Are Commuter Churches an Acceptable Accomodation to Commuter Culture?

Yesterday I did a post which launched off of a post by Anthony Bradley where he was encouraging us to attend the church nearest our house if it fit our denomination. 

Judging by the comments, Anthony's suggestion isn't fairing too well, at least in the Jollysphere, it might be doing better elsewhere.  I'll grant that he may have been hyperbolic, over the top and may have overstated his case, but I really believe he is on to something.  He's wrestling with what it means to be missional in 21st century America and with what, if any, obligations we have to the neighborhoods in which we live.

In my heart I am with him on this.  I do think we've lost a sense of "neighborhood" and "community" and think we would be better off to recover it. 

I want to do another post on the subject taking Anthony's side, but let me play devil's advocate here and advance an argument whose merits I am not sure of but which raises what I believe are some legitimate counterpoints to what Anthony is saying.

I'll put the argument in the form of a question - are commuter churches a legitimate accomodation to commuter culture?  In other words, we live in a commuter culture, at least in the suburbs.  When a missionary goes to a foreign culture he or she makes legitimate accomodations to that culture.  In Africa you may go to a church which holds services under a shade tree, in China you meet stealthily in house churches and so on and so on.  If you are in a place without cars or public transportation this will affect where you worship.

I suggest it is our commuter culture that makes it possible and even desirable for many to worship outside of their neighborhoods.  Without cars and/or public transportation our church choices would be much more limited, but with them we can go to churches outside the neighborhood which share our ideology, our demographic profile, our causes, etc..

So, is this a bad thing?  Is the commuter culture, which is inimical to neighborhood development, necessarily bad?  Is there anything wrong with creating communities not based on geographical proximity?  If not, then is there anything wrong with having churches that adapt to this commuter culture?  Why would such churches not be a legitimate missiological accomodation to such a culture?

Comments

[Linda]

Years ago, I used to like going to church further from home so I wouldn’t run into people from church when I was buying cigarettes, etc. I think there is a real accountability to living in a community and living out your Christianity, faults and all. Also it’s easier to get new people to come with you when it’s closer to home and convenient.

[Tim Keller]

Sometimes a church that is technically close to you is nonetheless in a community that is not connected to your home neighborhood at all, and so your going to it would not help you reach or embody Christ in your own community. You might as well go to Church-X farther away that equips you better for work in your neigbhorhood. And in another case a farther-away-congregation with a church planting vision could be the launching pad for a new church in your neighborhood sometime. So you go to it for a season at least. Also, sometime there is a spiritually weaker member of your family who simply won't go to any other church but Church-X. So there are a lot of contingencies.

But, in general, Anthony is right. And Reformed churches are often the worst violaters of this principle. People may drive from vast distances to get to their church because it is the only Reformed witness in a 20 mile radius or more. But then the church's neighborhood can't be reached, since none of the church members live near the church's meeting place. On the other hand the members' neighborhoods can't be reached, because who (but an already super-dedicated Reformed Christian) would want to drive through three or four other communities for 30 minutes or more in order to go to church?

[pilgrim]

I don't think you can be legalistic about it.
We should look to motive--why do you drive past so many congregations to get to yours?
In my case there only 2 churhces in town I could be a member of in good conscience.
That's not to say the others are not part of the true Church--I believe many are-but there are areas of disagreement that would be distracting from worship-baptism, eschatology, soteriology, ecclesiology, etc.

I used to live close to the church I am a member of. But when I moved it became a longer drive--but not a burdensome one.
I have commitments and relationships there. To leave would not be Biblical.

[Brendt]

Good thought, David. There is a great degree to which we (in Western culture) have lost connection with those who are physically near us, and a degree to which that is unfortunate. However, to ascribe that solely to sin or worldliness or bowing to "the idol of personal preference" is wrong. Part of it is simply cultural and perhaps needs to be accomodated.

Those that would look to connections with their physical neighbors in this era as a be-all-end-all are akin to those who wish we still lived in the "Leave It to Beaver" era. Not only is it an impossibility to achieve that state of Mather-ness, but we greatly risk alienating many who live in the present with such an attitude.

