Here is the first simple question: (you have three choices) Assuming that the poor are central to who we are and what we are called to do, are we going to be a church of the poor, a church for the poor or a church with the poor?
Let me unpack that a little.
OF: If we are a church of the poor that means that the poor are our target. They are the focus of our ministry. Everything we do places the needs of the poor as the congregation as central. The middle class can of course come but we will not be creating ministries for them and most likely they will not feel as comfortable. The poor will. A church of the poor is a church that makes its ministry thrust creating a church that is full of poor people.
FOR: In this approach the key is to gather people (anyone really) who will serve the poor. The point of the community is to bless the poor so that everyone who comes needs to be committed to that goal. It is a church of missionaries to the poor. The church is committed to the poor so that the resources of the church go to equipping and empowering those people to go out and do that ministry. Middle class people could come as long as they were committed to being invested in some way, they have to be for the poor (maybe giving, time, service, leadership, advocacy, etc.). The people who make up the church might not themselves be poor since service to the poor is the defining quality.
WITH: The goal of this kind of church is to create a cross class congregation. To build a church that intentionally brings together the poor and the middle class for relationship, reconciliation and justice. A church like this would have programs for the middle class and the poor but neither would feel the full focus of the church. Rather the focus would feel like education of the middle class, service to the poor among us, and creating a place of worship that is both safe for the poor and makes sense to the middle class.
What do you think? If you had to pick one which one would it be and why?
