Words'nTone

On Wednesday my Executive Director asked if I’d speak at our annual banquet dinner, which was last night (10/19/07), for five minutes on any subject I choose.  Of course I am pretty well versed to take up on any moment notice speaking, but what should I speak on—well actually that was an easy one: Child poverty.  Our agency, NEON, Inc, a SW CT Community Action Agency, is basing much of its strategic planning on reducing child poverty, so that was an easy one.  With that, it is our desire to develop and encourage partners in this plan.  So, I combined the two—reducing child poverty and encouraging others to join us.  It was only five minutes, well maybe 6 and a half.  The following are just the notes (bullets) I used.  Some you’ve already read here In the Margins.  It was quite noisy as I started, but as I got into it and began reading the statistics, it was amazing how quiet it became.  Can’t you imagine an end to child poverty?

• an estimated 160 million children on the streets of this world and 104 million orphans with no mother or father and no one to care for them.
• roughly 37 million Americans, including nearly 13 million children who (still) live in poverty.
• And...one in ten children in the State of Connecticut lives in poverty.

• 1.5 to 3 times more likely to die in childhood
• 2.7 times more likely to have stunted growth
• 3 to 4 times more likely to have iron deficiency before school begins
• 1.5 to 2 times more likely to be partly or completely deaf
• 1.2 to 1.8 times more likely to be partly or completely blind
• about 2 times more likely to have serious physical or mental disabilities
• 2 to 3 times more likely to die from accidental injuries
• 1.6 times more likely to catch pneumonia

“This administration today here and now declares unconditional war on poverty in America…and I urge this Congress and all Americans to join with me in this effort…It will not be a short or easy struggle—no single weapon or strategy will suffice—but we shall not rest until that war is won.  The richest nation on earth can afford to win it.  We cannot afford to lose it.”

• The Norwalk Redevelopment Agency
• The City of Norwalk itself
• The WorkPlace, our regional Workforce Investment Board
• The Department of Social Services
• The Department of Labor
• Connecticut’s Justice Branch and Department of Corrections
• The United Way
• The Norwalk Court

“The administration and the staff of NEON today here and now renews its commitment to the unconditional war on poverty…and I urge this Community to join with us in this effort…It will not be a short or easy struggle—no single weapon or strategy or single agency or person will suffice—but we shall all not rest until all our children are no-longer living in poverty.  As one of the wealthiest parts of the country, we can afford to win it.  Our children cannot afford for us to lose it.”

Children who live in poverty are

• 1.5 to 3 times more likely to die in childhood
• 2.7 times more likely to have stunted growth
• 3 to 4 times more likely to have iron deficiency before school begins
• 1.5 to 2 times more likely to be partly or completely deaf
• 1.2 to 1.8 times more likely to be partly or completely blind
• about 2 times more likely to have serious physical or mental disabilities
• 2 to 3 times more likely to die from accidental injuries
• 1.6 times more likely to catch pneumonia

One might, at first glance, think these statistical conclusions are somewhere overseas, on some foreign soil.  However, these statistics actually come from the State of Connecticut (Facts about Homelessness in Connecticut, Child Poverty Council State Plan).  When people talk to me of equal opportunity—that is everyone in American has the same opportunity to be up-ward mobile, to experience the American dream, to fulfill the benefits of our constitutional rights to the pursuit of happiness, I wonder what playing field are they playing on?  “Everyone should just pull up their bootstraps and get to work, then they won’t be dependent on government or charity.” How many times do I hear this or something akin to it in words and attitude?  Problem is, some people don’t even have boots; and some don’t even live long enough to put on these mysteriously, magically appearing boots.  (As if everyone is born with these boots.) But enough of the clichés.  Fact is we all might be on the same playing field, but some experience major setbacks, obstacles, and barriers that prevent them from playing the game well.  (Sorry for another cliché and metaphor, but you get the point.) Children—at least the children that make up these demographic profiles—do not have the same level of access to the advantages of our own constitutional rights and economy.  But to put it in biblical terms, there are unjust situations within our communities that prevent children from growing up (even starting out) that oppress their abilities to access the same advantages of other children.  Might this be what Isaiah meant when he rebuked Israel?

