A Living Alternative

A week ago when I posted "Open Missional Question: To Commute Or Not To Commute?", little did I expect the great, though often heated discussion that grew around the topic. At one point, recognizing that my post didn't accurately reflect my position on the issue or articulate the question clearly, I had to write an update to clarify. I really appreciated everyones honesty and contribution. Having given it more thought, I felt it would be appropriate to follow up in more detail where I was coming from and the heart behind the question.

First, I think it is important to clarify that I was not attempting to find some kind of univerisally applicable answer to this question. I was inquiring specifically out of the context in which we live and plan to plant out missional church community. The reality for us is that living and serving in a very poor inner city neighbourhood requires a significant dedication to careful missiology and contextualization. While every community requires such commitment, ours is a less common context in our culture, therefore fewer models exist from which we can learn.

In his excellent book "The Suburban Christian", Alber Y. Hsu explores the history and the impact of commuter culture, specifically on the suburban population. Hsu is very gracious and balanced, affirm the strengths and challenging the weakness of such a culture. However, he clearly demonstrates that commuters generally reflect a very unique set of cultural dynamics.

In the same way, our inner city community has formed around other dynamics that often run contrary to those in the suburbs, often creating tension and conflict when they cross paths. Let me be clear: I am not saying one context is better or worse than another, just different. Neither am I saying the potential for conflict is reason to avoid contact, but rather than such contact should be done intentionally and with care.

To that end, we are planting this missional church community with the primary purpose of connecting, serving and ministering to/with the people of Winnipeg's West End. Like any good missionary, we have spent several years learning, studying, participating and listening to our community. We have also looked at the nature and history of Christian involvement in the community, which has included disappearing churches moving to the suburbs and well intentioned, but often paternalistic "altruism" from the outside. All of these things have played a part in our preparations to plant this new church.

The biggest mistake I made in my original post was to use the word "discourage". Rather, what I had hope to ask was this: In what ways can be encourage and nurture primarily local involvement? Though I thought I said it clearly in the original post, let me also reiterate that we have always expected and intended for some commuters to be a part of our community. In fact, it I think it is healthy to do so. However, our primary focus and energy will go to reaching, serving and including the local community.

In his recent post on contextualization, Andrew Jones said (or shouted, rather):

"WE WERE BLIND TO OUR COLONIAL ABUSE BECAUSE WE WERE BLIND TO THE IMPACT OF OUR OWN CULTURE ON THE GOSPEL WE CARRIED."

I am very protective of my community, seeing the historic and current impact of (sometimes) well-intentioned, but colonialist-inspired paternalism and control. I am committed to seeing understanding and reconciliation between these often at-odds groups nurtured, but there comes a time where I will not allow abuse to continue in the name of inclusion. It is in this respect only that I would intentionally "discourage" participation, regardless of where they are coming from.

A few people suggested that it is disingenuous to discourage commuters while actively pleading for their financial support and volunteerism. While a very good point, one does not at all negate the other. There are many missionaries around the world that need (and deserve) the financial support of the established church community to further our shared mission of building God's Kingdom. However, few of us would question the issue if those same missionaries protected their often delicate, contextualized missional work from casual, unprepared Christians from "back home".

When we first planted our ministry here in the inner city, the single most foundational image God gave to us with respect to our role and identity in the community and the wider city was bridge builders. We are committed to seeing bridges built between inner city and suburban/rural communities, between the rich and poor, between the dominant (white) culture and non-white cultures, etc. To that end, we would never want to build walls around our community. We not only welcome those from outside our neighbourhood, but issue our own Macedonian call for you to join us.

However, let us do so with great care, dialogue and grace, for the stakes are high and the balance is often delicate. Anyone who lives and serves in the suburban world will know that it is an extremely difficult context to missionally engage- perhaps the hardest context to do so. In the same way, our inner city community faces real challenges that are impacted by the nature and means of the Christians who engage. All we ask is that you take the time to listen, learn and consider that impact before diving in.

Does that help clarify or I have I further complicated matters?

Missional Missional+Community Christianity Church+Planting Jesus Commuting