Why Cities Matter: A Review

My latest post on hating suburbia precipitated a great number of substantive responses. I want to continue the discussion by reviewing the new book, Why Cities Matter by Stephen Um and Justin Buzzard. Both men are pastors of Gospel Coalition-ish churches in Boston and Silicon Valley, respectively. They are also aspiring Kellerites. Not only does Keller pen the foreword, but there are nearly twenty citations to his book Center Church, several attributions to his articles like “A Biblical Theology of the City,” and even one reference to his unpublished notes.

The book’s title encapsulates its purpose; Um and Buzzard endeavor to explain why cities are important to the economic and evangelistic future of the world. They do this with both sociological data on how and why cities are centers of power, culture, and worship, and then theological reflection on God’s view of cities.Why-Cities-Matter

Their theological insight takes the form of a biblical word-study of “city” from Genesis to Revelation. It is not exactly the most contextually sensitive of readings. For example, they write that Jesus ministered in an “undeniably urbanized environment” because he makes reference to courts, market squares, and interest-bearing accounts, and they write that Paul’s letters are “even more urban than we think” in that they are “written from cities to cities… [so Paul] does not need to argue for the necessity of ministry to cities.” For those of you scoring at home, Jesus is urban even though he’s in the countryside because he mentions cities, and Paul is urban even though he doesn’t really mention cities because he is in the city. Like proverbial men with hammers, they certainly see a great number of nails.

I wish this was the only absurdity in their biblical study of cities, but it is actually typical. Other exegetical stretches include: “Eden may well have included buildings,” “God is the ultimate, creative, entrepreneurial urban planter,” and “When God’s people’s commitment to the urban mandate fizzled out, he personally took up responsibility for the mission, took on human flesh, and was born into the city (Luke 2: 11).” FACT: According to scholars, the population of the City of David at the time of Jesus’ birth was 300 – 1000. I had touched on this odd exegetical phenomenon in my first piece on Metro-Evangelicals, but the sloppiness continues to amaze.

The remainder of the book contains helpful missiological advice for reaching cities and it is here that Um and Buzzard hit their stride. They counsel avoiding twin temptations of city living: “overadapting” by conforming one’s life to the culture of the city or “underadapting” by privatizing one’s faith in order to be approved by peers. One technique they suggest is to understand the storyline of your city—that is, the dreams and cultural values of your locale—and rewrite it with a Gospel ending.

The gospel doesn’t eradicate a city’s story, but it brings completeness to it. Once a city’s story has been challenged, it must be retold. And it must be retold to show that a city’s story can only find a happy ending through Jesus’s substitutionary resolution and completion of the themes of the city’s story line. The gospel resolves the thickening tension in the city’s narrative, and shows that resolution, relief, and rest are to be found only in Jesus Christ.

This is wonderful advice, but it would seem equally applicable in urban, suburban, or rural environments, which brings me to the chief weakness of the book.

Equivocating on the Meaning of “City”

From the outset of the book there is ambiguity as to the definition of “city.” Keller’s foreword lays out some facts about the increasing importance of cities. He quotes the CEO of Gallup that “as goes the leadership of the top 100 American cities, so goes the country’s economic future.” Continue reading

Why Do We Hate the Suburbs?

Anthony Bradley struck a nerve in his probing post on the dysfunctions of Evangelical twenty-somethings. He blames two salient ideas: the “missional narcissism” of the Radicals and the anti-suburban dictates of the Metro-Evangelicals. Both trends are animated by the conviction that the comfortable, consumer-driven suburban life of the previous generation of Evangelicals was a travesty. The young people Bradley is encountering are paralyzed for fear that they will recreate their parents’ lifestyle choices and hold down hum-drum jobs in a peaceful ‘burb.

Bradley, while spurring these young folks to action, did not actually defend the suburban lifestyle — chiding the “lukewarm Christians” living in “safety, comfort, and material ease” there — but he just thought that the Radicals and Metro-Evangelicals were overreacting.

