I grew up in a small town in
Shelbyville has doubled in size since I left. Sam Crawford sold his dairy farm across the street. It is now a “master planned community”, with one to two acre lots, of course. My family moved there a few years ago. Mom’s first comment to me on the phone – “Honey, it’s so cramped. The houses are so close to each other.” Hilarious.
“Today over 50 percent of this
earth… lives in world-class cities.”[1] Translation, the world is moving to the
city. And I know because I live in
one. Typically, hundreds of ethnic groups make up the face of our cities. Just the other day I took my three year old
to a park. In the fifteen minutes I was
there, I met a couple from Germany, listened to a conversation between two
women in what I think was Vietnamese, and pushed a swing alongside a Hispanic
nanny. I live in
I have a minister friend in
Visualize the ways our cities could become great, not just a safe place to raise a family because frankly, that’s so boring. Imagine a city so magnificent you can’t wait to share it with a friend, like a good joke. It’s time to move beyond our individualistic understanding of the lordship of Christ into the radical cosmological ramifications of the gospel for our cities.
Cities are also diverse. Many churches are not just another white, middle class, community of believers, snuggling safely in suburbia, with a rock wall for their youth group and a coffee house for their singles, and for the record, quoting Jerry and George, “not that there’s anything wrong with that.” A few long for the wide array of culture we see and experience in our cities everyday to be reflected in our pews every Sunday. And that’s a good thing. The gospel screams out loud that all kinds of people, across any spectrum of sociality, no matter how you cut it, will one day worship one Lord with one heart. Whether rich or poor, black or white, male or female, influential or marginalized, white collared or red necked, low-fat-triple-espresso-one-Equal-vanilla-latte or coffee, it won’t matter then; it shouldn’t matter now. Maybe a communal vision this grand should be the norm this side of heaven, not an exception hoped for on the other, more of an “already” than a “not yet”.
Sometimes I feel like those men
Moses sent to explore
© Linc Ashby, 2005.
[1] Raymond J. Blake, “Urbanization and
Evangelism: A Global View,” in The Urban Face of
Mission, ed. Manuel Ortiz and Susan S. Baker (
A meaningful statement from a man who has been quite meaningful in my life. Thanks, Linc, for reminding us that Sunday morning should not be the most segregated hours of the week in America. Thanks for pointing our attention to the future (too bad its not an "already" but, rather, a "not yet") when we will worship the one God in one accord. And thanks for allowing us a glimpse into your heart.
Posted by: J. Kyle Horton | May 18, 2005 at 09:52 PM
Thanks for sharing this site. I know that this subject has great meaning to you and that you have thought long and hard about the city and how our church should minister to the whole city. What’s practical as a near and long term goal? How do we start our church making steps in that direction. I find it so easy for a church and its congregation (myself being in this party) to “feel good” about all the work that we do through our missionary partners that we support in third world countries with our prayers and our money. However, for the majority of the congregation, local ministries that target our wayward city are the most feasible and tangible way for us to minister and extend God’s Kingdom on a regular basis. We should be ministering in our neighborhoods, in our workplace and in our community, which extends beyond our comfort zone and to the city as a whole. Being part of the Missions/Outreach team in the past, I know that it is difficult to communicate and really bring a passion to the congregation (and my own heart) about truly serving our city in prayer, monetary support AND in giving time. I think that the Lord truly works in our own lives and the lives of other most through the combination of the three. Long winded message to ask “How do we make our church one that is truly City-minded and make it real to each of the members corporately and individually?”
Posted by: Michael Lou | May 19, 2005 at 09:25 AM
Kyle - I miss you man. Thanks for the encouragement. You are one of many who didn't need to hear what I wrote because I know you well enough to know you live out everything I aspire to give a voice to. Michael - thanks for posting the email you sent me earlier today. I invite anyone out there listening in to respond to this post because he raises some great questions that I know many of you will be far better at responding to than me.
Posted by: Linc Ashby | May 19, 2005 at 10:30 AM
Linc,
Greetings from your alma mater. I read your piece with interest, but I cannot bring myself to agree with your endorsement of the sentiment that ministers are called not to create better churches but rather better cities. Is there a greater calling than perfecting Christ's bride? Your urbanphilia sounds too much like the tired old Protestant liberalism which judged Christianity by the good it does in this world and not the world to come. The irony of the gospel is that Christians only really help this world when their focus is on the next.
