I’ve been Googled!
Regular readers of Urban Review – St. Louis will notice something new – Google advertisements to the right. This is not intended as a money maker – just enough to cover server expenses. What is interesting is to see what ads come up based on the keywords of my site.
One such ad as was for a publication called Markets & Morality from the Action Institute for the Study of Religion & Liberty. That certainly got my attention! While I have my own brand of personal faith, I haven’t a religious bone in my body. Which, considering that my father was raised Southern Baptist and my mom raise Mennonite, is certainly amazing. Thankfully, my parents raised us to be honest & moral – not necessarily religious. Anyway, I’m getting off subject.
This ad peaked my interest so I clicked on the link and began to peak around on the various perspectives & editorials in PDF format. I was pleasantly surprised by what I found:
I have come to the conclusion that “community” is a very elusive concept. The way that we even use this word in our contemporary culture is confusing. At one time, “community” meant the people living near us. Currently, “community” seems to mean people with whom we share an interest or an advocacy with no expectation that we live near or even have met anyone in our “community.” We mostly hear the word community in phrases such as “gay community” or “Christian community.” To talk about community as a physical place or a setting for real human relationships, as the New Urbanists have taught us to do, is revolutionary.
Quite true, community as a physical place beyond a sprawl subdivision is revolutionary. The above quote is from Eric O. Jacobson, an Associate Pastor at First Presbyterian Church in Missoula, Montana in a paper entitled, “Receiving Community: The Church and the Future of the New Urbanist Movement.”
The ideas behind the New Urbanist movement represent a significant challenge to the reigning orthodoxy, which has held sway within the guild of professional developers and planners over the past fifty years. The town of Seaside, and other successful New Urbanist developments, have demonstrated that this movement represents a viable alternative to post-World War II development practices. For the first twenty years of its existence, the New Urbanist movement has been primarily a secular movement, but it must not remain exclusively so. This article, argues that if the New Urbanist movement aspires to be more than just a short-term economic success or a market correction it is going to have to take the church more seriously as a conversation partner in its cultural project. In particular, the church can help the New Urbanist movement grapple with some of the powers and forces, which have an impact upon communities in ways that are more profound and enduring than economic factors alone. These forces involve such Christian concepts as redemption, interdependence, selfless service, and even right worship. Understanding these forces may not help New Urbanists to build community more efficiently but, rather, may teach us all how to graciously receive community as a gift.
Interesting. Certainly worth a read.
Churches certainly can play a role in the revitalization of St. Louis – or in the case of the Catholic Church – ignoring the city. Pastor Battle from the House of Deliverance Pentecostal Church in Hyde Park could benefit from these ideas of community & church.
In the meantime, if you bid on any “Urban Renewal” from the eBay ad let me know how that works out…
– Steve
“Churches certainly can play a role in the revitalization of St. Louis – or in the case of the Catholic Church – ignoring the city.”
Actually, Holy Trinity in Hyde Park has been an extremely positive influence in the neighborhood and has only survived by creating a partnership with another Catholic Church (whose name escapes me now) in West County. I found this relationship to be such an interesting model for how the “values” of the Catholic Church are being implemented in a grassroots way. I have a feeling that this was a community driven project though, rather than a top down idea!
[Nate – thanks for the feedback! This sounds like a good idea. As is almost always the case – a grass roots endeavor is usually better than a top-down one. – Steve]
I am not sure about the Holy Trinity model but I think the idea of pairing up with a church in the county perpetuates the idea of dumping all the social services in the city. I know several West County parishioners who “do their charity” in the city but wouldn’t want any of “those people” living next door. It is a part of the issue that we are facing in Dutchtown with Our Lady’s Inn and the Virginia Mansion. Not only is the overwhelming bulk of their board county residents, they are not fulfilling a specific need for our neighborhood but it seems they think it is a convenient place to warehouse clients from all over the metropolitan area.
I think the archdiocese (in the case of the catholics)needs to treat all of its parishes equally (including north vs. south as well as city vs. county) and not just chase the money out further and further. I also believe that the archdiocese could exert a lot more influence (if it chose to) in curbing sprawl. Just for fun, what if they dictated that you could not drive on Sunday? I would like to see the folks in O’fallon or St. Peter’s walking to church like the 90 year old ladies in the City of St. Louis.
I don’t see this as a case like the Virginia Mansion where you have people in the county pushing an agenda on a neighborhood, while being unfamiliar with that neighborhood’s needs. I see it as a positive use of resources. Good stewardship.
I agree however, that they should be treating all their parishes the same and not “chase the money out further and further”. I’m not exactly familiar with how the archdiocese dedicates money to one parish over another. Is it based on the amount of money that parish takes in from it’s parishioners? Similar to city tax dollars going to fund city schools and county tax dollars funding county schools?