Biblical Theology for Poor People’s Churches
Reference: Grigg, V. (2005). Cry of the Urban Poor. GA, USA: Authentic Media in partnership with World Vision.
What is the GOAL of life? According to the Westminster Catechism, “the chief end of man is to enjoy God and glorify him forever.” Romans 8:29 tells us we were predestined to be conformed to the image (likeness) of his Son. One aspect of this goal of the Christian life is summed up in the old phrase, imitatio Cristo—the imitation of Christ.
If we accept this as the goal of the Christian life, what then is the goal of Christian ministry?
Jesus commands us to make disciples of all nations. That means developing people who are walking behind him, learning from him, and seeking to become like him. Colossians 1:28 tells us that Paul’s goal is to “present everyone mature in Christ.” For this he toiled, “laboring with all the power which God mightily inspired within him.”
Ephesians 5:27 makes it clear that God desires this maturity (or as some translations put it, perfection), not alone for individuals, but for the church, “without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.” For we move to maturity in Christ as we move to unity and maturity with our brothers:
We will in all things grow up in him who is the head, that is, Christ. From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and does its work (Ephesians 4:15,16).
The aim of the Christian life is perfection and maturity in Christ likeness. The aim of Christian ministry is perfection and maturity of the church in spiritual unity with Christ.
What then is the aim of Christian missions? We are to “go and make disciples of all nations” (Matthew 28:18). The aim is not only to put missionaries on the field. The aim is not only to establish churches. The aim is not just to produce mature churches or growing churches. The aim is to disciple the peoples. The goal is to form movements — movements of mature churches among the peoples.
The church — declaration of Christ
It is the church that is the body of Christ, not just individuals. Individual compassion, incarnation, intercession and proclamation are insufficient. We must press on until the church is established in any city. The apostle among the poor may incarnate Christ initially, but it is the emerging church or churches that are in a fuller sense the incarnation of Christ — his body. The apostle may proclaim, but it is the church that daily manifests to principalities and powers the resurrected Lord and the defeat of Satan on the cross (Ephesians 3:10).
But what is meant by “church”? It is generally perceived as the worshipping people of God gathered together under the preached word, each exercising his or her spiritual gifts in ministry, under a defined leadership of elders, pastors and/or deacons, in a variety of structured relationships.
The structural components of this have become known in a school of thought called “church growth” theory. Based on an American world-view of structures and sociological pragmatism, it has developed some helpful concepts and research. Its basic conceptualization revolves around evangelism, discipleship and the structure of the church.
But the commission of Jesus, as we have seen it, is for holistic and relational discipling. From this, and from the centrality of his preaching of the kingdom, church growth concepts unwittingly have been largely divorced. Jesus’ commitment was not to evangelistic or pastoral structures, although he used these. His commitment was to love people. His commitment was to extend the kingdom. His commitment was holistic.
Over the last decade among evangelicals there has been a growing understanding of the role of the kingdom of God in our theology. First, we moved from “great commission missions” to a more holistic perspective on mission. Then came a new understanding of the kingdom of God as a broader theological concept that under girds the various components of mission and ministry. This broad concept of the kingdom has also made possible an integration of charismatic thinking into mainline evangelical perspectives.
These theological trends are timely, for they have at last provided evangelicals with a theology that can grapple with issues of poverty and the poor, urbanization and injustice, while not denying the centrality of proclamation.
The kingdom — basis for a squatter theology
What is the kingdom of God? To understand effectively the nature of the church in the slums, we need to look beyond structural church growth studies to a holistic kingdom of God concept.
Jesus came preaching the kingdom of God. Thirty years later we find Paul in Rome, again preaching the kingdom of God. It is the central theme of the gospels, and gives us a more holistic perspective than one that focuses only on the growth of the church.
Church growth is an insufficient goal for which to give our lives. The kingdom of God is an objective that sets us free for a variety of ministries. The kingdom encompasses all of life. Church growth theory encompasses only a small part.
Traditional evangelical mission has focused on preaching the gospel, making disciples and establishing them in churches. Kingdom-style mission sees these as central elements in a holistic pattern of ministry that encompasses every area of life.
Is the kingdom separate from, involved in, or set over the slums?
Based on a theological understanding of the relationship of kingdom with culture, as outlined in an earlier chapter, we may ask practical issues about church-planting among the poor.
