Comments on: Simply complex

By: Catherine

Catherine — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 18:35:07 +0000

I think David Wierzbicki’s warning against over-generalizations is well-placed. What ultimately matters is one individual’s obedience to the unique mission God gave him, and personal obedience should trump conformity every time – hopefully, without undermining by fellow believers. I second that motion, strongly.

With that caveat upfront, let me try to say as respectfully as possible that I am troubled by the way the missional church movement seems to elevate identification with neighbor as an end in itself. That framing seems to me to lead into thickets because – as this particular post suggests – perfect identification is an ever-elusive goal. Into the vacuum rush frustrations that actually impede comity and confuse instrumental means for ultimate spiritual goals to a degree that is quite self-defeating, even destructive, in the end.

This posture seems markedly different to me from past generations of seminary graduates who sought to love the poor in Christ’s name and, after living among them, began to work with neighborhood residents on practical problem-solving that – in my opinion – did veer too far into partisan politics at times. Without having any idea whether I’m right, I suspect that this narrowing tendency of the missional church is a function of the very legitimate desire to ensure that faith is not reduced to a utilitarian equation in which its worth is measured by the ability to deliver measurable improvements on social indicators. That is the right direction in which to err, in my view; but I am surprised by how many worries discussed on missional blogs these days feel to me like the proverbial permit for the monkey. I begin to suspect that maybe the vision of the missional church is, after all, too small?

If we could agree to prize the deeper empathy that comes naturally as the happy byproduct of life together in service of some other-stated goal, how would that “other goal” be defined? This to me is a $6 billion question that speaks to whether the missional church will be a passing spiritual fad or – as I once hoped – the first stirrings of Spirit-led revival, not only for our cities, but also for mother church.

By: Joe Bumbulis

Joe Bumbulis — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 03:15:00 +0000

Thanks for this perspective. Every time I talk about anti-consumerism, Buy Nothing Day, etc I always try to give the caveat that it’s the wealthy’s responsibility to do these things. Not shopping at WalMart or buy Fair Trade is not the responsibility of the poor who are merely trying to survive, but to those who have had excess for so long. Thanks again!

By: indie

indie — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 02:44:53 +0000

I remember feeling pretty disgusted at the people who would line up at Walmart on Black Friday after the guy was trampled, but then I remembered one Christmas a few years ago when we had no money. We were gifted with three gift cards, two for a grocery store and one for Target by some folks that didn’t know us but had just heard that we were having a hard time. My husband went out to Target on Black Friday and got a digital camera. It was our one and only gift for Christmas for the family, including our child. And it was a very practical gift to ourselves as it allowed us to save money on film and developing. Its funny that we can forget so easily after coming to a better place, but once I remembered that experience I stopped feeling so judgmental and I realized that my ability to buy nothing on Black Friday was coming from a place of privilege.

By: erika

erika — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 19:57:16 +0000

Thanks for sharing the link and for putting your thoughts out there. This kind of conversation happens best when there are multiple voices and perspectives, so thanks for adding yours!

By: david

david — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 19:49:48 +0000

thanks for this erika. i resonate with the spirit presented here, but i have some reservations. i decided to write about it in my own space instead of a lengthy comment here.

http://davidwierzbicki.com/blog/2009/01/19/privileged-simplicity/

By: erika

erika — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 18:11:38 +0000

Elizabeth,

Thanks for your honest critique. I think it (supporting people who are choosing to be poor) is something that feels comfortable to most when it is in the context of something like “overseas missions”. Churches and individuals have a long history of supporting capable “earners” who choose to go live in a jungle or slum somewhere for the sake of service and mission; when it is local and urban or less “formal”, it perhaps feels different to many people to be in that same supporting role?

By: Elizabeth

Elizabeth — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 15:20:27 +0000

Something that has always bothered me is when people intentionally choose to live below their means, as you were describing, Erika, then seem to frequently be asking or expecting people that do have means to give to them when a car breaks down, medical bills come due, etc. I get that people with means willingly are giving to others, but it seems that there is this expectation that those with financial means should help out the people who have chosen to be poor (I’m not talking about the “real” poor). It seems that there is something wrong with this picture.

By: Llama Momma

Llama Momma — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 12:59:55 +0000

Wow. Just wow.

You capture the enormous complexity of this issue so well. Thank you for saying it all out loud.

By: Brunettekoala

Brunettekoala — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 11:05:36 +0000

Keep writing and sharing Erika.

This stuff challenges me to my core, and really gets me thinking.