that the sin of complacency or lack of spiritual vigor can also be seen among the poor, as it is probably one of the besetting human sins.

I think your question would be better put to wonder how general cultural affluence and lack of persecution *can* (not necessarily DOES) affect a person's spiritual life.

But even my last question is flawed in the same way, using external condition as if it is necessarily a barometer that would indicate the state of a person's spiritual life.

I actually meant my question comapring teh poor American to the Ethiopian (not my last question).

I'll stop now. You can tell I have not had my coffee.

Samantha I've read this post 3 times and I cannot see the assumption you do. I think you are reacting to something not even there - honestly.

The post is essentially looking at contact and interaction - the gemeinenschaft vs. gessellenschaft debate really (some-one may need to correct my spelling on these - it's been a while!)

In fact if anything the references in the post are like an apologetic for metro opportunity, and thus the caveat/concern regarding the isolation within the crowd which then follows.

I don't see this post as having anything to do with externals such as affluence - it is about the possibility of creating opportunites to make contact.

There's some validity in saying "well we are creatures of our context and we just do". But I think Julana's comment is to the point - without the meeting place it is harder. In my own context I think of the marae for Maori, and the open spaces and festivals which everyone enjoys. The point being that if you are in a context then what are you doing in it - and the prospect of making it a better place is worth considering.

One interesting aspect of the ideas here is the thought that participating in the creation of meeting places/opportunities is itself speaking something to the community in which it is done.

You may very well be right, Catez...that's why I acknowledged the very real possibility of my denseness ;-)

Not exactly in the same vein as the comments, but...over the past few months dh & I have brought how to personally learn to follow Jesus in our culture. Here in America, it seems that much of what we think is Christian is actually Western or American or _____.

Then there's the idea that people in each socio-eco geogrpahic place need a Savior as well. So, you can minister to the people around you. Of course, you have to actually talk to them and that's hard to do if you're daily life offers little interaction w/them.

The bottom line, living one place or another doesn't neccesarily make one more or less spiritual.

My experience in Chicago was exactly the opposite, but I didn't live in a high rise downtown, I lived in an inner city neighborhood, where we were among a very few number of White folks in the neighborhood. We attended a church that was purposeful in its interracial makeup and relationship building. There wasn't a problem with building relationships. The gang's scout who sat on our corner for 8 to 10 hour shifts would always greet us courteously, even wished my wife a happy mother's day one time (even though he'd never seen us with a child!).

Of course, a lot of the neighborhood kids thought we were Mormons...guess that makes a bit of a statement in itself.

Lexie, I'm really interested in hearing what you and your DH have been talking about bringing Christ to your culture. Do share or write a post on it!

Bob, thanks so much for sharing your personal experience. I do think that inner-city is a different thing altogether. I wonder if differences b/t the inner-city and downtown highrises are more to do with socio-economic issues re: creating community than with location necessarily (suburb, city, country, etc). Just something to ponder.

I'm probably late to the conversation here, but I would be interested too in what Lexie and Bob have to say....

I think the books sound interesting, and I'd like to read them. If you have lived in the city and then moved to the suburbs or vice versa, these kind of things are questions you do ask yourself as a believer. I remember moving out of living in Los Angeles for nearly 8 years to the suburbs. It was a few months later that the LA Riots took place. I was transfixed as I saw places I had shopped at being looted and later hearing about how my friends still there had tried to head out of town. it really rattled me to think I had lived in the midst of it all but didn't realize the depth of the hate and anger that was there. I felt like it was huge ministry opportunity for us to go there to help clean up after the riots. But at my new suburban church what did I hear....??? Crickets. Did anyone want to take a shovel and head on over there only a 30 minute drive away to clean up? No Way!!!

And that does bring up the point that it was only 30 minutes away....where there were drive-by shootings, homeless people asking for money (at the grocery store for cryin' out loud!), high density low-income housing, traffic, stabbings, theft, etc....and then in the 'burbs I'm at gymnastic lessons for daughter listening to the other moms talk about the Suburbans on sale down the street and how they bought a boatload of tickets to Knotts Scary Farm for the weekend. It was a culture shock of sorts.

