« Out of Context: Staff Culture | Main | The Sometimes Surprising Price of Success »

June 15, 2009

Urban Exile: Gran Torino

The unexpected blessings of staying put.

Clint Eastwood taught me something the other day. The veteran actor and director's latest film sheds light on the tendency by many of us to seek the cultural values of homogeneity, stability, and comfort rather than finding God in the midst of our confusing, painful, and volatile circumstances.

urban_exile.jpg

In Gran Torino the 79-year-old actor and director plays a newly widowed retiree. A veteran of the Korean War, Walt Kowalski has spent his life in the same Michigan town, raising a family and working for the Ford plant. Surveying the neighborhood from his front porch, it's clear that much in Kowalski's life has changed. His neighbors are recent Hmong immigrants, people whose language and customs incur Kowalski's derision. Crime has become commonplace and rival gangs cruise the streets staring menacingly at Walt who, while drinking beers from his front porch, is all too happy to glare right back. The neighborhood is not what it used to be and the old man's sons repeatedly try to convince their father to leave it behind and join them in the suburbs.

Gran Torino is set in Highland Park, just outside of Detroit, but the dynamics of evolving neighborhoods can be found around the country. As new immigrants move in, previous residents find comfort outside the city limits. Those of the majority culture are made nervous by the arrival of ethnic minorities and eventually move to neighborhoods and suburbs that reflect their culture and skin color. Walt Kowalski is the anomaly; his obstinate decision to remain in the old neighborhood utterly confuses his comfortably suburban family. The world has changed too quickly for Kowalski leaving him bitter, racist, and cynical.

Eastwood's character is no role model, but his story represents the demographic and cultural shifts that characterize America's cities. One of the most significant such changes in my city of Chicago took place in the early 20th century. The period of time when African Americans moved to northern cities, hoping to leave Jim Crow behind, became known as the Great Migration. This development precipitated another vast people movement: white folks who left their urban neighborhoods and newly arrived neighbors for the suburbs. Like Walt Kowalski, many urban churches found themselves in unfamiliar territory as everything around them drastically changed.

It has been many years since the Great Migration and subsequent white flight, but the ghosts of this era can be seen in shuttered cathedrals and abandoned chapels throughout the city. At one time these buildings were lively gathering places for the neighborhood faithful but their decline became inevitable when these churches no longer related to their neighbors. Some congregations decided that survival meant moving the entire operation to the suburbs where their people now resided. Capitalizing on the powerful desire for homogeneity, many of these churches thrived in suburbia with no shortage of land, modern facilities, and plenty of parking for their mobile congregations.

And what of those congregations who stayed, those who expected mission and ministry to continue despite unpredictable and difficult conditions? Last fall I attended a friend's ordination service at a Baptist church on Chicago's South Side. As the only white person at the service, I wondered about the church's history. Afterwards, during the requisite basement potluck, an older woman proudly told me, "We were the first black family to attend this church." She went on to describe how the demographic changes in the church mirrored what happened in the neighborhood: from all white, to integrated, to its current predominately-black status.

Over dinner this woman talked at length about her church, but nothing seemed as significant as the white pastor who first welcomed her family into the congregation. As the neighborhood changed many of the established members challenged the pastor to move the church to the suburbs. After all, many had already moved and now had to drive into the city for Sunday services. "But he wouldn't do it," this woman fondly recalled. She went on to describe how, upon his retirement, the pastor turned over the pulpit to a black minister from the neighborhood.

Admittedly, this church isn't much to look at. Its building and programs pale when compared to its suburban kin. The pastor's decision could not have been easy as he watched other churches move to greener pastures, their members and budgets increasing as a result. And yet, because of his refusal to move, today a faithful and vibrant community of Christians exists in that neighborhood.

A powerful and redemptive life change awaits Walt Kowalski at the end of Grand Torino. His bitterness and racism are subverted by the kindness and affection of the neighbors he once distrusted. While his suburban family enjoys their life of relative comfort and stability, Kowalski's existence is transformed in part because those very things have been taken from him. His redemption is found in the distress and pain that comes from staying put. Surely this is the untold story of many faithful congregations around the country who, despite unpredictable and difficult changes, have ignored the siren calls of stability and measurable growth.

A congregation's decision to remain loyal to its neighborhood despite social upheaval is not limited to urban churches of a bygone era. Sociologists continue to point out the increasingly large movements of people from city to suburb and vice versa. As the cost of living skyrockets in many cities, suburban churches are faced with neighborhoods made up of new ethnic and class diversity. Additionally, the landscape of suburbia has changed - land is no longer plentiful or cheap - and the greener pastures are now to be found even further from the city.

