As Francis Chan releases his antidote to Rob Bell's controversial best seller it seems that some have been drawn in by the humble and conciliatory style of his promotional video. Don't be fooled by the tone however this is a fine example of sophistry.
He employs the sophists skills of presenting an argument that is hard to disagree with only to deliver a conclusion that is not really connected with his original thrust. It goes like this:
1. It's good to study
2. Study is a humbling process
3. This is a very important subject
4. Some people have spoken about it with a lack of care
5. God's ways are not our ways
6. We need to be careful
All the way through these points his hearers nod in agreement - what is there to disagree with.
He then goes on to present a Calvinistic understanding of the subject as if this is the only way in which we can be true to his previous points.
It is sophistry because you can agree with his first points and still come to a different theological view point.
His humble style is appealing but not necessarily affirmation that he is right. Yet it is this style and his initial points that make people think that his conclusion must be correct not the veracity of his conclusion.
I look forward to reading the book for more humble calvinistic insights.
PPI - Does the church mis-sell personal assurance
A recent ruling by the High Court in Britain condemned UK banks for mis-selling Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) when offering mortgages for individuals to buy property. The court took the view that customers had agreed to take on the extra cost involved because they believed that they might not be granted the loans if they were to refuse.
There is little evidence that banks overtly told customers that this was the case but the methods employed in the transactions left a clear implication that agreeing to PPI was an essential part of the process.
There are perhaps lessons for the church, and related mission based organisations, to learn from this ruling.
Firstly, people agree to propositions for a variety of reasons and we should not assume that the overt call for a response is fully understood by the hearer.
An alter call might well be seen as having a clear evangelical message by those who attend the church regularly. The visitor, however, might be responding to the suggested answer to a particular felt need on that occasion.
For example; a young girl arrives at church fresh from the break up of a long standing committed relationship. During the sermon the preacher affirms that speaking with God can offer comfort to those in crisis.
The regular attender hears this as a call to 'become a Christian' and 'start attending the church'. The guest, however, hears that their pain can be eased by praying.
The appeal is given and the woman responds. The church counts this as a decision to become a follower of Christ and processes her application for assurance according.
Thus there are two different interpretations of the same event. The church now speaks to her as if she has made a full commitment to become a disciple of Jesus Christ. She is 'sold' personal assurance on the back of responding to receiving comfort for her felt need.
Secondly, churches and agencies might offer an individual some much needed help in their moment of crisis. During the delivery of this kindness a church worker explains the gospel and offers to pray with them if they desire to respond.
The person in need senses that to refuse this part of the deal might lead to the help being withdrawn or limited and so agrees to become a 'follower of Jesus'.
The church worker may not have intended to mis-communicate the message but in their eagerness to see people respond they perhaps ignore the emotional vulnerability of those in need.
If we consider the high court ruling and allow this to reflect on the two examples above we might consider that some parts of the church could be accused of mis-selling.
Here are a few thoughts to help church leaders avoid falling into such a trap.
1. Avoid using the Barnum Effect*
We perhaps need to be careful in our calls for a response to the gospel that we do not offer a proposition so wide that it could include just about everyone whilst making it look as if we are speaking specifically to individuals.
Appeals that start off with some suggested insight into the circumstances of the intended responder but end up being aimed at 'anyone who is breathing' undermine the strength of the message.
2. Avoid the commoditisation of individuals.
There is a danger that churches measure such responses as the number of 'souls saved' as if this were some key performance indicator. We should never turn people's story into a mere measurement of our success.
It's not that measurement is in itself wrong but that we can begin to count the initial act of getting people to respond as the main indicator of success.
Every person's back story is more important than the ecclesiological statistics of any given church.
3. Understand that behind every person there are many others.
Behind those who responds are others who will develop their own commentary on how the church treats this newcomer.
Families are understandably concerned when their loved ones adopt new patterns of behaviour. The church is rightly judged for how it treats these people.
Much of our teaching, explicitly or otherwise, draws people out of their old life and into a new community. This can cause a division between individuals and their families. One has to question whether this is a goal consistent with the gospel message.
I have often heard evangelical leaders asking the question 'why is the back door bigger than the front?' in the context of church growth.