   “So as to deprive the needy of justice
         And rob the poor of My people of their rights,
             So that widows may be their spoil
             And that they may plunder the orphans” (Isaiah 10:2).

In light of facts like those listed above, we, too, should hear the prophet’s words, “Now what will you do in the day of punishment?” (Isaiah 10:3a).

“There is an estimated 160 million children on the streets of this world and 104 million orphans with no mother or father and no one to care for them.”

“There are roughly 37 million Americans, including nearly 13 million children who (still) live in poverty.”

“One in ten children in the State of Connecticut lives in poverty.”

My good friend and founder of Action International Ministries, Doug Nichols, has sent out a request to become Advocates for Children in Crisis.  At work, our agency is in the midst of developing a 3 and 10 year strategic plan that has as a component of its foundation the reducing of child poverty in its service delivery area (mid-Fairfield county, CT).  And, my state’s legislature passed a law that seeks to reduce child poverty in Connecticut by 50% by 2014.

These are not happy coincidences—at least not to me.  I wrote Doug Nichols to tell him to sign me up.  It ain’t hard or difficult, we are just being asked to talk about it, mention it, make people aware that children live in crisis, live in poverty.  I told him that I’d be glad to be such an advocate.  I set aside this page on my blog to highlight and discuss Child Poverty.  It is simply unacceptable that in one of the richest countries on earth, among a land with plentiful resources and capacity, within an economic environment that thrives on up-ward mobility, which fought an oppressive empire so everyone would have the right to the pursuit of happiness, and a constitution that guarantees that our government will “promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity” that we allow children to live in poverty.  It is simply unacceptable.

I will post stats, demographics, anecdotes, stories, legislation, and of course my comments.  When I can I will also post best practices, prayer requests, and other information on child poverty (here in Connecticut, the United States, and throughout the world).  I will post links to organizations and agencies that are working on child poverty issues and those actually doing the work—both within the church and non-church.

I hope you will become part of the discussion as well, maybe even the solutions.

The federal government didn’t just arbitrarily enter into the “War on Poverty” in 1964.  They didn’t just see a voting block and send money (the poor don’t vote, well they sure didn’t back then).  They didn’t just decide to shift wealth around, taking from those that work and distributing it to those who don’t.  It evolved from the FDR New Deal days until it lay at the desk of LBJ’s Great Society.  One thing overlooked: JBL never would have had the votes for passing the sweeping Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 if it weren’t for overwhelming support from (can you believe it) Republicans.  Southern Democrats did not support President Johnson’s “War on Poverty.” Oh, how times have changed and political tides have come and gone out.  The “War” began, however, to take shape under JFK.  In his inaugural speech, JFK referred several times to poverty, a term no American president since FDR had used.  He said, “If the free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.” Later, President Johnson said:

“This administration today here and now declares unconditional war on poverty in America…and I urge this Congress and all Americans to join with me in this effort…It will not be a short or easy struggle—no single weapon or strategy will suffice—but we shall not rest until that war is won.  The richest nation on earth can afford to win it.  We cannot afford to lose it.”

[An aside: Now I know where Bush gets his own war rhetoric, it is almost verbatim straight out of the Johnson’s War on Poverty language.]

I do wonder: These words, this war on poverty—is it wrong of the government to do the right thing and harness its capacity and the country’s will to help and assist the less fortunate, to fund the means to ameliorate the causes of poverty?  It is wrong for our own secular system to be doing the right thing when (many of) our churches refuse to do the right thing and refuse to harness their own resources and leverage their own capacity to fight against poverty?  Even a wayward king of Israel wisely said:

Open your mouth for the mute,
For the rights of all the unfortunate.
Open your mouth, judge righteously,
And defend the rights of the afflicted and needy (Proverbs 31:8-9).

