At the end of Part 1 I mentioned Part 2 was going to get more "personal" and I'll assume, for anyone who's been following, you thought I would write something about you, the reader, when in actuality I was writing about me and leaders within the city. In this final chapter I want to bring up another subject that I hope stirs thought and provocative interaction. So please, join in.
As we study the book of Nehemiah we see the passion of a man who was burdened to do something he had never done before, in a place he had never been for a people he had never met. He prays for and receives the favor of his king and sets out to restore the walls and repair the gates of Jerusalem. Against opposition, famine, internal strife and weariness the task is complete in 52 days and realizing the city was built to be inhabited set forth a plan to put families back in the city. In other words, it was time to fill the city.
If you haven't picked up on it by now the city is just a cute way for me to say "church."
The city is where I do my business. As pastor of a "city" I suppose you could say I'm the mayor. As such, I often find myself taking an honest, if not hard, look at the condition of the city and find it is often lacking in resources and pride and If I'm not careful I can become envious of other cities... if I'm not careful I will put unfair and unrealistic expectations on the people of the city and if I do this; I'll have to come to terms with why I did and who I was really trying to help?
Therefore, it behooves me to understand what's the purpose of the city and to make good decisions resulting in good inhabitants rather than just good walls. I have seen and can understand how some cities have gone from slum to chic while others have gone from upscale to downtrodden. My observations aren't proven but I have a theory; see if you agree. When a city betters itself it is rarely the result of greater revenue and when a city decays it isn't because funds dry up. Many towns in the last couple of decades found themselves with windfalls of cash and dangerous streets while others others could eek by on limited taxation with safe neighborhoods. I believe this is because the people of the cities either saw themselves as the resource of the city or the resources they had to become the resource of the city. In other words, neighborhood watch, pride of ownership and a sense of belonging trumped vigilant policing, CC&Rs and surveillance cameras.
For a city to thrive it doesn't need more money AND it doesn't need more people. For a city to thrive it needs people to fuel the city. This is a simplistic way of saying we must take what we have and do our best with it to the best of our ability. Example... a fire needs fuel but no matter how much fuel you have a fire unattended either goes out of control or goes out... That's why we must fuel (verb) the city! Unfortunately many churches have gotten either out of control or have gone out and because of this we are struggling to find a new foothold.
Enter the "Emerging" movement. In it, postmoderns are struggling with how to believe and how to live knowing people outside the "city" would rather stay in the country. So more and more people are opting to abandon their homes in the city to go "live" elsewhere... for two reasons. First, they don't like the city anymore; for reasons stated above: They're being overly taxed! And second, they would rather live closer to their friends who like them (and the Jesus they see in them) but don't like the city folk (and the Jesus they never see in them). Some are calling this dangerous while others are calling it essential. Even within the Emerging Movement there are differences arising from charismatic and influential leaders and authors. At the pivot is orthodoxy (right belief) and orthopraxy (right living). One side stating good behavior stems from good belief while the other claims good behavior has rarely ever been the result of many a Bible thumpin pulpits!
So, here are Monday's questions in light of a weeks worth of musings on the church/city.
- While the pendulum may need to move should it swing? and how far?
- Does the church weaken or get stronger when the leaders step out of the way? Why?
- Is the city better off being mobile, small and nimble or planted, large and multifaceted?
- Do we close the city to those who refuse to believe and then live because they aren't the resource that will enhance the city?
- Can you deconstruct the city without being destructive?
- Should the attributes of the church be consistent with the attributes of God?
- Read Hebrews 13:7-9 and how does it relate to both?
Finally, while most would agree there needs to be an equal balance of both, right living and right belief; how is this managed in an ever changing, never yielding culture first inside the city and then without?
I personally believe this is one of the most critical questions facing Christianity today. What do you think?
Recent Comments