Actually the concept of one's neighbor not necessarily being those who reside in proximity to us is 2000 years old.

[Bonnie]

I too think that Mr. Bradley is on to something, esp. regarding the parish idea - a community centered around a place of worship. On the one hand, such a community can be stifling, but on the other hand, it gives opportunity to practice true Christian neighborliness.

Unfortunately, in our spread-out way of living, we end up knowing a whole lot of people superficially and few closely. If we worked, lived, and went to church with basically the same group of people, we'd probably serve one another much better in the long run as well as the non-church-going members of the community.

But, we do live in a commuter culture, so it's impossible to be completely one-community-centered.

That aside, though, I think that issues of theology and other preferences carry way too much weight when it comes to church choice. Isn't the whole idea of Christian unity about working together despite differences, rather than furrowing brows or even leaving a particular church when the going gets rough? To my way of thinking, membership in a church ought to reflect a commitment not too dissimilar from a marriage.

I personally have grown much by staying in a church that for awhile disappointed me in many ways. I was and still am not very much like the majority of folks at my church. But I would not trade for the world the relationships I have developed and the ways that we have ministered to one another, even though many times things were and are not "comfortable." (Though there is comfort in being part of a community of good people.) Are things ever really comfortable anywhere, anyway, if one is living honestly?

[Dignan]

David: good post. I know that some are reluctant to think through this issue but I think that it is very important. Do we live in a commuter culture? Of course we do. But is is what most people want? I don't think so. I think one of the greatest desires and needs that people in our society have, regardless of being Christian or non-Christian, is having a sense of community. I think many of us can think back just 20 or 30 years ago to remember how much more community we had in our neighborhoods, regardless of whether they were typical surburban neighborhoods.

I think one of the greatest ways that we can see the Gospel impact someone's life is by showing how community can be a hint of God's true community that he has in store for us.

Good community does require geographic proximity. Even for an church that doesn't even desire to impact the culture around them, geographic proximity is necessary for community within the church. Otherwise members only see each other once or twice a week at the church building. That does not build community.

Good community happens when we run into fellow church members at our local grocery store. It happens when they live on the same street. It happens when you can let your children play in your neighborhood knowing that other neighbors are watching out for them.

I think that Anthony is right on to challenge the status quo. His post should be a call for some to move closer to their church or start attending the local community church. There are no doubt challenges to this. Housing costs are a real factor. I know that this can be an issue for Tim with some families in NYC finding that they can't live in Manhattan anymore with children. But it isn't impossible. My wife and I's best friends went in with another familiy at Redeemer and a single woman to buy a brownstone on the Upper West Side last year. Do you think they have community there? You better believe they do. Do you think they are having an impact in their neighborhood. Yep.

And community isn't just for city folks. I would highly recommend Randy Frazee's The Connecting Church to see how community can happen even in the suburbs.

Anthony struck a chord because many people aren't willing to consider that changing their lives could sometimes involve things like this. It is too easy to go along with what the rest of our culture does. I think it would send a tremendously powerful message if Christians in this country started moving into neighborhoods together, attending the local churches, and bringing back the concept of community that many of us remember from years ago.

[Ann]

We have had to consider this issue several times because of moves and the job always makes it easier for us to live in a small town outside of the city. But, I'm a city girl. :) However, that is not our greatest consideration. Even though we live in a commuter culture, we found that the commute to church, other than Sunday mornings, was easy to use as an excuse to be less involved in the life of the church. If we are on the road all the time for work, doctor appointments, grocery shopping, etc., the last thing we want to do is drive a distance to church. Perhaps it is sinful laziness or a priority problem. We were finally motivated to find a local congregation where we can serve. It's not perfect, but perhaps God can use us there. I think I need some "city connections" with women that have more in common with me and that have good theology and can challenge my walk. But, I can plug into some optional groups for that and if I don't feel like driving that's OK. I think I am more obligated to serve than to be among people "singing the same song" I am.