Our ways of doing church are not neutral and have an affect on our responsibilities toward the poor. Church leaders should, at least, question who benefits and who does not benefit from current church structures and bureaucracies (i.e., our way of doing church). The building-centered and business models that most modern church-systems emulate can result in provincial and parochial habits that have a negative impact on our patterns of discipleship. Perhaps, it is not the construction of buildings and religious, hierarchical bureaucracies per se, but the allocation of human capital and financial resources to maintain such a system and promote the status of its own authorities and stakeholders that can distract (to put it blandly) from the church’s responsibility toward the poor. Church (that is, religious) systems and structures need to promote its responsibilities of discipleship, and in particular, those related to the poor.

The cost of doing church business and the maintaining of church bureaucracies are not neutral to the church’s role as advocates of the poor. This includes the allocation of human and social capital available in a church for use in the public (where the poor live, work, go to school, and are neighbors). The resources and capacity of the local church need to be evaluated in light of, not our cultural expressions of church life (e.g., buildings, worship services, exercising so-called spiritual gifts that support church bureaucratic structures and function, and technology), but in terms of the kingdom of God, which absolutely should include addressing the causes of poverty and advocating for the poor.

Andrew Davey, in his book Urban Christianity and Global Order: Theological Resources for an Urban Future, exhorts that a church concerned about “its own sustainability must have strategies other than the growth paradigm” (p. 112 ). As a church seeks “strategies” to promote its growth, assessment should be made of its impact on the local community, especially how such growth—including the means of growth—would affect the poor. Contemporary Church growth models are not only multimillion-dollar business ventures with huge marketing campaigns, they, as well, have celebrities and elites of their own, all which promote expectations for a local church that can (and do) divert resources away from its responsibilities regarding the poor, and may also contribute to the causes of poverty as well (e.g., burdening those in poverty to pay for the growth, the appearance of a “spiritual-minded” or “faith” budget, or even religious-fraud). A church’s sustainability does point toward a future, but it also has consequences for the community, with special consideration for its vulnerable populations.

Listeners to the story of Jesus are not only urban (and rural) congregations that have a natural association with vulnerable populations. There should be suburban church communities who are listeners of the Gospel story as well.  Suburban churches are not exempt from being such gospel-listeners just because they are removed from urban poverty. In fact suburban Christianity’s departure and distance from poverty might actually be one of the causes of poverty. Suburban churches should consider that they are participating in the same socio-economic system that has removed social capital, human resources, and financial resources from the social network, housing, and system of workforce development available to the poor in urban centers.

The story of the Gospels does not solely contrast the conduct of the religious who support the very structures that create barriers to assisting the poor, but also unveils how religious appearance can mask duplicity and systems that actually cause and/or perpetuate the causes of poverty. Jesus had condemned a religious system that had lost its redemptive reason for existence, one that had developed values and a structure that had actually contributed to the condition of the poor. Local congregations and their leadership ought to question whether its current value system, church bureaucracy, and structure contribute to the causes of poverty or whether it promotes advocacy for the poor.

© Chip M. Anderson (October 2007)
    Words’nTone, Habits of the Mind,

Jesus said that the poor will always be with you.  Some read the words recorded in the Gospels, such as Mark 14:7—“For you always have the poor with you”—and hear

The poor will always exist—nothing you can do about it

The poor will always exist—no matter what you do about it

There will always be poor people [just a matter of fact]

But the text could equally mean—and probably does given its close association with Deuteronomy 15:11 (“For the poor will never cease to be in the land”)—that the poor will be among the people of God.  As Jesus was present among the disciples, so shall the poor be ever present among the people of God, that is closely associated with them—perhaps even marked or defined by their presence among them.  Over the last two months, our agency (yes, I know its not a church) has been working on a 3 and 10 year strategic plan.  Every strategic plan has a premise, and of course since our agency is a Community Action Agency whose historic mission is (in sum) “to alleviate the causes of poverty,” our premise involved eliminating poverty.  We looked at data—statistics and demographics, grade scores, dropout rates, income levels, the job market, training, health indicators, nutrition, etc.—and began with whether or not it was acceptable that people lived in poverty.  Our premise was based on the question, “Is it acceptable that people live in poverty?” Our answer was, “It is unacceptable that people live in poverty.” The fact that there are poor and that there will always be poor is not resolution to the inevitable that there will be poor among us (whether in the church or in society).  In fact in Deuteronomy, before God told them that the poor will always be in the land among them, He made sure His people’s attitude was framed on this premise:

“However, there will be no poor among you, since the LORD will surely bless you in the land which the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance to possess” (Deut 15:4).