Perhaps to fully answer this we need to understand more about the journey made by those coming into the church.
If, as we have seen, there is the possibility that the church and those who respond to an appeal can view this transaction in a different way, we must make every effort to handle these moments with care.
We don't want to be accused of mis-selling personal assurance.
(* The Forer effect (also called the Barnum Effect after P.T. Barnum's observation that "we've got something for everyone") is the observation that individuals will give high accuracy ratings to descriptions of their personality that supposedly are tailored specifically for them, but are in fact vague and general enough to apply to a wide range of people.)
There is little evidence that banks overtly told customers that this was the case but the methods employed in the transactions left a clear implication that agreeing to PPI was an essential part of the process.
There are perhaps lessons for the church, and related mission based organisations, to learn from this ruling.
Firstly, people agree to propositions for a variety of reasons and we should not assume that the overt call for a response is fully understood by the hearer.
An alter call might well be seen as having a clear evangelical message by those who attend the church regularly. The visitor, however, might be responding to the suggested answer to a particular felt need on that occasion.
For example; a young girl arrives at church fresh from the break up of a long standing committed relationship. During the sermon the preacher affirms that speaking with God can offer comfort to those in crisis.
The regular attender hears this as a call to 'become a Christian' and 'start attending the church'. The guest, however, hears that their pain can be eased by praying.
The appeal is given and the woman responds. The church counts this as a decision to become a follower of Christ and processes her application for assurance according.
Thus there are two different interpretations of the same event. The church now speaks to her as if she has made a full commitment to become a disciple of Jesus Christ. She is 'sold' personal assurance on the back of responding to receiving comfort for her felt need.
Secondly, churches and agencies might offer an individual some much needed help in their moment of crisis. During the delivery of this kindness a church worker explains the gospel and offers to pray with them if they desire to respond.
The person in need senses that to refuse this part of the deal might lead to the help being withdrawn or limited and so agrees to become a 'follower of Jesus'.
The church worker may not have intended to mis-communicate the message but in their eagerness to see people respond they perhaps ignore the emotional vulnerability of those in need.
If we consider the high court ruling and allow this to reflect on the two examples above we might consider that some parts of the church could be accused of mis-selling.
Here are a few thoughts to help church leaders avoid falling into such a trap.
1. Avoid using the Barnum Effect*
We perhaps need to be careful in our calls for a response to the gospel that we do not offer a proposition so wide that it could include just about everyone whilst making it look as if we are speaking specifically to individuals.
Appeals that start off with some suggested insight into the circumstances of the intended responder but end up being aimed at 'anyone who is breathing' undermine the strength of the message.
2. Avoid the commoditisation of individuals.
There is a danger that churches measure such responses as the number of 'souls saved' as if this were some key performance indicator. We should never turn people's story into a mere measurement of our success.
It's not that measurement is in itself wrong but that we can begin to count the initial act of getting people to respond as the main indicator of success.
Every person's back story is more important than the ecclesiological statistics of any given church.
3. Understand that behind every person there are many others.
Behind those who responds are others who will develop their own commentary on how the church treats this newcomer.
Families are understandably concerned when their loved ones adopt new patterns of behaviour. The church is rightly judged for how it treats these people.
Much of our teaching, explicitly or otherwise, draws people out of their old life and into a new community. This can cause a division between individuals and their families. One has to question whether this is a goal consistent with the gospel message.
I have often heard evangelical leaders asking the question 'why is the back door bigger than the front?' in the context of church growth.
Perhaps to fully answer this we need to understand more about the journey made by those coming into the church.
If, as we have seen, there is the possibility that the church and those who respond to an appeal can view this transaction in a different way, we must make every effort to handle these moments with care.
We don't want to be accused of mis-selling personal assurance.
(* The Forer effect (also called the Barnum Effect after P.T. Barnum's observation that "we've got something for everyone") is the observation that individuals will give high accuracy ratings to descriptions of their personality that supposedly are tailored specifically for them, but are in fact vague and general enough to apply to a wide range of people.)
Should we rejoice at the death of an enemy?
Several years ago, when our children were still quite young, my car was attacked by a gang of drunken thugs.
I was stuck in stationary traffic with no way of driving away from the incident.
