Daley Ponderings

Partly due to doing things with my family and partly due to catching up at work after last week of very little work, I haven't read much lately, and then when I did read, it was late at night, and figured I'd wait until I was in front of a computer to blog about it, rather than using the phone (and keeping Heather awake with the cell phone light, and the clicking of the keyboard...)

The next couple chapters weren't as gripping for me as the first few.

I did like a couple quotes though:

I was talking with a prominent evangelical church leader and asked him why more people are not open to a household model of church or to community groups meeting in homes.  The church leader was candid in his reply: "Because people like me come from professional backgrounds, and we want churches that reflect our backgrounds.  I don't want to be opening my home to people.  I don't want to get involved in people's lives.  I don't want needy people in my church.  Before people like me went into Christian ministry, we were lawyers, doctors, businessmen. And when we get involved in ministry, we bring those values with us."

I have wondered why some people seem to not want people in their home, at least not more than once or twice a year.  I have no idea what the reasons are, and if this guy represents a common thought.  BCF is always looking for homes to have various meetings in, and I think people have finally gotten the idea that our house is open whenever, and it isn't a burden at all.

Another quote about people's social levels.  A potential customer recently tried to convince me of the worthiness of his project, and part of his argument was that people tend to stick to people that have similar education backgrounds, etc. And even more than that, people who go to "elite" colleges tend to ignore the "non-elites".  I thought he was completely wrong, that though it might be true in a professional sense, if I was thinking about hiring someone who came from one college or another, I don't think I have any biases when it comes to meeting someone on the street or at church.

Dave had spent two years as what is known as a lay assistant [that word always annoys me - he'll talk about clergy and how unbiblical our current models of church are in a couple chapters] and was considering what to do next.  He wanted to go into full-time ministry.  He has a good grasp of the gospel and is an able communicator.  He comes from a working-class background and had worked as a laborer before becoming a lay assistant.  He was trying to decide whether to go straight into church planting or complete a theological degree.  As he took advice from various people, one prominent evangelical leader told him that he needed a degree so that in future ministry he could relate to doctors, lawyers, and other professionals. ... While a degree might enable Dave to relate to professionals, it would undoubtedly make him less able to relate to working-class and marginalized people.  But the assumption is that "successful" churches are church with professionals.

Evangelicalism has become a largely middle-class, professional phenomenon.  When we invite people to our dinners and our churches, we invite our friends, our relatives, and our rich neighbors.  We do not invite the poor, the crippled, the blind, and the lame.  What is at stake is the grace of God.

Various people disagree with me, but I think a class (and race) agnosticism is the best way to relate to people.  One ministry at CMU made a point of being intentional about reaching out to different races, athletes, arts students, engineers, etc.  I always felt uncomfortable with that and the quota system of sorts that developed - "we have 5 engineers, so we're doing pretty good in that department, but we only have one drama major, and zero soccer players, so we need to focus on them, and so we are changing our meeting night to not conflict with soccer games.  I asked one Asian friend what she thought of this, and of the criticism I received about not really paying attention to what race people were, and she said she thought that was a good thing - that she didn't want to be treated differently because she was Asian.

I think these authors don't quite say we should reach out to the "poor and needy" any more than other people, other than it is probably a good idea because other people are reaching out to the rich and middle class folks.  I think they advocate a more moderate position to bring Christ to all people, regardless of status, race, etc.

I found this to be a good insight, from the other side of the fence:

At a poverty hearing organized by Church Action on Poverty, Mrs. Jones, a mother who has lived in poverty all her life, described the experience of poverty like this: "In part it is about having no money, but there is more to poverty than that.  It is about being isolated, unsupported, uneducated and unwanted. Poor people want to be included and not just judged and 'rescued' at time of crisis."

'Rescuing' the poor, as Mrs. Jones put it, can be appropriate in times of crisis or important as a first step.  But if it never moves beyond this, it reinforces the dependency and helplessness at the heart of poverty.  It does not produce lasting or sustainable change.

They [the poor] do not want to participate in projects.  They want to participate in community [just like anyone else].  A woman told me, "I know people do a lot to help me.  But what I want is someone to be my friend." ...  They need community.  They need the Christian community.  They need the church.

They finish the chapter with a question, aimed at "conservatives" while correctly opposing any "downgrades" in doctrine, perhaps are not paying enough attention either.

The big question is, why is the church in the West failing to reach the poor and marginalized in our society?  We must examine ourselves to see whether we too are robbing the cross of its power.