And then throughout the chapter and much of the remaining portions of Deuteronomy, Yahweh laid out codes, principles, laws that would govern how the people of the land ensured that the poor had a stake in the land and had their basic needs met.

This leads me back to my thought: is it acceptable that people live in poverty?  Especially as Christians we should be answering that question and then developing outcomes that will alleviate the causes of poverty and help the poor among us out of poverty.  I am convinced every church that seeks the Lordship of Christ needs to answer that question: “Is it acceptable that people live in poverty?” And then our answer should move us to action.

“It is likely that our theological problem in the church is that our gospel is a story believed, shaped, and transmitted by the dispossessed; and we are now a church of possessions [here in North America] for whom the rhetoric of the dispossessed is offensive and their promise is irrelevant.  And we are left to see if it is possible for us again to embrace solidarity with the dispossessed” (Walter Brueggemann, The Land: Place As Gift, Promise, and Challenge in Biblical Faith, p 206)

The Land was one of my summer-time readings, and finally finishing it up this weekend (at the beach!).  I have always appreciated Brueggemann’s insights, exegetical abilities, and how he pieces biblical theological themes together, but I never thought about “the land” in the Old Testament as a central theme in Old Testament biblical theology.  And it was, that is the land--it was staring me right in the face each time I read the pages of the Old Testament—which was about once a year for the last twenty-nine (29) years.  Brueggemann is right, we tend to spiritualize the land (and sometimes at most see the land as a type), but the land was a concrete promise, very much intertwined with the promise of Yahweh’s presence, even the promise of future redemption and the coming of the messiah.  I began reading The Land because I was actually working through some reading lists I put together for a paper I am researching on eschatology, evangelism, and social action.  Reading through Brueggemann’s book on evangelism (Biblical Perspectives on Evangelism: Living in a Three-Storied Universe), I was drawn to his theology of “land” and its categories for hermeneutics (i.e., interpretation) and its impact on the dispossessed (i.e., the marginalized, needy, and poor).  So I picked up the The Land for a fuller reading of the subject.

As my note taking and my underlining in the book suggests, I was quite intreged and overwhelmed by the theology of the land and its impact on reading the Old Testament, especially as it related to the promises to God’s people.  I was really at a loss as to what to quote In the Margins—there was so much—and what to make comments on—again it is quite impressive.  All until the end of the book (in the chapter called, “Hermeneutical Reflections”) where Brueggemann applies the biblical theology of the land to how we should read the Bible.  The above quote was remarkable in and of itself, but in connection to the presented material, I was actually overcome with its truthfulness.

Brueggemann has set out a map that shows how the Old Testament promises are framed within landed vs. landlessness categories. To sum, the Scriptures related to the poor and needy and their relationship to the land are indicated through the laws and codes given by Moses in order to help the people of God remember that the land is gift and not a right and that the least among them was to be included in that gift.  The poor and needy were to receive justice and have their basic needs met through the land.  To not do so would bring (and it did) God’s judgment, that is being removed from the land (i.e., having the gift taken away).

This conclusion hit home for me.  Although I believe Brueggemann overstates some of his hermeneutical conclusions and applications, he is dead on with regard to how we read the Bible (including the New Testament) and correct on how we understand it through a rhetoric we prefer to use for believing and articulating our own understanding of God’s Word—preferring the rhetoric of the landed from within a framework of those who possess rather than the rhetoric of the landless within a framework of those who are the dispossessed.  Not just rich Christians in an age hunger, as another writer puts it, but rich readers in an age of landless, dispossessed people in a land of plenty (a land which should provide opportunities for everyone to benefit and prosper).  The Land helps us to answer the question that still remains, “How are we to ensure that everyone is treated as landed and benefits from the gift of the land in which we live?”