As my third daughter screamed in the back of the car our assailants (more than ten of them) began to kick and rock our vehicle before opening the drivers door and attacking me.
Fearing for our safety, and with what appeared to be very few options, I managed to fall out of my seat and looked for an opportunity of defence.
I hit the one nearest to me and managed to get to my feet. I had no chance of winning against so many guys.
As I continued to fight, with the sound of my daughter still ringing in my ears, several other drivers came to our rescue.
By this time however a rage had come over me and I continued to hit one of our attackers; eventually having to be restrained by my rescuers.
On telling this story to family and friends on my return home I was unequivocally congratulated for having stood up in defence of my daughter.
However, I knew the truth of how I had somehow crossed a line from being the defender to the aggressor. This line was somewhat feint to the external observer but I knew of it's presence so very clearly on that day.
I began to see that evil did not just exist in my attackers but in my heart also, as my fear turned to the most intense rage. I wanted to hurt someone and I wanted to hurt them so badly that other people had to restrain me.
This is our problem when it comes to defending our freedom and our families we can so very easily cross a line; rather than revealing a noble sense of honour it shows the grim truth that evil is not just in another place or another heart.
Times like this are moments for reflection rather than celebration.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
Can we question God?
Questioning God
I have been struck by a particular sentiment that seems to be coming from the Calvinist camp in the recent argument over Rob Bell's book.
It seems that we human beings are not allowed to question God. I suppose if you consider humanity to be totally depraved then it probably stands to reason that the God of the universe doesn't owe us anything.
Until that is you consider the self revelation of God as Father. In this respect the creator God has offered a relationship to his creatures that allows for communication within the household.
If God wanted us to think that he was just a distant creator who had remained outside of creation itself then any attempt at raising a question or two would be futile.
If, however, this God has indicated that he sees his creative role as that of a parent producing children it could be thought that he has a responsibility to that which he has birthed.
It's difficult to imagine respecting any parent who would consider that they owe their offspring nothing. Quite the reverse in fact.
God, in his self revelation as Father, has declared himself to be responsible in his love for his children.
In this respect our exploration of this relationship should contain questions that allow for God's revelation to flow through.
Following this thought I would want to answer that God does have a responsibility towards us and we are allowed to ask even the hardest of questions.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
I have been struck by a particular sentiment that seems to be coming from the Calvinist camp in the recent argument over Rob Bell's book.
It seems that we human beings are not allowed to question God. I suppose if you consider humanity to be totally depraved then it probably stands to reason that the God of the universe doesn't owe us anything.
Until that is you consider the self revelation of God as Father. In this respect the creator God has offered a relationship to his creatures that allows for communication within the household.
If God wanted us to think that he was just a distant creator who had remained outside of creation itself then any attempt at raising a question or two would be futile.
If, however, this God has indicated that he sees his creative role as that of a parent producing children it could be thought that he has a responsibility to that which he has birthed.
It's difficult to imagine respecting any parent who would consider that they owe their offspring nothing. Quite the reverse in fact.
God, in his self revelation as Father, has declared himself to be responsible in his love for his children.
In this respect our exploration of this relationship should contain questions that allow for God's revelation to flow through.
Following this thought I would want to answer that God does have a responsibility towards us and we are allowed to ask even the hardest of questions.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
Does God owe us anything?
Questioning God.
I have been struck by a particular sentiment that seems to be coming from the Calvinist camp in the recent argument over Rob Bell's book.
It seems that we human beings are not allowed to question God. I suppose if you consider humanity to be totally depraved then it probably stands to reason that the God of the universe doesn't owe us anything.
Until that is you consider the self revelation of God as Father. In this respect the creator God has offered a relationship to his creatures that allows for communication within the household.
If God wanted us to think that he was just a distant creator who had remained outside of creation itself then any attempt at raising a question or two would be futile.
If, however, this God has indicated that he sees his creative role as that of a parent producing children it could be thought that he has a responsibility to that which he has birthed.
It's difficult to imagine respecting any parent who would consider that they owe their offspring nothing. Quite the reverse in fact.
God, in his self revelation as Father, has declared himself to be responsible in his love for his children.
In this respect our exploration of this relationship should contain questions that allow for God's revelation to flow through.
