Urban Rumblings: July 2008

Christians come at mission from two distince angles - Church Planting where the goal is to establish churches indigenous to the local culture and wholistic development which aims to local communities empowered to pursue their own goals.

But if we are serious about planting indigenous churches then we can't ignore the material situation of the community, and if we are serious about empowering wholistic development, then it should empower spiritual independence ... so perhaps the two are not so far apart.

That's the crux of the essay below. Sorry there is a bit of extra stuff padding it (course requirements). Maybe I'll edit it down some time. Happy reading.

Introduction
This paper develops a model for Christian ministry in urban Australia that draws on the theology, principles, and practices of transformational development. Initial analysis compares the contexts of the two, namely the nature of poverty in urban Australia and the nature of poverty in the Two-Thirds World. Next we turn to the nature of the church in the inner city in Australia, locating it historically before outlining the current issues that it faces. Next we outline the key features of transformational development – its theological framework and principles. Finally, we bring the insights of transformational development into the context of the inner city and the inner city church to outline an integrated model for church planting and development.
McAlpine (1995, 6) and Myers (2005, 1) have developed an understanding of development “in which physical, social and spiritual development are seamlessly interrelated” (Myers, 1). Myers (3) calls this “transformational development”, describing it as “… seeking positive change in the whole of human life materially, socially and spiritually”. Three aspects of this definition are critical. The first is that development is fundamentally about change in people. Secondly, offering an opportunity to hear the good news of Jesus is a core component of transformational development (88). Thirdly, material, social and spiritual transformation are inseparable. This is the understanding of transformational development that will be used for this paper.
Poverty in the Australian context
The context which has birthed transformational development are predominantly from the Two-Thirds World and largely rural. In this section we look at the understanding of poverty developed in this context and compare it with poverty in urban Australia.
What is poverty?
Myers (2005, 65-81) provides a summary of the ways poverty is understood by transformational development practitioners:
Poverty is a deficit of material, skill and spiritual resources.
Poverty is a trap made of the six elements of: material poverty, physical weakness, isolation, vulnerability, powerlessness and spiritual poverty.
Poverty is a lack of access to social power.
Poverty is disempowerment caused by the interaction of cultural, biophysical, personal, religious and social systems.
Poverty is limitations imposed by others out of their own self-interest.
From this survey, it is clear that poverty is not only physical/material in its nature but also social/cultural and personal/spiritual. Myers concludes that the nature of poverty is essentially relational. The relationships of the poor lack shalom in five critical dimensions: their self-understanding is marred, others treat them oppressively, their environment does not support their material needs, their community/culture/social system restricts their opportunities for change, and their understanding of God is inadequate (86f).
Welfare state
In Australia, as elsewhere, poverty is a politicised issue and so estimates of poverty range from 3% to over 40% (Saunders 2003, 11). Unlike Two-Thirds World countries in general, a welfare system in Australia ensures that all citizens have at least a minimal regular income. On many indicators, the Australian welfare system compares well with those of other countries. Australian mothers and people aged 45-64 have the highest rates of participation in the work force, for example (Newman n.d., 3f). Whilst the welfare state’s aims of social equality, minimum standards of provision and social cohesion have only been partially achieved, there is some justification for saying that it has prevented even greater excesses of inequality (Ife 2002, 3).
As the welfare state in Australia ensures a level of material support, the cultural/social and personal/spiritual aspects of poverty are more prominent. That is to say, people who are poor in Australia generally have a personal history that has brought them to that point. It may be a history of trauma, of lack of social or work skills, an illness or disability, a lack of self worth, or their racial background. This is in contrast to the Two-Thirds World where there is generally a shared (community and often national) history of inadequate access to markets and resources.
It is too simplistic however to say that there is no material need in Australia. Social security benefits are consistently below the Henderson Poverty Line (Brotherhood 2005, 1). While the absolute value of benefits in Australia is significant on an international scale, their purchasing power is much more modest. Estimates of purchasing power parity suggest that social security recipients could be equated with the typical Indonesian in terms of the lifestyle that they can afford (Weaver, Rock and Kusterer 1997, 17).
The trend in Australia is toward greater inequality and greater welfare dependency. Whilst there are more two-income families there are also more families with no income earners (Newman n.d., 3f). Further, if reliance on the welfare system is an indicator, poverty in Australia is growing. Lone parent families are on the increase and less than half of these are in work. Social security dependence was at 10% in 1978 and almost doubled by 1998 (18%) (3f). In the 1960’s, 22 workers paid for every one person who was wholly or mainly reliant on welfare support, at the beginning of the 21st Century the ratio is 5 to 1 (Saunders 2003, 3) and shows no sign of abating.
Saunders (2003, 8f) suggests the welfare state is promoted by four categories of people: social professionals out of self-interest, the intellectually lazy as it has become a mark of being ‘progressive’, those who argue it is needed economically to meet people’s basic needs, and those who argue it is needed sociologically to forge a bond between the more and less fortunate. Saunder’s analysis is a telling insight for urban missionaries, particularly with respect to the first two categories. Individually and on an organisational level, Christian development agents must recognise that the poor keep them in a job. While development agents may nobly claim that they are working to put themselves out of business, few can point to situations where they have actually achieved this, and cynics are quick to point out the danger of self-interest (Ransom 2005, 2). Intellectually also, Christians could be more rigorous. Often our (right) response is to the circumstances of those in need, but we must also ask the deeper questions such as what the causes are behind these circumstances (recognising that they may be varied) and what actions will actually make the circumstances better and help avoid them in the future. Moreover, urban missionaries must recognise that their mission is not dependent solely on the plight of those they would seek to help. That is to say the Shalom of God that they come to foster goes beyond the provision of basic needs and the forging of a bridge between the more and less fortunate whether it be economic or social. There will always be a place in every community for more of the Shalom of God until he comes again. The ‘mission’ is also independent of the plight of the urban needy in that when the missionaries have come, completed their work, handed it over to local people and moved on, the work of the local community will continue.
Saunders (2003, 40f cp Sullivan 2000, 1) argues that the welfare state creates poverty through laziness and dependency. He cites the increase in reliance on the Disability Support Pension (from 2 to 5% for working age recipients between 1980 and 2003) and the transfer of people from Newstart (unemployment benefit) to the more generous Disability Support Pension (300 000 in the same period) as evidence. Sullivan (2000, 47) concludes “Poverty in Australia today is not financial, but behavioural.” We must agree with her that not all causes of poverty are external (1, 3f, 6f, 45f). Personal sin is as prevalent amongst the poor as any community. It results in abuse of the welfare system and an inadequate worldview and self-view, all of which contribute to poverty. But it remains that Australian poverty is also entrenched by the action or inaction of the non-poor who marginalise people because of difference, blame people for their situation of poverty or simply ignore them. It also remains that social security payments, at any level, cannot generate all the support that is needed for fullness of life (Jn 10:10). As well as lack of connection with God, the city suffers from lack of community. Ife (2002, 16) identifies lack of community as part of the poverty of the modern industrial society. Industrialisation brought a shift from relating to relatively few people known well to relating to many people known only via their role - a shift from knowing others as people to knowing others by their role. This is especially true in urban and suburban settings (13).
The faces of Australian poverty
The faces of poverty in urban Australia are the homeless, the physically and mentally ill, addicts, and indigenous people. Most people in these categories qualify for public housing so public housing estates are the ghettos of Australia. The commonality of these groups is a lack of supportive relationships and personal skills, and social marginalisation. When in the ‘ups and downs of life’, things go down and there is no supportive network to carry people through, many fall through to the bottom. The escape of addictions or the abandonment of responsibility that homelessness brings become their support network. The stress of trauma often results in mental illness. For indigenous people and the mentally ill the stigma of social unacceptability enforces their poverty.
As across the advanced economies of the world, the welfare state in Australia seems increasingly unable to redress the widening income gap within urban communities. Homelessness in the advanced economies is at its highest level since the end of World War II. The causes of this trend are argued – globalisation, unemployment and insufficient safety nets are popular candidates. Job opportunities for unskilled workers have shrunk with the contraction of some industries and the movement of jobs to low wage countries. For people who find themselves temporarily out of work or in some other major disadvantage and unable to access social capital through their family or other networks, welfare safety nets have not provided the support needed to enable them to re-enter the market. Those who become homeless tend to be those whose vulnerability is exacerbated by health, drug and alcohol issues, or physical or sexual abuse. The traditional homeless ‘wino’ has been joined by unemployed younger men, by the mentally ill without institutions to care for them, by women and children escaping domestic violence, and by young people whose families can’t cope. Shortages of public housing and increasing rents mean many individuals and families stay in emergency accommodation for long periods and their homelessness, disempowerment and vulnerability are reinforced. Australia’s 1996-1997 estimate of homelessness of 147 000 or 0.8% of the total population compares favourably with the US figure of 1.2% but is way above the UK figure of 0.2% (UNHSP 2004, 124-129; Johnstone and Mandryk 2001, 83, 649, 657).
Australia compared with the Two-Thirds World
In Australia then, as compared with the Two-Thirds World, poverty is more abruptly social/cultural and personal/spiritual in nature, though this regularly results in physical/material lack as well. The welfare network maintains a minimal level of income, preventing material destitution but also exacerbating a poverty of dependency. Where Two-Thirds World development strategies are based around communities and households (Myers 2005, 62), Australian society lacks a community to work with. While amongst the poor of the Two-Thirds World there is the full range of talent waiting to be unleashed through opportunity, the poor in Australia are the least skilled, the least educated, the least healthy and the least motivated.