I don't think living in one place over another is more or less spiritual. And ministry isn't hugely different. One thing is that if you are just friendly in either place and show some care for a neighbor in the name of Christ, you will indeed stick out. And in both places you will find people who are open and also closed to the Gospel. And either culture will be one that will try to convince that the here and now is the most important thing to focus in on instead of Christ.

Once I get my 'puter fixed, I'll write a post on this issue. I live in urban Korea where a megachurch might have more than 500,000 members! It does make a difference in one's lifestyle. . . But I'm in a coffeeshop now and I've got to go home. Going home means going up to the 12th floor of this building.

Thanks Ashley!! Wish I had time to say more.

I found this site entirely by accident, but I found this post fascinating. I can tell you what suburban Christianity looks like from the outside, because I am an outsider.

It looks ugly. To those of us not on the inside, it appears that suburban Christian churches, especially evangelicals, are concerned with nothing more than increasing their membership, building bigger facilities for the use of their members, complaining about the popular culture and trying to force religion on the rest of the populace.

I often wonder why churches aren't building charity hospitals, orphanages and nursing homes the way denominations did in the past. Where are the soup kitchens, the food banks? Around here, those are the province of Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists and Jews.

When I tell people I go to church, I feel I have to explain: it isn't one of THOSE kinds of churches. We welcome gays as they are; we don't get involved in politics; we don't believe in hell and we don't recruit. Because people hate all those things about Christians. That is why Christians are seen as counter-culture - because while mainstream culture is becoming more tolerant, Christianity seems to be becoming less tolerant and more hateful and more insular and self-referential.

I hear talk about spreading the gospel, bringing people to Christ. I believe the early Christians brought people to them by acting loving and living in peace and brotherhood. That might be the best strategy to take now.

Sorry if this was hurtful. I just wanted to share how it looks from someone who is not involved. I have had so many bad experiences with people who proudly acclaim their Christianity (the fish on the business card and the car, etc) that I hesitate to get involved with them in any way. It is like they thought their being saved gave them a get-out-of-ethics free card. Sad.

Sue, if you don't tell people how to escape God's eternal wrath, anything you do for their physical bodies is like putting one of those teeny finger-sized band-aids on a gunshot wound to the head.

People hate hearing about hell because they have guilty consciences and try their best to repress that fact. The Gospel means nothing without the doctrine of hell. When you are "saved", you are saved FROM something, and that something is God's wrath.

Not to argue at all that churches in general and Christians particularly should not be helping people in a wide variety of ways (and not arguing that this is necessarily always being done well). But practical help in this world from Christians needs to be accompanied by spiritual help, and that only comes by helping people to see their need for salvation.

I think God loves us too much to have created hell.

Ashley,

Trendy, but interesting. I think where we live has a lot to do with how we minister. Not because of the buildings or sidewalks, but because different environments attract different types of people. We don’t minister to sky rises, tract homes, or farm houses—we minister to people. The cities tend to attract people who are more cosmopolitan, more sophisticated—often, educated professionals. The suburbs attract families with children who are interested in stability and independence. And each city or suburb has its own unique characteristics. The question, then, is would you minister differently to a young, single professional in the city than a mom of two in the suburb? Sorry for over-generalizing, but I think you get the picture.

We minister to people. I don’t want to give the impression that I do this all the time, but I have done quite a bit of street witnessing—just going up to people and sharing the gospel. How I present the gospel, of course, varies depending on where I am and who I’m speaking with. I’ve had conversations with teenagers at the local multi-plex in the suburbs, people standing along the pier at the beach, students near the university, the night crowd standing outside a bar, people waiting at a city bus stop….and I definitely speak and act differently to fit the situation--being all things to all people.

In this day and age, regardless of whether we live in the city or the suburb, no one thinks they have time to stop and have a conversation about religion. But more than 50% of the time (depending on the environment), I found that people were willing to engage in some dialogue.