Following this thought I would want to answer that God does have a responsibility towards us and we are allowed to ask even the hardest of questions.
'How much more.......?'
'How much more.......?
'In the midst of all the conversation hitting twitterland about the Rob Bell book and the conservative evangelical backlash it is illuminating to see how much of what is being said reveals what Christians believe about God.
This is, of course, what Rob Bell calls 'the question behind the question'. Or perhaps it has become the statement behind the statement. Many, though not all, of the leaders who criticise Bell believe that God has chosen a select few to be 'saved' and that in this predestination His love is fulfilled.
This is of course at odds with the wider hope expressed by Rob Bell and has lead to him, wrongly in my view, being labelled a universalist. It strikes me that, given Jesus' revelation that we can approach God as Father, the idea of any partiality or favouritism is out of keeping with a complete expression of love.
I fail to imagine that any book on parenting would give the advice 'now have a few children and pick one of them as a favourite'.
Good parenting and a lack of partiality go hand in hand for any decent earthly parent.'How much more.......?'
'In the midst of all the conversation hitting twitterland about the Rob Bell book and the conservative evangelical backlash it is illuminating to see how much of what is being said reveals what Christians believe about God.
This is, of course, what Rob Bell calls 'the question behind the question'. Or perhaps it has become the statement behind the statement. Many, though not all, of the leaders who criticise Bell believe that God has chosen a select few to be 'saved' and that in this predestination His love is fulfilled.
This is of course at odds with the wider hope expressed by Rob Bell and has lead to him, wrongly in my view, being labelled a universalist. It strikes me that, given Jesus' revelation that we can approach God as Father, the idea of any partiality or favouritism is out of keeping with a complete expression of love.
I fail to imagine that any book on parenting would give the advice 'now have a few children and pick one of them as a favourite'.
Good parenting and a lack of partiality go hand in hand for any decent earthly parent.'How much more.......?'
Defining God by Love
A recent response to Rob Bell's book at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary seems to have captured the imagination of those who are already suspicious that Bell has jumped the evangelical ship and deserves the nebulous term unorthodox. The quote in question goes something like this: 'Rob Bell is defining God by love instead of defining love by God' At first glance it might seem like an excellent assessment of how the subject has been dealt with given that Bell openly admits to have written with disconnected people in mind. When you dig a little further into the idea that we might be able to somehow define love by God you realise that it is possible more sophistry than sense. That is the problem with sophistry it always sounds like it makes sense. It has to be said that it is impossible to develop any theology that is not communicated in an anthropomorphic setting. Scripture itself is given in fully human terms that call upon the hearer to engage with the Divine in the words (inspired as they are) of a particular people at a particular time. It seems to be the way God has chosen to communicate with us: the divine in fully human terms. To accuse Bell of defining God by love and not the reverse is to not only ask the impossible, but to ask him to do what God hasn't done. My challenge in return to those who think this latest critique is correct is: go ahead, describe love by God without using human reference points. I guess we will find that it probably looks a little like describing God by love. But that's ok, incarnational thinking is not a new idea.
Who has the right to say what is orthodox?
Following the recent controversy regarding Rob Bell's soon to be published book about the meaning and nature of hell, one commentator suggested that Bell should no longer be considered as an evangelical.
Quite what difference this would make to the sale of this new book can only be surmised.
This statement did send my thoughts back to some study I had undertaken several years ago about the nature of orthodoxy.
All organisations and cultures develop their own plausible reality structure; one in which certain assumptions and beliefs are taken to be orthodox.
The evangelical community is no exception in this respect and has gathered around a general set of values and beliefs that have become sacrosanct over many years.
This is not to suggest that there is homogeneity of belief within the camp but that the centrally held tenants are seen as the prerequisite for entering into the fold; indeed for continued inclusion.
This said it would not be impossible to produce a list of many points of disagreement between various subsets from within the movement. Everything from eschatology to ecclesiology has the potential to bring division given the right set of circumstances.
From time to time particular subsets develop the loudest voice and therefore, by implication the greatest influence.
Calvinists, Baptists, Pentecostals, charismatics, church growth movements have all been significant voices in shaping the evangelical topography. Usually such voices are initially seen with suspicion but have been able to ride the calls for exclusion on the grounds of orthodoxy due to their popularity.