The temptation to leave the old neighborhood is powerful when we mistake Kingdom values with the cultural standards of homogeneity, comfort, and stability. But surely the Body of Christ is to be known for its more satisfying fruit. Our decision to stay - to seek the will of God despite the confusion and anxiety that comes with significant change - is witness to our radically alternative life in Christ. As we reject consumer comfort and choose to love our neighbors - new and old, well known and unfamiliar - we demonstrate the scope of the Gospel for all people. And like Walt Kowalski, our decision to stubbornly and faithfully remain could result in redeeming work of God, in our neighborhoods and our lives.

Related Tags: Calling, Diversity, Formation, Obedience, Purpose, Spiritual direction

Comments

If you want believers to give up homogeneity, comfort, and stability, and stay put, you should invite them to give up institutional forms of church life as well. These 3 dynamics are built into this system. This system of church teaches people to esteem these things as godly.
1.Pulpit driven gatherings are program and crowd oriented. They must have a style connected to them. People are taught to devote a large percentage of their giving to pay for this expert driven gathering so they want it to some how match up with their interests. This kind of event WILL be mostly homogeneous for these and maybe other reasons. If the gathering is relationship driven with participation orientation with no expert performance involved, the money and shallow relationships are gone. It is free to be driven only by the Holy Spirit which can can produce barrier crossing and selfless preferences.
2. Comfort is linked to the issue above. The system lets believes walk in the door with no personal expression of God's truth required. They are taught that outsourced truth expression is better. Lay folks have nothing significant to offer. It would be full of errors since they haven't been to seminary.
3. Stability and also predictability and familiarity are high value point taught by the institutional system. A church can be totally corrupt Biblicaly and woefully carnal, and still go on for decades without dying or reforming because there is plenty of "giving" to carry it on. It is really pooling for ourselves but tradition still calls it giving. You can add buildings and add staff all the while dying spiritually and producing little of no fruit that lasts. Look around you. It's easy to see it in almost every town.

Give up the system and the assumptions that are stuck to it will drop off also. Then you will be more likely to build saints with courage, selflessness, and faith. I know it's hard for hired leaders to "refuse" the paycheck like Paul did (1Cor 9; Acts 20, etc). I've seen it. I've seen a black man with cerebral palsy who drools and stutters when he talks, lead whites in the Lords table, in prayer time, in teaching, anything usually reserved for a hired guy. When the saints know God expects a different kind of gathering, they will expect it to be different and love it. Is this dynamic highly reproducible? Probably not in towns where homogeneous, comfortable, predictable gatherings are within 30 miles or so.

If men who spend years studying the Bible can't see God's revelation for 100% participation gatherings, 100% giving going out the door, and 100% reproductive leadership, then He is left to reveal it to whatever Bereans are out there.

Tim, I think David is talking about something entirely different than ranting against the establishment, which is basically what you've done.

He's talking about issues of race, location, neighborhood and missionality in these contexts. Not ranting against the establishment. Please. It's tired.

And this phrase hits really home for me:

"The pastor's decision could not have been easy as he watched other churches move to greener pastures, their members and budgets increasing as a result. And yet, because of his refusal to move, today a faithful and vibrant community of Christians exists in that neighborhood."

Wayne, I think Tim's pov is just as valid as yours, and I suspect that though David didn't cover it, Tim thought it important enough to mention it.
What I've found is that the two issues, what David and Tim talk about walk hand in hand.
Some thing to consider before you seek to silence those you deem...tiresome.

Wayne
David may be too tied to the system to want to examine it to see where it is responsible for the spiritually shallow response believers are giving to race, location and local mission. At least I'm not just pointing a finger at carnal people. Leaders need to take responsibility for how they lead. I've talked to many really sweet, loving, pastors. All of them are stuck in the system. They will not question it any more than a Catholic will question praying to Mary or following the Pope. I not only pray that they will change, I speak about it. I'm just a messenger.

As much as David might be "too tied into the system", hv u considered that your point of view might just as well be tied to a system?

This conversation makes me think of the Monte Python skit in the Quest for the Holy Grail with the guy in the field shouting, 'Now you see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I am being repressed!' And just like him you all seem to be missing David's point.

Wayne
I am not against systems. I am merely against a dominant corrupt system that is practiced as if it is holy. A spiritual body has a system just like a physical body. We just need to practice that system. What is so hard about asking leaders to examine the systemic assumptions of their behaviors to help root out deep, subtle carnal habits?

Do you think a large percentage of believers can live beyond homgeneity, comfort and stability all the while devoting 75-85% of their giving to buy hired staff and buildings to benefit mostly THEIR church preferences?

Nate
I haven't missed David's point. I'm just trying to point out that he wants us to get different results from practicing the same system. There are laws in God's harvest. You will reap what you sow. Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. When you practice a largely selfish system you will get selfish fruit.

Post a comment:

Verification (needed to reduce spam):

tags

see more

books we’re reading