Missional Church thought related to social action

Everist, Norma Cook, ed. The Difficult But Indispensable Church . Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002.

Hunsberger, George R. and Craig Van Gelder, eds. The Church Between Gospel and Culture: The Emerging Mission in North America (Gospel & Our Culture).  Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.

Shenk, Wilbert R. Write the Vision: The Church Renewed. Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1995.

Other

Community Service Block Grant Act (1998), Subtitle B--Community Services Block Grant Program, Sec 675. Establishment of Block Grant Program.

Dionne, E. J. and Ming Hsu Chen, eds.  Sacred Places, Civic Purposes: Should Government Help Faith-Based Charity? Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2001.

Guinness, Os. The Gravedigger File: Papers on the Subversion of the Modern Church. Chicago: Intervarsity Press, July 1983.

Christian Theology, History & Thought related to Social Action

Conchran, Clark E.  “Sacramental Theology, Catholic Political Thought, and the Crisis of Institutions” a paper for the American Religious Seminar, University of Notre Dame, February 17, 1999.

Davey, Andrew.  Urban Christianity and Global Order: Theological Resources for an Urban Future .  Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2002.

Kahl, Sigrun. “The Religious Roots of Modern Poverty Policy: Catholic, Lutheran, and Reformed Protestant Traditions Compared” [draft copy].  Max Planck Institute for Study of Societies (2004).

Knighton, J. Raymond.  “The Social Responsible of Evangelization Report” inLet the Earth Hear His Voice, ed. J. D. Douglas.  Minneapolis: World Wide Publications, 1975: 710-712.

Olasky, Marvin. The Tragedy of American Compassion . Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 1992.

Guinness, Os.  “Evangelicals Among Thinking People” in Let the Earth Hear His Voice, ed. J. D. Douglas.  Minneapolis: World Wide Publications, 1975: 713-715.

Salamon, Lester M. Partners in Public Service: Government-Nonprofit Relations in the Modern Welfare State.  Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995.

Sider, Ronald J. The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience: Why Are Christians Living Just Like the Rest of the World? Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2005.

Stockwell, Clinton, “Cathedrals of Power: Engaging the Powers in Urban North America”(80-93) in Confident Witness--Changing World: Rediscovering the Gospel in North America (Gospel and Our Culture Series), Craig Van Gelder, ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.

Sugirtharajah, R. S., ed. Voices from the Margin: Interpreting the Bible in the Third World . 2nd ed. Maryknoll: Orbis, 1995.

Van Til, Kent. “A Biblical/Theological Case for Basic Sustenance for All.” Journal of Markets & Morality 7/2 (Fall, 2004): 441-466.

The Church and Social Action

Clinton Stockwell, “Cathedrals of Power: Engaging the Powers in Urban North America,” in Confident Witness--Changing World: Rediscovering the Gospel in North America, Craig Van Gelder, ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999: 80-93.

Cnaan, Ram A. The Invisible Caring Hand: American Congregations and the Provision of Welfare. New York: New York University Press, 2002.

Cnaan, Ram A. The Newer Deal .  New York: Columbia University Press, 1999.

Christian, Jayakumar. God of the Empty-Handed: Poverty, Power & the Kingdom of God. California: MARC (World Vision), 1999.

Myers, Bryant L. Walking With the Poor: Principles and Practices of Transformational Development.  Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 2006.

Sider, Ronald J.  Just Generosity,: A New Vision for Overcoming Poverty in America .  Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999.

Sider, Ronald J. Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger: Moving from Affluence to Generosity .  W. Publishing Group, 1997.

Unruh, Heidi Rolland, and Ronald J. Sider. Saving Souls, Serving Society: Understanding the Faith Factor in Church-Based Social Ministry. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Bibliography for “Widows in our Temple Courts (Mark 12:38-44) continued

Church-State and the Public Square

Baggett, Jerome P. “Congregations and Civil Society: A Double-Edged Connection.” Journal of Church and State 44/3 (2002): 425-454.