John
PS -- Glenn made me post this.
Posted by: John Muether | May 19, 2005 at 02:21 PM
Did you write this so I wouldn't move to Brookshire?
Posted by: Bobby | May 19, 2005 at 02:55 PM
I don't think the line between this world and the world to come is as clearly defined as John suggests. That's old-school fundamentalist "sweet Beulah land" theology--talk about tired.
I think the Lord's Prayer teaches us to pray for the Kingdom made manifest here: "Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven." In Isaiah, God indicates that when we address poverty and oppression, "your people will rebuild the ancient ruins and will raise up the age-old foundations; you will be called Repairer of Broken Walls, Restorer of Streets with Dwellings" (58:12)--distinctly urban imagery. And in Jeremiah, we're told that in the peace of the city we will find our peace (29:4-7).
How we transform the world might be a very good gauge of the authenticity and credibility of our faith--as one of the saints has said, "If they come for the innocent and do not pass over our bodies, then cursed be our religion." But then I'm a victim of urbanphilia too.
Posted by: Shannon Wright | May 19, 2005 at 03:47 PM
Pretty church bodies (individual churches) do not make the bride more perfect. Christ came not to redeem church houses; he came to redeem the world and everything in it. Christ perfects his bride and makes her more beautiful. The bride is the church universal made up of the entire body of Christ. The scriptures point to the way that Christ works amidst the people of the city in their everyday actions, not just in the synagogue. Faith and nourishment are very much centered on gathered worship, bible study and individual prayer, but … The fruit or the outcome of Christ's work is changed hearts, a changed world, and changed cities, more beautiful cities. The Lord's renown amongst the nations is found in how he has made his bride the salt of the earth. Isaiah 26:8 -- “Yes, LORD, walking in the way of your laws, [ Or judgments ] we wait for you; your name and renown are the desire of our hearts.” This is the renown of the Lord throughout the world, not his renown in the church.
I guess you could make this a chicken and egg thing – a good church will impact the city, but I agree with Linc, the focus should be corporate, not individual. Our unity in Christ goes beyond church walls, and our purpose is to be Christ’s instrument in redeeming the world. Our churches need redemption just as the world does. They are filled with pride, egos and sin. Our purpose is to redeem the world as we obediently worship and serve in our churches. “We’re not here for a better church. We’re here for a better city.” Amen! – Linc, thanks for sharing.
Posted by: Ben | May 19, 2005 at 04:06 PM
Well, I was expecting to be hit with the f-bomb. But remember, Shannon, Jeremiah's peace was the peace of exile, not of the promised land that the spies explored. For the record, I love the city. I was in Manhattan last week for the first time in about a decade and I'd forgotten how dazzling it is. But let's not call it the New Jerusalem.
Posted by: John Muether | May 19, 2005 at 04:12 PM
Linc,
Thanks for the encouragement as always. Again reminding me that the single reason for the Church's existence in the world is to administer grace to the world (call it city or whatever). "The irony of the gospel is that Christians only really help this world when their focus is on the next." - no doubt. And I'm pretty sure that Linc is not advocating otherwise. Trust me, I desperately yearn for the day when I can get out of this place...but as long as I'm here, I know its for a reason - to be an active part of a Church that generously gives grace to the world around it – and one that does NOT focus on building itself up for the purpose protecting itself from the city.
I realize not everybody can have the honor of being an armpit (I'm really tempted to use another body part here); some church members have to be eyes, mouth, etc... But if the church is failing to do its job of administering grace to the world, then the Church (the WHOLE Church) is failing. After all, what does it matter if you can eat but you can't get rid of it? (to rephrase 1Cor 12:17). I agree that some ministers are called specifically for the building up of the church (like theologians) - but if the Church as a whole is not doing it's job - then all those members who are hiding behind the "I'm called to be a theologian, not directly minister to orphans" facade need to take a serious look at their lives and come to grip with what's up.