[Robbo]

I agree very much with the comment by Linda re. acountability. One of the important things is to be known by your neighbors and also in your work place as a follower of Christ. It would be ideal to have neighbors who go to the same church. I also think we should pursue fellowship with neighbors who may be of a different denomination but who we are convinced are members of the Body of Christ.

minor point- I spent most of my life growing up in West Africa (both urban and rural) and I personally never came across a christian church meeting under the shade of a tree :-)

[pgepps]

Sorry, folks, but I just don't see where you're doing anything but erecting a popular preference into a Pharisaical rule, creating "superior" and "inferior" ways of doing basic Christian life. If you wish to vindicate your own preference by explaining your reasons, that's one things. When you talk about "obligations" and treat "a sense of community" as if it had anything like dogmatic status, you are off the reservation in terms of ecclesiological priorities.

Now, for those who note that in the realities of their lives, proximity equals involvement in the life of a church, and distance is a barrier, then obviously--involvement in service through the church and to others in the church being a key desideratum of Christian church life--they have a reason for preferring a church that's nearer, where possible. For those who don't see it that way, that's perfectly OK, too. Consider that there are places where a two-hour commute for groceries isn't horribly odd, and there are places where a fifteen-minute walk seems like it's going to another world. Life is more variable than slapdash rhetoric like Bradley's is ever going to allow for.

Now, you want to know my preference? I would prefer that churches which grow to the point where they have large congregations who are geographically spread over hours-long-commutes deliberately plant new churches in the communities where they have or can send members to live and serve. I do support neighborhood churches, and I do prefer to attend--or to create in the church I minister with--such churches.

I do not believe I, or Mr. Bradley, or anyone else, has any right to create new bonds for the people of God when Christ went through so much to set us free. Period, full stop.

Be well!
PGE

[Wayne]

Christian Reconstructionists talked about this sort of parish model all the time in the 1970's. Perhaps it's an example of how good ideas can get overlooked or drowned out by the noise of ideas less good.

[Bonnie]

PGE, we must certainly be wary of legalistic thinking but ought also beware a false sense of freedom. Many things are permissible but not all are beneficial. There are certain aspects of living within a culture that cannot be avoided, but at the same time, we each must examine the motives for our choices. It's not just about geographical distance. Do we seek to save our lives via the choices we make in job location, living location, church location, etc., or are we free to lose them for God’s sake? That’s the essence of the discussion, I believe. Are our choices about “getting ahead,” pleasing ourselves, or about serving and pleasing God? Should we drive a longer distance to get to a church we "like" just because we can?

Perhaps rather than looking for a church that has what we want or think we need, we are better to offer ourselves to the church at which a significant part of our "life community" is involved. Dietrich Bonhoeffer spoke of the necessity of the Church as a body of believers to a Christian's understanding and receiving of sanctification. This means day-in day-out living with these people, not just Sunday morning corporate worship, like a weekly concert-goers club. Which is obviously more difficult the more geographical distance is involved. But of course all legitimate factors must be weighed.

[pgepps]

My point is that when one looks at Biblical "must-haves" in church life, one may or may not arrive at any conclusions about geographical distance; it will depend on the situation. Again, my life experience suggests to me that a preference for locality is appropriate.

The idea of "saving or losing" one's life is pretty selectively applied, here, I think. I could say, "Are you willing to accept the cost of serving Christ, even in a church far away, where you have to take up the cross of gas expenses, time, and fatigue? Or are you going to take the easy way out, and go to the nearest church, whether there is a real fellowship of faith or a place to serve or isn't?"

See, the rhetoric works both ways. The question is where is the Truth proclaimed; where is Christ lived and served; and where can you be the most effective member of the body that God can make you? If you resolve that question in any other terms than the Bible's--whether your rule is denominationalism, geography, communitarianism, or whatever other trendy abstractions you put in the way--then you're putting things wrong, and you're going to create trouble for the churches and trouble for your family.

Cheers,
PGE

[Michael Garner]

"But, in general, Anthony is right. And Reformed churches are often the worst violaters of this principle. People may drive from vast distances to get to their church because it is the only Reformed witness in a 20 mile radius or more. But then the church's neighborhood can't be reached, since none of the church members live near the church's meeting place. On the other hand the members' neighborhoods can't be reached, because who (but an already super-dedicated Reformed Christian) would want to drive through three or four other communities for 30 minutes or more in order to go to church?"

