The Seinfeldification of the church...

(Tim, with thanks to David T.) If you've missed it, urban church planting is cool again, particularly in the PCA. Hearing the self-congratulatory hype that emanates from urban church plants reminds me of the couples who moved from Wheaton to the inner city of Chicago to be a part of David Main's Circle Church and Bill Leslie's LaSalle Street Church forty plus years ago, now. Looking back and allowing for a few notable exceptions like Chuck Hogren's Cabrini Green Legal Aid Clinic (now called Chicago Center for Law & Justice), the fruit of these inner city ministries hasn't been stellar, biblically.

One young woman who's a part of one of these plants in Manhattan has some humility and writes wise words on being faithful to the Lord in the city and in the suburbs. Here's a teaser from her post:

Because we believe that children are a blessing from the Lord and an essential element of marriage and because of the economic forces moving married couples with children to the suburbs, Mr. Miller and I have been puzzled by the emphasis on "missional" ministry to the city over the work of the allegedly vacuous churches of suburbia. ...Most troubling in the current urban trend are the ideas that living in an urban area makes one more sensitive to poverty or have more opportunities to evangelize. After living in NYC a total of six months, I've already become immune to the pleas of the countless beggars (as well as the urine scent in the subway and the grime on the streets.) As for evangelism, those opportunities abound just about anywhere; it's a matter of seizing them. My father and sister put me to shame in this regard. Dad, a supervisor for the utility company that provides power to most Arizona suburbs, seems to share the gospel with co-workers and business associates as naturally and frequently as he breaths. And my sister, a suburban housewife, shares the gospel with young mothers she meets through mommy groups and pregnancy classes.

Comments

[James Lansberry]

These are good thoughts. I am currently working with some friends to plan a "city church" over the long term, but it's not because it's trendy but because we are called to a neighborhood and to reach out to real people that we live among. And whether in the city, suburbs, small towns or country we're all called to engage those around us with the truth and grace of the Gospel.

Thanks for posting this.

[Ross]

Yes, but for those of us who won't marry and have children ....

I am currently working on a church planting project where I live which would take us into the city centre and work in a mission field that does not fit many of the patterns of a "suburban church with families". Now, in time, if we do our job and people come to faith in Christ, it will be another matter - they will get married, have children and go out to the suburbs.

A number of mission projects with either youth (15-25) or singles (20-40-plus), have been found to have about a five-year half-life. After that, people "marry and settle down", leaving a few ... leftovers? .... who then get to work on the same thing again. Or is our role as singles, is simply to be the "hewers of wood and drawers of water" to all the families?

There may be a tension here between how we do church and how we do mission. A Christian gathering of singles 20-40 or young couples without children may not be the best way to organise a church. But does it have potential for mission, that we have a group which can function as an "urban family" for people? (this is a British term, meaning the clan that singles gather around them, sometimes of married, mostly other singles). I don't know; it will be interesting to see.

On the other hand, if what is being done is the wrong way to minister into the inner cities ... then what is the right way?

[Tim Bayly]

By faith, show us a right way, OK Ross? One thing for sure: Avoid the error of so many churches here in the US who hide the teaching of Scripture on sexuality, fearing it would scare people off.

If the order of the sexes God ordained in the Garden of Eden will scare people off, what on earth will they think when they hit Jesus saying, “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it. For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul? For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds" (Matthew 16:24-27)?

Assuming evangelism needs to employ bait and switch tactics in order to be effective, let's use them to hide things that are really scandalous--say, for instance, the Cross and judgment. Why waste them on such a relatively inconsequential thing as male authority?

[Ross]

Huh?

I have no wish to quibble with Scripture's view of the complementarian roles of the sexes, except to ask: what does complementarianism mean if the majority of the people in the sort of mission/outreach programme I am thinking about are single? And further to that: is Christian leadership married as well as male? These are actually quite practical questions I have had to wrestle with.

At any rate, I will come back with some ideas of what I am on about.

[Ryan Oberly]

"The fruit of these inner city ministries hasn't been stellar, biblically." Sir, your statement is rather overreaching. What class of ministries are you using to comparatively come to this conclusion? Over the last two years, I've been blessed to help a multidue "inner-city ministries" in their religious activities throughout Chicago and am absolutely amazed at what our mighty Lord is doing through these ministries. In Jonah, we learn that God's love for cities is great, particularly because there are so many people living within these important areas. BTW, C. Hogren's ministry remains known today as, "Cabrini Green Legal Aid Clinic." May God bless you! Ryan Oberly

[Tim Bayly]

>what does complementarianism mean if the majority of the people in the sort of mission/outreach programme I am thinking about are single?