“Most of the world’s poor are in the Two-Thirds World’s unreached communities” (Consultation 1999, 395), so both social action and evangelism are very relevant for the Two-Thirds World, addressing the issues of poverty and lack of knowledge of God. The urban situation in Australia is quite similar. As we have seen in the previous two sections, the inner city is a focal locality for the poor. At the same time it is a place where the church is conspicuously absent. In Sydney for example, the ‘Bible belt’, which runs roughly South East to North West, contains all of the Baptist churches that have more than one pastor. In the inner city, the Western and South Western suburbs – the poorer suburbs – the churches are smaller and fewer.[1] This is not just a Baptist phenomenon, but typical of all of the denominations. The Two-Thirds World and Australian urban contexts are also similar in that both are experiencing increasing pressure on private organisations to provide social services and infrastructure. As Western governments withdraw from bilateral partnerships in the Two-Thirds World, they are increasingly looking to private development organisations to fill the gap (408). In Australia a similar shift has already occurred with government contracting many social services to private organisations. In both contexts the majority of organisations taking up the gaps are Christian in some sense.
There is at least anecdotal evidence that the Two-Thirds World and urban Australia are viewed quite differently in the eyes of Australian Christians. In the author’s experience, the need for mission overseas, and the need for such mission to respond to practical needs, are much more readily accepted than similar needs within Australia. The paucity of missional endeavours in the urban context bears this out. The reasons behind this include: looking at a situation close to home challenges people’s own values more sharply; a tendency to blame poverty on its victims – particularly where a free market economy and a well-developed social security system are seen as removing the barriers to personal achievement; and the dilemma of the priority of physical versus spiritual needs, which many would rather not engage in. It is telling in this context that Jesus presents a socially despised Samaritan who acts in practical compassion as the archetypal neighbour – a confronting image (Lk 10:25-37).
So the Two-Thirds World and urban Australian situations are similar in that an approach that combines evangelism and social action is very relevant to both. They differ in that the focus is more strongly on the social/cultural and personal/spiritual causes of poverty in Australia, as there is a basic level of material provision but a significant lack of personal and social resources amongst the poor.
Being church in the inner city
This section places urban ministry in Australia in its historical and contemporary context.
The history of the urban church in Australia
The first phase of urban church development in Australia (1788-1850) might be labelled the State Church phase. Some keen evangelicals ensured that a chaplain, Robert Johnson, arrived with the First Fleet, and the colonial government made church attendance compulsory for both convicts and their keepers. Thus very early on the church was identified with oppressive authority, typified by Johnson’s successor, Samuel Marsden who became known as the “flogging parson”, because he held the roles of judge and Christian minister at the same time. Thus the resentment of the common people toward the church was established very early. The higher church attendance in Melbourne (35%) as compared to Sydney (24%) in 1880 was attributed to the more oppressive nature of the east coast colony. As well as a role in the judiciary, the church was given responsibility for education and was seen as a vehicle of civilising and supporting the broken society of the new colony (Canon 1978).
From the 1830’s began the City Church phase. A worldwide awakening saw the establishment of churches of every denomination in the cities of Australia. These were generally in large buildings in the centre of the city. Mission was very attached to the building with high profile preachers who drew large crowds from the breadth of the city and huge Sunday Schools, which were the main channel by which people joined the church.
From 1850 endeavours were begun to take religion to the working and poorer classes. Samuel Gould at Pitt St Congregational Church in Sydney was the first in 1849. He had a program of visiting, tracts, prayer meetings and religious services and also a free school for reading and writing. In 1862 Sydney City Mission followed the pattern of London City Mission. In this City Mission era, mission was based in “Mission Halls” which provided material relief as well as evangelistic services, and were often the site of the only social gathering that penniless people could afford.
The Maritime strike of 1890 prompted a renewed look at social questions and Government took on more responsibility. A separation of benevolent services and evangelism emerged which was reinforced by the fundamentalist-modernist controversy of the 1920’s. The former city missions began to function as agencies. They either stopped their evangelistic work or split into two arms, one for benevolent services and the other for church development (Hynd 1984).
The 1970’s saw the rise of the Urban Ministry Movement - small, grassroots groups that emphasised living amongst the poor. Their approach to mission was an integration of social services (generally of an informal nature) and evangelism. Some groups came and went, but both independent groups and those attached to mainstream denominations have persisted to the present. The rise of post-modernism has increased the popularity of this approach but this movement remains relatively small (Kaldor).
At the beginning of the third millennium, the church finds itself largely absent from the inner city areas of Australia. The rise of the commuter suburb as the dominant mode of urban planning and the high correlation between Christianity and the middle class, has drawn Australian Christians away from the inner city to the suburbs. From the 1850’s, the inner city was regarded as the home of the poor and marginalised, so ‘redemption lift’, the upward economic and social mobility experienced by many people when they become Christians, meant that inner city converts soon moved to the suburbs (Conn & Ortiz 2001, 341). Christians are present in the inner city in the vestiges of the bygone eras of the urban church. The resentment of authority and the identification of authority with the church persist, so that in its efforts to reach the poor, the church remains on the back foot. The central city cathedrals, which were once packed with people drawn from across the whole city now struggle with small congregations. The one exception is the Charismatic Movement, which continues to establish city churches with a performance focus. The city missions, while many retain this name, operate as social service agencies, with little or no congregational presence. Every major denomination has a social service arm and a church arm. Almost universally, these operate in parallel, rather than in co-operation. It is only amongst the Urban Ministry Movement that we find a real focus on being present as a community in both word and deed.
Challenges for the urban church in Australia
At the beginning of the third millennium the church in Australia faces the challenges of being present in the inner city as community, in word and in deed. Mark Gornik (2002) gives a picture of what the life of a church responding to these challenges might look like.
Presence as community
The first challenge for the church is to be residentially present in the inner city. There are simply just not enough Christians living in and engaging the inner city as a missional zone. We have seen that this has been largely a response to the poverty of the inner city. Since the 1990’s another demographic dynamic has come into play. The inner city has become popular as a residential location for those seeking a more bohemian lifestyle. Affluent workers, actors, artists and the gay community now live alongside those in public housing, boarding houses, refuges and on the street. This trend has added two more challenges to inner city ministry. Firstly as housing prices have increased rapidly, it has made living in the city financially more difficult for (middle class) Christians. Secondly, there is now another set of social groups, which the church has historically had little success in reaching, which are resident in the inner city. To limit the scope of this study, the focus will be on the implications of transformational development amongst the poor in the inner city.
Presence as word
A natural consequence of the lack of Christians living in the city is a lack of proclamation by word. A variety of groups have attempted to redress the lack of proclamation through strategies other than moving Christians in to the inner city. Some come to the inner city specifically to hold evangelistic outreaches featuring singing, preaching and the distribution of literature. Others come specifically to provide some material support such as food for homeless people. Some groups link the two approaches.
Admirable as they are, there are a number of shortcomings in these approaches. Often the engagement with local people is limited so there is little opportunity to develop relationships and hence little effectiveness in proclaiming the gospel authentically or in provoking an authentic response. When local people do respond to the message proclaimed, such missions provide little opportunity for following people up, and any follow-up that is provided tends to move people away from their own locality and their own culture to become part of a faith community somewhere else. Christian presence is once again withdrawn from the inner city. As the Christian workers return to the suburbs after their outreach activity, they reinforce the notion that the inner city is an inappropriate place for Christians.
Presence as deed
As we have seen, the inner city is the location of much human need, and Christians are not unaware of this. We have already noted that some short-term missions to the inner city include helping people in practical ways. In addition, the church is present in deed through numerous church agencies that provide human services such as accommodation for the homeless people, or drug and alcohol rehabilitation. These agencies operate amongst non-church agencies, which provide similar services. They are generally quite corporate in their structure, and predominantly government funded. As a consequence the number of Christians amongst their staff is limited. These agencies certainly provide needed social services, and most have a Christian history and Christian influence in their mission statement. Few, however, provide anything of presence as word in their ministry, and fewer still link their work to a worshipping Christian community that those they help are encouraged to be part of.
The Life of the inner city church
Mark Gornik (2002, 65f) provides a helpful threefold framework, which fleshes out what a community present in both word and deed - “a grassroots church in the inner city” - might look like. He speaks of Kingdom Life, Common Life and Witnessing Life perspectives.
The Kingdom Life perspective (Gornik 2002, 67-74) focuses on the church as called into being by and serving the reign of God. This is pictured in the parable of the Great Banquet (Lk 14:15-24). The banquet welcomes the lost, the forgotten and the rejected. The story of the feast also points us to the joy in which the church is to live. With a readiness to forgive and to deny worldly concepts of status, the church lives as an open community, which anticipates and provides a foretaste of the fullness of the Kingdom, which is to come. The church gathers for worship (Mt 18:20; 1 Cor 14:23) but it also has an ongoing life. And because God chooses to build his Kingdom amongst the poor (Lk 6:20; cf Mt 5:3; Luke 1:52f; 7:22f), this ongoing life is located on the street - in the places of the poor. “When we speak of the church of the poor and suffering, one that is evangelical in the gospel sense, it is important to emphasize that we do not mean a church that has a unique concern or special ministry to the poor, a mission from the outside. Rather, a church of the poor is a fellowship amidst the hurting and harmed, the excluded and the suffering” (73, italics mine).
The Common Life perspective (Gornik 2002, 74-90) stresses the centrality of a vibrant common life. The church is not a collection of individuals but a “social body built around Christ”. “It is this common life – how people care for one another, generate new patterns of relationship, and take seriously the call to serve their neighbors [sic] – that sets the church apart.” The Christian community living together in a particular locality is the translation of the gospel into the vernacular of that place, with “all the ambiguity of human frailty and cultural limitations”. Such a community is to be a community of grace, welcome, reconciliation and sharing. “Relationships of honesty, support, and encouragement are sustained in the God of grace.” Welcome means a sense of “coming home” for the dislocated individuals of the inner city. Reconciliation is the ongoing work of relating rightly where there has been offence or disconnection. Sharing includes not only the things of the gospel, but of one another’s lives (1 Thess. 2:8), not only communion with Christ, but material possessions used for the common good (Acts 2:42-47; 4:32-35; 2 Cor. 8f; Gal 6:6; Phil. 4:5). Community organisation and community development should arise from the practice of sharing. These images of the Common Life are ideals which call us forward, but the real testimony to God’s grace is loving and persevering with the community that is, in its incompleteness, in the light of what it is becoming.
