Urban Renaissance

This week in the mail I received a brand new book called Gentrification that I got for free from the publisher since I’m a type of “prof of urban studies” … Epoch Center. The big idea of the book is researching the phenomenon regarding metropolitan restructuring including issues of development and the displacement of the urban poor, policies, what makes cities tick, think, and grow, urban geography … in essence “urban renaissance.” These issues are pertinent to me as I go downtown a lot to keep updated on our own gentrification process here as Tucson tries to renew it’s own core.

The way it works in an overly simplified nutshell is that at one time city cores were the vibrant hubs of the city but slowly as automobiles became more prevalent then cities expanded and people kept moving further outward. Often times it led to the social and economic collapse of the core which turned it into rough and downtrodden neighborhoods. However, in many cases we’ve expanded (suburbs) so far that the commute time back into the city has become such a pain that more and more people are moving back into the city.

Author Richard Florida in his book The Rise of the Creative Class argues that cities need a creative class to help renew the city. It is more than simply getting sports arenas, major businesses, or luxurious hotels downtown. This creative class consists of youth, gays, bohemians, professors, scientists, artists, entrepreneurs, and so on. He goes on to say that this creative class needs tolerance and will find cities that are geared that way. I believe Tucson is one of those cities which is why we have such a burgeoning creative class in the downtown, 4th Ave, and University districts. In my mind … this is absolutely exciting and riveting when I think of the future of this city and how we will respond with church planting. Imagine, we don’t really have any churches / church plants immersed in this creative class do we? We don’t have any church plants in these locations at all.

This quote in the book jumped out at me … “new ideas require old buildings.” So true! Urban Renaissance is just that! Renewing the city, bringing the heart beat back into the city. However, I’m afraid that for the most part the church has been silent on the response and we keep running to the fringes of the city rather than back in. Who will go? Who run back in to help renew the city? Who will be the ones to touch this creative class with the Gospel? Who?

Labels … aren’t we tired of them?

Part of my schooling involves “moodling” which is basically an online forum // discussion thingy.  Last summer I remember vividly as we were talking about the church and in an oh so brilliant manner I dropped the “missional church” label into the conversation.  I clicked ENTER and sat back feeling rather smug.  Yep, watch out for Sean, he’s well-read … (do comic books count?).  But I wasn’t prepared for a little reprimand from the prof.  He said, “Sean, for you to use the term ‘missional church’ is an offense in other parts of the world.  What you’re doing is silly like saying a ‘church church’ because outside the Western cultures it is assumed the the church IS missional.”  You also have to realize that at this particular class there were students from Africa, Europe, Asia, as well as all over the US.

Whether or not he was trying to make a point he did get his point across to me.  It stung a little because I saw how foolish I was.  First of all, let’s admit that we all drop labels … emergING, emergENT, post-modern, seeker, traditional, old school, etc.  You do it, I do … yes, this is confessional time.  “Hi, my name is Sean and I drop tacky labels … (in unison, “Hiiiii Seeeeaaaan …”)  But his point still rings in my head and that is … isn’t the nature of church missional?  If a church ceases to be a missionary to it’s own culture can we argue and say it is no longer a church?  The church IS the missionary therefore to use the phrase missional church is pretty redundant … kinda like saying a fat overweight man.  Your thoughts?

Context is Everything

Even through the double-pane window of a 10^th floor hotel room the sounds of the city have a way of infiltrating and waking you up. Now that I reflect on it I don’t think the city-sounds ever went away because it was the same noise as when I went to sleep. Walking over to the window I peered through the haze onto the city below. I could see that Shanghai was already awake and alive and it was only 6:15 AM. The streets were packed with people and vehicles with the sounds of honking mopeds and cars rising above the commotion. Jackhammers pounded bricks and concrete as old buildings were torn down to make way for ultra-modern skyscrapers. The city was not only alive but exploding with growth.

After a shower I grabbed my laptop and headed out of the hotel to travel on foot. I wove in and out of pedestrian traffic dodging the swarm of bicyclists and mopeds that would sneak up on you if you weren’t watching. Many of the shops were already open with the smells of cooking food wafting through the air. The first leg of the journey was definitely raw, nothing glamorous, and felt like old Shanghai. Most of the buildings were old, somewhat dilapidated or being torn down. However, in the span of a city block everything abruptly changed. Little family-run food stands and dark narrow alleys gave way to sophisticated and chic shopping malls, skyscrapers, trendy restaurants, and of course … Starbucks. My goal was to grab a latte, break out the laptop, and do some blogging and reading.

Bollywood and Mountain Dew

So it’s midnight right now.  I’m wrapping up my powerpoint slides for the church gathering (aka “service”) tomorrow morning.  What is funny is that at the same time I’ve been IMing with a church planter friend who’s doing the same …  When you think about it getting ready for the “big show” tomorrow takes a bit of work doesn’t it?  I’ve always said that attractional model churches = TONS of work for a one-hour gig.

