Many churches that portray themselves as “urban churches” are really “city churches.” Urban churches focus on particular urban neighborhoods or populations. City churches happen to be in an urban area but have a metropolitan draw. City churches seem to increase as gentrification increases. In Minneapolis at least, urban churches continue to be in the decline, in spite of the growing sensibility that urban churches are noble, neccessary, and desireable. Some folks think that urban churches are on the increase because they simply don’t understand the difference between an urban church and a city church.

But does the difference even matter? If a church in Neighborhood X is a city church and has a large number of congregants from all over, doesn’t it still serve and benefit Neigborhood X? Sure. But not as much as an authentic neigborhood church would. City churches are not indigineous. They are usually lead by middle class folks and have middle class leaders. Often, these churches operate with a power differential, where the haves minister to the have nots, but not vice versa. And the church culture is determined by the affluent, rather than upon the ministered to in the neighborhood. Urban churches are much more likely to be indiginous or at least to operate with less of a class power differential.
In our increasingly pluralistic, fragmented urban areas (and suburban areas too by the way), we need more localized urban churches. Why aren’t there more? Because there are no self-sustaining urban churches. At least not in poor neighborhoods. Dispute me if you want. The truth is that if a church is made up of neigborhood folk, they won’t have the resources to adequately serve the neighborhood. Urban churches often rely upon the good graces of suburban Christians. But more and more folks seem to believe that if a church is a good one, it will pay for itself.

And because we have such a mentality, people would rather serve urban areas by starting City Churches rather than urban ones. And insodoing, they don’t empower indiginous leaders and they have churches that don’t adequately reflect the host culture. What has long been considered inappropriate on the foreign missionfield is ok at home.

If you want to do urban work, you must secure outside funds. Urban areas have big needs that cost lots of money but are populated largely by folks without means. In response to this dillema, one may either start a city church hoping against hope that the diffuse congregants can all focus their hearts, minds, and money enough to adequately serve the needs of the neighborhood. Or one could start an authentic urban church and seek additional funding. A middle ground is to encourage gentrification and draw upon the new urban gentry.

Here’s my question for you all: Is it better to be a city church with a big draw that “adopts” a neighborhood or an urban church that is of the neighborhood? Is this a false distinction? Am I misguided in my belief that a church like Missio Dei will never be self-sufficient and will rely upon outside funding to do some of its neighborhood ministry?

About Mark Van Steenwyk

Mark Van Steenwyk is a member of Missio Dei. He is a speaker, writer, educator, and grassroots organizer. With the support of the Central Plains Mennonite Conference, he travels to radical and intentional communities around the country to help network and offer support.