The Witnessing Life perspective (Gornik 2002, 90-95) reiterates the necessity of action that welcomes the vulnerable and the outcast. Words, actions and the church’s internal life must witness consistently to God’s welcome for those on the edge and the power of the gospel to bring wholeness out of brokenness. A commitment to stay in the inner city for the long haul and share in its ups and downs, and in its shame, is a mark of authentic inner city witness.
Conclusion
Christian ministry thus faces the following challenges in the inner city. Firstly, and pre-eminently, there is the challenge to be physically, residentially, locally present. Because the church has moved out of the inner city over the years, establishing a local worshipping community means church planting. Secondly, there is the challenge to be present both in word and deed, offering the good news of transformation of poor living situations into fulfilling ones as well as the best news of transformation toward the likeness of Christ.
Theological Framework of Transformational Development
At this point in our study we turn to an outline of transformational development – first its theological framework and then its operational principles. In each case, following the outline we will reflect on the insights it provides for urban ministry. We will examine the theological framework of transformational development by looking at its goals and its understanding of holistic development.
Goals
Myers (2005, 113) defines the goal of development as the unshakable Kingdom of God via the person of Jesus. In concrete terms this means the Shalom of God: “… just, peaceful, harmonious and enjoyable relationships with each other, ourselves, our environment, and God.” He elaborates on this goal under the headings of “Changed People” and “Just and Peaceful Relationships”. Changed people means that people will discover their true identity in that they are made in the image of God and their true vocation in that they are gifted to contribute to their own well being and that of their community. These goals are the same for both the poor and the non-poor. Just and peaceful relationships means restored relationships with God, oneself, one’s community, those who are ‘other’ to us and with one’s environment. Relationship with God is the central, key relationship in this set.
Shalom is a much more far-reaching goal than more common statements such as “transferring resources”, “building capacity”, or “increasing choices” (Myers 2005, 115-120). Shalom is God’s pervasive desire for all people, poor and non-poor. This is an ideal goal statement for urban ministry because it encompasses the poor and the new rich of the inner city, as well as mission agents who might come to minister amongst them. It mitigates against an ‘us and them’ mentality because it recognises that God’s desire is to transform all people toward his coming Kingdom. Moreover, as Shalom is the goal of God’s kingdom then it follows that it is the all-consuming goal of church planting also. Thus, in the Shalom of God transformational development and church Planting share the same ultimate goal.
Holistic Development
A holistic understanding of the world
Early in the paper we adopted Myer’s (2005, 3) definition of transformational development, “… seeking positive change in the whole of human life materially, socially and spiritually”. Foundational to this definition is a holistic understanding of persons. People are integrated physical, social and spiritual beings. We cannot touch just one aspect of a person in isolation. The way we respond to physical and social needs, for example, will affect the other’s understanding of, and faith in, the spirit that we represent. Holism stands in contract to dualism, which sees a person’s spiritual being, often referred to as their soul, as distinct from their physical being. This kind of thinking was prevalent in the 19th and 20th Centuries and is reflected in the history of urban ministry in the evolution of the church missions into social services agencies, and in the maintenance of two quite distinct ministry arms – services/social and church/spiritual – by all of the mainstream denominations. Viewing people and the world holistically is a new notion to a Western, modernist world. For non-western cultures it is the norm however. With the mingling of East and West in our global society and the rise of post-modernism in the West, holism is becoming more familiar and helping to steer the church toward a richer understanding of mission.
To think holistically is to recognise that everything is connected to everything else. Our world and the people in it are intricately connected together and not easily divisible into their parts. Time also should be viewed holistically. The past, the present, the future and eternity are connected. People are connected in relationship with God, self, community and ‘others’ (Myers 2005, 134). A holistic understanding also recognises that there are multiple causes of poverty. Individual decisions, community culture, national business and government structures, and international markets and organisations all have their influence through a complex web of connections. Along these lines for example, the prophets warn that idolatry, personal sin and social sin are a “seamless package” (32).
Holistic mission
Having established a holistic understanding of the world and of people, the next task is to outline an appropriate missional response. Given the interrelatedness of the various aspects of our being that we have discussed, it would be inadequate and frustrating to attempt to deal with only one aspect of people in isolation. Further we must be concerned about all aspects of people, because God is. God has not only created people as integrated physical, social and spiritual beings, he cares about each aspect of their being. He is concerned when people lack food (Pr 10:3), when people are lonely (Gn 2:18), and when people don’t connect with him (Mt 23:37). The story of the woman who had been bleeding for twelves years illustrates this well (Mk 5:25-34). She is physically healed, but Jesus notes that she has faith – it is a spiritual change, and Jesus makes a point of showing the crowd that she is ritually clean and therefore socially acceptable again.
It is interesting to note that development practitioners that do not come from a faith-based perspective are increasingly recognising the importance of spirituality in human development. Some see spirituality as a source of the ethics necessary for good development (Consultation 1999, 395). Ife (2002, 161-199) says spirituality increases people’s sense of worth and purpose, enabling them to more readily develop in other areas. Marshall similarly affirms the values of what she refers to as “soul”, which highlights “the need to delve into the core values that give purpose to our work”, encourages “Qualities much in demand in development work— humility, courage, and conviction” and most importantly, affirms common ethical values such as the Golden Rule and “the constant quest for excellence in an effort to give meaning to life and contribute to the community” (Marshall 2004, 8f).
Spirituality is where Christian development is, or at least, should be, the strongest. It begins with God as the external reference point from which the value of persons, and their purpose in knowing God and living under his Shalom, arise. The response of one Ethiopian at an international consultation of faith-based organisations warns us that this does not happen automatically, “A great majority of [faith-based organisations] have not been engaged in systematic learning about how to apply their spiritual tradition in their development endeavors [sic]. Instead they, presumably unconsciously, follow the current fad of mainstream development practices and operate within their conceptual and philosophical frameworks which are essentially materialistic” (Marshall 2004, 25).
Holistic mission means seeing that “…the gospel message is an organic whole” (Myers 2005, 213). The words, deeds and presence of the Christian community can all proclaim the gospel and indeed do so best when they are present together and are consistent with the message they present (Langmead 2004, 216-218). Each individual may initially connect with a different part of our missional engagement, but over time the connections of an integrated approach will help to engage them with all of the gospel.
In the context of seeking justice also, the spiritual, social and material are not easily divided. This is reflected in the Micah Declaration (Micah 2000): “We affirm that the struggle against injustice is spiritual. We commit ourselves to prayer, advocating on behalf of the poor not only before the rulers of this world, but also before the Judge of all nations.”
Classically, holistic mission has meant that proclaiming God’s word through evangelism and doing God’s work through social action were closely integrated in the practice of mission (McAlpine 2005, 5-7; e.g. Nicholls 1985[2]; Sine 1991, 178-181; Bosch 1994, 400-408; Sugden 1999, 237; Conn & Ortiz 2001, 340). The Micah Declaration (Micah 2001), summarises this understanding: “Integral mission or holistic transformation is the proclamation and demonstration of the gospel. It is not simply that evangelism and social involvement are to be done alongside each other. Rather, in integral mission our proclamation has social consequences as we call people to love and repentance in all areas of life. And our social involvement has evangelistic consequences as we bear witness to the transforming grace of Jesus Christ.”
Another key phrase from the Micah Declaration outlines a slightly broader description of holistic mission - “As in the life of Jesus, being, doing and saying are at the heart of our integral task” (Micah 2001). We have seen that the key challenges for urban ministry are being present in community (‘being’), in word (‘saying’), and in action (‘doing’). Further this three cornered response corresponds to the holistic understanding of persons which we have espoused. ‘Being’ responds to social needs, ‘saying’ to spiritual needs, and ‘doing’ to physical needs. This is a useful way to analyse a holistic response, rather than an assertion that there are three separate strategies impinging on three separate areas of humanity. Such separation would deny the idea of an integrated approach. So holistic mission is an integrated approach of being, saying and doing the gospel.
Sign
Myers and McAlpine suggest a slightly different analysis of holistic mission. While at one point Myers (2005, 1) speaks of development in the same terms that we have just outlined, “in which physical, social and spiritual development are seamlessly interrelated”, for he (213) and McAlpine (1995, 2), a different third component (in addition to word and deed) is critical. This is “sign” - prayer and miracles - that point to the incursion of God’s action directly into the present situation. Word, deed and sign must go together. “Words clarify the meaning of deeds. Deeds verify the meaning of words. Most critically, signs announce the presence and power of the One who is radically other …” (Myers 2005, 10).
The incorporation of “sign” as part of holistic development appears to be motivated by two sources: conversations with charismatics and working within non-Western cultures. McAlpine (1995, 140) outlines the first, “Through a series of dialogues between evangelicals involved in social action and charsimatics, “holistic” has been growing from “word and deed” to “word, deed and sign”. While the political wisdom of this move is obvious, it is not a convincing argument alone.
Myers’ (2005, 8) argument for the inclusion of “sign” arises particularly from his experience in non-Western cultures, where there is a heightened awareness of the spiritual world, coupled with a strong belief in techniques of influencing this world, such as prayer and rituals. Like Hiebert (1994, 189-198), he points out that the Western worldview generally includes an understanding of the spiritual world in very pure and transcendent terms and of the material world in very mechanistic terms. Other cultures include an intermediate world of lesser spirits, where “inanimate” things interact with people and where people seek answers to questions of intermediate cause like “What caused my child’s illness?” for example. It is an extension of the unseen world, inhabited by angels, prayers and visions, sacred space, and signs and wonders. Hiebert calls this intermediate world “the excluded middle”, pointing out that Western Christianity often does not have answers to the questions that other cultures seek in this zone, and advocating the development of a theology of the middle – of divine guidance, provision, healing, spirits, and invisible powers of this world.