John, you said “…which judged Christianity by the good it does in this world and not the world to come.” Is there a difference? If there is, how can you possibly judge the good the Church does in the world to come? A numbers game? I don’t think so. We can check Matthew 25:31-46 for a hint of how Christ will judge us…
And I hate to pick on you, John, but please : “I was in Manhattan last week for the first time in about a decade and I'd forgotten how dazzling it is” The same might be said for (INSERT YOUR LOCAL HIGH $ CHURCH HERE). We need to make sure we are looking at the right thing. The city is an UGLY (not dazzling) place of pagan self-destructive behavior and all kinds of humanistic and empty philosophies. Only the Church has the Answer (and its not only in Philly) for BOTH this life and the next.
I think it can be considered downright wrong for the Christian Church (and for me) to be so rich (and I mean in the material sense) and yet there are people in the city spending the night under a bridge someplace - and thousands of abused and neglected children live without homes (you knew I'd have to include that). And what's even more unbearable is that we've left that job up to a spiritually-bankrupt state welfare system to take care of those things so we wouldn't have to live with those stains on our otherwise "perfect" Church. I confess that I’m as guilty as anyone…I love myself way more than I love my next door neighbor, let alone anyone else in the city. But I know you are right, Linc…and honestly I’m scared – I’d love nothing more than self-preservation and peaceful existence – but we all know the result of saving our lives. Please don’t let me and the Church wus out.
(wow, sorry that was so long)
Posted by: Dan Puperi | May 20, 2005 at 12:59 PM
Okay folks...
First of all, I think Linc was directing his article to Christians who maintain an individualistic understanding of Christ's lordship (that His only purpose in coming was to save individuals from their sin) rather than to those who already apprehend that Christ came to make ALL things new / extend His Kingdom continually outward (including, and Linc might say especially, in the cities).
Seems like we're on common ground regarding that point, but this discussion has been centered around whether we're called to "perfect Christ's bride" or "impact the city."
In the risk of sounding trite and uneducated, I urge you to remember that the answer to probably 85% of biblical questions is "both". Our responsibility as the Church is to be people of the word (and Christ promises to perfect us in that), and our responsibility as Kingdom citizens is to reign (thank goodness he perfects us in that too).
Our knowledge of what God calls us to in the Scriptures should always lead to understanding, wisdom, character change, good works, kingdom service, and a changed world.
Maybe this is how we ought to address Michael's question: “How do we make our church one that is truly City-minded and make it real to each of the members corporately and individually?” Start with imparting knowledge about what the Word of God says regarding these matters, but pray for the grace to actually do something with that knowledge.
So here's an idea. Instead of pontificating over which of our responsibilities is more important in the present (better cities or better churches?), walk away from your computer screen and GET BUSY doing useful Kingdom work! There is freedom to exemplify lordship in your respective cities, whether it be in art, education, politics, or economics. We're probably already grounded in the Church...and yes the Church needs a whole lot of work...so perhaps our highest calling is to move outward from the church and be a neighbor; actually love people, show mercy, and transform the places in which God has ordained us to live.
P.S. I do a miserable job of these things. ;)
Posted by: Erin Hazel | May 22, 2005 at 06:52 PM
I have forced myself to do something that is so dreadfully hard for me to do, which is to wait before responding. John, three years has certainly not blunted your edge, and I love that. I really do. We won't always agree, but I suspect we share a similar spirit. When we see something out of whack, we have to say something. I respect you for stepping out and writing what you did. I suppose prophetic voices can't possibly agree at all points. Trust me, I am not hiding an f-bomb behind my back.
However, I do have to say this. I don't believe I am guilty of letting my "urbanphilia sound too much like tired the old Prostestant liberalism." Make no mistake, I love liberals. They're funnier. But I wouldn't call myself one. I call myself a follower of Jesus, a disciple. When I voiced my committment to a better city versus a better church, I was being purposefully hyperbolic, a lesson I learned from Jesus. Taking it literally would be like gouging out your eye the next time you take a second look at a gal in line at Starbucks. Criticizing my desire to see the bride of Christ perfected just outright confused me. I love the church. I promise. So much so I believe she is the only hope to transform the city. I really don't know what to do with that criticism, so I'll leave it right there.
