Category Archive

In an earlier post, I highlighted Todd Hiestand’s essay about being church in suburbia. I discovered that he indeed was putting these ideas into practice in a church, called The Well, in which he serves as one of the pastors. The Well is situated in the suburbs of Philadelphia (Feasterville).

The Well chose to have a warehouse as their building, as they put it “a new kind of church building that we believe will allow us to best be a blessing to our community”. This is because they see fostering the arts as an integral part of their mission:

More than likely you’ll notice a lot of really diverse and exceptional art on the walls when you come in. We use our space as an art gallery and concert venue for the local and greater Philadelphia artists and bands. This is a way for us to be a blessing to the world around us and allows us to simply try and be representatives of Jesus Christ in our world. While people who do not call The Well their church home do much of the art, we do have a number of gifted artists in our community. Often, you will see some of our artists painting during the service.

It is well worth looking at their flickr stream. Especially considering it is a warehouse, this is a beautiful place!

They also have an emphasis on the service as a time of community. This is something that has been bothering me at my church, where people hold almost all their talking until after the service, which I think negates some of the value of having a service. I very much enjoy their approach to ensuring this doesn’t happen:

People often say that the centerpiece to our Sunday morning is community. Whether it’s the 5-10 minute conversation/greeting time in the middle of the service, worshiping together or even a Q & A time during the message we understand and want to practice the fact that we are in this “faith thing” together.

To ensure they are continuing to examine their role in their context, they hold “midrash mettings” quarterly:

Because we believe that theology is best discussed in the context of a community of faith, we come together four times a year to discuss issues of theology and practice that are important to our community so that we may be more effective in being a part of God’s kingdom becoming a reality on earth as it is in heaven.

This all ties into the church’s suburban location, which Hiestand’s article shows has individualism at its core. Art fosters community by being an accessible expression of someone else’s feelings and thoughts. Including fellowship into the worship service provides an environment for community to grow. And the church values being continually relevant through regular re-examination of its context.

Blessed are the poor in spirit; for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.

I was reading the Boff brothers’ excellent book about Liberation Theology this past week. I highly recommend this book, even though liberation theology seems to have already had its heyday. The common perception of Liberation Theology constrains it to the Latin American situation, but the Boffs show that it goes far beyond that.

Liberation theology sought to liberate the oppressed, especially the poor. But the Boffs how that there are two types of poverty. Those who make less than a living, the socio-economic poor, first come to mind. The process of liberation here brings these people out of their poverty.

However, there are also those that Jesus described as poor in spirit, the Boffs’ evangelically poor. Unlike socio-economically, those who are not poor in spirit are the oppressed; people are liberated into this poverty.

After looking at this exposition, I saw that both types of liberation are brought about by the same thing: generosity.

To solve the extreme problem of socio-economic poverty, we need to be generous with our resources. We are to give things as money, grain (especially with its recent surge in cost), and prayer. We must also speak out against the injustices that our capitalistic system brings about in some parts of the world. However, I wish to remind all that it is a fallacy to say that this is the complete solution to poverty; personal involvement of many is very necessary as well. If anyone is looking for a very worthy cause in this area, have a look at Emmanuel’s Wish, a small charity which supports African orphanages; also don’t forget your local homeless!

But to be poor in spirit, we must go beyond just our resources, instead giving away our very selves. To be poor in spirit is to counter our natural tendency to hoard ourselves, instead by being devoted completely to God (as Paul put it, a “living sacrifice”), and following his command to love our neighbour. And liberated from the oppression of individualism, Christians can form a community of the truly free.

This is where the second part of the Beatitude comes into play. The poor in spirit have the Kingdom of Heaven, for they make it up, and set free from self-interest, are ready to create it anew together.

And the first part of this is casting off oppressive ideologies. Both the physical and spiritual elements of life can be appreciated, throwing away both the Platonism in some Christianity and the denial of the spiritual in humanism. Each individual can be appreciated in their own peculiar way, as preference and prejudice can be disposed of. This creates the opportunity for vibrant and rich community.