Hiebert (1994, 199) outlines the three levels of “Holistic Theology” which parallel the concepts of word, sign and deed respectively:
Cosmic History: The ultimate story of the origin, purpose, and destiny of the self, society, and universe. A truth encounter.
Human History: The uncertainties of the future, the crises of the present, and the unexplainable events of the past. The meaning of human experiences. A power encounter.
Natural History: The nature and order of humans and their social relationships, and of the natural world. An empirical encounter.
In developing such a theology Hiebert (1994, 199f) offers only the parameters that the middle zone ought not be totally spiritualised or totally rationalised. The example he gives, however, is more instructive. He speaks of an incident where he and a church leader prayed for healing of a child, with the whole village looking on to test the power of the Christian God. The child ultimately died, but the villagers’ interest in Christianity increased rather than decreased because they saw the Christians affirming resurrection even in the face of death at the child’s funeral. While he sought a particular action from God in the middle, human zone, when it did not come he resolved the situation by reference to the upper, cosmic zone. The middle zone is intrinsically ambiguous, but undeniably real. God is at work in the details of life, as is the evil one, yet the causes and outcomes in any given situation are not completely knowable.
So what can we learn from this discussion of “sign” as a core component of holistic mission? There are two causes for wariness. Firstly, because one reason for its inclusion is political, and secondly, because of the implication that the Spirit is only present in signs and wonders. Statements such as “The Christian community is to be a sign of the kingdom, in which evangelism, social action, and the Spirit are present and inseparably related” (McAlpine 1995, 140), infer that the Spirit is absent from evangelism and social action. The work of the Spirit is surely present in all Christ-centred ministry. It is in terms of having a theology of the excluded middle that the incorporation of “sign” is most useful. While this issue arose in non-Western cultures, globalisation means that it is increasingly a global issue. It reminds us that there should be a real sense of the incursion of God’s presence in the here and now. The atmosphere of Christian worship and the day-to-day practice of the Christian life ought to convey this. Too often, those working in development, social action and urban ministry, in the activism that often drives them, lose a sense of the mysterious presence and activity of God. This is not without balance. Christians must pray and work for the ultimate good and trust in God’s ultimate ends whether or not these are reflected in particular situations, but while being realistic about predictable outcomes, their actions must affirm that God works in the world beyond what can be humanly done or imagined.
Integrating Dimension
Overarching the word, sign and deed trinity, both Myers and McAlpine see a further concept, integrating the three. For McAlpine (1995, 2), the Christian community is the central reality. “The Christian community is to be a sign of the kingdom, in which evangelism, social action and the Spirit are present and inseparably related.” For Myers (2005, 213), the overarching concept is “life”, the Christian’s practice of being with Jesus. For both, these are the foundations, which precede the activity of word, deed and sign.
Myer’s concept of the “life” of the individual Christian is rather individualistic and disconnected from the church. Whilst affirming the importance of the church, he speaks very much as an outsider to it, noting the tendency of development workers to devalue the church (Myers 2005, 120-127). He suggests that development workers introduce themselves to the local churches (150f) and that “somehow” they must be part of a church (38). These statements reflect rather minimal integration with the church in contrast with McAlpine’s “central reality”.
Conclusion
Holistic mission then, in urban ministry, and I would suggest more widely also, begins with the presence of the Christian community. This presence is an action in itself. It signals the concern of God through his people, which drives them to become part of a particular place. The relational life of the community is essential in the ongoing practice of holistic mission. That community will be involved in actions of word, of deed, and of sign, not necessarily in equal amounts, but each in response to the Spirit in the context of the particular place.
Transformational Development Principles and Practice
Development is God’s desire. Jesus came in order that people might know fullness of life (Jn. 10:10). Ultimately development is God’s work. Nevertheless, God works through people making choices to commit themselves and their resources to the process of change (Myers 2005, 120-127). This section looks at principles that foster the kind of development which move towards God’s Shalom, under the broad headings of Holistic, Empowering and Incarnational. Each section looks at key issues that relate to urban ministry rather than giving a comprehensive overview of the whole area.
Holistic
In this section we look at the issues of: ensuring that evangelism is not neglected, building holism into the make up of individual practitioners, and dependency on God.
Preserving Evangelism
While the movement promoting holistic mission had to push for the recognition of social action as a valid component of mission, the same movement has consistently recognised that imbalance can occur in the opposite direction also (Conn & Ortiz 2001, 340). McAlpine (1995, 100-105) explored whether evangelism was lost when ministries aimed to engage in both evangelism and social action. He surveyed a number of ministries that engaged in both. Half of these were churches, the other half were para-church organisations. In many cases evangelism arose unintentionally from their social action. Other organisations fostered evangelistic opportunities by choosing personal relationships that provided a context for “friendship evangelism”. This sometimes precluded the necessity of evangelistic programs. The survey showed that evangelism could be integrated without becoming lost or neglected, where organisations hold that the content of the call to follow Jesus must be made explicit.
Holistic practitioners
To sustain a holistic approach successfully, the determination to work in an integrated way must be part of the way practitioners think, part of their ‘DNA’. It cannot be easily written in to a program. If holism is to be part of the ‘DNA’ of practitioners, then agencies must insist on Christian practitioners (Myers 2005, 16). Unless the practitioners are motivated by faith, they are unlikely to share that faith. Further, the fact that Christians engage in development work personally is testimony to the fact that they see it as important, in the same way that their God does.
Organisations must also be driven by a sense of divine vocation (Myers 2005, 30). Organisations are prone to the temptations of self-preservation and of organisational growth at the expense of ethics. These are made more difficult when the value of growth for its own sake is reinforced within the Christian community.
Choosing Christian practitioners gives a high level of coherence and a broad shared understanding of the wider purpose of the project and why people are involved (Aaker 1993, 40). As well as being Christian, practitioners must be professional. The skills, aptitudes and attitudes that practitioners bring are crucial (Burkey, 1996, 208). Development workers must not only be able to deliver technical professionalism whereby their work is carried out effectively, they must also deliver procedural professionalism whereby the processes related to their work are carried out in accord with the organisation’s development ethos (Crooke 2003, 7). The dual requirements of a sense of Christian vocation and technical skills considerably restrict the field for staff selection. Organisations are constantly challenged about how far they can stretch the boundaries of their requirements of staff and still retain their ethos. Organisations can involve themselves in training as a strategy to build up the number of suitable staff.
Dependency on God
We began with the recognition that development is ultimately God’s work. Living out this assertion means a number of things. It means sensing that every place and every opportunity is holy. God is present ahead of us in every place. It means being dependent on God for ideas, directions, connections, for opportunities that we can see and those that we can’t. It means being open toward others about this dependency (Myers 2005, 150f). Dependency on God means that prayer and fasting are important tools for transformational development (11). Dependency on God frees us from needing to be people that have all the answers, a reality that is very consistent with the principles of transformational development, as we shall see.
Each of the principles under this heading transfers directly to the arena of urban ministry. There does need to be a watchfulness that evangelism is not neglected. The key strategy in addressing this is ensuring that a holistic approach is part of the ‘DNA’ of staff, both in recruitment and through ongoing training. Organisations must also constantly watch their own sense of vocation to ensure that it is not distorted by pragmatic issues or pre-occupation with the details of the work. Finally there ought be a corporate sense of Christian practice which signals dependence on God.
Empowering
This sections looks at the strata of social action, the issues of participation and ownership and strategies for developing them.
Strata of social action
Approaches to development lie on a continuum from welfare and the provision of essential services, through to liberation and emancipation (Crooke 2003, 13). Various writers structure this continuum into three (McAlpine 1995, 106), four (Korten 1990, 113-132; Frances Gorman –see Aaker 1993, 48), or as many as seven (Andrews 2006, 53) different categories. We will use the three categories of welfare, empowerment and advocacy.
Welfare
Welfare or direct assistance is the most common response to people in need. It is the least controversial approach, as it does not ask the question, “What is the cause behind the need?”. It perceives people as lacking in material things and unable to help themselves. Help goes in one direction only. A welfare response is usually made from a distance - indeed Aaker (1993, 49-58) argues that you cannot live with people if you are working at this level. It is often a necessary and valid response. Disaster relief is one example, and the initial contact in an empowerment response often involves direct assistance.
In the urban Australian setting, welfare is the dominant mode of response to the poor. Even though the social security system provides a basic level of income, the public, both Christian and secular, respond most through the direct provision of material needs. The ability to help from a distance is part of this attraction, and so urban ministry organisations must work at educating their supporters and bringing poor and non-poor together. Direct assistance is necessary in the urban situation for a number of reasons. As we have seen, the material provision of social security is minimal, so people easily get into a situation where they can’t make ends meet. Also physical and mental illness means that many people are unable to help themselves. In these cases the strategy should be to access appropriate government services to provide for them. Many Christian organisations have taken on government contracts for provision of such services. Finally, direct assistance can often provide a beginning to engaging with people on a longer term and deeper basis. When contact with a particular group or individual has begun as welfare or relief, agencies must make a conscious effort to move their activities into community development (Aaker 1993, 39f).
On its own direct assistance is an inadequate response to poverty. It ignores the variety of causes behind poverty, particularly the poor’s sense of identity and vocation, and the oppression of forces external to them. Moreover, welfare alone makes the poor more dependent on their supporters. Neither the poor nor those working with them look for existing resources or attempt to build resources amongst the poor. In Australia this dependency is so entrenched amongst the poor that it is a major challenge for organisations working to empower poor communities.
Empowerment