For what it's worth, let me change my comment a little, just for the record. Better churches will undoubtedly create better cities. To quote Erin, both is certainly the answer here. In the article, I was simply willing to say it the way I said it in the hopes of bringing balance (sorry, I watched Star Wars last night). Dan, Ben and Shannon - I also appreciated what you had to say very much. Thanks for coming to my defense. John, thank you again for speaking your mind. Hopefully, we have all learned a little and fallen more in love with our Savior King in the process. I am certain he'll have some things to tell us all regarding this matter. And I look forward to further dialogue with each of you.
Posted by: Linc Ashby | May 22, 2005 at 08:58 PM
Linc: bullseye, my man. I’m a little puzzled by the objections that were raised here. Your remarks seem to me to be in harmony with what John Piper wrote in Let the Nations Be Glad: “Missions is not the ultimate goal of the church. Worship is. Missions exists because worship doesn’t. Worship is the ultimate, not missions, because God is ultimate, not man.”
Jesus calls us to work with him in building his Kingdom. That necessarily involves making the Church “better.” The question is, how do we make his Church more what it is supposed to be? Part of the answer is to urge the Church to do what Linc has suggested—to minister to the world around her.
Why does God choose to use broken people to mend a broken world? Two reasons: (1) So that he gets all the glory because we couldn’t achieve anything without his doing it through us. And (2) so that we become more like him in the process of finding our joy in bringing the goodness of God to others. God is making a loving Bride for himself out of his adulterous betrothed, the Church. And he is doing that by calling her to show his love to the world around her.
To expand on Piper, missions exists in part because heaven is not full of worshippers yet. Missions also exists because we are not fit for heaven yet, and God is using missionary work to fit us for heaven.
Posted by: Nils | May 23, 2005 at 12:25 PM
So much to which to respond, so little time. One issue here is the industrial world's overestimation of the city. Cities produce lots of good stuff. I happen to live in one but I don't claim to have an urban ministry (more below). But cities don't grow food or raise livestock, which means they are fundamentally dependent on farms. So maybe the way to transform the city is to make urbanites aware that the sun doesn't rise and set on them. (For a longer and better presentation of these issues I highly recommend the writings of Wendell Berry.)
The second and bigger issue is the one of urban ministry, a phrase that has fallen out of use. The Westminster Confession says that the kingdom of Christ is the visible church. One implication of that is that kingdom work is narrowly what the church does, not politics, the arts, economics or education (why is kingdom work always limited to middle-class or professional endeavors and does not seem to include janitorial services, baking, plumbing or farming for that matter). And since the Westminster Confession doesn't have chapters on politics, the arts, education or economics, because the Bible is largely silent on the modern practices of those affairs, it seems a real stretch to count anything beyond word, sacrament and discipline as kingdom work.
This may sound fundamentalist but then that would make Luther, Calvin and the Westminster Divines fundamentalists. Not terrible company.
p.s. Glenn made me do this.
Posted by: dghart | May 23, 2005 at 03:05 PM
ahhh...now I see where the objection is coming from. I also understand that liberalism has been known to creep in the church under the guise of "I'm just trying to love people". I, for one, do not want that.
I would agree with your statemnts about politics, arts, etc...I would consider any benefit that the arts, politics, education or whatever receives from the church is a second- or third-order effect. For example, proper adminstration of the Word allows people to judge the political scene as right or wrong. Without the Church, there is no reason to call anything wrong (including Communism, Fascism, etc...) other than what post-Modern philosophy offers = nothing. Anyway, I digress from my point.
The Bible is LOUD about things like charity, fighting against injustice, etc...I don't think I need to include all the Bible references here...
Don't get me wrong...I love the reformed church and reformed theology - but honestly I sadly think this is one area where reformed theology (including the Confession) is lacking. And I can say that because I see it in my own life.
For the record, I don't live in the city...or the suburbs...but I can still read Linc's message as "In the middle of nowhere, for the middle of nowhere." No matter where the Church is, it should strongly affect the world around it.
Posted by: Dan Puperi | May 24, 2005 at 10:50 AM