Budziszewski, J. Evangelicals in the Public Square: Four Formative Voices on Political Thought and Action.  Grand Rapids: Baker 2006.

Kramnick, Isaac. “Can the Churches Save the Cities?: Faith-Based Services and the Constitution.” The American Prospect, online ed. 11/1/97 <> (accessed 10/10/06).

Neuhaus, Richard John. The Naked Public Square: Religion and Democracy in America, 2nd edition. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1986.

Guinness, Os. The American Hour: A Time of Reckoning and the Once and Future Role of Faith . New York: Free Press, 1992.

A year ago I was writing a paper to present at the Evangelical Theological Society’s annual conference in Washington D.C.  I lived in works describing the historical setting of Mark’s gospel narrative, especially Jesus’ temple discourses.  As well, I read and read books and papers on the history of how religion and state sponsored social action interrelated and progressed (or digressed) through the last few centuries, as well as the religious and theological underpinnings of even our “secular” understanding of “charity” and social action.  I also plowed through numerous books and articles on how faith and social action interrelate (or don’t interrelate).  The result was a paper entitled “Widows in our Temple Courts (Mk 12:38-44): The Public Advocacy Role of the Local Congregation as Christian Discipleship.” I finally am posting the recorded presentation for those who’d rather listen than read.  Also, in the following I have posted my bibliography from the paper by area.  Since the bibliography is somewhat long, I will split it up in sections.  I hope some of this interests you.  (A summary.)

“Widows in Our Temple Courts”    The Audio     The paper

Bibliography

The Gospel of Mark

Anderson, Chip.  “Fishers of Men reconsidered: first significance, the application (Mark 1:17)” (wordsntone.com, 3/19/06).

Anderson, Chip. “Move beyond just words: God inspired structure (Mark 13)” (wordsntone.com, 3/31/05).

Anderson, Chip. “The parable of the Sower who sows: hearing more accurately (Mark 4)” (wordsntone.com, 6/13/04).

Best, Ernest.  Following Jesus: Discipleship in the Gospel of Mark. JSNT Sup 4. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981.

Danker, F. W. “Double-entendre in Mark XII 9.” Novum Testamentum 10/2 (1968): 162-163.

Derrett, J. Duncan M. “‘Eating Up the Houses of Widows’: Jesus’ Comments on Lawyers?” Novum Testamentum 14/1 (1972): 1-9.

DiCicco, Mario.  “What Can One Give in Exchange for One’s Life? A Narrative-Critical Study of the Widow and Her Offering, Mark 12:41-44.” Currents in Theology and Mission 25/6 (1998): 441-449.

Evans, Craig A. Mark 8:27-16:20 (evans).  Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 34b.  Columbia: Thomas Nelson, 2001.

Fast, Lesley.  “Rejection and Reinstatement (Mark 12:1-11): The Rhetoric of Represented Speech in Mark.” Neotestamentica 39/1 (2005): 111-126.

France, R. T. The Gospel of Mark: New International Commentary on the Greek Testament .  Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.

Gundry, Robert. Mark: A Commentary On His Apology For The Cross, Chapters 1 - 8. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.

Hamilton, Neill Q. “Temple Cleansing and the Temple Bank.” Journal of Biblical Literature 83 (1964): 365-72.

Jensen, Darcy D. “The Widow’s Mite.” Word & World 17/3 (1997): 282-288.

Juel, Donald H. A Master of Surprise: Mark Interpreted. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994.

Juel, Donald H. The Gospel of Mark. Nashville: Abington Press, 1999.

Malbon, Elizabeth Struthers. “Fallible Followers: Women and Men in the Gospel of Mark” in In the Company of Jesus: Characters in Mark’s Gospel. Louisville: Knox Press, 2000: 41-69.

Malbon, Elizabeth Struthers. “The Poor Widow in Mark and Her Poor Rich Readers” in In the Company of Jesus: Characters in Mark’s Gospel.  Louisville: Knox Press, 2000: 131-165.