Empowerment or development assumes that the poor are marginalised by social, economic and political interests and that the best way to address these is through fostering the capacity that is within the people themselves. Participation is the key strategy - joining with the poor as they discover their goals and resources, and reclaim their rights. The focus is on the community not the individual, on consciousness raising, promoting self-esteem and claiming rights. The focus is on processes, and promoting the desire to work together for a fair and equitable life, often called community organising. This approach nevertheless has its limitations. The poor can be egotistic, apathetic, greedy, and dominate, manipulate and divide. Also as the focus is generally very localized, development projects rely on a competent government and equitable macroeconomic policies and large-scale development to ensure the success of the local initiatives, for example in providing a stable economic and political environment, and indeed for tackling wider issues of injustice (Aaker 1993, 68-110). “People centred development, emphasising the empowerment of the communities involved” is the predominant model for Two-Thirds World development today (Crooke 2003, 9). In urban Australia there is a relatively stable economic and political environment, so the potential for development projects is enhanced, and the causes of poverty that are within individuals and communities are more in focus.
Education is a key strategy for empowerment. Its assumption is that people lack knowledge and that with knowledge they will be able to improve their situation. It does not address structural causes except in that it raises consciousness of these. Popular Education aims to provide education that arises from the people. As well as education for the poor, education for the non-poor is an important empowerment strategy. Aaker (1993, 59-67) notes that education of those in developed countries through exposure tours – where the poor are seen as persons - is increasingly available and perhaps more important than technical education in underdeveloped countries. Education of the non-poor is an important strategy in urban Australia also, where prejudice often marginalises the poor. Seeing the poor as people, indeed members of the same society, can make a dramatic difference. In urban Australia also, government provides a big variety of educational, training and vocational opportunities. Often the role of a development organisation is building people’s confidence to try one of these. Providing very immediate training opportunities, where people can learn a skill very soon after they make a decision to do so, and practise it within a short period, is a critical strategy. This builds confidence and willingnes to try new things.
Advocacy
Advocacy recognises that the causes of poverty go beyond the immediate circumstances of the poor to the cultural, political and economic forces of their nation and the globe. It is concerned with justice. The wider causes of poverty are so clear now that any informed response must see them as part of its agenda. The list includes “external debt and unfavourable terms of trade, militarisation, exploitation by the powerful, environmental degradation, and overpopulation … and greed” (Aaker 1993, 45 cp Myers 2005, 120-127). Beyond ‘teaching someone to fish’ it seeks fair and adequate credit to buy a fishing pole, an uncontaminated river, and a fair price and a secure market for the catch. It aims at the creation of new and just social relationships.
The impact of global injustice creates a number of dilemmas for those working in development, both in the Two-Thirds World and in Australia. Because it works on the micro level, the global impact of development often appears tiny. Consequently, a number of large NGO’s are attempting to add policy advocacy to their grassroots development to make a bigger impact (Crooke 2003, 9). At the same time, development agencies feel a strong calling to engage with people at the grassroots level. It is at this level that relationships are formed and the Shalom of God, which we seek to share, is fundamentally relational. Development focuses on the local level also because nothing can change unless the poor are engaged in the process of their own development, including challenging the structures that disempower them (Burkey 1996, 207).
Another dilemma is the overwhelming number of issues that could be challenged (Aaker 1993, 77-87). Organisations must choose the issues they will engage in. Focussing on the issues which relate to the people the organisation is working with directly is an effective and credible way of focussing energy amongst a myriad of concerns that could be taken on. While Australia has relatively stable markets and a considerable level of justice when judged on the world scale, the need to campaign to maintain the rights of the less powerful is still constant.
Advocacy also requires specialised skills and a broad base of support to secure effective political change. This may mean that specialist organisations take on this role and a variety of development organisations join them as partners. Change is needed both on the level of national governments and the international economic order as both have significant influence on the rules by which communities participate in the world market (Weaver, Rock and Kusterer 1997). This means campaigning for economic policies at national and international level that promote equity and are not shaped by economic self-interest (Sider 1990, 222).
In conclusion we see that welfare, empowerment and advocacy each have some validity and that in isolation each has limitations. Development work will mean working in each of these categories at different times, but relational, empowering, grassroots engagement with the poor must be the core of this. This is where the church has the most ability to bring change toward Shalom. The Micah Declaration provides a concise summary.
We welcome welfare activities as important in serving with the poor. Welfare activities, however, must be extended to include movement towards values transformation, the empowerment of communities and co-operation in wider issues of justice. Because of its presence among the poor, the church is in a unique position to restore their God-given dignity by enabling them to produce their own resources and to create solidarity networks. (Micah 2001).
Participation
Participation means working alongside rather than working for people, moving responsibility and ownership toward them (McAlpine, 2005, 107). Local participation is the only way to gain the knowledge needed to foster positive development in a community. Participation usually enhances sustainability and achievement too, but if these are the only reasons it is encouraged the ethos is very likely to be undermined at some point (Crooke 2003, 12). The push toward participation must be motivated by “intrinsic values such as dignity, solidarity and community …” (Aaker 1993, 48). People are enabled to participate in their own development when it is based on gospel values. Approaches that perpetuate the belief that people are incapable of self-help, or keep recipients functioning as children, or are driven by external agendas risk the same oppressive effect as political dictators and ruthless markets (Crooke 2003, 1f).
Participation is a continuum:
Passive – where participants join in projects designed by outsidersConsultation – where participants’ views are considered in the formation of projectsInteraction – where participants have input to projects and shape decisionsSelf-mobilisation – where participants initiate projects and changes to systems and institutions (Crooke 2003, 10).
Participation must be inclusive – not just for those in leadership or with power and including every identifiable group (Myers 2005, 147-149). Participation must be active - “Do not do anything for people that they can do for themselves” (Burkey, 1996, 211). Active participation generates ownership. Empowering participation is arguably the most critical element of transformation because of its potential to change people. Only changed people change history.
Participation must be learned. It requires skills in interacting and decision-making. So the development worker must assess the level of these skills and design ways for them to be increased. A common approach is to set a period of community preparation where only very simple projects are undertaken alongside activities like literacy classes designed to raise awareness and confidence (Crooke 2003, 12). Participation must be tailored to the context. A community that is well organised, assertive and confident will have little need for social processes. In contrast, a community that is divided and disorganised will need a slower process aimed at building confidence and cohesion (11).
Strategies to increase participation include: ensuring early recognisable success, making constant efforts to help people learn participation, creating enthusiasm, starting small and simple, using only outsiders who will respect locals, planning to phase out outsiders from the beginning, teaching locals to experiment and adapt, encouraging leadership, keeping the goals manageable, and constantly monitoring levels of participation (Crooke 2003, 13-15). A participatory mode of operation in the agency is critical to supporting participatory development on the ground (Burkey, 1996, 209). Participatory approaches almost necessarily create conflict with donors as they seek to cede control to participants and thus away from the project supporters (Crooke 2003, 12).
Local ownership
Key to any development process is that development workers foster local ownership. Those in need of change must own the process. They must shape the vision they desire to move toward. Change will happen at the pace they are ready to go (Myers 2005, 120-127). Advisors should always participate by invitation, help locals clarify their needs and goals, and work with a local counterpart, especially in training (Aaker 1993, 42).
Neither the desires of local people nor those of the development workers are guaranteed to be the best outcomes for the community. Development workers may bring prejudices or misconceptions from their own context. Local people may have their own biases within their community or may not have the background or vision to conceive the best available outcomes. For Christian development workers, the vision of the local community may be good but not the best one. In this case the role of the development worker becomes steering the local community toward a better outcome. Myers (2005, 126) gives the example of a community that wanted to build a well for each ethnic group in the area. The development team steered them toward the better outcome of agreeing to share the one well. Workers will struggle with how far to push this principle. Do we only go with the local solution if the outsiders can’t think of a better one? Do we go with a less than ideal solution because it is locally owned? The worker will be called to balance ownership with knowledge in each situation. No formula will produce an easy answer. It is also conceivable that the local community will generate a vision that the Christian development worker does not feel able to join them in pursuing – the group of sex workers who decide to support their drug rehabilitation program by running a brothel specifically for this purpose, for example. While in these sorts of situations there would ideally be enough trust for development workers to persuade locals away from bad ideas, there may be times when development workers actually have to distance themselves from projects or aspects of projects.
Ownership is also important in helping to ensure that the project will continue beyond the time the development workers are involved. Developing skills and accessing appropriate resources will also be important in sustaining projects but without local motivation nothing will happen.
Stakeholders include local people, staff, the organisation and its supporters. Those with the largest stake should have the largest say in the project. This is always the local people who will have to live with the results of the project (Cooke 2003, 21). The contribution of their lives and participation will always outweigh the monetary input of donors and the management input of organisations. The corollary of this principle is that hands-on staff should have more say in the development of projects than managers further up the management hierarchy, and they more than those who financially support the program. To put this into practice is a challenge for any organisation with any kind of hierarchy to practise.
Implementing participatory methods is not straightforward. There are many impediments to full implementation of participatory methods – lack of capacity, of self-esteem or community cohesion, or outside factors like an oppressive regime that views participation as a threat. The strongest calls for participation often come from those furthest from the field of action (Crooke 2003, 9).