In response to Bradley’s mild critique of this reflexive anti-suburbanism, the editors at Fare Forward (HT: Mere-O Notes!) reflexively proclaimed their anti-suburbanism:

[T]here are some things deeply unChristian, and deeply counter to even natural virtue, in the suburbs. . . [A]s the buzz around Rod Dreher’s latest book on moving home, a lot of the anti-suburban sentiment comes from people who support small town living just as much as from those who support city living. And the thing that unites the city and the country against the suburbs is the belief that the suburbs are not, as a matter of fact, ordinary, natural life, but a strange artificial construct that hinders ordinary lives and ordinary relationships.

In other words, “No, really, suburbs are that bad.”

Dalas skyline and suburbs

Dalas skyline and suburbs (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I am prepared to say the unthinkable: suburbs are good. Stay with me now. While suburbs have suffered decades of derogatory propaganda, there is still much to be commended. In fact, I wonder if the only reason we think suburbs are bad is because we were told they were bad and we believed it.

Hating the Suburbs since 1921
Denigrating suburban living has been a favorite pastime amongst the hip-cool set for almost a century. Joel Kotkin outlines some of this history in a fabulous post on his New Geography blog. Since the 1920’s when Lewis Mumford described the expansion of New York’s outer boroughs as a “dissolute landscape” and “a no-man’s land which was neither town or country” the chattering class has been convinced that suburbia is eternally boring and somewhat sinister. F. Scott Fitzgerald expressed this jazz age sentiment in The Great Gatsby by describing the inferiority of the “bored, sprawling, swollen towns beyond the Ohio, with their interminable inquisitions.”
Continue reading

Still Eating Sausages: Reservations Regarding Evangelicals and Lent

Matt’s discussion of the Radicals and their revolution against comfortable and convenient Christianity has emerged, perhaps fittingly, during the liturgical season of Lent. The annual forty-day fast has always focused on the sacrifice inherent to the Christian call. Therefore, it should be no surprise that many of the same believers latching onto David Platt & Co.’s message have also begun to incorporate Lenten fasts into their worship practices. This devotional expression, long a hallmark of more liturgical churches, is now a growing trend among low-church Evangelicals.

The Evangelicalism of my parents’ generation lumped Lenten fasting together with saying the Rosary as the dead liturgy of a works-based religion. In other words, they didn’t do Lent. But now many of my friends, including lots of the fine folks here at Mere-O do. The question “What are you giving up for Lent?” is as common at hip church plants as skinny jeans and references to UFC fights. It is so cool that the really cool kids are giving up the practice in order to stay ahead of the trend.

The whole fad has me thinking: was the old-fashioned Evangelical opposition to Lenten observance just one more relic of an irrational anti-Papistry, or is there some real wisdom in abstaining from abstaining?

The Affair of the Sausages
Our parents weren’t the first Protestants to resist Lent. The suspicion of Lent emerged at the very dawn of the Reformation. In fact, less than five years after Martin Luther posted his 95 theses, an intentional violation of the Lenten fast was the event that brought the Reformation to Switzerland. Zurich pastor Huldrych Zwingli had been teaching on Christian liberty and his congregant, Christoph Froschauer, had just published a new translation of the Pauline Epistles. To celebrate the publication, Froschauer shared two sausages with his employees. This violated the terms of the church’s fasting requirements, which at that point completely forbade the eating of flesh meat.

Christoph Froschauer the Younger

Christoph Froschauer the Younger (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

At that time, the secular authorities enforced church doctrine. Froschauer was arrested.  Zwingli subsequently defended Froschauer’s action as a proper exercise of Christian liberty. Roman Catholic authorities were not immediately persuaded. The citizens of Zurich were; the following year the city became officially Protestant.