I’m in this new kick of listening to Indian music right out of Bombay.  Thanks to the internet I can listen through iTunes this radio station.  I don’t understand a lick of what they’re singing but the tunes are catchy.  I’m also burping up curry so this helps with getting in the mood to listen.  Not only that but I’ve just downed 32 ounces of Mountain Dew so I can be alert as I wrap up my slides.

The question I asked my friend through IM was, “Do you think the early church leaders / elders” spent as much time getting ready for the hour long “big show” that we do (for conversation assuming they had a “big show” on Sunday mornings)?  Can we even conceive of church apart from it?  If we were to start with a clean slate and planted a contextualized church here in the States would we instantly default to putting all of our eggs in the basket of the big show?  If church planters are missionaries to their own communities wouldn’t it make sense to not get caught up with the Sunday morning show and not waste so much time, effort, and money?  If we were to parachute drop in Dubai, Sao Paulo, Cairo, or Beijing would we instantly start with focusing 75% of our efforts on the Sunday morning show for Christians from other churches?

Theology from Below

I’m putting together a class for Epoch Center on Contextual Church Planting. Whenever we talk church planting most of the time we quickly jump into the how’s or techniques or strategies. However, before we get to that point we need to back up and start with a contextual theology. Some call this a “theology from below.”

Often time theologies are created in the halls of academia void of practice or practical applications. They tend to be theoretical and constructed along the lines of philosophy. This is theology from above. “Whereas, at least since the time of Constantine, theology was conducted from above as an elitist enterprise.” Theology from below is contextual theology “from the underside of history” and it is shaped by the help of the poor and culturally marginalized.

I like that. I like that a lot. There is a HUGE disconnect between orthodoxy (sound or right doctrine) and orthopraxy (right living). David Bosch in his book Transforming Mission raises the question basically as to why do we split over orthodoxy and not orthopraxy? What good is any kind of right-thinking if it doesn’t lead to action? Then you may argue is it even right-thinking? Instead, a theology from below, is more hammered out of right-living (orthopraxy). Yet, in Christian circles or churches we split over doctrine more than living out what it means to follow Jesus. Not that I advocate splits at all, but what if people split from a church purely for the reason that the church’s orthopraxy was off-based or even non-existent?

What is Success?

I got a text from a friend yesterday who’s a church planter. The one sentence text, actually 2 words (plus an exclamation point), was to let me know that they had a high water mark in attendance. Earlier in the week I was in an online conversation with fellow Bakke classmates and we were talking about success in the context of urban settings. I know this topic is heavily debated and highly subjective … but what is success?

Here’s what I’ve learned so far … pastors / planters of growing or big churches will never say it is about numbers for fear of being looked at as prideful. Pastors / planters of small, struggling, or plateaued churches will never say out loud it is numbers but inwardly and secretly what they long for most is numeric growth. What is success? Is it quantifiable?

Even for me in “my industry” success is 100% purely about numbers. The more churches we see planted then the more successful I look. I am judged or validated by the number of churches I can manufacture. Then if I plant an insane amount then all of the sudden I have more “street cred” and who knows … maybe I’ll write a book or start making the conference circuits. What’s funny is that I don’t even plant ANY churches myself, but if I can talk enough guys into planting then that makes me look good.

So what is success? Here’s the bottom line … WE’VE ALREADY DEFINED IT. As much as you argue with me it isn’t … we’ve defined success as attendance and dollars. How do I know? Ok Mr. Pastor / Planter … tell me otherwise. I get texts, emails, and phone calls from planters when they have a surge in attendance. In our reporting systems in our denomination what do they ask? How many people were in your worship service? How many came to Sunday School / Small Groups? How much money did you take it this month?

For me, there’s an annual “book of reports” that goes out to our entire state. In that it breaks down how many churches were planted association by association. At these annual meetings I’ll get people commenting on how many churches we planted. I live in the same tension as planters and pastors do.

Success in business comes down to how many products you’ve sold and how much money you make. We’ve blindly taken that definition and attempted to translate it into the church. And the funny thing is that it doesn’t matter what kind of church you’re planting … seeker, emerging, house, hybrid … you’re still judged by the same definition. So where does that leave us? If this is how we’ll be judged then seminary is a complete waste of time. We should be focusing on getting MBA’s instead. Why not? If we’re judged in the same way as Fortune 500 companies then what the heck good is it to know Greek or eschatology?

If there is another definition of success I’d like know … I mean we’ll lie to each other and say it’s about making disciples … but even then so it comes down to HOW MANY disciples we’re making and we’re back in the same trap.