We spend a lot of time talking about sharing the gospel and not enough time actually doing it. The problem is not that people are not willing to engage in dialogue, the problem is we ourselves are too distracted to be attentive to the Spirit and too self-conscious to step out in faith and do it. Almost everything else is an excuse. “The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few” (Matt. 9:37).

In the last couple of years (as I’ve done less street witnessing), I have felt more and more burdened to share the gospel with those I see on a daily basis (regardless of whether we live in the city or suburb, God strategically has placed us in different spheres of influence). The street witnessing is an occasional thing, the people I work with and live around are really the ones to whom I’ve been sent. Because my life always involves ministry, church, and now seminary, most of my conversations touch and concern matters of religion and God. But that is not sharing the gospel—and this is what I’ve been burdened about. It’s easy for me to share with total strangers, but hard to share with those I care about. Why can’t sharing the gospel be more of our everyday conversation with nonbelievers—without being awkward?

City or suburb? I think we have to adapt to our environment. Fast-paced lifestyles? I think we make the most of every opportunity. The bottom line is, no matter where we live, we need to be willing to step out and share the gospel even when the changes around us make it increasingly difficult.

Shalom,
Chong

Sue, if there is no wrath, why go through the motions of an atonement? What is the purpose of the suffering of Christ, in your opinion?

Interesting comments Sue - although I have to disagree with you. Where I am, churches do the things you have mentioned - they run drug treatment programs, detox units, soup kitchens, ministries to the homeless, homes for young unwed mothers, programs for single parents, and the list goes on...

All of these things are done without diluting the gospel. When you say "we accept gays as they are" - it sounds as if the message of liberation is not given to them. Acceptance in the body means one has repented and been forgiven - it is a radical change. We accept people as they are in Christ and that means we know we are all still flawed and continue to be sanctified. But there is a difference between communicating and loving those not in Christ and accepting those who are in Christ, i.e. whether adultery, homosexuality, addiction to p*rn, promiscuity - whatever - in the church such things have been repented of. Any message that condones any of these things as being "as a person really is" is not a message of liberation.

I would agree that much has been wanting in how that message is delivered, and that gentleness is key oftentimes. But it is not the message of Jesus Christ to deny that liberation to those who need it either. I have ministered to many people over the years, including men and women involved in prostitution. Certainly I don't beat them over the head, and it's interesting in the context of Ashley's post because these peope are found much more in urban areas here. I also am not ashamed to talk about Jesus being the liberation they are in need of.

Personally I am not into hell-fire and brimstone approaches. However to say that you don't believe in hell is contradicting the teaching of Jesus himself. What hell is like is open for debate - and some see the descriptions as metaphorical, others as literal. Nevertheless it is clear that Jesus, who is God, taught that there is a hell. It is also clear that there is a heaven. I find myself that I speak to people about Jesus death and resurrection.

So I do have to disagree with you here. Your position may appear more loving and tolerant but it is no light matter to contradict Jesus himself. It may be more comfortable to not present the opportunity of liberation from sexual addiction to people, but in the end it is a serious denial of the very thing that is most needed.

Where to begin?

I liked what Chong said,"We spend a lot of time talking about sharing the gospel and not enough time actually doing it." And I think the reason for this is because we are concentrating on the minors. like a difference in interests or culture instead of paying attention to the major thing: our common humanity and the core of who we are at the heart.

It is the core we are reaching for when we witness, and the other stuff of where we live or our social strata are simply avenues of entry. It is a mistake to think those are the only avenues, though.

In Brazil I had the first hand experience of traveling with a fairly new ( 5 yrs) Christian with a gift for evangelism. We were at a family gathering and the next day hear about the daughter's boyfriend was led to Christ. A few days later we are all on the beach and he is witnessing to a man there... they are praying and the man's face is streaming tears: he returns to the Lord. What is within us? A zeal for God and love for our fellow man overcomes all cultural barriers. All differences in situation. It isn't so much that we need places of contact as the desire to make contact.

That said, I think the example that Hudson Taylor left us of engaging the culture is likely some of the message of Ashley's post. We can all try to be more open and look for the opportunities the environment presents.

Interesting conversation here, and Catez pointed out the core message :"Jesus being the liberation they are in need of."