In the following decades, English Puritans went even further in their opposition to feast days not commanded by scripture. Their opposition culminated in a 1647 parliamentary act abolishing Lent as well as the rest of the liturgical calendar:

Forasmuch as the feast of the nativity of Christ, Easter, Whitsuntide, and other festivals, commonly called holy-days, have been heretofore superstitiously used and observed; be it ordained, that the said feasts, and all other festivals, commonly called holy-days, be no longer observed as festivals; any law, statute, custom, constitution, or canon, to the contrary in anywise not withstanding. (link)

The Puritans banned all of these holidays because they found them unsupported by Scripture and to be the occasion of superstition. By the latter, they meant that common people would confuse the feast and fasts for the essence of Christianity and would mistake the simple Gospel. This concern also drove Zwingli’s opposition. In his sermon defending Froschauer, he noted that “simple people” may get the impression that if they comply with the Church’s Lenten commands they may think that they are good for the rest of the year. Yet, in truth, “one should at all time confess God, live piously, and do no more than we think necessary in the fast” (Zwingli, p. 107).

Continue reading

Metro-Evangelicals and Their Organic Produce

Over at his Gospel Coalition blog, Jared Wilson has followed my lead by sticking his thumb in the eye of the Metro-Evangelical consensus with a post titled “Rural Ministry: Too Cool for Hipsters?” In his post he quotes my friend and Hillsdale College compatriot Darryl Hart on the inconsistencies within the younger set’s worldview. Hart wishes

… that Christians, who have discovered the value of wholesome food and the farming practices that produce it, would translate their choices about diet and carbon footprints into congregations and pastors more circumspect about cities and more respectful of the fly-over sectors of the greatest nation on God’s green earth[.]

It isn’t just Evangelicals who suffer with such inconsistency. At the core of the hipster aesthetic is a simultaneous championing of slowed-down, artisan craftsmanship along with a preference to reside in densely-populated urban cores. These tastes are not naturally compatible as there are sure to be times where their rejection of mass production will conflict with their preference for massed population.

English: Rural Church. The sign to the left of...

English: Rural Church. The sign to the left of the door reads “Welcome to our Church”. I don’t know any more than that. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Wilson also quotes Hart’s theory as to what explains these competing preferences, a desire “to elevate one’s own status by hobnobbing with the influential.”  This may be right. After all, what is the common factor that bridges folks who buy limited-run items and yet live in large cities? Disposable income, and a lot of it. I understand that this imputation of a less than grand motivation is sure to raise some ire, but I believe that it is a conversation worth having.

However, I’m not sure that Hart and the folks at Front Porch Republic get all the way there. Despite living in a small town myself and enjoying the occasional arugula-based salad (made with produce harvested from my own backyard garden, of course), I don’t want to put my lifestyle on a pedestal. I think that the best, most sacrificially Christian activities I undertake are when I get outside of my cultural box and take time to talk with my blue-collar neighbors. Doing so is much more difficult for me than speaking with a big firm attorney, sure, but I can’t really share a common love of Mumford and Sons with them either. They are neither urban nor urbane and thus provide me with an actual opportunity for self-giving love. These are the folks who present me with Matthew 25-type opportunities:

I was shopping at Walmart, and you did not sneer at me;
I was eating at McDonald’s, and you did not condemn my palate.

More than joining the call for Christian hipsters to be more consistent in their embrace of a quasi-Luddite way of life, I want to see greater love for folks who are less educated, less influential, and less wealthy. We may do better to reflect on the virtues of eating at Burger King and KFC instead of exulting in our grass-fed beef and free-range poultry.

Are the Metro Evangelicals Right?

Andy Crouch (or his headline writer) coined the catchy term “metro-evangelicals” to describe the growing urban resurgence within American evangelicalism. In a Wall Street Journal opinion piece, Crouch explains that pastors like Tim Keller and Mark Driscoll see cities as the beachhead of a new evangelization. Crouch’s magazine, Christianity Today, has launched an extensive series on this work of God (This is Our City).

My first two reactions are profound rejoicing at the sending of workers into the harvest and profound prayer that these efforts may bear much fruit. To all who are called there (like my two siblings in Manhattan) the great opportunity and great difficulty should always occasion our concern and support.