Myers, Ched.  Binding the Strong Man: A Political Reading of Mark’s Story of Jesus.  Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1989.

Smith, Geoffrey.  “A Closer Look at the Widow’s Offering: Mark 12:41-44.” JETS 40/1 (March 1997): 27-36.

Sugirtharajah, R. S., “The Widow’s Mite Revisited.” Expository Times 103/2 (1991): 42-43.

Swartley, Willard M. “The Role of Women in Mark’s Gospel: A Narrative Analysis.” Biblical Theology Bulletin, Vol. 27/1 (1997): 16-22.

Waetjen , Herman C. A Reordering of Power: A Sociopolitical Reading of Mark’s Gospel.  Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989.

Watts, Rikki E. Isaiahs New Exodus in Mark (Biblical Studies Library) . Grand Rapids: Baker, 1977.

Wright, Addison G. “The Widow’s Mite: Praise or Lament?—A Matter of Context.” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 44/2 (1982): 256-265.

“Imagine selling your church building and canceling your Sunday meetings.  Would your church survive?  Would it maintain a positive and unifying identity?”

“…the church building is a powerful icon in our evangelical religious experience” (by Mark Naylor in The Missional Church: Swimming in the rapids).

I knew the author, Mark Naylor, was serious when he shocked me with these words.  How we typically measure growth at church (or church growth) is a far cry from any implied measurements or benchmarks alluded to in the New Testament.  And, personally I can’t stand it when the New Testament is forced to be understood as a church growth manual, rather than what it is, namely, a discipleship and mission manual.  Then Naylor asks could we survive without our freedom and ability to gather on Sunday mornings?  How dare him?  Can our church—not the Church—survive without a church building?  Come on, such a question isn’t even in our vocabulary.  We know that there are many places in this world where the church exists, but does not have the freedom to have budgets, buildings, and parking lots.  Don’t get me wrong.  I know the advantages of a church building (as well as budgets and parking lots).  Once in our own American society, on a social level, the church building functioned in a way that had impact on the whole of a community.  But not anymore.  Certainly not to the degree.  Given the fact we have the freedom to meet in a building, I am not suggesting abandoning them—just yet.  I just think that we should recognize how powerful an icon our church building is and how it governs our mission and controls our resources.  It seems to me that good church leadership would recognize the temporary blessings of a church building (and I underscore temporary), and especially understand the barriers a building creates for one’s church (the local church) to accomplish its mission.

And its worth noting two more quotes Naylor pens:

“The traditional Sunday morning service, not only competes with other churches, but with many community activities.  Instead of expecting people to change their way of life to conform to church culture such as attending Sunday morning service the missional church seeks to adapt to the life of its community.”

“The missional church crosses social and cultural boundaries.  It changes to become like others and so represent Christ in new ways by relating to situations outside the traditional church culture.”

“The true goal of the church is to join Jesus in bringing God’s kingdom into the world.  This missional church does not exist primarily for the sake of its members, but for the sake of those outside the fold.  The goal is not to build up the church either by strengthen the members or through bringing people in but to make a transforming impact in the world.  The means to accomplish this will undoubtedly require equipping people for the task.  The result of followers of Christ integrating their life in Christ with their relationships outside the church will naturally be a hunger for fellowship, prayer and corporate worship.  But the essence of the missional church begins by looking outward.  When the goal is transformation in the world, then Christ will build his church.”

“The missional church does not insist on maintaining control of the programs.  Instead of having alternate ministries which parallel programs in the community, members of a missional church will seek to be involved in existing community programs so they can be an influence for Christ from the inside.”

“The missional church moves outside the walls of the building.  Rather than lowering the threshold of the church to draw seekers in, the missional church attempts to communicate the love of Christ in the community” (by Mark Naylor in “The Missional Church: Swimming in the rapids”).