Basically, the church becomes a community in itself, but inside the communities of the temporal world. But, because the church is the medium in which the Kingdom is developed, it shows to the temporal community what it ought to be like, and in its life, persuade the temporal community and its members that the Christian way is better. Francis Shaeffer put it this way:

“…We must exhibit that, on the basis of the work of Christ, the Chruch can acheive partially, but substantially, what the secular world wants and cannot get. The Church ought to be a “pilot plant,” where men can see in our congregations and missions a substantial healing of all the divisions, the alienations, man’s rebellion has produced.” (Pollution and the Death of Man, 81-82)

This is the dream of the missional church. For the world is starving spiritually in a way as severe as the hungry. The compassion demanded by our love in Christ ought to extend to all the oppressed: both the economically poor and the spiritually rich. And in generosity, we have the tools to live this compassion out.

I decided to go on a trek into the local subdivision to see what I may. I went on foot, an increasingly unpopular means of transportation.

In about two hours there, I saw maybe ten people. Perhaps this is because of it being a Sunday afternoon, but I find their ability to hide more than a little impressive.

I noticed there were there churches in the area; all were evangelical and of some size. Two were right beside each other. The other was a five-minute drive away, with no sidewalk leading to it. How is that for fostering a sense of Christian unity? Last time I checked, a car ride is just inviting meeting new people. (sarcasm intended).

But I see what the first issue is. Somehow all these people need to be convinced to get out of their little boxes.

I happened along Francis Schaeffer’s excellent short book Pollution and the Death of Man: The Christian View of Ecology. I will offer a short summary of some of his many profound points made therein.

His argument begins by connecting religion with ecological position. He describes an article where a history professor argued that Christianity, with the view that man was given dominion over the earth, poisoned the modern post-Christian view that created the ecological mess; changing this religious base would resolve the problems. Schaeffer agrees fully with this second part, the first he later shows is not fully representative of a proper Christian view.

Schaeffer moves on to describe two ideas that have been prevalent as a basis for ecological positions. The first he examines is pantheism. In this vein, he examines an article that calls for recognition of morality as extending to humankind’s full environment, including the natural world, instead of the traditional view of just person-to-person. In a broader sense, the pantheistic view sees the essence of mankind and nature as one and the same. Although he recognizes the merit of this position in putting humankind and the natural world on the same plane of existence, he shows that it, by failing to enjoy the particulars of being human or nature, reduces the universe to an absurd system.

He also offers a rebuttal of Platonic dualism, especially in the context of the modern church. He explains that a Christianity concerned only with a “higher” spiritual life, seeing nature as only a proof of the greatness of God, essentially say that God’s creative work is insignificant! I enjoyed very much this story:

…Some years ago I was lecturing in a certain Christian  school. Just across a ravine from the school there is what they call a “hippie community” (though they aren’t real hippies!). On the far side of the ravine one sees trees and some farms. Here, I was told, they had pagan grape stomps. Being interested, I made my way across the ravine and met one of the leading men in this “Bohemian community.

We got on very well as we talked of ecology and I was able to speak of the Christian answer to life and ecology. He paid me the compliment (and I accepted it as such) of telling me that I was the first person form “across the ravine” who had ever been shown the place where they did, indeed, have grape stomps, and the real pagan image they had there, which was the center of the rites. …

Having shown me all this, he looked across to the Christian school and said to me, “Look at that; isn’t that ugly?” And it was! I could not deny it. It was an ugly building, without even trees around it. The thing was ugly!

It was then I realized what a horrible situation this was. When I stood on Christian ground and looked at the Bohemian people’s place, it was beautiful. … Then I stood on pagan ground and looked at the Christian community and saw ugliness. That is horrible. Here you have a Christianity that is failing to take into account man’s responsibility and proper relationship to nature.

So then what is a Christian view of ecology? Schaeffer says right away: Creation. God created everything, both the human and natural, therefore both mankind and the world “are equal in their origin”. Recognizing God as creator, our relationship to the natural world is through him; in Schaeffer’s language “upward” instead of “downward.

Schaeffer goes on about the implications of this. Recognizing God as Creator, in whom all things have their being, means that neither mankind nor the natural world is autonomous. Things have no meaning in themselves; rather because they were created by God, they have the role that God assigned to them. Therefore the Christian sees the natural world, in its natural God-given order, as good. This means God (and we also, if we are wise) deals with things in their own way, as diverse beings with their own function.

Interestingly, he identifies the ascension of Christ as a central part of the affirmation of the worth of the natural. Christ’s natural body in the ascension, became hidden in the unseen, “spiritual” realm. As such, the two “worlds” of the physical and spiritual are not antithetical, but are both good parts of God’s creation.

Thus the Christian view satisfied what Schaeffer identified as needed: it explains why humans ought to feel an affinity with nature, and respects the diversity in kind that exists.