But this is not what Anthony actually said. He said that we should attend one within our own neighborgood If it fit our denomination. What you seem to suggesting is that we ought to go to any legitimate church that is in our neighborhood (despite possibly significant differences) so that our own neigborhood has a better chance of being reached with the Gospel. If that is in fact what you are saying, I disagree considerably. If I have misrepresented you, my apologies.

[Brian Newsom]

I would prefer that churches which grow to the point where they have large congregations who are geographically spread over hours-long-commutes deliberately plant new churches in the communities where they have or can send members to live and serve. I do support neighborhood churches, and I do prefer to attend--or to create in the church I minister with--such churches.

[pgepps]

"Brian Newsom" appears to be a spammer. At least, that's the only reason I can figure why someone would bother to plagiarize comments on a blog.

Delete key, anyone?
PGE

[Bonnie]

PGE, I see what you are saying. But I’m trying to get beyond the rhetoric to the way Truth informs the discussion. What does it mean to serve Christ? What does it mean to be the most effective member of the Body that God can make you? Does God even want each of us to be the most effective member...? That sounds more like a “reach your potential” gospel than the real one. We must hope that our definitions of these things, or answers to these questions, are God’s and not someone else’s.

Back on the fiefdom there was very little choice to be had. Does this mean that we should not utilize any choice that we have? No, I don’t think so, but there’s a fine line between utilizing discerningly and taking advantage of.

I can’t imagine that there’s a place where one couldn’t serve, though, and there will always be costs – we just have to count (or not count) the right ones.

Great discussion :-)

[Gina]

There is something to this. We Orthodox often have to travel considerable distances to find an Orthodox church in our jurisdiction.

Other things considered, however, there is considerable appeal to me to "bloom where you're planted." Even in my ministry days when I was often on the road to conferences, etc., I got in the habit of trying to walk to services if at all possible. This sometimes meant less "comfortable" worship surroundings, but I saw it as letting God provide for me, especially since I often didn't have a car. As I recall, Richard Foster advocates this idea as part of living more simply.

[pgepps]

Bonnie, I don't think you can "get beyond rhetoric" by dropping a capital-T abstract noun in the way of meaningful specifics.

"most effective" is a judgment call. It's part of an economy of being used, and it's something people just have to find out by trying their best to be obedient where they see themselves able, and learning what they're missing or overemphasizing or whatever as they go. You can use a different phrase, if you want. Perhaps "so run, that you may obtain." Not so that you can get a sportsmanship award for flopping sweetly.

It is a good discussion. And, like I said, I think I share the bias, here. I just adamantly and ardently disapprove of giving that preference any rule-making weight. It hasn't got it, Biblically, and can't be given it, by our say-so.

Further, when you start using "utilize," you may be sure you're covering over assertions of dubious significance with Latinate diction. You can use "use" for any real sentence.

Cheers,
PGE

P.S. the last is not an argument, just an English teacher's pet peeve. ;-) PGE

[Ann]

This is a good discussion. I want to say something about our sin nature, or perhaps just mine. My preference is to be in a church in a city because I find more in common with the women. For about six years I have been living a minimum of 45 minutes from a city and a minimum of 10 miles to a Wal-Mart and a church in my denomination. I agree with PGE that there is not a Biblical basis to make a rule regarding community church attendance. But, I suspect if most of us tried to be active in a church an uncomfortable distance (subjective, again) away from our homes we would find ourselves being sinfully lazy about involvement. I am talking about a practical living issue that feeds our sinful nature. No, everyone would not be tempted as I am to only drive the long drive once a week. But, I'll bet there are a lot of other sinners like me out there. Perhaps the answer to not falling in the same pothole every time you go down the road is to take a different road.

[Bonnie]

PGE, the word “utilize” means to put to profitable account or use; to make useful. The general term “use” cannot be substituted. I was distinguishing prudent use from indiscriminate or avaricious use.

