Why don’t we reach out to the inner city?

A fellow blogger has asked the question as to why non-inner city Christians do not do more inner city work. I was going to answer his question, and then I realized that my answer would be too long for a simple comment, so I decided to put it here. There are a complex of reasons why non-inner city Christians do not reach out to the inner city. It does not boil down to just simple sin, although, to some extent, sin is involved.

Yes, of course, sin is involved in that any Christian should be willing to reach out to all around one. But, that is a simplistic analysis of the problem and is a truism. That is, it is a statement which is true regardless of the situation. And, given that there are non-Christians around us, and we do not get along with all non-Christians, it is always a charge that can be leveled. It makes the speaker sound spiritual while avoiding any productive discussion of the subject.

So, why do non-inner city Christians not do more productive inner city ministry?

One reason is that the mistake is made of treating the inner city as same culture with non-inner city culture. It is not. And, the methods that are used for same culture evangelism will not work in another culture. If non-inner city Christians are serious about reaching the inner city, they need to involve missiologists and get serious about planning inner-city outreach in the same way in which we plan foreign missions. They would also need to train those sent in the same way in which we train those going into cross-cultural ministry.

 A second reason is actually two reasons working together to impede inner-city work. We expect a mature congregation to exhibit the traits of being self-sufficient, self-replicating, and self-governing. But, in inner-city work, self-sufficient is a very difficult proposition. Normally a congregation that averages 50 people a Sunday can support a full-time pastor. But, when I worked inner city, I did a calculation that showed that I would need to average around 250 attenders a Sunday in order to both take care of a building and to provide me a typical pastor’s salary. It was a good thing that I was a supported missionary! Few non-inner city Christian congregations or denominations would be willing to give long-term support to inner-city congregations.

Moreover, most Christian groups expect that their pastors will go to seminary. But, to find a possible inner-city ministerial candidate, then send him to seminary, then bring him back, and expect him to live in the inner-city without paying him a typical pastor’s stipend is an almost impossible situation. Mind you, this is one of the reasons why, in Orthodox and Catholic circles, the monastics are often used for inner-city work. These are people who are both called by God to a difficult situation and have taken vows of celibacy, poverty, and obedience. The movie “Sister Act,” in the midst of its humor, shows what can happen when such a dedicated group of people does move into the inner city. Precisely because Protestants have so vigorously rejected monasticism and voluntary celibacy, that pathway is not open to them. Nevertheless, to rely on people taking vows of poverty in order for the Church to be able to be in the inner-city is wrong. That means inner-city work needs to have an adequate outside support base without the need to be constantly begging for the money.

 A third reason is that to be involved in inner-city work is to also be involved in social work. There is no way to achieve solutions to the problems that plague the inner city without dealing with the problems that are likely to plague the likely members of your new congregation. I had to bury several youth between 15 and 25 during my few years in the inner-city. I worked with issues such as Neighborhood Watch, neighborhood trash cleanup, drug dealers and their houses, etc. I had to get to know the local police as well as the local important people.

And, here comes a problem for many non-inner city Christians. It is a political and philosophical problem. The whole discussion between the Right and the Left in this country has rather poisoned the well of social work so that even well meaning non-inner city Christians are often confused about how to handle the issue of providing a helping social hand. Should the government be involved? Are we encouraging dependency if we provide aid? Should we provide other than emergency aid? Unfortunately, in the midst of their confusion they are frozen into inaction and/or competing arguments and are incapable of finding the consensus necessary for the local congregation or the denomination to commit itself to either short-term or long-term programs. And, if we are serious about reaching the inner city, we need to be able to initiate and support both short-term and long-term social programs. But, we are locked up in arguments and are doing little. That is sin.

There are a plethora of other reasons, but the three listed above are what I consider to be among the main ones. The other ones are contributory. In fact, the whole subject of inner-city work is a complex of issues that need to be discussed and dealt with. Unfortunately, by and large, non-inner city Christians are neither seriously discussing the complex of issues nor are they getting involved with the inner-city. And that is truly sinful.