Todd Hiestand, in this paper as posted on his blog makes an excellent exposition of the challenge of the suburban environment for ministry. He first describes the concept of the “missional church”, and shows that a very important context for a missional church is suburbia. He notes (though maybe not this strongly) that several values of the suburban dream are antithetical to Christian beliefs, namely individualism, escapism, and especially consumerism. He details four of the major missions of the church in this environment: rejecting individualism, deconstructing comfort, confronting consumerism, and pursuing justice.

He pulled a few of his quotes from Albert Hsu, who blogs here.

I live very near a very large all-suburban area, and my church is situated within; I am looking into the ideas others have had to work to the benefit of this rather spiritually barren place, thus this interests me greatly. Any pointers to elsewhere are very welcome; as of now I know very little about this.

[edit: I mistakenly attributed the post to Alan Roxburgh instead of Todd Hiestand.]

[edit 2: I linked to Hiestand's blog instead of a repost by someone else.]

Shopping malls are a cornerstone of our consumer-oriented society. They are the hubs of capitalism, where people gather together to buy.

I mention this as I went on a trip to Vaughan Mills. This is frankly an awe-inducing place, with over 200 stores and more than 6000 parking spots. I wandered around with a camera; a circuit of the place took me about an hour.

I was considering how every location confers some sort of message to those who are there. For example, a house, being comfortable and personalized, allows its residents to relax because of the atmosphere of ownership and sanctuary. There are various disputes about how to set up an office building, but all are oriented towards increasing productivity. A shopping mall is set up in such a way that puts people into the mood to spend.

Vaughan Mills has tried to emulate a home environment to do this. Attention was given to the floors - they are nicely carpeted or wooden. The place was divided into several “neighbourhoods”, each designed to give a slightly different ambiance, each meticulously styled to a theme and colour. The music played was low-key and unobtrusive. The stores themselves were tidy in presentation and were not visually blaring inside or outside. Several stores had music playing that clashed with that in the hallway. Overall, the atmosphere was tuned to seem quiet with a restricted pallet. Oddly enough, the ceiling was left unfinished, which I found snapped this illusion instantly; this must not be the case for most others.

This metaphor played itself out quite humourously in this rest area. Here there were two banks of chairs that faced each other about 10 metres apart. Between them was an area rug and a coffee table (which was quite useless as nobody could reach it). However, the backs of each of the chairs were tilted upwards towards a circle of TVs, a truly essential element of every living-room metaphor.

Still, it was obvious the mall tried to make one’s time memorable. There were enough exotic elements, like a statue, specially-themed rest areas between “neighbourhoods”, and curiosities like an indoor waterfall. The mall is marketable as an experience, which keeps people returning.

But there were certainly elements of this place that gave it a bleak and empty atmosphere. There was an endless stream of people, few of which seemed concerned with anything friendly at all. The noise of everybody, even over the music, was constant.The mall was anything but a place of peace and relaxation for me.

I believe this is because the drive behind the mall is ideologically rotten. Rarely do we consider why the mall is there. Its objective, strangely enough, is completely different than the reason why people are there. People come to the mall for a social time, for the thrill of buying new things, to see what the market has to offer, to experience the thrill of such a large and exotic place. But they are given these things in order to make sure they come and spend.

This is based on a specific understanding of desire: that which we call consumerism. This philosophy presupposes that having material objects can produce a state of happiness. Therefore, desire describes want of some object, and obtaining that object has potential to produce happiness.

The curious problem is that people do not need to come to the mall due to this desire. The mall or store itself is set up to create it. People come to be thrilled, to have an experience, to be social; these are what produces the happiness. However, people are not unwilling to be part of this otherwise elaborate deception. They easily and willingly become consumers once there, for there is a certain ring to the consumerist promise.

And this brings out the very negative side of such a place. Everyone inside the mall becomes a generic “consumer”, with desire for some object(s) in their minds, and some sum in their pockets. Inside the microcosm of the mall, one becomes but the money in their purse. This brings out an impersonal attitude in many of the shoppers, which is evident.

The rest areas seemed occupied mostly by the elderly. They are a completely different bunch than the shoppers.

I visited a furniture store that was within. The extreme contrast between the busyness of the mall and the furniture was startling. Whereas the mall was set up to be exotic, there was noting less so than the furniture. Each article was some subdued off-white colour, or a dark brown or black. The shapes embodied simplicity and function. Perhaps even those who like shopping at malls need a retreat from such places.