For example, should we establish the kingdom in the slums by gathering believers separated from the community (as in Anabaptist, Baptist, Holiness and Pentecostal concepts of a kingdom that is against culture)? Or should the believers identify themselves in the slums in fellowships that seek to infiltrate all areas of life (according to the Anglican, Lutheran, Wesleyan transformational model)? Or, rather, should they be considered as over the slums (as in the identificational-dominance Calvinist model)?
We have seen already that no single, traditional, Western model of the kingdom or church suffices. A new synthesis that is specifically useful for ministry in the slums is needed. Such a model may well find components in each of the above.
From the Anabaptist, or separational paradigm, we find components of incarnation among the poor, based in theologies of Jesus as the model for our life.
From Reformed teaching, there are aspects of moderate kingdom theology—in contrast with dogmatic Calvinism—that enable us to deal with issues of injustice within the city.
From Pentecostal theology we learn the practice of ministering in the power of the Spirit to the poor.
From Lutheran, Anglican and Wesleyan church structures, we learn the importance of authoritarian leadership structures for ministry to the poor.
Point of focus among the poor
A theology of the kingdom also predicts the style of ministry that should be central in working among the poor. There are many possible Christian or Christian-influenced responses to the plight of the slums. Which is most strategic? The answer depends on the strength and resources of the church, and the issues of oppression and poverty that are present in any given situation.
1. Economic determinism
If the cause of the poverty of the slums is seen as an economic lack, we will probably end up with a Christianized development agency. Compassion for the victims of oppression most frequently results in an economic response. This was true for Jesus, and it is true for us. We give aid. Linking our compassion with an analysis of the economic structures of our society results in Christian developmental responses to the poor. This is a kingdom response and a good one.
2. Sociological determinism
On the other hand, if we perceive that the poverty of the poor is caused by cultural and social factors, our tendency, over a period of time, will be to opt for more community organizational solutions.
Current theories in this area fall into the broad category of empowering the poor—enabling them to fulfill their destiny by learning about their own dignity and strength, and then, step by step, gaining their rights. These can be good kingdom responses. Often they have been emphasized by liberal and liberationist theologies, which with inadequate biblical roots are open to capture by Marxist philosophy. This is not a reason for evangelicals and Pentecostals to ignore the issues. Nor is it a reason to copy their categories.
3. Political determinism
Many go further than this, seeing the poverty of the poor as being caused by political systems and the misuse of power. Depending on where you start ideologically, you may perceive it as the result of exploitative capitalism and class struggle, of multinational rape of the nation, or of the abuse of power inherent in Marxism. These we have discussed previously under the rubric of marginality and social dualism.
To recognize oppression as the basic cause of poverty implies the need of a corresponding Christian response. To see the effects of oppression among the poor requires a kingdom response. The Scriptures are very forceful on the issue of living justly and effecting justice for the poor.
4. A Jesus-style ministry
The logical starting point for a Christian is to go to his Master, who is truth, manifested truth, and hence probably has the best answer to the issues. How did Jesus respond to the poverty of the city?
First, he was involved in dealing with it. He incarnated himself in it. He became one of the oppressed poor.
Second, he saw spiritual transformation as primary.
Third, he had a longer-term view than we do. He looked for the primacy of the kingdom — not of economic, social or political development. Economic development, for Jesus, was a result of proclamation and subsequent submission to the King. In his eyes, repentance and discipleship were more significant than an approach based on political change.
At the same time, he made it clear that the kingdom at times impinged on economics, politics and sociology. His kingdom was spiritual, but it involved new societies, new patterns of economics and had a political philosophy of servant hood. Leadership development was central to his activities. But it was a leadership development whose cutting edge remained in spiritual ministry.
For this reason, it seems appropriate to focus on evangelism, followed by discipling and forming new social groups of converts. This has become known as church planting.
If our desire is spiritual confrontation with principalities and powers, we must also focus on church planting, because the lack of churches in the slums means an inadequate ethical base from which to seek political change. If it is in our hearts to effect justice for the poor, we focus on church planting because significant movements among the poor have a habit of effecting social and political change.
Interestingly, whatever views are determinative, some sociological conclusions are general to each of the four options above. Whether the organizations are economic, political or religious, the key to change among the poor is multiplication of small organizations. Economically it is the multiplication of small cooperative ventures. Politically it is movements of small cells of totally committed cadres. Spiritually it is the multiplication of small churches or fellowships knit together in a web-like movement. Each of these empowers the poor, enabling them to begin to take their own destiny into their own hands.