Community Robbers -Part I

This is the 1st installment (of 3) of a blog series on Christians and community

"Community" has become a buzzword among many evangelicals. It seems that Christians have realized that the modern emphases of isolation and consumerism has stripped away life from the church and that the connection with people of common faith is a remedy of these issues. A multitude of Christian books and blogs have addressed the "nuts and bolts" of community building. Small groups, missional communities, fellowship meals, and Sunday school classes are all tools that evangelicals have turned to over last several decades to create a stronger community "emphasis" in the church. With little debate, I strongly affirm these attempts, but the question that must be answered is "Why did we become so non-relational?"

I'm not a trained sociologist; I'm a pastor that is both concerned about and affected by relationship "robbers." These "robbers" are cultural artifacts and situations that have made close relationships less essential to humanity and by default, the church. I do not write these from a vacuum, because I greatly struggle with managing these "robbers."

Robber #1 Community is barely necessary for physical survival.

This first robber is not unique to Christians but a product of the modern world, but it's fruit is seen in how Christians treat their faith communities. Generations ago, whether someone lived in a large urban sprawl or a tiny prairie village, people were interconnected in order to live. Farmers would barter commodities and sell products at local markets to other farmers, which created a community of neighbors that depended on one another for business transactions. This was not just a small town phenomenon. Neighborhoods in large cities, usually established by European minorities, shared common cultures, and languages which helped develop strong community identities. In both contexts, people were dependent on their neighbors to live, if someone failed to participate in the community, everyone suffered.

In the medieval past, cities' buildings were built in close quarters to one another. This practice, along with building walls around the outskirts of the city, provided protection from rival cities and marauders. Therefore, the geographical closeness of residents aided in physical survival of the people. Today, cities are growing, but mainly due to economic, educational and entertainment opportunities. All three of these reasons are beneficial but hardly communal, with some exception, people do not move into closely connected urban centers for physical survival.

Today, "everyday" life is lived differently. Most products are purchased from stores that aren't unique to the community- the advantages are convenience and lower pricing, but the drawback is that consumers are not dependent on local producers for transactions. Fundamentally, this means that transactions merely provide a means of the flow of goods and services , without necessary interconnection.

Let's be clear, modern life has brought so many conveniences to our communities. At one time, local communities relied on volunteers for social services and crime prevention. Today, we have running water, paved roads, relatively clean air and other advantages publically funded by tax support, and in general, those have made us a healthier and safer society. It would be foolish to enjoy such anmeties and criticize the means in which we have them.

If that is the case, the question begs to be asked. "Isn't it a good thing that we don't need a community for physical survival?" The answer is yes, but we do need to understand that everything has consequences. While we can shop from well stocked stores, and we don't worry about outside cities invading us ; we have water services, and fire and police protection, the "rub" is we HAVE LOST INTERCONNECTION.

In other words, People can go to work, go to school, eat at restaurants, attend church, drink clean water, watch television, play on their smart phone, and have every modern service while only relying on themselves or their government. Therefore, unlike our predecessors, Community is unnecessary.
Christians must respond
What does this have to do with Christians? Christians live in communities and generally reflect the lack of care for the communities in which they live. It's a true stereotype- Many evangelicals know the names of Christians in Africa but not the names of their neighbors. Christians tend to live in isolation and many of the fruits of that lifestyle are evident in Christians, but the topic of this blog has more to do with how Christians treat their faith community.


Alternative Community
The Sermon on the Mount teaches Christians how a completely different community should live, feel and serve. Christians must love their neighbors, not just need them for economic output. We aren't supposed to just have a community for protection against evils of the outside world, but we are called to be "a city on a hill.", shining God's light to other communities.

God's people should always repent and we need to repent on how we treat our faith community. It's clear that how we live in our community is an apologetic for non Christians as how a true community should live.

Unfortunately, the modern approach to community is so evident in the church, The church is God's community and too many Christians do not value church attendance and involvement. Christians bicker, argue and separate over small issues. Too often, our communities look just like every other community.

Here's a question. How does it look to an outsider to see Christians voluntarily loving one another in word and deed? What if instead of arguing over theological disagreements, we acknowledge our differences but love one another anyway? What if our prayer meetings had passion for the greatness of God and the good of our earthly communities? The answer is that it would be revolutionary, which best describes the Gospel.