I have been working on a theory regarding social justice: that your particular expression of social concern will be dictated by where you live and minister. The concerns of the people who live in your area will dictate what shape your social justice will take.
In the country town where I grew up there are few, if any, homeless people. However, there are many widows, many struggling families, many financial hardships depending on the success of the particular growing season. Therefore this changes how as the body of Christ we care for the disadvantaged.
Should I feel guilty that my current suburban church doesn't run a soup kitchen? The reality is that I don't. But should I? I would contend that living in the suburbs is different to living in the heart of the city and thus the ministry we undertake to the disadvantaged will look different. I don't feel guilty about not running a soup kitchen, but I get the feeling from some people that I should.
However, perhaps I'm just washing my hands of responsibility. For by my theory, if I lived on the North Shore would my particular expression of social justice mean consoling the family with only one BMW?
The seemingly unrelated tangent
Much has been written about the effect technology is having on the existing church model. The result of globalisation, which itself has arisen from the increasing speed in which people and information can travel, means the existing model needs to change. When sermons can be streamed live into loungerooms on the other side of the room, we are living in a new world. The existing model that I've heard recently challenged is the parish based system of church. That is, the artificial boundary line drawn up and everyone within that boundary is the responsibility of one church. With the speed of travel these days, people no longer live, work and play all in the one place. They now have affinities perhaps in different places for each of these activities. Therefore, as well as the parish based model we must develop Christian groups that target the people who meet across parish boundaries for their work or play.
The tangent link revealed
What does this have to do with social justice? One benefit of the parish system is we look after the people in our area, we see the particular needs relevant to those we care for and act accordingly. There is a danger as the effect of globalisation shrinks the world, that while my definition of neighbour is now much larger, I stop caring for my literal neighbour who lives beside me. However in contrast to this, if the particular struggles of my fellow suburbanites are relatively minor compared with others, should I expand my definition of neighbour? If we don't need a soup kitchen should I go into the city and run one?
Conclusion
I like soup.
Helpful thnoughts.
ReplyDeleteThe live/work/play thing was one of the most helpful paradigms that Driscoll mentioned when he was in Brisbane.
I think, that it means all our ministry should take place with Mars Bars, rather than soup.
I'm liking this current series on social justice - and I'm struck by a couple of things, two of which involve stories about Mitch Grivins.
Firstly, I think there's an inherent need for churches to care for the poor - it's scripturally mandated.
I agree that there'll be different "poor and needy" based on geographic circumstances, but I think the Biblical model involved churches with plenty equipping churches in less fortunate areas with financial aid in order to carry out the work. This happens to a degree in the denominational system. It also happens when churches give to mission organisations.
But I think some social justice should occur within your social framework.
I remember going to a Christian music festival a few years back with Mitch. Where a band played who spruiked that all proceeds from their CD sales would go to building wells and buying goats in third world countries.
After the gig Mitch took this band to task because he thought they'd be better off spending it on gospel work (ala your post yesterday). This was helpful in someways - because while I don't think it's an either/or thing - I think one without the other is futile.
Now, Mitch is in WA and going to a church that's in the CBD and helps (and loves) the itinerant population and a series of drug addled people who troop through the doors - he made the comment that through meeting these people's needs a greater sense of community is created amongst those doing the serving than in any other church he has been a part of.
In my lack of computer nouse (either that or my self absorbed obsession) i searched my name in Google to see if I could find the blog that i recently created http://alivingsacrifice-worship.blogspot.com/ so i could post my first blog. I found someone had made a comment about "mitch grivins" and the link took me here. Im glad it did, as I'd love to reply and comment on nathan's post.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, when I approached that guy and asked him if his money was being spent in the best possible way... I was young, naive and arrogant. I still am I'm sure.
I wanna say amen to your comments about loving the people who God puts you amongst. The way you care for people and love them will depepned on where you are. Each place has it's own culture which will often vary dramatically from town to town and suburb to suburb. Different people have different needs and we have to find out what they are and meet them.
I'm learning so much that if I love people, I won't only tell them about Jesus, i will help meet their needs too and walk alongside them. And by meeting their needs and caring for people it assures these people that I love them like Jesus has.
The way we care for people will look different depending on who we are amongst. 1 Cor:19-27. This is an obvious statement, but one that rings true for me at the moment.