Their stories are not unlike that of today's fresh thinkers: some of whom have welcomed the label emergent to describe the subset they find themselves within.
Others, like Bell, have earnestly tried to avoid such labels: perhaps in the hope of engendering a wider and deeper conversation.
It seems unavoidable that groups will attempt to define orthodoxy at some level and, by implication, will feel the urge to exclude those who differ significantly at those points that are seen as key.
The sadness is that the call for exclusion often comes at the beginning of the dialogue when questions are being raised.
If individual and groups are to be labelled as heretics for asking key questions about generally accepted views it is likely to create a culture that is all too ready to act as accuser than enquirer.
This stance will only ever lead to a clamping down on the essential element of theological discovery that has taken us from the worst aspects of Christendom to a faith that is able to cope with the nuances of modern life.
Leslie Newbigin once describe the missionary calling as being willing to leave the safety and vantage point of the hill of the cross in order to travel to where another human being exists. In doing so we must risk the notion that they may be right and we may be mistaken whilst trusting that the Holy Spirit will meet us in the dialogue to confirm the work of the cross.
Perhaps church leaders need to adopt a similar stance when looking to build the unity that is so implicitly a part of Christ's passion.
Leaving the safety of our long held doctrines to meet our Christian kinfolk. Taking the risk that they may well be correct we trust that the Holy Spirit will meet us in the dialogue and guide us to truth.
If I am honest I don't sense this willingness in the words of those who call for fellow Christians to be placed outside of their own version of orthodoxy.
We must do better.
Quite what difference this would make to the sale of this new book can only be surmised.
This statement did send my thoughts back to some study I had undertaken several years ago about the nature of orthodoxy.
All organisations and cultures develop their own plausible reality structure; one in which certain assumptions and beliefs are taken to be orthodox.
The evangelical community is no exception in this respect and has gathered around a general set of values and beliefs that have become sacrosanct over many years.
This is not to suggest that there is homogeneity of belief within the camp but that the centrally held tenants are seen as the prerequisite for entering into the fold; indeed for continued inclusion.
This said it would not be impossible to produce a list of many points of disagreement between various subsets from within the movement. Everything from eschatology to ecclesiology has the potential to bring division given the right set of circumstances.
From time to time particular subsets develop the loudest voice and therefore, by implication the greatest influence.
Calvinists, Baptists, Pentecostals, charismatics, church growth movements have all been significant voices in shaping the evangelical topography. Usually such voices are initially seen with suspicion but have been able to ride the calls for exclusion on the grounds of orthodoxy due to their popularity.
Their stories are not unlike that of today's fresh thinkers: some of whom have welcomed the label emergent to describe the subset they find themselves within.
Others, like Bell, have earnestly tried to avoid such labels: perhaps in the hope of engendering a wider and deeper conversation.
It seems unavoidable that groups will attempt to define orthodoxy at some level and, by implication, will feel the urge to exclude those who differ significantly at those points that are seen as key.
The sadness is that the call for exclusion often comes at the beginning of the dialogue when questions are being raised.
If individual and groups are to be labelled as heretics for asking key questions about generally accepted views it is likely to create a culture that is all too ready to act as accuser than enquirer.
This stance will only ever lead to a clamping down on the essential element of theological discovery that has taken us from the worst aspects of Christendom to a faith that is able to cope with the nuances of modern life.
Leslie Newbigin once describe the missionary calling as being willing to leave the safety and vantage point of the hill of the cross in order to travel to where another human being exists. In doing so we must risk the notion that they may be right and we may be mistaken whilst trusting that the Holy Spirit will meet us in the dialogue to confirm the work of the cross.
Perhaps church leaders need to adopt a similar stance when looking to build the unity that is so implicitly a part of Christ's passion.
Leaving the safety of our long held doctrines to meet our Christian kinfolk. Taking the risk that they may well be correct we trust that the Holy Spirit will meet us in the dialogue and guide us to truth.
If I am honest I don't sense this willingness in the words of those who call for fellow Christians to be placed outside of their own version of orthodoxy.
We must do better.
Five thoughts on the Rob Bell controversy
1. To those who think they know what the word Evangelical means and feel that all of their congregation believes the same as they do.
