This Atlantic article on churches in poor neighborhoods is
an interesting read if you look past the find one emotional example that the
author thinks proves his point that characterizes a lot of writing in the
Atlantic. The main point is that half of
new church plants opened in wealthier areas and church attendance is on the decline
among the poor. And perhaps that is
because it takes a lot of money to run a church and a church in a poor
neighborhood might have more financial needs to help out the needy. But has he really found the reason, finances
that churches are down in low income neighborhoods? Did he miss a very plausible explanation?
I think he did. I
will grant that low income neighborhoods might be less likely to receive church
plants than in the past. The rise in
non-denominational churches probably effects this as they have no connections
to help fund them from afar that a denomination would provide. But I still think he has the causes
reversed. Churches are not being planted
in low income neighborhoods because church attendance is down in low-income
neighborhoods. The author gives no proof
for saying fewer churches leads to fewer attending when fewer attending can
very well lead to fewer churches.
And I think there is ample reason to think the low-income
flight from church is a product of a highly anti-Christian culture. Sociologically speaking, the poor or lower
economic classes are quicker to take on the traits of the super-rich, or the
culture makers of society. This is true
in almost every category. Francis
Schaeffer noted this in his books on culture.
You can see it in things like baby name trends.
The rich pick unique names, the poor then take up those names and they
finally filter into the middle class, but by then the name has become common
and the rich have abandoned it looking for unique names again (see
Freakonomics).
And what are the elite and culture makers saying about
Christianity? Christianity is the enemy
more often than not. Whether it is
Christian bakers on the news as the backwater bigots or the evil group that
empowered Trump, the enemy is evangelicalism.
Maybe they get it from movies like Dogma (1999) where the descendent of
Jesus is an abortion worker and the entire thing is an attack on Christians, or
more popular and subtle fair like Footloose (1984 remade in 2011), or in award
winners like Brokeback Mountain (2005) with its positive portrayal of
homosexuality. Maybe it is from TV in
the always award winning Handmaid’s Tale (2017-ongoing) or Modern Family (2009-ongoing). Maybe it is from books like Da Vinci Code
(2003). The message is the same, church
is not good, Christianity is the problem, not the solution. So, the lower classes are responding and they
are leaving church resulting in fewer in attendance and thus fewer church
plants.
The Atlantic Article laments the fact that Christianity
could help these people out physically and materially, yet the churches are not
there. But the lack of awareness of the
real importance of Christianity and its message of Jesus Christ is
striking. For the author Christianity
helps with “positive outcomes” and “assistance for struggling families”, but
fails to realize such things are the by-product of the love of Christ
manifested in the church. It is by
living out the faith that the Atlantic and Hollywood and many others have spent
so much time tearing down.
In the end, the article provides a beautiful picture into a
mind that sees nothing beyond the material and understands little to nothing
about the faith. But it does see the
damage caused when people begin to abandon that faith.