A panorama of Lower Manhattan as viewed from t...

A panorama of Lower Manhattan as viewed from the Staten Island Ferry. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Yet there is a timbre amidst all of this city-centrism that troubles me.

Maybe this is because the metro-evangelicals are not counter-cultural, but rather a baptized version of New Urbanism. In a culture that idolizes living in a loft in a gentrifying art district, a church planter is not exactly bearing a cross in deciding to “rough it” under such conditions.

Maybe it is that some of its advocates tell a story that previous generations fearfully abdicated the dirty, sinful cities. Thus, all this new “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for” generation needs do is show up and things will get better. It’s worth noting that this mythical Evangelical abandonment never really happened and we should be more careful at imputing impure motives to previous generations of believers.

Or maybe the metro-evangelicals’ claims of self-importance are so hyperbolic that they insult the gospel work being done in less densely populated zipcodes. For example, some urbanist church planters claim that cultural transformation emanates exclusively from cities, as Mark Driscoll writes: Continue reading

Beauty and Power in Church Architecture

Last month, I began to build the case that Evangelicals possess an aesthetic that is reasoned, deliberative, and theologically informed. Contra the critics who charge that beauty is neglected in Evangelical circles, I find the comeliness in multipurpose worship centers equipped with retractable basketball stanchions. No, really.

To support this contention, I offered the parallel of Mormon architecture. Their institutional commitment to beauty—evidenced by their extravagant cathedral-like temples—has not dissuaded them from building cookie-cutter stake centers for the ordinary use of local congregations. They choose that fresh-from-Costco look deliberately because it serves the proper ends of week-in, week-out congregational life. Evangelicals, I maintain, have been equally reasoned in their design of church buildings and, therefore, should not be dismissed as aesthetic philistines.

But, the interlocutor protests, if Mormons have temples and Roman Catholics have cathedrals, what appropriately lavish oblation to beauty is found amidst the Evangelicals? When does extravagant, non-utilitarian artistic expression come to the fore and result in the construction of a truly marvelous facility?

Evangelical Church, Grand Valley, Ontario, Can...

Evangelical Church, Grand Valley, Ontario, Canada (1910) (Photo credit: Toronto Public Library Special Collections)

Never.

Well, not precisely never, but basically never. And this, too, is theologically informed.

The Institutional Church is Corruptible

Look around in your town. If it is anything like mine, most of the “beautiful” church buildings are inhabited by congregations who deny the resurrection, the virgin birth, or the deity of Christ. Yet the name-brands on those institutions—men like Martin Luther or John Wesley—were certainly orthodox, Spirit-filled men of God. Indeed, if you go back to when those local congregations were founded, I would bet many of them were constructed by God-fearing folk and the heresy and heart-hardening seeped in subsequent generations. Continue reading

What Mormons Can Teach Evangelicals About Church Architecture

Last month I had occasion to visit Utah. (Twice, in fact.) While driving around the state, I took note of the culture constructed by the religion of a certain presidential hopeful. As you might imagine, the number of Mormon “stake centers” there borders on the absurd. They are easy to spot, even from the Interstate, due to their distinctively modular architecture.

If you’ve never lived within the proposed boundaries of the putative state of Deseret, this may sound weird, but I can identify the age of a Mormon meetinghouse at a glance. You see, each building from the 60s looks pretty much identical to the others built at that time. Same for any other vintage. It seems about once a decade, high command decides what a new church should look like and passes the blueprint down the line.

English: A stake center of The Church of Jesus...

English: A stake center of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS). Located in West Valley City, Utah, USA, this architectural style is typical of those built in the 1990′s. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The current model looks like a New England congregational church building ordered from a SkyMall catalogue:

“The Colonial”
If God is indeed “in the details” then this incredible church building speaks to the American spirit! The extraordinary red brick and white panelling is hand painted for startling realism. Impress guests with the charm of your elegant 84″ Concord steeple which stands as a symbol of the strength and freedom of an enduring generation.*

*Any similarity to actual SkyMall listings is purely coincidental.