Approximately what it would mean if they were married. The meaning and purpose of sexuality is bound up with being a man or woman, not a husband or wife, and there's no place in life this meaning is not foundational to Christian discipleship and sanctification.

>is Christian leadership married as well as male?

No.

>Chuck Hogren's ministry remains known today as, "Cabrini Green Legal Aid Clinic."

It takes a while for name changes to be adopted.

[Ross]

Some ideas for urban ministry:

* Meet in places with which people are familiar. If this means the upstairs lounge in a pub, or even a meeting area in a downtown hotel, so be it.

* Don't be afraid to talk about Jesus and then introducing people as to why He had to die. This way round is not the pattern of Romans, but it is the pattern of 1 John.

* Don't be afraid of people's skepticism of the "organised church".

* Don't expect people to actually know anything about Christianity. You are in a mission field every bit as foreign as Europe or Asia (actually, Asia might be easier going). My critique of the fundamentalist evangelism I've come across, is that it assumes too much in the way of 'background knowledge'. Again, Acts 17:30ff will give us some ideas.

* We talk a lot on this site about complementarian roles of men and women. What might that mean in a congregational setting that could be seventy percent, or more, single? I mention this because in the fairly conservative background I came from, "complementarian" meant, in practice, "the married men and everyone else" - our role as single men was seen as complementarian to the married men, thus egalitarian with the single women. Hence my points above; the need is thus, to do some thinking now, as to what this might look like. For Tim's benefit, I don't think I have heard any teaching on the complementarian roles in a church of single men and single women, except for an application of 1Cor 7:32,34, that, with a slight difference in wording, seems to me to ask the same thing of both single men and single women. But I digress.

* There is a lot of room, in urban settings, for "mercy ministries", though I am unsure how common they are in Reformed church contexts.

View, anyone? :-)

[Donna L. Carlaw]

Ross:
* We talk a lot on this site about complementarian roles of men and women. What might that mean in a congregational setting that could be seventy percent, or more, single? >>>>

Ross, there are exceptions, of course, but mostly tell the single men and women to get married and have families. Teach about what the Christian life is about, including family life.

Encourage your people towards marriage, as Paul did his single widows. Surely he wanted them to marry single, Christian men?

1 Timothy 5:14
So I counsel younger widows to marry, to have children, to manage their homes and to give the enemy no opportunity for slander.

Tell the singles to give up their selfish lives, quit dedicating themselves to sin, grow up, get married in the Lord, and have families.

Many of the problems in the large urban areas are due to people's sinful lifestyle "choices", - at least here in the Seattle area that is the main problem. Preach repentance and faith - repentance towards sin and faith towards God.

The problem is still mainly sinful behaviour. The solution is still the power of God - the Gospel.

The Christian family is the most revolutionary force on the face of the earth, next to the Church itself. These two divinely-ordained institutions transformed a whole pagan empire at one time. Why can't it happen again?

Besides, if you are concerned about the poor and the needy, the best thing you can do as a church is to help strengthen their families. Broken families, broken homes result in more poverty and brokenness. I see it everywhere I go. It's hard to miss.

[Ross]

To Donna, your points in turn:

[1] "Get married and have families"? Ah, we'd love to, but there seem an awfy lot of hindrances in the way.

[2] "Marry the single widows"? There are very few widows less than about 45 or so in age (Paul was writing at a time when the average lifespan was far shorter than today, hence far more widows or widowers). Divorcees with children and single women with children are far more common, does your principle still apply?

[3] "Tell the singles to give up their selfish lives, grow up and get married". Is that how we, especially the men, are regarded? Honestly, I know many Christian singles, but I can't think of many I would describe in those terms. Kamilla, your opinions on this sentiment would be welcomed.

[4] "Helping the poor and needy" - agreed, with the qualifier that even as they come to Christ, the families will probably remain broken.

[Donna L. Carlaw]

Hi, Ross,
How are you doing? Did you have a blessed Christmas.

Yes, I understand the difficulties. However, in the NT there were also broken families, broken homes, devastating results of pagan lifestyles.

Pointing people towards marriage and family life is a good thing. What ministries do you have available to families?

Our mission has worked a lot with street kids. Now we work a lot with street kids and street families. We do a lot in the area of helping to strengthen marriages and families. It takes time.

It is more difficult for a single person, but most people have been married and will marry again. If they continue with the same patterns of sinfulness, then they will always end up in the same, desperate situations.

If you have the vision for rebuilding families, as well as individual lives, then I believe you will see ways of doing that.

No? Check out Mark Driscoll's ministry, particularly his message series on the book of Ruth. Yes, I know that MD is controversial just about everywhere, but he is working from the Puritan model of marriage and family life.