Have you ever noticed that Jesus never interacted with the Qumran community of Essenes?  This group of Jewish people makes the legalistic Pharisees seem liberal in comparison.  The Essenes were a small, but very vocal and prolific (writing) group of Jews that separated themselves from Jerusalem, living out in the Qumran valley.  Nestled, as one writer put it, ten miles south of Jericho on a “dead-end street,” Qumran provided the perfect location for this isolationist sect of Jews we know as the Essenes.  They believed that even the Pharisees had abandoned both orthodoxy and exchanged the holiness of worship for a political and self-righteous standing before their fellow Jews.  So they moved out to the Dead Sea area and waited for the messiah.  But they missed Him.  The Messiah showed up in Jerusalem, and even in the worse of places like the gentile territory of Galilee.  It has always struck me that Jesus didn’t even go to say “hello” (at least in the written record) and say, “I am here guys; thanks for waiting.” Anyone who has taken the time to read some of the Essene writing or the Dead Sea Scrolls will be impressed with their orthodoxy and insight on the messiah—and the end of days.  They had their eschatology done well.  Their righteousness was impeccable.  But they missed the inauguration.  It seems to me that much of the evangelical church is like the Essenes—the Dead Sea Church.  Naylor hits the nail on the head—the church is to exist for those outside the church and exist to have impact in the community.  Not to have a parallel universe.  Jesus didn’t build a new temple and ask His followers to figure out ways to get people in, how best to be attractive to draw “seekers.” No, he brought his disciples with Him into the world.  (Again, that’s why the mode of church growth and outreach is a result of discipleship, not seeker sensitive church-building planning.) In fact when His people wouldn’t leave the temple (Acts 2 & 8), God sent persecution to spread them out (in the world).  We can debate how much the evangelical church is “of the world,” but there is no debate that we tend not to be “in the world.” Can you imagine if we took all the dollars we spend on making our Sunday morning and church-centered ministries attractive to the unchurched and funneled them into serving the community and joining—yes, joining—existing programs and activities, the impact and change agents we could become, the leverage and capacity we’d bring in addressing and changing our community?  If we did that, Jesus would build His Church.  But we like being the Dead Sea Church, located on a dead-end street.

“Outsiders unfamiliar with church culture visiting a church on Sunday morning will often misinterpret much of their experience.  The structure of the chairs and platform promises entertainment, but in comparison with the quality provided elsewhere, it is usually less enjoyable than they expect.  They will most likely hear a monologue that raises more questions than it answers, addresses issues that do not concern them, or simply adds nothing to what they already know.  Insiders are comfortable in this environment with its special religious vocabulary and rules of conduct for sitting, standing and speaking out, but outsiders are uneasy.  To the unchurched, the essence of church seems to consist solely of a Sunday-go-to-meeting duty of the sign out front is any indication and they wonder how this could possibly help them integrate spiritual reality into their daily life” (by Mark Naylor in The Missional Church: Swimming in the rapids).

Not only does outreach that is church building-centered (i.e., get them in) make the unchurched come on our terms, such a design and system of outreach and church growth diminishes the vital role that worship and gathering together has for the Christian community.  This has always bothered me…we seem to ask what can our Sunday morning service be like in order to be attractive to guests and our unchurched friends and neighbors (and to keep the people that have come).  I can’t recall where this question is asked in Scripture or implied as a way of defining what the gathering of Christians in worship is to be like.  I think I can safely say we have expanded on what the Bible teaches about corporate worship, and especially corporate worship on Sundays.  However, I also feel secure in stating that our gathering together should feed us, the Christian community; and it should, as passages like Hebrews 10:26ff point out, be corrective and protective, that is a means to help both the individual Christian and the Christian community survive and remain faithful “in the world.” In other words, Sunday morning gatherings should be more a call to discipleship than a means of looking attractive to the unchurched community.  Lowering the threshold at church and aiming for the lowest common denominator robs the Christians gathered of the endurance it needs “in the world” and simply isn’t sufficient enough to impact the unbelieving (visiting) community at large.  Nor, does such an outreach approach and evangelism (and church growth) actually, effectively, help non-believers “integrate spiritual reality into their daily life.”