There is a lot of diversity in the Zocalo, the political, economic, and religous hub of Mexico City. Street vendors interact with businessmen in suits. Poor, middle class, and affluent people all interact with one another, including many different cultures and races. In America, our zoning and city planning have intentionally divided subgroups of people. There is usually not much diversity in American cities because we have set things up so that different groups of people do not interact. This type of city planning originated in London, where the first modern suburb was created. During that time, a group of Wesleyans did not want their women and children exposed to the messiness of urban London, so they withdrew to the outskirts of town to set up a sterile environment devoid of any unpleasantness. This process continues to this day, with many evangelical Christians in America withdrawing their families from the messiness of urban environments. I argue that this process harms society on many different levels, and sterile environments often bring about unintended negative consequences to these families.
God calls us as followers of Christ to engage and influence culture, not to withdraw from it. Why are so many Christians in Pittsburgh fleeing the city for the suburbs? Many Christians are fleeing older suburbs such as Shaler and North Hills for newer suburbs in Wexford and Cranberry because the urban problems have started to spread out from the city. In a few years the problems will reach Wexford and Cranberry, and then the suburbs will probably go out even further from the city center. Does God call us to be comfortable? Did Jesus live in a sterile environment apart from sinners?
Professor Gomez lectured again today about the rise and fall and rise again of the powerful Roman Catholic Church in Mexico City. It was a fascinating lecture about the gospel that is lost when church leaders intend to become influential and powerful. After the lecture, we visited Compassion International's offices in Mexico City. Many people know about this organization, and they work with over 20,000 children in central Mexico. We studied their ministry model, in which adults (many from the United States) sponsor a child for around $40 per month. I could tell that many children were being impacted, and the organization was very passionate and efficient about their calling. Compassion has a huge niche in the nonprofit world, but they are very much a top-down model of transformation. In other words, they bring outside resources (from other countries) to needy people. Bottom-up ministries work with poor people by equipping and empowering them to draw themselves out of poverty without much outside assistance. The bottom-up model is extremely transformational for communities. This does not mean that organizations like Compassion are not effective in what they do, it is just that often their ministries lean more towards mercy instead of justice.
Tomorrow we will be visiting a ministry model that is intentionally integral, or bottom-up. I am looking forward to seeing how this is implemented. I do not really have any problems with Compassion, but I am sometimes frustrated by people who give money to children who live in poverty half way across the world but do not notice the children living in poverty in their own city? It is easier to write a check to a child in a distant land than it is to mentor a child in Homewood. Mentoring kids in Homewood costs not only money, but time and talent. This is where much spiritual growth occurs, more so than writing a check. Also, much tranformation and life change occurs through the combination of compassion and justice.
2 comments:
Bryan
You know my heart on this, so I won't go into it here, but I completely agree with you on a 'bottom-up' approach. What frustrates me is that government sponsored public assistance, no matter how well intentioned, eventually teaches people to be dependant, rather than independent. So, when we endeavor to "work with poor people by equipping and empowering them to draw themselves out of poverty without much outside assistance" we have a much tougher job - we must first 'unteach' them dependence before we can teach the how to be independent.
Sometimes I really struggle with where are the boundaries, i.e. how much are we to do to help the poor to fulfill the Biblical edicts we are commanded to obey, and how much is just our desire to feel good about ourselves as we do 'social re-engineering'.
In an earlier blog discussion we touched on the difference of ameliorating suffering as opposed to showing people Christ in their suffering. I think there's a parallel here when we talk about social justice issues like poverty. I can't say I know where the line is, or if it's that black and white (no racial pun intended), but methinks there IS a line there somewhere, and when we cross it we start to work against the spreading of the Gospel (the underlying purpose of of our calling to work with the poor) instead of for it.
John V
Hey Bryan,
Some more thoughts on suburbia:
Why are people fleeing? Probably for the simple reasons like better schools for their kids, safer streets, etc... all that stuff. But what is often missed is how the structuring of cities has encouraged this flight. We are now a highway/automobile culture. Many people I know can drive to work from the suburbs faster than some people who live in the cities can walk or take the bus to work. Green movements are drawing attention to the problem of an automobile-dependent culture... but I think many people move away simple because they CAN. In other words, it's not entirely about "flight. (i.e, fear)" It's about convenience and the normalcy of civilization in a car-dependent society.
I will say though, that while the exodus from the cities does create a vacuum for problems in the city, suburbia has it's own share. I live on a quaint street in a pleasant suburb. On our street alone we have single-16-year old mom, several divorcees, immigrant family from the Congo, elderly retired black couple, recovering alcoholic single father with temper issues the whole street can hear, and an apartment complex behind us full of fun stuff...
I know from your other posts that you're not into suburbia-bashing... and I'm not trying to defend it. Much of suburbia should be held up to a critical lens. However, I'm starting to discover that it's not as simple as the wealthy running to the safety of the suburbs. It's about a new conception of space, transportation, etc. Most cities were built upon a pre-suburban understanding of how people interact. Now that we define space and connectedness through cars, internet, and a myriad of other ways to bridge distance, who needs to live in walking distance? (that question is asked facetiously)
- Tim
Post a Comment