Anyway... FWIW .... I hope it encourages you, even though you yourself may never marry. No, not all are single because of selfishness, but many end up single because of self-centeredness. I hope you understand what I mean.

God bless, Ross, and may God guide you,
Donna L. Carlaw

[Ross]

Hi Donna

You wrote:

No, not all are single because of selfishness, but many end up single because of self-centeredness. I hope you understand what I mean.

Ah, no I don't :-) . the difference between selfishness and self-centredness is?

My reason for concentrating on singles ministries is (a) that is what I know best - family ministries is somewhat outta my skillset - and (b) because if we can get the singles more sorted out, then marriages and families will come from that. I saw that in a church I was part of, which was 20-40 and - in the church's genesis - nearly totally single. Many marriages, and some children, have since resulted.

[Kamilla]

First, I think Donna is being awfully harsh here. In my own experience, selfishness and singleness don't go together with any more frequency than selfishness and being married. I know an awful lot of married couples with either separate emotional lives or who end up divorcing because they are too selfish to do the hard work a good marriage requires.

In my own experience, I think familiarity is more likely the "problem". Ross, you mentioned "urban families". These can be great networks which provide social and emotional support. The problem, however, is that we all become so familiar to each other we become simply "mates" and we cease to treat each other or look at each other as potential marital matches.

I also think huge sections of the church have utterly failed at teaching us what it means to be godly men and women, masculine men and feminine women. We, along with our culture, have largely bought into both the therapeutic culture (which replaces the transcendent with our own personal feelings) and feminism which denigrates what makes us special and so delightfuly different (and this is true for both men and women). But feminism not only tries to deny how deeply our differences run, it denigrates marriage as well, with the consequence that very few really understand how deeply meaningful and important it is.

Kamilla

[Donna L. Carlaw]

Kamilla:
First, I think Donna is being awfully harsh here. In my own experience, selfishness and singleness don't go together with any more frequency than selfishness and being married. >>>>

Actually, I think that you are being too harsh with me. I didn't say anything that I feel a need to clarify or to retract or to apologize for. It was not harsh, but I am sorry you saw it that way.

[Donna L. Carlaw]

Ross:
(b) because if we can get the singles more sorted out, then marriages and families will come from that. I saw that in a church I was part of, which was 20-40 and - in the church's genesis - nearly totally single. Many marriages, and some children, have since resulted.>>>>>

Hey, Ross, that's great. Yes. Thank you for sharing that.

God bless, and please take care in the new year,
Donna L. Carlaw

[Donna L. Carlaw]

Kamilla:
I also think huge sections of the church have utterly failed at teaching us what it means to be godly men and women, masculine men and feminine women.>>>>>

I was thinking about this, and believe that you are right. The culture has taken such a strong turn towards rebellion against any and all traditional, Biblical teachings on that subject that even the church has been pretty much cowed into silence.

I suppose that there are many reasons, going all the way back to the rebellion of our first parents. However, I do think that there is a more immediate cause - the radical 60s. The sexual revolution and women's liberation have left deep scars, even in the church.

No?

God bless, and have a blessed new year,
Donna L. Carlaw

[Donna L. Carlaw]

Kamilla:
I also think huge sections of the church have utterly failed at teaching us what it means to be godly men and women, masculine men and feminine women.>>>>>

I was thinking about this, and believe that you are right. The culture has taken such a strong turn towards rebellion against any and all traditional, Biblical teachings on that subject that even the church has been pretty much cowed into silence.

I suppose that there are many reasons, going all the way back to the rebellion of our first parents. However, I do think that there is a more immediate cause - the radical 60s. The sexual revolution and women's liberation have left deep scars, even in the church.

No?

God bless, and have a blessed new year,
Donna L. Carlaw

[Kevin Donald H.]

>what does complementarianism mean if the majority of the people in the sort of mission/outreach programme I am thinking about are single?<

>>Approximately what it would mean if they were married. The meaning and purpose of sexuality is bound up with being a man or woman, not a husband or wife, and there's no place in life this meaning is not foundational to Christian discipleship and sanctification.<<

Tim, what does this look like in practical application? Can you give some concrete examples here?

[Ross]

>>>Tim, what does this look like in practical application? Can you give some concrete examples here? <<<

May I second Kevin's comments; as I have not seen an example of complementarian church life, where that was extended to the single men. Instead, we ended up being treated as having a complementarian role to the married men and by logical extension, ended up in a (practically if not theoretically) egalitarian role to/with the single women.

Ironically, the only time I have been able to serve in anything remotely resembling a leadership role in a church as a single man, was in an Anglican church; where I had a role for some years equivalent to what would be called a 'deacon' in a Fundamentalist setting (ie. sat on a church board). Those were the days.