The Spirit and the Prophetic Church, Part 1, by Antipas L. Harris
The World Changers program saw some success. Perhaps, the limited coordination among the churches contributed to that success. The Presbyterian Church worked closely with the project, providing lunches on the job site for two of the work crews each of the two summers that Cradock Baptist Church led the project. The United Methodist Church provided lunch for one work crew the summer before the church closed down. The former pastor, Rev. Robert Edwards, saw the value of an ecumenical prophetic ministry and led in this collaboration. However, as a leader, he grew weary because the leadership at Cradock Baptist Church was not fully on board with a robust vision for prophetic ministry. Edwards is no longer the pastor. Today, most of the projects that he started no longer exist.
The churches of Cradock have resorted to their isolation with very little progress in community outreach. The lack of an ecumenical approach to ministry creates isolation. The burden of human and financial resources to sustain the efforts lay heavily on one congregation. Also, the church saw these ministry efforts as mere projects, handouts but never as hand ups. Furthermore, they did not see their efforts as central to their divine calling as the Body of Christ. As a result, the leadership voted to end its relationship with the USDA/Food Bank. They were concerned that the needy residents and the homeless would taint the church’s image in the community.
Adding to poor maintenance on the side of the government and city officials of Portsmouth, ministry isolation and self-interests among the churches within Cradock have contributed to social neglect within the Cradock community. For example, one church in the community has a million dollar endowment provided by a deceased parishioner. Yet, per the donor’s instructions the money from the endowment is restricted to the church building maintenance. We may never know why the donor would have restricted the funds to the building. Yet, this restricted gift communicates that the donor valued the upkeep of the building. It also reveals that a mindset in Cradock privileged the church building over the ministry of the church. At a time when the churches of Cradock reflected the material comfort of the community in which it found themselves, ministry was more priestly (provided services) than prophetic (initiating transformation). Now, there is a necessary shift from an accommodating model to a transformational model.34
PR
In Part 2:
More relevant examples of the failure to support inner-city churches, why God has called us to something better, and how we can find a way forward.
Notes
1 For example, sociologists W. Bradford Wilcox of the University of Virginia and Nicholas H. Wolfinger in the Department of Family and Consumer Studies report that religious institutions, namely churches, provide positive impact on people in urban communities, men, women and families. See W. Bradford Wilcox and Nicholas H. Wolfinger, “Then comes marriage? Religion, race, and marriage in urban America.” Social Science Research V 36, Issue (2), June 2007, 569-589. Also, see W. Bradford Wilcox and Nicholas H. Wolfinger, “Living and loving ‘decent’: Religion and relationship quality among urban parents,” Social Science Research, Volume 37, Issue (3) September 2008, 828–843.
2 Examples of the urban blight that cripples the cities of America include the problem of fatherlessness, gang-violence, human trafficking, racism, economic injustice, homelessness, and the education crisis.
3 A Conversation with Brian Gullins (Thursday, 12 January 2012).
4 Ibid.
5 A Conversation with Scott C. Alleman (Wednesday, 10 January 2012).
6 The problem observed does not suggest that all churches have the same problem. The problem exists on a continuum. Many churches possess ecclesiologies that are community focused; also, many of them are ecumenical in approach to ministry in the community.
7 By “ecumenical,” I mean local church coalitions. Scholars may term this a discourse on “reception” or “grassroots ecumenism.” There are several bodies of academic literature that addresses the need for ecumenical dialogue—dialogue amongst Christians, Interreligious dialogues, et cetera. I am aware that most of the ecumenical literature assumes a definition of “ministry” that is focused on church practices such as baptisms, ordination, church doctrine, recognition of members of the church, and the celebration of or administering of the sacraments). To borrow language from Leonard Swidler and others, this work aims to foster ecumenism of “mutual recognition” among churches for ministry beyond the walls of the church towards urban transformation. To this end, this work pushes the literature beyond “within the walls ministry” to “beyond the walls ministry.” This discussion deserves equal attention. Concerning the ecumenical dialogue among Christian traditions, a document from the 1967 World Council of Churches stated: “The ecumenical dialogue is not an end in itself. It is not an academic exercise.” [World Council of Church, “Ecumenical dialogue: Joint Working Group, 1967,” http://www.oikoumene.org/en/resources/documents/wcc-programmes/ecumenical-movement-in-the-21st-century/member-churches/special-commission-on-participation-of-orthodox-churches/sub-committee-ii-style-ethos-of-our-life-together/ecumenical-dialogue.html (Accessed 21 January 2012)]. The current discussion within the theological academy is meaningful; yet, there remains a gap between the discussion and ministry practice of ecumenism. Christopher Asprey correctly comments, “The “grassroots” of the church remain an ecumenical challenge.” [Christopher Asprey, “The Universal Church and the Ecumenical Movement” in Francesca Aran Murphy and Christopher Asprey (editors), Ecumenism Today: The Universal Church in the Twenty-first Century (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2008), 11]. There is room for more work to be done to move ecumenism beyond the dialogical categories for the purpose of pushing the churches towards “local reception” or “grassroots ecumenism.” [See Francesca Aran Murphy and Christopher Asprey (editors), Ecumenism Today: The Universal Church in the Twenty-first Century (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2008)]. Asprey explains that the problem is related to issues sometimes referred to as “reception” in the theology of ecumenism.
Category: Ministry, Pneuma Review, Spring 2013
Followers
Fans