In the urban setting lack of capacity, of self-esteem and community cohesion mean that participation and ownership are often limited. Certainly information gathering in the community and valuing the input of staff working at the coalface should be part of normal practice. Inviting local people to participate at the interaction level means designing opportunities that match their capacity. Being open to projects initiated by the local community means being prepared for a level of chaos and the potential of failure, and embracing these as opportunities for growth.
Incarnational
Incarnational ministry emphasises connecting with people personally and relating to them on their own cultural terms. In this section we look at: relationship focus, listening to the community’s story and the nature of the development practitioners role in the host community.
Relationships must be the focus
“Development is first and foremost a psychological process.” It must achieve material outcomes but cannot do so without engaging people (Crooke 2003, 1). Relationships must consistently be the primary focus for effective transformational development. Processes and participation must have precedence over planned outcomes and perfection. Local people must be viewed as partners not beneficiaries (Chambers 1997, 37). A detached program cannot foster transformational development (Myers 2005, 120-127, 150f). A corollary of relationship focus is that the development will take time and will be difficult to quantify and organise into a program (Myers 2005, 150f, Burkey 1996, 208).
When relationships are the main vehicle of operation the quality of those relationships is critical. Key values, which must be held strongly, are: solidarity – sensitivity and commitment to the struggles, pains and fears of people living in poverty; mutuality – give and take, respect, reducing the power differential; trust – clarity is hard work through cultural differences, but transparency is essential; and accountability – both financial and personal. Aaker (1993, 122-131) rightly questions whether relationships of equality are possible when only one partner has money. Partners with money must work hard to restrict the abuse of their power.
In Christian development, relationships are not merely the most effective way of achieving other goals, but the critical core of a Christian approach. As we have seen, poverty reflects a breakdown of key relationships and God’s desire is to restore these. A relationship focus is the missional corollary of the incarnation of Christ (Jn 1:12). Just as God comes as a person to relate God’s good news person to person, so must Christians relate person to person with those they seek to reach.
An understanding of church as a centred set complements a relationship focused approach. Christ is the centre of the set and the key characteristic of people is whether they are moving toward or away from Christ. The openness of the set emphasises inclusion rather than exclusion, making relationships the priority (Myers 2005, 55). The good news of God is good news to the poor fundamentally because it puts right their identity and restores dignity. The gospel identifies the poor as created by God, redeemed by Christ and destined for eternal life through no merit of their own. Identity is conferred by grace. From this identity follows the dignity of being highly valued by another (God) and from this, self-worth and the sense of having something to contribute to the world and others (Sugden 1999, 238f). This, of course, is also the way that God views the non-poor! The good news of Jesus sets a level playing field for relationships. There is no reference to political or economic power, only a basis for mutuality, trust and respect.
The importance of relationship centred development is heightened in the urban setting. As we have seen, it is the social/cultural and personal/spiritual axes of poverty that are most prominent. These are untouchable without a relational approach.
Hearing the community’s story
Myers (2005, 12) makes much of the importance of hearing the community’s story as the critical process in beginning participatory development. Listening to a community’s history helps in understanding its present situation and identity. It affirms that the practitioner values the community. Most importantly it builds skills and motivation of the local community and gives them information that they can analyse to help identify the root causes of their poverty (Burkey, 1996, 209). On the negative side, it is often people in power that tell history, doing so in a way that reinforces their position.
Story telling is an inviting way to engage with people (Myers 2005, 23). In listening to a community’s story, development workers are not only trying to understand the community, but to join in with its story. This means laying aside our own story so that the program becomes a shared story such that both poor and practitioners emerge from it changed (137-139). For both practitioners and the poor, the overarching story of God gives ultimate meaning to the story of humanity, of others and of ourselves (23).
In listening to a community’s story, practitioners should recognise that there is an established balance in the existing social and economic system. In doing so they may see some of the less obvious but nevertheless valuable skills and resources that a community has. Going out to sleep amongst homeless people in the inner city, for example, revealed a wealth of survival skills that the casual observer would not credit homeless people with.[3] Existing survival strategies are an insight into how a community views the world. Recognising these strategies reflects to the community that they already have skills of their own. Recognising the existing balance also highlights that any intervention will change that balance (Myers 2005, 120-127). In a politically charged environment it is difficult for any intervention to be apolitical. Both sides will generally appropriate the action to suit their own purposes (Aaker, 19). Good development will look for what is valuable in the existing system and build on it, as well as consider carefully the potential impact of any intervention.
Social analysis invites the community to tell their story and analyse for themselves the forces which press on their situation, not just at immediate but also at community, national and intentional structural levels, and the various, interrelated systems which make up their world (biophysical, social, psychological, spiritual, cultural). It seeks to bring the situation to light and identify root causes. Myers (2005, 168) suggests vulnerabilities and capacities as one framework for analysis. Vulnerabilities are long-term factors, which limit the community’s ability to direct its development. They often explain why things are as they are and point to underlying causes. Capacities are long-term strengths within a society. Understanding what a society is good at gives hints for ways forward and builds the confidence of people in their own ability. In the urban context, ‘strengths’ groups have proven effective on this model. Individuals suffering ongoing life-issues get together to hear one another’s stories and point out the strengths that they see in each other. This technique also has the advantage that a wide variety of people can participate.
In the urban setting the story of a community is less definable. Researching the history and demographics of a community are an important beginning. This enables us to anticipate something of what to expect when we start meeting people in the community. Hearing stories is much more on an individual level. Fostering community is one of the goals of development in the urban context and the process of hearing stories can assist in this. Using stories to identify people’s strengths, reflect their strengths back to them and use these strengths to build further capacity is an important strategy amongst individuals in the inner city, who often feel defeated.
Practitioner as catalyst
The poor are seldom able to initiate community development themselves, so an external agent acting as a catalyst is necessary. It is critical that the practitioners see themselves as catalysts – people who stimulate the growth and development of others. The skills, aptitudes and attitudes that these agents bring are crucial (Burkey, 1996, 208). Practitioners must have “low ego needs” (Aaker 1993, 42). They must get satisfaction out of seeing others succeed and doing themselves out of a job. Three key aspects of incarnational practitioners are: coming into a community as a learner, being a neighbour, and living with the people.
Come as a learner
The incarnation tells us that God emptied himself of his prerogatives (Myers 2005, 46). A similar emptying is needed for those who would work amongst the poor. The value of their knowledge and training must not be overestimated, nor that of locals underestimated. Transformation means that not only the poor, but also the non-poor and the practitioner are learning. There is much to learn from the poor. In particular the value of community, so lacking in the urban west, is a critical value that can be learned from the poor (Barbosa 2006, 4). Coming as a learner means humility, a readiness to admit mistakes and ask for forgiveness (Myers 2005, 150f). The most influential factors in shaping attempts to help the poor are the helper’s perception of the world and motivation for helping (Aaker 1993, 48). Whatever a practitioner can do to understand themselves, their assumptions, and their own worldview will make their work more effective (Myers 2005, 59).
Be a neighbour
Being a neighbour was a key metaphor that Jesus used for what it meant to obey God (Lk 10:25-37). It is a better metaphor for transformational practitioners than “problem-solvers” or “answer givers” (Myers 2005, 152). It puts people and relationships before ideas and programs, creating that intangible thing called community. It emphasises working and living alongside people, mutuality and the importance of the internal qualities, attitudes and values of the practitioner. The challenge that Jesus ends the Good Samaritan story with is not to identify one’s neighbour, but to be a neighbour in the way exemplified by the Samaritan (Lk 10:37). “We must have the will to give ourselves to others and ‘welcome’ them by re-adjusting our identities to make space for them” (Volf 1996, 29). This means personal engagement that sees the assumptions of the other as the primary reality. It means practitioners must act out of who they truly are. There cannot be a dichotomy between doing Christian work and being Christian (Myers 2005, 24).
Live with the people
Amongst all the rhetoric about understanding a community, becoming part of it and being a neighbour, it is disappointing that Myers makes no mention of living amongst the people (see Myers 2005, 156). Perhaps it is assumed, or perhaps in Two-Thirds World situations it is assumed to be impractical. Living in the local community has been a strong emphasis of the Urban Ministry Movement. It is the logical implication of our discussion of relationships, participation and being a neighbour. There are of course practical considerations that limit this opportunity in the urban setting also. Most prominent here are the cost and availability of housing, and the need for practitioners to have personal space because of the intensity of the work they are involved in. The latter is a consideration in Two-Thirds World situations as well. Nevertheless as God lived among us (Jn 1:12), out goal should be to live in the local community.
Management
In this section we look at management issues in development. Good leadership and management is one of the six key features of successful projects identified by Riddell and Robinson (Cooke 2003, 89f). We will look at: approach to management, and evaluation.
Approach to Management
There is a spectrum of views on how management of development organisations relates to generic management. At one extreme is the ‘management is management’ view, which sees the management of development organisations as a generic management task. At the other extreme is the view that managing development organisations is a completely distinct proposition (Lewis 2001, 189f). The extremes are best avoided, but there are some useful lessons to be learned in between them (83-85). Firstly, there is a great body of general management knowledge that can usefully be drawn on. Secondly, development organisations are strongly values-driven, so their management must also be shaped by their values. Hence generic management approaches will need to be modified or added to so as to fit within the values framework of the development organisation. Thirdly, the activities that a development organisation undertakes will shape which parts of wider management practice it taps into. An organisation that does not-for-profit trading may draw on business management skills. An organisation that deals heavily with government may adopt some practices from the public sector. The environment both within and without the organisation may shape its approach to management also (Paul 1983, 34). Any parent or associated body, the political climate, resource availability and cultural norms may all play a part. Management practice arises from the Western private sector and so must also be informed and modified by the culture within which it operates. Thus the mission, culture and values as well as the environment within which it operates will shape an organisation’s approach to management.