Ecclesiological labels don't work anymore.
2. To those who present a firm theological response on every subject.
There is a difference between having a good memory for bible verses and understanding the big story.
3. To those who want to reject people who have genuine 'life' question.
Ignoring important questions does not make your views more correct.
4. To those who spend time trying to defend a religion.
Deciding that someone is OUT of the orthodoxy does not mean they are.
5. To those who want to destroy a man in order to destroy an idea.
You can be wrong even if you were right.
- Posted from my iPhone
God and the City
A recent church leader’s conference in Belfast had as its theme the idea that cities are strategic for the growth and continuation of the church. This along with similar themes heading our direction from across the pond got me thinking about church life in rural Yorkshire; after all I don’t want to be wasting my time in the ecclesiological wilderness.
It does seem that the largest congregations in the UK, and indeed across the world, have church planting policies with a defined city focus. We might have Hillsong-London but it’s hard to imagine Hillsong-Dibley.
The idea appears to be set against the back-drop of, what commentators have called Salvation and Lift. Particularly relevant amongst churches that have been started in the poorer areas of our society during the mid to end of the last century, it suggests that once individuals have found the ‘salvation’ offered via the church they move on to experience a widening of their personal horizons; leading to greater aspiration in everything from education, healthcare, and career, to property ownership.
Although their newfound spirituality begins in the inner city church they soon wish to move to the suburbs in order to build better lives for themselves and their families.
Perhaps some church leaders feel the need to reverse this trend by encouraging congregation members to move back to the city.
So is this a valid claim and should I pack up my family, sell my lawnmower, and head for the high-rise flats of Leeds.
I suppose the bible does mention cities an awful lot and these examples are often trotted out as proof that cities are important.
A quick bible word search reveals that the word city is mentioned six times more than village; although things are evened up somewhat when you add the results for town. It needs to be added, however, that multi-storey car park isn’t mentioned a single time whilst manure has two references. At this point I could rest my case but it needs to be considered that very few of the initial Jesus followers would have been seen as the influencers of their day. The comments made about Peter and John being uneducated in Acts 4 seem to hint at this.
These biblical references are usually followed by a series of sociological ‘facts’ concerning the nature of modern life; not least of which is that people who live in cities are the movers and shakers of society and therefore city churches have a greater opportunity for influence.
At first glance this might seem true, yet when you consider that not all cities are the same you start to realise that perhaps the idea is somewhat flawed. The major capital cities of the world have a distinct role to play in their respective nation’s sociological make up that others smaller cities do not have.
No disrespect to the people of Cornwall, but Truro ain’t no Paris.
Therefore to present cities as a focus without specifying any of the potential differences perhaps misses the point. Secondly, most of the movers and shakers suggested as influential do not surely live in the cities but have built their homes in the towns and villages that fill our countryside. They may well commute to the city to fulfil their chosen role but they live elsewhere.
In this respect the church with the greatest opportunity of influencing such people must be the rural congregation.
So, if the real driver of this city focus is not biblical or sociological, what could it be?
Perhaps it is what the business world calls ROI or Return on Investment.
For those involved in commerce this is generally related to finances though I am not suggesting that this is necessarily true for those groups that focus their energies on cities.
It could be said, however, that any community based project demands a certain emotional, social, physical, and spiritual investment and that the human condition needs the encouragement of some level of return on this outlay.
In this respect the city offers the greatest opportunity for return on investment. Whilst the project might have more competition, so to speak, from other churches, it has a larger population from which to gain new members. There is also a higher chance of gaining disenfranchised members from other churches to give the launch a little more momentum.
The rural church plant can never match such an ROI and in many ways may always be called upon to give more than it receives. But this in no way lessens either its potential influence or indeed its value.
Having said all this it does strike me that there is another reason for questioning the idea on offer; namely it does not reflect how contemporary life works.
People are no longer making social connections merely by geography. In fact the evidence suggests that geography is becoming the lowest driver of connectivity for those under thirty. In this respect the opportunities for influence are not limited merely by the churches postcode.
It doesn’t seem to work either biblically or sociologically; although it may well work from a business perspective. Perhaps this is why the energy of some of the world’s largest churches is focussed on cities rather than towns and villages. I am grateful for many of those larger churches and their leaders, and I wish them well.