I am not saying that it is never better to drive a distance to a church than to join one closer (I think Mr. Bradley’s pronouncement ignores certain conditions), but for proper fellowship, communion, and community to occur, geographic proximity is a factor that cannot be got around. Should we worship with one group of people and live in community with another? We fellowship in service with those we worship with (Acts 2:41-47, Galatians 6) and serve others outside of our fellowship. It’s not a matter of pharisaically worshipping with or serving those in close physical proximity; it’s a matter of not forsaking those near us for those further away for reasons of personal preference.

As it relates to the “who is my neighbor” question – must we go looking for neighbors when they’re all around us? (I am not applying this to specific missionary endeavors.)

It ties in with the societal trend toward dispersion of families that has occurred in the last few generations. Not that this can be entirely avoided, but how can families care for their own members properly when they’re spread all over?

Anyway, I don’t want the focus of the discussion to shift from its substance to debate over semantics. I didn’t mention Truth to put it in the way of specifics. You mentioned it first, and I wanted to bring it further into the discussion. The specifics we are talking about must be informed by Truth, meaning what God decrees to be true, if we are to call ourselves Christians. I’m assuming that the obedience you’re referring to is obedience to God the Author of truth.

One last note – I’m not saying that you are doing this, and I am saying that I do, Lord have mercy, but I think it’s easy to justify a preference by claiming a freedom to indulge it that doesn’t exist. Of course there are matters in which we are free to indulge preferences, but we must properly distinguish them from matters in which we aren’t.

[pgepps]

Sorry for the snark, Bonnie. I felt a little pushed at by some of your phrasing, and some of the phrasing in Bradley's post, and I pushed back. The "utilize" bit was intended as humor, but didn't get free from the reaction.

Kudos on being the first person ever to offer a vindication of your use of "utilize." I disagree that the difference is as you say (FWIW, "use" refers to employing an item according to its design; "abuse" or "misuse" and "disuse" with the connotation "neglect" supply the correct balancing framework), but that's all beside the point. Like I said, kudos on vindicating the usage.

Now, about the matter at hand: I should point out my reasons for pushing back so hard against any sweeping pronouncement that one ought to choose based primarily on geography, with a veto for (?denomination?) things like doctrine, etc.

I live in Japan. I will be returning to the States in August for a couple years, but will be back here, living and working in my church here, as soon as the Lord clears the way.

Here in Japan, people are rarely able to identify what this or that church teaches. Churches are referred to by locale: "Yasuoka church," "Maruyama church," "Yamanota church," etc. I know more than a few US folks who would like that; however, in every case I know of where this is actually a feature of the culture (and it was sometimes seen similarly in US farm country, where "the church" is whatever one the township had), it's a bad thing.

The result is twofold: first, people are proofed against examination of their beliefs; no one can be sure how to respond to a professed believer who says, "I go to .... church" because no one knows what that church teaches, whether it seriously enforces its discipline, whether attenders are ever directed to the Gospel, whether it's of Christ of or UNICEF.

Second, there are no strong identifications with Christ or with Biblical teaching put forward; the "church" is just the social organization of those who've chosen that kind of community, to the Japanese world. They become assimilated within the community, as one more kind of free association, a sort of neighborhood association for folks who like the teachings of that Western guy. (in which mistaken way one sees Jesus perceived)

So, rather then see the communitarian drive as a good thing, I see it as an assimilation into the culture, as an abstraction pushing off the Biblical demands of the body life into a nice, neat, pigeonhole where the Bible can be kept on a shelf, awaiting the proper social cues to be pulled down and thought through, in case "it helps me."

You see, Japan has no lack of community. It has a serious lack of Christ, though, and a community which is determined to defang the Gospel, to render it innocuous to the things "We Japanese" have always done (or have done for the last ten years--longevity doesn't matter; it's whether the society ostracizes something that marks it as nontraditional, even if it's no older "tradition" than this year's new fads).

So I don't see the merit in these proposed rules. I see them as trendy abstractions, which in some places might happen to be useful, in others destructive, and in each case I hope that we would think through the specific Biblical commands that help us to really live the life of Christ among His Body, and to eschew such culture-captured phases as these.

Be well,
PGE