“If organisations are process structures, then seeking to impose control through permanent structure is suicide” (Cooke 2003, 45). This dramatic warning reminds us that development organisations are merely vehicles to achieve a wider purpose. They must therefore change and develop to remain effective. They may even come to the end of their useful life. Leaders must consider this possibility and recognise it if and when it eventuates.
With a variety of wells to draw from, development organisations are often hybrid in their structure, even down to their approach to the core issue of top-down versus collectivist decision-making. One study found both traditional and radical women’s organisations used a combination of both (Lewis 2001, 194). These hybrid structures may lead to a degree of ambiguity. Organisations working in ‘fair trade’ may find tension between their charitable and business management styles, for example. Adopting both transformational and modernising approaches, at the same time, and appearing apolitical toward governments but encouraging political activity on the ground, are other examples of potential tension.
It is vital that managers and governing boards understand these tensions and have a shared approach to them, an openness to discuss boundary issues and a good degree of pragmatism and sensitivity to grassroots issues. Where organisations lack a clear strategy, as Lewis (2001, 196) says, ambiguity can become a weakness. The pressure to grow is almost inevitable, and this pressure can be in tension with an organisation’s values. Organisations must either be clear enough about their goals and values to resist the pressure to grow for its own sake, or find growth strategies that allow structures and practices that are in keeping with the organisation’s values and ethics (197).
Re-evaluating evaluation
“More action than reflection” is World Vision’s charism (McAlpine 1995, 4) and indicative of development in general. In the key area of planning and evaluation, transformational development is significantly different to generic management. While much planning is linear, social systems are counter-intuitive and self-organising. This means there is a need to move from traditional management-by-objectives to a vision-and-values approach. Rather than beginning by setting goals, we identify the broad vision of where we want to go and the values that we wish to hold to on the journey toward that goal. Short-term plans are then set within the framework of the vision and values. Working on these short-term plans we then stop periodically to assess whether these plans are in fact moving us toward our vision. This approach means evaluating more frequently so that we are learning as we go (Myers 2005, 146f, 181-189). Each evaluation or reflection is used to modify the action. In the next iteration the modified action is reflected upon and potentially changed again.
As well as measuring what changed, if we are looking for transformation, we must also look at who changed - which individuals have changed in their self-understanding of identity? What has changed in the wider structure of the community? We would expect both the poor and those working amongst them to change. Sustainability should be evaluated. Not just on a physical but also a mental, social and spiritual level, is the community becoming more sustainable? An ethical component of evaluation is also important. Myers (2005, 181-189) suggests a framework which looks at:
Intention and motivation: Why did we do this?;
Capacity: Did we do all we were able to do?;
Knowledge: Did we gather the information we could and was it sufficient to move forward on?;
Deliberation: What adequate time and attention given to thinking through the possibilities?;
Mitigation: Were reasonable steps taken to minimise the possible worst effects of our actions?.
Finally a holistic approach will look for change in every aspect. In particular are people changing toward a more biblical view of their identity and vocation? It is impossible to set “acceptable levels” for these kind of goals but if nothing is happening then our development is not truly Christian.
Evaluations must be planned in at the beginning of a project so as not to be a surprise or an afterthought. All of these insights into evaluation outline useful principles for urban ministry.
Funding
Managing donors
Christian organisations operate in a growing, open market. This creates a number of challenges. They must engage Christians as donors as this will be the only sector that will support their specifically Christian spiritual goals. The Christian sector tends to give “more emotionally than thoughtfully” (Consultation 1999, 406), increasing the temptation for organisations to oversimplify the complex issues of poverty and present them in an emotional way. There must be a commitment to education of supporters above simply presenting needs. Accountable, authentic and ethical presentations are essential.
The second challenge is to get donors to engage with commitment and continuity. These are essential for the consistency of projects. The public, however, is frustrated by slow progress. It is hard to convince them to continue to give to seemingly intractable needs (Aaker 1993, 4f).
A third challenge is to promote the organisation’s work to gain support, without regressing into self-promotion and self-interest. Critics are all too aware that charitable organisations can accumulate power for their own self-sustaining ends (Ransom 2005, 2). For the organisations themselves the temptation is much more subtle.
Finally, there is the temptation to shape projects around the needs that outsiders perceive and provide. While this will help with donor consistency it cuts across the principle of allowing local people the dignity and the right to say how they want their community to grow (Aaker 1993, 36).
Each of these principles transfers directly into the urban ministry situation.
Faith organisations in a pluralistic world
In a pluralistic world, funding agencies, particularly government assume a separation of state and church (Marshall 2004, 2), requiring that agencies separate, downplay or exclude religious activity. In some Two-Thirds World situations, particularly where religious identity is inseparable from cultural identity, funding bodies try to appear even-handed by spreading their resources across all religions. Faith-based organisations must discern whether they are able to divide their work and work within the boundaries set by funding bodies, or whether they must restrict their funding base to those who embrace their faith.
In a pluralistic world also there is a need to work with other faiths or secular organisations in pursuing common goals. This requires a clear understanding of the limits of co-operation. While the worlds of faith and development agencies “might seem, at first glance, natural allies in efforts to combat poverty, to fight for social justice, and to improve the daily lives of the world’s poor and marginalized people”, the connections between these two worlds “have been fragile and intermittent at best, critical and confrontational at worst” (Marshall 2004, 1). Marshall goes on to say that there is a growing relationship of appreciation and co-operation, and documents a series of co-operative projects. The wider world recognises that faith communities have something valuable to offer, and faith communities increasingly see that “community and temporal well-being” are within their purview (2). The Millennium Development Goals offer a common framework for action, particularly as they do not belong to a single institution, region, sector, or nation but rather strive to link the entire global community (7).
Faith-based organisations have a unique position of independence. This enables them to speak out against injustices, often where governments have a different view (Marshall 2004, 23). It also enables comparatively deeper perspectives in the sectors in which they deliver services, given their acute understanding of the composition and weak links of those sectors (27). It is vital to maintain this independence even if this is at the cost of declining funding or limiting co-operation with other organisations. Again, these issues translate directly into the urban ministry context.
A model for Urban Ministry in Australia
Church Planting and Transformational Development
We have seen already that urban church planting and transformational development share the common goal of God’s Shalom. Shalom embraces all of life, subsuming the categories of sacred and secular. As we have discussed, situations such as vying for government funding and working with non-faith or other-faith organisations will require a pragmatic division between those things which are specifically Christian and those which can be affirmed by a wider audience as good for society.
I want to engage the term Church Planting in place of Myer’s Christian Witness or perhaps Christian Mission, which might be used by others, as the key task for the church in the urban context. Within this term I would include evangelism, discipleship, and social action. I choose church planting because it emphasises the critical importance of forming believers into local communities of faith. This task is particularly relevant in the inner city context where the church is largely absent. Churches are the concrete expression of the coming Kingdom of God, and thus the most tangible goal of Christian Mission.
On this basis, I want to suggest that transformational development, properly conceived, must include church planting, and church planting, properly conceived must adopt the methodology of transformational development. Transformational development brings us to church planting and church planting brings us to transformational development.
Transformational Development brings us to Church Planting
We began with a definition of transformational development as positive material, social and spiritual human change. The development of local Christian communities is the key tangible goal of spiritual human change. Moreover, in our definition we noted that the three aspects are inseparable. The corollary of this is that promoting positive human change in any of the three dimensions is Christian ministry. Helping someone to farm more effectively, or protecting them from those who would oppress them or hearing their story in a way that values them, are all ways of communicating the gospel of Christ, where this is the motivation and wider goal of the practitioner.
We have seen that both Christian and secular development practitioners are increasingly affirming the value of a holistic approach. Spiritual development is more and more validated as part of development, and in an increasingly post-modern world, this can only continue. In a Christian framework, spiritual development must lead to the development of local worshipping Christian communities who will act as agents of the coming Kingdom to which they testify. So transformational development brings us to church planting.
Church Planting brings us to Transformational Development
When Christian ministers seek to develop Christian communities in other cultures, the model of transformational development is most appropriate. Vinay Samuel (1995, 145) posits this assertion as a question, “What would happen if we apply the same principles of community participation to the establishment and building of the church as we do for the agriculture, health and school projects?” The answer is that we might develop local Christian communities which have the best chance of being locally owned and sustainable, and which have a healthy, holistic sense of mission.
Along these lines, Myers (2005, 209f) explores the application of development principles to evangelism. He says “go and tell” evangelism is anti-developmental because the initiative is with an outsider who is in a position of power and control. He traces the gospel-preaching stories in Acts and concludes that they are generally in response to a question from the people. This is certainly a framework for evangelism that is consistent with development. However, his case against “go and tell’ evangelism is overstated. Certainly an outsider is the initiator and a relatively powerful person, but the same is true of development in general. Much of our early discussion raised the need to identify and avoid the wrong use of power or knowledge. When we affirm that evangelism is an invitation into a relationship, an invitation that can only be chosen, not imposed, then it is clear that our evangelism can be consistent with development principles (or indeed vice versa). It is not necessary to rule out taking the initiative in evangelism – it is a key strategy in development as our discussion earlier identified.