As for me; I will keep spreading the manure and avoiding the multi-storey car parks.
http://www.newfrontierstogether.org/Articles/175063/Newfrontiers/United_Kingdom/News/e_news_archive/December_2009_Issue_17/Redeem_Cities_Conference_Belfast.aspx
http://vimeo.com/17880474
It does seem that the largest congregations in the UK, and indeed across the world, have church planting policies with a defined city focus. We might have Hillsong-London but it’s hard to imagine Hillsong-Dibley.
The idea appears to be set against the back-drop of, what commentators have called Salvation and Lift. Particularly relevant amongst churches that have been started in the poorer areas of our society during the mid to end of the last century, it suggests that once individuals have found the ‘salvation’ offered via the church they move on to experience a widening of their personal horizons; leading to greater aspiration in everything from education, healthcare, and career, to property ownership.
Although their newfound spirituality begins in the inner city church they soon wish to move to the suburbs in order to build better lives for themselves and their families.
Perhaps some church leaders feel the need to reverse this trend by encouraging congregation members to move back to the city.
So is this a valid claim and should I pack up my family, sell my lawnmower, and head for the high-rise flats of Leeds.
I suppose the bible does mention cities an awful lot and these examples are often trotted out as proof that cities are important.
A quick bible word search reveals that the word city is mentioned six times more than village; although things are evened up somewhat when you add the results for town. It needs to be added, however, that multi-storey car park isn’t mentioned a single time whilst manure has two references. At this point I could rest my case but it needs to be considered that very few of the initial Jesus followers would have been seen as the influencers of their day. The comments made about Peter and John being uneducated in Acts 4 seem to hint at this.
These biblical references are usually followed by a series of sociological ‘facts’ concerning the nature of modern life; not least of which is that people who live in cities are the movers and shakers of society and therefore city churches have a greater opportunity for influence.
At first glance this might seem true, yet when you consider that not all cities are the same you start to realise that perhaps the idea is somewhat flawed. The major capital cities of the world have a distinct role to play in their respective nation’s sociological make up that others smaller cities do not have.
No disrespect to the people of Cornwall, but Truro ain’t no Paris.
Therefore to present cities as a focus without specifying any of the potential differences perhaps misses the point. Secondly, most of the movers and shakers suggested as influential do not surely live in the cities but have built their homes in the towns and villages that fill our countryside. They may well commute to the city to fulfil their chosen role but they live elsewhere.
In this respect the church with the greatest opportunity of influencing such people must be the rural congregation.
So, if the real driver of this city focus is not biblical or sociological, what could it be?
Perhaps it is what the business world calls ROI or Return on Investment.
For those involved in commerce this is generally related to finances though I am not suggesting that this is necessarily true for those groups that focus their energies on cities.
It could be said, however, that any community based project demands a certain emotional, social, physical, and spiritual investment and that the human condition needs the encouragement of some level of return on this outlay.
In this respect the city offers the greatest opportunity for return on investment. Whilst the project might have more competition, so to speak, from other churches, it has a larger population from which to gain new members. There is also a higher chance of gaining disenfranchised members from other churches to give the launch a little more momentum.
The rural church plant can never match such an ROI and in many ways may always be called upon to give more than it receives. But this in no way lessens either its potential influence or indeed its value.
Having said all this it does strike me that there is another reason for questioning the idea on offer; namely it does not reflect how contemporary life works.
People are no longer making social connections merely by geography. In fact the evidence suggests that geography is becoming the lowest driver of connectivity for those under thirty. In this respect the opportunities for influence are not limited merely by the churches postcode.
It doesn’t seem to work either biblically or sociologically; although it may well work from a business perspective. Perhaps this is why the energy of some of the world’s largest churches is focussed on cities rather than towns and villages. I am grateful for many of those larger churches and their leaders, and I wish them well.
As for me; I will keep spreading the manure and avoiding the multi-storey car parks.
http://www.newfrontierstogether.org/Articles/175063/Newfrontiers/United_Kingdom/News/e_news_archive/December_2009_Issue_17/Redeem_Cities_Conference_Belfast.aspx
http://vimeo.com/17880474
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)