But seriously, while it is easy to make fun of industrial uniformity and steeples that look like they were purchased at Costco, there is a reason the Mormons do what they do. By streamlining production and design, they gain the same efficiencies of scale that a McMansion developer gains. Sure, each church isn’t its own individual snowflake, but they are functional, well-appointed, and cost-effective. Continue reading

Smiths, Joneses, and Americans

My inaugural foray on this site–calling on Evangelicals to remember that nations are a kind of thing that can keep people out–inspired comments querying whether national sovereignty is actually a Christian idea. Some commenters asked this question honestly, others rhetorically. To this latter group, a sovereignty which flexes its power to deport outsiders is deeply inconsistent with Christian charity and biblical morality.

Picture of Jesus with American flag

Picture of Jesus with American flag (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Since then, this forum has housed some excellent reflections on patriotism and national identity. Mr. McCracken provided a stirring apology for moderate patriotism, then Mr. Simpson busted out a little patristic action in reminding us that a Christian’s most fundamental political reflection is Kurios Iesous.

To these I would add a single thought: Belonging to a country, while not an ultimate identity, is one piece of information about a man. That is why Richard John Neuhaus once said that he expected to meet God as an American.

Admittedly, that is a statement that can easily be misunderstood. It is not intended as a boast or as a claim on God’s favorable judgment. It is a simple statement of fact. Among all the things I am or have been or hope to be, I am undeniably an American. It is not the most important thing, but it is an inescapable thing. Nor, even were I so inclined, should I try to escape it. It is a pervasive and indelible part of what is called one’s “identity.”

(emphasis mine)

And because there really is such a thing as an American, there also exists a subset of mankind who are “Not American.” Both categories are populated with fearful and wonderfully made divine image bearers, but the bonds of national identity attach only to the former.

That is okay because patriotism is like familial affection. Just like it would be quite odd for a man to tell you that his children are less talented than average, it would be strange for him to fail to praise the special charms of his own country.

Let us imagine the Smiths and the Joneses–two Christian households living right next door to one another. They go to the same church and their kids dig in the same sandbox. Hospitality abounds. Most nights one of the Jones children is at the Smith’s dinner table and vice versa. All in all, very Norman Rockwell (dare we say Thomas Kinkade?).

But all of this closeness will not eradicate the two families’ separate identities. Mr. Smith may look out for one of the little Joneses, but he will stay up all night worrying about the little Smiths. That natural affection–though redeemed–does not extend to the neighbor to the same extent.

And all of this charity does not give little Johnny Smith the right to waltz into the Jones’ house uninvited. It is in their separateness that one family can extend hospitality to the other. Elsewise, we’d call it adoption. Or some kind of hippy commune thing.

Dr. Benjamin Rush painted by Charles Willson P...

Dr. Benjamin Rush painted by Charles Willson Peale in 1783 and 1786. Winterthur Museum. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The parallel between family-love and country-love is the gist of American Founder Benjamin Rush’s theoretical argument for patriotic sentiment:

Patriotism is as much a virtue as justice, and is as necessary for the support of societies as natural affection is for the support of families. The Amor Patriae is both a moral and a religious duty. It comprehends not only the love of our neighbors but of millions of our fellow creatures, not only of the present but of future generations.

Dr. Rush continued by rattling off a litany of examples of this trait from both the Old and New Testaments.

This virtue we find constitutes a part of the first characters in history. The holy men of old, in proportion as they possessed a religious were endowed with a public spirit. What did not Moses forsake and suffer for his countrymen! What shining examples of Patriotism do we behold in Joshua, Samuel, Maccabeus, and all the illustrious princes, captains, and prophets amongst the Jews! St. Paul almost wishes himself accursed for his countrymen and kinsmen after the flesh. Even our Savior himself gives a sanction to this virtue. He confined his miracles and gospel at first to his own country.