A transformational approach to church development will mean looking for local, culturally relevant ways to worship and to practise faith. Aboriginal people might sit in a circle rather than all face the front. Homeless people might meet outside instead of indoors. Church life might centre on living in connected community throughout the week rather than meeting weekly. The focus of working together might be working for transformational development in the wider community rather than studying the Bible for its own sake. A transformational development approach will listen to the life of the local community and help it to practise Christian faith in its own distinctive way. As we have seen, adopting some of the values of Two-Thirds World cultures – like community and neighbourliness – will actually deepen rather than detract from, the practice of faith. In fostering participation and ownership, a transformational development approach will give new faith communities the best opportunity to become independent.
A transformational approach to developing churches will include saying, doing, and also being. People will be invited not only to hear the good news of Jesus but also to see it in action and to observe and be welcomed into a community that seeks to live by it. The witness of the Christian community’s lifestyle is critical.
Finally, critical to effective church planting will be the attitude of the practitioners. As Myers says “…we do our development with an attitude that prays and yearns for people to know Jesus Christ” (Myers 2005, 204). Indeed, not only will they yearn for people to know Jesus Christ but for those people to join them in a shared community of faith that gathers around him.
Model
We have touched on numerous insights from the practice of transformational development and applied them in the arena of urban ministry. In this section we identify only the core components, which form a model for urban ministry as transformational development. The model is structured under the headings of: incarnational, holistic and empowering, with some further comments under the heading of management.
Incarnational
The essence of the incarnation – God come to Earth (Jn 1:14) – is that God communicates directly with people through his personal presence in their territory, despite the cost that this may involve (Phil. 2:6). Modelled on this example, incarnational mission means working and living amongst people in their cultural space, seeking to present and practise the gospel in this space rather than insisting that they join ours. Langmead (2004, 216-218) outlines the essence of incarnational mission as congruence between the content and method of communication of the gospel. This is most often characterised by: integration of word and deed, identifying with culture and people, working through personal relationships, humility, and costly whole of life discipleship.
Being there is a minimal critical response (Aaker, 22). Being there as development practitioners or welfare service providers is a valuable response. If the people of the target culture are to understand the value of God’s offer of salvation and are going to be built into local sustainable faith communities, then living within their culture, worshipping and practising the life of faith in this context is what is needed. Incarnational mission means being there as a community of faith.
The essence of incarnation is person-to-person, relationship contact, as the core mode of mission - treating people with equality and dignity and inviting them to follow Jesus as co-sojourners. Thus on an individual level, the core of the work of urban ministry is relationships, just as it is for transformational development. Urban ministers must come as learners – listening to the story of locals and joining in that story as neighbours. Being a neighbour means being for others at the same time as being one’s self. Urban ministers must be ready to be changed themselves.
Incarnational mission in the urban setting also requires a communal response. It means the commitment of a group to living in the receptor culture. Community building means: a commitment to the social community, discovering where God is already at work, inviting people to join a church where all are being transformed, and inviting people to respond to the presence of Christ rather than information about Christ (Samuel 1999, 231f). This response is particularly important in the urban setting where an identifiable, supportive community is mostly absent.
Incarnational mission leads inevitably to holistic mission. A residential, relational response calls us to be involved in all of people’s lives. Indeed, a number of authors include the integral relation of evangelism to social action as part of their definition of incarnational or transformational mission (e.g. Samuel 1999, 229f; Langmead 2004, 216-218).
Holistic
Urban ministry must also be holistic. This means first of all understanding people as integrated beings, physical, social and spiritual without easy separation into these components. It means understanding that all of these component dimensions are of concern to and loved by God. It therefore means an integrated response, which seeks positive change in every dimension of people - material, social and spiritual.
Holistic mission involves saying, doing and being. Evangelism, social action and the life of the Christian community will testify together to the seeking love of God for all people. Langmead (2004, 239f) argues the authenticity of word coupled with deed engages Australians, who are typically sceptical of religion and distrusting of religious organisations. So holistic urban ministry must establish Christian communities as well as social action projects. This combination helps to ensure that both evangelism and social action are attended to. Evangelism will take place both in the explicitly evangelistic activities of the Christian community (services, Bible studies, etc) and the personal witness of its members and those involved in the social action projects. A holistic approach, which yearns for people to know Christ as well as sees that yearning worked out as practical love for people, must be part of the make up of all of the practitioners – both members of the faith community and staff of the social action projects. The social action projects will target specific needs in the community and will provide the structure for an ongoing effective response to these. Finally the Christian community will provide the core of a wider community that welcomes all – an open space where people can explore and experience the life of faith.
The effectiveness of this model is enhanced the more its parts are integrated. One organisation responsible for both the church development and the social action programs provides more opportunities for integration than two organisations working in partnership. If the staff of the social action projects are members of the faith community, this provides a further opportunity for an integrated approach – to demonstrate that the gospel is not just about helping people but about inviting them to share the journey of faith together. In practice few organisations have insisted on total integration in both these dimensions[4], but instead have worked towards this as a goal as personnel and structural constraints allow[5]. The organisation, whatever form it takes must value spiritual practices such as prayer and an attitude of dependence on God if it is to remain Christian, let alone holistic.
The other insight from transformational development is the emphasis on “sign” as an important component of holistic mission. In the urban setting this means that the life of the Christian community reflects an expectation that God interacts in real and sometimes unexpected ways with the lives of people. The practice of the Christian community will include this sense of the mystery and transcendence of God.
Empowering
This aspect speaks particularly about the nature of the community projects in holistic urban ministry. In our earlier discussion we classified projects broadly as welfare, empowerment or advocacy. While there is a valid place for welfare and advocacy, urban ministry will focus on empowerment – working with people with the aim of them doing more for themselves, rather than doing for people or challenging the structural constrictions in their lives. This is also the key focus of transformational and people-centred development. This focus is important because it is working in the empowerment mode that most develops personal relationships and most fosters personal change, both of which are at the heart of the gospel. In the Australian setting particularly, with a relatively stable and supportive government, most of the issues facing the poor are on the micro level, making empowerment the most appropriate strategy. Further, empowered people are able to join in engaging on the welfare and advocacy levels. They can help provide for those who cannot provide for themselves and can help to challenge the structures that oppress them and their community.
In urban Australia there will always be a need for a welfare response – provision for those who are totally unable to provide for themselves and provision of resources. In this setting government and many charitable organisations work in this mode. As we have seen also, the danger of this response is that it oversimplifies the causes of poverty and too easily fosters relationships of dependence. The calling of urban ministry, therefore is toward empowerment, aiming to create healthy relationships of interdependence not dependence.
Similarly in Australia, a number of organisations both Christian and secular are responding in the advocacy mode, challenging governments nationally and internationally toward more equitable practices. With the plethora of issues that could be engaged in, urban ministry organisations need to be selective when they do engage in advocacy. Challenging issues that they have direct grassroots contact with is an effective strategy for maintaining focus. Again the calling of urban ministry is toward empowerment.
Management
Transformational development also offers insights into management which are useful for urban ministry. Generic management and the growing body of non-profit management theory and practice provide useful tools for Christian development organisations. The caveat is that organisations must work to maintain their values and use management tools as a means to these ends, rather than be shaped by the implicit values of the tools. The most tempting of these, as we have seen, is the value of growth for the sake of growth.
The other key challenge is to manage the tension between being an overtly Christian organisation and being seen as open to all. This affects a wide range of issues including staffing, partnerships, supporters, government support and government regulations. There are few prescriptive statements that can be made in this arena. Organisations must clearly identify what their values are, in particular what they see as making them distinctively Christian and how their practices reflect this. A clear understanding, particularly at the board level, is vital to keep organisations on track in the midst of the inevitable hybrid of church and community structures that they operate in.
The importance of choosing staff with attitudes and personal characteristics, as well as skills and qualifications and the need to adopt an action-reflection approach to evaluation are also important contributions from transformational development.
Conclusion
Transformational development has much to offer urban ministry in Australia. It sets out a clear understanding of, and mandate for holistic ministry. It provides wealth of insights on developing effective relational engagement with the target community. It offers an openness to make use of management tools in the context of ministry. For urban ministry in Australia, it points towards a model that is incarnational, holistic and empowering - one that sees relationships as primary and the presence of a Christian community as critical; one that ministers to all of people’s needs in an integrated way through church, community and project initiatives; and one that focuses on working alongside people, sharing a journey that enriches both.
[1] Author’s own survey. Interestingly, the Baptists are also weak in the more affluent Northern suburbs but that is a statistic for another paper.
[2] Note that even in the context of integrating evangelism and social action, a key advocate such as Ronald J. Sider sees the two as “distinct aspects of the total mission of the church” (p12).
[3] Author’s personal experience.
[4] Urban Neighbours of Hope did so during its early history.
[5] HopeStreet, Urban Seed and the Waiter’s Union are examples.

Urban Rumblings

2008/07/29

Integral Mission

2008/07/25

Note: Church

Christian Community at the Margins

2008/07/21

Wholistic Development or Church Planting?

Welcome to Urban Rumblings

Labels

Plaxo Badge

About Me

Blog Archive