The way of Suburbia vs. the way of Christ

        One thing I did over the Christmas break was go through the gospels and compare the way of Christ to the way of Suburbia. Obviously, there are consummate contrasts between the rhythm and flow of the life of Christ versus that of Suburbia. Yet, I have to ask myself if it’s even remotely possible to follow the lifestyle and calling of a 1^st century homeless, unemployed, traveling rabbi (who happens to be divine) in a 21^st century affluent, capitalist, techno-driven culture? I do think, on many levels, we can follow the way of Christ and still feed our families in Suburbia. However, it will be very contrary and in defiance of the typical lifestyle of Suburbanites. And maybe that’s the point. 
        Perhaps part of the role of a missional community is to follow the way of Christ, highlighting the countercultural nature of that lifestyle, and gently, prophetically, and lovingly calling others to leave the empty, hectic flow of Suburban life and follow us “upstream” as we follow Christ. Of course, I realize that many of these findings are not unique to Suburbia, and you could easily just refer to the way of life as simply “culture” in America. But for the purpose of this series, I’ll simply refer to my own current context, which is Suburbia.  Perhaps you can think of more disparities between these two lifestyles.  I'd be very interested in your comments.

        Go shallow with more people vs. go deeper with fewer people. Between work, kid’s school, kid’s sports leagues, church, the fitness club, and the neighborhood, a Suburbanite knows a lot of people as casual acquaintances. However, the typical Suburbanite knows hardly anyone on a heart to heart level. Why? Maybe it’s because he/she is too busy, or maybe he/she simply is stretched to thin by knowing too many people to go any deeper, or maybe it’s because he/she doesn’t see anyone frequently enough, or maybe it’s simply because deep relationships are not the way of Suburbia.    
        The way of Christ is to go deeper with fewer people. Notice he had 120 followers, he sent 72 of them out on mission, he poured himself more deeply on a daily basis with 12 of them, he was even more intimate with 3 of them (including them exclusively in some profound experiences), and 1 of them was His beloved.
        The way of Christ is to go deeper with fewer people, resulting in impact, community, and legacy.  The way of Suburbia is to go shallow with multitudes, resulting in unoccupied, disconnected lives of dormant desparation.  The busyness, materialism, and individualism of Suburbia circumvents intimacy with others.

Comments

[Todd]

you are definitly on to something here. being a suburban pastor who has grown to try and think very missionaly, there are HUGE differences between the way of Jesus and the way of Suburbia. I have spent some posts thinking through that on my own blog. Interestingly enough, there seems to be a number of people asking the same questions. Just good "missional and suburbia" and you'll find a bunch of helpful thoughts...

keep working through this. I would be interested in how you flesh it out in your context.

[Roy]

Todd, thanks for the comments. I really appreciated your posts on the same subject. It's good to know that there are other missional, suburban pastors out there. May our tribe increase!

[Todd]

roy, thanks. yeah, its a question that needs to be answered. i am pretty darn sure the answer isn't all teh suburban christians moving to the city!

in fact, i think there is just as much pain in the burbs, its just wrapped in a different wrapper...

[The Bishop]

Quick question: I'm working on a discipleship system like the padawan system of Star Wars. I know, geeky...but anyway, I was wondering if you knew of any already existing tools that I use.

[Roy McClung]

Jase,

Are you familiar with the Life Tranformation approach from Neil Cole? That's the closest strategy I've seen to a padawan approach, and Neil is experiencing the first church planting movement on American soil (in California). I can get you more info on that if you're interested.

[Rick]

roy - great thoughts! I would add to your post the idea that perhaps Jesus responded to the people as far as they were willing to go, and that this might be an easy way to prioritize?

Seems to me that those that longed for a closer relationship were rewarded with just that ('draw near to God and He will draw near to you'). The 72 willing to go out, the 12 willing to follow everywhere, the 3 with deep devotion and the 1 with a profound love.

In my own ministry I have been thinking through this and seeking to understand what that means in my context. I *think* it means that I seek to do minustry and bring as many along as will come...those that do are naturally those that I will develop a closer relationship with.

Not that I am devalue'ing (is that even a word?) any of my friendships, I don't think that is what Christ would have said about the 72 compared to the 3. But I am thinking that this is being a good steward of my time.

[Rick]

Jase - Though we are not working through the LT in a formal way yet, I have transitioned our group from a teacher-led (with me writing and presenting a lesson) to a leader-facilitated gathering. Each week we try to read at least 10 chapters of the Bible (ephesians and then james so far) - repeating the book over again when we get to the end.

Our third meeting was last night and I am impressed with how people are beginning to read the text (almost) every day. This results in the group (as led by the Spirit) exploring the text together and discovering a common focus; as well as making the group easily reproducible.

[Roy]

Rick,

I agree. Jesus seems to have had a way of filtering people. By that I don't mean that He "played favorites." Rather, He simply was able to discern who was ready to go deeper.