Even if one quibbles with whether Matt. 15:21-28 or Rom. 9:3 teach the ethical virtue of patriotism, Dr. Rush’s parallel to natural affection is the strongest point. Mr. Smith would be worse than an infidel (1 Tim 5:8) were he to not acquit his duties to his own household. An American should do the same to his fellowcountrymen.

 

Another Principle to Bring to the “Table”: Evangelicals, Immigration, and the Supreme Court

Earlier this month some sort of “table” of Evangelicals issued a call for bipartisan immigration reform. Whether willing accomplices or unwitting stooges (You Make the Call!), they served to provide cover for President Obama’s executive-policy/discretionary-enforcement/mini-Dream-Act, announced just three days later.

Whatever its motivation, this coalition of Evangelical groups outlined a set of principles that ended up looking a little more like a camel than a horse. Their hypothetical policy solution would:

  • Respect the God-given dignity of every person
  • Protect the unity of the immediate family
  • Respect the rule of law
  • Guarantee secure national borders
  • Ensure fairness to taxpayers, and
  • Establish a path toward legal status and/or citizenship for those who qualify and who wish to become permanent residents

This list of principles raises more questions than it answers. What about times when your respect for the immigrant’s God-given dignity conflicts with your respect for the rule of law? No advice is given. How do you ensure fairness to taxpayers while providing legal status (and all the attendant social services) to all who wish to stay? Silence. Focus on the Family–whose President Jim Daly signed the Table’s statement of principles–also issued its own, slightly more coherent, list of guiding principles, but they also leave too many loose ends.

'Protest against immigration laws and a call to remove Fort Snelling' photo (c) 2010, Fibonacci Blue - license: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/On Monday, the Supreme Court’s decision on Arizona’s immigration law thrust the issue back into the spotlight. As the media continues to discern which side emerged victorious (both President Obama and Gov. Brewer have claimed victory), I think there are some interesting lessons to be drawn from the text of the opinions.

Both Justice Kennedy, for the majority, and Justice Scalia, in one of his classic dissents, veered off from the narrow preemption issues before the Court to address the broader immigration debate. Justice Kennedy’s–worth attention merely for humor’s sake–reads like something out of a heart-warming, pro-immigration USA Today feature:

Immigration policy shapes the destiny of the Nation. On May 24, 2012, at one of this Nation’s most distin­guished museums of history, a dozen immigrants stood before the tattered flag that inspired Francis Scott Key to write the National Anthem. There they took the oath to become American citizens. These naturalization ceremonies bring together men and women of different ori­gins who now share a common destiny. They swear a common oath to renounce fidelity to foreign princes, to defend the Constitution, and to bear arms on behalf of the country when required by law. The history of the United States is in part made of the stories, talents, and lasting contributions of those who crossed oceans and deserts to come here.

What any of this has to do with Arizona’s decision to attempt to enforce federal law against folks who have never renounced their allegiance to various foreign potentates is beyond me, but at least we all know that Justice Kennedy *hearts* Immigrants.

Justice Scalia, on the other hand, devotes the first eight-and-a-half pages of his dissent to establishing the principle that “the defining characteristic of sovereignty [is] the power to exclude from the sovereign’s territory people who have no right to be there.” In other words, international borders are not friendly geographic suggestions. While little of this analysis bore on his subsequent analysis of whether SB 1070′s enforcement mechanisms are preempted, Justice Scalia still felt compelled to invoke Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century treatises on International Law to underline this obvious point. Why?

Well, maybe he was reading these Evangelical leaders. Nowhere in anything Focus or the “Table” wrote up was any recognition of Scalia’s principle of sovereign exclusion. Sure, there are allusions to the “rule of law” and “secure national borders,” but deportation is discounted as a non-starter due to the immigrant’s inherent human dignity. Without providing a philosophical defense of the exercise of the power to exclude, these Evangelicals are allowing national sovereignty to atrophy.

In other words, these Evangelical leaders checked the “immigrants have human dignity” box, but skipped the “nations don’t have to accept everybody” box. Justice Scalia’s dissent should remind them to be more, ahem, comprehensive in the future.